Ultimately the bond of all companionship, whether in marriage or in friendship, is conversation. (1)
Of all the activities in which you participate conversation is among the most important. Conversation is the major vehicle through and around which our interactions are conducted. Conversation allows us to bond with one another providing our much-needed emotional support. Conversation also allows us to influence others so our various needs can be met.
Despite these benefits conversation can also have a down side. When used ineffectively, conversation can also make people dislike you, negating all of the benefits conversation would otherwise provide. The purpose of this article is to assist you in more effective communications so that you may realize the benefits of conversations and minimize its negatives.
The following focuses on everyday conversations such as with our family, friends, colleagues at work and with new and casual acquaintances as well. These conversations will focus on certain factors, both positive and negative that affect all conversations. Certainly, there are others, but the three prominent factors selected for discussion here are: Talking and Listening, The size of the group and The What and How of Conversations.
Talking and Listening
Meaningful conversation between two people requires that while one person talks the other listens. If one person does all the talking the listener will tire of the conversation and look to avoid the one-sided interaction. All of which begs the question: How much talking and how much listening should each party engage in so that both will remain in the interchange? In other words, what should be the ratio of talking to listening so that both parties feel satisfied with the interaction?
The Magic Ratio
Some time ago I ran across what has now come to be known as the “Magic Ratio.” It is an educational concept that applies to the interaction between teachers and students. Specifically, it refers to the ideal number of praises offered by a teacher relative to the number of criticisms she presents to a given student. The most effective ratio of praises to criticism was deemed to be four to one. (2)
Based on the Magic Ratio, I reasoned that praises were positive events and criticisms undesirable ones. Applying that thought to conversations, I also assumed that it was pleasing for a person to talk more about his or her interests than to listen to another talking about his or hers. Yet both events are necessary if both parties’ needs are to be satisfied enough to stay in the conversation. So, I adopted the 4:1 ratio as a rule when conversing with another; listening to four comments before offering one.
Problems with the magic ratio
I soon found however, that it was too difficult to use the 4:1 ratio in conversation; that is waiting for four comments before I could interject a comment about myself. I found that I was giving more attention to counting the comments than focusing on the content of the remarks. When it was time for me to respond with my comment I had forgotten the subject matter under discussion so I couldn’t relevantly tie in my comment.
I then tried to substitute the time that elapsed for the number of comments made; that is I waited four minutes while the other person was talking before I made a comment. However, I again found myself keeping time rather than focusing on the content of the conversation. So, I decided to reduce the ratio from 4:1 to 3:1
The 3:1 ratio
It was easier for me to count three minutes while still focusing on the content of the conversation. So, I did just that. I observed the three minutes before tying in my remarks to the other person’s comments. As far as I could tell using the 3:1 ratio instead of the 4:1 ratio didn’t change the effect. Both parties remained in the conversation. In addition to that, the 3:1 ratio was also partially supported by research that later evolved.
Gong Research Labs (3) evaluated over 25 thousand sales conversations. They found that where sales resulted, the ratio of listening to talking was 57:43 or rounded off, 60 to 40; sixty percent of the time listening to forty percent talking. This reduced to a 3:2. ratio fairly close to my 3:1 ratio. This meant that my suggested ratio of listening three times to speaking once, was a reasonable approach to conducting conversations.
The 3:1 ratio plus two powerful tools.
However, once again I found that measuring the percent of time given to listening and speaking on a 3:1 ratio, distracted me from focusing on and participating in the conversation. But then I discovered Sociologist Charles Derber’s book “The Pursuit of Attention: Power and Ego in Everyday Life”. (4)
Dr. Derber surmised that speakers tend to dominate the conversation, leaving the listener to react either supportively to the conversation or to change or shift the conversation. Dr. Derber calls these two responses support and shift responses. The support response keeps the conversation clearly focused on the speaker. It allows the speaker to continue speaking. The shift response has the opposite effect. It allows the listener to gain control over the interchange. The shift response not only allows the listener to change the topic of the conversation but shifts the person doing the speaking from listener to speaker.
For example, if the listener wants the speaker to continue the conversation, the listener simply expresses support responses, sprinkled throughout the conversation. Such support responses can be a nonverbal gesture such as a nod, a smile, sustained eye contact, anything that would convey that the listener is attending to what the speaker is saying. Support responses could also include verbal utterance such as “Wow, Great, really?” or complete sentences such as “That is really interesting.”
If the listener wants to become the speaker in the conversation, he or she need only to use a shift response. The shift response could be any verbal intrusion that doesn’t appear rude to the speaker. It could be a statement such as “That same thing happened to me the other day,” or “My friend had the same experience you did,” followed up by a comment the listener wants to make. The content of a shift response should be on the same subject as being discussed by the previous speaker.
Once you have made your comment, you can use another shift response sending the conversation back to the original speaker. The shift response may go as follows: “you were saying that…”
Dr. Derber’s two responses allow the listener to focus not on time but solely on the conversation while at the same time employing the 3:1 ratio. Another major benefit of using the support and shift responses is that it gives the listener control over the conversation while at the same time, not upsetting the speaker over losing his or her hold on the discourse.
Two concluding comments on the 3:1 ratio.
First, when using the 3:1 ratio, as much emphasis should be placed on the one (1) as on the three (3.) That is, a person should persist in injecting comments about oneself as eagerly as one listens to the speaker. Without presenting a comment about yourself every third time, you may run the risk of coming across as an indifferent interviewer rather than a welcomed participant in a meaningful human experience. The one comment to every three made by the speaker also satisfies your need to be attended to.
Second, the 3:1 ratio is offered as a guide and not a hard and fast rule. The ratio can vary slightly but it should be combined with a support and shift response.
The size of the group
Everyday conversations can be very pleasurable wherein you become involved with and connected to others. On the other hand, conversations can also leave you dissatisfied, wanting and wishing you were somewhere else rather than in that moment. What causes the difference? The answer may lie in the size of the group in which the conversation has occurred. That is the size of the group may have been too large.
Research on conversation and group size.
Because conversation is so important in forming and maintaining human relationships, it has been the subject of social science research. A limited review of studies presented here pertains to what the ideal group size of our everyday-give-and-take conversations should be to foster meaningful conversation. (5)
The review revealed an unexpected result, unexpected in the sense that it wasn’t in keeping with my experiences. What one study showed was that the ideal size of the group should be no more than four. Another study also suggested that the ideal group size should be no larger than four. Both recommendations were made concerning groups where no appointed group-leader was involved.
My ideal group size
Contrary to the two studies mentioned, my experience suggests that leaderless groups of four and five become unmanageable because the participants tend to break down into subgroups. All it takes is for one member of the group to tire of the conversation and begin talking to another member. In groups of four, the participants will then tend to pair-off whereas in groups of five they split into units of three and two. It is my impression that a leader must emerge or be appointed in order to maintain a single conversation in groups of four or larger.
My ideal group size is two, three at the most. In either condition the focus can be directed to each member while, at the same time employing the 3;1ratio, including support and shift responses as indicated.
The What and How of Conversations
The What of conversations pertains to What is being discussed during the conversation; the content of the conversation. The How of the conversation relates to how the conversation is being conducted; the manner in which the conversation is being carried-out.
The What; The content of conversations
Dr. Derber suggested that speakers tend to engage in topics of interest to them. That being the case, if we want to enter a conversation with another we should first become aware of that person’s interests. Often, we can do that by simply listening to what they are talking about. If we still want to discover even more of what interests them, we can ask them about such things as sports, music and hobbies.
For a more extensive list of interests see The Intimate – Marital Relationship: Its Problems and their Corrections. (6)
Secondly, to foster more meaningful conversations we can be guided by employing the rules governing interests, more specifically self-interest espoused by the Houle Relationship Approach (HRA) (7). Of special relevance to conversations are two of the four rules related to interest. They are: The Rule of Balancing Self-Interests and The Rule of Matching Shared Interests.
The Rule of Matching Shared Interests, which states that one should match his or her interests to those with whom he or she is interacting. This means that once we have identified the interests of the speaker, as suggested immediately above, we then need to identify our own interests that are similar to those of the speaker.
The Rule of Balancing Self-Interests directs that we tie in our interests with those of others. This means that once you have matched your interests that are similar to the interests of the speaker, you simply use these as the subject of your comments.
Content to be avoided in conversations
Just as there are things one can do to make conversations meaningful, there are also things one should try to avoid, especially when engaging in newly encountered conversations. Two among these things are criticism and teasing. Because both are common in our daily interactions they are not often seen as a source of discord in our relationships. However, they are frequently the hidden cause of our many conflicts with others.
Criticism
By criticism I am referring to the act of finding fault with or giving disapproval to another’s actions. (8) There are some things that all humans tend to do; things like breathing, eating and dying. You could add to that list the common practice of criticism. However, while common, criticism weakens a relationship especially a newly established one. This happens because when a person is criticized, he or she senses himself or herself to be of lesser importance or status than the one doing the criticism.
There are notable exceptions wherein people eagerly seek out and enjoy criticism. Take, for example, individuals who want to acquire a skill. Golf, piano and art are such examples where embedded in the lesson is considerable criticism of the learner’s performance which is acceptable to the learner. The kind of criticism that is problematic to a relationship and in conversations, is the kind where the fault-finding is not wanted and unacceptable resulting in the lessening of the person’s status or standing with others. For an extensive discussion on the rules regarding criticism see HRA (7)
Teasing
Teasing as defined here is: “To annoy or harass by persistent mocking or poking fun, playful fooling” (8) Teasing usually involves using a quirk or blemish the person being teased may have, and further depicting him or her in a less than desirable light. Rarely does one get teased for a strength, and when that does occur, the strength is made fun of or mocked.
In a sense teasing is similar to criticism. The two vary mainly in the way they are presented. Criticism is usually delivered in a more somber manner where teasing is usually given in a jovial manner. However, in the eyes of the person being teased or criticized they both are often viewed as “put-downs”.
Teasing, as well as criticism, has the effect of lowering one’s status or standing one has to another within a given relationship. When done in the presence of two persons it lowers the status of the one being teased below that of the one doing the teasing. When teasing is done in the presence of three or more persons it lessens the status of the one teased below that of the one doing the teasing as well as those observing the teasing.
Therefore, The Houle Relationship Approach suggests that teasing should always be used with caution. When involved in a conversation with a new acquaintance, teasing should be avoided at all costs. For a more extensive discussion on the rules regarding teasing see (7)
The How: The manner in which the conversation is being carried-out.
In a word, politeness describes how the conversation is to be carried out.
My dictionary defines politeness as: “Having or showing good manners; esp., courteous, considerate, tactful, etc.” (8) The act of being polite also includes “pleasantness.” This condition is displayed by a generally agreeable and not overly critical approach to things. Overall, politeness combined with pleasantness renders a person enjoyable to be around.
If pleasant politeness is absent, then rudeness and discourtesy often become the vehicles through which interactions are conducted. When politeness toward each other lessens, so do feelings such as warmth, respect, friendliness. Politeness is a very important and constructive agent in fostering productive conversations.
Summary and Conclusion
Conversations are necessary human interactions and when enacted appropriately they contribute to our well-being. This article focused on certain aspects or factors of conversation that assists one in behaving appropriately so as to enhance his or her relationship with another. What follows are those factors detailed in the article and presented here in an abbreviated, bulleted form.
• All conversations involve both listening and speaking. It is suggested that the most effective ratio, for meaningful conversion, is three to one: Three listening to one speaking.
• The three to one pertains to the number of comments made or to the amount of time one listens and one speaks.
• The listener, after three comments made by the speaker, is to insert one comment of own his or her own.
• The listener can contribute to the conversation by giving “supportive” responses to the speaker’s comments. After listening to the three comments, the listener can enter the conversation by providing a “shift” response. The three to one ratio combined with supportive and shift responses will make the conversation flow smoothly if conducted politely.
• The size of the group that most advantageous is most complimentary to meaningful conversation should not exceed two or three persons. Anymore and participants will tend to splinter into subgroups each engaging in conversations of their own.
• The content or topics of most conversations are dictated by the interests of the speaker. These interests are to be explored and expanded upon by the listener following two of the HRA rules of relationships pertaining to self-interests.
• These two HRA rules direct the listener to match his or her self-interests with those of the speaker and tie those shared interests into the conversations.
• Two topics to be avoided or used with caution in conversations are criticism and teasing.
References
1. Attributed to Oscar Wilde
2. Brophy, J (1981) Teacher praise: A functional analysis. Review of Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543051001005
3 https://www.gong.io/about/
4. The Pursuit of Attention: Power and Ego in Everyday Life. Oxford University Press New York, 1983
5. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/00346543051001005
6. Houle, Thomas A. The Intimate – Marital Relationship: Its Problems and their Corrections. Create
Space Independent Publishing Platform (Amazon), 2016.
7. Houle Thomas, A. Why We Behave The Way We Do: The Houle Relationship Approach 2nd Ed.
Tomar House, Vero Beach Fl. 2023.
8. Webster’s New World College Dictionary Fifth ED. Houghton, Mifflin, Harcourt, New York.
N.Y.2018
