Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2010, 5.2

Evidence Based Library and Information Practice

Evidence Summary
An Awareness of Library Patrons’ Social Styles May Play a Role in Librarians’
Satisfaction with the Reference Interview
A Review of:
Sisselman, P. (2009). Exploiting the social style of patrons to improve their satisfaction with the
reference interview. Library Review, 58, 123‐133.
Reviewed by:
Cari Merkley
Librarian, Mount Royal University
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Email: cmerkley@mtroyal.ca
Received: 1 Mar. 2010

Accepted: 16 Apr. 2010

2010 Merkley. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons‐
Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 2.5 Canada (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by‐nc‐
sa/2.5/ca/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original
work is properly attributed, not used for commercial purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is
redistributed under the same or similar license to this one.

Abstract
Objective – To determine if a patron’s social
style affects how satisfied the patron and the
librarian working with him/her are with the
reference interview, and if a librarian’s
knowledge of social styles leads to greater
satisfaction with the reference interview for all
involved.
Design – Direct observation, two survey
instruments, and a checklist used to identify
patrons’ social styles.
Setting – A public library system in the
Northeastern US.
Subjects – A total of 24 library patrons who
sought assistance at the reference desk of a

public library and the five librarians who
delivered reference services to them.
Methods – The researcher observed 24
reference interviews conducted by five
different librarians at a reference desk in a
public library system. It is unclear if all 24
interviews took place in the same library.
Reference interviews that took place during
the times the researcher was on site and did
not relate to the use of the public computer
terminals were included in the study.
During each interaction, the researcher
compared the patron’s behaviour to a checklist
of traits relating to assertiveness and
responsiveness. For example, more assertive
behaviours included moving and talking
quickly and sustained eye contact. Less
assertive behaviours included “waiting to be

89

Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2010, 5.2

asked” and soft speech (p. 127). More
responsive behaviours usually consist of a
greater willingness to engage on an emotional
level with the librarian and more open facial
expressions and gestures.
The balance of behaviours across the two
categories was used by the researcher to
determine which of the following social style
categories a patron belonged to: driver,
analytical, amiable, or expressive. Drivers,
described in social style theory as “practical
and task orientated,” were those who
demonstrated “less responsive” and “more
assertive” behaviours at the desk (pp. 127‐
128). Those who were “less responsive” and
“less assertive” were labelled analytical (p.
128). According to social style theory,
analyticals “collect quite a bit of data before
making decisions” and are methodical (p. 127).
Patrons who were “more responsive” and
“less assertive” were determined to be
amiable; and expressives were those who were
“more responsive” and “more assertive” (p.
128). Amiables are described as “easy‐going”
and expressives as “outgoing” and
“spontaneous” (p. 127).
After the researcher had observed twelve
reference interviews, the participating
librarians received information on how to
recognize and adapt to individual social styles.
The information they received took the form
of an article, a diagram of the four social style
categories, and examples of famous people
and their social styles. After the librarians
received this information, the researcher then
observed twelve additional reference
interviews.
After each reference interview, the patron and
librarian completed separate surveys. The
surveys were adapted from the tools used by
the Wisconsin‐Ohio Reference Evaluation
Program. Each survey consisted of ten
questions, which gauged the patron’s and the
librarian’s level of satisfaction with the
reference experience. Librarians responded to
questions relating to whether they were able
to answer the patron’s question, their
perceptions of the patron’s satisfaction, how

comfortable and confident they felt during the
interaction, and whether they “taught the
patron something new” (p. 132). The patron
survey asked about the quality of service
patrons feel they received from the librarian,
whether or not they found what they were
looking for, and if they learned something
new from the experience. A score was
calculated based on the following possible
responses: yes (4 points), partly (2 points) and
no (0 points).
Main Results – Of the 24 patrons observed in
the study, the majority (10) were analyticals.
The next largest group was expressives (6),
followed by amiables (4), and drivers (3). The
remaining patron was classified as both a
driver and an expressive because he/she held
an equal number of characteristics for both
categories.
The median survey scores indicated that,
overall, librarians rated the quality of
reference interview lower than their patrons.
The median score for the librarian survey after
the first twelve interviews was 28, while the
median score for their patrons was 36. The
correlation between these scores was r=0.27.
After the librarians received information on
social styles, the median score of the librarian
survey rose to 32. However, the patrons’
median score dropped slightly to 35. The
correlation of the scores after the intervention
was r=0.57.
The responses of librarians and patrons most
closely corresponded when the patrons were
amiables. Amiables and the librarians who
worked with them were in all in agreement on
whether the patron’s question was answered.
Only one of the expressives and one of the
drivers disagreed with the librarians’ response
to this question. In both cases, the librarians’
responses were “partly” while the patrons
answered “yes” (p. 129). Twenty percent of the
analyticals were satisfied with the information
they received from the librarian. In some
cases, they were satisfied even though the
information they were provided was not what
they were looking for when they first
approached the reference desk.

90

Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2010, 5.2

The study suggests that there may be a
disconnect between librarian and patron
responses in regard to whether the librarian
taught the patron something new in the
exchange. According to Sisselman, all
expressives and 75% of amiables responded
that they had learned something new, but only
93% of the librarians who worked with the
expressives and 50% of those working with
amiables felt that they had done so. The scores
for drivers for this question were double those
of the librarians they worked with – the actual
figures were not provided by the author. The
results for analyticals on this question were
not reported.
Conclusion – The findings of the study
suggest that a patron’s social style may play a
role in how they perceive the reference
interview. The author also suggests that “there
may be a correlation between librarians’
understanding of the social styles of patrons
(analytical, expressive, driver, or amiable) and
the outcomes of reference interviews” (p. 130).
Possible areas of application for these findings
include improved public service and tailoring
of communication and marketing strategies to
the diverse social styles of current and
potential patrons.

Commentary
Sisselman’s exploration of social styles offers
another angle at which to examine the
reference interview. However, the conclusions
drawn by the author about the influence of
social styles are undermined by the fact that
there was inadequate representation of some
social style groups amongst the research
participants. More than twice as many
analyticals participated than amiables or
expressives. Sisselman acknowledges this
imbalance, suggesting that because of their
personality traits, analyticals may be more
likely than other groups to approach the
reference desk. This assumption has not been
tested, and the author identifies this as an area
for future research.
What is also not clear is if the pre‐ and post‐
intervention sample of patrons was similar in

terms of the mix of social styles represented.
Did the librarians’ scores rise because they
better understood the verbal and non‐verbal
cues the patron was sending after being
provided with additional information, or did
the more expressive patrons largely fall into
the post‐intervention sample? Providing the
breakdown of the social styles of both the pre‐
and post‐intervention samples would have
provided some clarity on this issue.
This was not the only place where more
information about the study framework
would have been desirable. The researcher
isolated the social styles of patrons from other
variables that may or may not have had an
impact on how they perceived the reference
interview, such as the gender and age of the
patrons. Reference interviews that took place
when the researcher was present were
included in the study, but we are not told if all
the interviews took place in the same library,
in the same general timeslot, or on the same
day of the week – all of which could have
influenced who was present in the library to
ask reference questions or the type of
questions the librarian was tasked with
answering. We do not know if the participants
were equally divided among the five
librarians. The possible impact of observer
bias is also unaddressed. The lack of
information about other factors which may
have influenced the reference interview or
who was available to participate makes it
difficult to know how much weight to place
on the variable of social styles in impacting the
results.
The results of the study should also not be
overstated. The training the librarians received
only increased the median survey scores for
the librarians – the median score amongst
patrons actually decreased after the
intervention. No information was provided as
to how the intervention changed the
librarians’ behaviour, and there was no
evidence presented by the author that the
patron’s satisfaction with the reference
interview was influenced by librarians having
this knowledge. Only the librarians’
perceptions of the encounter appear to have

91

Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2010, 5.2

shifted. In fact, Sisselman states that patron
responses to survey questions relating to the
broader reference experience (for example, if
the librarian was “courteous and considerate”)
had no “significant impact” on the overall
survey results (p. 128; p. 133). In addition, the
author’s inclusion of percentages without
clearly indicating the number of responses,
particularly when those numbers are very

small, lends more weight to conclusions than
is warranted. Social styles offer some
intriguing possibilities for libraries and
librarians, particularly in aiding library staff in
better understanding the behavioural cues of
their patrons, but further studies are required
to determine the extent to which they play a
role in a patron’s satisfaction with library
services.

92