Attribution Theories: Assessing Causal and Responsibility Judgments in Families

AbstractBackground:One influential view is that vulnerability to major depressive disorder (MDD) is associated with a proneness to experience negative emotions in general. In contrast, blame attribution theories emphasise the importance of blaming oneself rather than others for negative events. Our previous exploratory study provided support for the attributional hypothesis that patients with remitted MDD show no overall bias towards negative emotions, but a selective bias towards emotions entailing self-blame relative to emotions that entail blaming others. More specifically, we found a decreased proneness for contempt/disgust towards others relative to oneself (i.e. self-contempt bias). Here, we report a definitive test of the competing general negative versus specific attributional bias theories of MDD.Methods:We compared a medication-free remitted MDD (n = 101) and a control group (n = 70) with no family or personal history of MDD on a previously validated experimental test of moral emotions. The task measures proneness to specific emotions associated with different types of self-blame (guilt, shame, self-contempt/disgust, self-indignation/anger) and blame of others (other-indignation/anger, other-contempt/disgust) whilst controlling for the intensity of unpleasantness.Results:We confirmed the hypothesis that patients with MDD exhibit an increased self-contempt bias with a reduction in contempt/disgust towards others. Furthermore, they also showed a decreased proneness for indignation/anger towards others.Conclusions:This corroborates the prediction that vulnerability to MDD is associated with an imbalance of specific self- and other-blaming emotions rather than a general increase in negative emotions. This has important implications for neurocognitive models and calls for novel focussed interventions to rebalance blame in MDD.

Download Full-text

Attitude extremism in the abortion controversy: a test of social judgment, cognitive dissonance, and attribution theories

10.31274/rtd-180813-6043 ◽

1983 ◽

Author(s):

Stephen Louis Goettsch

Keyword(s):

Cognitive Dissonance ◽

Social Judgment ◽

Attribution Theories

Download Full-text

Helping coworkers only when I have more? Integrating social comparison, attribution and conservation of resources theories

Management Research Review ◽

10.1108/mrr-08-2020-0514 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽

Author(s):

Shih Yung Chou ◽

Katelin Barron ◽

Charles Ramser

Keyword(s):

Theoretical Model ◽

Social Comparison ◽

Design Methodology ◽

Helping Behavior ◽

Personal Resources ◽

Conservation Of Resources ◽

Content Type ◽

Managerial Implications ◽

Attribution Theories ◽

Comparative Nature

Purpose Drawing upon conservation of resources (COR) and attribution theories, prior research in helping behavior has mainly focused on an independent view of the helper’s personal resources. This perspective, however, falls short of capturing the comparative nature of personal resources and attributions in a helping context. The purpose of this paper is, therefore, to develop a theoretical model that helps predict employees’ decisions to help or not to help. Design/methodology/approach A theoretical model was developed by integrating social comparison, COR and attribution theories. Findings The theoretical model proposes the following. First, when employees perceive that they have fewer personal resources than a coworker who needs help, they are less likely to help. Second, when employees perceive that they have more personal resources than a coworker who needs help, they make causal attributions as to why the coworker failed to deploy personal resources. Finally, when employees have more personal resources than a coworker who needs help, they are more likely to help if they make situational, unstable and uncontrollable attributions to the coworker’s failure to deploy personal resources. Originality/value This paper extends the literature by offering a theoretical model that emphasizes comparisons and attributions of personal resources in a helping context. Additionally, this paper offers several managerial implications that help managers manage helping behavior effectively.

Download Full-text

How much firms “give” to CSR vs how much they “gain” from it: inequity perceptions and their implications for CSR authenticity

European Journal of Marketing ◽

10.1108/ejm-11-2018-0772 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 54 (8) ◽

pp. 1987-2012 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Liudmila Tarabashkina ◽

Pascale G. Quester ◽

Olga Tarabashkina

Keyword(s):

Firm Size ◽

Design Methodology ◽

Distance Effect ◽

Psychological Distance ◽

Content Type ◽

Csr Communication ◽

Vested Interests ◽

Corporate Social ◽

Attribution Theories ◽

Practical Implications

Purpose The purpose of this study is to answer the call for additional detailed research on factors that influence corporate social responsibility (CSR) authenticity by examining how the former is affected by the commonly reported CSR spending allocations expressed as percentages of annual profits. It integrates equity and attribution theories to propose a new construct of inequity perceptions to explain how CSR spending allocations influence CSR authenticity. Inequity perceptions form from smaller allocations that are perceived disproportionate compared to the potential reputational gains from the executed CSR communication, which, in turn, prompts lower authenticity inferences. Design/methodology/approach Three experiments were performed. Study 1 examines how different CSR spending allocations influence inequity perceptions and how the latter relate to CSR authenticity. Study 2 examines how inequity perceptions are affected by firm size. Study 3 examines whether psychological distance (being a customer or non-customer) affects information processing by predisposing customers to forming higher inequity perceptions. Findings Study 1 shows that lesser allocations produce higher inequity perceptions. Study 2 demonstrates that inequity perceptions are enhanced when numerically small allocations are reported by a large as opposed to a small firm. Study 3 shows that both customers and non-customers form similar inequity perceptions from smaller percentage allocations without support for the psychological distance effect. Research limitations/implications This study shows that the percentage of profits allocated to CSR, as well as firm size, can affect authenticity inferences via inequity perceptions. These findings point to different implications of CSR communication that features percentage allocations that multiple firms may not be aware of. Practical implications Marketers can benefit from the reported findings by understanding when and how CSR communication that features percentage allocations may be counter-productive by generating lesser CSR authenticity. Originality/value This study provides a novel perspective on how consumers evaluate CSR authenticity in a marketplace where awareness of firms’ vested interests is increasing.

Download Full-text