Grinder and Bandler (1978) assert that if counselors communicate with their clients using verbal predicates that match the modality of their clients' primary representational system (PRS), it will be easier for the clients to understand the counselor and to feel that they are understood by the counselor. This study investigated this claim of a relationship between predicate matching and understanding. Three scripts were developed and tape-recorded depicting a college-aged male reporting on an early childhood experience. The content of each script was identical except for the sensory predicates used to describe the experience. One script contained visual predicates, one contained kinesthetic predicates, and one contained auditory predicates. Male college students (N=99) served as subjects. Each subject's PRS was determined by two independent raters on the basis of the verbal predicates used by the subject in a structured interview. Subjects then listened to a tape-recorded script under either a matched or a mismatched experimental condition. Following the script, subjects completed three questionnaires which assessed their objective understanding (factual recall) and subjective understanding (feelings of having understood). No significant main effect was found for matching on any of the dependent measures. The results weakly supported a claim of enhanced accuracy of understanding on one measure of objective understanding. (NB)