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
Post a Comment