Meeting in the middle: motivational interviewing and self-determination theory

Abstract

Motivational interviewing (MI) is indeed a bottom-up model that emerged from practical experience in the field of alcohol treatment. The original description of MI [1] suggested some links to social psychological theories, but focused on an intuitive approach in treating alcohol problems for which there was at the time no empirical support. Our subsequent volumes [2,3] have similarly focused on clinical applications without proposing an underlying theory of treatment or change. In part this reflects our own temperaments, preferring intuitive to rational-deductive ways of knowing [4,5], with a focus on the real world of clinical practice. We are bottom-up people. Much of what we have done in our careers has sprung from efforts to deal with practical problems that clinicians encounter in their daily work [6]. The world of academia, in contrast, tends to place a high premium on starting from coherent theory and rationally deriving hypotheses that will be tested to either confirm or revise the theory. This has simply never been a forte or primary scientific interest for either of us, to the dismay of some of our mentors and colleagues. We have preferred instead to move between the context of discovery and the context of justification [7] - deriving intuitive hypotheses from clinical experience, submitting them to the verification of scientific method, and then going back to the drawing board to try again. Over time, this approach may lead to the development of a higher-order theory as a byproduct [8]. The rigor of scientific method is equally important in both approaches. They differ in the source of hypotheses: intuitive experience versus rational deduction from a pre-existing theory. Both approaches have value and a long tradition in the history of science. Whether either one is in some sense superior to the other is a value judgment that we do not wish to make. The history of MI, however, does suggest potential value in beginning from clinical intuition. A large evidence base comprising more than 200 randomized clinical trials has emerged, showing positive effects (albeit inconsistent) across many health problem areas. Well before this evidence base accumulated, however, MI disseminated readily and rapidly by word of mouth among clinicians, who are drawn to it not just from the clinical trials but because, for the lack of a better term, they seem to recognize it. It feels intuitively sound based on their own experience. This kind of practice-based evidence is also important, and needs to be compared, tested and refined with clinical trials. Hall [9] suggested a similar two-way street in psychotherapy research with cultural minorities. Evidence-based treatments are worth trying in populations where they have not yet been tested [10], and there is also a need for scientific study of the intuitive interventions that have arisen from an indigenous culture's own wisdom and experience. So what about Self-Determination Theory (SDT) that grew up independently from MI, but bears a certain family resemblance? There may be a natural fit [11]. MI has lacked a well-developed theory to rationalize its efficacy. SDT has focused less on refining specific clinical procedures for putting it into practice. A marriage may be premature, but the flirtation is not. The three human hungers emphasized in SDT - autonomy, relatedness, and competence - are all directly addressed in MI. More than most psychotherapies, MI assumes, respects, and implicitly relies on volition to instigate self-regulation [12]. The emerging psycholinguistic mechanisms of MI [8,13,14] can be linked to the more general development of volition and self-regulation through language [15]. The relational component of MI also appears to be important [8], consistent with SDT. Supporting autonomy is a key element in the underlying spirit of MI. SDT and MI, it would seem, have much to learn from each other. SDT also holds promise for improving our understanding of MI. A puzzling aspect in MI clinical research is the inconsistency of its outcomes. There are many positive trials, but also an impressive number of negative trials, including some of our own [16]. SDT may help to clarify the conditions that contribute to the effectiveness of MI in practice. MI has been faulted for underemphasizing social context [17], a factor that is clearly integrated in SDT, and a well-supported theory never hurts the academic credibility of any psychotherapy. Is SDT more than just another pair of theoretical glasses through which to view the phenomena of MI? Will SDT lead to unique testable hypotheses that teach us important things about MI that we didn't already know? It remains to be seen. We do not propose to develop such a systematic integration ourselves, but we gladly offer our support to those whose aptitudes and inclinations lie in this direction.

References 17

1. 1.

   Miller WR Motivational interviewing with problem drinkersBehavioural Psychotherapy1983 11141172

   Not in our library

2. 2.

   Miller RW Rollnick S Motivational Interviewing: Preparing people to change addictive behavior1991 New York: Guilford Press

   Not in our library

3. 3.

   Miller RW Rollnick S Motivational Interviewing: Preparing People for Change2002 New York: Guilford Press

   Not in our library

4. 4.

   Polanyi M The tacit dimension1966 Chicago: University of Chicago Press

   Not in our library

5. 5.

   Quenk NL Essentials of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator assessment2009 New York: John Wiley & Sons

   Not in our library

6. 6.

   Miller WR Meyers RJ Tonigan JS Engaging the unmotivated in treatment for alcohol problems: a comparison of three strategies for intervention through family membersJ Consult Clin Psychol1999 67688697

   Not in our library10.1037//0022-006x.67.5.688

7. 7.

   Reichenbach H Experience and prediction1938 Chicago: University of Chicago Press

   Not in our library

8. 8.

   Miller WR Rose GS Toward a theory of motivational interviewingAm Psychol2009 64527537

   Not in our library10.1037/a0016830

9. 9.

   Hall GC Psychotherapy research with ethnic minorities: empirical, ethical, and conceptual issuesJ Consult Clin Psychol2001 69502510

   Not in our library10.1037//0022-006x.69.3.502

10. 10.

    Miller WR Villanueva M Tonigan JS Cuzmar I Are special treatments needed for special populations?Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly2007 256378

    Not in our library10.1300/j020v25n04_05

11. 11.

    Markland D Ryan RM Tobin VJ Rollnick S Motivational Interviewing and Self-Determination TheoryJournal of Social and Clinical Psychology2005 24811831

    Not in our library10.1521/jscp.2005.24.6.811

12. 12.

    Miller WR Atencio DJ Baer J, Kaufman JC, Baumeister RFFree will as a proportion of varianceAre we free? Psychology and free will2008 New York: Oxford University Press275295

    Not in our library

13. 13.

    Amrhein PC Miller WR Yahne CE Palmer M Fulcher L Client commitment language during motivational interviewing predicts drug use outcomesJ Consult Clin Psychol2003 71862878

    Not in our library10.1037/0022-006x.71.5.862

14. 14.

    Moyers TB Martin T Christopher PJ Houck JM Tonigan JS Amrhein PC Client language as a mediator of motivational interviewing efficacy: where is the evidence?Alcohol Clin Exp Res2007 3140s47s

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1530-0277.2007.00492.x

15. 15.

    Diaz RM Winsler A Atencio DJ HArbers K Mediation of self-regulation through the use of private speechInternational Journal of Cognitive Education and Mediated Learning1992 2155167

    Not in our library

16. 16.

    Miller WR Yahne CE Tonigan JS Motivational interviewing in drug abuse services: a randomized trialJ Consult Clin Psychol2003 71754763

    Not in our library10.1037/0022-006x.71.4.754

17. 17.

    Miller WR Rose GS Motivational interviewing in relational contextAmerican Psychologist2010 65298299

    Not in our library10.1037/a0019276

Reads

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.