研究目的：本研究欲檢驗母親和非母親/無養育孩子經驗的女性對兒童正負向行為之歸因型態，以及兩者腦部活化情形之差異。過去研究顯示父母對兒童行為的歸因將對後續管教和兒童行為表現產生重大的影響。考量到父母歸因對兒童發展的重要性，本研究以功能性磁振造影(functional magnetic resonance imaging, fMRI)檢驗母親歸因背後的腦神經基礎。此外，為進一步了解養育兒童經驗對兒童行為歸因的影響，本研究也會納入非母親參與者，檢驗與母親參與者之間的歸因型態差異，和比較兩者腦部活化情形的不同之處。
方法： 參與者為20名小學生的母親(母親組)與18名非母親/無養育孩子經驗的女性(非母親組)。所有的參與者皆在簽署知情同意書後參與研究。研究以McArthur(1972)，以及Harris、Todorov與Fiske(2005)的研究範典，請參與者在磁振造影儀中閱讀兒童正、負向行為語句及行為成因相關訊息之組合(包含同意度、區辨性以及一致性三項訊息的組合)並判斷行為成因，同時量測其腦部活化情形。正負向行為語句和訊息組合出現順序為隨機排列。
結果：行為結果顯示，母親組在兒童負向行為及引發個人歸因之訊息組合情境下，傾向做個人歸因，非母親組不論行為類型為何，在引發個人歸因之訊息組合情境下，皆傾向做作個人歸因。fMRI結果顯示，母親組與非母親組相比，中扣帶迴(mid-cingulate cortex, MCC) 和腦島(insula)等區域在大多情境中較活化；在正向行為類型情境下，母親與非母親組相比，前扣帶迴(anterior cingulate cortex, ACC)較不活化；在負向行為情境下，母親與非母親組相比中央前迴(precentral gyrus)較活化。此外母親組在負向行為情境下，其引發個人歸因和引發非個人歸因之訊息組合情境相比，上額迴(superior frontal gyrus)較不活化。
結論：本研究發現非母親主要依訊息組合判斷兒童行為成因，但母親除了依訊息判斷，兒童行為類型亦會影響其歸因：在引發個人歸因的情境下，僅將負向行為歸因於兒童本身。據腦造影結果，母親監控和預測他人行為之腦區(MCC) 和牽涉自我主體性之腦區(腦島)較非母親活化，推測母親除了較會關注兒童行為，也傾向將兒童視為自身之延伸，且當母親歸因兒童正向行為時ACC較不活化，歸因負向行為時中央前迴較活化，推測母親較不會注意兒童的正向行為，和較傾向將兒童的負向行為視為自身責任。此外，母親判斷兒童負向行為成因時，引發個人歸因和引發非個人歸因之情境相比，牽涉認知控制之區域(上額迴)活化程度較低，推測母親歸因兒童負向行為時較少控制式歷程涉入，亦即此歷程較為自動化。

SUMMARY
The purpose of this study was to examine not only attribution styles of mothers and non-mothers to children’s behaviors, but also the underlying neurocognitive mechanisms. 20 mothers and 18 non-mothers participated in this study. The materials were 10 positive sentences and 10 negative sentences of children’s behaviors, and the combinations of information about the causes of behaviors. The procedure was similar to the Harris et.al. (2005). fMRI images were acquired on a GE MR750 3T scanner with a 32-channel head coil at the MRI center of NCKU. The conclusions were that mothers made attributions to children’s behaviors based on combinations of information and types of behaviors, and non-mothers made attributions only based on combinations of information. Furthermore, the results of fMRI data showed mothers may see children as an extension of them, pay less attention to their positive behaviors, see their negative behaviors as self-responsibility, and controlled processes engaged less when they made personal attribution to children’s negative behaviors.
Key words：maternal attribution, parenting experiences, fMRI, dual-process models

INTRODUCTION
The purposes of this study were to compare the attribution styles to the positive and negative behaviors of children and the underlying brain activations between mothers and non-mothers(women without parenting experience). Many studies found that parental attributions mediate the relation between children’s behaviors and parenting reactions. Moreover, parenting practices and children’s behaviors were influenced by the attribution styles of parents, too. Dix et.al.(1986) found that parents attribute the positive behaviors of their children to the internal factors (disposition and traits) of children. In Asia, children are seen by parents as an extension of parents, and parents took more personal control responsibility for the outcome of parent–child interactions(Chang, Chen,& Ji, 2011; Montemayor & Ranganathan, 2012). The issue about the mother’s attribution styles to their children was so important that the underlying neurocognitive mechanisms were explored by attribution research paradigm and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Additionally, the other purpose of this study was to investigate how the experience of parenting influences the attribution styles to children’s behaviors, so this study would include participants of non-mothers in order to examine the different attribution styles and brain activation between mothers and non-mothers.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Participants were 20 mothers of primary school children (mothers), and 20 women without parenting experience (non-mothers). Informed consent was obtained from all participants. Based on the research paradigms of McArthur (1972) and Harris, Todorov,& Fiske(2005), two groups of participants would read 10 positive and 10 negative sentences of children’s behaviors, which were modified from Huang et.at. (2014), and the combinations of information (including consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency), and then made attribution in the MRI scanner. fMRI images were acquired on a GE MR750 3T scanner with a 32-channel head coil at the Mind Research and Imaging (MRI) center of NCKU. The experimental design was three-factor mixed design, including one between-subject variable(groups) and two within-subject variables(types of behavior and combinations of information).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Behavioral data showed that mothers made person attribution to negative behaviors under the combinations which induced person attribution, and non-mothers made person attribution to positive and negative behaviors under the combinations which induced person attribution. fMRI data showed that mid-cingulate cortex(MCC) and insula of mothers were more activated than non-mothers in most of conditions. Under the condition of positive behaviors, anterior cingulate cortex(ACC) of mothers was less activated than non-mothers, and under the condition of negative behaviors, precentral gyrus of mothers was more activated than non-mothers. Additionally, under the condition of negative behaviors, superior frontal gyrus of mother was activated in the contrast of combinations which induced person attribution with combinations which induced non-person attribution.
CONCLUSION
The results of behavioral data had showed that the non-mothers made attributions to children’s behavior based on information combination, but mothers made attributions based on not only combinations of information but also types of behaviors. In addition, mothers made personal attribution only to children’s negative behaviors. The results of fMRI data showed MCC, which is engaged when predicting and monitoring others’ behaviors, and insula, which is related to self-agency, were more activated than non-mothers, so mothers not only pay more attention to children’s behaviors but also see children as an extension of them. Additionally, compared with non-mothers, when mothers made attributions to positive behaviors of children, ACC was less activated, and when mothers made attributions to negative behaviors, precentral gyrus was more activated, and these results may reflect that mothers pay less attention to children’s positive behaviors, and see their negative behaviors as self-responsibility. Furthermore, under the condition of negative behaviors, mothers’ superior frontal gyrus, which is related to cognitive control, was activated in the contrast of combinations which induced person attribution with combinations which induced non-person attribution, so it may reflect that controlled processes engaged less when mothers made personal attribution to children’s negative behaviors.

(一) 中文參考文獻
李于欣（2013）。注意力缺失過動疾患兒童母親的負向歸因風格。國立成功大學，台南市。
(二) 英文參考文獻
American Psychiatric Association, (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Apps, M. A., Lockwood, P. L., & Balsters, J. H. (2013). The role of the midcingulate cortex in monitoring others’ decisions. Name: Frontiers in Neuroscience, 7, 251.
Blackwood, N. J., Bentall, R. P., Ffytche, D. H., Simmons, A., Murray, R. M., & Howard, R. J. (2003). Self-responsibility and the self-serving bias: An fMRI investigation of causal attributions. NeuroImage, 20(2), 1076–1085.
Brosch, T., Schiller, D., Mojdehbakhsh, R., Uleman, J. S., & Phelps, E. A. (2013). Neural mechanisms underlying the integration of situational information into attribution outcomes. Social cognitive and affective neuroscience,8, 640-646.
Bugental, D. B., & Johnston, C. (2000). Parental and child cognitions in the context of the family. Annual review of psychology, 51(1), 315-344.
Cabanis, M., Pyka, M., Mehl, S., Müller, B. W., Loos-Jankowiak, S., Winterer, G., ... & Langohr, K. (2013). The precuneus and the insula in self-attributional processes. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 13(2), 330-345.
Carter, C. S., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Botvinick, M. M., Noll, D., & Cohen, J. D. (1998). Anterior cingulate cortex, error detection, and the online monitoring of performance. Science, 280(5364), 747-749.
Carter, C. S., Macdonald, A. M., Botvinick, M., Ross, L. L., Stenger, V. A., Noll, D., & Cohen, J. D. (2000). Parsing executive processes: strategic vs. evaluative functions of the anterior cingulate cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97(4), 1944-1948.
Chang, L., Chen, B. B., & Ji, L. Q. (2011). Attributions and attitudes of mothers and fathers in China. Parenting, 11(2-3), 102-115.
Dix, T., & Grusec, J. E. (1983). Parental influence techniques: An attributional analysis. Child Development, 645-652.
Dix, T., Ruble, D. N., Grusec, J. E., & Nixon, S. (1986). Social cognition in parents: Inferential and affective reactions to children of three age levels. Child Development, 879-894.
Dix, T., Ruble, D. N., & Zambarano, R. J. (1989). Mothers' implicit theories of discipline: Child effects, parent effects, and the attribution process. Child Development, 1373-1391.
Gilbert, D. T., Krull, D. S., & Pelham, B. W. (1988). Of thoughts unspoken: Social inference and the self-regulation of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(5), 685-694.
Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological bulletin, 117(1), 21.
Harris, L. T., Todorov, A., & Fiske, S. T. (2005). Attributions on the brain: Neuro-imaging dispositional inferences, beyond theory of mind. Neuroimage, 28(4), 763-769.
Hopfinger, J. B., Buonocore, M. H., & Mangun, G. R. (2000). The neural mechanisms of top-down attentional control. Nature neuroscience, 3(3), 284-291.
Huang, H. L., Li, S. S., Cheng, C. P., Lin, C. Y., Yang, Y. K., & Huang, J. H. (2014). The negative attribution processes of mothers of children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35(1), 87-98.
Johnston, C., Chen, M., & Ohan, J. (2006). Mothers' attributions for behavior in nonproblem boys, boys with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and boys with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and oppositional defiant behavior. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 35(1), 60-71.
Johnston, C., & Ohan, J. L. (2005). The importance of parental attributions in families of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity and disruptive behavior disorders. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 8(3), 167-182.
Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2), 107-128.
Leslie, A.M., (1994). Pretending and believing: issues in the theory of mind. Cognition, 50, 211 –238.
Lieberman, M. D., Gaunt, R., Gilbert, D. T., & Trope, Y. (2002). Reflexion and reflection: A social cognitive neuroscience approach to attributional inference. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 199–249). San Diego: Academic Press.
McArthur, L. A. (1972). The how and what of why: Some determinants and consequences of causal attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22, 171-193.
Montemayor, R., & Ranganathan, C. (2012). Asian-Indian parents’ attributions about the causes of child behavior: A replication and extension with parents from Chennai, India. The Journal of genetic psychology, 173(4), 374-392.
Moran, J. M., Jolly, E., & Mitchell, J. P. (2014). Spontaneous mentalizing predicts the fundamental attribution error. Journal of cognitive neuroscience,26(3), 569-576.
Nakamura, K., Kawashima, R., Sato, N., Nakamura, A., Sugiura, M., Kato, T., ... & Zilles, K. (2000). Functional delineation of the human occipito-temporal areas related to face and scene processing. Brain, 123(9), 1903-1912.
Nelson, D. A., Hart, C. H., Yang, C., Olsen, J. A., & Jin, S. (2006). Aversive parenting in China: Associations with child physical and relational aggression.Child development, 77(3), 554-572.
Nix, R. L., Pinderhughes, E. E., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., & McFadyen-Ketchum, S. A. (1999). The relation between mothers' hostile attribution tendencies and children's externalizing behavior problems: The mediating role of mothers' harsh discipline practices. Child development, 896-909.
Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. Advances in experimental social psychology, 10, 173-220.
Rubin, K. H., Mills, R. S. L., & Rose-Krasnor, L. (1989). Maternal beliefs and children’s’ competence. In B. H. Schneider, G. Attili, J. Nadel, & R. P. Weissberg (Eds.), Social competence in developmental perspective (pp. 313–331). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic.
Seidel, E., Eickhoff, S. B., Kellermann, T., Schneider, F., Gur, R. C., Habel, U.,& Derntl, B. (2010). Who is to blame? Neural correlates of causal attribution in social situations. Social Neuroscience, 5(4), 335-350.
Sigel, I. E., & McGillicuddy-De Lisi, A. V. (2002). Parent beliefs are cognitions: The dynamic belief systems model. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 3. Being and becoming a parent (2nd ed., pp. 485–508). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Smith, J. D., Dishion, T. J., Shaw, D. S., & Wilson, M. N. (2015). Negative Relational Schemas Predict the Trajectory of Coercive Dynamics During Early Childhood. Journal of abnormal child psychology, 43(4), 693-703.
Snyder, J., Cramer, A., Afrank, J., & Patterson, G. R. (2005). The contributions of ineffective discipline and parental hostile attributions of child misbehavior to the development of conduct problems at home and school. Developmental Psychology, 41(1), 30.
Sperduti, M., Delaveau, P., Fossati, P., & Nadel, J. (2011). Different brain structures related to self-and external-agency attribution: a brief review and meta-analysis. Brain Structure and Function, 216(2), 151-157.
Spunt, R. P., & Lieberman, M. D. (2013). The busy social brain evidence for automaticity and control in the neural systems supporting social cognition and action understanding. Psychological Science, 24(1), 80-86.
Sturge-Apple, M. L., Rogge, R. D., Skibo, M. A., Peltz, J. S., & Suor, J. H. (2015). A dual-process approach to the role of mother’s implicit and explicit attitudes toward their child in parenting models. Developmental psychology, 51(3), 289-300.
Trope, Y. (1986). Identification and inferential processes in dispositional attribution. Psychological Review, 93(3), 239-257.
Weary-Bradley, G. (1978). Self-serving biases in the attribution process: A reexamination of the fact or fiction question. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 56–71.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548-573.
Zaitchik, D., Walker, C., Miller, S., LaViolette, P., Feczko, E., & Dickerson, B. C. (2010). Mental state attribution and the temporoparietal junction: an fMRI study comparing belief, emotion, and perception. Neuropsychologia, 48(9), 2528-2536.
Zucker, G. S., & Weiner, B. (1993). Conservatism and Perceptions of Poverty: An Attributional Analysis1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23(12), 925-943.
Zuckerman, M. (1979). Attribution of success and failure revisited: The motivational bias is alive and well in attribution theory. Journal of Personality, 47, 245–287.