Enhancing Achievment Motivation

Research in Higher Education, Vol. 34, No.
6, 1993
ENHANCING ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION AND PERFORMANCE IN COLLEGE STUDENTS: AN ATTRIBUTIONAL RETRAINING PERSPECTIVE
Raymond P. Perry, Frank J. Hechter, Verena H. Menec, and Leah E. Weinberg
, . . . = . . . . , = , , . = . , , , . . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = . . , . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Academic performance in higher education ultimately involves a complex interplay of student attributes and the educational environment. Although instruction is regarded as the major environmental factor affecting scholastic success, other factors can become more important when teaching does not produce the desired results. Attributional retraining is one alternative that shows considerable promise for enhancing students' motivation and achievement stdving by changing how students think about their successes and failures. This paper reviews attdbutional retraining studies published since 1985 having a higher education focus. Their conceptual and methodological strengths and weaknesses are discussed in relation to Weiner's attribution theory. Within this context, attributional retraining is presented as a potentially viable and important intervention for improving college students' academic development, especially those students deemed to be at risk. In particular, attdbutional retraining is considered as an adjunct to, and possible aspect of, effective teaching.
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , , ~ . . . . . , . ~ , = , . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . , . . . . = . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Scholastic achievement in higher education is recognized as a complex interplay of student abilities and the educational environment. In this regard instruction is seen as a key environmental factor affecting students' success, with accumulating empirical evidence from field and laboratory studies beginning to verify its muitiple benefits (Feldman, 1989; Marsh and Dunkin, 1992; Murray, 1991). Unfortunately, effective teaching does not have universally positive results for all students. Recent research suggests that some students perforrn poorly despite high-quality instruction (Perry, 1991). Students who believe they have little control over their academic achievement perform no better following a lecture from an effective, compared to an ineffective, instructor. Thus, the Address correspondence to: Raymond P. Perry, Centre for Higher Education Research and Development, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2. Support for this research was provided to Raymond P. Perry by Franz E. Weinert, Max Planck Institute, Munich, and by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (#41091-1296). The junior authors contributed equally to the article and are listed alphabetically.
687
0361-0365/93/1200-0687507.00/0 1993 Human Sciences Press. Inc.
688
PERRY, HECHTER,MENEC,AND WEINBERG
typical pattern of low motivation, negative affect, and poor performance, characteristic of helpless orat-risk college students, may occur even in the presence of high-quality teaching. Under these circumstances other options are called for. Typically, most colleges provide a variety of alternatives to assist students, ranging from formal, well-established interventions such as counseling services, time management courses, and written skills programs, to more informal, less-structured options consisting of peer advising, study groups, etc. One alternative that appears to have considerable potential to aid college students, particularly those at-risk, is attributional retraining, a recent development in the psychological literature (Weiner, 1979). A meta-analysis of generic programs intended to help at-risk students reveals small but significant improvements in those receiving interventions versus those who did not have any treatment (Kulik, Kulik, and Shwalb, 1983). With its recent origins, it is unlikely that attributional retraining would have been part of those generic programs, raising the possibility that, being a theoretically derived and empirically based intervention, it would have stronger effects. Applied to academic settings, attributional retraining is designed to enhance student motivation and achievement striving by changing how students think about their successes and failures. Like effective teaching, it shares a common objective in seeking to modify cognitive, affective, and motivational processes responsible for students' scholastic performance. The purpose of this article is to critically review the empirical literature on attributional retraining in higher education that has emerged since 1985. Empirical studies were identified by a computer-assisted search of educational research journals using the Social Sciences Citation lndex (SSCI) and the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC). Published programs of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) annual meeting were also reviewed since 1985. To a large extent, this research can be framed within the eontext of Weiner's attribution theory (1986), and for this reason, as well as the theory's suitability for the college classroom, the review will feature his model. For more general research on attributional retraining published prior to 1985, the reader is referred to comprehensive reviews by Frsterling (1985) and Weiher (1986). The review is comprised of four sections, the first providing an overview of attribution theory and a brief description of attributional retraining. The second presents specific studies, and the third section discusses the critical conceptual issues and recurring methodological flaws extant in the literature. The final one offers some general conclusions about attributional retraining and its implications for the college classroom.
ATTRIBUTION THEORY AND ATTRIBUTIONAL RETRAINING
Attributional retraining is rooted in attribution theory, originally introduced by Heider (1958) to account for how people perceive and interpret their social
ATTRIBUTIONAL RETRAINING
689
environment. Attribution theory implies that people have a need to make sense of their world and that making sense of it has a functional value: it improves their chances of survival. Attributing a successful performance on a college entrance exam to ability, for exampte, has markedly different implications for a student's academic development than believing that luck was the reason for success. Subsequent research by Kelley (1967, 1972), Jones and Davis (1965), Weiner (1972, 1979), and others (see Ross and Fletcher, 1985, for a review) has led to further development of Heider's original thesis. Weiner (1979, 1986) has proposed one account that is particularly well suited for studying the college classroom because of its primary emphasis on achievement motivation and performance. According to his theory, people routinely seek to explain outcomes and events in their environment, particularly those which are novel, important, or negative. The explanations, or causal attributions, generated by this casual search process have a direct impact on subsequent cognitions, emotions, and behaviors. Weiner proposes a three-dimension taxonomy for classifying all attributions. Specifically, a locus of causality dimension describes causes within (e.g., aptitude) or outside (e.g., chance) the person; a stability dimension refers to causes that are either stable (e.g., industriousness) or unstable (e.g., fatigue), and a controllability dimension indicates whether the cause can be influenced by the person (e.g., laziness versus economic recession). These three dimensions form a locus by stability by controllability taxonomy that can be used to classify any attribution resulting from the causal search process, in its simplest configuration, the taxonomy can be thought of as a locus (internal, external) by stability (unstable, stable) by controllability (uncontrollable, controllable) 2 x 2 z 2 factorial, although Weiner maintains, in fact, that each dimension is a continuum and not a dichotomy. By adopting the simple 2 x 2 x 2 factorial, any causal attribution can be construed as "fitting into" a cell in the taxonomy. For example, math aptitude would fall within the internal, stable, and uncontrollable cell, whereas fate would be located within the external, unstable, and uncontrollable cell. (See Weiner, 1985, 1986, for a discussion of other possible dimensions.) These dimensional properties of causal attributions determine a person's subsequent cognitive, affective, and motivational reactions. Specifically, the stability dimension influences future expectations: a stable attribution (e.g., aptitude) about an outcome implies that it is more likely to reoccur than an unstable attribution (e.g., chance). Moreover, each of the three dimensions influence specific emotions which, in combination with expectations generated by the stability dimension, lead to motivated behavior. The locus dimension can induce feelings of pride if an internal attribution (e.g., aptitude) is made for success, but feelings of gratitude if an external attribution (e.g., instruction) was the explanation. Thus, the unique locus, stability, and controllability properties of an attribution have the capacity to substantially alter a person's motivation
690
PERRY, HECHTER, MENEC, AND WEINBERG
and behavior regarding future outcomes and events. A more complete account of this model is provided elsewhere (Weiner, 1985, 1986). The theory's utility becomes paCicularly apparent when applied to specific achievement episodes. Suppose a student faiis an impoaant test and, in seeking an appropriate explanation, attributes the poor performance to lack of ability. Because ability is typically considered an internal, stable, and uncontrollable cause, the student would regard himself/herself as personaily responsible for the negative outcome and would experience embarrassment, sadness, lowered self-esteem, and in extreme cases, depression. These negative emotions would make the course much less attractive to the student and lead to avoidance. Coupled with high expectations of continued failure, assuming lack of ability is a stable cause, these negative emotions would undermine the student's motivation to succeed, thereby jeopardizing future performance and continuation in the course. Such affect-expectancy combinations have been implicated in learned helplessness in the college classroom (Perry and Dickens, 1984). In contrast, internal, unstable, and controllable attributions, such as effort, would have very different academic consequences. Similar to a lack of ability attribution, a lack of effort attribution would generate negative affect, because the student feels responsible for the poor performance, but it would be far less harmful. Shame is less likely, lowered self-esteem less probable, and helplessness-related emotions infrequent. More importantly, expectations about future performance would be much more positive because lack of effort is an unstable and controllable cause and can be modified. This suggests an optimistic scenario in which failure resulting from lack of effort can be changed to success by trying hard next time. Thus, the student may not feel good about the course, but will strive to do bettet. This stability/controllability difference between ability and effort lies at the heart of helpless and mastery orientations to academic achievement. Although both are internal attributions, helplessness is more likely to result from a lack of ability attribution (stable/uncontrollable factor) for failure, whereas mastery is more probable from a lack of effort attribution (unstable/controllable factor) for failure. External attributions, such as luck or task difficulty, would create less emotional arousal, be less harmful to a student's self-esteem, and be less likely to generate helplessness. Thus, Weiner's theory, applied to the college classroom setting, offers possibilities for a precise analysis of salient variables, of critical processes, and of sequential associations. The theory describes attribution, expectation, affect, motivation, and achievement in explicit detail and specifies causal linkages between them. As such, several major advantages are attained with this approach: it focuses on achievement; it involves a broad range of cognitive, affective, and motivational consequences; it features a well-articulated causal model in which the various elements are explicitly linked, and it offers a strong con-
691
ceptual framework for predicting achievement motivation and perforrnance (Perry, 1990). Thus, his theory provides a rational model within which to understand attributional retraining effects and from which to develop remedial training programs.
Attributional Retraining
Attributional retraining comprises a set of procedures generally intended to restructure a person's explanations about events in his/her surrounding environment. Derived from attribution theory, it deals specifically with causal attributions pertaining to either achievement or affiliative (social) settings. Its primary purpose is to change maladaptive attributions to ones that enable better adjustment to the environment. Because it is assumed that attributions influence behavior through intervening expectations and affects, altering existing attributions or introducing new ones should result in dysfunctional behaviors being replaced with more adaptive ortes. Frsterling (1985, 1988) and Weiner (1986, 1988) provide comprehensive reviews of the general attributional retraining literature in both academic and clinical settings. Specific methods for changing undesirable attributions for success and failure to more desirable ones (see Figure 1) are described by Frsterling (1985). For success outcomes, external, unstable attributions, such as good luck, must be replaced with internal, more stable attributions, such as high ability, thereby encouraging expectations of continued success. Motivation and goal striving should increase, causing the student to tackle the achievement task rather than avoid it. Forfailure outcomes, the intervention entails changing stable to unstabie attributions, e.g., from lack of ability to lack of effort, to promote expectations that existing, negative circumstances can be altered. Consequently, even following failure, motivation and goal striving should increase, enabling the student to persist at the task rather than quit. Because maladaptive attributions for failure are likely to be more incapacitating than maladaptive attributions for success, the empirical literature has tended to focus on failure experiences. Initially, researchers tried to replace maladaptive attributions for failure with a lack of effort attribution. More recent studies, however, have used different attributions, with Weiner (1988) advocating bad luck and excessive task difficulty as alternatives, and others suggesting attributions to strategy (Curtis and Graham, 1991 ). Within the academic achievement domain, attributional retraining has primarily been linked to mastering specific activities related to arithmetic problem solving, reading comprehension, visual discrimination, and general scholastic performance. Theoretically, maladaptive cognitions may include attributing
692

UNDESlRABLE
success
luck
lack of emotional incentive (i.e., indifference), minimally increased expectancies of success
lack of approach towards achievement

tasks
failure
lack o f ~
debilitating emotions
ability
(e.g., feelings of incompetence and depression) decreased expectancies of success
lack of persistence, avoidance of achievement tasks
DESIRABLE Success
high
positive esteem-related
emotions (e.g., pride)
....
ability
approach t o w a r d s achievement tasks
increased expectancies
failure
,
lack o f - - - ~ effort
motivating emotions
(e.g., guilt) or lack of
persistence,
approach towards achievement tasks
debilitating affects, maintenance of relatively high expectancies of success
FIG. 1. Desirable and undesirable attributions for success and failure (from Frsterling (1985); Copyright (1985) by the American Psychological Association. Reprinted by permission.) success to luck, an easy test, or inflated grading standards, and failure to lack of ability, attention deficits, hearing impairment, or prejudice of the marker. Evidence of dysfunctional behaviors could include boredom, apathy, avoiding homework, not handing in assignments, and missing classes. Attributional retraining programs replace these maladaptive attributions with high ability for success, lack of effort for failure, or others equally suitable. Accordingly, the altered attribution should produce the necessary emotional and expectancy changes needed to facilitate subsequent motivation and achievement striving. Although many issues remain to be addressed, Frsterling (1985) was sufficiently impressed by existing empirical evidence to conclude "that attributional retraining methods have been consistently successful in increasing persistence and performance" (p. 509).
ATTRIBUTIONAL RETRAINING IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Much of the research on attributional retraining has focused on school children, with relatively fewer studies done on college students. The objectives in higher education, nevertheless, are the same; either to prevent or remediate
ATFRIBUTIONAL RETRAINING
693
negative causal ascriptions that lead to impaired scholastic performance. The remainder of this review will focus on retraining studies at the college level. This section provides a review of the relevant literature and summarizes the empirical studies in Table I. The next section, Conceptual and Methodological Constraints, presents a critique of the studies in terms of subject selection, attributional retraining techniques and methods, and outcome measures. The majority of attributional retraining studies reported in Table 1 have several features in common. Typically, first-year students who exhibit some maladaptive cognition or behavior affecting their scholastic performance are the largest population. A common assumption underlying these studies is that if students could be "inoculated" against negative attributions for academic difficulties in their first year, tlaen according to Weiner's theory (1986; see also Figure 1) it would produce an increased expectancy of success, and increased motivation and mastery strivings. The appropriate attribution is typically presented either by directly informing the students or by modeling the attribution in a structured interview, although other techniques have been used with noncollege subjects. The induction usually occurs during a single episode, rarely through multiple exposures, after which students are tested on related tasks to determine the program's effectiveness. Although no single approach has guided these studies, several common themes have emerged: quasi-experimental field studies done in the actual classroom; attributional retraining supplemented by other techniques, such as discussion or strategy training, and laboratory experiments featuring a college classroom analog. The pioneering contribution to this literature was a field study undertaken by Wilson and Linville (1982; see Table 1). First-year students who were experiencing failure or performing below their expectations were deemed to be at risk, as a result of making attributions for their performance to stable, uncontrollable causes. The attribution-change program was designed to alter students' expectancies about future success and to reduce negative affect about their current academic performance. Thus, rather than changing attributions for failure from lack of ability to lack of effort (Dweck, 1975), Wilson and Linville (1982) modified the stability of students' attributions. Specifically, they informed the students that grades are generally lower in the first year and improve in the upper-class years. The students were tben shown videotaped interviews of upper-class students in which they described their academic experiences in college, emphasizing their own improvement as they progressed to their senior year. Most of the studies that have followed Wilson and Linville have generally used similar experimental procedures. Students who received the attributional retraining, compared to those who did not, performed better on a dependent measure involving Graduate Record Exam items, had higher GPA scores one year after training, and were less likely to leave college by the end of their sophomore year. These findings agree
694
PERRY, HECHTER,MENEC,AND WEINBERG TABLE 1. Attributional Retraining Studies

Attributional Retraining Technique and Methods
Study
Subject Selection
Attribution Change
Outcome Measures
Wilson & Linville First year students Stable to unstable (1982) in psychology de- and temporary partment subject causes, pool. Selection based on meeting ALL following criteria: 1. Ist semester GPA < 3.50 and 2. self report of: a) worry about academic performance > median; b) academic performance < ability; c) intellectual comparison with classmate peers not greater than average.
lndividual attribu- Short term: tional retraining 1. Reading with experimenter comprehenin a single session sion test (6 consisting of GRE-type GPA information items) provided through 2. self-reported written statistical questiondata or videonaires retaped interviews garding: with senior stua) attitudes dents, about performance b) expectations of future performance and c) mood. Long term: GPA scores with first semester GPA as baseline I. GPA in second semester of first year. 2. GPA of both first and second semester of second year university.
Summarv ofresults: 1) reduction in withdrawal from university; 2) increase in GPA one year after intervention and 3) increase performance in GRE-type items.
Wilson & Linville Study 1: con(1985) ducted in second semester, Subject selection based on: I. first semester GPA < median (3.00) and Stable to unstable and temporary causes (both replications), lndividual attributional retraining similar to 1982 study, Similar to 1982 study except that short term measures were administered one time only immediately after attributional retraining intervention.
2. self-reported worry about academic performance > 5 on 7-point Likert scale (median = 5.4). Study 2: conducted in first semester; subjects selected from introductory psychology students based on self-reported: 1. midterm exam results < median (3.02) and 2. worry about academic performance > 6 on 9-point Likert scale (median = 7.01 ).
695
Same as Replication I.
Single session in groups of 4 - 6 students. GPA information provided through statistical data and videtaped interviews of upper class students indicating that grades are often low in first year but improve in succeeding years. In addition, treatment subjects were asked to write an essay identifying reasons tbr their academic performance.
Short term: Same as 1982 study but with expanded reading comprehension test (13 GRE-type items). Long term: Second semester GPA scores compared with first semester GPA as baseline.
Summary of results: Increase in performance on GRE-type items and increase in grades in following sernester. Jesse & Gregory (1986-87) All first year university students enrolled in introductory psychology course. Authors note that no selective admission criteria in place at this university. Stable, uncontrollable to unstable, controllable causes. Single in class session early in first semester in groups of 6-29 students consisting of: I. GPA information supplied with in vivo, written and four two minute videotaped interviews with senior stndents who indicated that grades improve after first year; 2. imagined scenarios of four Short term: Manipulation checks with scales assessing: beliefs in stable or unstable causes for success or failure and expectations for future academic performance; Likelihood of Engaging in Stndious Activities Scale (LESA); Blaming Stable Factors (BSF) and Blaming Unstable Factors (BUF) for test failure, and, a take home Interpersonal Sup-
696

T A B L E 1. (Continued) Attributional Retraining Technique and Methods specific behavior strategies linked to academic performance and, attributional retraining with two written case histories of first year students indicating causes of academic success and failure were under students' control,
Study
Subject Selection
Attribution Change
Outcome Measures port Evaluation List (ISEL) questionnarie.
Long term:
1. Reading comprehension test (6 GRE-type items) given 8 weeks after intervention. 2. GPA scores for Spring and Fall semesters with American College Test (ACT) and index of social support as covariates.
Summa~v of results: Those students who received GPA information maintained stable GPA scores
in Fall and Spring semesters while those not receiving GPA information experienced a decline in GPA in Spring semester. However, those students receiving both attributional retraining and GPA information did not benefit as much as those who received GPA information only. Noel, Forsyth, & Kelley (1987) First-year introductory psychology students who received either a D or an F on the first two exams in the course. Assigned to either a training or control condition, From external, uncontrollable causes for failure to intemal and controllable. GPA unstable, changing from poor in first semester to satisfactory in later semesters. Single-session attributional retraining involving videotape of two seniors giving reasons for their academic performance. They noted their GPAs were poor initially but improved in later semesters. They initially blamed external factors, e,g., bad teachers, difficult tests, for their failures, but now knew that effort, Grades on the third, fourth, and final (cumulative) tests. Attributions for test pefformance obtained after first test and prior to the final test.
study habits, and help-seeking were more responsible for performance. Following the videotape, subjects received a written summary of the points made previously.
697
Summarv of results: Attributional retraining produced higher test performance and final grades.
Also led to modest attribution changes at end of course. Van Overwalle, Segebarth, and Goldchstein (1989) First year university students enrolled in second semester economics course who failed first semester theory and exercise economics exam. Those students with a score < or = 4 out ot 20 in both theory and exercise exams were excluded, Stable, enduring and uncontrollabie causes to unstable, transient, and controllable causes, Single in-class group procedure of approximately 45 minutes consisting of: a 13 minute videotape of 4 upper class students discussing causes of academic success and failure in first year followed by a videotape of a psychology professor talking about benefits of a study strategy program emphasizing effort attributions for success. Students were then asked to indicate in written form the important information provided in the videotapes and their reaction. This was folIowed by a five minute group discussion.
Short term: End

of second term theory and exercise economics exam scores were covaried with first semester results.
Long term:
I. Final exams in all courses were covaried with first term theory and exercise economics exam scores, and 2. number of students passing first year
Summary of resuhs: Higher scores in second semester economics exam as weil as all final exams
were recorded for students receiving attributional retraining. Van Overwalle and De Metsenarere (1990)
Study I: conStudy 1: Stable ducted in second and uncontrollasemester; all first- bie to unstable
Studv 1: Single
Studv I:
in-class group Final score on session of approx- eeonomies exam
698

T A B L E 1. (Continued) Attributional Retraining Technique and Methods imately 50-minute duration consisting of: 1. a 13-minute videotape of interviews with 5 senior economics students who related their difficulties in first year and causes of success and failure for their academic performance followed by 2. a 2-minute videotape of a psychology professor who stressed effort and personal responsibility while discussing benefits of a remedial learning program; 3. students then individua!ly wrote about and then discussed as a group the causes for academic success and failure.
Study
Subject Selection year university students enrolled in introductory economics course,
Attribution Change and controllable causes,
Outcome Measures at end of second semester with first semester score as covariate. Generalized effects: I. student passing rate on economics exam; 2. average score on all final exams; 3. failure rate on final exams
Studv 2:
All first-year university students enrolled in firstyear law.
Study 2:
Studv 2:
Stuc(v 2:
Final exam score in History of Law course with firstsemester score as covariate.
Stable, uncontrol- Three intervention lable causes to conditions: unstable, tempoI. Attributional rary, and controlretraining lable causes. (same as study I).
699
Generalized ef2. ln-class study fects: similar to strategy of apstudy I. proximately 60 minutes consisting of 3 sections, namely, time management, reading comprehension, and study course material. 3. Combination of attributional retraining and study strategy of approximately 110 minutes duration.
Summarv of results. In study 1 a greater number of students who received attributional retraining
passed their final examinations compared to control students. In study 2 attributional retraining again increased the number of students passing their final examinations compared to controls, but study strategies had no effect. Perry & Penner (1990) Volunteer university students enrolled in introductory psychology course who received credit toward course requirements. Exclusion criteria: 1. GPA < 2.10 and 2. < 27% on postlecture achievement test. Stable to unstable causal attributions (effort and ability as unstable), Groups of 15-25 1. 30-item multistudents in a simple choice ulated classroom achievement setting, test based on I. intemal/exvideotaped ternal locus lecture; of control 2. 10-item multimeasure ple choice (MMCS); achievement timed aptitest based on tude test homework asfollowed by signment; and 2. an 8-minute 3. Causal attribucolor attritions using butional reRussell's training (1982) Causal videotape of Dimension a male psyScale (CDS), chology professor.
Summary of results: Attributional retraining improved the performance of external, but not intemal,
students, on both the postlecture test and the homework test. Expressive instruction also enhanced external, but not internal, students' pefformance on both tests. Cavanaugh (1991) Students enrolled in a developmenNot indicated Attributional rePre/post tests on training combined two passages in-
700
PERRY, HECHTER, MENEC, AND WEINBERG TABLE 1. (Continued)

Attributional Retraining Technique and Methods with text comprehension strategies. Students assigned to orte of three groups: text comprehension
Study
Subject Selection tal program in a junior college with a below-average reading level.
Attribution Change
Outcome Measures volving a free recall task and a multiple-choice short-answer comprehension test.
strategies; attribu- Pre/post attributional retraining tion measures. with text comprehension strategies; control. Three phases included pretest, training, posttest.
Summary of results: Combined attributional training and strategy was not superior to strategy alone condition. Both training groups performed better on recall and short-answer tests than control group. No difference in attributions for any group.
Menec, Perry, Struthers, Schnwetter, Hechter & Eichholz (1992)
Study 1
Volunteer firstyear introductory psychology students who received credit toward course requirement; prelecture achievement test used to classify students into failure and success groups,
Study !
Change attributions for failure to lack of effort and inappropriate strategies,
Study 1
Study 1
In a three-session 1. 30-item multistudy, students ple-choice were given a preachievement lecture achievetest based on ment test and half-hour vidshown either eotaped lecnone, one, or two ture. 8-minute video2. Expectations tapes, depicting a concerning graduate student grade on next relating personal psychology or a friend's failtest and final ure experiences, grade in psyExperiences inchology cluded: failure at course. an academic test, failure in piano performance, and failure attaining scholarships. The graduate student indicated that changing attributions improved performance in
the future. Sessions were held at one-week intervals.
701
Studv 2
Volunteer firstyear introductory psychology students who received credit toward course requirement. Only subjects who performed at or below the median on a prelecture achievement test were included; students divided into internal and extemal locus of control groups.
Study 2
Change attributions for failure to lack of effort and inappropriate strategies.
Study 2
Study 2
In three sessions, I. 30-item multiheld one week ple-choice apart, students achievement wrote a prelecture test based on achievement test, lecture. filled out an inter- 2. Attributions nal/extemal locus concerning of control meaperformance sure (MMCS), on the and viewed either achievement none, one, or two test including: 6-minute attribuability, effort, tional retraining desire to do videotapes. The welt, test diffitapes showed two culty, luck, students discussand the proing failure experifessor. ences in either an 3. Expectations academic achieveconcerning ment or sports performance domain. They on next psynoted that by chology test changing attribuand final grade tions their perforin psychology mance had course. improved considerably. A psychology professor then summarized the most important points of their discussion.
Summary ofresuhs: In Study I, attributional retraining enhanced performance on the achievement test for students who had performed poorly (below the median) on the prelecture achievement test, but only when combined with effective instruction. Multiple attributional retraining sessions did not improve achievement as compared to a single attributional retraining session. In Study 2, when combined with effective instruction, attributional retraining enhanced performance on the achievement test for extemal, but not internal, locus students. Attributional retraining also induced a more internal attribution profile in extemals, and increased expectations concerning the next psychology test and final grade in the psychology course for both externals and intemals. Again, these effects were found only when students also received effective instruction.
Perry & Magnusson (1989a) 2 Volunteer firstyear introductory psychology stuThree attribution conditions induced: ability, Single group application to 2530 students in a 1. Prelecture test questionnaire assessing: stu-
702

T A B L E 1. (Continued) Attributional Retraining Technique and Methods simulated college classroom; written attribution induction to ability, effort, or task difficulty for performance on a prelecture test with failure feedback.
Study
Subject Selection
Attribution Change
Outcome Measures dents' reaction to their performance in relation to ability, emotions; perceived control over aptitude test performance and perceived performance. 2. Multiplechoice achievement test based on videotaped leeture. 3. Postlecture attribution questionnaire to assess students' perceptions of their performance.
dents who reeffort, or test ceived credit difficulty, toward course requirement. Students divided into distortion/nondistortion groups based on students' interpretation of noncontingent failure feedback on aptitude test.
Summary of results: Causal attributions differentially affected postlecture achievement and control.
in addition, the quality of instruction appears to compensate for the detrimental effects of some causal attributions. Perry & Magnusson (1989b) 2 Volunteer firstSee Perry and year introductory Magnusson psychology stu(1989a). dents received credit toward course requirement; divided into perceived success/ failure groups based on their perceived performance on a prelecture test. Single group ap- See Perry and plication to 25Magnusson 30 students in a (1989a). simulated college classroom; written attribution induction to ability, effort, or test difficulty for performance on the prelecture test; prelecture test with no feedback.
Summary of results: Causal attributions influenced postlecture and achievement differentially, depending on the quality of instruction.
ATTRIBUTIONAL RETRAINING Perry, Magnusson, Schnwetter, & Struthers (1993)2 Volunteer firstyear introductory psychology students received credit toward course requirement. Students divided into perceived success/ failure groups based on students' interpretation of noncontingent success feedback on prelecture test. Three attribution conditions induced: ability, effort, or task difficulty,
703 Single group ap- I. Prelecture test questionnaire plication to 25assessing: stu30 students in a dents' reaction simulated college to their perforclassroom; written mance in relaattribution induction to ability, tion to ability, efeffort, test diffort, or task ficulty; perdifficulty for perceived control formance on the over aptitude prelecture test; test perforprelecture test mance; three with success feedaffect-related back. items. 2. Multiplechoice achievement test based on videotaped lecture. 3. Postlecture questionnaire assessing students' subjective perceptions of their performance.
Summary ofresults: The three attribution schemas influenced postlecture emotions, motivation, and
performance, depending on prelecture perceived success and instruction. Effort and ability generated better performance in low-success students receiving ineffective instruction. Attribution effects wem not evident in high-success students or when instruction was effective. I. Studies listed in approximate chronological order. 2. This study used only elementary attributional retraining procedures.
with W e i n e r ' s theory in that c h a n g i n g attributions to unstable, and potentially changeable, causes should increase expectancies for future success, heighten motivation, and e n h a n c e a c h i e v e m e n t strivings. The success o f the intervention was challenged by Block and L a n n i n g (1984), however, who questioned both the validity of W i l s o n and L i n v i l l e ' s measures and the strength o f the long-term results. Block and L a n n i n g argued that students who dropped out had higher grade point averages than students who stayed in college, and that the long-term G P A increase from the first semester in college to the second sophomore semester
704
was of questionable reliability. To address these and other criticisms, Wilson and Linville (1985) undertook two replications, one being almost identical to the 1982 study; the second, introducing the intervention in the first instead of the second semester, after the midterm exams (see Table 1). The results of all three studies (1982 and the two 1985 replications) again led Wilson and Linville (1985) to conclude that a simple, one-time retraining intervention can have short-term and long-term benefits. An attempted replication by Jesse and Gregory (1986-87), however, providing similar attributional retraining using in vivo discussion, as well as verbal, written, and videotaped information, failed to find any benefit for retraining (Table 1). Van Overwalle and De Metsenaere (1990) used a comparable field study approach, but coupled videotaped information with an in vivo analysis of the causes of academic achievement. College students received a 50-minute intervention in which the experimenter first discussed with students what they thought were causes of midterm exam performance. Next, students viewed videotaped interviews with senior students who described significant academic improvements after their first year, and then provided attributional information about their early academic failures, namely lack of effort, lack of experience, and ineffective study strategies in their first year. Again, this intervention was intended to persuade first-year students to change maladaptive causal attributions to unstable and modifiable or controilable explanations. In comparison to a no-training control group, attributional retraining increased the passing rate on final exams of all courses, due primarily to fewer low scores. An earlier study by Van Overwalle, Segebarth, and Goldchstein (1989) employed two training conditions, one involving a videotape-only treatment and the other, the videotape plus study-skill training. Attributional retraining resulted in improvements of academic performance on an economics exam and increased exam session scores at the end of the year. Using more rigorous laboratory controls, Perry and Penner (1990) also presented videotaped retraining to first-year psychology students, prior to a halfhour videotaped lecture. The lecture involved either effective or ineffective instruction, thereby enabling attributional retraining to be studied in relation to quality of teaching. Teaching effectiveness was defined in terms of instructor expressiveness, with unexpressive instruction regarded as ineffective and expressive instruction as effective (see Feldman, 1989; Perry, 1985, for reviews). Before the training session, students were classified as having an internal or external locus of control orientation based on Lefcourt's MultidimensionalMultiattributional Causality Scale (1979). Relative to a no-treatment control group, attributional retraining improved external, but not intemal, students' performance on two achievement tests based on the videotaped lecture and on homework study materials. An extension of this approach was undertaken by Menec, Perry, Struthers, Schnwetter, Hechter, and Eichholz (1992). Attribu-
ATTRIBUTIONALRETRAINING
705
tional retraining facilitated performance increments for students who had experienced prior failure (Study 1) or who had an external locus (Study 2), but only when it was coupled with effective instruction. As can be seen from these examples and from Table 1, the empirical evidence is promising, but inconsistencies remain. It is encouraging to note that the benefits of attributional retraining have been observed in both field and laboratory studies, with students enrolled in a variety of disciplines. It is also worth noting that the effects appear to be relatively enduring. However, one should keep in mind that the literature is not extensive, thereby preventing definitive conclusions from being reached. As well, some inconsistency in findings arises from the methodological features of the studies, creating problems of interpretation and raising issues for future research. A closer consideration of these issues is provided in the following section.
CONCEPTUAL AND METHODOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS

This review of the attributional retraining literature is limited to the college classroom, although it is recognized that attributional retraining can be applied to a variety of other settings. There is no disputing the potential benefits of interventions designed to enhance student motivation and achievement, yet the need for continued research to verify its benefits is also evident. In responding to that need, a number of methodological and conceptual issues taust be addressed and these are discussed in this section, namely subject selection, retraining techniques, and outcome measures.
Subject Selection
Since attributional retraining is intended to enhance motivation and, as a result, increase performance and persistence, studies have typically included subjects wbo are most in need. Table 1 reveals considerable variability in subject selection, resulting from inclusionary or exclusionary criteria that are course or group specific. Students have been enrolled in psychology courses, economics courses, and law courses; registered in law, engineering, and general arts programs; have experienced failure or success in their academic program; and have volunteered or been recruited/assigned to the respective study. While some studies include subjects in the retraining program on the basis of low GPA scores (Wilson and Linville, 1982), other studies have no such criteria and include, for example, all students enrolled in first-year law (Van Overwalle and De Metsenaere, 1990). Given these differences in criteria for selecting subjects, it is important to determine which students are likely to benefit from attributional retraining. Student variables, such as ability, are likely to moderate the effectiveness of a
706
particular retraining technique. In this regard, Perry and Penner (1990) excluded students with very low grades and with poor performance because, they argued, these students were unlikely to benefit from one brief attributional retraining intervention. They also found attributional retraining aided students having an external locus of control, whereas it was of little benefit to those having an internal locus. The following sections classify subject selection criteria as either academic or nonacademic variables, with each discussed in turn.
lndividual Differences: Academic
Students' ability and the importance they place on their performance appear to be two critical academic variables moderating the effectiveness of attributional retraining. Several researchers have compared the effectiveness of attributional retraining for students who were not preselected for ability, but who were included regardless of their academic performance. Van Overwalle and De Metsenaere (1990) divided their sample into three groups--low, medium, and high ability--on the basis of their performance on a course pretest. Similarly, Menec et al. (1992) used performance on a prelecture test similar to the Graduate Record Exam (Perry and Dickens, 1984) as the criterion to divide subjects into success and failure groups. Results of the Van Overwalle and De Metsenaere study (1990, Experiment 2) showed that only students in the medium-ability group benefited from attributional retraining. In Menec et al.'s study, attributional retraining produced" performance increments only for students who had previously failed the GRE test. While these results suggest that attributional retraining is particularly useful for students who perform at, or below, average, an important consideration is the magnitude of performance increments that can be anticipated. This question is critical since attributional retraining should presumably affect performance by raising overall academic grades. Research indicates that brief interventions produce at best a medium effect (e.g., Wilson and Linville, 1985) or an increase in achievement scores of approximately 5 percent to 15 percent (Menec et al., 1992; Perry and Penner, 1990; Van Overwalle, Segebarth, and Goldchstein, 1989; Van Overwalle and De Metsenaere, 1990). As Van Overwalle et al. (1989) noted, the optimal candidates for attributional retraining therefore appear to be those students slightly below the passing grade level, but not of such poor ability as to be unable to take advantage of the retraining program (see also Perry and Penner, 1990). Although marginal students may benefit the most from attributional retraining, another critical factor to be taken into account is the importance that students place on their academic performance. With the exception of Wilson and Linville's studies (1982, 1985), which included only those students who were concerned about their performance, researchers have not attempted to isolate
707
the effects of this variable. Since the importance of the outcome is integral to Weiner's theory of motivation, it seems essential to differentiate students on this basis. According to Weiner's (1986) model, a search for the cause of an event is initiated if the outcome is perceived as important, negative, or unexpected. However, the student who is content with a low grade might not engage in an attributional search and may, therefore, not experience any motivational deficits associated with poor performance. Clearly, attributional retraining would not be expected to improve the perforrnance of such a student. Low grades alone may, thus, be a poor indicator for selecting subjects for retraining, so that researchers would be advised to use more appropriate criteria, such as importance, concern about grades, or perceived failure.
Individual Differences: Nonacademic

Few researchers have investigated possible interactions between attributional retraining and nonacademic variables, perhaps because it has been assumed tbat university students represent a homogeneous population. Although preliminary evidence has indicated that attributional retraining improved the perforrnance of male, but not female, college students (Wilson and Linville, 1985), and for students with an external locus of control, but not those with an internal locus (Menec et al., 1992; Perry and Penner, 1990), these variables and the mediating factors require further investigation. In accounting for their findings, Perry and Penner maintained that attributional retraining introduced new causl attributions (effort) to external-locus students, whereas it only reinforced existing options for internal-locus students (ability and effort). Greater potential for change exists, therefore, in external-locus students because they start with a greater attributional deficit. Furthermore, social and demographic variables, such as SES, previous educational experiences, and age, have not been taken into consideration. The potential contribution of these and other nonacademic individual differences is particularly important in light of changes from the traditional population of university students in North America, specifically the dramatic increase in parttime and older students from varying cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds. Although Weiher (1986) asserts that the basic properties of causality are pancultural, he acknowledges that the culture of the perceiver should influence specific causal ascriptions. He further indicates that cross-cultural data could "provide insights about the mechanisms that mediate disparate behavioral and emotional reactions across cultures" (p. 73). It would appear, therefore, that in order to maximize the benefit of attributional retraining at the postsecondary level, subject selection criteria should be comprised of both academic and nonacademic individual differences variables. Academic variables should include not only students' ability but also the con-
708
cern and the importance that the individual student places on his academic performance. Nonacademic variables that have not been investigated extensively, but may be very critical to increasing the benefits of attributional retraining, would likely include gender, age, cultural and educational backgrounds, attributional style, etc.
Attributional Retraining Methods
Regardless of subject selection, attributional retraining programs have concentrated on altering stable, uncontrollable causal attributions to unstable, temporary, and controllable explanations. The causal ascription of ability is generally thought to be a stable, uncontrollable attribute, and therefore some attributional retraining programs have focused on changing causal ascriptions from lack of ability to lack of effort. In this connection Perry and Penner (1990) informed subjects that long-term effort, an internal, unstable, and therefore controllable attribute, enhances ability. This implied that ability was also somewhat unstable and could increase through effort. Ability was also described as having skill-like qualities, further enhancing its capacity to increase. While attributional retraining studies with children typically involve multiple one-to-one interventions, with each subject being individually trained by the experimenter, studies with university students frequently use group interventions. However, few studies have employed multiple sessions (but see Cavanaugh, 1991; Menec et al., 1992), with most having single-exposure interventions varying in duration from eight minutes (Perry and Penner, 1990) to one hour (Van Overwalle and De Metsenaere, 1990). Surprisingly, Menec et al. found that multiple exposures did not produce performance increments relative to a single intervention. It is conceivable that repeated exposure may be beneficial only for students performing weil below average, or experiencing severe motivational deficits, while a single intervention may be sufficient for ayerage students. Frsterling (1985) suggests a taxonomy for attributional retraining methods that includes information, operant methods/vicarious learning, and indirect communication. However, only informational methods, typically involving staged videotaped interviews with upper-class students and/or professors, have been employed in studies with college students. Occasionally, discussions or writing essays about the causes of failure have supplemented the videotapes (Wilson and Linville, 1985, Replication 2; Van Overwalle and De Metsenaere, 1990). The videotape format allows administration of the training program to entire groups and provides a viable technique for large-scale remediation. Such a cost-effective remedial intervention might reasonably be provided to all firstyear students, possibly as part of an orientation program, and may be thought of as a primary intervention procedure (see Jesse and Gregory, 1986-87). Ad-
709
ditional attributional retraining may be graduated, involving individual or small-group application, potentially with multiple exposures provided for those students at risk. This approach will necessarily require significant additionai resources, including appropriate staffing and facilities. A critical problem exists for some attributional retraining programs that stress increased effort as a means to successful academic performance. When an individual expends more effort and still does not achieve the desired outcome, self-concept of ability and expectancy for future success may decline (Covington and Omelich, 1981). A number of studies therefore protect selfesteem by indicating that a combination of unstable and controllable causes can enhance future performance (Menec et al., 1992; Van Overwalle and De Metsenaere, 1990). Information that grades are generally low in the freshman year, but improve in the senior years (Wilson and Linville 1982; 1985), indirectly suggests that the causes of poor performance are in fact unstable, temporary, and possibly under students' control. More will be said about the ethical implications of this issue in the final section of this review. Thus, the existing literature indicates that single, brief interventions can increase student achievement. The intervention programs have generally focused on the causal dimensions of stability and controllability. Failure is frequently attributed to lack of effort and inadequate study strategies, whereas success is attributed to ability, proper study strategies, and effort, with these causal attributions being described as unstable and controllable. Additional research should consider alternate attributional retraining techniques, varying the duration as weil as the frequency of the intervention, as weu as providing other explanations for failure such as test difficulty, quality of instruction, etc. These issues, in combination with concerns associated with subject selection, may enhance the efficacy of attributional retraining.
Outcome Measures
Researchers have been interested primarily in improving academic achievement in college students using a variety of performance measures. These outcome measures are usually administered immediately after the intervention (Wilson and Linville, 1985), or a week or more after the training (Perry and Penner, 1990; Van Overwalle et at., 1989). Such short-term and long-term indices include GPA scores, exam results, and drop-out rates. GRE-type tests are common to a number of studies (e.g., Jesse and Gregory, 1986-87; Wiison and Linviile, 1982; 1985). Because of this concern for achievement measures, researchers have frequently neglected to investigate the variables that mediate performance changes (Frsterling, 1985). According to Weiner's model, motivated behavior is a function of both cognitions and affects, which are determined by the causal structure underlying the attributions. Therefore, at-
710
tributional retraining studies should focus not only on changes in academic achievement but also on measures of such mediating variables. The following sections provide a review of the various mediating and performance measures used in attributional retraining programs involving college students.
Attributions
Few studies at the higher education level have demonstrated changes in attributions following attributional retraining. Significant results were obtained by Menec et al. (1992, Experiment 2), who showed that students receiving attributional retraining attributed their test performance more to their ability, effort, desire to do well, and luck than did those in the control group. This effect was found only for students with an external, but not those with an internal, locus of control. These results indicate that attributional retraining induced a more internal attribution profile in external students. The lack of evidence for attributional changes in other studies may be due to methodological problems. For example, some researchers have failed to consider subjects' perceptions of the specific attributional information provided during the intervention. This is the case in Jesse and Gregory's (1986-87) study in which students were told that GPA improves over time. Changes in attributions were not measured directly, however, but were inferred from questions pertaining to study strategies (e.g., note taking, poor study habits, etc.). Given GPA information alone, students may not have concluded that their poor performance was due to inadequate study strategies, and consequently, they should not be expected to place greater emphasis on this cause after the intervention. Moreover, few studies have assessed students' attributions prior to the intervention by comparing pretraining and posttraining scores. Posttest-only comparisons between a treatment and control group usually do not provide an adequate assessment of any change in attributions produced by the training interventions. Although attributional retraining is based on the premise that it will result in long-term attributional changes, attributions invoked during the intervention are iikely more salient immediately following it. It might therefore be advantageous to assess explanations shortly after the retraining sessions, as did Menec et al. (1992). In contrast, Perry and Penner (1990) administered an attribution questionnaire one week following retraining, which may account for their finding only minimal changes in causal ascriptions. A further critical issue appears to be whether general or task-specific attributions are measured. Effects are usually found for task-specific explanations, whereas generalized perceptions of causal attributions are frequently not influenced by intervention programs (Borkowski, Weyhing, and Carr, 1988; Dweck, 1975; but see Reid and Borkowski, 1987, for positive resuits).
711
Expectations
According to attribution theory, attributional retraining should lead to changes in expectations of future success. Consistent with this assumption, Menec et al. found that students who received attributional retraining expected to be more successful on their next psychology test and expected a higher final grade in their psychology course, as compared to the control group. However, other studies have been less successful in demonstrating expectancy changes. This is likely due to insensitive, global questions. For example, Wilson and Linville (1982, 1985) assessed expectancy changes by asking students about their expectations of future grades. Thus, it appears important to use domainspecific expectancy measures.
Performance Measures
Since Wilson and Linville's (1982) promising findings, studies have consistently shown performance increments following attributional retraining. Moreover, recent research has addressed criticisms of earlier performance measures (see Block and Lanning, 1984; Frsterling, 1985) by using more specific and ecologically valid measures. In the Manitoba laboratory (Menec et al., 1992; Perry and Penner, 1990) a multiple-choice achievement test was employed based on a half-hour lecture. Furthermore, Perry and Penner (1990) administered a second achievement test related to a homework assignment. The intervention improved performance on both the iecture and the homework test one week later for students with an external locus of control. It is noteworthy that performance on the lecture and homework test in Perry and Penner's laboratory study reflects two types of learning activities encountered in the college classroom: the relatively passive learning that occurs with some forms of classroom instruction, in contrast to activities initiated by the student outside the classroom. Similarly, Menec et al. found increases in achievement immediately after the lecture in students who had previously performed poorly on an achievement test. These effects were also obtained one week after the intervention was administered, suggesting the potential for longlasting improvements. Several field experiments have further contributed to the literature by demonstrating the effectiveness of attributional retraining in an actuai college classroom. These studies show that attributional retraining improved students' performance on an examination (Van Overwalle et al., 1989) and increased the passing rate on a series of final exams (Van Overwalle et al., 1989; Van Overwalle and De Metsenaere, 1990). In sum, attributional retraining appears to hold considerable promise for enhancing academic achievement in college students. The fact that the studies are reasonably sound methodologically rein-
712
forces this conclusion. That is, all the studies involve proper comparison groups, with attributional retraining being compared to a no-intervention control, which typically performs some filler task instead of viewing the attributional retraining videotape. For example, in Menec et al.'s (1992) study, the control subjects attended as many sessions as the retraining groups in order to control for potential biases resulting from merely attending sessions. To rule out the possibility that performance increments might be due to demand characteristics, Wilson and Linville (1985) also included a control group that viewed a videotape similar to the one used for attributional retraining, but excluding any reference to students' GPA. Despite this favorable prognosis, the extant research has several weaknesses that warrant closer attention. First, students' attributions, expectations, and affect prior to the attributional retraining interventions have typically not been assessed. This is particularly important in the case of expectations, since Weiner's (1986) theory predicts expectancy changes. Therefore, it is possible that no differences between attributional retraining and control groups emerge foltowing the intervention, even though the groups may in fact differ in terms of pre/post expectancy changes. Accordingly, pretest and posttest measures of attribution and emotions must be routinely included in retraining studies, if they are to be evaluated properly from the perspective of Weiner's theory. Second, some researchers have failed to take the student's unique perception of the attributional information into account or have ignored the subjective nature of causal analyses. As Weiner (1983) points out, attribution measures such as Russell's (1982) Causal Dimension Scale avoid this problem by allowing students to categorize their attributions along the causal dimensions, rather than using an a priori classification scheme. Lastly, studies have focused only on a narrow range of performance measures, such as achievement tests, GRE-type questions, or GPA. However, it is equally important to investigate more specific behavioral changes, including studying time, in-class participation, absenteeism, etc. Such measures should clarify which activities contribute to performance increments.
FUTURE CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT
Given the paucity of attributional retraining studies involving university students, several areas require further investigation. Some of these concerns have already been raised by Weiner (1983, 1988), who points out that researchers have failed to utilize attribution theory in its entirety, particularly in terms of the assessment of mediating variables and alternate retraining procedures. To begin with, little evidence is available that demonstrates changes in attributions, expectations, and affects following attributional retraining. This lack of evidence for changes in these mediating variables is partly due to inappropriate
713
general measures. For example, attempts to demonstrate mood changes following attributional retraining have been unsuccessful, so far, using general mood measures of depression, anxiety, etc. (e.g., Wilson and Linville, 1982, 1985). However, working within Weiner's framework, orte would want to assess specific feelings, such as guilt, pride, or shame. Thus, selecting mediating and performance measures based more fully on his theory should produce more positive results in future research. Weiner (1988) further points out that the motivational consequences of attributions can vary dramatically, as in the case of effort and task difficulty attributions. Following failure, both attributions are assumed to increase motivation and achievement striving, hut with lack of effort generating guilt and an increased expectancy of success. In contrast, task difficulty decreases expectations, but avoids creating guiit feelings and related threats to self-esteem. Comparison of various causal ascriptions is not only of theoretical interest but should also belp to identify characteristics of an optimal intervention program. For example, even though feelings of pride and guilt are theoretically both positive motivators, they may not be equally desirable for improving achievement. A further limitation of current research is the exclusive focus on changing ttributions only, even though other aspects of attribution theory lend themseives to interventions. Weiner proposes several plausible alternative interventions that could be applied separately from, or in combination with, each other. First, the initial appraisal of the achievement outcome could be modified, particularly for failure evaluations. If the failure is made less extreme, unimportant, or irrelevant, then attributions, particularly lack of ability, would be less detrimental to motivation and performance. Lacking ability to achieve an unimportant goal would result in few, if any, affective or cognitive consequences. Second, the information taken into consideration during causal search could be changed. For example, a student who performs poorly on a test may ascribe failure to lack of ability, but fail to take into account that the class average was very low and test difficulty might be a more appropriate attribution. Third, once a causal search has been completed one may attempt to modify the individual's perception of the causal structure underlying a causal ascription. Hence, a student may perceive lack of ability as stable and unchangeable. But if he or she can be convinced that low ability is unstable and can, therefore, be increased, then a more optimistic attitude ensues. Lastly, Weiner proposes that behavioral responses can be altered in those instances in which attribution-linked affects and cognitions are not amenable to change. Thus, a student who attributes failure to lack of ability may experience low self-esteem and expect to fail future tests. The student's response to these negative consequences may be modified, however, by convincing the student to switch majors, rather than dropping out of university.
714
PERRY, HECHTER,MENEC, AND WEINBERG
Aside from these theoretical ramifications, several methodological issues are in need of further clarification. In this respect, the role of individual differences is particularly important for attributional retraining programs in higher education. The criteria used for subject selection in retraining programs require specification, since it is unlikely that all first-year students should, or can, be included in such programs. In the studies reported here, several employed GPA scores as the selection criterion, yet some used low GPA, and others medium GPA, for inclusion in training. Moreover, differences between first-year and more senior students has not been considered in the current literature. Senior students may require only attributional retraining, since study skills and strategies should have developed by that point in their academic careers, whereas junior students may require attributional retraining and strategy development. Finally, differences between students in active versus passive approaches to failure-prone experiences requires attention. A highly interactive retraining program may be more beneficial for some students than the seemingly passive ones developed to date. Another critical methodological issue for attributional retraining programs concerns aspects of the training itself. The value of in vivo, compared to videotaped, interventions should be evaluated more fully. The benefits of controlling the consistency of attributional retraining using videotapes must be judged in relation to the spontaneity and rapport operating during in vivo sessions. The optimal amount of time for a training session and the optimal number of sessions also require further elaboration. As weil, the content of the training session, apart from the specific attributions, is of concern, e.g., sex differences between the students and trainer; status of students and trainer (peer versus professor); number of trainers presented; etc.
APPLICATIONS TO THE COLLEGE CLASSROOM
It is clear from this review that attributional retraining promises a significant alternative to existing methods for enhancing college students' scholastic performance. It has the potential to serve as both a remediation for failure-prone students and a facilitation to successfui students. Its derivation from a welldeveloped, highly regarded attribution theory (Weiner, 1986) adds further substance to its validity and utility. Moreover, both laboratory and field studies are beginning to reveal encouraging empirical support across diverse student populations. Nevertheless, a critical concern remains at this early stage regarding the extent to which these training benefits will transfer to classroom settings. Researchers, instructors, and administrators alike need to know whether training effects maintain after the program ends; whether they transfer to some or all academic tasks, or to social activities; whether they are of equal benefit to all
715
students; and whether they are complemented by existing teaching practices. In reality students must return to and function in classroom conditions that may or may not sustain the beneficial changes brought about through retraining. This transfer of attributional retraining effects to the college classroom, then, is the focus of the remainder of the article.
Duration and
Specificity
Research suggests that attributional retraining may have both short- and longterm consequences, increasing performance one week after the intervention (Menec et al., 1992; Perry and Penner, 1990) and up to several months later (Van Overwalte et al., 1989; Wilson and Linville, 1982). It is not clear, howerer, what theoretical mechanism is responsible for such effects. University students, with their extensive experience with academic events, are likely to have developed relatively stable explanatory schemas for achievement outcomes that incorporate various causal ascriptions such as effort, ability, and task difficulty (Perry, Magnusson, Schnwetter, and Struthers, in press). A student with a history of academic failure may have a longstanding schema incorporating low-ability explanations for failure outcomes and low expectations of success. It is unlikely, therefore, that one brief intervention will result in permanent changes to such well-established cognitive structures. It may be useful, then, to differentiate between two processes, one involving temporary activation of causal schemas and the second resulting in restructuring of previously held schemas. Temporary activation may be thought of as an externally driven, relatively passive process, similar to priming (e.g., Anderson, 1983), and may account for shrt-term attributional retraining effects. Restructuring, by contrast, may be a more internally driven process, requiring active reorganization of cognitive structures by the student over a longer period of time. Thus, temporary activation may help explain Perry and Penner's and Menec et al.'s short-term test results, whereas restructuring may account for Wilson and Linville's and Van Overwalle's long-term GPA findings. Further research is needed to determine whether these two processes are related to the Iongevity of training effects in the college classroom. A related issue concerns the degree to which the training program benefits diverse achievement tasks. The goal of attributional retraining is presumably to improve performance in many achievement domains. This should be possible if attributions featured in the program are equally applicable to various tasks, such as multiple-choice tests, essays, and oral presentations. Weiner (1986) cknowledges that achievement outcomes, including those associated with both academic tasks and sporting events, can often elicit similar causal ascriptions. Causal attributions should, therefore, be more likely to transfer to other contexts when the training situation and the classroom tasks are perceived to be
716
similar. For example, a student who is told to attribute failure to ineffective study strategies within the context of an in-class essay test may transfer this causal schema to an oral presentation if he or she thinks the two tasks require similar learning skilis, such as memory storage, retrieval strategies, and organizational schemas. Training may not transfer to creative writing or architectural design, however, which may be perceived as involving quite different skills. None of the attributional retraining studies reviewed has specifically addressed the issue of task transfer. Most retraining programs stressed the importance of attributions on academic performance in general, although such information was usually supplemented with concrete examples. A noteworthy exception is Van Overwalle and De Metsenaere's intervention (1990) that focused directly on course-related information. Specifically, students viewed interviews in which other students explained why they had failed the midterm economics exam. Interestingly, attributional retraining did not affect performance on the economics final, but did produce higher scores on final exams in other courses. These results suggest that students can readily transfer information provided during retraining to other course material. Further research is required to systematically investigate how closely training information has to match the tasks in which outcome attributions are to be applied.
Classroom Context
Classroom context differences such as instruction method, curriculum, peer group, and grading standards create learning conditions that support or undermine students' academic achievement. Since attributional retraining programs seek to foster achievement motivation and striving, these same conditions are likely to influence how well training effects are sustained once the student returns to the classroom. Large classes, for example, coupled with poor instruction could subvert training effects, whereas good instruction may support and enhance them, despite class size. Alternately, attributional retraining may serve to buffer students against impoverished learning conditions. Thus, it becomes important to examine these context variables to determine whether they augment or reduce the effects of attributional retraining. Although research on classroom context variables is sparse, some preliminary evidence is available on the quality of teaching, considered to be a major context variable affecting student learning. Five studies in Table 1 examined attributional retraining in relation to effective and ineffective teaching, defined as a low- or high-expressive instructor delivering the same content during a half-hour videotaped lecture. Perry and Penner (1990) and Menec et al. (1992) presented the relevant attribution information in a formal attribution retraining program using videotaped scenarios, followed by either low- or high-expressive
717
instruction. In contrast, Perry and Magnusson (1989a, 1989b) and Perry, Magnusson, Schonwetter, and Struthers (in press) induced attribution information prior to the instruction manipulation by informing students that their performance on a prelecture test was due to either ability, effort, or test difficulty. These latter three studies were not originally designed as retraining interventions, but all five studies had a common core experimental design featuring the attributional information-instmction sequence and similar achievement and attribution measures. Notable differences between these studies primarily involved the inclusion of other independent variables. Along with the retraining-instruction sequence, Perry and Penner (1990) added locus of control to their design and Menec et al. (1992) added prelecture test performance (Study 1) and locus of control (Study 2) to theirs. In both studies attributional retraining improved extemal-locus, but not internal-locus, students' performance when instruction was effective. This same pattern emerged for prelecture performance in that failure students benefited from attributional retraining, but success students did not. Once again, the effect was found only for at-risk students and only when instruction was effective. One explanation of these findings is that internal-locus and success students derived little benefit from retraining because they had already incorporated the attributional information into their cognitive schemas through prior experiences. In contrast, attributional retraining is necessary for external-locus and failure students because such information is absent from their cognitive schemas. Together, these studies provide consistent evidence for the importance of individual differences (i.e., locus of control, prelecture performance) in moderating attributional retraining benefits. More importantly, they also suggest a possible compensatory role for instmction in which retraining is of benefit only when combined with effective instruction. Perry and Magnusson (1989a, 1989b) and Perry et al. (in press) adopted a similar experimental design as the previous studies, but with the attributional retraining modified as noted above, and with perceived success as the individual difference variable. These three studies differed from each other primarily in the amount of success feedback provided to all students on the prelecture test. The results were generally consistent across all three studies. When instruction was ineffective, internal attributions produced better performance, with ability attributions causing failure students to achieve more than success students. When instruction was effective, differences diminished between attribution groups and between perceived success groups, again suggesting compensatory effects associated with expressive instruction. These three studies are also consistent with the two previous ones in that the quality of instruction, as a classroom contextual variable, produced strikingly diverse achievement patterns, and therefore should receive more attention when assessing the benefits of retraining procedures.
718
Aside from teaching quality, another salient classroom context variable is course content or discipline. Courses differ in content, some having explicit, well-established stereotypes linking particular factors to success and failure. For instance, ability is considered critical to success in mathematics, physics, or music, but receives rauch less emphasis in comparison to effort in history, psychology, or sociology courses. Thus, the folklore associated with some courses encourages students to explain their performance using specific attributions that may or may not be compatible with an attributional retraining program. Those programs featuring effort, skill acquisition, and strategy attributions may be more difficult to implement with mathematics students than with history students. In the studies reported here (Table 1) the students were from eeonomics (Van Overwalle et al., 1989), law (Van Overwalle and De Metsenaere, 1990), and psychology (Wilson and Linville, 1982); however, no attempt was made by the respective researchers to compare retraining programs across content or disciplines. Thus, although potentially important, course content remains an unexamined context variable.
College Teaching as Attributional Retraining

To this point, attributional retraining has been presented as a highly structured, theoretically derived remediation program, normally implemented outside the classroom by trained personnel. Essential to most formal programs is the trainer who communicates the desired attributions (Figure 1) to the student, either directly in person, or vicariously on videotape. With the former in vivo procedure, the trainer not only presents the desired attributions but also often corrects undesirable attributions made by the student working on some achievement task. With the vicarious procedure, only the desired attributions are presented without the trainer monitoring and correcting the student. While engaged in routine teaching activities, however, instructors may actually function as trainers using these procedures--though inadvertently, orten unintentionally, and nonnally without systematic application. During and after class students orten make statements such as: "l'm not smart enough to pass," "I was just lucky to do well on the test," or "The material is too difficult." Faced with such attributional statements, the instructor has an ideal opportunity to encourage the student to think differently about the event, by suggesting a more suitable explanation: "You do have the ability; otherwise you would not be hefe," "Luck has less to do with your success than your approach (strategy) to the course," or "This may be a difficult course, but you can toaster the material if you study harder." During these informal exchanges the instructor takes on the typical role of the in vivo trainer in more formal programs, by monitoring and correcting students' attributional thinking. In a similar manner, the instructor may function vicariously as a trainer by communicating attributional information during
ATTRIBUTIONALRETRAINING
719
a teaching episode through examples, analogies, and personal anecdotes. Usually the information is presented to the entire class, without an opportunity for monitoring or corrective feedback, in statements such as: "When I was a student studying for my finals . . . . " or "Pioneer societies took more responsibility for their problems than we do now," etc. Thus, these teaching episodes may indirectly convey similar attributional information as formal training programs offered outside the classroom. This congruence between teaching in the college classroom and formal attributional retraining programs creates considerable opportunity to systematically respond to students' motivational problems. Unfortunately, little research has been done on classroom teaching a s an attributional retraining paradigm per se, or on the many issues affecting its implementation including timing, frequency, context, and the qualities of the instructor (trainer). Moreover, littte interest has been shown in the possible abuses of attributional retraining that may arise from the misapplication of procedures by the instructor. Just as achievement motivation and performance are enhanced by inculcting desirable attributions, achievement demotivation and failure can be engendered by advocating undesirable attributions (Figure 1). Some instructors may inadvertently undermine students' motivation or self-worth by making claims such as: "Only the very best pass this course," "The next exam will separate the wheat from the chaff," or "You'll be lucky to get through this course." In some instances these admonitions are seemingly well intended--to motivate students through challenge; in others, they are inspired by more sinister motives. In either case they do little to achieve the positive benefits of attributional retraining!
Tr nsition from High School to College

The transition from high school to college, although generally thougbt to be a positive rite of passage, is one aspect of life that may be extremely stressful for some students. This transition is thought to be an example of heightened vulnerability (Bloom, 1971; Coelho, 1979), creating the situation in which an individual's coping resources may be taxed by their attempts to manage the demands of the transition (Feiner, Farber, and Primavera, 1983). For example, Wagner, Compas, and Howell (1988) conducted a partei design study of transition from high school to college and argued that daily events act as a mediating variable between major life events and psychological symptoms. This transition period may, therefore, be an important and appropriate time for intervention programs intended to reduce stress-related problems and to bolster personal sense of control. Attributional retraining may be aptly suited to this purpose; however, the attributional retraining studies reported here have not identified transition-year variables. For example, the institutions from which the student subjects were drawn, residential or day-student facilities, have not been considered in attribu-
720
tional studies. Fisher and Hood (1988) reported in their study of first-year residential college students a gender difference of psychological disturbance and cognitive failure. Those who reported being homesick had higher levels of psychological disturbance and cognitive failure than those not being homesick. Of the attributional retraining studies involving college students, only Jesse and Gregory (1986-87) atternpted to evaluate social support as a potentially important variable, but did not draw any conclusions.
Ethical Issues
While researchers have focused on the positive consequences of attributional retraining, it is important to consider possible adverse effects of these interventions. Such concerns were raised by Van Overwalle et al. (1989) who stressed the ethical concerns of providing attribution retraining for low-ability students. They excluded students with extreme motivational deficits and/or marginal ability, reasoning that these individuais were unlikely to benefit from one brief intervention (see also Perry and Penner, 1990). Such considerations are consistent with Covington's (1984, 1993) self-worth theory, which emphasizes the self-protective nature of the causal search. Students are thought to focus on specific attributions, particularly following failure, in order to protect their selfesteem, choosing explanations such as effort or luck that allow them to rnaintain a belief in their academic abilities, By providing other explanations, attributional retraining interventions rnay inadvertently threaten students' sense of self-worth. Moreover, it is important to recognize that high motivation cannot improve achievernent if a student lacks the necessary skitls to succeed. Van Overwalle and De Metsenaere (1990, Experiment 2) argue that, while attribution retraining should increase motivation, a study strategy course would enhance a student's skills to study effectively. Therefore, both attributional retraining and study strategies may be equally irnportant for increasing academic achievement. Although their study showed that providing both strategy and attributional retraining did not produce an advantage over retraining alone, this issue deserves further investigation. In sum, many questions, some theoretical, some methodological, and some practical, need to be addressed. One of the more important issues is that of the optimal strategy to be used. Researchers may also want to identify individual differences that may interact with attribution retraining and possibly attempt to match individuals with particular strategies. Although results of attribution retraining research have been promising, enthusiasrn for such interventions should be tempered by ethical concerns for the possible negative psychological consequences of this technique. Future research should attempt to identify students that may be at risk.
ATTRIBUTIONAL RETRAINING REFERENCES
721
Anderson, J. R. (1983). The Arhitecture of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Block, J., and Lanning, K. (1984). Attribution therapy requestioned: A secondary analysis of the Wilson-Linville study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46: 705-708. B loom, B. L. (1971). A university freshman preventive intervention program: Report of a pilot project. Journal of Consuhing and Clinical Psychology 37:235-242. Borkowski, J. G., Weyhing, R. S., and Carr, M. (1988). Effects of attributional retraining on strategy-based reading comprehension in learning-disabled students. Journal of Educational Psychology 80:46-53. Cavanaugh, D. P. (1991). The effects of strategy training and attributional retraining on poor readers. Dissertation Abstracts International 51(7): 2328-A. Coelho, G. V. (1979). Environmental stress and adolescent coping behavior: Key ecological factors in college student adaptation. In I. G. Sarason and C. D. Speilberger (eds.), Stress and Anxiety, vol. 7. Washington, DC: Hemisphere Press. Covington, M. V. (1984). The motive for self-worth. In R. Ames and C. Ames (eds.), Research on Motivation in Education: Student Motivation (pp. 77-113). New York: Academic Press. Covington, M. V. (1993). A motivational analysis of academic life in college. In J. Smart (ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, vol. 9. New York: Agathon. Covington, M. V., and Omelich, C. L. (1981). As failures mount: Affective and cognitive consequences of ability demotion in the classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology 73: 796-808. Curtis, K. A., and Graham, S. (1991). Altering beliefs about the importance of strategy: An attributional intervention. Paper presented at the American Education Research Association Conference, Chicago. Dweck, C. S. (1975). The role of expectations and attributions in the alleviation of learned helplessness. Journal of Personali~ and Social Psyhology 31 (4): 674-695. Feldman, K. A. (1989). The association between student ratings of specific instructional dimensions and student achievement: Refining and extending the synthesis of data from multisection validity studies. Research in Higher Education 30: 583-645. Felner, R. D., Farber, S. S., and Primavera, J. (1983). Transitions and stressful life events: A model for primary prevention. In R. D. Feiner, L. A. Jason, J. N. Moritsugu, and S. S. Farber (eds.), Preventive Psychology: Theory, Research and Practice (pp. 199-215). New York: Pergamon. Fisher, S., and Hood, B. (1988). Vulnerability factors in the transition to university: Self-reported mobility history and sex differences as factors in psychological disturbance. British Journal of Psychology 79: 309-320. Frsterling, F. (1985). Attributional retraining: A review. Psychological Bulletin 98: 495-512. Frsterling, F. (1988). Attribution Theory in Clinical Psychology. New York: Wiley. Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology oflnterpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley. Jesse, D. M., and Gregory, W. L. (1986-87). A comparison of three attribution approaches to maintaining first year college GPA. Educational Research Quarterly ! 1: 12- 25. Jones, E. E., and Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in personal perception. In L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 2 (pp. 219-266). New York: Academic Press.
722
Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In O. L. Vine (ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 192-238). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Kelley, H. H. (1972). Causal Schemata and the Attribution Process. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press. Kulik, C-L. C., Kulik, J. A., and Shwalb, B. J. (1983). College programs for high-risk and disadvantaged students: A meta-analysis of findings. Review of Educational Research 53: 397-414. Lefcourt, H. M., von Baeyer, C. L., Ware, E. E., and Cox, D. T. (1979). The Multidimensional-Multiattributional Causality Scale: The development of a good specific locus of control scale. Canadian Journal ofBehavioral Science 1 i: 286-304. Marsh, H. W., and Dunkin, M. J. (1992). Students' evaluations of university teaching: A multidimensional perspective. In J. Smart (ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, vol. 8 (pp. 143-233). New York: Agathon. Menec, V. H., Perry, R. P., B., Struthers, C. W., Schnwetter, D. J., Hechter, F. J., and Eichholz, B. (April, 1992). Assisting At-risk College Students with Attributional Retraining and Effective Teahing. Presented at the American Educational Research Association annual meeting, San Francisco. (Manuscript under review.) Murray, H. G. (1991). Teaching effectiveness in higher education. In J. Smart (ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research vol. 7 (pp. 135-172). New York: Agathon. Noel, J. G., Forsyth, D. R., and Kelley, K. N. (1987). lmproving the performance of failing students by overcoming their self-serving attributional biases. Basic and Applied Psychology 8: 151-162. Perry, R. P. (1985). Instructor expressiveness: lmplications for improving teaching. In J. Donald and A. Sullivan (eds.), Using Research to Improve Teaching (pp. 35-49). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Perry, R. P. (1990). Introduction to lnstruction in Higher Education special section. Journal of Educational Psyhology 82:183- t 88. Perry, R. P. (1991). Perceived control in college students: lmplications for instruction in higher education. In J. Smart (ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, vol. 7 (pp. 1-56). New York: Agathon. Perry, R. P., and Dickens, W. J. (1984). Perceived control in the college classroom: Response-outcome contingency training and instructor expressiveness effects on student achievement and causal attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology 76: 966-981. Perry, R. P., and Magnusson, J-L. (1989a). Causal attributions and perceived performance: Consequences for college students' achievement and perceived control in different instructional conditions. Journal of Educational Psychology 81: 164-172. Perry, R. P., and Magnusson, J-L. (June, 1989b). Students' attributional style and effective teaching: lmplications for instructional practice. Paper presented at the International Society for the Study of lndividua[ Differences, Heidelberg. Perry, R. P., Magnusson, J.-L., Schnwetter, D. J., and Struthers, C. W. (in press). Students' explanatory schemata and the quality of college instruction: Some evidence for buffer and compensation effects. Research in Higher Education. Perry, R. P., and Penner, K. S. (1990). Enhancing academic achievement in college students through attributional retraining and instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology 82. Reid, M. K., and Borkowski, J. G. (1987). Causal attributions of hyperactive children: lmplications for teaching strategies and self-control. Journal ofEducational Psychology 79(3): 296-307.
723
Ross, M., and Fletcher, G. (1985). Attribution and social perception. In G. Lindzey and R. Aronson (eds.), Handbook ofSocial Psychology (pp. 73-122). New York: Random House. Russell, D. (1982). The Causal Dimension Scale: A measure of how individuals perceive causes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42:1137-1145. Van Overwalle, F., and De Metsenaere, M. (1990). The effects of attribution-based intervention and study strategy training on academic achievement in college freshmen. British Journal of Educational Psychology 60:299-311. Van Overwalle, F., Segebarth, K., and Goldchstein, M. (1989). lmproving performance of freshmen through attributional testimonies from fellow students. British Journal of Educational Psychology 59: 75-85. Wagner, B. M., Compas, B. E., and Howell, D. C. (1988). Daily and major life events: A test of an integrative model of psychosocial stress. American Journal of Community Psychology 16: 189-205. Weiner, B. (1972). Theories of Motivation. Chicago: Rand McNally. Weiher, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of Educational Psychology 71 : 3-25. Weiner, B. (1983). Some methodological pitfalls in attributional research. Journal of Educational Psychology 75: 530-543. 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: Springer-Verlag. Weiher, B. (1988). Attribution theory and attributional therapy: Some theoretical observations and suggestions. British Journal of Clinical Psychology 27: 93-104. Wilson, T. D., and Linville, P. W. (1982). Improving the academic performance of college freshmen: Attribution therapy revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42: 367-376. Wilson, T. D., and Linville, P. W. (1985). Improving the performance of college freshmen with attributional techniques. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49: 287-293. Received July 13, 1992.

Enhancing Achievment Motivation

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Enhancing Achievment Motivation

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Research in Higher Education, Vol. 34, No.

PERRY, HECHTER,MENEC,AND WEINBERG

PERRY, HECHTER, MENEC, AND WEINBERG

PERRY, HECHTER, MENEC, AND WEINBERG

lack of emotional incentive (i.e., indifference), minimally increased expectancies of success

lack of approach towards achievement

(e.g., feelings of incompetence and depression) decreased expectancies of success

lack of persistence, avoidance of achievement tasks

approach t o w a r d s achievement tasks

debilitating affects, maintenance of relatively high expectancies of success

PERRY, HECHTER,MENEC,AND WEINBERG TABLE 1. Attributional Retraining Studies

PERRY, HECHTER, MENEC, AND WEINBERG

Outcome Measures port Evaluation List (ISEL) questionnarie.

Short term: End

in-class group Final score on session of approx- eeonomies exam

PERRY, HECHTER, MENEC, AND WEINBERG

Subject Selection year university students enrolled in introductory economics course,

Attribution Change and controllable causes,

PERRY, HECHTER, MENEC, AND WEINBERG TABLE 1. (Continued)

PERRY, HECHTER, MENEC, AND WEINBERG

PERRY, HECHTER, MENEC, AND WEINBERG

CONCEPTUAL AND METHODOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS

PERRY, HECHTER, MENEC, AND WEINBERG

Individual Differences: Nonacademic

PERRY, HECHTER, MENEC, AND WEINBERG

PERRY, HECHTER, MENEC, AND WEINBERG

PERRY, HECHTER, MENEC, AND WEINBERG

PERRY, HECHTER,MENEC, AND WEINBERG

PERRY, HECHTER,MENEC,AND WEINBERG

PERRY, HECHTER,MENEC,AND WEINBERG

College Teaching as Attributional Retraining

Tr nsition from High School to College

PERRY, HECHTER, MENEC, AND WEINBERG

ATTRIBUTIONAL RETRAINING REFERENCES

PERRY, HECHTER, MENEC, AND WEINBERG

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi