I find it so ironic that someone with a PhD in psychology wrote an article about validation and invalidation. About the worst people I`ve ever met for being judgmental, criticized, abusive, intimidated, dismissive and of course debilitating, people are in the psychology industry. IRONY! It is as if Hitler was educating people about the injustice of anti-Semitism. Scott, I totally agree with you. The article says that validation is not a match. But some people insist on reaching an agreement, and if they don`t get it, they get angry and claim they will be “invalidated.” It`s insidious, and articles like this should deal with it. Use the How do I validate others button? Worksheet to review a recent session with a client and assess the extent to which you have validated it verbally and non-verbally (modified by Rather & Miller, 2015). Subjective validation describes the tendency of people to believe or accept an idea or statement when presented to them in a personal and positive way. [5] An example of subjective validation can be found in horoscopes, which often make vague and easily generalizable personal statements, sometimes called “Barnum statements,” that apply to almost all individuals,[6] such as: “You have a large amount of unused capacity that you have not used to your advantage.” This can lead to attributing future success to the horoscope and feeling that belief in it has been confirmed. Essentially, subjective validation is a confirmation bias against information that personally benefits self-esteem. In 1998, positive organizational psychology gained legitimacy at work when the movement`s father, Martin Seligman, used it as a theme for his […] Sometimes people use the claim for the need for confirmation as an excuse to beat other people. In their world, they may be rude to others, but insist that it is “who they are” and that their feelings need to be confirmed.

In the broadest sense, validation refers to the process of establishing the truth, accuracy or soundness of a judgment, decision or interpretation. In occupational and organizational psychology, validation generally focuses on the quality of interpretations of psychological tests and other assessment methods that serve as the basis for decisions about people`s working lives. Before specifically discussing validation, it is necessary to clarify some essential concepts for the decision-making process based on psychological tests. I think you are right. Low-level validation may seem dishonest. If you just say “This must have been terrible, I can understand why you`re upset!” and don`t tell the rest of the story (if you`re really provoked enough by this), I think your communication is misleading. Some people use it tactically to make the person feel safe enough to open up to different perspectives. I find this problematic because people may feel cheated if they think you confirmed them at level five, and then later find out that you really thought they were f.e. self-centered, unjust and acting like a child. This can make it very difficult for them to trust your validation in the future. Therefore, I think it is important, at the lower levels of validation, to explain what you understand and what you do not understand; It means being nuanced. This last point is not mentioned in the article, and I think this perspective is missing in many technical texts.

I wrote a few articles about it on my blog (in Norwegian, but there is a translation function): psykologiogsamfunn2.blogspot.no/2014/06/validering.html psykologiogsamfunn2.blogspot.no/2013/09/hva-er-bli-forstatt-mentaliseringsteori.html You might say, “I understand that you are upset because your husband cut your credit cards without your consent – it made you feel like he was behaving like your parents.” You reflect his thoughts and emotions and show that you accept these feelings as his inner experience. But her inner experience is like that of a spoiled child, and I don`t know how to act like that because she was wrong. She should have felt that he was behaving like his parents – because she made him behave like his parents by behaving like a child. It was entirely her fault, from start to finish, why did she confirm her moans about a situation she had caused on her own? SHE did the damage, he reacted only to spare his finances. He did nothing wrong because she spent too much several times, it is obvious that he tried to do things differently, and she refused to change his behavior, then she had the nerve to complain about it as if she were the victim, and reshape the situation to make him look like the villain, when the villain was her. She caused the situation she complains about, but she wants to play the victim and thinks she deserves sympathy for a VERY justified action (cut the card). Why should such a thing be validated? A test has construction validity if it shows a relationship between the test results and the prediction of a theoretical characteristic. Intelligence tests are an example of measuring instruments that should have construction validity. A valid intelligence test should be able to accurately measure the construction of intelligence and not other characteristics such as memory or education level. Consider your ability to validate and the level at which you usually validate: Excellent article that “validates” my current understanding and experience with self-validation techniques as a person with BPD. I found that more than anything I`ve ever tried, along with mindfulness, confirmation was the most effective way to achieve peace with myself. So what do you suggest when a person is so angry that it`s like they can`t even hear you recognize them? Or, if they hack you with criticism and insults (some of which may even be completely false, paranoid accusations) until you try to defend yourself (verbally, try to refute the accusations), which then gives them the “green light” to get into a screaming rage against you? I get angry when someone cuts me off in traffic.

It`s a real feeling. It`s not bad to feel anger. It is wrong to let this accumulate to the point of anger and endanger the life of the other driver. Confirming my anger is good. Tolerating my anger in the street is not and is not a “confirmation”. When someone describes a situation, notice their emotional state. Next, name the emotions you hear or guess what the person might be feeling. Evidence of validity related to the criteria is usually correlational, as selection decisions are usually based on individual differences inaccessible to experimental manipulations. This evidence is typically collected by current collaborators as part of a concurrent validation study or by applicants as part of a predictive validation study, and there are many specific methodological variations to capture predictive and criteria data. Other strategies for generating empirical data relevant to inferences 4 and 5 include experimental and quasi-experimental research.