Casual Attributions Research Articles

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

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.

Effects of task success or failure on causal attributions and person perception

An actor's outcome on a task (success-failure) was manipulated orthogonally to information that the actor either used or did not use drugs. Casual attributions for success-failure were obtained as well as trait ratings of the actor. Subjects read a case study of an artist who either succeeded or failed in his profession. For half of the subjects, the artist was described as using hard drugs, and no mention of drugs was made for. the other half. It was predicted and confirmed that success-failure interacted with drugs-no drugs in determining attributions of ability. It was also found, as expected, that success was attributed to ability and motivation more than was failure. Further, success tended to be internally attributed to the actor, while failure was externally attributed. The interaction obtained for ability attribution was not obtained for a measure of trying, nor for the trait ratings. The results confirmed Kepka and Brickman's (1971) suggestion that ability and motivation are qualitatively different concepts in naive psychology, but some of their specific conclusions are questioned.