Defensive communication

Last updated
Defensive communication leads to the degrading of discourse in a group. A Midnight Modern Conversation.jpg
Defensive communication leads to the degrading of discourse in a group.

Defensive communication is a communicative behavior that occurs within relationships, work environments, and social groups [1] [2] when an individual reacts in a defensive manner in response to a self-perceived flaw or a threat from outsiders. [3] [4] Defensive responses can be triggered by external events and by feelings of anxiety, insecurity, and sensitivity, [3]  and often occurs in circumstances where people feel negatively evaluated, controlled, or persuaded by others. [3]  Sigmund Freud was one of the first scientists to research the subject of defensive communication in depth, during his development of psychodynamic theory. [2] Defensiveness creates inefficient and damaging communication in social interactions when people deny their flaws, project their flaws on others, or use judgmental communication techniques. [2] [3]

Contents

History

Sigmund Freud Sigmund Freud LIFE.jpg
Sigmund Freud

Psychodynamic Theory

Psychodynamics is the study of the psychological forces that underlie human behavior. Sigmund Freud's work on psychodynamic theory was the foundation of research into defensive communication. [4] Freud and his colleagues believed that internal emotions such as anxiety, guilt, and insecurities created defensive reactionary behaviors. [2] [4] Psychodynamic theorists also believe defensiveness is a reactionary response to protect oneself from external threats. [5]

Defensive Climate Conceptualization

In 1961, Gibb developed a conceptual framework for categorizing communication into defensive and supportive behaviors. [3]  The defensive behaviors include evaluation, control, strategy, neutrality, superiority, and certainty. The supportive behaviors, in contrast, include description, problem orientation, spontaneity, empathy, equality, and provisionalism. [3] Individuals respond either defensively or in a supportive manner based on their own perceptions of the communicative climates. For example, communication perceived as evaluative will increase defensiveness in the listener, due to the perception that the communicator is judging the listener. Descriptive communication, such as requests for information that are perceived to be genuine, does not initiate the same defensive response. [3]

Defensiveness in social interaction

Defensive communication in social interaction is hypothesized to be related to a self-perceived flaw, attacks from others, or a focus on an attack on flaws of others. [4]  In this hypothesis, which combines insights from psychodynamics and Gibb’s defensive climate conceptualization, defensive reactions can be triggered by either internal and external forces. Internally, perceptions of sensitive internal flaws such as personality traits can trigger defensive responses. Externally, defensive communication occurs when people perceive an attack or other threat. [4]  Defensive communication is a relational construct (a subjective worldview) that arises as a result of internal individual perceptions. [6]

Applications

Defensiveness in the Workplace

Defensive communication is common in the workplace due to the environment frequently being perceived as evaluative, judgmental, manipulative, or autocratic. [1] Research indicates defensive reactions in the workplace cause inefficiency in communication and potential burnout. [1]  Much of the communication in a workplace is between managers and subordinates, increasing the need for efficient and supportive communication strategies. [1]

Defensiveness in Romantic Relationships

Romantic relationships create four contextual conditions for defensive communication: self-perceptions of flaws, situational difficulties, emotional difficulties, and relational concerns. [2]  Research shows that people are sensitive not only about their own perceived flaws, but also about the flaws of those close to them. Emotion can also intensify perception of flaws and threats from others. [2] Jealousy, anxiety, and uncertainty can also elicit defensive communication behavior, and lack of supportive communication, lack of communicative warmth, lack of communicative sharing, and lack of attentiveness are all triggers of defensive communication. [2]  Defensive communication in relationships can be damaging and can lead to increased arguments, uncertainty, and stress. [7]

Defensiveness in Family Environments

Defensive communication can occur in family environments and can consist of verbal and nonverbal behaviors that are threatening and/or punishing to others. This type of communication will frequently invite defensive behaviors in return. Behavior like this will promote a "defensive climate" as defined by Gibb. [3] Children raised in atmospheres with high defensiveness and low amounts of supportive communication tend to develop aggressive behaviors. [2] [8]

Critique

A central criticism of defensive communication is the lack of empirical research supporting Gibb’s initial paper on the topic. [9] Gibb’s paper on the climate conceptualization of defensiveness was not a scientific study and did not allow other researchers to replicate or test his hypothesis. [9]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jealousy</span> Emotion

Jealousy generally refers to the thoughts or feelings of insecurity, fear, and concern over a relative lack of possessions or safety.

The spiral of silence theory is a political science and mass communication theory which states that an individual's perception of the distribution of public opinion influences that individual's willingness to express their own opinions. Also known as the theory of public opinion, the spiral of silence theory claims individuals will be more confident and outward with their opinion when they notice that their personal opinion is shared throughout a group. But if the individual notices that his opinion is unpopular with the group he will be more inclined to be reserved and remain silent. In other words, from the individual's perspective, "not isolating himself is more important than his own judgement", meaning his perception of how others in the group perceive him is more important to himself than the need for his opinion to be heard.

Impression management is a conscious or subconscious process in which people attempt to influence the perceptions of other people about a person, object or event by regulating and controlling information in social interaction. It was first conceptualized by Erving Goffman in 1959 in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, and then was expanded upon in 1967.

Expectancy violations theory (EVT) is a theory of communication that analyzes how individuals respond to unanticipated violations of social norms and expectations. The theory was proposed by Judee K. Burgoon in the late 1970s and continued through the 1980s and 1990s as "nonverbal expectancy violations theory", based on Burgoon's research studying proxemics. Burgoon's work initially analyzed individuals' allowances and expectations of personal distance and how responses to personal distance violations were influenced by the level of liking and relationship to the violators. The theory was later changed to its current name when other researchers began to focus on violations of social behavior expectations beyond nonverbal communication.

The uncertainty reduction theory, also known as initial interaction theory, developed in 1975 by Charles Berger and Richard Calabrese, is a communication theory from the post-positivist tradition. It is one of the few communication theories that specifically looks into the initial interaction between people prior to the actual communication process. Uncertainty reduction theory originators main goal when constructing it was to explain how communication is used to reduce uncertainty between strangers during a first interaction. Uncertainty reduction theory claims that everyone activates two processes in order to reduce uncertainty. The first being a proactive process, which focuses on what someone might do. The second being a retroactive process, which focuses on how people understand what another does or says. This theory's main claim is that people must receive information about another party in order to reduce their uncertainty and, that people want to do so. While uncertainty reduction theory claims that communication will lead to reduced uncertainty, it is important to note that this is not always the case. Dr. Dale E. Brashers of the University of Illinois argues that in some scenarios, more communication may lead to greater uncertainty.

The social penetration theory (SPT) proposes that as relationships develop, interpersonal communication moves from relatively shallow, non-intimate levels to deeper, more intimate ones. The theory was formulated by psychologists Irwin Altman of the University of Utah and Dalmas Taylor of the University of Delaware in 1973 to understand relationship development between individuals. Altman and Taylor noted that relationships "involve different levels of intimacy of exchange or degree of social penetration". SPT is known as an objective theory as opposed to an interpretive theory, meaning it is based on data drawn from actual experiments and not simply from conclusions based on individuals' specific experiences.

Communication accommodation theory (CAT) is a theory of communication developed by Howard Giles. This theory concerns "(1) the behavioral changes that people make to attune their communication to their partner, (2) the extent to which people perceive their partner as appropriately attuning to them." The basis of the theory lies in the idea that people adjust their style of speech to one another. Doing this helps the message sender gain approval from the receiver, increases efficiency in communication between both parties, and helps the sender maintain a positive social identity. This theory is concerned with the links between language, context, and identity. It focuses on both the intergroup and interpersonal factors that lead to accommodation, as well as the ways that power, macro- and micro-context concerns affect communication behaviors; emphasizing the important duplexity of both factors in predicting and understanding intergroup interactions. Accommodation is usually considered to be between the message sender and the message receiver, but the communicator also often accommodates to a larger audience – either a group of people that are watching the interaction or society in general. Communication accommodation theory (CAT) predicts and explains why communicants make adjustments to increase, decrease, or maintain social distance.

Relational dialectics is an interpersonal communication theory about close personal ties and relationships that highlights the tensions, struggles and interplay between contrary tendencies. The theory, proposed respectively by Leslie Baxter and Barbara Montgomery in 1988, defines communication patterns between relationship partners as the result of endemic dialectical tensions. Dialectics are described as the tensions an individual feels when experiencing paradoxical desires that we need and/ or want. The theory contains four assumptions, one of them being that relationships are not one dimensional, rather, they consist of highs and lows, without moving in only one direction. The second assumption claims that change is a key element in relational life, in other words, as our lives change, our relationships change with it. Third, is the assumption that, “contradictions or tensions between opposites never go away and never cease to provide tension,” which means, we will always experience the feelings of pressure that come with our contradictory desires. The fourth assumption is that communication is essential when it comes to working through these opposing feelings. Relationships are made in dialogue and they can be complicated and dialogue with similarities and differences are necessary. Relational communication theories allow for opposing views or forces to come together in a reasonable way. When making decisions, desires and viewpoints that often contradict one another are mentioned and lead to dialectical tensions. Leslie A. Baxter and Barbara M. Montgomery exemplify these contradictory statements that arise from individuals experience dialectal tensions using common proverbs such as "opposites attract", but "birds of a feather flock together"; as well as, "two's company; three's a crowd" but "the more the merrier". This does not mean these opposing tensions are fundamentally troublesome for the relationship; on the contrary, they simply bring forward a discussion of the connection between two parties.

Interpersonal deception theory (IDT) is one of a number of theories that attempts to explain how individuals handle actual deception at the conscious or subconscious level while engaged in face-to-face communication. The theory was put forth by David Buller and Judee Burgoon in 1996 to explore this idea that deception is an engaging process between receiver and deceiver. IDT assumes that communication is not static; it is influenced by personal goals and the meaning of the interaction as it unfolds. IDT is no different from other forms of communication since all forms of communication are adaptive in nature. The sender's overt communications are affected by the overt and covert communications of the receiver, and vice versa. IDT explores the interrelation between the sender's communicative meaning and the receiver's thoughts and behavior in deceptive exchanges.

Greenberg (1987) introduced the concept of organizational justice with regard to how an employee judges the behavior of the organization and the employee's resulting attitude and behaviour. For example, if a firm makes redundant half of the workers, an employee may feel a sense of injustice with a resulting change in attitude and a drop in productivity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social information processing (theory)</span>

Social information processing theory, also known as SIP, is a psychological and sociological theory originally developed by Salancik and Pfeffer in 1978. This theory explores how individuals make decisions and form attitudes in a social context, often focusing on the workplace. It suggests that people rely heavily on the social information available to them in their environments, including input from colleagues and peers, to shape their attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions.

The hyperpersonal model is a model of interpersonal communication that suggests computer-mediated communication (CMC) can become hyperpersonal because it "exceeds [face-to-face] interaction", thus affording message senders a host of communicative advantages over traditional face-to-face (FtF) interaction. The hyperpersonal model demonstrates how individuals communicate uniquely, while representing themselves to others, how others interpret them, and how the interactions create a reciprocal spiral of FtF communication. Compared to ordinary FtF situations, a hyperpersonal message sender has a greater ability to strategically develop and edit self-presentation, enabling a selective and optimized presentation of one's self to others.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Interpersonal communication</span> Exchange of information among people

Interpersonal communication is an exchange of information between two or more people. It is also an area of research that seeks to understand how humans use verbal and nonverbal cues to accomplish several personal and relational goals. Communication includes utilizing communication skills within one's surroundings, including physical and psychological spaces. It is essential to see the visual/nonverbal and verbal cues regarding the physical spaces. In the psychological spaces, self-awareness and awareness of the emotions, cultures, and things that are not seen are also significant when communicating.

Communication privacy management (CPM), originally known as communication boundary management, is a systematic research theory developed by Sandra Petronio in 1991. CPM theory aims to develop an evidence-based understanding of the way people make decisions about revealing and concealing private information. It suggests that individuals maintain and coordinate privacy boundaries with various communication partners depending on the perceived benefits and costs of information disclosure. Petronio believes disclosing private information will strengthen one's connections with others, and that we can better understand the rules for disclosure in relationships through negotiating privacy boundaries.

Workplace relationships are unique interpersonal relationships with important implications for the individuals in those relationships, and the organizations in which the relationships exist and develop.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Verbal aggression</span> Personality trait or a mainly destructive form of communication

Verbal aggressiveness in communication has been studied to examine the underlying message of how the aggressive communicator gains control over different things that occur, through the usage of verbal aggressiveness. Scholars have identified that individuals who express verbal aggressiveness have the goal of controlling and manipulating others through language. Infante and Wigley defined verbal aggressiveness as "a personality trait that predisposes persons to attack the self-concepts of other people instead of, or in addition to, their positions on topics of communication". Self-concept can be described as a group of values and beliefs that one has. Verbal aggressiveness is thought to be mainly a destructive form of communication, but it can produce positive outcomes. Infante and Wigley described aggressive behavior in interpersonal communication as products of individual's aggressive traits and the way the person perceives the aggressive circumstances that prevents them or something in a situation.

Multi-communicating is the act of managing many conversations at one time. The term was coined by Reinsch, Turner, and Tinsley (2008), who proposed that simultaneous conversations can be conducted using an ever-increasing array of media, including face-to-face, phone, and email tools for communication. This practice allows individuals to utilize two or more technologies to interact with each other.

The first half of the topic of agency deals with the behavioral sense, or outward expressive evidence thereof. In behavioral psychology, agents are goal-directed entities that are able to monitor their environment to select and perform efficient means-ends actions that are available in a given situation to achieve an intended goal. Behavioral agency, therefore, implies the ability to perceive and to change the environment of the agent. Crucially, it also entails intentionality to represent the goal-state in the future, equifinal variability to be able to achieve the intended goal-state with different actions in different contexts, and rationality of actions in relation to their goal to produce the most efficient action available. Cognitive scientists and Behavioral psychologists have thoroughly investigated agency attribution in humans and non-human animals, since social cognitive mechanisms such as communication, social learning, imitation, or theory of mind presuppose the ability to identify agents and differentiate them from inanimate, non-agentive objects. This ability has also been assumed to have a major effect on inferential and predictive processes of the observers of agents, because agentive entities are expected to perform autonomous behavior based on their current and previous knowledge and intentions. On the other hand, inanimate objects are supposed to react to external physical forces.

The Cascade Model of Relational Dissolution is a relational communications theory that proposes four critically negative behaviors that lead to the breakdown of marital and romantic relationships. The model is the work of psychological researcher John Gottman, a professor at the University of Washington and founder of The Gottman Institute, and his research partner, Robert W. Levenson. This theory focuses on the negative influence of verbal and nonverbal communication habits on marriages and other relationships. Gottman's model uses a metaphor that compares the four negative communication styles that lead to a relationship's breakdown to the biblical Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, wherein each behavior, or horseman, compounds the problems of the previous one, leading to total breakdown of communication.

Hurtful communication occurs when the receiver perceives a specific social interaction as upsetting or harmful emotionally. In the course of human interaction, one party will say or do something that results in unpleasant emotional feelings for another. Negative social interactions can be intentional, when one or both parties are involved in interpersonal conflict, or unintentional, such as when misunderstandings occur. Actions such as failure to recognize accomplishments or significant dates can cause hurtful outcomes within relationships.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Becker, Jennifer A. H.; Halbesleben, Jonathon R. B.; O'Hair, H. Dan (2005). "Defensive Communication and Burnout in the Workplace: The Mediating Role of Leader–Member Exchange". Communication Research Reports. 22 (2): 143–150. doi:10.1080/00036810500130653. ISSN   0882-4096. S2CID   144119327.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Becker, Jennifer A. H.; Ellevold, Barbara; Stamp, Glen H. (2008). "The Creation of Defensiveness in Social Interaction II: A Model of Defensive Communication among Romantic Couples". Communication Monographs. 75 (1): 86–110. doi:10.1080/03637750701885415. ISSN   0363-7751. S2CID   143513747.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Gibb, Jack R. (1961-09-01). "Defensive Communication". Journal of Communication. 11 (3): 141–148. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1961.tb00344.x. ISSN   0021-9916.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 Stamp, Glen H.; Vangelisti, Anita L.; Daly, John A. (1992). "The creation of defensiveness in social interaction". Communication Quarterly. 40 (2): 177–190. doi:10.1080/01463379209369832. ISSN   0146-3373.
  5. Becker, Jennifer A.H.; Ellevold, Barbara; Stamp, Glen H. (March 2008). "The Creation of Defensiveness in Social Interaction II: A Model of Defensive Communication among Romantic Couples". Communication Monographs. 75 (1): 86–110. doi:10.1080/03637750701885415. S2CID   143513747.[ verification needed ]
  6. Baker, W. H. (1980-04-01). "Defensiveness in Communication: Its Causes, Effects, and Cures". Journal of Business Communication. 17 (3): 33–43. doi:10.1177/002194368001700304. ISSN   0021-9436. S2CID   145363740.
  7. Morrison, Shaye; Schrodt, Paul (2017). "The Perceived Threat and Resolvability of Serial Arguments as Correlates of Relational Uncertainty in Romantic Relationships". Communication Studies. 68 (1): 56–71. doi:10.1080/10510974.2016.1263224. ISSN   1051-0974. S2CID   151831195.
  8. Alexander, J. F. (1973). "Defensive and supportive communications in normal and deviant families". Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 40 (2): 223–231. doi:10.1037/h0034514. ISSN   0022-006X. PMID   4694200.
  9. 1 2 Forward, G. L.; Czech, Kathleen; Lee, Carmen M. (2011-02-02). "Assessing Gibb's Supportive and Defensive Communication Climate: An Examination of Measurement and Construct Validity". Communication Research Reports. 28 (1): 1–15. doi:10.1080/08824096.2011.541360. ISSN   0882-4096. S2CID   143779473.