All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Attributions and Outcomes: Hurtful Communication in Families
Unformatted Document Text:  Attributions and Outcomes 11 version asked respondents (n = 178) to recall, describe, and rate various aspects of the “most memorable instance in which a family member said something to you that hurt your feelings.” The second version asked respondents (n = 180) to recall, describe, and rate various aspects of the “most memorable instance in which you said something to a family member that hurt his/her feelings.” This two-version questionnaire was employed because one of the purposes of the current study was to examine the perceptions of participants who directed a hurtful message at a family member compared to those who received a hurtful message from a family member. Questions such as “What was the situation?” and “What happened that led up to the hurtful statement?” were posed at the beginning of the questionnaire to stimulate individuals’ recall of the situation. Participants also were asked to recount the hurtful interaction between themselves and their family member by providing a “script” of the conversation. They were instructed to put a star next to the statement that hurt their feelings. The subsequent measures that made up the two versions of the questionnaires were identical, with the exception that items were reworded to reiterate the distinction between the two versions. Respondents rated the perceived intentionality of the hurtful comment by using three, seven-point Likert-type items, drawn from a prior study on hurtful messages (Young & Bippus, 2001). The third item was dropped because of its unacceptably low alpha reliability; thus, only two items were utilized to assess the perceived intentionality. The first item asked respondents to determine the extent to which they believed the hurtful comment occurred intentionally (1 = Unintentional to 7 = Intentional). The second item assessed the extent to which a family member knew the comment would be hurtful (1 = He/she did not know his/her statement would

Authors: Young, Stacy., Kubicka, Tara., Tucker, Caralyn., McCoy, Jamie., Kanaan, Kanaan., Johnson, Jarvis., Chavez-Appel, Desi. and Dinger, Michelle.
first   previous   Page 11 of 23   next   last



background image
Attributions and Outcomes
11
version asked respondents (n = 178) to recall, describe, and rate various aspects of the “most
memorable instance in which a family member said something to you that hurt your feelings.”
The second version asked respondents (n = 180) to recall, describe, and rate various aspects of
the “most memorable instance in which you said something to a family member that hurt his/her
feelings.” This two-version questionnaire was employed because one of the purposes of the
current study was to examine the perceptions of participants who directed a hurtful message at a
family member compared to those who received a hurtful message from a family member.
Questions such as “What was the situation?” and “What happened that led up to the hurtful
statement?” were posed at the beginning of the questionnaire to stimulate individuals’ recall of
the situation.
Participants also were asked to recount the hurtful interaction between themselves and
their family member by providing a “script” of the conversation. They were instructed to put a
star next to the statement that hurt their feelings. The subsequent measures that made up the two
versions of the questionnaires were identical, with the exception that items were reworded to
reiterate the distinction between the two versions.
Respondents rated the perceived intentionality of the hurtful comment by using three,
seven-point Likert-type items, drawn from a prior study on hurtful messages (Young & Bippus,
2001). The third item was dropped because of its unacceptably low alpha reliability; thus, only
two items were utilized to assess the perceived intentionality. The first item asked respondents
to determine the extent to which they believed the hurtful comment occurred intentionally (1 =
Unintentional to 7 = Intentional). The second item assessed the extent to which a family
member knew the comment would be hurtful (1 = He/she did not know his/her statement would


Convention
Convention is an application service for managing large or small academic conferences, annual meetings, and other types of events!
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 11 of 23   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.