{"title":"在助产士做决定时,地位是否比教育更有影响力?","authors":"Caroline J. Hollins Martin, Peter Bull","doi":"10.1016/j.cein.2004.10.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span>Hollins Martin [Social influence effects on midwives’ practice. Presentation at the British Psychological Society Social Psychology Section Annual Conference, 10th–12th September, 2003: London] developed the Social Influence Scale for Midwifery (SIS-M) to measure social influence of a senior midwife on a junior midwife’s decisions. First, midwives were asked to answer SIS-M questions in a postal survey. Second, in interviews, a senior midwife attempted to influence SIS-M responses in a conformist direction. The results of the Hollins Martin (2003) study showed that a senior midwife was able to significantly influence change to many midwives decisions, </span><em>F</em>(1,57)<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->249.62, <em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.001. The present study aims to ascertain whether decision changes were caused by social components of the relationship between interviewer and interviewee, or education shared during discussion. This is achieved by removing social influence of the senior midwife at interview. For this purpose, a workbook was devised that replicated the exact content of interview. This workbook was posted to a differing group of 60 midwives, who had also previously completed a private postal SIS-M. Overall, analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed no significant difference between the postal workbook scores and the private SIS-M scores, (<em>F</em>(1,57)<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.31, <em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.58). In other words, participants gave similar responses to the SIS-M questions in the workbook as the private postal condition. Results exclude possibility that education during the Hollins Martin (2003) interviews adjusted participants’ schema in relation to decisions made. Furthermore, this indicates that the social relationship, in part, caused the large social influence effect during interviews. The implications for practice are: first, that a senior midwife is profoundly capable of influencing decisions that junior midwives make; second, educational content plays little part in this process. Moreover, many of the SIS-M decisions should not be the choice of a senior midwife, but the preference of the childbearing women.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":87580,"journal":{"name":"Clinical effectiveness in nursing","volume":"8 3","pages":"Pages 133-139"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.cein.2004.10.001","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does status have more influence than education on the decisions midwives make?\",\"authors\":\"Caroline J. Hollins Martin, Peter Bull\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cein.2004.10.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p><span>Hollins Martin [Social influence effects on midwives’ practice. Presentation at the British Psychological Society Social Psychology Section Annual Conference, 10th–12th September, 2003: London] developed the Social Influence Scale for Midwifery (SIS-M) to measure social influence of a senior midwife on a junior midwife’s decisions. First, midwives were asked to answer SIS-M questions in a postal survey. Second, in interviews, a senior midwife attempted to influence SIS-M responses in a conformist direction. The results of the Hollins Martin (2003) study showed that a senior midwife was able to significantly influence change to many midwives decisions, </span><em>F</em>(1,57)<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->249.62, <em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.001. The present study aims to ascertain whether decision changes were caused by social components of the relationship between interviewer and interviewee, or education shared during discussion. This is achieved by removing social influence of the senior midwife at interview. For this purpose, a workbook was devised that replicated the exact content of interview. This workbook was posted to a differing group of 60 midwives, who had also previously completed a private postal SIS-M. Overall, analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed no significant difference between the postal workbook scores and the private SIS-M scores, (<em>F</em>(1,57)<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.31, <em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.58). In other words, participants gave similar responses to the SIS-M questions in the workbook as the private postal condition. Results exclude possibility that education during the Hollins Martin (2003) interviews adjusted participants’ schema in relation to decisions made. Furthermore, this indicates that the social relationship, in part, caused the large social influence effect during interviews. The implications for practice are: first, that a senior midwife is profoundly capable of influencing decisions that junior midwives make; second, educational content plays little part in this process. Moreover, many of the SIS-M decisions should not be the choice of a senior midwife, but the preference of the childbearing women.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":87580,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical effectiveness in nursing\",\"volume\":\"8 3\",\"pages\":\"Pages 133-139\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2004-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.cein.2004.10.001\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical effectiveness in nursing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361900404000299\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical effectiveness in nursing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361900404000299","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6
摘要
社会影响对助产士实践的影响。在英国心理学会社会心理学分会年度会议上的报告,2003年9月10 - 12日:伦敦]开发了助产社会影响量表(SIS-M)来衡量高级助产士对初级助产士决策的社会影响。首先,助产士被要求在邮寄调查中回答SIS-M问题。其次,在访谈中,一名资深助产士试图影响SIS-M的反应,使其顺从。Hollins Martin(2003)的研究结果表明,高级助产士能够显著影响许多助产士决策的变化,F(1,57) = 249.62, p = 0.001。本研究旨在确定决策的改变是由访谈者和受访者之间关系的社会成分引起的,还是由讨论过程中共享的教育引起的。这是通过在面试中消除高级助产士的社会影响来实现的。为此,设计了一份工作簿,复制了采访的确切内容。本工作手册被张贴到60名助产士的不同组,他们之前也完成了私人邮政SIS-M。总体而言,方差分析(ANOVA)显示邮政工作簿得分与私人SIS-M得分之间无显著差异(F(1,57) = 0.31, p = 0.58)。换句话说,与会者对工作簿中的SIS-M问题的回答与私人邮寄情况类似。结果排除了Hollins Martin(2003)访谈中教育调整参与者与决策相关的图式的可能性。这进一步表明,社会关系在一定程度上造成了访谈过程中较大的社会影响效应。对实践的启示是:首先,高级助产士能够深刻地影响初级助产士的决策;其次,教育内容在这一过程中起不到什么作用。此外,许多SIS-M的决定不应该是高级助产士的选择,而是育龄妇女的选择。
Does status have more influence than education on the decisions midwives make?
Hollins Martin [Social influence effects on midwives’ practice. Presentation at the British Psychological Society Social Psychology Section Annual Conference, 10th–12th September, 2003: London] developed the Social Influence Scale for Midwifery (SIS-M) to measure social influence of a senior midwife on a junior midwife’s decisions. First, midwives were asked to answer SIS-M questions in a postal survey. Second, in interviews, a senior midwife attempted to influence SIS-M responses in a conformist direction. The results of the Hollins Martin (2003) study showed that a senior midwife was able to significantly influence change to many midwives decisions, F(1,57) = 249.62, p = 0.001. The present study aims to ascertain whether decision changes were caused by social components of the relationship between interviewer and interviewee, or education shared during discussion. This is achieved by removing social influence of the senior midwife at interview. For this purpose, a workbook was devised that replicated the exact content of interview. This workbook was posted to a differing group of 60 midwives, who had also previously completed a private postal SIS-M. Overall, analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed no significant difference between the postal workbook scores and the private SIS-M scores, (F(1,57) = 0.31, p = 0.58). In other words, participants gave similar responses to the SIS-M questions in the workbook as the private postal condition. Results exclude possibility that education during the Hollins Martin (2003) interviews adjusted participants’ schema in relation to decisions made. Furthermore, this indicates that the social relationship, in part, caused the large social influence effect during interviews. The implications for practice are: first, that a senior midwife is profoundly capable of influencing decisions that junior midwives make; second, educational content plays little part in this process. Moreover, many of the SIS-M decisions should not be the choice of a senior midwife, but the preference of the childbearing women.