The Preferred Representational System (PRS)

Much of the research done in the 1980s on NLP as concerned with a concept developed by Bandler & Grinder 19!"#$ the hi%hly valued representational syste&' an ad(unct to the representational syste&s &odel whose basic pre&ise is that people represent and or%anise the e)ternal world usin% internal syste&s based on the five senses* Bandler & Grinder proposed that +the predicates' the words a person chooses to describe their situation , when they are specified by representational syste&' let us -now what their consciousness is* .he predicates indicate what portion /of internal representations0 they brin% into awareness*+ .hese +predicates are used to describe the portions of a person1s e)perience which correspond to the processes in that e)perience$+ pp 9#* .he &ost i&portant i&plication of this &odel was that +by consciously selectin% your predicates to &atch those of the person with who& you want to co&&unicate' you will succeed in acco&plishin% clearer and &ore direct co&&unications+ pp* 12#

Sample Predicates
Kinesthetic 3eel .ouch 3eels Visual 4ee 4how Loo-s Auditory 5ear Listen 4ounds

The Original Interpretation

Bandler & Grinder 19!"# ori%inally specified a +hi%hly valued representational syste&6+

+7e' as hu&ans' usually have a &ost hi%hly valued representational syste&' and very often we will ne%lect to use the additional representational syste&s available to us*+ pp* 82# +7e tend to use one or &ore of these representational syste&s as a &ap &ore often than the others'+ pp* 8# +9o&&ents such as 1: see what you1re sayin%1 are &ost often co&&unicated by people who or%ani;e their world pri&arily with pictures* .hese are people whose &ost hi%hly valued representational syste& is visual'+ +People li&it the&selves by deletin% a portion of their e)perience /and0 leavin% out an entire representational syste&' /reducin%0 his &odel and his e)perience*+ pp* 18# +:f we co&&unicate with predicates that are -inesthetic' it will be easier for /a 1-inesthetic person10 both to understand our co&&unication and to -now that we understand hi&* .his process of shiftin% predicates to allow our clients to

understand our co&&unication with %reater ease is the basis and the be%innin% of trust*+ pp* 1<# +.his particular client1s &odel of the world was pri&arily visual+ pp 1!#

Conceptions of PRS In The Research Literature

Much of the research based upon the concept of a P=4 adopted a fairly constrained interpretation of Bandler & Grinder1s &odel* 3or e)a&ple6

+People perceive events in the world and subse>uently represent their sub(ective e)perience of these events pri&arily throu%h one of the visual' auditory' and -inesthetic sensory syste&s' even thou%h sti&uli i&pin%e on all sensory channels*+ ?llic-son' 198@# +People have a pri&ary or preferred representational syste& P=4# for representin% the world* :nfor&ation is processed as visual' auditory' or -inesthetic i&a%es'+ ?lich' .ho&pson and Miller' 1982# +:f the therapist can ascertain the client1s P=4 and interact with the client in the client1s P=4' enhanced co&&unication' trust' and therapeutic pro%ress will result'+ ?lich et* al*# +Bandler and Grinder ar%ue that co&&unication between a therapist and a client with different P=4s is difficult because each co&&unicates throu%h different &odes of e)perience and internal representations of the world*+ ?lich et* al*# +7hen the counsellor identifies the client1s representational syste& and then co&&unicates in the sa&e sensory syste&' understandin% between client and counsellor is increased and rapport is enhanced*+ ?llic-son' 198@# +9o&&unication between individuals with differin% P=4s can be difficult+ 3al;ett' 1981#

An Alternative Interpretation
9onceptions of the representational syste&s &odel within the research literature tended to i%nore Bandler & Grinder1s indications of fle)ibility and conte)t,specificity6

+By &ost hi%hly valued representational syste& we &ean the representational syste& the person typically uses to brin% infor&ation into consciousness' to represent the world and his e)perience to hi&self* A person &ay have &ore than one &ost hi%hly valued representational syste&' alternatin% the&*+ pp* 8"' 19!"# +7hen you play athletics or &a-e love' you have a lot of -inesthetic sensitivity* 7hen you are readin% or watchin% a &ovie' you have a lot of visual consciousness* Bou can shift fro& one to the other* .here are conte)tual &ar-ers that allow you to shift fro& one strate%y to another*+ p@"' 19!9# +Bou are usin% all syste&s all the ti&e* :n a particular conte)t you will be aware of one syste& &ore than another+ p @"' 19!9# +4o&e representational syste&s &ay be &ore efficient for certain tas-s*+ pp* 8"' 19!"#

+After allowin% yourself to hear and to identify the person1s representational syste&' as- hi& directly how he is or%anisin% his e)perience at this point in time*+ pp* 11' 19!"# +/Cne variable to deter&ine' is0 the client1s &ost hi%hly valued representational syste& for this problem.+ pp* 1!<# +Most people use the sa&e -ind of strate%y to do everythin%+' but +rather than thin-in% of yourself as bein% visually oriented' -inesthetically oriented' or auditorily oriented' ta-e what you do best as a state&ent about which syste& you already have well,developed and refined*+ pp* @"' 19!9#

?inspruch & 3or&an 1982# see& to be the only researchers who too- note of the rather i&plicit su%%estions &ade by Bandler & Grinder' criticisin% nu&erous research studies for apparently not considerin% or providin% ade>uate controls for the fact that +the representational syste& in which infor&ation will be stored or fro& which it will be retrieved is hi%hly conte)tuali;ed i*e* varies with the situation#' and this conte)t will directly influence the syste& used*+

Inaccurate Perceptions
:n addition' so&e acade&ic authors &ade theoretical and practical e)tensions to the &odel which were not necessarily in line with the ori%inal specifications* .hese additions have resulted in detri&ental conse>uences to the research' %iven that their i&plications result in testin% &odels other than those defined by NLP*

+Most co%nitive events associated with day,to,day e)periences are principally encoded in one of the three &a(or &odalities*+ Gu&&' 7al-er and Day' 1988#* An +individual1s e)perience will then be stored in a pri&ary representational syste& P=4#$ that is' the sensory syste& &ost fre>uently used*+ 3al;ett' 1981# Note that the original specifications of representational systems did not refer to encoding or storage processes at all. It was not necessary to propose storage strategies, because they cannot be determined through - nor are they relevant to verbal or nonverbal communication. +.he counselor can &onitor the client1s eye &ove&ents durin% the counselin% session'+ or +si&ply see- the client1s own opinion re%ardin% the client1s preferred &odality'+ to +identify the client1s P=4+ Gu&&' 7al-er and Day' 1988#* Dorn 198@# also e)plores the latter techni>ue' despite ac-nowled%in% in the sa&e paper that +people unconsciously choose specific words that best represent an e)perience* Note that Bandler & Grinder originally proposed tracking predicates as the only appropriate behaviour to determine the highly valued representational system. Dorn 198@# atte&pted to deter&ine participants P=4 throu%h as-in% participants to select their preferred predicate fro& each of 18 sets of three predicates$ one visual' one auditory and one -inaesthetic* .he study thus assu&ed that choosin% a word presented visually reflects upon a si&ilar syste& or strate%y involved in &a-in% word choices in verbal descriptive action' which is an unwarranted assu&ption*

Dorn 198@# lists +blast+ as an auditory predicate which appeared in one of the triads ta-en fro& Bandler & Grinder' 19!"#* Althou%h the source is one of the ori%inal NLP sourceboo-s' +blast+ is in fact' non,specific' potentially referrin% to visual i&a%e of a dyna&ite blast#' auditory tru&pet blast# or -inaesthetic a blast of hot air# representations* :t is a si&ple tas- to chec- whether predicates are +clean'+ i*e* specific to one and only one representational syste&' and as such should not be overloo-ed in serious research*

.wo i&portant issues are inherent in these illustrations6 1* Definitions and presuppositions of NLP &odels &ust be a%reed upon and ade>uately defined to avoid &isinterpretation* 8* Models tested in e)peri&ental studies &ust be in line with the presuppositions contained in the &odel bein% investi%ated* 7e reco&&end co&prehensive and professionally,accredited NLP trainin%' to provide the distinctions necessary to perfor& useful and beneficial e)peri&ental studies into the area of NLP*

The Current Specification

9learly &any researchers were not able to wholly interpret and apply the full P=4 specification in their research' and this calls attention to the i&portant of havin% clearly and concretely specified &odels within NLP* 7hether or not the subse>uent research on the preferred representational syste& influenced the conceptions of the &odel within the NLP co&&unity' it is clear that Bostic 4t* 9lair & Grinder1s 8001# New 9ode e&phasis on individual calibration and sensory acuity' precludes such a ri%idly specified &odel* =espondin% directly to sensory e)perience re>uires an i&&ediacy which respects the i&portance of conte)t and i&plicitly ac-nowled%es the fle)ibility and conte)t,dependence of peoples1 &ental strate%ies in &any diverse do&ains* :n his 199" interview on this website' Eohn Grinder has reco&&ended that +anyone usin% the representational syste& &aterial e*%* eye &ove&ent patterns' unconscious selection of predicates****#' /should0 reco%ni;e and act con%ruently with the proposition that +the te&poral value of a representational syste& dia%nosis is @0 seconds*+ Bostic 4t* 9lair & Grinder1s definition in +7hisperin% in the 7ind'+ calls attention to the ability to shift between representational syste&s6 +.he selection of predicates under nor&al circu&stances is an unconscious act , this &a-es it particularly valuable to the trained listener as the spea-ers are thereby revealin% what their present on%oin% underlyin% activated &ode of thou%ht and processin% is' typically without any awareness that they are offerin% such infor&ation* :t is relatively si&ple to develop si%nificant states of rapport by the si&ple strate%y of trac-in% that is' followin% the lead of# the representation syste& preferred by the person you are atte&ptin% to achieve rapport with

, as they shift fro& one representational syste& to another' you si&ply ad(ust your co&&unciation to re&ain in synch*+ .hus because +both parties are presentin% their &aterial in the sa&e representational syste&'+ infor&ation transfer is effective and efficient* Note that Bostic 4t* 9lair and Grinder describe preference for representational syste& in the sa&e breath as describin% their ability to shift between the& in their co&&unications , presupposin% conte)t,specificity* .hus' in specific conte)ts' a particular sensory syste& &ay ta-e do&inance for e)a&ple' bein% pri&arily aware of e)ternal -inesthetic representations , bodily &ove&ents and sensations , while swi&&in%' or concentratin% preferentially on auditory co&parisons while co&posin% a new &elody on the piano#' =epresentational syste& preferences thus tend to be a conte)tual artefact in that when an individual considers specific conte)ts' their lan%ua%e can reflect how they process the infor&ation relatin% to the process of considerin% that conte)t* :n certain cases a person &ay find the&selves with certain ri%id representations and strate%ies which preclude behavioural choice* :n such a case' where one representational syste& &ay predo&inate' +the only thin% you need to do is to (oin their syste& wherever they are F and then slowly overlap to lead the& into the syste& you want to en%a%e the& F with+ 19!"' p<<#* .hus sensory predicates should be &atched in real,ti&e' at the &o&ent a person produces the&* :n fact' 5a&&er 198@# used the process of trac-in% and &atchin% or &is&atchin% predicates in this &anner' findin% an effect of &atchin% on perceived e&pathy' althou%h 5a&&er also ne%lected other &ethodolo%ical issues renderin% the study inconclusive*

Conclusion
Gnderstandin% the develop&ent and the issues surroundin% the P=4 concept is a vital step in interpretin% the results of acade&ic research into NLP* 7hether or not the research has had a direct i&pact upon the e)istin% representational syste&s &odel' the current &odel is further in line with the New 9ode principle of calibration and the i&portance of considerin% the role of conte)t in any co&&unication*