搜索结果：doubt

暂无摘要，请点击原文查看详情

Religious doubt arises from a process in which there is a precipitant, the experience of doubt, a coping response, and a health-related outcome. We explore this process by assessing whether social factors precipitate doubt and the coping responses that are invoked to deal with it. Moreover, we evaluate whether these coping responses are, in turn, associated with health. The data reveal that, over time, people who encounter more negative interaction with fellow congregants have more doubts about religion, whereas more spiritual support and greater involvement in prayer groups are associated with less religious doubt. The findings further indicate that people who encounter more negative interaction are more likely to suppress religious doubts, but people who attend Bible study groups are more likely to seek spiritual growth when faced with doubt. Finally, the results suggest that suppressing religious doubt is associated with less favorable health, whereas seeking spiritual growth does not have a significant effect.

OBJECTIVE: There are reasons to suggest that the therapist effect lies at the intersection between psychotherapists' professional and personal functioning. The current study investigated if and how the interplay between therapists' (n = 70) professional self-reports (e.g., of their difficulties in practice in the form of 'professional self-doubt' and coping strategies when faced with difficulties) and presumably more global, personal self-concepts, not restricted to the professional treatment setting (i.e., the level of self-affiliation measured by the Structural Analysis of Social Behaviour (SASB) Intrex, Benjamin, ), relate to patient (n = 255) outcome in public outpatient care. METHOD: Multilevel growth curve analyses were performed on patient interpersonal and symptomatic distress rated at pre-, post- and three times during follow-up to examine whether change in patient outcome was influenced by the interaction between their therapists' level of 'professional self-doubt' and self-affiliation as well as between their therapists' use of coping when faced with difficulties, and the interaction between type of coping strategies and self-affiliation. RESULTS: A significant interaction between therapist 'professional self-doubt' (PSD) and self-affiliation on change in interpersonal distress was observed. Therapists who reported higher PSD seemed to evoke more change if they also had a self-affiliative introject. Therapists' use of coping strategies also affected therapeutic outcome, but therapists' self-affiliation was not a moderator in the interplay between therapist coping and patient outcome. CONCLUSION: A tentative take-home message from this study could be: 'Love yourself as a person, doubt yourself as a therapist'. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. KEY PRACTITIONER MESSAGES: The findings of this study suggest that the nature of therapists' self-concepts as a person and as a therapist influences their patients' change in psychotherapy. These self-concept states are presumably communicated through the therapists' in-session behaviour. The study noted that a combination of self-doubt as a therapist with a high degree of self-affiliation as a person is particularly fruitful, while the combination of little professional self-doubt and much positive self-affiliation is not. This finding, reflected in the study title, 'Love yourself as a person, doubt yourself as a therapist', indicates that exaggerated self-confidence does not create a healthy therapeutic attitude. Therapist way of coping with difficulties in practice seems to influence patient outcome. Constructive coping characterized by dealing actively with a clinical problem, in terms of exercising reflexive control, seeking consultation and problem-solving together with the patient seems to help patients while coping by avoiding the problem, withdrawing from therapeutic engagement or acting out one's frustrations in the therapeutic relationship is associated with less patient change.

Descartes thought that we could achieve absolute certainty by starting with radical doubt. He adopts this strategy in the Meditations on First Philosophy , where he raises sweeping doubts with the famous dream argument and the hypothesis of an evil demon. But why did Descartes think we should take these exaggerated doubts seriously? And if we do take them seriously, how did he think any of our beliefs could ever escape them? Janet Broughton undertakes a close study of Descartes's first three meditations to answer these questions and to present a fresh way of understanding precisely what Descartes was up to. Broughton first contrasts Descartes's doubts with those of the ancient skeptics, arguing that Cartesian doubt has a novel structure and a distinctive relation to the commonsense outlook of everyday life. She then argues that Descartes pursues absolute certainty by uncovering the conditions that make his radical doubt possible. She gives a unified account of how Descartes uses this strategy, first to find certainty about his own existence and then to argue that God exists. Drawing on this analysis, Broughton provides a new way to understand Descartes's insistence that he hasn't argued in a circle, and she measures his ambitions against those of contemporary philosophers who use transcendental arguments in their efforts to defeat skepticism. The book is a powerful contribution both to the history of philosophy and to current debates in epistemology.

Although skepticism is widely viewed as essential to audit quality, there is a debate about what form is optimal. The two prevailing perspectives that have surfaced are “neutrality” and “presumptive doubt.” With neutrality, auditors neither believe nor disbelieve client management. With presumptive doubt, auditors assume some level of dishonesty by management, unless evidence indicates otherwise. The purpose of this study is to examine which of these perspectives is most descriptive of auditors’ skeptical judgments and decisions, in higher and lower control environment risk settings. This issue is important, since there is a lack of empirical evidence as to which perspective is optimal in addressing client risks. An experimental study is conducted involving a sample of 96 auditors from one of the Big 4 auditing firms in the Netherlands, with experience ranging from senior to partner. One of the skepticism measures is reflective of neutrality, the Hurtt Professional Skepticism Scale ( HPSS ), whereas the other reflects presumptive doubt, the inverse of the Rotter Interpersonal Trust Scale ( RIT ). The findings suggest that the presumptive doubt perspective of professional skepticism is more predictive of auditor skeptical judgments and decisions than neutrality, particularly in higher‐risk settings. Since auditing standards prescribe greater skepticism in higher‐risk settings, the findings support the appropriateness of a presumptive doubt perspective and have important implications for auditor recruitment and training, guidance in audit tools, and future research.

OBJECTIVES: The goals were (1) to obtain national estimates of the proportions of parents with indicators of vaccine doubt, (2) to identify factors associated with those parents, compared with parents reporting no vaccine doubt indicators, (3) to identify the specific vaccines that prompted doubt and the reasons why, and (4) to describe the main reasons parents changed their minds about delaying or refusing a vaccine for their child. METHODS: Data were from the National Immunization Survey (2003-2004). Groups included parents who ever got a vaccination for their child although they were not sure it was the best thing to do ("unsure"), delayed a vaccination for their child ("delayed"), or decided not to have their child get a vaccination ("refused"). RESULTS: A total of 3924 interviews were completed. Response rates were 57.9% in 2003 and 65.0% in 2004. Twenty-eight percent of parents responded yes to ever experiencing >or=1 of the outcome measures listed above. In separate analyses for each outcome measure, vaccine safety concern was a predictor for unsure, refused, and delayed parents. The largest proportions of unsure and refused parents chose varicella vaccine as the vaccine prompting their concern, whereas delayed parents most often reported "not a specific vaccine" as the vaccine prompting their concern. Most parents who delayed vaccines for their child did so for reasons related to their child's illness, unlike the unsure and refused parents. The largest proportion of parents who changed their minds about delaying or not getting a vaccination for their child listed "information or assurances from health care provider" as the main reason. CONCLUSIONS: Parents who exhibit doubts about immunizations are not all the same. This research suggests encouraging children's health care providers to solicit questions about vaccines, to establish a trusting relationship, and to provide appropriate educational materials to parents.

In this paper, we want to shift the attention of our scholarly community to the living condition of doubt and its underappreciated significance for the theorizing process. Drawing on Peirce's notion of abduction, we articulate the relationship between doubt and belief in the everyday imaginative work central to theorizing, and establish the role played by doubt as abduction's engine in these efforts. We propose three strategic principles for engaging and using doubt in the research process. In concluding, we explore our field's overemphasis on validation to the exclusion of discovery processes and to the detriment of excellence in theorizing. We call for a broadening of our notions of “methodology” to incorporate discovery processes and to begin their explication.

In this paper, we want to shift the attention of our scholarly community to the living condition of doubt and its underappreciated significance for the theorizing process. Drawing on Peirce’s notion of abduction, we articulate the relationship between doubt and belief in the everyday imaginative work central to theorizing, and establish the role played by doubt as abduction’s engine in these efforts. We propose three strategic principles for engaging and using doubt in the research process. In concluding, we explore our field’s overemphasis on validation to the exclusion of discovery processes and to the detriment of excellence in theorizing. We call for a broadening of our notions of “methodology” to incorporate discovery processes and to begin their explication.