Are goals or preconditions better explanations? It depends on the question

✍ Scribed by John McClure; Denis J. Hilton

• Publisher: John Wiley and Sons
• Year: 1998
• Tongue: English
• Weight: 169 KB
• Volume: 28
• Category: Article
• ISSN: 0046-2772
• DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1099-0992(1998110)28:6<897::aid-ejsp902>3.0.co;2-p

✦ Synopsis

Recent research on causal inference suggests that common actions tend to be attributed to goals, whereas dicult actions, if obstructed, are attributed primarily to preconditions. The present studies examine the way that the framing of causal questions in¯uences ratings of goals and preconditions for common actions. The studies test the view that why' questions favour goal explanations, by presenting causal questions framed as why' questions or `explain' questions. Structured and free-response measures were used. They show that when the question is expressed as asking why an action occurs, goals are rated better than preconditions, regardless of the presence of obstacles, whereas if the question is framed as requesting an explanation of the action, preconditions are deemed better explanations than goals for obstructed actions. Goals remain better explanations when the action is unobstructed. These ®ndings con®rm the importance of the framing of causal questions for research on causal explanation, and suggest that the phrasing of causal questions in¯uences the focus of explanations. # 1998 John Wiley &