In client-centered coaching, which step best resolves ambivalence?

In client-centered coaching, which step best resolves ambivalence?

• A. Argue with the client to change
• B. Elicit change talk and address resistance nonjudgmentally
• C. Impose a rigid plan
• D. Give directive advice

Answer: (B)

Focusing on how to resolve ambivalence is about guiding the client to voice their own reasons for change while handling any resistance with empathy. In client-centered coaching, ambivalence is normal—people often feel pulled between change and staying the same. The most effective step is to elicit change talk, which are the client’s own statements about desire, ability, reasons, need, or commitment to change. When the client expresses these motivations, it strengthens intrinsic motivation and moves readiness to change forward. Addressing resistance nonjudgmentally is equally important. When resistance is met with empathy, reflective listening, and open-ended questions, it reduces defensiveness and keeps the conversation collaborative, preserving the client’s sense of autonomy. This combination—drawing out the client’s own motivations and calmly managing pushback—fits the client-centered, noncoercive spirit of the approach and more effectively resolves ambivalence than telling, arguing, or imposing plans. Arguing with the client to change tends to provoke defensiveness and damage rapport. Imposing a rigid plan or giving directive advice undermines autonomy and ignores the client's unique context, making change feel like external control rather than a personal, chosen goal.

Focusing on how to resolve ambivalence is about guiding the client to voice their own reasons for change while handling any resistance with empathy. In client-centered coaching, ambivalence is normal—people often feel pulled between change and staying the same. The most effective step is to elicit change talk, which are the client’s own statements about desire, ability, reasons, need, or commitment to change. When the client expresses these motivations, it strengthens intrinsic motivation and moves readiness to change forward.

Addressing resistance nonjudgmentally is equally important. When resistance is met with empathy, reflective listening, and open-ended questions, it reduces defensiveness and keeps the conversation collaborative, preserving the client’s sense of autonomy. This combination—drawing out the client’s own motivations and calmly managing pushback—fits the client-centered, noncoercive spirit of the approach and more effectively resolves ambivalence than telling, arguing, or imposing plans.

Arguing with the client to change tends to provoke defensiveness and damage rapport. Imposing a rigid plan or giving directive advice undermines autonomy and ignores the client's unique context, making change feel like external control rather than a personal, chosen goal.