|
Explanatory style is a psychological attribute that indicates how people explain to themselves why they experience a particular event, either positive or negative. Psychologists have identified three components in explanatory style: ;Personal (internal vs. external): this involves how one explains the cause of an event. People experiencing events may see themselves as the cause; that is, they have internalised the cause for the event. Example: "I always forget to make that turn" (internal) as opposed to "That turn can sure sneak up on you" (external). ;Permanent (stable vs. unstable): this involves how one explains the extent of the cause. People may see a situation as unchangeable, e.g., "I always lose my keys" or "I never forget a face". ;Pervasive (global vs. local/specific): this involves how one explains the extent of the effects. People may see a situation as affecting all aspects of life, e.g., "I can't do anything right" or "Everything I touch seems to turn to gold". People who generally tend to blame themselves for negative events, believe that such events will continue indefinitely, and let such events affect many aspects of their lives display what is called a ''pessimistic explanatory style'' . Conversely, people who generally tend to blame others for negative events, believe that such events will end soon, and do not let such events affect too many aspects of their lives display what is called an ''optimistic explanatory style''. Some research has suggested a pessimistic explanatory style may be correlated with depression and physical illness. The concept of explanatory style encompasses a wide range of possible responses to both positive and negative occurrences, rather than a black-white difference between optimism and pessimism. Also, an individual does not necessarily show a uniform explanatory style in all aspects of life, but may exhibit varying responses to different types of events. ==Attributional style literature== Attributional style emerged from research on depression, with Abramson et al. arguing that a characteristic way of attributing negative outcomesto internal, stable and global causeswould be associated with depression in response to negative events happened to them. As a diathesis–stress model of depression, the model does not predict associations of attributional style with depression in the absence of objective negative events (stressors). A meta-analysis of 104 empirical studies of the theory indicates that the predictions are supported.〔 cited in 〕 Data have, however, been ambiguous, and some researchers believe that the theory is well-supported, some believe that it has not had impressive empirical support and some believe that, at least in the early days of the theory, the theory was never adequately tested. One factor accounting for ambiguity in research into the model is whether researchers have assessed attributions for hypothetical events or for real events. Interestingly, those studies that have looked at attributions for hypothetical events have been more supportive of the model, possibly because these studies are more likely to have controlled for event severity.〔 The "learned helplessness" model formed the theoretical basis of the original Abramson, Seligman, and Teasdale statement on attributional style,. More recently, Abramson, Metalsky and Alloy proposed a modified "hopelessness theory".〔 This distinguished hopeless depression and more circumscribed pessimism. It emphasizes the dimensions of stability and globality rather than internality, and suggests that stable and global attributions (rather than internal cause attributions) are associated with hopelessness depression. Hopelessness theory also highlights perceived importance and consequences of a negative outcome in addition to causal attributions as factors in clinical depression. Developmentally, it has been suggested that attributional style originates in experiences of trust or lack of trust in events Along with evidence from twin studies for some heredity basis to attributional style.,〔 Eisner argues that repeated exposure to controllable events may foster an optimistic explanatory style, whereas repeated exposure to uncontrollable events may foster a negative attributional style. Trust in interpersonal relationships is argued to build an optimistic explanatory style.〔 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「explanatory style」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|