Causal attributions and other achievement-related cognitions: Effects of task outcome, attainment value, and sex

Abstract

In a study with 96 4th graders, some support was obtained for a naive analysis of causal attributions for success and failure which assumes that Ss interpret feedback in an essentially logical fashion. Success more than failure was attributed to effort. Attributions to luck and ability were largely a function of consistency of feedback. Biased use of available information, indicating either defensiveness or self-derogation, was also found and varied with attainment value and sex. Boys defensively attributed failure to luck; girls' ability attributions were self-derogatory. These sex differences helped account for boys' higher expectancies when feedback was limited or contradictory. Individual differences in attributions were related to individual differences in minimal standards of success, affective responses to feedback, and feelings about a forthcoming test. (27 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

Full text

Journal
of
Personality
and
Social
Psychology
1975,
Vol.
31, No. 3,
379-389
Causal Attributions
and
Other Achievement-Related Cognitions:
Effects
of
Task Outcome, Attainment Value,
and Sex
John
G.
Nicholls
Pels
Research Institute
Yellow
Springs,
Ohio
Some
support
was
obtained
for a
naive analysis
of
causal attributions
for
success
and
failure
which
assumes that
subjects
interpret
feedback
in an
essentially
logical
fashion.
Success
more
than
failure
was
attributed
to
effort.
Attributions
to
luck
and
ability
were
largely
a
function
of
consistency
of
feedback.
Biased
use of
available information, indicating either
defensiveness
or
self-derogation,
was
also
found
and
varied with attainment
value
and
sex.
Boys
defensively
attributed
failure
to
luck;
girls' ability attributions
were
self-derogatory.
These
sex
differences
help
account
for
boys'
higher
expectancies
when
feedback
was
limited
or
contradictory. Individual
differences
in
attri-
butions
related
to
individual
differences
in
minimal
standards
of
success,
affective
responses
to
feedback,
and
feelings
about
a
forthcoming
test.
Building
on
Heider's
(1958)
naive
analysis
of
action
and
work
on
locus
of
control
(Cran-
dall,
Katkovsky,
&
Crandall,
1965;
Rotter,
1966), Weiner
and his
associates (Weiner,
Frieze,
Kukla,
Reed, Rest,
&
Rosenbaum,
1971)
have examined causal attributions
for
success
and
failure
in
terms
of
four
factors:
ability,
effort,
luck,
and
task
difficulty.
Each
factor
is
jointly classified
as
either internal
or
external
and
stable
or
unstable. Ability
and
effort
are
considered internal factors while
task
difficulty
and
luck
are
external. Ability
and
task
difficulty
are
stable
and
luck
and
effort
unstable.
In
this study some determi-
nants
and
correlates
of
attributions
to
these
factors
are
examined.
Two
bases
for the
pre-
This
research
was
supported
by
National Institute
of
Mental Health Grant
MH-02238,
Virginia
C.
Crandall,
principal investigator,
and
conducted
while
the
author
was a
postdoctoral
fellow
at
Pels
Re-
search
Institute with
the
assistance
of a
Fulbright
travel grant.
The
author
is
especially
grateful
to
Virginia
Crandall
for
valuable suggestions through-
out the
project.
Thanks
are
also
due to
Gregory
Christenson
for
data analysis
and to Ann
Cook,
Jane
Gafvert,
and
Linda
Greenway
who
collected
the
data.
The
cooperation
of
John Home, principal,
and
staff
of
Fairborn Central Elementary School
and
John Balmer, principal,
and
staff
of Cox
Elementary
School
is
gratefully
acknowledged.
Requests
for
reprints
should
be
sent
to
John
Nicholls,
who is now at
Department
of
Education,
Victoria
University
of
Wellington,
Private Bag, Wel-
lington,
New
Zealand.
diction
of
attributions
are
considered.
The
first
assumes
that
individuals
use
available
information
in an
essentially logical fashion
to
draw
conclusions about causes
of
outcomes.
The
alternate position assumes
that
attribu-
tions
reflect
self-enhancing, approval-seeking,
or
defensive
motives.
The
logical analysis proposed here devel-
ops
Heider's
(1958)
naive
analysis
of
action
and
that
of
Weiner
and
associates (Weiner
et
al.,
1971).
This
analysis compares
different
patterns
of
feedback
in
terms
of the
informa-
tion
they provide concerning
the
operation
of
a
given causal
factor.
It has
been formulated
to
apply specifically
to
situations
in
which
subjects
are
inferring
the
causes
of
outcomes
of
their
own
behavior,
not
imagined outcomes
or
outcomes
of
others'
behavior.
It is
further
assumed
that
all
subjects
apply
and
perceive
themselves
as
applying moderately consistent
and
high
effort
on the
task.
This
assumption
appears reasonable
in the
case
of a
brief
experimental
task,
such
as
used here, which
subjects
see as
moderately important.
In
fact,
subjects showed
no
signs
of
fatigue
or
casual
responding.
The
logical
analysis
also
applies
to
situations
in
which subjects have clear
information
relevant
to
task
difficulty
and
in
which task
difficulty
is
moderate.
This
is
the
case
in
many school
and
other achieve-
ment situations.
Here,
subjects were
told
what score most children
get on the
experi-
379