Attribution Theory

• In Event: Motivation Theory Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow: Reflections of Founders and Descendants

Abstract

Modern attribution theory (e.g. Weiner, 1985, 2006, 2010) was inspired by early expectancy-value models of achievement (e.g., Atkinson, 1957) and previous work on attributions (Heider, 1958; Rotter, 1966). In particular, Weiner (1985, 1986) drew from Heider’s (1958) three determinants of performance – ability, task difficulty, and effort – and Rotter’s (1966) locus of control construct to guide predictions about an individual’s causal ascriptions for an outcome
Combining these previous contributions and extending them in novel ways, Weiner (1985) proposed a model that assumes individuals are motivated to make attributions about given outcomes, or interpretations of the reason for the outcomes’ occurrence, and that these attributions influence their motivation for subsequent achievement tasks. There are three essential parts of the theory. The first is the antecedents of attributions: a host of environmental (e.g., social norms, teacher feedback, classroom context) and individual (e.g., causal schema) variables are theorized to predict the causal ascriptions a student assigns to explain an academic outcome (see Graham, 1991; Weiner, 1985). Second are the causal attributions themselves, which are hypothesized to vary along three dimensions: (1) locus, or the extent to which the perceived cause of an outcome is internal or external, (2) stability, or the degree to which the cause is capable of change over time, and (3) controllability, or whether there is perceived control over the outcome. Finally, Weiner (1985) asserted that attributions have important motivational and affective consequences. It is also theorized that each causal dimension yields a unique set of emotions. For example, the locus and controllability of a student’s attributions should predict self-related and anger or pity emotions, respectively.
Attribution research over the past several decades has provided much support for each component of the model. For example, the association between the perceived stability of a student’s causal ascription and expectancy for success has been particularly pervasive (Graham, 1991). Researchers have also explored gender (e.g., see Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefele, 1998) and ethnic (e.g., Graham, 1994) differences in attributional patterns. Other research has investigated the effectiveness of attribution interventions by training students to assign more adaptive causal ascriptions (e.g. that failure is due to lack of effort, rather than to lack of ability) to academic success and failure experiences (e.g., Perry, Hechter, Menec, & Weinberg, 1993; Perry, Stupnisky, Hall, Chipperfield, & Weiner, 2010; Wilson, Damiani, & Shelton, 2002). Findings from this provide strong support for the notion that altering causal beliefs can improve academic outcomes.
Some important future directions for attribution research include utilizing different ways of measuring them (e.g., experience sampling methodology), studying mediators and moderators of the attributional process, and exploring the importance of attributions other than achievement.

Author

• Bernard Weiner, University of California - Los Angeles