In the first case, verbally utter insults, threats, hostile comments, humiliating comments, etc. and, on the other hand, it can be non-verbal with the use of threatening or hostile gestures. Indirectly, it manifests itself through sarcastic, spiteful or humiliating comments.
Aggressive behavior is the reflection of an ambitious attitude, which tries to achieve objectives at any cost, even if it means transgressing ethical standards and violating the rights of others.
People with an aggressive style have the following characteristics:
They violate the rights of others, are belligerent, humiliate and despise others; They don’t mind having to insult or humiliate other people in public as long as they think doing so will help them achieve their goal. they are explosive, with an unpredictable, hostile and angry reaction; they meddle in the decisions of others; they look down on people and believe they have the right to make decisions or have a say in other people’s decisions.
The aggressive style of communication is harmful to both the receiver and the sender. Its effects can be two, depending on the situation and the type of person. For whom sends the messages:
Favorable: satisfactory emotional expression, feeling of power and achievement of the desired objectives.
Unfavorable: feelings of guilt and loneliness.
It may be that in the short term the consequences of being aggressive are positive. However, in the long term the sender may feel guilty, they will have problems having and maintaining personal relationships, they will feel alone and rejected, because nobody wants to have a person who only looks out for themselves and who humiliates others by their side. . People who have ever been victims of an aggressive person will avoid it so as not to have to suffer suffering and/or humiliation. Therefore, aggressive people, in the long term, will be left alone and no one will want to be by their side.
Another of the consequences of aggressive communication when it is issued by a leader is to provoke the anger of his followers towards his enemies, provoking reactions that not even he would have. Revanchism, hostility and antisocial behaviors are the result of aggressive messages whose consequences are difficult to predict. Undoubtedly, this type of message fosters polarization, a phenomenon that is advancing rapidly in the public debate and that, thanks to social networks, is reaching more and more people. According to Bloomberg, polarization is an equivalent of evaluative concepts such as “radicalization” or “extremism.”
The report The Hidden Drug, a study on the addictive power of the polarization of public debate, published by Más Democracia, highlights that the level of polarization in Latin America has grown by 39% in the last five years.
Those who are characterized by using an aggressive communication style and have influence among a large number of people are, to say the least, irresponsible. An example of this is the statement of President López Obrador, on December 14 at his morning press conference, in which he said that listening to Ciro Gómez Leyva, Carlos Loret de Mola or Sergio Sarmiento: “It is even harmful to health; I mean, if you listen to them a lot, you can even get a brain tumor.”
By coincidence, the following day, the journalist Ciro Gómez Leyva suffered an attack from which he fortunately was unharmed. To what extent did the aggression result from the president’s aggressive message? There is no one who has an answer to this, but this fact should serve so that any influential person who issues messages moderates his statements and does not encourage polarization and confrontation. Responsible communication must also consider that one is speaking -as in this case- with an investiture and that it is not the saying of a person, but of an institution that represents a company, a group, a sector or a country.