Background: A recommendation in original descriptions of motivational interviewing (MI) was to “explore ambivalence”. Contrasting procedures for doing so have been clarified through the evolution of MI. Aims: This article describes two conceptually distinct methods for responding to ambivalence: decisional balance (DB) and MI's evocation of change talk, and reviews empirical evidence to recommend when each procedure is appropriate (and inappropriate) in clinical practice. Method: The authors summarize findings of clinical outcome research to examine how these two interventions impact the resolution of client ambivalence. Results: With ambivalent people, a DB intervention tends to decrease commitment to change, whereas evocation (a key element of MI) promotes change. When a person has already made the decision to change, evocation is unnecessary and may deter change, whereas DB may further strengthen commitment. Conclusions: DB is an appropriate procedure when the clinician wishes to maintain neutrality and not favor the resolution of ambivalence in any particular direction. Evocation is appropriate when the clinician intends to help clients resolve ambivalence in the direction of change.

Background: The exact link between the process engaged in during Motivational Interviewing based interventions, such as Motivational Enhancement Therapy (MET), and outcome is yet to be fully understood. Aims: This preliminary study examined Client Language during MET and outcome. Method: A modified Motivational Interviewing Skills Code Version 2.0 was used to code 106 audiotaped MET sessions from 28 participants who received 3–4 sessions of MET within the context of a randomized controlled trial for mild-moderate alcohol dependence. Client Language was analyzed within sessions (categorized into Early, Mid, or End Intervals) and across sessions, and in relation to six month drinking outcome (drinking within/over national drinking guidelines, i.e. Remitted/Unremitted Drinkers). Results: Unremitted Drinkers uttered a significantly higher frequency of Sustain Talk, lower Ability Language strength (over all MET and during End Intervals), and lower Commitment Language strength (during Session 2 and 4, and change over MET). Conclusions: Notwithstanding limitations, this exploratory study was unique in examining the strength of Client Language within and across sessions. It produced potentially valuable findings that warrant further investigation including supporting the clinical benefit of monitoring Client Language to predict outcome.

Motivational Interviewing is an evidence-based brief intervention for helping people change problematic health behaviors. The development of motivational interviewing was influenced, in part, by the social psychology literature, especially the concept of psychological reactance. This paper argues for expanding the influence of social psychological processes upon the practice of motivational interviewing by reviewing three relevant processes: defensive bias, message framing, and cognitive-affective ambivalence. Relevant research findings are reviewed and specific recommendations are offered for future research and enhancing the practice of motivational interviewing.