Resolving disputes
I-messages
Speaking about yourself instead of judging the other person: a sentence in three parts meant to turn a reproach into a message
In numbers
3
parts
behaviour, effect, feeling
2
sides of the conversation
I-message when speaking, active listening when hearing
1
question first
who has the problem in this situation
- Origin
- Described by the American psychologist Thomas Gordon, made widely known by his book Parent Effectiveness Training
- Where it is used
- Everyday conflicts in families, couples, neighbourhoods, schools and teams
- What it takes
- One sentence in the conversation; the real practice comes before it
- Third party
- No third person needed, either side can start
What are I-messages?
I-messages are statements in which someone speaks about their own perception, their own feeling and the effect of a behaviour, instead of judging the other person. The term is closely linked to the American psychologist Thomas Gordon, who described it in his book Parent Effectiveness Training, first published in 1970 and known in German as “Familienkonferenz”. Gordon had worked with Carl Rogers, the founder of client-centred psychotherapy, and carried that attitude over into everyday family life.
The counterpart is the you-message. It assigns responsibility for a disturbance to the other person and therefore sounds like a verdict: “You are inconsiderate.” or “You never listen.” Whoever is addressed like that usually defends themselves against the verdict and no longer against the occasion. The conversation then turns on who is right, and no longer on what should change.
An example shows the difference. The you-message runs: “You always leave everything lying around.” The I-message runs: “When the dishes stay in the sink overnight, I start the morning by tidying up, and that annoys me.” The second sentence is longer, but it contains information the first one lacks: what exactly bothers the speaker and why.
For Gordon the I-message is part of a larger model. He first asks who has the problem in a situation. If the behaviour of another person affects your own concerns, an I-message follows; if the other person has a problem, listening is called for, and that is what active listening stands for. The two tools belong together: one for speaking, the other for hearing. Without the listening, the I-message would remain a monologue.
How do you phrase I-messages?
An I-message after Gordon has three parts: a description of the behaviour without judgement, the concrete effect on yourself and the feeling that results. Many I-messages therefore begin with “When”. The order is not fixed, but all three parts should be there. If the effect is missing, it remains unclear why the behaviour is a problem at all. A complete example: “When the papers only arrive the evening before the meeting, I can no longer read them, and that makes me uneasy.”
The hardest part is the description without judgement. “When you arrive late” is a description, “When you are so unreliable” is already a verdict. It helps to ask what a camera would have recorded. Words such as “always” and “never” do not belong in the description, because they turn an incident into a character trait. “You are chaotic” thus becomes “Three unpaid bills have been lying on the table since Monday”.
Three examples from everyday life. Instead of “You are always late”: “When you arrive twenty minutes after the time we agreed, I sit alone in the café and am annoyed about the lost time.” Instead of “You lot are far too loud”: “When music is still playing after ten, I cannot get to sleep, and the next morning I am irritable.” Instead of “You keep interrupting me”: “When I am interrupted mid-sentence, I lose my thread and withdraw.”
A common trap is the disguised you-message. A sentence such as “I think that you are selfish” begins with I but remains a verdict on the other person. “I have the feeling that you do not take me seriously” also describes no feeling, only a guess about the other person and their intentions. So it is not enough to put “I think” in front; what matters is that the sentence speaks about yourself.
When do I-messages fit?
I-messages fit when the behaviour of another person affects your own concerns and you want it to change without the relationship suffering. Gordon speaks here of the confronting I-message. It gives the other person the chance to change their behaviour on their own account instead of on instruction. Whether they do is their decision; the I-message only makes visible what is at stake for one side. This applies equally in families, shared flats, neighbourhoods and teams.
They also fit outside conflicts. Whoever talks about themselves in everyday life, about what pleases them, what occupies them, what they find hard, becomes easier for others to understand and often understands themselves better too. Gordon describes this as a path to more openness in a relationship. A positive I-message sounds like this: “When you did the shopping yesterday, I finally had a quiet evening, and that did me good.”
At work and at school, I-messages are a means for feedback that is meant to land. Instead of “Your report is useless” you can say: “The report is missing the figures from the last quarter, and without them I cannot prepare the decision.” The criticism stays clear, but it is aimed at the matter. The other person learns what is missing, and not what kind of person they supposedly are.
I-messages carry best early on, while the annoyance is still small. Whoever swallows a disturbance for weeks will at some point speak with pent-up anger, and then even a carefully built I-message becomes a reproach. A short sentence the first or second time is easier to say and easier to hear. It keeps the occasion as small as it is. Whoever only speaks up the tenth time usually ends up talking about all ten.
Where are the limits of I-messages?
The first limit is resistance. An I-message can hurt the other person or put them on the defensive even when it is carefully phrased, because it still says: this behaviour does not suit me. Gordon expects this and recommends a switch from speaking to listening. Whoever listens actively to the resistance, instead of repeating the message more loudly, often finds the way back to the matter afterwards.
The second limit is a genuine conflict of interests. When both sides have legitimate needs that contradict each other, describing your own experience is not enough. For this Gordon proposes a separate procedure, the no-lose method: both look together for a solution acceptable to both, and neither prevails by power. The I-message thus opens a conversation, it does not decide it. What stands at the end is then not one side giving in but an agreement.
The third limit lies in the form itself. An I-message says what bothers you and how it affects you, but often not what is needed instead. Nonviolent communication after Marshall Rosenberg therefore takes the I-statement further: observation and feeling are followed by the need behind them and a concrete request. Whoever notices that an I-message leaves the other person at a loss will find the next step there. The two approaches do not exclude each other, the I-message is often the first part of it.
Finally, every conversational technique can be misused. Whoever uses I-messages as a formula for steering others is quickly seen through, and the sentences then sound learnt by heart. Where violence, threats or strong dependency are involved, even a well-phrased I-message offers no protection, and then support from outside is needed. The method is a tool for everyday conflicts between people who basically want to get along.
How do you start with I-messages?
A single exercise is enough to begin with: write down a reproach from last week and break it into three parts. What exactly happened, without judgement? What concrete effect did it have? What feeling came with it? Having answered these three questions once in writing, you will find them faster in the next conversation.
A practice example: “You never help around here” first becomes the observation “On Saturday I cleaned the flat on my own.” Then comes the effect: “Afterwards I had no time left for my own things.” Then the feeling: “That disappointed me.” Put together, this makes a sentence the other person can hear without having to defend themselves straight away.
After that it pays to look at the moment. An I-message in passing or in front of others loses much of what it is meant to carry. A calm moment, in which the other person has time to answer, is better. If you notice your own voice is already getting loud, it is better to postpone the conversation by an hour. And after the sentence comes a pause, because the answer of the other person is part of the conversation.
Finally, it helps to look at the other side. Whoever practises I-messages soon notices how often they hear you-messages themselves, and can answer them with active listening instead of throwing the reproach back. Speaking and listening train each other. Perfect sentences are not the aim; an honestly meant, slightly clumsy sentence about yourself is enough to begin with.
The core
A reproach says who the other person is. An I-message says what reaches me, and leaves the other person the choice of what to do with it.
Sources
The steps
- Describe the behaviourSay what happened, the way a camera would have recorded it. No “always”, no “never”, no character trait. “When the door is slammed” is a description, “When you are so aggressive” is a verdict.
- Name the effectDescribe the concrete consequence for yourself: lost time, missing quiet, extra work. Only the effect makes it clear why a behaviour is a problem at all.
- Say what you feelSay how it leaves you: annoyed, disappointed, worried, tired. A feeling describes your own state; a sentence such as “I feel ignored” already contains an interpretation of what the other person did.
- Listen to what comes backAfter the I-message it is the other person who speaks. If they react defensively, a second, louder sentence does not help, active listening does. Only when both have been heard can a change be discussed.
More in this series
- Nonviolent CommunicationEveryday life, work, school, family, mediating between groupsFour steps that turn an accusation into a statement about your own situation. It sounds simple and is the hardest exercise in an argument
- Active listeningAny conversation in which understanding matters, from the family to peer mediationListen, ask, give it back in your own words: a simple method that can turn an exchange of blows back into a conversation
From a procedure to a mission of your own
Every one of these methods was developed by people who had a dispute in front of them and wanted to handle it differently. The same stance is what it takes on a small scale: in a neighbourhood, a school, a club.
Find your peace mission