The Sport Psychologist, 1997,11,294-304
O 1997 Human Ku~eticsPublishers, Inc.
Changing Attributions With
an Attribution Training Technique
Related to Basketball Dribbling
Iris Orbach, Robert N. Singer, and Milledge Murphey
University of Florida
There is a shortage of research in which the effect of attribution training interventions on sport performance has been investigated. Therefore, the primary
goal of this study was to determine the influence of an attribution training
program on individuals who attribute their sport performance to dysfunctional
attributions. Sixty college recreational basketball players were oriented to perceive their performance in a basketball skill task as due to (a) controllable,
unstable factors, (b) uncontrollable, stable factors, or (c) no specific factors.
Dependent variables included attributions and performance time. Using
MANOVA and repeated measures factorial ANOVAs, results revealed that it
is possible to modify attributions and performance in regard to a basketball
performance task. The data are supportive of the potential influence of attribution training in a sport setting and the use of a controllable, unstable dimensional orientation as a means to improve performance.
Key words:attribution training, dysfunctional attributions, performance.
Attribution theory is an important consideration in the cognitive/social approach to motivation. The theory views people as active, information-processing
organisms capable of making inferences about the causes of everyday occurrences
(Heider, 1958). The most prominent research program relating causal attributions
to behavioral consequencesis associated with the attributional analysis of achievement motivation (Weiner, 1988, 1994, 1995). Weiner, Frieze, KuMa, Reed, Rest,
and Rosenbaum (1971) assumed that success and failure in achievement contexts
gives rise to a search of causal attributions for the respective outcomes that, in
turn, determine subsequent achievement behavior. Weiner proposes a threedimensional model for classifying all attributions. The locus of causality dimension includes causes internal or external to the person; the stability dimension refers
Iris Orbach, Robert N. Singer, and Milledge Murphey are all with the Department of
Exercise and Sport Sciences at the University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611.
Attribution Training
295
to causes that are either stable or unstable; and the controllability dimension indicates whether or not the cause can be influenced by the person.
According to Weiner, the type of attributions ascribed to an outcome may
enhance or hinder various cognitive and behavioral parameters such as expectation, emotion, and persistence (Weiner, 1985, 1988, 1992). In his model, there is
no direct link from attributions to specific behaviors; rather, expectancies and affect are presumed to influence subsequent actions. Weiner argues that the most
functional attributions are attributing failure to unstable factors that are under personal control. Attribution training research in the achievement motivation area has
been stimulated primarily on the basis of his suggestions.
Attributional training techniques incorporate attributional principles to initiate behavioral change (Perry, Hechter, Menec, & Weinberg, 1993). Studies that
have been guided by the attributional analysis of achievement motivation (Anderson, 1983;Andrews & Debus, 1978; Chapin & Dyck, 1976; Craske, 1985; Fowler
& Peterson, 1981; Medway & Venino, 1982; Rudisill, 1989; Schunk, 1981, 1982,
1983, 1984; Wilson & Linville, 1982, 1985; Zoeller, Mahoney, & Weiner, 1983),
and in which attempts have been made to modify dysfunctional aspects of achievement behaviors, have been typically successful in demonstrating that attribution
training does influence cognitions and behaviors in the predicted directions.
When attempting an attributional intervention, it is necessary to be cautious
in determining the right attribution for the person being assisted. In general, most
of the attribution studies have indicated attempts to improve persistence and performance by increasing attribution of failure to lack of effort or strategy and decreasing attribution of failure to low ability (Anderson, 1983; Forsterling, 1985;
Fowler & Peterson, 1981; Medway & Venino, 1982; Peny & Magnusson, 1989;
Wilson & Linville, 1985; Zoeller, Mahoney, & Weiner, 1983). The premise is that
the situation can be personally controlled. Furthermore, the assumption is that the
person can learn from failures, improve with practice, and attain an acceptable
level of success.
However, it is important to recognize the possibility that individuals may
classify the reasons (e.g., lack of effort, low ability) within the three dimensions
differently. For example, ability can be classified as a stable and uncontrollable
reason. However, others may classify it as an unstable and controllable reason
(i.e., can be improved with practice) (McAuley, Duncan, & Russell, 1992).Therefore, when applying an attribution training program, it is important to emphasize
the dimensions rather than the attributions per se. In general, reasons that are perceived as internal, controllable, and unstable make it easy for the individual to take
personal responsibility for actions, and perceive control and high efficacy even
following failure.
The main area in which attributional change research has focused is in academic situations, and many studies have shown improvement in task performance
and persistence. No research apparently has been conducted at this time in sport
settings. Our study represents what appears to be the first attempt to investigatethe
influence of an attribution training technique on the attributions and performance
of college students attempting to achieve in a sport task. Specifically, three hypotheses were generated: (a) After applying the attribution training intervention
program, a perception of failure would change from attribution to dysfunctional
factors to more functional ones; (b) Participants who would be oriented to perceive failure as a consequence of functional attributions would improve in
296
Orbach, Singer, and Murphey
performance; and (c) Participants who would be oriented to perceive failure as a
consequence of dysfunctional attributions would deteriorate in performance.
Method
Participants
Sixty recreational collegiate basketball players (5 1 males and 9 females) participated in this study, with an age range from 17 to 25 years. They were randomly
assigned to one of three causal dimension orientation groups (n = 20) while controlling for approximately equal skill level in completing the performance task
selected for this study.
Instrument
To measure the kinds of attributionsmade by the participants, an open-ended question test and the Causal Dimension Scale I1 (CDSII) (McAuley, Duncan, & Russell,
1992) were administered. In an open-ended question test, respondents are asked to
make personal attributions for the outcome of an event (e.g., success or failure in
performing the basketball task), and then the attribution is coded along causal
dimensions using the CDSII. This scale assesses causal perceptions in terms of
locus of causality, stability, and controllability (divided into two subscales, external and internal factors) dimensions. High scores on the subscales indicate that the
cause is perceived as internal, stable, and controllable by external factors or by
personal factors.
Performance Task
The performance task was dribbling a basketball between four cones spaced on a
basketball court (15 m width by 28 m length). The first cone was on the baseline 6
m from the right side of the court, the second 2 m from the right side and 5 m
vertically from the first cone, the third on the middle line 7 m from the right
side, and the fourth 3 m from the right side and 4.5 m from the middle line.
After the participants passed the fourth cone, they shot the ball at the basket.
They were given a goal time, 6:05 s for males and 6:35 s for females. In the
pilot testing, it was shown that these times were difficult to attain; therefore,
it was assured that participants would experience failure in the task. An attempt was considered a success if it was completed within these times and the
shot was successful.
Causal Dimension Manipulations
The participants were randomly placed into one of three treatment groups: (a)
controllable and unstable attributional orientation (CU), (b) uncontrollable and
stable attributional orientation (US), and (c) a nonattributional orientation (NA).
The respective treatments for the groups were based on emphasizing different factors that influence performance. For the CU group, participants were informed
that their level of performance was based solely on controllable and unstable factors, such as the effort they displayed or the strategy they used to succeed in the
task. The researcher emphasized that it was possible to improve performance over
time and that everyone could become proficient at the task.
Attribution Training
297
The US group was informed that its performance was based on uncontrollable and stable factors, such as innate ability. It was emphasized that there are
individuals who could perform the task better than others due to factors determined by genetics. The NA group was provided with general details regarding the
task. For example, group members were told that the task was composed of different skills that are needed in order for one to be a good basketball player. As was
already mentioned, individuals may classify the reasons within the attributional
dimensions in different ways. Therefore, the three dimensions were emphasized
together with examples such as effort and ability.
Procedures
After signing an informed consent form, participants were asked to perform the
task three times for pretest purposes. Based on the average time of the last two
attempts, they were randomly matched according to their skill level and then placed
into the three treatment groups (CU, US, or NA).
The next meeting included four trial blocks, with each composed of two
attempts to complete the task successfully. Initially, participants were given the
goal time (6.05 s for males and 6.35 s for females). In pilot testing, it was shown
that the goal is hard enough to ensure participants' failure and dysfunctional attributions. Then, they performed the first trial block and received negative feedback
(induced failure) that was approximately 25% higher than the assigned goal. The
CDSII was administered afterward. The purpose was to allow the participants to
experience failure before applying the attribution training program in order to determine if they would choose dysfunctional attributions, as was expected. To determine if they would perceive their performance as failure, before completing the
CDSII they were asked the following question: "Do you think you succeeded or
failed in achieving the goal in the basketball task?'When participants perceived
their performance as failure (i.e., all of them did), they were given the open-ended
question, "What is the primary reason that you think caused you to fail in the
task?'followed by the CDSII.
After the first trial block, three more trial blocks were administered together
with the respective treatments for each group. The treatment was composed from
an orientation that was given after the first trial block. The orientation emphasized
the important factors that determine success in the task, based on group assignment. Furthermore, attribution orientation reminders were given verbally by the
experimenter after the second and the third trial block to each group. The participants rested for 1 min between attempts and for 2 min between trial blocks. At the
end of testing, they completed the CDSH once again in order to determine if the
intervention influenced their attributions. After completing the study, they were
debriefed.
Results
Attributions
Attributions were analyzed using a 3 X 2 (Groups X Pre- Posttests) MANOVA,
with repeated measures on the last factor. Dependent variables were the four
attributional dimensions obtained from the CDSII. The MANOVA revealed a significant Group X Pre- Posttests interaction (LRATIO = .718, F (8, 108) = 2.43,
298
Orbach, Singer, and Murphey
p < .018) and a significant main effect for Groups (LRATIO = .746, F (8, 108) =
2.13, p < .039). Subsequent analyses included univariate analyses and Tukey post
hoc test.
Stability. The analysis for the stability dimension identified a significant
Groups X Pre- Posttests interaction, F (2,57) = 5.02, p < .010 (see Table 1). The
Tukey follow-up procedure indicated that the CU group was less stable than the
US group (ES = 1.38) and the NA group (ES = 1.16) on the posttest. There were no
significant differences on the pretest. Furthermore, the NA participants (ES = .51)
and the US participants (ES = .51) were significantly more stable on the posttest
when comparing their scores with the pretest scores. Additionally, a significant
main effect for Groups was revealed, F (2, 57) = 4.06, p < .023. Overall, the CU
group (M = 17.10, SD = 7.44) was significantly less stable than the US group (M =
21.88, SD = 5.49) (ES = 33).
Personal Control. The analysis for the personal control dimension revealed
a significant Groups X Pre- Posttests interaction, F (2, 57) = 7.64, p < .001 (see
Table 1). As indicated with the Tukey procedure, the CU group believed it had
more personal control than the US group (ES = 1.82) and the NA group (ES =
1.72) on the posttest. No significant differences were found on the pretest. Additionally, the US group (ES = .68) and the NA group (ES = 21) believed that they
had less personal control when comparing responses on the posttest to the pretest.
Additionally, a significant main effect for Groups was found, F (2, 57) = 5.31,
p < .008. Overall, the CU group (M = 14.35, SD = 7.23) reported that it had more
personal control than the NA group (M = 9.95, SD = 6.21) (ES = .71) and the US
group (M = 8.98, SD = 5.64) (ES = .71).
No significant differences were determined for the locus of causality and
external control dimensions.
Performance Time
Performance times on the eight test trials during the second testing occasion were
analyzed in a 3 X 4 (Groups X Trial Blocks) repeated measures factorialANOVA.
Table 1 Mean and Standard Deviation Group Responses on the Four Attributional
Dimensions in Pre- and Posttests
Pretest
Personal control
Stability
External control
Locus of causality
Posttest
Personal control
Stability
External control
Locus of causality
13.50
18.20
6.45
23.75
7.14
7.94
3.50
3.78
10.80
20.50
5.30
24.35
5.77
6.02
2.58
2.01
12.30
19.25
5.60
24.00
6.91
5.96
2.78
1.89
15.20
16.00
7.75
23.50
7.40
6.94
4.43
4.01
7.15
23.25
4.40
25.55
4.99
4.64
1.82
1.96
7.60
22.10
5.90
23.75
4.43
5.24
5.13
4.73
Attribution Training
299
Table 2 Mean and Standard Deviation Group Performance Times
Trial block
Note. Performance times are in seconds.
Four trial blocks, with two performance trials in each, were calculated for the
analysis (one premanipulation trial block and three postmanipulation trial blocks).
The analysis revealed a significant interaction for Groups X Trial Blocks, F
(6, 162) = 3.31, p < .004 (see Table 2). As revealed by the Tukey's HSD test, the
CU group significantly improved its performance times when comparing Trial
Block 1 to Trial Block 2 (ES = .37), 3 (ES = .95), and 4 (ES = .92). Furthermore,
participants in the CU group were faster than those in the US group in Trial Block
4 (ES = .45).
Discussion
The primary purpose of this study was to determine the influence of an attribution
training program on attributions and performance in a basketball skill test. The
results reveal that it is possible to modify attributions in regard to performance.
Furthermore, performance is influenced as well.
Attributions
,
When investigating attributional dimensions, one of the most crucial questions is
whether a particular attribution training program has actually accomplished intended attributional goals. One hypothesis in the present study was that participants receiving attribution training, which emphasized the importance of controllable and unstable factors, would show less stable and more controllable attributions
in the face of failure when compared to those whose training emphasized the importance of uncontrollable and stable factors.
At the initial testing, after experiencing failure on the first trial block (which
was performed before applying the intervention), all three groups attributed the
outcome to dysfunctional attributions (internal, stable, and uncontrollable). However, at the final testing, the US and the NA groups were significantly more stable
and less controllable compared to the CU group. Further, the attributions of the US
and the NA participants tended to be more stable and less controllable at the posttest
as compared to the pretest. Therefore, it can be concluded that the attribution training intervention was successful. Even though all participants attributed their failure in the task to dysfunctional factors in the beginning of the study, the CU participants attributed their failure to more functional factors than the US and NA
participants at the end of the testing (i.e., after applying the intervention).
300
Orbach, Singer, and Murphey
Results in other investigations have been inconsistent. Some programs resulted in changes in attributions (Andrews & Debus, 1978; Dweck, 1975; Fowler
& Peterson, 1981; Schunk, 1984), whereas others did not (Medway & Venino,
1982; Rudisill & Singer, 1988; Singer, Grove, Cauraugh, & Rudisill, 1985).There
are several reasons for these conflicting results. One has to do with the scales used
to measure attributions. Many researchers have administeredgeneral scales in which
the situations depicted are very dissimilar from the training situations described in
the research undertakings. For example, when administered the IntellectualAchievement Responsibility (IAR) as the attributional measure, no significant changes in
attributions have been revealed.
However, attributions for success and failure have changed in the expected
directions in studies when specific measures, such as the Effort versus Ability
Failure Attribution Scale (Andrews & Debus, 1978; Dweck, 1975; Medway &
Venino, 1982), the Attributional Style Assessment Test (Anderson, Horowitz, &
French, 1983), the Causal Dimension Scale (McAuley, Russell, & Gross, 1983;
Perry & Penner, 1990), and the CDSII (McAuley, Duncan, & Russell, 1992), have
been used. Therefore, it is possible that highly generalized beliefs about causal
attributions are not significantly influenced by specific attribution training programs (Andrews & Debus, 1978; Dweck, 1975; Fowler & Peterson, 1981). In our
investigation, the CDSII was the instrument that was administered in order to assess attributions. Its specificity in assessing the respondent's perceptions and its
freedom in choosing the cause may lead to the assumption that this measurement
represents the true attributions in regard to the task used in the study.
A second reason for the contradictory results may be the relationship between a short-term intervention and the perceived importance of the task. Most
studies included a one-time intervention, with such measures as anagrams (Andrews
& Debus, 1978), GPA average (Wilson & Linville, 1982,1985), visual discrimination (Medway & Venino, 1982), and balancing (Rudisill & Singer, 1988). When a
task is not perceived as important by the participants, changing attributions is extremely difficult, especially with a brief intervention program. However, an attempt was made in our study to insure perceived task importance. Only students
who played basketball outside of class at least once a week were chosen to participate in this study. It can be assumed that the student who registers in a basketball
class and who voluntarily plays outside class likes basketball and will be motivated to improve performance.
Another reason for the contradictory results may be related to the ways researchers have recruited volunteers who might benefit from a particular attribution program. One of two procedures has generally been followed. First, participants have been selected with behaviors that are believed to result from certain
undesirable attributions (e.g., performance decrements following failure thought
to be the result of ascriptions of failure to low ability). Second, cognitions or behaviors are measured. For example, Anderson (1983) assessed attributions with a
questionnaire; Medway and Venino (1982) selected only those participants who
infrequently made effort attributions during the pretest; and Dweck (1975) asked
school teachers to identify helpless pupils.
In order to conduct an ideal attribution training study, it is important to identify those participants who attribute their performance to dysfunctional attributions. In failing to do this, it is difficult to conclude at the end of the study that an
attribution training technique was successful. The CDSII was used in our study in
Attribution Training
301
order to determine appropriate participants, and only those who attribute their failure in the first trial block (i.e., before attribution manipulation) to dysfunctional
factors, were selected. Furthermore, the CDSII was administered again following
attributiontraining in order to compare pretest and posttest scores. Therefore, when
significant differences in attributions were found, it was possible to conclude that
the attribution training program had an influence on attributions.
Performance
Weiner demonstrated that the dimensional properties of attributions determine a
person's subsequent cognitive, affective, and motivational reactions. Suppose an
athlete fails an important event and attributes it to an internal, stable, and uncontrollable cause. This athlete would experience negative emotions (e.g., embarrassment). Coupled with high expectations of continued failure, these negative emotions would undermine the athlete's motivation to succeed, thereby jeopardizing
future performance. This scenario provides the rational for why attribution change
is relevant to subsequent performance.
The CU group was expected to demonstrate better performance times at the
last trial block as compared to the first trial block, and as compared to the times of
the US and the NA groups. Results indicated that only the CU group significantly
improved in performance when comparing the first trial block to the second, third,
and fourth trial blocks. More important, the CU group performed significantly
better than the US group during the last trial block. Research has indicated that
attributing failure to uncontrollable and stable causes leads to impaired performance; therefore, these results might be expected (Rudisill, 1989; Weiner, 1988).
These findings are in support of those of Anderson (1983), Dweck (1975),
Kukla (1972), Perry and Magnusson (1989), Perry and Penner (1990), Rudisill
and Singer (1988), Schunk (1982, 1983, 1984),Wilson and Linville (1982, 1985),
and Zoeller, Mahoney, and Weiner (1983). They suggested that significant improvement at a task over time can occur if the appropriate causal attributions are
applied. However, some investigations have shown improved performance following the training session, yet no significant differencesin attributions (Cavanaugh,
1991; Wilson & Linville, 1982, 1985; Zoeller, Mahoney, & Weiner, 1983). Without significant differences in attributions, it is difficult to conclude that performance improves due to an attribution training program. In our study, significant
differences in attributions and performance were observed. This provides a stronger basis for the belief that a change in attributions have an impact on performance.
The third hypothesis was related to the performance times of the NA and US
groups. Expected was a decrement in performance for both groups at the last trial
block when comparing their time to the first trial block. This hypothesis was not
supported. The NA group improved its performance time across trial blocks, but
the data did not reach significance. Research has indicated that dysfunctional attributions, as chosen by the NA participants, lead to impaired performance (Craske,
1985; Deaux, 1984;Dweck & Reppucci, 1973; KuMa, 1972; Weiner, 1988).Therefore, it is assumed that performance increase may merely be attributed to practice
(Thomas & Nelson, 1990).
The US group improved its performance from Trial Block 1 to Trial Block 3,
and then worsened in performance in Trial Block 4. Again, these changes did not
attain significance, and they represent merely a trend. As with the NA group, the
improvement across Trial Block 1 to Trial Block 3 may be due to practice. However,
302
Orbach, Singer, and Murphaj
the impaired performance at Trial Block 4 can be related to the treatment, especially because the performance of the other groups did not diminish. The US group's
treatment emphasized that factors which influence performance were beyond one's
control. When an individual believes that his or her failure is due to uncontrollable
and stable causes, scholars state that very little change is expected the next time an
attempt is made at achieving in a task (Weiner, 1988, 1992). Therefore, when the
US participants experienced failure, their expectations for future success were low
for this type of task. Perhaps they did not try hard because of feelings that there
was no hope for improvement. Low expectations and lack of effort may hinder
performance (Nicholls, 1975, 1979; Rudisill, 1989; Valle & Frieze, 1976;Weiner,
1988, 1992). However, these findings did not reach significance; and therefore,
interpretations can only be conjectured. The evidence that the CU group significantly elevated its performance leads to the probability that this was not due only
to a practice effect but rather their attribution orientation.
This study should contribute valuable information to instructors of skills,
for they may be able to influence the attributions of learners when attributions are
inappropriate for, and detrimental to, achievement. Because students and athletes
must frequently cope with success and failure situations, educators, instructors,
and coaches should understand the nature of functional and dysfunctional attributions and how to help those requiring assistance. Attributional orientations that
may alleviate the negative effects of failure experiences should be understood and
adopted when appropriate. More "real life" research in which sport activities are
studied is desirable in order to produce a scientific body of knowledge that might
be supportive of practical attribution intervention programs that should be useful
for modifying dysfunctional attributional orientations.
References
Anderson, C.A. (1983). Motivational and performance deficits in interpersonal settings:
The effect of attributional style. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45,
1136-1147.
Anderson, C.A., Horowitz, L.M., & French, R. (1983). Attributional style of lonely and
depressed people. Joumal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 127-136.
Andrews, G.R., & Debus, R.L. (1978). Persistence and the causal perception of failure:
Modifying cognitive attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 154-166.
Cavanaugh, D.P. (1991).The effects of strategy training and attributional retraining on poor
readers. Dissertation Abstracts International, 51(7), 2328-A.
Chapin, M., & Dyck, D.G. (1976). Persistence in children's reading behavior as a function
of N length and attribution retraining. Joumal ofAbnonna1 Psychology, 85,511-515.
Craske, M.L. (1985). Improving persistence through observational learning and attribution
retraining. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 55, 138-147.
Deaux, K. (1984). From individual differences to social categories: Analysis of a decade's
research on gender. American Psychologist, 39, 105-116.
Dweck, C.S. (1975). The role of expectations and attributions in the alleviation of learned
helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31,674-685.
Dweck, C.S., & Reppucci, N.D. (1973). Learned helplessness and reinforcement responsibility in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 109-116.
Forsterling, E (1985).Attributional retraining: Areview. Psychological Bulletin, 98(3), 495512.
Attribution Training
303
Forsterling, F. (1988). Attribution theory in clinical psychology. Chichester, Sussex, U K :
Wiley.
Fowler, J.W., & Peterson, EL. (1981). Increasing reading persistence and altering attributional
style of learned helpless children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73,251-260.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
Kukla, A. (1972). Attributional determinants of achievement-related behavior. Joumal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 166-174.
McAuley, E., Duncan, T.E., & Russell, D.W. (1992). Measuring causal attributions: The
revised causal dimension scale (CDSII). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(5), 566-573.
McAuley, E., Russell, D., & Gross, J.B. (1983). Affective consequences of winning and
losing: An attributional analysis. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5,278-287.
Medway, F.J., & Venino, G.R. (1982). The effects of effort feedback and performance patterns on children's attributions and task persistence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 7,26-34.
Nicholls, J.G. (1975). Causal attributions and other achievement-relatedcognition: Effects
of task outcome, attainment value, and sex. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31,379-389.
Nicholls, J.G. (1979). Quality and equality in intellectual development. American Psychologist, 34, 1071-1084.
Perry, R.P., Hechter, F.J., Menec, V.H., & Weinberg, L.E. (1993). Enhancing achievement
motivation and performance in college students:An attributional retraining perspective. Research in Higher Education, 34(6), 687-723.
Perry, R.P., & Magnusson, J.L. (1989). Causal attributions and perceived performance:
Consequences for college student's achievement and perceived control in different
instructional conditions. Joumal of Educational Psychology, 81, 164-172.
Perry, R.P., & Penner, K.S. (1990). Enhancing academic achievement in college students
through attributional retraining and instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology,
82, 123-145.
Rudisill, M.E. (1989). Influence of perceived competence and causal dimension orientation
on expectations, persistence, and performance during perceived failure. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60, 166-175.
Rudisill, M.E., & Singer, R.N. (1988). Influence of causal dimension orientation of persistence, performance, and expectations of performance during perceived failure. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 15, 215-228.
Schunk, D.H. (1981). Modeling and attributional effects on children's achievement: A selfefficacy analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73,93-105.
Schunk, D.H. (1982). Effects of effort attributional feedback on children's perceived selfefficacy and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74,548-556.
Schunk, D.H. (1983). Ability versus effort attributional feedback: Differential effects on
self-efficacy and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75,848-856.
Schunk, D.H. (1984). Sequential attributional feedback and children's achievement behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1159-1169.
Singer, R.N., Grove, J.R., Cauraugh, J.H., & Rudisill, M.E. (1985). Overcoming perceived
failure in a psychomotor task with the use of appropriate causal attribution. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61,299-306.
Thomas, J.R., & Nelson, J.K. (1990). Research methods in physical activity. Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics.
Valle, V.A., &Frieze, I.H. (1976). The stability of causal attributionsas a mediator in changing
304
Orbach, Singer, and Murphey
expectations for success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 579587.
Weiner, B. (1980). Human motivation. New York: Holt, Rinehaxt, & Winston.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92,548-573.
Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: SpringerVerlag.
Weiner, B. (1988). Attribution theory and attributional therapy: Some theoretical observations and suggestions. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 27,93-104.
Weiner, B. (1992). Excuses in everyday interaction. In M.L. McLaughlin, M.J. Cody, &
S.R. Reed (Eds.), Explaining one S selfto others (pp. 131-146). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Weiner, B. (1994, August). Integrating social and personal theories of achievement striving. Paper presented at the meeting of the American PsychologicalAssociation Convention, Los Angeles, CA.
Weiner, B. (1995). Judgments of responsibility. New York: The Guilford Press.
Weiner, B., Frieze, I.H., Kukla, A., Reed, L., Rest, S., & Rosenbaum, R.M. (1971). Perceiving the causes for success and failure. New York: General Learning Press.
Wilson, T.D., & Linville, P.W. (1982). Improving the academic performance of college
freshman: Attribution therapy revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42,367-376.
Wilson, T.D., & Linville, P.W. (1 985). Improving the performance of college freshmen with
attributional techniques. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49,287-293.
Zoeller, C.J., Mahoney, G., & Weiner, B. (1983). Effects of attribution training on the assembly task performance of mentally retarded adults. American Journal of Mental
Deficiency, 88, 109-112.
Manuscript submitted: April 12, 1996
Reivsion received: January 17, 1997