DOCONENT IMMUNE

ED 204 664 CG 015 282

AUTHOR Forsyth, PanCy L.; Forsyth,TITLE Internality, Controllability,. and the Effectiveness

of Attribution Therapy.POB DATE May 80

..NOTE 23p.: Paper presented at the. Annual Meeting of theSoutheastern Psychological Associatign (27th,.Atlanta, GA, March 25-28, 1991).

EDRS PRICE.DESCRIPTORS

MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.Adjustment (to Environment): *Affective Behavior: .

*Attribution Theory: *Coping: *Counseling rechniques:Emotional Response: Interpersonal Competence: *Locusof Control; Peer Evaluation: *Self Concept; SocialBehavior: Stress Variables

ABSTRACTAn attributional approach t social behavior trefces''

problems in personal adjustment back to the ssumptions individuals '

-foriulate about the causes of behaviors and e ents. Attributional'Information presented during counseling may have therapeuticallybeneficial consequences. The effectiveness of attribution therapy wasinvestigated in a factorial eiperiment which varied controllabilityand internality of causal factors. Pairs of subjects (1)=,821, who had.

previously completed Potter's ,Internal-EXternal Locus of ControlScale.Were given negative interpersonal evaluations followed by one

of four types of-therapy (internal/controllable,internal/uncontrollable, external/controllable; crexternal/uncontrollable) or no therapy at all. Results indicated thatinternal/controllable therapy produced more positive affectiv0reactions and performance evaluations for internal locus of controlrespondents: externals were more variable in their responses.Findings suggest that' the negative effects of stressful life events

,may be reduced by modifying individuals/ attributional inferences.'4Author/NRBI

c21,*'****,i,*********************************4,****************4c******1* Reproductions supplied: by EDRS are'rthe best that.cn be made

from the,,priginal document.***************44*********************************1,14***

"Rughin

Date:

Intern#lity, Controllability, and the Effectiveness of

Attribution Therapy

HNancy L,. .Forsyth ancd Dgoelsow-R. Forsyth.

\Virginia Commonwealth Universi6,

Head: Attribution Therapy.

Correspondence

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.E'bUCATION & WELFARE

NAtIONAL INSTITUTt OFEDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT tIA,S BEEN REPRO-DUCED EXACTLY ASI RECEIVED FROM

.THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN-ATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONSSTATED DO NOT NECESSA44ILY REPRE-SENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL- INSTITUTE OFEDUCATION POSITION OR:POLICY

May; 1980

Address: DepartMent of y:PsychologyVirginia Commonwealth University.810 W. Franklin- Atreet

Richmond, VA 23284c

Thanks are eAended tO Joseph Porter

(804) 257-1179

"PERMISSION,70 REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL. HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

e w

and Everett L.,Worthington, Jr.

for.their help and enceurageMent throughout the course of this investi7AAmy ..

..

. .",

gation and to Coberlyand Rick Casell for/ their'issistance as exper-T

.,imenters. RequeSts for reprints shOuld'be/sent: to the Department/

.

chology, Virginia Commonwealth-UniversitY,8i0 W. FiarligihStree,

Richmond, VA 23284.

sy-

Internality, controllability; and the Effectiveness of

Attribution Therapy,

to social behavior traces problems inAn attributional approach

/personaliadjustmwt.back to the

cerning:the causes.of behaviors

assumptions individuals formulate con-

and events (Abramsoneligman, &Teas-

dale,,1978; ValinS & Nisbett, 1971)1 AcCOrding to this perspective, theI

person who experiences a stregeful life event--suchts'loss of employment'e

'dissolution of an intimate relationship, or continual family disharmony--1

-

will explain this.event by making causal inferences which can, in part;

jdetermine personal adjustment during and after the life crisis. ReSearch

dealing With learned helplessness.(e.g.,'Abram8on et al., 1978; Wortman,

1976), selfblame (Brockner & Hulton, 1978; Janoff-BulMan',..1979) and re-

sactigns to failure (Dweck, 1975; Tennen &'Eller, 1977) has documented the

relationship between psychdlogical well -being and attributions.

-,!Reasoning that personal adjustment is linked to the'ettributionS people

make!,about Stres/ sful life events, Altmaier, Leary, Forsyth, and Ansel (1979)

suggested that attributional information preented during counseling can'1

,

1

/1.tayadtherapeuticaliy beneficial consequences. In their research students

who received a harsh personal criticism frovanother student were'givenly

informationthat indicated this negative event was the usult of external,

/.[rather than internal, causes This "attribution therapy" helped some, Of.

the students cope with the negative evaluation, but the effectivenebs of

the therapy depended on when the. information was given,and the locus 'Of1 0'

control of the subject (Rotter, 1966). When-the explanation of the nega-

tive event was given immediately after the feedback, externals benefited

more' than internals: After a delay,

AttribLiti6n7Therapy

2

lo ever, the external attribUtioal

information helped internals more than Xternals.

While these findings clArli deMonsrate the'utility of an attri-,

\butional appro ch to counseling,',the factors which determine the effec-

tiveness of an a tribution therapy remainoinspecified. 'Although the

content of the therapeutic information presented in the Altmai r et al.

study emphasized, subjects' perceptions of the origin of,Leir neptive

,evaluation (i.e., either internally or externally caused), perceived

controllability should be a second key determinant of the effectiveness

of Attribution therapy.: jlumerous.theories of

emphasize the concept of efEective-control*(e4

'1968; White, 1959)4 and the.relevant researc

is associated with depression .(Seligman, 19

(Weine'r,, 1979), 'deterioration of ,physical heaft

psychological. funCtioning

1955;'r4ebharmS,.

s.loss of control

ional deficitsI .

io 1

& Rodin, 1976;.

mart,' 1977), and(. .

Schulz & Hahusa', 1978), rinadequate;Coping

'stress-related illnesses (Glass 1977). Indeed, boO.Wortman (1976;

Wortman & Dintzer, 1978)-andiSeligman (1475!- Abramsc et al., 1978) em-.

Jphasize controllability in their theories 6f learn i 1plessness, and

Weiner (1979) his recently revised his attribution theoiy to include

this critical dimension.

. , .

The current investigation examined the relaV.onshiP between

,content .of an attributional therapy and the effectiveness_of that therapY.- ,

.by manipulating the internality and controllability of the causal faCtors

emphasized in the therapeutic message. Using the procedure developed

by Altmaier et al.., subjects were eXpohd to a harsh personal evaluation

Attribution Therapy

supposedly-written by a recent, acquaintance. After experiencing this,

degatiVe interpersonal event subjects were then exposed to an attri-'-' ,

bUtion "therapyuwhiCh emphasi?ed ) an internal /coittrollab1e cause,

(2) an internaliubtPntrol4able; cau c , (3), an external/controllable

cause, or (4) anexternal /uncontrolllable Cause. After listening to

this atta;libutional information epbjec s recorded their perceptions. of

their evaluation, their affecttve reactions, and their willingness to

return for agditio sessions. A control condition was also included

which receivedthe negative evaluatip and completed the dependent

,

measures but. Naas given no therapeutic information.. a,

The attributional approach to psyCholOgical adjustment' predicts. that;

'the effectiveness of the therapy will be greatest when internal control-,

lable causes are stressed. Although the amount of initial anxiety the

client experiences just afrr theAlegative eve uation may be reduced (

by stressing external, uncontrollable cause0 '

1

the negative event, sub-

sequent coping and adjustment should be greater when.the internal factors

which led. to the event and the client's responsibility for changing these',

factors are, acknowledged. However, the relatively greater effectiveness

of the internal controllable therapy may depend, in part, onthe.loc

of control of the client. While internal /controllable infofmation is

consistent with internals' concept of their locus of reinforcement, ex-

'ternals may.reject this informationsince it conflicts-with their.oWn

attributiofial assumptions.: Therefore, subjects were tlassified as

either internal or external in:their locus of control orientation, and

a three-way interaction of locUs of tontro

I-.

internal versus external

,

therapy, and controllable versus uncontrollable therapy was anticipated..,

7

InLrnalswould.bemoire.influenced by the attribution therapy than the

AttribuLon TheraPY

externals, partitularly.wheninternal/con'trollable factors are'strressed.-

Externals, on the other hand, would be more positively influenced 'by.

external attributional infOrmation.'

J)(

Suliject.

The 58 females and 2 males who participated ie tudy were

volunteers recrulTed from intrOdUctory Psychology. Classes. All had

Method

previously completed the'Internal:-External Locus of Control SCale.02.Otter,

1966) andhad been designated either "internal" or "extern01" on he

basis of their responses.. Subjects participated in same-Sex:pairs, and

three experimenters--two female and one. male--ran an. equal number-of

pairs in each conaition.

Procedure

14

:Upon arrival fhe two subjects were tolOthat, as participants in ai ...

,

.

studyof impression formation, they would be asked to have aconyersation. .. . .

. .

With each other and afterwards complete a short questionnaire, After,the,. .

(

subjects agreed- to participate by signing a consent form the experimenter

..,

gave theme.- 1st o questions to follow during' thAr interaction.. This

.. . % TY.,-

list, whichwas, ooMprised.of such questions as "Wh5t is your major?" and1 ,..

-. ..

"What do you plan to do when you get out of school?" was included iht

order:to.control the content, direction, and intimapy...IeVel-of ele

versation. TThe experimehter reminded the subjects that they had`about

ten minutes ';for their talk before exi

0 Attfibution Therapy.

5

ng: The conversation 'itself

m.S.

vas mOnitored by the experimenter froM the next roo,

After ten min tes the experimenter ended the. conversation, separated

the. subjects into diffexentooms, and gave each an envelope containing, .

a short questionn ire. This forth consisted of,six Likert-types items for

enluating their partner ih the conversation and included such questions jt.

as "How-interesting was the conversation?" "How interesting was the other

:participant?" and "Would you like to'have another conversation with they'

other person?" Subjects were left alone to complete their questionnaires,( .

'. ,.. but wet,e,asked to

t return the evaluation to the envelope.when,finished.-

- ,

When the evaluations had been completed the experimenter' returned,

to each subject and explained "I am now going to let you see the Other4

person's ratings of you. He(She) didn't know that we were going to give

them to you, so the informatiOn on the form should be relatively honest."

In actuality, theenveldpes.giveh-the subjects contained bogus qubtion-',

)naires which had:been completed to represent a negativeievaluation-7the.'

conversation 4nd the subject.were.rated as 0uninteresting, the.ihdicated

liking for the person was very/low, and the respondent had apparently

refused to consider having a second conversation with the,subject, (all-°

responses were either 2 oil 3 on the negative pole of the 8-point scales).

When the subjects.had.had time to look over the bogus forms the

experimenter returned and, for all conditionshutthe control, admin-..'

ibteredr the attribution therapy. The-experimenter-told subjects that/

if they had received a negative evaluation--which sometimgs happens in. ,

the study--they should try to Understand what could have caused this

Attribution Therapy

outcome. Subjectsswere randomly assigned to one of four possible

"therapies" which varied in terms of internality of cause (internal

vs. external) and controllability of cause (controllable vs. uncon-

trollable). For example, in the internal/Controllable therapy condition

subjects were told:

What we find is that Usually'when you interact With a

person you tend to ke a certain kind of)impression. Basic -

ally, the impression you make--either good or b0-,depends

upon how you act. Unfortunately, in tbis study you may not

have been able to do,thelthings that lead to good impressions

because you Couldn't get involved enough in making an impres-

sion.. People, of course, can always control the impression

they make with others by changing their behavior, letting

them know things about themselves: However, because you*

persOnallY couldn't get invOlved in i e interaction-you may

'N.;

not have gotten a highly positive evaluation. Tf this did

happen, remember it was.because of the things you did, but

that usually you can rol.these things 'better than this.

The external/controllable condition sub'jects' therapy emphasized the im-

Tortance of situational caus9swhich can be contro1164; and ended with

the sentence "If this did happen, remember it was because of thenSitua-.0

don., but that you'can usuap,y control. situations better than this."-

The'internal/uncontrollable therapy emphasized "personality",and ended,

'by stating "Remember it was because OI something about your personality,

which is something you can't do anything abouf.." , Vastly, the external/-

Attribution Therapy

L

7

uncontrollable condition therapy pointed to the "artificiality of the

setting" and ended with "remember it was because of the situation,. which

is something that you can't do anything about." No explanation of the

, -;,-negative evaluation was provided for control condi' ion subjects.

.

Immediately following the. manipulation subjects completed,a,question-,

nacre containing the 'dependent, measures. These included (1) two .9 -point

Likert-type items that checked the effectiveness'of the therapy man-,

ipulations; (2) one 9-point Likert-type question which measured subjects'

perceptions of _ei_r\evaluations; (3) fourteen 7-point semantic differ-,

ender measures of affect (e.g!., happy-sad, competent-incompetent, good-.

bad); (4) a behavioral measure of willingness to participate in additional

conversatio s; and (5) five 9-point Likert-type scales designed to measure

self-rati s o'F.general conversational skills and attractiveness..

Results

. Subjects selected for the study had extreme scores on,Rotter's (1966)4

-

locus:of control scale and the personal control subscale identified by

tiffin,Gurin,andllbrrison (1978; items 9, 12, 15, 25, and 28 of'the original

scale). The locus of'controi means, 6.9 for "internals" and 14.5 for

4

"externals," were clearly different from one another (F (1,,, 79) =.219.99, .'

2. .05) s were the personal control means for these same two groups;'..

(.2.7 and 4.4 (F (1, 79) = 87.69., i- .05).44 The dependent measures were

. examined using 2 nternal vs. external therapy)'X 2 (controllable vs.'.

unCOtrollable therapy) X 2 (internal vs: external locus of control),

analyses of variance which, because of the nonorthogonnlity piOduced by

,.AqtrioUtion Therapy

'8

the unequal, ell sizes; relied, on least squares regression procedures

which adjusted each effect qr those of.equ'al pr loypr order. Unless'

otherwise noted multiple mean comparisons were conducted using Duncan'

Multiple Range Test at the .05 level using error variances based on

1

both the experimental and control conditions.

Manipulation Checks

Internality; A mai; effect. of internal. vs; ,external therapy on

the item "To what extent do you think:the evaluation you teceived from

the other person was caused by personal factors versus *nyironmental

factors?"--F (lc 58) = 7.43, II.< .05-indicated interUal:theragy subs8

jects stresSed:perSonal factors over environmental factors more 0 than

external therapy subjects. The respective Means were 4.1 and 5.4; the.

tontrol condition.mean was 4.4 and did not.differ from either condition.

No other effects were significant on this item.

Controllability. The only significant effect on the item "To what

extent do you think the, evaluation you received from the other person ,

was caused by things you can't ever control'verSus can.always control?"'

was a-main effect of controllability; F.(1, 58) = 3.91, 2 = .05. The

controllable therapy-condition.mean was 4.2 while the uncontrollable

-

therapy condition. mean was 3.2;.indicating this manipulation was'also

,s

effective. 'The mean for the no- therapy - control condition was 4.3 and

. ,

did not differ from the uncontrollable therapy condition nean.

Insert Table 1 about here'

O

r Atcribution Therapy

9

Perceptions of Evaluation

In order to determine what impact,' if any, the therapeutic informa-

tion had on subjectsperCeptiona of their interpersonal evaluation

.respondents were asked "What kind of evaluation did you reqeive?" Analy-,

sis of their responses on the accompanyihg 9-point 'scale (with verbal.

labels ranging.from "very negative" to "very positive") revealed a three-,

. . ..

way interaction .- of controllability, internality, and locus'Of:control;...)

F (1, 58) = 5.71, .24 .05. As shown in Table 1, the various types of' ,

therapies Iiiffered in effectiveness depending upon the locus of.control

of respondents. For internals, information which emphasized the imp

portance of internal but controllable causes 'successfully alleviated

some of theharshness of the negative evaluation. On the other hand,

if told that their poor evaluation was the'result of internal/uncontrollable

,.causes or external/controllable .causes, internal locus of control subjects

felt their evaluation was especially negative--aszefleaed in the sig-

nificant differences between these two conditions and the no-therapy

. .

control condition. Internals in.the external/uncontrollable cond4tion

fell interMediate. to all other cOnditioes;! indicating this therapy was

neither eneficial,nor harmful.

The therapehtic, information had few positive effects for externallyfN

'

oriented subjectS: Ile '1 ternal/pontrollable informatiofi clearly. :

helped internals, e ternals i this condition perceived their ratings

in more negative term . AltAo gh the simple main effect of cOntrolt-

bility approached significance for externalsl-F ( ,,58) = 336, 11.4.07--

indicating the uncontrollable.thdraples tended to produce more negative.

appraisals than controllable therapies, the overall differenpesbetween

'I

Attribution Therapy

10

4thepies were less pronounced n,cOmparison,to these

found for internal locus pc control subjAts.. .

.Affeciive Reactions

Insert Table about here

Same differenCes .

11.

tb.

Because d t is both concettually (Osgood, Suci,'' & Tannenbau 1957)-

'aritX statistically (Goesuch, 1974) 14dvis le to factor analyze"semantic

differentials when they,are used for\

dependent krariabae assessment pur--7(

poses, a pr*Scipal axes factor analysis was performdti, on khe 14 bipolar

adjective measures of affect.2

This analysis revealed only one major

r

attot which foc 79% of, . e.variance with an eigenvector of

7.14. Iteras such Os "IncompetentCompetent;.'And "adequate-inadequate!'

loaded highly on this factor (loadingS = .66 & xespectively), which

was interpeted tO be a measure of feelings of pers'onar competency.r '

Wher6the standardi4zed factor scorp for personal competency were

computed and used as the dependent measures in a subsequent. analysis

' f

of variance, an internality'X controll'ability X locus of control inter-, . 3" . o

'action was revealed; F (1, 58) = 4.02,, EL .4..05. The factor .score

meanspxesented in Table Acate once more that for` internal locus,

of control subjects Ve i ternai/collixrollable therapy wag the most> .

effective therally. 13.spond nts in indicatedcondition indiaate they lelt.

.

''`i,.more competent than the ectsin both ehe internal/uncontrollable..

therapy tondition--F (J, 58) ='4.'63, .p. < .05-- and the extern/'---

tontroliabe -theeapy condition- 7F(1, 58) = 4:83, IL 4..05. These dif-

., . . . . ..

-ferencks, -however,. held, only for internals. Once more:no statistically

-

.. . ,, .

Attribution Therapy

11

significant differences were found across the therapy conditions for

externals.

Behavioral Assessment

Analysis of subjects' responses to the item "How many more converse-.

tions such as the one you'hadtdday would you be willing to volunteer

for1n the-fUture?' revealed a'significant interaction of internality

and c'otrollability;Tjl, 58).= 5.08, 2_ Subjects checked one

Of the folloWing alternatives: 0.-1,, or 6 or more and -responses

were coded irom.:1 tb.4 corrspond.igtaeach choice.

Insert .Table

As Table 3 shows, when therapy mphasized internal causes subjects

were willing to come back for an a rage 3 moreyonversations--

the no-Olerapy control .condition subjects.about the same:number

4Wever, when .the therapeutic

as

information suggeSted situational causes.,

had produced the'negative evaluation, subjects volunteered for.more con

versations only if these causes were described as uncontrollable rather

than controllable. Indeed;Texternal/uncontrollabletherapy had the ef-

feCt of decreasing the amount of volunteering to below.the level of the

control condition.

Self-Evaluations

Responses to the five measures of communication skills, interpersonal

attractiveness, and bias in the other's perceptions were analyz'ed in a 2

(locus of control) X 2 (iirte.r.pplity) X 2 (controllability) multivariate

analysis of which used Pillats trace as the approximation to

Attribution Therapy

12

F (Falai, 1965). '13ecau-Se.no significant effect were obtained multi-

variately., no univarlate tests were conducted (Leary & Altmaier, in press).

Discussion

The fundamental assumptiOn.of an attributionai approach to therapy--

that some of the.negative effectsof stressful life events can be reduced

by helping the client formulate attributions which promote effidient psy-.

chological functioning--was supported with certain qualifications. First

the utility of internal controllable attribution therapy-for internal -(

locus of control subject's was', evidenced by the more positive self-ratings

of personal competence arod less negative perceptions of the evaluation

reported by internals told:to attribute Olusarityt.o elements of. their. -

behavior that could be.changed. Second, externals clearly-did,not respond

well to internal controllable therapy; but thealternatiVe-therapies'im--

proved post-evaluation reactions only slightly. Third, irrespectiVe of

participants locus of control,' subjects were -the least willing to re-.

itUrn for more interviews, when external controllable causes were emphasi'zed.,

If the effects obtained in this research are representative of those

that would be found in on -going counseling, these findings suggest several.

important conclusions for practicing therapists, Although attribution thetapy

seems to be inappropriate when psychological function is severely impaired,

previous research (e.g., Dwe0c, 1975) and in-depth case work <e.g.,

Johnson, Foss, & Mastria, 1977) indicates such therapy is successful when

used in short-term counseling focused on specific behavioral or emotional

problems. For example, Johnson et al. report an attributiopal approach

to the treatment of delusional behavior that resulted from anxiety over

14

r

masturbation, and Dweck helped children deal:with the "math phobia! by .

teaching them to attribute their outcomes to.factursthey could control..

Drawing from both the present and past Iabratory.research (Altmaier et

al., 1979), attribution therapy seems to pe reasonably effeCtive in

treating the commonly reported 'problem of inability to relate to other

people interpersonally.' However, coun elors,should be aware tha'inte nal

locus of control clients may behette benefited by the explorationA

causes. In fact, when therapeutic i fOrmation which emphasized int

controllable causal factors was pre ented to externals, the therapy head

detrimentaleffects. Additionally:, if the counselor wants to make cer-.

vtain.their client will again attempt the behavior which led to the,

negative consequences, then'the therapy which increased willingneSS to

return for more interviews--ex ernal. and uncontrollable therapymay be

Attributlori Therapy'

.the more effective approach to take. Apparently,. subjects confronted

,with. information that.indica ed theywere negatively evalUated because

of the situation were more illing to try again because they felt they.

,

Were absolved of responsi ility when the external cause was uncontrollable.

Given the problems nherent in generalizing from a laboratory

analogue to natural set ings, the implications'of this research should,

be considered cautious y. For example, while only one type of cause

was stressed-, for eac participant, psychologists' who must-guide, their

clients man attri utional exploration'of the source of their diffi-,

culties probably e phasize more than one causal factor. The importance

of motivation and,hard work(internal, controllable) can be stressed,

along with such factors as the client's personality or physical features

Attribution..Therapy

14

internal, uncontrollable , the nature of the'interpersonal-situation

.(external, controllable), and factOrs which are external tothe client

and beyond control (e.g., monetary resources,, fate, lack of opportunity,

accident). While in many instances counselors can avail, themselves to

many different types of attributional.information, additional research

will be needed before the effectiveness of multiple causal therapies

can. be evaluated.

These limitations asiile, attribution theory seems to offer an inte-

gratiVe framework 6r the structuring of therapeutic inte4entions.

J e

Recent studies pf the ,sociai,psychological implications of causal in-

,

fprence have underscored the impoitanCi of attributions in cognitive,

-. . .

.

processing,.interpersonal relations, and'personal adjutment, and a,,

.--,wide-range of phenomena haVe been clarified by tonsidering their. founda-

,4

tions in attributions (Forsyth,tk :'980). A therapeutic approach based on ,

attributional concepts makes spenific predictions concerning therapy ef-7

'fectiveness in lay counselifig settings; critisinterventiore, and other .

4

short-term treatment,setting§, and'is also consi,s'eent with other, clinical

methods of "cognitive restructuring" (Aekchenbaum, 1975) and cognitive-.

behavior treatment (Kendall & Wilcox, 19 Although additiOnalre-

search into the long-term effects of these erapies is needed before

any precise conclusions concerning effectiven ss can be.drawn, at present

attribution therapy appears to o er a potentially adequate means of

solving problems in psychological functioning and promoting healthy

personal adjustment.

References

Attribution Therapy

15

.

Abramson, L. ,; Seligman; M. E. P., & Teasdale, -J. D. Learned helplessness

in humans :' Critique and reformulation,. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,

/1978, 87, 49-74.

Altmaier-, E. M., Leary; M. R., Forsyth, D. 'R., & Ansel,. J. C. Attribution

therapy: Effects of locus'of control and timing of treatment. Journal '

4

A. J. B, :.11Ow to: reverse the v ous cycle of -low

The imp tance of .attentiorial::16CUs, Journal of ExperiL .. . .

mental Social Psychology, 1978, 14; 564-578.

of ,Counselitt-Tsychology, 1979, 26, 481-48'6..

Bruckner, 1,, & Hulton.,

selfe'steenil,

Bulman, R. & Wortman, C. B. Attibutions' of blame and coping in the

r,"real world": .S,evere accident victims react to their

Persoriality, and Social Psychology, 1977, 35, 351-363.

deCharms, R.

Dweck, C.. S.

of learned.

lot. Jouxnal of

Personal causation. gala-York: Academic Press, 1968.

The,rOle of expectaions and attributions in .the all4ation

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,, #

heipleSsness,

1975, 23 109 -116.

Forsyth; D. , R. :the functions' o attriSutions. Social Psychology. Quarterly,, ,.

, ,

1980,

Glass, ID. C.

press.

Behavior pattern, stress, and coronary disease. Hillsdale,

N.J.. Erlbaum, 977.

Gurirf, R.., Gurin, G., & Morrisoil, 3.

of internal and external control.

M. ,PersoRal and ideological aspects

Social Psychology, 1978', 41, 275-296;

Jano'ff-Bulman-,-- R. Characterological versus behavior self blaMe;;',,, Inquirieg

into depression. and rape. Journal of Personality and Socia0sYchofogy,'

1979, 37, 1798-1809.

1 P7

Johnson, W. G., Ross,. J. M.,

ttributional analysis of

.-AbnarMal Psychology, 1977,

.4955..

& Mastria, M. A

development and

861:421-426._

The psychology of personal

\

Kendall,. P. & Wilcox, L. E. Conceptual

Consult,ing

Attrlibution Therapy,

Delusional behavior:

-modification.. Journal of

constructs.,

problem children.' Journal of

48, 80491.

training

NeW York: Norton,.

'

in non-self-controlled

and Clinital Psychology, 1980,

0Langer, Ea. J & Rodin,t J. The effects of. choice and enhanced personal

res-pansibiiy for the aged; A field experiment in an institutional,

setaii: .Journal of,Personality and Social Psychology; 1976, 34; 191-98::,

M, R., & AltmaierM. : Type- .1 'erMe in counseling research:

fate' analyses. Journal 'of Counseling Psychology,plea for multiva

press.t

Michenbaum., D.

CI , T

.,.Self instructional methods. In F. Kanferc& Af.. Goldstein.

(Eds.),' peaple change... NeW Yorkj. Pergamon,pre'Ss,.. .

y.

,

Osgood; C. ,EAuel, G....7,..1 & Tannenbaum,,PH..Themeasurement.df.-meaning.,

_.. .

....

.. .

.. . .*7-N.,..

a.04

.

.- 4 A

,-.-

..', .1.Jrbana:, Ill.% -.University of Illinois-yresS, 1957: . ..,. ,

.

t4

.PilkaT,'K. C. S. On the dinribution of the 'largest cliaracteristics root

'of a matrix' in'multivairia"teanalysis. BiomAtika, 19,65,152, 405-414'.

. .

... .

,Rotter, J., B. Generalized expectancies for inEeinal versus external ,control...

i . ' 7-.of reinforcement.

psychological Monograyhs, 1966, 80 (1,1'lliole No 609)-,

..

Schulz, R & Hanusa, B- H. Long-term effectS of control and predidtability

49

enhancing interventions:15 Findings and ethical'issues. Journat4f!.---*..,

.

.

,

. ,

,

. ...

.

.

.Personality and Social Psychology, 1978, 36,1194 =1201.

Attribution Therapy

0 17

Selig sup, M. E. P. 'llelplessfiess: On depression, development and death. ,

San Francisco: Freeman, 1975.' .-

Tennen, R., & Eller, S. J.' Attributional compo ents of learned helpless-

ness and facilitation. Journal

197.7, 35, 265271.

. .

of Personality and Social Psychology,^

Valins, S., Nisbett, R. s.Att *Uution process in the .development and

treatment of emotional disorders: 1Z,rristown, .J.: General Learning

Press, 1971:

Weiner, B. A theow of motivation.for assroom experiences. Journal

of Educational,Psychology, 197i, 71 3-25.k., #

White, R. W._ Motivatbon reconsidered: e concept of comietence. ipsycholog--,

, RIicaa Review, 1959, ,66, 2§7-333.-.../ 4 ....

..1:WOrtman,-C: B.. Camsal attributions and personal control.. In,J. H.' Harvey,

W., J. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd,(Eds.),-New directions in attribution research.

,

.Ilillplale N.J.: Erlbaum, L976. .- ..

.. .

Wortman, C. 13.., & Mintzer; L. Is an,

attributional analysis of the.leqrned r..k.

--____,.. 0 . - . . 00..

. I,helplessness, tthenomenon viable? A critique of-,,the Abramson-Seligman.

.

..

Teasdale-reformg.la4on.* Journal of Abnormal Psycholy, 1978, 87, ,75 -90.. .

; ,,,. ,-

Footnotes

Attribution. Therapy

18

1. The data for one subject '(a.male internal. locus of control) were

deleted prior to analysis-since he expressed extreme'suspicion

concerning the validity uf.his evaluation. Initial analyses re-;

vealed no differences between Male'and female subjects' responses

so this variable was not included in subsequent analyses.%

2. So that the factor analysis Was not biased by themanipulations

used'in'the investigation,-the within - cells' correlation matrix

(computed by subt9acting the appropiiate cell mein from each sub-,

jece,s original score prior to manipulations was used as input intoft

the initial, factoring procedure.

4 I

3'

-ft

Attribution Therapy

Table '1'

19

Locus ,

of,

Contol

Percepti9ns of the Evaluation

/ t4

Internal Therapy External Therapy

.,

Controllable Unc6fitrollable ContrLable UncontrolfAl

ControlCondition(No therapy)

. Internal . 2.75a 1.45b 1.55b .1.87ab , 2,00a

. (8) (11) (9) . (8) (7)

,External 1.62' 1.33b 1.25b.

1.87ab

(8) (6) (8) (8) . (8)

J . ,. I

Note. Iiigher scores indicate more positive evaluation ratings. jgeahs

without different subscripts differ at the .05 _level by Duncan's New MUltiple.olt

Range Test. Cell ns are in parentheses.

0 141

'Table 2,

Attribution Therapy

Standardized Factor.Seeres-of"Personal

Competencet-

e A

II

Locus Internal Therapy. External Therapyof 'Control

Control Controllable Uncontrolletle ,Co*trollable Uncontrollaiale Conditon.

Internal +.356- -.234 -.274. Av +:090 '-.024:

External -.127 '+.124 . +.207 -.1504

gym

' 4

Note. Higher scores indicate more positive competence ratings.

A

1, 3

ConEroklability

Controllable

UnControllable

Note. Means

Duncan's New Mult

participate in a

fi

Table

Responses to Behavioral Assessment

4 Interhality

Itternal External

2.25ab

1,6513.

2.1013

without common

c.

iple Range Test

greater number

A

2.75a

Attribution Therapy

21

Control

2.47a

subscripts differ at the .05 level by

.'. Higher scores indicate willingness to

of future conversations.