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.     

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.     

Locus of control and causal attribution for positive and negative outcomes on university examinations

One-hundred-five internal and external locus of control subjects attributed responsibility for their positive and negative outcomes on a university examination. Internal and positive outcome subjects attributed responsibility to internal causal factors while external and negative outcome subjects were more external in their causal attributions. Overall ratings of the four causal components ability, effort, task, and luck were not always in accord with the Weiner model two-dimensional classification.     

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.     

Annoyance and Behavior

Abstract

The effects of prolonged deprivation and task outcome on causal attribution were examined in a 2 × 2 factorial design with two levels of deprivation (high and low) and two levels of outcome (success and failure). Subjects (N = 60) were selected on the basis of extreme scores on a prolonged deprivation scale; they worked at 10 six-letter Hindi anagram tasks, the difficulty of which was varied to induce success and failure. Subsequently, they were asked to rate the degree to which they considered ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck as the causes of their outcome. Low-deprived subjects, as compared to high-deprived subjects, considered effort and ability major causes of their success (internal attribution) and bad luck the major cause of their failure (external attribution). Prolonged deprivation thus seems to have affected attribution of success and failure.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Attributions and depression: why is the literature so inconsistent?

A large body of literature examining the relations between depression and causal attributions has produced inconsistent findings. Many studies have clearly had inadequate statistical power, however, so that negative findings cannot be readily interpreted. In this review, statistical power was computed for all published analyses relating depression to attributions to any of the following: internal, stable, or global causes, or their composite, ability/character, effort/behavior, luck, or task difficulty. On average, the power of these analyses was very poor. For example, only 8 of the 87 analyses had a probability of .80 or better of detecting a small-medium true population effect (e.g., r = .20). Separating studies by levels of power helped to clarify the inconsistencies in the literature. Whereas across all published studies depression was fairly consistently related only to the composite of internal, stable, and global attributions, those few studies with fairly high power all reported significant relations of depression to stable and global attributions as well as to the composite. It is suggested that increased attention be paid to the power of statistical analyses in planning studies and in drawing conclusions from completed studies.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Cognitive Development Masks Support for Attributional Style Models of Depression in Children and Adolescents

Attributional style models of depression in adults (Abramson et al. 1989, 1978) have been adapted for use with children; however, most applications do not consider that children's understanding of causal relations may be qualitatively different from that of adults. If children's causal attributions depend on children's level of cognitive development, then support for attributional models of depression in young people will vary with cognitive development. In this paper, a new measure of cognitive development, the Peabody Causal Reasoning Test (PCRT), is introduced to assess children's understanding of ability versus effort, task difficulty, and luck as causal factors. Analyses revealed that in 8- to 16-year-old children, failure to control for level of cognitive development suppressed empirical support for cognitive diathesis-stress models of depression. Statistically controlling for measures of cognitive development strengthened support for this model.     

Attributions for Success and Failure in Children of Different Social Class

Abstract

Seventh-grade male and female students (N = 60), divided on the basis of socioeconomic status, were asked to attribute causes to their success or failure on a block-design measure after having experienced solvable, unsolvable, or no pretreatment problems. Differences in use of attributions to ability, effort, task ease, and luck factors were analyzed. The results failed to support the hypothesis that social class groups would differ in their use of attributions in response to success. Subjects were more clearly differentiated, however, in their choice of attributions for failure, with lower class failing students less prone to ascribe their outcome to unstable causes than middle-class failing students.     

Performance Expectations of Salespeople: The Role of Past Performance and Causal Attributions in Independent and Interdependent Cultures

The study compares the role of self-reported causal attributions of past performance on self-generated expectations of future performance among salespeople from independent and interdependent national cultures. The results suggest that salespeople from independent cultures attribute successful past performance to internal factors (i.e., effort or ability), but not external factors (i.e., luck or organizational support). Salespeople from interdependent cultures, however, attribute successful performances to both internal and external factors. Furthermore, the relationship between past performance and future performance expectation is mediated by internal or external causal attributions depending upon whether the salespeople operate in independent or interdependent cultures, respectively.