General information of the questionnaire Name questionnaire: Validating & Invalidating Behavior Coding Scale Original author: Fruzetti, 2001 Translated by: / Date version: / Language: English

Validating & Invalidating Behavior Coding Scale (Version 3.1, 2001) Alan E. Fruzzetti, University of Nevada ([email protected]) Validating and Invalidating behaviors are a subset of behaviors in family interactions (see below). They are most often a response to the other’s behavior in the present (especially disclosures of private experiences, thoughts, feelings, wants, etc.), or responses in a discussion of the other’s (or one’s own) behavior (especially problematic behavior) prior to this conversation. These may be comments about the other as a person; (e.g., judgments or attributions), or may concern the other’s specific behavior (public or private). Validating and invalidating behaviors include labels and statements made about the partner (validation/invalidation of her/his self, including character judgments); legitimizing or delegitimizing statements made in response to or concerning partner’s overt or private (thoughts, feelings, desires) behaviors. In addition to specific verbal responses, validation/invalidation may be a functional response as well, either taking the other seriously and responding in a way that communicates it (including problem solving at times and reciprocal vulnerability whenever it occurs); it may also include being dismissive, delegitimizing, or functionally invalidating by refusing to take the other seriously. Validation is NOT coded/credited (and may or may not include, depending on context) when a person does only the following in general: simple agreement; positive affect; warmth; general relationship focused talk; problem-solving talk (unless PS is functional validation in response to the other’s disclosure), chit chat of any kind; self disclosures (except in the case of V7; see below); nor positive or loving attention per se. Invalidation is not coded/credited (and may or may not include, depending on context) when a person does only the following: disagreement or generally negative affect per se (NB: contempt is counted); negative self disclosures per se (i.e., not liking something); invalidating the invalid. Validation and Invalidation are part of a larger set of family interaction behaviors, including: Closeness-Enhancing and Relationship Enhancing Behaviors Self-disclosure (true description; functions to describe private events; not aversively applied) Validation (of the other person in general or specific behaviors, in present or with reference to the past Constructive conflict or negotiation behaviors General discussion about non-relationship/family things (that aren’t any of the above), including requests or suggestions for improvements in the relationship, facilitating behaviors, etc. Distancing Behaviors Invalidation / active (delegitimizing valid behaviors/the person, blaming, judging, etc.); verbal or functional (i.e., expressions, tones, contempt,) Invalidation / passive (not validating the other’s valid, intimacy-enhancing disclosure; validating at a clearly lower level than is “needed,” [aka missed opportunities]) Avoidance behaviors (pulling away), including defensiveness, resisting change, etc. Other aversive or aggressive behaviors that are not specifically invalidating (pushing the other away/wanting distance); e.g., general aversive conflict behaviors

AEF: Validating/Invalidating Scales; V3.1,

CODING VALIDATING BEHAVIOR: 1. Validate: pay attention to, notice, approve, accept, legitimize, support, assign benevolent label, etc., when the target of validation could be valid at that level (i.e., validating the valid). Includes the following: • empathic attention that is non-verbal or minimally verbal; basic listening and attention (V1) • empathically reflective comments, especially of private experiences (emotions, wants, thoughts) (V2) • gentle, empathic attempts to understand what the partner is feeling privately, even though not yet clarified by the partner her or himself; attempts to help the partner clarify what she or he is thinking or feeling; verbalizing (offering ideas about) what she or he might be thinking, wanting or feeling; asking questions to help understand the other’s private experiences/behaviors (V3) • attempts to put an accepting/validating “spin” on partner behavior, to broaden or recontextualize her or his behavior in terms of past events, or within the limits of the individual’s repertoire (learning, biology) (V4) • normalizing partner’s behavior in the CURRENT context; may include statements like “that makes sense,” “of course you’d want/think/feel that way,” or “I would want/think/feel that way, too” (V5) • empathic or radical genuineness; acceptance of the partner as a person; not treating the person as fragile; this includes invalidating the invalid AND a willingness to stay with or even enhance the strength of the person’s “negative” emotion; treating the other a equal and competent (V6) • reciprocal vulnerability via self-disclosure, focus stays on the other person (V7) Ratings for Validating behavior may be lowered in the presence of salient/multiple missed opportunities Similarly, ratings for validating behavior may be lowered if the person responds (in important situations) with a lower level of validation than is clearly required

1 No Validation

2

3

4

5

6

7 Only Validation

Mid-range: either several examples of mild/moderate validation or a couple/few examples of strong validation Other ratings are in combinations of mild, moderate, or strong validation.

AEF: Validating/Invalidating Scales; V3.1,

CODING INVALIDATING BEHAVIOR: 2. Invalidate: criticize, derogate, ignore, blame, negatively judge, assign negative label, delegitimize, validate at a lower level than is necessary or effective (including clearly missed opportunities for validation when the other is vulnerable – see IV5 and IV7). Invalidation is coded only when the target of apparently “invalidating” statement could be (likely is) valid at some level (i.e., the statement invalidates the valid). Includes the following: • not paying attention; disrespectful, distractable, changing the subject (IV1) • not participating actively, missing ordinary (needed) conversational validation opportunities, being functionally unresponsive (IV2) • statements that the other person should not feel/think/experience, is not entitled to feel/think/experience or is wrong to feel/think/experience whatever they are feeling/thinking/experiencing (when it is or could be valid at some level); or telling the other what s/he DOES or SHOULD feel, think, want, etc., despite the other person providing contradictory statements or indications (IV3) • agreeing with the other’s self-invalidation or complete pathologizing without finding/noticing any legitimacy, even in history or learning or biology (IV4) • statements that contradict or criticize partner’s self-disclosures she or he has made (especially of private behaviors – feelings, opinions, etc – specify targets), especially when normative; missed opportunities to validate vulnerable private behaviors, especially when clear and reasonable; gaslighting (IV5) • validating the invalid (patronizing, condescending, or “fragilizing”); statements or non-verbals that show contempt, stigmatize or devalue the person or treat the other as incompetent or less than an equal human being (IV6) • leaving the other person “hanging out to dry” by NOT matching their level of relational vulnerability; assuming the more “powerful” position regarding relationship wanting & vulnerability (IV7) 1 No Invalidation

2

3

4

5

6

7 Only Invalidation

Mid-range: either several examples of mild/moderate invalidation or even one example of clear/strong invalidation Other ratings are in combinations of mild, moderate, or strong invalidation.

AEF: Validating/Invalidating Scales; V3.1,

Summary of Validating/Invalidating Behaviors Validation 1 Basic attention, listening, ordinary non-verbals; DOES NOT GET POINTS BECAUSE IT IS CONSIDERED BASELINE 2. Reflecting or acknowledging the other’s disclosures; what s/he is thinking/feeling/wanting; or functionally responding to her/him by answering or problemsolving 3. Articulating/offering ideas about what the other might want/feel/think, etc., in an empathic (not insistent) way; helping the other to clarify; asking questions to help clarify 4. Recontextualizing the other’s behavior (including feelings/desires/ thoughts); putting more positive spin on it; acceptance b/c of history; reducing the negative valence 5. Normalizing other’s behavior (any type) given present circumstances; e.g., “anyone (or I) would feel the same way in this situation”

6. Empathy, acceptance of the person in general; acting from balance about the relationship; not treating the other as fragile or incompetent, but rather as equal and competent 7. Reciprocal (or matched) vulnerability/ selfdisclosure in context of the other’s vulnerability, and the focus stays on the other person

Invalidation 1. Not paying attention, distractable, changes subject, anxious to leave or to end the conversation 2. Not participating actively, missing needed conversational validation opportunities, not providing evidence of tracking the other person; functionally unresponsive 3. Telling the other person what s/he DOES feel/think/ want, etc. (or insisting) even when the other provides contradictory statements; or telling what s/h SHOULD feel/etc. 4. Agreeing with other person’s self-invalidation when behavior makes sense in terms of history (almost always) & could be spun differently; increasing its negative valence 5. Pathologizing/criticizing other’s behavior when it is reasonable or normative in present circumstances (remember: self-descriptions of private behaviors are assumed to be accurate unless evidenced otherwise) 6. Patronizing, condescending, and/or contemptuous behavior toward the other; treating the other as not equal (less than) or incompetent; character assaults/over generalizing negatives 7. Leaving the other person hanging out to dry: not responding to (validating) her or his vulnerable self-disclosures, thereby assuming a more powerful position

Alan E. Fruzzetti, Ph.D. Department of Psychology 298 University of Nevada Reno, NV 89557-0062 Email: [email protected]

AEF: Validating/Invalidating Scales; V3.1,