Stay in the loop
Trauma-informed tools, new trainings, and the occasional pep talk. No spam, ever.
Read Time: 9 minutes
Your client has done the prep work. They know their target. They have a resource, a container, a safe place. You start bilateral stimulation and, within two sets, everything shuts down. Their eyes drop. Their voice flattens. When you check in, they say some version of I don't know, or nothing, or I feel stupid for even bringing this up.
You have almost certainly named it correctly in your consultation notes. Shame is in the room, and it is doing exactly what shame does in EMDR: it is blocking the reprocessing pathway your client came in to use.
This is one of the most common reasons EMDR sessions stall, and it is one of the least directly addressed in most foundational training. What follows is a working session guide for what to do when shame lands in the middle of a reprocessing session and the standard protocol is not enough on its own.
In Adaptive Information Processing terms, memory networks store experience along with the affect, cognition, and somatic material attached to it. Fear networks tend to be discrete and event-linked. Anger networks often organize around specific relational injuries. Shame networks tend to be diffuse, developmental, and structurally protective. They do not always link to a clean target the way fear or grief might, and they frequently sit underneath the target your client actually named.
This matters clinically because shame does not just increase distress during reprocessing. It changes what your client is willing to bring into the room at all. Dworkin (2005) and later writers on relational EMDR have described shame as fundamentally interpersonal, activated as much by the presence of the therapist as by the memory being processed. When your client's shame network activates, the reprocessing pathway narrows and, in many cases, closes.
You will see this most often as one of three patterns:
Shame does not always announce itself as shame. Many clients do not have language for it, and some of the most shame-prone clients will present as intellectually engaged and cooperative while the shame network is quietly dominant. Learning to read the room is a large part of the work.
Common somatic cues include a sudden drop in eye contact, chin tucking toward the chest, a smaller and quieter voice, shoulders rolling inward, and hands moving to cover the mouth or throat. You may also notice a shift in your own body: a pull to reassure, to soften the material, to move on. That countertransference pull is often the first accurate signal that shame has arrived.
Verbal cues include statements like I shouldn't feel this way, this is stupid, other people have real problems, or a sudden self-critical aside that was not there a moment before. When these appear during a set, they are almost always feeder material, not resistance.
The distinction between shame-driven blocking and standard defensive avoidance matters for what you do next. Shame-driven blocking usually looks like collapse and self-attack. Defensive avoidance more often looks like sideways movement, intellectualization, or overly organized narrative. Both need attention, but the interventions differ.
How do I know if shame is what is stalling the reprocessing?
Watch for three signals together. First, the client's cognition shifts toward self-attack rather than trauma-linked belief (I'm stupid for feeling this, not I was in danger). Second, the body posture closes rather than activates. Third, associations narrow rather than open. When all three appear at once, shame is almost always the mechanism, and standard interweaves aimed at the trauma memory will not move the block until the shame is addressed directly.
Cognitive interweaves are your most direct in-session tool when shame stalls the work. They are only useful, however, when they are calibrated to what shame actually is and what it needs. A poorly placed interweave will make the block worse.
Three categories of interweave are most useful when shame is the mechanism:
Responsibility interweaves. Shame frequently carries the false burden of responsibility for something that was not the client's to hold. A question like How old were you when that started? or Who was the adult in that moment? can loosen the grip of shame enough for the memory network to open. These work best when they are asked quietly, without emphasis, and followed by another set of bilateral stimulation without extended discussion.
Perspective interweaves. When the client is fused with the shamed part of self, offering a small window into a different vantage point can create the space needed for processing to move. If a friend told you this had happened to them, what would you say? is the classic version. In shame-heavy processing, a variant that often lands better is What would the version of you sitting here now want that younger you to know?
Present-safety interweaves. Some shame blocks resolve when the client's nervous system registers that the danger of being seen (the interpersonal core of shame) is not present in the current room. A brief, grounded acknowledgment from you (You are not alone with this right now) followed by bilateral stimulation can shift the block. This one requires care, because it can also collapse into reassurance if overused.
Two cautions. First, interweaves are not conversation. Once you offer one, return to bilateral stimulation. Extended discussion of the interweave itself often re-activates the shame you were trying to loosen. Second, if two well-placed interweaves do not move the block, the shame is likely being held by a part, and the work needs to shift.
Complex trauma clients frequently carry shame inside distinct ego states or parts of self. The part that comes to therapy is often the competent, functional, adult presentation. The part holding the shame may be much younger, much more isolated, and structurally invisible to the client's usual sense of self.
When you have offered interweaves and the block has not moved, ask yourself: Is the client the one processing right now, or is a protector standing at the door? Forgash and Copeley (2008) and later writers on ego state integration in EMDR describe this pattern clearly. The protector's job is to prevent overwhelm, and it will do so by shutting down processing whether or not the adult client has consented to the work.
The intervention here is not a cognitive interweave. It is contact with the part that is doing the blocking. This can be as simple as pausing the bilateral stimulation and saying, It seems like there might be a part of you that is not sure this is safe to feel right now. Can we check in with that part? From there, the work is a brief parts-informed conversation aimed at understanding what the protector needs before returning to reprocessing.
Should I switch to parts work mid-session, or finish the target first?
If a protector has taken over and the client is no longer available for reprocessing, you cannot finish the target through force. Brief parts-informed contact, often five to ten minutes, will usually restore access. If the protector's concerns are more substantial than can be addressed in-session, the ethical move is to close down safely and return to Phase 2 preparation work before the next reprocessing attempt.
The gain here is not just that reprocessing resumes. It is that you have named, to your client and to the system, that the shame belongs to a part rather than to the whole self. That naming is often more therapeutic than the reprocessing that follows.
Sometimes the shame is too structurally held, the memory network too large, or the client's window of tolerance too narrow for standard reprocessing to be safe or productive. This is not a failure. It is clinical information, and it points toward a modified approach.
Constricted processing methods, sometimes called EMD or EMDr, restrict the associative reach of bilateral stimulation. Rather than allowing the memory network to open in every direction, you keep the client tethered to a specific symptom, sensation, or narrow slice of the target. Hase and colleagues have written extensively on when constricted approaches serve clients better than the standard protocol, particularly in high-shame or high-dissociation presentations.
Symptom-focused targeting is a related move. Instead of aiming reprocessing at the full memory, you target a specific present-day symptom (a body sensation, a recurring intrusion, a shame-driven behavior) and allow the network to open only as far as that symptom requires. This is often the right choice for clients whose shame networks are so large that full reprocessing would produce more overwhelm than integration.
A note on closing incomplete sessions with shame material active: the standard closure protocol is not always enough. When shame is still online at the end of a session, take extra time. Return explicitly to resources, name what happened without evaluating it, and confirm that the client has a plan for the space between now and next session. Shame that is left dangling at the end of a session is one of the more common reasons clients drop out of trauma work.
Is it a problem if I keep needing to modify the protocol for shame-prone clients?
No. It is a sign that you are calibrating the work to the client in front of you rather than to the manual. The EMDR clinicians doing the most sustainable work with complex trauma tend to be the ones who have built a wide repertoire of modifications and know when to use each one. The standard protocol is a foundation, not a ceiling.
Shame is one of the most common reasons EMDR reprocessing stalls with complex trauma clients, and it is also one of the most workable when you have a clear framework for what is happening and what to try next. The moves in this post form a sequence: recognize the shame, try calibrated interweaves, shift to parts work if the block does not move, and modify the protocol when the material is too large for standard reprocessing to hold.
Building this repertoire takes practice, consultation, and honest engagement with the cases that do not go the way the protocol says they should. The clinicians who develop it tend to describe the same shift over time: fewer sessions that stall, fewer clients who drift away, and more trust that the work can hold what actually walks through the door.
If shame-blocked reprocessing is a pattern you keep meeting in your work, our full-day training EMDR for Anger, Shame, and Depression with Joel Kouame, LCSW, MBA, CAMS is built exactly for this. Six CEs, phase-by-phase tools, and the neuroscience to back your case conceptualization.
I'm Ready to Work With Shame When It Blocks Progress
Dworkin, M. (2005). EMDR and the relational imperative: The therapeutic relationship in EMDR treatment. Routledge.
Forgash, C., & Copeley, M. (Eds.). (2008). Healing the heart of trauma and dissociation with EMDR and ego state therapy. Springer Publishing Company.
Hase, M., Balmaceda, U. M., Ostacoli, L., Liebermann, P., & Hofmann, A. (2017). The AIP model of EMDR therapy and pathogenic memories. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1578. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01578
Knipe, J. (2018). EMDR toolbox: Theory and treatment of complex PTSD and dissociation (2nd ed.). Springer Publishing Company.
Shapiro, F. (2018). Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy: Basic principles, protocols, and procedures (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
