Causal attributions for heart disease: A systematic review

D P French; V Senior; J Weinman; T M Marteau

Causal attributions for heart disease: A systematic review

D P French, V Senior, J Weinman, T M Marteau

Psychology

Research output: Contribution to journal › Literature review › peer-review

84 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The aims of this systematic literature review are to describe the pattern of attributions made for the causes of heart disease, and to determine how this pattern varies with the method by which attributions are elicited, and the respondent group. A search yielded 47 papers and reports, containing 54 datasets. Lifestyle factors and chronic stress were the most common causes cited across all datasets. Attributions to stressors and fate or luck were more likely to be reported in studies that used interval raring scales than in studies that used dichotomous ratings. Cardiac patients were more likely to mention stressors and fate or luck as causes of heart disease; non-patients rated being overweight and hypertensive as more important. The differences observed between the responses of patients and non-patients may be due to actor - observer differences, or to a methodological difference: patients are often asked to report their own experiences whereas non-patients are asked about the general case.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	77 - 98
Number of pages	22
Journal	Psychology & health
Volume	16
Issue number	1
Publication status	Published - 2001

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Cite this

@article{206170069eda467ea70bec92f6449106,

title = "Causal attributions for heart disease: A systematic review",

abstract = "The aims of this systematic literature review are to describe the pattern of attributions made for the causes of heart disease, and to determine how this pattern varies with the method by which attributions are elicited, and the respondent group. A search yielded 47 papers and reports, containing 54 datasets. Lifestyle factors and chronic stress were the most common causes cited across all datasets. Attributions to stressors and fate or luck were more likely to be reported in studies that used interval raring scales than in studies that used dichotomous ratings. Cardiac patients were more likely to mention stressors and fate or luck as causes of heart disease; non-patients rated being overweight and hypertensive as more important. The differences observed between the responses of patients and non-patients may be due to actor - observer differences, or to a methodological difference: patients are often asked to report their own experiences whereas non-patients are asked about the general case.",

author = "French, {D P} and V Senior and J Weinman and Marteau, {T M}",

year = "2001",

language = "English",

volume = "16",

pages = "77 -- 98",

journal = "Psychology & health",

publisher = "Routledge",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Causal attributions for heart disease: A systematic review

AU - French, D P

AU - Senior, V

AU - Weinman, J

AU - Marteau, T M

PY - 2001

Y1 - 2001

N2 - The aims of this systematic literature review are to describe the pattern of attributions made for the causes of heart disease, and to determine how this pattern varies with the method by which attributions are elicited, and the respondent group. A search yielded 47 papers and reports, containing 54 datasets. Lifestyle factors and chronic stress were the most common causes cited across all datasets. Attributions to stressors and fate or luck were more likely to be reported in studies that used interval raring scales than in studies that used dichotomous ratings. Cardiac patients were more likely to mention stressors and fate or luck as causes of heart disease; non-patients rated being overweight and hypertensive as more important. The differences observed between the responses of patients and non-patients may be due to actor - observer differences, or to a methodological difference: patients are often asked to report their own experiences whereas non-patients are asked about the general case.

AB - The aims of this systematic literature review are to describe the pattern of attributions made for the causes of heart disease, and to determine how this pattern varies with the method by which attributions are elicited, and the respondent group. A search yielded 47 papers and reports, containing 54 datasets. Lifestyle factors and chronic stress were the most common causes cited across all datasets. Attributions to stressors and fate or luck were more likely to be reported in studies that used interval raring scales than in studies that used dichotomous ratings. Cardiac patients were more likely to mention stressors and fate or luck as causes of heart disease; non-patients rated being overweight and hypertensive as more important. The differences observed between the responses of patients and non-patients may be due to actor - observer differences, or to a methodological difference: patients are often asked to report their own experiences whereas non-patients are asked about the general case.

M3 - Literature review

VL - 16

SP - 77

EP - 98

JO - Psychology & health

JF - Psychology & health

IS - 1

ER -

Causal attributions for heart disease: A systematic review

Abstract

UN SDGs

Fingerprint

Cite this