Abstract for presentation at 6th World Congress on Brain Injury

Objective: When a person with traumatic brain injury performs a socially undesirable behavior, acquaintances may explain the behavior differently than the injured person and family. This is more likely if the injured person is an adolescent, when socially undesirable behaviors are more common. The injured person’s family attribute the behavior more to head injury, whereas acquaintances attribute it more to the norms for that age group. These norm attributions are intended to provide comfort, but can have negative effects, because they deny the effects of injury and the challenge for the injured person. This study tested whether different attributions for the behavior of brain injured persons reflect comparisons on two different dimensions of abnormality: what behaviour was normal for the person prior to injury, and what behaviour is normal for adolescents in the given culture.
Method: Four behaviors were selected (e.g., tires easily, has a short temper) that were independently judged to be characteristic of both adolescents and people with brain injury. Scenarios described an adolescent boy who suffered a brain injury, and performed the four target behaviors. The scenarios indicated whether the behaviors were normal for the adolescent’s particular culture and normal for the adolescent prior to injury. Participants rated three attributions: the brain injury, the adolescent’s personality, and the norms for that culture.
Results: Participants attributed the behavior more to the brain injury when the behaviours were abnormal for the boy than when they were normal, whereas they attributed the behavior more to his personality when the behaviours were normal for the boy. The attributed the behaviours to adolescence when the behaviours were abnormal for adolescents.
Conclusions: Behaviors resulting from invisible injuries such as brain injury are prone to misattribution. These attributions are consistent with the abnormal conditions theory of attribution.