More on Willpower or, One’s ‘I Will’ is More Important than IQ.

A number of readers responded to my last post; some on the blog itself, others in a personal email. I suspect that we are fairly close in agreement, although the language we each use may differ. I agree there is a collection of behaviors labeled “willpower” in our culture. To this end, those who display these behaviors to some degree exist along a continuum of “dependence.” The point of my last post was to suggest the difference between one having mastered a set of behaviors, i.e., “skills,” and one having an inherent trait called “willpower.” Although both manifest themselves in the same way—the ability or inability to “resist temptation”—the impact of viewing willpower as a trait is that, like skin color, we humans tend to discriminate against individuals based on a socially constructed system of values.

If I view willpower as a skill or set of skills that I do not possess, then I understand my “inability to resist temptation” as a function of “knowledge” rather than a “character.” I may or may not be motivated to learn the requisite skills to change my behavior, but that is a choice I make and for which I am responsible. If, however, I view my inability to “resist temptation” as being indicative of a character defect, then I am left with no recourse but to continue on with no hope of changing behavior short of divine intervention. This is somewhat melodramatic, but change is an “inside job.” For one to first recognize and then attempt to do something about this, the individual first needs to engage in what I refer to as “possibility thinking.”

The old school view of willpower—even in AA, which suggests that willpower is not a solution for addiction—is that we individuals are capable of doing anything we put our minds to doing...the old “pull yourself up by the bootstraps” argument. Those who can do this, change, while those who cannot suffer. Interestingly, there is a cultural spin on this whole willpower thing too. The concept of willpower as a character trait is grounded in the Western belief in the primacy of individualism...a focus on “me” and “my” ability to do whatever I put “my” mind to doing, the “anyone can grow up to be president of the United States” argument. Interestingly, this cultural perspective is a relative minority as most of the world cultures relate to some extent to a collectivistic world view...the individual is NOT the building block of cultures and societies. Rather, one’s focus is on the family and community, with individual acts not so much asserting one’s inherent right to “be all that you can be” but rather, furthering the greater, common good. But I wax philosophical and this strays from the original point: willpower is a social construction and not an entity or character trait.

What I find interesting about AA—and one of its many endearing qualities—is that the steps suggest that I cannot manage change alone, but that any change made is nevertheless an inside job. This is another of the myriad paradoxes in 12-step programs/philosophy: To change, that is to say, “recover,” I must surrender to a power greater than myself, but in so doing, I find the ability to make personal changes that allow me to grow and develop. The willpower of 12-step philosophy is the power of commitment to change coupled with a realization that the change process necessitates the input and support of others, including a power greater than myself. Put another way, willpower in 12-step recovery—at least as I understand it—is better stated as “I will, power”—this is also why I believe that 12-step programs are so compatible with Cognitive-Behavioral Theory in that AA cautions against “stinkin’-thinkin’,” Beck exhorts challenging cognitive distortions, and Ellis admonished to refute irrational beliefs. These are all points along the same path to change.

Willpower only exists to the extent that one does not respond to temptation in a fashion deemed appropriate by the culture in which the individual exhibits his or her behavior. It is not like physical strength measured in “foot-pounds of torque” exerted or electrical units expended. Rather, recognition of willpower occurs after the fact and only then when an observer evaluates one’s behavior by comparing it to a predetermined, that is, social constructed hierarchy of “acceptable/unacceptable” behavior.

This is all “angels on the head of a pin” stuff except for the impact not having willpower has on one’s personal belief in an ability to change. My argument is that if I see this thing called willpower as being a set of skills, then if I do not have them, I can get them if I am willing to do what is necessary to develop said skills. On the other hand, if willpower is not a skill set, then I am fated to see myself as do others, personally “weak” and incapable affecting change.

Understanding Willpower: Urban Myth or Social Construct?

The amount of research associated with substance use disorders—a.k.a. “addiction,” “substance abuse,” “alcoholism,” etc.--is staggering; this is a good thing. Our understanding of this disorder seems to change almost monthly. From recognizing it as a biopsychosocial disorder to realizing that effective treatment necessitates a collaboration with the individual in treatment to affect change, it would seem that the 21st century will see prevention and treatment of this disorder advance at an even faster pace. Again, this is the good news...The less than good news, however, is that some remnants of the early days of the “addictions treatment industry” persistent; the advent of addiction being a function of an absence of willpower being a case in point.

“Willpower” is viewed as if its existence--or absence--is a discernable fact, something that can be measured and therefore quantified...he has no willpower, she has some willpower, etc. In other words, we act as though we can tell who “has it” and who does not simply by observing individual behavior. Those with willpower work hard in the face of adversity, overcome temptations, and remain faithful to goals and commitments while those without it are perceived as weak, unmotivated, untrustworthy, and unfortunately, lack the innate ability to see a task through to completion. But this supposed bedrock of Western character values neglects to recognize that “willpower” is not a “thing” but simply a word coined to describe a social construction we, as a culture, view as socially desirable and productive behavior. In short, one either has willpower or is devoid of it and depending on which side of that line in the dirt one stands, so is that individual’s worth as an individual determined by others.

If this were true, however, we should see this same absence of willpower when it comes to an individual following through with any behavior? For example, if I cannot seem to “stop smoking” because of my absence of willpower, I should also be incapable of remaining monogamous in my relationship with my spouse, correct? Yet there are countless example of individuals who have difficulty making certain changes in behavior attributed to a lack of willpower who are highly successful in making changes in other areas of their lives, often with relative ease...the former cigarette smoker who cannot seem to follow through with efforts to increase physical exercise or the individual who has successfully negotiated 12 challenging years of college and medical school to become a physician yet is unable to shed 15-pounds.

Willpower appears to be “situational” not because it is something tangible that one either has or does not, but rather it is a skill—or more correctly, a set of skills—that enable one to act in a particular way in a given situation. In those situations where this skill set is present...I have the requisite “willpower” to affect change; where the skills are absent, so is the “willpower." These life skills are learned, intentionally or coincidentally as I live my life, in the same way all life skills are acquired, the result of choices made and consequences realized.

All behavior is preceded by an antecedent, that is, something that comes immediately before the behavior is displayed...the “itch before the scratch.” Likewise, all behavior is followed by a consequence...the relief I feel after having scratched said itch. The consequence can be pleasant and therefore desirable or it can be unpleasant andtherefore undesirable...it must be one or the other.  is this “A – B – C” continuum that explains the acquisition of various skills, be they socially desirable or not. It is also attending to this continuum that enables one to understand behavior and, consequently, affect changes in that behavior—even changes in one’s own behavior—by understanding this simple equation and its impact on “why I do the things I do.”

This particular post does not present the time nor space to thoroughly explore this simple fact, so suffice it to say that I tend to repeat those behaviors that tend to result in a desirable consequence. An excellent book on the topic of self-directed change is, Self-Directed Behavior, 9th edition, by Watson & Tharp (Wadsworth Cengage Learning – see http://amzn.to/ajyv3L to read reviews at Amazon). The problem is that if I do not step back and look at the big picture, I may not recognize that the reinforcing consequence I am realizing are actually denying me the opportunity to perfect a skill that can change the behavior that I continue to repeat in spite of my wishes to the contrary. Allow me to explain with an example.

I want to lose 10 pounds. I know I have to eat less and exercise more to accomplish this objective. However, when I attempt to eat less I am overcome by the compulsion to eat. I tell myself that I cannot bear this discomfort, and dwell on how I will never be able to repeatedly resist this craving and tell myself this over and over until I give in and eat. When I eat, I feel better and even though I know that I caved and broke my vow, the consequence that followed my eating behavior is that I feel satiated. The “A” is the craving (or the stress or the depression or the “whatever”); the “B” is my eating, and the “C” is feeling satiated—or the passing of the craving, assuaging the stress/depression. Society looks at me and thinks, “Robert has no willpower” and it is a very short distance from that belief to being pitied or viewed as a weak an ineffectual person.

On the other hand, what if when I feel the urge to eat (or the stress, depression, “whatever”) that is the antecedent to my eating, and I was to engage in a different behavior? What if I “changed the ‘B’” and went for a walk or spoke with a friend or “did something else”? As I became distracted and the craving passed/depression/stress were assuaged, the consequence for this behavior would increase the likelihood that I would have learned a competing skill, one that would enable me to avoid eating, exercise more, and eventually drop the 10-pounds and keep it off.

So I end this post as I began...suggesting that there is no such thing as “willpower”; rather it is a social construction created to simply explain socially desirable behavior. The problem is that we have accepted that this social construction is a measurable personality trait. The problem with this is that if I buy into this belief personally and define myself as someone with little or no willpower, I unnecessarily stack the deck against myself when it comes to identifying the role I can play in making desired changes in my personal behavior. This is not to suggest that I can “do whatever I put my mind to alone” or that addicted individuals can “learn to use responsibly.” It does suggest, however, that diffiulty in making personal changes in behavior is less the function of personal weakness or a lack of so-called willpower than it has to do with an absence of a particular skill set necessary to make the desired change.

What do you think?
Dr. Robert

Inviting Students to Reduce at Risk Behaviors w/o Appearing to Lecture or Preach 

There is no shortage of information regarding the risks associated with underage or high-risk drinking. There are dozens of web sites that are dedicated to this very topic...all are good, that is, informative, and the majority if not all present to an adult audience. Students will likely not spend more than the few seconds it takes to discern the parental tone of a "prevention site" before leaving with the belief that al prevention is "bogus" and committed to just one thing...keeping students from having the good time that is their perceived right, the "rites of passage" if you will.

To present information to students does not have to involve the traditional "dad or mom talk" with its student-perceived "thou shall not" litany of directives designed to ensure that students trade personal safety for the hope of having a "good time."

Fortunately, motivating students to look at the "big picture" and trusting in their ability to learn from the experiences they and their peers have, is not beyond the ability of parents or educators. The challenge is to avoid the temptation to address a behavioral concern with intellectual interventions.

The historic approach to prevention argues that if students have enough information about the risks associated with underage and high-risk drinking, they will make good choices and avoid risk. Interestingly, most students already do this, but not because of a parental admonishment about drinking, but because they know the difference between the "good things" related to drinking and the "less good things." These students do not change their behavior because their intellectual understanding of the risks associated with use goes up, they change their behaviors when they realize that what they want from alcohol use has less to do with the use and more to do with realizing one's social and interpersonal objectives. When the use of alcohol is perceived as enhancing one's social status, it will continue. If, however, one's social status is sabotaged by one's antics when drinking, consumption is modified.

Simply stated, when the costs--social, familial, legal, health, economic--of drinking exceed the perceived benefits received, students change their drinking behavior. This is the objective of prevention, but historically millions of dollars and countless hours of professional and parental hours have been invested in trying to alert students to the risks and dangers associated with drinking in the mistaken belief that information alone results in behavior change.

Two of the more effective ways to engage anyone, but especially students in considering behavior change are humor and parody. Both engage students in considering the issues related to drinking--their issues, not a parent's or educator's--from a different perspective. No longer is the student asked to change his or her behavior, but rather is asked to consider if what he or she gets from current patterns of behavior are worth what must be invested to obtain them.

This shift from trying to make proverbial horse drink from the watering hole when it is not thirsty to salting the oats so the horse becomes thirsty and therefore wants to do so, is nothing short of revolutionary. Humor and parody can do this.

Here are some of my favorites vehicles by which to invite students to revisit their personal choices about drinking:

Use the 1987 Bill Cosby drinking clip from his "Himself" concert. In his, “What I really want to know about is drinking, getting drunk, and saying you are having a good time” piece - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYsko_tc3a0, Cosby pokes fun at those who engage in high-risk drinking. He is taking about adults, which increases the likelihood that students will list, but the points he makes are universal in their indication of "all time dumb behavior" when drinking...by anyone.

I used this to start discussions with students about "getting drunk." After watching the clip—and even though it is dated by Cosby’s age and dress, its message and humor are timeless—I would ask students to come up with as many synonyms for “drunk” as they could. I would write these on the board and collect at least 12 to 15…e.g., wasted, bombed, hammered, smashed, trashed, etc. I always get “shit faced” and I would write it down, and the snickering would tell me that the audience was “thinking” “all f _ _ _ _ _ d-up” so I would acknowledge this and write it on the board. I then would ask, besides referring to being intoxicated, what else do these terms have in common? I would wait, perhaps 30-seconds before the silence would become a bit uncomfortable and someone would say something like, “they are all negative.” I would acknowledge this and then ask why do we refer to being intoxicated with terms that could just as easily be found on the front page of the daily newspaper…and bring a copy with me to illustrate.

I would end up the presentation by asking the audience to proffer ideas on how the language we use may affect the behaviors we display when drinking, especially to intoxication.

Some other video clips that may be useful – you will need to “set them up” with a lead in and then process them in a particular way in order set up their “drinking related” context:

· To demonstrate the illogical thinking/reasoning that student may use to justify continued high-risk if not stupid behaviors and ways of drinking - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bfq5kju627c
· To demonstrate how people see what they are looking for and miss the obvious (this is a clip that can be used in many different presentation): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yQexTsAhjY
· To demonstrate “point of view” or the need to attend to the “big picture”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voAntzB7EwE
· To demonstrate how do we learn to drink in a high-risk fashon use this clip from Disney’s Beauty & the Beast. Everyone will have seen the film and few if any will have made the connedtion that men are being taught to womanize, be violent when drinking, guzzle beer, etc.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhG9hKiplfQ NOTE: Women are also being taught how to look, how to act around men, etc. There are MANY cultural messages…high-risk messages…inherent in this clip
· To demonstrate either (1) addiction of (2) co-dependency (or both): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0m9iu6O3dg This is the 1st of 2 10-min video clips that are very powerful. A link to the second clip can be found on the site of the first.

Story telling has always been an effective way to deliver advice, raise concern about typical behavior, and motivate individuals to review their own behavior. In this age of digital media, this has become convenient...all it takes is a bit of creative thinking on our part to blend the myriad resources available online into a tapestry of drinking related introspection that students are willing to consume. Remember, it is easier to salt the oats than to beat the horse to motivate changes in its behavior.

What do you think?

Dr. Robert

Sending email to yourself in the future: A possible tool for counselors

When working as the clinical director of an inpatient treatment program for individuals with substance use disorders I would often suggest that before completing treatment, individuals compose a letter to themselves. In this letter I would suggest that thoughts on change (early recovery) be recorded: What challenges will I face in early recovery? What resources are at my disposal to meet those challenges? Where do I believe that I will be in my recovery in “X” amount of time? What did I learn in treatment? What possibilities await me in the future now that I have “put the train back on the tracks”?

There are literally countless “spins” that can be placed on this assignment, but the common denominator for most is the creation of a fixed point in time where one engages in “possibility thinking” and then casts that message into the future to be reviewed at a later date, not unlike placing a message in a bottle—as an aside, for an interesting true story about messages in bottles, recovery, and connections, visit http://www.robertchapman.net/essays/Anyport.pdf

Regardless of your reaction to my thoughts on letters to oneself, you may find this website, http://www.futureme.org to be of interest and use as you look to create innovative ways to blend your personal approach to counseling with 21st Century technology :)

What do you think?
Dr. Robert