It's Not What You Say, But How You Say It

As children, many of us chanted, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.”  Parents encouraged the chant in order to help fortify their children against verbal assault.  But as the children matured, they realized that words sometimes can be more powerful than either sticks or stones.  They ultimately discovered not only that the pen is mightier than the sword, but that the spoken word can be mightier than the sword.

Since words are delivered by a sender and interpreted by a receiver, both determine the impact of the words spoken and heard.  You cannot control what others say, but you do have at least some control on what you hear.  That is, you can interpret another's remark many different ways.  Some of those interpretations will have a neutral or salutary affect on you, and some will have a neutral or negative affect.

Psychologists often use the term "construal" to describe how an individual interprets that which she/he hears.  Sometimes people construe in an abstract fashion, and sometimes, in a concrete fashion.  For instance, if I say that you did a great job when remodeling your kitchen, you might construe it abstractly as my referring to "a shiny, roomy cooking space," or more concretely as an expensive stainless steel oven, dishwasher, and refrigerator, and an attractive granite counter and back splash."

Of course, some construals regard more weighty matters, and such was the focus of a study by A. B. Carter and colleagues (2019).  The investigators focused on workplace decisions that negatively impacted the workers, with the specific negative consequence concerning layoffs from the company.  Half the experimental sample were provided reasonable reasons WHY the layoffs had been necessary.  And half the sample were told HOW the company respectfully conducted the layoffs.  As predicted, those in the WHY group with an abstract construal orientation regarded the company decision as more fair and held a more positive view of the company than did those with a HOW orientation.  Conversely, the other half of the group who were told HOW and who had a concrete construal orientation regarded the company decision as more reasonable than did those with a WHY orientation.

We can apply the Carter study WHY and HOW insights to our own situations.  If we do our best to analyze bad personal experiences in terms of why they happened, we might be able to distance ourselves, at least somewhat, from the negative outcomes.  And if we do our best to analyze good personal experiences in terms of how they happened, we might be able to feel closer to the experiences, and derive greater satisfaction from them.  

The WHY and HOW strategy admittedly is simplistic and reductionistic, but sometimes simplistic and reductionistic thoughts, at least, confer a placebo effect.  And that placebo effect can be palliative.  It can't hurt to try the strategy. That  said, I certainly would not limit my processing and problem solving efforts solely to a WHY and HOW approach.  

Reference

Carter, A. B., Bobocel, D. R., & Brockner, J. (2019). When to explain why or how it happened: Tailoring accounts to fit observers’ construal level. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. Advance online publication.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xap0000236