bulman characterological versus behavioral self-blame inquiries into depression and rape.pdf

8/10/2019 BULMAN Characterological Versus Behavioral Self-Blame Inquiries into Depression and Rape.pdf

1/12

Journal

of

Personality

an d

Social

Psychology

1979, Vol .

37, No. 10, 1798-1809

Characterological Versus Behavioral Self-Blame:

Inquiries

Into

Depression and Rape

Ronnie Janoff-Bulman

Universi ty of

Massachuse t t sAmhers t

Tw o

types

of sel f-blamebehavioral and characterologicalare

distinguished.

Behavioral self-blame

is

control related, involves attributions

to a

modifiable

source (one's behavior), and is associated

wi th

a belief in the

fu t u r e

avoid-

ability of a negative outcome. Characterological self-blame is esteem related,

involves attributions to a relatively nonmodifiable source (one 's character) , and

is associated with a belief in personal deservingness for past negative outc om es.

T w o studies are reported that bear on this self-blame dist inct ion. In the first

study, it was

found

that depressed female college students engaged in more

characterological

self-blame

than nondepressed

female college students,

whereas

behavioral self-blame

did not

d i f f e r

be tween

the two

groups ;

th e

depressed

population was also characterized by greater attributions to chance and de-

creased beliefs in personal contro l. Characterological self-b lam e is proposed as

a

possible solution

to the

paradox

in

depression.

In a

second study, rape

crisis centers were surve yed. Behavioral self-b lam e, and not characterologic al

self-blame, emerged as the most common response of rape victims to their

victimization,

suggesting the victim's desire to maintain a belief in control,

particularly

the

belief

in the fu t u r e

avoidability

of

rape. Implications

of

this

self-blame distinction and potential directions for fu t u r e resea rch are discussed.

In a study by Bulman and Wor t man

( 1 9 7 7 ) on the relat ionship between blame

at t r ibut ions

an d

coping, self-blame emerged

as a

predictor

of

good coping among para-

lyzed victims of freak accidents. A conclusion

that is consistent with these

resul tsthat

self-blame

is a

positive psychological mecha-

nismderives pr imari ly from the implica-

tions of

this

at tribution for a belief in per-

sonal control over one's outcomes. The ad-

vantages of perceived control have been re-

peatedly demonstrated in social psychological

experiments (see, e.g., Bowers, 1968; Glass &

Singer, 1972; Langer &Rodin, 19 76 ; Schulz,

1976) ; Walster's (1966) formulation

of ob-

servers' reactions to vict ims an d Kelley's

( 1 9 7 1 ) view

of

attributional processes

as a

T he

author thanks Phil ip

Br i ckman , Irene

Frieze,

and

Cami l le Wortman

fo r

their valuable com-

ments

on an

earlier

draft

of

this

article.

Requests fo r

reprints should

b e

sent

to

Ronnie

Ja nof f -Bu lma n , Universi ty

of

Massachusetts,

D e-

p a r t m e n t

of

Psychology, Amherst ,

Massachusetts

01003.

means of

encouraging

an d

maintaining [his]

effective exercise of control in the world

(p. 22) are also based upon a recognition of

the significance of perceived control. The

tenuous l ink between control and self-blame

becomes comprehensible as one realizes that

in order to m axim ize a belief in control when

a t t r ibu t ing b lame to particular factors, one's

choice is influenced by the perceived modifia-

bility of the

potential

fac to r ( s ) . A s

Medea

and Thompson (1 97 4) w rite in the case of

rape,

If the

woman

can

believe

that

some-

how

she got herself into the situation, if she

can make

herself

responsible for it , then she's

established some sort

of control

over rape.

It wasn't someone arbitrari ly smashing into

her life and wreak ing havoc (p . 105) .

Unfor tunate ly , this adaptive, control-ori-

ented view

of

self-blame

too

easily ignores

the more popular conception of the phenome-

non,

by

which self-blame

is

regarded

as

mal-

adaptive, a correlate of depression, and a

reflection of psychological problems. Thus

Beck ( 1 9 6 7 ) , w rit i ng about depressed pa-

Copyr ight

1979

b y

th e Amer i ca n Psychological Association, Inc.

0022 - 3514 /79 /3710 - 1798$00 .7S

1798


2/12

S E L F - B L A M E :

DEPRESSION

A ND R P E

1799

tients,

states,

Another symp tom,

self-blame,

expresses the patient's notion of causality.

He is prone to hold himself responsible for

any difficulties or problems that he encoun-

ters"

(p . 2 1 ) .

Self-blame

as a maladapt ive

psychological mechanism is generally related

to harsh self-criticism and low evaluations of

one 's w orth.

Two Types oj

Self-Blame

Recognizing

that self-blame may be both

adaptive and maladaptive is a first step to-

wards the conclusion that there are two

different

types

of

self-blame,

one

representing

an

adaptive, control-oriented response, the

other

a

maladaptive, self-deprecating

re-

sponse. The pr imary dis t inct ion between

these

tw o self -a t t r ibut ions is the na t u r e of

the focus of blame, for it is proposed

that

the control related self-blamefocuses on one's

ow n

behavior ,

whereas

the esteem related

self-blame

focuses on one's character, an

overall

view

of the kind of people individuals

perceive themselves

to be. In

other words,

individuals can blame themselves fo r having

engaged in (or

having

failed to

engage

in) a

part icular act ivity, thereby at tributing blame

to past behaviors; or individuals can blame

themselves

for the

k ind

of

people they are,

thereby fault ing their character. To facilitate

discussion of these tw o

self-attributional

strategies, the esteem related blame

will

be

labeled

"characterological"

self-blame and

the control related type, "behavioral"

self-

b lame .

In the

case

of

rape,

for

example,

a

w oman

can blame herself fo r having walked

down

a street alone at night or for having

let a

part icular

man

into

her

apar tment (be-

havioral

blame), or she can

blame herself

fo r

being too trust ing and unable to say no"

or a "careless person who is unable to stay

ou t

of

trouble." This behavioral-charactero-

logical distinction parallels

findings in the

area

of the just world theory. In their recent

review,

Lerner and Mil ler

( 1 9 7 8 )

state

that innocent vict ims who cannot be charac-

terologically blamed (i.e., derogated) by

virtue of their reputedly good character ar e

instead blamed fo r some behavior in which

they engaged (i .e . , behavioral blame).

While this dist inct ion between charactero-

logical

and behavioral self-blame appears

related to the

state-trait

dist inct ion in clini-

cal

psychology (see, e.g., Spielberger,

1 9 7 2 ) ,

it

more

specifically

corresponds to the dis-

t inct ions

d r a w n

b y

Weiner

and his

colleagues

(Weiner

et al.,

1 9 7 1 )

in

their scheme

of

a t t r ibu t ions in the area of achievement . In

a t t r ibu t ing fai lure to oneself ( internal attri-

but ion) , one can poin t to his/her own lack

of

abil i ty

or effort,

a t t r ibu t ions that have

very different impl icat ions

fo r

perceived con-

t ro l . Individuals who make an a t t r ibut ion

to poor abil i ty believe

that

there is

little

they can do to control the si tuat ion and suc-

ceed,

fo r

abil i ty

is

stable

and

relatively

un-

changeable. Effort at tributions, on the other

hand, wil l lead one to believe

that

as long

as

he/she t r ies harder ,

he/she

will be able to

control outcomes in a posit ive manner (see

Dweck ,

1 9 7 5 ) .

Similarly, characterological

self-blame corresponds to an abil i ty at tribu-

t ion, and behavioral self-blame corresponds

to an

effort at t r ibut ion, having very different

implicat ions fo r perceived personal control .

While

th e

dimension used

by

Weiner

and his

colleagues to dist inguish between abil i ty and

effort is

tha t

of

stability

(stable-unstable),

th e

differences

between the a t t r ibut ions may

also be captured through the use of a con-

trollabil i ty dimension (cf . Elig & Frieze ,

1975 ;

Weiner ,

1 9 7 4 ) . The

primary dist inc-

t ion to be drawn between behavioral and

characterological self-blame is the perceived

controllability (i.e.,

modifiabili ty

through

one's

ow n

efforts)

of the

factor(s) b lamed.

In a

recent reformulat ion

of

learned help-

lessness, Abramson, Seligman,

and Teasdale

( 1 9 7 8 )

have posited a third dimension of at-

t r ibutions global-specif ic that is impor tant

to specify in determining subsequent per-

ceived helplessness. W hile this global-specific

dimension characterizes one of the

differences

to be noted betw een characterological and

behavioral self-blame, it is proposed that the

dimension of significance distinguishing these

tw o

types of self-blame is perceived con-

trollability, and the globalspecific and

stable-unstable dimensions

are

important

be-

cause of their contribution to perceived con-

t rol . Abramson, Sel igman,

and

Teasdale

(1978) , however , note

that

the dimension of

controllability

is

logically orthogonal

to the


3/12

1800

R O N N I E

J A N O F F - B U L M A N

Internal X Global XStable dim ensions . .

."

(p .

6 2 ) . The position presented here is con-

sistent with a comment by W o r t m a n and

Din tzer ( 1 9 7 8 ) in their recent reaction to

the learned helplessness reformulation.

They

state ,

W e

feel that assessments

of the

con-

t rollabil i ty of the

causal factor

may be of

the utmost importance in predicting the na-

t u re

and

magni tude

of

subsequent deficits

(p .8 2 ) .

In a

discussion

of

self -blame

by

Abramson ,

Seligman,

and Teasdale

( 1 9 7 8 )

these authors

state that self-blame

in

helplessness

and de-

pression follows

from the

a t t r ibu t ion

of

fa i lure

to factors

that

are controllable (p.

6 2 ) .

T he

self-blame they

are

dealing with

is

that which is consistent w ith self-esteem

defici ts and self-crit icism and thus paral-

lels

characterological self-blame . The authors

do not recognizea second type of self-blame,

behavioral self-blame, which according to

the

present analysis

is the

type

of

self -blame

following from at t r ibut ions to controllable

factors.

Contrary

to the

assertions

of

Abram-

son,

Seligman, and

Teasdale,

it is proposed

tha t characterological self-blame

follows from

at t r ibut ions to

uncontrol lable factors.

A further distinction between behavioral

an d

characterological self-blame lies

in the

t ime

orientation of the attributor. I t is pro-

posed

that

in blaming one's behavior, an

individual is concerned with the future , par-

t icularly

th e fu ture

avoidabili ty

of the

nega-

tive outcome.

This

concern

fo r

future avoid-

abi l i ty

is consistent with the control-moti-

vated

basis

fo r behavioral self-blame. T he

future-oriented

concerns of behavioral self-

blamers need

not

focus exclusively

on the

fu tu re

avoidability

of the

negative outcome

f o r which the at t r ibutor is blaming him/her-

self; rather, behavioral self-blame

m ay

pro-

mote a general belief in one's ability to avoid

negative outcomes and to effect positive out-

comes in the

future .

Thus, the paralyzed

vict ims

in the Bulman and Wortman

( 1 9 7 7 )

study were apt to be better copers if they

blamed themselves,

but self -blame was more

likely

to be in the service of a general belief

in fu ture

control (e.g., I 'll be able to im-

prove

my physical condition through physi-

cal the r apy) , rather than a more specific

belief in the

future avoidability

of

their

ow n

paralysis, which w as medically regarded as

i rreversible

in all cases.

In blaming himself or herself charactero-

logically, the individual is not concerned

wi th control in the fu t u re , bu t rather wi th

the past, particularly deservingness for

past

outcomes.

Individuals

w ho

engage

in

behav-

ioral

self-blame are apt to have an eye

towards the fu ture and

what they

can do

to avoid a recurrence of the negative out-

come

(or the

occurrence

of

negative out-

comes in

general). Individuals

w ho

engage

in characterological self-bla m e are apt to

focus

more on the past and what i t was about

them

that

rendered them deserving of the

negative outcome

fo r

which they

are

blaming

themselves.

1

Perceived avoidability

and be-

havioral self-blame

are

thus assumed

to be

par t of the same blame cluster, whereas char-

acterological

self-blame and feelings of de-

servingness

ar e

representative

of

another

blame

cluster.

Selj-Blame and

Depression;

Toward

th e

Resolution

o

a

Paradox

Distinguishing between characterological

and


may be a first step

toward

resolving the

paradox

in depression

recently recognized an d discussed by A b r a m -

son and

Sackeim

( 1 9 7 7 ) .

According

to

these

authors ,

there

are two

symptom clusters

of

depression, one represented by hopelessness,

powerlessness, and futil i ty, the

other

by self-

blame, self-de prec ation, and gu ilt . Ab ramson

and Sackeim discuss two prominent theories

o f depression

that

are based on cognitions

o f hopelessness

and

self-blame.

Seligman's

( 1 9 7 5 ) theory

of

learned helplessness sug-

gests

that

depression results

from

a belief

in the uncontrollabili ty of outcomes. Accord-

ing

to

Beck's ( 1 9 6 7 ) theory

of

depression,

the depressed individual blames him/herself

f o r

negative outcomes, particularly

personal

failures. It is the conjunction of these two

models

that

accounts for the paradox.

Tha t

1

These distinctio ns are consistent w i t h a recent

analysis

of

responsibility

by

Harvey

an d

Rule

( 1978) ,

in

wh i ch

causal responsibility

and

deserving-

ness are regarde d as conce ptu ally distinct aspects

o f

responsibili ty.


4/12

SELF-BLAME: DEPRESSION

A ND

R A P E

1801

is, how can individuals blame themselves

for outcomes over which they feel they have

had no control? How can an individual

feel

both helpless and

self-blaming?

Abramson

and Sackeim discuss several possible resolu-

tions to this paradox bu t remain dissatisfied

with the alternatives presented to date. How-

ever, a recognition of self-blame, not as a

uni ta ry p henom enon, but rath er as a label

for tw o

very different self-attributional

strat-

egies,

m ay

inform

an d

resolve

the

apparent

paradox in depression.

On e reason why a resolution to the de-

pression paradox has not bee n forthc om ing

is

suggested by Abramson, Seligman, and

Teasdale's ( 1 9 7 8 ) assertion (presented

above)

that self-blame

follows from

a t t r ibu-

tions to controllable factors. In assuming

that

self-blame naturally involves blaming con-

trollable factors, the possibility

that

individ-

uals

can

simultaenously

feel

they

do not

have

control an d blame themselves is foreclosed.

Instead, if we recognize the distinction be-

tween behavioral and characterological self-

blame, then

the

paradox begins

to

disappear.

Essential

to an

unders tanding

of

this asser-

tion is the proposition that in blaming him-

self or herself for the k indof personhe/she is ,

th e individual is not necessarily placing

blame for an

event regarded

as

personally

controllable. A person can believe that he/she

deserves w hat happened and is there fore re-

sponsible for it (see Harvey & Rule , 1978) ,

without believing that

he/she

is capable of

altering the outcome in the

past,

present, or

future .

In the case of personal failures, the char-

terological blamers will point

to

deficits

in

themselves that are believed to account for

these failures. The deficits are likely to lie

in

the realm of characteristics that generally

define

them, characteristics that are rela-

tively nonmodifiable,

stable,

and global.

Thus, in

achievement tasks,

an

ability

at-

tr ibution would represent a characterological

self-blaming

strategy.

In the

case

of

self-

blame fo r failures

that

ar e further removed

from the individual, represente d by the de-

lusions of depressives who blame themselves

for

the

violence

an d

suffering

in the

world

(see

Beck, 1967), the individuals appear to

regard themselves as being punished for who

or what they are. In this case, rather than

perceive themselves as responding, active or-

ganisms, depressed individuals seem

to

per-

ceive

themselves as passive stimuli. They do

not believe they actively bring about out-

comes that

remain under their control.

Rather, negative outcomes occur in reaction

to

them by other people and the world at

large. In sum , self-blam e by depressives is

proposed ascharacterological in nature. Since

characterological self-blame and feelings of

helplessness

are not

logically inconsistent,

their

conjunct ion

in

depressed individuals

should not be regarded as paradoxical.

Self-Blame Among

Rape

Victims

The association between self-blame and

depression is probably well recognized and

accepted within this cul ture . While the asso-

ciation between self-blame

an d

rape

is

prob-

ably

not as

strong,

the

more

or

less popular

image of the self-blaming rape victim m ay

be more accurate than many would like to

believe. The pervasiveness of self-blame has

been well documented

in

literature

on

rape

(see, e.g., Burgess

&

Holm strom, 1974a,

1974b,

1976; Griffin, 197 1; Hursch, 1977;

W eis & W eis, 197S; Bryant &Cirel, Note 1).

Although fear (of injury , death, and the

rapis t)

is the

pr imary react ion

to

rape,

self-

blame

may be second only to

fear

in fre-

quency of occurrence; perhaps surprisingly,

it is far

more common than anger.

In

considering

the few

existing facts

on

victim precipitation in the crime of

rape,

however,

it becomes obvious that the vic-

tims' self-attributional strategies (i.e., self-

b lame) do not reflect an accurate appraisal

of the woman's causal role in the

assault.

The National Commission on the Causes and

Prevention

of

Violence (1969) concluded that

only 4.4% of all rapes are precipitated by

the

victim. Although

a

higher

figure, 19%,

has been proposed

by

A m i r

( 1 9 7 1 ) ,he

used

a

considerably broader

definition

in

establish-

in g his criteria for victim precipitation. Thus,

criteria

such as risky situations marred w ith

sexually

were used, affording the interpreter

of data considerable discretion. In light of

these percentages, the pervasiveness of self-

blame becomes a puzzling phenomenon.


5/12

1802

RO N N I E

J A N O F F - B U L M A N

A n

at tempt

to

account

for the

pervasive-

ness of such feelings has involved the propo-

sition that women have been socialized to

accept blame

fo r

their

ow n

vict imization.

A s

Brownmil ler

( 1 9 7 S )

suggests, women are

conditioned

to a

female vict im mentali ty.

Brownmiller

discusses the psychologies of

Deutsch and Horney and concludes that

masochism is a female

trait,

one that ha s

been socialized by men. Similarly, Burgess

and

Holmstrom

( 1 9 7 4 a )

contend

that

women

are socialized to the attitude of blam ing

the victim," a perspective shared by Bryant

and

Cirel (Note

1).

While there

is no

doub t

m u c h

t r u t h to this socialization hypothesis,

i t may

paint

a

very incomplete pic ture

of

the fac to r (s )

responsible

fo r

self-blame

in

w omen and the rape vict im in part icular.

It fits

nicely with

a

port ra i t

of

w o m e n

as

helpless

and

masochistic

and may

unwi t -

t ingly perpetuate a view of women too con-

sistent with the role of rape vict im. In par-

ticular, this view entirely overlooks the possi-

bility

that

self-blame

by

victims

ofrape may

represent an adaptive response, an

attempt

to reestablish control following the t rauma

of

rape.

A

common reaction

to

rape

is the

feeling

of a loss of control over one's life (Bard &

Ellison, 19 74; Bry ant & Cirel , Note 1). T he

woman does no t feel sure of herself and ques-

t ions her self-determination. She needs to

feel

a sense of control (Hilb erm an, 19 76),

for she feels

extremely vulnerable

and

par-

t icularly fe ars the rapist and a rec urre nce of

rape. In blaming herself , perhaps the rape

victim is

engaging

in a

type

of

self-blame

that maximizes a belief in control; that is,

perhaps rape victims engage in behavioral

self-blame rather than characterological self-

blame. Whereas the lat ter type of blame

would

provide some support

for a

view

of

wom en

as helpless and masochistic, the for-

m er

would foster

a

different image

of the

rape victim and her reactions, that of an in-

dividual

reacting in an adaptive manner

to her recent loss of control.

If

the rape victim engages in behavioral

self-blame and at tributes her vict imization

to

a

modifiable behavior

(e.g., I

should

not

have walked alone, I should have locked th e

windows) , she is

likely

to

mainta in

a

belief

in the fu tu r e

avoidabil i ty

of a

similar mis-

for tune , whi le s imul taneously mainta ining

a

belief

in personal control over important life

outcomes. If, on the other hand, the rape

victim blames herself characterologically, at-

t r i bu t ing

the victimization to more or less

unchangeable factors (e.g., I'm a weak person

and can't say so, I 'm the type of person who

attracts

rapists) ,

she will presumably be con-

siderably less likely

to

believe that

she is

capable of alleviating her vulnerability in the

fu tu r e and may begin to perceive herself as

a

chronic vict im.

Two studies were conducted in order to

test

the

usefulness

of the

distinction

be-

tween

behavioral

and

characterological

self-

blame

in the

areas

of

depression

and

rape.

Study

1 was

designed

to

de te rmine whe the r

characterological self-blame

is a

distinguish-

in g

characteristic

of

depressed individuals

and whether it co-occurs with decreased be-

liefs in personal control among female col-

lege students . Study 2 involved surveying

rape

crisis centers

across

the

country

in

order

to

determine which type

of

self -b lamebe-

havioral or

characterologicalmore

accu-

rately characterizes the reactions of rape vic-

tims served

by

these centers.

S tudy 1: Depression

Method

Subjects.

Subjec ts were

129

u n d e r g r a d u a t e

w o-

m en

at a

large s ta te univers i ty

w ho

were vo lun-

teers

d r a w n

f rom

a

n u m b e r

of

underg radu a te psy-

chology courses. Each received on e exper imen ta l

credit

for her

par t ic ipat ion . Responses from

9 of

th e subjects lacked m u c h da ta , an d these were el im-

inated from the analyses, leaving th e responses of

12 0

subjects.

Procedure,

D a t a

-

were col lected du r ing grou p

sessions that generally ranged from 10 to IS stu-

dents. Subjec ts

were

told that w e were in teres ted in

th e

rela t ionship betw een personal i ty var iables

and

artis t ic tas te , and that there would be three par ts

2

These data

were collected

by L a u r i e

Gunsolley

for

he r

senior

honors thesis, which w as designed

an d comple ted under the direction of the au thor .

While Gunsolley w as par t icular ly in teres ted in self-

esteem,

the data have been reanalyzed fo r this

presenta t ion , using the responses to the Zung Self-

Rating Depression Scale (1965) as the basis fo r

distinguishing

be tween

the two

groups

of

interest.


6/12


7/12

1804

R O N N I E J A N O F F - B U L M A N

summed score could range from a

total

of

0 to 24.

The

depressed

and nondepressed groups

did not differ in the

amou n t

of

blame they

at t r i bu ted to themselves in general, nor did

they differ

in the

amount

of

behavioral self-

b lame

reported, F l ,118) = 2 .47 , n s . How-

ever,

the

groups

did differ significantly in

the amount of characterological self-blame

reported, with more characterological self-

blame reported

by the

depressed than

th e

nondepressed group

(11.59

vs. 10.03), F(l,

118) =4.33, p


8/12

S E L F - B L A M E : D E P R E S S I O N A N D

R A P E

1805

ness characterized the depressed population,

suggesting that characterological self-blame is

esteem related,

not

control related.

The resul ts would have been considerably

more

compel l ing

if it

we re

found

that

those

students who were not depressed engaged in

more behavioral self-blame than depressed

students ,

ye t

this

was not the

case. However,

it can

perhaps

be

argued that

the

behavioral

self-blame reported by the depressed and

nondepressed populat ions differed in an im-

portant way; for the depressed group the be-

havioral

self-blame

co-occurred with char-

acterological

self-blame, and

blaming one's

behavior was thus an extension of blaming

one's character. It may be difficult to blame

one's character without blaming one's be-

havior, yet i t may be very possible to blame

one's behavior without blaming one's char-

acter .

In the

former

instance

the

behavior

m ay

be

regarded

as

uncontrol lable

in

that

it

is a direct and unalterable extension of one's

character (i.e., contro lled

by

one's

charac te r ) .

In the

latter case

the


does not

reflect

decreased self-esteem, but

ra ther the belief that one's behavior is mod-

ifiable.

Perhaps behavioral self-blame, when

displayed

in

conjunction with characterolog-

ical self-blame, is simply a

fur ther reflection

of characterological self-blame. However,

when

it occurs alone it is likely to represent

an adaptive response, stemming from a desire

to maintain a

belief

in personal control

follow-

ing a negative outcome.

Study 2:

R a p e

7

Method

Respondents.

Respondents we re rape

crisis

centers

located

th roughout the United

States.

Center names

were

derived

primarily

from

a list located in a

fed-

eral r epor t

on

rape

and its

victims (Brody aga

e t al.,

Note

3 ) ;

this

list w as

supplemented

by

names

of

rape crisis centers found in an

informal

directory at

a

local women's center . Services that were hotlines

only or were

task forces

without counseling services

were exc luded

f rom

the final list. Questionnaires were

mailed

to 120

centers representing

37 states and the

District of

Columbia. Thi r ty

of the questionnaires

were re turned

addressee

unknown. Of the r emain -

ing 90

crisis centers,

48

responded (53% r etu rn

rate ; inc luding those re turned

addressee

u n k n o w n ,

the r e t u rn

rate w as 4 0 % ) .

Questionnaire. In a

cover let ter

I identified

myself

as

a

social psychologist interested

in the

na tu r e

of

self-blame

among vic t ims of rape; le t ter recipients

were

asked

to

base their quest ionnaire responses

on

thei r

experiences as counselors of rape victims. The

questionnaire

i tems dealt

primari ly

wi th the issue of

se lf -b lame. Crisis centers were asked to indicate

approximate ly

how

many rape vict ims they

se e

yearly

and of those they see, the percentage who blame

themselves,

at

least

in

par t ,

for the rape. The be-

havioral se lf -b lame quest ion asked, Of the rape

vict ims you see, what percentage blame themselves

for th e

rape because

of

some behavior (act

or

omis-

sion) they engaged in at the t ime of or immediately

pr ior to the

rape

(e.g., 'I

should

not

have walked

alone, '

'I

should

not

have

hi tchhiked , ' 'I

should have

locked m y w i n d o w s ' )

?

T he rape crisis centers were

then asked

to

provide

specific

examples

of

behavioral

self-blame

related

by the

women they have coun-

seled.

The

c haracte rologica l self-blame qu est ion asked,

Of the rape

victims

yo u see, what

percentage

blame

themselves for the rape because of some charac te r

t r a i t or personal i ty flaw they believe they have (e.g.,

'I am so

s t u p i d ,

I

deserved

to be

raped , ' 'I'm

the

k ind

of

w o m a n

w ho

at t rac ts

rapists, '

'I

am a

weak

person

and can't say

no ' )? Specific

examples of this

type

of blame were then requested as well . The

centers

were

also asked to indicate on two 7-point

scales, with endpoints

almost not at al l an d com-

pletely, how

much se l f -b laming charac te r ized

the

women who engaged in behavioral and characterolog-

ical self-blame, respectively; this was included in

order

to

ascer ta in whether behavioral

and

character-

ological

self-blamers d i f f e r in

te rms

of the

a m o u n t

of

se l f -b lame they at t r ibute

to

themselves

for the

rape.

Results

Of the 48rape crisis centers that responded,

38

completed

the

qu estionnaire,

6

wrote let ters

providing general comm ents,

and 4

w rote that

they

did not

provide direct counseling services

and

were therefore unable

to complete th e

items. Results were therefore based on the

completed questionnaires of 38 centers. The

rape crisis centers differed markedly in the

scope of their operation, with the 3 smallest

serving

12, 30, and 40

rape vict ims

yearly,

and the 3

largest serving 1,200, 1,250,

an d

1,500;

the mean

n u m b e r

of rape victims seen

across

the

centers

was 335.

In

general,

self-blame w as

reported

as

quite

common; the

reported mean percentage

of

7

T he

results

of

this study were

reported by the

au thor at the symposium New Direct ions in Con-

trol

Research

at the

convention

of the

American

Psychological Association, Toronto, 1978.

T he

author

thanks Chr is

Eagan for her

invaluable help

on the

project .


9/12


10/12

SE L F-BL A M E : D E PR E SSI ON A N D R A PE

1807

they would have indicated quite simply that

women infre que ntly blame themselves. Fu r-

ther, there w as nothing in the questionnaire

or cover letter to indicate that one type of

self-blame

w as

"healthier"

than another,

an d

several counselors commented that they

had

never before distinguished between types of

self-blame

bu t

that

it

appeared interesting

to

them. Comments by the counselors indicated

that these women were concerned about

th e

health of thew omen they servedan d that pre-

serving a positive image of womanhood in

general was clearly not central to their activ-

ities

as

rape counselors.

The

second criticism

that could be raised is potentially more seri-

ous. It is that women who go to rape crisis

centers are most likely to be individuals w ho

do

not blame themselves characterologically

and do not feel they deserved to be

raped.

Thus , there is a self-selected population of

behavioral self-blamers served

by

rape crisis

centers.

It is

difficult

to

counter this claim,

for

there is probably much truth to i t . One must

realize, however, that the literature writ ten

on

rape is almost entirely derived

from

women

w ho

seek help

after

rape

and not

from

women

w hoquiet ly keep th e t rauma to them-

selves, ashamed to talk about it or admi t it.

The pervasiveness of self-blame documented

in

the

rape l i terature

is

drawn primari ly from

observations

of

women

at

rape crisis centers,

from women's centers,

or

from women

w ho

agree to be interviewedby researchers, also a

population likely to be self-selected. Thus, the

negative image of the rape victim engagingi n

masochistic,

maladaptive

self-blame derives

from

a

rape victim population likely

to be

very similar to that served by the rape crisis

centers surveyed. It might also be mentioned

that those women w ho have least difficulty

coping

wi th th e rape and who are apt to be

behavioral self-blamers

ar e

probably also

missing from the rape center

population,

fo r

they may not

require help (outside their

ow n

circle of family and fr iends) following the

rape. Perhaps it is

sufficient

to point out that

within

the population of women served by

rape crisis centers, self-blame

has

been

im -

properly understood

as

self-derogating,

re-

flecting the woman's belief in her own worth-

lessness, rather than as a response that

reflects a positive attempt to reestablish per-

sonalcontrol.

General

Conclusions and Imp lications

Self-blame appears to be a label for two

very different self-attributions, characterolog-

ical self-blame

being esteem

related, and be-

havioral self-b lam e being control related. Self-

blame as a

predictor

of

good coping

an d self-

blame as a concomitant of depression are no

longer inconsistent

in

light

of the two

types

of self -blame. Fu rther , the paradox in depres-

sionthat

individuals ar e simultaneously

helpless and self-blamingcan be resolved if

characterological self-blame characterizes de-

pressives an d differentiates them

from

non-

depressed individuals. The division of

self-

blame into tw o

different phenomena

even has

political or cultural implications, fo r

self-

blame by a victimized group such asrape vic-

t ims

can now be understood in such a manner

as to

preclude

the

perpetuation

of a

negative

image

of the group in question. It isperhaps

unfor tuna te

that one term has been used as

a

label

fo rthese tw odifferent self-attributions,

for

the

singular term

self-blame

b lu rs

im -

portant distinctions between adaptive

and

maladaptive responses to

failures

and vic-

timizations. Since popularly th e term has

negative connotations,

it

would perhaps

be

desirable to provide a more neutral label for

behavioral self-blame. Particularlyin the

case

of rape, this would render more politically

palatable the proposition that behavioral

self-blame is of

functional value

for

victims

of rape.

The recognition of two types of self-blame

m ay have therapeutic implications. Seligman's

( 197S) control-orientedstrategies continue to

seem appropriate for depressives, whose self-

blaming

does not imply high perceived con-

trol, but rather lack of control. Further, a

cognitive

therapy that entails reattributing

the

focus

of

one's

attributions

(e.g.,

from

character to behavior) might be of value in

treating depressives. In general, leading peo-

ple to focus on

behaviors that

are

alterable,

rather than on their relatively nonmodifiable,

more global character,

m ay

increase perceived

fu tu re

avoidability

of

negative events

an d


11/12

1808

R O N N I E J A N O F F - B U L M A N

perceived control

in

general, outcomes

that

would

presumably be of positive value.

Dweck 's

( 1 9 7 5 )

successful reat tribution train-

ing

with helpless students, involving reattrib-

uting

their abil i ty at tributions

for

failure

to

e f f o r t

attributions, suggests

the

potential

of

such cognitive strategies using self-blame.

In the

case

of

rape,

th e

control concerns

that may be implici t in the rape vict im's

self-

b lame

often

seem

to be

ignored

in

counseling,

not because they are regarded as unimpor tant ,

but because they

may go

unrecognized.

One

counseling technique

fo rrapevictims

includes

repeatedly tel l ing a woman

that

there is noth-

in g

she could have done to avoid th e

rape,

that

i t was

ent i re ly

the rapist 's

doing

and

out-

side

of her

control . Although meant

to be

reassuring, these

statements

could conceiv-

ably

be not at all helpful , in

light

of the

proposition that the women are seeking to re-

establish a sense of control. Rather, counselors

should perhaps

recognize

the functional

value

o f


and

concent ra te

on

enabl ing the victim to reestablish a

belief

in

he r

relat ive control over

l i f e

outcomes (e.g.,

discussing

possible ways of minimiz ing the

likelihood

of a

fu t u r e rape ) .

T oo

of ten ,

be-

havioral

self-b lam e is regarded as de trim ental

to

mental

health . Rather , i t may

serve

as an

indicator

of the

victim's psychological needs

at the

t ime.

Behavioral and characterological self-blame

appear

to be

dist inct react ions

yet are far

from fully understood. Ideas

raised in

this

pape r have been tested only w ith female sub-

jects and thus may not generalize to other

populat ions; this issue

of

generalizabil i ty par-

t icular ly

calls

fo r

research w ith male sub jects.

Fu r t he r ,

the

relat ionship between

the two

types

of

self -b lame

would appear to be a

f r u i t f u l

area

for fu t u r e

study. Does behavioral

self-blame that occurs with characterological

self-blame,

fo r

example, lose

it s

adaptive

value,or is it

similar

to

behavioral blame that

occurs

without characterological self-blame?

Is c haracterological self-blam e that occurs

without

behavioral self-blame more or less

m aladaptive than c haracterological self-blam e

that occurs with behavioral self-blame?

In

addition, longitudinal studies designed

to tap

the

coping implicat ions

of

these

two

types

of

self-blame would be

important cont r ibut ions

to our unders tanding of the relat ionship be-

tween coping and at tributional strategies.

Another

possible direction lies

in the

area

of

blaming

strategies by help-givers. Brickman

and his

colleagues (Brickman

et al. ,

Note

4 )

have presented a compelling case fo r the psy-

chological tensions

that

exist between condi-

t ions

that

render helping appropriate (i .e .,

regarding the

recipient

of

help

as not

respon-

sible) and

condit ions

that

render helping

effective (i .e. , at t rib utin g responsibili ty to

the

recipient

of he lp) .That is, one is apt to

help

an

individual

who is not to

blame

for a

misfor tune ,

yet this a t t r ibut ion minimizes the

belief

that one's help

will be effective.

Per-

haps training both help-givers

and

recipients

o f help to hold behavioral blame orientat ions

(as opposed to characterological blame orien-

ta t ions) would help resolve

the

existing ten-

sions. Last,

the

therapeutic implicat ions

of

the two

types

of self-blamebehavioral and

characterologicalremain an

area ripe

fo r

f u t u r e

s tudy.

Refe rence

Notes

1 . B r y a n t ,

G., & Cirel, P.

A

communi ty response

to

rape:

An

exemplary project Polk County Rape/

Sexual Assault Care

Center).

Washington, D.C.:

Nat ional Inst i tu te of Law En force m ent and Cr im-

inal Jus t ice , 1977.

2 . Haley, W. E., &S t r i c k l and , B. R. Locus

of

control

and depression. Paper presented at the meeting

o f th e

Eastern Psychological Association, Boston,

1977.

3. Brodyaga, L., Gates,

M .,

Singer ,

S .,

T u c k e r ,

M .,

White , R. Rape

and its

victims:

A

report

fo r

citizens, health facilities, and criminal justice

agencies.

W ashington, D.C. : Nat iona l Inst i tu te

of

L aw E n f o r c e m e n t and

Cr iminal Just ice , 1975.

4.

Br ickman,

P. ,

Rabinowitz,

V. C. ,

Coates,

D .,

C ohn ,

E., Kidder , L ., & Karuza , J . Helping. Unpub l i shed

manusc r i p t ,

Univers i ty of Michigan, 1979.

References

Abramson, L. Y. , & Sackeim, H. A . A paradox in de-

pression: Uncont ro l lab i l i ty and se l f -b lame. Psycho-

logical

Bulletin,

1 9 7 7 ,

84,

838-8S1.

Abramson , L . Y. , Se l igman, M. E. P., & Teasdale,

J . D. Learned helplessness in humans : Cr i t i que

an d

r e fo rmu la t ion . Journal

of

Abnormal

Psychol-

ogy, 1978,

87 ,

49-74 .

A m i r ,

M .

Pat terns

in forcible rape. Chicago, 111.: Uni-

versity of Chicago Press, 1971.


12/12

SELF-BLAME: DEPRESSION AND RAPE

1809

Bard, N., &Ellison, K. Crisis intervention an d inves-

tigation of forcible rape.

The

Police Chief, 1974,

41 , 68-73.

Beck,

A. T. Depression:

Clinical, experimental, and

theoretical aspects. New York: Harper & Row,

1967.

Bowers,

K.

Pain, anxiety,

and

perceived control .

Journal

of

Consulting

an d

Clinical Psychology,

1968, 32 , 596-602.

Brownmil ler ,

S .

Against

our

wil l: Men,

women, and

rape.

Ne w

York : S imon

&

Schuster,1975.

Bulman ,

R . J . , & W ortm an, . B. At t r ibu t ions of

blame

and coping in the real wor ld : S evere acci-

dent victims react to their lot.

Journal of Per-

sonality and Social Psychology,

1977 ,

35 , 351-363.

Burgess,

A. W., &

Holmst rom,

L. L.

Rape t rauma

syndrome.

American Journal of Psychiatry,

1974,

131,

981-985. (a )

Burgess, A.

W .,

& Holmstrom, L. L.

Rape:

Victims

o crisis.

Bowie, Md.: Rob ert

J .

Brady, 1974.

(b)

Burgess, A . W ., &Holmst rom, L. L. Coping behavior

o f the rape vict im. American Journal of Psy-

chiatry,

1976,

133,413-318.

Dweck , C. S. The role of expectations and

attribu-

tions in the alleviation of learned helplessness.

Journal of Personality an d Social Psychology,

1975,

31 , 674-685.

Eagly, A. H. Involvement as a de t e rminant of re-

sponse to

favorable

and

unfavorable

informa t ion .

Journal of Personality an d Social Psychology

Monograph,

1967, 7(3, Pt. 2).

Elig,

T.,

& Frieze, I. A mult idimensional scheme for

coding

an d inter ject ing

perceived causality

fo r

success and

failure

events: The coding scheme of

perceived

causa l i ty (CSPC).

JSAS: Catalog of

Selected Documents in Psychology, 1975, 5, 313.

(Ms.

No.

1069)

Glass,

D., &

Singer,

J .

Urban stress.

New

York :

Academic Press,

1972.

Griffin, S. Rape : T he a i l-Am erican cr ime. Ramparts

Magazine, 1971, 10 ,

26-35.

Harvey,

M . D ., &

Rule,

B. G.

Moral evaluat ions

an d

judgments of responsibility.

Personality and Social

Psychology

Bulletin,

1978,

4,

583-588.

Hilberman, E. Rape: The ult imate violat ion of the

self.

American Journal of Psychiatry,

1976,

133,

436-437.

Hursch, C. H. Th e trouble with rape.

Chicago:

Nelson-Hall, 1977.

Kelley,

H. H. Attribution in social interaction.

M or -

ristown, N.J.: Ge neral Le arning Press, 1971.

Langer, E.

J.,

&

Rodin,

J. The effects of choice and

enhanced responsibility for the aged: A field ex-

per iment

in an

inst i tu t ional set t ing.

Journal of

Personality and Social

Psychology,

1976, 33 ,

951-

955.

Lerner ,

M . J . , & M iller, D. T.

J us t

world research

and the

attribution process: Looking back

an d

ahead.

Psychological

Bulletin,

1978,

85 ,

1030-1051.

Medea, A.,

&

T hompson,

K.

Against rape.

Ne w

Y o r k :

Far ra r ,

Strauss

&

G iroux , 1974.

National

Commission

on the

Causes

an d

Prevent ion

o f Violence.Crimes of violence (Vol .2 ). Washing-

ton, D.C. : U.S. G overn m ent Print ing O f f i c e ,

1969.

Nunnal ly , J . C . Psychometric

theory.

N e w Y ork :

McG raw-Hi l l , 1967.

Rot te r , J. B. G eneralized expectancies for internal

versus

externa l cont rol of

re inforcement .

Psycho-

logical

Monographs,

1966,

80 1,

W hol e No. 609) .

Schulz, R .

Effects

of

cont rol

an d

predictabil i ty

on the

physical and

psycho logical well-being

of the

insti-

tutionalized aged. Journal of Personality an d Social

Psychology, 1976,33 , 563-573.

Seligman, M. E. P. Helplessness:

O n

depression,

de-

velopment and death.

San Francisco: Freeman,

1975.

Spielberger, C. D. Anxiety as an

emotional state.

In

C . D. Spie lberger (Ed. ) , Anxiety: Current trends

in theory and research (Vol .

1 ).

New Y o r k :

Academic Press, 197 2.

Walster, E.

Assignment

o f

responsibility

for an

acci-

dent . Journal of Personality an d Social Psychology,

1966,

3, 73-79.

Weiner , B.

Achievement

motivation

as

c onceptua l ized

by an

a t t r ibu t ion theoris t .

In B.

Weine r

(Ed . ) ,

Achievement

Motivat ion and attribution theory.

Morris town,

N.J. :

General

Learning Press, 1974.

Weiner, B.,

Frieze , L,

Kuk la , A .,

Reed,

L .,

Rest,

S.,

R ose nba u m,

R. M. Perceiving th e causes of suc-

cess

and

failure. New

York: Genera l Learning

Press, 1971.

Weis, K., & Weis, S. Vict imology and the justifica-

tion of

rape.

In I.

Drapk in

& E .

Viano

(Eds.) ,

Exploiters and exploited: Vol.

/

Victimology: A

new focus.

Lexington,

Mass.: Lex ington Books,

1975.

Wortman , C .

B.,

& Dintzer , L. Is an a t t r i bu t iona l

analysis

of the

learned helplessness phenomenon

viable?

A cr i t ique of the

Abramson-Seligman-

Teasdale

reformula t ion.

Journal

of

Abnormal Psy-

chology,

1978, 87 , 75-90.

Zung, W. K. A

self-rating depression scale.

Archives

o

General Psychiatry,

1965,

12 , 63-70.

Rece ived November

21 ,

1978