Page 82 - Journal of Library Science in China 2020 Vol.46
P. 82

CHEN Geng & HU Yachun / The attribution analysis of low participation in public reading   081
                                       among rural residents: A survey from 77 administrative villages and rural libraries in Hubei Province


               Another 70-year-old man said, “I like to pay attention to some poverty alleviation policies. I used
               to read newspapers, but the news in the newspapers lags behind. Now I just watch TV news, which
               tells the news in a more comprehensive and timely manner.” Diversified cultural and entertaining
               activities have crowded out reading time for rural residents, making less and less people read for
               pleasure.


               4  Conclusions and suggestions

               This paper empirically analyzes the low participation of rural residents in public reading by
               referring to Kelly’s cube theory, attributing it to three main dimensions and seven sub-dimensions,
               and tries to establish a relatively complete attribution framework. The results of these dimensions
               show that the reasons for the low participation of rural residents are complex and diverse, and
               their influence are different among different individuals or groups. In the further action plan and
               technical strategy planning, we should not only pay attention to all kinds of reasons as a whole, but
               adopt the corresponding strategies according to the different categories of these reasons as well.


               4.1  Conclusions

               4.1.1  The reasons for rural residents’ low participation in public reading are complex and diverse,
               including single factor and composite factors
               According to the above study, person, stimulus and circumstance all influence the participation
               behavior of rural residents to different degrees. How do these factors work singly or in
               combination? Which is more important? We need to combine the consensus, consistency and
               distinctiveness of Kelly’s cube theory to make the judgment. Distinctiveness targets at stimulus,
               whether a person reacts the same way when faced with different stimulus. Consistency aims
               at circumstance, whether a person has always acted in similar ways in the face of similar
               stimulus at different times or circumstance. Consensus aims at the person, whether the person
               and others exhibit the same behavior. According to the covariant principle, if a condition exists,
               the corresponding result also exists, and if this condition disappears, the result also disappears.
               Consequently, there are eight theoretical attributions for the low participation of rural residents in
               public reading  (shown in table 4).
                           〇a ①


               ①It should be noted that Kelly’s cube attribution theory has also been criticized for being too idealistic, because it is difficult for
               researchers to obtain all the information required by this model and ensure its authenticity. Therefore, Kelly himself, Mac Arthur,
               Luber, Feldman, Zuckerman, Orvis and others have only verified the partial attribution hypothesis, and some other hypotheses
               have not been effectively verified due to other reasons such as information collection. Nevertheless, the most important thing is
               that Kelly’s cube theory provides us with a methodological approach to attribution, that is, “it reveals the ways and processes that
               ordinary people should use to make correct attribution, which can not only provide methodological guidance for people to make
               correct attribution in their daily life, but it also opens up a way for us to study attribution phenomena in natural situations from the
               perspective of attribution research”. Refer to: Wang, Y.Z. (1987). Comment on Kelley’s ANOVA attribution model(试评凯莱的方
               差分析归因模式). Psychological Science Communication(心理科学通讯), (4): 22-27.
   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87