Atlas›Domain I · Psychodynamic & depth psychology›Guide 103
Guide I-103

Antisuggestion, prescribing the symptom

Alfred Adler, Rudolf Dreikurs
A 22 · L 65 · M 1314 interventions in the Trinity explorer
Client cardCompare
[source: …] where a claim comes from[uncertain] not confirmed in a primary source[synthesis] the writer's reconstruction

1. Introduction

Version followed: the classical Adlerian (Adler–Dreikurs–Chicago/Mosak) family of paradoxical tactics. The framework is Dreikurs's four-phase model of Adlerian psychotherapy (Dreikurs 1967). The tactic set comes from Adler's own case practice (via Ansbacher & Ansbacher 1956/1964), Dreikurs's "antisuggestion", and Mosak & Maniacci, Tactics in Counseling and Psychotherapy (1998). Frankl's logotherapeutic paradoxical intention is related, but it is named only and not followed here.

This is not a manualised therapy. Antisuggestion, or prescribing the symptom, is a set of tactics used inside Adlerian (Individual Psychology) psychotherapy. It has no stand-alone protocol, session count or fidelity scale. The practical steps below come from the authors' descriptions and case examples. Where I fill gaps, the text is marked [synthesis]. [source: Dreikurs 1967; Mosak & Maniacci 1998; Schramski, Individual Psychology and Brief Therapy]

Core idea of change. Adler held that symptoms are purposive. They serve the person's goal (often safeguarding self-esteem, gaining exemption from life tasks, or winning a contest) and are kept alive by the fight against them. When the person fights the symptom, and when the therapist fights the person, the symptom grows stronger. Prescribing the symptom changes this. The therapist sides with the symptom instead of against it, asks for it on purpose, or reveals its purpose so that it "tastes" worse. That takes away the symptom's power-and-protection payoff, shows the client that they produce it, and opens room for useful (socially interested) alternatives. Adler: "We must never treat a symptom or a single expression". The paradox is a lever. The target is still the life style. [source: Adler, What Life Should Mean to You 1931, ch. 2–3 (archive.org); Ansbacher & Ansbacher 1956; Mozdzierz, Macchitelli & Lisiecki 1976 (bibliographic record only) [uncertain]]

2. Framework

The paradoxical tactics sit inside Dreikurs's four phases. They are not a separate sequence. Dreikurs and Mosak describe the phases as overlapping, not strictly sequential. [source: Dreikurs 1967; Mosak & Maniacci 1998] Session numbers below are [uncertain]: no primary source fixes them.

Phase 1 – Relationship (goal alignment).

  • Goal: a cooperative, equal relationship in which therapist and client agree on what they are working toward. Dreikurs treats goal misalignment as the main source of "resistance".
  • Format: individual, couple or family interview, often weekly. Typically sessions 1–2, then maintained throughout.
  • Antisuggestion is normally not used yet. The exception is "avoiding the tar baby", which applies from the first contact.
  • Move on when the client keeps returning, shares material, and states a goal both of you accept. [synthesis for criteria]

Phase 2 – Investigation (assessment of life style and purpose).

  • Goal: understand the life style (family constellation, early recollections, private logic) and the purpose of the presenting symptom, including what it exempts the person from.
  • Includes "The Question" and Dreikurs's differential diagnosis of psychogenic versus somatic complaints. [source: Dreikurs 1967, "A reliable differential diagnosis of psychological or somatic disturbances", pp. 141–170 (bibliographic record)]
  • Typically sessions 2–5 [uncertain]. A formal life-style assessment may take 1–3 sessions.
  • Move on when there is a working hypothesis of the symptom's purpose, medical causes are ruled out or managed, and a risk assessment is done. [synthesis]

Phase 3 – Interpretation / insight.

  • Goal: help the client recognise their goals and private logic. The therapist uses tentative disclosure ("Could it be…?") and watches for the recognition reflex. "Spitting in the soup" belongs here.
  • Move on when the client recognises the purpose, at least partly, and is ready to try new movement. [synthesis]

Phase 4 – Reorientation.

  • Goal: new behaviour and attitudes in the life tasks (work, love, friendship/community).
  • This is where most paradoxical tactics are used: antisuggestion, symptom scheduling, acting as if, the push-button technique, catching oneself and task setting.
  • Each prescription is usually given at the end of a session and reviewed at the next one. [synthesis]
  • End therapy when symptoms no longer govern life-task choices, the client can catch themselves alone, and encouragement no longer depends on the therapist. [synthesis]

Typical length. Adlerian therapy ranges from brief (a few sessions) to long-term. Paradoxical prescriptions are often effective or ineffective within 1–3 reviews. If two well-designed prescriptions bring no movement, re-check the purpose hypothesis and goal alignment. [synthesis; Schramski on the closeness of Adlerian work to brief therapy]

3. Guiding principles

[source: Adler 1931; Ansbacher & Ansbacher 1956; Dreikurs 1967; Mosak & Maniacci 1998; Allen 1972 (abstract/preview). Practical glosses are mine [synthesis].]

  • Teleology: symptoms have a purpose. Before prescribing, ask what the symptom achieves, for whom, and what it lets the client avoid.
  • Holism: treat the life style, not the symptom. A symptom removed without changing the goal will be replaced. Always link the prescription back to the goal.
  • Don't fight the symptom. Opposing it ("you must stop") feeds the safeguarding and the power contest. Align with it instead.
  • Avoid power struggles (Dreikurs). If you feel you must win, you have already lost. Step out of the contest.
  • Goal alignment comes first (Dreikurs). A paradox given without agreed goals reads as mockery or manipulation.
  • Social equality. Prescribe as a collaborator, never from superiority. Humour shared with the client, never at them.
  • Encouragement is the main engine. Every prescription should leave the client feeling more capable, whatever the outcome.
  • Every outcome is usable. Design prescriptions so that doing it, failing to do it and refusing it all teach something (see 4.3).
  • Responsibility and choice. Present feelings and symptoms as things the person does, not things that happen to them, while staying warm.
  • Respect and honesty. Do not lie to the client. Adlerian paradoxes are usually stated openly, often with the rationale, and are "experiments". [synthesis; Adlerian practice varies on how much rationale is given [uncertain]]
  • Social interest is the criterion. Successful change moves the client toward contribution and cooperation, not just symptom relief.
  • Safety overrides cleverness. Never prescribe behaviour that could harm the client or others. See contraindications in 4.3 and Section 5.

4. Intervention inventory

All example language is my own illustrative wording unless it is in quotation marks with a citation. Items 4.1–4.2 prepare the ground, 4.3–4.7 are symptom-prescription tactics proper, and 4.8–4.13 are the paradox-related Adlerian tactics catalogued by Mosak & Maniacci (1998). Item 4.14 is named only.

4.1 The Question (Adler; Dreikurs's differential diagnosis)

  • Purpose / when: Phase 2, before any prescription. It shows what the symptom protects the client from and helps separate psychogenic from organic complaints. [source: Ansbacher & Ansbacher 1956; Dreikurs 1967, pp. 141–170 (record)]
  • Steps:
    1. After hearing the complaint, ask what would be different in the client's life if the symptom were gone.
    2. Write down the answer word for word.
    3. Interpretation, as described by Dreikurs: if the answer is "nothing, I'd just feel better", consider an organic cause and refer for medical work-up. If the answer names a life task ("I'd go back to work", "I'd marry"), the symptom likely serves to avoid that task. [uncertain: summarised from secondary accounts]
    4. Use the named task as the target of later reorientation and as material for 4.2 and 4.8.
  • Example language (illustrative): "Suppose you woke up tomorrow and this was simply gone. What would you be doing in the next few months that you aren't doing now?"
  • Watch for: Vague answers, which suggest you should repeat the question about concrete weeks and people. Answers naming another person ("my husband would finally…"), which point to an interpersonal purpose. Somatic complaints without a medical work-up: do not prescribe a symptom that has not been medically cleared.

4.2 Tentative disclosure of purpose ("Could it be…?")

  • Purpose / when: Phase 3. It offers the client the hypothesised goal of the symptom so the client can recognise it. This sets up antisuggestion and spitting in the soup. Dreikurs's "could it be" form is mentioned by Schramski. Dreikurs also describes the "recognition reflex", a smile or grin when a correct interpretation lands. [source: Dreikurs 1967; Schramski]
  • Steps:
    1. Ask permission ("May I tell you an idea?").
    2. Give one goal hypothesis, phrased tentatively, about purpose, not cause.
    3. Watch the face. Note any recognition reflex.
    4. If the client rejects it, drop it lightly and gather more data. Never argue for an interpretation.
  • Example language (illustrative): "Could it be that as long as the panic is around, nobody can expect you to take the promotion, and you never have to find out whether you'd manage it?"
  • Watch for: A smile, sheepish laughter or a "caught" look means it fits. Defensiveness means it is premature or wrong. Working when the client starts using the purpose language themselves.

4.3 Antisuggestion / prescribing the symptom (Dreikurs; Adler)

  • Purpose / when: Phase 4, sometimes in Phase 3. Dreikurs's term for suggesting the opposite of the desired change: the client is told to keep, schedule or increase the symptom. This removes the fight that keeps the symptom alive, demonstrates voluntary control, and makes the symptom useless as a weapon or excuse. [source: Dreikurs 1967 (term [uncertain]); Schramski confirms that Adlerian paradox appears in Dreikurs as "anti-suggestion"; Mozdzierz et al. 1976]
  • Best suited to (synthesis): Low-risk symptoms that worsen with effort or opposition. Examples: sleeplessness, blushing or trembling fears, obsessive worrying, procrastination, nail-biting, nightly arguments, "can't stop thinking about it", and children's or partners' attention-getting displays. Also clients locked in a power struggle with the therapist or a family member. [synthesis]
  • Contraindications (do not prescribe):
    • Any suicidal ideation, self-harm, threats or violence.
    • Substance misuse, binge-purge or restriction with medical risk, dangerous driving, unsafe sex.
    • Child-safety or abuse situations.
    • Acute psychosis or mania.
    • Severe (melancholic) depression where "stay depressed" could be heard as permission or hopelessness.
    • Symptoms not medically cleared.
    • Clients in acute crisis or who are severely overwhelmed.
    • Fragile relationships where the client may feel mocked.
    If risk is present, conduct a standard structured risk assessment (e.g., per local protocol or a validated instrument such as the C-SSRS), make a safety plan, and treat risk directly. [source: systemic paradox guidance excludes "serious risk, self-harm, abuse or safeguarding concerns"; Dowd & Milne 1986 (abstract) give caveats; specific list is synthesis]
  • Steps:
    1. Confirm the safety screen above, goal alignment (Phase 1) and a purpose hypothesis (4.1–4.2).
    2. Choose one discrete, observable symptom.
    3. Decide the stance:
      • Open experiment: explain the rationale, e.g. "fighting it feeds it". Best for anxious, cooperative clients.
      • Permission/respect: "you may need this for now". Best for clients who resist being changed. [synthesis, drawing on the compliance-versus-defiance distinction in the general paradox literature]
    4. Make it concrete: when, where, how long, how intensely, and a record (e.g., "from 9:00 to 9:15 each evening, worry as hard as you can and write the worries down").
    5. Make it slightly effortful and voluntary. It must be the client's act, not something that happens to them.
    6. Have the client say it back, and agree the review date.
    7. At review, use every outcome:
      • Did it and the symptom shrank: they have shown control, so explore what they will do with the freed space.
      • Did it and it stayed the same: they can produce it, so it is a doing. Discuss its purpose.
      • Couldn't produce it: note how the symptom fades when demanded.
      • Didn't do it at all: they chose not to have the symptom on schedule. Note it with curiosity, not blame.
    8. Link back to the life style and move to reorientation tasks (4.13) aimed at the life task the symptom was avoiding.
  • Example language (illustrative):
    • Insomnia: "For this week, don't try to sleep at all. Lie down, keep your eyes open, and stay awake as long as you can. Notice what you think about."
    • Worrying: "Let's give the worries a proper appointment. Fifteen minutes each evening, worry as thoroughly as you can. Outside that time, tell them to wait."
    • Couple fights: "Since these arguments matter so much to you both, have one deliberately, Tuesday at 8, for ten minutes."
  • Watch for:
    • Laughter or a "that's ridiculous" response is often a good sign: the symptom has become absurd.
    • The client feeling dismissed, which is a rupture (see Section 5).
    • The symptom escalating into risk. If so, stop at once.
    • It is working when symptom frequency or distress falls, the client reports "I couldn't do it on purpose", and the client speaks of the symptom as something they do.

4.4 Adler's prescriptions for melancholia (permission + "please someone")

  • Purpose / when: Adler's own paradoxical handling of depressed, discouraged patients who use their suffering to control others or avoid tasks. As reported in Ansbacher & Ansbacher (1956), his first rule was to tell the patient to do only what was agreeable to them. This removes the struggle and leaves nothing to oppose. His second, given with a time promise of about two weeks, was to think every day about how they could give someone else pleasure. This turns attention to social interest. [source: Ansbacher & Ansbacher 1956, ch. on melancholia, approx. pp. 346–347; verbatim wording and original publication location not verified [uncertain]]
  • Use today only with non-suicidal, mild–moderate, discouraged presentations, after risk assessment. Severe or melancholic depression and any suicidality are contraindications. Treat those with standard care. [synthesis]
  • Steps (as reported, with modern guardrails):
    1. Give the permission rule: for now, do only what is agreeable; if nothing is agreeable, at least don't force anything disagreeable.
    2. Give the social-interest task: once a day, think about how you might please someone. Doing it is optional; thinking about it is the task.
    3. Meet each objection by keeping the task easy rather than arguing. If the client says "I can't", reduce it to "just think about it". If they say they lie awake, "use that time to think about it". [uncertain: details from secondary recollection of Adler's case reports]
    4. At review, explore any pleasure given and any noticing of others.
  • Example language (illustrative): "For the next two weeks, don't push yourself into anything you dislike. One small task: each day, think about how you might give someone a small pleasure. You don't have to do it, just think about it."
  • Watch for: Hopelessness ("nothing will help"), which should prompt re-screening for suicidality. It is working when the client reports any outward attention or small act of giving.

4.5 Welcoming the symptom / joining the behaviour (Adler)

  • Purpose / when: When a client uses a symptom or behaviour on the therapist, for example demands, crises at odd hours or testing. Allen (1972) recounts Adler responding to a patient's trivial late-night calls by saying he had been waiting by the phone for her call, after which the calls stopped. The behaviour loses its power once it is welcomed rather than resisted. [source: Allen 1972, The Counseling Psychologist (preview); paraphrased]
  • Steps:
    1. Identify the purpose: attention, control, or testing whether the therapist will reject the client.
    2. Choose a response that welcomes the behaviour without rewarding it with irritation or rescue.
    3. Hold appropriate boundaries. Welcoming must not mean being endlessly available. [synthesis]
    4. Discuss the pattern later, when it is calmer (4.2).
  • Example language (illustrative): "I'm glad you called. I was wondering how you'd let me know things were hard. Let's put this on the top of Thursday's list."
  • Watch for: Genuine emergencies. Always assess real risk first and never "welcome" a suicidal communication paradoxically. It is working when the frequency of the testing behaviour falls and the client raises the need directly.

4.6 Symptom scheduling for couples (Pew & Pew)

  • Purpose / when: Repetitive marital complaints in which each partner keeps up the behaviour the other objects to. Pew and Pew (1972, p. 197) suggest that each partner continue "exactly what the other is complaining most about", deliberately and on schedule, so the absurdity of the contest becomes visible. [source: Pew & Pew 1972, as quoted in Schramski]
  • Steps:
    1. Have each partner name the one behaviour of the other that bothers them most.
    2. Screen for intimate-partner violence, coercive control and substance misuse. If any is present, do not use this tactic. [synthesis]
    3. Prescribe that each partner does their complained-of behaviour at an agreed time and amount, consciously.
    4. Ask each partner to observe, not retaliate.
    5. At review, ask what it was like to do the behaviour on purpose and to watch it being done on purpose.
  • Example language (illustrative): "Jan, each evening for five minutes, really lecture about the dishes. Sam, during that time, really tune out. Both of you, do it properly, and notice what happens."
  • Watch for: Shared laughter is the classic sign of success. Escalation, contempt or fear in one partner means stop and reassess safety.

4.7 Positive reframing of the symptom (Kurt Adler)

  • Purpose / when: When the client condemns the symptom. Presenting it as having served them well lowers the fight and reveals its purpose. Kurt Adler (1972, p. 167) told a bride-to-be that her symptoms had been "a lucky thing for her". This helped her see she was not ready to marry, and she was able to let the symptoms go. [source: as reported in Schramski]
  • Steps:
    1. Find the plausible protective function from Phase 2.
    2. State, sincerely, how the symptom has protected the client.
    3. Ask whether that protection is still needed, or whether there is a better way to get it.
  • Example language (illustrative): "In a way, those headaches did you a favour. They kept you out of a decision you weren't ready to make. The question now is whether you still need them to make it for you."
  • Watch for: The reframe must be believable and not sarcastic. It is working when the client considers the direct decision the symptom was standing in for.

4.8 Spitting in the soup (Adler; Mosak & Maniacci)

  • Purpose / when: Phase 3–4, once the purpose of a self-defeating behaviour is clear (martyrdom, controlling through helplessness, perfectionism as a safeguard). The therapist names the hidden payoff, so the client can still continue but can no longer enjoy the behaviour innocently. The name comes from a German expression ("in die Suppe spucken"). The tactic is traditionally attributed to Adler. [source: Mosak & Maniacci 1998; Ansbacher & Ansbacher 1956 [uncertain on primary wording]]
  • Steps:
    1. Confirm the purpose hypothesis, ideally after a recognition reflex in 4.2.
    2. Name the payoff plainly and without blame.
    3. Explicitly leave the choice with the client. Do not forbid the behaviour.
    4. Drop it. Do not repeat or moralise. The "spit" works because the client now remembers the payoff each time they do the behaviour.
  • Example language (illustrative): "You can keep being the one who does everything at home. That's your choice. Just notice that each time you do it, you also get to be the one who's been wronged."
  • Watch for: Shame or feeling attacked, which is a rupture to repair (Section 5). It is working when the client reports "I caught myself doing it and it didn't feel the same", which flows into 4.12.

4.9 Avoiding the tar baby (Mosak & Maniacci)

  • Purpose / when: Throughout therapy. Clients unknowingly invite the therapist to confirm their private logic, for example by provoking rejection, rescue, argument or pity. The name comes from the Uncle Remus story: touching the tar baby gets you stuck. The therapist notices the invitation and does not respond as expected. This is the stance underneath every symptom prescription. [source: Mosak & Maniacci 1998 [description from general knowledge of the tactic, uncertain on detail]]
  • Steps:
    1. Know the client's life-style convictions, e.g. "people always give up on me" or "I must be in control".
    2. Notice your own pull: irritation, the urge to rescue, the urge to prove a point. Treat that pull as data about what the client is inviting.
    3. Respond in a way that disconfirms the conviction: stay warm when rejection is invited, step back when rescue is invited, agree or concede when a fight is invited.
    4. Later, the invitation can be named (4.2).
  • Example language (illustrative): Client: "You're just like the others; you'll give up on me." Therapist: "You may be right to expect that. People have. I'm still here, and I'm curious what happens if I don't."
  • Watch for: Being drawn into debating, reassuring or defending yourself means you've touched the tar baby. Step back. It is working when the client's provocations lose energy and their expectations become discussable.

4.10 Acting as if (Adler; Mosak)

  • Purpose / when: Phase 4. The client says "if only I were confident, I would…". Based on Adler's use of Vaihinger's "as if" philosophy. The client is asked to behave for a set period as if they already had the quality, like an actor playing a role. This sidesteps the "I must feel it first" safeguard. [source: Ansbacher & Ansbacher 1956 (Vaihinger); Mosak & Maniacci 1998; Simply Psychology (secondary)]
  • Steps:
    1. Get the client's "if only" statement and the concrete behaviour it implies.
    2. Frame it as a role, not a personality change. You are not asking them to be confident, only to act it.
    3. Specify the situation, the duration (e.g., a week) and one or two concrete acts.
    4. Review what others did in response and what the client noticed in themselves.
  • Example language (illustrative): "You don't have to feel confident. Just for this week, at meetings, act as if you were someone who has a right to speak. Play the part and see what happens."
  • Watch for: The objection "but that would be fake" can be met with "yes, it's an experiment". It is working when the client reports others responding differently, or feelings following the behaviour.

4.11 Push-button technique (Mosak)

  • Purpose / when: For depressed or "my feelings just happen to me" clients who are not suicidal. It is a guided-imagery demonstration that the client creates feelings by what they choose to attend to, followed by a homework choice. [source: Mosak 1985, "Interrupting a depression: The pushbutton technique", Individual Psychology 41; Mosak & Maniacci 1998. Steps below are from secondary knowledge [uncertain on exact sequence]. Simply Psychology gives a simplified "two buttons" version.]
  • Steps:
    1. Ask the client to close their eyes and recall a pleasant memory in vivid detail (a success, being loved, a happy moment). Have them hold it and notice the feeling. They signal when the feeling is present.
    2. Ask them to switch to an unpleasant memory (hurt, failure, humiliation). Hold it and notice the feeling.
    3. Ask them to switch back to a pleasant memory and notice the feeling return.
    4. Debrief: who changed the feeling? The client, by choosing what to picture.
    5. Homework: "You have two buttons." When they notice the low mood this week, they can choose which button to push. Either choice is fine, but it is a choice.
    6. At review, if the client "chose" the unhappy button, explore with curiosity what that feeling did for them. Do not blame.
  • Example language (illustrative): "So who produced those three different feelings in the last five minutes?… Then this week, you hold the buttons. I'm not asking you to push the happy one. Just notice which one you push."
  • Watch for:
    • An unpleasant memory that becomes traumatic or flooding. Ground the client, stop, and do not continue with trauma survivors without a stabilisation plan. [synthesis]
    • Any suicidal content, which calls for risk assessment.
    • It is working when the client starts saying "I made myself miserable" rather than "it came over me".

4.12 Catching oneself (Mosak & Maniacci)

  • Purpose / when: Phase 4, after the client recognises a goal or pattern (from 4.2 or 4.8). The client learns to spot the old movement, at first after the fact, then during it, then before it. This turns insight into self-interruption without self-reproach. [source: Mosak & Maniacci 1998; Simply Psychology (secondary) [uncertain on detail]]
  • Steps:
    1. Name the pattern in one memorable phrase, e.g. "the martyr move".
    2. Ask the client to catch themselves doing it this week. There is no need to stop it. Catching is the task.
    3. Expect the first catches to come afterwards. Praise them as progress (encouragement).
    4. Over the following weeks, look for catches during the act and then beforehand. At that point the client has a choice.
    5. Treat any "aha" moment with humour and appreciation, never criticism.
  • Example language (illustrative): "You don't have to change anything yet. Just catch yourself. Even if you only notice an hour later, that counts."
  • Watch for: Self-criticism ("I did it again, I'm hopeless"). Reframe it as a catch, which is progress. It is working when the gap between act and catch shrinks.

4.13 Task setting (Adler; Mosak & Maniacci)

  • Purpose / when: Phase 4, and as the follow-up to every paradox. Small, time-limited, achievable assignments aimed at the life task the symptom was avoiding. Adler's "fourteen-day" melancholia task (4.4) is a classic example. [source: Ansbacher & Ansbacher 1956; Mosak & Maniacci 1998; Simply Psychology]
  • Steps:
    1. Choose a task that moves toward the avoided life task (work, love, friendship) and has a good chance of success.
    2. Make it specific and time-limited (days to two weeks).
    3. Let the client shape it. Agreement matters more than ambition.
    4. At review, treat completion, partial completion and non-completion as information about the life style. Do not take non-completion as defiance of you (4.9).
    5. Build on successes. Encouragement is the main payoff.
  • Example language (illustrative): "What's one small step toward the job search that you'd be willing to try this week, small enough that you'd almost certainly do it?"
  • Watch for: Tasks set too big (the client fails and feels discouraged) and tasks set by the therapist's ambition. It is working when the client generates their own next task.

4.14 Related method, named only: Frankl's paradoxical intention

Viktor Frankl's logotherapy uses "paradoxical intention": the patient wishes for or intends the feared event, often with humour, especially in anticipatory anxiety and obsessional fears. It is historically and technically close to antisuggestion. Adlerian writers note the overlap. Frankl was trained in Adler's circle before breaking with it. It is not described further here because it belongs to a different version. [source: Allen 1972 cites Frankl 1960; Ascher 2005 (record)]

5. Handling problems

The primary Adlerian sources address resistance (as goal misalignment) and power struggles directly. Most of the other guidance here is my own synthesis, marked [synthesis]. [source: Dreikurs 1967; Mosak & Maniacci 1998; Dowd & Milne 1986 (abstract); systemic paradox guidance]

  • Risk emerges at any point (suicidality, self-harm, violence, abuse). Stop all paradoxical work immediately. Never reframe, welcome or prescribe risk behaviour. Conduct a standard structured risk assessment (local protocol or a validated tool such as the C-SSRS), make a safety plan, consider a higher level of care, and follow safeguarding duties. Resume paradox only for unrelated, low-risk symptoms once the risk is resolved. [synthesis; consistent with the systemic guidance]
  • "Resistance" or the client argues with everything. Dreikurs treats resistance as a sign that therapist and client goals diverge. Stop pushing and re-align goals by asking what the client wants from therapy now. Concede the power contest ("You may be right; you know your life better"). With strongly oppositional clients, a permission-based antisuggestion ("maybe it's too soon to change this") often works better than an open rationale. [source: Dreikurs 1967 on goal alignment [uncertain]; synthesis for wording]
  • Client feels mocked or tricked (rupture). Name it, take responsibility and explain your real intent: "I wasn't joking at your expense. I think fighting this has made it stronger, and I wanted us to try the opposite." Offer to withdraw the prescription. In future, give the rationale in advance (open experiment). Cultural norms about authority and humour affect how paradox lands, so check rather than assume. [synthesis; Dowd & Milne and the systemic guidance note risks of seeming manipulative or invalidating]
  • Non-adherence (didn't do the prescription). For antisuggestion, non-adherence is itself data: they chose not to produce the symptom. For tasks, ask what got in the way, shrink the task, and never scold. Repeated non-adherence may mean the task belongs to the therapist's goal, not the client's. Re-align. [synthesis based on 4.3 / 4.13 logic]
  • Symptom worsens after prescription. Separate a deliberate, contained increase (expected, and a sign of control) from uncontrolled escalation or new distress. If uncontrolled, stop, assess and return to support and encouragement. Re-examine the purpose hypothesis, which may be wrong. [synthesis]
  • Overwhelm or flooding (e.g., push-button with traumatic memories, or intense worry periods). Ground the client and shorten or stop the exercise. Choose milder memories or shorter symptom periods. Prioritise stabilisation before any paradoxical work with trauma survivors. [synthesis]
  • Client "sees through" it ("You're using reverse psychology on me"). Agree openly and explain the logic. Adlerian paradox can work transparently because the aim is self-observation and loss of the fight, not deception. Then reframe it as an experiment the client controls. [synthesis]
  • Rapid relief followed by relapse. Expect a symptom removed without a life-style change to return or be replaced (Adler's holism). Use the relapse to revisit purpose (4.2), the life task being avoided, and catching oneself (4.12). Normalising possible setbacks in advance reduces discouragement. [source: Adler 1931 on symptom substitution; synthesis for the advance warning]
  • Stuck: no movement after two or three prescriptions. Check, in order:
    1. Goal alignment.
    2. The purpose hypothesis: run 4.1 and gather early recollections again.
    3. Medical or psychiatric factors: refer.
    4. Whether you are in a tar-baby trap (4.9): are you working harder than the client?
    5. Whether the client needs encouragement more than technique. [synthesis]
  • Couples/family: one member uses the prescription as a weapon ("the therapist said I should nag you"). Prescribe symmetrically, to both and in session. Debrief together. Stop if there is coercion or fear. [synthesis]
  • Therapist discomfort with "manipulation". Use the transparent, rationale-given form, document consent and the rationale, and keep to low-risk symptoms. Kal (1972) is cited as finding that many Adlerian practitioners describe themselves as "manipulative", and that self-perception should be examined, not assumed. [source: Schramski; synthesis]

Sources

Sources

Further reading (not drawn on unless listed above)

  • Adler, A. (1925/1927). The Practice and Theory of Individual Psychology. London: Kegan Paul.
  • Adler, A. (1931). What Life Should Mean to You. Boston: Little, Brown.
  • Ansbacher, H. L., & Ansbacher, R. R. (Eds.) (1956). The Individual Psychology of Alfred Adler. New York: Basic Books.
  • Ansbacher, H. L., & Ansbacher, R. R. (Eds.) (1964). Superiority and Social Interest: A Collection of Later Writings (Alfred Adler). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
  • Dreikurs, R. (1967). Psychodynamics, Psychotherapy, and Counseling: Collected Papers. Chicago: Alfred Adler Institute.
  • Mosak, H. H., & Maniacci, M. P. (1998). Tactics in Counseling and Psychotherapy. Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock.
  • Mosak, H. H. (1985). Interrupting a depression: The pushbutton technique. Individual Psychology, 41(2), 210–214.
  • Mozdzierz, G. J., Macchitelli, F. J., & Lisiecki, J. (1976). The paradox in psychotherapy: An Adlerian perspective. Journal of Individual Psychology, 32(2), 169–183.
  • Pew, M. L., & Pew, W. L. (1972). Adlerian marriage counseling. Journal of Individual Psychology, 28(2). [cited via Schramski]
  • Adler, K. A. (1972). Techniques that shorten psychotherapy. Journal of Individual Psychology, 28(2). [cited via Schramski; title uncertain]
  • Allen, T. W. (1971/1972). Adlerian interview strategies for behavior change. The Counseling Psychologist, 3(1).
  • Dowd, E. T., & Milne, C. R. (1986). Paradoxical interventions in counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 14(2), 237–282.
  • Frankl, V. E. (1960). Paradoxical intention: A logotherapeutic technique. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 14, 520–535. (named only)
← Previous · I-102Organ dialect and "the Question"Next · I-104 →Adlerian family and parent education