Social Risk and Attribution: How Considering the Social Risk of Attributions Can Improve the Performance of Kelley's ANOVA Model in Applied Research

Classic models of attribution are increasingly used, despite serious problems with their empirical validation. This study revisits Kelley's (1967 ) ANOVA model of attribution and argues that it will most usefully predict attributions when attributional processes are socially “safe” and have few social consequences. The results demonstrate that attributions are most likely to be inconsistent with Kelley's predictions when attributional information and the attributions themselves are socially consequential or risky, but are more likely to be made as predicted when they are socially safe. Applications of Kelley's model, therefore, should pay attention to the extent to which attributions and attributional information are socially consequential or risky, particularly when analyzing the use of consensus information.     

Attributional Beliefs About the Controllability of Stigmatized Traits: Antecedents or Justifications of Prejudice?1

Correlational studies show that prejudiced people attribute stigmatized traits to controllable causes, and blame stigmatized groups for their own fate. Attribution theory argues that causal attributions cause prejudice, and that changes in attributional beliefs produce changes in attitudes. In contrast, the justification–suppression model describes attributions to controllable causes as justifications of pre‐existing prejudices. Study participants reported their attitudes toward 1 of 4 stigmatized groups, read information that manipulated their attributional beliefs, listed their thoughts, and reported their attitudes again. Supporting the suppression–justification model, initially prejudiced participants spontaneously produced more thoughts about the controllability of stigmatized identities. Refuting attribution theory, manipulating attributional beliefs had no effect on attitudes. Implications for applications of attribution theory to reduce prejudice are discussed.     

Causal Attributions and Parent-Child Relationships in a Self-Help Group for Families of the Mentally III1

A study of a local chapter of the National Alliance for the Mentally 111 (NAMI) suggests that parents think about the causes of their offsprings' psychiatric disabilities in terms of psychogenic, organic and moral attributions. Comparisons of retrospective and current self-reports suggest that parents' attributional processes were influenced by their organizational participation. Comparatively stronger endorsement of the organic attribution (that biochemical illness is a primary causal factor) and comparatively weaker endorsement of the psychogenic attribution (that deficits in parenting are a primary causal factor) were associated with participation. Increased comfort in parent-child relationships was also associated with participation. It was speculated that these cognitive and behavioral changes were mediated by learning a comprehensive schema of information about schizophrenia that included information about causes, symptoms and methods of treatment.     

Attributions and sex differences in achievement: Problems and new perspectives

The status of research on sex differences in attribution is reviewed in light of the articles published in this issue. The authors conclude that several widely held beliefs about sex differences in attributions may be unwarranted. Various explanations for the lack of consistent results in studies exploring situational and dispositional effects on sex differences in attributions are offered. The authors conclude that alternative attributional questions need to be raised and investigated in order to understand sex differences in achievement.     

Attributional feedback-induced changes in functional and dysfunctional attributions,expectations of success,hopefulness, and short-term persistence in a novel sport

ObjectiveThis experiment investigated the influence of functional and dysfunctional attributional feedback on causal attributions, expectations of success, emotions, and short-term persistence during failure in a novel sport.MethodsThirty novice golfers who made either dysfunctional or functional attributions for failure in a pre-test were randomly assigned to one of three intervention groups: (1) functional (i.e., internal, controllable, and unstable) attributional feedback; (2) dysfunctional (i.e., external, uncontrollable, and stable) attributional feedback; or (3) non-attributional feedback. Participants completed four test trials (all involving failure) consisting of six putts each. The feedback was administered after the second test trial.ResultsAnalysis of the pre- and post-intervention measures of attributions, expectations of success, affective reactions, and behavioral persistence revealed that the attributional feedback-induced changes related to the type of feedback. Functional attributional feedback produced improvements in causal attributions about failure, as well as in success expectations, hopefulness, and persistence after failure. In contrast, dysfunctional attributional feedback produced deterioration in causal attributions about failure, and lower success expectations, hopefulness, and persistence after failure. The effects of the attributional feedback overrode individuals’ initial functional or dysfunctional attributions about failure; that is, improvement or deterioration depended on the type of feedback received rather than the initial attributions.ConclusionsThe findings demonstrate that it is possible to change the persistence behavior of individuals in a novel athletic domain by changing the attributions they make about failure. The findings show that those in positions of giving attributional feedback to sports’ novices (e.g., coaches) could produce cognitive, emotional, and behavioral improvements by using functional attributional feedback about failure.     

Attribution in sport psychology: seeking congruence between theory,research and practice

ObjectivesThis paper urges revision of the way attributions are conceptualised, investigated, and applied in sport psychology. There has been a recent decline in attribution research in sport psychology, despite the generally accepted relevance of attributions in applied settings. In seeking closer links between attribution theory, research, and practice, we argue that there is a mismatch between research and practice in sport psychology.MethodsRelevant literature is reviewed and theoretical arguments offered within seven sub-headings: attribution theory in practice; linking consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus information to attribution dimensions; controllability as the primary attribution dimension; the generalisability of controllability; assessing attributions; implications for practice; and the social context.Results and conclusionsResearch within sport psychology should focus on the central issue of how controllability attributions generalise across time, situations, and people. Measurement should reflect this approach to research within the field of attributions and, to this end, researchers might consider using a variety of quantitative and qualitative methods of inquiry. Practitioners should use consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus information to challenge clients' attributional thinking and help them attain adaptive perceptions of controllability. Practitioners should also help clients to be their own psychologist. Future research and practice should include a consideration of the social context in which attributions are shaped.     

Attributions for Successful and Unsuccessful Health Behavior Change

In an application of Weiner's (1985) attributional theory of motivation, 466 undergraduates gave attributions for their own successful or unsuccessful health behavior changes using a retrospective incident-report questionnaire. Scores from the Causal Dimension Scale (CDS; Russell, 1982) indicated that the average attribution was internal, unstable, and controllable, and that success attributions were more stable and controllable than failure attributions. By a large margin, the most common attribution types were internal-unstable-controllable causes for unsuccessful attempts, followed by internal-stable-controllable and internal-unstable-controllable causes for successes. These findings correspond to a pattern known as personal changeability of causes, which enhances perceived control ova both positive and negative outcomes. Stable attributions were associated with maintenance of health behavior changes and with expectations that negative outcomes would continue into the future. The personal-changeability tendency was strong for change attempts involving eating, but modified by a self-serving effect for exercise and substance use and by a self-effacing effect for road safety.     

Attributional style in depression: a meta-analytic review

In this article we report meta-analyses of the relation of attributional styles to depression. In 104 studies involving nearly 15,000 subjects, several attributional patterns had reliable associations with depression scores. For negative events, attributions to internal, stable, and global causes had a reliable and significant association with depression. Studies in which the attribution factors of ability and luck were measured also showed a reliable association with depression. For positive events, attributions to external, unstable, and specific causes were associated with depression. Ability and luck attribution factors for positive events were also associated with depression. The relations for positive events, however, were weaker than the corresponding ones for negative events. In general, these patterns of relations were independent of a number of potential mediators suggested by authors in this literature, including the type of subject studied (psychiatric vs. college student), the type of event about which the attribution is made (real vs. simulated), the depression measure used, or the publication status of the research report. These conclusions are compared with those of other reviews. Implications for attributional models of depression are discussed.     

Adaptive thinking: Can adaptive dispositional attributions protect against the harmful effects of maladaptive situational attributions?

ObjectivesThe study was designed to examine if dispositional team-referent attributions moderate relationships between situational team-referent attributions and collective efficacy.DesignIn this cross-sectional design investigation, team athletes completed measures of dispositional team-referent attributions, situational team-referent attributions, and collective efficacy. Team outcome (i.e., win-loss status) was recorded.MethodAthletes (N = 163) on sport teams (K = 17) completed a measure of dispositional team-referent attributions (i.e., attributional style). They also completed a measure of situational team-referent attributions in reference to their most recent team competition and a measure of collective efficacy in reference to their next upcoming team competition.ResultsFollowing team victory, simple slopes analysis revealed a moderating effect such that adaptive dispositional team-referent attributions appeared to protect against the effects of maladaptive situational team-referent attributions on collective efficacy. This trend was demonstrated across stability and globality attribution dimensions. Following team defeat, no significant interaction effects were observed.ConclusionsThe results suggest that developing adaptive dispositional attributions after success may protect athletes from experiencing deleterious effects of maladaptive situational attributions. Future research is needed to confirm these results and understand how these results can be applied to attributional retraining interventions in sport.     

The role of surprise in the attribution process

Abstract

We report five studies which compared two theories linking surprise to causal attribution. According to the attributional model, surprise is frequently caused by luck attributions, whereas according to the expectancy-disconfirmation model, surprise is caused by expectancy disconfirmation and stimulates causal thinking. Studies 1 to 3 focused on the question of whether surprise is caused by luck attributions or by unexpectedness. In Studies 1 and 2, subjects had to recall success or failure experiences characterised by a particular attribution (Study 1) or by low versus high surprisingness (Study 2), whereas in Study 3, unexpectedness and luck versus skill attributions were independently manipulated within a realistic setting. The main dependent variables were unexpectedness (Studies 1 and 2), degree of surprise (Studies 1 and 3), and causal attributions (Study 2). The results strongly suggest that surprise is caused by expectancy disconfirmation, whereas luck attributions are neither sufficient nor necessary for surprise. Studies 4 and 5 addressed the question of whether surprise stimulates attributional thinking, again using a remembered-incidents technique. The findings of the previous studies were replicated, and it was confirmed that surprising outcomes elicit more attributional search than unsurprising ones. Additional results from Study 5 suggest that causal thinking is also stimulated by outcomes that are both negative and important.     

Getting the Job: Attributional Retraining and the Employment Interview1

This study examined the effectiveness of attributional retraining (AR) in an employment interview setting. Our sample consisted of 50 co‐operative education students completing job interviews who were randomly assigned to a control or writing‐based AR condition. Dependent measures included attributions, expectations, and affect, as well as behavior with respect to an interview skills workshop, and actual employment outcomes. Results showed AR to promote controllable failure attributions, expectations, motivated behavior, and interview success, particularly among participants with maladaptive baseline attributions. Findings further revealed AR effects on emotions mediated by post‐treatment attributions. Implications for attribution theory and research on AR in employment settings are discussed.     

Depressive Attributional Style: The Role of Self-Esteem

Two studies evaluate the role of self-esteem in the depressive attributional style. In the first study, college students completed four measures of depression, four measures of self-esteem, and the Attributional Style Questionnaire (ASQ). Regression analyses revealed that across measures, self-esteem was a better predictor of attributional style for negative events than was depression. In study two, psychiatric inpatients completed a measure of self-esteem, a measure of depression, and the ASQ. In this clinical sample, self-esteem and depression were highly correlated and both predicted ASQ scores. But when variation in depth of depression and social desirability were removed statistically from the association between self-esteem and attributions for negative outcomes, there remained a significant association between self-esteem and internal, stable, and global attributions for negative outcomes. Controlling for the variation in self-esteem eliminated the relation between depression and depressive attributional style. These findings demonstrate the importance of self-esteem in depressive attributional style in both normal and clinical populations, as well as potential differences in the relations among self-esteem, depression, and attributional style in clinical versus normal samples.     

The causal influences of attributions on emotions: a procedural priming approach

According to attributional theories of emotion, feelings of guilt presuppose that the causes of a negative event are located within the individual (internal attribution), whereas feelings of anger presuppose that the causes of the eliciting event are located outside the individual (external attribution). This study tested whether these attributions in fact exert the claimed causal influence on emotional experiences. The study employed a procedural priming technique in which neutral events were repeatedly attributed either to oneself (internal attribution) or to another person (external attribution). Subsequently, participants were exposed to a negative event that was ambiguous as to its causes. The results reveal that the prior repeated use of internal attributions enhanced the tendency to experience guilt, whereas the repeated use of external attributions enhanced the tendency to experience anger. These findings support the assumption that attributions exert a causal influence on emotions.     

Self-Serving Attributions for Performance in Naturalistic Settings: A Meta-Analytic Review1

The study of self-serving attributions in sports settings is fertile ground for testing the validity of self-serving attributional phenomena. This paper reports the results of a meta-analytic review of research examining self-serving attributions in the context of sports events. A total of 91 distinct hypothesis tests were located, comprising five dimensions of attribution: ability (N= 21), effort (N= 21), task difficulty (N= 21), luck (N= 21), and a general internal-external dimension (N= 7). The meta-analytic combination of significance levels indicated that the combined results were unlikely to occur if the null hypothesis of no effect were true (for each of the five dimensions of attribution). The internal-external dimension and the ability dimension produced effects of moderate magnitude, whereas effort, difficulty and luck produced effects of small magnitude. Meta-anaiytic focused comparisons revealed that self-serving attributions (ended to be more extreme in the context of larger team sizes, and for attribution measures focused upon the team rather than the individual. Discussion considers the implications of these findings and develops and explanation for the finding that ability is the specific attribution dimension exhibiting the greatest self-serving attribution effects.     

Attributional retraining and achievement goals: An exploratory study on theoretical and empirical relationship

IntroductionAchievement goals and attribution theory are theoretically and empirically linked, but existing literature lacks to explore the link between achievement goals and attributional retraining (AR), a motivational intervention based on the causal attribution theory.Objective(s)The aims of this field study were to determine the effectiveness of an AR treatment aimed to restructure college students’ dysfunctional causal explanations of poor performance and to explore whether achievement goals are predictive of the use of adaptive causal attributions.MethodsStudents’ achievement goals orientation and causal attributions were assessed and AR treatment was provided to a sample of second-year college students with maladaptive attributional schemas.ResultsFindings confirmed the effectiveness of AR treatment in restructuring self-defeating stable attributional explanations and suggested that achievement goals are implicated in the adoption of adaptive causal dimensions.ConclusionThe importance of integrating the two discussed theoretical models in order to provide efficacious AR interventions with students at risk is discussed.     

Alcohol and Acquaintance Rape in Australia: Testing the Presupposition Model of Attributions About Responsibility and Blame1

According to the presupposition model of attributions about responsibility and blame (Bradbury & Fincham, 1990), an attribution of blame presupposes an attribution of responsibility. Both constructs share the dimensions of choice, intention, and accountability, but an additional dimension of liability relates only to blame. Reactions of 260 university students to acquaintance‐rape scenarios portraying different levels of alcohol intoxication were examined. Results showed that the model's dimensions explained much of the variance in attributions of responsibility and blame, although the hierarchical structure was not supported. Mediational analyses suggest that different attributional principles apply when assigning victim and perpetrator responsibility, which may explain why intoxicated victims are assigned more responsibility than sober victims, but intoxicated perpetrators are assigned less responsibility than sober perpetrators.     

Depression, self-esteem, and complex attributions for life problems

Past research has suggested that mild and moderate depression are associated with increased attributional processing and a tendency to make complex attributions involving two or more causes. The present research tested the hypothesis that depression and low self-esteem are associated with a tendency to make attributions to multiple causes when faced with life problems. The results were used to demonstrate that the tendency to make multiple attributions for specific life problems accounts for unique variance in depression and self-esteem scores, even after removing variance due to general attributional style. The findings are discussed with reference to the need for multidimensional models of attribution in depression and attributional retraining efforts to include an emphasis on individual differences in the number of multiple attributions made by people.     

Attribution Retraining as a Structured Group Counseling Intervention

The efficacy of attribution retraining as a structured group counseling intervention was tested. Participants were classified as having either an adaptive or nonadaptive attributional style. Three groups of participants were then created: Adaptive Group, Nonadaptive Group, Treatment Group (nonadaptive attributional style participants who received treatment involving attribution retraining). Results indicated that participants in the Treatment Group made relatively more adaptive attributions (similar to the adaptive Group) for an experimentally induced uncontrollable failure and reported lower levels of depressive mood than the Nonadaptive Group. Results are discussed as providing partial support for the efficacy of attribution retraining as a structured group counseling intervention.     

Reconsidering the attribution-adjustment relation following a major negative event: coping with the loss of a child

Field studies have not yet conclusively established how attributions affect adjustment to unanticipated traumatic events. This may be due, in part, to the adoption of several untested assumptions in most prior research. It has usually been assumed that attributional issues are important to people who experience a traumatic event, that such concern is adaptive, and that specific attributions (e.g., self-blame) influence subsequent adjustment. These assumptions were tested with longitudinal data collected over 18 months from 124 parents whose child died of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. By 3 weeks postloss, 45% of parents were not concerned with attributional issues. These parents were less distressed and less likely to blame themselves or others for the death. Longitudinal analyses did not support the assumption that attributions influence subsequent adjustment. Rather, attributions to onself or others appear to be symptomatic of distress.