Extensive research shows that making people in disagreement feel heard de-escalates conflict. The problem, though, is that especially in ongoing conflicts, people tend to assume that their counterpart has no interest in understanding their point of view. This assumption is difficult to overcome. Even if you personally have not talked to a particular patient about the benefits of vaccines or the importance of statins or the harms of alcohol, chances are that some other medical professional already has. So what is a new conversation for you, for them, might feel like yet another conversation with yet another medical professional who is yet again not listening. However, in our research, we have found that using language to convince a counterpart that you're in fact interested in learning about their views has massive benefits for how a conversation unfolds. So can you talk about how we do it? The key is to use language that's clear and a little bit repetitive. Remember, you're fighting an uphill battle because they don't expect you to be interested. So what we need to think about are what are all the possible ways a person could say, Hey, I want to understand how you're thinking about this. OK, so can we just say, hey, I want to understand how you're thinking about this. But seriously, I do think that there are a lot of ways that we can do it, and it doesn't have to be complicated. Here are some variations. For example, Dr. Hagen could have said to Michael, I'm curious why you think you don't need the vaccine. Help me understand what exactly happened when you got the initial series. We'd like to hear your thoughts on how you will keep yourself safe from contracting COVID. What is your reasoning for not wanting to get the booster? Have you discussed this topic with your family? One of the things that's interesting is that some of these examples are questions and some of them are actually statements. But all of them express a person's desire to learn about the other's perspective. None of these phrase suggestions are arguments subtly couched in question form. To me, this sounds like very sensible advice. If I disagree with someone, I want to know why they believe what they believe. I might learn something that either makes me reconsider my recommendation or sheds light on a solution that might meet everyone's goals. Even if I disagree with a person's conclusions, I want to understand their arguments better. And then maybe I can see whether and where there's room for educating them. One challenge that we have come across in our research is that people are concerned that they will appear less authoritative or certain of their own views when they show curiosity. This may be especially true in a conversation between a clinician and a patient. And of course, there's a sense that if we just correct the erroneous belief, the conversation will conclude faster. All right, so we're back at the idea of being clear and realistic about your goals. Are you trying to maintain your authority? Is the conversation really going to end after you provide all the relevant facts? Or do you have to put in the time to gather more information in order to have a more constructive conversation?

conflict resolution

communication strategies

active listening

perspective taking

dialogue facilitation