How to Confront Others to Confront Themselves (Part 2 of 2)

Source: Free Stock Photo/Pixabay

Getting others to re-examine their dysfunctional behavior by reducing or neutralizing their resistance to change can be quite challenging—at times, daunting. And so, if we're to prompt others to look at their deficiencies, insensitivities, or rigidity—without at the same time provoking their defenses—we need to develop both skill and patience. Anything coming out of our mouth that might, for instance, sound like criticism is likely to induce in the other an almost knee-jerk adverse reaction. This is because an apparently negative evaluation is likely to make that person feel attacked; and the way most people respond when feeling verbally pounced on is virtually identical to how they'd react to an actual physical assault.That is, in both instances their immediate impulse is to defend themselves, to somehow ward off the perceived assailant. Additionally, if their ego is especially weak, even a benign, well-intended suggestion might be perceived as criticism since it could be seen as implying that how they're doing something (or thinking about something) is foolish, incompetent, or otherwise blameworthy.

The oxymoronic term supportive confrontation describes almost all effective therapy, and is probably the best way to characterize what must occur if confronting another is to lead to their confronting themselves. For in the end, the only thing that can compel another to change is their own decision to alter their behavior.

As a final—and much more elaborate—example of how to motivate someone to change, we might look at how best to approach someone with a drinking problem (though any other addiction would do about as well).To confront a problem drinker directly—say, by insisting they acknowledge they're "alcoholic"—is not likely to be helpful in getting them to change. Odds are they're not yet ready to admit to themselves that they have to rely on a "fix" to cope with (or escape from) life's many stressors. Or that their alcohol dependency protects them from having to face things that otherwise they lack the resources to deal with. Or that their drinking is the only way they know how to calm themselves.

As in approaching any dysfunctional behavior, we must assume that despite the negative repercussions of their drinking (which they may already be partly aware of), their "attachment" to the bottle does benefit them in certain ways. So it's safe to assume that even in the most favorable instance becoming abstinent (or at least moderating their alcohol intake) is something over which they harbor considerable ambivalence. Any effort, therefore, to motivate them to confront themselves about their problematic drinking requires that we first—empathically—explore with them its more favorable aspects.

Next, we need to express our concern for the associated costs of their drinking—rather than, say, denigrate them for what their inability to control it reveals about their "character." If we're unable to keep from venting our frustrations, and so end up rebuking them for their habit, we've failed in the admittedly challenging task of staying supportive and compassionate about what may well exasperate us. In short, non-supportively confronting problem drinkers—or, for that matter, anyone who's addicted to a substance, relationship, or activity—does little to increase the likelihood that they'll respond positively to our feedback.

What, however, would facilitate the alcoholic's opening up to us (rather than becoming archly defensive or closing down) would be to request that they help us better understand the ways that drinking is important to them. We might ask specifically whether they find that drinking reduces their stress or anxiety, or maybe certain negative feelings about themselves. Or whether it helps them loosen up and feel more comfortable around others. Or has a beneficial effect on their mood or morale. Or alters their consciousness, so they can get some relief from what's troubling them. And so on.

But after reassuring them that we hardly wish to make them feel guilty or ashamed about their drinking, we need to invite them to explore whatever doubts or uneasiness they themselves (just below the surface) might have about their habit. Can they identify any problems, or potential problems, related to their drinking? If so, what might these be? Anything about their drinking that may actually have started to worry them? Has the course of their drinking changed over time? Have they possibly discovered they need to drink more to get the desired effect? Has anyone else expressed concern about their habit? Any memory or concentration difficulties possibly connected to their drinking? Hangovers? Blackouts? Health problems? Relationship problems? Legal Problems? Financial problems? etc.

If we're confronting well here—which is to say, caringly—this dialogue should play out much more like a discussion than a disputation or cross-examination. Remember, our goal isn't to attack, threaten, or intimidate but to foster constructive self-confrontation. Unless we've already exhausted all our options, we don't want to be playing hardball. Endeavoring to promote healthy self-confrontation, the wording of our questions—as well as our tone—should reflect interest and concern, not judgment, disapproval, or rejection. So at any point that the other person starts to react defensively, we need to back off and say something empathic (but also be wary of saying anything that might be construed as patronizing). Then we might want to comment on how sad it is that a behavior in so many ways pleasurable and rewarding yet links to so many problems (not the least of which may be our own relationship with the drinker!).

What's essential here is that the other person "absorb" the primary message of our caring and support—and as a result experience increased motivation to tackle anew their problematic behavior. Through our face-to-face engagement with them, we want to help them develop new, and unsettling, doubts about their habit (and perhaps consider the need for professional assistance as well). It can hardly be over-emphasized that what may be required of us to "enable" such self-confrontation is an almost unlimited amount of restraint and perseverance.

Alcoholism Essential Reads

Are We More Honest When We're Drunk?

Does Alcohol Really Make Us Happier?

It's only when we've succeeded in being supportively confrontational that we can realistically hope that the other person will gain the impetus to grapple more effectively with their maladaptive behavior. On the contrary, aggressively trying to argue them out of this behavior—or demanding that they admit they're alcoholic and stop denying what's obvious to everyone else—is likely only to intensify their resistance. Angrily or shamefully blaming them for their drinking (or for any of the many difficulties it's causing) is also unlikely to produce positive results. And, of course, assailing them with a whole host of derogatory labels (e.g., "drunk," "lush," "boozer," etc.) is even less likely to be effective. Insulting their pride and dignity is virtually guaranteed to spark their defenses—or even worse, exacerbate their sense of themselves as hopeless failures.

I realize that the above example may not even be recognizable as confrontation because it's characterized by such forbearance, warmth and support, and—as I've already stressed—a great deal of empathy and compassion. Many of the techniques I've described are in fact descriptive of a relatively recent therapeutic method known as Motivational Enhancement Therapy (MET), a highly respected approach that originated as a corrective to the lay-it-on-the-line, unequivocally confrontational approach of AA—which controlled research has failed to garner anywhere as much validation for than most people realize. And, similar to the approach I've described in all my examples in this two-part post, the quasi-paradoxical process of MET can also be effectively applied to many other dysfunctional behaviors. Carefully implemented, such a "softened" confrontational intervention can greatly enhance the possibility that individuals will be more inclined to come to grips with their problematic thinking and behavior.

On their own, many people simply can't grasp how bad—both for themselves and others—their behavior really is. But when caringly confronted about all its negative ramifications, they may well be capable of confronting themselves about it, too. More importantly, they may end up with the motivation and resolve necessary to change it once and for all.

Note 1: Here's a link to Part 1 of this post. And you might also want to take a look at a later post of mine called "Confronting Others: For Their Sake, or Your Own?".

Note 2: I've written an additional 2-part post on how, specifically, a non-therapist might best confront someone they're having problems with. Entitled "Criticism vs. Feedback: Which One Wins, Hands-Down?", here are the links to both Parts 1 and 2.

Note 3: If you found this post informative and believe others might as well, please consider passing on its link to them. Additionally, if you'd like to check out other posts I've done for Psychology Today—on a broad range of topics—click here.

© 2008 Leon F. Seltzer, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved.

---I invite readers to join me on Facebook, and to follow my psychological/philosophical musings on Twitter.