Overcoming Goal-Interference

The ability of students to recognize and manage their thoughts, emotions, and behaviors is critical for sustaining motivation and goal-pursuit. A variety of cognitive behavioral techniques can be employed in the classroom and in coaching engagements to support students in changing their performance-inhibiting thoughts (PITs) into performance-enhancing thoughts (PETs).  

To reiterate, coaching is not therapy. However, cognitive behavioral techniques can be introduced in coaching, when needed, to help students challenge unhelpful thoughts causing emotional blocks and counterproductive behaviors that interfere with goal-related performance. Use of these techniques in coaching is meant to help students close a performance gap rather than ameliorate dysfunctional thoughts, feelings and behaviors affecting their general well-being and functioning (as is the case with therapy).

These techniques can help students overcome unhelpful beliefs and attitudes, discomfort, and frustration (which may be negatively reinforcing avoidance and procrastination, for example) to successfully implement other powerful executive functioning strategies. To help educators better understand how cognitive behavioral approaches can be used in coaching, we first provide an overview of emotion and emotion regulation models. 

What are emotions?

“… emotions arise when an individual attends to and evaluates (appraises) a situation as being relevant to a particular type of currently active goal… The goals that underlie this evaluation may be enduring (staying alive) or transient (wanting another piece of cake). They may be conscious and complicated (aspiring to become a professor) or unconscious and simple (trying to avoid stepping in puddles). They may be widely shared (having close friends) or highly idiosyncratic (finding a new way of tying one’s shoes).”

(Gross, 2014, p. 4)

According to this perspective, it is one’s appraisal of (or the meaning one attributes to) a situation in relation to one’s goals that leads to a particular emotion. Different people may have very different reactions to the same situation depending on their interpretation, which reflects their previous experiences, their personality, their culture, what events immediately preceded the situation, or even the time of day. We might laugh at our mistake one day, but get angry and lash out at someone else if we make the same mistake on a different day. Another core feature of emotions is they are multifaceted in nature. Sometimes it is hard to judge what we are really feeling because we seem to feel many different, and even conflicting, emotions at the same time, which can make it hard to figure out how we should understand or react to those emotions.

Emotions have been defined as “whole-body phenomena that involve loosely coupled changes in the domains of subjective experience, behavior, and central and peripheral physiology” (Gross, 2014, p. 4). In other words, emotions refer to how we feel and act. Externally, emotions can be reflected in our facial expressions, body postures, and movements. These external expressions may not always match how we feel inside, which can often lead to faulty assumptions and miscommunication. Internally, emotions can be associated with the autonomic nervous system (which controls involuntary actions, such as the beating of your heart and the widening or narrowing of your blood vessels) and the neuroendocrine system (which controls the release of hormones into the blood in response to stimulation of the nervous system), such as changes in an individual’s level of cortisol, a hormone with important stress-related functions.

Emotion Regulation

Emotion regulation means “shaping which emotions one has, when one has them, and how one experiences or expresses these emotions…” (Gross, 2014, p. 6). Although there is likely a limitless number of behaviors, some healthy and some unhealthy, that may qualify as emotion regulation, the following are some core features of emotion regulation that appear across all regulatory strategies (Gross, 2014, p. 7):

• A goal to modify an emotional experience of oneself or someone else; 

• The engagement of emotion regulation processes, which exist on a continuum from “explicit, conscious, effortful, and controlled regulation” to “implicit, unconscious, effortless, and automatic regulation;” and 

• The effects of emotion regulation processes on various aspects of emotional experience, including how long it takes to activate regulatory processes, how long it takes for regulatory processes to have an effect, the strength of the regulatory effect, how long the regulatory effect lasts, and other accompanying experiential, behavioral and physiological responses.

A-B-C-D-E-F Model

“It is as if we are writing the scripts for our emotional reactions, although usually we are not conscious of doing so. Thus, past or present external events contribute to, but do not directly induce or “cause” emotions in us. Rather, our internal processes, such as our perceptions, our evaluations of these perceptions, and especially our acceptance or failure to accept the perceptions- are the more direct and powerful sources of our emotional responses.”

(Diguiseppe, Doyle, Dryden, & Backx, 2014, pp. 21-22)

Individuals can hold performance-enhancing thoughts (PETs) about themselves and the world, which lead to healthy, functional, and adaptive experiences that support goal attainment, as well as performance-inhibiting thoughts (PITs), which lead to unhealthy and maladaptive experiences that interfere with goal attainment. In fact, every person holds both helpful and unhelpful beliefs.

The cognitive behavioral approach emphasizes the role of our present thinking rather than past experiences as the central driver of our feelings and actions. That’s great news because it means one has the ability to change one’s behavior, and each moment represents an opportunity to intervene and change one’s life trajectory.

Although changing our thinking is not always easy, this perspective suggests the most direct and effective way to improve motivation, performance, and wellbeing is to change our thinking. The A-B-C-D-E-F model, as described below, is the most prominent cognitive model used in coaching for addressing problematic and unhelpful thoughts and behaviors.

“A” is for Activating Event

An activating event can be an external situation (e.g., a missed deadline, poor grade, or an argument with a friend) or an internal psychological event (e.g., a thought or feeling) one considers an adversity to be overcome (Skews & Palmer, 2021, p. 41). 

“B” is for Belief

An unhelpful belief (known as a performance-inhibiting or performance- interfering thought) about an activating event is one that hinders goal attainment (Skews & Palmer, 2021, p. 41). Unhelpful beliefs are often based on rigid and unrealistic expectations about events or individuals (Digiuseppe, Doyle, Dryden, & Backx, 2014, p. 43). 

“Rigid thinking takes the form, for example, of must, should, have to and got. Derived from these rigid beliefs are three major conclusions: awfulising (nothing could be worse and nothing good can come from negative events), low frustration tolerance (LFT; frustration and discomfort are too hard to bear) and depreciation of self and/or others (a person can be given a single global rating [e.g. useless] that defines their essence or worth).”

(Neenan, 2012a, p. 12)

Rigid thinking can lead to a variety of goal-interfering problems, such as perfectionism (the need to be or appear to be perfect), procrastination (avoiding or delaying a task), excessive self-doubt, lack of persistence, and self-depreciation (Neenan, 2012a, p. 11). Many goal-interfering problems for individuals with learning differences are related to the cognitive distortions of comparative thinking, or measuring oneself (unfavorably and unfairly) against other people, overgeneralization, or overestimating the consequences of a mistake, and magnification/minimization (i.e., magnifying the difficulties and disappointments one expects to encounter when engaging in a task and/or minimizing one’s ability to manage a task and the benefits of doing so) (Ramsay & Rostain, 2015).

“C” is for Consequence

A consequence is any emotional or behavioral response that interferes with a student’s goal-pursuit (Skews & Palmer, 2021, p. 41). To reiterate, according to cognitive behavioral theory, an activating event does not cause a consequence. Rather, it is one’s unhelpful thinking about a situation that largely contributes to unhealthy or unproductive consequences.

For example, a student may interpret an upcoming math test (an activating event) as a potential threat, thinking “I’m not smart,” “I’m going to fail,” or “I won’t be able to stand it if I don’t do well on this test” (all similar unhelpful beliefs), which could then actually lead to disengagement and procrastination in preparing for the test (consequence).

However, it is important to remember that not all negative emotions interfere with goals. For example, one might perceive a particular situation as an injustice (a belief about an event) and, therefore, experience anger that propels one to act in ways to correct the injustice. In such a situation, anger may be a reasonable and functional consequence rather than goal-interfering.

In helping a student assess whether an emotional or behavioral response is problematic, an educator can focus on whether the student’s belief about a situation is realistic, balanced, and flexible in a way that contributes to emotional experiences and behaviors that support their goals, or is unrealistic, excessively negative, and rigid in a way that contributes to emotional experiences and behaviors that hinder their goals.

“D” is for Disputation

Educators can use a variety of questioning techniques to help students challenge and transform their unhelpful thinking (Skews & Palmer, 2021, p. 41). One method, open-ended questioning (or Socratic questioning), is also a foundational practice in Motivational Interviewing used to help students better understand their own reasons for behavior change. To reiterate, with open-ended questioning, educators support students in self-reflection so they may reach their own conclusions rather than being told or led to a conclusion.

The three major arguments used to dispute unhelpful thinking are empirical (consistent with reality), logical (based on logic), and pragmatic (functional/helpful) (Palmer & Williams, 2012, p. 108).

When supporting a student in recognizing and challenging their unhelpful thinking, other types of questions can also be useful, including closed questions to focus the student’s reply, direct questions to gather assessment information, and leading questions to test the student’s assumptions (Neenan, 2012b, p. 82). As with MI, however, it is recommended educators use these types of questions thoughtfully and sparingly, relying on reflective listening and open-ended questioning when possible. It is also important to remember that short periods of silence during coaching conversations can be a good thing! Questioning requires students to engage in self-reflective thinking, and (good) thinking takes time. 

Finally, one useful metaphor for how students can approach disputation of autonomic, self-deprecating thoughts during conversation or on their own is that of the Defense Attorney.

“That is, negative thoughts are often viewed as being accurate by an individual not because the evidence is valid, but because only the evidence supporting the negative interpretation has been considered. It is as though the individual was on trial in a Court of Law, the Prosecuting Attorney proffered “negative” evidence, and a sentence is rendered on the basis of this argument. Although a guilty verdict was rendered, it was based on only one view of the evidence without the Defense Attorney having a chance to “object” or to mount a case in the defense of the individual. The coping strategy of considering the situation and cognitive reaction through the eyes of a Defense Attorney… helps strike a balance when reaching the final “verdict.”

(Ramsay & Rostain, 2015, pp. 238-239)

“E” is for Effective (New) Belief

An effective new belief, also called a performance-enhancing thought (PET), is one that is evidence-based, logical, and helpful, and serves to neutralize and replace a performance-interfering thought (PIT). Performance-enhancing thoughts help build confidence in the student’s own ability and value. An educator may use questioning to guide thae student, but they do not provide the student with the PET. Rather, the student is a full partner in the brainstorming process.

When constructing a new helpful thought, it is important to distinguish desiring, which acknowledges a reasonable want, from demanding, which places unrealistic expectations on oneself or the world. It can be helpful for students to verbally state, write, and even rehearse their formulation of new helpful thoughts during (and after) coaching conversations. 

Establishing a new effective belief requires reappraisal, or reinterpreting the meaning of an event. For example, an individual who initially interprets a stranger’s inattention or curt response as indicating a lack of interest or respect might, upon further reflection, reinterpret the stranger’s behavior as an indication that perhaps the stranger did not have an opportunity to eat breakfast earlier that day and was actually just hungry, or that the stranger was distracted by or angry about a recent argument with a family member or friend.

Thoughtful questioning and brainstorming of alternative explanations for events play a critical role in changing one’s thinking and behavior. This is true not only in regards to one’s interactions with others, but also how one thinks about oneself. Self-Talk, or the things we say to ourselves in our head, influences how we feel about ourselves and what we do.

As in a previous example, if a student is feeling self-doubt and anxiety before a big test. They may experience thoughts, such as “I’m going to fail!” or “I won’t be able to stand it if I don’t do well on this test.” In this situation, the student might employ reappraisal or other counter-narratives to manage situational demands and stress. They might silently repeat some phrases that reflect more effective alternative beliefs like “I studied hard for this test, I’m quite unlikely to fail” or “If I do poorly on this one test, it’s not the end of the world. I can get through this.” Because unhelpful beliefs can easily become lodged in one’s mind (playing repeatedly on a loop), it is often necessary to consciously and actively repeat and affirm the new effective belief as well.

“F” is for Future Focus

Finally, coaching should remain focused on how students’ thinking can help or hinder their efforts to accomplish their goals, as well as encourage students to apply these insights to future problems and goals (Skews & Palmer, 2021, p. 42).