Observing Behavior and Interactions

2.5 Observing Behavior and Interactions

In our social and pedagogic professional life we not only interact with clients in short spurts of conversation, but often accompany them through long and important se-quences of their everyday life. We are usually not dependent solely on their accounts of things, but can directly experience how they master life. This is particularly true for inpatient and semi-inpatient settings, but also in family counseling centers, family therapy institutes (see Conen, 1992) and in all forms of outpatient systemic coun-seling in which several members of the system are present at the same time. Partic-ularly with clients who are more action-oriented and less verbally adept do we have to rely on our observations. Activities, nonverbal behavior or habitual behavior pat-terns can then be more revealing than any statement. This is sometimes true even for clients with more differentiated verbal talents.

Background Text: To Interview or to Facilitate Enactment?

Verbal and behavioral accentuations in system work

We are dealing here with distinctions: Distinctions are known to create infor-mation and thus new insights. But distinctions can also be arbitrary differenti-ations drawn by an observer, delimitdifferenti-ations that someone else might draw differ-ently. We distinguish between systemic approaches that work primarily with conversation and those that lean more toward clients’ acting-out scenes. The list of authors we present in Table 1 is clearly based on our own subjective judg-ment, and of course there are many counselors who combine the two methods.

Yet it is worth taking a look at the distinctions we draw: They reveal inherent differences in the way a counselor employs systemic principles (see Minuchin, 1996, p. 23 ff.). Such differentiation can help us to imagine

1. which of the approaches we prefer because it better fits us;

2. which of the methods better fits which particular setting;

3. which of the methods is best suited for which client and/or groups to en-sure rapid progress.

Table 1: Comparison of the various systemic approaches

Interviewing Enacting – interlinks the answers with hypotheses

leading to new questions – highly structures the encounters

When we observe behavior we differentiate between four levels, characterized by increasing complexity and abstraction:

1. Behavioral patterns: Sven is distracted in class, playing with his cell phone or whispering with his neighbor. When called on he becomes angry. – Jessica ap-proaches adults with great obtrusiveness. – The father is hostile and command-ing toward his children. This level of observation is oriented toward the indi-vidual. We observe and describe how the person in question acts in the respec-tive context.

2. Interactions: The teacher asks Sven to be quiet, whereupon Sven leaves the

Interviewing Enacting

Centralized communication between the questioning counselor and the answering client; the “system dance” becomes clear in the answers the system members give

Often decentralized communication, among the clients as well; the “system dance” is present only indirectly

Asking questions Movement and staging

reveal(s) information about relationships and positions point up differences

allows new perspectives as well as new ideas for solutions to arise, The significance and the inherent reasons

become clear and are modified in part

Situations are experienced emotionally and new behavior is practiced New patterns arise through the comments

and prescriptions offered; behavioral changes arise in everyday interactions be-tween the sessions based on shifts in meaning and new information within the system

New patterns arise directly through the in-tervention: changing the seating order, structured dialogs, sculptures, behavioral suggestions; behavior changes arise by try-ing out and practictry-ing new behaviors dur-ing the sessions, through emotionally charged images and experiences

The difference between these two approaches may be seen in normal coun-seling situations:

Case example: During a family session, the 4-year-old son begins to make a lot of noise while playing with the building blocks in the room. The parents remark that he always does that when adults are trying to have a conversation; sometimes he even becomes outright defiant. It makes a normal conversation impossible. What does the counselor do – interpret the child’s behavior as a disturbance or turn it into a subject of discus-sion? A more verbally oriented counselor would comment on the noise as a valuable part of family life and try to arrange a session without the child present. A more be-haviorally oriented counselor is pleased to see the son so active in the family and would try to work with the theme by asking the parents to offer their son a more quiet activity and to set boundaries for his behavior. All the while, of course, the counselor observes the scene as well as the way the parents cooperate and interact with their son – and only then does he make any suggestions.

room in a huff. – If adults speak with Jessica in a friendly manner, she imme-diately goes up to them and wants to be near them and touch them. – When his children voice their wishes, the father rejects them harshly. Here we are concerned with how two or more persons interact, and we try to filter out the most typical interactions.

3. Interaction sequences: If the mother expresses her need for help, the father attacks her and accuses her of not being in control of the family. The older daughter then turns against the father, accuses him of never being at home and only causing everyone stress. He then leaves the room in anger. The behavioral patterns here are more complex: We can observe typical processes or sequences of interactions that tend to repeat themselves. We must take a step back from the concrete inci-dents, which are fluid, to see the repetitive background patterns behind these sequences – the grammar of interactions: the mother makes demands of the father, the father attacks her, the daughter attacks the father, the father withdraws.

4. Roles: The daughter always supports the mother in domestic conflicts.

When behavioral patterns tend to repeat themselves again and again, we can consider the behavior of the individual actors to be roles that may be observed in various contexts. This approach presumes a certain amount of abstraction and combines information from our observations into a single, summary de-scription – a social stereotype. In this example, the daughter is the mother’s

“supporter.” Other examples for such stereotypes are the “attacker,” the fami-ly’s “little sunshine,” the “mediator” and many more.

These examples demonstrate that behavioral patterns are always part of interac-tions and cannot exist independent of the context. Systemic descripinterac-tions thus usually refer to the second to fourth level mentioned above. But it is worth trying, just for practice, to describe client behavior. We then better understand the small differences that occur when describing, classifying, interpreting or evaluating our own perceptions and formulations. Is it: the father rejects the children’s wishes and speaks loudly and in a commanding tone with them? Or: the father acts like a dictator and is hostile toward his children? Or: the father is overwhelmed by the large family and reacts with improper authoritarian behavior?

2.5.1 Behavioral Patterns

In reports we often find statements that are a mixture of descriptions, interpre-tations and evaluations; or the behavior of some actors is described as character attributes. Both methods, however, contradict the systemic approach: The behav-ior, observer and social contexts must be viewed individually and separately. More importantly, such methods do not really help us to develop ways to solve and change the situation. The danger lies in reinforcing the status quo and turning changeable behavior into long-term attributes. The verbal implications are clear.

We tend to speak about how a person “is” and not how that person “behaves”:

“Sven is inattentive” is a classification; “Sven is distracted in class, playing with his cell phone or whispering with his neighbor.” “When called on he becomes angry” describes his behavior in context.

Good and precise descriptions of behavior form the basis for an in-depth anal-ysis of the problem and the resources available to a person. For example, they may point to developmental deficits when we have observed motor impairments that call for expert assistance.

The systemic counselor does not describe the deficits or disorders found in a particular context, but rather pays attention to the skills, strengths and resources of individuals (cf. Durrant, 1993). This in turn has a great effect on the way clients see themselves, the client-helper relationship and the planned interven-tion:

Case example: Sabine is very obliging during group activities. Michael can share with others and, despite his aggressive tendencies, is very accepted by others.

Further, the skills buried in problematic behaviors can be described:

Case example: By disrupting class David reveals his pronounced creativity and his ability to master funny situations. Beate, on the one hand, tells lies and must attend to this matter, though on the other hand her stories are very ingenious and full of details.

Sometimes it is helpful to take a look at the way other schools of thought ap-proach these matters.

Scenic Comprehension

The term scenic comprehension (Lorenzer, 1983) is widely used in psychoanalytic circles. The counselor observes the client’s behavior patterns and applies this knowledge in order to better understand the unconscious patterns and themes that lie behind them.

Case example: The single mother almost always arrives late – for nearly everything: picking up her child from the special needs nursery school, meetings at Child Welfare Services and conferences with caretakers. She always has plausible explanations, of course, which in light of her raising three children are generally then accepted. But it remains a persistent pattern. The helpers interpret her behavior as resistance against their care, which was set up on the initiative of the school and was initially rejected by the mother. In a meeting, her behavior is simultaneously treated as a disturbance, addressed both morally and pedagog-ically (“You know, you should have . . ., your child is waiting . . ., this mustn’t continue . . .”), and as a way to understand what is going on with her. It quickly becomes clear that her explanations are often just excuses; she explains that she has so much going on that if she gets behind, she has to rush to the next appointment in her schedule and nearly always arrives too late. She is effectively staging her own opposition to the many demands being made of her. These demands of her as a single mother are, indeed, heavy and force her to push back her own desires for more space and freedom – for simple downtime to enjoy her own impulses. In the end, the nonjudgmental conversation defuses the theory of her staging resistance and lets those involved understand and appreciate her true desires. The meeting

results in the resolution that the mother should get some space and time to attend to her own needs.

Behavioral Patterns in Behavioral Therapy

Behavioral therapy attacks problems by probing and observing: What is the client reacting to with the specific behavioral patterns? System therapists can profit from the amazing precision with which behaviorists describe behavioral relation-ships. Observing behavior in vivo often leads to more revealing insights than just simply listening to someone talk.

Case example: Mr. P., a truck driver, describes the fact that he tends to avoid driving on the interstate because of a diffuse fear and the stress reactions it causes in him. Conversations about this matter have yielded little concrete information; Mr. P. has no real explanation for his behavior, and he is not accustomed to observing himself and his actions and deci-phering possible reasons. But an in-vivo-session in the front seat of his truck during a long trip did bring some revelations: Mr. P.’s particular problem lies in making split-second decisions in high-volume traffic. He hesitates and tends to overtax himself for the benefit of others. But of course the norm is that such situations occur again and again when driving on the interstate: on the ramp, when passing another truck, when changing lanes. If you always wait for a big gap and only then have the nerve to pull over, then it will be a long trip, or one full of stress both for oneself and for others. That is why we experience a number of situations during the trip in which Mr. P. waits to enter traffic with a long line of honking drivers behind him. This behavioral pattern also manifests itself in other social situations where self-assertion is necessary or where his own behavior becomes a burden to others.

In family sessions and in a group context he learns to be more forceful. As far as we can see, he now also drives more resolutely – and more relaxedly – on the interstate without overdoing it: In any case, he has yet to cause an accident!

From cognitive behavioral therapy (more precisely, from the rational-emotive ther-apy proposed by Albert Ellis, 2004) we can adopt an instrument for our own

pur-Table 2: The ABC analysis of the case example of Mr. P., the truck driver A

Activating situation

Mr. P. approaches, or is in the middle of, a situation that requires him to expect something of other people, for example, to slow down or brake for him. – In a restaurant Mr. P. would like to or-der a drink but sees that the waitress is very busy, so he goes with-out and leaves the place thirsty. – At home, when he is tired, he doesn’t demand that his daughter complete more household chores.

B

Belief system

Mr. P. is very respectful toward his fellow human beings, demands little of them and spares them a lot (which is not all bad). He is convinced that he is not worth enough to demand anything from others. He sees his role in life as just standing back.

C

Consequences

When Mr. P. is in an activating situation, he feels stressed and freezes up, reacting with anxiety and somatic symptoms (trem-bling, lump in his throat) – or he withdraws completely and sup-presses all of his own needs.

poses, which is both simple and profound and quickly accepted by many clients: the ABC analysis. The classic stimulus-response model introduces a third, cognitive component: B for belief system – for one’s convictions and values (Table 2).

This simple scheme can be used when planning interventions: self-instructions and convictions can be tested and modified (B), alternative behavior discussed and practiced (C). At the same time, one can determine which behavior is appro-priate to which situations and when it is worth adhering to (A).

2.5.2 Interactions: The Social Dynamics of a System

In social systems, be they families, groups of children or adolescents, teams or organizations, participants interact intensely (and sometimes very volatilely) with one another – something an outsider can then observe.

Here are a few examples of how we can observe interactions – even in the very first few minutes – and how they, already, can become part of our hypothesis-building process. But beware: The more we structure things by asking questions or by direct intervention, the less we get to observe spontaneous behavior. If we cause everyone to speak at the same time, we will not be able to see who is being heard and who is being ignored.

Background Text: What Are Interactions?

During interactions we take reference to others by means of behavior; we exchange information with others and we mutually influence each other.

Social systems arise through interactions (Luhmann, 2009). By social in-teraction we mean speech and behavior – we act (from the Latin agere).

Observing interaction thus also means observing the nonverbal signals hu-mans exchange. Hence, systemic diagnostics is always a matter of interac-tion diagnostics (see Cierpka, 2003, p. 23; Ritscher, 2012, pp. 36 ff.), re-gardless of whether we have initiated the interaction by inviting the participants to talk to us via our circular questioning, or whether we are observing the interaction directly; regardless of whether we are dealing with a spontaneous interaction or one instigated by our intervention. But what advantage does this perspective offer for our work? The exact obser-vation and description of interactions tells us something about how the family or group in question is structured, and from this information we can build hypotheses for our work. By observing the changes that occur in interactions, we receive better feedback concerning changes to the sys-tem than we would have gotten from narrations alone. Narrations tend to be repetitions of the “official” versions of events, whereas behavior usually cannot be cognitively controlled as easily as language.

– The counselor should register, during the greeting phase, who greets whom and how – and how parents react when their teenager goes by without even a glance.

– The counselor should observe the seating order and how it came to be: Did the parents or the children guide things? And who sat next to whom?

– If the father begins with a long monolog, listen carefully to the content while remembering that it is the Alpha male who is speaking.

– If you ask the mother for her opinion, observe whether she says something dif-ferent than the father or whether she effectively yields to him.

– Ask the parents to pick one of several matters that are important to them and then observe whether they can reach an agreement or whether the children in-tervene.

– During the conversation note who speaks when and with whom, who faces (or ignores) whom, who is listened to and who is ignored.

During socioeducational family interventions one can put the focus on slightly different matters:

– How is the situation structured (where does the meeting take place, how clean and tidy is the place, is something offered to drink or eat)?

– Are limits set (neighbor comes by, children jump around and over the furniture, dog runs around everywhere, baby cries)?

Such observations can greatly help to focus the attention during the intervention.

2.5.3 The Group as a System: Interaction as the Key to Social Dynamics

In groups and teams, too, precise observation can reveal existing relationships and the changes that occur following intervention. But once again: The more we strive to structure things, the less spontaneous interactions will be we end up observing.

This means that, besides infusing structure, the counselor should also leave room for spontaneous behavior: questions, small tasks, requests for quiet, appeals for consensus, exchange of arguments – all of these are also invitations to act and to present information.²

In our work with groups of children and adolescents, in particular, we are depend-ent on observing interactions. Using questions and sculptures to understand the social dynamics is of limited benefit. Most readers are aware of and have experienced the situation that children and youths in groups (or families) react to questions concerning relationships, interactions, etc., with disinterest or even displeasure:

– With children up to adolescence, language is usually not the preferred medium

– With children up to adolescence, language is usually not the preferred medium