Understanding Emotional Change in Solution-Focused Brief Therapy. Facilitating Positive Emotions

Understanding Emotional Change in Solution-Focused Brief Therapy: Facilitating Positive Emotions Johnny S. Kim and Cynthia Franklin

Solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT) has been criticized for neglecting the emotional processes of clients; however, a review of the literature contradicts this argument and indicates that the use of positive emotions in the change process of SFBT has been present since its early development. This article reviews how emotional processes have been conceptualized within SFBT and shows how SFBT scholars and therapists have used positive emotions in building solutions with clients. This article also reviews Fredrickson’s broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions and shows how the research within positive psychology provides additional empirical evidence for the significance of positive emotions in the change processes of psychotherapy in general and SFBT in particular. Finally, this article illustrates specific ways that SFBT elicits positive emotions, further showing how solution-building conversations may increase positive emotions in clients. Key words:broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions; positive emotions; solution-focused brief therapy

Solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT) is a strengths-based, future-focused therapeutic model that was developed under the leadership of two social workers, Steve de Shazer and Insoo Kim Berg, and a team of interdisciplinary colleagues at the Brief Family Therapy Center in Milwaukee (de Shazer, 1985; de Shazer et al., 1986). The SFBT approach to helping clients provides a set of therapeutic techniques for building client competencies and helps clients discover workable solutions to their mental health problems (Berg & De Jong, 2008). An emphasis of SFBT is on the process of developing a future solution rather than the past Johnny S. Kim, PhD, is associate professor, Graduate School of Social Work, the University of Denver, CO. Cynthia Franklin, PhD, is Stiernberg/Spencer family professor in Mental Health, the University of Texas at Austin. Parts of this paper were presented at the National Association of Social Workers 2012 Conference, Restoring Hope: The Power of Social Work, in Washington, D.C. © 2015 Lyceum Books, Inc., Best Practices in Mental Health, Vol. 11, No. 1, Spring 2015

26

Best Practices in Mental Health

manifestation of the problem, with the focus being on identifying past successes and exceptions to the problem, as well as identifying new and novel ways of responding in future efforts to solve problems (Franklin et al., 2001). Orchestrating a positive, solution-focused conversation is unique to SFBT and is sometimes referred to as solution talk. The aims are to create a context for change where hope, competence, and positive expectancies for change increase and a client can co-construct with the therapist workable solutions to his or her problems. Goals are also believed to be important to the change process and are created by the therapist and client working together. Thus, it is critical that therapists foster an open and collaborative working relationship with clients (Dielman & Franklin, 1998; Lethem, 2002; Lipchik, 2011). Since its development in the early 1980s, SFBT has attracted increased interest within the fields of social work and marriage and family therapy and across disciplines (de Shazer et al., 2007; Trepper, Dolan, McCollum, & Nelson, 2006). During the past decade, the outcome research on SFBT has also advanced significantly (Gingerich, Kim, Geert, Stams, & Macdonald, 2012; Kim, 2008a), resulting in SFBT being evaluated and recognized as an evidence-based practice for mental health and substance abuse problems (Kim, Smock, Trepper, McCullom, & Franklin, 2009). One of the strengths of the SFBT approach is that it has proven to be very adaptable and transportable to a variety of therapeutic contexts including behavioral health and counseling clinics, school counseling and mental health services, organizational consulting, management, child protective services, and coaching. [See Franklin, Trepper, Gingerich, & McCollum (2012) for reviews of the many ways that SFBT has been adapted and used in various settings.] Although SFBT has advanced in its recognition as a useful therapeutic and counseling approach, the theory behind SFBT and the process research that explains mechanisms for how SFBT may work to produce changes within clients has not advanced nearly as much. Most recently, microanalysis research has contributed the most to our knowledge of how the change process of SFBT may work. This research has examined the types of therapy conversations that happen in SFBT in comparison to those associated with other therapies (Bavelas, De Jong, & Korman, 2008; Bavelas, McGee, Phillips, & Routledge, 2000; Tomori & Bavelas, 2004). For example, SFBT has been shown to concentrate more on strengths in clients and to use co-construction of meanings in therapy conversations to facilitate solutions with clients (Bavelas, 2012; McGee, Del Vento, & Bavelas, 2005). Microanalysis studies examining therapeutic conversations also demonstrate that therapists employing SFBT as opposed to other therapies use more of the client’s exact words, use more positive words, and make more positive reflections with clients. Despite such efforts to understand the therapeutic process of SFBT, knowledge about the possible theoretical and therapeutic mechanisms for change within SFBT is in its infancy relative to actual empirical studies that examine these mechanisms. In the most recent review of SFBT process research, however, McKeel (2012) noted the lack of information on how SFBT techniques create client hope

Understanding Emotional Change in Solution-Focused Brief Therapy

27

and optimism. There is definitely a need to identify mechanisms for how change may happen within SFBT. In particular, one approach that shows promise is to examine how focusing on strengths and solutions may increase positive emotions and thereby affect a client’s ability to discover new ways to resolve presenting problems. With the recent popularity of positive psychology and studies on positive emotions such as hope, there is an opportunity to reexamine how SFBT works in relationship to this research, in particular, the role positive emotions play in the change process of SFBT. This article will review how emotional processes are conceptualized within SFBT, focusing on theoretical explanations and examples that demonstrate how positive emotions are an integral part of the SFBT change process and are an important resource for client change. This article will also discuss how Fredrickson’s (1998) broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions adds to the knowledge base about the SFBT change process, potentially providing additional theory and empirical evidence for SFBT therapists and researchers trying to understand how SFBT may be useful to clients. Research evidence from the broaden-and-build theory that explains how positive emotions may make people better problem solvers, for example, has potential to be used in future efforts to study how the change processes of SFBT may work. Finally, this article illustrates specific ways that SFBT elicits positive emotions, further showing how solutionbuilding conversations may increase positive emotions in clients. Positive Emotions and Solution-Focused Brief Therapy

The empirical research on positive emotions has been increasing over the last two decades (e.g., Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, 2005) and at the same time many disciplines that train therapists have been shifting their focus f rom client deficits to client strengths (Kim, 2008b; Seligman, 1999). Positive emotions theory argues that positive emotions are not simply the absence ofnegative emotions (e.g., anger, sadness, frustration, or hopelessness) or just a good feeling a client has, but rather that they can serve as a therapeutic value in clinical practice (Fitzpatrick & Stalikas, 2008a). Most of the research and discussion in therapeutic practice viewed positive emotions as a desired outcome (i.e., I want to be happy again) and neglected the possibility of positive emotions serving as a vehicle for change (Fitzpatrick & Stalikas, 2008b). Although the clinical significance of focusing on client strengths and positive emotions is a fairly new development within the empirical research literature, the therapeutic literature is replete with descriptions about the important role that positive emotions play within SFBT (e.g., Berg & De Jong, 1996, 2008; Berg & Dolan, 2001; Kiser, Piercy, & Lipchik, 1993; Kondrat & Teater, 2012; Lipchik, 2011). For example, positive expectancy, hope, faith, courage, and trust are positive emotions that have been discussed as being important within the SFBT practice literature. Very early in the development of SFBT, de Shazer (1985) discussed the importance of increasing positive expectancy (i.e., hope) and suggested that

28


the perception that change is possible is a critical part of the SFBT processes that help clients change. Visser and Schlundt Bodien (2009) set out to provide evidence for de Shazer’s assertion that clients are able to f ind solutions to problems and start solution-building conversations when they are able to describe their positive behaviors and expect positive changes to occur. They offer a conceptual model illustrating how positive expectations and behaviors elicited from subtle interventions interact with each other and lead to the change processes that are inherent in SFBT. Insoo Kim Berg also frequently discussed the importance of fostering hope in clients and described how solution-focused conversations create a sense of competence important for helping clients change (e.g., Berg & De Jong, 2008; Berg & Dolan, 2001). Steve de Shazer and colleagues (2007) further commented that, “One of the most important aspects of SFBT is the general tenor and stance taken by the therapist. The overall attitude is positive, respectful and hopeful” (p. 4). Hope has also been suggested as a common factor that is important to therapeutic change, and the techniques of SFBT, in particular, have been suggested to utilize this common factor (Miller, Duncan, & Hubble, 1997; Snyder, Michael, & Cheavens, 1999). Reiter (2010) explained the importance of the positive emotion of hope in SFBT: “The more that people expect a hopeful outcome, the more they will increase their agency thinking and, subsequently , their pathways thinking” (p. 136). In other words, the more clients and practitioners expect a hopeful outcome, the more clients will believe that they can solve their own problems. Furthermore, a new sense of choice and personal empowerment will help them broaden their attention toward alternative ways to develop a solution and consequently expand their options and plans for ways to solve their problems. Early in the development of SFBT, Kiser, Piercy, and Lipchik (1993) also noted how positive emotions were integrally a part of helping clients create solutions for their problems. These authors illustrated numerous ways that therapists could increase positive emotions to facilitate solutions with clients. For example, one of the SFBT techniques suggested by Kiser and colleagues for increasing positive emotions is translating emotional states into more concrete behavioral states so that a client’s situation may be viewed differently and more positively, thus opening up options for change. In this case, a therapist might say, “So, when you are less angry with your husband, what will be happening with you?” Another approach suggested by Kiser and colleagues is joining with the negative emotion of clients in a paradoxical way so that a client may reverse his or her thinking and feeling about the situation and be propelled to become more positive. For example, the therapist would say, “What do you imagine things will be like at their worst?” or alternatively, “Have you hit rock bottom yet?” Using future-oriented questions and incorporating emotions into goal setting—asking clients to focus directly on positive emotions—is another therapeutic approach recommended by Kiser and colleagues. When focusing on generating more positive emotional states, the solutionfocused therapist also purposefully asks clients to reverse negative emotional


29

states. For example, if a client said, “I am angry. I want to stop yelling at my son,” the therapist might respond, “How will you feel differently when you are not yelling at your son so much?” (Kiser et al., 1993, pp. 236–238). As indicated in the above examples, formulating answers to solution-focused questions requires clients to think about their relationships and talk about their experiences in different ways, turning their problem perceptions and negative emotions into positive formulations for change. In research studies, Bavelas and colleagues (Bavelas, 2012; Bavelas, De Jong, & Korman, 2008; Tomori & Bavelas, 2004) discovered that there is a unique method to the therapeutic conversations that happen in SFBT and that these conversations are different from what occurs in other therapy models. During therapeutic conversations SFBT therapists listen carefully to each formulation made by clients for specific words and openings in the conversations where they can punctuate client words and experiences and ask questions in unique ways to highlight strengths and solutions instead of problems. Although microanalysis research does not specifically address changes in client emotions resulting from these types of therapeutic conversations, other process research suggests that clients may feel more hopeful and optimistic after receiving one or more sessions of SFBT. These findings need to be further investigated in more rigorous research studies (McKeel, 2012). Theoretical Controversies over the Use of Emotion in Solution-Focused Brief Therapy

Both SFBT developers and scholars agree that there is a role for emotions, in particular positive emotions, within the change processes of SFBT. Nevertheless, the role that emotions play in client change has been a point of controversy among SFBT developers. For example, SFBT has been criticized for neglecting the emotions of clients by converting emotional references into contextual and behavioral descriptions [e.g., What will your friend notice about you when you are feeling calm and are less anxious? How will your behavior be different when you are not so worried about your friend? (de Shazer et al., 2007)]. Lipchik, Kiser, and Piercy were among the early developers of the SFBT approach and called for better integration of emotional processes and therapeutic alliance into the cognitive and behavioral descriptions often associated with SFBT techniques. They were also the most vocal proponents for explaining the role of positive emotions in the SFBT change process and defended SFBT against critics who suggested that clients’ emotional experience is not an important part of the change process in SFBT (Kiser, Piercy, & Lipchik, 1993; Lipchik, 2011). Theoretical differences appear to have heightened the controversies over the role of emotional processes in client change. Solution-focused brief therapy was developed in a context in which therapists and researchers were trying to discover effective brief therapy techniques based on clinical observations of therapy sessions. Theoretical explanations for how these change techniques work and guiding theories were determined in a descriptive manner as developers discussed the

30


results that they were observing with clients (Lipchik, Derks, LaCourt, & Nunnally, 2012). This allowed for a type of emergent approach by which the developers allowed more open-ended explorations of possible theoretical mechanisms and resulted over time in divergent ideas about how to ground SFBT in theory. A divergence of opinions over theory, for example, can be seen in SFBT developers’ conceptualizations of how emotions work in the change processes within SFBT. Most of the theoretical controversies appear to be related to the functions of emotions and their role in behavioral and cognitive change. For example, SFBT developers have debated the exact definitions of emotions and the phenomenology of emotional experiences and they have further disagreed about how emotional experiences may be best addressed within SFBT [see Miller & de Shaz er (2000) and Piercy, Lipchik, & Kiser (2000) for examples of these debates]. These debates and a lack of empirical investigations on how SFBT facilitates emotional changes have resulted in different theoretical understandings of how emotional processes work in SFBT. Theories Guiding the Emotional Change Processes within Solution-Focused Brief Therapy

Miller and de Shazer (2000) differentiate SFBT from the processes often associated with emotional change in more traditional psychotherapies. Relying on philosophical writings of Wittgenstein and theories from phenomenological traditions within sociology, these authors argue for a contextual and social constructionist view of emotions, rejecting the idea that emotional change is absolutely necessary for achieving behavioral change in clients. In more recent literature, de Shazer and colleagues (2007) further clarified their position on emotional processes in SFBT, emphasizing the solicitation of positive emotions and explaining how these positive emotions are important to constructing solutions with clients: Clearly then, SFBT deals with emotions in ways that emotions are not dealt with traditionally. But this does not mean that “emotions” are either ignored or minimized. Rather, the approach focuses on the outside, observable factors and context that define emotions. Furthermore the approach helps clients focus on the hard work of remembering “better” feelings by helping to keep these feelings connected to the contexts that are their home in everyday life. SFBT does not view emotions as problems to be solved but rather views them as some of the many resources that clients have for constructing something “better.” In other words, helping clients construct situations where they “feel better,” and where they can remember that they feel better is one part of successfully constructing and reinforcing solutions. (de Shazer et al., 2007, p. 149) The implications of this viewpoint are that human emotions are to be seen as a resource for change. Emotional descriptions and reactions are highly dependent


31

on social relationships and different behavioral contexts. Thus, it is most effective for therapists to work with these interactions when considering emotional change. Although the solicitation of positive emotions is beneficial in helping clients construct solutions, emotional change is not the main reason that clients are able to create solutions to their problems. Other authors have attempted to integrate knowledge from systems theory, interpersonal theory, and contemporary ideas from research on emotion and neuroscience to explain the importance of emotional processes within SFBT (Kiser et al., 1993; Lipchik, 2011; Lipchik et al., 2005; Piercy et al., 2000). These authors suggest that emotions, cognition, and behavior interrelate in ways that influence one another in a reciprocal fashion. In this view, emotional experiences may have a powerful influence over cognitions and behavior and shape the perceptions of clients; in turn, cognition and behavioral contexts may also influence emotional states. This systemic view further suggests that therapists can work directly with the emotional experiences of clients, including their negative emotions, to increase positive emotions in the same way that one may work with increasing positive behavior or cognition through solution talk to bring forth solutions. These authors appear to favor directly addressing emotions and, in particular, negative emotions of clients and believe that this is a helpful process that may lead to cognitive and behavioral change. Additionally, SFBT techniques may be used to increase the positive emotions of clients and this may help clients build solutions just as the SFBT techniques may be used to amplify positive behavior and cognitions. Bannink (2007) further argues for a cognitive and behavioral view of emotional change within SFBT. She contends that a change in behavior appears to be the best way to modify emotional knowledge and emotional change in SFBT and can be further explained through a process similar to the Bio-Information Theory of Lang (1985). Bannink states that, “According to Lang’s theory a change in the emotional reaction to certain events and situations implies changing the associative networks that lie at thebasis of those emotional reactions” (2007, p. 92). These associative networks are changed through similar processes that are used within behavioral analysis and cognitivebehavior therapy. The difference is that, within SFBT, behavioral analyses are made of the exceptions rather than the problem behavior; this leads to helping clients amplify positive behaviors and cognitions and in turn to positive changes inemotions. The implications ofthis viewpoint are that the focus on exceptions and discussing and repeatedly imagining solutions and further experimenting with tasks based on possibilities for solutions help clients change their cognitive and emotional reactions to problems, resulting in more competent behavioral responses. This concept is similar to that ofan athlete who repeatedly visualizes and practices psychological and behavioral skills for success. When the athlete is confronted with the actual competition, this type ofpositive mental rehearsal and cognitive preparation helps him or her improve performance. Most recently, SFBT authors have suggested that knowledge gained from studies within positive psychology on emotional processes are consistent with SFBT

32


techniques, the strengths perspective, and beliefs about how clients change (e.g., Bannink & Jackson, 2011; Glass, 2009; Lipchik et al., 2005; Liston-Smith, 2008). This association of SFBT with positive psychology has been spurred on by a wave of research (Linley, Joseph, Harrington, & Wood, 2006; Rashid, 2009) into the effects of positive emotions (e.g., joy, happiness, hope, trust, and love) and has subsequently caused SFBT researchers and clinicians to turn their attention to how positive emotions may help clients to change. The research and theory from positive emotions, however, have not been examined in detail in relationship to how they might be used in future research studies to inform the change processes within SFBT. In order to add to the literature on emotional processes within SFBT and more specifically the role of positive emotions, this article will describe Fredrickson’s broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions (1998) and illustrate how change processes of SFBT may work using this theory. In particular, the authors believe that Fredrickson’s theory may provide some of the most compelling evidence for explaining how SFBT works and may be used in future research studies to examine change processes within SFBT. Broaden-and-Build Theory of Positive Emotions

Since its introduction, the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions has developed strong empirical support for its claim that positive emotions can help generate change in clients (Fredrickson, 1998, 2009; Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005; Fredrickson & Joiner, 2000; Garland et al., 2010). The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions emerged because studies on the effects of positive emotions were neglected within psychological research. Fredrickson (1998) sought to examine what role positive emotions play in individuals’ momentary thoughtaction repertoires and how this might guide specific interventions to improve psychological well-being. To help test the broaden-and-build theory, Fredrickson and colleagues conducted several laboratory studies that found support for the broadening of thought-action repertoires, undoing of lingering negative emotions, increasing resiliency, and improving psychological well-being [see Fredrickson (2001) for review]. In an effort to apply the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions to clinical practice, Fredrickson (2001) hypothesized that interventions that help build or reinforce positive emotions can help treat typical problems rooted in negative emotions such as anxiety, depression, and aggression. Consistent with this hypothesis, SFBT incorporates specific techniques and questioning that can help create these positive emotions that will enhance clients’ intellectual and social resources (Fitzpatrick & Stalikas, 2008b; Visser & Schlundt Bodien, 2009). Fredrickson (2004) noted that an individual’s emotion starts by appraising the subjective significance of some antecedent event, which Lazarus (1991) referred to as the person-environment relationship. Solution-focused brief therapy centers on identifying and magnifying what clients are doing well in relation to solving their own problems. The premise of SFBT is that the therapist will observe not


33

what the clients are doing wrong, but rather what they are doing well, which can help create positive emotions for them. Another example involves using compliments, which are an important part of working with clients and can be used to build positive emotions (Fitzpatrick & Stalikas, 2008b). Under the broaden-and-build theory, positive emotions further elicit thoughtaction repertoires that are broad, flexible, and receptive to new thoughts and actions whereas negative emotions elicit thought-action repertoires that are limited, rigid, and less receptive. The broadening aspect of this theory posits that, after a person experiences a positive feeling, he or she is more open and more receptive. As Fitzpatrick and Stalikas (2008b) state, “In an open state, they feel the urge to contemplate new ideas, develop alternative solutions to problems, reinterpret their situations, reflect on behaviors, and initiate new courses of action and creative endeavors” (p.139). This may be the key step in helping clients observe exceptions, make new meanings, and do something different that is touted in SFBT practice literature (de Shazer, 1991). In addition to broadening, this theory also posits that positive emotions help build durable resources that can be drawn upon for future use. Whereas positive emotions may be brief and fleeting, they have lasting positive effects on an individual’s ability to function (Garland et al., 2010). Experiencing and accruing positive emotions help increase clients’ personal resources and help them transform themselves into more creative, resilient, and knowledgeable individuals (Fredrickson, 2004). Also, because positive and negative emotions are opposites in a continuum, an individual cannot experience both simultaneously. Therefore, it is this incompatibility between positive and negative emotions’ thought-action repertoires that helps to explain how interventions such as SFBT that focus on building positive emotions can help change an individual’s negative emotions (Fredrickson, 2000). Furthermore, one of the key aspects of positive emotion is the possibility of it negating or even reversing negative emotions, which often narrow an individual’s thought-action range (Fredrickson, 2001). Therefore, clients who experience positive emotions work toward change by replacing their negative perspective that limits their thoughts and behaviors (Fitzpatrick & Stalikas, 2008b). In other words, they may be able to see more options for change and act upon a range ofsolutions that they had not before considered. Another aspect noted in the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions is the idea that there is an upward spiral process that is set in motion as clients continue to experience positive emotions. This is counter to the downward spiral path that can be activated by negative emotions and is often seen in clients who are experiencing emotional and psychological distress. It is common for clients experiencing psychological problems such as depression or anxiety to dwell on negative thoughts and beliefs about themselves or a particular situation; these thoughts then lead to dysfunctional behaviors and further perpetuate a downward spiral of psychopathology (Garland et al., 2010). With positive emotions, the opposite can occur: Upward spirals of positive emotions help clients build enduring resources of new thoughts, perspectives, and options (Fitzpatrick &

34


Stalikas, 2008b). However, in order to counteract the negative emotions, clients must experience a greater number of positive emotions. Research suggests that, at minimum, a 3:1 ratio of positive to negative emotions experienced is necessary to help generate sustained positive changes and undo the impact of negative distress (Garland et al., 2010). Solution-Focused Brief Therapy Techniques and Positive Emotions

The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions adds to our understanding of how SFBT will create better client-therapist relationships and clinical engagement. Solution-focused brief therapy recognizes the potential impact of compliments and subsequent positive emotion on clients’ ability to focus on the positive. As Garland and colleagues (2010) suggest, one possible way of raising overall positivity ratios is by focusing attention toward positive experiences and encouraging positive aspirations or memories, which is also an important component in SFBT. Figure 1 illustrates how SFBT change processes might be conceptualized using the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Solution-focused brief therapy clinical techniques were developed to coach clients in a solution-building process, which may be interactive with the thoughtaction repertoire process that has been described. Figure 1 depicts how the solution-building process serves as the overarching framework for engaging the client in an intervention and provides a method for behavioral and positive emotional change to happen. A process that takes place in a relationship between client and therapist, solution building starts with a conversation about what the client wants by identifying a very specific, self-determined goal. The solutionbuilding process proceeds to explore how the client is already competent to achieve the goal and further co-constructs the conversation between the client

Figure 1

SFBT Change Process


35

and social worker toward identifying behaviors and envisioning steps that can happen in the future for the goal to be realized in the client’s day-to-day life (Berg & De Jong, 1996). This process might include the client amplifying behaviors and social interactions that are already present and/or adding newly identified behaviors and interactions that are needed to achieve the goal. Solution building also elicits commitment from the client to enact the solutions that are identified and uses compliments and reflections about the client’s competent behaviors to reinforce the client’s resiliency to sustain his or her commitment and persistence toward the accomplishment of the goal. Solution-focused brief therapy techniques coach clients to identify small behavioral steps (behavioral changes box) that they are already competent to take and that will make a difference in their presenting problems. As clients see ways to change their situation and further follow through with this change process, they feel more hopeful and competent (positive emotions box). This increase in positive emotions also interacts with the client’s behaviors to provide motivation to follow through on homework tasks and continue amplifying behaviors that are working. This in turn results in new ways to think and behave (thought-action repertoire box) and in greater resiliency to keep enacting solutions (solution-building process box). Solution-focused brief therapy techniques are most often discussed as methods to use in a behavioral change process to help clients set goals and envision steps to solve their problems. As discussed in the SFBT literature for the past twenty years, however, these same clinical techniques may also increase the positive emotions in clients (Berg & De Jong, 1996; Berg & Dolan, 2001; Kiser et al., 1993; Lipchik, 2011). The miracle question, for example, is one of the most well-known solutionfocused therapy change techniques. This technique asks clients to shift thinking and feeling as they visualize and describe a future where the problem no longer exists. Typically, the miracle question asks, “Suppose that one night, while you were asleep, there was a miracle and this problem was solved. How would you know? What would be different? How will your husband know without your saying a word to him about it?” (de Shazer, 1988, p. 5). The miracle question has many functions including providing a way to help clients to describe a concrete goal; it is especially useful when people have difficulty describing exceptions to their problem patterns. When asking the miracle question, the solution-focused therapist asks clients to describe differences that would occur when emotional problems were solved. This helps clients shift negative meanings concerning emotional reactions toward more hopeful and positive interpretations, thus potentially decreasing negative emotions and interpretations of behavior. This is a less explored aspect of the miracle question that is part of the change process that helps clients to shift from negative to positive emotions. For example, clients are offered opportunities to discover how they may become more competent, hopeful, and optimistic as they begin to visualize and talk about how their lives will change. They may also be asked to describe in vivid detail the parts of their lives where pieces of the miracle may already be happening. This is

36


followed by a therapist identifying, with clients, the next steps from the miracle picture and asking clients for a commitment to take those steps, with an expectation for follow-through. As clients follow through with the next steps, they become more hopeful and competent and find new resilience to solve their problems. Best Practices

Despite the SFBT focus on the importance of positive emotions, SFBT developers and therapists have not shown agreement on how to understand emotional processes within SFBT. Instead, there have been a number of theories and debates about how emotions and/or positive emotions work in the SFBT change process. The SFBT literature on emotion is rich in theoretical ideas, but weak in empirical investigations resulting in anecdotal discussions of SFBT change processes and techniques. The authors of this article suggest that research into the broadenand-build theory of positive emotions may be laying the groundwork for additional empirical investigations about the role of positive emotions within SFBT that may involve moderating roles and/or factors that have not yet been examined in other studies. The authors also believe that SFBT has many advantages that may enhance positive psychology research because it provides several therapeutic techniques and proven conversational processes that can potentially enhance strengths and competencies of clients to solve problems. Therapeutic techniques for increasing positive emotion are fairly new to positive psychology and are being invented; however, techniques for increasing strengths of clients including positive emotion are not new to SFBT, but have existed for many years and have been successfully applied in diverse practice settings. The fact that SFBT has now accrued an increasing amount of outcome research (Gingerich et al., 2012; Gingerich & Peterson, 2013) makes it even more important to begin to investigate how SFBT methods work and how they may also have potential for shifting the negative emotional experiences ofclients toward positive emotions. For example, in a review of controlled outcome studies, Gingerich and Peterson found that SFBT was effective in treating depression in adults; therefore, it may be important to understand how this change process happens. This is especially important because SFBT has focused on clinical practice and effective change techniques and its theoretical underpinnings are not as clearly stated as its change techniques. The lack of research on SFBT change processes has resulted in ongoing debates about SFBT theory and differences in how SFBT researchers and scholars view emotional processes. McKergow and Korman (2009), for example, explain that the SFBT change process relies on no particular internal mechanism including emotion to explain how SFBT works. Instead, the changes that occur in SFBT happen in positive, solution-focused conversations between clients and therapists and can best be understood to be a part of the normal processes that occur in human communication and relationships. Such explanations, however, do not address the change processes that do occur in SFBT. As this ar ticle has suggested, SFBT researchers and scholars support and


37

illustrate positive emotions as being important to the SFBT process; therefore, positive emotions are an important factor to consider. The authors also agree with Lipchik and colleagues (2005) that SFBT can benefit from a firmer grounding in theory, but they do not believe that just any theory should be accepted, but only those theories that are consistent with SFBT processes and are also based in empirical understandings of human behavior and change. That is why they have suggested that the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotion provides a way to approach research for explaining how SFBT works and that it may be used in future research studies to examine how emotional change processes work within SFBT. Research into positive emotion, however, is in no way meant to delimit other research and understandings of how change works within SFBT, such as those that have been demonstrated in studies on human communication (e.g., Bavelas, 2012), but rather to expand possible areas for investigation. Conclusion

Although positive emotions have only recently been discussed in detail within the psychological research as being important to therapeutic change, the practice literature on SFBT has discussed these processes for a number of years. For example, the Kiser et al. (1993) ar ticle, written about emotional change in SFBT, is rich with examples of how solution-focused therapeutic techniques may be used to increase positive emotions in clients. It further discusses why positive emotions are important to helping clients reverse negative emotions, foster motivation for change, and develop new ways of thinking and behaving. Kiser, Piercy , and Lipchik (1993) state that positive emotions can be useful in discovering exceptions to problems and “highlighting positive emotions can assist clients to take action” (p. 237). The Kiser article and other similar SFBT articles (Berg & Dolan, 2001; de Shazer et al., 2007; Lipchik, 2011) also make similar points in psychotherapy about the significance of positive emotions in helping people change. These points are currently being made within the experimental research that is being completed in positive psychology (Garland et al., 2010; Kiser et al., 1993). In discussing the potential benefits of increasing positive emotion in psychotherapy, for example, Garland and colleagues (2010) note that clients are more motivated to apply new behavioral skills learned during therapy when they experience positive emotions about themselves and others. In particular, research into the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions illustrates how this process may work by cancelling negative emotions that restrict the range of thinking and behavior and opening up attention, cognition, and behavioral options. Thus, as positive emotions and thinking spiral, clients become more aware of their solutions and are more able to think creatively and to generate new ways to problem solve. This article has argued that positive emotions are an important part of SFBT and that they have been discussed since the early development of this approach. A review of therapeutic literature clearly supports the argument that the solicitation

38


and reinforcement of positive emotions have been conceptualized by SFBT developers and therapists as being important to the change processes within SFBT and that emotional processes should be viewed as resources that can help clients change. In particular, this article has suggested that the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions shows promise for explaining how increases in positive emotions create greater cognitive flexibility and client competence for generating solutions.

References Bannink, F. P. (2007). Solution-focused brief therapy. Journal of Contemporary , 87–94. Psychotherapy, 37 Bannink, F., & Jackson, P. Z. (2011). Positive psychology and solution focus– looking at similarities and differences. InterAction, 3, 8–20. Bavelas, J. B. (2012). Connecting the lab to the therapy room: Microanalysis, co-construction, and solution-focused brief therapy. In C. Franklin, T. Trepper, W. J. Gingerich, & E. McCollum (Eds.),Solution-focused brief therapy: A handbook of evidence-based practice (pp. 144–164). New York: Oxford University Press. Bavelas, J. B., De Jong, P., & Korman, H. (2008).How co-construction happens: Formulations in SFBT, CBT, and. MI Paper presented at the SolutionFocused Brief Therapy Conference, Austin, Texas. Bavelas, J. B., McGee, D., Phillips, B., & Routledge, R. (2000). Microanalysis of communication in psychotherapy.H uman Systems , 11, 3–22. Berg, I. K., & De Jong, P. (1996). Solution-building conversations: Co-constructing a sense of competence with clients. Families in Society , 77, 376–391. Berg, I. K., & De Jong, P. (2008).I nterviewing for solutions . Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks Cole/Cengage Learning. Berg, I. K., & Dolan, Y. (2001).Tales of solutions: A collection of hope inspiring stories. New York: Norton. de Shazer, S. (1985). Keys to solution in brief therapy New . York: Norton. de Shazer, S. (1988). Clues: Investigating solutions in brief therapy . New York: Norton. de Shazer, S. (1991). Putting difference to work . New York: Norton. de Shazer, S., Berg, I. K., Lipchik, E., Nunnally, E., Molnar, A., Gingerich, W., & Wiener Davis, M. (1986). Brief therapy: Focused solution development. Family Process , 25, 207–222. de Shazer, S., Dolan, Y., Korman, H., Trepper, T., McCollum, E., & Berg, I. K. (2007). More than miracles: The state of the art of solution-focused brief therapy. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press. Dielman, M. B., & Franklin, C. (1998). Brief solution-focused therapy with parents and adolescents with ADHD. Social Work in Education , 20, 261–268. Fitzpatrick, M. R., & Stalikas, A. (2008a). Integrating positive emotions into theory, research, and practice: A new challenge for psychotherapy. Journal of Psychotherapy Integratio n, 18, 248–258.


39

Fitzpatrick, M. R., & Stalikas, A. (2008b). Positive emotions as generators of therapeutic change.Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 18, 137–154. Franklin, C., Biever, J. L., Moore, K., Clemons, D., & Scamardo, M. (2001). The effectiveness of solution-focused therapy with children in a school setting. Research on Social Work Practice, 11, 411–434. Franklin, C., Trepper, T., Gingerich, W., & McCollum, E. (2012). Solution-focused brief therapy: A handbook of evidence-based practice. New York: Oxford University Press. Fredrickson, B. (2009). Positivity: Groundbreaking research reveals how to embrace the hidden strength of positive emotions, overcome negativity, and thrive . New York: Crown. Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2, 300–319. Fredrickson, B. L. (2000). Cultivating positive emotions to optimize health and well-being. Prevention and Treatment, 3, 1–25. Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218–226. Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences , 359, 1367–1377. Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. (2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought-action repertoires. Cognition and Emotion , 19, 313–332. Fredrickson, B. L., & Joiner, T. (2000). Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward emotional well-being.Psychological Science, 13, 172–175. Garland, E. L., Fredrickson, B., Kring, A. M., Johnson, D. P., Meyer P. S., & Penn, D. L. (2010). Upward spirals of positive emotions counter downward spirals of negativity: Insights from the broaden-and-build theory and affective neuroscience on the treatment of emotion dysfunctions and deficits in psychopathology.Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 849–864. Gingerich, W. J., Kim, J. S., Geert, J. J., Stams, J. M., & Macdonald, A. J. (2012). Solution-focused brief therapy outcome research. In C. Franklin, T. Trepper, W. J. Gingerich, & E. McCollum (Eds.),Solution-focused brief therapy: A handbook of evidence-based practice (pp. 95–111). New York: Oxford University Press. Gingerich, W. J., & Peterson, L. T. (2013). Effectiveness of solution-focused brief therapy: A systematic qualitative review of controlled outcome studies. Research on Social Work Practice, 23, 266–283. Glass, G. (2009). Exploring what works: Is SF the best way of harnessing the impact of positive psychology in the workplace? InterAction, 1, 26–41. Kim, J. S. (2008a). Examining the effectiveness of solution-focused brief therapy: A meta-analysis. Research on Social Work Practice, 18, 107–116. Kim, J. S. (2008b). Strengths perspective. Encyclopedia of Social Work (20th ed.). Washington, D.C.: National Association of Social Workers Press and Oxford University Press.

40


Kim. J. S., Smock, S., Trepper, T., McCollum, E., & Franklin, C. (2009). Is solution focused brief therapy evidence based? Families in Society, 91, 301–305. Kiser, D. J., Piercy, F. P., & Lipchik, E. (1993). The integration of emotion in solution-focused therapy.Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 19, 233–242. Kondrat, D. C., & Teater, B. (2012). Solution-focused therapy in an emergency room setting: Increasing hope in persons presenting with suicidal ideation. Journal of Social Work, 12, 3–15. Lang, P. J. (1985). The cognitive psychophysiology ofemotion: Fear and anxiety. In A. H.Tuma & J. Maser (Eds.),Anxiety and the anxiety disorders. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press. Lethem, J. (2002). Brief solution focused therapy. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 7, 189–192. Linley, P. A., Joseph, S., Harrington, S., & Wood, A. M. (2006). Positive psychology: Past, present, and (possible) future. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 3–16. Lipchik, E. (2011). Beyond technique in solution-focused therapy: Working with emotions and the therapeutic relationship. New York: Guilford Press. Lipchik, E., Becker, M., Brasher, B., Derks, J., & Volkmann, J. (2005). Neuroscience: A new direction for solution-focused thinkers? Journal of Systemic Therapies, 24, 49–69. Lipchik, E., Derks, J., LaCourt, M., & Nunnally, E. (2012). The evolution of solution-focused brief therapy. In C. Franklin, T. Tepper, W. Gingerich, & E. McCollum (Eds.), Solution-focused brief therapy: A handbook of evidencebased practice (pp. 3–19). New York: Oxford University Press. Liston-Smith, J. (2008). Appreciative inquiry and solution-focused coaching: Applications of positive psychology in the practice of coaching. The Coaching Psychologist, 4, 102–105. Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803–855. McGee, D., Del Vento, A., & Bavelas, J. (2005). An interactional model of questions as therapeutic interventions. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31, 371–384. McKeel, J. (2012). What works in solution-focused brief therapy: A review of change process research. In C. Franklin, T. Trepper, W. J. Gingerich, & E. McCollum (Eds.), Solution-focused brief therapy: A handbook of evidencebased practice (pp. 130–143). New York: Oxford University Press. McKergow, M., & Korman, H. (2009). In between—neither inside or outside: The radical simplicity of solution-focused brief therapy. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 28, 34–49. Miller, G., & de Shaz er, S. (2000). Emotions in solution-focused therapy:


41

A re-examination. Family Process, 39, 5–23. Miller, S. D., Duncan, B. L., & Hubble, M. A. (1997) Escape from Babel. New York: Norton. Piercy, F. P., Lipchik, E., & Kiser, D. (2000). Miller and de Shazer’s article on “Emotions in solution-focused therapy.”Family Process, 39, 25–28. Rashid, T. F. (2009). Strength-based assessment in clinical practice. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65, 488–498. Reiter, M. D. (2010). Hope and expectancy in solution-focused brief therapy. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 21, 132–148. Seligman, M. E. P. (1999). The president’s address. American Psychologist, 54, 559–562. Snyder, C. R., Michael, S. T., & Cheavens, J. S. (1999). Hope as a psychotherapeutic foundation of common factors, placebos and expectations. In M. A. Hubble, B. L. Duncan, & S. D. Miller (Eds.), Heart and soul of change: What works in therapy(pp. 33–56). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Tomori, C., & Bavelas, J. B. (2004). Using microanalysis of communication to compare solution-focused and client centered therapies. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 18, 25–43. Trepper, T. S., Dolan, Y., McCollum, E. E., & Nelson, T. S. (2006). Steve de Shazer and the future of solution-focused brief therapy. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 32, 133–139. Visser, C., & Schlundt Bodien, G. (2009). Supporting clients’ solution building process by subtly eliciting positive behavior descriptions and expectations of beneficial change. InterAction, 1, 9–25.

C o p y r ig h t cont entm cop yr igh t art icl es f o

o f B e s t P r a c tic e in M e n t a l H e a lth is th e p r o p e r ty o f L y c e u m B o o k s , I n c . a n d its a y n o t b e c o p i e d o r e m a i le d to m u l tip l e s ite s o r p o s t e d to a lis ts e r v w ith o u t t h e h o l d e r 's e x p r e s s w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . H o w e v e r , u s e r s m a y p r i n t , d o w n l o a d , o r e m a i l r in d iv id u al u se.

Understanding Emotional Change in Solution-Focused Brief Therapy. Facilitating Positive Emotions

Recommend Documents