Cristián Santibáñez, Dale Hample, Jessica M. Hample
{"title":"智利老年人如何看待争吵?","authors":"Cristián Santibáñez, Dale Hample, Jessica M. Hample","doi":"10.1075/JAIC.20002.SAN","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This project investigates orientations toward interpersonal arguing among Chilean seniors\n (N = 243), having a mean age of 72 years. We found no prior attention to seniors in the interpersonal arguing\n literature, and only a little to Chileans. Sited within the US framework for studying interpersonal arguing (see Hample, 2016), this project collected seniors’ responses to survey items indexing\n argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, argument frames, personalization of conflict, and power distance. Our exploratory work\n involved use of a second sample of Chilean undergraduates (N = 80) for comparison. Comparisons showed that the\n seniors were less likely to argue, especially for play. Seniors were more interested in asserting dominance and were less\n cooperative and civil. Few sex differences were observed among the seniors, whereas quite a few had been previously found for\n Chilean undergraduates. These differences are attributed to the age of the seniors, although the possibility of a cadre effect is\n considered. Neither Chilean seniors nor younger adults displayed negative correlations between approaching and avoiding arguments,\n a result which has become an increasingly urgent theoretical issue across the world.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How do Chilean seniors think about arguing?\",\"authors\":\"Cristián Santibáñez, Dale Hample, Jessica M. Hample\",\"doi\":\"10.1075/JAIC.20002.SAN\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This project investigates orientations toward interpersonal arguing among Chilean seniors\\n (N = 243), having a mean age of 72 years. We found no prior attention to seniors in the interpersonal arguing\\n literature, and only a little to Chileans. Sited within the US framework for studying interpersonal arguing (see Hample, 2016), this project collected seniors’ responses to survey items indexing\\n argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, argument frames, personalization of conflict, and power distance. Our exploratory work\\n involved use of a second sample of Chilean undergraduates (N = 80) for comparison. Comparisons showed that the\\n seniors were less likely to argue, especially for play. Seniors were more interested in asserting dominance and were less\\n cooperative and civil. Few sex differences were observed among the seniors, whereas quite a few had been previously found for\\n Chilean undergraduates. These differences are attributed to the age of the seniors, although the possibility of a cadre effect is\\n considered. Neither Chilean seniors nor younger adults displayed negative correlations between approaching and avoiding arguments,\\n a result which has become an increasingly urgent theoretical issue across the world.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41908,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Argumentation in Context\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Argumentation in Context\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1075/JAIC.20002.SAN\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JAIC.20002.SAN","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
This project investigates orientations toward interpersonal arguing among Chilean seniors
(N = 243), having a mean age of 72 years. We found no prior attention to seniors in the interpersonal arguing
literature, and only a little to Chileans. Sited within the US framework for studying interpersonal arguing (see Hample, 2016), this project collected seniors’ responses to survey items indexing
argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, argument frames, personalization of conflict, and power distance. Our exploratory work
involved use of a second sample of Chilean undergraduates (N = 80) for comparison. Comparisons showed that the
seniors were less likely to argue, especially for play. Seniors were more interested in asserting dominance and were less
cooperative and civil. Few sex differences were observed among the seniors, whereas quite a few had been previously found for
Chilean undergraduates. These differences are attributed to the age of the seniors, although the possibility of a cadre effect is
considered. Neither Chilean seniors nor younger adults displayed negative correlations between approaching and avoiding arguments,
a result which has become an increasingly urgent theoretical issue across the world.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Argumentation in Context aims to publish high-quality papers about the role of argumentation in the various kinds of argumentative practices that have come into being in social life. These practices include, for instance, political, legal, medical, financial, commercial, academic, educational, problem-solving, and interpersonal communication. In all cases certain aspects of such practices will be analyzed from the perspective of argumentation theory with a view of gaining a better understanding of certain vital characteristics of these practices. This means that the journal has an empirical orientation and concentrates on real-life argumentation but is at the same time out to publish only papers that are informed by relevant insights from argumentation theory.