Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The strengths and weaknesses of attribution theory
The strengths and weaknesses of attribution theory
The strengths and weaknesses of attribution theory
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The strengths and weaknesses of attribution theory
The reformulated learned helplessness model incorporates the attribution theory, to state an individual’s perceived internal or external control of events affects the expectancy of future outcomes. Internal versus external control, refers to the degree to which a person expects a reinforcement or outcome of an event, is contingent upon their behavior or personal characterizes versus expecting the outcome to be a function of chance or fate, being under the control of others, or utterly unpredictable (Rotter, 1966). Learned helplessness occurs when an individual perceives the future outcome of a situation as uncontrollable, resulting in motivational, cognitive, and emotional deficits (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978).
According to the reformulated learned helplessness hypothesis, there are three dimensions of attribution: internal or external to the self, universal or specific, and stable or unstable across time (Abramson, et al., 1978; Roth, 1980; Weiner, Nierenberg, & Goldstein, 1976). These dimensions interact and are responsible for the different aspects of an individual’s expectations for probable outcomes of future performances. A person who attributes causes to external factors perceives outcomes as being a result of factors within the environment such as fate, chance, or luck. Individuals who predominately attribute external factors to outcomes possess an external attribution style (Rotter, 1966). A person who attributes causes to internal factors perceives outcomes are a result of their own actions, skills, or characteristics within themselves. Individuals who predominately attribute internal factors to outcomes possess an internal attribution style (Rotter, 1966). Attributing uncontrollability of future outcomes t...
... middle of paper ...
...cess and failure on individuals differing in self-control skills. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 48(1), 198-215. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.48.1.198
Roth, S. (1980). A revised model of learned helplessness in humans. Journal of Personality, 48(1), 103-133. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1980.tb00969.x
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General And Applied, 80(1), 1-28. doi:10.1037/h0092976
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548-573. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548
Weiner, B., Nierenberg, R., & Goldstein, M. (1976). Social learning (locus of control) versus attributional (casual stability) interpretations of expectancy of success. Journal Of Personality, 44(1), 52-68. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.ep7379253
expectancy effect. Journal of personality and social psychology. (Vol. 13(4), pp. 306-316). Ontario: US: American Psychological Association.
Success in life is related to the achievement of individual goals, short and long term. Success has historically been related to the measurable cognitive functions such as IQ and talent. However in more modern time’s there has been a shift towards the idea that developmental non-cognitive factors, such as grit and self-control, may have an impact on the level of success that an individual achieves. Non-cognitive factors such as grit and self-control are somewhat related but also distinct from one another, they may have an important connection to levels of success throughout the stages of life from childhood to adulthood.
...J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self Assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1121-1134.
Expectancy Theory suggests that human actions are guided by the expected results of those actions (Expectancy Theory). It proposes that humans act in a certain way only if they believe that that the action is going to result in a certain desired outcome. Therefore, this theory acknowledges that humans exercise choice on their actions. This choice is exercised in three different ways, which are classified as expectancy, Instrumentality, and valence (Expectancy Theory). Expectancy refers to the knowledge and belief that one can effectively do a particular action; instrumentality refers to the belief that one will be rewarded upon effectively executing a particular action, and valence refers to the level of value a person places on the rewards being offered after properly executing a particular action (Expectancy
People influenced to accept a determinist viewpoint over a free will viewpoint cheated more often than both the control groups and pro-free will groups (Vohs 50, 52). The two studies tested both inactive and active cheating by permitting participants to see answers prior to them answering the questions if they did nothing or to reward themselves with money for their score on the test regardless of whether or not they deserved the amount they took (Vohs 50, 52). In both, those who read a deterministic passage versus a neutral or free will passage took advantage of others more when given the opportunity (Vohs 50, 52). Additional research demonstrated that people influenced by deterministic beliefs felt less or no guilt for their actions when reflecting on past personal events or learning of a death their actions indirectly caused, and noted that they would not change their actions (Stillman 954, 958). In other words, the determinism group exhibited less learning from their mistakes than the control group which claimed they would act differently in the future (Stillman 954, 958). Rigoni and Brass conducted a study looking at
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Journal of personality and social psychology and. Retrieved from http://internal.psychology.illinois.edu/~broberts/Hazan & Shaver, 1987.pdf
In a situation where an individual lingers over how a consequence would have been different if they did things contrarily, is also known as upward counterfactual. It is where there is a higher intent to prepare, higher determination and overall enhanced performance. More so, this is a result of dissatisfaction with current performance and a motivation to improve outcome (Markman & McMullen, 2003), by coming up with new ways. It is often linked with an increment in self-efficacy through individual experiences that are usually tied with emotions of regret or disappointment. Contrariwise, downward counterfactual recognizes how a consequence may possibly be unpleasant and adverse than the actual outcome. It is where individuals identifies and are satisfied with what they have, knowing that it could have been otherwise (McCrea, 2008). This gives rise to emotions shifting from happiness to being at ease (Galinsky & Moskowitz,
For many years, psychologist argued about the roots of the fundamental attribution error. They conclude that the fundamental attribution error
Susan Schenkel, author of “Giving Away Success” says “there are many ways we discount ourselves. Three of the most common patterns are: 1) emphasizing the negative 2) automatically attributing success to something other than ability, and 3) automatically blaming failure on lack of ability” (Schenkel, 6). Schenkel explains how women also end up being susceptible to falling into helplessness as a result of uncontrollability, which is the belief that nothing can be done to rectify their current state of misfortunes. As a result they end up withdrawing, for example, stopping, quitting or escaping from making ardent efforts to deal with their existing problems. A second thing they tend to do is to avoid getting into tough situations. They do this by shying away from confrontation with the difficulty they feel unable or unwilling to handle (Schenkel, 19). As a result of this helplessness disrupts behavior such as undermining motivation, interfering with ability to learn and creating emotional distress (Schenkel, p. 24).
Schultz, D.P. & Schultz, S.E. (2009). Theories of Personality, Ninth Edition. US: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Bradley, C. L., & Marcia, J. E. (1998). Generativity-Stagnation: A Five-Category Model. Journal of Personality, 66(1), 39. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Generalized expectancies for internal verse external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80 (1, Whole No. 609) Alfred, A. (1927) The practice and theory of individual Psychology. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Carlson, R. Neil and Martin, Neil, and Buskit, W.
The adage of the adage of the adage of the adage of the adage of Handbook of personality: Theory and research. New York: Guilford Press, 2003. Kring, A., Johnson, S., Davison, G. C., & Neale, J. M. (2009). Abnormal Psychology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Lynam, D. R., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Raine, A., Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (2005).
To measure achievement motivation we have developed a questionnaire using the achievement motivation inventory with relevant changes. The questions have been divided in four different categories.
Current Directions in Psychological Science 15.5 (2006): 265-68. Print. The.