Table 2 Recommendations for future practice and research.
Social dimension | Recommendations and pitfalls for planning training interventions | Recommendations for research (e.g., basic research, formative research to develop interventions, evaluating training interventions) |
|---|---|---|
Meta-perceptions | Understand that trainees’ beliefs about how others view them may influence training outcomes. Pitfalls: Be cautious of, e.g., pair exercises, where the participant considers themselves to be viewed as an underperformer from the perspective of the other person. To avoid this pitfall, systematically swap pairs during the training. | Explore participants’ beliefs about how clients, managers, colleagues, and others see them and their practice of MI skills, and how such beliefs are associated with MI rehearsal, practice and attitudes/motivation regarding training. |
Injunctive norms | Encourage managers to clearly communicate support for MI learning. Pitfalls: Beware unknowingly transmitting understandings that, e.g., the training should not take time away from routine work activities. | To what extent do practitioners hold negative and positive normative beliefs (injunctive norms) regarding MI practice? Do participants feel more social pressure towards some styles of communication (MI-(in)consistent) than others? |
Descriptive norms | Create structures where trainees/participants can communicate eagerness to develop amongst each other, promoting positive norms. Pitfalls: The structures should also hinder adverse emergent norms that arise from perceived idleness or inactivity of others. Social modelling: Encourage observing skilled practitioners, potentially across teams (e.g., rotating skilled practitioners between teams for a limited time), and make it salient that people act as role models to each other. Pitfalls: to avoid unwanted behaviours from being modelled, encourage post-meeting retrospective discussions with a critical, constructive lens. | To what extent do practitioners perceive their colleagues to practice MI-(in)consistent communication styles? Do participants see some MI skills as more usual/normal than others? In which contexts and to what extent are descriptive norms related to skill improvement? What kind of social modelling practices emerge during group trainings? Are some peer social models nonconducive to optimal MI styles? Do trainees experience that social modelling elements are an acceptable part of an MI training intervention? |
Perceived social support | Create a space for comparing and reflecting on MI skill rehearsal (e.g., peer discussions). Encourage “social reminders” of MI practice in the work team, as well as sharing experiences amongst trainees. Pitfalls: To avoid conversations from getting off track, provide appropriate prompts and structure (guidance?). Social feedback: Encourage participants to ask and provide feedback for each other’s performance in both training session simulations and in real-world practice. Feedback should be given in a non-threatening, MI-consistent manner. | What kind of peer group discussion prompts promote the most fruitful learning? To what proportion of MI training participants are peer group and other forms of social support acceptable and effective, and how many would rather choose to practice alone Under what conditions is peer feedback an acceptable and effective part of MI training interventions? Can quality of peer feedback be improved by providing checklists of aspects to monitor? |
Attachment ties | Encourage teams and organisations to attend training interventions together (rather than individual professionals separately), to promote a sense of safety, community, and shared language. Pitfalls: Beware of unnecessary ingroup-outgroup divisions arising from inter-team competition during training sessions. Note that (pre-existing) negative interpersonal work climate may hinder success. Ensure that the team’s psychological safety is high before including them in the training. | What aspects of team climate or workplace group dynamics contribute to successful and unsuccessful training experiences? Can MI training for entire teams improve not only practitioners’ MI skills but also team climate and workplace wellbeing, and under what conditions? |
Shared cognition | Encourage participants to set goals interpersonally: both individual goals with public commitment to them, as well as (where possible) social/team-level goals. Pitfalls: To avoid overwhelm. Provide guidance to avoid overwhelm from unrealistic goals given a practitioner’s current skill level, and normalise step-wise goal setting and setbacks in progress, for the group. Encourage participants to plan for MI rehearsal together as a team or with a co-worker (e.g., dyadic planning). Encourage participants to revisit discussions of their motivation to sustain MI practice. | To what extent is it feasible and acceptable for a work team to set goals for MI skill practice together? Is goal setting as a team more effective in reaching MI skill improvement than goal setting individually? How can work pairs most effectively engage in dyadic behaviour change activities (e.g., dyadic goal setting, dyadic planning)? |
Relational self-perceptions | As part of the training, communicate that participants influence each other, encourage public commitment to and common responsibility of training outcomes among peers. Pitfalls: Be mindful not to alienate those less inclined to social intervention formats (due to e.g., introversion), and allow for more individualistic intervention paths. Explore opportunities to assign complementary roles, which facilitate accountability, to peer group members. | How does social commitment (e.g., via distributed responsibility roles within peer groups) to rehearsal progress increase adherence to the training schedule and skill improvement? |
