ABSTRACT
En este artículo, el objetivo es presentar una revisión de los elementos principales de este modelo teórico. Para ello, se comenzará con un recorrido histórico sobre el avance de esta propuesta. Se señalarán los aspectos, estudios y modelos previos en que se basaron Hersey y Blanchard para conformar la TLS, y se mostrarán sus puntos fuertes y débiles. Entre esas fortalezas y también debilidades, se puede incluir la integración de elementos procedentes de otros autores y de otras disciplinas. En seguida se presentarán los supuestos que sustentan la teoría, y se señalarán las principales críticas en el plano de la lógica o de la congruencia del modelo. Por último, se describirán los tres instrumentos de medida vinculados con esta teoría. En otro lugar (en preparación), se revisarán los puntos fuertes y débiles de la TLS en el plano empírico, así como la calidad de los instrumentos vinculados con ella.
In this paper, our aim is to present a review of the main elements of this theoretical model. Thus, we will start with a historical revision on the advance of this proposal. We will point at the previous aspects, studies and models in which Hersey and Blanchard put their basis to conform SLT and strengths and weaknesses will be addressed. Among those strong -and weak- points, that integration of elements coming from other authors and areas can be included. In addition, we will address the assumptions which uphold the theory and we will point out the main criticisms on the logic or the congruence of the model. As an end, we will describe the three instruments linked to this theory. In another place (in preparation), empirical strengths and weaknesses of the SLT will be revised as well as the quality of the instruments linked to it.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: To understand repeated donation, it is crucial to know its meaning. This issue was explored by asking a sample of regular donors to explain why they maintain this behavior. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Discourse analysis was conducted in five groups of regular donors, selected according to the setting and number of their donations (from 1990 to 2001), on their motivation, attitudes, commitment to donation, personality, and self-concept. RESULTS: Three discursive positions were distinguished in relation to the different cultural meanings attributed to blood donation. Blood donation was understood in a rational and evaluative manner by the majority but in an emotional, personalized, and stereotyped manner by a minority. Continual donation as a form of help was rationalized as a function of internal and external factors, notably personal convenience in comparison to other helping behaviors and ease of access to collection points. CONCLUSIONS: The discourse referents offered to the donor greatly influence the meanings they attribute to their behavior. Some promotional materials should be revised because they may not connect with the reasons for donating that people find most comprehensible.
