Author: rezendevknowfully.com

If you inwardly cringe when a client becomes resistant to the counseling or psychotherapy you're providing, take heart. Encountering resistance is likely evidence that therapy is taking place. In fact, several studies indicate that successful therapy is highly related to increases in resistance, and that low resistance corresponds with negative outcomes.¹ There is an upper level of resistance (too much) as well as a lower level of resistance (too little) that are counterproductive. Getting to moderate levels of resistance is important to successful therapy, especially when followed by effective approaches and techniques.

The most effective therapists are prepared to encounter their clients' resistance—they know how to deal with it, and how to help their clients break through it. They do this by understanding what resistance represents psychologically, and they have developed a way of conceptualizing and reacting to the resistance that allows them to remain emotionally comfortable or centered.

We can deal with highly resistant clients effectively when we:

1. learn to avoid common errors that unnecessarily create or foster resistance;
2. recognize when resistance has gotten the better of us; and
3. are able to consider the positive side of resistance.

Resistance has been defined from a number of perspectives. Traditional definitions have their roots in Freudian theory and usually place resistance inside the client. Such definitions view resistance as representing the client's efforts to repress anxiety-provoking memories and insights, or efforts to fight the therapist's influence. For example, Bischoff & Tracey define resistance as "any behavior that indicates covert or overt opposition to the therapist, the counseling process, or the therapist's agenda." Although common, such perspectives leave therapists lacking control and too much at the mercy of other influences when attempting to foster change.

The social interaction theorists view resistance as being the result of a ''negative interpersonal dynamic between the therapist and the client."² Here, resistance is seen as something that results from the interactional style of the therapist and the client. The therapist allows the client to form a mutual communication pattern that hinders counseling and the change process. “The interactional view of resistance forces the therapist to remain aware of what he or she may be doing that actually promotes resistance.” The great benefit of this perspective is that changing your interaction style results in changing what has been deemed resistance. This perspective empowers therapists in managing resistance in therapy.

Whose Goal Are You Working On?

When we experience resistance, we say that the client is "not going anywhere." We feel stuck. Central to these statements is the question: Where is the client supposed to be going? The client is showing no progress toward what? One of the primary therapist errors that causes resistance is failure to establish a mutually agreed-upon objective. If you and your client are not in agreement about a desired outcome, problems are inevitable. Furthermore, you and your client should be able to clearly state the mutually agreed-upon objective. If a mutually agreed-upon objective has not been established and reasonable time has been devoted to establishing rapport and understanding the client's situation, then it is critical to focus session time on the creation of such an objective.

The next time one of your colleagues complains to you about a particularly difficult client who does not want to change, ask them, "What is the goal?" If they begin stuttering or go into a vague, rambling explanation, you will know that a mutually agreed-upon goal has not been established. Then inquire, "If your client was asked what the goal is, would the client's response agree with what you just stated?" It is mind-boggling how many times this essential therapeutic component is not properly formulated.

Such goals do not have to be complex. For example, a simple goal may be for the client to spend at least 15 minutes each day in a discussion with their partner about their day before any other activities are begun. Another could be for the client to plan one night a week where they do an activity together with their partner. Such goals could be smaller components of an overall objective to increase communication and connection in the relationship.

The Who, Where, and When of it All

We are not helpful to our clients until we have reached a point where problems can be defined around a specific person, place, and time. David Burns, author of Feeling Good, taught me this concept and I have yet to prove it wrong. Sometimes the person, place, and time are obvious—e.g. a spouse at home, when the children need disciplining; or a boss, previously dealt with at work, in the past. Or maybe the problem is the client's traumatic experience at an earlier age with a family member. Sometimes it is the client and you, dealing with the conflict, at the present moment in the session!

Regardless of the case specifics, the person, place, and time components are present in solvable problems. Being clear on the person, place, and time of your client's problem brings clarity to the process and avoids ambiguity that hinders progress. For example, a client who enters therapy with a goal to "not be nervous" has yet to reach a point in problem clarity where help can be provided. The brief therapists would say that this problem has not been defined in manner that makes it solvable. As a result of the therapeutic discussion, such a vaguely defined problem would be transformed into a more specific goal such as to be "calm, relaxed, and assertive when discussing needed changes in the department with the boss." With this level of specificity, the definitive steps can be taken toward resolution. Skilled therapists most often move the discussion to a level of specificity almost without conscious awareness. However, clarity in understanding the essential elements of solvable problems can enhance the process. It is also quite helpful for beginning therapists who have difficulty figuring out exactly what they are trying to do.

When the Solutions are Terrifying

We all know the familiar axiom that our clients have the solution to their problem inside, and that it's our job to help them find it. What experienced therapists know is that “one of the main reasons clients come to therapy is not because they don't know the solution to their problem, but because they find the solutions terrifying.” From this perspective, one of the therapist's primary jobs is to normalize the fears surrounding the solution and support the client's courage to move forward in the midst of the perceived impending terror. In cases where fear of the solution is great, focusing too strongly on the solution may increase fear. In such instances, focus on dealing with the fear that accompanies the solution before moving the focus forward toward actions to be taken.

For example, I once counseled a woman who repeatedly discussed how much she hated her husband and how badly she wanted a divorce, but she was not proceeding with the divorce. As we addressed the issues further, we discovered she was filled with fear about the divorce—fear because she and her children were financially dependent on her husband, fear because she felt she had no marketable job skills, fear because returning to school for training was costly and scary. At this point the counseling session changed from focusing on whether she should divorce to the more pressing issue—addressing the fear that accompanied the divorce.

The Columbo Technique

An interesting paradox occurs with highly resistant clients. The greater the resistance, the more likely it is that they are refusing to consider any of a host of possible solutions. Typically, as we become aware of the myriad possible solutions to a client's problems, we become more certain that our knowledge can help them. As a result of such certainty, we begin talking more and more as an expert regarding the problem at hand.

But here's the catch: The more of an expert you become, the more you give the client something definitive to resist against and the less psychological freedom clients have to explore possibilities on their own. “Thus, being too knowledgeable about obvious solutions may actually create resistance.” A sure sign that you have become too much of an expert is getting, "Yes, but …" answers.

The way out of this situation is to reverse the paradox. The more obvious possible solutions become, the more naïve, inexperienced and uncertain your displayed attitude toward these solutions should be. The principle at work here is that your client cannot be resistant if there is nothing to resist. My students have dubbed this approach the Columbo technique because it is similar to the approach taken by fumbling television detective Columbo as he hoodwinked his suspects into revealing key information necessary to solving murders. “Columbo apprehended his suspect by constantly appearing to not understand the basic components surrounding the murder and by asking questions that forced the suspect to clarify his or her actions.” Although Columbo always appeared to be two steps behind the murderer, in reality he was two steps ahead.

A therapist I know explained to me that he used to get sucked into lecturing, argumentative discussions with alcoholic clients that expounded to them the many reasons not to drink. After reading my book, he says that he now avoids such vain, pointless conversations. Recently, in a first session with an alcoholic client, he inquired as to the client's reasons for drinking. Expecting a flood of reasons not to drink as a response, the client proceeded to build a case for drinking in which he explained how drinking help him to relax, deal with stress, manage his chronic pain, etc. After hearing the strong case for drinking, the therapists stated that he had no knowledge of any pill or therapeutic discussion that could substitute for the benefits received from continuing to drink. Almost immediately the client began to state something to the effect, "But, you don't understand, I have a fifty-dollar-a-week alcohol bill that I can't afford, my wife is threatening to leave me, my kids don't respect me, and I really don't like myself for drinking." In this instance, in order not to provide something to resist against and avoid the typical "Yes, but…" response, this therapist selectively became uncertain and naïve as to any solutions to the drinking problem.

By becoming naïve to the obvious, he quickly received from the client motivations to stop drinking, and the discussion proceeded from there. My therapist friend explained to me that, in similar situations in the past, he would have immediately provided information and knowledge for the client to resist against. However, he has since become much wiser and goes to great lengths to avoid providing a position for his resistant clients to oppose.

Is Rogers Still Right?

Many experienced therapists become lax in consistently showing empathy throughout their sessions. When we conduct sessions excessively loaded with questions without a foundation of understanding, our clients lose the feeling of psychological support necessary for them to proceed safely. An essential component to breaking through resistance is maintaining a foundation of understanding through a dialogue that engages the client's experience with empathic comments.

An equally important reason to consistently use empathic statements is to get clients in touch with the emotional energy they need in order to initiate change. “People rarely change because of the logic of the situation; people change when they have an emotionally compelling reason.” Yet, because emotions are often linked to uncomfortable feelings, clients have blocked awareness of or are in denial of their own emotions. Empathy is the tool that fosters the emergence of emotionally compelling reasons for change, and thus it ignites and fans the fires of change.

For example, I have often dealt with people who desire to quit smoking. One of the things I have learned is that people very rarely quit smoking because of the possibility for cancer, emphysema, heart attacks, bad breath, high costs, etc. People do quit when these issues directly affect them as a result of a medical checkup or in some other manner. I once worked with a man who wanted to quit smoking, where I initially struggled to get to the underlying emotional reason behind this life change. He appeared reluctant to offer up or get in touch with the real reason for breaking the habit. However, through continuing to respond in an empathic manner and to pull to the forefront all of the emotions I was sensing, I struck gold when I indicated that I sensed he was a very responsible person who cared for children. From this revelation, the underlying force for his habit change emerged in the conversation: His wife was pregnant! He was going to be a father! Now, he had an emotionally compelling reason to change. Therapists seeking to mine the compelling reasons for change should consistently use empathic statements that include specific reference to the emotions present. This is the most efficient avenue to discovering the emotionally compelling reasons that fuel the desire to change.

Baby Steps are No Joke

A considerable amount of resistance comes from poor timing. If you find that you are offering explanations before the client is ready to accept them, confronting the client too soon or moving too fast, then slow your pace, back up, and take smaller steps. Therapy is clearly one area of life where it pays to slow down to go faster. In fact, taking small steps is often a central part of effective therapy, including brief therapy.

In order to not rush your client, I suggest you constantly ask yourself, "What could I say that might move my client the smallest step possible toward where they need to be to resolve their problem?" This approach solves two problems for the therapist. First, it does not push the client and thereby create resistance. In fact, “if you slow down to the point that you are behind your client, then you can actually have the client pulling you along toward their solution.” Second, this approach takes an enormous amount of pressure off of you. The task at hand becomes manageable, and you will find that you are more able to remain balanced in sessions. Learning and practicing this skill can be an enormous stress reducer for therapists.

For example, to ask a person in denial over the loss of a loved one to fully accept the loss may be too threatening or inconceivable to them. This is simply too big of a step to take at the moment. To ask the same client to come up with ways to honor their loved one in his or her absence will likely appear much more palatable. In this way, perhaps some of the underlying emotions related to loss, meaning, closure, guilt, etc. can begin to be addressed. By suggesting smaller, more acceptable steps in moving through the grieving process, the therapist circumvents the resistance that the client would have experienced as a result of moving too fast toward closure.

Recognizing When Resistance Has the Upper Hand

Significant client resistance leaves psychotherapists feeling insecure, incompetent, frustrated, hopeless, stressed, and burnt out. When these feelings are indirectly communicated to clients, more resistance occurs and a negative spiral develops. Less-experienced burnt-out therapists are most vulnerable to the negative effects of resistance. One of the keys to dealing with resistance is to recognize that resistance is not personal. Resistance is a fact of therapy.

Watch for signs that resistance has gotten the better of you:

• You feel like you are fighting or arguing with your client. Many times you may have felt like you were trying to convince your client of something and were not making headway.
• You feel stressed and drained in an unhealthy manner after a session.
• You are working harder in your session than your client is. If, after finishing your sessions, you have more work to do than your client, then you should take a close look at what you are doing. Something is likely amiss.
• You are feeling burnt out with your work.

Typically, resistance conjures up ideas of stubbornness, obstinacy, and defiance. Beware! Once you place these labels on your client, you are generally just as stuck as your client. To avoid getting stuck, you may want to consider other perspectives on resistance.

Some possible dynamics of resistance

• Resistance may be a reflection of the developmental level of your client.
• Resistance may be a signal that the client is dealing with a very important issue that has multiple conflicts.
• Resistance may be a result of the way the therapist and the client interact. Consequently, changing your interaction style will change the resistance.

(See Something Besides Stubbornness below for other reasons a client might be resistant.)

The Plus Side of Client Resistance

To fully understand resistance, the many positive benefits of resistance need to be examined. Resistance has a purpose; otherwise, it would not exist. When we understand the many benefits of resistance, we begin to realize that it is just as essential to mental health as it is a problem in therapy. The following purposes and benefits of resistance are compiled from the writings of Anderson and Steward.³

• Without resistance, all social systems would dissolve into chaos and confusion, changing with every new idea presented.
• Resistance is what prevents us from buying every product presented to us in commercials and infomercials.
• Without a certain amount of resistance, we would have no stability, predictability, security, or comfort.
• Resistance provides us with a sense of being right. Can there be a sense of right and wrong without an awareness of the opposition of one position against another, or without a resistance to certain positions?
• Resistance can be a sign of good mental health and judgment; people often want new alternatives to problems before giving up old ways.
• Understanding resistance—including its possible positive purposes—and knowing effective means for dealing with resistance is not merely intellectual enrichment. This knowledge can reduce therapist stress and burnout.
• Resistance in therapy is a natural, necessary part of every client's problem. It is neither good nor bad, and the effective therapist neither abandons, rescues, nor attacks clients because of their resistance.
• Resistance is the problem at hand. Many clients are ambivalent about change, and the decisions they make are typically not clear-cut—that's why they have come to therapy.
• People resist difficult change because of the underlying conflicts. The therapist's job is to provide an environment where internal conflicts can be addressed.

When we have a plan for dealing with resistance before we encounter it in therapy, we won't get trapped in a futile battle with our clients. Instead, we will be able to remain objective and have a clear perspective about what is occurring. Hopefully some of the techniques for responding to resistance that I've suggested here will help you with resistant clients and keep yourself grounded in the process.

And if you find yourself feeling discouraged by resistant clients, think about this: Which is more troubling: a client who does everything you suggest, or one who takes time to assimilate and adjust to new ideas? Or if that idea doesn't buoy your spirits, then consider the following: "Without resistance, we would all be out of a job."⁴

Resistance: Something Besides Stubbornness?

Have you considered any of the following reasons clients might be resistant to therapy? Resistance could be a sign of:

Fear of failure. Client does not know how to be a client and has a high need for success or perfectionism and thus resists as a result of the fear of failure.

Fear of taking risks. Client sees counseling as a highly risky behavior and client is actually very conservative in his or her life approach.

Manipulation. The client enjoys manipulating others and, by not "moving" or responding therapeutically, they experience power in recognizing that they can manipulate the therapist.

Passive-aggressive behavior. Client is angry with the therapist or some other adult/authority that the therapist represents (transference). The resistance could be a reaction to authority figures in general.

Shame. The client may have feelings of shame because he or she has not been able to resolve the issues or because of the social implications of the issues.

Jealousy or desire to sabotage the therapy relationship. "If I get better, then I will not be able to come to these sessions and get all of this attention and maintain my relationship with my therapist." In this instance, an unhealthy dependence has developed between the client and therapist.

Exhaustion. Resistance could be an indication that the client is psychologically drained and does not have the energy to take on the tasks that will lead to change. Here, the therapist needs to back off and allow for replenishing of energy. Take a therapeutic break.

A personality style. Many people instinctively respond to change with resistance.

A client who enjoys resisting. Some people simply enjoy the battle of resisting, the stimulation of arguing, and controversy long beyond the initial reaction to change. These people often switch positions if they find others agreeing with them to keep the stimulation going (Kottler, 1994).

References

¹Bischoff, M. M., & Tracey, T. J. G. (1995). Client resistance as predicted by therapist behavior: A study of sequential dependence. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42(4), 487-495.

²Otani, A. (1989). Resistance management techniques of Milton H. Erickson, M.D.: An application to nonhypnotic mental health counseling. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 11(4), 325-334.

³Anderson, C. M., & Stewart, S. (1983). Mastering resistance: A practical guide to family therapy. New York: The Guilford Press.

⁴Pipes, R. B., & Davenport, D. S. (1990). Introduction to psychotherapy: Common Clinical wisdom. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

People seeking the help of a psychotherapist almost always do so after trying—and failing—to help themselves. Many have self-medicated, using everything from herbal remedies (e.g., St. John's Wort for depression) to alcohol or other drugs. Still others have tried to enact the psychological advice they sought from friends or family. But many turn to the products and services put forth by what we might call the self-help or self-improvement "industry." It is a large industry indeed. A 2004 study by Marketdata estimated that Americans spend $8.5 billion on self-improvement products and services annually, including over $600 million on self-help books alone.

The problem with the self-improvement industry is that it is better described as an unregulated "wild west" rather than staid science. Certainly much of what this industry offers is high quality, and is put forth by reputable psychologists. But in this article we'll focus on the seamier side of this industry, as we explore self-help snake oil and self-improvement urban legends. In particular, we'll focus on how professional psychologists can help the general public, and their clients in particular, separate the good this industry has to offer from the bad and the ugly. As we shall see, fruitful conversations with clients can result from discussing the misperceptions fostered by snake oil, and the deeper truths underlying many psychological urban legends.

Repeat after me: "Affirmations don't work. Affirmations don't work."

Many self-help books advocate the use of "incantations" or "affirmations." Simply repeat phrases such as "I like myself" over and over again, we are told, and soon we will experience an enhanced self-image and boosted self-esteem. This idea is not new. In the 1920s, French pharmacist Emile Coué created an international fad of "autosuggestion" by encouraging everyone to repeat the mantra: "Day by day, in every way, I am getting better and better." Repeating it aloud 20 times each morning and evening was supposed to result in health, wealth, and pretty much whatever else one wanted (it does, after all, specify improvement "in every way.")

This technique supposedly influenced the unconscious mind, and struck a chord amidst the growing popularization of Freudian psychology. But of course, if this technique worked as advertised, the vast majority of psychotherapists would immediately be out of business, today's epidemic of depression would be easily reversed, and everyone would walk around grinning like Stepford wives. Research clearly demonstrates the many psychological and physical benefits of optimism. The problem is "getting there from here," and affirmations are unlikely to foster an authentic and lasting change from a pessimistic style of thinking to a more optimistic one.

The same criticism could be made of Norman Vincent Peale's The Power of Positive Thinking, which had a record-setting run on best-seller lists in the 1950s and remains popular today. Few would argue with its basic premise, but today its techniques seem quaint and simplistic (For example, Peale recommended "mind clearing," which simply meant purging the mind of negative thoughts and replacing them with positive ones.). Many clients will express some familiarity with the concept of positive thinking, and perhaps some frustration with the ineffectiveness of techniques such as affirmations. Psychologists can use these occasions as segues to discussing the very real benefits of optimism, and the more potent techniques for achieving it such as reshaping one's attributional style, or the types of counter-arguing strategies offered by cognitive-behavioral therapy.

Subliminal self-help tapes: Just when you thought affirmations couldn't get easier

Self-help snake oil is typically sold with the promise of easy, effortless change. And perhaps the only thing easier than repeating affirmations is listening to someone else repeat them for you. That's the premise behind subliminal self-help tapes, a $50 million industry featuring products that promise to improve memory, enhance workplace performance, aid in weight loss, and make a host of other lifestyle changes.

These products are simply affirmations with a high-tech makeover and bigger marketing budgets, and every independent study has shown that these tapes don't work as advertised. In fact, they have only two reliable effects, with the first being removing money from the buyer's pocket and placing it into the seller's. The second, more psychologically interesting effect is what psychologist Anthony Pratkanis has called the illusory placebo effect.

Consider one of the studies conducted by Pratkanis and his colleagues. Participants took baseline tests of self-esteem and memory, and then listened to subliminal tapes purported to improve either self-esteem or memory. But here's the twist—half of the participants received tapes that were correctly labeled, while the other half were given mislabeled tapes. In other words, some purported self-esteem-enhancing tapes were labeled as memory improvers, while some tapes that promised to improve memory were labeled as self-esteem enhancers. Everyone was given instructions on how to use the tapes, and each participant was called weekly with encouragement to continue listening to the tapes. Five weeks later, the self-esteem and memory of all participants were measured again.¹

Consistent with other studies, these tapes did not deliver the benefits their manufacturers had promised, as there was no significant improvement in self-esteem or memory. Although the tapes themselves had no effect, the labels did. Those who listened to tapes labeled as self-esteem enhancers believed their self-esteem had improved (in fact, self-esteem remained stable). Similarly, those who listened to tapes labeled as memory enhancers believed their memory had improved (in fact, their memories had not improved). Thus the illusory placebo effect: Like a placebo, the tapes had an effect only because users expected them to have an effect, but the effect was illusory, not real.

This study and others like it not only debunk ineffective products, they reveal the insidious nature of self-help snake oil. When people mistakenly believe they have been helped, they fall short of their own potential, and unwittingly aid dubious companies by becoming loyal customers and persuading others to do the same. Nineteenth-century snake oils had similar effects. Many contained a mixture of alcohol and opium known as laudanum, and it pretty much doesn't matter what's wrong with you—taking alcohol and opium will make you feel better, even though the underlying medical conditions often become worse. It is an important message for psychologists and clients alike: Just because something makes you feel temporarily better doesn't mean it is safe, effective, or does what its proponents claim.

For psychotherapists whose clients have tried these products, an opportunity exists to discuss their misleading claims, and contrast them with how psychological change truly happens. A cognitive-behavioral therapist, for example, would likely dismiss the entire premise of reshaping the unconscious mind, choosing to focus instead on conscious thoughts and overt behaviors. In contrast, someone of a more psychoanalytic bent would likely explain that, although unconscious desires are important, psychological change begins with bringing those desires into conscious awareness, a process not facilitated by subliminal affirmations.

The Eat Popcorn/Drink Coke study: A fictitious study can't create an international uproar . . . can it?

How do marketers sell self-help snake oil? By using the "supporting" research from self-improvement urban legends. Subliminal self-help tapes are often sold on the basis of an infamous study conducted in the mind 1950s, in which advertising "expert" James Vicary supposedly exposed thousands of New Jersey movie-goers to the subliminal messages Eat Popcorn and Drink Coke. Vicary claimed dramatic results: an 18-percent increase in Coke sales and a 57.5-percent increase in popcorn sales.

Even more dramatic were the results outside the movie theater. After the study was publicized, several nations outlawed subliminal advertising, and the US Federal Communications Commission threatened to strip the broadcast license of anyone using it. In less than one year after the results were announced, nearly half of Americans had heard of subliminal advertising; by the 1980s, that figure had risen to nearly 80 percent, with two-thirds of those believing it could be effective in shaping behavior. By the mid-90s, subliminal advertising achieved a pop culture mainstream double-whammy—Saturday Night Live and beer commercials—with Kevin Nealon's character Subliminal Man. Today, an online search for "subliminal advertising" yields over 280,000 hits, with "eat popcorn drink coke" yielding over 60,000. And although the first few online results clearly debunk the study, many of these Internet sources present the study as valid evidence for the effectiveness of subliminal self-help products.

There are many "footnotes" to this study that never gained the notoriety of the original—particularly the fact that Vicary recanted. Sort of. In 1962, he admitted that the study wasn't quite as good as advertised (pun intended): "We hadn't done any research, except what was needed for filing for a patent. I had only a minor interest in the company and a small amount of data—too small to be meaningful. And what we had shouldn't have been used promotionally." This carefully worded "non-admission admission" stops short of acknowledging the study as an outright fraud, and opens a loophole that many snake-oil-peddling web sites use to question the sincerity of Vicary's recantation.

But even more damning have been the repeated failures to replicate Vicary's dramatic results. Precisely replicating Vicary's methodology wasn't easy, given that his study was never published in a scientific journal, and the most detailed description of its methodology was in a 1957 issue of Senior Scholastic—a magazine written for junior-high students. But that didn't stop researchers from conducting hundreds of similar studies, virtually all of which conclude that subliminal messages have no significant effect on behavior at all.

Although carefully controlled laboratory studies may be most persuasive to scientists, perhaps it is a pair of naturalistic field studies that best illustrate the point. In 1958, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation subliminally flashed the message "Phone Now" 352 times during one of their programs. Not only was there no increase in calls, but when viewers were later asked to guess the message, most reported being hungry or thirsty. Apparently Vicary's subliminal messages of Eat Popcorn and Drink Coke shaped behavior after all—they created a placebo effect that was felt years later and a country away. Remarkably, police in Wichita, Kansas conducted an almost exact replica of this study 20 years later. Desperate for a break in the hunt for the publicity-hungry murderer known as the BTK Killer, police instructed a local television station to subliminally flash the message "Now Call the Chief" during a news broadcast. Unfortunately, no one called, and another 30 years passed before police made an arrest in the case.

Like all great urban legends, the story of the Eat Popcorn/Drink Coke study captured the public imagination despite the evidence largely because it conveyed a message that people were particularly ready to hear. The Zeitgeist of the late 1950s was characterized by Cold War paranoia and the fear that science was being used for negative purposes. Movies like The Manchurian Candidate depicted brainwashed assassins whose behavior was controlled by forces of which they weren't consciously aware. Books like Vance Packard's The Status Seekers revealed how marketers had shifted from overt messages such as Buy Product X to more subtle methods of capitalizing on consumers' fears and insecurities.

The Eat Popcorn/Drink Coke study was not the first—or the last—time that subliminal phenomena became a national fad because they meshed with what people wanted to hear. Consider that…

• In the early 1900s, psychology and advertising texts described potent subliminal effects, even though the evidence at the time was far from consistent. Not coincidentally, several popular spiritual and self-help movements of the day, such as Christian Science and the New Thought Movement, preached that the human mind had powerful but unconscious abilities to bring about health and happiness.

• In the 1970s, Wilson Bryan Key created a lucrative cottage industry for himself with a series of best-selling books claiming that subliminal messages were being widely used in print ads. Even today, many people remember his claim that sex is subtly written into ads for everything from alcohol to Ritz crackers, but they reached mainstream popularity during the me decade because they meshed with Americans' rising distrust of advertisers and general loosening of sexual mores.

• In the 1990s, Americans yearned for more self-help products as the "recovery movement" and "therapy culture" went mainstream. Little wonder they were so ready to believe the claims about subliminal self-help tapes.

Of course, this legend is not the only marketing weapon in the arsenal of snake oil salespeople. They are, for example, experts at making irrelevant research seem as if it supports their claims, and are skilled at blurring the lines between subliminal perception and subliminal persuasion. Research on subliminal perception has conclusively shown that, under highly controlled laboratory conditions, individuals can perceive images which are flashed very briefly, even without being consciously aware of having seen the images. But that does not translate to subliminal persuasion—there is no evidence that broad patterns of thought and behavior can be substantially influenced by subliminal messages. Yet many snake oil web sites deceptively cite studies of subliminal perception as if they are evidence for subliminal persuasion and, by extension, their snake oil products. But as selling tools these studies are not nearly as effective as the Eat Popcorn/Drink Coke study. The fact is that a single vivid study with name recognition is, for most people, far more persuasive than a dozen studies published in scientific journals.

Although professional psychologists are no doubt dismayed that a dubious study is being used to sell dubious products, this is not the only detrimental effect of subliminal myths they are likely to face. Recently a young man called my office seeking something to block subliminal messages because he was being "bombarded" with them. He had seen an article on my web site debunking the subliminal industry, and had clearly missed the point. The sad fact is that he was a troubled young man, and subliminal messages were the least of his problems. The myth of subliminal persuasion led him to misinterpret the psychological challenges facing him, and distracted him from exploring more relevant and effective psychological techniques.

The Yale Study of Goals: Tony Robbins, Brian Tracy and Zig Ziglar can't all be wrong . . . can they?

Unfortunately, the Eat Popcorn/Drink Coke study isn't the only urban legend used to sell less-than-effective self-improvement products. The "Yale Study of Goals," for example, has become a staple in the repertoire of motivational speakers and modern self-help writers. It has even been described in more than one best-selling book.² As typically described, there are three elements to the study:

• The 1953 graduating class at Yale was interviewed.
• 3 percent had written specific written goals for their futures.
• 20 years later, that 3 percent was found to be worth more financially than the other 97 percent combined.

This study would indeed be a dramatic illustration of the power of goal setting, except for one minor point: it was never conducted. There are literally hundreds of published studies on goals. I have read virtually all of them, and although I have read about the Yale Study of Goals in several popular self-help books, I have never seen a single reference to it in the research literature.

The Consulting Debunking Unit of Fast Company magazine deserves credit for unmasking this study as an urban legend that was passed uncritically via word of mouth until it was accepted as truth.³ When they approached Tony Robbins for documentation, a spokesperson explained that the background material for Robbins' 1986 best-seller Unlimited Power (which cites the study) "met a disastrous end," and suggested that self-help author Brian Tracy might know more. Tracy, in turn, explained how he often describes the study in his books and speeches, and that he learned of the study from motivational speaker and sales guru Zig Ziglar. When reached for comment, Ziglar was unable to locate the original study, suggesting, "Try Tony Robbins." The circle was complete. Yale gets numerous requests for information about this study and, despite extensive research, has never found any evidence that it was ever conducted. As one Yale spokesperson put it, "We are quite confident that the 'study' did not take place. We suspect it is a myth."

Urban legends typically get repeated because they convey a moral or have some deeper meaning, and there is considerable truth to the notion that goals can enhance performance. Although this urban legend is certainly not as misleading as the Eat Popcorn/Drink Coke study, it remains an excellent example of how a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. For example, the research is clear that goals only enhance performance if they are set properly (in my work, I use the acronym SCAMPI to teach the elements of effective goals: Specific, Challenging, Approach, Measurable, Proximal, Inspirational). This urban legend fails to convey this important caveat, and doesn't teach these goal-setting principles. By coming across as "the whole story," this urban legend minimizes any motivation the reader might have to dig deeper and learn more about the true science of goal setting.

A Final Thought

A clinical psychologist's early sessions with a new client often focus largely on the history of the client's problems, including what has helped and what hasn't. An important component of such discussions are the client's history of less-than-successful attempts to solve their problems themselves. Therapists can better steer these conversations toward valuable insights and effective solutions if they are knowledgeable about the half-truths of self-improvement urban legends and the unkept promises of self-help snake oil.

Clearly, as psychologists, we have more than a therapeutic duty of helping clients solve problems—we have an educational duty as well. This obviously includes educating clients that "technique X doesn't work" or "study Y wasn't really conducted." But it should also include using this debunking as a springboard to educating clients about genuine processes for psychological change, which almost always involve thought, effort and action. The educational role that psychologists play will not only help clients solve problems in the short-term, it will help them evaluate "too good to be true" promises long after their psychotherapy sessions end. In short, it will give clients the skills to help them recognize and avoid self-help snake oil and focus on methods that work.

Notes

¹Anthony Pratkanis, a professor at the University of California at Santa Cruz, summarized this study and others in his article The Cargo-Cult Science of Subliminal Persuasion. Published in the Spring 1992 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer, it can be found online at www.csicop.org/si/9204/subliminal-persuasion.html. Interested readers may also want to check out Subliminal Perception: Facts and Fallacies by Timothy Moore (http://www.csicop.org/si/9204/subliminal-perception.html).

²For example, it can be found on page 200 of Anthony Robbins' (1986) best-seller Unlimited Power, and on page 26 of Bill Phillips' (1999) Body for Life (which even gets the legend wrong, describing it as being conducted at Harvard).

³See page 38 of their December, 1996 issue, or read it on the Internet at www.fastcompany.com/online/06/cdu.html. The quote from the Yale spokesperson at the end of the paragraph comes from that article as well.

For more about Dr. Kraus's science-based systems for success, visit his web site on Positive Psychology: The REAL Science of Success, or his Positive Psychology & Success Blog.

Note: This article was first published in the June 2005 issue of The San Francisco Psychologist (www.SFPA.net).

I recently attended the 40th annual retreat conference sponsored by the Association of Family Therapists of Northern California (AFTNC), and this year's renowned speaker, Monica McGoldrick, showed many videotapes of her own work. Throughout the two-day conference, I was continually impressed by her ability to relate so very closely and easily with such a racially and culturally diverse group of clients. I also kept noticing how much of the connecting seemed to take place through nonverbal behaviors and tone of voice (conveying warmth, comfort, directness, engagement, confidence, being collaborative, and indicating genuine interest in the details of people's life histories). As president of AFTNC, I also received lots of spontaneous comments afterwards about Monica McGoldrick being such a "lovely person," a "great human being," so "down-to-earth," "easy to relate to," "willing to show her mistakes," and so on. At the same time, I heard many therapists in the audience make comments about how they work so very differently from McGoldrick in terms of not using extended family genograms as a main vehicle for connecting nor using traditional Bowen coaching methods with one family member. I also heard a few complaints that McGoldrick's presentation did not allow for easy note-taking in that it was not structured with specific teaching points or generalizable techniques one could use with almost every case.

The Therapeutic Alliance

The combination of these comments and my own reactions reminded me of that old Marshall McLuhan phrase, "the medium is the message." That is, the main message for me in McGoldrick's way of working was not about genograms, or Bowen theory, or coaching methods, or concepts and techniques that could be written down. The meta-message was that she modeled a way of relating to people of diverse backgrounds that is very rare among therapists of any theoretical orientation but lies at the heart of therapy. This way of close (but still professional) relating is extremely difficult to describe and teach in a didactic format. Partly, this is because the emotional aspects of the therapist/client relationship, which are so much anchored in nonverbal behavior, are hard to communicate in words. There are no simple directives one can give therapists for generating warmth toward or comfort with clients in general. Simply telling therapists to reflect feelings or give compliments can backfire if the nonverbal aspects of these communications are not congruent with the content of what is being said. “Telling therapists to "be warm" or "be genuine" simply puts them in a "be spontaneous" paradox because true warmth and genuineness must, by definition, be guileless and uncontrived.”

In fact, few contemporary publications in the field of couple and family therapy have focused in any depth on the process of alliance building, the most notable exceptions being Bill Pinsof (see Integrative Problem-Centered Therapy, 1995) and Sue Johnson (see The Practice of Emotionally-Focused Couple Therapy, 2nd Edition, 2004). Ironically, however, most clinical supervisors believe that therapist relationship skills, rather than techniques or theoretical orientations, are the more important aspects of effective treatment (Blow & Sprenkle, 2001). After 30-plus years in the field, I also have come to believe that each of the most popular family therapy orientations is too limited and too focused on specific change-oriented interventions, rather than on the vicissitudes of the therapeutic alliance. I don't think treatments succeed or fail based primarily on the particular theoretical orientation of the therapist. Rather, I believe that treatments succeed mainly on the therapist's ability to develop and maintain an emotionally positive therapeutic alliance with all members of the system in treatment.

A positive therapeutic alliance requires:

1. giving sufficient emotional validation and support to the individual or members of the couple/family,
2. successfully managing negative emotions within the couple/family so that members are not hurting each other in sessions, and
3. regulating the therapist's negative emotional reactions to couple/family members (i.e., managing "negative countertransference").

Too many of the current approaches to family therapy either take for granted or neglect to adequately address the importance of the emotional bond between therapist and clients. “No array of clever, change-oriented techniques is effective in the absence of a positive emotional connection between therapist and client.” First and foremost, clients need to feel that the therapist is caring, collaborative, trustworthy, fair, reliable, knowledgeable, and that she/he understands and appreciates their feelings. This is true regardless of the therapist's theoretical orientation. Within each theoretical orientation, there are therapists who are very skilled at forming close and collaborative relationships with clients and those whose relationship skills need improvement. Yet the majority of current family therapy theories and training programs deal with these common therapeutic factors in a cursory fashion if at all, preferring instead to focus on abstract theories and very specific change-oriented techniques.

When therapy breaks down, it almost always is because of some emotional rupture and failure to repair (or failure to establish in the first place) a positive therapeutic bond with family members. In fact, therapists' and clients' negative emotional reactions to each other, even when not directly expressed, are among the major factors predicting early termination or poor outcomes. These negative emotions tend to be expressed indirectly in terms of behaviors like the therapist not returning phone calls promptly; not inquiring how the client is reacting to interventions even when the therapist observes the client's disapproval; the absence of spontaneous mutual warmth, humor, and responsiveness between therapist and clients; therapist passivity in sessions; or the therapist's unequal responsiveness to family members in sessions.

Although it would be comforting to assume that all therapists are inherently capable of forming positively toned therapeutic relationships with all clients, there is an enormous range of skill among therapists in this respect. Also, certain kinds of clients (e.g., those traditionally and pejoratively labeled "borderline" or "narcissistic") can challenge any therapist's relationship skills. The very best therapists tend to be those who can easily establish and maintain positive therapeutic alliances with the widest range of clients, both in terms of clients' cultural diversity and in terms of managing negative emotionality.

Training to Become a Therapist

Given the above, “a major focus of training should be on how a particular trainee can use her/his emotions in forming therapeutic alliances and in preventing those alliances from breaking down.” This training focus should include the special issues in intercultural therapist/client matches (race, gender, social class, sexual orientation, age, religion, etc.), which are more likely to dissolve for lack of a strong positive emotional connection, or to be negatively tinged and lead to experiences of oppression for the client. In my view, a major focus of all training programs should be the development of therapist alliance-building skills, especially emphasizing cases in which the client displays a lot of negative emotionality and cases where the therapist and client are from different sociocultural groups.

Therapeutic relationship skills are best acquired through close observation of the therapist's behavior in role plays and in sessions (i.e., via live, videotape-, or audiotape-based case supervision). Such skills are not as easily learned—or maybe impossible to learn—through "delayed verbal report" supervision because the latter's effectiveness is constrained by what the therapist was aware of during the session, remembers after the fact, and can report in words to the supervisor. Verbal report supervision always loses emotionally relevant information because a lot of what transpires between therapist and clients is automatic and not necessarily within the therapist's awareness, especially when the therapeutic alliance is not functioning well. Paradoxically, the very areas where supervisees may need the most help are areas about which they are unaware and cannot articulate the relevant emotional information to their supervisors.

The analogy I like to use here is that learning to do therapy is like learning to swim. You could describe to your swimming coach, after the fact and in words, how you moved your arms and legs while in the pool. You could even demonstrate your movements while sitting in your chair or lying on a table. But to actually learn how to swim, it is far better to have your coach by your side, preferably in the water with you, watching you perform the new strokes, and giving you immediate feedback on your movements based on the coach's immediate observations rather than on a delayed report. The same is true of therapy. Describing a difficult session in words for one's supervisor will not convey the same information as having one's supervisor directly observe the "drowning" noises one makes in an actual failed session! Supervision based on delayed verbal reports limits the supervisor's ability to accurately visualize and give input about the therapist/client alliance.

There simply is no substitute for live supervision (or video- or audiotape-based supervision) in learning to become a therapist. In my opinion, the fact that many mental health professionals still become therapists never having had their work observed is a major shortcoming in our training programs. Just as one would not want to be under the care of a neurosurgeon whose work had never been observed by other neurosurgeons, we should require extensive observation-based supervision for all therapists in training. Only then can we be more certain that our trainees have learned to build and maintain effective therapeutic alliances with a wide array of clients.

Maintaining a Focus

Although I am emphasizing its centrality here, I think of a positive working alliance as a necessary but not sufficient condition for therapy to be effective. That is, I think of the relationship as a partial intervention in itself (a "corrective emotional experience") as well as being the necessary groundwork for other, more specifically change-oriented interventions to have an impact. The other main ingredient in effective therapy I would call "focus": successful therapy requires establishing relatively clear collaborative goals with clients and using interventions that are relevant to those therapeutic goals throughout. For example, in consultations for "stuck" cases, I frequently have found that a clear sense of direction was never established at the outset of a treatment; or, once having been established, the therapy conversations meandered or avoided dealing with the main presenting problems.

By using the word "goals" I don't mean to imply some superficial, limited purpose, but rather that the client and therapist should share the same vision of what a desirable outcome might be in terms of changed behaviors, affects, or cognitions, as well as the path for getting there. As the old aphorism holds: "If you don't know where you are going, you are not likely to get there." This also reminds me of something that a hapless character in a Lily Tomlin play once said: "I always wanted to be someone, but now I realize I should have been more specific."

In therapy, you can't get there with the client if you don't have a strong positive emotional relationship and if you haven't established together where you are going. I think that effective therapist/client systems have reasonably explicit and clear (albeit evolving) goals, and the conversations in the sessions are always brought back to those main foci. This point may seem obvious, but a lot of ineffective therapy sessions end up veering off into conversations relevant to the therapist's theoretical orientation or to the client's momentary preoccupations rather than to the clients' main presenting problems. Therapists need to keep their eye on the ball—the shared goals—and help their clients do likewise. This requires a client-specific formulation of the problem and goals, but it does not require that the therapist use only one particular theory.

I often feel that the specific interventions chosen by therapists (e.g., unique outcome questions, sandtrays, enactments, genograms, dream interpretations) are much less important than whether the interventions are explicitly related to the client's presenting problems and the established goals. That is, the client and therapist should readily understand what the connection is between the agreed-upon goals and what is happening in the sessions. Too often, clients seem not to understand that connection, and they are reluctant to ask for explanations, even when they think the therapy is not really addressing their main concerns and is going nowhere.

To summarize this viewpoint: therapy is effective to the extent that it is characterized by a strong positive emotional alliance, relatively clear goals, and conversations and tasks whose relevance to the goals is obvious to all parties. By contrast, therapy that does not consistently maintain a positive emotional alliance, has extremely vague goals, and consistently includes conversations and tasks that are tangential to the client's experience of the problem(s) is unlikely to be effective. I believe these statements hold true regardless of the therapist's preferred theoretical orientation.

Problem Formulations Rather than Theoretical Orientations

I question whether it is even necessary to have a specific theoretical orientation. Obviously, one cannot not have an idea about what is causing the client's problem, and one cannot not use techniques. Virtually anything a therapist says or does can be considered an aspect of technique that is based on some theoretical concept. But how much does a therapist need to adhere to a specific theoretical orientation in order for therapy to be successful? Or to put it differently, how eclectic can one be and still be effective?

I believe that successful therapy requires that the therapist have a workable problem formulation—a hypothesis about what is causing the problem in a given case—and a general treatment plan—an evolving path toward the goals in that case—in order for the therapist to select meaningful things to say and do in the sessions. The problem formulation and treatment plan should be explicit (able to be articulated verbally or in writing) and tailored to the client's and problem's uniqueness. However, I don't think a therapist's formulations and plans have to derive from a single theoretical orientation in order for that therapist to be effective. The formulation for a given problem will typically involve the relationships between two or more levels of functioning—biological, psychological, interpersonal, and/or sociocultural factors.

Without digressing too far, I'd like to suggest that given the enormous variety of client belief systems and presenting problems in the world, “each theoretical orientation may be best suited for certain kinds of clients and presenting problems and not as applicable to others.” It also seems that less experienced therapists may have a greater need to adhere to a single orientation in order not to lose their focus over the course of treatment, but I think they do so at the risk of reducing their flexibility to respond in the most helpful way.

The Integrative Therapist and Emergent Design

The task of the "eclectic" or "integrative" therapist is to co-develop with the client a set of achievable goals, a coherent problem formulation (an explanation for why the problem exists or what is causing it), and a treatment plan tailored to the client's specific problems and situation, all the while maintaining a positive therapist/client alliance. The process of therapist and client co-creating these therapeutic elements is what I once called an "emergent design" (Green & Herget, 1989b). No two therapists would be able to develop the same design with a client. The emergent design process can best be conceived as a mutually catalytic reaction between a particular therapist and a particular client evolving together at a particular point in time. In Darwinian fashion, if all goes well, the ideas and behavior patterns that "survive" over the course of therapy will have therapeutic utility whereas other ideas and behavior patterns will become "extinct." It is for this reason that some cases that start out, for example, in a seemingly psychodynamic mode may become increasingly behavioral over time, or some individual therapy cases may surprisingly turn into couple therapy cases by the end. If therapist and client are sufficiently flexible, this evolution happens more quickly and progress is likely to be quicker. If therapists adhere too closely to traditional theoretical orientations after the beginning phase of therapy, the essential evolutionary nature of the treatment relationship is more likely to be impeded and progress stalled.

For the therapist's part, after establishing a mutually acceptable formulation of the problem, the remaining therapeutic task involves improvising a treatment plan and techniques based on that formulation. The therapist as participant-observer in this process must be both emotionally engaged and purposeful in ensuring that a consistent focus is maintained during the sessions. Effective therapy, in this view, does not require that the therapist adhere to a single theoretical orientation with all cases or even across all problem areas within a given case. It does, however, require reasonable consistency and narrative coherence regarding each specific problem focus and formulation established with a given client.

This kind of meta-theoretical approach to therapy is not entirely new and is partially an outgrowth of comparative psychotherapy research and the movement toward psychotherapy integration. It constitutes a new kind of "theory of therapy," emphasizing the "common factors" that make the implementation of any therapy either effective or ineffective regardless of the "brand" of therapy practiced by a therapist (e.g., psychodynamic, cognitive-behavioral, or systems-interpersonal). Versions of this meta-theoretical approach were proposed in the 1970s by individual psychotherapy researchers such as Jerome Frank (1973), Edward Bordin (1979), and Hans Strupp (Strupp & Hadley, 1979); and by family therapy researchers in the 1980s such as Leslie Greenberg and William Pinsof (Greenberg & Pinsof, 1986). Mary Herget and I also used it to some extent at the Redwood Center in our small-sample research on Milan teams in the mid-1980s (Green, & Herget, 1989a, 1989b, 1991). Most recently, the meta-theoretical approach is best represented in books such as Psychotherapy Relationships That Work: Therapist contributions and responsiveness to patients (Norcross, 2002) and The Heart and Soul of Change: What works in therapy (Hubble, Duncan, & Miller, 1999).

Having participated in many of our field's fads and fancies since 1970, this meta-theoretical framework represents my current personal list of the "eternal verities of therapy"—the essential components of effective treatment. Although I will never use Bowenian techniques to the extent that Monica McGoldrick does, the AFTNC annual conference reminded me once again of the centrality of therapist relationship skills, which cannot be acquired through books and lectures. The indelible images of McGoldrick relating so closely, comfortably, and confidently in sessions—even with computer in hand and genograms as the focus—was the take-home message for me, and I hope for students learning the practice of therapy, as well.

References

Blow, A.J., & Sprenkle, D. (2001) Common factors across theories of marriage and family therapy: A modified Delphi study. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 27, 385-

Bordin, E.S. (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, & Practice, 16, 252-260.

Frank, J.S. (1973). Persuasion and healing (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Greenberg, L.S., & Pinsof, W.M. (Eds.). (1986). The psychotherapeutic process: A research handbook. New York: Guilford Press.

Green, R.-J., & Herget, M. (1989a). Outcomes of systemic/strategic team consultation: I. Overview and one-month results. Family Process, 28, 37-58.

Green, R.-J., & Herget, M. (1989b). Outcomes of systemic/strategic team consultation: II. Three-year followup and a theory of "emergent design." Family Process, 28, 419-437.

Green, R.-J., & Herget, M. (1991). Outcomes of systemic/strategic team consultation: III. The importance of therapist warmth and active structuring. Family Process, 30, 321-336.

Hubble, M., Duncan, B. & Miller, S. (Eds.) (1999). The heart and soul of change: What works in therapy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Johnson, S. (2004). The practice of emotionally focused couple therapy: Creating connection (2nd ed). New York: Brunner-Routledge (a division of Taylor & Francis Publishers).

Norcross, J. C. (Ed). (2002). Psychotherapy relationships that work: Therapist contributions and responsiveness to patients.

Pinsof, W.M. (1995). Integrative problem-centered therapy. New York: Basic Books.

Strupp, H.H., & Hadley, S.W. (1979). Specific vs. non-specific factors in psychotherapy: A controlled study of outcome. Archives of General Psychiatry, 36, 1125-1136.

Note: An earlier version of this article appeared in the January 2004 issue of the Association of Family Therapists of Northern California Newsletter. For further information about AFTNC, you may visit its website at http://www.aftnc.com.

Published on Psychotherapy.net with written permission from the author.