motivational interviewing preparing people for change william richard miller

The motivational practices of MI have high practical utility and, as a result, have been warmly welcomed and used by practitioners working in diverse fields (e.g., ). Consequently, various counseling techniques developed within the context of MI have the direct aim of fostering patient autonomy. Based on their clinical experience, Miller and Rollnick have repeatedly stressed that clinicians can best maximize clients' sense of autonomy during counseling to promote long-term change. Progress in identifying and defining these characteristics will be useful and necessary vis-à-vis the goal of analyzing and classifying current MI interventions as to their 'SDT-compatibility'.Ī clear emphasis on patient autonomy can also be observed within MI.

Nevertheless, and despite recent progress (e.g., ), SDT-based clinical interventions are still in their early stages of development and testing and it is fair to say that, at this time, the operational characteristics of an 'SDT intervention' have not been fully elucidated. Specifically, SDT researchers maintain that patients can best self-endorse change such that they willingly or volitionally pursue it rather than feeling seduced or pressured to make those changes. In fact, motivation is conceived by SDT as a differentiated concept and a distinction is made between different types of motivation (autonomous relative to controlled), with some motivational subtypes being more desirable because they yield more positive outcomes than other types. This implies that it is critical to move beyond merely considering a patient's level or intensity of motivation but also consider the quality of their motivation. Īccording to SDT, although patients and clients might put some initial effort in change, lasting results are more likely to fail if it is not undergirded by the 'right' motives. Moreover, both SDT and MI appear to have at its center the concept of motivation, endorsing the development of 'internal' motives and the need for patients to take responsibility for change, to the detriment of externally imposed goals, pressures, or a preponderance of reasons for change which are nor personally meaningful.

Both models are explicitly person-centered and process-oriented, both emphasize that optimal behavior change must involve deep personal commitment and engagement, and both stress that a positive emotional 'climate', defined by genuine empathy and unconditional regard towards patients or clients is a necessary condition for the success of behavior change interventions, especially their long-term effects. The links between SDT, a well-established theory of human motivation and behavior, and MI, a popular clinical method for evoking behavior change are multiple and have been explored before, leading many to think that a formal 'marriage' - i.e., accepting SDT as 'the theory of MI' and MI as the 'intervention method of SDT' - would be just a matter of time.

Motivational interviewing preparing people for change william richard miller