Diagnostics of Teenagers Disposition to Destructive Communication as a Way of Youth Extremism Prevention
Fatykhova RM* and Mingazova DV
Department of Psychology, M. Akmullah Bashkir State Pedagogical University, Russia
- Corresponding Author:
- Fatykhova RM
Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences
Professor, Head of the Department of Psychology
M. Akmullah Bashkir State Pedagogical University
Oktyabrskoi Revolutsii Street
The City of Ufa, 450000, Russia
Tel: +7 347 251-70-23
Received date: March 02, 2016; Accepted date: March 21, 2016; Published date: April 05, 2016
Copyright: © 2016 Fatykhova RM, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Visit for more related articles at
Global Media Journal
The article presents the author's methods of determination of teenagers’ disposition to destructive communication, identifies the main types of destructive communication and provides their psychological characteristics. It specifies the correlation between destructive communication and certain personal qualities of teenagers. It also determines the main role of the diagnostics of teenagers’ disposition to destructive communication as a way of youth extremism prevention in the system of correcting conditions of this type of interaction.
Diagnostics; Destructive communication;
Deviant communication; Mercenary communication; Barrier
Communication; Conflictogenic communication; Narcissistic
communication; Extremism; Correction; Prevention
Extremism is one of the most severe issues among the
multiple contemporary issues. It is a wide spread fact of the
life of the society of the 21th century, that doesn’t depend on
borders, class or gender. This is evident from the fact that the
vigorous destructive activities of the numerous parties and
social movements increasingly appear in the political,
economic, social, religious and other areas of society [1,2].
Analysis of extremism as a negative phenomenon leads to the
conclusion that it is a model of an aggressive socio political
communication, which built on the inequality of its parts and
the opposition of their interests . There are many views on
the nature and expressions of extremism. Briefly, principal
directions are as follows: extremism increased; extremism is
forming; extremism is a reacting of strong emotions,
extremism is the reasonable strategy in the race for power;
extremism rises from an apolitical, eschatological ideology;
extremism is a pathological disease [2,4,5].
On the basis of the definition given by Archbishop Desmond
Tutu and due to the targets for determination of the role of
education against extremism, Lynn Davies defines extremism as "when you do not allow for a different point of view; when
you hold your own views as being quite exclusive, when you
don’t allow for the possibility of difference and when you want
to impose this view on others using violence if necessary” .
Extremism among the teenagers has unique features. They
appear from the nature of teenagers as a social category and
are defined by the transitional nature of the formation of its
personality. In course of investigation of the formation of
teenagers’ personality in the process of realization of their
main social function, which are reproduction and innovational,
U.A. Zubok points out that it (formation) is associated with the
overcoming of both internal and external contradictions.
Young people, especially the youngsters, are often forced to
overcome internal contradictions that are the result of
ambivalent manifestations, such as shyness and
aggressiveness, openness and restraint, nihilism and
fanaticism in an effort to gain self-sufficiency and
independence from adults. External contradictions arise at the
joint of interaction between teenagers and society, when
meeting with its strict requirements. Realization of the
contradictions promotes the extreme types of mind and
behavior of youths, as its social group essential characteristics.
This process is intensified under the influence of teenagers
social status characteristics associated with the transitional
nature of the formation of its personality. Teenagers is only in
the process of becoming a subject of social reproduction, so its
social position is characterized by incompleteness of the social
status, marginality of the social attitudes, uncertainty of social
Adolescence has a special place in human life. During this
period there are large number of difficulties and disruptions in
communication, related to both personal characteristics and
environmental conditions and activities. Analysis of scientific
sources of communication barriers and irregularities causes
makes possible to stand out several forms of dysfunctional
interpersonal communication. These include: difficult
communication in the form of shyness or immodesty,
deficiency communication, which is evident as a disposition to
loneliness and stangeness, defect communication, i. e. the
combination of accentuation of personality, rigidity and
anxiety of the person, as well as destructive communication,
which is the subject of our study.
The term “destructive communication” is absent in the
psychological literature. The analysis of encyclopedical and
philosophic literature allowed identification of definitions and
concepts of destruction and destructive human activity.
Destruction (Latin: destruction – demolition) - demolition,
damage of the phenomena structure. In the English language
the term destructive means damaging, harmful. Known
researcher I.V. Lysak gives the following definition of this
phenomenon: “The destructive human activity is the specific
form of an active relation of the subject to the world or to
himself the main content of which is the destruction of the
existing objects and systems” .
The foreign psychology describes a number of terms with
the close meaning to our understanding of the destructive
communication, among them there are "miscommunication",
"communication breakdown", "deficiency communication",
and "destructive communication". All of these terms are
considered in the matter of communication as in foreign
science interaction is regarded as a form of communication.
The closest terms to our understanding of the destructive
communication phenomenon are “deficiency communication”,
“destructive communication”, since they describe situations in
which the parties of communication are dissatisfied with each
other, and unable to establish a positive dialogue, as a result
barriers and conflicts appear [8-11].
Based on the characteristics of the phenomenon
peculiarities, we give the following definition of destructive
communication: destructive communication is a form of
interpersonal communication, which is represented by subjectobject
interaction, which has a complicated nature due to the
personal characteristic of communicants, which as a result
affects the personality of the partners and disrupts the
The presented author's definition of destructive
communication is given for the first time in psychological
science and so it has the novelty. In addition, the novelty of
our approach lies in the fact that we determined the
psychological content of destructive forms of teenagers’
communication and empirically confirmed their relationship
with personal qualities. These relationships were discovered
possible with the help of the created questionnaire, the
description of which we give below.
The problem of the content, psychological characteristic and
forms of appearance of destructive communication in the
scientific literature remains understudied. Existing techniques
give an opportunity to detect certain destructive
communication appearances, but, unfortunately, don’t cover
the entire range of the studied phenomenon in the
respondents, and don’t allow the identification of the
disposition to destructive communication . Therefore the
objective of this study is the formation of the author
questionnaire “Methods of determination of the teenagers’
disposition to destructive communication” (MDDC), review of
its psychometrical characteristics and standardization.
Participants of the study
The study was carried out on the basis of secondary general
education institutions, among which were: Municipal
Educational Institution (MEI) Secondary General School (SGS)
No.1 of Chishmy village, MEI SGS of Alkino village of the
Chishminsky district of Bashkortostan (RB), MEI SGS No.34, 54
and MEI Lyceum No. 96 of Ufa city. Totally 578 people took
part in this study. Five experts-specialists in psychodiagnosis,
professors of leading universities of Ufa city (M. Akmullah
Bashkir State Pedagogical University, Bashkir Academy of
Public Service and Administration under the President of the
Republic of Bashkortostan) took part on the stage of validation
of the questionnaire.
Research on the formation of psychometric properties of
the method was carried out in six steps. More detailed
description of the steps presented in the article . The
developed questionnaire provides an opportunity to study the
destructive communication as an integral phenomenon and
determine the disposition of the teenager to one or more
types of the destructive communication.
Factor analysis of the characteristics which were obtained
from the analysis of the testees responses to the statements of
the developed diagnostic methods for determining the
disposition of teenagers to destructive communication was
used to define the types and the structures of the destructive
communication. The factor analysis found out five factors,
which represents five principal types of the destructive
communication (deviant, manipulative, barrier, conflictogenic
and narcissistic), which combine in itself types that are similar
in their properties.
“Deviant communication” includes the proclivity for
aggression, authority, egotism and criminality. It manifests
itself in communication by a lust for power, aspiration to take
control of other people, inability to recognize the wrongness,
ostentation and often by rudeness.
“Manipulative communication”, Aspiration to manipulate
the partner and mercenary forms of destructive
communication (falsehood, lies) dominates in this
phenomenon. In this case, the partner is considered as a
carrier of the properties which may be helpful in achievement
of his goal. It manifests itself in the form of deception,
hypocrisy, clinginess and attempts to deceive the partner due
to self-interest or the desire to find enjoyment in the process
of deceiving others.
“Barrier communication” is the interaction, which is based
on the communication barriers - shyness, loneliness and
strangeness. A person is characterized by low extroversion, a
constant feeling of discomfort, tension in the interaction,
which can be caused by low self-concept and self-esteem,
sensitivity to the opinion of others, fear to be refused, and at
the same time, fear of emotional bond and distrust of the
“Conflictogenic communication” manifests itself in in
behavior and person interaction in the form of disposition to
jealousy, envy, and high proneness to conflict of a person. The
behavior is based on the conflict as a complex personal quality.
It is characterized by the susceptibility, hot temper,
suspiciousness and envy or jealousy to the others. A person
disposed to envy in the process of interaction with people
experiencing hostility feelings toward success, popularity, the
moral ascendancy of another person, and the desire to destroy
the object of envy. He feels bad the perception of his lower
position in comparison with other people. The jealousy is
come out in pursuit to be in the center of attention, in the fear
of being left, become unpopular, as well as in the distrust of
“Narcissistic communication” takes its name from
narcissism as personal property manifested in the process of
interaction, influencing on the result of communication. Narcissism is represents borderline state of person, and
expressed in the form of hysteroid behavior and highly
contradictory self-construction . A person is characterized
by infantilism, egocentric motives orientation, feelings of
inferiority, the constant mental and physical fatigue, often
hypochondria, strangeness, insane quest for excellence, the
internal permissiveness, lack of lofty aims, excessive
idealization of people from circle of contacts, lack of creativity,
low motivation to work.
The correlation analysis of personal qualities and types of
destructive communication was carried out given the fact that
the destructive communication is based on the certain
personal qualities. Correlation analysis pointed out significant
relationships between outlined characteristics (Table 1)
|DC types Personal qualities
|Disposition to overcoming of norms and rules
Table 1: Correlation relationships between the personal qualities types of destructive communication (DC) (N=207, p<0.01000).
Deviant communication has significant associations with
egoism (0.48, p<0.01), negativism (0.32, p<0.01), verbal
aggression (0.81, p<0.01), disposition to overcoming of norms
and rules (0.34, p<0.01), authority (0.74, p<0.01) and
negatively correlates with obedience (-0.42, p<0.01). It can be
seen that the deviant communication is basically developed
thanks to a high level of person egoism and a desire to
dominate over partner on the interaction, in the absence of
acquiescence and emotional restraint it is often expressed in
the use of different ways to achieve his aims verbally by
altercation, menaces, abuse.
Mercenary communication in turn has relations with
personal qualities such as disposition to manipulation (0.79,
p<0.01), egoism (0.59, p<0.01), displaced aggression (0.36,
p<0.01), suspiciousness (0.45, p<0.01). The basis of this type of
destructive communication is the egoism and high degree of
Positive correlation shows the association of the barrier
form of destructive communication with suspiciousness (0.61,
p<0.01), dependence (0.74, p<0.01) and obedience (0.61,
p<0.01), and also negatively associated with authority (-0.35,
p<0.01). The person initially relates to the outward things and
the people suspiciously and incredulously, he is not able to
protect his own interests. Significant positive relations were
found between conflictogenic communication and disposition
to manipulation (0.34, p<0.01), egoism (0.41, p<0.01),
displaced aggression (0.31, p<0.01), soreness (0.34, p<0.01),
susceptibility (0.28, p<0.01), and negative association with
obedience (-0.51, p<0.01). This means that the person
demonstrate distrust, envy and hate to others, uses gossips,
jokes against others, very irritable and disposed to
manipulation Last form of the destructive communication of
teenagers is narcissistic communication that has significant
associations with egoism (0.34, p<0.01)and negativism (0.26, p<0.01). According to the results the personal qualities have a
close interrelation with the occurrence of destructive types of
teenager communication. This applies primarily to such
qualities as the disposition to manipulation, egoism, displaced
aggression, suspiciousness, that have significant associations
with a variety of types of destructive communication of
teenagers. Conspicuous is the fact that all types of destructive
communication, except the barrier, positively correlate with
the person egoism. The obtained results confirm hypothesis
and opinions of some authors that destructive communication
is based on the qualities of the person [16,17].
The analysis of the content abundance, frequency of
occurrence and the interrelation of the destructive
communication with the personal qualities, mostly negative,
bring to the conclusion that the early diagnostics of teenagers
and young people disposition to destructive communication is
necessary in order to prevent the transformation of the
disposition into stable extreme forms of behavior. The
necessity of diagnostics and subsequent correction of
teenager destructive communication caused by the fact that
the inconsistencies of views, marginality and unformed state
of persuasion and worldview, which are common to this age
can lead to aggression, fanaticism and criminogenic
communication in the absence of such work and under
unfavorable conditions of social situation of development, the
rejection of immediate circle.
Results of our research are coordinated with the opinions of
some researchers in the field of formation of resilience to
extremism among young people: «the key ingredients that
should guide teaching outcomes for building resilience are:
1. A focus on building personal resilience and a positive
sense of identity: supporting young people to be emotionally
resilient to life’s pressures and able to foster a positive sense
2. Development of critical thinking skills, i.e. continually
encouraging young people to think for themselves and in
doing so take account of a balanced range of evidence and
3. Opportunities for interaction and team-work, so that
young people develop transferable skills for positive
collaboration and ongoing engagement .
Extremism as the most major problem of that time is
becoming more widespread in the world. In most cases,
extreme forms of behavior are observed among young people.
This is caused by the transitional nature of personality
formation of young people, associated with overcoming of
both internal and external contradictions. Realization of
contradictions contributes to the formation of extreme types
of mind and behavior of young people as their social group,
essential characteristics. The greatest number of
communication difficulties and defection accrue to teenage
years. The most characteristic form of a bad interpersonal
communication of teenagers is destructive communication,which is based on mostly negative personal qualities. The
above determines the necessity of preventive activity with
teenagers for the prevention of aggression, violence and
fanaticism. For these purposes, early diagnostics of various
types of destructive communication and their correction is
Further studies could be aimed at determination of the
causes of disruptions in communication and on the basis of
these causes - identification of certain groups of teenagers.
This will help to make the preventive maintenance more
individual and to perform it systematically as well as to predict
negative behavior of teenagers during communication.
1. Active formation of communicative and personality
sphere of human the which development is immediately
interconnected takes place in the teenage years. Successful
passage of this step contributes to the formation of person
which effectively functions in the society. The occurrence of
various disorders, destructions in the process of
communication is not uncommon for this age stage, which is
much of it is owed to the fact that a teenager is developing
person and in many respects the formation of communication
models and interaction with society is still going.
2. The created questionnaire, “Methods of determination of
the teenagers disposition to destructive communication”
(MDDC), is primarily focused on the diagnostics of the main
types of destructive communication as a form of dysfunctional
communication that adversely (destructively) affect the
personality of participants of the interaction. Diagnostic
material allows effective detection of the disposition of
respondents, and simultaneously the level of expression of the
five major types of teenager destructive communication:
deviant, mercenary, barrier, conflictogenic and narcissistic
3. The analysis of the content abundance, frequency of
occurrence and the interrelation of the destructive
communication of with the personal qualities, brings to the
conclusion that the corrective work with teenagers in the
educational establishments is necessary in order to prevent
the transformation of the disposition into stable extreme
forms of behavior. The necessity of correction of teenager
destructive communication caused by the fact that the
inconsistencies of views, marginality and unformed state of
persuasion and worldview, which are common to this age can
lead to development of criminogenic communication as well
as negativism and fanaticism in the absence of such work and
under unfavorable conditions of social situation of
4. Objective and early diagnostics of teenager disposition to
destructive communication is essential condition and principle
part of the complex target program on prevention and
correction of youth extremism, based on the principles of the
dialogue, subject-subject interaction and non-directive work
The project was realized within the frame of the
Competition of fundamental and searching scientific studies in
order to create scientific reserve in the university professors.
- Zubok UA, Chuprov VI (2008) Youth extremism. the nature and peculiarities of occurrence. Sociological Studies 5: 37-47.
- Seifert K (2012) Youth Violence. theory, Prevention and Intervention: Springer Publishing Company, New York.
- Golovin AU, Aristarkhova TA (2013) The nature of extremism and percularities of its occurrence among the youth. News of the Tula State University. Economic and legal sciences 3-2: 3-9.
- BartoliA, Coleman P (2014) Dealing with Extremists. Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder, 2003.
- Czina V (2014) The Rise of Extremism Among the Youth of Europe: The Case of Hungary’s Jobbik Party.
- Davies L (2014) Education against extremism.
- Lysak IV (2004) Philosophical-anthropological analysis of the destructive activities of modern human - Rostov-on-Don – Taganrog: North Caucasian Scientific Centre of High School Publishing house, Taganrog State Radiotechnical University Publishing house.
- Di Cioccio RL (2008) The Development and Validation of the Teasing Communication Scale Human Communication. Journal of thePacific and Asian Communication Association 11: 255-272.
- Infante DA, Wigley CJ (1986) Verbal Aggressiveness: An Interpersonal Model and Mesaure. Communication Monographs 53: 61-69.
- Miczo N, Welter RE (2006) Aggressive and affiliative humor: Relationships to aspects of intercultural communication. Journal of Intercultural communication. Research 35: 61-77.
- Rancer AC, Avtgis TA (2006) Argumentative and Aggressive Communication: Theory, Research, and Application. Thousand Oaks: CA. Sage Publications.
- Kunitsyna VN (2001) Interpersonal communication. Textbook for HEI, St. Petersburg: Peter.
- Mingazova DV (2011) Methods of detection and diagnostics of destructive forms of teenager communication. Education region 3: 210–215.
- Mingazova DV, Fatykhova RM, Nesterova IN (2014) Methods of determination of teenager disposition to destructive communication (MDDC). Psychological journal 35: 91-104.
- Sokolova ЕТ (2001) Narcissism psychology. M.: Study guide «Psychology».
- Kirsanov AI, Davydov DG, Zavalskiy AV, Skribtsova NA (2014) Extremism Psihologicheskaja nauka i obrazovanie psyedu.ru», E-journal
- Musdybaev K (2000) Personality egoism. Psychological magazine 2: 27–39.
- Bonnell J, Copestake P, Kerr D (2011) Teaching approaches thathelpto build resiliencetoextremism among young people.