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.     

Depression and causal attributions for success and failure

The present study investigated the effects of depression on causal attributions for success and failure. Specifically, female university students were separated into depressed and nondepressed groups on the basis of Costello--Comrey Depression Scale scores, and then received either 20%, 55%, or 80% reinforcement on a word association task. Following the task, attributions were made for outcome using the four factors of effort, ability, task difficulty, and luck. In accord with predictions generated from a self-serving biases hypothesis, nondepressives made internal (ability, effort) attributions for a successful outcome (80% reinforcement) and external attributions (luck, task difficulty) for a failure outcome (20% reinforcement). As predicted from consideration of the self-blame component of depression, the attributions made by depressives for a failure outcome were personal or internal. Contrary to expectations, depressives also made internal attributions for a successful outcome. The findings for depressives were discussed in relation to the recently revised learned helplessness model of depression, which incorporates causal attributions. For nondepressives, the findings were considered in terms of the self-serving biases hypothesis.     

Affective state mediates causal attributions for success and failure

The influence of affect on causal attributions for success and failure was examined in this experiment. A positive, neurtral, or negative mood was induced in subjects who then learned they had either succeeded or failed an aptitude test taken previously. Relative to neutral mood control conditions, subjects in both positive and negative mood conditions showed a pronounced self-serving bias, particularly following success. The finding is interpreted as self-regulation of affective state. Specifically, causal attribution of success to internal factors can sustain or enhance positive affect; attribution of failure to external factors can diminish negative affect. Ancillary analyses corroborated this interpretation.     

Objective self-awareness,self-esteem and causal attributions for success and failure

A study using 174 males was conducted to examine the effects of objective self-awareness on causal attributions for success and failure. It was predicted that individual's level of self-esteem would mediate the effects of focus of attention on causal attributions. The results showed that attention to the self increased the dispositional attributions made by low self-esteem subjects in failure conditions, and of high self-esteem subjects in success conditions. The implications of the findings for the theory of objective self-awareness and causal attribution processes are discussed.     

Effects of induced mood on causal attributions for success and failure

The present research examined the influence of induced mood on causal perception and goal expectancies for an achievement-oriented activity. Prior to the administration of a laboratory task, positive and negative moods were experimentally induced in student volunteers. It was found that elated subjects were initially more confident of success than subjects temporarily made to feel depressed. Furthermore, following the receipt of bogus success/failure feedback, individuals in a positive mood perceived the causes of success as more stable than subjects in a negative mood. In addition, the judgments of elated subjects appear to have been biased in a self-enhancing direction following success, but outcome had no effect on the causal attributions of subjects temporarily induced to feel depressed. The findings indicate that prevailing affective state is an important determinant of causal perception, and suggest that mood may play a central role in the accurate or biased perception of valenced outcomes.The research reported in this article was supported by a Chancellor's Fellowship from UCLA to the author and by Grant #MH38014 to Bernard Weiner from the Public Health Service. I am grateful to Sandra Graham and Bernard Weiner for their many helpful suggestions, and to Anne Peplau and an anonymous reviewer for their perceptive comments on an earlier version of this paper. Appreciation is also expressed to the staff at the Center for Computer Based Research, UCLA, Gerald Shure, Director.     

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.     

Sex differences in causal attributions for success and failure in real and hypothetical sport settings

In Experiment 1, a 48-item attribution questionnaire was administered to 22 members of the men's and women's varsity basketball teams, respectively, after an intrasquad scrimmage. In Experiment 2, the same questionnaire was administered to a random sample of 54 undergraduates who were told to imagine a hypothetical scrimmage. Losing male athletes rated internal characteristics as less important in determining the outcome than did losing females. Winning females rated the opponent's characteristics as less important in determining the outcome than did winning males. Hypothetical female winners rated the opponent's characteristics as more important than did hypothetical male winners. The lack of correspondence in the outcomes of the two experiments and possible methodological shortcomings in the attribution literature are discussed.The two authors participated equally in the preparation of this article. Portions were presented at the First Annual Meeting of the North American Society for the Sociology of Sport, Denver, October 1980. We sincerely thank Coach Margaret Sisson and Coach Thomas Prechtl of the varsity women's and men's basketball teams, respectively, of the State University of New York — College at Fredonia, for their assistance in carrying out this project. We also thank the editors of this issue for their helpful criticisms of earlier versions of this article.     

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.     

Conceptual and methodological problems in the analysis of self-serving causal attributions of success and failure

The present article examined conceptual and methodological foundations of testing the self-serving hypothesis of causal attributions. This analysis revealed a startling fact that neither major reviews (by Bradley, Miller & Ross; Snyder et al.; Weary & Arkin; and Zuckerman) nor other reports have provided a clear and specific definition of the self-serving attributions. Furthermore, methodological defects exist because of such fundamental errors as the use of between-subjects designs, instead of within-subjects designs, in testing the hypothesis. Therefore, the reported experiments simply reflect the researchers' attempts to interpret subjects' attributions as self-serving or non-self-serving. To better understand the nature and scope of self-serving motives in causal attributions, it is essential (1) to take into account attributors' personal definitions of self-serving attributions, (2) to relate the nonreciprocal attributions to social/cultural values about self-serving behaviors, and (3) to determine the role of intentions in causal attributions of success and failure.     

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.     

Perfectionism in relation to attributions for success or failure

The present study examined the association between dimensions of perfectionism and attributions for success and failure. A sample of 124 students (40 males, 84 females) completed the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS) and the Multidimensional Multiattributional Causation Scale (MMCS). The MPS consists of three subscales measuring self-oriented perfectionism, other-oriented perfectionism, and socially pre-scribed perfectionism. The MMCS measures internal attributions (i.e., ability, effort) and external attributions (i.e., luck, contextual factors) for positive and negative hypo-thetical outcomes in the achievement and affiliation domains. The main finding of this study was that socially prescribed perfectionism was associated with a general ten-dency to attribute outcomes to external causes. This external attribution pattern was obtained for successes and failures in both the achievement and interpersonal spheres. Overall, the main results suggest that socially prescribed perfectionism is associated with perceptions of learned helplessness. The implications of these findings are dis-cussed.     

A comparison of aggressive and withdrawn children's self-esteem,optimism and pessimism,and causal attributions for success and failure

Aggressive children, withdrawn children, combined aggressive and withdrawn children, and children displaying neither aggressive nor withdrawn behavior were compared on three self-appraisal measures: (a) self-esteem, (b) attributions to ability and lack of ability following success and failure, and (c) optimism and pessimism about one's long-term personal future. From an initial sample of 583 elementary school children, independent and extreme groups were identified by combined ratings of teachers and classmates. Solely aggressive children had higher self-esteem than either solely withdrawn children or children who were both aggressive and withdrawn. The control group of children who were neither aggressive nor withdrawn had the highest self-esteem of all. The control group also attributed success to ability more than the two groups of children with high withdrawal scores but did not differ from the solely aggressive children. There were no significant differences among the groups in attributions to lack of ability following failure or in optimism or pessimism.We wish to thank Elliot Fielstein, Mariellen Fischer, Michael Klein, and Penelope Koburger for their assistance with data collection, and Elliot Fielstein and Matthew Tarran for their assistance with data analysis. We are also indebted to Bruce Compas for his helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.     

Necessary versus sufficient causal schemata for success and failure

197 subjects judged the perceived presence or absence of ability or effort, given information about task outcome (success or failure), the difficulty of the task (easy, intermediate, or difficult), and the state of the complementary cause (effort or ability). The data revealed that a multiple sufficient causal schema is used to explain common events. That is, the presence of ability or effort is perceived as enough to produce success at an easy task, while the absence of ability or effort is perceived as sufficient to result in failure at a difficult task. On the other hand, a multiple necessary schema tends to be employed to explain uncommon events. Success at a difficult task is believed to require both ability and effort, while failure at an easy task tends to be perceived as caused by low ability and low effort. In addition, there were disparities in the causal judgments for success and failure: failure outcomes are more likely to elicit a multiple sufficient schema. Further, in achievement-related contexts ability and effort are perceived as negatively covarying causal determinants of typical successes and failures. In addition to supporting hypotheses from attribution theory, the data shed further light upon the perceived determinants of success and failure, and demonstrate the influence of cognitive structures on achievement-related causal judgments.     

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.     

Causal attributions and information seeking to explain success and failure

Previous studies of attributions for success and failure have relied upon a theoretically derived set of causal attributions, either luck versus skill (derived from Rotter, 1966) or ability, effort, luck, and task difficulty (Weiner et al., 1971; Weiner, 1972). The same tendency of relying upon a set of logically derived cues has been evident in investigations of information-processing in making attributional judgments for success and failure (e.g., Fontaine, 1972; Frieze & Weiner, 1971). Two studies were conducted which employed an open-ended format to determine the relevance of the causal categories and information which have been utilized in previous studies. Results of these studies supported the validity of previously employed causal categories and information cues as well as establishing other important but previously ignored causes and sources of information.     

The effects of psychological androgyny on attributions of causality for success and failure

Sixty female subjects and sixty male subjects, either sex-typed or androgynous, based on scores on the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI), made causal attributions for their own success or failure. Subjects also predicted future performance on a similar task. Sex differences were revealed which are only partially consistent with a cognitive-based expectancy model. It is suggested that outcome and ego involvement in the task are crucial factors in whether cognitive-based or more self-serving attributions are used in accounting for performance. Androgynous subjects predicted higher future performance. However, contrary to prediction, attributional behavior of androgynous and sex-typed subjects did not differ. Results are discussed in terms of rapidly changing views, in both the conceptualization and the measurement of psychological androgyny, since Bem's original report of behavioral correlates to scores on the BSRI.     

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     

Self-efficacy and causal attributions for social feedback

The intent of this research was to determine whether an individual's sense of self-efficacy in a social situation influenced his or her causal attributions for outcomes. Male and female subjects were selected on the basis of high- or low-efficacy expectations for a social interaction and were provided with either positive or negative feedback on their social performance. The predicted self-efficacy-outcome interaction emerged, though only on the most salient causal factors. Feedback that was inconsistent with perceptions of efficacy was more likely to be attributed to external factors than was expectancy consistent information. Perceptions of self-efficacy were also associated with anxiety, raising the possibility that the self-efficacy-attribution relation was mediated by arousal. Causal explanations were collected in an open-ended pilot assessment process. The causal factor that emerged in this social task were compared to those identified in earlier studies of social situations.     

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.