Attribution Theory, Achievement Motivation, and the Educational Process

Attribution Theory, Achievement Motivation, and the Educational ProcessAuthor(s): Bernard WeinerSource: Review of Educational Research, Vol. 42, No. 2 (Spring, 1972), pp. 203-215Published by: American Educational Research AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1170017 .

Accessed: 28/06/2014 13:30

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Educational Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Review of Educational Research.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.220.202.155 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 13:30:27 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aera

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1170017?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


ATTRIBUTION THEORY, ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION, AND THE EDUCATIONAL PROCESS

Bernard Weiner1

University of California, Los Angeles

The influence of functionalism on psychology in part fostered and sustained the behavioristic and neobehavioristic movements in America. It was argued that only the study of overt behavior would reveal how an organism is able to adapt to its environment. Unfortunately, this point of view overlooked the functional significance of cognitive processes and phenomenal experience, and cognitive functionalism never matured to the extent of behavioral functionalism.

One recent development in psychology, labeled attribution theory, indicates, however, that the study of cognitive functionalism is very much alive (see Jones, Kanouse, Kelley, Nisbett, Valins, & Weiner, in press). Attribution theorists investigate the perception of causality, or the judgment of why a particular incident occurred. The allocation of responsibility manifestly guides subsequent behavior. For example, the belief that a frustrating event was arbitrarily caused may lead to different attitudes and actions than the belief that the event justifiably was brought about (Pastore, 1952). In a similar manner, a report that a movie was enjoyed may give rise to different movie-going decisions as a function of causal ascriptions to the properties of the entity (good movie) or attribution to the agent (easily pleased) (see Kelley, 1967, pp. 192-240). And, finally, self-perception of failure as due to insufficient effort produces behaviors disparate from those observed when failure is perceived as caused by a lack of ability (Weiner, Frieze, Kukla, Rest, Reed, & Rosenbaum, 1971). In sum, the future actions in the three situations outlined above are determined by the attributions made by the perceiver.

In this paper attribution theory is applied to the study of the educational process. More specifically, the influence of causal beliefs on both teacher and pupil behaviors is examined. Of central importance are the effects of attributions on achievement striving.

1 This paper was written while the author was a Guggenheim Fellow at the Psychologisches Institut, Ruhr Universitat, Bochum, Germany. During this period he also was supported, in part, by grant MH 12603-05 from the National Institute of Health, and by grant CG 9938 from the Office of Economic Opportunity Early Childhood and Development Center to the Los Angeles division.

203



REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Ability versus Effort as Perceived Causes of Success and Failure

Heider (1958) distinguishes between two determinants of behavior: "can" and "try." Can refers to the relatively invariant properties of the person, such as intelligence, ability, and so forth, while try is determined by the momentary intentions and effort expenditure of the actor. In achievement-related contexts, success may be attributed to high ability and/or effort, while failure is perceived as due to low ability and/or lack of effort. The disparate patterns of attribution differentially affect both teacher and pupil behavior. We now turn to an examination of how causal attributions might influence the rewards and punishments administered by teachers, and the pride and shame experienced by students.

Teacher Behavior: Rewards and Punishments

Subjects in an experiment by Lanzetta and Hannah (1969) acted as trainers, and were given the power to reward and punish another's performance at a discrimination task. The reward could be either of two amounts of monetary payment, and the punishment either of two intensities of shock. Prior to the training period, the trainer was given false information indicating that his pupil possessed high or low ability. The trainers also were informed that the discrimination task was either easy or difficult. The data concerning trainer behavior revealed that the money allotted for correct responses at the discrimination task did not differ between the four experimental conditions (2 levels of ability X 2 levels of task difficulty), for the higher reward invariably was given for a success. However, greater punishment was administered for failure at the easy than difficult task, and competent pupils were punished more than those perceived as noncompetent. Pupils high in ability failing an easy task received the greatest amount of punishment. Lanzetta and Hannah believe that in the latter condition failure is ascribed to motivational factors, such as a lack of effort. Thus, most punishment is given when an individual can succeed, but fails because of an inferred absence of trying.Failure ascribed to this particular causal pattern is "reacted to more negatively... [and] motivate[s] behavior that might effect a change in the responsible factors (Lanzetta & Hannah, 1969, p. 251)."

A series of studies by Weiner and Kukla (1970) replicates and extends the Lanzetta and Hannah results. Weiner and Kukla asked their subjects (college students) to pretend that they are teachers about to dispense feedback to grade-school children. The subjects were told each child's ability level (High or Low), effort expenditure (High or Low), and exam performance (Excellent, Fair, Borderline, Moderate Failure, or Clear Failure). The subjects rewarded or punished children in all 20

204

Vol. 42, No. 2



ATTRIBUTION THEORY, ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION

simulated experimental conditions (2 levels of ability X 2 levels of effort X 5 levels of exam outcome) by assigning from 1-5 positive or negative feedback points.

The data revealed that among pupils with or without ability, at each level of exam performance those perceived as having expended effort are rewarded more and punished less than pupils believed not to have tried. In addition, given either high or low effort, at each level of exam performance students low in ability are rewarded more and punished less than pupils believed to possess ability. That is, students perceived as low in ability and high in effort receive more positive feedback than high ability-high effort students. Similarly, pupils believed to be low in ability and low in effort receive more positive feedback than high ability-low effort students. Although at first glance rewarding lack of ability is surprising, the finding is readily explainable. We especially praise individuals who overcome handicaps and succeed (no ability and some effort), and particularly admonish those who do not utilize their potential and fail (ability and no effort). These two groups differ most in the received magnitudes of reward and punishment, and primarily are responsible for lack of ability being a beneficial attribute (in terms of social approval) in achievement-related contexts. Replications of these findings are reported by Weiner and Kukla (1970) when student-teachers were the subjects, and by Heckhausen (unpublished studies) using experienced teachers and students in Germany and Switzerland as respondents.

Student Behavior: Self-Rewards and Punishments (Pride and Shame)

Do self-administered rewards and punishments (feelings of pride and shame) adhere to the same causal biases as those imposed when teaching others? The little data available confirm this notion. Weiner and Kukla (1970) asked a group of student-teachers to introspect about their personal feelings of pride and shame in the 20 experimental conditions described above. The general pattern of results corresponds with those observed when reward and punishment are dispensed to others. Pride apparently is heightened when success is attributed to effort and low ability, while shame is most suffered when failure occurs given ability but no motivation.

A more direct test of the relationship between causal ascription and self-reward is reported by Cook (1970; also in Weiner, Heckhausen, Meyer, & Cook, 1972). In Cook's study, male school children in the fourth and fifth grades were placed in a free operant setting in which

they determined their own reinforcement for achievement performance. The subjects were given a set of achievement-related puzzles to solve, with half of the puzzles actually insoluble. On the

205

WEINER




desk in front of the subjects was a bowl containing poker chips. The instructions indicated that the children were to "reward themselves by taking as many chips as they feel they deserve" following each success. In a similar manner, after every failure they were to punish themselves by returning the number of chips which "they feel they should." A number of precautions ensured that the children did not run out of chips, failed and succeeded an equal number of trials, perceived the puzzles as equally difficult, and so forth.

Two months prior to this testing, the subjects were administered the Intellectual Achievement Responsibility Scale (IAR) (Crandall, Katkovsky, & Crandall, 1965). This scale assesses the perceived locus of responsibility (self versus external) for success and failure. The self-responsibility items also can be subdivided into ability or effort ascriptions. Hence, the subjects could be classified according to their general disposition to attribute success and/or failure to ability and/or effort. A typical success-ability ascription item on this scale is:

When you win at a game of cards or checkers, does it happen A. because you plan very well, or B. because the other person doesn't play well? The data collected by Cook indicate that resultant self-reward

(number of chips taken for success minus number of chips returned for failure) varies as a function of causal ascriptions to effort. Greatest resultant reward is exhibited by individuals predisposed to attribute success to effort, but who do not tend to ascribe failure to a lack of effort. Conversely, the least self-rewarding behavior is found among subjects having a general tendency to attribute failure to low effort, but not success to heightened exertion.

Individual Differences in the Perception of Causality

Inasmuch as perceptions of causality influence the affect experienced in achievement-oriented activities, one's causal biases when interpreting success or failure have important implications for achievement striving. It is reasonable to speculate that achievement strivings are in part determined by causal attributions, and that individual differences in achievement needs are related systematically to disparities in the perception of causality. In one experimental paradigm we have employed to investigate the relationship between achievement needs and causal attributions, subjects attempt a task which is ambiguous with respect to the causes of success and failure. The task requires subjects to determine whether 0 or 1 is the next number in a digit series. Thus luck as well as skill and effort subjectively influence performance. Unknown to the subjects, the numbers are arranged randomly, and the outcome is entirely determined by good or bad luck. After completing the task the subjects evaluate their performance as

206

Vol. 42, No. 2




successful or unsuccessful, and ascribe the outcome to luck, effort, ability, or the difficulty of the task. These four elements are perceived as the most salient determinants of success and failure. The subjects also are administered measures of achievement motivation.

Weiner and Kukla (1970) and Kukla (1972) report that in this situation individuals high in achievement motivation relative to those low in this motive classification ascribe success to high ability and

positive effort, and failure to a lack of effort. The correlation found by both Weiner and Kukla (1970) and Kukla (1972) between outcome and

perceived effort expenditure approximates r = .45 for persons high in achievement concerns. Among individuals low in achievement needs, this correlation approximates only r = .10. Thus, individuals high in achievement motivation perceive that effort is an important determinant of outcome (high effort produces success and low effort results in failure). On the other hand, persons low in achievement needs

perceive that outcome is only weakly influenced by how hard they have tried. However, they do believe that personal failure is caused by a lack of ability.

Meyer (1970; also reported in Weiner, Heckhausen, Meyer, & Cook, 1972), using a different experimental procedure, substantiated the findings summarized above. Meyer induced repeated failure at a

digit-symbol substitution task. After each trial the subjects rated the

degree to which the failure was due to low ability, lack of effort, bad

luck, or the difficulty of the task. Meyer found that individuals high in achievement motivation ascribe their failures to a lack of effort more than subjects in the low motive group. The disparity in attribution to low effort increases as repeated failures are induced. Meyer also reports that persons in the low motive group attribute their failure to low

ability. The differential self-perceptions of low ability between the

high and low motive groups also increase with continued failures. A correlational study by Weiner and Potepan (1970) provides still

further support for the relationships discussed above. Weiner and

Potepan administered a variant of the IAR scale and measures of achievement motivation to college students. They report low positive correlations between achievement needs and the attribution of success and failure respectively to high and low effort. They also find a high negative correlation between achievement needs and the perception of failure as caused by a lack of ability. That is, individuals low in achievement needs are more likely to perceive that failure is due to their ability deficiencies.

Causal Ascriptions and Achievement Striving

The empirical findings concerning the relationship between causal

ascription and achievement needs can be linked with the achievement

207

WEINER




evaluation data (rewards and punishments, pride and shame), and aid in understanding the dynamics of achievement striving. The main behavioral differences between individuals high and low in achievement needs are that individuals in the high motive group are more likely to initiate achievement activities; they work with greater intensity, persist longer in the face of failure, and choose more tasks of intermediate difficulty, than persons low in achievement needs (see Weiner, 1970). How might these empirical facts be explained by attribution theory?

Consider first the volitional undertaking of achievement tasks. It has been demonstrated that persons high in achievement needs ascribe success to high ability and effort. Attribution to internal (personal) factors heightens affective experiences (see Weiner, et al., 1971). Hence, relative to individuals low in achievement needs, persons high in achievement motivation should feel more pride in successful accomplishment. This heightened reward is postulated to increase the likelihood that subsequent achievement actions will be initiated. That is, the causal attribution of self-responsibility for success, which augments positive achievement affect (pride) for success, is postulated to mediate the observed relationship between achievement-related needs and volitional achievement strivings:

Increased probability of

Need for achievement achievement behavior

Attribution of success Augmented pride in to oneself - . accomplishment

Turn next to a consideration of the persistence of behavior. It has been demonstrated that persons high in achievement needs ascribe failure to a lack of effort. Effort is an unstable causal attribute. That is, it is under volitional control and can be increased or decreased on future occasions. Thus, relative to individuals in the low motive group, persons high in achievement concerns subjectively can anticipate future success after a failure by planning to work harder. Therefore they may continue to strive for a previously unattained goal. On the other hand, individuals low in achievement motivation ascribe failure to a lack of ability. Ability is a relatively stable attribute, not under personal control, that cannot immediately be increased. Hence, among individuals low in achievement motivation, continued failure is anticipated following nonattainment of a goal, and goal striving ceases. It therefore is suggested that individuals high and low in achievement needs exhibit differential persistence of behavior in the face of failure (frustration tolerance) because they attribute failure to causal factors which differentially influence the expectancy of future success.

208

Vol. 42, No. 2




Evidence supporting this causal analysis of reactions to failure has been found by Meyer (1970; reported in Weiner, Heckhausen, Meyer, & Cook, 1972). Meyer demonstrated that in situations of failure, expectancies of future success do not greatly decrease among individuals attributing their failures to a lack of effort. On the other hand, probabilities of goal attainment markedly drop among persons perceiving that their failures are due to a lack of ability. A replication of this finding has been reported by McMahan (1971). As already indicated, Meyer also found that individuals high in achievement motivation were over-represented in the effort attribution group, while lack of ability causal ascriptions were most likely to be made by persons low in achievement motivation.

An attributional analysis of performance intensity immediately follows from the evidence already reviewed. Individuals high in achievement needs perceive that outcome and effort covary. That is, they perceive that hard work leads to success, and that a lack of effort results in failure. This perceived relationship is greatly modulated among persons low in achievement needs. Therefore, if it may be presumed that beliefs influence action, then we would expect individuals high in achievement needs to expend greater effort in achievement-related contexts than individuals low in achievement concerns.

Finally, why do the contrasting motivational groups display differential risk-preference? Individuals low in achievement needs tend to select overly easy or difficult tasks (see Weiner, 1970). But respective success or failure at these tasks, which are the usual experiences, tell nothing about the characteristics (ability and effort expenditure) of the person undertaking the task. Performance consistent with social norms is merely ascribed to the properties of the task (Frieze & Weiner, 1971). On the other hand, tasks of intermediate difficulty are solved by about one-half of the individuals attempting them. Thus, over all experiences, performance at these tasks provides most information about the persons attempting the tasks. In sum, the differential risk-preference displayed by the high and low achievement groups may be a consequence of the differential feedback or self-evaluation which the motive groups seek (see also McClelland, 1961).

The Learning and Development of Achievement Motivation

The analysis presented above intimates that the growth of achievement motivation is contingent upon the learning of cognitive structures which represent the causal importance of effort. Surprisingly, experimental evidence from investigations with infrahuman subjects is available which can be interpreted as supporting this position. Maier,

209

WEINER




Seligman, and Solomon (1968) gave dogs classical aversive training in which shock unavoidably followed a conditional stimulus. Subsequent to this training the dogs were placed in an instrumental escape situation. The data revealed that a high percentage of these dogs were unable to learn the correct escape response, while control animals readily learned the appropriate response. It therefore appears that

learning that effort or self-responsibility cannot aid outcome, which one may speculate is conveyed in a classical conditioning procedure, retards later performance when the outcome indeed may be influenced

by effort. The dogs not learning the instrumental escape response may be making attributional errors because they previously were taught that aversive outcomes are externally controlled, or influenced only by environmental factors. Maier, et al. (1968) label this phenomenon "learned helplessness" (pp. 292-342).

Learned helplessness is an appropriate label for the low achievement syndrome, since persons low in achievement motivation do not perceive that effort influences outcome. Katz (1967), commenting upon the absence of academic motivation among Negro school children, states "A major handicap of many Negro pupils was an inability to sustain academic effort. .. which resulted from inadequate early reinforcement of such effort" (p. 163). Thus, cognitive systems associated with achievement strivings may be learned differentially by various racial or ethnic groups.

The hypothesis that achievement motivation develops with the growth of causal attributions to effort (intention) reminds us of another developmental process. Piaget (1932) and Kohlberg (1963) contend that, at the highest level of moral development, moral evaluations are based upon subjective intent, rather than objective outcome. An experiment by Schmitt (1964) nicely illustrates this point. Schmitt established hypothetical situations in which an act was not committed either because of the actor's lack of willingness (try) or because of the absence of ability (can). For example, a situation was described in which an individual did not repay a debt either because he did not have the money or because he was unwilling to do so. Subjects then disclosed the degree to which the borrower was morally obligated to return the money. The data indicate that the invocation of moral sanction is most expressed when the individual is unwilling to repay the debt. That is, moral judgments are linked to the attribution of intentionality, rather than with ability. Note that these findings correspond to the data revealing that teacher rewards and punishments for achievement-oriented behaviors are greatly influenced by effort ascriptions.

It thus appears that achievement and moral concerns are related, for among adults evaluations of both are based, in part, on the

210

Vol. 42, No. 2




intentions and efforts of the actor. Indeed, achievement motivation and morality appear to be linked so closely that some individuals hold the conviction that failure, given ability but no effort, is immoral, as though it were against a prevailing moral ethic not to utilize one's capacities. This moral shortcoming, along with the possibility of alteration, may account for the high degree of punishment dispensed to those who have ability but fail. In addition, the correspondence between achievement and moral evaluations among adults suggests that these two systems might follow parallel developmental patterns.

To test the hypothesis that achievement and moral concerns follow similar developmental courses, Weiner and Cozier, in a yet unpublished study, extended an experiment previously conducted by Weiner and Kukla (1970). Children aged 4-12 were asked to pretend that they were teachers, and to administer rewards or punishments to students. All students were described in terms of three dimensions: ability (Yes or No), effort expenditure (Yes or No), and outcome at a puzzle task (Success or Failure). Among the children 4-6 years old, reward and punishment primarily were a function of task outcome. However, among the older children effort was a more salient determinant of evaluation than was outcome. This sequence of the determinants of judgment is quite similar to the findings reported by Piaget, that is, intent replaces outcome as the determinant of moral judgment.

Inasmuch as the literature on socialization has not provided any definitive evidence concerning the origins of achievement striving, it is suggested that the stage and sequence approach championed by cognitive-developmental theorists may be valuable for understanding the growth of achievement strivings.

Attributional Conflict

It has been documented that individuals differ in their

predispositions to attribute achievement outcomes to ability and/or effort. There are a variety of environmental factors which also alter the likelihood that these elements will be inferred as causal factors of achievement outcomes. For example, it has been demonstrated that percentage and number of prior success and failure experiences, pattern of performance, primacy and recency, social norms, maximum level of performance, time spent at the task, co-variation of the outcomes with incentives, and a multitude of other factors are among the cues one uses to infer attributions of causality (see Weiner, et al., 1971). Inasmuch as a variety of environmental cues, as well as personal predispositions, guide inferences about causality, attributional conflicts are likely to be generated in which the causes of success and failure are not clear.

211

WEINER




Intra-student Conflict

In a controversial study conducted by Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968), teachers were informed that a selected subset of students, who actually were randomly selected, would exhibit unusual intellectual growth. Subsequent testing supposedly revealed that these students displayed greater intellectual development than control students not paired with the fraudulent expectancies. In attempting to explain these alleged findings, Weiner and Kukla (1970) contended that when "false expectancy" students fail, the teacher attributes that outcome to a lack of effort, rather than to low ability. Ascription of failure to motivational rather than ability deficits is the attributional pattern maintained by individuals high in achievement motivation. Hence, the teachers may have communicated ascriptions which facilitate achievement strivings.

Individuals low in achievement needs are predisposed to attribute failure to a lack of ability. Thus, according to this analysis, persons low in achievement motivation who happen to be placed in the false expectancy experimental group should experience a conflict following failure between a general attributional tendency ("I failed because I am dumb.") and the information received from the teacher ("You failed because you did not try.").

Other instances of conflicts between individuals' predispositions in causal inference making and environmental information can be readily illustrated. For example, persons high in achievement needs tend to attribute success at a task to high ability and effort. But information that all members of a reference group succeed generally results in ascription of success to the ease of the task (Frieze & Weiner, 1971). Therefore, when an individual high in achievement motivation is successful at a task which all others solve, an attributional conflict is generated between internal (ability and effort) and external (task ease) factors. A model is needed which specifies how such attributional conflicts are resolved.

Student-Teacher Conflict

Jones and Nisbett (1971) argue that persons tend to perceive their own behavior as determined by stimulus factors, or valences in the environment, while they perceive the behavior of others as due to personal traits. For example, "I hit someone because of something he did.", while "You hit someone because you are aggressive." The analysis of Jones and Nisbett suggests that effort may be perceived as a stable attribute (trait) when making judgments about others, but an unstable attribute in self-ascriptions. Self-predictions of achievement performance may therefore greatly differ from the expectations of

212

Vol. 42, No. 2




others in situations where effort is believed to be an important causal determinant of outcome. The reader surely can recall a conversation with a student professing he would study harder in the future and succeed (self-perception of effort as an unstable attribute), while the reader anticipated that the "lazy" student would perform in his usual poor manner (other-perception of effort as a stable characteristic).

Teacher-Observer Conflict

Beckman (1970) reports evidence that participants in an interaction and observers of that interaction may make quite different inferences about the determinants of achievement behavior. Beckman found that teachers participating in an experiment requiring pupils to learn math believe that they are more responsible for the performance of pupils exhibiting improved performance over time than for the outcomes of pupils whose performance progressively deteriorates (also see Johnson, Feigenbaum, & Weiby, 1964). On the other hand, a group of observers state that the teachers are more responsible for the deteriorating than the improving performances! Apparently, ego-enhancing and ego-defensive attributions are likely to be made when one is directly involved with the success and failure of others. The reader is invited to imagine a teacher-mother conference in which opposing attributions are made for the poor performance of a student!

Observer-Observer Conflict

Not all attributional conflicts should be ascribed to motivational factors. Frieze and Weiner (1971) have demonstrated that there are great individual differences in the information used to infer the causes of success and failure, as well as in the manner in which information is combined to reach causal inferences. They report, for example, that a person may believe that a pupil is bright (or dumb) because he spends much time at a task, while another judge may not use this information to infer level of ability.

Conclusion

The central thesis of this paper is that attribution theory has significant implications for the educational process. It has been rather convincingly demonstrated that causal attributions influence the likelihood of undertaking achievement activities, the intensity of work at these activities, and the degree of persistence in the face of failure. These behaviors manifestly will influence the degree of learning in academic settings. In addition, attributions influence rewards and punishments from others, such as teachers, as well as the pride and

213

WEINER




shame associated with task performance. Perhaps the hypothesis receiving the most attention and proof in psychology is that rewards and punishments influence performance.

In sum, the attribution process appears to be a significant determinant of learning and performance in the classroom. It then seems a short step to suggest that programs be established which induce appropriate (achievement-enhancing) attributions in children. The relative disappointments in the results of Headstart programs point to the necessity of motivational, in addition to intellectual, inputs. Perhaps a better understanding of the development of effort structures will aid in the promotion of such programs. In addition, causal ascriptions might play an important role in interpersonal classroom conflicts between teachers and students, and teachers and parents. In the light of all these implications, it does not seem premature to suggest that an introduction to the study of causal perception be presented in teacher training programs, in order that teachers become consciously aware of the attribution process.

References

Beckman, L. J. Effects of students' performance on teachers' and observers' attributions of causality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1970, 61, 76-82.

Cook, R. E. Relation of achievement motivation and attribution to self-reinforcement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1970.

Crandall, V. C., Katkovsky, W., & Crandall, V. J. Children's beliefs in their own control of reinforcement in intellectual-academic achievement situations. Child Development, 1965, 36, 91-109.

Frieze, I. & Weiner, B. Cue utilization and attributional judgments for success and failure. Journal of Personality, 1971, 39, 591-606.

Heider, F. The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley, 1958. Johnson, T. J., Feigenbaum, R., & Weiby, M. Some determinants and consequences

of the teacher's perception of causation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1964, 55, 237-246.

Jones, E. E., Kanouse, D., Kelley, H. H., Nisbett, R. E., Valins, S., & Weiner, B. (Eds.) Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior. New York: General Learning Press, (in press).

Jones, E. E. & Nisbett, R. E. The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. New York: General Learning Press, 1971.

Katz, I. The socialization of academic motivation in minority group children. In D. Levine (Ed.) Nebraska symposium on motivation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1967.

Kelley, H. H. Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.) Nebraska symposium on motivation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1967.

Kohlberg, L. The development of children's orientations toward a moral order: I. Sequence in the development of moral thought. Vita Humana, 1963, 6, 11-33.

Kukla, A. Attributional determinants of achievement-related behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 21, 166-174.

Lanzetta, J. T. & Hannah, T. E. Reinforcing behavior of "naive" trainers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969, 11, 245-252.

Maier, S. R., Seligman, M. E., & Solomon, R. L. Pavlovian fear conditioning and learned helplessness: Effects of escape and avoidance behavior of (a) the

214

Vol. 42, No. 2




CS-US contingency and (b) the independence of US and instrumental responding. In B. A. Campbell & R. M. Church (Eds.) Punishment and aversive behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1968.

McClelland, D. C. The achieving society. Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1961. McMahan, I. D. Causal attributions and expectancy of success: Age and sex

differences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The City University of New York, 1971.

Meyer, W. U. Selbstverantwortlichkeit und Leistungsmotivation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ruhr Universitat, Bochum, Germany, 1970.

Pastore, N. The role of arbitrariness in the frustration-aggression hypothesis. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1952, 47, 728-731.

Piaget, J. The moral judgment of the child. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1932. Rosenthal, R. & Jacobson, L. F. Teacher expectations for the disadvantaged.

Scientific American, 1968, 218, 19-23. Weiner, B. New conceptions in the study of achievement motivation. In B. Maher

(Ed.) Progress in experimental personality research, Vol. 5. New York: Academic Press, 1970. Pp. 67-109.

Weiner, B., Frieze, I., Kukla, A., Reed, L., Rest, S., & Rosenbaum, R. M. Perceiving the causes of success and failure. New York: General Learning Press, 1971.

Weiner, B., Heckhausen, H., Meyer, W. U., & Cook, R. E. Causal ascriptions and achievement motivation: A conceptual analysis of effort and reanalysis of locus of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 21, 239-248.

Weiner, B. & Kukla, A. An attributional analysis of achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, 15, 1-20.

Weiner, B. & Potepan, P. A. Personality characteristics and affective reactions towards exams of succeeding and failing college students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1970, 61, 144-151.

215

WEINER



Documents

Attribution Theory, Achievement Motivation, and the Educational Process