Associating Ethos with Objects: Reasoning from Character of Public Figures to Actions in the World

Argumentation - Ethotic arguments, such as arguments from expert opinion and ad hominem arguments, play an important role in communication practice. In this paper, we argue that there is another...     

Assessing peer network and dyadic loneliness

Describes the Peer Network and Dyadic Loneliness Scale (PNDLS), a new scale designed to assess simultaneously children's loneliness at multiple levels of peer relationships. Specifically, this scale measures loneliness associated with (a) lack of involvement in a social network and (b) the absence of a close dyadic friendship. Employing a sample of 209 5th-, 6th-, and 7th-grade boys and girls, the psychometric properties, interscale correlations, and preliminary validity data for the new scale are examined. Analyses revealed good internal consistency and a pattern of relationships with other loneliness, friendship quality, mutual best friendship, and sociometric social preference variables supporting the validity of the new scale.     

Choosing or Being Chosen by Aggressive–Disruptive Peers: Do They Contribute to Children's Externalizing and Internalizing Problems?

The goal of this study was to investigate the extent to which aggressive-disruptive peers contribute to the development of externalizing and internalizing problems in children, while controlling for children's own behavior. We examined 2 sets of peers: (1) those that the child nominated as friends, and (2) those that nominated the child as a friend. The participants were 236 boys and girls attending 3rd to 5th grade at the beginning of the study, who were followed over a period of 2 years. Results showed that choosing more aggressive peers on the nomination procedure was associated with more externalizing problems and self-reported depressive symptomatology over time. On the other hand, being liked by more aggressive children generally was not associated with elevated externalizing or internalizing problems.     

Do Existential Variables Mediate Between Religious-Spiritual Facets of Functionality and Psychological Wellbeing

Religiosity has been related to psychological wellbeing outcomes. Although this relationship is primarily based on studies of church attendance or prayer and wellbeing, more recent work has focused on the potential mechanisms that may mediate the religion-wellbeing findings. One of the major function of religion is finding of meaning of life and improving hope. Recent studies have indicated that hope and meaning of life are the potential variables mediate between religion and wellbeing. It was hypothesized that one pathway through which religiosity may exert its positive influence on psychological wellbeing is through finding meaning of life and improving hope. One study was conducted examining the relationships among spiritual experiences, hope, meaning of life and psychological wellbeing operationalized as satisfaction with life, positive affect and negative affect. The following research tools were used: Daily Spiritual Experiences Scale, Purpose in Life Test, Hearth Hope Index, Cantril Ladder, Positive and Negative Affect Schedule. Meaning of life and hope were noticed to mediate between spiritual experiences and satisfaction with life as well as between spiritual experiences and positive affect. Spiritual experiences were not related to negative affect. Both meaning of life and hope predicted negative affect. This study found meaning of life and hope to be an important factors in the religion-wellbeing relationship and related to positive psychological outcomes, including improved satisfaction with life and positive affect as well as reduced negative affect.     

Argumentative Polylogues in a Dialectical Framework: A Methodological Inquiry

In this paper, we closely examine the various ways in which a multi-party argumentative discussion—argumentative polylogue—can be analyzed in a dialectical framework. Our chief concern is that while multi-party and multi-position discussions are characteristic of a large class of argumentative activities, dialectical approaches would analyze and evaluate them in terms of dyadic exchanges between two parties: pro and con. Using as an example an academic committee arguing about the researcher of the year as well as other cases from argumentation literature, we scrutinize the advantages and pitfalls of applying a dialectical framework to polylogue analysis and evaluation. We recognize two basic dialectical methods: interpreting polylogues as exchanges between two main camps and splitting polylogues into a multitude of dual encounters. On the basis of this critical inquiry, we lay out an argument expressing the need for an improved polylogical model and propose its basic elements.