We can summarise the differences between the two processes in a latently motivated client through the change in contact rebuses thus (Motivational Work, Part 1: Values and Theory, pages 516 – 532):
DIFFERENT TYPES OF CONTACT REBUS WITH RESPECT TO PROCESS
| THE DEMOTIVATIONAL PROCESS | THE MOTIVATIONAL PROCESS |
| POSITIVE REBOUND
More transformed pain = more destructive less genuinely constructive | POSITIVE REBOUND
Less transformed pain = less destructive more genuinely constructive |
| NEGATIVE REBOUND
More transformed pain = more destructive, less genuine conflict | NEGATIVE REBOUND
Less transformed pain = less destructive, More genuine conflict |
One problem is to differentiate between the two processes through the contact rebuses that the client employs. If destructive demonstrativeness is part of a motivational process, it means that a positive change is underway and the client will become more motivated if the motivational work continues. If, however, the client acts out in a demotivational process, it means that the client is still in a downward trend and has not entered a positive process of change. In practice, it is of little consequence to the motivational worker which type of contact rebus it is, as the method will be basically the same.
In both cases, the contact rebus is destructively demonstrative with a puzzle that must be solved. It can, however, be good for the motivational worker to know if the process is one of motivation or demotivation – provided that he does not delve so emotionally deeply into a confirmed demotivational process that he loses hope. If his positive attitude is not affected, the feedback from the rebound can give him valuable information for his continued motivational efforts.
The following reasoning applies on the condition that a program of motivational work has already begun. The destructive behavior that succeeds the motivational work can be a sign that a positive change is happening (motivational process) or that the client is continuing on his downward life-cycle (demotivational process).
If the motivational worker establishes that the client’s destructive behavior is not a rebound to the motivational work but is actually an even more desperate appeal for help, this gives him some important information, as it confirms that the attitude towards his client that he has so far adopted has not hit home fully. He must thus modify his approach, evaluate his work and think about how to continue.
If, on the other hand, the motivational worker has it confirmed that the client’s destructive behavior is a rebound to the motivational work and that a motivational process is underway, he also receives feedback on his efforts. He has managed to reach the client emotionally enough to set in motion a process of change. He thus receives confirmation that he is on the right path.
A similar issue faces the motivational worker when it comes to distinguishing between superficial compliance and constructive behavior. When the client’s conduct is more constructive, part of it can be genuine and a reaction to the motivational work. The alternative is that the client is continuing on his demotivational process, which means that the positive contact rebus is even more transmuted and destructive.
Both processes embody the same challenge: not to end up in a prestige and performance mindset. The motivational worker can do no more than his best, and sometimes a motivational process will commence, sometimes not. We have already looked at this way of thinking in connection with the humanistic approach and the primary responsibilities of the motivational worker.
If the client continues on a demotivational process, it does not, however, mean that the motivational worker has not affected his client. He might have transferred enough life energy to the client to make the demotivational process gradient shallower. From the client’s perspective, this can mean a major change and the difference between life and death. So even if a motivational worker does not set a motivational process in motion, he has still saved a life and enabled the motivational work to continue.
Case Study
Moses, 53, has been using drugs since his early thirties. For ten years his problem was alcohol but then he started to take pills. For the past decade, he has been out of work and on different kinds of benefits, which he can only receive by paying regular visits to the social welfare office.
Usually, he’s cooperative and in a good mood. Sometimes he turns up drunk and is aggressive, even threatening, towards desk staff. However, he is always cooperative and compliant with the social workers he meets. But, he refuses to look at different therapeutic alternatives. On one occasion he smashes up the reception. Moses has been married and still has contact with his ex-wife. With her too, he can shift between compliance and aggression. He’s never assaulted her, but has, for instance, smashed a window when she didn’t open the door to him.
Discussion
This client’s motivational process has not changed much in 20 years. The only deterioration was the abuse of pills; otherwise, the degree of destruction in his negative and positive rebounds has remained effectively the same. In the negative rebound, he takes drugs, is aggressive, and demolishes inanimate objects. In his positive rebounds, he is in a good mood and cooperative. He clearly obtains enough life energy from the social welfare office and his ex-wife to greatly reduce the pace of the demotivational process.