Potter2020

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Potter2020
BibType ARTICLE
Key Potter2020
Author(s) Jonathan Potter, Alexa Hepburn, Derek Edwards
Title Rethinking Attitudes and Social Psychology: Issues of Function, Order, and Combination in Subject-Side and Object-Side Assessments in Natural Settings
Editor(s)
Tag(s) assessment combinations, assessment function, Assessments, attitudes, conversation analysis, discursive psychology, functional attitude theory, object-side, social psychology methods, subject-side, EMCA
Publisher
Year 2020
Language English
City
Month
Journal Qualitative Research in Psychology
Volume 17
Number 3
Pages 372–395
URL Link
DOI 10.1080/14780887.2020.1725952
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

This paper overviews limitations in both the way attitude function has been conceptualized in social psychology, and in the empirical basis for the claims made. We suggest that the premise that attitudes are expressed for cognitive/motivational reasons is an untested artefact of the methodological procedures commonly used. In contrast, an investigation of `attitudes' in the wild (assessments, evaluations, judgements) is offered as an alternative pathway to address questions of function. The analytic core of the paper is the analysis of a collection of interactional examples where an Object-side assessment (e.g. `this soup is lovely') is issued in combination with a Subject-side assessment (e.g. `I love this soup'). We investigate what is achieved by combining O-side and S-side assessments: why use an O-side assessment and then an S-side assessment? Or, why use an S-side assessment and then an O-side? We show that (a) O-side and S-side assessments support different actions; (b) the combination manages world and speaker issues in a single package; (c) the combination of O-side and S-side can be hearably complete; (d) O-side first, S-side second can be a resource for building (on) affiliation; (e) S-side first, O-side second can be a platform for continued dispute. Programmatic work on the function of assessments is proposed.

Notes