All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Attributions and Outcomes: Hurtful Communication in Families
Unformatted Document Text:  Attributions and Outcomes 16 Discussion This project investigated the attributions of perceived intentionality and relationship satisfaction of senders and receivers in hurtful communication interactions within the family. Specifically, this project explored how the degree of perceived intentionality behind hurtful messages differs between senders and receivers, and how attributions of intentionality and relational satisfaction affect the communicative responses to those messages. Hypothesis one posited that individuals who sent hurtful messages to family members would perceive the comments to be less intentionally hurtful than those who received the hurtful statements. However, the results did not indicate a significant difference between the senders’ and receivers’ perceptions of intentionality. Additionally, we argued that individuals who directed hurtful messages at family members would report higher levels of relational satisfaction than would those who received such comments (H 2). Again, the results failed to support our predictions about differences between senders and receivers (i.e., the fundamental attribution error). Although no differences between senders and receivers were revealed for perceived intentionality or relational satisfaction, these factors did impact how people responded to hurtful communication in their families. When comments were perceived as intentionally hurtful, people had a tendency to respond to negative communication with more negative communication (H 3a). Konecni (1975) contended that it is common for a person who is hurt to reciprocate with similar behaviors as well. Yet, as H 3b uncovered, this reciprocity of negative behaviors appears to be true only when hurtful communication is viewed as intentional. In short, as attribution theory would suggest, this circular response process is largely a function of causal attributions (Fincham, 1985).

Authors: Young, Stacy., Kubicka, Tara., Tucker, Caralyn., McCoy, Jamie., Kanaan, Kanaan., Johnson, Jarvis., Chavez-Appel, Desi. and Dinger, Michelle.
first   previous   Page 16 of 23   next   last



background image
Attributions and Outcomes
16
Discussion
This project investigated the attributions of perceived intentionality and relationship
satisfaction of senders and receivers in hurtful communication interactions within the family.
Specifically, this project explored how the degree of perceived intentionality behind hurtful
messages differs between senders and receivers, and how attributions of intentionality and
relational satisfaction affect the communicative responses to those messages.
Hypothesis one posited that individuals who sent hurtful messages to family members
would perceive the comments to be less intentionally hurtful than those who received the hurtful
statements. However, the results did not indicate a significant difference between the senders’
and receivers’ perceptions of intentionality. Additionally, we argued that individuals who
directed hurtful messages at family members would report higher levels of relational satisfaction
than would those who received such comments (H 2). Again, the results failed to support our
predictions about differences between senders and receivers (i.e., the fundamental attribution
error).
Although no differences between senders and receivers were revealed for perceived
intentionality or relational satisfaction, these factors did impact how people responded to hurtful
communication in their families. When comments were perceived as intentionally hurtful, people
had a tendency to respond to negative communication with more negative communication (H
3a). Konecni (1975) contended that it is common for a person who is hurt to reciprocate with
similar behaviors as well. Yet, as H 3b uncovered, this reciprocity of negative behaviors appears
to be true only when hurtful communication is viewed as intentional. In short, as attribution
theory would suggest, this circular response process is largely a function of causal attributions
(Fincham, 1985).


Convention
Need a solution for abstract management? All Academic can help! Contact us today to find out how our system can help your annual meeting.
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 16 of 23   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.