Conceptual and methodological problems in the analysis of self‐serving causal attributions of success and failure

Abstract

The present article examined conceptual and methodological foundations of testing the self‐serving hypothesis of causal attributions. This analysis revealed a startling fact that neither major reviews (by Bradley, Miller & Ross; Snyder et al.; Weary & Arkin; and Zuckerman) nor other reports have provided a clear and specific definition of the self‐serving attributions. Furthermore, methodological defects exist because of such fundamental errors as the use of between‐subjects designs, instead of within‐subjects designs, in testing the hypothesis. Therefore, the reported experiments simply reflect the researchers' attempts to interpret subjects' attributions as self‐serving or non‐self‐serving. To better understand the nature and scope of self‐serving motives in causal attributions, it is essential (1) to take into account attributors' personal definitions of self‐serving attributions, (2) to relate the nonreciprocal attributions to social/cultural values about self‐serving behaviors, and (3) to determine the role of intentions in causal attributions of success and failure.