RESPONSIBILITY JUDGMENTS ABOUT STIGMAS: DOES DEPRESSION
MATTER?
by
Jackie-Ellen Watson
B.A., The University of Northern British Columbia, 1994

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE
in
PSYCHOLOGY

©Jackie-Ellen Watson, 1997
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA
April, 1997

All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by
photocopy or other means, without the permission of the author.

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

iii

Abstract
A responsibility inference process and emotion mediation model (Weiner, 1995)
were tested in self perception and person perception. In addition to the validity
of the responsibility inference process and model, I examined whether there
were systematic differences in the self and person perceptions of depressed
and non-depressed respondents. Two hundred and seventeen undergraduate
university students from the University of Northern British Columbia completed
questionnaire packages which included (i) the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI)
(Beck, 1967), (ii) the Happiness Measure Scale (Fordyce, 1988), and (iii) two
Reasons for Misfortune questionnaires. Scores from the BDI were used to
separate respondents into depressed and non-depressed groups. The
Reasons for Misfortune questionnaires assessed attributions about controllable
and uncontrollable causes of misfortunes that happen to self and to others ..
The data supported the responsibility inference process and, in general, the
emotion mediational model postulated by Weiner (1995). There were no
systematic differences attributable to depression level. However, there were
systematic self-other differences in responsibility, emotion, and action tendency
judgements. These results were interpreted as evidence of an illusion of control
bias (Langer, 1975).

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

iv

Acknowledgements
There were many people who made my experience as a graduate
student at UNBC rewarding and without their support this thesis would not have
been realized.
I would like to thank the following people for the time and energy they
took to review and comment on this thesis throughout the course of its
development: Nancy Higgins, Alex Michalos, Ken Prkachin, Bernie Weiner, and
Bruno Zumbo. A special thanks to Bruno and Nancy for patiently guiding me
through the obstacles I encountered.
In addition, for their love and understanding throughout the course of my
graduate work, I would like to thank Joe Ackerman, Sherry Beaumont, and Greg
Pope.
Finally, a heart felt thanks to Mom, Dad, and Terri-Ann for always being
there.

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

v

Table of Contents
Approval ................................................................................................................ii
Abstract ............................................................................................................... iii
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................. iv
Table of contents .........................................................................................:........ v
List of tables ........................................................................................................ vii
Figure captions ..................................................................................................... x
Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1
Review of Research ....................................................................................... 2
Responsibility Judgments for Stigmas ................................................... 3
AIDS: Responsibility Judgments ........................................................... 4
Political Ideology and Responsibility Judgments .................................... 4
Hostile Attributional Style ....................................................................... 5
Predictions from the Responsibility Judgement Model ................................... 6
Person Perception .................................................................................. 6
Self Perception ....................................................................................... 6
Implications for Depressed People ................................................................ 7
The Responsibility Inference Process .................................................... 7
The Responsibility Judgement Model .... .. ...... ...... ................................. 9
Self-Other Consistency in Responsibility Judgements .................................... 9
Thesis Research ................................................................................................ 10
Method ......................................................................................................... 11
Participants .......................................................................................... 11
Materials ................. ~ ............................................................................. 11
The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) .............................................. 13
Reasons for Misfortunes Questionnaires ......................................... 14
Design and Procedure ......................................................................... 15
Dependent Variables ........................................................................ 15
Results .................... :................................................................................... 16
Relationships Among the Causal Dimensions ..................................... 16

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

vi

Analysis of the Variables ...................................................................... 18
Cognitions ..................................................................... ..... .............. 18
Emotion Judgements ....................................................................... 23
Action Judgements ......................................................................... 27
Model Testing ....................................................................................... 32
Person Perception ............................................................................ 34
Self Perception ................................................................................. 36
Discussion ......................................................................................................... 40
The Responsibility Inference Process .................................................. 40
Self-Other Differences ...................................................................... 41
Depression ....................................................................................... 43
The Responsibility Judgement Model .................................................. 44
Person Perception ........................................................................... 45
Self Perception ................................................................................ 45
Conclusions ......................................................................................... 46
Limitations of the Study ........................................................................ 47
References ........................................................................................................ 49
Tables ................................................................................................................ 56
Figures ............................................................................................................... 79
Appendices ...................................................................................................... 102
Appendix A: Responsibility Judgment Model ................................... 102
Appendix 8: Self-Perception Implications of the Responsibility
Judgement Model ........................................................ 103
Appendix C: Beck Depression Inventory ........................................... 104
Appendix D: Reasons for Misfortune Questionnaires ....................... 107
Appendix E: Happiness Measure Scale ............................................ 117
Appendix F: Model 0 (Saturated Model) ................................. : .......... 119
Appendix G: Model1 (Emotion Mediational Model) ........................... 120
Appendix H: Model2 (Independent Effects Model) ............................ 124
Appendix 1:

Model3 (cognition Mediational Model) .......................... 122

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

vii

Tables
Table 1. lntercorrelations between scales for self and person perception for
skin cancer.
Table 2. lntercorrelations between scales for self and person perception for
AIDS.
Table 3. lntercorrelations between scales for self and person perception for
heart disease.
Table 4. lntercorrelations between scales for self and person perception for
paraplegia.
Table 5. lntercorrelations (Pearson's r) among causal dimensions for skin
cancer, AIDS, heart disease, and paraplegia by target.
Table 6. Means and standard deviations for cognition judgements by causal
condition for all four misfortunes.
Table 7. Means and standard deviations for emotion judgements by causal
condition for all four misfortunes.
Table 8. Means and standard deviations for action judgements by causal
condition for all four misfortunes.
Table 9. Means and standard deviations for cognition judgements by target for
all four misfortunes.
Table 10. Means and standard deviations for emotion judgements by target for
all four misfortunes.
Table 11. Means and standard deviations for action judgements by target for all
four misfortunes.

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

viii

Table 12. Means, standard deviations, and correlations among responsibility,
emotion, and action tendency in person perception by group for skin cancer.
Table 13. Means, standard deviations, and correlations among responsibility,
emotion, and action tendency in person perception by group for AIDS.
Table 14. Means, standard deviations, and correlations among responsibility,
emotion, and action tendency in person perception by group for heart disease.
Table 15. Means, standard deviations, and correlations among responsibility,
emotion, and action tendency in person perception by group for paraplegia.
Table 16. Person perception: Parameter estimates and goodness of fit of four
structural models by status group for skin cancer.
Table 17. Person perception: Parameter estimates and goodness of fit of four
structural models by status group for AIDS.
Table 18. Person perception: Parameter estimates and goodness of fit of four
structural models by status group for heart disease.
Table 19. Person perception: Parameter estimates and goodness of fit of four
structural models by status group for paraplegia.
Table 20. Means, standard deviations, and correlations among responsibility,
emotion, and action tendency in self perception by group for skin cancer.
Table 21. Means, standard deviations, and correlations among responsibility,
emotion, and action tendency in self perception by group for AIDS.
Table 22. Means, standard deviations, and correlations among responsibility,
emotion, and action tendency in self perception by group for heart disease.

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas
Table 23. Means, standard deviations, and correlations among responsibility,
emotion, and action tendency in self perception by group for paraplegia.
Table 24. Self perception: Parameter estimates and goodness of fit of four
structural models by status group for skin cancer.
Table 25. Self perception: Parameter estimates and goodness of fit of four
structural models by status group for AIDS.
Table 26. Self perception: Parameter estimates and goodness of fit of four
structural models by status group for heart disease.
Table 27. Self perception: Parameter estimates and goodness of fit of four
structural models by status group for paraplegia.

ix

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

x

Figure Captions
Figure 1. Target x causal condition interaction for responsibility judgements
about the cause of Paraplegia.
Figure 2. Target x causal condition x depression level interaction for locus of
control judgements about the cause of skin cancer.
Figure 3. Target x causal condition x depression level interaction for stability
judgements about the cause of skin cancer.
Figure 4. Target x causal condition interaction for feelings of anger toward the
victim (self and other) of heart disease.
Figure 5. Target x causal condition interaction for feelings of anger toward the
victim (self and other) of paraplegia.
Figure 6. Target x casual condition x depression level interaction for feelings of
anger for the misfortune skin cancer.
Figure 7. Target x causal condition x depression level for feelings of anger for
the misfortune AIDS.
Figure 8. Target x casual condition interaction for sympathy feelings toward the
victim (self and other) of skin cancer.
Figure 9. Target x causal condition interaction for sympathy feelings toward the
victim (self and other) of AIDS.
Figure 10. Target x causal condition interaction for sympathy feelings toward
the victim (self and other) of heart disease.
Figure 11. Target x casual condition interaction for feelings of sympathy toward
the victim (self and other) of paraplegia.

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

xi

Figure 12. Target x casual condition for feelings of sadness toward the victim
(self and other) of paraplegia.
Figure 13. Casual condition x depression level interaction for feelings of
sadness for the misfortune skin cancer.
Figure 14. Target x casual condition interaction for helping behavior for the
misfortune heart disease.
Figure 15. Target x depression level interaction for helping behavior for the
misfortune paraplegia.
Figure 16. Target x casual condition interaction for the action tendencies of
punishing oneself or avoiding others for the misfortune AIDS.
Figure 17. Target x causal condition interaction for the action tendencies of
punishing oneself or avoiding others for the misfortune heart disease.
Figure 18. Target x casual condition interaction for the action tendencies of
punishing oneself or avoiding others for the misfortune paraplegia.
Figure 19. Causal condition x depression level interaction for the action
tendencies to punish oneself or to avoid others for the misfortune heart disease.
Figure 20. Causal condition x depression level interaction for the action
tendencies to punish oneself or avoid others for the misfortune paraplegia.
Figure 21. Target x depression level interaction for the action tendencies to
punish oneself or avoid others for the misfortune paraplegia.
Figure 22. Target x causal condition x depression level interaction for the action
tendencies of punishing oneself or avoiding others for the misfortune of skin
cancer.

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

xii

Figure 23. Target x causal condition x depression level interaction for behavior
change tendencies for the misfortune AIDS.

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

1

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas: Does Depression Matter?
Attribution theory has contributed a great deal to understanding the linkages
between cognitive appraisals, emotions, and actions. Weiner's (1995)
attributional approach to social motivation incorporates two related concepts:
the responsibility inference process and the responsibility judgement model
(Weiner 1986; 1995). The responsibility inference process (Weiner, 1995)
provides an explanation for people's responses to social events that have
positive or negative consequences. Specifically, the responsibility inference
process addresses how causal attributions affect judgements about personal
responsibility for events. According to Weiner (1995), the responsibility
inference process operates when (i) an individual is believed to have caused an
event, (ii) the cause is believed to be controllable by that person, and (iii) there
are no mitigating circumstances. Thus, people are held responsible for an
event if they are perceived to have caused the event, when the cause is
believed to be controllable by them, and when there were no known extenuating
circumstances for the cause. On the other hand, the responsibility inference
process does not operate (i.e., responsibility judgements are not made) if any of
the three conditions are not met (Weiner, 1995).
The responsibility judgement model (Weiner, 1986; 1995) basically proposes
that thoughts determine feelings and feelings, in tum, serve as guides to
behavior (see Appendix A). That is, emotions are considered to be motivators
of behavior. According to Weiner (1993; 1995), perceivin·g others to be not
responsible for their negative outcomes tends to elicit pity and prosocial

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

2

behavior (Weiner, 1986; 1993). However, perceiving others to be responsible
for their problems, tends to elicit anger and negative behavior reactions, or little
prosocial behavior (cf. Graham & Weiner, 1993; Juvonen & Weiner, 1993).
There is a substantial body of empirical research that exists that supports a link
between the responsibility inference process and an emotion mediational model
of social behavior.
Review of Research
Weiner's (1974, 1979, 1986) attributional theory of social motivation has
been examined for its appropriateness along many dimensions. The role of
perceived causal controllability in determining affective and behavioral
consequences of negative events/outcomes is perhaps the most extensively
examined (Deaux, 1976a, 1976b; Ickes & Kidd, 1976; Meyer & Mulherin, 1980;
Reisenzein, 1986; Schmidt & Weiner, 1988; Weiner, 1974, 1979, 1980a,
1980b). For example, Weiner, Graham, & Chandler (1982) examined the
relationship between the three causal attributional dimensions (locus, stability,
and controllability) and feelings of anger, pity, and guilt. In these studies,
university students were asked to describe situations in which they experienced
anger, pity, or guilt and then to provide the cause of those situations. Pity was
related to uncontrollable causes for negative events whereas anger and guilt
(self-directed anger) were related to controllable causes for negative events
(Weiner et al., 1982). These results, and the results of a growing number of
studies, are consistent with the causal pathways identified in Weiner's (1986)
theory.

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

3

Responsibility judgments for stigmas
One interesting area of investigation is affective and behavioral responses to
the "onset controllability" of stigmas. Perceived controllability, pity and anger,
and helping responses were examined using 10 stigmas (Weiner, Perry, &
Magnusson, 1988). The controllability of the onset of the stigmas was
manipulated and the ratings of responsibility were examined using the following
stigmas: AIDS, Alzheimer's Disease, blindness, cancer, child abuser, drug
addiction, heart disease, obesity, paraplegia, and Vietnam War syndrome. The
uncontrollable conditions elicited more pity, less anger, and were more likely to
result in social support than the controllable situations. Without controllability
information, low responsibility ratings were given for physically based, or
uncontrollable, stigmas such as Alzheimer's Disease, blindness, cancer,
paraplegia, Vietnam War Syndrome and heart disease. In contrast, high
responsibility ratings were given to more behaviorally based, or seemingly
controllable stigmas such as AIDS, child abuser, obesity, and drug addiction
(Weiner et al., 1988).
In a similar study conducted by Schwarzer & Weiner (1991), emotional
reactions toward disease-related stigmas and the probability of social support
were examined. Again, the controllability of the onset of the stigmas was
manipulated. Pity was found to be a strong predictor for social support given a
life-threatening stigma (cancer, AIDS) that was perceived to have an
uncontrollable onset. For the behavioral stigmas (obesity, anorexia), anger was
found to predict the likelihood of social support. A stigma that was perceived to

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

4

have a controllable onset elicited higher levels of anger and less social support
(Schwarzer & Weiner, 1991 ).
AIDS: Responsibility judgments
Perhaps the most controversial stigma in recent years is AIDS. In a study
conducted by Graham, Weiner, Giuliano, & Williams (1993), five known causes
of AIDS were presented to subjects in an effort to determine how sympathy and
anger were related to the perceived controllability of contracting AIDS. The five
causes given were: blood transfusion, normal sexual behavior, frequent casual
sex, homosexual behavior, and drug ~

Responsibility ratings were found to

~ highest for drug use, followed by homosexual behavior and promiscuous

sex. The lowest rating for responsibility was found for AIDS contracted through
a blood transfusion. The affect data showed that sympathy and anger are
inversely related. Blood transfusions (uncontrollable) elicited the highest ratings
for sympathy whereas drug use (controllable) elicited the highest ratings for
anger (Graham et al., 1993). These results support previous conclusions that
affective reactions to stigmas are influenced by the perceived controllability of
causes (e.g., Weiner et al., 1988).
Political ideology and responsibility judgments
Other researchers have examined how political ideology affects causal
attributions and thus responsibility judgments. Zucker and Weiner (1993) found
that conservatism was related to attributions of personal causality,
controllability, anger, and blame for poverty, and conservatives felt less pity and
were less likely to help victims of poverty. In addition, conservatives were more

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

5

likely to attribute homosexuality (Mallery, 1990; Whitley, 1990) and obesity
(Crandall, 1992; Crandall & Biernat, 1990) to factors controllable by the
individuals. It appears that political ideology--a cognitive framework--influences
attributions made regarding the causes of negative outcomes/events and thus
the degree of personal responsibility for those outcomes/events.
Hostile attributional style
How attributional styles affect behavior has been examined by Graham,
Hudley, & Williams (1992). They found that "aggressive" youths (determined by
peers', teachers' and self ratings) tended to perceive that harm to themselves
by others was done intentionally, and they became more angry and were more
likely to retaliate aggressively in situations of interpersonal harm 'than were
youths who were not generally deemed aggressive. In an effort to determine if
they could change the hostile attributions, Hudley & Graham (1993) conducted
a study on aggressive youths participating in a cognitive/behavioral-based
attribution intervention program. They found that after the intervention program,
aggressive youths showed a less hostile intentionality bias and engaged in less
retaliatory behavior. These results supported the implementation of cognitive
change programs for reducing aggressive behavior in adolescents.
Unfortunately, "anger was relatively uninfluenced by participation in the
experimental intervention" (Hudley and Graham, 1993, p. 135).
The research discussed thus far supports the thought-affect-action causal
pathways outlined by Weiner's (1986) attributional theory of social motivation.
Comparisons have been made between different stigmas, conservative and

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

6

liberal political ideologies, and attributional styles of aggressive and nonaggressive youth. A consistent finding has been that the perceived
controllability of the cause of an outcome/event influences responsibility
judgments which in turn determine subsequent emotions and actions.
Predictions From the Responsibility Judgement Model
Person perception
The person perception implications of these different attributions in Weiner's
(1986, 1995) theory are as follows: people who perceive the cause of a victim's
misfortune to be personally controllable by the victim should hold the victim
responsible and indicate more anger and more negative behaviors (e.g.,
avoidance/neglect) toward the victim (see Appendix A). Alternatively, people
who perceive a victim's misfortune to be due to factors which are not
controllable by the victim should not hold the victim responsible and should
indicate less anger and less negative behaviors (or even positive behaviors)
toward the victim (see Appendix A).
Self perception
The self perception implications of different controllability attributions can be
predicted from Weiner's theory (1986, 1995), as follows: people who perceive
the cause of their own negative outcomes to be personally controllable should
hold themselves responsible, become angry or irritated with themselves and
should initiate a personal behavioral change (see Appendix B). On the other
hand, those who perceive the cause of their negative outcome to be
uncontrollable by both themselves and anyone else should not make

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

7

responsibility judgments, and should become sad or filled with self-pity which in
turn should lead to a state of passivity (see Appendix B). There is also the
possibility that a person may view the cause of their problem to be externally
controllable by another person (see Appendix B), in which case they should
indicate anger and a desire to retaliate against the other person (e.g., Graham
et al., 1992).
Implications for Depressed People
Neither the responsibility inference process, nor the motivational model
outlined by Weiner (1986, 1995) have been tested specifically in depressed
samples. However, a review of relevant depression literature revealed a
number of leads that make possible several predictions.
The responsibility inference process
First, despite a prevailing belief that depressed people have distorted
cognitions, there is growing evidence to the contrary (e.g., Alloy & Abramson,
1982, 1979; Dobson & Franche, 1989; Haaga & Beck, 1995). Central to this
research is the finding that depressed people tend to be less susceptible to
illusions of control (e.g., Alloy & Abramson, 1982; Layne, 1983), and that an
illusion of control has been shown to decrease immediate depressive mood
reactions to negative events (Alloy & Clements, 1992). The "depressive
realism" findings suggest that depressed people are more likely to view the
controllability of negative life events as about the same for self and others (i.e.,
to be consistent in their attributions irrespective of the attributional target),
whereas non-depressed subjects are more likely to view the controllability of

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

8

negative events happening to self to be lower than the controllability of negative
events happening to others, i.e., to show a self-serving bias (e.g., Golin, Terrell,
Weitz, & Drost, 1979). Thus, both in person perception and in self-perception
domains, depressed and non-depressed people should show distinctive
attributional patterns, as follows:
•

Pattern A. self-other attributions about the causes of negative
events/outcomes:

depressed: high consistency (low control for self and others)
non-depressed: low consistency (low control for self; high control for others)
Alternatively, several sources have suggested that depressed and nondepressed people are likely to differ in their self attributions, but not their
attributions about others (e.g., Beck, 1976; Sweeney, Shaeffer, & Golin, 1982).
That is, a "depressive attributional style" is thought to be specific to self
outcomes because the outcomes and causal explanations have implications for
self-esteem, whereas others' outcomes and one's causal understanding of
those should have less impact on self-esteem (cf. Abramson, Seligman, &
Teasdale, 1978). By this reasoning, an 'illusion of control' bias would be
operating for non-depressed but not for depressed people which would lead to
the following attribution predictions:
•

Pattern B. self-other attributions about the causes of negative
events/outcomes:

depressed: lower control for self than for others
non-depressed: higher control for self than for others

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

9

The responsibility judgement model
In person perception, if the results of the present study indicated pattern "A"
above, non-depressed people would have been more likely than depressed
people to judge victims' personal responsibility for negative events/outcomes to
be higher and become more angry and neglectful toward victims of negative
events. If the results indicated pattern "B" above, depressed and nondepressed individuals would not have differed in their responsibility, affect, or
action judgments about victims.
For self perception, if the results indicated pattern "A" above, depressed and
non-depressed people would not have differed in their responsibility, affect, or
action judgments. If the results indicated pattern "B" above, non-depressed
people would have been more likely than depressed people to hold themselves
responsible for negative outcomes, and become more angry at themselves and
engaged in behavioral change.
Self-Other Consistency in Responsibility Judgements
I was uncertain as to whether people would take greater or lesser
responsibility for themselves than they assigned to others for the same negative
outcome. If they took greater responsibility for themselves this would have
indicated a stronger relative illusion of control over one's own outcomes
(Langer, 1975). Lesser responsibility for self would have indicated a selfserving bias was operating (Brown & Rogers, 1991; Krebs, Denton, & Higgins,
1988; Miller & Ross, 1975). An illusion of control bias (Langer, 1975) refers to
the people's tendency to attribute more control over positive events for self than

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

10

they attribute to others' success. Although this bias usually refers to the
tendency for people to take credit for success and deny responsibility for failure
(Krebs, Denton, & Higgins, 1988; Miller & Ross, 1975), it has been shown that if
people attribute the cause of their failure as something that is controllable by
them, they are sometimes willing to accept responsibility for the negative event
(failure), especially if they believe that they can change future results (cf.
Weiner et al., 1972). On the other hand, a self serving bias (Brown & Rogers,
1991; Krebs, Denton, & Higgins, 1988; Miller & Ross, 1975), if operating, would
appear as a tendency for people to attribute the negative outcome to situational
causes for themselves. This bias is partially due to an actor-observer bias
effect (Jones & Nisbett, 1971) which predicts that people will attribute the
negative event for self more to external (or situational) causes and attribute the
problems of others to their internal traits or dispositions.
Thesis Research
I had two aims in the present study. First, I wanted to test the responsibility
inference process outlined by Weiner (1 995) by manipulating the perceived
controllability of hypothetical misfortunes. In addition, both depressed and nondepressed subjects were exposed to the misfortunes, which supposedly
happened to themselves (self perception) as well as to someone other than
themselves (person perception). I was interested not only in the validity of the
responsibility inference process (Weiner, 1995) and whether it applied to
depressed people, but also in whether there were systematic differences in the
self and person perceptions of depressed and non-depressed people. Second, I

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

11

wanted to test the temporal relations of the emotion mediational model outlined
by Weiner (1995), for each misfortune, in self and person perception domains,
and in depressed and non-depressed samples.
Method
Participants
The measures described below were given to 217 undergraduate students
(127 females, 89 males; mean age= 23.2 years), drawn from introductory
university courses at the University of Northern British Columbia. The mean
Beck Depression Inventory (described in the materials section below) scores for
the 71 individuals in the depressed group and 70 individuals in the nondepressed group were 18.29 (SD = 6.56) and 2.83 (SD = 1.57), respectively.
Materials
Subjects were asked to complete the Beck Depression Inventory (Beck,
1967) (see Appendix C) as well as a Happiness Measure (Fordyce, 1988) (see
Appendix E) in an effort to assess their overall state of depression. I originally
planned to use a combined score of the two scales as an index for classifying
subjects into depression groups. However, I chose not to use the Happiness
Measure (Fordyce, 1988). Although the correlation between the two
questionnaires was significant (I= -.66 , Q = .000), the literature pertaining to
depressive attributional styles has not included this measurement tool. In an
effort to make my results comparable with the literature, I chose to use the more
commonly utilized measure, the Beck Depression Inventory (Beck, 1967).

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

12

Therefore, details of the Happiness Measure are not provided in the materials
portion of this paper but appear in Appendix E.
Subjects also completed two Reasons for Misfortune questionnaires which
were designed to assess attributions about controllable and uncontrollable
causes of misfortunes that happened to self and others. The Reasons for
Misfortune questionnaires measured four empirically-established attributional
dimensions, namely locus, personal control, external control, and stability
(Higgins, 1992; McAuley, Duncan, & Russell, 1992; Weiner, 1986). The locus of
causality refers to whether the cause is within, or external to, the victim (self or
other). Stability concerns whether the cause is something which is constant or
changeable over time. Finally, the two control dimensions, personal and
external control, refer to whether or not the cause is something that is
controllable by the victim (personal control), or controllable by others (external
control).
McAuley et al. (1991) and Higgins (1992) reported positive correlations
between locus and personal control, and negative correlations between
personal control and stability as well as locus and external control. Thus, if the
cause of an event is perceived to be internal to the individual, it is also usually
perceived to be personally controllable by them; when perceived to be
personally controllable, it is also usually perceived as being unstable. In
addition, if a cause is perceived to be internal to an individual, it is also usually
perceived to be uncontrollable by external factors. McAuley et al. (1991) and
Higgins (1992) reported negative correlations between personal control and

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

13

external control. Thus, if a cause is perceived to be personally controllable, it is
also usually viewed as uncontrollable by external factors. However, Higgins
(1992), also reported positive correlations between personal control and
external control for two (of six) misfortunes, which would suggest some
situational specificity for the correlations between personal control and external
control subscales. That is, for some of the misfortunes, when a cause was
viewed as personally uncontrollable, it was also perceived to be uncontrollable
by others.
In addition to these four causal dimensions, the questionnaires assessed
responsibility judgments, emotions, and actions pertaining to each of the
misfortunes (see Appendix D) .
There were 16 questionnaire packages in total. The orders were
counterbalanced such that eight of the packages had the Reasons for
Misfortunes questionnaires first (four with the self version first, and four with the
person version first) followed by the depression scales (four with the BDI first,
and four with the Happiness Measure first). The remaining eight packages
began with the depression scales and ended with the Reasons for Misfortunes
questionnaires.
The Beck Depression lnventorv (BDI)
The BDI (Beck, 1967) consists of 21 questions which assess the intensity of
depression by examining clinically determined attitudes and symptoms of
depression (Beck, Steer, & Garbin, 1988). Becket al. (1988) propose that the
"mean BDI scores for the minimal, mild, moderate, and severe classifications

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

14

[of depression] are 10.9 (SO= 8.1), 18.7 (SD = 10.2), 25.4 (SO= 9.6), and 30.0
(SD = 10.4), respectively." (Becket al., 1988, p. 79). Based on a review of the
depressive attributional style literature (Alloy & Abramson, 1979, 1982; Alloy &
Clements, 1992; Dobson & Franche, 1989; Golin et al., 1979; Haaga & Beck,
1995; Layne, 1983; , in the present study, the following cut-off scores were used
to determine depression status: depressed subjects needed to score between
12 and 63, whereas non-depressed subjects scores needed to be in the 0 to 5
range.
Reasons for Misfortune Questionnaires
These questionnaires each consisted of four negative life outcomes (see
Appendix D). On each questionnaire, two of the outcomes had controllable
causes and two had uncontrollable causes. To estimate the degree of selfother consistency in attributions and judgments, self- and person-perception
versions of the questionnaire (within subjects) had the same type of cause
(controllable or uncontrollable) for the outcomes. In addition, the controllability
of the causes were counterbalanced such that half of the questionnaires gave a
controllable cause for a specific misfortune and half gave an uncontrollable
cause.
Three response categories were considered: (i) cognitions: what the
individual thought about the cause and about responsibility of the
outcome/event; (ii) emotions: how the individual felt about the victim (self or
other), given the cause of the outcome; and (iii) action tendencies: what

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

15

action(s) the individual would respond with (if any), given the cause of the
outcome.
Design and Procedure
Subjects were tested in classroom groups of 10 to 30 people. The study was
described as an investigation of people's thoughts about negative and positive
life outcomes/events. Respondents were asked to read the instructions for each
questionnaire silently and completely before starting to answer the questions,
and then to proceed at their own pace. There was no time limit, but most
subjects completed all the of questionnaires within 30 minutes.
Dependent variables
For each negative outcome on the Reasons for Misfortune Questionnaire,
individuals made 15 judgments, all reported on 9 point rating scales. One
question assessed perceived responsibility and was anchored such that a high
score reflected a higher rating of ·responsibility. Two questions assessed each
of 4 dimensions of perceived causality (locus, personal controllability, external
controllability, stability), anchored such that high scores represented more
internal, personally controllable, externally controllable, and stable causes.
The next 3 questions dealt with individuals' affective reactions to the causes
of the outcomes. Subjects were asked how angry, sorry, and sad they felt
about the victim (self or other) given that the negative outcome occurred as a
result of the cause described. These scales were anchored such that high
scores reflected more angry, sad, and sorry feelings.

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

16

Finally, respondents were presented with three behavioral questions. They
were asked to indicate what they would do (if anything) if the negative outcome
was a result of the described cause. These questions were anchored such that
high scores reflected more help, punishment/avoidance, and behavioral
change.
Results
Preliminary analyses of the data showed no effects of stimulus order or age.
Order and age are therefore ignored in subsequent analyses. Analyses of
gender effects indicated interactions on some of the variables, but there were
no systematic differences due to gender. Since the purpose of this thesis was
to determine whether there are systematic differences for self-other judgements
as well as between non-depressed and depressed groups, gender will not be
discussed further.
It should be noted that the two measures of each of the causal dimensions
were highly correlated in self and person perception domains for all four
misfortunes (see Tables 1 - 4). Thus, scores on these measures were
combined into an average score for each of the causal dimensions (locus,
stability, personal control, and external control).
Relationships among the causal dimensions
For each misfortune, there were significant correlations between locus and
personal control, and between personal control and stability, in self and person
perception domains (see Table 5). Thus, when a cause of a misfortune was
perceived to be internal to the target, it was also perceived to be personally

ti

~~~

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

17

controllable; when perceived to be personally controllable, it was also perceived
to be unstable. In addition, with the exception of heart disease, for each
misfortune, there were significant correlations between locus and external
control (see Table 5). Thus, when a cause of a misfortune was perceived to be
internal to the target, it was also perceived to be uncontrollable by external
factors/forces. These patterns of significant correlations among the causal
dimension scales are consistent with the results of both McAuley et al. (1991)
and Higgins (1992).
For two of the misfortunes (AIDS and Paraplegia), there were significant
negative correlations between personal control and external control (see Table
5) such that, a cause perceived to be personally controllable was also viewed
as uncontrollable.by external factors/forces. The negative relationship between
personal control and external control dimensions is consistent with the findings
of McAuley et al. (1991) and Higgins (1992), and the misfortune specificity
replicates findings of Higgins (1992). Also consistent with Higgins (1992), a
significant positive relationship was found between personal control and
external control as well as a negative relationship between stability and external
control for only one of the misfortunes (heart disease) in person perception (see
Table 5). In other words, if the cause of heart disease was perceived as
personally uncontrollable, it was also perceived to be uncontrollable by external
factors (thus, uncontrollable by anyone); in addition, if viewed as stable, then it
was also perceived to be uncontrollable by external factors/forces.

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

18

To summarize, in general, theoretically expected correlations among the
causal dimensions for each of the misfortunes were confirmed.
Analysis of variables
To answer the question of whether there were differences attributable to
depression, target, and/or the causal controllability of the misfortune, variables
from each response category (responsibility judgements, causal dimension
ratings, emotions, and action tendency judgements) were analysed separately,
for each misfortune, in a 2 x 2 x 2 (depression level x causal condition x target)
analysis of variance with repeated measures on the last factor.
The criteria for determining effect size (Cohen, 1992; Kirk, 1996), state that,
for an F-statistic, small, medium, and large effects have values of .01, .059, and
.138, respectively. For at-test statistic, the values for small, medium, and large
effects are .10, .24, and .37, respectively. Based on these criteria, the effect
sizes calculated for the results in this study were, for the most part, large, and
only a few were medium. There were no small effects.
Cognitions
Responsibility. Analysis of the responsibility judgements about the cause of
a misfortune revealed main effects of causal condition for all four of the
misfortunes: skin cancer, E(1,134) = 244.98, Q = .000; AIDS, F(1,137) = 681.77,
Q = .000; heart disease, F(1, 136) = 458.93, Q = .000; and paraplegia, F(1, 137) =
345.19, Q = .000. Responsibility judgements were higher when the cause given
was controllable than when it was uncontrollable (see Table 6).

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

19

In addition, for three of the misfortunes there were main effects of target: skin
cancer, E(1, 134) = 10.25, Q = .002; AIDS, E(1, 137) = 4.48, Q = .036; and heart
disease, E(1, 136) = 6.94, Q = .01 ). For these misfortunes, respondents held
themselves more responsible than others (see Table 9). There were no
depression level effects on responsibility judgements for any of the misfortunes.
For paraplegia, there was an interaction between target and .causal condition,
F(1, 137) = 7.91, Q = .006. Post-hoc analysis of the interaction effect indicated
that when the cause of paraplegia was controllable, respondents held
themselves more responsible (M = 7.60, SO = 1.97) than others (M = 6.93, SO
= 2.37), !(57)= 2.81, Q = .007. There was no effect of target when the cause
was uncontrollable (see Figure 1).
Locus. Analysis of the locus of control ratings revealed main effects of
causal condition for all four of the misfortunes: skin cancer, F(1, 138) = 77.47, Q
= .000; AIDS, E(1,137) = 318.26, Q = .000; heart disease, F(1,137) = 214.75, Q
= .000; and paraplegia, E(1, 138) = 365.69, Q = .000. Respondents made more
internal attributions when the cause was controllable than when it was
uncontrollable (see Table 6).
There were also main effects of target for skin cancer, F(1, 136) = 9.34, Q =
.000, and heart disease, E(1, 137) = 20.04, Q = .000. For these misfortunes,
respondents made more internal judgements about the cause for self than for
others (see Table 9). There were no depression level effects on locus
judgements for any of the misfortunes.

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

20

Analysis of the locus judgements for skin cancer showed an interaction
between target, causal condition, and depression level, E(1, 136) = 4.19, Q = 04.
Post-hoc analysis of the interaction effect revealed that depressed respondents,
given a controllable cause, and non-depressed respondents, given an
uncontrollable cause, made more internal judgements about the cause for self
(Ms = 6.79 and 4.66, SDs = 1.42 and 1.63, respectively) than for others (Ms =
6.04 and 4.03, SDs = 1.73 and 1.34, respectively), !(38) = 2.49, Q = .017 and
!(28) = 2.40, Q = .02, respectively. There were no target effects for the
remaining two groups (see Figure 2).
Stability. Analysis of judgements about the stability of a cause showed main
effects of causal condition for three of the misfortunes: skin cancer, F(1, 138) =
78.39, Q = .000; AIDS, F(1,137) = 17.51, Q = .000; and heart disease, E(1,137)
= 66.44, Q = .000. For these misfortunes, respondents viewed an uncontrollable
cause as more stable than a controllable one (see Table 6).
There was also a main effect of depression level for heart disease, F(1, 137)
= 4.45, Q = .036, such that non-depressed respondents (M = 6.22, SO = 2.21)
viewed the cause as more stable than did depressed respondents (M = 5.43,
SO = 2.23). There were no main effects of target for the misfortunes.
For skin cancer, the analysis revealed a target x causal condition x
depression level interaction, F(1, 136) = 6.31, Q = .013. Post-hoc analysis of the
interaction effect showed that when the cause of skin cancer was
uncontrollable, depressed respondents viewed the cause as more stable for
themselves (M = 7.73, SO= 1.91) than for others (M = 6.55, SO= 1.90), !(29) =

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

21

3.01, Q = .005. However, non-depressed respondents did not (see Figure 3). In
addition, when the cause was uncontrollable, depressed respondents viewed
the cause as more stable for themselves than did non-depressed respondents
(Ms = 7.73 and 6.38, SDs = 1.90 and 1.73, respectively), !(57)= -2.85, Q =
.006. This pattern did not occur for judgements about others, or when the
cause was controllable (see Figure 3).
There were no effects of causal condition, target, or depression level for
stability judgements for paraplegia.
Personal Control. Analysis of the personal control ratings indicated main
effects of causal condition for all four of the misfortunes: skin cancer, F(1, 138) =
194.25, Q = .000; AIDS, f(1, 135) = 453.02, Q = .000; heart disease, F(1, 137) =
129.78, Q = .000; and paraplegia, E(1 ,138) = 284.73, Q = .000. For each
misfortune, respondents viewed a controllable cause as more personally
controllable than an uncontrollable cause (see Table 6).
The only misfortune with a main effect of target was skin cancer, F(1, 138) =
5.75, Q = .018. For this misfortune, respondents viewed themselves as having
more personal control over the cause than others (see Table 9).
Finally, for AIDS, there was also a main effect of depression level, F(1, 135) =
5.73, Q = .018, such that non-depressed respondents (M = 5.89, SD = 3.12)
viewed the cause as being more personally controllable than did depressed
respondents (M = 5.20, SO = 3.09).
External Control. Analysis of the external control judgements for the causes
of the misfortunes indicated main effects of causal condition for AIDS, F(1, 137)

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

22

=46.64, Q =.000, and paraplegia, E(1, 136) =64.78, Q =.000. For these two
misfortunes, respondents viewed the controllable causes as less controllable by
external factors than the uncontrollable causes (see Table 6).
There were main effects of target for AIDS, E(1, 137) = 7.22, Q = .008, and
heart disease, E(1, 138) = 8.92, Q = .003. That is, for these misfortunes,
respondents viewed the cause as less externally controllable for self than for
others (see Table 9).
In addition, there was also a main effect of depression level for paraplegia,

f(1, 136) =4.78, Q = .03, such that non-depressed respondents (M =5.86, SD =
2.24) viewed the cause as more externally controllable than depressed (M =
5.12, so= 2.05).
There were no effects of causal condition, target, or depression level for
external control ratings for skin cancer.
Summary
To summarize, for all of the misfortunes, when the cause of a misfortune was
controllable, responsibility ratings were higher, the cause was perceived as
more internal and more personally controllable than when the cause of the
misfortune was uncontrollable. Additionally, for three of the misfortunes, when
the cause was uncontrollable, it was perceived to be more stable than when it
was controllable. Finally, for half of the misfortunes, when the cause was
controllable, it was viewed as less controllable by external factors than when it
was uncontrollable.

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

23

Self-other differences for cognition judgements showed some situational
specificity. For three of the misfortunes, respondents held themselves more
responsible than others. For half of the misfortunes, respondents viewed the
causes as more internal and less controllable by external forces for self than for
others. There were no self-other differences for judgements about the stability
of the cause.
Finally, there were no systematic differences due to depression level for
cognition judgements.
Emotion Judgements
Anger. Analysis of the anger judgements showed main effects of causal
condition for all four of the misfortunes: skin cancer, E(1, 137) =278.22, Q =
.000; AIDS, F{1,137) = 324.12, Q = .000; heart disease, F(1,134) = 327.15, Q =
.000; and paraplegia, E(1, 136) = 333.55, Q = .000. When the cause of the
misfortune was controllable, respondents reported stronger feelings of anger
than when it was uncontrollable (see Table 7).
In addition, for all of the misfortunes, there were main effects of target: skin
cancer, F(1, 135) = 113.73, Q = .000; AIDS, F(1, 135) = 93.43, Q = .000; heart
disease, E(1, 134) = 52.42, Q = .000; and paraplegia, F(1, 136) = 142.48, Q =
.000. Respondents reported stronger feelings of anger toward themselves than
toward others (see Table 10).
Analysis of the anger judgements also showed main effects of depression
level for skin cancer, E(1, 135) = 6.11, Q = .01, and heart disease, F(1, 132) =
11.70, Q = .001. For these misfortunes, depressed respondents (Ms =4.71 and

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

24

4.54, SDs = 2.74 and 2.99, respectively) reported stronger feelings of anger
than did non-depressed respondents (Ms = 4.04 and 3.47, SDs = 2.55 and
2.83, respectively).
There was a target x causal condition interaction for heart disease, E(1, 132)
= 11.92, Q = .001, and for paraplegia, E(1, 136) = 60.06, Q = .000. Post-hoc
analyses of the interactions showed that the self-other mean differences were
higher in the controllable condition (mean differences= 2.46 and 3.95,
respectively) than in the uncontrollable condition (mean differences = .87 and
.84, respectively). That is, respondents were more angry at themselves than
others when the cause was controllable in comparison to anger toward self
(relative to others) when the cause was uncontrollable (see Figures 4 and 5).
Finally, there was a target x causal condition x depression level interaction for
skin cancer, E(1, 135) = 3.91, Q = .05, and for AIDS, F(1, 135) = 8.83, Q = .004.
Post-hoc analysis of the interaction for skin cancer revealed that when the
cause was controllable, depressed respondents reported more anger toward
themselves than non-depressed (Ms = 8.45 and 7.61, SDs = .96 and 1.91,
respectively) as well as toward others, (Ms = 5.17 and 3. 76, SDs = 2.52 and
2.68, respectively), !(79) = -2.49, Q = .015 and !(79) = -2.42, Q = .018,
respectively. When the cause was uncontrollable, there was no interaction
between target and depression level (see Figure 6).
For AIDS, the post-hoc analysis showed that when the cause was
controllable, depressed respondents felt more anger toward others than nondepressed (Ms = 6.41 and 4.49, SDs = 2.43 and 3.52, respectively) !(80) = -

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

25

2.89, J2 = .005. There was no effect of depression for anger judgements toward
self, or when the cause was uncontrollable (see Figure 7).
Sorrv. Analysis of the pity judgements revealed main effects of causal
condition for three of the misfortunes: AIDS, E(1, 136) =20.61, J2 = .000; heart
disease, E(1, 137) = 10.25, J2 = .002; and paraplegia, E(1, 137) = 15.00, J2 = .000.
Respondents felt more sympathy when the cause for a misfortune was
uncontrollable than when it was controllable (see Table 7).
For all four of the misfortunes there were main effects of target: skin cancer,
E(1, 138) = 16.82, J2 = .000; AIDS, f(1, 136) = 10.13, J2 = .002; heart disease,
E(1, 137) = 16.84, J2 = .000; and paraplegia, E(1, 137) = 16.27, J2 = .000.
Respondents felt more sorry for others' plight than for their own (see Table 10).
In addition, there were main effects of depression level for skin cancer,
E(1, 136) = 4.81, J2 = .03, and heart disease, F(1, 135) = 4.30, J2 = .04. For these
misfortunes, depressed respondents (Ms = 6.62 and 6.43, SDs = 2.06 and 2.23,
respectively) reported stronger feelings of pity than did the non-depressed
respondents (Ms = 5.96 and 5.69, SDs =2.09 and 2.16, respectively).
There were also target x causal condition interactions for all four misfortunes:
skin cancer, F(1, 136) = 5.45, J2 = .02; AIDS, E(1, 136) = 3.91, J2 = .05; heart
disease, E(1, 135) = 8.76, J2 = .004; and paraplegia, F(1, 137) = 4.82, J2 = .03.
Post-hoc analysis for these misfortunes indicated that when the cause of the
misfortune was uncontrollable, respondents felt more sorry for others (Ms =
7.54, 8.36, 7.46, and 8.23, SDs =2.06, 1.26, 2.27, and 1.58, respectively) than
for themselves (Ms =5.83, 7.00, 5.66, and 6.72, SDs =2.82, 2.53, 2.62, and

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

26

2.51, respectively), !(58)= -5.02, Q = .000; !(59)= -4.57, Q = .000, !(79) = -6.02,
Q = .000, and !(80) = -5.16, Q = .000, respectively. There were no effects of

target when the cause was controllable (see Figures 8 - 11 ).
Sad. Analysis of the sadness judgements for the misfortunes indicated that
. only the misfortune of AIDS had a main effect of causal condition, F(1, 136) =
9.87, Q = .002. For AIDS, respondents generally felt more sad when the cause
was uncontrollable than when it was controllable (see Table 7).
There were main effects of target for three of the misfortunes: skin cancer,
E(1, 136) = 4.81, Q = .03; heart disease, F(1, 136) = 15.29, Q = .000; and
paraplegia, E(1, 136) = 5.42, Q = .02. For these misfortunes, respondents felt
more sad about others' plight than their own (see Table 10).
Finally, there were main effects of depression level for skin cancer, F(1, 134)

= 7.99, Q = .005, and heart disease, F(1, 136) = 5.09, Q = .026. For these two
misfortunes, depressed respondents (Ms = 7.06 and 6.90, SDs = 1.82 and
2.13, respectively) generally felt more sad than did non-depressed respondents
(Ms = 6.25 and 6.07, SDs = 2.11 and 2.22, respectively).
For paraplegia, there was a target x casual condition interaction, F(1, 136) =
4.27, Q = .045. Post-hoc analysis of this interaction revealed that when the
cause of paraplegia was uncontrollable, respondents generally felt more sad
about others' (M = 7.99, SD = 1.83) plight than their own (M = 7.1 0, SD = 2.30),
!(80) = -3.55, Q = .001. There was no effect of target when the cause was
controllable (see Figure 12).

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

27

For skin cancer, there was an interaction between causal condition and
depression level, f(1, 134) = 7.18, Q = .008. Post-hoc analysis of this interaction
indicated that when the cause of skin cancer was uncontrollable, depressed
subjects (M =7.85, SD =1.08) felt more sad than non-depressed subjects (M =
6.03, SD =2.31), t(57) =-3.90, p = .000 There was no effect of depression
level when the cause was controllable (see Figure 13).
Summary
In sum, when the cause of a misfortune was controllable, respondents
reported stronger feelings of anger and, generally, felt less sympathetic than
when the cause was uncontrollable. There were no systematic differences in
feelings of sadness due to the controllability of a cause.
Self-other differences for emotion judgments were consistent. Respondents
reported stronger feelings of anger, less sympathy, and, generally, less sadness
for themselves than for others.
Finally, for half of the misfortunes (skin cancer and heart disease), depressed
respondents reported stronger feelings of anger, sympathy, and sadness than
non-depressed respondents.
Action Judgements
Help. Analysis of helping judgements for the misfortunes revealed that there
was a main effect of causal condition only for heart disease, F(1, 137) = 6.18, Q
= .014. For heart disease, respondents were more likely to help when the
cause was uncontrollable than when it was controllable (see Table 8).

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

28

For three of the misfortunes there were main effects of target: skin cancer,
E(1, 138) = 30.44, Q = .000; AIDS, E(1, 138) = 12.21, Q = .001; and heart
disease, F(1, 137) = 14.74, Q = .000. For these misfortunes, respondents were
more likely to do something to help themselves than to help others (see Table
11 ). There were no main effects of depression level for the misfortunes.
For heart disease, there was also a target x causal condition interaction
(E(1 ,137) = 7.33, Q = .008). Post-hoc analysis of this interaction indicated that
when the cause of heart disease was controllable, respondents would help
themselves (M = 8.63, SD = 1.23) more than others (M = 7.54, SD = 2.02),
!(58)= 3.50, Q = .001. There was no effect of target when the cause was
uncontrollable (see Figure 14).
Finally, for paraplegia there was a target x depression level interaction,
F(1, 138) = 7.33, Q = .008. When examined in post-hoc analysis, the interaction
indicated that non-depressed respondents were more likely to help themselves

(M = 8.81, SD = .69) than others (M = 8.16, SD = 2.02), !(69) = 4.17, Q = .000.
There was no effect of target for the depressed group (see Figure 15).
Avoid/Punish. Analysis of the behavior judgements, to either avoid others or
to punish oneself, revealed main effects of causal condition for all four
misfortunes: skin cancer, E(1, 137) = 13.73, Q = .000; AIDS, F(1, 137) = 20.02, Q
= .000; heart disease, F(1, 137) = 50.02, Q = .000; and paraplegia, F(1, 138) =
29.44, Q = .000. Respondents indicated that they would be more likely to
engage in these behaviors when the cause of a misfortune was controllable
than when it was uncontrollable (see Table 8).

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

29

The analysis also revealed main effects of target for three misfortunes: skin
cancer, F(1, 135) = 6.29, Q = .01; heart disease, F(1, 135) = 10.24, Q = .002; and
paraplegia, F(1, 136) = 18.32, Q = .000. For these misfortunes, respondents
indicated that they were more likely to punish themselves than to avoid others
(see Table 11 ).
For all of the misfortunes, there were also main effects of depression level:
skin cancer, F(1, 135) = 14.69, Q = .000; AIDS, F(1, 131) = 17.23, Q = .000; heart
disease, f(1, 135) = 11.17, Q = 001; and paraplegia, F(1, 136) = 13.43, Q = .000.
Depressed respondents (Ms = 2.74, 3.27, 2.85, and 2.71, SDs = 1.62, 2.17,
2.14, and 1.96, respectively) were more likely to engage in these behaviors than
non-depressed respondents (Ms = 1.85, 2.14, 2.03, and 1.85, SDs = 1.25, 1.38,
1.50, and 1.34, respectively).
There were interactions between target and causal condition for three
misfortunes: AIDS, E(1, 135) = 7.54, Q = .007; heart disease, E(1.135) = 10.61, Q
= .001; and paraplegia, F(1, 136) = 20.57, Q = .000. A post-hoc analysis of the
interactions revealed that when the cause given was controllable, respondents
were more likely to punish themselves (Ms = 3.81, 4.29, and 3.95, SDs = 3.01,
2.88, and 2.81, respectively) than to avoid others (Ms = 2.74, 2.86, and 2.31,
SDs = 2.34, 2.48, and 1.79, respectively), !(80) = 2.62, Q = .01; !(58)= 3.38, Q =
.001; and !(58)= 4.71, Q = .000, respectively. There were no effects of target
when the causes were uncontrollable (see Figures 16- 18).
Higher order interactions of causal condition x depression level were
revealed in the analysis for heart disease, f(1, 135) = 4.72, Q = .03, and

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

30

paraplegia, E(1, 136) = 5.50, Q = .02. Post-hoc analysis for these interactions
indicated that when the cause was controllable, depressed respondents (Ms =
4.30 and 3.88, SOs = 2.33 and 2.08, respectively) judged that they would be
more likely to engage in these behaviors than non-depressed respondents (Ms
= 2.83 and 2.34, SOs = 1.67 and 1.45, respectively), !(57)= -2.79, Q = .007, and
!(57)= -3.29, Q = .002, respectively. There were no effects of depression level
when the cause was uncontrollable (see Figures 19 and 20).
In addition, a target x depression level interaction for paraplegia, F(1, 136) =
7.96, Q = .006, when examined in post-hoc analysis, indicated that depressed
subjects are more likely to punish themselves (M = 3.29, SO= 2.81) than to
avoid others (M = 2.14, SO= 1.91), !(69) = 3.44, Q = .001. There was no effect
of target for the non-depressed group (see Figure 21).
Finally, skin cancer was the only misfortune with an interaction between
target, causal condition, and depression, E(1, 135) = 7.89, Q = .006. Post-hoc
analysis of this interaction revealed that depressed respondents would punish
themselves (M = 4.40, SO = 3.1 0) more than they would avoid others (M = 1.88,
SO = 1.46) when the cause was controllable, !(39) = 4.58, Q = .000.
Furthermore, when the cause was uncontrollable, depressed respondents
indicated that they would punish themselves more (M = 2.27, SO= 2.02) than
non-depressed respondents (M = 1.21, SO= .56), as well as avoid others more
than non-depressed respondents would (Ms = 2.13 and 1.36, SOs = 1.61, .68,
respectively), !(57)= -2.73, Q = .01 and !(56)= -2.36, Q = .02, respectively.
However, when the cause given was controllable, there was only a depression

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

31

level effect for the self judgements, such that depressed respondents indicated
that they would punish themselves more than non-depressed respondents
would (Ms = 4.40 vs. 2.1 0, SDs = 3.10 and 1.48, respectively), !(79) = -4.29, Q =
.000 (see Figure 22).
Change. Analysis of the behavior change judgements revealed main effects
of causal condition for all four misfortunes: skin cancer, F(1, 138) = 65.44, Q =
.000; AIDS, F(1, 137) = 71.11, Q = .000; heart disease, F(1, 137) = 22.48, Q =
.000; and paraplegia, F(1, 137) = 24.55, Q = .000. Change in behavior was more
likely when the cause of the misfortune was controllable than when it was
uncontrollable (see Table 8).
In addition, there were main effects of target for all of the misfortunes: skin
cancer, F(1, 138) =1 0.76, Q = .001; AIDS, F(1, 135) = 11.01, Q = .000; heart
disease, f(1, 137) = 5.81, Q = .017; and paraplegia, F(1, 137) = 12.32, Q = .001.
Respondents were more likely to change their own behavior than advocate that
others change theirs (see Table 11 ). There were no main effects of depression
level for any of the misfortunes.
For AIDS, there was an interaction between target, causal condition and
depression level, f(1, 135) = 6.74, Q = .011. Post-hoc analysis of this interaction
effect revealed that non-depressed respondents, given a controllable cause of
AIDS, and depressed respondents, given an uncontrollable cause, were more
likely to change their own behavior (Ms = 8.37 and 6.00, SDs = 1.71 and 3.11,
respectively) than advocate that others change theirs (Ms = 7.56 and 4.03, SDs

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

32

= 2.16 and 2.81, respectively), !(40) = 2.50, Q = .017 and !(29) = 3.11, Q = .004,
respectively (see Figure 23).
Summary
To summarize, when the cause of a misfortune was controllable,
respondents reported that they would punish themselves, avoid others, and
expect a behavioral change more than when the cause was uncontrollable. On
the other hand, controllability affected helping behavior judgements only for
heart disease.
There were systematic self-other differences for action judgements. For the
majority of the misfortunes, respondents reported that they would help and
punish themselves more than others. Furthermore, for all of the misfortunes,
respondents indicated that they would change their own behavior more than
they would advocate that others change theirs.
Finally, there were no effects of depression level for helping or behavior
change judgements. However, overall, depressed respondents indicated that
they would punish themselves as well as avoid others more than nondepressed respondents indicated they would.
Model Testing
I examined the temporal relations between the variables to determine
whether the data sets in self and person perception domains for depressed and
non-depressed respondents were consistent with the motivational model
outlined by Weiner (1995). I also tested several alternative models.

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

33

Structural equation modeling (SEM) using the multi-sample procedure of the
LISREL 8.14 statistical package (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1995) was used to
address this question. LISREL 8.14 calculates the parameter estimates as well
as a goodness-of-fit chi-square statistic to determine whether the data are
consistent with the model being tested. To make a judgement about the fit of a
model, I considered the chi-square statistic which should not be significant if the
model fits the data, and the Normed Fit Index (NFI) developed by Bentler &
Bonett (1980). This fit statistic ranges from 0 (no fit) to 1 (perfect fit}, with
values greater than .90 representing an acceptable fit. The benefit of using a
multi-sample approach is that it generates a goodness of fit chi-square that
simultaneously tests the model in more than one group. Thus, I was able to
test whether a particular model was the same in both depressed and nondepressed groups.
Four models were considered for the SEM tests. Model 0 is a complete
model with links among all of the variables (see Appendix F). Although it is
completely saturated and cannot be tested using chi-square procedures, this
model is useful in comparing the path coefficients to the other models which are
hierarchically nested versions of the saturated model. Model 1 is an emotion
mediational model (see Appendix G). As already indicated, this model
proposes that thoughts determine feelings which, in tum, serve as guides for
behavior. Model2 is an independent effects model (see Appendix H). It
proposes that people might experience emotions independent of cognitions and
that the cognitions and emotions each can directly influence actions, but as

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

34

separate processes. Finally, Model 3, a cognition mediational model, illustrates
yet another possible temporal sequence (see Appendix 1). Perhaps emotions
influence cognitive appraisals, and it is the appraisals that serve to direct
behavior.
Person Perception
I examined the temporal relations between responsibility, pity (sorry), and
helping behavior judgements (see Tables 12- 15).
Tables 16 through 19 show, for each misfortune, the parameter estimates of
each model, expressed as standardized path coefficients, their associated zscore, and, where applicable, the chi-square and Bentler-Bonnet NFI generated
to evaluate the fit of the model. The multi-sample procedure revealed
differences between status groups (depressed and non-depressed) for all four
misfortunes. Therefore, the results are reported separately for non-depressed
and depressed respondents.
Skin Cancer
Of all the models tested, Model 1 is the only model that can be said to fit the
data (see Table 16). For the non-depressed group, Model 1 generated a non2

significant chi-square and a relatively high NFI score (x (1, N = 70) = .11, Q =
.74, NFI = .99). Similarly, for depressed respondents, Model1 yielded a x2 (1, N

= 70) = .76, Q = .38, NFI = .96. Although both Models 2 and 3 yielded nonsignificant chi-squares for at least one of the status groups, the models also
yielded unacceptable NFI scores for both status groups, and thus provided a
poor fit to the data.

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

35

In sum, for the skin cancer data, the emotion mediational model was the only
one among those tested that accounted for the observed correlations in both
the non-depressed and depressed groups.
AIDS
It is evident from Table 17 that, again, Model1 is the only model that can be
said to fit the data for AIDS. For the non-depressed group, Model1 generated
a l(1, N =70) = .15, Q = .70, NFI = 1.0 (a perfect fit). Similarly, for depressed
respondents, Model1 yielded a

x2 (1, N =70) = .85, Q = .36, NFI = .97. Both

Models 2 and 3 yielded significant chi-squares and unacceptable NFI scores for
both status groups indicating a very poor fit to the data.
In sum, for these data as well as those for Skin Cancer, the emotion
mediational model was the only one among those tested that accounted for the
observed correlations in both the non-depressed and depressed groups.
Heart Disease
Table 18 shows again that Model 1 is the only model that fit the data. For the
non-depressed group, Model1 generated a x (1, N =70) = 1.61, Q = .20, NFI =
2

.94. Similarly, for depressed respondents, Model1 yielded a x (1, N =70) = .06,
2

Q

= .81, NFI = 1.0 (a perfect fit). Both Models 2 and 3 yielded significant chi-

squares and unacceptable NFI scores for both status groups indicating a very
poor fit to the data.
In sum, for all three misfortunes discussed thus far, the emotion mediational
model was the best model among those tested to account for the relations

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

36

among the variables in both non-depressed and depressed people's reactions
to the misfortunes of others.
Paraplegia
For reactions to others' paraplegia, both Model 1 and Model 3 provided a
good fit to the data for the non-depressed group (see Table 19). In that group,
Model 1 generated a l(1, N = 70) = 2.07, Q = .15, NFI = .91, and Model 3
yielded a l(1, N = 70) = .72, Q = .40, NFI = .97.
For the depressed group, Model1 did fit better than Model3 (l(1, N = 70) =
.88, Q = .35, NFI = .98 and :l(1, N = 70) = 16.74, Q = .00, NFI =.55,
respectively). Model2, on the other hand, did not provide an adequate fit to the
data for either of the groups.
In sum, the picture for Paraplegia is not as clear. For depressed
respondents, the emotion mediational model best accounted for the observed
correlations. On the other hand, both Models 1 and 3 yielded significant chisquares and acceptable NFI's for the non-depressed group's data. However,
the NFI for the emotion mediational model (.91) and the NFI for the cognition
mediational model (.97) suggest the latter model fits the non-depressed group's
data slightly better.
Self Perception
Next, I examined the temporal relations between the variables in self
perception. I was interested in the relations between responsibility, anger, and
behavior change judgements (see Tables 20- 23).

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

37

Skin Cancer
Table 24 shows that of all the models tested, Model1 is the only model that
can be said to fit the data. For the non-depressed group, Model 1 generated a
2

non-significant chi-square and a relatively high NFI score (X (1, N = 70) = 1.36,
Q

= .24, NFI = .99). Similarly, for depressed respondents, Model1 yielded a

x2 (1, N =70) =.41, Q =.52, NFI =1.0 (a perfect fit). Although the NFI scores
for Model three were acceptable and the chi-squares approached nonsignificance, the fit was not as strong as that of Model1 in each of the two
status groups. Finally, Model2 was a completely unacceptable model for the
data.
In sum, for the skin cancer data, the emotion mediational model is the only
model among those tested which accounted for the observed correlations in
both non-depressed and depressed respondents.
AIDS
Table 25 shows that Model1 is the only model that can be said to fit the
data. For the non-depressed group, Model 1 generated a x (1, N =70) = .30, Q
2

=.59, NFI =1.0 (a perfect fit). Similarly, for depressed respondents, Model 1
yielded a x (1, N =70) = .12, Q =.73, NFI =1.0 (another perfect fit). Models 2
2

and 3 yielded significant chi-squares for both status groups and the small NFI's
for Model 2 make it a clearly unacceptable model to account for the data.
Although the NFI's for Model 3 are greater than .90, in combination with the
significant chi-squares, it was necessary to reject Model 3 as one that accounts
for the observed correlations.

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

38

In sum, for AIDS as well as for Skin Cancer, the emotion mediational model
remains the only one among those tested that accounted for the observed
correlations in both non-depressed and depressed people.
Heart Disease
For reactions to heart disease for self, Model1 and Model3 both provided a
good fit for the data for the non-depressed group (see Table 26). For that
group, Model1 generated a l(1, N =70) =3.67, Q = .06, NFI = .97 and Model
3 yielded a

x2 (1, N =70) = .09, Q = .76, NFI = 1.0. The significant chi-square

and unacceptable NFI for Model2 make it an unacceptable model to account
for the data for non-depressed respondents' data.
For the depressed group, Model 3 yielded a l(1, N =70) = .16, Q = .69, NFI

= 1.0. Models 1 and 2 yielded significant chi-squares for the depressed
respondents' data, and the NFI for Model 2 was unacceptable. Although the
NFI for Model1 was acceptable (.90), the significant chi-square makes it
necessary to reject it as one that accounts for the observed correlations.
In sum, for Heart Disease, the cognition mediational model provides the best
fit for the non-depressed respondent's data and is the only model, among those
tested, which accounted for the observed correlations in the depressed groups'
data.
Paraplegia
It is evident from Table 27 that Model1 fits the data for the depressed group,
but not as well as Model 3. For the depressed group, Model 1 generated a

x2(1, N =70) =2.47, Q = .12, NFI = .97, whereas Model3 yielded a x2(1, N =

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

39

70) = .36, Q = .55, NFI = 1.0. For the non-depressed group, Model 1 provided
the best fit to the data (l(1, N =70) = .97, Q = .32, NFI = .99). Model 2 did not
provide an adequate fit for either of the groups.
In sum, for Paraplegia, for non-depressed data set, the emotion mediational
model was the best model, among those tested, at accounting for the observed
correlations. On the other hand, the cognition mediational model was a slightly
better model in explaining the relationships in the data for the depressed
respondents.
Summary
In person perception, the emotion mediational model was the best among
those tested at accounting for depressed and non-depressed respondents'
reactions to others' skin cancer, AIDS, and heart disease. For paraplegia, the
emotion mediational model provided the best fit for the data for the depressed
group, but in the non-depressed group, both the cognition mediational model
and the emotion mediational model provided a good fit to the data.
In self perception, the emotion mediational model was the best among those
tested at accounting for depressed and non-depressed respondent's reactions
to having skin cancer and AIDS. For paraplegia, of the models tested, the
emotion mediational model provided the best fit for the data for the nondepressed group. However, the cognition mediational model provided the best
fit to the data for the depressed group. For heart disease, the cognition
mediational model provided the best fit to the data for the non-depressed group

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

40

and was the only model, among those tested, which accounted for the observed
correlations for the data for the depressed group.
Discussion
There were two goals addressed in this thesis. The first was to test the
responsibility inference process (Weiner, 1995) in self and person perception
domains, as well as in depressed and non-depressed groups. The results
obtained in this study supported the predictions outlined by the responsibility
inference process.
The second goal was to test the temporal relations outlined in the emotion
mediational model of social motivation model (Weiner, 1995), for self and
person perceptions, in each of the misfortunes, as well as for depressed and
non-depressed samples. In person perception, the results obtained in the model
testing portion of this study provided strong support for the emotion mediational
model (Weiner 1986; 1995) for both depressed and non-depressed samples.
However, in self perception, the results did not provide consistent support for
the emotion mediational model.
The Responsibility Inference Process
The responsibility inference process (Weiner, 1986; 1995) suggests that
when (i) there is personal causality, (ii) the cause is perceived as controllable,
and (iii) there are no mitigating circumstances, people tend to hold the victim of
a negative event/outcome responsible for their plight. By manipulating the
controllability of the causes of the stigmas used in this study I was able to test
this assumption. Consistent with Weiner's (1995) predictions, when the cause

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

41

given for a misfortune was controllable, respondents held the victim (self and
other) as responsible, judged the cause as internal to, and controllable by, the
victim, and, generally, less controllable by external factors. Conversely, when
the cause given was uncontrollable, respondents judged the victim (self or
other) to be less responsible, judged the cause as less internal to, and less
controllable by, the victim, and, generally, more controllable by external factors.
Weiner (1995) also outlined a link between the responsibility inference
process and affective and behavioral responses; that is, higher judgements of
responsibility lead to stronger feelings of anger, little sympathy, and negative
behavior reactions, or little help, for the victim, whereas low responsibility
judgements lead to little anger, high sympathy, low negative behavior reactions,
and higher helping behavior. These predictions were supported in this study.
When the cause of a stigma was controllable, in addition to responsibility
judgements being higher, respondents reported stronger feelings of anger, less
sympathy, and indicated that they would punish themselves and avoid others.
Conversely, when the cause of a stigma was uncontrollable, in addition to low
responsibility judgements, respondents reported less anger, more sympathy,
and were less inclined to engage in negative behaviors toward the victim (self or
other).
Self-Other differences
The self-other differences observed in this study indicate that an illusion of
control bias may be operating (Langer, 1975). Respondents not only held
themselves more responsible than others; they also indicated that they would

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

42

change their behavior more often than they expected others to change theirs.
In addition, regardless of the controllability of the cause of a misfortune,
respondents indicated that they would do something to help themselves in
relation to these misfortunes, more than to help others. The self-other
differences in affective responses to the misfortunes may help explain this
phenomenon. Respondents reported strong feelings of anger toward
themselves relative to others, irrespective of the controllability of the cause.
Self-directed anger (guilt) is a strong, motivating emotion which, by its very
nature, compels an individual to alleviate the stress brought on by feeling angry
(Cialdini, Kendrick, & Bauman, 1982; Weiner 1992). By helping oneself, or by
changing one's behavior, it is more probable that these feelings will be
alleviated.
Conversely, feelings of pity, or sympathy, have been linked to uncontrollable
causes of a negative event (Graham et al., 1993; Weiner et al., 1982; Weiner
et al., 1988). It seems that when people perceive the cause of a negative event
as uncontrollable, they feel more sorry for themselves and generally, do not
tend to engage in behaviors which assist in changing their situation. That is,
pity follows the perception of low personal control over a negative event,
whereas anger results when the cause is judged to be personally controllable.
The results of this study support the suggestion that pity is a less motivating
emotion than anger, due to perceptions of controllability. When the cause of a
misfortune was controllable, respondents felt little sympathy for the victim (self
and other). However, when the cause was uncontrollable, respondents

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

43

reported higher feelings of pity for others than for themselves. Thus, consistent
with the illusion of control bias (Langer, 1975), it would appear that respondents
viewed themselves as less deserving of sympathy for their plight, which may
have resulted in higher action tendencies for self than for other. Overall, it
seems that respondents perceived themselves as more in control of, and more
capable of action toward their own problems than were others.
Depression
There were no systematic differences between depressed and nondepressed groups for cognition judgements. Thus, it appears that the
responsibility inference process operates irrespective of mild depressive states.
There were depression-level differences for affective responses to skin cancer
and heart disease, which suggests that there may be some situational
specificity for the effects of depression on emotions. For skin cancer and heart
disease, depressed respondents reported stronger feelings of anger, sympathy,
and sadness, relative to non-depressed respondents, irrespective of the
controllability of the cause of the misfortune. However, depression level did not
influence affective reactions to AIDS or paraplegia.
There was a difference between depressed and non-depressed respondents
for the negative behavior reactions of either punishing oneself or avoiding
others. Again, irrespective of the controllability of a cause, depressed
respondents indicated that they were more likely to engage in these behaviors
than non-depressed.

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

44

Based on previous research, I earlier made two predictions regarding the
differences between depressed and non-depressed samples reactions to the
causes of negative outcomes. Pattern A, from the depressive realism literature,
suggested that depressed respondents would show high consistency (i.e., low
control for self and others) whereas non-depressed respondents would show
low consistency (i.e., low control for self and high control for others) in their
judgements about the causes of misfortunes. Pattern B, from the learned
helplessness literature, indicated that depressed respondents would attribute
lower control for self than for others whereas non-depressed respondents would
attribute higher control for self than for others for the cause of a misfortune.
Based on the results of this study, neither of these patterns of prediction were
supported.
The Responsibility Judgement Model
As stated previously, the results of the model testing lend support to the
emotion mediational model outlined by Weiner (1995) in person perception. In
person perception, there were no systematic differences between the
depression groups which would suggest that the motivational model applies as
well to mildly depressed populations as to non-depressed populations. For self
perception, support was provided for both the emotion mediational model and
the cognition mediational model. There were no systematic differences
between the depression groups which suggests that the fit of the models was
not influenced by depression level.

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

45

Person perception
The emotion mediational model fit the data sets for depressed and nondepressed samples for most of the misfortunes. However, for paraplegia, the
non-depressed data set was slightly better explained by the cognition
mediational model. Given that in this study, there were no differences for
cognition or sympathy judgements attributable to depression status for the
misfortune of paraplegia, it is puzzling that the emotion mediational model
provided the best fit for the depressed sample, and not for the non-depressed.
Self perception
In the self perception domain, the emotion mediational model provided the
best explanation for depressed and non-depressed respondent•s-reactions to
having skin cancer and AIDS whereas the cognition mediational model best
explains reactions to heart disease. However, for paraplegia, the results
provided mixed support for these models.
The emotion mediational model provided the best fit for the non-depressed
group data sets for the misfortunes of skin cancer, AIDS, and paraplegia. For
heart disease, the non-depressed data set was best explained by the cognition
mediational model.
For the depressed data sets, the emotion mediational model provided the
best fit for the data sets for skin cancer and AIDS. For paraplegia, although the
emotion mediational model and the cognition mediational model provided fits for
the depressed data, the cognition mediational model provided a slightly better
fit for the data. Finally, for heart disease, the cognition mediational model was

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

46

the only model among those tested which accounted for the data set for the
depressed group.
The results from the analysis of the responsibility inference process portion
of this study did not support the differences in the model testing between
depression groups. For heart disease and paraplegia there were no
responsibility or behavior change differences attributable to depression level in
the analysis of variance, nor were there differences attributable to depression
level for anger judgements for paraplegia. Furthermore, although there were
differences in anger judgements attributable to depression level for heart
disease, this difference was such that depressed respondents reported more
anger than non-depressed respondents. The difference in anger does not
explain why the cognition mediational model provided a better fit than the
emotion mediational model.
This may be a consequence of having used a university population sample
rather than a clinical population, or, it may be that when the information
presented to depressed people is not ambiguous, the depressive attributional
biases previously supported, did not operate.
Conclusions
In sum, the results of this study support the predictions of the responsibility
inferences process and the linkages between cognitions, emotions and action
tendencies in the motivational model outlined by Weiner (1995) in person
perception. However, the emotion mediational model (Weiner, 1995) was not
as strongly supported in self perception. The observed self-other differences

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

47

suggest that an illusion of control bias is operating in people's judgements about
stigmas. That is, people viewed themselves as having more control over not
only the cause of their misfortune, but also in taking action as a result of having
the misfortune. Finally, the lack of difference between depressed and nondepressed samples does not support either the predictions made by the
depressive realism, or the learned helplessness (depressive attributional style)
literature.
Limitations of the Study
If this study were to be conducted in the future, a completely between
subjects design rather than a mixed design should be used. Using a completely
between subjects design, in addition to examining whether there are differences
attributable to groups, target, and/or causal controllability, would make
examining differences between the misfortunes themselves more simple.
Additionally, random assignment of the questionnaires, misfortunes, and
causal conditions of the stigmas rather than controlling for order effects by a
counterbalancing method would reduce the number of questionnaires that
would need to be administered. Consequently, the required cell sizes for
analysis of order effects would be reduced and less time would need to be
spent collecting data.
With regard to the Reasons For Misfortune Questionnaires, the emotion
judgement of sadness could be eliminated. As mentioned earlier, anger and
sympathy are motivating emotions and seem to predict action judgements well

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

48

whereas feelings of sadness are related to helping behavior judgements but are
not consistently related to other action judgements.

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

49

References

Abramson, L.Y., Seligman, M.E.P., & Teasdale, J.D. (1978). Learned
helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal and

Social Psychology, 87, 49-74.
Alloy, L. B., & Abramson, L. Y. (1979). Judgment of contingency in
depressed and nondepressed students: Sadder but wiser? Journal of

Experimental Psychology: General, 108 (4), 441-485.
Alloy, L. B., & Abramson, L. Y. (1982). Learned helplessness, depression,
and the illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42
(6), 1114-1126.
Alloy, L. B., & Clements, C. M. (1992). Illusion of control: Invulnerability to
negative affect and depressive symptoms after laboratory and natural
stressors. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101, 234-245.
Beck, A.T. (1967). Depression: Clinical, experimental and theoretical

aspects. New York: Harper & Row.
Beck, A.T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. New
York: International Universities Press.
Beck, A.T., Steer, R.A., & Garbin, M.G. (1988). Psychometric properties of
the Beck Depression Inventory: Twenty-five years of evaluation. Clinical

Psychology Review, 8, 77- 100.
Bentler, P.M., & Bonett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit
in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

50

Brown, J.D., & Rogers, R.J. (1991 ). Self-serving attributions: The role of
physiological arousal. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 501506.
Cialdini, R.B., Kendrick, D.T., & Bauman, D.J. (1982). Effects of mood on
prosocial behavior in children and adults. In R.A. Baron & D. Byrne (Eds.},
Social psychology: Understanding human interaction (p. 408). MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.
Crandall, C.S. (1992). Symbolic anti-fatism: Ideology, experience, and
anti-fat attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 163 - 177.
Crandall, C.S., & Biernat, M.R. (1990). The ideology of anti-fat attitudes.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 227-243. Cited in Weiner, B.

(1995). Inferences of responsibility and social motivation. In Zanna, Mark P.
(1995). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 27. San Diego
Academic Press Incorporated.
Deaux, K. (1976a). The behavior of women and men. Monterey, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Deaux, K. (1976b). Sex: A perspective on the attribution process. In J.H.
Harvey, W.J. Ickes, & R.F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research
(Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dobson, K., & Franche, R. (1989). A conceptual and empirical review of
the depressive realism hypothesis. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science,
21(4}, 419-433.

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

51

Fordyce, M. (1988). A review of research on the Happiness Measures: A
sixty second index of happiness and mental health. Social Indicators

Research, 20, 355-381 .
Golin, S., Terrell, F., Weitz, J., & Drost, P.L. (1979). The illusion of control
among depressed patients. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88, 454-457.
Graham, S., Hudley, C., & Williams, E. (1992). Attributional and emotional
determinants of aggression among African-American and Latino young
adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 28, 731-740.
Graham, S., Weiner, 8., Giuliano, T., & Williams, E. (1993). An
attributional analysis of reactions to Magic Johnson. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 23, 996-1010.
Haaga, D.A.F., & Beck, A. T. (1995). Perspectives on depressive realism:
Implications for cognitive theory of depression. Behavior Research and

Therapy, 33, 41-48.
Higgins, N.C. (1992). Cross-situational consistency in attributions about the
causes of others' misfortunes: A critical evaluation of attributional style. Ph.D.

thesis (Psychology), Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C.
Hudley, C., & Graham, S. (1993). An attributional intervention to reduce
peer-directed aggression among African-American boys. Child Development,

64, 124-138.
Ickes, W.J., & Kidd, R.F. (1976). An attributional analysis of helping
behavior. In J.H. Harvey, W.J. Ickes, & R.F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in

attribution research (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Press.

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

52

Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R.E. (1971 ). The actor and observer: Divergent
perceptions of the causes of behavior. Morristown, N.J.: General Learning

Press.
Joreskog, K.G., & Sorbom, D. (1995). LISREL 8.14 for Windows.
Chicago, Ill: Scientific Software International, Inc.
Juvonen, J., & Weiner, B. (1993). An attributional analysis of students'
interactions: The social consequences of perceived responsibility.
Educational Psychology Review, 5, 325-345.

Kirk, R.E. (1996). Practical significance: A concept whose time has come.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 746-759.

Krebs, D., Denton, K., & Higgins, N.C. (1988). On the evolution of selfknowledge and self-deception. In MacDonald, K.B. (Ed.), Sociobiological
perspectives on human development (pp. 103- 139). New York: Springer-

Verlag.
Langer, E.J. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 32, 311-328.

Layne, C. (1983). Painful truths about depressives' cognitions. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 39, 848-853.

Mallery, P. (1990). Attributions and attitudes toward AIDS. Unpublished
manuscript, University of California, Los Angeles. Cited in Weiner, B. (1995).
Inferences of responsibility and social motivation. In Zanna, Mark P. (1995).
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 27. San Diego Academic

Press Incorporated.

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

53

McAuley, E., Duncan, T.E., & Russell, D.W. (1992). Measuring causal
attributions: The revised causal dimension scale (CDSII). Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 566-573.
Meyer, J.P., & Mulherin, A. (1980). From attribution to helping: An analysis
of the mediating effects of affect on expectancy. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 39, 201-210.
Miller, D.T., & Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving biases in attribution of
causality: Fact or fiction? Psychological Bulletin, 82, 313-325.
Reisenzein, R. (1986). A structural equation analysis of Weiner's
attribution-affect model of helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 50, 1123-1133.
Schmidt, G., & Weiner, B. (1988). An attribution-affect-action theory of
behavior: Replications of judgments of help giving. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 14, 610-621.
Schwarzer, R., & Weiner, B. (1991 ). Stigma controllability and coping as
predictors of emotions and social support. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 8, 133-140.
Sweeney, P.D., Shaeffer, D., & Golin, S. (1982). Attributions about self
and others in depression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 3742.
Weiner, B., Frieze, 1., Kukla, A., Reed, L. Rest, S., & Rosenbaum, R.M.
(1972). Perceiving the causes of success and failure. In S.T. Fiske & S.E.
Taylor (1991) Social Cognition (p. 79). McGraw Hill, Inc.

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

54

Weiner, B. (1974). Achievement motivation and attribution theory (Ed.).
Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom
experiences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 3-25.
Weiner, B. (1980a). A cognitive (attributional)-emotion-action model of ·
motivated behavior: An analysis of judgments of help-giving. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 186-200.

Weiner, B. (1980b). May I borrow your class notes? An attributional
analysis of judgments of help giving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72,
676-681.
Weiner, B. (1986). An attributions/ theory of motivation and emotion. New
York: Springer-Verlag.
Weiner, B. (1993) . On sin versus sickness. American Psychologist, 48,
957-965.
Weiner, B. (1995). Inferences of responsibility and social motivation. In
Zanna, Mark P. (1995). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol.
27. San Diego, CA: Academic Press Incorporated.
Weiner, B., Graham, S., & Chandler, C.C. (1982). Causal antecedents of
pity, anger, and guilt. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 226-232.
Weiner, B., Perry, R.P., & Magnusson, J. (1988). An attributional analysis
of reactions to stigmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55,
738-748.

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

55

Whitley, B.E., Jr. (1990). The relationship of heterosexuals' attributions for
the causes of homosexuality to attitudes toward lesbian and gay men.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 369-377.

Zucker, G.S., & Weiner, B. (1993). Conservatism and perceptions of
poverty: An attributional analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23,
925-943.

Table 1
lntercorrelations
Bet
---- -

--

-----

-

-

--

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas
-

-

p

Scales for Self and P
~

--

-

tion for Skin
C
----

Cognition
Scales

1

2

3

Emotion Judgements
4

5

1.00

.66
1.00

-.49
-.30
1.00

.77
.56
-.58
1.00

-.10
-.23
.04
-.05
1.00

7

6

Self-perception (n
1. Responsibility
2. Locus
3. Stability
4. Personal control
5. EXternal control
6. Anger
7. Sorry
8. Sad
9. Help
10. Avoid
11. Change

.77
.57
-.51
.73
-.06
1.00

1.00

.63
1.00

-.51
-.35
1.00

.79
.60
-.60
1.00

-.13
-.18
.11
-.12
1.00

.48
.29
-.24
.46
.04
1.00

Action Judgements

8

9

10

11

-.06
.06
.04
-.06
-.11
.11
.72
1.00

-.08
-.05
-.06
-.05
-.16
-.05
.16
.21
1.00

.32
.21
-.14
.34
-.02
.41
.12
.08
-.24
1.00

.46
.28
-.40
.46
.00
.51
.00
.04
.22
.18
1.00

-.26
-.15
.17
-.23
.05
.01
.66.
1.00

-.19
-.01
.17
-.13
-.03
.00
.32
.52
1.00

.11
.04
-.05
.07
.11
.20
-.10
-.18
-.24
1.00

.48
.33
-.32
.45
-.02
.40
-.13
-.10
-.06
-.04
1.00

=214)
-.05
.06
.04
-.07
-.08
.10
1.00

Person-perception (n
1. Responsibility
2. Locus
3. Stability
4. Personal control
5. External control
6. Anger
7. Sorry
8. Sad
9. Help
10. Avoid
11. Change

-

=214)

-.31
-.16
.12
-.26
-.01
-.25
1.00

56

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

Table 2
lntercorrelations B

p

Scales for Self and P

for AIDS

Cognition
Scales

1

2

3

Emotion Judgements
4

5

6

7

Action Judgements

8

9

10

11

-.14
-.14
.08
-.13
.10
-.05
.74
1.00

-.06
-.12
-.16
.01
.09
-.04
.17
.27
1.00

.42
.37
-.11
.37
-.19
.48
.04
-.03
-.23
1.00

.50
.43
-.29
.50
-.24
.57
.02
.11
.28
.23
1.00

-.30
-.29
.06
-.22
.14
-.10
.69
1.00

-.24
-.22
.19
-.19
-.02
-.07
.37
.41
1.00

.19
.12
-.05
.12
-.01
.12
-.16
-.22
-.45
1.00

.51
.50
-.21
.53
-.29
.42
-.15
-.10
.05
.01
1.00

Self-perception (n = 214)
1. Responsibility
2. Locus
3. Stability
4. Personal control
5. External control
6. Anger
7. Sorry
8. Sad
9. Help
10. Avoid
11 . Change

1.00

.81
1.00

-.31
-.25
1.00

.87
.79
-.35
1.00

-.49
-.54
.13
-.47
1.00

.85
.76
-.30
.82
-.43
1.00

-.13
-.10
.08
-.16
.05
-.09
1.00

Person-perception (n = 214)
1. Responsibility
2. Locus
3. Stability
4. Personal control
5. External control
6. Anger
7. Sorry
8. Sad
9. Help
10. Avoid
11. Change

1.00

.79
1.00

-.24
-.21
1.00

.79
.79
-.35
1.00

-.42
-.45
.07
-.37
1.00

.61
.53
-.09
.51
-.33
1.00

-.38
-.34
.14
-.32
.15
-.29
1.00

57

Table 3
lntercorrelations
-- --- - - - - - - Bet
- - - - -- -

-

-

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas
-

-

tion for
- - Heart
- - - --- - o·
- -- - --- -

p

Scales for Self and P

- - - - - - --- -

-

Cognition
Scales

1

2

3

Emotion Judgements
4

5

6

7

Action Judgements

8

9

10

11

-.11
-.05
.08
-.10
-.03
.07
.78
1.00

.03
.10
.05
.10
-.02
.02
.17
.24
1.00

.51
.41
-.31
-40
.17
.62
.16
.13
-.11
1.00

.46
.42
-.30
.49
.02
.44
.04
.01
.19
.28
1.00

-.27
-.24
.07
-.20
-.16
-.14
.74
1.00

-.19
-.13
.09
-.16
-.11
-.07
.31
.42
1.00

.21
.18
-.18
.19
.33
.20
-.13
-.05
-.28
1.00

.38
.34
-.26
.45
.11
.36
-.15
-.04
.18
-.01
1.00

Self-perception (n = 214)
1. Responsibility
2. Locus
3. Stability
4. Personal control
5. External control
6. Anger
7. Sorry
8. Sad
9. Help
10. Avoid
11. Change

1.00

.76
1.00

-.56
-.42
1.00

.78
.71
-.55
1.00

.08
-.09
-.08
.12
1.00

.83
.67
-.52
.66
.07
1.00

-.16
-.07
.07
-.14
-.06
.02
1.00

Person-perception (n = 214)
1. Responsibility
2. Locus
3. Stability
4. Personal control
5. External control
6. Anger
7. Sorry
8. Sad
9. Help
10. Avoid
11. Change

1.00

.81
1.00

-.60
-.51
1.00

.78
.69
-.62
1.00

.20
.03
-.22
.28
1.00

.72
.61
-.47
.55
.18
1.00

-.43
-.37
.21
-.37
-.15
-.30
1.00

58

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

Table 4
lntercorrelations B

Scales for Self and P - - -

.

p-

I
,tion for
- -- P
- --- --.-

- - - -- -

Cognition
Scales

1

2

3

~

.

Emotion Judgements
4

5

6

7

8

Action Judgements
9
---

------

10

11

--

Self-perception (n = 214)
1. Responsibility
2. Locus
3. Stability
4. Personal control
5. External control
6. Anger
7. Sorry
8. Sad
9. Help
10. Avoid
11. Change

1.00

.82
1.00

-.14
-.05
1.00

.86
.78
-.22
1.00

-.51
-.61
-.06
-.52
1.00

.85
.80
-.12
.81
-.54
1.00

-.27
-.15
-.05
-.25
.11
-.17
1.00

-.17
-.07
.00
-.13
.06
-.07
.72
1.00

.00
.00
.00
.04
-.02
-.06
.15
.25
1.00

.47
.46
-.10
.43
-.18
.57
-.07
-.04
-.27
1.00

.40
.42
.08
.44
-.26
.45
-.02
.10
.08
.35
1.00

-.27
-.19
.03
-.23
.17
-.11
.66
1.00

-.21
-.17
.20
-.25
.16
-.12
.34
.33
1.00

.17
.21
-.09
.19
-.16
.20
-.10
-.16
-.32
1.00

.37
.44
.06
.43
-.27
.33
-.14
-.12
-.06
.17
1.00

Person-perception (n = 214)
1. Responsibility
2. Locus
3. Stability
4. Personal control
5. External control
6. Anger
7. Sorry
8. Sad
9. Help
10. Avoid
11. Change

1.00

.83
1.00

-.11
-.11
1.00

.83
.82
-.17
1.00

-.50
-.55
.01
-.48
1.00

.53
.52
.06
.57
-.20
1.00

-.43
-.37
.08
-.42
.23
-.21
1.00

59

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas
Table 5
lntercorrelations (Pearson's r) Among Causal Dimensions for Skin Cancer, AIDS, Heart Disease, and Paraplegia by
Target.
Skin Cancer

AIDS

Heart Disease

60

Paraplegia

Self

Person

Self

Person

Self

Person

Self

Person

Locus - Personal Control

.56**

.60**

.79**

.79**

.71**

.69**

.78**

.82**

Personal Control - Stability

-.58**

-.60**

-.35**

-.35**

-.55**

-.62**

-.22**

-.17*

Locus - External Control

-.23**

-.18*

-.54**

-.45**

-.09

.03

-.61 **

-.55**

Personal Control - External
Control

-.05

-.13

-.47**

-.37**

.12

.28**

-.52**

-.48**

Stability - External Control

.04

.11

.13

.07

-.08

-.22**

-.06

.01

* p ~ .01

** p ~ .001

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas
Table 6
Means and Standard Deviations for Cognition Judgements by Causal Condition for all Four Misfortunes
AIDS

Skin Cancer

Heart Disease

61

Paraplegia

Control

Uncontrol

Control

Uncontrol

Control

Uncontrol

Control

Uncontrol

6.89***
1.70

2.03
1.94

7.85***
1.52

1.62
1.34

8.43***
0.90

2.32
1.84

7.44***
1.82

1.68
1.37

6.59***
1.38

4.31
1.91

7.09***
1.42

2.69
1.77

7.88***
1.08

4.28
1.69

6.68***
1.40

2.10
1.51

so

4.21 ***
1.93

7.13
1.53

4.90***
2.66

6.67
2.29

4.25***
2.14

7.04
1.69

4.76
2.18

5.44
2.30

so

M

7.38***
1.52

3.04
1.98

7.85***
1.42

2.34
1.66

7.87***
1.38

3.68
2.30

7.64***
1.44

2.43
1.63

M

3.08
1.59

3.66
2.19

4.04***
2.21

6.80
2.27

3.72
1.97

3.14
1.59

4.06***
1.85

6.67
1.84

Measure
Responsibility
M

so

Locus
M

so

Stability
M

Personal Control

External Control

so

* p ::;;; .05 ** p ::;;; .01 *** p ::;;; .001

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas
Table 7
Means and Standard Deviations for Emotion Judgements by Causal Condition for all Four Misfortunes
AIDS

Skin Cancer

Paraplegia

Control

Uncontrol

Control

Uncontrol

Control

Uncontrol

Control

Uncontrol

6.15***
1.64

1.89
1.37

7.07***
1.62

1.92
1.55

6.84***
1.91

1.81
1.32

6.29***
1.79

1.64
1.12

M

so

5.98
2.02

6.66
2.04

6.28***
2.11

7.48
1.94

5.30**
2.39

6.66
2.01

6.18***
2.17

7.61
1.57

M

6.59
1.95

6.90
2.00

6.92**
2.09

7.73
1.88

6.10
2.28

6.78
2.13

6.94
1.96

7.68
1.72

Measure
Anger
M

so

Sorry

Sad

Heart Disease

62

so

* p s .05 ** p s .01 *** p s .001

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas
Table 8
Means and Standard Deviations for Action Judgements by Causal Condition for all Four Misfortunes
AIDS

Skin Cancer
Measure
Help

M

so

Avoid/Punish
M

so

Change
M

so

Heart Disease

63

Paraplegia

Control

Uncontrol

Control

Uncontrol

Control

Uncontrol

Control

Uncontrol

8.05
1.31

8.36
1.02

8.14
1.24

8.51
0.92

8.17*
1.16

8.47
0.93

8.21
1.14

8.56
0.81

2.61 ***
1.57

1.71
1.13

3.39***
1.95

1.88
1.41

3.34***
2.02

1.58
1.06

3.1 0***
1.81

1.55
1.09

7.62***
1.70

4.92
2.53

8.02***
1.58

4.89
2.80

8.00***
1.34

5.89
2.77

6.79***
1.84

4.46
2.66

* p ~ .05 ** p ~ .01 *** p ~ .001

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas
Table 9
Means and Standard Deviations for Cognition Judgements by Target for all Four Misfortunes
Skin Cancer

AIDS

Heart Disease

64

Paraplegia

Self

Other

Self

Other

Self

Other

Self

Other

5.19**
3.27

4.60
3.03

5.49*
3.61

5.11
3.52

5.05**
3.40

4.69
3.41

4.14
3.40

4.00
3.28

5.86***
2.11

5.41
2.07

5.32
2.84

5.18
2.85

6.02***
2.45

5.49
2.40

4.03
2.83

4.04
2.86

so

5.34
2.58

5.46
2.32

5.59
2.85

5.73
2.89

5.81
2.49

5.81
2.32

5.26
2.45

5.26
2.51

so

M

5.86*
2.84

5.51
2.87

5.70
3.32

5.40
3.24

5.57
2.92

5.32
2.89

4.68
3.06

4.51
3.08

M

3.30
2.14

3.42
2.08

4.94**
2.90

5.42
2.75

3.24**
1.92

3.78
2.02

5.35
2.54

5.65
2.31

Measure
Responsibility
M

so

Locus
M

so

Stability
M

Personal Control

External Control

so

* p :::; .05 ** p :::; .01 *** p :::; .001

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas
Table 10
Means and Standard Deviations for Emotion Judgements by Target for all Four Misfortunes
Skin Cancer

AIDS

Heart Disease

65

Paraplegia

Measure

Self

Other

Self

Other

Self

Other

Self

Other

Anger
M
SD

5.69***
3.32

3.11
2.69

6.12***
3.47

3.70
3.26

4.74***
3.52

3.22
2.96

4.74***
3.45

2.56
2.50

Sorry .
M
SD

5.79***
2.78

6.77
2.45

6.46**
2.78

7.11
2.46

5.50***
2.74

6.63
2.64

6.47***
2.57

7.51
2.06

6.32*
2.68

6.99
2.31

7.09
2.49

7.24
2.43

6.04***
2.66

6.96
2.51

7.04*
2.31

7.62
1.96

Sad

M
SD

* p ~ .05 ** p ~ .01 *** p ~ .001

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

Table 11
Means and Standard Deviations for Action Judgements by Target for all Four Misfortunes
Skin Cancer
Measure
Help

M

so
Avoid/Punish
M

so

Change
M

so

AIDS

Heart Disease

66

Paraplegia

Self

Other

Self

Other

Self

Other

Self

Other

8.57***
1.35

7.73
1.75

8.58***
1.54

7.92
1.69

8.62***
1.21

8.05
1.61

8.51
1.43

8.26
1.28

2.61**
2.38

1.98
1.70

2.94
2.77

2.45
2.16

2.73**
2.50

2.14
2.09

2.61 ***
2.42

' 1.94
1.71

6.69***
2.79

5.94
2.91

7.01 ***
2.93

6.27
2.94

7.16*
2.69

6.66
2.63

5.86***
3.02

5.04
2.95

* p ~ .05 ** p ~ .01 *** p ~ .001

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

67

Table 12
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Responsibility, Emotion,
and Action Tendency in Person Perception by Group for Skin Cancer
Group
Measure

Non-Depressed

Depressed

Responsibility
M
SD

4.81
3.03

4.40
3.04

Pity
M
SD

6.54
2.53

7.00
2.36

Help
M
SD

7.80
1.63

7.65
1.86

Responsibility X Pity
Responsibility X Help
Pity X Help

-.20
-.10
.30*

-.42***
-.21
.28*

* p $ .05 **p $ .01 ***p $ .001
Table 13
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Responsibility, Emotion,
and Action Tendency in Person Perception by Group for AIDS
Group
Measure

Non-Depressed

Depressed

Responsibility
M
SD

5.29
3.56

4.94
3.51

Pity
M
SD

6.90
2.53

7.33
2.39

Help
M
SD

8.01
1.69

7.83
1.70

-.45***
-.17
.46***

-.40***
-.26*
.42***

Responsibility X Pity
Responsibility X Help
Pity X Help
* p $ .01 ** p $ .001

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

68

Table 14
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Responsibility, Emotion,
and Action Tendency in Person Perception by Group for Heart Disease
Group
Measure
Responsibility
M

so

Pity
M

so

Help
M

so

Responsibility X Pity
Responsibility X Help
Pity X Help

Non-Depressed

Depressed

4.59
3.41

4.77
3.44

6.42
2.68

6.83
2.60

8.04
1.63

8.06
1.60

-.45***
-.30**
.39***

-.35**
-.12
.41 ***

* p ~ .01 ** p ~ .001
Table 15
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Responsibility, Emotion,
and Action Tendency in Person Perception by Group for Paraplegia
Group
Measure
Responsibility
M

so

Pity
M

so

Help
M

so

Responsibility X Pity
Responsibility X Help
Pity X Help
. * p ~ .01 ** p ~ .001

Non-Depressed

Depressed

3.84
3.36

4.15
3.21

7.40
2.11

7.63
2.02

8.16
1.37

8.35
1.18

-.48***
-.25*
.21

-.49***
-.14
.47***

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas 69
Table 16
Person Percee_tion: Parameter Estimates and Goodness of Fit of Four Structural Models by_ Status Graue for Skin Cancer
Status Group
Non-Depressed
Parameter
Model 0 (saturated model)
81: Path from responsibility to pity
8 2 : Path from pity to help
8 3 : Path from responsibility to help
Model 1 (emotion mediational model)
8 1: Path from responsibility to pity
8 2 : Path from pity to help
Model 2 (independent effects)
8 1: Path from responsibility to help
8 2 : Path from pity to help
Model 3 (cognition mediational model)
81: Path from pity to responsibility
8 2 : Path from responsibility to help

Path

z

- .16
.19
-.02

- 1.65
2.47
-0.33

- .16
.19

-1.65
2.58

-.02
.19

-0.34
2.52

-.23
-.05

-1.65
-0.80

·l

Depressed
p

NFI

0.11

.74

.99

2.70

.10

.71

5.93

.02

.36

Path

z

-.32
.18
.07

-3.76
1.83
-0.87

-.32
.22

-3.76
2.40

-.07
.18

-0.95
2.01

-.53
-.13

-3.76
-1.74

l

p

NFI

.76

.38

.96

13.04

.00

.33

3.33

.07

.83

Note: A z score greater than 1.96 indicates a significant path. For all chi-square tests, df = 1, N = 70. NFI = Bentler8onett Normed Fit Index.

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

Table 17
Person Perceetion: Parameter Estimates and Goodness of Fit of Four Structural Models by_ Status Groue for AIDS

70

Status Group
Non-Depressed
Parameter
Model 0 (saturated model)
81: Path from responsibility to pity
82: Path from pity to help
8 3 : Path from responsibility to help
Model 1 (emotion mediational model)
81: Path from responsibility to pity
82: Path from pity to help
Model 2 (independent effects)
81: Path from responsibility to help
82: Path from pity to help
Model 3 (cognition mediational model)
81: Path from pity to responsibility
8 2: Path from responsibility to help

Path

z

-.32
.32
.02

-4.16
3.97
0.38

-.32
.31

-4.16
4.25

.02
.32

0.43
4.44

-.63
-.08

-4.16
-1.42

x2

Depressed
p

NFI

.15

.70

1.0

15.68

.00

.51

14.35

.00

.55

Path

z

-.27
.27
-.05

-3.64
3.18
-0.92

-.27
.30

-3.64
3.86

-.05
.27

-1.0
3.48

-.59
-.13

-3.64
-2.25

x2

p

NFI

.85

.36

.97

12.28

.00

.54

9.58

.00

.64

Note: A z score greater than 1.96 indicates a significant path. For all chi-square tests, df = 1, N = 70. NFI = BentlerBonett Normed Fit Index.

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas
Table 18
Person Perception: Parameter Estimates and Goodness of Fit of Four Structural Models by Status Group for Heart
Disease

71

Status Group
Non-Depressed
Parameter
Model 0 {saturated model)
8 1: Path from responsibility to pity
8 2 : Path from pity to help
8 3 : Path from responsibility to help
Model 1 {emotion mediational model)
8 1: Path from responsibility to pity
8 2 : Path from pity to help
Model 2 {independent effects)
8 1: Path from responsibility to help
8 2 : Path from pity to help
Model 3 {cognition mediational model)
8 1: Path from pity to responsibility
8 2 : Path from responsibility to help

Path

z

-.36
.19
-.08

-4.18
2.57
-1.27

-.36
.24

-4.18
3.48

-.08
.19

-1.42
2.88

-.58
-.14

-4.18
-2.60

l

Depressed
p

NFI

1.61

.20

.94

15.8

.00

.45

6.40

.01

.78

Path

z

-.26
.26
.01

-3.07
3.52
0.24

-.26
.25

-3.07
3.67

.01
.26

0.26
3.76

-.46
-.05

-3.07
-0.97

x2

p

NFI

.059

.81

1.0

8.96

.00

.58

11.58

.00

.46

Note: A z score greater than 1.96 indicates a significant path. For all chi-square tests, df =1, N =70. NFI =BentlerBonett Normed Fit Index.

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

72

Table 19
Person Percee_tion: Parameter Estimates and Goodness of Fit of Four Structural Models by_ Status Groue_ for Parae_leg_ia
Status Group
Non-Depressed
Parameter
Model 0 (saturated model)
8 1: Path from responsibility to pity
8 2 : Path from pity to help
8 3 : Path from responsibility to help
Model 1 (emotion mediational model)
8 1: Path from responsibility to pity
8 2 : Path from pity to help
Model 2 (independent effects)
8 1: Path from responsibility to help
8 2 : Path from pity to help
Model 3 (cognition mediational model)
8 1: Path from pity to responsibility
8 2 : Path from responsibility to help

Path

z

-.31
.07
-.08

-4.67
0.85
-1.44

-.31
.14

-4.67
1.76

-.08
.07

-1.65
0.97

-.78
-.10

-4.67
-2.12

x2

Depressed
p

NFI

2.07

.15

.91

19.2

.00

.21

.72

.40

.97

Path

z

-.31
.31
.04

-4.60
4.32
0.94

-.31
.27

-4.60
4.40

.04
.31

1.07
4.95

-.77
-.05

-4.60
-1.19

l

p

NFI

.88

.35

.98

18.72

.00

.49

16.74

.00

.55

Note: A z score greater than 1.96 indicates a significant path. For all chi-square tests, df = 1, N = 70. NFI = BentlerBonett Normed Fit Index.

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

73

Table 20
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Responsibility, Emotion,
and Action Tendency in Self Perception by Group for Skin Cancer
Group
Measure

Non-Depressed

Depressed

Responsibility
M
SD

5.53
3.18

4.86
3.34

Anger
M
SD

5.31
3.31

6.06
3.32

Change
M
SD

. 6.56
2.88

6.83
2.70

Responsibility X Anger
Responsibility X Change
Anger X Change

.81**
.48**
.51**

.81**
.42**
.48**

* p ~ .01 ** p ~ .001
Table 21
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Responsibility, Emotion,
and Action Tendency in Self Perception by Group for AIDS
Group
Measure

Non-Depressed

Depressed

Responsibility
M
SD

5.51
3.59

5.47
3.66

Anger
M
SD

6.10
3.44

6.14
3.54

Change
M
SD

6.84
3.07

7.19
2.79

.87**
.57**
.63**

.87**
.37**
.45**

Responsibility X Anger
Responsibility X Change
Anger X Change
* p ~ .01 ** p ~ .001

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

74

Table 22
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Responsibility, Emotion,
and Action Tendency in Self Perception by Group for Heart Disease
Group
Measure
Responsibility
M

Non-Depressed

Depressed

4.93
3.37

5.17
3.45

4.16
3.37

5.31
3.59

so

7.09
2.74

7.23
2.65

Responsibility X Anger
Responsibility X Change
Anger X Change

.87**
.47**
.42**

.80**
.49**
.37*

so

Anger
M

so

Change
M

* p ~ .01 ** p ~ .001
Table 23
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Responsibility, Emotion,
and Action Tendency in Self Perception by Group for Paraplegia
Group
Measure
Responsibility
M

Non-Depressed

Depressed

4.11
3.51

4.16
3.32

4.59
3.45

4.89
3.47

so

5.46
3.09

6.27
2.91

Responsibility X Anger
Responsibility X Change
Anger X Change

.87**
.38**
.50**

.82**
.40**
.37*

so

Anger
M

so

Change
M

* p ~ .01 ** p ~ .001

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

75

Table 24
Self Percee_tion: Parameter Estimates and Goodness of Fit of Four Structural Models by_ Status Groue. for Skin Cancer
Status Group
Non-Depressed
Parameter
Model 0 (saturated model)
8 1: Path from responsibility to anger
82: Path from anger to change
8 3 : Path from responsibility to change
Model 1 (emotion mediational model)
8 1: Path from responsibility to anger
8 2: Path from anger to change
Model 2 (independent effects)
8 1 : Path from responsibility to change
82: Path from anger to change
Model 3 (cognition mediational model)
8 1: Path from anger to responsibility
82: Path from responsibility to change

Path

z

.84
.30
.18

11.31
1.97
1.16

.84
.44

11.31
4.89

.18
.30

1.97
3.35

.78
.44

11.31
4.55

l

Depressed
p

NFI

1.36

.24

.99

73

.00

.23

3.84

.05

.96

Path

z

.80
.31
.09

11.32
2.12
0.64

.80
.39

11.32
4.47

.09
.31

1.08
3.61

.81
.34

11.32
3.87

-l

p

NFI

.41

.52

1.0

73.07

.00

.20

4.43

.04

.95

Note: A z score greater than 1.96 indicates a significant path. For all chi-square tests, df = 1, N = 70. NFI = BentlerBonett Normed Fit Index.

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas
Table 25
Self Percee_tion: Parameter Estimates and Goodness of Fit of Four Structural Models by_ Status Graue_ for AIDS

76

Status Group
Non-Depressed
Parameter
Model 0 (saturated model)
81: Path from responsibility to anger
8 2 : Path from anger to change
8 3 : Path from responsibility to change
Model 1 (emotion mediational model)
81: Path from responsibility to anger
8 2 : Path from anger to change
Model 2 (independent effects)
8 1 : Path from responsibility to change
8 2 : Path from anger to change
Model 3 (cognition mediational model)
8 1 : Path from anger to responsibility
8 2 : Path from responsibility to change

Path

z

.83
.48
.09

14.55
2.83
0.54

.83
.56

14.55
6.67

.09
.48

1.10
5.73

.91
.49

14.55
5.76

x2

Depressed
p

NFI

.30

.59

1.0

97.59

.00

.26

7.67

.01

.94

Path

z

.84
.41
-.06

14.61
2.35
-0.34

.84
.36

14.61
4.16

-.06
.41

-0.70
4.77

.90
.29

14.61
3.33

l

p

NFI

.12

.73

1.0

98.03

.00

.14

5.37

.02

.95

Note: A z score greater than 1.96 indicates a significant path. For all chi-square tests, df = 1, N = 70. NFI = BentlerBonett Normed Fit Index.

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas 77
Table 26
Self Percee_tion: Parameter Estimates and Goodness of Fit of Four Structural Models by_ Status Groue_ for Heart Disease
Status Group
Non-Depressed
Parameter
Model 0 (saturated model)
8 1: Path from responsibility to anger
82: Path from anger to change
8 3 : Path from responsibility to change
Model 1 (emotion mediational model)
8 1: Path from responsibility to anger
8 2: Path from anger to change
Model2 (independent effects)
8 1: Path from responsibility to change
8 2: Path from anger to change
Model 3 (cognition mediational model)
8 1: Path from anger to responsibility
82: Path from responsibility to change

Path

z

.87
.05
.34

14.27
0.30
1.93

.87
.34

14.27
3.84

.34
.05

3.85
0.61

.87
.38

14.27
4.38

x2

p

Depressed
NFI

3.67

.06

.97

95.55

.00

.15

.09

.76

1.0

Path

z

.83
-.05
.42

11.0
-0.39
3.09

.83
.27

11.0
3.24

.42
-.05

5.15
-0.65

.77
.38

11.0
4.62

x2

p

NFI

9.05

.00

.90

70.52

.00

.21

.16

.69

1.0

Note: A z score greater than 1.96 indicates a significant path. For all chi-square tests, df = 1, N = 70. NFI = BentlerBonett Normed Fit Index.

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

78

Table 27
Self Percee.tion: Parameter Estimates and Goodness of Fit of Four Structural Models by_ Status Graue for Parae.leg_ia
Status Group
Non-Depressed
Parameter
Model 0 (saturated model)
8 1 : Path from responsibility to anger
8 2: Path from anger to change
8 3 : Path from responsibility to change
Model1 (emotion mediational model)
8 1 : Path from responsibility to anger
8 2: Path from anger to change
Model2 (independent effects)
8 1 : Path from responsibility to change
82: Path from anger to change
Model3 (cognition mediational model)
8 1: Path from anger to responsibility
82: Path from responsibility to change

Path

z

.85
.60
-.18

14.22
3.23
-0.98

.85
.44

14.22
4.72

-.18
.60

-1.96
6.44

.88
.33

14.22
3.37

l

Depressed
p

NFI

.97

.32

.99

95.17

.00

.18

9.86

.00

.91

Path

z

.86
.10
.27

11.8
0.60
1.58

.86
.31

11.8
3.24

.27
.10

2.75
1.04

.78
.35

11.8
3.59

l

p

NFI

2.47

.12

.97

76.86

.00

.14

.36

.55

1.0

Note: A z score greater than 1.96 indicates a significant path. For all chi-square tests, df = 1, N = 70. NFI =BentlerBonett Normed Fit Index.

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

79

Figure 1. Paraplegia: T x C interaction for responsibility judgements.

~
8

7

6

DSelf

.

(#)

c

•. • other

ms

:::E

4

3

2

1+----......----__..

Controllable

Uncontrollable

Causal Condition

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

80

Figure 2. Skin Cancer: T x C x D interaction for locus of control judgements.

~

~

8

7

6
Ul

DSelf
•other

c

ms

:::E

4

3

2

1 +----'-----

Non-depressed
Controllable

Depressed
Controllable

Non-depressed
Uncontrollable

Causal Condition X Depression Level

Depressed
Uncontrollable

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

81

Figure 3. Skin Cancer: T x C x D interaction for stability judgements.

~

~

8

7

6
DSelf
• other

U)

c

ms
:e
4

3

2

1

+-------

Non-depressed
Controllable

Depressed
Controllable

Non-depressed
Uncontrollable

Causal Condition X Depression Level

Depressed
Uncontrollable

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

82

Figure 4. Heart Disease: T x C interaction for feelings of anger.

~

~

8

7

6
DSelf

en

c

ms

•other

::1:

4

3

2

1+------'------......
Controllable

Uncontrollable

Causal Condition

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

83

Figure 5. Paraplegia: T x C interaction for feelings of anger.

~

~

8

7

6
DSelf

fl)

z5
::::E
c

II Other

4

3

2

1+----.........-------'

Controllable

Uncontrollable

Causal Condition

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

84

Figure 6. Skin Cancer: T x C x D interaction for feelings of anger.

~

~

8

7

6
DSelf
•other

U)

c

ms

:e

4

3

2

1 +----'------

Non-depressed
Controllable

Depressed
Controllable

Non-depressed
·uncontrollable

Causal Condition X Depression Level

Depressed
Uncontrollable

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

85

Figure 7. AIDS: T x C x D interaction for feelings of anger.

~
8

7

6
tl)

;

~

5

4

I

I

I

I

I

I

I IOSelf

I

I

3

2

1 +--""----

Non-depressed
Controllable

Depressed
Controllable

Non-Depressed
Uncontrollable

Causal Condition X Depression

Depressed
Uncontrollable

•other

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

86

Figure 8. Skin Cancer: T x C interaction for sympathy feelings.

~

~

8

7

6

z5

OSelf

(I)

c

•other

:::E

4

3

2
1..,_______

~

________....,.
Controllable

Uncontrollable

Causal Condition

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

87

Figure 9. AIDS: T x C interaction for sympathy feelings.

~

~

8

7

iJ
6

DSelf
•other

:e
Cl)

4

3

2

1+--------------------Controllable

,
Uncontrollable

Causal Condition

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

88

Figure 10. Heart Disease: T x C interaction for sympathy feelings.

~
8

7

6
U)

DSelf

~ 5

•other

c

4

3

2

1+-_ _ _......._ _ _ _......
Controllable

Uncontrollable

Causal Condition

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

89

Figure 11. Paraplegia: T x C interaction for feelings of sympathy.

~

~

8

7

6
en
c

z5

DSelf

:E

• other

4

3

2
1+-______...___________.
Controllable

Uncontrollable

Causal Condition

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

90

Figure 12. Paraplegia: T x C interaction for feelings of sadness.

~
8

7

6
OSelf

(I)

c

z5

•other

:::e

4

3

2

~

Controllable

Uncontrollable

Causal Condition

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

91

Figure 13. Skin Cancer: C x D interaction for feelings of sadness.

~
8

7

6

z5
::E
tn

D Non-depressed
• Depressed

c

4

3

2

1+-_ _ _....__ _ _____.
Controllable

Uncontrollable

Causal Condition

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

92

Figure 14. Heart Disease: T x C interaction for helping behavior.
8.8
8.6
8.4
8.2
8
DSelf

z 7.8
tl)

c

•other

:::E

7.6
7.4
7.2
7
6.8
Controllable

Uncontrollable

Causal Condition

(")

-....

0>

Q)

Qj .c

(/)

(J)

as

D

E

C)
':.;::::

en
....

•
0

::J

0

..c

<t

....c:
(J)

Q)

E
Q)

C)

"0

::J
-,

"'C

>.

.:::

Q)

en
en
Q)

:c
(J)

....c..

0

0

c:

Q)

a.
(J)
Q)

a:

..:

·s:0m

.c
Cl)

.D

t:n

·a
s::::

"i
.c

...0
s::::

0

-

;::

"'C
Q)

en
en

...m
()

~

c..
Q)

Cl)

s::::

"'C
I

c

c::

0

z

><

..

~

.!

t:n

Cl)

Q.

...mm

a.

.n
,....

...::s
Cl)

t:n

u:

0>

CX)

co

1.0

sueew

C\1

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

94

Figure 16. AIDS: T x C interaction for punishing oneself or avoiding others.

~

~

8

.7

6
DSelf

(I)

c

:

::E

5

II Other

4

3

2
1...,_______...._________......
Controllable

Uncontrollable

Causal Condition

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

95

Figure 17. Heart Disease: T x C interaction for punishing oneself or avoiding others.

~

~

8

7

6
DSelf

(I)

c

:g 5

BOther

::E

4

3

2

1+----...a..-----__.j
Uncontrollable

Controllable

Causal Condition

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

96

Figure 18. Paraplegia: T x C interaction for punishing oneself or avoiding others.

9?-----------------------------------------------------------------------------8

7

6
DSelf

Cl)

c

ms

•other

::::!:

4

3

2

1......,.______......________.......
Controllable

Uncontrollable

Causal Condition

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

97

Figure 19. Heart Disease: C x D interaction for punishing oneself or avoiding others.

~
8

7

J
6

en
c

:e"'
Gl

D Non-depressed
B Depressed

4

3

2

1+------------

Uncontrollable

Controllable

Causal Condition

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

98

Figure 20. Paraplegia: C x D interaction for punishing oneself or avoiding others.

~
8

7

6

I
~ sI

I 0 Non-depressed
II• Depressed

Q)

:E

4

3

2

1+-----'-------....i
Uncontrollable

Controllable

Causal Condition

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

99

Figure 21. Paraplegia: T x D interaction for punishing oneself or avoiding others.

~
8

7

6

DSelf
• other

(I)

c

z5

:::E

4

3

2

1+-_____....._ _ _ ____.
Non-depressed

Depressed

Depression Level

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

100

Figure 22. Skin Cancer: T x C x D interaction for punishing oneself or avoiding others.

~

~

8

7

6

~

DSelf
•other

G)

==

4

3

2
1 ......_.....__.....
Non-depressed
Controllable

Depressed
Controllable

Non-depressed
Uncontrollable

Causal Condition X Depression Level

Depressed
Uncontrollable

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

101

Figure 23. AIDS: T x C x D interaction for behavior change tendencies.

~
8

7

6
tn

II

c

ms

==

4

~

II

~

3

2

1 ......._...____
Non-depressed
Controllable

Depressed
Controllable

Non-depressed
Uncontrollable

Causal Condition X Depression Level

Depressed
Uncontrollable

Other

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

Appendix A: Person Perception - The Responsibility Judgement Model (Weiner, 1995)

1(1
Negative Event
(Other is Victim)

I

I

~

Controllable by
Person
("They're
responsible")

II

Anger

Uncontrollable by
Person
("They're not
responsible")

II

Sympathy

II

Negative Behavior
Reaction
(Avoidance)

II

Prosocial
Behavior
(Helping)

102

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

Appendix B: Self Perception - Implications from Weiner's (1995) Responsibility Judgement Model

4/(
Negative Event
(Self is Victim)

I~

I
I

Controllable by
Me
("I'm
responsible")

Uncontrollable by
Me
("I'm not
responsible; no
one is")

I II I

Anger

II

Sympathy
(Pity for self)

II

Anger

I II

I

Change My
Behavior

II

No Behavioral
Change
(Passivity)

II

Negative Behavior
Reaction
(Avoidance)

~
Controllable by
Someone
("I'm not
responsible;
someone else is")

103

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

104

Appendix C
BECK DEPRESSION INVENTORY
On this questionnaire are a group of statements. Please read each
group of statements carefully. Then pick out the one statement in each group
which best describes the way you have been feeling the PAST WEEK,
INCLUDING TODAY! Circle the number beside the statement you picked. If
several statements in the group seem to apply equally well, circle each one. Be
sure to read all the statements in each group before making your decision.

1

0 I do not feel sad.
1 I feel sad.
2 I am sad all the time and I can't snap out of it.
3 I am so sad or unhappy that I can't stand it.

2

0 I am not particularly discouraged about the future.
1 I feel discouraged about the future.
2 I feel I have nothing to look forward to.
3 I feel that the future is hopeless and that things cannot improve.

3

0 I do not feel like a failure.
1 I feel I have failed more than the average person.
2 As I look back on my life, all I can see is a lot of failure.
3 I feel I am a complete failure as a person.

4

0 I get as much satisfaction out of things as I used to.
1 I don't enjoy things the way I used to.
2 I don't get real satisfaction out of anything anymore.
3 I am dissatisfied or bored with everything.

5

0 I don't feel particularly guilty.
1 I feel guilty a good part of the time.
2 I feel guilty most of the time.
3 I feel guilty all of the time.

6

0 I don't feel I am being punished.
1 I feel I may be punished.
2 I expect to be punished.
3 I feel I am being punished.

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

7

0 I don't feel disappointed in myself . .
1 I am disappointed in myself.
2 I am disgusted with myself.
3 I hate myself.

8

0 I don't feel I am any worse than anybody else.
1 I am critical of myself for my weaknesses or mistakes.
2 I blame myself all the time for my faults .
3 I blame myself for everything bad that happens.

9

0 I don't have any thoughts of killing myself.
1 I have thoughts of killing myself, but I would not carry them out.
2 I would like to kill myself.
3 I would kill myself if I had the chance.

105

10 0 I don't cry anymore than usual.
1 I cry more now than I used to.
2 I cry all of the time now.
3 I used to be able to cry, but now I can't cry even though I want to.
11

0 I am no more irritated now than I ever am.
1 I get annoyed or irritated more easily than I used to.
2 I feel irritated all of the time now.
3 I don't get irritated at all by the things that used to irritate me.

12 0 I have not lost interest in other people.
1 I am less interested in other people than I used to be.
2 I have lost most of my interest in other people.
3 I have lost all of my interest in other people.
13 0 I make decisions about as well as I ever could.
1 I put off making decisions more than I used to.
2 I have greater difficulty in making decisions than before.
3 I can't make decisions at all anymore.
14 0 I don't feel I look any worse that I used to.
1 I am worried that I an looking old or unattractive.
2 I feel that there are permanent changes in my appearance that make me
look unattractive.
3 I believe that I look ugly.

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

106

15 0 I can work about as well as before.
1 It takes an extra effort to get started at doing something.
2 I have to push myself very hard to do anything.
3 I can't do any work at all.
16 0 I can sleep as well as usual.
1 I don't sleep as well as I used to.
2 I wake up 1-2 hours earlier than usual and find it very hard to get back to
sleep.
3 I wake up several hours earlier than I used to and cannot get back to
slee .
17 0 I don't get more tired than usual.
1 I get tired more easily than I used to.
2 I get tired from doing almost anything.
3 I am too tired to do anything.
18 0 My appetite is no worse than usual.
1 My appetite is not as good as it used to be.
2 My appetite is much worse now.
3 I have no appetite at all anymore.
19 0 I haven't lost much weight.
1 I have lost more than 5 pounds
2 I have lost more than 10 pounds
3 I have lost more than 15 pounds
I am purposefully trying to lose weight by eating less. Yes

No

20 0 I am no more worried about my health than usual.
1 I am worried about physical problems such as aches and pains; or upset
stomach; or constipation.
2 I am very worried about physical problems and it is hard to think of much
else.
3 I am so worried about my physical problems, that I cannot think about
anything else.
21

0 I have not noticed any recent change in my interest in sex.
1 I am less interested in sex than I used to be.
2 I am much less interested in sex now.
3 I have lost interest in sex completely.

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

107

Appendix D: Reasons for Misfortunes Questionnaires

Reasons For Misfortune - Self
INSTRUCTIONS:
The items on the following pages present specific misfortunes or
problems that might happen to anyone. For each item a cause is identified.
Think about how you would respond if the misfortune happened to you for that
reason. After reading each misfortune, rate that cause on each of the fifteen
scales provided by circling one number on each scale. When doing the ratings,
be sure to focus on the cause (that is, the reason for the onset) of the
problem, NOT on the problem. This may be difficult at times. In other words,
make sure you are rating the cause of the misfortune, and NOT the misfortune
itself.
The term "Other People" referred to in the rating questions means
anvone else (that is, anvone other than you).
Please take your time when doing the ratings - make sure you read the
questions carefully. You may find that there is more than one way of interpreting
some of the rating questions. Please interpret these questions in the way that is
most meaningful to you. There are no right or wrong answers to these
questions.
To summarize, for each of the 4 misfortunes, you should:
1) Read each misfortune and the reason/cause given for each one
2) then, rate that cause by circling one number on each of the fifteen
scales provided each time you do the ratings, be sure to focus on the
cause (i.e., the reason for the problem), NOT on the problem.
3) if you find there is more than one way of interpreting a question,
interpret it in a way that is most meaningful to you.
4) please read the questions carefully.

PLEASE ANSWER ALL OF THE QUESTIONS. Keep in mind that

there are no right or wrong answers. Please refer back to the instructions if
you are unsure about what to do. It shoulcj take 10 minutes to finish this
questionnaire. You are, of course, free to stop participating at any time.

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

108

1. Skin Cancer:
Cause: something you inherited
Think about only this cause of your developing skin cancer. The items below concern your impressions
or opinions of only this cause. Circle one number on each of the following 15 scales.

What do you think?

How responsible are you for developing skin cancer?
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Not at all responsible

That reflects an aspect of you

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Reflects an aspect of your situation

Pennanent

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Temporary

You can regulate

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

You cannot regulate

Over which others have power

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Over which others have no power

About you

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

About others

Over which you have power

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Over which you have no power

Unchangeable

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Changeable

Other people can regulate

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Other people cannot regulate

Completely responsible

Is the cause something:

How would you feel about yourself if inheritance was the cause of your developing skin cancer?
Angry at yourself

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Not at all angry at yourself

Sorry for yourself

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Not at all sorry for yourself

Sad for yourself

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Not at all sad for yourself

Do something to help yourself if you could

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Do nothing to help yourself

Punish yourself if you could

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Not punish yourself

Change the way you act if you could

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Not change the way you act

What would you do?

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

109

2. AIDS:
Cause: blood transfusion during an emergency operation
Think about only this cause of your developing AIDS. The items below concern your impressions or
opinions of only this cause. Circle one number on each of the following 15 scales.

What do you think? .

How responsible are you for developing AIDS?
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Not at all responsible

That reflects an aspect of you

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Reflects an aspect of your situation

Permanent

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Temporary

You can regulate

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

You cannot regulate

Over which others have power

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Over which others have no power

About you

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

About others

Over which you have power

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Over which you have no power

Unchangeable

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Changeable

Other people can regulate

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Other people cannot regulate

Completely responsible

Is the cause something:

How would l£OU feel about l£Ourself if a blood transfusion during an emergencl£
cause of l£OUr developing AIDS?

~

Angry at yourself

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Not at all angry at yourself

Sorry for yourself

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Not at all sorry for yourself

Sad for yourself

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Not at all sad for yourself

Do something to help yourself if you could

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Do nothing to help yourself

Punish yourself if you could

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Not punish yourself

Change the way you act if you could

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Not change the way you act

What would l£OU do?

was the

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

11 0

3. Paraplegia:
Cause: rear-ended by a drunk driver
Think about only this cause of your becoming a paraplegic. The items below concern your impressions
or opinions of only this cause. Circle one number on each of the following 15 scales.

What do YOU think?

How responsible are you for becoming a paraplegic?
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Not at all responsible

That reflects an aspect of you

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Reflects an aspect of your situation

Permanent

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Temporary

You can regulate

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

You cannot regulate

Over which others have power

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Over which others have no power

About you

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

About others

Over which you have power

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Over which you have no power

Unchangeable

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Changeable

Other people can regulate

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Other people cannot regulate

Completely responsible

Is the cause something:

How would l£OU feel about )£ourself if being rear-ended bl£ a drunk driver was the cause of l£OUr
becoming a paraplegic?
Angry at yourself

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Not at all angry at yourself

Sorry for yourself

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Not at all sorry for yourself

Sad for yourself

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Not at all sad for yourself

Do something to help yourself if you could

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Do nothing to help yourself

Punish yourself if you could

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Not punish yourself

Change the way you act if you could

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Not change the way you act

What would l£OU do?

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

111

4. Heart Disease:
Cause: something you inherited
Think about only this cause of your developing heart disease. The items below concern your impressions
or opinions of only this cause. Circle one number on each of the following 15 scales.

What do you think?

How responsible are you for developing heart disease?
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Not at all responsible

That reflects an aspect of you

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Reflects an aspect of your situation

Pennanent

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Temporary

You can regulate

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

You cannot regulate

Over which others have power

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Over which others have no power

About you

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

About others

Over which you have power

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Over which you have no power

Unchangeable

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Changeable

Other people can regulate

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Other people cannot regulate

Completely responsible

Is the cause something:

How would you feel about yourself if inheritance was the cause of your developing heart disease?
Angry at yourself

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Not at all angry at yourself

Sorry for yourself

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Not at all sorry for yourself

Sad for yourself

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Not at all sad for yourself

Do something to help yourself if you could

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Do nothing to help yourself

Punish yourself if you could

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Not punish yourself

Change the way you act if you could

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Not change the way you act

What would you do?

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

112

Reasons for Misfortune- Other
INSTRUCTIONS:
The items on the following pages present specific misfortunes or problems that
might happen to anyone. For each item a cause is identified. Think about how you
would respond if the misfortune happened to someone (other than yourself) for ~
reason. After reading each misfortune, rate that cause on each of the fifteen scales
provided by circling one number on each scale. When doing the ratings, be sure to
focus on the cause (that is, the reason for the onset) of the problem, NOT on the
problem. This may be difficult at times. In other words, make sure you are rating the
cause of the misfortune, and NOT the misfortune itself.
"The person" referred to in the rating questions means the person who has the
problem; the term "Other people" referred to in the ratings means anyone else (that is,
anyone other than the person with the problem).
Please take your time when doing the ratings - make sure you read the questions
carefully. You may find that there is more than one way of interpreting some of the
rating questions. Please interpret these questions in the way that is most meaningful to
you. There are no right or wrong answers ~ these questions.
To summarize, for each of the 4 misfortunes, you should:
1) Read each misfortune and the reason/cause given for each one
2) then, rate that cause by circling one number on each of the fifteen scales
provided- each time you do the ratings, be sure to focus on the cause (i.e., the
reason for the problem), NOT on the problem.
3) if you find there is more than one way of interpreting a question, interpret it in a
way that is most meaningful to you.
4) please read the questions carefully.

PLEASE ANSWER ALL OF THE QUESTIONS. Keep in mind that there are

no right or wrong answers. Please refer back to the instructions if you are unsure
about what to do. It should take 10 minutes to finish this questionnaire. You are, of
course, free to stop participating at any time.

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

113

1. Skin Cancer:
Cause: excessive sun-tanning
Think about only this cause of this person developing skin cancer. The items below concern your
impressions or opinions of only this cause. Circle one number on each of the following 15 scales.

What do you think?

How responsible is this person for developing skin cancer?
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Not at all responsible

That reflects an aspect the person

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Reflects an aspect of their situation

Permanent

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Temporary

The person can regulate

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

The person cannot regulate

Over which others have power

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Over which others have no power

About the person

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

About others

Over which the person has power

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Over which the person has no power

Unchangeable

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Changeable

Other people can regulate

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Other people cannot regulate

Completely responsible

Is the cause something:

How would you feel about the person if excessive sun-tanning was the cause of their developing
skin cancer?
Angry at the person

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Not at all angry at the person

Sorry for the person

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Not at all sorry for the person

Sad for the person

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Not at all sad for the person

Do something to help the person if you could

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Do nothing to help the person

Avoid the person if you could

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Not avoid the person if you could

Encourage the person to change the way they act if
you could

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Not encourage the person to change the way
they act

What would you do?

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

114

2. AIDS:
Cause: promiscuous sex (unprotected)
Think about only this cause of this person developing AIDS. The items below concern your impressions
or opinions of only this cause. Circle one number on each of the following 15 scales.

What do you think?

How responsible is this person for developing AIDS?
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Not at all responsible

That reflects an aspect the person

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Reflects an aspect of their situation

Permanent

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Temporary

The person can regulate

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

The person cannot regulate

Over which others have power

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Over which others have no power

About the person

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

About others

Over which the person has power

9. 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Over which the person has no power

Unchangeable

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Changeable

Other people can regulate

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Other people cannot regulate

Completely responsible

Is the cause something:

How would you feel about the person if promiscuous sex (unprotected) was the cause of their
developing AIDS?
Angry at the person

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Not at all angry at the person

Sorry for the person

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Not at all sorry for the person

Sad for the person

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Not at all sad for the person

Do something to help the person if you could

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Do nothing to help the person

Avoid the person if you could

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Not avoid the person if you could

Encourage the person to change the way they act if
you could

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Not encourage the person to change the way
they act

What would you do?

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

115

3. Paraplegia:
Cause: jumping off a cliff into the lake for fun
Think about only this cause of this person becoming a paraplegic. The items below concem your
impressions or opinions of only this cause. Circle one number on each of the following 15 scales.

What do you think?

How responsible is this person for becoming a paraplegic?
Completely responsible

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Not at all responsible

Is the cause something:
That reflects an aspect the person

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Reflects an aspect of their situation

Permanent

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Temporary

The person can regulate

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

The person cannot regulate

Over which others have power

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Over which others have no power

About the person

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

About others

Over which the person has power

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Over which the person has no power

Unchangeable

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Changeable

Other people can regulate

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Other people cannot regulate

How would you feel about the person if lumping off a cliff into the lake for fun was the cause of
their becoming paraplegic?
Angry at the person

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Not at all angry at the person

Sorry for the person

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Not at all sorry for the person

Sad for the person

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Not at all sad for the person

Do something to help the person if you could

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Do nothing to help the person

Avoid the person if you could

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Not avoid the person if you could

Encourage the person to change the way they act if
you could

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Not encourage the person to change the way
they act

What would you do?

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

116

4. Heart Disease:
Cause: excessive smoking and bad diet
Think about only this cause of this person developing heart disease. The items below concern your
impressions or opinions of only this cause. Circle one number on each of the following 15 scales.

What do YOU think?

How responsible is this person for developing heart disease?
Completely responsible

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Not at all responsible

That reflects an aspect the person

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Reflects an aspect of their situation

Permanent

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Temporary

The person can regulate

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

The person cannot regulate

Over which others have power

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Over which others have no power

About the person

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

About others

Over which the person has power

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Over which the person has no power

Unchangeable

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Changeable

Other people can regulate

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Other people cannot regulate

Is the cause something:

How would xou feel about the eerson if excessive smoking and bad diet was the cause of their
develoeing heart disease?
Angry at the person

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Not at all angry at the person

Sorry for the person

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Not at all sorry for the person

Sad for the person

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Not at all sad for the person

Do something to help the person if you could

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Do nothing to help the person

Avoid the person if you could

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Not avoid the person if you could

Encourage the person to change the way they act if
you could

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Not encourage the person to change the way
they act

What would xou do?

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

117

Appendix E: Happiness Measure Scale
EMOTIONS QUESTIONNAIRE
PART I DIRECTIONS:

Use the list below to answer the following question: In general, how happy or unhappy have you felt
over the past week (including today)? Check the one statement below that best describes your
average happiness.
__ 10. Extremely happy (feeling ecstatic, joyous, fantastic!)

9. Very Happy (feeling really good, elated!)
8. Pretty Happy (spirits high, feeling good.)
7. Mildly happy (feeling fairly good and somewhat cheerful.)

6. Slightly happy Oust a bit above neutral.)
5. Neutral (not particularly happy or unhappy.)

4. Slightly unhappy Oust a bit below neutral.)
3. Mildly unhappy Oust a little low.)

2. Pretty unhappy (somewhat "blue", spirits down.)
1. Very unhappy (depressed, spirits very low.)

0. Extremely unhappy (utterly depressed, completely down.)

PART II DIRECTIONS:

Consider your emotions a moment further. On the average, what percent of the time have you felt happy
over the past week (including today)? What percent of the time did you feel unhappy? What percent of
the time did you feel neutral (neither happy nor unhappy)? Write down your best estimates, as well as you
can, in the space below. Make sure the three figures add-up to equal100%.
ON THE AVERAGE:
The percent of time I felt happy

%

The percent of time I felt unhappy

%

The percent of time I felt neutral

%

TOTAL:

100%

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

118

PROFILE SHEET FOR HAPPINESS MEASURES
The scale score and the three percentage estimates are used directly as raw scores. The combination
score= [scale sco reX 10 +happy%] I 2.
Intensity {I)
Frequency {F)
{I+ F)
Scale Score
%Happy %Unhappy %Neutral
Combination Score
80
100 -

Description of
Scores

Extremely
Happy

10 -

Very Happy

9

Pretty Happy

8 -

Mildly Happy

7

Slightly Happy

6 -

Neutral

5 -

Slightly
Unhappy

4 -

Mildly Unhappy

3 -

Pretty Unhappy

Very Unhappy

100 - -

95 -

2 1 -

70

90 85 80 75

05

0-

70 65 60 55

10 15 20

10 20 -

25 30 -

30 40 -

50 45 40 35 -

50 -

30 25 20 15 -

35 40 45 -

10 5-

50 55 60 -

0-

65 70 75 -

0 Extremely
Unhappy
Raw Scores _ _ __

60 -

95 90 85 80
75 70 65 60 55 50 45 -

60

50

40

40 35 30 30

70 80_

25 20 15 10 -

90-

5-

100-

0-

20

10

(/)

Cl3

c

CJ)

~

E
.2>

...
...

0

:J

0

.c

...c

<(
(/)

Q)

E
Q)

0>

"'0

:J

"""";)

~

;g
(/)

c
0

c..

(/)

Q)

a:

Ci5

"'0
0

~

"'0
Q)

~
:J
a;

-

CJ)

0

Q)

"'0
0

~

u.:

~
"'0

cQ)

c..

~

-

c
.Q
0

E

w

Td
Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

Appendix G: Model1 (Emotion Mediational Model)

Cognitive

Appraisal

•

Emotion

•

Action

120

,...
C\1
,...
CIJ

<tS

E

0')

-

+=

Cf)

c

0

0
·.;:::

~

~

:::1

..c

-

(.)

CIJ

c

Q)

E
Q)

0')

"C

:::1

"""')

>.

~

:.0
"Ci)
c
0

c..

CIJ

Q)

a:

Q)

"C

-=
0
~
CIJ

( .)

Q)

w
c

Q)

"C

cQ)
c..
Q)

"C

c

C\1

Q)

"C

0
~

I

X

:0
cQ)

c..
c..

~

Q)-

> ~
:E "(ij

c ~
O')C..
oc..
~

c
0

:g

E

w

Responsibility Judgements About Stigmas

Appendix 1: Model3 (Cognition Mediational Model)

Emotion

---

Cognitive
Appraisal

---

Action

122