libr 220 assignment 4 : communication...

Cheng, Hernandez, YangLIBR 220 Fall 2012

Assignment 4

Communication Theories

Social Learning Theory,

Theory of Reasoned Action / Planned Behavior

and Attribution Theory

Introduction

Communication theory studies the technical process of information and the human

process of human communication. Various types of communication theories not limited to this

1


Assignment 4list 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.

2


Assignment 4

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

3


Assignment 4reciprocally 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

4


Assignment 4standing 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 Patron

Applying 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.

5


Assignment 4An 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

6


Assignment 4while 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 Professional

For 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

7


Assignment 4individual 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

8


Assignment 4materialistic 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.

9


Assignment 4 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

10


Assignment 4behavior 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 Model

This 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

11


Assignment 4drive 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 Model

Theory 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

12


Assignment 4primary 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

13


Assignment 4behavior. 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 behavior.

Communication and the Application of Theories

Our 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.

14


Assignment 4As 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

15


Assignment 4provides 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

16


Assignment 4normative 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

17


Assignment 4will 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 Theory

These 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

18


Assignment 4positive 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 Theory

Introduction:

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

19


Assignment 4and 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 Theory

Attribution 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.

20


Assignment 4Distinctiveness: 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,

21


Assignment 4rational 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 Attribution

Whatever 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,

22


Assignment 4two 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:

1 ability (they succeeded because they are smart or talented or failed because they are not)

2 effort (they succeeded because they worked hard or failed because they did not put forth

enough effort)

3 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)

4 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).

23


Assignment 4Instructional 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.

Conclusion

Attribution 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

24


Assignment 4explaining 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

25


Assignment 4behavior, 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).

26


Assignment 4Conclusion

Communication 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.

27


Assignment 4

References

Ajzen, 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.

28


Assignment 4Heider, 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

http://web.ebscohost.com.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/ehost/detail?sid=19a7b84f-18b4-4c0a-

9434-

a3b7efe5ed29%40sessionmgr112&vid=1&hid=106&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2

ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=45671311

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.

29


Assignment 4Small, 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

http://www.ala.org/aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/slmrb/slmrcontents/volume11998slmqo/

small

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.

30

libr 220 assignment 4 : communication...

Documents