Power increases the self-serving bias in the attribution of collective successes and failures

Three studies test the effect of power on the self-serving bias in attributing collective outcomes. The first two studies measure (Experiment 1) and manipulate (Experiment 2) power and then measure the internal (vs. external) attribution of past successes and failures. Consistently, those who feel powerful show a stronger self-serving tendency to selectively attribute successes internally and failures externally than those who feel powerless. Experiment 3 compares the effects of power (control over others) and personal control (over oneself). We find that power increases the self-serving bias, but a lack of control can limit this effect by reducing the external attribution of failures. Presumably, people who lack control are disinclined to attribute outcomes—including failures—externally because doing so would further aggravate their lack of control. Together, these results suggest that power increases a bias in the attribution of success and failure and thus presents a fundamental challenge to good leadership.     

Actors' and observers' attributions for success and failure: A comparative test of predictions from Kelley's cube,self-serving bias,and positivity bias formulations

An experiment was conducted to test implications of Kelley's cube, self-serving bias, and positivity bias formulations for attributions associated with success and failure on a test of “abstract reasoning.” Subjects either experienced or observed outcomes on three tasks. They then made attributions for only the third outcome, which was either a success or a failure. The first task was of the same type and had the same outcome as the third task, thus providing the information that the outcome being attributed was high in consistency. The second task was of a different type than the first and third tasks, and its outcome either did or did not differ from their outcomes, thus varying information about the distinctiveness of the outcome being attributed. Consensus was manipulated by presenting false norms, ostensibly from a previous experiment. In contrast to previous research, the present study included thorough checks on all of these informational manipulations. Regardless of attributor role (actor or observer), subjects attributed success more to internal than to external factors and attributed failure more to external than to internal factors. These findings indicate a general bias toward positive evaluations. Discussion centers on possible alternative interpretations of these findings, restrictions on their generality, and the limitations that they seem to impose on the applicability of the other two formulations.     

Perfectionism, achievement motives, and attribution of success and failure in female soccer players

While some researchers have identified adaptive perfectionism as a key characteristic to achieving elite performance in sport, others see perfectionism as a maladaptive characteristic that undermines, rather than helps, athletic performance. Arguing that perfectionism in sport contains both adaptive and maladaptive facets, the present article presents a study of N = 74 female soccer players investigating how two facets of perfectionism-perfectionistic strivings and negative reactions to imperfection (Stoeber, Otto, Pescheck, Becker, & Stoll, 2007 )-are related to achievement motives and attributions of success and failure. Results show that striving for perfection was related to hope of success and self-serving attributions (internal attribution of success). Moreover, once overlap between the two facets of perfectionism was controlled for, striving for perfection was inversely related to fear of failure and self-depreciating attributions (internal attribution of failure). In contrast, negative reactions to imperfection were positively related to fear of failure and self-depreciating attributions (external attribution of success) and inversely related to self-serving attributions (internal attribution of success and external attribution of failure). It is concluded that striving for perfection in sport is associated with an adaptive pattern of positive motivational orientations and self-serving attributions of success and failure, which may help athletic performance. In contrast, negative reactions to imperfection are associated with a maladaptive pattern of negative motivational orientations and self-depreciating attributions, which is likely to undermine athletic performance. Consequently, perfectionism in sport may be adaptive in those athletes who strive for perfection, but can control their negative reactions when performance is less than perfect.     

Let’s play the blame game: The distinct effects of personal standards and self-critical perfectionism on attributions of success and failure during goal pursuit

In the present study, we examined whether personal standards and self-critical perfectionism differentially related to how people attributed their success and failures in pursuing their personal goals. In two studies (Ns = 185 and 240), participants set three week-long (Study 1) and semester-long (Study 2) goals, and at the end of the week or semester answered questions about goal status, internal and external attributions, and likelihood to reset the goal. Mulitlevel analyses showed that self-critical perfectionism was related to attributing goal attainment to external sources; this was not the case for failure or abandonment. Conversely, personal standards perfectionism was related to attributing failure more to external sources. Overall, these results highlight differences in how perfectionism influences the use of the self-serving bias.     

The Self-Serving Bias and the Use of Objective and Subjective Methods for Measuring Success and Failure

Abstract

Students (N = 45) were asked to judge their recent exam performance on a success versus failure rating scale. They were also asked to make causal attributions for their test performance on an internal versus external scale. The students' scores were divided into success and failure groups by using both subjective (self-reported outcome) and objective (actual exam scores) definitions of outcome. For both methods, the success group had higher internal attributions for their performance than did the failure group. The effect size for the subjective methods of defining outcome, however, produced a stronger self-serving bias that did the objective definition.     

Affective consequences of optimism and pessimism in the face of failure: Evidence of a moderation by attribution

The present experiment set out to investigate the affective consequences of dispositional optimism and attribution in performance settings. Optimistic and pessimistic participants (N = 42 each) experienced failure at solving two cognitive tasks in an alleged team setting. The failure could either be attributed to themselves (internal condition) or a teammate (external condition). We found disordinal interactions of optimism and attribution on the feelings of success and feelings of failure. While the affective state of optimists deteriorated significantly if they attributed the failure internally compared to externally, pessimists were emotionally unaffected by the locus of attribution. Moreover, optimists experienced affective benefits compared to pessimists when they attributed the outcome externally. The reverse was true if they had attributed internally. Affective consequences of optimism and pessimism after failure therefore seem to differ depending on attributions. Furthermore, pessimists seemed to be unresponsive to the affective effects of attribution in our study. This insensitiveness implies differences in the cognitive processing of outcomes, a trait × cognition interaction that should be investigated further.     

Attributions for the negative historical actions of a group

Two field studies examined the attributions made for the historically negative behaviour of a group as a whole, depending on whether the actions were committed by the ingroup or an outgroup. In the first study, Jewish people assigned more internal responsibility to Germans for their treatment of Jewish people during the Second World War than Germans assigned to their own group. In the second study, people attributed the negative historical actions of another nation more internally (and less externally) than similar negative historical actions committed by their own nation. This pattern of intergroup attributional bias was more pronounced among people who highly identified with their national ingroup. Outgroup homogeneity and perceptions of differences between the groups were also significantly predicted by ingroup identification. Links between social identity theory and the intergroup attribution bias are considered. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Attribution of success and failure revisited, or: The motivational bias is alive and well in attribution theory

Do causal attributions serve the need to protect and / or enhance self-esteem? In a recent review, Miller and Ross (1975) proposed that there is evidence for self-serving effect in the attribution of success but not in the attribution of failure; and that this effect reflects biases in information-processing rather than self-esteem maintenance. The present review indicated that self-serving effects for both success and failure are obtained in most but not all experimental paradigms. Processes which may suppress or even reverse the self-serving effect were discussed. Most important, the examination of research in which self-serving effects are obtained suggested that these attributions are better understood in motivational than in information-processing terms.     

Self-serving biases: The role of perspective-taking

This research explores the role of perspective taking in self-serving biases. Assisted by a confederate, 80 subjects performed an impression-formation task and were given either success or failure bogus feedback. One week later, half of the subjects watched their performance on videotape and provided causal attributions (‘observers’). The other half simply gave causal attributions (‘actors’). Thus, the experiment employed a modified version of the actor/observer paradigm with one group of subjects taking the perspective of observers (‘observers’) and one group of subjects keeping their original perspective (‘actors’). The aim of this study was to test whether the change of perspective would increase dispositional causal attributions both in success and failure conditions. Results showed that subjects gave greater causal weight to internal factors (ability, effort) and less causal weight to external factors (task characteristics, collaboration with the partner) in the success than in the failure condition. Moreover, in a direct comparison task, subjects attributed a greater percentage of responsibility to themselves than to their partner in the success than in the failure condition. However, the type of perspective produced no significant effects, but showed an attenuation of self-serving biases for observers as compared to actors. A motivational explanation of the results is proposed.     

Emotion and the Self-Serving Bias

The influence of specific emotions (guilt and revulsion) on the self-serving bias was investigated. Participants were recruited from an undergraduate population. There were 360 participants (132 male) with a mean age of 19.41 years. Participants took part in an online study, which involved taking a ten-question test, completing an emotional induction, receiving test feedback, and making an attribution for test performance. Results revealed a significant effect of feedback (p < 0.001) indicating the self-serving bias. Results also revealed a significant effect of emotion over this self-serving bias. Both guilty and revolted participants made less self-enhancing attributions for success (p = 0.04), and less self-protecting attributions for failure (p = 0.006). The hypothesis that the valence of specific emotions influences the self-serving bias was supported. No support was found for the hypothesis that the appraisal dimensions of specific emotions influence the self-serving bias. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.     

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.     

Affective state mediates causal attributions for success and failure

The influence of affect on causal attributions for success and failure was examined in this experiment. A positive, neurtral, or negative mood was induced in subjects who then learned they had either succeeded or failed an aptitude test taken previously. Relative to neutral mood control conditions, subjects in both positive and negative mood conditions showed a pronounced self-serving bias, particularly following success. The finding is interpreted as self-regulation of affective state. Specifically, causal attribution of success to internal factors can sustain or enhance positive affect; attribution of failure to external factors can diminish negative affect. Ancillary analyses corroborated this interpretation.     

Nonsmokers' Attributions for the Outcomes of Smokers: Some Potential Consequences of the Stigmatization of Smokers1

The current research examines intergroup attributional biases made by nonsmokers for the outcomes of smokers. Nonsmokers were asked to make attributions for either the success or failure of either an in-group member (a nonsmoker) or an out-group member (a smoker). Overall, subjects attributed the preponderance of cause for the outcomes to external or unstable (approximately 80%) rather than internal (approximately 20%) factors. However, results confirmed the expected in-group protective and in-group enhancing attributions on the part of nonsmokers. Specifically, nonsmokers attributed a significantly higher proportion of success to external factors and a lower proportion of success to internal factors when the target was a smoker compared to when the target was a nonsmoker. The implications of these results for smokers and smoking policy are discussed.     

Causal attribution and self-justification as explanations for the consensus expectation of one's social value orientation

This study focuses on explanations for the perceived consensus of one's own social value orientation. The prediction of the triangle hypothesis that the consensus expectation of individualistic and competitive people is higher than that of cooperative people was partially supported. Only individualists expected their own orientation more frequently of other people. According to a causal attribution explanation, it was expected that subjects' causal attributions for their own orientation to internal and external causes influenced their consensus expectations. Only attributions to internal causes differed significantly between subjects with different orientations and corresponded with their consensus estimates. Individualism was attributed least internally, cooperation most internally, and competition in between. Additionally, direct support for the effect of internal attributions on consensus expectations was found. Compared with subjects who attributed their own orientation more internally, subjects who attributed it less internally were more likely to expect their own orientation among other people. According to a self-justification explanation, it was hypothesized that the consensus expectations of individualists and competitors would be higher when first their own social orientation was assessed and then the orientation they expected to predominate among others than in the reversed order. This hypothesis was not supported.     

Gender differences in performance attributions: Students' explanations for personal success or failure

Women are often said to exhibit an externality bias in their performance attributions. To test this hypothesis, male and female college students made effort, ability, luck, and task difficulty attributions for their performance on a recent course examination. Measures of the students' affective reactions toward their performance were also obtained. Successful students, whether male or female, made internal attributions and were pleased with their performance. Stronger internal attributions were associated with more positive affective reactions for these students. Unsuccessful female students made external attributions, were displeased with their performance, and felt better when they attributed their failure to unstable factors. Unsuccessful male students were also displeased with their performance, but tended to make more internal attributions for their failure, and felt better as a result. These findings, which suggest the influence of an internality bias among men, rather than an externality bias among women, were interpreted in terms of the male sex role.     

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

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.     

Self-, ingroup, and outgroup achievement attributions of German and Turkish pupils

The present study investigated intergroup bias in achievement attributions in a sample of 62 German and 55 Turkish pupils (aged 15 years) in the Federal Republic of Germany. The design was 2 x 2 x 2 x 3 (Ethnic Group x Outgroup Prejudice x Outcome x Stimulus) with repeated measures on the last two factors. Subjects attributed examination performance to ability, effort, luck, and task difficulty. Intergroup bias was limited to German pupils, who attributed failure of an ingroup member or self more to bad luck than they did that of an outgroup member. Turkish pupils acted more in terms of self than ingroup, attributing the success of another Turkish child more to good luck than they did that of self or an outgroup member. They also failed to distinguish clearly between success and failure in their task attributions. Results are discussed in terms of the inventive nature of explanations for ability-linked performance and the motivational consequences of causal attributions.     

Depression and causal attributions for success and failure

The present study investigated the effects of depression on causal attributions for success and failure. Specifically, female university students were separated into depressed and nondepressed groups on the basis of Costello--Comrey Depression Scale scores, and then received either 20%, 55%, or 80% reinforcement on a word association task. Following the task, attributions were made for outcome using the four factors of effort, ability, task difficulty, and luck. In accord with predictions generated from a self-serving biases hypothesis, nondepressives made internal (ability, effort) attributions for a successful outcome (80% reinforcement) and external attributions (luck, task difficulty) for a failure outcome (20% reinforcement). As predicted from consideration of the self-blame component of depression, the attributions made by depressives for a failure outcome were personal or internal. Contrary to expectations, depressives also made internal attributions for a successful outcome. The findings for depressives were discussed in relation to the recently revised learned helplessness model of depression, which incorporates causal attributions. For nondepressives, the findings were considered in terms of the self-serving biases hypothesis.     

Spontaneous and reactive attributions following academic achievement

This paper describes two studies which deal with attributions following academic achievement. Study 1 investigated the influence of different types of instructions (spontaneous vs. reactive), self-concepts of ability (high vs. low), and outcomes (success vs. failure) on causal attributions in a school setting. Participants were 402 eighth to tenth graders. Students with a low self-concept of ability produced more attributions than students with a high self-concept. Under reactive conditions, students' attributions following success were in accordance with the self-consistency theory. Under spontaneous conditions, these students produced attributions in a self-serving way. Furthermore, success evoked more attributions than failure. In Study 2, 160 university students worked on an unfamiliar task (a computer-simulated dynamic system). The results supported the assumption that students spontaneously generate attributions to raise or at least preserve their self-esteem.     

Self-serving Bias and Actor-Observer Differences In Organizations: An Empirical Analysis1

Self-serving attributional bias is the tendency for a subordinate to attribute personal (internal) cause for successful performance but to assign cause for failures to external factors. The actor-observed difference in attribution is the tendency for concerned observers (managers) of a subordinate's performance to attribute cause for the performance to factors internal to the subordinate, in direct opposition to the subordinate's external attribution for the same performance. This research investigated both phenomena. Twenty-four experienced managers served as manager/subjects in simulated appraisal situations. Subjects with prior work experience served as subordinate/subjects. Each manager participated in four separate simulated performance appraisals, under differing conditions of objective performance and work history, for a total of 96 interactions. The results revealed a strong self-serving bias on the part of subordinates. The results also strongly supported the notion of an actor-observer difference in performance attribution. Subordinates tended to attribute more externally and managers tended to attribute more internally (to the subordinate), regardless of performance level. The research also served to delineate and articulate the relationship between self-serving bias and actor-observer differences.