|
Abstract
|
Interviews with 100 visibly injured servicemen are the basis of this analysis of varieties of reaction to curiosity and staring. Discussion of injuries is acceptable when it is controlled by the wishes of the injured man, but is objectionable when it represents idle curiosity. Staring is an invasion of privacy which the injured man can not control. His acceptance or rejection of his injury determines his perception of the other person's attitude and interest. Talking about implications of the injury may aid his outlook. Avoiding the topic makes the injured man more insecure and sensitive, rather than resolving his conflicting feelings. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved)
|