Causal attributions for success or failure by passing and failing students in College Algebra

Success in mathematics has been identified as a predictor of baccalaureate degree completion. Within the coursework of college mathematics, College Algebra has been identified as a high-risk course due to its low success rates. ^ Research in the field of attribution theory and academic achievement suggests a relationship between a student's attributional style and achievement. Theorists and researchers contend that attributions influence individual reactions to success and failure. They also report that individuals use attributions to explain and justify their performance. Studies in mathematics education identify attribution theory as the theoretical orientation most suited to explain academic performance in mathematics. This study focused on the relationship among a high risk course, low success rates, and attribution by examining the difference in the attributions passing and failing students gave for their performance in College Algebra. ^ The methods for the study included a pilot administration of the Causal Dimension Scale (CDSII) which was used to conduct reliability and principal component analyses. Then, students (n = 410) self-reported their performance on an in-class test and attributed their performance along the dimensions of locus of causality, stability, personal controllability, and external controllability. They also provided open-ended attribution statements to explain the cause of their performance. The quantitative data compared the passing and failing groups and their attributions for performance on a test using One-Way ANOVA and Pearson chi square procedures. The open-ended attribution statements were coded in relation to ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck and compared using a Pearson chi square procedure. ^ The results of the quantitative data comparing passing and failing groups and their attributions along the dimensions measured by the CDSII indicated statistical significance in locus of causality, stability, and personal controllability. The results comparing the open-ended attribution statements indicated statistical significance in the categories of effort and task difficulty. ^

Fair price and its effect on willingness to purchase

The purpose of the present research is to demonstrate the influence of a fair price (independent of the subjective evaluation of the price magnitude) on buyers' willingness to purchase. The perceived fairness of a price is conceived to have three components: perceived equity, perceived need, and inferred compliance of the seller to the process rules of pricing. These components reflect the Theories of Distributive Justice (as adjusted for conditions of need) and Procedural Justice.^ The effect of the three components of a fair price on willingness to purchase is depicted in a theoretically causal chain model. Based on the Theories of Dissonance and Attribution, conditions of inequity and need activate concerns for Procedural Justice. Under conditions of inequity and need, buyers tend to infer that the seller has not complied with the generally accepted pricing practices, thus violating the social norms of Procedural justice. Inferred violations of Procedural Justice influence the buyer's attitude toward the seller. As predicted by the Theory of Reasoned Action, attitude is then positively related to willingness to purchase.^ The model was tested with a survey-based experiment conducted with 408 respondents. Two levels of both equity and need were manipulated with scenarios, a common research method in studies of Distributive and Procedural Justice. The data were analyzed with a structural equation model using LISREL. Although the effect of the "need" manipulation was insignificant, the results indicated a good fit of the model (Chi-square = 281, Degrees of Freedom = 104, Goodness of Fit Index =.924). The conclusion is that the fairness of a price does have a significant effect on willingness to purchase, independent of the subjective evaluation of the objective price. ^

The attribution of motives to organizational citizenship behaviors: The influence of personality, gender and ethnicity

A major area of research in the realm of Industrial/Organizational Psychology is the exploration of specific job performance behaviors such as organizational citizenship behaviors (GCBs). However, there is a dearth of research examining how peers react to OCBs and the performers of such behaviors. Bolino noted that determining how people attribute motives to these OCBs is an important yet unanswered question in industrial/organizational psychology. The present study attempted to provide insight on what observer (or rater) traits affect the motives attributed to organizational citizenship behaviors. In particular, the effects of personality traits such as the Big Five personality factors, self-monitoring, individualism-collectivism, negative affectivity and identity factors such as cultural mistrust, ethnic orientation, and perceived similarity were examined. A within-subjects survey design was used to collect data on six hypothetical organizational citizenship behaviors from a sample of 369 participants. The gender and ethnicity of the individuals performing the hypothetical organizational citizenship behaviors were manipulated (i.e., male or female; African-American, Hispanic, or White). ^ Results indicated that both similarity (t(368) = 5.13; p .01) and personality factors (R2 = .06 for genuine motives and R2 = .05 for self-serving motives) had an effect on which motive (genuine or self-serving) was attributed to organizational citizenship behaviors. Support was found for an interaction between similarity and the observer's personality trait of conscientiousness when attributing genuine motives to organizational citizenship behaviors. Finally, specific organizational citizenship behaviors such as altruism were linked to genuine motives while OCBs like conscientiousness, sportsmanship, and civic virtue were associated with self-serving motives. ^

Examining moderators of the hindsight bias in the context of civil legal decision -making: Counterfactuals, causal proximity, and self -referencing

The current research sought to clarify the diverging relationships between counterfactual thinking and hindsight bias observed in the literature thus far. In a non-legal context, Roese and Olson (1996) found a positive relationship between counterfactuals and hindsight bias, such that counterfactual mutations that undid the outcome also increased participants’ ratings of the outcome’s a priori likelihood. Further, they determined that this relationship is mediated by causal attributions about the counterfactually mutated antecedent event. Conversely, in the context of a civil lawsuit, Robbennolt and Sobus (1997) found that the relationship between counterfactual thinking and hindsight bias is negative. The current research sought to resolve the conflicting findings in the literature within a legal context. ^ In Experiment One, the manipulation of the normality of the defendant’s target behavior, designed to manipulate participants’ counterfactual thoughts about said behavior, did moderate the hindsight effect of outcome knowledge on mock jurors’ judgments of the foreseeability of that outcome as well as their negligence verdicts. Although I predicted that counterfactual thinking would increase, or exacerbate, the hindsight bias, as found by Roese and Olson (1996), my results provided some support for Robbenolt and Sobus’s (1997) finding that counterfactual thinking decreases the hindsight bias. Behavior normality did not moderate the hindsight effect of outcome knowledge in Experiment Two, nor did causal proximity in Experiment Three. ^ Additionally, my hypothesis that self-referencing may be an effective hindsight debiasing technique received little support across the three experiments. Although both the self-referencing instructions and self-report measure consistently decreased mock jurors’ likelihood of finding the defendant negligent, and self-referencing instructions decreased their foreseeability ratings in studies two and three, the self-referencing manipulation did not interact with outcome knowledge to moderate a hindsight bias effect on either foreseeability or negligence judgments. The consistent pattern of results across the three experiments, however, suggests that self-referencing may be an effective technique in reducing the likelihood of negligence verdicts.^

The influence of simulated disability slides and audiotape messages on college students' attribution of personality characteristics

The purpose of this study was to examine the attitudes college students have toward those with physical disabilities and what personality characteristics they attribute to physical appearance. One-hundred-one introductory psychology students at FIU were randomly assigned to one of three groups: control--no disability group, a group that viewed five slides of peers with disabilities, and a group that viewed the disability slides and heard their voices. All subjects rated the individuals' perceived personality. A one-way ANOVA revealed that those in the visual and audio disability group rated those with disabilities significantly higher in friendliness, attractiveness, and assertiveness than those who rated the individuals without disabilities. Those in the visual and audio disability group rated them higher in self-esteem than those in the visual only disability group. Since voice can have such positive effects on first impression, an occupational therapist can work on improving communication skills of those with disabilities.

Examining Moderators of the Hindsight Bias in the Context of Civil Legal Decision-Making: Counterfactuals, Causal Proximity, and Self-Referencing

The current research sought to clarify the diverging relationships between counterfactual thinking and hindsight bias observed in the literature thus far. In a non-legal context, Roese and Olson (1996) found a positive relationship between counterfactuals and hindsight bias, such that counterfactual mutations that undid the outcome also increased participants’ ratings of the outcome’s a priori likelihood. Further, they determined that this relationship is mediated by causal attributions about the counterfactually mutated antecedent event. Conversely, in the context of a civil lawsuit, Robbennolt and Sobus (1997) found that the relationship between counterfactual thinking and hindsight bias is negative. The current research sought to resolve the conflicting findings in the literature within a legal context. In Experiment One, the manipulation of the normality of the defendant’s target behavior, designed to manipulate participants’ counterfactual thoughts about said behavior, did moderate the hindsight effect of outcome knowledge on mock jurors’ judgments of the foreseeability of that outcome as well as their negligence verdicts. Although I predicted that counterfactual thinking would increase, or exacerbate, the hindsight bias, as found by Roese and Olson (1996), my results provided some support for Robbenolt and Sobus’s (1997) finding that counterfactual thinking decreases the hindsight bias. Behavior normality did not moderate the hindsight effect of outcome knowledge in Experiment Two, nor did causal proximity in Experiment Three. Additionally, my hypothesis that self-referencing may be an effective hindsight debiasing technique received little support across the three experiments. Although both the self-referencing instructions and self-report measure consistently decreased mock jurors’ likelihood of finding the defendant negligent, and self-referencing instructions decreased their foreseeability ratings in studies two and three, the self-referencing manipulation did not interact with outcome knowledge to moderate a hindsight bias effect on either foreseeability or negligence judgments. The consistent pattern of results across the three experiments, however, suggests that self-referencing may be an effective technique in reducing the likelihood of negligence verdicts.

The attribution of motives to organizational citizenship behaviors : the influence of personality, gender and ethnicity

A major area of research in the realm of Industrial/Organizational Psychology is the exploration of specific job performance behaviors such as organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs). However, there is a dearth of research examining how peers react to OCBs and the performers of such behaviors. Bolino noted that determining how people attribute motives to these OCBs is an important yet unanswered question in industrial/organizational psychology. The present study attempted to provide insight on what observer (or rater) traits affect the motives attributed to organizational citizenship behaviors. In particular, the effects of personality traits such as the Big Five personality factors, self-monitoring, individualism-collectivism, negative affectivity and identity factors such as cultural mistrust, ethnic orientation, and perceived similarity were examined. A within-subjects survey design was used to collect data on six hypothetical organizational citizenship behaviors from a sample of 369 participants. The gender and ethnicity of the individuals performing the hypothetical organizational citizenship behaviors were manipulated (i.e., male or female; African-American, Hispanic, or White). Results indicated that both similarity (t(368)=5.13; p .01) and personality factors (R2 =.06 for genuine motives and R2 = .05 for self-serving motives) had an effect on which motive (genuine or self-serving) was attributed to organizational citizenship behaviors. Support was found for an interaction between similarity and the observer's personality trait of conscientiousness when attributing genuine motives to organizational citizenship behaviors. Finally, specific organizational citizenship behaviors such as altruism were linked to genuine motives while OCBs like conscientiousness, sportsmanship, and civic virtue were associated with self-serving motives.