Aleatory Explanations

2019 ◽  
pp. 193-199
Author(s):  
Paul Humphreys

The question of what role negatively relevant factors should play in explanations that refer to probabilistic causes is addressed. A distinction between contributing and counteracting causes is drawn. Arguments are given that citing the probability value as part of the explanation is unnecessary, that restricting the explanatory factors to only the positively relevant factors is misleading, and that listing some, but not all, of the contributing and counteracting causes allows for partial but true explanations to be given. The canonical explanatory form for probabilistic causal explanations "X because Y despite Z" is introduced and linguistic variants of the canonical form are given.

1998 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Kochinka ◽  
Jürgen Straub

AbstractThis article gives a survey of factors that could be relevant for the explanation of behaviour under the nazi-regime with reference to the study by Ch. Browning. Instead of causal explanations we suggest ‘how-possible explanations’. These explanations should make plausible how behaviour could come about taking into consideration intentional, normative and narrative aspects. Brutalization of the prepetrators, the psychological mechanism of distancing oneself, antisemitism, bureaucratization, carrierism, interest in power and conventionalist tendencies are discussed as relevant explanatory factors. Milgram’s analyses of obedience and group-conformity are brought into perspective within a wider-ranging culturalist approach.


2020 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 160940692093857
Author(s):  
E. De Weger ◽  
N. J. E. Van Vooren ◽  
G. Wong ◽  
S. Dalkin ◽  
B. Marchal ◽  
...  

Background: Realist studies represent an increasingly popular approach for exploring complex interventions’ successes and failures. The theory-driven approach seeks to explain “what works, how, why, in which contexts, for whom, and to what extent” using context–mechanism–outcome (CMO) configurations. When the approach was first developed, CMO configurations were the method for expressing causal explanations. Increasingly, realist studies have been conducted using different variations of the heuristic such as strategy–context–mechanism–outcome (SCMO) configurations or intervention–context–actor–mechanism–outcome (ICAMO) configurations. Researchers have highlighted a lack of methodological guidance regarding which additional explanatory factors can be included in configurations (e.g., strategies, interventions, actors). This article aims to clarify and further develop the concept of configurations by discussing how explanatory factors could be robustly added to the original CMO configuration as put forward by Pawson and Tilley. Comparing the use of different types of configurations: We draw on two of our own studies, one which formulated CMO configurations and one which formulated SCMO configurations, and on an evidence scan of realist studies. We explored the effects these different configurations had on studies’ findings and highlight why researchers chose CMOs or SCMOs. Finally, we provide recommendations regarding the use of configurations. These are as follows: Using additional explanatory factors is possible but consider the research scope to select the configuration appropriate for the study; Be transparent about the choice in configuration and include examples of configurations; Further studies about the use of additional explanatory factors are needed to better understand the effects on each step in the realist evaluation cycle; and New ways of disseminating realist findings are needed to balance transparency regarding the use of configurations. Conclusions: Adding explanatory factors is possible and can be insightful depending on the study’s scope and aims; however, any configuration type must adhere to the rule of generative causation.


2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-16
Author(s):  
Joel Weddington ◽  
Charles N. Brooks ◽  
Mark Melhorn ◽  
Christopher R. Brigham

Abstract In most cases of shoulder injury at work, causation analysis is not clear-cut and requires detailed, thoughtful, and time-consuming causation analysis; traditionally, physicians have approached this in a cursory manner, often presenting their findings as an opinion. An established method of causation analysis using six steps is outlined in the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine Guidelines and in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Disease and Injury Causation, Second Edition, as follows: 1) collect evidence of disease; 2) collect epidemiological data; 3) collect evidence of exposure; 4) collect other relevant factors; 5) evaluate the validity of the evidence; and 6) write a report with evaluation and conclusions. Evaluators also should recognize that thresholds for causation vary by state and are based on specific statutes or case law. Three cases illustrate evidence-based causation analysis using the six steps and illustrate how examiners can form well-founded opinions about whether a given condition is work related, nonoccupational, or some combination of these. An evaluator's causal conclusions should be rational, should be consistent with the facts of the individual case and medical literature, and should cite pertinent references. The opinion should be stated “to a reasonable degree of medical probability,” on a “more-probable-than-not” basis, or using a suitable phrase that meets the legal threshold in the applicable jurisdiction.


2001 ◽  
Vol 60 (4) ◽  
pp. 215-230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Léon Beauvois

After having been told they were free to accept or refuse, pupils aged 6–7 and 10–11 (tested individually) were led to agree to taste a soup that looked disgusting (phase 1: initial counter-motivational obligation). Before tasting the soup, they had to state what they thought about it. A week later, they were asked whether they wanted to try out some new needles that had supposedly been invented to make vaccinations less painful. Agreement or refusal to try was noted, along with the size of the needle chosen in case of agreement (phase 2: act generalization). The main findings included (1) a strong dissonance reduction effect in phase 1, especially for the younger children (rationalization), (2) a generalization effect in phase 2 (foot-in-the-door effect), and (3) a facilitatory effect on generalization of internal causal explanations about the initial agreement. The results are discussed in relation to the distinction between rationalization and internalization.


2010 ◽  
Vol 69 (3) ◽  
pp. 173-179 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samantha Perrin ◽  
Benoît Testé

Research into the norm of internality ( Beauvois & Dubois, 1988 ) has shown that the expression of internal causal explanations is socially valued in social judgment. However, the value attributed to different types of internal explanations (e.g., efforts vs. traits) is far from homogeneous. This study used the Weiner (1979 ) tridimensional model to clarify the factors explaining the social utility attached to internal versus external explanations. Three dimensions were manipulated: locus of causality, controllability, and stability. Participants (N = 180 students) read the explanations expressed by appliants during a job interview. They then described the applicants on the French version of the revised causal dimension scale and rated their future professional success. Results indicated that internal-controllable explanations were the most valued. In addition, perceived internal and external control of explanations were significant predictors of judgments.


2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel J. Kruger ◽  
Maryanne L. Fisher ◽  
Carey Fitzgerald
Keyword(s):  

1979 ◽  
Vol 18 (03) ◽  
pp. 175-179
Author(s):  
E. Mabubini ◽  
M. Rainisio ◽  
V. Mandelli

After pointing out the drawbacks of the approach commonly used to analyze the data collected in controlled clinical trials carried out to evaluate the analgesic effect of potential agents, the authors suggest a procedure suitable for analyzing data coded according to an ordinal scale. In the first stage a multivariate analysis is carried out on the codec! data and the projection of each result in the space of the most relevant factors is obtained. In the second stage the whole set of these values is processed by distribution-free tests. The procedure has been applied to data previously published by VENTAITBIDDA et al. [18].


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
M Jördens ◽  
J Pereira ◽  
B Görg ◽  
V Keitel ◽  
D Häussinger

2019 ◽  
pp. 43-72
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Nicolò ◽  
Gianluca Zanellato ◽  
Francesca Manes-Rossi ◽  
Adriana Tiron-Tudor

Integrated reporting (IR), which aims to overcome the limitations of both tradi-tional financial and stand-alone non-financial reports, has gained momentum as a single comprehensive tool merging financial and non-financial information. Initially conceived for private sector entities, IR is also establishing itself in the public sector context as a vehicle for transparency and accountability. This research offers an empirical investigation of IR practices in the State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) context. More specifically, the paper investigates the levels of disclosure provided through IR by a sample of 34 European SOEs and explores the effects of potential explanatory factors. The results indicate a fair level of IR disclosure and a trend of reporting information already requested under international accounting standards. The findings also highlight that industry (basic materials and financials) and size positively influence the level of IR disclosure in a particularly strong way, while governance features (board size and board gender diversity) and the provision of external assurance do not exert any impact.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document