Self-awareness, probability of improvement, and the self-serving bias.

Evidence for the self-serving bias (attributing success internally and failure externally) is inconsistent. Although internal success attributions are consistently found, researchers find both internal and external attributions for failure. The authors explain these disparate effects by considering the intersection of 2 systems, a system comparing self against standards and a causal attribution system. It was predicted that success and failure attributions are moderated by self-awareness and by the ability to improve. When self-focus is high (a) success is attributed internally. (b) failure is attributed internally when people can improve, (c) failure is attributed externally when people cannot improve, and (d) these attributions affect state self-esteem. Implications for the self-serving bias are discussed.     

Perfectionism, achievement motives, and attribution of success and failure in female soccer players

While some researchers have identified adaptive perfectionism as a key characteristic to achieving elite performance in sport, others see perfectionism as a maladaptive characteristic that undermines, rather than helps, athletic performance. Arguing that perfectionism in sport contains both adaptive and maladaptive facets, the present article presents a study of N = 74 female soccer players investigating how two facets of perfectionism-perfectionistic strivings and negative reactions to imperfection (Stoeber, Otto, Pescheck, Becker, & Stoll, 2007 )-are related to achievement motives and attributions of success and failure. Results show that striving for perfection was related to hope of success and self-serving attributions (internal attribution of success). Moreover, once overlap between the two facets of perfectionism was controlled for, striving for perfection was inversely related to fear of failure and self-depreciating attributions (internal attribution of failure). In contrast, negative reactions to imperfection were positively related to fear of failure and self-depreciating attributions (external attribution of success) and inversely related to self-serving attributions (internal attribution of success and external attribution of failure). It is concluded that striving for perfection in sport is associated with an adaptive pattern of positive motivational orientations and self-serving attributions of success and failure, which may help athletic performance. In contrast, negative reactions to imperfection are associated with a maladaptive pattern of negative motivational orientations and self-depreciating attributions, which is likely to undermine athletic performance. Consequently, perfectionism in sport may be adaptive in those athletes who strive for perfection, but can control their negative reactions when performance is less than perfect.     

Self-Serving Attributions for Performance in Naturalistic Settings: A Meta-Analytic Review1

The study of self-serving attributions in sports settings is fertile ground for testing the validity of self-serving attributional phenomena. This paper reports the results of a meta-analytic review of research examining self-serving attributions in the context of sports events. A total of 91 distinct hypothesis tests were located, comprising five dimensions of attribution: ability (N= 21), effort (N= 21), task difficulty (N= 21), luck (N= 21), and a general internal-external dimension (N= 7). The meta-analytic combination of significance levels indicated that the combined results were unlikely to occur if the null hypothesis of no effect were true (for each of the five dimensions of attribution). The internal-external dimension and the ability dimension produced effects of moderate magnitude, whereas effort, difficulty and luck produced effects of small magnitude. Meta-anaiytic focused comparisons revealed that self-serving attributions (ended to be more extreme in the context of larger team sizes, and for attribution measures focused upon the team rather than the individual. Discussion considers the implications of these findings and develops and explanation for the finding that ability is the specific attribution dimension exhibiting the greatest self-serving attribution effects.     

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.     

Emotion and the Self-Serving Bias

The influence of specific emotions (guilt and revulsion) on the self-serving bias was investigated. Participants were recruited from an undergraduate population. There were 360 participants (132 male) with a mean age of 19.41 years. Participants took part in an online study, which involved taking a ten-question test, completing an emotional induction, receiving test feedback, and making an attribution for test performance. Results revealed a significant effect of feedback (p < 0.001) indicating the self-serving bias. Results also revealed a significant effect of emotion over this self-serving bias. Both guilty and revolted participants made less self-enhancing attributions for success (p = 0.04), and less self-protecting attributions for failure (p = 0.006). The hypothesis that the valence of specific emotions influences the self-serving bias was supported. No support was found for the hypothesis that the appraisal dimensions of specific emotions influence the self-serving bias. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.     

Attributions for Successful and Unsuccessful Health Behavior Change

In an application of Weiner's (1985) attributional theory of motivation, 466 undergraduates gave attributions for their own successful or unsuccessful health behavior changes using a retrospective incident-report questionnaire. Scores from the Causal Dimension Scale (CDS; Russell, 1982) indicated that the average attribution was internal, unstable, and controllable, and that success attributions were more stable and controllable than failure attributions. By a large margin, the most common attribution types were internal-unstable-controllable causes for unsuccessful attempts, followed by internal-stable-controllable and internal-unstable-controllable causes for successes. These findings correspond to a pattern known as personal changeability of causes, which enhances perceived control ova both positive and negative outcomes. Stable attributions were associated with maintenance of health behavior changes and with expectations that negative outcomes would continue into the future. The personal-changeability tendency was strong for change attempts involving eating, but modified by a self-serving effect for exercise and substance use and by a self-effacing effect for road safety.     

GENDER-RELATED PERSONALITY ATTRIBUTES AND REACTION TO SUCCESS/FAILURE: AN EXAMINATION OF MEDIATING VARIABLES

The effects of success and failure on task performance, and attributions about performance, were compared for high and low instrumental college women. For the high instrumental group, success facilitated task performance, whereas failure, had no debilitating effect; for the low instrumental group, success had no effect on subsequent performance, whereas failure interfered with it. High instrumental women attributed their success primarily, to internal factors and their failures to external factors (the "egotistical" attribution profile) whereas low instrumental women revealed the opposite profile. The gender-appropriateness of the task had little effect on performance or attribution. Four potential mediators of these differences were investigated: self-esteem, perceived ability, expectancy of success, and attainment value. High-instrumental women's higher perceived ability and performance expectations accounted for their superior task performance, but none of the four mediators accounted for the relationship of instrumentality to attributions.     

Information availability,goodness of outcome,and attributions of causality

H. H. Kelley's (American Psychologist, 1973, 28, 107–128) framework for studying attribution processes is introduced as a means of accounting for characteristic asymmetries in success/failure attributions. It is argued that while success/failure asymmetries should occur in the presence of single-observation information, asymmetries should be eliminated when individuals are allowed to observe the covariation between their own actions and outcomes. Subjects participated in a 15-trial stock market simulation in which type of information (single-observation or covariation) and goodness of outcome (relative success or failure) were manipulated. The obtained results supported the experimental hypotheses. Given single-observation information, subjects were more likely to accept personal responsibility for good than for poor outcomes. However, subjects' attributions were not affected by goodness of outcome when they were provided with covariation information. The implications of these findings are discussed in terms of the current debate between motivational and information-processing explanations of asymmetries in success/failure attributions.     

Spontaneous and reactive attributions following academic achievement

This paper describes two studies which deal with attributions following academic achievement. Study 1 investigated the influence of different types of instructions (spontaneous vs. reactive), self-concepts of ability (high vs. low), and outcomes (success vs. failure) on causal attributions in a school setting. Participants were 402 eighth to tenth graders. Students with a low self-concept of ability produced more attributions than students with a high self-concept. Under reactive conditions, students' attributions following success were in accordance with the self-consistency theory. Under spontaneous conditions, these students produced attributions in a self-serving way. Furthermore, success evoked more attributions than failure. In Study 2, 160 university students worked on an unfamiliar task (a computer-simulated dynamic system). The results supported the assumption that students spontaneously generate attributions to raise or at least preserve their self-esteem.     

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.     

Effects of induced success/failure and attributions on the problem-solving behavior of psychologically androgynous and feminine women

The aim of the present study was to examine the relation between masculinity and femininity in women and their responses to induced success or failure. Also experimentally manipulated were the subjects' performance attributions. Psychologically androgynous and feminine women either succeeded or failed at a concept formation task and were provided with internal, external, or no causal attributions for their performance. Then a second concept formation task was administered. The attribution manipulation failed to affect task performance and was not involved in any interactions. For feminine subjects, failure increased the trials necessary to reach criterion on the second task, whereas success had no effect. In contrast, the performance of androgynous subjects was unaffected by failure but facilitated by success. Finally, whereas androgynous subjects attributed success primarily to their ability and failure to task difficulty, feminine subjects attributed success and failure about equally to these two factors. It was suggested that androgynous women's use of the “egotistical” pattern of performance attributions gives them an advantage over feminine women with respect to the maintenance of self-esteem.     

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.     

The Self-Serving Bias and the Use of Objective and Subjective Methods for Measuring Success and Failure

Abstract

Students (N = 45) were asked to judge their recent exam performance on a success versus failure rating scale. They were also asked to make causal attributions for their test performance on an internal versus external scale. The students' scores were divided into success and failure groups by using both subjective (self-reported outcome) and objective (actual exam scores) definitions of outcome. For both methods, the success group had higher internal attributions for their performance than did the failure group. The effect size for the subjective methods of defining outcome, however, produced a stronger self-serving bias that did the objective definition.     

Power increases the self-serving bias in the attribution of collective successes and failures

Three studies test the effect of power on the self-serving bias in attributing collective outcomes. The first two studies measure (Experiment 1) and manipulate (Experiment 2) power and then measure the internal (vs. external) attribution of past successes and failures. Consistently, those who feel powerful show a stronger self-serving tendency to selectively attribute successes internally and failures externally than those who feel powerless. Experiment 3 compares the effects of power (control over others) and personal control (over oneself). We find that power increases the self-serving bias, but a lack of control can limit this effect by reducing the external attribution of failures. Presumably, people who lack control are disinclined to attribute outcomes—including failures—externally because doing so would further aggravate their lack of control. Together, these results suggest that power increases a bias in the attribution of success and failure and thus presents a fundamental challenge to good leadership.     

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.     

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.     

Postperformance attributions and task persistence among type A and B individuals: a clarification

We examined task persistence and postperformance attributions by Type As and Bs on tasks that varied in level of difficulty. On the basis of past research, we hypothesized that Type As would be more self-serving than Type Bs in their attributions for success and failure. We also hypothesized that task persistence would differ among Type As and Bs and would be dependent on task difficulty and perceived task diagnosticity. Type As and Bs attempted multiple sets of anagrams that were either easy or difficult. We measured persistence by the number of anagram sets attempted, and, after task performance, we assessed attributions for success and failure. Results supported both hypotheses. Type As took more credit for success than for failure, whereas Type Bs did not provide reliably different attributions for success and failure. Furthermore, Type As persisted longer at the task when it was difficult and when it was viewed as relatively low in information value. Type Bs persisted longer at the task when it was difficult but viewed as relatively high in information value. Results are discussed in the context of current debates regarding the responses of Type As and Bs to performance settings.     

Self-serving biases: The role of perspective-taking

This research explores the role of perspective taking in self-serving biases. Assisted by a confederate, 80 subjects performed an impression-formation task and were given either success or failure bogus feedback. One week later, half of the subjects watched their performance on videotape and provided causal attributions (‘observers’). The other half simply gave causal attributions (‘actors’). Thus, the experiment employed a modified version of the actor/observer paradigm with one group of subjects taking the perspective of observers (‘observers’) and one group of subjects keeping their original perspective (‘actors’). The aim of this study was to test whether the change of perspective would increase dispositional causal attributions both in success and failure conditions. Results showed that subjects gave greater causal weight to internal factors (ability, effort) and less causal weight to external factors (task characteristics, collaboration with the partner) in the success than in the failure condition. Moreover, in a direct comparison task, subjects attributed a greater percentage of responsibility to themselves than to their partner in the success than in the failure condition. However, the type of perspective produced no significant effects, but showed an attenuation of self-serving biases for observers as compared to actors. A motivational explanation of the results is proposed.     

Book review

Long-standing beliefs about one's self-efficacy and learning ability accumulate over the school years. Attributions, or causal perceptions and interpretations, of behavioural outcomes are also based on a person's learning history. And, it is evident from research on attributional bias and self-esteem that the perceived causes of success and failure have consequences for academic success. An important perspective on attributions, frequently neglected in educational research, pertains to content-specific beliefs about one's competence. We set up a field study in which students from the first form of secondary education were asked to report their causal attributions of regular school examinations in three school subjects: history, native language, and mathematics. The results suggest that students generate different causal attributions for successful or unsuccessful examinations, belonging to different school-subjects. Perception of specific examination conditions may or may not urge students to generate specific attributions. There is evidence for both school-subject specificity and examination-specificity in the observed causal attributions. But, the effect of school-subject seems to be more pronounced than the effect of examination. Information at the momentary level (examination conditions) interacts with information at the middle level (school-subject). Closer analyses of the observed causal attributions vis-à-vis perceived success and failure in the three school-subjects displayed marked differences, especially in relation to the effort attributions.     

How do women account for failure when they expect success?

Recent research suggests that men and women account for failures differently. Competent, self-aware men discount failures; competent, self-aware women accept them. This style of accounting for failure outcomes in achievement has been explored in studies of attribution and, more recently, the expectancies an individual holds regarding the outcome (to fail or succeed). The theories do not predict acceptance of failure by competent, self-aware individuals. The incongruent results have been consequently explained as a sex difference. Closer evaluation of the research, however, indicates that most women expect failure rather than success, and that this is a learned expectation. This study attempted to answer whether an exposure to success experiences would alter this expectancy and, if so, whether women would then discount failures in a self-serving manner as men do. Through a manipulation of success and failure outcomes using anagram tasks, it was demonstrated that, given an expectation to succeed, women did use systematic biased attributions to account for failure. These findings have significant implications for attribution research and for our understanding of women's attitude towards achievement and ability to maintain a sense of well-being when faced with failure.