Behavioral and Characterological Attributional Styles as

The
litera
on
self-b
and
depr
reve
two
inte
pro
Fir
alt
R.
resea
has
prod
inco
find
A
c
lite
rev
om
th
the
incon
are
relat
to
the
meth
of
asse
attr
A
c
stu
de
or
hdid
acolleg
respec
unive
He
is
ighly
the
first
in
his
fami
to
go
On
being
asked
to
name
most
impo
facto
in
and
acti
(e.g
An
&
W
19
K
&
M
sition
on
the
Olym
divin
team
In
an
inter
with
her
Jonath
marri
lasted
2
y
4
m
and
5
d
He
ears
ays
on
much
soul-s
in
the
final
mon
Afte
it
was
all
over
he
confid
to
a
f
that
"It
must
have
riend
been
my
faul
I'm
really
not
very
good
at
gettin
along
with
wom
that
"I
guess
it
was
really
my
fault
for
gettin
into
that
situa
We
had
been
drinki
and
necki
a
l
I
s
have
ot.
inhou
vited
him
to
my
room.
Juli
stra
attr
for
the
da
ra
al
ha
m
im
basic
units
of
all
attrib
theor
The
two
mos
basi
ques
may
also
inc
her
fee
of
op
ab
th
fu
a
que
Of
par
int
ha
be
th
no
p
Craig
A.
Ander
and
Jody
C.
Dill,
Depa
of
Psyc
Uni
and
mo
de
Th
tw
m
w
re
We
thank
Lyn
Abram
Ronn
JanoW
and
the
vari
son
&
A
198
An
Je
&
A
rn
1
Swe
An
&
B
19
fo
re
It
is
cl
fr
a
A.
Ander
Depar
of
Psych
Univ
of
Miss
.-
Psyc:hoIocicaJ
American
by
1994
Copyript
the
JounW of Personality and Social Psycholosy
1994. Vol. 66. No.3. S49-SS8
Association,
Inc.
0022-3S I4/94i$3.00
Behavioral and Characterological Attributional Styles as Predictors of
and Loneliness:
Review,
Refinement,
and Test
Sedikides
Constantine
and
Dill,
L.
Miller,
Rowland
S.
C.
Anderson,
A.
Alice
Jody
Riger,
Depression
Craig
,
JanoW-Bulman's
(1979)
conceptualizations
of self-blame
are
clear,
empirical
operationalization
is
difficult and has resulted in approaches that do not capture the richness of the constructs. Second,
past
to more accurately
represent the self-blame conceptualization
revealed that both behavioral
and
characterological
self-blame contribute
uniquely to depression
and loneliness. Supplementary
results regarding circumstantial
attributions
and regarding attributional
styles for success were presented. Empirical issues regarding possible methodological
refinements
and eWect size, as well as the
value of categorical approaches
to the study of attributional
style were discussed.
Pete recently received his PhD in structural
engineering
(the attributional process). This distinction has proved useful in
thinking about the voluminous attribution literature. as well as
in dividing up the sequence of processes involved in attributions
from
this success he replied, "I worked so very hard to do the best
that I could in schooL"
After years of training and competition, Meredith won a po-
1980).
Attributional
hometown newspaper she reported,
"I have no real secret to
success, I was simply born with the necessary athletic ability
and have used this gift,"
This article is mainly concerned with the attributional process, and specifically, with the effects of different types of attributions for good and bad events. Pete's effort attribution for his
academic success should produce positive affect as well as high
motivation in similar future endeavors. Jonathan's trait attribution for his failed marriage may exacerbate his already negative
affective state and could induce self-defeating behaviors in future interpersonal relationships. The other two cases are less
clear. Meredith's ability attribution for her diving success may
produce generally positive reactions. However, a few well-placed
failures in this or related domains, in conjunction with this
"ability" view of the task, could lead her to give up too easily.
Julie is a college junior. After a party, she and her boyfriend
. went to her room, where he physically forced her to have sexual
intercourse with him. She explained to the rape crisis counselor
These kinds of events and the explanations
of them are the
plications. Blaming a strategic mistake in judgment might increase her shame and anger in the immediate situation. But, it
tions.concern how people go about making a particular attribution for a particular event (the attribution process) and what the
effects of a particular attribution are likely to be on a person's
emotional, motivational, and behavioral reactions to the event
about her ability to predict and control the future.
Much research has addressed these types of attributional
differ in the types of attributions they consistently make for
events in their lives. Such a consistent pattern of attributions
across events is known as a person's attributiona/ sty/e. Attributional style differences may playa major role in the development
and maintenance of problems in living characterized by nega-
versity of Missouri, Columbia;
Rowland S. Miller. Department
ofPsychology, Sam Houston State University; Alice L. Riger, Department
of
Psychology, West Virginia University; Constantine
Sedikides, Department of Psychology,
University
of North
Carolina.
Chapel
Style Effects
tive affect
searched problems
Hill.
are depression
and loneliness.
(See Ander-
reviewers for their many helpful comments on a draft of this article.
Correspondence
concerning this article should he addressed to Craig
lumbia,
Columbia,
Missouri
65211.
Electronic
mail
may
be sent
these reviews and more recent research that individual differences in attributional style are associated with problems in
living.
to
[email protected].
549
!1
MIL
RIG
DIL
SE
bec
som
uns
ca
ar
no
co
(e
m
Jan
(19
als
th
tw
ty
os
style
can
be
define
as
the
relati
frequ
with
whic
part
ity
que
is
fra
wi
a
f
or
th
u
c
ble
cau
wil
als
ha
the
int
fu
or
mary
and
how
to
comb
vario
dime
(An
&
ima
the
in
va
hy
si
T
Deuse
1991,
1993;
Ande
&
R
1991
Carv
198
ige
Carve
&
S
1991)
None
this
appr
chei
has
been
produ
will
contin
to
yield
impo
insig
Jan
(19
ch
bl
q
w
the
promi
of
assess
attrib
at
the
sam
conc
how
mu
do
yo
bla
yo
fo
w
y
d
.
A
"
o
level
that
peopl
use
when
maki
attrib
Two
inte
num
of
res
ha
us
th
sa
qu
o
v
wit
the
dir
rat
me
(se
Ta
1)
A
th
q
tion
see
to
tap
int
the
co
de
b
J
rectly
releva
studie
have
been
mixe
We
belie
that
the
emcau
The
sub
ma
ve
we
el
su
e
We
hav
lab
the
sec
m
op
c
S
terms,
intern
cause
The
prim
disti
nctio
betw
the
two
Pet
et
al.
als
cre
an
ex
ca
A
c(s
o
tent,
with
behav
being
unsta
and
char
mo
rec
stu
ha
us
th
sa
co
sc
T
550
T
ANDERSON,
!
Process
Assumptions
and
Measurement
Technique
ical ones being stable. Stability is not in itself sufficient, though,
Although this research primarily concerns attributional processes (Le., the effects of attributions), implicit in any particular
attributional style study are assumptions about attribution processes (e.g., how people make attributions). For example, do
people think about causes in terms of certain dimensions, such
as stability and locus? Or, do people think about causes in terms
of categories or types, such as effort and ability?
The most popular technique for assessing attributional style
has people generate causes for hypothetical events and then rate
the causes on key attribution dimensions (controllability, stability, locus, and globality). Recent work (e.g., Anderson, 1991)
suggests that such dimensional thinking may be relatively rare,
although it is clear that with proper instruction, people can do
it acceptably well. The alternative is to develop categorical procedures for assessing attributional style. That is, attributional
ular types of attributions are made.
The dimensional approach to attributional style research has
produced many advances in recent years. There are major issues yet to be resolved, such as which dimensions are truly pri-
Impediments
to
and
characterological
self-blame
Progress
(Janoff-Bulman,
1979).
However, this approach has not caught on nearly so well despite
lated problems may account for this. First, there are definitional
problems in creating appropriate
attributional
style measures
of self-blame. Second, the empirical
results from the few dipirical anomalies
Definitional
are the result of the definitional
problems.
Problems
Janoff-Bulman's
ical and behavioral
(1979) original discussion of characterologself-blame attributions
still seems quite apt.
Behavioral self.blame is control related. involves attributions to a
modifiable source (one's behavior), and is associated with a belief
in the future avoidability of a negative outcome. Characterological
self.blame is esteem related, involves attributions to a relatively
nonmodifiable source (one's character). and is associated with a
belief in personal deservingness for past' negative outcomes. (p.
1798)
Both are types of self-blame
that are. in standard
of the att::-ibutor.
In blaming one's behavior, an individual is concerned with the fu.
ture, particularly
the future avoidability
of the negative outcome.
. . . In blaming himself or herself characterologically,
the individ.
ual is not concerned with control in the future, but rather with the
past, particularly
deservingness
for past outcomes. (p. 1800)
The key elements in this theory can be linked to standard
attribution dimensions. These are the locus of the attributed
cause (internal for both), the stability of the cause (behavioral
are unstable, characterological are stable), and the controllabil.
ity of the cause (behavioral are controllable, characterological
are uncontrollable). The time-orientation distinction may be
linked to the controllability element as well; if the controllabil-
Three methods have been used to assess characterological
and behavioral attributional styles. Each method has subjects
methods differ in how subjects' attributional reactions to the
situations are assessed.
In the direct rating method, subjects rate how much they
blame various factors for each of the described situations. The
rated factors include characterological and behavioral blame.
The categorical approach to attributional style has also
proved fruitful, especially Janoff-Bulman's categories ofbehavioral
blame differ in terms of the time orientation
Specifically, she wrote the following:
dimensional
types is in terms of controllability. Behavioral causes are potentially controllable, whereas characterological Ol1esare not. The
stability dimension also captures this distinction to some ex-
the following
(p.
1803):
"Given
what
happened,
how
much
do
you blame yourselffor the kind of person you are," with specific
information relating to the situation included (e.g., "the kind of
person who is in an accident," for her accident scenario). The
parallel behavioral blame question was, "Given what happened,
similar
ones,
to assess
characterological
and
behavioral
blame
Bulman, they do not capture the full richness of those con.
structs. The main problem is that the questions only subtly capture the distinction between controllable and uncontrollable
those who are intent on getting their extra credit and leaving
the lab. Similarly, the time-orientation distinction may be too
weakly present to capture subjects' attention.
jects generate open-ended attributions for the hypothetical situations. Then, expert raters code the attributions. Peterson,
Schwartz, and Seligman (1981) were the first to use this proce-
dure. In their study,
.
Behavioral codes were made when the attribution referred to some
action by the subject-either an overt motor behavior or 'internal'
behaviors, such as wants, preferences, and intentions. Character.
ological attributions referred to personality dispositions of the subject, such as stupidity, immaturity, ability, and so on. (pp. 255-256)
BEH
AND
CHA
ST
Ander
Horow
&
F
1983
No.
I
renc
No.2
Stoltz
&
G
1989
alas
Tenne
H
1987
erzb
Carve
Ganel
&
B
1985
ehar
Aett,
Blank
H
1990
olow
Major
Muell
ilde
Meyer
&
T
1986
aylo
Note.
Metho
FC
=
f
choic
attrib
orce
DR
=
d
ratin
of
blam
OC
=
o
irec
att
co
by
ex
pe
ra
D
BDl
=
B
Depre
Inven
Zung
=
Z
Selfeck
Dep
Sca
Ow
ung
c
or
mo
de
sc
re
.ble
O
article
used
a
m
split
proce
prese
rigin
poin
bise
corr
edia
wer
com
fro
the
rep
F
v
a
I).
As
with
the
direct
rating
meth
this
open
codi
cal
and
behav
const
How
it
too
does
not
seem
to
futu
Or
did
he
tru
me
tha
so
ab
h
c
ter,
whi
is
rela
sta
an
un
w
a
f
a
studie
has
used
this
metho
(And
Horo
&
F
ren
pro
are
mo
lik
to
be
se
to
th
di
b
stance
The
first
two
are
chara
the
next
two
are
behav
In
the
other
study
only
three
choi
were
avai
havior
measu
of
attrib
style
Th
us,
the
tech
is
along
aA
cspersp
harac
conti
corr
with
Tw
ma
pre
ha
gu
re
in
th
ar
F
IW
tha
an
ano
rev
fo
br
pto
e
on
the
imila
defin
prob
.-
1
I
551
Table I
Studies of Characterological
and Behavioral
Attributional
Style and Depression
Characterological
Study
Stressor
Failure
Depression
N
Method
Behavioral
Success
Failure
Success
-.04
-.27***
-.12*
General depression and attributional style studies
121
PetersonetaJ.,1981
84
334
87
Janoff-Bulman,
Feather, 1983
1979, No. I
120
248
101
201
FC
BDl
.32**.
FC
BDl
.41***
OC
BDl
.72***
OC
BDI
OC
BDl
DR
BDl
DR
BDl
DR
BDI
Specific stressor, depression, and attributional
243
Immediate
Abortion
3 weeks
Abortion
96
Rape
58
*p<.OS.
**p<.OI.
DR
much of the complexity
in the characterologi-
adequately emphasize the controllability feature, which plays
so major a role in Janoff-Bulman's distinction between characterological and behavioral blame.
The third method, forced choice, presents several attributional choices with each to-be-imagined situation. Subjects then
choose the attribution that best fits them. Only one article (two
1983). In one study, six alternatives were available for each situation: ability, personality, effort, strategy, mood, and circum-
ability, strategy, and effort. Ability and personality are internal,
uncontrollable, stable causes that tend to reflect a past orientation. Strategy and effort are internal, controllable, unstable
causes that reflect a future orientation. Thus, this method has
the controllability distinction built into it. However, this
method introduces a different problem. In the forced choice
method, choosing one cause precludes choosing another. A person who makes many characterological choices necessarily
makes few behQvioral ones. The procedure forces fairly substantial negative correlations between the characterological and beuseful in testing the general proposition that attributional
and
other
problems,
but
it does
not
testing of which component (characterological.
both) is contributing to the correlation.
arises
-.13
-.11
.10
.29*.
-.19
.09
ns
-.07
.06
.19*
.36***
.31***
style studies
BDl"
.47**
.40*
.14*
.25*
ns
ns
.46**.
Own
.28*
cally implies behavioral self-blame as well. 1 In the failed marriage example, the characterological attribution "I'm not very
good at getting along with women," implies that the attributor
behaved in ways that drove his wife away. The key distinction for
classifying that attribution as characterological or behavioral is
the presumed modifiability of the behavior. In other words, did
the attributor expect it to be unstable and controllable in the
The dire~ rating questions obscure these issues, rather than
highlighting them. The expert raters used in open-ended coding
without
lem
-.44**.
***p<.OOI.
method captures
depression
.00
-.41***
-.10
.15
.19*
BDl"
DR
-.15
.37**.
BDl
DR
30/31
Rape
1990
DR
Frazier,
.00
.13
Zung"
DR
304
from
the
fact
that
characterological
allow
styles
precise
knowing
Empirical
typi-
the subject
meant,
the distinction
may
Problems
characterological
behavioral, or
self-blame
what
be hard to apply. The forced choice method reduces this confusion by making the subject choose among attributions that
differ in precisely the ways that the theory suggests are important.
It is important to note that we are not faulting the various
researchers (including ourselves) for this earlier work. Indeed,
all the studies and techniques have importantly contributed to
the understanding of attributional phenomena. But every study
has limitations; the limitations we have highlighted may help
explain the inconsistent findings reported in the next section.
our attention.
blame
for failure
or bad events should corre-
AND
MIL
RIG
DIL
SE
late
positiv
with
depre
and
simil
prob
in
livin
The
ove
go
wa
to
pr
a
c
te
o
t
th
l
h
Iioral
Table
p
the
resul
of
all
the
studi
resen
we
loca
(usi
self-b
were
asses
(b)
depr
was
asse
The
tion
cla
wa
an
ex
re
in
ef
si
F
t
w
events
correl
positi
with
depre
Ther
is
not
a
s
ing
Som
los
of
"m
or
"s
w
e
in
th
tr
x
Tra
Fr
Di
to
C
that
were
intend
in
the
origin
conc
The
othe
answe
to
the
quest
of
whet
beha
blam
is
rela
to
but
we
the
ass
to
ca
(c
b
We
gat
da
on
tw
di
sa
u
d
ver
of
the
var
sca
Th
tw
w
c
of
course
the
same
defin
prob
appl
to
thos
few
for
all
rep
ana
M
re
a
w
succes
studie
that
have
been
done
Thus
we
cond
a
s
tud
To
me
go
of
cre
un
m
o
t
thre
cat
we
use
str
co
ru
fo
e
a
eve
wa
cou
as
a
c
on
if
h
it
w
r
The
presen
study
had
three
goals
The
first
was
to
asse
the
second
was
to
provi
comp
attrib
style
mea
for
succes
situat
The
third
was
abmore
expl
itTo
it
ens
tha
com
co
ac
th
tw
sa
\\
a
rela
usi
aBag
T
IeN
o
55-2
Second, behavioral blame for failure or bad events should correlate negatively with depression and similar problems in living.
Characterological and behavioral attributions for success (or
positive) events have not received as much theoretical or empirical attention.
PsycLit, American
Psychological
Association,
1990-92) that
met the following criteria: (a) Both characterological
and behav-
top half presents the main studies of interest, namely, those in
which general depression and attributional styles were assessed.
The bottom half presents studies in which depression as a reaction to a specific stressor was related to characterological and
behavioral blame.
The studies are organized by their attributional style assessment method. This highlights the inconsistencies in results. Frequency of characterological attributions for failure and bad
reversal in this pattern. In contrast, frequency of behavioral attributions for failure events shows marked inconsistency. The
inconsistencies, however, are almost. perfectly related to the
method of measuring characterological and behavioral blame.
The forced choice and the open-ended coding studies show the
expected negative relation between frequency of behavioral attributions for failure and level of depression. The direct rating
studies all show the opposite relation.
.
This pattern suggests that the direct rating method may obscure the controllability implications of behavioral attributions
assessment
methods
may make
this dimension
more
salient
and
thereby may produce the more predictable pattern. This is speculative, however, and the bottom line is that there is no clear.
depression and other problems in living. The empirical inconsistencies as well as the definitional problems preclude any
strong conclusion. Furthermore, there is too little research on
characterological and behavioral attributions for success events
to draw any conclusions about their relation to depression. And
to further
examine
these
issues.
attributions to circumstances for success should positively relate to problems in living (e.g., depression and loneliness). The
data are weaker for circumstantial attributions for failure, but
it is reasonable to expect negative correlations with problems in
living.
ries relating characterological
self-blame positively and behavioral self-blame negatively to problems in living (depression and
loneliness). This overriding goal required us to maximize interpretational
clarity, so we devised a conservative
attributional
style assessment
procedure.
Note that the cost of interpreta-
very different reasons, we expected that the magnitude of the
attributional style/problems in livil1g correlations would be
considerably lower than those typically found in this area. First,
our conservative criteria (described in a later section) guaranteed that many of the attributions generated by subjects would
be unclassified because of possible ambiguities. Second, the new
attributional style assessment procedure involved translating
subjects' dimensional ratings into categorical frequency counts.
tion
process.
Characterological,
behavioral,
and
circumstantial
attribu-
tional styles were assessed for success and failure events. These
categorical attributional style measures were derived with a new
assessment method designed to circumvent the definitional and
interpretational
problems discussed earlier. In our dimensional/categorical translation method, subjects generated openended attributions for a set of hypothetical events. They then
rated their own attributions on the key defining dimensions: locus (internality), controllability, and stability. Individual attri-
havioral, and circumstantial) on the basis of these ratings. The
. frequency of each type was used as the measure of that attributional style and was correlated with depression and loneliness.
used
to
assess the independent contributions of various predic-
tors.
Overview
Goals
attributional style categories of behavioral and characterological self-blame in a manner that avoids the definitional and
methodological problems found in the direct rating, openended coding, and forced choice methods discussed earlier. The
was to assess a third type of attribution that has occasionally
been assessed in this domain, external (/ r('lmtstances (Anderson
et al., 1983; Peterson et al., 1981). Although there has been less
theoretical and empirical attention de\( 1t\:dto this attributional
category, the work that does exist suggests that the frequency of
butional style category. For instance, an attribution for a failure
as internal and stable and uncontrollable. Although this procedure undoubtedly decreased the frequency of each attribution
type and was expected to yield relatively low correlations, our
2 For each sample, 12 correlations
resulted from the design: 3 attribution types (characterological,
behavioral,
and circumstantial)
x 2
outcomes (success and failure) x 2 criteria (depression and loneliness).
propriate,
we tested the differences
the tests approached
significance,
two samples were comparable.
between
indicating
each of the 12 pairs of corthat the results
from the
BEH
AND
CHA
ST
(Be
&
B
197
wa
ad
Be
it
ha
fe
ec
it
to
Sub
in
bot
sam
co
th
R
U
Sca
(Ru
Pep
&
C
19
Th
sc
is
bL
otauh
proced
got
us
the
pure
meas
we
need
a
l
sam
arg
sam
lev
eve
tim
the
sam
sit
ar
In
th
st
s
the
futu
but
did
no
me
the
ca
be
at
sa
le
T
dim
def
for
loc
co
an
gl
w
t
h
as
in
the
AS
(se
An
&
A
19
p
2
partici
for
cours
credit
Stude
who
were
not
nativ
spea
of
Englis
those
who
were
not
Unite
State
citize
and
thos
who
wer
older
than
26
dropp
from
the
samp
Som
subj
did
not
final
sampl
size
analy
invol
depr
was
614;
for
lone
ness.
the
final
sampl
size
was
625.3
of
inte
We
als
ass
a
t
ty
Th
ci
hi
ty
w
ties
(one
large
midw
unive
and
two
large
and
one
sma
sout
from
the
sampl
The
final
samp
size
was
282
for
both
the
depr
ther
wer
10
suc
and
10
fai
ite
a
s
co
h
f
u
r
and
loneli
analy
Table
2
s
the
distr
of
men
how
and
wome
in
both
samp
There
were
appro
equa
num
of
men
wome
Prelim
analy
yield
no
sex
effec
so
all
reSam
2.
Th
sam
ba
ma
an
de
w
u
t
o
asse
the
freq
of
att
ty
w
t
fo
e
item
wer
tak
fro
the
AS
(a
in
Sa
I)
an
fr
tw
(Se
Ab
Se
&
v
Ba
19
th
B
o
Att
Sty
Qu
(F
&
T
1
Mend
Mock
&
E
1961
was
admi
This
scal
rbau
is
a
cau
a
n
of
hy
sit
ap
um
on
m
t
h
widely
used
measu
of
intens
of
depre
and
is
the
mos
com
sca
wit
3athe
mi
Th
th
op
soc
each
item
can
range
from
O.
indic
no
dt:pr
sym
.
"
553
Table 2
Sample
scale scores are much lower: the possible
Characteristics
Depression
Sample
women
Characteristic
men
No.
.
No.
.
I
Loneliness
Sample
2
281
155 .
333
127
21
0
63
16
II
6
2
0
No. items in scale
Lowest possible
Highest possible
90th percentile
75th percentile
50th percentile
25th percentile
10th percentile
13
0
39
9
6
3
I
0
Sample
1
288
337
20
20
80
52
43
34
29
25
Loneliness
Sample
2
155
127
20
20
80
55
46
37.5
31
26
goal of fairly testing the basic theoretical propositions could still
be met by using a large sample size. That is. in this context,
effect size is not an important consideration. although power
to detect a weak effect is. In brief, our conservative translation
size got us the necessary
Sample
statistical
Sample
Three
power.
sumption
that loneliness is it unidimensional
construct that varies primarily on experienced
intensity or frequency. Each of the 20 items is
scored such that a I indicates lack ofloneliness
and a 4 indicates a high
level ofloneliness.
Thus. total scale scores can range from 20 to 80.
AttributionaiStyie
Sample
J. The 20-item
"the degree
Subjects
referred
version of the Attributional
Style
to which
the cause
can be expected
to the extent that the cause was expected
to be present
to be present
at the
again in
1
complete
all measures
at a large midwestern university
relevant
to this study. Therefore.
the
Subjects rated the causes on 9-point scales, with 9s representing more
controllable, internal, unstable, and global causes. For this study of frequency of specific attribution types, it was necessary to translate these
dimension ratings into appropriate attribution types. The characterological type was defined as any attribution that was rated as uncontrollable ( < 5), internal ( > 5), and stable ( < 5). The behavioral type was
defined as any attribution that was rated as controllable ( > 5). internal
( > 5), and unstable ( > 5). These were the two main attribution types
2
hundred
twenty-one
undergraduates
at four different
universi-
western universities) participated for course credit. Subjects with missing data on any of the measures relevant to this study were dropped
( 5). exterdefined as any attribution
that was rated as uncontrollable
<
a
nal ( < 5), and unstable ( > 5). Because globality is not theoretically
part of these attribution
types, it was not used.
The number of characterological,
behavioral,
and circumstantial
attributions was counted separately for success and failure items. Because
0 to 10 characterological,
within each outcome.
ported
dimensional
Assessment Test (ASAT-III: Anderson et al.. 1988) was used. This scale
presents the subject with five hypothetical
situations
of each of four
types: interpersonal
success. non interpersonal
success, interpersonal
failure. and noninterpersonal
failure. Because the distinction
between
interpersonal
and noninterpersonal
situations is irrelevant to the main
thrust of this article, all reported analyses combine across this dimension so that there are 10 success and 10 failure situations. Subjects imagine themselves in the situations. write down the most likely major cause
of the specified outcome, and rate that cause on several standard attribution dimensions
(stability, locus, controllability.
and gIobality).
In the present sample. there was one modification
to the wording of
the stability dimension. In the ASAT-III, stability of a cause refers to
Method
Six hundred eighty undergraduates
correctly
range is from 0 to 39.
analyses
combine
behavioral,
and circumstantial
attributions
across sex.
First,
the original
ASAT-III
definition
of stability
was used.
Second.
Instruments
Depression
other attributional
style scales.
the Attributional
Style Questionnaire
Sample J. The full 2 I-item Beck Depression Inventory (Beck. Ward.
measure of depression used in studies of attnnutional
style. Each item
Scores on
describes a specific behavioral
manifestation
\11'depression.
to 3. indicating a severe level ofsymptomatol\)g.v.
Total scale scores can
thus range from 0 to 63.
Sample 2. The 13-item short-form
of the Bt:\:k Depression Inventory
the scales. the total number of success and failure items was 20 and
18. respectively. Third, the self-generated
causes were rated on 5-point
3 Portions
dimensional
of this data set were analyzed by way of more traditional
procedures
and reported in Anderson and Riger ( 1991 ).
AND
MIL
RIG
DIL
SE
Relat
Freq
(%
of
Tota
of
Cha
Beh
uati
Th
mo
fre
att
w
t
b
ty
h
As
exp
the
rel
fre
l
In
th
o
wer
sm
eno
tha
we
sh
ex
so
at
Thi
cou
be
a
p
if
ou
go
w
t
pr
ro
a
n
admin
in
rando
order
Testi
was
done
in
grou
Wit
each
instru
the
of
items
the
same
for
all
subj
Inwit
dep
and
lon
Ou
ho
w
1
c
tasks.
On
comp
tasks
subje
retur
their
mat
to
in
this
are
in
ord
to
ha
so
po
to
de
th
effe
und
con
W
t
ne
u
The
same
basic
proce
were
used
with
the
follo
exce
varied
Secon
a
b
writte
debri
was
adm
rief
to
all
sub
jects
on
comp
of
the
quest
A
m
deta
deb
ore
lonelin
The
two
samp
were
quite
com
Sam
I
was
slightl
less
lonely
than
Samp
2
(
=
3
and
39.0
Ms
6.6
respec
This
differ
was
relia
1(91
=
3
p
<
how
allo
for
.13
a
m
op
vi
of
th
fu
a
m
o
items,
but
a
d
statis
comp
of
irect
the
two
grou
was
the
two
sampl
for
both
depre
and
lone
On
the
full
asp
of
beh
att
se
ad
w
a
ble
numb
of
mildl
and
mode
depr
indi
r
,
554
3
Attributions
by Type of Situation
Characterological
Failure
Success
Failure
Sample
No. attribution
items
Relative frequency
10
No.
18
10
4.8%
10
3.1%
I
10
10
10
10
10
11.1%
20.2%
1.9%
3.1%
6.1%
18
Succss
2
20
18
20
18
20
terological. behavioral. and circumstantial
cutoffpoint.
attributions
1.1%
0.9%
8.0%
1.8%
13.3%
frequency
20
2.0%
Relative
items
Failure
Success
Failure
Success
12.3%
Sample
attribution
Total
Circumstantial
Behavioral
3.8%
and Circumstantial
used 3 as the
3.2%
Table
ioral, and circumstantial
for failure
attributions
for success and failure sit-
situations.
Procedure
Sample
1
attributional
The depression. loneliness, and attributional
style instruments
tributional
formed consent was obtained at the start of the testing session. Then the
booklets were distributed, with an instruction sheet explaining the
the experimenter
and indicated whether they wished to receive further
information
about the study. Those who requested such information
were mailed a thorough debriefing.
Sample
with depression
and loneliness.
style technique
a measurement
technique
designed
that
would
to maximize
allow
correlations
us to test theoreti-
cally important issues in as clean It fashion as possible. The expected attenuation in correlation size is relevant to those issues
only in that it forced us to use larger sample sizes than normal
tests.
2
it.
requested
who
those
was
to
.~
First, there were four different versions of theattributional
style questionnaire, in which item order and attribution dimension order were
mailed
style correlations
were
Results
Descriptive
Summaries
Table 2 presents the sample characteristics on depression and
.005. Sample I appeared to be slightly more depressed than
Sample 2, after adjusting for the different number of depression
not appropriate.
scale measure
The distributional
of depression,
shapes were comparable
the sample contained
in
an apprecia-
The standard definition of mild depression on this scale is a
total score of 10 to IS. Fully 29% of the sample displayed scores
of 10 or greater. Moderate depression is Jdined as a score of
16-23. Fully 10% had scores of 16 or greater.
Table 3 presents the frequency of characterological, behav-
Correlational
Summaries
Predictions
The main questions of interest are whether the frequencies
of characterological and behavioral attributions correlated with
measures of depression and loneliness. Theoretically, the frequency of characterological attributions for failure should correlate positively with depression and loneliness, whereas the frequency of behavioral attributions for failure should correlate
negatively with depression and loneliness. Blaming stable uncontrollable aspects of oneself for failure is clearly self-defeating. Blaming unstable controllable aspects of oneself for failure,
energize
behavioral
attempts
to overcome
initial
setbacks.
Theoretical predictions for characterological and behavioral
attributions in success situations are less clear. The internal and
stable aspects of characterological attributions seem adaptive
when applied to successes; however, the uncontrollable aspect is
generally less positive. Similarly, the internal and controllable
to successes, but the unstable aspect is troubling.
Circumstantial attributions for successes are obviously maladaptive for both affective and motivational reasons, as one is
essentially denying credit and viewing the success as unlikely to
be repeatable (i.e., it is uncontrollable) or repeated (i.e.. the
I
.
.
BEH
AND
CHA
ST
Tw
rem
qu
co
(a
th
ov
m
seem
adapti
but
the
uncon
aspe
is
mala
The
analys
strate
we
used
is
quite
strai
We
separa
Then
we
avera
the
corre
corr
uswel
and
in
wh
wa
att
sty
ca
p
d
sion
analys
were
also
used
to
give
a
b
idea
of
how
well
(or
ette
Mu
cor
an
re
W
f
ex
th
i
tween
the
attribu
frequ
meas
and
depr
and
lonelin
for
succe
and
failur
situa
As
can
be
seen
by
=
.
P
<
.
I
)
f
3
0
causes
were
more
depre
and
more
lone
than
thos
who
All
six
attr
fre
(n
of
ch
jects
who
attribu
succe
to
chara
caus
wer
.00
I
)
c
res
Th
m
or
w
a
re
l
more
depres
and
lonel
than
those
who
did
not
(ps
<
.
05)
dep
and
the
lon
Rs
(a
sa
b
2
Do
the
dif
typ
of
att
st
co
in
pen
to
pre
de
an
lo
A
the
depres
correl
was
signi
(p
<.Sub
05)
555
Table
4
Correlations Between Attribution Style (Success and Failure) and Loneliness
and Depression. Combined Across Samples
Behavioral
Characterological
Criterion
Depression
Loneliness
.p<.05.
problem
Failure
Success
Failure
Success
Failure
Success
(n
(n
.178***
.144***
.108**
.071*
-.107**
-.174**.
.014
.006
-.072..
-.032
.114..*
:119.**
= 896)
= 907)
*.p<.005.
*..p<.OOI.
cause is unstable). The consequences of circumstance attributions for failure are less clear. The external and unstable aspects
Analysis
Strategy
computed the correlations between the various attribution frequency measures and depression and loneliness for each sample
ing a weighted
r-to-z transformation
poorly) these attribution
sion and loneliness.
frequency
process.
Multiple
regres-
measures
predict
depres-
Findings
Zero-ordercorrelations. Table 4 presents the correlations be-
these results, the main theoretical predictions were supported.
Subjects who attributed imagined failures to characterological
did not
Circumstantial
(ps < .00 I). Similarly, subjects who attributed failures
to behavioral causes were less depressed and less lonely than
those who did not (ps < .005). Subjects who attributed successes
to circumstances were more depressed and lonely than those
who did not (ps < .00 I). Overall, these three sets of findings
confirm the theoretical work of Janoff-Bulman ( 1979) and rep-
of the correlation of attributional style and problems in living
when the different measures of attributional style are jointly
considered and (b) the inQependent contributions of the different attributional style categories. The forced-choice methodology of previous categorical studies (Anderson et al.. 1983) precludes meaningful use of multiple regression techniques. because the predictors are necessarily correlated at high levels.
The present method does not force such high (negative) correlations between types of attributions, so a better idea of how
pression and loneliness may be gained by examining
multiple regression results.
the
correlations among the attributional style measures. Interestingly, the strongest correlations demonstrated that people
tended to use a particular type of attribution across different
outcomes. For example, people who made relatively frequent
characterological attributions for success also tended to make
characterological attributions for failure (r
both the depression sample and the loneliness sample. Frequency of behavioral success and behavioral failure attributions
yielded the next highest correlations
(rs
= .32
and .31.ps < .00 I.
for the depression and loneliness samples, respectively). Finally.
frequency of circumstantial success and circumstantial failure
attributions yielded the third highest set of correlations among
attributional style measures (rs = .19, p < .00 I. for both the
depression and loneliness samples).
licate the forced choice and the open-ended coding findings
summarized
in Table i.
The only empirical anomaly
.
concerned
the finding that sub-
Neither depression nor loneliness correlated significantly with
characterological attributions for success in Anderson et ai.
(1983). This discrepancy may be the result of the very different
approaches used to assess attributional tendencies. The present
finding also suggests that the negative implications of the uncontrollable aspect of characterological attributions for success
outweigh the positive implications of the internal and stable aspects of such attributions.
Finally, depression and loneliness were hath negatively correlated with circumstantial attributions 1;1;'t;lilure, although onlywho
attributed
failures
tban those who did not.
to circumstanl.'es.
were
.
less depressed
success attributions, number of characterological failure attributions, etc.) were entered simultaneously as predictors of depression and loneliness. In both cases, highly significant (ps <
in both cases, although still smaller than most correlations reported in the forced choice and open-ended coding studies. The
Table 5 presents
these results.
noted in the literature review, it could be that one type of attribution (characterological) is particularly maladaptive. but that
other types (e.g., behavioral) correlate with depression and loneliness only because of methodological quirks of the forced
choice method. The results presented in Table 5 rule out this
description. The reported t tests examined the unique variance
in the criterion associated with each predictor. It can be seen
AND
MIL
RIG
DIL
SE
.Lonel
Depre
R
=
F(6.
889)
=
9
25,
p
<
.
I
00
.68
As
exp
the
rel
fre
of
th
at
cate
we
low
Th
are
at
lea
tw
re
fo
th
F
that
eve
a
m
of
att
w
f
id
d
a
it
R
=
.F(6,
900)
=
125,
p<
.I00
0.0
trul
dep
pe
wi
ge
a
m
o
on
ave
(an
lon
pe
g
re
e
mo
ma
att
th
no
(a
n
poi
was
nec
de
as
irr
to
th
ca
o
.
inte
We
kno
tha
pe
fre
us
di
m
signifi
and
uniqu
predi
depre
(ps
<
.I).
Sim
0leas
wh
rati
am
sti
W
a
kn
l
one
attr
dim
Th
it
sh
co
a
n
s
Thi
rati
ana
su
tw
em
p
In
Sam
I,
45%
of
the
fai
att
an
3
o
t
h
2,
the
cor
fig
inc
to
67
5
T
blame
Our
new
dimen
trans
met
achoice
in
w
that
accur
captu
the
locus
stabi
ay
and
con
metho
(Ande
et
aI.,
1983
Spec
our
met
odolog
was
design
to
more
preci
test
Jano
that
ear
stu
of
cat
att
st
A
d
cess
and
failure
situat
The
resul
conf
that
(a)
all
ced
For
ins
in
Stu
I
o
A
et
al
(1
2
f
(ab
and
trai
In
the
stu
on
otncfa
h
attr
in
Sam
Iapre
2%
in
Sa
25%
m
556 .
cess and failure situations contribute uniquely to the prediction
of depression and loneliness.
5
Regression
Resultsfor
Predictor
the Combined
Partial
Characterological failure
Characterological success
Behavioral failure
Behavioralsuccess
Circumstances failure
slope
Samples
t'-
p<
Table
Multiple
Empirical Issues
.138
3.96
.055
-.101
.065
- .089
1.59
-2.91
1.90
- 2.69
.111
3.33
.001
.112
.004
.058
.008
.001
.108
.025
-.177
.075
-.047
.109
3.10
0.74
-5.18
2.20
-1.44
3.30
.002
.463
.001
.028
.151
.001
Circumstances success
Low Frequency of Attributional
most attributions that most people generate are likely to be depression-neutral. That is, no theoretician in this area expects
genic or nondepressogenic
Characterological failure
Characterological success
Behavioralfailure
Behavioral success
Circumstances failure
Circumstances success
.
For depression,
df = 889; for loneliness.
Categories
pressogenic
lonely)
attributions.
categories.
Attribution
Indeed.
theory
it seems unlikely
merely asserts that
people.
Second, the new dimensional-categorical
translation procedure produces many attributions that do not fit the conservative
definitions of any of the attribution categories. Any attribution
that contained at least one dimensional rating at the scale mid-
df = 900.
that characterological. behavioral, and circumstantial attributions for failure, and circumstantial attributions for success, all
ilarly, characterological and behavioral failure attributions and
behavioral and circumstantial success attributions all predicted
loneliness (ps < .03). These results further confirm the original
conceptualization that characterological and behavioral attributional styles independently contribute to problems in living.
Discussion
Summary
Janoff-Bulman's (1979) theoretical insights into characterological and behavioral self-blame have not been consistently
matched by the methods used to assess these attributional
styles. The direct rating method in particular does not sufficiently highlight the importance of the control aspects of these
attribution types. Our literature review confirmed that the varying results of past studies on self-blame and depression are almost perfectly correlated with the methods used to assess self-
ended attributions
are frequently
ambiguous
prise that many of the generated attributions
in the categorical scheme.
with respect to at
did not "count"
(a) The frequency of attributions with at least one midpoint
rating (out of the three dimensions of locus, stability, and controllability) should be fairly high; (b) This frequency should be
higher in Sample 2 than in Sample I because the former had
fewer non midpoint choices available (5-point rather than 9point rating scales). Our results produced exactly this pattern.
success attributions
had at least one midpoint
rating. In Sample
the low frequencies of the attribution types derived from our
translation method were neither unexpected nor unreasonable.
Small Effect Size
was designed
to test theoretical
derivations
from
J anoff- Bulman
trollability features of her conceptions while avoiding the methodological confounding problems inherent in our earlier forced
original predictions that characterological attributions for negative events (failure) would be positively associated with depression and tl)at behavioral attributions for negative events would
be negatively associated with depression. In addition, we provided tests of a third category of attributions. circumstances,
and tested all three types of attribution frequencies for both suc-
three types of attributions correlate with depression and loneliness; (b) each type contributes uniquely to the prediction of depression and loneliness; and (c) attributional styles for both suc-
The correlations reported in Table 4 are generally quite small.
Indeed, these correlations are considerably smaller than those
reported in Anderson et al. (1983). The multiple correlations
reported in Table 5 are certainly respectable, but still are somewhat smaller than the forced-choice correlations obtained in
cussed earlier, one reason has to do with the methodological
differences between the forced-choice procedure and the present rating scale translation procedure. The relative frequencies
of attributions meeting the present criteria are much smaller
than comparable relative frequencies in the forced-choice proof the failure attributions
were to characterological
factors
BEH
AND
CHA
ST
piri
and
hea
atta
wa
sto
ea
be
th
e
o
asp
on
red
hea
att
wa
so
gr
re
cien
was
.03
con
sm
th
ef
si
s
i
n
&
M
199
Tw
suc
co
ap
to
th
p
il
oretica
insigh
gaine
from
the
trans
proc
rem
relativ
(%)
freque
rema
the
same
This
incre
in
abso
presse
and
nonde
peop
Seco
the
num
(bu
see
Sch
Ste
Ho
C
&
F
1
the
correl
some
but
we
have
a
t
noti
heo
sugapp
wa
unw
W
b
th
ap
is
a
e
ple
typica
make
categ
attrib
and
trans
them
We
hop
tha
ou
res
he
re
m
w
sion.
In
the
presen
study
there
was
yet
an
addi
tran
Abe
R.
P.
(19
A
v
ex
pa
W
a
l
is
i
son
&
D
1993)
does
sugge
that
peop
typic
euse
thin
Wa
DC
Au
And
C.
A.
Ho
pe
th
ab
ca
E
A.,
&
A
L.
H.
(1
A
m
o
m
dep
lon
an
sh
In
J.
H
&
G
W
(
E
CA
Aca
Pre
And
C.
st
a
e
r
pecial
valuab
This
may
very
well
invo
usin
afAnd
orc
A.,
&
D
W
E
(1
Sc
an
th
re
.
C.
Th
pr
o
c
in
e
cau
thin
and
att
sty
A
a
fu
t
ism
per
In
G.
F.
Gl
&
K
M
(
C
E
mot
soc
co
(p
94
N
Y
S
A.,
Ho
L.
M
&
F
R
A
1
r
that
in
other
conte
are
ackno
as
of
im
men
prac
And
C.
Jen
D.
A
L
H
(Vr
.-
,
557
for being defined as characterological. This is a function of the
fact that in a forced-choice methodology, each attribution must
fit a predetermined attribution category. This is most obvious
in Study 2 of Anderson et al. (1983), where all attributions had
to be either characterological or behavioral. The present
translation methodology does not do this, resulting in many attributions essentially having no impact on the analyses.
Thus, the low correlations were expected and do not detract
from the importance of the results in any way, because the the-
wholly
valid.
However,
the low correlations
do suggest
that
prac-
tical use of the translation procedure in applied settings may be
limited.
Three modifications to our translation method may allow
higher correlations to emerge. First, increasing the number of
hypothetical situations examined should increase the absolute
frequencies of the different types of attributions even if the low
lute frequencies
should
allow
better
discrimination
between
earlier.
refinements
the present study. Other scholars have noted a variety of
contextual conditions in which seemingly' small effect sizes are
judged as important or impressive (e.g., Abelson, 1985; Prentice
First, when one is primarily interested in testing the validity of
specific theoretical propositions, effect size is largely irrelevant
except for the purposes of estimating the statistical power of
various possible sample sizes. Second, when the methodology is
known to produce conditions likely to minimize an effect, the
discovery of a reliable effect-no matter how small-is impressive.
Conclusions
de-
ber of scale points (say from 9-point to 15-point rating scales)
might further increase both the relative and absolute frequencies of relevant attributions. Third, using even-numbered rating
scales (e.g, with to points) might further reduce the midpoint
ambiguity problem discussed
These three methodological
ers felt it would be unethical to continue giving the control
group placebos. The effect size in terms of a correlation coeffi-
are likely to improve
gesting an additional limit to the translation procedure. If peo-
into dimensions only when forced to do so, then dimensional
approaches to the study of attributional style may produce artificially low relations, In essence, there may be something lost in
the translation from attribution category to attribution dimen-
The categorical approach,
best exemplified by
Janoff-Bul-
man's (1979) theoretical
analysis, seems to have been pronounced
"dead" prematurely.
The vast majority of attribu.
tional style studies have used a strictly dimensional
approach
"
for an innovative categorical approach to attributions for smoking cessation). Perhaps the inconsistencies found in early categorical studies led researchers to conclude that the categorical
valuable
one and that it nicely complements
the dimensional
patient.
References
tion, essentially a back translation
from the dimensional
back
to the categorical. Some recent work (Anderson,
1991; Ander-
a lot. Psychological
Bulletin. 97. 129-133.
American Psychogical Association.
(1990-92).
about attributions in categorical rather than dimensional terms.
In the present context, this suggests that additional work on attributional style models of depression and other problems in
living may best be done using attributional style measures that
focus on attribution types. Such research would nicely complement the dimensional approach that so heavily dominates most
current work. Prospective designs using a categorical (type) approach, as well as similar intervention studies, would seem eschoice methodology for assessing attributional
psychologists
now know that both characterological
Attribution:
(1990)
noted
Basic issues and applications
(pp. 235-279).
San Diego,
eryday problems in living: Depression, loneliness, and shyness. Social
Cognition. 3. 16-35.
style. Because
and behav-
learned helplessness model of depression. Psychological Inquiry. 2.
14-19.
Verlag.
style oflonely and depressed
Psychology, 45. 127-136.
.
Rosenthal
database.
of the typical phenomenal organization of attributions for success and
failure. Social Cognition. 9. 295-329.
ioral self-blame contribute uniquely to depression and loneliness, future studies can assess both using a forced choice methodology without concern over the confounding problem inherent in this procedure. Alternatively, an open-ended coding
method that is explicitly sensitive to all three dimensional features of the key attribution types could be refined and used to
test additional categorical attributional style developments.
Finally, it is important to remember that what psychologists
typically bemoan as "small" effects are often larger than effects
importance.
:rhe PsycLlT
that a major study on as-
people. Journal of Personality
and utility of the attributional
and Social
style construct at a moderate level of
t
t
AND
MIL
RIG
DIL
Kel
H.
H.,
&
M
J.
L.
(19
At
th
an
re
i
Ander
C.
A..
&
R
A.
L.
(1991
A
c
attri
iger
ontr
Ma
B.,
Mu
P..
&
H
K.
(1
A
e
model
of
proble
in
living
Dime
and
situa
inte
tion
and
cop
wi
ab
Jo
of
P
a
S
Me
C.B
T
S.
E.
Ad
to
ra
J
o
A.,
W
B.
(1992
Attri
ein
proces
in
perso
In
G.
Capr
&
G
Heck
(Eds
Mod
.
Pet
c.:
Sch
M.
&
S
M
E
(
1
e
9
.
324).
New
York:
Harve
Whea
Beck,
A.
T.,
&
B
R.
W.
(1972
Scree
depr
patie
eck.
in
fam
Pre
D.
A.,
&
M
D.
T.
(1
W
s
ef
a
i
m
i
m
ily
practi
A
r
techn
Postg
apid
Med
52.
81-8
Beck.
Ward
C.
H.,
Mend
M.,
Moc
J..
&
E
J.
rba
Ros
R.
(19
Ho
are
we
do
in
so
ps
A
(1961
An
inven
for
meas
depre
Arch
of
Gen
Rus
D.,
Pep
L.
A.
&
C
C.
E.
(1
T
r
U
u
e
(Carve
Carve
C.
S.
1
How
shoul
multi
perso
989)
cons
be
Sch
T.
J.,
Ste
V.
J.,
Ho
J.
E,
C
P
R
&
F
K.
(19
Att
aff
an
ex
fo
sm
So,
Ganel
R.
J.,
&
B
V.
(198
Dep
eha
Sel
M.
E.
P.,
Ab
L.
Y.
Se
A
v
B
C
C.
&
S
M.
F.
(1991
Unre
issue
chei
rega
the
Sto
R.
E,
&
G
J.
P.
(19
In
at
an
ty
a
o
Feathe
N.
T.
(1983
Some
corre
of
attrib
stye
Dep
Sw
P.
D.,
An
K.
&
B
S.
(1
A
s
i
a
n
T..
&
T
M.
(1984
balan
mea
igge
of
attri
dep
A
m
rev
Jo
of
P
S
e
Aett,
G.
L..
Blank
K.
R.,
&
H
L.
S.
(199
olo
Ten
H.,
&
H
S.
(19
De
se
a
t
h
Frazie
P.
A.
(1990
Victim
attrib
and
posttraum
Jour
Janoff
R.
(1979
Chara
versu
beha
self
-------..-
"
4
558-
SEDIKIDES
specificity.
990.
Journal
of Personality
and Social
Psychology,
55. 979-
Annual
tions in the prediction
of depression
and loneliness.
Social Cognition.
Review
of Psychology,
31. 457-501.
Psychology,
48. 585-599.
Personality
and Social Psychology,
9. 149-181.
personality
psychology:
Critical
reviews
and
new directions
(pp.
295-
and depressive symptoms.
ogy, 4/. 253-259.
sive. Ps.vchological
Bulletin.
Journal
50. 1226-1234.
of Personality
and Social Ps.vchol.
112. 160-164.
Psychologut.45.775-777.
Psychiatr.v,
4. 561-571.
tested? Issues illustrated by self-monitoring,attributional
hardiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
and cognitive style: Comparisons
between measures.
sonalit,v and Social Psycho{og.v, 49. 722-728.
meaning and measurement
quiry, 2. 21-24.
symptoms,
self-esteem,
Social Psychology
butional
and Protestant
Bulletin.
style. Australian
of explanatory
style, and
56. 577-585.
Journal
of Per-
style. Psychological In-
ethic values.
Personality
and
9. 125-135.
Journal
Loneliness
Scale: Concurrent
and discriminant
validity
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39. 472-480.
cessation treatment.
184.
(1979). Depressive
ogy, 88. 242-247.
Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 9. 173-
attributional
style. Journal
of Abnormal
depression in college students: The learned helplessness
ited. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 36, 316-321.
Psychol-
model revis-
of Psycho log.v, 36. 267-283.
Psychology,
and complex attributions of blame in self and others. Journal of Social Behavior and Personalit,v, 5. 175-188.
of Personality
evidence.
50. 974-991.
absence of self-protective
attributional
and Social Psychology, 52. 72-80.
biases. Jol/rnalofPersonality
and Social Psycho{ogJ: 59. 298-304.
blame: Inquiries into depression
Social Psychology, 37.1798-1809.
and rape. Journal
o!'Personality
and
Received July 24, 1992
Revision received August 17, 1993
Accepted October 4, 1993 .