Difference between revisions of "Pudlinski2002"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Christopher Pudlinski; |Title=Accepting and rejecting advice as competent peers: Caller dilemmas on a warm line |Tag(s)=EMCA; Advice; H...")
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{BibEntry
 
{{BibEntry
 
|BibType=ARTICLE
 
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Author(s)=Christopher Pudlinski;  
+
|Author(s)=Christopher Pudlinski;
|Title=Accepting and rejecting advice as competent peers: Caller dilemmas on a warm line
+
|Title=Accepting and rejecting advice as competent peers: caller dilemmas on a warm line
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Advice; Helplines; Social Support; Conversation Analysis;  
+
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Advice; Helplines; Social Support; Conversation Analysis;
 
|Key=Pudlinski2002
 
|Key=Pudlinski2002
 
|Year=2002
 
|Year=2002
Line 9: Line 9:
 
|Journal=Discourse Studies
 
|Journal=Discourse Studies
 
|Volume=4
 
|Volume=4
|Pages=481-500
+
|Number=4
|URL=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/14614456020040040501
+
|Pages=481–500
 +
|URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/14614456020040040501
 +
|DOI=10.1177/14614456020040040501
 
|Abstract=This article examines caller responses to advice on three peer-run social support telephone lines for community mental health clients in the northeastern United States. Straightforward rejection of advice involves reports on past or current activities, known only to the caller, as a way of demonstrating one's competence in thinking up similar options. Straightforward acceptance of advice involves a report on activities the caller might do to adopt the advisable option. The most common responses, minimal acknowledgements, can potentially signify rejection, mere recipiency, and/or acceptance of the advice. Contrary to previous studies, minimal acknowledgements can display hesitant acceptance when subsequently accompanied by descriptions of additional details about a present or future action tied to the advisable option. These methods for accepting and rejecting advice help callers balance their needs for assistance, friendship and autonomy.
 
|Abstract=This article examines caller responses to advice on three peer-run social support telephone lines for community mental health clients in the northeastern United States. Straightforward rejection of advice involves reports on past or current activities, known only to the caller, as a way of demonstrating one's competence in thinking up similar options. Straightforward acceptance of advice involves a report on activities the caller might do to adopt the advisable option. The most common responses, minimal acknowledgements, can potentially signify rejection, mere recipiency, and/or acceptance of the advice. Contrary to previous studies, minimal acknowledgements can display hesitant acceptance when subsequently accompanied by descriptions of additional details about a present or future action tied to the advisable option. These methods for accepting and rejecting advice help callers balance their needs for assistance, friendship and autonomy.
 
 
 
}}
 
}}

Latest revision as of 00:54, 30 October 2019

Pudlinski2002
BibType ARTICLE
Key Pudlinski2002
Author(s) Christopher Pudlinski
Title Accepting and rejecting advice as competent peers: caller dilemmas on a warm line
Editor(s)
Tag(s) EMCA, Advice, Helplines, Social Support, Conversation Analysis
Publisher
Year 2002
Language English
City
Month
Journal Discourse Studies
Volume 4
Number 4
Pages 481–500
URL Link
DOI 10.1177/14614456020040040501
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

This article examines caller responses to advice on three peer-run social support telephone lines for community mental health clients in the northeastern United States. Straightforward rejection of advice involves reports on past or current activities, known only to the caller, as a way of demonstrating one's competence in thinking up similar options. Straightforward acceptance of advice involves a report on activities the caller might do to adopt the advisable option. The most common responses, minimal acknowledgements, can potentially signify rejection, mere recipiency, and/or acceptance of the advice. Contrary to previous studies, minimal acknowledgements can display hesitant acceptance when subsequently accompanied by descriptions of additional details about a present or future action tied to the advisable option. These methods for accepting and rejecting advice help callers balance their needs for assistance, friendship and autonomy.

Notes