Beard and Wilson define experiential learning as “the sense-making process of active engagement between the inner world of the person and the outer world of the environment” (p. 19). It is during this sense-making process that a state of dissonance can develop and that change will most readily occur. However, change does not happen solely through experience. If an experience serves solely to confirm already held beliefs, it won’t serve as a catalyst of change. Instead, it will simply reinforce the individual’s current cognitive processes (Beard & Wilson, p. 20).
It seems to me that the facilitator’s goal during an experience should be to assure that learning opportunities occur during this sense-making process of active engagement. With this in mind, perhaps the facilitator must purposefully introduce a state of dissonance into the activity. Dissonance creates confusion, and “the act of restructuring or reordering to regain balance… is where change in feelings, thoughts, attitudes, and behavior patterns occur” (Luckner & Nadler, p. 23).
One way for a facilitator to create this dissonance is by holding the learning experience in an environment that is unfamiliar to the participants. This approach is commonly used in adventure programming, where the participants are placed outdoors in an unknown setting. In-patient treatment programs are also unknown settings, of course, so serve as another example of environmental dissonance being created.
This summer, I will again be leading a series of hikes with my clients. One goal of these hikes is to place them into unknown settings. Opportunities like summer hikes are often scare scarce or seasonal in many clinical settings. That means it is important to look for other ways to create dissonance. Presenting experiences with uncertain outcomes can do this.
Ropes courses and initiative activities are example of this, since participants are unsure if they will be able to successfully complete the challenge. In my experience, some clinicians only use activities that they know the participants will be able to successfully complete. I believe this is appropriate for some clinical applications of experiential learning, such as illustrating a concept or improving group cohesion (see my post “Experiential Activities in Clinical Settings,” November 2008).
However, I strongly believe doing this is a sort of codependency that is not in the best interest of the participants. For teens in treatment, failure is a real possibility and avoiding experiences with unknown outcomes is a disservice. In fact, I strongly believe that the greatest learning can come from a failed activity—as long as it is adequately and appropriately processed. In a treatment setting, it is easy to connect failed or uncompleted activities to relapse, but there are many other rich processing possibilities.
Presenting the Possibility of Success
Whatever the experience, it is the unknown aspects of the activity that force the participant to leave her Comfort Zone and enter into a state of dissonance (Priest & Gass, p. 146). Through successful completion of an activity, through going outside a position of comfort, the participant’s dissonance will decrease. For example, when on a challenging mountain hike, a timid or fearful participant is likely to expect a negative outcome. Perhaps he will fail at the activity, perhaps he will be injured, perhaps he will not be as good as his peers, or perhaps a wild animal will attack.
When none of these negative outcomes occur, the participant is confronted with a new indisputable possibility: perhaps he can be successful. As a result, he is presented an opportunity to alter his future expectations. If an opportunity is also presented to generalize this learning, these changed expectations may be extended to all dimensions of his life.
A former client, Marie, serves as a useful example. Although not fearful, she was extremely resistant to the weekly hikes that were part of her inpatient treatment program. On a couple occasions, she claimed to be sick in an effort to avoid them. Throughout the hike, she would make negative comments, stating she could not or would not go any further. One time, she actually sat down on the side of the trail and for nearly 30 minutes refused to continue. However, when we hiked Little Si, one of the most difficult hikes we made and one of her last outings while in treatment, she actually encouraged other clients by saying, “If you can complete this hike, you can stay clean!”
Priest and Gass wrote, “The mastery or competence produced by successfully resolving the adaptive dissonance presented by a situation motivates behavior change” (p. 152). This motivation to change her behavior can be seen in Marie. Through the weekly outings, not only did she come to believe that she was able to successfully complete even a challenging hike, she took on a leadership role by becoming a source of encouragement to her peers. Indeed she went a step further, connecting her ability to complete the hike to her ability to accomplish other difficult goals, such as staying clean.
Luckner and Nadler wrote that central to experiential education is the idea that “we encourage people to try things that they wouldn’t generally do on their own. In other words, they leave their safe, familiar, comfortable and predictable world for uncomfortable new territory” (p. 28). This is certainly true also for substance abuse treatment! With that in mind, I frequently talk with my clients about Growth Zones, a model common in experiential learning. In my version, these three concentric circles consist of the individual’s Comfort Zone in the middle, then the Change Zone as the middle ring, and the Crisis Zone as the outside ring.
By default, an individual’s Comfort Zone contains only what is already known, feels safe, and presents no challenges or distress. It is only when an individual leaves his Comfort Zone that learning and change can occur. By doing this, though, dissonance is created, and with the dissonance comes discomfort. By working to eliminate the discomfort caused by the dissonance experienced when leaving your Comfort Zone, the change process can occur. This is true even with resistant participants like Marie, who are initially unwilling to even consider leaving her Comfort Zone.
The Role of Self-Efficacy
Important to this change process is the idea of self-efficacy. Perceptions of self-efficacy have three dimensions: magnitude, strength, and generality. Magnitude refers to the level of certainty the individual has for success (Priest & Gass, p. 55). This is primarily influenced by the participant’s perceptions of risk, as well as the perceived difficulty of the experience. Many experiential learning activities are purposefully designed to present a high apparent risk level.
This perceived risk often includes both the risk of failure and physical risks. I have heard ropes course participants say, “We can’t do this” or “I’ll break my leg if I even try that!” As important as a perceived risk of possible failure or injury is the possibility of social risks, or looking inadequate or incapable in front of peers. With all three perceived risks, successful completion of an activity that initially seemed impossible has a high likelihood of increasing perceptions of self-efficacy. Marie perceived our weekly hikes as highly challenging in all three ways. As such, her repeated successes on these hikes dramatically increased the magnitude of her self-efficacy.
Strength reflects how long a person holds onto expectations of success despite contradictory information (Priest & Gass p. 55). A history of succeeding after multiple unsuccessful attempts can play an important role in building strength. Although Marie completed every hike she participated, she frequently reported, “I’m just not good at outdoor stuff. That’s why I hate nature.” Her past experiences clearly influenced her perceptions of her own ability. However, through her repeated successes on hikes while in treatment, she was able to move past her unusual self-limiting beliefs, thereby contributed to the strength of her self-efficacy.
Generality refers to the degree of an individual’s transfer of self-efficacy beliefs from one situation to another (Priest & Gass, p. 55). Transfer is the integration of learning from the adventure program into the participant’s life (Priest & Gass, p. 184). In clinical setting, I believe this is the most important concept of the three, and an area when strong facilitation skills are especially vital. To assure that change happens as a result of participation in an experience, transfer of learning must occur.
For Marie, successfully working through her own dissonance provided an important opportunity for her to increase her sense of self-efficacy. As this increased, her engagement in processing grew. Initially, she would say little during debriefing sessions, even when called on directly. Toward the end of her treatment, not only was she increasingly vocal during debriefings, during hikes she actively encouraged her struggling peers.
“When clients enter into adventure programs that focus on change, they may strongly resist [that] change… Adventure experiences often reduce such resistance by placing clients in situations that are new and unique, yet supportive” (Priest & Gass, p. 148). Marie’s initial resistance to change is clearly evident. She was taken out of her Comfort Zone, and repeatedly placed into new and unique situations that she considered risky. In her efforts to reduce the dissonance she felt, she was forced to reconsider her preconceived views. Through opportunities to process her experiences, she generalized her learning to other areas of her life and began to believe in her ability to accomplish other meaningful goals, such as staying clean after treatment.
Works Cited
Beard, C. & Gross, J. Experiential Learning: A Best Practice Handbook for Educators and Trainers. Philadelphia: Kogan Page, 2006.
Luckner, J. & Nadler, R. Processing the Experience. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., 1997.
Priest, S. & Gross, M. Effective Leadership in Adventure Programming. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2005.
Showing posts with label growth zones. Show all posts
Showing posts with label growth zones. Show all posts
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Breaking the Cycle of Stuckness
As I’ve written before, my clients often have highly maladaptive cognitive scripts, routinely utilizing one of three cognitive scripts. They act up, shut down, or use mood-altering substances. While these responses might not seem especially effective to someone with more adaptive cognitive scripts, they are predictable and therefore safe. Rose wrote that most youth with multiple life problems—as is the case with nearly all my clients— “seem to have dedicated and rigid strategies for dealing with problems and are disinclined to look at other possibilities" (p. 177).
Looking at other possibilities requires a willingness to try something new, to step outside your Comfort Zone, to take risks. For youth who have had lives filled with unpredictability, even the most painful known option can feel less risky than any unknown one. “Steve,” a former client, summed this up when he said, “What I like the most about drugs is that I know what to expect. I smoke. I get high. No surprises.” For youth like Steve, there is an inherent reinforcement in a life of “no surprises.” Unlike many of other aspects of his life, he knows what to expect when he uses. And, that predictability is appealing.
However, a life of "no surprises" can lead to a cycle of stuckness. A basic tenet of brain development is that what fires together wires together. Through repetition of the same behavior, neuronal connections are created and then reinforced. Just like tying shoes becomes easier over time as a result of neurons wiring together, cognitive scripts also become hard wired in the brain. In other words, the maladaptive scripts of acting up, shutting down and using become part of the individual’s brain structure.
This means that Steve, like many youth, is cognitively stuck. His brain is hard wired to respond to life in maladaptive ways. Facilitating for change requires helping these youth break this cycle of stuckness. Experiential learning provides an effective methodology for doing this, because it “challenge[s] participants to update, refine, and alter mental programs when they emerge” (Luckner & Nadler, p. 36).
This updating, refining and altering can occur thanks to neuroplasticity, “the brain’s ability to physically change in response to stimuli and activity” (Romer & Walker, p. 484). It is “the ability of neurons to change the way they behave and relate to one another as the brain adapts to the environment through time” (Cozolino, p. 75). Neuroplasticity allows us to create new cognitive scripts.
Paula Tallal of Rutgers University stated, “You create your brain from the input you get” (qtd. in Begley, p. 105). It seems to me that it logically follows that that if you change the input, you would change the brain. Therapy or counseling provides an effective methodology for changing the input in a controlled and intentional manner. Cozolino supports this conclusion by writing, “[T]he therapeutic context may enhance the brain’s ability to rewire through concurrent emotional and cognitive processing. Successful therapeutic techniques may be successful because of their very ability to change brain chemistry in a manner that enhances neural plasticity” (p. 300).
“An enriched environment is one that is characterized by a level of stimulation and complexity that enhances learning and growth… [E]nriched environments can include the kinds of challenging educational and experiential opportunities that encourage us to learn new skills and expand our knowledge” (Cozolino, p. 22-23). A study conducted by the University of British Columbia helps to support the conclusion by Priest and Gass.
In this study, mice that were provided exercise wheels developed neurons that were “dramatically different” from sedentary mice. These exercise wheels provided the mice a more enriched environment, and in response their neurons had more dendrites, which are responsible for receiving signals from other neurons. This means the thinking patterns of these mice was more complex, more able to solve problems, and more able to engage in lasting learning (Begley, p. 69).
Cozolino suggests that any therapeutic approach will provide the enriched environment he describes. It seems to me, though, that experiential learning is particularly well suited for enhancing neuroplasticity. Experiential learning takes the "talk therapy" of other methodologies and puts that learning into action. Experiential learning tests what other methodologies often leave as "inert ideas" (Whitehead, qtd. in Zull, p. 206). According to Zull, "Action forces our mental constructs out of our brains and into the reality of the physical world" ( p. 206). Without that active testing, these new ideas are unlikely to ever be integrated into new behaviors. Active testing, then, is what allows us to rehearse new cognitive scripts.
Neuroplasticity in Action
Priest and Gass outlined six characteristics of experiential learning: the participant is provided a direct and purposeful experience, the participant is appropriately challenged, the participant is presented with opportunities for synthesis and reflection, the experience provides for natural consequences, the experience emphasizes participant-driven change, and the experience has both present and future relevance (p. 146-147).
All six of these characteristics are important to assure the most beneficial learning experience possible. However, it seems to me that for facilitators of experiential learning in clinical settings, focusing on participant-driven change is especially relevant. “Challenges that force us to expand our awareness, learn new information, or push beyond assumed limits can all change our brains” (Cozolino, p. 291).
Experiential learning regularly utilizes activities intended to push participants beyond their assumed limits, or to step outside their Comfort Zone. This provides participants the opportunity to test their assumptions and reject those they discover to be faulty. Because this testing is participant-driven, it is more developmentally appropriate for teens than more prescriptive counseling methodologies.
Zull wrote, “When we test our ideas, we are changing the abstract into the concrete. We convert our mental ideas into physical events” (p. 208). Converting mental ideas into physical events is exactly why experiential learning is an especially effective methodology for ending the cycle of stuckness. I would add, though, that once a mental construct has been forced into the physical world and discovered to be faulty, it is likely to be abandoned.
Rehearsing Change
As we have seen, experiential learning provides an effective method for testing and rejecting. Experiential learning provides two additional methods for helping end the cycle of stuckness. First, this methodology provides participants an opportunity to practice alternative behavioral choices. When used effectively and chosen for their relevance to the clinical work at hand, experiential learning allows youth like Steve to alter their cognitive scripts by putting new learning into practice in ways that will be memorable and concrete. In other words, experiential learning provides an opportunity to rehearse new scripts.
Second, experiential learning provides participants the opportunity to engage in healthy risk taking. For youth like Steve who prefer a life of no surprises, acting up, shutting down and using are so germane to their maladaptive scripts that these behaviors have become normalized. Thus, they are no longer perceived as risky.
In the Stages of Change model, these youth are pre-contemplative. Part of the appeal of pre-contemplation is that it feels safe (Prochaska, Norcross & DiClemente, p. 74). These youth often exhibit significant cognitive dissonance, perceiving high-risk situations as risk-free. This is, perhaps, the ultimate maladaptive script and part of their stuckness is their inability to see it. Helping them become unstuck requires helping them to reframe this dissonance, so that they move through the Stages of Change. Helping them become unstuck requires that they come to see risky behavior as risky.
Priest and Gass have cataloged significant affective gains from participation in experiential learning. These include new self-confidence, enhanced willingness to take good risks, improved self-concept, increased logical thinking, and greater reflective thinking (p. 19). These affective gains would be useful for anyone engaged in the change process, but they are particularly useful for someone stuck in pre-contemplation.
As illustrated, the use of experiential learning in clinical settings seems an obvious and valuable choice, leading to a “more enriched, complex, and potentially resilient brain” (Cozolino, p. 298). Experiential learning provides an excellent methodology for assuring this treatment outcome, by providing an “enriched environment to enhance brain development” (Cozolino, p. 291). These developments result in increased confidence and optimism regarding the ability to change. This is vital in helping assure that youth like Steve will actually utilize their new developed, more adaptive cognitive scripts.
“The concept of neuroplasticity suggests that the brain is highly malleable and is subject to continual change as a result of experience, so that new connections between neurons may be formed or even brand-new neurons generated” (The Dalai Lama, qtd. in Begley, p. 24). By providing rich opportunities to test assumptions, practice new behaviors, and engage in healthy risk taking, experiential learning inevitably enhances neuroplasticity, thereby leading to lasting changes in cognitive scripts. It is through this learning, rehearsing, and ultimate using of new, more adaptive cognitive scripts that youth like Steve can break their cycle of stuckness.
Works Cited
Begley, S. (2007). Train Your Mind, Change Your Brain. New York: Ballantine Books.
Cozolino, L. (2002). Neuroscience of Psychotherapy, The. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.
Luckner, J. & Nadler, R. (1992). Processing the Experience. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing.
Priest, S., & Gross, M. (2005). Effective Leadership in Adventure Programming. Champaign, IL: Human Kinestics.
Prochaska, J., Norcross, J., & DiClemente, C. (1994). Changing for Good. New York: Harper Collins.
Romer, D. & Walker, E. (2007). Adolescent Psychopathology and the Developing Brain. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rose, S. (1998). Group Therapy with Troubled Youth. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Zull, J. (2002). Art of Changing the Brain, The. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Looking at other possibilities requires a willingness to try something new, to step outside your Comfort Zone, to take risks. For youth who have had lives filled with unpredictability, even the most painful known option can feel less risky than any unknown one. “Steve,” a former client, summed this up when he said, “What I like the most about drugs is that I know what to expect. I smoke. I get high. No surprises.” For youth like Steve, there is an inherent reinforcement in a life of “no surprises.” Unlike many of other aspects of his life, he knows what to expect when he uses. And, that predictability is appealing.
However, a life of "no surprises" can lead to a cycle of stuckness. A basic tenet of brain development is that what fires together wires together. Through repetition of the same behavior, neuronal connections are created and then reinforced. Just like tying shoes becomes easier over time as a result of neurons wiring together, cognitive scripts also become hard wired in the brain. In other words, the maladaptive scripts of acting up, shutting down and using become part of the individual’s brain structure.
This means that Steve, like many youth, is cognitively stuck. His brain is hard wired to respond to life in maladaptive ways. Facilitating for change requires helping these youth break this cycle of stuckness. Experiential learning provides an effective methodology for doing this, because it “challenge[s] participants to update, refine, and alter mental programs when they emerge” (Luckner & Nadler, p. 36).
This updating, refining and altering can occur thanks to neuroplasticity, “the brain’s ability to physically change in response to stimuli and activity” (Romer & Walker, p. 484). It is “the ability of neurons to change the way they behave and relate to one another as the brain adapts to the environment through time” (Cozolino, p. 75). Neuroplasticity allows us to create new cognitive scripts.
Paula Tallal of Rutgers University stated, “You create your brain from the input you get” (qtd. in Begley, p. 105). It seems to me that it logically follows that that if you change the input, you would change the brain. Therapy or counseling provides an effective methodology for changing the input in a controlled and intentional manner. Cozolino supports this conclusion by writing, “[T]he therapeutic context may enhance the brain’s ability to rewire through concurrent emotional and cognitive processing. Successful therapeutic techniques may be successful because of their very ability to change brain chemistry in a manner that enhances neural plasticity” (p. 300).
“An enriched environment is one that is characterized by a level of stimulation and complexity that enhances learning and growth… [E]nriched environments can include the kinds of challenging educational and experiential opportunities that encourage us to learn new skills and expand our knowledge” (Cozolino, p. 22-23). A study conducted by the University of British Columbia helps to support the conclusion by Priest and Gass.
In this study, mice that were provided exercise wheels developed neurons that were “dramatically different” from sedentary mice. These exercise wheels provided the mice a more enriched environment, and in response their neurons had more dendrites, which are responsible for receiving signals from other neurons. This means the thinking patterns of these mice was more complex, more able to solve problems, and more able to engage in lasting learning (Begley, p. 69).
Cozolino suggests that any therapeutic approach will provide the enriched environment he describes. It seems to me, though, that experiential learning is particularly well suited for enhancing neuroplasticity. Experiential learning takes the "talk therapy" of other methodologies and puts that learning into action. Experiential learning tests what other methodologies often leave as "inert ideas" (Whitehead, qtd. in Zull, p. 206). According to Zull, "Action forces our mental constructs out of our brains and into the reality of the physical world" ( p. 206). Without that active testing, these new ideas are unlikely to ever be integrated into new behaviors. Active testing, then, is what allows us to rehearse new cognitive scripts.
Neuroplasticity in Action
Priest and Gass outlined six characteristics of experiential learning: the participant is provided a direct and purposeful experience, the participant is appropriately challenged, the participant is presented with opportunities for synthesis and reflection, the experience provides for natural consequences, the experience emphasizes participant-driven change, and the experience has both present and future relevance (p. 146-147).
All six of these characteristics are important to assure the most beneficial learning experience possible. However, it seems to me that for facilitators of experiential learning in clinical settings, focusing on participant-driven change is especially relevant. “Challenges that force us to expand our awareness, learn new information, or push beyond assumed limits can all change our brains” (Cozolino, p. 291).
Experiential learning regularly utilizes activities intended to push participants beyond their assumed limits, or to step outside their Comfort Zone. This provides participants the opportunity to test their assumptions and reject those they discover to be faulty. Because this testing is participant-driven, it is more developmentally appropriate for teens than more prescriptive counseling methodologies.
Zull wrote, “When we test our ideas, we are changing the abstract into the concrete. We convert our mental ideas into physical events” (p. 208). Converting mental ideas into physical events is exactly why experiential learning is an especially effective methodology for ending the cycle of stuckness. I would add, though, that once a mental construct has been forced into the physical world and discovered to be faulty, it is likely to be abandoned.
Rehearsing Change
As we have seen, experiential learning provides an effective method for testing and rejecting. Experiential learning provides two additional methods for helping end the cycle of stuckness. First, this methodology provides participants an opportunity to practice alternative behavioral choices. When used effectively and chosen for their relevance to the clinical work at hand, experiential learning allows youth like Steve to alter their cognitive scripts by putting new learning into practice in ways that will be memorable and concrete. In other words, experiential learning provides an opportunity to rehearse new scripts.
Second, experiential learning provides participants the opportunity to engage in healthy risk taking. For youth like Steve who prefer a life of no surprises, acting up, shutting down and using are so germane to their maladaptive scripts that these behaviors have become normalized. Thus, they are no longer perceived as risky.
In the Stages of Change model, these youth are pre-contemplative. Part of the appeal of pre-contemplation is that it feels safe (Prochaska, Norcross & DiClemente, p. 74). These youth often exhibit significant cognitive dissonance, perceiving high-risk situations as risk-free. This is, perhaps, the ultimate maladaptive script and part of their stuckness is their inability to see it. Helping them become unstuck requires helping them to reframe this dissonance, so that they move through the Stages of Change. Helping them become unstuck requires that they come to see risky behavior as risky.
Priest and Gass have cataloged significant affective gains from participation in experiential learning. These include new self-confidence, enhanced willingness to take good risks, improved self-concept, increased logical thinking, and greater reflective thinking (p. 19). These affective gains would be useful for anyone engaged in the change process, but they are particularly useful for someone stuck in pre-contemplation.
As illustrated, the use of experiential learning in clinical settings seems an obvious and valuable choice, leading to a “more enriched, complex, and potentially resilient brain” (Cozolino, p. 298). Experiential learning provides an excellent methodology for assuring this treatment outcome, by providing an “enriched environment to enhance brain development” (Cozolino, p. 291). These developments result in increased confidence and optimism regarding the ability to change. This is vital in helping assure that youth like Steve will actually utilize their new developed, more adaptive cognitive scripts.
“The concept of neuroplasticity suggests that the brain is highly malleable and is subject to continual change as a result of experience, so that new connections between neurons may be formed or even brand-new neurons generated” (The Dalai Lama, qtd. in Begley, p. 24). By providing rich opportunities to test assumptions, practice new behaviors, and engage in healthy risk taking, experiential learning inevitably enhances neuroplasticity, thereby leading to lasting changes in cognitive scripts. It is through this learning, rehearsing, and ultimate using of new, more adaptive cognitive scripts that youth like Steve can break their cycle of stuckness.
Works Cited
Begley, S. (2007). Train Your Mind, Change Your Brain. New York: Ballantine Books.
Cozolino, L. (2002). Neuroscience of Psychotherapy, The. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.
Luckner, J. & Nadler, R. (1992). Processing the Experience. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing.
Priest, S., & Gross, M. (2005). Effective Leadership in Adventure Programming. Champaign, IL: Human Kinestics.
Prochaska, J., Norcross, J., & DiClemente, C. (1994). Changing for Good. New York: Harper Collins.
Romer, D. & Walker, E. (2007). Adolescent Psychopathology and the Developing Brain. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rose, S. (1998). Group Therapy with Troubled Youth. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Zull, J. (2002). Art of Changing the Brain, The. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Getting Unstuck
According to the Yale Medical School web site, cognitive script is "the term used for the themes that flow habitually through our thoughts. These cognitive scripts can influence both our emotions and our behavior. They have been described as the tapes we play repeatedly in our heads—those things we tell ourselves over and over again, often without conscious awareness."
In my experience, substance-abusing teens generally have three basic cognitive scripts: act up, shut down, and use. With such limited options, these youth are stuck continuously rerunning these same maladaptive scripts, perpetuating already internalized beliefs that they are ineffective, incapable, and unable to make more adaptive choices.
Every time a youth uses the same maladaptive script, it becomes more likely that he will use it again. This is basic neuroscience. Hebb wrote, “[A]ny two cells that are repeatedly active at the same time will tend to become ‘associated,’ so that activity in one facilitates activity in the other" (qtd. in Siegel, p. 26). In other words, “Experience, gene expression, mental activity, behavior, and continued interactions with the environment are tightly linked in a transactional set of processes” (Siegel, p. 19).
These processes begin at birth. Repeated similar experiences lead the mind to make generalized representations that form the basis of mental models used to “interpret present experiences as well as anticipate future ones” (Siegel, p. 29-30), suggesting that an individual is most likely to respond to life events in standard, predictable and learned ways.
Cognitive scripts are learned. For an individual who experienced a positive childhood environment, her scripts will be adaptive and flexible. However, when a youth has only maladaptive scripts, eventually acting up, shutting down, and using can become so normalized that these scripts are no longer seen as problematic.
“Jennifer,” a former client, had a history of running away, shoplifting, and abusing marijuana. When I worked with her, she was on her third treatment episode. Jennifer lived in a group home with a drug testing policy and continued use would result in her losing her placement. Yet, she continued to use. Some drug counselors would say she was in denial or resistant to treatment. This seems overly simplistic to me. Jennifer couldn’t be successful because she had no mental model of success. All Jennifer knew was acting up, shutting down, and using. All Jennifer knew was being stuck.
If creating change in our clients is about helping them write new, more adaptive scripts, how do we make that happen? I’ve always believed the answer is not to provide endless didactic lectures. Rather, the answer is to present clients opportunities to try new behaviors. As they practice these new behaviors, new neural connections are being made and new cognitive scripts are being written. In other words, they are starting to get unstuck.
Beyond the Comfort Zone
In my experience, substance-abusing teens and other at-risk youth continue to engage in maladaptive behaviors until they break their cycle of stuckness. If this is true, then it seems to me that the goal of substance abuse treatment should be to help clients create new, more adaptive cognitive scripts. It seems to me that the first step in this process is encouraging participants to risk going outside their Comfort Zones.
There's a paradox among many of my clients. While they have done things I consider extremely high risk—like getting high on drugs acquired from a stranger who is inherently a criminal, exchanging sex for drugs, or stealing to support their habit—they almost universally present as risk-adverse. I'm frequently perplexed by how to confront this Risk Dichotomy, which my clients are usually unable to recognize. It seems those things have become so normalized to them that they are no longer perceived as risky.
For these clients, staying stuck seems safe. Acting up, shutting down, and using are solidly within their Comfort Zones, so don't seem like risky behavior. This cycle keeps the youth stuck—and every time this cycle repeats itself, it becomes more likely the youth will stay stuck. What fires together wires together. That's basic neuroscience. And, every time that happens it becomes more likely to happen again.
Getting unstuck requires the individual to step outside her Comfort Zone and experiment with new behaviors. This is much riskier—not to mention harder—than sticking with rigid, predictable responses. However, it is only through trying new behaviors that the individual will have the opportunity to develop more adaptive cognitive scripts.
Through participation in experiences that move them outside their Comfort Zones, experiential learning provides substance-abusing teens an opportunity to test their assumptions and reject those they discover to be faulty. It seems to me that this testing and rejecting is vital for movement through the Stages of Change, especially those stages most likely to be encountered in a treatment setting—pre-contemplation, contemplation, and preparation.
For a pre-contemplative client, testing and rejecting “increases the likelihood of serious consideration of change” (DiClemente, p. 27). For a client in the preparation stage, testing and rejecting fosters the likelihood of “a considered evaluation that leads to a decision to change” (DiClemente, p. 27). For a client in the preparation stage, testing and rejecting increases self-efficacy and can result in “an action plan that will be implemented in the near term” (DiClemente, p. 27).
You’re Freaking Me Out!
If opportunities to test and reject assumptions are necessary for movement through the Stages of Change, so, too, is some discomfort. According to Cozolino, “[M]oderate stress triggers the release of neurohormones that enhance cortical reorganization and new learning” (p. 24). In addition, Zull wrote, “Plasticity in the brain probably depends more on signals from the emotional centers than it does on new sensory input” (p. 223).
In other words, it is emotions—especially stress—that make our brains learn and change. Experiential learning is an excellent methodology for creating this change environment. In most experiential activities, there is a high level of perceived risk. In some cases, such as white water rafting or high ropes activities, this perceived risk is physical. In other cases, this perceived risk could be emotional or social.
Whether physical, emotional, or social, the perception of risk in experiential activities will likely result in a sense of disequilibrium. According to Luckner and Nadler, “Disequilibrium refers to an individual’s awareness that a mismatch exists between old ways of thinking and new information” (p. 19). "Vincent," a former client, provided an example of disequilibrium during a group activity.
I talk about appropriate risk-taking frequently during group sessions, and often use an activity called Pass the Mousetraps to illustrate this idea. As the title suggests, this activity involves passing around set mousetraps. Actually, this activity also includes tripping mousetraps with hands.
Although completely safe when certain parameters are followed, this activity appears to be fairly risky. In fact, while sitting in a room filled with teens tripping mousetraps, Vincent, a former client, blurted, “You’re freaking me out!” and quickly left the room. For Vincent, the perceived risk was simply too high, even after my extremely detailed safety directions prior to the activity.
Watching his group-mates trip mousetraps with their hands created too strong of a mismatch for Vincent. He believed this to be extremely dangerous behavior, yet nobody was being injured. Unable to revise his thinking quickly enough to reflect the reality of the situation, Vincent had no choice but to flee. Later, Vincent stated, “I left because I was sure someone was going to get hurt. And I couldn’t figure out why that wasn’t happening.” Vincent wasn't worried someone might get hurt; he was upset because what he expected to happen didn't.
With all my clients, disequilibrium appears when acting up, shutting down, and using become no longer effective. When faced with this scenario, a participant is confronted with one of two choices: assimilation or accommodation. According to Piaget’s developmental theory, when presented with new information an individual tries to assimilate it, or fit it into his existing understanding of the world. If this is impossible, the individual is forced to accommodate the new information by altering his schema, or mental models (Kassin, p. 343). When presented with an experience that requires accommodation, an individual is forced to alter his cognitive scripts.
Experiential learning is rich in these opportunities. Marie—the client discussed in my earlier posting Reflecting on Reflection—and her experience on the hike is a good example. Marie was confronted with two choices. She could give up by sitting on the side of the mountain and refusing to continue the hike, or she could resume the hike even though it was difficult and clearly outside her Comfort Zone. When Marie chose to continue the hike, she was required to accommodate this new option and alter her cognitive scripts.
I believe that these opportunities are one of the major values of experiential learning in treatment setting. Priest and Gass wrote, “By responding to seemingly insurmountable tasks [found in many experiential activities], participants often learn to overcome self-imposed perceptions of their capabilities to succeed” (p. 18). It seems to me that by definition, insurmountable tasks only exist outside one’s Comfort Zone. Perhaps, then, taking the risk of tackling an insurmountable task means a participant will automatically be more open to becoming unstuck.
For Marie, an insurmountable task was accomplished and the change was almost immediate. In Vincent’s case, he never tripped a mousetrap with his bare hand, but he did confront a powerful mismatch. What he expected didn’t happen and to accommodate that new experience, he needed to alter his cognitive scripts.
So, what does being slightly less afraid of a mousetrap has to do with sobriety? As a result of his experience that day, Vincent discovered that mousetraps aren’t inherently dangerous after all. This new learning required him to rearrange information in ways that formed new neural networks based on actively testing and rejecting an outdated belief. And, perhaps, with that was born a new perspective: There are possibilities other than those you’ve always believed to be true. Experiential learning helps participants become unstuck by helping them create new, more adaptive cognitive scripts and helping them discover those other possibilities.
Works Cited
Cozolino, L. (2002). Neuroscience of Psychotherapy, The. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.
DiClemente, C. (2003). Addiction and Change. New York: Guilford Press.
Kassin, S. (2004). Essentials of Psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Luckner, J. & Nadler, R. (1992). Processing the Experience. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing.
Priest, S. & Gass, M. (2005). Effective Leadership in Adventure Programming. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Siegel, D. (1999). Developing Mind, The. New York: Guilford Press.
Yale Medical School. (n.d.). Glossary. Retrieved October 22, 2008, from
http://info.med.yale.edu/psych/3s/glossary_items/cog_script.html
Zull, J. (2002). Art of Changing the Brain, The. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
In my experience, substance-abusing teens generally have three basic cognitive scripts: act up, shut down, and use. With such limited options, these youth are stuck continuously rerunning these same maladaptive scripts, perpetuating already internalized beliefs that they are ineffective, incapable, and unable to make more adaptive choices.
Every time a youth uses the same maladaptive script, it becomes more likely that he will use it again. This is basic neuroscience. Hebb wrote, “[A]ny two cells that are repeatedly active at the same time will tend to become ‘associated,’ so that activity in one facilitates activity in the other" (qtd. in Siegel, p. 26). In other words, “Experience, gene expression, mental activity, behavior, and continued interactions with the environment are tightly linked in a transactional set of processes” (Siegel, p. 19).
These processes begin at birth. Repeated similar experiences lead the mind to make generalized representations that form the basis of mental models used to “interpret present experiences as well as anticipate future ones” (Siegel, p. 29-30), suggesting that an individual is most likely to respond to life events in standard, predictable and learned ways.
Cognitive scripts are learned. For an individual who experienced a positive childhood environment, her scripts will be adaptive and flexible. However, when a youth has only maladaptive scripts, eventually acting up, shutting down, and using can become so normalized that these scripts are no longer seen as problematic.
“Jennifer,” a former client, had a history of running away, shoplifting, and abusing marijuana. When I worked with her, she was on her third treatment episode. Jennifer lived in a group home with a drug testing policy and continued use would result in her losing her placement. Yet, she continued to use. Some drug counselors would say she was in denial or resistant to treatment. This seems overly simplistic to me. Jennifer couldn’t be successful because she had no mental model of success. All Jennifer knew was acting up, shutting down, and using. All Jennifer knew was being stuck.
If creating change in our clients is about helping them write new, more adaptive scripts, how do we make that happen? I’ve always believed the answer is not to provide endless didactic lectures. Rather, the answer is to present clients opportunities to try new behaviors. As they practice these new behaviors, new neural connections are being made and new cognitive scripts are being written. In other words, they are starting to get unstuck.
Beyond the Comfort Zone
In my experience, substance-abusing teens and other at-risk youth continue to engage in maladaptive behaviors until they break their cycle of stuckness. If this is true, then it seems to me that the goal of substance abuse treatment should be to help clients create new, more adaptive cognitive scripts. It seems to me that the first step in this process is encouraging participants to risk going outside their Comfort Zones.
There's a paradox among many of my clients. While they have done things I consider extremely high risk—like getting high on drugs acquired from a stranger who is inherently a criminal, exchanging sex for drugs, or stealing to support their habit—they almost universally present as risk-adverse. I'm frequently perplexed by how to confront this Risk Dichotomy, which my clients are usually unable to recognize. It seems those things have become so normalized to them that they are no longer perceived as risky.
For these clients, staying stuck seems safe. Acting up, shutting down, and using are solidly within their Comfort Zones, so don't seem like risky behavior. This cycle keeps the youth stuck—and every time this cycle repeats itself, it becomes more likely the youth will stay stuck. What fires together wires together. That's basic neuroscience. And, every time that happens it becomes more likely to happen again.
Getting unstuck requires the individual to step outside her Comfort Zone and experiment with new behaviors. This is much riskier—not to mention harder—than sticking with rigid, predictable responses. However, it is only through trying new behaviors that the individual will have the opportunity to develop more adaptive cognitive scripts.
Through participation in experiences that move them outside their Comfort Zones, experiential learning provides substance-abusing teens an opportunity to test their assumptions and reject those they discover to be faulty. It seems to me that this testing and rejecting is vital for movement through the Stages of Change, especially those stages most likely to be encountered in a treatment setting—pre-contemplation, contemplation, and preparation.
For a pre-contemplative client, testing and rejecting “increases the likelihood of serious consideration of change” (DiClemente, p. 27). For a client in the preparation stage, testing and rejecting fosters the likelihood of “a considered evaluation that leads to a decision to change” (DiClemente, p. 27). For a client in the preparation stage, testing and rejecting increases self-efficacy and can result in “an action plan that will be implemented in the near term” (DiClemente, p. 27).
You’re Freaking Me Out!
If opportunities to test and reject assumptions are necessary for movement through the Stages of Change, so, too, is some discomfort. According to Cozolino, “[M]oderate stress triggers the release of neurohormones that enhance cortical reorganization and new learning” (p. 24). In addition, Zull wrote, “Plasticity in the brain probably depends more on signals from the emotional centers than it does on new sensory input” (p. 223).
In other words, it is emotions—especially stress—that make our brains learn and change. Experiential learning is an excellent methodology for creating this change environment. In most experiential activities, there is a high level of perceived risk. In some cases, such as white water rafting or high ropes activities, this perceived risk is physical. In other cases, this perceived risk could be emotional or social.
Whether physical, emotional, or social, the perception of risk in experiential activities will likely result in a sense of disequilibrium. According to Luckner and Nadler, “Disequilibrium refers to an individual’s awareness that a mismatch exists between old ways of thinking and new information” (p. 19). "Vincent," a former client, provided an example of disequilibrium during a group activity.
I talk about appropriate risk-taking frequently during group sessions, and often use an activity called Pass the Mousetraps to illustrate this idea. As the title suggests, this activity involves passing around set mousetraps. Actually, this activity also includes tripping mousetraps with hands.
Although completely safe when certain parameters are followed, this activity appears to be fairly risky. In fact, while sitting in a room filled with teens tripping mousetraps, Vincent, a former client, blurted, “You’re freaking me out!” and quickly left the room. For Vincent, the perceived risk was simply too high, even after my extremely detailed safety directions prior to the activity.
Watching his group-mates trip mousetraps with their hands created too strong of a mismatch for Vincent. He believed this to be extremely dangerous behavior, yet nobody was being injured. Unable to revise his thinking quickly enough to reflect the reality of the situation, Vincent had no choice but to flee. Later, Vincent stated, “I left because I was sure someone was going to get hurt. And I couldn’t figure out why that wasn’t happening.” Vincent wasn't worried someone might get hurt; he was upset because what he expected to happen didn't.
With all my clients, disequilibrium appears when acting up, shutting down, and using become no longer effective. When faced with this scenario, a participant is confronted with one of two choices: assimilation or accommodation. According to Piaget’s developmental theory, when presented with new information an individual tries to assimilate it, or fit it into his existing understanding of the world. If this is impossible, the individual is forced to accommodate the new information by altering his schema, or mental models (Kassin, p. 343). When presented with an experience that requires accommodation, an individual is forced to alter his cognitive scripts.
Experiential learning is rich in these opportunities. Marie—the client discussed in my earlier posting Reflecting on Reflection—and her experience on the hike is a good example. Marie was confronted with two choices. She could give up by sitting on the side of the mountain and refusing to continue the hike, or she could resume the hike even though it was difficult and clearly outside her Comfort Zone. When Marie chose to continue the hike, she was required to accommodate this new option and alter her cognitive scripts.
I believe that these opportunities are one of the major values of experiential learning in treatment setting. Priest and Gass wrote, “By responding to seemingly insurmountable tasks [found in many experiential activities], participants often learn to overcome self-imposed perceptions of their capabilities to succeed” (p. 18). It seems to me that by definition, insurmountable tasks only exist outside one’s Comfort Zone. Perhaps, then, taking the risk of tackling an insurmountable task means a participant will automatically be more open to becoming unstuck.
For Marie, an insurmountable task was accomplished and the change was almost immediate. In Vincent’s case, he never tripped a mousetrap with his bare hand, but he did confront a powerful mismatch. What he expected didn’t happen and to accommodate that new experience, he needed to alter his cognitive scripts.
So, what does being slightly less afraid of a mousetrap has to do with sobriety? As a result of his experience that day, Vincent discovered that mousetraps aren’t inherently dangerous after all. This new learning required him to rearrange information in ways that formed new neural networks based on actively testing and rejecting an outdated belief. And, perhaps, with that was born a new perspective: There are possibilities other than those you’ve always believed to be true. Experiential learning helps participants become unstuck by helping them create new, more adaptive cognitive scripts and helping them discover those other possibilities.
Works Cited
Cozolino, L. (2002). Neuroscience of Psychotherapy, The. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.
DiClemente, C. (2003). Addiction and Change. New York: Guilford Press.
Kassin, S. (2004). Essentials of Psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Luckner, J. & Nadler, R. (1992). Processing the Experience. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing.
Priest, S. & Gass, M. (2005). Effective Leadership in Adventure Programming. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Siegel, D. (1999). Developing Mind, The. New York: Guilford Press.
Yale Medical School. (n.d.). Glossary. Retrieved October 22, 2008, from
http://info.med.yale.edu/psych/3s/glossary_items/cog_script.html
Zull, J. (2002). Art of Changing the Brain, The. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Here I Go!
I've recently finished The Art of Changing the Brain, by James Zull. This book is packed full of interesting information on the biology of learning. The author did an excellent job of providing the information needed to understand this potentially challenging topic, so even if you have little understanding, you should be able to jump right in.
Zull wrote, “The main message [of this book] is that learning is change. It is change in ourselves, because it is change in the brain. Thus the art of teaching must be the art of changing the brain” (p. xivv). Zull builds on this statement throughout the book, exploring ways to use what is known about neuroscience in the process of teaching, and more important to my focus here, in facilitating for change.
Although the book is focused on teaching, the material presented is equally relevant to counseling and group facilitation. Over the last couple years I’ve started viewing myself more as a facilitator than a counselor. To me a counselor is someone who gives advice, and I try to avoid that most of the time!
In my experience, teens just aren’t much for advice taking. More importantly, though, I have come to believe that treatment is inherently an experiential learning process and hope to help clients reach their own decisions, building whatever necessary skills as we go. If I’m doing good work, what I’m really doing is facilitating the process of change, not providing advice. Like any facilitator, what I'm doing is providing opportunities.
As I started reading Zull and realized how teacher-focused it was, I had a bit of a challenge accepting that the material could apply to me. I don’t even like being called a counselor; I certainly don’t want to consider myself a teacher! Teachers provide new information and I operate on the assumption that my clients already know what they need. Sure, they're likely missing certain skills and frequently don’t have some factual information, but if treatment is an experiential process, than doesn't being effective in my work means not giving advice (at least not too often) and not teaching new information (at least not too much)? Isn't that what a facilitator does?
Having finished the book, I’ve altered my take on this a bit. It seems to me there’s really not much difference between teaching, counseling and facilitating—at least when they are done well. I still see myself as a facilitator, because that fits best with my approaches to counseling and fostering change, and I like how that role name fits. However, the distinctions between the three seem less relevant to me.
Prior Knowledge
One idea from Zull that has especially impacted me is the importance of prior knowledge. Zull wrote, “[P]rior knowledge is the beginning of new knowledge” (p. 93). He expanded on that with this statement: “When we speak of prior knowledge, we are speaking of something physical. It builds as brains physically change, and it is held in place by physical connections” (p. 94).
According to Zull, that physical something consists of all the neuronal networks that exist in our brains. “Whatever the neuronal networks are in the student brain, a teacher cannot remove them” (p. 101). So, rather than try to eliminate these neuronal networks, which won’t be effective anyway, it is more effective to build upon them. Taking this idea a small step further, it seems to me that prior knowledge actually provides a foundation that allows the teacher/facilitator/counselor to start in progress with the process of change. Prior knowledge, even if not entirely accurate, gives you a head start in facilitating change.
With that in mind, it seems only reasonable to have this first blog entry address what I already believe about that work I do. Core to my counseling approach is that everyone has cognitive scripts. Simply put, cognitive scripts are learned responses to situations. They are habits of both though and behavior. Like any habit, if I do something enough times it becomes automatic. This idea has roots in basic brain development. What wires together fires together. If someone is wired for adaptive cognitive scripts, that person is unlikely to have major problems in life. However, if someone is wired for maladaptive scripts, that person is stuck.
My clients are stuck. They have brains wired to make bad choices. In some cases, that wiring results from their environment. In other cases, it is due to genetic predisposition. In most cases, it seems to me that the maladaptive scripts result from a combination of these factors. Regardless of the causation, though, the cognitive scripts of my clients are usually limited to three options: acting up, shutting down, and using.
For my clients, acting up, shutting down, and using are solutions that have been effective in the past. Of course, effective doesn't necessarily mean adaptive. Rather, it means the behavior helped the individual meet her/his needs at that time. Since her/his needs were met by the behavior, it was repeated and became hardwired. This is basic behaviorist stuff. Do something, like the outcome, do it again.
Helping my clients move forward requires helping them get unstuck from this behaviorist loop, and that means helping them develop new, more adaptive cognitive scripts.
Zull's concept of prior learning would imply that my goal as a facilitator/counselor/teacher should not be to eliminate these maladaptive scripts, and that seems somewhat revolutionary to me. Instead, Zull suggested that it would be more effective to start with them. This bit of neuroscience would seem to support motivational interviewing, an "evidence-based approach to overcoming the ambivalence that keeps many people from making desired changes in their lives" (Miller & Rollnick, dust jacket), takes this approach also. More to come on that in the future!
Growth Zones
Getting unstuck means making changes and that’s hard. There are many reasons that change is hard, but I believe there are two factors that are especially relevant. The first is that brains are lazy. More accurately, brains are efficient and will automatically default to what is already known—those neurons that have fired together over and over in the past, those well rehearsed cognitive scripts whether they’re adaptive or not. The second factor that makes getting unstuck hard is that change is risky because it requires stepping outside your Comfort Zone.
A popular model in the experiential learning field is Growth Zones. I use this model with my clients regularly, and have found it to be useful for them in conceptualizing the process of change. Imagine an archery target with three rings. The innermost ring is an individual’s Comfort Zone. Here there are no challenges and no risks, but also no learning or change.
Most people spend most of their time in their Comfort Zone, and that's reasonable and appropriate. However, it is only when you move outside your Comfort Zone and enter your Change Zone, the middle ring, that you have the opportunity for growth or new learning. With this opportunity comes risk, though, because the outcome is uncertain. Should you go too far from your Comfort Zone, straying past your Change Zone and into the outermost ring, you'll end up in your Crisis Zone. At this point, you’re no longer learning or growing.
Comfort, Change, and Crisis are my names for these three zones. I like the alliteration and I like that it reinforces the idea of change. Most versions of this model call the three zones Comfort, Learning, and Panic.
Risking Change
Since making changes means taking risks, I believe success in the work I do requires the intentional creation of an environment where taking risks feels less risky. Doing that requires acknowledging that change is risky, exploring good risks versus bad risks, and providing opportunities to practice safe risk-taking. I believe that one of the best ways to provide opportunities to practice safe risk-taking is through experiential activities.
Experiential learning provides opportunities for participants to:
1. Test their pre-existing assumptions and reject what they no longer find effective;
2. Practice alternate behaviors; and,
3. Engage in healthy risk taking.
For many of my clients, risk-taking is something of a paradox. They’ve regularly engaged in behaviors that most people would considered extremely high risk—illicit drug use, illegal activities and so on. However, when it comes to making changes they are often extremely risk-adverse. They would often rather continue engaging in maladaptive, no longer effective behaviors than even consider doing anything different. At least that’s what they say and that’s what they do.
In fact, I believe most of my clients actually have more complex feelings about changing their behaviors, initially presenting with a certain amount of cognitive dissonance apparent in their words and actions. However, this risk-taking paradox is definitely a barrier to becoming unstuck for my clients.
It seems to me that this paradox is rooted in one simple fact: the Known, which is always inside someone's Comfort Zone, is safer than the Unknown, which is outside someone's Comfort Zone. For many of my clients, high-risk behavior is Very Much Known. Or at least the chaos created by the high-risk behavior is Very Much Known.
Nearly all of my clients have histories of trauma, abuse, neglect, or (at the very least) dysfunctional family systems. The cognitive scripts of these clients include chaos. It is hard-wired in their brains. In addition, stress releases neurochemicals that act on the brain’s reward center in the same way that meth, cocaine and other stimulants do. What a double whammy!
For these youth, high-risk behavior has become normalized. It exists inside their Comfort Zones and so no longer seems risky. In addition, when they engage in high-risk behavior, the behavior is reinforced because they get high. Perhaps there is no paradox here. Perhaps this behavior is completely understandable.
Another way to conceptualize this paradox occurred to me as I wrote this blog post: For these chaos junkie youth, maybe high-risk behavior isn't really in their Comfort Zone. After all, they generally do exhibit cognitive dissonance and generally are able to identify problems related to their behavior (not always the problems I've identified, but problems nonetheless).
I wonder if this cognitive dissonance means that the high-risk behaviors of these youth are, in fact, not in their Comfort Zone. I wonder if maybe these youth are stuck in their Crisis Zone.
Most treatment strategies for these youth are about trying new behaviors. In other words, most treatment strategies for these youth involve getting them to leave their Comfort Zones. However, they can't leave if they aren't even there. Maybe this treatment approach is backward. Maybe what should be happening is these youth should be nudged back into their Comfort Zone. Hummm...
Stages of Change
Another model of change I utilize frequently is the Stages of Change. This model states that any change requires progression through a series of stages. These stages include Pre-contemplation, Contemplation, Preparation, Action and Maintenance. Without progressing through all stages, lasting change won't happen.
In the past, most chemical dependency treatment was focused entirely on Action. Upon entering treatment, the client was expected to immediately stop all using. If that didn’t happen, the client was consider in denial or resistant to treatment and was often discharged. Not very effective. Would an M.D. discharge a cancer patient because the cancer didn't go away immediately? I hope not.
Alternatively, the client was perhaps compliant, attending all group sessions and having nothing but clean UAs. In this case, the client would be rewarded for her/his success. However, compliance has nothing to do with change, at least to in my opinion. Compliant clients are relapses waiting to happen.
The Stages of Change model suggests that you meet the client where she/he is and work on facilitating movement to the next stage. Discovering the motivation to move is the key to progressing through the Stages of Change.
There’s also the Recycle or Relapse stage, which is an important part of this theoretical model. In the Recycle stage, the individual cycles back through some of the earlier stages. When working with clients attempting to create any kind of change, I believe it is important to remember that relapse is not a sign of failure. Instead, relapse is a vital part of the change process and an important learning opportunity.
Relapse is experiential learning. It allows the client to test her/his pre-existing assumptions and reject what they no longer find effective, practice alternate behaviors, and engage in some healthy risk taking by learning something new. What didn’t work? What do you need to do differently? How can you move forward now, better prepared and with greater understanding of your personal challenges for staying clean?
Recently, I’ve been thinking about how an individual’s Stage of Change is their Comfort Zone. It seems to me there must be some interesting dynamic between these two models, but I don’t yet know what. It also seems to me that there is likely much more to discover in the crevasse between facilitating change and traumatic stress. I’m ready to go explore!
Works Cited
Zull, James. (2002). Art of Changing the Brain, The. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Zull wrote, “The main message [of this book] is that learning is change. It is change in ourselves, because it is change in the brain. Thus the art of teaching must be the art of changing the brain” (p. xivv). Zull builds on this statement throughout the book, exploring ways to use what is known about neuroscience in the process of teaching, and more important to my focus here, in facilitating for change.
Although the book is focused on teaching, the material presented is equally relevant to counseling and group facilitation. Over the last couple years I’ve started viewing myself more as a facilitator than a counselor. To me a counselor is someone who gives advice, and I try to avoid that most of the time!
In my experience, teens just aren’t much for advice taking. More importantly, though, I have come to believe that treatment is inherently an experiential learning process and hope to help clients reach their own decisions, building whatever necessary skills as we go. If I’m doing good work, what I’m really doing is facilitating the process of change, not providing advice. Like any facilitator, what I'm doing is providing opportunities.
As I started reading Zull and realized how teacher-focused it was, I had a bit of a challenge accepting that the material could apply to me. I don’t even like being called a counselor; I certainly don’t want to consider myself a teacher! Teachers provide new information and I operate on the assumption that my clients already know what they need. Sure, they're likely missing certain skills and frequently don’t have some factual information, but if treatment is an experiential process, than doesn't being effective in my work means not giving advice (at least not too often) and not teaching new information (at least not too much)? Isn't that what a facilitator does?
Having finished the book, I’ve altered my take on this a bit. It seems to me there’s really not much difference between teaching, counseling and facilitating—at least when they are done well. I still see myself as a facilitator, because that fits best with my approaches to counseling and fostering change, and I like how that role name fits. However, the distinctions between the three seem less relevant to me.
Prior Knowledge
One idea from Zull that has especially impacted me is the importance of prior knowledge. Zull wrote, “[P]rior knowledge is the beginning of new knowledge” (p. 93). He expanded on that with this statement: “When we speak of prior knowledge, we are speaking of something physical. It builds as brains physically change, and it is held in place by physical connections” (p. 94).
According to Zull, that physical something consists of all the neuronal networks that exist in our brains. “Whatever the neuronal networks are in the student brain, a teacher cannot remove them” (p. 101). So, rather than try to eliminate these neuronal networks, which won’t be effective anyway, it is more effective to build upon them. Taking this idea a small step further, it seems to me that prior knowledge actually provides a foundation that allows the teacher/facilitator/counselor to start in progress with the process of change. Prior knowledge, even if not entirely accurate, gives you a head start in facilitating change.
With that in mind, it seems only reasonable to have this first blog entry address what I already believe about that work I do. Core to my counseling approach is that everyone has cognitive scripts. Simply put, cognitive scripts are learned responses to situations. They are habits of both though and behavior. Like any habit, if I do something enough times it becomes automatic. This idea has roots in basic brain development. What wires together fires together. If someone is wired for adaptive cognitive scripts, that person is unlikely to have major problems in life. However, if someone is wired for maladaptive scripts, that person is stuck.
My clients are stuck. They have brains wired to make bad choices. In some cases, that wiring results from their environment. In other cases, it is due to genetic predisposition. In most cases, it seems to me that the maladaptive scripts result from a combination of these factors. Regardless of the causation, though, the cognitive scripts of my clients are usually limited to three options: acting up, shutting down, and using.
For my clients, acting up, shutting down, and using are solutions that have been effective in the past. Of course, effective doesn't necessarily mean adaptive. Rather, it means the behavior helped the individual meet her/his needs at that time. Since her/his needs were met by the behavior, it was repeated and became hardwired. This is basic behaviorist stuff. Do something, like the outcome, do it again.
Helping my clients move forward requires helping them get unstuck from this behaviorist loop, and that means helping them develop new, more adaptive cognitive scripts.
Zull's concept of prior learning would imply that my goal as a facilitator/counselor/teacher should not be to eliminate these maladaptive scripts, and that seems somewhat revolutionary to me. Instead, Zull suggested that it would be more effective to start with them. This bit of neuroscience would seem to support motivational interviewing, an "evidence-based approach to overcoming the ambivalence that keeps many people from making desired changes in their lives" (Miller & Rollnick, dust jacket), takes this approach also. More to come on that in the future!
Growth Zones
Getting unstuck means making changes and that’s hard. There are many reasons that change is hard, but I believe there are two factors that are especially relevant. The first is that brains are lazy. More accurately, brains are efficient and will automatically default to what is already known—those neurons that have fired together over and over in the past, those well rehearsed cognitive scripts whether they’re adaptive or not. The second factor that makes getting unstuck hard is that change is risky because it requires stepping outside your Comfort Zone.
A popular model in the experiential learning field is Growth Zones. I use this model with my clients regularly, and have found it to be useful for them in conceptualizing the process of change. Imagine an archery target with three rings. The innermost ring is an individual’s Comfort Zone. Here there are no challenges and no risks, but also no learning or change.
Most people spend most of their time in their Comfort Zone, and that's reasonable and appropriate. However, it is only when you move outside your Comfort Zone and enter your Change Zone, the middle ring, that you have the opportunity for growth or new learning. With this opportunity comes risk, though, because the outcome is uncertain. Should you go too far from your Comfort Zone, straying past your Change Zone and into the outermost ring, you'll end up in your Crisis Zone. At this point, you’re no longer learning or growing.
Comfort, Change, and Crisis are my names for these three zones. I like the alliteration and I like that it reinforces the idea of change. Most versions of this model call the three zones Comfort, Learning, and Panic.
Risking Change
Since making changes means taking risks, I believe success in the work I do requires the intentional creation of an environment where taking risks feels less risky. Doing that requires acknowledging that change is risky, exploring good risks versus bad risks, and providing opportunities to practice safe risk-taking. I believe that one of the best ways to provide opportunities to practice safe risk-taking is through experiential activities.
Experiential learning provides opportunities for participants to:
1. Test their pre-existing assumptions and reject what they no longer find effective;
2. Practice alternate behaviors; and,
3. Engage in healthy risk taking.
For many of my clients, risk-taking is something of a paradox. They’ve regularly engaged in behaviors that most people would considered extremely high risk—illicit drug use, illegal activities and so on. However, when it comes to making changes they are often extremely risk-adverse. They would often rather continue engaging in maladaptive, no longer effective behaviors than even consider doing anything different. At least that’s what they say and that’s what they do.
In fact, I believe most of my clients actually have more complex feelings about changing their behaviors, initially presenting with a certain amount of cognitive dissonance apparent in their words and actions. However, this risk-taking paradox is definitely a barrier to becoming unstuck for my clients.
It seems to me that this paradox is rooted in one simple fact: the Known, which is always inside someone's Comfort Zone, is safer than the Unknown, which is outside someone's Comfort Zone. For many of my clients, high-risk behavior is Very Much Known. Or at least the chaos created by the high-risk behavior is Very Much Known.
Nearly all of my clients have histories of trauma, abuse, neglect, or (at the very least) dysfunctional family systems. The cognitive scripts of these clients include chaos. It is hard-wired in their brains. In addition, stress releases neurochemicals that act on the brain’s reward center in the same way that meth, cocaine and other stimulants do. What a double whammy!
For these youth, high-risk behavior has become normalized. It exists inside their Comfort Zones and so no longer seems risky. In addition, when they engage in high-risk behavior, the behavior is reinforced because they get high. Perhaps there is no paradox here. Perhaps this behavior is completely understandable.
Another way to conceptualize this paradox occurred to me as I wrote this blog post: For these chaos junkie youth, maybe high-risk behavior isn't really in their Comfort Zone. After all, they generally do exhibit cognitive dissonance and generally are able to identify problems related to their behavior (not always the problems I've identified, but problems nonetheless).
I wonder if this cognitive dissonance means that the high-risk behaviors of these youth are, in fact, not in their Comfort Zone. I wonder if maybe these youth are stuck in their Crisis Zone.
Most treatment strategies for these youth are about trying new behaviors. In other words, most treatment strategies for these youth involve getting them to leave their Comfort Zones. However, they can't leave if they aren't even there. Maybe this treatment approach is backward. Maybe what should be happening is these youth should be nudged back into their Comfort Zone. Hummm...
Stages of Change
Another model of change I utilize frequently is the Stages of Change. This model states that any change requires progression through a series of stages. These stages include Pre-contemplation, Contemplation, Preparation, Action and Maintenance. Without progressing through all stages, lasting change won't happen.
In the past, most chemical dependency treatment was focused entirely on Action. Upon entering treatment, the client was expected to immediately stop all using. If that didn’t happen, the client was consider in denial or resistant to treatment and was often discharged. Not very effective. Would an M.D. discharge a cancer patient because the cancer didn't go away immediately? I hope not.
Alternatively, the client was perhaps compliant, attending all group sessions and having nothing but clean UAs. In this case, the client would be rewarded for her/his success. However, compliance has nothing to do with change, at least to in my opinion. Compliant clients are relapses waiting to happen.
The Stages of Change model suggests that you meet the client where she/he is and work on facilitating movement to the next stage. Discovering the motivation to move is the key to progressing through the Stages of Change.
There’s also the Recycle or Relapse stage, which is an important part of this theoretical model. In the Recycle stage, the individual cycles back through some of the earlier stages. When working with clients attempting to create any kind of change, I believe it is important to remember that relapse is not a sign of failure. Instead, relapse is a vital part of the change process and an important learning opportunity.
Relapse is experiential learning. It allows the client to test her/his pre-existing assumptions and reject what they no longer find effective, practice alternate behaviors, and engage in some healthy risk taking by learning something new. What didn’t work? What do you need to do differently? How can you move forward now, better prepared and with greater understanding of your personal challenges for staying clean?
Recently, I’ve been thinking about how an individual’s Stage of Change is their Comfort Zone. It seems to me there must be some interesting dynamic between these two models, but I don’t yet know what. It also seems to me that there is likely much more to discover in the crevasse between facilitating change and traumatic stress. I’m ready to go explore!
Works Cited
Zull, James. (2002). Art of Changing the Brain, The. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)