1
2	MI was not founded on theory Broadly grounded in Rogers’ client-centered counseling approach Original description based on implicit principles derived from intuitive practice MI principles were stated prior to empirical support or theory (1983) Elaboration of MI (1991) arose from Miller & Rollnick’s interactive raves
3	MI (1983) was logically linked to: Carl Rogers’ theory of the “critical conditions for change” Leon Festinger’s cognitive dissonance theory Daryl Bem’s self-perception theory The transtheoretical stages of change of Jim Prochaska and Carlo DiClemente
4	MI (1991) incorporated: Rollnick’s significant addition of ambivalence as a central construct Conflict theory related to ambivalence Better specification of change talk and resistance as key client signals
5	A Puzzle MI triggers reliable aggregate change across a range of target problems, settings, and providers Yet the effects of MI are also highly variable by site, study and counselor
6	In simplest form, the implicit theory of MI posits: 1a. MI will increase client change talk 1b. MI will diminish client resistance 2a. The extent to which clients verbally defend status quo (resistance) will be inversely related to behavior change 2b. The extent to which clients verbally argue for change (change talk) will be directly related to behavior change Are these propositions supported by data?
7	1a. MI increases change talk Problem drinkers randomly assigned to MI (vs. confront/direct) showed 111% more change talk (Miller, Benefield & Tonigan, 1993) Consistent with findings of within-subject clinical experiment (Patterson & Forgatch, 1985) Psycholinguistic analysis of MI showed robust, atypical increases in change talk (Amrhein et al., 2003) SUPPORTED
8	Therapist Style and Client Response Miller, Benefield & Tonigan (1993) JCCP 61: 455-461
9	Correlates of Client Change Talk
10	1b. MI decreases resistance Problem drinkers randomly assigned to confront/direct showed 78% more resistance than those in MI. Counselor confront responses specifically predicted client level of resistance (Miller, Benefield & Tonigan, 1993) Consistent with findings of within-subject clinical experiment (Patterson & Forgatch, 1985) Psycholinguistic analysis of MI showed robust decreases in commitment to drug use during MI (Amrhein et al., 2003) SUPPORTED
11	Correlates of Client Resistance
12	2a. Client resistance predicts lack of change Level of client resistance during counseling predicted absence of change in drinking (Miller, Benefield & Tonigan, 1993) Verbal commitment to drug use during MI predicted continued drug use (Amrhein et al., 2003) Resistance-poor outcome relationship replicated in several other studies SUPPORTED
13	2b. Client change talk predicts behavior change Frequency of client change talk did not predict behavior change Miller, Benefield & Tonigan, 1993 Peterson master’s thesis (unpublished) Miller, Yahne & Tonigan, 2003 NOT SUPPORTED
14	Contributions of Paul Amrhein 1. “Change Talk” is too global Natural language markers of readiness: Desire Ability Reasons Need Commitment
15	Contributions of Paul Amrhein 2. Don’t just count speech (frequency) but measure its strength Strength scaling of natural language Strength of Desire Strength of Ability Strength of Reasons Strength of Need Strength of Commitment
16	Contributions of Paul Amrhein 3. Study the pattern of language, not just its average level (mean) Slope as well as intercept of language strength Desire Ability Reasons Need Commitment
17	Contributions of Paul Amrhein 4. Study the whole session We had been using the first 20 minutes of counseling as a representative sample Amrhein divided the MI session into deciles Most predictive client speech was at the end of the session
18	In other words, we had been studying: the wrong parameter (intercept rather than slope) of the wrong metric (frequency rather than intensity of the wrong variable (change talk in general, rather than commitment) during the wrong portion of the MI session (beginning instead of end)
19	Commitment Language in MI
20	The Flow of Change Talk Desire Ability Reasons Need Commitment Change
21	Thesis A MI works by selectively reinforcing change talk
22	Support for Thesis A Increasing client change talk (particularly commitment language) promotes behavior change Stated implementation intentions predict behavior (Gollwitzer) Client resistance fosters no change Thus: Elicit and reinforce change talk, not resistance
23	And yet - Is it actually saying the words of commitment that causes change? or does naturally-occurring commitment language simply signal the presence of an underlying event that leads to both commitment speech and change?
24	"His Last Day of Smoking" His Last Day of Smoking (David Premack, 1970) A man had gone to pick up his children at the city library. A thunderstorm greeted him as he arrived there, and as he waited, engine running, a search of his pockets disclosed a familiar problem: he was out of cigarettes. He pulled away from the curb to quickly buy a pack at the corner store. What was the event that caused this smoker to quit for good that day?
25	"“Glancing back at the..." “Glancing back at the library, he caught a glimpse of his children stepping out in the rain, but he continued around the corner, certain that he could find a parking space, rush in, buy the cigarettes, and be back before the children got seriously wet.”
26	Underlying Event Candidates Decision Readiness Resolution of Ambivalence Perceptual Shift Stage of change Value attachment Stimulus equivalence class
27	Stages of Change Prochaska & DiClemente
28	"From" From Contemplation
29	To Action
30
31	"And if it is some..." And if it is some sort of underlying shift that triggers change (rather than change talk itself), then surely selective reinforcement of change talk is not the only way in which this shift occurs
32	Thesis B The resolution of ambivalence is promoted by accurate empathy alone, and it tends to resolve in a positive direction without directive help from the counselor (This varies from Rogers’ theory mostly in emphasis on the construct of ambivalence, and perhaps in the intentional exploration of both sides of the dilemma)
33	Evidence for Thesis B Findings that preceded MI: The work of Carl Rogers Counselors are a major determinant of client change Counselor empathy predicts client change outside MI Small acts of caring (a phone call, a note) can strongly impact outcomes
34	Therapist Empathy and Client Outcome Miller, Taylor & West (1980) JCCP 48:590-601
35	Correlation Between Therapist Empathy and Client Drinking Outcomes (standard drinks per week) Miller & Baca (1983) Behavior Therapy 14: 441-448 6-8 months r = .82 67% of outcome 12 months r = .71 50% of outcome 24 months r = .51 26% of outcome
36	Rogerian Skill and Client Outcomes Valle (1981) J Studies on Alcohol 42: 783-790
37	Evidence for Thesis B: Readiness Occurs in Relationship Without teaching directive MI: Working alliance predicts client change Unilateral family intervention works Counselor empathy predicts client change in behavior therapy Eliciting specific implementation intentions predicts behavior change
38	A Synthesis The resolution of ambivalence is promoted by accurate empathy and Resolution of ambivalence in a particular direction is influenced by the counselor’s differential reinforcement of client speech
39	Sellman et al., 2001 Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 62:389-396 Design Randomized clinical trial Population Mild/moderate dependence Nation New Zealand N 125 alcohol outpatients MI MET 4 sessions Comparison Nondirective reflective listening Control: No further counseling Follow-up 6 months post-treatment
40	Sellman et al., 2001
41	Unexpected Process Finding Moyers, Miller & Hendrickson, JCCP, in press Counselor use of MI-consistent spirit and practices is positively associated with behavior change Within MI, modest counselor use of confront responses is also positively associated with behavior change but if and only if the counselor also manifests the spirit of MI (empathy, etc.)
42	Clinical/Training Implications First and foremost, manifest the overall spirit of MI Helping the client to develop and verbalize arguments for change increases the likelihood of change Helping the client when ready to develop a specific change plan also increases the likelihood of change
43