Você está na página 1de 22

Journal of Family Psychology 1998, Vol. 12, No.

4, 459-480

Copyright 1998 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0893-320(V98/$3.00

Measuring Parental Attributions: Conceptual and Methodological Issues


Daphne Blunt Bugental
University of California, Santa Barbara

Charlotte Johnston
University of British Columbia

Michelle New
Children's National Medical Center

Joanne Silvester
City University

A selective review is offered of current issues and new developments in the measurement of parental attributions for social behavior. Attributions have alternatively been conceptualized as involving (a) memory-dependent knowledge structures (i.e., interpretive styles that are dependent on the parent's history) or (b) stimulus-dependent appraisal processes (i.e., interpretations that are dependent on information available in the immediate context). Consideration is given to the theoretical underpinnings of different types of attributional measures and the implicit models within attribution research (e.g., attributions as mediators, attributions as moderators). Finally, psychometric issues within different attributional approaches are discussed, including consideration of the factors that optimize or constrain the utility of different measures.

Developmental and family researchers have begun to pay increasing attention to parental attributions in recent years (e.g., Bugental & Goodnow, 1998; Miller, 1995). Their interest lies in the assumption that the ways in which parents explain caregiving events have important implications for their immediate emotional and behavioral responses, as well as for the long-term quality of family relationships. Not surprisingly, the volume of research concerned with parental attributions is growing and, with it, the number of ways in which researchers

Daphne Blunt Bugental, Department of Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara; Charlotte Johnston, Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Michelle New, Children's National Medical Center, Washington, DC; Joanne Silvester, Department of Psychology, City University, London, United Kingdom. Order of authorship was determined alphabetically. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed either to Daphne Blunt Bugental, Department of Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara, California 93106, or to Charlotte Johnston, Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, 2136 West Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z4.

choose to define, operationalize, and investigate parental attributions. The focus of this article is on the theoretical underpinnings and measurement of parents' social attributions in families of children and adolescents. Specifically, we are concerned with the conceptualization and assessment of parental attributions for their own and their children's social behavior and interactions (as opposed to academic or achievement outcomes). As such, the article stands as a complement to other work that has summarized the empirical work in this field (e.g.. Miller, 1995) or that has focused on attributions of adults with respect to their relationships with other adults (e.g., Bradbury & Fincham, 1990; Brewin, MacCarthy, Duda, & Vaughn, 1991). Increasing Interest in Parental Attributions Interest in parental attributions emerged in response to increasing concern with the role of cognitions within caregiving relationships. It became apparent that parental affective and behavioral responses to caregiving events are influenced by variations (across settings and individuals) in the interpretations given to those events (Bugental & Shennum, 1984; Dix & Grusec, 1985; Dix, Ruble, & Zambarano, 1989; Geller & Johnston, 1995b; Smith & O'Leary,

459

460

BUGENTAL, JOHNSTON, NEW, AND SILVESTER maladjusted (Geller & Johnston, 1995a; Griest, Wells, & Forehand, 1979; Mash & Johnston, 1990); ultimately, the interpretations made by such parents have negative consequences for their children. As a second example, parents who are at risk for becoming physically abusive are found to show distinctive attributional patterns. For example, Larrance & Twentyman (1983) found that physically abusive and neglectful mothers make significantly more internal and stable attributions for their own children's negative behaviors than do comparison mothers. Abusive parents are also more likely to believe that their children are intentionally acting to annoy or challenge them (Bauer Sc Twentyman, 1985) and to assign primary responsibility to children as controllers of interactional conflict (e.g., Bugental, Blue, & Cruzcosa, 1989). Unanswered Questions Although the need for consideration of parental attributions within caregiving interactions has become increasingly clear, the exact role and nature of attributions within such relationships still is not always well defined. Three broad questions provide a rationale for this article. First, increasing consideration needs to be given to the theoretical underpinnings of the various measures of parental cognitions (e.g., Bugental & Goodnow, 1998; Holden & Edwards, 1989). Thus, it is important to ask: Under what circumstances do parental attributions operate as aware, reflective, moment-tomoment appraisal processes of ongoing events; that is, when do attributional processes depend primarily on information available in the immediate interaction context? Alternatively, under what circumstances do parental attributions operate as stable interpretive styles that function automatically and with little awareness; that is, when do interpretive processes depend primarily on the parent's relationship history? Second, further consideration needs to be given to the positioning of attributional processes within models of caregiving. When are attributions conceptualized as mediators within relationships? For example, do certain types of undesired child behavior quite generally elicit "intentionality" attributions from caregiversan interpretation that increases negative affect, more controlling parenting tactics, or

1995). Global parental attitudes or beliefs had not proven useful as a means of explaining variations in parenting (e.g., Holden & Edwards, 1989). Parental self-reports proved to reveal more about currently accepted parenting practices than what parents actually did (Becker & Krug, 1965). Interest increasingly turned to parents' causal analysis of their family relationships and interactions with children (Bugental & Goodnow, 1998; Goodnow, 1988). This approach differed from earlier approaches in that it focused on interpretive questions (e.g., "When your child misbehaves* why is that?") rather than questions of feelings and attitudes (e.g.. "How much pleasure do you experience in taking care of your child?") or questions of belief and advocacy (e.g., "Should young children be spanked when they disobey?"). Parental attributions came to be seen as interpretive filters through which meaning is assigned to the behaviors and characteristics of children and to the nature of the parent-child relationship. Looking at variations in attributions across contexts, particular attention has been given to the role of parents* causal appraisal of children's problem behavior. When children's actions pose a challenge, threat, or demand to the caregiving system, the meaning assigned to children's actions influences parental affect and choice of coping or discipline strategies (Affleck, Allen, McGrade, & McQueeney, 1982; Power, Gershenhorn, & Stafford, 1990; Stratton & Swaffer, 1988). For example, in contrast to the mothers of children without problems, mothers who face chronic aggressive behavior in their children have typically been found to reveal a hostile or negative bias in their interpretations of their children's actions (e.g., Baden & Howe, 1992; Bickett, Milich, & Brown, 1996; Dix & Lochman, 1990; Strassberg, 1995). The negative affect that parents experience in response to children's problem behaviors appears to reflect their perception that these behaviors are both pervasive and intentional (Joiner & Wagner, 1996). Looking at variations in attributions across individuals, certain explanatory patterns are found to increase parents' risk for continuing problems within the parent-child relationship. For example, chronically depressed mothers are more likely to interpret their children's behaviors (even those that are benign) as negative and

MEASURING PARENTAL ATTRIBUTIONS both. Alternatively, when are attributions conceptualized as moderators within relationships? For example, do certain types of undesired child behavior elicit different attributions from different caregiversdifferences that will then have consequences for affective and behavioral responses. Or as other options, when are parental attributions conceptualized as independent variables (e.g., as a source of influence on caregiving practices) and when are they conceptualized as dependent variables (e.g., as outcomes of particular kinds of caregiving experiences)? Third, we are concerned with the various measurement issues that are important in the assessment of parental attributions. We give separate consideration to the issues that optimize or constrain the validity of memorydependent attribution measures (i.e., measures that assess attributions that are dependent on the parent's history) and the measurement issues that have evolved in the formulation of stimulusdependent attribution measures (i.e., measures that assess attributions that are dependent on information available in the immediate context). Finally, we discuss issues for the future in the measurement of attributions, highlighting the opportunities afforded by some of the new developments in the field. General Approaches to Attributions Attribution theory has traditionally been concerned with the causal search for meaning as a way of framing one's response to life events or as a means of understanding the significance of those events for the future. Historically, there have been the following two traditions in the approach to these attributional processes: (a) concern with attributions made in response to particular patterns of stimulus events and (b) concern with attributional processes that reflect the individual's history. The first approach is concerned with regularities in the ways in which people make use of stimulus information to explain events. The second approach is concerned with stable individual differences in explanatory processes. The first set of processes has sometimes been referred to as attribution theories, whereas the second set of processes has sometimes been referred to as attributional theories (Antaki & Brewin, 1982; Kelley & Michela, 1980). In this review, we are concerned with both types of processes. We refer to the first type of attributions as stimulus-dependent attri-

461

butions and to the second type of attributions as memory-dependent attributional style. The two traditions are described as focusing on different processes but not as "being" mutually exclusive.

Stimulus-Dependent Attributions
Researchers following the first tradition have focused on such issues as the kinds of explanations that parents commonly offer for particular kinds of child behavior. These stimulus-dependent attributions are typically seen as appraisals formed via controlled, effortful, aware processing (Shiffrin & Schneider, 1977). Concern with stimulus-dependent attributions may be thought of as emerging within a classical attribution theory framework (with roots in Heider's 1944 theory); for example, Kelley (1967) was concerned with the extent to which attribution processes are based on the covariation of outcomes across time, situation, and person. Weiner developed a theory-based taxonomy that reflected the basic dimensions underlying attributional process (e.g., locus, intentionality, stability, controllability); this taxonomy was then used to explore the role of attributions as mediators between antecedent events and ensuing affect, motivation, and behavior (e.g., Weiner, 1990; Weiner et al., 1972). The framing provided by Kelley (1967) and Weiner (1990; Weiner et al., 1972) formed the theoretical bases for research concerned with both (a) the effects of stimulus events on attributions and (b) the effects of attributions on subsequent responses. This approach allows for the development of individual differences as a result of covariation experiences, that is, stimulus events that have co-occurred on a regular basis. Such experiences may then serve as moderators of the interpretation given to stimulus events. For example, the causal inferences drawn by parents after having a second child have been found to differ from the inferences drawn based on parents* experiences with firstborns (Himmelstein, Graham, & Weiner, 1991). This difference may reflect the expanded range of stimulus covariation information that is available to parents with two or more children (Himmelstein et al., 1991). This approach may be thought of as providing a rational account of parental attributions, in which causal explanations are constructed and continuously modified as a function of changing interactional events and changing contexts.

462

BUGENTAL, JOHNSTON, NEW, AND SILVESTER

Memory-Dependent Attributional Style


Researchers following the second tradition have been concerned with attributions as stable knowledge structuresa memory-based pattern that is typically thought of as involving relatively unaware, automatic processing, and as occurring spontaneously. We will use the term memory-dependent attributional style to refer to interpretations that are rooted in semantic memory (generalized notions of "how things are") rather than episodic memory (memory for specific events; Fiske & Taylor, 1991). Parents' early social experiences, primarily with their own parents, form the basis for knowledge structures concerning caregiving and child behavior that are stored schematically in longterm memory. Such structures then act as central organizers of parental responses (Grusec, Hastings, & Mammone, 1994). Parents' long-term experiences with their own children may also be thought of as a source of influence on memorydependent attributional style. Such approaches are distinguishable from stimulus-dependent attributions in that, once established, they are seen as relatively insensitive to the effects of new information. One line of memory-dependent attributional research originated in the work of Kelly (1955) and the psychology of personal constructs, as retrained by Higgins and Bargh (e.g., Bargh, Lombardi, & Higgins, 1988) within a contemporary social cognition perspective. From this theoretical vantage point, parental attributions may be seen as personal knowledge structures that are relevant to caregiving relationships. Such knowledge structures act as chronically accessible schemas that are easily retrieved in response to relevant events (e.g., Bugental, Lyon, Krantz, & Cortez, 1997). A similar approach to parental attributions has been taken by those who come from an informationprocessing framework (e.g., Nix, Pinderhugnes, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1997). Both approaches focus on the extent to which attributions (as memory-dependent knowledge structures) are accessed as a means of interpreting ambiguous or novel events. Another line of memory-dependent attributional research is reflected in the attributional reformulation of the learned helplessness literature (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978). Within this literature, attention turned to stable explanatory patterns that acted to influence

responses to negative life events. The concern was less with the main effects of attributions than with their role as interpretive and affective guides to experience. Research that comes from this perspective explores the extent to which maladaptive child outcomes or family outcomes are associated with a "helpless" attributional style (e.g., Donovan, Leavitt, & Walsh, 1990). In contrast, social learning theorists conceptualized memory-based attributions as expectancies acquired as a function of the individual's social learning history and serving to guide future responses to others. Theorists coming from Bandura's (1982) perspective focused on social efficacy as a source of influence on parenting (e.g., Grusec & Mammone, 1995). From a somewhat different perspective, research that emerged within Rotter's (1966) locus of control tradition (Lefcourt, 1992) focused on contingencies within parents' learning history as a source of influence on their perceived locus of control and thus their choice of parenting styles (e.g., Levenson, 1973). Finally, parental attributions have been framed as cultural co-constructions (Goodnow, 1996; Valsiner, in press). From this vantage point, causal notions regarding caregiving relationships are collaboratively constructed by the various stakeholders within such relationships. This approach to parental cognitions represents a well-developed field that is rooted in cultural psychology and lies outside the scope of this particular article. Measurement of Memory-Dependent Parental Attributional Style In this section, we briefly review the features of existing measures that are explicitly or implicitly concerned with the assessment of stable knowledge structures (e.g., attributional style) that transcend specific stimulus events. In reviewing existing parental attributional style measures, we describe test formats and the implications of formatting features for information-processing patterns. In addition, we describe the psychometric information that is available on these instruments (following a pattern that is consistent with Holden and Edward's 1989 review of instruments used for measuring parental attitudes toward child rearing). Rather than closely comparing instruments on a case-by-case basis, we are ultimately concerned with the relative utility of different

MEASURING PARENTAL ATTRIBUTIONS types of instruments for different research and clinical purposes. The review is limited to those instruments that focus on attributions for social outcomes, on which there is published information, and that were found in a PsycLIT search using the descriptors attribution, locus of control, and parents. Measures are described in terms of (a) attributional target, (b) format, (c) dimensions, (d) reliability, (e) reactivity, and (f) validity (see Table 1).

463

Attributional Target
Measures of parental attributional style include an alternative focus on the perceived causes of (a) parental outcomes (e.g., the extent to which parental attributions about children predict parents' overall welfare), (b) children's behaviors (e.g., the reasons why children fail to comply), and (c) relationship outcomes (e.g., the reasons why a dyadic system succeeds or fails). Although all of these concerns can be explained from different theoretical positions, different approaches have focused on different questions. For example, the first focus is consistent with notions of perceived efficacy within relationships; that is, the concern is with generalized notions that one can produce desired outcomes as a function of one's actions. The second grouping of measures is concerned with parents' explanatory biases in interpreting children's behavior and has typically been explained from the standpoint of social learning theory or information-processing theory. The third grouping of measures is concerned with the relative contribution of self and others to dyadic relationship outcomes. This last approach is most consistent with emerging interests in relationships schemas (e.g., Baldwin, 1992; Bugental, 1993) and with long-standing interests in attachment styles or "working models" of relationships (e.g., Bowlby, 1980; Bretherton, 1990). Thus, it may be seen that attribution measures that bear a superficial resemblance often are concerned with different assessment questions or different underlying constructs (Grusec & Mammone, 1995; Lovejoy, Verda, & Hays, 1997). The preponderance of instruments have focused on the perceived causes of undesired events (e.g., negative child behaviors or conflictual interaction). In general, there is greater support for the predictive power of attributions made for negative (or ambiguous) events than

for positive events (Peterson, 1991). Although attributions may be artificially elicited in response to a specific inquiry about positive behaviors (e.g., "Why did your child share his toys?'*), the fact that respondents can provide an answer to such questions does not necessarily indicate that attributional activity would otherwise occur (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977). Spontaneous attributions are also more likely to occur in response to events that require interpretation because they pose some type of uncertainty. Such events may provide few cues as to how they might be explained; that is, they are ambiguous, unexpected, unclear, or novel (Hastie, 1984; Wong & Weiner, 1981). However, instruments rooted in a locus of control tradition are less likely to make a distinction between desired and undesired eventsthe Leenders Locus of Control Scale (LOCO; Leenders, 1984, 1985) and the Parental Locus of Control Scale (PLOC; Campis et al., 1986) as exceptions reflecting the idea of a generalized tendency to perceive the world in a particular way.

Format
Stimulus format. The vast majority of freestanding measures of memory-based parental attributions make use of self-report techniques and a questionnaire format. Instruments are fairly evenly divided between those that directly ask for agreement with attributional statements, and those that ask for attributions about a hypothetical event presented as a brief written vignette. Vignettes, as used by the Infant Attribution Scale (Donovan & Leavitt, 1989), the Mother-Adolescent Attribution Questionnaire (MAAQ; Grace, Kelley, & McCain, 1993), the Parental Style Attribution Questionnaire (PAQ; Sobol, Ashbourne, Earn, & Cunningham, 1989), the Parent Attribution Test (PAT; Bugental et al., 1989), and the Parenting Possibilities Questionnaire (PPQ; Nix, Pinderhughes, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1997)a format that has been used increasinglyhave a particular advantage in that they may conjure up a vivid image of particular kinds of events. Instruments differ in the extent to which they focus on hypothetical, ambiguous events or events more directly tied to the respondent's experience. Measures derived from a social cognitive perspective (e.g., the PAT and the PPQ) are more likely to use ambiguous events, a
(text continues on page 468)

464

BUGENTAL, JOHNSTON, NEW, AND SILVESTER

35 W

i Will

8.a 8 ^ 1
'S3

(i

3
a

l
o

I
c

|1 "8

S-g.s

ii-

a
D-

MEASURING PARENTAL ATTRIBUTIONS

465

s
0-

466

BUGENTAL, JOHNSTON, NEW, AND SILVESTER

I! 1
3 >

-5
T

5 a 'Si

s i si's

a
"8
a
u c

>
O 0)

o a

MEASURING PARENTAL ATTRIBUTIONS

467

I
in w

I
'

r i
i
^. ,i ^

. 5 Jg 1 |
G C
U U

Jj

71 oo

ft
3 JS p i * W U
VHM

$8,8 8 * 8
3> z ? ^

I !

Ill

468

BUGENTAL, JOHNSTON, NEW, AND SILVESTER 1992); and the Parenting Sense of Competence Scale (PSOC; Gibaud-Wallston & Wandersman, 1978). That is, this approach more typically relies on parents' naive organization of causality. Consistent with Weiner's (1986) conceptualizations, these analyses regularly reveal dimensions that focus on controllability.

strategy that is consistent with the assessment of relevant knowledge structures. That is, in the absence of clear stimulus cues, respondents necessarily rely on their stable ways of interpreting the stimulusa "default" response. Instruments derived from a social learning perspective (e.g., Sobol et al.'s, 1989, PAQ or Walker's Parent Attribution Questionnaire [PAQ; Walker, 1985; Walker & Masters, 1989]) are more likely to use events that are similar to those the respondent is likely to have experienced, a strategy that is consistent with the assessment of well-learned, history-based expectations. Response format. Item format shows little variation across instruments; that is, items (answered directly by parents or used by those judging parental responses) typically involve 4to 10-point Likert scales. As an exception, the Leeds Attributional Coding System (LACS; Stratton, Munton, Hanks, Heard, & Davidson, 1988) makes use of a category system. That is, attributional statements, produced by parents during discourse, are coded into discrete categories (e.g., controllable/uncontrollable). Summary scores are then created as a function of aggregated data, for example, the proportion of attributional statements that were "controllable."

Reliability
Reliability information is available on most parental attributional style measures. However, primary reliance has been placed on internal consistency rather than on stability (with the ISOC, the PAT, and the PSE as exceptions). In view of the presumed stability of the attributional styles assessed through these measures, greater attention needs to be given to the assessment of test-retest reliability. That is, it is important to demonstrate that parents invoke the same explanatory systems across time.

Reactivity
Reactivity information has not been regularly available on parental attributional style instruments and has been seriously underconsidered as a source of measurement error. Lovejoy, Verda, and Hays (1997) corrected this omission for three of the more commonly used instruments (the PAT, the PLOC, and the PSOC) by correlating scores on each of these measures with the Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). Some differences appeared, with lower levels of reactivity (as reflected in correlations with social desirability scores) being found for the PAT than for the PLOC and the PSOC. The relatively low level of reactivity found for the PAT may reflect the fact that the instrument's item content was based on causes generated by parents. Attributional items generated in this fashion may be less subject to social desirability effects than are items generated by experimenters on a theoretical basis. Memory-dependent attributions have typically been viewed as serving to organize parental responses with little or no awareness. However, it is assumed that parents are able to report on such explanatory processes and are also able to "correct" such explanations if they are at variance with culturally accepted views. The dual role of self-report ("uncorrected" vs. "corrected") accounts sometimes yields seeming contradictions in the literature. For example, high levels of autonomic reactivity in response

Characteristics of Dimensions
Item content of measures modeled after the Attributional Style Questionnaire (Seligman, Abramson, Semmel, & von Baeyer, 1979) typically makes use of subscales that are based on theoretically chosen dimensions (stability, globality, locus), as is the case for the Infant Attribution Scale, the LACS, the MAAQ, Sobol et al.'s PAQ, and Walker's PAQ. This strong theoretical framing is consistent with the position taken by attributional theorists who focus on attributional style from the standpoint of the reformulated theory of learned helplessness (e.g., Abramson, Dykman, & Needles, 1991; Peterson, 1991). Measures with a grounding in social learning theory or a social information-processing approach, on the other hand, more typically make use of factor analysis or multiple-dimensional scaling in constructing subscales on an empirical basis, for example, the Interpersonal Sense of Control Scale (ISOC; Cook, 1993); the PAT; the Parenting Self-Efficacy Scale (PSE; Jain, Fish, & Stifter, 1997); the PLOC; the Parenting Locus of Control Scale (Koeske & Koeske,

MEASURING PARENTAL ATTRIBUTIONS to uncontrollable child behavior have been found to be associated both with very high perceptions of parental control (e.g., Donovan & Leavitt, 1989; Donovan et al., 1990) and with very low perceptions of parental control (e.g., Bugental et al., 1993). This seeming paradox may be resolved if recognition is given to the differential transparency of attributional measures and to the extent to which parents present their actual feelings of control (as appears to be the case for the PAT) or an "illusory" or defensive view of their control (as suggested by Donovan for her measure). Parents who chronically view themselves as powerless have been found to attempt to "defend against" this culturally unacceptable view (Bugental et al., 1997). For example, when constrained by the demands of dual tasks (a constraint that limits impression management), parents with low perceived control describe children as more dominant or powerful than they are (a schemaconsistent depiction). Conversely, when not constrained in this way, parents with low perceived control (defensively) describe themselves as more dominant or powerful than the child. This reversal suggests that the same individuals may reveal completely opposite impressions based on the extent to which they are motivated and able to manage the impression they give. Thus, if we are to understand the meaning of parental attributional style measures, it is essential that greater attention be given to the effects of impression management.

469

example, attachment style or working models of relationships. As an exception, Grusec and Mammone (199S) have explored this potential association. They found that women who scored as having a low perceived balance of power on the PAT were more likely to score as "dismissive" (avoidant) on the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI)a measure that focuses specifically on parent-child relationships in stressful settings. In addition, those who scored as having an exceptionally high balance of power on the PAT were more likely to score as "preoccupied" (ambivalent) on the AAI. In contrast, the PAT has not been found to be related to attachment patterns within romantic or other adult relationships (Lovejoy et al., 1997). This discrepancy suggests the potential specificity of parental attributions to the caregiving domain. Discriminant validity. As a second concern, it is important to know the extent to which parental attribution measures overlap or are distinguishable from other rival constructs, for example, affect and self-esteem. Current findings suggest that measures differ in the extent to which they show discriminant validity. For example, efficacy-based measures (e.g., the PSOC) tend to be significantly related to measures of dispositional affect (e.g., the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule, the Beck Depression Inventory); no equivalent affectattribution relationship was found for the PAT (Lovejoy et al., 1997). It may be that affective valence is more intrinsically tied to efficacybased notions of attribution. No clear picture has emerged with respect to the relationship between parental attributions and self-esteem. For example, the PSOC has been found to be related to both parenting self-esteem (Johnston & Mash, 1989) and general self-esteem (Gibaud-Wallston & Wandersman, 1978). At the same time, the PSE (another efficacy measure) has been found to be unrelated to personal self-esteem (Jain, Fish, & Stifter, 1997). It is clear that further work is needed in establishing the independence of parental attributional measures and rival constructs. Criterion-related validity. In any consideration of criterion-related validity, the selection of an appropriate strategy will depend on the questions asked. Memory-dependent attributions are conceptualized as stable constructs that serve as guides to the interpretation of caregiving events. At the same time, their role has been

Validity
Convergent validity. Convergent validity is available for the more commonly used parental attributional style measures, either through the efforts of their authors or others using these instruments. As one type of convergent validity, attention has been directed to the relationship between parent attributional variables that come from different theoretical perspectives. The evidence that is available suggests that measures based on perceived parental efficacy are not significantly related to locus of control type of measures (Bondy & Mash, 1997; Lovejoy et al., 1997). This nonconvergence suggests that these different measures may be focusing on fundamentally different questions. Little evidence is available with respect to the overlap between attributional style constructs and other conceptually related constructs, for

470

BUGENTAL, JOHNSTON, NEW, AND SILVESTER As a limiting factor within linear validation models, the direction of effects is often unclear. That is, it is often difficult to determine whether parental attributions emerge in response to their continuing experiences as parents or whether parents who bring a particular attributional style to the relationship induce particular caregiving outcomes. Although such dilemmas are typically resolved by the assumption of reciprocal effects, researchers are increasingly turning to longitudinal designs that allow a better understanding of the differential course and direction of effects and of the development of mutual influences over time (e.g., Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1990). In addition, shared method variance (self-reports of attributions and self-reports of caregiving outcomes) sometimes poses a threat to secure causal inference within these designs. Such limitations are resolvable through greater use of multimethod assessment of attributions. Other researchers have been concerned with attributions as moderators of parental reactions to particular kinds of caregiving events. From this standpoint, parental attributions are often viewed as a risk factor rather than a direct source of influence on parenting across settings and children. Typically, attention has been directed to the ways in which certain parental attributions (e.g., low perceived control, hostile attributional biases) sensitize parents to problematic but ambiguous parenting events or child behaviors (Bugental, 1992; Dodge, 1986; Donovan & Leavitt, 1989). Researchers who view attributions as moderators or qualifiers of the interpretation given to caregiving stimuli have given particular attention to the predictive power of parental attributions in ambiguous settings. The value of this strategy is illustrated by studies by both Dix and colleagues (Dix & Reinhold, 1991; Dix, Reinhold, & Zambarano, 1990) and Strassberg (1995). These investigators found that attributional biases in mothers of problem children were more strongly revealed in response to stimuli presenting ambiguous instances of child misbehavior (e.g., delays in compliance or attempts at bargaining with the parent) than in response to clear, unambiguous instances of child compliance or noncompliance. It is likely that the attributions elicited by these more ambiguous stimuli are memory-based and reflect parents' overlearned knowledge structures.

conceptualized in different ways. For example, if parental attributions are conceptualized as generalized expectancies that directly influence many aspects of parenting, it is appropriate to measure their predictive power within a main effects model (e.g., the extent to which parental attributions predict child behavior or caregiving outcomes across children or across contexts). Alternatively, if attributions are viewed as "default" explanatory systems that are accessed in response to uncertainty or potential threats, their validity is more appropriately measured by testing their predictive power in the presence of ambiguity or challenge (a moderator model). Those investigations concerned with the direct relationship between parental attributions and caregiving outcomes have typically used a main effects validation strategy. From this perspective, there is a concern with attributions as predictors of (a) the subjective parenting outcomes experienced, (b) differential family or child outcomes experienced, or both. For example, those parents who attribute high efficacy to themselves as parents are also more likely to experience positive parenting outcomes (e.g., Jain et al., 1997; Johnston & Mash, 1989). In addition, a number of researchers have explored the general relationship between a "helpless" attributional style and negative parenting outcomes. As predicted, "helpless" parents are more likely to experience family dysfunction, to be abusive or neglectful, and to experience low satisfaction (e.g., Boddy, 1995; Grace et al., 1993; Silvester, Bentovim, Stratton, & Hanks, 1995; Stratton et al., 1986, 1988). Reversing the direction of focus, Larrance and Twentyman (1983) found that physically abusive mothers saw child misbehavior as more intentional than did control mothers. A second approach among researchers interested in assessing the direct relationship between attributions and caregiving outcomes focuses on the parental attributions as dependent variables, that is, the ways in which parental attributions are influenced as a function of their long-term experiences with children. For example, parents of children who show various behavior problems (e.g., noncompliant or oppositional-defiant behaviors) have been found to be more likely to feel out of control as parents and to blame children for their undesired behaviors (e.g., Baden & Howe, 1992; Roberts, Joe, & Rowe-Hallbert, 1992).

MEASURING PARENTAL ATTRIBUTIONS However, it should also be acknowledged that ambiguous stimuli may also elicit attributional problem solving that relies on rational, aware processes. Thus, it is seen that the lines between memory-dependent and stimulus-dependent attributional processing are not always clear and that greater effort is needed to directly test the types of processing that different measures pull from parents.

471

In regard to the uses made of stimulusdependent attributions, we discuss attributional target, format (eliciting stimuli and response format), reliability, reactivity, and validity.

Attributional Target
Measures of stimulus-dependent attributions and memory-dependent attributions share a concern with the perceived causes of (a) parental outcomes, (b) children's behaviors, and (c) relationship outcomes. However, research that makes use of stimulus-dependent attributions has directed somewhat greater attention to "normative" attributional processes, that is, the ways in which parents typically interpret commonly observed variations in children's behaviors (e.g., Dix & Grusec, 1985; Dix, Ruble, Grusec, & Nixon, 1986; Dix et al., 1989). At the same time, however, a large number of investigators have focused on parents' causal attributions for children's problem behaviors (e.g., Bickett et al., 1996; Dix & Lochman, 1990; Johnston & Patenaude, 1994; SonugaBarke& Balding, 1993).

Stimulus-Dependent Attribution Measures


The measures of parental attributions considered thus far have focused on the assessment of stable, memory-based attributions with origins in the parent's own history or long-term experiences as a parent In contrast, research focused on stimulus-dependent attributions has more typically focused on deliberate causal reasoning that occurs in response to specific caregiving events or specific children. As was true for memory-dependent attributions, research coming from this second focus may also vary in the positioning of attributions within the caregiving process. For example, parental attributions may be seen as occurring as mediators within the reciprocal influence processes that take place within caregiving relationships. Behaviors of children may elicit particular parental attributions, which, in turn, will influence parenting responses, which will influence children. Alternatively, parental attributions may be thought of as moderated by contextual knowledge (e.g., the age or presumed ability of the child, knowledge of mitigating circumstances). In reviewing the literature on stimulusdependent attributional assessment, we drew primarily on research that has made use of study-specific assessment tools. Understandably, less use has been made of measures of stable attributional style in exploring relatively short-term attributions, child- or behaviorspecific attributions, or context-mitigated attributions. However, as noted above, the line between memory-dependent and stimulusdependent attributions represents a fuzzy boundary. That is, initially fluid stimulus-dependent information ultimately accumulates over time to form stable, change-resistant knowledge structures. In addition, the controlled, aware appraisal processes suggested for stimulusdependent attributions may range from "middleof-the-night" ruminations to very fast (even though not fully automatic) "snap" judgments.

Format
Eliciting stimuli. Research concerned with differences in parental attributions associated with either normal or abnormal child behavior (tested either within main effect, reciprocal effect, or moderator models) is critically concerned with the ways in which child stimuli are presented. As a result, there has been a reliance on eliciting stimuli that are explicit and clear exemplars of the behavioral classes. Correspondingly, the emphasis has been on experimenter control of the eliciting stimuli. Because stimuli are created to convey specific behavioral or situational information, there has been a reliance on hypothetical and more easily controlled stimuli rather than on the presentation of more realistic but relatively uncontrolled target events. For reasons of increased control, as well as convenience, the hypothetical stimuli have typically been presented in written format, although video presentations are occasionally used (e.g., Dix & Reinhold, 1991; Smith & O'Leary, 1995). Some investigators present descriptions of behavior in hypothetical or unknown children (e.g., Dix et al,, 1989; Strassberg, 1995), whereas others ask parents to imagine their own child showing the stimulus

472

BUGENTAL, JOHNSTON, NEW, AND SILVESTER emphasizing dispositional or situational causes (e.g., Gretarsson & Gelfand, 1988), the extent to which the child's intention was prosocial or hostile (e.g., MacKinnon-Lewis, Lamb, Arbuckle, Baradaran, & Volling, 1992), or the extent to which responses reflect internal versus external or stable versus unstable causal motives (e.g., Larrance & Twentyman, 1983). A recent study by Johnston et al. (1998) compared parental responses with open-ended questions to more traditional Likert-type ratings of causal attributions. The study found that although the methods produced reasonable agreement, they were far from overlapping, and each contributed unique information concerning parents' causal reasoning. The design of traditional measures constrained parents to think of and make ratings for a single cause; however, when parents were allowed to provide attributional responses to open-ended questions, thenresponses typically included multiple causal factors, and often these factors were contradictory. For example, parents often combined both dispositional (e.g., "he's usually a kid who likes to share") and situational (e.g., "there were lots of toys, so it was easy to share") factors in their responses. Thus, it may be that measures that ask for ratings of single causes place an unnatural limitation on parents who, in actual fact, see much greater complexity in the causal origins of their children's behavior.

behavior (e.g., Johnston & Freeman, 1997; Mills & Rubin, 1990). Despite this heavy reliance on hypothetical stimuli, more realistic, actual behaviors of the parents' own children may have some advantages. Such approaches provide stimuli that encourage parents to respond in the assessment situation as they have responded to events that they have actually experienced (a condition that may optimize reliance on episodic memory of particular kinds of events with specific children). For example, Freeman, Johnston, and Barth (1997) and Gretarsson and Gelfand (1988) both used a recalled-incident interview technique to elicit parental recollection of specific, recent behaviors exhibited by their own children. With these behaviors as stimuli, parents were then asked to recall the attribution;!] appraisals they made for the child behaviors when they occurred. Others have used videomediated recall of attributions, in which parents are shown videotapes of their children's behavior in a recent parent-child interaction as stimuli for attributional assessment (e.g., Johnston & Freeman, 1997). Johnston and Freeman's (1997) study used all three types of stimuli (written vignettes of hypothetical child behaviors, recalled behaviors, and videotaped behaviors) in assessing attributions for different types of child behavior among parents of nonproblem children and children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Results of this research indicated that the three forms of assessment produced similar patterns of behavior and parent differences. In addition, responses to the three methods of stimulus presentation were significantly correlated with each other. However, the correlations were small to moderate in size, suggesting that the methods provide unique information about parental attributions. Response format. Stimulus-dependent attributions, like memory-dependent attributions, have typically been assessed by traditional Likert-type scales. Occasionally, parents have been asked for open-ended responses to causal attributional questions (e.g., Johnston, Reynolds, Freeman, & Geller, 1998; Mills & Rubin, 1990). In such research, coders classify parental responses into categories that reflect particular attributional dimensions (e.g., intemality) or clusters of dimensions (e.g., internal, controllable, stable). For example, parental explanations of child behavior might be coded as

Reliability
Because stimulus-dependent measures are often framed as experimental tasks, the concern is usually with the ability of the target stimuli to invoke the predicted pattern of parental responses on the attributional dimensions, rather than with traditional psychometric issues. In most studies, multiple exemplars of stimuli representing different stimulus parameters (e.g., age of child, type of child behavior) are presented to the parent and responses are aggregated across the multiple items. However, the reliability of this aggregate score is seldom tested or reported. The number of vignettes or exemplars of each type is limited by practical constraints. For example, if the investigator is interested in three dimensions of parental attributions (e.g., locus, stability, and globality) and in the influence of four behavior types, using only three exemplars of each type still requires that the parent make a total of 36 ratings.

MEASURING PARENTAL ATTRIBUTIONS Obviously, with a limited number of items, the internal consistencies of the aggregated attribution responses will remain low (e.g., Johnston & Freeman, 1997). Given that this low reliability will cap the validity that can be shown for these measures, a call for greater attention to these issues of internal consistency seems obvious. Whether test-retest reliability is important in stimulus-dependent measures may depend on the particular attributions being elicited. However, to the extent that the assessor wishes to argue that the attributional responses are normative or are typically elicited by a particular stimulus event, then attention must also be paid to establishing the stability of these measures.

473

causal views. Biases of this type are likely to operate in all settings in which parents are asked about the presumed causes of their children's undesired behaviorin particular, among those parents (e.g., middle class parents) who are sensitive to current scientific views of problematic child behavior.

Validity
When research makes use of stimulusdependent attributions, concern is typically focused on a limited type of criterion-related validity. The preponderance of such research has been concerned with the bidirectional relationship between parental attributions and specific stimulus events (e.g., child behaviors). Other research has focused on context as a moderator of the relationship between stimuli and attributions. Child behavior and parental attributions. A number of studies have demonstrated that parental attributions vary consistently depending on the type of child behavior being considered. Among parents of nonproblem children, it has been demonstrated that parents typically credit internal child factors (e.g., ability, effort) as the causes of positive behaviors, such as altruism, and excuse negative behaviors, such as norm violations, as due to external, transient, or uncontrollable causes (e.g., Dix & Grusec, 1985; Dix et al., 1986,1989). In addition, a large number of investigators have focused on differences that emerge in parents* causal attributions for symptoms of various childhood disorders (e.g., Johnston & Patenaude, 1994; Sonuga-Barke & Balding, 1993). Using a bidirectional model, such research has been concerned with differences in attributions across parents, grouped according to the behavior disorders of their children. For example, Bickett et al. (1996) and Dix and Lochman (1990) found that mothers of aggressive children revealed a hostile or negative bias in their interpretations of child behavior, compared with mothers of nonproblem children. Recently, Johnston and Freeman (1997) found that parents of children with ADHD saw both inattentive-overactive and oppositional child behaviors as more stable and less controllable by the child than did parents of nonproblem children. In these studies, the implicit model has been one that emphasizes cumulative, reciprocal

Reactivity
The susceptibility of various stimulusdependent measures to the influence of social desirability has not received extensive attention in the literature. However, there is every reason to believe that these measures are susceptible to parental attempts at impression management. To the extent that parents can easily determine the socially appropriate response and are motivated to provide such a response, then measures of stimulus-dependent attributions are likely to reflect such management efforts. Only modest correlations are typically found between stimulus-dependent parental attributions and actual parental responses to the same child stimulus (e.g., Dix et al., 1986; Geller & Johnston, 1995b). This lack of association may reflect problems with the reactivity of measures; for example, parents may be reluctant to voice their actual views about the causes of children's behavior and, as a result, may provide "socially correct" attributions. These "corrected" attributions may, however, be quite different from the actual attributions that serve to mediate the relationship between child and parent behavior. For example, a recent study by Johnston and Freeman (1997) revealed that parents of children with ADHD reported attributions for child symptoms that were consistent with a nonblaming, medical view of ADHD (e.g., a behavior that is biologically based and that is uncontrollable by the child); at the same time, these parents continued to express disapproval (implicit blame) of the child's behavior. It is likely that the attributions reported by such parents reflect their knowledge of socially accepted views of ADHD rather than their more naive

474

BUGENTAL, JOHNSTON, NEW, AND SILVESTER

effects between child characteristics, parental cognitions, and parental responses. Context as a moderator. Other research has specifically addressed the issue of contextual factors. As one contextual factor, parents are likely to modulate their attributions for children's behavior as a function of the child's stage of development. For example, it has been observed that parental attributions vary depending on the age of the child considered, with older children held more accountable for their behavior (e.g., Dix et al., 1986; Fincham & Emery, 1988). As a second contextual factor, parental attributions may also vary as a function of the immediate circumstances that qualify the significance of child behavior. For example, Milner and Foody (1994) demonstrated that the presence of mitigating information reduced blaming attributions for child misbehavior. Interestingly, the mitigating information interacted with adults' risk status for being abusive such that mitigation effects were only seen among low-risk adults. Johnston et al. (1996) and Borden and Brown (1989) have both studied how knowledge that the child is medicated affects the attributions for child behavior offered by parents of children with ADHD. Issues for the Future in the Measurement of Parent Attributions This article has provided a theoretical background for ongoing research on parental attributions. Different methods of measuring attributions were traced to different theoretical origins, and the influence of these traditions on conceptualizations and interpretations of attributional findings were outlined. This review highlighted the fact that attributional measures are regularly selected and used without explicit consideration, or even recognition, of the underlying assumptions or the measurement approach. We would argue that closer attention to theoretical issues is a fundamental need in future research. The preceding sections of this article have illustrated that attributional measures differ in the types of cognitive processes they tap, the memory mechanisms they rely on, and whether they are conceptualized as main effects or moderators in linking child behavior and parent behavior. These differences must be carefully considered in designing future studies and in integrating findings regarding how parents think about child behavior and parenting.

Tailoring Measures to Research Questions


Consideration of the theoretical underpinnings of parental attributions fosters consideration of the ways in which they may be most appropriately measured. For example, it suggests variations in the eliciting stimuli that are most relevant. Along one dimension, the use of general, ambiguous stimuli optimizes assessment of memory-dependent, schematic attributional processes that differ across parents, whereas the use of specific, behavioral events is most likely to optimize the measurement of stimulus-dependent, episodic memories associated with particular child behaviors. It can also be argued that the use of experimentergenerated stimuli representing hypothetical or unknown children is more likely to pull for stable interpretive styles, whereas the use of parent-generated stimuli is more likely to pull for responses based on specific episodes in the history of parents and children. Further study is, of course, needed to test this conjecture.

Changing Models in the Assessment of Parental Attributions


Parental attributions have increasingly been thought of as operating in continuous feedback loops between cognitions, affect, and behavior. Early models that focused on linear processes (the presumed effects of attributions on caregiving outcomes, the presumed effects of different kinds of caregiving events on attributional responses) have been replaced by consideration of more complex linkages. For example, at the same time that a parent interprets a child's misbehavior as intentional and thus becomes upset, the resultant emotional response is likely to foster an escalating system of negative interpretive bias (Dix et al., 1990; Geller & Johnston, 1995a). Thus, a picture emerges where the interplay among cognitions, affect, and behavior might be better understood as continuous and recursive rather than linear (Bugental & Goodnow, 1998; Crick & Dodge, 1994). In the same way, greater use has been made of moderator models and other interactional models. For example, increasing consideration has been given to the role of stable attributions as moderators of the linkage between caregiving events and parental affective and behavioral responses. Those researchers who are concerned

MEASURING PARENTAL ATTRIBUTIONS with memory-based attributional processes stand to benefit the most from the use of moderator models. That is, when attributions are understood as overlearned knowledge structures, it is reasonable to assume that they have their strongest effects in situations that provide few interpretive cues. In the absence of clear information, parents necessarily rely on their own past experience, as encoded in their stable attributional patterns. In similar fashion, the diathesis-stress models that are common within the learned helplessness literature reflect concern with attributional style as a moderator of reactions to stress or lost control. In addition, it is likely that in many parenting situations, the stable, memory-based and situation-dependent attributional styles of parents interact with situational cues to elicit attributional products that are the result of these different sources and types of information. Although we argue that understanding the differences between these attributional processes is important, it is also the case that more work is needed to understand how these processes work in combination.

475

Use of Spontaneous Versus Elicited Attributions


Existing attributional measures also differ in the extent to which they tap naturally occurring attributions versus attributions that are somewhat artificially induced by requirements of the experiment. There are advantages to creating measurement situations that either assess spontaneous attributions (e.g., discourse coding systems such as the LACS; Stratton et al., 1988), that are based on parent-generated attributions (e.g., Bugental et al., 1989), or that involve eliciting stimuli that would ordinarily foster attributional activity (e.g., vignettes describing ambiguous child problems that are open to alternate interpretations; Strassberg, 1995). Analysis of attributions generated during discourse or in response to open-ended questions, although having advantages for the assessment of spontaneous attributions and a wide range of applicability, do have the disadvantage of potential noncomparability across respondents. In discourse methodologies, both the content and quantity of information provided across informants will vary. For example, some respondents may spontaneously generate a great deal of attributional activity,

whereas others provide only descriptive, noncausal accounts of events. Whether this difference reflects a true variation in the amount of attributional processing or only a difference in perceptions of the task demands remains unknown. As a direction for the future, however, there is considerable promise for the measurement of attributions as they occur within natural discourse. When use is made of directed subject matter (e.g., semi structured interviews on a specific caregiving topic), this approach is likely to have its highest yield (Boddy, 1995; New, 1995). Such measurement systems have particular advantages in that (a) they allow speakers to focus on material that is personally important for them (and thus likely to lead to the retrieval of relevant attributional knowledge structures), and (b) they assess attributions in a context that closely approximates that found during actual interaction (or indeed that occurs during spontaneous interaction). It is also likely that more naturalistic attributional assessments (such as the LACS) have an advantage in socially disadvantaged or less literate populations. For example, parents from low-education or immigrant backgrounds may have difficulty with both the format and the concepts presented in written questionnaire measures.

External Validity of Attributional Measures


Knowledge of the external validity of attributional measures is another area deserving of far greater attention. It is often the case that the situations in which parental attributions are assessed differ greatly from those in which attributions may naturally operate. Attributional measures are more typically given under circumstances during which parents may reflect on and control their responses. Although extended reflection may also occur in daily life (e.g., the parent who spends a sleepless night concerned about why her child is failing in school), most attributional activity in daily life happens concurrently with other ongoing events. It occurs during conversation; it occurs over the background noise of household activities; it occurs while simultaneously reading the newspaper or driving a child to school. In short, the circumstances under which spontaneous attributional processes occur are often at odds with those found in the assessment of attributions. In particular, formal assessment of attributions

476

BUGENTAL, JOHNSTON, NEW, AND SILVESTER

may allow and even demand considerable impression management. If parents' attributions are assessed under conditions that limit the possibility of self-presentation management (e.g., during discourse; in response to items in which "good" responses are not discernible), a truer picture may be afforded of their causal reasoning.

been made in assessing and understanding the role of these cognitions in family interactions. However, the review also illustrates the complexity of the phenomena and the multiplicity of definitions and measurement strategies that populate the research. We hope that highlighting conceptual and methodological issues in this area will clarify the current state of the literature and offer guidance in future research.

Clinical Utility of Attributional Measures


Finally, the clinical applicability of different strategies for the assessment of attributions is not well understood. Questionnaire measures that tap relationship schemas and vignette measures developed for particular studies are often hampered in their clinical utility by a lack of normative information. Although numerous studies have revealed differences in the performance of clinical and control groups on these measures (e.g., Bugental et al., 1989; Johnston & Freeman, 1997), the overlap between samples is typically large enough to caution against use of individual scores as predictors of group membership. Clearly, greater psychometric work is needed before attributional assessments can provide information directly relevant to the assessment and management of individual cases of parent-child difficulties. Our conceptualization of attributions as involving both memory-dependent and stimulusdependent processes has implications for clinical processes as well as for measurement issues. That is, memory-based attributions reflect the overlearned explanatory processes that have their origins in the parents' pasts. In contrast, stimulus-dependent explanatory processes are rooted in information that is currently available. Certain kinds of family problems (e.g., crossgenerational perpetuation of biased relationship cognitions) may have their origins in the overreliance on memory-based processes and underutilization of current information regarding child behavior or context. As a result, the use of both types of measures (across family members) may provide a useful aid within cognitively based clinical assessments and interventions. Summary This review illustrates the lively state of research concerning parental attributions for child behavior and the many advances that have

References
Abramson, L. Y, Dykman, B. M , & Needles, D. J. (1991). Attributional style and theory: Let no one tear them asunder. Psychological Inquiry, 2, 11-13. Abramson, L. Y, Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49-74. Affleck, G., Allen, D., McGrade, B. J., & McQueeney, M. (1982). Maternal causal attributions at hospital discharge of high-risk infants. American Journal of Mental Deficiency. 86, 575-580. Anastopoulos, A. D., Shelton, T. L., DuPaul, G. J., & Guevremont, D. C. (1993). Parent training for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorders: Its impact on parent functioning. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 21, 581-596. Antaki, C , & Brewin, C. (1982). Attributions and psychological change: Application of attributional theories to clinical and education practice. New York: Academic Press. Baden, A. D., & Howe, G. W. (1992). Mothers* attributions and expectancies regarding their conduct-disordered children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 20,467-486. Baker, B. L., & Heller, T. L. (1996). Preschool children with externalizing behaviors: Experience of fathers and mothers. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 24, 513-532. Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 461-484. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122147. Baigh, J. A., Lombardi, W. J., & Higgins, E. T. (1988). Automaticity of chronically accessible constructs in person X situation effects on person perception: It's just a matter of time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 599-605. Bauer, W. D., & Twentyman, C. T. (1985). Abusing, neglectful, and comparison mothers' responses to child-related and non-child-related stressors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 335-343. Becker, W. G. & Krug, R. W. (1965). The parent

MEASURING PARENTAL ATTRIBUTIONS attitude research instrumentA research review. Child Development, 36, 329-365. Bickett, L. R., Milich, R., & Brown, R. T. (1996). Attributional styles of aggressive boys and their mothers. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 24, 457-472. Boddy, J. (1995, April). Mothers' attributions: Their role in failure to thrive. Paper presented at the Meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development, Indianapolis, IN. Bondy, E. M., & Mash, E. J. (1997, April). Parenting efficacy, perceived control over caregiving failure, and mothers' reactions to preschool children's misbehavior. Paper presented at the Meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development, Washington, DC. Borden, K. A., & Brown, R. T. (1989). Attributional outcomes: The subtle messages of treatments for attention deficit disorders. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 13, 147-160. Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss. Vol. III. Loss. New York: Basic Books. Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Attributions in marriage: Review and critique. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 3-33. Bradley, E. J., & Peters, R. D. (1991). Physically abusive and nonabusive mothers' perceptions of parenting and child behavior. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 6, 455-460. Bretherton, I. (1990). Open communication and internal working models: Their role in the development of attachment relationships. In R. A. Thompson (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1988: Socioemotional development Current theory and research in motivation (Vol. 36, pp. 57-113). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Brewin, C , MacCarthy, B., Duda, K., & Vaughn, C. E. (1991). Attributions and expressed emotion in the relatives of patients with schizophrenia. Journal ofAbnormal Psychology, 100, 546-554. Bugental, D. B. (1992). Affective and cognitive processes within threat-oriented family systems. In I. E. Sigel, A. McGillicuddy-DeLisi, & J. Goodnow (Eds.), Parental belief systems: The psychological consequences for children (pp. 219248). HiUsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Bugental, D. B. (1993). Communication in abusive relationships: Cognitive constructions of interpersonal power. American Behavioral Scientist, 36, 28&-308. Bugental, D. B., Blue, J. B., Cortez, V, Fleck, K., Kopeikin, H., Lewis, J., & Lyon, J. (1993). Social cognitions as organizers of autonomic and affective responses to social challenge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 94-103. Bugental, D. B., Blue, J. B., & Cruzcosa, M. (1989). Perceived control over caregiving outcomes: Implications for child abuse. Developmental Psychology, 25, 532-539.

477

Bugental, D. B., & Goodnow, J. G. (1998). Socialization processes. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology. Volume 3: Social, emotional, and personality development. New York: Wiley. Bugental, D. B., Lyon, J. E., Krantz, J., & Cortez, V. (1997). Who's the boss? Accessibility of dominance ideation among individuals with low perceptions of interpersonal power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1297-1309. Bugental, D. B., & Shennum, W. A. (1984). "Difficult" children as elicitors and targets of adult communication patterns: An attributional-behavioral transactional analysis. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 49 (1, Serial No. 79). Campis, L. K., Lyman, R. D., & Prentice-Dunn, S. (1986). The Parental Locus of Control Scale: Development and validation. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 15, 260-167. Cook, W. L. (1993). Interdependence and the interpersonal sense of control: An analysis of family relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 587-601. Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children's social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74-101. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354. Dix, T., & Grusec, J. (1985). Parent attribution processes in the socialization of children. In I. E. Sigel (Ed.), Parental belief systems: The psychological consequences for children (pp. 201-233). HiUsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Dix, T, & Lochman, J. E. (1990). Social cognition and negative reactions to children: A comparison of mothers of aggressive and nonaggressive boys. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 414-438. Dix, T., & Reinhold, D. P. (1991). Chronic and temporary influences on mothers' attributions for children's disobedience. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 37,251-271. Dix, T.f Reinhold, D. P., & Zambarano, R. J. (1990). Mothers' judgments in moments of anger. MerrillPalmer Quarterly, 36, 465-486. Dix, T., Ruble, D. N., Grusec, J. E., & Nixon, S. (1986). Social cognition in parents: Inferential and affective reactions to children of three age levels. Child Development, 57, 879-894. Dix, T., Ruble, D. N., & Zambarano, R. J. (1989). Mothers* implicit theories of discipline: Child effects, parent effects, and the attribution process. Child Development, 60, 1373-1391. Dodge, K. A. (1986). A social information processing model of social competence in children. In M. Perlmutter (Ed.), Minnesota Symposium on Child

478

BUGENTAL, JOHNSTON, NEW, AND SILVESTER Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 21, 199 211. Gretarsson, S. J., & Gelfand, D. M. (1988). Mothers' attributions regarding their children's social behavior and personality characteristics. Developmental Psychology, 24, 264-269. Griest, D., Wells, K., & Forehand, R. (1979). An explanation of predictors of maternal perceptions of maladjustment in clinic-referred children. Journal ofAbnormal Psychology, 88, 277-281. Grusec, J. E.( Hastings, P., & Mammone, N. (1994). Parenting, cognitions, and relationships schemas. In J, G. Smetana (Ed.), Beliefs about parenting: Origins and developmental implications (pp. 5-20). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Grusec, J. E., & Mammone, N. (1995). Features and sources of parents' attributions about themselves and their children. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 15, pp. 49-73). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hastie, R. (1984). Causes and effects of causal attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 4456. Heider, F. (1944). Social perception and phenomenal causality. Psychological Review, 51, 358-374. Himmelstein, S., Graham, S., & Weiner, B. (1991). An attributional analysis of maternal beliefs about the importance of child-rearing practices. Child Development, 62, 301-310. Holden, G. W., & Edwards, I. A. (1989). Parental attitudes toward child rearing: Instruments, issues, and implications. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 29-58. Jain, A., Fish, M., & Stifter, C. A. (1997, April). The Self-Efficacy Scale: A psychometric analysis. Paper presented at the meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development, Washington, DC. Janssens, J. M. A. M. (1994). Authoritarian child rearing, parental locus of control, and the child's behavior style. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 17, 485-501. Johnston, C , & Freeman, W. (1997). Attributions for child behavior in parents of children without behavior disorders and children with attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 636-645. Johnston, C , Freeman, W., Fine, S., Weiss, J., Weiss, G.f & Weiss, M. (1996, February). Effects of stimulant medication treatment on mother and child attributions for compliance and noncompliance in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Presented at a meeting of the Society for Research in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Santa Monica, CA. Johnston, C , & Mash, E. J. (1989). A measure of parenting satisfaction and efficacy. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 18, 167-175. Johnston, C , & Patenaude, R. (1994). Parent attributions for inattentive-overactive and opposi-

Psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 77-125). Hitlsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1990, December 21). Mechanisms in the cycle of violence. Science, 250, 1678-1683. Donenberg, G., & Baker, L. B. (1993). The impact of young children with externalizing behaviors on their families. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 21, 179-198. Donovan, W. L., & Leavitt, L. A. (1989). Maternal self-efficacy and infant attachment: Integrating physiology, perceptions, and behavior. Child Development, 60, 460-472. Donovan, W. L., Leavitt, L. A., & Walsh, R. O. (1990). Maternal self-efficacy: Illusory control and its effect on susceptibility to learned helplessness. Child Development, 61, 1638-1647. Esdaile, S. A., & Greenwood, K. M. (1990, April). Who is to blame and who gets the credit? Attributional issues in mother-toddler interaction. Paper presented at the World Federation of Occupational Therapists: 10th International Congress, Melbourne, Australia. Fincham, F. D., & Emery, R. E. (1988). Limited mental capacities and perceived control in attributions of responsibility. British Journal of Social Psychology, 27,193-207. Fiske, W. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill. Freeman, W., Johnston, CM & Barth, R. (1997). Parent attributions for inattentive-overactive, oppositionaldefiant, and prosocial behaviors in ADHD children. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 29, 239-248. Geller, J., & Johnston, C. (1995a). Depressed mood and child conduct problems: Relationships to mothers' attributions for their own and their children's experiences. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 17, 19-34. Geller, J., & Johnston, C. (1995b). Predictors of mothers' responses to child noncompliance: Attributions and attitudes. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 24, 272-278. Gibaud-Wallston, J., & Wandersman, L. P. (1978, August-September). Development and utility of the Parenting Sense of Competence Scale. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Goodnow, J. J. (1988). Parents' ideas, actions, and feelings: Models and methods from developmental and social psychology. Child Development, 59, 286-320. Goodnow, J. J. (1996). From household practices to parents' ideas about work and interpersonal relationships. In S. Harkness & C. Super (Eds.), Parents' cultural belief systems (pp. 313-344). New York: Guilford Press. Grace, N. C , Keltey, M. L., & McCain, A. P. (1993). Attribution processes in mother-adolescent conflict.

MEASURING PARENTAL ATTRIBUTIONS tional-defiant child behaviors. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 18, 261-275. Johnston, C , Reynolds, S., Freeman, W. S., & Geller, J. (1998). Assessing parent attributions using open-ended questions and rating scales: A comparison of parents of nonproblem children and children with ADHD. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27, 87-97. Joiner, T. E., & Wagner, K. D. (1996). Parental, child-centered attributions and outcome: A metaanalytic review with conceptual and methodological implications. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 24, 37-52. Katsurada, E., & Sugawara, A. I. (1997). Moderating effects of mothers' attributions on the relationship between their affect and parenting behaviors and children's aggressive behaviors. Unpublished manuscript. Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 15, 197-238. Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology,

479

3i,457-501.
Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personality constructs. New York: Norton. Koeske, G. R, & Koeske, R. D. (1992). Parenting locus of control: Measurement, construct validation, and a proposed conceptual model. Social Work Research and Abstracts, 28, 37-46. Larrance, D. T, & Twentyman, C T. (1983). Maternal attributions and child abuse. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 92, 449-451. Leenders, F. H. R. (1984). Brood en spelen [Bread and games]. Utrecht, the Netherlands: University of Utrecht. Leenders, F. H. R. (1985). De opvoderienmerken 'locus of control' en 'geneigdheid tot informatie zoeken' [Parental characteristics, "locus of control" and 'the tendency to look for information']. Tijdschrift voor Orthopedaqoqiek, 24, 530-548. Lefcourt, H. M. (1992). Durability and impact of the locus of control construct. Psychological Bulletin,

112,4\\~4\4,
Levenson, H. (1973). Perceived parental antecedents of internal powerful others, and chance locus of control orientations. Developmental Psychology, 9, 268-274. Lovejoy, M. C , Verda, M. R., & Hays, C. C. (1997). Convergent and discriminant validity of measures of parenting efficacy and control. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 26, 366-371. MacKinnon-Lewis, C , Lamb, M. E., Arbuckle, B., Baradaran, L., & Volling, B. (1992). The relationship between biased maternal and filial attributions and the aggressiveness of their interactions. Development and Psychopathology, 4, 403-415. Mash, E., & Johnston, C. (1990). Determinants of parenting stress: Illustrations from families of

hyperactive children and families of physically abused children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 19, 313-328. Miller, S. A. (1995). Parents' attributions for their children's behavior. Child Development, 66, 15571584. Mills, R. S. L. (in press-a). Exploring the effects of low power schemas in mothers. In P. D. Hastings & C. C. Piotrowski (Eds.), New directions for child development: Maternal beliefs about child-rearing and children's misbehavior: The causes and effects of beliefs in conflict situations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mills, R. S. L. (in press-b). Paradoxical relations between perceived power and maternal control. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. Mills, R. S. L., & Rubin, K. H. (1990). Parental beliefs about problematic social behaviors in early childhood. Child Development, 61, 138-151. Milner, J. S., & Foody, R. (1994). The impact of mitigating information on attributions for positive and negative child behaviors by adults at low- and high-risk for child-abusive behavior. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 13, 335-351. New, M. (1995). Adolescent male victims and perpetrators of child sexual abuse: Maternal attributions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of London, London, England. New, M., Stevenson, J., & Skuse, D. (in press). Maternal factors associated with adolescents who sexually abuse. Child Maltreatment. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231-259. Nix, R. L., Pinderhughes, E. &, Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1997). Do parents' hostile attribution tendencies function as self-fulfilling prophecies? An empirical examination of a theoretical sequence of aggressive transactions. Unpublished manuscript. Peterson, C. (1991). The meaning and measurement of explanatory style. Psychological Inquiry, 2, 1-10. Pisterman, S., Firestone, P., McGrath, P., & Goodman, J. T., Webster, 1., Mallory, R., & Goffin, G. (1992). The effects of parent training on parenting stress and sense of competence. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 24, 41-58. Power, T. G., Gershenhom, S., & Stafford, D. (1990). Maternal perceptions of infant difficultness: The influence of maternal attitudes and attributions. Infant Behavior and Development, 13, 421-437. Roberts, M. W., Joe, V. C , & Rowe-Hallbert, A. (1992). Oppositional child behavior and parental locus of control. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 21, 170-177. Rodrigue, J. R., Geffken, G. R., Clark, J. E., & Hunt, F. (1994). Parenting satisfaction and efficacy among

480

BUGENTAL, JOHNSTON, NEW, AND SILVESTER Psychology Department, Leeds Family Therapy and Research Centre. Stratton, P., & Swaffer, R. (1988). Maternal causal beliefs for - abused and handicapped children. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 6, 201-216. Valsiner, J. (in press). Culture and human development: A co-constructivist perspective. In P. van Geert & L. Mos (Eds.), Annals of theoretical psychology (Vol. 10). New York: Plenum, Walker, L. S. (1985, August). Mother's attributions regarding the behavior of chronically-ill children. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles. Walker, L. S., & Masters, J. C. (1989). Mothers' causal attributions for the behavior of children with chronic conditions: The relationship of attribution to child diagnostic conditions to parenting difficulties. Unpublished manuscript. Weiner, B. (1986). An attributionai theory of motivation and emotion. New York: SpringerVerlag. Weiner, B. (1990). Searching for the roots of applied attribution theory. In S. Graham & V. S. Folkes (Eds.), Attribution theory: Applications to achievement, mental health, and interpersonal conflict (pp. 1-13). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Weiner, B., Frieze, K., Kukla, A., Reed, L., Rest, S., & Rosenbaum, R. M. (1972). Perceiving the causes of success and failure. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 95-120). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press. Wong, P. T. P., & Weiner, B. (1981). When people ask "why" question, and the heuristics of attributionai search. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-

caregivers of children with diabetes. Children's Health Care, 23, 181-191. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80(1, Whole No. 609). Seligman, M. E. P., Abramson, L. Y., Semmel, A., & von Baeyer, C. (1979). Depressive attributionai style. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88, 242247. Shifrrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic information process: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127-188. Silvester, J. (in press). Spoken attributions and candidate success in graduate recruitment interviews. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. Silvester, J., Bentovim, A., Stratton, P., & Hanks, H. G. I. (1995). Using spoken attributions to classify abusive families. Child Abuse and Neglect, 19, 1221-1232. Smith, A. M , & O'Leary, S. G. (1995). Attributions and arousal as predictors of maternal discipline. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 19, 459-471. Sobol, M. P., Ashbourne, D. T., Earn, B. M , & Cunningham, C. E. (1989). Parents' attributions for achieving compliance from attention-deficit-disordered children. Journal ofAbnormal Child Psychology, 17, 359-369. Sonuga-Barke, E. J., & Balding, J. (1993). British parents' beliefs about the causes of ihree forms of childhood psychological disturbance. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 21, 367-376. Strassberg, Z. (1995). Social information-processing in compliance situations by mothers of behaviorproblem boys. Child Development, 66, 376-389. Stratton, P., Heard, D., Hanks, H. G. I., Munton, A. G., Brewin, C. R., & Davidson, C. (1986). Coding causal beliefs in natural discourse. British Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 299-313. Stratton, P., Munton, T., Hanks, H., Heard, D., & Davidson, C. (1988). Leeds Attributionai Coding System. Leeds, England: University of Leeds,

ogy, 40, 650-663. Received March 18, 1997 Revision received June 3,1998 Accepted June 10, 1998

Você também pode gostar