KINE 6320 Module 6courses.utpb.edu/kine6320/kine6320module6.pdf · 6 Module 6: Causal Attribution in Sport 1 Lesson 6.1: Introduction to Causal Attribution 1 M6 Lesson One - Page

Content Display

Module 6: Causal Attribution in Sport

KINE 0000 Sport Psychology 6 Module 6: Causal Attribution in Sport

1 Lesson 6.1: Introduction to Causal Attribution 1 M6 Lesson One - Page 1

Lesson 6.1 Table of Contents

Section Topic Page

6.11 Your Own Experiences with Attributions 2

6.12 Attribution Theory Defined 3

6.13 Module Objectives for Causal AttributionTheory

4

6.14 Reading Assignment 5

6.15 Self-Test 6

2 M6 Lesson One - Page 2

1 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM

Content Display : Module 6: Causal Attribution in Sport wysiwyg://bodyadminwindow.bottomnav...ID=67327&CFTOKEN=1993855&ModuleID=4

6.11 Your Own Experiences with Attributions

To begin this module, reflect on a time when you competedin a sporting event. Recall a specific competition. Did youwin or did you lose? At the time, did you think about whyyou won or lost – the reasons or causes? If not, consider itnow. To what do you attribute the win or loss? Go aheadand list the two or three of the main reasons that you won orlost. Write them down so that you can refer to them later. Here’s another question to consider: How did the outcome(win/loss) and the reasons you listed for the outcomeinfluence your future performance or attitudes toward futurecompetition in that sport?

Next, think of an examination that you took for some course. Were you successful? What were thereasons for your success? If you weren’tsuccessful, why weren’t you? Again, youmight write down two or three reasons. Howdid you feel about the outcome of theexamination? Write that down along withthe reasons for your success or lack of success. Now, try toremember how the outcome (success or failure) and yourexplanation for the outcome affected your future behaviorregarding taking tests in that course. Did you complain tothe teacher? Did you drop the course? Did you studylonger for the next test? Did you study less or not at all forthe next one? Did you prepare for the test the same waythat you did the first time or did you try a different strategy?

For both of these instances – the sporting event and theexamination, think about how the outcome and yourperception of the reasons for that outcome influenced yourfuture behavior, feelings, confidence, and motivation insimilar situations.


2 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


6.12 Attribution Theory Defined

In this module, we’re going to examine how the attributions*or the reasons, explanations, or causes that we give forsucceeding or failing – winning or losing – affect ourbehavior. We’re going to learn about attribution theory.

Attribution Theory

A cognitive approach to motivation inwhich perceived causation plays an

important role in explaining behavior.(Cox, 1998)

In the context of sport, attribution theory has very importantimplications both for the performer (student or athlete) andfor teachers, coaches, teammates, parents – anyone whomight influence the causal attributions the performer makesafter the performance outcome (win, loss, success, failure).


3 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


6.13 Module Objectives for Causal Attribution Theory

Once you have completed this module, you should be ableto:

1. Generally, describe the development of attributiontheory (Who contributed to the development of thetheory and what were their contributions?).

2. Describe various ways to measure causal attributionand attributional style.

3. Use the Causal Dimension Scale II (CDSII) or theCausal Dimension Scale II for Children (CDSII-C) tomeasure causal attributions made by athletes. Explainthe results obtained by applying the principles ofattribution theory.

4. Describe how attributions can influence one's affect(emotions), future performance expectations,motivation to achieve, persistence, and performance. Explain the implications for teachers and coachesworking with students and athletes.

5. Distinguish between logical attributions andself-defeating ones. Describe the factors that maylead to self-defeating attributions and theconsequences.

6. Distinguish between logical attributions andself-serving ones. Describe the factors that may leadto self-serving attributions and the consequences.

7. Describe an athlete who might benefit from attributionretraining. Discuss strategies that you might employ toalter the athlete’s maladaptive attributions currentlyused to explain winning and losing/success or failureand the effect that you hope this will have on theathlete’s emotion, motivation, persistence,expectations for future performance and performance.


4 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


6.14 Reading Assignment

It’s time to begin reading about causal attributionsand attribution theory in your textbook. Chapter 7:Causal Attribution in Sport begins on page207. Read pages 207-217. The reading relates to

module objectives 1-3. This section of the chapter will helpyou understand the development of attribution theory andfamiliarize you with ways to measure causal attributions.


Welcome back! Before we continue, let’s see if you canapply some of the information that was covered in thetextbook reading assignment.

6.15 Self-Test

Your pitcher just lost a game that she expected to win. When you asked her why she though she lost, she said, “Ididn’t pitch very well because I’m just getting over the flu.”

1. What is the causal attribution that she gave for theloss? ANSWER

2. How might your pitcher classify this causal attribution a. on the locus of control dimension?

ANSWER b. on the stability dimension?

ANSWER c. on the external control dimension?

ANSWER d. on the personal control dimension?

5 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


ANSWER

Q: How might you expect your pitcher to feel about the loss?A: Perhaps she would feel disappointed or unlucky.

Q: Why wouldn’t she feel guilty or ashamed?A: Well, having the flu is internal, but it isn’t within hercontrol.

Q: How might you expect the loss and its perceived cause toaffect her expectations for her next pitching performance? A: Since she attributed the loss to a cause that is likely tochange (unstable), but not within her control, she mightexpect to win next time as long as she didn’t have the flu.

From the above, you can see that attributional dimensionsinfluence both emotions and expectations for futureperformance. We’ll examine the relationships amongattributions, emotions, and performance expectations moreclosely later in this module.

2 Lesson 6.2: The Development of Attribution Theory 1 M6 Lesson Two - Page 1


Section Topic Page

6.21 Origins of Attribution Theory 2-3

6.22 Further Development of Weiner’s Model 4-5

6.23 Attribution-Dependent Affect 6

6.24Weiner’s Schematic Diagram of the CausalAttribution Process 7

2 M6 Lesson Two - Page 2

6 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


6.21 Origins of Attribution Theory

Fritz Heider is considered the founder of attribution theory.Writing in the 1940s and 50s, it was Heider who first proposedthat people generally attribute success or failure to one of four,broad attributional factors: ability, effort, task difficulty, or luck.

In the 1970s, Bernard Weiner took these four factors andorganized them into two dimensions: locus of control andstability. Attributions might be either stable or unstable on thestability dimension and either internal or external on the locusof control dimension.

Locus of Control

Stability

Internal External

Stable Ability Task difficulty

Effort LuckUnstable


7 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


Locus of Control

Stability

Internal External

Stable Ability Task difficulty

Effort LuckUnstable

Remember that exam you thought about at the first of thismodule? Look back on what you wrote down for the reasonsthat you were successful or unsuccessful on the exam. Classify those attributions according to Weiner’s originaltwo-dimensional model. If you said you were successfulbecause the test was easy, that would be task difficulty, anattribution that would be classified as external (not somethingyou can control) and stable (not likely to change next time). Ifyou said that you were successful because you studied hardso you really understood the material, that attribution would be__?__ , ANSWER an attribution that is classified as __?__ANSWER on the stability dimension and __?__ ANSWER onthe locus of control dimension. Now classify the attribution(s)that you actually gave. If you gave more than one reason, arethey classified them same?


8 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


6.22 Further Development of Weiner’s Model

In the late 1970s, Weiner added a third dimension –controllability. Controllability is an attributional dimensionin which causes for events are perceived to be either withinor beyond a person’s control. Somewhat later, he changedlocus of control to locus of causality* so that it wouldn’tbe confused with this new controllability dimension. Locusof causality is an attributional dimension that relates towhether the cause is perceived to reside within or is externalto the person. Now we have three dimensions on which wecan classify causal attributions: (1) locus of causality(internal vs. external), (2) stability (stable vs. unstable), and(3) controllability (controllable vs. uncontrollable).

5 M6 Lesson Two - Page 5effort

WIDTH="16">

9 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


<

If I attribute not doing well on the softball throw for distanceto being a girl and the fact that girls can’t throw well, howmight that causal attribution be classified with regard to

Locus of causality? ANSWER Stability? ANSWER Controllability? ANSWER

What if I attribute it to not having much practice? How mightthat causal attribution be classified?

Locus of causality? ANSWER Stability? ANSWER Controllability? ANSWER

Note that the above illustrates how an attribution may beinternal and either within or not within your control. That’swhy Weiner added the third dimension – controllability.


10 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


6.23 Attribution-Dependent Affect

Weiner’s theory of attributions and emotion predicted thatthe reasons people give for winning or loosing, succeedingor failing, could be classified along these three dimensions(locus of causality*, stability, and controllability). Inaddition, he proposed that attributions were associated withemotions or affect. He distinguished betweenoutcome-dependent affect* and attribution-dependentaffect*. We’ll examine some of the literature concerningattributions and emotional feelings a bit later in this module.

However, to get a better understanding ofoutcome-dependent affect andattribution-dependent affect, think about this: You (the coach) and your team expected towin the game against a skilled opponent. Youlost by a small margin in the last few minutesof the game. Immediately after the game, youfelt sad and disappointed

(outcome-dependent affect). As you analyzed the game film,you realized that you made several crucial coaching errors. You regard those coaching errors as internal, unstable, andpersonally controllable. Your attribution-dependent affectmight be anger directed at yourself. Your initial sadness anddisappointment (outcome-dependent affect) is replaced withanger (attribution-dependent affect). Again, Weiner’s ideawas that the emotions that you experience are related toboth the outcome and the attributions that you makefollowing the performance outcome.


11 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


6.24 Weiner’s Schematic Diagram of the CausalAttribution Process

Here’s a visual representation of Weiner’s AttributionTheory.

Adapted from B. Weiner (1986). An attributional theory ofmotivation and emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag.

As you can see from the model, Weiner hypothesized thatlocus of causality* and controllability had the primaryinfluence on attribution-dependent affect, while stabilityaffected expectancy – what the performance outcome mightbe in the future.

Besides Weiner’s theory of attributions and emotion, severalother models have sprung from Heider’s earlier workincluding Jones and Davis’ (1965) “correspondent inference”model and Kelley’s (1967) “covariation” model. However,the work of Weiner has had the greatest influence on sportpsychology research and practice.

3 Lesson 6.3: Measurement of Causal Attributions & Attributional Style 1 M3 Lesson Three - Page 1

12 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM



Section Topic Page

6.31 Measuring Causal Attributions 2

6.32 Paul and the CDSII-C 3-4

6.33 Julie and the CDSII 5-6

6.34 Measuring Attributional Style 7-8

6.35 Spontaneous Attributions 9

Your textbook discusses the development of the CausalDimensional Scale (Russell, 1982) and the CausalDimensional Scale II (McAuley, Duncan, & Russell, 1992) -both measures of causal attributions. For an excellent reviewof these and other instruments designed to measure causalattributions and attributional style, see Biddle, S. andHanrahan, S. (1998) “Attributions and Attributional Style” in J.Duda (Ed.) Advances in Sport and Exercise PsychologyMeasurement, Morgantown, WV: Fitness InformationTechnology, pp. 3-19.

2 M6 Lesson Three - Page 2

13 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


6.31 Measuring Causal Attributions

Both the Causal Dimensional Scale (CDS) and the CausalDimensional Scale II (CDSII) allow the person to list a causefor the outcome and then answer a series of questions thatplace that cause along a continuum for each dimension. Thecontrollability scale of the CDs was modified on the CDSIIallowing the individual to make a distinction between twotypes of controllability: personally controllable andcontrollable by others. Therefore, the revised version hasfour dimensions: locus of causality*, stability, personalcontrol and external control.

Recently, Vlachopoulos, Biddle, and Fox (1996) havedeveloped a version of the CDSII modified for children(CDSII-C) aged 10-16 years.

You will have an opportunity to collect data using either theCDSII or CDSII-C in the next laboratory assignment. Therefore, let’s get you familiar with the instruments andmake sure that you can score them.


6.32 Paul and the CDSII-C

Below is a copy of the Revised Causal Dimension Scale forChildren (CDSII-C) that has been completed by Paul, a physicaleducation student, after running the mile as part of a fitnesstest. Paul had hoped to improve his score from last fall. In thisspring’s test, he took a whole minute off his previous time. When asked, Paul said that he felt that he had been successfulin reaching his goal. He explained that Mr. Wilson made theclass run every day at the beginning of class and participate inactivities that required lots of running – soccer and lots of taggames like Loose Caboose.

Here is how Paul classified the reason for his success. Score

14 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


and interpret Paul’s responses; then return to the lesson.

In the space below, write down what you feel was the mainreason for feeling successful or unsuccessful in the run:

Main reason: I was successful because Mr. Wilson madeus run.

Instructions: Think about the main reason for yourperformance that you have just written above. The questionsbelow are about your opinions of this reason. Think about thisreason all of the time, and then circle one number for each ofthe following questions.

IS THE MAIN REASON SOMETHING …

1. TO DO WITH YOU

NOT TO DO WITH YOU

2. THAT WILL STAY THESAME IN THEFUTURE

WILL CHANGE IN THE FUTURE

3. YOU CAN CONTROL

YOU CAN NOT CONTROL

4. OVER WHICH OTHERPEOPLE HAVECONTROL

OVER WHICH OTHER PEOPLEHAVE NO CONTROL

5. NOT ABOUTYOU

ABOUT YOU

6. CAN CHANGEOVER TIME

STAYS THE SAME OVER TIME

7. OVER WHICHYOU HAVEPOWER

OVER WHICHYOU HAVE NOPOWER

8. OTHERS CANCHANGE IT

OTHERS CANNOTCHANGE IT

15 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


The total scores for each dimension are obtained bysumming the items as follows: 1, 5 = locus of causality; 2, 6 = stability; 3, 7 = personalcontrol; 4, 8 = external control. Scores range from 2 to 10. Ahigher score indicates that the cause is more internal, stable,controllable by self, and controllable by others. Note: Vlachopoulos, D., Biddle, S. J. H. and Fox, K.R. (1996). A social-cognitive investigation into the mechanismsof affect generation in children’s physical activity. Journal ofSport and Exercise Psychology, 18, 174-193.

Score Paul’s CDSII-C. What did you get, and how might youinterpret the results?


Paul’s Results.

Let’s see if you and I scored and interpreted these resultsthe same. It is important for us to make sure that you can dothis because the laboratory assignment for this module callsfor you to use these scales to collect and interpret the data.

Ok, what about Paul and his fitness run? What score didyou get for:

Locus of Causality? ANSWER Stability? ANSWER Personal Control? ANSWER External Control? ANSWER

How would you interpret these results?

Perhaps the locus of causality and stability results are a bitdifficult to interpret. However, the control results are veryclear. Paul attributed the attainment of his goal in the milerun to something that was not within his control at all, butwas externally controlled. Mr. Wilson and the physicaleducation program he designed were obviously the externalcontrol.

If you could re-train Paul’s attribution, how would you want tochange it? Maybe he would still attribute his success to hisparticipation in Mr. Wilson’s class, but wouldn’t you rather

16 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


participation in Mr. Wilson’s class, but wouldn’t you ratherhave him see his achievement as internal, stable, and underhis control? “I was in Mr. Wilson’s class, and, as I usuallydo, I really worked hard and participated fully in all the thingshe had us do.” This attribution might well be classified asinternal, stable, and personally controllable.

4

5"> 5 M6 Lesson Three - Page 5

6.33 Julie and the CDSII

Here is a copy of the Revised Causal Dimension Scale (CDSII)that has been completed by Julie, a college volleyball player. She filled this out after her team lost the conference match 3games to 2. Julie is the setter and floor captain. She attributedthe loss to several poor calls by the line judges during the finalminutes of the fifth game, which her team lost 15-13.

Here is how Julie classified the reason for the game, match,and championship losses. Her answers are circled. Score andinterpret Julie’s responses; then return to the lesson.

17 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


Revised Causal Dimension Scale (CDSII)

Instructions: Think about the reason or reasons you havewritten above. The items below concern your impressions oropinions of this cause or causes of your performance. Circleone number for each of the following questions.

Is the cause(s) something:

1. That reflectsan aspect ofyourself

Reflects an aspect ofthe situation

2. Manageable byyou

Not manageable by you

3. Permanent

Temporary

4. Other peoplecan regulate

You cannot regulate

5. Over whichothers havecontrol

Over which others haveno control

6. Inside of you Outside of you

7. Stable overtime

Variable over time

8. Under thepower of otherpeople

Not under the power ofother people

9. Somethingabout you

Something about others

10. Over which youhave power

Over which you have nopower

11. Unchangeable

Changeable

12. Other peoplecan regulate

Other people cannotregulate

The total scores for each dimension are obtained bysumming the items as follows: 1,6,9=locus of causality; 5,8,12=external control;3,7,11=stability; 2,4,10=personal control. Scores range from 3to 27. A higher score indicates that the cause is more internal,

18 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


controllable by others, stable, and controllable by self.

Note: McAuley, E., Duncan, T. and Russell, D., (1992).Measuring causal attributions: The revised Causal DimensionScale (CDSII). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18,566-573.


Julie’s Results.

Ok, what about Julie, the volleyball setter? What score didyou get for:

Locus of Causality? ANSWER Stability? ANSWER Personal Control? ANSWER External Control? ANSWER

Julie’s explanation for the loss – poor line calls– and her score on the CSDII areinteresting. Obviously, she believes that theloss is not attributable to something about herand not something over which she has much ifany control. Given the high score on externalcontrol, it would appear that Julie believes thatthe loss was under the control of the line judgesand, probably, the entire officiatingteam. Somewhat troubling is the relatively highscore on the stability dimension. Although not

at the stable end of the continuum, the score does indicatethat Julie believes that poor officiating may be the differencebetween winning and losing in future matches. Looking atJulie’s explanation of the loss and her score on the CSDII,what would you predict her attributional-dependent affectwas? We’ll explore Julie’s case later in this module, butwhat do you think about the reason she gave for the loss? Isit a logical attribution? Is it a self-serving attribution? Is it aself-defeating attribution? What would your reaction be ifJulie were on your team?

19 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM



6.34 Measuring Attributional Style

All of the measurement techniques discussed in yourtextbook are state measures* of causal attributions. Theperson is asked to think about a particular event and itsperformance outcome and to attribute reasons for his or hersuccess or failure for that situation, only. Often all whoparticipated in the event (e.g., a team) are asked to classifytheir causal attributions. That can be very useful informationfor a teacher or a coach. However, you might also beinterested in how a student or an athlete typically respondsto success or failure in sport competitions or other achievement situations. In thiscase you would be interested in a measure of attributionalstyle, a trait measure.

Trait measures of attributional style have beendeveloped. The measure that is the most frequently usedsport-specific measure is the Sport Attribution Style Scale(SASS; Hanrahan, Grove & Hattie, 1989). The persontaking the inventory is asked to respond to eight positive andeight negative sporting events. For each hypothetical eventposed, the respondents are asked to vividly imaginethemselves in the situation and then write down the singlemost likely cause if that event happened to them. They arethen requested to place their causal attributions into the fivecausal dimensions. Dimensions of globality andintentionality were added to the dimensions of locus ofcausality*, stability, and controllability, so that the causeof the hypothetical event is classified on five causaldimensions.


SASS Example.

20 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


Here’s an example of one of the questions on the SASS. Let’s see how you would answer it.

“You succeed in mastering a difficult sport skill.” Imaginethat happening to you. Decide what you feel would be thesingle most likely cause of the event if it happened to you. Write it down. Now, answer the following questions aboutthe cause:

Is the cause of your good performance somethingabout you or something about other people orcircumstances? (Rate on a scale from 1 to 7 with 1 being “totally due toother people or circumstances” and 7 being “totally dueto me.”) This question measures __?__ ANSWER In the future, when performing in a competition, will thiscause be present again? (Rate from 1 to 7 with 1 being “will never be present”and 7 being “will always be present.”) This question measures __?__ ANSWER Is the cause something that just influences yourperformance in competitions, or does it also influenceother areas of you life?(1 - “influences just this particular event” and 7 -“influences all my life events”) This question measures __?__ ANSWER Is the cause something that is controllable by you orothers, or is it uncontrollable? (1 is “controllable” and7 is “uncontrollable”) This question measures __?__ ANSWER Is the cause something that is intentional orunintentional?(1 is “intentional” and 7 is “unintentional”) This question measures __?__ ANSWER

The other positive (negative) hypothetical events on theSASS are:

You perform very well in a competition. (You perform very poorly in a competition.) * The coach compliments your performance. (Your coach criticizes your performance.) * You are selected for the starting team in an importantcompetition. (You are not selected for the startingteam in an important competition.) * Your teammates claim that you are a very goodperformer. (Your teammates claim that you are not avery good performer.) *

21 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


You have no difficulty withstanding a demandingtraining session. (You have great difficultywithstanding a demanding training session.) * The crowd cheers for you during a competition. (The crowd “boos” you during a competition.) A newspaper article is extremely positive about youand your team. (A newspaper article is extremelynegative about you and your team.)

* A shortened form of the SASS has also been developed(Hanrahan & Grove, 1990). It included the five pairs of itemsabove identified by an asterisk (*).


6.35 Spontaneous Attributions

The sport world is rich with spontaneous attributions. Justpick up the sports pages or listen to the end of the gameinterviews of players and coaches. Oftentimes theparticipant is explaining the performance outcome (win/loss– success/failure). Truly spontaneous attributions are madewithout prompting. For example, they are made without aTV interviewer saying “to what do you attribute your lessthan spectacular performance?” These spontaneous attributions aremost likely to be made when theoutcome was unexpected or whenthe goal was not achieved (Weiner,1986). If you are a coach, a teacher,or a parent, pay attention to thespontaneous attributions of thosearound you. You may find that they provide some valuableinsights.

The laboratory assign for this module will give you anopportunity to evaluate the causal attributions made byindividuals following a sport competition.

locus ofcausality

this lesson

22 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


4 Lesson 6.4: Causal Attribution Laboratory Assignment

(Lesson 6.4:CausalAttributionLaboratoryAssignment)';return true">

1 M6 Lesson Four - Page 1


Section Topic Page

6.41 Laboratory Assignment 2


6.43 Self-Test 4


6.41 Laboratory Assignment:Causal Attribution Theory

For this laboratory assignment, you and the members ofyour group may either examine the causal attributions ofchildren or adults. For specific instructions on how toconduct the Causal Attribution Theory LaboratoryAssignment, go to the Ancillary Materials Website for thiscourse. The results of your lab will be reported in ourWebBoard conference room.


23 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM



Before we discuss causal attributions any further,please finish reading the Causal Attribution inSport chapter in your textbook. If you haven’talready, please read pages 217-235 in Cox. This

section of the chapter relates to module objectives 4-7. Itwill give you more insight into attributions and emotions. Italso addresses the issue of logical, self-defeating, andself-serving attributions. The last section presents someguidelines for attribution training that should be of greatinterest to you as a professional.


Welcome back! Let’s try applying some of the conceptsfrom that section of your textbook. After you havecompleted the Self-Test below, let me know if you haveanything that needs clarification.

6.43 Self-Test

1. According to Biddle and Hill (1992; cited in Cox), whichperformance outcome is most likely to lead to a searchfor reasons?

a. expected success ANSWER b. expected failure ANSWER c. unexpected success ANSWER d. unexpected failure ANSWER

2. Your number one men’s doubles tennis team wins amatch against a team that hadn’t lost all season. According to the covariation principle, your players willattribute their win to:

a. luck; their good luck and the other team’s bad

24 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


luck. ANSWER b. effort. ANSWER c. ability. ANSWER d. effort and/or ability. ANSWER

3. The attribution given in #2 above is an example of a. an ego-enhancing attribution. ANSWER b. a logical attribution. ANSWER c. an ego-protecting attribution. ANSWER d. a self-defeating attribution. ANSWER

4. Remember that according to Weiner’s model (Section6.24 page 7), it is the stability dimension thatinfluences future performance expectations. If one ofyour physical education students loses a badmintongame, you would want him to attribute the loss to a(n)_________ cause, so that he would be more likely toexpect success next time. If he won, you would wanthim to attribute it to a(n) _________ cause, so thatsuccess would be expected in future games.

a. unstable/stable ANSWER b. stable/stable ANSWER c. stable/unstable ANSWER d. unstable/unstable ANSWER

5. Although there may be other acceptable, logicalattributions in a particular situation, generally youwould prefer your students and athletes (and your ownchildren) to attribute success to internal and stablecauses and failure to

a. external, unstable causes. ANSWER b. external, stable causes. ANSWER c. internal, unstable causes. ANSWER d. internal, stable causes. ANSWER

6. According to Cox, there is a general tendency forfemales to ascribe success to good luck and socialsupport, and unsuccessful performance to lack ofability. These attributions are

a. logical and should be encouraged by others.ANSWER

b. self-defeating - unsuccessful performance shouldbe attributed to bad luck.ANSWER

c. self-serving and should be discouraged byothers.ANSWER

d. self-defeating - successful performance shouldbe attributed to ability and effort. ANSWER

25 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


5 Lesson 6.5: Attributions & Affect or Emotion 1 M6 Lesson Five - Page 1


Section Topic Page

6.51Weiner’s Model and Predictions Regarding Affect

2

6.52Weiner’s Stages in the Outcome Appraisaland Emotion Relationship

3

6.53 Causal Dimension – Affect Links 4-5

6.54 Selected Research in Attribution and Emotion 6-8

6.55Vallerand’s Intuitive-Reflective AppraisalModel

9

6.56Future Research on Attributions andEmotions

10

2 M6 Lesson Five - Page 2

26 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


6.51 Weiner’s Model and Predictions Regarding Affect

As a reminder of some material covered previously, here isWeiner’s diagram of the causal attribution process. Aswe’ve already mentioned, affect or emotion is a significantpart of attribution theory. Weiner hypothesized thatattribution-dependent affect* would result from engagingin a causal attribution process and would affect behavior.

Adapted from B. Weiner (1986). An attributional theory ofmotivation and emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Your textbook may have left you with the impression thatlocus of control (causality) is the attributional dimensionprimarily involved in the generation of emotion in sport. (See Figure 7.5 on page 220 in Cox.) Indeed, that wasWeiner’s initial prediction (Weiner, 1979). In the morerecent model pictured above, all three dimensions arepredicted to illicit emotions. In fact, Weiner’s theory includesthree sources of emotion: (1) general performance appraisalresulting in outcome-dependent affect*, (2) causalattributions ascribed, and (3) analysis of these causes alongthe causal dimensions resulting in attribution-dependentaffect.


27 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


6.52 Weiner’s Stages in the Outcome Appraisal andEmotion Relationship

(1) The actual outcome of the event produces emotions(success = happy; failure = sad). These outcome-dependentemotions are the first emotions experienced and thestrongest.

(2) In the second stage, an attributional search identifiesthe causes of the performance outcome. These, too, elicitemotions. For example, a successful performance attributedto ability might result in feelings of pride.

(3) In the third stage, the causes are analyzed in terms ofcausal dimensions. Each causal dimension (locus ofcausality*, stability, controllability) generates specificaffective reactions.

Let’s take a closer look at the third stage in this performanceoutcome appraisal and emotion relationship.


28 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


6.53 Causal Dimension – Affect Links

Weiner (1985) actually proposed that the causal dimensionanalysis of attributes for success and failure would lead tospecific cognitive and affective consequences. With regardto cognitive consequences, he predicted that a stableattribution for a successful performance would lead to theexpectancy of future success. Likewise, a stable attributionfor an unsuccessful performance would lead to theexpectancy of future failure. According to Weiner, theaffective consequences of locus of causality were feelingsrelated to self-esteem (e.g., pride, competence). Thestability dimension fostered feelings of hopefulness orhopelessness. Controllability influenced feelings of shameor guilt in the case of personal control and anger, gratitude,or pity in the case of external control.


Remember the two situations that youwere to think about at the beginningof this module. One had to do with acompetitive sport situation, the otherwith an examination. For theexamination example, what were yourinitial feelings when you receivedyour grade? These areoutcome-dependent emotions. Now,look at the attributions and thefeelings or emotions that you wrote

down. Did you have emotions related to these attributions? What were they? Now, classify the attributions on the fourcausal dimension scales (locus of causality, stability,personal control, and external control). Were the emotionsthat you felt consistent with Weiner’s predictions?

In order to better understand the way that affective reactions(emotions) mediate the link between the causal dimensionsand behavior, let’s look at some of the sport-related research

29 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


and behavior, let’s look at some of the sport-related researchthat has been conducted.


6.54 Selected Research in Attribution and Emotion

McAuley, Russell, and Gross (1983).

In the first study of attribution andemotion using a competitive sportsituation, McAuley, Russell, and Gross(1983) conducted a study using male andfemale undergraduate students enrolledin physical education table tenniscourses. Toward the end of thesemester, the instructor matched studentson ability and gender and had them compete in a 21-pointgame. After the competition, students were administeredthe CDs (Russell, 1982) and a scale on which they ratedhow strongly they felt on nine achievement-related emotions(pride, gratitude, anger, shame, etc.). There were nosignificant differences between the males and females onany of the dependent measures. In the success condition,satisfaction was the only emotion predicted by all three typesof attributions (locus, stability, and control). Pride andconfidence were positively predicted by controllable andstable attributions, and gratitude and surprise were predictedby controllable attributions. In the failure condition, althoughno results were statistically significant, depression andshame tended to be positively predicted by locus andnegatively by control. As in the success condition, surprisewas positively predicted by controllable attributions in thefailure condition. The McAuley, et al study revealed someinteresting results relative to attribution-affect relationships. First, there were differences between winners and losers intheir affective reactions to the game outcome. Winners weremore satisfied, proud, confident, and grateful, whereaslosers were more angry, depressed, incompetent, andsurprised. Second, controllability was found to be the mostimportant determinant of the success emotions, rather thanlocus of causality as had been previously suggested byWeiner (1979).

The results of a study by Vallerand (1987) also brought into

30 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


The results of a study by Vallerand (1987) also brought intoquestion the effect on locus of causality on emotion. In theVallerand study, the controllability and stability dimensionshad an impact on emotions, while the locus of causality*dimension did not.


McAuley and Duncan (1989).

In an effort to replicate and extend the previous findings thatall three causal dimensions relate to affective reactions,McAuley and Duncan (1989) conducted as study in whichphysical education students engaged in abicycle ergometer competition. Unexpected results have been shown toillicit a spontaneous attributional search(Wong & Weiner, 1981). Therefore,McAuley and Duncan designed a study inwhich the experimenter manipulated thesubjects’ future expectancies forperformance outcome and the actual outcome in thecompetition. Subjects who expected to win – lost, whilesubjects who expected to lose – won. Following thecompetitive outcome, causal attributions for and affectivereactions to the disconfirming outcome were assessed. Results related to the relationship between causaldimensions and affective reactions indicated that locus ofcausality* and stability dimensions significantly influenceda number of negative affects in losers. All three dimensionsin combination significantly influenced confidence inwinners. That all three causal dimensions predicted avariety of different affective reactions was consistent withWeiner’s (1985) reformulation of his attributional model ofachievement motivation and emotion. It was alsoconsistent with studies suggesting that the dimensions ofstability and controllability are related to affective reactions(McAuley et al., 1983; Vallerand, 1987). In the successcondition (expected to lose but won), feelings of confidencewere positively predicted by the locus, stability andcontrollability causal dimensions. In the failure condition,significant results were obtained for several emotions. Thestability dimension contributed significantly to depression,displeasure, guilt and shame. The locus of causalitydimension also influenced depression and displeasure as

31 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


dimension also influenced depression and displeasure aswell as feelings of surprise and incompetence.


In summary, research in sport has provided some support forWeiner’s theory of emotion. Some emotions have beenrelated to attributions in accordance with Weiner’s theory. For example, following failure, depression, shame, and guiltare associated with internal attributions (the locus ofcausality* dimension). In addition, researchers have foundother emotions to be related to the stability andcontrollability causal dimensions.


6.55 Vallerand’s Intuitive-Reflective Appraisal Model

Vallerand (1987) proposed an intuitive-reflective appraisalmodel for self-related emotions in achievement situations. This is a slightly different perspective from Weiner’s theoryof emotion, but it does incorporate causal attributions. According to Vallerand, it is the cognitive evaluation ofevents, not the events themselves that produce emotions. This cognitive evaluation may be both intuitive (almostautomatic) and reflective (deliberate) in nature. Reflectiveappraisal includes causal attributions, as well asintellectualization, mastery-related cognition's, and othercognitive processes. In Vallerand’s model, intuitiveappraisal is believed to always product emotion. Reflectiveappraisal, including causal attributions, serves to modify,amplify, or minimize the emotions generate through intuitiveappraisal.

Research provides support for the intuitive-reflectiveappraisal model (McAuley & Duncan, 1990; Robinson &Howe, 1989; Vallerand, 1987) According to Vallerand andBlanchard (2000):

32 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


Appraisals have a more important impact on emotionthan the objective event. Reflective appraisals, especially attributions, seem tocontribute significantly to emotions, although theintuitive appraisal is a better predictor. The conjunction of the intuitive and reflectiveappraisals explains a rather large portion of thevariance in emotions, with the intuitive appraisalexplaining the most variance. (p. 19)


6.56 Future Research on Attributions and Emotions

Briddle and Hill (1988, 1992) have investigated themoderating effects of the importance of outcome and theimportance of performance on the performance appraisal –emotion link. In a study using a one-on-one fencing contest,Briddle and Hill (1992) assessed the link between perceivedimportance of winning and performing well prior to thecompetition and the affect following performance. Attributions for outcome and performance were alsoassessed. The perceived importance of winning was thesecond most important predictor of self-related affects. Intuitive appraisal* was first and causal attributions werethird. In the future, research that investigates the influenceof these and other variables will help us better understandthe connection between performance outcome, performanceappraisal, emotion, and future performance. While therecontinues to be research support for attributions beingassociated with post-performance emotion (Weiner, 1983)and for the dual role of the intuitive and reflectiveappraisal* process of emotion (Vallerand, 1987), the actualrelationships are certainly more complex than thosedescribed in your textbook.

If you are interested in emotions in sport, you might enjoyreading Yuri L. Hanin’s new book. In the book, he andothers review different approaches to the area ofperformance-related emotions. Chapters on flow states,competitive anxiety, overtraining, burnout, and maladaptivefatigue syndrome may be of particular interest. The book isEmotions in Sport (2000) edited by Yuri L. Hanin andpublished by Human Kinetics (Champaign, IL).

33 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


published by Human Kinetics (Champaign, IL).

6 Lesson 6.6: Learned Helplessness & Attributions 1 M6 Lesson Six - Page 1


Section Topic Page

6.61 Learned Helplessness Theory and CausalAttributions

2-3

6.62 Research Evidence 4

6.63 Modifying Maladaptive Achievement Patterns 5

2 M6 Lesson Six - Page 2

34 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


6.61 Learned Helplessness Theory and CausalAttributions

It may have been a while since you finished readingthe attribution chapter; if so, go back and re-readpages 223-225 in your textbook.

Learned helplessness is a condition descriptive ofindividuals who demonstrate maladaptive achievementpatterns such as avoidance of challenging tasks, low taskpersistence in the face of obstacles, and feelings of lowability, low pride, and low satisfaction under unsuccessfulconditions.

In relating attributions to learned helplessness, whatcausal dimensions does Cox discuss? (Hint: there aretwo.) ANSWER Learned helpless children were found to attributefailure to causes that are __?__ ANSWER on thelocus of causality dimension and __?__ ANSWER onthe stability dimension. What other causal dimensions have we discussed inthis module? - Actually, we’ve spent considerable time on __?__ .ANSWER- We briefly mentioned what other two? ANSWER

Globality* and intentionality* were causal dimensions thatare included on the Sport Attribution Style Scale (SASS).


35 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


Learned helplessness and attribution theories wereintegrated by Abramson, Seligman, and Teasdale (1978),who argued that when people find that they are helplessthey seek to understand why they are helpless. The learnedhelplessness model reformulated by Abramson et al.suggested that the globality* combines with locus ofcausality* and stability to influence the severity ofhelplessness, emotions, and behavior. When people believethat the causes of their uncontrollable outcomes are internal,stable and global, they will experience severe andpermanent performance deficits, depression, and loss ofself-esteem. To a lesser degree, learned helplessness isevident when people attribute unsuccessful performance in agiven task to causes perceived to be internal, but unstableor specific.

According to helplessness theory, a performer should beencouraged to attribute negative performance outcomes toexternal, unstable, and specific factors and positiveoutcomes to internal, stable, and global factors. Performerswho have maladaptive achievement patterns associated withlearned helplessness would be hypothesized to makeattributions for failure that are internal, stable, and __?__ANSWER , whereas the non-helpless performer would makeattributions for failure that are external or internal (ifcontrollable), but definitely unstable and __?__ ANSWER.


36 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


6.62 Research Evidence

In a test of these predictions, Prapavessisand Carron (1988) studied tennis players(11-25 years of age) from an elite tennisacademy. Initial analysis revealed that 11out of 50 players demonstratedmaladaptive achievement patternsassociated with learned helplessness.

Consistent with helplessness theory, the researchers foundthat tennis players who exhibited a maladaptive achievementpattern made more use of internal, stable, and globalexplanations for losing. Players with a more positiveachievement pattern made attributions for failure that were external,unstable, and specific. The results did not support thehypothesis that the maladaptive achievement patternsassociated with learned helplessness would be moreprevalent in female athletes.


37 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


6.63 Modifying Maladaptive Achievement Patterns

Prapavessis and Carron (1988), as part of their discussion,suggested several techniques that have been usedsuccessfully to foster the development of more adaptiveachievement patterns, thereby reducing or eliminatinglearned helplessness. One such intervention strategy isgoal orientation training. As will be discussed in the nextmodule, individuals can be described as having an outcomegoal orientation or a performance goal orientation. Competitors with an outcome goal orientation will evaluatesuccess based on whether they won or lost the contest,while competitors with a performance goal orientation willevaluate success based on how well they performed. Researchers (Ames, 1984; Ames et al., 1977; Elliot &Dweck, 1985) have found that by manipulating children’sgoal orientation from outcomes to performanceimprovement, appropriate adaptive achievement patternswere adopted. Later in this module, we will discussattribution training. This too has been demonstrated toreduce learned helplessness. This technique is based onthe assumption that it is possible to alter people’s responsesto failure by altering their attributions for failure. Researchers (Dweck, 1975; Fowler & Peterson, 1981) havedemonstrated improvement in learned helplessnesssubjects’ level of persistence by re-training them to interprettheir causes of failure to effort or strategy rather than ability. Until recently, however, there had been no research on theeffects of attribution training on sport performance. We willdiscuss recent research related to attribution training in sportand physical activity later in this module.

7 Lesson 6.7: Gender Differences in Attributions 1 M6 Lesson Seven - Page 1

38 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM



Section Topic Page


6.72 Stereotypical Attributions Based on Gender 3-5

6.73 Changing Causal Attribution Patterns 6

6.74 Further Evidence of Change 7

2 M6 Lesson Seven - Page 2


Again, you may want to review this section in Cox(pages 225-227). Pay particular attention to theresearch evidence supporting his statements. See ifyou can answer these questions:

What research evidence does Cox provide to supporthis statement that “Males typically attribute successfulperformance to high ability and strong effort, andunsuccessful performance to luck.”? What research evidence does Cox provide to supporthis statement that “Females typically attributesuccessful performance to good luck and socialsupport, and unsuccessful performance to lack ofability.”? Which of the above generalizations did the Hendy andBoyer (1993) study support?


39 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


6.72 Stereotypical Attributions Based on Gender

Well, what did you decide? Was there any researchevidence presented by Cox to support the twogeneralizations: (1) “Males typically attribute successfulperformance to high ability and strong effort, andunsuccessful performance to luck.” and (2) “Femalestypically attribute successful performance to good luck andsocial support, and unsuccessful performance to lack toability.” ANSWER The Hendy and Boyer (1993) study didsupport the generalizations in Cox for the attributions of(males/females) __?__ ANSWER , but not for(males/females) __?__ . ANSWER


No="center">

Despite the fact that Cox does not cite the references,gender differences have been found in sportself-confidence and attributions for performance. Inseveral studies, males have demonstrated a self-enhancingpattern of attributing successful performance to stable abilityand controllable effort, and, in a very few cases, failure toluck. Females have shown a self-defeating pattern ofattributing success to uncontrollable luck or social support,and failure to lack of ability (Bird & Williams, 1980; Deaux &Farris, 1977; Iso-Ahola, 1979). These results areattributable to sex-role stereotypes for performance held bymales and females. Deaux (1976) has suggested that thesesex-role stereotypes distort subjects’ cognitive processes,especially their self-perception and causal attributions ofbehavior. It is important to note that in none of these studieswere male and female athletes’ causal attributions actuallymeasured in a sport context. Instead, university studentscompleted in an anagram task (Deaux & Farris), andfourth-graders completed against each other in a motormaze (Iso-Ahola). Some of you may remember playing withthis toy as children. The task is to direct a ball bearing

40 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


this toy as children. The task is to direct a ball bearingthrough a maze by altering the slope of the maze top, whichhas holes, by means of two control handles. Remember?


In the third study (Bird & Williams,1980), children from seven to 18 yearsof age were read stories about male orfemale athletes and then were askedto explain the performance outcomesin terms of the causal attributions ofability, effort, task difficulty, or luck. Actually, in this study, sex-role

stereotypes for causal attributions were not evidenced in theyounger age groups (7-15 years), but appeared in theattributions given by both males and females who werebetween 16 and 18 years of age.

In addition to sex-role stereotypes, it may well be thatreported differences in casual attributions between malesand females is a function of sport self-confidence, ratherthan being related to gender, per se. We will explore genderdifferences in sport self-confidence in the next module. Given (1) changes in sex-role stereotypes, (2) increases insport self-confidence found in females, and (3) results ofrecent research using athletes in actual competitive sportenvironments (field studies), there is reason to believe thatthe attribution patterns of women participating in competitivesport have and will continue to change for the better. Theyhave become more ego-enhancing and logical.


41 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


6.73 Changing Causal Attribution Patterns

The results of the Hendy and Boyer(1993) study are interesting. Unlikeprevious research, the authors found thatfemale triathlon athletes did not showself-defeating attribution patterns. Inexplaining their results, the authorssuggested that the findings might beattributed to the fact that the triathlon isnot perceived as a “male-dominated sport.” The increasedencouragement and acceptance of participation incompetitive sport by females (post Title IX) may also havecontributed to the encouraging results.

In addition to the Hendy and Boyer (1993) study cited inyour textbook, other studies of causal attribution and gendercall into question the generalizability of the earlier findingssuggesting self-defeating attribution patterns amongfemales. In several of the studies that we have alreadyreviewed in this module, there were no significantdifferences between males and females in attributions duringthe initial analysis of the data; therefore, the results werereported without regard to gender (McAuley, et al., 1983;Prapavessis & Carron, 1988). In the first study, subjectswere undergraduate students in a table tennis course. In thesecond, they were tennis players from an elite tennisacademy who ranged in age from 11-25 years.

Let’s look at a couple of additional studies.


42 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


6.74 Further Evidence of Change

In a series of studies, Scanlan and Passer (1980a, 1980b)examined the causal attributions made by youth soccerplayers between 10 and 12 years of age. All players weresurveyed after the eighth game of a 14 game season. Theauthors were interested in the attributional responses of

these players after winning, loosing, ortying their games. The results for malesand females were reported in separatearticles. Results of the study for youngfemale soccer players (1980b) indicatedthat winning players attributed greatercausality for the game outcome, and fortheir own personal performance, to the

internal factors of ability and effort than losers did. Thesefemale youth sport athletes did not demonstrate themaladaptive attributional style suggested in previousresearch. In addition, little support was found for theself-protective externality bias. Winners and losers did notdiffer in their team- or self-causal attributions to the externalfactors of opponent difficulty and luck. Most significant toour current discussion is that (1) these results for youngfemale soccer players were consistent with the findings foryoung male soccer players (Scanlan & Passer, 1980a), and(2) there was no evidence of the previously reported,self-defeating pattern of attributing success to uncontrollableluck or social support, and failure to lack of ability.

8 Lesson 6.8: Ego-Enhancing & Ego-Protecting Attributions 1 M6 Lesson Eight - Page 1

43 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM



Section Topic Page


6.82Evidence of the Self-serving Hypothesis(Bias) 3

6.83 Self-Test 4

6.84Extending the Reformulation of theSelf-serving Hypothesis 5

6.85 Conference Room Activity 6

2 M6 Lesson Eight - Page 2


This section is entitled “Egocentrism inAttribution” in Cox (pages 228-230). In thissection, he discusses the self-serving hypothesis,ego-enhancing strategies, and ego-protecting

strategies. Ego-enhancing and self-enhancing areequivalent terms, as are ego-protecting and self-protecting. One thing that you might ask yourself as you re-read thissection is: “At what point do self-enhancing andself-protecting attributions become detrimental to athleticperformance?”


44 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


6.82 Evidence of the Self-serving Hypothesis (Bias)

Your textbook author, Cox, does a very thorough job ofdescribing how our understandings of egocentrism and theself-serving hypothesis or bias as they apply tocompetitive sport have evolved over time. First, let’s checkyour understanding of the reading.


6.83 Self-Test

1. The original self-serving hypothesis predicted that allsuccesses would be attributed to __?__ ANSWERcauses and all failures would be attributed to __?__ ANSWER causes.

2. A review of the attribution literature by Miller and Ross(1975) found support for only one of the self-servinghypothesis predictions. Subjects who(succeeded/failed) ANSWER did attribute the outcometo (internal/external) ANSWER, (stable/unstable)ANSWER, and (controllable/uncontrollable) ANSWERcauses.

3. In 1984, Mark, Mutrie, Brooks, and Harris proposed areformulation of the self-serving hypothesis. Thisreformulation was necessary because research usingsubjects who completed in actual, organized,competitive sport did not support which strategy – theego-enhancing strategy or the ego-protectingstrategy? ANSWER

4. According to the reformulation, athletes attribute bothsuccess and failure to __?__ causes. ANSWER

5. With regard to the other causal dimensions, according

45 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


to the reformulation, (winners/losers) ANSWERattribute their success to stable and controllablecauses more frequently than (winners/losers)ANSWER do.

With regard to these last two findings, it has been suggestedthat there exists in sport a norm encouraging acceptance ofpersonal responsibility for failure and discouragingexternalization of failure (Grove, et al., 1991; Mark et al.(1984); Scanlan & Passer, 1980a, 1980b). In order tocomply with this norm, individuals may alter their attributionsfor winning and loosing along the stability and controldimensions rather than the locus of causation dimension. This sort of bias may allow them to present themselves asgracious winners or losers and, at the same time, maintain ahigh expectancy for future success. The high expectancy forfuture success is maintained by attributing success to stable,personally controllable causes and failure to unstable,__?__ ANSWER causes.


6.84 Extending the Reformulation of the Self-ServingHypothesis

Here is a study that may be of particularinterest to those of you who are coaches. Grove, Hanrahan, and McInman (1991)tested the predictions of the reformulation ofthe self-serving hypothesis (bias) forbasketball players, their coaches, and theirspectators. Participants were players,coaches and spectators in the upperdivisions of two recreational basketballleagues – one for women, the other for

men. Immediately after a game, participants completed theCausal Dimension Scale (CDs; Russell, 1982). Analysis ofthe data indicated that there were no significant differencesin any of the causal dimensions (locus, stability, or control)for gender, closeness of the game, or type of involvement(player, coach, spectator). There were significantdifferences for outcome (win, loss). Specifically, there wereno differences between winners and losers on locus of

46 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


no differences between winners and losers on locus ofcausality*, but there were significant differences for stabilityand controllability. Winning outcomes were attributed tostable, controllable causes, whereas losing outcomes wereattributed to relatively more unstable, uncontrollable causes. Again these results held regardless of involvement category– player, coach, or spectator.


6.85 Conference Room Activity

Go to your conference room in WebBoard. With themembers of your group for this unit, discuss the following:

What are the factors that may lead to logical,self-serving or self-defeating attributions*? What are the consequences of logical, self-serving, orself-defeating attributions? Discuss emotions,motivation to achieve (persistence), future performanceexpectations, and future performance. Given your answers to the first two questions above,construct a list of at least six implications for teachersand coaches working with students and athletes incompetitive sport situations.

Post your group’s list of implications in our conference roomfor others in the class to see. In your post, give both theprinciple or concept upon which the implication is based andthe corresponding implication for a teacher and/or coach.

For additional directions go to our Ancillary MaterialsWebsite.

9 Lesson 6.9: Attribution Training & Re-Training in Sport 1 M6 Lesson Nine - Page 1

47 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM



Section Topic Page

6.91Maladaptive Achievement Patterns andAttributes

2

6.92Why Does Attribution Retraining ImprovePerformance?

3-4

6.93 Recent Research on Attribution Training inSport

5-10

6.94 The Future of Attribution Training 11-12

6.95 Conference Room Activity 13

6.96 Summary: What We Think We Know 14

2 M6 Lesson Nine - Page 2

6.91 Maladaptive Achievement Patterns and Attributes

Cox discusses attribution training on pages230-232 in your textbook. The final objective for thismodule is related to attribution training. Theobjective asks you to describe an athlete who might

benefit from attribution retraining. Then, discuss strategiesthat you might employ to alter the athlete’s maladaptiveattributions* currently used to explain winning andloosing/success or failure and the effect that you hope thiswill have on the athlete’s emotion, motivation, persistence,expectations for future performance, and performance. Youwill have an opportunity to share your group’s response tothis objective in the WebBoard “Homework” section for thismodule.

We discussed the Prapavessis and Carron (1988) studypreviously in this module when we discussed learnedhelplessness. This study is discussed in the attribution

48 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


training section of your textbook, too. You will recall thatthese researchers conducted a study using tennis players(11-25 years of age) from an elite tennis academy. Theresearchers found that tennis players who exhibited amaladaptive achievement pattern made more use of internal,stable, and global explanations for losing. Players with amore positive achievement pattern made attributions forfailure that were external, unstable, and specific. This studydid not employ attribution training. However, in discussingtheir findings, Prapavessis and Carron suggested severaltechniques that have been used successfully to foster thedevelopment of more adaptive achievement patterns outsideof sport. Training players to evaluate their own successbased on performance improvement rather than winning wasone technique suggested. The other was to alter theplayers’ attributions for failure. Researchers (Dweck, 1975;Fowler & Peterson, 1981) have demonstrated improvementin learned helplessness subjects’ level of persistence byretraining them to interpret their causes of failure to effort orstrategy rather than ability. While these and other studieshave shown improvement in task persistence andperformance, they were conducted in academic situations. What is needed is attribution training research in thepractice and performance of physical activities. Recently,there has been some encouraging research published in thisarea.


49 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


6.92 Why Does Attribution Retraining ImprovePerformance?

Before we examine some of the research in this area, let’sbriefly review three prominent explanations for why changingmaladaptive attributions* might improve performance. Thethree, somewhat competing, theories are Weiner’s theory ofmotivation and emotion (1986), learned helplessnesstheory (Abramson, et al., 1978), and self-efficacy theory(Bandura, 1977). We have already discussed the first twotheories in this module. Bandura’s self-efficacy theory willbe discussed in detail in modules to follow.

All three of these theories predict that if you believe that afailure resulted from lack of ability or that a success occurredthrough an external cause, your expectations, persistence,and ultimately performance and self-esteem will be lowered. All three theories would agree that it is more adaptive foryou to attribute failure to lack of effort (internal, unstable,and controllable) than to lack of ability. The explanation ofmechanisms involved does vary slightly from one theory tothe other, however.


50 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


According to Weiner, attribution retrainingis effective because maladaptiveattributions* are replaced by those thatwill lead to more positive emotions andgreater motivation. Learned helplessnesstheory proposes that a change in theperson’s perception of personal controlaccounts for the success of attribution

retraining people who feel helpless perceive little or noconnection between their behavior and what happens tothem. In severe cases, helpless people believe that thecauses of their uncontrollable outcomes are internal, stableand global. Attribution retraining is effective because,through training, negative attributions for failure are changedto external, unstable, and specific factors and unrealisticattributions for success are changed to internal, stable, andglobal factors. Bandura’s self-efficacy theory suggests thatattribution retraining works because attributions are relatedto efficacy perceptions. Unlike the other two theories,self-efficacy theory does not assume that attributions directlyinfluence performance. Performance outcome doesinfluence self-efficacy, and, if that outcome is successful andis attributed to internal, stable, and controllable causes, thenself-efficacy is increased. Thus, attribution retrainingincreases self-efficacy, which increases performance.

All three explanations for the potential positive effect ofattribution retraining on performance continue to bediscussed and researched today.


6.93 Recent Research on Attribution Training in Sport

Let’s look at two recent articles that examine whetherattribution training interventions can change the causaldimensions for attributions and, more importantly,performance.

51 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


Orbach, Singer, and Murphey (1997).

In a study by Orbach, Singer, andMurphey (1997), sixty recreationalcollege basketball players (51 males and9 females) were randomly assigned toone of three treatment conditions: (1)controllable and unstable attributionalorientation (CU), (2) uncontrollable andstable attributional orientation (US), and (3) anon-attributional orientation (NA). In the CU condition,participants were told that their level of performance on abasketball dribbling task was based solely on controllableand unstable factors, such as effort and strategy. In the UScondition, participants were told that their performance wasbased on uncontrollable and stable factors, such as innateability. The NA group served as the control group and wasprovided with general details regarding the task. The taskitself was dribbling a basketball between four cones. Afterparticipants passed the fourth cone, they shot the ball at thebasket. Participants were given a goal time that wasextremely difficult to attain; therefore, they were assured offailure. After the first two trials, the participants were givennegative feedback that their performance was 25% higherthan the assigned goal. They then completed the CDSII. After the first two trails, six more trials in blocks of two (pairs)were given. Each of these blocks was followed by therespective treatment for each of the three groups. At theend of the eight trials, participants completed the CDSII,again, to see if there were any changes in the causaldimensions for the attributions they gave. Of the four causaldimensions, differences between the treatment groups werefound on two – stability and personal control, but not on theother two – locus of causality* and external control. At theinitial testing, after experiencing failure on the first two trials,all three groups attributed the outcome to dysfunctionalattributes (internal, stable and uncontrollable). However,after the attribution training intervention, the scores of theUS and the NA groups were significantly more stable andless controllable compared to the CU group.

Were there any differences in performance on the dribblingtask among participants in the various treatment groups? We began this module by stating that attributions effectperformance, as well as emotions and persistence. Did theresults of this study support that conclusion? Indeed theydid. Not only did participants in the CU group improve theirperformance across the eight trials, but also they weresignificantly faster than those in the US group by the final

52 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


two trials.

In this study, significant differences in attributions andperformance were observed resulting from the attributiontraining. This provides a strong basis for the belief thatchanging attributions can have an impact on performance inphysical activity.


Were there any differences inperformance on the dribbling task amongparticipants in the various treatmentgroups? We began this module bystating that attributions effectperformance, as well as emotions andpersistence. Did the results of this studysupport that conclusion? Indeed they did. Not only didparticipants in the CU group improve their performanceacross the eight trials, but also they were significantly fasterthan those in the US group by the final two trials.

In this study, significant differences in attributions andperformance were observed resulting from the attributiontraining. This provides a strong basis for the belief thatchanging attributions can have an impact on performance inphysical activity.


Orback, Singer, and Price (1999)

In a study similar in design to the Orback et al. (1997) studyreported above, Orback, Singer, and Price (1999) conducteda study using thirty-five tennis players (20 males and 15

53 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


females) age 17-27 who had enrolled inan undergraduate tennis class. Based onpre-test scores on a tennis ballplacement test, participants wererandomly assigned to one of threetreatment conditions: (1) controllable andunstable attributional orientation (CU), (2)uncontrollable and stable attributional

orientation (US), and (3) a nonattributional orientation (NA). In the CU condition, participants were told that their level ofperformance on a tennis task was based solely oncontrollable and unstable factors, such as effort andstrategy, that performance could be improved over time, andthat everyone could become proficient at the task. In the UScondition, participants were told that their performance wasbased on uncontrollable and stable factors, such as innateability and that some individuals would perform the taskbetter than others due to natural ability. The NA group wasthe control group and was provided with general detailsregarding the task. Participants received fictitious failurefeedback on the tennis task over 10 trial blocks administeredduring four sessions. The researchers tested all predictionsof Weiner’s (1986) attributional theory of motivation andemotion. The dependent variables were attributions,expectations for future performance, emotions, persistence,and performance. The CDSII was used to measureattributions. The results of the study revealed that it waspossible to change the attributions in regard toperformance. By the third session, the CU participantsattributions became perceived as more unstable and morepersonally controllable than session two. In addition, by thethird session, CU participants attributed their failure tocontrollable and unstable factors, whereas US individualsattributed it to uncontrollable and stable ones. These newattributions were stable across time and generalized to asecond, related tennis task. In addition, participants in theCU group who changed their attributions from dysfunctionalto more functional had higher expectations for futuresuccess and experienced positive emotions compared tothose in the US group who continued to attribute theirperformance to dysfunctional factors.


54 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


With regard to persistence andactual task performance, therewere no significant differencesamong the treatment groups atthe traditional significance level(.05), however, trends were in thepredicted direction for bothdependent variables. Thedifferences among the groups inpersistence were significant at the .09 level (rather than .05)and were in the predicted direction with the CU grouppersisting longer at the task. Although there were noperformance differences on the primary tennis task duringthe first three practice sessions, by the fourth session theCU group had improved its performance and was superior toboth the US and NA groups. The US group actuallyexperienced a performance drop back to their level at thefirst session. Overall, these results indicated support forattribution retraining as a technique that can positivelyinfluence achievement striving and, to some extent, actualperformance.


55 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


Sinnott and Biddle (1998)

In a similar study, Sinnott and Biddle (1998) tested theeffectiveness of attribution retraining with a small group ofchildren. Fifty-eight children (30 boys; 28 girls) participatedin a 3-person race dribbling netballs (Australians idea ofbasketball J) the length of the gym with their non-dominanthand. Three girls and three boys were selected forattribution training (AT). Each had perceived him/herselfto have been either “quite unsuccessful” or “veryunsuccessful” on the task. Six others received no training(NO). They had all rated themselves as “quite successful”.

All children completed the CDSII-C aftercompleting the dribbling task. One week later,the children in the AT group received 20minutes of attribution training. The childrenwere told: “In general, many children of yourage find this task hard and feel unsuccessful atit” (consensus information) and “Given time,they are able to overcome this and begin to

find the task easier and feel more successful” (consistencyinformation). This training focused on the development ofstrategies that would result in a change in performance. Theuse of strategies was discussed with the children it the ATgroup. Examples of strategies used in other fields (e.g.,music) were given, and strategies specific to the task weremodeled by the researcher. The specific strategies includedtaking your time, concentrating, coordinating ball and body,keeping the ball close to the body, bouncing the ball at theside of the body, and keeping a relaxed hand whilebouncing. The NO group received 20 minutes of attentionfrom the researcher. They discussed sport. Within 24hours, each child was individually assessed on the dribblingtask, the CDSII-C and a measure of perceived success. Spontaneous attributions from the children were alsorecorded.


56 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


What were the results of this study? All six children in theAT group showed clear shifts from maladaptive to adaptiveattribution profiles. In contrast to their earlier attributions,they made internal and controllable attributions for theirsuccess. The NO group showed little change in attributionsfrom the pretest to the post-test CDSII-C. When thespontaneous attributions were analyzed, children in the ATgroup gave more strategy-oriented spontaneous attributions(22) than the children in the NO group (8) after the re-test onthe dribbling task.


6.94 The Future of Attribution Training Research

In the previous field experiments, the participants were givenunreachable goals and experienced failure. In this last studyto be reviewed, the athletes practiced a shooting skill duringregular basketball practice without any “failure” treatment. Inmany ways, this study mirrors what acoach might actually do when retrainingattributions of his/her athletes. In thisstudy (Miserandino, 1998), attributionaltraining was administered by an assistantcoach to members of a high school boysvarsity basketball team. During shootingpractice within regularly scheduled practices, half of theplayers received feedback about shooting technique andwere encouraged to attribute good plays to ability and poorplays to lack of effort rather than lack of ability. After asuccessful performance, the coach might say “Greatimprovement” or “Good, keep it up”. After an unsuccessfulperformance, he might say “Don’t give up” or “You almosthave it”. The players in the control group received feedbackon their shooting technique only – no attribution training.Performance improvement was measured by the number ofshots made out of 25 attempts from 15-17 feet away from thebasket. After a 4-week training period, players in theattribution training group improved their shooting by an

57 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


average of 2.6 shots. The control group showed nosignificant improvement in shooting performance. If you areinterested in reading this article, it is available in full-textonline at the UTPB library through ProQuest.


Studies similar to this one will help us tobetter understand attributional trainingand retraining in the context of sportpractice and performance. We havesome indication that such attributiontraining will transfer to other relatedskills. We need studies that demonstrate

that the performance gains resulting from attribution trainingwill transfer to the game situation, too. I believe that we cananticipate continued interest in this area among researchers,sport psychologists and, certainly, coaches. Persistence,positive expectations for future performance, and, of course,improved performance are highly valued in achievementsituations such as sport.


58 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


6.95 Conference Room Activity

Your last assignment for this module is to describe anathlete who you believe might benefit from attributionretraining. Then, discuss strategies that you might employto alter the maladaptive attributions that the athlete currentlyuses to explain winning/loosing and success/failure. Onemember of your group will write a description of an athletewho would benefit from attributional retraining. Based on thetextbook readings, the research articles above, and anyother information, all group members are to work together todesign an attribution retraining program for this athlete. Useyour group’s conference room to discuss the assignmentamong the group members. When you are satisfied withyour group solution, post a description of the athlete (nonames, please) and the attribution retraining program thatyou designed for your classmates (and me) to read.

Additional Instructions are available at our AncillaryMaterials Website.

14 M6 Lesson Nine - page 14

59 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


6.96 Summary: What We Think We Know

You might reflect on the two achievement situations thatyou identified at the very first of this module. Remember? Iasked you to think about a competitive sport situation and anacademic test situation in your own life. Does attributiontheory help you to understand your feelings and behaviorfollowing these experiences? If you knew then what youknow now, would you change the nature of the causalattributions that you made or would you keep them thesame?

In summary, here’s what we think we know regardingattributions.

Causal attributions can be classified along severaldimensions including locus of causality, stability,controllability (personal and external), and globality. Following successful performance, attributions shouldbe internal, stable, personally controllable, and global. Following unsuccessful performance, attributions maybe internal or external, but they should be unstable,personally controllable, and specific. Adaptive, logical attributions will positively influenceemotions, persistence, future expectations, andperformance. Individuals who are inclined to make self-defeating,maladaptive attributions can be helped through aprogram of attribution retraining

10 References 1 References - Page 1

References

1. Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., and Teasdale, J.D. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans: Critiqueand reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,87, 49-74.

2. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifyingtheory of behavioral change. Psychological Review,71, 191-215.

60 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


3. Biddle, S., and Hanrahan, S. (1998). Attributions andattributional style. In J. Duda (Ed.) Advances in Sportand Exercise Psychology Measurement (pp. 3-19). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

4. Biddle, S. J. H., and Hill, A. B. (1992). Attributions forobjective outcome and subjective appraisal ofperformance: Their relationship with emotionalreactions in sport. British Journal of SocialPsychology, 31, 215-226.

5. Bird, A. M., and Williams, J. M. (1980). Adevelopmental-attributional analysis of sex rolestereotypes for sport performance. DevelopmentalPsychology, 16, 319-322.

6. Deaux, K. (1976). Sex: A perspective on theattribution process. In J . H. Harvey, W. J. Ickes, andR. F. Kidd (Eds.), New Directions in AttributionResearch (Vol. 1). New York: Lea.

7. Deaux, K., and Farris, E. (1977). Attributing causesfor one’s own performance: The effects of sex, norms,and outcome. Journal of Research in Personality, 11,59-72.

8. Grove, J. R., Hanrahan, S. J., and McInman, A. (1991). Success/failure in attributions acrossinvolvement categories in sport. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 17, 93-97.

9. Hanrahan, S. J., and Grove, J. R. (1990). A short formof the Sport Attributional Style Scale. AustralianJournal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 22 (4),97-101.

10. Hanrahan, S. J., Grove, J. R., and Hattie, J. A. (1989). Development of a questionnaire measure ofsport-related attributional style. International Journal ofSport Psychology, 20, 114-134.

11. Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1979). Sex-role stereotypes andcausal attributions for success and failure in motorperformance. Research Quarterly, 50, 630-640.

12. Jones, E. E., and Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts todispositions: The attribution process in personperception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.) Advances inExperimental Social Psychology: Vol. 2, (pp. 219-266). London: Academic Press.

13. Kelly, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in socialpsychology. In D. Levine (Ed.) Nebraska Symposiumon Motivation: Vol. 15 (pp. 192-240). Lincoln, NE:University of Nebraska Press.

14. Mark, M. M., Mutrie, N., Brooks, D. R., and Harris, D.V. (1984). Causal attributions of winners and losers inindividual competitive sports: Toward a reformulationof the self-serving bias. Journal of Sport Psychology,

61 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


6, 184-196. 15. McAuley, E., and Duncan, T. E. (1989). Causal

attributions and affective reactions to disconfirmingoutcomes in motor performance. Journal of Sport andExercise Psychology, 11, 187-200.

16. McAuley, E., and Duncan, T. E. (1990). Cognitiveappraisal and affective reactions following physicalachievement outcomes. Journal of Sport and ExercisePsychology, 12, 415-426.

17. McAuley, E., Russell, D., and Gross, J. B. (1983). Affective consequences of winning and losing: Anattributional analysis. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5,278-287.

18. Miserandino, M. (1998). Attributional retraining as amethod of improving athletic performance. Journal ofSport Behavior, 21, 286-297.

19. Orback, I., Singer, R. N., and Murphey, M. (1997). Changing attributions with an attribution trainingtechnique related to basketball dribbling. The SportPsychologist, 11, 294-304.

20. Orback, I., Singer, R., and Price, S. (1999). Anattribution training program and achievement in sport. The Sport Psychologist, 13, 69-82.

21. Prapavessis, H., and Carron, A. V. (1988). Learnedhelplessness in sport. The Sport Psychologist, 2,189-201.

22. Robinson, D. W., and Howe, B L. (1989). Appraisalvariable/affect relationships in youth sport: A test ofWeiner’s attributional model. Journal of Sport andExercise Psychology, 11, 431-443.

23. Russell, D. (1982). The Causal Dimension Scale: Ameasure of how individuals perceive causes. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 1137-1145.

24. Scanlan, T. K., and Passer, M. W. (1980a). Self-serving biases in competitive sport setting: Anattributional dilemma. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2,124-136.

25. Scanlan, T. K., and Passer, M. W. (1980b). Theattributional responses of young female athletes afterwinning, tying, and losing. Research Quarterly, 51,675-684.

26. Sinnott, K., and Biddle, S. (1998). Changes inattributions, perceptions of success and intrinsicmotivation after attribution retraining in children’ssport. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth,7, 137-144.

27. Vallerand, R. J. (1987). Antecedents of self-relatedaffects in sport: Preliminary evidence on theintuitive-reflective appraisal model. Journal of Sport

62 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


Psychology, 9, 161-182, 28. Vallerand, R. J., and Blanchard, C. M. (2000). The

study of emotion in sport and exercise. In Y. L. Hanin(Ed.). Emotions in Sport (pp. 3-37). Champaign, IL:Human Kinetics.

29. Vlachopoulos, D., Biddle, S. J. H. and Fox, K. R. (1996). A social-cognitive investigation into themechanisms of affect generation in children’s physicalactivity. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18,174-193.

30. Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for someclassroom experiences. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 71, 3-25.

31. Weiner, B. (1986). An Attributional Theory ofMotivation and Emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag.

32. Wong, P., and Weiner, B. (1981). When people ask‘why’ questions, and the heuristics of attributionalsearch. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,40, 650-663.

Key:

Course Module Lesson Page SubLesson SubLesson Page

Copyright © 1999 VCampus Corporation All rights reserved.

Cancel

63 of 63 1/8/01 1:13 PM


KINE 6320 Module 6courses.utpb.edu/kine6320/kine6320module6.pdf · 6 Module 6: Causal Attribution in Sport 1 Lesson 6.1: Introduction to Causal Attribution 1 M6 Lesson One - Page

Documents