PHENOMENOLOGICAL EXPLICATION OF INTEROCEPTIVE EXPERIENCE IN TRAUMA-FOCUSED ACCEPTANCE AND COMMITMENT THERAPY: CONCEPTS, PRINCIPLES, AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Abstract

Background. The perception of internal bodily states (interoception) serves as a fundamental mechanism of traumatic experience. In clinical practice, this experience often remains unarticulated and phenomenologically inaccessible due to a deficit in the skill of tacting private events. This creates a fundamental obstacle to the integration of traumatic experience within Trauma-Focused Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (TF-ACT). The study aims to conceptualize the philosophical and methodological dimensions of phenomenological explication as a pragmatic tool for stimulus discrimination in TF-ACT. Methods. The research relies on a comprehensive integration of Contextual Behavioral Science (CBS) and phenomenological methods. Historical and philosophical reconstruction is applied to overcome Cartesian dualism through the 4E cognition paradigm (enactivism). To analyze the transformation of interoceptive experience, the frameworks of Relational Frame Theory (RFT) and micro-phenomenological analysis (EASE scale) are utilized. Results. The complementarity of descriptive contextualism (phenomenology) and functional contextualism (ACT) is demonstrated. Trauma is conceptualized as an ontological rupture in the mode of "being-in-the-world" and a total disruption of stimulus control, where interoceptive signals acquire aversive functions through arbitrarily applied relational framing. It is substantiated that under conditions of continuous traumatic stress (the military context of Ukraine), phenomenological explication acts as a necessary epistemological bridge that translates undifferentiated somatic terror into a structured phenomenon, enabling the processes of defusion and acceptance. Conclusions. Maintaining authentic contact with embodiment requires the integration of micro-phenomenological interviewing into TF-ACT protocols. Phenomenological explication does not contradict radical behaviorism but serves as an instrument of behavioral shaping to establish precise stimulus control over private events, ensuring psychological flexibility under conditions of objective existential threat.