Well-being through Responding to
Affect: Core Skills and Techniques
Leigh Kibby
Kinematic Pty Ltd
37 Bostock Avenue
Manifold Heights VIC 3218
tel : + 61 3 5222 7578
mobile : 0409 554 229
email : [email protected] or [email protected]
http://www.kinematic.com.au
Key Words
Emotions, Affect, Cognition, Meaning, Values, Counseling, Skills
Word Count
5 492
1
Abstract
Affective-cognitive integration is a crucial skill for human development and,
as such, is also crucial to quality of life. Therefore, it is important that all of us have
skills which enable this integration. Yet, what are these skills? This paper proposes
answers to this question in interaction models which enable the integration of affect
with cognition. The models provided here are heuristically developed modifications of
counseling techniques which are also consistent with theory related to emotions
triggering events. As such, the models are an evolution of the foundation work of
Ellis, Frankl and Rogers and in particular Carkhuff and Egan,.
2
Well-being through Responding to Affect: Core Skills and
Techniques
Sharing Emotions
Human beings have a need to share emotions. Christophe and Rimé (1997)
found that shared emotions triggering experiences are not kept confidential, with 66%
of participants acknowledging that they had talked about the shared episode to one or
more persons.
This sharing of emotions refers to events “… when individuals
communicate openly with one or more others about the circumstances of the
emotions-eliciting event, and about their own feelings and emotional reactions” (Rimé
& Zech, 2001).
People need to share their emotions in order for them to understand and make
meaning from their experiences and the emotions surrounding these experiences
(Rimé, Finkenauer, Luminet, Zech, & Philippot, 1998) and to help them recover from
an experience that may have been traumatic, or harmful, to them (Zech, 2000 as cited
in Rimé & Zech, 2001).
Based on the large body of research into the benefits of sharing and cognitively
processing emotions and associated events (Luminet, Bouts, Delie, Manstead & Rimé,
2000; Pennebaker, 1997; Pennebaker, Kiecolt-Glaser & Glaser, 1988; Pennebaker,
Zeck & Rimé, 2003; Rimé, Finkenauer, Luminet, Zech & Philippot, 1998), this paper
proposes approaches that can be used for facilitating sharing emotions in a way which
improves well-being. In proposing these approaches, I examine the theory of emotions
triggering events. I also explore how sharing, through language, enables an interaction
between affect and cognition that assists the integration of both.
3
Emotions Triggering Events
An emotions triggering event drives a number of needs, the need to seek out
company (Schachter, 1959) and the need for the social sharing of emotions (Rimé,
Mesquita, Philippot & Boca, 1991a; Rimé, Noël & Philippot, 1991b; Rimé, Philipott,
Boca & Mesquita, 1992; Rimé & Zech, 2001). These needs exist across cultures and
across divergent groups within cultures (Rimé & Zech, 2001). The motives for these
needs seem to include affective components such as sharing emotions information and
cognitive components such as cognitive processing (Luminet, Bouts, Delie, Manstead
& Rimé, 2000, Martin & Tesser, 1989). The need to share is also associated with
making meaning (Rimé et al., 1998), goal assessment and cognitive review (Luminet
et al., 2000).
This emotions and need to share relationship is depicted in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Emotions triggering event and the need to share.
Emotion
trigerring
event
Emotion
The need to
share the
emotion
A methodology for the most beneficial approach to sharing can be developed
by expanding this model to encompass the cognitive processing components of the
emotions state as described by Luminet et al. (2000), Rimé (1999) and Martin and
Tesser (1989), and the importance of feelings as indicated by Pennebaker and Beall
(1986). According to these researchers, the most beneficial outcomes will involve
4
feelings, (affect) and cognitive processing (cognition). This expanded model of
emotions, sharing and affective-cognitive components are depicted in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Emotions triggering event, the need to share and affective-cognitive
components.
Affect
(Emotions and feelings)
Emotions
Triggering
Event
Need to
Share
interaction through sharing
Cognition
(Cognitive processing)
A key idea to facilitating an interaction between affect and cognition is that
sharing emotions ought enable cognitive reappraisal in order to make meaning
(Luminet at al., 2000; Pennebaker, Zech & Rimé, 2003; Rimé, 1999; Rimé & Zech,
2001). This concept is akin to Kelly’s (1997) claims regarding beneficial outcomes
resulting from sharing feelings and is supported by research such as that by Luminet et
al. (2000), Rimé et al. (1991a & b), Rimé & Zech, (2001) and Finkenauer & Rimé
(1998). These benefits include reduced health problems from emotions sharing
(Pennebaker, 1997; Pennebaker & Beall, 1986; Pennebaker, Kiecolt & Glaser 1988).
Figure 3 shows the progress towards beneficial outcomes that can flow from the
process of sharing and affective-cognitive integration.
5
Figure 3: Depicting emotions triggering event, affective-cognitive processing and
beneficial outcomes.
Cognition
and
Cognitive reappraisal
Emotions
Triggering
Event
Need to
Share
Beneficial
Outcomes
Affect
and
Emotional State
While there is some evidence suggesting that sharing emotions is not
beneficial for all people (Bonanno, Keltner, Holen & Horowitz, 1995; Bonanno,
Notarius, Gunzerath, Keltner & Horowitz, 1998), sharing is most beneficial when it
facilitates cognitive processing, goal reappraisal and the creation of meaning (Luminet
et al., 2000; Pennebaker et al., 2003; Rimé, 1999; Rimé & Zech, 2001). Therefore,
sharing needs to involve affect (the feeling), cognition, (cognitive processing), and the
creation of meaning in order to enable beneficial outcomes. This mixture of elements
is depicted in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Emotions triggering event, the need to share, affect and cognition and
outcomes.
Affect
Emotions
Triggering
Event
Need to
Share
Language
Interaction
interaction through Beneficial
sharing
Outcomes
Cognition
6
This need to share enables the fulfilling experience of ownership,
expressive action and completion phases of the emotions cycle (Greenberg, 1996,
p.316) depicted in Figure 5.
Figure 5: The emotions cycle.
emergence
awareness
owning
expressive
action
completion
While at this point in the discussion, it can be concluded that sharing emotions
can enable well-being through facilitating the emotions cycle, the specific techniques
of that sharing remain unclear. Therefore, this paper now explores techniques that will
enable the sharing of emotions in a way that achieves affective-cognitive interaction.
Humanistic Psychology as a Response to Emotions
In this paper it is proposed that humanistic psychology approaches provide a
methodology for affective-cognitive integration. The basis of this premise is discussed
below, along with a proposition regarding specific interaction approaches, which will
enable affective-cognitive integration.
Responding to the need to share is consistent with the therapeutic approaches
of Rogers (1961, 1966 & 1969). The creation of meaning is key to resolving the
emotional state and integrating affect and cognition (see Luminet et al., 2000;
Pennebaker et al., 2003; Rimé, 1999; Rimé & Zech, 2001). The formation of meaning
itself as core to well-being is mirrored in the psychotherapeutic approaches of Frankl
(1955, 1963, 1969 & 1992), Assiogoli (1971 & 1973) and (Perls & Stevens, 1971).
Therefore, humanistic approaches such as these (see Kolesnik’s 1975) which respond
to the need to share, can therefore facilitate affective-cognitive integration. In pursuing
this notion, this paper looks at the humanistic approaches of Rogers and others.
7
“Humanists are not as much concerned with a person’s observable, measurable
behavior as they are with his feelings, attitudes, beliefs, purposes, and values – with
those ‘inner behaviors’ that make an individual person distinctively and uniquely
human” (Kolesnik, 1975, p.32)and humanistic psychology embraces the entire person
(Child, 1973), including the affective domain and emotional development (Patterson,
1973) through a process of cognitive (intellectual) reflection (Boud, Keogh & Walker,
1985). Humanistic psychology helps individuals explore their existence in order to
create meaning within the context of the phenomena of that existence (May, 1961 &
1983). This internal integration is also a focus of humanist psychologists such as
Assiogoli (1971 & 1973), Perls (1969a & 1969b & Perls and Stevens 1971) and the
subject of the therapy of Ellis (1973, 1977 & 1996), Frankl (1963, Frankl,
Crumbaugh, Gerz and Maholick , 1967) and Rogers (1961, 1966 & 1969).
According to Rugala and Waldo (1998), people waste their potential when
they do not experience situations either by denying their full awareness of the situation
or avoiding opportunities that might result from such awareness. This means that
disavowing affect – our emotions and emotional experiences - is a denial of existence
and life wasting.
According to humanistic psychology, affect and cognition enable awareness
and understanding of, and reflective insight into, full experience including its affective
aspects. The process of living cannot be paused (Yalom, 1980) and so integrating
experience utilizing affect and cognition are paramount, a position that aligns with the
views offered by May et al. (1958), Frankl (1963 & 1965), Frankl et al (1967) and
Rugala and Waldo (1998). To this end, humanistic approaches use affect and
cognition as a basis for understanding life and change.
How then can affect and cognition be represented in accordance with this
humanistic approach?
8
Humanistic Techniques for Sharing Emotions
As stated above, there are a number of humanistic theorists ranging from
Rogers (1961, 1966 & 1969), Maslow (1962, 1968 & 1970) and Frankl (1955 &
1963). If humanistic principles include the acceptance of affect, then arguably Ellis
(1973, 1977 & 1996) is also a humanist. According to Kirschenbaum & Henderson
(1990) and others (Mearns & Thorne, 1988), Rogers’ empathic, person-centered
approach enabled the change accommodation process i.e. integration of emotions and
thought, so that people could adapt. Additionally, Greenberg et al (1993) state that
empathy enables exploration and affective-cognitive processing. Therefore, this paper
begins with the work of Rogers (1961, 1966 & 1969) and the person-centered
approach he developed.
Empathic Listening and the Need to Share
Empathic listening (see Rogers 1961 & 1966) is listening to someone speak
about feelings and so can are a response to emotions that facilitate affective-cognitive
integration. This notion is depicted in Figure 6.
Figure 6: Emotions triggering event, emotions, need to share and the place of
empathic listening.
Emotion
Trigerring
event
Emotion
The need
to share
Interaction
involving
communication
Empathic
Listening
i.e. hearing
the emotion
and
fulfilling the
need to
share
The enablers of this adaptation (see Rogers 1961 & 1966) are the creation of
the facilitative environment which include:

genuine, non-judgmental acceptance of the person
9

empathy where, according to Rogers (1961, 1966 & 1989), empathic
listening required an ability to perceive, identify and label emotions so that
a speaker could identify feelings that were associated with thoughts and so
that a speaker could share both the emotions and thoughts associated with
those emotions (i.e. affective-cognitive integration)
Non-judgment and empathy are discussed below.
Non-Judgment
Empathic, person-centered counseling involves non-judgmental listening, a
cognitive position espoused by Rogers (1961, 1966 & 1969) and Ellis (1973, 1977 &
1996). This non-judgmental framework means differing views, behaviors and beliefs
are accepted without judgment of the person who expresses those views, or enacted
the behaviors, that are being expressed and revealed. Hence, the perception of beliefs,
behaviors and viewpoints, or how they are interpreted cognitively, requires separation
of the value or worth of the person from the beliefs, behaviors and views of that
person. Thus, non-judgmental listening requires adopting a cognitive position, or
enacting a response process, that separates a value judgment of a person from the
content of that person’s utterances.
Empathy
Empathy as a tool of affective-cognitive integration accords with Greenberg et
al’s (1993) more recent view that empathy enables exploration. This view also aligns
with the concept of Cognitive-Affective Processing of Mischel & Shoda (1995a & b).
Ryback (2001) asserts that the benefits and effectiveness of empathy as
described by Rogers (1961) are contentious despite having been the subject of much
research (Basch, 1985; Bohart & Greenberg, 1997; Bozarth, 1984, 1998; Gladstein,
1987; Neville, 1996). However, Kelly (1997) claims that the therapeutic relationship
contributes significantly to affirmative therapeutic outcomes and that there is research
10
evident to support this (Horvath & Symonds, 1991; Krupnick, Sotsky, Simmens,
Moyer, Elkin, Watkins et al., 1996; Luborsky, Crits-Christoph, Mintz & Auerbach,
1988; Marziali & Alexander, 1991; Orlinsky & Howard, 1986; Sexton & Whiston,
1994). Kelly’s (1997) assertion regarding beneficial outcomes are also well supported
by research such as that of Luminet et al. (2000), Rimé (1999), Rimé (1992), Rimé et
al (1998), Finkenauer and Rimé (1998), Pennebaker (1989 & 1997), and Pennebaker
et al (1988).
Greenberg et al. (1993, p.9) concluded, “In our view, it was changes in the
client’s cognitive/affective processing [yielding changes in emotional meaning] that
ultimately led to therapeutic change.”
Therefore, this paper adopts the proposition that non-judgmental empathy, a
tool for sharing emotions and cognition, is therefore a tool that can assist with the
integration of affect and cognition.
Practicing Non-judgmental Empathy
Ellis (2001, p.72) wrote of the limited value of empathic listening alone and
the need pf on cognitive reappraisal which was behind the creation of his Rational
Emotive Therapy (see Ellis 1973, 1977 & 1996).
The formation of meaning and cognitive reappraisal are also an essential
ingredient in attaining beneficial outcomes associated with sharing emotions (Luminet
et al., 2000; Martin & Tesser, 1989; Rime, 1999) and so this paper proposes that
Frankl’s (1955, 1963, 1969 & 1992) approach of using values to make meaning and
Ellis’s techniques for cognitive reappraisal (see Ellis 1973, 1977 & 1996) are also key
elements in the integration of affect and cognition to produce well-being.
The importance that Frankl (1955, 1963, 1969 & 1992) placed on meaning
formation through values appears in more recent work regarding meaning in trauma
(Frazier, Conlon, Tashiro & Sass, 2000), resilience and meaning (Taylor, 2000),
11
coping and stress management (Halama, 2000), hope (Fratzke, 2000) and meaningcentered counseling (Wong, 2000 & 2002). Additionally, the establishment of values
based action through dialogue accords with theories of emotional intelligence and the
role of values (Blatner, 2000).
It can therefore be concluded that sharing emotions through an interaction is
beneficial if it is conducted so that affective-cognitive integration creates meaning
through values. Figure 7 depicts this notion.
Figure 7: The role of the need to share, language, affect, cognition and values
based action in beneficial outcomes.
Cognition and
Cognitive
reappraisal
Emotions
Triggering
Event
Need to
share
Language
Language
Values
Beneficial
Outcomes
Affect
and
Emotional state
This model indicates that emotions sharing in the context of cognitive
processing and values will achieve a beneficial outcome. Thus, there are three key
humanistic therapeutic approaches, these being:
1. Rogers (1961 & 1966) whose empathic listening fulfilled a listening
requirement that responded to the need to share that is stimulated by
emotions triggering events.
2. Ellis (1973, 1977 & 1996) whose focus on cognitive reappraisal and
goal outcomes fulfilled these components of the response pattern that
the need to share emotions triggering events created.
12
3. Frankl (1955, 1963, 1969 & 1992) whose use of values to enable
psychological completion through the creation of meaning completes
the psychological processes associated with the need to share that is
initiated and driven by emotions triggering events.
Figure 8 depicts the model of emotions triggering event, the need to share,
affect, cognition, values and interaction techniques based on the ideas of Rogers (1961
& 1966), Ellis (1973, 1977 & 1996) and Frankl (1955, 1963, 1969 & 1992).
Figure 8: Emotions triggering event, the need to share, affect, cognition
and language-based therapeutic interactions.
Affect
Emotion
Trtiggering
Event
The Need
to Share
The dotted line demarks
the realm of languagebased therapeutic
interactions
Empathic
Listening
The dotted line demarks
the realm of languagebased therapeutic
interactions
Values
Discussion
Beneficial
Outcomes
Cogniton
Behaviors facilitating affective-cognitive interaction: Affective-Cognitive
Integration Techniques
I will now address how the work Rogers (1961 & 1966), Ellis (1973, 1977 &
1996) and Frankl (1955, 1963, 1969 & 1992)can be combined. In answer, I will
describe how I began with the theory of these three humanistic psychologists and then
developed codified and consistent utilization of their theory and practices.
13
In 1988, I trained as a counselor, a skill I practice to this day. However, I found
that the counseling approach I was taught involved:

restating both affect and cognition on behalf of the client

identifying the feeling, or affective state, and

defining, for the client associated thoughts and ideas.
This counseling approach meant that I, as the counselor, was undertaking on behalf of
the client, the integration of the client’s affect and cognition. Additionally, the probing
questions and counselor led interpretations, which often came from my cognitive
framework, seemed to control the interaction and determine the affect and cognitions
which were expressed or explored. Likewise, because my toolset involved reinterpretations and probing questions, the client was often following my cognitive
exploration rather than facilitating his/her own.
After a few years of practice, I concluded that is was beneficial to help a client:

identify his/her affective (feeling) state because it enabled self-awareness and
some cognitive reflection

identify the goals that were associated with the feeling, especially because this
facilitate additional cognitive reappraisal of feeling and goal

consider various actions that will fulfill those goals and

assess actions, and the consequences of those actions, against internally held
values, especially because that review either stimulated a further series of
affective-cognitive interactions or a cessation due to satisfaction through the
establishment of personal meaning i.e. resolving an (existential) angst that was
associated with the feeling.
I also concluded that it was less beneficial, and possibly detrimental, to clients to
14

ask what feelings the client was having because this involved the client
cognitively engaging with the therapist’s question rather than freely and
uninhibitedly expressing feelings

restate the context and content of the client’s utterance, especially when that
restatement was provided through the filter of the therapists reality

enable ongoing dialogue that did not focus on goals which would resolve the
underlying emotions/feeling and

fail to review all actions and their consequences through values because
values were imperative for creating personal meaning and testing whether the
affect and feeling states were in harmony i.e. integrated.
Additionally, I concluded that expressing emotions was helpful for the client if
it led to cognitive reflection and values based action and that this process of emotions
expression and cognitive reflection was effectively a process of affective-cognitive
integration.
In recalling my counselor training, I remembered techniques which involved
letting the client speak and form free associations based on recognizing, or being
facilitated in, the recognition/identification of feelings.
I recalled words and phrases such as, “You feel,” the initial wording in a
counseling response. These two words were followed by “because,” after which a
counselor described the circumstance and context associated with the feeling state
expressed by a client. Following the use of “because”, the counselor waited for a
response from a client. If no response was forthcoming, the counselor probed with
questions, seeking from the client an exploration of context and circumstances which
had given rise to the feeling state. After a response with respect to circumstances
and/or context was received from the client, the counselor was to use the words,
“because you.” With these two words, the counselor restated both the circumstances
15
and context in order to solicit further exploration by the client leading to the counselor
being able to identify the goal the client believed would ameliorate his/her feelings.
This lead to the counselor saying “because you want,” followed by the counselor
stating the goal the counselor perceived the client to be seeking. When the client
agreed with the goal, the session moved on to exploration of action which both the
counselor and client saw as effective for attaining the stated goal.
This brief overview does not portray all the interactions, nor the entire context
nor circumstances of a counseling interaction. However, for the purposes of this
paper, the key is the words used and the pattern in which they were to be used.
In exploring further, I wondered about using the words nominated above, or
equivalent words, in a new structure or pattern that were not accompanied by the
expression of the counselor’s cognitions and explorations. In considering these ideas I
became increasingly convinced that some of the words and phrases in counseling were
useful but that, in a counseling context, the use of these words and phrases was
counselor controlled or came through the counselor’s cognitions or cognitive
reconstructions rather than the client’s. The solution seemed obvious: use the same
words but in a way that lets the client share the affect state and undertake his/her own
cognitive reappraisal. Hence, I developed the following five interaction types:

Empathic-Reflective-Action Based (ERA)

Emotions, Belief, Behavior (EBB)

Affect, Perception, Testing (APT)

Emotions, Thought, Action (ETA)

Emotions, Values, Action (EVA).
The predominant premise of these techniques is that some elements of therapeutic
counseling techniques, by aim and nature, facilitate a process of affective-cognitive
integration in another by enabling narrative expression by the client which can lead to
16
action based on values. Sharing affect was enabled through stating the emotions and
cognitive reappraisal was facilitated through a verbal identification of thoughts, goals,
beliefs, values and ideas associated with that affect state which was consistent with
the importance of hearing the speaker’s point of view (Buzan, 1999) and linking
emotions to problem solving (Isen, 1984). Linking actions to the alignment to personal
values enabled the formation of meaning (see Frankl 1955, 1963 & 1969) and this
resolution of the emotions state.
It should be noted here that this use of language through dialogue and narrative to
achieve this is highly consistent with language theories and thought word connections
proposed by both Vygotsky (1971) and Freire (1972 & 1985).
In summary, the modified counseling pattern I had developed had three distinct
phases:
1. An affect focused stage that involved the identification of the
feeling/emotions state, the emotions being linked to.
2. A cognitive phase where cognitive processing took place with regard to
goals associated with the feelings, exploration of beliefs and reappraisal of
thoughts and perceptions.
3. A values based phase that meant goals, beliefs, perceptions and actions
were to be reviewed against values.
The following is a description of the interaction models named above.
Descriptions of the Interaction Models Designed to Facilitate Affective-Cognitive
Integration
The first technique I developed was called ERA (see figure 9 below)
for Empathic, Reflection, Action-based listening. Whilst the wording of ERA is
identical to some of the words I learnt in my training to become a counselor, the usage
was fundamentally different to their usage in a counselling context.
17
A counsellor would accompany these words with the counsellor’s own
labelling or dialogue which often involved interpretation of the context, desire, feeling
state, feeling context etc, or appraisal from the counsellor’s cognitions or
interpretation of desire, goal or affect, not the clients. I was proposing that the
counselor did not reinterpret nor make statements about context, circumstances nor
goals. Instead, I was advocating that a counselor would only state “You feel...” and, at
most, identify the affective state/feeling, with one word only and preferably a word
used by the speaker his/herself.
In my approach, the counsellor would then remain silent so that the speaker
could then conduct his/her own dialogue thereby facilitating an affective-cognitive
interaction for his/herself. I was also proposing that the words, “because you want to”
be used in a limited and specific way that did not involve “counselor cognition” led
actions. Again, at most, the counsellor was to provide a restatement of the goal of the
speaker as expressed by the speaker. This was to be undertaken using identical words
to those used by the speaker or words as close as possible to those used by the speaker
and not wordage created by the counselor as interpreted through his /her own
cognitions nor as deduced by the intellectualisation/interpretation of the counselor.
This change in process involved significantly less dialogue by the counselor
and so was an evolution of the techniques I was taught as a trainee counselor. For me,
this was a reversal of the typical counselor-client interaction where the counselor
surmises, restates or explores affect and cognition on behalf of the client thus putting
the client in the position of having to accommodate, assimilate or agree with the
affective-cognitive interaction as expressed by the counselor from within the
counsellor’s affective-cognitive framework.
In summary, the techniques described above were to be enacted through specific
word usage in three distinct phases, the affective, cognitive and values-based phase.
18
The word selection utilized in each phase was based on a notion that language is
consistent with Shoemaker’s (1996) premise that language alone can enable selfreflection. Based also on the affective and cognitive components of language (see the
LET model in Kibby and Hartel 2002), language usage was to be kept to a minimum
to avoid applying any affective or cognitive connotations external to that of the
speaker. In this regard, the word usage I adopted was deemed as:

the minimum needed in order to facilitate the relevant phase of the narrative

the minimum needed in order to ensure that the narrative continued

the maximum that ought be used in order to avoid affective or cognitive
connotations external to the speaker

that maximum that ought to be used in order to ensure that the speaker
controlled the narrative.
Following my trialing of ERA, I trialed identical phases – affect-based, cognitivebased and values-based, utilising different wordage. This different wordage created
the variation in models. Figures 9 to 13 depicts ERA and the additional four of those
variations. The five techniques are called the ERA, EBB, APT, ETA & EVA
approaches. The words used in these approaches are listed below, the spaces
indicating silence by a counselor/therapist/listener.

Empathic-Reflective-Action Based (ERA) using the words “You
feel.....because you want to....”

Emotions, Belief, Behavior (EBB) using the words “You
feel.....because you believe that....”

Affect, Perception, Testing (APT) using the words “You
feel.....because you perceive that....”

Emotions, Thought, Action (ETA) using the words “You
feel.....because you believe that you should...”
19

Emotions, Values, Action (EVA) using the words “You feel.....because
you value....”
20
Figure 9: The ERA model depicting the Affective-Cognitive- Values Phases
Affective Phase called Empathic
Cognitive Phase called Reflective
Values based Phase called Action Based Listening
ERA
Linguistic
Responses
Language Purpose
You feel .........
Affective
Phase
Empathic
identify emotion
...... because you
want to ..........
Cognitive
Phase
Reflective
the strategic direction the
person wants to take ......
values driven response
Values
based
Phase
Action
Based
Listening
How would that happen?
What would that look like?
Will that work for you?
Consequences and Values
tested
21
Figure 10: The EBB model depicting the Affective-Cognitive-Values based
Phases
Affective Phase called Empathic
Cognitive Phase called Belief
Values based Phase called Behavior
EBB
Cognitive
Phase
Empathic
Linguistic
Responses
Language
Purpose
You feel .........
identify emotion
...... because you
believe that ..........
Cognitive
Phase
Values
based
Phase
Belief
The belief being
expressed
Behaviour
What do you believe
should happen?
What would that look
like?
Will that work for you?
Consequences and
Values tested
22
Figure 11: The APT model depicting the Affective-Cognitive-Values based
Phases
Affective Phase called Affect State
Cognitive Phase called Perception
Values based Phase called Testing
APT
Affective
Phase
Affect State
Linguistic
Responses
Language
Purpose
You feel .........
identify emotion
Cognitive
Phase
Perception
...... because you
perceive that ..........
The perception
Values
based
Phase
Testing
How can you be sure
about that?
How could you test
that?
Does that belief align
with your values?
23
Figure 12: The ETA model depicting the Affective-Cognitive-Values based
Phases
Affective Phase called Empathic
Cognitive Phase called Thoughts
Values based Phase called Action
ETA
Affective
Phase
Empathic
Linguistic
Responses
Language
Purpose
You feel .........
identify emotion
...... because you
believe that you
should ..........
Cognitive
Phase
Values
based
Phase
Thoughts
The belief being
expressed
Action
What do you believe
should happen?
What would that look
like?
Will that work for you?
Consequences and
Values tested
24
Figure 13: The EVA model depicting the Affective-Cognitive-Values based
Phases
Affective Phase called Empathic
Cognitive Phase called Values
Values based Phase called Action
EVA
Affective
Phase
Empathic
Linguistic
Responses
Language
Purpose
You feel .........
identify emotion
...... because you
value ..........
Cognitive
Phase
Values
based
Phase
Values
The belief being
expressed
Action
What do you believe
should happen?
What would that look
like?
Will that work for you?
Consequences and
Values tested
As can be seen from the above models, each type of affective-cognitive
integration response technique would involve use of language labelling an emotion
and then language for assisting the formation of cognitive associations with those
emotions. The action-based phases, by focusing on values, shifted the emotions
25
sharing and cognitive processing into the noetic realm suggested by Frankl (1955,
1963 & 1969) which means exploration in terms of values congruence thereby
creating meaning and resolving the existential dilemma associated with emotions
triggering events (see Rimé, Finkenauer, Luminet, Zech, & Philippot, 1998).
This accords with Russell’s (2001) premise that values are the foundation for
decision-making and are therefore fundamental to the integration of affect and
cognition.
It is worth comparing these techniques to those of Egan (1976 & 2002) and
Carkhuff (Carkhuff, 1969; Carkhuff & Berenson, 1976; Carkhuff et al 1977; and
Traux & Carkhuff 1967) because these practitioners propose word usage identical to
that of ERA i.e. “You feel...because you want” in the case of Egan (1976 & 2002) and
“You feel...because you want to..” in the case of Carkhuff (Carkhuff, 1969; Carkhuff
& Berenson, 1976; Carkhuff et al 1977; and Traux & Carkhuff 1967).
Egan's and Carkhuff’s approaches and the models here share a common
humanistic heritage (see Traux and Carkhuff, 1967). Additionally, both Egan (1976 &
2002) and Carkhuff (Carkhuff, 1969; Carkhuff & Berenson, 1976; Carkhuff et al
1977; and Traux & Carkhuff 1967) share core values (e.g. respect for people, the
importance of emotions, the importance of expressing feelings etc)and commitment to
stating a values based position (see Carkhuff & Berenson, 1976, p240 & Egan 2002,
p44). However, apart from these elements, the techniques of this author and Egan
(1976 & 2002) and Carkhuff (Carkhuff, 1969; Carkhuff & Berenson, 1976; Carkhuff
et al 1977; and Traux & Carkhuff 1967) are differ in that the pathways for achieving
these intents is different involve different interactions techniques, and verbal inputs,
by the counsellor.
Carkhuff (1969) focuses on operationalising solutions and the direction for
action. Likewise, there is an equal intent on the focus on meaning by Carkhuff (see
26
Carkhuff, 1977, pp 114 & 141) and Egan (see Egan 1976, p 28). Egan (1976 & 2002),
although adopting a three phase approach (Egan, 2002), proposes very different
linguistic responses. For example, Egan states that, “If you are truly empathic, if you
listen actively...then you do more than paraphrase or restate, there is something of you
in your response,” (Egan 2002, p 77). Additionally, Egan (2002) proposes that the
therapist “...indicate the correct experiences and behaviours that give rise to the
feelings,” (Egan 2002, p98) which this author proposes as entirely inappropriate.
Egan's (1976 & 2002) methodology also differs in that it proposes probing questions
and rephrasing feeling which is also counter to the approach I am proposing. Egan
(1976 & 2002) achieves his aim using the "You feel...because..." words in the one
utterance as a response whereas I use these same words as distinct response phases to
be separated by utterances from the person sharing the emotions. As such, I propose
using only "because you want to..." or, if no response is forthcoming, restating only
the goal that is associated with the emotions and not doing any restatement of
experiences, circumstances, context or behaviours.
As can be seen from the above, whilst a quick glance shows similarity between
ERA and Egan (1976 & 2002) with respect to word usage, the similarity ends at that
point and the phasing and contextual dialogue which encompasses these words are
substantially different. Likewise, Egan (1976) also proposes that the therapist be
attractive to the speaker (see Egan 1976, p 97) which is also counter to the approach
proposed in this paper.
With respect to Carkhuff (Carkhuff, 1969; Carkhuff & Berenson, 1976;
Carkhuff et al 1977; and Traux & Carkhuff 1967) as similar case holds true.
Carkhuff (Carkhuff, 1969; Carkhuff & Berenson, 1976; Carkhuff et al 1977;
and Traux & Carkhuff 1967) adopts, as part of a therapeutic intervention, “You
feel...because you want to....” and like Egan (1976 & 2002) proposes internalised
27
interpretation and then rephrasing by a counselor which, as stated above, is opposite to
the approach I propose. Carkhuff (Traux & Carkhuff, 1967) takes this notion further
proposing that the therapist, “...uncovers the most deeply shrouded of the client’s
feelings, voicing meanings in the client’s experience of which the client is scarcely
aware,” (Traux & Carkhuff, 1967, p 55). In fact, Carkhuff adds an almost charismatic
dimension to the style of the therapist stating of the client response to the therapist,
“He [sic] gives me new concepts rather than merely parroting mine. He helps me to
see places to go...His intensity made me feel like throwing myself into his arms...”
(Carkhuff & Berenson, 1976, p 156) which is an extension of Egan’s (1976) notion of
the therapist being attractive.
Therefore, whilst Carkhuff (Carkhuff, 1969; Carkhuff & Berenson, 1976;
Carkhuff et al 1977; and Traux & Carkhuff 1967) use the same words as in ERA,
these words are part of an armoury of interaction techniques that involve dialogue,
interpretation, body language and numerous other devices that are counter to the ERA
technique and interaction models proposed in here.
In summary, there is a notable, but distinctly small sameness between the
techniques in this paper and the psychotherapeutic techniques of Egan (1976 & 2002)
and Carkhuff (Carkhuff, 1969; Carkhuff & Berenson, 1976; Carkhuff et al 1977; and
Traux & Carkhuff 1967). That sameness can be found in a total of six words only,
“You, feel, because, you, want, to.” Apart from this, which holds true only for the
ERA model, there is a substantive difference. These techniques utilise the LanguageEmotions-Thought model (Kibby and Hartel 2002) to minimise the language (verbal
and non-verbal) used by the respondent to the emotions utterance. Therefore, as in
ERA, the words are used in a very different way, and exist in a context and dialogue
which is profoundly different to the usage of those same words by Egan (1976 &
2002) and Carkhuff (Carkhuff, 1969; Carkhuff & Berenson, 1976; Carkhuff et al
28
1977; and Traux & Carkhuff 1967) who place this word usage in a more diverse, and
arguably more confusing, interaction set where the respondent controls the affectivecognitive integration rather than the person experiencing the emotions. Not only this,
but the other models that are akin to ERA, namely Emotions, Belief, Behavior (EBB),
Affect, Perception, Testing (APT), Emotions, Thought, Action (ETA), Emotions,
Values, Action (EVA) differ in wordage and context. In this respect, these models
which born in a humanistic, psychotherapeutic ancestry, are evolutions of that
heritage, particularly in terms of practice and expression when responding to emotions
expression of another.
Summary responding to Affect
This paper has presented an argument that emotions are associated with a need
to share and that such sharing, if based on the principles of empathy and nonjudgment, can facilitate the integration of affect and cognition specifically if the
sharing is accompanied by a dialogue regarding values. This conclusion points to the
importance of language and is predicated on a relationship between language, affect
and cognition such that language is a tool for facilitating affective-cognitive
integration.
Language
mediates
both
interpersonal
relationships
and
cognitive
representation (Olson, 1980), which supports the premise that language based
interactions, will enable an integration of affect and cognition in order to moderate
behavior.
As described above, integrating the ideas of Rogers (1961 & 1966), Ellis
(1973, 1977 & 1996) and Frankl (1963, 1969, 1973 & 1992) enabled the development
of comprehensive models. Each of these explored separate components that enable
well-being such as empathy and non-judgment (Rogers (961 & 1966), cognitive
29
processing (Ellis 1973, 1977 & 1996) and the formation of meaning (Frankl1963,
1969, 1973 & 1992).
Therefore, the key elements of a response designed to build enable affectivecognitive integration for well-being include:
1. being receptive to emotions
2. ability to label emotions with words
3. ability to identify emotions
4. being accepting of emotions
5. being non-judgmental and accepting of people and their circumstances as
unique
6. being empathic i.e. combining the ability to label emotions with nonjudgmental behaviours.
Future research is needed to ensure that the models also have face validity
according to relevant theory in the realms of language, affect and cognition.
30
References
Assiogoli. R. (1971) Psychosynpaper. Viking Press.
Assiogoli. R. (1973) Act of Will. Viking Press
Basch, M. F. (1985). Empathic understanding: A review of the concept and
some theoretical considerations, Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association,
31, 101-126.
Blatner, A., (2000) Personal Meaning and Emotional intelligence, Conference
Paper, International Conference on Searching for Meaning in the New Millennium,
International Network on Personal Meaning, http://www.meaning.ca downloaded
17/03/2003.
Bohart, A. C., & Greenberg, L. S. (1997). Empathy reconsidered,
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Bonanno, G. A., Keltner, D., Holen, A., & Horowitz, M. J. (1995). When
avoiding unpleasant emotions might not be such a bad thing: Verbal-autonomic
response dissociation and midlife conjugal bereavement. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 69, 975-989.
Bonanno, G. A., Notarius, C. I., Gunzerath, L., Keltner, D., & Horowitz, M. J.
(1998). Interpersonal ambivalence, perceived relationship adjustment, and conjugal
loss. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 1012-1022.
Boud, D., Keogh, R. & Walker, D., (1985) Promoting Reflection in Learning:
A Model. In Boud, D., Keogh, R. & Walker, D. (ed.) Reflection Turning Experience
Into Learning, Kogan Page, London.
Bozarth, J. D. (1984). Beyond reflection: Emergent modes of empathy. In R.
Levant, & J. Shlien, (Eds.), Client-centered therapy and the person-centered
approach (pp. 59-75). New York: Praeger.
31
Bozarth, J. D. (1998). Person-Centered Therapy. London: PCCS Books.
Brown, G.I. (1976) Human is as confluent does, in G.I. Brown, T. Yeomans
and L. Grizzard (Eds.), The Live Classroom, Innovation Through Confluent Education
and Gestalt, Penguin.
Buzan, T., T. Dottino & R. Israel (1999). The Brainsmart Leader, Gower
Publishing, Aldershot.
Carkhuff, R. R. (1969). Helping and Human relations: A primer for Lay
people and Professionals. Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc.
Carkhuff, R. R. (1983). Sources of Human Productivity. Human Resources
Development Press.
Carkhuff, R. R. & Berenson, B.G. (1976). Teaching as Treatment. Human
Resources Development Press.
Carkhuff, R. R., Berenson, B.G. & Pierce, R.M. (1977). The Skills of Teaching
Interpersonal Skills. Human Resources Development Press.
Cassel, R. N., (2001), Third force psychology and teacher education in
relation to contiguity and standards, Education, 122 (1).
Cassel, R. N., R. C. Reiger, (2000), New Third Force Psychology promises to
reduce the growing prison population through student-centered high schools,
Education, 121, (1), electronic version.
Child, I., (1973) Humanistic Psychology and the Research Tradition: Their
Several Virtues, John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York.
32
Christophe, V., & Rimé, B. (1997). Exposure to the social sharing of emotion:
Emotional impact, listener responses and secondary social sharing. European Journal
of Social Psychology, 27, 37-54
Egan, G. (1976). Interpersonal Living: A Skills Contract Approach to HumanRelations Training in Groups. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Egan, G. (1994a). Exercises in Helping Skills: A Manual to Accompany The
Skilled Helper. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Egan, G. (1994b). The Skilled Helper: A Model for Systematic Helping and
Interpersonal Relating (5th ed.). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Egan, G. (2002). The Skilled Helper: A Program Management and
Opportunity-Development Approach to Helping. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Ellis, A. (1973), Humanistic Psychology: The Rational Emotive Approach,
McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Ellis, A. (1977) Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy, The Citadel Press.
Ellis, A. (1996) Better, Deeper, and More Enduring Brief Therapy: The
Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy Approach, Brunner/Mazel Inc; New York.
Ellis, A. (2001). The price of reason, Psychology Today, 34(1), 66-76.
Finkenauer, C., B. Rimé, (1998). Socially Shared Emotional Experiences VS.
Emotional Experiences Kept Secret: Differential Characteristics and Consequences.
Journal of Social Psychology. 17(3). pp 295-318.
33
Frankl, V.E. (1955). The Doctor and the Soul. Knopf.
Frankl, V. E. (1963), Man's Search for Meaning: An Introduction to
Logotherapy. Washington Square Press.
Frankl, V. E. (1969), The Will to Meaning, New American library.
Frankl, V. E. (1973). (R. and C. Winston, Trans.) The Doctor and the Soul:
From Psychotherapy to Logotherapy. New York: Vintage Books.
Frankl, V. E. (1992), Man’s Search for Meaning : An Introduction to
Logotherapy, fourth Edition, Beacon Press.
Frankl, V., Crumbaugh, J.C., Gerz, H.O. & Maholick, L. (1967)
Psychotherapy and Existentialism, Souvenir Press.
Fratzke, B. J. (2000), A study of the relationship between existential well-being
and a new measure of hope, with implications for therapy, Conference Paper,
International Conference on Searching for Meaning in the New Millennium,
International Network on Personal Meaning, http://www.meaning.ca downloaded
17/03/2003.
Frazier, A., A. Conlon, T. Tashiro, S.Sass. (2000), Post-traumatic growth:
Finding meaning through trauma. 2000 Conference Paper, International Conference
on Searching for Meaning in the New Millennium, International Network on Personal
Meaning, http://www.meaning.ca downloaded 17/03/2003.
34
Frick, W. (1971). Humanistic Psychology: Interviews with Maslow, Murphy,
and Rogers. Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company: Ohio.
Friere, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Translated by M.B. Ramos,
Penguin.
Friere, P. (1985). The Politics of Education: Culture, Power, and Liberation.
Bergen and Garvey Publishers Inc.
Gladstein, G. (1987). Empathy and counseling. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Greenberg, L. S. (1996), Allowing and Accepting of Emotional Experience, in
Kavanaugh, R. D., B. Zimmerberg and S. Fein, (eds) Emotion : Interdisciplinary
Perspectives, Lawrence Erlbaum Asscoiates.
Greenberg, L.S., L. N. Rice and R. Elliott (1993) Facilitating Emotional
Change: The Moment-By-Moment process. The Guildford Press.
Horvath, A. O., & Symonds, B. D. (1991). Relation between working alliance
and outcome in psychotherapy: A meta-analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
38, 139-149.
Kelly Jr; E.W. (1997) Relationship-centered counseling: A humanistic model
of integration, Journal of Counseling and Development: JCD, 75(5) – electronic
version.
Kibby, L. & Härtel, C. E. J. (2002). Intelligent Emotions Management: Insight
and Strategies for Managers and Leaders. Paper presented at the 3rd Bi-Annual
Meeting of the Emotions in Organizational Life Conference. Gold Coast, Australia.
35
Kirschenbaum, H. and Henderson, V. (1990), The Carl Rogers Reader,
Constable, London.
Kolesnik, W. B. (1975), Humanism and/or Behaviorism in Education, Allyn
and Bacon Inc.
Krupnick, J. L., Sotsky, S. M., Simmens, S., Moyer, J., Elkin, I., Watkins, J.,
& Pilkonis, P. A. (1996). The role of the therapeutic alliance in psychotherapy and
pharmacotherapy outcome: Findings in the National Institute of Mental Health
treatment of depression collaborative research program. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 64, 532-539.
Luborsky, L., Crits-Christoph, P., Mintz, J., &Auerbach, A. (1988). Who will
benefit from psychotherapy? New York.
Luminet, O., P. Bouts, F. Delie, A. S. R. Manstead and B. Rimé. (2000).
Social Sharing of emotion following exposure to a negatively valenced situation.
Cognition and Emotion, 14(5) pp 661-688
Martin, L. L. and A. Tesser (1989). Toward a Motivational and Structural
Theory of Ruminative Thought in Bargh, J. A. (eds). Unintended Thoughts, Guildford.
Martin, J., Knopoff, K. & Beckman, C. (1998). An alternative to bureaucratic
impersonality and emotional labor: Bounded emotionality at the Body Shop.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 43: 429-469.
36
Marziali, E., & Alexander, L. (1991). The power of the therapeutic
relationship. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61, 383-391.
May, R. (Ed.). (1961). Existential psychology. New York: Random House.
May, R. (1983). The discovery of being: Writings in existential psychology.
New York: Norton.
Maslow, A. M. (1962). Toward a psychology of being. Princeton, NJ: Van
Nostrand.
Maslow, A. M., (1968), Toward a Psychology of Being, D. Van Nostrand
Company.
Maslow, A. M., (1970), Motivation and Personality, Harper and Row.
Mearns, D. and Thorne, B. (1988). Person-Centered Counseling in Action,
Sage, London.
Mischel, W. & Shoda, Y. (1995a). A cognitive-affective system theory of
personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in
personality structure. Psychological-Review, 102: 246-268.
Mischel, W. & Shoda, Y. (1995b). Reconciling processing dynamics and
personality dispositions. Annual Review of Psychology, 49: 229-258.
37
Neville, J. C. (1996). Five kinds of empathy. In R. Hutterer, G. Pawlowsky,
P. F. Schmid, & R. Stipsits (Eds.), Effective psychotherapy (pp. 437-453). New York:
Peter Lang.
Olson, D.R. (1980) Some social aspects of meaning in oral and written
language, The Social Foundations of Language and Thought : Essays in Honor of
Jerome S. Bruner, Norton and Co.
Orlinsky, D.E. & Howard, K.I. (1986). The psychological interior of
psychotherapy: Explorations with the therapy session reports. In L.S. Greenberg and
W.M. Pinsof
(Eds.) The Psychotherapeutic Process: A Research Handbook.
NewYork: Guilford Press.
Patterson, C. H., (1973), Humanistic Education, Prentice-Hall Inc.
Pennebaker, J. W. (1989). Confession, inhibition and disease. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 22, pp 211-244.
Pennebaker, J. W. (1997). Writing about emotional experiences as a
Therapeutic process. Psychological Science. 8(3). pp 162-166.
Pennebaker, J. W. and S. Beall (1986). Confronting an Event: Toward an
Understanding of Inhibition and Disease. Journal of Asbnormal Psychology, 95, 247281.
38
Pennebaker, J. W., J.K. Kiecolt-Glaser, and R. Glaser (1988). Disclosure of
Trauma and Immune Functions: Health Implications for Psychotherapy. Journal of
Consulting and clinical Psychology. 56(2). 239-245.
Pennebaker, J. W., E. Zech and B. Rimé (2003) Disclosing and Sharing
Emotion: Psychological, Social and Health Consequences. In Press.
Perls, F. S. (1969a) Gestalt therapy Verbatim. Real People Press.
Perls, F. S. (1969b) Ego, Hunger and aggression. Random House.
Perls, F. S., Stevens. J. O. (ed). (1971) Gestalt Therapy Verbatim. Bantam
Books.
Rimé, B. (1999). Expressing Emotion, physical health, and emotional wellrelief: a cognitive-social perspective. Advances in Mind-Body. 15. pp 161 – 195.
Rimé, B., C. Finkenauer, O. Luminet, E. Zech and P. Philippot. (1998). Social
Sharing of Emotion: New Evidence and New Questions. European Review of Social
Psychology. 9. 145 – 189.
Rimé, B., Mesquita, B., Philippot, P., & Boca, S. (1991a). Beyond the
emotional event: Six studies on the social sharing of emotion. Cognition and Emotion,
5, 435-65.
39
Rimé, B., Noël, M. P., & Philippot, P. (1991b). Episode émotionnel,
réminiscences mentales et réminiscences sociales [Emotional episodes, mental
remembrances and social remembrances]. Cahiers Internationaux de Psychologie
Sociale, 11, 93-104.
Rimé, B., Philippot, P., Boca, S., & Mesquita, B. (1992). Long-lasting
cognitive and social consequences of emotion: Social sharing and rumination. In W.
Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology, (Vol. 3, pp.
225-258). Chichester: Wiley.
Rimé, B. & Zech, E. (2001). The social sharing of emotion: Interpersonal and
collective dimensions. Boletin di Psicologia, 70, 97-108.
Rogers, C.R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic
personality change. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21: 95-103.
Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Rogers, C. (1966) A theory of therapy as developed in client-centered
framework in B. Ard (Ed.) Counseling and Psychotherapy Classics on Theories and
Issues, Science and Behavior Books Inc; California.
Rogers, C. R. (1969), Freedom to Learn, Charles E. Merrill Publishing
Company.
40
Rogers C. (1989), On becoming a person: A therapist's view of psychotherapy,
London: Constable.
Rugala, S. A. & M. Waldo (1998), An integration of existential psychology
and the multimodal model , The Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 38(4) – electronic
version.
Ryback, D. (2001), Mutual affect therapy and the emergence of
transformational empathy , The Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 41(3) – electronic
version.
Traux, C.B. & Carkhuff, R. R. (1967). Toward Effective Counseling and
Psychotherapy: Training and Practice. Aldine Publishing Company.
Schachter, S. (1959). The Psychology of Affiliation. Minneapolis. University of
Minneapolis Press.
Sexton, T. L., & Whiston, S. C. (1994). The status of the counseling
relationship: An empirical review, theoretical implications, and research directions.
The Counseling Psychologist, 22, 6-78.
Shoemaker, S. (1996). The First Person Perspective and Other Essays,
Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, R. T. (2000). Making Resiliency Meaningful in the New Millenium.
2000 Conference Paper, International Conference on Searching for Meaning in the
41
New Millennium, International Network on Personal Meaning,
http://www.meaning.ca downloaded 17/03/2003.
Vygotsky, L. S., (1971) Thought and Language, edited and translated by E.
Hanfmann and G. Vakar, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Weiss, H. & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical
discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work,
Research in Organisational Behavior, 18: 1-79.
Williams, S. & Shiaw, W.T. (1999). Mood and organizational citizenship
behavior: The effects of positive affect on employee organizational citizenship
behavior intentions, The Journal of Psychology, 133(6).
Wong, P. T. P. (2000), Meaning-Centred Counseling Workshop, 2000
Conference Paper, International Conference on Searching for Meaning in the New
Millennium, International Network on Personal Meaning, http://www.meaning.ca
downloaded 17/03/2003.
Wong, P. T. P. (2002), Transformation of Grief through Meaningmanagement. Keynote address given at the Conference on Life and Death Education,
National Changhua University of Education, Changhua, Taiwan, December 15, 2002.
Yalom. I.D. (1980). Existential psychotherapy. New York: Basic Books in
Rugala, S. A. ; M. Waldo (1998), An integration of existential psychology and the
42
multimodal model , The Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 38 (4) – electronic
version.
Yeomans, T. (1976) Search for a Working Model: Gestalt, Psychosynpaper
and Confluent education, T. Yeomans and L. Grizzard (Eds.), The Live Classroom,
Innovation Through Confluent Education and Gestalt, Penguin.
Zech, E. (2000). The effects of the communication of emotional experiences.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium: University of Louvain
43
List of Figures
Figure 1: Emotions triggering event and the need to share.
Figure 2: Emotions triggering event, the need to share and affectivecognitive components.
Figure 3: Depicting emotions triggering event, affective-cognitive
processing and beneficial outcomes.
Figure 4: Emotions triggering event, the need to share, affect and
cognition and outcomes.
Figure 5: The emotionsal cycle.
Figure 6: Emotions triggering event, emotions, need to share and the place
of empathic listening.
Figure 7: The role of the need to share, language, affect, cognition and
values based action in beneficial outcomes.
Figure 8: Emotions triggering event, the need to share, affect, cognition
and language-based therapeutic interactions.
Figure 9: The ERA model depicting the Affective-Cognitive- Values Phases
Figure 10: The EBB model depicting the Affective-Cognitive-Values based
Phases
Figure 11: The APT model depicting the Affective-Cognitive-Values based
Phases
Figure 12: The ETA model depicting the Affective-Cognitive-Values based
Phases
Figure 13: The EVA model depicting the Affective-Cognitive-Values based
Phases
44