doc.writeln('<p>Julia Wood has provided one set of answers below. These are not the only reasonable answers, so individual faculty might want to supplement these answers with additional points of emphasis.</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> A first priority is to assure Toya she is valued. It will be easier to discuss ways of improving her job performance if you establish a base of support for her and her work. By reassuring Toya, you establish this base of support, and it increases the chance that you can meet your ethical responsibilities to fulfill your supervisor\'s expectations and to mentor Toya. To provide this reassurance, you might say: "I haven\'t heard anyone talking about you. I really think you\'ve gotten off to a very good start with us, and that you can have a bright future here." After communicating that you value Toya, you could then say: "And I think all of us can improve. I know I\'m working on improving my performance. Even though it\'s good already, it can always be better. I feel the same way about you. Your work is good, and I think you can make it even better."</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> Ideally, your responsibilities to Toya, your supervisor, and the company are compatible. If you mentor Toya so that she achieves her potential as an employee, you will satisfy your supervisor and the company. There could be an ethical dilemma if Toya resists your suggestions for improving her work. Then you must decide whether to let your supervisor know that she is not responding to your suggestions. The best chance of avoiding this dilemma is to create a supportive relationship with Toya in which she can accept feedback and work to improve her job performance without feeling threatened.</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> Linear models portray communication as one way, listeners as passive, and communication as rigidly sequential. If you acted according to a linear model, you would not look for feedback from Toya while you were speaking, and you would assume that she simply absorbs your communication without taking any active role herself.</p><p class="Inst">In contrast, if you adopted a transactive model of communication, you would realize that you and Toya are jointly involved in communication, so you would be attentive to her responses to what you say. You would also realize that noise can interfere with clear communication. For instance, Toya may be experiencing some psychological noise: concerns about her job safety or your support of her. A transactive model would also lead you to recognize that Toya\'s field of experience influences how she interprets your communication. She may have had bad work experiences before that are affecting how she perceives the current interaction with you. Finally, a transactive model stress that communication is an ongoing process, which reminds you that how you respond to Toya\'s concerns can affect what is possible as this conversation progresses.</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> There are many ways to answer this question. One important starting point is to realize that your relationship with Hailley is a process. Thus, it may take time for you to help her. A second important starting point is to communicate clearly that you are her friend and you support her. Although this may be difficult when you are concerned about her relationship with Dan, preserving the friendship between you and Hailley is essential if you want to keep open the possibilities of communication with her. By keeping those possibilities open, you create the opportunity to have positive impact on her.</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> Hailley has said that she knows a lot of people with boyfriends who act like Dan. Talking with these people may lead Hailley to think that it is normal and acceptable for Dan to hurt her. One way for you to be a friend to Hailley is to provide her with alternative social comparisons by talking about romantic relationships in which there is no violence and talking about women who left men who hurt them.</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> Yes. One way to be a constructive looking glass self for Hailley would be to reflect to her how you saw her before she started going out with Dan (positive, confident). This may help her see how much she has changed in the relationship and may allow her to reclaim her former self.</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> In abusive relationships, the abuser often isolates the victim from others so that his influence is the primary one on her. The scenario makes it clear that Hailley is becoming isolated from her friends. You might invite other friends over when Hailley is with you so that she interacts more with people who see her strengths and who treat her caringly. As Hailley\'s friend, you can support her and help create a context that fosters a healthy change in her self-concept. However, Hailley (not you!) has the responsibility to decide who she will be and whether she wants to change.</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> Uppers communicate positively about others and their worth. You might comment on times when she is graceful (not clumsy) and smart (not stupid) to give her a contrast to the reflection of herself that Dan offers. You can communicate what you see as Hailley\'s strengths and worth without endorsing her acceptance of hurtful treatment from Dan.</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> Jim\'s father attributes Jim\'s average grades to internal (Jim\'s priorities), global (generalizable pattern) factors that Jim can control: choosing to party continuously instead of studying when he could choose to study more). Jim attributes his grades to external causes (hard classes) that he cannot control. Jim also assumes the factors influencing his grades are stable: his classes aren\'t going to get any easier.</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> You could ask a number of questions to help Jim figure out whether the causes of his average grades really are external, stable, and beyond his control. Relevant questions include these: "Did you study more and hang out with friends less in high school? If so, were your grades better?" "What was different about the courses in which you made Bs and the ones in which you made Ds?" "Do you ever talk with professors or study with other students in your classes?" "How much time do you spend studying?"</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> Jim has a construct that assesses students as brilliant (like his dad) or not (like him). His father has a construct of students as working hard (his perception of himself) or not working hard (his perception of Jim). His father\'s prototype of the ideal college student is someone who works hard and makes studying and grades the #1 priority. Jim\'s prototype of the ideal college student is someone who spends some time with friends. As a consequence of these constructs and prototypes, Jim\'s dad endorses a script for college life of studying, making good grades, and not letting anything interfere with that. In contrast, Jim\'s script for college life involves hanging out with friends while making average grades.</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> Realize that you may not be able to help Jim and his father reach a shared perspective. Remember from Chapter 1 that communication is not a panacea--it cannot solve all problems. Jim and his father may have irreconcilable differences. Yet you don\'t want to assume at the outset that Jim and his dad cannot develop a more shared perspective on Jim\'s academic work. You might encourage Jim to show his father some of his textbooks and assignments. His father may not understand how much college has changed since he was a student. You might also ask Jim how he would feel if he had put himself through school and was now putting his son through school and he felt his son wasn\'t working. These communications should foster greater dual perspective between Jim and his father.</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> Ed and his manager have different constitutive rules for what counts as commitment to the company. Ed has a constitutive rule that states doing his job counted as showing commitment to the company. His manager has a constitutive rule that states attending the annual banquet counts as showing commitment to the company.</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> Ed needs to get into the informal network. He could have understood his manager\'s constitutive rule if he had had conversations with his co-workers before the banquet. Ed might also have asked his manager whether there would be a problem if he missed the banquet. In the future, he would be wise to talk with co-workers and his manager about company issues, events, and so forth.</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> Words such as "loyalty," "commitment," and "who is with us and who isn\'t" mean different things to different people. Ed didn\'t see missing the banquet as a measure of his commitment to the company; his supervisor did. "Invitation" is another abstract, ambiguous word. Ed read the invitation to the banquet as asking him to attend. His manager and others with the company understood it to mean "you will attend."</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> Ed might start out by working to achieve dual perspective. To communicate effectively with his manager, he needs to understand his manager\'s perspective in a non-defensive way. Once Ed realizes that his manager sees attendance at the banquet as a show of commitment, he will appreciate why his manager is upset. He should also realize that his manager\'s disapproval suggests the manager has high expectations for Ed and his career with the company. (The manager is upset only because Ed\'s commitment to the company matters to the manager.) Ed might then go to his manager and say that he hadn\'t understood how important the banquet was. Relying on I-language, Ed might say: "I felt confused when you said that you noticed who is \'really with us and who is not.\'" "I didn\'t understand what the banquet met." "I feel like I let you down, but I didn\'t know I was doing it." Ed might also use indexing to assure his manager that the Ed (who missed this year\'s banquet) will not be the Ed (at next year\'s banquet).</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> Not understanding organizational rules is inherent in being a new employee. It is most difficult to understand the unwritten, unofficial rules, such as what attending an annual banquet means. Gilsdorf\'s study underlines the importance of checking perceptions with others--co-workers and managers to learn an organization\'s rules.</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> Ms. Ryder is clearly preoccupied with her medical problem, which may be appropriate in the context of a doctor-patient conference. Dr. Zhug\'s attention to his papers suggests he may be preoccupied with the tests as the sole source of information about Ms. Ryder\'s medical condition. He may also be preoccupied with thoughts of other patients and obligations--this is suggested by his glancing at his watch. His suggestion that Ms. Ryder might want counseling and his use of the term "hysterical" may indicate he is prejudging and stereotyping her as "an hysterical woman."</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> The most troublesome form of nonlistening in this scenario is selective listening. Dr. Zhug seems to "listen" only to the reports from medical tests he ran. He does not seem to listen mindfully to the information Ms. Ryder offers about how she feels and how her fatigue is affecting her life. Ms. Ryder may also have begun to listen defensively to Dr. Zhug after he suggested that she is physically normal and might seek counseling.</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> First, he should look at patients when he talks with them. Eye contact is important for establishing a trusting doctor-patient relationship. Dr. Zhug should also make a greater effort to gain dual perspective--to understand the problem from his patient\'s point of view and to respond to his patient\'s reports and concerns. He might work to develop skills in paraphrasing and offering minimal encouragers so that he can better grasp his patients\' perspectives. Dr. Zhug might also think about the impact of emotionally loaded words such as "hysterical." If patients feel he does not respect them and what they say about their condition, patients are unlikely to stay with him or to be helped by him.</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> She has progressed in clarity. Chris began by saying the issue was "not anything I know how to talk about." As a result of Andre\'s listening and responses, Chris is able to identify feeling "mad" at Carl and "worried" about keeping the job.</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> The answer to this question is not entirely clear. It may be that Chris is engaging in counterfeit emotional language when Chris says: "I\'m just not cheerful all the time. . . I wish I was, but I\'m not." Because this statement doesn\'t explain Chris\'s feelings, it may be counterfeit. Andre might probe to find out why Chris doesn\'t feel cheerful all the time and whether any circumstances at work affect Chris\'s mood.</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> The easiest route for Chris is to engage in surface acting--smile and be cheerful to customers regardless of how Chris actually feels. To engage in deep acting, Chris might work at thinking about things that make Chris happy. Then Chris could reflect the inner cheer to customers. Chris might also engage in deep acting by thinking about customers and how they feel and how good it would feel to them if Chris were cheerful and helpful to them.</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> The dialogue suggests three possible irrational beliefs. First, Chris\'s statement that "I\'m not perfect all the time" may indicate an irrational belief that non-stop perfection is required for the job. Second, Chris seems to over-generalize in saying that Carl expects Chris to smile all the time. Third, Chris may be debilitating herself (or himself) with the fear of catastrophic failure--losing the job and needed income, when Carl has not said he was thinking about firing her.</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> There are many ways to move this conversation forward in a supportive manner. One way would be to show that you accept what Chris does feel. For instance, you might say: "I don\'t always feel cheerful either. That\'s okay." This confirming communication supports Chris. Next, you might try to address Chris\'s fears about the job by talking about ways to meet Carl\'s expectations. For example, you might say: "So you\'re not \'Little Mary Sunshine,\' and you don\'t have to be, but can you be basically polite and friendly to customers?" This helps Chris move beyond the false dichotomy of "Little Mary Sunshine" versus uncheerful.</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> O\'Connor clearly sees himself as trying to help his employees. He perceives himself as being honest about what needs to be improved. He sees his honesty as valuable in achieving his goal of helping them keep their jobs. Finally, O\'Connor sees work as separate from personal life. O\'Connor\'s definitions of his job and goals may lead him to focus selectively on aspects of employees\' work that need improvement and to be inattentive to praiseworthy aspects of employees\' work. This one-sided focus could foster a defensive climate in performance review conferences.</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> There are few clear examples of confirming communication from O\'Connor. Examples of disconfirming communication are:</p><ul compact><li><em class="Inst">To Bennett:<ul compact><li><em class="Inst">"Your work pace is too slow."</em></li><li><em class="Inst">"I don\'t want to lose you, but"</em></li></ul></em></li><li><em class="Inst">To Andrews: "You\'ve missed a lot of days. You get in late."</em></li></ul><p class="Inst">These comments by O\'Connor are evaluative and reflect more of a control orientation than a problem-solving one. They also reflect superiority rather than equality, and they do not reflect empathy.</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> Rather than telling Bennett that her "work pace is too slow," O\'Connor might rely on less evaluative language and say: "I\'m wondering if how we could increase your pace of work." Notice that this approach to the topic also invites a problem-solving approach and an equal relationship between O\'Connor and Bennett.</p><p class="Inst">Instead of overtly criticizing Andrews for tardiness and absenteeism, O\'Connor might offer a more tentative and descriptive comment, such as: "It seems that you\'ve been off of the standard schedule a bit lately. Do you perceive that is the case?"</p><p class="Inst">O\'Connor could also enhance the climate\'s supportiveness by showing more empathy. For instance, he could express some understanding of Andrew\'s responsibilities as a parent and some sympathy for the child\'s medical problems. O\'Connor could do this without suggesting to Andrews that it is okay to be late or absent from work.</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> O\'Connor would be a more effective communicator if he began by noting and praising employees\' strengths and accomplishments. It would also be effective for him to approach problems in job performance as issues that he and the employee could collaboratively resolve (problem-orientation). Provisional, or tentative, language (e.g., I wonder if you are working at the most effective pace?") instead of certainty language (e.g.,"Your work pace is too slow.") would also help O\'Connor and his interviewees explore causes of problems and possible solutions.</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> Employees may not share O\'Connor\'s view that he is trying to help them. Criticism seldom feels helpful to the recipients! To foster dual perspective with his employees, O\'Connor might open performance reviews by explaining how he sees his role so that employees can understand that. For instance, he might open the interviews by saying: "I know these periodic performance reviews can be uncomfortable. I get anxious about them myself because I want to support you and mentor you, but sometimes that means I need to point out minor problems." He might then say: "What I want to do in this conference is work with you to make you as effective as you can be so that you advance in the company. If I sound somewhat critical at times, please understand that I\'m trying to give you feedback that will help you move ahead." This kind of opening provides a supportive framework for any criticisms that follow.</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> Ken opens the conversation in a confrontational manner. He accuses Jan of betraying him. It would be more effective if Ken begun by telling Karen he thought she had disclosed his confidence to Karen and then asked Jan if she had. Next, he should use I-language and say: "I\'m hurt that you told Sharon something I shared confidentially with you." Notice also that Ken is not being very clear about his feelings. He expresses anger, but not hurt, which he also seems to feel.</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> They both use language that is more certain than provisional, more evaluative than descriptive, and more controlling than problem solving. One example is when Ken says: "It wasn\'t about me? It was totally about me. You had no right to tell anyone about that." This comment reflects certainty that his perception is the only correct one. Telling Jan she "had no right" is likely to feel very controlling to Jan. Ken could have communicated more effectively if he had said: "You don\'t think it was about me? To me, it feels that it was totally about me. I don\'t understand why you told her that." This communication leaves the door open for more interaction.</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> Jan counters Ken\'s complaint that she betrayed his confidence by accusing him of betraying her confidence by tell her father what she had said to him to Ken in private.</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> Jan\'s apology is minimal in the conversation so far. She seems to offer it grudgingly and not sincerely. If Jan thinks she was wrong to tell Sharon about Ken\'s past, then she has an ethical responsibility to Ken and herself to say so. Although very difficult to do, Jan should say: "I was wrong. I knew that was private and I didn\'t protect your confidence as I should have." On the relational level of meaning, this communicates the important message that Ken and the friendship matter greatly to her. With that as a foundation, they have a better chance of working through the problem facing them.</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> The dialogue suggests that Jan is angry that Ken talked with her father about her school plans. However, this issue is separate from the issue that Ken has broached. To keep this conversation focused, they might agree to talk later about the time when Ken disclosed private information to Jan\'s dad.</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> Either of them could comment on how much the friendship means. It\'s obvious that Jan and Ken have been close friends for a long time and that they matter to each other, but this seems to be getting lost in the argument. Either of them could say: "I know we\'re angry with each other right now, but I want you to know I love you and I want to keep our friendship." It is difficult to pull ourselves out of an argument in order to make a statement such as this, but doing so can dramatically alter communication.</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> There are many possible answers to these questions, please discuss your answers with your instructor.</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> Two dialectics are prominent. Autonomy-connection is a tension because they want to be connected as friends, but need some autonomy (especially Sean) as professionals. Openness-closedness is also evident. They want to be open with each other as they have been through the history of their friendship. At the same time, Sean feels he needs to be closed, or private, about work-related topics.</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> Neutralization is a compromise in which each dialectical pole is satisfied to some extent, but neither is satisfied fully. An example of neutralization would be if Sean talked a bit about Jack\'s interest in Financo, but did not disclose his own position relative to the counter offer. Selection involves satisfying one dialectical pole and neglecting the other. This seems to be what Sean is trying to do currently--he wants to maintain closed-ness and autonomy and is neglecting the needs for openness and connection. A third response is segmentation in which each dialectical need is met through some, but not all, kinds of interaction. This may be the ideal response in this case. It would allow Sean and Bart to be open and connected in their personal friendship but to be more closed and autonomous in their professional relationship. A fourth response, reframing, redefines dialectical tensions as not contradictory. Bart and Sean might be able to reframe what is happening between them by defining being relatively autonomous and closed regarding job issues as allowing them to be open and connected in other spheres of life.</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> Trust involves two dimensions: (1) Believing another will do what he or she says he or she will do;(2) Believing we can count on another to care about us and protect our welfare. The second dimension of trust seems to be a source of tension between Sean and Bart. Bart doesn\'t seem to think Sean cares about him anymore ("Best friend? You could have fooled me."). Sean seems to feel that Bart\'s efforts to talk about Capital business mean Bart is not looking out for Sean\'s welfare. Bart also seems to think that Sean doesn\'t trust him to keep private information confidential.</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> Sean\'s promotion has reverberated throughout his and Bart\'s relationship. That one change has affected their on-the-job interaction (it is no longer peep-to-peer) and their friendship (the strains in the friendship are evident in the dialogue). They can no longer talk about some issues they used to talk about, trust is frayed, and commitment to maintaining the friendship seems to be waning.</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> Perhaps the most critical change would be for each man to engage in dual perspective. That isn\'t happening in the conversation so far in which Bart and Sean each looks at what\'s happening only from his own perspective. For example, Sean\'s statement: "I can\'t talk about that Bart. You know that," doesn\'t show any understanding of Bart\'s feelings. Sean could have conveyed dual perspective if he had said: "Bart, I know you\'d like to know the inside scoop, and I\'d really like to talk with you about it. I can\'t tell you how much I miss being free to discuss company issues with you, but I just can\'t." This statement tells Bart that Sean, too, misses their job-related talks. Bart, too, could demonstrate dual perspective by communicating that he understands and respects the constraints on what Sean can ethically say. Both Sean and Bart could listen more actively if they paraphrased each other\'s communication before making their own statements.</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> Sean\'s ideal scenario is unlikely to be realized unless both men are committed to it. For this to happen, they need to have an honest talk to decide whether each of them wants to continue the friendship enough to work around the problems posed by Sean\'s promotion. In other words, they need to agree to some new "rules" for their friendship--ones that allow them to be connected and open with each other as friends while accepting greater autonomy and closed-ness in their professional relationship. They might rely on the segmentation response to relational dialectics so that they define openness and connectedness as appropriate only in personal realms of interaction.</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> Meg seems to have a predominantly pragmatic style of loving as revealed by her focus on practical issues in the relationship. Her concern for going slowly suggests that she might also have storge as a secondary love style. Trevor seems primarily erotic in his love style--he is romantic, intense, and fast moving. His joking suggests he may also have some ludic tendencies.</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> This is not a question that can be answered objectively. Whether you think Meg is sweating the small stuff depends on what you consider "small stuff." For someone with a pragmatic love style, matches in values, lifestyle, goals and interests are not small stuff. For an erotic lover, they might well be minor issues.</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> We cannot know for sure. However, Catherine Surra\'s research (discussed in Chapter 11) suggests that a couple\'s likelihood of marrying (or considering marrying) can be influenced by external forces, such as being surrounded by friends who are marrying. We know from the dialogue that Trevor and Meg have many friends who are planning weddings and that their undergraduate days are ending. These factors could heighten the push toward marriage.</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> Both say they love each other, although they seem to have different styles of loving. Trevor is obviously more committed. He is willing to talk about the future and to embrace it. Meg is not willing to commit to a future with Trevor.</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> It is entirely possible that neither one can change the other\'s mind. Remember that communication is not a panacea that can resolve all problems. Also remember that one person can\'t make another do anything--each person has responsibility for his or her own choices and actions. However, there are ways that Trevor and Meg could communicate that might make each more open to the other\'s goal. For example, Trevor might emphasize how marriage could support Meg\'s studies in Law School. They would have a home that could provide an anchor for her during the three years of intense study. If Meg thinks she wants to marry Trevor later, she might assure him of her commitment, which would make it easier for him to wait. The answer to question 6 below is also relevant to this question.</p>');
doc.writeln('<p class="Inst"><i><u>Author\'s answer:</u></i> Missing in their conversation are indicators that each hears and understands the other\'s feelings, goals, and concerns. Neither Meg nor Trevor recognizes, acknowledges, or endorses what the other says. Their conversation would be more mutually affirming if each of them demonstrated dual perspective by listening, paraphrasing, and responding to the other\'s communication. Trevor, for example, could say: "I know you like to have everything worked out in advance before you do things. I respect that." Meg might say to Trevor: "I realize that you are willing to make all kinds of adjustments for us, and I love that about you." The conversation would also be more affirming and supportive if Meg expressed her love more clearly. As their talk has progressed so far, she communicates mainly about roadblocks and reservations. It would be more confirming of Trevor if she balanced communication about her reservations with affirmations of her love.</p>');
