Alle Publikationen
- <<
- <
- 1
2008
-
(2008): Etiquette-based medicine. In: The New England journal of medicine 358 (19), S. 1988-1989. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp0801863
DOI: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18463374 Abstract: Patients ideally deserve to have a compassionate doctor, but might they be satisfied with one who is simply well-behaved? When I hear patients complain about doctors, their criticism often has nothing to do with not feeling understood or empathized with. Instead, they object that “he just stared at his computer screen,” “she never smiles,” or “I had no idea who I was talking to.” During my own recent hospitalization, I found the Old World manners of my European-born surgeon — and my reaction to them — revealing in this regard. Whatever he might actually have been feeling, his behavior — dress, manners, body language, eye contact — was impeccable. I wasn't left thinking, “What compassion.” Instead, I found myself thinking, “What a professional,” and even (unexpectedly), “What a gentleman.” The impression he made was remarkably calming, and it helped to confirm my suspicion that patients may care less about whether their doctors are reflective and empathic than whether they are respectful and attentive.
Keywords: Disziplin, Education, Medical/methods, Etikette, Etiquette, Fachetiketten, Favoriten, Humans, Medizin, Observablen/Kriterien für sozial angemessenes Verhalten und dessen Bewertung, Patient Care, Physician-Patient Relations, Professional Competence, Rolle (Beruf), Soziale Angemessenheit, Zugeschriebene Kompetenz 1998
-
(1998): Der Einfluß personaler und interaktiver Kontextinformationen auf die Diagnose und Bewertung argumentativer (Un-)Integrität. In: Sprache & Kognition 17 (3), S. 107-124
Abstract: Starting with the empirically well established assumption that the evaluation of an argument as unfair requires the presence of an argumentational rule violation as well as some degree of intentionality (two basic components of the unfairness verdict), we tested in two quasi-experimental designs, if and how selected context variables modify the weight of an (un-)fairness evaluation (attribution of intentionality and guilt). Our results show that the conditions "excuses" and "no excuses", "good intents" and "bad intents" "high competence (of the speaker)" and "low competence" proved to be most effective. On a more general level our study gives evidence that the evaluation of argumentational (un-)fairness depends on the two basic components as long as no further context variables are present. If, however, context variables become salient, the (un-)fairness evaluations are modified in a guilt-increasing or guilt-decreasing manner.
- <<
- <
- 1