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.     

The role of ability and effort in attributions for sport achievement1

In an initial attempt to assess the applicability of Weiner's (1972) attribution model to sport-related behavior, the effects of ability (high versus low), effort (high versus low) and outcome (success versus failure) on causal attributions were investigated. After riding a bicycle ergometer, subjects were asked to attribute the cause of their increased or decreased performance to ability, effort, task difficulty and/or luck. The results indicated that successful outcomes were attributed to both ability and effort and that unsuccessful outcomes were attributed to a lack of ability but not a lack of effort. While the task was seen as easier following success, the perception of low effort mediated this relationship. The results were interpreted to support a situationally specific conceptualization of sport achievement. First, whereas a motivational bias appears to preclude low ability attributions in intellectual pursuits, such is not the case with a novel physical task contingent on strength and muscular endurance. It was suggested that physiologically related ability may be viewed as relatively unstable. Second, relative to intellectual tasks, sport-related effort may be more salient and more quantifiable and may exert a greater influence on subsequent attributions for sport achievement. Finally, support was obtained for the assertions that affect is codetermined by both effort and ability and that expectancy discrepant performance is accounted for largely by perceptions of task difficulty.     

奖赏结构与结果效价对儿童自我—他人成就归因与评价的影响

本研究旨在考察不同的奖赏结构和结果效价对儿童自我-他人成就归因、自我-他人奖赏评价的影响。实验采用2×2×2混合设计,其中自我-他人归因与评价为被试内设计。被试为小学五年级学生74名(男生36人,女生38人),实验通过解决一系列迷津测验来创设成功和失败情境。实验结果表明,奖赏结构对儿童自我-他人能力归因的影响、奖赏结构与自我-他人归因的交互作用对能力归因的影响、自我-他人运气归因均达到了显著性水平;努力和任务难度归因不显著;儿童对自我和他人的成就结果倾向于做能力和运气归因,较为忽略努力和任务难度在成就行为中的作用。     

Achievement motivation for males and females as a determinant of attributions for success and failure

Male and female college students, divided according to levels of achievement motivation, were asked to do an anagram task at which their success or failure was determined by experimental manipulation of the problems they were given. Their ratings of ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck as possible causes for success or failure indicated that those with high achievement motivation of both sexes made relatively higher ratings for ability and lower ratings for task difficulty. Females tended to employ higher ratings for luck, and females with high achievement motivation made maximal use of effort as a causal factor. Theoretical implications and potential applications of these data are discussed.     

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.     

Gender, Female Traditionality, Achievement Level, and Cognitions of Success and Failure

Differences in ratings of initial expectancy of success, perceived scholastic ability, and causal attributions were assessed for male and female high school students for a simulated academic test. Subjects were also differentiated on their achievement level (i.e., under- and overachievement) and the traditionality of their career aspirations. As predicted, higher expectancies were found for high performance achievers and nontraditional females. Males generally made more attributions to lack of effort for failure, as did low performance achievers. Females and high performance achievers attributed success more to effort. Hypotheses concerning differential usage of luck and ability attributions were not supported. Although there was an overall trend for females to be more external, traditionality also mediated causal attributions for females.     

The impact of sex,achievement domain,and conceptual orientation on causal attributions

Sex differences in achievement domain and achievement orientation were examined to better understand women's achievement. College students (84 women, 59 men) were asked to write brief accounts of a past success and a past failure and to provide causal attributions for each. More women recalled affiliative-process events, and proportionally more men recalled mastery-impact events. The relationship of topic domain and conceptual orientation to causal attributions was apparent only for accounts of failure. Topic domain and conceptual orientation interacted with sex to further influence stability attributions. When women conceptualized failure as a process, they emphasized attributions to effort and luck, while men accounted for the process failure by ability and task. When the failure was conceptualized in terms of final impact, the sex pattern of attributions was reversed.     

Necessary versus sufficient causal schemata for success and failure

197 subjects judged the perceived presence or absence of ability or effort, given information about task outcome (success or failure), the difficulty of the task (easy, intermediate, or difficult), and the state of the complementary cause (effort or ability). The data revealed that a multiple sufficient causal schema is used to explain common events. That is, the presence of ability or effort is perceived as enough to produce success at an easy task, while the absence of ability or effort is perceived as sufficient to result in failure at a difficult task. On the other hand, a multiple necessary schema tends to be employed to explain uncommon events. Success at a difficult task is believed to require both ability and effort, while failure at an easy task tends to be perceived as caused by low ability and low effort. In addition, there were disparities in the causal judgments for success and failure: failure outcomes are more likely to elicit a multiple sufficient schema. Further, in achievement-related contexts ability and effort are perceived as negatively covarying causal determinants of typical successes and failures. In addition to supporting hypotheses from attribution theory, the data shed further light upon the perceived determinants of success and failure, and demonstrate the influence of cognitive structures on achievement-related causal judgments.     

Immediate attributional effects of success and failure in the field: Testing some laboratory hypotheses

Investigated how team success and failure are attributed to dispositional and situational factors as a function of immediate outcome of the group performance, past success of the team, and individual performance of team members within the group. 150 Little League baseball players' attributions for the team's outcome were taken separately with regard to team- and self-factors immediately after the conclusion of a game. The results reveal that success, independent of the margin of victory, is primarily assigned to effort and ability, while clear-loss is attributed to both effort and task difficulty. Conversely, bare-loss is seen to be mainly due to task difficulty and secondarily to low effort. The results are interpreted as supporting the notion of ego-centered causal judgments, but not necessarily the motive to enhance one's self, on the basis of the new proposition that effort has a different attributional meaning in the cases of success and failure; when losing effort is treated as an external factor, and when winning, effort tends to be interpreted as an internal factor. No differences with respect to attributions exist between individual players who perform poorly and those who excell within the team performance.     

The Public and Private Use of Consensus-Raising Excuses

ABSTRACT Two experiments tested the proposition that people use consensus-raising excuses more in private than in public when the audience has information that could refute subjects' claims about others In Experiment 1, subjects received success or failure feedback and made public or private attributions to ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck In Experiment 2, subjects received positive or negative feedback and evaluated themselves and others on the trait Task difficulty attributions and evaluations of others are consensus-raising measures Consistent with our hypothesis, subjects receiving negative feedback in Experiment 1 claimed that the task was more difficult, and in Experiment 2 evaluated the other more negatively in private than in public.     

The Relationship of Gender, Gender-Related Traits, and Achievement Orientation to Achievement Attributions: A Study of Subject-Selected Accomplishments

ABSTRACT Female and male college students (N= 251 and 84, respectively) described important accomplishments in their lives and reported attributions for the causes of their success Regression analyses indicated that, as predicted, students' gender explained a small portion of the variance in attributions, and the goals and performance standards of the students' achievement experiences (achievement orientations) accounted for more variance in attributions than did the other predictors Further analyses showed that the domains of students' accomplishments affected their attributions to effort luck, and ability, and that students' achievement goals and performance evaluation standards predicted their attributions to task difficulty, effort, and ability Researchers are urged to explore attributions made concerning self-selected achievements, and to focus on variables other than sex in their search for the determinants of achievement attributions     

Causal attributions of high and low achievement motivation college students for performance on examinations

College students high and low in test anxiety attributed their performance on each of four examinations in a course to ability, test difficulty, preparation, and luck. Individuals high and low in test anxiety typically evidence systematic predispositions to account for their achievement-related behavior in different terms. The present research substantially replicated these earlier (laboratory and Intellectual Achievement Responsibility Scale) findings in an actual achievement setting. In addition, however, the present findings differed from the earlier evidence in some important respects. Specifically, (a) high test-anxiety students' attributions for failure were far less self-deprecating than in the laboratory evidence, and (b) high test-anxiety students' attributions (for both success and failure) became more personally flattering, or comforting, as the semester progressed. Results were discussed in terms of the laboratory — field distinction and of the influence of a temporal, or time of measurement, factor, hitherto ignored in the causal attribution literature.This research was facilitated by a grant from the Research Council of the Graduate School, University of Missouri-Columbia, and the National Institute of Mental Health (1 R08 31910), both to the first author.     

Causal Attributions of Male and Female Performance by Young Children

Males and females in kindergarten and third grade predicted whether a boy or a girl would succeed on a masculine or a feminine task. Some predictions were confirmed; others were not. The children were asked to explain the winner's success by choosing among four determinants of achievement: ability, effort, task ease, and luck. For third graders, luck was more important in determining the success of an unpredicted winner than a predicted winner. For both ages, female success on a masculine task was attributed more to effort than to ability. These findings support attribution theory and indicate that differential perceptions of male and female performance exist in young children.     

Effects of induced success/failure and attributions on the problem-solving behavior of psychologically androgynous and feminine women

The aim of the present study was to examine the relation between masculinity and femininity in women and their responses to induced success or failure. Also experimentally manipulated were the subjects' performance attributions. Psychologically androgynous and feminine women either succeeded or failed at a concept formation task and were provided with internal, external, or no causal attributions for their performance. Then a second concept formation task was administered. The attribution manipulation failed to affect task performance and was not involved in any interactions. For feminine subjects, failure increased the trials necessary to reach criterion on the second task, whereas success had no effect. In contrast, the performance of androgynous subjects was unaffected by failure but facilitated by success. Finally, whereas androgynous subjects attributed success primarily to their ability and failure to task difficulty, feminine subjects attributed success and failure about equally to these two factors. It was suggested that androgynous women's use of the “egotistical” pattern of performance attributions gives them an advantage over feminine women with respect to the maintenance of self-esteem.     

Causal attributions for success and failure in relation to expectations of success based upon selective or manipulative control

Subjects worked at a 10-item Anagrams Test. In a manipulative control condition the prior performance of subjects on a set of practice anagrams was controlled so that half of these subjects began the test with high expectations of success and half with low expectations of success As a check on the manipulation, subjects provided ratings of how confident they were that they could pass the test (i e, solve five anagrams or more) In a selective control condition subjects were not given practice items but were subsequently assigned to high versus low expectation groups on the basis of their confidence ratings The difficulty level of the items in the Anagrams Test was manipulated so that half the subjects in each condition passed the test and half failed. Subsequently all subjects were required to rate the degree to which they considered ability (or lack of ability), effort (or lack of effort), task difficulty (easy or hard), and luck (good or bad) were causes of their performance outcome (success or failure). It was found that the expected success was attributed more to ability and less to good luck than was the unexpected success The expected failure was attributed more to lack of ability and less to bad luck than was the unexpected failure There was a greater tendency for subjects to appeal to task difficulty and effort as causes of their performance when they succeeded than when they failed. These results were discussed in terms of a structural balance model of attribution behavior and also in relation to Heider's naive analysis of the causes of action     

A test of Weiner's attribution theory inertial motivation hypothesis1

This study (N= 160 males) examined the cognitive and inertial motivation effects of overt success feedback on subjects high and low in resultant achievement motivation. The cognitive effects of overt success feedback were investigated by requesting attributions to effort, ability, luck, and task difficulty concerning performance on a digit symbol substitution task. The inertial motivation effects of overt success feedback were investigated through a transfer design. Results indicated overt success feedback to have an inertial motivation effect on performance efficiency at a subsequent verbal learning task. The results provided evidence against Weiner's (1972) attribution theory version of the inertial motivation hypothesis, and were interpreted within the general learning theory framework combined with the achievement and test anxiety models of Atkinson and Sarason. The interpretation offered considers the various experimental conditions as sources of motivation.     

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.     

Causal attributions for losing as perceived by adolescents

To assess the causal attributions for losing perceived by both early and late adolescents, a sample of 150 high school students responded to a questionnaire comprising three categories of activities (sport, academic, and social) in which they had not won or achieved a desired outcome. The obtained attributions for not winning were categorized into four areas: task difficulty, luck, effort, or ability. Adolescent girls indicated significantly more internal attributions and boys more external attributions. Seventh graders' attributions were external and twelfth graders' were internal. No differences emerged as a function of high and low self-esteem. Implications for the structure of achievement tasks are discussed.