首页> 外文期刊>Qualitative health research >“I Don’t Claim to Be the World’s Foremost Expert, But . . . ”: How Individuals “Know” Family Members Are Not Experiencing Health Issues as Severely as They Claim
【24h】

“I Don’t Claim to Be the World’s Foremost Expert, But . . . ”: How Individuals “Know” Family Members Are Not Experiencing Health Issues as Severely as They Claim

机译:“我并不声称是世界上最重要的专家,但是。 。 。 “:个人如何”知道“家庭成员并不像他们声称那样严重地经历健康问题

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

To understand how individuals come to “know” that their family members are not experiencing their health issues as severely as they claim, we interviewed 32 individuals (nine men and 23 women, M age = 35.28 years, SD = 9.91 years) about a family member who they believe falsifies or exaggerates his or her health condition(s). Our analyses illuminate two interlinked processes of knowledge construction: (a) developing evidentiary standards and (b) gathering evidence. In engaging these processes, participants sought two types of consistency: correspondence with external “facts” (e.g., medical information, cultural [mis]conceptions), and internal coherence (i.e., complaints were highly self-contradictory and unpredictable or were overly predictable). When initial inconsistencies made participants doubt their family member, participants gathered additional evidence, including experiential, behavioral, and interactional evidence, to test and revise their initial suspicions. We discuss the implications of this research for theory and for families coping with illness.
机译:要了解个人如何“知道”,他们的家人并没有像他们声称那样严重地经历他们的健康问题,我们采访了32名(九名男子和23名女性,M年龄= 35.28岁,SD = 9.91岁)关于一个家庭他们认为伪造或夸大他或她的健康状况的成员。我们的分析照亮了两个知识建设的相互关联过程:(a)发展证据标准和(b)收集证据。在参与这些过程时,参与者寻求两种类型的一致性:与外部“事实”的对应(例如,医疗信息,文化[MIS]概念)和内部一致性(即投诉是高度自我矛盾的,不可预测的或过于预测的) 。当初始不一致使参与者怀疑他们的家庭成员时,参与者会收集额外的证据,包括体验,行为和互动证据,以测试和修改其最初的怀疑。我们讨论了这项研究对理论和家庭应对疾病的影响。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号