Lately, I’ve been seeing a lot of references to passive aggressive disorder. So, I thought that we could have a little chat. I’m going to open the discussion by presenting my concerns with this term and then post an article that certainly expounds, in a better written form, some of my beliefs.

It seems to me that this particular label is applied with a pretty broad brush, it seems that most acts of defiance and non-conformance short of open hostility could be labeled passive aggressive behavior. If someone doesn't do what you wish, when you wish it, it seems to me that the passive aggressive label is often quickly and firmly affixed his/her forehead. I don't see that as particularly helpful when dealing with maritial issues. However if someone is passive aggressive, if we can aggree on what that really is, then there are real issues.

What do you all think? . . . Maybe I'm just being oversensitive?, I could be a passive aggressive in denial? Wait, if I say I'm not in denial then that is proof that I am in denial and thus passive aggressive? I'm getting confused and my head hurts so I'm off to find a way to defy authority and sabotage my work.


Dear Cecil:
What exactly does it mean to say that someone is "passive-aggressive"? I hear this term used frequently, usually with reference to a coworker, child, parent, etc, who is being a pain in the [censored]. Surely there's a more rigorous clinical definition than that. --Frank Caplice, Chicago


Cecil replies:
You might get some argument there, Frank. It's true that if you look under "passive-aggressive personality disorder" (PAPD) in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (the older editions--more about that below), you find the syndrome solemnly described as a "pervasive pattern of passive resistance to demands for adequate social and occupational performance." But once you delve into the history of the term, you realize that--at least in the eyes of its critics--it's mostly useful as a high-flown way to call someone a pain in the [censored].

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.

After the war the term found its way into civilian psychiatric practice and for many years was listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the bible of the mental health trade. According to the revised third edition (DSM-III-R, 1987), someone had PAPD if he displayed five or more of the following behaviors: (1) procrastinates, (2) sulks or argues when asked to do something he doesn't want to do, (3) works inefficiently on unwanted tasks, (4) complains without justification of unreasonable demands, (5) "forgets" obligations, (6) believes he is doing a much better job than others think, (7) resents useful suggestions, (8) fails to do his share, or (9) unreasonably criticizes authority figures.

You may say: I know a lot of people like that. Or even: I'm that way myself sometimes. Exactly the problem. From the outset skeptics argued that passive-aggressive behavior is an ordinary defensive maneuver and shouldn't be considered symptomatic of a mental disorder. Reacting to such criticism, the authors of previous versions of the DSM had defined PAPD narrowly: in DSM-III (1980), they'd said PAPD shouldn't be diagnosed in the presence of any other disorder (you can see how depression might contribute to procrastination or sulkiness, for example). The idea apparently was to curb careless use of the term--though shrinks weren't likely to say somebody was mentally ill if he was just a PITA, if he had some other psychiatric problem, they'd throw in PAPD too. Sure enough, after DSM-III diagnoses of PAPD declined sharply, to the point that some researchers felt the category should be abolished. Others, however, thought the exclusivity criterion was unnecessarily limiting and persuaded the editors of DSM-III-R to drop it. PAPD diagnoses shot back up. Conclusion: If we define PAPD rigorously, almost nobody has it; if we define it loosely, just about everybody does.

Recognizing that the definition as then formulated wasn't working but uncertain how to fix it, the compilers of DSM-IV (1994) dumped PAPD from the list of official disorders and relegated it to an appendix. The most telling complaint, in my opinion, was that merely being passive-aggressive isn't a disorder but a behavior--sometimes a perfectly rational behavior, which lets you dodge unpleasant chores while avoiding confrontation. It's only pathological if it's a habitual, crippling response reflecting a pervasively pessimistic attitude--people who suffer from PAPD expect disappointment, and gain a sense of control over their lives by bringing it about. Some psychiatrists have suggested that PAPD be merged into a broader category, called negativistic personality disorder. Diagnostic criteria: passive-aggressive plus (a) mad at the world, (b) envious and resentful, (c) feels cheated by life, and (d) alternately hostile and clingy.

We'll let the specialists work out the details. For now, though, we lay folk should strive to use the term "passive-aggressive" more precisely in everyday life. Say for instance that a coworker cheerfully agrees to refrain from a specified uncool act, then does it anyway. Is this passive-aggressive behavior? No, this is being an a@#hole. Comforting as it can be to pigeonhole our tormentors with off-the-shelf psychiatric diagnoses, sometimes it's best just to call a jerk a jerk.
--CECIL ADAMS
straightdope.com

<small>[ November 24, 2004, 09:51 AM: Message edited by: Comfortably Numb ]</small>

Interesting notion.

I was once introduced to the concept of scale, that no one HAS a disorder or not, but it's to the degree of SCALE they have the disorder and if it is causing problems in their lives.

Take ADD for example, inattentiveness or distractibility is one symptom...OK, raise your hands anyone who can pay attention ALL the time...yep, I've been known to lose focus during a boring meeting, or presentation. But does my lack of focus cause problems in my life? Not that I've seen. When the lack of focus causes a problem...wham, then the diagnosis of ADD comes out.

Same with being called passive-aggressive or having passive-aggressive tendencies. EVERYONE uses these defense mechanisms from time to time, it's when you PREDOMINANTLY use these defenses, and it becomes a problem in your life.

My H is VERY passive-aggressive, and has been for awhile. I have educated myself recently, and have shown him the behavior that is a problem for me. He uses PA as his M.O. for MOST situations.

9 out of 10 questions I ask I can't get a straight answer. He is getting better now and I will point out when the answer he is giving me is not declarative and he will then answer...

I have worked out a plan with him if he begins to sulk in a situation...that I will leave and do something else as long as I am away from him. When the situation has arisen, and I tell him I am leaving and why, then he usually checks his behavior and makes changes and begs me to stick around.

When he changes his mind about something later or "forgets" and obligation or promise, I hold him to it...or ask him to write these down...so he can't argue that "I didn't say that".

This has come after the past year of talking about the behavior and working out plans with him.

Is there such a thing as passive-aggressive behavior...well, sure, you can call it anything you want, and it's not important to me what it's called and if it's got a diagnosis or not. What helps me is that there is information about how to deal with the frustrating behavior, and other people who are dealing with a loved one with these characteristics, knows what you're talking about.

Forgive my ignorance, but what does PITA stand for? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" />

pita ia a flat bread....

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

Pep

I agree with you to a certain extent - I think there are a lot of times when someone who is just being a PITA does get labeled as being PA.

And I read recently that PA was just taken off the books as a valid psychological diagnosis. Evidently the experts are not so sure about it being a real disorder either.

On the other hand, I do label my X as being PA. To me, there are a couple of differences between PA and PITA. One of the big ones is that when someone is PA, it isn't always a direct correlation... they say they won't do something, then do it, or vice versa. With my X, there was a whole lot of very subtle "punishment," which, when confronted with it, he denied he was "punishing" me, it was just that accidents happen. But there was a definite pattern in the way things would happen.

He would end up "accidentally" breaking something of mine - and it was always something I cared about, not him. After a while I started noticing that that happened every time something didn't go his way, or I was right about something we had disagreed about (and I never said "I told you so" after the fact... but he did if it turned out he was right, and when I was right, would say "go ahead and say I told you so, I know you want to." Even though I would refuse, he acted as if I had rubbed it in anyway.) He would deny the two were connected in any way, it was just an accident. But any time something like that happened, or he ended up doing something I wanted that he didn't want to do, I ended up paying in some way.

Another thing he would do is tease my cat. We had two cats, and one was attached to me, one more to him. He never teased his cat, just mine. Made her sort of neurotic - it's amazing how much friendlier she has become since he's been gone.

Another example is I wasn't "allowed" to ask him to do stuff around the house. He would once in a while do something on his own, but really, really resented it if I in any way expected him to do something. And there was a vicious cycle to it. He would complain that the house was messy, and I would tell him I couldn't keep up - he messed it up faster than I could clean. And I was tired of picking up after him all the time. His excuse was that he didn't know what needed done.

Ok - I accepted the fact that maybe he really didn't know. I started telling him things that needed done. He wouldn't do them, and for the longest time was mad that I was telling him to do things, but wouldn't admit it - would just say he would do it, and then didn't.

Eventually, when I got mad enough about him not doing any of the stuff, he said it was because I was telling him instead of asking. That he felt like I was treating him like I was his mother instead of his wife.

All right - so I started asking instead. Would you please do this? Could you do that for me please? He would say ok, and then never do it. When I complained about that, he said that I got too impatient, that I didn't give him a chance to get it done before I got frustrated and did it myself.

So - I tried to be more patient. Once, I asked him to put away some sheets. He had a whole bunch of stuff piled in front of the closet where they went, to where I couldn't really get in there, so I asked him to put them away. He said ok. I never asked him again, or complained about it not getting done, and didn't go do it myself. They sat there for four months. I finally did end up doing it myself, after a big blowout about it.

The next excuse was that I ALWAYS had something that needed done, and that I never said thank you. Both of which were not true, and I pointed out all the times I had said thanks for things he had done, and how infrequently I asked him to do things compared to all the things I was doing. He agreed, said I was right.... and went right back to his normal MO - agree to do something and then never think about it again.

The bottom line - he didn't want to do it (yeah, like I was just clamoring to pick up garbage after him and such myself, right?) and if he didn't want to, he wasn't going to. But he didn't want conflict, and he knew it was being selfish to say he wouldn't help, so he agreed to do it, and then just didn't.

So, are you seeing a difference here? Your garden-variety PITA exibits some PA traits, but they are just a way of being a PITA. But there are people for whom the PA behaviors are an art form, and they don't even necessarily recognize that they are doing it. There's always a reason why it's someone else's fault that they have to act that way.

I could probably give you a hundred more examples from my personal "X files." In pretty much all the examples, though, what it boiled down to was him being angry at me for something, and whatever he did, it was somehow my fault, that I "made" him act that way. If I hadn't asked him to help, he wouldn't have had to lie, and he had to lie, because if he told me outright he wouldn't do it, I would have been upset with him. I asked too much of him...wanted the house too clean.... at least until it got too messy for too long, and then he would complain that the house being such a mess was getting on his nerves, like that was my fault too.

If I had to sum it up, I'd say the difference between someone who is just a PITA and someone who is really PA is the difference between kids playing kickball out in a field somewhere and professional soccer players. Totally different leagues!

TooMuch -

Well, it could also be called PITP - pain in the posterior - but that doesn't have as nice of a ring to it. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

I think in order to better comprehend *passive* aggression..we ought first to understand *aggression*.


Two words that are commonly used to desrcibe aggression are hostility and attack. One or the other is used in every single definition I saw when I looked the word up in the dictionary.

So that answers the question of why aggression is not the method of preference for the recipient. Passive aggression would be undesireable for the same reason. Only difference being that an overtly aggressive act is above board..while a passively aggressive act is an attack while pretending not to be.

In war..both of these can be usefull tools as *attack* and *hostile* are both acceptable means of interaction..but in a relationship, not so much. There we prefer assertiveness..which is neither aggressive [an attack] nor compliant. Assertiveness is about the aggressive enforcement of the boundaries in place for the *self*..without attack or hostility on the *other*

Plan A has some passive aggressive qualities to it..

Plan B..very assertive

Exposure is probably overtly aggressive

I'm going to chew on this awhile and see if I can catch the tails of these thoughts now whirling and tie them together in a meaningful way.

Good post CN, lots to think about

Noodle

Penguin et al.,

So, you think what separates a class A A-hole from someone with PA tendencies is a matter of degree or frequency of the behavior? I wonder if it also has to do with the motivation of the behavior. If I am flip most of time maybe I’m just a misanthrope? If I avoid conflict, maybe it is because if I didn’t as a kid my Dad/Mom would belt the heck out of me.

People are complicated, so are their motivations. Most people do things to avoid pain. I think people find a strategy that worked for them in past situations and apply it to future problems.

Sometimes I think passive aggressive behaviors are valuable . . . Isn’t that what Ghandi did? I know he was a heathen and all and is burning in hell because he was a Hindu and not a Christian,(notice the PA barb <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> ) but he did seem to be a decent sort of fellow. His Passive Resistance movement seemed to share a lot of what some describe as Passive Aggressive behavior, the procrastination, the distrust of authority, willful noncompliance, etc.

Noodle,

I'll have to think about what you said . . . very interesting . . .

<small>[ November 24, 2004, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: Comfortably Numb ]</small>

CN -

Yes, I would agree with you that motivation plays into it too. Not wanting to help around the house could just be over-the-top selfishness, and the PA behavior his way of handling it with as little conflict as possible - or at least postponing the conflict for as long as possible.

But the fact that whenever he got mad or upset with me about something, he would deny being upset, then take it out on me in some totally unrelated way, such as breaking or damaging something of mine, or teasing my cat, or whatever.... That really doesn't come into the realm of selfish behavior. That's where motivation starts kicking in. The motivation is definitely revenge. The method is passive because actively showing anger about the situation is for some reason unacceptable - either for fear of reprisal, or realizing that the anger really isn't justified, but wanting to express it anyway, or having the experience while growing up that expressing those sorts of feelings is unacceptable.... lots of reasons.

And I really do think a big difference is how cognizant the person is of what they are doing. The person who says one thing and then does something else, knowing the whole time he is not going to do what he said... definitely a PITA, and knows it. The PA person doesn't even necessarily think they are really doing what they are doing.... they aren't a PITA, it's everyone else's fault for putting them in the position of having to act that way.

From what I've seen, one big difference this makes is in confronting the person. It's easier to confront a PITA, because they know they are a PITA, and will probably, when confronted, admit they knew exactly what they were doing, and it was just easier that way.

When you confront a PA, it can be very difficult to get them to even see there is a problem at all. Frequently, they think this is the way everyone handles things, that it's completely normal to be that way. And when confronted, they'll say whatever gets them through it with the least amount of conflict (in other words, responding to confrontation about PA behavior with MORE PA behavior) because, after all, that is the way to handle problems.