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.     

When modesty fails: The social impact of group-effacing attributions following success or failure

This study explored how group members perceived a fellow group member who made either group-serving or group-effacing attributions following success or failure. Forty male undergraduates from the Chinese University co-operated in pairs with a confederate on a demanding group task. After learning that their group's performance had exceeded or failed to meet a standard, the subjects heard their confederate-partner make group-effacing or group-serving attributions. As predicted, subjects evaluated the group-serving partners more highly (p < 0.05). Preference for group-enhancing members was discussed as a pancultural response arising from the interdependence of group members. Given the process of social categorization, group members rise or fall together and are therefore socialized to support their group.     

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.     

Causal attributions and information seeking to explain success and failure

Previous studies of attributions for success and failure have relied upon a theoretically derived set of causal attributions, either luck versus skill (derived from Rotter, 1966) or ability, effort, luck, and task difficulty (Weiner et al., 1971; Weiner, 1972). The same tendency of relying upon a set of logically derived cues has been evident in investigations of information-processing in making attributional judgments for success and failure (e.g., Fontaine, 1972; Frieze & Weiner, 1971). Two studies were conducted which employed an open-ended format to determine the relevance of the causal categories and information which have been utilized in previous studies. Results of these studies supported the validity of previously employed causal categories and information cues as well as establishing other important but previously ignored causes and sources of information.     

Perfectionism in relation to attributions for success or failure

The present study examined the association between dimensions of perfectionism and attributions for success and failure. A sample of 124 students (40 males, 84 females) completed the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS) and the Multidimensional Multiattributional Causation Scale (MMCS). The MPS consists of three subscales measuring self-oriented perfectionism, other-oriented perfectionism, and socially pre-scribed perfectionism. The MMCS measures internal attributions (i.e., ability, effort) and external attributions (i.e., luck, contextual factors) for positive and negative hypo-thetical outcomes in the achievement and affiliation domains. The main finding of this study was that socially prescribed perfectionism was associated with a general ten-dency to attribute outcomes to external causes. This external attribution pattern was obtained for successes and failures in both the achievement and interpersonal spheres. Overall, the main results suggest that socially prescribed perfectionism is associated with perceptions of learned helplessness. The implications of these findings are dis-cussed.     

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.     

Objective self-awareness,self-esteem and causal attributions for success and failure

A study using 174 males was conducted to examine the effects of objective self-awareness on causal attributions for success and failure. It was predicted that individual's level of self-esteem would mediate the effects of focus of attention on causal attributions. The results showed that attention to the self increased the dispositional attributions made by low self-esteem subjects in failure conditions, and of high self-esteem subjects in success conditions. The implications of the findings for the theory of objective self-awareness and causal attribution processes 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.     

The effects of psychological androgyny on attributions of causality for success and failure

Sixty female subjects and sixty male subjects, either sex-typed or androgynous, based on scores on the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI), made causal attributions for their own success or failure. Subjects also predicted future performance on a similar task. Sex differences were revealed which are only partially consistent with a cognitive-based expectancy model. It is suggested that outcome and ego involvement in the task are crucial factors in whether cognitive-based or more self-serving attributions are used in accounting for performance. Androgynous subjects predicted higher future performance. However, contrary to prediction, attributional behavior of androgynous and sex-typed subjects did not differ. Results are discussed in terms of rapidly changing views, in both the conceptualization and the measurement of psychological androgyny, since Bem's original report of behavioral correlates to scores on the BSRI.     

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     

The effect of stimulus person valence on divergent self-other attributions for success and failure

Two experiments investigated self-other attributions for success and failure. In Experiment 1, high and low achievers completed a modified IAR scale either for themselves or another. Regardless of achievement motives, more personal attribution for failure was assigned to oneself than to a neutral other. In Experiment 2, additional scales for liked and disliked others were administered and scale item importance was varied. On global and individual causal measures, neutral and liked others were credited more and disliked others less for success than oneself, and liked others were blamed less and disliked others more for failure than oneself and neutral others. Item importance produced few effects. Results were interpreted in terms of informational considerations in self-other attribution.     

An exploratory study of undergraduates' attributions of success or failure on spatial tests

Seven spatial tests from the CTY Spatial Test Battery and four subscales of an attribution scale were administered to 23 female and 28 male undergraduates. Three hypotheses were tested. The seven spatial tests and three of the attribution subscales were found reliable; sex differences were found for the spatial tests but not the attribution scales; and subjects' attributions did not predict spatial performance.     

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.     

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.     

Cultural differences in athlete attributions for success and failure: the sports pages revisited

Self‐serving biases in attribution, while found with relative consistency in research with Western samples, have rarely been found in Japanese samples typically recruited for research. However, research conducted with Japanese participants to date has tended to use forced‐choice and/or reactive paradigms, with school or university students, focusing mainly on academic performance or arbitrary and/or researcher‐selected tasks. This archival study explored whether self‐serving attributional biases would be shown in the real‐life attributions for sporting performance made by elite Olympic athletes from Japan and Australia. Attributions (N = 216) were extracted from the sports pages of Japanese and Australian newspapers and rated by Australian judges for locus and controllability. It was hypothesized that Australian, but not Japanese, athletes would show self‐serving biases such that they attributed wins to causes more internal and controllable than the causes to which they attributed losses. Contrary to predictions, self‐serving biases were shown to at least some extent by athletes of both nationalities. Both Australian and Japanese men attributed wins to causes more internal than those to which they attributed losses. Women, however, attributed wins and losses to causes that did not differ significantly in terms of locus. All athletes tended to attribute wins to causes that were more controllable than the causes to which losses were attributed. Results are inconsistent with a large body of research suggesting that Japanese do not show self‐serving biases in attribution, and are discussed in the light of differences in methodology, context, and participants that may have contributed to these effects.     

Assessing the theoretical models for sex differences in causal attributions for success and failure

Three basic models of attributional sex differences are reviewed: General Externality, Self-Derogation, and Low Expectancy. Although all of the models predict that women are unlikely to attribute their successes to ability, the models were quite different in other predictions. A meta-analysis of 21 studies examining sex differences in success-failure attributions was done to determine which of these three models had the most empirical support. Wording of attribution questions was also assessed. Results indicated only two consistent sex differences: Men make stronger ability attributions than women regardless of the outcome when informational attributional wording is used; and men attribute their successes and failures less to luck. Empirically, none of the models was well supported.     

Sex-role norms and gender-related attainment values: Their role in attributions of success and failure

Sex-role norms and gender-related attainment values are considered as possible mediators of gender differences in causal attributions for success and failure. Several revisions of attribution theory are suggested in order to extend the theory to include corollaries concerning sex-role norms. The concept of sex-role consistency is employed as a basis for understanding how sex-role norms affect causal attributions. In addition, gender-related attainment values are hypothesized to affect causal attributions via differential salience and functioning of outcomes. Finally, the analysis is applied to an additional area of achievement-related behavior, gender differences in reward allocation norm choice.     

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.