Taking blame for antisocial acts and its relationship with personality

被引:16
作者
Gudjonsson, Gisli H.
Sigurdsson, Jon Fridrik
Einarsson, Emil
机构
[1] Inst Psychiat, Dept Psychol, London SE5 8AF, England
[2] Univ Iceland, Div Psychiat, Landspitali Univ Hosp, Reykjavik, Iceland
关键词
taking blame; protecting others; motivation for taking blame; antisocial personality traits; compliance; self-esteem;
D O I
10.1016/j.paid.2006.11.002
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
The main aim of the present study was to investigate the motivation behind people taking the blame for another person's antisocial acts. One thousand four hundred and thirty-two students in further education in Iceland completed a specially constructed Motivation for Taking Blame Scale (MTBS), along with personality tests measuring antisocial personality traits, self-esteem, and compliance. Two hundred and thirty-two (16%) claimed to have taken the blame for an antisocial act somebody else had done (mainly for property offences and criminal damage). The majority (70%) took the blame for a friend. Principal component analysis of the MTBS revealed five factors: Excitement, Pressure, Disregard, Avoidance, and Cover-up. EPQ Psychoticism was the single best predictor for the Excitement and Disregard motives, whereas GCS Compliance was the only significant predictor for the Pressure and Avoidance motives. The Cover-up motive, although the most commonly endorsed factor, had a poor relationship with the personality measures. There are a number of different motives for taking blame, but this is most commonly done to protect the guilty person and do him or her a favour. Personality, particularly personality disorder traits and compliance, are significant predictor variables for taking blame for others. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:3 / 13
页数:11
相关论文
共 20 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1986, Development of antisocial and prosocial behavior
[2]  
[Anonymous], SCI STUDY HUMAN NATU
[3]  
Blackburn R., 1993, The psychology of criminal conduct: Theory, research and practice
[4]  
Cohen J., 1988, POWERSTATISTICALSCIE, DOI 10.4324/9780203771587
[5]  
Drizin StevenA., 2004, North Carolina Law Review, P891
[6]  
Eysenck H., 1975, Manual of the eysenck personality questionnaire
[7]   NATIONAL DIFFERENCES IN PERSONALITY - ICELAND AND ENGLAND [J].
EYSENCK, SBG ;
HARALDSSON, E .
PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORTS, 1983, 53 (03) :999-1003
[8]  
Gudjonsson G., 2003, PSYCHOL INTERROGATIO
[9]  
Gudjonsson G.H., 1997, The Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales manual
[10]   The role of personality in relation to confessions and denials [J].
Gudjonsson, GH ;
Sigurdsson, JF ;
Einarsson, E .
PSYCHOLOGY CRIME & LAW, 2004, 10 (02) :125-135