The following statement is true: I am a kind and considerate male who is kind to and considerate of others.

The following statement is true: I am a kind and considerate male who is sometimes impatient and inconsiderate of others.

Both are true, no conflict here, we are simply able to hold multiple truths about ourselves at once; yet one I should wish to keep, while the other I wish to dispel through reinforcement of the former.

Here we have a fine key to behavior modification: tangible, observable, and measurable choice – self defined. Others are able to witness my traversing between types of behavior, count the transgressions, and either empathically or directly measure the trespass. I am also aware of this, almost inescapably so; I know what I am, what I have done.

We might use this ‘you are X’ but ‘you exhibit Z’ method in order to demonstrate that change is desirable for social congruence. In reality this isn’t new, young children experience this often, dogs too. Sadly cats couldn’t give two hoots for such an intervention.

‘I love you, but I don’t like your behavior’ is a powerful tool in the parenting quiver; yet we don’t exactly follow it on with adult interaction. Now, there are some who might hear a boss deliver statements along the lines of ‘you’re a good worker, but we just need to see a little more’ – that’s manipulation though, of the parent / child schema kind, seen within transactional analysis – if we were to really deliver this concept to adults we would require something deeper, more profound, and identity specific. We might experience something similar in a relationship, but the stakes are often too high, the (real or otherwise) pressure of loss, rejection, and entangled emotions serves to confuse the flow. How might we apply such a concept therapeutically with difficult clients?

Imagine this: We have a bigoted client, their attitude is relatively concrete, and we are looking for a way to address this; in the name of global social congruence. We might ask them to make a series (x4) of positive self-affirmations, write them down, and repeat them back to close that loop. Then ask them to make x2 statements pertaining to their bigoted thoughts, feelings, actions, or behaviors – write them down, but then have them make an additional x2 statements that reflect the negative impact of the above upon their or another’s life. This part is non-negotiable, it must be read back to them as the last part of the entire statement: you are a 1a, 2a, 3a, 4a, who thinks or does 1b, 2b, which has 3b, 4b, effect/affect upon another human being. Then have them repeat it back to close the loop. Now move on to talk about something else. Don’t ask how that made them feel, don’t enter into a debate, just close the loop and move on, offer to discuss it in the next session and keep that boundary.

Have them read it aloud at the next session, but don’t repeat it, do not close the loop.

It is now open for discussion, for work, for debate, for reality testing, for psychoeducation, for intervention, for whichever method or modality you might work within that deals with truth, reason, and transformation. The likelihood (and crux of the concept) is that the juxtaposition will be, or will become, intolerable to the client; the presence of contradictions, oxymorons, and plain old uncomfortable reality can be increasingly awkward and upsetting to tolerate.

But what of the change, or worse yet what if they name the ruse as some form of reverse psychology? Well, then deal with reality, with the causality of their belief system (thoughts, not religious or mystical persuasion – although a working knowledge of parables, mantras, and axioms does go a long way). Use role-playing, metaphors, scenario projecting, exposure therapy, and anything that might illustrate or illuminate without overtly embarrassing the client. You remain their therapist, you have a principle duty of care towards them, and you should not take a side away from this relationship; change, especially dogmatic revolution is a potentially unnerving and emotional process, one which requires a great deal of unconditional positive regard.

A family I once worked with had a dysfunctional and scapegoating relationship with their son – when he misbehaved (and he did misbehave) they would enter into conflict with him, punish him with time out, then call him back and lecture him, and that is it. He was left with the trespass paid for in punishment, the lecture admonishing his behavior, but his identity was defined as ‘always’ doing X, Y, or Z – therefore, they banished his self-esteem into the ‘ever zone’, a realm of perpetual negative self-fulfilling prophecy, when all they needed to do is demonstrate unconditional love or regard as the last action. This would have told him that he is loved, but his action is incongruent to being within the inner family circle – hence the time out.

For an adult who exhibits behavior which requires work, the concept is simple – a challenge to tolerate an uncomfortable truth about oneself within an environment that champions socialization, kindness, empathy, connectedness, openness, and (most importantly) interdependence.

The reasoning behind this intervention is that we seek congruence, we seek belonging, we know emotional truth when we hear it (even if we can’t tolerate it), and that we wish to be understood by others (the concept of being misunderstood is a direct call to action). If a client holds fast to a bigoted belief (or incongruent behavior) we are unlikely to be able to change it with facts, with opinion, or even with a pure exposure to victims (although this can be effective as part of a process) – we must work with reality, their reality, and align that with authentic causality; individually rooted consequences. Through this we have the potential of working in an adult/adult paradigm, accepting the ‘other’ as valuable, and allowing room for reflection upon the deeper meaning of their self.