Measuring Causal Attributions for Success and Failure: A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Question-Wording Style

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Although a substantial body of research exists concerning the types of causal attributions which are made to explain achievement outcomes, relatively little attention has been paid to the effects which the measurement techniques used have on the attributions elicited. Two methodological factors—questionwording style and research context—were hypothesized to affect the results of attribution studies. A meta-analysis of 64 studies indicated that the impact of task outcome (success vs. failure) on attributions varied as a function of both question-wording style and research context. In general, support was found for attributional egotism, but outcome was found to have a larger effect for informational (e.g., "How hard did you try?") as opposed to the more traditional causal (e.g., "How much was effort a cause of your success?") wording of the attribution questions. Research conducted in natural contexts found larger outcome effects (specifically for ability and task-difficulty attributions) than did studies conducted in experimental contexts.

This publication has 35 references indexed in Scilit: