Tag Archives: Motivational Interviewing

Clinical Interviewing, Cool Counseling, Counseling and Psychotherapy Theory and Practice, Personal Reflections, Writing

What You Should Know About Motivational Interviewing (and more)

Leave a comment

During my supervision this week, I noticed that the concepts and process of Motivational Interviewing came up several times. When students or professionals don’t know the basics of Motivational Interviewing (MI), I feel compelled to speak up. MI is a method, strategy, or philosophy that’s complex, nuanced, and essential. We should all know about and have MI skills. To feel the centrality of MI to counseling and psychotherapy, it helps to start with MI’s most fundamental organizing principle.

“It is the client who should be voicing the arguments for change” (Miller & Rollnick, 2002, p. 22).

If you contemplate this principle (and you should), then you’ll need to examine your own role in the change process. That’s because, if look at (or listen to) yourself, and YOU’RE the one voicing the arguments for change, you must stop.

If you don’t stop, then you may be contributing to your clients’ resistance to change.

MI ideas are challenging to our natural impulses. We want to tell clients how to be healthier, but our job is not to voice the argument for positive and healthy change; our job is to nurture their argument for positive and healthy change. This is where the nuance comes in. How can we, as interviewers (aka counselors or psychotherapists) create an interaction wherein the client is more likely to take the lead in voicing the arguments for positive and healthy change?

The answer to that question is complex, as it should be. In part, my answer today is to include an excerpt from Chapter 12 (Challenging Client Behaviors and Demanding Situations) of our Clinical Interviewing text. This excerpt starts with the topic of “Challenging Client Behaviors” or behaviors that clients engage in that counselors and psychotherapists often find challenging. The content includes a discussion of the concept of “resistance,” MI strategies, as well other ideas of our own and from the literature.

***************

Challenging Client Behaviors

As the client and therapist talk more and more about the solution they want to construct together, they come to believe in the truth or reality of what they are talking about. This is the way language works, naturally.

—Insoo Kim Berg and Steven de Shazer, Making numbers talk, 1993, p. 6

Not all clients are equally cooperative. Here are a few opening lines we’ve heard over the years:

  • Do I have to be here?
  • No disrespect, but I hate counselors.
  • I’ll never talk to you about anything important, and you can’t make me.
  • This is a shitty little office; you must be a shitty little therapist.
  • How long will this take?
  • How old are you? How are you supposed to help me if you’re still in middle school?

In our work with adolescents and young adults, we’ve directly experienced the pleasure (or pain) of being in interviews with people who want little to do with therapy, and nothing to do with us. We’ve had clients refuse to be alone in the room with us, others who refused to speak, a few who insisted on standing, and many who told us with great disdain (and punctuated with profanity) that they don’t believe in counseling.

The first part of this chapter is about interviewing clients who oppose the helping process. It’s also about the deep satisfaction of working with clients who slowly or suddenly shift their attitudes and become cooperative. When these clients eventually enter the room, begin speaking, stop swearing, agree to sit, and begin believing in counseling (and counselors!), it can be a profoundly rewarding experience.

Defining and Exploring Resistance

Freud viewed resistance as inevitable and ubiquitous. Following Freud’s lead, psychotherapists for many years considered virtually anything clients did or said as potential signs of resistance, such as

  • Talking too much, or talking too little
  • Arriving late, or arriving early
  • Being unprepared or overprepared for psychotherapy

The Death (or Reframing) of Resistance

Many theorists and practitioners question the nature and helpfulness of resistance as a concept. In 1984, writing from a solution-focused perspective, Steven de Shazer announced the “death of resistance.” He subsequently held a ceremony and buried it in his backyard. Other theorists and researchers—particularly from culturally diverse perspectives—have followed his lead in viewing resistance differently (Adames et al., 2022; Chimpén-López, C., 2021). They view resistance as an unhelpful linguistic creation that developed because sometimes clients don’t want to (or shouldn’t) do what their “bossy” or oppressive therapist wants them to do (Ratts et al., 2016). In other words, resistance isn’t a problem centered in the client; it’s a problem created by therapists and the power dynamic this presents.

Around the time de Shazer was burying resistance in his backyard, William R. Miller was discovering that reflective listening, empathy, and encouragement with clients who had substance problems, outperformed confrontation and behavioral interventions (W. Miller, 1978, 1983). This discovery led to the development of motivational interviewing (W. Miller & Rollnick, 1991; Miller & Moyers, 2021). Motivational interviewing (MI) is now widely acknowledged as an effective treatment for health, substance, and mental health problems (McKay, 2021; Romano & Peters, 2015).

Resistance is Multidetermined

Unlike the early psychoanalytic position, resistance is neither inevitable or ubiquitous. But it’s probably not dead either. Instead, resistance (aka ambivalence or reluctance) originates from three main sources:

  1. Resistance from the client. Sometimes resistance is real, palpable, and originates from clients’ beliefs, attitudes, ambivalence, or internalized view of therapy as an oppressive situation (Adames et al., 2022). When resistance emanates from clients (regardless of therapist behavior), clients are usually in the precontemplation (not interested in changing) or contemplation (occasional transient thoughts of changing) stages of change (see Chapter 6 for an overview of the transtheoretical stages of change model; Prochaska & DiClemente, 2005).
  2. Resistance that therapists stimulate. Sometimes therapists behave in ways that create resistance rather than cooperation. Overuse of confrontation or interpretation can stimulate client resistance (Romano & Peters, 2015). Therapists who don’t examine and manage their countertransference biases toward particular client populations (e.g., teenage clients, reluctant clients, mandated clients, or clients from diverse cultures), or who perpetuate marginalization of diverse populations, are especially prone to creating client resistance (Ratts, 2017; Tishby & Wiseman, 2020).
  3. Resistance as a function of the situation. Resistance may be a product of a difficult and uncomfortable situation, a situation or expected coercive interpersonal interactions that naturally trigger reactance (i.e., negative expectations and defensiveness; Beutler et al., 2011). Reactance is a well-established psychological phenomenon (Brehm, 1966; Place & Meloy, 2018): When people feel coerced or pushed, they tend to push back, resisting the perceived source of coercion (e.g., therapist). For most mandated clients and for many ambivalent clients, resistance to therapy is a natural, situationally triggered behavior (J. Sommers-Flanagan et al., 2011). Also, for clients with diverse ethnicities or societally-marginalized identities, therapy can naturally feel like the repetition of power-imbalanced colonization experiences (Gone, 2021; Singh et al., 2020).

We realize that framing resistance as multidetermined and natural (or burying it) doesn’t automatically make it easier to handle (J. Sommers-Flanagan & Bequette, 2013). To therapists, resistance can still feel aggressive, provocative, oppositional, and threatening.

It’s unrealistic to expect all clients—especially adolescents or mandated adults in precontemplation or contemplation stages of change—to immediately speak openly and work productively with an unfamiliar authority figure. It’s also unrealistic to expect clients for whom therapy is a new and uncomfortable experience to immediately begin sharing their innermost thoughts. If you use the word resistance, it’s helpful to add the word “natural.” Doing so offers empathy for the client’s entry into an uncomfortable situation and acknowledges the need for strategies and techniques for dealing with client behaviors that are too easily labeled resistant (Hara et al., 2018; Miller & Moyers, 2021). The central question then becomes: What clinician behaviors reduce natural client resistance and defensiveness?

Motivational Interviewing and Other Strategies

In their groundbreaking text, Motivational Interviewing, W. Miller and Rollnick (1991, 2002, 2013) described a practical approach to recognizing and working with client resistance. They emphasized that most humans are ambivalent about personal change because of competing motivations. For example, a client may simultaneously have two competing motivations about smoking cigarettes:

  • I should quit because smoking is expensive and unhealthy.
  • I should keep smoking because it’s pleasurable and gives me a feeling of emotional control.

Imagine yourself in an interview situation. You recognize your client is engaging in a self-destructive behavior (e.g., smoking, cutting, punching walls). In response, you educate your client and make a case for giving up the self-destructive behavior. W. Miller and Rollnick (2002) described this classic scenario:

[The therapist] then proceeds to advise, teach, persuade, counsel or argue for this particular resolution to [the client’s] ambivalence. One does not need a doctorate in psychology to anticipate what [the client’s] response is likely to be in this situation. By virtue of ambivalence, [the client] is apt to argue the opposite, or at least point out problems and shortcomings of the proposed solution. It is natural for [the client] to do so, because [he or she] feels at least two ways about this or almost any prescribed solution. It is the very nature of ambivalence. (pp. 20–21)

In MI, resistance is framed as natural ambivalence about change. Consider this from a physical perspective. If you hold out an open hand and ask someone else to do the same and then push against their hand, the other person usually pushes back, matching your force. During a clinical interview, this process happens verbally. The more you push for healthy change, the more clients push back for staying less healthy (Apodaca et al., 2015).

This leads to the central MI hypothesis for resolving client ambivalence and activating motivation:

This points toward a fundamental dynamic in the resolution of ambivalence: It is the client who should be voicing the arguments for change. (W. Miller & Rollnick, 2002, p. 22, italics added)

But how can clinicians help clients make arguments for change?

MI practitioners refer to clients voicing their own arguments for change as change talk. When clients voice their arguments against change, it’s called sustain talk,because clients are arguing to continue or sustain their unhealthy behaviors. The central hypothesis of MI is that the more clients engage in change talk, positive change is more likely to occur.

MI has relational and technical components. The relational component involves embracing a spirit of collaboration, acceptance, and empathy. Embracing the relational component is crucial, if only because clients who report greater secure attachment to their therapists, also report less resistance (Yotsidi et al., 2019). The technical components include intentional evocation and reinforcement of client change talk (W. Miller & Rose, 2009). In practice, it’s difficult to separate the relational and technical components, and it’s likely more efficacious when they’re delivered together anyway. As you work with reluctant, ambivalent, or so-called resistant clients, you’ll need to make sure your Rogerian person-centered hat is firmly in place, while simultaneously using good behavioral skills to evoke and reinforce change talk.

Using Open Questions, Opening Questions, Evocation, and Goal-Setting Strategies

Open questions are fundamental to MI. However, W. Miller and Rollnick (2013) cautioned asking too many questions, including open questions:

A simple rhythm in MI is to ask an open question and then to reflect what the person says, perhaps two reflections per question, like a waltz. Even with open questions, though, avoid asking several in a row, or you may set up the question-answer trap. (p. 63)

Miller and Rollnick (2013) recommended loosely following their two-to-one waltz metaphor; the point is to do more reflecting than questioning. They offer a stronger warning against repeated closed questions, noting, “Chaining together a series of closed questions can be deadly for engagement” (p. 63).

When opening sessions with clients who may be unenthused to see you, you should use positive, strength-focused, empathic, and non-blaming opening questions:

  • What brings you here today and how do you hope we might help? (Miller & Moyers, 2021, p. 95)
  • What would make this a helpful visit?
  • If we have a great meeting today, what will happen?
  • What needs to happen in here for our time to be productive?

Open questions and opening questions are especially good tools for evoking clients’ strengths, hope, and solutions (McKay, 2021). Not surprisingly, reluctant clients tend to be more responsive when therapists pursue strengths, rather than pathology. Evocation is a technique used to help clients speak to their resources and strengths. Miller and Moyer (2021) view evocation as inherently containing the message: “You have what you need, and together we’re going to find it (p. 93”). If you’re using open questions to bypass natural resistance, you should aim toward evoking client change talk.

Consider the following example of using a variety of questions to facilitate change talk in an emergency room setting (M. Cheng, 2007, p. 163, parenthetical comments added):

Clinician: What would make today’s … visit helpful? (Clinician asks for goals.)

Patient: I want to kill myself, just let me die… (Patient states unhealthy goal/task.)

Clinician: I’m sure you must have your reasons for feeling that way … What makes you want to hurt yourself? (Clinician searches for underlying healthy goal.)

Patient: I just can’t stand the depression anymore and all the fighting at home. I just can’t take it. (The underlying healthy goals include coping with depression and fighting.)

Clinician: … so we need to find a way to help you cope with the depression and the fighting. You told me yourself that there used to be less fighting at home. What would it be like if we found a way to reduce the fighting, have people getting along more? (Clinician uses past hope to focus on future goal)

Patient: A lot better, I guess. But it’s probably not going to happen. (Client expresses little hope)

Clinician: Okay, I can see why you’re frustrated and I do understand that probably the depression makes it hard to see hope. But I believe that there is a part of you that is stronger and more hopeful, because otherwise you wouldn’t be here talking with me. (Clinician externalizes unhealthy thoughts or behaviors as being part of the depression and tries to help the patient rally against the depression.) That hopeful part of you said that your mood used to be happy. What would it be like if we could get your mood happy again?

Patient: A lot better I guess.

Clinician: Just to help me make sure I’m getting this right then, what would you like to see different with your mood? (The clinician reinforces the client’s goals by having the client articulate them.)

Patient: I want to be happy again.

Clinician: And at home, what would you like to see with how people get along?

Patient: I want us to get along better.

Clinician: Let’s agree then that we will work together on finding a way to help people get along, as well as help your mood get better. How does that sound? (Clinician paraphrases patient’s healthy goals.)

Patient: Sounds good… (Patient agrees with goals.)

In this example, Cheng (2007) illustrated how to help patients articulate goals and potential benefits of positive change (change talk). Although the process began with a negatively worded question—“What makes you want to hurt yourself?”—Cheng listened for positive, health-oriented goals. This is an important principle: Even when exploring emotional pain, you can listen for and resonate with unfulfilled positive goals contributing to that pain.

Using Reflection, Amplified Reflection, and Undershooting

Throughout this text, we’ve emphasized nondirective interviewing skills: paraphrasing, reflection of feeling, and summarizing. Research on MI supports this emphasis, showing that these reflective techniques are powerful tools for working with resistance (McKay, 2021). W. Miller and Rollnick (2002, pp. 100–101) provided examples of simple reflections that reduce resistance:

Client 1: I’m trying! If my probation officer would just get off my back, I could focus on getting my life in order.

Therapist 1: You’re working hard on the changes you need to make. Or,

Therapist 1: It’s frustrating to have a probation officer looking over your shoulder.

Client 2: Who are you to be giving me advice? What do you know about drugs? You’ve probably never even smoked a joint!

Therapist 2: It’s hard to imagine how I could possibly understand.

Client 3: I couldn’t keep the weight off even if I lost it.

Therapist 3: You can’t see any way that would work for you. Or,

Therapist 3: You’re rather discouraged about trying again.

When therapists accurately reflect client efforts, frustration, hostility, and discouragement, the need for clients to defend their positions is reduced.

Reflections also stimulate talk about the constructive side of ambivalence. While supervising graduate students in counseling and psychology as they conducted hundreds of brief interviews with client-volunteers, we noticed that when student therapists made an inaccurate reflection, the volunteer-clients felt compelled to clarify their feelings and beliefs in ways that rebalanced their ambivalence. For example:

Client: I’m pissed at my roommate. She won’t pick up her clothes or do the dishes or anything.

Therapist: You’d like to fire her as a roommate.

Client: No. Not that. There are lots of things I like about her, but her messiness really annoys me.

This exchange shows the interviewer inadvertently overstating the client’s negative view of the roommate. In response, the client immediately clarifies: “There are lots of things I like about her.”

As it turns out, the interviewer accidentally used an MI technique called amplified reflection (W. Miller & Rollnick, 2013). Amplified reflection involves intentionally overstating the client’s main message. W. Miller and Rollnick wrote: “As a general principle, if you overstate the intensity of an expressed emotion, the person will tend to deny and minimize it, backing off from the original statement” (p. 59).

When used intentionally, amplified reflection can feel manipulative. This is why amplified reflection is used along with genuine empathy and never includes sarcasm. Instead of being a manipulative response, it’s the therapist’s effort to deeply empathize with client frustration, anger, and discouragement. The following are amplified reflections. Scenario 1 involves a mother of a child with a disability and her ambivalence over whether she can take any time for self-care:

Client 1: My child has a serious disability, so I have to be home for him.

Therapist 1: You need to be home 24/7 and turn off any needs you might have to get out and take a break.

Client 1: Actually, that’s not totally true. Sometimes, I think I need to take some breaks so I can do a better job when I’m home.

Scenario 2 involves a college student with ambivalence over giving herself the time and space to grieve her grandmother’s death.

Client 2: When my grandmother died last semester, I had to miss classes and it was a total hassle.

Therapist 2: You don’t have much of an emotional response to your grandmother’s death—other than it’s really inconveniencing you.

Client 2: Well, it’s not like I don’t miss her, too.

Amplified reflection is an empathic effort to fully resonate with one side of the client’s ambivalence; it naturally nudges clients the opposite direction.

It’s also possible to use reflection to understate what clients are saying. W. Miller and Rollnick (2013) refer to this as undershooting. They advocate using it to encourage clients to continue exploring their thoughts and feelings:

Client: I can’t stand it when my mom criticizes my friends right in front of me.

Therapist: You find that a little annoying.

Client: It’s way more than annoying. It pisses me off.

Therapist: What exactly pisses you off about your mom criticizing your friends?

Client: It’s because she doesn’t trust me and my judgment.

In this example, the therapist uses an understatement and then an open question to continue exploring what hurts about the mother’s criticism.

Coming Alongside (Using Paradox)

Intentionally undershooting or using amplified reflections are subtle ways to move client talk in particular directions. A less subtle form of this is paradox. Paradox has traditionally involved prescribing the symptom (Frankl, 1967). For example, with a client who is using alcohol excessively, a traditional paradoxical intervention would involve something like, “Maybe you’re not drinking enough.”

Paradox is a high-risk and provocative intervention. We don’t advocate using traditional paradox. Interestingly, Viktor Frankl, who wrote about paradox in the early 1900s, viewed paradox as operating based on humor. It’s as if clients unconsciously or consciously understand the silliness of behaving in a destructive extreme and consequently pull back in the other direction. Frankl’s formulation might be viewed as working with ambivalence in a manner similar to MI.

W. Miller and Rollnick (2013) discuss using paradox to address resistance, but refer to it as coming alongside. Similar to amplified reflection, coming alongside is used with empathy and respect. The difference between amplified reflection and coming alongside is that in the latter the therapist makes a statement instead of a reflection. Here are two examples:

Client 1: I don’t think this is going to work for me, either. I feel pretty hopeless.

Therapist 1: It’s certainly possible that after giving it another try, you still won’t be any better off, so it might be better not to try at all. What’s your inclination?

Client 2: That’s about it, really. I probably drink too much sometimes, and I don’t like the hangovers, but I don’t think it’s that much of a concern, really.

Therapist 2: It may just be worth it to you to keep on drinking as you have, even though it causes some problems. It’s worth the cost.

Using coming alongside requires authentic empathy for the less healthy side of the ambivalence.

W. Miller and Rollnick (2002) commented on the difference between using coming alongside as compared to traditional paradox:

We confess some serious discomfort with the ways in which therapeutic paradox has sometimes been described. There is often the sense of paradox being a clever way of duping people into doing things for their own good. In some writings on paradox, one senses almost a glee in finding innovative ways to trick people without their realizing what is happening. Such cleverness lacks the respectful and collaborative tone that we understand to be fundamental to the dialectical process of motivational interviewing. (p. 107)

Paradoxical techniques should be delivered along with basic person-centered core attitudes of congruence, unconditional positive regard, and empathic understanding. Paradox shouldn’t be used as a clever means to outwit or trick clients, but to explore the alternative outcome out loud with the client and allow them to respond.

Using Emotional Validation, Radical Acceptance, Reframing, and Genuine Feedback

Clients sometimes begin interviews with hostility, anger, or resentment. If clinicians handle these provocations well, clients may open up and cooperate. The key is to keep an accepting attitude and restrain from lecturing, scolding, or retaliating if clients express hostility.

Empathy, emotional validation, acceptance, and concession can elicit cooperation. We often coach graduate students to use concession when power struggles emerge, especially when working with adolescent clients (J. Sommers-Flanagan & Sommers-Flanagan, 2007b). If a young client opens a session with “I’m not talking and you can’t make me,” conceding power and control can shift the dynamic: “You’re absolutely right. I can’t make you talk, and I definitely can’t make you talk about anything you don’t want to talk about.” This statement validates the client’s perspective and concedes an initial victory in what the client might view as a struggle for power. MI therapists refer to this as affirming the client.

Empathic, emotionally validating statements are also important. If clients express anger about you or therapy, a reflection of feeling and/or feeling validation response communicates that you hear their emotional message. In some cases, you can go beyond empathy and emotional validation and join clients with parallel emotional responses:

  • I don’t blame you for feeling pissed about having to see me.
  • I hear you saying you don’t trust me, which is totally normal. You don’t know me, and you shouldn’t trust me until you do.
  • It sucks to have a judge require you to meet with me.
  • I know we’re being forced to meet, but we’re not being forced to have a bad time together.

Radical acceptance (RA) is a principle and technique based on person-centered theory and dialectical behavior therapy (Görg et al., 2019). RA involves consciously accepting and actively welcoming all client comments—even odd, disturbing, or blatantly provocative comments (J. Sommers-Flanagan & Sommers-Flanagan, 2007a). Here’s a case where a client began a session with angry statements about counseling:

Opening client volley: I don’t need no stupid-ass counseling. I’m only here because my wife is forcing me. This counseling shit is worthless. It’s for pansy-ass wimps like you who need to sit around and talk rather than doing any real work.

RA return: Wow. Thanks for being so honest about what you’re thinking. Lots of people really hate counseling but just sit here and pretend to cooperate. I really appreciate your telling me exactly where you’re coming from.

RA can be combined with reframing to communicate a deeper understanding about why clients have come for therapy. One version of this is the love reframe (J. Sommers-Flanagan & Barr, 2005).

Client: This is total bullshit. I don’t need counseling. The judge required this. Otherwise, I can’t see my daughter for unsupervised visitation. Let’s just get this over with.

Therapist: You must really love your daughter to come to a meeting you think is bullshit.

Client: (softening) Yeah. I do love my daughter.

The magic of the love reframe is that clients nearly always agree with the positive observation about loving someone. The love reframe shifts the interview to a more pleasant and cooperative focus.

Often, when working with angry or hostile clients, there’s no better approach than reflecting and validating feelings … pausing … and then following with honest feedback and a solution-focused question.

I hear you saying you hate the idea of talking with me. I don’t blame you for that. I’d hate to be forced to talk to a stranger about my personal life too. But can I be honest with you for a minute? [Client nods in assent.] You’re in legal trouble. I want to be helpful—even just a little. We’re stuck meeting together. We can either sit and stare at each other and have a miserable hour, or we can talk about how you might dig yourself out of this legal hole. I can go either way. What do you think … if we have a good meeting today, what would we accomplish?

*********************

The chapter goes on and on from here, including content on dealing with clients who may be delusional, as well as substance abuse interviewing.

Also, if you want more info, here’s a nice article, albeit dated, where Miller and Rollnick write about 10 things that MI is NOT.  

Miller & Rollnick 2009 What MI is NOTDownload
Counseling and Psychotherapy Theory and Practice, Suicide Assessment and Intervention

Trauma, Suicide, and Motivational Interviewing: A Handout for BYEP Mentors

Leave a comment

Sunset

Trauma may be the most common underlying factor contributing to mental disorders. Unfortunately, trauma is often overlooked, partly because it can manifest itself in so many different ways. That said, here are some common definitions. Trauma always involves a stressful trigger that activates a trauma response. Because, like everything, trauma responses are brain-based and involve the body, symptoms affect the whole person.

Old, informal, and useful definitions include:

  • A stressor outside the realm of normal human experience (but sadly, trauma is all-too-common)
  • A betrayal . . . (e.g., something that should not happen)
  • Occurrence of an event that’s emotionally overwhelming

Below I’ve listed the essence of the DSM-5 definition for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (note that the whole idea of PTSD centers on the chronic or long-lasting effects of trauma).

Exposure to a traumatic stressor that involves direct personal experience, witnessing, or learning about events involving threatened death, serious injury, or a threat to your physical integrity. The trauma response includes:

  • Intrusion symptoms (recurring unwanted memories, nightmares, flashbacks, and triggered distress)
  • Avoidance of trauma-related thoughts or external cues
  • Negative cognitive alternations (e.g., memory gaps, no joy, etc.)
  • Arousal and reactivity (e.g., irritability, risky behaviors, hypervigilance, insomnia, startle response)

Trauma and trauma responses can be big, medium, and small. Big traumas meet the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for PTSD or acute stress disorder. Small traumas are usually disturbing and disruptive, but the body and brain adjust to them within 2-3 days. Medium size traumas have lasting effects, but don’t meet formal diagnostic criterial, and are usually referred to as subclinical.

I like to think of Trauma with an uppercase T (like in the DSM) and all other traumas that are difficult, challenging, and require adjustment as traumas with a lowercase t.

What to Say

Sometimes trauma responses or symptoms are visible and obvious. If so, it’s good to say and do some of the following:

  • Listen and show compassion
  • Reassure participants that physical/psychological responses are normal, take up energy & need soothing
  • Note that very effective treatments are available (e.g., This American Life)
  • Brainstorm on what helps
  • Remember: A pill is not a skill
  • Link and universalize (“It’s normal to have pleasant and unpleasant reactions to things we talk about”)
  • Brainstorm on more and less healthy reactions (Using substances is a quick distraction, but not a fix)
  • Share hopeful stories (what skills can be developed?)
  • Self-disclosure can help. But be careful with self-disclosure and remember that it’s not about you

Trauma is a normal and natural human response. You may experience trauma just by listening to people talk about trauma, or you may have your own direct experiences. When in the business of helping others, be sure to take good care of yourself.

Three Suicide Myths

Myth #1: Suicidal thoughts are about death and dying.

Most people assume that suicidal thoughts are about death and dying. On the surface, it seems like a no-brainer: Someone has thoughts about death, therefore, the thoughts must be about death. But the truth isn’t always how it appears from the surface. The human brain is complex. Thoughts about death may not be about death itself.

Myth #2: Suicide and suicidal thinking are signs of mental illness.

Not true. Philosophers and research scientists agree: nearly everyone on the planet thinks about suicide at one time or another—even if briefly. The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche referred to suicidal thoughts as a coping strategy, writing, “The thought of suicide is a great consolation: by means of it one gets through many a dark night.”

Myth #3: Scientific knowledge about suicide risk factors and warning signs allows for the prediction and prevention of suicide.

Believing in this myth can make surviving family members, friends, and helping professionals experience too much guilt and responsibility. In fact, even the most famous suicidologists say that it’s impossible to consistently and accurately predict suicide.

Tips for Talking about Suicide

We need to be able to talk directly about suicide with courage and calmness. But first, we should listen. Here’s what you should listen for in general

  • Emotional pain
  • A sense of feeling trapped or ashamed
  • Not believing that anything can possibly help to reduce the pain and misery

While listening, show acceptance, empathy, and compassion. Remember: suicidal thoughts are not signs of illness or moral failing; if you judge the person, it will make it harder for the person to be open. Also remember: when people talk with you about their suicidal thoughts, that’s a good thing, because you can’t help unless they’re comfortable enough with you to speak openly about their suicidal thoughts and feelings.

Traditional warning signs in particular

Although it’s good to know these warning signs, there’s not much research supporting the idea that anything predicts suicide.

  • Active suicidal thinking that includes planning and talk about wanting to die
  • Preparation and rehearsal behaviors (stockpiling pills, giving away belongings, etc.)
  • Hopelessness related to feeling that the excruciating distress will never end
  • Recklessness, impulsivity, dramatic mood changes
  • Anger, anxiety, and agitation
  • Feeling trapped
  • No reasons for living, no purpose in life, broken relationships
  • Increased alcohol or substance abuse
  • Immense shame or self-hatred

How should I ask about suicide?

The answer to this is always, “Ask directly.” But we can do even better than that. We need to de-shame suicidal thoughts and talk. Before asking, communicate that you know suicidal thoughts are a normal and natural response to emotional pain and disturbing situations. For example, you could ask it this way, “I know that it’s not unusual for people to think about suicide. Have you had any thoughts about suicide?”

What should I say if someone admits to thinking about suicide? You can say things like,

  • Thanks for telling me.
  • It sounds like things have been terribly hard.
  • Thanks for being so honest, that takes courage.
  • I know I can’t instantly make everything better, but I want you to live and I want to help.
  • How can I best support you right now?
  • What can we do together that would help?
  • When you want to give up, tell yourself to hold off for one more day, hour, minute—whatever you can.
  • Or . . . use your good listening skills and reflect back the feelings and thoughts that the person shared.

Resources for Help

  • National Suicide Prevention Lifeline: Call 800-273-TALK (800-273-8255)
  • Crisis Text Line: Text HOME to 741741
  • Bozeman Help Center – 24-Hour Crisis Line: (406) 586-3333

What is Motivational Interviewing?

Motivational interviewing (MI) is an evidence-based approach to treating substance problems, health concerns, and other mental health issues. MI is “person-centered” and based on the foundational principle that clients should be the ones who make the case for change in their lives. MI:

  • Focuses on the common problem of ambivalence about change.
  • Relies on four central listening skills (OARS): open questions, affirming, reflecting, and summarizing.
  • Helps clients transition from less healthy to more healthy behaviors

Four overlapping components combine to create the spirit of MI:

  • Collaboration (partnership; dancing, not wrestling)
  • Acceptance (UPR, accurate empathy, autonomy, affirmation)
  • Compassion (honoring the client’s best interest)
  • Evocation (tapping the client’s well of wisdom)

MI is a specific treatment approach that requires professional training. However, operating on a few basic MI principles can improve nearly anyone’s approach to helping others. For more information, see the book: Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2013). Motivational interviewing: Helping people change. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

This handout is from a mentor workshop for the Big Sky Youth Empowerment Program. These ideas are based on research and collected from professionals who have experience working with people who are feeling suicidal. These guidelines should not be considered medical advice and are no substitute for getting an appointment with a licensed health or mental health professional. See: johnsommersflanagan.com for more information.

Clinical Interviewing

What is Motivational Interviewing? A brief description and demonstration video

Leave a comment

The following content is adapted from Clinical Interviewing (6th ed., 2017).

********************************

In their 2013 edition of Motivational Interviewing, Miller and Rollnick offer “Layperson’s,” Practitioner’s,” and “Technical” definitions of MI.  For practitioners, Motivational interviewing is:

. . . a person-centered counseling style for addressing the common problem of ambivalence about change. (p. 29)

As a person-centered approach to therapy, MI relies substantially on four central listening skills, referred to as OARS (open questions, affirming, reflecting, and summarizing). MI is designed to help clients change from less healthy to more healthy behavior patterns. However, consistent with PCT, MI practitioners don’t interpret, confront, or pressure clients in any way. Instead, they use listening skills to encourage clients to talk about reasons for engaging in healthy or positive behaviors.

Moving Away From Confrontation and Education

In his research with problem drinkers, William R. Miller was studying the efficacy of behavioral self-control techniques. To his surprise, he found that structured behavioral treatments were no more effective than an encouragement-based control group. When he explored the data for an explanation, he found that regardless of treatment protocol, therapist empathy ratings were the strongest predictors of positive outcomes at 6 months (r = .82), 12 months (r = .71), and 2 years (r = .51; W. R. Miller, 1978; W. R. Miller & Taylor, 1980). Consequently, he concluded that positive treatment outcomes with problem drinkers were less related to behavioral treatment and more related to reflective listening and empathy. He also found that active confrontation and education generally triggered client resistance. These discoveries led him to develop motivational interviewing (MI).

Miller met Stephen Rollnick while on sabbatical in Australia in 1989. Rollnick was enthused about MI and its popularity in the UK. Miller and Rollnick began collaborating and subsequently published the first edition of Motivational Interviewing in 1991. Rollnick is credited with identifying client ambivalence as a central focus for change (Jones-Smith, 2016, p. 320).

Client Ambivalence

Client ambivalence is a primary target of MI. Miller and Rollnick (2013) have consistently noted that ambivalence is a natural part of individual decision-making. They wrote: “Ambivalence is simultaneously wanting and not wanting something, or wanting both of two incompatible things. It has been human nature since the dawn of time” (2013, p. 6).

Although MI has been used as an intervention for a variety of problems and integrated into many different treatment protocols, it was originally a treatment approach for addictions and later became popular for influencing other health-related behaviors. This focus is important because ambivalence is especially prevalent among individuals who are contemplating their personal health. Smokers, problem drinkers, and sedentary individuals often recognize they could choose more healthy behaviors, but they also want to keep smoking, drinking, or being sedentary. This is the essence of ambivalence as it relates to health behaviors. When faced with clients who are ambivalent about whether to make changes, it’s not unusual for professional helpers to be tempted to push those clients toward health. Miller and Rollnick (2013) call this the “righting reflex” (p. 10). They described what happens when well-meaning helping professionals try to nudge clients toward healthy behaviors (note that this description is an apt rationale for a person-centered approach, but that it’s also consistent with the Gestalt therapy ideas of polarizing forces within individuals):

[The therapist] then proceeds to advise, teach, persuade, counsel or argue for this particular resolution to [the client’s] ambivalence. One does not need a doctorate in psychology to anticipate [how clients are likely to respond] in this situation. By virtue of ambivalence, [clients are] apt to argue the opposite, or at least point out problems and shortcomings of the proposed solution. It is natural for [clients] to do so, because [they] feels at least two ways about this or almost any prescribed solution. It is the very nature of ambivalence. (2002, pp. 20–21)

The ubiquity of ambivalence leads to Miller and Rollnick’s (2013) foundational person-centered principle of treatment:

Ideally, the client should be voicing the reasons for change (p. 9).

MI is both a set of techniques and a person-centered philosophy. The philosophical MI perspective emphasizes that motivation for change is not something therapists should impose on clients. Change must be drawn out from clients, gently, and with careful timing. Motivational interviewers do not use direct persuasion.

The Spirit of MI

The “underlying spirit” of MI “lies squarely within the long-standing tradition of person-centered care” (Miller & Rollnick, 2013, p. 22). They identified four overlapping components that the spirit of MI “emerges” from. These include:

  • Collaboration
  • Acceptance
  • Compassion
  • Evocation

MI involves partnership or collaboration. It’s described as dancing, not wrestling. Your goal is not to “pin” the client; in fact, you should even avoid stepping on their toes. This is consistent with the first principle of person-centered therapy. The counselor and client make contact, and in that contact there’s an inherent or implied partnership to work together on behalf of the client.

Person centered (and MI) counselors de-emphasize their expertness. Miller and Rollnick refer to this as avoiding the expert trap. Expert traps occur when you communicate “that, based on your professional expertise, you have the answer to the person’s dilemma” (p. 16). In writing about collaboration, Miller and Rollnick (2013) sound very much like Carl Rogers, “Your purpose is to understand the life before you, to see the world through this person’s eyes rather than superimposing your own vision” (p.16).

Consistent with Rogerian philosophy, MI counselors hold an “attitude of profound acceptance of what the client brings” (p. 16). This profound acceptance includes four parts:

  1. Absolute Worth: This is Rogerian unconditional positive regard
  2. Accurate Empathy: This is pure Rogerian.
  3. Autonomy Support: This part of acceptance involves honoring each person’s “irrevocable right and capacity of self-direction” (p. 17)
  4. Affirmation: This involves an active search or focus on what’s right with people instead of what’s wrong or pathological about people.

In the third edition of Motivational Interviewing, Miller and Rollnick added compassion to their previous list of the three elements of MI spirit. Why? Their reasoning was that it was possible for practitioners to adopt the other three elements, but still be operating from a place of self-interest. In other words, practitioners could use collaboration, acceptance, and evocation to further their self-interest to get clients to change. By adding compassion and defining it as “a deliberate commitment to pursue the welfare and best interests of the other” Miller and Rollnick are protecting against practitioners confusing self-interest with the client’s best interests.

Evocation is somewhat unique, but also consistent with person-centered theory. Miller and Rollnick contend that clients have already explored both sides of their natural ambivalence. As a consequence, they know the arguments in both directions and know their own positive motivations for change. Additionally, they note, “From an MI perspective, the assumption is that there is a deep well of wisdom and experience within the person from which the counselor can draw” (p. 21). It’s the counselor’s job to use evocation to draw out (or evoke) client strengths so these strengths can be used to initiate and maintain change.

A Sampling of MI Techniques

One distinction between MI and classical PCT is that Miller and Rollnick (2013) identify techniques that practitioners can and should use. These techniques are generally designed to operate within the spirit of MI and to help clients engage in change talk instead of sustain talk. Change talk is defined as client talk that focuses on their desire, ability, reason, and need to change their behavior, as well as their commitment to change.  Sustain talk is the opposite; clients may be talking about lack of desire, ability, reason, and need to change. Overall, researchers have shown that clients who engage in more MI change talk are more likely to make efforts to enact positive change.

MI appears simple, but it’s a complicated approach and challenging to learn (Atkinson & Woods, 2017). Miller and Rollnick (2013) have noted that having a solid foundation of person-centered listening skills makes learning MI much easier. The following content is only a sampling of MI techniques.

MI practitioners use techniques from the OARS listening skills. In particular, there’s a strong emphasis on skillful and intentional use of reflections, instead of questions or directives. Here are examples.

Simple reflections stick very closely to what the client said.

Client: I’ve just been pretty anxious lately.

Simple Reflection: Seems like you’ve been feeling anxious.

 

Client: Being sober sucks.

Simple Reflection: You don’t like being sober.

Simple reflections have two primary functions. First, they convey to clients that you’ve heard what they said. This usually enhances rapport and interpersonal connection. Second, as you provide a simple reflection, it lets clients hear what they’ve said. Hearing their words back—from the outside in—can be illuminating for clients.

Complex reflections add meaning, focus, or a particular emphasis to what the client said.

Client: I haven’t had an HIV test for quite a while.

Complex reflection: Getting an HIV test has been on your mind.

 

Client: I only had a couple drinks. Even when I got pulled over, I didn’t think I was over the limit.

Complex reflection: That was a surprise to you. You might have assumed “I can tell when I’m over the limit” but in this case you couldn’t really tell.

Complex reflections go beyond the surface and make educated guesses about what clients are thinking, feeling, or doing. Clients tend to talk more and get deeper into their issues when MI therapists use complex reflections effectively. Also, if your complex reflection is correct, it’s likely to deepen rapport and might evoke change talk.

An amplified reflection involves an intentional overstatement of the client’s main message. Generally, when therapists overstate, clients make an effort to correct the reflection.

Client: I’m pissed at my roommate. She won’t pick up her clothes or do the dishes or anything.

Interviewer: You’d like to fire her as a roommate.

Client: No. Not that. There are lots of things I like about her, but her messiness really annoys me. (from Sommers-Flanagan & Sommers-Flanagan, 2017, p. 440)

 

Client: My child has a serious disability and so I have to be home for him.

Interviewer: You really need to be home 24/7 and have to turn off any needs you have to get out and take a break.

Client: Actually, that’s not totally true. Sometimes, I think I need to take some breaks so I can do a better job when I am home. (from Sommers-Flanagan & Sommers-Flanagan, 2017, p. 441)

Sometimes MI practitioners accidentally amplify a reflection. Other times amplification is intentional. When intentionally amplifying reflections, it’s important to be careful because it can feel manipulative.

The opposite of amplified reflection is undershooting. Undershooting involves intentionally understating what your client is saying.

Client: I can’t stand it when my mom criticizes my friends right in front of me.

Therapist: You find that a little annoying.

Client: It’s way more than annoying. It pisses me off.

Therapist: What is it that pisses you off when your mom criticizes your friends?

Client: It’s because she doesn’t trust me and my judgment. (from Sommers-Flanagan & Sommers-Flanagan, 2017, p. 441)

In this example, the therapist undershoots the client’s emotion and then follows with an open question. Clients often elaborate when therapists undershoot.

As noted, the preceding content is a small taste of MI technical strategies; if you want to become a competent MI practitioner, advanced training is needed (see Atkinson & Woods, 2017; Miller & Rollnick, 2013).

Now that you’ve read a brief summary of MI, check out the following video link. In this link, John S-F is using a few MI techniques/strategies with a client who has a history of excessive alcohol use. The video is part of our published video package accompanying our Clinical Interviewing textbook, and includes me weaving in a few more traditional clinical interviewing questions (e.g., the CAGE) along with the MI content. There’s also light commentary by Rita and me, as well as a short clip in the middle of me interviewing a Licensed Addictions Counselor on the topic of how to handle clients who are probably lying. Here’s the link to the approximately 22 minute video: https://youtu.be/rtN7kEk0Sv4

If you have questions, comments, praise, or constructive feedback on this blog or the video, I’d love to hear from you. You can post here, on Youtube, or email me directly at john.sf@mso.umt.edu.

Happy Tuesday.

John S-F

 

Counseling and Psychotherapy Theory and Practice

A Brief Description of Motivational Interviewing

Leave a comment

In response to some questions on CESNET, I’m posting a brief description of Motivational Interviewing. Of course, Miller and Rollnick’s Motivational Interviewing text is a much more thorough source and is highly recommended if you want more complete information.

This description is an excerpt from the second edition of our Counseling and Psychotherapy Theories textbook. If you’re interested, you can check it out here: http://bcs.wiley.com/he-bcs/Books?action=index&itemId=0470617934&bcsId=7103

For the third edition (in preparation now), we’ll be substantially expanding this section and so if you have insights, publications, or other information that you think we should be aware of, please email me at john.sf@mso.umt.edu.

Here’s the excerpt:

Motivational Interviewing: A Contemporary PCT Approach

Person-Centered Therapy (PCT) principles have been integrated into most other approaches to counseling and psychotherapy. However, there are three specific approaches that are explicitly new generation person-centered therapies. These include:

  1. Motivational interviewing
  2. Emotion-focused therapy
  3. Nondirective play therapy

Next, we discuss motivational interviewing. Due to its strong integrational characteristics, emotion-focused therapy is covered in Chapter 14. Additional resources are available on nondirective play therapy (Landreth, 2002).

Moving Away From Confrontation and Education

In his research with problem drinkers, William R. Miller was studying the efficacy of behavioral self-control techniques. To his surprise, he found that structured behavioral treatments were no more effective than an encouragement-based control group. When he explored the data for an explanation, he found that regardless of treatment protocol, therapist empathy ratings were the strongest predictors of positive outcomes at 6 months (r = .82), 12 months (r = .71), and 2 years (r = .51; W. R. Miller, 1978; W. R. Miller & Taylor, 1980). Consequently, he concluded that positive treatment outcomes with problem drinkers were less related to behavioral treatment and more related to reflective listening and empathy. He also found that active confrontation and education generally led to client resistance. These discoveries led him to develop motivational interviewing (MI).

MI builds on person-centered principles by adding more focused therapeutic targets and specific client goals. Rollnick and Miller (1995) define MI as “a directive, client-centered counseling style for eliciting behavior change by helping clients to explore and resolve ambivalence” (p. 326).

Focusing on Client Ambivalence

Client ambivalence is the primary target of MI. When it comes to substance abuse and other health related behaviors, Miller and Rollnick (2002) view ambivalence as natural. Most all problem drinkers recognize or wish they could quit, but continue drinking for various reasons. Miller and Rollnick described what happens when therapists try to push healthy behaviors on clients:

[The therapist] then proceeds to advise, teach, persuade, counsel or argue for this particular resolution to [the client’s] ambivalence. One does not need a doctorate in psychology to anticipate what [the client’s] response is likely to be in this situation. By virtue of ambivalence, [the client] is apt to argue the opposite, or at least point out problems and shortcomings of the proposed solution. It is natural for [the client] to do so, because [he or she] feels at least two ways about this or almost any prescribed solution. It is the very nature of ambivalence. (pp. 20–21)

In many situations, humans are naturally inclined to resist authority. Therefore, when resistance rises up in clients, MI advocates person-centered attitudes and interventions. This leads to Miller and Rollnick’s (2002) foundational person-centered principle of treatment:

It is the client who should be voicing the arguments for change (p. 22).

Although Miller and Rollnick describe Rogers as collaborative, caring, and supportive—they emphasize that he was not nondirective (W. R. Miller & Rollnick, 1998). Instead, they note that Rogers gently guided clients to places where they were most confused, in pain, or agitated and then helped them stay in that place and work through it. The four central principles of MI flow from their conceptualization of Rogers’s approach (W. R. Miller & Rollnick, 2002). According to these principles, it’s the therapist’s job to:

  • Use reflective listening skills to express empathy for the client’s message and genuine caring for the client.
  • Notice and develop the theme of discrepancy between the client’s deep values and current behavior.
  • Meet client resistance with reflection rather than confrontation (Miller and Rollnick refer to this as “rolling with resistance”).
  • Enhance client self-efficacy by focusing on optimism, confidence that change is possible, and small interventions that are likely to be successful.

MI is both a set of techniques and a person-centered philosophy or style. The philosophical MI perspective emphasizes that motivation for change is not something therapists can effectively impose on clients. Change must be drawn out from clients, gently and with careful timing. Motivational interviewers do not use direct persuasion.

A Sampling of MI Techniques

Miller and Rollnick (2002) provide many excellent examples of how reflection responses reduce resistance. The following interactions capture how reflection of client efforts lessens the need for resistance:

Client: I’m trying! If my probation officer would just get off my back, I could focus on getting my life in order.

Interviewer: You’re working hard on the changes you need to make.

or

Interviewer: It’s frustrating to have a probation officer looking over your shoulder.

Client: Who are you to be giving me advice? What do you know about drugs? You’ve probably never even smoked a joint!

Interviewer: It’s hard to imagine how I could possibly understand.

Client: I couldn’t keep the weight off even if I lost it.

Interviewer: You can’t see any way that would work for you.

or

Interviewer: You’re rather discouraged about trying again. (pp. 100–101)

In the following excerpt from Clinical Interviewing (2009), we describe the MI technique of amplified reflection:

Recently, in hundreds of brief interviews conducted by graduate students in psychology and counseling with client—volunteers from introductory psychology courses, consistent with Miller and Rollnick’s (2002) motivational interviewing work, we found that clients have a strong need for their interviewers to accurately hear what they’re saying. When their interviewer made an inaccurate reflection, clients felt compelled to clarify their feelings and beliefs—often in ways that rebalanced their ambivalence.

For example, when an interviewer “went too far” with a reflection, the following exchange was typical:

Client: I am so pissed at my roommate. She won’t pick up her clothes or do the dishes or anything.

Interviewer: You’d sort of like to fire her as a roommate.

Client: No. Not exactly. There are lots of things I like about her, but her messiness really annoys me.

This phenomenon suggests that it might be possible for interviewers to intentionally overstate a client’s position in an effort to get clients to come back around to clarify or articulate the more positive side of an issue. In fact, this is a particular motivational interviewing technique referred to as amplified reflection.

When used intentionally, amplified reflection can seem manipulative, which is why amplified reflection is used along with genuine empathy. Instead of being a manipulative response it can also be viewed as an effort on the interviewer’s part to more deeply empathize with the client’s frustration, anger, discouragement, and so on. Examples of this technique include:

Client: My child has a serious disability and so I have to be home for him.

Interviewer: You really need to be home 24/7 and really need to turn off any needs you have to get out and take a break.

Client: Actually, that’s not totally true. Sometimes, I think I need to take some breaks so I can do a better job when I am home.

Client: When my grandmother died last semester I had to miss classes and it was a total hassle.

Interviewer: You don’t have much of an emotional response to your grandmother’s death—other than it really inconveniencing you.

Client: Well, it’s not like I don’t miss her, too.

Again, we should emphasize that amplified reflection is an empathic effort to get completely in touch with or resonate with one side of the client’s ambivalence (from J. Sommers-Flanagan & Sommers-Flanagan, 2009, pp. 316–317).

End of excerpt