Author Archives: Andrew Gottlieb, Ph.D.

12 Techniques for Giving Criticism and Feedback so that People Can Hear It without Getting Defensive

Posted on by
1
Send to Kindle

I was recently asked a very interesting question by one of my clients. He asked, “What percentage of people can listen to feedback and criticism without getting defensive?” I responded, not really in jest, “Only the people that have taken my non-defensiveness training!”

The reality is that most people instantly get defensive when criticized or even given mildly negative feedback. Regular readers will recall that I’ve written extensively about how to respond non-defensively: see “Radical Non-Defensiveness: The Most Important Communication Skill.”

But I also wanted to write about the other side of the equation – some techniques for giving feedback and criticism that lower the probability of the other person feeling hurt or getting defensive.

Here are 12 great concepts in giving feedback and criticism.

1. Focus on behavior and not on the person. Never label the person with a pejorative label. Avoid words like “inconsiderate”, “jerk”, “slob”, “lazy”, and all other negative label words especially four letter words.

2. Be specific and concrete when you focus on behavior. Use the journalistic technique of who, what, when, where, and if appropriate, why when you describe a behavior. For instance, consider this feedback from a wife to her husband: “An hour ago, when we were talking to Herb and Lucille, in their garden, you told them about my getting fired from my job. This upset me because I have a lot of shame right now about getting fired.” Notice that this feedback includes all of the specific descriptors.

3. Whenever possible, tell the person what you want instead of what you don’t want. So instead of criticizing your partner for sitting on the couch while you clean the kitchen, instead ask them to help you clean the kitchen. If there is a specific behavior that you would like the person to stop, it’s okay to ask them to stop but usually better to also specify something else that you would prefer. Example: “I’d really like it if you wouldn’t scream at the children. Could you instead talk firmly to them? I’d really appreciate that.”

4. Recognize what people can change and cannot change, and how difficult a specific behavior will be for them to change. This is a difficult lesson, and one that most of us resist. But it’s terribly important.

I’m reminded of the famous parable of the frog and the scorpion. In the story, a scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The frog asks, “How do I know you won’t sting me?” The scorpion says, “Because if I do, I’ll drown, and I will die too.” The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream, the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the sting, knows he is dying, and has just enough time to gasp “Why did you sting me, now we both will die?” Replies the scorpion: “Because I am a scorpion, it’s my nature…”

Another similar saying is, “Never try to teach a pig to sing, it will frustrate you and annoy the pig.”

Some things people can change and others are more linked to their basic character and nature, and are extremely difficult if not impossible to change. There is also the issue of what people are willing to invest energy in changing.

Here are some criteria for determining whether a particular criticism even make sense.

  • Has the person had a specific behavior for most of their life? If so, what makes you think it will suddenly change?
  • Is the person genuinely interested in making the desired change? Is it within their value system to change? People can change the things that they strongly wish to change, but if they’re only changing because you asked them to, they will most likely fail.
  • How much energy would it take for the person to change the behavior? Something that takes very little energy is more likely to happen than a request which will take herculean amounts of energy.
  • Is changing this particular behavior the most important thing for you or might there be a different behavior that would yield more satisfaction for you?
  • Does the person have shame attached to the behavior you are criticizing? If so, you should carefully consider whether the criticism is worth the pain you will most likely cause.

The idea here is to avoid asking the scorpion not to sting. If someone’s been messy and disorganized for their whole life, it’s probably not reasonable to ask them to become neat and organized. That doesn’t mean you couldn’t make any requests, but a more reasonable request might be to ask the messy person to keep their mess within a specific room or rooms, and then close the door.

Always evaluate if it’s even worth giving criticism. Remember, criticism is fairly toxic to relationships. Women sometimes criticize men in the hopes that the men will change. Nobody really changes. If you feel a need to criticize your partner constantly than the problem is probably with you and your lack of tolerance and acceptance. Or maybe you need to re-evaluate whether the relationship makes sense to continue.

5. Avoid giving feedback or criticism when you are particularly angry. Very few of us have the skills to give gentle and reasonable criticism when we are really frustrated and angry. If you give criticism when you are pissed off, you will blow it. You won’t be able to follow any of the rules in this article. Your primary goal will be to hurt the other person, which never works out well.

6. Pick your time and place carefully. This should include assessing your partner’s state of mind. If they are hungry, angry, stressed out, or tired then defer your criticism for later. It will never go well if you’re not attentive to time and place and state of mind. And remember, sometimes the right time and place is never and nowhere.

7. Ask for change, don’t demand change. Most of us get really stubborn when someone demands that we change. Besides, who made you the boss?

8. Avoid spending any significant time discussing the past. Mistakes made in the past are over and done with unless you own a time machine. Giving multiple examples of past mistakes will only overwhelm the person and make them defensive. Give only one example at most. Better yet, use an example from the current time. Assume your partner isn’t stupid and can understand the specific behavior you’re asking them to change.

9. Once you’ve asked for a change don’t micromanage that change. Let the person figure out how to do it, and don’t stand over them or constantly monitor them.

10. Be very specific about your feedback and the desired outcome. Your requested outcome should be so clear to the other person that anyone would be able to determine whether the outcome had occurred or not. Use the journalistic model of who, what, when, where, and why. Use accurate language, and avoid extremes of “never” or “always”. Don’t ask your partner to never again throw their clothing on the floor. Instead, specify that you would like it to happen less frequently.

11. Use a soft start up. Give a compliment first and be gentle in the feedback you give. Point out (if true) how the criticized behavior is a departure from the person’s usual terrific behavior. This is a way of giving a compliment while giving criticism. Example: “You are usually so helpful in the kitchen. But last night you left all of the dirty dishes. I’d really appreciate if you’d clean them up this morning.”

12. Never threaten your partner or deliver ultimatums. Even if you are at the end of your rope never threaten the termination of the relationship. When people hear an ultimatum they shut off. Also it triggers resistance since none of us like to be blackmailed into action.

Also, you can only make an ultimatum once. If you make it more than once you lose all credibility. So just avoid them entirely. (Notice this applies to parenting children as well.)

So there you have 12 great techniques for giving feedback and criticism in a healthy way. Remember that it’s essential to balance criticism with lots and lots of compliments and showing appreciation. Good relationships typically have at least a 5 to 1 ratio of positive feedback to negative feedback. If your relationship has a lower ratio than this then it’s time to change. Catch your partner doing things that you like and appreciate, and let them know in a warm and genuine way. This is perhaps the most important secret of giving criticism – let it be in the context of lots of praise.

Now I have to go tell my sweetie that she is awesome!

Dr. Andrew Gottlieb is a clinical psychologist in Palo Alto, California. Dr. Gottlieb specializes in treating anxiety, depression, relationship problems, and other difficulties using evidence-based cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). CBT is a modern no-drug therapy approach that is targeted, skill-based, and proven effective by many research studies. Visit his website at CambridgeTherapy.com or watch Dr. Gottlieb on YouTube. He can be reached by phone at (650) 324-2666 and email at: Dr. Gottlieb Email.

The Power of Nurturing: How Quality of Parenting Interacts with Nature to Determine Outcomes in Life, Even in Poverty

Posted on by
Reply
Send to Kindle

National Public Radio (NPR) reported  recently on a very interesting study of babies. This research, performed by Elizabeth Conradt at Brown University, looked at a phenomena called baseline respiratory sinus arrhythmia. This in itself is a very interesting concept. What exactly is this? It is the difference between your heart rate when you inhale and when you exhale. It turns out that some people have a larger difference than others. Everyone has a different set point in terms of heart rate variability.

Babies that have a bigger difference tend to have greater abilities to focus on things in their environment. If you show them a new toy, they will really look at it and interact with it. Babies with low heart rate variability tend to lose interest more quickly.

So it’s better to have a baby with higher heart rate variability? It’s not that simple. Babies with a higher set point of heart rate variability are more irritable and fussy particularly when their environment is changing. On the other hand, babies with a lower set point tend to be less fussy.

Heart rate variability turns out to be a pretty good predictor of how sensitive babies are to their environment, both in good and bad ways.

Anyway, Conradt’s research looked at mothers and babies who were living in poverty. They were interested in predicting how the children would do as they aged.

So first, at five months of age, they measured heart rate variability while the babies were listening to soothing music and watching soothing video.

Roughly a year later, when the babies were around 17 months old, they came back to the lab. At this point they measured two things. First the researchers evaluated behavioral problems such as anxiety or aggression. Then they performed an interesting test that measures the quality of attachment between a mother and the baby. The researchers took the mother and child to a strange room, where the toddler played for a bit. Then, without any warning, the mother got up and left the room. In most cases this will trigger the baby being upset and crying. This is typical and normal. The baby thinks, “Where did my mom go?!”

What the researchers were really interested in was what happened three or four minutes later when the mother returned. Could the mother quickly soothe the upset child, or did the toddler pull away from the mother and continue to be upset?

The researchers made the assumption that if the mother could easily soothe the toddler then it was a marker of good attachment and a secure environment.

So here’s the very interesting part of this research. How did the initial heart rate variability set point correlate with behavioral problems? It turns out that if the baby had a high set point and insecure attachment to their mother, then they had the worst behavioral problems. But if they had a high set point and secure attachments to their mothers, then they had the lowest incidence of behavioral problems.

Children with low set points fell in the middle of the range of behavioral problems, and were not affected by the quality of their attachment with their mothers.

The amazing finding was that the children who had high set points and good quality parenting as reflected by secure attachments to their mothers tended to have less behavioral problems even than babies in middle-class and affluent families!

This is fascinating research. It shows the influence of both nature and nurture. And it shows how a biological trait such as heart rate variability can either lead to good or bad outcomes in life based on the quality of parenting. Mostly though, it demonstrates how crucial good parenting is to later outcomes in life. Good parenting can create successful, well-balanced children even in circumstances of poverty. In fact, the study showed that for the more sensitive children,  good parenting in poverty trumps bad or mediocre parenting in affluence!!!

 

——————————————————————————————————————–

Dr. Andrew Gottlieb is a clinical psychologist in Palo Alto, California. Dr. Gottlieb specializes in treating anxiety, depression, relationship problems, and other difficulties using evidence-based cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). CBT is a modern no-drug therapy approach that is targeted, skill-based, and proven effective by many research studies. Visit his website at CambridgeTherapy.com or watch Dr. Gottlieb on YouTube. He can be reached by phone at (650) 324-2666 and email at: Dr. Gottlieb Email.

Guns Are Weapons of Mass Destruction: Lessons of the Newtown School Shooting

Posted on by
4
Send to Kindle

I normally don’t blog about political issues, but today is an exception. Friday’s horrific school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut shows that guns are weapons of mass destruction. It’s time for this country to get serious about regulating them.

Other types of weapons of mass destruction are banned or tightly controlled in this country. You can’t buy a rocket propelled grenade launcher. Nor can the average citizen acquire C-4 explosive. Or nerve gas. Or suitcase nukes. Why do we allow virtually anyone to acquire the weapons of mass destruction that we call guns?

The Second Amendment reads, “a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” This was written hundreds of years ago, at a time in our history when we had just recently won our freedom from Britain after a bloody war. There was a genuine risk that England could attempt to reconquer our country, and thus maintaining an armed populace made good sense.

But today nobody is trying to invade the United States, and if they did they would be met with extreme force from our military. Our biggest danger now comes from inside, from disturbed individuals who acquire weapons of mass destruction, i.e. guns, and who kill innocent children and adults.

Imagine if instead of using guns, these school shooters built themselves suicide bomb vests. Would we not ban or tightly control any components that were necessary to build these vests? Of course we would. After the Oklahoma City bombing the government imposed controls and tagging on fertilizer components in order to reduce the possibility of future fertilizer bombs.

How many more children must be gunned down until the National Rifle Association and the Republican Party are willing to consider genuine and effective controls on guns? Do we need a school shooting every week in order to for our society to decide to make changes? Or every day? I hope not.

The Second Amendment in no way prevents strict regulation of guns, ammunition, and cartridges. Notice the emphasis on, “a well-regulated militia.” This would allow for any regulation necessary to lower the risk to innocent people. We already regulate gun ownership—screening, waiting periods, no fully-automatic machine guns, strict controls on silencers, etc.

So what are some reasonable regulations or interventions that might lower risk of mass shootings?

The first one is to re-institute the assault weapons ban. No hunter or civilian needs a semi-automatic rifle that can fire more than five or 10 bullets. Another option is to ban ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 bullets. This should apply to semi-automatic handguns as well. Again, there is no legitimate use for a civilian where they would need to fire more than 10 bullets.

There are several ways to impose these changes. One would be an outright ban, but politically this might be difficult. Another option would be regulation using taxation. Just as we have significant taxes on alcohol and cigarettes in order to lessen their use, we could have very large taxes on ammunition magazines larger than 10 bullets, and on semi-automatic rifles. If these cartridges each had a tax of $100 attached to it, and each semi-automatic rifle a tax of $1000, the sales would plummet. Manufacturers abandon production of these products.

California has already instituted many of these regulation, and the federal government should consider enacting similar rules.

Stricter legislation might be even better. If we truly are serious about eliminating these weapons of mass destruction, then we should ban not only the sale, but also the possession of large magazines. There would be an interim period during which civilians could turn in these cartridges to local law enforcement, but after that time, the possession of such large magazines would  become a felony.  Companies that manufacture these magazines could offer a trade-in program where citizens could trade in a large magazine for a legal sized magazine. This would be an incentive for both manufacturers and owners to make the swap.

Those who argue in favor of better screening for gun ownership are fooling themselves. All that our current screening procedures do is identify people who have a prior history of documented illegal behavior or disturbed behavior. There is no screening method that could identify those who will commit mass murder in the future, if they have no prior records of disturbed or illegal behavior. So tighter screening methods will not work.

And those who argue for arming schoolteachers are equally foolish. In theory it sounds great, every schoolteacher carrying a weapon and being well-trained to take out the next school shooter. In practice, it won’t work because as horrific as they are, the probability in any one classroom of a school shooter is exceedingly low. This will lead to schoolteachers leaving their guns in their desks, unloaded, and being completely unready to take on the well-prepared school shooter who will be heavily armed, wearing a bulletproof vest, and all too ready for action. Even the average police officer, armed with only a handgun, rarely takes on heavily armed perpetrators, instead leaving that task to SWAT teams who carry much more potent weaponry. And I don’t think we want to arm schoolteachers with machine guns!

In conclusion, guns are weapons of mass destruction and we should regulate them as such. As a society we should ask ourselves how many more innocent children need to die before we get serious about such regulation. We can regulate guns without banning them, and hunters, target shooters, and even people using guns for home defense will not be unduly affected. But Congress needs to hear from people, and I strongly encourage everyone who cares about the safety of children to reach out to their Congressman and their Senator and let them know that it’s time to change gun regulations to stop the mass destruction.

Dr. Andrew Gottlieb is a clinical psychologist in Palo Alto, California. Dr. Gottlieb specializes in treating anxiety, depression, relationship problems, and other difficulties using evidence-based cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). CBT is a modern no-drug therapy approach that is targeted, skill-based, and proven effective by many research studies. Visit his website at CambridgeTherapy.com or watch Dr. Gottlieb on YouTube. He can be reached by phone at (650) 324-2666 and email at: Dr. Gottlieb Email.