• You are here: Home
• Resources and Downloads
• Staff Matters
• The Professional
• Useful Information
• Attributing the cause of events

Attributing the cause of events

Attribution theory takes the position that people make decisions about the causes of events. These decisions, or attributions, can be classified into each of three causal dimensions. The first is whether locus of cause is internal or external. The second is whether the cause is stable or unstable. The third is whether the cause is controllable or uncontrollable.

People may adopt attributions for success based upon their own effort (eg they studied hard for the test), and they may attribute failure to their own lack of effort (eg they didn't bother to study for the test). Effort is internal and controllable. Alternatively, people may attribute success or failure to a cause such as luck, which is external and uncontrollable (Dweck, 1999). Attributions affect motivation, performance and emotions, which in turn contribute to expectancy of future success or failure (Schunk, 1991).

Eggen and Kauchak (1999) provide the following scenario to illustrate the different attributions that people can adopt when explaining their performance:

Theories seeking to explain human behaviour do not stand in isolation from each other.

Attribution theory has connections with health and wellbeing - especially motivation, the belief in one's ability to cope and the emotions a person may experience at work or school. Dweck (1999) explained that attribution theories also intertwine with self-theories of intelligence; Pintrich (2000a; 2000b) explained that attribution theories intertwine with achievement goal theories; and Graham (1991) explained that attribution theories intertwine with theories of self-efficacy, as proposed by Bandura (1997), and self-worth, as proposed by Covington (1984). For example, attributions to the effectiveness of personal effort emanate from a belief that intelligence is malleable, and thus will support mastery type strategies such as attempting to understand the situation, and trying harder the next time if failure occurs (Dweck, 1999). At the other end of the scale, self-theories of fixed intelligence will generate attributions of finite ability, which may in turn predicate short-term performance type strategies such as quick learning and memorisation.

However, whereas some theorists (eg Dweck, 1999), propose that attributions act as relatively stable personal characteristics that influence goals, other theorists suggest that goals are more influenced by the characteristics of the environment (Ames & Archer, 1988; Ames, 1990; Ames, 1992).

Difficulties may occur if learners' and teachers' self-theories, attributions and goals do not match. For example, a learner who holds a fixed self-theory of intelligence may attribute poor performance on a task to a lack of ability, and consequently show little inclination to study or work harder to improve his or her performance at the next opportunity with that task. That student's teacher might hold the view that improvement comes as a result of practice and effort, and accordingly might establish situations to allow for such practice, and opportunities for new or redirected effort. It is likely that students holding a fixed intelligence theory would perceive little value in such opportunities for further practice and effort (as their ability is fixed and not able to be improved). Such students might wonder what the purposes of such extra activities are.

Alternatively, a teacher who holds a fixed intelligence view of learning might not provide opportunities for the practice and redirected effort that some students might need in order to achieve their full potential. If such students hold a malleable self-theory of intelligence, and thus believe that success is due to increased effort, then they are likely to feel that the teacher misunderstands their need for more time to practice, or for alternative explanations of the subject matter.

Attribution theory suggests that teaching children and adults to attribute their successes and failures to internal, controllable events such as effort leads to people developing more control over situations and their life choices. Research indicates that attribution retraining can be effective. For example, Dweck (cited in Eggen & Kauchak, 1999) provided students who had demonstrated learned helplessness with successful and unsuccessful experiences, with specific feedback that lack of success was due to lack of effort. Subsequently these learners responded more effectively to failure, persisting longer and adapting their strategies more effectively.

Related topics can be found at:
Beliefs about success and failure
Self-theories of intelligence
Learned helplessness

References
Ames, C. & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 260-267.

Ames, C. A. (1990). Motivation: What teachers need to know. Teachers College Record, 91, 409-421.

Ames, C. A. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Covington, M. (1984). The motive for self-worth. In R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 1, pp. 78-114). New York: Academic Press.

Dweck, C. (1999). Self theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Eggen, P., & Kauchak, D. (1999). Educational psychology: Windows on classrooms. (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Graham, S. (1991). A review of attribution theory in achievement contexts. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 5-39.

Pintrich, P. R. (2000a). An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivation terminology, theory and research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 92-104.

Pintrich, P. R. (2000b). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 544-555.

Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 207-231.