A Balanced Measure Of Attributional Style

A New measure of attributional style, the Balanced Attributional Style Questionnaire (BASQ), is described in which the positive and negative items are matched for content. The BASQ requires subjects to write down the major cause for each of eight good events and eight bad events, equally divided into achievement and affiliation situations. Subscale scores can be obtained for the rated internality, stability, and globality of the reported causes and for the importance of the situations, and composite measures of attributional style can also be derived. These scores are shown to have respectable psychometric properties (inter-item reliability, test-reliability, validity) encouraging further use and development of the BASQ in a variety of settings.     

BOOK REVIEW

Berry, J.W., R. Kalin and D.M. Taylor, Multiculturalism and ethnic attitudes in Canada. Ottawa: Printing and Publishing Supply and Services, 1977.     

Observers' reactions to an equal or equitable allocator in relation to allocator input,causal attributions,and value importance

Reactions to an equal or equitable allocator working with a partner in a team situation were investigated using a 5-factor design with Sex of Subject, Sex of Allocator, Nature of Expectation (high or low expectation of success based upon either consensus or consistency information), Input of Allocator (high or low performance), and Type of Distribution (equal or equitable) as the 5 factors. Judgments concerning the fairness of the allocation, impressions of the allocator's personality, liking for the allocator, and the importance of possible causes of the allocator's performance were obtained from 339 male and female subjects for each hypothetical situation involving one of the combinations of the 5 factors. Rankings of the relative importance of the Rokeach terminal and instrumental values were also available for most of these subjects. Results were consistent with hypotheses and indicated that subjects use a range of cues and engage in a complex attributional process in making judgments about an allocator. In addition to replicating and extending past findings on the effects of allocator input, the results also indicated that confirmation and disconfirmation of expectancies affected subjects' judgments. Protestant ethic values, competence values, and the value assigned to wisdom also influenced reactions to the allocator, as did an Australian concern with [mateship]. Results were discussed in relation to the view that social justice may take different forms depending upon both situational context and task demands. The importance of further research into the effects of personal and cultural values on allocator decisions and reactions to them was emphasized.     

When and how forgiving benefits victims: Post‐transgression offender effort and the mediating role of deservingness judgements

For all the well‐established benefits of forgiveness for victims, when and how is forgiving more likely to be beneficial? Three experimental studies found that forgiving is more likely to be beneficial when victims perceived reparative effort by offenders such that offenders deserve forgiveness. Deservingness judgements were elicited by manipulating post‐transgression offender effort (apology/amends). When offenders apologized (Study 1; recall paradigm) or made amends (Study 2; hypothetical paradigm) and were forgiven—relative to transgressors who did not apologize/make amends but were still forgiven—forgiving was beneficial. These findings—that deserved forgiveness is more beneficial for victims than undeserved forgiveness—were replicated when forgiving itself was also manipulated (Study 3). Moreover, Study 3 provided evidence to indicate that if a victim forgives when it is not deserved, victim well‐being is equivalent to not forgiving at all. Of theoretical and practical importance is the mediating effect of deservingness on relations between post‐transgression offender effort and a victim's personal consequences of forgiving.     

Reflecting on schadenfreude: serious consequences of a misfortune for which one is not responsible diminish previously expressed schadenfreude; the role of immorality appraisals and moral emotions

Participants (Study 1: N = 138, Study 2: N = 153) responded to a video in which a person suffered a mishap. The studies manipulated whether or not the person was responsible for the mishap and the degree to which the consequences were subsequently found to be serious. Results of Study 1 showed reduction in schadenfreude and more compassion for the victim in the serious condition due to appraisals that it was immoral to laugh about the misfortune. The stronger these appraisals and the stronger the initial schadenfreude, the stronger were moral emotions (guilt, shame, and regret) about initially expressed schadenfreude. Moral emotions and compassion fostered prosocial behavior. Study 2 extended these results by showing that seriousness of the consequences acted as a moderator for most of these findings with significant effects occurring in the serious condition only. Most reduction in schadenfreude occurred when the consequences were serious and when the person was less responsible for the misfortune. The studies extend past research by investigating schadenfreude and other emotions in a context that does not involve social comparison and where participants reflected on their initial expressions of schadenfreude.