Sustain Talk Research Articles

Organized hypocrisy, organizational façades, and sustainability reporting

Sustainability discourse is becoming ubiquitous. Still, a significant gap persists between corporate sustainability talk and practice. Prior research on corporate sustainability reporting has relied primarily on two competing theoretical framings, signaling theory and legitimacy theory, which often produce contradictory results regarding the significance and effects of such disclosures. Thus, despite this substantial body of research, the role that sustainability disclosures can play in any transition toward a less unsustainable society remains unclear. In an effort to advance our collective understanding of voluntary corporate sustainability reporting, we propose a richer and more nuanced theoretical lens by drawing on prior work in organized hypocrisy (Brunsson, 1989) and organizational façades (Abrahamson & Baumard, 2008; Nystrom & Strabuck, 1984). We argue that contradictory societal and institutional pressures, in essence, require organizations to engage in hypocrisy and develop façades, thereby severely limiting the prospects that sustainability reports will ever evolve into substantive disclosures. To illustrate the use of these theoretical concepts, we employ them to examine the talk, decisions, and actions of two highly visible U.S.-based multinational oil and gas corporations during the time period of significant national debate over oil exploration in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. We conclude that the concepts of organizational façade and organized hypocrisy are beneficial to the sustainability disclosure literature because they provide theoretical space to more formally acknowledge and incorporate how the prevailing economic system and conflicting stakeholder demands constrain the action choices of individual corporations.

Sustain talk predicts poorer outcomes among mandated college student drinkers receiving a brief motivational intervention.

Within-session client language that represents a movement toward behavior change (change talk) has been linked to better treatment outcomes in the literature on motivational interviewing (MI). There has been somewhat less study of the impact of client language against change (sustain talk) on outcomes following an MI session. This study examined the role of both client change talk and sustain talk, as well as therapist language, occurring during a brief motivational intervention (BMI) session with college students who had violated college alcohol policy (N = 92). Audiotapes of these sessions were coded using a therapy process coding system. A series of hierarchical regressions were used to examine the relationships among therapist MI-consistent and MI-inconsistent language, client change talk and sustain talk, as well as global measures of relational variables, and drinking outcomes. Contrary to prior research, sustain talk, but not change talk, predicted poorer alcohol use outcomes following the BMI at 3- and 12-month follow-up assessments. Higher levels of client self-exploration during the session also predicted improved drinking outcomes. Therapist measures of MI-consistent and MI-inconsistent language, and global measures of therapist acceptance and MI spirit were unrelated to client drinking outcomes. Results suggest that client sustain talk and self-exploration during the session play an important role in determining drinking outcomes among mandated college students receiving a BMI addressing alcohol use.

Through a glass darkly: Some insights on change talk via magnetoencephalography.

Motivational interviewing (MI) is a directive, client-centered therapeutic method employed in the treatment of substance abuse, with strong evidence of effectiveness. To date, the sole mechanism of action in MI with any consistent empirical support is "change talk" (CT), which is generally defined as client within-session speech in support of a behavior change. "Sustain talk" (ST) incorporates speech in support of the status quo. MI maintains that during treatment, clients essentially talk themselves into change. Multiple studies have now supported this theory, linking within-session speech to substance use outcomes. Although a causal chain has been established linking therapist behavior, client CT, and substance use outcome, the neural substrate of CT has been largely uncharted. We addressed this gap by measuring neural responses to clients' own CT using magnetoencephalography (MEG), a noninvasive neuroimaging technique with excellent spatial and temporal resolution. Following a recorded MI session, MEG was used to measure brain activity while participants heard multiple repetitions of their CT and ST utterances from that session, intermingled and presented in a random order. Results suggest that CT processing occurs in a right-hemisphere network that includes the inferior frontal gyrus, insula, and superior temporal cortex. These results support a representation of CT at the neural level, consistent with the role of these structures in self-perception. This suggests that during treatment sessions, clinicians who are able to evoke this special kind of language are tapping into neural circuitry that may be essential to behavior change.

Client Language During Motivational Enhancement Therapy and Alcohol Use Outcome

The exact link between the process engaged in during Motivational Interviewing based interventions, such as Motivational Enhancement Therapy (MET), and outcome is yet to be fully understood. This preliminary study examined Client Language during MET and outcome. A modified Motivational Interviewing Skills Code Version 2.0 was used to code 106 audiotaped MET sessions from 28 participants who received 3-4 sessions of MET within the context of a randomized controlled trial for mild-moderate alcohol dependence. Client Language was analyzed within sessions (categorized into Early, Mid, or End Intervals) and across sessions, and in relation to six month drinking outcome (drinking within/over national drinking guidelines, i.e. Remitted/Unremitted Drinkers). Unremitted Drinkers uttered a significantly higher frequency of Sustain Talk, lower Ability Language strength (over all MET and during End Intervals), and lower Commitment Language strength (during Session 2 and 4, and change over MET). Notwithstanding limitations, this exploratory study was unique in examining the strength of Client Language within and across sessions. It produced potentially valuable findings that warrant further investigation including supporting the clinical benefit of monitoring Client Language to predict outcome.