[Explanation of interpersonal events: on the significance of balance and causality].

Abstract

According to Brown and VanKleeck (1989), the perceived causes of interpersonal events are mediated by two kinds of factors: First, the interpersonal verbs used to describe these events carry implicit information with regard to the question of which one of the potential interaction partners has caused the event. Second, explanations of interpersonal events are governed by the principle of balance. For example, positive events are predominantly explained by positive causes, and negative events by negative causes. In addition, the interaction of the two mechanisms also has important consequences concerning the explanation of social events: (1) In balanced triads, an event is ascribed to the interaction partner who is seen as the causally dominant one (according to the implicit causality of the verb that is used to describe the interaction). (2) However, this pattern of data is reversed for unbalanced triads: here, the event is ascribed to the interaction partner who is seen as the causally less dominant one, according to the implicit causality of the verb. The present study addresses the question of whether this attributional shift can be explained in terms of corresponding changes in perceived covariation information. Results indicate that the perception of consensus and distinctiveness indeed correspond to the causal attributions as they are obtained for different kinds of triads. Thus, classical attribution variables are regarded as promising candidates in order to explain these attributional shifts for balanced versus unbalanced events.