Attributional Styles

Dimensional Measures

Dimensional measures of attributional style require respondents to generate causes for hypothetical events and then to rate them along several attributional dimensions. The Attributional Style Questionnaire (ASQ; Peterson, Semmel, Von Baeyer, Abramson, Metalsky & Seligman, 1982) is the most widely known. It contains 12 hypothetical events, half describing positive events (‘you meet a friend who compliments you on your appearance’) and half describing negative events (‘you go out on a date and it goes badly’). Events are further divided into an equal number of interpersonal and achievement contexts. The perceived cause of each event is rated along the dimensions of locus (due to the person or the situation), stability (likely or unlikely to occur again), and globality (limited in its influence or widespread) using seven-point scales. Scores can be computed for each dimension within positive and negative events. Factor analyses of the ASQ have supported the presence of distinct attributional styles for negative and positive events (Xenikou, Furnham & McCarrey, 1997), although results presented by Cutrona, Russell, and Jones (1985) indicate that each event on the ASQ represents its own factor. However, findings suggest that attributions for negative events are most strongly related to depression (Sweeney, Anderson & Bailey, 1986). Scores can be further analysed within interpersonal and achievement contexts, a distinction that appears to be more relevant to positive than negative events.

The ASQ has proven to be a valid predictor of depression. People who make internal, stable, and [Page 117]global attributions for negative events tend to be more depressed. However, there are at least four problems with the ASQ. First, internal consistency for the ASQ ranges from adequate to low, especially for the locus dimension. A frequent solution is to combine the three dimensions into a single index to increase reliability, as the dimensions tend to correlate highly with one another. However, this creates a second problem: one of interpretation. There are unique predictions for each attributional style dimension; using a composite score prevents valid tests of the model (Carver, 1989). Several authors advise researchers to analyse ASQ data in terms of both individual dimensions and composite scores. The third problem is also related; the ASQ does not assess the key attributional dimension of controllability. The few studies that included controllability consistently find that it is the most important attributional style dimension, whereas globality is the least important (e.g. Deuser & Anderson, 1995). The fourth problem concerns the affiliation versus achievement distinction; several of the ‘achievement’ items involve affiliative contexts. The Expanded Attributional Style Questionnaire (EASQ; Peterson & Villanova, 1988) uses an identical format to the ASQ and addresses the problem of low reliability by increasing the number of situations included in the measure. However, reliabilities remain modest and the other problems remain unresolved.

...