Attributions of causality and reactions to uncontrollable outcomes

The experiment tested the hypothesis that the stress experienced by a person who is unable to control aversive stimulation is not a function of lack of control per se, but of the attribution of causality that (s)he makes for failure to exert control. Subjects were given a problem-solving task, and were told that they could prevent aversive noise bursts by correctly solving the problems. Subjects then received false feedback that they had done either well or poorly on the problems. In addition, failing subjects received information that led them to attribute their performance either to their own lack of ability or to situational factors (task difficulty). Subjects who attributed their failure to their own incompetence felt considerably more stress than subjects who made situational attributions. In fact, the latter subjects experienced no more stress than subjects who were successful in controlling the stimulation. Surprisingly, subjects whose attributions for performance led them to feel personally incompetent performed better than the remaining subjects both on problems administered in the same situation, and on problems administered in a new and different situation. The implications of the results for future helplessness studies and for the learned helplessness model were discussed.     

Reactions to objective self-awareness

In order to determine reactions to objective self-awareness, 96 female undergraduates received either positive or negative feedback on a “creativity” task prior to being given an opportunity to write a response to a visual cue. Half of the subjects were made objectively self-aware, via a mirror, during the visual cue task; half were not. In addition, half of the subjects were led to believe that the visual cue task was highly related to creativity, while half learned that the task was low in relevance. A “longer the response, the better” standard of correctness was established for all subjects. As predicted, the results indicated that when made objectively self-aware, subjects who received negative feedback wrote more in response to the visual cue than did those who received positive feedback, a difference which was not obtained for the subjectively self-aware subjects. The task relevance manipulation also produced a significant main effect. A similar pattern of results was obtained on a measure of the time spent on the task. The implications of the results for objective self-awareness theory are considered.     

Self-consciousness, outcome expectancy, and persistence

A study investigated persistence as a function of two variables: the disposition to be self-attentive (called private self-consciousness) and outcome feedback on a prior task that was described as closely related to the target task. More specifically, subjects first completed a concealed-figures test and were told that their performances were either very good or very poor. The second test, which ostensibly measured the same abilities, was an insolvable design problem that is commonly used to measure persistence. Feedback concerning prior outcomes had a direct influence on expectancies for the second task, but persistence on that task was a joint function of feedback and self-consciousness. That is, favorable feedback led to greater persistence than did unfavorable feedback, but only among subjects high in self-consciousness. This finding replicates and extends the results of several previous studies. Discussion centers on the relationship between the present research and an earlier experiment which yielded apparently different results.     

On knowing when to quit: Task failure, self-esteem, advice, and nonproductive persistence

Past research has found the performance of persons with high self-esteem to improve after failure, especially on tasks for which persistence correlates positively with performance. However, persistence may be nonproductive in some situations. Experiment 1 used a task for which persistence and performance were uncorrelated; subjects high in self-esteem persisted longer but performed worse than did those with low self-esteem, particularly after prior failure feedback. Experiment 2 tested whether differential sensitivity to advice about the efficacy of persistence mediates nonproductive persistence. High self-esteem subjects who received explicit advice against nonproductive persistence on a puzzle-solving task still tended to persist longer on unsolvable puzzles than did low self-esteem subjects. The implications of high self-esteem subjects' tendency to engage in nonproductive persistence are discussed.     

The relationship of time investment and task outcome to causal attributions and self-esteem1

This study examined the relationship between performance outcome, time spent working at a task, and attributions to ability versus effort. It also explored differences in performance time as a function of self-esteem and task-performance expectancies. Subjects worked on a series of concept-attainment items and then were given either success or failure feedback regarding their performance and also information that they had worked either faster or slower than other subjects. They then evaluated their performance and that of a fictitious subject who had also purportedly done the task. Subjects attributed their own and other subjects' successes more to ability if they spent less time at the task and failure outcomes more to ability if they had spent more time at the task. Attributions to success and failure outcomes differed as a function of the interactive effect of self-esteem and task-specific expectancies. Low self-esteem subjects tended to attribute expected outcomes more to ability and unexpected outcomes more to effort, whereas high self-esteem subjects attributed successes more to ability and failure more to effort. Practice time and criteria for satisfaction were also a joint function of self-esteem and task-performance expectancy. The results suggest that task-performance expectancies must be considered when evaluating the role of self-esteem in determining people's responses in performance situations.     

When experiences of failure promote expectations of success: The impact of attribution failure to ineffective strategies1

This experiment examined the effects of attributing initial failure to ineffective strategies on performance expectancies. Subjects were induced to attribute performance at a persuasion task to either their strategies (a controllable factor) or abilities (an uncontrollable factor). Subjects then failed at their initial persuasion attempt. Following failure, strategy subjects expected more successes in future attempts than did ability subjects. Strategy subjects also expected to improve with practice, while ability subjects did not. Comparisons to control subjects, who received no attribution manipulation prior to success or failure, clarify these results. Findings suggest that subjects attributing task outcomes to strategies monitored the effectiveness of their strategies and concluded that by modifying their strategies they would become more successful. In contrast, subjects attributing task outcome to abilities failed to attend to strategic features and concluded that they could not improve. Implications of this overlooked factor for attribution theory and learned helplessness are discussed.     

Immediate and delayed effects of victim suffering on the attacker's aggression

On the first day of a two-day experiment, male undergraduates were either angered or not, and they were given either high, low, or no metered pain feedback after each shock they supposedly delivered to their previous evaluator for his errors on a learning task. After the learning task the subjects made a number of ratings, including how much they had enjoyed this first session. On the second day, all subjects were simply required to administer shocks to a different person for his mistakes on the same learning task. The angered subjects were more punitive on both days toward both learners than the nonangered men. On the first day the angered men also increased the intensity of the shocks they delivered over trial blocks. Most interestingly, the angered men showed more enjoyment of the first session of the experiment as their victim's pain increased, and this enjoyment rating was related to the angered subjects' level of aggression on the second day of the experiment when they punished an “innocent” victim. The results were interpreted as consistent with the hypothesized reinforcement process which essentially states that signs and/or knowledge of the victim's suffering can reinforce impulsive or angry aggressive behavior.     

Effects of induced success/failure and attributions on the problem-solving behavior of psychologically androgynous and feminine women

The aim of the present study was to examine the relation between masculinity and femininity in women and their responses to induced success or failure. Also experimentally manipulated were the subjects' performance attributions. Psychologically androgynous and feminine women either succeeded or failed at a concept formation task and were provided with internal, external, or no causal attributions for their performance. Then a second concept formation task was administered. The attribution manipulation failed to affect task performance and was not involved in any interactions. For feminine subjects, failure increased the trials necessary to reach criterion on the second task, whereas success had no effect. In contrast, the performance of androgynous subjects was unaffected by failure but facilitated by success. Finally, whereas androgynous subjects attributed success primarily to their ability and failure to task difficulty, feminine subjects attributed success and failure about equally to these two factors. It was suggested that androgynous women's use of the “egotistical” pattern of performance attributions gives them an advantage over feminine women with respect to the maintenance of self-esteem.     

Actors' and observers' attributions for success and failure: A comparative test of predictions from Kelley's cube,self-serving bias,and positivity bias formulations

An experiment was conducted to test implications of Kelley's cube, self-serving bias, and positivity bias formulations for attributions associated with success and failure on a test of “abstract reasoning.” Subjects either experienced or observed outcomes on three tasks. They then made attributions for only the third outcome, which was either a success or a failure. The first task was of the same type and had the same outcome as the third task, thus providing the information that the outcome being attributed was high in consistency. The second task was of a different type than the first and third tasks, and its outcome either did or did not differ from their outcomes, thus varying information about the distinctiveness of the outcome being attributed. Consensus was manipulated by presenting false norms, ostensibly from a previous experiment. In contrast to previous research, the present study included thorough checks on all of these informational manipulations. Regardless of attributor role (actor or observer), subjects attributed success more to internal than to external factors and attributed failure more to external than to internal factors. These findings indicate a general bias toward positive evaluations. Discussion centers on possible alternative interpretations of these findings, restrictions on their generality, and the limitations that they seem to impose on the applicability of the other two formulations.     

The Effects of Self-Esteem,Task Label,and Performance Feedback on Task Liking and Intrinsic Motivation

Abstract

American undergraduate students' task liking and intrinsic motivation were examined using 2 × 2 × 2 (Self-Esteem × Task Label × Feedback) analyses of variance. Identical tasks were labeled as either difficult or easy, and bogus performance feedback was given randomly to each subject. For subjects with high self-esteem, feedback had strong impact on their liking of a difficult task, whereas for those with low self-esteem, feedback had strong impact on liking of an easy task. After positive feedback for performing a difficult task, subjects with high self-esteem increased task liking, whereas those with low self-esteem decreased task liking. Subjects also showed higher intrinsic motivation after positive feedback than after negative feedback.     

Focus of attention and placebo utility

The effects of focus of attention and expected drug effects on reactions to a placebo were examined in two experiments. In the first experiment self-aware and non-self-aware subjects were given a placebo that was said to be either performance-facilitating or inhibiting and then they worked on a set of arithmetic problems. It was expected that the non-self-aware subjects, but not the self-aware subjects, would display a self-serving bias in their attributions regarding the effects of the placebo. Specifically, it was predicted that non-self-aware subjects would attribute more arousal to the performance-inhibiting drug than the performance-facilitating drug since such attributions would be more psychologically beneficial or “useful” in the sense that they would make actual performance on the task look more impressive. Consistent with these predictions, there was evidence of a self-serving bias in drug reactions only among the non-self-focused subjects. Those who were made self-aware did not respond differentially to the two types of drug information. Instead, they appeared to respond in line with their actual (aroused) internal states by attributing some arousal to both drugs. In the second experiment arousal was reduced by eliminating the task, and this time self-focused subjects again appeared to be more aware of their actual internal states, as they reported less reaction to the placebo, regardless of the effects ascribed to it. Two conclusions are drawn from these results: (a) perceived drug utility does effect placebo responsiveness, and (b) self-focused attention increases awareness of internal states, but not necessarily the causes of those states.     

The Effects of Commitment to Performance Goals on Effort1

The laboratory experiments were designed to examine the effects of commitment to a performance goal on the level of effort exerted to achieve the goal. In both experiments, college students worked on two memorization tasks and, after receiving performance feedback on the first task, commitment to either an easy or a more difficult goal for the second task was varied. In the first experiment, goal commitment was manipulated either by giving the students perceived choice over setting their goal or by assigning them to one of the two goal levels. In the second experiment, goal commitment was manipulated by publicly identifying students' goals or by keeping the goals private. To assess effort, participants were allowed to spend as little or as much time as they desired studying for the second task. In both experiments, the commitment manipulations (high choice or public identification) led to significantly greater persistence in studying, regardless of the goal level. In addition, high-commitment subjects tended to be more successful in reaching their goals than low-commitment subjects. These experiments suggest that commitment to a goal has motivational properties that prompt an increase in effort.     

Locus of control and the effects of success and failure in young and community-residing aged women1

A study was conducted to examine reactions to success and failure in young and elderly subjects. Young and aged women, previously classified as internals or externals according to scores on a version of Rotter's (1966) Locus of Control Scale, were asked to work on cognitive problems while listening to bursts of noise. Two experimental conditions were created. One group (perceived success) was led to believe they were successfully avoiding bursts of noise by correctly solving the problems. A second group (perceived failure) believed they were unsuccessful at the problems and not avoiding noises. To test the generality of the effects of the treatments, subsequent performance was assessed on first, a similar task administered by the original experimenter, and secondly, on a dissimilar task given by a different experimenter in another setting. Results on a similar task indicated that subjects showed poor performance following failure regardless of age or locus of control classification. However, internals performed better than externals after both success and failure treatments. Testing the generality of these effects with a dissimilar task, results indicated that externals tended to perform somewhat more poorly after failure and internals somewhat better after failure. However, these I-E differences in reactions to success and failure were largely due to the elderly group, and old-externals showed the poorest performance after failure. The results were interpreted in terms of the particular importance of locus of control as a determinant of adaptability to stress in the elderly.     

Social comparison after success and failure: Biased search for information consistent with a self-serving conclusion

Based on the traditional and attributional perspectives on social comparison, it was hypothesized that the search for social comparison information after performance outcomes is biased so as to provide evidence consistent with a favorable self-evaluation. In Experiment 1, subjects were led to believe that they obtained 16 or 8 out of 20 items correct on a bogus social sensitivity test and were then led to expect that most other students performed either well or poorly on the test. They were then given the opportunity to inspect up to 50 scored answer sheets from previous subjects. Consistent with the hypothesis, failure subjects requested more information when they expected it to reveal that most students performed poorly than when they expected it to reveal that most students performed well; success subjects showed little interest in this additional information, regardless of their expectancies as to what it would reveal. Experiment 2 employed a different approach to manipulating performance outcomes and led subjects to expect that most other subjects performed better, the same, or worse than themselves. Regardless of their own performance, subjects showed the least interest in additional information in the higher score expectancy condition and the most interest in additional information in the lower score expectancy condition. The role that this information search bias may play in producing self-serving attributions for success and failure and maintaining positive self-evaluations was discussed.     

The Effects of Self-Esteem,Task Label,and Performance Feedback on Goal Setting,Certainty, and Attribution

An identical task was labeled as either difficult or easy. Bogus performance feedback was given to each subject at random after the first work period. Subjects were divided into high or low self-esteem groups based on a median split in their scores on the self-esteem measure. The results showed that subjects set lower goals in the difficult condition than they did in the easy condition in the first period; however, no difference was found in the second period. Subjects with high self-esteem had higher certainty than those with low self-esteem in the second period. Subjects in the positive feedback group made higher ability and effort attributions than those in the negative feedback group.     

The nature of equity-restoration: Some approval-seeking considerations

Subjects performed a proofreading task and evaluated its difficulty both beforehand and afterwards. They were overpaid or equitably paid by an experimenter who was or was not directly responsible for the level of pay they received, and who they believed would or would not see their post-test ratings. All subjects knew the experimenter would grade their task performance. Consistent with equity theory, overpaid subjects rated the task as having been more difficult than they had expected and did higher quality work than did equitably paid subjects. However, subjects who thought the experimenter would see their ratings (Aware condition) rated it as more difficult and performed more poorly on it than those who thought she would not see them (Unaware condition). Reported task difficulty increased among overpaid subjects under aware conditions, remained stable among overpaid subjects under unaware conditions, and decreased for equitably paid subjects. These findings suggested that what appears to be “equity-restoration” may be a self-presentation strategy designed to win the experimenter's approval, and that task ratings rather than performance will be used for this purpose when they can be communicated to the experimenter. The experimenter's responsibility for the subject's pay had no effect in the present study.     

Determinants of information-seeking behavior

Two studies examined situational determinants of choice among anagram tests that varied both in difficulty and in diagnosticity (the information they provided about one's own ability). In both studies, subjects worked on a preliminary anagram test before making their choices. Study 1 manipulated level of performance on the preliminary test. Results showed that high performance led to preferring more difficult and more diagnostic tests. In Study 2, subjects were either paid or not paid for their performance on the preliminary test. Results showed that pay led to a preference for more diagnostic tests. Unexpectedly, results of both studies showed that although difficulty and diagnosticity were defined independently of one another, they were not perceived as such. Thus, high diagnostic tests were perceived as more difficult; more difficult tests were perceived as more diagnostic; and the difference between high and low diagnostic tests in perceived diagnosticity and choice of items (high diagnostic tests had higher scores on both measures) were more pronounced among more difficult tests. Motivational as well as cognitive interpretations of the results were discussed.     

Durability and generalization of attribution-based feedback following failure: Effects on expectations and behavioral persistence

ObjectiveThis experiment investigated, following perceived failure, the immediate, long-term (i.e., durability), and cross-situational (i.e., generalization) effects of attribution-based feedback on expectations and behavioral persistence.DesignWe used a 3 × 2 (Group × Time) experimental design over seven weeks with attributions, expectations of success, and persistence as dependent measures.Method49 novice participants were randomly assigned to one of three treatment (attributional feedback) groups: (a) functional (i.e., controllable and unstable); (b) dysfunctional (i.e., uncontrollable and stable); or (c) no feedback. Testing involved three sessions, in which participants completed a total of five trials across two performance tasks (golf-putting and dart-throwing). In order to track whether the attributional manipulation conducted within the context of the golf-putting task in Session 2 would generalize to a new situation, participants performed a dart-throwing task in Session 3, and their scores were compared with those recorded at baseline (in Session 1).ResultsAnalysis of pre- and post-intervention measures of attributions, expectations, and persistence revealed that the functional attributional feedback led to more personally controllable attributions following failure in a golf-putting task, together with increases in success expectations and persistence. In contrast, dysfunctional attributional feedback led to more personally uncontrollable and stable attributions following failure, together with lower success expectations and reduced persistence. These effects extended beyond the intervention period, were present up to four weeks post intervention, and were maintained even when participants performed a different (i.e., dart-throwing) task.ConclusionsThe findings demonstrate that attributional feedback effects are durable over time and generalize across situations.     

The Effect of Giving Informal Performance Feedback on Subsequent Formal Memory-Based Performance Evaluations1

Two experiments tested the hypothesis that raters' formal memory-based performance evaluations can be significantly influenced by their having previously given the ratee informal performance feedback. In Experiment 1 subjects either did or did not give informal feedback to another person who performed either well or poorly on an interviewing task. In Experiment 2 subjects role played giving informal feedback about behavior relevant to only one of the two performance dimensions subsequently evaluated. In both experiments subjects later ratcd the interpersonal and task performance of the feedback recipient. The results of both studies support the hypothesis for ratings of interpersonal performance. Giving informal feedback to a ratee exhibiting good interpersonal performance led to more positive interpersonal performance ratings, whereas giving informal feedback to a ratee exhibiting poor interpersonal performance led to more negative interpersonal performance ratings. Task performance ratings, on the other hand, were not affected. Conditions likely to have mitigated the impact of giving informal feedback on the task performance ratings are discussed, as are the implications of the results for practical strategies to improve the quality of formal memory-based performance evaluations.     

Ego-involved persistence: When free-choice behavior is not intrinsically motivated

Experiments on factors affecting intrinsic motivation have generally inferred intrinsic motivation from subjects' engagement in a target activity during a “free-choice period” when external contingencies are no longer operative. However, internally controlling regulation is a form of internal motivation that is very different from intrinsic motivation and can underlie free-choice-period activity. This paper presents three experiments concerned with differentiating internally controlling from intrinsically motivated persistence in situations where ego-involved vs. task-involved subjects had received positive vs. nonconfirming (or no) performance feedback. The first experiment showed that ego-involved (relative to task-involved) subjects displayed less free-choice persistence when they received positive feedback, whereas the second experiment showed that ego-involved (relative to task-involved) subjects displayed more free-choice persistence when they received nonconfirming feedback. In both experiments, however, it was shown that ego-involved subjects did not report the expected affective correlates of intrinsic motivation—namely, interest/enjoyment and perceived choice—whereas task-involved subjects did. In the third experiment, as predicted, ego-involved subjects tended to show less free-choice persistence than task-involved subjects when they received positive performance feedback but greater free-choice persistence when they received no performance feedback. The problem of distinguishing intrinsically motivated activity from internally controlled behavior is discussed.