Attribution in sport psychology: seeking congruence between theory, research and practice

Rees, Tim; Ingledew, David K.; Hardy, Lew

doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2003.10.008

Cited by 73 publications

(89 citation statements)

References 67 publications

(78 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Specifically, using recent sport specific conceptualisations (Rees, Ingledew, & Hardy, 2005) we draw on concepts of achievement motivation (Weiner, 1985(Weiner, , 2010, models of hormonal responses to competition (Archer, 2006;Salvador, 2005), and the group dynamics literature (e.g. Tajfel & Turner, 1986), to formulate a conceptual framework and research agenda for investigating team attributions in sport.…”

Section: A Theoretical Framework and Research Agenda For Studying Teamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other attribution dimensions assessed in research include controllability (the degree to which the cause is perceived as under the control of the team), and three generalisability dimensions of stability (the degree to which the cause is perceived to generalise across time), globality (the degree to which the cause is perceived to generalise across situations) and universality (the degree to which the cause is perceived to generalise across teams). These four dimensions have been outlined as particularly relevant for sport outcomes (Rees et al, 2005) and form the basis of our conceptual model.…”

Section: Consequently This Distinction Is Largely Ignored Throughoutmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Third, individual differences and moderators of the outcome -attribution relationship are often given scant attention in theories describing the consequences of attributions, leaving little breadth for multifaceted interventions. Fourth, recent sport attribution research has used an expanded conceptualisation of generalisability dimensions (Coffee & Rees, 2008a;Rees et al, 2005) that may be particularly useful when considering the attributions made for group outcomes. Finally, empirical research demonstrates advantages for moving beyond hypothesising and exploring main effects of attributions to specifying and testing interactive 5 effects of attribution dimensions (Coffee, 2010).…”

Section: The Need For a New Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are various ways researchers can choose to categorise attributions and our model focuses on four dimensions relevant for sport outcomes: controllability and the three generalisability dimensions of stability, globality and universality (Rees et al, 2005). Our decision to move away from traditional (locus of causality) classifications was based on the tendency for most team members to take collective responsibility for both team success and team failure (Allen, 2009) and the relatively large overlap between where a cause lies (locus of causality) and by whom it is controlled (Rees et al, 2005).…”

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our decision to move away from traditional (locus of causality) classifications was based on the tendency for most team members to take collective responsibility for both team success and team failure (Allen, 2009) and the relatively large overlap between where a cause lies (locus of causality) and by whom it is controlled (Rees et al, 2005). Rees and colleagues (2005) have suggested that a more beneficial approach to studying attributions is to focus upon the controllability of causes, together with adopting a broader conceptual approach to classifying the generalisability of attributions (in addition to stability, exploring the globality and universality of attributions).…”

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A theoretical framework and research agenda for studying team attributions in sport

Allen

Coffee

Greenlees

2012

International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The attributions made for group outcomes have attracted a great deal of interest in recent years. In this article we bring together much of the current research on attribution theory in sport and outline a new conceptual framework and research agenda for investigating the attributions of team members. The proposed framework draws on multiple conceptual approaches including models of attribution, group dynamics and stress responses to provide a detailed hypothetical description of athletes' physiological, cognitive and affective responses to group competition. In describing this model we outline important antecedents of team attributions before hypothesising how attributions can impact hormonal and cardiovascular responses of athletes, together with cognitive (goals, choices, expectations), affective (selfesteem, emotions), and behavioural (approach-avoidance actions) responses of groups and group members. We conclude by outlining important methodological considerations and implications for structured context specific attribution-based interventions.

show abstract

Section: A Theoretical Framework and Research Agenda For Studying Teamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Consequently This Distinction Is Largely Ignored Throughoutmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Need For a New Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A theoretical framework and research agenda for studying team attributions in sport

Allen

Coffee

Greenlees

2012

International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

References

2011

Judgement, Decision Making and Success in Sport

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Gricean approach to the use of consensus and distinctiveness in causal attributions of verbally described interpersonal events

Maris

Hoorens

2013

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Various causal attribution theories, starting with the covariation model, argue that people use consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency information to causally explain events and behaviors. Yet, the visual presentation of the covariation model in the form of a cube is based on the assumptions that these dimensions generally affect attributions independently, symmetrically, and equally. A Gricean analysis suggests that these assumptions may not generally hold in the case of causal judgments for verbally communicated interpersonal events. We had participants judge the causal role of an actor and a patient in interpersonal events that were described through actor‐verb‐patient sentences under high versus low consensus and distinctiveness (Studies 1, 2, and 3) or without such information (Studies 2 and 3). As predicted by Gricean logic, consensus and distinctiveness effects on causality ratings depended on the target whose causal role participants assessed, on the information about the alternative dimension, and, most consistently, on consensus and distinctiveness being high versus low. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Attribution in sport psychology: seeking congruence between theory, research and practice

Abstract: Background and purpose: This paper urges revision of the way attributions are conceptualised,

Cited by 73 publications

References 67 publications

A theoretical framework and research agenda for studying team attributions in sport

A theoretical framework and research agenda for studying team attributions in sport

References

A Gricean approach to the use of consensus and distinctiveness in causal attributions of verbally described interpersonal events

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About