Los puntos clave no están disponibles para este artículo en este momento.
Causal explanation takes place in and takes the form of conversation. Explanations are selected by questions and are thus governed by general rules of discourse. A conversational model of causal explanation is introduced that explicates social aspects of the explanation process by postulating that good explanations must be relevant to the focus of a why question, as well as being true. The notion of explanatory relevance enables an integration of the major models of the attribution process by showing that they use the same counterfactual logic but address different causal questions. The conversational perspective suggests a reinterpretation of many attributional biases, and also highlights the role of interpersonal goals in generating implicit questions, which in turn constrain explanations. Finally, the relevance of the conversational perspective for research on causal networks, the social context of explanation, and intrapsychic explanation is noted. Causal explanation is first and foremost a form of social interaction. One speaks of giving causal explanations, but not attributions, perceptions, comprehensions, categorizations, or memories. The verb to explain is a three-place predicate: Someone explains something to someone. Causal explanation takes the form of conversation and is thus subject to the rules of conversation. Causal explanation is therefore different from causal attribution, which does not involve an interpersonal exchange. In its wider sense, attribution describes a process whereby one ascribes some phenomenon to its origin. Thus, one attributes effects to causes, actions to intentions, and sayings to their authors. This sense of attribution is close to that which Heider (1958) had in mind when writing of how the sensation of light reflecting ofFa surface may be attributed to its distal source, the sun, or how an exam performance may be attributed to its source in a students ability, effort, or luck. Thus, attributing something to someone is not the same as explaining something to that person. The difference between this sense of attribution and conversational explanation is nicely drawn out by the experience of
Denis Hilton (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: