June 2026 Edition

​

Common Mistakes That Quietly Stall Progress (and How to Rethink Them)

​

There are certain patterns that come up again and again in EMDR consultation—not because clinicians don’t understand the model, but because the work is subtle in practice. Even experienced therapists can slip into habits that slow reprocessing, reduce affect tolerance, or unintentionally keep clients stuck in loops that look like processing but aren’t moving.

​

This month’s focus is on some of the most common sticking points—and what they’re often pointing to underneath.

​

The Negative Cognition (NC) Isn’t Quite the Right Fit

​

When the NC is slightly off, everything downstream can become inefficient.

​

Francine Shapiro described the NC in EMDR as the negative self-belief that becomes linked to a disturbing memory and still feels emotionally true in the present, even if the person rationally knows it is inaccurate.

​

The NC should be self-referencing, emotionally felt rather than logically reasoned and tied to the present experience of the memory.  

​

The NC specifically is not a feeling, such as "I am scared."  It is not a factual statement about what happened, such as "I was abused as a child."  Shapiro reminds us “a negative cognition that is actually true will not be changed.”  The NC is a belief the client has about themselves as a result of this past memory/event, such as "I am unlovable." 

​

​A helpful NC fine tuning when client's struggle to identify a belief about themselves, ask the client:

"When you think of __________________________ (fill in the client's statement about a feeling, fact or sensation) what negative belief do you have about yourself now?" 

 

Continue to ask this question, filling in their statement of fact or emotion until they identify a belief they are currently holding about themselves as a result of this memory/event. ​​

​​

Returning to Target Too Soon—or at the Wrong Moment

​

Another frequent misstep is returning to the original target memory before the system has finished what it was doing.

​

Sometimes this happens because the clinician senses “it’s not changing,” when in reality the processing has shifted away from the explicit image into associated material that still needs space. 

 

Sometimes it's a clinician's impatience wanting to know if the SUD has changed, in the hopes of seeing improvement.  

​

Other times, returning to target at the end of session can prematurely re-anchor the system back into the original disturbance, rather than leaving it in adaptive association or resolution.

​

A useful question is:
Is the system still moving, or am I interrupting it because I expect movement to look a certain way?

​

Not all processing returns visibly to the original target. Sometimes it resolves by moving through it.

​

Checking SUD Too Frequently (or at the Wrong Time)

​

The Subjective Units of Disturbance scale (SUD) is essential—but it can be overused in ways that disrupt processing.

​

A common pattern is checking SUD too often during active processing or without returning to target first.  This can pull the client out of associative flow and back into cognitive monitoring. Instead of staying in experience, they shift into evaluation: “Is it lower yet? Should it be lower?”

​

Even more subtly, SUD checks can become premature anchors when the system is still mid-activation.

​

In general, frequent SUD checking tends to interrupt momentum rather than clarify it. It’s often more useful to let sets run longer and observe change organically before asking the system to quantify it.

​

BLS Speed, Type and Duration Not Adjusted to the Client’s Nervous System

​

Bilateral stimulation (BLS) that is too fast or too slow can significantly impact processing depth.

​

Fast BLS may be appropriate for certain clients or phases of processing, but for others it can push them into cognitive override or emotional flooding. Conversely, BLS that is too slow can under-activate associative networks, leading to intellectualization rather than reprocessing.  

​

Eye movement BLS is the gold standard, but sometimes it's not effective for some clients, or they may need a combination of eye movement and auditory or tactile to truly "sink in" to the reprocessing. 

​​

Additionally, the length of each set may need to be adjusted.  If a client easily dysregulates or dissociates, shorter sets may be more clinically appropriate.  If a client is able to hold dual attention well and is experiencing adaptive processing, a longer set may be beneficial to help move the material from the maladaptive to the adaptive network. 

​

A key clinical skill is noticing:

• Is the client staying in experience, or moving into analysis, or distracted by other stimuli?

• Is affect present but tolerable, or flattened, flooded or dissociative?

• Is there associative flow, or effortful thinking?

​

BLS speed, type and duration is not a fixed setting—it is a regulation tool.

​

​Underusing Interweaves

​

Interweaves are often used either too sparingly or too late.

​

When processing stalls, loops, or becomes overly intellectual, carefully timed interweaves can help the system re-engage adaptive information. Yet clinicians sometimes wait too long, hoping the client will “breakthrough” on their own, or out of their own uncertainty of how to apply an interweave and when. 

​

On the other hand, poorly timed interweaves can interrupt natural processing if used too quickly or too directive.

​

The key distinction is this:

• Are you adding content, or reconnecting access?

​​

Francine Shapiro described interweaves as a way of supplying what is missing from the client's processing network in that moment - often:

• information

• orientation to present safety

• perspective

• adult capacity

• or choice

​

Common signs Shapiro gave for when to use an interweave include:

• the client repeatedly returning to the same material without change

• affect staying extremely high without movement

• dissociation or shutdown

• persistent blocking beliefs

• inability to access adult perspective

• confusion between past and present

• or inability to generate adaptive associations

​

Interweaves work best when they restore movement, not when they steer interpretation.

​

Not Considering Secondary Gains

​

When a target refuses to fully resolve, it’s worth gently exploring what the system might be maintaining.

​

Secondary gains are not conscious “benefits” in a manipulative sense—they are protective functions:

• Avoiding grief or loss

• Maintaining identity built around survival roles

• Preserving relational dynamics

• Preventing perceived vulnerability

​

If these are not acknowledged, processing can plateau at a predictable point: right before the system would have to give something up.

​

Stuckness is sometimes not resistance to healing—it’s loyalty to protection.

​

It May Be a Feeder Memory or Blocking Belief

​

When processing repeatedly stalls or circles back to the same emotional intensity, it’s often a sign that the current target is not the true entry point.

​

Two common possibilities:

• Feeder memory: an earlier event that carries the core affect driving the current target

• Blocking belief: a deeper structural cognition preventing reprocessing​

​

Shapiro described feeder memories as earlier experiences that continue to fuel present-day reactions, symptoms, and negative self-beliefs. Current triggers often connect to older memory networks with the same emotional themes — shame, helplessness, danger, rejection, or powerlessness.

​

A blocking belief is different. These are beliefs that interfere with processing or healing itself, such as:
“If I let this go, I won’t be safe,” or “If I stop feeling guilty, I’m a bad person.”  Blocking beliefs often emerge when processing becomes stuck, repetitive, or unable to move toward resolution. In Shapiro’s model, these beliefs are usually protective adaptations that once made sense in earlier environments.  Rather than fighting the block, EMDR aims to identify and process the experiences that still make the belief feel necessary.

​

In these cases, continuing to push the current target can feel like effort without movement. The system may be signaling that the actual node is elsewhere.

​

Closing Reflection

​

Much of EMDR work is not about doing more—it’s about noticing what is subtly interrupting what is already trying to happen.

​

When processing stalls, it’s rarely random. It’s usually information:

• About pacing

• About access

• About fit

• About protection

​

Consultation is often where these patterns become visible—not as mistakes, but as signals that the system is doing exactly what it knows how to do, given the conditions it’s in.

​

And the clinical task is often not to push harder—but to listen more precisely to what the system is already communicating.

​

Reference:

Shapiro, F. (2018). Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy: Basic principles, protocols, and procedures (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.