The role of positive thinking in social perceptions of cancer outcomes

Pressure for ‘positive thinking’ (PT; i.e. focusing on positive thoughts/suppressing negative thoughts to ‘fight’ cancer) burdens cancer patients facing health deterioration. It was determined whether PT exposure enhanced effort, control and responsibility attributions assigned to an individual for his/her cancer trajectory. Within an online blog a hypothetical same-gender person describes a personal cancer experience. 482 participants were assigned to one of six experimental conditions in which we manipulated PT exposure (blogger learns about ‘power of PT’ but does not try it, blogger tries PT, control/no PT) and cancer outcome (successful/unsuccessful treatment). A 3?×?2?×?2 multivariate analysis of covariance (with personal cancer experience covariates) tested PT exposure?×?cancer outcome?×?gender effects on attributions for the blogger's cancer outcome. Results indicate that PT exposure enhanced effort and responsibility attributions assigned to individuals for their cancer outcomes and that responsibility attributions differed as a function of gender. Findings suggest that exposure to the idea of PT may lead to cancer patients being perceived as culpable if they do not recover from the disease.     

Gender Differences in Attributions and Emotions in Helping Contexts

Gender differences in the provision and receipt of emotional support may result from differences in the formation of responsibility and effort attributions in support-seeking interactions. Participants (N = 1,211, primarily middle-class, European American college students) read support-seeking scenarios that varied in support-seeker gender, responsibility for the problem, and effort to resolve the problem, as well as the problem itself, and completed measures of responsibility, effort attributions, and emotions (anger, sympathy). Results indicated qualified and subtle gender differences in attributions, emotions, and attribution--emotion associations, which are broadly consistent with the application of gendered moral orientations and instrumentality norms. These findings are discussed with respect to theorizing about gender differences in attribution processes and emotional support behavior.     

Power and gender influences on responsibility attributions: the case of disagreements in relationships

In a sample of 156 college students (74 men and 82 women), the authors examined the influences of power status and gender on responsibility attributions and resolution choices during disagreements in personal relationships. The participants read vignettes in which relationship partners disagreed; then the participants placed themselves in the situations depicted and reported their perceived responsibility and resolution choices. The participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 power-status conditions (you have/your partner has greater power in the situation). Power status was based on resource power (i.e., a monetary inheritance) or on perceived power (i.e., financial knowledge). The authors tested 2 alternative power-status hypotheses (justified benefits/rights and ability/accountability) and 1 gender hypothesis. The results supported both power-status hypotheses. In addition, the men's and the women's responsibility attributions and resolution choices (i.e., adhering to their own wishes or deferring to their partner's wishes) revealed differential dependence on the type of power held by the person with greater situational power. The authors suggest issues further research concerning how situational differences in socially based expectations (e.g., power status and gender) may affect conflicts within relationships.     

Attributions About Achievement and Intentions About Further Study in Social Context

This project examined sources and consequences of attributions for achievement for boys and girls at co-ed (N = 663) and single-sex schools (N = 697). Overall attributions emphasised long and short term effort, over other personal (ability, liking) and social reasons (parents, teachers) or feeling good or bad on the day. Attributions were substantially similar for girls and boys, with particular variations in attributions to effort and ability at co-ed and not single-sex schools. Results suggested an illusory glow for boys more than girls in attributions to ability and effort for doing well in Mathematics and English, and traditional gender stereotyping in attributions to poor ability for not doing well in Mathematics. Results showed weak associations between attributions about effort and ability with intentions for Mathematics and English courses in senior high school. Findings suggest further research about personal and social sources of attributions in co-ed schools, and question the practical significance of attributions for achievement motivation.     

Power and Gender Influences on Responsibility Attributions: The Case of Disagreements in Relationships

Abstract

In a sample of 156 college students (74 men and 82 women), the authors examined the influences of power status and gender on responsibility attributions and resolution choices during disagreements in personal relationships. The participants read vignettes in which relationship partners disagreed; then the participants placed themselves in the situations depicted and reported their perceived responsibility and resolution choices. The participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 power-status conditions (you have/your partner has greater power in the situation). Power status was based on resource power (i.e., a monetary inheritance) or on perceived power (i.e., financial knowledge). The authors tested 2 alternative power-status hypotheses (justified benefits/rights and ability/accountability) and 1 gender hypothesis. The results supported both power-status hypotheses. In addition, the men's and the women's responsibility attributions and resolution choices (i.e., adhering to their own wishes or deferring to their partner's wishes) revealed differential dependence on the type of power held by the person with greater situational power. The authors suggest issues further research concerning how situational differences in socially based expectations (e.g., power status and gender) may affect conflicts within relationships.     

GENDER AND CAUSAL ATTRIBUTIONS FOR MASTERY, PERSONAL, AND INTERPERSONAL EVENTS

In two studies, achievement was conceptualized as consisting of affiliative as well as mastery events. Participants wrote about a recent achievement, provided causal attributions, and assessed the degree to which that achievement involved mastery, personal, and interpersonal themes in the first study. A second study randomly assigned participants a theme and asked them to assess the involvement of traditional correlates of achievement. Results indicated that individuals viewed achievement as consisting of mastery, personal, and interpersonal activities. These activities differed, however, in their associated pattern of correlates and attributions. Mastery events were characterized by public standards, high expectations, a process focus, completed time frame, and attributions to ability and effort. Interpersonal events were characterized by internal standards, lower expectations, an outcome focus, ongoing time frame, and attributions to luck. Characteristics reported for personal events varied as a function of methodology.     

Locus of control and causal attribution for positive and negative outcomes on university examinations

One-hundred-five internal and external locus of control subjects attributed responsibility for their positive and negative outcomes on a university examination. Internal and positive outcome subjects attributed responsibility to internal causal factors while external and negative outcome subjects were more external in their causal attributions. Overall ratings of the four causal components ability, effort, task, and luck were not always in accord with the Weiner model two-dimensional classification.     

Depression and causal attributions for success and failure

The present study investigated the effects of depression on causal attributions for success and failure. Specifically, female university students were separated into depressed and nondepressed groups on the basis of Costello--Comrey Depression Scale scores, and then received either 20%, 55%, or 80% reinforcement on a word association task. Following the task, attributions were made for outcome using the four factors of effort, ability, task difficulty, and luck. In accord with predictions generated from a self-serving biases hypothesis, nondepressives made internal (ability, effort) attributions for a successful outcome (80% reinforcement) and external attributions (luck, task difficulty) for a failure outcome (20% reinforcement). As predicted from consideration of the self-blame component of depression, the attributions made by depressives for a failure outcome were personal or internal. Contrary to expectations, depressives also made internal attributions for a successful outcome. The findings for depressives were discussed in relation to the recently revised learned helplessness model of depression, which incorporates causal attributions. For nondepressives, the findings were considered in terms of the self-serving biases hypothesis.     

Attributions of responsibility for an incident of sexual harassment in a university setting

The present study replicated and extended research on the effects of observer characteristics (i.e., gender and traditional vs. less traditional attitudes) on attributions of responsibility in a case of sexual harassment. Participants (120 males, 120 females) were randomly assigned to one of six conditions that varied the gender of the victim and the victim's reaction. A sexual harassment scenario involving a university student and professor of the opposite gender was presented as an audiotape of the victim's account. Participants with less traditional attitudes attributed less responsibility to the victim than did participants with traditional attitudes. Females attributed more responsibility to the perpetrator and the victim of the same gender than did males. Victim reaction interacted with participant gender; males responded in a manner that was consistent with the reaction manipulation, whereas females attributed less responsibility to the self-blaming victim than to either the perpetrator-blaming or control victims. The results are discussed in the light of attribution theory and previous research.     

Addiction and Responsibility: A Survey of Opinions

ABSTRACT

This article reports the result of a survey about causal beliefs, normative conceptions and moral evaluations of addicts and addiction in the general population. Specifically, we focused on four issues: To what extent are the normative conceptions of addiction current in the philosophical and scientific literature reflected in laypersons' conception of addiction? How do laypersons rate addicts on perceived responsibility? Which factors influence laypersons' responsibility attributions in the context of addiction? What feelings and attitudes (anger/sympathy/help-giving intentions) do laypersons have toward addicts? We found that, although laypersons seem to assume a weakness view of addiction, their patterns of responsibility attributions vary depending on type of drugs combined with perceived severity of outcome, where the latter even overrides the attributional effects of the actor's perceived control over events. Some explanations of the data are suggested, and various consequences with respect to help-giving behavior, are discussed.     

Effects of Gender and Confrontation on Attributions of Female-Perpetrated Intimate Partner Violence

The present study examined the effects of perpetrator gender, victim confrontation, observer gender, and observer exposure to violence on attributions of blame and responsibility for partner violence. Data were collected from 728 college-aged students enrolled at two southeastern universities in the United States. Results demonstrated gendered biases among both male and female respondents. Men and women attributed less responsibility and blame to female perpetrators than male perpetrators, especially if the perpetrator was provoked. Moreover, exposure to violence was important for predicting attributions, and some of the evidence for observer effects were reduced to non-significance once these variables were added to the model.     

Effect of perceived choice,expected outcome,and observed outcome of an action on the causal attributions of actors

An experiment was conducted to test the hypothesis that actors' causal attributions for success and failure would be affected by the degree of perceived choice they had in taking an action. Actors either were assigned, or selected one of four therapeutic outlines which were expected to have either a positive or a negative effect, and which actually had either a positive or negative outcome on a purportedly phobic person. For negative outcomes, it was predicted that perceived choice would induce a sense of personal responsibility when a positive outcome was expected, and lead actors to attribute more responsibility to themselves as a result. Results supported this prediction. For positive outcomes, however, actors attributed responsibility to themselves regardless of expectancy or choice. Actors were also found to attribute generally more responsibility to themselves for positive than negative outcomes. Results were discussed in terms of self-esteem motivation and the information available to the actor.     

Attributions of Responsibility in Cases of Sexual Harassment: The Person and the Situation1

When observers learn about a case of sexual harassment, it is common for them to assign responsibility to the victim and perpetrator. However, attributions of responsibility are complex judgments often based on variables beyond the case's details (e.g., attitudes). The present study examined how victim response, victim and perpetrator gender, and participant gender and gender‐role attitudes influenced participants' attributions. Victim and perpetrator responsibility were measured before and after participants knew the victim's reaction in order to examine whether new information would alter participants' attributions. Consistent with previous research, gender differences were found for attributions and attitudes. Victim and perpetrator gender did not affect attributions. However, biases appeared in open‐ended responses. Finally, only females made distinctions of responsibility across victim reaction condition.     

An Examination of Date Rape, Victim Dress, and Perceiver Variables Within the Context of Attribution Theory

Researchers examined the influence of victimdress, perceiver gender, situational relevance, andpersonal relevance on attributions of responsibility fordate rape. Participants were from a campus population described as 75% White non-Hispanic, 14% Blacknon-Hispanic, 2% Asian, 2% Hispanic, 4% nonresidentaliens, and 3% other, and were characterized asprimarily middle class. Participants read a date rapescenario, viewed a photograph of the victim, attributedresponsibility to victim and perpetrator, and estimatedsituational relevance and personal relevance.Multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) indicated a significant difference between groups(perceiver gender, victim dress) on the two dependentvariables (responsibility of victim and perpetrator) andthe covariates. There were significant differences in attribution of responsibility to the femalevictim due to perceiver gender, victim dress, and thecovariate personal relevance, accounting for a smallproportion of variance. Men attributed moreresponsibility to the victim than women. Both men and womenwho viewed a photograph of the victim in a short skirtattributed more responsibility to the victim than thosewho viewed a photograph of the victim in a moderate or long skirt. As womens' personal relevanceincreased, attribution of responsibility to the victimdecreased. Men attributed less responsibility to themale perpetrator than women. As mens' situational relevance increased, attribution ofresponsibility to the perpetrator decreased. Presumably,participants' attributed responsibility was motivated byblame avoidance. Theoretical and practical implications are presented.     

Effects of Manipulation on Attributions of Causation,Free Will,and Moral Responsibility

If someone brings about an outcome without intending to, is she causally and morally responsible for it? What if she acts intentionally, but as the result of manipulation by another agent? Previous research has shown that an agent's mental states can affect attributions of causal and moral responsibility to that agent , but little is known about what effect one agent's mental states can have on attributions to another agent. In Experiment 1, we replicate findings that manipulation lowers attributions of responsibility to manipulated agents. Experiments 2–7 isolate which features of manipulation drive this effect, a crucial issue for both philosophical debates about free will and attributions of responsibility in situations involving social influence more generally. Our results suggest that “bypassing” a manipulated agent's mental states generates the greatest reduction in responsibility, and we explain our results in terms of the effects that one agent's mental states can have on the counterfactual relations between another agent and an outcome.     

The usefulness of distinguishing between a defensive and a nondefensive external locus of control

The study's purpose was to determine whether a distinction can be made between individuals adopting an external locus of control as a defense and those adopting the orientation because it reflects their life experience. It was hypothesized that the two groups differ in the amount of personal responsibility they accept for task outcomes. Internals and externals were identified and then further designated as high or low in action taking. Among externals, a high action-taking score implied defensiveness. Subjects randomly received either success or failure feedback on a presumed task of interpersonal sensitivity. Defensive externals varied their causal attributions as a function of outcome, whereas nondefensive externals did not (p < .05). The distinction between defensive and nondefensive external control was thus supported.     

Self-serving bias in the attribution of responsibility: Cognitive versus motivational explanations

The purpose of this study is to compare the cognitive and motivational explanations of differences in the responsibility assigned to the victim of a crime. It has generally been found that the victim of a crime is assigned more responsibility for that crime by similar others if its consequences are severe. The motivational explanation for this finding is that subjects are threatened by the idea that a serious crime can happen by chance. The cognitive explanation is that serious crimes are rarer and subjects attribute more of the responsibility for rarer events to those who experience them. This study tested these two explanations by independently varying the severity and the likelihood of a crime and examining attributions of responsibility to its victim. The results of the study support the cognitive explanation. Similar others were found to attribute more responsibility for a crime to the victim when that crime was presented as rare, irrespective of whether its consequences were mild or severe. In addition, when likelihood was controlled experimentally no effect of severity upon attributions of responsibility was found. These results suggest that, within the context of attributions of responsibility to victims, patterns of attribution consistent with those predicted by theories suggesting motivational influences upon attribution may actually represent the operation of cognitive processes.