Superior Essay Writers | Defensive Communication

Defensive Communication

According to Zastrow and Hessenauer (2019), our perceptions determine how we interpret the messages we receive during communication. There are
several factors that can affect our perception, including defense mechanisms, which are socio-psychological factors that can influence what we perceive
and, in many cases, derail effective communication.
Before you write your initial discussion post, you should first review Chapter 5, Sections 2 and 3 in the textbook and review the defense mechanisms video.
For this forum, consider the following examples of defensiveness. Pick two of these examples and identify the defense mechanism at work, explain your
reasoning, then use Gibb’s analysis of defensive communication to explain how the defensiveness might be overcome.
A spouse refuses to speak to their partner because the partner was late for dinner and did not call.
A student tells their professor that it is the professor’s “fault” that they are on academic probation, which will “ruin their life.”
A parent tells her teen not to binge drink and the teen yells, “Who are you to judge me? You did the same thing when you were my age!”
An employer tells a recent college graduate that they know more because they went to the “school of hard knocks,” and “you think you’re better than the rest
of us—well, I’ve got news for you—you’re not! I’ve forgotten more than you will ever know about this business!”…

Sample Solution

The first example of defensiveness is the spouse refusing to speak to their partner because they were late for dinner and did not call. This can be identified as displacement, which is a defensive mechanism in which someone redirects his or her negative feelings onto another person or object. In this example, the spouse’s anger at being stood up for dinner has been displaced onto their partner who is now being punished even though they may have had a reasonable explanation for why they were late.

Richard (2014) study approached terrorism as a mode of violence, appropriated by different groups, states, and ideologies. His definition of terrorism is a product of three key assumptions: a. No act of violence “is in and of itself inherently terrorist” (p. 222). According to the author, terrorist’s events are products of a host of violence-based techniques such as bombing, kidnapping for ransom, theft, hostage taking, and more. These approaches are not unique to terrorist organisations, but are also employed by different groups, from social movements to ‘legitimate’ states. However, the techniques adopted become terrorist, only when layers of meaning are applied. b. Terrorism as a method of violence is vastly applied across groups, causes and ideologies (p. 224). Terrorism as a method of violence relates to the end-game of a particular act of violence, which is mainly to terrorise; not the specific techniques adopted. The author asserted, therefore, that since this method has been adopted by different groups, there is a need to distinguish terrorist groups, from groups that employ the strategy. c. Terrorist attacks are not only targeted at civilians or non-combatants (p. 226) Terrorists attack just about anyone, at times of peace or warfare, as long as the victims or object of attack serve sufficiently as message generators to a wider group or audience. He conceptualised terrorism thus: “the use of violence or the threat of violence with the primary purpose of generating a psychological impact beyond the immediate victims or object of attack for a political motive” (p. 230) While Richard’s definition included the psychological component, an element, which for many is a core definer of terrorism, it still had not met the criteria for scientific definitions. This is especially because intent cannot be readily empirically determined. According to De la Roche (2004) That others may use the term terrorism pejoratively-or that violent actors or their opponents may like or dislike the word-is irrelevant to a scientific definition of the phenomenon. A definition is not a value judgment and cannot be evaluated from a moral or ideological point of view. And because it is a conceptual rather than a factual or explanatory statement, a definition cannot be evaluated as right or wrong. Instead we evaluate a scientific definition solely by its usefulness in the ordering of facts (p. 1) Opposing this view, Richard (2014) had maintained that since terrorists m>

GET ANSWER