Attribution Theory (Motivation)

Attribution theory hath found extensive application in the scholarly investigation of motivation (Graham & Williams, 2009; Schunk et al., 2008). Attributions, understood as the perceived causes of outcomes, constitute the core tenet. Attribution theory doth elucidate the manner in which individuals construe the causes of their own behaviours and those of others (Weiner, 1985, 1992, 2000, 2004). The theory positeth that individuals are predisposed to seek information wherewith to formulate attributions. The process of assigning causes is, presumably, governed by a set of established rules, and much attributional research hath been directed towards the understanding of how these rules are employed. From a motivational standpoint, attributions hold considerable import, inasmuch as they exert an influence upon beliefs, emotions, and behaviours.

Prior to a discourse on attributions within achievement settings, it shall prove beneficial to delineate certain pertinent background material. Rotter's locus of control and Heider's naïve analysis of action both incorporate attributional concepts of considerable importance.

A cardinal tenet of most cognitive motivation theories doth avow that individuals aspire to exert dominion over salient aspects of their existence (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2006). This tenet reflecteth the notion of locus of control, or a generalised expectancy concerning whether responses influence the attainment of outcomes such as successes and rewards (Rotter, 1966). Individuals harbour the belief that outcomes transpire independently of their conduct (external locus of control) or that outcomes are highly contingent upon their behaviour (internal locus of control).

Other investigators, however, have noted that locus of control may vary depending on the situation (Phares, 1976). It is not uncommon to discover students who generally believe they possess scant control over academic successes and failures, yet simultaneously believe they can wield substantial control in a particular class by virtue of the teacher and peers being helpful and due to their predilection for the subject matter.

Locus of control doth hold import in achievement contexts, inasmuch as expectancy beliefs are hypothesised to exert an influence upon behaviour. Students who harbour the conviction that they possess control over their successes and failures should be more inclined to engage in academic tasks, expend effort, and persist than students who believe their behaviours possess but a negligible impact upon outcomes. In turn, effort and persistence doth promote achievement (Lefcourt, 1976; Phares, 1976).

Regardless of whether locus of control is a general disposition or is situationally specific, it reflecteth outcome expectations (beliefs about the anticipated outcomes of one’s actions; Chapter 4). Outcome expectations are important determinants of achievement behaviours, but they alone are insufficient (Bandura, 1982b, 1997). Students may abstain from labouring upon tasks because they do not anticipate competent performances to yield favourable results (negative outcome expectation), as might transpire if they believe the teacher holds them in disfavour and will not reward them irrespective of their diligence. Positive outcome expectations do not guarantee high motivation; students may believe that assiduous labour will yield a high grade, yet they will not labour assiduously if they harbour doubts regarding their capability to exert the requisite effort (low self-efficacy).

These points notwithstanding, self-efficacy and outcome expectations usually are related (Bandura, 1986, 1997). Students who believe themselves capable of performing well (high self-efficacy) anticipate positive reactions from their teachers following successful performances (positive outcome expectation). Outcomes, in turn, validate self-efficacy, inasmuch as they convey that one is capable of succeeding (Schunk & Pajares, 2005, 2009).

The genesis of attribution theory is commonly attributed to Heider (1958), who styled his theoretical framework as a rudimentary examination of agency. 'Rudimentary' in this context signifies that the average individual remains uninformed of the objective determinants influencing conduct. Heider's theory delves into the beliefs held by ordinary persons concerning the causative factors underpinning significant occurrences in their existence.

Heider posited that individuals ascribe causality to either intrinsic or extrinsic factors. These factors he denoted, respectively, as the efficacious personal force and the efficacious environmental force, as delineated hereunder:

Outcome = personal force + environmental force

Intrinsic causes reside within the individual, encompassing needs, desires, emotions, aptitudes, intentions, and exertion. The personal force is partitioned into two elements: capacity and motivation. Capacity alludes to abilities, whilst motivation (endeavour) pertains to intention and application:

Outcome = endeavour + capacity + environment

Collectively, capacity and environment constitute the 'can' factor, which, when conjoined with the 'endeavour' factor, serves to elucidate outcomes. An individual's capacity (or aptitude) reflects the environment. Whether Beth is capable of traversing a lake via swimming is contingent upon Beth's swimming prowess relative to the forces exerted by the lake (current, breadth, and temperature). Similarly, Jason’s attainment or failure in an examination is contingent upon his aptitude relative to the test's difficulty, concomitant with his intentions and efforts in preparation. Presuming that aptitude suffices to overcome environmental forces, then endeavour (exertion) influences outcomes.

Whilst Heider sketched a framework explicating how individuals perceive salient events in their lives, this framework furnished researchers with scant empirically verifiable hypotheses. Subsequent investigators elaborated upon his concepts and conducted attributional research, assaying refined hypotheses.

In the theatre of achievement, the quest for causal understanding doth elicit questions of the following nature: “Why did I fare well (or poorly) upon mine social studies examination?” and “Wherefore did I attain an A (or D) in the science of biology?” A series of learned investigations by Weiner and his esteemed colleagues hath furnished the empirical bedrock for the construction of an attribution theory of achievement (Weiner, 1979, 1985, 1992, 2000, 2004, 2005; Weiner et al., 1971; Weiner, Graham, Taylor, & Meyer, 1983; Weiner & Kukla, 1970). This section shall discourse upon those facets of Weiner’s theory which bear relevance to motivated learning.

Causal Factors

Guided by the sagacious work of Heider, Weiner et al. (1971) did postulate that students attribute their academic successes and failures, in the main, to ability, effort, task difficulty, and fortune. These authors did assume that these factors were possessed of general weights, and that for any given outcome, one or two factors would be adjudged as primarily accountable. For example, should Kara receive an A on a social studies test, she might attribute it mostly to her inherent ability (“I am gifted in the field of social studies”) and to her diligent efforts (“I applied myself assiduously in preparation for the test”), somewhat to the task’s degree of difficulty (“The examination was not overly arduous”), and only negligibly to chance (“I chanced to guess aright on a couple of queries”).

Weiner et al. (1971) did not thereby suggest that ability, effort, task difficulty, and fortune are the sole attributions employed by students to explicate their successes and failures, but rather that they are those most commonly proffered by students as the causes of achievement outcomes. Subsequent investigations have identified other attributions, such as the influence of other individuals (teachers, fellow students), mood, fatigue, illness, personality, and physical aspect (Frieze, 1980; Frieze, Francis, & Hanusa, 1983). Of the four attributions identified by Weiner et al. (1971), fortune receives relatively less emphasis, albeit it is of import in certain situations (e.g., games of chance). Frieze et al. (1983) demonstrated that task conditions are conjoined with particular attributional patterns. Examinations tend to engender attributions to effort, whereas art projects are ascribed to ability and effort. In the opening vignette, we might speculate that Margaret attributes her difficulties to a want of ability, whilst Matt attributes his successes to an abundance of effort.

Causal Dimensions

Drawing upon the works of Heider (1958) and Rotter (1966), Weiner et al. (1971) did originally represent causes along two dimensions: (a) internal or external to the individual, and (b) relatively stable or unstable over time. Ability is internal and relatively stable. Effort is internal but unstable; for one may alternatively labour diligently or with indolence. Task difficulty is external and relatively stable, inasmuch as task conditions do not vary markedly from moment to moment; fortune is external and unstable: one may be fortunate in one instant and unfortunate in the next.

Weiner (1979) added a third causal dimension: controllable or uncontrollable by the individual (vide Table 8.3). Albeit effort is generally conceived as internal and unstable (immediate effort), a general effort factor (typical effort) also appears to exist: Individuals may be characteristically lazy or industrious. Effort is deemed to be controllable; mood factors (inclusive of fatigue and illness) are not. The classification presented in Table 'Weiner’s Model of Causal Attribution' presents certain problematic aspects (e.g., the utility of incorporating both immediate and typical effort; the matter of whether an external factor may be controllable), yet it has served as a framework to guide research and attributional intervention programmes.

In the formation of attributions, individuals avail themselves of situational cues, the meanings of which they have assimilated through prior experiences (Schunk, 1994; Weiner et al., 1971). Salient cues for attributions to ability are success attained with facility or early in the course of learning, as well as numerous successes. With respect to motor skills, a prominent cue for effort is physical exertion. Upon cognitive tasks, attributions to effort are credible when we expend mental energy or persist for a protracted duration to attain success. Cues for task difficulty encompass task features; for instance, reading passages with fewer or simpler words indicate tasks of lesser difficulty than those with more words or words of greater difficulty. Task difficulty is also judged from social norms. Should all within the class fail an examination, the failure is more likely to be attributed to a high degree of task difficulty; should all attain an A, then success may be attributed to the task’s ease. A prominent cue for fortune is random outcomes; the degree of students’ proficiency (ability) or the assiduity of their labour (effort) bears no evident connection to their performance.

Attributional Consequences

Attributions do exert influence upon expectations for subsequent successes, achievement behaviours, and emotional responses (Graham & Williams, 2009; Weiner, 1979, 1985, 1992, 2000). The dimension of stability is thought to influence the expectancy of success. Assuming that task conditions remain substantially unaltered, attributions of success to stable causes (high ability, low task difficulty) should engender higher expectations of future success than attributions to unstable causes (immediate effort, fortune). Students may be uncertain whether they can sustain the effort requisite to succeed or whether they shall be fortunate in the future. Failure ascribed to a want of ability or a high degree of task difficulty is apt to engender lower expectations for future success than failure attributed to insufficient effort or ill fortune. Students may believe that augmented effort shall yield more favourable outcomes or that their fortune may shift in the future.

The locus dimension is hypothesised to influence affective reactions. One experiences greater pride (or shame) following success (or failure) when outcomes are attributed to internal causes rather than external ones. Students experience a greater sense of pride in their accomplishments when they believe they succeeded through their own agency (ability, effort) than when they believe external factors were responsible (assistance from the teacher, an easy task).

The controllability dimension has diverse effects (Weiner, 1979). Feelings of control appear to promote the election to engage in academic tasks, the exertion of effort and persistence in the face of difficult tasks, and achievement itself (Bandura, 1986; Dweck & Bempechat, 1983; Monty & Perlmuter, 1987; Schunk & Zimmerman, 2006). Students who believe they possess scant control over academic outcomes harbour low expectations for success and exhibit low motivation to succeed (Licht & Kistner, 1986). Research doth demonstrate that students who attribute failures to a want of ability—which is not controllable—demonstrate diminished classroom engagement for up to a year thereafter (Glasgow, Dornbusch, Troyer, Steinberg, & Ritter, 1997).

Individual Differences

Certain researches indicate that attributions may vary as a function of gender and ethnic background (Graham & Williams, 2009). With regard to gender, a common finding (albeit exceptions do exist) is that, in subjects such as mathematics and science, girls tend to harbour lower expectancies for success than do boys (Bong & Clark, 1999; Meece, 2002; Meece & Courtney, 1992; Meece, Parsons, Kaczala, Goff, & Futterman, 1982). Margaret exemplifies this phenomenon in the opening classroom scenario. What remains unclear is whether this difference is mediated by differing attributions, as might be predicted by attributional theories. Some studies have found that women are more apt to attribute success to external causes (e.g., good fortune, a low degree of task difficulty) or unstable causes (effort), and attribute failure to internal causes (a want of ability; Eccles, 1983; Wolleat, Pedro, Becker, & Fennema, 1980); however, other researches have not yielded such differences (Diener & Dweck, 1978; Dweck & Repucci, 1973). Eccles (1983) noted the difficulties inherent in attempting to make sense of this research due to disparities in participants, instruments, and methodologies.

With regard to ethnic differences, certain early researches suggested that African American students employed information concerning effort less frequently and less systematically than did Anglo American students, and were more inclined to employ external attributions and harbour an external locus of control (Friend & Neale, 1972; Weiner & Peter, 1973). Graham (1991, 1994) re-examined these and other findings and concluded that, albeit many studies demonstrate a greater degree of externality amongst African American students, this is frequently because researchers did not control for social class, African American students being overrepresented in lower socioeconomic strata. When the effect of social class is controlled, researchers find few, if any, ethnic differences (Graham, 1994; Pajares & Schunk, 2001), and certain researches have demonstrated that African American students place greater emphasis upon a want of effort as a cause of failure—a more adaptive attributional pattern (Graham & Long, 1986; Hall, Howe, Merkel, & Lederman, 1986).

Van Laar (2000) identified a tendency towards external attributions in African American college students; however, these students also harboured high expectancies for success and felt that their efforts might not be properly rewarded (i.e., negative outcome expectations). This seeming paradox of high success expectancies amidst lower achievement outcomes has been reported by others (Graham & Hudley, 2005). In summary, researches investigating ethnic differences in achievement beliefs have not yielded reliable differences (Graham & Taylor, 2002), and these inconsistent results warrant further investigation before definitive conclusions may be drawn.

Attribution theory hath exerted a tremendous impact upon motivation theory, research, and practice. To ensure an optimal level of motivation, students must needs make facilitative attributions concerning the outcomes of achievement behaviours. Dysfunctional judgements concerning abilities, the import of effort and strategies, and the role of significant others may lead to low levels of motivation and learning.

Social cognitive theory doth furnish another important cognitive perspective upon motivation, and much of Chapter 4 bears relevance to motivation as well as to learning. The subsequent section shall furnish a brief recapitulation.