Dr. John Murphy Professor, University of Central Arkansas

Home About John Special Topics Current Projects Video and Bookstore Just for Teachers Just for Parents Upcoming Workshops Workshop Offerings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Special Topic: Avoiding Tug-of-Wars by Working With versus Against Students

 

 

 

 

 

 

Text Box: One of the surest ways to block solutions in counseling with young people is trying to coerce them into thinking differently against their will. This creates an unproductive tug-of-war between the student and practitioner. The following information provides a way to avoid this tug-of-war by working with instead of against students.

 

 

 

This material is taken from:

Murphy, J. J. (2008). Solution-focused counseling in schools (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association. (pp. 25-28)  

In the process of developing an identity separate from parents and others, young people will go to great lengths to develop and preserve their unique beliefs and values. Students are wary and suspicious of challenges to or infringements on their freedom to think for themselves. Efforts to directly persuade or coerce students out of their opinion and into an opposing viewpoint are usually counterproductive (Brigham, 1989). In discussing the importance of connecting with what adolescents view as important, Wexler (1991) advocates that counselors try “to appeal to the inherent adolescent drive toward ‘making life easier’,” observing that “attempts at convincing teenagers that certain behaviors (aggression, substance abuse, or running away) are not ‘right’ elicit either immediate oppositional behavior or superficial compliance” (p. 37).

            Students are often referred for counseling by teachers or parents. Therefore, they may not acknowledge that there is a problem at all, or they may view the problem as belonging to someone else. The story in Box 2.4 illustrates the futility of trying to sell our beliefs and ideas to clients who are not interested in buying.

_______________________________________________________________

Box 2.4

George, the Dead Guy: Convincing the Unconvincible

George was referred to a psychiatrist by his wife because he thought he was dead. True to form, George entered the psychiatrist’s office and boldly proclaimed that he was dead. The psychiatrist skillfully presented several rational arguments to convince him otherwise, none of which worked to change George’s position. The psychiatrist became frustrated and said “Sir, you seem like a decent fellow. Why don’t we talk about what’s really bothering you and drop this stuff about being dead. What do you say, George?” George was touched by the doctor’s concern, but steadfastly maintained that he was dead. Suddenly a brilliant idea occurred to the psychiatrist, and the following dialogue ensued. 

Psychiatrist: George, are you absolutely sure you are dead?

George: Yes.

Psychiatrist: Would you be willing to participate in a scientific experiment to put your belief to the test?

George: Sure.

Psychiatrist: Tell me, George, do dead men bleed?

George: Of course not.

Psychiatrist: Would you allow me gently prick your finger with a pin to see whether or not you bleed? 

George: Sure.

[With that, the doctor pricked George’s finger, which promptly began to bleed. George looked dejected as he stared at his bleeding finger.]  

Psychiatrist:  You can’t escape the facts now, George. You have to admit you were wrong, don’t you?

George: [turning to leave the office] Yes, doctor. I was wrong all along. Dead men do bleed. 

[This story was adapted from Freidman’s Fables (Friedman, 1990)]

 An effective alternative to engaging in ideological tug-of-wars with young people is to accept and work within their beliefs and goals. Encouraging different behaviors in ways that are consistent with the student’s goal (“getting parents or teachers off my case”) is more effective than working toward goals that are stated in the words of others (“becoming more mature and responsible”).