Atlas›Domain II · Behavioural & cognitive›Guide 095
Guide II-095

Metacognitive therapy, attention training technique, detached mindfulness

Adrian Wells1994
A 10 · L 61 · M 2929 interventions in the Trinity explorer
Client cardCompare
[source: …] where a claim comes from[uncertain] not confirmed in a primary source[synthesis] the writer's reconstruction

1. Introduction

Version followed: Adrian Wells' metacognitive therapy (MCT) as set out in Metacognitive Therapy for Anxiety and Depression (Wells, 2009; paperback 2011), with the disorder protocols for GAD, PTSD, OCD and major depression. Group format follows the 6-session group MCT used in the PATHWAY cancer-survivor trial protocol. Updates to the model follow Wells (2019), "Breaking the cybernetic code". The manual itself is not drawn on. Content from it comes through its table of contents, trial protocols and secondary descriptions, and is tagged where it rests on recall [uncertain].

MCT is a brief, transdiagnostic cognitive therapy. It grew out of the Self-Regulatory Executive Function (S-REF) model (Wells & Matthews, 1994, 1996). Its core claim is that distress lasts not because of what negative thoughts say but because of how a person responds to them. The model calls this response the cognitive attentional syndrome (CAS): worry or rumination, threat monitoring, and coping that backfires (suppression, avoidance, reassurance seeking, inactivity, substance use). The CAS is driven by metacognitive beliefs. Positive beliefs say these strategies are useful ("worrying keeps me prepared"). Negative beliefs say thoughts are uncontrollable or dangerous, and these matter more causally. Change comes from cutting back the CAS, changing these metacognitive beliefs, and helping the client relate to thoughts in metacognitive mode: thoughts are seen as events in the mind rather than facts ("object mode"). With the CAS out of the way, natural self-regulation and recovery can run their course. The therapist challenges metacognitions (beliefs about thinking), not the content of thoughts. [source: Wells 2019 Frontiers; Wikipedia: Metacognitive therapy; Guilford book page]

Technique families covered: case formulation and socialisation, meta-level Socratic dialogue, the Attention Training Technique (ATT), the Spatial Attention Control Exercise (SPACE), detached mindfulness (DM) techniques, worry and rumination postponement, verbal and experimental challenges to uncontrollability, danger and positive beliefs, disorder-specific procedures, and new plans and relapse prevention.

2. Framework

Format and dose

  • Individual: brief and time-limited, usually 8–12 weekly sessions [source: Wikipedia].
    • Depression: 5–10 sessions at the clinician's discretion, or a standard 8. Trials used 6–8 weekly sessions of 45–60 minutes, with booster sessions at 3 and 6 months [source: Columbia GSJP review, citing Wells 2009 and Wells et al. 2009].
    • GAD and PTSD courses are typically about 8–12 sessions [uncertain: recalled from Wells 2009 and Wells & Sembi 2004].
  • Group: 4–8 clients, six weekly 90-minute sessions, manualised on Wells (2009), with weekly supervision by an MCT expert [source: PATHWAY protocol NCT03424512].
  • Measurement: each session starts with a short disorder-specific self-report scale from the manual's appendices: GADS-R, PTSD-S, OCD-S or MDD-S. These track symptoms, CAS use, and conviction in positive and negative metacognitive beliefs. Use the MCQ-30 and CAS-1 at assessment. Describe these instruments to clients; do not reproduce their items. [source: Guilford contents; uncertain: the weekly-use routine is recalled from Wells 2009]

Phases. The generic sequence below combines Wikipedia (discovery, then formulation, then intervention), the depression sequence in the Columbia review, and the PATHWAY group plan.

  1. Assessment and case formulation (session 1, sometimes 2).
    • Use the disorder-specific case-formulation interview to map: a trigger thought, the CAS response (worry or rumination, threat monitoring, coping), the positive and negative metacognitive beliefs behind it, and the emotional result.
    • Goal: a shared, idiographic diagram.
    • Move on when the client can see that their response to thoughts, not the thoughts themselves, keeps the problem going.
    • [source: Columbia review; PATHWAY; Guilford contents (formulation interviews)]
  2. Socialisation (session 1–2).
    • Use Socratic questioning and quick experiments (e.g. a thought-suppression experiment; "what would happen if you stopped worrying?") to show that the CAS maintains distress.
    • Introduce ATT or SPACE as homework.
    • Move on when the client accepts the metacognitive rationale well enough to try experiments.
    • [source: PATHWAY; Columbia review; ejop review]
  3. Reducing the CAS and challenging negative beliefs about uncontrollability (about sessions 2–4).
    • Use detached mindfulness and worry or rumination postponement as experiments.
    • Uncontrollability is targeted first. Belief in it undermines every other change, and the CAS needs to be brought down early to free up "thinking space".
    • Move on when uncontrollability conviction is near zero and postponement works most days.
    • [source: Wells 2019; psychopen WP trial; uncertain: "near zero" as the explicit criterion is recalled from Wells 2009]
  4. Challenging negative beliefs about danger (GAD, health anxiety, OCD fusion beliefs, depression stigma or illness beliefs).
    • Use verbal reattribution and behavioural experiments.
    • [source: Wells 2019; Columbia review; uncertain: sequencing recalled from Wells 2009]
  5. Challenging positive metacognitive beliefs about worry, rumination, threat monitoring and the usefulness of rituals.
    • Use advantages-and-disadvantages analysis, the mismatch strategy and modulation experiments.
    • [source: Columbia review (cost-benefit); Cambridge metaphor paper (modulation experiments)]
  6. Removing residual threat monitoring and maladaptive coping; new plans for processing; relapse prevention (final 1–2 sessions).
    • Review any remaining CAS use and remaining belief conviction.
    • Write a "therapy blueprint" and a New Plan Summary Sheet: the old responses to triggers set beside the new responses.
    • Book boosters.
    • [source: PATHWAY session 6; Columbia review; Guilford contents (New Plan Summary Sheet)]

ATT or SPACE practice and DM run through every phase. In depression, phases 3–5 are rumination-focused, and the order is ATT, then DM and rumination postponement, then belief work, then consolidation [source: Columbia review].

3. Guiding principles

  • Target process, not content. Wells (2019): "challenging the validity of metacognitions is supported, but challenging the validity of cognitions is not." Practical: never debate whether the worry or thought is true; ask what the client does with it. [source: Wells 2019]
  • Work at the meta-level. Practical: ask "What's the point in analysing your failures?", not "What's the evidence you're a failure?" (Wells 2019's own contrast). [source: Wells 2019]
  • The CAS, not the trigger, is the problem. Trigger thoughts are normal and harmless in themselves. Practical: separate the spontaneous first thought from the extended chain of thinking that follows it, and target only the chain. [source: Wells 2019; PATHWAY]
  • Control lies in the response, not in whether a thought occurs. Practical: say this outright. The psychopen WP trial framed it as "I cannot control whether a worrisome thought comes to my mind, but I can control how I deal with it." [source: psychopen WP trial]
  • Uncontrollability first, early CAS reduction. Practical: bring postponement and DM in by session 2–3, before any slower belief work. [source: Wells 2019]
  • Experiments over persuasion. Practical: turn every belief into a prediction and test it in session or as homework, e.g. "Try to lose control of your worry." [source: Wikipedia; Wells 2019; uncertain: the example is recalled from Wells 2009]
  • Hold the client in metacognitive mode during sessions. Practical: keep prompting the client to notice thoughts as events ("There's the thought 'I'm useless'. Can you see it as a thought?"). This can include holding the thought alongside an incongruent positive memory. [source: Wells 2019]
  • Remove barriers; don't add coping. Recovery is the natural decay of self-regulatory looping once the CAS stops. Practical: don't teach new controlling strategies (relaxation to stop worry, positive self-talk). Take away the old ones instead. In PTSD, reliving and memory restructuring are not considered necessary. [source: Wells 2019]
  • Don't reality-test thought content or give reassurance. Practical: when the client brings worry content, name it as a trigger and return to the process. [source: ejop review of Fisher & Wells 2009; synthesis for the reassurance point]
  • Expect paired, conflicting beliefs. For example, "worry helps me" together with "worry will harm me". Practical: treat ambivalence about giving up worry or rumination as a positive belief to be targeted, not as resistance. [source: Wells 2019]
  • ATT and DM are not distraction, suppression or relaxation. Practical: say explicitly that the aim is flexible control of attention, not getting rid of thoughts. Thoughts during ATT are just more "noise". [source: Columbia review; Barth et al. 2019]
  • DM is not meditation. DM is a brief metacognitive state: awareness of a thought without engaging with it, and without trying to control it. It is distinct from other mindfulness approaches and needs no prolonged meditation practice. Practical: use short in-session demonstrations, not body scans or breathing practice. [source: Wikipedia; Manchester abstract of Wells 2005; synthesis on "no meditation practice"]
  • Structured, brief, measured. Practical: rate belief conviction (0–100) every session and use the ratings to choose the next target. [source: Guilford contents (scales); uncertain: weekly routine recalled]

4. Intervention inventory

All example language below is the author's illustrative wording unless it is quoted and cited. The manual's worksheets, scales and scripts are not reproduced.

4.1 Metacognitive case formulation (generic and disorder-specific)

  • Purpose / when: Session 1 for every client. It builds the shared map that every later intervention targets. The manual has separate formulation interviews and treatment plans for GAD, PTSD, OCD and depression. [source: Guilford contents; PATHWAY; Columbia review]
  • Steps:
    1. Pick a recent, specific episode of distress.
    2. Identify the trigger: the first intrusive thought, image, feeling or doubt ("What if I lose my job?"; "Why do I feel so low?").
    3. Map the CAS that followed:
      • how long the client worried or ruminated, and what about;
      • what they monitored (body sensations, mood, danger, other people's reactions);
      • what they did to cope (reassurance, checking, avoidance, suppression, drinking, staying in bed).
    4. Ask for negative metacognitive beliefs. "Once the worry started, could you have stopped it?" (uncontrollability). "Could worrying like that harm you?" (danger).
    5. Ask for positive metacognitive beliefs: "What are the advantages of worrying or analysing it?"
    6. Record the emotional result and how long it lasted.
    7. Draw the diagram with the client: trigger, then metacognitive beliefs, then CAS, then emotion and symptoms, with arrows back to the beliefs.
    8. Rate conviction (0–100) in each key belief.
  • Variants:
    • GAD: distinguish Type 1 worry (about everyday matters) from Type 2 worry or meta-worry (worry about worrying, e.g. "I'll go crazy").
    • OCD: map thought-fusion beliefs (that a thought can cause events, change who you are, or contaminate objects) and beliefs about rituals and "stop signals".
    • PTSD: map worry and rumination about the trauma, and threat monitoring.
    • Depression: map rumination, beliefs that rumination is uncontrollable or helpful, threat monitoring of mood, and coping by inactivity.
    • [uncertain: Type 1 and Type 2 terms, fusion types and stop signals recalled from Wells 2009 and Fisher & Wells 2009; Guilford contents confirm the four disorder interviews and the Thought Fusion Instrument]
  • AMC framing (alternative): replace the ABC with A (an activating thought or feeling), M (metacognitive beliefs and the CAS they drive) and C (the emotional consequence) [source: ejop review of Fisher & Wells 2009].
  • Example language (illustrative): "So the thought 'what if he's had an accident?' popped in, and then you spent two hours going through scenarios and checking your phone. Which part of that do you think kept the anxiety going: the first thought, or the two hours?"
  • Watch for:
    • The client keeps returning to trigger content. Gently re-label it as a trigger.
    • Missing coping behaviours, especially subtle ones such as mental reviewing or reading about symptoms.
    • Working well: the client can describe their pattern as "I got caught in analysing again."

4.2 Socialisation and meta-level Socratic dialogue

  • Purpose / when: Sessions 1–2, and again whenever the client slips back into content. It shows the client that their response keeps the problem going. [source: PATHWAY; Wells 2019]
  • Steps:
    1. Ask hypothetical questions that show the role of beliefs. "If you believed worry was harmless and something you could switch off, how much of a problem would it be?"
    2. Ask about the costs of the CAS: "What happens to your mood when you analyse for an hour?"
    3. Run quick socialisation experiments, such as thought suppression (4.5) or a brief demonstration of attention.
    4. Ask meta-level questions instead of content questions, e.g. Wells' "What's the point in analyzing your failures?" [source: Wells 2019].
    5. Work on meta-emotions too. With depressed clients, ask whether emotions last forever or come and go. Clients usually notice that feelings fade on their own, which supports not engaging with them. [source: ejop review]
  • Example language (illustrative): "We're not going to decide whether you're a failure. We're going to look at what happens when you sit and analyse it."
  • Watch for:
    • Being pulled into reassurance or evidence-weighing.
    • Working well: the client starts to self-correct ("I know, that's the analysing").

4.3 Attention Training Technique (ATT)

  • Purpose / when: Strengthens flexible, outward-focused executive control of attention, reduces self-focused attention, and gives first-hand evidence that attention can be controlled even when thoughts are present. Wells (2019) calls it a "framework of discovery" showing that attention stays flexible. Introduce it early (session 1–2), especially in depression, health anxiety and high self-focus, and practise it daily throughout. It is not a coping strategy to use during worry. [source: Wells 2019; Columbia review; Barth et al. 2019]
  • Steps:
    1. Rationale. Explain that attention gets locked onto the self and threat, and that ATT trains flexible control the way exercise trains a muscle. Say explicitly that the aim is not to stop or block thoughts. Any thoughts or feelings that come up are simply more "noises" to let be. [source: Columbia review]
    2. Self-attention rating. Before and after the practice, the client rates on the manual's Self-Attention Rating Scale how self-focused versus externally focused they are. [source: Guilford contents (Appendix 5); uncertain: the exact scale format]
    3. Set-up. Sounds come from several spatial locations: in the room, nearby, outside, left, right, behind. The standard audio version uses about six sounds (clock, church bells, birdsong, insects, traffic, running water) plus the therapist's voice and sounds in the room. The client keeps their eyes open on a fixation point. [source: Barth et al. 2019]
    4. Selective attention, about 5 minutes. Direct the client to give full, intense attention to one sound and ignore the others, even if others get louder. Then move through each sound and location in turn. [source: Barth et al. 2019; Columbia review]
    5. Rapid switching, about 5 minutes. Call out sounds and locations in faster and faster succession. The client shifts attention to each one. [source: same]
    6. Divided attention, about 1–2 minutes. The client widens attention to take in all sounds and locations at once, and counts how many they can hear at the same time. [source: same; uncertain: the counting instruction is recalled]
    7. Repeat the self-attention rating, and debrief: "What did you notice about your control of attention?"
    8. Homework: about 12 minutes, at least once daily, recorded on a practice log. Build the client's own recording or set of real-world sounds. Do not practise ATT while worrying or as a way to stop worry. [source: Columbia review; Bay Area CBT Center]
  • Example language (illustrative): "Focus on the sound of the clock... only the clock... if other sounds or thoughts come, let them be there and keep your attention on the clock. Now the traffic outside, to your left... now the birds... Now switch quickly: clock... water... my voice... traffic..."
  • Watch for:
    • Clients using ATT to push thoughts away, or doing it only when anxious. Re-state the rationale.
    • Boredom or monotony. Vary the sounds and increase switching speed.
    • Working well: self-focus ratings shift towards external focus after practice; the client reports more choice over attention and less time locked in rumination.
    • Clinical studies report symptom change after a few practice doses, and case studies used 6–11 sessions [source: Barth et al. 2019].

4.4 Spatial Attention Control Exercise (SPACE)

  • Purpose / when: A newer attention-control exercise from the Manchester group. In the PATHWAY group MCT it is introduced and practised in session 1, then practised regularly "to demonstrate control over attention and thoughts". It is used in place of ATT in that protocol. [source: PATHWAY NCT03424512]
  • Steps: The procedure is not described in the sources. As implied by its name and its role in the protocol, it trains deliberate shifting of attention across spatial locations. Use it only after training or with the published group materials. [uncertain]
  • Watch for: the same issues as ATT.

4.5 Detached mindfulness (DM): overview

  • Purpose / when: A metacognitive state: being aware of a thought as an event, with no further conceptual or coping response. That means no analysing, no suppressing, no reassuring, and no attempt to control the thought. It is detached in two ways: the client stays separate from the thought ("I am not my thought"), and they let go of any effort to control it.
    • Wells (2005) breaks it into five components: metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive monitoring and control, suspension of conceptual processing, attentional flexibility, and a decentred relationship with thoughts. He gives ten techniques for reaching DM quickly.
    • Use it from about session 2, paired with postponement, to challenge uncontrollability beliefs and to break up the CAS. Clients then apply it in daily life whenever a trigger thought appears.
    • [source: Manchester abstract of Wells 2005; Columbia review; ejop review; PATHWAY]
  • General steps:
    1. Teach the distinction between a trigger thought (spontaneous, not chosen) and the chain of thinking that follows (chosen).
    2. Demonstrate DM in session with one or more of the techniques in 4.6–4.15.
    3. Have the client practise on their own idiosyncratic trigger thoughts.
    4. Assign: "Every time you notice a trigger thought, apply DM, then postpone any worry or rumination" (see 4.16).
    5. Review the results as evidence against uncontrollability.
  • Watch for:
    • DM turning into a new control strategy ("I DM'd it but it didn't go away"). Stress that the aim is not to remove the thought.
    • DM used as avoidance or distraction.

The ten techniques in 4.6–4.15 are listed by Wells (2005) and Wells (2009, ch. 5). Only the free association task, the tiger task, the clouds metaphor and the general DM procedure were confirmed in the sources (Columbia review; ejop review). The others are named and described from recall of Wells (2005/2009), in the author's own words [uncertain].

4.6 DM technique: metacognitive guidance

  • Purpose / when: Guides the client in the moment to notice a thought and watch it, rather than engaging with it. Use it as the first step in teaching DM, and whenever the client starts ruminating in session. [uncertain]
  • Steps:
    1. When a trigger thought surfaces, ask the client to stop and notice it.
    2. Ask them to observe where it is, what form it takes (words or an image), and what it does if left alone.
    3. Ask them not to answer it, analyse it or push it away.
    4. Discuss: did it need a response?
  • Example language (illustrative): "Just now the thought 'this won't work' came up. Can you see it? Instead of answering it, just look at it for a moment... What does it do if you leave it alone?"
  • Watch for:
    • The client answering the thought ("but it might not work because...").
    • Working well: the thought fades or loses its pull without any effort to make it do so.

4.7 DM technique: free association task

  • Purpose / when: Shows that thoughts come and go on their own when not engaged. A good first demonstration of DM. [source: ejop review; Columbia review; uncertain: word list detail recalled]
  • Steps:
    1. Ask the client to let their mind roam freely while you say a series of neutral words, then mix in a few personally relevant ones.
    2. The client passively notices whatever thoughts, images or memories arise, without controlling or following them.
    3. Debrief: what came up, what did the thoughts do when left alone, and how could they apply this to negative thoughts?
  • Example language (illustrative): "I'll say some words. Don't try to think of anything; just watch what your mind does. Orange... birthday... sea... tree... bicycle... What happened?"
  • Watch for:
    • The client trying to produce "the right" thoughts.
    • Working well: the client notices spontaneous thoughts appearing and fading.

4.8 DM technique: tiger task

  • Purpose / when: Shows that a mental image can be watched without influencing it, and that it has its own spontaneous behaviour. [source: ejop review; Columbia review]
  • Steps:
    1. Ask the client to bring to mind an image of a tiger.
    2. Instruct them to watch it without trying to change it or make it do anything.
    3. Debrief. The image usually moves, changes or fades by itself, and the client did not need to steer it. Link this to negative thoughts.
  • Example language (illustrative): "Picture a tiger. Don't make it do anything; just watch. Notice what it does on its own... Did you have to control it? What if your worry thoughts were like this tiger?"
  • Watch for:
    • Clients actively animating the image. Repeat with an emphasis on passive watching.

4.9 DM technique: suppression–counter-suppression experiment

  • Purpose / when: Shows that trying to suppress a thought tends to make it more intrusive, while simply allowing it lets it settle. It challenges suppression as a coping strategy and supports DM. [uncertain]
  • Steps:
    1. For a short period, the client tries hard not to think of a neutral target (e.g. a blue rabbit) and counts intrusions.
    2. For a second period, the client allows the thought and does nothing with it.
    3. Compare the frequency and the sense of struggle across the two periods.
  • Example language (illustrative): "For the next two minutes, do not think about a blue rabbit... Now for two minutes let the blue rabbit come and go as it likes. Which was harder?"
  • Watch for: occasionally suppression "works" for the client. If so, explore the effort it took and its cost over a whole day.

4.10 DM technique: clouds metaphor

  • Purpose / when: Helps clients relate to thoughts as passing events, "mere clouds passing through the mind". [source: Columbia review, attributed to Wells 2009]
  • Steps:
    1. Present the metaphor: thoughts are like clouds passing across the sky. Trying to push them away or hold on to them is pointless, and they move on by themselves.
    2. Ask the client to apply it to a current trigger thought.
  • Example language (illustrative): "Can you let that thought be like a cloud: you see it, you don't chase it or blow it away, and it drifts on?"

4.11 DM technique: recalcitrant child metaphor

  • Purpose / when: For clients who struggle with intrusive thoughts. It shows that engaging with a thought, by arguing or controlling, feeds it, while calmly not engaging lets it settle. [uncertain]
  • Steps: Compare the thought to a badly behaved child demanding attention. Scolding or giving in keeps the behaviour going; calmly carrying on lets it burn itself out. Apply this to the client's trigger thought.
  • Example language (illustrative): "What happens with a child having a tantrum if you keep arguing back? What if you calmly let them be and get on with what you're doing?"

4.12 DM technique: passenger train metaphor

  • Purpose / when: Separates noticing a thought from getting on board with it. [uncertain]
  • Steps: Thoughts are like trains passing through a station. You can stand on the platform and watch them come and go without boarding (worrying or analysing). Ask the client to watch the next trigger thought "go through the station".
  • Example language (illustrative): "That thought is a train pulling in. You don't have to get on it. Just watch it leave."

4.13 DM technique: verbal loop

  • Purpose / when: Shows that a thought can be present in the mind while attention is deliberately placed elsewhere. [uncertain: procedure recalled]
  • Steps:
    1. The client repeats a word or phrase in their mind as a background loop.
    2. Meanwhile, they direct their attention to things in the room.
    3. Debrief: the thought was there but did not need their attention. Link this to letting negative thoughts run in the background.
  • Example language (illustrative): "Keep saying 'apple' quietly in your head, and at the same time notice the colours on the wall... Was the word still there? Did you need to attend to it?"

4.14 DM technique: detached mindfulness daydreaming

  • Purpose / when: Uses the client's natural experience of daydreaming, where thoughts drift without being steered, as a model for DM. [uncertain]
  • Steps: Ask the client to recall or allow a spontaneous daydream and notice that they were aware of the thoughts without directing them. Then have them bring that same passive stance to a trigger thought.
  • Example language (illustrative): "When you daydream, you're aware of thoughts but not steering them. Can you take that same stance with 'what if I'm ill?'"

4.15 DM technique: the tenth technique

  • Wells (2005) lists ten techniques. The tenth could not be confirmed from the sources. It may be the use of attention training or attentional flexibility within DM. Check it against Wells (2005) or Wells (2009, ch. 5) before relying on it, and do not invent a procedure for it. [uncertain]

4.16 Worry and rumination postponement

  • Purpose / when: A behavioural experiment against the belief that worry or rumination is uncontrollable. It is not stimulus control and not suppression.
    • In MCT the point is to test the uncontrollability belief by delaying the worry instead of engaging with it whenever it arises. This differs from Borkovec's stimulus-control version, which uses a fixed time and place.
    • Introduce it with DM, usually in session 2.
    • [source: psychopen WP trial; Columbia review; Bay Area CBT Center]
  • Steps:
    1. Rate conviction that worry or rumination is uncontrollable (0–100).
    2. Teach the client to spot the trigger thought, acknowledge it, and apply DM.
    3. The client decides not to engage now, and postpones any worry or analysis to a set time later that day.
      • The trial version used a predefined time of no more than 30 minutes.
      • Many MCT therapists make using the worry period optional; clients often find they no longer need it. [synthesis/uncertain: the "optional" detail is recalled from Wells 2009]
    4. The client does not suppress, distract or argue with the thought. They simply leave it.
    5. Practise daily and keep a brief record of triggers noticed and postponements made.
    6. Next session: re-rate uncontrollability. "If worry were truly uncontrollable, how could you postpone it?"
  • Example language: Trial wording: "Another worry arises, I acknowledge it, and now I let it go" [source: psychopen WP trial]. Illustrative: "When the 'what if' comes, say to yourself: 'There's a trigger; I'll deal with it at 6 pm if I still need to.' Then carry on with what you were doing, with the thought still there if it wants to be."
  • Watch for:
    • Postponement turning into suppression ("I pushed it away").
    • Using the worry period as a long, intense session.
    • Reassurance seeking used as a substitute.
    • Working well: uncontrollability ratings fall; the client reports worry periods are short or skipped.

4.17 Loss-of-control experiment (uncontrollability)

  • Purpose / when: For residual uncontrollability beliefs once postponement has started to help. [uncertain: recalled from Wells 2009]
  • Steps:
    1. In session, ask the client to try deliberately to lose control of worry: to worry as hard as they can.
    2. Then at home, during the postponed worry period.
    3. Rate the prediction beforehand and the outcome afterwards.
  • Example language (illustrative): "You believe worry could run away with you. Let's test it: for the next few minutes, try to make it run out of control."
  • Watch for: the client holding back during the experiment as a safety behaviour. Ask them to push harder.

4.18 Challenging negative beliefs about danger: verbal reattribution

  • Purpose / when: After uncontrollability has shifted, for beliefs that worry or rumination will cause harm: madness, heart attack, cancer, brain damage, or "depression is a brain illness I can't affect". Wells (2019) says negative meta-beliefs (e.g. "Worrying will cause cancer") need to be evaluated and replaced. [source: Wells 2019; Columbia review]
  • Steps: Use verbal questioning about the metacognitive belief, not the worry content.
    1. Ask for evidence and counter-evidence: "Have you ever gone mad from worrying?"
    2. Question the mechanism: "How exactly would a thought cause a heart attack?"
    3. Bring in counter-evidence: anxiety's harmless physiology, other people who worry a lot.
    4. In depression, normalise fluctuations in mood and energy, and challenge stigma beliefs.
    5. Re-rate conviction.
    • [source: Columbia review; uncertain: question list is the author's paraphrase of standard MCT practice]
  • Example language (illustrative): "You've worried most days for twenty years. If worry caused breakdowns, what should have happened by now?"
  • Watch for:
    • Drifting into the content of the feared outcome ("but what if I do get ill").
    • Belief ratings that fall verbally but not in practice. Follow up with experiments (4.19).

4.19 Challenging danger beliefs: behavioural experiments

  • Purpose / when: To produce first-hand disconfirmation. Wikipedia's example: a client who believes too much worry leads to madness deliberately worries for a set time to see what happens. [source: Wikipedia]
  • Steps:
    1. State the prediction and rate it.
    2. Design a test, e.g. worry intensely during the postponed period, or try in session to worry so hard that the feared harm happens.
    3. Drop safety behaviours during the test.
    4. Review what happened and re-rate.
    • Wells (2019) calls these "metacognitive experiments".
  • Example language (illustrative): "Let's push it. Worry as hard as you can about this for three minutes and try to make yourself lose your mind. What do you predict will happen?"
  • Watch for: the client undermining the test (only half-worrying, or holding on to a safety behaviour). Check for these before rating the outcome.

4.20 Challenging positive metacognitive beliefs

  • Purpose / when: Usually later in therapy. Clients hold on to the CAS because they believe it helps: "worry prepares me", "analysing will find the answer", "monitoring my body keeps me safe". [source: Wells 2019; Columbia review; Cambridge metaphor paper]
  • Steps (choose as fits):
    1. Advantages and disadvantages / cost–benefit analysis. Has rumination ever solved the problem? Does it make things better or worse? [source: Columbia review]
    2. Counter-evidence and a better strategy. "What else, apart from worry, has helped you cope?"
    3. Mismatch strategy (GAD). Compare a worry scenario with what actually happened in a real event, and look at the mismatch. Worry rarely matched reality, so it was not good preparation. [uncertain: recalled from Wells 2009]
    4. Worry or thought modulation experiments. On alternate days, increase and then decrease worry or rumination. Compare performance, coping and mood. These experiments "provide evidence of the futility of repetitive thinking" [source: Cambridge metaphor paper citing Wells 2009].
    5. Re-rate the positive belief.
  • Example language (illustrative): "On Monday, worry as much as you can about the presentation; on Tuesday, postpone all of it. Then we'll compare which day you actually coped better."
  • Watch for:
    • Strongly held positive beliefs make DM feel dangerous. Clients who hold strong positive metacognitions "will find it difficult to treat their thinking as unimportant" [source: Cambridge metaphor paper], so do some positive-belief work earlier for them.

4.21 Reducing threat monitoring and maladaptive coping

  • Purpose / when: From the middle of therapy onwards. These behaviours keep the CAS going, so the client stops them.
  • Behaviours to target:
    • monitoring body, mood or danger;
    • reassurance seeking and information searching;
    • avoidance;
    • inactivity and staying in bed (depression);
    • substance use;
    • suppression.
    • [source: Wells 2019; Columbia review]
  • Steps:
    1. List each monitoring and coping behaviour from the formulation.
    2. Explore what each one costs, and how each one stops the client finding out that thoughts are harmless.
    3. Agree to drop them, with experiments where useful, e.g. go a day without checking mood or body.
    4. In depression, explore the consequences of raising activity. Treat activity as a way to test beliefs about energy and depression, not as scheduling for mood. [source: Columbia review]
  • Example language (illustrative): "Each time you check how low you feel, what happens next? What if this week you let your mood do whatever it does, without checking it?"
  • Watch for: subtle substitutes, such as mental checking or asking family indirectly.

4.22 Practising metacognitive mode and mode-switching

  • Purpose / when: To strengthen the client's experience of thoughts as events. Wells (2019) describes flipping between object mode and metacognitive mode, and holding an incongruent thought alongside a positive memory or feeling to shift its meta-representation. [source: Wells 2019]
  • Steps (operational detail is synthesis):
    1. Have the client voice the trigger thought as if it were true (object mode).
    2. Then have them step back and describe it as a thought ("I notice the thought that...").
    3. Go back and forth, and have them describe what changes.
    4. Optionally, hold the thought while recalling a vivid positive memory.
  • Example language (illustrative): "Say 'I'm worthless' as if it's a fact. Now say 'I'm having the thought I'm worthless' and look at it from outside. What's different?"

4.23 GAD protocol (disorder-specific sequence)

  • Purpose / when: Generalised anxiety disorder, using the GAD formulation and treatment plan (Guilford contents). [source: Guilford contents; uncertain: sequence recalled from Wells 2009 and Wells 1995/1999]
  • Steps:
    1. Formulation: Type 1 and Type 2 worry, positive beliefs, negative beliefs, and behaviours (reassurance, avoidance, information searching, thought control).
    2. Socialisation, including a thought-suppression experiment and questions such as "If you didn't believe worry was dangerous, would it still be a problem?"
    3. Uncontrollability: DM plus worry postponement (4.16) and the loss-of-control experiment (4.17).
    4. Danger: verbal reattribution and experiments (4.18–4.19).
    5. Positive beliefs: mismatch strategy and worry-modulation experiments (4.20).
    6. Strengthen new plans: respond to triggers with DM, and abandon reassurance and avoidance.
    7. Relapse prevention and therapy blueprint (4.28).
    • Course is typically about 8–12 sessions. [uncertain]

4.24 OCD protocol: metacognitively focused exposure

  • Purpose / when: OCD. Targets thought-fusion beliefs (thought–action, thought–event, thought–object), beliefs about rituals, and the internal criteria ("stop signals") clients use to end rituals. [source: Guilford contents (Thought Fusion Instrument, OCD-S, OCD formulation and plan); uncertain: fusion subtypes and stop signals recalled from Wells 2009]
  • Key principle: Exposure is used as a metacognitive experiment, not for habituation. Clients may even carry out rituals while holding the thought, because the aim is to change how the thought is represented (that it is unimportant and has no power). A metacognitive rationale ("discovering that the thoughts were unimportant") outperformed a habituation rationale in an OCD study. [source: Wells 2019]
  • Steps:
    1. Formulate the obsession (the trigger), the fusion beliefs, beliefs about rituals, and the stop signals.
    2. Apply DM to intrusions.
    3. Run exposure framed as tests of fusion beliefs. Example: deliberately think a feared thought to test whether it causes an event or a change.
    4. Where appropriate, use exposure plus response commission (the client may ritualise while focusing on the thought) to show the thought is just a thought. [uncertain: term "exposure and response commission" recalled]
    5. Challenge positive beliefs about rituals, and swap internal stop signals for ordinary external criteria. [uncertain]
  • Example language (illustrative): "We're not doing this to get used to the anxiety. We're doing it to find out whether your thought has any power to make things happen."
  • Safety and consent: Agree each exposure in advance, with the client's informed consent and the right to stop. Avoid exposures involving real danger or harm to others. [synthesis]

4.25 PTSD protocol

  • Purpose / when: PTSD. MCT treats PTSD symptoms as part of a natural recovery process that the CAS blocks: worry and rumination about the trauma, threat monitoring, avoidance and suppression. Restructuring trauma thoughts, modifying the trauma memory or reliving are not considered necessary. [source: Wells 2019]
  • Steps:
    1. Wait for, or confirm, the passage of the early natural recovery period [source: Wells 2019].
    2. Formulate with the PTSD interview.
    3. Give a rationale: intrusions are a normal processing signal; the CAS interferes with recovery.
    4. Apply DM to intrusive memories and images.
    5. Postpone worry and rumination ("why did it happen?", "what if...").
    6. Remove threat monitoring: stop scanning for danger and redirect attention to safety signals or neutral surroundings. [uncertain: recalled from Wells & Sembi 2004]
    7. Challenge beliefs about uncontrollability and danger (e.g. that intrusions mean damage), and positive beliefs (e.g. that rumination will help me understand).
    8. New plan and blueprint.
    • Course typically 8–12 sessions or fewer. [uncertain]
  • Example language (illustrative): "When the memory flashes up, let it come and go like a passing train. Don't analyse it or push it away; your mind knows how to process it if we stop interfering."

4.26 Depression protocol (rumination-focused)

  • Purpose / when: Major depression. [source: Columbia review, citing Wells 2009; Guilford contents (MDD-S, depression interview and plan)]
  • Steps:
    1. Formulation with the MDD-S and depression interview: triggers (e.g. "Why do I feel this way?"), rumination, metacognitive beliefs, threat monitoring of mood, and coping by inactivity or withdrawal.
    2. Rationale and ATT homework.
    3. DM and rumination postponement.
    4. Challenge uncontrollability: rumination stops when attention is directed away from the self. Challenge danger and stigma: mood and energy fluctuations are not abnormal. Challenge positive beliefs: cost–benefit analysis of rumination.
    5. Reduce threat monitoring and inactivity; explore what happens when activity rises.
    6. Consolidate: write out triggers and old responses, and new responses and attentional strategies, in a therapy blueprint.
    7. Boosters at 3 and 6 months.
    • Dose: 5–10 sessions, or a standard 8.
  • Example language (illustrative): "When 'why am I so tired?' comes up, notice it as a trigger and postpone the analysing to 6 pm. Let's see whether the analysing would actually have told you anything new."

4.27 Situational attentional refocusing (SAR): social anxiety

  • Purpose / when: In feared social situations, clients turn attention inwards to their self-image and feelings, which blocks disconfirming information. SAR redirects attention outwards to the actual social environment, combined with dropping safety behaviours. In a social phobia study, an external attention-focusing rationale outperformed habituation after one session. Wikipedia lists SAR as a core MCT strategy. [source: Wells 2019; Wikipedia; uncertain: procedure detail is recalled from Wells & Papageorgiou 1998 and Wells 2000]
  • Steps:
    1. Identify the self-focus and safety behaviours used in the situation.
    2. Before the exposure, instruct the client to pay attention to others' faces and reactions and to the surroundings, and to drop safety behaviours.
    3. Afterwards, the client reports what they actually observed versus what they predicted.
    4. Use what they observed to challenge their beliefs about how they come across.
  • Example language (illustrative): "In the meeting, put your attention on the people: notice their faces and what they actually do while you talk. Afterwards, tell me what you saw."
  • Watch for: "external" attention turning into scanning for signs of rejection, which is threat monitoring. Keep the focus neutral and curious.

4.28 New plans for processing, therapy blueprint and relapse prevention

  • Purpose / when: Final 1–2 sessions, and the final group session. Replaces the old plan for processing (worry, analyse, monitor, cope) with a new one. [source: PATHWAY; Columbia review; Guilford contents (New Plan Summary Sheet, treatment plans)]
  • Steps:
    1. Review any CAS use that remains and any remaining conviction in positive and negative beliefs. Address anything above zero. [source: PATHWAY]
    2. Write a summary. One column: typical triggers and old responses. Other column: new responses (DM, postpone, ATT practice, no monitoring or reassurance, stay engaged with activity).
    3. Write the therapy blueprint: the formulation, the experiments and their results, and the plan for future triggers.
    4. Schedule boosters.
  • Example language (illustrative): "When the next trigger shows up (and it will), what's your new plan, step by step?"

4.29 Group MCT (format adaptation)

  • Purpose / when: 4–8 clients, six weekly 90-minute sessions [source: PATHWAY].
  • Steps:
    • Session 1: each client builds an idiographic formulation from the generic model, with Socratic work on how worry, rumination and coping maintain distress, and an introduction to SPACE.
    • Sessions 2–5: DM training, worry and rumination postponement as an experiment against uncontrollability, telling triggers apart from perseverative thinking, and regular SPACE practice.
    • Session 6: relapse prevention, remaining CAS and beliefs, and consolidating new responses.
    • Audio-record sessions, with weekly supervision.
  • Watch for: group discussion slipping into sharing worry content. Keep the conversation at the meta-level [synthesis].

5. Handling problems

Source-based guidance is tagged as such. Everything else is marked [synthesis].

  • Ambivalence about giving up worry or rumination ("resistance").
    • Wells (2019) puts this down to paired, conflicting beliefs: worry helps and worry harms (GAD); analysing helps and depression is harmful (depression).
    • Response: name both beliefs. Bring positive-belief work forward (advantages and disadvantages, a modulation experiment) before pushing DM.
    • [source: Wells 2019; Cambridge metaphor paper]
  • Client keeps bringing worry content into the session.
    • Label it a trigger.
    • Ask a meta-level question ("And what did you do with that thought?").
    • Run a 30-second DM demonstration on it there and then.
    • Avoid reassurance.
    • [source: Wells 2019 (meta-level discourse); synthesis for the specific moves]
  • "DM doesn't work: the thought didn't go away."
    • The client is using DM as a control strategy.
    • Re-state that the goal is to have no further response, not to remove the thought.
    • Repeat the tiger task or the suppression–counter-suppression experiment.
    • [synthesis, consistent with Wells 2005 abstract]
  • Postponement fails, or turns into suppression.
    • Check whether the client is pushing thoughts away, distracting hard, or bargaining. Re-teach acknowledging the thought and then leaving it.
    • Make the worry period short and optional.
    • Start postponement in a small window (e.g. one evening) and then extend it.
    • Treat each successful postponement as evidence against uncontrollability.
    • [synthesis; psychopen WP trial wording]
  • Non-adherence to ATT homework.
    • Check the client's belief about why ATT matters: low credibility, or a belief that it should stop thoughts.
    • Shorten the first practice and anchor it to a daily routine.
    • Make a personal recording and use a practice log.
    • Check whether ATT is being used as distraction during worry, and steer it away from that.
    • [synthesis; Columbia review on daily practice]
  • Overwhelm or high anxiety in session.
    • MCT does not need high emotional arousal.
    • Step back to meta-level questions, run a brief ATT segment as a demonstration of control over attention (not as a calming tool), and slow the pace of experiments.
    • Do not teach relaxation as a way to control worry, because that reinforces control beliefs.
    • [synthesis]
  • Ruptures.
    • Common trigger: the client feels the therapist is dismissing real problems by "not discussing content".
    • Validate that the problems matter. Explain the distinction: real problems can be solved with brief, problem-focused thinking; the CAS is the extended loop that solves nothing.
    • Then ask for feedback on pace.
    • [synthesis]
  • Real problems versus worry.
    • When a worry concerns an actual current problem (debt, illness), help the client separate one bounded problem-solving step from repetitive worry.
    • Postpone and use DM on the rest.
    • [synthesis]
  • Positive beliefs too strong for DM.
    • Clients with strong positive metacognitions find it hard to treat thinking as unimportant. Use thought records, behavioural experiments or modulation experiments first.
    • [source: Cambridge metaphor paper]
  • OCD: client insists on full response prevention, or rituals escalate.
    • Keep the metacognitive rationale (the thought is unimportant), not a habituation one.
    • If rituals escalate or functioning drops, add structured limits and consider standard ERP.
    • [source: Wells 2019 for rationale; synthesis for escalation]
  • PTSD: client wants to talk through the trauma in detail.
    • MCT does not require reliving. Acknowledge the wish, then explain how rumination keeps intrusions going.
    • If the client still prefers trauma processing, discuss a trauma-focused alternative.
    • [source: Wells 2019; synthesis for referral]
  • Depression with suicidal ideation.
    • Do a standard risk assessment at intake and whenever risk indicators appear: ideation, intent, plans, history, protective factors, and a collaborative safety plan with lethal-means counselling (safe storage or removal).
    • Do not use postponement or DM instead of risk management for suicidal thoughts. Treat active risk as a clinical priority outside the MCT protocol.
    • [synthesis; standard practice]
  • Health anxiety: body checking framed as "just being sensible".
    • Treat it as threat monitoring driven by positive beliefs.
    • Agree medically appropriate limits with the client's physician before dropping checks.
    • [synthesis]
  • Stuck belief ratings.
    • Look for a hidden CAS behaviour (reassurance from a partner, online searching, mental checking) and for a belief that has not been identified, such as fusion or stigma.
    • Re-run the formulation.
    • [synthesis]
  • Comorbidity and complexity.
    • Use the formulation of the dominant CAS pattern. The generic model allows a single transdiagnostic plan, so avoid stacking protocols one after another.
    • [source: Wikipedia (transdiagnostic); synthesis for application]
  • Training and competence.
    • The MCT Institute route includes workshops, supervision logs and a rated session recording leading to a Level 1 diploma.
    • Seek supervision while starting out.
    • [source: Bay Area CBT Center summary; MCT Institute site not reachable, uncertain]

Sources

Sources

Further reading (not drawn on): the MCT Institute site and Callesen et al. (2020), Scientific Reports, and a 2024 Mindfulness DM study on Springer. Content that would have come from them is marked [uncertain].

Books and papers cited (not drawn on)

  • Wells, A. (2009). Metacognitive Therapy for Anxiety and Depression. Guilford Press.
  • Fisher, P. L., & Wells, A. (2009). Metacognitive Therapy: Distinctive Features. Routledge.
  • Wells, A. (2005). Detached mindfulness in cognitive therapy: a metacognitive analysis and ten techniques. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 23, 337–355.
  • Wells, A., & Matthews, G. (1994). Attention and Emotion: A Clinical Perspective. Erlbaum.
  • Wells, A., & Matthews, G. (1996). Modelling cognition in emotional disorder: the S-REF model. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 34, 881–888.
  • Wells, A. (1990). Panic disorder in association with relaxation induced anxiety: an attentional training approach to treatment. Behavior Therapy, 21, 273–280.
  • Wells, A., & Sembi, S. (2004). Metacognitive therapy for PTSD: a preliminary investigation of a new brief treatment. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 35, 307–318.
  • Wells, A., & Papageorgiou, C. (1998). Social phobia: effects of external attention on anxiety, negative beliefs, and perspective taking. Behavior Therapy, 29, 357–370.
  • Wells, A. (2000). Emotional Disorders and Metacognition: Innovative Cognitive Therapy. Wiley.
← Previous · II-094Trial-based cognitive therapyNext · II-096 →Metacognitive training