KIN 454: Attribution Theory

Lippke: Attributions of Instructors

-Could be external (participants are lazy) -Or internal (I lack competence to motivate people) -Controllable (specific components of the program...that can be modified if necessary) -Or uncontrollable (the location) -These causal dimensions have important consequences for subsequent expectancies, emotions, and behaviors This study focuses on locus of causality and controllability (with regard to attributional dimensions). These are relevant for the regulation of emotions. Emotional regulation, appears to be crucial for successful leadership performance as an instructor as it may determine whether the instructor will engage in motivating behavior or not.

Lippke: What did they say about instructors who predominantly attributed dropout to internal reasons?

-NO exercise instructors in the sample who predominantly attributed dropout to internal reasons. -Such a negative attributional style would likely result in negative emotions and unfavourable cognitions about one's capabilities as an exercise course instructor. It can therefore be assumed that course instructors who experience these negative effects either change their attributions (e.g. begin to externalise reasons for dropout) or quit their job as course instructors

Lippke participant results

-Self protecting: 41% reported an increase in participant numbers -Disregarding type: 45% reported an increase in participant numbers -Adaptive type: 56% reported an increase in participant numbers Adaptive significantly more likely to have an increase than disregarding and self protecting. Difference between self protecting and disregarding was not significant Self protecting least likely to report an increase; adaptive most likely

Schoeneman: Which HB changes were internal, unstable, and controllable?

-all failure attributions -success attributions for eating and exercise changes

Lippke methods

-cross sectional questionnaire -data on dropout rates from self reports of course instructors of exercise groups

Nickel and Spink looks at?

-how outcomes and attributional dimensions relate to individual emotions (rather than just positive/negative emotions) -both perceived and actual outcomes -expectancies for similar future outcomes (with regards to PA for health benefits) Is measuring perceived outcome, actual outcome, PA levels, attributions, expectancies expectancies have never been studied in a PA context for health benefits

Lippke: What is the limitation of using a cross sectional design?

-not possible to determine to what extent the exercise course instructors' attributions caused dropout -unclear to what extent the participants' behaviour influenced the instructors' preferences of attribution

Lippke limitations

-reliability of course size measure -cannot be generalized to other types of exercise instruction

What has past research found with regards to applying attribution theory to physical activity outcomes?

-those who perceive themselves as successful tend to report higher levels of internality, controllability, and stability than do those who perceive themselves as failing -For the most part, these studies have involved the examination of attributions associated with activity outcomes, such as attendance in an exercise class or simple physical activity change outcomes -However, most have not considered success in terms of being active enough to achieve health benefits as an outcome.

Nickel & Spink: What are the author's reasons to explain why "understanding the attribution that individuals make for their success or failure to be active " could be important?

1) In Canada, only 41% are active enough to obtain optimal health benefit; understanding how individuals explain why they are or are not active enough to achieve health benefits becomes important. 2) Wondered whether the relationships concerning attributions found previously in activity settings, where activity levels sufficient for health benefits were not explicitly identified, could be supported when success or failure is defined in terms of meeting established guidelines for being active

Nickel & Spink hypotheses

1) Participants who perceive themselves as successfully maintaining the activity levels recommended by Health Canada (for one month) would report higher levels of internality, stability, and personal controllability than those who perceive themselves as unsuccessful *NO relationship between objective outcome and the attributional dimensions were expected 2) Perceptions of success or failure to maintain recommended levels of activity for health would interact with the attributional dimensions to predict emotions (attribution dependent emotions) Attributing success to internal causes would enhance pride; while attributing failure to an internal cause would decrease pride Also, attributing failure to controllable attributions would increase guilt 3) Perceived outcome alone would predict other emotions representative of those identified in the original theory as outcome dependent (Such as pleased or upset) Individual emotions served as dependent variables, and perceived outcome, attributional dimensions, and the interaction terms served as the independent variables. 4) If outcomes (perceived success or failure to maintain the recommended levels) are attributed to stable causes, the outcome would expect to be repeated in the future with a greater degree of certainty than outcomes attributed to unstable causes Certainty of similar future outcomes served as the dependent variable, and the attributional dimension of stability served as the independent variable.

Schoeneman hypotheses

1) Stable attributions would be associated with expectations that previous successes or failure would continue 2) Maintainers would see the cause of initial success as more stable than relapsers 3) People who failed and kept trying would see the cause of the first setback as more unstable than those who attempted no further changes 4) The longer an initial success was maintained, the more stable would be its perceived cause

Schoeneman purpose

1) Want to see if previously observed attributional tendencies would emerge in accounts of health behavior change 2) Find attributional correlates of change maintenance, efforts to reverse setbacks, and expectancies of continued or eventual success.

Lippke: 3 general questions guide the investigation:

1) What are the subjective theories that exercise instructors give for participants dropping out of their programs? 2) Can different types of instructors be distinguished (categorized) based on their attributional style? 3) What is the relationship between subjective theories (attributions) and the ability to retain participants in the program? Subjective theories = attribution theories Researchers asked instructors why they thought participants dropped out of their courses, and if they were aware of their role in retaining participants. We may be able to prevent dropout if instructors are well versed in reasons for dropout and recognizing participants at risk.

Nickel & Spink: What are some cited limitations of this study?

1) self reported PA levels may have been overestimated 2) generalizability (study was only on active, young students) 3) generalizability with motive: participants in this study motivated to be active only for health reasons 4) Insufficient power for tests- need larger samples

Motivated athletes attribute their failures to:

1. Internal (a failure is their fault, they take ownership so they can make it better/make changes); 2. Controllable (again, they have the power to make the change) 3. UNstable (the only difference. Failures are not due to things that are permanent, changes and improvements can be made so that the failure will not happen again)

Motivated athletes attribute their successes to:

1. Internal (they are the causal agent); 2. controllable (they have control); and 3. stable (the success is not going away tomorrow...or based on luck...it will be there tomorrow!)

Successes/Failures can be described in terms of three main categories/dimensions

1. Locus of Causality 2. Controllability 3. Stability

Schoeneman: population studied

466 undergraduates from introductory psychology courses at University of Washington

Nickel & Spink participants

95 undergraduate students who were enrolled in a kinesiology course Healthy Canada guidelines

Nickel & Spink measures: emotions

A measure including the four emotions of: pleased, proud, upset, guilty... "Please indicate the extent to which you experience each of the following emotions as a function of your pattern of activity over the last month" 9 point Likert Scale

What did Nickel and Spink also test for?

Also tested for interactions between perceived and objective outcomes. Attributional dimensions served as the dependent variables, while perceived and objective outcomes served as independent variables

Nickel, D., & Spink, K. (2010)

Attributions for Health Related Physical Activity

Schoeneman, T. J., & Curry, S. (1990)

Attributions for successful and unsuccessful health behavior change.

Lippke: Beh. Consequences of Attributions

Attributions may impact the way that instructors/coaches interact with their students In sport, particular circumstances trigger typical attribution patterns In general, winners tend to make dispositional attributions for outcomes, whereas losers identify situational causes for outcomes. Success -> internal -> enhanced self esteem Failure -> external -> protect self esteem Self serving bias/self enhancement tendency Attributions and behavior may influence each other (cyclic relationship) *This bias can be maladaptive in the long run because neglecting one's own responsibility for failure may inhibit attempts to optimize behavior. Exercise instructors may put less effort in to their classes.

Lippke: Results

Attributions: Overall, the reason "The participants are too inert, against that we are powerless" (for participant dropout) got the most support. The reason "I did not try hard enough to give instructions that are easy to understand" got the least support. Altogether, external attributions received more endorsement than internal attributions Men more likely to endorse internal; women external Younger tended to endorse ALL reasons to a larger extent than older Attributions were unrelated to length of experience However, instructors have the tendency to give less internal/controllable attributions the more experience they have. Internal-uncontrollable and internal-controllable causes were assigned comparable importance

Lippke: hypothesis

Based on attribution theory, it can be assumed that attribution patterns for dropout are related to the amount of future dropout. Exercise course instructors who attribute dropout mainly to external and uncontrollable reasons (self protecting style) have higher dropout rates than exercise course instructors who attribute dropout to internal causes. Instructors who attribute dropout to internal-controllable causes should report less dropout. They should also be able to attract new participants to their programs.

Schoeneman attributions for HB change attempts

Compared to success attributions; failure ascriptions were less stable, and less controllable

Lippke: new analysis types

Course instructors labeled as "disregarding" may not perceive dropout as a personal failure. They may not notice it, or it may not make them take it personally. They do not seek explanations. However, the other types are seeking explanations as to why their participants dropped out of the class.

Lippke discussion

Exercise instructors mainly attributed dropout to external/uncontrollable causes. This can be regarded as a "self serving bias" In the long term, self serving biases can reduce optimal functioning A more self critical appraisal of one's own contributions to participant dropout may help improve exercise adherence Self protecting instructors may be less able to motivate participants to stay in the program or attract new participants. They do not believe they can prevent dropout. The adaptive type of instructor may recognize individuals at risk for dropping out and successfully approach and resolve problems They may focus on individual needs (fun vs. feedback, etc...) There were no instructors with a predominantly internal attributional pattern for dropout (maybe those instructors selectively dropped out of the study)

Nickel & Spink measures: certainty

Expectancies. A single item was included to assess certainty of similar future outcomes. "How certain are you that you will achieve a similar outcome over the next month?" Rated on a 7 points Likert Scale Successful or unsuccessful outcome

Learned helpless people attribute successes to:

External, Uncontrollable, and Unstable causes

Schoeneman road safety attributions

For success, less internal than attributions for eating, substance use, and exercise Why? Maybe because of laws. External reasons for following road safety rules. Failures were more internal than successes

Schoeneman: expectancies

For successful subjects who maintained a change...more stable attributions were not associated with higher perceived likelihood of continued maintenance However, for all subjects the longer the change was sustained the more stable their attribution for that change was

Lippke: According to this article, what is "subjective theory"?

How people explain events can affect how they behave in the future

Schoeneman: attribution timing (discussion)

If attributions are given before an event, or shortly after a negative outcome, the threat value of failure may be high and external attributions may be more likely. If attributions for failed attempts are solicited a year or more afterwards, people may be ready to try again (internal, controllable, unstable)

Discounting principle

In discounting, a perceiver minimizes the contribution of a cause if plausible alternative causes are present. Thus a person may feel justified in taking less credit for failure to change an addiction or sedentary lifestyle if there are salient external factors that may have interfered - an addictive substance or busy schedule (for example) Similarly, external legal pressures for road safety habits may result in the same attribution patterns On the other hand, discounting may not occur for eating change behaviors if the individual is considered to be the sole contributing cause. More of an issue of willpower

Lippke: rationale for hypotheses

Instructors who attribute dropout to mainly external and uncontrollable causes are less likely to engage in strategies to avoid dropout. In contrast, instructors who attribute dropout to internal controllable causes believe that they can positively affect participants' motivation to stay in the program and therefore are more likely to work with the participants.

Learned helpless people attribute failures to:

Internal, Uncontrollable, and Stable causes

Schoeneman failure attributions

Internal, Unstable, Controllable

Learned Helplessness

Like "amotivation" as studied with Self Determination Theory The most maladaptive motivational style Operationally defined as: "I am not good enough and there is nothing I can do to change that" Associated with negative emotional and affective states such as depression.

Schoeneman: maintainers vs relapsers

Maintainers saw their change as stable; relapsers rated their initial success as unstable

Schoeneman: relapsers subsequent attempts

Majority of people who reported unsuccessful attempts the majority noted they engaged in subsequent attempts There were no differences for those who tried again, and those who did not (differences were predicted)

Nickel & Spink objective outcome

Modifiable Activity Questionnaire (MAQ) was used to assess PA levels. It assessed PA performed for health benefits over 4 weeks METS were calculated (based on duration in minutes, and frequency over the last 4 weeks). Divided over 28 days to calculate expenditure per day.

Lippke new analysis types: gender

More women in disregarding type; proportion of women in self protecting type is high; men are equally distributed between disregarding and adaptive type.

Nickel & Spink: Hypothesis: Emotions (attribution dependent) supported?

NOT supported -Perceived outcome sig. predicted pride; successful participants feeling more proud than unsuccessful -Higher levels of controllability = higher levels of pride -Perceived outcome also predicted feelings of guilt Unsuccessful had more guilt than successful -Adding attributional dimensions did not make a difference Interactions between perceived outcomes and attributional dimensions did not have any significant effect on attribution dependent emotions...(controllability and pride?) Controllability did predict pride, however it was hypothesized that locus of causality would influence pride. Need to influence personal controllability to influence pride! Self regulatory strategies. WHY? Power may have been an issue...need to increase the sample size Attributions may be a weak predictor of emotions...(based on this research and past research).

Lippke: results/hypotheses (first experiment)

ORIGINAL NOT SUPPORTED A simple assessment of possible dropout reasons obviously can not explain the change in number of participants.

Schoeneman methods: Health behaviors

Organized into 5 categories A) eating: reducing fat intake, eliminating red meat, eating more fiber, reducing sugar intake, reducing salt intake, dieting, other B) substance use: quitting smoking, switching to lower tar/nicotine brand, reducing alcohol consumption, reducing caffeine consumption, other C) exercise: jogging regularly, walking regularly, swimming regularly, other D) stress management: meditating regularly, using self hypnosis regularly, other E) general: dental flossing, wearing seat belts, wearing motorcycle helmet, other -Place a check next to each behavior you have tried to successfully (or unsuccessfully) change. -Successful change was defined as lasting one month or longer -How long the change lasted, how long ago they made the attempt, how many prior attempts have been made, how important it was to succeed.

Attribution theory

Our ability/desire/motivation to persist and work hard fluctuates based on how we perceive our successes and failures.

Nickel & Spink attributional dimensions: Revised causal dimensions scale (CDS II)

Participants are able to provide their own attribution for an outcome and then code that attribution along four causal dimensions: locus of causality; personal controllability; external controllability; and stability. The dimension of external controllability was not tested in this study. Participants were asked what they thought the most important reason for their success or failure in maintaining Health Canada's recommended activity levels for health over the past month.

Lippke background

Past research has looked at incremental theory vs. entity theory with regards to PA/sport performance Incremental theory: Skills can be learned/changed (unstable attributions) *growth mindset Entity theory: Skills are inherent/based on talent/genetically determined (stable attributions) *fixed mindset No study exists that looks at instructor's subjective theories on their performance as instructors

Schoeneman methods: causes for successes and failures

Reason/attribution was then rated using the CDS which measures the causal dimensions of locus, stability, and controllability Finally, successful subjects were asked if they had maintained the desired behavior -Those who said yes rated the likelihood that they would be maintaining the change during the next 3 months. -Unsuccessful subjects were asked if they had made any subsequent change attempts and those who had not rated the likelihood that they would accomplish the behavior change during the next three months

Nickel & Spink: Hypothesis: Emotions (outcome dependent) supported?

SUPPORTED -Perceived outcome significantly predicted feeling pleased, successful participants were more pleased than unsuccessful -Unsuccessful were more upset -Attributions did not impact these results

Nickel & Spink: Hypothesis: Stability: Significant main effect supported?

SUPPORTED Those who rated the cause of their outcome as stable, were more likely to believe it would be repeated Those who rated the cause as unstable, less likely to think it would repeat -Results support several relationships specified in the attributional model -Relationships between perceived outcome and attributional dimensions; perceived outcome and emotions; as well as stability and certainty of future expectations -However, the specified predictions between attributional dimensions and individual emotions were largely unsupported by these results

Schoeneman: self enhancement vs self protection

Self enhancement (internal success) was much stronger than self protection (external failure).

Lippke: How did the type of instructor relate to reporting of class size?

Self-protecting course instructors are least likely to report an increase in course size, and adaptively attributing instructors are most likely to report an increase.

Nickel & Spink hypotheses: Attributions/perceived/objective outcome supported?

Significant main effect was found for perceived outcome. Participants who viewed themselves as successful tended to attribute more to internal, personally controllable, and stable attributions than those who viewed themselves as unsuccessful No significant main effect emerged for objective outcome Interaction of objective and perceived outcome was not significant BOTH were internal controllable; unsuccessful were less stable -Vouches for personal changeability

Lippke, S., Knauper, B., & Fuchs, R. (2003)

Subjective theories of exercise course instructors: causal attributions for dropout in health and leisure exercise programmes.

Permanence

Success permanent; failure a one time thing

Schoeneman attributions for attempts to change eating

Successes and failures were equally and highly internal

Schoeneman attributions for eating

Successes and failures were equally and highly internal

Lippke: purpose

The focus of the present study is to look at instructors' perceptions of themselves. Specifically this research is "based on the assumption that subjective theories may also be a critical determinant of exercise course instructors' behavior, which in turn might affect participants' motivation and compliance." It is hypothesized that subjective theories are dysfunctional when they are not in accord with the actual circumstances or needs of the participants.

Nickel & Spink: Why did they conclude that the results (with regards to interactions between perceived outcomes, attributions, and emotions) differed from those originally proposed by Weiner (1985, 1986)?

The results reveal that the interactions between perceived outcome and attributional dimensions proposed by Weiner did not have any significant effect on attribution-dependent emotions. -low power: need bigger sample size -attributions may be weak predictor of emotions Failure to find the predicted relationships in this study may indicate that the interactive relationships specified by Weiner between outcomes and attributional dimensions may be weak, even when tested with individual emotions.

Health psychologists propose that locus (internal/external) is crucial to long term change

They claim that people who see an initial success as due to personal factors are more likely to maintain the change then people who credit treatment methods and personnel

Lippke: Instructor attributions

They may be a spectator: "What caused this participant to drop out?" This is considered an external perspective They might us the "self" perspective: "How did I fail to motivate the participant?" This is considered internal This study assumes that self attributions have the strongest consequences for the quality of instructional/motivating behavior All referenced causes within the instructor is internal, everything else is considered external (in this study)

Lippke: new hypothesis/analysis

Three different types of instructors can be distinguished 1) Those who attribute dropout to external-uncontrollable causes 2) Those who attribute dropout to internal-uncontrollable causes 3) Those who attribute dropout to internal-controllable causes Internal- uncontrollable: I chose a difficult level, not everyone can keep up. I chose a location, some cant get to it.

Lippke: new analysis

Three types of instructors (a little different than what was proposed) 1) Self protecting type: Attributed dropout to external causes (n=77; 22.5%) 2) Disregarding type: Attribute ALL reasons to be of lower importance (n=134; 39.1%) 3) Adaptive type: Attribute both external and internal causes as having moderate importance. Attribute dropout more to internal reasons than other instructors. Evaluate controllable and uncontrollable reasons as similarly important (n=94; 27.4%)

Schoeneman controllability for HB

all controllable (successes and failures for all behaviors)

personal changeability

ascribing all outcomes to internal, controllable causes with an emphasis on stable causes for success and unstable causes for failure People take credit for failure as well as success, but in a way that makes failure reversible and subject to personal control. In the smoking example: relapsers endorsed poor strategy and low effort as causing failure, whereas abstainers credited high ability for success.

self serving bias

attributing success to internal and failure to external causes This tendency enhances and preserves self esteem

Personalization

cause of success is you; failure is because of everyone else

As we know, according to Weiner (1985), the type of cause that a person identifies after a success or failure determines his or her subsequent:

emotions, persistence, and outcomes

Schoeneman attributions for failure

equally internal for all health behavior types

Schoeneman stability attribution for eating, substance use, and exercise

equally unstable and significantly different from the stable attributions for road safety changes

Optimistic Explanatory Style

explains how to make attributions/explanations for things that always keep you in an optimistic mindset. There is one main fundamental difference between this style and attribution theory of motivation. How do we stay optimistic?

Schoeneman: What was successful road safety change attributed to?

external, stable, and controllable causes

Nickel and Spink: success and failure defined by?

hitting PA guidelines for promoting health outcomes

moderating variables

influence the strength of the relationship between two variables perceived outcomes moderate the relationship between attributions and emotions -study examining exercise attendance found results suggesting that objective outcome might moderate the relationship between perceived outcome and attributional dimensions.

Schoeneman success attributions

internal controllable causes that were stable (41%) or unstable (33%)

Schoeneman: What was successful substance abuse change attributed to?

internal, stable, and controllable causes

Nickel & Spink: What are METS?

metabolic costs of the activity Scores were split to be sufficient for health benefits greater than or equal to (3Kcals/KG/Day) Or insufficient for health benefits (less than 3Kcals/kg/day)

Lippke: Attributions of instructors picture

outcome --> perception/interpretation--> causal search--> psychological consequence--> behavioral consequences Outcome = dropout/attrition rate Perception/Interpretation = of success Causal Search: Causal dropout attribution Psychological Consequences = Emotions and Expectations

Schoeneman: What were most attributions in the study?

personally changeable These types of attributions promote persistence and success

Schoeneman: Was this research prospective or retrospective in nature? Do you know what that means?

retrospective looking back on or dealing with past events or situations

Schoeneman attributional tendencies

self serving bias personal changeability

Nickel & Spink perceived outcome

showed guidelines from Health Canada. 'Were you successful/unsuccessful in maintaining this level of activity over the past month?

Weiner himself suggested that what dimension may be even more important determinant of maintenance of change; persistence following failure; and expectancies about the future.

stability

Schoeneman: unsuccessful subjects who had not attempted another change

stable attributions indicated lower expectancies for success in the next 3 months

Schoeneman attributions for exercise and substance use

successes more internal than failures

Pervasiveness

successes will generalize; failures only in this situation

Schoeneman four most frequently selected types of change attempts

(eating=129; substance=41; exercise=136; road safety=51)