Abstract
160 secondary school teachers were asked to do attributions for students they knew. The 2x2x2 design incorporated three independent variables: success vs failure, average vs extreme, and explanation vs description. In addition, teachers were asked to express their interest in the student and to indicate their willingness to be interviewed. The main hypothesis was that the effect of categories (success vs failure and of average vs extreme) on the attributions would be stronger in the case of explanation than in the case of description. The findings support predictions. The findings support these assumptions: the effect of success vs failure on the number of attributions and willingness to be interviewed, and the effect of average vs extreme on interest are stronger in the explanation condition than in the descriptive condition.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Antaki, C. (Ed.) (1981).The Psychology of ordinary explanations of social behaviour. London: Academic Press.
Antaki, C., & Fielding, G. (1981). Research on ordinary explanations. In C. Antaki. (Ed.),The Psychology of ordinary explanations of social behaviour (pp. 27–56).London: Academic Press.
Antaki, C. H. (1985). Ordinary explanation in conversation: causal structure and their defence.European Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 213–230.
Beauvois, J.L. (1984). La psychologie quotidienne. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Buss, A. R. (1978). Causes and resons in attribution theory: a conceptual critique.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1311–1321.
Buss, A. R. (1979). On the relationship between causes and reasons.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1458–1461.
Cheng, P., & Novick, R. (1990). A probabilistic contrast model of causal induction.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 545–567.
Deschamps, J. C. (1982).L’échec scolaire. Modèle d’élève ou élèves modèles. Lausanne: Pierre-Marcel Favre.
Duncan, B. L. (1976). Differential social perception and attribution of intergroup violence: testing the lower limits of stereotyping of blacks.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 590–598.
Fincham, F. D., & Jaspars, J. M. (1980). Attribution of responsability: from man the scientist to man the lawyer. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 81–138). New York: Academic Press.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1984).Social cognition. New York: Random House.
Gilly, M. (1980).Maïtre-élève: rôles institutionnels et représentations. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Gosling, P. (1987). Rôle institutionnel et attributions de la réusite et de l’échec.L’orientation scolaire et professionnelle, 16, 307–322.
Gosling, P. (1992c). Les effets de l’extrêmisation de la réussite et de l’échec des élèves sur les attributions des enseignants.International Journal of Psychology, 27, 280.
Gosling, P. (1992b). Les attributions de la réussite et de l’échec chez les enseignants: justification pédagogique ou justification de l’évaluation?Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 2, 73–86.
Gosling, P. (1992a).Qui est responsable de l’échec scolaire?. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Gosling, P. (1994). The attribution of success and failure: the subject/object contrast.European Journal of Pschology of Education, 9, 69–83.
Hamilton, V. L. (1978). Who is responsible? Toward a social psychology of responsibility attribution.Social Psychology, 41, 316–328.
Harvey, J. H., Arkin, R., Gleason, J. M., & Johnston, S. (1974). Effect of expected and observed outcome of an action on the differential causal attribution of actor and observer.Journal of Personality, 42, 62–77.
Heider, F. (1958).The Psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
Hewstone, M., Gale, L., & Purkhardt, N. (1990). Intergroup attributions for success and failure: group-serving bias and group-serving causal schemata.Cahiers de psychologie cognitive, 10, 23–44.
Hewstone, M. (1989).Causal attribution. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Kelley H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In L. Levine (Ed.),Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 192–238). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research.Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 171–193.
Kruglanski, A. (1975). The endogeneous-exogeneous partition in attribution theory.Psychological Review, 1975,82, 387–405.
Kruglanski, A. (1979). Causal explanation, teological explanation: on radical particularism in attribution theory.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1447–1457.
Kuhn, T. S. (1990).La tension essentielle. Tradition et changement dans les sciences. Paris: Gallimard.
Langer, E. (1989). Minding matters, the consequences of mindlessness-mindfulness.Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 137–175.
Le Poultier, F. (1989). Acquisition de la norme d’internalité et activité évaluative. In in J. L. Beauvois, R. V. Joule, & J. M. Monteil (Eds),Perspectives cognitives et conduites sociales, Vol. 2 (pp. 247–257). Fribourg: Del Val.
Mackie, (1974).The cement of the universe: the study of causation. Oxford: Clarendon.
Matalon, B. (1988).Décrire, expliquer, prévoir. Paris: Armand Colin.
Medway, F. J. (1979). Causal attribution for school related problems.Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 809–819.
Medway, F. J., & Cafferty T. P. (1992).School Psychology, a social psychology perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Monteil, J.M. (1986). Attribution et mobilisation d’une appartenance idéologique, un effet polydoxique.Psychologie Française, 31, 115–121.
Monteil, J. M. (1989).Eduquer et former. Grenoble: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.
Monteil, J. M. (1993).Soi et le contexte. Paris: Armand Colin.
Moscovici, S. (1983). Social representations and social explications, from “naive” scientist to scientist. In M. Hewstone (Ed.)Attribution theory: social and functional extensions (pp. 98–125). Oxford: Basie Blackwell Publisher.
Mugny, G., & Carugati, F. (1985).L’intelligence au pluriel. Fribourg: Del Val.
Noizet, N., & Caverni, J. P. (1978).Psychologie de l’évaluation scolaire. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Oakes, P. J., Turner, J. C., & Haslam, S. A. (1991). Perceiving people as group members: the role of fit in the salience of social categorizations.British Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 125–144.
Schopler, J., & Layton, B. D. (1972).Attribution of interpersonnal power and influence. Morristown: General Learning Press.
Semin, G. R., & Fiedler K. (1989). Relocating attribution phenomena within a language-cognition interface, the case of actors’ and observers’ perspectives.European Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 491–508.
Tedeschi, J. T., & Reiss, M. (1981). Verbal strategies in impression management. In C. Antaki (Ed.),The Psychology of ordinary explanations of social behaviour (pp. 271–309). London: Academic Press.
Van Der Pligt, J. (1981). Actor’s and observer’s explanations: divergent perspectives or divergent evaluations" In Antaki C. (Ed.).The psychology of ordinary explanations of social behavior, (pp. 97–118). London: Academic Press.
Weiner, B., Frieze, I., Kukla, A., Reed, L., Rest, S., & Rosenbaum, R.M. (1972). Percieving the causes of success and failure. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds),Attribution, perceiving the causes of the behavior (pp. 95–120). Morristown: General Learning Press.
Weiner, B. (1972). Causal ascriptions and achievement behavior, a conceptual analysis of effort and reanalysis of locus of control.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 239–248.
Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences.Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 3–25.
Weiner, B. (1985b). “Spontaneous” causal thinking.Psychological Bulletin, 97, 74–84.
Weiner, B. (1985a). An attributional theory of achievment motivation and emotion.Psychological Review, 90, 548–573.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gosling, P. Description vs explanation and academic evaluation. Eur J Psychol Educ 10, 41 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03172794
Received:
Revised:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03172794