Interesting.., so research shows that as a problem either socially or personally gets solved, we tend to make what is included in the problem bigger and therefore not really solved yet.., instead of seeing the problem as solved.
So for instance on a global scale, if the number of cases of a particular crime is reduced down enough (based on what is socially and legally agreed has to happen for that crime to be labelled that way) to be almost nil; rather than seeing that crime as no longer an issue.., the definition of what constitutes that crime (what is included in that type of crime statistic) expands to include more behaviours and people.
So the problem never really has a chance to be solved.
And on a personal level.., if for instance someone comes to you as a client with a problem of believing that their boss doesn’t like them and you solve it.., there is a tendency for them to now find other people at work as not liking them.
Again the problem has no chance to be solved.
This is known as ‘Prevalence-induced concept change’
The examples in the article are interesting.
Like showing pictures of people; some with threatening faces and some not. As the number of threatening faces is reduced in quantity.., the people looking at the faces will expand their view of who looks threatening to include faces they had previously said were not threatening.
How to minimise the effect is not discussed but I would offer that one way is to be specific with clients about what the problem is and what the problem is not, as part of the session.
Clarity of where they are and where they will be when the problem is solved will in my opinion (and experience) make a big difference.
And ask them this question when you next talk to them…
“Have you noticed what’s different?”
And during the session…
“What will you see,hear and feel that’s different in the future”
Lots of idea’s here but those are just a few basic questions to keep in mind.