Understanding SUDS in EMDR: How Distress Levels Are Used in Therapy Sessions

Imagine sitting across from a therapist, contemplating a moment in your past that still triggers a knot of discomfort—uneasy, but also curious. You’re asked to rate your distress on a simple scale from 0 to 10, where 0 means “no distress” and 10 feels almost unbearable. This moment, both delicate and powerful, is at the heart of a therapeutic technique called EMDR, where SUDS, or Subjective Units of Disturbance Scale, plays a crucial yet nuanced role.

Why does a simple number matter so much? Because quantifying distress bridges the often unspoken gulf between inner experience and external support. It offers a shared language—not just to measure pain—but to guide healing, pacing, and reflection. This interplay between subjective emotion and objective measure embodies a central tension in all therapy: how can deeply private struggles be honestly communicated and gently navigated?

The challenge is clear. Emotions resist tidy measurement, yet therapy demands ways to track progress and adjust treatment without dismissing individual nuances. For example, in a typical EMDR session, a patient might rate their distress as an 8 when recalling a traumatic memory. Over time, as therapy progresses, this rating ideally shifts downward. At the same time, the patient’s connection to the memory evolves, revealing layers that a numeric scale cannot capture fully.

SUDS mirrors a broader cultural pattern—our desire to quantify and classify feelings to gain control and understanding, balanced against the complexity and ineffability of emotional life. This tension appears everywhere: from pain scales in medicine to customer satisfaction surveys, and even social media’s own version of “likes” and “reactions.” In therapy, the challenge is more profound, as SUDS must serve both as a tool of precision and a space for human vulnerability.

A Brief History of Emotional Measurement in Therapy

Humans have long sought methods to express and quantify feeling states—whether through art, language, or emerging scientific tools. Before modern psychology’s arrival in the 19th century, emotional distress was often framed metaphysically or morally. Concepts like “melancholia” or “nerves” blended physical, psychological, and cultural ideas of suffering.

With the rise of behaviorism and cognitive psychology in the 20th century, there came a push to objectify the mind’s inner workings. Scales, questionnaires, and ratings sought to convert personal experience into data. The Subjective Units of Disturbance Scale emerged from this legacy, not as a perfect system, but as a pragmatic bridge—one that harnesses subjective feeling through simple numbers.

EMDR (Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing), developed by Francine Shapiro in the late 1980s, incorporated SUDS as a way to monitor therapeutic progress. It allowed patients and therapists to communicate what might otherwise be lost in translation, creating a dynamic flow between distress and relief.

How SUDS Functions in EMDR Therapy

At its core, SUDS is a self-reported measure of how intense a distressing memory or feeling feels “right now.” Its simplicity belies an important function: it helps structure the therapy session, pacing exposure to distress in manageable doses and providing feedback for both client and therapist.

For instance, if a patient rates distress as very high (say, 9 or 10), a therapist may slow the process, ensuring safety and grounding before proceeding. As distress diminishes through the session, the SUDS score reflects this shift, making the invisible contour of healing visible.

This method becomes especially relevant in trauma therapy, where overwhelming emotional states can threaten the therapeutic alliance or even retraumatize. SUDS offers an immediate, flexible checkpoint—a reminder that emotional intensity is real but also changeable.

Emotional Complexity Beyond Simple Numbers

Yet the SUDS scale—despite its utility—cannot fully contain emotional complexity. People’s capacity to evaluate and express distress varies widely, shaped by personality, culture, language, and upbringing. What feels like a “5” to one person may be a “7” or “3” for another.

Culturally, some groups may value stoicism and underreport distress, while others might express suffering more openly. These variations reflect deeper modes of communicating pain and help, raising ethical considerations about how to interpret and respond to SUDS ratings.

Further, trauma researchers remind us that emotional healing often includes contradictory feelings: relief mixed with sadness, understanding paired with confusion. A numerical scale captures only one dimension of these emotional landscapes. This invites a reflective approach, encouraging therapists to listen beyond the numbers and attend to nuance, tone, and context.

SUDS in the Context of Modern Therapy and Society

In our fast-paced, numbers-driven culture, it’s easy to seek quick fixes and definitive markers of progress. SUDS offers something more subtle—a dialogue between subjective experience and therapeutic structure, honoring both the unquantifiable depth of trauma and the practical need for pacing.

This interplay echoes how society balances data and individuality, efficiency and empathy. In workplaces, classrooms, and relationships, we all encounter moments where measurement aims to create clarity but risks oversimplification. The lesson from SUDS is to use tools thoughtfully and remember that numbers are guides, not final arbiters.

Opposites and Middle Way: The Balance of Measurement and Meaning

The use of SUDS illustrates a meaningful tension—between the desire to measure psychological distress and the recognition that emotional experience is fundamentally personal and complex.

On one side, precise measurement enables structure, shared understanding, and tracking improvement. On the other side, an overreliance on numbers risks flattening rich emotional textures and potentially marginalizing voices that don’t fit neatly into the scale.

When one approach dominates—for example, if therapy focuses too rigidly on lowering SUDS scores—it may lead to premature closure of important emotional exploration or inadvertently pressure clients to “perform” healing.

A balanced middle way involves embracing SUDS as a conversational partner rather than an absolute judge. This coexistence allows therapy to honor both quantitative progress and qualitative growth, accepting that some distress may endure alongside healing, much like the complex interplay of light and shadow in human life.

Irony or Comedy: The Subjective Scale That’s Surprisingly Universal

Two facts about SUDS: it tries to capture something deeply personal in a number, and almost everyone—even outside therapy—uses similar methods to rate experience (think Yelp reviews, star ratings, or mood trackers).

Imagine if we extended this to all feelings in daily life: “On a scale from 0 to 10, how distressed are you about your burnt toast?” Suddenly, every tiny disappointment becomes a mini therapy session.

This scenario highlights the humor in our cultural obsession with quantification. While numbers help us communicate, exaggerating this impulse reflects the absurdity of trying to reduce human experience to a checklist.

Closing Reflections

Understanding SUDS in EMDR reveals a delicate dance between measuring distress and respecting its complexity. This scale is not a clinical magic wand but a humble bridge connecting private suffering and shared healing.

In a broader cultural sense, it reminds us that human emotions resist neat boxes and that progress often involves negotiating between clarity and mystery. As therapy sessions unfold and SUDS scores shift, so too does the narrative people tell about themselves—one that balances vulnerability, resilience, and hope.

In our daily lives, this approach invites curiosity rather than certainty, encouraging us to reflect on how we express, share, and reckon with the subtleties of emotional life, whether in therapy rooms or across the rhythms of culture, work, and relationships.

—

The writing of this article was overseen by Peter Meilahn, Licensed Professional Counselor, Oregon, USA (Oregon License C9007).