View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Mediating and Moderating Role of Attributional Style in the Association between Victimisation and Wellbeing

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Mediating and Moderating Role of Attributional Style in the Association between Victimisation and Wellbeing
Language: English
Authors: Goldsmid, Susan, Howie, Pauline
Source: Emotional & Behavioural Difficulties. 2013 18(4):423-434.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 12
Publication Date: 2013
Document Type: Reports - Research
Journal Articles
Descriptors: Victims, Well Being, Attribution Theory, Emotional Disturbances, Correlation, Bullying, Role, Prediction, Mental Health, Measures (Individuals), Risk, Introductory Courses, Psychology, Undergraduate Students, Foreign Countries, Student Attitudes, Anxiety, Depression (Psychology), Regression (Statistics), Stress Variables, Questionnaires
Geographic Terms: Australia
Assessment and Survey Identifiers: Attribution Style Questionnaire
DOI: 10.1080/13632752.2013.803682
ISSN: 1363-2752
Abstract: This study examined whether attributional style for negative events plays a mediating or moderating role in the association between victimisation by bullying and psychological distress in young adults. A total of 127 undergraduate students completed the Attributional Style Questionnaire, a newly developed Victimisation and Bullying Inventory and the Psychological Distress subscale from the Mental Health Inventory. As expected, the tendency to attribute negative events to internal, stable and global causes predicted higher psychological distress. There was also a positive association between extent of victimisation and psychological distress. Although attributional style did not mediate in this relationship, there was evidence of moderation. Individuals with more negative attributional styles showed a clear association between victimisation and psychological distress, while those with less negative styles showed no association. These results suggest that a tendency towards a negative attributional style may increase the risk of psychological distress in victims of bullying.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 23
Entry Date: 2014
Accession Number: EJ1021395
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFu5EcGOrT9gCQeYO5WYLB7AAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDBLvMJI2lFO7Cr4dlwIBEICBmnTkqovxFDK9wu1C82UfrRJaX4L0sMm5ZPXjkHp1rLLTU4YqnqZMm5JPImYWBeDi_17LhiCFtcxN6iyp4OlNbjAcvAtgDV_voUY5IWL-nuwQpE-xKv0gLFvW3sy-YNbnup5bI9eybGxDMQdpyiwzHGmNuI2fVj9nkRKXzka04YWw81ZgeTdu_hBAYBRBSkb1WeKGkciye1ENu4k=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0090823329;grv01dec.13;2019Apr01.12:20;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0090823329-1">Mediating and moderating role of attributional style in the association between victimisation and wellbeing. </title> <p>This study examined whether attributional style for negative events plays a mediating or moderating role in the association between victimisation by bullying and psychological distress in young adults. A total of 127 undergraduate students completed the Attributional Style Questionnaire, a newly developed Victimisation and Bullying Inventory and the Psychological Distress subscale from the Mental Health Inventory. As expected, the tendency to attribute negative events to internal, stable and global causes predicted higher psychological distress. There was also a positive association between extent of victimisation and psychological distress. Although attributional style did not mediate in this relationship, there was evidence of moderation. Individuals with more negative attributional styles showed a clear association between victimisation and psychological distress, while those with less negative styles showed no association. These results suggest that a tendency towards a negative attributional style may increase the risk of psychological distress in victims of bullying.</p> <p>Keywords: victimisation; attributional style; psychological distress; bullying</p> <hd id="AN0090823329-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Research has consistently shown a robust association between being bullied and an increased risk to emotional and physical health (Williams et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref1">23</reflink>]) across both sexes, across a wide range of ages and using various methods of assessment (for a review see Hawker and Boulton [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref2">11</reflink>]). However, there is much still to be known about the mechanisms underlying this relationship. It has been noted that individual responses to comparable levels of victimisation vary greatly, possibly due to individual vulnerabilities (Rigby [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref3">19</reflink>]). Identification of variables that may explain such individual differences has become a goal for many researchers of bullying. This is important both for theoretical and for practical reasons, as intervention and support for victims is unlikely to be effective unless it is based on a sound understanding of the routes by which different individuals might respond to and deal with victimisation. One individual difference variable that deserves consideration, but which has received very little attention, is attributional style.</p> <p>Attributional style is a cognitive personality variable that reflects how individuals habitually explain events in their lives (Sanjuan et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref4">21</reflink>]). Abramson, Seligman, and Teasdale ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref5">1</reflink>]) and Peterson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref6">17</reflink>]) have proposed that negative outcomes following uncontrollable negative events are more pronounced if an individual's causal attributions show three characteristics: first, the individual perceives the event as caused by something about themselves, such as lack of effort (internal attribution), rather than something about the situation, such as task difficulty (external attribution); second, the individual attributes the event to a non-transient factor (stable attribution), such as lack of ability, as opposed to a transient factor (unstable attribution), such as luck; third, the individual attributes the event to a global factor that is present in a variety of situations (global attribution), rather than a specific or circumscribed cause (specific attribution). A relatively consistent tendency to make such causal attributions (i.e., internal, stable and global) has been labelled a negative attributional style (Sanjuan et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref7">21</reflink>]). This has been argued to underpin learned helplessness, in that it engenders the expectation that similar negative events will reoccur, which in turn generates helplessness (Abramson, Seligman, and Teasdale [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref8">1</reflink>]). Consistent with this account, a negative attributional style has been shown to be associated with depression (e.g., Calvete, Villardon, and Estevez [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref9">6</reflink>]), anxiety (e.g., Ralph and Mineka [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref10">18</reflink>]), higher negative affect and lower positive affect (e.g., Sanjuan et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref11">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>There are three ways in which attributional style might impact upon the association between level of victimisation and psychological outcomes. First, severity of victimisation and attributional style may simply make independent contributions to wellbeing outcomes. Second, the strength of the association between severity of victimisation and outcomes may depend on the extent to which the individual makes internal, stable and global attributions. That is, attributional style may <emph>moderate</emph> the association between victimisation and its psychological outcomes. If so, the association would be expected to be stronger in individuals with high internal/stable/global attributions. Third, a negative attributional style may play a <emph>mediating</emph> role. That is, rather than directly impacting on psychological outcomes, the experience of victimisation might elicit maladaptive negative attributions, which in turn impact adversely on psychological outcomes.</p> <p>The role that attributional style plays in the association between victimisation by bullying and psychological outcomes has not, to the authors' knowledge, been previously examined. However, research in related areas provides some relevant evidence. For example, Sanjuan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref12">21</reflink>]) reported that within an early post-school sample, individuals expressing negative attributional styles—that is, a tendency to explain a set of hypothetical negative events through internal, stable and global causes—reported higher negative affect and lower positive affect. Consistent with this finding, research on abused children and adolescents suggests that the victim's perception of their abuse has an impact on the development of symptoms. Negative attributional style in abused children has been reported to be associated with wellbeing deficits, such as post-trauma distress and depression (Feiring, Taska, and Lewis [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref13">8</reflink>]; Kress and Vandenberg [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref14">15</reflink>]; Runyon and Kenny [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref15">20</reflink>]), and Brown and Kolko ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref16">5</reflink>]) found that in physically abused children, attributional style contributed to the prediction of outcomes independently of severity of abuse.</p> <p>There do not appear to have been any studies that have directly investigated whether attributions play a moderating role in the association between severity of negative events and psychological outcomes. However, evidence suggesting mediation was reported by Feiring, Taska, and Lewis ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref17">8</reflink>]), who found that when predicting depression in sexually abused children and adolescents, adding attributional style as a predictor reduced the predictive power of frequency of abuse, a key criterion for the presence of mediation (Keith [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref18">14</reflink>]). This finding suggested that the association between abuse frequency and depression was not direct, but was rather the result of an association between frequency of abuse and negative attributional style, which in turn predicted depression. A recent study on domestic violence provides further evidence of the potential mediating role of attributional style. In a sample of battered women, Bargai, Ben-Shakhar, and Shalev ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref19">3</reflink>]) examined a number of psychological components of learned helplessness, including perceptions of degree of control over problems and beliefs about self-efficacy. They found that learned helplessness mediated domestic violence exposure's contribution to the prediction of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and major depression. That is, similar to the findings of Feiring, Taska, and Lewis ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref20">8</reflink>]), the association between severity of violence and risk of PTSD and major depression appeared to be indirect, the result of an association between severity of violence and learned helplessness, which in turn predicted increased risk. It is not known whether a similar association exists for more general forms of bullying, such as might occur in school-age or young adult populations. Nevertheless, Bargai et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref21">3</reflink>]) finding emphasizes the importance of understanding how perceptions and beliefs may modulate the relationship between aggression and psychological outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0090823329-3">Purpose of the study</hd> <p>The main objective of the present study was to examine the possible mediating or moderating role of negative attributional style in the association between victimisation by bullying and psychological distress, in an Australian early post-school sample. Based on previous research and the theoretical accounts proposed by Abramson, Seligman, and Teasdale ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref22">1</reflink>]) and Peterson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref23">17</reflink>]), it was hypothesized that a tendency to attribute negative events to internal, stable and global causes would be associated with increased psychological distress. It was further expected that if attributional style acts as a <emph>mediator</emph> between victimisation and psychological distress, greater victimisation would predict a greater tendency towards a negative attributional style, which in turn would predict greater psychological distress. Following Keith's (2006) criteria for mediation, it was expected that level of victimisation would be positively associated with psychological distress, but after controlling for attributional style in a regression analysis, victimisation would show no or reduced predictive power. Alternatively, if attributional style acted as a <emph>moderating</emph> variable, it was expected that an interaction between attributional style and level of victimisation would occur, in that the greater the individual's tendency to show a negative attributional style, the stronger the association between victimisation and psychological distress would be.</p> <hd id="AN0090823329-4">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0090823329-5">Participants</hd> <p>Participants were 127 students enrolled in an introductory psychology course at the University of Sydney, Australia in their second semester of study. They were participating in a large-scale study of victimisation and bullying behaviour in multiple post-school contexts (Goldsmid [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref24">9</reflink>]). There were 32 males and 94 females (1 gender not indicated), aged between 17 and 24 years (<emph>M</emph> = 18.66, SD = 1.05).</p> <p>Participants were recruited via an advertisement, as part of a wide range of research projects in which students could participate in exchange for partial fulfilment of their course requirement. The study was described as concerning 'life as a student'. No mention of bullying or victimisation was made in the advertised description, in order to avoid any self-selection by bullies or victims of bullying. Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee.</p> <hd id="AN0090823329-6">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0090823329-7">Attributional style</hd> <p>This was assessed using the Attributional Style Questionnaire (ASQ). This measures self-reported individual differences in the three attributional dimensions noted earlier: internal–external, stable–unstable and global–specific (Peterson et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref25">17</reflink>]). The ASQ presents six hypothetical 'bad' events appropriate to young adults (e.g. 'You go out on a date and it goes badly'), then asks respondents to generate a cause for each event and then rate that cause on seven-point scales of internality, stability and globality (Hewitt, Foxcroft, and MacDonald [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref26">13</reflink>]). Attributional Style for Negative Events (ASNE) scores are calculated by averaging the three ratings for each of the six events, resulting in a composite score with a potential range from 3 to 21. High scores reflect an internal, stable and global style and low scores reflect an external, unstable and specific style (Sanjuan et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref27">21</reflink>]). The ASQ has good internal consistency (Peterson et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref28">17</reflink>]), test-retest reliability (Golin, Sweeney, and Shaeffer [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref29">10</reflink>]) and construct validity (Hewitt, Foxcroft, and MacDonald [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref30">13</reflink>]). In the current sample, the alpha coefficient for the ASNE scale was.83.</p> <hd id="AN0090823329-8">Victimisation score</hd> <p>Exposure to specific bullying acts was measured using the Victimisation and Bullying Inventory (VBI). This was developed by Goldsmid ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref31">9</reflink>]) for use with young adults in post-school settings. It has been used in a large-scale research project designed to address the nature of involvement in victimisation and bullying behaviour across several contexts (contact author for details), of which the present study forms a small part. The measure consists of 29 items that describe verbal, physical, relational and property-related behaviours that could be perceived as bullying if they occurred on a regular basis (e.g. 'I have been gossiped about'; 'I have been verbally threatened by someone'). Each item is presented once from the victim's perspective and once from the bully's perspective, resulting in two 29-item scales. There is no explicit use of the term 'bullying'. Table 1 shows example items. Respondents are asked how frequently they have experienced/engaged in each behaviour in the preceding six months. Responses are coded 0 ('never'), 1 ('almost never'), 2 ('once in a while'), 3 ('often') and 4 ('almost always').</p> <p>Table 1. Example victimisation and bullying items from the Victimisation and Bullying Inventory</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td><italic>Victimisation Item</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>I have been deliberately ignored</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>Never</italic></td><td><italic>Almost never</italic></td><td><italic>Once in a while</italic></td><td><italic>Often</italic></td><td><italic>Almost always</italic></td></tr><tr><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 1. Example victimisation and bullying items from the Victimisation and Bullying Inventory</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td><italic>Bullying item</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>I have intimidated someone</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>Never</italic></td><td><italic>Almost never</italic></td><td><italic>Once in a while</italic></td><td><italic>Often</italic></td><td><italic>Almost always</italic></td></tr><tr><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>A particular strength of the VBI is that it generates separate measures of concurrent victimisation and bullying involvement in three post-school contexts (tertiary educational institution, home and workplace). Participants completed the victimisation and bullying scales first in reference to the university context, then the work context and finally the home context. The order was the same for all participants, to allow comparability between participants. The measure yields separate victimisation and bullying scores for each context. Following the procedure commonly used in the literature (e.g. Bosworth, Espelage, and Simon [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref32">4</reflink>]; Marsh et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref33">16</reflink>]), the victimisation score was calculated as the sum of frequency ratings across all 29 victimisation items and the bullying score as the sum of frequency ratings across all 29 bullying items. The maximum score in both cases was 116. A composite victimisation score was calculated by averaging the victimisation scores for all three contexts. A corresponding composite bullying score was also calculated. Thus the composite scores reflect both the frequency and the variety of victimisation (or bullying) behaviours experienced across the university, work and home contexts in the preceding six months.</p> <p>In the present study, only the composite victimisation score was used. Correlations between victimisation scores for all three contexts were significant (<emph>r</emph> =.32,.16 and.24 for home with work, home with university and work with university, respectively, all <emph>p</emph> <.05). Internal consistency was high (Cronbach's alpha =.84,.74 and.86 for university, work and home respectively; Goldsmid [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref34">9</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0090823329-9">Psychological distress</hd> <p>This was measured using the Psychological Distress subscale from the Mental Health Inventory (Hays, Sherbourne, and Mazel [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref35">12</reflink>]). This consists of 22 items measuring anxiety, depression and loss of behavioural/emotional control in the previous month (e.g. 'How often has feeling depressed interfered with what you usually do?': 1 = Always to 6 = Never). The ratings were summed and then transformed following Hays, Sherbourne, and Mazel's ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref36">12</reflink>]) procedure, resulting in a possible range of 0–100. The subscale has good validity, internal consistency and test-retest reliability (Hays, Sherbourne, and Mazel [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref37">12</reflink>]; Veit and Ware [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref38">22</reflink>]). In the current sample, the alpha coefficient for this subscale was.94. Higher scores on the scale represent greater levels of wellbeing. This is somewhat counter-intuitive, as high scores correspond to low psychological distress. However, given that this is an established measure, the scoring was not reversed for the present study.</p> <hd id="AN0090823329-10">Procedure</hd> <p>Participants completed the questionnaire battery online using a home or campus computer at a convenient time within a two-week period. The online delivery was programmed such that the ASQ was completed first, followed by the Psychological Distress scale, and lastly the three scales of the VBI. After consenting to participate, students were sent access instructions, a URL and password. To allow allocation of course credit, students entered their identification numbers and email addresses in such a way that they were clearly separate from the responses to the questionnaire. In addition, students were assured that their responses were completely confidential and that all identifying information would be removed prior to data inspection and stored separately.</p> <hd id="AN0090823329-11">Results</hd> <p>Table 2 shows descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for the analysed variables. Although scores on the three ASQ dimensions were not included in the main analysis, they are of interest and are therefore included here. There were no significant gender differences in any of the variables. Victimisation and ASNE scores were significantly negatively correlated with psychological distress. That is, both victimisation and a stronger tendency towards a negative attributional style were significantly associated with higher reported levels of psychological distress (lower psychological distress scores).</p> <p>Table 2. Means, standard deviations and bivariate correlations for the variables</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Mean</td><td>SD</td><td>2. PD</td><td>3. ASNE</td><td>4. ASNE I</td><td>5. ASNE S</td><td>6. ASNE G</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1. Victimisation</td><td>4.34</td><td>4.06</td><td>−.26**</td><td>.06</td><td>.15</td><td>.10</td><td>.15</td></tr><tr><td>2. Psychological distress</td><td>70.88</td><td>15.40</td><td>−</td><td>−.54**</td><td>−.38**</td><td>−.39**</td><td>−.46**</td></tr><tr><td>3. ASNE</td><td>57.61</td><td>11.55</td><td /><td>−</td><td>.67**</td><td>.75**</td><td>.71**</td></tr><tr><td>4. ASNE internality</td><td>4.62</td><td>.76</td><td /><td /><td>−</td><td>.61**</td><td>.54**</td></tr><tr><td>5. ASNE stability</td><td>4.10</td><td>.95</td><td /><td /><td /><td>−</td><td>.75**</td></tr><tr><td>6. ASNE globality</td><td>3.67</td><td>1.08</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>−</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 **Significant at the 0.01 level.</p> <p>In order to test for moderation and mediation, we conducted a hierarchical regression analysis, with psychological distress as the dependent variable. In the analysis, gender and victimisation score were entered in Step 1, ASNE score in Step 2 and interaction effects (Gender × ASNE and ASNE × victimisation) in Step 3. All variables were mean-centred and gender was contrast coded (male –.5, female.5). Preliminary analyses showed no interaction between gender and victimisation, so this interaction term was not included in the main analyses.</p> <p>Table 3. Regression analysis predicting psychological distress from victimisation, negative attributional style (ASNE score) and gender</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Independent variables</td><td><italic>b</italic></td><td>SE<sub>b</sub></td><td>β</td><td>t</td><td>R<sup>2</sup></td><td>ΔR<sup>2</sup></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Model 1</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>.07*</td><td>.07*</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td>−2.85</td><td>3.14</td><td>−.08</td><td>−.91</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Victimisation</td><td>−1.00</td><td>.34</td><td>−.27**</td><td>−2.99</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Model 2</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>.35**</td><td>.28**</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td>−3.46</td><td>2.64</td><td>−.10</td><td>−1.31</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Victimisation</td><td>−.88</td><td>.28</td><td>−.23**</td><td>−3.11</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>ASNE</td><td>−.70</td><td>.10</td><td>−.53**</td><td>−7.09</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Model 3</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>.39**</td><td>.04*</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td>−3.80</td><td>2.58</td><td>−.11</td><td>−1.47</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Victimisation</td><td>−.88</td><td>.28</td><td>−.23**</td><td>−3.17</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>ASNE</td><td>−.74</td><td>.13</td><td>−.56**</td><td>−5.89</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Gender × ASNE</td><td>.32</td><td>.24</td><td>.12</td><td>1.33</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Victimisation × ASNE</td><td>−.04</td><td>.02</td><td>−.17*</td><td>−2.20</td><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>5 Notes: Lower psychological distress scores correspond to higher levels of psychological distress; *significant at the 0.05 level; **significant at the 0.01 level.</p> <p>Table 3 shows the results of the regression predicting psychological distress. R<sups>2</sups> for the third model was significant, with 39% of the variance in psychological distress scores accounted for, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref39">5</reflink>, 114) = 14.75, <emph>p</emph> <.001. The inclusion of interaction terms in the model significantly increased the variance accounted for (ΔR<sups>2</sups> =.04, <emph>p</emph> <.05). In Model 3, both victimisation and ASNE scores made independent contributions to the prediction of psychological distress. That is, participants who reported a tendency to attribute negative events to internal/stable/global causes reported greater psychological distress (lower scores). In addition, higher victimisation scores were associated with greater psychological distress. There was also a significant interaction between ASNE and victimisation. In order to examine the nature of this interaction, victimisation scores were plotted against psychological distress scores for participants falling above and below the ASNE sample mean (i.e. those reporting a relatively high and a relatively low negative attributional style). Figure 1 shows the resulting scattergram, with lines of best fit for the two ASNE groups. Higher victimisation scores were associated with greater psychological distress (lower scores) for individuals above the ASNE mean (<emph>r</emph> = −.41, <emph>p</emph> <.01), but not for those below the mean (<emph>r</emph> = −.05, <emph>p</emph> >.05). This supports the prediction that ASNE plays a moderating role in the association between victimisation and psychological distress. Gender did not predict distress, and did not interact with ASNE.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Plot of the effects of victimisation scores on psychological distress for participants with ASNE scores above and below the sample mean.</p> <p>There was no evidence that negative attributional style mediated in the association between victimisation and psychological distress, based on Keith's (2006) criteria. That is, inclusion of ASNE scores in Model 2 did not result in a substantial reduction in the contribution of victimisation to the prediction of psychological distress (Model 1).</p> <p>Given the finding that ASNE moderates the association between victimisation and psychological distress, a post-hoc analysis was conducted to explore the relative contributions of each of the three attributional style dimensions (internality, stability and globality) to this interaction effect. Bivariate correlations between the dimensions are shown in Table 2. All three dimensions showed positive correlations with victimisation, but none reached statistical significance. There were significant positive correlations between internality, stability and globality. Stability and globality were highly related (<emph>r</emph> =.75), and thus for the purposes of regression analysis they were summed to form a single stability/globality score in order to avoid multicollinearity.</p> <p>The regression analysis predicting psychological distress was then rerun, but with scores on the internality and stability/globality ASNE dimensions entered in Model 2 rather than the total ASNE score, and interactions between victimisation and the two ASNE variables were entered in Model 3. Due to power constraints, it was not possible to include interactions with gender. As in the previous regression analysis, all variables were mean-centred and gender was contrast coded.</p> <p>Table 4 shows the results of the regression analysis. The addition of interactions into the model (Model 3) significantly increased the variance accounted for (ΔR<sups>2</sups> =.07, <emph>p</emph> <.01), resulting in 36% of the variance in psychological distress scores being accounted for, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref40">6</reflink>, 110) = 10.54, <emph>p</emph> <.001.</p> <p>Table 4. Regression analysis predicting psychological distress from victimisation, internality and stability/globality attributional dimensions and gender</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Independent variables</td><td><italic>b</italic></td><td>SE<sub>b</sub></td><td>B</td><td>t</td><td>R<sup>2</sup></td><td>ΔR<sup>2</sup></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Model 1</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>.08**</td><td>.08**</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td>−4.87</td><td>3.20</td><td>−.14</td><td>−1.52</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Victimisation</td><td>−.98</td><td>.34</td><td>−.26**</td><td>−2.89</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Model 2</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>.29**</td><td>.21**</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td>−4.87</td><td>2.83</td><td>−.14</td><td>−1.72</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Victimisation</td><td>−.72</td><td>.30</td><td>−.19*</td><td>−2.37</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>ASNE internality</td><td>−4.12</td><td>2.26</td><td>−.17</td><td>−1.82</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>ASNE stability/globality</td><td>−3.12</td><td>.82</td><td>−.35**</td><td>−3.80</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Model 3</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>.36**</td><td>.07**</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td>−4.70</td><td>2.72</td><td>−.13</td><td>−1.73</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Victimisation</td><td>−.38</td><td>.31</td><td>−.10</td><td>−1.22</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>ASNE internality</td><td>−3.20</td><td>2.18</td><td>−.13</td><td>−1.47</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>ASNE stability/globality</td><td>−3.08</td><td>.78</td><td>−.35**</td><td>−3.92</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Victimisation × ASNE internality</td><td>−1.84</td><td>.61</td><td>−.35**</td><td>−3.00</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Victimisation × ASNE stability/globality</td><td>.20</td><td>.24</td><td>.09</td><td>.82</td><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>6 *significant at the 0.05 level; **significant at the 0.01 level.</p> <p>In Model 3, the combined attributional dimension of stability/globality (<emph>b</emph> = –3.08, SE<subs>b</subs> =.78, β = −.35, <emph>p</emph> <.05) was a unique predictor of psychological distress, but internality was not. That is, a higher tendency to attribute negative events to stable and global factors was associated with greater psychological distress when gender, victimisation and internality were controlled.</p> <p>Although victimisation was a significant predictor in Model 2, it no longer predicted psychological distress when the interaction terms were added in Model 3. However, the interaction between victimisation and internality was significant (<emph>b</emph> = –1.84, SE<subs>b</subs> =.61, β = −.35, <emph>p</emph> <.05). That is, internality moderated the effect of victimisation on psychological distress. Higher victimisation scores were associated with greater psychological distress (lower scores) for individuals above the internality mean (<emph>r</emph> = −.42, <emph>p</emph> <.05) but not for those below the mean (<emph>r</emph> =.03, <emph>p</emph> >.05). There was no evidence of an interaction between victimisation and the combined stability/globality variable.</p> <hd id="AN0090823329-12">Discussion</hd> <p>The purpose of the present study was to examine whether negative attributional style played a mediating or moderating role in the association between victimisation by bullying and psychological distress, using an early post-school sample. This is the first study to examine this issue. It was expected that negative attributional style would be associated with increased psychological distress. The results revealed that this was indeed the case. Further, as expected, higher levels of victimisation were predictive of greater levels of psychological distress.</p> <p>Importantly, the present study also revealed the novel finding that negative attributional style moderated the relationship between victimisation and psychological distress. That is, individuals who reported more negative attributional styles showed a clear association between extent of victimisation and psychological distress, while individuals who reported a lesser tendency towards negative attributions showed no association. This provides an unique insight, suggesting that an individual's risk of psychological distress following victimisation is increased by a tendency to attribute negative life events to causes that are always present (stable causes), reflect something about the person (internal causes) and/or apply across all situations (global causes), as opposed to a tendency to attribute negative events to unstable, external and more specific causes. Given that the present study employed a cross-sectional design, causality cannot be assessed. It will be important to determine whether moderation would also be observed in a longitudinal study, in which prior attributional style and level of distress could be related to later occurrence of victimisation. If confirmed, the finding has the potential to impact upon intervention programmes, suggesting that psychological outcomes for victims of bullying may be improved through altering their perception of the cause of negative life events. The finding also has a number of potential theoretical implications, suggesting a possible explanation for why some individuals are more vulnerable to victimisation across multiple contexts or across time, or display greater psychological vulnerability in the face of ill-treatment.</p> <p>It appears that the three attributional dimensions do not contribute equally to the moderating influence of attributional style on the victimisation–psychological distress association. The exploratory analysis revealed that the moderating effect was due to the influence of internality, rather than stability or globality. This is an interesting finding, as it suggests that the tendency to self-blame for victimisation is the key attributional factor affecting individuals' sensitivity to the extent of victimisation they experience. There was no evidence that the stability/globality combined variable played a similar moderating role, although, interestingly, it did predict distress in its own right. As this was only an exploratory analysis, these novel findings require replication. One reason for the particular influence of the internality dimension may be that attribution to a cause that is stable or global is inherently influenced by whether the victim first makes an internal attribution – that is, whether they blame themself, rather than the bully or the context (e.g., school or workplace). This finding has implications for the treatment of victims, suggesting that life outcomes may be improved through the alteration of victims' perceptions. Further, as causal attributions have been reported to determine the chronicity of a variety of deficits, including helplessness and self-esteem (Abramson, Seligman, and Teasdale [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref41">1</reflink>]), the present findings suggest that the role of attributional dimensions in predicting other psychological outcomes for victims of bullying will be a fruitful area for further investigation.</p> <p>It is important to note that the attributional measure used in this study reflected attributions concerning a broad range of events (e.g., unsuccessful public speaking, work stress, failure of a date) and did not specifically address victimisation or bullying. This is a clear strength, as it enabled general attributional style to be measured prior to any reference to victimisation behaviour, minimising shared method variance. Nevertheless, it would be of interest to examine whether attributional style for specific victimisation accounted for further variance in psychological outcomes.</p> <p>We did not find that attributional style mediated in the association between victimisation and psychological distress. That is, there was no evidence that victimisation influences distress indirectly through eliciting a negative attributional style. In contrast, Bargai, Ben-Shakhar, and Shalev's (2007) research on battered women, described earlier, did find that learned helplessness mediated in the association between violence exposure and psychopathology. One reason for these inconsistent findings may be that Bargai et al. focused on extremely negative attributions. Second, the studies differed in the measurement of victimisation: that is, our measure incorporated frequency and variety of victimisation, whereas Bargai et al. ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref42">3</reflink>]) incorporated number of occurrences, extent of injury and duration of exposure. It may be that severity of harm experienced (i.e., injury) is the particular aspect of victimisation that affects psychological outcomes through attributional style. Last, domestic violence victimisation is likely to be more severe and intense and to involve a more intimate relationship than victimisation by bullying. These issues highlight avenues of research that are yet to be explored.</p> <p>Some limitations of this study should be noted. First, the undergraduate university sample cannot be assumed to be representative of the wider early post-school population, in terms of educational level and socioeconomic status. Although one of the strengths of this study is its contribution to the very limited body of research on bullying in post-school populations, the nature of the current sample means that caution is needed in generalising these findings to the greater post-school population. It would also be of interest to replicate these findings in children and adolescents. Although we did not find any gender effects, larger sample sizes will be needed before we can conclude with confidence that similar patterns are present in both males and females.</p> <p>Second, since all our variables were measured via self-report, shared method variance may have inflated the associations, and socially desirable responding may be a concern. However, this potential limitation should be minimised by the fact that participants completed the attributional style and distress measures prior to reporting on victimisation. As noted earlier, the self-report measures of psychological distress and victimisation used in this study have demonstrated reliability and validity, but further research using independent measures would be of value. Self-reports of victimisation were deemed to be the most appropriate and practical method of measurement in this study. Peer or parent reports were unlikely to be reliable or available, given that in this post-school sample there was no common peer structure, and the majority of participants resided outside the family home. Ahmad and Smith ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref43">2</reflink>]) have argued that anonymous self-report is the method best suited to examination of the incidence of bullying and victimisation as it elicits greater candour and higher disclosure of involvement, compared with teacher nominations, peer nominations and individual interviews.</p> <p>The necessity to collect student identification numbers and email addresses was a potential threat to anonymity in this study. However, Chan, Myron, and Crawshaw ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref44">7</reflink>]) showed that self-reports of bullying or victimisation did not differ based on whether identifying information was requested. Consistent with this finding, in another as yet unpublished study conducted by the present authors, where no identification data was collected, levels of victimisation were similar to those observed in the present study.</p> <p>A clear strength of the newly developed VBI is that it allows concurrent measurement of victimisation in three contexts. However, in the present study a limitation was that the contexts were always presented in the same order. This does not appear to have had undue influence, as prevalence rates did not consistently decline across order of presentation. However, this is an issue that should be considered in future studies. It would also be of interest to examine the effect of context on the role of attribution, and in particular whether the role differs when victimisation is predominantly peer-to-peer versus superior-to-subordinate.</p> <p>In conclusion, the present findings demonstrate the potential importance of attributional style in explaining individual differences in psychological outcomes for victims of bullying. They also provide evidence of the predictive validity of the Victimization and Bullying Inventory (VBI), further demonstrating the potential of this newly developed multi-context measure to explore post-school victimisation and bullying. In addition, the results make a substantial contribution to bullying theory, demonstrating for the first time that the tendency to attribute negative events to internal, stable and global causes increases the risk of psychological distress when victimized. These findings represent an interesting new direction for research and point to potential gains for interventions that aim to lessen the devastating impact of bullying on victims.</p> <ref id="AN0090823329-13"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref5" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abramson, L. Y., M. E. P. Seligman, and J. D. Teasdale. 1978. "Learned Helplessness in Humans: Critique and Reformulation." Journal of Abnormal Psychology 87 (1): 49–74.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref43" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Ahmad, Y. S., and P. K. Smith. 1994. "Behavioural Measures Review No. 1: Bullying In Schools." Newsletter of the Association for Child Psychology and Psychiatry 12: 26–27.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref19" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bargai, N., G. Ben-Shakhar, and A. Shalev. 2007. "Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Depression in Battered Women: The Mediating Role of Learned Helplessness." Journal of Family Violence 22: 267–275.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref32" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bosworth, K., D. L. Espelage, and T. R. Simon. 1999. "Factors Associated With Bullying Behaviour in Middle School Students." Journal of Early Adolescence 19 (3): 341–362.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref16" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Brown, E., and D. Kolko. 1999. "Child Victims' Attributions about Being Physically Abused: An Examination of Factors Associated with Symptom Severity." Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 27 (4): 311–322.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref9" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Calvete, E., L. Villardon, and A. Estevez. 2008. "Attributional Style and Depressive Symptoms in Adolescents: An Examination of the role of Various Indicators of Cognitive Vulnerability." Behaviour Research and Therapy 46 (8): 944–953.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref44" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Chan, J. H. F., R. Myron, and M. Crawshaw. 2005. "The Efficacy of Non-Anonymous Measures of Bullying." School Psychology International 26 (4): 443–458.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref13" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Feiring, C., L. S. Taska, and M. Lewis. 1998. "The Role of Shame and Attributional Style in Children's and Adolescent's Adaptation to Sexual Abuse." Child Maltreatment 3 (2): 129–142.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref24" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Goldsmid, S. 2011. Bullying and Victimization in an Early Post-School Population: An Examination of Prevalence, Factor Structure and Contextual Influences on Stability of Behaviours, using the Victimization and Bullying Inventory. Sydney: University of Sydney.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Golin, S., P. D. Sweeney, and D. E. Shaeffer. 1981. "The Causality of Causal Attributions in Depression: A Cross-lagged Panel Correlational Analysis." Journal of Abnormal Psychology 90: 14–22.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hawker, D. S. J., and M. J. Boulton. 2000. "Twenty Years' Research on Peer Victimization and Psychosocial Maladjustment: A Meta-analytic Review of Cross-sectional Studies." Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 41 (4): 441–455.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hays, R. D., C. D. Sherbourne, and R. M. Mazel. 1995. User's Manual for the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Core Measures of Health-Related Quality of Life. <ulink href="http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph%5freports/MR162/index.html">http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph%5freports/MR162/index.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hewitt, A. K., D. R. Foxcroft, and J. MacDonald. 2004. "Multitrait-multimethod Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Attributional Style Questionnaire." Personality and Individual Differences 37: 1483–1491.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keith, T. Z. 2006. Multiple Regression and Beyond. Boston: Pearson Education Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kress, F., and B. Vandenberg. 1998. "Depression and Attribution in Abused Children and their Nonoffending Caregivers." Psychological Reports 83 (3): 1285–1286.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marsh, H. W., R. H. Parada, R. G. Craven, and L. Finger. 2004. "In the Looking Glass: A Reciprocal Effect Model Elucidating the Complex Nature of Bullying, Psychological Determinants, and the Central Role of Self-Concept." In Bullying Implications for the Classroom, edited by C. E. Sanders and G. D. Phye, 63–107. California: Elsevier Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peterson, C., A. Semmel, C. von Baeyer, L. Y. Abramson, G. I. Metalsky, and M. E. P. Seligman. 1982. "The Attributional Style Questionnaire." Cognitive Therapy and Research 6 (3): 287–300.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ralph, J. A., and S. Mineka. 1998. "Attributional Style and Self-Esteem: The Prediction of Emotional Distress Following a Midterm Exam." Journal of Abnormal Psychology 107 (2): 203–215.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rigby, K. 1997. "What Children Tell Us about Bullying in Schools." Children Australia 22 (2): 26–34.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Runyon, M. K., and M. C. Kenny. 2002. "Relationship of Attributional Style, Depression, and Posttrauma Distress Among Children Who Suffered Physical or Sexual Abuse." Child Maltreatment 7 (3): 254–264.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sanjuan, P., A. Perez, B. Rueda, and A. Ruiz. 2008. "Interactive Effects of Attributional Styles for Positive and Negative Events on Psychological Distress." Personality and Individual Differences 45: 187–190.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Veit, C. T., and J. E. Ware. 1983. "The Structure of Psychological Distress and Well-Being in General Populations." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 51 (5): 730–742.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williams, K., M. Chambers, S. Logan, and D. Robinson. 1996. "Association of Common Health Symptoms with Bullying in Primary School Children." BMJ: British Medical Journal 313 (7048): 17–19.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Susan Goldsmid and Pauline Howie</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref38"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1021395
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Report
PubTypeId: report
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Mediating and Moderating Role of Attributional Style in the Association between Victimisation and Wellbeing
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Goldsmid%2C+Susan%22">Goldsmid, Susan</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Howie%2C+Pauline%22">Howie, Pauline</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Emotional+%26+Behavioural+Difficulties%22"><i>Emotional & Behavioural Difficulties</i></searchLink>. 2013 18(4):423-434.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 12
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2013
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Reports - Research<br />Journal Articles
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Victims%22">Victims</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Well+Being%22">Well Being</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Attribution+Theory%22">Attribution Theory</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Emotional+Disturbances%22">Emotional Disturbances</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Correlation%22">Correlation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Bullying%22">Bullying</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Role%22">Role</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Prediction%22">Prediction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mental+Health%22">Mental Health</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Measures+%28Individuals%29%22">Measures (Individuals)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Risk%22">Risk</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Introductory+Courses%22">Introductory Courses</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychology%22">Psychology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Undergraduate+Students%22">Undergraduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Anxiety%22">Anxiety</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Depression+%28Psychology%29%22">Depression (Psychology)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Regression+%28Statistics%29%22">Regression (Statistics)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Stress+Variables%22">Stress Variables</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Questionnaires%22">Questionnaires</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Australia%22">Australia</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Assessment and Survey Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Attribution+Style+Questionnaire%22">Attribution Style Questionnaire</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/13632752.2013.803682
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1363-2752
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This study examined whether attributional style for negative events plays a mediating or moderating role in the association between victimisation by bullying and psychological distress in young adults. A total of 127 undergraduate students completed the Attributional Style Questionnaire, a newly developed Victimisation and Bullying Inventory and the Psychological Distress subscale from the Mental Health Inventory. As expected, the tendency to attribute negative events to internal, stable and global causes predicted higher psychological distress. There was also a positive association between extent of victimisation and psychological distress. Although attributional style did not mediate in this relationship, there was evidence of moderation. Individuals with more negative attributional styles showed a clear association between victimisation and psychological distress, while those with less negative styles showed no association. These results suggest that a tendency towards a negative attributional style may increase the risk of psychological distress in victims of bullying.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 23
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2014
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1021395
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1021395
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/13632752.2013.803682
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 12
        StartPage: 423
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Victims
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Well Being
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Attribution Theory
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Emotional Disturbances
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Correlation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Bullying
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Role
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Prediction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mental Health
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Measures (Individuals)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Risk
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Introductory Courses
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Anxiety
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Depression (Psychology)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Regression (Statistics)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Stress Variables
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Questionnaires
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Australia
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Attribution Style Questionnaire
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Mediating and Moderating Role of Attributional Style in the Association between Victimisation and Wellbeing
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Goldsmid, Susan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Howie, Pauline
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2013
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1363-2752
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 18
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Emotional & Behavioural Difficulties
              Type: main
ResultId 1