Motivational Interviewing was developed initially in response to working with client resistance in alcohol treatment in the late 1980’s but is now widely considered as been helpful in many areas where motivation to change is required. So, ‘I want to lose 2 stone and I’m doing it because I want to feel healthy’, is perfect. Research shows people with low internal motivation have worse outcomes and people with higher levels of both internal and external motivation have better outcomes. Intrinsic motivation is associated with greater long-term change. The latter is an external marker, the former, an internal motivator. Maybe things like ‘I want to feel healthy’, rather than, ‘I want to lose 2 stone’. Internal (or intrinsic) motivation is motivation that comes from within. The emphasis though – because of intrinsic motivation as a more effective method of motivation – is on personal choice and responsibility for the future. Helping Clients develop discrepancy is “the active ingredient underlying motivational interviewing’s efficacy” say Miller and Rollnick, going on to state that “Motivational Interviewing is an effective, evidence – based approach to overcoming the ambivalence which stops people making desired changes in their lives”. I am minded to talk about my dalliance into Slimming World but won’t because there is indeed a discrepancy between my ‘I must lose weight’ and ‘Oooo Pizza!’ It’s the gap between where the person has been, or is, and where they want to be. Miller and Rollnick in their 1991 book “Motivational Interviewing: Preparing People to Change Addictive Behavior” badge this as ‘developing discrepancies’, showing people that what they said at one point doesn’t correlate with what they are saying now, or what they say they are going to do doesn’t fit with what they say they will do. The Columbo Method is to present the facts that appear to conflict, give the person the benefit of the doubt, and then ask questions for clarification. I’m confused.” He would say things like, “Could you clarify this?” or “Help me understand.” Columbo did not accuse those he was questioning but rather by taking the responsibility for his confusion, he disarmed the other person who then would slowly feel comfortable telling him the things he needed to know to solve the crime. When someone said something to Columbo that was conflicting or inconsistent, he would rub his head and say, “I noticed yesterday you said one thing, and now you are saying something else. Having recently used this analogy with a group of second year undergraduate students on the social work programme I teach on I realise that some of my cultural references may be a little dated! But I’m going to go with it!Ĭolumbo was a humble and unassuming character who had the ability to get anyone to tell him anything, despite their initial resistance – very disarming. The fictional Columbo was a detective who solved murder mysteries – hugely popular in the 1970’s. ![]() Remember the television show Columbo starring Peter Falk?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |