LIBR 220 Assignment 4 : Communication Theories.docx



Communication TheoriesSocial Learning Theory,Theory of Reasoned Action / Planned Behavior and Attribution TheoryIntroduction Communication theory studies the technical process of information and the human process of human communication. Various types of communication theories not limited to this list are Attribution Theory, Theory of Reasoned Action, Theory of Planned Behavior, and Social Learning Theory. Anna Yang will be discussing Social Learning Theory, Claire Cheng will be discussing both Theory of Reasoned Action and Theory of Planned Behavior, and finally, Ernesto Hernandez will be discussing Attribution Theory. The paper will flow in this order with each team member’s comparison at the end of their section. Social Learning Theory: A Concept Albert Bandura, a renowned psychologist at Stanford University, states that behavior is learned from the environment through the process of modeling and observational learning. He proposes that individuals are influenced by watching what others do, and are also influenced by the outcome. Three core concepts of Bandura’s social learning theory are observation, mental state (intrinsic state), and understanding that learning does not lead to change in behavior. Observational learning dictates that individuals learn by observing other people. A famous example is the Bobo doll experiment in which an adult acted violently toward the doll. A group of children was observing the adult and when they were later allowed to play with the doll, they imitated the same actions (Bandura, Ross, Ross, 1961, p. 575). Bandura also stresses the importance of an individual’s mental state. He defines it as intrinsic reinforcement, where a form of internal reward such as pride, satisfaction, and a sense of accomplishment are connected to internal thoughts and cognitions. This leads to his next point, which is that learning does not lead to change in behavior. Observational learning only demonstrates that individuals can learn new information and behavior by watching others, but it doesn’t mean they will acquire new behaviors.Fig. 1 Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory depicts the various concepts and stages that an individual will arrive at when conducting observational learning. Basic Model of Observational Learning The three basic models of observational learning are live model, verbal instructional model and symbolic model. The live model involves an actual individual demonstrating the behavior. The verbal instructional model is when that individual describes behavior to another individual. The symbolic model occurs when a real or fictional character demonstrates a behavior by means of the media, including but not limited to movies, television, and literature (Bandura, Grusec, Menlove, 1966, p. 499-501). We have all been subject to these types of models throughout our lives. For example, children rely on their family members as models to establish certain behaviors such as masculinity, femininity, and even language development. The person who is being observed is known as the model. Whether the model knows it or not, they are being observed by others around them. As a matter of fact, Bandura emphasizes that an individual’s behavior is influenced by the environment and personal qualities. They all reciprocally influence each other, which is why he proposed that there are several steps involved in the modeling process. The first is attention process, which “determine what people selectively observe in the profusion of modeling influence and what information they extract from ongoing modeled activities” (Wood and Bandura, 1989, p. 362). In order to actually learn, that individual must be actively observing and paying attention to what is happening. Distractions can cause an individual to experience unclear observational learning, which would mean they have not observed effectively. If the modeling is done in a novel situation, the individual observing the model will more likely be intrigued and his/her attention may not shift. The second process is retention, which “involves an active process of transforming and restructuring information about events in the form of rules and conceptions” (Wood and Bandura, 1989, p. 362). When pairing retention with representational process, an individual is symbolically transforming the information into memory, which can be mentally rehearsed for later usage. The third process is reproduction. It states that “symbolic conceptions are translated into appropriate courses of action (Wood and Bandura, 1989, p. 362). Once an individual has accomplished attention and retention, it is time for them to act out the behavior in order for them to modify it to achieve a closer correspondence between their conceptions and their action.Last but not least is motivation. As human beings, we need motivation to do undesirable things. Wood and Bandura (1989) explain that “people are most likely to adopt modeled strategies if the strategies produce valued outcomes, rather than unrewarding or punishing effects” (p. 363). We adopt behaviors if we find the outcome to be rewarding, and we most likely will not adopt the behavior if there is a punishment. People are motivated by the success of others but will shy away from people’s failures, especially if we are using them as a model for ourselves. Take for instance, student A wants to reserve a group study room for himself. He is standing in line at the circulation counter and in front of him is student B who is in the process of trying to reserve a room. He observes the other student talking to the library staff, who tells him that he can’t reserve a group study room solely for himself, but that there are individual smaller study rooms that he can go use if they are unoccupied. Student B then explains that the individual study groups do not have outlet plugs so he would like to reserve the group study rooms that do come with outlets. The staff then continues to tell him that if within the hour, if no one has requested for the group study rooms, then they will make an exception. Student B says that he will be back in an hour. Student A would have heard this and instead of asking the same question, he/she will probably do one of the following: ask the librarian where he/she can go to have a quiet space for studying that involves an outlet or, he may even go to student B and see if they want to just share the group study room together. The point here is that the outcome does affect how we behave or perceive situations. We are motivated by success and shy away from failure. The PatronApplying Bandura’s Social Learning theory to students in an academic library can be set in many examples. The majority and sometimes the only users of academic libraries will be college students. One thing to keep in mind is that not all college students are in the library to study. Some are there to just hang out or sleep. Although that’s far from what the original purpose of a library was meant for, often times, we do see that occurring. But why is that this is suddenly becoming the norm? Well, it’s a learned behavior. As I explained previously, we observe others and learn from their success/mistakes and transform it into our own behaviors. Let me set up a couple scenarios that would meet each observational model.An example of live model is where two students A and B are studying in the library. Student A wants to print a picture in color for her assignment. She prints it from her personal laptop and goes to retrieve the picture from the circulation desk. When she gets it, she finds that it’s in black and white. She tries to reprint the picture by changing the options on her laptop. She makes all the changes and reprints the picture, only to find out that it’s still coming out in black and white. She asks a staff at the circulation desk why the picture isn’t coming out in color, and the staff then relays to her that their wireless printer only prints black and white copies. That if she wanted color copies, she would have to go down to the bottom floor and connect her laptop to the color copier to get her desired pictures. Student A goes downstairs and gets her color picture. Student A has automatically become a live model for student B. Most likely, in the future, if student B needed to print a color picture, she will just go downstairs to print it versus trying to print it through the wireless printer.A very popular and sometimes most frequent model of observational learning is the verbal instruction. We believe what we are told, especially if someone is trying to explain to us their side of the story. Going back to my recent comment about how students have been using the library to socialize and at times, sleep. Student A goes to student B and tells her to meet up at the library and they can just hang out there. Student B, a new freshman, is confused. Her usual experiences in a library usually centered on studying and homework. She is a bit hesitant and asks student A if that is even allowed. Student A then goes into details about how the library lets students talk and socialize in certain parts of the library. They could even bring food in, and talk on their cell phones. Verbal instruction allows the individual to actually reconstruct the information and reproduce the behavior to see what the outcome will be. Student B decides to follow student A into the library and they open up some bags of food and hang out at the tables while they wait for class to start. A staff doesn’t come to shush them or tell them to put their food away. This reinforces the behavior, which means that student B will most likely reenact this in the future. Whenever I think of symbolic observation, I think of how the media portrays the library through their eyes. It can at times be very twisted and at times, very truthful. An example I’d like to paint is using the Friends episode The One with Ross’s Library Book. The plot of this episode was that Ross’s book was in the section of the library where no one would go, so students would go there and make out. I’m using this as an example because not only does this depict Ross being completely outrageous, it later shows him actually making out with another student among the stacks. I personally went to our library and wanted to go find out if such spots actually existed. And sure enough, as I’m browsing pass the dusty Economics section in the basement, I come across two individuals who quickly jolt apart and act as if a 1985 California Economics book is interesting. I quickly excuse myself and walk, away half giggling. Although, I did not reenact that behavior, I learned about it through the media and it was later solidify in real life down in the Economics department. The Information ProfessionalFor an information professional, you have to constantly reevaluate and learn from your surroundings and your experiences. Other information professionals become models for you, especially if you are new within the field. As stated before, Bandura’s four steps to modeling are attention, retention, reproduction, and motivation. By paying attention to the model, you’ll be able to retain the information. Once the information is locked in, the next step is having the ability to reproduce the same behaviors. It’s not necessarily “monkey-see, monkey-do”. The individual will have to recreate that behavior to better suit their own personalities. That brings us to motivation, a key factor in Bandura’s social learning theory.Reinforcements can be good or bad. Krohn (1999) explained that “for social learning theory, the process consists primarily of instrumental learning that occurs either directly through rewards and punishments for behavior, or vicariously by imitation or the observation of the behavior and the consequences that the behavior has for others” (p. 464). For example, there are three reference librarians at the desk, one head of reference and two regular reference librarians. A student comes into the library and asks reference librarian 1 about finding materials for a paper. Reference librarian 1 is about to go on break so she browses around for a bit and says there’s very little on the topic and that she should just use the internet for her research. The student leaves and the head reference librarian at the counter tell her she can go on her lunch break. The head reference librarian just reinforced librarian 1’s behavior, which librarian 2 saw. This means that the next time, if librarian 2 wanted to quickly go on her lunch break and she was with a student, she could just tell that student to go look online. There wouldn’t be a punishment, not from what she had just observed.There’s more to rewarding a behavior then just saying “good job”. Reinforcement can be external and internal, as well as positive and negative. If the external reinforcement doesn’t match with an individual’s internal reinforcement, then the motivation doesn’t exist. Consider what Bandura (1977) says here: “Depending upon the activities involved and the way in which rewards are used, extrinsic incentives can increase interest in activities, reduce interest, or have no effect” (p. 107). Not only does this illustrates that human behavior is incredibly complex, it also proves the point that we are motivated by different things. An information professional can simply be happy just by making sure their patrons’ needs are met, while others may need materialistic motivation (e.g. Employee of the Month, bonuses, wage increase, verbal recognition, etc…). As information professionals, we have to find out what motivates us to be a better model for others, as well as adopting those observed behaviors, values, beliefs and attitudes of others who have been rewarded (positively). Social Learning Theory vs. Attribution Theory An important thing to note is that attribution theory focuses on how an individual explains and draws inferences from their observation in order to explain behavior, while the social learning theory focuses on the actual process of observing. Three things I found interesting about the attribution theory were consensus, consistency, and distinctiveness. These are the three key variables required in order for an individual to understand another individual’s actions and behavior. However, as my colleague will mentioned, there is little research applied to the information science field concerning both social learning and attribution theory. Attribution theory attempts to look at the behaviors of people and tries to explain why people behave the way they do. Social learning theory doesn’t attempt to explain behaviors of people. Rather it is an observation of the behavior, retention of the information gathered from the behavior, a recreation of the behavior (if desirable), and later, finds motivation to implement the observed behavior. There is a series of steps the observer must follow while attribution requires three key variables to understand behavior, which was already mentioned. There is an emphasis on how our causal attributions underlie our true behavior, which also argues the importance of understanding the cause of that behavior. Although both address different aspects of communication, they both deal with human behavior, just on different levels. Attribution theory proposes three biases; fundamental attribution error, the actor-observer bias, and self-serving bias. Fundamental attribution is when an individual over attributes the behavior of others to internal factors. The actor-observer bias attributes an individual’s behavior to external factors. The self-serving bias is when an individual is motivated only to maintain their own self-esteem. Although the social learning theory doesn’t propose a bias, the self-serving bias can be applied to an individual, since motivation is an important factor to observational learning. If an individual chooses not to learn a behavior because of their own self-serving bias, that can change the outcome of a behavior. Even so, both theories aren’t based on the same process, but they do correlate with each other. In conclusion, social learning theory leads directly to attribution theory. Because social learning theory is only limited to observation and not the evaluation of the model’s purpose, attribution theory can be used to explain the causes of that behavior. We learn by observing others and we understand by evaluating their actions. If we are able to retain and understand certain situations and behaviors, we can better prepare for future outcomes. By combining these two theories of human behavior, we can provide a theoretical framework of concepts to better understand human communication, which is governed by behavior. Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA)The theory of reasoned action presents a model for predicting human behavior. The model shows that any given behavior is a direct result of our behavioral intention, which is our cognitive preparedness to perform a behavior. Our behavioral intention is a byproduct of internal and external forces. On one hand, our intention to perform a behavior is a function of our individual attitude about the behavior; how we evaluate the outcome or consequence of our behavior and what our beliefs say about whether the behavior will produce positive or negative results based on foreseen consequences. On the other hand, social forces inform our actions. The normative beliefs of society, or the socially defined rules of behavior, shape our perception of the level of social acceptance and importance of our behavior. More specifically, the given opinion of a significant other can influence our decision-making and has the ability to persuade us to comply with that significant other’s opinion or advice. Our concept of these subjective norms is a composite of our perception of our significant others’ acceptance level of a particular behavior as well as our personal motivation to meet that standard of behavior. The theory states that the convergence of these two forces, our personal attitudes and social attitudes, dictate our behavioral intention which ultimately predicts the performance of a given behavior. In other words, our behavioral intention is a strong predictor of our behavior because it is a reflection of our “belief strength and outcome evaluation” as well as our “motivation to comply to normative beliefs” (Sideris & Kaissidis, 1998, p. 564). Fig. 2 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) Schematic ModelThis theory of reasoned action, developed by Ajzen & Fishbein (1973), posits that a behavior is the direct antecedent of an intention, that acting upon personal will and motivation to comply with social norms (the behavioral standards set by our significant others) is enough to drive the behavior into existence. Attitude about a particular behavior is emphasized in this theory as it affects the willingness to perform a behavior. Attitude and its relationship with how we view our peers’ opinions influences our behavioral intention. In this theory, behavior is described as voluntary and under individual volition and control; thus, the individual’s behavioral intention is the best indicator of what the behavioral outcome will be (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1973). While Ajzen and Fishbein do provide insightful evidence into human behavior by examining the relationship between attitude and behavior to predict human intentions, the theory seems to blindly state that an individual can will any behavior without limitation or obstruction. A major shortcoming of this theory is that it does not factor in the obstacles that may inhibit one to act on an intention, regardless of how carefully articulated or planned that intention is. Thus, there is the possibility that the performance of a behavior may not entirely be carried out as was intended or envisioned by the individual.Fig. 3 Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) Schematic ModelTheory of Planned Behavior (TPB)Ajzen (1988) developed the theory of planned behavior as an extension of his original theory of reasoned action to further clarify the concept of behavioral intention and its role as the primary determinant of human behavior. His theory of reasoned action (TRA) had designated personal attitude and subjective norms as the predictors of a behavioral intention, claiming that it directly influenced the performance of a behavior (Rivis, Sheeran, and Armitage, 2009, p. 2985). However, in real life, we do not always get what we want, or in this case, do what we had intended to do. Such constraints on our behavior include “limited ability, time, environmental or organizational limits, and unconscious habits” (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). The planned behavior theory acknowledges that uncertainty, in the form of an unknown and unforeseen variable, may present a challenge for the performance of a behavior. Ajzen acknowledges such limitations by stating that “some behaviors are more likely to present problems of control than others, but we can never be absolutely certain that we will be in the position to carry out our intentions. Viewed in this light it becomes clear that every intention is a goal whose attainment is subject to some degree of uncertainty” (1985, p. 24). Perceived behavioral control (PBC) is introduced in this theory in recognition of the fact that there are limitations to our volitional control over our behaviors. It refers to the individual’s perception about his ability to perform a behavior and the direct or indirect control he has over behavioral intention and performance. This concept of perceived personal control speaks to our individual competencies and self-efficacy to weigh attitudinal factors with environmental factors that better informs our behavioral intentions and ultimately our behavior; with the addition of this concept to the theory, Ajzen attempted to improve the model for human behavior and the predictive power of behavioral intentions. The theory of planned behavior, then, states that attitude toward the behavior, perception of subjective norms, and the added element of perceived behavioral control, influences our behavioral intention and performance of behaviors. In this theory, direct behavioral control refers to the individual’s perceived volition to enact this behavior. Such volition or confidence to perform this behavior is prompted by one’s awareness of his abilities like “knowledge, skills and competencies” (Sideris & Kaissidis, 1998, p. 565). Indirect behavioral control, then, refers to the individual’s grasp of what external factors or circumstances may enhance or hinder one’s ability to perform any given behavior.It has been hypothesized that the combination of a positive attitude toward a behavior, positive outlook on subjective norms and a high perceived behavioral control will generate a strong behavioral intention (Rivis, Sheeran, and Armitage, 2009, p. 2985). A high perceived behavioral control indicates that the individual has a high motivational level to perform this given behavior and is confident about his abilities, which means that the individual is more likely to perform this munication and the Application of TheoriesOur communicative and behavioral styles are of significant importance in the work environment as information professionals. From the perspective of our prospective clientele, how we conduct ourselves and portray a positive attitude toward the work we do, to our colleagues and our patrons gives them an inclination of our willingness and motivation to meet their information needs. As information professionals, our job performance reflect our individual competencies and has the possibility of speaking well of our colleagues and overall efforts of our institution. To show a united front in terms of being on the same page about job responsibilities, work ethic, standards of conduct and professionalism perpetuates our commitment to the normative beliefs set forth by our institution and demonstrates our awareness of each others’ acceptance levels of certain practices and behaviors. Furthermore, this display of shared professional character traits feeds into a sense of comraderie and enthusiasm for their jobs as well as a collective professional, behavioral intention that guides the work they do.As information professionals, a primary responsibility is providing excellent information services to our patrons and clients who seek our assistance, expertise and knowledge. An important character trait to convey, on both a professional and personal level, is our commitment to catering to their information needs with the selection of appropriate resource tools and a pleasant disposition. A predictability in our exhibited level of approachability and helpfulness is very much an indication of our intention to best fill their questions, comments and concerns. In this case, the theory of reasoned action (TRA) serves as a strong theoretical model for predicting the behavioral intentions of public reference librarians. The role of the public librarian is to serve the information needs of all public library patrons and the significance of our role is relative to the patron’s assessment of our communicative skills and behavioral attitudes. As public librarians are expected to provide equal service to all who seek it, behavioral attitudes and adherence to normative beliefs is of ample importance. The unpredictable nature of a reference question in conjunction with the variant identity of the library patron (i.e., age, sex, religion, ethnicity) should not disrupt the high level of professionalism and helpfulness exhibited by the reference librarian. All in all, as our behavioral intentions are strong in terms of having a favorable attitude towards providing reference services to those who seek information and, as employees of an institution, we are motivated to comply to the professional standards set forth by our employers, it can be determined that we will carry out a behavior that we had intended to perform. As the profession calls on librarians and information professionals to have clear behavioral intentions, specifically, to make information available and accessible to their patrons, it is also the information professional’s role to best interpret the behavioral and information-seeking intentions of his patron during a reference interview. In addition, the reference interview provides the patron with the opportunity to articulate his behavioral intention; the success of the reference interview (i.e., fulfilling the patron’s information needs) equips the patron with a level of informational control to perform his intended behavior. For example, a teenager seeks the assistance from a public reference librarian to gather some titles for recreational readings over the holidays. He has a positive attitude about reading, is taking the advice given by his teacher to cultivate his interests in reading (following normative beliefs), and thus, according to the theoretical model of reasoned behavior, has a strong behavioral intention to explore reading materials available at the library. Guided by the assistance of the librarian at the reference desk, the teenager is able to fulfill his behavioral intention and to locate fictional titles that are of interest to him for recreational reading. This scenario demonstrates that the theory of reasoned behavior provides a straightforward model for combining one’s attitudes with one’s perception of social beliefs to generating a behavioral intention that directly leads to the performance of an intended behavior.A business library environment is an appropriate setting to apply the theoretical model of planned behavior and the concept of perceived behavioral control. As an Information Services Assistant, I regularly receive emailed requests from information researchers and consultants within my company to gather and organize financial and analyst reports from various online and database sources. These requests are usually uniform in style and substance; the information seeker gives an outline of his case project and then details the various information he needs as well as the particular sources he seeks. Email correspondence is the primary method to exchange information and during office hours, it is expected by parties at both ends, the email sender and receiver, that a reply will be given within minutes. The uniformity of information requests and the expectation for expedient correspondence are organizational standards and represents the normative beliefs in the theoretical model of planned behavior. The information seeker’s perceived behavioral control (his sense of control over the outcome of his behavior) comes from his expectation that he will receive confirmation of his email from someone in the Information Services department and his confidence that he followed the template of information requests carefully and accurately. Such factors that may limit the information seeker’s perceived behavioral control may be extraneous circumstances beyond his volitional control; these would include having the wrong office hours or being unaware of shortened office hours due to a holiday; not knowing that the entire Information Services department is away from their computers and at a department training session; forgetting to cc: the entire department and instead sending his information request to an information specialist who is out of the office, etc. These are external factors that undermine the information seeker’s perceived behavioral control; thus, while his behavioral intention may have been to expect a quick turnaround from the Information Services department so that he could do much needed background research reading before his next case project meeting, unfortunately, his behavior (not being adequately prepared for his meeting) does not mirror his original behavioral intention. This theory demonstrates the predictive power and importance of considering perceived behavioral control (PBC) (i.e., weighing personal control factors with the probability that external factors may impede an action) to achieve the targeted behavior.These predictive models of human behavior, the theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behavior, provide the theoretical framework for behavior as an agent of communication, which serves as the foundation for interaction, understanding of concepts and of others and relationship building that defines human existence. Our personal behavior is indicative of the social cues we learn from our peers as well as our social awareness that leads us to measure what will be deemed as socially acceptable by our significant others. Behavioral intentions and decisions are also reflective of our personal attitudes and beliefs and how we assess and evaluate the consequences of our behavior. These belief systems and practiced thoughts have been independently developed through various experiences (they have been cognitively processed and stored) but also taught to us by our immediate social circles.Theory of Reasoned Action / Planned Behavior & Social Learning TheoryThese three theories, the theory of reasoned action, theory of planned behavior and social learning theory are interrelated in terms of focusing on the observation of others’ behaviors and behavioral outcomes to either inform learning or make behavioral decisions. Also, there is a similarity between the theories in that there is a methodical way of reaching a predetermined behavior: the first theory provides a schematic model where attitudes and subjective norms create a behavioral intention that directly leads to the performance of a behavior; the second theory relates attitudes and subjective norms to a perceived behavioral control which then leads to a behavioral intention and then, ultimately, a targeted behavior; the social learning theory also follows a process to a behavioral decision: a behavior is observed, information about that behavior is retained and then voluntarily recreated, and then the individual makes the decision to implement the observed behavior in another context. Overall, the three theories highlight the volitional control of the individual to perform particular behaviors. The theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behavior portray the individual as one who is observant of social rules of behavior and of the opinions and social acceptance levels of significant others. While the individual acts upon his motivation and personal volition to perform a behavior, he is cognizant of the behaviors of others and uses these behaviors as compasses for his own behavioral decisions. The social learning theory also refers to the positive reinforcements and rewards received from enacting particular behaviors, which is indicative of the cognitive awareness of the individual that his actions occur within an environment that is shared with others and that there are consequences to one’s behavior. The three theories discuss the different avenues by which we come to perform particular behaviors; the theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behavior focus on the behavioral intention as the source of reasoning our behavioral decisions while the social learning theory looks at the information sources or ‘models’ we are exposed to in our daily lives. Motivation to achieve a positive outcome from our behavior and to be rewarded for our behavior are common threads in all three theories - motivation comes from aligning our behaviors with the belief systems of our significant others as well as observing the rewards that are reaped by others. Attribution TheoryIntroduction:Attribution theory is part of cognitive social psychology and focuses on the human propensity to explain why people behave the way they do (Gedeon & Rubin, 1999). The need to explain events is a natural one for humans; it would be very difficult to function in the world if we were unable to make sense as to why things happen. People tend to form implicit theories about why people, including themselves, behave as they do and about what behavior to expect in the future (Bernstein, Penner, Clark-Stewart, & Roy, 2006, p.682).A central goal of attribution theory is to understand how people explain and draw inferences from their observations of behavior (Heider, 1958). Many theorists have examined the functions of attributions in some detail and have concluded that the causes and consequences of attributions vary in relation to the function that attribution serves for the attributor (Forsyth, 1980). Attribution theories emphasizes that causal attributions underlie our behavior, cognition and emotion. It argues that they are important for understanding, since being able to locate the causal antecedents of an event, helps predict what will happen in the future (Majid, Sanford, Pickering, 2006). According to this perspective, causal inferences constitute a core part in everyday thinking.Discussion of Attribution TheoryAttribution theory is deeply rooted in the work of Kurt Lewin, Julian Rotter, John Atkinson, Fritz Heider, and Harold Kelley. Harold Kelley (1973) proposed an influential theory of how people, who he called observers, make attributions about the actions of other people, who he called actors. An example of this might look like this; you want to invite your friend over for dinner, but your mother says no. According to Kelley, understanding the reason for your mother’s behavior requires information about three key variables: consensus, consistency, and distinctiveness.Consensus: the degree to which other people’s behavior is similar to that of the actor – in this case, your mother. If everyone you know avoids your friend, your mother’s behavior has a high degree of consensus and you would attribute her reaction to an external cause (probably something about your friend). However, if everyone except your mother likes your friend, your mother’s negative response would have a low consensus. In this case you would probably attribute the response to something about your mother, such as rudeness or a personal dislike of your friend.Consistency: the degree to which the behavior is the same across time and or/situations. If your mother has invited your friend to dinner several times in the past but rejects your friend this time, the consistency of her behavior is low. Low consistency suggests that your mother’s behavior is attributable to external causes, such as the fact that your friend cannot contact his parents for permission to stay. If your mother’s behavior towards your friend is always hostile, it has high consistency.Distinctiveness: the extent to which the actor’s response to one situation stands out from responses to similar situations. If your mother is rude to all your friends, her behavior toward your friend has low distinctiveness. Behavior that is low in distinctiveness is usually attributable to internal causes, such as personality traits. However if your mom gets along with everyone except your friend, her behavior has high distinctiveness and your attribution about the cause of her behavior is likely to shift toward a cause other than your mother’s personality, such as how your friend acts around you or your family.Kelley’s theory suggests that people are most likely to make internal attributions about an actor’s behavior when there is low consensus, high consistency, and low distinctiveness.Low ConsensusFew people dislike your friend. + High ConsistencyMom is always rude to your friend +Low DistinctivenessMom is rude to allyour friends. =Internal AttributionMom’s rudeness is due to something within her, “she is a mean ol’lady.”High ConsensusMost people dislike your friend +High ConsistencyMom is always rude to your friend +High DistinctivenessMom is never rude toyour other friends =External AttributionMom’s rudeness is caused by something outside mom, “Your friend is rude and mean.”Low ConsensusFew people dislike your friend +Low ConsistencyMom is usually niceto your friend +High DistinctivenessMom is never rude to your other friends. =External AttributionMom’s rudeness is caused by something outside mom, “Your friend must have done something wrong.”Within the context of attribution theory, an understanding of the causes of behaviors and events, even if erroneous, reinforces the individual’s sense of personal control by fulfilling two interrelated functions for the attributor; providing explanations of behavior and environmental outcomes, and facilitating the prediction of these types of outcomes (Forsyth, 1980). Attributions however, may not always serve to predict or explain. It has been shown that in some situations, rational information processing may be biased, not only by the information collection and processing distortions, but by individuals’ self-serving motivations (Forsyth, 1980). According to Winter and Uleman (1984), if people make trait inferences when they observe behavior and encode the information, those inferred traits should be stored in memory along with the information on which they were based. Bias in AttributionWhatever the person’s background, most people are usually logical in their attempts to explain behavior; however they are also sometimes prone to attributional biases that can distort their views of behavior (Bernstein, Penner, Clark-Stewart, & Roy, 2006, p. 684). The fundamental attribution error is a tendency to over attribute the behavior of others to internal factors, such as personality traits. The inclination toward internal attributions is much less pronounced when people explain their own behavior. In this example, another bias tends to come into play; the actor-observer bias. This happens when people often attribute other people’s behavior to external factors, especially when the behavior is inappropriate or inadequate (Bernstein, Penner, Clark-Stewart, & Roy, 2006, p. 684). The actor-observer bias occurs mainly because people have different kinds of information about their own behavior and about other’s behavior. Lastly, the self-serving bias is the tendency to take personal credit for success but to blame external causes for failure. The self-serving bias occurs partly because people are motivated to maintain their self-esteem and ignoring negative information is one way to do so.Attribution Theory & Libraries Much has been written in terms of attribution theory and the workplace relating to motivation and performance; unfortunately the literature is scarce and few as it relates to library and information science. Of an exhaustive literature search of attribution theory and libraries, two articles show relevance of how this theory can be applied in the information sciences; Designing Motivation into Library and Information Skills Instruction, by Ruth Small (1998) and Attribution Theory and Academic Library Performance Evaluation by Julie Gedeon and Richard Rubin (1999).According to Small (1998), the role of the library-media specialist is to help students become effective users of ideas and information. To achieve this mission, effective library and information skills instructional programs must not only help students acquire the skills they will need to solve their information problems, but they must also stimulate intellectual curiosity and encourage continued information seeking and exploration. Bernard Weiner (1972), proposes that people will ascribe to one of four (two internal, two external) attributions to their success or failure at a task. These attributions are:ability (they succeeded because they are smart or talented or failed because they are not)effort (they succeeded because they worked hard or failed because they did not put forth enough effort)task difficulty (they succeeded because the task was at the appropriate level of challenge or failed because the task was too difficult or even succeeded because the task was too easy)luck (they succeeded or failed because some external form made it happen; e.g. the teacher did or did not like them; there was a full moon; they were sitting in the “lucky” or “unlucky” chair)Small (1998) states that instruction, where appropriate, that encourages students to take more internal responsibility for their own learning success or failure, will help to motivate them to continue learning. There are, however, times when it is appropriate for students to have an internal attribution (e.g., “I can’t learn this because I’m just not smart enough”) and appropriate to have an external attribution (e.g., The test really was too difficult for the level or learners). Instructional librarians/media-specialists working with faculty and teachers, should focus on student effort and ability for understanding and using research skills to achieve related learning objectives.Julie Gedeon and Richard Rubin (1999), examine attribution theory as it relates to performance evaluations of academic librarians. In this article discussion of performance evaluation in academic libraries focuses on several areas include the use of performance review as a motivational tool, peer review, evaluation for faculty status, standards of performance and legal ramifications. The particular focus of using the attribution theory on performance evaluation of academic librarians is differential evaluation based on gender. According to Geddeon and Rubin (1999), there is substantial evidence demonstrating that men and women are rated differently for identical performances; males consistently received more favorable evaluations than females in academic libraries. Thus, the study conducted attempts to explain such work evaluation behaviors involving psychological attributions.Considering attribution theory, when evaluating perceived tasks that are easy, an external attribution is more likely to be assigned (task difficulty or luck); when the task is perceived as complex, internal attributions are more likely. In summary, if the tasks that women perform are perceived to be easier, then they will receive less credit for the work; it is all in perspective. Overall, Geddeon and Rubin (1999) state that attribution theory assists in explaining differential evaluations of women and men; making raters aware of it can decrease its effects and increase the effectiveness of evaluations without a gender bias as evidenced in academic libraries.ConclusionAttribution theory has a wide and varied role in everyday life and is an integral part of the motivation process as evidenced by the two articles. Attribution theory plays an important role in explaining virtually all reward-oriented behavior in library organizations; library instruction, performance evaluations, gender biases and many others. Attribution theory is used to explain the differences between high achievers and low achievers at school. Research shows that the two groups have different attributions and hence their motivation varies. Attribution theory is also closely related to education as emotional and motivational factors may influence academic success and failure. Overall, Attribution theory is concerned with how and why ordinary people explain events as they do. Attribution Theory & Theory of Reasoned Action/Planned Behavior Theory of Reasoned Action suggests that a person's behavior is determined by his/her intention to perform the behavior and that this intention is, in turn, a function of his/her attitude toward the behavior and his/her subjective norm. The theory of planned behavior is a theory which predicts deliberate behavior, because behavior can be deliberative and planned. Although in the category of social cognition and communication, attribution theory has its similarities and differences in comparison. Attribution theory is part of cognitive social psychology and focuses on the human propensity to explain why people behave the way they do. Initially looking at the two theories side by side, one could make the assumption they will be similar; behavior leads to attitude leading to explanation. When comparing TRA/PB with Attribution Theory you must understand the differences in definition. Theory of Reasoned Action states that the convergence of two forces, our personal attitudes and social attitudes, dictate our behavioral intention and ultimately the performance of a behavior. In other words, our behavioral intention is a reflection of our “belief strength and outcome evaluation” as well as our “motivation to comply with normative beliefs” (Sideris & Kaissidis, 1998, p. 564). Attribution Theory emphasizes that causal attributions underlie our behavior, cognition, and emotion, and argue they are important for understanding since being able to locate the causal antecedents of an event helps predict what will happen in the future (Majid, Sanford, Pickering, 2006). It is this definition of attribution theory concerning predicting future behaviors which lead to a similarity with Ajzen (1988) who developed the theory of planned behavior as an extension of his original theory of reasoned action to provide further clarification of behavioral intention and its role as the primary determinant of human behavior. Looking at Kelley’s (1973) view of attribution theory of how observers make attributions about the actions of actors; the theory or reasoned action/planned behavior leads directly to intention. Intention is the cognitive representation of a person's readiness to perform a given behavior, and it is considered to be the immediate antecedent of behavior. This intention is determined by three things: their attitude toward the specific behavior, their subjective norms and their perceived behavioral control. The theory of planned behavior holds that only specific attitudes toward the behavior in question can be expected to predict that behavior. This is similar to Kelley’s (1973) three variables to understanding behavior; consensus, consistency, and distinctiveness. As mentioned earlier, these predictive models of human behavior, the theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behavior, provide the theoretical framework for behavior as an agent of communication, which serves as the foundation for interaction, understanding of concepts and of others and relationship building that defines human existence. With that in mind, attribution theory serves as an understanding of the causes of behaviors and events, even if erroneous, reinforces the individual’s sense of personal control by fulfilling two interrelated functions for the attributor; providing explanations of behavior and environmental outcomes, and facilitating the prediction of these types of outcomes (Forsyth, 1980).ConclusionCommunication theories provide a basis for interpreting and understanding our reasons for communicative and behavioral decisions. How we exchange information through verbal and behavioral cues creates a system of shared meaning, beliefs, values and attitudes. The four communication theories discussed in this paper, Social Learning Theory, Theory of Reasoned Action, Theory of Planned Action and Attribution Theory highlight the central role of the individual to communicate his personal attitudes, observations of others and previous experiences through the vehicle of his behavioral decisions. The theories present models that reveal the driving forces of our behaviors, such as attitudes, normative beliefs, motivation and rewards, personal control, and consistency. The performance of a single behavior is a personal endeavor, but all four theories recognize the social influences and impacts of our behavioral decisions.ReferencesAjzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1973). Attitudinal and normative variables as predictors of specific behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27(1), 41-57.Bandura, A. (1997). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Bandura, A., & Grusec, J. E., & Menlove, F. L. (1966). Observational learning as a function of symbolization and incentive set. Child Development, 37(3), 499-506.Bandura, A., & Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575-582.Bernstein, D., Penner, L., Clarke-Stewart, A., & Roy, E. (2006). Psychology Ap Version. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin College Div.Brauer, J. R., & Tittle, C. R. (2012). Social learning theory and human reinforcement. Sociological Spectrum: Mid-South Sociological Association, 32(2), 157-177.Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, Mass.; Don Mills, Ontario: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.Forsyth, D. (1980). The functions of attributions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43, 184-189.Gedeon, J., & Rubin, R. (1999). Attribution theory and academic library performance evaluation. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 25(1), 18-25.Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Jurkowski, O., & Patricia, A., & Robins, J. (2005). Building bridges between students and practitioners. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 46(3), 198-209.Kelley, H. (1973). The process of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28, 107-128.Krohn, M. D. (1999). Social learning theory: the continuing development of a perspective. Theoretical Criminology, 3(4), 462-476.Majid, A., Sanford, A., & Pickering, M. (2007). The linguistic description of minimal social scenarios affects the extent of causal inference making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 918-932.Rivis, A., Sheeran, P., & Armitage, C.J. (2009, December). Expanding the affective and normative components of the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analysis of anticipated affect and moral norms. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(12), 2985-3019. Accessed November 20, 2012, from Sideris, G.D., Kaissidis, A., & Padeliadu, S. (1998). Comparisons of the theories of reasoned action and planned behaviour. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 563-580. Small, R. (1998, January 1). Designing motivation into library and information skills instruction | American Association of School Librarians (AASL). American Library Association. Retrieved November 10, 2012, from Weiner, B. (1972). Theories of motivation: from mechanism to cognition. Chicago, IL: McNally.Winter, L., & Uleman, J. (1984). When are social judgments made? Evidence for the spontaneousness of trait inferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 237-252.Wood, R. & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. The Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361-348. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download