Based on accumulated knowledge concerning the effects of language intensity on attitude change, a set of propositions were advanced that provide a skeletal theoretical framework. Based on the propositions, three separate studies were done to extend the predictive power of the formulation. Predicted interactions between sex of the source, situational anxiety, source credibility, and language intensity were obtained. There were also significant person perception changes as a result of the level of language intensity employed in the persuasive message. Discussion centered on the import of the new findings in formulating a message-centered theory of persuasion.Development of theories of communication has been generally impeded by the tendency of researchers to borrow constructs, models, and theories fromother disciplines. Although in the early days of "experimental public address" research, the borrowing of theories from social psychology was useful in giving direction to research, many now question the utility of that approach. Communication scholars are urging empirical researchers to properly define communication in a restricted way, to center on message variables, and to be as concerned with theory development now as they have been with research methodology in the past.If theory development is to occur, the domain of that theory must include as.unique elements message variables. Rhetorical theorists have long included such variables as critical elements in their investigations. Behavioral scientists have been slower in developing message-related research. There are probably several reasons for that reticence. First, the bulk of published empirical research in communication is concerned with but one function of communication: persuasion. Models from other disciplines (e.g., cognitive dissonance, social judgment, various learning theory models, etc.) were readily available. Most of these models are "input-output" oriented. An input (usually some persuasive message) is operated on by some psychological mechanism(s) (dissonance, learning, etc.) to produce some output. The typical persuasion paradigm has been the manipulation or control of some source, situation, or receiver variable, the presentation or lack of presentation of an uncontrolled but constant message, and the measurement of attitude change.Persuasive messages are rarely systematically produced nor their effects explained. If hypotheses are not confirmed, the researcher does not know if the message was ineffective or if his theory is invalid. The psychological models put a premium on studying situations (e.g., the counterattitudinal advocacy paradigm), source and personality variables, and receiver correlates of attitude change. The models in general do not depend on message variables for their predictive power.A second reason for researchers avoiding message variables is the difficulty in operationalizing the constructs. With relative ease, a researcher can factor analyze adjectives describing a source and create something called "credibility" to repl...
A workshop was held that brought together researchers from the fields of engineering education and sociology in order to examine what is known, and what needs to be known, about the social dynamics of campus change, specifically within engineering colleges. The goal of the cross-disciplinary working group was to develop a research agenda that will provide a context for examining the social and organizational processes that affect the diffusion and acceptance of new engineering curricula and pedagogy. Workshop attendees participated in sessions related to one of three topic areas: organizational context and faculty behavior, faculty rewards, and diffusing innovations. This paper will examine how well these two communities of researchers worked together, what the outcomes of the workshop were, and what the next steps are for the project.
Background: Current evidence states that elective operative intervention for aortic aneurysms (AAA) should deliver a mortality rate less than 2%. However, patients with poor baseline functional status and adverse aneurysm morphology face significantly higher risks from both open and endovascular AAA intervention. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of patients declined elective AAA intervention.Methods: A prospectively maintained database of patients turned down for elective AAA repair between the 1st January 2012 and 31st March 2015 was interrogated for: patient demographics, underlying co-morbidities, AAA diameter, AAA morphology, rationale for turndown and current status. All-cause mortality was the primary outcome measure. Cause-specific mortality and turndown rate were the secondary outcome measures.Results: 682 patients were considered for AAA intervention during the study period. The overall turndown rate was 16.5% equating to 75 patients declined elective intervention with a median follow up of 321 days. All-cause mortality rate was 47.2% (n¼35). Aneurysm vs. non-aneurysm related mortality was 57.1% (n¼20) vs. 42.9% (n¼15). Median survival for all-cause mortality was 90 weeks while subdivision analysis evaluating aneurysm vs. non-aneurysm related survival was 19 weeks vs. 35 weeks respectively (p¼0.51). The mean AAA diameter for aneurysm-related mortality was 73mm AE 9.6 compared to 62mm AE 7.9 for non-aneurysm mortality (p < 0.001). The rationale for turndown was: cardiorespiratory disease (70%), patient choice (17%), palliative malignancy (8%), dementia (8%) and age > 90 years (2%). For non-aneurysm related mortality, the main causes of death were: malignancy (17%), sepsis (14%), and ischaemic heart disease (2%).Conclusion: The multi-disciplinary clinical decision to decline elective AAA repair is based on an estimation of intervention risk compared to survival benefit. There was no difference in aneurysm vs. non-aneurysm related survival. However, aneurysm related mortality was significantly more likely in patients with larger aneurysms. This study suggests that our current turndown decisions are valid and accurate. Interestingly, our regional turndown rate was substantially lower than the UK average (24%).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.