Development and validation of measures of self- and other-blaming personality tendencies
Date
1989
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
ORCID
Type
Degree Level
Doctoral
Abstract
Conventional clinical wisdom maintains that people vary
with respect to their tendencies to make self- and/or other-blame
judgments in response to negative life events. The
theories that have been developed to explain this
variability, however, are currently limited by a number of
theoretical and methodological difficulties. First, some
inferential theories have minimized the influences of crosssituational
consistencies in blaming judgments. Second,
others have attended to this source of variability but have
not developed adequate personality measures of blaming
tendencies. Third, dynamic and interpersonal theories have
implicitly assumed consistency of blame reactions but have
not assessed these tendencies independent of other
internally- or externally-directed hostile behaviour and
affects.
In this dissertation a sanctioning theory of blame
(Wollert, Heinrich, Wood, and Werner, 1983) is discussed as
an alternative to social inference and
dynamic/interpersonal theories. A model of the operation of
sanctions of self- and other-blame following negative events
is introduced. It is then argued that before this model can
adequately be tested, measures of blaming tendencies must be
developed.
Three studies are reported in which measures of blaming
tendencies were developed and validated. In the first
study, homogeneous scales of self- and other-blame were
selected from pools of statements representing these
domains. The items were included in the scales based on
high correlation with their own domain and lack of
correlation with other domains. In the second study,
convergent and discriminant validity of the self- and other-blame
scales were demonstrated by comparing the responses of
a group of psychiatric patients to the ratings of their
therapists. In the third study, applicants for admission to
a professional school completed the blame scales, along with
several other measures, prior to receiving notification of
the outcome of their applications and immediately following
this notification. Hypotheses were tested regarding the
predictability of blame, causal attributions, hostility, and
mood. Although some predictions of sanctioning theory
regarding mood reactions were not met, further support for
the validity of the self- and other-blame scales was
obtained from this study.
The results of the three studies are discussed in the
light of sanctioning theory. It is argued that the
development of these self- and other-blame scales using
psychometric methods provides a sound basis for future tests
of the theory.
Description
Keywords
Citation
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.)
Department
Psychology
Program
Psychology