NEW YORK (Realist English). A behavioral researcher with a decade of experience advising Fortune 500 companies says one of the most effective ways to counter manipulation is surprisingly simple: respond with, “That’s interesting. Tell me more.”
According to experts in workplace psychology, manipulative tactics often depend on provoking emotional reactions, creating confusion, or introducing ambiguity into a conversation. A neutral acknowledgment such as “That’s interesting” signals that the comment has been heard without endorsing or disputing it. It removes the immediate emotional leverage that a manipulator may be seeking.
The follow-up — “Tell me more,” or variations such as “What makes you say that?” or “What led you to that conclusion?” — shifts the focus from reaction to clarification. Behavioral specialists caution against “why” questions, which can sound accusatory and trigger defensiveness. Framing questions with “what” tends to keep exchanges constructive and less confrontational.
The approach is particularly useful in situations involving gaslighting, guilt-tripping, or subtle coercion.
In cases of gaslighting — when someone attempts to make another person doubt their memory or perception — asking for more detail can shift the dynamic. For example, if someone says, “I never said that. You’re remembering it wrong,” a response such as, “That’s interesting. Tell me more about how you remember it,” encourages specificity. Experts say that when individuals are required to explain their version in detail, inconsistencies may become apparent, reducing psychological pressure.
In scenarios involving guilt-based pressure — such as “After everything I’ve done for you, this is how you repay me?” — redirecting the discussion toward reasoning rather than emotion can help. A response like, “What makes you say that?” moves the exchange away from implied obligation and toward explanation, allowing the recipient to maintain boundaries while acknowledging the relationship.
Similarly, subtle coercion — for instance, “If you really cared, you’d agree with me” — can be addressed by separating values from compliance. Asking how the other person arrived at that conclusion creates space to respond calmly: “Caring doesn’t always mean we have to agree.”
Communication researchers note that manipulators often rely on speed and emotional intensity. Slowing the interaction and introducing measured curiosity weakens that dynamic. By prioritizing clarity over reaction, individuals can protect their boundaries and steer discussions back to observable facts rather than emotional pressure.
In high-stakes professional or personal settings, composure can prove more effective than direct confrontation. The strategy does not escalate conflict; instead, it changes the balance of the conversation by placing emphasis on explanation and accountability.
