Arguing about social distancing and family relationships

نویسندگان

چکیده

With the COVID-19 pandemic, families are having to coordinate their behaviors face new challenges, such as negotiating social distancing measures that family will or not take in daily interaction. This study utilizes Family Communication Patterns Theory examine conversations young adults reported with members about and what factors predicted outcomes of these disagreements. A family’s level conversation orientation interaction conformity change relational closeness due argument perceived positivity outcome value levels for future members. Additionally, harm from disagreements distancing.

برای دانلود باید عضویت طلایی داشته باشید

برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

منابع مشابه

Social Viewpoints for Arguing about Coalitions

Frameworks for arguing about coalitions are based on non-monotonic logic and are therefore formal and abstract, whereas social theories about agent coalitions typically are based on conceptual modeling languages and therefore semi-formal and detailed. In this paper we bridge the gap between these two research areas such that social viewpoints can be used to argue about coalitions. We formally d...

متن کامل

Arguing About Firewall Policy

In this paper, we present a new framework to analyze firewall policy by using argumentation. At the core of this new idea is extending firewall rules with the concept of “reasons” and arguing about the reasons, not the rules. Depending on how the reasons are designed, the resulting framework can be useful in a number of ways: new anomalies in a firewall policy can be identified while, at the sa...

متن کامل

Arguing About Planning Alternatives

In discourse processing, two major problems are understanding the underlying connections between succe~ive dialog utterances and deciding on the content of a coherent dialog response. Thin paper presents a computational model of these tasks for a restricted class of argumentative dialogs. In these dialogs, each response presents a belief that justifies or contradicts another belief presented or...

متن کامل

Arguing about innateness.

This paper lays out the components of a language acquisition model, the interconnections among the components, and the differing stances of nativism and empiricism about syntax. After demonstrating that parsimony cannot decide between the two stances, the paper analyzes nine examples of evidence that have been used to argue for or against nativism, concluding that most pieces of evidence are ei...

متن کامل

Reasoning about social choices and social relationships

We study inferences about social choices—choices that affect people besides the chooser. Social choices depend on the relationships between the people involved: for example, whether they are friends, strangers, or enemies. We propose that these different social relationships correspond to different ways in which the chooser weights another person’s utility relative to her own. We describe a pro...

متن کامل

ذخیره در منابع من


  با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید

ژورنال

عنوان ژورنال: Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

سال: 2021

ISSN: ['0265-4075', '1460-3608']

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211040798