Editor Seymour L. Zelen
New Models, New Extensions of Attribution Theory The Third Attribution-Personality Conference, CSPP-LA, 1988
With 18 Illustrations
.~ Springer- Verlag New York Berlin Heidelberg Paris
Tokyo
Hong
Kong
London
Barcelona
Theory
as
for
memory
Stage
Two
Information
Attributions
Decisions:
A
13
have
benefited
by
attribution
theory.
Anderson
attribution
A.
Craig
University
theory
also
has
advanced
course,
all
Of
1983)
Weber,
&
Hannah,
Crocker,
(e.g.,
behaviors
and
traits
Model1,2
Processing
in sophistication
and
accuracy
of Missouri
from
a liberal
borrowing
of ideas
Types Attribution
theory
is
the
most
important
development
from
a variety
of Attribution
of areas.
Models
in Models
of of
dominance
the out to
is
types.
models.
normative
call
I
what
is
general
first
three
The
do
to
need
we all
skeptics
point
one
of
being
as
classified
be
can
work
attribution
Much
audience
This
social
for
needs
hardly
psychology.
convincing;
Normative
attribution
articles
in
the
journals,
chapters
in
edited
volumes,
and These
original
books.
Attribution
theory
has contributed
of traditional
social
psychology
are
models
rational,
such
process
that
specify
how
a
as
accurate
instances,
attribution
such
models
process
represent
may
ideal
proceed.
types,
or
In many what
people
&
Jones
change to
resistance
attribution
attitude
and
change
the
Harris,
problems
(e.g.,
understanding
of
to our
should
do for the sake
nature.
of accuracy.
They
are
prescriptive
in
&
Bradand altruism
and
helping &
Hastorf,
Ellsworth,
1979),
(e.g.,
do
can
what
people
Schneider,
describe
(e.g.,
also
formation
they
impression
extent,
1985),
some
McGuire,
To
1967;
fairly
restrictive,
special,
and
ideal
circumstances.
The
Ross, Mulherin, &
Meyer Lerner,
1975;
conformity
1980),
(e.g.,
under most
obvious
example
of
such
a
normative
model
comes
from
Hal
Rule,
&
Bierbrauer,
Hoffman,
&
aggression
1976),
Dyck
(e.g.,
Psycholo Los Angele 1988. Kelley's
1978; Less
Zillman,
purely
social
For
and
stereotyping
areas
instance,
have
the
also
(e.g.,
been
literatures
Hamilton,
influenced
on judgment
1981).
attributional
by attributional
and
work
multiple
(Kelley,
1967;
processes
instance
1973).
Kelley
(analogous
cases
(e.g.,
has
proposed
to the scientist
the covariation
proper
role)
principle,
for
the
decision
clinical
1980),
&
Nisbett
making
Ross,
(e.g.,
problems
(e.g.,
cases
(e.g.,
instance
single
for
as
well
as
cube)
A
ANOV
work.
1978),
augmenting
principles).
and
&
Arkin
variety
of
attribution
situations.
Deviations
processes
are
from
not
to
be
optimal
seen
or
normative
as "defects"
for
the
of Psychology,
suggestions
to: Craig
of Missouri,
Columbia,
A.
Mo.
seriously
and
University
ever
criticisms,
nobody)
all comments,
almost
address
Department
(well,
2PIease
Anderson,
nobody
because
models,
IThis paper is based on a talk presented at the Third Attribution Conference, honoring Bernie Weiner, at the California School of Professional
believed
that
people
used
the
normative
processed
perfectly.
a
in
do
really
people
what
of
examination
for
comparison
of
point
as
is
view,
in
my
models,
normative
of
role
The
primary
&
Anderson
Arnoult,
1985a;
Baumgardner,
1985),
discounting,
14
about
via
to the
processes
a variety
processes
because
people
use.
of processes; people
they
biases
actually
tell
us where
to
effort
look
and
errors
point
the
or
of variables
Motivational
way
hidden)
use.
motives
have theorists and researchers
and
Davis
influence posit
needs
the
defending
influence
attribution
models
process,
itself
noted
of deep
selection
such
meaningful
have
a
process.
a direct
on
others)
process
have
usually
against
(usually
usually
relying
threatening
been
on
a
information.
ego-defensive
attribution the of
models
require
proof
beyond
the
an
of
circular
argument
I
models process
By
mean
process
result
models.
the
process"
is
"true
pattern
I call
attribution
what
a
for
that
models
Claims
normative
process
mistaken
particular
A
number
(ego)
(and
this
Unfortunately,
a theoretically
homunculus
of
or
1979).
without
Models occasionally
Process
that models
(Zuckerman,
True
Jones
awareness.
number
come
useful
may
for the actual
are
"accuracy"
deviations
Indeed,
Rather,
15
used
more
failure
theoretical
some
SpecificaIJy,
supporting
responsibility
may be found
in a wide
for success array
But
1978).
Bradley,
has been
proposed
than
of situations
&
1980;
Cooper,
brief
process
of
or tested,
no
leaving
clear
the
Levi,
&
(Tetlock
deserve
"patterns"
unresolved
models
1982).
and
Davis
1965;
also
(see
Jones
&
McGillis,
of process
more
outcomes)
theoretical
work.
as a model
caIJed
the
type
little
relatively
development.
is
warrants
infer of
how
people
dispositions
from
behavior.
An
but
This
attention,
received
has
model
inferences
process
of correspondent
of
a theory
type
proposed
admittedly
1976)
here.
types
Other,
think
the
Jones
mention
additional
at
typically
final
Three
are
model.
no
accepting
(i.e.,
self-serving
area
processes
by the
do
that
debate
complicated
suggested
people
It is clear
(Arkin,
way
that
for
cognition/motivation
rational
true
exist.
attributions
are
augmenting)
in the
it is equally
support
data
currently
detection,
discounting,
circumstances,
process.
empirical nor
the
as is independent
this
covariation
that
is needed,
the ego.
in
(i.e.,
it is true
some
popularized
Although
do.
under
Kelley
actually
process
defend
process
been has cube
people
people
what
by
processes
A
ANOV
of
Kelley's
Thus,
a model
the effects
the
that
making
neither
about
Kolditz,
go
view,
actually
my
people
interpreted
attributions.
how
In
represent
A
to
as
designed
decision
models
(Wetzel,
The
1982).
of
key
point
to
oversimplified
summary
this
model
is
that
infer
people
"Bayesian"
dispositions
that
correspond
behaviors.
Thus,
to
aggressive
dispositions.
attributions
(Uleman,
Jim
1987)
observed
behavior
(and
is seen
Uleman's
work
confirms
that
such
influence
spontaneous
people
do
correspondent
decision,
caused
with and
quickly made are and common fairly are inferences
one usually
beliefs
as being on
these,
labeled)
by
little
aggressive
the
not but
ignored
by motivational
the current
attribution
compute just
Bayesian
as obviously,
models, process.
probabilities they
do
take
is that
prior
Obviously, when
into
making account
a the
for
17
of
reliability
subjective
the
as
as
belief
well
prior
the of
strength
&
Russell,
Weiner,
1976;
Goldstein,
&
Nierenberg,
Weiner,
1985;
16
1979)?
great
know
We
models.
Effects
for
deal
a
claims
people
that
successes
for
attributions
particular
to
respond
and
as a
failures,
in
domains.
both
the
achievement
and
the
interpersonal happy,
involved
view,
my in
versus
or
depressed,
scholar
Kelley's,
angry,
the
is particularly
get
in whether
This
The
(e.g., one
1958).
will
as a normative
in
people
lies
a model
work
when
one
used
when
seminal
know
process
is being
tell
oriented.
simply
do,
as
approach.
is identified has,
with
this
of course,
contributed
much
different
attributions
(e.g.,
actor-
sets major
the
is
certainly
this --
to the
Snyder,
Numerous
1977).
defensive
needs
have
yet
researchers
directly
influence
have the
proposed
attribution
that
ego-
process,
but
Weiner,
&
well
as of
models
process
development
-- Bernie
approach
differences).
different
information
one
(e.g.,
Bernie
to this work,
give
&
(1986).
contributed
observer
often
Monson
Weiner
hundreds
will
1979;
in particular
Although
variables.
perspectives
the
differences
scholar
have
on
attributions
of scholars
focuses
different
(thousands?)
on other
work
actor/observer
of attributions
of attribution
is
make
type
itself
of
"effects"
general
process
often
third
limited.
attribution
aspect
The
quite
of the
with
still
of Attributions
understanding
Wong
Effects
our
will
However,
different
seen
different
do.
(Eisen,
should
people
and
that
can
with
people
know
what
People
to
We
similar
is
or
what
represents
model
the
truly
people
a
or
try
quit,
harder,
work
will
they
when
know
proud.
true
one)
to
process
Heider's
We
a Bayesian
used
are
(since
how
feature
models
years
considerably.
We
distinguishing
normative
overlap
true,
the
process,
about
even
true
is
because
and
This
normative
of
attribution
types
models,
two
first
the
is
As
readily
apparent,
30
last
the
over
made
been
has
progress
much
short,
In
hand.
at
case
attributional
the
for
data
new
the
Lerman,
seen
a convincing
process
model
of how
motive
dominate
the
to and
continues
attribution
dominated
has
he
view in
but
1981),
my
not
I
effects
scene
(along
with
his
manipulations
many
or
motive
attributions.
manipulations
In all cases,
produce
the
informational
conference).
this
at
represented
"motives"
influence
are
who
features
excellent
students,
well
underlying
and
The
kinds
of questions do
people
and
most
make
by effects
scholars
(e.g.,
Frieze,
What
are:
types
What
1976)?
is the
differences
observed
that
by themselves
attributional
are
sufficient
to
account
for
patterns.
&
(Wimer attributions
attributions
on variables
such
motivation,
performance,
interpersonal
as affect,
success interactions
of
expectancies, (e.g.,
Fincham,
more
effects
(or
the
processes
are
proposed
What
The
importantly,
circumstances.
1982)?
ideal
Kelley,
under
of
structure
or
organization
underlying
do
can
people
what
describes
cube
A
ANOV
Kelley's
Similarly,
of attributions
asked
likely,
analogous
judgmental
heuristics)
are
sometimes
used.
18 situation
attribution
produced
by an aggressive
is
correspondent do
Today's
Presentation
of
attributions,
theory
process a
describe
to
is
today
goal
theory
several
not
has
similar
versions This
doesn't
by the
empirical
data
or
they
are
to be presented.
Three
the
self seen
esteem
or
and
or
and
for
effects
fairly
thought
declaring
its
data
whatever
for
this
about
it long
overthrow;
task.
enough
I also
Nonetheless
lack the
insight
I have
here,
and
(more
structures
that
improve
it.
on
thinking theory
concerning
have various
arises.
both
The
(sparked
and
again
by Bernie
of the location
of a cause
controllability.
This
location
specific
situations
to feel
sufficiently
assumption
Here
the
people
that
yet
is
importantly)
of a cause
Weiner)
on several
dimensional
has
it
approach
assumes
in multidimensional
is
noted
dimensions
space same
instead,
work
implicitly)
of attributions,
situation
reasons.
worth
is
most
--
recent
the --
importance
locus, that
stability, the
determines
its
the
knowledge
attributional
the
sharing
assumes,
every
a list
before
to
I haven't
own
generic
to
heads)
occur
causes
and
theory
list
their
always
objective
specific
2-stage
the
(in
(almost
an
the
contradicted
powerful
two
apply
around
assumed
ego-
change
nonmotivational also
but
to
and
carry
been
that
effects;
people
has
features
assumption
extend,
by contradicted are
particular in
that
it
(i.e.,
hidden
to
assumptions
First,
data.
proper
by such
so on,
appropriate
deep,
process.
as ego-involvement,
motivational
occur
have
process
is unaffected
motives,
Thus,
people
attribution
attribution
motives
as relevant
process,
the
manipulations
defined
analysis.
that
common
and
for different
benefit
addressed,
differ
each
third
Kelley's
to be
either
for
to
questions
are
that
vaguely
likely
contradicted
models
cube,
research
models)
assumed
is
the
motivational
structures
influence
situational
for
on
theory,
such
discussing
silent
inference
traditional
the
is, That
correspondent
activate
comfortable
(e.g.,
results.
have
of an attribution)
However,
radically
to
in
attribution
the
at
look
we
change
the
the
directly
assumes
A
must
for
versions
account
acceptable
order
all
process
because
way
me,
that
needs.
attribution
to
am
I
results
the for
account
bother
theory
attributional
of it can
present.
and
going
extensively,
2-stage
information
The it.
of
tests
scattered
few
a
present
tested
needs
scholars
defensiveness,
to
and
been
structure
specific
yield
intended
to
of
hidden
many
final selection
My
Overview
it
was
general in
processes
attribution
causal
the
some
about
and these
causal
for
from
us much
is a general
causes
should
tell
of likely
structures
location
really
so).
not
set
knowledge
types.
Second,
preclude
it does (nor
but
is, there
of situation,
situations
or
promote
which conditions
suggest
data)
inferences,
That
outcome.
type
a person
theory
not a shy one.
are
describe
small
of the
is
behaviors
than
part
likely
aggressive
where
more
of a relatively
one
most
cases
little
that
my
those
does
and
common
theory
subsequent
--
made
to
types,
The
people
group
how
this
well
consists
inference
relevant
person,
describe
be
being
not
attributions.
Correspondent a truism
does
(and
make
model
the
actually
the
here,
though,
sure,
general,
To
In
19
21
20
affect,
success as
effort),
and
the
performance. of
on
from
1983;
one
Seligman,
1979). von
dimensional
attribute
to something
attribute for
their
order"
Weiner,
and
miserable
to
others). people
dimensional
locations.
The
if one
carry Thus,
two
be
(again,
I suspect
that
to
improvements.
but
as it is not
lack
in the
Attribution *When
The
strategy
of
a
internal,
unstable,
lack-of-effort
and
controllable.
attribution
is
that
one not.
different
or
strategies,
try
may
try harder.
implication
--
may
primary
space
attribution,
though,
implies
central
to
Figure
1
in
are
--
asking
documented
FIGURE
for
attributions
include
sides
are attributions,
......
blood
person
The
multidimensional
The
same
initially,
First,
note
that
the attribution
Bernie process
of this figure. when
across
how
expectancies,
and the effects
motivation,
array
and the
Attribution
it occurs,
a wide
and his students
process
it occurs, The
of various of important
performance
that
one
should
and
,...,'.'.'
1.
of
contents
have
variables quality,
and
..""
Attribution Process
Process
vs.
versus
Attribution
Attributional Effects
of
continue
*Contents
what
contents,
affect.
effects.
donate
to both
effects
as success
find
same
different
course, been
initial
Both
one
to
of
the
can
the
strategy.
later,
best
is
unimportant
Effects Effects
Content
*How
use of a poor
people
the
to greater
this
are
task
by
by
kinds
attributions
of persuading
discuss
this
questions
possible
two
task
lead
if the
move
the
than
one
as "second
(essentially)
of effort,
the
briefly.
have contributed attributional
out
is that
information
consider
at
it
discussing
problem
an
As
failure
to
strategies
selects
on
though,
have
time
and
person
should
However,
time.
let's
a
as pointed
more
that
to greater
non-
theory, the
not
dimensions
in
located
that
are
but
example,
space,
and
if
recent
own
is
they
attributions
multidimensional
the
my
This
and
a blind
uncontrollable;
regards
problem,
make
but
and
on
place
attributions
performance
stable
scientists
People
otherwise).
incompetence.
approach useful
--
suggests
is internal,
social
dimensional concepts
recent
that
it to their
the
theory
lead
the
date
personality
intelligence
that
outcomes
not
and
Let
implicit
liking
over
is important,
attribution
contents
on
--
this
effort
to have
should
performance
so obvious
effort
hope
some
to
in
attribution
the
do
the
unless
(there
nosy
work
terms,
so
do to
asked
exceptions
important
Thus,
referring
in
both
are.
think
may
not
psychologist
do
by
people
strategy
in which
or are
&
Semmel, Abramson,
However,
the
i.mprovements
dimensional
Feather,
are
strategy.
now.
1985b;
strategies
process
Arnoult,
this
try a different
introduction
&
(Anderson
benefited
in which
of
has
Baeyer,
approach
people
should
summarize
shy
one
or
and
that
is one
obvious,
attributional
others) as
well
work own
lonely,
task
me
of
and
My
direction
depressed,
and
styles
(effort (as
motivation
hard,
2-stage
such
variables
on the
same
effects
expectancies,
trying
*Success Expectancies *Motivation *Performance Quality * Affective Reactions
on:
such
23
*G Con oa
the how on
be
work
concerning
my will
today focus
Stage
process
models,
can assess
as can
three
used.
was
relevant
sets
process
testing
other
1.
cognitive
Most
obviously,
contents
can
variables
to
produce
assess
see
the
if and
important
this
effects
when
theoretically
this
them.
Attrib_ution
Problem
Formulation
approach.
Resolution
1. Kelley
Type
Analysis
* Covariance * Discounting * Augmenting
2. Bayesian Analysis
2. Collect Information * Past Experiences * Current Situation
The
2
Type
Model
Two
The
Stage
used
in
Stage
1
1. Select Appropriate Knowledge Structure * Accessibility * Featural Similarity
approach
various
changes
to be presented
Problem
one
of the process.
to be presented
one
set of studies
of
in Figure
of studies
manipulations
second
seen
and
Alternatively,
manipulating
two
be
attributions
In the first
ways
proceeds.
are
process
There
attribution
of
The
2.
URE
FIG
Two
Model
Processing
Stage
Strategies
My
Testing
Model
The
Two
Stage
22
processing.
attributional
of
model
stage two
the
is
then
Here,
Outcome
1. Make Attribution
Kruglanski's
(1980)
Problem
one
that
this
work
on
relevant
to
knowledge.
the
causal
testing
them
structure
first
featural
stage,
are
is
to
brought
based
similar
to
from
and
on a variety usage
problem
about
plausible
information
or recent at
hand
(for
be
contains
information
outcome
(i.e.,
the
causes
for
the
specified
goal which
and
self-presentation,
outcome), public
Search
the
causal
candidates)
and
about
what
further
are
goals
interpersonal
3. Abandon
of criteria
interpersonal
an
major
in explaining (two
use
congruency
for
is
Firs t, a guiding
mind.
the
2. Return to Stage 1 or
formulation,
generated
or
Arie
processes. problem
chronic
knowledge
is
heavily
epistemological
(salience,
only
example,
It
borrows
candidates
is selected,
such as its accessibility priming).
lay The
Formulation.
in which
model
we
out
recruited
point
will
should
structures
I
information
are
not
intended
concerned
with
to be accurate).
today, The
and
private
guiding
attributions, knowledge
which
structure
are
is
needed
to
test
each
of
the
causal
candidates.
25
prompts
processes
this past person's the
the
kind
analysis,
via activation
seen
as
addition,
various
covariation
of various
the
influence
final
outcome.
In
of information
will
candidates causal
Specifically,
cognitive
detection)
differ
judgmental from
processes
what
(such
a normative
as
model 1985).
to the attributional structures.
stage
one
is assessed
of scholars
is done
(to the extent
the
(though
kinds
of processes
Covariation
imperfectly).
possible
by the
postulated
by
Consideration
detection
"lay statistician"),
predictions. relevant
the
Stage
Model
of this
Let's
turn
model
leads
to several
to a variety
of these,
of unique
and to the
data.
the
particular which
will
search
attributional followed.
be
will
courses
these
of
importance
perceived
worth are
points
unique but
two
context.
on
are
not
made
there
are
Second,
the
problem
by
in a vacuum,
a variety
of real the
but
model
stage the
two
plausible
the
structures
this
about
that means
a particular
causal
varies
from
one
operationally
type
candidates
there
is a causal
type
is that
of situation
for the specified
of situation if you
to
ask
people
and to generate outcome
(i.e.,
success
will
bear
importance
knowledge
you
to
the
of situations What
In essence,
situation.
failure),
emphasizes
of
or
model
brought
Attributions
structure
to think
vague,
knowledge
attributor. historical
bit
a
is
This
world
the
type
another.
of
First,
mentioning.
these
types
as
that
in a
of cognitive
of
si tua tions.
true;
playing
trivially
well
and
is
as
abandoned.
situations,
for
different
available,
be
of
structures
for
may
types
in
prediction
resources
search
different
knowledge
causes
and
the
guiding
specific
of
time
a different
have
is used
carry
this
of
with
Alternatively,
structure.
amount
but
people
that
people
to
return
again,
determine
The
begin
that
is that
candidates
lists
knowledge
and
assumes
of situations.
different
one
types
list of causal
challenge
relevant
process The
can
two
things
to stage
different
to
candidates
If
attribution.
generic
I wish
Types
level
the
one
assumption
Situation
causal
it becomes
around
of
one
then
not,
so
less
into
of the causal
first
Different
Specifically,
support,
The
this
for
plausible
enough
of
Structures
get
garners
all
happen.
candidates
If one
of
Causal
operational
of factors.
outcome
Different
and
of
a variety
upon
The
beliefs
set
(or not).
prior
one
are revised
judge),
At
depends
by a perfect
small
probabilities
expected
a
be
include
would
may
than
come
principles and
discounting
augmenting
(but
play
a variety
via
the
of
Tests
Empirical
gathered
information
the
Two
stage
Resolution.
At
Problem
two
knowledge
at
influence
I
knowledge
Kellam,
relevant
variables
effects.
that
arise
&
motivational
motivational
stage
effects
various
Anderson,
locate
this
priming
1981;
to
It is at
situation.
of nonnormative
instance,
(Crocker,
propose
current
a variety For
processes.
structures
the
and
specifies
from
these
on,
Lane,
from
come
which
information,
additional
and
going
or
search
a
for
from
may
also
structure This
knowledge
guiding
24
professional
sports
requires
an
extremely
high
level
26
First,
trivial.
different
one
general sports
types
and
examine
emerge
science
the
for
generated
different
examples
just
causes
types
the
examined
at
type.
each
of
situations
causal
form,
making
attributions).
candidates
eliminating
friends"
(not
and
rewrote
duplicates.
became
each
them
For
"worked
candidates,
researchers
situation
Two
each
these
of 63 causal
same
the
of
are
example,
hard."
worded
into
more
"worked
This
in both
a
hard
resulted
in a set
a success
and a
to test
quite
the causal
(i.e.,
different
structure
similarity
These
piles.
similar
into
them
sort
to
was
task
procedure.
analysis
cluster
a
to
subjected
then
general
types
of causes,
by the
original
emerged.
This
the
causes
generated
four types
at a very in a
of situations.
subjects
Specifically,
classify
to
used
then
was
scheme
classification
internal,
prediction
or
in response
for each
type
to
the
of cause
I was
Thus,
being
causes
clusters,
it
despite
space
Thirteen
which
multidimensional
on
of subjects,
with
leve I.
yielded
group
typed
frequency
uncontrollable)
space.
the
same
examples
to a second
were
of
variables
independent
two
the
of
function
a
as
candidates
causal
generated
the
at
look
must
one
nontrivial
way
generated
specific
in the
science
candidates
As)
stable,
located
and
of
ANOV
are
sports
and presented
2
that
previous
types
in multidimensional
causal
2
the
located
for different
cards
x
Again,
differentially
causes
of the
(success/failure)
were
are
location
63
individual
of situations.
dimensional
to see if generated
These
derived
situations
the
as
(via
causes
examine
types
generated
data
generated
can
different
be
whose
one
for
to
sort
Second,
candidates
likely
empirically
causal
equally
examined
plausible
are
hard).
work
not
did
hard;
worked
direction
failure
such if
see
of causes
to
types
test
general
five
causal
causes
for
can
ability.
we
namely,
Thus,
type,
tes
general
ability)
intellectual and
high
(extremely
general
were
plausible
if
of situations.
mentioned,
generate
several
to see
physical
In the
can
There
to
were
candida
(e.g.,
not
instructed
ability.
failure.
subjects
of intellectual
noninterpersonal
is
levels
scientific
These
basic
which
high level
operational
two
are
an extremely
original
prediction
conducting
the
whereas
requires
There
research
ability
at
of physical
27
not
of
will
a
clusters)
types
(or
causal
types
failure.
general
of
versus
that
terms
success
predicts
in
and
model
or
either
noninterpersonal
stage
causes
perspective,
versus
two
general
The
more
from
situation)
of
different in
to
response
(generated
types
interpersonal
types
examine
this
results
strongly
supported
this
prediction.
causes.
few
a
to
quite
research
were
of
years
There
Several
The
across
I conducted
location.
frequency
ago
space
equal
multidimensional
with
of
generated
terms
be
in
first in
group the
groups
examined
Attributional
of subjects four
types
of
Style
Assessment
participated
main
hypothetical
variables.
Test
--
&
interpersonal
contained I)(Anderson,
(version
situations
The
Three
1983)
work.
1983a).
French,
in this
(Anderson,
Horowitz,
question
success,
interpersonal
failure,
noninterpersonal
success,
and
effects
noninterpersonal
and
interactions
Figure
3 shows main
effect
involving the
the
interpersonal results.
type
of situation
versus
29
28 The
.......
causal
group
of subjects
dimensions,
derived
each
candidate
rated from
the 63 causes
previous
on each
attribution
of
work.
as
0.5
0 Cluster
I
1.5
I
a function
2.0
I
of type
2.5
I
for
its location for
causal
one
in multidimensional
each
dimension
first group
for
space.
each
of subjects.
could
causal
derive
These
scores
scores
candidate
indicating
were
generated
assigned
by the the
if
Causal
1.0
I
as
Thus,
see
Mean frequency of causes of situation (Range: 0-10)
Types
to
Situation
possible
the
was
of
General
of
Interpersonalness
it
of the
Thus,
a Function
Generation
of
3.
FIGURE
Causal
Frequency
Types
six
third
Behavioral preparation level
dimensional
location
of situation
that
of causes
differed
as a function
led to its generation.
The
of the
results
of
type
this
"""""""""'.' predication;
model
stage
two
the
supported
strongly
also
analysis
Effort
,.,.
Interpersonal traits
there
&
many
interpersonal
:i.
Experience
were
skills
versus
variables.
External factors
Figure
noninterpersonal
and
interactions
noninterpersonal 4 shows
main
only
effect
involving
and success
the
versus
interpersonal
results.
Again,
the
failure
versus the
original
report
results.
detailed
more
In
Interpersonal
sum,
causal
types
of
structures.
situations
Thus,
do
people
seem
to
have
do not consider
the
concern
different
different
ii'
situations.
of
types
different
for
candidates
causal
of
work
of This
from
differ
situations
interpersonal
that
-
and
that
the
causal
structure
of success Obviously,
task.
same
the
for
even
failure,
for
there
are
other
ways
of partitioning
situations;
I suspect
that
of
many
Physical attributes
ones, that
from
Intelligence
effects.
structure
causal
comparable
would
them
.
Friendships
Causal
Interpersonal
-
situations
Noninterpersonal situations
the
concerns
model
2.5
stage
2.0
Relation
two
1.5
Structure/Attribution
I
the
1.0
I
from
0.5
I
prediction
0
I
second
I
A
style
noninterpersonal differs
Charismatic
demonstrates
information
yield
items
set
Availability
of
same
skills
&
effects
has
General knowledge
main
effects processes,
of causal on
structure,
attributions
which'is at
stage
a feature two.
Knowing
of stage the
one causal
30
31
Mean
Dimensional
Location
of
Causal
Candidates
Situation
Types
as
tend
to
have
more
individuating
of the
similar
Interpersonalness
more
are
attributors
actor
the
to
reject
of type
Causal
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
I
I
I
I
I
dimension
process,
and
structures
Changeablity
are
more
(with
evidence
different
in support
certain
kinds
likely
to
search
causal
of this,
for
candidates).
in terms
of attributional
alternative
knowledge
There
is
of processing
questions
(see
stage
two
the
through
run
first
the
suggested
structure
causal
as a function
Thus,
situation. Mean dimension of causes of situation (Range:0-9)
likely
of the
by
a Function
past
in
performance
past
own
their
as
4.
however,
such
FIGURE
attributors,
information
Actor
some
times
Smith,
to
1984).
The
Locus
main Globality
point
deviate
here,
more
because
though,
from
is that
the
of actors'
causal
superior
actor
attributions
structure
than
information
are
observer
expected
to
attributions
base.
Stability Both
-
(Anderson,
1985).
were
Subjects
tested made
and for an unknown other person, situations
I
r-i
6.0
5.5
correlations
Interpersonal situations Noninterpersonal situations
in the earlier
between
causal
themselves
for each of the hypothetical
causal
structure
structure
of these
research.
The
situations
and
the
for
separately
computed
were
them
for
generated
and
observers.
structure
causal
the
knowing
actors
attributions,
the
of
prediction
good
very
allow
did
situation
of
-
I
7.0
6.5
used
for
of
the
5.0
-.
attributions
study
attributions
I
-
in a recent
expected,
Controllability
mine
predictions
As
Intentionality
of these
the
predict one of a
That
those made be attributions
that
will
for
situations.
of
structure
set
situations
should
allow
to
as
be
a correlation
between
causal
structure
and
there
available
information different the
involves this to
corollary A
the
structure
will
high
correlations
presented
attributions than
did
correlated the
actor
in
Figure
5.
significantly
Also
higher
attributors
Motivational
particularly
dependent
on
the
causal
structure
with
The work
on
third the
Effects
prediction effects
to
be
considered
of motivational
today
concerns
recent
manipulations. mentioned
are
as
attributions.
As
relevant
observer
causal
Relocating
have
will
observers
Thus,
information
than
observer
less
subjects.
general,
observer
the
predicted,
In
and
actors.
actor
by
attributions. for
should
is,
shown
information.
earlier,
numerous
scholars
in this
area
subscribe
to
the
notion
33
Attributions
Actor
and
Observer
Between
Correlation
5.
FIGURE
32
Situational
success
is congruent
= 3.91 .p < .002
cognitive
involvement) For
motivational
person
can
directly
influence
and
Miller
about
or
failure
(1976)
supposed
had
factors
subjects
has
test
involvement
ego-
taken or
were
of the
and
(e.g.,
succeed
they
validity High
success
experience
Afterwards,
ego-involvement.
the
motivational
test.
the
between
fail
on
given
in order
subjects
to
were
told
make
will
person
ego-involved
success
perceptiveness"
manipulate
an
the
example
information
is,
process.
of the That
the attribution
state
differences
by manipulating
after
a "social the
process
situations,
place.
that
efforts,
because
was
such
failure
t(diff)
= .97
r
their
paradigm
and
recent
actor
r = .88
Observer
intentions,
primarily
most
with
out Actor
their
failure,
expectations. The
structure correlations observer attributions
with
and
Types
their Causal
behaviors
rule
Across
their
to
Structure
between
designed
Causal
than
motivational
and
success
to
was
many
given been
had
was
test the
that
valid,
very
people,
the ego.
the
or enhance
view,
protect
my
that
In
attributions
as the
finding
successful then
that
outcomes
assumed
the or
they
result
do
for
failure
of this
protection)
more
is also
the
They pattern
cause
of it.
for
(i.e.,
their no
and other
social
and
was
related
perceptiveness
to
type
marital
variables.
Low
selection,
people,
Then,
and
didn't
subjects
were
on
test.
performance
manipulation
took
informational
differences
the
place
after
been hadn't
was the
that
test
many
seem
asked
to
to
attribute
Because
the
correlate
the
outcome
supposedly
with
responsibility
of
for
ego-involvement
feedback,
had
much
been
the
ruled
Thus,
out.
if
has
one,
teleological
or
circular,
magical,
some
to
anything.
than
other
given
have
But
candidate
new,
such
responsibility
attributional
in job
told
effects,
ones.
used
satisfaction
have
important
accept
of
process,
self-enhancement
and
typically
than
that
theorists
of interesting
people
has consisted
were
a variety
motivation
theory
subjects
The
patterns.
demonstrated
in attribution
involvement
debate
separate
two
motivation/cognition
the
1975),
on the
explaining
away
the
theorists,
hand,
have
important
devoted
considerable
phenomena
but
in
discovered
nonmotivational
terms.
ego-involvement
subjects
showed
a
stronger
self-serving
energy by
to
the
Indeed,
they
pattern
of attributions
success
than
must
(Le.,
failure)
than
more low
be due to a motivational
personal
responsibility
ego-involvement
impact
for
subjects,
the
on the attribution
effect
process. of
sets
cognitive the
that
assumes
reasoning of
line
this such
which
through
processes
However,
cognitive
of
a
variety
provided
have
motivational
other
high
Ross,
&
Miller
theorists
(e.g.,
cognitive
proposed.
The
been
more
likely
to
perceive
a
covariation
between
their
behaviors
are and
the
attribution
process
is engaged,
an
time
the
assumption
at
same
the
people
be
example,
will
For
groups
occur.
ego-involvement
effects
two
motivational
the
seemingly
that
is
35
34
motivational brought
ego-involved
changes
the
the
attributional
are
more
in related
knowledge problem.
likely
domains
to
test the
First,
Specifically,
see
as being
structures
their
highly
way
to
the
must
knowledge
past
relevant
one
current
show
structure
is to do
obtained
that
motivational
differences
this
with
informational
manipulations
in
do
problem
formulation.
uninvolved
observer
subjects,
differences
cannot
be
produce The
best
because
attributed
to ego-
one
such
study
(Anderson
&
Slusher,
1986,
analysis.
predicts
The
on
subjects
performances
model
that
manipulation to bear
state
two
simplest
to
way
this
idea
consists
of
several
steps.
false.
The
demonstrably
model
essentially
relocates
Furthermore,
problem
it provides
a clear
process
low versus
high same the
not
instructions
ego-involved
perceptiveness"
used
because
test
and
knew
by
Miller,
they
did
they
were
though
not
of
take
not
the
going
course,
they
"social to
do
so.
of indicate asked
a
to
view) is
it and
They
were
for
model
motivational
influences,
(in
my
what
kinds
information
about
one).
subjects
were
to
two) selection
attribution
(stage
In
ego-involvement
motivational
from
effects
formulation
observer
at the end of
gave
seen
(stage
two
processes.
The
difference
I
attributional
1),
the
experiment
produces
stage
processes,
one
from
arising
difference, This
informational
stage
involvement.
strong
Figure
6 displays
to
this
those
who
another
relocation.
person
person's
they
would
performance
on
deem the
useful
test.
in interpreting
that
saw
the
High
involvement
description
of
the
test
would
be
more
it motivational.
objection
who
no
those
I have
that
to call
though
predicted
wish
one,
We
cognitive
""
FIGURE
6.
Relocating
Motivational
likely
Variables
to
ask
Next,
subjects
information,
rated
several
such
different
as marital pieces
satisfaction.
of potential
Salient
supplementary
Information
it
would
be
in
the of
Some person's
(e.g., not were some satisfaction); marital
influences
on
Motivational Variables
the
I
Available,
relevant
(e.g.,
attribution
Private
IPublic
expected
the
Figure
7 presents
the results.
Attributions
r
Attributions
I
so-called
knowledge
structures
uninvolved
observer
test
validity
led
ego-involvement used
to
in problem
formulation
High
subjects. more
manipulation
requests
descriptions
of
information, did than
information relevant
depicting process,
motivational both not
on
influences on the attribution "ii'.,/".,i,;,)'n';,:,
"".','.'
'"",i""""""";",,,
the
information process. ':';;~'ir';~i:,;:,:,::r:r:,,'t:i";';i,.;;.~;mf:i~;~'::'iii:Mi{
involvement
descriptions.
of
rating relevance higher
Model selection
the
by these
involvement
of relevant
influenced
and low
Situational Variables
coordination).
process.
Salient Information
eye- hand
As
were
motivational
Relevant,
how performance.
Motivational Variables
depicting
for
items
tions
information target
Public Attribu
a
Priva te Attributions
interpreting
Available,
Model
relevant
"relevant"
Relevant,
for
37
36
......
for and Ratings Ego-Involvement
the
Ego-involvement
of
Relevant Instruction
Observer
8.
Observer Requests asa Function of
URE
7.
FIG
FIGURE Information
Responsibility
Attributions
Set
Test
Performance
Instructions
6-
Success
High-Low
Low
High
Involvement
Involvement
Difference
%
44
%
33
77%
Spontaneously %
Subjects
4Requesting Relevant
at least 1 Piece of info.
Attributed
2-
Personal Responsibility
Average Relevance Ratings of Relevant Information
5.86
7.05
0-
1.19
Failure
-2Average Relevance Ratings of Irrelevant Information
4.27
-.43
r--°o_-
I
Low
High
3.84
demonstrated
that
this
stage
Slusher,
&
one
informational
Priming
difference
Causal
Candidates
concerning
discuss to
wish exaggerated
the
by that
suggests model
stage two
The
some
about
attributions
made
who
subjects
observer
in
attributions
effects.
changing
of
pattern
self-serving
the
reproduce to
sufficient
was
I
two
final
The
predictions
priming
1986)
Information
(Anderson we
experiments
subsequent In
two
Involvement
structure
used
at
stage
one,
the
attributions
if one
at
In
makes
different
sets
of causal
candidates
evidence no
was
there
that
concluded
we
self-attributions,
making
particular,
made
changed.
knowledge
be
not
of
may
were
one
behaviors
subjects
from
subsequent
observer
results
as
these
the
well
Because
experiments.
8 presents
as
these
Figure
person.
two
other
stage
unknown
the
motivation
manipulations
in
this
paradigm
had
any
available
at
stage
truly
plausible
two),
then
one,
ones
and
(i.e.,
if the
candidates
they
are
likely
able
to
influence
to
available be
include
accepted
at
stage
be
success
knowledge
stage
variables). other
as
well
(as
performance
on
their
should
one
and
processes.
impact
motivation
Rather,
process.
attribution
two
selection
one
motivation,
structure
to
seem
have
the manipulations
on
influence
stage
that
expectancies,
39
38
9 presents
a simple
attributional
model
of
motivation Attribution
Causal
Candidates"
(stage
one)
and
"Test
Causal
9.
FIGURE
"Generate
as
detailed
model
two the
with and
performance,
stage
Figure
Model,
With
Detailed
here,
Process
both
detail
in
model
the
describe
not I
will
two).
Process
Candidates"
Attribution fairly
models
of
a
similar
Bernie,
of course,
self-explanatory, nature
and
and
have
others
been
because
more
presented
(e.g.,
elsewhere
&
Anderson
Generate Causal Candidates
detailed by
ArnouIt,
Test
is
usal
it
Candidates
198'1).
by
manipulating
variables
to
process
attribution
test
designed
influence
Attribution
for
outcome
models
to
one
allows
attributions
of
varIOUS
types
of
effects
the
about
something
knowing that
is
here
point
My
because
Ca
(stage
Attribution
attributions, could
and
also
then
attempt
measuring
to
measure
various
outcome
attributions,
effects.
but
the
One
realistic
Affective
attributions
public elicit
to I'm
tend
interested
which in
situations
Reaction
influenced
by self-presentation
very
shooting
task
task
as well.
at
model
looking
effect
different
someone
to
lack
task,
to
failure
then,
For
influence
in a subsequent
is that
failure,
and
interpersonal
priming
want entirely
many
notions
to replicate confirmed.
people play
experiment have
been
the study
display an
self-defeating
important
(Anderson, tested,
before
role
reactions in these
in preparation),
though
this
for
a task.
reason
at
main
failures
attributions
In a recent of
after
performance people's
interest
a basketball
reactions
to initial
The
exposure
task.
situation. at
be
is
should
me
one
stage to
the
in situational
priming
failure
should
list)
in a given
occur the
attribute
of ability and
should from
to
changing
candidate
of people
prediction,
I should
concluding
to reaction.
these note
that
the predictions tasks.
are
(thereby
causal
performance priming
priming
in that
and
the
example,
cause
fourth
two
the
The
Context.
a particular
structures
change
that
of
performed
contexts
Out
interest
by priming
Furthermore,
failure
and
particular
In
variables.
Subjects
to
the of
effect
knowledge
able
better
tests
of
Priming
one
private
get we
Thus,
types
is that
than
Of
other
rather
by
attributions.
concerns
In
one
I
are they
40 score
basketball
as
many
shooting had
to
task, shoot
as possible
using
with
in one
a child's
basket
their
non-preferred
from
one
minute and
in a
attributions
a foambal!.
hand,
and
are
are internal,
located
close
unstable,
to
each
other
controllable).
But
dimensionally I
expected
(they
them
to
were some
produce
Subjects
points
effects.
to
different
tried
41
marked
on primed
point
had
varying
locations
were
there
and
values,
trials.
The
second
task
consisted
of preparing
subjects
cause
completed
again,
but
the
first
related
never
minute
the primed
one
the
it
task,
to
the
the
experimenter
first
Thus,
task.
the
several
After
the
places
with
several
conjunction
of
in
shoot
mentioned
floor.
to
was
choose The
the
to
cause
allowed
commercial
TV
minute
one
to
donate
blood
to
a local
blood of
various
the of
two
interest
people
are
persuade
measures
to
Only
designed
task. dependent
a
trials)
several
(on
delivering
and
second
bank.
In both
tasks,
trials.
Also,
subjects
Order
of task
was
subjects were
received video
failure
taped
performing
across
on
both
initial
in the
tasks.
present
strategy
context.
changes
One
subjects
was
a
measure
displayed
across
of
the
trials.
number
Even
of
though
subjects. As
confederate.
a
by
the
confederate
discussing
the
task
walked with
the
out
with
the
confederate
the
first),
do
to
going
was
subject
the
effort. hear
The
it.
and
three
attributions
performance
to effort
staged
causes
were
that
they
for
failure
--
causes
such chosen
produce
ability, that
typically
the
because
clear
and
quality,
whereas
strategy
higher
motivation
and
strategy,
or
subject
had
the
and
effort
(often)
to
should
lead
motivation
result
the
essentially
in
lead
to increased
few
to continued
an
ability
does
the
changes
primed
level
effort,
trying
but
in the
often
trying strategy
also guarantees
a shift
manipulation
should
strategy
primed
subjects
effort
primed
subjects
with
of
and
harder
not guarantee
priming
subjects,
intermediate
is,
meanings.
to use of a poor
high effort, Thus,
strategy
but
attributed
or strategy.
in the
showing
else,
Failure
in more
than
attributions
something
else.
in method
outcomes.
lower
trying
something
effects
different
produce
should
That
strategy
ch&nges.
improved to
scores
task,
each
For
strategy
prod uce
of
was
three
suggests
typically
types
conversation
These
literature Ability
of
a
to
involves
one
one
located
same
attributed
different
experimenter
(whichever
mentioned
are and
Failure perhaps
While
lab,
slightly
converted
experimenter.
the
have
were
entered
they
changes.
subject
space,
changes
the
multidimensional
strategy
delivered
was
manipulation
priming
The
effort
attributions
strategy
counterbalanced
feedback
capture
all
Specifically,
the
important
strategy
information
and
effort
be done.
effects
results,
of order
(first
vs.
prediction
model
stage
second
task),
interaction or
no
main
were
two
the
confirmed
priming.
The
10,
Figure
of
there
dimensional
Furthermore,
that
were
could
indicating
that task.
attribution.
not
notion
effort
analysis
out-of-context
an
do
the
and
an overall
the
in
causes
of
Strategy
so that
on
contained
of
test
hand.
z-scores
even
locations
at
but
effective
preliminary
a
tasks
dependent,
in
as
used
the
context
shown
to
often
equally
both
applicable
are
as
seemed
effects
was
These
performance.
the
prime
43
straightforward,
were
task
Commercial
TV
the
for
Predictions
42
a
Function
of
based
Priming
to
on
show
the
most
strategy
dependent,
The
0.2-
on
this
show
relatively
the task
subjects
subjects
is
would
also
not
were
improvement.
somewhat
is both
subjects
different,
strategy
though.
and
effort
dependent.
But
point
may
strategy in
shifts
Thus,
low. to
is
value
the
close
-0.2 -
that
so
one
not
but
shots
many
make
one
to
allows
which
distance
--
a
pick
subjects
most
to
be
may
best
the
strategy
certainly
is
effort
Ability little
task
Because
and because that
improvement.
basketball
task.
at this task,
it was expected
high
Performance 0.0-
very hard
unusually to
work.
improvement
work
expected
Strategy Changes ( Z-Score Means)
previous
typically
show
0.4-
similar
expected
as
were
Changes
subjects
Strategy
Strategy
10.
obvious
FIGURE ManiQulations
help
that
can be
pays
the
task,
the
to
one
attention
more
the
quicker
one learns
subjects
were
the
shots
ability
to adjust
expected
to
subjects.
show
lots
errors.
of
Thus,
improvement
effort
relative
to
of
improvement.
on performance in
was
interest measure The
second
of
change
reliable
effects
some
have
would
manipulation
priming
the
that
predicts
merely
model
stage
the
that
levels
Note
intermediate
to shooting
show
Manipulation
the more
to
Priming
in the
expected
Strategy
the ball
were
Attributional
Ability
recovers
is important
subjects
Effort
one
level
Strategy
-0.6-
the faster
In
taken.
Effort
much.
two
sense
-0.4-
performance
addition,
not
performance.
as
outlined
above,
depend
on
the
dividing measured
was
this
tasks, both
presents
of the
the
results
effects of
models
the
being
performance
used.
Figure
improvement
11
measures. improvement
most
the
showed
showed
subjects
effort
the
indicated
adequacy
whereas
scores
the
subjects
negative
scores
the
strategy
whereas
by
the
Positive
performances.
trials
task,
performance.
improvement
early
Commercial
in
trial
and
TV
indicated
early
late
expected,
and
the
the
late
between
As
the
performance
in
of
in
therefore declines
predictions,
For
difference sum
Specific
by
quality.
the
most
improvement
in
the
basketball
task.
These
effects
were
44
1986).
account
such
for
failures
of the
me Priming: Function a
as 1.
Performance
FIGURE]
Changes
of
Primin~J=on~ruent
fifth
and
carry
versus
final
suggests
important
that
the
information
(see to
also Sujan,
not
task.
themselves
measures
dimensions
the
both on
same
the essentialIy were
effects
priming
second
attributions
quality
strategy
dimensional
approach,
but
it is
prediction
_CQnflicting
I want
to
so.
specific
performance
more
the
the
the
do
that
or
either
to
change
so on
create
suggesting
not
do
be
variables,
did
not
can
task
variable
did
one
the
order
they
would
and
task
That
effects.
it
prime
the
same
Obviously,
as expected
prime
valuable
the
by attributional
how
with
task
first
interact
However,
the
to
interaction.
as were
clear
significant,
and
both
45
Causal
discuss
Candidates.
concerns
The
attributional
Manipulations.
style and the interpersonally have
0.8-
demonstrated
that
such as depression, attributional
0.6-
people
than
attributional
have
are
in
living
different
non-debilitated
differences
researchers
problems
and shyness
do their style
Numerous
various
with
loneliness,
styles
addition,
debilitated.
counterparts.
particularly
In
pronounced
Improvement
in
when
0.4-
assessed
for interpersonal
failures
(e.g.,
&
Anderson
the
essentially in located effort
and
are
strategy
according
to
a
space dimensional
(internal, approach
unstable, they
controllable). should
yield
displayed
the
Anderson,
1983;
suffering
for
hidden
needs
research
in
for these self-schema
strategy. models
has
been
people. theory)
such
Inde'ed,
of attribution
groups. to
posit
lack
less likely as insufficient
one
of the
has
patterns
troubled
as their
relatively
causes
self-deprecating
clinically
explanation
are
to controlIable
motivational
account
by such
motivational
that
Thus,
causal
to
and
such
attribute
been
their
of attributions
a different
set
of as
of interest.
Note
multidimensional
people
from
are
failures
traits,
causes
to
well
also
personality
likely
(as
data
to uncontrolIable
and use of an ineffective of past
more
typical
these
same
concerning
such
relatively
A
effort
inability feature
or their
to attribute
Effort Ability Strategy
problems
final
failures
are
stage
Commercial TV Nfl
-
of ability
BasketbalI
living
model
interpersonal
0.0-
in
two
problems
The
these
One
SpecificalIy, &
Arnoult,
1988).
Jennings,
0.2-
French,
&
Horowitz,
Anderson,
1985b;
Arnoult,
Performance
suggests
that
the
self-deprecating
47
46
(for
instance)
are
the
different
recall
in
differences
information
experiences)
(Anderson,
The
are
essentially
(e.g.,
beliefs,
prior
to bear
on the
brought also
preselected
for
having
attributional
style
interpersonal
persuasion
assigned
to one
for
of three
study,
though
either
a
interpersonal task.
Prior
attributional
to
priming
have
little
priming
received
expected
these
no
expectancies,
performances
than
were
manipulations
model
adaptive
have
little
priming
with
with
an
would
with
causes.
The
manipulations
people
on
affect
the
hearing
were
causes
remaining
mention
as
subjects
of ability
embedded
and
in
trait
the
before
time
performance.
The
task
was
to
persuade
people
on
the
relephone
to
donate
interpersonal
a
people
style.
The
effort
some
task
should
style,
and
primes.
quite
be
priming
adaptive
presented
should with
causes
adaptive
a maladaptive
performance.
primes,
a maladaptive
maladaptive
for
of strategy
maladaptive
cases
impact
explanations
mention
received
is
with
heard
subjects
This
of people
they
Other
received
failure
than
potential
have
subjects.
as success
People
failures
style
Specifically,
it
should
such
adaptive
to
difficult
Briefly,
Priming
should
people
two
the
does
settings?
for interpersonal
of people on
designed
variables
by initial
Conversely,
impact
quality
success
with
persuasion relevant
should
but
an
should
a one
knowledge
task, blood
guaranteeing bank
information
much and
failure.
Subjects
examined
made
a (rigged)
failure
call for
performance
poorer
lower
Maladaptive
homes
the
and
have
style.
their
hurt
motivation,
to
attributional
from
style.
expected
their
called
adaptive
were
of
instructions,
styles
response but
subjects
function
they
style,
interventions
performance.
styles.
failure
style
the
a
bank.
the
is
as
blood
improve
difference
perform
Subsequently,
attributional
the
manipulations
on
and
affected
adaptive
the
priming
local
attributional
attributional
relevant
maladaptive
stage
effects
maladaptive
adversely
and
priming
specific
that
interpersonal
attributional
and
were
an
versus
the
in
motivation,
because
they
lower
performance
expectancies,
more
the
task
performed
one
were
adaptive
adaptive
course,
about
that
significant
moment,
perceptions.
performance
suggests
and
have
Subjects
an
with
experimental
influence
failures,
blood
say
the
is
to
for
This
have
or
people
I do
1983).
maladaptive
the
between styles.
conditions.
assume,
structure
on
possible
structures
What
causal
data no
situations.
to
us
the
style.
are
of past
problem
attributional
and
different. Let
when
there
self-relevant
different.
only
moment
causal
Of
is
the
the
a different
structure
Some
probabilities,
attributional
subjects
were
the
of
both
that
for
have
that
but
people
possible
same,
structure
is that
the
lists
is
possibility
debilitated
it
other
candidates
prime;
causal
causal
"contradicts" At
one.
at
difference of
sources
likely two
the
and
causal
One
are
There
is that
maladaptive
are
prime
than
by nondepressed.
possibility
problem
structures
knowledge
to
used
people
is,
subjects
by depressed
That
processing.
stage
those
one
the
used
stage
the
sets
from
laboratory.
arises
in
pattern
week
period,
and
then
returned
to
the
lab.
The
three
48
motivation,
expectancies,
success
were
measures
dependent
primary
49
performance
quality. of
Function
a
as
(Z-Score)
Quality
Performance
12.
FIGURE
and
Style
and
Priming
Manil2ulations
above)
(outlined
results
predicted
the
measures
three
all
On
Attributional
0.4-
index
composite
is
results
these
on
in
Figure
12.
performance
impact
in
in
the
conditions,
absence
priming
Thus,
style of
causal
manipulation
appears
a dramatic
primes.
It had
conditions.
performances
it
had
part
of
upon
the
0.3-
no
0.2-
In those
depended
that
impact
the
problem
causal
of
people
0.0-
-0.1 -0.2 -
point,
the
problem
Further
situations.
causal
work
is needed
on
-0.3 -
however.
-0.4 Ability Trait
Strategy Effort
Attributional
Manipulation
No
this
of
their
in
lies
styles
attributional
structure
.,.,.".,.,
0.1-
Strategy Changes (Z-Score Means)
maladaptive
with
the
subjects'
primes.
Attributional
Manipulation
attribution
the
views
model
stage
two
the
summarize,
Conclusions To
~
z-score
of
present
iiIIIIr
obtained.
A
were
Problem
second
formulation
including
the
knowledge
stage
salience
or
are
information
brought
about
of
stage
to
bear past
problem
one on
a variety the
process
of factors, guiding of knowledge
problem,
performance
attribution
resolution.
of relevant
including
in the
Controllable Uncontrollable
-
of problem
by a variety
accessibility
In
one's
consists
consists
is influenced
structures.
structures
stage
solving
process. proposed
For
example,
but
do
People by Kelley
people
so through
do use
do use the various
attributional
and
so imperfectly.
others,
something
but
like
of various
do
a covariation
judgmental
heJlristics
assessment, (see
the
1982).
the
first
problem
Tversky,
formulation;
the
epistemic
&
Specifically,
Kruglanski's
Slovic,
of
Kahneman,
variant
by
process.
a
volume
as
edited
process
domain,
one's
The
main the
knowledge
of this held
model
by the
are:
(a)
perceiver
It takes
into
concerning
the
past,
present
have relevant
situation.
their
impact knowledge
Motivational
at
this structures.
stage,
manipulations
and
by influencing Problem
resolution
the
the
from
information
other
and
intentions,
and
expectancies
account
advances
motive
selection is
the
levels
of actual
the target and causes; effects
of the attribution (b)
It relies
at the attributional
(c) It accounts
analysis
(self
on demonstrated stage,
for motivational
rather variables
or other), information
than
normative
in testable,
situations, processing principles; process
51
50
(d)
terms;
It suggests
that
people's
knowledge
about
causes
goes References
better
for
our
and
our
data;
of attributional
(e)
style
It suggests
problems;
a fairly
and
(f)
detailed
The
generation of plausible type of event situation. Psychology, 19, 185-203.
It suggests
causal attributions as a function Journal of Experimental Social
of
behaviors
by
modifying
the
underlying
Journal
of
(lng
in attributional
of
effects
style.
Personality
~o~iaL~sv~hQjo~v_,
45,
1136-1147.
different individual
of some testing at directed be will work
types of situations: differences, and
for
Causal structure dimensionality
the
effects, of causes.
~,
323-340.
Social
Cognition,
Future
attributions
observer and
C.A.
Anderson,
(1985).
cognitions. the
social
self-defeating
Actor
subsequent
deficits
performance and
Motivational
The
settings:
interpersonal
CA.
Anderson,
(1983b).
practical
of
ways
modifying
maladaptive
thought
processes
and
account
for
(1983a).
C.A.
intuitions
The
accounts
situations:
thus
of
and
structure
thinking,
causal
dimensional
Anderson,
beyond
further
specification
of the Attributional
LH.
Arnoult,
Weary
of this
are
invited
to
(Eds.)
&
J.
In
issues
and
applications
(pp.
in
living:
and
style Attributional
(1985b). LH.
Arnoult,
problems
Depression,
loneliness,
and
(1988).
LH.
Arnoult,
Journal
The
&
D.L,
Jennings,
style of lonely and depressed people. _and _Soci£ll J>sychology, 45, 127-136.
CA.,
Anderson,
Attributional of Personality
R.
French, &
LM.,
Horowitz,
C.A.,
Anderson,
(1983).
16-35.
~,
Cognition,
Social
shyness.
offered.
and utility of the attributional level of specificity. Under
style construct Review.
a
for
motivational
success
and
failure.
Social
on
effects
motivational
and
Relocating
(1986).
of
cognitive
M.P.
Slusher,
&
synthesis
A
effects:
attributions
Cognition,
270-292.
1,
Self-handicapping.
(1985)
Weary
Harvey
J.H.
Basic
Attribution:
G.
review
of
the
literature
Academic
York:
New
statistical
concerning
the
self-serving
attribution
Journal
of
(1975).
situations.
effort:
and
time
little
A
Social
and
Personality
whom?
M.J.
from
what
deserves
Who
&
Lerner,
J.E.,
bias in interpersonal influence Personality, 48, 435-448.
A
(1980).
T.
&
Kolditz,
H.,
Cooper,
Inc.
R.M.,
Arkin,
Press,
169-202).
application
and
issues
(pp.
&
in
Chapter
(Eds.),
AH.
&
Baumgardner,
'
R.M.,
Arkin,
at
P shQI QitL Ile tin, y_c 1, 17 CA.,
Anderson,
validity. moderate
Bradand,
insight
Basic
&
C.A.,
Anderson,
everyday or
Attribution: New
any
235-279).
to
assistance
relevant
any
me.
data
appreciate
with
or
certainly
them
ideas
would
share
have
I
who
G.
of you
Press.
Those
shyness.
version.
and
present
Academic
in the
York:
premises
loneliness,
vague
depression,
admittedly
Harvey
&
Anderson,
of
and
models
predictions,
(1985a).
untested
CA.,
presently
under
Cambridge University Smith,
E.
Press. Attribution
and
other
inferences:
Processing
Social Depressive
attributional
style.
Journal
of
Schneider,
389-420).
Psychology, 1, Hastorf,
EJlsworth,
P.c.
(1979).
Person
Bierbrauer,
Hoffman,
S.
(1976).
The
of
roJ]
&
L.
Ross,
inference:
Strategies
and
Snyder,
(1977).
Actors,
observers,
and
the
D.T.,
&
Ross,
M.
(1975).
Self-serving
biases
in
the
MiJler,
D.T.
(1976).
Ego
involvement
and
attributions
for
success
An
analysis
the
mediating
effects
of
affect
and
expectancy.
helping:
psycholog!'i
vol.
2,
editIOn,
233-346).
(pp.
New
York:
Perception
inteLPersonal
social
A.
(1980).
From
attribution
to
125-135.
Mulherin,
ethic
relations.
Hillsdale,
1-24.
E.
Aronson
handbook
of
social
Journal
Experimental
Psycholo~!y:
Human
relatedness
W.J.
Random
Journal
attribution
Psychology,
perception,
Seligman,
Abnormal
information
Experimental
of
D.M.,
Anderson,
&
c.A.,
KeJlam,
K.L
(1985).
Another 87, 70-87.
of
and
(1985).
and failure. 901-906.
process.
li,
shortcoming.
2nd
M.E.P.,
about
Social
Kruglanski,
A.W.
memory
--
(1980).
Lay
epistemo-Iogic
Process
and
KeJley,
H.H.
(1973).
The
process
of
causal
attribution.
University
look at
variables:
The
Performance,
Attitudes
of Personality
and
Journal
attribution of causality: BuJletin, 82, 213-225.
Psychology,
the
Fact
,Lournal
Englewood
edition.
Abramson, 88,
Psychology, self
of
Social
of
Cliffs:
Menlo
LY.,
versus
20,
Nebraska
attribution theory.
psychophysics
information
11,
640-649.
and
attitude
of Personality
of
Psychology,
and
or fiction?
attribution processes in conformity and Asch situation. American Psychologist, Park:
Semmel,
39,
Social
Experimental
A.,
others.
97-115.
and
Journal
the
Judging
contents: Review,
Lincoln:
The
(Eds.),
McGuire,
28,
3rd
&
Lane,
causal
Psychologist,
M.
of Research
and
of
Protestant
and
&
of PersonaJity
&
Lindzey
detection.
in
J.P.,
G.
differences
Meyer,
~e]~onillity
J.
JOuIn£1Lol
Social
192-238).
Human
(1980).
T.C.,
MiJler,
In
and
(pp.
&
G.,
R.E.
Monson,
and
style:
of
Person
(1983).
Weber,
D.B.,
56-71.
&
A.H.,
L,
Nisbett,
seeking
Press.
retaliation
R.
&
Hannah,
perceivers.
D.J.,
Ross,
experimental
and
Journal
issues
Basic
2,
in
stereotyping
Academic
on
(1978).
of PersonaJity
L
In
in
information
attributional
of
Effect
B.G.
Rule,
J.,
by social
(1979).
(pp. relationships.
and
36,
J.
in
In
oj"
dispositions:
failure.
cJose
self-esteem,
LEA.
York:
in
correlates
Some
Journal
directions
Press.
psychology
inferences
to
inference and causal attribution. Social Psychology, 37, 261-272.
(1984).
C.
attitudes.
1.
!tJdgment
Experimental and
Attribution:
Attributions
&
R.J.
Crocker, J. (1981). Judgment of covariation Psychological BuJletin, 90, 272-292.
of
Vol. New
Advances processes
203-234).
and~ociychology, 40, 650-663.
Journal
of misattribution
and
New Kidd
R.
&
Ickes, W.
J. In
reactions.
Harvey,
(Eds.)
Attribution
Zillmann,
D.
(1978).
excitatory
questions, and of Personality
N.J.:
research,
vol.
335-368).
attribution
in and
alive is
motivational The
or:
revisited,
bias
well
of
Attribution
M.
Zuckerman,
2, (pp.
Associates.
success
Erlbaum
(1979).
Lawrence
failure
in attribution
Hillsdale,
and
directions
theory.
Journal
of
Personality,
47,
245-287.
