{"title":"过程-结果相关问题与言语互动过程编码的使用","authors":"W. Stiles","doi":"10.1080/10417949309372892","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The seemingly obvious path to evaluating interaction process components via their correlations with measures of the interaction's outcomes is blocked. Process‐outcome correlations can be positive, negative, or null for reasons that have nothing to do with the process component's efficacy or importance. Describing the interaction's structure and dynamic prosperities is a more promising, though less direct, alternative route.","PeriodicalId":212800,"journal":{"name":"Southern Journal of Communication","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1993-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The process‐outcome correlation problem and the uses of verbal interaction process coding\",\"authors\":\"W. Stiles\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10417949309372892\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The seemingly obvious path to evaluating interaction process components via their correlations with measures of the interaction's outcomes is blocked. Process‐outcome correlations can be positive, negative, or null for reasons that have nothing to do with the process component's efficacy or importance. Describing the interaction's structure and dynamic prosperities is a more promising, though less direct, alternative route.\",\"PeriodicalId\":212800,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Southern Journal of Communication\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1993-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Southern Journal of Communication\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10417949309372892\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Southern Journal of Communication","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10417949309372892","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
The process‐outcome correlation problem and the uses of verbal interaction process coding
The seemingly obvious path to evaluating interaction process components via their correlations with measures of the interaction's outcomes is blocked. Process‐outcome correlations can be positive, negative, or null for reasons that have nothing to do with the process component's efficacy or importance. Describing the interaction's structure and dynamic prosperities is a more promising, though less direct, alternative route.