All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Attributions and Outcomes: Hurtful Communication in Families
Unformatted Document Text:  Attributions and Outcomes 14 Hypothesis two predicted that individuals who directed hurtful messages at family members would report higher levels of relational satisfaction than would those who received hurtful statements from family members (H 2). An independent samples t-test revealed no significant difference in reported levels of satisfaction (t (351) = -3.22, ns) between people who directed hurtful comments at family members (M = 4.33, SD = 1.47) and recipients of hurt- evoking statements from family members (M = 4.82, SD = 1.40). This hypothesis, therefore, was not supported. Hypothesis three (a) predicted a direct relationship between the extent to which recipients viewed hurtful statements as intentional and their likelihood to engage in negative communicative responses. Negative communicative responses included: Active Distancing, Negative Affective Expression, Distributive Communication, Avoidance/Denial, and Violent Communication/Threats. Pearson Product Moment Correlations confirmed that the greater the perceived intentionality of hurtful comments, the more people reported responding in Active Distancing (r (350) = .13, p < .007), Negative Affective Expression (r (348) = .18, p < .001), Distributive Communication (r (349) = .26, p < .000), Avoidance/Denial (r (348) = .10, p < .05), and Violent Communication/Threats (r (352) = .17, p < .001). Overall, recipients who interpreted hurtful statements as more intentional responded with more negative communicative behaviors than those who did not. Thus, hypothesis three (a) was fully supported. An inverse correlation between the extent to which individuals viewed hurtful messages as intentional and their likelihood to employ positive communicative responses was predicted (H 3 b). A Pearson Product Moment Correlation showed a significant inverse relationship between perceived intentionality of hurt-evoking comments and likelihood to employ Integrative Communication (r (348) = -.12, p < .02). People who perceived less intentionality behind

Authors: Young, Stacy., Kubicka, Tara., Tucker, Caralyn., McCoy, Jamie., Kanaan, Kanaan., Johnson, Jarvis., Chavez-Appel, Desi. and Dinger, Michelle.
first   previous   Page 14 of 23   next   last



background image
Attributions and Outcomes
14
Hypothesis two predicted that individuals who directed hurtful messages at family
members would report higher levels of relational satisfaction than would those who received
hurtful statements from family members (H 2). An independent samples t-test revealed no
significant difference in reported levels of satisfaction (t (351) = -3.22, ns) between people who
directed hurtful comments at family members (M = 4.33, SD = 1.47) and recipients of hurt-
evoking statements from family members (M = 4.82, SD = 1.40). This hypothesis, therefore, was
not supported.
Hypothesis three (a) predicted a direct relationship between the extent to which recipients
viewed hurtful statements as intentional and their likelihood to engage in negative
communicative responses. Negative communicative responses included: Active Distancing,
Negative Affective Expression, Distributive Communication, Avoidance/Denial, and Violent
Communication/Threats. Pearson Product Moment Correlations confirmed that the greater the
perceived intentionality of hurtful comments, the more people reported responding in Active
Distancing (r (350) = .13, p < .007), Negative Affective Expression (r (348) = .18, p < .001),
Distributive Communication (r (349) = .26, p < .000), Avoidance/Denial (r (348) = .10, p < .05),
and Violent Communication/Threats (r (352) = .17, p < .001). Overall, recipients who interpreted
hurtful statements as more intentional responded with more negative communicative behaviors
than those who did not. Thus, hypothesis three (a) was fully supported.
An inverse correlation between the extent to which individuals viewed hurtful messages
as intentional and their likelihood to employ positive communicative responses was predicted (H
3 b). A Pearson Product Moment Correlation showed a significant inverse relationship between
perceived intentionality of hurt-evoking comments and likelihood to employ Integrative
Communication (r (348) = -.12, p < .02). People who perceived less intentionality behind


Convention
Submission, Review, and Scheduling! All Academic Convention can help with all of your abstract management needs and many more. Contact us today for a quote!
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 14 of 23   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.