Adolescents' expectancies of success,self-evaluations,and attributions about performance on spatial and verbal tasks

The present study examined the expectancies of success, evaluations of performance, and achievement-related attributions that high school students made about verbal and spatial tasks that typically show sex differences. Although no sex differences were found in task performance, boys expected to do better than girls on both the spatial and verbal tasks. After completing the task, the girls continued to evaluate their performance more negatively than did boys on the spatial tasks. On spatial tasks girls also attributed to themselves less ability and saw the tasks as being more difficult than did boys. The results suggest that there are generalized, rather than task-specific, sex differences in achievement expectancies, evaluations, and attributions. These findings are discussed in terms of their implications for sex-related differences in cognitive functioning and subsequent achievement behaviors.The authors gratefully acknowledge support from the Judith Offer Fund and from the Spencer Foundation.     

Sex differences in attributions for sex-typed tasks1

Recent studies have indicated that males make more egotistical attributions than females, that is, males make more internal attributions for success and more external attributions for failure than females do. These sex differences in attributions were examined in terms of male/female differences in expectancies for success and ego-involvement in the tasks. Male and female subjects succeeded or failed on a masculine or a feminine task. It was found that males made more egotistical attributions than females on the masculine task, but females made more egotistical attributions than males on the feminine task. A covariance analysis revealed that these sex differences in attributions could be explained in terms of the differences between the males and females in expectancy for success and in ego-involvement. Finally, it was found that ego-involvement was a more important determinant of egotisical attributions in the present study than was expectancy.     

Sex differences in performance attribution and contingency judgment

In two studies, male and female subjects were given attribution measures before and after performance on a novel finger maze. Neither study revealed any sex differences in expectancy and anticipated attributions prior to maze performance. In Experiment 1, no sex differences in attributions were obtained regardless of whether the outcome was success or failure. In Experiment 2, where the outcome was made completely noncontingent on behavior, females had greater illusion of control as well as higher luck attribution. This paradoxical finding was interpreted as reflecting females' tendency to depend on external and internal attributions simultaneously.The data presented here are based on a larger research project on reinforcement contingencies and performance attributions supported by a research grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.     

Attributions of responsibility for date and stranger rape

This study examined the effects of the victim-perpetrator relationship on college students' attributions of responsibility for rape. In addition, the rape specificity of these attributions was investigated. College females and males read one of six scenarios that depicted a rape or a proposition, and that varied according to the victim-perpetrator relationship (steady dating partners/acquaintances on a first date/strangers). Then they rated seven responsibility attributions for the rape or proposition. Results indicated that most forms of victim responsibility were stronger for the rape and proposition on a date than for the incidents between strangers, and the findings concerning the perpetrator's responsibility were mixed. The pattern of both victim- and perpetrator-responsibility attributions suggests that both a rape and proposition on a date, compared to incidents between strangers, elicit stronger sex role and sexual attributions. Moreover, male subjects, in comparison to female subjects, gave higher ratings to several responsibility attributions, and these, also, are linked to sex role and sexual considerations. Further, the data revealed that only the perpetrator-responsibility attributions were stronger for the rape than the proposition.This research was supported by the University of Connecticut Research Foundation Grant No. 1171-000-22-00215-35-760. The authors thank Laurin Hafner for his help with the data analysis.     

Causal attribution for interfirm contract violation: a comparative study of Chinese and American commercial arbitrators

In this study, the authors examined differences between Chinese and American commercial arbitrators. They predicted and found that Chinese arbitrators make higher awards for interfirm contract violations than Americans. This difference is partially explained by differences in attributions. Prior theory suggests, and the authors found, that the Chinese tend to have more internal attributions for events when observing group actions. When evidence provided to arbitrators is mixed (evidence is provided for both internal and external attributions), Chinese-American differences in awards become even stronger.     

Sex differences in attributions and learned helplessness

This investigation assessed the hypothesis that girls are more likely to be learned helpless in math than boys. Students in grades 5 through 11 completed questionnaires assessing their causal attributions for success and failure in mathematics, their self-concepts of math ability, and their expectations for both current and future success in math. Results indicated that sex differences in attributions depended on the type of methodology used (open-ended or rank-ordered questions). The most consistent difference involved the differential use and ranking of ability, skills, and consistent effort. No sex differences were found in either students' perceptions of their own math ability or in their current achievement expectations. Girls, however, rated their future expectations slightly lower than did boys. Taken together, these results provide little support for the hypothesis that girls are generally more learned helpless in mathematics than are boys.     

Socializing Attribution: Generalization to “Real” Social Environments1

Social status variables have been shown to influence attributional judgments, but their effects have been demonstrated almost entirely in experimental settings. The influence of such statuses in experimental settings may differ from their influence in natural settings. We examined the influence on attributional judgments of the status characteristics of both subjects and actors in conjunction with variations in the degree of “real world” characteristics of both subjects and social context. These comparisons were drawn through a partial replication of earlier research investigating the effects of a social status variable, victim sex, and a situational variable—type of assault—on attributions about an assault victim. The social status characteristic, victim sex, had less influence on attributions in an adult juror sample than in a student sample and testimony-related characteristics were more influential in the adult juror sample than in the student sample. Thus, the categories of variables that influence attributions appear to depend on the context of judgment and on the breadth of subjects' life experience. These findings are discussed and we conclude with the caution that careful identification of the differences produced by context and subject characteristics is necessary to support generalization of laboratory-based research.     

Assessing the theoretical models for sex differences in causal attributions for success and failure

Three basic models of attributional sex differences are reviewed: General Externality, Self-Derogation, and Low Expectancy. Although all of the models predict that women are unlikely to attribute their successes to ability, the models were quite different in other predictions. A meta-analysis of 21 studies examining sex differences in success-failure attributions was done to determine which of these three models had the most empirical support. Wording of attribution questions was also assessed. Results indicated only two consistent sex differences: Men make stronger ability attributions than women regardless of the outcome when informational attributional wording is used; and men attribute their successes and failures less to luck. Empirically, none of the models was well supported.     

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.     

The Development and Sex-Related Use of Interruption Behavior

In this article the authors argue that claims of sex differences in interruption behavior should not be uncritically accepted as there are limitations in previous research that make such acceptance questionable. The frequency of interruption was examined over a portion of the early life span (Grades 4 and 9 and college). Twenty-minute structured conversations of 90 dyads (30 male, 30 female, and 30 mixed sex) were scored for four types of interruption, and both developmental and sex differences in interruption behavior were examined. Interruption frequency did not change over age or across dyads of different sex composition. Males did not interrupt any more than females did and females were interrupted by their partners as frequently as males were interrupted by theirs, with one exception: Grade 9females were interrupted more by their female partners. Interruptions were asymmetrically distributed in same-sex and opposite-sex dyads; however, the asymmetry in opposite-sex dyads was not predictablefrom sex of subject or sex of partner. That is, males did not interrupt females any more than females interrupted males. The authors conclude that wholesale acceptance of sex differences in interruption behavior is not warranted.     

Development of learning-disabled and normally achieving children's causal attributions

The causal attributions of learning-disabled (LD) and normally achieving (NA) children in grades 3 through 8 were compared. Attributions were measured by two scales that asked children to attribute hypothetical academic failure situations to factors that were either within (e.g., insufficient effort) or beyond (e.g., insufficient ability, blaming others) their control. Consistent with a learned helplessness hypothesis, LD girls, regardless of age, were more likely than NA children to attribute their failures to factors beyond their control. In contrast, LD boys' explanations for their failures paralleled those of NA children. That is, with increasing age the LD boys were more likely to attribute their failures to insufficient effort. Explanations and implications of sex differences in developmental patterns of LD children's causal attributions are discussed.The authors wish to thank Ruth Dusseault and Betty Wallace for their help in conducting this research. We also wish to thank the teachers, children, and administrators from the Leon County Schools for their cooperation.     

Self-Handicapping in the Classroom: The Effects of Claimed Self-Handicaps on Responses to Academic Failure

The hypothesis that self-handicapping is in the service of self-esteem protection was examined in a naturalistic setting. College students were assessed for individual differences in self-handicapping and attributional style at the beginning of the term. Prior to the first exam they had an opportunity to claim handicaps that might hamper their performance on the exam. After receiving feedback that they had performed poorly on the exam, all students completed measures of mood, self-esteem, and performance attributions. Support for the hypothesis was found for men but not for women. Level of self-handicapping interacted with sex of subject such that high self handicapping among men predicted claimed handicapping prior to the exam and more external attributions for poor performance and higher self-esteem following feedback. Among women, the relations between self-handicapping tendencies and claimed handicaps and performance attributions were weaker than for men. In addition, unlike men's, women's post feedback self-esteem was unrelated to claimed handicaps and performance attributions. Potential mechanisms underlying sex differences in self-handicapping and responses to negative feedback are discussed.     

Sex differences in children's attributions for success and failure on math and spelling tests

Sex differences in children's attributions for success and failure were tested on a group of 165 fifth and sixth graders taking a regularly scheduled math and spelling test in their classroom. Pretest questionnaires measured students' self-perceptions of competence in the subject and their performance expectations on the test. Questionnaires, given after the corrected tests were returned, assessed students' actual performance, subjective ratings of success, attributions for the cause of their success or failure, and performance expectations for future tests. Results indicated that sex differences existed in math but not in spelling: compared to girls, boys perceived themselves to be more competent and did better on the math test. Boys were also less likely to attribute failure on the math test to lack of ability and more likely to attribute success to ability than were girls.     

Sex Differences, Attributional Style, and Depressive Symptoms Among Adolescents

This study examined attributional style, sex, and depressive symptoms and diagnosis in high school students. The results revealed that (1) for females and males, higher levels of depressive symptoms correlated with a more depressive attributional style; (2) females and males who met diagnostic criteria for a current depressive disorder evidenced more depres-sogenic attributions than psychiatric controls, and never and past depressed adolescents; (3) although no sex differences in terms of attributional patterns for positive events, negative events, or for positive and negative events combined emerged, sex differences were revealed on a number of dimensional scores; (4) across the Children's Attributional Style Questionnaire (CASQ) subscale and dimensional scores, the relation between attributions and current self-reported depressive symptoms was stronger for females than males; and (5) no Sex × Diagnostic Group Status interaction effects emerged for CASQ subscale or dimensional scores. Implications of the complex findings from this large-scale, methodologically sophisticated study are addressed.     

The Double-Edged Sword of Self-Handicapping: Discounting,Augmentation, and the Protection and Enhancement of Self-Esteem

A field study was conducted to test the hypothesis that discounted and augmented ability self-attributions mediate the interactive effects of claimed self-handicaps and academic success and failure on self-esteem. College students were assessed for individual differences in self-handicapping and self-esteem at the beginning of the term and then completed a checklist of claimed self-handicaps immediately preceding their first in-class exam. At the following class, graded exams were returned to the students, who then completed measures of mood, self-esteem, and performance attributions. High self-handicappers claimed more excuses prior to the test. Among failing students, claimed handicaps were associated with greater discounting of ability attributions and higher self-esteem. Among successful students, claimed handicaps were associated with augmented ability attributions and enhanced self-esteem. However, we failed to find support for sex differences in claimed self-handicapping. The implications of the present research with regard to the functional utility of self-handicapping behavior are discussed.     

Sex differences in attribution: A Norwegian study

A quasi-experimental study was conducted to examine the effect of sex on actor and observer attributions of success and failure. It was predicted that, contrary to American results in similar studies, Norwegian males and females would tend to be largely similar in their attribution of success and failure. Only same-sex attributions were explored. Subjects were asked to attribute causality along a set of six standard causal dimensions. The results showed that sex had a relatively minor effect on attributions, compared to the effects of attributor role and task outcome. Only in their attributions of ability did men and women differ to some degree in that women were more likely to use lack of ability as an explanation for own failure. The study concludes that cross-cultural research is needed in order to better assess the normative impact on attribution.     

Lifting the curtain on the Wizard of Oz: biased voice-based impressions of speaker size

The consistent, but often wrong, impressions people form of the size of unseen speakers are not random but rather point to a consistent misattribution bias, one that the advertising, broadcasting, and entertainment industries also routinely exploit. The authors report 3 experiments examining the perceptual basis of this bias. The results indicate that, under controlled experimental conditions, listeners can make relative size distinctions between male speakers using reliable cues carried in voice formant frequencies (resonant frequencies, or timbre) but that this ability can be perturbed by discordant voice fundamental frequency (F-sub-0, or pitch) differences between speakers. The authors introduce 3 accounts for the perceptual pull that voice F-sub-0 can exert on our routine (mis)attributions of speaker size and consider the role that voice F-sub-0 plays in additional voice-based attributions that may or may not be reliable but that have clear size connotations.     

Determinants of Relapse and the Rule Violation Effect in Predicting Safer Sex Goal Violations1

Knowledge of the determinants of lapses into unsafe sex are important parts of HIV prevention interventions. The present study examines the determinants of lapses into unsafe sex, and the role of attribution in predicting lapses into unsafe sex within an HIV prevention treatment program for homosexual men based on the relapse prevention (RP) model (Marlatt & Gordon, 1985). Self-reported negative emotional states and general urges to engage in sex were perceived to precede violations of safer sex goals. Stable and global attributions for a goal violation related to the probability of a second concurrently assessed violation. Prospective analyses indicated that future unprotected oral and anal sex was predicted by current unprotected oral and anal sex. In addition, more stable and external attributions for previous goal violations added to the prediction of future unprotected anal sex. Results are discussed in relation to the RP model, the role of attributions in safer sex goal violations, and treatments to reduce unsafe sexual behavior.     

The role of feedback, casual attributions, and self-efficacy in goal revision

An important issue in work motivation is how, when, and why individuals revise their goals up or down over time. In the current study, the authors examine feedback, causal attributions, and self-efficacy in this process. Although self-efficacy has frequently been suggested as a key explanatory variable for goal revision, its role has yet to be directly evaluated. Additionally, although attributions have been shown to influence goal revision following failure, the extent to which attributions influence goal revision following success remains unclear. In the current study, the authors address these issues by experimentally manipulating goal progress via performance feedback and tracking the resulting changes in self-efficacy and goal revision over time. In so doing, the authors also address several interpretive ambiguities present in the existing research. Results support the hypothesized model, finding that performance feedback and attributions interactively influenced self-efficacy, which in turn influenced goal revision. These results suggest that interventions targeting attributions, and self-efficacy more directly, may have meaningful influences on goal setting and pursuit, particularly following feedback.