Mapping the influence of the person questions

Mapping the influence of the person questions

This project grows through feedback

This wiki develops the way systemic ideas do — through feedback and circularity, not a fixed final version. If this page helped, confused, or fell short, that's worth knowing. Give feedback →

Short definition

Mapping the influence of the person questions are narrative questions that explore how a person has responded to, resisted, reduced or challenged the influence of a problem.

Level

LEVEL 4 — TECHNIQUES AND INTERVENTIONS

Expanded definition

Mapping the influence of the person questions are used after the influence of the problem has been explored.

These questions shift attention from what the problem has done to what the person has done in response.

They help identify acts of resistance, agency, care, skill, refusal, protest, courage and preferred values.

The questions do not suggest that the person is responsible for defeating the problem. Instead, they help notice that the person may already have some influence, even in small ways.

For example, the problem may still be present, but the person may have delayed it, questioned it, spoken back to it, asked for support, protected a relationship, or acted according to their values despite its presence.

Purpose of this technique

The purpose of this technique is to make agency visible.

It helps people:

• notice moments of resistance
• recognise skills and values
• challenge the idea that the problem has total control
• develop unique outcomes
• strengthen preferred identity
• identify future responses
• connect small actions to larger stories of hope and possibility

When to use this technique

Use this technique when:

• the problem has been externalised
• the influence of the problem has been mapped
• the person feels powerless
• small acts of resistance are present
• the therapist wants to develop unique outcomes
• the conversation needs to move from problem effects towards agency
• the person or family is ready to notice preferred responses

How to use this technique

Use the externalised name of the problem.

Ask about times when the person limited the problem’s influence, even slightly.

Stay curious about small actions. Do not only look for dramatic change.

Explore what helped the person respond differently, who noticed, what values were present, and what this might say about the person’s preferred identity.

Example prompts / questions

• Were there times when you managed to resist the problem?
• When did you keep the problem from affecting your mood?
• When did you keep the problem from affecting how you valued yourself?
• When did you keep the problem from interrupting your relationships?
• When have you kept the problem from taking over completely?
• What helped you resist the problem in that moment?
• What resources did you use to fight or challenge the problem?
• What did you do that the problem would not have wanted?
• Who noticed that you were standing up to the problem?
• What does this say about what matters to you?
• What might this tell us about your hopes?
• How could you build on this response next time?

Non-clinical example

A person says that procrastination controls their evenings.

The therapist asks:

“Were there any moments when you managed to keep procrastination from taking the whole evening?”

The person remembers setting a timer for five minutes and beginning one task.

This small act becomes evidence of influence over the problem.

Clinical example

A young person says anger always wins.

The therapist asks:

“Were there times when anger was present but you managed to stop it from taking over completely?”

The young person remembers walking away, texting a friend, and choosing not to throw something.

The therapist explores what these actions say about care, control, fairness and not wanting to hurt others.

What this technique can open up

This technique can open:

• unique outcomes
• preferred story development
• re-authoring conversations
• recognition of agency
• resistance to shame
• future action planning
• family recognition of effort
• more hopeful relationship with the problem

Risks, cautions and ethical considerations

These questions should not imply that the person is to blame when the problem remains strong.

The therapist should avoid making the person feel they have failed if they cannot identify many examples of resistance.

Small responses should be honoured without turning them into pressure.

The therapist should remain attentive to context, trauma, oppression and practical constraints.

Questions before using this technique

• Has the problem been named clearly?
• Has the influence of the problem already been explored?
• Is the person ready to notice their own influence?
• Could these questions create pressure or shame?
• What small acts of resistance may be easy to miss?
• Who might have witnessed the person’s responses?

Questions during use

• Am I honouring small acts of resistance?
• Is the person feeling more agency or more pressure?
• Are values and intentions becoming visible?
• Is this opening a unique outcome?
• Should I slow down and return to the person’s own language?
• What future action might naturally follow?

Questions after use

• What acts of resistance became visible?
• What values did these actions express?
• Did the person recognise their own agency?
• Did I avoid suggesting that they should simply try harder?
• What preferred story could be developed?
• Who could witness or support this story?

Related epistemologies

Narrative epistemology Social constructionism Poststructuralist epistemology Postmodern epistemology Relational epistemology Systemic epistemology

Related schools and models

Narrative Systemic Therapy Conversational Dialogic Brief Solution Focused

Related concepts

Externalisation Agency Resistance Unique outcomes Alternative story Preferred story Problem as separate from person Stories lived vs stories told Thickening the plot Identity construction

Related methods

Externalising conversation Person influence mapping Problem influence mapping questions Unique outcome development Scaffolding conversations Re-authoring conversations

Related pathways

Narrative pathway Brief Solution Focused pathway Conversational pathway Dialogic pathway Family and relational dynamics pathway

Key theorists / contributors

Michael White David Epston Alice Morgan Jill Freedman Gene Combs Stephen Madigan

Key texts / references

• White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends. Norton.
• White, M. (2007). Maps of Narrative Practice. Norton.
• Morgan, A. (2000). What Is Narrative Therapy? An Easy-to-Read Introduction. Dulwich Centre Publications.
• Freedman, J., & Combs, G. (1996). Narrative Therapy: The Social Construction of Preferred Realities. Norton.
• Madigan, S. (2011). Narrative Therapy. American Psychological Association.

Notes / source material

Mapping the influence of the person should always preserve dignity and context.

The aim is to notice agency, not to suggest that people should be able to overcome every problem through individual effort alone.

Review status

Status: Open for review

Review history:

(No reviews yet.)