Jordana Fontana

Could you please tell us a little about you and your background?

I am a clinical psychologist with a PhD in Behavior Analysis. Since the beginning of my graduate training, my research and professional interests have been centered on women’s experiences and the social conditions that shape their lives. During my master’s degree, I investigated the concept of a culture of domination from a behavior-analytic perspective, examining how cultural contingencies contribute to the shaping of female behavioral repertoires.

In my doctoral research, I developed and evaluated a training program designed to prepare psychology students to provide psychological care to survivors of sexual violence. This work combined behavior-analytic principles with ethical and contextual considerations relevant to trauma-informed clinical practice.

In addition to my academic background, I have formal training in Functional Analytic Psychotherapy (FAP) and consistently seek to integrate concepts from contextual behavioral therapies into my clinical and research work. My current professional focus involves connecting these theoretical frameworks with the lived experiences of women, particularly in relation to power, relationships, and social vulnerability.

How did you become interested in CBS?

My interest in contextual behavioral therapies emerged through readings and lectures, when I recognized their potential to significantly expand the range of possible interventions in clinical work with women. This perspective has guided my ongoing efforts to connect behavior-analytic principles with the lived experiences of women, particularly in contexts marked by power asymmetries, trauma, and social vulnerability.

Could you tell us about your research and application interests?

As previously mentioned, my research has consistently focused on women. Currently, as my clinical practice is exclusively dedicated to working with women, I consider it essential to understand the principles emphasized by contextual behavioral therapies. Clinical work with women often extends beyond the individual level, as many forms of suffering are closely related to cultural and social factors.

As was evident during the workshop, processes of “othering” play a significant role in shaping distress and relational dynamics, and therefore must be considered within the clinical context. In this sense, the application of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) that takes collective and relational dimensions into account is particularly relevant for addressing the complex challenges faced by women in contemporary society.

Could you tell us about your experience at the World Conference this year?

The workshop “Staying Prosocial as Things Fall Apart” addressed contemporary challenges related to the weakening of social bonds, increasing polarization, and difficulties in sustaining cooperation in contexts of social, political, and environmental crisis. In a global landscape marked by fragmentation, collective stress, and the erosion of community life, the workshop was grounded in the understanding that the capacity to remain prosocial is essential for building effective, ethical, and coordinated collective responses.

My primary interest in participating in this workshop was centered on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), particularly its extension from individual clinical practice to relational and group contexts. Over the course of the workshop, it became clear how core ACT processes—such as psychological flexibility, values clarification, acceptance, cognitive defusion, and committed action—can be applied beyond the individual level to support more resilient, collaborative, and purpose-driven groups.

The workshop offered a thoughtful exploration of how rigid behavioral patterns, defensive responses, and social polarization tend to intensify under conditions of uncertainty and threat. From an ACT perspective, these reactions were framed as understandable responses to distress that can nevertheless become harmful when they dominate individual and collective functioning. Participants were invited to develop greater awareness of stress responses and defensiveness, both personally and within groups, in order to respond with greater compassion, flexibility, and effectiveness.

A particularly valuable aspect of the workshop was its experiential format. Through perspective-taking exercises, guided reflection, and relational practices, participants engaged directly with processes that foster connection, shared understanding, and collaboration across differences. These experiential components demonstrated how groups can cultivate shared purpose and identity while still honoring diversity, supporting inclusion without suppressing disagreement or complexity.

Rather than focusing on abstract solutions, the workshop emphasized grounded, values-oriented engagement. It highlighted the idea that meaningful change does not require perfect conditions or large-scale interventions, but can begin in local contexts when actions are aligned with personal and collective values. This emphasis contributed to a sense of agency and hope, reinforcing the possibility of sustained prosocial engagement even amid instability and social fragmentation.

Overall, the workshop reinforced the relevance of ACT-based principles for understanding and addressing collective challenges. By extending psychological flexibility to the group level, the workshop offered a coherent and practical framework for strengthening relationships, supporting cooperative behavior, and fostering collective responses oriented toward care, responsibility, and long-term social transformation.

Was there anything that stood out to you about the CBS community?

What stood out to me about the CBS community, as experienced through this workshop, was the way the space was facilitated to promote closeness and connection. The structure and tone of the workshop made participants feel comfortable engaging with one another, as well as with the facilitators themselves. This created an environment in which dialogue felt accessible, relational, and grounded, rather than hierarchical or distant.

What did you take back from your experience that has been helpful to you?

This experience was particularly useful for my clinical work with women, as it reinforced the importance of understanding psychological suffering within its broader social and relational context. The workshop helped me reflect on how processes such as stress, defensiveness, and “othering” are not only individual phenomena, but are often shaped by cultural dynamics that many women are exposed to in their daily lives.

The emphasis on psychological flexibility and values-based action supported a more nuanced understanding of how to work therapeutically with experiences related to power, exclusion, and social expectations. This perspective is especially relevant in clinical settings, where women’s distress frequently reflects tensions between personal values and restrictive cultural narratives. Overall, the workshop offered insights that can strengthen clinical interventions by integrating individual processes with relational and collective dimensions of experience.