What is the Hearing Voices Movement?
The Hearing Voices* Movement was founded in the 1980’s in the Netherlands as a collaboration between voice hearer, Patsy Hage, psychiatrist Marius Romme and journalist, Sandra Escher.
Its development was rooted in Marius’s realization that the conventional medical approach he was using to treat Patsy wasn’t working, as well as his observation that she and others did seem to benefit from talking openly with one another about their experiences.
Since that time, it has become a collaboration between voice hearers, providers and family members that has taken hold in over 20 countries. It has positively impacted hundreds of thousands of people’s lives through Hearing Voices groups and a variety of strategies that have developed out of the Hearing Voices movement, including the Maastricht Interview, voice dialoguing and more.
Learn more about the Hearing Voices movement’s history and approach at Hearing Voices USA website or by watching ‘Beyond Possible: How the Hearing Voices Approach Transforms Lives“
‘*Hearing Voices’ is considered an umbrella term that includes seeing visions and other non-consensus sensory experiences as well as “paranoia” (fears that don’t match the present moment) and unusual beliefs.
Core Values of the Hearing Voices Approach
The Hearing Voices approach is a harm reduction approach to non-consensus reality experiences like hearing voices and seeing visions. Some core values include:
- People are free to make meaning of their experiences in a way that works for them within the context of their own life and belief systems, including making space for cultural differences.
- Although a medicalized way of making meaning is considered valid, voice hearing and related experiences are not assumed to be the result of an illness or disease process. Spiritual, trauma-related and a variety of other explanations are also valid.
- It is not assumed that no longer hearing voices is the goal. Rather, many people may focus on developing working relationships with their voices or increasing their sense of power and control over their experiences.
These and other elements of the Hearing Voices approach make it a perfect fit with Roots Up values including anti-force and anti-oppression perspectives.
Learn more about Hearing Voices values by reading the Hearing Voices USA charter. (Although the charter is specific to Hearing Voices groups, most of the values listed can be applied broadly to the approach, too.)
HVN Training & Consultation
Types of Training, Consultation & Support
Roots Up offers a variety of trainings and consultation formats on the topic of hearing voices. Trainings can include anything from a keynote talk to a half-day overview to a multi-day, in depth experience. Similarly, consultations can be one-time, ongoing, 1:1 or with a team. We are happy to work with you to tailor what we offer to what you need. In addition to training and consultation, we are also able to offer 1:1 support sessions to people who hear voices and/or their family members and friends.
Request Training & Consultation
Our Hearing Voices trainers have personal experience with hearing voices, seeing visions and/or related experiences, as well as supporting others who are navigating those experiences, too.
Our training team also includes one of the original co-founders of Hearing Voices USA, Sera Davidow, as well as one of the first group facilitators of the longest standing Hearing Voices group in the Northeast and a co-founder of the first ever on-line Hearing Voices Family & Friends groups in the world, Cindy Marty Hadge.
Some of the areas we cover include:
- Facilitating Hearing Voices Groups
- Understanding the Hearing Voices Movement
- Evidence base for the Hearing Voices approach
- Support strategies for clinical providers
- Maastricht Interview for hearing voices and/or unusual beliefs/paranoia
- Voice dialoguing & other navigation strategies
- Supporting family & friends
- Understanding harm reduction as it relates to voice hearing and similar experiences
- Navigating violent or scary voices
- Navigating voices that are suspicious of or blame the supporter
- Relationship to systemic oppression (racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.)
- And more!
Train-the-trainer Trainings
Periodically, we receive requests from people interested in becoming trainers so that they can also train new group facilitators or conduct other in-depth Hearing Voices trainings. If you are interested in a train-the-trainer model, we will work with you within the following framework:
- You must already have some experience as a Hearing Voices group facilitator or otherwise using the Hearing Voices approach (usually at least for one year)
- You must be able to demonstrate a belief in and commitment to the integrity of the Hearing Voices approach and its values
- You must be willing to work out a fee agreement with us for use of our Hearing Voices materials, as well as agree that you will not use our training or materials to train others beyond your local organization and community of support
Please use the buttons below to request more information on training and/or consultation or support.
Beyond Possible: A Film About Hearing Voices
This film was created through a collaboration between Open Excellence, the Mount Holyoke College Psychology Department & Wildflower Alliance. It features Roots Up co-founder, Cindy Marty Hadge.
Evidence for the Approach
The Evidence in Favor of the Hearing Voices Approach
The body of evidence in support of the Hearing Voices approach has grown substantially over the last decade. Just a few examples include:
- Research has found that self-determination and de-emphasizing pressure to change are key parts of the Hearing Voices approach (Hornstein, Branitsky and Putnam, 2022, Psychological, Social and Integrative Approaches)
- Hearing Voices groups offer at least four key benefits (1) examine the voice hearing experience in itself; (2) discern the meanings of voices and explore them within a biographical context; (3) receive validation for cultural or spiritual ways of understanding voices; and (4) develop a sense of shared experience and camaraderie with other voice-hearers.(Hornstein, Branitsky and Putnam, 2025, Psychological, Social and Integrative Approaches)
- The emphasis on the opportunity to make meaning of one’s own experience is a critical reclamation of power that many people find healing (Corstens et al, 2014, Schizophrenia Bulletin)
- Providers who understand the meaning that someone makes of their voice hearing experience are much more likely to be able to provide useful support (Lakeman, 2001, International Journal of Nursing Studies)
- Approaches (like the Hearing Voices approach) that encourage talking with voices and similar strategies allow many people to process their trauma and gain a greater sense of control over their voice hearing experiences (Middleton, Cook and May, 2021, Psychological, Social and Integrative Approaches)
Drawing from Research on Conventional Clinical Approaches
When discussing alternatives, it’s also important to reflect on why the alternatives were needed in the first place. The reality is that many people who hear voices and have other similar experiences enter the psychiatric system not only don’t get what they need but also get stuck there. Some of the research that demonstrates how conventional clinical approaches are not working for many voice hearers includes:
- Depending on the study, findings suggest that 25% to 40% (and likely higher) of people who hear voices (or similar) do not respond well to psychiatric drug treatments and do not result in voices going away. This is of particular concern given a primary goal of conventional treatment is to stop the voices. (Dyck et al, Front Psychiatry, 2016)
- Conventional clinical treatments for voice hearers can be experienced as re-traumatizing, especially as providers commonly fail to recognize the role trauma has played in distressing voice hearing experiences for many people. (Higgs, 2020, Health & Human Rights, Harvard University)
- Approaches that ignore the creation of safer spaces to talk openly about voices in non-judgmental environments contribute to alienation and experiences of injustice (Harris et al, 2022, British Journal of Clinical Psychology)
- Approaches that paint voice hearing as all “bad” may contribute to increased fear and decreased ability to navigate voice hearing experiences in a positive way (Vilhauer, 2016, International Journal of Social Psychiatry)
It’s also important to note that some of the most popular trainings related to hearing voices – the voice hearing simulation (particularly when done as a standalone experience) – can lead people to think they understand more than they do and can actually increase fear and hopelessness for people living with voices.
Research Limitations
Understandably, many people focus on “evidence-based practice”. Evidence and research are important. However, it’s also important to remember that the research base has been skewed by many of the same factors that impact all of our systems. This includes:
- It takes access to a lot of resources to make research happen. Often that means having money allotted for that purpose and/or university connections. (Ramirez, 2023, Desperately Seeking)
- At least historically, there have been clear racial skews in who gets their research published, as well as who is studied. (Roberts, 2020, Perspectives on Psychological Science)
- Similarly, research biases Western Culture (with college students in Western societies being particularly over-represented as research subjects) (Schulson, 2020, Undark)
- People with lived experience of what’s being studied are historically and ongoingly severely underrepresented which influences which impacts every stage of what’s studied, including the questions asked and priorities presumed. (Chatterjee et al, 2025, Digital Psychiatry and Neuroscience)
- More innovative approaches don’t necessarily lend themselves well to some of the approaches most familiar to the research community. (Sanbonmatsu, Cooley and Posavac, 2023, New Ideas in Psychology)
- Research of people with psychiatric histories has often caused substantial harm to those being researched, with many people now understandably unwilling to participate. (Bracken-Roche, Bell and Racine, 2016, Canadian Journal of Psychiatry)