What better news to speak first: good or bad

Elena Stankovskaya

PhD in Psychology, Counseling Psychology, associate professor of NRU "Higher School of Economics."

We all sometimes have to deliver bad and sometimes tragic news. This test is for the person who becomes the herald of a painful truth, and, of course, for the one who receives it. Most often in such cases, we would like to spontaneously blurt out all at once, as long as the situation is quickly ended. Whether this strategy is optimal for real? And what kind of support we can offer psychology here?

As research by Dan Ariely (professor of psychology and behavioral economics. - Approx. eds), pain -. matter physical or mental - easier to sustain if it has a high intensity and a long duration (as compared to the sharp but less long). Therefore, perhaps, the main principle - to deliver bad news without haste, giving a person time to adapt to hear. Painful truth is necessary to dose, double-checking how people cope with what he hears.

It is important to prepare a person for such a conversation. For example, if we have to report something unpleasant on the phone - at least ask if the other party is now convenient to say whether he had some time to recover after the conversation. It warns that now would be to say something unpleasant.

The severity of the news is always determined not only by what happened objectively, but also by how a person can cope with it. Therefore it is useful to help the interlocutor to mobilize to meet with a painful reality. One way to do this - to preface the conversation as a reminder of something truthful and positive.

Users are able to better thinking in the course of the meeting, if the first thing they do - say something truthful and positive about their work or the work of the group.

Nancy Kline (Nancy Kline), «Time to think"

Clarify that the goal in this case - does not distract a person from heavy news, and to mobilize its forces in coping with them. Another technique - ask the person what he already knows about this situation, which he has a suggestion, and so on. Invite him and ask clarifying questions.

Another important principle - telling the truth, not to deprive a person of hope. Studies show that when the pain associated with us with something good, with meaning, it is subjectively perceived as less intense and personality to it quickly adapts. If you keep the hope is difficult, it is important to ask questions about the future: if a person knows that he was going to do with this situation, whether there are people to whom he could turn for support. Through these questions, we are helping to build a certain image of the other party of the future and thereby strengthen his hope.

What can I say first: good or bad news? Once we have prepared a person to perceive the painful truth is better to start with a heavy news.

This is due to the effect of expectations. Conducted by Dan Ariely studies confirm that it is often not so terrible pain itself, as it is waiting for. If we have to choose from a bad and very bad news, it is better to start with the latter, too. Against the background of a heavy news less heavy is more easily accepted. However, it is important to keep track of how much a person is able to cope with the heard. Perhaps we should pause and ask what a person thinks, feels about it, what he wants to do in this regard.

Another important principle - to report heavy news carefully. In particular, it is useful to express the sincere sympathy (the study of the same Dan Ariely shows that pain is perceived as caused unintentionally experienced lighter than consciously caused). In some cases, appropriate to express their feelings, for example, say that you find it hard to talk about it, it's really difficult situation. Ask what else does a man need to hear from you may be with him in silence, sharing the severity of the news.