Change in strategy: The relationship of attribution, expectancy, performance, and satisfaction

Chandler, Theodore A.; Spies, Carl J.; Wolf, Fredric M.

doi:10.1016/0361-476x(82)90002-9

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…then there is added potential of confounding stable and unstable, controllable and uncontrollable components of these causal factors. Chandler, Spies, & Wolf (1982) found that knowledge or skill might be confounded with ability, because ability is perceived as stable and knowledge or skill as unstable and capable of being acquired. This becomes significant because "perceived stability of a cause relates to the expectancy of future success and failure" (Weiner, 1979, p. 9).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Semantic differential placement of attributions and dimensions in four different groups.

Chandler¹,

Spies²

1984

Journal of Educational Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to empirically validate subjects' classification of 11 attributions (mood, skill, knowledge, chance, effort, competence, help, ability, task, bias, luck) according to dimensions of locus, stability, controllability, predictability, and globality. The sample of 200 subjects (100 males and 100 females) consisted of 50 undergraduate education majors, 50 graduate education majors, 50 undergraduate psychology students, and 50 naive lay individuals (over 35 years of age) who had never attended a college or university. Attributions were placed on separate pages of a questionnaire, followed by a random ordering of the five dimensions presented on 7-point scales. The results indicated that subjects' dimensional assignment of five of Weiner's (1979) original eight attributions differed significantly from Weiner's assignment of those attributions. In addition, there were significant differences in the classification of attributions according to predictability and controllability. In 62% of the possible instances, the results of this study were in agreement with the theoretical assignments of attributions from the literature.A theory of classroom motivation (Weiner, 1979(Weiner, ,1980 has emerged that attempts to articulate cognitions and emotions in causal attributions. Causal factors other than Weiner's (1979) original four (ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck) have been documented (Elig & Frieze, 1975,1979, such as stable effort, other people, mood, personality, and physical appearance. Still other causal factors continue to emerge (see Cooper & Burger, 1980).Although the term luck is most frequently used in the causal-attribution research literature, chance may well be a less confusing term, particularly with respect to the stability dimension. Chance is clearly random and unstable. However, when one speaks of luck, one can think of either the randomness of the concept or the trait aspect, which is indicated in the phrase "he is a lucky person."Similarly, ability may be consistently categorized as stable. But if one defines ability as skill, knowledge, or competence, The authors are grateful to Bernard Weiner for his encouragement and his many suggestions.Request for reprints should be sent to Theodore A.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Semantic differential placement of attributions and dimensions in four different groups.

Chandler¹,

Spies²

1984

Journal of Educational Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In an academic achievement situation, examination anxiety, teachers' help, interest in the subject, mood, quality of instructor, teachers' bias, and a lot of other causes have been found to be important (Chandler, Spies, and Wolf, 1982). Recently, more varied causes have been used by researchers.…”

Section: Format Of Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement of achievement attribution: A review of instigation methods, question contents, and measurement formats

Hau

Salili

1993

Educ Psychol Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Various methods of achievement attribution measurement are compared with regard to the construction of the achievement event and the measurement of the attributions elicited. The method of instigation and the content of the instruments depend greatly on whether situational or dispositional (individual differences) factors are emphasized. It is suggested that natural events INTRODUCTIONThe study of achievement motivation stretches back to the studies focusing on the measurement of "need for achievement." Achievement motive has been regarded as a relatively stable personality disposition deter- Hau and Salili mining the tendency to act toward a goal (McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, and Lowell, 1953). However, there is a shift in emphasis from the external reinforcers and the internal need/drive to a more cognitive approach. Motivation behaviors are now being studied by analyzing "how children construe the situation, interpret events in the situation, and process information about the situation" (Dweck, 1986(Dweck, , p. 1040. This attributional approach to achievement motivation was originated by Heider (1958) and later elaborated by Weiner (Weiner, 1979(Weiner, , 1986Weiner and Kukla, 1970). It is believed that the search for reasons for different achievement outcomes is a "basic spring of action" (Weiner, 1979).Attribution theory has been widely applied to educational problems addressing specific issues such as teachers' praise (Brophy, 1981), examination anxiety (Arkin, Detchon, and Maruyama, 1982), student help-seeking behavior (Ames and Lau, 1982), motivational strategies (Marshall, 1987), learned helplessness (Forsterling, 1985;Friedlander, 1984), learning disability (Kistner, Osborne, and LeVerrier, 1988), as well as more general learning or performance variables (Frieze and Snyder, 1980;Greene, 1985;Pintrich and Blumenfeld, 1985). It is believed that the perceived causation, or the explanation for an outcome, is important and is closely related to expectancy of future success, emotional reactions, and action tendency (Harvey and Weary, 1984;Kelley and Michela, 1980). Weiner (1986) claimed that "a general theory, applicable to a wide variety of phenomena, without apparent historical boundaries or the constraints of any particular social context" (p. 3) is emerging.Causal attributions of achievement events are latent in the sense that they are not directly observable mental processes. The attributions, however, can be elicited by asking the subjects to explicitly explain the outcomes. The present article critically reviews issues related to the construction of the achievement event and the measurement of the attributions elicited, with particular emphasis on attributional studies of academic performance. Some of these problems have long been pointed out (e.g., Weiner, 1983) but are still commonly found in current attribution research. Other problems are inherent in the basic assumptions of different theories, and the correct choice of methods depends mainly on the purpose and aim of the research. Weiner's Model...

show abstract

“…Not only does actual classroom achievement figure prominently in Weiner's theorizing, but Weiner and his colleagues have employed various performance and behavioral indexes in studies over the years (e.g., Weiner, Heckhausen, Meyer, & Cook, 1972;Weiner & Sierad, 1975), including classroom examination outcomes (Weiner & Potepan, 1970). Indeed, the use of performance measures has become commonplace in laboratory studies and has included persistence, intensity, quality of performance, and response rate (e.g., Chandler, Spies, & Wolf, 1982;Kukla, 1972aKukla, , 1972bMcMahan, 1973;W. Meyer, 1970, cited in Weiner et al, 1972Spratt & Russell, 1983;Spratt, Russell, & Tyrrell, 1982).…”

Section: The Nature Of Achievementmentioning

confidence: 99%

The trouble with pitfalls: A reply to Weiner's critique of attribution research.

Covington

Omelich²

1984

Journal of Educational Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a recent issue of this journal, Weiner enumerated a number of conceptual and methodological concerns regarding the proper testing of hypotheses in attributional research. While some of Weiner's criticisms are well-founded, other points are debatable and justify review and critique in their own right, particularly Weiner's use of presumed methodological shortcomings as an explanation for the nonconfirmation of predictions flowing from his cognitive theory of achievement motivation. In this article we question Weiner's explanation and propose, alternately, that his theory is not confirmed because of shortcomings inherent in the model itself. We argue that the cognitive theory has been properly represented and tested and, moreover, that achievement dynamics are better understood than Weiner allows. Finally, we argue that the study of achievement behavior is enhanced by the addition of motivational, noncognitive assumptions to our theories and offer reasons why Weiner's cognitive model does not contribute as fully as it might to this understanding. Antecedents Causal Attributions Causal Effects Behavioral Consequences

show abstract

Change in strategy: The relationship of attribution, expectancy, performance, and satisfaction

Cited by 8 publications

References 6 publications

Semantic differential placement of attributions and dimensions in four different groups.

Semantic differential placement of attributions and dimensions in four different groups.

Measurement of achievement attribution: A review of instigation methods, question contents, and measurement formats

The trouble with pitfalls: A reply to Weiner's critique of attribution research.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About