"I" statements are divisive.

Preface: This blog-essay is a first-pass response to some bad advice that we keep hearing out there. With regard to audience, it's important to know that I write for therapists directly and for clients only indirectly. 70% of therapists work with couples, and only a small portion of those get significant training in this specialty. So I'm focused on being helpful to individual therapists migrating to or including couples work. Clients may find my blogs interesting and even useful, but a little bit more complex than the usual blogs on relationship.s

Elsewhere I have articulated the need for an explicit interaction science basis to couple therapy. This basis would leverage the very substantial literature of applied linguistics, a field that draws on technical knowledge of how forms (language but also non-verbals) used in interaction enable and constrain relationships of all kinds, including intimate relationships. Though it is a crucial part of relational science, applied linguistics has so far been neglected because it is not first line "mental health" field.

While couple therapists of all stripes need to master the relevant mental health knowledege, psychobiological therapists don't hunker down in mental health fields to the exclusion of other fields of knowledge and practice.. Understanding human activity requires a much broader lens. My focus is on interaction studies/applied linguistics because it provides untapped knowledge, research methods and tools for understanding the relational impasses that undermine the functioning of couples. Interaction studies provide the tools for noticing, describing and changing the interactional patterns out of which relational impasses are built.

Here, I focus on one piece of unsubstantiated advice that has become a standard but misleading cliche: the so-called I statement, using several tools provided by interaction studies: pragmatic implication, crying literal, next turn evidence procedures, and indexicality.

.

Readers are invited to comment to me directly by email (peterjones3000@me.com) so that I can consider your feedback while I revise this piece.

I statements are divisive: a blog-essay.

The New York Times (September 2024) just doubled down on some pointless and counterproductive bad advice, devoting an entire article to recommending I statements to ward off and/or handle couple conflict. Presumably, on a difficult subect, starting with "I want" or "I feel" disarms partners, freeing up mental resources for problem solving. While psychobiological couple therapists do aim to help partners disarm, we don't do it, or shouldn't do it, relying on decontextualized linguistic strategies. Even less would we reccomend a decontextualized linguistic strategy which has no support in the literature on couple communication. A search on the databases shows no studies on the subject of the effectiveness of so-called I statements in couple conflict. The Times article cites for evidence only experienced therapists reflecting on what the I statement sounds like in their minds, rather than on any particular method for looking at the consequences using them in interaction.

While i have experience with couples spontaneously using I statements in helpful ways towards the end of therapy, here's how I statements often go with distressed couples at the beginning of therapy (with notes on vocalization properties in parentheses):

X: I want fairness in our relationship (a little heavy on the "I").

Y: Well so do I! (irritated intonation)

X: Then why don't you do half the work? (matching irritated intonation).

Y: Here you go again! I work ten hours outside the house, you don't! I'm the one who has two jobs, not you! ( irritated intonation at a higher amplitude than prior turn).

Great Job, New York Times! These two are now even more armed and divided, having started with an "I" statement on your advice. What happened? Why did the so called I statement divide rather than unite? Keep in mind there is no fundamental problem with any pronoun, including "I"--what is problematic is putting one out there as a piece of decontextualized advice, as if we still live in the magical stage of language where we just need to use the right word to change the world. Maybe, sometimes yes, we can–but usually, probably not when stress is high and speakers are equal status.

I'll reiterate the problem:

X: I believe in democracy!

Y: And I don't?

In interaction studies, we say that the I statement in the first turn of either dialogue above creates a pragmatic implication that someone else–probably you–doesn't believe in beautiful things like fairness or democracy. After all, we don't presume that our partner is saying irrelevant things; on the contrary, we are relevance-seeking animals. Evidence for the pragmatic implication here is in Y's irritated next turn, as if "you don't believe in fairness like I do" had been said. Interactional linguists call this meaning a pragmatic implication because it's a non-binding implication, rather than a logical entailment, and thus can be denied by the speaker; it could mean differently. The implication of Y's status as a non-believer in good things like fairness or democracy is more like a tilt, a lean. It could be heard differently in situations where speakers have experiences of cooperativity between them. Or simply when the first speaker wards off the interpretation in an explicit way, or repairs it right away–e.g. with something that communicates " and I don't mean you don't." A subtler pragmatic implication can also be that you (Y) are not like me (X) in this important way. We are different (and i'm better). And such differences thus imply a hierarchy both separating us and uniting us. Uniting us in a relationship of a kind, but a hiearchical one, separating us in terms of better things.

Since a pragmatic implication is non-binding and thus can be denied, notice how easy it is to immunize oneself from accountability for an insult with use of a pragmatically implied criticism rather than a direct one. After you say how you handled a particular problem, someone could say "I would have done it differently". If you find a pragmatic implication of criticism of you here, and call it out as such, an interlocutor may smugly say "that's not what I said, I was talking about me, I didn't say you." This interactional tactic of immunization is what some sociolinguists have called "crying literal." Literal is not how interaction works. Interaction works mostly through implication. In good relationships we are attentive to implications and cultivate the ones we want while warding off the ones we don't, or repairing the latter immediately when we notice something we said has yielded an unwanted implication live in interaction. In other words, we take responsibility for pragmatic implications even if we could deny them. A non-smug interlocutor could either avoid the "I statement" in the case above in the first place, or having made it, realizing it, could repair it right away at the smallest sign of it as carrying an unwanted pragmatic implication. They could legitimately not of course, repair the implication.

With couples in struggle with each other, the less affiliative, less friendly pragmatic implication is the more available. In these couples, partners have likely too often fallen into unrepaired criticism (which strongly implicates character), rather than feedback (which points to performance). The evidence of such histories of interaction can be found in the next turn, with how the co-speaker responds.

This is a key point: interactional linguists, like ordinary speakers, use the responding turn or turns, usually the next turn, to interpret meanings made. Different from ordinary speakers, we go on to compare what we see to the existing literature, to larger patterns noticed by other students of interaction using rigorous methods to make claims about meanings being made. Minimally, rigorous students of interaction don't decontextualize and assign a fixed meaning to a particular linguistic strategy, as the New York Times article mentioned above does. In the short dialogues above, the next-turn evidence strongly suggests that Y hears a finger being pointed at them. They've recovered a pragmatic implication that criticizes them by excluding them from the category of people who believe in good things like fairness or democracy. The I-statment made this interpretation more likely. Incorporated in interaction as a stand-alone strategy, under stressful circumstances, such uses of I statements are interactively dysregulating.

Interaction studies/applied linguistics, works by looking at how particular forms work in interaction. It contributes to couple therapy by providing a rigorous research method to shed light in ways particular forms--we could just call them signals–create resources or blocks to interaction. A tilt of the head for instance, is a form that can signal a meaning in context. Interaction studies provide one of the conceptual frameworks anchoring the study of interactive regulation, which psychobiologically-oriented therapist know is the key form of regulation for couples.

Links to Psychobiology

Because the two examples show non-binding implications, and yet the responder decided on one that is critical of them specifically, the question arises, why in a particular case does the responder retrieve a negative interpretation?

Psychobiological therapists point to the fallibility of communication in concert with its negativity bias. In short: that brains (a shorthand for brain/body/mind) lean negative if they aren't counterbalanced with positive information. Each couple has a history of interaction layered in memory that either reduces or amplifies the negativity bias. Partners will recover recover negativistic pragmatic implications the more these have been carelessly deployed and left unrepaired. The key point for interaction studies is that particular linguistic and interactional forms can work in context in sequence to amplify or reduce the negativity bias. For instance, some forms, particularly pronouns, can work to exclude or even demote a partner, as "I" does in the examples above.

So these three: brain-based negativity bias for all people; the particular history of this couple and the partner's prior partners/caregivers layered in memory, and the way forms-in-interaction can work to unify or divide, are the key to understanding what went poorly in my examples above.

What can be done to ward off unwanted trouble from patterns of interaction that lean towards negativistic pragmatic implications? The more negative interactions of criticism between the couple in their history of interaction, the more they will need to expend resources to ward off interpretations of criticism. In couples in distress, first speakers (X above) will need spend some resources identifying the potential for, and and avoiding deploying, negative pragmatic implications of this kind. Avoiding I statements as a place to go on a difficult topic is one way to avoid creating a pragmatic implication of criticism vis a vis a partner.

However, one of my arguments here is against any decontextualized linguistic strategy, so I'm not arguing for dropping "I" as a move sufficient on its own. The interactants' tool kit needs to be much deeper than this.

Why do we keep hearing prescriptions for I statements?

There's a reason why I-statements have a good reputation amongst non-distressed couples, perhaps like those who believe in them: the couple- not-in-distress can speak strongly with the I, stating a preference baldly and straightforwardly because if it misfires they have lots of ways of handling the consequences. Here's an example where A starts baldly and straightforwardly. B responds minimially yet using an uncontracted form "yes", potentially signalling trouble. A picks subtle signal up and handles it well. Then both work together to recover nicely from a potential dispute:

• A: I want to talk about finances.

• B: Yes.

• A: How about we open up our spreadsheets and compare expenses?

• B: You really want to do that on a beautiful sunday?

• A: We'll get it out of the way and then we can sleep better tonight. I was tossing and turning all night. You noticed right?

• B: Yeah. Ok, but an hour only, that all I think I can do today. Would that help?

• A: Totally.

• B: If we find a major snafu we can do a little longer I guess.

• A: Well, let's set a timer and see. Just knowing if there's a problem and what it is will help and a real night's sleep will make thinking about it easier.

• B: Deal.

Remember that anyone serious about interaction doesn't invent meanings that sound plausible in their head; they look at the interaction, specifically, next turns, to see how a particular move is treated. In the first three turns above above (two turns forming a unit), notice the shift to the "we" above that immediately followed the mild resistance of B to A's suggestion. This shift contributes to the illusion that "I" was a good way to start, even though A would have done just as well or better to have started with "Let's do (or can we do) some finances today." But some capacity to flirt with the 'I' as strong and potentially divisive is actually a sign of the strength of the history of interaction of this relationship because it can be recovered from and modified, as these two do. That such modification may be needed is clear in B's first response: B's fully uncontracted "Yes" signals caution here (just make the "S" of "yes" a bit longer than usual in your head and you may hear what i'm talking about. Sensing this caution and possible resistance through the both formality and limited information provided by in B's "yes", A responds with a bid to shared purpose through reasoning, using the strongly collaborative marker "how about." It meets some resistance about the best use of sundays, but B's turn is less resistant in that it provides information that A can now work.

This move by B offers A a resource–information about the hesitation– to make a counter-offer. She uses her next turn to make a move that appeals to their joint well-being. B accepts the move by proposing a limit on it. This succeeds so well that B is encouraged to modify his/her own limitation, lightening it in favor of A without being asked. The A however champions the original limitation given by B.

In championing the original position of the partner, we could admire how deftly this couple has switched positions, each advocating for the other's original position instead of only their own.  Notice how they have muddied the "I" vs. "you" waters clearly here. They are a couple, and can easily switch perspectives and advocate for the other.

In a couple with deep resources of collaborativity including histories of interaciton like, one can start off with a strong I statement and yet recruit their partner in a series of subsequent adjustments to its strength to arrive at a deal. The rest of the turns above after the first two can be seen as a deft handling of the consequences of the strong I-statement opening by the first speaker. The evidence of the next turn after the opening I statement is hesitation, so the opening speaker A responds in their second turn with a softener.

The couple shows that they can move apart (I statements) and together deftly (all the rest), and even switch positions as part of the process. The mistake is to think that the "I" statement created this. It didn't, quite the opposite: the I statement created the need for artful handling, even repair, of the I statement. Multiple turns of modification of the strength and potentially exclusionary or dominating pragmatic implication of the first "I" turn provide redundant signalling of flexibility by both sides. This flexibility is an interactional achievement over multiple turns, not a recourse to an "I". This couple is expert at interactive regulation, deploying a range of interactional strategies that allow some tension to arise and then to relax having worked through the tension difference between them to similarity and unity. Unity, then, is an ongoing interactive achievement. And a more pleasant one than the ongoing achievement of dysregulation that is promised in the first two examples above (X & Y).

Starting with an I statement for a couple that is in distress could well have sunk the interactional ship if the deft repairing/negotiating/collaborating strategies that came after were available. 

And even worse: X in the first dialogue above (about fairness) may be heard by Y as using therapese—a way of speaking derived exactly from the repeated advice of therapists and advice columns. Interactional linguists call this indexicality—the capacity of specific interactional strategies to signal the contexts they originate in. Given the widespread populartiy of therapy, this dialect is now easily detectable. Partners (especially those not in therapy!)l can smell a single molecule of rigidly applied advice column therapese–or advice from a partner's personal therapist–signalling to them they are being talked to through a protective screen of overly carefully chosen speech that objectifies the partner as a problem to be solved. This is unlikely to go well. This is another reason you will likely have a fight on your hands before long.

A & B in discussing finances appear to avoid therapese. This couple knows that getting along is about continually collaborating and signalling collaboration. It doesn't mean they can't say things straightforwardly and baldly. It's partly about being able to say things strongly and then organize intersubjectivity around it, that is, ward off extremes. Would it surprise you to know that the couple has been together 18 years and yet they still practice deliberate, if now routine, interactional signals of collaboration? It's not just that they have a good relationship thus they speak this way; it's because they enact the good relationship at every turn that they have one. Unity is an interactional achivement in light of the capacity to divide at any time. Armed with multiple tools for collaboration, A's "I" statement leads to a productive negotiation of difference and arrival at a mutually acceptable plan.

Notice how every use of "I" after the first one refers to person who has a limitation. "That's all i think I can do" modifies B's own need, softening it. A's subsequent "I'll put on a timer" is part of advocating for the B's position. You could call these I statements "getting the lower hand".  T

What's the minimal takeaway here from my point of view? If you want a decontextualized linguistic strategy, which you shouldn't, you'd still do better with "we", unless you are as skilled as the couple above. "Let's figure this out" is better than "I want a solution to this problem" (which you obviously don't). But my point is that the illusion of I statements as a good idea comes from the way that highly skilled couples can both deploy and overcome them through a sequence of what amounts to negotiation and repair in the context of a potential dispute.

However, the key overall is to not rely on single linguistic strategies if you are a couple with distress. This will create false confidence. You are much better off with a higher level purpose to guide you.  Coming from "us" in light of our simultaneous autonomy as speakers is the best overall principle to frame and solve problems. "Let's" is a good way to signal that, but you need multiple further strategies when you hit a wall, which, those who seek third-party advice from the Times or elsewhere need.

Here's how to get over the wall: once you have a purpose in mind—solving a problem collaboratively, you understand that the interactional strategies you use at any given time must support that purpose, and thus you are open to learning how to do it. If however the overall purpose recedes in your mind, you are now trading in gimmicks, like decontextualized I statements.

Learning new ways forward starts with observation. Above, the sample dialogue, a composite, contains at least seven different strategies you can observe to keep things proactively collaborative and friendly. If you don't want to focus too much on the specific explications I provide above; just notice how much the speakers are continually signalling that there is room for their partner to modify and adjust, and how they show they are aligned with their partner's goals as well as their own, to the point of (in this example) advocating for the opposite position by the end.

No one is saying you can't say "I", but if you aren't good at redundant signals of cooperativity at this stage of your relationship, and aren't good at repair, then avoid the use of I statements to start and stick to we statements; they are marginally better. In the meantime though, get some help from a couples therapist to develop a stronger shared purpose and the linguistic & interactional means to accomplish them. Relying on a a decontextualized strategy will gain you a few extra seconds but that's all.