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.     

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     

A self-fulfilling prophecy in a competitive psychomotor task

Fifty-six pairs of male college students competed in games of electronic table tennis. The participants were led to expect a bias in the game equipment, such that one player would have an advantage and the other a disadvantage. All participants recorded levels of aspiration both before and after being informed of the alleged bias. Upon completion of the game, the subjects made ratings of causal attribution to five factors: ability, task difficulty, effort, luck, and equipment bias. The results showed that the students with the putative disadvantage set significantly lower aspiration levels and performed at a significantly lower level than those students with the supposed advantage. Thus the putative bias became a real bias, although a psychological rather than a physical one. It is suggested that the source of the bias and the performance differences was a self-fulfilling prophecy. In contrast to the results of earlier studies, there were no meaningful differences in ratings of causal attribution.     

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.     

The role of attribution in the experience of crowding

The theory that the subjective experience of crowding results from an attribution of arousal process was examined. Specifically, it was predicted that subjects who were aroused by having their personal space violated would experience less crowding if they were led to believe that some other environmental factor was responsible for the arousal. Groups of subjects were placed in a room in which their personal space was either violated or not violated. Some subjects were told that either an arousing or a relaxing subliminal noise would be played into the room. (Actually there was no noise.) Other subjects were told nothing about subliminal noise. The subjects worked on a number of tasks and were then asked to report how crowded they felt. The noise manipulation had no effect on subjects' performance nor on feelings of crowdedness when their personal space was not being violated. However, when there was a violation of personal space, subjects who felt the noise would arouse them reported being less crowded and performed better than subjects in the relaxing noise or no explanation conditions. It was suggested that subjects attributed their arousal to the “arousing noise” and hence felt less crowded.     

Power imbalance,its legitimacy,and aggression

Sixty Japanese female students were asked to exchange shocks in electric roulette games with female opponents. The subjects were assigned to either the 80%, 50%, or 20% win conditions. Half of them were then led to judge that the power unbalance was legitimate by being informed that the assignment was based on a prior performance contest, with the good performer being assigned to the advantageous position. The other subjects were led to perceive the power imbalance as illegitimate by being informed that the assignment was randomly decided. The opponents always severely attacked them. The retaliation by the subjects was analyzed by a two-way ANOVA with Power Imbalance and Legitimacy. It was found that the subjects both in the 20% and 50% win conditions set more intense shocks to their opponents than those in the 80% win condition. This is not consistent with the fear of retaliation hypothesis which had predicted that the subjects would refrain from intensely aggressing against the opponent who had a greater aggressive capacity. It was also found that in the 80% win condition, the subjects set more intense shocks when the unbalance had been determined by their performance than when determined by luck, whereas in the 20% win condition, they set more intense shocks when the imbalance had been determined by luck than when determined by their performance. These suggest that retaliation depended upon perceived justifiability of aggression which was predicated on the legitimacy of the power imbalance. Finding in the 50% win condition that the shock settings were higher when the power imbalance had been determined by their performance than when determined by luck was interpreted in terms of their heightened competitiveness.     

Depression and preference for self-focusing stimuli after success and failure

Depressed individuals, who tend to have large perceived-self/ideal-self discrepancies, have been shown to be particularly high in private self-consciousness. On the bases of this finding and of several converging theoretical perspectives, we hypothesized that depressives, unlike nondepressives, do not find self-focus more aversive after failure than after success, and thus either (a) show no differential preference for self-focusing stimuli after success versus after failure (weak hypothesis), or (b) prefer self-focusing stimuli after failure over self-focusing stimuli after success (strong hypothesis). Depressed and nondepressed college students succeeded or failed on a supposed test of verbal intelligence, and then worked on two sets of puzzles, one in the presence and one in the absence of a self-focusing stimulus (mirror). Whereas nondepressed subjects liked the mirror-associated puzzle more after success than after failure, depressed subjects did not; depressed subjects tended to like the mirror-associated puzzle more after failure than after success. Nondepressed subjects also exhibited a self-serving pattern of attributions, viewing the test as less valid and luck as more responsible for their performance after failure than after success; depressed subjects showed no such differences. In consistency with their failure to use defensive strategies, depressed subjects showed a decrease in self-esteem after failure; nondepressed subjects showed no such change.     

Causal Attributions of Male and Female Performance by Young Children

Males and females in kindergarten and third grade predicted whether a boy or a girl would succeed on a masculine or a feminine task. Some predictions were confirmed; others were not. The children were asked to explain the winner's success by choosing among four determinants of achievement: ability, effort, task ease, and luck. For third graders, luck was more important in determining the success of an unpredicted winner than a predicted winner. For both ages, female success on a masculine task was attributed more to effort than to ability. These findings support attribution theory and indicate that differential perceptions of male and female performance exist in young children.     

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.     

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.     

Motivation effects of attributions, expectancy, and achievement motivation during the learning of a novel motor task

Several cognitive motivational theories including achievement motivation, attribution theory, and a test of expectancy for future success were linked to explain and predict psychomotor performance. Sixty high- and 60 low-need-achieving male high school students were randomly placed into success and failure feedback conditions, and performance scores on a lever-positioning apparatus were assessed. Following each block of performance trials, fictitious feedback in the form of success and failure information was given, and then each subject rated attribution and expectancy questionnaires. Expectancies for future performance improved more following success than after failure and were generally predicted by attributions to stable elements. Although trends were present, performance scores were unaffected by these cognitive beliefs. However, a significant prediction of performance was obtained when stepwise multiple regression procedures were used with constant error as the criterion variable. The factors of expectancy and luck significantly predicted performance.     

A test of Weiner's attribution theory inertial motivation hypothesis1

This study (N= 160 males) examined the cognitive and inertial motivation effects of overt success feedback on subjects high and low in resultant achievement motivation. The cognitive effects of overt success feedback were investigated by requesting attributions to effort, ability, luck, and task difficulty concerning performance on a digit symbol substitution task. The inertial motivation effects of overt success feedback were investigated through a transfer design. Results indicated overt success feedback to have an inertial motivation effect on performance efficiency at a subsequent verbal learning task. The results provided evidence against Weiner's (1972) attribution theory version of the inertial motivation hypothesis, and were interpreted within the general learning theory framework combined with the achievement and test anxiety models of Atkinson and Sarason. The interpretation offered considers the various experimental conditions as sources of motivation.     

Duration of failure,causal attributions for failure,and subsequent reactions

Subjects were given a preliminary problem solving task of either short or long duration, and were told that they could shorten the duration of aversive noise bursts by correctly solving the problems. They were then given false feedback that they had done either well or poorly on the problems. Two groups of failing subjects were given information designed to lead them to attribute failure to either lack of ability or a difficult task. Two additional groups received “success” or “failure” feedback without any attributional cues. Failure-induced stress was reported to be greater under short duration conditions than under long duration conditions, and increased to the extent that subjects were led to believe they were personally responsible for failure. Following the preliminary failure period, task performance in the same situation and task performance and persistence in a different situation were assessed. In each case, performance and persistence decreased (a) following short-duration failure when subjects were led to attribute failure to a difficult task, and (b) following long-duration failure when subjects were led to attribute failure to lack of ability. These results are discussed within a framework that emphasizes the role of casual attributions in mediating the effects of failure.     

Trait attributions and defense against insult from a dissimilar other

It was hypothesized that subjects would prefer to blame a character assault on negative ability characteristics of a dissimilar attacker as opposed to negative motivational characteristics in order to escape responsibility for the attack. It was reasoned that because we generally think of ourselves as having less potential influence over the abilities as opposed to the motivations of another person, it might be possible to diminish one's responsibility for another's behavior by attributing that behavior to that person's ability characteristics. Subjects in this experiment responded either to an insulting or noninsulting stimulus person who was either similar or dissimilar by selecting from a list of both motivational and ability bipolar trait dimensions, those dimensions they would most prefer to use in rating the stimulus person. As predicted, subjects responding to an insulting and dissimilar stimulus person showed a significantly greater preference for ability trait dimensions than subjects in the other conditions combined and also disliked the stimulus person more. The significance of these results for defensive attribution processes and phenomena such as racism and sexism are discussed.     

彩票大奖获得者成就归因特点的初步研究

对71名彩票中大奖者的成就归因进行研究,发现在博彩这种特殊情境中,个体归因表现出如下特点：第一,个体把成就首先归因于运气,其次是努力、能力和难度;第二,中大奖者对他人博彩成就也首先作运气归因;第三,虽然把成就作不可控的运气归因,但所有中奖者都表示今后将继续参与博彩行为。本研究提出,在对某一具体现象作归因研究时应关注情境的特殊性和具体条件。     

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.     

Cheating,intention, and punishment from an equity theory perspective

Male college students were given the opportunity to deliver aversive noise to a partner (confederate) contingent on the partner's “mistakes” in a learning task. Subjects were either not informed about a reward or told that they, their partner, or a charity would receive a monetary reward for speedy learning. Half of the subjects observed the confederate cheat, while half did not observe any deceptive behavior. The intensity of punitive behavior seemed to vary in accordance with predictions derived from equity theory. That is, cheating for a charity, a “good cause” resulted in less intense punishment than did cheating for selfish gain. On the other hand, mistakes, uncomplicated by cheating, which deprived a charity were punished more intensely than were mistakes whose only result accrued to the confederate himself.     

Exploring sex differences in expectancy,attribution, and academic achievement

Two studies were carried out to explore if sex differences in expectancy and attribution of achievement are related to sex differences in academic performance. Study I investigated expectancy and attribution of achievement, operationalized as grade point index, among 176 male and 116 female college freshmen. Men were found to form higher expectations for future grades. Attributions measured through assigning percentage weights to ability, luck, effort, and difficulty as causal explanations of one's grade point index showed that men make more ability and women more effort attributions. Despite these differences in expectancy and attribution patterns, men and women were found not to differ in their performance. In Study II 120 college freshmen, half of them male, half female, filled out questionnaires before and after a midterm examination. A subsample of 49 also completed the Bem Sex Role Inventory. The results basically confirm the previous study's findings, except in Study II, men and women gave equally high weights to effort as a cause. The results also show that a feminine sex-role orientation is associated with a debilitating pattern of expectancy and attribution and lower performance, especially among women. Implications of the results for unraveling inconsistencies in the attribution literature and for a need to clarify connotations of femininity are discussed.The author wishes to express her gratitude to the members of the Psychology and Guidance Division of the College of Basic Studies, Boston University, for their assistance in preparing the questionnaire and collecting the data for Study I. Research for Study II was supported by grant MH 31181-01 from the National Institute of Mental Health. Mark Nachbar provided assistance in analyzing the data to both studies. Jan Mokros, Joseph Pleck, and Dan Jaquette provided valuable comments on an earlier version of this article.     

The effects of perceived similarity upon the use of reward and punishment

Subjects were led to perceive a trainee as either similar or dissimilar to themselves. During subsequent influence trials, subjects attempted to assess the causes of the trainee's performance and to employ rewards, punishments, or manipulations of the trainee's environment to optimize her performance. It was predicted that subjects would perceive the performance of dissimilar trainees as caused more by the dispositional factor of motivation than the performance of similar trainees, and that dissimilar trainees would thus be rewarded more upon success as well as punished more upon failure. The hypotheses were supported, and a model of reward-punishment behavior and attribution is discussed.