Use two chairs for a decision you keep going back and forth on

Give each side of a stuck decision its own chair and let them speak to each other until the deadlock shifts.

Pourquoi ça marche

Many stuck decisions are inner conflicts: one side wants something and another side warns, forbids or shames ("you'd be irresponsible to leave"). Listing pros and cons treats it as a calculation and leaves the feelings untouched. Speaking each side from its own chair brings out what each one fears and wants, and in Greenberg's account resolution often comes when the "should" side softens. A randomized trial found the two-chair approach produced more activation of the conflict during sessions than a structured cognitive technique, though both reduced ambivalence.

Comment faire

1. Name the decision and the two pulls ("stay in this job" and "leave"). Give each its own chair.
2. Let each side speak to the other in turn: what it wants, what it fears, and what it thinks of the other side.
3. Listen for a side that speaks in "shoulds" or criticism; ask what it is protecting you from.
4. After several rounds, sit between the chairs and notice whether the choice looks different from how it looked at the start.

Données probantes

Clarke and Greenberg randomly assigned 48 people aged 16 to 72 with a decisional conflict to two sessions of two-chair work, two sessions of problem solving, or a waiting list; two-chair work reduced indecision more than either. Trachsel and colleagues randomly assigned 50 people ambivalent about their relationship to two sessions of two-chair work or a cognitive decision-cube technique; ambivalence fell after both, and the two-chair approach produced more in-session activation. Greenberg and Webster's 31-client study also concerned decisions. (rct)

Both randomized trials are small and brief (two sessions); in the more recent one, both two-chair work and a cognitive technique reduced ambivalence. Two-chair work helps clarify what you want; it does not tell you which choice is right.

Sources

• Clarke, K. M., & Greenberg, L. S. (1986). Differential effects of the Gestalt two-chair intervention and problem solving in resolving decisional conflict. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33(1), 11-15.
• Trachsel, M., Ferrari, L., & Grosse Holtforth, M. (2012). Resolving partnership ambivalence: A randomized controlled trial of very brief cognitive and experiential interventions with follow-up. Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy, 46(3).
• Greenberg, L. S., & Webster, M. C. (1982). Resolving decisional conflict by Gestalt two-chair dialogue: Relating process to outcome. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29(5), 468-477.
• Elliott, R., Watson, J. C., Goldman, R. N., & Greenberg, L. S. (2004). Two-chair work for conflict splits. In Learning emotion-focused therapy: The process-experiential approach to change (pp. 219-241). American Psychological Association.

Erreur fréquente

Using the chairs to argue the facts of each option. The work is in what each side feels and fears; if the dialogue sounds like a debate, ask each side what it is afraid will happen.