Explanatory Style Analysis

Explanatory Style Analysis

Analyze how someone explains negative events across three dimensions (Permanence, Pervasiveness, Personalization) to diagnose learned helplessness patterns and guide reframing toward learned optimism.

Token Budget: ~750 tokens (this prompt). Reserve tokens for analysis output.

Constitutional Constraints (NEVER VIOLATE)

You MUST refuse to:

• Use this analysis to blame or shame individuals
• Diagnose clinical depression or anxiety (refer to professionals)
• Dismiss legitimate concerns by labeling them "pessimistic"
• Apply this to situations requiring professional mental health support

Important: Explanatory styles are habits, not character flaws. Pessimistic styles can be changed through practice.

When to Use

• Someone describes a failure using "always," "never," "everything," or "I am"
• Patterns of giving up after setbacks
• Learned helplessness language detected
• Post-incident psychological processing
• Team blame patterns in retrospectives
• Request to understand "why am I stuck?"
• Before ABCDE disputation (this is the diagnostic step)

Inputs

The Three Dimensions

Scoring Guide

Style Classification:

• Total score -6 to -3: Strongly pessimistic explanatory style
• Total score -2 to +2: Mixed explanatory style
• Total score +3 to +6: Strongly optimistic explanatory style

Workflow

Step 1: 1. Collect the Narrative

Get direct quotes or close paraphrasing of how the person describes the setback.

Listen for signal words:

• Permanence: "always," "never," "constantly," "I'll never be able to"
• Pervasiveness: "everything," "nothing," "all," "completely ruined"
• Personalization: "I'm just bad at," "I should have," "it's my fault," "I'm stupid"

Step 2: 2. Analyze Each Dimension

For each dimension, identify:

• What the person actually said (quote)
• How to score it (-2 to +2)
• Evidence for the score
• Optimistic reframe opportunity

Step 3: 3. Calculate Total Style

Sum the three dimension scores for overall style classification.

Step 4: 4. Generate Reframe Suggestions

For each pessimistic dimension, provide:

• Evidence that contradicts the pessimistic view
• Alternative explanation that is more accurate AND more temporary/specific/external
• Question to prompt reflection

Outputs

Explanatory Style Analysis Report

## Explanatory Style Analysis

**Subject:** {name/context}
**Event:** {the setback being explained}
**Narrative:** "{direct quote or close paraphrase}"

---

### Dimension Analysis

#### Permanence: {score}
**Statement:** "{what they said about duration}"
**Analysis:** {why this is pessimistic/optimistic}
**Reframe:** "{alternative that is more temporary}"
**Evidence:** {facts supporting the reframe}

#### Pervasiveness: {score}
**Statement:** "{what they said about scope}"
**Analysis:** {why this is pessimistic/optimistic}
**Reframe:** "{alternative that is more specific}"
**Evidence:** {facts supporting the reframe}

#### Personalization: {score}
**Statement:** "{what they said about cause}"
**Analysis:** {why this is pessimistic/optimistic}
**Reframe:** "{alternative acknowledging external factors}"
**Evidence:** {facts supporting the reframe}

---

### Overall Style

**Total Score:** {sum}/6 possible
**Classification:** {Strongly Pessimistic / Mixed / Strongly Optimistic}

---

### Recommended Next Steps

{Based on the analysis, what intervention is appropriate}

- If strongly pessimistic: Recommend ABCDE disputation
- If mixed: Focus on the specific pessimistic dimension(s)
- If optimistic: Validate and reinforce the healthy explanatory style

Error Handling

Constraints

• Do not oversimplify complex business realities
• Do not ignore resource and timeline constraints
• Acknowledge risks and uncertainties explicitly
• Honor stakeholder concerns and competing priorities
• Base recommendations on available evidence, not assumptions
• Consider second-order effects and unintended consequences

Additional Notes

Best practices:

• Use this skill when the situation clearly matches its intended use cases
• Combine with related skills for comprehensive analysis
• Iterate on outputs if initial results don't fully meet requirements

Common variations:

• Adjust the depth of analysis based on available time and information
• Scale the approach for different levels of complexity
• Adapt the output format to audience needs

When to skip this skill:

• The situation doesn't match the core use cases
• Simpler approaches would be more appropriate
• Time constraints require faster methods

Example

Input:

narrative: "I always mess up deployments. Everything I touch breaks. I'm just not cut out for this job."
event: Failed production deployment
context: DevOps engineer after second deployment issue this month

Output:

## Explanatory Style Analysis

**Subject:** DevOps engineer
**Event:** Failed production deployment (second this month)
**Narrative:** "I always mess up deployments. Everything I touch breaks. I'm just not cut out for this job."

---

### Dimension Analysis

#### Permanence: -2 (Strongly Pessimistic)
**Statement:** "I always mess up deployments"
**Analysis:** The word "always" indicates a stable, permanent view of the cause. This ignores all successful deployments and frames the pattern as unchangeable.
**Reframe:** "This deployment failed due to specific circumstances I can learn from"
**Evidence:** How many deployments has this person completed successfully? Two failures this month does not equal "always."

#### Pervasiveness: -2 (Strongly Pessimistic)
**Statement:** "Everything I touch breaks"
**Analysis:** "Everything" extends the failure far beyond deployments to all work. This global attribution is almost certainly inaccurate.
**Reframe:** "This specific deployment pipeline has issues I need to understand better"
**Evidence:** What has this person NOT broken recently? Documentation, code reviews, incident response, team relationships?

#### Personalization: -2 (Strongly Pessimistic)
**Statement:** "I'm just not cut out for this job"
**Analysis:** Complete internal attribution ignores all external factors. "Not cut out" implies fixed inability rather than learnable skills.
**Reframe:** "The deployment process lacks sufficient guardrails, and I need more practice with this specific system"
**Evidence:** What external factors contributed? Unclear documentation? Time pressure? Inadequate testing environment? Lack of peer review?

---

### Overall Style

**Total Score:** -6/6 possible
**Classification:** Strongly Pessimistic Explanatory Style

---

### Recommended Next Steps

This analysis reveals classic learned helplessness patterns across all three dimensions. Recommended intervention:

1. **Immediate:** Use ABCDE disputation to work through this specific event
2. **Evidence gathering:** Document successful deployments to counter "always" narrative
3. **External factors:** Investigate process issues that contributed (this may not be primarily a people problem)
4. **Pattern monitoring:** Watch for similar language in future setbacks
5. **Skill building:** Practice reframing exercises to build optimistic explanatory habits

Integration

This skill is the diagnostic step before abcde-disputation. The analysis identifies which dimensions need disputation and provides the evidence for reframing.

Part of the Martin Seligman expert methodology. Complements:

• perma-assessment (explanatory style affects all PERMA pillars)
• strengths-deployment (pessimistic style blocks strengths recognition)

Success Criteria

Analysis is complete when:

• All three dimensions scored with evidence
• Direct quotes or close paraphrases cited
• Reframes provided for pessimistic dimensions
• Overall style classified
• Appropriate next steps recommended