A counselor argues with a precontemplative client about laziness. Which MI-consistent correction is best?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
The righting reflex is that urge to jump in and fix someone by arguing, and precontemplative clients usually push back harder. You need to ease off the debate, drop the laziness label, and meet them where their readiness actually is.
Full Explanation
Arguing with a precontemplative client about laziness triggers the righting reflex. The motivational interviewing-consistent correction is to avoid that reflex, match interventions to readiness, and explore ambivalence without shaming labels. Precontemplation means the client is not yet considering change; civic counselors meet people there without forcing premature admissions that mainly serve the counselor's anxiety about outcomes.
Continuing to argue until the client admits laziness as the sole cause fails by concept as righting-reflex escalation that hardens resistance. Requiring precontemplative clients to complete intensive job clubs before any counseling rapport fails by mismatched readiness and skips relationship conditions for change talk. Diagnosing laziness as a formal disorder and reporting it to employers fails as unethical labeling and harmful, unnecessary disclosure.
Exam caveat: readiness matching is not withholding all services forever; it shapes how and when vocational topics are introduced and how firmly directives are used. Operational check: stop the argument, apologize for pressure if needed, explore what the client does want in their life, offer information with permission, and revisit job-club intensity when contemplative or preparatory signals appear.