ERIC ED413552: Gender Differences in Causal Attributions of Imagined Performance on English, History, and Math Exams.

12 Pages·1997·0.31 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
CG 028 094
ED 413 552
Beyer, Sylvia
AUTHOR
Gender Differences in Causal Attributions of Imagined
TITLE
Performance on English, History, and Math Exams.
PUB DATE
1997-00-00
12p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
NOTE
Psychological Association (9th).
-- Speeches/Meeting Papers (150)
Research (143)
PUB TYPE Reports
MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.
EDRS PRICE
*Academic Achievement; Academic Failure; *Attribution
DESCRIPTORS
Theory; Causal Models; College Students; *Grades
(Scholastic); Higher Education; Psychological
Characteristics; Self Esteem; *Sex Differences; *Student
Attitudes
*Gender Issues
IDENTIFIERS
ABSTRACT
This study investigated gender differences in causal
attributions and emotions to success and failure. A literature review on
gender differences in causal attributions revealed inconsistencies. For the
present study, college students (N=247) filled out questionnaires and were
also asked to imagine varying degrees of success in college courses. The
results indicate that gender differences in causal attributions do exist.
Females, compared to males, favored effort attributions (paying attention and
studying) for successful outcomes. For failure outcomes, males, more than
females, thought that a lack of studying was responsible. Thus, males
?Drctected their self-confidence in failure situations by blaming a poor
performance on an unstable cause that can be changed in the future. Females
viewed the lack of ability as a more important cause for a failing grade than
did males. Emotions also differed, with males indicating that they would
derive more confidence after receiving an A than females. Females felt more
like failures than did males after receiving an F. It was found that gender
differences in causal attributions depended on the gender-type of the subject
matter.
(RJM)
********************************************************************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
********************************************************************************
Gender Differences in Causal Attributions
of Imagined Performance on English, History, and Math Exams
Sylvia Beyer
University of Wisconsin-Parkside
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC)
0 This document has been reproduced as
received from the person or organization
originating d.
0 Minor changes have been made to improve
reproduction Quality.
Points of view or opinions stated in this dOcu-
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
ment do not necessarily represent official
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."
OE RI position or policy.
2
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
LL
S. Beyer 1
of the subject matter.
Gender Differences in Causal Attributions
Gender differences in causal attributions
of Imagined Performance on English,
An impressive amount of research has investigated gender
History, and Math Exams'
differences in causal attributions. Some of the research suggests
Sylvia Beyer2
that women attribute outcomes, especially success, more externally
University of Wisconsin-Parkside
(Feather, 1969; Meehan & Overton, 1986; Pasquella, Mednick, &
Murray, 1981; Simon & Feather, 1973; Viaene, 1979; Zuckerman,
1979) or more to effort rather than ability (Erkut, 1983; Ickes &
Leyden, 1978; Parsons, Meece, Adler, & Kaczala, 1982; Lalloue
Abstract
& Curtis, 1985; Wiegers & Frieze, 1977) than men. For failures,
Gender differences in causal attributions and emotions to success
males see internal causes, especially a lack of ability as less
and failure were investigated. Males took more credit for success
important than do females (Basow & Medcalf, 1988; D'Amico,
but less responsibility for failure, and felt more confident than did
Baron, & Sissons, 1995; Ickes & Layden, 1978; Lalloue & Curtis,
females. Following failure, females felt more like a failure than
This has been confirmed cross-culturally in German
1985).
did males. Some of the gender differences in causal attributions,
(Rustemeyer & Jubel, 1996) and Japanese (Little & Lopez, 1997)
especially for successful outcomes, depended on the gender-type
students. Males' causal attributions resemble those of individuals
of the subject matter.
high in self-esteem, whereas females' causal attributions resemble
those of individuals low in self-esteem (Ickes & Leyden, 1978).
The implication is that by making external attributions women do
have been studied
Causal attributions for achievement
not take credit for success and thereby denigrate their abilities,
extensively over the past 25 years. Weiner (e.g., 1974) originally
whereas men stress the importance of their ability in achieving
categorized causal attributions along two dimensions: stability
success. This has been interpreted as evidence for the operation
and locus of control. Although Weiner (e.g., 1985) added a third
of a "self-enhancing" bias in men and of a "self- derogatory" bias
dimension, controllability, most research on gender differences in
in women (Bar-Tal & Frieze, 1977; Berg, Stephan, & Dodson,
causal attributions has focused on his two original dimensions.
1981; Erkut, 1983; Heilman & Kram, 1978; Levine, Gillman, &
The attributions for achievement outcomes that have received the
Reis, 1982; Levine, Reis, Sue, & Turner, 1976; Simon & Feather,
most empirical attention include ability (internal, stable), effort
1973; Zuckerman, 1979).
(internal, unstable), task difficulty (external, stable), and luck
Gender differences are not restricted to self-attributions.
attribute greater
(external, unstable). In general, participants
People's causal attributions regarding the performance of others
responsibility to ability and effort in explaining their successes
meta-analysis
are affected by the gender of the other person. A
than do participants explaining their failures, whereas failure
found that for successes on masculine tasks, higher ability is
participants attribute greater responsibility to task difficulty than
attributed to males than to females, and higher effort attributed to
do success participants (Arkin & Maruyama, 1979; Elig & Frieze,
females than to males. For failures, lower effort and bad luck are
1979; Gilmor & Reid, 1979).
more likely to be attributed to males than to females, and greater
task difficulty is attributed to females than to males (Swim &
Methodological issues
Senna, 1996). It should be pointed out that the effect sizes were
Falbo and Beck (1979) discovered that only 23% of the causal
small (Swim & Sarma, 1996).
attributions participants made spontaneously "could be classified
in terms of the Weiner et al. (1971) model. Effort constituted
Findings of no gender differences in causal attributions
13% of the total; Ability, 8%; Task Difficulty, 1%; and Luck, less
The literature on gender differences in causal attributions is
than 1%" (Falbo & Beck, 1979, p. 188). An intriguing question
not entirely consistent. For example, meta-analyses by Sohn (1982)
is what causal attributions constitute the other 77% of responses.
and Whitley, McHugh, and Frieze (1986) found few consistent
To address this issue, the present research allowed pilot test
gender differences in causal attributions. No evidence for gender
participants to list the causes of receiving an A or an F in one of
differences in causal attributions for success and failure was found
three subject matters. These free responses were then used in a
by Martin, Kovac, and Hryshko (1989) and Travis, Phillippi, and
It was
closed-ended format on a separate set of participants.
Henley (1991). Some of these inconsistencies may be due to
hoped that this approach would yield the kinds of causal attributions
neglecting the role of situational variables in causal attributions
that people make spontaneously. It was hypothesized that females'
(McHugh, Frieze, & Hanusa, 1982). In masculine domains such
attributions would be less self-enhancing than males' but that
and more to
as mathematics, girls attribute success less to ability
causal attributions would also depend greatly on the gender-type
hard work and failure more to lack of ability than do boys
(Birenbaum & Kraemer, 1995; Gilbert, 1996; Rosenfield &
Stephan, 1978). This gender difference in attributions was not
I Presented at the ninth annual convention of the American
Psychological Association
found for languages which are traditionally viewed as feminine
(Birenbaum & Kraemer, 1995). The gender-type of a domain has
2 Address correspondence to: Sylvia Beyer, Ph.D.,
been found to also affect gender differences in expectancies and
Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Parkside,
the accuracy of self-evaluations (Beyer, 1990; Beyer & Bowden,
Kenosha, WI 53141 phone:[phone] or [phone],
1997). For this reason, the effect of the gender-type of the subject
e-mail address: beyer®cs.uwp.edu
matter on gender differences in causal attributions will be
3
Causal attributions 2
outcomes were used: I just did not want to study; I did not have
investigated.
time to study; I studied the wrong material; The test was difficult;
This research was conducted to provide another test of gender
I did not pay attention in class and/or skipped class often; The
However, methodological
differences in causal attributions.
subject is not interesting to me; I am not very good at (subject); I
problems with Weiner's (1974) two-dimensional categorization
was unlucky; I am not very motivated in school.
system exist. Therefore the present research used a different
Similarly, five positive emotions experienced after success (I
approach for assessing causal attributions.
am proud of my accomplishment; I am relieved; I am motivated
to continue to do well; I feel confident; I am happy and in a
Method
generally good mood) and seven negative emotions experienced
Participants
after failure (I am disappointed in myself; I am angry at myself; I
Two hundred and forty-seven students (157 females and 90
will do
am angry at (fill in the blank); I am worried about how I
males) at a university in the Midwest participated in the study.
on future exams. I am worried whether (fill in the blank) will
think that I am a failure; I am ashamed of myself; I feel like a
Materials
failure) were included based on the results of the pretest.
Participants filled out four questionnaires: The Life Orientation
Participants were supplied with the list of potential causes for
Test (LOT; Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994) which measures
an A (F) that had been determined by the pilot test. More causes
optimism, the Locus of Control scale, Zung's (1965) Self-Rating
for Fs than As were provided in accordance with the results from
of Depression Scale (SDS), and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
Participants first checked each cause of their
the pilot study.
(Rosenberg, 1965). The LOT contains ten questions that are
grade that applied, then ranked the importance of the checked
rated on a scale from 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree).
from
causes, and then rated the importance of each checked cause
High scores reveal optimism. The Locus of Control scale contains
I (very important) to 5 (very unimportant). It was deemed important
40 questions that are responded to in a Yes/No format. An example
to include multiple measure of attributions and emotions. Ranking
of an item revealing an external locus of control is "Some people
and rating measures were collected because the data yielded from
of
are just born lucky." High scores indicate an external locus
these two procedures are not identical (cf. Biemat & Mani% 1994).
control. The SDS contains 40 items which are answered in terms
Participants then were instructed to turn the page and repeat this
of how each item applies to the person at the time of testing. The
following
process for the kinds of emotions they would experience
ratings are on a 4-level scale from "a little of the time" to "most
used than
an A (F). Again, more diverse negative emotions were
of the time." A sample item is "I feel down-hearted and blue."
positive emotions.
High scores are indicative of greater depression. The Rosenberg
Finally, participants rated on 5-point scales how likely it was
Self-Esteem Scale consists of 10 questions that are rated on a
that they would get the same grade on the next exam, whether
scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 4 (strongly disagree). A sample
they or someone else was responsible for the grade, whether they
item is "I feel that I have a number of good qualities." The lower
had control over their grade, and whether this grade predicted the
the score, the higher a person's self-esteem.
grades they would receive in other courses.
Procedure
Results
Subsequent to filling out the questionnaires, participants were
Questionnaire data
asked to imagine having received a certain grade in a course
t-tests found a significant gender difference for locus of control
which was important for their graduation. The names of the
and depression, both ts(247) = 2.64, ps < .009, with females
courses and course numbers represented actual courses taught at
showing a more external locus of control and scoring higher on
the university. They were selected because they represent the
depression. No gender differences in the LOT or self-esteem
lowest-level courses receiving college credit in the subject area
were found, t(247) < 1; t (247) =1.14, p < .26, respectively.
The courses were also selected to represent a feminine, neutral,
and masculine domain, respectively (as determined by pilot testing).
Gender differences in causal attributions for success and failure
The following feminine, neutral, and masculine courses,
Gender differences in checking potential causes as actual causes
respectively, were used: Composition and Reading (English 101),
of success and failure were analyzed by means of es. Gender
Evolution of US History (HIST 101), and College Algebra I (Math
111). Participants received the instructions to "Vividly imagine
differences in the rankings and ratings of the importance of potential
of
causes were tested via 2 (participant gender) x 3 (gender-type
that you are in the following situation. You are currently enrolled
subject matter) ANOVAs. To avoid capitalizing on chance, only
in [name of course and course number substituted here], which is
if the interaction between participant gender and gender-type of
a required course for graduation at this university. You just received
the subject matter was at least p < .15 were gender differences
an A on your last exam." Approximately half of the participants
within each individual subject matter calculated. The analyses
were asked to imagine that they had received an F.
Unlike previous investigations, the present study did not
for each cause are based on those causes which were checked,
Therefore, analyses of the
exclusively rely on Weiner's causal attributions (effort, ability,
ranked, and rated by participants.
various causes are based on different Ns. Because most analyses
task difficulty, and luck). An open-ended pretest had determined
.12 are
are based on very small cell sizes, results lower than p <
that seven attributions for successful outcomes should be included
in a closed-ended format: I studied effectively; I paid attention in
interpreted.
class and went to class regularly; The test was easy; I am very
Success outcomes. By far the most frequently checked causes
by males and females for an A were "paid attention" and "studied"
interested in the subject; I am good at (subject area); I was lucky;
Females more often checked "paid attention",
I am a very motivated student. Nine causes for unsuccessful
(see Table 1).
4
S. Beyer 3
feel, F(2, 90) = 3.49, p < .03. Females rated feeling happy
=
x2(1) = 3.04, p < .09, and "studied", x2(1) = 5.04, p < .03, as
1.6; M = 1.8) more strongly than did males (M = 2.4; M = 2.6)
causes of an A than did males. Females also checked "motivated"
for History, t(30) = 2.12, p < .05, and English, t(28) = 1.82, p <
x2(1) = 3.28, p < .07.
more often than did males for Algebra,
.08. The interaction between participant gender and subject matter
Ability was checked more often by females as a cause for an A in
was significant for ratings of how confident participants would
English, x2(1) = 5.49, p < .02, whereas it was checked more
feel, F(2, 85) = 2.27, p < 11. Females (M = 1.5) rated feeling
confident higher than did males (M = 2.3) for History, t(25) =
frequently by males for an A in Algebra, X2(1) = 3.09, p <.08.
In accord with the hypothesis that gender differences in causal
1.77, p < .09.
attributions would depend on the gender-type of the subject matter,
Failure outcomes. Females were more likely than were males
the interactions between participant gender and subject matter
in general to check feeling like a failure, x2(1) = 3.36, p < .07
were significant for the rankings and ratings of interest as a cause
In addition, females checked feeling ashamed,
(see Table 4).
for an A, F(2, 37) = 4.13, p < .03; F(2, 38) = 2.42, p < .11.
x2(1) = 2.43, p < .12, more frequently for History than did males.
Females ranked (M = 2.7) and rated (M = 2.0) interest as a more
The interaction between gender and subject matter was
important cause than did males (M = 4.2, M = 3.0, respectively)
significant for "worried about others' reactions", F(2, 23) = 3.46,
only for English, t(12) = 2.18, p < .06; t(12) = 1.73, p < .12,
p < .06. Females (M = 2.1) ranked worrying about others more
respectively. However, males rated interest (M = 1.7) as more
highly than did males (M = 6.0) in History only, t(8) = 2.97, p <
important for an A in Algebra than did females (M = 2.6), t(16) =
.03. Males (M = 2.0) ranked feeling worried about the future
2.26, p < .04. The interaction between participant gender and
higher than did females (M = 2.6), t(100) = 2.45, p < .02. The
subject matter was significant for rankings of luck, F(2, 18) =
interaction between gender and subject matter was significant for
3.35, p < .06. Males ranked luck higher (M = 2.5) than did
the rating of shame, F(2, 43) = 3.18, p < .06. Females (M = 1.9)
females (M = 4.2) for History only, t(10) = 2.33, p < .05. The
rated feeling ashamed higher than did males (M = 3.0) for English,
interaction between participant gender and subject matter was
t(21) = 1.91, p < .08, whereas males (M = 1.0) rated it higher
significant for ability ratings, F(2, 46) = 3.12, p < .06. In Algebra
than females (M = 2.7) did for History, t(12) = 1.73, p < .12.
only, males (M = 1.7) rated ability as more important for an A
than did females (M = 2.9), t(23) = 2.84, p < .01.
Stability, responsibility, controllability, and globality ratings
Failure outcomes. Females were more likely than males to
Between-participants ANOVAs with gender, subject matter,
check task difficulty as a cause for an F in Algebra only, x2(1) =
and grade (2 x 3 x 2 design) were calculated for stability,
3.09, p < .08 (see Table 2). Males indicated that they did not
responsibility, controllability, and globality ratings. The main
study more frequently than did females for English, x2(1) = 2.85,
effect for grade was highly significant for stability ratings, F(1,
p <.10.
241) = 119.22, p < .0001, with participants who imagined they
The interaction between participant gender and subject matter
had received an A believing that another A was much more likely
56) =
was significant for rankings of not being interested, g2,
in the future than did participants who had received an F believed
2.79, p < .07. Males (M = 2.1) were more likely than females (M
they would receive another F. No significant effects emerged for
of their F,
responsibility and control ratings. The interaction between subject
= 3.2) to rank not being interested in English as a cause
F(2, 240) =
t(20) =1.71, p < .11. Males in general ranked and rated a lack of
area and grade was significant for globality ratings,
studying higher (M = 1.7; M = 2.0) than did females (M = 2.5; M
3.72, p < .03. The interaction indicates that participants who
respectively.
= 2.6), t(66) = 2.24, p < .03; t(67) = 1.68, p < .10,
imagined receiving an F were much less likely to indicate that
other courses than did
this grade would predict grades in
Females in general (M = 3.0) ranked an absence of ability more
highly than did males (M = 3.8), t(50) = 1.66, p < .11. These
participants who had received an A did. This effect was strongest
results do suggest that males' causal attributions are more self-
for History. None of the results were substantially changed when
enhancing than are females'. While the gender differences in
the analyses were re -run as ANCOVAs with locus of control
causal attributions for successful outcomes were domain-specific,
scores and depression scores (for which gender differences had
more general gender differences in causal attributions emerged
been found), as covariates. In summary, no gender differences on
the dependent variables stability, responsibility, controllability,
for failure outcomes.
and globality were found.
Gender differences in feelings experienced after success and
failure
Discussion
Success outcomes. Males were more likely to check confidence
The results indicate that gender differences in causal attributions
x2(1)
as an experienced feeling after an A than did females,
do exist. As was found in previous research (Erkut, 1983; Ickes
2.41, p < .12 (see Table 3). Females were more likely to check
& Layden, 1978; Parsons, Meece, Adler, & Kaczala, 1982; Lalloue
& Curtis, 1985; Wiegers & Frieze, 1977), females compared to
feeling proud than were males in History, x2(1) = 2.83, p < .10,
males favored effort attributions ("paid attention" and "studies")
and felt more motivated by their success in Algebra than did
for successful outcomes. For failure outcome, however, males
males, x2(1) = 6.90, p < .009.
responsible.
more than females thought that a lack of studying was
The interaction between participant gender and subject matter
Thus, males protect their self-confidence in failure situations by
was significant for ratings of how proud participants would feel,
blaming a poor performance on an unstable cause that can be
F(2, 100) = 2.93, p < .06. Females rated feeling proud (M = 1.2)
changed in the future. Females ranked lack of ability as a more
more strongly than did males (M = 1.7) for History, t(33) = 1.93,
important cause for an F than did males. This reveals a much
p < .07. The interaction between participant gender and subject
for males.
more self-enhancing pattern of causal attributions
matter was significant for ratings of how happy participants would
5
BEST COPY
AVAILABLE
Causal attributions 4
Biernat, M., & Manis, M. (1994). Shifting standards and
denigrating attributions for self-confidence, motivational deficits
stereotype-based judgments. Journal of Personality and Social
participants
may also occur. For example, the performance of
Psychology, 66, 5-20.
who internalized failures became slower and performed worse
Birenbaum, M., & Kraemer, R. (1995). Gender and ethnic-group
following failures, whereas individuals who externalized their
differences in causal attributions for success and failure in
failures were not adversely affected by failure experiences (Ickes
mathematics and language examinations. Journal of Cross-
& Leyden, 1978; Newman & Stevenson, 1990; Peterson & Barrett,
Cultural Psychology, 26, 342-359.
1987). Not surprisingly, females' performance is more adversely
D'Amico, M., Baron, L. J., & Sisson, M. E. (1995). Gender
affected by failures than is males' (Ickes & Layden. 1978).
differences in attributions about microcomputer learning in
Given the existence of gender differences in causal attributions,
elementary school. Sex Roles, 31, 353-385.
it is not surprising that females and males also differ in the emotions
Elig, T. W., & Frieze, L IL (1979). Measuring causal attributions
experienced after a success or failure. Males indicated that they
Journal of Personality and Social
for success and failure.
would derive more confidence after receiving an A than did females.
Psychology, 37, 621-634.
Attributing success to ability thus boosts confidence much more
Erkut, S. (1983). Exploring sex differences in expectancy,
like a failure
so than effort attributions can. Females felt more
attribution, and academic achievement. Sex Roles, 9, 217-231.
than did males after receiving an F. Attributions of failure to a
Falbo, T., & Beck, R. C. (1979). Naive psychology and the
lack of ability rather than a lack of studying are likely to undermine
attributional model of achievement. Journal of Personality, 1,
self-confidence.
185-195.
This research also demonstrates that gender differences in causal
Feather, N. T. (1969). Attribution of responsibility, and valence
attributions depend on the gender-type of the subject matter. Ability
of success and failure to initial confidence and task performance.
females than
was more often checked as a cause for an A by
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 129-144.
males for English, whereas the reverse was true for Algebra.
Frieze, I. H. (1976). Causal attributions and information seeking
Similarly, females ranked interest as more important than did
to explain success and failure. Journal of Research in Personality,
males for English,. whereas males rated interest as more important
10, 293-305.
than did females for Algebra. Males blamed an F on a lack of
Hellman, M. E., & Kram, K E. (1978). Self-derogating behavior
interest in English.
in women - Fixed or flexible: The effects of co-worker's sex.
The data also indicate problems with the traditional research
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 497-
ability,
on causal attributions which uses only effort, task difficulty.
507.
and luck ratings. Clearly the most commonly used attributions
Lalloue, J. B., & Curtis, R. C. (1985). Improving women's
for a successful outcome were related to effort and revealed a
performance in mixed-sex situations by effort attributions.
positive behavioral intention towards academic work i.e. "paid
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 337-356.
attention", "studied", and "motivated". It is advisable to study
Levine, R., Gillman, M.-J., & Reis, H. (1982). Individual
these variables separately rather than aggregating them under the
differences for sex differences in achievement attributions? Sex
Furthermore, luck was used rarely to explain
heading effort.
Roles, 8, 455-466.
failure.
success and was virtually never endorsed as a cause of
Levine, R., Reis, H. T., Sue, E., & Turner, G. (1976). Fear of
This replicates an early finding by Frieze (1976), yet luck is still
failure in males: A more salient factor than fear of success in
unnecessarily included in most research on causal attributions.
females? Sex Roles, Z 389-398.
The most commonly used explanation for failure related to
Regularities in the
Little, T. D., & Lopez, D. F.
(1997).
excessive test difficulty and either a lack of time or unwillingness
development of children's causality beliefs about school
to study. Again, it would behoove researchers to investigate the
performance across six sociocultural contexts. Developmental
meaning of "did not study". The implications for emotional
Psychology, 33, 165-175.
reactions to failure are likely to be different for an attribution to a
Martin, B. A., Kovac, M. L., & Hryshko, A. (1989). Causal
lack of time compared to an unwillingness to study.
attributions and anticipated work performance. Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality, 4, 491-502.
References
McHugh, M. C., Frieze, I. H., & Hanusa, B. H. (1982).
Bar-Tal, D., & Frieze, I. H. (1977). Achievement motivation
Attributions and sex differences in achievement: Problems and
for males and females as a ,determinant of attributions for success
new perspectives. Sex Roles, 8, 467-479.
and failures. Sex Roles, 3, 301-313.
Meehan, A. M., & Overton, W. F. (1986). Gender differences
Basow, S. A., & Medcalf, K. L. (1988). Academic achievement
in expectancies for success and performance on Piagetian spatial
and attributions among college students: Effects of gender and
picks. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 32, 427-441.
sex typing. Sex Roles, 19, 555-567.
Children's
Newman, R. S., & Stevenson, H. W. (1990).
Berg, J. H., Stephan, W. G., & Dodson, M. (1981). Attributional
achievement and causal attributions in mathematics and reading.
modesty in women. Psychology of Women Quarterly,5, 711-727.
Journal of Experimental Education, 58, 197-212.
Beyer, S. (1990). Gender differences in the accuracy of self-
Parsons, J. E., Meece, J. L., Adler, T. F., & Kaczala, C. M.
evaluations of performance. Journal of Personality and Social
(1982). Sex differences in attributions and learned helplessness.
Psychology, 59, 960-970.
Sex Roles, 8, 421-432.
Beyer, S., & Bowden E. M. (1997). Gender differences in
Pasquella, M. H., Mednick, M. T. S., & Murray, S. R. (1981).
self-perceptions: Convergent evidence from three measures of
Causal attributions for achievement outcomes: Sex-role identity,
accuracy and bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
Quarterly,
sex and outcome comparisons. Psychology of Women
23, 157-172.
6
BEST COPY AV/WARM
S. Beyer 5
5, 586-589.
Peterson, C., & Barrett, L. C. (1987). Explanatory style and
academic performance among university freshmen. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 603-607.
Rosenfield, D., & Stephan, W. G. (1978). Sex-differences in
attributions for sex-typed tasks.,he Life Orientation Test. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1063-1078.
Simon, J. G., & Feather, N. T. (1973). Causal attributions for
Journal of
success and failure at university examinations.
Educational Psychology, 64, 46-56.
Sex differences in achievement self-
Sohn, D.
(1982).
attributions: An effect-size analysis. Sex Roles 8, 345-357.
Swim, J. K., & Sanna, L. J. (1996). He's skilled, she's lucky:
A meta-analysis of observers' attributions for women's and men's
Personality and Social Psychology
successes and failures.
Bulletin, 22, 507-519.
Travis, C. B., Phillippi, R. H., & Henley, T. B. (1991). Gender
and causal attributions for mastery, personal, and interpersonal
events. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 233-249.
Viaene, N. (1979). Sex differences in explanations of success
and failure. In 0. A. Hartnett, G. Boden, & M. Fuller (Eds.),
Sex-role stereotyping. New York: Travistock.
Weiner, B. (1974). Achievement motivation as conceptualized
In B. Weiner (Ed.), Achievement
by an attribution theorist.
motivation and attribution theory (pp. 3-48). Morristown, NJ:
General Learning Press.
Whitley, B. E., Jr., McHugh, M. C., & Frieze, I. H. (1986).
Assessing the theoretical models for sex differences in causal
attributions of success and failure. In J. S. Hyde & M. C. Linn,
The psychology of gender: Advances through meta-analysis
(pp. 102-135). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Gender female
Wiegers, R. M., & Frieze, I. H.
(1977).
traditionality, achievement level, and cognitions of success and
failure. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 2, 125-137.
Zuckerman, M. (1979). Attribution of success and failure
revisited, or: The motivational bias is alive and well in attribution
theory. Journal of Personality, 47, 245-287.
Zung, W. W. K. (1965). A self-rating of depression scale.
Archives of General Psychiatry, 12, 63-70.
7
Checked a Cause
Percentage of Success Participants Who
Table 1.
matter
Subject
History
Algebra
English
Checked Causes
Females' Males
Females' Males
Females' Males
87
95
88
100
100
100
attention
Paid
80
100
88
97
88
93
Studied
47
35
38
66
63
47
Motivated
53
30
63
48
47
5 0
Easy test
47
30
69
41
73
31
Good at this
50
44
4 0
38
40
31
Interested
27
30
13
21
27
13
Lucky
Cause
Percentage of Failure Participants Who Checked a
Table 2.
matter
Subject
History
Algebra
English
Checked Causes
Females Males
Females] Males
Females/ Males
93
67
79
89
69
79
test
Difficult
60
50
60
74
46
63
No time to study
53
50
53
44
69
42
Did not study
53
64
33
54
41
34
interested
Not
20
43
33
59
26
31
Not good at
29
20
1 3
54
11
39
Studied wrong material
33
40
22
1 8
15
26
Did not pay attention
13
20
11
19
23
11
Not motivated
0
4
7
4
Unlucky
0
0
Experienced an Emotion
Percentage of Success Participants Who
Table 3.
matter
Subject
History
Algebra
English
Checked Emotions
Females' Males
Females' Males
Females' Males
87
100
94
100
100
93
Proud
87
85
90
81
88
93
Happy
87
60
94
83
88
93
Confident
85
75
6 7
86
67
81
Relieved
73
65
28
72
57
43
Motivated
Experienced an Emotion
Percentage of Failure Participants Who
Table 4.
matter
Subject
History
Algebra
English
Checked Emotions
Females! Males
Females! Males
Females' Males
80
89
87
96
100
97
Disappointed
87
47
71
89
69
79
Worried about future
67
64
60
70
85
76
Angry at myself
36
47
37
1 3
45
31
Ashamed
20
29
33
23
32
7
like a failure
Feel
25
15
7
7
31
Worried about others
1 8
11
1 3
11
7
Angry at other
8
0
s
s
e
e
3 3
3 0 3
3 0
3
0
7 7
7 0 7
3
l
0
l
a
1
3
5 2 1
9 6
5
a
4
4 2
8 8 4
5
y
M
y
M
e
e
r
r
o
s
s
o
u
u
t
t
s
a
a
s
s
s
C
i
C
i
e
H
e
H
l

l
a
0
4 9
a
0 3 8
a
9 0
1
a
0
0
5
0 0
5
4
m
0
1
6 2

5 4
1
7 5
m
3

5
3
3 3
9
d
d
1
e
e
e
e
F
k
F
k
c
c
e
e
h
r
h
s
r
e
s
C
e
C
e
e
t
0
0
3 0
7 0 3
3
4
t
3
3
9
t
8 8
8
l
7
t
l

a
a
2
4
3 2
6 6 5
3
a
1
4
a
6
6
8 3
o
8
o
a
m
M
a
M
m
h
h
r
r
b
W
W
b
e
e

t
g
s
s
t
s
c
g
s
c
t
t
e
l
e
e
l
n
e
n
A
A
l
j
l
a
a
j
a
0
2
b
4 9
9
4
a
9
1
1
b
7 6
8
1
1
1
4
m
p
0
2
p
1
u
4
5
1
7
m
4
8
u
2
9 6
4
3
4
1
i
i
S
c
S
e
c
e
i
i
F
t
F
t
r
r
a
a
P
P

s

s
s
e
e
e
3
0
5
4
9 4
s
6
9
1
3
8
0
r
3
8
1
l
0
l
2
1
0
a
e
5
6 5
u
3
4
6
1
a
3
5
3
6
8
1
M
h
c
l
M
h
i
a
c
s
s
u
F
i
i
l
l
g
S

g
f
s
n

o
n
s
f
e
E
o
e

E
e
l

a
l
0
2 4 9
6 6
3
9
1
a
7
0
e
7 3
3
7
g
0
m
0
4 3 3
2 2
1
6
7
2
m
4
4 7
9
g
4
a
1
e
a
t
e
n
F
t
F
n
e
l
e
c
a
c
r
i
r
e
n
r
e
e
P
o
t
P
a
i
t
s
m
s
n
e
e
y
e
s
.
s
d
2
.
u
t
u
1
d
t
d

u
g
a
a
a
e
n

e
y
t
e
e
n
C
t
C
s
l

o
s
t
d
b
t
y
l
s
o
s
e

t
a
b
i

d
a
u
a
t
a
d
i
e
r
o
t
v
n
a
d
h
e
T
w

t
e
d
p
r
i
t
T
e
d
s
t
e
k
t
t
e
k

e
o

s

y
t
e

c
o
t
t
c
t
t
d
t
t
t
m
d
e
t
n
a
o
e
k
s
a
l
e
o
m
o
a
e
u
i
e
t
h
c

n
e
h
y
n
g

v
d
i
c
C
u
i
i
y
d
C
k
r
t
d

i
o
i
e

s
t
t
l
d
d
u
c
f
t
t
n
u
o
o
o
d
f
o
o
o
a
i
t
u
i
t
i
a
U
i
D
t
n
N
M
N
D
S
G
N
N
D
E
S
L
P
I
s
n
s
n
e
o
e
3 3
7
0
o
7
0
3
7
7
7
7
l
7
l
i
1 1
a
6
2
8
i
8
7
a
6
t
8
8
8
t
y
o
M
o
y
M
r
m
m
r
o
o
E
E
t
t
s
s

s
n
s
n
i
i
e
H
e
H
a
a
l
l
a

0

4
5
6 9
9
a
1
1
5 5
5
0
d
d
m
0
6
2
3 2
1
7
8
m
8 6
8
6
e
e
1
e
c
c
e
F
n
n
F
e
e
i
i
r
r
e
e
r
s
r
e
s
e
p
p
e
e
t
7
7
0 7
t
x
x
4
4
5 8
t
l
1
7
7
t 7
a
l
a
4
8
6 4
E
a
E
a
9
9
7 2
8
a
M
a
m
m
M

r
r
o
b
b
o
h
e
h
e
W
'
t
g
s
t
W
g
c
s
c
e
l
e
l
e
A
e
A

l
j
a
s
l
s
0
j
5
3
b
9 0 7
6
1
a
2
3 6
b
0
t
t
m
0
1
3
1
u
8 7 3
9
m
n
7
n
8 8
u
9
1
S
a
e
a
S
e
p
F
p
F
i
i
c
c
i
i
t
t
r
r
s
a
s
a
e
0
0
e
P
3
9
5
P
1
7
1
8
8
1
0
l
0
0
l
a
2
6
3
8

3
a
5
8

8
8
1
s
1
e
M
h
M
h
s
r
s
s
e
u
i
i
l
c
l
l
g
i
g
!
a
c
n
s
n
s
u
F
e
E
e
E
S

l
l
f
a
2 8
5
9 6
7
a
7 3

o
3
3 3
8
f
m
1
3
4
7 7
9
m
6 4
o
9
9 9

e
e

e
e
g
F
F
g
a
1
a
t
1
n
t
n
s
e
e
s
r
s
e
c
r
e
n
n
u
c
r
h
o
e
r
o
t
e
t
u
e
i
P
o
i
t
t
f
r
P
o
f
o
l
u
e
m
r
m
l
e
s
t
t
i
u
u
E
a
h
y
d
E
.
o
4
o
m
.
t
f

e

3
o

d
b

d
b
a
t
e

a
e
n
e
e
d
a
t

l
k
b d
i
n
e
t
t
l
k
d
e

o
b
a
a
c
d
e
a
e
c
k
e
t
d
p
a
e

e
m
a
T
e
d
i
y
v
y
e
p
T
l
y
h
i
d
v
h
i
e
r
r
i
r
a
p
a
f
r
C
g
u
i g
r
C
n
r
i
h
l
t
p
o
s
e
l
o
o
o
n
n
e
o
s
a
e
i
W
W
r
D
M
A
A
A
R
C
F
H
P