The Psychology of Radiation Safety - Welcome to Radiation ...radiationcounseling.org/docs/SimpleTools.pdf · Radiation Safety Simple Tools for ... if you are exposed to radiation?”

The Psychology of Radiation Safety

Simple Tools for Health Physicists

Continuing Education Lecture

CEL 9 7 – 8 am

Thursday, June 30, 2011

Annual Meeting of the Health Physics Society

West Palm Beach, FL

Presented by

Ray Johnson, MS, SE, PE, FHPS, CHP

Director, Radiation Safety Counseling Institute

VP Training Programs, Dade Moeller and Associates

301-990-6006

[email protected]

The Psychology of Radiation Safety Simple Tools for Health Physicists

Ray Johnson, MS, SE, PE, FHPS, CHP Director, Radiation Safety Counseling Institute

Continuing Education Lecture - CEL 9

HPS Annual Meeting

West Palm Beach, 7 - 8 am, June 30, 2011

Ray Johnson, MS, SE, PE, FHPS, CHP

Director, Radiation Safety Counseling Institute

Agenda

7:00 Welcome, Introductions, Review Agenda

7:05 Think of a scenario where you would like to have better communication skills 7:10 Greatest challenge – dealing with feelings 7:15 The most powerful tool – Active Listening 7:25 Roadblocks to effective communication 7:35 Identifying images, “What’s so bad about that?”

7:45 Eight steps from cause to effect 7:50 Practice with your communication scenario 8:00 Summary, Questions, Evaluations

The Psychology of Radiation Safety: Simple Tools for Health Physicists

Ray Johnson, MS, SE, PE, FHPS, CHP Director, Radiation Safety Counseling Institute

You do not have to be a trained psychologist to use a few simple counseling

tools for helpful responses to radiation workers or members of the public. The first thing to remember is that all fears are OK. Our role in radiation safety is not to change people’s fears, at least not directly. Telling people, “You do not need to be afraid,” may not be the most helpful approach. A better approach may be to provide good information or evidence (hands-on is best) as a basis for people to change their own views. Before a fearful person is ready to hear our best information, however, we need to let them know that their fears are OK and we understand their feelings. We can do this by an easily learned tool called “Active Listening.” We will practice this tool. Another useful tool is to ask, “What do you think will happen to you, if you are exposed to radiation?” The answers to this question will help identify the underlying images that are driving a person’s fears.

Behind all anger or fear there is a powerful image of unacceptable consequences. Remember not to laugh or offer a judging response to whatever people may say. Their images are based on their imagination or perceptions and may have no connection to reality as we know it or believe. Keep in mind that each person’s perception is truth to them. Fearful radiation images may also be identified by responses to the question, “What’s so bad about that?” This question has to be used gently and is not appropriate when a person is in the midst of their anger or fear. The answers to this question are at a subconscious level and not accessible at the time of strong emotion. We also cannot answer this question by ourselves. When we attempt to answer this question, we will likely stop when the answers become difficult. You may have to raise this question repeatedly to peel away the layers (like an onion) to get to the primary underlying image. Another tool for persons asking about safety is to help them answer the question for themselves by guiding them through the eight steps from radiation cause to effects. To get the most value from this CEL, attendees should bring real scenarios for practice of counseling tools.

1

The Most Powerful Tool for Effective Risk Communication - Active Listening CEL Presented at HPS Annual Meeting 2008

Ray Johnson, MS, PE, FHPS, CHP, VP Training Programs, Dade Moeller Radiation Safety Academy

Perhaps our greatest challenge when talking with people about radiation risks is when the

dialogue gets emotional. We may find ourselves not knowing what to do when our best technical data and logical analyses are not accepted by those who are afraid of radiation. What can we do when confronted with hypothetical questions which do not seem to have clear rational answers? How can we respond when our best answers seem to be causing the other person to become more and more upset? Suppose we do not have the data from which to give a good technical answer? Is there any hope?

The effectiveness of any communication is not about the message that we send, but the response of the other person, Thus, the best opportunity for communication is to start with what the other person is saying. This may be difficult for specialists in radiation safety when the information provided by the other person does not make any technical sense. Typically we want to hear good data for which we can apply our well developed analytical logic to resolve the problem and give an answer accordingly. When the other person appears to be speaking emotional nonsense, what options do we have? The answer is active listening. This may be the single most powerful tool for effective risk communications. Active listening does not take ownership of the problem. In other words, we do not have to give a problem-solving answer. Active listening is also non-defensive and avoids a dozen roadblocks to effective communications. Active listening is based on the insight that every communication has two parts, a feeling or emotional part and a content part. By training and experience, we are usually very good at hearing the content part of a message. Identifying the feelings is more difficult. For technical types, it may help to suggest that all feelings can be captured by synonyms of four words, mad, sad, glad, and afraid. An active listening response paraphrases the content and identifies the underlying feeling. For example, a person says, “Radiation, I do not want anything to do with that!” An active listening response could be, “You are worried that radiation may be harmful for you.” By hearing the feelings first, we may find that the feelings are defused (when you really hear the feeling, the other person does not have to keep trying to express that feeling). Hearing feelings also opens the door for further dialogue and helps identify the real issues. In this session we will describe the process of active listening and provide opportunities for practice.

Learning Objectives Upon completion of this presentation, the attendees should be able to:

1. Recognize emotional situations where radiation risk communication tools will be helpful

2. Hear and identify the feelings involved in these situations 3. Reflect the message content and the feelings by Active Listening 4. Respond to feelings non-defensively 5. Begin practicing Active Listening skills to deal with emotional situations

2

Communication Insights

Monthly Columns in the HPS Newsletter Ray Johnson, Communication Sciences Institute

Hearing Feelings – 1 Volume XXVII Aug. 1999 Hearing Feelings – 2 Sep. 1999 Hearing Feelings – 3 Oct. 1999 Hearing Feelings – 4 Nov. 1999 Hearing Feelings – 5 Dec. 1999 Hearing Feelings – 6 Volume XXVIII Jan. 2000 Hearing Feelings – 7 Feb. 2000

3

Hearing Feelings - 1

Would our jobs as health physicists be easier if people left their feelings at home? Dealing with feelings is perhaps the most difficult aspect of communications which we confront either as health physicists or in our daily lives. We all have feelings, we get angry, sad, afraid, and happy. We may even understand our own feelings, but the feelings of others are often difficult to comprehend. When we apply our normal approach to logically analyze feelings, we find ourselves baffled by the effort. Analyzing feelings, or the associated circumstances related to the feelings, does not seem to provide answers that we can understand.

When someone speaks in the feeling language, it seems like a foreign language. We hear the words, but they make no sense. They provide no data for logical analysis. In the process of trying to understand someone else's feelings, so we can provide answers, invariably our own feelings get hooked. We may easily get frustrated, annoyed, angry, or fearful of where the feelings may lead. When confronted with feelings, we want to run away. Our natural preference is to avoid feelings, because we don't know what to do with them. For most of us feelings are outside of our comfort zone and to be avoided as much as possible.

What can we do when feelings are an issue?

A counselor and friend, Jim Morgan, stresses two principles for consideration:

1) feelings are more important than what is said, and

2) hearing feelings is more important than solving problems.

But, How Do We Hear Feelings?

Hearing feelings is a skill that can be learned and developed by anyone. Not many, if any, are born with a gift for hearing feelings. Even gifted counselors take years of specialized training to master effective listening skills. However, you can begin today to practice what is called active listening. This is a process for hearing and reflecting feelings, described in several books by Dr. Thomas Gordon.*

To reflect feelings, you respond with a synonym that describes the feelings you perceive. For example, "You are feeling let down by your boss." Your response shows that you heard the message and the feelings which accompany the message.

-------------

*Gordon, T., Leader Effectiveness Training. Bantam Books, New York, 1977.

4


Perceptions of radiation risks are tied to feelings about the consequences of exposure to radiation. Those with greater concerns will likely have stronger feelings. These feelings may be expressed as outrage and resistance to hearing the best information which HPs have to provide

Workers and their families at Paducah are now expressing their outrage at finding out they were exposed to plutonium. And now workers have cancer, which they are convinced could only be due to radiation exposures from plutonium that they were not told about. Will good logical scientific information answer their concerns?

Feelings Are the Issue Here!

The workers are angry at big government taking advantage of working people in the name of the war effort. They are angry about getting cancers and other ailments that should have been prevented by the government. They are angry that their lives should be threatened unknowingly, so they could not protect themselves.

In their hearts, they feel hurt that big government doesn't care about them. If anyone cared, how could they let workers be exposed to deadly plutonium?

What Do These Workers Expect Now?

Most of these workers probably expect that the government will try to cover up or minimize their exposures to plutonium and other radioactive materials. They expect HPs will try to tell them in scientific jargon that there is no cause for alarm. Meanwhile they feel they are destined to die horrible deaths from radiation, alone, abandoned, destitute, and uncared for. Will anyone hear their concerns and fears?

What can HPs Do?

The normal response of HPs is to gather the best available information for risk assessment by logical analysis of potential exposures and effects. This is the thinking approach favored by most HPs. Unfortunately, most of the workers are looking for a response in the feeling language and the best thinking response of HPs may not be heard. Effective communication with these workers will require speaking in the feeling language with words and actions that convey caring, compassion, empathy, comfort, solace, consolation, sympathy, sensitivity, understanding, commiseration, and feelings.

Speaking in the feeling language will seem difficult and unnatural for most HPs. But, skillfulness in this language can be achieved, as we will see in future Insight columns.

5


People don't care how much you know, until they know how much you care!

This simple axiom may be the central key to dealing with people's feelings about radiation. When we are seen as pro-nukes, the assumptions are that we are being paid for supporting nuclear technology and we don't care about radiation effects on people. But, we do care! We care deeply, but how do we show it? Can we show how much we care, by demonstrating our technical knowledge of radiation safety? Most people, who are frightened by radiation, may not consider our credentials as measures for credibility.

Our credentials may gain us the opportunity to speak on a radiation issue, but our credibility may be related more to how we present our message, rather than what we have to say. For frightened people, the issue is about their feelings or fears, it is not about technology or the logical analysis of risks. They are not looking for technical answers, that they cannot understand. They are looking for indications that their fears are heard, understood, and responded to.

Unfortunately, for most HPs, feelings are part of our shadow (Insights #44-53). Feelings are an aspect of the world that we do not accept for ourselves and we have tried to avoid our entire life. Consequently, we have not developed an ability to communicate in the feeling language. We may see those who communicate in the feeling language as illogical and irrational. We may doubt their motivations and see them as wrong.

How Can We Show that We Care?

To show that we care, we have to learn to communicate in the feeling language. This will seem exceedingly difficult, but it is not impossible. We can show caring by our attempts to communicate in the feeling language, even when we are inept. Feeling types will appreciate the effort and usually want to help us make the translation from our normal thinking approach.

One possibility is to ask for help to understand the feelings. People want you to understand their feelings and will usually try to help. This should not be a challenge to feeling types to defend their feelings to your logical satisfaction. Feelings are not to be logically analyzed and judged, they are only to be heard.

How Can You Show That You Heard the Feelings?

Hearing feelings is demonstrated by paraphrasing the feelings as you heard them. Check next month for more

6


What do you say to a man who says, "I don't want anything to do with radiation!"? Do you try to tell him that we live in a sea of radiation and it cannot be avoided? Do you tell him that radiation is one of the primary means of treating cancer? Or, do you respond with the active listening approach?

Active Listening

This is an approach to verbally show acceptance of the other person and respect for his feelings. The statement of the man above invites us to give data to try to change his mind about radiation. As well meaning as such efforts may seem, however, they discount his feelings, which is his reality. Dr. Thomas Gordon* has identified 12 such categories of responses, including:

1) ordering, directing, commanding, 2) warning, admonishing, threatening, 3) exhorting, moralizing, preaching, 4) advising, giving solutions, suggestions, 5) lecturing, teaching, giving logical arguments 6) judging, criticizing, disagreeing, blaming 7) praising, agreeing 8) name-calling, ridiculing, shaming 9) interpreting, analyzing, diagnosing 10) reassuring, sympathizing, consoling, supporting 11) probing, questioning, interrogating 12) withdrawing, distracting, humoring, diverting.

Active listening is a way of responding that does not discount feelings. The listener does not send a message of his own, such as an evaluation, opinion, advice, logic, analysis, or a question. Instead, he responds with only what he feels the speaker's message meant, nothing more, nothing less. An active listening approach to the man above would take into account his apparent feelings. The listener's response was, "Radiation is scary, isn't it?"

The man then said, "Yes it is, because you cannot feel it, see it, or taste it and you have no way of knowing when you are being exposed." Active listening gives the other person permission to express his feelings. All feelings are OK. Active listening does not try to change feelings. Whether we agree or not, we do not have to make the other person wrong for their feelings.

_______________

Dr. Thomas Gordon, Leader Effectiveness Training, Bantam Books, New York, 1977. 7


"No contaminated materials should be released for recycle and all previously released materials should be recalled!!" These were the words of a person protesting at a Nov. 1 NRC workshop on criteria for release of contaminated materials. Protesters are claiming that the recycling of contaminated metals will result in radioactive forks, baby carriages, and braces for children's teeth. These activists are playing on peoples' fears of radiation to build public opposition. How will the public respond?

These protesters know that feelings are the most powerful of all motivators. Whatever the facts may be, risk decisions are more often a matter of feelings rather than logic. This is especially true when the decisions involve risks with great uncertainty, such as low dose radiation effects. Consequently, a logical presentation of the facts may not lead to changes in feelings. The facts that support the feeling decisions will be heard and the facts that do not will not be heard or believed.

Interestingly, the protesters at the NRC workshop also said that they felt they were wasting their time in this meeting when the technical people had already made up their minds. They all concluded that their efforts would be better spent communicating with the public, where their views (feelings) would be appreciated. This approach follows the guidance of WAND (Women Against Nuclear Destruction) which says that women should not attempt to argue in the domain of facts, figures, and technojargon, but rather they should use the power of their emotions to speak out with feeling and conviction on radiation issues.

Is There Any Hope for Risk Communication?

One answer is to use Active Listening to open doors for dialogue. By this approach, you respond only with your understanding of the speaker's feelings and message. This approach allows you quickly and accurately to get to the real issues of concern. You do not respond with an evaluation, opinion, advice, analysis, or questions. Such responses come from "your own stuff" so you can take control of the communication. Leaving the initiative with the other person is not easy, especially when you believe they are misconstruing the facts. Also, as HPs, our lives are about giving answers and we want to immediately respond with "our" answers.

If we want others to hear our good scientific information, we first have to listen to their feelings. Active Listening is our best hope for connection with the concerned public.

8


Why do we have so much trouble hearing feelings? One reason is that our own feelings get hooked. Whether we realize it or not, the emotional elements of another person's communication do affect our feelings. When we hear anti-nuclear statements, we may feel frustrated, annoyed, perplexed, or criticized. When such feelings get hooked, our critical judgment immediately takes charge and we feel a need to defend ourselves.

Our defensiveness can proceed in two directions, fight or flight. In our minds most of us want to avoid confrontation and we would prefer to run away. However, if pushed to the point of response, we will likely attack. Our normal attack is to challenge the facts or the logic of the other person.

How do we respond to demands for zero exposures to radiation or claims for radiation effects? There seems to be no logical basis for such demands. Furthermore, such demands seem critical of our professional understanding and judgment about radiation risks. After all, as specialists in radiation safety, are we not the holders of the truth on matters of radiation safety? We usually see ourselves as right and we may see the criticizers of our technology as either misguided or having ulterior motives.

We are often annoyed at what appears to be abuse of good science to justify anti-nuclear demands. We are appalled at how easily people accept presumption of causation. Why do people believe that if radiation is there, it is automatically the cause of health effects? And worse even, if the people did not know of their exposures, they seem to see the risks or the effects as greater.

We live in an age of enlightenment where we believe that every effect must have a cause. And, many believe that cause is the result of negligence of bureaucracy and technology. They demand retribution by emotional appeals arising from their own sense of justified anger.

Will our logical responses prevail? How many billions of dollars have we spent to logically demonstrate the safety of radioactive waste disposal options? Have our logical analyses been successful? We may ruefully conclude the answer is NO. Then, if logic is not prevailing, what is? The answers, we may conclude with great frustration, are feelings. Feelings that we cannot hear and for which we have no adequate response. Is there a way not to be frustrated and defensive?

9


There are two fundamental principles for listening that are particularly difficult for health physicists, namely;

1. Feelings are more important than what is said

2. Listening is more important than solving problems.

When a reporter or a member of the public asks questions that seem illogical or emotional, we should be wary of attempting to correct the logic. We may find ourselves making technically logical arguments, when the real issues of concern to the reporter or her audience are conflicts in views, values, and feelings. This is not to say that we should condone erroneous technical logic, but we might do better to deal with the feelings first and get the audience on our side before attacking differences in logic.

When we address the logic first we may find that we have won the battle, but lost the war. The reason that hearing feelings first is so difficult for managers and technical professionals is that we want to analyze the situation to figure out a solution. Health physicists, in particular, are generally very adept at problem solving. This is what we are good at and this is what we get paid for. Now, there is nothing wrong with problem- solving, which is often necessary for resolving issues. However, there may be pitfalls in moving to problem-solving too quickly.

We may discover that while trying to solve the problem, we are:

1. Solving the wrong problem 2. Solving problems, when the audience is not looking for answers 3. Missing feelings, which the audience wants us to hear 4. Taking away the opportunity for others to solve their own problems 5. Not allowing others to build problem-solving skills 6. Inferring that others do not have the right, responsibility, or capacity to solve

their own problems 7. Giving our answers, which others can reject with the game of, "Yes, but ......." Giving answers to problems may seem like the most expedient way to resolve the

immediate issues, and that may be true. We have to consider the circumstances to determine whether a problem-solving approach will meet the needs, maintain or enhance credibility, and keep the doors open for continuing communication. As with all communications, it’s not a matter of right or wrong, but does our approach bring us closer to our communication goal. _______________________________________________________________________

10

The Psychology of Radiation Safety - Simple Tools for HPs

CEL 9, HPS Annual Meeting, West Palm Beach, Fl June 30, 2011

The Psychology The Psychology of Radiation Safetyof Radiation Safety

Simple Tools for HPsSimple Tools for HPs

HPS CEL 9HPS CEL 9777 am 7 am June 30, 2011 June 30, 2011 West Palm Beach, FLWest Palm Beach, FL

Ray Johnson, MS, SE, PE, FHPS, CHPRay Johnson, MS, SE, PE, FHPS, CHPDirector, Radiation Safety Counseling InstituteDirector, Radiation Safety Counseling Institute

301301--990990--60066006

Approach for TodayApproach for Today

Think of a scenario where you would like Think of a scenario where you would like to have better communication skillsto have better communication skills

Greatest challenge Greatest challenge –– dealing with feelingsdealing with feelingsThe most powerful tool The most powerful tool –– Active ListeningActive Listening

Radiation Safety Counseling InstituteRadiation Safety Counseling Institute 22

Roadblocks to effective communicationRoadblocks to effective communicationIdentifying imagesIdentifying imagesEight steps from cause to effectEight steps from cause to effectPractice with your scenarioPractice with your scenarioSummary, Questions, EvaluationsSummary, Questions, Evaluations

Communication ScenariosCommunication Scenarios

Please describe one or more scenarios Please describe one or more scenarios for application of Active Listeningfor application of Active Listening

–– Real or hypotheticalReal or hypothetical

Communication with (suggestions…..)Communication with (suggestions…..)The mediaThe media


–– The mediaThe media–– Emergency respondersEmergency responders–– State or local government staffState or local government staff–– CoCo--workersworkers–– Members of the publicMembers of the public–– Friends or FamilyFriends or Family

ScenariosScenarios______________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

What is Best for Your Scenario?What is Best for Your Scenario?

Will a better understanding of radiation, Will a better understanding of radiation, risks, technology be most helpful ?risks, technology be most helpful ?

Will understanding of feelings, fears, andWill understanding of feelings, fears, andrisk perceptions be most helpful ?risk perceptions be most helpful ?


p p pp p pWhat have you tried What have you tried

or thought of trying ?or thought of trying ?Are there magic words Are there magic words

that will make a difference ?that will make a difference ?Is there “An answer ?”Is there “An answer ?”

Challenges for HPsChallenges for HPsWhich may be the greatest challenge Which may be the greatest challenge

for HPs dayfor HPs day--toto--dayday–– Issues about technologyIssues about technology

–– Issues involving peopleIssues involving people

Most of us have extensive training to dealMost of us have extensive training to deal


Most of us have extensive training to deal Most of us have extensive training to deal with technical issueswith technical issues

How much of our career has been devoted How much of our career has been devoted to dealing with people issues ? to dealing with people issues ?

–– Such as understanding how people feel ?Such as understanding how people feel ?

–– Developing risk communication skills ?Developing risk communication skills ?

11



Our Greatest ChallengeOur Greatest Challenge

When the dialogue gets emotionalWhen the dialogue gets emotional

What can we do when our best What can we do when our best information is not accepted ?information is not accepted ?

H d h th ti lH d h th ti l


How do we answer hypothetical How do we answer hypothetical questions?questions?

What if our answers cause more upset ?What if our answers cause more upset ?

What if we do not have enough data ?What if we do not have enough data ?

Is there any hope ?Is there any hope ?

Questions about FeelingsQuestions about FeelingsWould our jobs be easier if people left Would our jobs be easier if people left

their feelings at home?their feelings at home?Are feelings difficult to comprehend ?Are feelings difficult to comprehend ?Does logical analysis of feelings help ?Does logical analysis of feelings help ?Are feelings a foreign language ?Are feelings a foreign language ?


Are feelings a foreign language ?Are feelings a foreign language ?In our best efforts, In our best efforts,

do our own feelings get hooked ?do our own feelings get hooked ?Would we like to run away ?Would we like to run away ?If we open the door to feelings, If we open the door to feelings,

will we be overwhelmed ?will we be overwhelmed ?

Building BridgesBuilding Bridges


Canyon of Differences

What’s inIt for me?

What’s in It for me?

Communication Tools

Active Listening

Listener’s StanceListener’s Stance

Goal is for Adult Goal is for Adult Response Response -- AbilityAbility

RRtt + + RRpp + C+ Caa to TCOLto TCOL


Be aware of feelingsBe aware of feelings

–– Anxiety, defensivenessAnxiety, defensiveness

How to identify defensivenessHow to identify defensiveness

and stay nonand stay non--defensivedefensive

Active ListeningActive ListeningHearing and responding to feelingsHearing and responding to feelingsA skill that can be easily learnedA skill that can be easily learned

–– Through practiceThrough practice

Most powerful tool for risk Most powerful tool for risk communicationcommunication


communicationcommunicationProcess of Active ListeningProcess of Active Listening

1.1. Paraphrase the contentParaphrase the content2.2. Respond with a synonym Respond with a synonym

that describes the feelingthat describes the feeling3.3. Let the other person correct you as neededLet the other person correct you as needed

ListeningListening

Communication is not the message you Communication is not the message you

send, but the response that you get !send, but the response that you get !

Response is in two forms:Response is in two forms:

V b l d i lV b l d i l


–– Verbal and visualVerbal and visual

Listening is more than Listening is more than

hearing data for understandinghearing data for understanding

Risk messages also involve feelingsRisk messages also involve feelings

12



What to Do With Response You GetWhat to Do With Response You Get

Communication is a two way processCommunication is a two way process

–– observe verbal and visual cuesobserve verbal and visual cues

Hear feelings Hear feelings -- How ?How ?

UseUse Active ListeningActive Listening to develop rapportto develop rapport


Use Use Active ListeningActive Listening to develop rapportto develop rapport

–– restate content and feeling of messagerestate content and feeling of message

–– keep ownership of problem with other personkeep ownership of problem with other person

Be aware of roadblocks that may preventBe aware of roadblocks that may preventopen communicationsopen communications

Active ListeningActive Listening

Hearing the message and the feelingsHearing the message and the feelings

Why bother ?Why bother ?

–– To establish rapport as basis for To establish rapport as basis for


presenting your risk messagepresenting your risk message

–– To get down to the real issue of concerns To get down to the real issue of concerns for radiation risksfor radiation risks

Active listening is not easy for Active listening is not easy for technical experts and managerstechnical experts and managers

Hearing and Reflecting FeelingsHearing and Reflecting Feelings

1.1. Best answer for upset personBest answer for upset person2.2. Describe feeling we perceiveDescribe feeling we perceive

1.1. Do not analyze or evaluateDo not analyze or evaluate2.2. Paraphrase content and reflect feelingsParaphrase content and reflect feelings


3.3. Let other person correct your Let other person correct your understandingunderstanding

3.3. Temptation for technical peopleTemptation for technical people1.1. Go directly to technical answersGo directly to technical answers2.2. Without addressing or connecting Without addressing or connecting

with feelingswith feelings

Why Not Troubleshoot Right Away?Why Not Troubleshoot Right Away?

By giving answers firstBy giving answers first–– You miss an opportunity to connect with You miss an opportunity to connect with

feelings and real reasons for concernfeelings and real reasons for concern

Hearing feelings establishes basis for Hearing feelings establishes basis for rapport and credibilityrapport and credibility


–– They may then “hear” your answersThey may then “hear” your answers

When you go directly to answers you When you go directly to answers you may discover you are answering may discover you are answering

the wrong questionthe wrong questionFearful people may not want specific answers, Fearful people may not want specific answers,

but rather to know that someone but rather to know that someone hears their feelingshears their feelings

Trying to Solve the Problem, Trying to Solve the Problem, May Lead to:May Lead to:

1. Solving the wrong problem1. Solving the wrong problem2. Solving problems,2. Solving problems,

when the audience is not looking for answerswhen the audience is not looking for answers3. Missing feelings, 3. Missing feelings,

which the audience wants us to hearwhich the audience wants us to hear


4. Taking away the opportunity for others to solve 4. Taking away the opportunity for others to solve their own problemstheir own problems

5. Not allowing others to build problem5. Not allowing others to build problem--solving skillssolving skills6. Inferring that others do not have the 6. Inferring that others do not have the right, right, responsibility, or capacity responsibility, or capacity to solve their own problemsto solve their own problems7. Giving our answers, that others can reject 7. Giving our answers, that others can reject

with the game of, "Yes, but . . . . . . . . . . . "with the game of, "Yes, but . . . . . . . . . . . "

Why Hear Feelings Rather Why Hear Feelings Rather than Give Answers ?than Give Answers ?

1.1. Hearing feelings establishes rapport Hearing feelings establishes rapport and credibilityand credibility

1.1. Otherwise they may not hear your answersOtherwise they may not hear your answers

22 You may discover your answers are aboutYou may discover your answers are about


2.2. You may discover your answers are about You may discover your answers are about the wrong question or concernthe wrong question or concern

3.3. Fearful person may not expect answers, Fearful person may not expect answers, 1.1. Just want someone to hear their fearsJust want someone to hear their fears

4.4. People may not care how much you know, People may not care how much you know, until they know how much you careuntil they know how much you care

13



Asking Questions vs Asking Questions vs Giving AnswersGiving Answers

People can discount your answersPeople can discount your answers

Position yourself as a resource to help Position yourself as a resource to help people find their own answerspeople find their own answers


p pp p–– Behavior guided more by their own Behavior guided more by their own

answers derived from observationsanswers derived from observations

Provide options for experience or Provide options for experience or observationobservation

Encourage skepticismEncourage skepticism

Natural to Give AnswersNatural to Give Answers

Not a matter of right or wrong Not a matter of right or wrong responsesresponses

Two precautions when giving answers:Two precautions when giving answers:–– Are you answering the right question ?Are you answering the right question ?


Are you answering the right question ?Are you answering the right question ?

–– Who owns the problem ?Who owns the problem ?

The giver of answers assumes the The giver of answers assumes the responsibilityresponsibility

Giving answers sets up opportunities Giving answers sets up opportunities for adversityfor adversity

Roadblocks That May Close Roadblocks That May Close Communications Communications

1.1. Ordering, directing, commandingOrdering, directing, commanding

2.2. Warning, threatening, promisingWarning, threatening, promising

33 Moralizing preachingMoralizing preaching shouldsshoulds oughtsoughts


3.3. Moralizing, preaching, Moralizing, preaching, shouldsshoulds, , oughtsoughts

4.4. Advising, giving solutions, suggestionsAdvising, giving solutions, suggestions

5.5. Teaching, lecturing, logical argumentsTeaching, lecturing, logical arguments

6.6. Judging, criticizing, disagreeingJudging, criticizing, disagreeing

Roadblocks That May Close Roadblocks That May Close CommunicationsCommunications

7. Praising, agreeing7. Praising, agreeing

8. Name calling, labeling, stereotyping8. Name calling, labeling, stereotyping

9. Interpreting, analyzing, diagnosing9. Interpreting, analyzing, diagnosing


9. Interpreting, analyzing, diagnosing9. Interpreting, analyzing, diagnosing

10. Reassuring, sympathizing, consoling10. Reassuring, sympathizing, consoling

11. Probing, questioning, interrogating11. Probing, questioning, interrogating

12. Withdrawing, distracting, humoring, 12. Withdrawing, distracting, humoring, sarcasm, diverting, indirectionsarcasm, diverting, indirection

Roadblock 11Roadblock 11-- Asking QuestionsAsking Questions

How can asking questions How can asking questions become a roadblock ?become a roadblock ?

Typically when technical people ask Typically when technical people ask questionsquestions it is to gather datait is to gather data


questions questions –– it is to gather data it is to gather data for giving answersfor giving answers

A better use of questions could be to A better use of questions could be to lead the other person to resolve lead the other person to resolve

their own problemstheir own problems

Review & QuestionsReview & Questions

Greatest challenge for HPsGreatest challenge for HPs–– Dialogues that involve emotion (feelings)Dialogues that involve emotion (feelings)

Answer is to hear feelings Answer is to hear feelings –– By Active ListeningBy Active Listening


By Active ListeningBy Active Listening–– Paraphrase content and feelingsParaphrase content and feelings

Requires moving outside Requires moving outside our comfort zoneour comfort zone

As trained “givers of answers” we want As trained “givers of answers” we want to quickly get into troubleshootingto quickly get into troubleshooting

14



How Not to RespondHow Not to RespondAvoid giving an evaluation, opinion, Avoid giving an evaluation, opinion,

advice, analysis, or questionsadvice, analysis, or questionsSuch responses come from your own Such responses come from your own

stuff, so you can take control stuff, so you can take control of the communicationof the communication


of the communicationof the communicationHard to leave initiative with other personHard to leave initiative with other personEspecially when you think they are wrong Especially when you think they are wrong

or misconstruing the factsor misconstruing the factsTry to avoid getting defensiveTry to avoid getting defensive

Communicating to Hear FeelingsCommunicating to Hear Feelings

1.1. Develop Develop Active ListeningActive Listening skillsskills

2.2. Talk in terms of Talk in terms of --

1.1. personal values… caring… personal values… caring…

hh i tii ti


harmony… harmony… appreciation… appreciation…

compassion… what is goodcompassion… what is good

for the people involved.for the people involved.

3.3. Use criticism gently Use criticism gently -- look for harmony firstlook for harmony first

4.4. Be personal Be personal -- avoid complex analysesavoid complex analyses

Name Some FeelingsName Some Feelings

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Active Listening ApproachActive Listening Approach

Respond to your perception of Respond to your perception of speaker’s speaker’s message and feelingsmessage and feelings

There are four feelings:There are four feelings:


––Mad,Mad, Sad, Sad, Glad, Glad, AfraidAfraidOpens doors to “real issues”Opens doors to “real issues”

Does not take away from:Does not take away from:–– Other person’s right, responsibility, and Other person’s right, responsibility, and

capacity to solve their own problemscapacity to solve their own problems

Hearing and Reflecting FeelingsHearing and Reflecting Feelings

Fears are best handled by hearing and Fears are best handled by hearing and reflecting feelingsreflecting feelings

Do not say, “I know how you feel.”Do not say, “I know how you feel.”–– You can never know another’s feelingsYou can never know another’s feelings

D ib th f li i dD ib th f li i d


Describe the feeling in your own wordsDescribe the feeling in your own words–– Let the other person correct youLet the other person correct you–– Four feelings Four feelings -- Mad, Sad, Glad, and AfraidMad, Sad, Glad, and Afraid

Dialogue processDialogue process–– Paraphrase and reflectParaphrase and reflect–– Do not interpret or rationalizeDo not interpret or rationalize

Examples of Active ListeningExamples of Active Listening“I don’t want to go near radiation”“I don’t want to go near radiation”–– “Radiation makes you nervous”“Radiation makes you nervous”

“Yes, I might still like to have children”“Yes, I might still like to have children”–– “You are afraid that radiation may affect “You are afraid that radiation may affect

whether you can have children”whether you can have children”


whether you can have childrenwhether you can have children

“Yes, I do not want children with 3 eyes”“Yes, I do not want children with 3 eyes”–– “So your real concern is whether “So your real concern is whether

radiation will affect future children”radiation will affect future children”

“Yes” “Yes” –– “Ok, here is what I have learned”“Ok, here is what I have learned”

15



Examples of Active ListeningExamples of Active Listening

“Radiation, I don’t want anything to do with it !”“Radiation, I don’t want anything to do with it !”

–– “Radiation is scary isn’t it ?”“Radiation is scary isn’t it ?”

“I don’t believe a word you are saying!”“I don’t believe a word you are saying!”

“You are concerned that I may not be telling“You are concerned that I may not be telling


–– You are concerned that I may not be telling You are concerned that I may not be telling

you the truth ?you the truth ?

“I know what happens when you are “I know what happens when you are

exposed to radiation ?”exposed to radiation ?”

–– “If you are exposed to radiation, you feel that “If you are exposed to radiation, you feel that

something bad will happen?something bad will happen?

Listening is the KeyListening is the KeyPeople’s concerns are about images of losses People’s concerns are about images of losses

or consequences of radiationor consequences of radiation

Identifying the basis for fears requires Identifying the basis for fears requires

listening and asking lots of questionslistening and asking lots of questions


–– Rather than giving answersRather than giving answers

Active listening is difficult for technical people Active listening is difficult for technical people

whose lives are about giving answerswhose lives are about giving answers

Giving answers also takes ownership Giving answers also takes ownership

of the problemof the problem

Axioms Axioms on Listeningon Listening


Feelings are more important than:Feelings are more important than:

–– What is saidWhat is said

Listening is more important than:Listening is more important than:

–– Solving problemsSolving problems

Hearing FeelingsHearing Feelings

Have you noticed when people are Have you noticed when people are repeating their story ?repeating their story ?

People will keep on repeating until People will keep on repeating until you hear the feelingsyou hear the feelings


you hear the feelingsyou hear the feelings–– When you hear the feelings they do not When you hear the feelings they do not

need to tell you their story againneed to tell you their story again

When you really hear the feelings,When you really hear the feelings,the feelings will go awaythe feelings will go away

Listening is the KeyListening is the Key

Worker concerns are about images of losses Worker concerns are about images of losses or consequences of radiationor consequences of radiation

What is the basis for upset or fears ?What is the basis for upset or fears ?

–– Upset fear Upset fear images hurt images hurt


pp ggsadness sadness wantwant

Identifying Identifying the basis for fears the basis for fears and upset requires and upset requires listening and asking lots of questionslistening and asking lots of questions

–– Rather than giving answersRather than giving answers

Giving Giving answers also takes ownership answers also takes ownership of the problemof the problem

Identifying Images / FearsIdentifying Images / Fears

Dealing with Dealing with upset or fears is upset or fears is about about dealing dealing with the underlying imageswith the underlying images

Images can be identified by the question,Images can be identified by the question,

“What’s so bad about that ?”“What’s so bad about that ?”What s so bad about that ?What s so bad about that ?This has to be used with sensitivityThis has to be used with sensitivity–– Do not use when a person is fearful Do not use when a person is fearful

–– The reason for fears is outside of their awarenessThe reason for fears is outside of their awareness

May need to raise the question several timesMay need to raise the question several times–– Like peeling away layers of an onionLike peeling away layers of an onion


16



Common Common FearsFears DyingDying

Loss of controlLoss of control

Loss of selfLoss of self

Loss of homeLoss of home

SicknessSickness

Loss of livelihoodLoss of livelihood

Loss of familyLoss of family

Loss of respectLoss of respect


Steps from Cause to EffectSteps from Cause to Effect1. 1. What are properties of radiationWhat are properties of radiation

-- xx--ray ray ? ? Form and quantity ?Form and quantity ?2. Where is it located ?2. Where is it located ?3. How is it contained ?3. How is it contained ?4. How will it move in the environment ?4. How will it move in the environment ?

Dade Moeller Radiation Safety AcademyDade Moeller Radiation Safety Academy 3838

5. What are the exposure conditions ?5. What are the exposure conditions ?6. How much energy is deposited in the body ?6. How much energy is deposited in the body ?7. What is the health risk ?7. What is the health risk ?

-- Based on evidence of actual effectsBased on evidence of actual effects“It is actually very difficult to seriously harm “It is actually very difficult to seriously harm

someone with radiation.”someone with radiation.”

Responding to Responding to ConcernsConcerns

1.1. Hear feelings firstHear feelings first

2.2. Check out views and imagesCheck out views and images

1.1. Ask yourself, Ask yourself,

“What’s so bad about that?”“What’s so bad about that?”


“What’s so bad about that?”“What’s so bad about that?”

3.3. Establish rapport by identifying with Establish rapport by identifying with the the

perceptions perceptions -- (Active (Active LListeningistening))

4.4. Share personal experienceShare personal experience

5.5. Lastly, provide factual informationLastly, provide factual information

Practice of Active ListeningPractice of Active ListeningReview one of your scenariosReview one of your scenarios

Pick a partner, decide who goes firstPick a partner, decide who goes first

Speaker Speaker -- Briefly describe the situationBriefly describe the situation

–– 10 to 15 seconds at most10 to 15 seconds at most


–– 10 to 15 seconds at most10 to 15 seconds at most

Listener Listener –– Respond with content Respond with content and feelingand feeling

Switch roles, share scenario and respondSwitch roles, share scenario and respond

Note: This is NOT troubleshootingNote: This is NOT troubleshooting

How Was Your Experience of How Was Your Experience of Active Listening ?Active Listening ?

Did it work ?Did it work ?

Was it difficult ?Was it difficult ?

Were you able to stay withWere you able to stay with


Were you able to stay with Were you able to stay with

the model of Active Listening ?the model of Active Listening ?

Were you tempted to troubleshoot ?Were you tempted to troubleshoot ?

Did you find yourself giving answers ?Did you find yourself giving answers ?

ReviewReview

Greatest challenge for HPsGreatest challenge for HPs–– Dialogues that involve emotion (feelings)Dialogues that involve emotion (feelings)

Answer is to hear feelings Answer is to hear feelings –– By Active ListeningBy Active Listening


By Active ListeningBy Active Listening–– Paraphrase content and feelingsParaphrase content and feelings

Requires moving outside Requires moving outside your comfort zoneyour comfort zone

As trained “givers of answers” we want As trained “givers of answers” we want to quickly get into troubleshootingto quickly get into troubleshooting

17



ReviewReviewTroubleshooting takes ownership and Troubleshooting takes ownership and

may solve wrong problemmay solve wrong problemListener’s StanceListener’s Stance–– RRtt + + RRpp + C+ Caa to TCOLto TCOL

Avoid defensivenessAvoid defensiveness


–– Active listening is NONActive listening is NON--defensivedefensive

Four feelings Four feelings –– Mad, Sad, Glad, AfraidMad, Sad, Glad, AfraidAxioms on listeningAxioms on listeningWhen you hear the feelings, When you hear the feelings,

they go awaythey go away

SummarySummaryMany workers may have concerns for Many workers may have concerns for

possible exposures to radiationpossible exposures to radiation

Use Use Active Active LListening istening to hear their to hear their fears and fears and feelingsfeelings

Ask lots of questions to determine theAsk lots of questions to determine the


Ask lots of questions to determine the Ask lots of questions to determine the basis of their basis of their fearsfears

–– Ask, “What’s so bad about that?”Ask, “What’s so bad about that?”

Provide information only as a resourceProvide information only as a resource

Help workers find their own Help workers find their own answersanswers–– Steps from cause to effectSteps from cause to effect

Learnings from this SessionLearnings from this Session


Questions & EvaluationQuestions & Evaluation


18

Raymond H. Johnson, MS, SE, PE, FHPS, CHP VP Training Programs, Dade Moeller & Associates 301-990-6006 Director, Radiation Safety Counseling Institute 301-370-8573 BS Civil Engineering (1961) University of Vermont MS Sanitary Engineering (1963) Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Prof. Sanitary Engineer Degree (1963) MIT and Harvard University PhD Studies, Radio and Nuclear Chemistry (1966–1972), Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst. Greater Washington Institute for Transactional Analysis - Counseling (1977–1980) American Board of Health Physics Certification (1983–present) Johns Hopkins Fellow, Organizational Systems (1984–1985) Past President and Fellow of the Health Physics Society (2000) President-elect Designate, American Academy of Health Physics (2011) Commissioned Stephen Minister – Counselor, United Methodist Church (2003–pres)

Experience 2010 – pres. Director , Radiation Safety Counseling Institute. Workshops, training, and counseling for individuals,

companies, universities, or government agencies with concerns or questions about radiation safety. Specialist in helping people understand radiation, risk communication, worker counseling, psychology of radiation safety, and dealing with fears of radiation and nuclear terrorism for homeland security.

2007 – pres. VP, Training Programs, Dade Moeller & Associates, training and consulting in radiation safety. 1984 - 2007 Director, Radiation Safety Academy. Providing x-ray and radiation safety training, audits, and consulting to

industry (nuclear gauges and x-ray), universities, research facilities, and professional organizations 1988 - 2006 Manager and Contractor to National Institutes of Health (NIH) for radiation safety audits of 3,500 research

laboratories and 2,500 instrument calibrations a year, along with environmental monitoring, hot lab and analytic lab operations, and accelerators and x-ray inspections.

1990 - 2005 President of Key Technology, Inc. a manufacturer and primary laboratory for radon analysis with over 1,500,000 measurements since 1985. Primary instructor at Rutgers University 1990-1998 for radon, radon measurements, radiation risks, radiation instruments, and radon risk communication courses.

1986 - 1988 Laboratory Director, RSO, Inc. Directed analytical programs and Quality Assurance for samples from NIH, Aberdeen Proving Ground, radiopharmaceutical companies, and the nuclear industry.

1970 - 1985 Chief, Radiation Surveillance Branch, EPA, Office of Radiation Programs. Directed studies of radiological quality of US, coordinated 7 Federal agencies for nuclear fallout events, QA officer 8 years. Head of US delegations to I.A.E.A and N.E.A. on radioactive waste disposal. ANSI N-13, (1975-1985). Retired PHS Commissioned Officer (0-6) in 1985 with 29 years of service.

1963 - 1970 U.S.P.H.S. Directed development of radiation monitoring techniques at DOE National Labs, nuclear plants, and shipyards in the US and Chalk River Nuclear Laboratory in Canada.

Health Physics and Professional Activities Health Physics Society (HPS) plenary member 1966; President-elect, President, Past President (1998-2001), Fellow (2000), Treasurer (1995-1998); Secretary (1992-1995); Executive Cmte. (1992-2001), Chair, Finance Cmte. (1996-1998); Head of U.S. delegation to IRPA X (2000). RSO Section Founder and Secretary/Treasurer (1997-2000); Co-founder and President, Radon Section (1995-1996). Co-Chair Local Arrangements Cmte. Annual Meeting in DC (1991); Public Info. Cmte. (1985-1988); Summer School Co-Chair (2004); Chair, President’s Emeritus, Cmte (2006); Chair, Awards Cmte. (2002); Chair, History Cmte. (2005-Pres.); Continuing Education Cmte. (2005-Pres,). Academic Dean for HPS Professional Development School on Radiation Risk Communication (2010). PEP, CEL and AAHP Instructor; Journal Reviewer; Treasurer, AAHP (2008 – Pres.). AAHP President-Elect Designate (2011). Baltimore-Washington Chapter: President (1990-1991) and Honorary Life Member; Newsletter Editor (1983-2005); Public Info. Chair (1983-1991), Science Teacher Workshop Leader (1995 – Pres.). New England Chapter: Newsletter Editor, Board of Directors, Education Chair (1968-1972). President, American Association of Radon Scientists and Technologists (1995-1998) and Honorary Life Member, Charter Member; Board of Directors; Newsletter Editor (1990-1993). Founder and first President, National Radon Safety Board (NRSB) (1997-1999). Member of Sigma Xi (1966-Pres.); ANS (1983-Pres.), Society for Risk Analysis (1984-Pres.); AIHA, CRPA, CRCPD (1997-Pres.), Studied H.P. communication styles and presented Myers-Briggs seminars to over 3500 H.P.s since 1984. Over 30 professional society awards. Registered Professional Engineer since 1965. Certified Health Physicist since 1983.

Publications

Authored over 500 book chapters, articles, professional papers, training manuals, technical reports, and presentations on radiation safety. Author of monthly column, “Insights in Communication” HPS Newsletter 1984 - 1989 and 1994 -2001. Contact at: 301-990-6006, [email protected]; or 301-370-8573, [email protected]

19

The Psychology of Radiation Safety - Welcome to Radiation ...radiationcounseling.org/docs/SimpleTools.pdf · Radiation Safety Simple Tools for ... if you are exposed to radiation?”

Documents