Skip to main content

Ambivalence as the Engine of Behavior Change

If motivation is what gets us to change our behavior, it seems that ambivalence might be what keeps us stuck -- the opposite of being motivated. But motivational interviewing practitioners are taught to look for ambivalence and use it as a source of motivation for change. Last time I wrote about how ambivalence can occur within both the Intuitive and the Narrative minds, rather than representing a conflict between them. But more than that, motivational interviewing suggests that the experience of ambivalence is what drives us forward. How can ambivalence be a good thing?

The experience of ambivalence is an uncomfortable one for most people. An intention-behavior gap is the natural consequence of having two separate mental systems, one of which controls our verbal intentions and explanations (the Narrative mind), and the other one of which controls our behavior (the Intuitive mind). If someone were a pathological liar, they might not be concerned about intention-behavior gaps at all: They would simply say one thing, do another, and be very happy as long as they didn't get caught. In fact, Laurence Kohlberg's stage theory of moral development suggests that we all go through this "happy liar" stage at some point early in our lives -- it's called "pre-conventional reasoning" in Kohlberg's model. Based on this, the Narrative mind and the Intuitive mind are not necessarily in conflict, even when they do not always agree.

As people grow and develop, most of us come to understand that there are consequences for lying. This is because people are social animals, and people who can't be trusted are potentially harmful to the group. Adults impose penalties (sometimes severe) on children who lie, and societies impose penalties (these days less severe or consistent) on adults who lie. The Narrative mind, which is very sensitive to these social consequences, therefore warns us that it's a problem to say one thing and do another, because we might be punished when others remark on the discrepancy. An internal narrative cue to not lie is what moves us to the second stage of Kohlberg's moral typology, "conventional reasoning," in which children (usually in the age 8-13 range) believe that it's important to follow rules simply because the rule exists. Eventually, most people internalize these rules into a personal moral code during the teenage years, which moves them into the "post-conventional reasoning" phase. In Freud's terminology, their superego is now fully developed -- an internal Narrative check against lying that doesn't specifically depend on whether or not you are likely to get caught.

Adults continue to express narratives about what they want to do, intend to do, need to do, etc. But people with a certain amount of self-reflection can also relate to St. Paul's maxim that "I do not understand what I do: For what I want to do, I do not do; but what I hate, I do." (Romans 7:15). In other words, they recognize the intention-behavior gap in themselves. They now have two competing narratives operative at the same time: For example, "I ought to go for a run today" and "knowing myself, I recognize that I probably won't run today." Together with the internalized sense that "lying is bad," these two competing narratives create a feeling of ambivalence. It feels like stepping on the gas and the brake at the same time -- the whole car shakes, and we want to get out of it as soon as we can.

As I suggested last time, ambivalence also exists at the level of the Intuitive mind. This one is a little simpler: Part of me wants to run because I have the experience of feeling energized, sleeping better, and being pleased with my achievement once I do. And another part of me wants to sit on the couch and watch a movie, because that feels comfortable right now. Both of these feelings have an emotional and motivational force, and they co-exist with one another. If it weren't for the Narrative mind noticing the incompatibility, ambivalence at the Intuitive level might not be a real problem; the Intuitive mind multi-tasks constantly, and it doesn't seem to be bothered by contradictions. But a motivational interviewing intervention that calls attention to both sets of feelings can have the same effect as a purely Narrative-level intervention, because it will again trigger the Narrative alarm bells associated with being inconsistent and therefore potentially at risk for punishment.

Because inconsistency is uncomfortable, people want to avoid it. Calling their attention to inconsistencies is therefore a strong motivator: To reduce the cognitive dissonance of holding two incompatible thoughts, people are driven to come down on one side or the other. Yet both sides hold some discomfort, which means that as soon as one option is chosen the person will see more of its drawbacks, and more of the advantages of the other side. They therefore may vacillate between options for a while. The skilled motivational interviewing practitioner can help them to talk through that process of vacillation. Eventually, one of the options will seem a little less burdensome than it did at first, or a little more appealing, just by virtue of the person having talked it through. They will then be able to resolve their ambivalence in a way that feels satisfying -- or even easy -- rather than like a great effort. The narrative and emotions associated with the other choice will gradually fade, and the selected option will come to seem like the only reasonable choice. This is what's meant by "exploring and resolving ambivalence" (which is one definition of motivational interviewing). It's a process that uses energy from the Narrative mind's recognition of contradictory thoughts, in order to help the Intuitive mind become more comfortable with selecting just one option -- often, the option that takes the person in the direction of healthy behavior change.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why Does Psychotherapy Work? Look to the Intuitive Mind for Answers

  Jerome Frank's 1961 book Persuasion and Healing  popularized the idea of "common factors" that explain the benefits of psychotherapy, building on ideas that were first articulated by Saul Rosenzweig in 1936 and again by Sol Garfield in 1957. Frank's book emphasized the importance of (a) the therapeutic relationship, (b) the therapist's ability to explain the client's problems, (c) the client's expectation of change, and (d) the use of healing rituals. Later theorists emphasized other factors like feedback and empathy that are sub-components of the therapeutic relationship, and that can be clearly differentiated from specific behavior-change techniques like cognitive restructuring or behavioral reinforcement . Additional aspects of therapy that are sometimes identified as common factors include the opportunity to confront difficult past experiences, the opportunity for a "corrective emotional experience" with the therapist, and the chance t

Ethical Improvement in the New Year

  Just after the first of the year is prime time for efforts to change our behavior, whether that's joining a gym, a "dry January" break from alcohol, or going on a diet. (See my previous post about New Year's resolutions for more health behavior examples). This year I'd like to consider ethical resolutions -- ways in which we try to change our behavior or upgrade our character to live more in line with our values.  Improving ethical behavior has been historically seen as the work of philosophers, or the church. But more recent psychological approaches have tried to explain morality using some of the same theories that are commonly used to understand health behaviors based on Narrative constructs like self-efficacy, intentions, and beliefs. Gerd Gigerenzer suggests that an economic model of " satisficing " might explain moral behavior based on limited information and the desire to achieve good-enough rather than optimal results. Others have used simula

Year in Review: 2023

Here’s my annual look back at the topics that captured my attention in 2023. Over the past year I taught several undergraduate mental health classes, which is not my usual gig, although it does fit with my clinical training. The Two Minds Blog took a turn away from health psychology as a result, and veered toward traditional mental health topics instead. I had posts on   mania   and   depression .  I wrote about   loneliness   as a risk for health problems, as well as   hopefulness   as a form of stress inoculation. I wrote about the “ common factors ” in psychotherapy, which help to improve people’s mental health by way of the intuitive mind (I was particularly happy with that one). I also shared findings from a recent study where my colleagues and I implemented a   burnout prevention   program for nursing students, and another new paper that looked at the incidence of mental and physical health problems among   back country search and rescue workers . Mental health has received more