Two studies demonstrated that explanations of interpersonal events are governed by the principles of implicit verb causality and balance. In addition, the data indicate that subjectively imbalanced interpersonal events (e.g., John admires Jack because he is so arrogant) elicit processes designed to achieve imbalance repair. In contrast to previous studies, we analyzed subjective (rather than objective) balance and imbalance as well as the cognitive processes mediating the repair of subjectively imbalanced situations. The results suggest that repair mechanisms implied by perceived imbalance vary consistently for different kinds of verbs. Moreover, imbalance repair results in highly systematic attributions to different persons or specific interactions between the persons involved, in line with predictions derived from Kelley's covariation principle. Additional analyses of perceived covariation information provided evidence that these repair mechanisms are mediated by reevaluations of covariation information implicit in the meaning of the verbs used to describe the interpersonal event.
Abelson, R. P., & Rosenberg, M. J. (1958). Symbolic psychologic: A model of attitudinal cognition. Behavioral Science,3, 1-13.
2.
Brown, R., & Fish, D. (1983). The psychological causality implicit in language. Cognition,14, 237-273.
3.
Brown, R., & Van Kleeck, M. H. (1989). Enough said: Three principles of explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,57, 590-604.
4.
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.
5.
Fazio, R. H. (1990). A practical guide to the use of response latency in social psychological research. In C. Hendrick & M. S. Clark (Eds.),Review of personality and social psychology: Research methods in personality and social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 74-97). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
6.
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach & R. G. Harms (Eds.),Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1-87). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
7.
Försterling, F. (1989). Models of covariation and causal attribution: How do they relate to the analysis of variance?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,57, 615-625.
8.
Försterling, F. (1992). The Kelley model as an analysis of variance analogy: How far can it be taken?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,28, 475-490.
9.
Heider, F. (1946). Attitudes and cognitive organization. Journal of Psychology,21, 107-112.
10.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley.
11.
Hoffman, C., & Tchir, M. A. (1990). Interpersonal verbs and dispositional adjectives: The psychology of causality embodied in language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,58, 765-778.
12.
Jaspars, J. (1983). The process of causal attribution in common sense. In M. Hewstone (Ed.),Attribution theory: Social and functional extensions (pp. 28-44). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
13.
Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.),Nebraska Symposium on Motivation and Emotion (Vol. 15, pp. 192-238). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
14.
Kelley, H. H. (1972). Causal schemata and the attribution process. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
15.
Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology,31, 457-501.
16.
Klauer, K. C., Meiser, T., & Naumer, B. (2000). Extending the theory of reasoning by mental models: Tests of new predictions. In U. von Hecker, S. Dutke, & G. Sedek, (Eds.),Generative mental processes and cognitive resources: Integrative research in adaptation and control (pp. 39-66). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
17.
Markus, H., & Zajonc, R. B. (1985). The cognitive perspective in social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.),The handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 137-231). New York: Random House.
18.
McArthur, L. Z. (1972). The how and what of why: Some determinants and consequences of causal attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,22, 171-188.
19.
Osgood, C. E., & Tannebaum, P. H. (1955). The principle of congruity in the prediction of attitude change. Psychological Review,62, 42-55.
20.
Rosenthal, R., Rosnow, R. L., & Rubin, D. B. (2000). Contrasts and effect sizes in behavioral research: A correlational approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
21.
Rudolph, U. (1997). Implicit verb causality: Verbal schemas and covariation information. Journal of Language and Social Psychology,16, 132-158.
22.
Rudolph, U., & Försterling, F. (1997a). The psychological causality implicit in verbs: A Review. Psychological Bulletin,121, 192-218.
23.
Rudolph, U., & Försterling, F. (1997b). Zur impliziten Kausalität in Sprache: Kriterien zur Selektion von Stimulusmaterial in Studien zur Verbkausalität [On the implicit causality in verbs: Criteria for selection of stimulus materials in studies on the verb causality effect]. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie,44, 293-304.
24.
Rudolph, U., & von Hecker, U. (1997). Die Erklärung interpersonaler Ereignisse: Zur Bedeutung von Balanciertheit und Kausalität [The explanation of interpersonal events: The importance of balance and causality]. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie,44, 246-265.
25.
Schuster, B., Rudolph, U., & Försterling, F. (1998). What determines the role of behavioral decisions? Comparing the role of covariation information and attributions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,24, 838-854.
26.
Smith, E. R., & Lerner, M. (1986). Development of automatism of social judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,50, 246-259.
27.
von Hecker, U. (1993). On memory effects of Heiderian balance: A code hypothesis and an inconsistency hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,29, 358-386.
28.
Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Cognitive theories in social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.),The handbook of social psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 320-412). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
