Characterological versus behavioral self-blame: Inquiries into depression and rape.

Abstract

Two types of self-blame--behavioral and characterological--are distinguished. Behavioral self-blame is control related, involves attributions to a modifiable source (one's behavior), and is associated with a belief in the future avoidability 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 outcomes. Two studies are reported that bear on this self-blame distinction. In the first study, it was found that depressed female college students engaged in more characterologial self-blame than nondepressed female college students, whereas behavioral self-blame did not differ between the two groups; the depressed population was also characterized by greater attributions to chance and decreased beliefs in personal control. Characterological self-blame is proposed as a possible solution to the "paradox in depression." In a second study, rape crisis centers were surveyed. Behavioral self-blame, and not characterological 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 future avoidability of rape. Implications of this self-blame distinction and potential directions for future research are discussed.

The role of self-blame and responsibility in adjustment to inflammatory bowel disease.

“…In the current study, these two attributions were related, such that those who blamed themselves felt responsible for their illness and vice versa, which is consistent with previous conceptualizations of these constructs (Shaver & Drown, 1986). The differences between self-blame and responsibility attributions are similar to those noted by Janoff-Bulman (1979) between characterological and behavioral self-blame. Participants who attributed the source of the blame for their state of health to themselves and not their behavior reported greater use of avoidant coping strategies, less acceptance of the limitations and difficulties that come with living with a chronic illness and coped less effectively with illness-related stress.…”

“…If the source of the blame was their own behaviour, participants attributed responsibility for their state of health and reported using few avoidant coping methods, greater acceptance of the imitations and difficulties that come with living with a chronic illness, and coping more effectively with illness-related stress. This echoes the findings of other research linking self-blame to poor adjustment (Chaney et al, 1996;Glinder & Compas, 1999;Janoff-Bulman, 1979;Sainsbury & Heatley, 2005;Ullman, 1997).…”

“…A more nuanced view of self-blame was first proposed by Janoff-Bulman (1979) who suggested that self-blame can be conceptualized in two ways which are distinguished by the source of the blame. She posited that blaming one's character or disposition was a form of characterological self-blame that is associated with maladaptive outcomes as it focused on a source that could not be changed or controlled.…”

Counterfactual thinking and functional differences in depression

“…In other words, depressed people frequently perceive the causes of negative events as features of their character or native abilities. Thinking counterfactually about features that cannot be easily changed has no cognitive or behavioural benefi t. It may even become self-defeating when a counterfactual related negative emotion like guilt is erroneously directed to the self (Alicke, 2000;Davis, Lehman, Silver, Wortman, & Ellard, 1996;Janoff-Bulman, 1979;Sherman & McConnell, 1995). This scenario is most likely to occur in severely depressed individuals whose motivation may be low to seek for control in different aspects of their lives.…”

“…However, in a recent study, Markman and Miller (2006) found that individuals who endorse a relatively mild-to-moderate depressive symptom level gain no psychological benefi t from focusing on how they could have prevented a negative outcome. It seems that with an increase in depression level, upward counterfactuals become more and more dysfunctional, that is, more uncontrollable and more characterological in the Janoff- Bulman (1979) sense, in which guilt is related to aspects of the self and actions by the self.…”