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.     

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.     

Task self-efficacy and task interest as a function of performance on a gender-neutral task

This study experimentally investigates several hypotheses about the relationships between performance on a gender-neutral task and gender, self-efficacy, performance attributions, and task interest. Ninety-two subjects were randomly assigned to a success or failure condition and attempted to solve a series of easy or difficult anagrams. Results indicated that changes in self-efficacy expectations as a result of task success or failure were in accordance with predictions from self-efficacy theory; 2 × 2 × 4 ANCOVAs, with the pretest as the covariate, were conducted on self-efficacy strength, level, and task interest. Subjects decreased their ratings of self-efficacy and task interest as a result of the failure experience, and the same ratings increased as a result of the success experience. Few gender differences were found, supporting the hypothesis that the sex linkage of the task significantly influences gender differences in self-efficacy. Analyses of global verbal and mathematical ability ratings resulted in the same trends. Finally, women in the success condition were significantly more likely than men in that condition to attribute their performance to luck; women in the failure condition were significantly more likely than men or women in any other group to attribute their failure to their lack of ability. Implications of these results for future research on career self-efficacy were discussed.     

Causal attribution of success and failure as a function or authoritarianism and sex.

We predicted that authoritarian actors would engage in defensive attribution, and authoritarian observers would derogate the other, to a greater extent than egalitarian perceivers. 48 male and 48 female college students were run in pairs of same sex and authoritarianism. A set of easy anagrams was given to subjects in success conditions and difficult anagrams to those in failure conditions. Each subject rated own outcome and other outcome in terms of internal factors of ability and effort, and external factors of task and luck. We found that authoritarian actors were more internal than egalitarian actors only in the condition own success-other's failure. Authoritarian observers, as compared to egalitarians, were more external for other's success and more internal for other's failure only when own outcome was successful. It seems that authoritarian perceivers exaggerate their abilities and derogate the other only when they are clearly in a superior position vis-a-vis the other. There were no sex differences as a function of outcome and authoritarianism.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Sex differences in attribution for occupational success

A study was conducted to both test and extend Deaux's (Sex: A perspective on the attribution process. In J. H. Harvey, W. J. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd, (Eds.), New directions in attribution research, Volume 1. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1976) expectancy model of sex-linked differences in attribution for success. Specifically, it was hypothesized that female occupational subjects would attribute success more to the unstable causes of effort and luck, as well as the stable internal cause of interpersonal skill, while male occupational subjects would make higher attributions to the stable causes of ability and task ease. This hypothesis was supported for the causes of effort, luck, and task ease. Additionally, a comparison between sex differences in attribution occurring within a nonpersonal vs. personal frame of reference showed three of the expected sex differences in attribution to be stronger in the latter condition. Moreover, it was shown that this difference was largely accounted for by changes in females' rather than males' attributions. A final hypothesis, namely, that males would perceive themselves as more successful in their occupations than females, was not confirmed.     

Perception of female and male success in the united states and third world nations

This study tested the proposition that the success of an intelligent female in the third world is attributed more to ability and less to nonability factors than the success of her male counterpart. To this end, subjects from developing nations attributed the success of an American or third world male or female of average or high intelligence to ability, effort, luck, and task ease. Results indicated that subjects attributed the success of the intelligent third world female more to ability and less to luck than the success of the comparable male. In addition, gender differences were found which indicated that under some circumstances the success of the female more than that of the male is attributed to task ease.     

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.     

Effects of knowledge that attributions will be observed by others

The current study was conducted to determine if attribution statements would be affected by subjects' knowledge that their attributions of success or failure would be observed by an opposite-sex peer. At the time subjects recorded their attributions, half of them anticipated that their attributions would soon be observed in their presence by an opposite-sex peer, while the other half recorded their attributions anonymously. Results indicated that attributions of success and failure were affected by the social context. Observed subjects evidenced less tendency to attribute their failure to low ability than did nonobserved subjects. Subjects who succeeded on an identity-relevant task reported higher ability attributions under observation conditions than under nonobservation conditions. Observed subjects evidenced significantly greater willingness to attribute failure to lack of effort than did nonobserved subjects. For a task intended to be of minimal relevance to subjects' identities, nonobserved subjects attributed failure to task difficulty to a significantly greater degree than did observed subjects. Results were discussed in relation to Bradley's contention that self-serving biases in attribution can usefully be conceptualized as strategic self-presentations.     

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.     

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.     

Attribution theory and unemployment: Kelley's covariation model,self-esteem,and locus of control

The validity of applying Kelley, 1967, Kelley, 1973, 28, 107–128) to understanding the perceived causes of success and failure of others' job seeking activities was first tested in a laboratory study before testing the same theory on the self-attributions made by 82 unemployed in a field study. The field study also examined the relationship of self-esteem and locus of control to attributions for success and failure. In general Kelley's theory was supported by the results from the laboratory study but only two of the twelve predicted relationships were found in the field study. Low distinctiveness (weak workrelated skills) was associated with strong attributions to lack of ability and low consistency (past job seeking activities successful) with strong attributions to bad luck. As predicted the unemployed with high self-esteem and an internal locus of control attributed failure to lack of effort and credited their success to ability. Unemployed with low self-esteem and an external locus of control attributed success to unstable factors, but failure was not attributed to lack of ability. Possible reasons offered for the lack of support for Kelley's theory in the field study included the influence of group identity, individual differences in the perception of the stability and locus of causes, the greater realism of the field setting, and the inadequacy of the assumptions underlying the model.     

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.     

Learned helplessness versus reactance: The effects of sex-role stereotypy

Both learned helplessness and reactance theories hypothesize that the effects of noncontingent reinforcement on later performance are related to the amount of experience with noncontingent reinforcement and to the subjects' expectations of control. In addition, learned helplessness theorists have suggested that performance may depend upon the causes to which subjects ascribe failure. The present study investigated these hypotheses by defining expectation of control as the degree of sex-role stereotypy and by assessing causal attributions. Forty men and 40 women were given either zero, three, four, five, or six discrimination problems for which they received noncontingent reinforcement; they were subsequently tested on anagrams and math problems. Causal attributions were rated after each set of tasks. The data suggested the following. (1) In general, under conditions of noncontingency, high masculinity subjects performed better on anagrams and low masculinity subjects performed worse on anagrams than subjects in the control conditions; stereotypic femininity was not related to performance. (2) Ratings of attributions for failing the discrimination problems were generally unrelated to performance, although there was weak support for the facilitating effects of effort attributions. (3) Subsequent to anagram and math performance, women rated external attributions higher following success and internal attributions higher following failure than did men. The implications for learned helplessness and reactance theories are discussed.The authors would like to thank Stephen Haynes and Jack McKillip for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.     

Attributions for Performance on Luck and Skill Tasks: Effects of Outcome,Sex of Performer,and Sex of Subject

Attributions for and evaluations of a stimulus persons's preformance were assessed as a function of the sex of the stimulus person, sex of the observer, type of task (luck or skill), and outcomes (success or failure). An interaction between type of task and sex of stimulus person was expected, with observers expecting males to perform better than females on the skill task because of ability, and females to perform better than males on the luck task because of task ease. The results provided partial support for the predicted interaction. Task difficulty was more relevant for females on the luck task than for males. Effort was rated as more important for females than for males when the success was on the skill task. All of the ratings were influenced by the task-type manipulation.     

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.