Expectations for success on effort-determined tasks as a function of incentive and performance feedback.

Ostrove, Nancy

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.36.8.909

Cited by 14 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In an other-attribution situation, teachers from the Costa Rican and Chilean cultures tend to react in a similar manner. This finding also agrees with previous research findings in Anglo cultures (Fontaine, 1974;Meyer and Mulhrein, 1980;Ostrove, 1978;Weiner, 1976Weiner, , 1979Weiner, Heckhausen, Meyer and Cook, 1972;Weiner, Neirenberg and Goldstein 1972;Weiner and Siriad, 1975).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…The stability-instability dimension affects the magnitude of expectancy change following success or failure (Betancourt and Weiner, 1982;Cooper and Burger, 1980;Fontaine, 1974;Ostrove, 1978;Weiner, 1974;Weiner, Neirenberg and Goldstein, 1976;Weiner and Siriad, 1975). Attribution of an outcome to a stable factor, such as ability, increases expectancy of success after a success and decreases expectancy of success after a failure more than does an attribution to an unstable cause such as effort or luck.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Consequences of Costa Rican teachers' attributions for students' failure

Rodriquez

Tollefson

1987

Instr Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One hundred and fifty-five elementary teachers in San Jose, Costa Rica rated their expectancy of success, willingness to help, liking for, and evaluation of two students who were failing; one because of low ability, one because of insufficient effort. Significantly higher mean ratings on all four consequences were observed for the protocol describing the student who didn't try than for the protocol describing the student with low ability.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consequences of Costa Rican teachers' attributions for students' failure

Rodriquez

Tollefson

1987

Instr Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Instead, by increasing post-exam attributions to external unstable causes such as the difficulty of that particular exam for that year, and of bad luck on that exam specifically, the pupils seem to be implying that ability, effort, and external support exist for utilisation in future exams. In other words, neither they nor their immediate significant others are responsible for the unpredicted failure, and that therefore the possibility of facilitating future successes is not ruled out (Valle and Frieze, 1976;Ostrove, 1978).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For this group, a sense of confidence in their own ability may have arisen out of the belief that exam revision played a part in the outcome, along with ability and the support of others. As with those whose expectations of success were disconfirmed, the pupils who unexpectedly passed made attributions which imply that successes may be repeated in the future, assuming that exam-related effort is exerted, and significant others continue to be supportive (Valle and Frieze, 1976;Ostrove, 1978).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Chapman

Lawes

1984

Brit J of Edu Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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...

show abstract

“…Although most of the theoretical emphasis is on dimensions of attributions rather than specific causes (Weiner, 1979), using specific cause ratings to make inferences about dimensions is problematic, since causes can fall at varying intervals along the dimensional continua, depending on the situation and the respondents' attributional perspectives. Effort, for example, is perceived to be a stable factor when it refers to the typical level of motivation of the individual but at other times can be transient when it refers to energy expended in seeking success on a particular task (Covington, Spratt, & Omelich, 1980;Elig & Frieze, 1975;Ostrove, 1978). Thus, when a respondent reports an attribution to effort, the researcher cannot be sure that a stable or unstable causal factor is being emphasized.…”

Section: The Current Investigationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attributions, affect, and expectations: A test of Weiner's three-dimensional model.

Forsyth¹,

McMillan²

1981

Journal of Educational Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a test of predictions derived from Weiner's reformulated three-dimensional model of attributions, college students who had performed well or poorly on an examination reported the locus, stability, and controllability of the causes of their performance, their affective reactions, and their expectations. As is consistent with Weiner's model, more positive affective reactions were reported by students who (a) felt they controlled the causes of their performance, (b) attributed success to internal factors or failure to external factors, and (c) attributed their outcomes to factors that were stable, controllable, and internal. Expectations, however, were related more to perceived locus of cause and controllability than to stability. The implications of attributions and perceived control in educational settings are discussed in relation to learned helplessness, expectations, and reactions to failure.

show abstract

Expectations for success on effort-determined tasks as a function of incentive and performance feedback.

Cited by 14 publications

References 0 publications

Consequences of Costa Rican teachers' attributions for students' failure

Consequences of Costa Rican teachers' attributions for students' failure

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

Attributions, affect, and expectations: A test of Weiner's three-dimensional model.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About