Structured Communication

Structured Communication

This technique fixes about forty percent of “deeper stuff” problems between couples. You read that correctly. FORTY percent. Why? Because it greases the wheels of communication in a specific way so that friction is drastically reduced. When frustration is reduced, change can happen. As it turns out, it also addresses what most couples do not know about (transferences, negative loops) and therefore, overlook. Even if couples are not stuck in Negative Loops but just do not communicate well, this is THE technique they need. It is a bit mechanical in the beginning or learning stages, but later the technique effortlessly becomes conversational. There are two parts or levels to this technique.

Content:

Psychologists think of communication a little differently. On the surface is the content. This is what most people consider communication to be. It is the issue at hand or what is being discussed at the moment. If I complain that my partner leaves the cap off of the toothpaste tube, the content or issue is leaving the cap off the tube. It is the verbal description of the most superficial event(s) about which we communicate. This comprises only about ten percent of what is communicated.

Process:

There is another component that is not so well appreciated. This is called process. Process involves all the non-verbal aspects of communication. These include the look on the face, body language and gestures of the communicator. These involve the tone of voice, volume, speed of the spoken word and word choice. These also involve ulterior (dynamic) motives, which are usually expressed in timing. Power, control or avoidance are a few. These dynamics can be straightforward or manipulative, conscious or unconscious. Process is what goes on behind the scenes or under the surface during the communication, usually starting with the communicator and resonating through the “communicatee.” This is the level where the deep stuff hides. It is not usually in conscious awareness unless you practice making it conscious. And, contrary to common belief, most arguments start at and are fixed at the process, not the content level. The deep stuff and transferences ride on the coat tails of process. In personal relationships, process comprises about ninety percent of what is communicated. (It is unconsciously perceived, and the transference "dance" is usually set up between two people within the first ten minutes of meeting. Yes, that's right. The course of the relationship is set up almost immediately, just not consciously. There are dynamic reasons why we do this, mostly to resolve our own internal conflicts inherent in our negative transference(s). We unconsciously pick the perfect person to do this work with, and not coincidentally, that person usually has the complimentary negative basic assumptions allowing both of us to clear out the conflicts, playing off each other. (See the article on “The DEEP Stuff.”)

Unfortunately, usually it is only the content that is expressed in words. Aspects of process usually remain un-articulated; that is, they are not put into words. This is the first important part or principle in effective or Structured Communication. We have to “articulate the process.” What? What this means is that in order to deal with “things” more effectively, we have to verbalize exactly what is going on, not just at the content level, but also at the level of process. Normally, we just do not, being satisfied to articulate only things about the issue at hand (content). In this techniques, each person is taught to articulate; that is, put into words, all or at least as much as we are aware of in any given moment that occurs at the process level.

What should I articulate? The most important “things” are feelings, since body language and other non-verbal cues mostly express emotions. Which emotions? All of them. In the research in the area of emotional intelligence, Goleman (1995) outlined eight major feelings, which covers most of the feelings we humans have, or relate to in one way or in combination. (Dr. Goleman omitted one, so in other literature there are nine feeling words. They are: anger, happy, sad, fear, hurt, love, shame, disgust and surprise.)

To articulate our feelings, we have to have some assertiveness skill. If we do not have this, we need to work on it, because effective communication in any form, at least in part, relies on this ability. The trick is to put into words what we are feeling and to do so right along with our verbal descriptions of the current subject of conversation (the “issue” or content). Almost always, process involves some sort of feeling, and our job is to describe it out loud, using words, doing so assertively. If you need synonyms for each of the major feelings, go to Thesaurus.com. There are hundreds.)

Process also involves timing. That is when we consider when something is said and whether if follows some critical “other” idea or communication. Ever wait until someone is in a good mood to spring on them something unpleasant, or maybe ask for a favor? This is a subtler process issue and involves power, control or other ways to maneuver our partners. This is the less obvious of the two basic elements of process communication and one I will not elaborate on too much here, because it is trickier to understand and master. Better, leave that to a therapist, if needed.

So, articulating the process is the first half of effective communication. The second half is “Validation.” Validation follows from articulating the process. The technique is to put into our words, the ideas and feelings of our partner and, again, to say them out loud. The trick is to do this at both the content and process levels. That means we paraphrase our partner’s ideas at two levels, the content, meaning what is communicated as the issue (the cap on the toothpaste tube) and the process, meaning what our partner is feeling (happy, sad, angry), or even what is reflected by the timing (other dynamics), if our awareness is sharp.

Both parts are necessary--articulating the process (both content and feelings) and validating our partner’s communication (both content and feelings). Miss either and the technique does not work. If we do not pay attention to the timing, not to worry. Articulating only our partner’s feeling is plenty for now, and works well enough. The communication is structured in a way that allows partners effectively to use both levels of the technique, dealing with real issues in real time.

Abstract:

Here is a simple verbal overview or schematic of communication that ignores transferences. This is what typically occurs between couples and usually fails.

Partner A: Communication
               Partner B: Reaction and counter-communication.

Partner A: Reaction---counter-countercommunication
               Partner B: Greater reaction and maybe more communication (escalation)

Partner A: Greater reaction with increase in volume (escalation). Emergence of feelings, usually acted out with increasing agitation but no articulation.
               Partner B: Continues the trend…

This is bad communication between intimates because it is literally confined to content levels. This causes a build up in tension because process is not addressed. Process is implied but not articulated. When buildups of tension occur at the process level but are not released, fights ensue.

Here’s what an effective communication pattern looks like. Try to spot the differences from the above.

Partner A: Communication—issue and feeling.
               Partner B: Paraphrases issue and feeling.

Partner A: checks paraphrase, for accuracy of idea and feeling.
               Partner B: Corrects paraphrase (if needed)

               Partner B: Respond to issue, stating his reaction to Partner A’s issue.
               States response (content) and feelings (process) about the issue.

Part A: Paraphrases Partner B at both content and process levels.

               Partner B: Checks and corrects paraphrasing, if necessary.

Partner A: Corrects paraphrasing.

               Partner B: Approves paraphrasing and is validated.

Partner A: Continues with discussion at both content and process levels…

As we can see, there are some extra steps. The principle additions are paraphrasing, then evaluating and correcting the paraphrasing. These must occur BEFORE the rebuttal occurs from either partner, regardless of the issue. Here is an expanded view, to walk us through the process and make it clear.

Partner A: Expresses something, most likely an “issue” or problem. Partner A states the issue, then articulates the feeling he or she has about it. To be complete, Partner A states both the issue AND the feeling he or she has about it (content and process)

               Partner B:

(Here’s the intervention and the critical part. Normally Partner B would respond to the issue brought up by Partner A. Instead:)

               Partner B does NOT respond to the issue. Rather, Partner B paraphrases Partner A’s communication, putting into his or her words, the ideas and feelings expressed by Partner A, also taking great care to include the process or feeling level in his or her paraphrasing.

(Here’s another intervention. Partner A does not go on with another issue, nor take Partner B’s paraphrasing at face value, nor as acceptance of the position. Rather:)

Partner A evaluates Partner B’s paraphrasing, making sure all thoughts and feelings were included at both the content and process level. Suggestions for corrections are madeif there were omissions.

               Partner B then corrects any omissions, rephrasing, adding or omitting feelings or ideas that were not correct. This validates Partner A. If partner A approves, NOW partner B responds to the “issue.” Partner B states his or her reaction to only the issue brought up by partner A, stating his or her “take” on the problem AND his or her feeling(s) about it (content and process).

(Here’s another intervention. Rather than rebut or let’s just say, “respond” to Partner B’s response, Partner A, just like above, now has to paraphrase Partner B’s rebuttal.)

Partner A paraphrases Partner B’s reactions at both the content and process level, taking care to include a verbal description of the issue AND to state what Partner B’s feeling(s) are about it.

(The appropriate intervention here is, again, that…)

               Partner B then evaluates Partner A’s paraphrasing, making sure all thoughts and feelings were included at both the content and process level.Suggestions forcorrections are made ifthere were errors oromissions. Partner A is validated.

At first this seems too complicated and too mechanical. It really is much simpler than it first seems. All that was added was paraphrasing and evaluating the paraphrasing at both content and process levels. Putting feelings into words is articulating the process and paraphrasing and checking the paraphrasing is validating. If this technique is followed at both content AND process levels, tensions are reduced because feelings are appropriately, not inappropriately expressed. Behavior changes when words describe feelings rather than when we act out feelings, which has very different (usually negative) consequences. Further, so much of the frustration couples experience stems from not being heard. Validating in this way guarantees each will be heard, thus tension is further reduced. This effect is only achieved when both partners articulate the process and validate each other’s communication at each step, going no further until this is accomplished at each step.

Basic Rules:

Before we look at a dialogue between a real couple, here are some preliminary considerations when using this technique. Consider these to be strong suggestions. I think of them more as basic rules. Regardless, these are common-sense things that outside of therapy, most couples take for granted. In the heat of an argument, many of these ideas go “out the window.” Let us bring them back “in the window.” To make any communication work better, consider the following.

1. The first person to speak has no more than one, maybe two minutes to address an “issue,” which includes articulating the process. The second person has the same amount of time to validate.

2. Each step is about one aspect of an “issue,” or just one issue. The idea is to be succinct. Get in, make your point, get out.

3. No interrupting. When one person is speaking, the other is listening, period. If one person interrupts, introduce the “pillow rule.” The pillow rule states that only the person holding the pillow talks. The other person listens until s/he has the pillow, in which case the other person now has to listen.

4. No yelling. Normal speaking volume is preferred.

5. No name-calling. Partners have names. Use them, not colorful adjectives.

6. Pick a venue that is quiet and undisturbed (no noise, interruptions by children, relatives or pets). Distractions delay success and can be irritating. This really works better when partners actually look at each other when communicating.

7. Do not try this stuff if you are comprised by any of the following: alcohol, drugs or significant fatigue. The reasons for the first two are obvious. (See the article, “The Four Rules of Relationships under the Blog section, subcategory Communication.)

**Practical (Concrete) Examples:
**

To start, each partner makes a list of issues, and then prioritizes them. The idea is to rank order the “complaints.” Partners do this in different ways. Some consider only their version of what is important. Some rank concerns by immediacy. Some rank concerns by what is most annoying. This is subjective but at the end, each partner will have “a list” in hand. Flip a coin to decide who speaks first. That person picks the issue at the bottom of his or her list. Pick something that is current, not that happened years ago. We want to talk start with a small, current issue. While we are learning, deal only with firecrackers, not atomic bombs. Lastly, communicate about that one topic only. Keep it simple.

Here is a real in-session example of the above discussion, using the articulating-the-process and validating steps. Sometimes it helps to “flesh out” examples.

She: You never pick up your underwear. All you do is leave it on the floor. Its unsightly and I trip on them. This is frustrating.

               He: The issue is my leaving my underwear on the floor and you’re feeling very frustrated. You didn’t say it, but you implied I should do something else, like put my underwear in the dirty clothes hamper or somewhere else so you won’t have to deal with it.

Her: Bingo! You got the issue right and my feeling, too. You’re right I didn’t say do something else with your underwear but that seems kinda obvious. Thank you for putting that into words.

She has articulated her issue (content) and feeling (process) and he has successfully paraphrased her at both levels. She checked his paraphrasing at both levels, was satisfied and felt “validated.” He follows with his own response to the issue. He has one or two minutes, stays on just this subject and communicates his own content and process material while she listens without interrupting.

               He: I didn’t think this was such a big deal, one, because its just underwear, and two, because you leave your shoes all over the house. I trip over those and usually break your heel off or twist my ankle. Talk about frustrating!

She: OK, you don’t like what I do either. In this case, I leave my shoes around, so you don’t think there’s a problem with your under- wear. Tit for tat. And, you make it seem like my shoes are more of a problem because they break, or you trip. You are just as frustrated as I am.

               He: Yes to both levels. You got that right.

To continue, this couple went on to make a “deal,” which seems indicated (and obvious). He agrees to pick up his underwear and she to pick up her shoes. Both communicated the issue with pretty good articulation, but more importantly, both said something about their feeling(s). Frustration, in this case, is on the low end of the anger spectrum, so they used the appropriate feeling word, “out loud.” They articulated not just the content, but also much more importantly, the process. Process problems are where the power of disagreements builds, usually out of awareness. Articulating the process and validating brings these things back into awareness, allows us verbally to express them, which reduces tensions in a good way and undermines disagreements. So, being aware of our feelings and saying exactly what they are is very, very, very important. Articulating the process and validating are the two steps I “make” couples engage in when learning to effectively communicate. Fortunately, anyone can learn it, with or without couple’s therapy. It starts out very structured, and then easily merges with normal conversation. The important part is to include all the steps, no matter how loose the communication. Do so and communication becomes instantly more effective. Miss or leave out a step and tension builds.

Does this approach fix the transference problem? Partially. If we take the steam out of ineffective communication and especially out of Negative Loops, we have decreased the pressures negative transferences produce. We still need to understand the transferences a little better, but that comes with practice in Structured Communication. We first have to eliminate the truckload of negative feelings that couples are holding onto when they first start this exercise. Then the transferences become visible. (See article, “The DEEP Stuff” in the Blog section.)

Assessment:

In graduate school, counselors are taught about levels of communication in active listening. Counselors learn how people communicate much more effectively and deeply, using levels of empathy. To be empathic, one has to actually listen. When couples are angry, they usually do not. The Structured Communication exercise is designed to facilitate communication AND to reduce tension. It makes couples listen. When feelings are aired (appropriately), the quality of communication sharply increases. When partners actually hear these, they have something to work with. Good things happen right away.

Carkhuff and Truax (1967) developed a scale to measure levels of empathy, hence depth in communication. It is a five-point scale. Level One is the lowest and Level Five is the highest. Level Three is the average or the minimum Level needed to facilitate “adequate” communication. In the Structured Communication examples above, each respondent was at Level Three, or above. Level Three is achieved when the listener paraphrases back to the speaker the same concepts and feelings (both content and process) at the same depth. That is, the respondent neither adds nor subtracts from what was said.

The listener can add to what is said, enriching it some or even a lot. During any paraphrasing, if the listener adds a little more to the speaker’s content and process, the communication is said to rise to Level Four. This is good. Level Five is even better, because that means the listener has significantly added more to the speaker’s content and process.

Conversely, if the listener detracts from what was said; that is, says slightly less but still reflects most of what was said, the level of communication goes down to Level Two. This is not so good. If the listener just barely summarizes what was said, or worse, minimizes it, the level of communication goes down to Level One. This is bad.

Anything above Level Three (Four or Five) deepens communication, and elevates the understanding of more subtle aspects of communication. The more material shared, the better. This is accomplished by adding more to the paraphrasing phase. For most of us, the “more” part feels better. The more material either partner brings to the table, the more likely deeper patterns of feelings will be highlighted. This gives insight into the partner’s history; specifically, it creates openings to explore the origins of transference, rather than just reduce tension.

Conversely, anything below Level Three (Two or One) detracts from the depth and empathy in communication. If this happens, tensions start to rise because of the inadequate releasing of feelings and more importantly, there rises the frustration of not being heard. Correspondingly, understanding of the deep stuff suffers.

Here is an example of how the scales work. Let us suppose I’m the speaker. I say the following to you:

“I work hard in the kitchen all day and you come home, turn on the TV and expect dinner.”

Below, there are five different possible responses. Pretend you are the listener. Read the below responses and pick one. It does not matter which one we pick at this point because this exercise is just fleshing out Carkhuff’s and Truax’s technique. The following five responses represent the five different levels of possible responses discussed above. (I have mixed them up so as to not be so obvious.) Find the one that best describes how you might respond in real life. Then, if you have not already, try to find the Level Three response, since that is the minimum level necessary to have “adequate” communication. (The answers are below the questions, but do not peek until you have practiced on your own.) After you have done that, try to assess the level of each response based upon the general descriptions above. See if you can figure out which one is a Level One, Two, etc. Do not cheat.

Here is what was said again:

“I work hard in the kitchen all day and you come home, turn on the TV and expect dinner.”

Possible Responses:

A) I hear you working hard and when I come home, you are feeling unappreciated, possibly angry and/or hurt. You also implied that you work, just as I do, only it is at home, not at the office. It would be nice if when I come home, I could do something else besides ignore you by watching TV.

B) You work hard in the kitchen while I work at the office. We both do that all day, and then at the end I like to watch TV.

C) We both work hard, and you have some feelings.

D) You work hard and so do I. But when I come home you would like it if I didn’t turn on the TV. You probably feel ignored or unappreciated, even though you did not say it.

E) You work hard and when I come home I do not, or at least it appears so. You are in the kitchen all day and I am at the office. When I come home, I am tired, so the TV is the first thing I turn on.

(Answers: Statement A is at Level Five; Statement B is at Level Two, Statement C is at Level One, Statement D is at Level Three and Statement E is at Level Four.)

Carkhuff’s and Truax’s approach does two very important things. One, it allows us to more thoroughly “clean out the attic;” that is, more deep clean those pent up thoughts and feelings that charge up transferences. Two, it allows us to enrich our communication experience and poke around the aspects of the transference. This leads to insight that in the beginning stages might not have been so clear.

In the above example, communication was good at Level Three, but better and better still at Level’s Four and Five, respectively. Why? There is more catharsis (expressing feelings with words in this case). When there is more release, there is a nicer feeling between the partners. Most importantly, the richer responses in Levels Four and Five give clues as to what the speaker’s expectations are. These are the clues that point backwards to the “deep stuff.”

In this case, the “expectations” that the partner should pay more attention to may be a basic need. Or, it may be that the first partner expects attention, period. The latter is the fount of transference, build upon a normal need. We would not have sensed such a process if there was no enrichment. The astute partner might even have asked, “Do you always feel this way?” This would have opened up a direct discussion of past expectations, which is hot on the trail to uncovering transference expectations. This is a little complicated, so here is another example.

I say the following:

“We always do what you want. When it is time to pick a movie or a restaurant, you always get your way. I feel cheated.”

Here are your five choices:

A) Oh, quit your whining. This is untrue. You get what you want, too.

B) I hear you say that I always get what I want, regardless of what we do. You feel ripped off.

C) Boy, you must be really frustrated. When we decide to go somewhere or do something you do not get any say so. Sounds like this happens a lot, but for now you are just thinking about entertainment stuff.

D) I fully understand that you feel the relationship is not equal in this way. You would like to have just as much say about where we go to dinner or what movies we see. It is pretty frustrating, especially since this has been going, for how long? Do you feel this way with other people?

E) I see you have some grievances about what we do and when we do them.

(Answers: Statement A is a Level One; Statement B is a Level Three; Statement C is a Level Four; Statement D is a Level Five; Statement E is a Level Two.)

Look at the Level Four and Level Five statements. There are clues of deeper feelings that the listener is drawing out. This is done by increasing the level of empathy. If done with some care (without mocking or sarcastic tones), the first speaker will feel supported, defenses will loosen, and deep stuff material will inch closer to the surface. Practice this approach to communication on a regular basis and these deeper patterns will become fully visible, consciously.

What to do about these emerging patterns? Usually, when a transference is identified, the solution becomes obvious and approaching it is relatively simple. Ninety percent of this work is in uncovering the dynamic and releasing the pent-up feelings. Once that is working, making conscious adjustments to our partners, based upon what we have learned is much easier.

In the above example, the speaker felt left out (cheated) when it came time to make decisions about movies and restaurants. On the surface, this may have been because the other partner was controlling or dominating or just inconsiderate. If that is all there is to it, teaching the domineering partner to be more considerate will solve the problem. But if transference is involved in the speaker, likely the listener (and speaker both for that matter) will need to be aware of the speaker’s history. Some experience in the past set up the expectation that he or she will be left out. This is not a good dinner topic, but when discussed and when the transference pattern is understood, each partner will begin to differently relate to each other, acting in deference to this “emotional bias.” Thus the speaker will be motivated to speak up at the first hint of feeling left out and the listener will be motivated to speak up at the first impulse to take control of the entertainment agenda. The transference will be exposed, and steps will be taken to deal with it, this time consciously and successfully (vs. unconsciously and unsuccessfully). This sounds simplistic, but in reality, it does work this way. However, it will require that both partners be diligent in maintaining this level of awareness, and that both partners practice, directly communicating their feelings to each other in these critical areas. This has to be the “new” way to communicate and has to be practiced regularly to “fix” things.” These patterns took some time to form, and it will take some time to undo, and then redo.

Back up to the previous example (“I work hard in the kitchen all day and you come home, turn on the TV and expect dinner.”). Statements A and E are Levels Five and Four, respectively. Look for hints about what might be longer-term negative expectations in the speaker. A good guess is that s/he has felt neglected or unimportant some time ago; in other words, not just in the marriage. Enriching the speaker’s statements brings these background experiences and resulting expectations to the surface. Again, it takes a little practice, but it is worth it, and the communication and all other aspects of the relationship are very likely going to improve along the way, even if you do not specifically delve into a particular transference. If this is still not so clear, go back and re-read the explanations of the likely transferences outlines in the article, “The DEEP Stuff” in the BLOG section.

There are other significant aspects of relationship communication, which are also very effective. However, in cases where there are Negative Loops, the above techniques must be worked out first. In any communication-improving technique for partners, the partners must be willing to do the work. This seems obvious, but it is not. Many partners go to therapy or read articles like this one with the conscious intention of making their marriage, partnership, etc. better, but underneath they feel hostile, hurt or sad. They may go to counseling to please their partner, not really believing it works. Some go to therapy but don’t have a clue about things like feelings, loops, transferences. They probably have not really read much material on these subjects. By the time the couple lands on the therapist’s couch, they have amassed many negative feelings, built up over a long time.

Building a base for even better things:

Doing this kind of work first uncovers feelings. If these are not addressed, working on anything else will probably fail. The unexpressed negative feelings sabotage the work. So, usually the work on feelings commences first, and then an awareness of the Negative Loops surfaces. This gives partners a lot of insight and by using the above concrete tools, some progress is usually achieved, often right away. When there is sufficient catharsis (release of feelings) and the partners are also practicing the “enrichment” part, the Negative Loops fade. The relationship becomes more functional; that is, working and is probably actually enjoyable. NOW the couple is ready to introduce some philosophical or attitudinal adjustments (egalitarianism, forgiveness, altruism—High RQ stuff). These are much easier to actualize, when tensions are reduced.