ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN DECISION PROCESSES

Vol. 62,No. 3,June,pp. 286-299, 1995

Responses to Successful and Unsuccessful Performance: The Moderating Effect of Self-Efficacy on the Relationship between

Performance and Attributions

WILLIAM S. SILVER

University of Denver

AND

TERENCE R. MITCHELL AND MARILYN E. GIST

University of Washington

This paper reports on two experiments which ex­plore how individuals with high and low self-efficacy differ in the way they interpret performance feedback and make causal attributions to sustain their self­efficacy perceptions for subsequent performance at­tempts. The results from Study 1 show that high self­efficacy people make self-serving attributions for un­successful performance, while low self-efficacy individuals make self-effacing attributions for unsuc­cessful performance. In Study 2, these attribution pat­terns were replicated and shown to combine with past performance, to account for 53% of the variance in subsequent self-efficacy. The implications for improv­ing training interventions, and for understanding the causes of poor performance, are discussed. © 1995 Aca-

demic Press, Inc.

With the rapid pace of technological improvements in organizations, workers frequently are faced with the need to develop competencies at new tasks. This pro­cess can be frustrating because initial attempts to mas­ter new tasks often are not successful-new skills have to be learned, old skills have to applied in new ways, and many people fail at new tasks before they learn how to perform them well (Turnage, 1990). Workers may respond to this failure in different ways. Some

The Graduate Management Admissions Test questions used in this research are the copyrighted sole property of the Graduate Man­agement Admission Council (GMAC). The test questions were not designed specifically for use in this study, and the GMAC bears no responsibility for the manner in which these questions were used. The authors would like to thank the GMAC for its permission to use these test items. Address correspondence and reprint requests to William S. Silver, Daniels College of Business, Department of Man­agement, University of Denver, Denver, CO 80208.

workers may increase their efforts and develop new task strategies to better apply their skills. Other work­ers may despair of ever performing the task well and slacken their efforts. An important research need is to determine what factors are associated with these dif­ferent responses to failure.

One variable that is critical in determining the di­rection of subsequent performance is an individual's self-efficacy-a person's belief in their capability to perform a particular task. From a social cognitive per­spective, performance failure can reduce an individu­al's self-efficacy, which in turn is associated with low­ered motivation and performance (Bandura, 1986). However, the effects of previous performance on self­efficacy also depends on the attributions that people make about the causes of their performance (Schunk, 1991). According to Bandura (1988), subjective weigh­ing of attributional factors and appraisal of self-efficacy involve bidirectional causation. Self-beliefs of efficacy should influence causal attributions for performance, and these attributions should, in turn, affect subse­quent self-efficacy appraisal. Self-efficacy will then be related to future motivation, performance, and causal attributions, creating tendencies to persist or give up (Gist & Mitchell, 1992).

Although many studies have demonstrated that self­efficacy influences performance in diverse settings (Gist & Mitchell, 1992), the relationship between self­efficacy and causal attributions has received little em­pirical attention (Mone & Baker, 1992). This paper re­ports on two experiments which explore the association between self-efficacy, causal attributions, and task per­formance. Study 1 addresses the question of whether differences in self-efficacy are related to the causal at­tributions people make for successful and unsuccessful

286

07 49-5978/95 $6.00 Copyright © 1995 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

SELF-EFFICACY AND CAUSAL A'ITRIBUTIONS 287

performance. Study 2 examines the role of past perfor­mance and attributions as determinants of subsequent self-efficacy. These relationships are depicted in Fig­ure 1.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Research on Causal Attributions

Beginning with the work of Heider (1958), a central focus of attribution research has been to examine the ways in which people perceive the causes of their own behavior and performance. Weiner, Frieze, Kukla, Reed, Rest, and Rosenbaum (1972) demonstrated that in achievement-related contexts, the causes perceived as most responsible for success and failure are: (1) one's level of ability, (2) the amount of effort that was expended, (3) the magnitude and direction of experi­enced luck, and (4) the difficulty of the task. These causal ascriptions are arrayed along two attributional dimensions (locus of causality and stability) to allow comparisons between causes of performance in diverse contexts (e.g., Luginbuhl, Crowe, & Kahan, 1975; Weiner et al., 1972). Internal causes (ability, effort) are distinguished from external ones (task difficulty, luck), and stable causes (ability, task difficulty) are distin­guished from unstable ones (effort, luck).

Some research with this framework has suggested that people attribute performance success, more than failure to internal and stable factors (e.g., I succeed becaus~ I'm skillful, I fail because of bad luck). How­ever, reviews of the attribution literature offer conflict­ing evidence for the existence of this self-serving attri­butional pattern. Miller and Ross (1975) concluded that there is substantial support for the contention that individuals engage in self-enhancing attributions for successful events, but little evidence is available to suggest that individuals consistently utilize self­protective attributions under conditions of failure. A recent review by Fiske and Taylor (1991) also suggests that "there is more evidence that people take credit for success-the self-enhancing bias-than that they deny responsibility for failure--the self-protective bias" (p. 79). In contrast, reviews by Bradley (1978) and Zuck­erman (1979) indicated that self-serving effects of both success and failure are obtained in most experimental paradigms.

Study 1

Self-Etticocy -+- Performance _.. Attributions ,,,,...._ Self-Efficacy

Study 2

FIG. 1. Relationships investigated in Study 1 and Study 2.

The inconsistency of the evidence for self-serving at­tributions led to research on various individual differ­ence variables as moderators of the different attribu­tion patterns associated with successful and unsuc­cessful performance. For example, causal attributions have been examined in relation to self-esteem (Camp­bell & Fairey, 1985; Ickes & Layden, 1978), test anxi­ety (Arkin, Kolditz, & Kolditz, 1983; Arkin, Detchon, & Maruyama, 1982), personal problem solving (Baum­gardner, Heppner, & Arkin, 1986), Type A & B indi­viduals (Strube & Boland, 1986), and achievement mo­tivation (Heckhausen, 1987; Weiner, 1985). Some of these studies of individual difference moderator vari­ables have demonstrated different patterns of causal attributions for both successful and unsuccessful per­formance (e.g., Heckhausen, 1987; Feather, 1983; Ickes & Layden, 1978), whereas other studies have sug­gested that individual difference variables are associ­ated with patterns of causal attributions only for un­successful performance, but not with attributions for successful performance (e.g., Campbell & Fairey, 1985; Zuckerman, 1979). In general these results suggest that people with low self-esteem, low achievement mo­tivation, and high test anxiety internalize failure more than people who have the opposite attributes. The find­ings from this research led us to investigate the role of self-efficacy as a moderator of performance --t attribu­tion relationships, especially under conditions of poor performance.

Self-Efficacy and Attributions

Self-efficacy is not a global personality trait which is stable across contexts, but rather a task-specific belief which may vary depending on the situation (Bandura, 1989). Whereas self-esteem is related to attributions only in situations where self-worth concerns are aroused, and test anxiety is related to attributions only in evaluation situations, self-efficacy should be related to attributions and performance on almost all tasks (Bandura, 1986). The lack of consistent findings from previous research on personality variables and pat­terns of causal attributions may be due to the fact that these personality variables are not relevant for perfor­mance in all situations.

In a continuation of this line of research, we have chosen to examine the relationship between self­efficacy and attributions under conditions of both suc­cessful and unsuccessful performance. No one to date has studied these relationships, and they are impor­tant to understand for a variety of reasons. First, self­efficacy is a good predictor of performance (e.g., Gist, Stevens, & Bavetta, 1991; Wood & Bandura, 1989). Understanding how attributions may influence this re­lationship will help to further the development of the theoretical network for self-efficacy. Second, a finding

288 SILVER, MITCHELL, AND GIST

that efficacy moderated the performance ~ attribution relationship would increase our understanding of the factors that are associated with responses to perfor­mance successes and failures, and may suggest ways to improve employee development and subsequent perfor­mance.

STUDY 1

In the first study, upper-level business students solved problems from a data sufficiency test (taken from the Graduate Management Admissions Test). Each person got some problems right and some wrong. Based upon the preceding discussion, the following hy­potheses were investigated:

HYPOTHESIS 1. Self-efficacy will be related positively to internal and stable attributions for successful performance: The higher the self-efficacy, the more that self-enhancing attribution pat­terns will be evident.

HYPOTHESIS 2. Self-efficacy will be related negatively to internal and stable attributions for unsuccessful performance: The higher the self-efficacy, the more that self-protective attribution patterns will be evident.

Method

Since many of the materials and procedures were similar for both Studies 1 and 2, they are described fully for Study 1 and are referenced under Method in Study 2.

Participants

Participants were 68 undergraduate business stu­dents, in an upper-level business course, who volun­teered to take part in the study for extra course credit. Of the sample, 53% was male; 4 7% was female. All of our analyses of attributions, self-efficacy, and perfor­mance showed no gender differences, so males and fe­males were grouped together for tests of the hypothe­ses. The average amount of work experience was 3. 7 years.

Procedure

Participants were told that the study was designed to assess their performance on data sufficiency prob­lems used for the Graduate Management Admissions Test (GMAT). They received information about various strategies that could be used for answering data suffi­ciency problems. Participants then completed a prac­tice test consisting of three problems. After the practice test, they were given the answers to the test and writ­ten explanations for how to solve each problem. Next, participants filled out a self-efficacy measure for a test containing 10 data sufficiency problems. They then completed a 10-problem test, after which they received

answers and explanations for each problem. Finally, participants assessed their attributions for each prob­lem they solved correctly, and for each problem solved incorrectly.

Measures

Data sufficiency problems. Data sufficiency ques­tions are designed to measure one's ability to analyze a quantitative problem, to recognize which information is relevant, and to determine at what point there is sufficient information to solve the problem. All prob­lems for this study were taken from The Official Guide for GMAT Review (Educational Testing Service, 1986) which contains problems used on actual GMATs. In order to provide subjects with the opportunity to make attributions for both successful and unsuccessful per­formance, the difficulty level of each problem selected for the present study was held constant (moderate dif­ficulty)-based upon the percentage of previous test­takers who answered the problem correctly (using na­tional norms). In the present sample the average num­ber of problems correctly answered was 5 out of 10. Participants received a test packet containing each problem on a separate page and were allowed 2 min to solve each problem.

Self-efficacy. The self-efficacy measure asked sub­jects to indicate "yes" or "no" to whether or not they could perform at 10 different levels of proficiency. Pro­ficiency levels were listed as the number of data suffi­ciency problems out of 10 that subjects thought they were capable of correctly solving. For each proficiency level for which they indicated "yes," participants also estimated their confidence about their present ability to perform at that proficiency level (rated 1 to 10: 1 = totally nonconfident, 5 = moderately confident, 10 = totally confident). A participant's self-efficacy score was computed by summing the confidence ratings across all levels of proficiency which were answered "yes." Self-efficacy scores could thus range from 0 to 100, with higher scores being indicative of higher self­efficacy. This procedure is the standard method for assessing self-efficacy and has been used previously by numerous researchers (e.g., Gist & Mitchell, 1992; Bandura, 1984).

Attribution measure. For problems they got right, participants divided 100 points among (a) ability, (b) effort, (c) good luck, and (d) task ease attributions. For problems they got wrong, participants divided 100 points among (a) lack of ability, (b) lack of effort, (c) bad luck, and (d) task difficulty attributions. Each of these eight attributions was defined and described in more detail on a cover page. A locus of causality attribution score was obtained by summing the attributions made to ability and effort, and subtracting the sum of the

SELF-EFFICACY AND CAUSAL ATIRIBUTIONS 289

attributions to luck and task difficulty. A stability at­tribution score was created by summing the attribu­tions to ability and task difficulty, and subtracting the sum of the attributions to effort and luck. This proce­dure has been used previously by others (e.g., Chacko & McElroy, 1983) to derive attributional dimensions from specific performance causes. Attribution scores were averaged for each individual for the problems they got right (successful performance) and for the problems they got wrong (unsuccessful performance).

Three further points about this procedure need to be addressed. First, it should be noted that a positive lo­cus of causality attribution score reflects predomi­nantly internal attributions, whereas a negative score reflects mainly external attributions. Similarly, a pos­itive stability attribution score indicates predomi­nantly stable attributions, whereas a negative stability score indicates mainly unstable attributions. The zero point indicates neutrality in that internal (stable) and external (unstable) attributions are seen as equally im­portant causes of performance. Second, deriving attri­butional dimensions by combining specific attributions avoids some of the problems associated with analyzing an ipsitive measure (Hicks, 1970). Third, although the locus of causality and stability attribution dimensions are not independent (for successful performance r == -.22,p < .10; for unsuccessful performance r == .28,p < . 05), the correlations leave a substantial proportion of variance unaccounted for, and therefore, were ana­lyzed separately.

Results

The means, standard deviations, and intercorrela­tions between all Study 1 variables are contained in Table 1. It should be noted initially that self-efficacy was positively correlated with subsequent performance (r = .22, p < .05). People with high self-efficacy per­formed better than people with low self-efficacy as would be expected from previous research. One can

also note in Table 1 that the allocation of points to internal causes is significantly higher for success expe­riences than failure experiences, irrespective of self­efficacy (M = 41.13 vs 6.99, t = 3.32, p < .01). The same pattern of results is observed for the stability dimen­sion (M = 55.66 vs 3.54, t = -3.14, p < .01). These results replicate the self-serving bias frequently re­ported in the literature.

Successful Performance

Hypothesis 1 predicted that self-efficacy will be re­lated positively to internal and stable attributions for successful performance. The correlations show that self-efficacy was related positively to stable attribu­tions for successful performance (r = .22, p < .05), but was unrelated to the locus of causality dimension, pro­viding moderate support for Hypothesis 1.

Unsuccessful Performance

Hypothesis 2 predicted that self-efficacy will be re­lated negatively to internal and stable attributions for unsuccessful performance. The correlation between self-efficacy and the locus of causality dimension was negative and significant (r = - .29, p < .01). The corre­lation between self-efficacy and the stability dimension was also negative and significant (r = -.36, p < .01) . These results support Hypothesis 2.

Examining the patterns of means for the attribu­tions shows that under successful performance, there is very little difference between high and low self­efficacy subjects. However, for unsuccessful perfor­mance, these two groups differ substantially. High self­efficacy people attribute their poor performance more to bad luck than do low self-efficacy people (M = 43 vs 21, t = -3.57, p < .01). In contrast, low self-efficacy people attribute their poor performance more to lack of ability than do high self-efficacy people (M == 36 vs 21, t :::: 2.30, p < .01).

TABLE 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations for Study 1 Variables

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5

1. Self-efficacy 45.64 23.67 2. Performance 4.75 2.08 .22*

Attributions for successful performance 3. Locus of causality 41.13 36.47 .01 .13 4. Stability 55.66 33.54 .22* .13 -.21

Attributions for unsuccessful performance 5. Locus of causality 6.99 48.94 -.29* .03 .32* -.24* 6. Stability 3.54 44.56 -.36** -.16 .04 .00 -.28*

* p < .05. ** p < .01.

290 SIL VER, MITCHELL, AND GIST

Regression Analyses

The preceding analyses do not rule out the possibil­ity that real ability differences between subjects ac­counted for the observed relationships between self­efficacy and the attribution dimensions. Unfortu­nately, it is difficult to partial out the effects of ability from the effects of self-efficacy since both variables have simultaneous influences. However, test perfor­mance can be used as a measure which reflects ability, to determine if, within performance conditions, self­efficacy influences attributions beyond the influence of performance scores. To test this hypothesis, hierarchi­cal multiple regression analyses were conducted for each of the attribution dimensions for successful and unsuccessful performance to which self-efficacy was re­lated. Test performance (the number of problems an­swered correctly) was entered as the first predictor of the attribution dimensions followed by self-efficacy.

The results of the regression analyses are reported in Table 2. As shown in the table, test score was not re­lated to the locus of causality dimension for unsuccess­ful performance or to the stability dimensions for suc­cessful and unsuccessful performance. However, self­efficacy explained a statistically significant proportion of the variance in each attribution dimension. These analyses suggest that the initial finding of relation­ships between self-efficacy and causal attribution di­mensions can not be explained by actual ability differ­ences as reflected by test scores.

Discussion

The results of this study demonstrate that, for un­successful performance, self-efficacy moderated the performance -t attribution relationship. This finding suggests that while high self-efficacy people make self­serving attributions (e.g., bad luck) under conditions of unsuccessful performance, low self-efficacy individuals

TABLE 2 Regression Analyses: Test Performance and Self-Efficacy

on Attributions

R2

Step Variable R ~ R2 change

Stability (successful performance) 1 Test score .14 -.15 .02 .02 2 Self-efficacy .29 .28 .08 .06

Stability (unsuccessful performance) 1 Test score .16 -.09 .03 .03 2 Self-efficacy .37 -.34 .14 .11

Locus of causality (unsuccessful performance) 1 Test score .03 .09 .00 .00 2 Self-efficacy .31 -.31 .09 -.09

* p < .05. ** p < .01.

F change

1.35 4.39*

1.80 8.49**

.06 6.62**

engage in self-effacing attributions (e.g., lack of ability) for unsuccessful performance.

Mixed support was received for the hypothesis that self-efficacy moderated the performance -t attribution relationship for successful performance. Specifically, it was found that while self-efficacy was related to stable attributions for successful performance, no relation­ship was observed between self-efficacy and the locus of causality attribution dimension. Thus, the pattern of findings in the present study is consistent with re­search demonstrating that it is in response to failure where individual differences exert the strongest influ­ence on attributions (e.g., Heckhausen, 1987; Zucker­man, 1979).

The unique contribution of Study 1 was that it pro­vides evidence for an aspect of self-efficacy theory that had not yet been empirically examined. Specifically, this study empirically supported the idea that self­efficacy moderates the performance -t attribution re­lationship, especially when performance is poor. In Study 2, the bidirectional relationship between self­efficacy and attributions is explored. That is, causal attributions are examined as both antecedents to, and consequences of, self-efficacy perceptions.

STUDY2

According to Social Cognitive Theory, failure on a task can reduce an individual's level of self-efficacy, which in turn is associated with lowered motivation and performance. However, the effects of previous per­formance on self-efficacy depend on the cognitive ap­praisal of that performance (Bandura, 1986). The re­sults from Study 1 illustrate that high and low self­efficacy people have different interpretations of the causes of their performance. These causal attributions may influence people's subsequent perceptions of their performance capabilities (Gist & Mitchell, 1992). Gi~e.n the central role of self-efficacy in task performance, it is important to understand how self-efficacy beliefs a~e formed in the first place, and therefore, the focus ofth1s second study is to examine the role of past performance and attributions as antecedents and determinants of self-efficacy.

Past Performance --+ Self-Efficacy

In order to make a self-efficacy judgment, individu­als rely on four broad principal sources of information (Bandura, 1986): (1) personal mastery experiences (e.g., past performance), (2) vicarious information (e.g., modeling), (3) persuasive information (e.g., social influ­ence), and (4) arousal information based on physiolog­ical cues (e.g., mood). Of these information sources, past performance experiem;:e provides the most influ­ential source of efficacy information (Gist & Mitchell,

SELF-EFFICACY AND CAUSAL ATTRIBUTIONS 291

1992). Performance success heightens self-beliefs of ca­pability; failures create self-doubt which lower self­efficacy, especially if failures occur early in the course of events (Bandura, 1986). In support of these ideas, Locke, Frederick, Lee, and Bobko (1984) found that past performance was more strongly related to self­efficacy than were measures of ability or strategies used. Feltz (1982) found that past performance contin­ued to be a key determinant of self-efficacy over mul­tiple-task trials. These data suggest our first hypothe­sis.

HYPOTHESIS 1. Past performance will have a strong positive re­lationship with post-task self-efficacy.

Attributions~ Self-Efficacy

Self-beliefs of efficacy are not simply reflective im­prints of past performance (Bandura, 1986). The im­pact of past performance on self-efficacy depends on the cognitive appraisal of perceived performance causes (Bandura, 1977). However, only a few studies have examined the effect of attributions on subsequent efficacy beliefs (e.g., Schunk & Gunn, 1986; Schunk & Rice, 1986; Schunk, 1984). The generalizability of the results from these studies is limited because the sub­jects were children, and attributions were only made to ability or effort causes. Other causes of performance are also important (e.g., luck and task difficulty), and all four causes can be interpreted in terms of their causal dimensions (e.g., locus of causality, stability). Furthermore, the effect of attributions on subsequent self-efficacy varies depending on whether the past per­formance is seen as a success or a failure (Bandura, 1977). Therefore, hypotheses are developed below for the impact of causal attribution dimensions on self­efficacy, under conditions of successful or unsuccessful past performance.

Successful Performance

Bandura (1977) has hypothesized that successful performances which are perceived as resulting from internal causes rather than from fortuitous situational circumstances are likely to enhance self-efficacy. In ad­dition, if successful performance is ascribed to a stable cause, then that outcome will be anticipated with an increased probability in the future, and self-efficacy will increase. For example, Schunk (1984) reported that both effort and ability attributions for success led to motivational increases, and that ability attributions resulted in subsequent higher levels of self-efficacy and performance.

HYPOTHESIS 2. Internal and stable attributions for successful performance will be related positively to post-task self-efficacy.

Unsuccessful Performance

Bandura (1986) has also hypothesized that failures should lead to reductions in self-efficacy when attrib­uted to lack of ability rather than to task difficulty or bad luck. Indirect tests of this idea have been con­ducted. For example, Anderson (1983) used persuasion to suggest to subjects that if they failed at the criterion task (i.e., trying to solicit blood from donors), the fail­ure was caused by unstable (insufficient effort, poor soliciting strategy) as opposed to stable (lack of ability) causes. Those subjects who were led to believe that failure was determined by unstable causes had higher expectancies of subsequent success than subjects who attributed their performance to stable causes. Also, Wilson and Linville (1985) gave college freshman in­formation suggesting that the causes of low grades were unstable. Compared with a control group (who held beliefs suggesting more stable causes of failure), the students in the experimental group expected to have higher grade point averages in the long run. These studies suggest the following hypothesis:

HYPOTHESIS 3. Internal and stable attributions for unsuccessful performance will be related negatively to post-task self-efficacy.

Self-Efficacy ~ Attributions

In Study 1 it was demonstrated that (1) self-efficacy was related negatively to internal and stable attribu­tions for failure, and (2) self-efficacy was related posi­tively to stable attributions for successful performance but not to internal attributions. The way in which self­efficacy and attributions were measured in Study 1 may have contributed to this pattern of results. Recall that for the self-efficacy judgment, subjects indicated their capability to attain various levels of performance on the entire test. However, they were asked to make attributions about the success or failure of each indi­vidual problem, and these attributions were averaged for problems that were correct and those that were incorrect. Thus self-efficacy and attributions were as­sessed at different levels, which may have weakened their relationship to each other. Furthermore, self­efficacy was assessed after only three practice prob­lems. Because the task was unfamiliar, self-efficacy perceptions may not have been stable, and may not have exerted a consistent influence on attributions across problems. In Study 2, these measurement issues will be addressed and the hypotheses will be reexam­ined.

HYPOTHESIS 4. Self-efficacy will be related positively to internal and stable attributions for successful performance.

HYPOTHESIS 5. Self-efficacy will be related negatively to internal and stable attributions for unsuccessful performance.

292 SILVER, MITCHELL, AND GIST

Method

Participants

The participants were 103 undergraduate business students in an upper-level business course. The sample consisted of 52 male and 51 female students. All of our analyses of attributions, self-efficacy, and performance showed no gender differences, so males and females were grouped together for tests of the hypotheses. The average amount of work experience was 4.3 years.

Procedure

The procedure was similar to Study 1. Participants received instructions, completed some practice items, got feedback, and filled out an efficacy measure. They then completed the test, received performance feed­back, made attributions, and estimated their efficacy for a subsequent problem set.

To address the methodological concerns from Study 1, some changes were made in the measures and pro­cedures for the present study. First, the practice test contained six problems, rather than three. This change was made so that participants would have more infor­mation on which to base their initial self-efficacy judg­ments. Second, the attribution measures were de­signed so that people would be making attributions for their performance on the entire test, and not for each individual problem. This change allowed self-efficacy and attributions to be assessed at the same level, and is more representative of the attributional process peo­ple go through when interpreting their test perfor­mance.

A third change in the present study concerned the way in which the data sufficiency tests were adminis­tered. Participants were allowed to answer the prob­lems in any order they chose, and could spend as little or as much time as they wanted (within the confines of the time limit for the test) on each problem. Because attributions were to be assessed for the entire test and not for each individual problem, it was not necessary to ensure that subjects spent equal amounts of time an­swering each problem. A final change was that partic­ipants were given only 12112 min to complete the test rather than the 20 min given them in Study 1. This change was made to keep the average time per problem (i.e., 75 s) consistent with what it would be on the GMAT.

Measures

Data sufficiency tests. As in Study 1, all problems on the data sufficiency tests were taken from The Of­ficial Guide for GMAT Review (ETS, 1986). To help keep the difficulty level of the pretest and the experi­mental test equivalent, problems were matched ac-

cording to the number of people who correctly an­swered them, based upon data collected in a pilot study (n = 19). Participants were given 7112 min to complete the practice data sufficiency test and 12V2 min for the experimental test.

Self-efficacy. Perceived self-efficacy was measured twice (before and after the test) with the same measure used in Study 1. The test-retest reliability for this self­efficacy measure was r = .82 (p < .01).

Attributions. To facilitate generalizations across contexts, causal attributions such as ability, effort, etc., are usually discussed with respect to where they fall on various causal dimensions (i.e., locus of causality, sta­bility). However, there is some debate over the best way to measure these dimensions. In most attribution studies, the researcher assigns the causal attributions to causal dimensions based on the theoretical meaning of the causal attributions. For example, effort and abil­ity are classified as internal attributions. This proce­dure assumes that the theoretical meaning of different causal attributions is consistent with the meaning in­ferred by the person who is making the causal attribu­tions. But Weiner (1983, 1979) has noted that the meaning of the same attribution may vary between different persons and different contexts.

To offset this problem, Russell ( 1982) has suggested that causal dimensions should be measured directly. He has developed the Causal Dimension Scale (CDS) for this purpose and Russell, McAuley, and Tarico (1987) have suggested that the CDS is more strongly related to most theoretical outcomes than is an indirect measure of causal dimensions derived from causal at­tributions. Accordingly, both direct (i.e., CDS) and in­direct (i.e., derived dimensions) methods of assessing causal dimensions were used in the present study:

1. Derived Dimensions-Based upon their test score, participants were divided into successful and unsuc­cessful performers (six correct problems and above = successful performance, five correct problems and be­low= unsuccessful performance). This cutoff point was selected because the average number of correct an­swers was between five and six for 19 subjects who participated in a pilot study. In the present study, par­ticipants also were given normative data indicating a "typical" distribution of test scores, before taking the first data sufficiency test, and were told that a score of 6 was considered a "passing" score. This procedure was necessary to facilitate consistency across subjects in their evaluations of their test performance, since the meaning of attributions is contingent on people's per­ceptions of how successful or unsuccessful their perfor­mance was.

Two items were used to assess performance percep­tions. Participants rated their performance on a 7-

SELF-EFFICACY AND CAUSAL ATIRIBUTIONS 293

point Likert scale (1 = poor, 4 = average, 7 = excel­lent). Participants also evaluated how successfully they performed ( 1 = unsuccessful, 4 = average, 7 = successful). These two questions were combined to form a composite score, which was used to test whether subjects' perceptions of what constituted successful performance was consistent with our description. The interitem correlation for this measure was r = .93 (p < .01).

Successful performers evaluated the extent to which ability, effort, good luck, and test ease were important in contributing to their successful performance. Unsuc­cessful performers evaluated the extent to which lack of ability, lack of effort, bad luck, and task difficulty contributed to their unsuccessful performance. Re­sponses for each cause were made on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = unimportant to 5 = important. Scores were derived for the locus of causality dimen­sion by summing the attributions made to ability and effort and subtracting the sum of the attributions to luck and task difficulty. Scores were derived for the stability dimension by summing the attributions to ability and task difficulty and subtracting the sum of the attributions to effort and luck.

2. Causal Dimension Scale-The Causal Dimension Scale (Russell, 1982) was used to assess directly how participants perceived the cause of their performance in terms of the locus of causality and stability dimen­sions described by Weiner (1985, 1979). Participants first selected the most important cause of their perfor­mance from among the four causal attributions (i.e., ability, effort, good luck, and test ease for successful performance; lack of ability, lack of effort, bad luck, and task difficulty for unsuccessful performance). They then evaluated this attribution on six semantic differ­ential scales, with three of the scales assessing each of the causal dimensions. For the locus of causality di­mension the three scales were: ( 1) reflects an aspect of yourself-reflects an aspect of the situation, (2) inside of you-outside of you, and (3) something about you­something about others. For the stability dimension the three scales were: (1) permanent-temporary, (2) stable over time-variable over time, and (3) unchang­ing-changing. To evaluate the reliability of the Causal Dimension Scale, coefficient alphas were computed for each subscale. For the locus of causality dimension, a = . 75; for the stability dimension, a = .83. Thus, consis­tent with previous studies (Russell et al., 1987; Russell, 1982), the reliability estimates for the locus of causal­ity and stability subscales indicated adequate levels of internal consistency.

Since both the Causal Dimension Scale and the de­rived attribution dimension measure assessed the same attributional dimensions, it was expected that they would be positively correlated for both the locus of

causality and the stability dimensions. Correlations between the measures were significant for the locus of causality dimension (r = .61, p < .01 for successful per­formance; r = .37, p < .01 for unsuccessful perfor­mance). However, for the stability dimension, these correlations did not reach statistical significance (r = .29, p = ns for successful performance; r = .20, p = ns for unsuccessful performance).

Results

Again we should note that self-efficacy was positively correlated with performance (r = .42, p < .01). In ad­dition, the locus of causality dimension was signifi­cantly higher for successful performance than for un­successful performance using the derived dimensions (t = 3.35,p < .01) or the Causal Dimension Scale (t = 3.20, p < .01). People who performed well made more inter­nal attributions than people who performed poorly. Thus, both Studies 1 and 2 indicate significant effi­cacy-performance relationships, and self-serving bi­ases.

Past Performance

In order to test the first hypothesis that past perfor­mance will have a positive relationship with post-task self-efficacy, a Pearson product-moment correlation between test performance and subsequent self-efficacy was computed. The correlation was significant and in the hypothesized direction (r = .63, p < .01). Thus Hy­pothesis 1 was supported.

Attributions

In the present study, participants were split into suc­cessful (n = 37) and unsuccessful (n = 66) performers based upon their test score. While we recognize that this procedure results in a loss of power, we feel it was necessary for three reasons. First, attribution ratings were made based upon selection into a category of per­formance, and not on the numerical performance score. This is more consistent with the actual attributional process where people's perceptions of the success of their performance (based upon normative information, goals, incentives, etc.) drives causal interpretations of their performance. That is, people use labels or cate­gories (such as success or failure) as guides to making attributions, rather than a specific performance score. Second, people evaluated different attributions de­pending upon whether or not their performance was successful. For example, successful performers evalu­ated the extent to which their ability for data suffi­ciency problems influenced their test score, whereas unsuccessful performers evaluated the extent to which their lack of ability influenced their test score. The more detailed descriptions of these causes were differ-

294 SIL VER, MITCHELL, AND GIST

ent as well. Third, within performance categories, self­efficacy was allowed to range freely. Any restriction in self-efficacy variance due to performance groupings should reduce the strength of the relationships under investigation and make it more difficult to find signif­icant results. Thus, grouping in this manner seems to us to be conceptually appropriate and a conservative test of the hypotheses.

To determine the adequacy of the successful/unsuc­cessful performance manipulation, one-way analyses of variance were conducted between successful and un­successful performers on their perception of the suc­cess of their performance. The results demonstrate that successful performers viewed their test scores as more successful than did unsuccessful performers [M = 4.4 vs 2.2; F(l,101) = 85.25, p < .01) and suggest that subjects viewed the success of their performance in a manner that was congruent with the attributions they were asked to assess.

Successful performers. The means, standard devia­tions, and intercorrelations of the antecedents of self­efficacy for successful performers are shown in Table 3. Hypothesis 2 predicted that internal and stable attri­butions for successful performers will be related posi­tively to post-task self-efficacy. Table 3 shows that the correlations between the locus of causality dimension and self-efficacy were positive and significant both for the Causal Dimension Scale (r = .52) and for the de­rived dimension measure (r = .46). The correlations be­tween the stability dimension measures and self­efficacy also were positive (r = .24 and r = .26), but the magnitude was not sufficient to achieve statistical sig­nificance. Thus Hypothesis 2 was supported only for the locus of causality dimension. The correlations

between the individual causal attributions and self­efficacy show that peoples' evaluations of the impor­tance of ability (stable, internal) as a cause of success­ful performance were related positively to their post­task level of self-efficacy. In addition, attributions to good luck (unstable, external) as a cause of successful performance were related negatively to post-task self­efficacy judgments.

Unsuccessful performers. The means, standard de­viations, and intercorrelations of antecedents of self­efficacy for unsuccessful performers are shown in Table 4. Hypothesis 3 predicted that internal and stable at­tributions for unsuccessful performers will be related negatively to post-task self-efficacy. Table 4 shows that the correlations between the locus of causality dimen­sion and self-efficacy were significant and in the hy­pothesized negative direction for both the Causal Di­mension Scale (r = - .28) and for the derived dimen­sion measure (r = - .32). The correlation between the stability dimension and subsequent self-efficacy was also negative and significant, but only for the derived attribution measure (r = - .46). Thus Hypothesis 3 was supported when the derived dimension measure was used to assess attributions. The correlations between the individual causal attributions and self-efficacy show that the more people believed that their lack of ability or the difficulty of the task were causes of their unsuccessful performance, the lower their post-task self-efficacy.

Regression Analyses

To determine the proportion of variance in post-task self-efficacy accounted for by past performance and at-

TABLE3 Means, Standard Deviations, and lntercorrelations: Antecedents of Self-Efficacy (Successful Performance)

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Test performance 6.9 1.02

Causal attributions 2. Ability 4.0 0.78 .35* 3. Effort 3.3 0.99 .25 .18 4. Good luck 1.9 1.08 -.16 -.53** -.09 5. Task ease 3.0 1.00 .25 .25 .00 -.03

Derived dimensions 6. Locus of causality 2.3 2.16 .24 .59** .57** -.72** -.36* 7. Stability 1.8 2.15 .17 .66** -.35* -.66** .57** .15

CDS 8. Locus of causality 7.2 1.26 .27 .57** .22 -.63** .02 .61** .43** 9. Stability 6.8 1.59 .27 .44** .03 -.44** -.15 .46** .29 .55**

10. Self-efficacy 62.4 16.34 .61** .43** .32 -.47** .01 .52** .24 .46** .26

* p < .05. ** p < .01.

SELF-EFFICACY AND CAUSAL A'ITRIBUTIONS 295

TABLE 4 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations: Antecedents of Self-Efficacy (Unsuccessful Performance)

Variable M SD 1 2

1. Test performance 3.6 1.25

Causal attributions 2. Lack of ability 3.0 1.29 -.47** 3. Lack of effort 3.1 1.20 -.08 -.16 4. Bad luck 1.7 1.00 -.09 -.14 5. Task difficulty 3.2 1.08 -.27* .34**

Derived dimensions 6. Locus of causality 1.2 2.28 -.14 .38** 7. Stability 1.5 2.59 -.27** .77**

CDS 8. Locus of causality 5.9 1.59 -.16 .27* 9. Stability 5.8 1.28 .14 .09

10. Self-efficacy 49.9 18.9 .53** -.62**

* p < .05. ** p < .01.

tributions, hierarchical multiple regression analyses were performed separately for successful and unsuc­cessful performance. Test performance was entered as the first antecedent since it has temporal precedence over attributions. Also, it was important to determine if attributions could explain variance in self-efficacy beyond that accounted for by past performance. The attribution dimensions were then entered using step­wise selection procedures. The derived dimension mea­sure of attributions was used since it had the strongest relationship with self-efficacy across performance con­ditions. The results of the regression analyses are sum­marized in Table 5. For successful performance, the total variance in post-task self-efficacy that was ac­counted fol· jointly by past performance and attribu­tions was 53%. Note also that the locus of causality dimension added unique predictive variance in self­efficacy beyond that accounted for by past perfor­mance. For unsuccessful performers, past performance and attributions jointly accounted for 44% of the vari­ance in post-task self-efficacy. Both the locus of causal-

TABLE 5 Regression Analyses: Antecedents of Self-Efficacy

Step

1 2

1 2 3

Variable R n2 Successful performance

Test performance .61 .59 .37 Locus of causality .72 .93 .53

Unsuccessful performance Test performance .53 .48 .28 Stability .63 -.34 .39 Locus of causality .66 .19 .44

** p < .01.

R2 F change Change

.37 18.68**

.16 10.26**

.28 25.17**

.11 11.27**

.05 5.25**

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

-.12 .12 .19

.55** -.67** -.43** -.55** -.32 .57** .01

.14 -.18 -.14 .37** .09 -.25* .20 .28* -.30** .20 .07

.01 .12 -.25* -.28* -.46** -.32** .07

ity and stability dimensions added unique predictive variance in self-efficacy beyond that accounted for by past performance. These results suggest that self­efficacy judgments are not based only upon the level of past performance, but also upon people's perceptions of the causes of their previous performance.

Self-efficacy --? Attributions

Successful Performance

Hypothesis 4 predicted that self-efficacy would be re­lated positively to internal and stable attributions for successful performance. The results show that the cor­relations between self-efficacy and the locus of causal­ity dimension were positive and significant for both the derived attribution measure (r = .34, p < .05) and the Causal Dimension Scale (r = .44, p < .01). People with high self-efficacy attributed their good performance more to ability and effort than did people with low self-efficacy. However, although the correlations be­tween self-efficacy and the stability dimension also were positive, they were not significant. Thus, hypoth­esis 4 was supported only for the locus of causality dimension.

Unsuccessful Performance

Hypothesis 5 predicted that self-efficacy would be re­lated negatively to internal and stable attributions for unsuccessful performance. The results show that when the attributions are assessed by the derived attribution dimension measure, the correlation between self­efficacy and the stability dimension was negative and significant (r = -.36, p < .01). The correlation between self-efficacy and the locus of causality was also nega-

296 SILVER, MITCHELL, AND GIST

tive (r = - .17), but the magnitude was not sufficient to achieve statistical significance. In contrast, when attri­butions are assessed by the Causal Dimension Scale, the correlation between self-efficacy and the locus of causality dimension was negative and significant (r = - .25, p < .05), but the correlation between self-efficacy and the stability dimension was not. Thus there is only moderate support for Hypothesis 5. The correlations between self-efficacy and the attributions for poor per­formance show that efficacy was negatively related to ability (r = - .49, p < .01) and task difficulty attribu­tions (r= -.27,p < .05). The higherthe efficacy, the less that failure was attributed to a lack of ability or a dif­ficult task. These findings are basically consistent with the findings of Study 1.

DISCUSSION

The findings from this research clearly demonstrate that self-efficacy both causes and is caused by perfor­mance experiences. Efficacy was significantly related to performance, and performance was related to post­task self-efficacy. In addition, both studies highlight the significance of how individuals interpret the causes of their performance. High versus low efficacy beliefs result in different attributions for performance, and these attributions are related to subsequent estimates of efficacy. Successful performance that is attributed to internal factors raises individuals' self-beliefs of efficacy. Unsuccessful performance that is attributed to internal and stable factors lowers individuals' self-efficacy. The magnitude of the variance in post­task self-efficacy that was explained by past perfor­mance and attributions (53% for successful perfor­mance, 44% for unsuccessful performance) speaks to the importance of these variables as determinants of self-efficacy.

Several features of this study contribute to its inter­nal and external validity. First, multiple sets of prop­ositions from self-efficacy theory were examined in multiple studies using different subjects and slightly different measures and procedures. Second, both ante­cedents and consequences of self-efficacy were exam­ined. This is consistent with the notion of reciprocal causation which is central to social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986). Third, the participants (business stu­dents) were the appropriate sample for the experimen­tal task (GMAT data sufficiency problems). This type of match is often missing in laboratory studies on attri­bution theory. Fourth, the procedures used in Study 2 are realistic in the sense that participants could work continuously without interruption, that the time allot­ted was consistent with actual data sufficiency exams, and that attributions were made for success or failure on the entire test.

Research Implications

Self-efficacy. The results of both studies clearly showed that: (1) attributions for past performance dif­fered as a result of one's efficacy and, (2) these attri­butions were predictors of subsequent self-efficacy. However, the strength of these relationships varied as a result of whether the performance was successful or unsuccessful and as a result of the type of measure used. More work is needed to address the role of attri­butions in the efficacy-performance relationship. Of particular interest would be an examination of wheth­er attributions make more of a contribution to the re­lationship during the early learning of a task, than when the task is well learned. Our hypothesis would be that as a task becomes well learned, past performance becomes more diagnostic as a predictor of future effi­cacy and performance, because attributions are stabi­lized and thought about less frequently.

In addition, the assessment of attributions merits further empirical examination. This suggestion is un­derscored by the finding that different measures of the same attributional dimension were not correlated highly with each other. Simple one-word attributions (i.e., ability) may not capture the complexity with which people perceive the causes of their own perfor­mance. Furthermore, one-item measures of these at­tributions are of unknown reliability and validity. Additional work is needed to develop attributional measures that focus on personal, behavioral, and envi­ronmental causes of performance.

Finally, one explanation for the different pattern of results for successful performance may be that people may make fewer discriminations among causes for suc­cessful performance than they do among causes for un­successful performance (Peterson & Seligman, 1987). Individuals typically do not spend as much time con­sidering the causes of good events, and are less artic­ulate in rating them (Scott, Osgood, & Peterson, 1979; Langer, 1978). This explanation needs to be explored further.

Managerial Implications

Poor performance. The social cognitive view sug­gests that strong beliefs of efficacy enable people to apply the motivational and cognitive resources needed for successful task performance (Bandura, 1986). The present research suggests that by making external and unstable attributions, individuals with high self­efficacy interpret negative performance feedback in a way that enables them to sustain their strong self­beliefs of efficacy.

On the other hand, by making internal and stable attributions for poor performance, people with low self-

SELF-EFFICACY AND CAUSAL ATTRIBUTIONS 297

efficacy may fall into exacerbation cycles that result in consistently low levels of performance (Storms & Mc­Caul, 1976). By attributing poor performance to a lack of ability, they are less likely to persist at the task, and as a result, the poor performance becomes more ex­treme and more strongly attributed to internal and sta­ble factors. Further research is needed, over repeated performance trials, on the mechanisms involved in ex­acerbation cycles.

Attribution training. Research on interventions de­signed to impact the patterns of attributions made by individuals (e.g., Forsterling, 1985) suggests ways to maintain high levels of efficacy. Rather than allowing the attributions for performance inferred by trainees to be a passive consequence of a model's behavior, indi­viduals could be given information that explicitly sug­gests unsuccessful performance is not due to a lack of ability. For example, Brockner and Guare (1983) dem­onstrated that the performance of low self-esteem in­dividuals can be improved to the extent that they are led to attribute their prior failure to the difficulty of the task, rather than to their own personal inadequacy. Wilson and Linville (1985) found that college freshmen given information suggesting that the causes of low grades are unstable subsequently had better academic performance.

It is important to emphasize that the implication is not that individuals with low self-efficacy should be trained to indiscriminately attribute all of their unsuc­cessful performance to nonability factors. Rather, the suggestion is that low self-efficacy individuals should be made aware that inaccurate attributions to ability factors may cause them unnecessary anxiety and loss of motivation, both of which may impair performance. The emphasis should be on training people to accu­rately diagnose the causes of past performance so that subsequent performance can be improved. Thus, attri­butional training programs may be improved if they focus on the process of making attributions (i.e., teach­ing individuals how to accurately diagnose perfor­mance), rather than on the content of attributions.

Feedback. To facilitate the development of strong efficacy beliefs, managers should be careful about the provision of negative feedback. Destructive criticism by managers which attributes the cause of poor perfor­mance to internal factors reduces both the beliefs of self-efficacy and the self-set goals of recipients (Barron, 1990, 1988). Managers should encourage people who are performing poorly to exert more effort, or to develop better strategies. If an ability deficit is the primary cause of poor performance, managers should encourage their subordinates to learn from their mistakes. While the effect of a single statement is not likely to exert much influence on self-efficacy beliefs, the patterns of

verbal information given over time will impact people's perceptions of their capabilities (Bandura, 1986).

After successful performance, the provision of posi­tive feedback can be used to enhance subordinates' self-efficacy beliefs. Managers can help subordinates cognitively process success experiences in a way that maximizes their impact on self-efficacy beliefs. For ex­ample, subordinates should be encouraged to evaluate success against past performance in similar situations. Comparisons with other people, with behavior in other settings, or with distal goals provide less satisfying an­chor points for assessing performance improvements (Kanfer & Gaelick, 1986). Employees should also be encouraged to attribute success to their stable, internal qualities. This can be done by focusing performance feedback discussions on the ways in which subordi­nates' behavior directly led to success, by initiating these discussions frequently, and by using objective in­dexes of performance improvements (e.g., production statistics, sales records, etc.). Such discussions are likely to cause affective reactions which will facilitate self-focused attention (Salovey, 1992). Mood and emo­tion may thus become part of the chain of self­regulatory actions which sustain performance in the long run (Weiner, 1985).

CONCLUSION

The data from Study 1 and Study 2 clearly show that performance, self-efficacy, and attributions are all in­terrelated. The understanding of these complex rela­tionships is important for the development of feedback and training interventions that will enhance motiva­tion and persistence, and develop strategies for coping with failure (Ilgen, Major, & Tower, in press). These are important issues for both self-development and or­ganizational performance.

REFERENCES

Anderson, C. A. (1983). Motivational and performance deficits in in­terpersonal settings: The effects of attributional style. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1136-1147.

Arkin, R. M., Detchon, C. S., & Maruyama, G. M. (1982). Roles of attribution, affect, and cognitive interference in test anxiety. Jour· nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1111-1124.

Arkin, R. M., Kolditz, T., & Kolditz, K. (1983). Attributions of the test-anxious student: Self-assessments in the classroom. Person­ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 271-280.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behav­ioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1984). Recycling misconceptions of perceived self­efficacy. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 8, 213-229.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A so­cial cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

298 SILVER, MITCHELL, AND GIST

Bandura, A. (1988). Organizational applications of social cognitive theory. Australian Journal of Management, 13, 137-164.

Bandura, A. (1989). Perceived self-efficacy in the exercise of personal agency. The Psychologist: Bulletin of the British Psychological So­ciety, 10, 411-424.

Barron, R. A. (1988). Negative effects of destructive criticism: Impact on conflict, self-efficacy, and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 199-207.

Barron, R. A. (1990). Countering the effects of destructive criticism: The relative efficacy of four interventions. Journal of Applied Psy­chology, 75, 235-245.

Baumgardner, A.H., Heppner, P. P., & Arkin, R. M. (1986). Role of causal attribution in personal problem solving. Journal of Person­ality and Social Psychology, 50, 636-643.

Bradley, G. W. (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.

Brockner, J., & Guare, J. (1983). Improving the performance of low self-esteem individuals: An attributional approach. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 642-656.

Campbell, J. D., & Fairey, P. J. (1985). Effects of self-esteem, hypo­thetical explanations, and verbalization of expectancies on future performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1097-1111.

Chacko, T. I., & McElroy, T. I. (1983). The cognitive component in Locke's theory of goal setting: Suggestive evidence for a causal attribution interpretation. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 104-118.

Educational Testing Service. (1986). The official guide for GMAT review. Princeton, NJ: ETS.

Feather, N. T. (1983). Some correlates of attributional style: Depres­sive symptoms, self-esteem, and protestant ethic values. Person­ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 125-135.

Feltz, D. L. (1982). Path analysis of the causal elements in Bandura's theory of self-efficacy and an anxiety-based model of avoidance behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 764-781.

Fiske, S., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. New York: Mc­Graw-Hill.

Forsterling, F. (1985). Attributional retraining: A review. Psycholog­ical Bulletin, 98, 495-512.

Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical anal­ysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17, 183-211.

Gist, M. E., Stevens, C. K., & Bavetta, A.G. (1991). Effects of self­efficacy and post training intervention on the acquisition and maintenance of complex interpersonal skills. Personnel Psychol­ogy, 44, 837-857.

Heckhausen, H. (1987). Causal attribution patterns for achievement outcomes: Individual differences, possible types and their origins. In F. E. Weinert & R.H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 143-184). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erl­baum Associates.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley & Sons.

Hicks, L. E. (1970). Some properties of ipsitive, normative, and forced-choice normative measures. Psychological Bulletin, 74, 167-184.

Ickes, W., & Layden, M.A. (1978). Attributional styles. In J. Harvey, W. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution re­search (Vol. 2, pp. 121-147). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ilgen, D., Major, D. A., & Tower, S. L. (in press). The cognitive rev­olution in organizational behavior. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organi­zational behavior: The state of the science. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.

Kanfer, F. H., & Gaelick, L. (1986). Self-management methods. In F. H. Kanfer & A. P. Goldstein (Eds.), Helping people change: A textbook of methods (pp. 283-345). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.

Langer, E. J. (1978). Rethinking the role of thought in social inter­action. In J. Harvey, W. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (Vol. 2, pp. 36-58). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Locke, E. A., Frederick, E., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1984). Effect of self-efficacy, goals, and task strategies on task performance. Jour­nal of Applied Psychology, 69, 241-251.

Luginbuhl, J.E. R., Crowe, D. H., & Kahan, J.P. (1975). Causal at­tributions for success and failure. Journal of Personality and So­cial Psychology, 31, 86-93.

Miller, D. T., & Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 213-225.

Mone, M. A., & Baker, D. D. (1992, August). A social-cognitive, at­tributional model of personal goals: An empirical evaluation. Paper presented at the National Academy of Management Meetings, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (1987). Helplessness and attribu­tional style in depression. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 185-215). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Russell, D. W. (1982). The causal dimension scale: A measure of how individuals perceive causes. Journal of Personality and Social Psy­chology, 42, 1137-1145.

Russell, D. W., McAuley, E., & Tarico, V. (1987). Measuring causal attributions for success and failure: A comparison of methodologies for assessing causal dimensions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1248--1257.

Salovey, P. (1992). Mood-induced self-focused attention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 699-708.

Schunk, D. H. (1984). Self-efficacy perspective on achievement be­havior. Educational Psychologist, 19, 48-58.

Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educa­tional Psychologist, 79, 238-244.

Schunk, D. H., & Gunn, T. P. (1986). Self-efficacy and skill develop­ment: Influence of task strategies and attributions. Journal of Ed­ucational Research, 79, 238--244.

Schunk, D. H., & Rice, T. P. (1986). Extended attributional feedback: Sequence effects during remedial reading instruction. Journal of Early Adolescence, 6, 55-66.

Scott, W. A., Osgood, D. W., & Peterson, C. (1979). Cognitive struc­ture. Washington, DC: Winston.

Storms, M. D., & McCaul, K. D. (1976). Attribution processes and emotional exacerbation of dysfunctional behavior. In J. Harvey, W. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (Vol. 1, pp. 143-164). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Strube, M. J., & Boland, S. M. (1986). Post performance attributions and task persistence among Type A and B individuals: A clarifi­cation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 413-420.

Turnage, J. J. (1990). The challenge of new workplace technology for psychology. American Psychologist, 45, 171-178.

Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom expe­riences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 3-25.

Weiner, B. (1983). Some methodological pitfalls in attributional re­search. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 530-543.

SELF-EFFICACY AND CAUSAL A'ITRIBUTIONS 299

Weiner, B. (1985). An attribution theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548-573.

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.

Wilson, T. D., & Linville, P. W. (1985). Improving the performance of

Received: June 2, 1993

college freshmen with attributional techniques. Journal of Person­ality and Social Psychology, 49, 287-293.

Wood, R. E., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of orga­nizational management. Academy of Management Review, 14, 361-384.

Zuckerman, M. (1979). Attribution of success and failure revisited, or: The motivational bias is alive and well in attribution theory. Journal of Personality, 47, 245-287.