The statement, “Change happens through language,” on the surface, is an untenable proposition. What about our direct or vicarious experiences or emotions? Do “non-language” artifacts such as emotions affect change?
In his book, The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas are Killing Common Sense, Gad Saad discusses the hierarchy of effects models in the decision-making process. He lists three constructs that inform our decision-making process. They are “cognitive (thinking), affective (feeling), and conative (behavioral) stages.”1 When making decisions, we order these three mental structures. One example is trying new food. We may dive in and heartily eat the food – behavior, feel the experience, then seriously think about it – like or dislike. Each of these stages requires some form of language or communication. Something interacts/communicates with something else, we decide, and action follows.
The process of change is the modification of a previously learned or innate state of being.
As to the food analogy, something communicated the idea to dive in and eat the food. The idea could be the result of many things communicated before the action of eating. For example, the food looked good; peer pressure; hunger; or being told to eat it could be the information prompting us to eat. The final decision as to like it or not is another decision based on previous experience (I just ate it).
This process of change – liking a new food or not – requires language. Language is the operative of communication. Without it, we are as rocks—unable to modify anything based on our lack of understanding. I suppose one could posit we really are like rocks because external forces move us. Understanding this rock analogy could be a vehicle of change initiated through language. I ask myself, “Am I a rock?” Or, I emphatically state, “I am not a rock!” I declare my state of being furthering my understanding of what I am or what I am not. I acknowledge external forces move me. Or remain entrenched in the Popeye notion, “I yam what I yam.” (Note—Popeye is one of my favorites).
So, how can language be understood as a mechanism of change through a theoretical model? Let’s look at two models that may explain my offering.
Two Models of Change
The two models are Prochaska’s Transtheoretical Model of Change and Bloom’s Taxonomy. From part one, remember the three components of hope? They are vision, plan, and agency. Understanding the two models presented in this article can assist in your plan development and then your progress through your agency.
Transtheoretical Model of Change
The Transtheoretical Model of Change (TTM) is a psychotherapeutic model. This concept stems from the field of psychology and advertisement. Psychologist, pastors, and marketers work with similar principles. Gad Saad (mentioned above) and other market researchers draw from early marketing research. A 1961 marketing journal article suggests sales are a long-term campaign.
“What are the functions of advertising? Obviously the ultimate function is to help produce sales. But all advertising is not, should not, and cannot be designed to produce immediate purchases on the part of all who are exposed to it. Immediate sales results (even if measurable) are, at best, an incomplete criterion of advertising effectiveness.
In other words, the effects of much advertising are ‘long-term.’ This is sometimes taken to imply that all one can really do is wait and see—ultimately the campaign will or will not produce.
However, if something is to happen in the long run, something must be happening in the short run, something that will ultimately lead to eventual sales results. And this process must be measured in order to provide anything approaching a comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of the advertising.”2
This early research highlights a few critical points in the process of sales (behavioral change). They are 1) long-term change requires something short-term, and 2) things need to be measured to evaluate effectiveness.
Prochaska augmented marketing research and developed TTM to help therapeutic practitioners understand how people go through change stages such as in stopping an addiction.
To get a better understanding of this model, we encourage you to read the Prochaskas’ book Changing to Thrive: Using the Stages of Change to Overcome the Top Ten Threats to Your Health and Happiness.3
The Prochaskas, through years of research, found five stages of change. The stages are 1) Pre-contemplation, 2) Contemplation, 3) Preparation, 4) Action, and 5) Maintenance.
A person in the pre-contemplation stage is not aware there is a problem or simply does not understand the consequences of continuing in the harmful behaviors that need addressing. During this stage, the person requires more information.
Contemplation is a phase where the person understands there is a problem; but, for many reasons, is not ready to make a change in the next six months. The cons weigh more than the pros to a contemplator, but they are thinking about changing, unlike the pre-contemplators.
When a person is ready to start addressing the need to change, they move into the preparation stage. In the preparation stage, the pros of changing start to outweigh the cons. The preparation stage is where people start to commit to change. The talking about change turns to commit to change.
The person then moves into the action stage. The action stage is identified by having a plan and acting on the plan.
Although action is needed for change to happen, this model’s focus is not necessarily solely action but also having the resources to move and maintain the activity for more than six months. With six months of the desired behavior, the person leads to the final stage—maintenance. The maintenance stage is marked by more desire to perform beneficial behavior over and above the harmful behavior.
Bloom’s Taxonomy
Bloom’s Taxonomy. The second form of change thought comes from a psychological, educational model, Bloom’s Taxonomy. Bloom was an influential educator in the second half of the twentieth century. All educators can more than likely recite the six steps of learning proposed by Bloom and then revised by Anderson and Krathwohl in 2001.4 For Bloom, the six stages of cognitive learning are 1) Remember, 2) Understand, 3) Apply, 4) Analyze, 5) Evaluate and 6) Create. Within each stage, the uses of specific verbs assess and move the student to newly acquired skills. For example, “remembering verbs” are foundational informational verbs such as “define,” “describe,” and “name.” “Understanding verbs” are “explain,” “compare,” and “distinguish.” On up the ladder to “apply verbs;” “solve,” “use,” and “teach.”
Bloom’s most popular domain is a cognitive (thought) based process. There are other domains of learning, such as affective (feeling) and psychomotor (doing) domains (See Figure below). Each of these domains offers us language to help assess and, more importantly, move us in the direction we are looking to change. This is the beauty of Bloom’s Taxonomy; it gives us the language in the form of verbs that move us to change. I will post an article discussing further the Affective Domain.
Bloom’s stages or steps are not necessarily linear. In the early stages of the theory, Bloom thought the stages were linear, meaning one had to accomplish the previous stage before he or she could progress to the next stage. Later, Bloom realized the stages might not be strictly linear. They are more fluid—meaning one can do work in a later stage before she accomplishes a previous stage. The fluidity of progression is vitally important to understand.
Occasionally, you may want a fixed, step-by-step plan to accomplish the process of change, driven to an outcome. However, flexibly moving through these stages can relieve pressure to master a stage before moving to the next. In this flexibility, we must remember to allow the Holy Spirit to move in our lives.
Bloom’s Taxonomy is educational and provides verbs used within the change process. The Transtheoretical Model of Change helps you understand that you can go through stages of change, not just cognitive (thought) changes but deeply rooted changes.
Prochaska states, “most people don’t know how to change.” The design of the counseling process helps you know how to change.
Bringing the Process Together
So how does this apply to Hope Theory? The Figure below separates TTM’s stages into Hope Theory’s three domains—vision, plan, and agency.
I drew the above diagram to illustrates how the process starts with getting a vision, formulating a plan, and flexibly working the plan. The more they overlap, the more actual behavior, through agency, is happening. As you can see with the circles that do not overlap, the behavior is not alone. Each step requires some inclusion of Vision and Plan.
While psychological theories have supported our exploration of change, another realm to draw from is spiritual formation. I will discuss that in a later article.
[1] Saad, Gad. The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense (p. 25). Regnery Publishing. Kindle Edition.
[2] Lavidge, Robert J., and Gary A. Steiner. “A Model for Predictive Measurements of Advertising Effectiveness.” Journal of Marketing 25, no. 6 (1961): 59-62. Accessed November 15, 2020. doi:10.2307/1248516.
[3] James O. Prochaska and Janice M. Prochaska, Changing to Thrive: Using the Stages of Change to Overcome the Top Threats to Your Health and Happiness (Center City, MN: Hazelden Publishing, 2016).
[4] For a brief review of Bloom’s revised taxonomy, see http://www.unco.edu /cetl/sir/stating_outcome/documents/Krathwohl.pdf.
[3] Everett L. Worthington, Don E. Davis, and Joshua N. Hook, eds., Handbook of Humility: Theory, Research, and Applications (New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2017), Kindle.
[4] Hill et al., “A Few Good Measures,” loc. 2889.
[5] James O. Prochaska and Janice M. Prochaska, Changing to Thrive: Using the Stages of Change to Overcome the Top Threats to Your Health and Happiness (Center City, MN: Hazelden Publishing, 2016).
[6] For a brief review of Bloom’s revised taxonomy, see http://www.unco.edu /cetl/sir/stating_outcome/documents/Krathwohl.pdf.