Performance Attributions and the Type a Behavior Pattern

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Past research has produced conflicting results concerning the manner in which Type As and Bs make attributions following success and failure. Some studies find that Type As are more likely than Type Bs to blame themselves for all outcomes, particularly failure. Other research indicates that Type As are more self-serving in their postperformance attributions. Research indicating more self-blame by Type As typically uses a causal source approach, that is, subjects are asked to indicate the extent to which common causal sources (e.g., ability, effort) produced the outcome. The causal-dimension approach, used in studies that find Type As to be more self-serving than Type Bs, assesses the dimensional structure of causes directly. One possible explanation for the divergence in results is that Type As and Bs differ in their interpretations of the dimensional structure underlying common causal sources, with Type As interpreting those causes in a more self-servingc manner. Results provided support for this hypothesis: Following success and failure, Type As interpretations of the dimensional structure of ability and effort differedfrom those of Type Bs in ways that were more self-serving.