Motivational Interviewing-Based Exercise Counselling Promotes Maintenance of Physical Activity in People with Type 2 Diabetes
Marni J. ArmstrongTavis S. CampbellAdriane M. LewinFarah KhandwalaS. Nicole Culos‐ReedRonald J. Sigal
5
Citation
0
Reference
10
Related Paper
Citation Trend
Keywords:
Motivational Interviewing
Ambivalence
Interview
This paper is a review of the attitudinal ambivalence concept. This review seeks to define the ambivalence and its consequences. The review explores the origin of ambivalence, the diverse attempts in the literature to operacionalize ambivalence, the sources of ambivalence and the effects of ambivalence on behavior, beliefs, emotions, and the attitude themselves. Research that supports these claims are described and critiqued. An evaluation is made as to the current state of the research.
Ambivalence
Cite
Citations (0)
Commentary to: Ambivalence: Prerequisite for success in motivational interviewing with adolescents? Motivational interviewing (MI) is a therapeutic method specifically designed for clients who are ambivalent about behavior change. Underlying mechanisms of action in MI sessions with mandated adolescents may differ from those in voluntary adult-seeking populations. Motivational interviewing (MI) is based upon the notion that ambivalence is a normal part of behavior change. In MI, a clinician seeks to develop a collaborative, supportive environment in which they can elicit a client's own reasons for change, known as 'change talk'. Therefore, MI is appropriate for clients who are ambivalent about changing a particular behavior: 'I know I should cut back on my drinking but it's so much fun to party with my friends on the weekends'. MI clinicians expect that an ambivalent client will offer both change talk as well as reasons to stay the same, known as 'sustain talk'. We train clinicians 1, 2 to reflect sustain talk as they build a collaborative relationship with the client, and during the course of the session to shift strategically to elicit and reinforce client change talk in an effort to 'tip the scales' toward behavior change. Feldstein and colleagues 3 provide an intriguing overview of the relationship between adolescent ambivalence and behavior change in the context of motivational interviewing sessions. They posit that the role of ambivalence in relation to behavior change may manifest itself and influence behavior differently in mandated-adolescent populations. Specifically, they suggest that ambivalence may be absent (and, if present, not necessary to facilitate subsequent behavior change). We agree that mandated adolescent substance users may have a limited investment in treatment due to a variety of external factors (e.g. nature of offense). This limited investment may manifest itself behaviorally as an absence of ambivalence: namely, little to no change talk and a great deal of sustain talk. That said, we propose that a discussion of the role of the external factors in relationship to the client's own personal values may elicit genuine ambivalence about the behavior of interest. Indeed, examinations of mandated college students' within-session language reveals both the presence of change talk 4-7 and sustain talk. In fact, both Borsari et al. 4 and Vader et al. 5 found that clinician MI-consistent behaviors predicted both change and sustain talk in a sample of mandated college students. Furthermore, change talk is evident from the very start of the session, contrary to what would be expected if ambivalence was absent. We suggest that MI, a directed conversation focused on the relationship between the client's current substance use and his or her values/goals, may quickly foster an atmosphere where the client can explore the pros and cons of behavior change, but we are reluctant to suggest that clinicians utilize the decisional balance as a strategic method of creating ambivalence, given recent evidence documenting a relationship between client sustain talk and poorer treatment outcomes 6, 8. Further, we note that a review of studies exploring whether a decisional balance was appropriate for use in MI indicated that for ambivalent clients in particular it was associated with increased sustain talk 9. Even if mandated adolescents explore and (and resolve) ambivalence in session, there is also the thorny question of whether this will influence subsequent behavior. MI is a treatment that was developed originally for problem-drinking adults, arguably a very different group in terms of ambivalence and internal motivation for change than adolescents who have been mandated to treatment because of status offenses. It cannot be assumed that a treatment stressing collaboration and autonomy support can be applied with equal efficacy to mandated adolescents, who may view themselves as coerced and may have a limited menu of options for changing behavior. Furthermore, a clinician-led discussion regarding a client's menu of treatment options may highlight the client's lack of personal choice and autonomy in the treatment process and have the unintended effect of facilitating sustain talk in this population. It is likely that MI, a therapeutic method that stresses the exploration and resolution of client ambivalence, may have limits to its efficacy with mandated adolescent clients. However, we feel that it is premature to suggest that MI does not work by resolving ambivalence. In an elegant meta-analysis, Magill et al. 10 found that the ratio of change and sustain talk in treatment sessions, when favoring change talk, was associated with positive behavioral outcomes. This approach, evaluating the behavioral manifestation of ambivalence, needs to be replicated with mandated adolescent population before ambivalence and its resolution can be discarded as a significant mechanism of behavior change in this population. None.
Ambivalence
Motivational Interviewing
Interview
Cite
Citations (3)
With the effects of social changes, family values have changed and tensions and contradictions are probably more likely to occur among family members. According to the intergenerational ambivalence perspective, intergenerational relationships are inherently structured so as to generate ambivalence. Ambivalence means the contradictions in the relationships between older parents and adult children that cannot be reconciled. Individuals are expected to use various strategies in their attempts to manage ambivalence at least temporarily.
Ambivalence
Cite
Citations (1)
Ambivalence
Cite
Citations (14)
This research investigated whether ambivalence-induced response amplification occurs because of a motivation to reduce ambivalence. In Study 1, participants’ ambivalence toward Native people was assessed and they then read a positive or negative essay on Native land claims. As predicted, ambivalent participants displayed a significant difference between the positive and negative message conditions in their attitudes toward Native people, whereas nonambivalent participants did not. Study 2 followed the same procedure as Study 1 and also included motive manipulation essays designed to manipulate the motivation to reduce ambivalence. The negative motive essay emphasized the disadvantages of seeing both the good and the bad in another person or situation (i.e., ambivalence is negative), whereas the positive motive essay emphasized the advantages (i.e., ambivalence is positive). As predicted, ambivalent participants who received the negative motive manipulation displayed response amplification, whereas ambivalent participants who received the positive motive manipulation did not.
Ambivalence
Cite
Citations (108)
Ambivalence
Cite
Citations (0)
Ambivalence is a somewhat overlooked emotion in many textbooks within the sociology of emotions. This chapter aims to rectify this situation by providing an overview of ambivalence as a category and an emotion that may assist in understanding many different aspects of social and human life. In this chapter we will explore ambivalence and its different meanings and expressions. First, we will look into the concept and history of the notion of ambivalence in order to provide a basis for further elaboration and clarification. Then we move into a presentation of ambivalence as an emotional category – something that people feel and which evokes certain emotional reactions in them. Then we will look at different types of ambivalence that each in their way illustrates important and distinguishable dimensions of ambivalence. Based on this, we then present three sociological theories of ambivalence, before we look into a number of empirical studies. The purpose of the chapter is to serve as an icebreaker for the interest in ambivalence.
Ambivalence
Presentation (obstetrics)
Cite
Citations (0)
In all intimate relationships where difficulties are being experienced, one or both parties can feel ambivalent. Some individuals and couples resolve their ambivalence, discover lost aspects of themselves and new ways of relating, while others either remain together regardless of a satisfactory resolution, or decide to separate. In this paper I will address the nature of ambivalence and its influence and effect on individuals and couples. Understanding and working with ambivalence requires us as therapists to consider both the emotional patterns in relationships and the influence of early childhood experiences. Methods of assessing and working with ambivalence will be outlined and contra‐indications for individual and joint sessions discussed.
Ambivalence
Cite
Citations (0)
Interview
Motivational Interviewing
Cite
Citations (0)
This paper is a review of the attitudinal ambivalence concept. This review seeks to define the ambivalence and its consequences. The review explores the origin of ambivalence, the diverse attempts in the literature to operacionalize ambivalence, the sources of ambivalence and the effects of ambivalence on behavior, beliefs, emotions, and the attitude themselves. Research that supports these claims are described and critiqued. An evaluation is made as to the current state of the research.
Ambivalence
Cite
Citations (6)