Casual attributions for success and failure for psychiatric rehabilitees and college students.

Abstract

College students and psychiatric rehabilitees performed a manual dexterity task in which consistent success or failure was maipulated over four consecutive task trials. Contrasting predictions for the use of casual attributions (luck, task difficulty, effort, and ability) following Trial 1 and Trial 4 for the two populations were derived from Heider's balance theory and "naive theory of action". Consistent with native theory, students who succeeded and rehabilitees who succeeded used unstable attributions only college students who failed used stable attributions to account for these trial outcomes, whereas students who failed and rehabilitees who failed made significant changes in their attributional patterns from Trial 1 to Trial 4. Results are discussed regarding intervention with psychiatric rehabilitees and other groups with severe achievement difficulties.