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.The research reported in this article was supported by a Chancellor's Fellowship from UCLA to the author and by Grant #MH38014 to Bernard Weiner from the Public Health Service. I am grateful to Sandra Graham and Bernard Weiner for their many helpful suggestions, and to Anne Peplau and an anonymous reviewer for their perceptive comments on an earlier version of this paper. Appreciation is also expressed to the staff at the Center for Computer Based Research, UCLA, Gerald Shure, Director.     

Effects of causal belief for prior success or failure on preferences to delay gratification in task contingent versus task noncontingent conditions1

This study investigated how causal belief for prior success or failure affected preferences to delay gratifications in task contingent versus task noncontingent conditions. Success or failure on the Treatment Task and belief about the outcome were experimentally induced to lead fourth-and fifth-grade pupils to perceive task performance as resulting from one of four factors (Ability, Task Difficulty, Effort, or Luck). Thereafter, each subject chose between smaller, noncontingent rewards and delayed, larger rewards that were contingent on waiting only or on successful performance on tasks which varied in similarity to the initial task. As predicted, preferences to delay were not differentially affected by success or failure when subjects believed unstable factors of effort or luck caused the outcome. However, delay was affected by prior success or failure when the belief was that the outcome resulted from stable factors of ability or task difficulty, with subjects delaying more after success than following failure. Furthermore, the outcome predicted delay on tasks identical or similar to the Treatment Task whereas belief about causality predicted delay on the Different Task. Delay was greater by subjects with ability or effort inductions than by subjects with a luck induction.     

Learned helplessness and learned resourcefulness: effects of noncontingent success and failure on individuals differing in self-control skills

We designed two experiments to investigate the role of self-control processes in learned-helplessness studies by assessing the differential reactions to uncontrollability of subjects who presumably had either a rich (high resourceful, or HR) or poor (low resourceful, or LR) repertoire of self-control skills. HR and LR subjects received noncontingent success feedback, failure feedback, or no feedback on a task that ostensibly assessed "therapeutic abilities." Subjects were subsequently tested on insolvable puzzles (Experiment 1) or on solvable anagrams (Experiment 2). According to Kanfer and Hagerman's (1981) self-regulation model, self-regulatory activities are evoked primarily in situations in which subjects are faced with repeated failure. Hence we predicted that individual differences in self-control would influence performance on the insolvable puzzles and not anagram performance after exposure to noncontingent failure. This prediction was confirmed: Only the performance of LR subjects on the insolvable puzzles was debilitated by the helplessness induction, whereas HR and LR subjects showed equal helplessness-induced deficits on the anagrams. The latter finding was interpreted in terms of the learned-helplessness model without the mediating effects of self-regulatory processes. As predicted from the self-control model, HR subjects more frequently checked statements indicating positive self-evaluations and task-oriented thoughts and less frequently checked negative self-evaluations than did LR subjects during exposure to uncontrollability in both experiments. We concluded that the self-control model accounts best for subjects' self-reactions during exposure to uncontrollability or failure, whereas the learned-helplessness model accounts for the generalization of helplessness from uncontrollable situations to controllable ones.     

Expectation of success following noncontingent punishment in introverts and extraverts

Recent findings indicate that extraverts are more likely than introverts to continue responding in the face of punishment and frustrating nonreward (Newman & Kosson, 1984; Tiggemann, Winefield, & Brebner, 1982). The current study investigates whether extraverts' expectations for success are, similarly, resistant to interruption and alteration. To test this hypothesis, 50 introverted and 50 extraverted male undergraduates were exposed to pretreatment with either a 50% level of noncontingent reward or a 50% level of noncontingent punishment. As predicted, there were significant Group X Pretreatment interactions on all dependent measures. In comparison to those introverts who received the punishment pretreatment, extraverts exposed to the same pretreatment placed larger wagers on their ability to succeed, and reported higher levels of perceived control. In addition, relative to their estimates for the pretreatment task, extraverts exposed to noncontingent punishment increased their expectation for success, whereas introverts exposed to noncontingent punishment decreased their performance expectations. No differences were observed between the two groups following pretreatment with noncontingent reward. The results suggest that extraverts are characterized by a distinctive reaction to punishment involving response facilitation as opposed to response inhibition.     

Effects of initial success or failure in a stressful or relaxed environment on subsequent task performance

Forty male and 40 female undergraduate subjects worked on anagram problems in either a stressful or a relaxed environment after having experienced either success or failure on a similar task. Internal arousal, which was expected to be minimal following success in a relaxed setting and maximal following failure in the stressful environment, was assumed to bear an inverted U-shaped relation to performance. Consistent with the implications of these assumptions, achievement in a stressful setting was lower following initial failure than following initial success, while initial failure in a relaxed environment facilitated subsequent performance. The interpretation of these results was supported by the effects of the experimental variables on indirect measures of arousal as well as by the relationship between direct measures of arousal and task performance. In addition, the achievement of female subjects tended to be facilitated by failure while the performance of males was consistently debilitated by it.     

Effects of an indoor plant on creative task performance and mood

In this study, we investigated the effect of an indoor plant on task performance and on mood. Three room arrangements were used as independent variables: a room with (1) a plant, or (2) a magazine rack with magazines placed in front of the participants, or (3) a room with neither of these objects. Undergraduate students (M= 35, F= 55) performed a task of associating up to 30 words with each of 20 specified words in a room with one of the three room arrangements. Task performance scores showed that female participants performed better in view of the plant in comparison to the magazine rack (p < 0.05). Moreover, mood was better with the plant or the magazine rack in the room compared to the no object condition (p < 0.05). However, the difference in task performance was highly influenced by the evaluation about the plant or the magazine rack. It is suggested that the compatibility between task demand and the environment is an important factor in facilitating task performances.     

Effects of own group success or failure on judgements of task performance by children of different ethnicities

Children in majority groups hold favourable attitudes toward members of their own group, whereas those in minority groups typically hold more favourable attitudes toward majority than own group members. It was expected that when evaluating task outcomes, majority group children would display own group favouritism, and minority children would show other group favouritism or ‘reverse ethnocentrism’. In this study, white and Native Indian elementary school children saw a video of a white and native child listening to sounds and trying to identify them. One-third of subjects saw white models correct more often than Native models, one-third saw Native models more often correct than white models, and the remaining third saw both models correct on an equal number of trials. When white models were successful, children from both groups made more positive evaluations of, optimistic predictions about, and internal attributions for task outcomes. When these models did poorly, negative attributes were deemphasized and task outcomes were attributed to external factors. Success by native models was attributed to external factors and task outcomes had little influence on predictions or evaluations. When native models were unsuccessful subjects accentuated negative attributes of these models and made internal attributions for their failures. Results were discussed in terms of cognitive and motivational theories of social judgements.     

Effects of being observed on learning following success and failure experiences

In two experiments female subjects performed a task either alone or while being observed by a female experimenter, after which they were told that they had performed well or poorly. On a paired-associates (PA) learning task that followed, subjects who performed in the presence of the observing experimenter required more trials to criterion and committed more errors than those who worked alone only if they had supposedly done poorly on the preceding task. Subjects who had done well on the prior task performed better on the PA task when observed than when alone provided that the preliminary task had also measured verbal learning. A measure of skin conductance indicated increased arousal under conditions of observation on the PA task only after a poor performance on the preceding task. The results are discussed in terms of the drive theory of social facilitation and the conditions under which being observed produces evaluation apprehension.     

Self-esteem and the effects of success and failure feedback n performance

High and low self-esteem subjects received success or failure feedback regarding their performance on a task described as measuring their sensitivity to other people. Presumably as part of another study, changes in their self-perceptions regarding sensitivity to others were assessed, as well as changes in their performance on a different task Changes in self-perception were greater when the feedback was consistent with subjects' overall level of self-evaluation Task performance following failure was poorer than that following success HSE subjects performed better following success feedback, and LSE subjects performed more poorly following failure There were no significant performance changes for the HSE-failure and LSE-success subjects. The degree of change in self-perception of sensitivity to others was highly correlated with the magnitude of performance changes     

Effects of cooperation and competition on responsibility attribution after success and failure

Pairs of Ss cooperated (Experiment I) or competed (Experiment II) in a response-matching task whose outcome either exceeded (Success condition), met (Neutral condition), or did not reach (Failure condition) a prior-established expected outcome level. Afterwards, Ss attributed responsibility for their outcomes. It was found under both cooperation and competition that neutral outcomes tended to produce situational attribution, and success produced self-attribution. However, failure produced partner attribution under cooperation but situational attribution under competition. The results were discussed from the standpoint of two general theories of responsibility attribution, the first emphasizing problem solving based on cues, and the second emphasizing motivational biases.     

Effects of fear of success, fear of failure, type of opponent, and feedback on female achievement performance

Female undergraduates (N = 240) assessed for fear of success (FS) and fear of failure (FF) competed against a male, female, or no opponent (norms) on an alpha-numeric substitution task. After completing one set of trials, subjects arbitrarily received success or failure feedback, then performed again. While there were no significant effects when subject's FS classification was based on total scores from the entire set of four cues used, performance effects were found for Horner's original cue: FS-absent females performed better against a male than a female opponent, whereas the reverse was true for the FS-present subjects. Two of the other FS cues interacted with FF: at low levels of FF, FS-absent subjects performed better than FS-present subjects; for high levels of FF, there were no differences between FS groups. A number of postperformance affect ratings were consistent with theoretical expectations that FS-present females would experience more negative effect over success in achievement contexts than would FS-absent females.     

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.     

Re‐examining the effects of noncontingent success on self‐handicapping behaviour

Background: Self‐handicapping refers to the practice on the part of certain individuals to handicap their performance when poor performance is likely to reveal low ability. Noncontingent success (feedback that is inflated relative to performance) is more likely to promote self‐handicapping behaviour than noncontingent failure (failure feedback based on false or misleading information). However, the reasons for the differing effects of these forms of performance feedback on self‐handicapping behaviour remain obscure. Aims: The present study sought an explanation for the differing effects of these forms of performance feedback, testing the assumption that students high in self‐handicapping behaviour would react more negatively following noncontingent success, reporting more unstable and external attributions, higher anxiety, and a greater propensity to claim handicaps than those low in self‐handicapping behaviour. No differences were expected on any of these measures for high relative to low self‐handicappers following either noncontingent failure or success. Sample: Participants were 72 undergraduate students, divided equally between high and low self‐handicapping groups. Method: High and low self‐handicappers were assigned to one of three performance feedback conditions: noncontingent failure, success and noncontingent success. High and low self‐handicappers were then given an opportunity to claim handicaps prior to completing measures of attributions and state anxiety. Subsequently, they completed 12 remote associate tasks, serving as an assessment of performance, and 16 unicursal tasks, assessing practice effort. Results: Following noncontingent success, high self‐handicappers reported greater anxiety, more unproductive attributions and claimed more handicaps than low self‐handicappers. However no differences were evident for high and low self‐handicappers following either noncontingent failure or success. High self‐handicappers also performed poorly on the remote associates tasks and reduced practice effort on the unicursal tasks.     

Effects of expectancies of different reward magnitudes in transfer from noncontingent pairings to instrumental performance

In two experiments, rats received noncontingent pairings of two stimuli with food reward, one paired with small reward and the other with large reward, and received bar press training with large reward or with small reward. When the noncontingent stimuli (NS) were presented for test during subsequent rewarded bar pressing and during early extinction of bar pressing, responding for each group was faster in the presence of the NS which was paired with the same reward magnitude that group received in bar press training than to the NS which had been paired with a different reward magnitude. As extinction progressed, all groups responded more slowly in the presence of the NS which had been paired with the large reward than in the presence of the NS which had been paired with small reward. These results were interpreted as indicating that responding in the presence of an NS depends on: (i) whether the reward expectancy elicited by the NS has been conditioned to the instrumental response, and (ii) the relationship between the reward expected in the presence of the NS and that received in test.