Effects of task success or failure on causal attributions and person perception

An actor's outcome on a task (success-failure) was manipulated orthogonally to information that the actor either used or did not use drugs. Casual attributions for success-failure were obtained as well as trait ratings of the actor. Subjects read a case study of an artist who either succeeded or failed in his profession. For half of the subjects, the artist was described as using hard drugs, and no mention of drugs was made for. the other half. It was predicted and confirmed that success-failure interacted with drugs-no drugs in determining attributions of ability. It was also found, as expected, that success was attributed to ability and motivation more than was failure. Further, success tended to be internally attributed to the actor, while failure was externally attributed. The interaction obtained for ability attribution was not obtained for a measure of trying, nor for the trait ratings. The results confirmed Kepka and Brickman's (1971) suggestion that ability and motivation are qualitatively different concepts in naive psychology, but some of their specific conclusions are questioned.     

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.     

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.     

Sex-role norms and gender-related attainment values: Their role in attributions of success and failure

Sex-role norms and gender-related attainment values are considered as possible mediators of gender differences in causal attributions for success and failure. Several revisions of attribution theory are suggested in order to extend the theory to include corollaries concerning sex-role norms. The concept of sex-role consistency is employed as a basis for understanding how sex-role norms affect causal attributions. In addition, gender-related attainment values are hypothesized to affect causal attributions via differential salience and functioning of outcomes. Finally, the analysis is applied to an additional area of achievement-related behavior, gender differences in reward allocation norm choice.     

Sex-role orientation,achievement motivation,and causal attributions of college females

Female undergraduates were asked to state causal attributions for success or failure outcomes. Students worked in pairs so that one half of them cooperated with either a male or a female partner, while the other half competed with a male or female opponent. All female subjects were pretested on achievement motivation and sex-role orientation. Women who espoused the traditional feminine role were more self-derogating in causal attribution than nontraditional women. Achievement-oriented women, like their male counterparts, were more self-enhancing following failure. However, following competitive success against male opponents, women who scored high in achievement motivation were less self-enhancing than those who scored low.This article is part of a larger study originally prepared as the author's doctoral dissertation at Hofstra University, 1975. The author is indebted to Claire Ernhart, the dissertation chairperson, and to the committee members, Alfred Cohn and Dianne Krooth, for their guidance and support.     

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.     

Gender differences in causal attributions by college students of performance on course examinations

Gender differences in causal attributions and emotions for imagined success and failure on examinations were investigated. Males made stronger ability attributions for success than females, whereas females emphasized the importance of studying and paying attention. Males more than females attributed failure to a lack of studying and low interest, but females were more likely than males to blame an F on a lack of ability. Females experienced stronger emotions than did males; they felt happier than males did after success but felt more like a failure than did males after imagining receiving an F on an examination. Some of the gender differences in causal attributions, especially for ability attributions, depended on the gender-type of the subject matter of the examinations. The implications of these findings are discussed.     

Gender differences in causal attributions by college students of performance on course examinations

Gender differences in causal attributions and emotions for imagined success and failure on examinations were investigated. Males made stronger ability attributions for success than females, whereas females emphasized the importance of studying and paying attention. Males more than females attributed failure to a lack of studying and low interest, but females were more likely than males to blame an F on a lack of ability. Females experienced stronger emotions than did males; they felt happier than males did after success but felt more like a failure than did males after imagining receiving an F on an examination. Some of the gender differences in causal attributions, especially for ability attributions, depended on the gender-type of the subject matter of the examinations. The implications of these findings are discussed.     

SEXUAL HARASSMENT ON CAMPUS

Attitudes about sexual harassment were assessed in a group of 224 undergraduate students. Participants responded to scenarios in which a male professor made inappropriate sexual advances to a female student. Participants then completed rating scales and questions concerning attributions of blame for harassment, educational and emotional effects, and strategies for coping with harassment. The students were divided into high and low groups on the basis of their scores on the Performance Self-Esteem Scale (PSES) and Attitudes toward Women Scale (AWS). The subject groups most tolerant of harassment and least aware of potential harm to its victims were high self-esteem women with traditional sex-role attitudes. Participants also provided information as to their own harassment experiences. Women's reported reactions to actual harassment were consistent with their responses to scenarios. Results are discussed in the context of prevailing sex-role standards.     

Attributions for the Success and Failure of Female Managers: A Replication and Extension

This study attempted to extend earlier work on the relationship between attitudes toward women in management and attributions for the success and failure of female managers. One hundred and ten employees of a large state human services agency responded to a survey measuring their attitudes toward women in management and their attributions for either the success or failure of a hypothetical female manager. Results for males were highly supportive of earlier findings, with attitudes toward women in management significantly related to attributions for success but not for failure. Females showed an opposite pattern of results, with attitudes toward women in management significantly related to attributions for failure but not for success. It is suggested that these differences in attitude-attribution relationships may be the result of males expecting failure from female managers while females expect success.     

The effects of four outcome schedules on persistence,liking for the task,and attributions of causality1

Subjects were randomly assigned to one of four schedules of outcomes on a problem solving task ascending, descending, constant success, and constant failure As predicted by White's theory of competence motivation, constant success subjects showed a sharp drop in desire to persist over time, interpreted as satiation of competence motivation Ascending subjects showed significantly more persistence than constant success subjects, with descending and constant failure subjects falling between these two conditions No differences on the final measure were found among conditions for liking for the task and attributions of causality, although significant differences between ascending and descending subjects were obtained on the difference scores, with ascending subjects showing more positive change than descending m liking and internal causality, from the first to the second measure     

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.     

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.     

Effects of Technology on Attributions of Performance and Employee Evaluation1

This study examines the effects of technological automation on explanations of why a person failed or succeeded at a task, and on evaluations of the user of technology. Subjects were presented with scenarios involving a photographer on an assignment. The scenarios manipulated 3 variables: (a) whether the camera was automatic or required skill, (b) experience level, and (c) whether the picture was a success or a failure. Subjects rated the picture's success or failure on attributions of ability and the technology. They also evaluated the photographer. Internal attribution was associated with technological devices requiring a greater amount of skill, while external attribution was associated with technological devices requiring less skill. When the picture was a success, ratings of internal attributions correlated positively with evaluations. When the picture was a failure, ratings of internal attributions correlated negatively with evaluations.     

Causal explanations for school performance: Contrasts between mothers and children

This study investigated the causal attributions given by mothers and their fifth and sixth grade children to explain the children's success in a school subject of relatively high achievement as well as their failure in an area of low performance. Participants were asked to weight the importance of four attributions: ability, effort, personality, and training. Analyses of variance revealed significant differences between mothers' and children's weightings. Mothers cited children's ability as the main cause of success, while lack of effort was viewed as the reason for failure. Children, in contrast, gave effort as the explanation for success and lack of ability as the reason for failure. The apparent lack of concordance between mothers' and children's causal beliefs is discussed in terms of three explanatory possibilities: (a) actor/observer differences, (b) the effects of the affective bond between mother and child, and (c) the tendency toward self-presentational bias.     

Growth motivation as a moderator of behavioral self-handicapping in women

Behavioral self-handicapping is a strategy used to protect attributions about ability. People behaviorally self-handicap by creating an obstacle to their success so failure is attributed to the obstacle instead of to their ability. Although past research has observed behavioral self-handicapping exclusively in men, the current research revealed a moderator of behavioral self-handicapping in women: growth motivation, which reflects the desire to develop one's abilities and learn from failure. Participants (N = 100) completed a test purportedly predictive of successful careers and relationships, and some were given failure feedback about their performance. Participants could behaviorally self-handicap by choosing to complete another test in a performance-impairing environment. Although men self-handicapped more overall, women self-handicapped more after failure when they were low in growth motivation. These results highlight a novel moderator of behavioral self-handicapping in women.     

Some aspects of the interpersonal phenomenology of heterosexual dyads with respect to sex-role stereotypes

A technique based upon recently developed Boolean calculi for interpersonal phenomenology was used to study sex-role attributions within 59 heterosexual dyads. The interpersonal and intrapersonal variables studied include perceived similarity, validation of self-concept, expectations of agreement, feelings of being understood, predictions that the partner expects agreement, understanding, accurate perception of understanding/misunderstanding, and accurate perception of expectations on agreement/disagreement. All variables were studied in relation to each member of the dyad and in relation to male and female sex-role stereotypes. Analyses of all variables are consistent with two conclusions: (1) Phenomenal disparity in a relationship is more likely to be generated around male sex-role stereotypes than around female sex-role stereotypes; (2) phenomenal disparity in a relationship is most likely to occur in connection with counter-sex-role attributions to the female. Increased uncertainty regarding counter-sex-role attributions about women and lowered validation of self-concept for women who adopt counter-sex-role attributes are shown to contribute to these effects. These conclusions are seen as a reflection of an asymmetry which seems to be consistent in the literature: Counter-sex-role choices and attitudes seem to be less discordant for males than for females in this culture. Evidence of this asymmetry is discussed.