The attribution of success and failure: The subject/object contrast

Abstract

160 secondary school teachers were administered questionnaires on attributions for success and failure in students familiar to them. Student profiles were obtained by a 2 (success or failure) x 2 (extreme or moderate grades) design. The list of attributions employs classic dimensions (internal/external), stable/unstable, controlable/non controlable) plus a new dimension (academic/non academic) shown to be relevant in two preliminary surveys. The results indicate an interaction between the two independent variables as a function of the internal/external dimension. Responses characterizing for success and failure reveala specific dimension termed subject/object, that parallels the a-priori academic/non academic dimension.Studies of perceived causality of success and failure have shown that the internal/external dimension cannot totally account for attributions. As Weiner (1972, 1979) points out, individual success and failure can be ascribed to four types of causes: ability, effort, task difficulty and luck. Causes can be classified along three dimensions: locus (internal or external cause), stablity (a stable or unstable cause) and control (a cause that can be controlled by the actor or is beyond control). For example, Weiner (1972) defines ability as an internal, stable and uncontrollable cause, luck as an external, unstable, and uncontrollable cause. The criteria used to classify causes into dimensions are not always made explicit and have given rise to a variety of interpretations. The internal/external dimension is often ambiguous as well: financial reward, which appears to be an external source of reinforcement, can be presented in such a way This work has received the financial support of INElOP and Laboratory of Social Psychology 'Social Representations and ideological process' of Paris X-Nanterre University.

A Systematic Review of Teachers’ Causal Attributions: Prevalence, Correlates, and Consequences

“…Overall, findings suggest that whereas teachers tend to attribute student failure to factors that are internal to students, and external to themselves, they are most likely to attribute student success to themselves (Guskey, 1982; Yehudah, 2002). For example, whereas teachers might tend to attribute student failures to students’ lack of effort, they are instead found to attribute students’ success to their instructional strategies (Gosling, 1994; Kulinna, 2007). However, other studies suggest that although teachers may show a tendency to take responsibility for student success (e.g., instructional quality), they nevertheless give credit to students for their success (e.g., student ability, effort; Ross et al, 1974) as opposed to external factors such as luck (Natale et al, 2009).…”

Description vs explanation and academic evaluation

“…The opposition between success and failure confirms the findings of the study referred to above. We can compare success and failure using a Subject/Object dimension (Gosling, 1992(Gosling, ,1994: from a success standpoint, the teacher's responsibility, the teacher-student pedagogical relationship, the student perceived through non-academic items; from a failure standpoint, the responsibility of the student, reference to general institutional factors, lack of pedagogical relationship, and the student perceived through institutional objectives. This dimension is close to the academic dimension indicated above.…”

Iranian EFL teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs and causal attributions: Effects on psychological adjustment and job satisfaction

“…Most of the empirical researches on teachers' causal attribution suggest that teachers believe that students' failure or underperformance is associated with student-related variables like not expending sufficient effort, and that their own success as instructors are because of internal causes such as using effective pedagogical strategies (Gosling, 1994;Kulinna, 2007). Weiner (1979Weiner ( , 1985 similarly believes that most teachers consider effort/lack of effort as the primary reason for students' success/failure.…”