1. Definition of psychology
Psychology is the scientific study of human and animal behavior with the object of
understanding why living beings behave as they do. As almost any science, its discoveries have
practical applications. As it is a rather new science, applications are sometimes confused with the
science itself. It is easier to distinguish what is 'pure' and 'applied' in older disciplines: everybody
can separate physics and mathematics from engineering, or anatomy and physiology from
medicine. People often confound psychology with psychiatry, which is a branch of medicine
dedicated to the cure of mental disorders.
Some topics that 'pure' psychologists may study are: how behavior changes with development,
when a behavior is instinctive or learned, how persons differ, and how people get into trouble.
'Applied' psychologists may use scientific knowledge to find better ways to deal with
adolescents, to teach, to match persons with jobs, and to get people out of their troubles.
Accordingly, several branches exist of psychology: developmental psychology, animal
psychology, educational psychology, psychotherapy, industrial psychology, psychology of
personality, social psychology, are but some of them.
Physiological psychology is a field akin to neurophysiology that studies the relation between
behavior and body systems like the nervous system and the endocrine system. It studies which
brain regions are involved in psychic functions like memory, and activities like learning. It also
studies the complex interaction between brain and hormones that gives rise to emotions.
Animal behavior is studied by psychologists mainly in laboratory. The study of animal behavior
in their natural habitats is undertaken by the science of ethology. The comparative study of
human and animal behavior is one of the sources of evolutionary psychology, that tries to
understand how evolution has shaped the way we think and feel.
Educational psychology concentrates on those aspects of the psychic activity that have to do with
learning. Experimenting with animals and people, it tries to understand how they learn, and to
devise better ways of teaching. A psychological school, known as behaviorism, maintains that
every human behavior is a learned response to a stimulus, and consequently tried to establish
learning as the central topic of psychology.
The area of cognitive psychology concerns with the ways we perceive and we express, how we
store our perceptions and later recall them, and the way we think. Perception, memory, speech,
and thinking are the main subjects of this branch. The study of decision making is a topic that
has a great practical importance.
The study of emotion and the study of personality are two related fields that delve into the
profound question of why we are different and why we feel how we feel. While some scientists
propose genetic traits as the reason, others look to the social environment as the cause of our
differences.
2. 5.2 Barriers to Effective Listening
Learning Objectives
Discuss some of the environmental and physical barriers to effective listening.
Explain how cognitive and personal factors can present barriers to effective listening.
Discuss common bad listening practices.
Barriers to effective listening are present at every stage of the listening process.OwenHargie, Skilled
Interpersonal Interaction: Research, Theory, and Practice (London: Routledge, 2011), 200. At the
receiving stage, noise can block or distort incoming stimuli. At the interpreting stage, complex or
abstract information may be difficult to relate to previous experiences, making it difficult to reach
understanding. At the recalling stage, natural limits to our memory and challenges to concentration can
interfere with remembering. At the evaluating stage, personal biases and prejudices can lead us to block
people out or assume we know what they are going to say. At the responding stage, a lack of
paraphrasing and questioning skills can lead to misunderstanding. In the following section, we will
explore how environmental and physical factors, cognitive and personal factors, and bad listening
practices present barriers to effective listening.
Environmental and Physical Barriers to Listening
Environmental factors such as lighting, temperature, and furniture affect our ability to listen. A room
that is too dark can make us sleepy, just as a room that is too warm or cool can raise awareness of our
physical discomfort to a point that it is distracting. Some seating arrangements facilitate listening, while
others separate people. In general, listening is easier when listeners can make direct eye contact with
and are in close physical proximity to a speaker. You may recall from Chapter 4 "Nonverbal
Communication" that when group members are allowed to choose a leader, they often choose the
person who is sitting at the center or head of the table.Peter A. Andersen, Nonverbal Communication:
Forms and Functions (Mountain View, CA: Mayfield, 1999), 57–58. Even though the person may not
have demonstrated any leadership abilities, people subconsciously gravitate toward speakers that are
nonverbally accessible. The ability to effectively see and hear a person increases people’s confidence in
their abilities to receive and process information. Eye contact and physical proximity can still be affected
by noise. As we learned in Chapter 1 "Introduction to Communication Studies", environmental noises
such as a whirring air conditioner, barking dogs, or a ringing fire alarm can obviously interfere with
listening despite direct lines of sight and well-placed furniture.
3. Physiological noise, like environmental noise, can interfere with our ability to process incoming
information. This is considered a physical barrier to effective listening because it emanates from our
physical body. Physiological noise is noise stemming from a physical illness, injury, or bodily stress.
Ailments such as a cold, a broken leg, a headache, or a poison ivy outbreak can range from annoying to
unbearably painful and impact our listening relative to their intensity. Another type of noise,
psychological noise, bridges physical and cognitive barriers to effective listening. Psychological noise, or
noise stemming from our psychological states including moods and level of arousal, can facilitate or
impede listening. Any mood or state of arousal, positive or negative, that is too far above or below our
regular baseline creates a barrier to message reception and processing. The generally positive emotional
state of being in love can be just as much of a barrier as feeling hatred. Excited arousal can also distract
as much as anxious arousal. Stress about an upcoming events ranging from losing a job, to having
surgery, to wondering about what to eat for lunch can overshadow incoming messages. While we will
explore cognitive barriers to effective listening more in the next section, psychological noise is relevant
here given that the body and mind are not completely separate. In fact, they can interact in ways that
further interfere with listening. Fatigue, for example, is usually a combination of psychological and
physiological stresses that manifests as stress (psychological noise) and weakness, sleepiness, and
tiredness (physiological noise). Additionally, mental anxiety (psychological noise) can also manifest itself
in our bodies through trembling, sweating, blushing, or even breaking out in rashes (physiological noise).
Cognitive and Personal Barriers to Listening
Aside from the barriers to effective listening that may be present in the environment or emanate from
our bodies, cognitive limits, a lack of listening preparation, difficult or disorganized messages, and
prejudices can interfere with listening. Whether you call it multitasking, daydreaming, glazing over, or
drifting off, we all cognitively process other things while receiving messages. If you think of your
listening mind as a wall of ten televisions, you may notice that in some situations five of the ten
televisions are tuned into one channel. If that one channel is a lecture being given by your professor,
then you are exerting about half of your cognitive processing abilities on one message. In another
situation, all ten televisions may be on different channels. The fact that we have the capability to
process more than one thing at a time offers some advantages and disadvantages. But unless we can
better understand how our cognitive capacities and personal preferences affect our listening, we are
likely to experience more barriers than benefits.
Difference between Speech and Thought Rate
Our ability to process more information than what comes from one speaker or source creates a barrier
to effective listening. While people speak at a rate of 125 to 175 words per minute, we can process
between 400 and 800 words per minute.OwenHargie, Skilled Interpersonal Interaction: Research,
Theory, and Practice (London: Routledge, 2011), 195. This gap between speech rate and thought rate
gives us an opportunity to side-process any number of thoughts that can be distracting from a more
5. Technology, Multitasking, and Listening
Do you like to listen to music while you do homework? Do you clean your apartment while talking to
your mom on the phone? Do you think students should be allowed to use laptops in all college
classrooms? Your answers to these questions will point to your preferences for multitasking. If you
answered “yes” to most of them, then you are in line with the general practices of the “net generation”
of digital natives for whom multitasking, especially with various forms of media, is a way of life.
Multitasking is a concept that has been around for a while and emerged along with the increasing
expectation that we will fill multiple role demands throughout the day. Multitasking can be pretty
straightforward and beneficial—for example, if we listen to motivating music while working out. But
multitasking can be very inefficient, especially when one or more of our concurrent tasks are complex or
unfamiliar to us.FleuraBardhi, Andres J. Rohm, and Fareena Sultan, “Tuning in and Tuning out: Media
Multitasking among Young Consumers,” Journal of Consumer Behaviour 9 (2010): 318.
Media multitasking specifically refers to the use of multiple forms of media at the same time, and it can
have positive and negative effects on listening.FleuraBardhi, Andres J. Rohm, and Fareena Sultan,
“Tuning in and Tuning out: Media Multitasking among Young Consumers,” Journal of Consumer
Behaviour 9 (2010): 322. The negative effects of media multitasking have received much attention in
recent years, as people question the decreasing attention span within our society. Media multitasking
may promote inefficiency, because it can lead to distractions and plays a prominent role for many in
procrastination. The numerous options for media engagement that we have can also lead to a feeling of
chaos as our attention is pulled in multiple directions, creating a general sense of disorder. And many of
us feel a sense of enslavement when we engage in media multitasking, as we feel like we can’t live
without certain personal media outlets.
Media multitasking can also give people a sense of control, as they use multiple technologies to access
various points of information to solve a problem or complete a task. An employee may be able to use
her iPad to look up information needed to address a concern raised during a business meeting. She
could then e-mail that link to the presenter, who could share it with the room through his laptop and a
LCD projector. Media multitasking can also increase efficiency, as people can carry out tasks faster. The
links to videos and online articles that I’ve included in this textbook allow readers like you to quickly
access additional information about a particular subject to prepare for a presentation or complete a
paper assignment. Media multitasking can also increase engagement. Aside from just reading material in
a textbook, students can now access information through an author’s blog or Twitter account.
6. Media multitasking can produce an experience that feels productive, but is it really? What are the
consequences of our media- and technology-saturated world? Although many of us like to think that
we’re good multitaskers, some research indicates otherwise. For example, student laptop use during
class has been connected to lower academic performance.Carrie B. Fried, “In-Class Laptop Use and Its
Effects on Student Learning,” Computers and Education 50 (2008): 906–14. This is because media
multitasking has the potential to interfere with listening at multiple stages of the process. The study
showed that laptop use interfered with receiving, as students using them reported that they paid less
attention to the class lectures. This is because students used the laptops for purposes other than taking
notes or exploring class content. Of the students using laptops, 81 percent checked e-mail during
lectures, 68 percent used instant messaging, and 43 percent surfed the web. Students using laptops also
had difficulty with the interpretation stage of listening, as they found less clarity in the parts of the
lecture they heard and did not understand the course material as much as students who didn’t use a
laptop. The difficulties with receiving and interpreting obviously create issues with recall that can lead to
lower academic performance in the class. Laptop use also negatively affected the listening abilities of
students not using laptops. These students reported that they were distracted, as their attention was
drawn to the laptop screens of other students.
What are some common ways that you engage in media multitasking? What are some positive and
negative consequences of your media multitasking?
What strategies do you or could you use to help minimize the negative effects of media multitasking?
Should laptops, smartphones, and other media devices be used by students during college classes?
Why or why not? What restrictions or guidelines for use could instructors provide that would capitalize
on the presence of such media to enhance student learning and help minimize distractions?
Lack of Listening Preparation
Another barrier to effective listening is a general lack of listening preparation. Unfortunately, most
people have never received any formal training or instruction related to listening. Although some people
think listening skills just develop over time, competent listening is difficult, and enhancing listening skills
takes concerted effort. Even when listening education is available, people do not embrace it as readily as
they do opportunities to enhance their speaking skills. After teaching communication courses for several
years, I have consistently found that students and teachers approach the listening part of the course less
enthusiastically than some of the other parts. Listening is often viewed as an annoyance or a chore, or
just ignored or minimized as part of the communication process. In addition, our individualistic society
values speaking more than listening, as it’s the speakers who are sometimes literally in the spotlight.
Although listening competence is a crucial part of social interaction and many of us value others we
7. perceive to be “good listeners,” listening just doesn’t get the same kind of praise, attention, instruction,
or credibility as speaking. Teachers, parents, and relational partners explicitly convey the importance of
listening through statements like “You better listen to me,” “Listen closely,” and “Listen up,” but these
demands are rarely paired with concrete instruction. So unless you plan on taking more communication
courses in the future (and I hope you do), this chapter may be the only instruction you receive on the
basics of the listening process, some barriers to effective listening, and how we can increase our
listening competence.
Bad Messages and/or Speakers
Bad messages and/or speakers also present a barrier to effective listening. Sometimes our trouble
listening originates in the sender. In terms of message construction, poorly structured messages or
messages that are too vague, too jargon filled, or too simple can present listening difficulties. In terms of
speakers’ delivery, verbal fillers, monotone voices, distracting movements, or a disheveled appearance
can inhibit our ability to cognitively process a message.OwenHargie, Skilled Interpersonal Interaction:
Research, Theory, and Practice (London: Routledge, 2011), 196. As we will learn in Section 5.2.3 "Bad
Listening Practices", speakers can employ particular strategies to create listenable messages that take
some of the burden off the listener by tailoring a message to be heard and processed easily. Chapter 9
"Preparing a Speech" also discusses many strategies for creating messages tailored for oral delivery,
including things like preview and review statements, transitions, and parallel wording. Listening also
becomes difficult when a speaker tries to present too much information. Information overload is a
common barrier to effective listening that good speakers can help mitigate by building redundancy into
their speeches and providing concrete examples of new information to help audience members
interpret and understand the key ideas.
Prejudice
Oscar Wilde said, “Listening is a very dangerous thing. If one listens one may be convinced.”
Unfortunately, some of our default ways of processing information and perceiving others lead us to rigid
ways of thinking. When we engage in prejudiced listening, we are usually trying to preserve our ways of
thinking and avoid being convinced of something different. This type of prejudice is a barrier to effective
listening, because when we prejudge a person based on his or her identity or ideas, we usually stop
listening in an active and/or ethical way.
We exhibit prejudice in our listening in several ways, some of which are more obvious than others. For
example, we may claim to be in a hurry and only selectively address the parts of a message that we
agree with or that aren’t controversial. We can also operate from a state of denial where we avoid a
subject or person altogether so that our views are not challenged. Prejudices that are based on a
8. person’s identity, such as race, age, occupation, or appearance, may lead us to assume that we know
what he or she will say, essentially closing down the listening process. Keeping an open mind and
engaging in perception checking can help us identify prejudiced listening and hopefully shift into more
competent listening practices.
Bad Listening Practices
The previously discussed barriers to effective listening may be difficult to overcome because they are at
least partially beyond our control. Physical barriers, cognitive limitations, and perceptual biases exist
within all of us, and it is more realistic to believe that we can become more conscious of and lessen
them than it is to believe that we can eliminate them altogether. Other “bad listening” practices may be
habitual, but they are easier to address with some concerted effort. These bad listening practices
include interrupting, distorted listening, eavesdropping, aggressive listening, narcissistic listening, and
pseudo-listening.
Interrupting
Conversations unfold as a series of turns, and turn taking is negotiated through a complex set of verbal
and nonverbal signals that are consciously and subconsciously received. In this sense, conversational
turn taking has been likened to a dance where communicators try to avoid stepping on each other’s
toes. One of the most frequent glitches in the turn-taking process is interruption, but not all
interruptions are considered “bad listening.” An interruption could be unintentional if we misread cues
and think a person is done speaking only to have him or her start up again at the same time we do.
Sometimes interruptions are more like overlapping statements that show support (e.g., “I think so too.”)
or excitement about the conversation (e.g., “That’s so cool!”). Back-channel cues like “uh-huh,” as we
learned earlier, also overlap with a speaker’s message. We may also interrupt out of necessity if we’re
engaged in a task with the other person and need to offer directions (e.g., “Turn left here.”), instructions
(e.g., “Will you whisk the eggs?”), or warnings (e.g., “Look out behind you!”). All these interruptions are
not typically thought of as evidence of bad listening unless they become distracting for the speaker or
are unnecessary.
Unintentional interruptions can still be considered bad listening if they result from mindless
communication. As we’ve already learned, intended meaning is not as important as the meaning that is
generated in the interaction itself. So if you interrupt unintentionally, but because you were only half-
listening, then the interruption is still evidence of bad listening. The speaker may form a negative
impression of you that can’t just be erased by you noting that you didn’t “mean to interrupt.”
Interruptions can also be used as an attempt to dominate a conversation. A person engaging in this type
of interruption may lead the other communicator to try to assert dominance, too, resulting in a
9. competition to see who can hold the floor the longest or the most often. More than likely, though, the
speaker will form a negative impression of the interrupter and may withdraw from the conversation.
Distorted Listening
Distorted listening occurs in many ways. Sometimes we just get the order of information wrong, which
can have relatively little negative effects if we are casually recounting a story, annoying effects if we
forget the order of turns (left, right, left or right, left, right?) in our driving directions, or very negative
effects if we recount the events of a crime out of order, which leads to faulty testimony at a criminal
trial. Rationalization is another form of distorted listening through which we adapt, edit, or skew
incoming information to fit our existing schemata. We may, for example, reattribute the cause of
something to better suit our own beliefs. If a professor is explaining to a student why he earned a “D” on
his final paper, the student could reattribute the cause from “I didn’t follow the paper guidelines” to
“this professor is an unfair grader.” Sometimes we actually change the words we hear to make them
better fit what we are thinking. This can easily happen if we join a conversation late, overhear part of a
conversation, or are being a lazy listener and miss important setup and context. Passing along distorted
information can lead to negative consequences ranging from starting a false rumor about someone to
passing along incorrect medical instructions from one health-care provider to the next.OwenHargie,
Skilled Interpersonal Interaction: Research, Theory, and Practice (London: Routledge, 2011), 191. Last,
the addition of material to a message is a type of distorted listening that actually goes against our
normal pattern of listening, which involves reducing the amount of information and losing some
meaning as we take it in. The metaphor of “weaving a tall tale” is related to the practice of distorting
through addition, as inaccurate or fabricated information is added to what was actually heard. Addition
of material is also a common feature of gossip. An excellent example of the result of distorted listening
is provided by the character Anthony Crispino on Saturday Night Live, who passes along distorted news
on the “Weekend Update” segment. In past episodes, he has noted that Lebron James turned down the
Cleveland Show to be on Miami Vice (instead of left the Cleveland Cavaliers to play basketball for the
Miami Heat) and that President Obama planned on repealing the “Bush haircuts” (instead of the Bush
tax cuts).
Eavesdropping
Eavesdropping is a bad listening practice that involves a calculated and planned attempt to secretly
listen to a conversation. There is a difference between eavesdropping on and overhearing a
conversation. Many if not most of the interactions we have throughout the day occur in the presence of
other people. However, given that our perceptual fields are usually focused on the interaction, we are
often unaware of the other people around us or don’t think about the fact that they could be listening in
on our conversation. We usually only become aware of the fact that other people could be listening in
when we’re discussing something private.
11. toward Deb isn’t about a salsa garden; it’s about a building frustration with what Summer perceives as
Deb’s lack of follow-through on her ideas. Aside from engaging in aggressive listening because of built-
up frustration, such listeners may also attack others’ ideas or mock their feelings because of their own
low self-esteem and insecurities.
Narcissistic Listening
Narcissistic listening is a form of self-centered and self-absorbed listening in which listeners try to make
the interaction about them.StevenMcCornack, Reflect and Relate: An Introduction to Interpersonal
Communication (Boston, MA: Bedford/St Martin’s, 2007), 212. Narcissistic listeners redirect the focus of
the conversation to them by interrupting or changing the topic. When the focus is taken off them,
narcissistic listeners may give negative feedback by pouting, providing negative criticism of the speaker
or topic, or ignoring the speaker. A common sign of narcissistic listening is the combination of a “pivot,”
when listeners shift the focus of attention back to them, and “one-upping,” when listeners try to top
what previous speakers have said during the interaction. You can see this narcissistic combination in the
following interaction:
Bryce: My boss has been really unfair to me lately and hasn’t been letting me work around my class
schedule. I think I may have to quit, but I don’t know where I’ll find another job.
Toby: Why are you complaining? I’ve been working with the same stupid boss for two years. He
doesn’t even care that I’m trying to get my degree and work at the same time. And you should hear the
way he talks to me in front of the other employees.
Narcissistic listeners, given their self-centeredness, may actually fool themselves into thinking that they
are listening and actively contributing to a conversation. We all have the urge to share our own stories
during interactions, because other people’s communication triggers our own memories about related
experiences. It is generally more competent to withhold sharing our stories until the other person has
been able to speak and we have given the appropriate support and response. But we all shift the focus
of a conversation back to us occasionally, either because we don’t know another way to respond or
because we are making an attempt at empathy. Narcissistic listeners consistently interrupt or follow
another speaker with statements like “That reminds me of the time…,” “Well, if I were you…,” and
“That’s nothing…”Michael P. Nichols, The Lost Art of Listening (New York, NY: Guilford Press, 1995), 68–
72. As we’ll learn later, matching stories isn’t considered empathetic listening, but occasionally doing it
doesn’t make you a narcissistic listener.
Pseudo-listening
12. Do you have a friend or family member who repeats stories? If so, then you’ve probably engaged in
pseudo-listening as a politeness strategy. Pseudo-listening is behaving as if you’re paying attention to a
speaker when you’re actually not.StevenMcCornack, Reflect and Relate: An Introduction to
Interpersonal Communication (Boston, MA: Bedford/St Martin’s, 2007), 208. Outwardly visible signals of
attentiveness are an important part of the listening process, but when they are just an “act,” the
pseudo-listener is engaging in bad listening behaviors. She or he is not actually going through the stages
of the listening process and will likely not be able to recall the speaker’s message or offer a competent
and relevant response. Although it is a bad listening practice, we all understandably engage in pseudo-
listening from time to time. If a friend needs someone to talk but you’re really tired or experiencing
some other barrier to effective listening, it may be worth engaging in pseudo-listening as a relational
maintenance strategy, especially if the friend just needs a sounding board and isn’t expecting advice or
guidance. We may also pseudo-listen to a romantic partner or grandfather’s story for the fifteenth time
to prevent hurting their feelings. We should avoid pseudo-listening when possible and should definitely
avoid making it a listening habit. Although we may get away with it in some situations, each time we risk
being “found out,” which could have negative relational consequences.
Key Takeaways
Environmental and physical barriers to effective listening include furniture placement, environmental
noise such as sounds of traffic or people talking, physiological noise such as a sinus headache or hunger,
and psychological noise such as stress or anger.
Cognitive barriers to effective listening include the difference between speech and thought rate that
allows us “extra room” to think about other things while someone is talking and limitations in our ability
or willingness to concentrate or pay attention. Personal barriers to effective listening include a lack of
listening preparation, poorly structured and/or poorly delivered messages, and prejudice.
There are several bad listening practices that we should avoid, as they do not facilitate effective
listening:
Interruptions that are unintentional or serve an important or useful purpose are not considered bad
listening. When interrupting becomes a habit or is used in an attempt to dominate a conversation, then
it is a barrier to effective listening.
Distorted listening occurs when we incorrectly recall information, skew information to fit our
expectations or existing schemata, or add material to embellish or change information.
Eavesdropping is a planned attempt to secretly listen to a conversation, which is a violation of the
speakers’ privacy.
13. Aggressive listening is a bad listening practice in which people pay attention to a speaker in order to
attack something they say.
Narcissistic listening is self-centered and self-absorbed listening in which listeners try to make the
interaction about them by interrupting, changing the subject, or drawing attention away from others.
Pseudo-listening is “fake listening,” in that people behave like they are paying attention and
listening when they actually are not.
Exercises
We are capable of thinking faster than the speed at which the average person speaks, which allows us
some room to put mental faculties toward things other than listening. What typically makes your mind
wander?
Bad speakers and messages are a common barrier to effective listening. Describe a time recently
when your ability to listen was impaired by the poor delivery and/or content of another person.
Of the bad listening practices listed, which do you use the most? Why do you think you use this one
more than the others? What can you do to help prevent or lessen this barrier?
Eight barriers to effective listening
More attention is usually paid to making people better speakers or writers (the "supply side" of the
communication chain) rather than on making them better listeners or readers (the "demand side"). The
most direct way to improve communication is by learning to listen more effectively.
Nearly every aspect of human life could be improved by better listening -- from family matters to
corporate business affairs to international relations.
Most of us are terrible listeners. We're such poor listeners, in fact, that we don't know how much
we're missing.
The following are eight common barriers to good listening, with suggestions for overcoming
each.
14. #1 - Knowing the answer
"Knowing the answer" means that you think you already know what the speaker wants to say,
before she actually finishes saying it. You might then impatiently cut her off or try to complete
the sentence for her.
Even more disruptive is interrupting her by saying that you disagree with her, but without letting
her finish saying what it is that you think you disagree with. That's a common problem when a
discussion gets heated, and which causes the discussion to degrade quickly.
By interrupting the speaker before letting her finish, you're essentially saying that you don't value
what she's saying. Showing respect to the speaker is a crucial element of good listening.
The "knowing the answer" barrier also causes the listener to pre-judge what the speaker is saying
-- a kind of closed-mindedness.
A good listener tries to keep an open, receptive mind. He looks for opportunities to stretch his
mind when listening, and to acquire new ideas or insights, rather than reinforcing existing points
of view.
Strategy for overcoming this barrier
A simple strategy for overcoming the "knowing the answer" barrier is to wait for three seconds
after the speaker finishes before beginning your reply.
Three seconds can seem like a very long time during a heated discussion, and following this rule
also means that you might have to listen for a long time before the other person finally stops
speaking. That's usually a good thing, because it gives the speaker a chance to fully vent his or
her feelings.
Another strategy is to schedule a structured session during which only one person speaks while
the other listens. You then switch roles in the next session.
It's worth emphasizing that the goal of good listening is simply to listen -- nothing more and nothing less.
During the session when you play the role of listener, you are only allowed to ask supportive
questions or seek clarification of the speaker's points. You may not make any points of your own
during this session. That can be tricky, because some people's "questions" tend to be more like
statements.
Keeping the mind open during conversation requires discipline and practice. One strategy is to
make a commitment to learn at least one unexpected, worthwhile thing during every
conversation. The decision to look for something new and interesting helps make your mind
more open and receptive while listening.
15. Using this strategy, most people will probably discover at least one gem -- and often more than
one -- no matter whom the conversation is with.
#2 - Trying to be helpful
Another significant barrier to good listening is "trying to be helpful". Although trying to be
helpful may seem beneficial, it interferes with listening because the listener is thinking about
how to solve what he perceives to be the speaker's problem. Consequently, he misses what the
speaker is actually saying.
An old Zen proverb says, "When walking, walk. When eating, eat." In other words, give your
whole attention to whatever you're doing. It's worth emphasizing that the goal of good listening
is simply to listen -- nothing more and nothing less. Interrupting the speaker in order to offer
advice disrupts the flow of conversation, and impairs the listener's ability to understand the
speaker's experience.
Many people have a "messiah complex" and try to fix or rescue other people as a way of feeling
fulfilled. Such people usually get a kick out of being problem-solvers, perhaps because it gives
them a sense of importance. However, that behavior can be a huge hurdle to good listening.
Trying to be helpful while listening also implies that you've made certain judgments about the
speaker. That can raise emotional barriers to communication, as judgments can mean that the
listener doesn't have complete understanding or respect for the speaker.
In a sense, giving a person your undivided attention while listening is the purest act of love you
can offer. Because human beings are such social animals, simply knowing that another person
has listened and understood is empowering. Often that's all a person needs in order to solve the
problems on his or her own.
If you as a listener step in and heroically offer your solution, you're implying that you're more
capable of seeing the solution than the speaker is.
If the speaker is describing a difficult or long-term problem, and you offer a facile, off-the-cuff
solution, you're probably forgetting that he or she may have already considered your instant
solution long before.
16. Strategy for overcoming this barrier
Schedule a separate session for giving advice. Many people forget that it's rude to offer advice
when the speaker isn't asking for it. Even if the advice is good.
In any case, a person can give better advice if he first listens carefully and understands the
speaker's complete situation before trying to offer advice.
If you believe you have valuable advice that the speaker isn't likely to know, then first politely
ask if you may offer what you see as a possible solution. Wait for the speaker to clearly invite
you to go ahead before you offer your advice.
#3 - Treating discussion as competition
Some people feel that agreeing with the speaker during a heated discussion is a sign of weakness.
They feel compelled to challenge every point the speaker makes, even if they inwardly agree.
Discussion then becomes a contest, with a score being kept for who wins the most points by
arguing.
Treating discussion as competition is one of the most serious barriers to good listening. It greatly
inhibits the listener from stretching and seeing a different point of view. It can also be frustrating
for the speaker.
Strategy for overcoming this barrier
Although competitive debate serves many useful purposes, and can be great fun, debating should
be scheduled for a separate session of its own, where it won't interfere with good listening.
Except in a very rare case where you truly disagree with absolutely everything the speaker is
saying, you should avoid dismissing her statements completely. Instead, affirm the points of
agreement.
Try to voice active agreement whenever you do agree, and be very specific about what you
disagree with.
A good overall listening principle is to be generous with the speaker. Offer affirmative feedback
as often as you feel comfortable doing so. Generosity also entails clearly voicing exactly where
you disagree, as well as where you agree.
#4 - Trying to influence or impress
Because good listening depends on listening just for the sake of listening, any ulterior motive
will diminish the effectiveness of the listener. Examples of ulterior motives are trying to impress
or to influence the speaker.
17. A person who has an agenda other than simply to understand what the speaker is thinking and
feeling will not be able to pay complete attention while listening.
Psychologists have pointed out that people can understand language about two or three times
faster than they can speak. That implies that a listener has a lot of extra mental "bandwidth" for
thinking about other things while listening. A good listener knows how to use that spare capacity
to think about what the speaker is talking about.
A listener with an ulterior motive, such as to influence or impress the speaker, will probably use
the spare capacity to think about his "next move" in the conversation -- his rebuttal or what he
will say next when the speaker is finished -- instead of focusing on understanding the speaker.
Strategy for overcoming this barrier
"Trying to influence or impress" is a difficult barrier to overcome, because motives usually can't
just be willed away. Deciding not to have a motive usually only drives it beneath your awareness
so that it becomes a hidden motive.
One strategy is to make note of your internal motives while you're listening. As you notice your
motives in progressively closer and finer detail, you'll eventually become more fully conscious
of ulterior motives, and they may even unravel, allowing you to let go and listen just for the sake
of listening.
#5 - Reacting to red flag words
Words can provoke a reaction in the listener that wasn't necessarily what the speaker intended.
When that happens the listener won't be able to hear or pay full attention to what the speaker is
saying.
Red flag words or expressions trigger an unexpectedly strong association in the listener's mind,
often because of the listener's private beliefs or experiences.
Technology is often seen as the driver of improved communications, but technology, in itself, creates
noise and discord as much as it melds minds.
Good listeners have learned how to minimize the distraction caused by red flag words, but a red
flag word will make almost any listener momentarily unable to hear with full attention.
An important point is that the speaker may not have actually meant the word in the way that the
listener understood. However, the listener will be so distracted by the red flag that she will not
notice what the speaker actually did mean to say.
Red flag words don't always provoke emotional reactions. Sometimes they just cause slight
disagreements or misunderstandings. Whenever a listener finds himself disagreeing or reacting,
he should be on the lookout for red flag words or expressions.
18. Strategy for overcoming this barrier
When a speaker uses a word or expression that triggers a reflexive association, you as a good
listener can ask the speaker to confirm whether she meant to say what you think she said.
When you hear a word or expression that raises a red flag, try to stop the conversation, if
possible, so that you don't miss anything that the speaker says. Then ask the speaker to clarify
and explain the point in a different way.
#6 - Believing in language
One of the trickiest barriers is "believing in language" -- a misplaced trust in the precision of
words.
Language is a guessing game. Speaker and listener use language to predict what each other is
thinking. Meaning must always be actively negotiated.
It's a fallacy to think that a word's dictionary definition can be transmitted directly through using
the word. An example of that fallacy is revealed in the statement, "I said it perfectly clearly, so
why didn't you understand?". Of course, the naive assumption here is that words that are clear to
one person are clear to another, as if the words themselves contained absolute meaning.
Words have a unique effect in the mind of each person, because each person's experience is
unique. Those differences can be small, but the overall effect of the differences can become large
enough to cause misunderstanding.
A worse problem is that words work by pointing at experiences shared by speaker and listener.
If the listener hasn't had the experience that the speaker is using the word to point at, then the
word points at nothing. Worse still, the listener may quietly substitute a different experience to
match the word.
Strategy for overcoming this barrier
You as a good listener ought to practice mistrusting the meaning of words. Ask the speaker
supporting questions to cross-verify what the words mean to him.
Don't assume that words or expressions mean exactly the same to you as they do to the speaker.
You can stop the speaker and question the meaning of a word. Doing that too often also becomes
an impediment, of course, but if you suspect that the speaker's usage of the word might be
slightly different, you ought to take time to explore that, before the difference leads to
misunderstanding.
19. #7 - Mixing up the forest and the trees
A common saying refers to an inability "to see the forest for the trees". Sometimes people pay
such close attention to detail, that they miss the overall meaning or context of a situation.
Some speakers are what we will call "trees" people. They prefer concrete, detailed explanations.
They might explain a complex situation just by naming or describing its characteristics in no
particular order.
Other speakers are "forest" people. When they have to explain complex situations, they prefer to
begin by giving a sweeping, abstract, bird's-eye view.
Good explanations usually involve both types, with the big-picture "forest" view providing
context and overall meaning, and the specific "trees" view providing illuminating examples.
When trying to communicate complex information, the speaker needs to accurately shift between
forest and trees in order to show how the details fit into the big picture. However, speakers often
forget to use "turn indicators" to signal that they are shifting from one to another, which can
cause confusion or misunderstanding for the listener.
Each style is prone to weaknesses in communication. For example, "trees" people often have
trouble telling their listener which of the details are more important and how those details fit into
the overall context. They can also fail to tell their listener that they are making a transition from
one thought to another -- a problem that quickly shows up in their writing, as well.
"Forest" people, on the other hand, often baffle their listeners with obscure abstractions. They
tend to prefer using concepts, but sometimes those concepts are so removed from the world of
the senses that their listeners get lost.
"Trees" people commonly accuse "forest" people of going off on tangents or speaking in
unwarranted generalities. "Forest" people commonly feel that "trees" people are too narrow and
literal.
Strategy for overcoming this barrier
You as a good listener can explicitly ask the speaker for overall context or for specific exemplary
details, as needed. You should cross-verify by asking the speaker how the trees fit together to
form the forest. Having an accurate picture of how the details fit together is crucial to
understanding the speaker's thoughts.
An important point to remember is that a "trees" speaker may become confused or irritated if you
as the listener try to supply missing context, and a "forest" speaker may become impatient or
annoyed if you try to supply missing examples.
A more effective approach is to encourage the speaker to supply missing context or examples by
asking him open-ended questions.
20. Asking open-ended questions when listening is generally more effective than asking closed-
ended ones.
For example, an open-ended question such as "Can you give me a concrete example of that?" is
less likely to cause confusion or disagreement than a more closed-ended one such as "Would
such-and-such be an example of what you're talking about?"
Some speakers may even fail to notice that a closed-ended question is actually a question. They
may then disagree with what they thought was a statement of opinion, and that will cause
distracting friction or confusion.
The strategy of asking open-ended questions, instead of closed-ended or leading questions, is an
important overall component of good listening.
#8 - Over-splitting or over-lumping
Speakers have different styles of organizing thoughts when explaining complex situations. Some
speakers, "splitters", tend to pay more attention to how things are different. Other speakers,
"lumpers", tend to look for how things are alike. Perhaps this is a matter of temperament.
If the speaker and listener are on opposite sides of the splitter-lumper spectrum, the different
mental styles can cause confusion or lack of understanding.
A listener who is an over-splitter can inadvertently signal that he disagrees with the speaker over
everything, even if he actually agrees with most of what the speaker says and only disagrees with
a nuance or point of emphasis.
That can cause "noise" and interfere with the flow of conversation. Likewise, a listener who is an
over-lumper can let crucial differences of opinion go unchallenged, which can lead to a serious
misunderstanding later. The speaker will mistakenly assume that the listener has understood and
agreed.
It's important to achieve a good balance between splitting (critical thinking) and lumping
(metaphorical thinking). Even more important is for the listener to recognize when the speaker is
splitting and when she is lumping.
Strategy for overcoming this barrier
An approach to overcoming this barrier when listening is to ask questions to determine more
precisely where you agree or disagree with what the speaker is saying, and then to explicitly
point that out, when appropriate.
For example, you might say, "I think we have differing views on several points here, but do we
at least agree that ... ?" or "We agree with each other on most of this, but I think we have
different views in the area of ...."
21. By actively voicing the points of convergence and divergence, the listener can create a more
accurate mental model of the speaker's mind. That reduces the conversational noise that can arise
when speaker and listener fail to realize how their minds are aligned or unaligned.
Quadrant of cognitive/explanatory styles
More than one barrier may often be present at once. For example, a speaker might be an over-
splitter who has trouble seeing the forest, while the listener is an over-lumper who can see only
the forest and never the trees. They will have even more difficulty communicating if one or both
also has the habit of "knowing the answer" or "treating discussion as competition".
. . .
Good listening is arguably one of the most important skills to have in today's complex world.
Families need good listening to face complicated stresses together. Corporate employees need it
to solve complex problems quickly and stay competitive. Students need it to understand complex
issues in their fields. Much can be gained by improving listening skills.
When the question of how to improve communication comes up, most attention is paid to
making people better speakers or writers (the "supply side" of the communication chain) rather
than on making them better listeners or readers (the "demand side").
More depends on listening than on speaking. An especially skillful listener will know how to
overcome many of the deficiencies of a vague or disorganized speaker. On the other hand, it
won't matter how eloquent or cogent a speaker is if the listener isn't paying attention.
The listener arguably bears more responsibility than the speaker for the quality of
communication.
Related topics:
22. Mindfulness in a nutshell -
take a sideways glance at what's hidden in plain view
From a listener's perspective -
communicate more effectively by helping your audience listen more effectively
Mindful listening -
overcome barriers to effective listening through mindful awareness
Technology is often seen as the driver of improved communications. In terms of message
transfer, technology certainly does play an essential role. However, communications is much
more than just transferring messages. To truly communicate means to learn something about the
interior of another person's mind.
Much has been said about the emergence of a "global mind" through technology. Of course,
we've noticed that technology, in itself, creates noise and discord as much as it melds minds.
A deeper commitment to better listening is essential in order for technology to fulfill its promise
of bringing the world together in real terms.
We can make a difference in the world by learning to listen better and by telling others about
better listening. But only if they listen.
Michael Webb, March, 2006
[ home ]
23. ABRAHAM MASLOW
1908-1970
Dr. C. George Boeree
Biography
Abraham Harold Maslow was born April 1, 1908 in Brooklyn, New York. He was the first of
seven children born to his parents, who themselves were uneducated Jewish immigrants from
Russia. His parents, hoping for the best for their children in the new world, pushed him hard for
academic success. Not surprisingly, he became very lonely as a boy, and found his refuge in
books.
To satisfy his parents, he first studied law at the City College of New York (CCNY). After three
semesters, he transferred to Cornell, and then back to CCNY. He married Bertha Goodman, his
first cousin, against his parents wishes. Abe and Bertha went on to have two daughters.
He and Bertha moved to Wisconsin so that he could attend the University of Wisconsin. Here,
he became interested in psychology, and his school work began to
improve dramatically. He spent time there working with Harry Harlow,
who is famous for his experiments with baby rhesus monkeys and
attachment behavior.
He received his BA in 1930, his MA in 1931, and his PhD in 1934, all
in psychology, all from the University of Wisconsin. A year after
graduation, he returned to New York to work with E. L. Thorndike at
Columbia, where Maslow became interested in research on human
sexuality.
He began teaching full time at Brooklyn College. During this period of
his life, he came into contact with the many European intellectuals that
were immigrating to the US, and Brooklyn in particular, at that time --
people like Adler, Fromm, Horney, as well as several Gestalt and Freudian psychologists.
Maslow served as the chair of the psychology department at Brandeis from 1951 to 1969. While
there he met Kurt Goldstein, who had originated the idea of self-actualization in his famous
book, The Organism (1934). It was also here that he began his crusade for a humanistic
psychology -- something ultimately much more important to him than his own theorizing.
He spend his final years in semi-retirement in California, until, on June 8 1970, he died of a heart
attack after years of ill health.
24. Theory
One of the many interesting things Maslow noticed while he worked with monkeys early in his
career, was that some needs take precedence over others. For example, if you are hungry and
thirsty, you will tend to try to take care of the thirst first. After all, you can do without food for
weeks, but you can only do without water for a couple of days! Thirst is a “stronger” need than
hunger. Likewise, if you are very very thirsty, but someone has put a choke hold on you and you
can’t breath, which is more important? The need to breathe, of course. On the other hand, sex is
less powerful than any of these. Let’s face it, you won’t die if you don’t get it!
Maslow took this idea and created his now famous hierarchy of needs. Beyond the details of air,
water, food, and sex, he laid out five broader layers: the physiological needs, the needs for
safety and security, the needs for love and belonging, the needs for esteem, and the need to
actualize the self, in that order.
1. The physiological needs. These include the needs we have for oxygen, water, protein, salt,
sugar, calcium, and other minerals and vitamins. They also include the need to maintain a pH
balance (getting too acidic or base will kill you) and temperature (98.6 or near to it). Also,
there’s the needs to be active, to rest, to sleep, to get rid of wastes (CO2, sweat, urine, and
feces), to avoid pain, and to have sex. Quite a collection!
Maslow believed, and research supports him, that these are in fact individual needs, and that a
lack of, say, vitamin C, will lead to a very specific hunger for things which have in the past
provided that vitamin C -- e.g. orange juice. I guess the cravings that some pregnant women
have, and the way in which babies eat the most foul tasting baby food, support the idea
anecdotally.
2. The safety and security needs. When the physiological needs are largely taken care of, this
second layer of needs comes into play. You will become increasingly interested in finding safe
circumstances, stability, protection. You might develop a need for structure, for order, some
limits.
25. Looking at it negatively, you become concerned, not with needs like hunger and thirst, but with
your fears and anxieties. In the ordinary American adult, this set of needs manifest themselves in
the form of our urges to have a home in a safe neighborhood, a little job security and a nest egg,
a good retirement plan and a bit of insurance, and so on.
3. The love and belonging needs. When physiological needs and safety needs are, by and
large, taken care of, a third layer starts to show up. You begin to feel the need for friends, a
sweetheart, children, affectionate relationships in general, even a sense of community. Looked
at negatively, you become increasing susceptible to loneliness and social anxieties.
In our day-to-day life, we exhibit these needs in our desires to marry, have a family, be a part of
a community, a member of a church, a brother in the fraternity, a part of a gang or a bowling
club. It is also a part of what we look for in a career.
4. The esteem needs. Next, we begin to look for a little self-esteem. Maslow noted two
versions of esteem needs, a lower one and a higher one. The lower one is the need for the
respect of others, the need for status, fame, glory, recognition, attention, reputation, appreciation,
dignity, even dominance. The higher form involves the need for self-respect, including such
feelings as confidence, competence, achievement, mastery, independence, and freedom. Note
that this is the “higher” form because, unlike the respect of others, once you have self-respect,
it’s a lot harder to lose!
The negative version of these needs is low self-esteem and inferiority complexes. Maslow felt
that Adler was really onto something when he proposed that these were at the roots of many, if
not most, of our psychological problems. In modern countries, most of us have what we need in
regard to our physiological and safety needs. We, more often than not, have quite a bit of love
and belonging, too. It’s a little respect that often seems so very hard to get!
All of the preceding four levels he calls deficit needs, or D-needs. If you don’t have enough of
something -- i.e. you have a deficit -- you feel the need. But if you get all you need, you feel
nothing at all! In other words, they cease to be motivating. As the old blues song goes, “you
don’t miss your water till your well runs dry!”
He also talks about these levels in terms of homeostasis. Homeostasis is the principle by which
your furnace thermostat operates: When it gets too cold, it switches the heat on; When it gets
26. too hot, it switches the heat off. In the same way, your body, when it lacks a certain substance,
develops a hunger for it; When it gets enough of it, then the hunger stops. Maslow simply
extends the homeostatic principle to needs, such as safety, belonging, and esteem, that we don’t
ordinarily think of in these terms.
Maslow sees all these needs as essentially survival needs. Even love and esteem are needed for
the maintenance of health. He says we all have these needs built in to us genetically, like
instincts. In fact, he calls them instinctoid -- instinct-like -- needs.
In terms of overall development, we move through these levels a bit like stages. As newborns,
our focus (if not our entire set of needs) is on the physiological. Soon, we begin to recognize
that we need to be safe. Soon after that, we crave attention and affection. A bit later, we look
for self-esteem. Mind you, this is in the first couple of years!
Under stressful conditions, or when survival is threatened, we can “regress” to a lower need
level. When you great career falls flat, you might seek out a little attention. When your family
ups and leaves you, it seems that love is again all you ever wanted. When you face chapter
eleven after a long and happy life, you suddenly can’t think of anything except money.
These things can occur on a society-wide basis as well: When society suddenly flounders,
people start clamoring for a strong leader to take over and make things right. When the bombs
start falling, they look for safety. When the food stops coming into the stores, their needs
become even more basic.
Maslow suggested that we can ask people for their “philosophy of the future” -- what would
their ideal life or world be like -- and get significant information as to what needs they do or do
not have covered.
If you have significant problems along your development -- a period of extreme insecurity or
hunger as a child, or the loss of a family member through death or divorce, or significant neglect
or abuse -- you may “fixate” on that set of needs for the rest of your life.
This is Maslow’s understanding of neurosis. Perhaps you went through a war as a kid. Now you
have everything your heart needs -- yet you still find yourself obsessing over having enough
money and keeping the pantry well-stocked. Or perhaps your parents divorced when you were
27. young. Now you have a wonderful spouse -- yet you get insanely jealous or worry constantly
that they are going to leave you because you are not “good enough” for them. You get the
picture.
Self-actualization
The last level is a bit different. Maslow has used a variety of terms to refer to this level: He has
called it growth motivation (in contrast to deficit motivation), being needs (or B-needs, in
contrast to D-needs), and self-actualization.
These are needs that do not involve balance or homeostasis. Once engaged, they continue to be
felt. In fact, they are likely to become stronger as we “feed” them! They involve the continuous
desire to fulfill potentials, to “be all that you can be.” They are a matter of becoming the most
complete, the fullest, “you” -- hence the term, self-actualization.
Now, in keeping with his theory up to this point, if you want to be truly self-actualizing, you
need to have your lower needs taken care of, at least to a considerable extent. This makes sense:
If you are hungry, you are scrambling to get food; If you are unsafe, you have to be
continuously on guard; If you are isolated and unloved, you have to satisfy that need; If you
have a low sense of self-esteem, you have to be defensive or compensate. When lower needs are
unmet, you can’t fully devote yourself to fulfilling your potentials.
It isn’t surprising, then, the world being as difficult as it is, that only a small percentage of the
world’s population is truly, predominantly, self-actualizing. Maslow at one point suggested only
about two percent!
The question becomes, of course, what exactly does Maslow mean by self-actualization. To
answer that, we need to look at the kind of people he called self-actualizers. Fortunately, he did
this for us, using a qualitative method called biographical analysis.
He began by picking out a group of people, some historical figures, some people he knew, whom
he felt clearly met the standard of self-actualization. Included in this august group were
Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, Eleanor Roosevelt, Jane Adams, William
James, Albert Schweitzer, Benedict Spinoza, and Alduous Huxley, plus 12 unnamed people who
were alive at the time Maslow did his research. He then looked at their biographies, writings, the
acts and words of those he knew personally, and so on. From these sources, he developed a list
of qualities that seemed characteristic of these people, as opposed to the great mass of us.
These people were reality-centered, which means they could differentiate what is fake and
dishonest from what is real and genuine. They were problem-centered, meaning they treated
life’s difficulties as problems demanding solutions, not as personal troubles to be railed at or
surrendered to. And they had a different perception of means and ends. They felt that the
ends don’t necessarily justify the means, that the means could be ends themselves, and that the
means -- the journey -- was often more important than the ends.
28. The self-actualizers also had a different way of relating to others. First, they enjoyed solitude,
and were comfortable being alone. And they enjoyed deeper personal relations with a few
close friends and family members, rather than more shallow relationships with many people.
They enjoyed autonomy, a relative independence from physical and social needs. And they
resisted enculturation, that is, they were not susceptible to social pressure to be "well adjusted"
or to "fit in" -- they were, in fact, nonconformists in the best sense.
They had an unhostile sense of humor -- preferring to joke at their own expense, or at the
human condition, and never directing their humor at others. They had a quality he called
acceptance of self and others, by which he meant that these people would be more likely to take
you as you are than try to change you into what they thought you should be. This same
acceptance applied to their attitudes towards themselves: If some quality of theirs wasn’t
harmful, they let it be, even enjoying it as a personal quirk. On the other hand, they were often
strongly motivated to change negative qualities in themselves that could be changed. Along with
this comes spontaneity and simplicity: They preferred being themselves rather than being
pretentious or artificial. In fact, for all their nonconformity, he found that they tended to be
conventional on the surface, just where less self-actualizing nonconformists tend to be the most
dramatic.
Further, they had a sense of humility and respect towards others -- something Maslow also
called democratic values -- meaning that they were open to ethnic and individual variety, even
treasuring it. They had a quality Maslow called human kinship or Gemeinschaftsgefühl-- social
interest, compassion, humanity. And this was accompanied by a strongethics, which was
spiritual but seldom conventionally religious in nature.
And these people had a certain freshness of appreciation, an ability to see things, even ordinary
things, with wonder. Along with this comes their ability to be creative, inventive, and original.
And, finally, these people tended to have more peak experiences than the average person. A
peak experience is one that takes you out of yourself, that makes you feel very tiny, or very
large, to some extent one with life or nature or God. It gives you a feeling of being a part of the
infinite and the eternal. These experiences tend to leave their mark on a person, change them for
the better, and many people actively seek them out. They are also called mystical experiences,
and are an important part of many religious and philosophical traditions.
Maslow doesn’t think that self-actualizers are perfect, of course. There were several flaws or
imperfections he discovered along the way as well: First, they often suffered considerable
anxiety and guilt -- but realistic anxiety and guilt, rather than misplaced or neurotic versions.
Some of them were absentminded and overly kind. And finally, some of them had unexpected
moments of ruthlessness, surgical coldness, and loss of humor.
Two other points he makes about these self-actualizers: Their values were "natural" and seemed
to flow effortlessly from their personalities. And they appeared to transcend many of the
dichotomies others accept as being undeniable, such as the differences between the spiritual and
the physical, the selfish and the unselfish, and the masculine and the feminine.
29. Metaneeds and metapathologies
Another way in which Maslow approach the problem of what is self-actualization is to talk about
the special, driving needs (B-needs, of course) of the self-actualizers. They need the following in
their lives in order to be happy:
Truth, rather than dishonesty.
Goodness, rather than evil.
Beauty, not ugliness or vulgarity.
Unity, wholeness, and transcendence of opposites, not arbitrariness or forced choices.
Aliveness, not deadness or the mechanization of life.
Uniqueness, not bland uniformity.
Perfection and necessity, not sloppiness, inconsistency, or accident.
Completion, rather than incompleteness.
Justice and order, not injustice and lawlessness.
Simplicity, not unnecessary complexity.
Richness, not environmental impoverishment.
Effortlessness, not strain.
Playfulness, not grim, humorless, drudgery.
Self-sufficiency, not dependency.
Meaningfulness, rather than senselessness.
At first glance, you might think that everyone obviously needs these. But think: If you are
living through an economic depression or a war, or are living in a ghetto or in rural poverty, do
you worry about these issues, or do you worry about getting enough to eat and a roof over your
head? In fact, Maslow believes that much of the what is wrong with the world comes down to
the fact that very few people really are interested in these values -- not because they are bad
people, but because they haven’t even had their basic needs taken care of!
When a self-actualizer doesn’t get these needs fulfilled, they respond with metapathologies -- a
list of problems as long as the list of metaneeds! Let me summarize it by saying that, when
forced to live without these values, the self-actualizer develops depression, despair,
disgust,alienation, and a degree of cynicism.
Maslow hoped that his efforts at describing the self-actualizing person would eventually lead to a
“periodic table” of the kinds of qualities, problems, pathologies, and even solutions characteristic
of higher levels of human potential. Over time, he devoted increasing attention, not to his own
theory, but to humanistic psychology and the human potentials movement.
Toward the end of his life, he inaugurated what he called the fourth force in psychology:
Freudian and other “depth” psychologies constituted the first force; Behaviorism was the second
force; His own humanism, including the European existentialists, were the third force. The
fourth force was the transpersonal psychologies which, taking their cue from Eastern
philosophies, investigated such things as meditation, higher levels of consciousness, and even
parapsychological phenomena. Perhaps the best known transpersonalist today is Ken Wilber,
author of such books as The Atman Project and The History of Everything.
30. Discussion
Maslow has been a very inspirational figure in personality theories. In the 1960’s in particular,
people were tired of the reductionistic, mechanistic messages of the behaviorists and
physiological psychologists. They were looking for meaning and purpose in their lives, even a
higher, more mystical meaning. Maslow was one of the pioneers in that movement to bring the
human being back into psychology, and the person back into personality!
At approximately the same time, another movement was getting underway, one inspired by some
of the very things that turned Maslow off: computers and information processing, as well as
very rationalistic theories such as Piaget’s cognitive development theory and Noam Chomsky’s
linguistics. This, of course, became the cognitive movement in psychology. As the heyday of
humanism appeared to lead to little more than drug abuse, astrology, andself indulgence,
cognitivism provided the scientific ground students of psychology were yearning for.
But the message should not be lost: Psychology is, first and foremost, about people, real people
in real lives, and not about computer models, statistical analyses, rat behavior, test scores, and
laboratories.
Some criticism
The “big picture” aside, there are a few criticisms we might direct at Maslow’s theory itself. The
most common criticism concerns his methodology: Picking a small number of people that he
himself declared self-actualizing, then reading about them or talking with them, and coming to
conclusions about what self-actualization is in the first place does not sound like good science to
many people.
In his defense, I should point out that he understood this, and thought of his work as simply
pointing the way. He hoped that others would take up the cause and complete what he had
begun in a more rigorous fashion. It is a curiosity that Maslow, the “father” of American
humanism, began his career as a behaviorist with a strong physiological bent. He did indeed
believe in science, and often grounded his ideas in biology. He only meant to broaden
psychology to include the best in us, as well as the pathological!
Another criticism, a little harder to respond to, is that Maslow placed such constraints on self-
actualization. First, Kurt Goldstein and Carl Rogers used the phrase to refer to what every living
creature does: To try to grow, to become more, to fulfill its biological destiny. Maslow limits it
to something only two percent of the human species achieves. And while Rogers felt that babies
were the best examples of human self-actualization, Maslow saw it as something achieved only
rarely by the young.
Another point is that he asks that we pretty much take care of our lower needs before self-
actualization comes to the forefront. And yet we can find many examples of people who
exhibited at very least aspects of self-actualization who were far from having their lower needs
31. taken care of. Many of our best artists and authors, for example, suffered from poverty, bad
upbringing, neuroses, and depression. Some could even be called psychotic! If you think about
Galileo, who prayed for ideas that would sell, or Rembrandt, who could barely keep food on the
table, or Toulouse Lautrec, whose body tormented him, or van Gogh, who, besides poor, wasn’t
quite right in the head, if you know what I mean... Weren’t these people engaged in some form
of self-actualization? The idea of artists and poets and philosophers (and psychologists!) being
strange is so common because it has so much truth to it!
We also have the example of a number of people who were creative in some fashion even while
in concentration camps. Trachtenberg, for example, developed a new way of doing arithmetic in
a camp. Viktor Frankl developed his approach to therapy while in a camp. There are many more
examples.
And there are examples of people who were creative when unknown, became successful only to
stop being creative. Ernest Hemingway, if I’m not mistaken, is an example. Perhaps all these
examples are exceptions, and the hierarchy of needs stands up well to the general trend. But the
exceptions certainly do put some doubt into our minds.
I would like to suggest a variation on Maslow's theory that might help. If we take the idea of
actualization as Goldstein and Rogers use it, i.e. as the "life force" that drives all creatures, we
can also acknowledge that there are various things that interfere with the full effectiveness of that
life force. If we are deprived of our basic physical needs, if we are living under threatening
circumstances, if we are isolated from others, or if we have no confidence in our abilities, we
may continue to survive, but it will not be as fulfilling a live as it could be. We will not be fully
actualizing our potentials! We could even understand that there might be people that actualize
despite deprivation! If we take the deficit needs as subtracting from actualization, and if we talk
about full self-actualization rather than self-actualization as a separate category of need,
Maslow's theory comes into line with other theories, and the exceptional people who succeed in
the face of adversity can be seen as heroic rather than freakish abberations.
I received the following email from Gareth Costello of Dublin, Ireland, which balances my
somewhat negative review of Maslow:
One mild criticism I would have is of your concluding assessment, where you appeal for a
broader view of self-actualisation that could include subjects such as van Gogh and other hard-
at-heel intellectual/creative giants. This appears to be based on a view that people like van Gogh,
etc. were, by virtue of their enormous creativity, 'at least partly' self-actualised.
I favour Maslow's more narrow definition of self-actualisation and would not agree that self-
actualisation equates with supreme self-expression. I suspect that self-actualisation is, often, a
demotivating factor where artistic creativity is concerned, and that artists such as van Gogh
thrived (artistically, if not in other respects) specifically in the absence of circumstances
conducive to self-actualisation. Even financially successful artists (e.g. Stravinsky, who was
32. famously good at looking after his financial affairs, as well as affairs of other kinds) do exhibit
some of the non-self-actualised 'motivators' that you describe so well.
Self-actualisation implies an outwardness and openness that contrasts with the introspection that
can be a pre-requisite for great artistic self-expression. Where scientists can look out at the world
around them to find something of profound or universal significance, great artists usually look
inside themselves to find something of personal significance - the universality of their work is
important but secondary. It's interesting that Maslow seems to have concentrated on people
concerned with the big-picture when defining self-actualisation. In Einstein, he selected a
scientist who was striving for a theory of the entire physical universe. The philosophers and
politicians he analysed were concerned with issues of great relevance to humanity.
This is not to belittle the value or importance of the 'small-picture' - society needs splitters as
well as lumpers. But while self-actualisation may be synonymous with psychological balance
and health, it does not necessarily lead to professional or creative brilliance in all fields. In some
instances, it may remove the driving force that leads people to excel -- art being the classic
example. So I don't agree that the scope of self-actualisation should be extended to include
people who may well have been brilliant, but who were also quite possibly damaged, unrounded
or unhappy human beings.
If I had the opportunity to chose between brilliance (alone) or self-actualisation (alone) for my
children, I would go for the latter!
Gareth makes some very good points!
Bibliography
Maslow’s books are easy to read and full of interesting ideas. The best known are Toward a
Psychology of Being (1968), Motivation and Personality (first edition, 1954, and second
edition, 1970), and The Further Reaches of Human Nature (1971). Finally, there are many
articles by Maslow, especially in the Journal of Humanistic Psychology, which he cofounded.
For more information on-line, go to http://www.nidusnet.org.
Copyright 1998, 2006 by C. George Boeree
Click here to read Belorussian translation!
33. ALBERT BANDURA
1925 - present
Dr. C. George Boeree
Biography
Albert Bandura was born December 4, 1925, in the small town of Mundare in northern Alberta,
Canada. He was educated in a small elementary school and high school in one, with minimal
resources, yet a remarkable success rate. After high school, he worked for one summer filling
holes on the Alaska Highway in the Yukon.
He received his bachelors degree in Psychology from the University of
British Columbia in 1949. He went on to the University of Iowa, where
he received his Ph.D. in 1952. It was there that he came under the
influence of the behaviorist tradition and learning theory.
While at Iowa, he met Virginia Varns, an instructor in the nursing
school. They married and later had two daughters. After graduating, he
took a postdoctoral position at the Wichita Guidance Center in Wichita,
Kansas.
In 1953, he started teaching at Stanford University. While there, he
collaborated with his first graduate student, Richard Walters, resulting in
their first book, Adolescent Aggression, in 1959.
Bandura was president of the APA in 1973, and received the APA’s Award for Distinguished
Scientific Contributions in 1980. He continues to work at Stanford to this day.
Theory
Behaviorism, with its emphasis on experimental methods, focuses on variables we can observe,
measure, and manipulate, and avoids whatever is subjective, internal, and unavailable -- i.e.
mental. In the experimental method, the standard procedure is to manipulate one variable, and
then measure its effects on another. All this boils down to a theory of personality that says that
one’s environment causes one’s behavior.
Bandura found this a bit too simplistic for the phenomena he was observing -- aggression in
adolescents -- and so decided to add a little something to the formula: He suggested that
environment causes behavior, true; but behavior causes environment as well. He labeled this
concept reciprocal determinism: The world and a person’s behavior cause each other.
34. Later, he went a step further. He began to look at personality as an interaction among three
“things:” the environment, behavior, and the person’s psychological processes. These
psychological processes consist of our ability to entertain images in our minds, and language. At
the point where he introduces imagery, in particular, he ceases to be a strict behaviorist, and
begins to join the ranks of the cognitivists. In fact, he is often considered a “father” of the
cognitivist movement!
Adding imagery and language to the mix allows Bandura to theorize much more effectively than
someone like, say, B. F. Skinner, about two things that many people would consider the “strong
suit” of the human species: observational learning (modeling) and self-regulation.
Observational learning, or modeling
Of the hundreds of studies Bandura was responsible for, one group stands out above the others --
the bobo doll studies. He made of film of one of his students, a young woman, essentially
beating up a bobo doll. In case you don’t know, a bobo doll is an inflatable, egg-shape balloon
creature with a weight in the bottom that makes it bob back up when you knock him down.
Nowadays, it might have Darth Vader painted on it, but back then it was simply “Bobo” the
clown.
The woman punched the clown, shouting “sockeroo!” She kicked it, sat on it, hit with a little
hammer, and so on, shouting various aggressive phrases. Bandura showed his film to groups of
kindergartners who, as you might predict, liked it a lot. They then were let out to play. In the
play room, of course, were several observers with pens and clipboards in hand, a brand new bobo
doll, and a few little hammers.
And you might predict as well what the observers recorded: A lot of little kids beating the
daylights out of the bobo doll. They punched it and shouted “sockeroo,” kicked it, sat on it, hit it
with the little hammers, and so on. In other words, they imitated the young lady in the film, and
quite precisely at that.
This might seem like a real nothing of an experiment at first, but consider: These children
changed their behavior without first being rewarded for approximations to that behavior! And
while that may not seem extraordinary to the average parent, teacher, or casual observer of
children, it didn’t fit so well with standard behavioristic learning theory. He called the
phenomenon observational learning or modeling, and his theory is usually called social learning
theory.
Bandura did a large number of variations on the study: The model was rewarded or punished in
a variety of ways, the kids were rewarded for their imitations, the model was changed to be less
attractive or less prestigious, and so on. Responding to criticism that bobo dolls were supposed
to be hit, he even did a film of the young woman beating up a live clown. When the children
went into the other room, what should they find there but -- the live clown! They proceeded to
punch him, kick him, hit him with little hammers, and so on.
35. All these variations allowed Bandura to establish that there were certain steps involved in the
modeling process:
1. Attention. If you are going to learn anything, you have to be paying attention. Likewise,
anything that puts a damper on attention is going to decrease learning, including observational
learning. If, for example, you are sleepy, groggy, drugged, sick, nervous, or “hyper,” you will
learn less well. Likewise, if you are being distracted by competing stimuli.
Some of the things that influence attention involve characteristics of the model. If the model is
colorful and dramatic, for example, we pay more attention. If the model is attractive, or
prestigious, or appears to be particularly competent, you will pay more attention. And if the
model seems more like yourself, you pay more attention. These kinds of variables directed
Bandura towards an examination of television and its effects on kids!
2. Retention. Second, you must be able to retain -- remember -- what you have paid attention
to. This is where imagery and language come in: we store what we have seen the model doing
in the form of mental images or verbal descriptions. When so stored, you can later “bring up”
the image or description, so that you can reproduce it with your own behavior.
3. Reproduction. At this point, you’re just sitting there daydreaming. You have to translate the
images or descriptions into actual behavior. So you have to have the ability to reproduce the
behavior in the first place. I can watch Olympic ice skaters all day long, yet not be able to
reproduce their jumps, because I can’t ice skate at all! On the other hand, if I could skate, my
performance would in fact improve if I watch skaters who are better than I am.
Another important tidbit about reproduction is that our ability to imitate improves with practice
at the behaviors involved. And one more tidbit: Our abilities improve even when we just
imagine ourselves performing! Many athletes, for example, imagine their performance in their
mind’s eye prior to actually performing.
4. Motivation. And yet, with all this, you’re still not going to do anything unless you are
motivated to imitate, i.e. until you have some reason for doing it. Bandura mentions a number of
motives:
a. past reinforcement, ala traditional behaviorism.
b. promised reinforcements (incentives) that we can imagine.
c. vicarious reinforcement -- seeing and recalling the model being reinforced.
Notice that these are, traditionally, considered to be the things that “cause” learning. Bandura is
saying that they don’t so much cause learning as cause us to demonstrate what we have learned.
That is, he sees them as motives.
Of course, the negative motivations are there as well, giving you reasons not to imitate someone:
36. d. past punishment.
e. promised punishment (threats).
d. vicarious punishment.
Like most traditional behaviorists, Bandura says that punishment in whatever form does not
work as well as reinforcement and, in fact, has a tendency to “backfire” on us.
Self-regulation
Self-regulation -- controlling our own behavior -- is the other “workhorse” of human
personality. Here Bandura suggests three steps:
1. Self-observation. We look at ourselves, our behavior, and keep tabs on it.
2. Judgment. We compare what we see with a standard. For example, we can compare our
performance with traditional standards, such as “rules of etiquette.” Or we can create arbitrary
ones, like “I’ll read a book a week.” Or we can compete with others, or with ourselves.
3. Self-response. If you did well in comparison with your standard, you give yourself
rewarding self-responses. If you did poorly, you give yourself punishing self-responses. These
self-responses can range from the obvious (treating yourself to a sundae or working late) to the
more covert (feelings of pride or shame).
A very important concept in psychology that can be understood well with self-regulation is self-
concept (better known as self-esteem). If, over the years, you find yourself meeting your
standards and life loaded with self-praise and self-reward, you will have a pleasant self-concept
(high self-esteem). If, on the other hand, you find yourself forever failing to meet your standards
and punishing yourself, you will have a poor self-concept (low self-esteem).
Recall that behaviorists generally view reinforcement as effective, and punishment as fraught
with problems. The same goes for self-punishment. Bandura sees three likely results of
excessive self-punishment:
a. compensation -- a superiority complex, for example, and delusions of grandeur.
b. inactivity -- apathy, boredom, depression.
c. escape -- drugs and alcohol, television fantasies, or even the ultimate escape, suicide.
These have some resemblance to the unhealthy personalities Adler and Horney talk about: an
aggressive type, a compliant type, and an avoidant type respectively.
Bandura’s recommendations to those who suffer from poor self-concepts come straight from the
three steps of self-regulation:
1. Regarding self-observation -- know thyself! Make sure you have an accurate picture of
your behavior.
37. 2. Regarding standards -- make sure your standards aren’t set too high. Don’t set yourself up
for failure! Standards that are too low, on the other hand, are meaningless.
3. Regarding self-response -- use self-rewards, not self-punishments. Celebrate your victories,
don’t dwell on your failures.
Therapy
Self-control therapy
The ideas behind self-regulation have been incorporated into a therapy technique called self-
control therapy. It has been quite successful with relatively simple problems of habit, such as
smoking, overeating, and study habits.
1. Behavioral charts. Self-observation requires that you keep close tabs on your behavior, both
before you begin changes and after. This can involve something as simple as counting how
many cigarettes you smoke in a day to complex behavioral diaries. With the diary approach,
you keep track of the details, the when and where of your habit. This lets you get a grip on what
kinds of cues are associated with the habit: Do you smoke more after meals, with coffee, with
certain friends, in certain locations...?
2. Environmental planning. Taking your lead from your behavioral charts and diaries, you can
begin to alter your environment. For example, you can remove or avoid some of those cues that
lead to your bad behaviors: Put away the ashtrays, drink tea instead of coffee, divorce that
smoking partner.... You can find the time and place best suited for the good alternative
behaviors: When and where do you find you study best? And so on.
3. Self-contracts. Finally, you arrange to reward yourself when you adhere to your plan, and
possibly punish yourself when you do not. These contracts should be written down and
witnessed (by your therapist, for example), and the details should be spelled out very explicitly:
“I will go out to dinner on Saturday night if I smoke fewer cigarettes this week than last week. I
will do paperwork instead if I do not.”
You may involve other people and have them control your rewards and punishments, if you
aren’t strict enough with yourself. Beware, however: This can be murder on your relationships,
as you bite their heads off for trying to do what you told them to do!
Modeling therapy
The therapy Bandura is most famous for, however, is modeling therapy. The theory is that, if
you can get someone with a psychological disorder to observe someone dealing with the same
issues in a more productive fashion, the first person will learn by modeling the second.
38. Bandura’s original research on this involved herpephobics -- people with a neurotic fear of
snakes. The client would be lead to a window looking in on a lab room. In that room is nothing
but a chair, a table, a cage on the table with a locked latch, and a snake clearly visible in the
cage. The client then watches another person -- an actor -- go through a slow and painful
approach to the snake. He acts terrified at first, but shakes himself out of it, tells himself to relax
and breathe normally and take one step at a time towards the snake. He may stop in the middle,
retreat in panic, and start all over. Ultimately, he gets to the point where he opens the cage,
removes the snake, sits down on the chair, and drapes it over his neck, all the while giving
himself calming instructions.
After the client has seen all this (no doubt with his mouth hanging open the whole time), he is
invited to try it himself. Mind you, he knows that the other person is an actor -- there is no
deception involved here, only modeling! And yet, many clients -- lifelong phobics -- can go
through the entire routine first time around, even after only one viewing of the actor! This is a
powerful therapy.
One drawback to the therapy is that it isn’t easy to get the rooms, the snakes, the actors, etc.,
together. So Bandura and his students have tested versions of the therapy using recordings of
actors and even just imagining the process under the therapist’s direction. These methods work
nearly as well.
Discussion
Albert Bandura has had an enormous impact on personality theory and therapy. His
straightforward, behaviorist-like style makes good sense to most people. His action-oriented,
problem-solving approach likewise appeals to those who want to get things done, rather than
philosophize about ids, archetypes, actualization, freedom, and all the many other mentalistic
constructs personologists tend to dwell on.
Among academic psychologists, research is crucial, and behaviorism has been the preferred
approach. Since the late 1960’s, behaviorism has given way to the “cognitive revolution,” of
which Bandura is considered a part. Cognitive psychology retains the experimentally-oriented
flavor of behaviorism, without artificially restraining the researcher to external behaviors, when
the mental life of clients and subjects is so obviously important.
This is a powerful movement, and the contributors include some of the most important people in
psychology today: Julian Rotter, Walter Mischel, Michael Mahoney, and David Meichenbaum
spring to my mind. Also involved are such theorists of therapy as Aaron Beck (cognitive
therapy) and Albert Ellis (rational emotive therapy). The followers of George Kelly also find
themselves in this camp. And the many people working on personality trait research -- such as
Buss and Plomin (temperament theory) and McCrae and Costa (five factor theory) -- are
essentially “cognitive behaviorists” like Bandura.
