Less pain and more to gain: why high-status group members blame their failure on discrimination.

Members of high-status groups are more likely than members of low-status groups to blame their failure on discrimination and are less likely to blame it on themselves. This tendency was demonstrated in 3 experiments comparing men and women, White and Black students, and members of experimentally created high- and low-status groups. Results also showed that when making an attribution to discrimination, high-status group members were less likely to experience a threat to their social state self-esteem, performance perceived control, and social perceived control and were more likely to protect their performance state self-esteem. These findings help to explain why high-status group members are more willing to blame their failure on discrimination by showing that it is less harmful for them than for low-status group members.     

自我责任归因与推断的心理结构与特征

基于日常经验取向,运用问卷调查的方法,探索自我责任归因与推断的心理结构及其基本特征。对382名被试问卷调查的统计分析结果显示：（1）自我责任归因与推断结构是一种一元单向决定模式,即“责任推断→责任情感→责任行为”。（2）个体倾向于较多地将挫折或失败的原因归咎于可控起因,而较少归因于不可控起因。（3）个体在进行自我责任推断时,可控性程度仅对责任的大小构成影响,并不影响对是否承担责任的推断。（4）在自身应为挫折或失败承担责任时,个体在情感体验上较多自我责备,较少自我同情;在行为反应上,较多积极应对,较少甚至不大会消极应对。     

Who's to blame: Attributions regarding causality in spouse abuse

Spouse abuse is examined from the perspective of attribution theory. Aggressors are seen as attributing their violent behavior to external causes, whether by projecting their negative traits onto their spouses or by finding excuses which blame temporary environmental factors. In contrast, victims often attribute the abuse to defects within themselves or situational factors affecting their spouses. The attribution process seems affected by the frequency, intensity and duration of the abuse, with temporal factors playing an important role in the woman's internalizing style. Furthermore, inadequate early coping efforts play a powerful role in establishing cognitive-perceptual patterns that serve to perpetuate the abuse.     

Sadly,you made me earn it: The effect of responsibility attributions for sadness on food indulgence

This article addresses the mixed findings of prior studies regarding hedonic food indulgence in sadness. Building upon the idea that self‐licensing may underlie the effect of sadness on food indulgence, the current research identifies responsibility attributions, namely, whether consumers attribute the cause of their sadness to themselves or to others, as an important factor that may affect sense of deservingness, and consequently affect hedonic food consumption in sadness. Four experiments show that sadness enhances food indulgence more when consumers attribute the responsibility for their sadness to others rather than to themselves. Specifically, findings show that (a) when self‐responsibility attributions are unlikely, sadness increases chocolate consumption; (b) sadness leads to a greater sense of deservingness and enhanced food indulgence when people hold others rather than themselves responsible for their sadness; and (c) the responsibility attribution effect on food indulgence in sadness is more pronounced at high levels of sadness and when the event that triggered one's sadness is significant. These findings contribute to our understanding of the factors that influence food indulgence in sadness.     

Post‐purchase disadvantages of a less preferred brand and how they can be overcome: an examination of regret and attribution

This research examines the post‐purchase experience after choosing the most preferred brand versus a less preferred brand. When they experience positive product outcomes, those who chose their most preferred brand tend to give credit to the brand, whereas those who chose a less preferred brand attribute it to their smart choice. In contrast, with negative outcomes, those with the most preferred brand place the blame on themselves, whereas those with a less preferred brand blame the brand. Nevertheless, a silver lining emerges when brand attribution and satisfaction increase to the level of the most preferred brand after two consecutive positive experiences with a less preferred brand. Repeated positive experience could turn people's attention to more on good product quality of a less preferred brand than on cheaper price.     

Investigating the effects of age and gender on cowitness suggestibility during blame attribution

Despite a large body of research investigating the effects of age and gender on eyewitness suggestibility, the majority of studies has focussed on the impressionability of participants when attempting to recall the presence of items from an event. Very little research has attempted to investigate the effects of age and gender on the suggestibility of eyewitnesses when attempting to attribute blame. Participants (N = 268) viewed and discussed a crime (video) with cowitnesses before giving individual statements. Confederates were used to expose the participants to misinformation during the discussion, suggesting that the wrong bystander was responsible for the offence. Findings indicated that participants who encountered the misinformation were more likely to make a false blame attribution and were more confident in their erroneous judgements. The results found no significant age‐ or gender‐related differences in blame conformity rates; however, male eyewitnesses showed greater levels of overconfidence in their false responses than female participants, after encountering cowitness misinformation.     

Infra-humanization: Ambivalent sexism and the attribution of primary and secondary emotions to women

Leyens and colleagues (e.g., Leyens et al., 2001) have observed that people are more likely to attribute uniquely human (secondary) emotions to the in-group than to the out-group. We examined whether males and females differentially attribute primary and secondary emotions to women. We hypothesized that individual differences in hostile sexism (HS) and benevolent sexism (BS), rather than participant sex, would predict the attribution of emotions to women. As expected, high BS individuals were more likely to attribute positive secondary emotions to women than low BS individuals. In contrast, high HS individuals were more likely to deny positive secondary emotions to women than low HS individuals. Participant sex was not related to the attribution of emotions to women after the effects of HS and BS were accounted for.     

Judgments of cause and blame: the effects of intentionality and foreseeability

What are the factors that influence everyday attributions of cause and blame? The current studies focus on sequences of events that lead to adverse outcomes, and examine people's cause and blame ratings for key events in these sequences. Experiment 1 manipulated the intentional status of candidate causes and their location in a causal chain. Participants rated intentional actions as more causal, and more blameworthy, than unintentional actions or physical events. There was also an overall effect of location, with later events assigned higher ratings than earlier events. Experiment 2 manipulated both intentionality and foreseeability. The preference for intentional actions was replicated, and there was a strong influence of foreseeability: actions were rated as more causal and more blameworthy when they were highly foreseeable. These findings are interpreted within two prominent theories of blame, [Shaver, K. G. (1985). The attribution of blame: Causality, responsibility, and blameworthiness. New York: Springer-Verlag] and [Alicke, M. D. (2000). Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 556-574]. Overall, it is argued that the data are more consistent with Alicke's model of culpable control.     

Attributional differences for driving while impaired: a comparison of alcoholics, inmates, and impaired drivers

This study examines the differences among attributions for reasons for arrest and attributions for blame among groups of Canadian alcoholics, correctional facility inmates, and impaired drivers. Multiple-recidivist impaired driving offenders were more likely to attribute blame for impaired driving behavior to the mental-element factor alcoholism, even though they possessed lower General Alcoholism Scale (Wanberg, Horn, & Foster, 1977) scores than alcoholic subjects. They did not differ in their attributions to luck versus motivation or to general driving ability in their assessment of the reasons for arrest but did view the task of driving well while drunk as being less difficult than other groups. Inconsistencies in responses regarding responsibility for behavior are related to attribution theories which differentiate between perceptions of controllability and intentionality.     

Self-serving Bias and Actor-Observer Differences In Organizations: An Empirical Analysis1

Self-serving attributional bias is the tendency for a subordinate to attribute personal (internal) cause for successful performance but to assign cause for failures to external factors. The actor-observed difference in attribution is the tendency for concerned observers (managers) of a subordinate's performance to attribute cause for the performance to factors internal to the subordinate, in direct opposition to the subordinate's external attribution for the same performance. This research investigated both phenomena. Twenty-four experienced managers served as manager/subjects in simulated appraisal situations. Subjects with prior work experience served as subordinate/subjects. Each manager participated in four separate simulated performance appraisals, under differing conditions of objective performance and work history, for a total of 96 interactions. The results revealed a strong self-serving bias on the part of subordinates. The results also strongly supported the notion of an actor-observer difference in performance attribution. Subordinates tended to attribute more externally and managers tended to attribute more internally (to the subordinate), regardless of performance level. The research also served to delineate and articulate the relationship between self-serving bias and actor-observer differences.     

Attributions of Blame in Sexual Assault to Perpetrators and Victims of Both Genders1

Previous research found that men attribute more blame to rape victims than do women; men also attribute less blame to perpetrators. In rape situations with a male perpetrator and a female victim, the roles of perpetrator and victim are confounded with gender category. To determine whether men are more lenient toward perpetrators or toward other males, the present study examined attributions of blame in scenarios that varied the gender category of both perpetrator and victim. Results showed that men's and women's attributions of blame to perpetrators were based on the role that was enacted, rather than gender per se: Men attributed less blame to perpetrators than did women, regardless of the perpetrator's gender category, indicating that men were more lenient toward perpetrators than were women. In addition, when the victim was female, the perpetrator was blamed more and the victim was blamed less than when the victim was male.     

Effects of classroom context on university students’ judgments about cheating: mediating and moderating processes

Hypothetical vignettes were used to examine the effects of classroom context variables (pedagogical quality and classroom goal structure) on undergraduate (study 1) and graduate (study 2) students’ judgments about cheating. Consistent with attribution theory and previous findings, poor (versus good) pedagogy and performance (versus mastery) goals structures resulted in more teacher blame and less student blame for cheating, and cheating was rated as more acceptable and more likely in these situations. Participants’ own prior cheating history but not their experience as a classroom teacher also affected these judgments. Relations between classroom context variables and assigned blame for cheating were mediated by students’ assessments of the fairness of the classroom situation.     

An Attribution Theory Analysis of Romantic Jealousy

Two studies examined the utility of attribution theory (B. Weiner, 1985, 1995) in explaining romantic jealousy responses. In Study 1, by varying hypothetical scenarios according to Weiner's attribution distinction (B. Weiner, 1995), 156 undergraduates perceived jealousy to increase when an unfaithful partner's interaction with interlopers was deliberate (i.e., personal causality), controllable, intentional, and without mitigating excuses. High trait jealousy amplified these ratings but did not affect the underlying attribution relationships. Reversing the attribution-to-jealousy linkage in Study 2, 128 participants from the general population recalled jealousy episodes in their lives, then made attributions for the events and categorized them using Weiner's dimensions (B. Weiner, 1985). Jealousy was more likely when the cause of a partner's indiscretion was perceived to be internal, controllable, and intentional—although not necessarily stable. The findings verify that attribution theory identifies blame conditions that trigger jealousy responses.     

Sex differences in attribution for occupational success

A study was conducted to both test and extend Deaux's (Sex: A perspective on the attribution process. In J. H. Harvey, W. J. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd, (Eds.), New directions in attribution research, Volume 1. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1976) expectancy model of sex-linked differences in attribution for success. Specifically, it was hypothesized that female occupational subjects would attribute success more to the unstable causes of effort and luck, as well as the stable internal cause of interpersonal skill, while male occupational subjects would make higher attributions to the stable causes of ability and task ease. This hypothesis was supported for the causes of effort, luck, and task ease. Additionally, a comparison between sex differences in attribution occurring within a nonpersonal vs. personal frame of reference showed three of the expected sex differences in attribution to be stronger in the latter condition. Moreover, it was shown that this difference was largely accounted for by changes in females' rather than males' attributions. A final hypothesis, namely, that males would perceive themselves as more successful in their occupations than females, was not confirmed.     

When more blame is better than less: The implications of internal vs. external attributions for the repair of trust after a competence- vs. integrity-based trust violation

This study examines the trust repair implications of apologizing with an internal vs. external attribution after a competence- vs. integrity-based trust violation. By considering theory regarding differences in the perceived diagnosticity of information about competence vs. integrity, we note that the conditions where external attributions would be more necessary for mitigating one’s blame are precisely the conditions where such external attributions are less likely to be believed. Moreover, empirical studies that have compared the relative benefits of external and internal attributions for repairing trust have reached conflicting conclusions regarding the response that should be used. We asked 189 college students to respond to videotaped scenarios in which they were asked to play the role of a manager and make decisions about hiring an accountant who had misfiled a tax return with a prior employer. Each participant was presented with one of four scenarios, which differed with respect to the type of violation (competence vs. integrity) and type of response (apology-internal vs. apology-external). The results revealed a significant interaction whereby trust was repaired more successfully when mistrusted parties apologized with an internal, rather than external, attribution when the trust violation concerned matters of competence, but apologized with an external, rather than internal, attribution when the trust violation concerned matters of integrity. These findings suggest that being guilty of an integrity-based violation can be so detrimental for trust that any mitigating response, even one that perceivers are likely to question, may prove worthwhile.     

Reciprocity Effects with Intimate and Nonintimate Disclosure: The Importance of Establishing Baseline

Abstract

A number of laboratory studies report evidence for a self-serving bias in attribution for group success and failure. In more recent research using real-life groups, however, a group-serving bias has emerged: Individual group members attribute blame to themselves for group failure and share the responsibility for success with fellow group members. The present study attempted to assess the extent to which group members are sensitive to attributional styles for group performance. Self-serving and group-serving response patterns were prepared by the experimenter, in the form of answers given by hockey players to a questionnaire, and these were presented to members of different hockey teams. Respondents reacted consistently more favorably to the player exhibiting the group-serving pattern, especially in terms of the contribution such a person would make to group cohesiveness.     

Patterns in Blame Attributions in Maltreated Youth: Association with Psychopathology and Interpersonal Functioning

This investigation explored patterns of blame attributions in 128 youth, primarily (87%) female, with maltreatment histories. Second, the study also evaluated the relative variance in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptom severity, emotional distress, and interpersonal functioning outcomes, accounted for by age, abuse characteristics, and blame attribution patterns. Cluster analyses revealed distinctive blame profiles: high perpetrator blame, moderate perpetrator blame, high self-blame, high perpetrator/high self-blame, and low perpetrator/low self-blame. Regression analyses yielded significant models, accounting for 15% to 34% of the variance of outcomes. Most notably, youth endorsing a high perpetrator/high self-blame (i.e., compounded blame) attribution pattern reported poorer outcomes as compared to youth presenting with other blame profiles. Maltreatment type and age differences were not demonstrated across clusters. Implications and limitations are discussed.     

The Moderating Influence of Homophobia and Gender‐Role Traditionality on Perceptions of Male Rape Victims1

This study investigated the influence of homophobia and gender‐role traditionality (GRT) on perceptions of male rape victims. Victims were assigned more blame in acquaintance rape than in stranger rape, and homosexual victims were blamed more than were heterosexual victims. Homophobia predicted patterns in rape minimization only when the victim was homosexual. Homophobia also predicted patterns of victim blame attribution in both homosexual and heterosexual victims, with a greater impact when the victim was homosexual. GRT predicted patterns of rape minimization in acquaintance rape, but not in stranger rape; and GRT did not predict differences in victim blame attribution.     

Attribution of blame in rape cases: A review of the impact of rape myth acceptance,gender role conformity and substance use on victim blaming

This article reviews research literature examining the effects of key factors that influence individual's attitudes towards victims of rape. The impact of rape myths, gender roles and substance use on attributions of blame in cases of rape are discussed. The phenomenon of victim-blaming within such cases is explored with reference to the attribution theory to help explain why rape victims are sometimes seen as deserving of their misfortune. Findings indicate that men demonstrate higher rape myth acceptance than women and attribute higher levels of blame to victims than women; women who violate traditional gender roles are attributed more blame than those women who do not; and women who consume alcohol prior to their attack are attributed higher levels of blame than those who are not intoxicated. The findings are discussed with reference to the implications for the Criminal Justice System and future interventions for both victims and perpetrators of rape.