Effects of eye movement versus therapist instructions on the processing of distressing memories
Introduction
EMDR has been acknowledged as an evidence-based form of treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United Kingdom by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (2005), in America by the American Psychiatric Association (2004), in Australia by the Australian Centre for Posttraumatic Mental Health (2007), and in the Netherlands by the Dutch National Steering Committee for Guidelines for Mental Health Care (2003). However, the mechanism of action for the success of EMDR remains controversial (Rogers & Silver, 2002; Smyth & Poole, 2002).
Previous studies of traditional exposure techniques have emphasized that ‘reliving’ is a key process in recovery during treatment (Jaycox, Foa, & Morral, 1998). However, reliving was not associated with improvement in a study of key processes during EMDR for 44 participants with post-traumatic stress disorder (Lee, Taylor, & Drummond, 2006). Instead the greatest improvement occurred when clients gave distancing responses. ‘Distancing’ involved focusing on the trauma material but from an observational or detached perspective. Furthermore, cross-lagged panel correlations were consistent with the proposition that distancing was a consequence of the EMDR procedure rather than a response that covaried with improvement.
Although the findings from this study suggested that distancing during EMDR is related to improvement, they did not provide any evidence as to what ingredients of EMDR cause the distancing. Distancing could be promoted by two distinct mechanisms: therapist instructions or eye movement (Lee et al., 2006). For example, in the introduction to the desensitization phase, Shapiro (1995) recommended that the client be instructed to “Imagine you are on a train and the scenery is passing by. Just notice the scenery without trying to grab hold of it or make it significant” (p. 107). The emphasis in the process is “Let whatever happens happen” and “To just notice … whatever arises” (Shapiro, 1995: pp. 127–128). Smyth and Poole (2002) also observed that the therapist instructions during EMDR may encourage ‘mindful observation’ of the traumatic experience which is similar to the distancing concept described above. They likened the instructions during EMDR to the practice of mindful acceptance which has been recommended as an important process in facilitating treatment in traditionally difficult-to-treat populations (Linehan, 1993, Segal et al., 2002).
Alternatively, eye movements themselves might generate distancing, perhaps by disrupting the “visuospatial sketchpad” (Andrade, Kavanagh, & Baddeley, 1997) or by producing a de-arousal effect through initiating an orienting response (Barrowcliff, Gray, Freeman, & MacCulloch, 2004). That eye movements do indeed promote distancing received empirical support from a study on the effects of eye movements, finger tapping, and a control condition not involving eye movement or finger tapping on the emotive memories of undergraduate students (van den Hout, Muris, Salemink, & Kindt, 2001). The memories were rated as less aversive after an exposure intervention accompanied by eye movements, but not after the other interventions. In addition, eye movements led to a greater reduction on a vividness measure. Similarly, the degree of aversiveness and degree of vividness of personal memories decreased significantly more during an exposure task accompanied by eye movement than by spatial tapping (Andrade et al., 1997).
A greater reduction in arousal and vividness for memories associated with fear and anxiety was also found for eye movement over an eye stationary condition using physiological measures of arousal (Barrowcliff et al., 2004). Finally, Kavanagh, Freese, Andrade, and May (2001) found that eye movement resulted in reduced ratings of distress and vividness compared to a no eye movement condition and a passive visual interference task.
The present study attempted to find which of the two ingredients of EMDR linked to the distancing response – eye movement or instructions – produce the most improvement in a non-clinical sample. Participants were randomly assigned to either an EMDR treatment, which involved eye movement, or an identical procedure that did not involve eye movement. In addition, therapists were instructed either to encourage the participant to take a distancing perspective on the traumatic memory or to maximize reliving in a manner similar to that which occurs during traditional exposure treatments. The objective was to test the effects of eye movement and distancing instructions on changes in vividness and emotional response immediately after treatment and at 1-week follow-up.
Section snippets
Participants
Study participants were recruited from psychology undergraduate courses at an Australian University and received course credit for participating in the research. Of the 59 recruited, 10 were excluded because their distress at pretest was so high that the intervention might have been harmful. Another participant was excluded because the level of distress was too low. The 14 men (29.2%) and 34 women (70.8%) who completed treatment ranged in age from 18 to 38 years (mean age 23, median 21). Apart
Preliminary analysis
The SUDS scores of the participants indicated that most chose memories with a moderate degree of discomfort (mean = 6.40, S.D. = 1.96). Most participants chose an interpersonal conflict where they felt either anger (18.8%) or shame (16.7%). Traditional trauma events involving threat to life (14.6%) or physical integrity (14.6%) or witnessing the death of another (8.3%) were next most common. Seven (14.6%) chose an incident where they first became phobic of a particular object. Other incidents
Discussion
The results of this study indicated that the eye movement component of EMDR rather than the suggestions made by therapists facilitated reductions in distress. Participants in the eye movement condition reported less distress immediately after treatment and at follow-up than participants who were encouraged to keep their eyes stationary, irrespective of whether they were told to relive the incident or encouraged to distance themselves. This is consistent with previous research on the effect of
References (38)
- et al.
Credibility of analogue therapy rationales
Journal of Behavior Therapy & Experimental Psychiatry
(1972) - et al.
Psychometric properties of the credibility/expectancy questionnaire
Journal of Behavior Therapy & Experimental Psychiatry
(2000) - et al.
Physiological correlates of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing
Journal of Anxiety Disorders
(2008) - et al.
Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing in the treatment of test anxiety: A study of the effects of expectancy and eye movement
Journal of Behavior Therapy & Experimental Psychiatry
(1995) - et al.
Eye movement desensitization versus image confrontation: A single-session crossover study of 58 phobic subjects
Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry
(1992) - et al.
Does rapid eye movement desensitization facilitate emotional processing
Behavior Research & Therapy
(1994) - et al.
Autonomic correlates of the subjective anxiety scale
Journal of Behavior Therapy & Experimental Psychiatry
(1984) - et al.
Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing: Effectiveness and autonomic correlates
Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry
(1996) Practice guideline for the treatment of patients with acute stress disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder
(2004)- et al.
Eye-movements and visual imagery: A working memory approach to the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder
British Journal of Clinical Psychology
(1997)