Task and socioemotional behaviors of physicians: a test of reciprocity and social interaction theories in analogue physician-patient encounters
Task and socioemotional behaviors of physicians: a test of reciprocity and social interaction theories in analogue physician-patient encounters
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/s0277-9536(99)00245-2
复制
发表时间：
2000-02-01
影响因子：
5.4
通讯作者：
Aruguete, MS
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Roberts, CA;Aruguete, MS
本研究的目的是评估社会互动和互惠理论的解释病人的反应，医生在医疗咨询。社会互动理论预测，由于缺乏对医生任务行为的理解或焦虑的关注，患者大多会认识到医生的社会情绪行为并对其做出反应。互惠理论预测，患者认识到他们的医生的社会情感和任务行为，他们以主题相似的方式对这些行为作出反应。我们通过让受试者观看四个录像带中的一个来检验这些假设，这四个录像带在医生的任务行为（对病因、症状和治疗的彻底或最低程度的解释）和医生的社会情绪行为（口头和非口头表达的高或低水平的关注和情感）方面有所不同。结果支持社会互动理论的一般主张，即高水平的社会情绪行为的医生增加措施的病人自我披露，信任，满意度，并推荐医生的可能性。医生的任务行为没有影响病人对医生的反应，这一发现与互惠理论不一致。(C)1999 Elsevier Science Ltd.保留所有权利。
The purpose of the present study is to assess social interaction and reciprocity theories as explanations for patient responses to a physician in a medical consultation. Social interaction theory predicts that patients mostly recognize and react to socioemotional behavior of their physicians due to a lack of understanding of physician task behaviors or a preoccupation with anxiety. Reciprocity theory predicts that patients recognize socioemotional and task behaviors of their physicians, and they respond to these behaviors in thematically similar ways. We examined these hypotheses by having subjects view one of four videotapes which varied in physician task behavior (thorough or minimum levels of explanation of etiology, symptoms, and treatment) and physician socioemotional behavior (high or low levels of concern and affection displayed verbally and non-verbally). Results supported the general proposition of social interaction theory in that high levels of socioemotional behavior of the physician increased measures of patient self-disclosure, trust, satisfaction, and likelihood of recommending the physician. Physician task behavior had no effect on patient response to the physician, a finding inconsistent with reciprocity theory. (C) 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.