2008
DOI: 10.1080/01463370802240981
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Emerging Adult Siblings' Use of Verbally Aggressive Messages as Hurtful Messages

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For instance, family members and romantic partners' messages tend to hurt more than those from friends (Vangelisti & Crumley, 1998), whereas message type does not differentiate degree of hurt in sibling relationships (Myers & Bryant, 2008), probably because sib-lings have such strong relational histories and confirmed expectations for indestructible bonds. In this way, siblings are far different from in-laws whose lack of a (long) shared family history, and corresponding ambiguity in regard to rules and expectations (Fischer, 1983), are more likely to lead them to differentiate between the types of messages that elicit varying amounts of hurt.…”
Section: Hurtful Mil Messagesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For instance, family members and romantic partners' messages tend to hurt more than those from friends (Vangelisti & Crumley, 1998), whereas message type does not differentiate degree of hurt in sibling relationships (Myers & Bryant, 2008), probably because sib-lings have such strong relational histories and confirmed expectations for indestructible bonds. In this way, siblings are far different from in-laws whose lack of a (long) shared family history, and corresponding ambiguity in regard to rules and expectations (Fischer, 1983), are more likely to lead them to differentiate between the types of messages that elicit varying amounts of hurt.…”
Section: Hurtful Mil Messagesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In accordance with Soliz's (2007) GP-GC study, the participants were not asked to identify the reason for communicating with this specific grandparent. Moreover, family communication scholars (e.g., Myers & Bryant, 2008) often require that participants identify the target family member to ensure that all instruments are completed in reference to a specific family member. Thus, the participants were further instructed to identify the initials of the grandparent on whom they reported.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Given past discussions in grandparent–grandchild research (Fowler & Soliz, 2010; Kam & Hecht, 2009), random assignment was implemented in order to prevent participants from reporting on a favorite grandparent. Also consistent with past family research (Mansson & Booth-Butterfield, 2011; Mansson, Myers, & Turner, 2010; Myers & Bryant, 2008), participants wrote the initials of the grandparent to which they were randomly assigned in order to help them focus on that specific grandparent rather than all their grandparents in general. Students who were initially assigned to a deceased grandparent or to a living grandparent with whom they had no relationship were randomly reassigned to another grandparent before answering any of the survey’s substantive questions.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%