"I repeatedly see omission bias (OB) in my consultations with EMDR therapists, supervision meetings, listservs on EMDRIA, and increasingly, in conversations about AI and therapy, and financial decisions. OB is our tendency to judge harmful actions as worse than equally (or more) harmful inactions. For example, if I do something and harm occurs, that feels like my fault. If I don't do something and harm occurs, it can feel somehow less blameworthy, cleaner, less personal, and less likely to be litigated."
"Over the years, I can readily recall countless clinicians I've worked with who, after spending money and days learning EMDR, remain deeply uneasy about using it. They frequently worry about destabilizing clients, opening something they can't contain, and doing it wrong. And to be clear: Some of these worries are legitimate. EMDR is powerful; it's not a scented candle and a feelings worksheet."
Omission bias leads clinicians to judge harmful actions as worse than equally or more harmful inactions, producing a preference for caution. Clinicians often avoid using EMDR despite training because of fears about destabilizing clients, opening traumatic material, or making mistakes. Some worries are legitimate given EMDR's potency, but failing to offer indicated EMDR can leave clients stuck in ineffective talk therapy, with trauma remaining at the mercy of a dysregulated nervous system. Prolonged avoidance can erode hope and maintain symptoms, causing gradual, significant harm that may outweigh risks of carefully delivered interventions.
Read at Psychology Today
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]