Consistency of Causal Attributions for Expected and Actual Examination Outcome: A Study of the Expectancy Confirmation and Egotism Models

Abstract

The expectancy confirmation and egotism models of causal attributions for success and failure were investigated with 400 fifth form students taking the New Zealand School Certificate English examination. Attributions for expected exam outcome and actual exam outcome were assessed with a scale containing 33 items categorised into the attribution dimensions of stability and locus of causality. The results suggested that exam outcome attributions are a function of both expectancy confirmation and valence of actual outcome, with the effects being due primarily to subjects whose expectations for passing were disconfirmed by actual failure. Compared to pre-exam attributions based on expected outcome, these disconfirmed failure subjects reduced post-exam attributions to internal (stable and unstable) and external stable causes, but increased their attributions to external unstable causes. Whereexpectations wereconfirmed (pass or fail) attributions from pre-to post-exam were generally consistent; however, the confirmed pass subjects tended to see internal factors as more important than the other subjects, and external unstable factors as least important. The findings are discussed in terms of the implications for future achievement situations. 1971 ;Feather and Simon, 1973;McMahan, 1973;Valle and Frieze, 1976). Concomitantly, the greater the discrepancy between expected and actual outcome, the stronger the attribution to unstable factors and the smaller the discrepancy, the greater the attribution to stable factors. Exam AttributionsDavis and Stephan (1980) take issue with this expectancy confirmation approach. They assert that the valence of the actual outcome (success or failure) is the primary determinant of post-performance attributions. Thus, attributions to internal factors (ability, effort) will increase with the magnitude of success in the outcome, whereas attributions to external factors (task difficulty, luck) will increase with the degree of failure. Davis and Stephan refer to this interpretation in terms of egotism, whereby failure is ascribed to external factors for which the individual cannot be held responsible (ego-defensive), and success is ascribed to internal factors (ego-enhancement).In support of this position, Davis and Stephan (1980) present data from a study with undergraduate university students. They found that the students generally had high expectations for success on a class exam, and that these were associated with ability and effort attributions. Actual exam outcomes consistent with those high expectations were again attributed internally to ability and effort, whereas low performance was attributed externally to test difficulty. However, in a regression analysis of the place of ability, effort, test difficulty and luck in predicting the difference score between expected result and actual result, Davis and Stephan found little or no relationship between those causal factors and degree of expectancy confirmation. Thus, it was concluded that the egotism model emphasising locus of causality wa...

The Impact Of School Socioeconomic Status On Student-Generated Teacher Ratings

“…Although students from high decile schools have the highest rates of NCEA achievement according to the NZQA data mentioned earlier, they are also more likely to have higher expectations of their teachers, as hypothesised by Ali et al (2005). This hypothesis is further substantiated by Chapman and Lawes (1984) as mentioned in the introduction, when they suggest that low achieving or failure-prone individuals have reported the tendency for success to be seen as externally caused and failure as internally caused (1984). High decile students may therefore be more likely to see success as being internally caused and failure to be externally caused.…”

“…According to New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) released data from 2005 to 2007, at levels one, two and three, students at high decile schools acquire NCEA at a much higher rate than students at mid-decile schools, who acquire it at a much higher rate than students at low decile schools (NZQA, 2009). Students from low decile schools have lower rates of success in obtaining NCEA, and if the findings of Chapman and Lawes (1984) are correct, are more likely to attribute less than expected performance to themselves as opposed to the teacher. Conversely, students from high decile schools may have higher expectations that their education will be of a higher quality, but be more likely to attribute less-than-expected academic performance to their teacher.…”

“…Relating this to SES, Chapman and Lawes (1984) report that "studies of low achieving or failure-prone individuals have reported the tendency for success to be seen as externally caused and failure as internally caused" (p. 177). According to New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) released data from 2005 to 2007, at levels one, two and three, students at high decile schools acquire NCEA at a much higher rate than students at mid-decile schools, who acquire it at a much higher rate than students at low decile schools (NZQA, 2009).…”

Open‐ended Attributions for Outcome on a Major National Examination

“…While exam-related attribution studies have been reported, most have used structured measures of attributions containing a restricted number of causes (Feather and Simon, 1973;Bar-Tal and Darom, 1979; Davis and Stephan, 1980;McMillan and Spratt, 1980;Chapman and Lawes, 1984 (Frieze, 1976;Frieze and Snyder, 1980), tests in general rather than specifically (Frieze, 1981; Bar-Tal et al, 1984), or have referred to attributions made by children or teachers about other children (Cooper and Burger, 1980;Little, 1985).…”

Causal attributions for criminal offending and sexual arousal: Comparison of child sex offenders with other offenders

“…Causal attributions have been studied in terms of achievement-related activities (Chapman & Lawes, 1984;Chapman & Lawes, 1987;Perry & Penner, 1990;Weiner, 1986), psychopathology (Brewin, 1988, l989), health issues (Grossman, Brink & Hauser, 1987;Major, Mueller & Hildebrandt, 1985;Taylor, Lightman & Wood, 1984), marital interactions (Bradley & Fincham, 1990), criminal blame (Gudjonsson & Petursson, 1991 ;Loza, 1993) and criminal responsibility (Howe & Loftus, 1992;Levett & Kuhn, 1991). Self-attributions have been linked to expectancies, affect and future behaviour in a variety o f situations (Rrewin, 1988;Heider, 1958;Weiner, 1986).…”