Sample Essay On Gender, Affiliation, And Control In Physician-Patient Encounters

CRITICAL REVIEW:

ID Number
In this review, it will be argued that Aruguete’s and Roberts’ study of the impacts of physician gender and their communication styles on the responses of the patients is an interesting yet challenging piece of research. The contention will be established through a critical review of Aruguete’s and Roberts’ paper. In lieu of this, the paper will be discussing the conceptual bases, methodologies, findings, and implications.
Aruguete and Roberts (2000) claim that physicians, regardless of their gender, use different styles of communication, which encompass both predictable verbal and non-verbal behaviours. Such communication style has the tendency to achieve its balance over time. The primary objective of the study is to examine the impacts of communication styles and gender on the responses of the participants to physicians. The study involved 146 participants. These participants came from low-income families. In terms of their races, 50% of the participants were Caucasian, and the other 50% were African-Americans. Both groups viewed the videotapes of medical experts differing in their style of communications. Some physicians were controlling while other physicians were affiliative. Gender was also taken into account in this study. Some doctors were male and others were female. Using the affiliative form of communication, the participants achieved satisfaction and compliance, and developed self-disclosure and trust. The gender of the medical doctors did not have any significant impact on the variables. When participants were asked to recall some information, an interaction took place. Observations from the researchers showed that when the medical doctor was male, they were able to recall more particularly when he poses a controlling behaviour of communication that he displayed affiliative style. The results of the study also showed that the communications style of the medical specialist was a lot more critical compared to gender in recognizing the response of the patient.
The study made use of a videotape showing the different forms of communications employed by medical experts. Aruguete’s and Roberts’ findings suggest communication styles of physicians matter to the participants more than the gender. Although an established claim was rendered in the study based on the method used, it is difficult to consider such method as concrete and reliable. While it is safe for the researchers to say that communication styles of the physicians mattered to the participants, this does not sufficiently merit a valid claim. Aruguete and Robert cited Buller and Buller in the introductory part of their research. After reviewing Buller’s and Buller’s article titled Physicians' Communication Style and Patient Satisfaction, the research explored a more valid methodology used than that of Aruguete’s and Robert’s. Buller and Buller (1987) cited Ben Sira’s social interaction model. Such model elucidated the link between the styles of communication and patient satisfaction. One downside of the model, however, is its focus on a narrow form of communicating. The research failed to explore other styles of communication. Nonetheless, the point here is to have a more interactive form of communication as a methodology rather than merely letting the participants watch the videotape.
In the aspect of demographics used in the study, there was an equal distribution of participants according to race. Half of them were Black and the others were Whites. However, one problem with the demographics used is the researchers’ failure to take into consideration the responses that would most likely be received from individuals in high-income families. The way a person reacts to another person’s style of communication is also influenced by their socio-economic background.
The fine line between verbal and non-verbal communication was fully established in the article. Although the researchers succinctly discussed the results of their investigations, there was not much exploration made that would contrast the responses of the participants in a verbal and non-verbal communication. Aruguete and Roberts cited Buller and Street in the aspect of affiliative and controlling styles recognized to be prevalent in the communication styles of physicians. There is a great distinction between the two research studies. In a study conducted by Buller and Street (1992), then non-verbal aspect of communication was properly highlighted and examined. This was stated in a manner of investigating the way physicians nonverbally forced control and greater dominance when they speak. This particularly took place through the use of longer speaking turns. The researchers observed that the physician and the patient took turns to communicate and reciprocate the behaviours. Moreover, the researchers took notice of the response latencies, gestures, gaze, and body orientations. The study made by Aruguete and Roberts failed to make such distinction.
Aruguete and Roberts also cited Buller’s claim that affiliative style of communication was more common among female doctors. As that has been the case, the researchers failed to prove in their study whether such a claim was true. The primary focus of all the investigations made in the series of studies presented was on communication styles and not so much on gender. Aruguete and Roberts (2000) state the physicians’ affiliative and controlling styles of communication have been associated with compliance and satisfaction. Moreover, the researchers claimed that the gender of the physicians function in a way of moderating the effectiveness of the styles of communication.
The affiliative form of communication, according to Aruguete and Roberts, is made up of non-verbal and verbal behaviours that enhance the establishment of a positive connection between the patient and the doctor. Such behaviours render friendliness, empathy, desire, and interest. There was not much discussed in the findings of the research. However, Aruguete and Roberts explored the topic comprehensively.

References

Abbott, C. (1992). Uncertainty and anxiety of hysterectomy patients during hospitalization. AORN Journal, 56(4), p.744.
Aruguete, M. and Roberts, C. (2000). Gender, Affiliation, and Control in Physician–Patient Encounters.Sex Roles, 42(1/2), pp.107-118.
Mines, D. (1999). Reducing Treatment Delay and Improving Diagnostic Accuracy for Patients With Acute Stroke. JAMA, 281(1), p.31.
Morasso, G., Caruso, A., Belbusti, V., Carucci, T., Chiorri, C., Clavarezza, V., Benedetta, G., D’Ovidio, S., Iuvaro, M., Piattelli, A., Romeo, M., Santoni, W. and Leo, S. (2015). Improving physicians’ communication skills and reducing cancer patients’ anxiety: a quasi-experimental study. Tumori Journal, pp.0-0.
Street, R., Krupat, E., Bell, R., Kravitz, R. and Haidet, P. (2003). Beliefs about control in the physician-patient relationship. J Gen Intern Med, 18(8), pp.609-616.
van Osch, M., Sep, M., van Vliet, L., van Dulmen, S. and Bensing, J. (2014). Reducing patients’ anxiety and uncertainty, and improving recall in bad news consultations. Health Psychology, 33(11), pp.1382-1390.