Warming up the language detector…

Possible feelings & needs to explore

Possible feelings

Needs that may be alive in you

Browse all feelings Browse all needs

Exact matches ready 0/1
Near matches queued 0/6

We’ll scan for cues as you type. We review up to 6 nearest cues at a time to keep things focused.

No matches yet.
Research-grounded (open-access links) Observation Guide: Low-Inference Description

Abstract

Constructing Low-Inference, Time-Bound Observations

This guide formalizes a fill-in-the-blank process for producing low-inference observational statements: descriptions restricted to verifiable sensory data (what was seen/heard), anchored to concrete time and context, and free of trait labels or motive attributions. The approach synthesizes findings from behavioral observation, psycholinguistics, and affect-regulation research. Linguistic abstraction increases biased social inference [1]; concreteness improves comprehension [2], [3]; and affect labeling is associated with reduced limbic reactivity [4].

Perspective-taking and I-language are linked to lower perceived hostility in communication contexts [5]. Research on basic psychological needs provides relevant context for why clear description may matter in interpersonal settings: autonomy/competence [6], [7] and belonging/social connection [8].

Operational Definition & Evidence Context

  • Recorder criterion: report only what a camera/microphone could capture (verbatim words, visible actions, measurable outcomes). Behavioral observation emphasizes observable units to aid reliability [9].
  • Time- and context-bound: specify when/where (e.g., “On Tue 15:10 in the team room…”). Concreteness improves comprehension and reduces ambiguity [2].
  • Avoid absolutes (“always/never/constantly”): prefer frequency, duration, or counts [3].
  • No mind-reading or motive attributions (e.g., “to hurt me,” “on purpose”): hostile-attribution tendencies relate to aggressive/negative responding [10], [11].
  • Quantify when feasible: counts, durations, latency, intensity (e.g., decibels). Linguistic abstraction inflates inference; measurables support shared description [1].

Observations describe events; other components (feelings/needs/requests) are handled elsewhere in the app. Separating description from evaluation aligns with evidence on perspective-taking/I-language [5].

Fill-in-the-Blank Procedure (Low-Inference Observation)

  1. Anchor the scene: “On [DATE] at [TIME] in [PLACE], …”. Concreteness advantage [2].
  2. Describe only what was sensed: “I saw/heard [ACTOR] [ACTION/WORDS].” Behavioral observation favors observable units [9].
  3. Quote verbatim when feasible: “[Exact words].” Wording influences blame inferences; direct quotes minimize reinterpretation [12].
  4. Quantify: “[N times / for M minutes / on D dates / ~latency].” Replace vague adverbs with measurable data [3].
  5. Remove evaluations: omit trait adjectives and “too/should” adverbs; substitute the underlying observable behavior. Language framing affects judgment [12].
  6. Remove intent clauses (e.g., “to annoy me”). Hostile intent attributions are linked with negative responding; keep to what occurred [10].

Template: “On [DATE] at [TIME] in [PLACE], I saw/heard [ACTOR] [ACTION/WORDS]. This occurred [COUNT/DURATION/LATENCY].”

Automated Flags & Coaching Prompts

  • Absolutes: flag “always/never/constantly/every time.” Prompt for timeframe and count [2].
  • Trait labels: flag “rude, selfish, careless, disrespectful, aggressive, lazy,” etc. Prompt: “Describe the exact behavior instead” [12].
  • Mind-reading: flag “on purpose,” “to hurt me,” “because you don’t care.” Prompt: “Omit intent; report the observable act” [10].
  • Causation claims without evidence: flag “for no reason,” “made me,” unless tied to a measurable outcome. Encourage sticking to recorded events.
  • Perspective-taking for later steps: I-language and checking understanding are associated with less defensive escalation [5].

Evaluation → Observation (Worked Examples)

Evaluation: ““You’re always late and inconsiderate.””
Observation: ““In the past two weeks, you arrived 5–15 minutes after our agreed time on three occasions.”” Why it works: Replaces global language with time-bound frequency; concreteness improves agreement [2].
Evaluation: ““Janice works too much.””
Observation: ““Janice logged 62 on-site hours this week, including Saturday.”” Why it works: Removes evaluative adverb; supplies measurable quantity [3].
Evaluation: ““He left the party to hurt me.””
Observation: ““He left the party without saying goodbye at 9:10 p.m.”” Why it works: Strips motive attribution; hostile-attribution research cautions against inferred intent [10].
Evaluation: ““You were rude in the meeting.””
Observation: ““During the 2:00–2:15 agenda item, while I was speaking, you interrupted twice (timestamps 08:12 and 09:47).”” Why it works: Replaces trait with event-bounded counts; wording shapes perceived blame [12].

Measurement Concepts: Operational Definitions, ABC, Agreement

This section summarizes commonly used measurement concepts that may inform personal or professional record-keeping in observational work.

  1. Operational definitions with exemplars/non-examples [9].
  2. ABC recording with timestamps; where feasible, use continuous measures (count, duration, latency) [13], [14].
  3. Inter-observer agreement (IOA) on a sample of observations; consider statistics appropriate to the data (e.g., kappa) [15], [16].
  4. Audit for observer drift and recalibrate using reference clips/exemplars [15].

Context: Research on Psychological Needs

Why this tab exists. Writing low-inference observations is easier when users understand why neutral, time-bound description matters in relationships. This tab collates open-access research on frequently studied psychological needs. It does not prescribe which needs you have. Its purpose is to show how clear description can support later steps (like identifying feelings/needs) by creating a shared factual baseline. For related evidence on perspective-taking and language use in communication, see: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5961625/.

  • What you’re looking at. Short summaries plus raw-URL links to readable, evidence-based sources (open-access reviews/advisories/articles). The full URLs are included so you can verify them yourself.
  • How this connects to observational skill. Neutral, time-bound description can reduce ambiguity and perceived social threat, which may make collaboration on next steps easier. This general idea aligns with research on needs commonly discussed in interpersonal settings—autonomy, competence, belonging, trust, and safety. See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5050353/; https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/topics/basic-psychological-needs/; https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/surgeon-general-social-connection-advisory.pdf; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21058850/; https://www.dignityhealth.org/articles/how-human-connection-can-relieve-stress.

Autonomy & competence. Research on basic psychological needs suggests people benefit when they can make informed, self-directed choices and feel effective in their actions. Clear, low-inference description helps establish a shared situation model that can support agency and planning. Sources: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5050353/; https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/topics/basic-psychological-needs/.

Belonging / social connection. Neutral description can lower perceived social threat and open space for cooperation, which is relevant given public-health summaries linking social connection to well-being. Source: https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/surgeon-general-social-connection-advisory.pdf.

Trust & safety. Language that avoids motive attributions and global labels is less likely to be received as threatening. Evidence connecting interpersonal trust with stress physiology provides useful context for why non-judging description can feel safer. Sources: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21058850/; https://www.dignityhealth.org/articles/how-human-connection-can-relieve-stress.

Limitations & Scope Notes

  • Memory/measurement: observations depend on recall or recording fidelity; contemporaneous notes/quotes provide clearer records [9].
  • Intent is not adjudicated by observation: avoid hostile attributions [10].
  • Cultural/linguistic nuance: perceptions of “neutral” phrasing can vary; invite verification of wording.
  • Scope: this guide summarizes research and provides structured prompts; it does not determine clinical reliability or outcomes.

References

  1. uni-muenster.de – Linguistic abstraction and inference study (1989)
  2. PMC6353691 – Concreteness and comprehension research
  3. PMC8773921 – Measurement-focused language guidance
  4. Lieberman et al. (2007) – Affect labeling reduces limbic response
  5. PMC5961625 – Perspective-taking and I-language outcomes
  6. PMC5050353 – Autonomy and competence needs review
  7. Self-Determination Theory – Basic psychological needs overview
  8. U.S. Surgeon General – Social connection advisory
  9. PMC4766977 – Behavioral observation reliability guidance
  10. PMC4243523 – Hostile attribution and aggression analysis
  11. Frontiers in Psychology – Hostile attribution coaching study
  12. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review – Language framing and blame study
  13. opentext.wsu.edu – ABC recording overview
  14. PMC4841258 – Functional assessment measurement research
  15. PMC10098472 – Observer agreement calibration study
  16. edpsychassociates.com – Kappa statistic primer
  17. PubMed 21058850 – Interpersonal trust and stress pathways
  18. Dignity Health – Human connection and stress relief

Quick mobile reference

Observation mini-guide

Tap a card for research-backed pointers. The full desktop guide stays available if you rotate or switch to a larger screen.

Start here What counts as an observation Stick to verifiable sights and sounds.
  • Camera-ready facts only—words, actions, measurable results [9].
  • Anchor the time and location to keep statements concrete [2].
  • Swap absolutes for counts, durations, or frequencies [3].
  • Drop motive guesses or labels; stay with what happened [10].

Observations cover events; feelings, needs, and requests have their own steps.

Write it out Fill-in-the-blank recipe Use this structure when you capture a moment.
  1. Scene setter: “On [DATE] at [TIME] in [PLACE]…” [2].
  2. What you sensed: “I saw/heard [ACTOR] [ACTION/WORDS].” [9].
  3. Exact words when possible. Quotes reduce interpretation [12].
  4. Measurements beat vague adverbs (how many times, how long) [3].
  5. Drop value judgments or intent guesses; stick to what occurred [12].

Quick template: “On [DATE] at [TIME] in [PLACE], I saw/heard [ACTOR] [ACTION/WORDS] [COUNT/DURATION].”

Spot checks When the app will nudge you Flags catch language that drifts from low-inference wording.
  • Absolutes like “always/never”—expect a prompt for specific counts [2].
  • Trait labels (rude, careless, disrespectful)—swap for what was seen [12].
  • Mind-reading (“on purpose,” “because you don’t care”)—return to observable facts [10].
  • Unbacked causation (“made me,” “for no reason”)—tie claims to measurable effects when you have them.
  • Future steps: I-language and perspective checks lower defensiveness later on [5].
See it in action From evaluation to observation Compare a judgment with a low-inference rewrite.
Evaluation: ““You’re always late and inconsiderate.””
Observation: ““In the past two weeks, you arrived 5–15 minutes after our agreed time on three occasions.”” Why it works: Replaces global language with time-bound frequency [2].
Evaluation: ““Janice works too much.””
Observation: ““Janice logged 62 on-site hours this week, including Saturday.”” Why it works: Removes evaluative adverb; supplies measurable quantity [3].
Evaluation: ““He left the party to hurt me.””
Observation: ““He left the party without saying goodbye at 9:10 p.m.”” Why it works: Strips motive attribution; hostile-attribution research cautions against inferred intent [10].
Evaluation: ““You were rude in the meeting.””
Observation: ““During the 2:00–2:15 agenda item, while I was speaking, you interrupted twice (timestamps 08:12 and 09:47).”” Why it works: Replaces trait with event-bounded counts [12].
Research practice If you need stronger evidence Useful for programs, facilitation, or research settings.
  • Define behaviors with examples and non-examples [9].
  • Use ABC logs with timestamps; capture counts, durations, or latency [13], [14].
  • Calibrate observers with agreement checks (kappa, % agreement) [15], [16].
  • Watch for observer drift; schedule refreshers with sample clips [15].
Why it matters Link to needs & nervous systems Neutral description keeps the door open for collaboration.

Clear, time-bound language supports autonomy and competence because everyone sees the same scenario to solve [6].

Lowering ambiguity builds belonging and social safety [8] and buffers stress responses tied to trust [17], [18].

Scope check Limits to remember Use observations as inputs—not verdicts.
  • Memories fade; jot notes or quote quickly when accuracy matters [9].
  • Observations do not prove intent—skip hostile attributions [10].
  • Language norms shift; invite people to sanity-check phrasing across cultures.
  • This guide summarizes research, not clinical or legal rulings.
Want the studies? Reference library Tap to browse full links in a single list.
  1. Linguistic abstraction & inference (1989)
  2. Concreteness improves comprehension
  3. Measurement-focused language guidance
  4. Affect labeling & limbic response
  5. Perspective-taking & I-language outcomes
  6. Autonomy & competence needs review
  7. Basic psychological needs overview
  8. Social connection advisory
  9. Behavioral observation reliability guidance
  10. Hostile attribution & aggression analysis
  11. Hostile attribution coaching study
  12. Language framing & blame study
  13. ABC recording overview
  14. Functional assessment measurement research
  15. Observer agreement calibration study
  16. Kappa statistic primer
  17. Interpersonal trust & stress pathways
  18. Human connection & stress relief

Need the tabbed layout? Rotate your device or open this page on desktop to switch back to the full research view.