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.     

Medical Students' Perceptions of and Willingness to Treat Patients Who Are HIV Infected1

The purpose of this study is to examine the independent and joint influences of a patient's mode of acquisition of illness (blood transfusion vs. multiple sexual partners), attributions of responsibility (self-blame vs. chance blame), and sexual orientation (homosexual vs. heterosexual) on female and male medical students' attitudes toward and willingness to treat a patient who is HIV infected. One hundred nineteen 1st through internship-year medical students were randomly assigned to read and respond to case vignettes. Greater consistency between attribution of blame and mode of acquisition was related to more positive perceptions. Furthermore, the patient's sexual orientation influenced the providers' willingness to offer treatment, particularly for male medical students. Implications concerning health practices and medical education are considered.     

Situationism, Moral Responsibility and Blame

In Moral philosophy meets social psychology, Gilbert Harman argues that social psychology can educate folk morality to prevent us from committing the ‘fundamental attribution error,’ i.e. ‘the error of ignoring situational factors and overconfidently assuming that distinctive behaviour or patterns of behaviour are due to an agent’s distinctive character traits’ (Harman, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 99, 315–331, 1999). An overview of the literature shows that while situationists unanimously agree with Harman on this point, they disagree on whether we also tend to commit a kind of fundamental attribution error with respect to moral responsibility and blame. Do we also tend to ignore situational factors and overconfidently assume that people are morally responsible and blameworthy for their distinctive patterns of wrongful behaviour? Very few scholars have addressed this issue, and none has ever given a comprehensive account of moral responsibility and blame from a situationist perspective. In this paper, I argue that situationist social psychology impugns subjective theories of responsibility and blame which focus on the agent’s inner states and supports an objective theory—namely, the standard of the reasonable person. I defend this standard as a tool for moral appraisal, and then I refute the common misperception that this approach lets most perpetrators off the hook and poses a threat to society.     

Alcohol and Acquaintance Rape in Australia: Testing the Presupposition Model of Attributions About Responsibility and Blame1

According to the presupposition model of attributions about responsibility and blame (Bradbury & Fincham, 1990), an attribution of blame presupposes an attribution of responsibility. Both constructs share the dimensions of choice, intention, and accountability, but an additional dimension of liability relates only to blame. Reactions of 260 university students to acquaintance‐rape scenarios portraying different levels of alcohol intoxication were examined. Results showed that the model's dimensions explained much of the variance in attributions of responsibility and blame, although the hierarchical structure was not supported. Mediational analyses suggest that different attributional principles apply when assigning victim and perpetrator responsibility, which may explain why intoxicated victims are assigned more responsibility than sober victims, but intoxicated perpetrators are assigned less responsibility than sober perpetrators.     

The Spinal Cord Injured Revisited: The Relationship Between Self-Blame, Other-Blame and Coping

Self-blame has been viewed as functional for victims' adjustment to negative life events. This perspective has been primarily based on the findings of Bulman and Wortman's 1977 study of the spinal cord injured. The present study replicates and extends the Bulman and Wortman study, using similar measures on a comparable sample and comparable life event. Patients did not differentiate among the concepts of responsibility, fault, and blame for the cause of the accident. Patients were behavioral rather than characterological self-blaming and alcohol use prior to the accident was the best predictor of self-blame. Attributions of responsibility for the cause of the event versus responsibility for rehabilitation (sequelae of the event) did not distinguish effective from ineffective copers. Bulman and Wortman's (1977) single-item measure of coping correlated with this study's multidimensional assessment of coping. There was no relationship between patients' attributions of self-blame and nurse's ratings of patients' coping but other-blame was associated with poorer coping.     

The benefits of collective responsibility: How ingroup reputation concern motivates prosociality in intergroup contexts

Collective responsibility processes have been investigated from the perspectives of the outgroup (e.g., collective blame) and the ingroup (e.g., collective guilt). This article extends theory and research on collective responsibility with a third perspective, namely that of the individual actor whose behavior triggers the attribution of collective blame. Four experiments (n = 78, 118, 208 and 77, respectively) tested the hypotheses that collective responsibility processes influence the individual actors' appraisals, emotions and behavior. The possibility of collective blame for their individual action prompted more prosocial behavior among participants (Experiment 1). Participants also experienced more ingroup reputation concern and in turn more negative emotions (Experiment 2–4) for a past wrongdoing if it could reflect negatively on the ingroup in the eyes of outgroups. The increased negative emotions then motivated participants to improve the ingroup's image (Experiment 4). The effects were moderated by perceived ingroup entitativity, in that activating collective blame increased ingroup reputation concern and negative emotions only for ingroups perceived as highly entitative (Experiment 3).     

Blameworthiness and the Affective Account of Blame

One of the most influential accounts of blame—the affective account—takes its cue from P.F. Strawson’s discussion of the reactive attitudes. To blame someone, on this account, is to target her with resentment, indignation, or (in the case of self-blame) guilt. Given the connection between these emotions and the demand for regard that is arguably central to morality, the affective account is quite plausible. Recently, however, George Sher has argued that the affective account of blame, as understood both by Strawson himself and by contemporary Strawsonians, is inadequate because it cannot make sense of blameworthiness. In this paper I defend the affective account of blame against several of Sher’s arguments for this conclusion. In the process, I clarify the Strawsonian account of moral responsibility, and I discuss how the affective account of blame ought to be understood and articulated.     

Is Rape-Related Self Blame Distinct From Other Post Traumatic Attributions of Blame? A Comparison of Severity and Implications for Treatment

Rape treatment generally takes the form of standard trauma intervention, which may limit its ability to resolve rape-specific symptoms. For the sake of optimizing such treatment, the present study seeks to distinguish specific post-rape symptoms from those observed following other forms of trauma, particularly in respect to self-blame and related PTSD. Given typical societal victim-blaming following rape, self-blame is expected to be considerably more extreme among survivors of rape than in other victims, and predictive of relatively elevated post-trauma symptoms. Three hundred and four participants completed measures of blame attribution and PTSD, substantiating the hypotheses. Implications for rape treatment and social change are discussed.     

Depressed Clients' Attributions of Responsibility for the Causes of and Solutions to Their Problems

This study examined the attributions made by depressed clients about responsibility for the causes of and solutions to their problems. A total of 160 university counseling center clients completed the Beck Depression Inventory (A. T. Beck & R. A. Steer, 1987) and instruments measuring attributions of responsibility, internality, stability, and controllability for their problems. Support was obtained for the hypothesis that depressed clients blame themselves more for causing their problems than do nondepressed clients. However, client attributions of responsibility for solving problems were not affected by level of depressive symptoms. Finally, P. Brickman et al.'s (1982) theory of responsibility attributions was found to be modestly related with B. Weiner's (1985) attribution theory.     

Attributions of Blame and Responsibility in Relation to Distress and Health Behavior Change in People with AIDS and AIDS-related Complex1

There are conflicting views expressed in the literature about whether and under what conditions attributions of self-responsibility or self-blame for one's health affect such variables as distress, emotional adjustment, and adaptive coping. This study examined the impact of attributions of blame and responsibility for the cause and course of disease in 103 persons with the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) and AIDS-related complex (ARC). Attributing the cause of disease to the self was significantly positively correlated with dysphoria (a combined measure of depression, anxiety, and negative mood) in persons with ADS, whereas possible improvement attributed to the self was significantly negatively correlated with dysphoria in the ARC group. Persons with AIDS who attributed more responsibility for improvement to themselves also made more health behavior changes. Conversely, in the ARC group, health behavior change was not associated with attributing possible improvement to the self. We found no relationship between self-blame and any of the distress or behavior measures. Our findings that the pattern of association between attribution of responsibility are different between persons with AIDS and ARC underscores the need to examine psychological processes within the context of particular health conditions. The results also suggest that attributing self-responsibility for improvement does not have the negative psychological effects of “blaming the victim” as does attributing responsibility for the cause of AIDS to the self.     

Responsibility Attributions for Drunken Behavior: The Role of Expectancy Violation1

Research on attributions about drunken aggression has suggested that intoxication serves to excuse the aggressor while increasing blame to the victim. In this study, we examined subjects' responses to a scenario depicting a violent interaction in which intoxication of aggressor and victim, victim's behavior, and aggressor's previous violent background were varied. We predicted that to the extent that the violent act violated the expectations of the observer, alcohol intoxication would serve to decrease dispositional and responsibility attributions to the aggressor. Instead, the findings showed that alcohol use led to increased attributions of causality, blame, and responsibility for both aggressor and victim. The results are discussed in terms of both attribution theory and societal factors influencing the acceptability of excuses involving alcohol.     

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.     

Attitudes toward the division of child-rearing responsibility

Though the theoretical and clinical ramifications of attribution of primary responsibility to mothers for child rearing have been discussed extensively, there is little empirical data in this area. In the present study a sample of parents rated several child-rearing behaviors in terms of ideal maternal and paternal responsibility. Mothers were attributed primary responsibility for the largest proportion of behaviors, fathers for the smallest, and an intermediate number of items were rated as parentally shared. In addition, item analysis indicated a relationship between the directionality of responsibility attribution and traditional sex-role stereotypes. Implications for patterns of intrafamilial blame and clinical intervention are discussed.     

Attribution theory and rape victim responsibility

The topic of rape victimization emerged in the last decade as an important social problem. Using a sample of medical students, this paper attempts to unravel the attribution of responsibility imputed to the victim of rape. Victim characteristics were varied by using vignettes in order to create an “ideal” and a “non‐ideal” rape victim.

A testing of the attribution models of the just world and defensive attribution found that respondents assigned low levels of culpability to both victim types. Additionally, sex differences in perceptions of victim responsibility were found, with females according both victim types less blame than did males. Thus, partial support was found for the defensive attribution model.     

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.     

Guilt following transgression: an attribution of responsibility approach

People typically experience guilt when they violate sociomoral norms. Using Heider's (1958) attribution of responsibility model in the two experiments reported here, I examined the attributional mediators of posttransgression guilt. The basic design of both studies was a Level of Responsibility X Subject Role factorial. The first study used a role-playing methodology; in the second, subjects generated protocols describing their own past experiences. The second experiment also distinguished between attributions of responsibility, causality, and blame. In both studies, harmdoer guilt was higher following accidental as opposed to intentional transgressions. The discussion focuses on the dynamics of guilt development and reduction and on the importance of maintaining conceptual distinctions among the various attribution measures in future guilt research.     

Punitive Reactions to Completed Crimes Versus Accidentally Uncompleted Crimes1

Previous studies have shown that the harm caused by crime affects punitive reactions even if differences in the degree of harm are merely accidental. However, it remains unclear whether the effect is direct or whether it is mediated by attributed responsibility or blame. Participants were 303 university students who listened to 4 case vignettes (between‐subjects design). Half received information about a completed crime and half about an accidentally uncompleted crime. Crime type was either fraud or rape. The results suggest that individuals consider the actual harm to a significantly greater extent than attribution theory would predict. Moreover, the link between harm and punishment was virtually not mediated by attributed blame and not moderated by individual differences in morality. Future studies should investigate whether the harm‐punishment link is a result of an automatic act of retaliation or a desire to compensate for the harm done to the victim (restorative justice).     

Victim attributions and post-rape trauma

This study assessed (a) the kinds of attributions victims make, (b) whether behavioral and characterological self-blame are associated with other variables as hypothesized (e.g., perception of future avoidability of being raped), and (c) whether behavioral self-blame is associated with better post-rape adjustment (Janoff-Bulman, 1979). Attributions and adjustment were assessed in a sample of adult female rape victims seen at a hospital-based rape crisis program. Many victims blamed themselves but tended to place more blame on external factors. The pattern of relations between behavioral and characterological self-blame and other attributional measures did not support the hypothesized distinctions between them. Both kinds of self-blame were significantly associated with increased post-rape depression (all ps less than .05). Attributions strongly predicted adjustment, accounting for up to 67% of the variance in 3-day post-rape depression. The theoretical and clinical implications of these findings are discussed.