Abstract
210 children (110 girls and 100 boys) were interviewed individually about causes that lead to success or to failure in school tests. They were presented fictitious scenarios about an unknown peer who had either success or failure in a dictation task and a sums task. The free answers were taken as mirroring means-ends beliefs of the interviewed persons. A content analysis of the answers led to the differentiation of 30 different categories. Practice, specific abilities, and concentration were mentioned most frequently both in success and in failure situations. The gender differences were more pronounced in failure than in success situations: For boys, it was rather the (lack of) instant effort that counted, whereas girls stressed more the (lack of) lasting effort, e.g., preceding practice. As compared to children, adolescents mentioned more often specific abilities, fast understanding, practice, and didactical presentation, and less often extrinsic motivation. A cluster analysis and a principal components analysis proved that the 30 basic categories overlap partially and can be combined into eight groups of categories.
Résumé
210 enfants (110 filles et 100 garçons) furent interrogés individuellement sur les causes du succès ou de l’échec en ce qui concerne les performances scolaires. Nous leur avons présenté des scénarios fictifs traitant d’un pair dont ils ne connaissaient rien qu’il avait fait une dictée ou des exercices de calcul, les uns avec succès, les autres sans succès. Les réponses libres ont été interprétées comme reflétant des relations moyen-but (means-ends). Une analyse de contenu a abouti à trente différentes catégories. Exercise, capacités spéciales, et concentration étaient mentionnés le plus fréquemment, en cas de succès comme en cas de faillite. Des différences entre les sexe étaient plus marques en cas de faillite qu’en cas de succès: Pour le garçons c’était surtout l’absence d’effort immédiat qui comptait, tandis que les filles mentionnaient plus souvent l’absence d’effort continue, c’est-à-dire d’exercice précédant.
Les adolescents mettaient plus fréquemment que les enfants le doigt sur des capacités spéciales, la compréhension rapide, les exercices et la présentation didactique et moins fréquemment sur la motivation intrinsèque. Une analyse de clusters (cluster analysis) et une analyse factorielle ont démontré que les trente catégories de base se chevauchaient partiellement et peuvent finalement être réduites à huit catégories superordonnées.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abramson, L.Y., Seligman, M.E.P., & Teasdale, J.D. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation.Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49–74.
Bacher, J. (1994).Clusteranalyse: Anwendungsorientierte Einführung [Cluster analysis: An application-oriented introduction]. München: R. Oldenbourg.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
Bar-Tal, D., & Darom, E. (1979). Pupil’s attribution of success and failure.Child Development, 50, 264–267.
Bettman, J.R., & Weitz, B.A. (1983). Attributions in the boardroom: Causal reasoning in corporate annual reports.Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 165–183.
Bradley, G. (1978). Self-serving biases in the attribution process: A re-examination of the fact or fiction question.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 56–71.
Cattell, R.B. (1966). The scree test of the number of significant factors.Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 140–161.
Deaux, K. (1976). Sex: A perspective on the attribution process. In J.H. Harvey, W. Ickes & R.F. Kidd (Eds.),New directions in attribution research (vol. 1, pp. 335–352). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Deaux, K. (1984). From individual differences to social categories.American Psychologist, 39, 105–116.
Flammer, A. (1990).Erfahrung, der eigenen Wirksamkeit. Einführung in die Psychologie der Kontrollmeinung [Experiencing one’s own efficacy. An introduction to the psychology of control beliefs]. Bern: Huber.
Ford, M.E., & Thompson, R.A. (1985). Perceptions of personal agency and infant attachment: Toward a life-span perspective of competence development.International Journal of Behavioral Development, 8, 377–406.
Gurin, P., & Brim, O.G. (1984). Change in self in adulthood: The example of sense of control. In P.B. Baltes & O.G. Brim (Eds.),Life-span development and behavior (vol. 6, pp. 281–334). Orlando: Academic Press.
Guttman, L. (1954). Some necessary conditions for common factor analysis.Psychometrika, 19, 149–161.
Heider, F. (1958).The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
Ickes, W., & Layden, M.A. (1978). Attributional styles. In J.H. Harvey, W.J. Ickes, & R.F. Kidd (Eds.),New directions in attribution research II (pp. 119–152). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kaiser, H.F. (1956).The varimax method of factor analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California.
Kaiser, H.F. (1960a).Comments on communalities and the number of factors. Unpublished manuscript.
Kaiser, H.F. (1960b). The application of electronic computers in factor analysis.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151.
Lau, R.R. (1984). Dynamics of the attribution process.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1017–1028.
Lau, R.R., & Russell, D. (1980). Attributions in the sports pages: A field text of some current hypotheses in attribution research.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 29–38.
Lee, H.B., & Comrey, A.L. (1979). Distortions in a commonly used factor analytic procedure.Multivariate Behavioral Research, 14, 301–321.
Little, T.D., & Lopez, D.F. (1997). Regularities in the development of children’s causality beliefs about school performance across six sociocultural context.Developmental Psychology, 33, 165–175.
Little, T.D., Stetsenko, A., & Maier, H. (1999). Action-control beliefs and school performance: A longitudinal study of Moscow children and adolescents.International Journal of Behavioral Development, 23, 799–823.
McClure, J.L., & Hilton, D.J. (1997). For you can’t always get what you want: When preconditions are better explanations than goals.British Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 223–240.
Mill, J.S. (1843).A system of logic. London: Longmans, Green, Reader & Dyer.
Miller, D.T., & Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction?Psychological Bulletin, 82, 213–225.
Nicholls, J.G. (1978). The development of the concepts of effort and ability, perception of academic attainment, and the understanding that difficult tasks require more ability.Child Development, 49, 800–814.
Nicholls, J.G., & Miller, A.T. (1984). Development and its discontents: The differentiation of the concept of ability.Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 3, 185–218.
Normandeau, S., & Gobeil, A. (1998). A developmental perspective on children’s understanding of causal attributions in achievement-related situations.International Journal of Behavioral Development, 22, 611–632.
Ries, G. (1991). Die Entwicklung von kausalen Erklärungsmustern für Schulleistungen [The development of causal explanations for school performance]. In U. Schmidt-Denter & W. Manz (Eds.),Entwicklung, und Erziehung im öko-psychologischen Kontext (pp. 56–67). München: Reinhardt.
Rotter, J.B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.Psychological Monographs,80 (whole no. 609).
Russell, D. (1982). The causal dimension scale: A measure of how individuals perceive causes.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 1137–1145.
Schneider, S.L. (2001). In search of realistic optimism.American Psychologist, 56, 250–263.
Skinner, E.A. (1990). Age differences in the dimensions of perceived control during middle childhood: Implications for developmental conceptualizations and research.Child Development, 61, 1882–1890.
Skinner, E.A. (1995).Perceived control, motivation, and coping. London: Sage.
Skinner, E.A., Chapman, M., & Baltes, P.B (1988). Control, means-ends, and agency beliefs: A new conceptualization and its measurement during childhood.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 117–133.
Skinner, E.A., Schindler, A., & Tschechne, M. (1990). Self-other differences in children’s perceptions about the causes of important events.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 144–155.
Staton, J.J. (1984).Acquired practical reasoning through teacher-student interactions in dialogue journals. Unpublished dissertation: Los Angeles: University of California.
Sutton, R.M., & McClure, J. (2001). Covariational influences on goal-based explanation: An integrative model.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 222–236.
Tiedemann, J., & Faber, G. (1995). Mädchen im Mathematikunterricht: Selbstkonzept und Kausalattribution im Grundschulater. [Gender differences in elementary school children’s self-concept and attributions in mathematics].Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 27, 61–71.
Weiner, B. (1980).Human motivation. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Weiner, B. (1984). Principles for a theory of student motivation and their application within an attributional framework. In R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.),Research on motivation in education (vol. 1:Student motivation, pp. 15–38). Orlando: Academic Press.
Weiner, B. (1995).Judgments of responsibility: A foundation for a theory of social conduct. New York: Guilford.
Weiner, B., Frieze, I., Kukla, A., Reed, L., Rest, S., & Rosenbaum, R.M. (1972). Perceiving 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 behavior (pp. 95–120). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Weisz, J.R., & Stipek, D.J. (1982). Competence, contingency, and the development of perceived control.Human Development, 25, 250–281.
Zuckerman, M. (1979). Attribution of success and failure revisited, or: The motivational bias is alive and well in attribution theory.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 245–287.
Zwick, W.R., & Velicer, W.F. (1986). Comparison of five rules of determining the number of components to retain.Psychological Bulletin, 99, 432–442.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (Project No. 1114-59309.99)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Flammer, A., Schmid, D. Attribution of conditions for school performance. Eur J Psychol Educ 18, 337–355 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173240
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173240