The CSGU: A Measure of Controllability, Stability, Globality, and Universality Attributions

Abstract

This article reports initial evidence of construct validity for a four-factor measure of attributions assessing the dimensions of controllability, stability, globality, and universality (the CSGU). In Study 1, using confirmatory factor analysis, factors were confirmed across least successful and most successful conditions. In Study 2, following less successful performances, correlations supported hypothesized relationships between subscales of the CSGU and subscales of the CDSII (McAuley, Duncan, & Russell, 1992). In Study 3, following less successful performances, moderated hierarchical regression analyses demonstrated that individuals have higher subsequent self-efficacy when they perceive causes of performance as controllable, and/or specific, and/or universal. An interaction for controllability and stability demonstrated that if causes are perceived as likely to recur, it is important to perceive that causes are controllable. Researchers are encouraged to use the CSGU to examine main and interactive effects of controllability and generalizability attributions upon outcomes such as self-efficacy, emotions, and performance. Keywords: generalizability, confirmatory factor analysis, self-efficacy, sport psychologyAttributions are explanations about why particular behaviors occurred, and explanations enhance people's ability to predict and control events in the future (Anderson & Riger, 1991). With reference to the measurement of attributions in sport psychology, Crocker, Eklund, and Graham (2002) emphasized the need for instrument development, and Rees, Ingledew, and Hardy (2005) encouraged researchers to assess an expanded conceptualization of generalizability attributions. In the current article, three studies are presented that provide initial evidence of construct validity for a novel four-factor measure of attributions.A central premise within attribution research is that there is a dimensional structure underpinning the reasons people give for their successes and failures. In sport psychology, the primary influence on attribution research has been Weiner's

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

“…Recently, Rees and colleagues (Coffee & Rees, 2008a, 2008b, 2011Coffee, Rees, & Haslam, 2009;Rees, 2007) have shown that, following success, efficacy beliefs increase when outcomes are attributed to causes that are perceived to generalise across time (stable) and/or situations (global) and/or are perceived as unique to the individual (personal); following failure, efficacy beliefs decrease when perceptions of uncontrollability are perceived to generalise across time and/or situations.…”

“…To understand how team attributions influence behaviour patterns we recommend that researchers focus on four underlying dimensions: controllability, and three generalisability dimensions of stability, globality and universality. This conceptualisation enables researchers to explore how perceptions of controllability generalise across time (stability), situations (globality), and teams (universality), through going beyond the testing of main effects of attributions to exploring interactive effects of controllability and generalisability dimensions (Coffee & Rees, 2008a;Rees et al, 2005). Building upon the results of recent research (see Coffee, 2010, for a review), our main hypothesis is that main effects of generalisability dimensions have a greater role following team success; following team failure, main effects of controllability are important but they are conditioned by interactive effects for controllability and generalisability dimensions.…”

“…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).…”

“…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). This conceptualisation enables researchers to explore how perceptions of controllability generalise across time (stability), situations (globality) and 6 teams (universality), through going beyond the testing of main effects of attributions to exploring interactive effects of controllability and generalisability dimensions (Coffee & Rees, 2008a). …”

When the chips are down: Effects of attributional feedback on self-efficacy and task performance following initial and repeated failure

“…However, empirical evidence that links such attributions to subsequent performance is sparse. Instead, links are generally made between attributions and indices of behaviour, such as expectations for future success (e.g., Orbach, Singer, & Price, 1999; for a review see, Weiner, 1986), efficacy (e.g., Allen, Jones, & Sheffield, 2009;Bandura, 1997;Bond, Biddle, & Ntoumanis, 2001;Coffee & Rees, 2008, 2009Gernigon & Delloye, 2003), persistence (e.g., Le Foll, Rascle, & Higgins, 2006, learned helplessness (e.g., Alloy, Peterson, Abramson, & Seligman, 1984), and depression (e.g., Anderson, 1999). To address this gap in the literature, the present article reports the results of two experiments that examine the interactive effects of attributions for failure on self-efficacy and objective task performance.…”