Attribution Theory, Atkinson, Rotter, & Weiner Dec. 22, 2009 ED 511

Motivation In education motivation deals with the problem of setting up conditions so that learners will perform to the best of their abilities in academic settings. motivation is concerned with the factors that stimulate or inhibit the desire to engage in a behavior.

From Reinforcement to Cognition In contrast to traditional reinforcement theorists, cognitive motivation theorists assume that behavior is determined by an individual’s belief or other cognition. Cognitive theories are concerned exclusively with achievement behavior.

The theories are similar to each other in their emphasis on beliefs as mediators of behavior.

However, with regard to the particular beliefs they emphasize, for example, Atkinson’s “Expectancy x Value Theory” focuses on students’ expectation for success and their achievement-related values. Weiner’s attribution theory is concerned with beliefs about the causes of achievement outcomes. Rotter’s social learning theory emphasizes beliefs about the contingency of rewards.

These theories also differ in the degree to which they explicitly consider emotions Emotions play a major role in Atkinson’s theory. Recently, Weiner also has talked about the role of emotions. They play no explicit role in Rotter’s theory.

They differ in their relative emphasis on stable positions versus variables in the current environment as causes of behavior. Atkinson emphasizes stable individual differences Weiner emphasizes the immediate context Rotter falls somewhere in between.

Atkinson’s Expectancy x Value Theory Atkinson’s primary goal was to predict whether an individual approach or avoid an achievement task. He conceptualized achievement behavior as a conflict between a tendency to approach tasks and a tendency to avoid tasks.

These two opposing tendencies are strengthened or weakened by stable individual differences in values and by expectations about the likelihood of accomplishing a particular goal. Atkinson proposes two factors that direct individual toward achievement tasks: Unconscious motive for success (Ms) Need to achieve (Nach)

The motive to avoid failure (Maf) is feeling of shame given failure Motive for success (Ms) represents a relatively stable or enduring disposition to strive for success. Ms is conceptualized in the theory as a “capacity to experience pride in accomplishment”. The motive to avoid failure (Maf) is feeling of shame given failure is the unconscious, stable factor that directs individuals away from achievement tasks.

Any achievement related activity is assumed to elicit both positive (hope for success) and negative (fear of failure). Relative strength of these two emotional experiences will determine the individual's behavior. Parents’ approaches are important Early independence training and high expectations can foster a strong achievement motive in children.

Two variables direct individuals toward achievement tasks. Perceived probability of success (Ps) Incentive value of success (Is) The amount of pride is anticipated is proportional to individuals’ expectations for success (Ps). A difficult task with a low probability of success “A” in a difficult course, and “A” in an easy course

Shame is considered very great if the failure is on a very easy task. Two situational variables also inhibit achievement efforts perceptions of the probability of failure (Pj) and the anticipation shame (incentive value of failure —If). Shame is considered very great if the failure is on a very easy task. For example, a “C” in physics might be experienced as less humiliating than a “C’ in a course that is considered very easy.

In short, the tendency to approach tasks is determined by an unconscious stable factor (motive for success or need for achievement) and two conscious situational factors (expectations for success and anticipated pride)

The tendency to avoid tasks is determined by an unconscious stable factor (fear of failure) and two conscious situational factors (expectations for failure and anticipated shame)

These two motivational tendencies to approach or to avoid tasks are represented as opposing forces. Ta =The resultant tendency to approach or avoid an achievement activity Ts =tendency to approach Taf= tendency to avoid the task Ta= Ts – Taf Ta = (Ms x Ps x Is) – (Maf x Pf x If)

Individuals’ engagement in achievement task, the difficulty level of the task they will choose Their level of aspiration or willingness to take risks Their persistence in completing a difficult task

Atkinson’s theory has modest success in predicting behavior because two factors are difficult to measure. Need for achievement Motive to avoid failure Incentive values of success and failure are fully determined by the probability of success, regardless of the importance of the task If success on a puzzle and success on a National test has the same probability

Despite problems in his theory, Atkinson made a major contribution to achievement motivation theory.

Rotter’s Social Learning Theory Rotter believes that thoughts mediate achievement behavior. Reinforcement theorist believe the frequency of a behavior (e.g., paying attention to the teacher, completing tasks) depends on whether the behavior has been rewarded in the past. Rotter proposed that it is not the reward itself that increased the frequency of the behavior, but an individual's belief about what brought about the reward. E.g., if everyone received an “A” on a test, he may believe that teacher gives “A’s” indiscriminately -regardless of the quality of the product or the amount of effort exerted. He may not study very hard for similar tests in future because he does not believe that “A’s” are contingent on his behavior.

Rotter, like Atkinson, assumes that expectancies (both generalized and specific) of reinforcements and the value of reinforcements determine behavior. According to Atkinson, reinforcement value is linked not just to the probability of success, but also to a person’s need and to associations with other reinforcement. E.g., getting and “A” in a chemistry class, want to be a doctor

E.g., rumor about a teacher will affect your behavior….. Expectancies in a particular situation are determined not only by beliefs about reinforcement in that situation but also by generalized expectancies based on experiences in other, similar situations. Rotter refers to individuals’ generalized beliefs regarding the contingency of reinforcement as locus of control (LOC):

LOC: Internal and external locus of control Internal locus of control: belief that events or outcomes are contingent on one’s own behavior or on a permanent personal characteristics, such as ability External locus of control: caused by factors beyond individual’s control (luck, chance, fate, biases)

Atkinson focused on individuals’ expectations for reward Whereas Rotter focused on beliefs about what causes them to receive or not to receive rewards and the implications that these beliefs have for their expectations.

Students who constantly experience failure regardless of the amount of effort they have exerted often develop the belief that success is not contingent on effort. Students like Hopeless Hannah, are not likely to exert any effort in any situations. A few success experiences may not convince a child like Hannah that rewords really are contingent on effort. Such beliefs are difficult to change.

Atkinson Expectancy x value Motivation is a product of two main forces: Expectation of a reaching a goal Value of that goal to that person “If I try hard, can I succeed? If I succeed, will the outcome be valuable or rewarding to me?” Eccles and Wigfield added another factor, “cost” How much energy will it required? What else can I do instead? Will I look stupid?

Attribution Theory Weiner Weiner and his colleagues developed the theoretical framework to understand the role of attributions in academic motivation Most influential contemporary theory in social psychology He explains the emotional and motivational parts of academic success and failure through attribution theory. He links the theory to the psychology of emotion and motivation.

It focuses on why people do what they do Attribution theory focuses on how individuals interpret the events and how it relates to their thinking and behavior. It focuses on why people do what they do Attribution theory tries to make sense of our own behavior. Why questions Why did I fail the test? Why did I do so well on that test?

I did not study, I did study I was lucky The task was easy Teacher explained things badly I was distracted by the coughing of the girl in front of me

Self perception and perception of others Individuals may attribute their success and failures to ability, effort, mood, knowledge, luck, help, interests, clarity of instructions, the interference of others, and so on… To understand the success or failures of others we also make attributions….

Attributions are classified along three causal dimensions: locus of control (internal vs. external) stability (duration, do causes change over time or not?) controllability (causes one can control such as skills (effort) vs. causes one cannot control such as luck, others’ actions, etc.) The most important factors affecting attributions are ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck.

Weiner’s Theory of Causal Attribution Dimension classification Internal-stable-uncontrollable Internal-stable-controllable Internal-unstable-uncontrollable Internal-unstable-controllable External-stable-uncontrollable External-stable-controllable External-unstable-un controllable External-unstable-uncontrollable Reason for failure Low aptitude Never studies Sick the day of the exam Did not study for the particular test School has hard requirements Instructor is biased Bad luck Friends failed to help

because expectancy and value are affected by these 3 dimensions. According to Weiner, three dimensions have important implications for motivation because expectancy and value are affected by these 3 dimensions. Stability dimension seems to be affected by the expectations about the future. eg., if the students attribute their failure to stable factors (difficulty of the subject), they will expect to fail in that subject in future, again. If they attribute their failure to unstable factors (mood or luck), they can expect to be successful next time.

Internal/external locus dimension are related to feelings of self-esteem. Success will lead to pride Failure will lead to diminished self-esteem The controllability dimension is related to emotions (anger, pity, gratitude, shame). Uncontrollable Failure ---)lack of ability----) uncontrollable---) not responsible---_ shame, embarrassment--) withdrawal ---) performance declines

Weiner claims that specific causal attributions are less important as determinants of achievement behavior than underlying dimensions of attributions. Causal dimensions: internal-external locus of control Whether a cause is perceived internal or external does not tell the full story. He claims that effort and ability attributions, which are both internal have different behavioral implications Most individual see effort under the control of the individual, but not the ability

Ability is generally perceived as a relatively stable cause Effort can vary from situation to situation Weiner distinguishes between different kinds of internal causes of achievement outcomes with regard to their stability and controllability.

Measurement of attributions Can be measured by asking open-ended questions (why did you well/poorly on your spelling course?

Dimensions of causality controllable uncontrollable Stable Unstable Internal locus Typical effort Immediate effort aptitude Mood, fatigue External locus Task difficulty luck

Antecedents to attributions Consensus information (how well others performed) is associated with the locus dimension of causal attributions Everyone receives same high grade, an external attribution -easy task, easy grading teacher If only one student receives a good grade, internal attribution -- high ability, studied hard

Consistency is associated with the stability dimension. Outcomes that are consistent with the past performance (e.g.., I have always failed in the past,) are likely to be attributed to stable causes , such as ability Inconsistent outcomes will be attributed to unstable causes (effort, luck, unusually easy or hard task)

Perceived Determinants of Success and Failure Stability Locus of Control Internal External Fixed Variable Ability Effort Task Difficulty Luck

Ability and task difficulty are relatively fixed factors Will influence the attributions for causality made for “outcome” Effort and luck are variable factors Consistency with one's previous performance is ascribed to ability and task difficulty, inconsistent outcomes will be ascribed to effort and luck.

Attributions in the Classroom When usually successful students fail, they often make internal, controllable attributions. When students attribute failures to stable, uncontrollable causes, they will appear unmotivated, depressed, helpless. Attitudes of these students will get worse toward the school work. Apathy: is a logical reaction to failure if students believe the causes are stable, are unable to change it and beyond their control, their reaction will be apathy (Cagla’s example)

Teacher actions and student attributions When teachers assume that students’ failure attributable to factors beyond their control, they will approach students with empathy. If failure is attributed to controllable factors, teachers will not show empathy. When teacher helps to a student , it is considered as a lack of ability by other students. Graham’s study (1991)

Attribution Dispositions Other researchers also studied several factors contributing to children’s attribution dispositions– including past performance, culture, gender, teacher's attitudes and behaviors.

History of poor performance, MR children Cultural difference Japanese, Chinese attribute to effort more than ability Gender differences (Stipek, 1991) Girls attribute their success to luck or low ability Math and science Spelling Girls are more successful than boys. Why do they attribute to low ability

Dweck et al.,1978 4th, 5th grade students– boys were more criticized than girls. Most of the criticism the boys received was related to conduct or failure to follow the directions, whereas most of the girls received criticism related to the quality of their academic performance. Boys may not see it as a negative feedback toward to their academic performance (Dweck et al.,1978)

Consequence of Attributions Expectations: Stability dimension is associated with performance expectations. Effort attributions are more productive than other attributions for learning Effort, unlike ability or luck, is under student’s control. If students attribute failure to lack of ability, they will not likely to exert greater effort.

Weiner (1980), in his study, found that when failure was attributed to effort, (unstable), subjects worked harder. Otherwise, their efforts declined.

Learned Helplessness Attributing failure to causes that the individual does not have any control can lead to learned helplessness behavior. Seligman, animals Students who experience a great deal of failure believe there is nothing that they can do. Attribute to the low ability, have no control

Diener & Dweck, (1978) Diener & Dweck, (1978), they given students four insolvable problems and their problem solving strategy was monitored. Children who attribute failure to uncontrollable factors used less mature strategies than they had used before. By the second trial half of the children abandoned the strategies that could lead to solution. By the fourth trial, two-third failed to show any sign of using strategies. Children who stressed effort as a cause of achievement continued to search more active strategies.

Diener and Dweck (1980) found that children who tend to attribute success to uncontrollable causes underestimated the number of successes they experienced. Overestimated the number of failures Tended not to expect success in the future. (Cagla’s example) Learned helplessness can also be seen in children who perform relatively well in school. They may get discouraged by getting “A’s”.

Girls are more vulnerable to learned helplessness than boys When a task is described as more difficult, girls’ performance was impaired (Miller, 1986). Whereas boys were different. The performance of boys was more impaired when a task was described as moderately difficult. Failure on a difficult task is not that threatening because… Gifted kids are also very vulnerable because of the parents…. Being in low rank in a gifted class

Emotions Students feel surprised when they attribute success or failure to luck, Grateful when they attribute it someone's help Pride and shame can occur if they attribute it to internal cause. Getting an “A” when everyone receives “A’s”, or getting the only “A” in the class The student who makes internal attribution will feel pride. Emotional consequences of attributions have important implications. Pride, relief and happiness

Every effort should be made to encourage students to make attributions that maximize positive emotions. Teacher's reaction will affect children’s own judgment about the cause of their performances. Anger (low effort, controllable) or sympathy (low ability, uncontrollable)