Causal Attributions For Success Research Articles

Children's causal attributions for success and failure in achievement settings: A meta-analysis.

Children's causal attributions for success and failure in achievement settings: A meta-analysis.

Effects of induced mood on causal attributions for success and failure

The present research examined the influence of induced mood on causal perception and goal expectancies for an achievement-oriented activity. Prior to the administration of a laboratory task, positive and negative moods were experimentally induced in student volunteers. It was found that elated subjects were initially more confident of success than subjects temporarily made to feel depressed. Furthermore, following the receipt of bogus success/failure feedback, individuals in a positive mood perceived the causes of success as more stable than subjects in a negative mood. In addition, the judgments of elated subjects appear to have been biased in a self-enhancing direction following success, but outcome had no effect on the causal attributions of subjects temporarily induced to feel depressed. The findings indicate that prevailing affective state is an important determinant of causal perception, and suggest that mood may play a central role in the accurate or biased perception of valenced outcomes.

Causal attributions for success and failure in mathematics: A cross cultural perspective

In this study the attributional patterns for success and failure in mathematics of students in Papua New Guinea are compared with those of students in Australia. The sample comprised 491 grade 10 students: 169 girls and 322 boys. While relatively few differences were found in the attributional patterns of boys and girls and of high and low achieving students, there appeared to be substantial differences between students in the two countries in their attributions for success and failure in mathematics. Possible reasons for this are explored in the paper.

Self-enhancing attribution biases as a function of objective response-outcome contingencies

This experiment investigated whether causal attributions for success vary with differences in objective response-outcome contingencies. In a 2 ×2 factorial design, 96 college males performed either a solvable or an unsolvable intellectual task and then received either success feedback or no feedback. Thus, the success feedback was contingent or noncontingent on performance for solvable and unsolvable test subjects, respectively. Solvable test subjects generally attributed their performance more to ability than did unsolvable test subjects, but success feedback significantly increased the ability attributions of unsolvable test subjects only. These data suggest the importance of objective contingencies in determining biased attributions and of including a neutral outcome condition in research on self-serving biases.

CONSISTENCY OF CAUSAL ATTRIBUTIONS FOR EXPECTED AND ACTUAL EXAMINATION OUTCOME: A STUDY OF THE EXPECTANCY CONFIRMATION AND EGOTISM MODELS

Summary. The expectancy confirmation and egotism models of causal attributions for success and failure were investigated with 400 fifth form students taking the New Zealand School Certificate English examination. Attributions for expected exam outcome and actual exam outcome were assessed with a scale containing 33 items categorised into the attribution dimensions of stability and locus of causality. The results suggested that exam outcome attributions are a function of both expectancy confirmation and valence of actual outcome, with the effects being due primarily to subjects whose expectations for passing were disconfirmed by actual failure. Compared to pre-exam attributions based on expected outcome, these disconfirmed failure subjects reduced post-exam attributions to internal (stable and unstable) and external stable causes, but increased their attributions to external unstable causes. Where expectations were confirmed (pass or fail) attributions from pre- to post-exam were generally consistent; however, the confirmed pass subjects tended to see internal factors as more important than the other subjects, and external unstable factors as least important. The findings are discussed in terms of the implications for future achievement situations.

Perspective effects on causal attributions of success and failure

Abstract The performance attributions of actors (participants on a task or in an interaction), active observers (co-actors who make observations of the actor) and passive observers (non-participants who observe but do not interact with the actor) were compared on a task in which actors succeeded or failed after competing or working independently. Contrary to Jones and Nisbett's (1971) divergent perspectives hypothesis, the results indicated that the subjects' person attributions were influenced interactively by the actor's outcome and the subjects' perspective while their situation attributions were influenced interactively by their perspective and the nature of the task. The implications of these findings for the divergent perspectives hypothesis were discussed.

Achievement Motivation: Recent Trends in Theory and Research

Section I Achievement Motivation: Trends in Theory and Research.- 1 Introduction.- Section II Achievement Motivation Theory.- 2 Motivational Effects in So-Called Tests of Ability and Educational Achievement.- 3 The Origins of Competence and Achievement Motivation in Personal Causation.- 4 Motivation, Evaluation, and Educational Testing Policy.- 5 Effects of Failure: Alternative Explanations and Possible Implications.- 6 Motivation and Educational Productivity: Theories, Results, and Implications.- 7 A Model of Direct and Relational Achieving Styles.- Section III Achievement Motivation and Life Span Human Development.- 8 The Graying of America: Implications for Achievement Motivation Theory and Research.- 9 Motivational Determinants of Adult Personality Functioning and Aging.- 10 A Developmental Perspective on Theories of Achievement Motivation.- Section IV Attributions and Achievement Motivation.- 11 Attributional Style, Task Selection and Achievement.- 12 A Re-examination of Boys' and Girls' Causal Attributions for Success and Failure Based on New Zealand Data.- 13 Measuring Causal Attributions for Success and Failure.- 14 Alleviating Learned Helplessness in a Wilderness Setting: An Application of Attribution Theory to Outward Bound.- Section V Sex Differences in Achievement Motivation.- 15 Achievement Motivation and Values: An Alternative Perspective.- 16 Achievement and Vocational Behavior of Women in Iran: A Social and Psychological Study.- 17 Women's Achievement and Career Motivation: Their Risk Taking Patterns, Home-Career Conflict, Sex Role Orientation, Fear of Success, and Self-concept.- Section VI Teacher Expectations and Achievement Motivation.- 18 Teacher Expectation and Student Learning.- Section VII Achievement Motivation: A Look Toward the Future.- 19 From Single-Variable to Persons-in-Relation.- Author Index.

Influencing Children's Causal Attributions for Personal Achievement Outcomes

Abstract Two experiments were conducted to determine if 8- to 10-year-old children could be directionally influenced in their causal attributions for success or failure at a motor achievement task. In Experiment 1, 84 boys and girls were provided cause-effect information about a motor task and then experienced a single trial of manipulated success or failure at the task. Only the Ss who were informed that effort was necessary for task success and then experienced success attributed their task outcome to the hypothesized cause (effort) at a significant rate (p < .002). In Experiment 2, 168 children received cause-effect information but were given three trials of either success, failure, or mixed outcomes. Hypothesized attributional tendencies were again limited to conditions where Ss were told that effort was necessary and then experienced either all or mostly success outcomes. These and other near significant results indicate that the treatment has potential for influencing causal attributions within pres...

Affective Consequences of Winning and Losing: An Attributional Analysis

Previous research in academic achievement settings has indicated that causal attributions for success and failure outcomes are important determinants of affective reactions to those outcomes. This study examined the relationships between the dimensions underlying causal attributions (termed causal dimensions) and affective reactions to performance outcomes in table tennis. Attribution processes were found to be important determinants of affective reactions, particularly for winners. In contrast to previous findings, the locus of causality dimension was not found to be an important determinant of affect. Instead, the controllability dimension appeared to be the most influential causal dimension. The implications of these findings for research on attribution-affect relationships are discussed.

The Chicago Institute for the Study of Learning Disabilities

Research at the Chicago institute focused on the social competence of LD children. Studies included investigations of LD children's communicative competence (e.g., adapting one's style to listeners, conversational skills), reading abilities (oral reading and comprehension), causal attributions of success and failure, and the immediate impression LD children make on naive observers.

Intergroup attribution: The role of social categories in causal attribution for behaviour

Abstract The present study was designed to investigate the effects of group membership on observers' attributional processes. It was hypothesized that an observer's pattern of attribution for success and failure will be a function of the outgroup's relative status, and that more severe rules for the attribution of responsibility would be applied to high prestige actors. One hundred and twenty female undergraduate students, classified as either internal or external on Rotter's (1966) I-E scale, made causal attributions for success and failure within the study's 2(I-E) × 3(ingroup/high esteem outgroup/low esteem outgroup) × 2(success/failure) experimental design. The results offered partial support for the study's hypotheses. Primarily the results suggest that similar rules of accountability may operate for both the high esteem outgroup and the ingroup. As for the low esteem outgroup, the pattern of attribution reflects the ambivalence predicted for the subjects in their explanation of the low esteem outgro...

LD and Normal Adolescents' Causal Attributions of Success and Failure at Different Levels of Task Difficulty

The purpose of this study was to investigate learning disabled and normal adolescents' causal attributions of success and failure performances on various levels of task difficulty (easy, moderate, difficult). The results indicated that the students' perceptions of the task difficulty levels was a significant determinant of the two groups' differing causal attributions; locus of control was inadequate for explaining the differences in attribution ascribed by the two groups. In many respects, the learning disabled students' causal ascriptions for performance outcomes were similar to those of students classified as failure oriented.

Objective self-awareness, self-esteem and causal attributions for success and failure

A study using 174 males was conducted to examine the effects of objective self-awareness on causal attributions for success and failure. It was predicted that individual's level of self-esteem would mediate the effects of focus of attention on causal attributions. The results showed that attention to the self increased the dispositional attributions made by low self-esteem subjects in failure conditions, and of high self-esteem subjects in success conditions. The implications of the findings for the theory of objective self-awareness and causal attribution processes are discussed.

Attributions for Achievement-Related Events, Expectancy, and Sentiments

This investigation examined the perceived properties of causal attributions for success and failure and their consequences. Eight attributions or perceived reasons for success and failure, such as ability, effort, and luck, were rated by Chilean and U.S. samples for three causal properties—locus (internal versus external), stability (endurance over time), and controllability (degree to which the person can volitionally alter the cause). The ratings between the two cultures were quite similar and in accordance with attribution theory classifications, although Chilean subjects perceived the external causes as more external, the stable causes as less stable, and the controllable causes as less controllable than did subjects from the United States. In addition, predicted relations between causal stability-expectancy of success and controllability evaluation and liking were also generally confirmed in both cultures. Results were discussed in terms of the generality versus cultural specificity of attributional principles in the achievement domain.

Social representations, social attribution and social identity: The intergroup images of ‘public’ and ‘comprehensive’ schoolboys

AbstractInvestigated the relationship between social representations, intergroup causal attributions and the search for a positive social identity in two rival groups from British secondary education.Part I studied the shared social beliefs 0f 20 ‘Public’ (PS) and 20 ‘Comprehensive’ (CS) schoolboys (age 16 years) concerning similarities and differences between the two types of schoolboy. Each subject wrote a short essay on the topic and these essays were content‐analysed into 13 differences and 4 similarities between the two types of school. The two groups agreed on a number of points, but consensus within each group on a number of beliefs revealed distinct social representations.Part II studied the effect of group membership and social categorization on causal attributions for success and failure in examinations. Twenty‐four PS and 24 CS boys {age 16–17 years) were used in a 2 (school of subjects) × 2 (school of stimuli) × 2 (success/failure) design, with one between and two within‐subject factors. Each subject read four background descriptions of candidates for university entrance, then made a number of ratings. On the page following each description, subjects attributed the candidate's performance to ability, effort, task difficulty and luck; a confidence rating was also made. Analyses of variance suggested that second‐order interactions between group membership of the subjects, social categorization of the stimuli and achievement outcome were most important. Public schoolboys differentiated themselves from the CS boys by means of ability (p &lt; 0.08 and effort (p &lt; 0.0005) attributions; CS boys differentiated in tern of luck (p &lt; 0.06).Part III studied social identity processes in the same 48 subjects. Each subject read a 20—item questionnaire based on Part I, with 10 traits classified as Public and 10 as Comprehensive; within each set of traits half were autostereotype and half heterostereotype traits. Subjects made group‐ratings, evaluations and self‐ratings on each trait. Analyses of variance [2 (schools) × 2 (items) × 2 (stereotype)] were computed on each dependent measure. For the group ratings a main effect of items (p &lt; 0.0001) revealed that PS and CS items were differentially ascribed to the two groups. In addition, CS boys valued CS‐autostereotype items most highly (p &lt; 0.05) and rated themselves higher on CS items (p &lt; 0.0001).Results are discussed in terms of the influence of social representations on both causal attributions and intergroup differentiation; the existence of intergroup biases in achievement attributions; and the different modes of differentiation chosen by the different status groups. Social Identity Theory is seen as a valuable framework with which to consider these findings.

Fear of Success and Causal Attributions of Success and Failure in High School and College Students

Summary College males and females (N = 87) exhibited more Fear of Success (FOS) imagery to both gender-appropriate and gender-inappropriate stimulus cues than high school males and females (N = 88). No overall sex differences in incidence of FOS were observed. The gender-inappropriate male cue (Tom in nursing school) elicited more FOS than the gender-inappropriate female cue (Diane as law student) from college, but not from high school subjects. Subjects did not exhibit significantly more FOS to the gender-inappropriate female cue than to the gender-appropriate cue (Diane in nursing school). The presence of FOS to same-sex cues significantly affected attributions of success and failure on an anagrams task for college and high school males and females. The differences in attributions between males and females with FOS are interpreted in terms of maintaining self-concepts consistent with cultural prescriptions.

Sex differences in causal attributions for success and failure in real and hypothetical sport settings

In Experiment 1, a 48-item attribution questionnaire was administered to 22 members of the men's and women's varsity basketball teams, respectively, after an intrasquad scrimmage. In Experiment 2, the same questionnaire was administered to a random sample of 54 undergraduates who were told to imagine a hypothetical scrimmage. Losing male athletes rated internal characteristics as less important in determining the outcome than did losing females. Winning females rated the opponent's characteristics as less important in determining the outcome than did winning males. Hypothetical female winners rated the opponent's characteristics as more important than did hypothetical male winners. The lack of correspondence in the outcomes of the two experiments and possible methodological shortcomings in the attribution literature are discussed.

Assessing the theoretical models for sex differences in causal attributions for success and failure

Three basic models of attributional sex differences are reviewed: General Externality, Self-Derogation, and Low Expectancy. Although all of the models predict that women are unlikely to attribute their successes to ability, the models were quite different in other predictions. A meta-analysis of 21 studies examining sex differences in success-failure attributions was done to determine which of these three models had the most empirical support. Wording of attribution questions was also assessed. Results indicated only two consistent sex differences: Men make stronger ability attributions than women regardless of the outcome when informational attributional wording is used; and men attribute their successes and failures less to luck. Empirically, none of the models was well supported.

Sex differences in attributions and learned helplessness

This investigation assessed the hypothesis that girls are more likely to be learned helpless in math than boys. Students in grades 5 through 11 completed questionnaires assessing their causal attributions for success and failure in mathematics, their self-concepts of math ability, and their expectations for both current and future success in math. Results indicated that sex differences in attributions depended on the type of methodology used (open-ended or rank-ordered questions). The most consistent difference involved the differential use and ranking of ability, skills, and consistent effort. No sex differences were found in either students' perceptions of their own math ability or in their current achievement expectations. Girls, however, rated their future expectations slightly lower than did boys. Taken together, these results provide little support for the hypothesis that girls are generally more learned helpless in mathematics than are boys.

Causal Attributions of Success and Failure Among Chicano University Students

This study investigated the causal attributions of success among Chicano graduates and of failure among Chicano nongraduates from a major public university. An open- and closed-ended questionnaire was administered to 39 graduates and 36 non graduates concerning the effects of their college experience, factors contributing to graduating or dropping out of college, and their,present employment and income conditions. Results sug gest that students who graduate attribute their success to internal factors while students who do not graduate attribute their failure to external factors.