Gender differences in causal attributions by college students of performance on course examinations

Gender differences in causal attributions and emotions for imagined success and failure on examinations were investigated. Males made stronger ability attributions for success than females, whereas females emphasized the importance of studying and paying attention. Males more than females attributed failure to a lack of studying and low interest, but females were more likely than males to blame an F on a lack of ability. Females experienced stronger emotions than did males; they felt happier than males did after success but felt more like a failure than did males after imagining receiving an F on an examination. Some of the gender differences in causal attributions, especially for ability attributions, depended on the gender-type of the subject matter of the examinations. The implications of these findings are discussed.     

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.     

Sex differences in attribution: A Norwegian study

A quasi-experimental study was conducted to examine the effect of sex on actor and observer attributions of success and failure. It was predicted that, contrary to American results in similar studies, Norwegian males and females would tend to be largely similar in their attribution of success and failure. Only same-sex attributions were explored. Subjects were asked to attribute causality along a set of six standard causal dimensions. The results showed that sex had a relatively minor effect on attributions, compared to the effects of attributor role and task outcome. Only in their attributions of ability did men and women differ to some degree in that women were more likely to use lack of ability as an explanation for own failure. The study concludes that cross-cultural research is needed in order to better assess the normative impact on attribution.     

The effect of others' influence, effort, and ability attributions on emotions in achievement and affiliative situations.

In this examination of how attributions and types of situation influence emotions, 46 American undergraduates completed a questionnaire consisting of 12 vignettes that varied according to content, outcome, and attribution. After reading each vignette, they indicated how they would feel in the situation described. In a second experiment, 27 Finnish undergraduates participated in an identical procedure. In both experiments, subjects felt more pride and happiness after they attributed a successful achievement to effort or ability rather than to others' influence. Attributions of affiliative success did not influence emotions. Subjects felt the most shame and guilt after they attributed achievement failure to lack of effort, and they felt the least negative emotions after they attributed affiliative failure to lack of effort.     

Locus of Control and Success as a Professional Money Collector

Abstract

In this examination of how attributions and types of situation influence emotions, 46 American undergraduates completed a questionnaire consisting of 12 vignettes that varied according to content, outcome, and attribution. After reading each vignette, they indicated how they would feel in the situation described. In a second experiment, 27 Finnish undergraduates participated in an identical procedure. In both experiments, subjects felt more pride and happiness after they attributed a successful achievement to effort or ability rather than to others' influence. Attributions of affiliative success did not influence emotions. Subjects felt the most shame and guilt after they attributed achievement failure to lack of effort, and they felt the least negative emotions after they attributed affiliative failure to lack of effort.     

Sex differences in attributions for sex-typed tasks1

Recent studies have indicated that males make more egotistical attributions than females, that is, males make more internal attributions for success and more external attributions for failure than females do. These sex differences in attributions were examined in terms of male/female differences in expectancies for success and ego-involvement in the tasks. Male and female subjects succeeded or failed on a masculine or a feminine task. It was found that males made more egotistical attributions than females on the masculine task, but females made more egotistical attributions than males on the feminine task. A covariance analysis revealed that these sex differences in attributions could be explained in terms of the differences between the males and females in expectancy for success and in ego-involvement. Finally, it was found that ego-involvement was a more important determinant of egotisical attributions in the present study than was expectancy.     

Proud Americans and lucky Japanese: cultural differences in appraisal and corresponding emotion

Appraisal theories of emotion propose that the emotions people experience correspond to their appraisals of their situation. In other words, individual differences in emotional experiences reflect differing interpretations of the situation. We hypothesized that in similar situations, people in individualist and collectivist cultures experience different emotions because of culturally divergent causal attributions for success and failure (i.e., agency appraisals). In a test of this hypothesis, American and Japanese participants recalled a personal experience (Study 1) or imagined themselves to be in a situation (Study 2) in which they succeeded or failed, and then reported their agency appraisals and emotions. Supporting our hypothesis, cultural differences in emotions corresponded to differences in attributions. For example, in success situations, Americans reported stronger self-agency emotions (e.g., proud) than did Japanese, whereas Japanese reported a stronger situation-agency emotion (lucky). Also, cultural differences in attribution and emotion were largely explained by differences in self-enhancing motivation. When Japanese and Americans were induced to make the same attribution (Study 2), cultural differences in emotions became either nonsignificant or were markedly reduced.     

Who's to blame? Narcissism and self‐serving attributions following feedback

The study examined the relationship between narcissism, performance attributions, and negative emotions following success or failure. As expected, narcissistic individuals showed more self‐serving attributions for their performance in an intelligence test than less narcissistic individuals: compared with less narcissistic individuals, narcissists revealed a stronger tendency to attribute success to ability and failure to task difficulty. In contrast to this, less narcissistic participants tended to show the opposite pattern by ascribing failure, but not success, to their ability. Additionally, anger and depression could be predicted by an interaction of performance feedback and performance attributions. Mediation analyses revealed that the attribution dimensions ‘task difficulty’ and ‘ability’ mediated the effect of narcissism on anger and depression following failure feedback. The results provide support for the theoretical assumption that attributional processes might, at least to some extent, explain the often reported relation between narcissism and negative emotions following failure. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Book review

Long-standing beliefs about one's self-efficacy and learning ability accumulate over the school years. Attributions, or causal perceptions and interpretations, of behavioural outcomes are also based on a person's learning history. And, it is evident from research on attributional bias and self-esteem that the perceived causes of success and failure have consequences for academic success. An important perspective on attributions, frequently neglected in educational research, pertains to content-specific beliefs about one's competence. We set up a field study in which students from the first form of secondary education were asked to report their causal attributions of regular school examinations in three school subjects: history, native language, and mathematics. The results suggest that students generate different causal attributions for successful or unsuccessful examinations, belonging to different school-subjects. Perception of specific examination conditions may or may not urge students to generate specific attributions. There is evidence for both school-subject specificity and examination-specificity in the observed causal attributions. But, the effect of school-subject seems to be more pronounced than the effect of examination. Information at the momentary level (examination conditions) interacts with information at the middle level (school-subject). Closer analyses of the observed causal attributions vis-à-vis perceived success and failure in the three school-subjects displayed marked differences, especially in relation to the effort attributions.     

Causal explanations for school performance: Contrasts between mothers and children

This study investigated the causal attributions given by mothers and their fifth and sixth grade children to explain the children's success in a school subject of relatively high achievement as well as their failure in an area of low performance. Participants were asked to weight the importance of four attributions: ability, effort, personality, and training. Analyses of variance revealed significant differences between mothers' and children's weightings. Mothers cited children's ability as the main cause of success, while lack of effort was viewed as the reason for failure. Children, in contrast, gave effort as the explanation for success and lack of ability as the reason for failure. The apparent lack of concordance between mothers' and children's causal beliefs is discussed in terms of three explanatory possibilities: (a) actor/observer differences, (b) the effects of the affective bond between mother and child, and (c) the tendency toward self-presentational bias.     

Sex differences in children's attributions for success and failure on math and spelling tests

Sex differences in children's attributions for success and failure were tested on a group of 165 fifth and sixth graders taking a regularly scheduled math and spelling test in their classroom. Pretest questionnaires measured students' self-perceptions of competence in the subject and their performance expectations on the test. Questionnaires, given after the corrected tests were returned, assessed students' actual performance, subjective ratings of success, attributions for the cause of their success or failure, and performance expectations for future tests. Results indicated that sex differences existed in math but not in spelling: compared to girls, boys perceived themselves to be more competent and did better on the math test. Boys were also less likely to attribute failure on the math test to lack of ability and more likely to attribute success to ability than were girls.     

Gender Differences in Self-Serving Attributions About Sexual Experiences1

Two studies investigated sex differences in attributions about sexual experiences. Subjects were asked to provide causal explanations for satisfying and unsatisfying past experiences. Men were expected to display a greater self-serving bias than women. This hypothesis was supported for unsatisfying but not for satisfying experiences. In both experiments, males were found to blame their partners more for unsatisfying experiences than females. Males used self-serving attributions, assigning more responsibility to the partner than to themselves (Experiment I), whereas women displayed self-derogatory attributions, attributing negative outcomes more to themselves than to their partners (Experiment II). Furthermore, self-derogatory attribution patterns were correlated with unsatisfactory sexual histories in women but not in men. Implications for the treatment of sexual dysfunctions via reattribution training are discussed.     

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.     

Self-evaluations of male and female managers

Two separate samples of males and females holding first-level management positions in United States organizations completed questionnaires which asked for self-evaluation on a number of job-related characteristics and for attributions of causality for successful and unsuccessful job experiences. In support of previous research, results indicated that males evaluated their performance more favorably than did women, and rated themselves as having more ability and greater intelligence. Men also saw ability as more responsible for their success than did women, but the sexes did not differ in attributions to luck, effort, or task. Implications for equal opportunity and potential for change are considered.     

Attributing causes for one's own performance: The effects of sex,norms, and outcome

Two experiments were conducted to determine the effect of sex of subject, stated sex linkage of task, and task outcome on causal attributions of an actor's performance. Results from both studies showed that: (1) males evaluate their performance more favorably than do females, despite equivalent objective scores; (2) males claim greater ability than do females following task performance; and (3) females are more prone to use luck to explain performance. The evidence also suggests that the difference between males and females in performance evaluation and self-attribution occurs most strongly in response to failure and on masculine tasks. The results are interpreted in terms of a general expectancy model.     

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.     

Attributions for the Success and Failure of Female Managers: A Replication and Extension

This study attempted to extend earlier work on the relationship between attitudes toward women in management and attributions for the success and failure of female managers. One hundred and ten employees of a large state human services agency responded to a survey measuring their attitudes toward women in management and their attributions for either the success or failure of a hypothetical female manager. Results for males were highly supportive of earlier findings, with attitudes toward women in management significantly related to attributions for success but not for failure. Females showed an opposite pattern of results, with attitudes toward women in management significantly related to attributions for failure but not for success. It is suggested that these differences in attitude-attribution relationships may be the result of males expecting failure from female managers while females expect success.     

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.     

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.