Pergamon The Arts in Psychotherapy, Vol. 21, No. 5. 317-318, 1994 pp.

Copyright 0 1994 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in the USA. All rights reserved

0197-4556194 $6.00 + .OO

0197-4556(94)00058-1

LETTER

To the Editor: Re: Irene Rossberg-Gempton & Gary D. Poole.

(1993) The Arts in Psychotherapy, 20(l), 75-82.

To examine fundamental assumptions of dance therapy, the researcher must tackle many formidable problems. Some are inherent in the limits of language and our capacity to conceptualize what are very am- biguous and ephemeral phenomena. For example, “control of emotions through body movements” would seem an essential aspect of dance therapy the- ory readily accessible to empirical study until one tries to define the terms “control,” “emotions” and “body movement” in a quantifiable way.

The authors are part of a time-honored line of in- quiry with their study (i.e., the potential of changes in musculature to evoke affect change). Wisely, they focus on one of the most easily manipulated dimen- sions of body movement-limb and trunk positions held for a few seconds-to conduct a controlled study of the subjects’ reported affect states before and after imitating postures seen in pictures. Presumably, evi- dence of the effects of position change on emotional experience-in this case they found that closed posi- tions related to an increase in unpleasant emotions, whereas open positions had negligible effect on emo- tions-is partial support for the dance therapy princi- ple that change in patient’s movement through indi- vidual or group sessions will affect emotions and, by extension, mental status.

The most recognized research on this subject in recent time is Ekman’s study of the effects of con- scious changes of facial musculature on ANS activity, such as heart rate and skin temperature (Ekman, Lev- enson & Friesen, 1983). This study is important in part because Ekman and Friesen labored for years to identify the exact muscle activity associated with spe- cific affects (as felt by the subject and judged by observers), so they had precision in measurement and description and some validation of the relationship between the motor changes and emotion. Secondly,

they identified relationships between specific facial muscle movements and ANS changes and so ad- vanced the analysis beyond general terms of positive and negative affect. A methodology that requires in- dividuals to perform such artificial tasks in isolation is defensible when the focus of inquiry is at the interface between conscious manipulation of rather limited de- tails of nonverbal behavior and measurable physio- logical changes.

However, having subjects manipulate positions, then report changes in affect introduces problems that confound more than they elucidate. Subjective expe- rience of position changes is an extraordinarily com- plex phenomenon. Body positions are both highly context-sensitive and individually distinctive. People typically have a repertoire of about four to six “fa- vorite’ ’ positions in a conversational context and shifts of positions during the interaction or “devia- tions” from the individual’s usual repertoire are highly dependent on the social context. Add to this that position repertoires vary by gender, culture and age and one is hard pressed to concentrate on their potential to reflect changes in mood. Facial expres- sion is also highly context-sensitive and subject to individual, gender and cultural differences, but re- searchers such as Ekman and Friesen appear to have isolated those details that have a direct connection to ANS activity in spite of these variations.

Facial expression research has advanced more than position analysis in the past 30 years and developing a methodology for identifying the affective dimen- sions of positions is a study yet to be realized. De- scriptors such as “open” and “closed” are simply too ambiguous for such an analysis. For example, women use more closed-leg positions in conversation than men, which appears related to social status, not affect (Davis, Weitz & Culkin, 1980). Nonetheless, a study of positions and ANS changes might yield re- sults similar to Ekman’s if great care is taken to focus on certain aspects of position while “controlling’ ’ for individual, gender and cultural differences and relat-

317

318 LETTER

ing this to physiological activity, as well as subjective experience. For example, the researcher could first identify the person’s repertoire and how he or she assumes each position, then devise a task in which “closed” and “open” are defined and varied relative to the person’s range.

But would the results be relevant to dance therapy interactions in which being seen and performing what is often very unusual behavior for a person are part of the experience? It is one thing to set or stand alone in a room and follow directives for changing ones posi- tions and recording ones impressions. It is quite an- other to dance with therapist and patients. Even if there are moments in which certain positions or de- grees of “openness” or “closure” are assumed in the dance therapy session, the social context is so com- plex that the effects of a few seconds in one state or

position would seem to defy comparison with the ef- fects of the task in the research context. Studying dance therapy’s impact on changes in affect and men- tal status requires a very different methodology and level of analysis-an integration of therapy process and outcome research methods with sophisticated movement analysis that is still evolving.

Martha Davis, PhD New York, NY

References

Davis, M., Weitz, S., & Culkin, .I. (1980). Sex differences in movement style: A multivariate analysis of naive and Laban- based ratings. American Journal of Dance Therapy, 3, 4-l 1.

Ekman, P., Levenson, R. W., & Friesen, W. V. (1983). Auto- nomic nervous system activity distinguishes between emotions. Science, 22, 1208-1210.