Conflict Avoidance Among LDS Students

[Calm]

13 hours ago, pogi said:

I think he uses the terms interchangeably because conflict avoidance is passive aggressive behavior. 

Not always, imo.  It can be protective behaviour as well.

[Calm]

13 hours ago, pogi said:

By definition, passive-aggressive people avoid conflict.
https://melodywilding.com/how-to-deal-with-passive-aggressive-people/

But not all conflict avoiders are passive aggressive. Some just can’t tolerate the levels of stress/stimulation conflict provides, others avoid conflict to protect themselves because they are in abusive situations.

Quote

Turner and Weed classify concealment as one of the three main types of responses to conflict, describing concealers as those who take no risk and so say nothing, concealing their views and feelings. Concealers are further divided into three types; namely:^[2]

• Feeling-swallowers who swallow their feelings. They smile even if the situation is causing them pain and distress. They behave thus because they consider the approval of other people important and feel that it would be dangerous to affront them by revealing their true feelings.
• Subject-changers who find the real issue too difficult to handle. They change the topic by finding something on which there can be some agreement with the conflicting party. According to Turner and Weed, this response style usually does not solve the problem; instead, it can create problems for the people who use this and for the organization in which such people are working.
• Avoiders who go out of their way to avoid conflicts

Sorry it’s wiki, I have spent too much time on research already tonight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_avoidance#:~:text=Conflict avoidance is a person's,up the subject of contention.

[Calm]

On 8/24/2023 at 3:09 PM, pogi said:

Passive-aggressive people avoid conflict like turds on the sidewalk. 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/how-be-yourself/202010/5-ways-deal-passive-aggressive-people

But they end up getting other people to step in them instead where some conflict avoiders will try and help others avoid them and other conflict avoiders will pretend there is no turd there.

Edited August 26, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

13 hours ago, pogi said:

This type of stuff is still evident in the culture in recent times: 

I wonder how much came because our cultural heritage hasn’t been that diverse in Utah in the past.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2174269/What-say-really-mean-How-bumbling-Britons-avoid-confrontation-60-unnecessary-words-day.html

 

Quote

Communication Style: Communication in Sweden is participative, with everyone encouraged to share their perspective. There is a tendency for Swedes to avoid conflict or confrontation and refrain from raising their voice or showing anger. Rather, one may show anger by looking away or stopping talking. 

https://culturalatlas.sbs.com.au/swedish-culture/swedish-culture-communication#

[Calm]

On 8/24/2023 at 5:04 PM, pogi said:

Thinking about this topic, this song came to mind which triggered a deep emotion of sadness tinged with anger that I wasn't expecting:

"If you chance to meet a frown, do not let it stay.  Quickly turn it upside down and smile that frown away."

"No one likes a frowning face.  Change it for a smile.  Make the world a better place by smiling all the while."

I feel compassion for my inner child that internalized that song.  I honestly am still suffering from that culture and all the other teachings about anger. 

The Simpsons made me brave enough to risk the comment…

Be grateful you are not a woman. (That takes being told to smile and be nice to an additional level of dysfunction and continues for adult women in and out of the Church)

PS:  I did not grow up in Utah and I learned conflict avoidance as much at school as at church, being as shy as I was, but I am not surprised at the study as I think having church members be your classmates and teachers and work colleagues and bosses can intensify the church side because of not wanting to hurt or be rejected by those you highly identify with and care about.  When you know people at church and outside of church, you are going to get to know them better and may be more protective of them, but also be aware that problems at school can bleed into church and the reverse, so be less likely to take risks in alienating/angering someone.

Edited August 26, 2023 by Calm

[CV75]

14 hours ago, pogi said:

FWIW my personal feeling is that these results are a direct consequence of our teachings and culture in our church that I have already highlighted.   

It’s almost a predictable outcome that many would be affected:

“Along the way, most people who are passive-aggressive learned that it’s not okay to be angry or upset. Maybe they were taught that conflict is threatening and has to be avoided at all costs. Maybe they were taught that being “nice” and not rocking the boat is the only option.”

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/how-be-yourself/202010/5-ways-deal-passive-aggressive-people

 

 

Lots of maybes in there, and none of them can be considered direct consequences since everything that is taught and learned (in any setting) is conveyed through the interpretive filter of personality, much of which is inborn (not that dysfunction cannot be managed or ameliorated). Whatever the causes of passive-aggressiveness, I am looking for an empirical study supporting the “interesting and entertaining” claim of its abnormally high incidence in the Wasatch Front population based on someone infusing his own study on conflict management style with colloquialized terminology of bona fide clinical terms.

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Not always, imo.  It can be protective behaviour as well.

Situationally, yes, but not as a behavioral style in all relationships.  I think once it becomes a behavioral style displayed in all relationships (as seems to be the case in this study) it is passive aggressive behavior.

I think passive aggressive behavior is self-protective in nature.  People avoid due to a fear of confrontation, or fear of feeling/expressing anger, or fear of shattering others expectations of behavior and rocking the boat.  By maintaining the status quo, there is supposed to be safety from all those evil things. But I think you are talking about something else like abusive relationships where people avoid the abuser.  Generally speaking, I would assume that these kinds of numbers are not indicative of rampant abuse among LDS students.  I think it is pointing to learned passive aggressive behavioral styles.   While you are probably right that it is not wise to make such assumptions that all of this avoidant behavior/tendencies is Indicative of passive aggressive behavior, in this case, I think he is right.  I can’t think of what else it could be.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I wish.

Given that 9% of US adults have some kind of personality order, and that passive-aggressive (or negativistic personality disorder) falls within the "Other" cluster apart from the three key categories of personality disorders, and apart from "not otherwise specified," your wish seems to have been granted!

[Smiley McGee]

40 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Lots of maybes in there, and none of them can be considered direct consequences since everything that is taught and learned (in any setting) is conveyed through the interpretive filter of personality, much of which is inborn (not that dysfunction cannot be managed or ameliorated). Whatever the causes of passive-aggressiveness, I am looking for an empirical study supporting the “interesting and entertaining” claim of its abnormally high incidence in the Wasatch Front population based on someone infusing his own study on conflict management style with colloquialized terminology of bona fide clinical terms.

You're requesting something that likely isn't available. No one has asserted conclusively anything about the broader LDS population or asserted causes beyond what they think based on their experience. To the contrary, I've noted the limitations of the study and posters have couched their assertions in the context their personal experience. Do your own search if a more robust empirical study is what you're after. 

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Given that 9% of US adults have some kind of personality order, and that passive-aggressive (or negativistic personality disorder) falls within the "Other" cluster apart from the three key categories of personality disorders, and apart from "not otherwise specified," your wish seems to have been granted!

I consider rare as under 1%. 

[ksfisher]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

mom was Australian, kids were Orem

I didn't realize Orem was large enough to qualify as a  nationality.

[Smiley McGee]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

I wonder how much came because our cultural heritage hasn’t been that diverse in Utah in the past.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2174269/What-say-really-mean-How-bumbling-Britons-avoid-confrontation-60-unnecessary-words-day.html

 

https://culturalatlas.sbs.com.au/swedish-culture/swedish-culture-communication#

I think we can more easily look to endogenous, organizational factors as potential explanations for the observed passive-aggressive behavior, particularly the church's autocratic leadership style that promotes a culture of obedience, conformity, and suppression of opposing thought. People are probably hardwired for collaboration and mutual-compromise and that is not how the general membership interacts with leadership. We have callings, but no control; we put forth a sustaining "vote" that is not a "vote" in the broader understanding of the word; criticism is met with discipline. Other than leaving, no feedback mechanism exists for the general membership. I don't think the average person has much of a tolerance for this type of environment. 

I would also go on to suggest that passive-aggression is probably associated with a deep-level of discontent, of which I think there is a lot of in the church. So much of service is the church is half-assed (crap EQ lessons, infrequent home/visiting teaching/ministering, etc.), and I feel this is a manifestation of a group of people who a trying to maintain the social utility of their membership while realizing an unsatisfactory level of practical utility from their membership. 

[Smiley McGee]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Lots of maybes in there

Want to note that @pogi's effort to qualify ideas is a sign of intellectual maturity. It would idiotic to require or project certainty with regards to the complex social phenomenon being discussed. 

Edited August 25, 2023 by Smiley McGee

[CV75]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

I consider rare as under 1%. 

Yes, I reckon the PAPD portion of the 9% would be well under 1%. Cluster B, the smallest of the three clusters, is only 1.5% of that 9% (0.14% of the total population), so,  "Other" where PAPD is categorized would be outside of that.

Of course, "passive-aggressive" can be used as loosely as "gaslighting," so anything goes.

Edited August 25, 2023 by CV75

[CV75]

42 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

You're requesting something that likely isn't available. No one has asserted conclusively anything about the broader LDS population or asserted causes beyond what they think based on their experience. To the contrary, I've noted the limitations of the study and posters have couched their assertions in the context their personal experience. Do your own search if a more robust empirical study is what you're after. 

Yes, I was interested in expanding the discussion beyond the personal beliefs, feelings and experiences you shared in the OP. I thought this same study/topic had been discussed on this forum previously, but when I searched, I only found your other thread. created only Tuesday: Posted Tuesday at 11:53 AM (edited).  So, it must have been a while. I have searched and did not find the kind of study I was looking for.

[CV75]

29 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

Want to note that @pogi's effort to qualify ideas is a sign of intellectual maturity. It would idiotic to require or project certainty with regards to the complex social phenomenon being discussed. 

The quote was from a linked magazine article. The kind of study I was looking for, would not provide certainly, just a credible measure of the prevalence of "abnormality." I found some that provided the percentages I shared above, but that is just the US population, not the Wasatch Front.

Edited August 25, 2023 by CV75

[The Nehor]

21 hours ago, pogi said:

FWIW my personal feeling is that these results are a direct consequence of our teachings and culture in our church that I have already highlighted.   

It’s almost a predictable outcome that many would be affected:

“Along the way, most people who are passive-aggressive learned that it’s not okay to be angry or upset. Maybe they were taught that conflict is threatening and has to be avoided at all costs. Maybe they were taught that being “nice” and not rocking the boat is the only option.”

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/how-be-yourself/202010/5-ways-deal-passive-aggressive-people

 

 

And then the Church leadership is SHOCKED that members seem to have an almost irrational aversion to doing member missionary work and many of the best member missionaries are converts who didn’t grow up in the church.

[bsjkki]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

Our temple sealer said something about never going to bed angry/upset.  That only works if you have a partner that opens up.  Strong, silent types don’t generally resolve things quickly.

This is awful advice for many marriages. Sleep it off. Let tempers cool. Discuss when the emotions are calmed, and everyone has a clearer head. 

[Calm]

8 hours ago, CV75 said:

Yes, I reckon the PAPD portion of the 9% would be well under 1%. Cluster B, the smallest of the three clusters, is only 1.5% of that 9% (0.14% of the total population), so,  "Other" where PAPD is categorized would be outside of that.

Of course, "passive-aggressive" can be used as loosely as "gaslighting," so anything goes.

You are referring now to the Disorder, but originally you referred to the behaviour (“only one (rare, I believe) strategy to address conflict”).  There are plenty of people who do not have the disorder who may frequently use the behaviour.  It is likely rare to encounter a true passive aggressive.  Encountering someone who frequently uses passive aggression along with other behaviours, who may favor passive aggression (it’s their go to technique, but they are fully capable of not using it or turning to other behaviours when that doesn’t work for them) when trying to manipulate another is not that uncommon.

Edited August 25, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

15 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

Other than leaving, no feedback mechanism exists for the general membership.

One can just refuse to get behind instruction, such as obviously happened with brief past efforts to stop using Mormon, but also continuously happens when ward members do not go out and invite friends, etc if they want to meet the missionaries that are being required by bishops or stake, which seems like it is frequently brought up as a goal for a year in almost every place I have lived…except maybe Utah, though have heard variations there.  I was in one stake that expected us to have one friend/family over for dinner and to meet missionaries once a month iirc (may have been once a quarter).  We didn’t live in Mormonland at the time, so it would have been technically possible.  That goal was not discussed much after the first few months, my guess because no one was doing it.  Only a few of my fellowmembers were inviting anyone and they were ones who already did stuff like that.  Handing out so many BoM with your testimony written inside was also not a long lasting program in my experience. 

Edited August 26, 2023 by Calm

[CV75]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

You are referring now to the Disorder, but originally you referred to the behaviour (“only one (rare, I believe) strategy to address conflict”).  There are plenty of people who do not have the disorder who may frequently use the behaviour.  It is likely rare to encounter a true passive aggressive.  Encountering someone who frequently uses passive aggression along with other behaviours, who may favor passive aggression (it’s their go to technique, but they are fully capable of not using it or turning to other behaviours when that doesn’t work for them) when trying to manipulate another is not that uncommon.

Yes, and I figure the prevalence of the annoying behavior would track the prevalence disorder. There are many kinds of difficult behavior that at a certain level render a person difficult to deal with (which I would say is a point past the "annoyance" level). This is subjectively determined, of course, and where difficult behaviors intersect, the tolerance level for dealing with others drops. The OP cited a study, and while acknowledging the very subjective nature of the researcher's and their own extrapolation and reapplication of terms, suggest that a population of people demonstrates an annoying to intolerable level of difficult behavior, just short of (but it could include) pathology. My experience is that there are difficult (and annoying) people of all kinds along the Wasatch Front population, but I would not characterize them as a difficult population or suggest their behavior is due to Church teachings. This is my experience everywhere I've lived, and when I find myself annoyed, the next place I look is within myself, and that is half the problem... it could even be the entire problem if my annoyance and generalizations are a function of my pride and lack of charity! 

I've also seen that more often, passive-aggressive behavior is learned more by the context and the way in which children are taught than the content of what they are taught, and neglect, abuse and powerlessness have far more to do with adopting this behavior, in my opinion (and from what I have read).

[Rain]

On 8/24/2023 at 2:09 PM, pogi said:

How do we know it is that rare?  I think everyone uses this behavior to some extent.   

I think he uses the terms interchangeably because conflict avoidance is passive aggressive behavior. 

And my favorite:

 

Why it shows up so much in Mormon culture (at least from my observation) might be explained below:

That is a perfect description of my childhood in the Church!

President Spencer W. Kimball said, "anger is a thought sin.”

Brother Burton C. Kelly expounded on this concept in a 1980 Ensign article, saying, “anger against others is a result of sin, or unrighteous thinking.”  He continues, “from a gospel framework, our goal is not just constructive release of anger, but the elimination of anger.”

This type of stuff is still evident in the culture in recent times: 

Be nice, don't rock the boat, anger is bad.  I can't tell you how many church lessons I have had on this stuff.  I distinctly remember having a lesson on the evil of anger after my mission. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

On 8/24/2023 at 4:01 PM, MustardSeed said:

Anger and “pride” have been misrepresented in our circles IMO. 

And contention. 

Disagreement does not automatically mean contention.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Rain said:

 

And contention. 

Disagreement does not automatically mean contention.

Nor does criticism/correction equate to condemnation.

Edited August 26, 2023 by Calm

[Smiley McGee]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

suggest that a population of people demonstrates an annoying to intolerable level of difficult behavior

No one has suggested this. What has been suggested is that LDSs adopt a passive aggressive approach at relatively higher rates on average to the general population. Whether that level is “annoying” or “intolerable” is a separate matter.

Edited August 26, 2023 by Smiley McGee

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

No one has suggested this. What has been suggested is that LDSs adopt a passive aggressive approach at relatively higher rates on average to the general population. Whether that level is “annoying” or “intolerable” is a separate matter.

Semantics; to me, both suggestions are quantitatively the same.

"LDSs adopt a passive aggressive approach at relatively higher rates on average to the general population"... based on the claims of those who have been impressed enough (and not in a favorable way) by their personal perception to post as much, if I have read these posts correctly.

Is adopting "relatively higher rates [of a passive aggressive approach] on average to the general population" a generally favorable comparison in relating to others, in this case, dealing with conflict?