Richard Bandler - Reframing. Neuro–Linguistic Programming™ and the Transformation of Meaning

This is the simplest format for couple reframing. I want you all to try it in groups of four, using the following outline. Two of you will role–play a couple in a problem interaction. One of you will be the programmer, and the fourth person will be a meta–person to keep track of where you are, and to give feedback to the programmer.

1) Identify and interrupt a stimulus–response (X—>Y) loop.

2) Ask the person responding:

a) «Are these feelings (Y) familiar?»

b) «What is the message you get when she does X?»

3) Ask the stimulus person:

a) «Is that (Y) what you intended by doing X?»

b) «What did you intend?»

4) Ask stimulus person, «Are you committed to getting your intended message across?»

5) Find a way to make message received equal message intended:

a) Find it in the experience of the stimulus person. «Have you ever gotten the response you want? What did you do then?»

b) Find it in the experience of the response person. «What behavior would work to get that response in you?»

c) Select a model, or pretend that you know how to get that response.

6) Have the stimulus person try out the new behavior to find out if it works satisfactorily.

Now that you've all had some experience using this simple format, I'd like to demonstrate some variations. Let's do another role–play. Rita and Joe, play this one for me. It starts like this. Rita, I want you to attack Joe verbally. Joe, you respond by feeling bad.

Rita: «You creep!» (Joe stiffens.)

I interrupt that loop and anchor Joe's response. I ask «Hey, are these feelings familiar, Joe?» (Yes.) «OK, what message did you get?»

Joe: She's angry with me.

Rita, did you intend to let him know that you're angry?

Rita: You're damn right!

So this time message received is message intended. I say, «Well done, congratulations, you are communicating very effectively.» This validates that their communications and their intentions are effective, at least at the level they are describing them to me. However, they are both in unpleasant states, and probably those states are not helpful in arriving at a satisfactory solution to their difficulty.

Since the message received is the same as the message intended, but it's not satisfactory, I need to use a variation of the previous format. I can find out Rita's «meta–message," and gain more flexibility. «Rita, what does letting him know that you are angry do for you? What are you trying to accomplish by this?»

Rita: I want him to really hear me, to pay attention to me.

OK. What will having him really paying attention to you do for you?

Rita: Then I'll know he cares about me.

OK. So when you raise your voice and start yelling, you're saying «God damn it. I'm angry because you're not paying attention. If we're in a relationship like this, I want you to pay attention to me because I want to know you care.»

So, Joe, this may seem quite contradictory to you, especially when you have these unpleasant feelings, but she is trying to say «Hey, demonstrate to me by being attentive that you care, because it matters to me.» Are you interested in this message?

Joe: Yes.

And Rita, you're committed to getting it across, right? Rita: Yes.

Now I simply search for alternative behaviors that are appropriate and acceptable to both of them.

You can use this variation any time the message intended will not produce productive results. So what if Joe knows that Rita is angry? That in itself is not likely to finish this interaction in a way satisfactory to both Rita and Joe. So I ask, «What is letting him know you are angry going to do for you?» «What are you going to accomplish by it?» «Are you satisfied to stop here, or is there some other goal you are after?» And Rita will find another goal. If she didn't have one originally, she'll make up one for us that will be more useful.

Notice that when I ask these questions, I get the outcome of the outcome, or the intent of the intent. I may have to ask this question four or five times until I find an outcome that both of them are interested in. What I'm really searching for is a message or outcome that both parties are interested in achieving. When I've found that, I've got about 75% of the negotiation work done. Once I've got an outcome frame that both parties congruently agree to, it's just a question of varying their behaviors until they find a specific way of getting there together.

OK. So Rita wants to send the message «I want you to demonstrate that you care," and Joe is interested in receiving it. Now I'm at a choice point. I can either get an alternative behavior from her or from him. If I'm using Rita to create a new behavior, I can ask «Rita, out of all the time you've spent together, do you remember a time when you were able to get the kind of attention and caring you want from Joe, that you are not presently getting? Do you remember ever being able to do that?» This is the same as step four of six–step reframing: creating alternatives. She now searches through her personal history and finds an occasion when she has successfully done this. I can have her remember in a specific and detailed way. «See yourself doing this very clearly; listen to the way you do it, etc. When you have seen and heard what you did in detail, try out that behavior with Joe, and we'll find out if it works here and now.»

If Rita says «I've never succeeded in the way that I'd like to," I ask for a model. «Who gets attention and caring from Joe? What does she do? Now you try it.»

I can even say «Well, make it up. Pretend as if you know how, and try it.» If I have an idea, I can coach her. «Why don't you try X, Y, and Z, in the following way?» These are all methods to get her to generate a new piece of behavior and then test it right here to make sure that it works: that the message intended equals the message received.

The one advantage to having Rita search in her own personal history as a way of generating new behaviors is that then you know it has worked in the past, and that it's congruent with her personal style. If you suggest something, it will be congruent with your personal style, but it may or may not match her style or his style.

Janet: When Rita thinks of a new behavior, do you anchor it?

I don't have to, but I usually «overkill» in seminars. Every chance I get to use another anchor, I do. Janet suggested that I could use one here, and she's absolutely right. As Rita searches and finds the example, I can anchor it and then say «OK, now let's try it.» I hold the anchor to stabilize the state from which she generates the behavior that worked before.

The other possibility is to use Joe as a creative resource to find alternative ways that Rita can use to satisfy her intention. In either case it is very important to first get a commitment from her that what she wants is important enough that she is willing to alter her behavior in order to get it.

«Rita, are you serious about really getting that message across? You do want his attention? That is important to you?» (Yeah.) It's very important to notice whether her voice tone and analogue behaviors are really congruent. In this case we have a really congruent commitment from her.

Rita, I know you're really serious about this. It's something that's really important to you as a woman. Now, Rita, is this important enough to you that you would be willing to change your behavior in order to get the response that you want? (Yes.)

Now I turn to Joe and say «And I take that as a compliment to you, Joe. She does want your attention. Now you know what she intends. She's saying 'Joe, I want your attention!' Do you understand that? That's not the message you got before, but now you can understand what she intends. The question is, can you instruct her in what, specifically, she can do so that you can recognize and respond to her intention? What can she do to get your attention in a positive way? Think of times in the past when she has done something that made you want to pay attention to her. What did she do then?»