Explanatory Talk

Attribution research aims to find out:

Does research suggest that we are always rational in our decisions?

Which way does the situation have to balance for us to act prosocially in situations that require it, according to Darley and Latané (1968)?

Internal attribution refers to when causality is:

External attribution refers to when causality is:

Where we attribute cause has ________ impact on how we respond to it. For example, if you had heard about a murder, how would you feel?

One major criticism of Kelley's (1967) covariation model is that it is:

An issue with internal/external attribution is how they are:

Is internal-external attribution representative of everyday thinking?

Does internal-external attribution have significant ecological validity?

Are the experiments that seek to support attribution research realistic or unusual?

Do findings from studies show experiment-specific effects (eg, Actor-Observer differences) where levels are changed if participants receive empathetic instructions (Regan & Totten, 1975)?

Are the findings from attribution research culturally-specific or widely generalisable? For example, would attribution bias or self-serving bias be the same in India as it would be in the United Kingdom?

Ichheiser (1943) argued that:

Has there been criticism levelled at attribution research to suggest that it has been overemphasising the roles of underlying cognition and not delving into actionable causes?

Potter (1966) argued that attribution research can move away from cognition and look into actionable circumstances (eg, agreeing, disputing, exonerating, and blaming). What is this called?

With explanatory talk, we can:

Action orientation refers to:

By using action orientation, we can:

Is the discursive approach relevant to real-world situations?

Do laboratory studies from discourse analysis extend to real-world situations as well?

Verbs are:

Dickerson (2012) argues that we need context to avoid wrongful attributions. Can we question the utility (or usefulness) of decontextualised, 'stripped-down' stimulus sentences?

Weiner (et al., 1987) analysed various types of account-giving literature. Which was the most successful?

Can external, uncontrollable, and unintentional accounts (Weiner, et al., 1987) still fail?

Discursive approaches focus on:

Cognitivist research understands attribution to be a language that unproblematically represents - or is a clear window to - an underlying cognitive reality (eg, hidden motives). What is this understood as?

Discursive approaches to psychology are:

With discursive psychology and conversational analysis, psychology can:

Can descriptions help to execute blame or diffuse presuppositions? For example, a cross-examiner in a courtroom with a rape victim who is trying to attribute blame through his descriptive language (eg, "You were talking an awful lot to him").

In political talk, there are politicians that use a term that appeals to commonplace stances but remains vague in its meaning. What is it called?

This type of psychology emphasises what the talk is doing and the importance of sequential context in conversations and why it is there. What is this called?

________ ________ is less concerned with developing a critique of the cognitivist approach of social psychology, and psychology in general.

________ ________ maes use of methods (eg, conversation alaysis) and other methods such as rhetorical analysis to further its own critical agenda.

Antaki (1994) argued that there are places in interactions - either self-developed or done by others - where one has to justify or explain an interaction. What are these called?

Do slots according to Antaki (1994) need to be observable by everyone?

Can these slots explained by Antaki (1994) be developed by the speaker themselves as well as those that they are conversing with?

According to Antaki (1994), these slots are:

________ ________ uses explanation slots that can be engineered by one speaker for another, or by one speaker for themselves. The talk is interactionally-occasioned and sequentially-relevant. Problematic (or "dispreferred") actions have a distinct conversational design compared to socially-preferred actions (eg, accepting an invitation). There are also normative features of account-giving, which have interactional and social advantages (eg, preventing a "spiral of accounting").

________ ________ involves commonplace phrases that can be flexibly deployed in explanatory talk to achieve various interactional outcomes (eg, exoneration, blame). Descriptions are never neutral, and there is almost always evidence from real talk that they construct events or the world in certain ways to achieve goals or outcomes (eg, implying a negative tone with descriptive language).

In this realm, there are risks that the slots Antaki (1994) talks about have a mechanistic view that is not entirely realistic. Additionally, explanations may not be fine-grained enough to describe real-world interactions, and need to be more descriptive. Are these from within the discursive paradigm or outside of it?

In this realm, critics argue that if we focus on only interactional concerns in real-world talk, then we could be ignoring the ideological issues that exist as well (eg, governmental hierarchies, socioeconomic differences, victim-blaming cultures). Is this in or outside the discursive paradigm realm? Furthermore, they also argue that we could be abandoning the cognitive aspect entirely, and therefore, being overly-narrow when it is unnecessary.

Exonerating explanations are:

According to the correspondent interference theory (Jones & Davis, 1965), we attempt to:

Hedonic relevance refers to:

For Jones and Davis (1965), personalism refers to:

________ ________ ________ refers to the ways in which many causes are anticipated to be needed to explain an unusual or difficult to achieve phenomenon.

________ ________ ________ refers to the ways in which any one number of possible causes are anticipated as being adequate or sufficient to explain a regular or easy to achieve phenomenon.

Jacobson, McDonald, Follette and Berley (1985) noted that where negative behaviour by one's partner was:

Research (Fincham, Beach & Nelson, 1987; Fincham, Beach & Baucom, 1987; Fincham & O'Leary, 1983) has highlighted that distressed couples who are in marital therapy attributed hypothetical causes as:

According to McArthur (1972), could people "underutilise" areas of Kelley's (1967) covariation model?

In the Jones and Harris (1967) study, it was found that participants:

Fundamental attribution error is largely about:

According to Rholes and Pryor (1982), is it more about the person rather than the situation?

For Lerner (1980) are we more motivated to hold certain beliefs, particularly for blame, when bad things happen to people (eg, murder)?

Has research (eg, Nisbett & Ross, 1980; Miller, 1984) found there to be cultural differences for attribution and beliefs regarding fundamental attribution error?

Has research (Block & Funder, 1986; Funder, 1987; Hewstone, 1989) found there to be demand characteristics in fundamental attribution error studies?

Has research (Choi, et al., 1999) found there to be a cultural variation of internal attributions?

According to the Storms (1973) study, did participants tend to explain their own behaviour with more emphasis on situational factors?

According to the Storms (1973) study, did reorienting visuals change participants' attributions?

For Regan and Totten (1975), empathetic attribution refers to when we feel:

Regan and Totten (1975) found that participants who received empathetic orientation were:

Did the Malle (et al., 2007) meta-analysis yield high or low effect sizes?

For Malle (et al., 2007), it's about:

Self-serving bias refers to:

Are there cultural variations in self-serving bias?

Intergroup bias is the idea that:

Could, according to Hewstone (1989), intergroup biases be also down to stereotypes?

Did Deaux (1976) find British stereotypes of men and women, at the time, to be extremely sexist?

Social representations, broadly, refer to:

Did Moscovici (1976) find students using the word "complex" to be large among school pupils and students?

Attribution semantics refer to:

According to the Ferstl (et al., 2011) findings, did participants respond differently with male and female noun phrases?

According to the Ferstl (et al., 2011) findings, were negative verbs attributed to males and positives to females?

Noun phrase positioning and attribution tends to be on which side for English speakers (eg, "Alan called for Jane")?

Has research suggested that different noun phrase positioning can elicit different causal implications?

Stripped-down stimulus refers to experiments where participants:

For Edwards and Potter (1992, 1993), do we attribute the cause of telephoning itself to the person who engages in the physical action of making a telephone call?

Did Edwards and Potter (1992, 1993) argue that finding out situational responsibility alters attribution?

Is blame typically an NP1 verb or an NP2 verb?

Do we, according to Edwards and Potter (1992, 1993) want to know why we are being told stimulus sentences and what it is doing?

The conversation model (Garfinkel, 1967) refers to:

Do all of our conversational utterances, according to Grice (1975) need to be informative, clear, relevant, and true?

Do requests or explanations, according to Pomerantz (1984) and Dickerson (2001) always happen?

Is explaining behaviour noted by Antaki (1994) as "sanctionable behaviour"?

Is there a difference between excuses and good-reason giving justifications for behaviour according to research (Scott & Lyman, 1968; Semin & Manstead, 1983)?

Did Shaw (et al., 2003) find excuses to be more effective than justifications?

For Weiner (et al., 1987), communicated accounts versus real reasons refers to:

Did LeCouteur and Oxland (2011) note that the ways in which the categories in talk work to minimise or account for violent behaviour that the interviewee was or had been engaged in?

Can discursive research be seen as not focusing more on other factors that could affect interactional work?