Experiential Regulation Theory

Experiential Regulation Theory (ERT) holds that psychological dysfunction is caused by unsuccessful or self-destructive attempts to regulate one’s own experience. For example, one may regulate their experience of anxiety by avoiding social situations, or by cognitively disengaging for their emotions. As a result, they reduce their ability to live a purpose-driven life.

ERT is a synthesis of several theoretical orientations including emotion regulation, self regulation, the psychodynamic approach, acceptance and commitment therapy, behavioural activation, and the biopsychosocial approach. In particular, it incorporates and utilizes an idea from Experiential Avoidance (EA) theory, that experiential regulation may provide a functional dimension for pathological diagnosis. This idea has been evidenced by a body of research, indicating the role of experiential regulation in the development and maintenance of a variety of pathologies. ERT also incorporates and delineates the role of genetic and biological factors in psychological dysfunction.

Practically, an experiential regulation categorisation provides a matrix of regulation characteristics including type, method, and object. Types of experiential regulation may involve behavioural regulation (i.e. changing your behaviour) or cognitive regulation (i.e. changing your thoughts). Methods of regulation may involve approach, avoidance, or escape. Finally, objects of regulation may include thoughts, feelings, and bodily sensations. Objects of regulation are those aspects of one’s experience that a person is unwilling to experience, and therefore require regulation.

The Relationship between ERT and other Psychological Approaches

ERT is an integrative approach, which crosses biopsychosocial boundaries, as well as many levels of analysis including developmental, psychodynamic, behavioural humanistic, and sociocultural. The following summary will explain how these current perspectives are integrated within an EER framework.

 

Developmental

During development, infants have a range of experiences, which are greatly influenced by their genetics, and their social environment. As infants learn that these experiences can be regulated both directly (i.e. hunger regulated by feeding behaviour) and indirectly (i.e. hunger regulated by crying behaviour), they gradually develop a range of conscious and unconscious procedures, which allow their experiences to be regulated. As a child grows older, the number of regulation procedures being used grows exponentially. Certain regulation procedures become more common that others due to either their availability or their success. This tendency to regulate one’s experience in a certain way is observed as a person’s personality.

Psychological dysfunction occurs when experiential regulation procedures developed during development are misapplied, or over-applied to a certain set of experiences in a way that results in a greater need for regulation; thereby causing a vicious cycle of over-regulation.

 

Psychodynamic

Certain periods of infancy and childhood involve a certain range of experiences whereby the regulation procedures used are important (fixation periods). For example, and infant may use crying as a procedure for regulating their experience of hunger. However if this procedure in unsuccessful, other strategies such as cognitive disengagement or emotional numbing may be used. The use of these regulation procedures may result in a stable tendency to regulate experiences in a certain way (regression).

In terms of ERT, the ego would refer to the aspect of a person which attempts to regulate their experience. That is, the ego is the person. A person’s experience, including their bodily sensations, thoughts, feelings, cognitions, emotions, primal urges, and spiritual experience, are all regulated by the ego. The ego is also that which experiences all of these experiences.

The Id is those experiences which we are not conscious of, which the ego is constantly regulating. In ERT, all experiences are viewed as being at the same level as the Id. That is, both conscious and non-conscious experiences are regulated by the ‘ego’.

 

Behavioural

According to ERT, the way people behave is largely determined by the way in which they regulate their experiences. They learn to regulate their experiences in certain ways due to the basic principles of operant conditioning. Here are some examples:

1. If a child is given some chocolate for behaving themselves, they will be more inclined to regulate their experience (experience the delights of chocolate) by behaving themselves. In operant conditioning this would be called “positive reinforcement”. In ERT, this specific type of regulation would be called “situation modification for the control of bodily sensations”.

2. If a child cannot watch television until he improves his behaviour, they will be more inclined to regulate their experience (boredom) by behaving themselves. In operant conditioning this would be called “negative reinforcement”. In ERT, this specific type of regulation would be called “situation modification for the control of thoughts and feelings”.

3. If a child is being ignored for not behaving themselves, they will be more inclined to regulate their experience (emotional discomfort) by behaving themselves. In operant conditioning this would be called “punishment”. In ERT, this specific type of regulation would be called “situation modification for escape from feelings and emotions”.

4. If a child is told that they will receive a smack if they continue to misbehave, they will be more inclined to regulate their experience (anxiety, fear) by behaving themselves. In operant conditioning this would be called “punishment”. In ERT, this specific type of regulation would be called “situation modification for the avoidance of bodily sensations, feelings, and emotions”.

In a trauma situation, where situation modification does not regulate one’s experience, other regulation procedures will be sought. Cognitive disengagement or dissociation may be a last resort when other forms of avoidance or control do not work. In ERT, this type of regulation is called “cognitive change for escape from bodily sensations, feelings, thoughts, and emotions”. If this procedure becomes a stable generalised method of experiential regulation, it may eventuate to severe dissociation, which requires the usage of enormous varieties of experiential regulation resources, to the detriment of the individual.

Another common strategy used by children is “situation modification and attentional deployment for the avoidance and escape of feelings and emotions”. This procedure helps children to avoid their experience of unwanted responsibilities, difficulties, and boredom. That is, by reducing their ability to sustain attention, and by modifying situations in a way that overstimulates their thought processes, they reduce the extent to which others require them to participate in behaviours that will elicit these negative experiences, and diminished the extent to which they are aware of such experiences.

Humanistic

From an ERT perspective, one’s values can only be sought if they are not overcome by attempts to regulate one’s experience. This aligns with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, in that the number of ‘needs’ or experiences that require regulation will make it more difficult to follow values that sit outside of the need for regulation.

ERT asserts that the extent to which values may be followed directly is proportional to the extent to which someone is able to accept their experience, rather than regulate it. Many forms of regulation may also indirectly bring a person closer to their values. For example, if someone wants to operate a large charitable organisation, attempts to regulate their experience of fear of financial insecurity may help them to achieve their value. However, if a valued task is achieved by means of experiential regulation, ultimately the object of one’s experience (i.e. fear) will be served to a larger extent than one’s values. In this example, it is likely that the non-profit organisation will eventually become profitable rather than charitable, as it will be driven by a fear of financial insecurity.

Values may therefore be achieved in one of the following ways:

1. One’s values are aligned with the experiences in which they wish to regulate. For example, a feeling of sadness for homeless people would align well with a value of helping homeless people, as the person will attempt to regulate their experience of sadness. The only problem with this solution is that one’s values are susceptible to one’s experiences, resulting in biopsychosocial reactivity.
2. Creating an experience that does not require regulation. This is somewhat similar to Maslow’s theoretical stance. That is, by meeting one’s needs, they may become self actualized, and able to live in accordance to meaningful values. The problem with this solution is that the idea of a blank slate is purely hypothetical and practically impossible due to the complexity of experiential development in biological, psychological, and sociological forms.
3. Acceptance of one’s experience, and the adoption of healthy values, which are able to regulate one’s experience adequately. In other words, acceptance first, values second and experiential regulation comes as a result. Although some experiences require regulation (i.e. hunger), if a person adopts healthy values (i.e. it’s important to eat regularly), these experiences will be taken care of. Acceptance of one’s experience requires a certain level of confidence that their experience will be regulated as a result of following their values. It also requires the use of values that have not been created by the individual. Otherwise, these values may have been created as an experiential regulation tool.

Sociocultural

ERT predicts that relationships, families, and societies operate in a way that helps people to regulate their experiences. Some of the most salient experiences that a society assists people with are feelings of insecurity, fear, hunger and loneliness. Society also encourages certain methods of experiential regulation which are mutually beneficial. For example, societies generally encourage “situation selection and cognitive change via avoidance or escape of sexual thoughts and urges” (i.e. Avoiding sex-eliciting situations and suppressing sexual thoughts), rather than “situational modification for the control of sexual thoughts and urges” (i.e. indiscriminate sex).

Society therefore plays a large role in determining the type of experiential regulation procedures which are adopted. However, improper parenting, or unhealthy biopsychosocial contexts may elicit experiential regulation procedures which are not acceptable in a certain society. Many such procedures are implicitly outlined in the DSM-IV-TR.

According to ERT, a healthy society is one which encourages acceptance of experience, and provides clear values to be followed. However, in the absence of clear values, a healthy society would encourage healthy experiential regulation procedures (i.e. cognitive change for the control of experiences as opposed to situational selection, modification, or attentional deployment for the avoidance or escape from experiences).

Conversely, an unhealthy society is one which encourages experiential regulation procedures during development which are not supported by the society in which one resides. For example, a society should not encourage cognitive change via escape from thoughts and feelings (i.e. TV) if it is also against other forms of cognitive change via escape (i.e. drug abuse, dissociation, delusion, hallucination).