The role of social perspective in perceiving the causes of success and failure1 (original) (raw)
Related papers
Attributions of success and failure for actors and observers
Journal of Research in Personality, 1976
Causal attributions of a person actually experiencing a success or failure (the actor) and someone who read about the situation (the observer) were compared. Results supported Jones and Nisbett (1971). Actors were relatively more likely to perceive their outcomes as caused by external factors (task difficulty), while observers attributed these outcomes more to internal factors (effort). Attributions for both actors and observers were also strongly affected by whether the outcome was a success or failure. Hypotheses concerning sex differences in attributions were not supported.
The actor-observer asymmetry in attribution: A (surprising) meta-analysis
Psychological Bulletin, 2006
The actor-observer hypothesis (E. E. Jones & R. E. Nisbett, 1971) states that people tend to explain their own behavior with situation causes and other people's behavior with person causes. Widely known in psychology, this asymmetry has been described as robust, firmly established, and pervasive. However, a meta-analysis on 173 published studies revealed average effect sizes from d ϭ Ϫ0.016 to d ϭ 0.095. A moderator analysis showed that the asymmetry held only when the actor was portrayed as highly idiosyncratic, when hypothetical events were explained, when actor and observer were intimates, or when free-response explanations were coded. In addition, the asymmetry held for negative events, but a reverse asymmetry held for positive events. This valence effect may indicate a self-serving pattern in attribution, but across valence, no actor-observer asymmetry exists.
Attributional Effects in Interpersonal Settings
1981
,Res Sarch has shown that attributing 'failure to lack of, ability .e\adsito lower motiv,ation'than does attributing the failure to lack of-effort. An attributional model of motivation and performance following failure was tested with colde0 students (R=63), who were preselected On the basis of, their attributional styles tor interperspnal failures, as measured' by the Attributional Style Assessment Test. Subjects in the two groups (Character style versus Behavioral style attributors) were randomly' assilted to one of three experi,mettal manipulations of-attr'ibntions for failure at an interpersonal+ persuasion task-no manipulation: ability/trait manipulation, or strategy/effort manipulation. Subjects engaged in a telephone blood drive task, trying to persuade other students to donate blood. Success expectancies, ottvation, add actual, perforpance were assessed. Subjects who made strategy/effort type attributions,, whether by experimental manpulation, or pebsalection, expected4more success, expected more improvement,with practice, displayed higher levels of motivation, and performed better at thetask than did subjects who ade,ability/trait type attributions.
Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 1977
The effects of another's attributions for performance on one's own expectations, aspirations, and evaluations of performance were examined. Subject witnessed an other (O) who had attributed his performance (successful or unsuccessful) on an anagram task to luck, task ease or difficulty, effort, or ability. When O had succeeded, subjects expected to perform best if O had attributed his success to the task (rather than to luck, effort or ability); when O had failed, subjects expected to perform worst when O had attributed his failure to the task. In addition, subjects witnessing a successful O were more hopeful if O had made a task attribution, but subjects witnessing an unsuccessful O were more hopeful if O had made an effort attribution. Finally, subjects showed a tendency to attribute their own performance to the same cause to which O had attributed his own performance. Results were discussed in relation to the stabilityinstability and internal-external dimensions of causal attributions, and the need to perceive oneself as exercising effective control over the environment.
Attributions of Success and Failure for Males and Females as Actors and Observers
This report presents the results of two experimental studies undertaken to investigate some of the differences in success and failure attributions made by actors and observers in an achievement situation. Causal attributions of a person actually experiencing a success or failure (the actor) and someone who read about the situation (the observer) were compared. Both sets of subjects were volunteers drawn from college introductory psychology and geology classes. Actors were found to be relatively more likely to perceive their outcomes as caused by external factors (task difficulty and luck), while observers attributed these outcomes more to internal factors (effort). Attributions for both actors and observers were also strongly affected by whether the outcome was a success or failure. Hypotheses concerning sex differences in attributions were only weakly supported. (Author) * * via the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). EDRS is not * responsible for the quality of the original document. Reproductions * * supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original.
Attributions as Behavior Explanations: Toward a New Theory
Attribution theory has played a major role in social-psychological research. Unfortunately, the term attribution is ambiguous. According to one meaning, forming an attribution is making a dispositional (trait) inference from behavior; according to another meaning, forming an attribution is giving an explanation (especially of behavior). The focus of this paper is on the latter phenomenon of behavior explanations. In particular, I discuss a new theory of explanation that provides an alternative to classic attribution theory as it dominates the textbooks and handbooks-which is typically as a version of model of attribution as covariation detection. I begin with a brief critique of this theory and, out of this critique, develop a list of requirements that an improved theory has to meet. I then introduce the new theory, report empirical data in its support, and apply it to a number of psychological phenomena. I finally conclude with an assessment of how much progress we have made in understanding behavior explanations and what has yet to be learned.