Causal attributions following serious unexpected negative events: A systematic review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Causal attributions following serious unexpected negative events: A systematic review

AU - Hall, S

AU - French, D P

AU - Marteau, T M

PY - 2003/10

Y1 - 2003/10

N2 - The association between attributions and outcomes for people who have experienced serious unexpected negative events was examined. Systematic review methods were used to identify studies and to extract data. Sixty-five studies reporting 588 analyses were identified. The majority of analyses showed no association between attributions and outcomes. Self-blame and blaming others were most often associated with poorer outcomes, although this was not consistently found. No one category of attribution was particularly associated with better outcomes. Significant associations between attributions and poorer outcomes were more likely to be found in studies with larger sample sizes and in those with female participants. They were less likely to be found when attributions were made in response to open-ended questions. It is likely that much of the inconsistency in the literature is due to differences in study power, sample composition, and methods used to elicit attributions.

AB - The association between attributions and outcomes for people who have experienced serious unexpected negative events was examined. Systematic review methods were used to identify studies and to extract data. Sixty-five studies reporting 588 analyses were identified. The majority of analyses showed no association between attributions and outcomes. Self-blame and blaming others were most often associated with poorer outcomes, although this was not consistently found. No one category of attribution was particularly associated with better outcomes. Significant associations between attributions and poorer outcomes were more likely to be found in studies with larger sample sizes and in those with female participants. They were less likely to be found when attributions were made in response to open-ended questions. It is likely that much of the inconsistency in the literature is due to differences in study power, sample composition, and methods used to elicit attributions.

M3 - Literature review

VL - 22

SP - 515

EP - 536

JO - JOURNAL OF SOCIAL AND CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY

JF - JOURNAL OF SOCIAL AND CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY

IS - 5

ER -