Social learning (locus of control) versus attributional (causal stability) interpretations of expectancy of success1

Abstract

Social learning theory (Rotter, 1954) and attribution theory (Heider, 1958) have distinctive origins and idiosyncratic "ranges of convenience." On the one hand, social learning theory makes use of concepts from reinforcement theory to furnish an explanation of clinical phenomena. In contrast, attribution theory utilizes concepts that evolved from "everyday life" to provide an analysis of social perception. It is therefore surprising that these conceptions are commensurable with respect to a given phenomenon: expectancy shifts following attainment or nonattainment of a goal. Furthermore, the two theories make disparate predictions about expectancy change. Hence, it is possible to perform a series of "crucial" experiments and compare the validities of the theories with respect to this phenomenon. Social Learning TheorySocial learning theory is quite explicit concerning the determinants of expectancy shifts and, in turn, behavioral potential (or strength of motivation). Rotter (1966) states: "If a person perceives a reinforcement as contingent upon his OVVTI behavior, then the occurrence of either a positive or a negative reinforcement will strengthen or weaken potential for that behavior to recur in the same or similar situation. If he sees the reinforcement as being outside his OV^TI control or not contingent, that is, depending upon chance, fate, powerful others, or unpredictable,

The limits of the use of locus of control in industrial psychology: A critical evaluation

“…Weiner, Nierenberg, and Goldstein (1976) contrasted the attribution theory to social learning approach of locus of control theory, stating that the former predicts that stability of causes influence one's expectancy, while the latter predicts that one's attributional style cause one to perceive the situation in a pre-determined way. Weiner, Nierenberg, and Goldstein (1976) tested the contradicting hypotheses derived from these two approaches in an experiment, documenting that attribution of stability was a better predictor of expectancy of success than locus of control. The authors stated that although correlational studies supported the locus of control hypothesis, the experimental studies, such as the one they carried out, mostly failed to provide any evidence.…”

“…Ng, Sorensen, & Eby, 2006;Spector, 1982;Twenge, Zhang, & Im, 2004). Secondly, as emphasized by Weiner, Nierenberg, and Goldstein (1976), the shortage of experimental and longitudinal studies prevents the researchers from inferring causal relationships. Although most of the research in the industrial psychology is correlational by nature (Mitchell, 1985), the conceptual difficulties of locus of control make this shortcoming more critical, as reported correlations can easily be interpreted using alternative theories.…”

Identifying Factors that Influence Perceptions of Teacher Efficacy as a Means of Building Capacity for Restructuring Schools: a Case Study Approach

“…Attribution theory that focuses on the degree to which one believes he/she can control the factors that cause outcomes, referred to as locus of causality (Weiner, 1976); and 3. Intrinsic motivation theory assumes that humans naturally strive for competence or control and that intrinsic motivation is affected by the outcomes of these efforts (DeCharms, Carpenter, & Kuperman, 1965;Deci, 1975;White, 1959).…”

Attributional Theory Organisational Culture and Motivation

“…The study conducted by Weiner, Nierenberg, and Goldstein (1976) is particularly illustrative of the superiority of causal stability in the prediction of expectancies for future success. On the basis of theoretical grounds and this experimentally demonstrated superiority, Weiner's attributional theory seems to be a more successful paradigm for the investigation of the effect of attributions on motivation.…”

“…Even though the predictions of the two competing theories concern not only expectancy shifts after the attainment or nonattainment of a goal, but also subsequent levels of motivation, the bulk of studies (Weiner, Nierenberg, & Goldstein, 1976;McMahan, 1973;Fontain, 1974;Meyer, 1973) comparing the two theories investigated the relationship between causal factors and expectancy shifts. Thus, previous research has focused on the indirect effect of causal factors on motivation via expectancy shifts neglecting the possible direct effect of attributions on future motivation.…”