Health Behavioural Change - Assignment Example

Running Head: HEALTH BEHAVIOURAL CHANGE Health Behavioural Change Name Institution Date Table of Contents Running Head: HEALTH BEHAVIOURAL CHANGE 1 Health Behavioural Change 14 1 Health Behavioural Change 1 Name 1 Institution 1 Date 1 Table of Contents 2 Attribution Theory 3 Cause of Behaviour and the process of Attribution 5 Consistency 5 Consensus 6 Self Efficacy and Basic Attribution Errors 8 Health Locus of Control 10 The Purpose of the theory 11 Attribution Theory Attribution involves pointing at the perceived cause of something. When A is attributed to B, is simply saying without B, A could not been in existence, consequently B is the cause of A. The inception of attribution theory was to assist an individual comprehend what caused human behavior, be it from one’s fault or effort or someone else’s. Gollwitzer & Sheeran, (2009) argues that the foundation of attribution theory is that people do not assume that their behavior or those of others do not happen randomly, they would want to know the reasoning behind the actions that they themselves take or others take. They would want the attribution of causes to behavior. This mentality gives room for an existence of a feeling of control over one’s behavior and the prevailing situation. In his book ‘The psychology of interpersonal relations’, psychologist Heider Fritz (1896-1988) at the first time developed attribution theory in the year 1958. Regardless of the belief in perceptions being invalid, people perceptions and beliefs dictated how they would eventually act. A further development to the theory was done by Weiner Bernard 1970s and 1980s with his colleagues. Theory framework that they develop has currently been used basically in attribution research. Kelly Harold did a final and more comprehensive development to the theory of attribution; he looked at how distinctiveness, consensus and consistency could be utilized by individuals to determine if their perceptions are valid (Brannon & Feist, 2004). Attributions are crucial to management since whatever are what are perceived causes of behavior can influence employees’ and managers’ actions and judgments. Managers make related judgments by observing the performance of employees. If employees poor performance is attributed to lack of effort as viewed by the management, then the result will more likely be negative for the employee, poor performance appraisal may be received or may lead to total dismissal from the job. On the contrary, if employees poor performance is attributed to lack of skill by the management then the manager in charge may recommend assignment of the to further training or avail sufficient coaching or instruction. If a manager will make a judgment that is not accurate relating to the causes of poor performance, this will have negative impact to the organization (Edelmann, 2000). The implication of attribution will have negative or positive effect on employee motivation. Employees attributing the result of their success as emanating from outside of their control will be hesitant to try and attempt new chores and their motivation to perform well in the work place may be lost. The employees who count their success being as a result of themselves will likely gather more motivation to perform. According to Edelmann (2000).Managerial effectiveness and employee performance can be enhanced through a clear understanding of attributions made by people. This has consequently led to many researches being done in health psychology due to its significance in the corporate world. In an effort to find out what causes performance to dwindle or be excellent is attributed to the numerous reaches being done in this area (Webb & Sheeran, 2004). Cause of Behaviour and the process of Attribution According to Brown, Sheeran, & Reuber (2009), attribution is viewed to be a process involving three processes. In the first place, an individual’s behavior has to be observed closely over time. Secondly, the perceiver must establish the behavior observed as being deliberate. Consequently the person under observation is viewed to behave intentionally. In the third stage the observer links the behavior that has been observed to either external or internal causes. Internal causes are as the result of the person under observation; on the other hand external causes are as a result of outside factors. According to Ouellette & Wood (1998), a person’s effort and a person’s ability are two internal attributions that can be made as determining the outcome. Luck and task difficulty are the external attributions of behavior. In the perception of behavior the judgment has to be made by the observer as to which of the factors is responsible for behavior. Nevertheless, when establishing between external and internal causes of behavior, the perceiver should look at the elements of consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency (Verplanken & Faes, 1999). Consistency Consistency outlines whether a person under observation behaves in the same way when exposed to same circumstances. If the person under observation acts in a persistent way in the same situation then the consistency is high, if on the other hand the person acts differently each time, then consistent level is very low. Distinctiveness describes an incident where by the person under observation acts in the same pattern in utterly different types of situations. If the person under observation shows persistent behavior in various contexts, consequently distinctive level is low; and if they exhibit different behavior in various contexts, subsequently distinctive level is very high (Schwarzer, 1992). Consensus Consensus is the level to which other people exposed in the same situation will behave in the same way as the person under observation. If the observer realizes other people acting in the same pattern as the person under observation acts, then the consensus level is very high. On the other hand if other people behave differently when exposed in the same type of situation, then consensus level is low. Distinctiveness, consensus and consistency are examined when one is observing behavior. And consequently a judgment concerning external and internal cause of behavior should be made. In case distinctiveness, consensus and consistency are all high, consequently the perceiver comes to a conclusion that there is existence of an external cause of behavior (Palayiwa, Sheeran & Thompson, 2010). The cause of behavior will be attributed to internal factors if consistency is high, consensus is low, and distinctiveness is low. To clearly understand consensus, distinctiveness and consistency, assume a workplace illustration. Patricia, a manager, has given a team of employees the task of developing for a client a custom revenue training program. As the project successively progresses, Patricia observes problems in the outcome of the work of Walter, one of the project team members assigned the task. In order to establish why Walter’s performance is not pleasing, Patricia in the first place looks at consistency, or whether Walter has performed similarly on similar projects (Parks-Stamm, Gollwitzer, & Oettingen, 2007). A study of his preceding performance appraisal shows there was non-existence of performance problems while preparing custom revenue training programs. This leads to Patricia concluding that there must be the existence of external cause to the problem. In the second phase, Patricia looks at distinctiveness; she wants to establish if Walter has performed in the same way on different type of tasks. By analyzing Walter’s performance reviews, she discovers that when he is incorporated in a team assigned to accomplish a different type of task, for example the development of a selection interview, he performed excellently. This further emphasizes the existence of an external cause attributed to Walter’s poor performance (Triandis, 1980). In the last phase, Patricia looks at consensus, this he does by looking at other peoples’ behavior who have done or are doing a similar task. In questioning team members about their personal experiences with the current project, she discovers that a lot of them have problems in the development of the custom revenue program. Therefore all signs indicate Walter’s dismal performance being attributed to an external factor, for example, an overly demanding client or a difficult task. Basing on his attribution, Patricia may look up for ways in which to reduce the negative consequences of external factors affecting Walters performance as opposed to trying to influence his ability or level of effort. This illustration shows how distinctiveness, consensus and consistency may point out towards an external cause. Nevertheless, the three factors may result to an observer attributing behavior to an internal cause, for example the ability and effort of the person being observed. Patricia in the stated example has also experienced between herself and a secretary by the name Juliet. Another manager has raised concerns to Patricia that Juliet turn in work punctuated with errors and moreover the work is handed in late. Patricia commences observing Juliet for several days and discovers that when she is given work by the particular manager in charge, Juliet continues to perform dismally, which points out to an internal cause. When she does assignments for other managers, unfortunately Juliet continues to perform poorly; this is distinctiveness, consequently pointing at an internal cause. When the work assigned to Juliet is assigned to other secretaries working under the same manager whom Juliet works under, they accomplish the work in time and the task is done well. This is consensus, and it indicates an internal cause. Basing on her observation Patricia can conclude Juliet poor performance is as a result of an internal cause and that could be her lack of effort or skill (Rutter & Quine, 2002) Self Efficacy and Basic Attribution Errors Attributions are made by people in every day life. Nevertheless the attributions more often that not wrong. Fundamental attribution error is common in assigning cause. This is a practice of overestimating the impact of personal factors and underestimating the effect of situational factors when evaluating another person’s behavior. In behavior observation one is more likely to arrive at the assumption that a person’s behavior is as a result of himself or herself as opposed to situations in which he or she exist. Mostly managers in workplace are more likely to come to the assumption that poor performance by an employee is attributed to lack of effort or ability as opposed to luck or difficult of task. The fundamental attribution error is prevalent in North America but not very common globally. In other different culture for example India, fundamental attribution error occurs in the opposite that is situations prevails over personal factors. When a person sees her own failure or success against seeing the failure or success of others, they assign more or one cause such as ability, effort, luck and difficulty of the task. Internal causes comprises of ability and effort while external causes comprises of luck and the difficulty of task. Researchers have argued that it is human nature to possess bias that is self serving which attributing one’s own failure to external factors and one’s own success to internal factors. One would say he got a pay rise because of his excellent skills at his job, and one will say he was promoted because of his hard work in the job that his effort (Norman & Conner, 2005). A person may attribute his failure to finish the project on time because unreasonable deadline required (task difficulty) or he did not make the sale because another person talked to the client first (luck). The self-serving bias coupled with fundamental attribution error shows that people will often make total different attributions concerning their own failure and success as opposed to the failures and successes of other people. Self-serving bias is wide spread in human cultures although other researchers are opposed to this observation. Research has shown that between women and men in their self serving biases. Men and women were prone to making self-serving attributions. The research further indicated that Western countries and the United States of America had predominant self serving bias which was strong as compared to other cultures of the various continents (Gollwitzer, Sheeran, Michalski, & Seifert, 2009). Nevertheless, despite these disparities it was consistently found out that there was existence of a positive self-serving bias in all the cultures under study. Attribution theory was resorted to explain how people comprehend the causes of human behavior, be it someone else’s or their own. Managers usually act basing their actions on attributions and may unfortunately act inappropriately is the validity of the attribution was incorrect (Sheeran, 2002). Managers who comprehend the attribution process, existence of type of external and internal attributions and incorporating the presence of self serving bias and fundamental attribution error better decipher their own and other’s behavior. Health psychological research has been crucial and invaluable in understanding organization behavior. Many have invested heavily in this type of research to try and understand human behavior as far as organizational management and success is concerned. These researches are not about to come to an end as we still have complex behavior patterns and the work place (Ogden, 2004). Health Locus of Control Health Locus of Control refers to the degree to which an individual believes that his/her health is controlled by either internal or external factors. Health locus of control is a resultant of the social learning theory which was brought up by Rotter. The theory states that people learn from the basis of their history of reinforcement. People are likely to develop their own general and specific expectations. Developers unearthed through examination of classes for newly diagnosed diabetic patients together with their families that health staff stressed the need for the active role of the patients in their healthcare. Noticeable was that the medical staff were trying their way out to ensure that their patients are able to adopt and internal locus of control. This therefore prompted the medics to relate Locus of Control to health situations. The main aim is to understand human psychology. Locus of control is how manageable a particular prediction can be. The Purpose of the theory The theory was developed due to the intricacy in predicting health behavior from within generalized expectancies. Health Locus of Control was brought up as a unidimensional determinant of the beliefs of people that their state of health is either determined or not determined by their behavior. Locus of control scale is used to assess health education program success. As a result, changes in beliefs or expectancies are termed relevant when accompanied by a given desired behavioral change. References Norman, P & Conner, M. (2005). Predicting Health Behaviours (2nd Edn). Buckingham: OUP Rutter,D & Quine, R. (2002) Changing Health Behaviour. GB: OUP Brannon, L & Feist, J. (2004) Health Psychology: An Introduction to Behaviour & Health (5th Edition). UK: Thompson/Wadsworth Verplanken, B., & Faes, S. (1999). Good intentions, bad habits, and effects of forming implementation intentions on healthy eating. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 591-604. Edelmann, R.J. (2000). Psychosocial aspects of the health care process. Harlow: Pearson Education. Ogden, J (2004). Health Psychology: A textbook (2nd Edition). UK: OUP (chapter 5: smoking and alcohol use. Schwarzer, R (1992). Self Efficacy: Thought, Control and Action. Hemisphere: Washington DC Palayiwa, A., Sheeran, P., & Thompson, A. R. (2010). "Words Will Never Hurt Me": Implementation Regulate Attention to Stigmatising Comments about Appearance. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 29, 575-598. Brown, I., Sheeran, P., & Reuber, M. (2009). Enhancing antiepileptic drug adherence: A randomized controlled trial. Epilepsy & Behavior, 16(4), 634-639. Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2009). Self-regulation of consumer decision making and behavior: The role of implementation intentions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19, 593-607. Gollwitzer, P. M., Sheeran, P., Michalski, V., & Seifert, A. E. (2009). When intentions go public: Does social reality widen the intention-behavior gap?. Psychological Science, 20, 612-618. Martin, J., Sheeran, P., Wright, A., & Dibble, T. (2009). Implementation intention formation reduces consultations for emergency contraception and pregnancy testing among teenage women. Health Psychology, 28, 762-769. Oettingen, G., Hönig, G., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2000). Effective self-regulation of goal attainment. International Journal of Educational Research, 33, 705-732. Oettingen, G., Pak, H., & Schnetter, K. (2001). Self-regulation of goal setting: Turning free fantasies about the future into binding goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 736-753. Orbell, S., Hodgkins, S., & Sheeran, P. (1997). Implementation intentions and the theory of planned behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 945-954. Orbell, S., & Sheeran, P. (1998). “Inclined abstainers”: A problem for predicting health-related behavior. British Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 151-165. Orbell, S., & Sheeran, P. (2000). Motivational and volitional processes in action initiation: A field study of the role of implementation intentions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 780-797. Ouellette, J. A., & Wood, W. (1998). Habit and intention in everyday life: The multiple processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 54-74. Parks-Stamm, E. J., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Oettingen G. (2007). Action control by implementation intentions: Effective cue detection and efficient response initiation. Social Cognition, 25, 248-266. Sheeran, P. (2002). Intention-behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of Social Psychology (Vol. 12., pp. 1-30). Chichester: Wiley. Triandis, H. C. (1980). Values, attitudes, and interpersonal behavior. In H. Howe & M. Page (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 27, pp. 195-259). Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press. Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. (2004). Identifying good opportunities to act: Implementation intentions and cue discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 407-419 Read More