The present study examined how individuals attribute responsibility for alcohol-related offenses. Subjects were classified into 4 groups based on the type of consequences they received for their alcohol use and were asked to complete 2 measures of causal attributions following each of 2 scenarios which depicted different severities of outcome of alcohol-related offenses. Using a 2-way multiple analysis of variance the 2 × 4 repeated-measures design indicated no significant difference between groups based on consequences. A significant difference was found for severity of outcome suggesting individuals attribute differing responsibility based on the outcome of alcohol-related events.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonC. A. (1983) The causal structure of situations: the generation of plausible attributions as a function of type of event situationJournal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 185–203.
2.
AndrewsB.BrewinC. R. (1990) Attributions of blame for marital violence: a study of antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 757–767.
3.
BensonM. (1989) Attributional measurement techniques: classification and comparison of attributions for measuring causal dimensions, Journal of Social Psychology, 129, 307–323.
4.
CalhounL. G.SelbyJ. W.CannA.KellerT. (1978) The effects of victim physical attractiveness and sex of respondent on social reactions to victims of rape. British Journal of Social Clinical Psychology, 17, 191–192.
5.
CannA.CalhounL. G.SelbyJ. W. (1979) Attributing responsibility to the victim of rape: influence of information regarding past sexual experience. Human Relations, 32, 57–67.
6.
CritchlowB. (1983) Blaming the booze: the attribution of responsibility for drunken behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 451–473.
7.
DejoyD. M. (1989) An attribution theory perspective on alcohol-impaired driving. Health Education Quarterly, 16, 359–372.
8.
DietrichD.BerkowitzL.KadushinA.McGloinJ. (1990) Some factors influencing abusers' justification of their child abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 14, 337–345.
9.
HarveyJ. H.WearyG. (1981) Perspectives on attributional processes. Dubuque, LA: William C. Brown.
10.
JonesE. E.KanouseD. E.KelleyH. H.NisbettR. E.ValinsS.WeinerB. (1972) Attribution: perceiving the causes of behavior. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
McAuleyE.DuncanT. E.RussellD. W. (1992) Measuring causal attributions: the Revised Causal Dimension Scale (CDSII). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 560–573.
13.
MyersonA. (1940) Alcohol: a study of social ambivalence. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 1, 13–20.
14.
SobellL. C.SobellM. B. (1973) Drunkenness, a “special circumstance” in crimes of violence: sometimes. International Journal of the Addictions, 10, 869–882.
15.
WeinerB. (1979) A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 1–29.
16.
WeinerB. (1983) Some methodological pitfalls in attribution research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 530–543.
17.
WeinerB. (1995) Judgments of responsibility: a foundation for a theory of social conduct. New York: Guilford.
18.
WeinerB.NierenbergR.GoldsteinM. (1976) Social learning (locus of control) versus attributional (causal stability) interpretations of expectancy of success. Journal of Personality, 44, 52–68.
