Attributions and Performance: An Empirical Test of Kukla's Theory

Transcription

1 JOURNAL OF SPORT PSYCHOLOGY, Attributions and Performance: An Empirical Test of Kukla's Theory David Yukelson and Robert S. Weinberg North Texas State University Stephen West Florida State University Allen Jackson North Texas State University The purpose of this investigation was to test Kukla's attributional theory of performance and to address the mediating link between causal attribution and subsequent action in a competitive motor task. Two experiments were conducted: the first was designedto determine the effect of perceived task difficulty and attributional instructions on the ball-tossing performance of high achievers while competing against a standard of excellence. Results indicated that high achievers performed with greater intensity when receiving an effort rather than ability-oriented instructional set and when they perceive themselves to be behind a normative score of their classmates. To refine and clarify results found in Experiment 1, low as well as high achievers were added to the second study and were placed in face-to-face competition instead of a competition against a standard of excellence. Results from the performance data in Experiment 2 supported Kukla's theory in that high achievers performed best when they perceived themselves to be behind an opponent's score midway through the experiment, whereas low achievers performed best when they perceived themselves to be ahead. Results from the cognitive assessment procedure, however, failed to support the performance findings. Implications for the viability of Kukla's attributional theory of performance and problems related to the assessment of cognitive states are discussed. There has recently been considerable interest among social psychologists in attribution theory (Heider, 1958; Kelley, 1967), a general approach which assumes that people actively search for meaning in the social world. The theory focuses upon the perceived causes of an event, the manner in which these causal inferences are reached, and the consequences of causal beliefs. An important area of application of this approach has been achievement-related situations in which the individual com- Special thanks to David Pargman for his helpful comments during the conceptualization of this study. Reprint requests should be sent to David Yukelson, Physical Education Department, North Texas State University, Denton, TX

2 ATTRIBUTIONS AND PERFORMANCE 47 petes against a standard of excellence (Kukla, 1972a; Weiner, 1974). Motor performance and sport settings are important examples of achievement-related situations because of the competitive or social evaluation component implicit in such settings (Roberts, 1975; Scanlan, 1977). Thus, these settings appear to be an important arena for the testing of attribution theory. One attributional approach that may be relevant to such settings is Kukla's (1972a, 1978) attributional theory of performance. The theory is cognitive in the sense that it applies motivational significance to individuals' systems of beliefs about themselves and their environment. Kukla (1972a) adopts the basic conceptual scheme of Atkinson's (1964) expectancy value theory of motivation but extends it to include the more complex cognitions discussed by Heider (1958) involving one's effective personal force for meaningful action (i.e., perceived ability, intention, exertion). Prior to undertaking a task, an individual is assumed to calculate an incentive value (perceived utility) and an expectancy value (subjective probability of success) in choosing a course of action. This predecisional information has been labeled subjectively expected utility (SEU ) (Kukla, 1972a). In addition, these cognitive processes are influenced by personal and situational factors (Wankel, 1975). Specifically, Kukla argues that, based on the perceived difficulty of a task, a decision about the amount of effort a person is willing to expend precedes the undertaking of a task. As perceived task difficulty increases, the amount of effort the individual intends to expend should also increase. Consequently, perceived task difficulty is a determinant of the amount of effort an individual intends to expend which in turn affects the actual intensity with which a task is engaged. In essence, the subjective likelihood of succeeding is determined by cues inherent in the situation as well as by how much effort one intends to exert at the task (Kukla, 1972a). Relatively little research has addressed the mediating link between attributions and performance, however (West & Wicklund, 1980). One important exception is an experiment by Kukla (1972b), in which one group of subjects was led to believe that successful performance on an anagrams task depended only on ability, whereas another group was led to believe that performance on this task depended on both ability and the amount of effort they exerted. High achievers who were given ability plus effort instructions performed signficantly better on the task than subjects given ability-only instructions; the performance of low achievers did not differ as a function of the attributional instructions. Other research (Chapin & Dyck, 1976; Weiner & Sierad, 1975) has shown similar effects on different cognitive tasks, but to date, little research has investigated the possible influence of attributional instructions on motor tasks. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the effect of two types of instructional treatments on an individual's ball-tossing performance while competing against a standard of excellence. Following Kukla's (1972b) line of reasoning, it was hypothesized that high achievers who are led to believe that their performance is primarily influenced by effort will perform better than subjects who are led to believe that their performance is primarily influenced by ability. Only males high in achievement motivation were used in the present study because past research (Kukla, 1972b) has indicated that on cognitive tasks the performante of low achievers was not significantly affected by attributional instructions. In addition, to investigate Kukla's notion about the effect of perceived task difficulty on intended effort, subjects were given false feedback based on performance norms set by their classmates on a ball-tossing task. This manipulation of perceived task difficulty was termed

3 48 YUKELSON, WEINBERG, WEST, AND JACKSON situation criticality following Lowe's (1973) discussion of the relative importance of performance in different situations within a competitive game and was designed to affect subjects' intended effort.' In the present study, it was predicted that as situation criticality increased (i.e., the poorer the subject's initial performance relative to classmate norms), intended effort and performance would also increase (cf. Kukla, 1972a). Method Experiment 1 Subjects. The Mehrabian revised achievement scale for males (Mehrabian, 1978) was administered to 189 male introductory psychology students at Florida State University from which high achievers were selected. The Mehrabian scale has high internal consistency as shown by a Kuder-Richardson reliability coefficient of.91. Following the suggestion of Mehrabian (1978), the criterion for high achievers was set at 89, which is one standard deviation above the mean score for achieving tendencies in males. The mean age of the subjects was Subjects (N= 84) were randomly assigned to either an ahead, behind, or tied condition in relation to norms established by their classmates and told that performance was primarily determined by effort or ability. Thus, the design was a 3 x 2 (situation criticality x attribution manipulation) with performance and attributions the major dependent variables. Motor Task. The ball-tossing task used in this investigation was adapted from a similar task used by Weinberg and Ragan (1978). It consisted of throwing tennis balls overhand at a target (painted on white posterboard) comprised of four concentric circles. The middle of the target was placed 1.5 m above the ground. The radius of the inner circle was 6.0 cm; all other radii increased in 6.0 cm intervals so that the second circle had a radius of 12.0 cm, the third circle a radius of 18.0, and the fourth circle a radius of 24.0 cm. The target was hung on a wall 7.1 m away from the subject. Scoring was based on an 8-, 6-, 4-, 2-, and 1-point system with eight points representing a bull's eye and one point awarded if the ball landed anywhere else on the posterboard. The subject's total score on the first 10 trials and his total score on the second 10 trials were taken as the measures of performance on the task. Procedure. Upon entering the laboratory, subjects were introduced to the task and told that the purpose of the study was to compare their performance in relation to a standard of excellence set by their own classmates. Each subject was given to practice throws and then instructed to begin the first block of 10 experimental throws. After completing 10 throws, the subject was asked to sit on a chair while his score was calculated by the experimenter in relation to a standard of excellence set by other subjects. The experimenter went to the back of the laboratory and proceeded to compute average scores (fictitious) from a sheet of paper with the desk calculator. This procedure was designed to increase the saliency of the subject competing against 'In previous studies, Kukla has operationally defined perceived task difficulty in terms of performance against a standard of excellence. In competitive sport settings, however, the difficulty of the task usually depends, at least in part, on the quality of the competition. Therefore, in this investigation, perceived task difficulty was defined as being ahead, behind, or tied with your opponent.

4 ATTRIBUTIONS AND PERFORMANCE 49 classmates' norms. Subjects were then told that they were either five points ahead, tied, or five points behind the norms established by their classmates. Shortly after receiving the criticality feedback, subjects were provided with additional information about the nature of the ball-tossing task. In fact, this information constituted the attribution manipulation and was intended to induce the subjects to attribute their performance primarily to ability or primarily to effort. The specific attributional instructions were as follows: Ability-oriented instructions: We've found that the amount of ability an individual has for this kind of task is by far the most important determinant of how well one will perform. This task is pure in the sense that it is relatively unaffected by effort. Your performance is highly dependent upon the ability you possess; some people just seem to be good at the task while others are not. You will now be given 10 more throws at the target. Concentrate before each throw for it is the accuracy of your throws that will determine your score. Effort-oriented instructions: We've found this task to be heavily influenced by the amount of effort a person puts into the task, that is, the motivation one has to do well. There are some slight differences in ability, but they are minor. No one can do well unless they try hard. You will now be given 10 more throws at the target. Remember to concentrate and try to do your best. Following the attributional instructions, the experimenter once again reminded the subject of the criticality feedback, and the subject then completed the second block of 10 trials on the ball-tossing task. Prior to receiving feedback about their performance on the second block of 10 trials, subjects completed an attribution questionnaire consisting of three parts. The first part asked the subject to estimate the importance of each of five possible determinants of performance: task difficulty, own ability, own effort, own luck, and classmates' ability. Ratings were made on a 7-point scale where 1 represented "not important" and 7 represented "very important." The purpose of the second part of the questionnaire was to provide assessment of the subject's actual and intended effort on the ball-tossing task. The questions asked the subject to estimate how hard he tried on the first 10 trials, how hard he intended to try on the last 10 trials, and how hard he actually tried on the last 10 trials. The last section of the questionnaire contained checks on both the attribution and criticality manipulations. At the conclusion of the experiment, subjects were probed for any suspicions concerning the deceptions or other aspects of the experimental procedure and were debriefed. Results Manipulation checks. The criticality manipulation check indicated that 100% of the subjects correctly reported the manner in which their scores compared with the norms of their classmates. To determine if the attributional instructions were correctly understood, subjects were asked, "What factors did the experimenter indicate were important in determining your performance on this task?" A 2 x 3 (attributional instructions x situation criticality) between-subjects ANOVA indicated that only the instruction factor led to significant effects, F(1, 78)= 16.77, p<.001, for ability, and F(1,78) = 5.42, p <.05, for effort. Subjects who received ability-oriented instructions rated ability as a more important determinant of their performance than subjects who received effort-oriented instructions, whereas subjects who received

5 50 YUKELSON, WEINBERG, WEST, AND JACKSON effort-oriented instructions rated effort as a more important determinant of performance. Performance. An analysis of covariance was used to analyze the performance data with the initial block of 10 throws being used as the covariate and the final block of 10 throws constituting the dependent measure (Cronbach & Furby, 1970). Results indicated a significant main effect for instructional set, F(1, 77)=8.78, p <.01, with subjects receiving effort-oriented instructions performing better than subjects receiving ability-oriented instructions. A significant main effect was also obtained for perceived criticality of the situation, F(2, 77) = 3.18, p <.05. Newman Keuls post hoc tests indicated that subjects in the behind condition showed a larger gain in performance than subjects in the tied or ahead conditions (p<.05). The instruction and criticality main effects accounted for 5% and 3% of the variance, respectively. No significant differences were found between the tied and ahead conditions. Causal Attributions. The five causal attributions were analyzed by a 2 x 3 (attribution manipulation x situation criticality) MANOVA. A significant instruction main effect was obtained, F(5,74) = 2.41, p <.05. Two separate post hoc procedures were employed to further elucidate this significant main effect. A standardized discriminant function analysis indicated that the variables of effort at the task (.69) and classmate's ability (.72) most discriminated between effort and ability instruction groups. Univariate F tests also revealed significant differences on the causal attributions of effort at the task, F(1, 78) =4.21, p <.05, and on classmate's ability, F(1,78) = 5.54, p <.02. Inspection of the means indicated that effort was a more important determinant of performance when subjects were given an orientation emphasizing effort (M= 6.21) as compared with subjects given an orientation emphasizing ability (M= 5.67). In addition, subjects given effort instructions perceived their classmates to have a higher level of ability at the task (M=4.38) than subjects given ability instructions (M = 3.38). Perceived and Actual Effort. In Part 2 of the final questionnaire, subjects were asked to rate how hard they tried on the first 10 trials and were also asked to differentiate between their anticipated effort and the actual amount of effort exerted on the second block of 10 trials. A 2 x 3 (instructions x criticality) MANOVA was again computed to evaluate the three perceived effort questions. Results of the analysis revealed a significant main effect for criticality, F(6, 152) = 2.95, p <.01. Discriminant function analysis revealed standardized discriminant function coefficients of for intended effort on the second 10 trials,.933 for effort on the first 10 trials, and.so2 for actual effort exerted on the second 10 trials. Thus, intended effort on the second 10 trials was the most discriminating variable among the criticality groups, although all three perceived effort variables seemed to produce good discrimination. Inspection of the means for criticality groups indicated that subjects who were behind reported that they intended to try harder (M=5.6) than did subjects in the tied (M=4.9) or ahead (M=4.9) conditions, (p <.05). No significant differences existed between the tied and ahead conditions. Univariate F tests were conducted on the criticality main effect and yielded no significant findings. In addition, results also produced a significant instructions main effect, F(3, 76) = 4.85, p <.004. Discriminant function analysis yielded coefficients of for intended effort on the second 10 trials,.817 for actual effort on the first 10 trials, and.203 for actual effort exerted on the second 10 trials. Thus, intended effort on the second 10 trials was the most discriminating variable between the two instruction

6 ATTRIBUTIONS AND PERFORMANCE 51 Table I-Performance Means in Experiment I Ahead Tied Behind First 10 Second 10 First 10 Second 10 First 10 Second 10 Attribution Throws Throws Throws Throws Throws Throws Ability Effort groups. Univariate F tests demonstrated significant differences on all three perceived effort variables as influenced by attributional instruction: "actual effort on the first 10 trials," F(1, 82)=4.73, p <.05; "intended effort on the second 10 trials," F(1, 78) = 5.75, p <.01; and "actual effort on the second 10 trials," F(l, 78) = 4.12, p <.05. Inspection of the means indicated that subjects intended to try harder on the second 10 throws (M= 5.8) and reported that they actually tried harder (M= 5.2) when receiving effort instructions than when receiving ability instructions (M=4.6; M= 4.0), respectively. Discussion Paralleling Kukla's finding on a cognitive task, high achievers performed best when they were led to attribute their performance to effort rather than ability. Consistent with Kukla's notion about intended effort and perceived task difficulty, a significant criticality main effect was obtained with subjects in the behind condition exhibiting the largest gains in performance. Furthermore, intended effort was_found to provide the most discrimination between criticality groups. Thus, as perceived task difficulty increased, intended effort and subsequent performance also increased. Although the results of the present investigation provide some initial support concerning Kukla's theory of performance, further refinements were necessary to clarify and elaborate upon the mediating link between attributions and performance. Thus, a second study was conducted which attempted to achieve these ends. Specifically, four changes were made in the second study. First, low achievers as well as high achievers were included in the design. Although past research has shown the performance of low achievers on a cognitive task to not be significantly affected by attributional instructions (Kukla, 1972b), investigators have yet to validate this point on competitive motor task. Furthermore, Kukla states high and low achievers diverge in their perception of task difficulty (Kukla, 1972a, 1974). According to his attributional theory of performance, high achievers should perform better than low achievers when the task is perceived to be difficult. If the task is perceived to be easy, however, low achievers should perform better than high achievers (Kukla, 1972a). Second, subjects were placed in face-to-face competition instead of competing against a standard of excellence to make the objective competitive situation more salient. Third, rather than assessing attributions at the end of the experiment, they were assessed both midway through the experiment (after the first 10 throws) and again after the final 10 throws. Finally, additional checks on manipulation were included along with several other questions which assessed other possible cognitions which may mediate performance.

7 52 YUKELSON, WEINBERG, WEST, AND JACKSON Experiment 2 Method Subjects. Male students (N= 185) at North Texas State University were administered Mehrabian's revised achievement scale from which 40 high and 40 low achievers were selected. The criterion for high achievers was once again set at 89, one standard deviation above the mean, whereas the criterion for low achievers was set at 21, one standard deviation below the mean. High and low achievers were randomly assigned to either an ahead or behind condition and told that performance was primarily determined by effort or ability. Thus, the design was a 2 x 2 x 2 (attribution manipulation x situation criticality x achievement disposition), with performance and attributions the major dependent variables. Task. The ball-tossing task was similar to the one used in the first study with the addition of a few adaptations. First, two targets were placed alongside each other, 4.5 m apart and 7.1 m away from the subjects. A partition separated the two throwing alleys and prevented subjects from gaining knowledge of results about their competitors' performance. Secondly, the targets were comprised of five rather than four concentric circles. This was done to make the situation criticality more salient by having subjects believe they were seven points ahead or behind the competitor as compared to five points ahead or behind the norms in the first experiment. Scoring was based on the following system: a bull's eye was worth 10 points, then 8, 6, 4, 2 points were given for hitting the target, and 1 point was awarded if the ball landed anywhere else on the posterboard. Procedure Upon entering the laboratory, subjects were introduced to the task and told they would compete simultaneously against each other for two sets of 10 throws. Furthermore, subjects were informed that they would receive qualitative feedback about how close they were to their competitor's performance after 10 throws. Subjects were given three practice throws to get a feel for the weight of the ball and the distance to the target, whereupon they performed their first block of 10 experimental throws. Following the completion of 10 throws, subjects were given the criticality manipulation (i.e., seven points ahead or behind opponent's score) and instructed to complete an attribution and expectancy questionnaire. Questions assessed four causal attributions of performance (ability, effort, luck, task difficulty), perceptions of opponent's ability as well as actual effort on the first 10 throws and intended effort on the second 10 throws using an 1 1-point Likert scale. In addition, to provide a manipulation check concerning criticality, subjects were asked to rate their expectancy of beating their opponent on this task from 0% definitely cannot to 100% definitely can. Subjects were then given additional information about the nature of the balltossing task. In fact, this information constituted the attribution manipulation and was intended to induce the subjects to attribute their performance to either ability or effort. Following the attributional instructions, the experimenter once again reminded the subjects of the criticality feedback, then subjects completed the last set of 10 throws. Prior to receiving feedback concerning their performance on the last 10 throws, subjects completed another attributional questionnaire. The four causal attributes (ability, effort, luck, task difficulty) were again assessed along with the amount of

8 ATTRIBUTIONS AND PERFORMANCE 53 positive and negative self-talk. Self-talk was assessed to provide some exploratory data about other cognitions mediating performance. In addition, subjects rated how hard they actually tried on the second 10 throws. After completing the questionnaire, subjects were given their performance scores for the final 10 throws and debriefed as to the nature of the experiment. Results and Discussion Manipulation Checks. To determine the degree of ego involvement, subjects reported the importance of doing well from 1 not important to 11 extremely important. The overall mean was 7.35 and the high achievers (M= 8.18) were significantly greater, F(1, 72)= 10.86, p <.01, than low achievers (M=6.53). The effect of the criticality manipulation was determined by asking subjects their expectation of scoring higher than their opponent (from 0% to 100%) after being told if they were ahead or behind. The ahead group reported a significantly higher expectation of success (M=70.23) than the behind group, (M= 53-00), F(l, 72) = 10.83, p<.01. Thus, the criticality manipulation seemed to significantly affect the subjects' perception that the task was more difficult when behind as compared with being ahead. In addition, subjects in the behind condition reported that their opponent had more ability, (M= 7.93), F(1, 72) = 6.47, p <.01, than subjects in the ahead condition (M= 6.70). Finally, subjects indicated that ability was the most important determinant of performance in the ability condition (p <.01), whereas effort was the most important determinant of performance in the effort condition (p <.01), thus demonstrating that the attributional instructions were internalized. Performance. The performance data were analyzed with a 2 x 2 x 2 (attributional manipulation x situation criticality x achievement level) ANCOVA with the first 10 trials serving as the covariate and the second 10 trials the dependent variable. Results produced a significant achievement main effect, F(l,71) = 4.32, p <.05, with high achievers exhibiting better performance than low achievers. The variance accounted for due to this effect was 2%. Results also indicated a significant, F(1, 71) = 19.75, p<.01, achievement level by situation criticality interaction. The effect resulted from the low achievement group (M= 35.8) scoring higher than the high achievement group (M=33.3) in the ahead condition, whereas in the behind condition the high achievement group (M=41.2) performed better than the low achievement group (M = 29.7). The variance accounted for due to this effect was 11 %. To determine if high achievers in the two experiments differed in their responses, a 2 x 2(situation criticality x attributional manipulation) ANCOVA was conducted on the performance scores of high achievers. Results indicated a significant criticality main effect, F(1, 72) = 6.93, p <.01, with high achievers performing better in the behind condition than the ahead condition. No significant differences, however, were found under ability vs effort instructions. A 2 x 2 x 2 (attributional manipulation x situation criticality x achievement level) MANOVA was used to analyze the degree of positive and negative self-talk the subjects reported while performing the task from 1 (never) to 11 (always). An achievement level main effect, F(2, 71) = 4.01, p <.02, was present with the high group greater in positive self-talk (M=8.13) and lower in negative self-talk (M= 3.45) than the low group (M= 6.75, M= 4.2). Causal Attributions. The subjects were asked two sets of causal attribution questions. The four questions elicited the subjects' responses to the importance of ability, effort, difficulty, and luck from 1 not important to 11 extremely important. The

9 Table 2-Performance Means in Experiment 2 Ahead Behind Effort Ability Effort Ability First 10 Second 10 First 10 Second 10 First 10 Second 10 First 10 Second 10 Achievement Throws Throws Throws Throws Throws Throws Throws Throws High Achievers O Low Achievers

10 ATTRIBUTIONS AND PERFORMANCE 55 questions were asked after the first performance and after the final performance. The data were analyzed by a 2 x 2 x 2 MANOVA. Results after the first 10 trials indicated an overall multivariate achievement effect, F(4, 69) = 6.04, p <.01, in which the only univariate difference was for the importance of effort, F(1, 72) = 63.01, p<.01, with the high group (M=9.4) greater than the low group (M=7.6). Discriminant function analysis also indicated that effort produced the most discrimination between achievement groups with a function of The second set of attributions asked after all performances were concluded had an overall instruction main effect, F(4.69) = 6.75, p <.01, with univariate differences for ability, F(1, 72) = 22.05, p<.01, and effort, F(l, 72) = 30.01, p<.01. Discriminant function analysis revealed that ability (.97) and effort (1.10) produced maximum discrimination between instruction groups. The ability group was higher on ability (8.45) and lower on effort (7.85) than the effort group (M= 7.4, M= 9.08, respectively). Perceived and Actual Effort. To test Kukla's theory about the relationship between perceived effort, actual effort, and subsequent performance, subjects were asked to rate how hard they tried on the first 10 trials as well as their anticipated and actual effort on the second block of 10 trials using an 11-point Likert scale. Results were analyzed by a 2 x 2 x 2 (attributional manipulation x situation criticality x achievement level) MANOVA employing the same factors as the previous analysis. Results indicated a significant achievement main effect, F(2, 71) = 5.70, p <.01. Univariate tests indicated a significant difference for intended effort, F(l, 72) = 9.45, p <.01, with high achievers (M= 9.8) intending to try harder on the second 10 throws than low achievers (M= 8.05). In addition, high achievers (M= 10.86) reported that they actually tried harder on the second 10 throws than low achievers, (M= 8.70), F(l, 72) = 10.86, p <.01. No significant differences were found for effort on the first 10 throws. Discriminant function analysis supported the univariate results, with intended effort (.47) and actual effort on the second 10 throws (.99) producing the most discrimination between achievement groups. In summary, performance results from Experiment 2 indicate a significant achievement by criticality interaction, supporting Kukla's hypothesis about the influence of perceived task difficulty on performance (Kukla, 1972a, 1974). consistent with past research investigating perceived task difficulty on a cognitive task (Kukla, 1974), high achievers performed best when they perceived themselves to be behind their opponent midway through the experiment, whereas low achievers performed best when they perceived themselves to be ahead. In addition, the criticality manipulation check revealed that subjects who were behind after the first block of 10 throws perceived their opponent to have more ability and reported having lower expectancies of success than those subjects who were ahead after 10 throws. Thus, it seems the motivation of high and low achievers remains latent until aroused by situational cues. General Discussion One purpose of the present investigation was to examine the effect of attributional instructions on subsequent performance on a competitive motor task. Contrary to earlier research involving cognitive tasks (Chapin & Dyck, 1976; Kukla, 1972b), the attributional manipulation in the present study yielded conflicting results. For example, performance results from Experiment 1 supported Kukla's research in that at-

11 56 YUKELSON, WEINBERG, WEST, AND JACKSON tributional instructions were shown to significantly affect the performance of high achievers on a competitive motor task (Kukla, 1972b). More specifically, high achievers performed best when they were led to attribute their performance to effort rather than ability. Results from the postexperimental attribution questionnaire revealed that high achievers intended to try harder and reported that they actually did try harder when receiving effort instructions. In Experiment 2, low as well as high achievers were added to the experimental design. It had been expected that high achievers would perform better than low achievers under an effort orientation, because Kukla (1972b) has shown that high and low achievers were differentially affected by attributional instructions. Although the attributional manipulation check revealed that subjects internalized the instructions correctly, a significant instruction by achievement motivation interaction was not obtained. A possible explanation may be attributed to the potency of the face-toface competition. The subjects may have found the criticality feedback and the nature of the face-to-face competition in Experiment 2 to be more salient than the attributional instructions, thus depressing the effects due to the attributional manipulation. A second purpose of the present investigation was to determine the effects of perceived task difficulty (i.e., situation criticality) on attribution and subsequent performance. Kukla has argued that high and low achievers diverge in their perception of task difficulty (Kukla, 1972a, 1974) depending on the situation. Specifically, because high achievers perceive themselves to be high in ability and believe that effort and performance outcome co-vary (Kukla, 1974), it was expected that when the task was perceived to be difficult, high achievers would intend to expend a substantial amount of effort to succeed, whereas low achievers would conclude that success is beyond their capacity and would not bother to try hard. Conversely, if the task was perceived to be easy, it was expected that low achievers would believe success is within their capacity and continue to perform well, whereas high achievers would decide that little effort is needed to ensure success. In this study, high achievers performed best when they perceived themselves to be behind a standard of excellence or behind an opponent. Furthermore, when low achievers were added to the study, it was found that they performed best when they perceived themselves to be ahead of their opponent midway through the experiment. Thus, performance results from the present investigation support Kukla's notion that high achievers perform best when the task is perceived to be difficult, whereas low achievers perform best when the task is perceived to be easy. Although the performance data fit nicely into Kukla's predictions, only minimal support was obtained for the proposed mediating role of intended and actual effort in determining performance. The attribution questionnaire administered at the end of Experiment 1 revealed that subjects who were behind intended to try harder than subjects who were tied or ahead. In Experiment 2, however, neither of the perceived effort variables (intended or actual effort) were found to co-vary with changed in performance. One possible explanation for these results is that subjects may have considerable difficulty reporting on their higher order mental processes. For example, Nisbett and Wilson (1977) have argued that subjects may not be aware of the appropriate cognitive response to stimuli which has been initiated by experimental manipulations and which is presumed to influence behavior. Therefore, it may be an extremely difficult task for subjects to assess on-going cognitive processes such as intended effort midway through the experiment.

12 ATTRIBUTIONS AND PERFORMANCE 57 In summary, the results of the present investigation provide support for the effects of attributional instructions and perceived task difficulty on subsequent performance, although minimal support was found for the proposed mediating role of intended and actual effort in mediating performance. Future research in sports settings should continue to focus on identifying the relationship between attributions and subsequent behavior rather than merely identifying what kinds of attributions individuals and teams make after winning and losing. If the attribution-performance link can be identified in competitive settings, then sport psychologists can begin to provide coaches and physical educators with attributional change programs that enhance long-term achievement of athletes. References Atkinson, J.W. An introduction to motivation. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand, Chapin, M., & Dyck, D.B. Persistance in children's reading behavior as a function of Nlength and attribution retraining. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1976, 85, Cronbach, L.J., & Furby, L. How should we measure "changeh-or should we? Psychological Bulletin, 1970, 74, Heider, F. The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley, Kelley, H.H. Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation. Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press, Kukla, A. Foundations of an attributional theory of performance. Psychological Review, 1972, 79, (a) Kukla, A. Attributional determinants of achievement related behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 21, (b) Kukla, A. Performance as a function of resultant achievement motivation (perceived ability) and perceived difficulty. Journal of Research in Personality, 1974, 7, Kukla, A. An attributional theory of choice. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 1 I). New York: Academic Press, Lowe, R.H. A new look at the relationship between arousal and performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Mehrabian, A. A questionnaire measure of individual differences in achieving tendency. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1978, 38, Nisbett, R.E., & Wilson, T.D. Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 1977, 84, Roberts, G.C. Win-loss causal attributions of little league players. Mouvement: Proceedings of the 7th Canadian Psycho-Motor Learning and Sports Psychology Symposium, 1975, 7, Scanlan, T.K. The effects of success-failure on the perception of threat in a competitive situation. Research Quarterly, 1977, 48, Wankel, L. A new energy source for sport psychology research: Toward a conversion from D-C (drive conceptualizations) to A-C (attribution cognitions). Psychology of Sport and Motor Behavior 11, 1975, p Weinberg, R.S., & Ragan, J. Motor performance under three levels of trait anxiety and stress. Journal of Motor Behavior, 1978, 10, Weiner, B. Achievement motivation and attribution theory. New Jersey: General Learning Press, Weiner, B., & Sierad, J. Misattribution for failure and enhancement of achievement strivings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 31, West, S.G., & Wicklund, R.A. An attributional model of achievement motivation. A primer of social psychological theories. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1980.