Citation

Witte TH, Schroeder DA, Lohr JM. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 2006; 25(6): 647-667.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2006, Guilford Publications)

DOI

10.1521/jscp.2006.25.6.647

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to test the roles of specific attribution theories in the assignment of blame for intimate partner violence (IPV). Three hundred and seven undergraduate students read written vignettes depicting male-to-female IPV and assigned blame to the perpetrator and victim. Three variables were manipulated in the vignettes: victim behavior, perpetrator expectancy (target-and category-based expectancy), and severity of violence. Hypotheses were made based on several attribution theories (e.g., Kelley, 1972; Jones & McGillis, 1976). Results found that observers discounted the role of the perpetrator in the act of violence and placed more blame on the victim when the victim was verbally aggressive prior to the assault. Participants also assigned more blame to the victim when there was a target-based nonviolent expectancy about the perpetrators (i.e., described as passive with no history of violence) and the victim was verbally aggressive prior to the assault. However, participants blamed the victim more when there was a category-based nonviolent expectancy about the perpetrator (i.e., described as a pastor), moderate violence was used, and the victim was not verbally aggressive prior to the assault. Severity of violence influenced blame attributions for the perpetrator only when another mitigating factor was also present, such as victim aggression or nonviolent perpetrator expectancies. Attributions differed in terms of gender of the observer as well; men were more influenced by victim aggression when assigning blame to the victim and reduced blame to the perpetrator when the victim was aggressive and moderate violence was used. Several attribution theories were helpful in explaining the findings. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) (journal abstract)