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     

MY BEST LEARNING EXPERIENCE WAS …

These selections are responses from recent enrollees of one Employability Development Team of the Concentrated Employment Program to the question: “What is your best or most important learning experience, and under what circumstances did it come about?” The words are theirs, the format is the writer's.     

Expectancy in educable subnormal children and their normal mental age controls

The long reaction times of mentally subnormal children have commonly been attributed to an inability to build up an adequate preparatory set. The experiment reported attempted to test this suggestion by comparing the ability of normal and subnormal children to anticipate a regularly occurring event. The performance of educable subnormal (ESN) children was found to be inferior to that of normal children matched on mental age (NMA) both in terms of the accuracy and the variability of their anticipations. However, this inferiority disappeared when visual input was restricted to the relevant events. It is concluded that ESN children suffer both in the accuracy and in the variability with which they estimate time intervals. It is suggested that these deficits may be mediated either by a relatively high level of distractability or by a relatively low level of arousal.     

The role of traditionality in the relationships among parental support,career decision-making self-efficacy and career adaptability

Integrating career construction (Savickas, 2013) and cognitive evaluation (Ryan & Deci, 2002) theories, we examined the moderating role of traditionality beliefs in the indirect relationships among parental support, career decision-making self-efficacy and career adaptability among Chinese university students. Data were collected from 731 undergraduate students in China at two measurement periods, 18 months apart. Results showed that Time 1 parental support was associated positively with Time 1 career decision-making self-efficacy and Time 2 career adaptability. In addition, the conditional indirect effects of Time 1 parental support in predicting Time 2 career adaptability via Time 1 career decision making self-efficacy were stronger among students with low as opposed to high traditionality beliefs. The implications of the results in terms of theory and practice are discussed.     

The excess choice effect: The role of outcome valence and counterfactual thinking

Contrary to economic theory, psychological research has demonstrated increased choice can undermine satisfaction. When and why this ‘excess choice effect’ (ECE) occurs remains unclear. Building on theories of counterfactual thinking we argue the ECE is more likely to occur when people experience counterfactual thought or emotion and that a key trigger is a negative versus positive task outcome. Participants either selected a drink (Experiment 1) or chocolate (Experiment 2) from a limited (6) versus extensive (24) selection (Experiment 1) or were given no choice versus extensive (24) choice (Experiment 2). In both experiments, however, the choice was illusory: Half the participants tasted a ‘good’ flavour, half a ‘bad’ flavour. As predicted, extensive choice was only detrimental to satisfaction when participants tasted the ‘bad’ drink or chocolate, and this was mediated by the experience of counterfactual thought (Experiment 1) or emotion (Experiment 2). When outcomes were positive, participants were similarly satisfied with limited versus extensive and no choice versus extensive choice. Implications for our theoretical understanding of the ECE and for the construction of choice architectures aimed at promoting individual satisfaction and well‐being are discussed.     

The role of social dominance orientation and patriotism in the evaluation of racial minority and female leaders

This research broadens our understanding of racial and gender bias in leader evaluations by merging implicit leadership theory and social dominance perspectives. Across two experimental studies (291 participants), we tested the prediction that bias in leader evaluations stemming from White and masculine leader standards depends on the extent to which people favor hierarchical group relationships (social dominance orientation) and their level of patriotism. Employing the Goldberg paradigm, participants read identical leadership speeches attributed to either a woman or a man described as either a minority (Black or Latino/a) or a majority (White) group member. Results show social dominance orientation negatively predicted evaluations of minority and female leaders and patriotism positively predicted evaluations of White leaders.