Emotions, the great captains of our lives: Their role in the process of change in psychotherapy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A view of human functioning is presented in which functioning is seen as integrating head and heart, emotion and reason, in a process by which people are constantly making sense of their lived emotional experience to form narratives of told experience. Because much of the processing involved in the generation of emotional experience occurs independently of and prior to conscious thought, therapeutic work on a purely cognitive level of processing is unlikely to produce enduring emotional change. The questions especially relevant to psychotherapy are how we can best facilitate change in emotions rather than only changes in cognition or behavior. A theory of emotional change is presented in which change in emotion is seen as requiring that first emotions be felt and then they both be exposed to new emotional experience and be reflected on to create new meaning. The process of emotional change thus involves both new experience and new understanding. At times, people also need to protect themselves from being overwhelmed by emotions. They need to be helped to tolerate and regulate them so that emotions inform their lives rather than control them. The importance of both emotion awareness and emotion regulation in therapeutic change is thus highlighted. The article ends by reviewing research on the role of emotional processing in therapeutic change and presents six empirically based principles of emotional processing that will help move the field toward psychotherapy integration in a manner that clearly recognizes emotion as a key component of functioning and change.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".