Rudolph I IMPLICIT VERB CAUSALITY
IMPLICIT VERB CAUSALITY:
Verbal Schemas And
Covariation Information
UD0 RUDOLPH
Ludwig-Maimilians-Universim Manchen
llloo experiments are reported to analyze thepsychological causality implicit in hnguage.
In Study I, an extenswn of the existing verb classificatwns is empirically fested to account
fbr the findingthat many actwn verbsgive rise to attribuäom to the senience object. Study
2 emmines whether implicit causality for these agent-evocator uerbs W medided by the
Same mechonism that are assumed to mediate this e f i c t for other kinds of interpersonal
actions and states. n k e n together, results suggest thaf (a)the introduction of an action
Verb schema that gives rise to object attributwns is a u e f u l derision of the &ring
classifications of interpersonal verbs and (bl the mediatwn of implicit cowality in all
kinds of interpersonal uwbs is governed by peneived covaTintion infonnatwn. Thus,the
present duta support an explanatwn of implicit causality that is based on classical
attributwn variables.
The phenomenon of implicit verb causality refers to the h d u i g that
action and state verbs give rise to causal inferences beyond the inf'ormation that is explicitly provided. Some verbs ailocate the causal
weight primarily to the sentence subject and others to the sentence
objed (e.g., Brown & Fish, 1983b).For example, consider the sentences
(a) "Maryadmires Lisa because she is beautiful" or (b) "Mary fmcinates
Lisa because she is beautifui." When subjects are required to answer
the question: 'Who is 'she?' " 90% athibute the event in sentence (a) to
Lisa (the grammatical object of the sentence) and the event in sentence
(b) to Mary (the grarnmatical subject of the sentence). This unequal
allocation of causality has turned out to be a remarkably stable
empirical phenomenon: I t has been obtained in different languages and
AUTHOR'S NOTE: Preparatwn of this cutick was supported by grants frorn the Deutsche
W Ru 6991 1-1and AZ Ru 69911-21.I arn indebted to Friedrich
Forschungsgemein~c~fl
Försterling and Gisela Steins fbr helpful wmments on earlier verswns of this artick.
Special thanks to Bernord Weiner and his reserach p u p at the Univeniity of Califonaia,
Loa Angeles, for their helpful discwsions and for giving me the opportwiity Co conduct
part of this research. Comspondeßce concerning this dick should be addressed to U&
R h l p h , Ludwig-Mdrnilians-UniuersilötMünchen, Institut flr P s y c h o m , h o p d d stmße 13, 80802 Mtinchen, Germany. Electrunic mail may be sent via the Intetnet to
76162.267l~mpuserve.corn.
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND SOCUL PSYCHOLOGY,Vol. 16 No.2. June 1897 132168
O 1997 9- Publicationr, Im.
132
133
cuitures (e.g., Brown & Fish, 1983a) with aduits and children (e.g., Au,
1986; Corrigan & Stevenson, 1994) using a variety of different techniques to assess causal judgments (for an overview of the empirical
evidence and the theoretical explanations for the implicit causality
effed, see Rudolph & Försterling, in press).
Research on implicit causality has dealt with two major problems:
First, researchers tried to establish classiiication schemes for interpersonal verbs (e.g.,Au, 1986;Brown & Fish, 1983a; R-idolph & Försterling,
in press; Semin & Fiedler, 1991). Second, different kinds of explanations for the verb causality effect have been proposed and empirically
tested. This article presents an empirical test of an extension of the
most common classification of interpersonal verbs as it was recently
proposed by Rudolph and Försterling. This extension will account for
the observation that there are many interpersonal actions that give
nse to attributions to the objed. Furthermore, this article will exarnine
whether recent explanations of implicit verb causality apply to these
interpersonal ations. Therefore, the existing classifications of interpersonal verbs and the different explanations of implicit verb causality
will be briefly summarized.
THE CLASSIFICATION OF INTERPERSONAL VERBS
Brown and Fish (198313)identified three types of interpersonal verbs
and proposed that each interpersonal verb belongs to one of these three
kinds of semantic Schemas, which are regarded as linguistic universals
present in every language of the world. For s t a k verbs, desmbing
interpersonal experiences or feelings, a stimulus-experiencer schema
(SE verbs) and an experiencer-stimulus schema (ES verbs) were proposed. For SE verbs (e.g., astonish, disappoint, irnpress), the sentence
subject takes the role of a stimulus that evokes a feeling or mental state
in the sentence object, the expenencer. In contrast, sentences containing ES verbs (admire, love, trust) consist of an experiencer as sentence
subject who experiences a feeling or mental state elicited by the
sentence object, the stimulus. I t has been shown that for interpersonal
states (such as admire, surprise, love, or hate), greater causal weight
is assigned to the stimulus, that is, the sentence subjed in SE senbnces
and the sentence object in ES sentences (e.g., Au, 1986; Brown &
Fish, 1983a, 1983b). For action verbs (such as help, cheat, compete, or
criticize), Brown and Fish (1983b) postulated an agent-patient (AP)
schema that comista of the role of an agent, "someone or something
that causes or instigates an action . . . having his own motivational
force" @. 2411, and a patient, "someone or something suffering a change
of etate" (p. 242).
A eomewhat different verb claseification, the linguistic catagory
model (LCM), wes praposed by Semin anti Fiedler (1981;for a eum-
134
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLDGY I June 1997
Table 1
Erb &asi+tion
State Verba
Critena
StimulusExperiencer
Action Verbs
Agent-Patient
135
Table 2
Verb Classificaiwn According to the Linguistic Category Model
Accordrng to the Revised Action-State-Distinciwn
ExperiencerStimulus
Rudolph / IMPLICIT VERB CAUSALITY
State
Verbs
State
Interpretative
Action Verbs Action Verbs
Descriptive
Action Verbs
AgentEvocator
Emotionalhental EmotionaVmental Sornething causing Adion induced
s t a k in sentence state in sentence or instigating an
by the sentence
object
eubject
object
action
Behavioral interactiona, typically
Mental interactions, resulting in
involving voluntary muaclee
relatively involuntary atates
Cntena
Invariant physical feature
Positive or negative valence
Clear beginning and end
Progressive form, imperative
mode
"Buhtest"
Examples
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Love
Admire
Object
Yes
No
Surprise
Disappoint
Subject
Yes
Yes
Cheat
Slander
Subject
Kiss
-
Lexical
definition
Obaemable
In t e m of to fiel or to experience
In terms of to do
No
Yes
Imperative
mode
Progreesive
tense
(Qpicaily) No
Yes
Anribution
( M i c d y ) No
Yes
Source. Linguistic Category Model (Semin & Fiedler, 1991).
Examplea
Love
Admire
Surprise
Disappoint
Cheat
Slander
Answer
Praise
Attxibution
Object
Subject
Subject
Object
Source. Reviaed ActionState-Distinction (Au, 1986; Brown & Fish, 1983b;Rudolph &
Försterling, in press).
mary, See Tables 1and 2). As Rudolph and Försterling (in press) have
pointed out, the LCM, although introducing a different teminology
and using various additional criteria to distinguish different classes of
verbs, nevertheless Comes to practically identical conclusions concerning the categories that are actually distinguished.' In addition, subject
attributions are predominantly predicted for action verbs in both verb
classiiication schemas. In the Brown and F'ish classification, action
verbs are supposed to follow an AP schema, which should give rise to
subject attributions. Indeed, it has been shown (e.g., Au, 1986; Brown &
Fish, 1983b; Corrigan, 1988; Semin & Fiedler, 1988) that for many
interpersonal actions, greater causd weight is attributed to the sentence subjed (the agent). However, there are empiricd observations in
the literature on verb causality that certain action verbs elicit attributions to the sentence object. Several studies using Brown and Fish's
(1983b)verb classification schema have found that some actionverbscontrary to the initial assumptions-elicit attributions to the sentence
objed (e.g., Au, 1986; Brown & Fish, 1983a). The Same is trve for
studies that have employed the LCM:Corrigan (1988,1992,1993) has
used a number of descriptive action verbs, that, according to the LCM,
ehould not give rise to any kind of attributional preference. However,
in these studies, object attributions were obtained for a nurnber of these
verbs in a highly systematic way.
Thw far, theee inconsiatent findinge with regard to action verbs
have not reeulted in a comeponding extension of the action verb
Hit
Nolweak
attributions
schemas. Rather, this issue has predominantly been circumvented in
the empirical studies on implicit verb causality: Vis-a-vis the first hints
a t ambiguous findings for certain action verbs, some researchers have
concentrated on action verbs that were a pnori known to give rise to
attributions to the sentence subjed (e.g., Försterling & Schlangen,
1995; Kasof & Lee, 1994); others have conhed themselves to s t a k
verbs instead (e.g., Van Kleeck, Hillger, & Brown, 1988).
This is especially surprising, as the postulate that a number of
adion verbs might exist that give rise to object attributions has been
in the air throughout formulation of theory related to implicit verb
causality. Fillmore (1968), in his theory of linguistic universals, dealt
with adions that are regarded as re-actions of the agent (the sentence
subject) to a state or behavior on the side of the patient (the sentence
objed). Moreover, Heider (1926, 1958) hinted at a certain class of
adions, which he characterized as cases in which "one Person can
induce another to do something by producing conditions of actions in
the other personn (Heider, 1958, p. 244). Heider called these actions
"induced actionsn and assurned that when B causes A to do X (as for
example, when A praises or thanks B because B did something good),
"then X is directly caused by A, and indirectly by B" (p. 246). Furthermore, Heider proposed that the degree to which the event is attributed
to B is heightened when the perceived degrees of freedom for A are low.
Accordingto Heider (1958), examples ofthese verbs are accuse, answer,
arrest, congratulate, flee, praise, and punish. Similarly, Au (1986)
postulated a class of action verbs that shows close resemblance to
Heider's concept of induced actions. These actions (e.g., scold, praise,
punish) were characterized as re-actions to the behavior of the sentence
objed; therefore, such induced actions have been evoked by the sentence object (e.g., by evoking praise by doing something praiseworthy,
or evoking an -er
by impoeing a queetion).
136
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL PSYCHOMGY I dune 1997
A similar distinction was also propased by McKoon, Greene, and
Ratciiff (1993) and Greene and McKoon (1995).Without refening to
the distinction between action and state8, these authors postulated a
distintion of interperaonal verbs in initiating and reacting roles. It is
assumed that for any kind of interpersonal verb, either the sentence
subject or the sentence object will take the initiating role, while the
other interaction partner takes the reacting role. More specifically, they
noted that for a number of action verbe, the sentence objed is in. the
initiating role (e.g., congratdate, punish, praise, scold). AB Greene and
McKoon (1995)pointed out, these aseumptiona are weil in line with
linguistic coneideratione (Levin, 1994), holding that verbal achemas
with the sentence obje& in the initiating role is a characteristic of
so-called judgment verba. These judgment verbs, according to Levin
(1994), 'Yelate to a judgment or opinion that someone may have in
reaction ta aornething" (p. 175).
'ib take up the converging empirical and theoretical indications for
the exiatence of an action verb schema that gives rise to object attributiom, an agenbevocator (AE)scherna ia proposed (see Tables 1.and 2).
In liae with the considerations by Heider (1958), Au (19861, Corrigan
(1988,1992,1993), and Greene and McKoon (1995), it is assumed that
this verbal schema still consiats of a sentence subject acting aa an
agent. However, tbie action of the agent represents a re-action to a state
or behavior of the interaction partner. For example, for AE verba such
as answerlng, criticizing, or praising, the sentence subject engages in,
an activity that has been evoked by a certain s t a k or action of the
sentence object (the evocator). Thus, for AE verbs, we canimmediately
think af a preceding action of the sentence object that gave rise to the
behavior of the agent, as Tor example by irnposing a questioa, making
a mistake, or acting in a praiseworthy way. In contrast t.o ES verbs,
however, the sentence object produces an overt responee (rather than
an emotional state) in the sentence subject.
SHIOnotes of caution seem necessary here. First, it seems that the
action-reaction distinction between AP and AE verbs represents a
continuum rather than a dichotomy. For example, to help does represent both aspecte;in many Situations,it involves voluntarily performed
attions, while at the same time typically requires that there ie some
Person in need of help. This ambiguous Status of to help may also be
the reason that very different results have been obtained for this verb
in the Literatu3.e (including subject, object, and intermediate attributions). However, a s our sampling of interpersonal verbs (see below)
shows, the vast mqjoritg of interpersonal verba can be claeaified quite
easily on the action-readion dimenaion. Second, in contraat tu the
ppoad of t e v h ( 1994), i t han to be noted that there are also Al3 verbe
b t are not neceesarily evaluative judgmente (e.g., answer, react),
althougb a mdority of AE verbs appeani to have auch evaluative
Rudolph / IMPLICIT VERB CAUSALITY
137
c o ~ o t a t i o n (e-g.,
s
blame, congrahilate, criticize, praise, thanlr, arid
so on).
To obtain data about the frequency of these different kinda of actions
and states W, U ,SE, and ES verbs), a Ger-man corpus of interpersonal verbs was coiiected simiiar to those already coiiected by Hoffman
and Tchir (1990) for the English language and by Semin and Marsman
(1994)for the Dutch language. Two independent raters used the Pans
Global Gennan-EnglishDictwnary (containing about 120,000 entries)
and exixacted aü interpersonal verbs. About 1,200interpersonal verba
were found. Within this verb sample, some verbs do not have a clear
active or stative connotation (e.g., ta think about someone, to entertain), and many are slang expressiona o r refer to idiomatic expressione
(e.g., to puii aomeone's leg). Thus, about 800 remaiaing verbs were
d a s s 5 e d by the two independent raters accorduig to the deiinitions
for AP, SE, and ES verbs provided by Brown and Fiah (1983b) and
according to Heider's (1958) dennition of induced actions for AE verbs
(interrater reliabiliiy was above .90;inconsistencies were resolved by
discussion). Approximately 55% of these interpersonal verba are AP,
12%pb, 15% SE, and 18%ES.2
At thie point, one might criticize that tbe distinction between AP
and AE verba is mainiy semantic in nature and not based on independent Linguiatic criteria. However, as Edwards and Potter (1993) and
Rudoiph and FBrsteriing (in press) have pointed out, there are no such
independent criteria for the AP, SE, and ES verbs either, m d the
seeming LUiguistic criteria that have occasionally been proposed in the
literature are untenable. Consider, for example, the distinction between actiona and states: Brown and Fish (1983b) pointed out that
lexical definitions of actions a r e circumscribed by expressions with to
do or to act (p.241), whereas states are circumscribed in tems of to
feel or to erperience (p. 242)-a criterion that is entirely semantic in
nature. For the LCM, to give only two examples, descriptive action
vexbs are suppoeed to lack a positive or negative valence, and state
action verbs "refer h an implicit sentence frame that leads to the
experience of a s t a k in the object of a sentence" (Sernin & Fiedler, 1991,
p. 6 ) (see also Tables 1 and 2)-again,
these are entirely semantic
criteria.
Although most of the cnteria employed in the literature are semantic ones, there are dso some seeming nonsemantic or grammatical
criteria, most of them dating back Co an analysis by Lakoff (1966).
However, these criteria do not provide a strict test as to which of the
diflerent verb classes a certain interpersond verb belongs. For example, Au (1986)arid Semin and Fiedler (1991) painted out that state
verbs sound unnatural in the progressive form. AB Hoffman and Rhir
(1990)have shown, however, there are eeveral examples and c o n t e b
for which state ve* in the progrecrmve fonn sound quite natural (0-g.,
Y was just & w h tbe Vrew"). Moreover, most of thene gramrnatid
i
130
Rudolph 1 IMPLICIT VERB CAUSALI'W
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY / June 1997
criteria are restricted to the English language. In contrast, as is
proposed by F'iiimore's (1968) lheory of linguistic universals, semantic
Schemas can be regarded as linguistic universals characteristic of every
language (for a more extensive debate of these issues, see also Pinker,
1994; Rudolph & Försterling, in press).
Does the restriction to semantic criteria impose a problem on the
definitions of interpersonal verb schemas? One question that must be
raised in this connedion is whether the psychological causality in verbs
constitutes a circular phenomenon, in as far as the concept of causality
has been incorporated into the definition of the different types of
verb+an argument originally advanced by Edwards and Potter
(1993). For example, when stating that for SE verbs, the sentence
subject elicits or gives rise to a certain kind of experience or state on
the side of the experiencer (Brown & Fish, 1983b), one may assume
that the concept of causality (to elicit, to give rise) is part of the
definition of the verbal schema. In fad, the struggle to find independent lexical or grammatical criteria to distinguish or classify different verbal schemas has been motivated by the desire to avoid the
Scylla of circular definitions, thereby increasing the risk of approaching the Charybdis of lexical or grammatical criteria that in f'act are not
able to consistently differentiate the different kinds of verbs.
Nevertheless, it is argued here that the risk of circularity does not
necessarily represent an unsurmountable problem for the present
field. Although the (semantic) definitions of different verbal schemas
may incorporate assurnptions about causal structures, it is still an
interesting task to anaiyze the processes mediating the implicit causality of interpersonal verbs. In the extreme case, we would classdy
certain interpersonal verbs as objecbcausality verbs and others as
subject-causality verbs, and we might still ask-to explain the relevant
data-which kinds of variables are perceived and processed to arrive
at a causai explanation of the interpersonal event that is described by
this verb. 'B explain implicit verb causality, for example, one prominent point of view (first advocated by Brown & Fish, 1983b) is the
assumption that implicit covariation information is part of the meaning ofthe verb and that these perceived patterns of covariation mediate
the verb causality effect. Thus, we might have learned that when (10year-old) Karen envtes (her classmate) Anna, many other girls are
likely to envy Anna, too (consensus), and only few other girls besides
Anna are libely to be envied (distinctiveness). If it can be shown that
implicit verb causality can be traced back to the perception and
processing of these-or other-kinds of information variables, the
problem of circularity is not relevant anymore, since, as is obvious iri
this example, the defmition of verbal schemas did not incorporate
different patterns of covariation.
In summary, it is argued that the problem of circularity disappears
as soon ae the implicit causality in interpersonal verbs can be traced
139
back to types of information variables that have not been incorporated
in the definition of the verbal schema. Thus, a strict separation of
classificatory and explanatory concepts is needed. Indeed, this strategy
has been foilowed by several researchers (Au, 1986; Brown & Fish,
1983b; Corrigan, 1989,1992,1993; Kasof & Lee, 1994; Semin & Fiedler,
1991; Van Kleeck et al., 1988). Therefore, the postulate of an AE
schema-likewise the postulate of the AP, SE, and ES schemasshould be regarded as a tentative proposal, serving as a tool for
conducting studies aiming to identify the mechanisms mediating the
verb causality effed. As Wittgenatein (1922) pointed out, this kind of
analysis (in this case, the analysis of different types of verbs) might
"serve as a ladder that is thrown away aRer we have climbed up on it"
(P. 189).
With this new classification in mind, it seems promising to test
whether those variables that mediate the verb causality effect for AP,
SE, and ES verbs are present for AE verbs as well. Thus, it will be
useful to analyze whether the mediation of causality in induced actions
(i.e., AE verbs) is governed by the same mechanisms that have been
established for other kinds of interpersonal events, and to summarize
briefly the most important theoretical contributions to the verb causality effect (for a summary, see Rudolph & Försterling, in press).
I
EXPLANATIONS OF IMPLICIT VERB CAUSALW
THE COVARIATION HYPOTHESIS
The earliest attempt to explain implicit verb causality stems from
Brown and Fish (1983b) and refers to classical attribution variables.
These authors hypothesized that covariation information (i.e., consensus and distinctiveness) is an impiicit part of the meaning of the verb,
becomes ativated in the presence of the verb, and thereby mediates
the corresponding causal judgment; an oveMew of the argument is
given in Table 3. Tb test this hypothesis, several studies required
subjects to rate consensus and distinctiveness (according to Kelley,
1972) for different kinds of interpersonal verbs. I t has been shown that
interpersonal verbs are indeed associated with corresponding degrees
of perceived consensus and distinctiveness (e.g., Brown & Fish, 1983b;
Hoffman & Tchir, 1990): AP and SE verbs (giving rise to subject
attributions) are associated with perceptions of low consensus and low
distinctiveness (which, according to Kelley's covariation principle,
should elicit subject attributions); ES verbs (giving rise to object
attributions) are associated with perceptions of high consensus and
high distinctiveness (which, accordingly, should lead to object attributions in Kelley's covariation principle). Thus, the perceived Pattern
of covariation infomation for interpersonal actions and states fits
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND SOCLAL PSYCHOLOGY / June 1997
Table 3
Verbs, Peneived Comriation Information, and Atlributions Aceordjng io
tlie C o u d i i o n H y p o t h e k
Znkrpersod
Verbal Schema
Hypothesized
Pattern of
Conmms m d
Diatiictiveneas
Lau
Jeff
Agmt-ev~cator
Bob mngrakilates High
S
m
Stim~lus~riencar
Karen aatonishea Low
Ja&
Ekperienm-sümulus
High
John admires
hme
141
whether these resulta apply to action verbs as well, because vis-h-vis
the inconsistent h d i n g s conceming action verbs, previous research
haa been restricted to state verba (Van Kleeck et al., 1988, p. 90).
SALIENCE HYPOTRESIS
Eramples
Attribution
Agent-pntient
Mary dominatee
Rudolph / IMPLICIT VERB CAUSGLITY
Low No one elm dominatea JeR
Mary dominates many other people
Subject
(M~ry)
High Many other people mngratulate Suaan; Object
Bob congratulata no one else
(Susanl
Low No one else astonishes Jack;
Karen astoniahee many other people
Subject
High Many other people admire Anne;
John admires no one else
Object
(Karen)
(Annei
perfectly well with the causal inferences. For example, in the case of
an ES verb such ae to admire, we may (implicitly)know that only few
pereons are likely to be admired (high distinctivenese) and that many
people are likely to admire (high consensus), an information pattern
that is supposed to trigger attributions to the sentence object (the
stimulus in this casei.
An additional hint at the role of covariation information for implicit
verb causality steme fEom an observation by V m Kleeck et al. (1988).
In this study, subje& read minimal scenarios and received explicit
covariation information (either consensus or distinctiveness), and
causal attributions were assessed. This experiment allows the cong-ruence between verb type and covariation information to vary. An example fm an incongruent combination is "A surprises B" combined with
"Many other people surprise B" and/or "A surprises only a few other
people." Here, the stjmulua-experiencer verb to surprise predicts an
attribution to the sentenee subject, whereas high consensus and high
dietinctiveneas predict an attribution to the sentence object. Van
Kleeck and colieaguea showed that the effects of verb schemas are
largely, but not entirely, overpowered by consensus and distinctiveness:
when covariation information and verb type suggest different attributions (asin the incongruent conditions), there is still a signincant
(albeit mall)verb-type effect. Thie h d i n g suggeets that the irnplicit
causality ofinterpersonal verbs is active even in the presence of exphcit
additional idormation. However, researchere have not yet examined
This explanation, proposed by Kasof and Lee (19941,refers to
another classical attribution variable, namely, the perceived salience
of the interactanta described by the interpersonal event. Kasof and Lee
argued that the different verb typa also provide a variation in perceived salience: For SE and ES verbs, the stimulus is supposed to be
the more salient interactant, whereae for AP verbs, the agent should
be perceived as the more sdient interactant. This assumption was
clearly confirmed in studies that required subjects to rate the perceived
salience of the sentence subject and object with animate and inanimate
entities (Kasof & Lee, 1994, Studies 1 and 4). Additionally, moderate
to high correlations were found between perceived salience and causal
ratings (.36< r C -77,for different verb classes). In addition, Kasof and
Lee postulated that the transformation of sentences from active into
passive voice should give rise to differentes in perceived salience
n the diaerent interactants is changed
because the sentence ~ i t i o of
by thie technique. For example, A should be the more salient stimulue
in a sentence such as "A aatonished B" as compared to "B is astonished
by An because B is mentioned first in the aecond sentence, hence, the
focus of attention is shiRed more toward B. For the Same reason,
stimuli should be more salient in SE sentences as compared to ES
sentences and experiencers should be more salient in ES as compared
to SE sentences. These assumptions were also confirmed (for a more
detailed analysis, See Kasof & Lee, 1994).
As Rudolph and Försterling (in press) pointed out, an interesting
question arises &r careful analysis of the operational defkition of
salience as it was used by Kasof and Lee (1994):Subjects were told that
a salient stimulua "ie perceptually very striking or prominent, [capturing] our attention to a high degree . . . and,all else being equal . . . an
unusual behavior is more salient than a common behavior." This
explanation shows close reaernblance to the definition of low consensus
and high distinctiveness. Therefore, the concepts of salience and covariatioa information as they are assessed in studies on implicit verb
cauealib may not necessarily exclude each other, and it should be
interesting to analyze the statisticd overlap in these variables by
assesaing them within one experiment.
A completely dinerent approach to explain implicit verb causality
wae propoaed by Hoflinan and nhir (1990).
They presanted a Whorfian
142
JOURNAL OF LANCUAGE AND SOCIAL PSYCHOWCYI June 1997
(or lexicd) hypothesis by suggesting that "the causal interpretation
flows not from the kind of event described by the words, but primarily
fiom the words themselves" (p. 775).Thus, it is suggested that the
s b c t u r e of language directly determines the causal inference. This
Sterns from the o b s e ~ a t i o n(origintdy made by Brown & Fish,
1983b) that the derivational adjectives of interpersonal verbs most
commonly describe the agent and the stimulus but not the patient
arid the experiencer (e.g., help-helpfd, but not %elpableU;compete
with~ompetitive,but not "competable with"; detest-detestable, but
not "detestfd"; and so on). Ln an extensive analysis of the English
Corpus of interpersonal verbs, Hoffman and Qhir (1990) found that for
each verb class (AP, SE, and ES varbs), a minority of 10% to 20% of
Verbs exclueively have derivationaI forms that describe the patient or
the experiencer. For example, the AP verb to bribe (that is assumed to
give rise to subject attributions) has the adjective bribable ae a derivational form (that describes the sentence object). Hoffman and Rhir
hypothesized that for such verbs with incongruent derivational forms,
the attnbutions should be predicted by the derivation and not by the
verb type.
However, the reaulta obtajned by Hoffman and Tchir (19901, as well
as resulta by Semin and Marsman (1994, Studies 1,2,and 31,did not
support this strong hypothesis: Unequivocally, no main effects of derivational forms wem obtained in these studies. Rather, attributions
were predominantly predicted by the different verb types, and typicaUy, a sigrulicant interaction between verb type and adjective reference wae obtahed: Attributiom toward the agent and the stimulus
were (slightly) lese pronounced for verbs with derivations toward the
patient and the experiencer. Semin and Marsman (1994) also pointed
out that the innuence of derivational forme i~ stronger when dispositional inferences are required by the subject~;in contrast, this influence is less pronounced when causal inferences are required (a more
detailed discussion of this p o h t is given by Semin & Marsman, 1994;
a reanalysis of the results of HoBman & TChir, 1990, is presented in
Rudolph & Försterling, in press). A more general conceptual critique
of Whodian explanations of implicit causality is given in Au (1988).
The following studies will analyze whether verbal descriptions of
induced actions (AE verbs) indeed give rise to attributions to the
sentence object, and whether the mechanisms that are held responsible
for the verb causality effect in AP, SE, and ES verbs c a n be found for
induced adions (AEverbs) as weil. Therefore, Study 1assesses attributions and perceived covariation for AP, AE, SE, and ES verbs with
different kinds of derivational forms (tothe sentence subject versus the
sentence object). Moreover, Study 2 analyzes whether the implicit
causaüty effect ie aleo obtained when explicit covariation information
ie provided. Again, the aim of the atudy is ta analyze whether the
innuence of explicit coneenms and diatinctiveness on caueal judgmentm
Rudolph / IMPLICIT VERB CAUSALITY
143
is moderated by the type of the interperaonal verb (for actions as well
as states). Furthermore, this research examines whether the degree ta
which implicit verb causaliw moderaten the effects of explicit information is proportional to the strength of the implicit verb causality effect
as it is obtained for each single verb. Finally, perceived covariation and
salience are assessed simultaneously to test the hypotheses that both
variables are comelated to high a degree.
I
I
I
I
This study is based on the assumption that AE verbs give rise to
attributions to the sentence objed. Moreover, if perceived pattems of
(implicit) consensus and distinctiveness mediate the implicit verb
causalify effect,perceptions of high consensus and high distinctiveness
should be found for AE verbs. For example, an event such as "John
praised Bill" should be associated with the perception that many other
persons would have praised Bill, too (high consensus), and that only
few persons perform such a praiseworthy action (highdistinctiveness).
Therefore, four types of interpersonal verbs (M,AE,SE, and ES verbs)
are used to assess causal attributions arid covariation infonnation.
In addition, the reference of the derivational f o m s of the verbs is
included as a factor in the present design by using verbs with congnient
derivational forms (derived form and implicit causality refer ta the
Same interaction partner) versus verbs with incongnient derivational
foms (derived form m d implicit causality refer to different interaction
partners). Thus, the influence of verb type and derivational form ie
separated. According to previous h d i n g s (Hoffman & Tchir, 1990;
Rudolph & Försterling, in press; Semin & Marsman, 19941, i t is
assumed that implicit causality is mainly predicted by the different
verb types, whereas the reference of the derivational form has a
substantially weaker effect.
Design
Four classea of interpersonal verbs-AI', A.E, SE, and ES verbswere used as an independent variable. Moreover, the reference of the
derived form of the verbs was varied within each verb class: Halfof the
verbs had derivational forms congruent with implicit v e ~ bcausality
(e.g., the APverb to dominate should elicit subject attributions, and the
derived form4minant-refers t o the sentence subject a s well) and
the other half of the verbs had derivational f o m s incongruent with
verb caueality (e.g., the AP verb to bribe should elicit eubject attri-
144
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGYI June 1997
butions, whereas the derived form-bribable-refers to the sentence
obje&). This resulted in a 4 X 2 within-subjects design; the order of
presentation was randomized across s ~ b j e c t s . ~ A
dependent
s
variables,
attributions to the sentence subject versus sentence object were
assessed, as well as ratings for perceived consensus and distinctiveness. It was hypothesized that AP and SE verbs lead to attributions
to the sentence subject and elicit ratings of low consensus and low
distinctiveness. By contrast, AE and ES verbs should give rise to
object attributions and elicit ratings of high consensus and high
distinctiveness.
Subjects
Rudolph / IMPLICIT VERB CAUSALITY
I
Y
'ibelve students (mean age 25 years) of the University of California,
Los Angeles, participated in this study on a voluntary basis. Participants were tested individually in a session that lasted about 20
minutes. All subjects were native American-English speakers.
Procedure
Participants received a booklet containing general instructions
about the study and how to use the rating scales (ranging from 0 to 10,
with not a t all likely and definitely likely as the extremes). The booklet
consisted of 32 sentences (in two different random orders) of the form
A verbed B (i.e., subjed verbed object [SvOl), containing four types of
interpersonal verbs. These verbs were randomly drawn from an English corpus of interpersonal verbs available from the author (this
corpus was produced in the Same way as the previously mentioned
corpus of German interpersonal verbs; in this case, the Oxford English
Dictionary was used, containing about 80,000 entries). AP, SE, and ES
verbs were classified according to the d e s provided by Brown and Fish
(198313).AE verbs were classified according to Heider's conceptualization of induced actions. For each verb, subjects were asked (a) "How
likely is it that this is due to A?" (b) "How likely is it that this is due to
B?" (C) "How likely is it that this is due to some other reason?" (d) "How
likely is it that A verbed many other persons besides B?" (distinctiveness), and (e) "How likely is it that many other persons, besides A,
verbed B?" (consensus). The order of attribution and covariation questions was randomized across subjects.
An ovemiew of the means of each single verb and each of the
dependent variables is presented in Tables 1and 2. As Brown and Fish
(198313) noted, this type of study can be analyzed by averaging across
I
1
145
verbs or by treating each single verb as a subject (thus, averaging
across participants). The present results are based on a verb-level
analysis because no discrepancies between both kinds of analyses
emerged (this is typical of all the studies in the field of implicit verb
causality). Thus, analyses of variance for each of the dependent variables were conduded, with verb type and derivational form as independent variables and each single verb as a subject. Difference Scores
for attributions (subjed minus object attributions) were computed;
completely corresponding results were obtained for single analyses.
Moreover, subjects only very rarely referred to "other reasons" (Question 3) to explain the relevant event (M always C 0.5); therefore, we
will not elaborate on the results obtained for this question.
Attibutions for each verb type were made in the expected direction
for 31 of the 32 verbs (the exception being to yearn, with almost
identical ratings for subject and object attributions). For the remaining
verbs, subject attributions were found for AP and SE verbs and object
attributions were found for AE and ES verbs. Differences between
subject and object attributions are significant for 27 of the 32 verbs (see
Table 4). An analysis of variance with verb type and adjective reference
as independent variables and the difference between subject and object
attributions as a dependent variable revealed a significant effect of
verb type, F(3, 24) = 56.64, p C .001, accounting for about 80% of
variance in the ratings. t tests were conducted to test the difference
between subject and object attributions for each verb class. For AP
verbs, the mean difference is M = 2.54, t(7) = 4 . 5 0 , ~C .01; f o r m verbs,
M = -2.91, t(7) = - 5 . 8 3 , ~C .001; for SE verbs, M = 3.65, t(7) = 13.39,
p C .001; and finally, for ES verbs, M = -2.53, t(7) = -4.65, p C .001.
Without the differentiation of action verbs into AP versus AE verbs,
however, intermediate attributions for action verbs would have
resulted, M = -0.18, t(15) C 1, ns; a result that is well in line with
previous findings (e.g., Brown & Fish, 1983a).
With regard to the lexical hypothesis, a marginally significant
interaction between verb type and adjective reference emerged,
F(3, 24) = 2.51, p = .08, due to a significant difference in attributions
within the class of AE verbs: Attributions to the sentence object were
more pronounced for verbs with a derivational form referring to the
sentence object, M = -4.08, as compared to verbs with a derivational
form referring to the sentence subject, M = -1.73, t(6) = 4.83, p C .01.
For the remaining verb types, no difference between verbs with incongruent versus congruent derivational forms was obtained (t always C 1.5).
The different verb types were associated with different patterns of
perceived covariation information (see Table 4). A covariation index
was computed by summing consensus and distinctiveness, with low
values indicating covariation with the Person and high values indicating covariation with the entity (corresponding results were obtained
for separate anal~ses).'An analysis of variance revealed only a signifi-
146
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY I June 1997
Table 4
AftribUtiO~and Covariation Index for Interpersonal Verbs in Study 1
Verb
Agenbpatient
A~olCoach
Dominate
Inform
Direct
Betray
Bribe
Influence
M
SD
Agent-evocator
Flee
obe~
Reaci
Reproach
huse
Arrest
Congratuhte
Raiee
wective
Attribution
S
5.08***
1.17(*)
1.61'
1.49'
2.08*
6.09***
2.09*
1.83*
2.64
1.60
S
S
S
S'
0
0
0
S
S
S
S
0
0
0
0
M
SD
Stimulus-experiencer
Bore
S
Charm
S
Demand
Impress
Astonieh
Distract
Drive into deeperation
S
S
0
0
0
Hurt
9'
M
SD
Experiencer-etimulus
Yearn
S
Suff8i
S
Be mhamed
WOW
Admire
Trust
Fee1 pity for
Vaiue
S
S
M
SD
0
0
0
0
Covariation Indes
8.69
6.68
8.33
9.68
8.67
7.08
9.09
9.50
8.31
1.36
-2.58*
-0.60
-1.61
-2.34..
4.08***
-3.83**
4.42***
4.01**
-2.91
1.41
11.83
10.60
9.76
10.69
9.83
5.92
13.41
11.26
10.39
2.16
2.17,
2.92'
4.26".
4.92***
3.33***
4.75***
4.26***
4.08***
3.66
0.77
8.91
7.08
7.84
7.68
7.34
9.67
8.26
8.26
8.18
0.86
0.09
4.76***
-2.83.
-1.16
4.16***
-2.17'
-2.76**
-2.60**
-2.63
11.17
11.59
11.67
10.76
12.34
11.08
10.83
10.34
11.22
1.54
0.63
Note. ~iffewnce~eomwere cornputed for attributions. Poeitive values indicate attributioaii to the eubject; negative vaiues indicate attributions to the object. h of the verbs
(hurt, dllect) wem misclaaeified. becaum the derived form did n o t a s intendeddmbe
sentence object but rather the eentenee subject.
('>P .10.*p = .OE.**p = .Ol.
= ,001.
-
Rudolph / IMPLICIT VERB CAUSALITY
147
cant effect of verb type, F(3,24) = 8.09, p < .001. AP and SE verbs were
associated with low consensus and low distinctiveness, whereas AE
arid ES verbs gave rise to perceptions of high consensus and high
distinctiveness. Finally, a significant correlation between covariation
information and attributions was obtained, r(31) = .67,p < .001.
DISCUSSION OF STUDY 1
Study 1shows that the introduction of the AJ3 schema tums out to
be a usefd tool to distinguish action verbs eliciting subject attributions
from action verbs eliciting object attributions. Furthermore, earlier
findings concerning the covariation between causal attributions and
perceived consensus and distinctiveness are replicated arid extended:
AP and SE verbs, which give rise to subject attributions, receive ratings
of low consensus and low distinctiveness. The opposite results are
found for AE and ES verbs, which give rise to object attributions.
Moreover, the present results reconfim the data found by Hoffman
and Tchir (1990) and Semin and Marsman (1994) concerning the
influence of lexical derivatian on causal judgments: It t u r m out that
causal inferences are predominantly predicted by verb type, whereas
the reference of the derived form has a comparably weaker (interaction) effect on causal judgments.
We will now turn to the question ofwhether the present findings for
AJ3 verbs generalize across different languages; therefore, a German
Corpus of interpersonal verbs is used. In addition, Study 2 examines
whether the implicit causality effect also operates in the presence of
explicit covariation information.
Study 2 uses an experimental technique established by Van Kleeck
and colleagues (1988) to analyze the joint effects of explicit and implicit
(assumed) information variables on causal judgments. However, the
present study introduces two extensions of this experimental technique. First, because inconsistent findings concerning adion verbs had
emerged (Van Kleeck et al., 1988, P. 90), their analysis was restricted
to s t a k verbs. The present study therefore aims to test the hypothesis
that these previous inconsistencies can be resolved by distinguishing
an AE and an AP schema within the class of action verbs. Second, Van
Kleeck and colleagues restricted their analyses to the joint manipulation of implicit causalib (by using different verb types) and explicit
covariation information. The present study additionally assesses perceived covariation information and perceived salience to test the interadion between implicit and explicit information variables more di-
150
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND SOCiAL PSYCHOLOGY / June 1997
the present experiment to verbs with congruent derivational f o m .
Note that with this procedure, the study nevertheless controls for the
factor adjective reference (namely, by holding it Constant).
For three groups of subjects ( n = 16 in each group), the S v 0
sentences were combined with information regarding consensus andlor
distinctiveness. For each verb, subjects were asked: (a) "How likely is
it that this is due to A?" (b) Wow likely is it that this is due to B?" and
(C) "How likely is i t that this is due to some other reason?" In these
gmups, which will be referred to as infomation groups in the following,
the same rating scales were used as in Study 1.Mean attributions were
computed as a difference smre between subject and object attributions.
l b o lists with different random orders of verb information combinations were used to exclude possible effecta of order of presentation.
For the information groups, in which covariation information was
provided, a deviation score was computed as a dependent variable
(identical to the procedure employed by Van Kleeck et al., 1988): For
each verb, the mean deviation of the actual attribution from the
attribution predicted by the covariation information was computed.
This deviation score sirnply reflects the magnitude of the deviation
from the ideal (hypothetical) attribution predicted by the patterns of
high and low consensus andlor di~tinctiveness.~
If implicit verb causality operates in the presence of explicit covariation information, then
deviation Scores shouid be greater for incongruent pairs of verb types
and covariation information as compared to congruent pairs.
The no-infomatwn group received the Same 16 S v 0 sentences, but
no covariation information was provided. Implicit causality, perceived
covariation information, and perceived salience were assessed as dependent variables. l b assess perceived covariation information, the
Same question stimuli as in Study 1 were used. 'ib assess perceived
salience of the interactants, subjects had to answer the question,
Which ofthese two persons is the more salient one, Aor B?" To explain
the concept of salience, the instruction stimulus reported by Kasof and
Lee (1994, p. 881) was used.
Because no order effecta were obtained for any of the dependent
variables, analyses will be combined for the different order conditions.
Again, the followiog resdts are based on a verb-level analysis because
completely corresponding resuits wem obtained with a subject-level
analysis. Results will be analyzed separately for the group that received no additional covariation information and the gmups that
received additional consensus andlor distinctiveness information.
Results for the no-information group-that is, mean attributions for
each verb type, ratings for perceived consensus, distinctiveness, and
salience-are presented in Table 5. Attributions toward the sentence
Rudolph / IMPLICIT VERB CAUSALIW
Table 5
Attributions, Perceived Covasiation, und Salience for Euch Verb C h s in the NoInformation Gmup in Study 2.
Verb ClAgentPatient
Dependent Variable
Attnbutions
Consensus
Distinctivenese
Salience
M
SD
M
M
2.98
1.06
4.77
0.88
6.74
SD
0.79
SD
--
M
SD
2.74
1.76
Agent- Stimuluii- ExperiencerEvocator Experiencer Stimulus
-2.01
1.53
6.31
1.40
5.67
1.23
-0.68
2.61
3.04
0.75
5.02
0.11
6.57
0.31
2.23
1.49
-2.46
1.88
6.32
0.72
5.18
0.49
-0.73
0.87
low consensus and high values indicate high
consensus, whereas for distinctiveness, low valuea indicata high distinctiveness and high
vaiuea indicate low distinctiveneas.
Note. For consemus, low vaiuea indicate
subject were found for AP and SE verbs, and attributions toward the
sentence objed were found for ÄE and ES verbs. An analysis of variance
for attributions withverb type as independent variable was significant,
F(3,16) = 24.36,~< .001, accounting for 82%of variance in attributions.
A correaponding analysis of variance waa also significant for covariation information for consensus, F(3,16) = 4.20, p < .05, accounting for
44% of variance, and for distinctiveness, F(3, 16) = 4.66, p < .05,
accounting for 47% of variance. These effeds reflect the finding that
patterns of low consensus and low distinctiveness were obtained for AP
and SE verbs, whereas high consensus and high distinctiveness were
found for AE and ES verbs (see Table 51, a finding that corresponds
completely to the results of Study 1. Moreover, an analysis of variance
for perceived salience with verb type as independent variable was
significant, F(3,16) = 4 . 7 3 , <
~ .05, explaining 47% of variance. In line
with the hypotheses of Kasof and Lee (1994), salience of the sentence
subject was rated higher for AP and SE verbs as compared to AE and
ES verbs.
Furthermore, correlations between attributions, covariation information, and salience were computed. Salience is significantly correlated with perceived consensus and distinctiveness: r(19) = -.60,
p < .01, for Consensus, r(19) = .45, p < .05, for btindiveness, and d19) =
.71, p < .01, for a combined covariation index (see Note 4). Moreover,
covariation information and salience are significantly correlated with
attributions, r(19) = -.68, p < .01, for consensus, r(19) = .64, p <
.01, for distinctiveness, and Al91 = .59, p C .01, for salience.
Results for the information groups, in which additional covariation
information was presented, are summarized in Table 6, including
attributions toward the sentence subject versus object, and deviation
i
162
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY I June 1997
Table 6
&&&ans
Md Devic2tion Scores /nr Eoch Mrb Class in the Informntion h u p s in Srudy 2
Verb Class
Agenb
Patient
Attributions
Congment disänctiveness
Inwngruent dietinctiveneee
Congi-uent wnseneue
Inoongruent wnsensue
Congment: conseneua and
distinctiveneae
Incongruent: consensue and
distinctivenese
Deviation ecorw
Congruent distinctivenm
inwngruent dietinctivenese
Congruent con8eensua
Inwngruent cameneue
Congruent: coneensue and
distinctivenesa
incongruent: wnsensus and
distinctivenesa
Agent- Stimulus- ExperiencerEvocator Experiencer Stimulus
5.18
-2.76
3.84
-2.08
3.41
5.51
-3.53
2.83
5.41
-2.49
3.11
3.49
-3.89
3.44
3.84
3.37
4.89
-3.23
4.74
-3.21
-1.89
5.99
-3.07
4.64
4.58
6.89
6.51
6.11
6.56
6.16
6.63
4.83
7.24
6.16
7.93
5.38
4.49
6.48
7.17
5.11
6.78
5.26
6.78
8.11
4.01
6.93
5.36
7.61
scores (representing the deviation of the actual attribution from the
ideal attribution as predicted by covariation information). Analyses of
variance for attributions with verb type and congruence (between
implicit verb causaliiy and expiicit covariation information) as independent variables revealed that there are highly significant effects of
explicit covariation information: For congruent combinations, attributions to the subject were found for AP and SE verbs and attributions
to the object were found for AE and ES verbs. However, for incongruent
combinations of verb type and explicit covariation, this pattern was
reversed: Attributions to the sentence object were found for AP and SE
verbs, whereas attributions to the subject were found for AE and ES
verbs. These effects were reflected in significant interactions of verb
type and congnience, with F(3,16) = 80.39, p < .001 for consensus, R 3 ,
16) = 134.46,p C .001 for distinctiveness, and R 3 , 16) = 46.00, p < ,001
for the joint presentation of consensus and distinctiveness.
'Ib analyze whether effects of verb S p e on causal attributions are
still present when explicit covariation information is given, we conducted analyses of variance for deviation scores with verb type and
cowruence as independent variables. For the distinctiveness group, a
significant effect of congruence was obtained, F(1,16) = 4.27, p C .05,
mflecting the finding that deviations were higher for incongruent
combinations of verb type and covariation (M = 6.5) as compared to
c o n m e n t combinatione (M = 5.2). A similar finding was obtained for
the mmensua ~ O U Pdthough
,
the effect of congruence was only
Rudolph I IMPLICIT VERB CAUSALIn
153
marginally significant, F(1, 16) = 3.22, p C .10, with higher deviations
for incongment combinations (M = 7.1) as compared to congnient
combinations (M= 6.4). m e n both consensus and distinctiveness were
presented, no effect ~f mngnience was found, F(1,16) = 0.08, ns (M=
6.1 for incongment combinations, M = 6.0 for congruent combinations).
Finally, correlations were compubd between implicit causality, perceived covariation, m d salience in the no-infarmation group on one
hand and the deviation Scores in the presence of explicit covariation
information on the
hand (mean deviation scores for each verb
across the three different information groups were computed for the
sake of simplicity, with completely corresponding results for separate
analyses). We hypothesized that for verbs with strong implicit causality effecta, and thua, strong effeds concerning perceived covariation
and salience, the effech of information to the contrary, as reflected in
the deviation scores, should be weaker. Hence, verbs with strong
implicit causalib should have higher deviation scores (because
stronger implicit information is pitted against the explicitly provided
covariation information). Note that only the absolute values of attributions, covariation information, and salience are used in these analySes to check whether variations within verb classes can be accounted
for by these variables.
For attributions, a positive correlation between implicit causality in
the no-information group and the mean deviation score was found,
r(19) = .56,p C .05. The stronger the implicit causaliiy effect of the verb,
the higher the deviation from the attribution predicted by explicit
covariation information. For perceived covariation information, a combined index of perceived consensus and distinctiveness was used (with
completely analogous results for separate analyses). A positive correlation between implicit covariation information and the mean deviation Score was found, r(19) = .59,p u .01, a s well as a positive correlation
between (implicit) salience and the mean deviation score, 419) = .42,
p < .07. That is, as for the w i t b verb class attribution pattems, the
higher or the more diagnostic the implicit information conceniing
covariation and salience, the stronger the impact of this implicit
information in the presence of explicit information to the contrary.
DISCUSSION OF STUDY 2
The present results replicate and extend previous findings in the
field of implicit causality. As the results of the no-inforrnation group
show, covariation information and salience are highly correlated concepts. In turn, both variables are also highly correlated with implicit
verb causality. Furthermore, the results of the information groups
reveal that the effects of explicit covariation information override the
implicit verb causalib effect: Without exception, attributions are in the
direction predicted by explicit covariation information. Hawever, when
164
JOURNALOF LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY I June 1997
only one kind of covariation information is explicitly provided (either
consensus or distinctiveness), a small but still reliable effed of implicit
verb causality is obtained. This iinding is compatible with the conclusion that for groups in which consensus and distinctiveness were
provided separately, the still missing impiicit part of covariation information exerted an influence of implicit verb meaning on the calculus
of the attribution. That is, implicit consensus might still operate in the
presence of explicit distinctiveness information, and implicit distinctiveness might still have an effect, aibeit smail, on attributions in the
presence of expLicit consensus.
Taken together, these findmgs are highly compatible with the theoretical reasoning of Van Kleeck and colleagues (19881, assuming that
a highly automatic schematic calculus of covariation information determines the verb ~ausalityeffed. In addition, the present results
suggest that the joint presentation of consensus and distinctiveness
(i.e., covariation of the interpersonal event with the sentence subject
and covariation of the event with the sentence object) completely
determine the causal inference, leaving the implicit calculus of causality no "space" to operate. These results further demonstrate the importance of covariation infmation in the context of implicit verb causality
A second finding, namely, the significant correlations between verb
causality, perceived covariation, and salience on one hand and the
infiuence of explicit covariation information on attributions on the
other hand, supports the Same argument: The infiuence of explicit
incongruent covariation information is weaker for verbs associated
with more pronounced variatiom in implicit verb causality, perceived
covariation, and salience, resulting in positive correlations between
these information variables and the deviation Scores in the information
groups. Again, these results are consistent with the notion that even
in the presence of explicit covariation information, implicit and explicit
information about the covariation of the effect over persons (consensus)
and entities (distinctiveness) are, to use the terminology proposed by
Brown and colleagues, pitted against each other" (VanKieeck,Hillger, &
Bmwn, 1989, p. 89).
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The elplanation of verb causality that is supported in the present
context is an explanation by clarsical attribution variables, covariation,
arid sal~~nce.
As several authors have pointed out (e.g., Hoffman &
W,1990; Rudolph & Försterling, in press; Semin & Fiedler, 19911,
the ev-idenm for this approach (as for all other explanations of verb
a u v .iweil) remains predominantly correlational in nature, since
covariations of the depenthe aviü.ble drta only reveal h-onjour
-V
(iss.. attributiom) m d the presumed mediating vari-
Rudolph I IMPLlCIT VERB CAUSALITY
155
able(~)
(i.e., covariation and salience). However, as Rudolph and FörSterling (in press) pointed out aRer reviewing all the available evidence, the explanation of verb causality in terms of covariation information presents the most comprehensive account of the available data
that has been advanced thus far. Additionally, the present findings
completely converge with thia view. As has been demonstrated in Study 2,
the implicit causality effect is completely diminished when both consensus and distinctiveness information are explicitly provided, thus
supporting the argument that the implicit calculus of these two information variables mediates the implicit causality in verbs when no
explicit information is available. So conclude, there is no other theoretical variable in the context of implicit verb causality that has
received converging evidence from so many different observations.
In addition, the present results reconfirm the usefulness of the AE
schema for action verbs. It has been shown that AE verbs, in English
as well as in German, give rise to attributions to the sentence objed.
Thus, the results of Van Meeck and colleagues (1988) are replicated
and extended in this resped as well. The implicit causal schemas of
the proposed verb types moderate the influence of explicit covariation
information (i.e., consensus and distinctiveness), and this holds for
interpersonal exMences and actions, regardiess of whether these
actions are camed out deliberately (AP verbs) or evoked by the sentence object (AE verbs).
Weher (1995)has characterized the normal Course of the construction of a psychological explanation or theory that, according to his
viewpoint, includes at least three stages: (a) the discovery of empirical
f a d , (b) the advancement from description to taxonomy, and (C) the
Progress from taxonomy to explanation. The domain of implicit verb
causality, as well as the present research, has dealt with all these
stages of theory building. In the present context, the "discovery of
empirical facts and relations" (Weiner, 1995, p. 247) is the observation
that Same kinds of interpersonal actions elicit attributions to the
sentence object (instead of, as predicted, the sentence subject), which
became apparent in studies by Au (1986),Brown and Fish (1983a1,and
Corrigan (1988,1992,1993). This finding has led us to a second stage
of theory development;namely, the proposal of an extended taxonomy
of interpersonal verbs that includes an AE schema for action verbs
(Rudolph & Försterling, in press). This proposal is well in line with
earlier considerations-which unfortunately have received
only little attention-by various authors in the linguistic and social
psychology literature on language and causality (e.g., Au, 1986; Fillmore, 1968; Heider, 1958; among others). Finally, it has been shown
that for all kinds of interpersonal actions and expenences, the same
kind(s) of mediating variable(s) (i.e., covariation and salience) might
be able to explain the effect under consideration, thus shifting from
pure taxonomy to a possible explanation.
166
JOUHNAL OF LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY / June 1997
I t is worth noting that it is this separation ofobservation, taxonomy,
and explanation as independent steps in the development of a theory
of implicit verb causality that enables us to avoid the danger of a
circular defhition of this phenomenon. Using different kinds of criteria
or variables to clasa% interpersonal events on one hand and to explain
implicit causality on the other hand is the only way to assure that we
are not begging the question. Thus, to paraphrase the conceptual
critique by Edwards and Potter (19931, the separation of classiiicatory
and explanatory concepta ensures that what is being demonstrated is
not only the robustness of semantic analysis but also a discovery about
how people explain interpersonal eventa. To extend this line of research, it seems promising to investigate the implicit causality in
language in situations in which the the verbal and nonverbal context
of descriptions of interpersonal events is altered (e.g., see McCann &
Higgins, 1992) and to further analyze how differentes in implicit
causality might change ongoing interactions (e.g., See Maass, Salvi,
Arcuri, & Semin, 1989).
1. Interpretative action verbs (IAYs) and descnptive action verbs (DAVs) of the LCM
correspond to action verbs of the AP type. S t a k verbs (SVs) are identical to ES s t a k
verbs, and stete-adion verbs (SAVs) are equivaient to SE s t a k verbs. The primary
differentiation that is added by the LCM is the UV-DAV distinction within the category
of action verbs (see also Table 3).
2. This Gecorpus of interpersonal verba is available fmm the author. h r d i n g
to a mmparison of this German mrpw with the Engliah corpus provided by Hoffman
and Tchir (19901, the aaymmetric distnbution of derivational f o r m is equally pronounced in Geand in Englieh.
3. Unfortunately, two of the verbs were misclaasi6ed because their denvational
form-in c0ntrae.t to the intended direction-referred to the sentence subject (namely,
direct-directnr, hurt-hurtful). Thia misdassification was taken into acmunt in the
statisticai analysea.
4. Note that for conaenaw, low values indicate mvariation (with the person), whereas
for disünctiveness, high values indicate mvariation (with the entity). Therefore, to
compute a eombined index for covariation (wnsensm plus distinctiveness), the values
for distindiveness have to be recoded so that low values indicate covariation of the effect
with the entity. Acnrreaponding index was also uaed in Study 2.
5. For example, high-consensus mfonnation (aa in 'many persons, besides A, admire
B") predicta an attribution to the sentence object (the entity). Thus, if subjects are asked
how likely it is that this event is due to A, they should rate this as 'not a t all likely" (O),
whereas they should perceive it aa Very likely" that the event was due to B (10).
Therefore, consensus inforrnation predicts a difference score of -10 in this case. If a
subject m e r e d 2 and 8, for example, the actual difference swre is -6, and the deviation
from the ideal wvariation-predicted score is 4.
Rudolph / IMPLICIT VERB CAUSALITY
words: The c a w and m-uences
of
Au, T. K (1986). A verb ia worth a tho-d
interpersonal
104-122.
eventa implicit in language. Journal of Memory and Langwge, 26,
Au, T. K. (1988). Language and cognition. In R. L. Schiefelbusch & L. L. Lloyd (Eds.),
Language perspectioes: Acquisition, retardatwn, a d intervention (2nd ed., pp. 125146). Augtin, TX: Pro-Ed.
B r o m , R., & Fish, D. (1983a). Are there universal schemas of psychological causaüb?
Archives de Psychologie, 51,145-153.
Brown, R., & Fish, D. (1983b). The psychological causality implicit in language. Cognition, 14,237-273.
B r o m , R., & Van Klesck M. H. (1989). Enough said: Three principles of explanation.
Journal of Personal* und Social Pqychology, 57,590-604.
Corrigan, R.(1988). Who dun it? The influence of actor-patient animacy and type of verb
in the rnaking of causai attributions. Journal of Memory and Language, 27,447-465.
Corrigan, R.(1992). The relatiomhip betxveen causal attributions and judgments of the
typicality of evenß described by sentences. Britkh Journnl of Social Psychology, 31,
351-368.
Comgan, R. (1993). C a u d attributions tm states and eventa described by different
classes of verbs. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 335-348.
Comgan, R., & Stevenson, C. (1994). Children's causal atttibutions to states and eventa
described by different claases of verbs. Cognitive Deuelopment, 9,235-256.
Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1993). Language and causation: Adiscursive action model of
description and attribution. Psychologicd Review, 100,2341.
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The cme for case. In E. Bach & R G. Harms (Eds.), Universais in
linguistic theory (pp. 1-87). New York: Holt, Rinehart 8 Wmston.
Försterling, F., & Schlangan, B. (1995). Causa1 inplicafioßs of verbs. Manuscript
submitted for publication.
Greene, S. B., & McKoon, G. (1995). Can't know: Experimental approaches ta verbs
exhibiting implicit c a u d t y . Psychobgicd Science, 6, 262-270.
Heider, F. (1926). Ding und Medium IThhgand medium]. Symposium, 1, 109-157.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wdey.
C., & Tchir, M. k (1990). Interpersonal verbs and dispositional adjectives: The
Ho-,
psychology of causality embodied in language. Journal of Personality a n d S o c d
Psychology, 58,765-778.
Kasof, J., & Lee, J. Y. (1994). Implicit causality as implicit salience. Journal ofpersonality ond S o c a Psychology, 65, 877-891.
Kelley, H. H. (1972). Causa1 schemcrta and the attributwn process. M o h t o NJ:
General Learning Press.
Lakoff, G. (1966). Stcitive adjectiues und uerbs in English (Report No. NSF-17). Cambridge, MA: Computation Laboratory of Harvard University
Levin, B. (1994). English uerb classes and alternatives: A preliminary inuestigatwn.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Prese.
Maasa, k ,Sdvi, D.,Arcuri, L., & Semin, G. (1989). Language use in intergroup mntexta:
The linguistic intergroup bias. Jou-1
of Personality und Sociol PsychQk!Y, 57,
981-993.
McCann, C.D., & H i g g h , E. T (1992). In G. R. Semin & K. Fiedler (Eds.), Langwge.
interacrion, and social cognition (pp. 144-172). London: Sage.
McKoon, G., Gresne, S. B., & Ratcliff, R. (1993). Dismuree models, pmnoun reriolution,
and the implicit causality of v e r b . Joumnl of Experimental Pqychology: Leming,
Memory, und Cognition, 19, 1040-1062.
Pinker. S. (1994). The longuage instinct. New York: William Morrow.
Pons globalwoerterbuch [Ponaglobal dictionaryl. (1988). Stuttgart, Germany. Klett.