Clinical Handbook of Mindfulness (36 page)

two machines and some read-out shows up on both screens. Suppose what

comes up is, “Deep down, there’s something wrong with me.” Now imagine

two different situations. In situation #1, the operator is totally lost in the opera-

tion of the computer. It’s like being lost in a movie; you’re not watching, you are

in that movie, so when someone jumps out from behind a door, you jump. It is

like that. The operator is sitting right in front of the monitor, nose touching the

screen, lost in the read out and unable to distinguish between the machine and

the person operating the machine. The operator has forgotten that there’s any

distinction. So the screen shows “Deep down there’s something wrong with

me.” Now, from that place—with the operator indistinct from the machine—

the operator’s only choice is to try to reprogram the machine. Who’s going to

accept that deep down inside there’s something wrong with them? That’s like

saying it would be OK to be eaten by the tiger. Situation #2: Same computer,

same programming, everything is the same. The same readout comes up, “Deep

down there’s something wrong with me.” But this person is sitting back a little,

and is real clear that there is a distinction between the machine and the person.

He’s the operator of the machine, he’s working on the machine, but he is not

the machine. The operator can still see the read out very clearly, but because

there’s a distinction between himself and the machine, the read-out doesn’t

necessarily have to change. He could call over his friends and say “Look at this

thing. I type in x and looks what comes out on the screen. Interesting, huh.”

It’s like that. Your mind has been programmed by all kinds of people. So at one

point, Mom comes over and works on the keyboard for a while; a little later Dad

comes over. At various times, your husband (or wife), your teachers, your kids,

your friends, your coworkers—they all spend a little time at the computer. And

in certain situations—given the right input—you’ll get a certain read-out. You

might even believe it to be true. For example, it says on the screen, “Boy, I really

need to use heroin!” It may or may not be accurate. The issue isn’t whether the

readout is true or false. The issue is whether there is any distinction between

the person and the mental machinery. Is there any distinction between you and

the stuff that is in your life?

This metaphor is designed to weaken literal functions of language on multi-

ple levels. First, it equates thought and the associated language as computer

120

Alethea A. Varra, Claudia Drossel, and Steven C. Hayes

output rather than actual truth. Second, it introduces the idea that these

thoughts and language may be highly influenced by the “input” of other

people, rather than the clients own experience. Third, it emphasizes the

distinction between the person and their verbal products, increasing a sense

of choice even in the presence of particular verbal formulations.

Provide a Commonsense Model of Paradoxical Processes

Many ACT concepts do not make logical sense even though they make good

psychological sense. It is not that ACT is illogical; it is that the usefulness

of ACT concepts is dependent more on experience than analysis. Metaphors

provide a commonsense model that can reassure and guide the client when

dealing with paradoxical concepts. Consider the following example:

The Feedback Screech Metaphor

You know that horrible feedback screech that a public address system some-

times makes? It happens when a microphone is positioned too close to a

speaker. Then, when a person on stage makes the least little noise, it goes

into the microphone, the sound comes out of the speakers amplified and then

back into the mic, a little bit louder than it was the first time it went in, and

at the speed of sound and electricity, it gets louder and louder until, in split

seconds, it’s unbearably loud. Your struggles with your thoughts and emotions

are like being caught in the middle of a feedback screech. So what do you

do? You do what anyone would. You try to live your life [whispering]
very

quietly
, always whispering, always tip-toeing around. You can’t really live with-

out making noise. But notice that in this metaphor, it isn’t how much noise

you make that is the problem. It’s the amplifier that’s the problem. Our job in

here is not to help you live your life quietly, free of all emotional discomfort

and disturbing thoughts. Our job is to find the amplifier and to take it out of

the loop.

This metaphor is used to describe the complex implications of experiential

avoidance while, at the same time, to introduce the idea of acceptance. The

commonsense model of a feedback screech is more clear than an in-depth

description of how rules can interact with direct experiences to produce

self-amplifying loops of emotions and thoughts.

Providing Evidence Without Argument

This allows the client to experience a concept without having to convince

the person. An example in ACT is discussing our limits at achieving internal,

emotional control.

The Polygraph Metaphor

Suppose I had you hooked up to the best polygraph machine that’s ever been

built. This is a perfect machine, the most sensitive ever made. When you are

all wired up to it, there is no way you can be aroused or anxious without

the machine knowing it. So I tell you that you have a very simple task here:

all you have to do is stay relaxed. If you get the least bit anxious, however,

I will know it. I know you want to try hard, but I want to give you an extra

Chapter 7 The Use of Metaphor to Establish Acceptance and Mindfulness

121

incentive, so I also have a .44 Magnum which I’ll hold to your head. If you just

stay relaxed, I won’t blow your brains out, but if you get nervous (and I’ll know

it because you’re wired up to this perfect machine), I’m going to have to kill

you. Your brains will be all over the walls. So, just relax!
. . .
What do you think

would happen? Guess what you’d get? Bam! How could it work otherwise? The

tiniest bit of anxiety would be terrifying. You’d be going “Oh, my God! I’m

getting anxious! Here it comes!” BAM! You’re dead meat. How could it work

otherwise?
(Hayes et al., 1999,
pp. 123–124).

In this example, it is easy for the individual client to imagine being anxious,

despite their best efforts to control their anxiety. The extreme nature of the

metaphor allows the clinician to reliably demonstrate the concept without

having to convince the client of the outcome logically or argue that it fits the

client’s actual situation.

Structure Experiential Processes

From an ACT perspective, mindfulness involves acceptance, defusion, a

focus on the present moment, and a transcendent sense of self. Experien-

tial mindfulness exercises are used regularly in ACT. Metaphors can be used

to help guide the client to use these mindfulness exercises in a way that is

focused on these four ACT processes. The following metaphor is designed to

help the client observe their thoughts mindfully.

Leaves on a Stream Metaphor

Imagine yourself sitting on the bank of gurgling stream. You are sitting, enjoy-

ing the beautiful day, and relaxing under a large oak tree. It is fall and as you

sit you notice many leaves falling from the tree into the stream, and floating

by. As you imagine this, I want you to pay attention to any thoughts that you

may be having in each moment. Notice the thoughts coming and going as the

leaves come and go, and imagine your thoughts are written on the leaves as

they float by. One leave may say, “Am I doing this right,” and another might

say, “I feel tired today.” Whatever thought you having—just picture it on one

of the leaves and watch it as it goes by, without pushing it or pulling it. At

some point you may have the sense that you are no longer doing the exercise,

that you are caught up in the thoughts rather than just watching them go by.

When that happens, I want you to back up a few seconds and see if you can

catch what you were doing right before the leaves stopped. Then go ahead and

sit under that tree and start putting your thoughts on the leaves again. I’ll be

quiet now while you engage in this process [several minutes of silence follow]

(Hayes et al., 1999,
pp. 158–162).

In this exercise, all four ACT processes that are thought to define mind-

fulness are put into a figurative image. The “person under the tree” repre-

sents a transcendent sense of self; looking at a thought like one looks at a

leaf encourages defusion; neither pushing nor pulling the leaf is a metaphor

for acceptance; and watching for thoughts as they arise is a focus on the

present moment. The silence that follows allows the actual exercise, but the

metaphor structures it so that it is likely to be successful in ACT terms.

122

Alethea A. Varra, Claudia Drossel, and Steven C. Hayes

Summary

We have reviewed the importance of metaphor in ACT, from the model

underlying its philosophy of science to the use of figurative language to

encourage ACT processes. We have argued that metaphor is a useful clini-

cal tool in acceptance- and mindfulness-based practice in general because it

is uniquely suited to address the concerns that contextual therapies hope to

address. Metaphor is heavily used in ACT therapy and addresses the impact

of language on human suffering by undermining or at least avoiding reason

giving and pliance, weakening the literal functions of language, providing

commonsense models of paradoxical processes, experientially demonstrat-

ing concepts, and helping to properly structure and guide more experiential

processes.

References

Barrett, D. M., Deitz, S. M., Gaydos, G. R., & Quinn, P. C. (1987). The effects of pro-

grammed contingencies and social conditions on response stereotypy with human

subjects.
Psychological Record, 37
, 489–505.

Blenkiron, P. (2005). Stories and analogies in cognitive behaviour therapy: A clinical

review.
Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 33
, 45–59.

Catania, A. C., Matthews, B. A., & Shimoff, E. (1982). Instructed versus shaped human

verbal behavior: Interactions with nonverbal responding.
Journal of the Experi-

mental Analysis of Behavior, 38
(3), 233–248.

Chödrön, P. (1997).
When things fall apart: Heart advice for difficult times
. Boston:

Shambala.

Drossel, C., Waltz, T., & Hayes, S. C. (in press). An introduction to principles of behav-

ior. In D. Woods & J. Kanter (Eds.),
Understanding behavior disorders: A contem-

porary behavioral perspective
. Reno, NV: Context Press.

Eynon, T. (2002). Cognitive linguistics.
Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 8
,

399–407.

Harmon, T. M., Nelson, R. O., & Hayes, S. C. (1980). Self-monitoring of mood ver-

sus activity by depressed clients.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,

48
(1), 30–38.

Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (Eds.) (2001).
Relational Frame The-

ory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition
. NY: Kluwer

Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Hayes, S. C., Brownstein, A. J., Zettle, R. D., Rosenfarb, I. & Korn, Z. (1986). Rule-

governed behavior and sensitivity to changing consequences of responding.
Jour-

nal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 45
, 237–256.

Hayes, S. C., Hayes, L. J., & Reese, H. W. (1988). Finding the philosophical core: A

review of Stephen C. Pepper’s “World hypotheses: A study in evidence.”
Journal of

the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50
(1), 97–111.

Hayes, S. C., Hayes, L. J., Reese, H. W., & Sarbin, T. R. (Eds.). (1993).
Varieties of

scientific contextualism
. Reno, NV: Context Press.

Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (1999).
Acceptance and Commitment

Therapy: An experiential approach to behavior change
. NY: The Guilford Press.

Hayes, S. C., Wilson, K. W., Gifford, E. V., Follette, V. M., & Strosahl, K. (1996). Expe-

riential avoidance and behavioral disorders: A functional dimensional approach

to diagnosis and treatment.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64
,

1152–1168.

Chapter 7 The Use of Metaphor to Establish Acceptance and Mindfulness

123

Jacobson, N. S., Dobson, K. S., Truax, P. A., Addis, M. E., Koerner, K., Gollan, J. K.,

Gortner, E., & Prince, S. E. (1996). A component analysis of cognitive-behavioral

treatment for depression.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64
(2),

295–304.

Knowles, M. & Moon, R. (2006).
Introducing metaphor
. New York: Routlege.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980).
Metaphors we live by
. Chicago: The University of

Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1999).
Philosophy in the Flesh: The embodied mind and