Pitting Verbal Schemas against Information Variables in Attribution

Kleeck, Michael H. Van; Hillger, Lynn A.; Brown, Roger

doi:10.1521/soco.1988.6.2.89

Cited by 34 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The fact that the implicit causality bias was the strongest effect in Experiments 1 and 2 is in line with studies using the continuation methodology (Rudolph & Försterling, 1997). That it was a smaller effect in Experiments 3 and 4, where attributions were made on a rating scale, is also in agreement with previous studies (McArthur, 1972;Rudolph, 1997;van Kleeck et al, 1988). Why the difference between these studies?…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Covariation and quantifier polarity: What determines causal attribution in vignettes?

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tests of causal attribution often use verbal vignettes, with covariation information provided through statements quantified with natural language expressions. The effect of covariation information has typically been taken to show that set size information affects attribution. However, recent research shows that quantifiers provide information about discourse focus as well as covariation information. In the attribution literature, quantifiers are used to depict covariation, but they confound quantity and focus. In four experiments, we show that focus explains all (Experiment 1) or some (Experiments 2-4) of the impact of covariation information on the attributions made, confirming the importance of the confound. Attribution experiments using vignettes that present covariation information with natural language quantifiers may overestimate the impact of set size information, and ignore the impact of quantifier-induced focus. q 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.Keywords: Attribution theory; Causal reasoning; Covariation; Quantifiers Den divorced Angie, Maureen loves Billy, Ian hates Phil-but why? Making causal attributions about social situations is a core part of every day human cognition. A prominent idea about how people make causal attributions is that they use covariation information, the observed co-occurrence of two events (Kelley, 1967). More recently, covariation theory in its many guises assumes that people are exposed to instances of

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Causal attributions made based on implicit causality bias, set size and polarity information in Experiment 4 (note that more NP1 attributions are reflected by means closer to 0). van Kleeck, Hillger, & Brown, 1988). The results of our experiments question the generality of these conclusions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 56%

Covariation and quantifier polarity: What determines causal attribution in vignettes?

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the two-schemata model has been recently revised by Brown (cf. Van Kleeck, Hillger and Brown, 1988), in response to Au's findings (1986). Van Kleeck et al (1988) in fact have acknowledged that the 'agentpatient schema is not as generalizable as the 'stimulus-experiencer' schema.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Interpersonal verbs: Implicit causality of action verbs and contextual factors

Mannetti

Grada

1991

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Note that this is not a grammatical effect; the agent is assigned greater causal weight regardless of whether it is the grammatical subject or object. For state verbs (e.g., like), people tend to assign greater causal weight to the person who brings about the state (stimulus) rather than the person who experiences the state (experiencer) (Au, 1986;Van Kleek, Hillger, & Brown, 1988). Upon hearing that "Bob likes Tom," people are more likely to judge Tom as more responsible than Bob and that Tom is a likeable person rather than that Bob tends to like people.…”

Section: Semanticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Language, Meaning, and Social Cognition

Holtgraves

Kashima

2007

Pers Soc Psychol Rev

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social cognition is meant to examine the process of meaningful social interaction. Despite the central involvement of language in this process, language has not received the focal attention that it deserves. Conceptualizing meaningful social interaction as the process of construction and exchange of meaning, the authors argue that language can be productively construed as a semiotic tool, a tool for meaning making and exchange, and that language use can produce unintended consequences in its users. First, the article shows a particular instance of language use to be a collaborative process that influences the representation of meaning in the speaker, the listener, and the collective that includes both the speaker and listener. It then argues that language use and social cognition may have reciprocal effects in the long run and may have significant implications for generating and maintaining cultural differences in social cognition.

show abstract

Pitting Verbal Schemas against Information Variables in Attribution

Cited by 34 publications

References 9 publications

Covariation and quantifier polarity: What determines causal attribution in vignettes?

Covariation and quantifier polarity: What determines causal attribution in vignettes?

Interpersonal verbs: Implicit causality of action verbs and contextual factors

Language, Meaning, and Social Cognition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About