Scepkowski Lisa A, Wiegel Markus, Bach Amy K, Weisberg Risa B, Brown Timothy A, Barlow David H
Center for Anxiety and Related Disorders and Department of Psychology, Boston University, 648 Beacon Street, 6th Floor, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, USA.
Arch Sex Behav. 2004 Dec;33(6):559-69. doi: 10.1023/B:ASEB.0000044740.72588.08.
This study investigated the attributional styles of men with and without sexual dysfunction for both positive and negative sexual and general events using a sex-specific version of the Attributional Style Questionnaire (Sex-ASQ), and ascertained the preliminary psychometric properties of the measure. The Sex-ASQ was created by embedding 8 hypothetical sexual events (4 positive, 4 negative) among the original 12 events in the Attributional Style Questionnaire (ASQ; C. Peterson, A. Semmel, C. von Baeyer, L. Y. Abramson, G. I. Metalsky, & M. E. Seligman, 1982). The Sex-ASQ was completed by 21 men with a principal DSM-IV diagnosis of Male Erectile Disorder (MED) and 32 male control participants. The psychometrics of the Sex-ASQ were satisfactory, but with the positive sexual event scales found to be less stable and internally consistent than the negative sexual event scales. Reasons for modest reliability of the positive event scales are discussed in terms of the original ASQ. As expected, men with MED did not differ significantly from men without sexual dysfunction in their causal attributions for general events, indicating that both groups exhibited an optimistic attributional style in general. Also as predicted, men with MED made more internal and stable causal attributions for negative sexual events than men without sexual dysfunction, and also rated negative sexual events as more important. For positive sexual events, the 2 groups did not differ in attributional style, with both groups making more external/unstable/specific causal attributions than for positive general events. Differences between explanatory style for sexual versus nonsexual events found in both sexually functional and dysfunctional men lend support for explanatory style models that propose both cross-situational consistency and situational specificity.
本研究使用特定性别的归因风格问卷（性-ASQ），调查了有和没有性功能障碍的男性对积极和消极性事件及一般事件的归因风格，并确定了该测量方法的初步心理测量特性。性-ASQ是通过将8个假设性性事件（4个积极的，4个消极的）嵌入归因风格问卷（ASQ；C.彼得森、A.塞梅尔、C.冯·贝耶尔、L.Y.阿布拉姆森、G.I.梅塔尔斯基和M.E.塞利格曼，1982年）原有的12个事件中创建的。21名主要诊断为男性勃起功能障碍（MED）的男性和32名男性对照参与者完成了性-ASQ。性-ASQ的心理测量结果令人满意，但发现积极性事件量表不如消极性事件量表稳定且内部一致性差。根据原ASQ讨论了积极事件量表信度适中的原因。正如预期的那样，患有MED的男性与没有性功能障碍的男性在对一般事件的因果归因上没有显著差异，这表明两组总体上都表现出乐观的归因风格。同样如预测的那样，患有MED的男性比没有性功能障碍的男性对消极性事件做出更多内部和稳定的因果归因，并且也将消极性事件评为更重要。对于积极性事件，两组在归因风格上没有差异，两组对积极性事件的因果归因都比积极性一般事件更多地是外部/不稳定/特定的。在性功能正常和性功能障碍的男性中发现的性事件与非性事件解释风格的差异，支持了提出跨情境一致性和情境特异性的解释风格模型。
