Talk:Passive-aggressive behavior
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Portal |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
|
Contents |
[edit] Not a personality disorder?
It was listed as an Axis II personality disorder in the DSM-IIIR, but was moved in the DSM-IV to Appendix B ("Criteria Sets and Axes Provided for Further Study") because of controversy.
I'm unclear, based on this excerpt, whether it is no longer considered a personality disorder by DSM-IV or not. If not, the title and intro should be changed to be NPOV. --NealMcB 20:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] History
I am not a psychologist, and my article on passive-aggression is probably woefully inadequate and largely inaccurate, but I wanted to get something into Wikipedia about it. I hope people who know more about passive-aggression can add some descriptions of passive-aggressive behaviors to the article. - Brian Kendig 21:38, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC).
I've removed the line, "What looks like a personality disorder to an officer may be a perfectly rational survival strategy for a 'grunt' on the front line," from the end of the first (and currently only) paragraph in this section because it's irrelevant. -Dan 03:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
The history seems a bit circular. Officers started calling soldiers "passive-aggressive" when they noticed them being passive-aggressive? Can we expand on this? Taco325i 20:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- Woefully inadequate is a bit of an overstatment. The article is a good foundation. PAB and PAPD is one of my areas of expertise, as it happens. I'll lend a hand when I have some time.
- In the meantime, I think we need to get a citation for that history line. Sounds suspect.
Cheers! Mjformica 13:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] copyright?
This article has some strong similarities with this Straight Dope article, such as this segment:
The term "passive-aggressive" was introduced in a 1945 U.S. War Department technical bulletin, describing soldiers who weren't openly insubordinate but shirked duty through procrastination, willful incompetence, and so on. If you've ever served in the military during wartime, though, or for that matter read Catch-22, you realize that what the brass calls a personality disorder a grunt might call a rational strategy to avoid getting killed.
--TheEngineer 14:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC) This is the first time I have interacted on wikipedia. I looked up passive aggressive behavior because I have often heard the term used loosely by people looking to undermine another person. In my experience people use this term as a last resort diagnosis of a person found undesirable to them. Most frequently to describe a roommate. For example, instead of complaining about dirty dishes left in the sink, one might sigh heavily and ask their roommate "did you cook any food tonight?"...Anyway, the reason I really decided to post is because after reading the entire article I gained no real knowledge of what passive aggressive behavior is. There was one section however that clued me to why that might be. A short couple sentence paragraph headlined History. '"Passive-aggressive" was first used by the U.S. military during World War II, when military psychiatrists noted the behavior of soldiers who displayed passive resistance and reluctant compliance to orders. [1]'
[edit] Puzzle
The phrase passive-agressive is clearly used in different venues - hierarchies, inter-group, interpersonal. It always is about behaviors revealed along in relationships; but the disorder can be entirely situated in one or another party to the relationship. It's used for serious breakdowns and for very silly little things. For example you'll hear people refer to a slow computer program as being "passive agressive."
Consider the hierarchtical relationships. In one scenario it's used as a critique of a subordinate who fails to jump when so commanded. Absent particulars who is to say the bad actor is in that case? In a related scenario it's used when the subordinate is uniformly resistant to any instruction. Again this could be passive agression or it could be the subordinate lacks necessary skill or the instructions are totally lame; who's to say? In the most serious hierarchtical case the subordinate(s) are undermining the enterprise thru consistent work slow downs. In al three of these the term has strong ties into labor/management disputes and arguements about the nature of how works is framed (hierarchy/colaboration/duty/enthusiasm/closiness-of-supervision/etc./etc.). As such the term is often really about power.
But the term is also used and useful in the culture dynamics between groups. And there you see it tied up the group level variation of the issues above. So you see broad statements like 'women are passive agressive' or 'black are ...'.
The term is also used in inter-personal relationship cases. There; presumably, the power issues receed further into the background.
As soon as the power issues can be gotten off the table then you get to the kinds of usage where the term is refering to an actual relationship disorder or an actual personality disorder. You get individuals who have fallen into passive agressive behavior patterns and no matter how healthy the relationship is their responses will be passive and agressive. This behavior patterns, like any agression, will shift the relationship into a less an less healthy one and you get a reenforcing effect that can lead to those suffering from the full blown disorder having a terribly hard time forming any healthy relationships. Which is, of course, a pain for those trying to work with them.
Consistently passive agressive behaviors also arise in situations where a suborindate individual or group has no other option for negotiating with the superior individual or group. The superior(s) often do not appreciate this - why would they? In some cases changing circumstances can open up better negotating options for the subordinate group; but the behaviors persist. One risk that arises when a subordinate individual or group discovers he/they is no longer as locked in that passive agressive behavior transitions to agressive behavior rather than into some more constructive negotiating technique.
- This is an interesting discourse, but my feeling is that is falls directly into the trap that it is attempting to point out. P/A is an over-used term, and overused in a way that underscores the popular misunderstanding of the issue -- much like "inferiority complex" in the late 60's/early 70's.
- "Such a term is often really about power." Exactly. P/A is an attempt to exert control over a situation in which one feels powerless, for reasons that may or may not be obvious to the actor, through inaction. It is a fundamental distortion of relationship at all levels, at all times. The first rule of forensic psychology is that "the way that people do one thing is the way that they do everything". P/As are p/a across the board, but it is about the person, not the relationship. --Sadhaka 22:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] More information
There is a lot of good material here. I haven't had the time to go through it and see what can be included in the article. Dreadlocke 21:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- There really is. It descibes my mother almost exactly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CerealBabyMilk (talk • contribs) 15:19, 26 July 2006 EDT.
There is a lot of talk about subordinate relationships here(in business and in the military) but, this comment about it being about power seems to be right on. The P/A behaviour is P/A behaviour in a relationship with anyone. In this case in a romantic relationship. It is about control. It is a behaviour with which he handles every little conflict. He can't share control of anything. He fears loosing any control. It is how he tries to maintain control and power. When he is questioned he is all innocent and it is her fault. He does nothing wrong. He has a very hard time apologizing and never will unless it he is going to loose the relationship. This is the same behaviour he exibits with his children, if they get angry then they get ignored. They also learn to stuff their emotions and also learn to deal with all conflict in the same way and also exibit P/A behaviour.
[edit] My own observation and a question
Most of the attention given to P/A focusses on the obvious negative impacts, such as the list of traits found in this article. I've found that many individuals that are chronic in this behavior have learned a survival skill that keeps them gainfully employed: they've learned to pretend they are being helpful while all the while undermining the team's objectives. "I'll go get that hammer" turns into a 15 minute search & rescue that becomes laden with excuses.
A question I have is - is there a method that is generally successful - short of termination or promotion - that changes this behavior? Rewards & punishment? Confrontation? Exposure? ???
[edit] Common definition vs. Clinical definition
This article was suffereing from a conflict between the Common definition and the Clinical definition. The way the term is most commonly used by lay people is to describe a method of communication using "passive" verbal attacks (e.g., a backhanded complement that can be taken two ways, setting someone up verbally, etc.). This defintion was not covered by the DSM and is in conflict with both the origin of the term and the clinical definition.
I made edits trying to remove this non-clinical "definition", which seems to be more of a mis-use of the term.
This is an attempt to explain a common pattern as observe with passive aggression behavior, in response to the above topic.
Yes, they do have a survival mode in gainful employment to hide the anger, Role playing is something I have observed in this behavior. They use perfected social skills and are always seem very nice to people. An intimate relationship is another story altogether. It requires some negotiation in relationships in order for them to survive. My observation is they cannot make a definite stance on anything. Yes, I do not like that or Yes, I am angry about this situation is prolonged into endless sulking, avoiding discussions about important matters, avoidance of any problem solving technique, and procrastination until the point of no return.
Procrastination is used until the situation becomes red hot, almost explosive. Requests of combined efforts to solve problems is none existent until the situation becomes volital. I believe the volitive behavior as an end product that gives the passive agressive person a huge stress reduction. Granted, this is by no means peaceful nor functional resolution to problems. Nor, does it solve in real functional goals. Goals become somewhat non existent and the behavior continues.
For intance, we moved he did not express his displeasure and sulked and complained for months. Only a year later did I find out his anger and why.
Passive aggression is a topic new to me, so do not take my viewpoints has clinical and complete.
Sagewind 18:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
