Explaining differences in causal attributions of patient and non-patient samples

Abstract

Patients and non-patients are reported to make different attributions for the causes of myocardial infarction (MI). Two hypotheses (i.e. an actor—observer difference and one based on method differences) for these differences were tested in two studies, with general public and MI patient samples. Respondents' causal attributions were compared according to whether they were for (a) MI in general, (b) their own MI (hypothetical, for the general public sample), and (c) a specific others' hypothetical MI. In both studies, attributions about MI in general were distinct from attributions about respondents' own MI and a specific others' MI, which were similar. The results were more consistent with an explanation based on method differences, than on actor—observer differences. This suggests that some findings that have been explained in terms of actor—observer differences may instead be due to linguistic factors, and highlights the importance of specificity in measures of causal attributions.

Acknowledgement

David French was funded by a Wellcome Trust Prize Studentship (Reference Number 047585/Z/96/Z) while this work was conducted. Theresa Marteau was funded by The Wellcome Trust. We are grateful to the patients in Greenwich who agreed to take part in Study Two.