This study confirms the self-defensive attribution hypothesis on causal attributions of accidents in Ghana's work environment. In this investigation, Ghanaian industrial workers and their supervisors assigned causality to industrial accidents, and their responses were compared. The results showed that the victims attributed their accidents to external causes to a greater extent than did the supervisors, and to internal causes to a lesser extent than did the supervisors. This finding reflects the tendency toward self-protective bias, whereby people tend to project blame for their failures onto external circumstances.In the execution of job assignments, employees often encounter negative performance outcomes that lead to information search and attribution formulation. These causal explanations help people to find remedies that are used to prevent future accidents from happening. The importance of being able to explain and predict such accidents has led to a number of studies on attribution explorations. However, the research results on causal attributions have often provided evidence of self-serving and ego-protecting biases.These attributional distortions are rather common in novel and ambiguous situations (Wong & Weiner, 1981), where one is faced with multiple causal agents, as in the case of industrial accidents (DeJoy, 1985(DeJoy, , 1990Turner & Pidgeon, 1997). As industrial accidents tend to afford fertile ground for causal and responsibility attributional distortions and biases, the work environment therefore seems to be the appropriate domain to examine evidence of causal attribution biases and distortions. An example of such attributional distortion occurs when people make use of self-protective mechanisms to project blame for their personal failures onto external circumstances. This has been labeled the selfdefensive attribution hypothesis (Shaver, 1970a;Walster, 1966).