Question 1: Which elements of Chapter 4, Identifying and Expressing Feelings, did you find most useful? Please cite the specific passages and give examples of how you might use this information in eve

We're the ideal place for homework help. If you are looking for affordable, custom-written, high-quality and non-plagiarized papers, your student life just became easier with us. Click either of the buttons below to place your order.


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

Question 1: Which elements of Chapter 4, Identifying and Expressing Feelings, did you find most useful? Please cite the specific passages and give examples of how you might use this information in everyday life.Question 2: Which elements of Chapter 3, Observing Without Evaluating, did you find most challenging? Please cite the specific passages and describe why this was challenging to you.Question 3: Please describe your overall reaction to this week’s assigned reading in NVC. Provide a citation for the content in the text that sparked those reactions.

i attached the files required and book!!! nonviolent communication is the main book

Response to each question must

  • be in the form of a 150 to 250-word well-developed paragraph
  • contain well-developed sentences, correct spelling, and proper grammar
  • demonstrate your achievement of those objectives for the lesson in your response
  • include data, facts, key terminology, specific examples and direct quotations from the textbook and other resources to support your main point.
  • include appropriate in text citations and a resource list for all sources used.
  • 2 resources are required.

Question 1: Which elements of Chapter 4, Identifying and Expressing Feelings, did you find most useful? Please cite the specific passages and give examples of how you might use this information in eve
Non vio le n t C om mun ic atio n : A L an gu ag e o f L if e © 2 015 P udd le D an ce r P re ss A P udd le D an ce r P re ss B ook All r ig h ts r e se rv ed . N o p art o f t h is p u bli c atio n m ay b e r e p ro du ce d , d is tr ib u te d , o r t r a n sm it t e d i n a n y fo rm o r b y a n y m ean s, i n clu din g p h oto co p yin g, r e co rd in g, o r o th er m ech an ic a l o r e le ctr o n ic m eth od s, w it h ou t t h e p rio r w rit t e n p erm is s io n o f t h e p u bli s h er, e x ce p t f o r u se a s b rie f q u ota tio n s em bo d ie d i n c rit ic a l r e v ie w s a n d c e rta in o th er n on co m merc ia l u se s a s p erm it t e d b y c o p yrig h t l a w . T o re q u est p erm is s io n , c o n ta ct t h e p u bli s h er a t t h e f o llo w in g a d dre ss , “ A tt e n tio n : P erm is s io n s C oord in ato r.” P udd le D an ce r P re ss , P erm is s io n s D ep t. 2 240 E ncin it a s B lv d ., S te . D -9 11, E ncin it a s, C A 9 2024 T el: 1 -7 60-6 52-5 754 F ax : 1 -7 60-2 74-6 400 w ww.N on vio le n tC om mun ic atio n .c o m E m ail@ Pudd le D an ce r.c o m O rd erin g I n fo rm atio n P le a se c o n ta ct I n dep en den t P ubli s h ers G ro u p, T el: 3 12-3 37-0 747; F ax : 3 12-3 37-5 985; E m ail: f r o n td esk @ ip gb o ok.c o m o r v is it w ww.I P G bo ok.c o m f o r o th er c o n ta ct i n fo rm atio n a n d d eta ils a b ou t o rd erin g o n li n e A uth or: M arsh all B . R ose n berg , P hD E dit o r: L u cy L eu C op yed it o r: K yra F re esta r P ro je ct d ir e cto r: J e an ne I le r C over a n d i n te rio r d esig n : L ig h tb ou rn e (w ww.l i g h tb ou rn e.c o m ) P hylli s L in n, I N DEX PR ESS a n d K ath le en S tr a tt a n , E D IT O RIA L SU PP O RT S E R V IC ES M an u fa ctu re d i n t h e U nit e d S ta te s o f A m eric a 3rd E dit io n , 1 st P rin tin g, S ep te m ber 2 015 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 I S B N : 9 78-1 -8 92005-2 8-1 L ib ra ry o f C on gre ss C ata lo gin g-in -P ubli c a tio n D ata R ose n berg , M arsh all B . N on vio le n t c o m mun ic atio n : a l a n gu ag e o f l i f e / M arsh all B . R ose n berg , P hD . — 3 rd e d it io n . pag es c m IS B N 9 78-1 -8 92005-2 8-1 ( tr a d e p ap er : a lk . p ap er) 1 . I n te rp ers o n al c o m mun ic atio n . 2 . I n te rp ers o n al re la tio n s. 3 . N on vio le n ce. I . T it le . B F637.C 45R 645 2 015 153.6 — dc2 3 2015011660 What P eo p le A re S ay in g A bou t N on vio le n t C om mun ic a tio n ™ R ela tio n sh ip s: “M arsh all Rose n berg ’s dyn am ic co m mun ic atio n te ch n iq u es tr a n sfo rm p ote n tia l c o n ic ts i n to p ea ce fu l d ia lo gu es . Y ou ’l l l e arn s im ple to ols t o d ef use a rg u m en ts a n d c re ate c o m pass io n ate co n nectio n s w it h y o u r f a m ily , f r ien ds, a n d o th er a cq u ain ta n ce s.” — JO H N G RAY, a u th or, M en A re F ro m M ars, W om en A re F ro m V en u s “N on vio le n t C om munic a tio n c a n c h an ge t h e w orld . M ore im porta n tly , it c a n ch an ge y o u r l i f e . I c a n not r e co m men d i t h ig h ly en ou gh .” — JA C K C A N FIE LD , a u th or, C hic k en S ou p f o r t h e S ou l S erie s “ M arsh all R ose n berg p ro vid es u s w it h th e most eff ectiv e to ols to fo ster h ea lt h a n d r e la tio n sh ip s. N on vio le n t C om munic a tio n c o n nec ts s o u l to s o u l, c re atin g a l o t o f h ea li n g. I t i s t h e m is s in g e lem ent i n w hat w e do.” — DEEPA K C H OPR A , a u th or, H ow t o K now G od a n d A gele ss B od y a n d T im ele ss M in d “I h av e t a k en c o n vers a tio n s t h at w ere hea d ed fo r t h e du m ps, s ta rtin g u sin g th ese t e ch n iq u es, a n d e n ded u p w it h a v er y u sef ul b on din g ex per ien ce.” — An o n li n e r e v ie w er “ If y o u w an t t o b e h eard , a n d t o h ear w hat y o u r lo ved o n es a re tr u ly s a y in g beh in d w hat t h ere s a y in g, r e a d t h is b o ok! I t w ill c h an ge y o u r l i f e .” — An o n li n e r e v ie w er “ R ose n berg h as d ev elo p ed a s im ple m ethod o f c o m mun ic atin g t h at h elp s t o a v o id tr ig gerin g a d efe n siv e r e a ctio n , a n d in ste a d s tim ula te u n der sta n din g an d ag re em en t. It is in valu ab le in all yo u r re la tio n sh ip s, an d d e nit e ly s h ou ld b e r e q u ir e d r e a d in g f o r e v er yo n e.” — An o n li n e r e v ie w er C on fl ic t T ra n sfo rm atio n : “N on vio le n t C om munic a tio n i s o n e o f t h e m ost u se fu l p ro ce ss es y o u w ill e v er le arn .” — W IL LIA M U RY, c o au th or, G ettin g t o Y es “In t h is b o ok, y o u w ill n d a n a m azin gly eff ectiv e la n gu ag e f o r s a y in g w hat’s o n y o u r m in d a n d i n y o u r h eart. L ik e s o m an y es sen tia l a n d e leg an t s y stem s, it ’s s im ple o n t h e s u rfa ce, c h alle n gin g t o u se in t h e heat o f t h e m om en t a n d pow erfu l i n i t s r e su lt s .” — VIC K I R O BIN , c o au th or, Y ou r M on ey o r Y ou r L if e “ A s fa r as n on vio le n ce an d sp ir it u al activ is m , M arsh all R osen ber g is it ! A pp ly in g th e co n ce p ts w it h in th es e bo oks w ill g u id e th e re a d er to w ard s fo ste rin g m ore c o m pass io n i n t h e w orld .” — MARIA N NE W IL LIA M SO N, a u th or, E very d ay G ra ce a n d h on ora ry c h air p ers o n , P ea ce A lli a n ce “ L ik e N oam C hom sk y, R ose n berg ’s w ork is in tr in sic a lly r a d ic a l, it s u bver ts o u r w hole sta tu s-q u o sy ste m o f p ow er : b et ween ch ild ren a n d a d u lt s , th e sa n e a n d th e p sy ch otic , th e c rim in al a n d th e la w . R osen ber g’s d is tin ctio n b etw een p u n it iv e a n d p ro te c tiv e f o rc e s h ou ld b e re q u ir e d r e a d in g f o r a n yo n e m ak in g f o re ig n p oli c y o r p oli c in g o u r s tr e et s.” — D. K IL LIA N , r e p orte r, O n  e F ro n t L in e, C le v ela n d F re e T im es “ W e h av e li v ed tr a u m atic m om en ts o ver a n d o ver a g ain — mom en ts o f fe ar a n d p an ic , in co m pre h en sio n , fr u str a tio n s, d is a p p oin tm en t, a n d in ju stic e of all so rts , w it h n o h op e o f e sc ap e— whic h m ad e it e v en w ors e . N on vio le n t C om munic a tio n o ff ers u s a p ea ce fu l a lt e rn ativ e f o r e n din g t h is in ter m in ab le R w an dan c o n ic t.” — TH EO D ORE N YIL ID AN D I, R w an dan D ep artm en t o f F ore ig n A ffair s ; K ig ali , R w an da “In o u r p re se n t a g e o f u n civ il d is c o u rs e an d m ean -s p ir it e d d em ag o gu er y, t h e prin cip le s a n d p ra ctic e s o f N on vio le n t C om munic a tio n a re a s t im ely a s t h ey are n ece ss a ry to th e p ea ce fu l res olu tio n o f co n ic ts , p er so n al o r p u bli c , d om estic o r i n te rn atio n al.” — MID W EST B O OK R EV IE W , T aylo r’s S h elf “ R ose n berg d esc rib es h ow , in n u m erou s c o n ic ts , o n ce ‘en em ies ’ h av e been a b le t o h ear e a ch o th er’s n eed s, t h ey a re ab le to c o n nect c o m pass io n ate ly a n d n d n ew s o lu tio n s to p re v io u sly ‘i m poss ib le ’ im pass es . I f y o u w an t to le arn w ay s o f m ore sk illf u l sp eech I h ig h ly re co m men d th is c le ar, e a sy -to -r e a d b o ok.” — DIA NA L IO N, B udd h is t P ea ce F ello w sh ip , T urn in g W heel M aga zin e “A sim ple co m mun ic atio n pro ce ss th at eli m in ates th e co m pet it iv e, a d vers a ria l, an d vio le n ce pro vo cativ e sty le of co m mun ic atio n th at has in fe c te d m ost o f o u r l i v es.  is i s n ot a b ou t t h e m eek i n her it in g t h e w orld o r b ein g n ic e d ocile c o gs i n o u r p ow er -o ver , h ier arc h ic a l s y ste m . I t i s a b ou t t h e ‘p ro te c tiv e u se o f fo rc e,’ v u ln era b ili t y , h eart- to -h eart d ia lo gu e, a n d g et tin g ou r n eed s m eet i n a w ay w e w ill l es s l i k ely r eg ret .” — An o n li n e r e v ie w er “A s a p ro fe ss io n al in th e eld , I c a n sa y th at th is b o ok p ra ctic es w hat it p re a ch es, a n d I f o u n d t h e s te p -b y-s tep a p pro ach , ex ercis es , a n d ex am ples t o b e c le ar a n d e a sy t o p ra ctic e.” — A r e a d er i n M ary la n d “I h av e n ev er re a d a cle are r, m ore str a ig h tfo rw ard , in sig h tfu l bo ok on co m mun ic atio n . A m azin gly e a sy t o r e a d , g re at e x am ples , a n d c h allen gin g t o p u t i n to p ra ctic e — th is b o ok i s a t r u e gi t o a ll o f u s.” — A r e a d er i n W ash in gto n P erso n al G ro w th : “N on vio le n t C om munic a tio n b y M arsh all R ose n berg i s a g re at b o ok t e a ch in g a c o m pass io n ate w ay t o t a lk t o p eo p le— ev en i f y o u ( o r t h ey ) a re an gry.” — JO E V IT A LE , a u th or, S p ir it u al M ark etin g,  e P ow er o f O utr a geo u s M ark etin g “C han gin g th e w ay th e w orld h as w ork ed fo r 5 ,0 00 y ears s o u n ds d au ntin g, b u t N on vio le n t C om munic a tio n h elp s li b era te u s fr o m a n cie n t p att er ns o f vio le n ce.” — FR A N CIS L E FK O W IT Z, r e p orte r, B od y & S ou l “A r e v o lu tio n ary w ay o f l o okin g a t l a n gu ag e. I f en ou gh p eo p le actu ally m ak e u se o f th e m ate ria l in N on vio le n t C om munic a tio n w e m ay so on li v e in a m ore p ea ce fu l a n d c o m pass io n ate w orld .” — W ES T A Y LO R, P ro gre ssiv e H ea lt h “  e s in gle t o u gh est, m ost d an ger ou s o p p on en t I ’d e v er f a ce d — th e on e th at tr u ly h u rt m e t h e m ost, c au sin g m e t o s p en d 3 0 y ears o f m y li f e beh in d b ars — was m y o w n a n ger a n d fe ar. I w rit e th es e word s n ow , a g ra y -h air e d o ld m an , h op in g t o G od — befo re y o u s u ff er w hat I ’v e su ff er ed — th at i t w ill c au se y o u t o li s te n a n d le arn N on vio le n t C om munic a tio n . I t w ill t e a ch y o u h ow t o re co gn iz e a n ger b efo re it b eco m es v io len ce, a n d h ow to u n der sta n d, d ea l w it h , a n d t a k e c o n tr o l o f t h e r a g e y o u m ay f e el.” — A p ris o n er w rit in g t o f e llo w i n m ate s “  is is th e m ost co n cis e , m ost cle arly w rit t en m an u al o n in ter per so n al co m mun ic atio n I ’v e e v er c o m e a cro ss . I ’v e been c h allen ged b y t h is b o ok to b e t h e c h an ge I w an t t o s e e i n m y w orld .” — An o n li n e r e v ie w er “ L it e ra lly , a n yo n e w ho s p ea k s c o u ld b en et f r o m r e a d in g t h is b o ok! I t h elp s u s to re a li z e n ot o n ly th e p ow er o f w ord s, b u t h ow to c h oose ou r w ord s bett e r an d ult im ate ly en han ce both co m mun ic atio n an d re la tio n sh ip s! H ig h ly r e co m men ded !” — An o n li n e r e v ie w er “ B y ta k in g a ste p back fr o m daily fr u str a tio n s, dis a p p oin tm en ts , an d str e ss o rs , a n d r e -e x am in in g th e p u rp ose of m y o w n a n d o th er s’ n eed s, th is b o ok h as h elp ed m e li s te n m ore deep ly , act m ore gen u in ely , an d n d acce p ta n ce i n d iffi cu lt s it u atio n s. W ell d on e!” — An o n li n e r e v ie w er “ I a m o n e o f th ose p eo p le w ho is h ig h ly c rit ic a l o f m yse lf .  is b o ok is t e a ch in g m e t o lo ve m yse lf s o I c a n t r u ly c a re fo r o th er s. I t c a n p av e th e w ay fo r p ea ce b etw een p eo p le , d iff er en t et hn ic g ro u p s, co u ntr ies , et c., an d I b eli e v e o u r w orld r e a lly n eed s t h is .” P are n tin g a n d F am ily C om mun ic a tio n : “W it h th e gro w th in to d ay ’s d ysfu n ctio n al fa m ili es an d th e in cre a se of vio le n ce i n o u r s c h ools , N on vio le n t C om munic a tio n i s a g o d se n d.” — LIN DA C . S T O EH R, L os C oli n as B usin ess N ew s “ is b o ok is e ss e n tia l re a d in g fo r a n yo n e se ek in g to e n d th e un fu l lli n g cy cle s of arg u m en t in th eir re la tio n sh ip , an d fo r paren ts w ho w is h to in u en ce th eir c h ild re n ’s ’ b eh av io r b y en gen der in g c o m pass io n r a th er th an sim ply a ch ie v in g o b ed ie n ce.” — An o n li n e r e v ie w er “In a d dit io n to s a v in g o u r m arria g e, N on vio le n t C om munic a tio n is h elp in g us re p air o u r re la tio n sh ip s w it h o u r g ro w n ch ild ren an d to re la te more d eep ly w it h o u r p are n ts a n d s ib li n gs. I f a n gels d o m an if es t in p hysic a l f o rm h ere o n t h is e arth , t h en M arsh all R osen ber g m ust b e on e.” — A r e a d er i n A riz o n a “M y re la tio n sh ip w it h m y h u sb an d, w hic h w as g o o d a lr e a d y, h as b eco m e ev en b ett e r. I’v e ta u gh t N VC to m an y p aren ts w ho h av e sin ce gain ed a d eep er u n dersta n din g o f th eir c h ild ren , th u s en han cin g th ei r re la tio n sh ip a n d d ecre a sin g t e n sio n a n d c o n ic t.” — A r e a d er i n I lli n ois “ N on vio le n t C om munic a tio n a llo w ed m e t o o verc o m e m y t o xic c o n dit io n in g an d n d t h e l o vin g p are n t a n d p er so n t h at w as l o ck ed i n sid e. D r. R osen ber g has c re ate d a w ay t o t r a n sfo rm t h e vio len ce i n t h e w orld .” — A n u rs e i n C ali f o rn ia “ U sin g N on vio le n t C om munic a tio n w as v it a l t o h ea li n g m y r e la tio n sh ip w it h m y s is te r; a n d fo r m e, it s e rv es a s a g u id e fo r a p p ly in g B udd h is t p ra ctic e to c o m mun ic atio n .” — JA N E L A ZA R, Z en S tu den t i n R esid en ce / N VC T ra in er “ W hat b eg an a s a s e arc h fo r a b et ter d is c ip li n e sy ste m fo r o u r s ix -y ear- o ld h as t u rn ed o u t t o b e a p h ilo so p h ic a l a p pro ach a n d c o m mun ic atio n t o ol t h at is t r a n sfo rm in g h ow w e r e la te t o e a ch o th er a n d o u rs e lv es .” — An o n li n e r e v ie w er “ In cre d ib le b o ok t h at h as t r a n sfo rm ed m y w ay o f b ei ng a n d c o m mun ic atin g. I h av e e v ery o n e i n m y f a m ily r e a d in g i t n ow !” — An o n li n e r e v ie w er “ I s p en t 4 0 y ears o f m y li f e tr y in g to r e ce iv e em path y fr o m m y d ad . A er on ly r e a d in g h alf o f t h is b o ok, I w as a b le to ex pres s m yse lf in a w ay t h at h e w as a b le t o n ally h ear m e a n d g iv e m e what I n eed ed . I t w as a g i b ey o n d w ord s.” — An o n li n e r e v ie w er S p ir it u ali t y : “In m y estim atio n , N on vio le n t C om munic a tio n is as ra d ic a l an d ch an ge- m ak in g a s th e E ig h t- F old P ath . I p re d ic t th at a ctiv e use of N VC in o u r sa n gh as w ou ld s ig n i ca n tly c u t t h ro u gh f r u str a tio n s a n d g ro w in g p ain s.” — JO AN S T A RR W ARD , m em ber, S p ir it R ock C en te r, C ali f o rn ia , a n d t h e B udd h is t P ea ce F ello w sh ip “ B udd h is m a n d N on vio le n t C om munic a tio n a re r o om s in t h e s a m e h ou se . I s tr o n gly re co m men d N VC as a h ig h ly eff ectiv e pra ctic e fo r d ev elo p in g cla rit y a n d g en u in e c o m pass io n .” — LE W IS R H AM ES, V ip ass a n a I n sig h t M ed it a tio n , M in im al S ecu rit y U nit , M on ro e C orre ctio n al C om ple x “ F or c o n vic ts im mers e d in a n e n vir o n m en t w hic h in ten si es a n d r ei nfo rc es co n ic t, d is c o verin g t h is s te p -b y-s tep m ethod olo gy a d vo catin g c o m pass io n th ro u gh c o m mun ic atio n i s e n orm ou sly l i b er atin g.” — DOW G O RD ON , F re ed om P ris o n P ro je ct, S eatt le , W ash in gto n “ N VC is th e la n gu ag e o f e n li g h ten men t. S o sim ple yet so d iffi cu lt . U sin g N VC c a n c h an ge y o u r li f e , b rin g c la rit y to y o u r th in kin g, a n d tr a n sfo rm re la tio n sh ip s.” — An o n li n e r e v ie w er E du ca tio n : “M arsh all’s s tr a te g ie s fo r a ctiv e li s te n in g r e a lly w ork . I t e a ch m id d le sc h ool, a n d it h as w ork ed b oth a t w ork a n d w it h m y fa m ily . A g o o d s tep a lo n g t h e w ay t o t r a n sfo rm atio n .” — An o n li n e r e v ie w er “  ro u gh c o m pelli n g, r e a l l i f e e x am ples , R osen ber g b rin gs t h e N VC p ro ces s to li f e . M y c o lle g e stu den ts , e sp ecia lly th e old er o n es, sh are wit h m e th at re a d in g t h is b o ok h as c h an ged t h ei r li f e . T ry in g t o p ra ctic e t h e step s m yse lf i n d aily in te ra ctio n s, at m eetin gs, an d in th e cla ss ro om , h as als o h ad a p ow erfu l e ff ec t o n m e.” — An o n li n e r e v ie w er “ N VC h as m ad e a h u ge d iff eren ce in m y li f e wit h m y c h ild ren , re la tiv es , te a ch ers o f s c h ools , w ork , a n d t h e li s t g o es o n . W hen I d is c o ver ed t h is b o ok, I w as r e a lly d ou btfu l th at a n yth in g c o u ld h elp m e ch an ge th e natu re of m y re la tio n sh ip s w it h o th ers a n d I a m a sto n is h ed a t t h e dep th a n d s im pli c it y o f N on vio le n t C om munic a tio n .” — An o n li n e r e v ie w er P ro fe ssio n al  era p y a n d M ed ia tio n : “ e q u ali t y o f e m path y I n ow a m a b le to p ro vid e has en li v en ed m y t h er ap y p ra ctic e.  is b o ok g iv es m e h op e th at I c a n c o n tr ib u te to t h e well b ei ng o f m y c li e n ts , a n d a ls o c o n nec t d eep ly w it h m y f r ien ds a n d f a m ily .  e step -b y- ste p e m path y s k ills i n t h is b o ok a re le arn ab le by a n yo n e.” — An o n li n e r e v ie w er “A s a th era p is t, I h av e fo u n d th is b o ok to b e help fu l to c li en ts w it h a n ger m an ag em en t d iffi cu lt ie s, a n d p ro blem s w it h c o n ic t i n r e la tio n sh ip s b ecau se it p ro m ote s se lf – a w are n ess an d se lf – a cce p ta n ce. N VC ta k es p ra ctic e, b u t on ce y o u u n dersta n d a n d in te rn ali z e th e gen eral a tt it u de pro m ote d in th is b o ok, i t s tic k s. A nd t h en i t s e ep s i n to y o u r l i f e li k e a s o oth in g b alm .” — An o n li n e r e v ie w er “ I h av e n ev er re a d a cle are r, m ore str a ig h tfo rw ard , in sig h tfu l bo ok on co m mun ic atio n . A er s tu dyin g a n d t e a ch in g a ss er tiv en ess s in ce t h e 70s, t h is b o ok is a b re ath o f fr e sh a ir . R osen ber g a d ds th e brilli a n t in sig h t in to th e li n kag e o f fe eli n gs a n d n eed s a n d ta k in g res pon sib ili t y a n d c re ates a tr u e to ol.” — An o n li n e r e v ie w er B usin ess: “ e p rin cip le s o f N on vio le n t C om mun ic atio n t a u gh t b y D r. R osen ber g a re in str u m en ta l in c re atin g a n e x tr a o rd in ary a n d fu l lli n g q u ali t y o f li f e . H is c o m pass io n ate a n d in sp ir in g m essa g e cu ts rig h t to th e heart o f su cces sfu l co m mun ic atio n , h is h eartfe lt m essa g e an d g en u in e lo ve fo r h u m an k in d is i n sp ir in g, a n d h is str a te g ie s h old th e pow er , n ot o n ly c h an ge li v es , b u t to t r a n sfo rm y o u r w orld . “D r. R ose n berg h as b ro u gh t t h e s im pli c it y o f s u cce ss fu l c o m mun ic atio n i n to t h e fo re g ro u n d. N o m att e r w hat is su e yo u ’r e fa cin g, his str a teg ies fo r co m mun ic atin g w it h o th ers w ill s et y o u u p t o w in e v er y t im e.” — TO N Y R O BBIN S, a u th or, A w aken t h e G ia n t W it h in a n d U nli m it e d P ow er “I g o t to th is b o ok th an ks to a r e co m men datio n b y S aty a N ad ella ( C EO o f M ic ro so  ).  e bo ok pre se n ts a sim ple te ch n iq u e an d ex am ples to e m path iz e a n d c o n nec t w it h p eo p le ’s fe eli n gs. I n ste a d o f ju dgin g p eo p le by th e m ess a g e, th e b o ok h elp s y o u u n dersta n d th e need s b eh in d a n d w hat fe eli n gs a n d e m otio n s a re d riv in g t h em . H ig h ly r e co m men ded .” — An o n li n e r e v ie w er Con te n ts Fore w ord b y D eep ak C hop ra , M D Ack n ow le d gm en ts 1 G iv in g F ro m t h e H ea rt In tr o du ctio n A W ay t o F o cu s A tt e n tio n  e N VC P ro ce ss A pp ly in g N VC i n O ur L iv es a n d t h e W orld N VC i n A ctio n : “ M urd ere r, A ss a ss in , C hild -K iller !” 2 C om mun ic a tio n  at B lo ck s C om passio n M ora li s tic J u dgm en ts M ak in g C om paris o n s D en ia l o f R esp on sib ili t y O th er F orm s o f L if e -A li e n atin g C om mun ic atio n 3 O bse r v in g W it h ou t E va lu atin g  e H ig h est F orm o f H um an I n te lli g en ce D is tin gu is h in g O bse rv atio n s F ro m E valu atio n s N VC i n A ctio n : “  e M ost A rro gan t S p ea k er W e’v e Ever H ad !” E xerc is e 1 : O bse rv atio n o r E valu atio n ? 4 Id en tif y in g a n d E xp re ssin g F eeli n gs  e H eav y C ost o f U nex p re ss e d F eeli n gs F eeli n gs v ersu s N on -F eeli n gs B uild in g a V oca b u la ry f o r F eeli n gs E xerc is e 2 : E xp re ss in g F eeli n gs 5 T ak in g R esp on sib ili t y f o r O ur F eeli n gs H earin g a N eg ativ e M ess a g e: F ou r O ptio n s  e N eed s a t t h e R oots o f F eeli n gs  e P ain o f E xp re ss in g O ur N eed s v er su s t h e Pain o f N ot E xp res sin g O ur N eed s Fro m E m otio n al S la v ery t o E m otio n al L ib er atio n N VC i n A ctio n : “ B rin g B ack t h e S tig m a o f I lleg it im acy !” E xerc is e 3 : A ck n ow le d gin g N eed s 6 R eq u estin g  at W hic h W ou ld E nric h Lif e U sin g P osit iv e A ctio n L an gu ag e M ak in g R eq u ests C on sc io u sly A sk in g f o r a R e ec tio n R eq u estin g H on esty M ak in g R eq u ests o f a G ro u p R eq u ests v ersu s D em an ds D e n in g O ur O bje c tiv e W hen M ak in g R eq u es ts N VC i n A ctio n : S h arin g F ears A bou t a B es t F rien d’s S m okin g E xerc is e 4 : E xp re ss in g R eq u ests 7 R ece iv in g E m path ic a lly P re se n ce : D on’t J u st D o S o m eth in g, S ta n d  ere Lis te n in g f o r F eeli n gs a n d N eed s P ara p h ra sin g Su sta in in g E m path y W hen P ain B lo ck s O ur A bili t y t o E m path iz e N VC i n A ctio n : A W if e C on nec ts W it h H er D yin g H usb an d E xerc is e 5 : R ece iv in g E m path ic a lly v er su s N on -E m path ic a lly 8  e P ow er o f E m path y E m path y  at H ea ls E m path y a n d t h e A bili t y t o B e V uln er ab le U sin g E m path y t o D efu se D an ger E m path y i n H earin g S o m eo n e’s “ N o!” E m path y t o R ev iv e a L if e le ss C on ver sa tio n Em path y f o r S ile n ce 9 C on nectin g C om passio n ate ly W it h O urse lv es R em em berin g t h e S p ecia ln ess o f W hat W e A re E valu atin g O urs e lv es W hen W e’v e B een L es s  an P er fe ct T ra n sla tin g S elf – Ju dgm en ts a n d I n ner D em an ds N VC M ou rn in g Self – F org iv en ess  e L ess o n o f t h e P olk a-D ott e d S u it D on’t D o A nyth in g  at I s n ’t P la y ! T ra n sla tin g “ H av e t o ” t o “ C hoose t o ” C ult iv atin g A w are n ess o f t h e E nerg y B eh in d O ur A ctio n s 10 E xp re ssin g A nger F u lly D is tin gu is h in g S tim ulu s F ro m C au se A ll A nger H as a L if e -S erv in g C ore S tim ulu s v ersu s C au se : P ra ctic a l I m pli c atio n s Fou r S te p s t o E xp re ss in g A nger O fferin g E m path y F ir st T ak in g O ur T im e NVC i n A ctio n : P are n t a n d T een D ia lo gu e A L if e-  re ate n in g I s su e 11 C on fl ic t R eso lu tio n a n d M ed ia tio n H um an C on nec tio n N VC C on ic t R eso lu tio n v ersu s T ra d it io n al M ed ia tio n N VC C on ic t R eso lu tio n S te p s— A Q uic k O ver vie w O n N eed s, S tr a te g ie s, a n d A naly sis E m path y t o E ase t h e P ain  at P re v en ts H earin g U sin g P re se n t a n d P osit iv e A ctio n L an gu ag e t o R es olv e C on ic t U sin g A ctio n V erb s T ra n sla tin g “ N o” N VC a n d t h e M ed ia to r R ole W hen P eo p le S ay “ N o” t o M eetin g F ace to F ace In fo rm al M ed ia tio n : S tic k in g O ur N ose in O th er P eo p le ’s B usin es s 12  e P ro te ctiv e U se o f F orc e W hen t h e U se o f F orc e I s U nav o id ab le  e  in kin g B eh in d t h e U se o f F orc e T yp es o f P un it iv e F orc e  e C osts o f P un is h m en t T w o Q uestio n s  at R ev ea l t h e L im it a tio n s o f P un is h m en t  e P ro te c tiv e U se o f F orc e i n S ch ools 1 3 L ib era tin g O urse lv es a n d C ou n se li n g O th ers F re ein g O urs e lv es F ro m O ld P ro gra m min g R eso lv in g I n te rn al C on ic ts C arin g f o r O ur I n ner E nvir o n m en t Rep la cin g D ia g n osis W it h N VC N VC i n A ctio n : D ea li n g W it h R esen tm en t a n d S elf – Ju dgm en t 14 E xp re ssin g A ppre cia tio n i n N on vio le n t C om mun ic a tio n  e I n te n tio n B eh in d t h e A ppre cia tio n  e  re e C om pon en ts o f A ppre cia tio n R ece iv in g A ppre cia tio n  e H un ger f o r A ppre cia tio n O verc o m in g t h e R elu cta n ce t o E xp res s A ppre cia tio n E pilo gu e B ib li o gra p hy In dex  e F ou r- P art N on vio le n t C om mun ic atio n P ro ce ss S o m e B asic F eeli n gs a n d N eed s W e A ll H av e A bou t N on vio le n t C om mun ic atio n A bou t P udd le D an ce r P re ss A bou t t h e C en te r f o r N on vio le n t C om mun ic atio n T ra d e B ooks F ro m P udd le D an ce r P res s Tra d e B ook le ts F ro m P udd le D an ce r P res s Abou t t h e A uth or N Fore w ord D eep ak C hop ra , M D Fou n der o f th e C hop ra C en te r fo r W ellb ein g a n d a u th or o f m ore th an e ig h ty b o oks tr a n sla te d in o ver f o rty -th re e l a n gu ag es, i n clu din g t w en ty -tw o N ew Y ork T im es b ests e lle rs o o n e d ese rv es o u r g ra tit u de m ore th an th e la te M arsh all R osen ber g, w ho l i v ed h is l i f e j u st a s t h e t it le o f o n e o f h is b o oks s ta te s: S p ea k P ea ce in a W orld o f C on flic t. H e w as k een ly a w are o f t h e m ax im ( o r w arn in g) t h at’s c o n ta in ed i n t h e s u btit le o f t h at b o ok: W hat Y ou S ay N ex t W ill C han ge You r W orld . P ers o n al re a li t y alw ay s co n ta in s a sto ry, an d th e sto ry w e li v e, b eg in nin g fr o m in fa n cy, is b ase d o n la n gu ag e.  is b eca m e th e fo u n datio n o f M arsh all’s ap pro ach to co n ic t res olu tio n , g et tin g p eo p le to ex ch an ge w ord s i n a w ay t h at e x clu des j u dgm en ts , b la m e, a n d v io len ce.  e co n to rte d fa ce s of pro te sto rs on th e str e et s th at m ak e su ch d is tu rb in g im ag es o n th e e v en in g n ew s a re m ore th an im ag es . E ach fa ce, e a ch s h ou t, e a ch g estu re h as a h is to ry. E ver yo n e cli n gs t o t h ei r h is to ry w it h a v en gean ce, b ecau se it a n ch ors th ei r id en tit y . S o w hen M arsh all a d vo cate d p ea ce fu l ta lk , h e w as a d vo catin g a n ew id en tit y a t th e sa m e tim e. H e fu lly r e a li z e d th is fa ct. A s h e sta te s a b ou t N on vio len t C om mun ic atio n a n d th e ro le o f t h e m ed ia to r i n t h is n ew t h ir d e d it io n , “ W e’r e tr y in g t o l i v e a d iff er en t valu e s y ste m w hile w e a re a sk in g f o r t h in gs t o c h an ge.” I n h is v is io n o f a n ew v alu e s y stem , c o n ic ts a re res olv ed w it h ou t th e usu al fr u str a tin g co m pro m is e s. In ste a d , th e co n ten din g p arties ap pro ach e a ch o th er w it h re sp ec t.  ey ask ab ou t ea ch o th er ’s n eed s, an d in an atm osp h ere f r e e o f p ass io n s a n d p rej udic e s, t h ey r e a ch a c o n nectio n . G azin g on a w orld r if e w it h w ar a n d v io le n ce, w here u s-v ersu s-th em t h in kin g i s t h e n orm , an d w here co u ntr ie s ca n b re a k a ll b on ds o f civ ili z e d ex is ten ce to c o m mit u n beara b le a tr o cit ie s, a n ew v alu e sy ste m s e em s fa r a w ay. A t o n e E uro p ean c o n fe re n ce f o r m ed ia to rs , a s k ep tic c rit ic iz e d M arsh all’s a p pro ach a s p sy ch oth era p y. I n p op u la r l a n gu ag e, i s n ’t h e ask in g u s t o s im ply f o rg et t h e past a n d ju st b e f r ie n ds, a r e m ote pro sp ect n ot ju st i n t h e w ar- to rn a re a s b u t in a n y d iv o rc e c a se ? V alu e s y ste m s a re p ack ed i n t h e l u ggag e o f e v er y w orld vie w . N ot o n ly a re th ey in esc ap ab le , b u t p eo p le are pro u d o f th em —th er e’s a lo n g tr a d it io n aro u n d t h e w orld o f p riz in g a n d f e arin g w arrio rs a t t h e sa m e tim e. J u n gia n s te ll u s th at th e a rc h ety p e o f M ars , th e vo la tile g o d o f w ar, is im bed ded in e v ery o n e’s u n co n sc io u s, m ak in g c o n ic t a n d a g gres sio n i n ev it a b le , a k in d o f in here n t v ic e. B ut t h ere ’s a n a lt e rn ativ e v ie w o f h u m an n atu re , e lo qu en tly ex pres se d in t h is b o ok th at m ust b e c o n sid ere d , b ecau se it ’s o u r o n ly r e a l h op e. In th is v ie w , w e are n ot o u r sto rie s.  ese sto ries are se lf – c re ate d ctio n s th at re m ain in ta ct th ro u gh h ab it , g ro u p c o er cio n , o ld c o n dit io n in g, a n d la ck o f se lf – a w are n ess . E ven th e b est s to ries c o lla b ora te in v io len ce. I f y o u w an t to u se fo rc e to p ro te c t y o u r fa m ily , g u ard y o u rs e lf fr o m a tt a ck , gh t a g ain st w ro n gd oin g, p re v en t c rim e, a n d en gag e in a s o -c a lle d “ g o o d w ar,” y o u h av e b een c o -o p te d b y t h e s ir e n s o n g o f v io len ce. I f y o u d ecid e to o p t o u t, t h er e’s a s iz a b le c h an ce t h at s o cie ty w ill t u rn o n y o u a n d ex act r et rib u tio n . I n s h ort, n din g a w ay o u t i s n ’t e a sy . In In dia th ere ’s an an cie n t m od el fo r non vio len t li v in g kn ow n as A him sa , w hic h i s c e n tr a l t o t h e n on vio len t li f e . A him sa i s u su ally d e ned a s n on vio le n ce, alt h ou gh it s m ean in g ex ten ds fr o m M ah atm a Gan dh i’s p ea ce fu l p ro te sts to A lb ert S ch w eit z e r’s re v er en ce fo r li f e . “D o n o h arm ” wou ld b e t h e rst a x io m o f A him sa . W hat s o im pres se d m e ab ou t M arsh all R ose n berg , w ho p ass e d a w ay a t e ig h ty , ju st s ix w eek s b ef ore I w rit e th is , is t h at h e g ra sp ed b oth l e v els o f A him sa , a ctio n a n d c o n sc io u sn ess .  e a ctio n s a re w ell d esc rib ed in th e fo llo w in g p ag es a s p rin cip les o f N on vio le n t C om mun ic atio n , s o I w on’t r ep eat t h em h er e. T o b e in A him sa c o n sc io u sn ess is m uch m ore p ow er fu l, a n d M arsh all p oss es se d t h at t r a it . I n a n y c o n ic t, h e d id n’t c h oose sid es o r e v en c a re p rim arily w hat t h ei r s to ries w ere . R eco gn iz in g t h at a ll s to rie s le a d to c o n ic t, e it h er o ver tly o r c o ver tly , h e f o cu se d o n c o n nec tio n s a s a p sy ch olo gic a l b rid ge.  is i s i n k eep in g w it h a n oth er a x io m o f A him sa : I t’s n ot w hat y o u d o t h at c o u nts , i t ’s t h e qu ali t y o f yo u r a tt e n tio n . A s f a r a s t h e l e g al s y ste m i s c o n cer ned , a d iv o rc e i s o ver o n ce th e tw o p artie s s e tt le o n h ow to sp li t th ei r a ss et s. B ut th is is fa r fr o m th e re su lt th at’s re a ch ed em otio n ally b et ween th e tw o d iv o rc e d p arties . T oo m uch h as b een s a id , t o u se M arsh all’s w ord in g, t h at c h an ged t h ei r w orld . Aggre ss io n is b u ilt in to t h e e g o s y ste m , w hic h t o ta lly fo cu ses o n “ I, m e, a n d m in e” w hen ev er c o n ic t a ris es . S o ciet y p ay s li p ser vic e to sa in ts a n d th eir v o w t o s e rv e G od i n ste a d o f t h em se lv es , b u t t h er e’s a h u ge g ap b et ween th e v alu es w e e sp ou se a n d t h e w ay w e a ctu ally li v e. A him sa c lo ses t h is g ap o n ly b y e x p an din g a p ers o n’s a w aren ess.  e on ly w ay t o r es olv e all v io len ce is t o g iv e u p y o u r s to ry. N o o n e c a n b e en li g h ten ed w ho s till h as a p er so n al sta k e i n t h e w orld — th at c o u ld b e th e th ir d a x io m o f A him sa . B ut t h is s e em s li k e a te a ch in g a s ra d ic a l a s Je su s in th e Ser m on o n th e M ou nt w hen h e pro m is e s t h at t h e m eek s h all i n her it t h e earth . In b oth c a se s, t h e p oin t is n ’t to c h an ge y o u r a ctio n s b u t to c h an ge yo u r co n sc io u sn ess . T o d o t h at, y o u m ust w alk a p ath f r o m A t o B , w her e A is a li f e b ase d o n t h e i n ce ss a n t d em an ds o f t h e eg o a n d B i s s e l es s a w aren ess. T o be fr a n k, n ob o d y re a lly d esir e s se l es s a w aren ess; fr o m th e vie w poin t o f lo okin g o u t f o r n u m ber o n e, it s o u n ds a t o n ce sc a ry a n d im poss ib le . W hat’s t h e p ay o ff if y o u d ep ose t h e e g o , w hic h is a ll a b ou t p ay o ff s? O nce th e eg o is g o n e, d o y o u s it a ro u n d p ass iv ely l i k e a s p ir it u al b ean bag ?  e an sw er li e s in th ose m om en ts w hen th e per so n al se lf fa lls aw ay n atu ra lly an d sp on ta n eo u sly .  ese occ u r in m om en ts o f m ed it a tio n o r sim ply d eep co n te n tm en t. Sel es s aw aren ess is th e sta te w e’r e in w hen N atu re or art or m usic cre ates a sen se of w on der.  e on ly d iff er en ce b etw een t h ose m om en ts — to w hic h w e c a n a d d a ll e x p er ien ce s o f c re ativ it y , lo ve, a n d p la y — an d A him sa i s t h at t h ey ic k er i n a n d o u t w hile A him sa i s a s e tt le d s ta te . I t r e v ea ls t h at s to ries a n d t h e eg os t h at f u el t h em a re illu sio n s, s e lf – c re ate d m od els fo r s u rv iv al a n d s e l sh n es s.  e pay o ff fo r A him sa is n ’t t h at y o u u p gra d e t h e illu sio n , w hic h is w hat t h e eg o is a lw ay s s tr iv in g t o d o w it h m ore m on ey, p oss e ss io n s, a n d p ow er .  e pay o ff is th at y o u g et to b e w ho y o u r e a lly a re . H ig h er co n sc io u sn ess is to o lo  y as th e ter m fo r A him sa . N orm al co n sc io u sn ess is m ore a cc u ra te in a w orld w her e th e norm is s o a b n orm al th at it a m ou nts t o p sy ch op ath olo gy. I t’s n ot n orm al t o li v e in a w orld w her e th ou sa n ds o f n u cle ar w arh ea d s a re aim ed a t t h e en em y a n d te rro ris m is a n a cce p ta b le r e li g io u s a ct— th ey a re m erely t h e norm . For m e, th e le g acy o f M arsh all’s li f e lo n g w ork d oes n’t li e in h ow h e re v o lu tio n iz e d th e ro le o f th e m ed ia to r, v alu ab le as th at w as. It li es in th e n ew v alu e s y ste m h e li v ed b y, w hic h i n t r u th i s q u it e an cien t. A him sa h as t o b e r e v iv ed i n e v ery g en era tio n , b ecau se hu m an n atu re is t o rn b et ween p ea ce an d vio le n ce. M arsh all R ose n ber g gav e pro of th at en ter in g th is sta te of ex p an ded a w are n ess w as re a l a n d, w hen it c a m e to s et tli n g d is p u tes , v er y pra ctic a l. H e le av es fo otp rin ts t h at t h e res t o f u s c a n fo llo w . I f w e hav e tr u e se lf – in te re st at h eart, w e w ill fo llo w . It’s th e on ly alt er nativ e in a w orld d esp era te ly s e ek in g w is d om a n d t h e en d o f s tr if e . — Deep ak C hop ra I Ack n ow le d gm en ts ’m g ra te fu l t h at I w as a b le t o s tu dy a n d w ork w it h P ro fe ss o r C arl R oger s at a tim e w hen he w as re se arc h in g th e co m pon en ts of a help in g re la tio n sh ip .  e r e su lt s o f t h is r es earc h p la y ed a k ey r o le in t h e ev o lu tio n o f th e p ro ce ss o f c o m mun ic atio n t h at I w ill b e des crib in g i n t h is b o ok. I w ill b e fo re v er g ra te fu l th at P ro fe ss o r M ic h ael H ak eem h elp ed m e to s e e th e sc ie n ti c li m it a tio n s an d th e so cia l an d poli t ic a l dan ger s of p ra ctic in g p sy ch olo gy in t h e w ay t h at I h ad b een t r a in ed : w it h a p ath olo gy- b ase d u n dersta n din g o f h u m an b ei ngs. S eei ng t h e li m it a tio n s o f t h is m od el stim ula te d m e to s e arc h fo r w ay s o f p ra ctic in g a d iff er en t p sy ch olo gy, o n e base d o n a g ro w in g c la rit y a b ou t h ow w e hu m an b ei ngs w er e m ean t t o l i v e. I’m g ra te fu l, to o, fo r G eo rg e M iller ’s a n d G eo rg e A lb ee’s e ff orts to a ler t psy ch olo gis ts to th e n eed to n d b et ter w ay s fo r “g iv in g p sy ch olo gy a w ay.”  ey h elp ed m e s e e th at th e e n orm it y o f su ff erin g o n o u r p la n et re q u ir es m ore e ff ec tiv e w ay s o f d is tr ib u tin g m uch -n eed ed s k ills th an c a n b e off er ed b y a c li n ic a l a p pro ach . I w ou ld li k e to th an k L u cy L eu fo r e d it in g th is b o ok a n d c re atin g th e n al m an usc rip t; R it a H erz o g a n d K ath y S m it h fo r th ei r e d it in g a ss is ta n ce; a n d, fo r th eir a d dit io n al h elp , D aro ld M illi g an , S o n ia N ord en so n , M ela n ie S ears , B rid get B elg ra v e, M aria n M oore , K it t r e ll M cC ord , V ir g in ia H oyte , a n d P ete r W eis m ille r. F in ally , I w ou ld li k e t o e x p re ss g ra tit u de to m y f r ien d A nn ie M uller . H er en co u ra g em en t t o b e c le are r a b ou t t h e sp ir it u al fo u n datio n o f m y w ork h as str e n gth en ed t h at w ork a n d e n ric h ed m y l i f e . Word s A re W in dow s (o r  ey ’r e W alls ) I f e el s o s e n te n ce d b y y o u r w ord s, I f e el s o j u dged a n d s e n t a w ay, B efo re I g o I ’v e go t t o k n ow , Is t h at w hat y o u m ea n t o s a y? B efo re I r is e to m y d efe n se , B efo re I s p ea k i n h u rt o r f e a r, B efo re I b u ild t h at w all o f w ord s, T ell m e, d id I r e a lly h ea r? W ord s a re w in dow s, o r t h ey’r e w all s ,  ey s e n te n ce us, o r s e t u s f r e e . W hen I s p ea k a n d w hen I h ea r, L et t h e lo ve li g h t s h in e th ro u gh m e.  ere are th in gs I n eed t o s a y,  in gs t h at m ea n s o m uch t o m e, If m y w ord s d on’t m ake m e cle a r, W ill y o u h elp m e to b e fr e e? If I s e e m ed t o p u t y o u d ow n, If y o u f e lt I d id n’t c a re , T ry t o l i s te n t h ro u gh m y w ord s, T o t h e fe eli n gs t h at w e sh are . — Ruth B eb erm ey er 1 Giv in g F ro m t h e H ea rt e H ea rt o f N on vio le n t C om mun ic a tio n W hat I w an t i n m y l i f e is c o m pa ss io n , a fl ow b etw ee n m yse lf a n d o th ers b a se d o n a m utu al g iv in g f r o m t h e hea rt. — Marsh all B . R ose n berg , P hD B I In tr o d u ctio n eli e v in g th at it is ou r natu re to en jo y giv in g an d re ce iv in g in a co m pass io n ate m an ner, I h av e b een p re o cc u pie d m ost o f m y li f e wit h tw o q u estio n s: W hat h ap p en s to d is c o n nect u s fr o m o u r co m pass io n ate n atu re , le a d in g u s to b eh av e v io len tly a n d e x p lo it a tiv ely ? A nd c o n ver se ly , w hat a llo w s s o m e p eo p le to sta y c o n necte d to th ei r c o m pass io n ate natu re u n der e v en t h e m ost t r y in g c ir c u m sta n ce s? M y p re o cc u p atio n w it h t h ese q u es tio n s b eg an in c h ild hood , a ro u n d t h e su m mer o f 1 943, w hen o u r f a m ily m oved t o D etr o it , M ic h ig an .  e se co n d w eek a  er w e a rriv ed , a r a ce w ar e ru pte d o ver a n in cid en t a t a p u bli c p ark . M ore t h an f o rty p eo p le w ere k ille d in t h e nex t f e w d ay s. O ur n eig h borh ood w as s it u ate d i n t h e c e n te r o f t h e v io len ce, a n d w e s p en t t h re e day s lo ck ed i n t h e h ou se . W hen th e r a ce r io t e n ded a n d s c h ool b eg an , I d is c o ver ed th at a n am e co u ld b e a s d an gero u s a s a n y s k in c o lo r. W hen t h e te a ch er c a lle d m y n am e du rin g a tt e n dan ce, t w o b oys g la re d a t m e an d h is s e d , “ A re yo u a k ik e? ” I h ad n ev er h eard th e w ord b efo re an d did n’t k n ow so m e p eo p le u se d it in a d ero gato ry w ay to re fe r to Je w s. A er sc h ool, th e sa m e tw o b oys w er e wait in g f o r m e: t h ey t h re w m e t o t h e gro u n d a n d k ic k ed a n d b eat m e. S in ce th at s u m mer in 1 943, I h av e been e x am in in g th e tw o q u es tio n s I m en tio n ed . W hat em pow ers u s, fo r ex am ple , to sta y co n necte d to ou r co m pass io n ate n atu re e v en u n der t h e w orst c ir c u m sta n ce s? I a m t h in kin g o f p eo p le li k e Ett y H ille su m , w ho rem ain ed co m pass io n ate ev en w hile s u bje c te d to t h e g ro te sq u e c o n dit io n s o f a G er m an c o n ce n tr a tio n c a m p. A s sh e w ro te i n h er j o u rn al a t t h e t im e, a m n ot e a sily f r ig h te n ed . N ot b ecau se I a m b ra v e bu t b ecau se I k n ow th at I a m d ea li n g w it h h u m an b ein gs, a n d t h at I m ust t r y a s h ard a s I c a n t o u n dersta n d e v ery th in g t h at a n yo n e ev er d oes . A nd t h at w as t h e re a l im port o f th is m orn in g: n ot th at a d is g ru ntle d yo u n g G es ta p o offi ce r yelle d at m e, bu t th at I fe lt no in dig n atio n , ra th er a re a l co m pass io n , an d w ou ld hav e li k ed to ask , ‘D id yo u hav e a ver y un hap py c h ild hood , h as y o u r g ir lf r ien d let y o u d ow n?’ Y es , h e lo oked h ara ss e d an d d riv en , su lle n an d w ea k . I sh ou ld h av e li k ed to sta rt tr e atin g h im t h ere a n d t h en , f o r I k n ow t h at p it if u l y o u n g m en l i k e th at a re d an gero u s a s s o on a s t h ey a re l et l o ose on m an kin d. — Ett y H ille su m i n Ett y : A D ia ry 1 941– 1943 W hile s tu dyin g t h e f a cto rs t h at a ff ect o u r a b ili t y t o s ta y c o m pass io n ate , I w as s tr u ck b y t h e c ru cia l r o le o f l a n gu ag e a n d o u r u se of w ord s. I h av e sin ce id en ti ed a sp eci c ap pro ach to co m mun ic atin g— both sp ea k in g an d li s te n in g— th at le a d s u s t o g iv e f r o m t h e heart, c o n nectin g u s w it h o u rs e lv es an d w it h e a ch o th er i n a w ay t h at a llo w s o u r n atu ra l c o m pass io n t o ou ris h . I c a ll t h is a p pro ach N on vio le n t C om mun ic atio n , u sin g t h e te rm non vio le n ce a s G an dh i u se d i t — to r e fe r t o o u r n atu ra l s ta te o f c o m pass io n w hen v io len ce h as s u bsid ed f r o m t h e h eart. W hile w e m ay n ot c o n sid er th e w ay w e t a lk t o b e “v io le n t,” w ord s o  en le a d to h u rt an d p ain , w het her fo r o th er s o r o u rs e lv es. In s o m e c o m mun it ie s, th e pro ce ss I a m d esc rib in g is k n ow n a s C om pass io n ate C om mun ic atio n ; th e ab bre v ia tio n N VC is u se d th ro u gh ou t th is b o ok t o r e fe r t o N on vio le n t o r C om pass io n ate C om mun ic atio n . N VC : a w ay o f c o m mun ic a tin g t h at l e a d s u s t o g iv e f r o m th e h ea rt. A W ay t o F ocu s A tt e n tio n N VC is f o u n ded o n la n gu ag e a n d c o m mun ic atio n s k ills t h at s tr en gth en o u r ab ili t y to r e m ain h u m an , e v en u n der t r y in g c o n dit io n s. It c o n ta in s n oth in g n ew ; a ll th at h as b een in te g ra te d in to N VC h as b een k n ow n fo r c en tu ries .  e in te n t is to re m in d u s a b ou t w hat w e alr e a d y k n ow — ab ou t h ow w e hu m an s w ere m ean t t o r e la te t o o n e an oth er — an d t o a ss is t u s in li v in g in a w ay t h at c o n cre te ly m an if e sts t h is k n ow le d ge. N VC g u id es u s in r e fr a m in g h ow w e ex pres s o u rs e lv es a n d h ear o th er s. In ste a d of hab it u al, au to m atic re a ctio n s, ou r w ord s beco m e co n sc io u s re sp on se s b ase d rm ly o n a w aren ess o f w hat w e are per ce iv in g, f e eli n g, a n d w an tin g. W e a re le d to e x p re ss o u rs e lv es w it h h on esty a n d cla rit y , w hile s im ult a n eo u sly p ay in g o th ers a res pectfu l a n d em path ic a tt en tio n . In a n y ex ch an ge, w e c o m e t o h ear o u r o w n d eep er n eed s a n d t h ose of o th er s. N VC tr a in s u s to o b se rv e ca re fu lly , an d to b e ab le to sp ecif y b eh av io rs an d co n dit io n s th at a re a ff ec tin g u s. W e le arn to id en tif y a n d c le arly a rtic u la te w hat w e a re c o n cre te ly w an tin g in a n y g iv en s it u atio n .  e fo rm is s im ple , y et p ow erfu lly t r a n sfo rm ativ e. A s N VC re p la ce s ou r old patt er ns of defen din g, w it h dra w in g, or att a ck in g in th e fa ce of ju dgm en t an d crit ic is m , w e co m e to per cei ve o u rs e lv es a n d o th ers , a s w ell a s o u r in ten tio n s a n d r e la tio n sh ip s, in a n ew li g h t. R esis ta n ce, d efe n siv en ess , a n d v io len t r e a ctio n s a re m in im iz e d . W hen w e fo cu s o n c la rif y in g w hat is b ein g o b se rv ed , fe lt , a n d n eed ed r a th er t h an o n d ia g n osin g a n d ju dgin g, w e d is c o ver t h e dep th o f o u r o w n c o m pass io n .  ro u gh it s e m ph asis o n d eep li s ten in g— to o u rs e lv es a s w ell a s t o o th er s— N VC fo ste rs re sp ec t, a tt e n tiv en es s, a n d em path y a n d en gen der s a m utu al d esir e t o g iv e f r o m t h e h eart. W e p erc e iv e r e la tio n sh ip s in a n ew li g h t w hen w e u se N VC t o h ea r o u r o w n d eep er n eed s a n d t h os e o f o th ers. A lt h ou gh I r e fe r t o it a s “ a p ro ce ss o f c o m mun ic atio n” o r “ a la n gu ag e of co m pass io n ,” N VC is m ore t h an a p ro ce ss o r a la n gu ag e. O n a d eep er le v el, it i s a n o n go in g r e m in der t o k eep o u r a tt en tio n f o cu se d o n a p la ce w her e w e are m ore l i k ely t o g et w hat w e a re se ek in g.  ere is a s to ry o f a m an o n a ll fo u rs u n der a s tr e et la m p, s e arc h in g fo r so m eth in g. A p oli c e m an p ass in g b y a sk ed w hat h e was d oin g. “ L ookin g fo r m y c a r k ey s,” r e p li e d t h e m an , w ho a p p eare d s li g h tly d ru n k. “ D id y o u d ro p th em h ere ?” in qu ir e d t h e o ffi ce r. “ N o,” a n sw ere d t h e m an , “ I d ro p p ed t h em in t h e a lle y.” S eein g t h e p oli c e m an ’s b affl ed ex pres sio n , t h e m an h asten ed t o e x p la in , “ B ut t h e l i g h t i s m uch b et ter h er e.” I n d t h at m y c u lt u ra l c o n dit io n in g l e a d s m e to f o cu s a tt en tio n o n p la ces w here I a m u n li k ely t o g et w hat I w an t. I d ev elo p ed N VC a s a w ay t o t r a in m y a tt e n tio n — to s h in e th e li g h t o f c o n sc io u sn ess — on p la ces th at h av e th e p ote n tia l t o y ie ld w hat I a m s e ek in g. W hat I w an t i n m y l i f e is c o m pass io n , a ow b etw een m yse lf a n d o th ers b ase d o n a m utu al g iv in g f r o m t h e heart. L et’s s h in e t h e l i g h t o f c o n sc io u sn ess o n p la ce s w here w e ca n h op e t o fi nd w hat w e a re s e ek in g.  is q u ali t y o f c o m pass io n , w hic h I r ef er t o a s “ g iv in g f r o m t h e heart,” i s e x p re ss e d i n t h e f o llo w in g l y ric s b y m y f r ien d R uth B eb er m ey er: I n ev er f e el m ore giv en t o t h an w hen y o u t a ke fr o m m e— when y o u u n dersta n d t h e jo y I f e el g iv in g t o y o u . A nd y o u k n ow m y g iv in g i s n ’t d on e to p u t y o u i n m y d eb t, b u t b eca u se I w an t t o l i v e th e lo ve I f e el f o r y o u . To r e ce iv e w it h g ra ce m ay b e th e gre a te st g iv in g.  ere’s n o w ay I c a n s e p ara te th e tw o. W hen y o u g iv e to m e, I g iv e yo u m y r e ce iv in g. W hen y o u t a ke fr o m m e, I f e el s o g iv en t o . — “G iv en T o” ( 1 978) b y R uth B eb erm ey er f r o m t h e a lb u m Giv en T o W hen w e g iv e f r o m t h e h eart, w e do s o o u t o f t h e jo y t h at s p rin gs f o rth w hen ev er w e w illi n gly en ric h an oth er p er so n’s li f e .  is k in d o f giv in g ben e ts b oth t h e g iv er a n d t h e r e ce iv er .  e re ce iv er en jo ys t h e gi w it h ou t w orr y in g a b ou t th e c o n se q u en ces th at a cco m pan y g i s g iv en o u t o f fe ar, g u ilt , s h am e, o r d esir e fo r g ain .  e giv er b en ets fr o m th e en han ce d s e lf – e ste em t h at r e su lt s w hen w e s e e o u r eff orts c o n tr ib u tin g to s o m eo n e’s w ell- b ein g.  e u se o f N VC d oes n ot re q u ir e th at th e per so n s w it h w hom w e are c o m mun ic atin g be li t e ra te in N VC or ev en m otiv ate d to re la te to us co m pass io n ate ly . I f w e s ta y w it h t h e prin cip les o f N VC, s ta y m otiv ate d s o le ly t o g iv e a n d r e ce iv e c o m pass io n ate ly , a n d d o e v er yth in g w e ca n t o let o th er s kn ow t h is i s o u r o n ly m otiv e, t h ey w ill j o in u s i n t h e pro ce ss , a n d e v en tu ally w e w ill b e a b le to r e sp on d c o m pass io n ate ly to o n e a n oth er . I’m n ot s a y in g th at th is a lw ay s h ap p en s q u ic k ly . I d o m ain ta in , h ow ev er , th at c o m pass io n in ev it a b ly b lo ss o m s w hen w e s ta y t r u e t o t h e prin cip les a n d p ro ces s o f N VC. e N VC P ro ce ss T o a rriv e a t a m utu al d esir e to g iv e fr o m th e heart, w e fo cu s th e li g h t o f co n sc io u sn ess o n fo u r are a s— ref er re d to as th e fo u r co m pon en ts o f th e N VC m od el. F ir st, w e o b se rv e w hat is a ctu ally h ap p en in g in a s it u atio n : w hat a re we ob se rv in g o th ers s a y in g o r d oin g th at is e it h er e n ric h in g o r n ot en ric h in g ou r li f e ?  e tr ic k is to be ab le to artic u la te th is ob ser vatio n w it h ou t in tr o du cin g an y ju dgm en t o r ev alu atio n — to sim ply sa y w hat p eo p le are d oin g th at w e e it h er li k e o r d on’t li k e. N ex t, w e sta te h ow w e fe el w hen w e ob se rv e th is actio n : are w e h u rt, sc a re d , jo yfu l, am use d , ir rit a te d ? A nd th ir d ly , w e sa y w hat n eed s o f o u rs a re co n necte d to th e fe eli n gs w e hav e id en ti ed . A n a w are n ess o f t h ese t h re e co m pon en ts is p res en t w hen w e use N VC t o c le arly a n d h on estly e x p res s h ow w e are . F ou r c o m pon en ts o f N VC : 1. o b se r v atio n s 2. f e eli n gs 3 . n eed s 4. r e q u ests F or e x am ple , a m oth er m ig h t e x p res s th es e th re e pie ce s to h er te en ag e so n b y s a y in g, “ F eli x , w hen I s e e tw o b alls o f s o ile d s o ck s u n der th e co ff ee ta b le a n d a n oth er t h re e n ex t t o t h e TV, I f e el ir rit a te d b ecau se I a m n eed in g m ore o rd er i n t h e r o om s t h at w e sh are in c o m mon .” S h e w ou ld fo llo w im med ia te ly w it h th e fo u rth co m pon en t— a ver y sp eci c r e q u est: “ W ou ld y o u b e w illi n g t o p u t y o u r s o ck s i n y o u r r o om o r i n t h e w ash in g m ach in e?”  is fo u rth co m pon en t ad dres ses w hat w e are w an tin g f r o m t h e o th er p ers o n t h at w ou ld e n ric h o u r l i v es o r m ak e li f e m ore w on derfu l f o r u s.  us, p art o f N VC is to e x p re ss th es e fo u r p ie ce s o f in fo rm atio n v er y cle arly , w heth er verb ally or by oth er m ean s.  e oth er part of th is c o m mun ic atio n c o n sis ts o f re cei vin g th e sa m e fo u r p ie ce s o f in fo rm atio n fr o m o th ers . W e c o n nec t w it h t h em b y rst s en sin g w hat t h ey a re ob ser vin g, fe eli n g, a n d n eed in g; th en w e d is c o ver w hat w ou ld en ric h th ei r li v es b y re ce iv in g t h e f o u rth p ie ce — th eir r e q u es t. A s w e k eep o u r att e n tio n fo cu se d o n th e are a s m en tio n ed , an d h elp o th ers d o li k ew is e , w e e sta b li s h a ow o f c o m mun ic atio n , b ack a n d fo rth , until co m pass io n m an if e sts n atu ra lly : w hat I am o b ser vin g, fe eli n g, an d need in g; w hat I a m re q u estin g to e n ric h m y li f e; w hat y o u a re ob ser vin g, fe eli n g, a n d n eed in g; w hat y o u a re re q u es tin g t o en ric h y o u r l i f e … N VC P ro ce ss  e c o n cre te a ctio n s w e o b se rv e t h at a ff ect o u r w ell- b ein g H ow w e fe el i n r e la tio n t o w hat w e o b se r v e  e n eed s, v a lu es, d esir e s, e tc . t h at c re a te o u r f e eli n gs  e c o n cre te a ctio n s w e re q u est i n o rd er t o e n ric h o u r l i v es W hen w e u se t h is p ro ce ss , w e m ay b eg in ei th er b y ex pres sin g o u rs e lv es o r b y em path ic a lly re ce iv in g th ese fo u r pie ce s of in fo rm atio n fr o m oth er s. A lt h ou gh w e w ill le arn to li s te n fo r an d ver bally ex pres s ea ch o f th es e co m pon en ts in C hap te rs 3 – 6, it is im porta n t to k eep in m in d th at N VC is n ot a s e t f o rm ula , b u t s o m eth in g t h at a d ap ts t o v ario u s s it u atio n s a s w ell a s p ers o n al an d cu lt u ra l sty le s. W hile I co n ven ien tly ref er to N VC as a “p ro ce ss” o r “la n gu ag e,” it is p oss ib le to e x p er ien ce a ll fo u r p ie ces o f th e pro ce ss w it h ou t u tt e rin g a sin gle word .  e ess e n ce of N VC is in ou r co n sc io u sn ess o f th e fo u r co m pon en ts , n ot in th e actu al w ord s th at are e x ch an ged . T w o p arts o f N VC : 1. e x p re ssin g h on estly t h ro u gh t he f o u r c o m pon en ts 2. r e ce iv in g e m path ic a lly t h ro u gh t h e f o u r c o m pon en ts W App ly in g N VC i n O ur L iv es a n d t h e W orld W hen w e use N VC in ou r in ter actio n s— wit h ou rs e lv es , w it h an oth er p ers o n , or in a gro u p — we beco m e gro u n ded in ou r natu ra l sta te of co m pass io n . I t is t h ere fo re a n a p pro ach t h at c a n b e eff ectiv ely a p p li e d a t a ll le v els o f c o m mun ic atio n a n d i n d iv er se sit u atio n s: in tim ate r e la tio n sh ip s fa m ili e s sc h ools o rg an iz atio n s a n d i n stit u tio n s th era p y a n d c o u n se li n g r e la tio n sh ip s d ip lo m atic a n d b u sin ess n eg o tia tio n s dis p u te s a n d c o n ic ts o f a n y n atu re S o m e p eo p le u se N VC to cre ate gre ate r d ep th an d ca rin g in th ei r in tim ate r e la tio n sh ip s: h en I l e arn ed h ow I c a n r e ce iv e ( h ear), a s w ell a s g iv e (ex pres s), th ro u gh usin g N VC, I w en t bey o n d fe eli n g att a ck ed an d ‘d oorm att is h ’ to re a lly li s te n in g to word s an d ex tr a ctin g th ei r un derly in g fe eli n gs. I d is c o vere d a v er y h u rtin g m an to w hom I h ad b een m arrie d f o r t w en ty -e ig h t y ears . H e had a sk ed m e f o r a d iv o rc e th e w eek en d b efo re th e [ N VC] w ork sh op. T o m ak e a lo n g s to ry s h ort, w e are h ere t o d ay — to geth er, a n d I a p pre cia te t h e co n tr ib u tio n [ N VC h as] m ad e t o o u r h ap py e n din g… . I le arn ed t o li s ten f o r f e eli n gs, t o ex pres s m y n eed s, t o a cce p t a n sw ers t h at I d id n’t a lw ay s w an t t o h ear. H e is n ot h ere t o m ak e m e h ap py, n or a m I h er e to c re ate h ap pin es s f o r h im . W e hav e b oth l e arn ed t o g ro w , t o a cce p t, a n d t o l o ve, s o t h at w e ca n e a ch b e fu l lle d . — a w ork sh op p artic ip an t i n S an D ie g o , C ali f o rn ia O th ers u se i t t o b u ild m ore e ff ectiv e re la tio n sh ip s a t w ork : I h av e b een u sin g N VC in m y sp ecia l e d u catio n c la ss ro om fo r a b ou t on e y ear. It c a n w ork e v en w it h c h ild ren w ho h av e la n gu ag e d ela y s, I le arn in g diffi cu lt ie s, an d beh av io r pro blem s. O ne stu den t in ou r cla ss ro om s p it s , s w ears , s c re am s, a n d s ta b s o th er s tu den ts w it h p en cils w hen th ey g et n ear h is d esk . I c u e him w it h , ‘P le a se sa y th at a n oth er w ay. U se y o u r g ir a ff e t a lk .’ [ G ir a ff e pu pp et s a re use d i n s o m e w ork sh op s as a te a ch in g aid to d em on str a te NVC.] H e im med ia te ly sta n ds u p str a ig h t, lo oks a t th e p ers o n to w ard w hom h is a n ger is d ir e cte d , a n d sa y s c a lm ly , ‘W ou ld y o u p le a se m ove aw ay f r o m m y d es k? I fe el a n gry w hen y o u s ta n d s o c lo se t o m e.’  e oth er s tu den ts m ig h t r es pon d w it h s o m eth in g l i k e, ‘S o rr y ! I f o rg o t i t b oth er s y o u .’ I b eg an to th in k a b ou t m y fr u str a tio n w it h th is c h ild a n d to tr y to d is c o ver w hat I n eed ed fr o m h im (b es id es h arm on y an d o rd er ). I re a li z e d h ow m uch tim e I h ad p u t in to le ss o n p la n nin g a n d h ow m y need s fo r cre ativ it y an d co n tr ib u tio n w er e bei ng sh ort- c ir c u it e d in o rd er t o m an ag e b eh av io r. A ls o , I f e lt I w as n ot m eetin g t h e ed u catio n al n eed s o f t h e o th er s tu den ts . W hen h e w as a ctin g o u t i n c la ss , I b eg an t o s a y, ‘I n eed y o u to s h are m y a tt e n tio n .’ It m ig h t t a k e a h u n dre d c u es a d ay, b u t h e g o t th e m ess a g e an d w ou ld u su ally g et in vo lv ed in th e le ss o n . — a t e a ch er i n C hic a g o , I lli n ois A d octo r w rit e s: u se N VC m ore a n d m ore in m y m ed ic a l p ra ctic e. S o m e p atien ts a sk m e w heth er I a m a p sy ch olo gis t, s a y in g t h at u su ally t h ei r d octo rs a re n ot i n te re ste d i n t h e w ay t h ey l i v e th ei r l i v es o r d ea l w it h t h ei r d is e a ses . NVC h elp s m e u n dersta n d w hat p atien ts ’ n eed s a re an d w hat t h ey n eed to h ear a t a g iv en m om en t. I n d t h is p artic u la rly h elp fu l i n r e la tin g t o p atie n ts w it h h em op h ili a a n d A ID S b ecau se th er e is s o m uch a n ger a n d pain t h at t h e p atie n t/ h ea lt h c a re- pro vid er r e la tio n sh ip i s o  en s er io u sly i m pair e d . R ece n tly a w om an w it h A ID S, w hom I h av e been t r e atin g f o r th e p ast ve y ears , t o ld m e t h at w hat h as h elp ed h er t h e m ost h av e been m y a tt e m pts t o n d w ay s f o r h er t o e n jo y h er d aily li f e . M y u se of N VC help s m e a lo t in th is re sp ec t. O en in th e past, w hen I k n ew th at a p atie n t h ad a f a ta l d is e a se , I m yse lf w ou ld g et c au gh t in t h e pro gn osis , a n d it w as h ard fo r m e to s in ce re ly e n co u ra g e th em to li v e th ei r li v es . W it h N VC, I h av e d ev elo p ed a n ew c o n sc io u sn ess a s w ell a s a n ew la n gu ag e. I a m a m aze d to se e h ow m uch it ts in w it h m y m ed ic a l p ra ctic e. I fe el m ore en erg y an d jo y in m y w ork as I beco m e in cre a sin gly e n gag ed i n t h e d an ce of N VC. — a p hysic ia n i n P aris , F ra n ce S till o th ers u se th is p ro ce ss in th e poli t ic a l aren a. A F ren ch ca b in et m em ber vis it in g h er sis te r re m ark ed h ow d iff er en tly th e sis ter an d h er hu sb an d w ere c o m mun ic atin g a n d r es pon din g t o e a ch o th er . E nco u ra g ed b y th eir desc rip tio n s of N VC, sh e men tio n ed th at sh e was sc h ed u le d th e fo llo w in g w eek to neg o tia te so m e sen sit iv e is su es bet ween Fra n ce an d A lg eria re g ard in g ad op tio n pro ce d u res .  ou gh tim e was li m it e d , w e dis p atc h ed a F re n ch -s p ea k in g tr a in er to P aris to w ork w it h th e ca b in et m in is te r.  e m in is te r la te r att r ib u te d m uch of th e su cces s of her n eg o tia tio n s i n A lg eria t o h er n ew ly a cq u ir e d c o m mun ic atio n t e ch n iq u es . In J e ru sa le m , d u rin g a w ork sh op a tt en ded b y I s r a eli s o f v ary in g p oli t ic a l p ersu asio n s, p artic ip an ts u se d N VC to ex pres s th em se lv es reg ard in g th e h ig h ly c o n te ste d is su e o f th e W est B an k. M an y o f th e Is r a eli set tler s w ho h av e e sta b li s h ed t h em se lv es o n t h e W est B an k b eli e v e th at t h ey a re fu l lli n g a re li g io u s m an date b y d oin g s o , a n d th ey a re lo ck ed in c o n ic t n ot o n ly w it h P ale stin ia n s b u t a ls o w it h o th er I s r a eli s w ho r e co gn iz e t h e Pales tin ia n h op e fo r n atio n al so vere ig n ty in th e reg io n . D urin g a ses sio n , o n e of m y tr a in ers a n d I m od ele d e m path ic h earin g th ro u gh N VC a n d th en in vit e d p artic ip an ts to ta k e tu rn s ro le -p la y in g e a ch o th er ’s p osit io n . A er tw en ty m in ute s, a se tt le r an nou n ce d th at sh e wou ld be willi n g to co n sid er re li n qu is h in g her la n d cla im s an d m ovin g ou t of th e West B an k in to in te rn atio n ally r e co gn iz e d Is r a eli ter rit o ry if h er p oli t ic a l o p p on en ts c o u ld li s te n t o h er i n t h e w ay s h e h ad j u st b een l i s ten ed t o . W orld w id e, N VC n ow se rv es a s a v alu ab le res ou rc e fo r c o m mun it ies f a cin g v io le n t c o n ic ts a n d s e v ere et hn ic , r e li g io u s, o r p oli t ic a l t en sio n s.  e sp re a d o f N VC tr a in in g a n d it s u se in m ed ia tio n b y p eo p le in c o n ic t in I s r a el, th e Pale stin ia n Auth orit y , N ig eria , Rw an da, Sier ra Leo n e, an d els e w here hav e been a so u rc e of partic u la r gra ti catio n fo r m e. M y ass o cia te s a n d I w ere o n ce i n B elg ra d e f o r t h re e hig h ly c h arg ed d ay s t r a in in g cit iz e n s w ork in g fo r p ea ce. W hen w e rst a rriv ed , e x p res sio n s o f d es pair w ere vis ib ly etc h ed on th e tr a in ees ’ fa ces , fo r th ei r co u ntr y w as th en en m esh ed i n a b ru ta l w ar i n B osn ia a n d C ro atia . A s t h e tr a in in g p ro gres se d , we h eard th e r in g o f la u gh te r in th ei r v o ic e s a s th ey s h are d th ei r p ro fo u n d gra tit u de a n d jo y fo r h av in g fo u n d th e em pow er m en t th ey w er e se ek in g. O ver t h e n ex t tw o w eek s, d u rin g t r a in in gs in C ro atia , I s r a el, a n d P ales tin e, w e a g ain s a w d esp era te c it iz e n s in w ar- to rn c o u ntr ies r eg ain in g t h ei r s p ir it s a n d c o n den ce f r o m t h e N VC t r a in in g t h ey r e ce iv ed . I f e el b le ss e d t o b e a b le t o t r a v el t h ro u gh ou t t h e world t e a ch in g p eo p le a pro ce ss o f c o m mun ic atio n th at g iv es th em p ow er a n d jo y. N ow , w it h th is b o ok, I a m p le a se d a n d e x cit e d t o b e ab le to s h are th e ric h n es s o f N on vio len t Com mun ic atio n w it h y o u . Su m mary N VC h elp s u s c o n nec t w it h e a ch o th er a n d o u rs e lv es in a w ay th at a llo w s ou r n atu ra l co m pass io n to ou ris h . It g u id es u s to ref ra m e th e way w e ex p re ss o u rs e lv es a n d li s te n t o o th er s b y f o cu sin g o u r c o n sc io u sn es s o n f o u r are a s: w hat w e are ob se rv in g, fe eli n g, an d need in g, an d w hat w e are r e q u estin g to en ric h o u r li v es. N VC fo ster s d eep li s ten in g, res pect, an d em path y a n d e n gen ders a m utu al d esir e to g iv e fr o m t h e heart. S o m e peo p le u se N VC to r e sp on d c o m pass io n ate ly to t h em se lv es , s o m e to c re ate gre ater d ep th in th eir p ers o n al re la tio n sh ip s, an d still oth er s to bu ild eff ectiv e re la tio n sh ip s a t w ork o r in th e p oli t ic a l a ren a. W orld w id e, N VC is u se d to m ed ia te d is p u te s a n d c o n ic ts a t a ll l e v els . N VC i n A ctio n In te rsp erse d th ro u gh ou t th e book a re dia lo gu es e n tit le d N VC in A ctio n .  ese dia lo gu es in te n d to im part th e flavo r o f a n a ctu al ex ch an ge in w hic h a s p ea ker i s a pp ly in g t h e prin cip le s o f N on vio le n t C om munic a tio n . H ow ev er, N VC is n ot s im ply a la n gu age or a s e t o f te ch n iq u es fo r u sin g w ord s; th e co n sc io u sn ess a n d in te n t th at it e m bra ce s m ay b e ex p re ss e d th ro u gh sile n ce , a qu ali t y of pre se n ce , as well as th ro u gh fa cia l ex p re ssio n s a n d b od y la n gu age.  e N VC i n A ctio n d ia lo gu es y o u w ill b e re a d in g are nece ss a rily dis tille d an d ab rid ged versio n s of re a l- li f e e x ch an ges, w here mom en ts o f sile n t em path y, sto rie s, h u m or, g estu re s, a n d m ore wou ld a ll co n tr ib u te to a m ore natu ra l fl ow o f co n n ectio n b etw ee n th e tw o p artie s th an m ig h t b e app are n t w hen d ia lo gu es a re c o n den se d i n p rin t. “ M urd ere r, A ss a ssin , C hild -K ille r!” I w as p re se n tin g N on vio le n t C om mun ic atio n t o a b ou t 1 70 P ales tin ia n M usli m m en in a m osq u e a t D hei sh eh R ef ugee C am p in B et hle h em . Att it u des to w ard A m eric a n s a t th at tim e wer e not fa v o ra b le . A s I w as sp ea k in g, I s u dden ly n otic e d a w av e of m uffl ed c o m motio n utt er in g th ro u gh t h e a u die n ce. “  ey ’r e w his p er in g t h at y o u a re A m eric a n !” m y tr a n sla to r a le rte d m e, ju st a s a g en tlem an in th e au dien ce le ap t to h is f e et. Facin g m e sq u are ly , he holler ed at th e to p of his lu n gs, “ M urd ere r!” Im med ia te ly a d ozen o th er v o ic e s jo in ed h im in c h oru s: “A ss a ss in !” “ C hild -k ille r!” “ M urd er er !” F ortu n ate ly , I w as a b le to fo cu s m y a tt en tio n o n w hat th e m an w as fe eli n g a n d n eed in g. I n t h is c a se , I h ad s o m e c u es . O n t h e w ay i n to t h e re fu gee c a m p, I h ad s e en s e v era l em pty t e ar g as c a n is ter s t h at h ad b een sh ot in to th e c a m p th e n ig h t b efo re . C le arly m ark ed o n e a ch c a n is ter w ere t h e w ord s M ad e in U .S .A . I k n ew t h at t h e r e fu gees h arb ore d a lo t of an ger to w ard th e U nit e d S ta tes fo r su pp ly in g te ar g as an d o th er w eap on s t o I s r a el. I a d dre ss e d t h e m an w ho h ad c a lle d m e a m urd er er : M BR : A re y o u a n gry b ecau se y o u w ou ld li k e m y g o ver nm en t t o u se it s r e so u rc e s d iff ere n tly ? (I d id n’t k n ow w heth er m y g u ess w as c o rre ct — what w as crit ic a l w as m y sin ce re eff ort to co n n ect w it h h is fe eli n g a n d n eed .) M an : D am n rig h t I’m a n gry ! Y ou th in k w e need te ar g as? W e need se w ers , n ot y o u r t e ar g as! W e n eed h ou sin g! W e need t o h av e ou r ow n c o u ntr y ! M BR : So yo u ’r e fu rio u s an d w ou ld ap pre cia te so m e su pp ort in i m pro vin g yo u r li v in g co n dit io n s an d gain in g poli t ic a l in dep en den ce ? M an : D o y o u k n ow w hat i t ’s l i k e t o l i v e her e fo r t w en ty -s e v en y ears t h e w ay I h av e w it h m y fa m ily — ch ild ren a n d a ll? H av e yo u g o t th e fa in te st i d ea w hat t h at’s b een l i k e f o r u s? M BR : S o u n ds li k e y o u ’r e fe eli n g v er y d esp er ate a n d y o u ’r e won der in g w heth er I o r a n yb o d y e ls e c a n r e a lly u n dersta n d w hat it ’s li k e t o b e l i v in g u n der t h ese c o n dit io n s. A m I h earin g y o u r ig h t? M an : Y ou w an t t o u n dersta n d? T ell m e, d o y o u h av e ch ild ren ? D o t h ey g o to sc h ool? D o th ey h av e p la y g ro u n ds? M y so n is sic k ! H e pla y s in o p en se w ag e! H is c la ss ro om h as n o b o oks! H av e yo u se en a s c h ool t h at h as n o b o oks? M BR : I h ear h ow p ain fu l it i s f o r y o u t o r a is e yo u r c h ild ren h er e; y o u ’d l i k e m e t o k n ow t h at w hat y o u w an t is w hat a ll p aren ts w an t f o r th eir c h ild re n — a g o od e d u catio n , o p p ortu n it y t o p la y a n d g ro w in a h ea lt h y e n vir o n m en t … M an :  at’s rig h t, th e basic s! H um an rig h ts — is n ’t th at w hat yo u A m eric a n s c a ll it ? W hy d on’t m ore of y o u c o m e her e an d se e w hat k in d o f h u m an r ig h ts y o u ’r e brin gin g h er e! M BR : Y ou ’d li k e m ore A m eric a n s to b e aw are of th e en orm it y o f th e su ff erin g h ere a n d to lo ok m ore deep ly a t th e co n se q u en ce s o f o u r p oli t ic a l a ctio n s? O ur d ia lo gu e co n tin u ed , w it h h im ex p res sin g h is p ain fo r n early t w en ty m ore m in ute s, a n d m e l i s ten in g f o r t h e fe eli n g a n d n eed b eh in d ea ch s ta te m en t. I d id n’t a g re e o r d is a g re e. I r e ce iv ed h is w ord s, n ot a s att a ck s, b u t a s g i s f r o m a fe llo w h u m an w illi n g to s h are his s o u l a n d deep v u ln era b ili t ie s w it h m e. O nce t h e g en tle m an f e lt u n dersto od , h e was a b le to h ear m e e x p la in m y p u rp ose fo r b ein g a t th e c a m p. A n h ou r la te r, th e sa m e m an w ho h ad c a lle d m e a m urd ere r w as in vit in g m e to h is h om e f o r a R am ad an d in ner. I 2 Com munic a tio n  at B lo ck s C om pa ssio n D o n ot j u dge, a n d y o u w ill n ot b e j u dged . F or a s y o u j u dge oth ers, s o y o u w ill y o u rse lv es b e ju dged … — Holy B ib le , M att h ew 7 :1 n s tu dyin g th e q u estio n o f w hat a li en ates u s fr o m o u r n atu ra l I s ta te of co m pass io n , I hav e id en ti ed sp eci c fo rm s of la n gu ag e an d co m mun ic atio n th at I b eli e v e c o n tr ib u te to o u r b eh av in g v io len tly to w ard e a ch o th er a n d o u rs e lv es. I u se th e ter m li f e- ali e n atin g co m munic a tio n to r e fe r t o t h ese f o rm s o f c o m mun ic atio n . C erta in w ay s o f co m mun ic a tin g a li e n ate u s fr o m o u r n atu ra l s ta te o f c o m passio n . Mora li s tic J u dgm en ts O ne k in d o f l i f e -a li e n atin g c o m mun ic atio n i s t h e use of m ora li s tic j u dgm en ts t h at im ply w ro n gn ess o r b ad n ess o n th e part o f p eo p le who d on’t a ct in h arm on y w it h o u r v alu es. S u ch ju dgm en ts a re re ecte d in la n gu ag e: “  e pro ble m w it h y o u i s t h at y o u ’r e t o o s e l sh .” “ S h e’s l a zy.” “  ey ’r e prej udic e d .” “ It’s in ap pro p ria te .” Bla m e, in su lt s , pu t- d ow ns, la b els , crit ic is m , co m paris o n s, a n d d ia g n ose s a re a ll f o rm s o f j u dgm en t.  e S u p oet R um i o n ce w ro te , “ O ut b ey o n d id ea s o f w ro n gd oin g a n d rig h t- d oin g, th ere is a eld . I’l l meet yo u th er e.” Lif e- ali en atin g co m mun ic atio n , h ow ev er, tr a p s u s in a w orld o f id ea s a b ou t r ig h tn es s a n d w ro n gn ess — a w orld o f ju dgm en ts . It is a la n gu ag e ric h w it h w ord s th at cla ss if y an d d ic h oto m iz e p eo p le an d th ei r actio n s. W hen w e sp ea k th is la n gu ag e, w e ju dge o th ers a n d t h ei r b eh av io r w hile p re o cc u pyin g o u rs e lv es w it h w ho’s g o od , b ad , n orm al, a b n orm al, r es pon sib le , ir res pon sib le , s m art, ig n ora n t, e tc . In t h e w orld o f j u dgm en ts , o u r c o n ce rn c e n te rs o n “ w ho is w hat.” L on g befo re I re a ch ed ad u lt h ood , I le arn ed to co m mun ic ate in an im pers o n al w ay t h at d id n ot r e q u ir e m e t o r e v ea l w hat w as g o in g o n in sid e m yse lf . W hen I e n co u nte re d p eo p le or b eh av io rs I ei th er d id n’t l i k e or d id n’t u n dersta n d, I w ou ld re a ct in ter m s of th ei r w ro n gn es s. If m y te a ch er s ass ig n ed a ta sk I d id n’t w an t to d o, th ey w er e “m ean ” o r “ u n re a so n ab le .” If s o m eo n e p u lle d o u t in fr o n t o f m e in tr a ffi c, m y re a ctio n w ou ld b e, “ Y ou id io t!” W hen w e s p ea k t h is l a n gu ag e, w e t h in k a n d c o m mun ic ate in t er m s o f w hat’s w ro n g w it h o th ers fo r b eh av in g in ce rta in w ay s o r, o cc a sio n ally , w hat’s w ro n g w it h o u rs e lv es fo r n ot u n dersta n din g o r res pon din g as w e wou ld li k e. O ur att e n tio n is fo cu se d on cla ss if y in g, an aly zin g, an d dete rm in in g le v els o f w ro n gn ess r a th er th an o n w hat w e a n d o th er s n eed a n d a re n ot g ett in g.  us i f m y p artn er w an ts m ore aff ectio n t h an I ’m g iv in g her, s h e is “ n eed y a n d d ep en den t.” B ut if I w an t m ore aff ectio n th an s h e is g iv in g m e, th en sh e is “a lo of an d in sen sit iv e.” If m y co lle a g u e is m ore co n ce rn ed a b ou t d eta ils th an I a m , h e is “p ic k y a n d c o m pu ls iv e.” O n th e oth er h an d, if I a m m ore c o n ce rn ed a b ou t d et ails th an h e is , h e is “ s lo p py an d d is o rg an iz e d .” A naly se s o f o th ers a re a ctu ally e x p re ssio n s o f o u r o w n need s a n d v a lu es. It is m y b eli e f th at a ll su ch a n aly ses o f o th er h u m an b ei ngs a re tr a g ic e x p re ss io n s o f o u r o w n v alu es a n d n eed s.  ey a re tr a g ic b ecau se when w e ex p re ss o u r v alu es a n d n eed s in th is fo rm , w e in cre a se def en siv en ess a n d re sis ta n ce a m on g t h e v ery p eo p le whose beh av io rs a re of c o n ce rn t o u s. O r, if p eo p le d o a g re e to a ct in h arm on y w it h o u r v alu es , t h ey w ill li k ely d o s o o u t o f fe ar, g u ilt , o r s h am e b ecau se th ey c o n cu r w it h o u r a n aly sis o f th ei r wro n gn ess . W e a ll p ay d early w hen p eo p le r es pon d t o o u r v alu es a n d n eed s n ot o u t of a d esir e t o g iv e f r o m t h e h eart, b u t o u t o f f e ar, g u ilt , o r s h am e. S o on er o r la te r, w e w ill e x p erie n ce th e c o n se q u en ce s o f d im in is h ed g o od w ill o n th e part o f t h ose w ho c o m ply w it h o u r v alu es o u t o f a s en se of e it h er ex ter nal o r in te rn al co erc io n .  ey, to o, p ay em otio n ally , fo r th ey are li k ely to fe el re se n tm en t a n d d ecre a se d s e lf – es te em w hen th ey r es pon d to u s o u t o f fe ar, g u ilt , o r s h am e. F u rth erm ore , e a ch tim e oth er s a ss o cia te u s in th ei r m in ds w it h an y of th ose fe eli n gs, th e li k eli h ood of th ei r res pon din g co m pass io n ate ly t o o u r n eed s a n d v alu es i n t h e fu tu re decre a ses . It is im porta n t h ere n ot to co n fu se v a lu e ju dgm en ts an d m ora li s tic ju dgm en ts . A ll o f u s m ak e v a lu e ju dgm en ts a s t o t h e q u ali t ie s w e v alu e i n l i f e; fo r e x am ple , w e m ig h t v alu e h on es ty , fr e ed om , o r p ea ce. V alu e ju dgm en ts r e ec t ou r beli e fs of h ow li f e ca n bes t be ser ved . W e m ak e m ora li s tic ju dgm en ts o f p eo p le a n d b eh av io rs t h at f a il t o s u pp ort o u r v alu e ju dgm en ts ; fo r e x am ple , “ V io le n ce is b ad . P eo p le who k ill o th er s a re ev il.” H ad w e been ra is e d s p ea k in g a la n gu ag e t h at f a cili t a te d t h e ex pres sio n o f c o m pass io n , w e wou ld h av e l e arn ed t o a rtic u la te o u r n eed s a n d v alu es d ir e ctly , r a th er t h an t o in sin u ate w ro n gn ess w hen t h ey h av e not b een m et. F or ex am ple , in ste a d o f “V io le n ce is b ad ,” w e m ig h t s a y in ste a d , “ I a m fe arfu l o f t h e use of v io len ce to r e so lv e c o n ic ts ; I v alu e t h e r es olu tio n o f h u m an c o n ic ts t h ro u gh o th er m ean s.” e re la tio n sh ip betw een la n gu ag e an d vio len ce is th e su bje ct of p sy ch olo gy p ro fe ss o r O .J . H arv ey ’s res earc h a t th e Univ er sit y o f C olo ra d o. H e t o ok r a n dom s a m ple s o f p ie ce s o f l i t er atu re fr o m m an y c o u ntr ies a ro u n d th e w orld an d ta b u la te d th e fr e q u en cy o f w ord s th at cla ss if y an d ju dge p eo p le . H is stu dy sh ow s a h ig h c o rre la tio n b et ween fr e q u en t u se of su ch w ord s a n d f r e q u en cy o f i n cid en ts . I t d oes n ot s u rp ris e m e t o h ear t h at t h er e is co n sid era b ly le ss v io le n ce in cu lt u res w her e peo p le th in k in ter m s o f h u m an n eed s t h an in c u lt u re s w her e peo p le la b el o n e a n oth er a s “ g o od” o r “b ad ” a n d b eli e v e t h at t h e “ b ad ” o n es d es er ve to b e pu n is h ed . I n 7 5 p er cen t of t h e t e le v is io n p ro gra m s s h ow n d u rin g h ou rs w hen A m eric a n c h ild ren a re m ost li k ely to b e w atc h in g, th e her o eit h er k ills p eo p le o r b eats th em u p.  is v io le n ce t y p ic a lly c o n stit u te s t h e “c li m ax ” o f t h e sh ow . V ie w er s, h av in g been t a u gh t t h at b ad g u ys d ese rv e to b e pu n is h ed , t a k e ple a su re in w atc h in g th is v io le n ce. C la ssif y in g a n d j u dgin g p eo p le p ro m ote s v io le n ce . A t t h e r o ot o f m uch , if n ot a ll, v io len ce — whet her v er bal, p sy ch olo gic a l, o r p hysic a l, w heth er a m on g f a m ily m em ber s, t r ib es , o r n atio n s— is a k in d o f th in kin g th at att r ib u te s th e cau se of co n ic t to w ro n gn es s in on e’s a d vers a rie s, a n d a c o rre sp on din g in ab ili t y to th in k o f o n es elf o r o th er s in t e rm s o f v u ln era b ili t y — th at is , w hat o n e m ig h t b e fe eli n g, f e arin g, y earn in g fo r, m is s in g, e tc . W e s a w th is d an gero u s w ay o f th in kin g d u rin g th e Cold W ar. O ur le a d ers v ie w ed t h e U .S .S .R . a s a n “ e v il em pir e ” b en t o n d es tr o yin g th e A m eric a n w ay o f li f e . S o vie t le a d ers r ef er re d t o t h e peo p le of t h e U nit e d S ta te s as “im peria li s t op pre ss o rs” w ho w er e tr y in g to su bju gate th em . Neit h er s id e a ck n ow le d ged t h e f e ar l u rk in g b eh in d s u ch l a b els . Mak in g C om paris o n s A noth er fo rm o f ju dgm en t is th e use of c o m paris o n s. In h is b o ok H ow to M ake You rse lf M is e ra b le , D an G re en bu rg d em on str a te s th ro u gh h u m or th e in sid io u s p ow er th at c o m para tiv e th in kin g c a n ex ert o ver u s. H e su gges ts t h at if r e a d ers h av e a s in ce re d esir e to m ak e li f e m is er ab le fo r th em se lv es , th ey m ig h t le arn to co m pare th em se lv es to oth er peo p le . For th ose u n fa m ili a r w it h th is p ra ctic e, h e pro vid es a fe w ex ercis es .  e rst o n e dis p la y s fu ll- le n gth p ic tu re s o f a m an an d a w om an w ho em bo d y id ea l p hysic a l b eau ty b y c o n te m pora ry m ed ia s ta n dard s. R ea d ers a re in str u cte d t o t a k e th eir o w n b o d y m ea su re m en ts , c o m pare th em to th ose su p er im pose d o n t h e p ic tu re s o f t h e a tt r a ctiv e s p ecim en s, a n d d w ell o n t h e diff er en ces . Com paris o n s a re a f o rm o f j u dgm en t.  is e x erc is e p ro du ce s w hat it p ro m is es : w e s ta rt t o f e el m is er ab le as w e en gag e in th ese c o m paris o n s. B y th e tim e we’r e as d ep res se d a s w e th in k poss ib le , w e tu rn th e p ag e to d is c o ver th at th e rst e x er cis e was a m ere warm -u p. Sin ce p hysic a l b eau ty is re la tiv ely su p er cia l, G re en bu rg n ex t pro vid es a n o p p ortu n it y to c o m pare ou rs e lv es o n s o m eth in g th at m att er s: a ch ie v em en t. H e tu rn s to th e p h on e b o ok to g iv e re a d ers a fe w ra n dom in div id u als to c o m pare th em se lv es w it h .  e rst n am e he cla im s to h av e p u lle d o u t o f t h e p h on e b o ok i s W olf g an g A m ad eu s M oza rt. G re en bu rg li s ts t h e la n gu ag es M oza rt s p oke a n d th e m ajo r p ie ce s h e had c o m pose d b y th e tim e h e w as a t e en ag er.  e e x erc is e th en i n str u cts r e a d ers t o r e ect o n t h ei r ow n a ch ie v em en ts a t t h eir c u rre n t s ta g e o f li f e , t o c o m pare th em w it h w hat M oza rt h ad a cco m pli s h ed b y a g e t w elv e, a n d t o d w ell o n t h e diff er en ces . Even re a d ers w ho n ev er e m erg e fr o m th e se lf – in du ce d m is er y o f th is e x erc is e m ig h t s e e h ow p ow erfu lly t h is t y p e of t h in kin g b lo ck s c o m pass io n , both f o r o n ese lf a n d f o r o th ers . Den ia l o f R esp on sib ili t y A noth er k in d o f li f e -a li e n atin g c o m mun ic atio n is d en ia l o f res pon sib ili t y . C om mun ic atio n is li f e -a li e n atin g w hen it c lo u ds o u r a w aren ess t h at w e are e a ch r e sp on sib le f o r o u r o w n t h ou gh ts , f e eli n gs, a n d a ctio n s.  e use of t h e co m mon e x p re ss io n have to , a s in “  ere a re s o m e th in gs y o u h av e to d o, w heth er y o u li k e it o r n ot,” illu str a te s h ow p er so n al res pon sib ili t y fo r o u r actio n s c a n b e o b sc u re d in sp eech .  e ph ra se m akes o n e fe el, a s in “ Y ou m ak e m e f e el g u ilt y ,” i s a n oth er ex am ple of h ow l a n gu ag e f a cili t a tes d en ia l o f p ers o n al r e sp on sib ili t y f o r o u r o w n f e eli n gs a n d t h ou gh ts . O ur la n gu ag e ob sc u re s aw are n ess of perso n al re sp on sib ili t y . In h er b o ok E ic h m an n in Je ru sa le m , w hic h d ocu m en ts th e w ar c rim es tr ia l o f N azi o ffi ce r A dolf E ic h m an n, H an nah A ren dt q u otes E ic h m an n sa y in g th at he an d his fe llo w offi cer s had th ei r ow n nam e fo r th e re sp on sib ili t y -d en yin g la n gu ag e th ey use d .  ey ca lle d it A m ts sp ra ch e, lo ose ly tr a n sla te d in to Engli s h as “o ffi ce ta lk ” or “b u re au cra tes e.” For ex am ple , if a sk ed w hy t h ey t o ok a c er ta in a ctio n , t h e res pon se wou ld b e, “ I h ad t o .” I f a sk ed w hy t h ey “ h ad t o ,” t h e an sw er w ou ld b e, “ S u p er io rs’ o rd er s.” “ C om pan y p oli c y.” “ It w as t h e l a w .” W e d en y r e sp on sib ili t y fo r o u r a ctio n s w hen w e a tt r ib u te th ei r c au se to fa cto rs o u ts id e o u rs e lv es: V ag u e, i m pers o n al f o rc e s— “ I c le a n ed m y r o om b eca u se I h ad t o .” O ur co n dit io n , dia g n osis , or pers o n al or psy ch olo gic a l his to ry — “I d rin k b eca u se I a m a n a lc o h oli c .”  e a ctio n s o f o th ers — “ I h it m y c h ild b eca u se he ra n i n to t h e str e et.”  e d ic ta te s o f a u th orit y — “ I li e d to th e cli e n t b eca u se th e boss to ld m e to .” G ro u p p re ssu re — “ I s ta rte d s m okin g b eca u se all m y f r ie n ds d id .” I n stit u tio n al p oli c ie s, r u le s, a n d r eg ula tio n s— “ I h ave to s u sp en d y o u fo r th is i n fr a ctio n b eca u se it ’s t h e sc h ool p oli c y.” Gen der r o le s, s o cia l r o le s, o r a g e r o les — ”I h ate go in g t o w ork , b u t I d o i t b eca u se I a m a h u sb an d a n d a f a th er.” U nco n tr o lla b le im pu ls e s— “ I w as o verc o m e by m y u rg e to e a t t h e ca n dy bar.” O nce, d u rin g a d is c u ss io n a m on g p aren ts a n d t e a ch er s o n t h e dan ger s o f a la n gu ag e th at im pli e s a b se n ce of c h oic e, a w om an o bje cte d a n grily , “ B ut th ere a re s o m e t h in gs y o u h av e to d o w het her y o u li k e it o r n ot! A nd I s e e n oth in g w ro n g w it h t e lli n g m y c h ild ren t h at t h er e are th in gs t h ey h av e to d o, to o.” A sk ed fo r an ex am ple o f so m eth in g sh e “h ad to d o,” sh e ret orte d , “ at’s e a sy ! W hen I le av e h ere t o n ig h t, I h av e to g o h om e a n d c o ok. I h ate c o okin g! I h ate it w it h a p ass io n , b u t I h av e been d oin g it e v er y d ay fo r tw en ty y ears , e v en w hen I ’v e b een a s s ic k a s a d og, b ecau se it ’s o n e of t h ose th in gs y o u ju st h av e to d o.” I to ld h er I w as sa d to h ear h er sp en din g so m uch o f h er li f e d oin g s o m eth in g s h e hate d , b ecau se sh e fe lt c o m pelle d to , an d I ju st h op ed th at sh e m ig h t n d h ap pier p oss ib ili t ies b y le arn in g th e la n gu ag e o f N VC. I a m p le a se d to re p ort th at sh e was a fa st le arn er . A t th e en d o f th e w ork sh op, s h e a ctu ally w en t h om e an d a n nou n ce d t o h er f a m ily t h at s h e no lo n ger w an te d t o c o ok.  e o p p ortu n it y f o r s o m e f e ed back f r o m h er f a m ily c a m e th re e w eek s la te r w hen h er tw o so n s a rriv ed a t a w ork sh op. I w as cu rio u s t o k n ow h ow th ey h ad r e a cte d t o t h eir m oth er’s a n nou n ce m en t.  e eld er s o n s ig h ed , “ M arsh all, I ju st s a id to m yse lf , ‘ an k G od !’” S eei ng m y pu zzle d lo ok, h e e x p la in ed , “ I t h ou gh t t o m yse lf , m ay b e n ally s h e won’t b e co m pla in in g a t e v ery m ea l! ” W e c a n r e p la ce l a n gu ag e t h at i m pli e s l a ck o f c h oic e w it h la n gu ag e t h at a ck n ow le d ges c h oic e . A noth er tim e, w hen I w as co n su lt in g fo r a sc h ool d is tr ic t, a te a ch er re m ark ed , “I h ate g iv in g g ra d es. I d on’t th in k th ey are help fu l an d th ey cre ate a lo t o f a n xie ty o n t h e p art o f s tu den ts . B ut I h av e to g iv e gra d es : it ’s t h e d is tr ic t p oli c y.” W e h ad ju st b een p ra ctic in g h ow to in tr o du ce la n gu ag e in th e cla ss ro om th at h eig h te n s co n sc io u sn ess o f res pon sib ili t y fo r o n e’s a ctio n s. I s u ggeste d th at th e te a ch er tr a n sla te th e sta te m en t “ I h av e to g iv e I gra d es b ecau se i t ’s d is tr ic t p oli c y ” t o “ I c h oose to g iv e gra d es b ecau se I w an t … ” S h e a n sw ere d w it h ou t h esit a tio n , “I c h oose to g iv e gra d es b ecau se I wan t t o k eep m y jo b,” w hile h aste n in g t o a d d, “ B ut I d on’t li k e s a y in g it t h at w ay. I t m ak es m e f e el s o r e sp on sib le fo r w hat I ’m d oin g.” W e a re d an gero u s w hen w e a re n ot co n sc io u s o f o u r re sp on sib ili t y f o r h ow w e b eh av e, t h in k, a n d f e el. “  at’s w hy I w an t y o u t o d o i t t h at w ay,” I r ep li e d . I sh are th e se n tim en ts of Fre n ch noveli s t an d jo u rn ali s t G eo rg e B ern an os w hen h e s a y s, h av e th ou gh t fo r a lo n g tim e n ow th at if , s o m e d ay, th e in cre a sin g effi cie n cy fo r t h e t e ch n iq u e o f d es tr u ctio n n ally c au ses o u r s p ecies t o dis a p p ear fr o m th e earth , it w ill not be cru elt y th at w ill be re sp on sib le fo r o u r e x tin ctio n a n d s till les s, o f c o u rs e , th e in dig n atio n th at cru elt y aw ak en s an d th e re p ris a ls an d v en gean ce th at it b rin gs u p on it s e lf … b u t t h e d ocili t y , t h e la ck o f r es pon sib ili t y o f t h e m od er n m an , h is b ase su bse rv ie n t a cce p ta n ce o f e v er y c o m mon d ecre e.  e horro rs th at w e h av e s e en , th e s till g re ate r h orro rs w e s h all p res en tly s e e, a re not sig n s th at re b els , in su bord in ate , unta m ab le men are in cre a sin g in n u m ber th ro u gh ou t th e world , b u t r a th er th at th er e is a c o n sta n t i n cre a se i n t h e n u m ber o f o b ed ien t, d ocile m en . —Geo rg e B ern an os Oth er F orm s o f L if e -A li e n atin g C om mun ic a tio n C om mun ic atin g o u r d esir e s a s d em an ds i s y et a n oth er f o rm o f l a n gu ag e th at b lo ck s co m pass io n . A d em an d ex pli c it ly o r im pli c it ly th re ate n s li s ten ers wit h b la m e o r p u n is h m en t if th ey fa il to c o m ply . It is a c o m mon fo rm o f co m mun ic atio n in o u r c u lt u re , es pecia lly a m on g th ose who h old p osit io n s of a u th orit y . M y c h ild re n g av e m e s o m e i n valu ab le le ss o n s a b ou t d em an ds. S o m eh ow I h ad g o tt e n i t i n to m y h ea d t h at, a s a p aren t, m y j o b w as t o m ak e dem an ds. I le arn ed , h ow ev er, t h at I c o u ld m ak e all t h e dem an ds in t h e world b u t s till c o u ld n’t m ak e m y c h ild re n d o a n yth in g.  is is a h u m bli n g les so n in p ow er fo r t h ose o f u s w ho b eli e v e t h at, b ecau se w e’r e a p aren t, t e a ch er , o r m an ag er , ou r jo b is to c h an ge o th er p eo p le an d m ak e th em b eh av e. H er e wer e th es e yo u n gste rs le tt in g m e k n ow th at I c o u ld n’t m ak e th em d o a n yth in g. A ll I c o u ld do w as m ak e th em w is h th ey had — th ro u gh pu n is h m en t.  en ev en tu ally t h ey t a u gh t m e t h at a n y t im e I w as f o oli s h e n ou gh t o m ak e th em w is h th ey h ad c o m pli e d b y p u n is h in g th em , th ey h ad w ay s o f m ak in g m e wis h t h at I h ad n’t ! W e c a n n ev er m ak e p eo p le d o an yth in g. W e w ill ex am in e th is su bje c t ag ain w hen w e le arn to diff er en tia te r e q u ests f r o m d em an ds— an i m porta n t p art o f N VC.  e co n ce p t th at ce rta in actio n s m erit re w ard w hile oth er s m erit p u n is h m en t is als o ass o cia te d w it h li f e- ali en atin g co m mun ic atio n .  is t h in kin g i s e x p re ss e d b y t h e w ord dese rv e a s i n “ H e d ese rv es t o b e p u n is h ed fo r w hat h e d id .” I t a ssu m es “ b ad n es s” o n t h e part o f p eo p le who b eh av e in c e rta in w ay s, a n d it c a lls fo r p u n is h m en t to m ak e th em r ep ent a n d ch an ge th eir b eh av io r. I b eli e v e it i s i n e v er yo n e’s i n ter es t t h at p eo p le ch an ge, n ot i n o rd er to a v o id p u n is h m en t, b u t b ecau se th ey s e e th e ch an ge a s b en etin g th em se lv es.  in kin g base d on “w ho dese r v es what” blo ck s co m passio n ate c o m mun ic a tio n . Most o f u s g re w u p sp ea k in g a la n gu ag e th at en co u ra g es u s to la b el, c o m pare , d em an d, a n d p ro n ou n ce ju dgm en ts ra th er th an to b e aw are of w hat w e a re fe eli n g a n d n eed in g. I b eli e v e li f e- ali en atin g c o m mun ic atio n is r o ote d i n v ie w s o f h u m an n atu re t h at h av e ex er te d t h ei r i n u en ce fo r s e v er al ce n tu rie s.  ese v ie w s s tr e ss h u m an s’ in nate ev il a n d d e cien cy, a n d a n eed fo r e d u catio n to c o n tr o l o u r in her en tly u n des ir a b le natu re . S u ch e d u catio n o  en l e av es u s q u estio n in g w heth er t h er e is s o m eth in g w ro n g w it h w hate v er fe eli n gs a n d n eed s w e m ay b e e x p er ien cin g. W e le arn e arly t o c u t o u rs e lv es o ff f r o m w hat’s g o in g o n w it h in o u rs e lv es . Lif e -a li e n atin g c o m mun ic a tio n h as d eep p h ilos op h ic a l an d p oli t ic a l r o ots . L if e -a li e n atin g co m mun ic atio n both stem s fr o m an d su pp orts h ie ra rc h ic a l o r d om in atio n s o cie ties , w her e la rg e p op u la tio n s a re co n tr o lle d b y a s m all n u m ber o f i n div id u als t o t h ose in div id u als , o w n b en et. I t w ou ld b e in th e in te re st o f k in gs, c za rs , n obles , a n d so fo rth th at th e m ass es b e ed u cate d in a w ay t h at r e n ders t h em s la v eli k e in m en ta li t y .  e la n gu ag e of w ro n gn ess , s h ou ld , a n d have to is p erfe c tly s u it e d f o r t h is p u rp ose: t h e m ore p eo p le are tr a in ed to th in k in te rm s o f m ora li s tic ju dgm en ts th at im ply w ro n gn ess a n d b ad n ess , th e m ore th ey a re bei ng tr a in ed to lo ok o u ts id e th em se lv es— to o u ts id e a u th orit ies — fo r th e de n it io n o f w hat c o n stit u tes r ig h t, w ro n g, g o od , a n d b ad . W hen w e are in c o n ta ct w it h o u r fe eli n gs a n d need s, w e h u m an s n o l o n ger m ak e go o d s la v es a n d u n der li n gs. Su m mary It is o u r n atu re to e n jo y g iv in g a n d re ce iv in g c o m pass io n ate ly . W e hav e, h ow ev er, le arn ed m an y fo rm s o f li f e- ali en atin g c o m mun ic atio n t h at le a d u s to s p ea k a n d b eh av e in w ay s th at in ju re oth er s a n d o u rs e lv es . O ne fo rm o f li f e -a li e n atin g co m mun ic atio n is t h e u se o f m ora li s tic ju dgm en ts t h at im ply w ro n gn ess o r b ad n ess o n th e p art o f th ose who d on’t a ct in h arm on y w it h o u r v alu es. A noth er is t h e u se o f c o m paris o n s, w hic h c a n b lo ck c o m pass io n b oth fo r oth ers an d fo r ou rs e lv es . Lif e- ali en atin g co m mun ic atio n als o o b sc u re s o u r a w are n ess t h at w e a re ea ch r es pon sib le fo r o u r o w n t h ou gh ts , fe eli n gs, a n d a ctio n s. C om mun ic atin g o u r d esir es i n t h e fo rm o f d em an ds i s y et a n oth er c h ara cte ris tic o f l a n gu ag e t h at b lo ck s c o m pass io n . T 3 Obse rv in g W it h ou t E va lu atin g O BSE RV E!!  ere are fe w t h in gs a s i m porta n t, a s r e li g io u s, a s t h at. — Fre d eric k B uech n er, m in is te r I c a n h an dle yo u r t e lli n g m e what I d id o r d id n’t d o. A nd I c a n h an dle yo u r i n te rp re ta tio n s, b u t p le a se don’t m ix t h e tw o. If y o u w an t t o c o n fu se an y i s su e, I c a n t e ll y o u h ow t o d o i t : M ix t o geth er w hat I d o w it h h ow y o u r e a ct t o i t . T ell m e th at y o u ’r e dis a pp oin te d w it h t h e unfinis h ed c h ore s y o u s e e , B ut c a lli n g m e “ir re sp on sib le ” is n o w ay t o m otiv a te m e. A nd t e ll m e th at y o u ’r e fe eli n g h u rt w hen I s a y “ n o” t o y o u r a d va n ce s, B ut c a lli n g m e a f r ig id m an w on’t i n cre a se yo u r f u tu re ch an ce s. Y es, I c a n h an dle yo u r t e lli n g m e what I d id o r d id n’t d o, A nd I c a n h an dle yo u r i n te rp re ta tio n s, b u t p le a se don’t m ix t h e tw o. — Marsh all B . R ose n berg , P hD h e rst c o m pon en t o f N VC e n ta ils t h e sep ara tio n o f o b ser vatio n fr o m ev alu atio n . W e n eed to c le arly o b ser ve what w e a re se ei ng, h earin g, o r to u ch in g th at is a ff ec tin g o u r se n se of w ell- b ei ng, w it h ou t m ix in g in a n y ev alu atio n . O bse rv atio n s are an im porta n t ele m en t in N VC, w her e we wis h to c le arly an d h on estly ex p re ss h ow w e are to an oth er p er so n . W hen w e co m bin e o b se rv atio n w it h e v alu atio n , w e decre a se th e li k eli h ood t h at o th er s will h ear o u r in te n ded m ess a g e. In ste a d , th ey a re ap t to h ear c rit ic is m a n d th u s r e sis t w hate v er w e a re s a y in g. N VC d oes n ot m an date t h at w e r em ain c o m plet ely o bje ctiv e an d r ef ra in f r o m e v alu atin g. I t o n ly r e q u ir e s t h at w e m ain ta in a s ep ara tio n b et ween o u r ob se rv atio n s an d ou r ev alu atio n s. N VC is a pro ce ss la n gu ag e th at d is c o u ra g es sta tic g en era li z atio n s; in ste a d , e v alu atio n s a re to b e base d o n o b se rv atio n s sp ecifi c to tim e an d co n te x t. Sem an tic is t W en dell Jo h n so n p oin te d o u t th at w e cre ate m an y p ro blem s fo r o u rs e lv es b y u sin g sta tic la n gu ag e t o e x p re ss o r c ap tu re a r e a li t y t h at i s e v er c h an gin g: “ O ur la n gu ag e is a n im perfe c t in str u m en t c re ate d b y a n cien t a n d ig n ora n t m en . It is a n a n im is tic l a n gu ag e t h at i n vit e s u s t o t a lk a b ou t s ta b ili t y a n d c o n sta n ts , a b ou t sim ila rit ie s an d n orm al an d k in ds, ab ou t m ag ic a l tr a n sfo rm atio n s, q u ic k c u re s, sim ple pro ble m s, an d n al so lu tio n s. Yet th e world w e tr y to s y m boli z e w it h th is la n gu ag e is a w orld o f p ro ce ss , ch an ge, d iff er en ces , dim en sio n s, fu n ctio n s, re la tio n sh ip s, gro w th s, in ter actio n s, dev elo p in g, le arn in g, c o p in g, c o m ple x it y . A nd t h e m is m atc h o f o u r e v er -c h an gin g w orld a n d o u r r e la tiv ely s ta tic l a n gu ag e f o rm s i s p art o f o u r p ro blem .” W hen w e c o m bin e o b se r v atio n w it h e v a lu atio n , p eo p le a re a p t t o h ea r c rit ic is m . A co lle a g u e o f m in e, R uth B eb er m ey er, co n tr a sts sta tic an d p ro ces s la n gu ag e in a so n g th at illu str a tes th e diff er en ce b et ween e v alu atio n a n d ob se rv atio n : I ’v e nev er s e e n a l a zy m an ; I’v e se e n a m an w ho n ev er r a n w hile I w atc h ed h im , a n d I ’v e se e n a m an w ho s o m etim es s le p t b etw ee n lu n ch a n d d in n er, a n d w ho’d s ta y at h om e upon a r a in y d ay, bu t h e w as n ot a l a zy m an . B efo re yo u c a ll m e cra zy, th in k, w as h e a l a zy m an o r d id h e ju st d o t h in gs w e la b el “ la zy”? I’v e nev er s e e n a s tu pid k id ; I’v e se e n a k id w ho s o m etim es d id t h in gs I d id n’t u n dersta n d or t h in gs i n w ays I h ad n’t p la n n ed ; I’v e se e n a k id w ho h ad n’t s e e n th e sa m e pla ce s w here I h ad b ee n, b u t h e w as n ot a s tu pid k id . B efo re yo u c a ll h im s tu pid , th in k, w as h e a s tu pid k id o r d id h e ju st k n ow d iff ere n t t h in gs t h an y o u d id ? I’v e lo ok ed a s h ard a s I c a n l o ok b u t n ev er e v er s e e n a c o ok ; I s a w a p erso n w ho c o m bin ed in gre d ie n ts o n w hic h w e din ed , A p erso n w ho t u rn ed o n t h e hea t a n d w atc h ed t h e sto ve th at c o ok ed t h e m ea t— I s a w t h ose th in gs b u t n ot a c o ok . T ell m e, w hen y o u ’r e lo okin g, Is i t a c o ok y o u s e e or i s i t s o m eo n e doin g t h in gs t h at w e ca ll c o okin g? W hat s o m e of u s c a ll l a zy so m e ca ll t ir e d o r e a sy -g o in g, w hat s o m e of u s c a ll s tu pid s o m e ju st c a ll a d iff ere n t k n ow in g, so I ’v e co m e to t h e co n clu sio n , it w ill s a ve us a ll c o n fu sio n if w e don’t m ix u p w hat w e ca n s e e w it h w hat i s o u r o p in io n . B eca u se yo u m ay, I w an t t o s a y a ls o ; I k n ow t h at’s o n ly m y o p in io n . — Ruth B eb erm ey er W hile th e e ff ec ts o f n eg ativ e la b els s u ch a s “ la zy ” a n d “ s tu pid ” m ay b e m ore o bvio u s, e v en a p osit iv e o r a n a p p aren tly n eu tr a l la b el s u ch a s “ c o ok” li m it s o u r p erc e p tio n o f t h e t o ta li t y o f a n oth er p er so n’s b ei ng. e H ig h est F orm o f H um an I n te lli g en ce  e In dia n ph ilo so p h er J. K ris h n am urti on ce rem ark ed th at ob ser vin g w it h ou t e v alu atin g is th e h ig h est fo rm o f h u m an in te lli g en ce. W hen I rst re a d th is s ta te m en t, th e th ou gh t, “ W hat n on sen se! ” s h ot th ro u gh m y m in d befo re I re a li z e d th at I h ad ju st m ad e a n e v alu atio n . F or m ost o f u s, it is d iffi cu lt to m ak e o b se rv atio n s, es pecia lly o f p eo p le an d th ei r b eh av io r, th at a re f r e e o f j u dgm en t, c rit ic is m , o r o th er f o rm s o f a n aly sis . I beca m e acu te ly aw are of th is diffi cu lt y w hile w ork in g w it h an ele m en ta ry sc h ool w here th e sta ff an d prin cip al had o en rep orte d co m mun ic atio n d iffi cu lt ie s.  e d is tr ic t s u p er in ten den t h ad r e q u es te d t h at I h elp t h em r e so lv e t h e c o n ic t. F ir st I w as t o c o n fer w it h t h e sta ff , a n d t h en w it h t h e s ta ff a n d p rin cip al t o geth er . I o p en ed th e m eetin g b y a sk in g th e sta ff , “ W hat is th e prin cip al d oin g th at c o n ic ts w it h y o u r n eed s? ” “H e h as a b ig m ou th !” c a m e th e s w i r es pon se . M y q u es tio n c a lle d fo r an o b se rv atio n , b u t w hile “ b ig m ou th ” g av e me in fo rm atio n o n h ow th is t e a ch er e v alu ate d t h e p rin cip al, it fa ile d to d esc rib e what t h e prin cip al s a id o r d id t h at l e d t o t h e i n te rp re ta tio n t h at h e had a “ b ig m ou th .” W hen I p oin te d th is o u t, a se co n d te a ch er o ff ere d , “I k n ow w hat h e m ean s: th e p rin cip al ta lk s to o m uch !” I n ste a d o f a c le ar o b ser vatio n of th e prin cip al’s b eh av io r, t h is w as a ls o a n e v alu atio n — of h ow m uch t h e prin cip al ta lk ed . A t h ir d t e a ch er t h en d ecla re d , “ H e th in ks o n ly h e has a n yth in g w orth s a y in g.” I e x p la in ed t h at i n fe rrin g w hat a n oth er p er so n i s t h in kin g i s n ot t h e sa m e a s o b se rv in g h is b eh av io r. F in ally a f o u rth t e a ch er v en tu re d , “ H e w an ts to b e t h e c e n te r o f a tt e n tio n a ll t h e tim e.” A er I r em ark ed t h at t h is t o o w as an in fe re n ce — of w hat a n oth er p er so n is w an tin g— tw o te a ch er s b lu rte d in u n is o n , “ W ell, y o u r q u estio n i s v er y h ard t o a n sw er!” W e su bse q u en tly w ork ed to geth er to cre ate a li s t id en tif y in g sp ecifi c beh avio rs, o n th e p art o f th e p rin cip al, th at b oth er ed th em , a n d m ad e s u re th at th e li s t w as fr e e o f e v alu atio n . F or ex am ple , th e prin cip al to ld s to ries a b ou t h is c h ild hood a n d w ar e x p er ien ce s d u rin g fa cu lt y m eet in gs, w it h t h e re su lt t h at m eetin gs s o m etim es r a n t w en ty m in utes o ver tim e. W hen I a sk ed w heth er t h ey h ad e v er c o m mun ic ate d t h ei r a n noyan ce t o t h e prin cip al, t h e sta ff re p li e d th at th ey h ad tr ie d , b u t o n ly th ro u gh ev alu ativ e co m men ts . ey had nev er m ad e re fe re n ce to sp eci c beh av io rs — su ch as his s to ry te lli n g— an d th ey a g re ed to b rin g th es e up w hen w e wer e all to m eet to geth er. A lm ost a s so on a s th e m eetin g b eg an , I sa w w hat th e sta ff h ad b een te lli n g m e. N o m att e r w hat w as bei ng dis c u ss e d , th e prin cip al w ou ld i n te rje c t, “  is r e m in ds m e o f th e tim e … ” a n d th en la u n ch in to a s to ry a b ou t h is c h ild hood o r w ar e x p erien ce. I w ait e d fo r th e sta ff to v o ic e th ei r dis c o m fo rt a ro u n d t h e p rin cip al’s b eh av io r. H ow ev er , in ste a d o f N on vio len t Com mun ic atio n , th ey a p p li e d n on ver bal c o n dem natio n . S o m e r o lle d th ei r ey es; o th ers y aw ned p oin te d ly ; o n e sta re d a t h is w atc h . I e n du re d t h is p ain fu l s c e n ario u ntil n ally I a sk ed , “ Is n ’t a n yo n e go in g to sa y so m eth in g?” A n aw kw ard silen ce en su ed .  e te a ch er w ho h ad sp oken rst a t o u r m eetin g s c re w ed u p h is c o u ra g e, lo oked d ir e ctly a t th e prin cip al, a n d s a id , “ E d, y o u h av e a b ig m ou th .” A s th is s to ry illu str a te s, it ’s n ot a lw ay s e a sy to s h ed o u r o ld h ab it s a n d m aste r th e a b ili t y to s e p ara te o b ser vatio n fr o m e v alu atio n . E ven tu ally , th e te a ch ers s u cce ed ed i n c la rif y in g f o r t h e prin cip al t h e sp eci c a ctio n s t h at l e d to th eir c o n ce rn .  e p rin cip al li s ten ed e arn es tly a n d th en p res se d , “ W hy d id n’t o n e of yo u te ll m e befo re ?” H e ad m it t e d he was aw are of his s to ry te lli n g hab it , an d th en beg an a sto ry per ta in in g to th is hab it ! I in te rr u pte d h im , o b se rv in g ( g o od -n atu re d ly ) t h at h e was d oin g it a g ain . W e en ded o u r m eetin g b y d ev elo p in g w ay s fo r th e sta ff to let th ei r p rin cip al k n ow , i n a g en tle w ay, w hen h is s to ries w er en ’t a p pre cia te d . Dis tin gu is h in g O bse r v atio n s F ro m E va lu atio n s  e fo llo w in g ta b le dis tin gu is h es ob ser vatio n s th at are sep ara te fr o m ev alu atio n f r o m t h ose t h at h av e e v alu atio n m ix ed i n . C om mun ic a tio n E xam ple o f o b se r v atio n w it h e v a lu atio n m ix ed i n E xam ple o f o b se r v atio n s e p ara te f r o m e v a lu atio n 1. U se o f v erb to b e w it h ou t in dic atio n t h at t h e e v alu ato r ta k es r e sp on sib ili t y f o r t h e ev alu atio n Y ou a re t o o gen ero u s. W hen I s e e y o u g iv e a ll y o u r l u n ch m on ey t o o th ers , I t h in k y o u a re b ein g t o o g en ero u s. 2 . U se o f v erb s w it h e v alu ativ e co n nota tio n s D ou g pro cra stin ate s. D ou g o n ly s tu die s f o r ex am s t h e n ig h t b efo re . 3 . I m pli c atio n t h at o n e’s i n fe re n ce s a b ou t a n oth er p ers o n’s t h ou gh ts , f e eli n gs, i n te n tio n s, o r d esir e s a re t h e o n ly o n es p oss ib le S h e w on’t g et h er w ork i n . I d on’t t h in k s h e’l l g et h er w ork i n . o r S h e s a id , “ I w on’t g et m y work i n .” 4 . C on fu sio n o f p re d ic tio n w it h c e rta in ty I f y o u d on’t e at b ala n ce d m ea ls , y o u r h ea lt h w ill b e i m pair e d . If y o u d on’t e at b ala n ce d m ea ls , I f e ar y o u r h ea lt h m ay b e i m pair e d . 5. F ailu re t o b e s p eci c a b ou t re fe re n ts I m mig ra n ts d on’t t a k e c a re o f t h eir p ro p erty . I h av e n ot s e en t h e im mig ra n t f a m ily l i v in g at 1 679 R oss s h ovel t h e sn ow o n t h eir s id ew alk . 6. U se o f w ord s d en otin g a b ili t y w it h ou t i n dic atin g t h at a n e v alu atio n i s b ein g m ad e H an k S m it h i s a p oor s o cce r p la y er. H an k S m it h h as n ot sc o re d a g o al i n t w en ty g am es. 7 . U se o f a d verb s a n d a d je c tiv es in w ay s t h at d o n ot i n dic ate a n e v alu atio n h as b een m ad e Jim i s u gly . Jim ’s l o oks d on’t a p p ea l to m e. Note :  e w ord s a lw ays, n ev er, e v er, w hen ev er, e tc . e x p re ss o b se rv atio n s w hen u se d i n t h e f o llo w in g w ay s: W hen ev er I h av e o b se rv ed J a ck o n t h e ph on e, h e has s p oken f o r a t l e a st th ir ty m in ute s. I c a n not r e ca ll y o u r e v er w rit in g t o m e. S o m etim es su ch w ord s are use d as ex ag gera tio n s, in w hic h ca se o b se rv atio n s a n d e v alu atio n s a re b ei ng m ix ed : You a re a lw ay s b u sy . S h e i s n ev er t h ere w hen s h e’s n eed ed . W hen th ese w ord s are use d as ex ag gera tio n s, th ey o en pro vo ke d efe n siv en ess r a th er t h an c o m pass io n . W ord s li k e fr e q u en tly an d se ld om ca n als o co n tr ib u te to co n fu sin g ob se rv atio n w it h e v alu atio n . E va lu atio n s O bse r v atio n s You s e ld om d o w hat I w an t.  e l a st t h re e t im es I i n it ia te d a n a ctiv it y , y o u s a id y o u d id n’t w an t t o d o i t . H e f r e q u en tly c o m es o ver. H e c o m es o ver a t l e a st t h re e t im es a w eek . Su m mary  e rst co m pon en t o f N VC en ta ils th e sep ara tio n o f o b ser vatio n fr o m ev alu atio n . W hen w e c o m bin e o b ser vatio n w it h e v alu atio n , o th er s a re ap t t o h ear c rit ic is m a n d r e sis t w hat w e a re sa y in g. N VC i s a p ro ce ss la n gu ag e th at d is c o u ra g es sta tic gen era li z atio n s. In ste a d , ob ser vatio n s are to b e mad e sp eci c t o t im e a n d c o n te x t, f o r ex am ple , “ H an k S m it h h as n ot s c o re d a g o al in t w en ty g am es,” r a th er t h an “ H an k S m it h i s a p oor s o ccer p la y er.” N VC i n A ctio n “ e M ost A rro gan t S p ea k er W e’v e E ver H ad !”  is d ia lo gu e o cc u rre d d u rin g a w ork sh op I w as c o n du ctin g. A bou t h alf a n h ou r i n to m y p re se n ta tio n , I p au se d t o i n vit e re a ctio n s f r o m t h e partic ip an ts . O ne o f t h em r a is e d a h an d a n d d ecla re d , “ Y ou ’r e th e m ost a rro gan t s p ea k er w e’v e e v er h ad !” I h av e s e v era l o p tio n s o p en t o m e w hen p eo p le ad dres s m e t h is w ay. O ne o p tio n is to ta k e th e m ess a g e p er so n ally ; I k n ow I’m d oin g th is w hen I h av e a str o n g u rg e to e it h er g ro vel, d efen d m yse lf , o r m ak e ex cu se s. A noth er o p tio n (fo r w hic h I a m w ell- r e h ears e d ) is to a tt a ck th e o th er p ers o n fo r w hat I p erc e iv e as th ei r a tt a ck u p on m e. O n th is o cc a sio n , I c h ose a t h ir d o p tio n b y f o cu sin g o n w hat m ig h t b e go in g o n b eh in d t h e m an ’s s ta te m en t. M BR : ( g u essin g a t t h e ob se rv a tio n s b ein g m ad e) A re y o u r e a ctin g t o m y hav in g t a k en t h ir ty s tr a ig h t m in utes to p res en t m y v ie w s b ef ore g iv in g y o u a c h an ce t o t a lk ? P hil: N o, y o u m ak e i t s o u n d s o s im ple . M BR : ( tr y in g t o o b ta in f u rth er c la rifi ca tio n ) A re y o u r e a ctin g t o m y n ot h av in g s a id a n yth in g a b ou t h ow th e pro ce ss c a n b e diffi cu lt fo r so m e p eo p le t o a p p ly ? P hil: N o, n ot s o m e p eo p le — yo u ! M BR : S o y o u ’r e r e a ctin g t o m y n ot h av in g s a id t h at t h e pro ce ss c a n b e d iffi cu lt f o r m e a t t im es? P hil:  at’s r ig h t. MBR : A re y o u fe eli n g a n noyed b ecau se yo u w ou ld h av e li k ed so m e sig n f r o m m e t h at in dic ate d t h at I h av e so m e p ro blem s w it h t h e pro ce ss m yse lf ? P hil: ( a  er a m om en t’s p au se)  at’s r ig h t. M BR : ( fe eli n g m ore re la xed n ow th at I a m in to u ch w it h th e perso n’s f e eli n g an d need , I dir e ct m y atte n tio n to w hat he mig h t be re q u estin g o f m e) W ou ld y o u l i k e m e t o a d m it r ig h t n ow t h at t h is p ro ce ss c a n b e a s tr u gg le f o r m e t o a p p ly ? P hil: Y es. M BR : ( h avin g g o tte n c le a r o n h is o b se rv a tio n , fe eli n g, n eed , a n d r e q u est, I c h eck i n sid e m yse lf t o s e e if I a m w illi n g t o d o a s h e re q u ests ) Y es, th is p ro ce ss is o  en d iffi cu lt fo r m e. A s w e c o n tin u e wit h th e w ork sh op, yo u ’l l p ro b ab ly h ear m e d esc rib e se v er al in cid en ts w here I’v e str u gg le d … o r c o m plet ely lo st to u ch … w it h th is p ro ce ss , t h is c o n sc io u sn ess , t h at I a m p res en tin g h er e to y o u . B ut w hat k eep s m e i n t h e s tr u gg le a re th e clo se co n nectio n s t o o th er p eo p le t h at h ap p en w hen I d o s ta y w it h t h e pro ce ss . Exerc is e 1 O BSE R VA T IO N O R E V A LU AT IO N? To d ete rm in e yo u r pro cie n cy at d is c e rn in g bet ween ob ser vatio n s an d ev alu atio n s, c o m ple te th e fo llo w in g ex ercis e . C ir c le th e nu m ber in fr o n t o f ea ch s ta te m en t t h at i s a n o b se rv atio n o n ly , w it h n o e v alu atio n m ix ed i n . 1. “ Jo h n w as a n gry w it h m e y este rd ay f o r n o r e a so n .” 2. “ Y este rd ay e v en in g N an cy b it h er n gern ails w hile w atc h in g t e le v is io n .” 3. “ S am d id n’t a sk f o r m y o p in io n d u rin g t h e m eet in g.” 4. “ M y f a th er i s a g o od m an .” 5. “ Ja n ic e w ork s t o o m uch .” 6. “ H en ry i s a g gre ss iv e.” 7. “ P am w as rst i n l i n e e v ery d ay t h is w eek .” 8. “ M y s o n o  en d oesn ’t b ru sh h is t e et h.” 9. “ L u ke t o ld m e I d id n’t l o ok g o od i n y ello w .” 1 0 . “ M y a u nt c o m pla in s w hen I t a lk w it h h er .” H ere are m y r e sp on se s f o r E xerc is e 1: 1. I f y o u c ir c le d th is n u m ber, w e’r e not in a g re em ent. I c o n sid er “ fo r n o re a so n” t o b e a n e v alu atio n . F u rth er m ore , I c o n sid er i t a n e v alu atio n t o in fe r t h at J o h n w as a n gry. H e m ig h t h av e been f e eli n g h u rt, s c a re d , s a d , or s o m eth in g e ls e . E xam ple s o f o b ser vatio n s w it h ou t e v alu atio n m ig h t b e: “ Jo h n t o ld m e h e w as a n gry,” o r “ Jo h n p ou n ded h is st o n t h e ta b le .” 2. I f y o u c ir c le d t h is n u m ber, w e’r e in a g re em ent t h at a n o b ser vatio n w as ex p re ss e d w it h ou t b ein g m ix ed t o geth er w it h a n e v alu atio n . 3. I f y o u c ir c le d t h is n u m ber, w e’r e in a g re em ent t h at a n o b ser vatio n w as ex p re ss e d w it h ou t b ein g m ix ed t o geth er w it h a n e v alu atio n . 4. I f y o u c ir c le d th is n u m ber, w e’r e not in a g re em ent. I c o n sid er “g o od m an ” t o b e a n e v alu atio n . A n o b ser vatio n w it h ou t e v alu atio n m ig h t b e: “F or th e la st tw en ty – ve y ears , m y fa th er h as g iv en o n e- ten th o f h is s a la ry t o c h arit y .” 5. I f y o u cir c le d th is n u m ber, w e’r e not in ag re em ent. I co n sid er “to o m uch ” to b e a n e v alu atio n . A n o b ser vatio n w it h ou t e v alu atio n m ig h t b e: “ Ja n ic e s p en t m ore t h an s ix ty h ou rs a t t h e offi ce t h is w eek .” 6. I f yo u cir c le d th is nu m ber, w e’r e not in ag re em ent. I co n sid er “a g gre ss iv e” to b e an ev alu atio n . A n o b ser vatio n w it h ou t ev alu atio n m ig h t be: “H en ry hit his sis ter w hen sh e sw it c h ed th e te le v is io n ch an nel.” 7. I f y o u c ir c le d t h is n u m ber, w e’r e in a g re em ent t h at a n o b ser vatio n w as ex p re ss e d w it h ou t b ein g m ix ed t o geth er w it h a n e v alu atio n . 8. I f y o u c ir c le d t h is n u m ber, w e’r e not i n a g re em ent. I c o n sid er “ o  en ” t o b e a n e v alu atio n . A n o b se rv atio n w it h ou t e v alu atio n m ig h t b e: “ T w ic e th is w eek m y s o n d id n’t b ru sh h is t e et h b ef ore go in g t o b ed .” 9. I f y o u c ir c le d t h is n u m ber, w e’r e in a g re em ent t h at a n o b ser vatio n w as ex p re ss e d w it h ou t b ein g m ix ed t o geth er w it h a n e v alu atio n . 10 . I f yo u cir c le d th is nu m ber, w e’r e not in ag re em ent. I co n sid er “c o m pla in s” to b e a n e v alu atio n . A n o b ser vatio n w it h ou t e v alu atio n m ig h t b e: “M y a u nt c a lle d m e th re e tim es th is w eek , a n d e a ch tim e ta lk ed a b ou t p eo p le w ho t r e ate d h er i n w ay s s h e did n’t l i k e.”   e M ask A lw ays a m ask H eld i n t h e sli m h an d w hit e ly A lw ays s h e had a m ask b efo re her fa ce— T ru ly t h e w ris t H old in g i t l i g h tly F it te d t h e ta sk : S om etim es h ow ev er W as t h ere a s h iv er, F in gertip q u iv er, E ver s o s li g h tly — H old in g t h e m ask ? F or y ea rs a n d y ea rs a n d y ea rs I w on dere d B ut d are d n ot a sk A nd t h en — I b lu n dere d , L ook ed b eh in d t h e m ask , T o fi n d N oth in g— S h e had n o f a ce . S h e had b eco m e M ere ly a h an d H old in g a m ask W it h g ra ce . — Auth or u n kn ow n T 4 Id en tif y in g a n d E xp re ssin g F eeli n gs h e rst c o m pon en t o f N VC i s t o o b ser ve w it h ou t e v alu atin g; t h e se co n d co m pon en t is to e x p re ss h ow w e a re fe eli n g. P sy ch oan aly st R ollo M ay su ggests th at “ th e m atu re p ers o n b eco m es a b le to d iff er en tia te fe eli n gs in to a s m an y nu an ce s, str o n g an d pass io n ate ex per ien ce s, or deli c ate an d se n sit iv e o n es a s i n t h e d iff ere n t p ass a g es o f m usic i n a s y m ph on y.” F or m an y of u s, h ow ev er, o u r f e eli n gs a re , a s M ay w ou ld d es crib e it , “ li m it e d l i k e notes in a b u gle c a ll.” e H ea v y C ost o f U nex p re ss e d F eeli n gs O ur re p erto ir e o f w ord s fo r c a lli n g p eo p le nam es is o  en la rg er th an o u r vo ca b u la ry o f w ord s t o c le arly d es crib e ou r e m otio n al s ta te s. I w en t t h ro u gh tw en ty -o n e y ears o f A m eric a n sc h ools a n d c a n ’t re ca ll a n yo n e in a ll th at tim e ev er ask in g m e how I fe lt . Feeli n gs w er e sim ply not co n sid er ed im porta n t. W hat w as v alu ed w as “th e rig h t w ay to th in k”— as d e ned b y th ose w ho h eld p osit io n s o f r a n k a n d a u th orit y . W e a re tr a in ed t o b e “o th er – dir e c te d ” r a th er t h an t o b e in c o n ta ct w it h o u rs e lv es . W e le arn t o b e “u p in o u r h ea d ,” w on derin g, “ W hat i s i t t h at o th er s t h in k i s r ig h t f o r m e to s a y a n d do?” A n in te ra ctio n I h ad w it h a te a ch er w hen I w as a b ou t n in e years o ld d em on str a te s h ow a li e n atio n f r o m o u r f e eli n gs c a n b eg in . I o n ce hid m yse lf i n a c la ss ro om a  er s c h ool b ecau se so m e b oys w er e wait in g o u ts id e to b eat m e u p. A te a ch er sp ott e d m e a n d a sk ed m e to le av e th e sc h ool. W hen I e x p la in ed I w as a fr a id t o g o , s h e d ecla re d , “ B ig b oys d on’t g et f r ig h ten ed .” A f e w y ears la te r I r e ce iv ed f u rth er r ei nfo rc e m en t t h ro u gh m y p artic ip atio n i n a th le tic s. I t w as t y p ic a l f o r c o ach es t o v alu e ath let es w illi n g t o “ g iv e th ei r a ll” a n d c o n tin u e p la y in g n o m att e r h ow m uch p hysic a l p ain th ey w er e in . I le arn ed th e le ss o n so w ell I o n ce co n tin u ed p la y in g b ase b all fo r a m on th w it h a n u ntr e ate d b ro ken w ris t. A t a n N VC w ork sh op, a c o lle g e s tu den t s p oke ab ou t b ei ng k ep t a w ak e by a r o om mate w ho p la y ed t h e s te re o la te at n ig h t a n d lo u d ly . W hen a sk ed to e x p re ss w hat h e fe lt w hen th is h ap p en ed , th e stu den t r ep li e d , “ I fe el th at it i s n ’t rig h t to p la y m usic so lo u d at n ig h t.” I p oin te d o u t th at w hen h e fo llo w ed t h e w ord fe el w it h t h e w ord th at, h e w as e x p re ss in g a n o p in io n b u t n ot re v ea li n g h is fe eli n gs. A sk ed to tr y ag ain to ex pres s h is fe eli n gs, h e re sp on ded , “I fe el, w hen p eo p le do so m eth in g li k e th at, it ’s a p er so n ali t y d is tu rb an ce.” I e x p la in ed t h at t h is w as s till a n o p in io n r a th er t h an a f e eli n g. H e p au se d th ou gh tfu lly , a n d th en a n nou n ce d w it h v eh em ence, “ I h av e no fe eli n gs a b ou t i t w hats o ev er!”  is stu den t obvio u sly h ad str o n g fe eli n gs. U nfo rtu n ate ly , h e did n’t k n ow h ow to b eco m e a w are o f h is fe eli n gs, let a lo n e e x p res s th em .  is d iffi cu lt y in id en tif y in g an d ex p res sin g fe eli n gs is co m mon , an d in m y ex p erie n ce, e sp ecia lly s o a m on g l a w yer s, en gin eer s, p oli c e o ffi ce rs , c o rp ora te man ag ers , a n d c a re er m ili t a ry p er so n nel— peo p le whose pro fe ss io n al c o d es dis c o u ra g e t h em f r o m m an if e stin g em otio n s. F or fa m ili es , t h e to ll is s e v er e when m em bers a re u n ab le t o c o m mun ic ate em otio n s. C ou ntr y s in ger R eb a M cE ntir e w ro te a s o n g a  er h er fa th er ’s d eath , a n d tit le d it “  e Gre ates t M an I N ev er K new .” I n s o d oin g, s h e un dou bte d ly ex pres se d t h e sen tim en ts o f m an y p eo p le w ho w ere n ev er a b le to e sta b li s h t h e em otio n al c o n nectio n th ey w ou ld h av e l i k ed w it h t h eir f a th er s. I r e g u la rly h ear s ta te m en ts li k e, “ I w ou ld n’t w an t y o u to g et th e wro n g id ea — I’m m arr ie d to a w on derfu l m an — bu t I n ev er kn ow w hat h e is f e eli n g.” O ne su ch d is s a tis ed w om an b ro u gh t h er sp ou se to a w ork sh op, d u rin g w hic h s h e to ld h im , “ I fe el li k e I ’m marrie d to a w all.”  e h u sb an d th en did an ex celle n t im it a tio n of a w all: he sa t m ute an d im mobile . E xasp era te d , s h e t u rn ed t o m e a n d e x cla im ed , “ S ee!  is i s w hat h ap p en s a ll t h e t im e. H e s it s a n d s a y s n oth in g. I t’s j u st l i k e l i v in g w it h a w all.” “ It s o u n ds t o m e l i k e y o u a re f e eli n g l o n ely a n d w an tin g m ore em otio n al co n ta ct w it h y o u r h u sb an d,” I r e sp on ded . W hen s h e ag re ed , I t r ie d t o s h ow h ow sta te m en ts su ch a s “ I fe el li k e I’m li v in g w it h a w all” a re un li k ely to b rin g h er fe eli n gs a n d d esir e s to h er h u sb an d’s a tt en tio n . In fa ct, th ey a re m ore li k ely to b e h eard a s c rit ic is m t h an a s in vit a tio n s to c o n nect w it h o u r fe eli n gs. Fu rth erm ore , su ch sta te m en ts o en le a d to se lf – fu l lli n g pro p h ecie s. A h u sb an d, fo r e x am ple , h ears h im se lf c rit ic iz e d fo r b eh av in g li k e a w all; he is hu rt an d dis c o u ra g ed an d does n’t res pon d, th er eb y co n rm in g h is w if e ’s i m ag e o f h im a s a w all.  e b en e ts o f str e n gth en in g o u r fe eli n gs v o ca b u la ry a re ev id en t n ot on ly in in tim ate r e la tio n sh ip s b u t a ls o in t h e pro fe ss io n al w orld . I w as o n ce h ir e d to co n su lt w it h m em bers o f a te ch n olo gic a l d ep artm en t o f a la rg e Sw is s c o rp ora tio n ; t h ey w ere t r o u ble d b y t h e dis c o ver y t h at w ork er s i n o th er dep artm en ts w ere av o id in g th em . W hen ask ed , em plo yees fr o m oth er dep artm en ts r e sp on ded , “ W e h ate go in g t h er e to c o n su lt w it h t h ose peo p le . It’s li k e t a lk in g to a b u n ch o f m ach in es !”  e pro blem a b ate d w hen I s p en t tim e w it h t h e m em bers o f t h e t e ch n olo gic a l d ep artm en t, e n co u ra g in g t h em to ex p re ss m ore o f th eir h u m an nes s in th ei r co m mun ic atio n s w it h co – w ork ers . In a n oth er in sta n ce, I w as w ork in g w it h h osp it a l a d m in is tr a to rs w ho w ere a n xio u s a b ou t a fo rth co m in g m eetin g w it h th e hosp it a l’s p hysic ia n s.  e a d m in is tr a to rs w ere e a g er t o h av e m e dem on str a te h ow t h ey m ig h t u se NVC w hen a p pro ach in g th e p hysic ia n s fo r su pp ort fo r a p ro je ct th at h ad o n ly r e ce n tly b een t u rn ed d ow n b y a v o te of 1 7 t o 1 . A ssu m in g th e vo ic e o f an ad m in is tr a to r in a ro le- pla y in g ses sio n , I o p en ed w it h , “ I’m f e eli n g f r ig h te n ed t o b e brin gin g u p t h is is su e.” I c h ose to s ta rt th is w ay b ecau se I s e n se d h ow fr ig h ten ed th e ad m in is tr a to rs w er e as th ey p re p are d t o c o n fr o n t t h e p hysic ia n s o n th is t o p ic a g ain . B efo re I c o u ld c o n tin u e, o n e o f th e a d m in is tr a to rs sto p p ed m e to p ro tes t, “Y ou ’r e bei ng un re a li s tic ! W e c o u ld n ev er t e ll t h e physic ia n s t h at w e w er e fr ig h ten ed .” W hen I a sk ed w hy a n a d m is s io n o f f e ar s e em ed s o i m poss ib le , h e rep li e d w it h ou t h esit a tio n , “ If w e a d m it t e d w e’r e fr ig h ten ed , th en th ey w ou ld ju st p ic k u s t o p ie ce s!” H is a n sw er d id n’t s u rp ris e m e; I h av e o en h eard p eo p le s a y th ey c a n not im ag in e e v er ex pres sin g fe eli n gs a t th ei r w ork p la ce. I w as p le a se d to le arn , h ow ev er, t h at o n e of t h e ad m in is tr a to rs d id d ecid e to r is k e x p re ss in g h is v u ln era b ili t y at th e dre a d ed m eetin g. D ep artin g fr o m h is c u sto m ary m an ner o f a p p earin g s tr ic tly lo gic a l, r a tio n al, a n d u n em otio n al, h e ch ose to sta te h is fe eli n gs to geth er w it h h is re a so n s fo r w an tin g th e physic ia n s to ch an ge th eir posit io n . H e notic e d how diff er en tly th e physic ia n s r e sp on ded t o h im . I n t h e en d h e was a m aze d a n d r e li e v ed w hen , in ste a d o f “p ic k in g h im to p ie ces ,” th e physic ia n s re v er se d th ei r p re v io u s p osit io n a n d v o te d 1 7 to 1 to su pp ort th e pro je ct in ste a d .  is d ra m atic t u rn -a ro u n d h elp ed th e a d m in is tr a to rs r e a li z e a n d a p pre cia te th e poten tia l im pact o f e x p re ss in g v u ln era b ili t y — ev en i n t h e w ork p la ce. E xp re ssin g o u r v u ln era b ili t y c a n h elp r e so lv e c o n fl ic ts . F in ally , le t m e sh are a p ers o n al in cid en t th at ta u gh t m e th e eff ects o f h id in g o u r f e eli n gs. I w as t e a ch in g a c o u rs e in N VC t o a g ro u p o f in ner c it y s tu den ts . W hen I w alk ed in to t h e ro om t h e rst d ay, t h e stu den ts , w ho h ad b een e n jo yin g a li v ely c o n vers a tio n w it h e a ch o th er , b eca m e qu iet . “G ood m orn in g!” I g re ete d . S ile n ce. I fe lt v er y u n co m fo rta b le , b u t w as a fr a id to e x p re ss it . In ste a d , I p ro ce ed ed in m y m ost p ro fe ss io n al m an ner : “ F or th is c la ss , w e w ill b e s tu dyin g a p ro ce ss o f c o m mun ic atio n th at I h op e yo u w ill n d h elp fu l i n y o u r r e la tio n sh ip s a t h om e a n d w it h y o u r f r ien ds.” I c o n tin u ed t o p re se n t i n fo rm atio n a b ou t N VC, b u t n o o n e s e em ed t o b e li s te n in g. O ne g ir l, r u m mag in g t h ro u gh h er b ag , sh ed o u t a le an d b eg an vig o ro u sly li n g h er n ails . S tu den ts n ear th e win dow s g lu ed th ei r fa ces to t h e p an es a s if fa sc in ate d b y w hat w as g o in g o n in th e str e et b elo w . I fe lt i n cre a sin gly m ore u n co m fo rta b le , y et co n tin u ed to sa y n oth in g ab ou t it . F in ally , a stu den t w ho h ad c e rta in ly m ore c o u ra g e t h an I w as d em on str a tin g, p ip ed u p, “ Y ou ju st h ate b ein g w it h b la ck p eo p le , d on’t y o u ?” I w as s tu n ned , yet im med ia te ly r e a li z e d h ow I h ad c o n tr ib u te d t o t h is s tu den t’s p er cep tio n by t r y in g t o h id e m y d is c o m fo rt. “ I a m fe eli n g n erv o u s,” I a d m it t e d , “ b u t n ot b ecau se yo u a re bla ck . M y fe eli n gs h av e to d o w it h m y n ot k n ow in g a n yo n e her e an d w an tin g to b e acce p te d w hen I c a m e in th e r o om .” M y ex pres sio n o f v u ln er ab ili t y h ad a p ro n ou n ce d e ff ec t o n t h e s tu den ts .  ey s ta rte d to a sk q u es tio n s a b ou t m e, to t e ll m e t h in gs a b ou t t h em se lv es, a n d t o ex pres s c u rio sit y a b ou t N VC. Feeli n gs v ersu s N on -F eeli n gs A c o m mon c o n fu sio n , g en era te d b y t h e Engli s h la n gu ag e, is o u r u se of t h e w ord fe el w it h ou t a ctu ally e x p re ss in g a f e eli n g. F or ex am ple , i n t h e sen ten ce, “I fe el I d id n’t g et a fa ir d ea l,” th e word s I fe el c o u ld b e m ore a cc u ra te ly r e p la ce d w it h I th in k. In g en era l, fe eli n gs a re n ot b ein g c le arly ex pres se d w hen t h e w ord fe el i s f o llo w ed b y: 1. W ord s s u ch a s th at, l i k e, a s i f : “ I f e el t h at y o u s h ou ld k n ow b ett e r.” “ I f e el li k e a f a ilu re .” “ I f e el a s i f I ’m l i v in g w it h a w all.” 2.  e p ro n ou n s I , y o u , h e, s h e, t h ey, i t : “ I f e el I a m c o n sta n tly o n c a ll.” “ I f e el i t i s u se le ss .” 3. N am es o r n ou n s r e fe rrin g t o p eo p le: “ I f e el A m y h as b een p re tt y r e sp on sib le .” “ I f e el m y b oss i s b ein g m an ip u la tiv e.” D is tin gu is h f e eli n gs f r o m t h ou gh ts . C on vers e ly , in t h e E ngli s h la n gu ag e, it is n ot n ece ss a ry to u se th e word fe el a t a ll w hen w e a re a ctu ally e x p res sin g a fe eli n g: w e c a n s a y, “ I’m fe eli n g ir rit a te d ,” o r s im ply , “ I’m i r rit a te d .” D is tin gu is h b etw een w hat w e f e el a n d w hat w e t h in k w e are . In N VC, w e d is tin gu is h b etw een w ord s th at ex pres s a ctu al fe eli n gs a n d th ose t h at d esc rib e w hat w e th in k w e are . 1. D esc rip tio n o f w hat w e th in k w e are : “I fe el i n ad eq u ate as a g u it a r p la y er.” In t h is s ta te m en t, I a m a ss e ss in g m y a b ili t y a s a g u it a r p la y er, r a th er th an c le arly e x p re ss in g m y f e eli n gs. 2. E xp re ss io n s o f a ctu al f e eli n gs: “ I f e el d is a pp oin te d i n m yse lf a s a g u it a r p la y er.” “ I f e el i m patie n t w it h m yse lf a s a g u it a r p la y er.” “ I f e el f r u str a te d w it h m yse lf a s a g u it a r p la y er.”  e actu al fe eli n g b eh in d m y ass es sm en t o f m yse lf as “in ad eq u ate ” c o u ld th ere fo re b e d is a p p oin tm en t, im patien ce, fr u str a tio n , o r so m e oth er e m otio n . Lik ew is e , it is h elp fu l to d iff ere n tia te b et ween w ord s t h at d esc rib e what w e t h in k o th ers a re d oin g a ro u n d u s, a n d w ord s t h at d es crib e actu al f e eli n gs.  e fo llo w in g are ex am ple s of sta te m en ts th at are ea sily m is ta k en as ex p re ss io n s o f fe eli n gs: in fa ct th ey re v ea l m ore h ow w e th in k o th ers a re b eh avin g t h an w hat w e a re a ctu ally f e eli n g o u rs e lv es . D is tin gu is h b etw een w hat w e fe el an d h ow w e th in k oth ers r e a ct o r b eh av e t o w ard u s. 1. “ I f e el u nim porta n t t o t h e p eo p le w it h w hom I w ork .”  e w ord unim porta n t d esc rib es h ow I t h in k o th ers a re ev alu atin g m e, ra th er th an a n a ctu al fe eli n g, w hic h in th is s it u atio n m ig h t b e “I fe el sa d” o r “ I f e el d is c o u ra ged .” 2. “ I f e el m is u n dersto od .” H ere th e w ord m is u n dersto od in dic ate s m y ass e ss m en t o f th e o th er p ers o n’s le v el o f u n dersta n din g ra th er th an a n a ctu al fe eli n g. In th is s it u atio n , I m ay b e f e eli n g a n xio u s o r a n n oyed o r s o m e o th er e m otio n . 3. 3 . “ I f e el i g n ore d .” A gain , t h is is m ore o f a n in te rp ret atio n o f t h e actio n s o f o th er s t h an a c le ar s ta te m en t o f h ow w e a re f e eli n g. N o d ou bt t h er e hav e been t im es we th ou gh t w e w ere b ein g ig n ore d a n d o u r fe eli n g w as re li e f, b ecau se w e w an te d to b e le  to o u rs e lv es. N o d ou bt th er e were oth er tim es, how ev er, w hen w e fe lt h u rt w hen w e th ou gh t w e w ere b ein g ig n ore d , becau se w e h ad w an te d t o b e i n vo lv ed . Word s li k e ig n ore d e x p re ss h ow w e in te rp re t o th ers, r a th er th an h ow w e fe el. H ere i s a s a m pli n g o f s u ch w ord s: a b an don ed a b u se d att a ck ed b etr a y ed b oxed -in b u lli e d ch eate d co erc e d co -o p te d co rn ere d d im in is h ed d is tr u ste d in te rr u pte d in tim id ate d le t d ow n m an ip u la te d m is u n dersto od n eg le c te d o verw ork ed p atr o n iz e d p re ssu re d p ro vo ked p u t d ow n re je c te d ta k en f o r g ra n te d th re ate n ed u n ap pre cia te d u n heard u n se en u n su pp orte d u nw an te d u se d Build in g a V oca b u la ry f o r F eeli n gs In ex p re ss in g ou r fe eli n gs, it help s to use word s th at ref er to sp eci c em otio n s, r a th er th an w ord s th at a re vag u e or g en er al. F or ex am ple , if w e sa y, “I fe el g o od ab ou t th at,” th e word go od co u ld m ean h ap py, ex cit e d , re li e v ed , o r a n u m ber o f o th er em otio n s. W ord s su ch as g o od an d ba d p re v en t t h e li s te n er f r o m c o n nec tin g e a sily w it h w hat w e m ig h t a ctu ally b e fe eli n g.  e f o llo w in g li s ts h av e b een c o m pile d t o h elp y o u in cre a se yo u r p ow er to a rtic u la te f e eli n gs a n d c le arly d es crib e a w hole ra n ge o f em otio n al s ta tes . How w e a re l i k ely t o f e el w hen o u r n eed s a re b ein g m et a b so rb ed a d ven tu ro u s aff ec tio n ate a le rt a li v e am aze d a m use d a n im ate d ap pre cia tiv e ard en t aro u se d a sto n is h ed b li s s fu l bre ath le ss b u oyan t ca lm c a re fr e e ch eerfu l co m fo rta b le c o m pla ce n t co m pose d co n ce rn ed co n den t co n te n te d co ol cu rio u s d azzle d d eli g h te d e a g er eb u lli e n t ecsta tic e ff erv esc e n t ela te d en ch an te d en co u ra g ed en erg etic e n gro ss e d en li v en ed en th u sia stic e x cit e d ex h ila ra te d ex p an siv e ex p ec ta n t ex u lt a n t fa sc in ate d fr e e fr ie n dly f u l lle d g la d g le efu l glo rio u s glo w in g go od -h u m ore d g ra te fu l gra ti ed h ap py h elp fu l hop efu l in qu is it iv e in sp ir e d in te n se in te re ste d in tr ig u ed in vig o ra te d in vo lv ed jo yo u s, j o yfu l ju bila n t key ed -u p lo vin g m ello w m err y m ir th fu l m oved o p tim is tic o verjo yed o verw helm ed p ea ce fu l perk y p le a sa n t ple a se d p ro u d qu ie t ra d ia n t ra p tu ro u s re fr e sh ed re la x ed re li e v ed sa tis ed se c u re s e n sit iv e se re n e sp ellb ou n d sp le n did s tim ula te d su rp ris e d te n der th an kfu l th rille d to u ch ed tr a n qu il t r u stin g upbeat w arm w id e-a w ak e w on derfu l ze stfu l H ow w e a re l i k ely t o f e el w hen o u r n eed s a re n ot b ein g m et a fr a id a g gra v ate d a g it a te d a la rm ed a lo of an gry a n gu is h ed a n noyed a n xio u s ap ath etic a p pre h en siv e aro u se d a sh am ed b eat b ew ild ere d b it t e r b la h b lu e b ore d b ro ken hearte d ch ag rin ed co ld c o n ce rn ed co n fu se d co ol cro ss deje c te d d ep re ss e d d esp air in g desp on den t d eta ch ed d is a ff ec te d d is a p p oin te d d is c o u ra g ed d is e n ch an te d d is g ru ntle d d is g u ste d d is h earte n ed d is m ay ed d is p le a se d d is q u ie te d d is tr e ss e d d is tu rb ed d ow nca st d ow nhearte d d u ll e d gy em barra ss e d em bit t e re d ex asp era te d ex h au ste d fa tig u ed fe arfu l dgety fo rlo rn fr ig h te n ed fr u str a te d fu rio u s glo om y gu ilt y h arrie d h eav y help le ss h esit a n t h orrib le h orri ed h ostile h ot h u m dru m hu rt im patie n t in diff ere n t in te n se ir a te ir k ed ir rit a te d je a lo u s jit t e ry k ey ed -u p la zy le ery le th arg ic li s tle ss lo n ely m ad m ean m is e ra b le m op ey m oro se m ou rn fu l n erv o u s n ett le d n u m b overw helm ed p an ic k y p ass iv e p erp le x ed p ess im is tic pu zzle d ra n co ro u s re lu cta n t re p elle d re se n tfu l re stle ss s a d sc a re d se n sit iv e sh ak y sh ock ed sk ep tic a l sle ep y so rro w fu l so rr y sp ir it le ss sta rtle d su rp ris e d su sp ic io u s te p id t e rri ed tir e d tr o u ble d u n co m fo rta b le u n co n ce rn ed u n ea sy u n glu ed u n hap py u n nerv ed u n ste a d y up se t u ptig h t vex ed w eary w is tfu l w it h dra w n woefu l w orrie d w re tc h ed Su m mary  e se co n d co m pon en t n ece ss a ry fo r ex pres sin g o u rs e lv es is fe eli n gs. B y dev elo p in g a v o ca b u la ry o f fe eli n gs t h at a llo w s u s t o c le arly a n d s p eci ca lly n am e or id en tif y ou r em otio n s, w e ca n co n nect m ore ea sily w it h on e an oth er. A llo w in g o u rs e lv es t o b e vu ln er ab le by ex pres sin g o u r fe eli n gs c a n h elp re so lv e c o n ic ts . N VC d is tin gu is h es th e ex pres sio n o f a ctu al fe eli n gs fr o m w ord s an d sta te m en ts th at des crib e th ou gh ts , ass es sm en ts , an d in te rp re ta tio n s. Exerc is e 2 E X PR ESSIN G F E ELIN GS If yo u w ou ld li k e to se e w heth er w e’r e in ag re em ent ab ou t th e ver bal ex p re ss io n o f fe eli n gs, c ir c le th e n u m ber in fr o n t o f e a ch o f th e fo llo w in g sta te m en ts i n w hic h f e eli n gs a re v er bally ex pres se d . 1. “ I f e el y o u d on’t l o ve m e.” 2. “ I’m s a d t h at y o u ’r e l e av in g.” 3. “ I f e el s c a re d w hen y o u s a y t h at.” 4. “ W hen y o u d on’t g re et m e, I f e el n eg le cte d .” 5. “ I’m h ap py t h at y o u c a n c o m e.” 6. “ Y ou ’r e d is g u stin g.” 7. “ I f e el l i k e h it t in g y o u .” 8. “ I f e el m is u n dersto od .” 9. “ I f e el g o od a b ou t w hat y o u d id f o r m e.” 1 0 . “ I’m w orth le ss .” H ere are m y r e sp on se s f o r E xerc is e 2: 1. I f y o u c ir c le d t h is n u m ber, w e’r e n ot i n a g re em ent. I d on’t c o n sid er “ y o u d on’t lo ve m e” to b e a fe eli n g. T o m e, it ex pres ses w hat th e sp ea k er th in ks th e o th er p ers o n is fe eli n g, ra th er th an h ow th e sp ea k er is f e eli n g. W hen ev er t h e w ord s I f e el a re f o llo w ed b y t h e w ord s I , y o u , h e, sh e, t h ey, it , th at, li k e, o r a s if, w hat fo llo w s is g en era lly n ot w hat I w ou ld c o n sid er to b e a fe eli n g. A n ex pres sio n o f fe eli n g in th is c a se m ig h t b e: “ I’m s a d ,” o r “ I’m f e eli n g a n gu is h ed .” 2. I f yo u cir c le d th is n u m ber, w e’r e in ag re em ent th at a fe eli n g w as v erb ally e x p re ss e d . 3. I f yo u cir c le d th is n u m ber, w e’r e in ag re em ent th at a fe eli n g w as v erb ally e x p re ss e d . 4. I f y o u c ir c le d th is n u m ber, w e’r e not in a g re em ent. I d on’t c o n sid er “n eg le c te d ” t o b e a f e eli n g. T o m e, it ex pres ses w hat t h e sp ea k er t h in ks th e o th er p ers o n i s d oin g t o h im o r h er . A n e x p res sio n o f f e eli n g m ig h t b e: “ W hen y o u d on’t g re et m e a t t h e door, I f e el l o n ely .” 5. I f yo u cir c le d th is n u m ber, w e’r e in ag re em ent th at a fe eli n g w as v erb ally e x p re ss e d . 6. I f y o u c ir c le d th is n u m ber, w e’r e not in a g re em ent. I d on’t c o n sid er “d is g u stin g” t o b e a f e eli n g. T o m e, it ex pres ses h ow t h e sp ea k er t h in ks ab ou t th e o th er p ers o n , ra th er th an h ow th e sp ea k er is fe eli n g. A n ex p re ss io n o f f e eli n g m ig h t b e: “ I f e el d is g u ste d .” 7. I f y o u c ir c le d t h is n u m ber, w e’r e n ot i n a g re em ent. I d on’t c o n sid er “ li k e h it t in g yo u ” to b e a fe eli n g. T o m e, it ex pres ses w hat th e sp ea k er im ag in es d oin g, r a th er th an h ow th e sp ea k er is fe eli n g. A n ex pres sio n o f f e eli n g m ig h t b e: “ I a m f u rio u s a t y o u .” 8. I f y o u c ir c le d th is n u m ber, w e’r e not in a g re em ent. I d on’t c o n sid er “m is u n dersto od” to b e a fe eli n g. T o m e, it ex pres ses w hat th e sp ea k er th in ks th e o th er p ers o n is d oin g. A n ex pres sio n o f fe eli n g in th is c a se m ig h t b e: “ I f e el f r u str a te d ,” o r “ I f e el d is c o u ra g ed .” 9. I f yo u cir c le d th is n u m ber, w e’r e in ag re em ent th at a fe eli n g w as v erb ally ex p re ss e d . H ow ev er, th e w ord go od is v ag u e w hen u se d to c o n vey a fe eli n g. W e c a n u su ally e x p res s o u r fe eli n gs m ore cle arly b y u sin g o th er w ord s, f o r e x am ple : r e li e v ed , g ra tifi ed , o r e n co u ra ged . 10 . I f y o u c ir c le d th is n u m ber, w e’r e not in a g re em ent. I d on’t c o n sid er “w orth le ss” t o b e a fe eli n g. T o m e, it e x p res ses h ow t h e sp ea k er t h in ks ab ou t h im se lf o r h ers e lf , ra th er th an h ow th e sp ea k er is fe eli n g. A n ex p re ss io n o f fe eli n g in th is c a se m ig h t b e: “ I fe el s k ep tic a l a b ou t m y ow n t a le n ts ,” o r “ I f e el w re tc h ed .” 5 Takin g R esp on sib ili t y f o r O ur F eeli n gs P eo p le are dis tu rb ed n ot b y t h in gs, b u t b y t h e vie w t h ey t a ke of t h em . —Epic te tu s T Hea rin g a N eg ativ e M ess a g e: F ou r O ptio n s he t h ir d c o m pon en t o f N VC e n ta ils t h e ack n ow le d gm en t o f t h e ro ot o f o u r f e eli n gs. N VC h eig h te n s o u r a w aren ess t h at w hat o th er s s a y a n d d o m ay b e th e stim ulu s, b u t n ev er th e ca u se , o f o u r fe eli n gs. W e s e e th at o u r fe eli n gs r e su lt f r o m h ow w e ch oose t o r e ce iv e w hat o th ers s a y a n d d o, a s w ell a s fr o m o u r p artic u la r n eed s a n d ex pecta tio n s in th at m om en t. W it h th is t h ir d co m pon en t, w e are le d to acce p t res pon sib ili t y fo r w hat w e do to g en era te o u r o w n f e eli n gs. W hat o th ers d o m ay b e t h e s tim ulu s o f o u r f e eli n gs, b u t n ot t h e c a u se . W hen so m eo n e giv es us a neg ativ e messa g e, w het her ver bally or n on verb ally , w e h av e fo u r o p tio n s a s to h ow to r e ce iv e it . O ne op tio n is to t a k e it p ers o n ally b y h earin g b la m e a n d c rit ic is m . F or ex am ple , s o m eo n e is a n gry an d sa y s, “Y ou ’r e th e m ost se lf – c e n ter ed p er so n I’v e ev er m et!” If c h oosin g to ta k e it p ers o n ally , w e m ig h t r e a ct: “ O h, I s h ou ld ’v e been m ore s e n sit iv e!” W e a cce p t t h e o th er p er so n’s ju dgm en t a n d b la m e ou rs e lv es . W e ch oose t h is o p tio n at g re at c o st to o u r s e lf – e ste em , fo r it in cli n es u s to w ard fe eli n gs o f g u ilt , s h am e, a n d d ep res sio n . F ou r o p tio n s fo r r e ce iv in g n eg ativ e m ess a g es: 1. b la m e ou rse lv es. A se co n d o p tio n is to fa u lt th e sp ea k er . F or ex am ple , in res pon se to “ Y ou ’r e t h e m ost s e lf – c e n te re d p er so n I ’v e ev er m et,” w e m ig h t p ro tes t: “ Y ou h av e n o r ig h t t o s a y t h at! I a m a lw ay s c o n sid er in g y o u r n eed s. Y ou ’r e th e on e w ho is r e a lly s e lf – c e n te re d .” W hen w e re ce iv e m essa g es t h is w ay, a n d b la m e th e s p ea k er, w e a re l i k ely t o f e el a n ger. 2 . b la m e o th ers. When r e ce iv in g n eg ativ e m ess a g es, o u r th ir d o p tio n w ou ld b e to s h in e th e li g h t o f c o n sc io u sn ess o n o u r o w n fe eli n gs a n d n eed s.  us, w e m ig h t re p ly , “ W hen I h ear y o u s a y t h at I a m t h e m ost s e lf – c e n ter ed p er so n y o u ’v e ev er m et, I fe el h u rt, b ecau se I n eed s o m e r e co gn it io n o f m y eff orts to b e co n sid era te o f y o u r p re fe re n ce s.” B y fo cu sin g a tt en tio n o n o u r o w n fe eli n gs an d n eed s, w e b eco m e c o n sc io u s th at o u r c u rren t fe eli n g o f h u rt d er iv es fr o m a n eed f o r o u r e ff orts t o b e r e co gn iz e d . 3 . s e n se o u r o w n f e eli n gs a n d n eed s. F in ally , a fo u rth o p tio n o n r e ce iv in g a n eg ativ e m essa g e is to s h in e th e li g h t o f c o n sc io u sn ess o n th e o th er p ers o n’s fe eli n gs a n d n eed s a s th ey a re c u rre n tly ex p re ss e d . W e m ig h t fo r ex am ple ask , “A re yo u fe eli n g hu rt b ecau se y o u n eed m ore c o n sid era tio n f o r y o u r p ref er en ce s? ” 4 . s e n se o th ers’ f e eli n gs a n d n eed s. W e a cce p t r e sp on sib ili t y f o r o u r f e eli n gs, r a th er t h an b la m e oth er p eo p le , b y a ck n ow le d gin g o u r o w n n eed s, d esir es , e x p ecta tio n s, v alu es , o r t h ou gh ts . N ote t h e d iff ere n ce b etw een t h e f o llo w in g ex pres sio n s o f d is a p p oin tm en t: E xam ple 1 A : “ Y ou d is a p p oin te d m e b y n ot c o m in g o ver l a st e v en in g.” B : “ I w as d is a p p oin te d w hen y o u d id n’t c o m e o ver , b ecau se I w an te d to t a lk o ver s o m e t h in gs t h at w ere b oth er in g m e.” S p ea k er A att r ib u te s re sp on sib ili t y fo r his dis a p p oin tm en t so le ly to a n oth er p ers o n’s a ctio n . S p ea k er B t r a ces h is f e eli n g o f d is a p p oin tm en t t o h is o w n u n fu l lle d d esir e . E xam ple 2 A : “  eir c a n celli n g t h e c o n tr a ct r e a lly i r rit a te d m e!” B: “ W hen t h ey c a n celle d t h e c o n tr a ct, I fe lt r e a lly ir rit a te d b ecau se I w as th in kin g t o m yse lf t h at i t w as a n a w fu lly i r res pon sib le th in g t o d o.” Sp ea k er A a tt r ib u te s h er ir rit a tio n so le ly to th e beh av io r o f th e oth er party , where a s Sp ea k er B accep ts res pon sib ili t y fo r her fe eli n g by ack n ow le d gin g t h e t h ou gh t b eh in d it . S h e re co gn iz e s t h at h er b la m in g w ay o f th in kin g h as g en era te d h er ir rit a tio n . In N VC, h ow ev er , w e w ou ld u rg e th is s p ea k er to g o a s te p fu rth er b y id en tif y in g w hat s h e is w an tin g: w hat n eed , d esir e , e x p ec ta tio n , h op e, o r v alu e of h er s h as n ot b een f u l lle d ? A s w e sh all s e e, t h e m ore w e a re a b le t o c o n nect o u r f e eli n gs t o o u r o w n n eed s, t h e ea sie r it is fo r o th ers to r e sp on d c o m pass io n ate ly . T o r e la te h er fe eli n gs to w hat s h e is w an tin g, S p ea k er B m ig h t h av e sa id : “ W hen th ey c a n celle d th e co n tr a ct, I fe lt re a lly ir rit a te d b ecau se I w as h op in g fo r a n o p p ortu n it y to r e h ir e t h e w ork ers w e l a id o ff l a st y ear.” I t i s h elp fu l t o r e co gn iz e a n u m ber o f c o m mon s p eech p att er ns t h at t en d to m ask a cco u nta b ili t y f o r o u r o w n f e eli n gs: 1. U se o f i m pers o n al p ro n ou n s s u ch a s it a n d th at: “ It re a lly in fu ria te s m e w hen sp elli n g m is ta k es a p p ear in o u r p u bli c b ro ch u re s.” “  at b u gs m e a l o t.” 2.  e u se o f t h e e x p re ss io n “ I f e el ( a n em otio n ) b ecau se … ” f o llo w ed b y a p ers o n o r p ers o n al p ro n ou n o th er t h an I: “I fe el h u rt b ecau se y o u s a id y o u d on’t lo ve m e.” “ I fe el a n gry b ecau se th e s u p erv is o r b ro ke h er p ro m is e .” 3. S ta te m en ts t h at m en tio n o n ly t h e a ctio n s o f o th er s: “ W hen y o u d on’t ca ll m e o n m y b ir th d ay, I fe el h u rt.” “M om my is d is a p p oin te d w hen y o u d on’t n is h y o u r f o od .” I n e a ch o f th ese in sta n ce s, w e c a n d eep en o u r a w aren ess o f o u r o w n re sp on sib ili t y by su bstit u tin g th e ph ra se , “I fe el … b ecau se I … ” F or ex am ple : C on nect y o u r f e eli n g w it h y o u r n eed : “ I f e el … b eca u se I n eed … ” 1. “ I fe el r e a lly in fu ria te d w hen s p elli n g m is ta k es li k e th at a p p ear in o u r pu bli c b ro ch u re s, b eca u se I w an t o u r c o m pan y t o p ro je c t a p ro fe ss io n al im ag e.” 2. “ I fe el an gry th at th e su p erv is o r b ro ke h er p ro m is e , b eca u se I w as co u ntin g o n g ett in g t h at l o n g w eek en d t o v is it m y b ro th er .” 3. “ M om my fe els d is a p p oin te d w hen y o u d on’t n is h y o u r fo od , b eca u se I w an t y o u t o g ro w u p s tr o n g a n d h ea lt h y.”  e basic m ech an is m of m otiv atin g by gu ilt is to att r ib u te th e re sp on sib ili t y fo r o n e’s o w n fe eli n gs to o th er s. W hen p aren ts s a y, “ It h u rts M om my a n d D ad dy w hen y o u g et p oor g ra d es a t s c h ool,” t h ey a re im ply in g th at th e ch ild ’s actio n s are th e cau se of th e paren ts ’ hap pin es s or u n hap pin ess . O n t h e s u rfa ce, t a k in g r es pon sib ili t y fo r t h e fe eli n gs o f o th er s ca n e a sily b e m is ta k en f o r p osit iv e ca rin g. I t m ay a p p ear t h at t h e ch ild c a res fo r th e p are n t a n d fe els b ad b ecau se th e paren t is su ff er in g. H ow ev er , if c h ild re n w ho a ssu m e th is k in d o f res pon sib ili t y c h an ge th ei r b eh av io r in a cco rd an ce w it h p are n ta l w is h es, th ey a re not a ctin g fr o m th e heart, b u t actin g t o a v o id g u ilt . D is tin gu is h b etw een g iv in g fr o m th e h ea rt a n d b ein g m otiv ate d b y g u ilt . e N eed s a t t h e R oots o f F eeli n gs Ju dgm en ts , crit ic is m s, dia g n oses , an d in ter pret atio n s of oth er s are all a li e n ate d e x p re ss io n s o f o u r n eed s. I f s o m eo n e sa y s, “ Y ou n ev er u n der sta n d m e,” t h ey a re r e a lly te lli n g u s t h at t h ei r n eed to b e un dersto od is n ot b ei ng fu l lle d . I f a w if e s a y s, “ Y ou ’v e b een w ork in g la te ev er y n ig h t t h is w eek ; y o u lo ve y o u r w ork m ore th an y o u lo ve m e,” sh e is sa y in g th at h er n ee d fo r in tim acy i s n ot b ein g m et. J u dgm en ts o f o th ers are a li e n ate d ex p re ssio n s o f o u r ow n u n m et n eed s. W hen w e e x p re ss o u r n eed s in dir e ctly th ro u gh th e use of e v alu atio n s, in te rp re ta tio n s, a n d im ag es, o th er s a re li k ely to h ear c rit ic is m . A nd w hen p eo p le h ear a n yth in g th at so u n ds li k e c rit ic is m , th ey te n d to in ves t th ei r en erg y in se lf – d efe n se o r co u nter att a ck . If w e wis h fo r a co m pass io n ate r e sp on se f r o m o th ers , i t i s s e lf – d efe atin g t o e x p res s o u r n eed s b y i n ter pret in g or d ia g n osin g t h eir b eh av io r. I n ste a d , t h e m ore dir e ctly w e ca n c o n nect o u r fe eli n gs to o u r o w n n eed s, th e ea sier it is fo r o th er s to res pon d to u s co m pass io n ate ly . I f w e ex p re ss o u r n eed s, w e h av e a b ett e r ch an ce o f gett in g t h em m et. U nfo rtu n ate ly , m ost o f u s h av e n ev er b een ta u gh t to th in k in ter m s o f n eed s. W e a re a cc u sto m ed t o t h in kin g a b ou t w hat’s w ro n g w it h o th er p eo p le w hen o u r n eed s a re n ’t b ein g f u l lle d .  us, i f w e w an t c o ats t o b e hu n g u p i n t h e c lo se t, w e m ay c h ara cte riz e o u r c h ild ren a s la zy f o r le av in g t h em o n t h e co u ch . O r w e m ay i n te rp re t o u r c o -w ork er s a s i r res pon sib le w hen t h ey d on’t g o a b ou t t h eir t a sk s t h e w ay w e w ou ld p ref er t h em t o . I w as o n ce in vit e d to S o u th ern C ali f o rn ia to m ed ia te b et ween so m e la n dow ners an d m ig ra n t fa rm work er s whose co n ic ts had gro w n in cre a sin gly h ostile a n d v io le n t. I b eg an th e m eet in g b y a sk in g th es e tw o qu estio n s: “ W hat is it t h at y o u a re ea ch n eed in g? A nd w hat w ou ld y o u li k e to r e q u est o f t h e o th er i n r e la tio n t o t h es e need s? ” “  e p ro ble m is th at th ese p eo p le are ra cis t!” sh ou te d a fa rm w ork er . “ e p ro ble m is th at th ese p eo p le don’t r es pect la w a n d o rd er !” s h ou te d a la n dow ner e v en m ore lo u d ly . A s is o  en th e ca se , th es e gro u p s w er e m ore s k ille d in an aly zin g th e perc e iv ed w ro n gn es s of oth er s th an in cle arly e x p re ss in g t h eir o w n n eed s. In a co m para b le sit u atio n , I o n ce m et w it h a gro u p o f Is r a eli s an d Pale stin ia n s w ho w an te d to e sta b li s h th e mutu al tr u st n eces sa ry to b rin g pea ce to th eir h om ela n ds. I o p en ed th e ses sio n w it h th e sa m e qu es tio n s, “ W hat is it y o u a re n eed in g a n d w hat w ou ld y o u li k e to r e q u es t fr o m o n e an oth er in r e la tio n to th ose n eed s? ” In ste a d o f d ir e ctly s ta tin g h is n eed s, a P ale stin ia n m ukh ta r ( w ho i s l i k e a v illa g e m ay o r) a n sw ere d , “ Y ou p eo p le are a ctin g li k e a b u n ch o f N azis .” A s ta te m en t li k e th at is n ot li k ely to g et th e co op era tio n o f a g ro u p o f Is r a eli s ! A lm ost im med ia te ly , a n Is r a eli w om an ju m ped u p a n d c o u nte re d , “ M ukh ta r, t h at w as a t o ta lly in sen sit iv e th in g f o r yo u t o s a y !” H ere w ere p eo p le w ho h ad c o m e to geth er to b u ild tr u st a n d h arm on y, b u t a  er o n ly o n e in te rc h an ge, m att er s w er e wors e th an b ef ore th ey b eg an .  is h ap p en s o  en w hen p eo p le are use d to a n aly zin g a n d b la m in g o n e an oth er ra th er th an cle arly ex p res sin g w hat th ey n eed . In th is ca se , th e w om an c o u ld h av e r e sp on ded t o t h e m ukh ta r i n t e rm s o f h er o w n n eed s a n d re q u ests b y s a y in g, f o r e x am ple , “ I a m n eed in g m ore res pect i n o u r d ia lo gu e. In ste a d o f t e lli n g u s h ow y o u t h in k w e are actin g, w ou ld y o u t e ll u s w hat i t i s w e a re d oin g t h at y o u n d d is tu rb in g?” It h as b een m y e x p erie n ce o ver a n d o ver a g ain th at fr o m th e m om en t peo p le b eg in ta lk in g a b ou t w hat th ey n eed r a th er th an w hat’s w ro n g w it h o n e a n oth er, th e p oss ib ili t y o f n din g w ay s to m eet e v er yb o d y’s n eed s is g re atly in cre a se d .  e fo llo w in g a re so m e o f th e basic h u m an n eed s w e all s h are : A uto n om y to c h oose o n e’s d re am s, g o als , v alu es to c h oose o n e’s p la n f o r f u l lli n g o n e’s d re am s, g o als , v alu es C ele b ra tio n to c ele b ra te t h e c re atio n o f l i f e a n d d re am s f u l lle d to c ele b ra te l o ss e s: l o ved o n es, d re am s, et c. ( m ou rn in g) In te g rit y a u th en tic it y c re ativ it y m ean in g se lf – w orth I n te rd ep en den ce a cce p ta n ce ap pre cia tio n clo se n ess c o m mun it y c o n sid era tio n co n tr ib u tio n t o t h e e n ric h m en t o f l i f e (to ex ercis e on e’s p ow er b y g iv in g th at w hic h c o n tr ib u te s t o l i f e ) em otio n al s a fe ty e m path y h on esty (th e e m pow erin g h on esty th at en ab les u s to le arn fr o m o u r li m it a tio n s) lo ve re a ssu ra n ce re sp ec t su pp ort tr u st u n dersta n din g w arm th P la y fu n la u gh te r S p ir it u al C om mun io n b eau ty h arm on y in sp ir a tio n ord er p ea ce P hysic a l N urtu ra n ce a ir f o od m ovem en t, e x erc is e p ro te c tio n f r o m li f e -th re ate n in g f o rm s o f li f e: v ir u ses , b acter ia , in se cts , p re d ato ry a n im als r e st s e x u al e x p re ss io n sh elt e r to u ch w ate r e P ain o f E xp re ssin g O ur N eed s v ersu s t h e P ain o f N ot E xp re ssin g O ur N eed s In a w orld w here w e’r e o  en ju dged h arsh ly fo r id en tif y in g a n d re v ea li n g ou r n eed s, d oin g so ca n b e very fr ig h ten in g. W om en , in p artic u la r, are s u sc e p tib le to c rit ic is m . F or c e n tu ries , th e im ag e of th e lo vin g w om an h as b een a ss o cia te d w it h s a cri ce a n d t h e den ia l o f o n e’s o w n n eed s t o t a k e ca re o f o th ers . B ecau se w om en a re s o cia li z e d t o v ie w t h e ca ret ak in g o f o th er s a s th eir h ig h est d u ty , t h ey o  en l e arn t o i g n ore th ei r o w n n eed s. A t o n e w ork sh op, w e d is c u ss e d w hat h ap p en s t o w om en w ho i n ter nali z e su ch b eli e fs .  ese w om en , i f t h ey a sk f o r w hat t h ey w an t, w ill o  en d o s o i n a w ay t h at b oth r e ec ts a n d r e in fo rc e s t h e beli ef s t h at t h ey h av e no g en uin e rig h t to th eir n eed s an d th at t h eir n ee d s are u n im porta n t. F or ex am ple , b ecau se sh e is fe arfu l o f a sk in g fo r w hat sh e need s, a w om an m ay fa il to s im ply s a y t h at s h e’s h ad a b u sy d ay, i s f e eli n g t ir e d , a n d w an ts s o m e tim e in t h e e v en in g to h ers e lf ; in ste a d , h er w ord s c o m e o u t so u n din g li k e a leg al ca se : “ Y ou k n ow I h av en ’t h ad a m om en t to m yse lf a ll d ay. I ir o n ed a ll th e sh ir ts , d id th e w hole w eek ’s la u n dry, to ok th e dog to th e vet , m ad e din ner , pack ed t h e lu n ch es, a n d c a lle d a ll t h e nei gh bors a b ou t t h e blo ck m eet in g, s o [im plo rin gly ] … s o h ow a b ou t i f y o u … ? ” “N o!” c o m es th e s w i r e sp on se . H er p la in tiv e re q u es t e li c it s r es is ta n ce ra th er t h an c o m pass io n f r o m h er li s ten ers.  ey h av e diffi cu lt y h earin g a n d valu in g t h e n eed s b eh in d h er p le a s, a n d f u rth er m ore re a ct n eg ativ ely t o h er w ea k a tt e m pt t o a rg u e f r o m a p osit io n o f w hat s h e “s h ou ld ” g et o r “ d es er ves ” to g et f r o m t h em . I n t h e e n d t h e sp ea k er is a g ain p er su ad ed t h at h er n eed s d on’t m att e r, n ot r e a li z in g t h at t h ey w ere ex p res se d i n a w ay u n li k ely t o d ra w a p osit iv e r e sp on se . M y m oth er w as o n ce a t a w ork sh op w her e oth er w om en w er e dis c u ss in g how f r ig h te n in g i t w as t o b e e x p res sin g t h ei r n eed s. S u dden ly s h e go t u p a n d le  th e ro om , an d d id n’t re tu rn fo r a lo n g tim e. S h e n ally re ap p eare d , lo okin g v ery p ale . I n t h e p re se n ce o f t h e gro u p, I a sk ed , “ M oth er , a re yo u a ll r ig h t? ” I f w e d on’t v a lu e o u r n eed s, o th ers m ay n ot e it h er. “Y es,” s h e a n sw ere d , “ b u t I ju st h ad a s u dden r e a li z atio n t h at’s v er y h ard fo r m e t o t a k e i n .” “ W hat’s t h at? ” “I’v e ju st b eco m e a w are th at fo r th ir ty -s ix y ears , I w as a n gry w it h y o u r fa th er f o r n ot m eetin g m y n eed s, a n d n ow I r e a li z e t h at I n ev er o n ce cle arly t o ld h im w hat I n eed ed .” M y m oth er’s r e v ela tio n w as a cc u ra te . N ot o n e t im e, t h at I c a n r em ember , did sh e c le arly e x p re ss h er n eed s to m y fa th er . S h e’d h in t a ro u n d a n d g o th ro u gh a ll k in ds o f c o n vo lu tio n s, b u t n ev er w ou ld s h e ask d ir e ctly f o r w hat sh e n eed ed . W e t r ie d t o u n dersta n d w hy it w as s o h ard fo r h er t o h av e don e s o . M y moth er gre w up in an eco n om ic a lly im pover is h ed fa m ily . Sh e re ca lle d a sk in g fo r th in gs as a ch ild an d b ei ng ad m on is h ed b y h er b ro th er s an d sis te rs , “ Y ou s h ou ld n’t a sk f o r t h at! Y ou k n ow we’r e p oor. D o y o u t h in k y o u are th e o n ly p ers o n in th e fa m ily ?” E ven tu ally s h e gre w to fe ar th at a sk in g fo r w hat s h e n eed ed w ou ld o n ly l e a d t o d is a p pro val a n d j u dgm en t. S h e r e la te d a c h ild hood a n ecd ote ab ou t o n e o f h er s is te rs w ho h ad h ad an a p p en dix o p era tio n a n d a  erw ard s h ad b een g iv en a b eau tif u l l i t t le pu rs e b y a n oth er s is te r. M y m oth er w as f o u rte en a t t h e tim e. O h, h ow s h e yearn ed to h av e a n e x q u is it e ly b ea d ed p u rs e li k e h er s is te r’s , b u t s h e dare d n ot o p en her m ou th . S o g u ess w hat? S h e fei gn ed a p ain in h er sid e an d w en t th e w hole w ay w it h h er s to ry. H er f a m ily t o ok h er t o s e v er al d octo rs .  ey w er e un ab le to p ro du ce a d ia g n osis a n d s o o p te d fo r ex plo ra to ry s u rg er y. It h ad b een a b old g am ble o n m y m oth er ’s p art, b u t it w ork ed — sh e was g iv en a n id en tic a l li t t le p u rs e ! W hen s h e r e ce iv ed t h e co vet ed p u rs e , m y m oth er w as ela te d d esp it e b ein g i n p hysic a l a g o n y f r o m t h e su rg ery. T w o n u rs es c a m e in a n d o n e stu ck a th erm om ete r in h er m ou th . M y m oth er sa id , “U m mm, um mm,” t o s h ow t h e p u rs e t o t h e s e co n d n u rs e , w ho a n sw ere d , “ O h, f o r m e? W hy, th an k y o u !” a n d to ok th e p u rs e! M y m oth er w as a t a lo ss , a n d n ev er gu re d o u t h ow to s a y, “ I d id n’t m ean to g iv e it to y o u . P le a se ret urn it to m e.” H er s to ry p oig n an tly r e v ea ls h ow p ain fu l it c a n b e when p eo p le don’t o p en ly a ck n ow le d ge t h eir n eed s. Fro m E m otio n al S la v er y t o E m otio n al L ib era tio n In o u r d ev elo p m en t to w ard a sta te o f em otio n al li b er atio n , m ost o f u s ex p erie n ce t h re e s ta g es i n t h e w ay w e re la te t o o th er s. S ta g e 1 : In th is sta g e, w hic h I ref er to a s e m otio n al sla very, w e b eli e v e o u rs e lv es r e sp on sib le f o r t h e f e eli n gs o f o th er s. W e th in k w e m ust c o n sta n tly s tr iv e t o k eep e v ery o n e h ap py. I f t h ey d on’t a p p ear h ap py, w e f e el r es pon sib le a n d c o m pelle d to d o s o m eth in g a b ou t it .  is c a n e a sily le a d u s to s e e th e very p eo p le w ho a re c lo se st t o u s a s b u rd en s. T ak in g r e sp on sib ili t y f o r t h e f e eli n gs o f o th er s c a n b e ver y d etr im en ta l t o in tim ate re la tio n sh ip s. I ro u tin ely h ear v aria tio n s o n th e fo llo w in g th em e: “I’m r e a lly s c a re d t o b e i n a r e la tio n sh i p. E very t im e I s e e m y p artn er i n p ain o r n eed in g s o m eth in g, I f e el o ver whelm ed . I f e el li k e I ’m in p ris o n , t h at I ’m b ein g sm oth ere d — an d I ju st h av e to g et o u t o f th e re la tio n sh ip a s fa st a s p oss ib le .”  is re sp on se is c o m mon a m on g th ose who ex per ien ce lo ve as d en ia l o f o n e’s o w n n eed s in o rd er t o a tt en d t o t h e need s o f t h e belo ved . I n th e early day s of a re la tio n sh ip , partn ers ty p ic a lly re la te jo yfu lly an d co m pass io n ate ly t o e a ch o th er o u t o f a s en se of f r e ed om .  e re la tio n sh ip is e x h ila ra tin g, sp on ta n eo u s, won der fu l. Even tu ally , how ev er , as th e re la tio n sh ip b eco m es “ s e rio u s,” p artn ers m ay b eg in t o a ssu m e res pon sib ili t y fo r e a ch o th er’s f e eli n gs. F ir st sta g e: Em otio n al sla v er y. W e se e ou rse lv es re sp on sib le f o r o th ers’ f e eli n gs. If I w ere a p artn er w ho is c o n sc io u s o f d oin g t h is , I m ig h t a ck n ow le d ge th e sit u atio n by ex p la in in g, “I ca n ’t bear it w hen I lo se myse lf in r e la tio n sh ip s. W hen I s e e m y p artn er’s p ain , I lo se m e, a n d t h en I ju st h av e to b re a k fr e e.” H ow ev er, if I h av e not r e a ch ed th is le v el o f a w aren ess, I a m li k ely to b la m e m y p artn er fo r th e det er io ra tio n o f th e re la tio n sh ip .  us I m ig h t s a y, “ M y p artn er i s s o n eed y a n d d ep en den t i t ’s r e a lly s tr es sin g o u t o u r re la tio n sh ip .” I n s u ch a c a se , m y p artn er w ou ld d o w ell t o r ej ect t h e notio n t h at t h er e is a n yth in g w ro n g w it h h er n eed s. I t w ou ld o n ly m ak e a b ad s it u atio n w ors e to acce p t t h at b la m e. I n ste a d , s h e c o u ld o ff er a n em path ic r es pon se to t h e pain o f m y e m otio n al s la v ery : “ S o y o u n d y o u rs e lf i n p an ic . I t’s v er y h ard f o r y o u to h old o n to th e d eep c a rin g a n d lo ve we’v e had w it h ou t tu rn in g it in to a r e sp on sib ili t y , d u ty , o bli g atio n … . Y ou sen se yo u r fr e ed om clo sin g d ow n becau se y o u th in k y o u co n sta n tly h av e to ta k e ca re of m e.” If, h ow ev er , in ste a d o f a n e m path ic r e sp on se , s h e sa y s, “A re yo u fe eli n g ten se becau se I hav e b een m ak in g t o o m an y d em an ds o n y o u ?” t h en b oth o f u s a re li k ely t o s ta y e n m esh ed in e m otio n al s la v ery, m ak in g it t h at m uch m ore diffi cu lt fo r th e r e la tio n sh ip t o s u rv iv e. S ta g e 2 : In th is s ta g e, w e b eco m e aw are of th e hig h c o sts o f a ssu m in g re sp on sib ili t y fo r o th ers’ fe eli n gs a n d tr y in g to a cco m mod ate th em a t o u r ow n e x p en se . W hen w e n otic e h ow m uch o f o u r li v es w e’v e m is s e d a n d h ow li t t le w e h av e r e sp on ded to t h e c a ll o f o u r o w n s o u l, w e m ay g et a n gry. I r ef er jo kin gly to th is sta g e as th e o b n ox io u s sta ge becau se w e te n d to w ard o bn oxio u s co m men ts li k e, “ at’s y o u r p ro ble m ! I ’m n ot re sp on sib le fo r yo u r fe eli n gs!” w hen p re se n te d w it h an oth er p er so n’s p ain . W e are cle ar w hat w e a re n ot r e sp on sib le fo r, b u t h av e y et t o le arn h ow t o b e res pon sib le t o o th ers i n a w ay t h at i s n ot e m otio n ally en sla v in g. S eco n d s ta g e:  e o b n oxio u s s ta g e. W e f e el a n gry ; w e n o lo n ger w an t t o b e r e sp on sib le f o r o th ers’ f e eli n gs. A s w e e m erg e fr o m th e s ta g e o f e m otio n al s la v er y, w e m ay c o n tin u e to c a rr y r e m nan ts o f f e ar a n d g u ilt a ro u n d h av in g o u r o w n n eed s.  us i t i s n ot su rp ris in g t h at w e e n d u p e x p re ss in g o u r n eed s i n w ay s t h at s o u n d r ig id a n d unyie ld in g to th e e ars o f o th ers . F or e x am ple , d u rin g a b re a k in o n e of m y work sh op s, a y o u n g w om an e x p res se d ap pre cia tio n fo r th e in sig h ts sh e’d g ain ed in to h er o w n sta te o f e m otio n al e n sla v em ent. W hen th e work sh op re su m ed , I s u ggeste d a n a ctiv it y t o t h e gro u p.  e sa m e yo u n g w om an t h en decla re d ass e rtiv ely , “I’d ra th er do so m eth in g els e .” I sen se d sh e was ex erc is in g her n ew fo u n d rig h t to ex p res s her n eed s— ev en if th ey ra n co u nte r t o t h ose o f o th ers . T o e n co u ra g e h er t o s o rt o u t w hat s h e wan te d , I a sk ed , “ D o y o u w an t t o d o so m eth in g e ls e e v en if it c o n ic ts w it h m y n eed s? ” S h e th ou gh t fo r a m om en t, a n d th en sta m mere d , “Y es … . e r … I m ean , n o.” H er c o n fu sio n re ec ts h ow , in th e o bn oxio u s sta g e, w e hav e yet to g ra sp th at em otio n al li b era tio n e n ta ils m ore t h an s im ply a ss er tin g o u r o w n n eed s. I re ca ll an in cid en t du rin g m y dau gh ter M arla ’s pass a g e to w ard e m otio n al l i b era tio n . S h e h ad a lw ay s b een t h e “p er fe ct l i t t le gir l” w ho d en ie d h er o w n n eed s t o c o m ply w it h t h e w is h es o f o th er s. W hen I b eca m e aw are of h ow fr e q u en tly s h e s u ppre ss e d h er o w n d es ir es in o rd er to p le a se oth er s, I ta lk ed t o h er a b ou t h ow I ’d e n jo y h earin g h er ex pres s h er n eed s m ore o en . When w e rst b ro ach ed t h e s u bje ct, M arla c rie d . “ B ut, D ad dy, I d on’t w an t to d is a p p oin t a n yb o d y!” s h e p ro tes te d h elp les sly . I t r ie d t o s h ow M arla h ow h er h on esty w ou ld b e a g i m ore pre cio u s to o th er s th an a cco m mod atin g th em to p re v en t t h eir u p se t. I a ls o c la ri ed w ay s s h e co u ld em path iz e wit h p eo p le w hen t h ey w ere u p se t w it h ou t t a k in g r es pon sib ili t y f o r t h ei r f e eli n gs. A sh ort tim e la te r, I s a w e v id en ce th at m y d au gh ter w as b eg in nin g to e x p re ss h er n eed s m ore o p en ly . A ca ll ca m e fr o m h er sc h ool p rin cip al, a p p are n tly d is tu rb ed b y a c o m mun ic atio n h e’d h ad w it h M arla , w ho h ad arriv ed a t s c h ool w earin g o vera lls . “ M arla ,” h e’d s a id , “ y o u n g w om en d o n ot d re ss t h is w ay.” T o w hic h M arla h ad r es pon ded , “ B ug o ff !” H earin g th is w as cau se fo r cele b ra tio n : M arla had gra d u ate d fr o m em otio n al s la v ery to o bn oxio u sn es s! S h e was le arn in g to e x p res s h er n eed s an d r is k d ea li n g w it h t h e d is p le a su re of o th er s. S u re ly s h e had y et to a ss er t her n eed s c o m fo rta b ly a n d i n a w ay t h at r es pecte d t h e need s o f o th er s, b u t I t r u ste d t h is w ou ld o cc u r i n t im e. S ta g e 3 : A t t h e t h ir d s ta g e, e m otio n al l i b era tio n , w e r e sp on d t o t h e n eed s of o th ers o u t o f c o m pass io n , n ev er o u t o f fe ar, g u ilt , o r s h am e. O ur a ctio n s are t h ere fo re f u l lli n g t o u s, a s w ell a s t o t h ose who r e ce iv e ou r eff orts . W e acce p t f u ll r e sp on sib ili t y f o r o u r o w n in ten tio n s a n d a ctio n s, b u t n ot f o r t h e fe eli n gs o f o th ers . A t th is s ta g e, w e are aw are th at w e ca n n ev er m eet o u r ow n n eed s a t th e e x p en se o f o th er s. E m otio n al li b er atio n in vo lv es sta tin g cle arly w hat w e n eed in a w ay t h at c o m mun ic ates w e are eq u ally c o n cer ned th at th e n eed s o f o th ers b e fu l lle d . N VC is d esig n ed to su pp ort u s in r e la tin g a t t h is l e v el.  ir d sta g e: Em otio n al li b era tio n . We ta k e re sp on sib ili t y f o r o u r i n te n tio n s a n d a ctio n s. Su m mary  e th ir d c o m pon en t o f N VC is th e ack n ow le d gm en t o f th e need s b eh in d ou r f e eli n gs. W hat o th ers s a y a n d d o m ay b e th e stim ulu s f o r, b u t n ev er t h e cau se o f, o u r fe eli n gs. W hen so m eo n e co m mun ic ates n eg ativ ely , w e hav e fo u r o p tio n s a s t o h ow t o r e ce iv e t h e m ess a g e: ( 1 ) b la m e ou rs e lv es , ( 2 ) b la m e oth ers , (3 ) se n se o u r o w n fe eli n gs an d n eed s, (4 ) sen se th e fe eli n gs an d need s h id den i n t h e o th er p ers o n’s n eg ativ e m essa g e. Ju dgm en ts , crit ic is m s, d ia g n ose s, a n d in ter pret atio n s o f o th er s a re all a li e n ate d ex p re ss io n s of ou r ow n n eed s an d valu es . W hen oth er s h ear crit ic is m , th ey te n d to in vest th ei r e n er gy in s e lf – d ef en se or c o u nter att a ck .  e m ore d ir e c tly w e c a n c o n nect o u r fe eli n gs to o u r n eed s, t h e ea sier it is f o r o th ers t o r e sp on d c o m pass io n ate ly . In a w orld w here w e are o en harsh ly ju dged fo r id en tif y in g an d re v ea li n g o u r n eed s, d oin g s o c a n b e ver y f r ig h ten in g, es pecia lly f o r w om en who a re s o cia li z e d t o i g n ore t h eir o w n n eed s w hile c a rin g f o r o th er s. In th e co u rs e of dev elo p in g em otio n al res pon sib ili t y , m ost of us ex p erie n ce th re e sta g es: (1 ) “em otio n al sla v er y”— beli e v in g ou rs e lv es re sp on sib le fo r th e fe eli n gs o f o th er s, (2 ) “ th e obn oxio u s s ta g e” — in w hic h w e re fu se to ad m it to ca rin g w hat an yo n e els e fe els o r n ee d s, an d (3 ) “e m otio n al li b era tio n”— in w hic h w e a ccep t fu ll r es pon sib ili t y fo r o u r o w n fe eli n gs b u t n ot t h e fe eli n gs o f o th er s, w hile b ei ng a w are th at w e ca n n ev er m eet o u r o w n n eed s a t t h e e x p en se of o th er s. N VC i n A ctio n “B rin g B ack t h e S tig m a o f I lle g it im acy !” A s tu den t o f N on vio le n t C om mun ic atio n v o lu nte er in g a t a fo o d b an k w as sh ock ed w hen an eld erly co -w ork er bu rst ou t fr o m b eh in d a n ew sp ap er, “W hat w e n eed to d o in th is co u ntr y is b rin g b ack th e stig m a o f i lle g it im acy !”  e s tu den t’s h ab it u al r e a ctio n t o t h is k in d o f s ta te m en t w ou ld h av e b een to sa y n oth in g, to ju dge th e oth er se v er ely bu t silen tly , an d ev en tu ally t o p ro ce ss h er o w n f e eli n gs s a fe ly a w ay f r o m t h e sc e n e.  is t im e, s h e r e m em bere d s h e h ad th e op tio n o f li s ten in g fo r th e fe eli n gs an d n eed s b eh in d t h e w ord s t h at h ad s h ock ed h er . Stu den t: ( fi rst ch eck in g ou t her gu ess as to w hat th e co w ork er w as ob se rv in g) Are yo u re a d in g so m eth in g ab ou t te en ag e p re g n an cie s i n t h e p ap er? C o- w ork er: Y es, i t ’s u n beli e v ab le h ow m an y o f t h em a re doin g i t ! S tu den t: ( n ow li s te n in g f o r t h e co -w ork er’s f e eli n g, a n d w hat u nm et n eed m ig h t b e giv in g ris e to th is fe eli n g) A re y o u fe eli n g a la rm ed b ecau se y o u ’d l i k e k id s t o h av e s ta b le fa m ili es ? Co- w ork er: O f c o u rs e ! D o y o u k n ow , m y f a th er w ou ld h av e kille d m e if I h ad d on e a n yth in g l i k e t h at! S tu den t: S o yo u ’r e re m em berin g h ow it w as fo r th e gir ls in yo u r gen era tio n w ho g o t p re g n an t? C o- w ork er: S u re th in g! W e k n ew w hat w ou ld h ap p en to u s if w e go t p re g n an t. W e w ere s c a re d a b ou t it a ll t h e tim e, n ot li k e th es e gir ls n ow ad ay s. S tu den t: A re y o u a n noyed t h at t h ere is n o fe ar o f p u n is h m en t fo r t h e gir ls w ho g et p re g n an t t h ese d ay s? C o- w ork er: W ell, a t le a st fe ar a n d p u n is h m en t w ork ed ! It s a y s h er e th at th ere a re g ir ls s le ep in g a ro u n d w it h d iff er en t m en j u st s o t h ey ca n g et p re g n an t!  at’s r ig h t!  ey h av e bab ies a n d th e res t of u s i n s o cie ty p ay f o r i t !  e stu den t o f N VC h eard tw o d iff er en t fe eli n gs in th is sta tem ent: a sto n is h m en t t h at g ir ls w ou ld d eli b er ate ly g et p reg nan t, a n d a n noyan ce th at t a x p ay ers e n d u p p ay in g fo r c h ild ren b orn in t h is w ay. S h e ch ose w hic h f e eli n g t o e m path iz e w it h . Stu den t: A re y o u a sto n is h ed t o r e a li z e t h at p eo p le are get tin g p reg nan t th ese day s wit h ou t an y co n sid er atio n fo r rep uta tio n , co n se q u en ce s, n an cia l s ta b ili t y … a ll t h e th in gs y o u u se d t o c o n sid er? C o- w ork er: Y ea h , a n d g u ess w ho e n ds u p p ay in g f o r i t ?  e co -w ork er, pro b ab ly fe eli n g heard aro u n d her asto n is h m en t, m oved o n to h er o th er fe eli n g: th at o f a n noyan ce. A s o  en h ap p en s when th ere is a m ix tu re o f fe eli n gs p res en t, th e sp ea k er w ill r et urn to t h ose t h at h av e n ot r e ce iv ed e m path ic a tt en tio n . I t is n ot n eces sa ry f o r th e l i s te n er t o r e ec t b ack a c o m plex m ix tu re of f e eli n gs a ll a t o n ce; t h e ow o f c o m pass io n w ill c o n tin u e as e a ch f e eli n g c o m es u p a g ain in it s tu rn . Stu den t: S o u n ds li k e y o u ’r e e x asp era te d b ecau se yo u ’d li k e y o u r ta x m on ey t o b e u se d f o r o th er p u rp oses . I s t h at s o ? C o- w ork er: C erta in ly is ! D o y o u k n ow th at m y s o n a n d h is w if e wan t a s e co n d c h ild a n d t h ey c a n ’t h av e o n e— ev en t h ou gh t h ey h av e tw o j o b s— becau se i t c o sts s o m uch ? Stu den t: I g u ess y o u ’r e s a d a b ou t th at? Y ou ’d p ro b ab ly lo ve to h av e a se co n d g ra n dch ild … C o- w ork er: Y es, a n d i t ’s n ot j u st f o r m e t h at i t w ou ld m ak e a d iff er en ce. S tu den t: … a n d fo r y o u r so n to h av e th e fa m ily h e wan ts … (E ven th ou gh t h e stu den t g u ess e d o n ly p artia lly c o rre ctly , s h e did n ot in te rru pt th e flow o f e m path y, in ste a d a llo w in g th e co -w ork er to c o n tin u e an d r e a li z e an oth er c o n ce rn .) C o- w ork er: Y es, I t h in k i t ’s s a d t o b e a s in gle c h ild t o o. Stu den t: O h, I s e e; y o u ’d l i k e f o r K atie t o h av e a l i t t le bro th er ? Co- w ork er:  at w ou ld b e n ic e. A t t h is p oin t, t h e s tu den t s e n se d a r e le a se in h er c o -w ork er . A m om en t of sile n ce e la p se d . S h e fe lt su rp ris e d to d is c o ver th at, w hile sh e still wan te d to ex p re ss her ow n vie w s, her urg en cy an d ten sio n had d is s ip ate d b ecau se s h e n o lo n ger fe lt “ a d ver sa ria l.” S h e un dersto od t h e fe eli n gs a n d n eed s b eh in d h er c o -w ork er’s sta te m en ts a n d n o lo n ger fe lt t h at t h e t w o o f t h em w ere “ w orld s a p art.” S tu den t: ( e x p re ssin g h erse lf in N VC, a n d u sin g a ll fo u r p arts of th e pro ce ss : o b se rv a tio n [ O ], f e eli n g [ F ], n eed [ N ], r e q u est [ R ]) Y ou k n ow , w hen yo u rst sa id th at w e sh ou ld b rin g b ack th e stig m a o f ille g it im acy ( O ), I g o t r e a lly s c a re d ( F ), b ecau se it r e a lly m att e rs t o m e t h at a ll o f u s h er e sh are a d eep c a rin g f o r p eo p le n eed in g h elp ( N ). S o m e o f t h e peo p le co m in g h er e fo r fo od a re te en ag e p are n ts ( O ), a n d I w an t to m ak e su re th ey fe el w elc o m e ( N ). W ou ld y o u m in d te lli n g m e how y o u fe el w hen y o u s e e D ash al, o r A m y a n d h er b oyfr ien d, w alk in g i n ? (R )  e d ia lo gu e c o n tin u ed w it h s e v er al m ore ex ch an ges u ntil t h e wom an g o t th e re a ssu ra n ce sh e n eed ed th at h er c o -w ork er d id in deed o ff er ca rin g an d re sp ec tfu l help to un m arrie d te en cli en ts . Even m ore im porta n tly , w hat th e w om an gain ed w as a new ex p er ien ce in e x p re ss in g d is a g re em en t in a w ay th at m et h er n eed s fo r h on esty a n d m utu al r e sp ec t. I n th e m ean tim e, th e co -w ork er le sa tis ed th at h er co n cer ns aro u n d te en pre g n an cy had been fu lly heard . Both parties fe lt u n dersto od , a n d th eir r e la tio n sh ip b en ete d fr o m th ei r h av in g s h are d th eir u n dersta n din g a n d d iff ere n ce s w it h ou t h ostili t y . I n t h e ab sen ce of N VC, th eir re la tio n sh ip m ig h t h av e beg un to d et er io ra te fr o m th is m om en t, a n d th e w ork th ey b oth w an te d to d o in c o m mon — help in g peo p le — mig h t h av e s u ff ere d . Exerc is e 3 A C K N O W LE D GIN G N EED S To p ra ctic e id en tif y in g n eed s, p le a se cir c le th e nu m ber in fr o n t o f ea ch sta te m en t w here th e s p ea k er is a ck n ow le d gin g r es pon sib ili t y fo r h is o r h er fe eli n gs. 1. “ Y ou ir rit a te m e when yo u le av e co m pan y docu m en ts on th e co n fe re n ce r o om oor.” 2. “ I fe el a n gry w hen y o u s a y th at, b ecau se I a m w an tin g res pect a n d I h ear y o u r w ord s a s a n i n su lt .” 3. “ I f e el f r u str a te d w hen y o u c o m e la te .” 4. “ I’m s a d t h at y o u w on’t b e c o m in g f o r d in ner b ecau se I w as h op in g w e co u ld s p en d t h e e v en in g t o geth er .” 5. “ I f e el d is a p p oin te d b ecau se y o u s a id y o u w ou ld d o i t a n d y o u d id n’t .” 6. “ I’m d is c o u ra g ed b ecau se I w ou ld h av e li k ed t o h av e pro gres se d f u rth er in m y w ork b y n ow .” 7. “ L it t le t h in gs p eo p le s a y s o m etim es h u rt m e.” 8. “ I f e el h ap py t h at y o u r e ce iv ed t h at a w ard .” 9. “ I f e el s c a re d w hen y o u r a is e y o u r v o ic e.” 1 0 . “ I a m g ra te fu l t h at y o u o ff ere d m e a r id e becau se I w as n eed in g t o g et h om e b efo re m y c h ild re n a rriv e.” H ere are m y r e sp on se s f o r E xerc is e 3: 1. I f yo u cir c le d th is nu m ber, w e’r e not in ag re em ent. To m e, th e sta te m en t im pli e s t h at t h e o th er p er so n’s b eh av io r is s o le ly r es pon sib le f o r t h e s p ea k er’s f e eli n gs. I t d oesn ’t r e v ea l t h e need s o r t h ou gh ts t h at a re c o n tr ib u tin g t o t h e s p ea k er’s f e eli n gs. T o d o s o , t h e sp ea k er m ig h t h av e sa id , “I’m ir rit a te d w hen yo u le av e co m pan y docu m en ts on th e co n fe re n ce ro om oor, b ecau se I w an t o u r d ocu m en ts to b e sa fe ly s to re d a n d a cce ss ib le .” 2. I f yo u cir c le d th is n u m ber, w e’r e in ag re em ent th at th e sp ea k er is a ck n ow le d gin g r e sp on sib ili t y f o r h is o r h er f e eli n gs. 3. I f y o u c ir c le d t h is n u m ber, w e’r e n ot i n a g re em ent. T o ex pres s t h e need s or t h ou gh ts u n derly in g h is o r h er f e eli n gs, t h e sp ea k er m ig h t h av e sa id , “I f e el f r u str a te d w hen y o u c o m e la te b ecau se I w as h op in g w e’d b e ab le t o g et s o m e f r o n t- r o w s e ats .” 4. I f yo u cir c le d th is n u m ber, w e’r e in ag re em ent th at th e sp ea k er is a ck n ow le d gin g r e sp on sib ili t y f o r h is o r h er f e eli n gs. 5. I f y o u c ir c le d t h is n u m ber, w e’r e n ot i n a g re em ent. T o ex pres s t h e need s an d th ou gh ts u n derly in g h is o r h er fe eli n gs, th e sp ea k er m ig h t h av e sa id , “ W hen y o u s a id y o u ’d d o it a n d th en d id n’t , I fe lt d is a p p oin te d b ecau se I w an t t o b e a b le t o r e ly u p on y o u r w ord s.” 6. I f yo u cir c le d th is n u m ber, w e’r e in ag re em ent th at th e sp ea k er is a ck n ow le d gin g r e sp on sib ili t y f o r h is o r h er f e eli n gs. 7. I f y o u c ir c le d t h is n u m ber, w e’r e n ot i n a g re em ent. T o ex pres s t h e need s an d th ou gh ts u n derly in g h is o r h er fe eli n gs, th e sp ea k er m ig h t h av e sa id , “S o m etim es w hen p eo p le sa y li t t le th in gs, I fe el h u rt b ecau se I wan t t o b e a p pre cia te d , n ot c rit ic iz e d .” 8. I f y o u c ir c le d t h is n u m ber, w e’r e n ot i n a g re em ent. T o ex pres s t h e need s an d th ou gh ts u n derly in g h is o r h er fe eli n gs, th e sp ea k er m ig h t h av e sa id , “ W hen y o u r e ce iv ed t h at a w ard , I f e lt h ap py b ecau se I w as h op in g yo u ’d b e r e co gn iz e d f o r a ll t h e w ork y o u ’d p u t i n to t h e pro je ct.” 9. I f y o u c ir c le d t h is n u m ber, w e’r e n ot i n a g re em ent. T o ex pres s t h e need s an d th ou gh ts u n derly in g h is o r h er fe eli n gs, th e sp ea k er m ig h t h av e sa id , “W hen yo u ra is e yo u r vo ic e, I fe el sc a re d b ecau se I’m te lli n g m yse lf s o m eo n e m ig h t g et h u rt h er e, a n d I n eed t o k n ow t h at w e’r e all s a fe .” 1 0 . I f yo u cir c le d th is n u m ber, w e’r e in ag re em ent th at th e sp ea k er is a ck n ow le d gin g r e sp on sib ili t y f o r h is o r h er f e eli n gs. W 6 Req u estin g  at W hic h W ou ld E nric h L ife e h av e n ow co vere d th e rst th re e co m pon en ts o f N VC, w hic h a d dre ss w hat w e a re o b se rv in g, f e eli n g, a n d need in g. W e h av e le arn ed to d o t h is w it h ou t c rit ic iz in g, a n aly zin g, b la m in g, o r d ia g n osin g o th er s, a n d in a w ay li k ely to in sp ir e c o m pass io n .  e fo u rth a n d n al c o m pon en t o f th is p ro ce ss a d dre ss e s w hat w e wou ld li k e to re q u est o f o th ers in o rd er to e n ric h li f e fo r u s. W hen o u r n eed s a re not b ei ng fu l lle d , w e fo llo w th e ex p re ss io n o f w hat w e a re o b se rv in g, fe eli n g, a n d n eed in g w it h a sp eci c re q u est: w e a sk fo r a ctio n s t h at m ig h t fu l ll o u r n eed s. H ow d o w e ex pres s ou r r e q u ests s o t h at o th ers a re m ore willi n g to r es pon d c o m pass io n ate ly to o u r n eed s? Usin g P osit iv e A ctio n L an gu ag e Fir st o f a ll, w e e x p re ss w hat w e a re r e q u estin g r a th er th an w hat w e are not re q u estin g. “ H ow d o y o u d o a d on’t ? ” g o es a li n e o f a c h ild re n ’s s o n g b y m y co lle a g u e R uth B eb erm ey er: “A ll I k n ow i s I f e el w on’t w hen I ’m t o ld t o d o a d on’t .”  ese ly ric s re v ea l tw o pro blem s co m mon ly en co u nter ed w hen re q u ests a re w ord ed in t h e n eg ativ e. P eo p le are o en c o n fu se d a s t o w hat is a ctu ally b ein g re q u este d , a n d fu rth er m ore , n eg ativ e re q u es ts a re li k ely to p ro vo ke r e sis ta n ce. U se p osit iv e l a n gu ag e w hen m ak in g r e q u ests . A w om an a t a w ork sh op, fr u str a te d th at h er h u sb an d w as s p en din g s o m uch t im e a t w ork , d esc rib ed h ow h er r e q u es t h ad back re d : “ I a sk ed h im n ot to sp en d so m uch tim e a t w ork .  re e week s la te r, h e res pon ded b y an nou n cin g t h at h e’d s ig n ed u p f o r a g o lf t o u rn am en t!” S h e had s u cces sfu lly c o m mun ic ate d t o h im w hat s h e d id n ot w an t— his s p en din g s o m uch t im e at w ork — bu t h ad fa ile d to r e q u est w hat s h e did w an t. E nco u ra g ed to r e w ord h er re q u est, s h e th ou gh t a m in ute an d s a id , “ I w is h I h ad to ld h im th at I w ou ld li k e h im to sp en d at le a st o n e ev en in g a w eek at h om e wit h th e ch ild re n a n d m e.” D urin g th e V ie tn am W ar, I w as ask ed to d eb ate th e war is su e on te le v is io n w it h a m an w hose p osit io n d iff er ed fr o m m in e.  e sh ow w as v id eo ta p ed , so I w as a b le to w atc h it a t h om e th at e v en in g. W hen I sa w m yse lf on th e sc re en co m mun ic atin g in way s I did n’t wan t to be co m mun ic atin g, I fe lt v ery u p se t. “ If I ’m e v er in a n oth er d is c u ss io n ,” I to ld m yse lf , “ I a m d ete rm in ed n ot to d o w hat I d id o n th at p ro gra m ! I’m n ot go in g to b e d efe n siv e. I ’m n ot g o in g to let t h em m ak e a fo ol o f m e.” N otic e h ow I s p oke to m yse lf in te rm s o f w hat I d id n’t w an t to d o r a th er th an in t e rm s o f w hat I d id w an t t o d o. A c h an ce t o r e d eem m yse lf c a m e th e ver y n ex t w eek w hen I w as in vit e d to c o n tin u e th e d eb ate o n th e s a m e pro gra m . A ll th e way to th e stu dio , I re p eate d t o m yse lf a ll t h e t h in gs I d id n’t w an t t o d o. A s s o on a s t h e pro gra m sta rte d , t h e m an la u n ch ed o ff i n ex actly t h e sa m e way h e had a w eek e arli er . For ab ou t te n se co n ds a er he’d n is h ed ta lk in g, I m an ag ed not to c o m mun ic ate in th e w ay s I h ad b een rem in din g m yse lf . In fa ct, I sa id n oth in g. I ju st s a t th ere . A s s o on a s I o p en ed m y m ou th , h ow ev er , I fo u n d w ord s t u m bli n g o u t i n a ll t h e w ay s I h ad b een s o d et er m in ed t o a v o id ! I t w as a p ain fu l le ss o n a b ou t w hat c a n h ap p en w hen I o n ly id en tif y w hat I d on’t w an t t o d o, w it h ou t c la rif y in g w hat I d o w an t t o d o. I w as o n ce i n vit e d t o w ork w it h s o m e h ig h s c h ool s tu den ts w ho s u ff er ed a lo n g li t a n y of grie v an ce s ag ain st th ei r prin cip al.  ey reg ard ed th e prin cip al a s r a cis t, a n d s e arc h ed fo r w ay s to g et e v en w it h h im . A m in is ter w ho w ork ed c lo se ly w it h th e y o u n g p eo p le beca m e deep ly c o n cer ned o ver th e p ro sp ec t o f v io le n ce. O ut o f r es pect f o r t h e m in is ter , t h e stu den ts a g re ed to m eet w it h m e.  ey b eg an b y d esc rib in g w hat t h ey s a w a s d is c rim in atio n on t h e p art o f th e p rin cip al. A er l i s te n in g t o s e v er al o f t h ei r c h arg es, I s u gges te d t h at t h ey p ro ce ed b y c la rif y in g w hat t h ey w an te d f r o m t h e prin cip al. “ W hat g o od w ou ld t h at d o?” s c o ff ed o n e s tu den t i n d is g u st. “ W e alr e a d y w en t to h im to te ll h im w hat w e wan te d . H is a n sw er to u s w as, ‘G et o u t o f h ere ! I d on’t n eed y o u p eo p le t e lli n g m e w hat t o d o!’” I ask ed th e stu den ts w hat th ey h ad re q u es te d o f th e prin cip al.  ey re ca lle d s a y in g to h im th at th ey d id n’t w an t h im te lli n g th em h ow to w ear th eir h air . I su ggeste d th at th ey m ig h t h av e re ce iv ed a m ore co op er ativ e re sp on se i f t h ey h ad e x p re ss e d w hat t h ey d id , r a th er t h an w hat t h ey d id n ot, w an t.  ey h ad t h en in fo rm ed t h e prin cip al t h at t h ey w an te d to b e tr e ate d w it h fa ir n ess , a t w hic h h e h ad b eco m e d ef en siv e, v o cif er ou sly d en yin g e v er h av in g been u n fa ir . I ven tu re d to gu ess th at th e prin cip al w ou ld h av e re sp on ded m ore f a v o ra b ly if t h ey h ad a sk ed fo r s p eci c a ctio n s r a th er t h an v ag u e b eh av io r l i k e “ fa ir t r e atm en t.” W ork in g to geth er, w e fo u n d w ay s to ex pres s th ei r re q u es ts in p osit iv e actio n l a n gu ag e. A t t h e e n d o f t h e m eet in g, t h e stu den ts h ad c la ri ed t h ir ty – eig h t a ctio n s t h ey w an te d t h e p rin cip al to t a k e, in clu din g “ W e’d li k e yo u to a g re e to b la ck s tu den t r e p re se n ta tio n o n d ecis io n s m ad e a b ou t d res s c o d e,” a n d “ W e’d l i k e y o u t o r e fe r t o u s a s ‘b la ck s tu den ts ’ a n d n ot ‘y o u p eo p le .’ ”  e fo llo w in g d ay, th e stu den ts p re sen te d th ei r re q u es ts to th e prin cip al u sin g th e p osit iv e a ctio n la n gu ag e w e had p ra ctic e d ; th at e v en in g I re cei ved a n ela te d p h on e c a ll fr o m th em : th ei r p rin cip al h ad a g re ed to a ll th ir ty -ei gh t re q u ests ! In a d dit io n t o u sin g p osit iv e l a n gu ag e, w e als o w an t t o w ord o u r r e q u es ts in th e fo rm o f co n cre te actio n s th at o th er s ca n u n der ta k e an d to av o id v ag u e, a b str a ct, o r a m big u ou s p h ra sin g. A c a rto on d ep ic ts a m an w ho h as fa lle n in to a la k e. A s h e s tr u gg les to s w im , h e sh ou ts to h is d og o n s h ore , “L ass ie , g et h elp !” In th e n ex t fr a m e, th e dog is ly in g o n a p sy ch ia tr is t’s c o u ch . W e a ll k n ow h ow o p in io n s v ary a s to w hat c o n stit u tes “ h elp ”: s o m e mem bers o f m y fa m ily , w hen a sk ed to h elp w it h th e dis h es , th in k “ h elp ” m ean s s u p erv is io n . A co u ple in dis tr e ss att e n din g a w ork sh op pro vid es an ad dit io n al illu str a tio n o f h ow n on sp eci c la n gu ag e ca n h am per u n der sta n din g an d co m mun ic atio n . “ I w an t y o u to let m e be m e,” th e wom an d ecla re d to h er hu sb an d. “ I d o!” h e r e to rte d . “ N o, y o u d on’t !” s h e in sis te d . A sk ed t o ex pres s hers e lf in p osit iv e a ctio n la n gu ag e, th e wom an r ep li e d , “ I w an t y o u to g iv e m e t h e f r e ed om t o g ro w a n d b e m yse lf .” S u ch a s ta te m en t, h ow ev er , i s j u st a s v ag u e a n d l i k ely t o p ro vo ke a d efen siv e res pon se . S h e str u gg le d t o f o rm ula te h er r e q u est c le arly , a n d t h en a d m it t e d , “ It’s k in d o f a w kw ard , b u t i f I w er e to b e p re cis e , I g u ess w hat I w an t i s f o r y o u t o s m ile a n d s a y t h at a n yth in g I d o is o kay.” O en , t h e u se o f v ag u e a n d a b str a ct la n gu ag e c a n m ask o p pres siv e in te rp ers o n al g am es. M ak in g re q u ests in cle a r, pos it iv e, co n cre te actio n la n gu ag e r e v ea ls w hat w e r e a lly w an t. A s im ila r la ck o f c la rit y o cc u rre d b et ween a fa th er a n d h is  een -y ear- o ld so n w hen th ey c a m e in fo r c o u n se li n g. “A ll I w an t is fo r y o u to sta rt sh ow in g a l i t t le r e sp on sib ili t y ,” c la im ed t h e fa th er . “ Is t h at a sk in g t o o m uch ?” I s u ggeste d t h at h e s p ecif y w hat i t w ou ld t a k e fo r h is s o n t o d em on str a te th e re sp on sib ili t y h e w as se ek in g. A er a d is c u ss io n on h ow to cla rif y h is r e q u est, t h e f a th er r e sp on ded s h eep is h ly , “ W ell, i t d oes n’t s o u n d s o g o od , b u t w hen I s a y t h at I w an t r e sp on sib ili t y , w hat I r e a lly m ean i s t h at I w an t h im t o d o w hat I a sk , w it h ou t q u estio n — to ju m p w hen I s a y ju m p, a n d to s m ile w hile d oin g it .” H e th en a g re ed w it h m e th at if h is so n w ere to a ctu ally b eh av e t h is w ay, i t w ou ld d em on str a te o b ed ien ce r a th er t h an r es pon sib ili t y . L ik e th is fa th er, w e o  en u se v ag u e an d a b str a ct la n gu ag e to in dic ate h ow w e w an t o th er p eo p le to fe el o r b e wit h ou t n am in g a c o n cret e actio n th ey co u ld ta k e to re a ch th at sta te . F or ex am ple , an em plo yer m ak es a gen u in e e ff ort to in vit e fe ed back , te lli n g th e em plo yees, “ I w an t y o u to fe el fr e e to ex p re ss yo u rs e lf aro u n d m e.”  e sta te m en t co m mun ic ates th e em plo yer’s d esir e f o r t h e e m plo yees t o “ fe el f r e e,” b u t n ot w hat t h ey c o u ld d o in o rd er to fe el th is w ay. In ste a d , th e em plo yer c o u ld u se p osit iv e a ctio n la n gu ag e t o m ak e a r e q u est: “ I’d li k e yo u t o te ll m e w hat I m ig h t d o t o m ak e it e a sie r f o r y o u t o f e el f r e e t o e x p res s y o u rs e lv es a ro u n d m e.” V ag u e l a n gu ag e c o n tr ib u te s t o i n te rn al c o n fu sio n . D ep re ssio n i s t h e r e w ard w e g et f o r b ein g “ g o od .” A s a n al illu str a tio n o f h ow th e use of v ag u e la n gu ag e c o n tr ib u tes to in te rn al c o n fu sio n , I w ou ld li k e to p res en t th e co n ver sa tio n th at I w ou ld i n varia b ly h av e d u rin g m y p ra ctic e a s a c li n ic a l p sy ch olo gis t w it h t h e m an y cli e n ts w ho c a m e to m e w it h c o m pla in ts o f d ep res sio n . A er I em path iz e d w it h th e d ep th o f fe eli n g th at a c li en t h ad ju st ex pres se d , o u r ex ch an ges w ou ld t y p ic a lly p ro ce ed i n t h e f o llo w in g m an ner : M BR : W hat a re y o u w an tin g t h at y o u a re not r e ce iv in g? C li e n t: I d on’t k n ow w hat I w an t. M BR : I g u ess e d t h at y o u w ou ld s a y t h at. C li e n t: W hy? M BR : M y th eo ry is th at w e g et d ep re ss e d b ecau se we’r e not g ett in g w hat w e w an t, a n d w e’r e n ot g ett in g w hat w e wan t b ecau se we hav e nev er b een ta u gh t to g et w hat w e w an t. In ste a d , w e’v e been ta u gh t to b e go od li t t le b oys a n d g ir ls a n d g o od m oth er s a n d fa th er s. If w e’r e g o in g to b e o n e o f th ose go od th in gs, b et ter get u se d to b ei ng dep re ss e d . D ep re ss io n is t h e r e w ard w e get fo r b ei ng “ g o o d .” B ut, if y o u w an t to fe el b ett e r, I’d li k e y o u to c la rif y w hat y o u w ou ld li k e p eo p le t o d o t o m ak e l i f e m ore w on derfu l f o r y o u . C li e n t: I j u st w an t s o m eo n e t o l o ve m e.  at’s h ard ly u n re a so n ab le , i s i t ? M BR : It’s a g o od sta rt. N ow I’d li k e y o u to c la rif y w hat y o u w ou ld li k e peo p le to d o t h at w ou ld fu l ll y o u r n eed to b e lo ved . F or ex am ple , w hat c o u ld I d o r ig h t n ow ? Cli e n t: O h, y o u k n ow … M BR : I’m n ot s u re I d o. I ’d li k e y o u t o t e ll m e what y o u w ou ld li k e m e, o r o th ers , t o d o t o g iv e y o u t h e l o ve y o u ’r e lo okin g f o r. C li e n t:  at’s h ard . M BR : Yes, it c a n b e d iffi cu lt t o m ak e c le ar r e q u es ts . B ut t h in k h ow h ard it w ill b e fo r o th ers to r e sp on d to o u r r e q u es t if w e’r e not e v en c le ar w hat i t i s ! C li e n t: I ’m s ta rtin g to g et c le ar w hat I w an t fr o m o th er s to fu l ll m y n eed fo r l o ve, b u t i t ’s e m barra ss in g. M BR : Yes, v ery o  en it is e m barra ss in g. S o w hat w ou ld y o u li k e f o r m e or o th ers t o d o? C li e n t: I f I r e a lly r e ec t u p on w hat I ’m r e q u es tin g w hen I a sk t o b e lo ved , I s u pp ose I w an t y o u t o g u ess w hat I w an t b ef ore I’m e v en a w are of i t . A nd t h en I w an t y o u t o a lw ay s d o i t . M BR : I’m g ra te fu l fo r y o u r c la rit y . I h op e yo u c a n se e how y o u a re not li k ely to n d so m eo n e w ho c a n fu l ll y o u r n eed fo r lo ve if th at’s w hat i t t a k es. V ery o  en , m y c li e n ts w ere a b le t o s e e how t h e la ck o f a w aren ess o f w hat th ey w an te d fr o m o th ers h ad c o n tr ib u te d s ig n i ca n tly to th ei r fr u str a tio n s an d d ep re ss io n . Mak in g R eq u ests C on sc io u sly S o m etim es w e m ay b e a b le t o c o m mun ic ate a c le ar r e q u es t w it h ou t p u tt in g it in w ord s. S u pp ose y o u ’r e in th e kit c h en a n d y o u r s is ter , w ho is w atc h in g te le v is io n in th e li v in g r o om , c a lls o u t, “ I’m th ir sty .” I n th is c a se , it m ay b e obvio u s th at sh e is re q u estin g y o u to b rin g h er a g la ss o f w ater fr o m th e kit c h en . H ow ev er, in oth er in sta n ce s, w e m ay ex pres s ou r dis c o m fo rt an d in co rre c tly a ssu m e t h at t h e li s te n er h as u n der sto od t h e un derly in g r e q u es t. F or e x am ple , a w om an m ig h t s a y to h er h u sb an d, “ I’m a n noyed y o u fo rg o t th e b u tt e r a n d o n io n s I a sk ed y o u to p ic k u p fo r d in ner .” W hile it m ay b e obvio u s to h er th at s h e is a sk in g h im to g o b ack to th e sto re , th e hu sb an d m ay t h in k t h at h er w ord s w ere u tt er ed s o le ly t o m ak e him f e el g u ilt y . W hen w e s im ply e x p re ss o u r f e eli n gs, i t m ay n ot b e c le a r to t h e l i s te n er w hat w e w an t t h em t o d o. Even m ore o  en , w e a re s im ply n ot c o n sc io u s o f w hat w e are re q u es tin g w hen w e sp ea k . W e ta lk to o th ers o r a t th em w it h ou t k n ow in g h ow to e n gag e in a d ia lo gu e w it h th em . W e to ss o u t w ord s, u sin g th e pres en ce o f o th ers a s a w aste b ask et. I n s u ch s it u atio n s, th e li s ten er, u n ab le to d is c er n a c le ar re q u est in th e sp ea k er’s w ord s, m ay ex per ien ce th e kin d o f d is tr es s illu str a te d i n t h e f o llo w in g a n ecd ote . W e a re o  en n ot c o n sc io u s o f w hat w e a re r e q u estin g. I w as s e ate d d ir e c tly a cro ss t h e a is le fr o m a c o u ple on a m in i- tr a in t h at c a rrie s p ass e n gers to th eir re sp ec tiv e ter m in als at th e Dalla s/F ort W orth I n te rn atio n al A ir p ort. F or p ass e n gers in a h u rr y t o c atc h a p la n e, t h e sn ail’s p ace o f t h e t r a in m ay w ell b e i r r it a tin g.  e m an t u rn ed t o h is w if e an d s a id w it h in te n sit y , “ I h av e n ev er s e en a t r a in g o s o s lo w in a ll m y li f e .” S h e sa id n oth in g, ap p earin g te n se an d u n ea sy as to w hat res pon se he mig h t b e ex p ec tin g f r o m h er. H e t h en d id w hat m an y o f u s d o w hen w e’r e not g et tin g th e r e sp on se w e w an t: h e r e p eate d h im se lf . I n a m ark ed ly s tr o n ger v o ic e, h e ex cla im ed , “ I h av e n ev er s e en a t r a in g o s o s lo w i n a ll m y l i f e! ”  e w if e , at a lo ss fo r re sp on se , lo oked ev en m ore dis tr es se d . In d esp era tio n , sh e tu rn ed to h im a n d sa id , “  ey ’r e ele ctr o n ic a lly tim ed .” I d id n’t th in k th is p ie ce o f in fo rm atio n w ou ld s a tis fy h im , a n d in deed it d id n ot, fo r h e re p eate d h im se lf a th ir d tim e— ev en m ore lo u d ly , “ I H AV E N EV ER SE EN A T R A IN G O SO SL O W IN A LL M Y L IF E ! ”  e w if e ’s p atie n ce w as c le arly e x h au ste d a s s h e sn ap p ed b ack a n grily , “ W ell, w hat d o yo u w an t m e t o d o a b ou t i t ? G et o u t a n d p u sh ?” N ow t h er e were tw o p eo p le i n p ain ! W hat r e sp on se w as th e m an w an tin g? I b eli e v e he wan te d to h ear th at h is p ain w as u n dersto od . If h is w if e had kn ow n th is , sh e mig h t h av e re sp on ded , “It so u n ds li k e yo u ’r e sc a re d w e mig h t m is s o u r p la n e, an d dis g u ste d b ecau se y o u ’d l i k e a f a ster t r a in r u n nin g b et ween t h es e ter m in als .” R eq u ests may so u n d li k e dem an ds when u n acco m pan ie d b y t h e s p ea k er’s f e eli n gs a n d n eed s. In t h e a b ove e x ch an ge, t h e w if e h eard t h e hu sb an d’s f r u str a tio n b u t w as clu ele ss a s to w hat h e w as a sk in g fo r. E qu ally p ro blem atic is th e re v er se sit u atio n — when p eo p le s ta te t h eir r e q u es ts w it h ou t rst c o m mun ic atin g t h e fe eli n gs a n d n eed s b eh in d th em .  is is es pecia lly tr u e w hen th e re q u es t ta k es th e fo rm o f a q u estio n . “ W hy d on’t y o u g o a n d g et a h air c u t? ” c a n e a sily b e h eard b y yo u n gste rs as a d em an d o r an att a ck u n les s p aren ts r e m em ber to rst r e v ea l th eir o w n fe eli n gs a n d n eed s: “ W e’r e worrie d th at y o u r h air is g ett in g s o lo n g it m ig h t k eep y o u f r o m s e ei ng t h in gs, es pecia lly w hen y o u ’r e o n y o u r b ik e. H ow a b ou t a h air c u t? ” It i s m ore c o m mon , h ow ev er, f o r p eo p le to t a lk w it h ou t b ei ng c o n sc io u s of w hat th ey are ask in g fo r. “I’m n ot re q u es tin g an yth in g,” th ey m ig h t re m ark . “ I j u st f e lt l i k e s a y in g w hat I s a id .” M y b eli ef i s t h at, w hen ev er w e sa y so m eth in g t o a n oth er p ers o n , w e a re re q u es tin g s o m eth in g i n r et urn . I t m ay sim ply b e a n e m path ic c o n nec tio n — a v er bal o r n on ver bal a ck n ow le d gm en t, a s w it h t h e m an o n t h e t r a in , t h at o u r w ord s h av e been u n der sto od . O r w e m ay b e r e q u estin g h on esty : w e w is h t o k n ow t h e li s ten er’s h on est r e a ctio n t o o u r w ord s. O r w e m ay b e r e q u estin g a n a ctio n t h at w e h op e w ou ld f u l ll o u r need s.  e c le are r w e a re o n w hat w e wan t b ack f r o m t h e oth er p er so n , t h e m ore l i k ely i t i s t h at o u r n eed s w ill b e m et.  e c le a re r w e a re a b ou t w hat w e w an t, t h e m ore l i k ely i t i s t h at w e’l l g et i t . Ask in g f o r a R efl ectio n A s w e k n ow , t h e m ess a g e w e s e n d is n ot a lw ay s t h e m essa g e th at’s r e cei ved . W e g en era lly re ly o n v erb al c u es to d eter m in e whet her o u r m essa g e has b een u n dersto od to o u r s a tis fa ctio n . I f, h ow ev er , w e’r e un cer ta in t h at it h as b een r e ce iv ed a s in te n ded , w e n eed to b e ab le to c le arly r e q u es t a r es pon se th at te lls u s h ow th e m ess a g e w as h eard so a s to b e ab le to c o rre ct a n y m is u n dersta n din g. O n so m e occ a sio n s, a sim ple qu es tio n li k e, “Is th at cle ar? ” w ill s u ffi ce. A t o th er tim es, w e need m ore th an “ Y es, I u n der sto od yo u ,” to fe el c o n den t th at w e’v e b een tr u ly u n der sto od . A t s u ch tim es, w e m ig h t a sk o th ers t o r e ec t b ack in t h ei r o w n w ord s w hat t h ey h eard u s s a y. W e t h en h av e t h e o p p ortu n it y t o r es ta te p arts o f o u r m ess a g e to a d dres s a n y d is c re p an cy o r o m is s io n w e m ig h t h av e notic e d i n t h ei r r e ectio n . T o m ak e s u re t h e m ess a g e w e s e n t is t h e m ess a g e t h at’s r e ce iv ed , a sk t h e l i s te n er t o r e fl ect i t b ack . For ex am ple , a te a ch er ap pro ach es a stu den t an d sa y s, “P et er , I go t co n ce rn ed w hen I c h eck ed m y r e co rd b o ok y es ter day. I w an t to m ak e su re y o u ’r e a w are o f t h e h om ew ork I ’m m is s in g fr o m y o u . W ill y o u d ro p b y m y offi ce a  er s c h ool? ” P ete r m um bles , “O kay, I k n ow ,” a n d th en tu rn s a w ay, le av in g th e te a ch er u n ea sy a s to w het her h er m ess a g e had b een a cc u ra te ly r e ce iv ed . S h e a sk s fo r a r e ec tio n — “C ou ld y o u te ll m e what y o u ju st h eard m e s a y ?” — to w hic h P ete r r e p li e s, “ Y ou s a id I g o tt a m is s s o ccer t o s ta y a  er sc h ool b ecau se y o u d id n’t li k e m y h om ew ork .” C on rm ed in h er s u sp ic io n th at P ete r h ad n ot h eard h er i n te n ded m essa g e, t h e te a ch er t r ies t o r es ta te it , b u t rst s h e i s c a re fu l o f h er n ex t r em ark . A n ass e rtio n li k e “Y ou d id n’t h ear m e,” “ at’s n ot w hat I sa id ,” o r “Y ou ’r e m is u n dersta n din g m e,” m ay ea sily le a d P et er to th in k th at h e is b ein g ch astis e d . Sin ce th e te a ch er per ce iv es Pet er as hav in g sin cer ely r e sp on ded t o h er r e q u est f o r a r e ectio n , s h e m ig h t s a y, “ I’m g ra tef ul t o y o u fo r t e lli n g m e w hat y o u h eard . I c a n s e e th at I d id n’t m ak e m yse lf a s c le ar a s I’d h av e l i k ed , s o l e t m e t r y a g ain .” Exp re ss a p pre cia tio n w hen y o u r li s te n er tr ie s to meet y o u r r e q u est f o r a r e fl ectio n . W hen w e rst b eg in a sk in g o th ers t o r e ect b ack w hat t h ey h ear u s s a y, it m ay fe el aw kw ard a n d str a n ge b ecau se su ch re q u es ts a re ra re ly m ad e. W hen I em ph asiz e th e im porta n ce o f o u r ab ili t y to ask fo r re ectio n s, p eo p le o  en ex p re ss re se rv atio n s.  ey are worrie d ab ou t re a ctio n s li k e, “W hat d o yo u th in k I am — deaf? ” o r, “Q uit p la y in g yo u r p sy ch olo gic a l g am es.” T o p re v en t s u ch r e sp on ses , w e ca n ex pla in to p eo p le ah ea d o f t im e why w e m ay s o m etim es a sk t h em t o r e ect b ack o u r w ord s. W e m ak e cle ar th at w e’r e n ot te stin g th eir li s te n in g sk ills , b u t c h eck in g o u t w heth er w e’v e ex p re ss e d o u rs e lv es cle arly . H ow ev er , sh ou ld th e li s te n er ret ort, “I h eard w hat y o u s a id ; I ’m n ot s tu pid !” w e hav e th e op tio n t o f o cu s o n t h e li s ten er’s f e eli n gs a n d n eed s a n d a sk — eit h er a lo u d o r s ilen tly — “A re yo u s a y in g y o u ’r e fe eli n g a n noyed b ecau se y o u w an t res pect fo r y o u r a b ili t y to u n der sta n d th in gs? ” E m path iz e w it h t h e li s te n er w ho doesn ’t w an t t o r e fl ect b ack . Req u estin g H on esty A er w e’v e o p en ly e x p re ss e d o u rs e lv es a n d r e ce iv ed th e un der sta n din g w e w an t, w e’r e o  en e a g er to k n ow th e oth er p er so n’s re a ctio n to w hat w e’v e sa id . U su ally th e h on esty w e w ou ld li k e to re ce iv e ta k es on e of th re e d ir e c tio n s: S o m etim es w e’d li k e to k n ow th e fe eli n gs th at a re stim ula te d b y w hat w e s a id , a n d th e r e a so n s fo r th ose fe eli n gs. W e m ig h t r e q u es t th is b y ask in g, “ I w ou ld li k e y o u t o t e ll m e h ow y o u f e el a b ou t w hat I ju st s a id , an d y o u r r e a so n s f o r f e eli n g a s y o u d o.” A er w e e x p re ss o u rse lv es v u ln era b ly , w e o  en w an t t o k n ow ( 1 ) w hat t h e l i s te n er i s f e eli n g; So m etim es w e’d l i k e t o k n ow s o m ethin g a b ou t o u r l i s ten er’s t h ou gh ts i n r e sp on se t o w hat t h ey j u st h eard u s s a y. A t t h es e tim es, i t ’s i m porta n t t o s p ecif y w hic h t h ou gh ts w e’d li k e th em t o s h are . F or ex am ple , w e m ig h t sa y, “ I’d li k e y o u to te ll m e if y o u p re d ic t th at m y p ro p osa l w ou ld b e su cce ss fu l, an d if n ot, w hat yo u b eli e v e wou ld p re v en t it s su cces s,” r a th er t h an s im ply s a y in g, “ I’d li k e yo u t o t e ll m e w hat y o u t h in k a b ou t w hat I ’v e s a id .” W hen w e d on’t s p ecif y w hic h t h ou gh ts w e w ou ld l i k e to r e ce iv e, th e o th er p ers o n m ay re sp on d a t g re at len gth w it h th ou gh ts t h at a re n ’t t h e o n es w e a re s e ek in g. (2 ) w hat t h e l i s te n er i s t h in kin g; o r So m etim es w e’d li k e to k n ow w het her th e per so n is w illi n g to ta k e ce rta in a ctio n s t h at w e’v e r e co m men ded . S u ch a r e q u es t m ay s o u n d l i k e th is : “ I’d li k e y o u to te ll m e if y o u w ou ld b e willi n g to p ostp on e ou r m eetin g f o r o n e w eek .” ( 3 ) w heth er th e li s te n er w ou ld b e w illi n g to ta k e a p artic u la r a ctio n . e u se o f N VC re q u ir e s th at w e be co n sc io u s o f th e sp eci c fo rm o f h on esty w e w ou ld li k e to r e ce iv e, a n d to m ak e th at r e q u es t fo r h on es ty in c o n cre te l a n gu ag e. Mak in g R eq u ests o f a G ro u p It is e sp ecia lly im porta n t w hen w e a re ad dres sin g a g ro u p t o b e cle ar a b ou t th e k in d o f u n dersta n din g o r h on esty w e w an t b ack a  er w e’v e ex pres se d o u rs e lv es. W hen w e are n ot cle ar ab ou t th e res pon se we’d li k e, w e may in it ia te u npro du ctiv e c o n vers a tio n s t h at en d u p s a tis fy in g n o o n e’s n eed s. I’v e b een in vit e d fr o m tim e to tim e to w ork w it h g ro u p s o f cit iz en s co n ce rn ed a b ou t ra cis m in th ei r co m mun it ies . O ne is su e th at fr e q u en tly a ris e s a m on g th ese g ro u p s is th at th ei r m eetin gs a re te d io u s a n d fr u it les s.  is la ck of p ro du ctiv it y is very co stly fo r gro u p m em ber s, w ho o en ex p en d li m it e d re so u rc e s to a rra n ge fo r tr a n sp orta tio n a n d ch ild c a re in o rd er to att e n d m eetin gs. F ru str a te d b y p ro lo n ged d is c u ss io n s th at y ie ld li t t le d ir e c tio n , m an y m em bers q u it t h e gro u p s, d ecla rin g m eetin gs a w aste o f t im e. F u rth erm ore , t h e i n stit u tio n al c h an ges t h ey a re str iv in g t o m ak e are n ot u su ally o n es th at o cc u r q u ic k ly o r e a sily . F or a ll th es e re a so n s, w hen su ch g ro u p s d o m eet, it ’s im porta n t th at th ey m ak e go o d u se of th ei r tim e to geth er. I k n ew m em bers o f o n e su ch g ro u p th at h ad b een o rg an iz e d to eff ect ch an ge i n t h e l o ca l s c h ool s y ste m . I t w as t h ei r b eli ef t h at v ario u s e lem ents i n t h e sc h ool sy ste m d is c rim in ate d ag ain st stu den ts on th e basis of ra ce. B ecau se th eir m eetin gs w ere unpro du ctiv e an d th e gro u p w as lo sin g m em bers , t h ey i n vit e d m e t o o b ser ve th ei r d is c u ss io n s. I s u gges te d t h at t h ey co n du ct t h eir m eetin g a s u su al, a n d t h at I w ou ld let t h em k n ow i f I s a w a n y w ay s N VC m ig h t h elp . O ne m an b eg an t h e m eetin g b y c a lli n g t h e gro u p’s a tt en tio n to a r e cen t new sp ap er a rtic le in w hic h a m in orit y m oth er h ad ra is e d co m pla in ts a n d co n ce rn s re g ard in g th e p rin cip al’s tr e atm en t o f h er d au gh ter . A w om an re sp on ded b y s h arin g a s it u atio n th at h ad o cc u rre d to h er w hen s h e was a s tu den t a t t h e s a m e s c h ool. O ne b y o n e, e a ch m em ber t h en r e la te d a s im ila r p ers o n al e x p erie n ce. A er tw en ty m in utes I a sk ed th e gro u p if th ei r n eed s w ere b ein g m et b y t h e c u rre n t d is c u ss io n . N ot o n e p er so n s a id y es . “  is is w hat h ap p en s a ll t h e t im e i n t h ese m eet in gs!” h u ff ed o n e m an , “ I h av e bet ter t h in gs t o d o w it h m y t im e t h an s it a ro u n d l i s ten in g t o t h e sa m e old b u lls h it .” I t h en a d dre ss e d t h e m an w ho h ad i n it ia te d t h e dis c u ss io n : “ C an y o u t e ll m e, w hen y o u b ro u gh t u p th e n ew sp ap er a rtic le , w hat res pon se yo u w er e wan tin g f r o m t h e g ro u p ?” “I th ou gh t it w as in te re stin g,” h e r ep li e d . I ex pla in ed th at I w as a sk in g w hat r e sp on se h e w an te d f r o m t h e gro u p, r a th er t h an w hat h e th ou gh t a b ou t th e a rtic le . H e p on dere d a w hile a n d th en c o n ce d ed , “ I’m n ot su re what I w an te d .” A nd th at’s w hy, I b eli e v e, tw en ty m in utes o f th e gro u p’s v alu ab le tim e had b een sq u an dere d o n fr u it le ss d is c o u rs e . W hen w e ad dres s a gro u p w it h ou t b ein g c le ar w hat w e a re w an tin g b ack , u npro du ctiv e dis c u ss io n s w ill o  en fo llo w . H ow ev er, if e v en o n e m em ber o f a g ro u p is c o n sc io u s o f th e im porta n ce o f c le arly r e q u estin g t h e res pon se th at is d esir e d , h e or s h e ca n ex te n d th is c o n sc io u sn ess to th e gro u p. F or ex am ple , w hen th is p artic u la r sp ea k er d id n’t d e n e w hat re sp on se he wan te d , a m em ber o f th e gro u p m ig h t h av e s a id , “ I’m c o n fu se d a b ou t h ow y o u ’d li k e us to r es pon d to y o u r sto ry. W ou ld y o u b e w illi n g t o s a y w ha
Question 1: Which elements of Chapter 4, Identifying and Expressing Feelings, did you find most useful? Please cite the specific passages and give examples of how you might use this information in eve
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this public ation at: https://www .rese archg ate.ne t/public ation/264812960 Using the transtheoretical model of beha vioural change to u nderstand the processes through which climate change films might encou rage mitigation action Article   in  International Journal of Sust ainable Development · Januar y 2014 DOI: 10.1504/IJSD.2014.061778 CITATIONS 5 READS 324 1 author: Some o f the author s of this public ation are also w orking on these r elated pr ojects: Fracking V ie w pr oject Household le vel c arbon emissions r eduction Vie w pr oject Rachel Ho well The Univ ersity of Edinbur gh 24 PUBLICATIONS    312 CITATIONS     SEE PROFILE All c ontent f ollowing this p age w as uplo aded by Rachel Ho well on 04 F ebruary 2015. The user has r equested enhanc ement of the do wnloaded file. 1 Using the transtheoretical model of behavioural change to understand the processes through which climate change films mi ght encourage mitigation action Rachel A. Howell Institute of Geography and the Lived Environment, S chool of GeoSciences, The University of Edinburgh, Drummond Street, Edinburgh EH8 9XP, UK Now at: Institute of Geography and Earth Science, A berystwyth University, Aberystwyth SY23 3DB, UK Tel: +44 1790 622608; Fax: +44 1790 622659 Email address: [email protected] Abstract A number of recent films such as An Inconvenient Truth and The Age of Stupid aim not merely to inform their audience about climate change, but to engage them in taking mitigation action. This paper outlines the transtheoretical model of behavi oural change, which incorporates six stages of change that individuals progress through as they change th eir behaviour, and ten associated processes of change . Using four climate change films as illustrations, I show how the model can be applied to identify the processes of change employe d or depicted by sustainability communications. I then discuss research on the impacts of the films in the light of this analysis, considering the strengths and limitations of the movies’ use/portra yal of processes of change with regard to encouraging viewers to change their behaviour. The paper concludes with recommendations for how film may be used more effectively as a tool to inspire climate change mitigation action. Keywords Climate change communications; Sustainability movie s; Lower-carbon behaviours; Pro- environmental behaviour; Behavioural change; Transt heoretical model; Stages of change; Processes of change; Public attitudes; Climate change mitigat ion action Acknowledgements My thanks to Paul Graham Morris who first introduce d the transtheoretical model to me, and to Simon Allen, Pete Higgins, Dave Reay, and Charles W arren, who made helpful comments on the first draft of this paper. I am also grateful to th e anonymous reviewers and to the guest editors of this special issue of the journal for their comment s and advice on the manuscript. This research was supported by a studentship from the Scottish Allian ce for Geosciences, Environment and Society (SAGES). Accepted for publication in a Special Issue of the International Journal of Sustainable Development on ‘Sustainability Tales, Fictions and Other Stories from the Movie Industry’. 2 1 Introduction In recent years, a number of full-length ‘climate change films’ have been made, including drama, documentaries, and hybrid genres. These range from The Day After Tomorrow, in which climate change is the basis for a typical Hollywood disaste r movie, through documentaries that explain the problem, to Just Do It, which focuses on the exploits of climate action g roups. Most of these films aim not merely to inform their audiences about clim ate change, but to persuade people to take action to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissio ns, and/or to get involved in political campaigns or even illegal ‘direct action’ (such as attempting to occupy coal-fired power stations). It is important to understand how climate change films attempt to engage viewers and whether these processes can be effective in motivating behavioura l change. Film offers a number of advantages as a means of p romoting climate change mitigation action to individuals. Visual images can convey messages i nstantly in a way that makes them memorable (Nicholson-Cole, 2005), and movies in particular ha ve immediacy, allowing us to receive information as if we were with the people speaking/ acting. Such ‘messengers’ need to be credible and likely to be trusted (Breakwell, 2000; Chess an d Johnson, 2007; Moser, 2008), and information should be presented by people with whom the intende d audience can identify (Kahan, 2010). But information alone is not enough: knowledge by itsel f does not lead to action (Blake, 1999; Hungerford and Volk, 1990). Pooley and O’Connor (20 00) and Moser (2007) argue that there is a need to appeal to people’s emotions rather than jus t cognitive processes, and films are well-placed to do this through their use of imagery, music, and sound effects. The temptation with a threat as great as climate c hange might be to use the dramatic possibilities of film to depict climate catastrophe . This is a common theme in climate discourses (Hulme, 2008), and Tickell (2002, p.737) suggests t hat we may need a “useful catastrophe or two” to “illuminate the issues”. However, research by Sp ence and Pidgeon (2010) and Morton et al. (2011) suggests that positive framing of climate ch ange mitigation, rather than focussing on what will be lost if we do not act, promotes more positi ve attitudes towards action. Fear can undermine belief that it is possible for individuals to ‘make a difference’ (O’Neill and Nicholson-Cole, 2009; Vasi and Macy, 2003) and may prompt undesirable def ensive responses (Moser, 2007; Witte and Allen, 2000). Therefore it is recommended that comm unications about climate change should explain or show what people can do to mitigate the problem (Lorenzoni et al., 2006; Moser and Dilling, 2004). Social cognitive theory posits that an important w ay that people learn is through observing others’ attitudes, behaviour, and the outcomes of t hat behaviour (Bandura, 1977). Media programmes (including films) featuring characters w hom the audience like and identify with can improve knowledge and change attitudes; they can mo del desirable behaviours, which increases viewers’ sense of self-efficacy (belief that they c an adopt the behaviours) as well as cognitive skill s regarding those behaviours; and they can motivate a nd positively reinforce action through depicting rewards for desirable behaviours and punishments fo r those that are undesirable (Bandura, 2004). This theory is put to use in entertainment-educati on (E-E). E-E involves using entertainment media programmes such as radio serials/soap operas (e.g. Papa et al., 2000; Vaughan et al., 2000; Wray et al., 2004), television dramas (e.g. Hether et al., 2008), and telenovelas (e.g. Wilkin et al., 2007) as a means to influence viewers’ knowledge, a ttitudes, and behaviour regarding social concerns. E-E has been shown to be successful in ch anging attitudes and behaviour with respect to a number of issues, including family planning (Vaugha n and Rogers, 2000), HIV prevention (Vaughan et al., 2000), breast cancer screening (He ther et al., 2008; Wilkin et al., 2007), domestic violence (Usdin et al., 2004), and dowry payments ( Papa et al., 2000). Moyer-Gusé (2008) explains that E-E works through narrative engagement as well as the identification with and emulation of characters tha t is predicted by social cognitive theory. She suggests that the narrative format of E-E means tha t viewers are less likely to perceive it as having a persuasive intent, which may reduce the reactance s ometimes triggered when persuasive messages are perceived as a threat to freedom, leading to me ssage rejection. The narrative format also leads to 3 the audience being engaged in a more immersive and less critical way (Shrum, 2004, cited in Moyer-Gusé, 2008) and therefore less likely to coun ter-argue with the persuasive message embedded in the storyline. Enjoyment of the story a nd identification with one or more characters reduces avoidance, another problem for overtly pers uasive messages (Moyer-Gusé, 2008). Climate change films can utilise the E-E approach, aiming t o provide an entertaining and engaging narrative. However, there are many psychological and contextu al barriers (e.g. social norms, lack of enabling infrastructure) that may prevent people fr om taking action even if they are inspired to do so (Gifford, 2011; Howell, 2011; Lorenzoni, Nichols on-Cole, and Whitmarsh, 2007). It can also be difficult to overcome the force of habit (Hargreave s, Nye, and Burgess, 2010; Oeuellette and Wood, 1998; Webb and Sheeran, 2006). Efforts have been made to investigate the impact o f climate change films on viewers’ attitudes and (occasionally) behaviour. This includes researc h on The Day After Tomorrow (Balmford et al., 2004; Leiserowitz, 2004; Lowe, 2006; Lowe et al., 2 006; Reusswig, Schwarzkopf, and Pohlenz, 2004); An Inconvenient Truth (Beattie, 2011; Beattie, Sale, and McGuire, 2011; Nolan, 2010); The Age of Stupid (Howell, 2011; 2012); and Just Do It (Lander, 2012). These studies give a mixed picture: the films generally raise concern about cl imate change, and often promote motivation to act or even behavioural intentions. The effect on behav iour is not so clear, especially as it is rarely studied and there are methodological problems with doing so (Howell, 2012). Behaviour change is a process, rather than an even t. In Section 2 I introduce a process model of behavioural change, the transtheoretical model (also known as the stages of change model ), which has potential for use in the field of sustainabilit y-related communication because it can help identif y the processes of change that are best employed or m odelled by movies for viewers at different stages of change. To illustrate how the model might be useful, four climate change films that vary in terms of intent, genre, focus, mood and messages are briefly described (Section 3), then analysed using core concepts of the model (Section 4), to in vestigate how they might encourage individuals to take climate change mitigation action of various kinds, and to draw lessons for future films (and indeed, sustainability communication more generally ) (Section 5). Conclusions are presented in Section 6. The focus of the paper is on presenting the model and giving an example of how it might be employed, in the belief that it may prove a valu able tool for use in empirical research and by climate change communication practitioners seeking to improve the efficacy of their work. A rigorous investigation involving identifying film v iewers’ stage of change with regard to particular climate change mitigation actions and testing wheth er films portraying different processes of change promote stage progression is not attempted h ere. Instead, other analyses are used insofar as possible to discuss the impacts of the films in the light of the insights gained from the model. 2 The transtheoretical model of behavioural change 2.1 Stages and processes of change The transtheoretical model (TTM) of behavioural cha nge was developed by James Prochaska, Carlo DiClemente, and colleagues, within the field of hea lth psychology (DiClemente and Prochaska, 1982; DiClemente et al., 1991; Prochaska, 1994; Pro chaska and DiClemente, 1982; 1983; Prochaska, DiClemente, and Norcross, 1992; Prochask a and Velicer, 1997; Prochaska et al., 1994). Their research on interventions to help individuals overcome addictions and/or develop healthy behaviours suggests that behavioural change is a pr ocess involving several stages, defined in Table 1 (Prochaska, DiClemente, and Norcross, 1992; Proch aska and Velicer, 1997). Individuals do not necessarily progress through these stages linearly, but may ‘relapse’ back to an earlier stage (Prochaska, DiClemente, and Norcross, 1992), as ill ustrated by Figure 1. The model also identifies ten common processes use d to facilitate behavioural change (Prochaska and Velicer, 1997), outlined in Table 2. Different processes of change have been found to be emphasised more at different stages of change , with ‘cognitive/affective processes’ such as 4 consciousness-raising and self-re-evaluation utilised more at earlier stages of change, while ‘behavioural processes’ such as stimulus control an d counter-conditioning are more important at later stages (DiClemente and Prochaska, 1982; DiCle mente et al., 1991). Table 3 shows the change processes considered most important at each stage o f change. Proponents of the model recommend that processes of change should be matched to the s tage of change reached by the target individual/group (Prochaska, DiClemente, and Norcro ss, 1992; Prochaska and Velicer, 1997). Individuals at later stages of change report highe r levels of ‘self-efficacy’ (confidence that they can change their behaviour and maintain changes) th an those at earlier stages of change (DiClemente et al., 1991). There are also changes i n individuals’ ‘decisional balance’ (relative weighting of the pros and cons of changing their be haviour), with progression from contemplation to action being associated with a significant incre ase in the evaluation of pros of change, and a smaller decrease in the evaluation of cons (Hall an d Rossi, 2008; Prochaska, 1994). 2.2 Applications and criticisms The TTM has been used to design interventions to pr omote positive behaviours such as physical activity/exercise (Adams and White, 2003; Spencer e t al., 2006), healthy eating (Armitage et al., 2004; Horwath, 1999; Spencer et al., 2007), and mam mography screening (Ashworth, 1997; Spencer, Pagell, and Adams, 2005), as well as to he lp people avoid pregnancy and sexually- transmitted diseases (Horowitz, 2003) and overcome harmful behaviours such as smoking and substance abuse (Migneault, Adams, and Read, 2005; Spencer et al., 2002). The apparent success of some of these communication and intervention progra mmes suggests that it might be worth applying insights from the model to the promotion o f lower-carbon and other sustainability-related behaviours. However, the model has garnered little attention i n the sustainability field to date. The UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs employs it “on the basis of its conceptual lessons only and does not use it to inform the deve lopment of practical interventions” (Defra, 2009, p.5). A study by Duddleston, Stradling, and Anable (2005) categorised people according to stages of change with regard to travel attitudes and behav iour, and Steg (2008) suggests tailored information could be given according to stage of ch ange to promote household energy conservation. He, Greenberg, and Huang (2009) use the model to as sess the utility of existing energy feedback technologies designed to motivate sustainable energ y consumption behaviours, and to make recommendations for the design of future feedback t echnologies suitable for individuals at different stages of change regarding sustainable energy usage . Two studies (Chib et al., 2009; Gatersleben and Appleton, 2007) have attempted to categorise pa rticipants with regard to waste behaviours and cycling respectively, and then implement an interve ntion designed to change behaviour, although the categorisation of stages did not necessarily ma tch the definitions used in the TTM and the interventions were not tailored to different stages of change. Questions have been raised about both the theoreti cal validity of aspects of the TTM, and the effectiveness of model-based interventions (Adams a nd White, 2003; Bridle et al., 2005; Herzog et al., 1999; Rosen, 2000; Weinstein, Rothman, and Sut ton, 1998). However, researchers suggest that many studies are poorly designed, and stage-based i nterventions often fail to represent accurately all facets of the TTM (Ashworth, 1997; Bridle et al., 2 005; Hutchison, Breckon, and Johnston, 2009). 2.3 The utility of the TTM with respect to sustaina bility communications Although there is clearly a need for more research into the theoretical basis of the model and the effectiveness of well-designed interventions, the e vidence that currently exists that different change processes are used at different stages of change (D iClemente and Prochaska, 1982; DiClemente et al., 1991; Herzog et al., 1999; Rosen, 2000) makes an analysis of the processes employed by or modelled in climate change films worthwhile because this helps with understanding how different films (and different types of content) might appeal to and motivate different audiences. For 5 example, even if behavioural change should be conceptualised as a continuum, rather than as progress through discrete stages, as Bridle et al. (2005) and Weinstein, Rothman, and Sutton (1998) suggest may be the case, it seems likely that diffe rent change processes will be important as individuals move along the continuum from unawarene ss to altered lifestyles. Sood, Menard, and Witte (2004) argue that stage mo dels of change are important in the design and evaluation of E-E, because they help with the i dentification of the stage of change intended audiences have reached, with designing messages app ropriate for these audiences, and with mapping and understanding changes made in response. By extension, the TTM can be employed in the design and evaluation of behaviour change commu nications more generally. Borrayo (2004), for example, describes how the TTM was used to design a short film to promote breast cancer screening, while Cottone and Byrd-Bredbenner (2007) applied the TTM to evaluate the effectiveness of the film Super Size Me as a tool in nutrition education, and were able to determine the movie’s impacts on a range of model parameters such as stage of change and self-efficacy. This aids with comprehending not only whether a particular communication promotes change, but how it might do so. Stage models such as the TTM are also very sensitive to change, and thus can add to the literature on media effects. An evaluation that simply measures whether a desired end result has been achieved (e.g. whether viewers of a climate ch ange film have adopted particular lower-carbon behaviours) might conclude that it has no effect, w here an evaluation using the TTM could discover that the film had encouraged stage progression, if not actual behavioural change. The TTM is not the only stage model of change, but it was chosen for this analysis because it is an extremely popular and enduring model (Horwath, 1 999; Spencer et al., 2007) and has been used successfully both to design interventions promoting a variety of behaviours (Spencer et al., 2006; Spencer et al., 2002; Spencer, Pagell, and Adams, 2 005) and to evaluate communications in other fields (e.g. Cottone and Byrd-Bredbenner, 2007). Us ing the model to analyse what processes of change climate change movies depict should help to identify which audiences those films are best suited to (communication evaluation), and how such films could be improved by focussing on more or different processes (communication design). 3 Four climate change films The films examined in this paper were chosen to off er variety in terms of genre, mood, messages, and filmmakers’ intentions, and also because some r esearch has been done on the impact of each film. It is necessary to have this available in ord er to discuss the effects of the films in light of the insights gained from the TTM. 3.1 The Day After Tomorrow (USA, 2004) Unlike the other films examined here, which all hav e associated websites promoting personal action to mitigate climate change in some way, it is not c lear that the makers of Hollywood climate- catastrophe movie The Day After Tomorrow had any intention to promote behavioural change. Although director Roland Emmerich spoke of being ab le “to give people a message” (Gilchrist, 2004), he is also quoted as saying, “We just wanted to make a movie people would enjoy” (Bowles, 2004). As the film did well at the box office, rank ing sixth highest-grossing disaster movie in the USA since 1979 (Box Office Mojo, 2011), and some sc ientists and other commentators welcomed the fact that it might bring climate change to publ ic attention, despite criticising its many scientific inaccuracies (see e.g. Hyde, 2004; Monbiot, 2004; S cienceDaily, 2004), the film is worth including in this analysis. The movie is pure fiction, with a familiar, plucky -hero-overcomes-disaster narrative. Dennis Quaid stars as paleoclimatologist Jack Hall, whose warnings about the potential for abrupt climate change go unheeded by the USA government. Global wa rming then causes a series of extreme weather events and the shutdown of the Gulf Stream, ushering in a new ice age in Western Europe 6 and North America within a matter of days. Spectacular special effects and iconic images include the Statue of Liberty hung with enormous icicles an d the destruction of the famous ‘Hollywood’ sign by a tornado. Jack’s son Sam is stranded in Ne w York and Jack, promising “I will come for you”, sets off from Washington to drive and then wa lk through the storm to reach him. They survive (with a few friends) and are airlifted to M exico, where millions of Americans are living as refugees. 3.2 An Inconvenient Truth (USA, 2006) Perhaps the best-known climate change film is An Inconvenient Truth, which won an Academy Award® for Best Documentary Feature. The website as sociated with the movie, www.climatecrisis.net, states that the estimated wo rldwide audience for the film was 5 million people; Box Office Mojo (2011) puts worldwide earni ngs at US$49.8 million. The film shows former Vice President of the USA Al Gore giving a slideshow presentation of the evidence for climate change and discussing actu al and predicted impacts, using graphs, maps, statistics, photographs, and animations. Interspers ed with the lecture are segments that focus on Gore’s life: for example, his young son’s near-fata l car accident and his sister’s death from lung cancer. These sections are illustrated with news cl ips and stills as well as film footage, with (sometimes emotional) voiceovers by Gore. Almost the whole movie focuses on the problem of c limate change; only at the very end does Gore touch on solutions (such as renewable energy a nd carbon capture and storage). He finishes his presentation by stating that “Future generations ma y well have occasion to ask themselves, ‘What were our parents thinking? Why didn’t they wake up when they had a chance?’ We have to hear that question from them, now.” The credits sequence then includes a list of things to do, such as “Buy energy efficient appliances”; “When you can, w alk or use a bicycle”; and “Write to Congress”. 3.3 The Age of Stupid (UK, 2009) Echoing the question with which Gore ends An Inconvenient Truth, The Age of Stupid features Pete Postlethwaite as an old man living alone in 2055 in a world devastated by climate change, watching documentary footage from 2008 and asking, “Why didn ’t we save ourselves while we had the chance?” The movie thereby combines a fictional dys topian future with six interwoven documentary strands focussing on personal stories t hat highlight different aspects of climate change and fossil fuel dependency. Animated sequences illu strate information such as average energy use per person in different countries. Characters include UK wind farm developer Piers, s truggling to overcome local opposition to proposed turbines; 82-year-old French mountain guid e Fernand, through whose eyes we see the retreat of Alpine glaciers; businessman Jeh, starti ng up a low-cost airline in India; and lifelong She ll employee Alvin, who lost his home and saved over 10 0 people when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans. It is he who, reflecting on humanity’s was tefulness, names our age “The Age of Stupid”. The Age of Stupid and associated Not Stupid campaign aimed to “turn 250 million viewers into physical or virtual activists” (Not Stupid, undated ). The film premiere was screened in 62 cinemas simultaneously around the UK in March 2009, and a ‘ global premiere’ took place the following September in 63 different countries. In addition, t here have been 1497 screenings organised by individuals and groups of various kinds (Indie Scre enings, undated). 3.4 Just Do It (UK, 2010) Subtitled “A tale of modern-day outlaws”, Just Do It is a feature-length documentary by Emily James, who spent a year ‘embedded’ in UK climate ac tion groups Plane Stupid, Climate Rush, and Climate Camp, filming their meetings and direct act ion campaigns. Viewers see activists 7 blockading the Royal Bank of Scotland headquarters in London in protest at “banks which finance climate change”, attempting to breach a security fe nce to shut down a coal-fired power station, and locked in cages after being pre-emptively arrested en-route to protest at the UN climate conference in Copenhagen in December 2009. The film also revea ls the meticulous planning, consensus decision-making, and practical preparations behind the scenes. In addition to the action, the film features inter views with people talking in retrospect about their experiences, and their thoughts and feelings about climate change and involvement in the campaigns. Like The Age of Stupid , Just Do It follows particular individuals, but unlike in the former film, we hardly see anything of their person al lives – viewers are invited to relate to them only as activists. The film features lively background music and upbe at, humorous narration by one of the activists. Arrests and police violence are document ed but the action is generally framed very positively. 4 Analysis: climate change films and processes of c hange Each film was watched more than once, and detailed notes were made about the content, and the images and music used in different scenes. These no tes were then used to identify examples of the TTM processes of change (such as given below). In s ome cases there were many examples, in others only one or two; the following analysis atte mpts to reflect the weight given in each film to each process, determined by how many examples of ea ch process were identified and an estimate of the relative amount of time accorded to each in eac h film. 4.1 The Day After Tomorrow The process most frequently in evidence in this fi lm is dramatic relief (emotional engagement). Opening shots panning over Antarctica to haunting b ackground music invite appreciation of the beauty of nature. However, danger is abruptly signa lled: the ice shelf from which Jack is drilling ice cores cracks in seconds, almost under his feet. The reafter, the sense of threat builds steadily as weather events become rapidly more extreme and news reports convey surprise and alarm. The use of iconic images such as the Hollywood sign and the Statue of Liberty encourages viewers to experience shock and fear because of the magnitude of the disaster and what could be lost. Set against the large-scale action are many personal st ories to engage the audience’s empathy with, and therefore concern for, the characters: for example, Sam’s romantic attachment to a classmate; the fate of a child with cancer; and above all, Jack’s mission to reach his son in New York. Early in the film, Jack gives a presentation to an international gathering of scientists and politicians during which he explains how global war ming could possibly lead to the shutdown of the Gulf Stream. This and scenes in which scientist s are creating, using, and explaining climate models, promote consciousness-raising about climate change among viewers because they provide information about the potential impacts of the prob lem, and show how scientists predict such effects. Some characters in the film experience environment al and self-re-evaluation as they come to understand the extent of the impacts of anthropogen ic global warming and accept responsibility for the problem. Jack declares that the future “depends on whether or not we’re able to learn from our mistakes”, and at the end of the film the new Presi dent of the USA (the formerly intransigent Vice President) announces on TV, “For years, we operated under the belief that we could continue consuming our planet’s natural resources without co nsequence. We were wrong. I was wrong.” 4.2 An Inconvenient Truth The process most frequently employed by An Inconvenient Truth is consciousness-raising, through the traditional method of a lecture. Many of the da ta are presented in ways that encourage dramatic 8 relief, by making human connections that prompt feelings of empathy. For example, Gore graphically illustrates how millions of people will be affected by sea-level rise, and shows photographs of scientists to give a human face to t heir work. He also employs humour to develop rapport with his audience, and the non-lecture sect ions of the film seem designed specifically to encourage sympathetic emotional engagement with Gor e as a person. Viewers are encouraged to begin environmental re-e valuation by Gore showing images of the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina while stre ssing that this scale of disaster is something new for the USA, and to connect environmental impacts directly with human behaviour through the juxtaposition of images of destruction of nature al ongside smoking industrial chimneys. Gore models self-re-evaluation through talking about how the near death of his son made him re-think his purpose in life, and how his sister’s death from lu ng cancer painfully brought home to him his family’s part in growing tobacco. His questions at the end about how future generations will regard us appear to be a plea for viewers to ‘wake up’ and engage in re-evaluation of their behaviour. Self-liberation is promoted towards the end of An Inconvenient Truth, when Gore gives a ‘pep talk’ about what “we” have achieved, such as the su ccesses of the civil rights movement, suggesting that we have the ability to mitigate climate change , and urging people to take action: “It is your time to seize this issue. It is our time to rise again t o secure our future.” Social liberation is also tou ched upon: Gore mentions technologies such as renewables and carbon capture and storage, which offer societal-level alternatives to carbon-intensive ele ctricity generation. 4.3 The Age of Stupid Much of this film involves consciousness-raising in various ways, including the animated sequences that present statistics and explain proposed climat e mitigation policies, and the documentary strands that highlight aspects of the problem including cau ses, consequences, and responses. Piers and his wife Lisa are shown calculating their household car bon footprint, modelling another form of consciousness-raising (and environmental re-evaluat ion), because through this they discover the relative GHG emissions associated with different ac tivities, and understand better the contribution they are making to climate change. Dramatic relief is a strong feature: for example, the imagery of the fictional dystopian future (refugee camps, famous landmarks destroyed etc), th e edgy, repetitive music associated with these scenes, and the (fictional) news clip voiceovers th at announce, for instance, that it has become necessary to eat pets all suggest a sense of threat . Viewers are also invited to engage emotionally through characters to empathise with (an intimate p ortrait of Piers and his home life is presented, including footage in which he and Lisa are drinking their morning cup of tea in bed while the answerphone plays a wind farm opponent’s threatenin g message, though we don’t see inside the lives of the wind farm protestors), and characters who are less attractive (airline-entrepreneur Jeh raging at his employees). A common discourse in the film is one of emergency, even catastrophe: humans “face extinction”, not having “saved ourselv es” from “climate crisis”; we should treat climate change like “a war situation”. Environmental and self-re-evaluation are often in tertwined: Fernand says, “I think everyone in the future will perhaps blame us for not thinkin g to protect the environment” and Postlethwaite’s character (who frequently uses the words “our” and “we”) speaks regretfully of the fatal impacts on his children and grandchildren of his generation’s failure to act. The title suggests that we are acting stupidly, and the opening credits emphasise the per sonal message by stating “and you” after the list of individuals featured in the film. Self-liberation is modelled by Piers and Lisa deci ding not to fly on holiday. A small part of the film portrays counter-conditioning: Piers and famil y travel to France by train rather than flying; they also talk about other ways they reduce their c arbon footprint. Fernand is seen growing his own vegetables. Ideas for social liberation include men tion of the policies of contraction and convergence and personal carbon rationing, as well as the storyline about wind farm developments, and Fernand, Piers, and Lisa attend protests to dem and change. 9 4.4 Just Do It This film has a rather different emphasis to the previous two, in that it focuses on climate change mitigation action rather than on the problem. Viewe rs see self-liberation in practice as people go through the process of making a commitment to act ( in the form of political campaigning rather than personal emissions reductions) and preparing t o do so (then actually carrying out the action). The film also expresses a strong belief that it is possible to effect change, although when activist Marina is asked, “Does all of this do any good?” sh e pauses for a long time. Her eventual response stresses how taking part in direct action is empowe ring and involves “taking back control of your life”, very much a self-liberation process. Social liberation is presumably the desired end of campaigners’ actions, although there is little in t he film about proposed alternatives to the policies and practices they oppose, other than the conversio n of abandoned land and greenhouses near Heathrow airport into a thriving community garden. Helping relationships are very prominent in Just Do It. Protestors plan and carry out actions together in ‘affinity groups’, and share skills, fo od, and tools. At one point an activist is caught b y a policeman; he shouts “de-arrest!” and other activis ts help release him from the officer and thereby escape arrest. Consciousness-raising is also focussed on action r ather than the problem: the film shows how affinity groups work, how consensus decisions are t aken, and what actually happens at protests. Dramatic relief is encouraged by the use of lively background music, focus on particular characters to relate to, and humour. For example, f ootage of the protest at the G20 meeting in 2009 is accompanied by the narrator saying, “Climate Cam p are planning to turn the heart of the financial district into a street party”; when police in riot gear move in he calls them “a bunch of uninvited party-poopers.” The violence of the police response is effectively highlighted and given ‘shock value’ by this light-hearted introduction. 5 Discussion The foregoing analysis suggests that these films em ploy or depict several processes of change that the TTM suggests should encourage attitudinal or be havioural change. No research has yet attempted to assess whether climate change films ha ve been successful in promoting stage progression according to the model; however, as men tioned in Section 1, various studies have attempted to determine the impact of the films exam ined here on viewers’ attitudes, behavioural intentions, and in some cases, actual behaviour. Th ese and other studies can shed some light on how films might encourage climate change mitigation act ion. The processes of change most frequently associated with these films are consciousness-raising and dramatic relief. Visual media are particularly suitable for consciousness-raising because of their ability to convey new information and complex ideas quickly and memorably (Nicholson-Cole, 2005). Given that people need to trust and identify with ‘messengers’ (Chess and Johnson, 2007; Kahan, 2010), and with media characters from whom t hey might learn through emulation (Bandura, 2004), it is important that a range of figures (whe ther fictional or real) appear in films that attempt to influence audiences. Research on the impacts of The Age of Stupid found that viewers did not universally empathise with wind farm developer Pier s (Howell, 2011) so it is useful that the film also features other, quite different individuals. I n Just Do It, almost all the activists followed are young, and all are white, which may give an uninten ded message about who the film is relevant to, and/or limit its appeal. Audience members commented on the lack of older people and the fact that characters appeared to be engaged full-time in acti vism instead of having jobs, which had a distancing effect (Lander, 2012). An Inconvenient Truth relies on the credibility of Al Gore for its consciousness-raising effect; no doubt his celebrit y encouraged interest in the film, but in the USA, Republicans were far less likely than Democrats to report that it influenced their belief in global warming (Borick and Rabe, 2010). 10 Film is an ideal medium for dramatic relief: storytelling, vivid imagery, music, pace, and sound effects can all be used to emotionally engage an au dience. As discussed earlier, there can be problems when the presentation creates feelings of fear. The Day After Tomorrow and The Age of Stupid both utilise a ‘climate catastrophe’ narrative, bu t in the case of the former film this was lightened by humour and was resolved by an upbeat e nding – the threat to the characters with whom viewers are encouraged to identify seemed to be ove r. Howell (2011) found that viewers of The Age of Stupid did not generally find the disaster-framing of the movie disempowering, exhibiting increased motivation to act and belief that they co uld do something about climate change immediately after seeing the film; however, she sug gests that this could be because they already knew what to do to reduce emissions. Climate change films can also encourage viewers to engage in environmental and self-re- evaluation. This again may need to be modelled by c haracters they can relate to (Bandura, 2004). In The Day After Tomorrow , Jack’s struggle to get the Vice President of the USA to listen to his warnings could lead viewers to infer that responsib ility lies with scientists and politicians. Scientists are responsible for communicating the threat to pol iticians (never the public in this film); the politicians are the ones ignoring the message and r efusing to take action. There is no storyline about individual mitigation behaviour. For example, nobod y mentions, let alone questions, the GHG emissions associated with Sam and his classmates fl ying to New York to take part in a quiz. It is scientists we see re-evaluating the impacts of clim ate change, and a politician who models self-re- evaluation, not ‘ordinary’ individuals. It is perha ps not surprising, then, that a study by Reusswig, Schwarzkopf, and Pohlenz (2004) revealed that Germa n viewers agreed more strongly after seeing the film than beforehand that the government should play a big role in taking action on climate change, but it had a negligible influence on views about the role of individuals. Similarly, Beattie, Sale, and McGuire (2011) found that one clip from An Inconvenient Truth, which emphasises the contribution of China to global warming, led to an increase in ‘shifting responsibility’ for action on climate change from self to others. Self-liberation was a feature of some of the films , particularly Just Do It, but this perhaps needs to be emphasised more, as according to the TTM it i s the pivotal process that occurs between thinking about change and actually beginning it. Se lf-liberation involves believing that one can make necessary changes. Interestingly, individuals who were shown clips from An Inconvenient Truth agreed more strongly afterwards with statements su ch as “I can personally help reduce climate change” and “I feel empowered in the fight against climate change” even when the clips were not positive (Beattie, Sale, and McGuire, 2011 ). However, this study did not test whether participants felt increased efficacy in relation to specific actions, nor whether they planned (or too k) any action. In addition to the confidence individuals feel tha t they can change their behaviour and maintain changes, another aspect of efficacy is belief that changes made will be effective in overcoming the problem, and this is something climate change films can encourage. For example, Just Do It gives information at the end of the film about the appare nt success of some of the campaigns featured. It is worth stressing the advantages of acting togethe r, as Just Do It does; groups can provide many benefits, including moral support, shared learning, and accountability (Howell, 2009) and can therefore build capacity and effect more change (Mi ddlemiss and Parrish, 2010; Staats, Harland, and Wilke, 2004). By their nature, films generally employ or involve cognitive/affective processes; they are not suitable vehicles for behavioural processes such as contingency management. However, some of the films analysed did show behavioural processes in ac tion. Filmmakers keen to stimulate action could give more attention to portraying the variety of pr ocesses that help to support and maintain behavioural change. The TTM suggests that the fact that films employ a nd depict more cognitive/affective than behavioural processes of change makes them more app ropriate ‘interventions’ to use with audiences at earlier stages of change. It is difficult to kno w whether climate change films gain such audiences, as no studies have directly assessed viewers’ stage of change, but some studies include information 11 that can perhaps be used as proxy measures. For example, Howell (2011) found that in the year prior to seeing The Age of Stupid , 61.8% of viewers sampled had donated money to, an d 36.1% were actively involved in, groups campaigning about climate change. Furthermore, respondents later reported several actions they were doing but not because of having seen the film. These results suggest that many viewers of that film could have b een at the action or even maintenance stage for some lower-carbon behaviours. Akter and Bennett (20 11) discovered that Australians who had seen An Inconvenient Truth were significantly more likely to report having re duced their use of motorized vehicles and/or electricity than non-view ers, and claim that the film influenced behaviour, but the study appears to show correlatio n rather than causality and it seems equally likely that people already engaged in climate chang e mitigation action are more likely to see the movie than those who are not. Individuals who saw i t at a free showing organised by an NGO in the USA exhibited high levels of belief in climate chan ge and motivation to act beforehand (Nolan, 2010). The film has, however, been incorporated int o the school curriculum in several countries (Climate Crisis, undated), which makes it likely it will be seen by children at a range of stages of change with respect to lower-carbon behaviours. An E-E format, embedding information and behaviour al role models in serial dramas not perceived to be primarily about climate change, mig ht reach a wider and more appropriate audience than climate change movies, avoiding problems of av oidance and reactance. However, this could be difficult to arrange as climate change is a controv ersial topic and broadcasters are wary of controversy, especially in media-saturated commerci al broadcasting environments – E-E programmes that have addressed controversial topics have tended to air in developing countries where there is less media saturation (Singhal and R ogers, 2004). Instead, filmmakers could learn from E-E and focus more on embedding intended persu asive content in enjoyable movies rather than making the messages overt. Being primarily a summer entertainment movie, The Day After Tomorrow is more similar to E- E programmes than the documentary films studied her e. It thus seems likely to attract a different audience, and indeed UK viewers of this movie did n ot seem particularly concerned about climate change beforehand (Balmford et al., 2004; Lowe et a l., 2006). They therefore might have been at earlier stages of change, so the TTM would suggest that the processes of change it employs should work well with this audience. However, Lowe et al. (2006) found a decrease in viewers’ evaluation of the likelihood that they would experience climat e change impacts in their own lifetime. This is important because people are less likely to respond to a threat if they do not feel personally vulnerable (Das, de Wit, and Stroebe, 2003). Other studies also found a decrease among viewers in the perceived likelihood of climate change (Lowe, 2 006; Reusswig, Schwarzkopf, and Pohlenz, 2004) or less realistic expectations of climate cha nge impacts than people who hadn’t seen the film (Balmford et al., 2004). This may be due to the fac t that the movie sacrificed realism for dramatic effect; in TTM terms, it concentrated on dramatic r elief at the expense of consciousness-raising. The film did increase concern about climate change (Balmford et al., 2004; Leiserowitz, 2004; Lowe et al., 2006) but a study that included a late r follow-up found that this was short-lived and viewers did not know what to do (Lowe et al., 2006) . This demonstrates the necessity of teaming emotional engagement with solution messages (dramat ic relief with consciousness-raising), as in E- E. Leiserowitz (2004) and Lowe et al. (2006) found respondents were more likely to express intentions to take climate change mitigation action s having seen The Day After Tomorrow ; Balmford et al. (2004) found no change in the numbe r of emission-reducing activities people planned to undertake. According to the model, evaluation of the efficacy of climate change films need not depend on whether individuals actually change their behaviour . Indeed, those that utilise primarily cognitive/affective processes of change should be e xpected to encourage early stage progression, rather than behavioural change. Nolan (2010) found that An Inconvenient Truth inspired little concrete action among students who were recruited t o watch it and who did not display high levels of concern about climate change beforehand, but the film did increase concern and motivation to act immediately afterwards. This might be evidence of p rogression from precontemplation to 12 contemplation, or from contemplation to preparation, among an audience who were at early stages of change. The finding that viewers often do not ac t on the increased motivation or behavioural intentions prompted by climate change films (Howell , 2011; Lowe et al., 2006; Nolan, 2010) suggests that films need to be coupled with other i nterventions if they are to help people progress from contemplation to action. Armitage et al.(2004) suggest the use of implementation interventions (Gollwitzer, 1993); public commitments such as pled ges may also be useful (Cobern et al., 1995; Schultz, Oskamp, and Mainieri, 1995). The Day After Tomorrow , An Inconvenient Truth , and The Age of Stupid essentially point out the cons of not taking action; films may need to focus more on pos itive framing in order to influence decisional balance. Just Do It portrays several benefits of involvement in direct action campaigns: camaraderie, empowerment, and campaign s uccesses, although some viewers will likely evaluate the cons of conflict and arrest as outweig hing these pros. In contrast to An Inconvenient Truth and The Age of Stupid , Just Do It takes audience acceptance of the problem for granted. This kind of film therefore appears more suitable, according to the TTM, for the kind of audience likely to volu ntarily watch documentaries related to climate change, who already evidence a high level of concer n (Howell, 2011). Having said that, it should be noted that Rosen (2000) found that for some health behaviours, cognitive/affective processes were used at all stages of change. He argues that when t aking up healthy behaviours, individuals “must continually reinitiate a new behavior and may be he lped by continuing to think about the benefits” (Rosen, 2000, p.602). Even for people who may have reached later stages of change, films such as The Age of Stupid can provide reinforcement and moral support (Howell , 2011), thus helping prevent ‘relapse’. In reality, climate change films are likely to be able to encourage behavioural change only to a certain extent, unless there are changes to the soc ial context within which individuals act (Corraliza and Berenguer, 2000; Young and Middlemiss, 2012). T his implies that social liberation is essential (and thus worth films promoting; Ockwell, Whitmarsh , and O’Neill (2009) propose that a particular role for climate change communications is in gettin g people to accept and demand regulation). Prochaska (1994) suggests that to facilitate action , the increase required in the evaluation of pros of change is so large that it may well be necessary to apply both individual change processes (to increase perceived pros of making a change) and policies to change th e actual pros. One limitation of the TTM in the context of pro-environmental beha viours is that it pays little attention to the power of social norms (Schultz et al., 2007). The n eed to challenge dominant norms (e.g. around consumerism) to achieve sustainability can perhaps be seen as part of social liberation, but this idea arguably needs to be developed further in the model . 6 Conclusions This paper has demonstrated the potential of using the TTM to provide insights into the promotion of pro-environmental behaviour. Analysis of climate change films using the model suggests that they can play a part in encouraging individuals to take climate change mitigation action through employing and modelling several processes of change . Films are particularly suitable vehicles for consciousness-raising and dramatic relief, and ther efore might most usefully promote change – which may be a change in attitudes (progression fro m precontemplation to contemplation, and re- evaluation of the pros and cons of change) – among viewers at earlier stages of change. The challenge is for films to attract such audiences. E mbedding climate change themes in ‘ordinary’ movies has potential, but these should contain real istic depictions of the issue to provide accurate information, and show how ‘people like me’ can tack le the problem, to promote engagement and self-efficacy. Filmmakers who wish to encourage act ual action, rather than early-stage progression, should consider portraying behavioural processes of change. Consciousness-raising and dramatic relief may help to reinforce behavioural change amo ng audiences who are already taking action. However, a film on its own is unlikely to achieve s ignificant and widespread climate change 13 mitigation action, given the number of factors that affect behaviour, so it is advisable to consider how movies can be teamed with other interventions. References Adams, J. and White, M. (2003) ‘Are activity promot ion interventions based on the transtheoretical model effective? A critical review’, British Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. 37, pp.106- 114. Akter, S. and Bennett, J. (2011) ‘Household percept ions of climate change and preferences for mitigation action: the case of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in Australia’, Climatic Change , Vol. 109, pp.417-436. Armitage, C.J., Sheeran, P., Conner, M. and Arden, M.A. (2004) ‘Stages of Change or Changes of Stage? Predicting Transitions in Transtheoretical M odel Stage in Relation to Healthy Food Choice’, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , Vol. 72, pp.491-499. Ashworth, P. (1997) ‘Breakthrough or bandwagon? Are interventions tailored to stages of change more effective than non-staged interventions?’, Health Education Journal, Vol. 56, pp.166- 174. Atkins, T. (2009) Stages of Change, Baton Rouge Counseling, 7 November 2009. Availabl e at: http://batonrougecounseling.net/stages-change (acce ssed 18.01.2012). Balmford, A., Manica, A., Airey, L., Birkin, L., Ol iver, A. and Schleicher, J. (2004) ‘Hollywood, Climate Change, and the Public’, Science, Vol. 305, pp.1713. Bandura, A. (1977) Social Learning Theory , General Learning Press, New York. Bandura, A. (2004) ‘Social Cognitive Theory for Per sonal and Social Change by Enabling Media’, in Singhal, A., Cody, M.J., Rogers, E.M. and Sabido , M. (Eds.), Entertainment-Education and Social Change: History, Research, and Practice , Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. Beattie, G. (2011) ‘Making an action film’, Nature Climate Change, Vol. 1, pp.372-275. Beattie, G., Sale, L. and McGuire, L. (2011) ‘An in convenient truth? Can a film really affect psychological mood and our explicit attitudes towar ds climate change?’, Semiotica, Vol. 187, pp.105-125. Blake, J. (1999) ‘Overcoming the ‘Value-Action Gap’ in Environmental Policy: tensions between national policy and local experience’, Local Environment, Vol. 4, pp.257-278. Borick, C.P. and Rabe, B.G. (2010) ‘A Reason to Bel ieve: Examining the Factors that Determine Individual Views on Global Warming’, Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 91, pp.777-800. Borrayo, E.A. (2004) ‘Where’s Maria? A video to inc rease awareness about breast cancer and mammography screening among low-literacy Latinas’, Preventive Medicine, Vol. 39, pp.99- 110. Bowles, S. (2004) The Day After Tomorrow heats up a political debate , USA Today, 26 May 2004. Available at: http://www.usatoday.com/educate/colle ge/firstyear/articles/20040530.htm (accessed 21.12.2011). Box Office Mojo. (2011) Available at: http://www.bo xofficemojo.com/movies (accessed 21.12.2011). Breakwell, G.M. (2000) ‘Risk communication: factors affecting impact’, British Medical Bulletin , Vol. 56, pp.110-120. Bridle, C., Riemsma, R.P., Pattenden, J., Sowden, A .J., Mather, L., Watt, I.S. and Walker, A. (2005) ‘Systematic review of the effectiveness of h ealth behavior interventions based on the transtheoretical model’, Psychology and Health, Vol. 20, pp.283-301. Chess, C. and Johnson, B.B. (2007) ‘Information is not enough’, in Moser, S.C. and Dilling, L. (Eds.), Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating Climat e Change and Facilitating Social Change , Cambridge University Press, New York. Chib, A., Chiew, H.J., Kumar, C., Choon, L.G. and A le, K. (2009) ‘[minus]plastic: influencing pro- environmental attitudes among Singaporean youth’, Environmental Education Research, Vol. 15, pp.679-696. 14 Climate Crisis. (undated) Available at: http://www.climatecrisis.net (accessed 24.01.2012). Cobern, M.K., Porter, B.E., Leeming, F.C. and Dwyer , W.O. (1995) ‘The Effect of Commitment on Adoption and Diffusion of Grass Cycling’, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 27, pp.213-232. Corraliza, J.A. and Berenguer, J. (2000) ‘Environme ntal values, beliefs, and actions: A situational approach’, Environment and Behavior , Vol. 32, pp.832-848. Cottone, E. and Byrd-Bredbenner, C. (2007) ‘Knowled ge and Psychosocial Effects of the Film Super Size Me on Young Adults’, Journal of the American Dietetic Association , Vol. 107, pp.1197-1203. Das, E.H.H.J., de Wit, J.B.F. and Stroebe, W. (2003 ) ‘Fear Appeals Motivate Acceptance of Action Recommendations: Evidence for a Positive Bias in th e Processing of Persuasive Messages’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , Vol. 29, pp.650-664. Defra. (2009) 2009 Survey of public attitudes and behaviours towa rds the environment, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London . DiClemente, C.C. and Prochaska, J.O. (1982) ‘Self-C hange and Therapy Change of Smoking Behavior: A Comparison of Processes of Change’, Addictive Behaviors, Vol. 7, pp.133-142. DiClemente, C.C., Prochaska, J.O., Fairhurst, S.K., Velicer, W.F., Velasquez, M.M. and Rossi, J.S. (1991) ‘The Process of Smoking Cessation: An Analys is of Precontemplation, Contemplation, and Preparation Stages of Change’, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , Vol. 59, pp.295-304. Duddleston, A., Stradling, S. and Anable, J. (2005) Public Perceptions of Travel Awareness – Phase 3. , Scottish Executive Transport Research Series, Edi nburgh. Gatersleben, B. and Appleton, K.M. (2007) ‘Contempl ating cycling to work: Attitudes and perceptions in different stages of change’, Transportation Research A, Vol. 41, pp.302-312. Gifford, R. (2011) ‘The Dragons of Inaction: Psycho logical Barriers That Limit Climate Change Mitigation’, American Psychologist , Vol. 66, pp.290-302. Gilchrist, T. (2004) The Day After Tomorrow: An interview with Roland Em merich, blackfilm.com, May 2004. Available at: http://www.blackfilm.com/20040528/features/rolandem merich.shtml (accessed 21.12.2011). Gollwitzer, P.M. (1993) ‘Goal achievement: The role of intentions’, European Review of Social Psychology , Vol. 4, pp.141-185. Hall, K.L. and Rossi, J.S. (2008) ‘Meta-analytic ex amination of the strong and weak principles across 48 health behaviors’, Preventative Medicine, Vol. 46, pp.266-274. Hargreaves, T., Nye, M. and Burgess, J. (2010) ‘Mak ing energy visible: A qualitative field study of how householders interact with feedback from smart energy monitors’, Energy Policy, Vol. 38, pp.6111-6119. He, H.A., Greenberg, S. and Huang, E.M. (2009) One size does not fit all: Applying the Transtheoretical Model to Energy Feedback Technolog y Design, Report 2009-943-22, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Herzog, T.A., Abrams, D.B., Emmons, K.M., Linnan, L .A. and Shadel, W.G. (1999) ‘Do Processes of Change Predict Smoking Stage Movements? A Prospe ctive Analysis of the Transtheoretical Model’, Health Psychology, Vol. 18, pp.369-375. Hether, H.J., Huang, G.C., Beck, V., Murphy, S.T. a nd Valente, T.W. (2008) ‘Entertainment- Education in a Media-Saturated Environment: Examini ng the Impact of Single and Multiple Exposures to Breast Cancer Storylines on Two Popula r Medical Dramas’, Journal of Health Communication , Vol. 13, pp.808-823. Horowitz, S.M. (2003) ‘Applying the transtheoretica l model to pregnancy and STD prevention: a review of the literature’, American Journal of Health Promotion , Vol. 17, pp.304-328. Horwath, C.C. (1999) ‘Applying the transtheoretical model to eating behaviour change: challenges and opportunities’, Nutrition Research Reviews , Vol. 12, pp.281-317. Howell, R.A. (2009) The Experience of Carbon Rationing Action Groups: I mplications for a Personal Carbon Allowances Policy , UKERC Final Report, Environmental Change Institute, Oxford. 15 Howell, R.A. (2011) ‘Lights, camera … action? Altered attitudes and behaviour in response to the climate change film The Age of Stupid’, Global Environmental Change , Vol. 21, pp.177- 187. Howell, R.A. (2012) ‘Investigating the long-term im pacts of climate change communications on individuals’ attitudes and behavior’, Environment and Behavior, doi: 10.1177/0013916512452428. Hulme, M. (2008) ‘The conquering of climate: discou rses of fear and their dissolution’, The Geographical Journal , Vol. 174, pp.5-16. Hungerford, H.R. and Volk, T.L. (1990) ‘Changing le arner behavior through environmental education’, Journal of Environmental Education , Vol. 21, pp.8-21. Hutchison, A.J., Breckon, J.D. and Johnston, L.H. ( 2009) ‘Physical Activity Behavior Change Interventions Based on the Transtheoretical Model: A Systematic Review’, Health Education and Behavior , Vol. 38, pp.829-845. Hyde, W. (2004) My Day After Tomorrow review(ish) thing , Usenet, 2 July 2004. Available at: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.written/ msg/6e52157aaf63775f (accessed 21.12.2011). Kahan, D. (2010) ‘Fixing the communications failure ’, Nature , Vol. 463, pp.296-297. Lander, R. (2012) Green Shoots Audience Forum. Report 1, Meeting 11th August 2011: “Just Do It” , Report by Take One Action! Available at: http://www.takeoneaction.org.uk/images/uploads/news blog/Audience_Forum_Report_1_- _Just_Do_It1.pdf (accessed 30.04.2012). Leiserowitz, A. (2004) ‘Before and After The Day Af ter Tomorrow: A U.S. Study of Climate Change Risk Perception’, Environment, Vol. 46, pp.22-37. Lorenzoni, I., Leiserowitz, A., de Franca Doria, M. , Poortinga, W. and Pidgeon, N.F. (2006) ‘Cross- National Comparisons of Image Associations with “Gl obal Warming” and “Climate Change” Among Laypeople in the United States of Ame rica and Great Britain’, Journal of Risk Research , Vol. 9, pp.265-281. Lorenzoni, I., Nicholson-Cole, S. and Whitmarsh, L. (2007) ‘Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications’, Global Environmental Change , Vol. 17, pp.445-459. Lowe, T. (2006) Vicarious Experience vs. Scientific Information in Climate Change Risk Perception and Behaviour: A Case Study of Undergrad uate Students in Norwich, UK, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 43, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Norwich, UK. Lowe, T., Brown, K., Dessai, S., de Franca Doria, M ., Haynes, K. and Vincent, K. (2006) ‘Does tomorrow ever come? Disaster narrative and public p erceptions of climate change’, Public Understanding of Science , Vol. 15, pp.435-457. Middlemiss, L. and Parrish, B.D. (2010) ‘Building c apacity for low-carbon communities: The role of grassroots initiatives’, Energy Policy, Vol. 38, pp.7559-7566. Migneault, J.P., Adams, T.B. and Read, J.P. (2005) ‘Application of the Transtheoretical Model to substance abuse: historical development and future directions’, Drug and Alcohol Review , Vol. 24, pp.437-448. Monbiot, G. (2004) A hard rain’s a-gonna fall , The Guardian, 14 May 2004. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2004/may/14/climatec hange (accessed 21.12.2011). Morton, T.A., Rabinovich, A., Marshall, D. and Bret schneider, P. (2011) ‘The future that may (or may not) come: How framing changes responses to unc ertainty in climate change communications’, Global Environmental Change , Vol. 21, pp.103-109. Moser, S.C. (2007) ‘More bad news: the risk of negl ecting emotional response to climate change information’, in Moser, S.C. and Dilling, L. (Eds.) , Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating Socia l Change, Cambridge University Press, New York. 16 Moser, S.C. (2008) ‘Toward a deeper engagement of the U.S. public on climate change: an open letter to the 44th president of the United States o f America’, International Journal of Sustainability Communication , Vol. 3, pp.119-132. Moser, S.C. and Dilling, L. (2004) ‘Making Climate Hot: Communicating the Urgency and Challenge of Global Warming’, Environment, Vol. 46, pp.32-46. Moyer-Gusé, E. (2008) ‘Toward a Theory of Entertain ment Persuasion: Explaining the Persuasive Effects of Entertainment-Education Messages’, Communication Theory, Vol. 18, pp.407- 425. Nicholson-Cole, S.A. (2005) ‘Representing climate c hange futures: a critique on the use of images or visual communication’, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems , Vol. 29, pp.255- 273. Nolan, J.M. (2010) ‘“An Inconvenient Truth” Increas es Knowledge, Concern, and Willingness to Reduce Greenhouse Gases’, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 42, pp.643-658. O’Neill, S. and Nicholson-Cole, S. (2009) ‘”Fear Wo n’t Do It”: Promoting Positive Engagement With Climate Change Through Visual and Iconic Repre sentations’, Science Communication , Vol. 30, pp.355-379. Ockwell, D., Whitmarsh, L. and O’Neill, S. (2009) ‘ Reorienting climate change communication for effective mitigation: forcing people to be green or fostering grass-roots engagement?’, Science Communication , Vol. 30, pp.305-327. Oeuellette, J.A. and Wood, W. (1998) ‘Habit and int ention in everyday life: The multiple processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior’, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 124, pp.57- 74. Papa, M.J., Singhal, A., Law, S., Pant, S., Sood, S ., Rogers, E.M. and Shefner-Rogers, C.L. (2000) ‘Entertainment-education and social change: an anal ysis of parasocial interaction, social learning, collective efficacy, and paradoxical comm unication’, Journal of Communication , Vol. 50, pp.31-55. Pooley, J.A. and O’Connor, M. (2000) ‘Environmental Education and Attitudes: Emotions and Beliefs Are What is Needed’, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 32, pp.711-723. Prochaska, J.O. (1994) ‘Strong and Weak Principles for Progressing From Precontemplation to Action on the Basis of Twelve Problem Behaviors’, Health Psychology, Vol. 13, pp.47-51. Prochaska, J.O. and DiClemente, C.C. (1982) ‘Transt heoretical Therapy: Toward a More Integrative Model of Change’, Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice , Vol. 19, pp.276-288. Prochaska, J.O. and DiClemente, C.C. (1983) ‘Stages and Processes of Self-Change of Smoking: Toward An Integrative Model of Change’, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , Vol. 51, pp.390-395. Prochaska, J.O., DiClemente, C.C. and Norcross, J.C . (1992) ‘In Search of How People Change: Applications to Addictive Behaviors’, American Psychologist, Vol. 47, pp.1102-1114. Prochaska, J.O. and Velicer, W.F. (1997) ‘The Trans theoretical Model of Health Behavior Change’, American Journal of Health Promotion , Vol. 12, pp.38-48. Prochaska, J.O., Velicer, W.F., Rossi, J.S., Goldst ein, M.G., Marcus, B.H., Rakowski, W., Fiore, C., Harlow, L.L., Redding, C.A., Rosenbloom, D. and Rossi, S.R. (1994) ‘Stages of Change and Decisional Balance for 12 Problem Behaviors’, Health Psychology, Vol. 13, pp.39-46. Reusswig, F., Schwarzkopf, J. and Pohlenz, P. (2004 ) Double Impact: The Climate Blockbuster The Day After Tomorrow and its Impact on the German Cin ema Public, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research Report 92, Potsdam, Germany . Rosen, C.S. (2000) ‘Is the Sequencing of Change Pro cesses by Stage Consistent Across Health Problems? A Meta-Analysis’, Health Psychology, Vol. 19, pp.593-604. Schultz, P.W., Nolan, J.M., Cialdini, R.B., Goldste in, N.J. and Griskevicius, V. (2007) ‘The Constructive, Destructive, and Reconstructive Power of Social Norms’, Psychological Science , Vol. 18, pp.429-434. 17 Schultz, P.W., Oskamp, S. and Mainieri, T. (1995) ‘Who recycles and when? A review of personal and situational factors’, Journal of Environmental Psychology , Vol. 15, pp.105-121. ScienceDaily. (2004) Disaster Flick Exaggerates Speed Of Ice Age , ScienceDaily, 12 May 2004. Available at: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/ 2004/05/040512044611.htm (accessed 21.12.2011). Shrum, L.J., Ed. (2004). The psychology of entertainment media: Blurring the lines between entertainment and persuasion , Lawrence Erlbaum. Mahwah, NJ. Singhal, A. and Rogers, E.M. (2004) ‘The Status of Entertainment-Education Worldwide’, in Singhal, A., Cody, M.J., Rogers, E.M. and Sabido, M . (Eds.), Entertainment-Education and Social Change: History, Research, and Practice , Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. Sood, S., Menard, T. and Witte, K. (2004) ‘The Theo ry Behind Entertainment-Education’, in Singhal, A., Cody, M.J., Rogers, E.M. and Sabido, M . (Eds.), Entertainment-Education and Social Change: History, Research, and Practice , Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. Spence, A. and Pidgeon, N.F. (2010) ‘Framing and co mmunicating climate change: The effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations’, Global Environmental Change, Vol. 20, pp.656-667. Spencer, L., Adams, T.B., Malone, S., Roy, L. and Y ost, E. (2006) ‘Applying the Transtheoretical Model to Exercise: A Systematic and Comprehensive R eview of the Literature’, Health Promotion Practice , Vol. 7, pp.428-443. Spencer, L., Pagell, F., Hallion, M.E. and Adams, T .B. (2002) ‘Applying the Transtheoretical Model to Tobacco Cessation and Prevention: A Review of Literature’, American Journal of Health Promotion , Vol. 17, pp.7-71. Spencer, L., Wharton, C., Moyle, S. and Adams, T.B. (2007) ‘The transtheoretical model as applied to dietary behaviour and outcomes’, Nutrition Research Reviews, Vol. 20, pp.46-73. Spencer, L.S., Pagell, F.L. and Adams, T.B. (2005) ‘Applying the Transtheoretical Model to Cancer Screening Behavior: A review of the literature’, American Journal of Health Behavior, Vol. 29, pp.36-56. Staats, H., Harland, P. and Wilke, H.A.M. (2004) ‘E ffecting Durable Change: A Team Approach to Improve Environmental Behavior in the Household’, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 36, pp.341-367. Steg, L. (2008) ‘Promoting household energy conserv ation’, Energy Policy , Vol. 36, pp.4449-4453. Tickell, C. (2002) ‘Communicating Climate Change’, Science, Vol. 297, pp.737. Usdin, S., Singhal, A., Shongwe, T., Goldstein, S. and Shabalala, A. (2004) ‘No Short Cuts in Entertainment-Education: Designing Soul City Step-By-Step’, in Singhal, A., Cody, M.J., Rogers, E.M. and Sabido, M. (Eds.), Entertainment-Education and Social Change: History, Research, and Practice , Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. Vasi, I.B. and Macy, M. (2003) ‘The Mobilizer’s Dil emma: Crisis, Empowerment, and Collective Action’, Social Forces , Vol. 81, pp.979-998. Vaughan, P.W. and Rogers, E.M. (2000) ‘A Staged Mod el of Communication Effects: Evidence from an Entertainment-Education Radio Soap Opera in Tanzania’, Journal of Health Communication , Vol. 5, pp.203-227. Vaughan, P.W., Rogers, E.M., Singhal, A. and Swaleh e, R.M. (2000) ‘Entertainment-Education and HIV/AIDS Prevention: A Field Experiment in Tanzania ’, Journal of Health Communication , Vol. 5, pp.81-100. Webb, T.L. and Sheeran, P. (2006) ‘Does changing be havioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidenc e’, Psychological Bulletin , Vol. 132, pp.249-268. Weinstein, N.D., Rothman, A.J. and Sutton, S.R. (19 98) ‘Stage Theories of Health Behavior: Conceptual and Methodological Issues’, Health Psychology, Vol. 17, pp.290-299. Wilkin, H.A., Valente, T.W., Murphy, S., Cody, M.J. , Huang, G. and Beck, V. (2007) ‘Does Entertainment-Education Work With Latinos in the Un ited States? Identification and the 18 Effects of a Telenovela Breast Cancer Storyline’, Journal of Health Communication, Vol. 12, pp.455-469. Witte, K. and Allen, M. (2000) ‘A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeals: Implications for Effective Public Health Campaigns’, Health Education and Behavior , Vol. 27, pp.591-615. Wray, R.J., Hornik, R.M., Gandy, O.H., Stryker, J.O ., Ghez, M. and Mitchell-Clark, K. (2004) ‘Preventing Domestic Violence in the African Americ an Community: Assessing the Impact of a Dramatic Radio Serial’, Journal of Health Communication , Vol. 9, pp.31-52. Young, W. and Middlemiss, L. (2012) ‘A rethink of h ow policy and social science approach changing individuals’ actions on greenhouse gas emi ssions’, Energy Policy , Vol. 41, pp.742-747. 19 Table 1: Stages of change as defined by the transtheoretical model Stage Definition Precontemplation No intention to change behaviour in the foreseeable future (usually measured as the next six months). Individuals may be unaware or under-aware of problem behaviours, or have tried to change but rel apsed. Contemplation Thinking about changing behaviour (often measured a s seriously considering action within the next six months), but not committ ed to action now. Weighing up pros and cons of current situation and of change. Preparation Intending to take action in the near future (usuall y measured as the next month) and preparing to do so. Small behaviour chan ges may already have been made. Action Behaviour changes (usually measured according to so me specific criteria) have been achieved for up to six months. Maintenance Behaviour changes have been maintained for more tha n six months. Not a static stage as individuals still need to work to p revent relapse. Termination New behaviour has become habitual; no temptation to relapse. ‘Termination’ is not always a practical reality – for some behavi ours, a lifetime of maintenance is realistic. This stage is often not m entioned. Sources: Based on information from Prochaska, DiClemente, and Norcross (1992) and Prochaska and Velicer (1997 ). 20 Table 2: Processes of change as defined by the transtheoretical model Process Definition Example interventions/techniques Cognitive/affective processes Consciousness-raising Increasing awareness about problem behaviour (causes, effects, solutions) Education, media campaigns, feedback, articles about climate science Dramatic relief Being moved emotionally with regards to the problem Role play, personal testimonies, media campaigns, vivid images of suffering Environmental re-evaluation Assessing how one’s behaviour affects social/physical environment Empathy training, family interventions, ecological footprinting Self-re-evaluation Assessing how one thinks and feels about oneself with regard to problem behaviour Value clarification, healthy role models, imagery, ‘ green values’ questionnaires Self-liberation Belief that one can change and commitment to do so New Year’s resolutions, public pledges, adopting an annual ‘carbon ration’ Behavioural processes Contingency/reinforcement management Instating consequences for behaviour – costs and/or rewards Self-reward, contingency contracts, group recognition, carbon taxation Helping relationships Open, trusting relationships with others who support behaviour change Self-help groups, buddy systems, Carbon Conversations a Counter-conditioning (Learning and) substituting alternatives for problem behaviour Depends on problem behaviour, e.g. cycling/walking instead of driving Stimulus control Removing cues for undesired habits; adding prompts for desired ones Avoidance, restructuring environment, “switch off” stickers on light switches Social liberation Increase opportunities available in society/alternatives to problem behaviour Advocacy, empowerment, policy interventions, improve public transport Source: Based on information from Prochaska and Velicer ( 1997), with sustainability-specific examples by author in italics. aCarbon Conversations: six meetings about climate ch ange and carbon reduction (Randall, 2009) 21 Table 3: Processes of change matched with stages of change a Precontemplation Contemplation Preparation Action M aintenance Consciousness-raising Dramatic relief Environmental re-evaluation Self-re-evaluation Self-liberation Contingency management Helping relationships Counter-conditioning Stimulus control a The process of ‘social liberation’ is not included because it has been regarded as outside the remit o f the health behaviour programs from which the model was develop ed. Source: Prochaska and Velicer (1997). Used by permission. Figure 1: Progression through the stages of change Source : Based on a diagram from Atkins (2009). Action Maintenance Preparation Contemplation Precontemplation Relapse Progress Termination View publication statsView publication stats
Question 1: Which elements of Chapter 4, Identifying and Expressing Feelings, did you find most useful? Please cite the specific passages and give examples of how you might use this information in eve
University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary’s Digital Repository Science Science Research & Publications 2009-09-21T17:35:52Z One size does not fit all: Applying the Transtheoretical Model to Energy Feedback Technology Design He, Helen A.; Greenberg, Saul; Huang, Elaine M. He, H. A., Greenberg, S. & Huang, E. M. “One Size Does Not Fit All: Applying the Transtheoretical Model to Energy Feedback Technology Design”. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems – ACM CHI’2010. April 10-15, 2010, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. http://hdl.handle.net/1880/47425 technical report Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca One size does not fit all: Applying the TTM to Energy Feedback Technology Design (He, Greenberg, Huang) 1 One size does not fit all: Applying the Transtheoretical Model to Energy Feedback Technology Design Helen Ai He, Saul Greenberg, Elaine M. Huang Department of Computer Science, University of Calgary 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB, Canada T2N 1N4 [hahe or saul.greenberg]@ucalgary.ca, [email protected] ABSTRACT Global warming, and the climate change it induces, is an urgent global issue. One remedy to this problem, and the focus of this paper, is to motivate sustainable energy consumption behaviors by people. The development of feedback technologies providing real-time, continuous feedback of one’s energy usage has been used to motivate sustainable energy consumption behaviors. However, there is one important problem – they tend to use a “one-size-fits- all” solution, providing the same feedback to differently motivated individuals at different stages of readiness, willingness and ableness to change. In this paper, we synthesize a wide range of motivational psychology literature to develop a motivational framework based on the Transtheoretical (aka Stages of Behavior Change) model. We state the motivational goal(s) of each stage, followed by our recommendation(s) for designing feedback technologies in order achieve these goals. Each recommendation is supported by a rationale based on motivational literature, followed by a simple textual example to illustrate one way to apply the recommendation. Author Keywords Sustainability, feedback, motivational theory, design. ACM Classification Keywords H5.m. Information interfaces and presentation (e.g., HCI) INTRODUCTION Global warming, and the climate change it induces, is an urgent global issue. Moving towards an environmentally sustainable lifestyle is recognized as a partial solution to this problem. Within the technological perspective, much focus is on creating energy-efficient technology: cars, homes appliances, etc. This is a necessary step, but is only a partial solution as people do not always use this technology in energy-efficient ways [46]. While energy-efficient technologies enable sustainable usage, we must also focus on a people solution: understanding the fundamentals of how and why people use energy [46], and apply this knowledge to develop technologies that can motivate sustainable energy behavior. Within both products and HCI, one common approach to motivating sustainable energy consumption behaviors is to develop technologies that provide real-time, continuous feedback of one’s energy usage. This feedback is often presented as raw energy use (e.g., watts), as personal cost (e.g., money), or as environmental impact (e.g., CO 2). While providing energy feedback is somewhat effective [4], most of these technologies are limited as they use a “one- size-fits-all” solution. That is, they provide the same feedback to differently motivated individuals, with different willingness, ableness and readiness for change. Unless the energy consumer already holds a strong goal to use energy in a sustainable way [36], feedback only informs, but does not necessarily motivate any sustainable energy action. Motivating behavior change (within the context of sustainable energy consumption or otherwise) is a psychologically, socially, and culturally complex problem [46]. While all three perspectives offer valuable and important insights, in this paper, we approach this problem primarily from the psychological perspective. From this perspective, we explore the following question: How can energy feedback technologies leverage existing techniques and theories within motivational psychology to more effectively motivate sustainable energy consumption behaviors? In approaching this question, we argue that designers of such technology need to consider two important points: 1. Different people hold different attitudes, beliefs and values [5], and are motivated by different things. As such, designers need to develop a range of strategies in order to account for the complexity of human behavior. 2. Intentional behavior change does not occur as an event, but rather, as a process in a series of stages as defined by the Transtheoretical Model [38]. Individuals move from being unaware or unwilling to acknowledge the problem, to considering the possibility of change, then preparing to make the change, then taking action, and finally, to maintaining the desired behavior over time [38]. We make three contributions in this work. First, we frame motivational psychology literature as key notions for designers of technology that aim to motivate sustainable energy behavior change. Second, we show how these notions can be used to assess existing feedback technologies from a motivational perspective. Third, we Cite as: He, H.A, Greenberg, S. and Huang, E.M. (2009) One size does not fit all: Applying the Transtheoretical Model to Energy Feedback Technology Design. Report 2009-943-22, Department of Computer Science, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4. September. One size does not fit all: Applying the TTM to Energy Feedback Technology Design (He, Greenberg, Huang) 2 offer a motivational framework based on the Transtheoretical Model in which we propose strategies that target individual attitudes, beliefs and values held at each stage of behavior change. DEFINING MOTIVATION Motivation is “an inquiry into the why of behavior” [15]. It is “an internal state or condition (sometimes described as a need, desire, or want) that serves to activate or energize behavior and give it direction [29]. Motivation is closely tied to emotional processes [27]. Emotions may be involved in the initiation of behavior, for example, the emotion of loneliness might motivate the action of seeking company. Alternatively, the desire to experience a particular emotion may also motivate action [27], for example, the decision to run a 10km race may be motivated by the desire to experience a sense of accomplishment. CONSTRUCTS OF MOTIVATION Attitudes, beliefs and values are “learned psychological constructs that motivate and influence behavior” [5]. Within these constructs, attitudes are the least enduring (most likely to change), and values are the most enduring (least likely to change) [5]. We discuss these constructs within the context of sustainable energy behavior. Attitudes are “learned predispositions to respond to a person, object, or idea in a favorable or unfavorable way” – reflecting what one likes or dislikes [5]. For example, a person might hold a favorable attitude towards water conservation: in particular, taking short showers. Beliefs are “the ways in which people structure their understanding of reality” – in other words, “what is true and what is false” [5]. Most beliefs are based on previous experience [5], e.g. recycling helps the environment. Values are “central to our concept of self” [5], and can be conceptualized as “behavioral ideals” or “preferences for experiences” [38]. As behavioral ideals, values function as “enduring concepts of good and bad, right and wrong” [38], e.g. it is wrong to litter. As preferences for experiences, “values guide individuals to seek situations in which they may experience certain emotions” [38], e.g. I compost because it makes me feel good. Throughout this paper, we discuss values by drawing upon a subset of values defined by social psychologist Rokeach and values defined by psychologist Maslow (See Table 1). Both proposed that people hold value systems – “a value hierarchy or priority structure based on the relative importance of the individual values” [21]. Rokeach believed that differences in behavior occur due to differences in the ranking of value importance [42] – e.g. Bob, an energy auditor, values being “logical” more than he values being “imaginative” during an audit. Maslow’s value system consists of a hierarchical structure, where he believed humans seek to satisfy the lower level values (i.e. physiological, safety) before the higher (i.e. love/belongingness, esteem, self-actualization) [35]. HOW BEHAVIOR CHANGE OCCURS The Transtheoretical Model (TTM), also known as the Stages of Change model, is an established theory of behavioral change processes [38]. It states that intentional behavior change is a process occurring in a series of stages, rather than a single event [38]. Motivation is required for the focus, effort and energy needed to move through the stages [38]. The stages progress as follows [38]: Precontemplation. The individual may be unaware, uninformed, unwilling or discouraged to change the problem behavior. They do not believe the negative aspects of the current behavior outweigh the positive. Contemplation. The individual acknowledges that their behavior is a problem and begins to think seriously about solving it. While they can be open to information about the problem behavior, they still may feel ambivalent, and as such, may be far from making an actual commitment. Preparation. The individual is ready to change. They aim to develop a plan they can commit to in the near future. Action: The individual takes action by overtly modifying their behavior. Maintenance, Relapse, Recycling: The individual works to sustain the behavior change, and struggles to prevent relapse. If relapse occurs, individuals regress to an earlier stage and begin to progress through the stages again. CRITIQUING FEEDBACK TECHNOLOGIES – WHY ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL We now show the value of the above constructs and models by critiquing several existing feedback technologies from this motivational perspective. First, however, we discuss the goals of sustainable behavior change, introducing terms and Behavioral Ideals (Rokeach) Preferences for Experiences (Rokeach) Preferences for Experiences – Low to high level (Maslow) Capable: Competent, effective Helpful: Working for the welfare of others Honest: Sincere and truthful Imaginative: Daring and creative Independent: Self-reliant; self-sufficient Intellectual: Intelligent and reflective Logical: Consistent; rational Obedient: Dutiful, respectful Responsible: Dependable and reliable A comfortable life: a prosperous life Freedom: independence and free choice Health: physical and mental well-being Inner harmony: freedom from inner conflict A sense of accomplishment: a lasting contribution Social recognition: respect and admiration Wisdom: a mature understanding of life A world of beauty: beauty of nature and the arts Physiological: Homeostasis and appetites Safety: Security of body, employment, resources, family, health, property Love/belonging: Affection and belongingness, be accepted Esteem: Self- respect, self- esteem, esteem of others Self- actualization: To find self-fulfillment and realize one’s potential Table 1. Values One size does not fit all: Applying the TTM to Energy Feedback Technology Design (He, Greenberg, Huang) 3 techniques found in the sustainability literature. We then introduce commonly used techniques that aim to motivate sustainable energy behavior. Finally, we draw upon a sample of existing work in feedback technologies and classify them according to their best fit to particular motivational theories (this is our classification – the actual systems were not necessarily designed with these explicit theories in mind). From this, we discuss the technology’s effectiveness in motivating sustainable energy behavior. Goals of sustainable energy behavior change When motivating sustainable energy behavior, two important goals are durability and generalizability [11]. Durability refers to behavior that is “self-sustaining without the need for repeated interventions” [11]. Generalizability refers to “the degree to which a target behavior ‘spills over’ to related but untargeted conservation behaviors” [11]. To achieve these goals, intrinsically motivated behavior is ideal [11]. Intrinsic motivation is “the doing of an activity for its inherent satisfactions rather than for some separable consequence” [17]. Inherent satisfactions include interest [41], curiosity [41], enjoyment [41] and competence [2]. Extrinsic motivation is “the doing of an activity in order to attain some separable outcome” [17]. Examples include material or social incentives. Commonly-used motivation techniques The Attitude Model assumes that “pro-environmental behavior will automatically follow from favorable attitudes towards the environment” [46]. This model appeals to the Rokeach value of “a world of beauty”, assuming that if one values nature, then they will act to protect it. The Rational-Economic Model (REM) assumes “people will make pro-environmental decisions based on economically- rational decisions” [46]. In other words, monetary cost is the primary motivator. This model appeals to Maslow’s value of “safety” – specifically, “security of resources”, and the Rokeach values of being “logical” and “responsible”. The Information Model provides information to the problem, why it is a problem, and the steps required to solve the problem [46]. It appeals to the Rokeach value of being “responsible”, assuming once you know what to do, you will do it. Positive reinforcement is “a situation in which a response is followed by the addition of a reinforcing stimulus” which “increases the likelihood that the response will be repeated in similar situations” [27]. The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) [39] proposes two routes of cognitive processing. The central route processes arguments according to logic and rationale, where one is sensitive to the quality of the argument. The peripheral route uses emotional persuasion, where one is influenced by factors unrelated to the argument’s validity such as emotional responses. A motivational perspective assessment of feedback technologies Attitude Model: Almost all current feedback technologies employ the Attitude Model. To illustrate, we draw upon two examples. The ‘Power-Aware Cord’ [26] (Figure 1, left) is an electrical cord that visualizes electricity consumption by varying the pulse, flow, and intensities of light using three electroluminescent wires. It assumes that the visualization of electricity alone suffices in motivating individuals to reduce their consumption. ‘7000 Oaks and Counting’ [28] (Figure 1, right) visualizes a building’s energy consumption by equating trees to carbon dioxide emissions. The lower the energy usage, the more trees in the visualization. The higher the energy usage, the more buildings and appliances shown in the visualization. Again, the visualization assumes that providing information of energy use suffices to motivate action. There are two limitations to this model. First, it does not consider the stages of behavioral change. Specifically, the assumption of a pro-environmental attitude does not hold for precontemplators who have not yet acknowledged their behavior is problematic. For contemplators, feelings of ambivalence may indicate that a pro-environmental attitude does not lead to commitment or action. While the Attitude Model may be effective in the preparation stage, it does not provide individuals with specific energy actions they can take [46]. In the action and maintenance stages, individuals have already acted, and thus motivations based on attitude alone may have no further effect. The second limitation to this model is its lack of consideration of other factors, such as situational circumstances (time, convenience, comfort, aesthetics), social influences, government regulations, and so on that often override the decisional influence of a pro- environmental attitude [46]. REM and Attitude Models: The Attitude Model is often used in conjunction with the REM. Early works employing these models include textual LCD displays that present energy usage in relation to cost. Examples include the ‘Energy Detective’, ‘Power-Cost Monitor’, ‘Kill-A-Watt’ (Figure 2). Other systems add persuasive prompts (through changes in color or graphics) encourage less energy usage during peak hours when costs are high. Examples include the ‘Wattson’, ‘Energy Orb’, and ‘Energy Joule’ (Figure 3). Figure 1. Left: Power-Aware Cord. Right: ‘7000 Oaks and Counting’: 4 snapshots over the day One size does not fit all: Applying the TTM to Energy Feedback Technology Design (He, Greenberg, Huang) 4 In general, works employing these models have the following limitations. First, the motivating effect of material incentives (such as money) is non-durable; just as the behavior is quickly started using material incentives, their removal likewise terminates behavior change [11]. Second, when the cost of energy is low in proportion to one’s income, feedback is not as effective [23]. Finally, similar to the Attitude Model, the REM does not consider the influence of situational circumstances that may override the logistics of cost, or the positive influences of pro- environmental attitude [50]. Information, Rational-Economic and Attitude Models: Some systems supplement these earlier models with an Information Model. ‘EcoImagination’ and ‘Energy Tree’ (Figure 3, top left and bottom) are two examples. They employ complex visualizations of feedback, summarizing trends over days to months, and providing information such as cost and CO 2 emissions, and action steps one can take for more efficient usage. This helps to explain why energy use is a problem and how more efficient usage can be achieved. The combination of these three models improves upon the previous categories. Still, from a motivational standpoint, limitations remain. First, information alone rarely motivates action [46] as information is only effective if the user already holds a strong goal to act based on that information [36]. Second, humans have a psychological tendency to avoid non-supportive and seek out supportive information [6]. Specifically, individuals in the contemplation stages may still hold ambivalent feelings [38], and thus may psychologically discount information that contradicts with their current energy behaviors. In contrast, the Information Model can be very effective in the preparation and action stages, improving upon the Attitude Model by providing specific actions one can take. In the maintenance stage, Information Models can be effective if the information provided deepens over time to match with the individual’s deepening knowledge. Positive Reinforcement, Emotional Persuasion through the ELM & Values: ‘Ubigreen’[22] (Figure 3, top right) is one work that employs these techniques. It is a mobile phone visualization that uses semi-automatic sensing technologies to provide feedback of transportation behaviors. It uses a series of emotionally persuasive icons [22] (i.e. a polar bear standing on an iceberg) as positive reinforcement. The more “green” one’s transportation behaviors, the further in the progression of icons one gets (i.e. the iceberg grows and the ecosystem improves) until one reaches the final stage (i.e. sun sets and Northern Lights appear). Icons also represent “auxiliary benefits”, including a piggy bank to represent money savings, a person meditating to represent relaxation, a book to present the opportunity to read and a weightlifter to represent exercise [22]. We classify these respective icons as appealing to the following values: Maslow’s “safety”, Rokeach’s “inner harmony”, “intellectual”, and “health”. In ‘Ubigreen’, the relation of green transportation behaviors to other benefits of value is promising as it provides a range of personal benefits [46] while minimizing the individual’s perception of personal cost [9]. An improvement would be to consider the specific values and value systems of each individual. For example, Person A holds a high value on exercise and keeping fit, but a low value on money savings. As such, the visualization could show personalized feedback of green transportation behaviors and their positive impact on keeping fit. In contrast, the visualization could highlight different benefits for Person B who (say) highly values money savings. One important limitation of ‘Ubigreen’ from a motivational perspective is the possible extrinsic nature of the positive iconic reinforcement (polar bears). Specifically, some participants viewed the visualization to be a “game”, where making it to the last screen was the “final level” [22]. This is problematic. If people are only in it to win, it has Figure 2. (Clockwise) Kill-A-Watt, Power Cost Monitor, Energy Detective, Energy Joule, Energy Orb, Wattson. Figure 3. (Clockwise) Ecoimagination, Ubigreen. Energy Tree. One size does not fit all: Applying the TTM to Energy Feedback Technology Design (He, Greenberg, Huang) 5 negative impacts on their intrinsic motivation [16], and may lead to less durable and generalizable behavior change [11]. This work aimed to target “already very green individuals”, implying that participants are most likely in the action or maintenance stages, where intrinsic motivation is required for long-term success [38]. A MOTIVATIONAL FRAMEWORK: APPLYING TTM TO ENERGY FEEDBACK DESIGN The TTM is often used in conjunction with motivational counseling, where specific intervention strategies are proposed to target people at different stages of change. Its goal is to motivate a move to the next stage [38]. In this section, we synthesize literature within psychology, motivational counseling, social psychology, and environmental psychology to propose a motivational framework based on the TTM to provide insights as to which motivational strategies may be most effective at each stage of change. At each stage, we present the motivational goal(s), as well as recommendation(s) for how feedback technologies may reach these goals. Each recommendation is supported by a rationale (based on existing motivational literature). To make the recommendations more vivid, we use a scenario of a particular energy user named Mary, who holds specific attitudes, beliefs and values. We simplify this example to focus on one appliance – the desktop computer. We draw upon this scenario to provide a simple textual example for each recommendation. We do not claim the examples we provide are ideally presented; rather, they serve to illustrate what information may be appropriate to fit a recommendation. Table 2 summarizes the goals of each stage, and can be used as a reference for the following text. An example scenario: Mary About Mary: Mary, a 36 year old woman, is a successful novelist who works on a desktop computer in her home office. She is married and has two school-age children. They make a good living and money is not a problem. She writes during the daytime while her family is out of the house. In her free time, Mary takes her kids to Edsen Park and goes to fitness classes at a local gym. Work environment: Mary’s office is located in a small spare bedroom on the second floor of their house. It is summertime. Due to the sunlight and heat from the computer, this room heats up quickly. Mary often finds her eyes hurt from long hours on the computer. Motivational stage: Mary is a precontemplator. While she is somewhat aware of general environmental problems, she does not believe that her own personal energy use – and in particular, her computer usage – has much negative effect. In general, Mary does not believe she has the time or energy to make big energy changes. Computer usage habits: Mary works from 9am to 3pm every weekday. She takes a 1 hour lunch break at noon. During break time and at the end of her workday, Mary leaves her computer and monitor on until she returns to work the next day. She rarely turns her computer off, as she believes keeping her programs open and available when she comes back saves her time and effort. Mary does not know or make use of her computer’s automatic power management features. STAGE 1 – PRECONTEMPLATION Goal #1: “Plant the seed” for individuals to acknowledge that their current energy behaviors are problematic. Recommendation #1: Provide personalized feedback that acknowledges both the benefits and consequences of the individual’s non-sustainable energy behavior. Present this information in moderation, and in a neutral, non-biased way. Present these benefits and consequences in relation to what the individual values. Rationale: Precontemplators are passively reluctant, rebelliously resistant, overwhelmed and resigned, or rationalizing [38]. To account for this, technologies must acknowledge both the pros and cons of the individual’s current non-sustainable energy behaviors before they can expect precontemplators to “decrease resistance” [38] and become open to considering the “not so good” things”. This is especially important in the context of motivating sustainable energy action since non-sustainable behaviors offer many benefits such as comfort, luxury, convenience, social status, and sometimes cost. These benefits appeal to values such as Rokeach’s “a comfortable life” and “social recognition”. In addition, it is important not to bombard the individual with too much information, as more intensity will often produce fewer results with this group [38]. Indeed, once the ‘seeds’ have been planted, precontemplators often need time to let them germinate [38]. Example, centered on Mary’s computer and monitor use Total energy used this week: 29.95 kwh, (CPU and monitor left on for 168 hours)  Pros: Leaving your computer and monitor on makes your work readily available when you come in the next day, improving the flow and efficiency of work.  Cons: 1) Cost = $3.07 this week. (At this rate, cost for the month will be $12.28.  2) Amount of C0 2 emissions = 74.88 kg this week. (At this rate,  C02 emissions for the month = 287.52 kg). Precontemplation  • “Plant the seed” to acknowledge  problematic unsustainable behaviors   • Address barriers to sustainable energy  action by providing information of actions  that make a difference   Contemplation  • “Tip the balance” in favor of change   Preparation  • Develop a plan that is acceptable, accessible  and effective. These plans can relate to  “one‐shot actions” or “day‐to‐day” actions   Action  • Reinforce action  • Develop intrinsic motivation  Maintenance  • Maintain behavior by developing intrinsic  motivations of interest, curiosity, enjoyment  and competence.   Table 2. Motivational goals at each stage of change One size does not fit all: Applying the TTM to Energy Feedback Technology Design (He, Greenberg, Huang) 6 Recommendation #2: Refer to social norms regarding sustainable energy behaviors by aligning the use of descriptive and injunctive normative messages. Rationale: Social norms are “the ‘rules’ or expectations for appropriate behavior in a particular social situation” [27]. The idea is motivate the individual to think: “if other people value it, maybe I should as well”. Descriptive norms are “perceptions of behaviors that are typically performed” (e.g. “85% of your neighborhood recycles”). These norms appeal to Maslow’s value of “love/belongingness”. Injunctive norms are “perceptions of behaviors that are typically approved or disapproved” (e.g. a thumbs-down sign with the text: “Protect the environment – don’t litter!). These norms appeal to Rokeach’s value of being “obedient”. Normative messages that align normative and injunctive messages tend to have higher rates of success [10]. Example: While Mary’s current computer usage habits are not energy-efficient, a thumbs-up sign with the following text may increase the value she places on sustainable computer management: In our last monthly survey, your neighborhood saved 471 kwh (or) $ 48.23 (or) 1177.5 kg in carbon dioxide emissions due to the use of efficient computer power management   Goal #2: Address barriers to sustainable energy behaviors, such as “not feeling competent” [14] and “not believing it will yield a desired outcome” [45]. Recommendation: Provide personalized feedback of a variety of small energy actions that, if performed, would have positive impacts on the environment. Rationale: By providing many choices of energy actions that can make a positive impact, we appeal to Rokeach’s value of being “capable” and address the barrier of “not feeling competent” [14]. In addition, presenting a variety of choices appeals to the Rokeach value of “freedom”, and increases one’s sense of personal control [43] and intrinsic motivation [30]. By providing projections of the positive impacts of potential energy actions, we address the barrier of “not believing it will yield a desired outcome” [45]. Example: Feedback technologies could provide one energy tip per day (to provide information in moderation), presenting a variety of choices of small energy actions that could make a difference. Energy tip of the day! – Energy‐efficient monitor usage  Your monitor currently uses approximately 88.0 watts when on (only 3 watts less than your CPU). Turn down the brightness and increase the contrast instead. At a brightness setting of 15 and contrast of 100, your monitor would only use 59.4 watts. If your monitor was left on continuously for 1 week, you would save 6.2 kwh (or) 15.4 kg in CO 2 emissions, equivalent to planting one full‐grown maple tree in Edsen Park. STAGE 2 – CONTEMPLATION Goal #1: “Tip the balance” in favor of change [38] Recommendation #1: Provide personalized feedback on the pros of sustainable energy behavior, and the cons of non- sustainable energy behavior. The pros should emphasize an improvement to the individual’s quality of life (in relation to what they value). The cons should be presented in terms of loss (in relation to what they value) rather than gain. Rationale: Contemplation is the stage in which evaluations of the pros and cons of the behavior are more or less equal [38]. The goal in this stage is to reduce these feelings of ambivalence by providing a more one-sided perspective. The individual should perceive the ‘pros’ of sustainable behavior as enhancing their quality of life. This is especially important as people resist making changes that they perceive as reducing their quality of life, in particular motivations that stress self-sacrifice for the welfare of the common good [31]. The ‘cons’ should focus on the costs of non-sustainable behaviors, from a perspective of loss rather than gain [50]. This maximizes the impact of information as people are more willing to take actions to avoid or minimize a loss, than do the same action for gain [50]. Finally, the focus on values is important, as it emphasizes personally relevant information or feedback, which can be extremely persuasive at this stage [38]. Example: CPU usage this year: 734.4 kwh (CPU on for 8765.8 hours)   LOSS through inefficient usage:   42% Inefficiency = 308.4 kwh (out of 734.4 kwh)   $31.58 – enough to pay for one month of kickboxing classes  771 kg CO 2 – requires 70 full‐grown maple trees to absorb it within a year  To improve your efficiency, you can: Turn off your CPU when you are finished for the workday. In the summertime, this will reduce the temperature in your office by approximately 3.6 degrees.  Recommendation #2: Encourage energy action by informing people of the discrepancy between their positive energy attitude and their corresponding behavior. Rationale: Cognitive dissonance can be used to promote enduring changes in attitude and behavior [47]. It is “an uncomfortable state” that occurs when a person holds an attitude and a behavior that are “psychologically inconsistent” [18]. When this happens, people try to reduce this uncomfortable feeling, either by changing their attitude or their behavior [18]. This theory appeals to Rokeach`s values of ‘inner harmony’ and being ‘honest’. As contemplators hold pro-environmental attitudes but do not behave according to those attitudes, feedback technologies can invoke cognitive dissonance by reminding people of a specific pro-environmental attitude they hold, informing them of the discrepancy between their attitude and the corresponding behavior, and encouraging a change towards more sustainable behavior [46]. One size does not fit all: Applying the TTM to Energy Feedback Technology Design (He, Greenberg, Huang) 7 Example: Last week, your computer was on when you weren’t present 69% of the time. We know how much you care about sustainable energy usage! Next week, how about putting turn off your computer more often when you know you’ll be away from it for awhile? You’ll be glad that you did!  Recommendation #3: Provide encouragement for small energy actions (whether or not the individual’s original intention was sustainable energy usage) to encourage bigger energy actions in the future. Rationale: This recommendation makes use of cognitive dissonance through “Foot-in-the-Door” processes [50]. The idea is that if people can be encouraged to perform a small energy action of their own accord, they can be encouraged to perform larger energy actions in the future [46]. This occurs due to cognitive dissonance, where once someone takes part in an external behavior, they will change their attitudes in order to internally justify or rationalize their actions [18]. Example: On Thursday, Mary was working on her child’s upcoming surprise birthday party invitations when her children arrived home. Mary turned off her monitor to keep the invitation a secret in case they glanced over. While her original intention was not energy savings, the following message could be provided the next day: Thanks for turning off your monitor! In doing so, you have saved 0.79 kwh (or) $0.08 (or) 1.98 kg in CO 2 last night. To take further energy‐efficient  actions, consider putting your computer to sleep at the end of each workday. This keeps your programs open when you come in the next day, and provides an opportunity to get a cup of coffee before the workday.  Recommendation #4: Link the feedback technology to a sustainable energy usage online community website, where the individual can browse and read information (at their own accord) on the experiences of sustainable energy users in the community. Rationale: While contemplators are open to information, they are not yet ready to make a commitment [38]. This recommendation allows the individual to read about the experiences of individuals who value the importance of sustainable energy usage, which appeals to social norms regarding energy usage, and does not push any type of commitment. Example: Visit the Sustainable Lifestyles Community Website  ‐ Read about the  experiences of real people who have made small energy changes that have made big impacts. STAGE 3 – PREPARATION Goal #1: Support individuals in developing a plan that is acceptable, accessible and effective [38]. These plans can relate to “one-off actions” (e.g. purchasing an energy- efficient fridge) or “day-to-day” actions (e.g. taking shorter showers) [46]. Recommendation #1: Support individuals to self-set specific and quantitative goals (preferably at medium to high levels of difficulty), and provide support to help them develop multiple methods in which to achieve these goals. Rationale: A goal is defined as “an internal representation of a desired outcome” [3]. At this stage, individuals may have abstract goals but do not necessarily know the best way to achieve them. In this section, we discuss three factors that influence the success of goal achievement – these include goal-setting, goal commitment and implementation intentions. Specific, difficult and self-set goals lead to higher performance and commitment than do-best, easy or assigned goals [49]. Specific goals make clear when the goal has been achieved [49]. Difficult goals provide a greater sense of achievement, though there is a lower probability of success [49]. Achieving difficult goals may appeal to Rokeach’s value of being “capable”, and Maslow’s value of “esteem”. Goal difficulty can start at the easy level, as success builds on success, and with each small change the individual builds self-efficacy about making bigger changes [38]. Implementation intentions are the “plans that specify the when, where and how to lead to goal attainment” [24]. Implementation intentions may appeal to the Rokeach values of being “logical”, or “imaginative”. Goal intentions that are furnished with implementation intentions are more easily attained than mere goal intentions [25]. Flexibility in goal attainment is good, providing the option to switch to other routes [24]. Example: Based on the Mary’s usage patterns, the feedback technology can provide options of easy, medium and difficult goals, their results, as well as several methods that Mary can use achieve these goals. I would like to set a medium  difficulty level goal to reduce my CPU and  monitor usage  . Goal period: Begins Nov. 1, 2010  , ends: Dec 1, 2010.  My  current monthly usage: 119.8 kwh. My goal for next month: 95.8 kwh.  To achieve this goal, I can do the following: 1) turn my monitor and CPU off at the end of every workday, 2) make use of automatic computer management settings to hibernate my CPU after no activity for 3 hours, or 3) Turn off my monitor if taking a break longer than 15 minutes. Recommendation # 2: Encourage individuals to apply their personal knowledge or expertise in reaching their goal. Rationale: In addition to computer supported implementation intentions, feedback technologies can also encourage individuals “to apply their personal knowledge or expertise to a situation” – this is called adaptive muddling [31]. When this happens, people perceive a role for themselves, and may feel an obligation or responsibility to help the change succeed [20]. This has two benefits. First, it may increase the individual’s level of goal commitment, targeting the Rokeach values of being “responsible”, “helpful” or having “wisdom”. Second, adaptive muddling may encourage self-reflection of one’s energy behaviors, which in turn may motivate the intrinsic satisfactions of curiosity or interest. One size does not fit all: Applying the TTM to Energy Feedback Technology Design (He, Greenberg, Huang) 8 Example: In addition to providing automatically generated implementation intentions (as in the previous example), feedback technologies can also ask questions such as: What are some other ways you can achieve this goal? Use your creative thinking to use your computer more efficiently! Recommendation #3: Within the sustainable energy usage online community, provide individuals in the preparation stage with the option to be connected to energy “mentors” – individuals who are in the action or maintenance stages of sustainable energy behavior change. Rationale: This recommendation makes use of social diffusion – the observation that people are more likely to follow the modeled behavior or example of others (who they have direct experience with) that have successfully adopted energy actions [50]. In addition, being connected to an energy mentor implies a level of commitment, which may be acceptable for individuals in the preparation stage who are ready to act in the near future. Example: Feedback technologies could provide Mary with brief descriptions and profiles of energy mentors, and highlight those who have similar interests as the individual in preparation. In addition, feedback technologies could provide text chat, photo exchange or other ways in which they communicate and share their experiences. STAGE 4 – ACTION Goal #1: Reinforce action Recommendation: Provide positive performance feedback in relation to the progress made towards energy goals set in the preparation stage. Rationale: Positive performance feedback tends to increase intrinsic motivation, whereas negative performance feedback tends to decrease intrinsic motivation [13]. Providing positive feedback on goal progress may lead to experiencing the intrinsic emotion of competence, and the Rokeach value of being “capable”. Example: Feedback technologies could visualize a history of progress, with positive reinforcing messages such as You have made great progress towards your goal today. Keep using energy efficiently, and you’ll reach your goal five days from now! Goal #2: Develop intrinsic motivations for sustainable energy behavior. Recommendation: Allow interactive exploration, customization and annotation within the feedback interface. Rationale: Allowing for interactive exploration may invoke self-reflection of one’s energy behaviors, and in turn, the inherent satisfactions of curiosity and interest. This is important as “constructive behavior change arises when the person connects it something of intrinsic value” [38]. Example: Interactive exploration of the interface could easily allow Mary to explore with “what if” questions of energy usage, for instance by manipulating existing information to see the positive or negative effects. Providing customization and annotation allows the interface to be more personalized to the individual, which is a more effective motivator than general and non-personalized information [50]. STAGE 5 – MAINTENANCE Goal #1: Provide support for energy actions to become energy habits Recommendation: Based on the situation and activity, present prompts at opportune times to remind individuals to take specific energy actions. As the habit becomes well- instantiated, these prompts can gradually disappear. Rationale: Habits are “associations between goals and actions that allow the instigation of automatic behavior on the activation of these goals by the environment” [1]. In other words, when a behavior has been performed many times in the past, future behavior becomes increasingly under control of an automaticized process [19]. We argue that the instantiation of habits may be especially important in this stage, as it may help with reducing the occurrences of relapse and recycling. Example: Feedback technologies can make use of sensing technology, work rhythms and sound to provide prompts based on Mary’s usage patterns. For example, before Mary leaves for her lunch break, a prompt could be: Leaving for lunch? Don’t forget to turn off your monitor and put your computer to sleep! Goal #3: Maintain behavior by further developing intrinsic motivations. Recommendation #1: Provide the choice for individuals in the maintenance stage to become “energy mentors” to individuals in the preparation stage. Rationale: This recommendation makes use of cognitive dissonance – “individuals who have attempted to persuade someone else will internally rationalize their behavior, and therefore are particularly prone to increase their commitment” [50]. In addition, it adds a dynamic component to the feedback interface, and may inspire new and unpredictable ways in which an individual’s motivation may be sustained. This method targets the Rokeach values of “social recognition” and “wisdom”, and through these, may increase the intrinsic satsifaction of enjoyment. Example: Feedback technologies can ask whether Mary would like to act as an energy mentor to someone who is looking for advice on sustainable computer energy usage. Mary could be asked to write a brief description about herself, her interests and experiences with computer energy usage, and will be contacted when someone has chosen her for a mentor. Recommendation #2: Provide a way for individuals to take part in journal-keeping of their daily energy experiences, One size does not fit all: Applying the TTM to Energy Feedback Technology Design (He, Greenberg, Huang) 9 and use this to encourage further thought in regards to more advanced energy actions they can take part in. Rationale: Journal-keeping is a form of expressive practice and promotes reflection on one’s experience [8]. Reflection upon one’s energy behaviors and progress over time may invoke the intrinsic satisfactions of interest and enjoyment. Viewing one’s progress over time may invoke the intrinsic emotion of competence and lead to higher perceptions of self-efficacy. This is important as “in order for individuals to experience long-term success, they require adequate self- efficacy and intrinsic attributions of the behavior” [38]. The importance of self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation is supported by the work of Woodruff et. al., which studied the motivations and values of “extremely green individuals” who have made “significant accommodations to their homes and lifestyles in order to be more environmentally responsible” [48]. Participants in the study had “strong self- reliant tendencies”, where through the process of “pursing their environmental goals”, “creatively solving problems” and “modest mental challenges”, they derived satisfaction from the “cleverness and resourcefulness” of their solutions and gained a strong sense of “empowerment and confidence” [48]. From these findings, we observe that these participants were able to maintain their behavior due to intrinsic satisfactions of their energy actions, such as interest and curiosity, which eventually led to enjoyment and competence. These seem to reflect the Rokeach values of being “intellectual”, “imaginative” and “capable”. Finally, perhaps the goal of technologies at this stage is to consider that while it may not always be possible for every decision to be “maximally green”, it is possible to be “just a little more conscious and aware” [48]. Example: Feedback interfaces could allow many flexible ways in which Mary could annotate or journal-keep within the interface. Examples include allowing Mary to take snapshots of the visualization, where she could circle or highlight areas of interest to her and write her thoughts in regards to the visualization. If desired, feedback interfaces could also automatically record the energy usage summaries of each day or week in the journal. DISCUSSION Several challenges arise in the practical application of our framework to the design of energy feedback technologies. As it is based on TTM’s model of behavior change, we encounter the same critiques as those of the TTM. First, the TTM assumes that behavior change occurs in discrete states and that individuals can only be in one stage at a time [33]. However, studies have shown that “rather than simply being in one stage or another, clients show patterns of differential involvement in each of the stages” [37]. If this is the case, “the concept of stages loses its meaning” [33]. For example, in our scenario, Mary could be in the maintenance stage of sustainable computer usage, as well as in the contemplation stage of starting a compost. While we recognize the value of this critique, we make use of the stages of change (and the TTM) for its heuristic value, recognizing it is a simplified model of “ideal change” [33], rather than how energy behavioral processes necessarily occur in real life. We hope the value of our framework lies in its contribution of a new and potentially useful way of thinking about motivating sustainable energy behaviors, while also inspiring new ideas and approaches to this problem. Second, the TTM is a general model of behavior change [33] with applications in a wide variety of addictive and health-risk behaviors [38]. To our knowledge, no other work has applied TTM to energy behaviors. While we believe we have shown that TTM provides a useful starting point, further exploration is needed as to whether the TTM is a suitable model to apply to this problem. Third, we argued that the success of feedback technologies (that make use of the framework) lies in its effectiveness in motivating a move towards the next stage of change. Based on this, feedback technologies must necessarily be able to correctly assess the stage of change the individual is in, as well as evaluate whether a move to the next stage has occurred. This puts forth some difficult challenges in terms of validity of stage assessment and staging algorithms. This clearly needs further exploration and study. Finally, from a technological perspective, there is the question regarding the life cycle and end goal of feedback technologies. Two approaches are mentioned in the work of Pierce et. al: Should technologies “evolve over time” to keep pace with user’s “deepening commitment and understanding”, or should they “act as a type of training device that is no longer needed after certain behavioral or intellectual changes have been made”? [40]. If technologies are adaptive, we argue that a dynamic component should be present (e.g., the use of social networks), as feedback technologies cannot be expected to keep up with complex human motivations. If technologies act as training devices, HCI designers should also consider sustainable interaction design principles as mentioned in [7]. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK We have made three contributions. The first is a framing of motivational psychology literature as key notions important to designers of technology that aims to motivate sustainable energy behavior change. The second is a critique of selected feedback technologies from a motivational perspective. The third is a motivational psychology framework that addresses individual motivations at different stages of behavior change. Future work includes the development and implementation of feedback visualizations based on this framework, followed by an in-depth, longitudinal study of whether these visualizations actually motivated sustainable energy behavior change. We also need to further develop the framework to consider social, cultural, contextual, and One size does not fit all: Applying the TTM to Energy Feedback Technology Design (He, Greenberg, Huang) 10 situational factors (such as disposable income) and how these might affect energy behaviors. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks to Adam Runions, Uta Hinrichs and Marian Doerk for many helpful discussions and insightful comments throughout the progression of this work. This work was partially funded by the NSERC/iCORE/SMART Technologies Chair in Interactive Technologies, and by NSERC Discovery Grant. REFERENCES 1. Aarts, H., Dijksterhuis, A. (2000). Habits as knowledge structures: automaticity in goal-directed behavior. APA, 78(1), 53-63. 2. Arkes, H. R. (1978). Competence and the maintenance of behavior. Motivation and Emotion, 2, 201-211. 3. Austin, J.T., Vancouver, J.B. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology: structure, process and content. Psych. Bulletin, 120(3), 338-375. 4. Becker, L.J. (1978). Joint effect of feedback and goal-setting on performance: A field study of residential energy conservation. J. of Applied Psyc., 63, 428-433. 5. Beebe, S.A., Beebe, S.J., Redmond, M.V. (1999). Interpersonal Communication: Relating to Others (2 nd ed), Allyn & Bacon, Boston MA. 6. Bem, D.J. (1967). Self-perception: an alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Pysc. Review, 74(3), 183-200. 7. Blevis, E. (2007). Sustainable Interaction Design: invention and disposal, renewal and reuse. Proc. ACM CHI’07, 503-512. 8. Boud, D. (2001). Using journal writing to enhance reflective practice. In English, L.M.and Gillen, M.A (Eds). New Directions in Adult and Continuing Education No.90. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, 9-18. 9. Cameron, L.D., Brown, P.M. (1998). Social value orientation and decisions to take proenvironmental action. J. of Applied Social Pysc, 28(8), 675-697. 10. Cialdini, R.B. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Current Directions in Psyc. Science, 12, 105-109. 11. De Young, R. (1993). Changing behavior and making it stick: the conceptualization and management of conservation behavior. Environment and Behavior, 25(3), 485-505. 12. De Young, R., Kaplan, S. (1988). On averting the tragedy of the commons. Environmental Mgmt, 12, 273-283. 13. Deci, E.L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. J. of Pers. and Social Pysc. 18, 105-115. 14. Deci, E.L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. Plenum, New York. 15. Deci, E. L., Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self- determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press. 16. Deci, E.L., Betley, G., Kahle, J., Abrams, L., Porac, J. (1981). When trying to win: competition and intrinsic motivation. Personality and Social Psyc. Bulletin, 7(1). 17. Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Cont. Ed. Psyc., 25, 54-67. 18. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 19. Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading: MA: Addison-Wesley. 20. Folz, D.H. (1991). Recycling program design, management, and participation: A national survey of municipal experience. Public Admin. Review, 51(3), 222-231. 21. Fritzsche, D. J. (1995). Personal values: potential keys to ethical decision making. J. of Bus. Ethics, 14(11), 909-922. 22. Froehlich, J., Consolvo, S., Dillahunt, T., Harrison, B., Klasnja, P., Mankoff, J., Landay, J. (2009). Ubigreen: investigating a mobile tool for tracking and supporting green transportation habits. Proc. ACM CHI’09, 1043-1052. 23. Geller, E.S., Winett, R.A., Everett, P.B. (1982). Preserving the Environment: New Strategies for Behavior Change. Pergamon Press Inc. 24. Gollwitzer, P.M. (1999). Implementation intentions: strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54, 493-503. 25. Gollwitzer, P.M., Brandstatter, V. (1997). Implementation intentions and effective goal pursuit. J. of Personality and Social Psyc., 73, 186-199. 26. Gustafsson, A., Gyllensward, M. (2005). The power-aware cord: energy awareness through ambient information display. Proc. ACM CHI’05, 1423-1426. 27. Hockenbury, D.H., Hockenbury, S.E. (2003). Psychology (3 rd ed.). New York: Worth Publishers. 28. Holmes, T. G. (2007). Eco-visualization: combining art and technology to reduce energy consumption. Proc. of C&C’07. ACM Press, 153-162. 29. Huitt, W. (2001). Motivation to Learn: An Overview. In Ed. Psyc. Interactive, Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State Uni. Retrieved Jan 5, 09: http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/motivation/motivate.html 30. Iyengar, S.S., Lepper, M.R.(1999). Rethinking the value of choice: a cultural perspective on intrinsic motivation. J. of Personality and Social Pysc., 76(3), 349-366. 31. Kaplan, S. (1990). Being needed, adaptive muddling and human- environment relationships. In R.I. Selby, K.H. Anthony, J. Choi, and B. Orland (Eds), Coming of age, p19-25. Oklahoma City, OK: Environmental Design Research Association. 32. Kollmuss, A., Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro- environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239-260. 33. Littell J.H., Girvin, H. (2002). Stages of change: a critique. Behavior Modification, 26(2), 223-273. 34. Locke, E.A., Latham, G.P., Erez, M. (1988). The determinants of goal commitment, In the Academy of Mgmt Review, 13(1), 23-39. 35. Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psyc. Review, 50, 370-396. 36. McCalley, L. T., Midden, C. J. H. (2002). Energy conservation through product-integrated feedback: the roles of goal-setting and social orientation. J. Economic Psyc, 23, 589-603. 37. McConnaughy, E.A., Prochaska, J.O., Velicer, W.F. (1983). Stages of change in psychotherapy: measurement and sample profiles. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 20, 368- 375. 38. Miller, W.R., Rollnick, S. (2002). Motivational Interviewing: Preparing People for Change (2 nd Ed). New York: Guilford Press. One size does not fit all: Applying the TTM to Energy Feedback Technology Design (He, Greenberg, Huang) 11 39. Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T., Strathman, A.J. (1994). To think or not to think: exploring two routes to persuasion. Persuasion: Pysc. Insights and Perspectives, T.C. Brock and M.C. Green (Eds), p.81-116, Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Pub. Inc. 40. Pierce, J., Odom, W., Blevis, E. (2008). Energy aware dwelling: a critical survey of interaction design for eco-visualizations. Proc. Of OZCHI’08, 287, 1-8. 41. Reeve, J. (1989). The interest-enjoyment distinction in intrinsic motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 13, 83-104. 42. Rokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press. 43. Rotter, J.B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Pysc. Monograph: General and Applied, 80, 1-28. 44. Ryan, R.M. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. J. of Personality, 63, 397-427. 45. Seligman, M. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development and death. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco. 46. Shipworth, M. (2002) Motivating Home Energy Action: A Handbook of What Works. Australian Greenhouse Office. Retrieved May 21, 2008: http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/local/publications/pub s/motivating.pdf 47. Thibodeau, R., Aronson, E. (1992). Taking a closer look: reasserting the role of the self-concept in dissonance theory. Personality and Social Psyc. Bulletin, 18, 591-602. 48. Woodruff, A., Hasbrouck, J., Augustin, S. (2008). A bright green perspective on sustainable choices. Proc. ACM CHI’08, 313-322. 49. Wright, P.M., Kacmar, K.M. (1994). Goal specificity as a determinant of goal commitment and goal change. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 59, 242-260. 50. Yates, S. M., Aronson, E. (1983). A social psychological perspective on energy conservation in residential buildings. APA, 435-444.

Writerbay.net

Do you need academic writing help? Our quality writers are here 24/7, every day of the year, ready to support you! Instantly chat with a customer support representative in the chat on the bottom right corner, send us a WhatsApp message or click either of the buttons below to submit your paper instructions to the writing team.


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper
Writerbay.net