比较文本

查找两个文本文件之间的差异

Real-time diff

Unified diff

Collapse lines

Highlight change

Syntax highlighting

工具

Diffchecker Desktop The most secure way to run Diffchecker. Get the Diffchecker Desktop app: your diffs never leave your computer!Get Desktop

Defensive.Communication

Created 6 months agoDiff never expires

358 lines

319 lines

(From https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1961.tb00344.x

(From https://reagle.org/joseph/2010/conflict/media/gibb-defensive-communication.html

Line breaks preserved except hyphenated words joined with previous line.

Line breaks added to match the left-hand-side here.

Footnotes moved up, to immediately after the paragraph in which they occur.

Caps-and-small-caps headings changed to "#" headings with regular uppercase-and-lowercase. Italic headings to "##" headings.

The bold headings changed to "#" headings.

Table 1 moved up and ASCII-formatted within ```.)

--------

DEFENSIVE COMMUNICATION

Jack R. Gibb*

by Jack R. Gibb

*Dr. Gibb (Ph.D., Stanford University, 1943) is at present a private

(Transcribed from a mimeographed paper discovered at the University of Toledo, 4/88. Edited only to reduce gender-specific references. des — Note: The original text, with references, appears in Appendix C of the Trust book. Jack has said that this article, which came out of research performed for the Office of Naval Research, "has been more widely distributed than any of my other publications.")

consultant to a number of national organizations. He was Professor of

Psychology at The University of Colorado, and he served on the faculties

of Stanford University, Michigan State University, and Brigham Young

University. He has been Director of Research for the National Training

Laboratories and Vice President for Research of the Society for Advancement

of Management. During the period between 1953 and 1961 he directed

a series of experimental and field studies designed to investigate the

arousal and maintenance of defensive behavior in small groups. These

studies were financed by a series of grants from the Group Psychology

Branch of the Office of Naval Research. The conclusions summarized in this

article were derived from analyses of the tapes of human relations training

sessions in industrial, educational, and community settings and from coded

observations of the sessions themselves. A major part of the data was gathered

at training programs conducted by the National Training Laboratories.

One way to understand communication is to view it as a

people process rather than as a language process. If one is to

people process rather than a language process. If one is to

make fundamental improvement in communication, he must

make fundamental improvement in communication, one must

make changes in interpersonal relationships. One possible type

of alteration—and the one with which this paper is concerned—is

that of reducing the degree of defensiveness.

# Definition and Significance

Defensive behavior is defined as that behavior which occurs

when an individual perceives threat or anticipates threat in the

group. The person who behaves defensively, even though he also

group. The person who behaves defensively, even though he or she also

gives some attention to the common task, devotes an appreciable

portion of his energy to defending himself. Besides talking

portion of energy to defending himself or herself. Besides talking

about the topic, he thinks about how he appears to others, how

he may be seen more favorably, how he may win, dominate,

impress, or escape punishment, and/or how he may avoid or

impress or escape punishment, and/or how he may avoid or

mitigate a perceived or an anticipated attack.

mitigate a perceived attack.

Such inner feelings and outward acts tend to create similarly

defensive postures in others; and, if unchecked, the ensuing circular

response becomes increasingly destructive. Defensive behavior,

in short, engenders defensive listening, and this in turn

produces postural, facial, and verbal cues which raise the defense

produces postural, facial and verbal cues which raise the defense

level of the original communicator.

Defense arousal prevents the listener from concentrating upon

the message. Not only do defensive communicators send off

multiple value, motive, and affect cues, but also defensive recipients

multiple value, motive and affect cues, but also defensive recipients

distort what they receive. As a person becomes more and

more defensive, he becomes less and less able to perceive accurately

more defensive, he or she becomes less and less able to perceive accurately

the motives, the values, and the emotions of the sender.

the motives, the values and the emotions of the sender.

The writer’s analyses of tape recorded discussions revealed that

The writer's analysis of tape recorded discussions revealed that

increases in defensive behavior were correlated positively with

losses in efficiency in communication.¹ Specifically, distortions

losses in efficiency in communication.(2)

became greater when defensive states existed in the groups.

¹ J. R. Gibb, “Defense Level and Influence Potential in Small Groups,”

(2). J. R. Gibb, "Defense Level and Influence Potential in Small Groups,"

in L. Petrullo and B. M. Bass (eds.), _Leadership and Interpersonal Behavior_

(New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1961), pp. 66-81.

(New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961), pp. 66-81

The converse, moreover, also is true. The more “supportive”

The converse, moreover, also is true. The more "supportive"

or defense reductive the climate the less the receiver reads into

or defense-reductive the climate, the less the receiver reads into

the communication distorted loadings which arise from projections

of his own anxieties, motives, and concerns. As defenses

of his own anxieties, motives and concerns. As defenses

are reduced, the receivers become better able to concentrate upon

the structure, the content, and the cognitive meanings of the

the structure, the content and the cognitive meanings of the

message.

# Categories of Defensive and Supportive Communication

# Categories of Defensive and Supportive Communications

In working over an eight-year period with recordings of discussions

occurring in varied settings, the writer developed the

six pairs of defensive and supportive categories presented in

Table 1. Behavior which a listener perceives as possessing any

of the characteristics listed in the left-hand column arouses defensiveness,

whereas that which he interprets as having any of

the qualities designated as supportive reduces defensive feelings.

The degree to which these reactions occur depends upon the

personal level of defensiveness and upon the general climate in

person's level of defensiveness and upon the general climate in

the group at the time.²

the group at the time.(3)

² J. R. Gibb, “Sociopsychological Processes of Group Instruction,” in N. B.

(3). J. R. Gibb, "Sociopsychological Processes of Group Instruction," in N. B.

Henry (ed.), _The Dynamics of Instructional Groups_ (Fifty-ninth Yearbook

of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II, 1960), pp.

of the National Society of the Study of Education, Part II, 1960), pp.

115-135.

TABLE I

TABLE 1

Categories of Behavior Characteristic of Supportive

and Defensive Climates in Small Groups

```

Defensive Climates Supportive Climates

1. Evaluation 1. Description

2. Control 2. Problem orientation

2. Control 2. Problem Orientation

3. Strategy 3. Spontaneity

4. Neutrality 4. Empathy

5. Superiority 5. Equality

6. Certainty 6. Provisionalism

```

## Evaluation and Description

# Evaluation and Description

Speech or other behavior which appears evaluative increases

defensiveness. If by expression, manner of speech, tone of voice,

defensiveness. If by expression, manner of speech, tone of voice

or verbal content the sender seems to be evaluating or judging

the listener, then the receiver goes on guard. Of course, other

the listener, the receiver goes on guard. Of course, other

factors may inhibit the reaction. If the listener thought that the

speaker regarded him as an equal and was being open and spontaneous,

for example, the evaluativeness in a message would be

neutralized and perhaps not even perceived. This same principle

applies equally to the other five categories of potentially

defense-producing climates. The six sets are interactive.

defense-producing climates. These six sets are interactive.

Because our attitudes toward other persons are frequently,

and often necessarily, evaluative, expressions which the defensive

person will regard as nonjudgmental are hard to frame. Even

the simplest question usually conveys the answer that the sender

wishes or implies the response that would fit into his value system.

wishes or implies the response that would fit into his or her value system.

A mother, for example, immediately following an earth

tremor that shook the house, sought for her small son with the

question: “Bobby, where are you?” The timid and plaintive

question, "Bobby, where are you?" The timid and plaintive

“Mommy, I didn’t do it” indicated how Bobby’s chronic mild

"Mommy, I didn't do it" indicated how Bobby's chronic mild

defensiveness predisposed him to react with a projection of his

own guilt and in the context of his chronic assumption that questions

are full of accusation.

Anyone who has attempted to train professionals to use information-seeking

speech with neutral affect appreciates how difficult

it is to teach a person to say even the simple “who did that?”

it is to teach a person to say even the simple "who did that?"

without being seen as accusing. Speech is so frequently judgmental

that there is a reality base for the defensive interpretations

which are so common.

When insecure, group members are particularly likely to place

blame, to see others as fitting into categories of good or bad, to

make moral judgments of their colleagues, and to question the

make moral judgments of their colleagues and to question the

value, motive, and affect loadings of the speech which they hear.

value, motive and affect loadings of the speech which they hear.

Since value loadings imply a judgment of others, a belief that

the standards of the speaker differ from his own causes the listener

the standards of the speaker differ from his or her own causes the listener

to become defensive.

Descriptive speech, in contrast to that which is evaluative,

tends to arouse a minimum of uneasiness. Speech acts which the

listener perceives as genuine requests for information or as material

with neutral loadings is descriptive. Specifically, presentations

with neutral loadings is descriptive. Specifically, presentation

of feelings, events, perceptions, or processes which do not

of feelings, events, perceptions or processes which do not

ask or imply that the receiver change behavior or attitude are

minimally defense producing. The difficulty in avoiding overtone

is illustrated by the problems of news reporters in writing

stories about unions, communists, Negroes, and religious activities

stories about unions, Communists, Blacks and religious activities

without tipping off the “party” line of the newspaper. One

without tipping off the "party" line of the newspaper. One

can often tell from the opening words in a news article which

side the newspaper’s editorial policy favors.

side the newspaper's editorial policy favors.

## Control and Problem Orientation

# Control and Problem Orientation

Speech which is used to control the listener evokes resistance.

In most of our social intercourse someone is trying to do something

In most of our social intercourse, someone is trying to do something

to someone else—to change an attitude, to influence behavior,

or to restrict the field of activity. The degree to which

attempts to control produce defensiveness depends upon the

openness of the effort, for a suspicion that hidden motives exist

heightens resistance. For this reason attempts of nondirective

heightens resistance. For this reason, attempts of nondirective

therapists and progressive educators to refrain from imposing a

set of values, a point of view, or a problem solution upon the

set of values, a point of view or a problem solution upon the

receivers meet with many barriers. Since the norm is control,

noncontrollers must earn the perceptions that their efforts have

no hidden motives. A bombardment of persuasive “messages”

no hidden motives. A bombardment of persuasive "messages"

in the fields of politics, education, special causes, advertising,

religion, medicine, industrial relations, and guidance has bred

religion, medicine, industrial relations and guidance has bred

cynical and paranoidal responses in listeners.

cynical and paranoid responses in listeners.

Implicit in all attempts to alter another person is the assumption

by the change agent that the person to be altered is inadequate.

That the speaker secretly views the listener as ignorant,

unable to make his own decisions, uninformed, immature, unwise,

unable to make his or her own decisions, uninformed, immature, unwise,

or possessed of wrong or inadequate attitudes is a subconscious

perception which gives the latter a valid base for defensive

reactions.

Methods of control are many and varied. Legalistic insistence

on detail, restrictive regulations and policies, conformity norms,

and all laws are among the methods. Gestures, facial expressions,

other forms of nonverbal communication, and even such simple

acts as holding a door open in a particular manner are means of

imposing one’s will upon another and hence are potential sources

of resistance.

Problem orientation, on the other hand, is the antithesis of

persuasion. When the sender communicates a desire to collaborate

in defining a mutual problem and in seeking its solution,

he tends to create the same problem orientation in the listener;

and, of greater importance, he implies that he has no predetermined

solution, attitude, or method to impose. Such behavior is

permissive in that it allows the receiver to set his own goals,

make his own decisions, and evaluate his own progress—or to

share with the sender in doing so. The exact methods of attaining

permissiveness are not known, but they must involve a constellation

of cues and they certainly go beyond mere verbal

assurances that the communicator has no hidden desires to exercise

control.

## Strategy and Spontaneity

# Strategy and Spontaneity

When the sender is perceived as engaged in a stratagem involving

ambiguous and multiple motivations, the receiver becomes

defensive. No one wishes to be a guinea pig, a role player,

or an impressed actor, and no one likes to be the victim of some

hidden motivation. That which is concealed, also, may appear

larger than it really is with the degree of defensiveness of the

listener determining the perceived size of the suppressed element.

listener determining the perceived size of the element.

The intense reaction of the reading audience to the

material in the _Hidden Persuaders_ indicates the prevalence of

material in The Hidden Persuaders indicates the prevalence of

defensive reactions to multiple motivations behind strategy.

Group members who are seen as “taking a role,” as feigning emotion,

Group members who are seen as "taking a role" as feigning emotion,

as toying with their colleagues, as withholding information,

as toying with their colleagues, as withholding information

or as having special sources of data are especially resented. One

participant once complained that another was “using a listening

participant once complained that another was "using a listening

technique” on him!

technique" on him!

A large part of the adverse reaction to much of the so-called

human relations training is a feeling against what are perceived

as gimmicks and tricks to fool or to “involve” people, to make a

as gimmicks and tricks to fool or to "involve" people, to make a

person think he is making his own decision, or to make the listener

person think he or she is making their own decision, or to make the listener

feel that the sender is genuinely interested in him as a

feel that the sender is genuinely interested in him or her as a

person. Particularly violent reactions occur when it appears that

someone is trying to make a stratagem appear spontaneous. One

person has reported a boss who incurred resentment by habitually

person reported a boss who incurred resentment by habitually

using the gimmick of “spontaneously” looking at his watch

using the gimmick of "spontaneously" looking at his watch

and saying, “My gosh, look at the time-I must run to an appointment.”

and saying "my gosh, look at the time—I must run to an appointment."

The belief was that the boss would create less irritation

by honestly asking to be excused.

Similarly, the deliberate assumption of guilelessness and natural

simplicity is especially resented. Monitoring the tapes of

feedback and evaluation sessions in training groups indicates

the surprising extent to which members perceive the strategies

of their colleagues. This perceptual clarity may be quite shocking

to the strategist, who usually feels that he has cleverly hidden

the motivational aura around the “gimmick.”

This aversion to deceit may account for one’s resistance to

The aversion to deceit may account for one's resistance to

politicians who are suspected of behind-the-scenes planning to

get his vote, to psychologists whose listening apparently is motivated

get one's vote, to psychologists whose listening apparently is motivated

by more than the manifest or content-level interest in his

by more than the manifest or content-level interest in

behavior, or to the sophisticated, smooth, or clever person whose

one's behavior, or the sophisticated, smooth, or clever person whose

“oneupmanship” is marked with guile. In training groups the

one-upmanship is marked with guile. In training groups the

role-flexible person frequently is resented because his changes in

role-flexible person frequently is resented because his or her changes in

behavior are perceived as strategic maneuvers.

In contrast, behavior which appears to be spontaneous and

In contrast, behavior that appears to be spontaneous and

free of deception is defense reductive. If the communicator is

seen as having a clean id, as having uncomplicated motivations,

as being straightforward and honest, and as behaving spontaneously

as being straightforward and honest, as behaving spontaneously

in response to the situation, he is likely to arouse minimal

in response to the situation, he or she is likely to arouse minimal

defense.

defensiveness.

## Neutrality and Empathy

# Neutrality and Empathy

When neutrality in speech appears to the listener to indicate

a lack of concern for his welfare, he becomes defensive. Group

members usually desire to be perceived as valued persons, as

individuals of special worth, and as objects of concern and affection.

individuals with special worth, and as objects of concern and affection.

The clinical, detached, person-is-an-object-of-study attitude

The clinical, detached, person-is-an-object-study attitude

on the part of many psychologist-trainers is resented by group

members. Speech with low affect that communicates little

warmth or caring is in such contrast with the affect-laden speech

in social situations that it sometimes communicates rejection.

Communication that conveys empathy for the feelings and

respect for the worth of the listener, however, is particularly

supportive and defense reductive. Reassurance results when a

message indicates that the speaker identifies himself with the

message indicates that the speaker identifies himself or herself with the

listener’s problems, shares his feelings, and accepts his emotional

listener's problems, shares her feelings, and accepts her emotional

reactions at face value. Abortive efforts to deny the legitimacy

of the receiver’s emotions by assuring the receiver that he need

of the receiver's emotions by assuring the receiver that she need

not feel bad, that he should not feel rejected, or that he is overly

not feel badly, that she should not feel rejected, or that she is overly

anxious, though often intended as support giving, may impress

anxious, although often intended as support giving, may impress

the listener as lack of acceptance. The combination of understanding

and empathizing with the other person’s emotions with

and empathizing with the other person's emotions with

no accompanying effort to change him apparently is supportive

no accompanying effort to change him or her is supportive

at a high level.

The importance of gestural behavioral cues in communicating

The importance of gestural behavior cues in communicating

empathy should be mentioned. Apparently spontaneous facial

and bodily evidences of concern are often interpreted as especially

valid evidence of deep-level acceptance.

## Superiority and Equality

# Superiority and Equality

When a person communicates to another that he feels superior

When a person communicates to another that he or she feels superior

in position, power, wealth, intellectual ability, physical characteristics,

or other ways, he arouses defensiveness. Here, as with

or other ways, she or he arouses defensiveness. Here, as with

the other sources of disturbance, whatever arouses feelings of

other sources of disturbance, whatever arouses feelings of

inadequacy causes the listener to center upon the affect loading

of the statement rather than upon the cognitive elements. The

receiver then reacts by not hearing the message, by forgetting it,

by competing with the sender, or by becoming jealous of him.

by competing with the sender, or by becoming jealous of him or her.

The person who is perceived as feeling superior communicates

that he is not willing to enter into a shared problem-solving relationship,

that he or she is not willing to enter into a shared problem-solving relationship,

that he probably does not desire feedback, that he does

that he or she probably does not desire feedback, that he or she does

not require help, and/or that he will be likely to try to reduce

not require help, and/or that he or she will be likely to try to reduce

the power, the status, or the worth of the receiver.

Many ways exist for creating the atmosphere that the sender

feels himself equal to the listener. Defenses are reduced when

feels himself or herself equal to the listener. Defenses are reduced when

one perceives the sender as being willing to enter into participative

planning with mutual trust and respect. Differences in

talent, ability, worth, appearance, status, and power often exist,

talent, ability, worth, appearance, status and power often exist,

but the low defense communicator seems to attach little importance

to these distinctions.

## Certainty and Provisionalism

# Certainty and Provisionalism

The effects of dogmatism in producing defensiveness are well

known. Those who seem to know the answers, to require no

additional data, and to regard themselves as teachers rather than

as co-workers tend to put others on guard. Moreover, in the

writer’s experiment, listeners often perceived manifest expressions

writer's experiment, listeners often

perceived manifest expressions

of certainty as connoting inward feelings of inferiority.

They saw the dogmatic individual as needing to be right, as

wanting to win an argument rather than solve a problem, and as

wanting to win an argument rather than solve a problem and as

seeing his ideas as truths to be defended. This kind of behavior

seeing his or her ideas as truths to be defended. This kind of behavior

often was associated with acts which others regarded as attempts

to exercise control. People who were right seemed to have low

tolerance for members who were “wrong”—i.e., who did not

tolerance for members who were "wrong"—i.e., who did not

agree with the sender.

One reduces the defensiveness of the listener when he communicates

One reduces the defensiveness of the listener when one communicates

that he is willing to experiment with his own behavior,

that one is willing to experiment with one's own behavior,

attitudes, and ideas. The person who appears to be taking provisional

attitudes and ideas. The person who appears to be taking provisional

attitudes, to be investigating issues rather than taking

sides on them, to be problem solving rather than debating, and

sides on them, to be problem solving rather than doubting, and

to be willing to experiment and explore tends to communicate

that the listener may have some control over the shared quest or

the investigation of the ideas. If a person is genuinely searching

for information and data, he does not resent help or company

for information and data, he or she does not resent help or company

along the way.

# Conclusion

The implications of the above material for the parent, the

teacher, the manager, the administrator, or the therapist are

fairly obvious. Arousing defensiveness interferes with communication

and thus makes it difficult—and sometimes impossible—for

anyone to convey ideas clearly and to move effectively toward

the solution of therapeutic, educational, or managerial

problems.

已保存差异

原始文本

打开文件

(From https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1961.tb00344.x
Line breaks preserved except hyphenated words joined with previous line.
Footnotes moved up, to immediately after the paragraph in which they occur.
Caps-and-small-caps headings changed to "#" headings with regular uppercase-and-lowercase. Italic headings to "##" headings.
Table 1 moved up and ASCII-formatted within ```.)

--------

DEFENSIVE COMMUNICATION
Jack R. Gibb*

*Dr. Gibb (Ph.D., Stanford University, 1943) is at present a private
consultant to a number of national organizations. He was Professor of
Psychology at The University of Colorado, and he served on the faculties
of Stanford University, Michigan State University, and Brigham Young
University. He has been Director of Research for the National Training
Laboratories and Vice President for Research of the Society for Advancement
of Management. During the period between 1953 and 1961 he directed
a series of experimental and field studies designed to investigate the
arousal and maintenance of defensive behavior in small groups. These
studies were financed by a series of grants from the Group Psychology
Branch of the Office of Naval Research. The conclusions summarized in this
article were derived from analyses of the tapes of human relations training
sessions in industrial, educational, and community settings and from coded
observations of the sessions themselves. A major part of the data was gathered
at training programs conducted by the National Training Laboratories.

One way to understand communication is to view it as a
people process rather than as a language process. If one is to
make fundamental improvement in communication, he must
make changes in interpersonal relationships. One possible type
of alteration—and the one with which this paper is concerned—is
that of reducing the degree of defensiveness.

# Definition and Significance

Defensive behavior is defined as that behavior which occurs
when an individual perceives threat or anticipates threat in the
group. The person who behaves defensively, even though he also
gives some attention to the common task, devotes an appreciable
portion of his energy to defending himself. Besides talking
about the topic, he thinks about how he appears to others, how
he may be seen more favorably, how he may win, dominate,
impress, or escape punishment, and/or how he may avoid or
mitigate a perceived or an anticipated attack.

Such inner feelings and outward acts tend to create similarly
defensive postures in others; and, if unchecked, the ensuing circular
response becomes increasingly destructive. Defensive behavior,
in short, engenders defensive listening, and this in turn
produces postural, facial, and verbal cues which raise the defense
level of the original communicator.

Defense arousal prevents the listener from concentrating upon
the message. Not only do defensive communicators send off
multiple value, motive, and affect cues, but also defensive recipients
distort what they receive. As a person becomes more and
more defensive, he becomes less and less able to perceive accurately
the motives, the values, and the emotions of the sender.
The writer’s analyses of tape recorded discussions revealed that
increases in defensive behavior were correlated positively with
losses in efficiency in communication.¹ Specifically, distortions
became greater when defensive states existed in the groups.

¹ J. R. Gibb, “Defense Level and Influence Potential in Small Groups,”
in L. Petrullo and B. M. Bass (eds.), _Leadership and Interpersonal Behavior_
(New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1961), pp. 66-81.

The converse, moreover, also is true. The more “supportive”
or defense reductive the climate the less the receiver reads into
the communication distorted loadings which arise from projections
of his own anxieties, motives, and concerns. As defenses
are reduced, the receivers become better able to concentrate upon
the structure, the content, and the cognitive meanings of the
message.

# Categories of Defensive and Supportive Communication

In working over an eight-year period with recordings of discussions
occurring in varied settings, the writer developed the
six pairs of defensive and supportive categories presented in
Table 1. Behavior which a listener perceives as possessing any
of the characteristics listed in the left-hand column arouses defensiveness,
whereas that which he interprets as having any of
the qualities designated as supportive reduces defensive feelings.
The degree to which these reactions occur depends upon the
personal level of defensiveness and upon the general climate in
the group at the time.²

² J. R. Gibb, “Sociopsychological Processes of Group Instruction,” in N. B.
Henry (ed.), _The Dynamics of Instructional Groups_ (Fifty-ninth Yearbook
of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II, 1960), pp.
115-135.

TABLE I
Categories of Behavior Characteristic of Supportive
and Defensive Climates in Small Groups

```
Defensive Climates    Supportive Climates
1. Evaluation         1. Description
2. Control            2. Problem orientation
3. Strategy           3. Spontaneity
4. Neutrality         4. Empathy
5. Superiority        5. Equality
6. Certainty          6. Provisionalism
```

## Evaluation and Description

Speech or other behavior which appears evaluative increases
defensiveness. If by expression, manner of speech, tone of voice,
or verbal content the sender seems to be evaluating or judging
the listener, then the receiver goes on guard. Of course, other
factors may inhibit the reaction. If the listener thought that the
speaker regarded him as an equal and was being open and spontaneous,
for example, the evaluativeness in a message would be
neutralized and perhaps not even perceived. This same principle
applies equally to the other five categories of potentially
defense-producing climates. The six sets are interactive.

Because our attitudes toward other persons are frequently,
and often necessarily, evaluative, expressions which the defensive
person will regard as nonjudgmental are hard to frame. Even
the simplest question usually conveys the answer that the sender
wishes or implies the response that would fit into his value system.
A mother, for example, immediately following an earth
tremor that shook the house, sought for her small son with the
question: “Bobby, where are you?” The timid and plaintive
“Mommy, I didn’t do it” indicated how Bobby’s chronic mild
defensiveness predisposed him to react with a projection of his
own guilt and in the context of his chronic assumption that questions
are full of accusation.

Anyone who has attempted to train professionals to use information-seeking
speech with neutral affect appreciates how difficult
it is to teach a person to say even the simple “who did that?”
without being seen as accusing. Speech is so frequently judgmental
that there is a reality base for the defensive interpretations
which are so common.

When insecure, group members are particularly likely to place
blame, to see others as fitting into categories of good or bad, to
make moral judgments of their colleagues, and to question the
value, motive, and affect loadings of the speech which they hear.
Since value loadings imply a judgment of others, a belief that
the standards of the speaker differ from his own causes the listener
to become defensive.

Descriptive speech, in contrast to that which is evaluative,
tends to arouse a minimum of uneasiness. Speech acts which the
listener perceives as genuine requests for information or as material
with neutral loadings is descriptive. Specifically, presentations
of feelings, events, perceptions, or processes which do not
ask or imply that the receiver change behavior or attitude are
minimally defense producing. The difficulty in avoiding overtone
is illustrated by the problems of news reporters in writing
stories about unions, communists, Negroes, and religious activities
without tipping off the “party” line of the newspaper. One
can often tell from the opening words in a news article which
side the newspaper’s editorial policy favors.

## Control and Problem Orientation

Speech which is used to control the listener evokes resistance.
In most of our social intercourse someone is trying to do something
to someone else—to change an attitude, to influence behavior,
or to restrict the field of activity. The degree to which
attempts to control produce defensiveness depends upon the
openness of the effort, for a suspicion that hidden motives exist
heightens resistance. For this reason attempts of nondirective
therapists and progressive educators to refrain from imposing a
set of values, a point of view, or a problem solution upon the
receivers meet with many barriers. Since the norm is control,
noncontrollers must earn the perceptions that their efforts have
no hidden motives. A bombardment of persuasive “messages”
in the fields of politics, education, special causes, advertising,
religion, medicine, industrial relations, and guidance has bred
cynical and paranoidal responses in listeners.

Implicit in all attempts to alter another person is the assumption
by the change agent that the person to be altered is inadequate.
That the speaker secretly views the listener as ignorant,
unable to make his own decisions, uninformed, immature, unwise,
or possessed of wrong or inadequate attitudes is a subconscious
perception which gives the latter a valid base for defensive
reactions.

Methods of control are many and varied. Legalistic insistence
on detail, restrictive regulations and policies, conformity norms,
and all laws are among the methods. Gestures, facial expressions,
other forms of nonverbal communication, and even such simple
acts as holding a door open in a particular manner are means of
imposing one’s will upon another and hence are potential sources
of resistance.

Problem orientation, on the other hand, is the antithesis of
persuasion. When the sender communicates a desire to collaborate
in defining a mutual problem and in seeking its solution,
he tends to create the same problem orientation in the listener;
and, of greater importance, he implies that he has no predetermined
solution, attitude, or method to impose. Such behavior is
permissive in that it allows the receiver to set his own goals,
make his own decisions, and evaluate his own progress—or to
share with the sender in doing so. The exact methods of attaining
permissiveness are not known, but they must involve a constellation
of cues and they certainly go beyond mere verbal
assurances that the communicator has no hidden desires to exercise
control.

## Strategy and Spontaneity

When the sender is perceived as engaged in a stratagem involving
ambiguous and multiple motivations, the receiver becomes
defensive. No one wishes to be a guinea pig, a role player,
or an impressed actor, and no one likes to be the victim of some
hidden motivation. That which is concealed, also, may appear
larger than it really is with the degree of defensiveness of the
listener determining the perceived size of the suppressed element.
The intense reaction of the reading audience to the
material in the _Hidden Persuaders_ indicates the prevalence of
defensive reactions to multiple motivations behind strategy.
Group members who are seen as “taking a role,” as feigning emotion,
as toying with their colleagues, as withholding information,
or as having special sources of data are especially resented. One
participant once complained that another was “using a listening
technique” on him!

A large part of the adverse reaction to much of the so-called
human relations training is a feeling against what are perceived
as gimmicks and tricks to fool or to “involve” people, to make a
person think he is making his own decision, or to make the listener
feel that the sender is genuinely interested in him as a
person. Particularly violent reactions occur when it appears that
someone is trying to make a stratagem appear spontaneous. One
person has reported a boss who incurred resentment by habitually
using the gimmick of “spontaneously” looking at his watch
and saying, “My gosh, look at the time-I must run to an appointment.”
The belief was that the boss would create less irritation
by honestly asking to be excused.

Similarly, the deliberate assumption of guilelessness and natural
simplicity is especially resented. Monitoring the tapes of
feedback and evaluation sessions in training groups indicates
the surprising extent to which members perceive the strategies
of their colleagues. This perceptual clarity may be quite shocking
to the strategist, who usually feels that he has cleverly hidden
the motivational aura around the “gimmick.”

This aversion to deceit may account for one’s resistance to
politicians who are suspected of behind-the-scenes planning to
get his vote, to psychologists whose listening apparently is motivated
by more than the manifest or content-level interest in his
behavior, or to the sophisticated, smooth, or clever person whose
“oneupmanship” is marked with guile. In training groups the
role-flexible person frequently is resented because his changes in
behavior are perceived as strategic maneuvers.

In contrast, behavior which appears to be spontaneous and
free of deception is defense reductive. If the communicator is
seen as having a clean id, as having uncomplicated motivations,
as being straightforward and honest, and as behaving spontaneously
in response to the situation, he is likely to arouse minimal
defense.

## Neutrality and Empathy

When neutrality in speech appears to the listener to indicate
a lack of concern for his welfare, he becomes defensive. Group
members usually desire to be perceived as valued persons, as
individuals of special worth, and as objects of concern and affection.
The clinical, detached, person-is-an-object-of-study attitude
on the part of many psychologist-trainers is resented by group
members. Speech with low affect that communicates little
warmth or caring is in such contrast with the affect-laden speech
in social situations that it sometimes communicates rejection.

Communication that conveys empathy for the feelings and
respect for the worth of the listener, however, is particularly
supportive and defense reductive. Reassurance results when a
message indicates that the speaker identifies himself with the
listener’s problems, shares his feelings, and accepts his emotional
reactions at face value. Abortive efforts to deny the legitimacy
of the receiver’s emotions by assuring the receiver that he need
not feel bad, that he should not feel rejected, or that he is overly
anxious, though often intended as support giving, may impress
the listener as lack of acceptance. The combination of understanding
and empathizing with the other person’s emotions with
no accompanying effort to change him apparently is supportive
at a high level.

The importance of gestural behavioral cues in communicating
empathy should be mentioned. Apparently spontaneous facial
and bodily evidences of concern are often interpreted as especially
valid evidence of deep-level acceptance.

## Superiority and Equality

When a person communicates to another that he feels superior
in position, power, wealth, intellectual ability, physical characteristics,
or other ways, he arouses defensiveness. Here, as with
the other sources of disturbance, whatever arouses feelings of
inadequacy causes the listener to center upon the affect loading
of the statement rather than upon the cognitive elements. The
receiver then reacts by not hearing the message, by forgetting it,
by competing with the sender, or by becoming jealous of him.

The person who is perceived as feeling superior communicates
that he is not willing to enter into a shared problem-solving relationship,
that he probably does not desire feedback, that he does
not require help, and/or that he will be likely to try to reduce
the power, the status, or the worth of the receiver.

Many ways exist for creating the atmosphere that the sender
feels himself equal to the listener. Defenses are reduced when
one perceives the sender as being willing to enter into participative
planning with mutual trust and respect. Differences in
talent, ability, worth, appearance, status, and power often exist,
but the low defense communicator seems to attach little importance
to these distinctions.

## Certainty and Provisionalism

The effects of dogmatism in producing defensiveness are well
known. Those who seem to know the answers, to require no
additional data, and to regard themselves as teachers rather than
as co-workers tend to put others on guard. Moreover, in the
writer’s experiment, listeners often perceived manifest expressions
of certainty as connoting inward feelings of inferiority.
They saw the dogmatic individual as needing to be right, as
wanting to win an argument rather than solve a problem, and as
seeing his ideas as truths to be defended. This kind of behavior
often was associated with acts which others regarded as attempts
to exercise control. People who were right seemed to have low
tolerance for members who were “wrong”—i.e., who did not
agree with the sender.

One reduces the defensiveness of the listener when he communicates
that he is willing to experiment with his own behavior,
attitudes, and ideas. The person who appears to be taking provisional
attitudes, to be investigating issues rather than taking
sides on them, to be problem solving rather than debating, and
to be willing to experiment and explore tends to communicate
that the listener may have some control over the shared quest or
the investigation of the ideas. If a person is genuinely searching
for information and data, he does not resent help or company
along the way.

# Conclusion

The implications of the above material for the parent, the
teacher, the manager, the administrator, or the therapist are
fairly obvious. Arousing defensiveness interferes with communication
and thus makes it difficult—and sometimes impossible—for
anyone to convey ideas clearly and to move effectively toward
the solution of therapeutic, educational, or managerial
problems.

更改后文本

打开文件

(From https://reagle.org/joseph/2010/conflict/media/gibb-defensive-communication.html
Line breaks added to match the left-hand-side here.
Footnotes moved up, to immediately after the paragraph in which they occur.
The bold headings changed to "#" headings.
Table 1 moved up and ASCII-formatted within ```.)

--------

DEFENSIVE COMMUNICATION
by Jack R. Gibb

One way to understand communication is to view it as a
people process rather than a language process. If one is to
make fundamental improvement in communication, one must
make changes in interpersonal relationships. One possible type
of alteration—and the one with which this paper is concerned—is
that of reducing the degree of defensiveness.

# Definition and Significance

Defensive behavior is defined as that behavior which occurs
when an individual perceives threat or anticipates threat in the
group. The person who behaves defensively, even though he or she also
gives some attention to the common task, devotes an appreciable
portion of energy to defending himself or herself. Besides talking
about the topic, he thinks about how he appears to others, how
he may be seen more favorably, how he may win, dominate,
impress or escape punishment, and/or how he may avoid or
mitigate a perceived attack.

Such inner feelings and outward acts tend to create similarly
defensive postures in others; and, if unchecked, the ensuing circular
response becomes increasingly destructive. Defensive behavior,
in short, engenders defensive listening, and this in turn
produces postural, facial and verbal cues which raise the defense
level of the original communicator.

Defense arousal prevents the listener from concentrating upon
the message. Not only do defensive communicators send off
multiple value, motive and affect cues, but also defensive recipients
distort what they receive. As a person becomes more and
more defensive, he or she becomes less and less able to perceive accurately
the motives, the values and the emotions of the sender.
The writer's analysis of tape recorded discussions revealed that
increases in defensive behavior were correlated positively with
losses in efficiency in communication.(2)

(2). J. R. Gibb, "Defense Level and Influence Potential in Small Groups,"
in L. Petrullo and B. M. Bass (eds.), _Leadership and Interpersonal Behavior_
(New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961), pp. 66-81

The converse, moreover, also is true. The more "supportive"
or defense-reductive the climate, the less the receiver reads into
the communication distorted loadings which arise from projections
of his own anxieties, motives and concerns. As defenses
are reduced, the receivers become better able to concentrate upon
the structure, the content and the cognitive meanings of the
message.

# Categories of Defensive and Supportive Communications

In working over an eight-year period with recordings of discussions
occurring in varied settings, the writer developed the
six pairs of defensive and supportive categories presented in
Table 1. Behavior which a listener perceives as possessing any
of the characteristics listed in the left-hand column arouses defensiveness,
whereas that which he interprets as having any of
the qualities designated as supportive reduces defensive feelings.
The degree to which these reactions occur depends upon the
person's level of defensiveness and upon the general climate in
the group at the time.(3)

(3). J. R. Gibb, "Sociopsychological Processes of Group Instruction," in N. B.
Henry (ed.), _The Dynamics of Instructional Groups_ (Fifty-ninth Yearbook
of the National Society of the Study of Education, Part II, 1960), pp.
115-135.

TABLE 1
Categories of Behavior Characteristic of Supportive
and Defensive Climates in Small Groups

```
Defensive Climates    Supportive Climates

1. Evaluation         1. Description
2. Control            2. Problem Orientation
3. Strategy           3. Spontaneity
4. Neutrality         4. Empathy
5. Superiority        5. Equality
6. Certainty          6. Provisionalism
```

# Evaluation and Description

Speech or other behavior which appears evaluative increases
defensiveness. If by expression, manner of speech, tone of voice
or verbal content the sender seems to be evaluating or judging
the listener, the receiver goes on guard. Of course, other
factors may inhibit the reaction. If the listener thought that the
speaker regarded him as an equal and was being open and spontaneous,
for example, the evaluativeness in a message would be
neutralized and perhaps not even perceived. This same principle
applies equally to the other five categories of potentially
defense-producing climates. These six sets are interactive.

Because our attitudes toward other persons are frequently,
and often necessarily, evaluative, expressions which the defensive
person will regard as nonjudgmental are hard to frame. Even
the simplest question usually conveys the answer that the sender
wishes or implies the response that would fit into his or her value system.
A mother, for example, immediately following an earth
tremor that shook the house, sought for her small son with the
question, "Bobby, where are you?" The timid and plaintive
"Mommy, I didn't do it" indicated how Bobby's chronic mild
defensiveness predisposed him to react with a projection of his
own guilt and in the context of his chronic assumption that questions
are full of accusation.

Anyone who has attempted to train professionals to use information-seeking
speech with neutral affect appreciates how difficult
it is to teach a person to say even the simple "who did that?"
without being seen as accusing. Speech is so frequently judgmental
that there is a reality base for the defensive interpretations
which are so common.

When insecure, group members are particularly likely to place
blame, to see others as fitting into categories of good or bad, to
make moral judgments of their colleagues and to question the
value, motive and affect loadings of the speech which they hear.
Since value loadings imply a judgment of others, a belief that
the standards of the speaker differ from his or her own causes the listener
to become defensive.

Descriptive speech, in contrast to that which is evaluative,
tends to arouse a minimum of uneasiness. Speech acts which the
listener perceives as genuine requests for information or as material
with neutral loadings is descriptive. Specifically, presentation
of feelings, events, perceptions or processes which do not
ask or imply that the receiver change behavior or attitude are
minimally defense producing. The difficulty in avoiding overtone
is illustrated by the problems of news reporters in writing
stories about unions, Communists, Blacks and religious activities
without tipping off the "party" line of the newspaper. One
can often tell from the opening words in a news article which
side the newspaper's editorial policy favors.

# Control and Problem Orientation

Speech which is used to control the listener evokes resistance.
In most of our social intercourse, someone is trying to do something
to someone else—to change an attitude, to influence behavior,
or to restrict the field of activity. The degree to which
attempts to control produce defensiveness depends upon the
openness of the effort, for a suspicion that hidden motives exist
heightens resistance. For this reason, attempts of nondirective
therapists and progressive educators to refrain from imposing a
set of values, a point of view or a problem solution upon the
receivers meet with many barriers. Since the norm is control,
noncontrollers must earn the perceptions that their efforts have
no hidden motives. A bombardment of persuasive "messages"
in the fields of politics, education, special causes, advertising,
religion, medicine, industrial relations and guidance has bred
cynical and paranoid responses in listeners.

Implicit in all attempts to alter another person is the assumption
by the change agent that the person to be altered is inadequate.
That the speaker secretly views the listener as ignorant,
unable to make his or her own decisions, uninformed, immature, unwise,
or possessed of wrong or inadequate attitudes is a subconscious
perception which gives the latter a valid base for defensive
reactions.

# Strategy and Spontaneity

When the sender is perceived as engaged in a stratagem involving
ambiguous and multiple motivations, the receiver becomes
defensive. No one wishes to be a guinea pig, a role player,
or an impressed actor, and no one likes to be the victim of some
hidden motivation. That which is concealed, also, may appear
larger than it really is with the degree of defensiveness of the
listener determining the perceived size of the element.
The intense reaction of the reading audience to the
material in The Hidden Persuaders indicates the prevalence of
defensive reactions to multiple motivations behind strategy.
Group members who are seen as "taking a role" as feigning emotion,
as toying with their colleagues, as withholding information
or as having special sources of data are especially resented. One
participant once complained that another was "using a listening
technique" on him!

A large part of the adverse reaction to much of the so-called
human relations training is a feeling against what are perceived
as gimmicks and tricks to fool or to "involve" people, to make a
person think he or she is making their own decision, or to make the listener
feel that the sender is genuinely interested in him or her as a
person. Particularly violent reactions occur when it appears that
someone is trying to make a stratagem appear spontaneous. One
person reported a boss who incurred resentment by habitually
using the gimmick of "spontaneously" looking at his watch
and saying "my gosh, look at the time—I must run to an appointment."
The belief was that the boss would create less irritation
by honestly asking to be excused.

The aversion to deceit may account for one's resistance to
politicians who are suspected of behind-the-scenes planning to
get one's vote, to psychologists whose listening apparently is motivated
by more than the manifest or content-level interest in
one's behavior, or the sophisticated, smooth, or clever person whose
one-upmanship is marked with guile. In training groups the
role-flexible person frequently is resented because his or her changes in
behavior are perceived as strategic maneuvers.

In contrast, behavior that appears to be spontaneous and
free of deception is defense reductive. If the communicator is
seen as having a clean id, as having uncomplicated motivations,
as being straightforward and honest, as behaving spontaneously
in response to the situation, he or she is likely to arouse minimal
defensiveness.

# Neutrality and Empathy

When neutrality in speech appears to the listener to indicate
a lack of concern for his welfare, he becomes defensive. Group
members usually desire to be perceived as valued persons, as
individuals with special worth, and as objects of concern and affection.
The clinical, detached, person-is-an-object-study attitude
on the part of many psychologist-trainers is resented by group
members. Speech with low affect that communicates little
warmth or caring is in such contrast with the affect-laden speech
in social situations that it sometimes communicates rejection.

Communication that conveys empathy for the feelings and
respect for the worth of the listener, however, is particularly
supportive and defense reductive. Reassurance results when a
message indicates that the speaker identifies himself or herself with the
listener's problems, shares her feelings, and accepts her emotional
reactions at face value. Abortive efforts to deny the legitimacy
of the receiver's emotions by assuring the receiver that she need
not feel badly, that she should not feel rejected, or that she is overly
anxious, although often intended as support giving, may impress
the listener as lack of acceptance. The combination of understanding
and empathizing with the other person's emotions with
no accompanying effort to change him or her is supportive
at a high level.

The importance of gestural behavior cues in communicating
empathy should be mentioned. Apparently spontaneous facial
and bodily evidences of concern are often interpreted as especially
valid evidence of deep-level acceptance.

# Superiority and Equality

When a person communicates to another that he or she feels superior
in position, power, wealth, intellectual ability, physical characteristics,
or other ways, she or he arouses defensiveness. Here, as with
other sources of disturbance, whatever arouses feelings of
inadequacy causes the listener to center upon the affect loading
of the statement rather than upon the cognitive elements. The
receiver then reacts by not hearing the message, by forgetting it,
by competing with the sender, or by becoming jealous of him or her.

The person who is perceived as feeling superior communicates
that he or she is not willing to enter into a shared problem-solving relationship,
that he or she probably does not desire feedback, that he or she does
not require help, and/or that he or she will be likely to try to reduce
the power, the status, or the worth of the receiver.

Many ways exist for creating the atmosphere that the sender
feels himself or herself equal to the listener. Defenses are reduced when
one perceives the sender as being willing to enter into participative
planning with mutual trust and respect. Differences in
talent, ability, worth, appearance, status and power often exist,
but the low defense communicator seems to attach little importance
to these distinctions.

# Certainty and Provisionalism

perceived manifest expressions
of certainty as connoting inward feelings of inferiority.
They saw the dogmatic individual as needing to be right, as
wanting to win an argument rather than solve a problem and as
seeing his or her ideas as truths to be defended. This kind of behavior
often was associated with acts which others regarded as attempts
to exercise control. People who were right seemed to have low
tolerance for members who were "wrong"—i.e., who did not
agree with the sender.

One reduces the defensiveness of the listener when one communicates
that one is willing to experiment with one's own behavior,
attitudes and ideas. The person who appears to be taking provisional
attitudes, to be investigating issues rather than taking
sides on them, to be problem solving rather than doubting, and
to be willing to experiment and explore tends to communicate
that the listener may have some control over the shared quest or
the investigation of the ideas. If a person is genuinely searching
for information and data, he or she does not resent help or company
along the way.

# Conclusion

Words removed	548
Total words	2782
Words removed (%)	19.70

Words added	212
Total words	2446
Words added (%)	8.67