No abstract

This experiment examined the effects of attributing initial failure to ineffective strategies on performance expectancies. Subjects were induced to attribute performance at a persuasion task to either their strategies (a controllable factor) or abilities (an uncontrollable factor). Subjects then failed at their initial persuasion attempt. Following failure, strategy subjects expected more successes in future attempts than did ability subjects. Strategy subjects also expected to improve with practice, while ability subjects did not. Comparisons to control subjects, who received no attribution manipulation prior to success or failure, clarify these results. Findings suggest that subjects attributing task outcomes to strategies monitored the effectiveness of their strategies and concluded that by modifying their strategies they would become more successful. In contrast, subjects attributing task outcome to abilities failed to attend to strategic features and concluded that they could not improve. Implications of this overlooked factor for attribution theory and leamed helplessness are discussed.When people fail at a task, they often become discouraged and give up, also showing motivational and performance decrements at similar tasks in the future (Seligman, 1975). But occasionally, an individual remains optimistic and claims that despite past failures, he will succeed the next time. Thus, although Dave fails to close a single deal during his first days as a car salesman, he still expects to succeed in his next sales attempt. Although Sue, a Red Cross volunteer, fails to persuade her initial contacts to pledge a blood 1. This research was conducted

No abstract

The validity aDd utility of attributional style bas been questioned in recent years. Major criticisms are that attributional style is not cross-sitUationally consistent, is not measured appfq)riately, bas little construc:t validity, aDd contributes little to the prediction of important social behaviors. This article examines these issues with data primarily related to the SCYera1 different attributional style measures found in ADdenOD's Attributional Style ,. T1 1r.~t Tests. We examined previously publisbed aDd new data. The results show evidenc:c of c:oD~t and discriminant validity for attribu. tional styles aS8eSIIedat an intermediate leYel of specificity. Aba, attributional style effects were as as parallel attribution manipulatioos in complex social settinp. We concluded that both the extreme po-imian of some recent researcben aDd the broad, sweepinaly optimistic claims of some prcpol1eDts are unwarranted, and that further work on spec:ityina the appropriate leYel of assessment for attributional stylewould be useful.

No abstract