Processes of clinical change and resistance. A theoretical synthesis.

Nasr et al. (2000) wrote a theory paper. They asked why clients fight therapy even when they say they want help.

The team looked at two forces. One force is quick relief from avoiding hard tasks. The other is slow rewards that come only after hard work.

The clash between now and later creates push-back. The client stays stuck because the quick payoff wins.

The paper says the fix is metacognition. Help the client notice the tug-of-war inside and pick the long game.

Craig (2023) updates the idea 23 years later. He keeps the same time-clash lens but moves it from the clinic to basic momentum work with pigeons and people.

Pear et al. (1984) did a similar rescue job. They saved the old operant-respondent split by adding tweaks, just like A et al. saved therapy from collapse by adding metacognition.

Yelton (1979) adds another layer. He says we must check if the size of change is socially worth the short-term pain. A et al. agree: ask the client if future gains outweigh present hurt.

Next time a learner avoids the task, name the conflict out loud. Say, “This feels better now, but what do you want later?” Teach them to track their own choice. The paper gives you permission to blend brief self-talk with your usual prompts. It keeps the science clean and the client in charge.