Speaker-Listener Technique

Intro

有的时候我确实需要沟通一些很难的问题，但经常会遇到这样的情况

• 回避
• 态度恶劣的争吵

不管这个问题的是否得到了解决，确实会对我还有另一方造成挺不好的影响(短期:不良情绪，人际关系恶化; 长期:健康，其他subsequence…)
如果你碰巧想要和我聊一些你觉得可能说起来很困难的事情，可以考虑看看下面的描述并且试着应用这个技巧
这个技巧的中文翻译在下面，但是如果你是 English capable 的那就最好读英文版的

Technique

Try to follow the following rules when the discussion gets heated

Rules for Both of You

1. The Speaker has the floor. Use a real object, such as a book or TV remote control, as the floor. Whoever holds the floor is the only person who gets to say anything until he or she is done.
2. Share the floor. When you’re Speaker, don’t go on and on. Keep each turn brief, and switch roles often as the floor changes hands.
3. No problem solving. The point of the technique is to delineate a disagreement, not to solve it. Collaborative brainstorming to solve the problem comes later.

   Rules for the Speaker

4. Speak for yourself. Don’t try to be a mind reader. Use “I” statements to describe your own thoughts, feelings, and concerns. Do not talk about your perceptions of your partner’s motives or point of view.
5. Stop and let the Listener paraphrase. After a short time, stop and allow the Listener to paraphrase what you’ve just said. If he or she is not quite accurate, politely restate any points of confusion. The goal is to help the Listener really understand you.

   Rules for the Listener

6. Paraphrase what you hear. Show the Speaker that you are listening by repeating back in your own words what you heard him or her say. The point is to make sure that you understood what was said.
7. Focus on the Speaker’s message. Don’t rebut. You should not offer your thoughts and opinions on the issue until you have the floor. Your job as Listener is to speak only in the service of understanding your partner.

Source: Adapted from Markman, H., Stanley, S., & Blumberg, S. L. Fighting for your marriage: Positive steps for preventing divorce and preserving a lasting love. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994.

Copied from Intimate RelationShip Eighth Edition, page 356

中文翻译

双方的规则

1. 说话者拥有发言权。利用真实的小物件，比如一本书或电视遥控器作为发言权的标志。任何人拥有了发言权，就是唯一能说话的人，直到他/她说完为止。

2. 分享发言权。如果你是说话者，不要没完没了说个不停。每次轮到你说话时请保持简洁，当发言权易手时请同时转换角色。

3. 不要解决问题。该技术的要点是描述分歧，而不是解决它。共同进行头脑风暴可以解决这一问题

说话者的规则

1. 独自说话。不要试图猜测别人的心思。请使用“第一人称”陈述来描述你自己的想法、情感和关心的问题。不要谈论你对伴侣动机或观点的看法。

2. 停顿并让听话者复述。片刻之后，停止说话并让听话者复述你刚刚说过的话语。如果他/她不十分准确，请礼貌地重申任何混淆之处。目标是帮助听话者真正的理解你。

听话者的规则

1. 复述你听到的话语。用你自己的语言重新说出你听到的内容，以此向说话者证明你在仔细倾听。关键是确保你理解了对方所想表达的意思。

2. 集中关注说话者的信息。不要反取，除非你拥有了发言权，否则不要提出你对议题的想法和观点。作为听话者，你的任务只能是为了理解你的伴侣而说话。

   Personal Opinion

   翻译成说话者-听话者我属实是蚌埠住了，但是确实语义上来说我好像找不到一个更准确的翻译了
   我也挺想要尝试着练习一下这个技巧，当然把这个技巧写出来以一种好看的形式呈现出来并且让对方读一遍可能是其中重要的一步(逃
   这个技巧是我在读亲密关系第8版(这本偏心理学，不过没啥可以执行的技巧类的，这个算是一个少见的例外，reference区厚度超过1/4)
   的时候看到的觉得很有价值的一个东西吧，应用范围我觉得可以不止浪漫关系
   我觉得这个东西非常有道理
   虽然你需要去paraphrase一遍对方的表达，可能看起来有点麻烦/尴尬，但是确实这是一个对于对方诉求的acknowledgement，这个在现在在我生活的环境里有点少见，算是一个”倾听的技巧”。
   但当然对于任意一类亲密关系来是目的并不是当个”好的倾听者”，大概还是要去追求”快乐”(这个内容是啥可能还要去再探索一下)，如果执行不是太离谱这个技巧还是可以允许你有一个双向的倾听的机会
   也许使用这个技巧可以让你花更低的代价达到你的目的，也许不如达到domination更简单，但?抱歉这里没有转折 笑
   如果你也觉得这个技巧有道理，可以试试把这个当作一个吵架的代替品

---

Appendix. How conflict can end

Ending Conflict

Eventually, conflicts end. Peterson (2002) described five ways in which conflicts can end, and I’ll consider them in an order that ranges roughly from the most destructive and damaging to the most constructive and beneficial. (They’re charted for you back in Figure 11.2.)

Separation

Separation occurs when one or both partners withdraw without resolving the conflict. Separation that ends a heated encounter may prevent irreparable harm to the relationship, and time apart may give combatants time to cool off and to think about their situation more constructively. It offers no solutions to a ­couple’s problem, however, and may simply delay further discord. Other conflicts end in conquest.

Domination

In domination, one partner gets his or her way when the other capitulates. This happens routinely when one person is more powerful than the other, and the more powerful partner will typically be pleased with the outcome. Domination is aversive for the loser, however, often breeding ill will and resentment (Zacchilli et al., 2009).

Compromise

Compromise occurs when both parties reduce their aspirations so that a mutually acceptable alternative can be found. As Peterson suggested (2002, p. 380), the partners’ “interests are diluted rather than reconciled”; neither partner gets everything he or she wants, but neither goes empty handed. This may be the best outcome available when one person’s gain can come only at the expense of the other, but in other situations, better solutions are usually available.

Integrative Agreements

Integrative agreements satisfy both partners’ original goals and aspirations, usually through creativity and flexibility. They’re not easy to reach and typically take some work; partners may need to refine and prioritize their wishes, make selective concessions, and invent new ways of attaining their goals that do not impose upon their partners. Nevertheless, through determination, ingenuity, imagination, and generous cooperation, partners can often get the things they really want.

Structural Improvement

Finally, on occasion, the partners not only get what they want but also learn and grow and make desirable changes to their relationship. This pleasant out- come, structural improvement, isn’t frequent, and when it occurs, it may result from significant turmoil and upheaval. Partners may have encountered perilous stress and serious conflict to reach a point that leads them to rethink their habits and to muster both the courage and the will to change them. Still, structual improvement leaves a couple better off. As Peterson (2002, p. 382) wrote:

Some change will take place in one or more of the causal conditions governing the relationship. Each person will know more about the other than before. Each person may attribute more highly valued qualities to the other than before. Having weathered the storm of previous conflict, each person may trust the other and their relationship more than before, and thus be willing to approach other previously avoided issues in a more hopeful and productive way. With these changes, the quality of the ­relationship will be improved over many situations and beyond the time of the immediate conflict with which the process began.