Self-evaluations of male and female managers

Two separate samples of males and females holding first-level management positions in United States organizations completed questionnaires which asked for self-evaluation on a number of job-related characteristics and for attributions of causality for successful and unsuccessful job experiences. In support of previous research, results indicated that males evaluated their performance more favorably than did women, and rated themselves as having more ability and greater intelligence. Men also saw ability as more responsible for their success than did women, but the sexes did not differ in attributions to luck, effort, or task. Implications for equal opportunity and potential for change are considered.     

The Relationship of Gender, Gender-Related Traits, and Achievement Orientation to Achievement Attributions: A Study of Subject-Selected Accomplishments

ABSTRACT Female and male college students (N= 251 and 84, respectively) described important accomplishments in their lives and reported attributions for the causes of their success Regression analyses indicated that, as predicted, students' gender explained a small portion of the variance in attributions, and the goals and performance standards of the students' achievement experiences (achievement orientations) accounted for more variance in attributions than did the other predictors Further analyses showed that the domains of students' accomplishments affected their attributions to effort luck, and ability, and that students' achievement goals and performance evaluation standards predicted their attributions to task difficulty, effort, and ability Researchers are urged to explore attributions made concerning self-selected achievements, and to focus on variables other than sex in their search for the determinants of achievement attributions     

By your attributions you shall be known: Consequences of attributional accounts for professional and gender identities

We demonstrate the power of a situated identity perspective for understanding the different attributional patterns of women and men in an academic setting and their differential experiences in the workplace. Two explanations for the gender difference found in attributions of success are considered. This difference may be due either to different identities being attributed to men and women employing the same explanations for success and failure, or to the inconsistency between actions that confirm a professional (academic) identity and women's gender identity. The results of this survey of senior social science faculty men support the latter explanation but not the former. An editorial acceptance was seen as more professional but less feminine than a rejection. In the eyes of senior colleagues, the modest account of success, typical of women academics, enhances femininity but detracts from professionalism. The self-serving account typical of men makes the offerer appear less feminine but more professional. Thus in their situated identity claims, successful academic women, but not men, must choose between their professional and gender identities. Despite the movement of women into university social science positions, the role of academic has a masculine face.Order of authors was determined by a coin toss.     

Gender and the attributions of chief executive responsibility for successful or unsuccessful organizational outcomes

This study addresses the effects of gender upon the attributions of responsibility for success and failure by chief executives in an organizational setting. Prior laboratory studies verify that some sex-related differences exist, although their importance and causes have been subject to controversy. In general, gender seems to make a difference in two respects. Men tend to make stronger attributions to their own ability than women and men are less likely than women to attribute their own performance to luck. In short, women are more likely to derogate their own efforts than are men. In this study no major gender-related differences were found in the patterns of attribution of the causes given for success or failure. These results indicate that if a general model of gender-related attributional differences is to be developed, additional studies from natural settings are needed.     

奖赏结构与结果效价对男女儿童成就归因的影响

本研究的目的是考察奖赏结构和结果效价对男女儿童归因风格的影响.被试为小学五年级学生(n=74,男生36人,女生38人),实验通过解决一系列迷津测验来创设成功和失败情境.研究结果表明,能力、运气归因存在性别差异,在竞争奖赏结构条件下,女生对成就状况倾向于做运气归因,而男生倾向于做运气以外其他因素的归因(如能力);在非竞争奖赏结构条件下,男生对成就状况倾向于做运气归因,而女生倾向于做运气以外其他因素的归因.此外,还发现了一些其他的显著效应.     

Gender, Female Traditionality, Achievement Level, and Cognitions of Success and Failure

Differences in ratings of initial expectancy of success, perceived scholastic ability, and causal attributions were assessed for male and female high school students for a simulated academic test. Subjects were also differentiated on their achievement level (i.e., under- and overachievement) and the traditionality of their career aspirations. As predicted, higher expectancies were found for high performance achievers and nontraditional females. Males generally made more attributions to lack of effort for failure, as did low performance achievers. Females and high performance achievers attributed success more to effort. Hypotheses concerning differential usage of luck and ability attributions were not supported. Although there was an overall trend for females to be more external, traditionality also mediated causal attributions for females.     

ATTRIBUTIONAL DIFFERENCES IN THE LIFE SATISFACTIONS OF THE ELDERLY: A CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON OF ASIAN AND UNITED STATES SUBJECTS*

A cross-cultural examination of the attributions for the life satisfactions of the elderly was conducted by using a sample of 80 Asian-Indian and 80 United States retired citizens. It was hypothesized that factors of hard work, luck, family ties, religious faith, travel and recreation, personal abilities, money, social status, service to others and friendships would account for differences in the attributions for life-satisfactions of the two cultural groups. Results showed that more Asian than United States subjects reported satisfaction with life. Consistent with predictions, the attributions of the Asian group showed religious faith, service to others, family ties and luck as being very important factors contributing to life satisfaction. By contrast, more United States subjects reported that hard work, personal abilities, travel and recreation, and social status had significantly influenced their life satisfactions. Findings were interpreted in terms of cultural and socio-psychological variables which influence the attributions for life satisfactions.     

The impact of sex,achievement domain,and conceptual orientation on causal attributions

Sex differences in achievement domain and achievement orientation were examined to better understand women's achievement. College students (84 women, 59 men) were asked to write brief accounts of a past success and a past failure and to provide causal attributions for each. More women recalled affiliative-process events, and proportionally more men recalled mastery-impact events. The relationship of topic domain and conceptual orientation to causal attributions was apparent only for accounts of failure. Topic domain and conceptual orientation interacted with sex to further influence stability attributions. When women conceptualized failure as a process, they emphasized attributions to effort and luck, while men accounted for the process failure by ability and task. When the failure was conceptualized in terms of final impact, the sex pattern of attributions was reversed.     

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.     

Gender differences in attributions for triathlon performance

Causal attributions given by athletes for performance can influence performance satisfaction, expectation of future success, and persistence in training and competition. Young and inexperienced athletes often show gender differences in sport attribution, with males attributing success to controllable or stable factors like ability and effort, and females attributing success to uncontrollable or unstable factors like luck and social support. Would older, more experienced female triathletes also show a self-defeating attribution style and see themselves with little control over sport performance? Using questionnaires, 624 triathletes (mostly white, 443 males, 181 females) rated the importance of 13 attributions for triathlon performance. Unlike past research, female triathletes attributed more importance than males to factors they can attempt to control (psychological state, diet, and weight). After a recent success, female triathletes downplayed the importance of luck and social support.     

Professional service involvement of leadership faculty: An assessment of gender,role, and satisfaction

This study explored gender differences among educational administration faculty and their participation in and satisfaction with professional association activities. The study population would be characterized as overwhelmingly male and white, but with women and minority candidates beginning to enter the faculty ranks. Women faculty reported involvement in more professional service activities and a slightly higher satisfaction with their involvement than their male colleagues. However, women participated in different types of and more professional association activities than men.     

Gender differences in attributions about microcomputer learning in elementary school

To investigate whether girls' attributions about computer use were more likely to follow a pattern of learned helplessness, boys' and girls' attributions about a computerized drill-and-practice task and a tutorial program were assessed. Factor analysis of responses on an attribution questionnaire revealed three factors that differed across gender and across task. Multiple regression, using exposure time, group size, attributions, and interactions to predict posttest scores, showed different patterns for boys and girls and between tasks. For the drill-and-practice task, girls benefited from increased exposure time, and attributions to ease of task and ability predicted performance for both boys and girls. For the tutorial task, increased exposure time did not benefit either sex. Girls, however, benefitted from working in larger groups, while boys benefitted from working in smaller groups. Attributions to luck, as well as perceptions of ability and ease of task, predicted posttest scores. However, for girls, attributions to luck predicted higher scores, while for boys, attributions to luck were negatively correlated with performance. Implications for including appropriate feedback to encourage a mastery approach in computer learning, as well as optimal group size and group composition for positive attributional style and academic success, are discussed.This research was supported by Concordia University and the Fonds Pour la Formation des Chercheurs et l'Aide a la Recherche (Grant EQ-2951), Government of Quebec, Canada.The authors wish to thank Ms. Patricia Peters for assistance with the statistical analysis, and Dr. Philip Abrami, for his contribution to the project.     

Attributions for Success and Failure in Children of Different Social Class

Abstract

Seventh-grade male and female students (N = 60), divided on the basis of socioeconomic status, were asked to attribute causes to their success or failure on a block-design measure after having experienced solvable, unsolvable, or no pretreatment problems. Differences in use of attributions to ability, effort, task ease, and luck factors were analyzed. The results failed to support the hypothesis that social class groups would differ in their use of attributions in response to success. Subjects were more clearly differentiated, however, in their choice of attributions for failure, with lower class failing students less prone to ascribe their outcome to unstable causes than middle-class failing students.     

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.     

Causal explanations of male and female academic performance as a function of sex-role biases

The study was designed to assess whether attributions of causality vary as a function of sex-role attitudes. Thirty-two male and thirty-two female undergraduates were presented with one of four story completions about a medical student in which sex of the student and success versus failure were varied. Subjects were asked to account for the medical student's success (or failure) in terms of ability, motivation, ease of the goal, and luck. Results suggest that attributions do vary as a function of sex-role attitudes, as measured by the Attitudes Toward Women Scale. Subjects with liberal attitudes were less likely to offer sex-biased attributions about lack of motivation. Subjects' attributions with respect to lack of ability suggest, however, that sex-typed notions about competence may still be deeply ingrained despite recent social changes.The author would like to thank Cheryl Sharp and Robin Koenig for their assistance in compiling the data for this project, as well as Robert Heaton, James Gumina, and Louise Bickman for their editoral comments.     

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.     

Luck Attributions and Cognitive Bias

Philosophers have developed three theories of luck: the probability theory, the modal theory, and the control theory. To help assess these theories, we conducted an empirical investigation of luck attributions. We created eight putative luck scenarios and framed each in either a positive or a negative light. Furthermore, we placed the critical luck event at the beginning, middle, or end of the scenario to see if the location of the event influenced luck attributions. We found that attributions of luckiness were significantly influenced by the framing of the scenario and by the location of the critical event. Positively framing an event led to significantly higher lucky ratings than negatively framing the same exact event. And the closer a negative event was placed toward the end of a scenario, the more unlucky the event was rated. Overall, our results raise the possibility that there is no such thing as luck and thereby pose serious challenges to the three prominent theories of luck. We instead propose that luck may be a cognitive illusion, a mere narrative device used to frame stories of success or failure.     

The Effects of Gender and Measurement Strategy on Causal Attributions for Infertility

Investigators of causal attributions for threatening events have typically studied either male or female samples and have interchangeably used two methods of assessing attributions. To examine the effect of gender and measurement strategy on causal attributions, we interviewed 31 men and 33 women with impaired fertility. Causal attributions were measured using open-ended questions, as well as by asking participants to rate the influence of five specific causes. The results of a multitrait-multimethod matrix revealed only modest convergence between measurement methods. As predicted, both method and gender influenced causal attributions. Women were more likely to attribute the infertility to their behavior. Causal attributions were related to psychological symptoms, but differentially depending on how attributions were measured.