The measurement of criminal attributions with a normative instructional set assessed similar domains as the personal instructional set and, within the external blame domain, made an additional contribution to criminal attributions above and beyond the personal instructional set. Socially desirable responding (SDR) was minimally related to the normative instructional CRAI and could not account for the differences between the normative and personal instructional CRAI sets. In summation, SDR did not impact the validity of either instructional set. Ensuring valid test results is a central concern in forensic and correctional settings. Forensic and correctional test results are more likely to be cross-examined. Several strategies have been proposed in reducing or accounting for the effects of SDR. The normative instructional set (respondent’s perception of the average type of crime) for the Criminal Attribution Inventory (CRAI) appears to contribute to a reduction in SDR. This study compared the normative instructional set of the CRAI and a modified “personal” CRAI with an established “personal” attribution scale. This allowed for the investigation of three questions: (1) responses to the CRAI’s normative instructional set might not capture a respondent’s attribution of his/her crime, only a generalized cognition; (2) was the normative instructional set making a unique content contribution to the measurement of criminal attributions; and (3) did SDR account for the uniqueness between the personal and normative instructional sets? Respondents consisted of 86 incarcerated male offenders. References