ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN DECISION PROCESSES

Vol. 62,No. 3,June,pp. 286-299, 1995

Responses to Successful and Unsuccessful Performance: The
Moderating Effect of Self-Efficacy on the Relationship between
Performance and Attributions
WILLIAM S. SILVER
University of Denver
AND
TERENCE R. MITCHELL AND MARILYN E. GIST
University of Washington
This paper reports on two experiments which ex-
plore how individuals with high and low self-efficacy
differ in the way they interpret performance feedback
and make causal attributions to sustain their self-
efficacy perceptions for subsequent performance at-
tempts. The results from Study 1 show that high self-
efficacy people make self-serving attributions for un-
successful performance, while low self-efficacy
individuals make self-effacing attributions for unsuc-
cessful performance. In Study 2, these attribution pat-
terns were replicated and shown to combine with past
performance, to account for 53% of the variance in
subsequent self-efficacy. The implications for improv-
ing training interventions, and for understanding the
causes of poor performance, are discussed. 1995 Aca-
demic Press, Inc.
With the rapid pace of technological improvements
in organizations, workers frequently are faced with the
need to develop competencies at new tasks. This pro-
cess can be frustrating because initial attempts to mas-
ter new tasks often are not successful-new skills have
to be learned, old skills have to applied in new ways,
and many people fail at new tasks before they learn
how to perform them well (Turnage, 1990). Workers
may respond to this failure in different ways. Some
The Graduate Management Admissions Test questions used in
this research are the copyrighted sole property of the Graduate Man-
agement Admission Council (GMAC). The test questions were not
designed specifically for use in this study, and the GMAC bears no
responsibility for the manner in which these questions were used.
The authors would like to thank the GMAC for its permission to use
these test items. Address correspondence and reprint requests to
William S. Silver, Daniels College of Business, Department of Man-
agement, University of Denver, Denver, CO 80208.
workers may increase their efforts and develop new
task strategies to better apply their skills. Other work-
ers may despair of ever performing the task well and
slacken their efforts. An important research need is to
determine what factors are associated with these dif-
ferent responses to failure.
One variable that is critical in determining the di-
rection of subsequent performance is an individual's
self-efficacy-a person's belief in their capability to
perform a particular task. From a social cognitive per-
spective, performance failure can reduce an individu-
al's self-efficacy, which in turn is associated with low-
ered motivation and performance (Bandura, 1986).
However, the effects of previous performance on self-
efficacy also depends on the attributions that people
make about the causes of their performance (Schunk,
1991). According to Bandura (1988), subjective weigh-
ing of attributional factors and appraisal of self-efficacy
involve bidirectional causation. Self-beliefs of efficacy
should influence causal attributions for performance,
and these attributions should, in turn, affect subse-
quent self-efficacy appraisal. Self-efficacy will then be
related to future motivation, performance, and causal
attributions, creating tendencies to persist or give up
(Gist & Mitchell, 1992).
Although many studies have demonstrated that self-
efficacy influences performance in diverse settings
(Gist & Mitchell, 1992), the relationship between self-
efficacy and causal attributions has received little em-
pirical attention (Mone & Baker, 1992). This paper re-
ports on two experiments which explore the association
between self-efficacy, causal attributions, and task per-
formance. Study 1 addresses the question of whether
differences in self-efficacy are related to the causal at-
tributions people make for successful and unsuccessful
286
07 49-5978/95 $6.00
Copyright 1995 by Academic Press, Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
SELF-EFFICACY AND CAUSAL A'ITRIBUTIONS 287
performance. Study 2 examines the role of past perfor-
mance and attributions as determinants of subsequent
self-efficacy. These relationships are depicted in Fig-
ure 1.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Research on Causal Attributions
Beginning with the work of Heider (1958), a central
focus of attribution research has been to examine the
ways in which people perceive the causes of their own
behavior and performance. Weiner, Frieze, Kukla,
Reed, Rest, and Rosenbaum (1972) demonstrated that
in achievement-related contexts, the causes perceived
as most responsible for success and failure are: (1)
one's level of ability, (2) the amount of effort that was
expended, (3) the magnitude and direction of experi-
enced luck, and (4) the difficulty of the task. These
causal ascriptions are arrayed along two attributional
dimensions (locus of causality and stability) to allow
comparisons between causes of performance in diverse
contexts (e.g., Luginbuhl, Crowe, & Kahan, 1975;
Weiner et al., 1972). Internal causes (ability, effort) are
distinguished from external ones (task difficulty, luck),
and stable causes (ability, task difficulty) are distin-
guished from unstable ones (effort, luck).
Some research with this framework has suggested
that people attribute performance success, more than
failure to internal and stable factors (e.g., I succeed
b e c u s ~ I'm skillful, I fail because of bad luck). How-
ever, reviews of the attribution literature offer conflict-
ing evidence for the existence of this self-serving attri-
butional pattern. Miller and Ross (1975) concluded
that there is substantial support for the contention
that individuals engage in self-enhancing attributions
for successful events, but little evidence is available to
suggest that individuals consistently utilize self-
protective attributions under conditions of failure. A
recent review by Fiske and Taylor (1991) also suggests
that "there is more evidence that people take credit for
success-the self-enhancing bias-than that they deny
responsibility for failure--the self-protective bias" (p.
79). In contrast, reviews by Bradley (1978) and Zuck-
erman (1979) indicated that self-serving effects of both
success and failure are obtained in most experimental
paradigms.
Study 1
Self-Etticocy -+- Performance _.. Attributions ,,,,...._ Self-Efficacy
Study 2
FIG. 1. Relationships investigated in Study 1 and Study 2.
The inconsistency of the evidence for self-serving at-
tributions led to research on various individual differ-
ence variables as moderators of the different attribu-
tion patterns associated with successful and unsuc-
cessful performance. For example, causal attributions
have been examined in relation to self-esteem (Camp-
bell & Fairey, 1985; Ickes & Layden, 1978), test anxi-
ety (Arkin, Kolditz, & Kolditz, 1983; Arkin, Detchon, &
Maruyama, 1982), personal problem solving (Baum-
gardner, Heppner, & Arkin, 1986), Type A & B indi-
viduals (Strube & Boland, 1986), and achievement mo-
tivation (Heckhausen, 1987; Weiner, 1985). Some of
these studies of individual difference moderator vari-
ables have demonstrated different patterns of causal
attributions for both successful and unsuccessful per-
formance (e.g., Heckhausen, 1987; Feather, 1983; Ickes
& Layden, 1978), whereas other studies have sug-
gested that individual difference variables are associ-
ated with patterns of causal attributions only for un-
successful performance, but not with attributions for
successful performance (e.g., Campbell & Fairey, 1985;
Zuckerman, 1979). In general these results suggest
that people with low self-esteem, low achievement mo-
tivation, and high test anxiety internalize failure more
than people who have the opposite attributes. The find-
ings from this research led us to investigate the role of
self-efficacy as a moderator of performance --t attribu-
tion relationships, especially under conditions of poor
performance.
Self-Efficacy and Attributions
Self-efficacy is not a global personality trait which is
stable across contexts, but rather a task-specific belief
which may vary depending on the situation (Bandura,
1989). Whereas self-esteem is related to attributions
only in situations where self-worth concerns are
aroused, and test anxiety is related to attributions only
in evaluation situations, self-efficacy should be related
to attributions and performance on almost all tasks
(Bandura, 1986). The lack of consistent findings from
previous research on personality variables and pat-
terns of causal attributions may be due to the fact that
these personality variables are not relevant for perfor-
mance in all situations.
In a continuation of this line of research, we have
chosen to examine the relationship between self-
efficacy and attributions under conditions of both suc-
cessful and unsuccessful performance. No one to date
has studied these relationships, and they are impor-
tant to understand for a variety of reasons. First, self-
efficacy is a good predictor of performance (e.g., Gist,
Stevens, & Bavetta, 1991; Wood & Bandura, 1989).
Understanding how attributions may influence this re-
lationship will help to further the development of the
theoretical network for self-efficacy. Second, a finding
288 SILVER, MITCHELL, AND GIST
that efficacy moderated the performance attribution
relationship would increase our understanding of the
factors that are associated with responses to perfor-
mance successes and failures, and may suggest ways to
improve employee development and subsequent perfor-
mance.
STUDY 1
In the first study, upper-level business students
solved problems from a data sufficiency test (taken
from the Graduate Management Admissions Test).
Each person got some problems right and some wrong.
Based upon the preceding discussion, the following hy-
potheses were investigated:
HYPOTHESIS 1. Self-efficacy will be related positively to internal
and stable attributions for successful performance: The higher
the self-efficacy, the more that self-enhancing attribution pat-
terns will be evident.
HYPOTHESIS 2. Self-efficacy will be related negatively to internal
and stable attributions for unsuccessful performance: The
higher the self-efficacy, the more that self-protective attribution
patterns will be evident.
Method
Since many of the materials and procedures were
similar for both Studies 1 and 2, they are described
fully for Study 1 and are referenced under Method in
Study 2.
Participants
Participants were 68 undergraduate business stu-
dents, in an upper-level business course, who volun-
teered to take part in the study for extra course credit.
Of the sample, 53% was male; 4 7% was female. All of
our analyses of attributions, self-efficacy, and perfor-
mance showed no gender differences, so males and fe-
males were grouped together for tests of the hypothe-
ses. The average amount of work experience was 3. 7
years.
Procedure
Participants were told that the study was designed
to assess their performance on data sufficiency prob-
lems used for the Graduate Management Admissions
Test (GMAT). They received information about various
strategies that could be used for answering data suffi-
ciency problems. Participants then completed a prac-
tice test consisting of three problems. After the practice
test, they were given the answers to the test and writ-
ten explanations for how to solve each problem. Next,
participants filled out a self-efficacy measure for a test
containing 10 data sufficiency problems. They then
completed a 10-problem test, after which they received
answers and explanations for each problem. Finally,
participants assessed their attributions for each prob-
lem they solved correctly, and for each problem solved
incorrectly.
Measures
Data sufficiency problems. Data sufficiency ques-
tions are designed to measure one's ability to analyze a
quantitative problem, to recognize which information
is relevant, and to determine at what point there is
sufficient information to solve the problem. All prob-
lems for this study were taken from The Official Guide
for GMAT Review (Educational Testing Service, 1986)
which contains problems used on actual GMATs. In
order to provide subjects with the opportunity to make
attributions for both successful and unsuccessful per-
formance, the difficulty level of each problem selected
for the present study was held constant (moderate dif-
ficulty)-based upon the percentage of previous test-
takers who answered the problem correctly (using na-
tional norms). In the present sample the average num-
ber of problems correctly answered was 5 out of 10.
Participants received a test packet containing each
problem on a separate page and were allowed 2 min to
solve each problem.
Self-efficacy. The self-efficacy measure asked sub-
jects to indicate "yes" or "no" to whether or not they
could perform at 10 different levels of proficiency. Pro-
ficiency levels were listed as the number of data suffi-
ciency problems out of 10 that subjects thought they
were capable of correctly solving. For each proficiency
level for which they indicated "yes," participants also
estimated their confidence about their present ability
to perform at that proficiency level (rated 1 to 10: 1 =
totally nonconfident, 5 = moderately confident, 10 =
totally confident). A participant's self-efficacy score
was computed by summing the confidence ratings
across all levels of proficiency which were answered
"yes." Self-efficacy scores could thus range from 0 to
100, with higher scores being indicative of higher self-
efficacy. This procedure is the standard method for
assessing self-efficacy and has been used previously by
numerous researchers (e.g., Gist & Mitchell, 1992;
Bandura, 1984).
Attribution measure. For problems they got right,
participants divided 100 points among (a) ability, (b)
effort, (c) good luck, and (d) task ease attributions. For
problems they got wrong, participants divided 100
points among (a) lack of ability, (b) lack of effort, (c) bad
luck, and (d) task difficulty attributions. Each of these
eight attributions was defined and described in more
detail on a cover page. A locus of causality attribution
score was obtained by summing the attributions made
to ability and effort, and subtracting the sum of the
SELF-EFFICACY AND CAUSAL ATIRIBUTIONS 289
attributions to luck and task difficulty. A stability at-
tribution score was created by summing the attribu-
tions to ability and task difficulty, and subtracting the
sum of the attributions to effort and luck. This proce-
dure has been used previously by others (e.g., Chacko
& McElroy, 1983) to derive attributional dimensions
from specific performance causes. Attribution scores
were averaged for each individual for the problems
they got right (successful performance) and for the
problems they got wrong (unsuccessful performance).
Three further points about this procedure need to be
addressed. First, it should be noted that a positive lo-
cus of causality attribution score reflects predomi-
nantly internal attributions, whereas a negative score
reflects mainly external attributions. Similarly, a pos-
itive stability attribution score indicates predomi-
nantly stable attributions, whereas a negative stability
score indicates mainly unstable attributions. The zero
point indicates neutrality in that internal (stable) and
external (unstable) attributions are seen as equally im-
portant causes of performance. Second, deriving attri-
butional dimensions by combining specific attributions
avoids some of the problems associated with analyzing
an ipsitive measure (Hicks, 1970). Third, although the
locus of causality and stability attribution dimensions
are not independent (for successful performance r ==
-.22,p < .10; for unsuccessful performance r == .28,p <
. 05), the correlations leave a substantial proportion of
variance unaccounted for, and therefore, were ana-
lyzed separately.
Results
The means, standard deviations, and intercorrela-
tions between all Study 1 variables are contained in
Table 1. It should be noted initially that self-efficacy
was positively correlated with subsequent performance
(r = .22, p < .05). People with high self-efficacy per-
formed better than people with low self-efficacy as
would be expected from previous research. One can
also note in Table 1 that the allocation of points to
internal causes is significantly higher for success expe-
riences than failure experiences, irrespective of self-
efficacy (M = 41.13 vs 6.99, t = 3.32, p < .01). The same
pattern of results is observed for the stability dimen-
sion (M = 55.66 vs 3.54, t = -3.14, p < .01). These
results replicate the self-serving bias frequently re-
ported in the literature.
Successful Performance
Hypothesis 1 predicted that self-efficacy will be re-
lated positively to internal and stable attributions for
successful performance. The correlations show that
self-efficacy was related positively to stable attribu-
tions for successful performance (r = .22, p < .05), but
was unrelated to the locus of causality dimension, pro-
viding moderate support for Hypothesis 1.
Unsuccessful Performance
Hypothesis 2 predicted that self-efficacy will be re-
lated negatively to internal and stable attributions for
unsuccessful performance. The correlation between
self-efficacy and the locus of causality dimension was
negative and significant (r = - .29, p < .01). The corre-
lation between self-efficacy and the stability dimension
was also negative and significant (r = -.36, p < .01) .
These results support Hypothesis 2.
Examining the patterns of means for the attribu-
tions shows that under successful performance, there
is very little difference between high and low self-
efficacy subjects. However, for unsuccessful perfor-
mance, these two groups differ substantially. High self-
efficacy people attribute their poor performance more
to bad luck than do low self-efficacy people (M = 43 vs
21, t = -3.57, p < .01). In contrast, low self-efficacy
people attribute their poor performance more to lack of
ability than do high self-efficacy people (M == 36 vs 21,
t :::: 2.30, p < .01).
TABLE 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations for Study 1 Variables
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5
1. Self-efficacy 45.64 23.67
2. Performance 4.75 2.08 .22*
Attributions for successful performance
3. Locus of causality 41.13 36.47 .01 .13
4. Stability 55.66 33.54 .22* .13 -.21
Attributions for unsuccessful performance
5. Locus of causality 6.99 48.94 -.29* .03 .32* -.24*
6. Stability 3.54 44.56 -.36** -.16 .04 .00 -.28*
* p < .05.
** p < .01.
290 SIL VER, MITCHELL, AND GIST
Regression Analyses
The preceding analyses do not rule out the possibil-
ity that real ability differences between subjects ac-
counted for the observed relationships between self-
efficacy and the attribution dimensions. Unfortu-
nately, it is difficult to partial out the effects of ability
from the effects of self-efficacy since both variables
have simultaneous influences. However, test perfor-
mance can be used as a measure which reflects ability,
to determine if, within performance conditions, self-
efficacy influences attributions beyond the influence of
performance scores. To test this hypothesis, hierarchi-
cal multiple regression analyses were conducted for
each of the attribution dimensions for successful and
unsuccessful performance to which self-efficacy was re-
lated. Test performance (the number of problems an-
swered correctly) was entered as the first predictor of
the attribution dimensions followed by self-efficacy.
The results of the regression analyses are reported in
Table 2. As shown in the table, test score was not re-
lated to the locus of causality dimension for unsuccess-
ful performance or to the stability dimensions for suc-
cessful and unsuccessful performance. However, self-
efficacy explained a statistically significant proportion
of the variance in each attribution dimension. These
analyses suggest that the initial finding of relation-
ships between self-efficacy and causal attribution di-
mensions can not be explained by actual ability differ-
ences as reflected by test scores.
Discussion
The results of this study demonstrate that, for un-
successful performance, self-efficacy moderated the
performance -t attribution relationship. This finding
suggests that while high self-efficacy people make self-
serving attributions (e.g., bad luck) under conditions of
unsuccessful performance, low self-efficacy individuals
TABLE 2
Regression Analyses: Test Performance and Self-Efficacy
on Attributions
R2
Step Variable R
~
R2
change
Stability (successful performance)
1 Test score .14 -.15 .02 .02
2 Self-efficacy .29 .28 .08 .06
Stability (unsuccessful performance)
1 Test score .16 -.09 .03 .03
2 Self-efficacy .37 -.34 .14 .11
Locus of causality (unsuccessful performance)
1 Test score .03 .09 .00 .00
2 Self-efficacy .31 -.31 .09 -.09
* p < .05.
** p < .01.
F
change
1.35
4.39*
1.80
8.49**
.06
6.62**
engage in self-effacing attributions (e.g., lack of ability)
for unsuccessful performance.
Mixed support was received for the hypothesis that
self-efficacy moderated the performance -t attribution
relationship for successful performance. Specifically, it
was found that while self-efficacy was related to stable
attributions for successful performance, no relation-
ship was observed between self-efficacy and the locus of
causality attribution dimension. Thus, the pattern of
findings in the present study is consistent with re-
search demonstrating that it is in response to failure
where individual differences exert the strongest influ-
ence on attributions (e.g., Heckhausen, 1987; Zucker-
man, 1979).
The unique contribution of Study 1 was that it pro-
vides evidence for an aspect of self-efficacy theory that
had not yet been empirically examined. Specifically,
this study empirically supported the idea that self-
efficacy moderates the performance -t attribution re-
lationship, especially when performance is poor. In
Study 2, the bidirectional relationship between self-
efficacy and attributions is explored. That is, causal
attributions are examined as both antecedents to, and
consequences of, self-efficacy perceptions.
STUDY2
According to Social Cognitive Theory, failure on a
task can reduce an individual's level of self-efficacy,
which in turn is associated with lowered motivation
and performance. However, the effects of previous per-
formance on self-efficacy depend on the cognitive ap-
praisal of that performance (Bandura, 1986). The re-
sults from Study 1 illustrate that high and low self-
efficacy people have different interpretations of the
causes of their performance. These causal attributions
may influence people's subsequent perceptions of their
performance capabilities (Gist & Mitchell, 1992). G i ~ e n
the central role of self-efficacy in task performance, it is
important to understand how self-efficacy beliefs a ~ e
formed in the first place, and therefore, the focus ofth1s
second study is to examine the role of past performance
and attributions as antecedents and determinants of
self-efficacy.
Past Performance --+ Self-Efficacy
In order to make a self-efficacy judgment, individu-
als rely on four broad principal sources of information
(Bandura, 1986): (1) personal mastery experiences
(e.g., past performance), (2) vicarious information (e.g.,
modeling), (3) persuasive information (e.g., social influ-
ence), and (4) arousal information based on physiolog-
ical cues (e.g., mood). Of these information sources,
past performance experiem;:e provides the most influ-
ential source of efficacy information (Gist & Mitchell,
SELF-EFFICACY AND CAUSAL ATTRIBUTIONS 291
1992). Performance success heightens self-beliefs of ca-
pability; failures create self-doubt which lower self-
efficacy, especially if failures occur early in the course
of events (Bandura, 1986). In support of these ideas,
Locke, Frederick, Lee, and Bobko (1984) found that
past performance was more strongly related to self-
efficacy than were measures of ability or strategies
used. Feltz (1982) found that past performance contin-
ued to be a key determinant of self-efficacy over mul-
tiple-task trials. These data suggest our first hypothe-
sis.
HYPOTHESIS 1. Past performance will have a strong positive re-
lationship with post-task self-efficacy.
Self-Efficacy
Self-beliefs of efficacy are not simply reflective im-
prints of past performance (Bandura, 1986). The im-
pact of past performance on self-efficacy depends on
the cognitive appraisal of perceived performance
causes (Bandura, 1977). However, only a few studies
have examined the effect of attributions on subsequent
efficacy beliefs (e.g., Schunk & Gunn, 1986; Schunk &
Rice, 1986; Schunk, 1984). The generalizability of the
results from these studies is limited because the sub-
jects were children, and attributions were only made to
ability or effort causes. Other causes of performance
are also important (e.g., luck and task difficulty), and
all four causes can be interpreted in terms of their
causal dimensions (e.g., locus of causality, stability).
Furthermore, the effect of attributions on subsequent
self-efficacy varies depending on whether the past per-
formance is seen as a success or a failure (Bandura,
1977). Therefore, hypotheses are developed below for
the impact of causal attribution dimensions on self-
efficacy, under conditions of successful or unsuccessful
past performance.
Successful Performance
Bandura (1977) has hypothesized that successful
performances which are perceived as resulting from
internal causes rather than from fortuitous situational
circumstances are likely to enhance self-efficacy. In ad-
dition, if successful performance is ascribed to a stable
cause, then that outcome will be anticipated with an
increased probability in the future, and self-efficacy
will increase. For example, Schunk (1984) reported
that both effort and ability attributions for success led
to motivational increases, and that ability attributions
resulted in subsequent higher levels of self-efficacy and
performance.
HYPOTHESIS 2. Internal and stable attributions for successful
performance will be related positively to post-task self-efficacy.
Unsuccessful Performance
Bandura (1986) has also hypothesized that failures
should lead to reductions in self-efficacy when attrib-
uted to lack of ability rather than to task difficulty or
bad luck. Indirect tests of this idea have been con-
ducted. For example, Anderson (1983) used persuasion
to suggest to subjects that if they failed at the criterion
task (i.e., trying to solicit blood from donors), the fail-
ure was caused by unstable (insufficient effort, poor
soliciting strategy) as opposed to stable (lack of ability)
causes. Those subjects who were led to believe that
failure was determined by unstable causes had higher
expectancies of subsequent success than subjects who
attributed their performance to stable causes. Also,
Wilson and Linville (1985) gave college freshman in-
formation suggesting that the causes of low grades
were unstable. Compared with a control group (who
held beliefs suggesting more stable causes of failure),
the students in the experimental group expected to
have higher grade point averages in the long run.
These studies suggest the following hypothesis:
HYPOTHESIS 3. Internal and stable attributions for unsuccessful
performance will be related negatively to post-task self-efficacy.
Self-Efficacy Attributions
In Study 1 it was demonstrated that (1) self-efficacy
was related negatively to internal and stable attribu-
tions for failure, and (2) self-efficacy was related posi-
tively to stable attributions for successful performance
but not to internal attributions. The way in which self-
efficacy and attributions were measured in Study 1
may have contributed to this pattern of results. Recall
that for the self-efficacy judgment, subjects indicated
their capability to attain various levels of performance
on the entire test. However, they were asked to make
attributions about the success or failure of each indi-
vidual problem, and these attributions were averaged
for problems that were correct and those that were
incorrect. Thus self-efficacy and attributions were as-
sessed at different levels, which may have weakened
their relationship to each other. Furthermore, self-
efficacy was assessed after only three practice prob-
lems. Because the task was unfamiliar, self-efficacy
perceptions may not have been stable, and may not
have exerted a consistent influence on attributions
across problems. In Study 2, these measurement issues
will be addressed and the hypotheses will be reexam-
ined.
HYPOTHESIS 4. Self-efficacy will be related positively to internal
and stable attributions for successful performance.
HYPOTHESIS 5. Self-efficacy will be related negatively to internal
and stable attributions for unsuccessful performance.
292 SILVER, MITCHELL, AND GIST
Method
Participants
The participants were 103 undergraduate business
students in an upper-level business course. The sample
consisted of 52 male and 51 female students. All of our
analyses of attributions, self-efficacy, and performance
showed no gender differences, so males and females
were grouped together for tests of the hypotheses. The
average amount of work experience was 4.3 years.
Procedure
The procedure was similar to Study 1. Participants
received instructions, completed some practice items,
got feedback, and filled out an efficacy measure. They
then completed the test, received performance feed-
back, made attributions, and estimated their efficacy
for a subsequent problem set.
To address the methodological concerns from Study
1, some changes were made in the measures and pro-
cedures for the present study. First, the practice test
contained six problems, rather than three. This change
was made so that participants would have more infor-
mation on which to base their initial self-efficacy judg-
ments. Second, the attribution measures were de-
signed so that people would be making attributions for
their performance on the entire test, and not for each
individual problem. This change allowed self-efficacy
and attributions to be assessed at the same level, and
is more representative of the attributional process peo-
ple go through when interpreting their test perfor-
mance.
A third change in the present study concerned the
way in which the data sufficiency tests were adminis-
tered. Participants were allowed to answer the prob-
lems in any order they chose, and could spend as little
or as much time as they wanted (within the confines of
the time limit for the test) on each problem. Because
attributions were to be assessed for the entire test and
not for each individual problem, it was not necessary to
ensure that subjects spent equal amounts of time an-
swering each problem. A final change was that partic-
ipants were given only 12112 min to complete the test
rather than the 20 min given them in Study 1. This
change was made to keep the average time per problem
(i.e., 75 s) consistent with what it would be on the
GMAT.
Measures
Data sufficiency tests. As in Study 1, all problems
on the data sufficiency tests were taken from The Of-
ficial Guide for GMAT Review (ETS, 1986). To help
keep the difficulty level of the pretest and the experi-
mental test equivalent, problems were matched ac-
cording to the number of people who correctly an-
swered them, based upon data collected in a pilot study
(n = 19). Participants were given 7112 min to complete
the practice data sufficiency test and 12V2 min for the
experimental test.
Self-efficacy. Perceived self-efficacy was measured
twice (before and after the test) with the same measure
used in Study 1. The test-retest reliability for this self-
efficacy measure was r = .82 (p < .01).
Attributions. To facilitate generalizations across
contexts, causal attributions such as ability, effort, etc.,
are usually discussed with respect to where they fall on
various causal dimensions (i.e., locus of causality, sta-
bility). However, there is some debate over the best
way to measure these dimensions. In most attribution
studies, the researcher assigns the causal attributions
to causal dimensions based on the theoretical meaning
of the causal attributions. For example, effort and abil-
ity are classified as internal attributions. This proce-
dure assumes that the theoretical meaning of different
causal attributions is consistent with the meaning in-
ferred by the person who is making the causal attribu-
tions. But Weiner (1983, 1979) has noted that the
meaning of the same attribution may vary between
different persons and different contexts.
To offset this problem, Russell ( 1982) has suggested
that causal dimensions should be measured directly.
He has developed the Causal Dimension Scale (CDS)
for this purpose and Russell, McAuley, and Tarico
(1987) have suggested that the CDS is more strongly
related to most theoretical outcomes than is an indirect
measure of causal dimensions derived from causal at-
tributions. Accordingly, both direct (i.e., CDS) and in-
direct (i.e., derived dimensions) methods of assessing
causal dimensions were used in the present study:
1. Derived Dimensions-Based upon their test score,
participants were divided into successful and unsuc-
cessful performers (six correct problems and above =
successful performance, five correct problems and be-
low= unsuccessful performance). This cutoff point was
selected because the average number of correct an-
swers was between five and six for 19 subjects who
participated in a pilot study. In the present study, par-
ticipants also were given normative data indicating a
"typical" distribution of test scores, before taking the
first data sufficiency test, and were told that a score of
6 was considered a "passing" score. This procedure was
necessary to facilitate consistency across subjects in
their evaluations of their test performance, since the
meaning of attributions is contingent on people's per-
ceptions of how successful or unsuccessful their perfor-
mance was.
Two items were used to assess performance percep-
tions. Participants rated their performance on a 7-
SELF-EFFICACY AND CAUSAL ATIRIBUTIONS 293
point Likert scale (1 = poor, 4 = average, 7 = excel-
lent). Participants also evaluated how successfully
they performed ( 1 = unsuccessful, 4 = average, 7 =
successful). These two questions were combined to
form a composite score, which was used to test whether
subjects' perceptions of what constituted successful
performance was consistent with our description. The
interitem correlation for this measure was r = .93 (p <
.01).
Successful performers evaluated the extent to which
ability, effort, good luck, and test ease were important
in contributing to their successful performance. Unsuc-
cessful performers evaluated the extent to which lack
of ability, lack of effort, bad luck, and task difficulty
contributed to their unsuccessful performance. Re-
sponses for each cause were made on a 5-point Likert
scale ranging from 1 = unimportant to 5 = important.
Scores were derived for the locus of causality dimen-
sion by summing the attributions made to ability and
effort and subtracting the sum of the attributions to
luck and task difficulty. Scores were derived for the
stability dimension by summing the attributions to
ability and task difficulty and subtracting the sum of
the attributions to effort and luck.
2. Causal Dimension Scale-The Causal Dimension
Scale (Russell, 1982) was used to assess directly how
participants perceived the cause of their performance
in terms of the locus of causality and stability dimen-
sions described by Weiner (1985, 1979). Participants
first selected the most important cause of their perfor-
mance from among the four causal attributions (i.e.,
ability, effort, good luck, and test ease for successful
performance; lack of ability, lack of effort, bad luck,
and task difficulty for unsuccessful performance). They
then evaluated this attribution on six semantic differ-
ential scales, with three of the scales assessing each of
the causal dimensions. For the locus of causality di-
mension the three scales were: ( 1) reflects an aspect of
yourself-reflects an aspect of the situation, (2) inside of
you-outside of you, and (3) something about you-
something about others. For the stability dimension
the three scales were: (1) permanent-temporary, (2)
stable over time-variable over time, and (3) unchang-
ing-changing. To evaluate the reliability of the Causal
Dimension Scale, coefficient alphas were computed for
each subscale. For the locus of causality dimension, a =
. 75; for the stability dimension, a = .83. Thus, consis-
tent with previous studies (Russell et al., 1987; Russell,
1982), the reliability estimates for the locus of causal-
ity and stability subscales indicated adequate levels of
internal consistency.
Since both the Causal Dimension Scale and the de-
rived attribution dimension measure assessed the
same attributional dimensions, it was expected that
they would be positively correlated for both the locus of
causality and the stability dimensions. Correlations
between the measures were significant for the locus of
causality dimension (r = .61, p < .01 for successful per-
formance; r = .37, p < .01 for unsuccessful perfor-
mance). However, for the stability dimension, these
correlations did not reach statistical significance (r =
.29, p = ns for successful performance; r = .20, p = ns for
unsuccessful performance).
Results
Again we should note that self-efficacy was positively
correlated with performance (r = .42, p < .01). In ad-
dition, the locus of causality dimension was signifi-
cantly higher for successful performance than for un-
successful performance using the derived dimensions (t
= 3.35,p < .01) or the Causal Dimension Scale (t = 3.20,
p < .01). People who performed well made more inter-
nal attributions than people who performed poorly.
Thus, both Studies 1 and 2 indicate significant effi-
cacy-performance relationships, and self-serving bi-
ases.
Past Performance
In order to test the first hypothesis that past perfor-
mance will have a positive relationship with post-task
self-efficacy, a Pearson product-moment correlation
between test performance and subsequent self-efficacy
was computed. The correlation was significant and in
the hypothesized direction (r = .63, p < .01). Thus Hy-
pothesis 1 was supported.
Attributions
In the present study, participants were split into suc-
cessful (n = 37) and unsuccessful (n = 66) performers
based upon their test score. While we recognize that
this procedure results in a loss of power, we feel it was
necessary for three reasons. First, attribution ratings
were made based upon selection into a category of per-
formance, and not on the numerical performance score.
This is more consistent with the actual attributional
process where people's perceptions of the success of
their performance (based upon normative information,
goals, incentives, etc.) drives causal interpretations of
their performance. That is, people use labels or cate-
gories (such as success or failure) as guides to making
attributions, rather than a specific performance score.
Second, people evaluated different attributions de-
pending upon whether or not their performance was
successful. For example, successful performers evalu-
ated the extent to which their ability for data suffi-
ciency problems influenced their test score, whereas
unsuccessful performers evaluated the extent to which
their lack of ability influenced their test score. The
more detailed descriptions of these causes were differ-
294 SIL VER, MITCHELL, AND GIST
ent as well. Third, within performance categories, self-
efficacy was allowed to range freely. Any restriction in
self-efficacy variance due to performance groupings
should reduce the strength of the relationships under
investigation and make it more difficult to find signif-
icant results. Thus, grouping in this manner seems to
us to be conceptually appropriate and a conservative
test of the hypotheses.
To determine the adequacy of the successful/unsuc-
cessful performance manipulation, one-way analyses of
variance were conducted between successful and un-
successful performers on their perception of the suc-
cess of their performance. The results demonstrate
that successful performers viewed their test scores as
more successful than did unsuccessful performers [M =
4.4 vs 2.2; F(l,101) = 85.25, p < .01) and suggest that
subjects viewed the success of their performance in a
manner that was congruent with the attributions they
were asked to assess.
Successful performers. The means, standard devia-
tions, and intercorrelations of the antecedents of self-
efficacy for successful performers are shown in Table 3.
Hypothesis 2 predicted that internal and stable attri-
butions for successful performers will be related posi-
tively to post-task self-efficacy. Table 3 shows that the
correlations between the locus of causality dimension
and self-efficacy were positive and significant both for
the Causal Dimension Scale (r = .52) and for the de-
rived dimension measure (r = .46). The correlations be-
tween the stability dimension measures and self-
efficacy also were positive (r = .24 and r = .26), but the
magnitude was not sufficient to achieve statistical sig-
nificance. Thus Hypothesis 2 was supported only for
the locus of causality dimension. The correlations
between the individual causal attributions and self-
efficacy show that peoples' evaluations of the impor-
tance of ability (stable, internal) as a cause of success-
ful performance were related positively to their post-
task level of self-efficacy. In addition, attributions to
good luck (unstable, external) as a cause of successful
performance were related negatively to post-task self-
efficacy judgments.
Unsuccessful performers. The means, standard de-
viations, and intercorrelations of antecedents of self-
efficacy for unsuccessful performers are shown in Table
4. Hypothesis 3 predicted that internal and stable at-
tributions for unsuccessful performers will be related
negatively to post-task self-efficacy. Table 4 shows that
the correlations between the locus of causality dimen-
sion and self-efficacy were significant and in the hy-
pothesized negative direction for both the Causal Di-
mension Scale (r = - .28) and for the derived dimen-
sion measure (r = - .32). The correlation between the
stability dimension and subsequent self-efficacy was
also negative and significant, but only for the derived
attribution measure (r = - .46). Thus Hypothesis 3 was
supported when the derived dimension measure was
used to assess attributions. The correlations between
the individual causal attributions and self-efficacy
show that the more people believed that their lack of
ability or the difficulty of the task were causes of their
unsuccessful performance, the lower their post-task
self-efficacy.
Regression Analyses
To determine the proportion of variance in post-task
self-efficacy accounted for by past performance and at-
TABLE3
Means, Standard Deviations, and lntercorrelations: Antecedents of Self-Efficacy (Successful Performance)
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Test performance 6.9 1.02
Causal attributions
2. Ability 4.0 0.78 .35*
3. Effort 3.3 0.99 .25 .18
4. Good luck 1.9 1.08 -.16 -.53** -.09
5. Task ease 3.0 1.00 .25 .25 .00 -.03
Derived dimensions
6. Locus of causality 2.3 2.16 .24 .59** .57** -.72** -.36*
7. Stability 1.8 2.15 .17 .66** -.35* -.66** .57** .15
CDS
8. Locus of causality 7.2 1.26 .27 .57** .22 -.63** .02 .61** .43**
9. Stability 6.8 1.59 .27 .44** .03 -.44** -.15 .46** .29 .55**
10. Self-efficacy 62.4 16.34 .61** .43** .32 -.47** .01 .52** .24 .46** .26
* p < .05.
** p < .01.
SELF-EFFICACY AND CAUSAL A'ITRIBUTIONS 295
TABLE 4
Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations: Antecedents of Self-Efficacy (Unsuccessful Performance)
Variable M SD 1 2
1. Test performance 3.6 1.25
Causal attributions
2. Lack of ability 3.0 1.29 -.47**
3. Lack of effort 3.1 1.20 -.08 -.16
4. Bad luck 1.7 1.00 -.09 -.14
5. Task difficulty 3.2 1.08 -.27* .34**
Derived dimensions
6. Locus of causality 1.2 2.28 -.14 .38**
7. Stability 1.5 2.59 -.27** .77**
CDS
8. Locus of causality 5.9 1.59 -.16 .27*
9. Stability 5.8 1.28 .14 .09
10. Self-efficacy 49.9 18.9 .53** -.62**
* p < .05.
** p < .01.
tributions, hierarchical multiple regression analyses
were performed separately for successful and unsuc-
cessful performance. Test performance was entered as
the first antecedent since it has temporal precedence
over attributions. Also, it was important to determine
if attributions could explain variance in self-efficacy
beyond that accounted for by past performance. The
attribution dimensions were then entered using step-
wise selection procedures. The derived dimension mea-
sure of attributions was used since it had the strongest
relationship with self-efficacy across performance con-
ditions. The results of the regression analyses are sum-
marized in Table 5. For successful performance, the
total variance in post-task self-efficacy that was ac-
counted fol jointly by past performance and attribu-
tions was 53%. Note also that the locus of causality
dimension added unique predictive variance in self-
efficacy beyond that accounted for by past perfor-
mance. For unsuccessful performers, past performance
and attributions jointly accounted for 44% of the vari-
ance in post-task self-efficacy. Both the locus of causal-
TABLE 5
Regression Analyses: Antecedents of Self-Efficacy
Step
1
2
1
2
3
Variable R
n2
Successful performance
Test performance .61 .59 .37
Locus of causality .72 .93 .53
Unsuccessful performance
Test performance .53 .48 .28
Stability .63 -.34 .39
Locus of causality .66 .19 .44
** p < .01.
R
2
F
change Change
.37 18.68**
.16 10.26**
.28 25.17**
.11 11.27**
.05 5.25**
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
-.12
.12 .19
.55** -.67** -.43**
-.55** -.32 .57** .01
.14 -.18 -.14 .37** .09
-.25* .20 .28* -.30** .20 .07
.01 .12 -.25* -.28* -.46** -.32** .07
ity and stability dimensions added unique predictive
variance in self-efficacy beyond that accounted for by
past performance. These results suggest that self-
efficacy judgments are not based only upon the level of
past performance, but also upon people's perceptions of
the causes of their previous performance.
Self-efficacy --? Attributions
Successful Performance
Hypothesis 4 predicted that self-efficacy would be re-
lated positively to internal and stable attributions for
successful performance. The results show that the cor-
relations between self-efficacy and the locus of causal-
ity dimension were positive and significant for both the
derived attribution measure (r = .34, p < .05) and the
Causal Dimension Scale (r = .44, p < .01). People with
high self-efficacy attributed their good performance
more to ability and effort than did people with low
self-efficacy. However, although the correlations be-
tween self-efficacy and the stability dimension also
were positive, they were not significant. Thus, hypoth-
esis 4 was supported only for the locus of causality
dimension.
Unsuccessful Performance
Hypothesis 5 predicted that self-efficacy would be re-
lated negatively to internal and stable attributions for
unsuccessful performance. The results show that when
the attributions are assessed by the derived attribution
dimension measure, the correlation between self-
efficacy and the stability dimension was negative and
significant (r = -.36, p < .01). The correlation between
self-efficacy and the locus of causality was also nega-
296 SILVER, MITCHELL, AND GIST
tive (r = - .17), but the magnitude was not sufficient to
achieve statistical significance. In contrast, when attri-
butions are assessed by the Causal Dimension Scale,
the correlation between self-efficacy and the locus of
causality dimension was negative and significant (r =
- .25, p < .05), but the correlation between self-efficacy
and the stability dimension was not. Thus there is only
moderate support for Hypothesis 5. The correlations
between self-efficacy and the attributions for poor per-
formance show that efficacy was negatively related to
ability (r = - .49, p < .01) and task difficulty attribu-
tions (r= -.27,p < .05). The higherthe efficacy, the less
that failure was attributed to a lack of ability or a dif-
ficult task. These findings are basically consistent with
the findings of Study 1.
DISCUSSION
The findings from this research clearly demonstrate
that self-efficacy both causes and is caused by perfor-
mance experiences. Efficacy was significantly related
to performance, and performance was related to post-
task self-efficacy. In addition, both studies highlight
the significance of how individuals interpret the causes
of their performance. High versus low efficacy beliefs
result in different attributions for performance, and
these attributions are related to subsequent estimates
of efficacy. Successful performance that is attributed
to internal factors raises individuals' self-beliefs of
efficacy. Unsuccessful performance that is attributed
to internal and stable factors lowers individuals'
self-efficacy. The magnitude of the variance in post-
task self-efficacy that was explained by past perfor-
mance and attributions (53% for successful perfor-
mance, 44% for unsuccessful performance) speaks to
the importance of these variables as determinants of
self-efficacy.
Several features of this study contribute to its inter-
nal and external validity. First, multiple sets of prop-
ositions from self-efficacy theory were examined in
multiple studies using different subjects and slightly
different measures and procedures. Second, both ante-
cedents and consequences of self-efficacy were exam-
ined. This is consistent with the notion of reciprocal
causation which is central to social cognitive theory
(Bandura, 1986). Third, the participants (business stu-
dents) were the appropriate sample for the experimen-
tal task (GMAT data sufficiency problems). This type of
match is often missing in laboratory studies on attri-
bution theory. Fourth, the procedures used in Study 2
are realistic in the sense that participants could work
continuously without interruption, that the time allot-
ted was consistent with actual data sufficiency exams,
and that attributions were made for success or failure
on the entire test.
Research Implications
Self-efficacy. The results of both studies clearly
showed that: (1) attributions for past performance dif-
fered as a result of one's efficacy and, (2) these attri-
butions were predictors of subsequent self-efficacy.
However, the strength of these relationships varied as
a result of whether the performance was successful or
unsuccessful and as a result of the type of measure
used. More work is needed to address the role of attri-
butions in the efficacy-performance relationship. Of
particular interest would be an examination of wheth-
er attributions make more of a contribution to the re-
lationship during the early learning of a task, than
when the task is well learned. Our hypothesis would be
that as a task becomes well learned, past performance
becomes more diagnostic as a predictor of future effi-
cacy and performance, because attributions are stabi-
lized and thought about less frequently.
In addition, the assessment of attributions merits
further empirical examination. This suggestion is un-
derscored by the finding that different measures of the
same attributional dimension were not correlated
highly with each other. Simple one-word attributions
(i.e., ability) may not capture the complexity with
which people perceive the causes of their own perfor-
mance. Furthermore, one-item measures of these at-
tributions are of unknown reliability and validity.
Additional work is needed to develop attributional
measures that focus on personal, behavioral, and envi-
ronmental causes of performance.
Finally, one explanation for the different pattern of
results for successful performance may be that people
may make fewer discriminations among causes for suc-
cessful performance than they do among causes for un-
successful performance (Peterson & Seligman, 1987).
Individuals typically do not spend as much time con-
sidering the causes of good events, and are less artic-
ulate in rating them (Scott, Osgood, & Peterson, 1979;
Langer, 1978). This explanation needs to be explored
further.
Managerial Implications
Poor performance. The social cognitive view sug-
gests that strong beliefs of efficacy enable people to
apply the motivational and cognitive resources needed
for successful task performance (Bandura, 1986). The
present research suggests that by making external and
unstable attributions, individuals with high self-
efficacy interpret negative performance feedback in a
way that enables them to sustain their strong self-
beliefs of efficacy.
On the other hand, by making internal and stable
attributions for poor performance, people with low self-
SELF-EFFICACY AND CAUSAL ATTRIBUTIONS 297
efficacy may fall into exacerbation cycles that result in
consistently low levels of performance (Storms & Mc-
Caul, 1976). By attributing poor performance to a lack
of ability, they are less likely to persist at the task, and
as a result, the poor performance becomes more ex-
treme and more strongly attributed to internal and sta-
ble factors. Further research is needed, over repeated
performance trials, on the mechanisms involved in ex-
acerbation cycles.
Attribution training. Research on interventions de-
signed to impact the patterns of attributions made by
individuals (e.g., Forsterling, 1985) suggests ways to
maintain high levels of efficacy. Rather than allowing
the attributions for performance inferred by trainees to
be a passive consequence of a model's behavior, indi-
viduals could be given information that explicitly sug-
gests unsuccessful performance is not due to a lack of
ability. For example, Brockner and Guare (1983) dem-
onstrated that the performance of low self-esteem in-
dividuals can be improved to the extent that they are
led to attribute their prior failure to the difficulty of the
task, rather than to their own personal inadequacy.
Wilson and Linville (1985) found that college freshmen
given information suggesting that the causes of low
grades are unstable subsequently had better academic
performance.
It is important to emphasize that the implication is
not that individuals with low self-efficacy should be
trained to indiscriminately attribute all of their unsuc-
cessful performance to nonability factors. Rather, the
suggestion is that low self-efficacy individuals should
be made aware that inaccurate attributions to ability
factors may cause them unnecessary anxiety and loss
of motivation, both of which may impair performance.
The emphasis should be on training people to accu-
rately diagnose the causes of past performance so that
subsequent performance can be improved. Thus, attri-
butional training programs may be improved if they
focus on the process of making attributions (i.e., teach-
ing individuals how to accurately diagnose perfor-
mance), rather than on the content of attributions.
Feedback. To facilitate the development of strong
efficacy beliefs, managers should be careful about the
provision of negative feedback. Destructive criticism by
managers which attributes the cause of poor perfor-
mance to internal factors reduces both the beliefs of
self-efficacy and the self-set goals of recipients (Barron,
1990, 1988). Managers should encourage people who
are performing poorly to exert more effort, or to develop
better strategies. If an ability deficit is the primary
cause of poor performance, managers should encourage
their subordinates to learn from their mistakes. While
the effect of a single statement is not likely to exert
much influence on self-efficacy beliefs, the patterns of
verbal information given over time will impact people's
perceptions of their capabilities (Bandura, 1986).
After successful performance, the provision of posi-
tive feedback can be used to enhance subordinates'
self-efficacy beliefs. Managers can help subordinates
cognitively process success experiences in a way that
maximizes their impact on self-efficacy beliefs. For ex-
ample, subordinates should be encouraged to evaluate
success against past performance in similar situations.
Comparisons with other people, with behavior in other
settings, or with distal goals provide less satisfying an-
chor points for assessing performance improvements
(Kanfer & Gaelick, 1986). Employees should also be
encouraged to attribute success to their stable, internal
qualities. This can be done by focusing performance
feedback discussions on the ways in which subordi-
nates' behavior directly led to success, by initiating
these discussions frequently, and by using objective in-
dexes of performance improvements (e.g., production
statistics, sales records, etc.). Such discussions are
likely to cause affective reactions which will facilitate
self-focused attention (Salovey, 1992). Mood and emo-
tion may thus become part of the chain of self-
regulatory actions which sustain performance in the
long run (Weiner, 1985).
CONCLUSION
The data from Study 1 and Study 2 clearly show that
performance, self-efficacy, and attributions are all in-
terrelated. The understanding of these complex rela-
tionships is important for the development of feedback
and training interventions that will enhance motiva-
tion and persistence, and develop strategies for coping
with failure (Ilgen, Major, & Tower, in press). These
are important issues for both self-development and or-
ganizational performance.
REFERENCES
Anderson, C. A. (1983). Motivational and performance deficits in in-
terpersonal settings: The effects of attributional style. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1136-1147.
Arkin, R. M., Detchon, C. S., & Maruyama, G. M. (1982). Roles of
attribution, affect, and cognitive interference in test anxiety. Jour
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1111-1124.
Arkin, R. M., Kolditz, T., & Kolditz, K. (1983). Attributions of the
test-anxious student: Self-assessments in the classroom. Person-
ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 271-280.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behav-
ioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1984). Recycling misconceptions of perceived self-
efficacy. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 8, 213-229.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A so-
cial cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
298 SILVER, MITCHELL, AND GIST
Bandura, A. (1988). Organizational applications of social cognitive
theory. Australian Journal of Management, 13, 137-164.
Bandura, A. (1989). Perceived self-efficacy in the exercise of personal
agency. The Psychologist: Bulletin of the British Psychological So-
ciety, 10, 411-424.
Barron, R. A. (1988). Negative effects of destructive criticism: Impact
on conflict, self-efficacy, and task performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 73, 199-207.
Barron, R. A. (1990). Countering the effects of destructive criticism:
The relative efficacy of four interventions. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 75, 235-245.
Baumgardner, A.H., Heppner, P. P., & Arkin, R. M. (1986). Role of
causal attribution in personal problem solving. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 50, 636-643.
Bradley, G. W. (1978). Self-serving biases in the attribution process:
A re-examination of the fact or fiction question. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 36, 56-71.
Brockner, J., & Guare, J. (1983). Improving the performance of low
self-esteem individuals: An attributional approach. Academy of
Management Journal, 26, 642-656.
Campbell, J. D., & Fairey, P. J. (1985). Effects of self-esteem, hypo-
thetical explanations, and verbalization of expectancies on future
performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48,
1097-1111.
Chacko, T. I., & McElroy, T. I. (1983). The cognitive component in
Locke's theory of goal setting: Suggestive evidence for a causal
attribution interpretation. Academy of Management Journal, 26,
104-118.
Educational Testing Service. (1986). The official guide for GMAT
review. Princeton, NJ: ETS.
Feather, N. T. (1983). Some correlates of attributional style: Depres-
sive symptoms, self-esteem, and protestant ethic values. Person-
ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 125-135.
Feltz, D. L. (1982). Path analysis of the causal elements in Bandura's
theory of self-efficacy and an anxiety-based model of avoidance
behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 764-
781.
Fiske, S., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. New York: Mc-
Graw-Hill.
Forsterling, F. (1985). Attributional retraining: A review. Psycholog-
ical Bulletin, 98, 495-512.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical anal-
ysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management
Review, 17, 183-211.
Gist, M. E., Stevens, C. K., & Bavetta, A.G. (1991). Effects of self-
efficacy and post training intervention on the acquisition and
maintenance of complex interpersonal skills. Personnel Psychol-
ogy, 44, 837-857.
Heckhausen, H. (1987). Causal attribution patterns for achievement
outcomes: Individual differences, possible types and their origins.
In F. E. Weinert & R.H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation,
and understanding (pp. 143-184). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erl-
baum Associates.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New
York: Wiley & Sons.
Hicks, L. E. (1970). Some properties of ipsitive, normative, and
forced-choice normative measures. Psychological Bulletin, 74,
167-184.
Ickes, W., & Layden, M.A. (1978). Attributional styles. In J. Harvey,
W. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution re-
search (Vol. 2, pp. 121-147). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Ilgen, D., Major, D. A., & Tower, S. L. (in press). The cognitive rev-
olution in organizational behavior. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organi-
zational behavior: The state of the science. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum & Associates.
Kanfer, F. H., & Gaelick, L. (1986). Self-management methods. In
F. H. Kanfer & A. P. Goldstein (Eds.), Helping people change: A
textbook of methods (pp. 283-345). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.
Langer, E. J. (1978). Rethinking the role of thought in social inter-
action. In J. Harvey, W. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions
in attribution research (Vol. 2, pp. 36-58). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Locke, E. A., Frederick, E., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1984). Effect of
self-efficacy, goals, and task strategies on task performance. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 69, 241-251.
Luginbuhl, J.E. R., Crowe, D. H., & Kahan, J.P. (1975). Causal at-
tributions for success and failure. Journal of Personality and So-
cial Psychology, 31, 86-93.
Miller, D. T., & Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving biases in the attribution
of causality: Fact or fiction. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 213-225.
Mone, M. A., & Baker, D. D. (1992, August). A social-cognitive, at-
tributional model of personal goals: An empirical evaluation. Paper
presented at the National Academy of Management Meetings, Las
Vegas, Nevada.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (1987). Helplessness and attribu-
tional style in depression. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.),
Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 185-215).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Russell, D. W. (1982). The causal dimension scale: A measure of how
individuals perceive causes. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 42, 1137-1145.
Russell, D. W., McAuley, E., & Tarico, V. (1987). Measuring causal
attributions for success and failure: A comparison of methodologies
for assessing causal dimensions. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 52, 1248--1257.
Salovey, P. (1992). Mood-induced self-focused attention. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 699-708.
Schunk, D. H. (1984). Self-efficacy perspective on achievement be-
havior. Educational Psychologist, 19, 48-58.
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educa-
tional Psychologist, 79, 238-244.
Schunk, D. H., & Gunn, T. P. (1986). Self-efficacy and skill develop-
ment: Influence of task strategies and attributions. Journal of Ed-
ucational Research, 79, 238--244.
Schunk, D. H., & Rice, T. P. (1986). Extended attributional feedback:
Sequence effects during remedial reading instruction. Journal of
Early Adolescence, 6, 55-66.
Scott, W. A., Osgood, D. W., & Peterson, C. (1979). Cognitive struc-
ture. Washington, DC: Winston.
Storms, M. D., & McCaul, K. D. (1976). Attribution processes and
emotional exacerbation of dysfunctional behavior. In J. Harvey, W.
Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research
(Vol. 1, pp. 143-164). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Strube, M. J., & Boland, S. M. (1986). Post performance attributions
and task persistence among Type A and B individuals: A clarifi-
cation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 413-420.
Turnage, J. J. (1990). The challenge of new workplace technology for
psychology. American Psychologist, 45, 171-178.
Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom expe-
riences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 3-25.
Weiner, B. (1983). Some methodological pitfalls in attributional re-
search. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 530-543.
SELF-EFFICACY AND CAUSAL A'ITRIBUTIONS 299
Weiner, B. (1985). An attribution theory of achievement motivation
and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548-573.
Weiner, B., Frieze, I., Kukla, A., Reed, L., Rest, S., & Rosenbaum,
R. M. (1972). Perceiving the causes of success and failure. In E. E.
Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B.
Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp.
95-120). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Wilson, T. D., & Linville, P. W. (1985). Improving the performance of
Received: June 2, 1993
college freshmen with attributional techniques. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 49, 287-293.
Wood, R. E., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of orga-
nizational management. Academy of Management Review, 14,
361-384.
Zuckerman, M. (1979). Attribution of success and failure revisited,
or: The motivational bias is alive and well in attribution theory.
Journal of Personality, 47, 245-287.