Career

The True Spirit of Reverse Psychology

Provocative explanations are what make paradoxical techniques work.

Posted September 12, 2011

Don't Use Reverse Psychology on Yourself By Jim Afremow Ph.D., LPC

Whenever I see something on reverse psychology, I'm compelled to review it. I really can't much help this. After all, some 25 years ago I published a book entitled Paradoxical Strategies in Psychotherapy: A Comprehensive Overview and Guidebook (Wiley, 1986). And while such paradoxical methods can get a good deal more complicated, and convoluted, than the reverse psychology Psychology Today blogger Jim Afremow talks about–employed most frequently by parents exasperated by their child's defiant behavior–

in essence the techniques do overlap.

When I first read Afremow's post, I thought that it must be some sort of (ill-timed) April Fools' joke, for his characterization of reverse psychology barely resembled anything I'm familiar with. In short, his thesis made little sense to me–unless, that is, the whole piece was intended as a put-on, some absurdist, over-the-top foolery (which, though I think poorly advised, may indeed have been the case). Moreover, the idea of using reverse psychology, as he suggests, on oneself is to me utterly nonsensical–though very much in line with what the comically moronic Homer Simpson he cites might actually attempt (!).

But to make sure that readers of Afremow's post don't end up befuddled by his serio-comic (?) suggestions, I feel the need to emphasize that utilizing paradoxical approaches to deal with recalcitrant problems only appears illogical. In fact, they make perfect–and usually profound–psychological sense. Ironically, by a therapist's seemingly perverting logic itself, the recipients of paradoxical messages can be prompted to alter both their viewpoint and behavior. Such interventions, at their best, can be surprisingly effective–especially when earlier, more straightforward methods have already missed their mark.

Afremow defines reverse psychology as "tell[ing] someone to do the opposite of what you really want them to do," which unfortunately connotes that the technique is little more than deceit–clever manipulation of another's resistance. But his statement begs for qualification in that paradoxical directives appropriately applied aren't simply about something you want others to do, it's about something they should do, something that would in fact be good for them. Which means that employing such techniques isn't solely about "outsmarting" someone, or ingeniously imposing your will on them.

Consider Afremow's simplistic description of reverse psychology (without, I should add, supplying a single example) with the master of such techniques, psychiatrist Milton Erickson–who, when his child refused to eat the asparagus on his plate, countered his wife's demands by telling his young son that of course he shouldn't eat his asparagus–brilliantly providing him with the unacceptable reason: "You're not old enough." Which was quite enough to get the resistant child to immediately set about devouring his asparagus–to demonstrate unequivocally to his parents that, yes, he was indeed old enough to eat the "advanced" vegetable.

Note that in the above example Erickson succeeds with his child not merely because he sides with the child's resistance but, far more important, because he "reframes" the conflict in such a way that the child is newly motivated to try what earlier he'd adamantly refused to. Afremow, however, doesn't seem to appreciate that it's primarily the reframing that makes a paradoxical intervention work, rather than just telling the child to go ahead and resist (hoping that in so doing the child will show "reactance" because he or she experiences their autonomy as threatened).

In his brief post, Afremow ends by providing "10 Maxims to Perform at Lower Levels More Consistently." Two of these axioms read as follows: "Associate with downbeat and destructive people to become more like them" and "Be too proud to ask for help and support." Similar to the eight others, Afremow seems to think that if people highlight their negative behaviors to themselves, they'll somehow be motivated to change them. It's hard for me to tell just how serious he's being here, but if he thinks his paradoxical (sarcastic?!) advice somehow represents some fundamental paradoxical principle, then it's one I've never encountered. For when people's thoughts, attitudes, and actions are self-defeating, they generally reveal little or no awareness of it. So they could hardly be expected to set up nonsensical sayings to rebel against . . . and thus be "cured."

But what bothers me most about all ten of Afremow's apparently to-be-rebelled-against maxims is that he presents them as "in the spirit of reverse psychology." Sadly, though these dicta may follow the letter of reverse psychology, they completely fail to reflect its true spirit.

Career Essential Reads

Ambiguity at Work: How Your Approach Shapes Your Success

The Rise of "Quit and Staying" as Workers Return to Offices

Note: Follow my psychological (and philosophical) musings on Twitter.