Self versus Team Attributions: A Test of the “I'm OK, but the Team's So-So” Phenomenon

Bird, Anne Marie; Brame, Judith M.

doi:10.1080/10671315.1978.10615533

Cited by 14 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Unfortunately, team attribution research in sport has been relatively sparse and limited in scope, primarily focusing on the attributional differences between winning and losing team members (Bird & Brame, 1978;Gill, 1980;Gill et al, 1982;Greenlees, Lane, Thelwell, Holder, & Hobson, 2005). Findings have been inconsistent as to which causal dimensions are influenced most by team performance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Findings have been inconsistent as to which causal dimensions are influenced most by team performance. For instance, Bird and Brame (1978) and Gill (1980) found that winners used more internal team attributions than losers, whereas Gill et al (1982) reported that winners made significantly more unstable and controllable attributions. More recently, Greenlees et al (2005) examined the effects of both objective team performance (i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Exploring the relationships between collective efficacy, perceptions of success, and team attributions

Chow

Feltz

2008

Journal of Sports Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined the influence of collective efficacy and subjective interpretations of success/failure on team causal attributions. The participants were 71 male and female high school athletes on 20 track relay teams. Before a selected competition, participants completed a collective efficacy questionnaire. Then, immediately after their race, they were administered a modified version of the revised Causal Dimension Scale-II. A multi-level framework was employed to assess collective efficacy as an individually held perception and as a shared team belief. The individual perceptions of team success/failure significantly predicted the locus of causality and stability dimensions, whereas aggregated collective efficacy emerged as a significant team level predictor of average stability. Individual perceptions of collective efficacy were significantly related to team control and this relationship was moderated by the sex of the team. The findings indicate that collective efficacy beliefs held by athletes and teams prior to a competition influence the formation of post-competition team attributions in sport.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Exploring the relationships between collective efficacy, perceptions of success, and team attributions

Chow

Feltz

2008

Journal of Sports Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They suggested that a limitation in team-referent attribution research had been the lack of a valid measure. Historically, team-referent attribution research mainly used single item measures (e.g., Bird & Brame, 1978;Scanlan & Passer, 1980a;Spink, 1978) and focused on the original raw causal elements suggested by Weiner: ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck (e.g., Bird, Foster, & Maruyama, 1980;Bukowski & Moore, 1980;Green & Holeman, 2004). The CDS-T developed by Greenlees et al is a team-oriented adaptation of the Revised Causal Dimension Scale (CDS-II;McAuley, Duncan, & Russell, 1992) that analyzes causal attributions based on three dimensions: locus of causality, stability, and controllability.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Team Attributions in Sport: A Meta-Analysis

Martin

Carron

2012

Journal of Applied Sport Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A number of studies using this approach have found that winners are more internal in their causal attributions than losers (Bird & Brame, 1978;Forsyth & Schlenker, 1977; Iso-Ahola, 1975Lau & Russell, 1980;Roberts, 1975Roberts, , 1978, and this trend is generally interpreted as a self-serving or egocentric bias. Several studies, however, suggest that even losers give predominantly internal attributions (Lau & Russell, 1980;Scanlan & Passer, 1980), and other investigators report that losers are actually more internal in their attributions than winners (Gill, 1980;Scanlan, 1977).…”

Section: Articlementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Iso-Ahola (1977) reported that team failure decreased the evaluation of team ability and effort but not individual evaluations. Discriminant analysis results of Bird and Brame's (1978) investigation indicated that three of the four attributions that discriminated between winning and losing teams were team attributions, with team ability being the most powerful discriminator. Gill (1980) observed that attributions of group success/failure to the own team or opponents were egocentric but assignment of responsibility within the team revealed a reverse-egocentric pattern, and she interpreted these findings as reflecting a team-enhancing bias.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Open-Ended Attributions in Team Competition

Gill¹

1982

Journal of Sport Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:A total of 352 open-ended attributions were obtained in two field studies with volleyball teams and in two lab experiments, all involving team competition. All attributions were classified along the three causal dimensions of locus of causality, stability, and controllability. Attributions were also classified as referring to the self, to teammates, to the team as a whole, or to other factors and sorted into specific categories. A loglinear analysis revealed that attributions were predominantly internal, unstable, and controllable. A significant win/loss effect reflected the tendency for members of winning teams to use controllable, and particularly unstable, controllable, attributions more than members of losing teams. Overwhelmingly, attributions referred to the team as a whole rather than to individuals or other factors, and teamwork was an especially popular causal explanation. The findings suggest that research on attributions in team competition should focus on causal dimensions rather than the four traditional attributions of effort, ability, luck, and task difficulty, and that further attention should be given to team-referent causal explanations. Article:Investigations of success/failure attributions have been quite popular in the sport psychology literature and most of these sport attribution studies have drawn upon the theoretical work of Weiner, Frieze, Kukla, Reed, Rest, and Rosenbaum (1971). In that original work, Weiner and his colleagues identified the four standard causal attributions of ability, effort, luck, and task difficulty and proposed a two-dimensional classification system with attributions classified as internal (ability and effort) or external (luck and task difficulty) and as stable (ability and task difficulty) or unstable (effort and luck). A number of predictions and relationships regarding achievement behavior emanate from that model, but to date, investigations of the implications for sport behavior are limited.The conventional research paradigm for sport attribution studies involves the assessment of postcompetition win/loss attributions by asking respondents to rate the importance of ability, effort, luck, and task difficulty. A number of studies using this approach have found that winners are more internal in their causal attributions than losers (Bird & Brame, 1978;Forsyth & Schlenker, 1977; Iso-Ahola, 1975Lau & Russell, 1980;Roberts, 1975Roberts, , 1978, and this trend is generally interpreted as a self-serving or egocentric bias. Several studies, however, suggest that even losers give predominantly internal attributions (Lau & Russell, 1980;Scanlan & Passer, 1980), and other investigators report that losers are actually more internal in their attributions than winners (Gill, 1980;Scanlan, 1977). The discrepant findings may reflect inadequate assessment of respondents' attributions and overreliance on a restricted attributional research paradigm.Despite sport psychology researchers' proclivity for Weiner's model and the four standard attributions, recent evidence i...

show abstract

Self versus Team Attributions: A Test of the “I'm OK, but the Team's So-So” Phenomenon

Cited by 14 publications

References 7 publications

Exploring the relationships between collective efficacy, perceptions of success, and team attributions

Exploring the relationships between collective efficacy, perceptions of success, and team attributions

Team Attributions in Sport: A Meta-Analysis

Open-Ended Attributions in Team Competition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About