It is argued that an explanation can be thought of as a structure of causal beliefs, each of which can be defended by the explainer. A method for get ting respondents to show how they organise and defend their causal explanations is described. Using the method, a study of explanations of a vivid event in local campus politics is reported. Differences in the explanations of groups of respon dents were only discovered when a full structural measure was used. It is argued that the method reported here is a more sensitive treatment than traditional single-shot attribution measures, especially for events explained in a thoughtful and systematic manner.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Antaki, C.
(1985) Ordinary explanation in conversation: Causal structures and their defence. European Journal of Social Psychology15, 213-230.
2.
Antaki, C.
(ed.) (1988) Analysing Everyday Explanation: A Casebook of Methods. London: Sage.
3.
Antaki, C.
and Fielding, R. G. (1981) Research into ordinary explanation. In C. Antaki (ed.) The Psychology of Ordinary Explanation of Social Behaviour. London: Academic Press.
4.
Billig, M.
(1987) Arguing and Thinking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.
Draper, S.
(1988) What's going on in everyday explanation? In C. Antaki (ed.) Analysing Everyday Explanation: A Casebook of Methods. London: Sage.
6.
Forgas, J.
and Tajfel, H. (1981) Social categorisation: Cognitions, values and groups. In J. Forgas (ed.) Social Cognition. London: Academic Press.
7.
Heywood, G.
and Norman, P. (1988) Problems of educational innovation: The primary teacher's response to using the microcomputer. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning4, 34-43.
8.
Hilton, D.
(1988) (ed.) Contemporary Science and Natural Explanation: Commonsense Conceptions of Causality. Brighton: Harvester.
9.
Hilton, D. J.
and Slugoski, B. R. (1986) Knowledge-based causal attribution: The abnor mal conditions model. Psychological Review93, 75-88.
10.
Kelley, H. H.
(1983) Perceived causal structures. In J. Jaspars, F. D. Fincham and M. Hewstone (eds) Attribution Theory and Research: Conceptual, Developmental and Social Dimensions. London: Academic Press.
11.
Lunt, P. K.
(in press) The perceived causal structure of examination failure. British Journal of Social Psychology.
12.
Toulmin, S. E.
(1958) The Structure of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13.
Voss, J. F.
(1988) Problem solving and reasoning in illstructured domains. In C. Antaki (ed.) Analysing Everyday Explanation: A Casebook of Methods. London: Sage.
14.
Voss, J. F.
, Tyler, S. W. and Yengo, L. A. (1983) Individual differences in the solving of social science problems. In R. F. Dillon and R. R. Schmeck (eds) Individual Differences in Cognition. New York: Academic Press.
