Here's the handout from my workshop at Counselor Camp 2001. I'm presenting a very similar workshop (it even has the same title!) in November at the Association for Experiential Education's 2011 International Conference. That workshop will focus more specifically on integrating narrative therapy and experiential education with this population.
Overcoming the Stuckness
Six Keys to Facilitating Change with Substance Abusing Teens
Presented by David Flack • Counselor Camp 2011
Teens are teens. They aren’t adults and they aren’t children. That seems obvious, right? Obvious or not, though, it is essential to remember when working with this age group. Adolescence is a discrete developmental stage that focuses on the tasks of developing identity, autonomy, intimacy, sexuality, and achievement. With substance abusing teens we often see distorted, funhouse mirror versions of these normal developmental tasks. With co-occurring teens, that mirror can be even more distorted.
It is normal for teens to question, rebel against, and ultimately reject the plans of authority figures, including the most well intentioned drug counselors. That means our clients are doing exactly what they should be doing, just in maladaptive, problematic ways. Yet, we often label them non-compliant, oppositional, or treatment resistant.
What Else Do We Know About Our Clients?
• Teens rarely enter treatment by choice. Since establishing autonomy is an important task of adolescence, when teens are mandated or pressured to attend treatment, there is a predictable conflict that frequently results in reactance.
• Substance-abusing teens typically exhibit rigid thinking habits. If we use confrontational or directive approaches, we’ll stop being allies and become adversaries. This won’t be useful for anyone!
• Most of our clients have complicating factors. 80% of substance-abusing teens have a mental health challenge; 70% have a history of trauma. If not addressed, these challenges can become insurmountable obstacles to change.
With these points in mind, I’ve developed Six Keys for facilitating change with substance-abusing teens. These Keys are a “mash up” of motivational interviewing, stages-of-change, narrative therapy, and existential psychotherapy. I think of them as the “C” in CBT — a way to assist adolescent clients in overcoming rigid thinking, getting unstuck, and moving forward.
First Key: Everyone is motivated by something.
When starting treatment, teens often deny any problems related to alcohol, marijuana, or other drugs. When this happens, many helpers quickly label them as resistant. This can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. In other words, if you expect resistance then you’ll probably get it.
When given an opportunity, even the most reluctant clients are likely to identify something that motivates them to engage in treatment — often legal, school, or family problems. These may not be the motivators we want for our clients, but change requires meeting clients where they’re at, not where we want them to be.
Help clients find their “hook” by using the Five R’s of Motivational Interviewing:
• Relevance. Why is change important?
• Risks. What are the risks of changing? What are the risks of not changing?
• Rewards. What will you gain from change?
• Roadblocks. What are the obstacles to change?
• Repetition. Review these at each session.
Second Key: Change requires leaving your Comfort Zone.
Our clients are stuck in seemingly endless loops of maladaptive behaviors. Our task is to assist them in getting unstuck, not behave better, fulfill external mandates, or stop using. Hopefully those things happen, but they’re side effects of getting unstuck. When we start thinking about our task this way, we’re better able to help clients discover how to leave their Comfort Zones.
In the Zone
• Comfort Zone. Most people spend most of their time in their Comfort Zone, where risks and challenges are minimal, but so is change or learning.
• Challenge Zone. When you leave your Comfort Zone, you enter your Challenge Zone. This is where learning and change occurs.
• Crisis Zone. In the Crisis Zone, stress is too high for effective learning.
Risking Change
Leaving your Comfort Zone is risky. However, it is necessary if change is going to occur. Three ways to assist clients in taking this risk are:
• Acknowledge the risk. Increased awareness is one of the first steps to changing any behavior. Spend time talking with clients about the risks involved in change and ways to move forward anyway.
• Explore good risks vs. bad risks. Their behavior might suggest otherwise, but most substance-abusing teens are risk adverse. Bad risks have become commonplace in their lives, but they actively avoid taking good ones.
• Provide opportunities to practice safe risk taking. I’ve had clients try belly dancing, glass blowing, rock climbing, snowshoeing, and more. Adventure outings and other experiential activities also provide ways to practice risk taking.
Super-stuck Teens
This is a term I use for those clients who are simply unwilling to leave their Comfort Zone. For these teens, The Known — no matter how bad — is inherently better than The Unknown. Super-stuck teens are overwhelmed by existential anxiety. This can be defined as stress or anxiety rooted in our awareness of personal freedom and the responsibilities that accompany choices.
Teens with chaotic histories, unstable environments, and past traumas are most likely to become super-stuck. Super-stuckness can also occur with “timid” teens, clients who have poor self-esteem, and youth with traits of anxiety or depression, even if sub-clinical.
In my experience, super-stuck teens will likely spend a longer-than-usual time in the Contemplation and Preparation Stages of Change (see Third Key). They require extra patience, increased empathy, and counselors focused on relationships over compliance.
Third Key: Change is a process, not an event.
Even when it seems that change was instantaneous, we’re really seeing the end result of a process. The Stages of Change is a transtheoretical model that identifies five steps:
• Pre-contemplation. I don’t have a problem.
• Contemplation. Maybe I have a problem.
• Preparation. I have a problem and am thinking about what to do.
• Action. I’m doing something about my problem
• Maintenance. My new behavior has become habit.
It is important to remember that movement through these stages isn’t always linear. The most obvious example of this is Recycling (or Relapsing). When attempting any kind of change, relapse into old behaviors can be a necessary part of the process and a valuable teachable moment.
When relapse happens, we tend to blame a lack of skills, situational factors, or client unwillingness. These may be the extenuating circumstances, but I propose that relapse happens because we push our clients into Action too quickly. Recovery isn’t a race! We need to set our abstinence agendas aside and give our clients the time they need to move through all the Stages of Change.
Fourth Key: Expect ambivalence.
Ambivalence can be defined as simultaneously believing two seemingly contradictory ideas. In the case of substance-abusing teens: I want to fix my problem and I want to keep using. As we know, teens typically enter treatment because of legal, school, and family pressures, but don’t think they have a problem with alcohol, marijuana, or other drugs. Is it any surprise they’re ambivalent?
Helping clients resolve their ambivalence requires exploring both the pros and cons of using. However, drug counselors often focus solely on the problems. Our clients know they have a problem. They don’t need us telling them over and over. If anything, doing so may be invalidating and reaffirm their apparent inability to make change.
Resolving Ambivalence
As we know, substance-abusing teens have rigid thinking habits. These habits reinforce their ambivalence by keeping them stuck in extreme thinking. Resolving ambivalence requires them to think beyond the extremes. In addition to exploring the pros and cons of using, some strategies for helping with this are:
• Engage clients in activities and discussion on balance, the Middle Path, and similar concepts.
• Explore all-or-nothing thinking.
• Whenever possible, use continuums, spectrums, and scaling questions.
• Assist clients to develop critical thinking and mindfulness skills.
Fifth Key: Changed lives require changed stories.
The stories we tell about ourselves and our experiences define how we act, think, and feel. They determine how we make sense of our past, present, and future, how we interpret the information of our lives, and how we interact with the world.
Substance-abusing teens have lives filled with problem-saturated stories. These tales of stuckness, maladaptive behavior, and treatment failures have become the defining stories for their lives. These stories are constrictive, leaving our clients trapped in an ever-shrinking Comfort Zone, with fewer and fewer options. As helpers, we need to provide opportunities to create new, more hopeful stories.
Externalizing the Problem
• Instead of having a problem or being a problem, assist clients to view problems as existing outside themselves.
• Externalizing the problem removes pressures rooted in blame, shame, and defensiveness.
• We can take this even further by encouraging clients to think of their problems as characters in their stories.
• You can assist clients to externalize their ambivalence by presenting the idea of both an Addictive Voice and a Rational Voice.
Seek Exceptions
• Clients build and sustain problem-saturated narratives by ignoring times when The Problem wasn’t in control.
• Seeking exceptions involves assisting clients to identify those ignored times.
• Explore these exceptions in great detail. Much can be learned from them.
• Identifying exceptions assists clients to discover the skills they already possess but have been ignoring because The Problem was in control.
Re-authoring
• Once exceptions have been identified, clients can start re-authoring their problem-saturated stories.
• Re-authoring involves giving clients the opportunity to create new, more empowering stories.
• Anything that involves clients successfully leaving their Comfort Zone and experiencing exceptions to their problem-saturated narratives can provide useful material for these new stories.
Sixth Key: Maintain a playful approach.
I conceptualize the challenges faced by some adolescent clients as developmental debt. Various developmental theories exist, but most have some things in common. For example, most include stages of development that are linked to age ranges. Also, most include a task that needs to be accomplished in order to move to the next stage.
Traditional perspectives on development suggest that if a task isn’t successfully completed, then the person becomes stuck at that stage. While that may have been accurate when these developmental models were created, it seems to me this is no longer true. Instead, sociocultural and biological factors keep pushing individuals forward, even if developmental tasks are unresolved or only partially completed.
With every push forward, these individuals become less likely to successfully complete the next stage, resulting in an ever-growing developmental debt. Think of it like a credit card that never gets fully paid off. Not only will you always have a balance due, but you’ll also get further and further behind each month.
Maintaining a playful approach is one way to meet our “in debt” clients where they’re at both emotionally and cognitively. Also, play and playfulness creates an environment that allows these teens to start paying off some of that debt. In other words, a playful approach provides opportunities for our clients to go backwards in order to catch up.
Activities from the Workshop
The following activities and exercises were part of the workshop: Chiji Mingle, Endless Loop, Chiji Zones, Mega Jenga, Gutter Ball, Brainstorm Posters (The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly), and Whack 'Em.
Further Reading
• The Art of Changing the Brain, by James Zull
• Changing for Good, by James Prochaska, John Norcross & Carlo DiClemente
• Elusive Alliance, edited by David Castro-Blanco & Marc Karver
• Interviewing for Solutions, by Peter de Jong & Insoo Kim Berg
• Motivational Interviewing, by William Miller & Stephen Rollnick
• Motivational Interviewing with Adolescents & Young Adults, by Sylvie Naar-King & Mariann Suarez
• Pathways to Change, by Matthew Selekman
• The Primal Teen, by Barbara Strauch
• Real Boys, by William Pollack
• Reviving Ophelia, by Mary Pipher
• What is Narrative Therapy?, by Alice Miller
Showing posts with label mandated clients. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mandated clients. Show all posts
Monday, September 19, 2011
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Readiness to Change
As I’ve previously written, I believe that making change is about resolving ambivalence. Miller and Rollnick wrote that when facilitating change in others, “It is useful in understanding a person’s ambivalence to know his or her perceptions of both importance and confidence” (p. 53). This balance between importance and confidence can be thought of as an individual’s readiness for change (Miller & Rollnick, p. 54).
Within the chemical dependency field, an individual’s readiness to change is given much important. Per standards set by the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM), readiness to change has been identified as one of six areas, or dimensions, to be evaluated during an initial substance abuse assessment and to be re-evaluated during monthly updates.
As a drug/alcohol counselor, I clearly think a lot about readiness to change in others. Indeed, much of what I do as a clinician is really about helping clients to increase their readiness to change. However, it seems to me that this is presented as a vague concept within the ASAM assessment criteria. Basically, the more resistant an individual appears, the lower his readiness to change. However, if resistance truly is “an unhelpful idea that has handicapped therapists” (Selekman, p. 32), it seems unproductive to use it as a means of assessment. Worse, this pessimist mindset seems likely to keep the client stuck.
After all, if a client is resistant and therefore completely unwilling to engage in treatment, even the most skilled clinician would be left with no options. These clients sit in treatment for a while, refusing to engage, then get discharged for being non-compliant, not amiable to treatment, or unwilling to participate in their own recovery. Shame on them! Clients may not enter treatment resistant to the process, but they do sometimes leave that way. Or, as Seligman wrote, “Pessimistic prophecies are self-fulfilling” (p. 6).
Recently, I began working with “Michael.” Michael had been working with another clinician for about two months when he was referred to me. The clinician stated, “He doesn’t want to do any work and is completely unwilling to engage in treatment. I think he needs mental health services.” Michael’s attendance at group and individual sessions had been poor thus far, and the referring clinician stated that he was “adamant” about continuing to use marijuana and alcohol. The referring clinician also used that word resistant many, many times during our one conversation about this client.
The Process of Change
I believe a useful way to evaluate readiness to change is by assessing the individual’s Stage of Change. According to Stages of Change theory, lasting change is a process, with the individual moving through six distinct stages. These are pre-contemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, maintenance, and termination. Each stage “entails a series of tasks that need to be completed before progress to the next stage” (Prochaska, Norcross & DiClemente, p. 39). Sometimes, an individual returns to a prior stage in order to do more work. Within this model, that’s not a failure, just part of the process. In fact, I believe that recovery is an experiential process, and that relapse can be the most important part of that process.
Traditionally, most substance abuse programs assumed all clients entering treatment were in the action stage. To me, this is just absurd, especially when you consider that most clients—like Michael—are mandated in the first place. Perhaps resistance is really about this misfit of stages. If an individual is pre-contemplative and being treated as if he is ready to take action, wouldn’t he appear non-compliant, not amiable to treatment, and unwilling to engage? That certainly describes Michael. When I first met him, my perspective was a bit different than the referring clinician’s.
Michael was—and remains—a challenging client who tests boundaries, is likely to debate minor details, and always does the minimum required. However, he wasn’t resistant. Rather, he was stuck in pre-contemplation. Like anyone in pre-contemplation, Michael didn’t believe he had a problem. Since he didn’t have a problem, why should he change anything? And, the more people pushed him to take action, the less likely it would happen.
Miller and Rollnick wrote, “ When the idea of change or treatment is forced on an unwilling recipient it is not uncommon for the individual to engage in the problem behavior to a greater extent in an attempt to assert his or her freedom” (p. 337). According to the referring clinician, Michael’s using had increased since starting treatment. In fact, the referring clinician offered this information as proof of Michael’s resistance.
If Michael was actually stuck in pre-contemplation, my efforts shouldn't be to get him to take action. My efforts should be to help him get unstuck. Prochaska, Norcross and DiClemente have identified specific tasks for each Stage of Change. I have found these stage-specific tasks to be useful when working with clients. I've also found that the Stages of Change model and motivational interviewing have much in common. In fact, Miller and Rollnick wrote, “[M]otivational interviewing can be used to assist individuals to accomplish the various tasks required to transition form the pre-contemplation stage through the maintenance stage” (p. 202). Employing basic motivational interviewing principles when doing Stages of Change work seems a natural choice.
Miller and Rollnick identified four general principles for motivational interviewing. These are express empathy, develop discrepancy, roll with resistance, and support self-efficacy (p. 36). Especially when combined with stage-specific tasks, these principles are highly effective in helping clients move through the Stages of Change (Miller & Rollnick, p. 203). And, when the clients are successful, they are also developing the confidence to continue their change process.
The Confidence to Change
Miller and Rollnick wrote, “Readiness [to change] implies at least some degree of both importance and confidence. A person who does not see change as important is unlikely to be ready to change. Similarly, people who see change as impossible are unlikely to say they are ready to do it” (p. 54). Initially, Michael didn’t see change as important, but he also had doubts about his ability to make meaningful change.
I proposed two goals for Michael. First, address the tasks of pre-contemplation so he could start making some movement on the Stages of Change. Second, increase his sense of self-efficacy and thereby improve his optimism. When I presented this plan to Michael, his only response was, “Whatever. As long as I don’t get my probation revoked.” That lead to a third goal for Michael: do what is necessary to stay out of detention, which meant attending weekly individual sessions with me and having clear UAs.
Michael was reluctant to stop his use, but agreed to this plan because, in his words, “I’ll go to detention if I don’t.” I’ve only been working with this client for a short time, but clear progress has already occurred. Michael has been present at all his scheduled appointments. He's also making reasonable progress on pre-contemplation tasks. In our last appointment, he stated, “I don’t think I’ve got a problem using, but everyone else does, and that’s a problem, I guess. ” This may not sound like progress to some. I’m sure it wouldn’t to that referring clinician. To me, though, it clearly represents signs of becoming unstuck.
Instead of the pessimism of resistance, a new perspective is offered by the combination of the Stages of Change model and motivational interviewing: Even the most reluctant clients are simply working on the tasks of their current stage. Thought of this way, the job of a professional helper is reframed from the thankless task of overcoming resistance to that of assisting clients to increase their readiness to change.
Works Cited
Miller, W., & Rollnick, S. (2002). Motivational Interviewing. New York: Guilford Press.
Prochaska, J., Norcross, J., & DiClemente, C. (1994). Changing for Good. New York: Harper Collins.
Selekman, M. (2005). Pathways to Change. New York: Guilford Press.
Seligman, M. (1990). Learned Optimism. New York: Random House.
Within the chemical dependency field, an individual’s readiness to change is given much important. Per standards set by the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM), readiness to change has been identified as one of six areas, or dimensions, to be evaluated during an initial substance abuse assessment and to be re-evaluated during monthly updates.
As a drug/alcohol counselor, I clearly think a lot about readiness to change in others. Indeed, much of what I do as a clinician is really about helping clients to increase their readiness to change. However, it seems to me that this is presented as a vague concept within the ASAM assessment criteria. Basically, the more resistant an individual appears, the lower his readiness to change. However, if resistance truly is “an unhelpful idea that has handicapped therapists” (Selekman, p. 32), it seems unproductive to use it as a means of assessment. Worse, this pessimist mindset seems likely to keep the client stuck.
After all, if a client is resistant and therefore completely unwilling to engage in treatment, even the most skilled clinician would be left with no options. These clients sit in treatment for a while, refusing to engage, then get discharged for being non-compliant, not amiable to treatment, or unwilling to participate in their own recovery. Shame on them! Clients may not enter treatment resistant to the process, but they do sometimes leave that way. Or, as Seligman wrote, “Pessimistic prophecies are self-fulfilling” (p. 6).
Recently, I began working with “Michael.” Michael had been working with another clinician for about two months when he was referred to me. The clinician stated, “He doesn’t want to do any work and is completely unwilling to engage in treatment. I think he needs mental health services.” Michael’s attendance at group and individual sessions had been poor thus far, and the referring clinician stated that he was “adamant” about continuing to use marijuana and alcohol. The referring clinician also used that word resistant many, many times during our one conversation about this client.
The Process of Change
I believe a useful way to evaluate readiness to change is by assessing the individual’s Stage of Change. According to Stages of Change theory, lasting change is a process, with the individual moving through six distinct stages. These are pre-contemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, maintenance, and termination. Each stage “entails a series of tasks that need to be completed before progress to the next stage” (Prochaska, Norcross & DiClemente, p. 39). Sometimes, an individual returns to a prior stage in order to do more work. Within this model, that’s not a failure, just part of the process. In fact, I believe that recovery is an experiential process, and that relapse can be the most important part of that process.
Traditionally, most substance abuse programs assumed all clients entering treatment were in the action stage. To me, this is just absurd, especially when you consider that most clients—like Michael—are mandated in the first place. Perhaps resistance is really about this misfit of stages. If an individual is pre-contemplative and being treated as if he is ready to take action, wouldn’t he appear non-compliant, not amiable to treatment, and unwilling to engage? That certainly describes Michael. When I first met him, my perspective was a bit different than the referring clinician’s.
Michael was—and remains—a challenging client who tests boundaries, is likely to debate minor details, and always does the minimum required. However, he wasn’t resistant. Rather, he was stuck in pre-contemplation. Like anyone in pre-contemplation, Michael didn’t believe he had a problem. Since he didn’t have a problem, why should he change anything? And, the more people pushed him to take action, the less likely it would happen.
Miller and Rollnick wrote, “ When the idea of change or treatment is forced on an unwilling recipient it is not uncommon for the individual to engage in the problem behavior to a greater extent in an attempt to assert his or her freedom” (p. 337). According to the referring clinician, Michael’s using had increased since starting treatment. In fact, the referring clinician offered this information as proof of Michael’s resistance.
If Michael was actually stuck in pre-contemplation, my efforts shouldn't be to get him to take action. My efforts should be to help him get unstuck. Prochaska, Norcross and DiClemente have identified specific tasks for each Stage of Change. I have found these stage-specific tasks to be useful when working with clients. I've also found that the Stages of Change model and motivational interviewing have much in common. In fact, Miller and Rollnick wrote, “[M]otivational interviewing can be used to assist individuals to accomplish the various tasks required to transition form the pre-contemplation stage through the maintenance stage” (p. 202). Employing basic motivational interviewing principles when doing Stages of Change work seems a natural choice.
Miller and Rollnick identified four general principles for motivational interviewing. These are express empathy, develop discrepancy, roll with resistance, and support self-efficacy (p. 36). Especially when combined with stage-specific tasks, these principles are highly effective in helping clients move through the Stages of Change (Miller & Rollnick, p. 203). And, when the clients are successful, they are also developing the confidence to continue their change process.
The Confidence to Change
Miller and Rollnick wrote, “Readiness [to change] implies at least some degree of both importance and confidence. A person who does not see change as important is unlikely to be ready to change. Similarly, people who see change as impossible are unlikely to say they are ready to do it” (p. 54). Initially, Michael didn’t see change as important, but he also had doubts about his ability to make meaningful change.
I proposed two goals for Michael. First, address the tasks of pre-contemplation so he could start making some movement on the Stages of Change. Second, increase his sense of self-efficacy and thereby improve his optimism. When I presented this plan to Michael, his only response was, “Whatever. As long as I don’t get my probation revoked.” That lead to a third goal for Michael: do what is necessary to stay out of detention, which meant attending weekly individual sessions with me and having clear UAs.
Michael was reluctant to stop his use, but agreed to this plan because, in his words, “I’ll go to detention if I don’t.” I’ve only been working with this client for a short time, but clear progress has already occurred. Michael has been present at all his scheduled appointments. He's also making reasonable progress on pre-contemplation tasks. In our last appointment, he stated, “I don’t think I’ve got a problem using, but everyone else does, and that’s a problem, I guess. ” This may not sound like progress to some. I’m sure it wouldn’t to that referring clinician. To me, though, it clearly represents signs of becoming unstuck.
Instead of the pessimism of resistance, a new perspective is offered by the combination of the Stages of Change model and motivational interviewing: Even the most reluctant clients are simply working on the tasks of their current stage. Thought of this way, the job of a professional helper is reframed from the thankless task of overcoming resistance to that of assisting clients to increase their readiness to change.
Works Cited
Miller, W., & Rollnick, S. (2002). Motivational Interviewing. New York: Guilford Press.
Prochaska, J., Norcross, J., & DiClemente, C. (1994). Changing for Good. New York: Harper Collins.
Selekman, M. (2005). Pathways to Change. New York: Guilford Press.
Seligman, M. (1990). Learned Optimism. New York: Random House.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Beyond Resistance
It is common in substance abuse treatment to hear clinicians label clients as resistant, meaning the individual is unmotivated to participate in the treatment process. Over the last year of so, I’ve been thinking a lot about the idea of resistance within teens. The more I think about this, the more I've come to believe that resistance is extremely rare in teens, if not in all client populations.
It seems to me that resistance is an easy answer to explain away non-engagement by clients, providing an easy excuse to not make further efforts at engagement. Selekman wrote, “The traditional psychotherapeutic concept of resistance is an unhelpful idea that has handicapped therapists” (p. 32). Motivational interviewing provides many useful ideas for moving beyond the easy excuse provided by labeling a client as resistant. According to Miller and Rollnick, motivational interviewing is a “client-centered, directive method for enhancing intrinsic motivation to change by exploring and resolving ambivalence” (p. 25).
In my experience, most teens are not resistant. They are ambivalent. Indeed, most of the clients I’ve worked with have held as absolute fact two seemingly incongruent thoughts: 1.) I have a problem; and, 2.) I don’t want to do anything about my problem. Its worth noting that my clients rarely define their problems the way I do, at least not initially, but that doesn't mean they believe themselves to be problem-less. It also doesn't mean they are resistant.
From my perspective as a clinician, my clients have problems stemming from drug use, truancy, illegal behavior, mental health challenges, and family dysfunction. Rarely are these the problems my clients initially identify, though. Many of my clients reluctantly enter treatment with only one self-identified problem, being on probation or an at-risk youth petition, and only one self-identified goal, avoiding detention. It would be easy to dismiss these youth as resistant. After all, they don't agree with me, the professional. In fact, though, not agreeing with me probably shouldn’t be considered pathological.
Miller and Rollnick wrote, “Understanding the dynamics of ambivalence… provides an alternative to thinking of people as (and blaming them for being) ‘unmotivated.’ People are always motivated for something” (p. 18). Avoiding detention—the sole initial motivation with many of my clients—is an extremely concrete goal and an excellent place to begin. It is easy to develop discrepancy with these youth, a key principle of motivational interviewing (Miller & Rollnick, p. 37). This principle requires that the helper “create and amplify, from the client’s perspective, a discrepancy between present behavior and his or her broader goals and values” (Miller & Rollnick, p. 38).
“If we want to help people learn, we should not worry about how we can motivate them but try to identify what already is motivating them” (Zull, p. 53). For teens on probation or an at-risk youth petition, continued use of alcohol and other drugs will lead to a violation that could send them to detention. Staying out of detention—their self-defined goal—requires clean UAs and attendance at treatment. When I talk about this with a client, I’m not telling him to stop using alcohol and other drugs. Instead, I’m being collaborative and helping him solve his problem as he defined it. Sure, the client is doing what I hoped for, but he's doing he for his reasons, not mine.
The threat of detention may not motivate a youth to change her behavior, but it is usually sufficiently motivating to start the process. Once this process has begun, “the overall goal is to increase intrinsic motivation, so that change arises from within rather than being imposed from without and so that change serves the person’s own goals and values” (Miller & Rollnick, p. 34).
Mental Logjams
Many of my clients are adequately motivated by extrinsic rewards to start the change process. However, for a client who simultaneously hold as true “I have a problem” and “I don’t want to do anything about my problem,” the mental logjam created from these incongruent beliefs can serve to reinforce his maladaptive cognitive scripts, encouraging him to remain stuck. After all, resolving this discrepancy will be hard and brains are lazy. They’d rather continue to use the same ol’ well-rehearsed scripts. Those brains would rather continue to Act Up, Shut Down, or Use.
When lazy brains do what lazy brains do, it may appear to be resistance or a lack of motivation. However, it seems to me that this is really just basic neuroscience in action. What fires together wires together, and then wants to keep firing that way. Getting unstuck requires getting lazy brains to do something different; that requires overcoming an apparent lack of motivation. Miller and Rollnick wrote that lack of motivation “can be thought of as unresolved ambivalence. To explore ambivalence is to work at the heart of the problem of being stuck” (p. 14).
In my experience, professional helpers often do their work only on the “I have a problem” side of ambivalence. I believe this is ineffective for two reasons. First, as discussed above, my clients already know they have a problem. They don’t need me to repeatedly tell them that. If anything, doing so is invalidating and reaffirms their apparent inability to be effective or make change. In fact, it would seem to me that repeatedly telling a client she has a problem contributes to keeping her stuck.
The second reason working on the “I have a problem” side is ineffective is that it is developmentally inappropriate with adolescents. Lectures don’t persuade teens. Neither does forcing compliance to a pre-determined solution they had no input on. Adolescents are supposed to question, rebel against, and ultimately resist the plans authority figures. Most professional helpers may be reluctant to view themselves as authority figures, but our clients never forget it.
“The theory of psychological reactance predicts an increase in the rate and attractiveness of a ‘problem’ behavior if a person perceives that his or her personal freedom is being infringed or challenged” (Miller & Rollnick, p. 18). If I tell my clients to stop using alcohol and other drugs, I may be increasing the likelihood of them continuing their use! That's true for any client, child, adolescent, or adult. However, as an unavoidably authoritarian figure working with adolescents who are supposed to rebel against what I say, this is magnified. So, not only does telling a client he has a problem contributes to keeping him stuck, so does telling him what to do about his problem.
Reframing Resistance
I started this post by stating that resistance meant that the individual is not amiable to treatment. Miller and Rollnick propose a different definition for resistance, “movement away from change” (p.47). Forced compliance doesn’t lead to change, but as we’ve seen above it may lead to movement away from change.
With mandated clients, I could create a pressure cooker situation that forced them into compliance, and I’ve seen counselors, parents, and probation officers take this approach. However, it is vital to avoid this sort of taking sides. “If the counselor argues for one side of the conflict, it is natural for the client to give voice to the other side… Hearing themselves vigorously arguing that they don’t have a problem and don’t need to change, they become convinced” (p. 56-57).
One way to avoid taking sides is to externalize the problem (Selekman, p. 93). This therapeutic strategy involves talking about the problem as if it was a separate being from the client, complete with sentience and decision-making abilities. About two years ago, when I initially read Selekman, I started externalizing ambivalence when working with reluctant clients. Inspired by a treatment-oriented board game, I began talking about Addictive Voices and Rational Voices. I’ve integrated the Voices throughout my groups—including role plays, art activities, the board game, and experiential activities—and I’ve found my clients readily embrace this concept.
In both individual and group sessions, I often assume the role of a client’s Addictive Voice, leaving the Rational Voice to the client. According to Miller and Rollnick, “If taking up one side of the argument causes an ambivalent person to defend the other, then the process ought to work both ways… By the nature of ambivalence, when the counselor raises only one side the client is inclined to explore the other” (p. 107).
In my experience, even the most ambivalent client is able to effectively speak for her Rational Voice. According to Miller and Rollnick, this is exactly the goal of motivational interviewing—for the client to “present the arguments for change” (p. 76). In doing so, the client can begin the process of breaking through the mental logjam caused by ambivalence.
Mandates may bring clients into treatment, but they don’t lead to lasting change. Motivational interviewing “focuses on intrinsic motivation for change, even with those who initially come for counseling as a direct result of extrinsic pressure” (Miller & Rollnick, p. 26). Looking beyond the simple answer of resistance is vital if this process is to occur.
Works Cited
Miller, W., & Rollnick, S. (2002). Motivational Interviewing. New York: Guilford Press.
Selekman, M. (2005). Pathways to Change. New York: Guilford Press.
Zull, J. (2002). Art of Changing the Brain, The. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
It seems to me that resistance is an easy answer to explain away non-engagement by clients, providing an easy excuse to not make further efforts at engagement. Selekman wrote, “The traditional psychotherapeutic concept of resistance is an unhelpful idea that has handicapped therapists” (p. 32). Motivational interviewing provides many useful ideas for moving beyond the easy excuse provided by labeling a client as resistant. According to Miller and Rollnick, motivational interviewing is a “client-centered, directive method for enhancing intrinsic motivation to change by exploring and resolving ambivalence” (p. 25).
In my experience, most teens are not resistant. They are ambivalent. Indeed, most of the clients I’ve worked with have held as absolute fact two seemingly incongruent thoughts: 1.) I have a problem; and, 2.) I don’t want to do anything about my problem. Its worth noting that my clients rarely define their problems the way I do, at least not initially, but that doesn't mean they believe themselves to be problem-less. It also doesn't mean they are resistant.
From my perspective as a clinician, my clients have problems stemming from drug use, truancy, illegal behavior, mental health challenges, and family dysfunction. Rarely are these the problems my clients initially identify, though. Many of my clients reluctantly enter treatment with only one self-identified problem, being on probation or an at-risk youth petition, and only one self-identified goal, avoiding detention. It would be easy to dismiss these youth as resistant. After all, they don't agree with me, the professional. In fact, though, not agreeing with me probably shouldn’t be considered pathological.
Miller and Rollnick wrote, “Understanding the dynamics of ambivalence… provides an alternative to thinking of people as (and blaming them for being) ‘unmotivated.’ People are always motivated for something” (p. 18). Avoiding detention—the sole initial motivation with many of my clients—is an extremely concrete goal and an excellent place to begin. It is easy to develop discrepancy with these youth, a key principle of motivational interviewing (Miller & Rollnick, p. 37). This principle requires that the helper “create and amplify, from the client’s perspective, a discrepancy between present behavior and his or her broader goals and values” (Miller & Rollnick, p. 38).
“If we want to help people learn, we should not worry about how we can motivate them but try to identify what already is motivating them” (Zull, p. 53). For teens on probation or an at-risk youth petition, continued use of alcohol and other drugs will lead to a violation that could send them to detention. Staying out of detention—their self-defined goal—requires clean UAs and attendance at treatment. When I talk about this with a client, I’m not telling him to stop using alcohol and other drugs. Instead, I’m being collaborative and helping him solve his problem as he defined it. Sure, the client is doing what I hoped for, but he's doing he for his reasons, not mine.
The threat of detention may not motivate a youth to change her behavior, but it is usually sufficiently motivating to start the process. Once this process has begun, “the overall goal is to increase intrinsic motivation, so that change arises from within rather than being imposed from without and so that change serves the person’s own goals and values” (Miller & Rollnick, p. 34).
Mental Logjams
Many of my clients are adequately motivated by extrinsic rewards to start the change process. However, for a client who simultaneously hold as true “I have a problem” and “I don’t want to do anything about my problem,” the mental logjam created from these incongruent beliefs can serve to reinforce his maladaptive cognitive scripts, encouraging him to remain stuck. After all, resolving this discrepancy will be hard and brains are lazy. They’d rather continue to use the same ol’ well-rehearsed scripts. Those brains would rather continue to Act Up, Shut Down, or Use.
When lazy brains do what lazy brains do, it may appear to be resistance or a lack of motivation. However, it seems to me that this is really just basic neuroscience in action. What fires together wires together, and then wants to keep firing that way. Getting unstuck requires getting lazy brains to do something different; that requires overcoming an apparent lack of motivation. Miller and Rollnick wrote that lack of motivation “can be thought of as unresolved ambivalence. To explore ambivalence is to work at the heart of the problem of being stuck” (p. 14).
In my experience, professional helpers often do their work only on the “I have a problem” side of ambivalence. I believe this is ineffective for two reasons. First, as discussed above, my clients already know they have a problem. They don’t need me to repeatedly tell them that. If anything, doing so is invalidating and reaffirms their apparent inability to be effective or make change. In fact, it would seem to me that repeatedly telling a client she has a problem contributes to keeping her stuck.
The second reason working on the “I have a problem” side is ineffective is that it is developmentally inappropriate with adolescents. Lectures don’t persuade teens. Neither does forcing compliance to a pre-determined solution they had no input on. Adolescents are supposed to question, rebel against, and ultimately resist the plans authority figures. Most professional helpers may be reluctant to view themselves as authority figures, but our clients never forget it.
“The theory of psychological reactance predicts an increase in the rate and attractiveness of a ‘problem’ behavior if a person perceives that his or her personal freedom is being infringed or challenged” (Miller & Rollnick, p. 18). If I tell my clients to stop using alcohol and other drugs, I may be increasing the likelihood of them continuing their use! That's true for any client, child, adolescent, or adult. However, as an unavoidably authoritarian figure working with adolescents who are supposed to rebel against what I say, this is magnified. So, not only does telling a client he has a problem contributes to keeping him stuck, so does telling him what to do about his problem.
Reframing Resistance
I started this post by stating that resistance meant that the individual is not amiable to treatment. Miller and Rollnick propose a different definition for resistance, “movement away from change” (p.47). Forced compliance doesn’t lead to change, but as we’ve seen above it may lead to movement away from change.
With mandated clients, I could create a pressure cooker situation that forced them into compliance, and I’ve seen counselors, parents, and probation officers take this approach. However, it is vital to avoid this sort of taking sides. “If the counselor argues for one side of the conflict, it is natural for the client to give voice to the other side… Hearing themselves vigorously arguing that they don’t have a problem and don’t need to change, they become convinced” (p. 56-57).
One way to avoid taking sides is to externalize the problem (Selekman, p. 93). This therapeutic strategy involves talking about the problem as if it was a separate being from the client, complete with sentience and decision-making abilities. About two years ago, when I initially read Selekman, I started externalizing ambivalence when working with reluctant clients. Inspired by a treatment-oriented board game, I began talking about Addictive Voices and Rational Voices. I’ve integrated the Voices throughout my groups—including role plays, art activities, the board game, and experiential activities—and I’ve found my clients readily embrace this concept.
In both individual and group sessions, I often assume the role of a client’s Addictive Voice, leaving the Rational Voice to the client. According to Miller and Rollnick, “If taking up one side of the argument causes an ambivalent person to defend the other, then the process ought to work both ways… By the nature of ambivalence, when the counselor raises only one side the client is inclined to explore the other” (p. 107).
In my experience, even the most ambivalent client is able to effectively speak for her Rational Voice. According to Miller and Rollnick, this is exactly the goal of motivational interviewing—for the client to “present the arguments for change” (p. 76). In doing so, the client can begin the process of breaking through the mental logjam caused by ambivalence.
Mandates may bring clients into treatment, but they don’t lead to lasting change. Motivational interviewing “focuses on intrinsic motivation for change, even with those who initially come for counseling as a direct result of extrinsic pressure” (Miller & Rollnick, p. 26). Looking beyond the simple answer of resistance is vital if this process is to occur.
Works Cited
Miller, W., & Rollnick, S. (2002). Motivational Interviewing. New York: Guilford Press.
Selekman, M. (2005). Pathways to Change. New York: Guilford Press.
Zull, J. (2002). Art of Changing the Brain, The. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Talking Despite Themselves
Zull wrote that reflection is an attempt to find unity in experiences (p. 154). He continued, “We get our data quickly, but it takes longer to see the unity it in" (p. 163). I believe that discovering this unity is especially important when using experiential activities in clinical settings. Without connecting the activity to the real world, transfer of learning will not occur. Processing a learning experience helps assure that this transfer happens.
Processing is “an activity that is structured to encourage individuals to plan, reflect, describe, analyze and communicate about experiences” (Luckner & Nadler p. 8). In experiential learning settings, a typical processing session involves participants answering facilitator-asked questions following some type of experience. Some participants are resistant to this approach, especially initially. In my experience, processing sessions that are simply facilitator-led question-and-answer sessions often lack depth. It seems to me this can be especially true when working with teens in treatment, where the youth are often reluctant to participate in the first place and may lack the skills necessary to be introspective.
Mandated to Change
Nearly all the youth I work with enter services in the pre-contemplation stage-of-change. They are there due to probation, other court involvements, school requirements, family pressures, or other external reasons. For them, treatment is viewed as the lesser of two evils, and minimal effort is all they initially will commit. The compelling nature of experiential activities works well with these youth for encouraging participation. However, attempting to lead these youth to process deeply can be painful at times!
There is a special challenge involved in working with these mandated youth, and the work can be filled with paradoxes. I consider their treatment voluntary, but not participating could result in a probation violation. I never force clients to participate in experiential activities, but not participating could be considered non-compliance. I try to minimize the coercive aspect of this throughout all dimensions of treatment, but mandated clients are always aware of it.
That said, although the mandated client is required to participate, that doesn’t mean she can’t choose to do so. Indeed, that is exactly what I always hope will occur with these clients, that their thinking will move from “I have to be here” to “I want to be here.” When this happens, I see it as a clear sign of movement through the stages-of-change.
Whether clients are mandated to treatment or not, one of the advantages of experiential activities is that the activities are inherently engaging. Priest and Gass refer to these as “activities that provide compelling tasks to accomplish” (p. 17). Even most reluctant clients want to participate in them, at least after an appropriate “I’m not doing that” protest. Perhaps they believe that the activities aren’t really treatment and therefore acceptable. That’s fine with me. I know there’s much more to juggling rubber chickens than meets the eye.
Reflection Skills
Reflection takes skill and developing this skill requires practice (Stanchfield, p. 134). In my experience, it is common for youth in treatment to lack the skills necessary to reflect. As a way to help my clients develop this skill, I’ve recently added a new element to my group sessions. At every session, we now start with a Question from the Box. I’ve created about 60 questions, which I have on strips of paper. At the start of each group session, a participant draws a slip out of the box and all the youth take turns answering the question.
Some of the questions are directly recovery oriented, such as “Describe the last time you felt like using.” Others are about self-disclosure, such as “Share something about yourself that nobody here knows.” Still others are simply for the sake of practicing reflection skills, such as “If you were a super hero, what would your super-power be?”
Recently, group members have spontaneously started asking each other follow up questions, which suggests to me that this processing practice is having a positive impact. In a simple, safe way, these Questions from the Box are providing my clients an opportunity to improve their skills at self-reflection. In some cases, though, it seems to me that a lack of reflective ability may suggest more than simply a skills deficit. It might indicate a history of trauma, abuse and/or neglect.
Many of the youth I work with have such histories. For these participants, introspection may be something they’ve spent years actively avoiding. Their use of alcohol and other drugs may be part of that effort to avoid introspection. Their other maladaptive behaviors may also be part of that pattern of avoidance. Yet, here I am as the facilitator, pushing them to do exactly what they have been trying to avoid. No wonder they seem reluctant.
It seems to me that providing opportunities to practice reflection is an important aspect of any treatment program. Once learned, the ability to think reflectively is a valuable skill these youth will take with them and be able to apply to life in general. Since so many of my clients have histories of trauma or neglect, facilitating for change means finding ways for my clients to feel safe while being reflective.
That Silly Amygdala
The amygdala is also where the fight-or-flight response is centered. The “fear center” of the brain, it is used primarily for analyzing experiences, assigning meaning to those experiences, and monitoring those experiences for danger (Zull, p. 59). When the amygdala senses danger, it communicates this to the body, so that the body can prepare to act (Zull, p. 60). Imagine a youth reluctant to attend group. Maybe he doesn’t think he has a problem and resent the mandate. Maybe she has a history of trauma. Maybe he doesn’t possess the skills to be introspective. It seems to me that these are exactly the type of situations that would be considered dangerous by the vigilant amygdala.
So what does this have to do with getting teens to talk? Well, according to Zull, there are times when the amygdala is less active, less vigilant. One of these times is when the cortical brain is busy with a cognitive task such as solving a puzzle (p. 60). Under those circumstances, the amygdala doesn’t have time to sense fear. It seems to me that presenting puzzles or other active processing approaches could be useful when working with reluctant-to-process teens. By keeping the cortical brain busy, they would be more likely to process.
Indeed, without knowing it, I’ve done this in the past. Occasionally I have Game Day in groups and one of my favorite games is Totika. Similar to Jenga, but with blocks of different colors, after successfully removing a block from the stack the player answers a color-coded question. About a year ago, we were playing Totika during a Game Day. While playing, “Carl”— street savvy, extremely guarded, and reluctant to engage in discussions, activities, or any self-disclosure—was asked to describe the worse day of his life. Without hesitation, he started talking about his mother’s death when he was four years old. Within moments, he was in tears as he continued telling his life story to the group.
For nearly a year now, I’ve been thinking about this incident, trying to figure out why Carl was suddenly willing to be introspective that day. Had he finally come to feel safe in the group environment? Was it simply that he was playing by the rules of the game? Had his need to talk about this overwhelmed his reluctance to engage? All of these are likely true to some extent, but it would seem that the task of carefully pulling a block out of the stack kept his cortical brain too busy to be fearful about sharing this experience.
Surely there are ways that I can more intentionally bring this knowledge about the amygdala into my groups in order help facilitate change.
Beyond Q & A
Totika is one example of ways to move beyond a traditional question-and-answer processing approach, to help assure a richer outcome for teens in treatment. “There are many innovative ways to engage a group in dialogue and reflection kinesthetically, emotionally, and socially that aren’t dependent on the facilitator’s leading a didactic question-and-answer session” (Stanchfield, p. 106).
One example is the use of consensus in processing. Stanchfield stated, “The value of practicing consensus in the context of developing group processing skills is that consensus is all about quality discussion and embracing and understanding the opinions of those with differing viewpoints” (p. 94). Stanchfield wrote about a processing activity that involved the providing the group a set of cards with metaphorical images on each, such as Chiji Cards (see www.chiji.com). The group’s goal is to choose one card by consensus that represented what they had achieved as a group.
I like this as a processing activity and have used it before. Not only does it function as an exercise in consensus, it turns processing into a decision making experience. Getting teens to process deeply can be challenging, so having participates engage in an activity like this can be an excellent choice. As Stanchfield wrote, “[P]articipants can become so involved in identifying with a card, and making an argument for their card, that they are unaware they are engaging in reflection” (p. 96).
As we have seen, if participants’ brains are engaged in such problem solving, they may truly be unaware they are processing. Even so, the reflection that occurs helps to assure transfer of learning. As a facilitator, becoming more intentional with processing approaches can also help assure the most value possible from participating in an experiential activity.
Works Cited
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.
Stanchfield, J. (2007). Tips and Tools: The Art of Experiential Group Facilitation. Oklahoma City, OK: Wood'N'Barnes Publishing.
Zull, J. (2002). Art of Changing the Brain, The. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Processing is “an activity that is structured to encourage individuals to plan, reflect, describe, analyze and communicate about experiences” (Luckner & Nadler p. 8). In experiential learning settings, a typical processing session involves participants answering facilitator-asked questions following some type of experience. Some participants are resistant to this approach, especially initially. In my experience, processing sessions that are simply facilitator-led question-and-answer sessions often lack depth. It seems to me this can be especially true when working with teens in treatment, where the youth are often reluctant to participate in the first place and may lack the skills necessary to be introspective.
Mandated to Change
Nearly all the youth I work with enter services in the pre-contemplation stage-of-change. They are there due to probation, other court involvements, school requirements, family pressures, or other external reasons. For them, treatment is viewed as the lesser of two evils, and minimal effort is all they initially will commit. The compelling nature of experiential activities works well with these youth for encouraging participation. However, attempting to lead these youth to process deeply can be painful at times!
There is a special challenge involved in working with these mandated youth, and the work can be filled with paradoxes. I consider their treatment voluntary, but not participating could result in a probation violation. I never force clients to participate in experiential activities, but not participating could be considered non-compliance. I try to minimize the coercive aspect of this throughout all dimensions of treatment, but mandated clients are always aware of it.
That said, although the mandated client is required to participate, that doesn’t mean she can’t choose to do so. Indeed, that is exactly what I always hope will occur with these clients, that their thinking will move from “I have to be here” to “I want to be here.” When this happens, I see it as a clear sign of movement through the stages-of-change.
Whether clients are mandated to treatment or not, one of the advantages of experiential activities is that the activities are inherently engaging. Priest and Gass refer to these as “activities that provide compelling tasks to accomplish” (p. 17). Even most reluctant clients want to participate in them, at least after an appropriate “I’m not doing that” protest. Perhaps they believe that the activities aren’t really treatment and therefore acceptable. That’s fine with me. I know there’s much more to juggling rubber chickens than meets the eye.
Reflection Skills
Reflection takes skill and developing this skill requires practice (Stanchfield, p. 134). In my experience, it is common for youth in treatment to lack the skills necessary to reflect. As a way to help my clients develop this skill, I’ve recently added a new element to my group sessions. At every session, we now start with a Question from the Box. I’ve created about 60 questions, which I have on strips of paper. At the start of each group session, a participant draws a slip out of the box and all the youth take turns answering the question.
Some of the questions are directly recovery oriented, such as “Describe the last time you felt like using.” Others are about self-disclosure, such as “Share something about yourself that nobody here knows.” Still others are simply for the sake of practicing reflection skills, such as “If you were a super hero, what would your super-power be?”
Recently, group members have spontaneously started asking each other follow up questions, which suggests to me that this processing practice is having a positive impact. In a simple, safe way, these Questions from the Box are providing my clients an opportunity to improve their skills at self-reflection. In some cases, though, it seems to me that a lack of reflective ability may suggest more than simply a skills deficit. It might indicate a history of trauma, abuse and/or neglect.
Many of the youth I work with have such histories. For these participants, introspection may be something they’ve spent years actively avoiding. Their use of alcohol and other drugs may be part of that effort to avoid introspection. Their other maladaptive behaviors may also be part of that pattern of avoidance. Yet, here I am as the facilitator, pushing them to do exactly what they have been trying to avoid. No wonder they seem reluctant.
It seems to me that providing opportunities to practice reflection is an important aspect of any treatment program. Once learned, the ability to think reflectively is a valuable skill these youth will take with them and be able to apply to life in general. Since so many of my clients have histories of trauma or neglect, facilitating for change means finding ways for my clients to feel safe while being reflective.
That Silly Amygdala
The amygdala is also where the fight-or-flight response is centered. The “fear center” of the brain, it is used primarily for analyzing experiences, assigning meaning to those experiences, and monitoring those experiences for danger (Zull, p. 59). When the amygdala senses danger, it communicates this to the body, so that the body can prepare to act (Zull, p. 60). Imagine a youth reluctant to attend group. Maybe he doesn’t think he has a problem and resent the mandate. Maybe she has a history of trauma. Maybe he doesn’t possess the skills to be introspective. It seems to me that these are exactly the type of situations that would be considered dangerous by the vigilant amygdala.
So what does this have to do with getting teens to talk? Well, according to Zull, there are times when the amygdala is less active, less vigilant. One of these times is when the cortical brain is busy with a cognitive task such as solving a puzzle (p. 60). Under those circumstances, the amygdala doesn’t have time to sense fear. It seems to me that presenting puzzles or other active processing approaches could be useful when working with reluctant-to-process teens. By keeping the cortical brain busy, they would be more likely to process.
Indeed, without knowing it, I’ve done this in the past. Occasionally I have Game Day in groups and one of my favorite games is Totika. Similar to Jenga, but with blocks of different colors, after successfully removing a block from the stack the player answers a color-coded question. About a year ago, we were playing Totika during a Game Day. While playing, “Carl”— street savvy, extremely guarded, and reluctant to engage in discussions, activities, or any self-disclosure—was asked to describe the worse day of his life. Without hesitation, he started talking about his mother’s death when he was four years old. Within moments, he was in tears as he continued telling his life story to the group.
For nearly a year now, I’ve been thinking about this incident, trying to figure out why Carl was suddenly willing to be introspective that day. Had he finally come to feel safe in the group environment? Was it simply that he was playing by the rules of the game? Had his need to talk about this overwhelmed his reluctance to engage? All of these are likely true to some extent, but it would seem that the task of carefully pulling a block out of the stack kept his cortical brain too busy to be fearful about sharing this experience.
Surely there are ways that I can more intentionally bring this knowledge about the amygdala into my groups in order help facilitate change.
Beyond Q & A
Totika is one example of ways to move beyond a traditional question-and-answer processing approach, to help assure a richer outcome for teens in treatment. “There are many innovative ways to engage a group in dialogue and reflection kinesthetically, emotionally, and socially that aren’t dependent on the facilitator’s leading a didactic question-and-answer session” (Stanchfield, p. 106).
One example is the use of consensus in processing. Stanchfield stated, “The value of practicing consensus in the context of developing group processing skills is that consensus is all about quality discussion and embracing and understanding the opinions of those with differing viewpoints” (p. 94). Stanchfield wrote about a processing activity that involved the providing the group a set of cards with metaphorical images on each, such as Chiji Cards (see www.chiji.com). The group’s goal is to choose one card by consensus that represented what they had achieved as a group.
I like this as a processing activity and have used it before. Not only does it function as an exercise in consensus, it turns processing into a decision making experience. Getting teens to process deeply can be challenging, so having participates engage in an activity like this can be an excellent choice. As Stanchfield wrote, “[P]articipants can become so involved in identifying with a card, and making an argument for their card, that they are unaware they are engaging in reflection” (p. 96).
As we have seen, if participants’ brains are engaged in such problem solving, they may truly be unaware they are processing. Even so, the reflection that occurs helps to assure transfer of learning. As a facilitator, becoming more intentional with processing approaches can also help assure the most value possible from participating in an experiential activity.
Works Cited
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.
Stanchfield, J. (2007). Tips and Tools: The Art of Experiential Group Facilitation. Oklahoma City, OK: Wood'N'Barnes Publishing.
Zull, J. (2002). Art of Changing the Brain, The. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)