Achievement 203and men’s performance would influence the
attributions made. This model is shown in
Figure 6.10. The first part of the model states
that we attribute behavior to stable and inter-
nal causes if it matches our expectancy (i.e., a
person fails whom we expect to fail or a per-
son succeeds whom we expect to succeed;
Weiner et al., 1971). Thus, if we expect men
to perform well on masculine tasks, we should
attribute their success to ability; similarly, if
we expect women to perform well on femi-
nine tasks, we should attribute their success to
ability. In addition, if we expect women to fail
at masculine tasks, we should attribute their
failure to lack of ability. The second part of the
model states that if a behavior violates our ex-
pectations, we attribute it to unstable causes.
Thus, if we expect women to fail at a mascu-
line task, we should attribute their success to
effort and good luck. If we expect men to suc-
ceed at a masculine task, we should attribute
their failure to lack of effort and bad luck. This
model strongly suggests that the nature of
the task should influence the attributions we
make for men’s and women’s performance.
Many of the attribution studies were
conducted 25 years ago. Not all of the more
recent studies have supported this pattern
of sex differences in attributions for per-
formance. A meta-analysis found no sex of
perceiver differences in attributions, mean-
ing that women and men tended to make
the same attributions for other women’s and
men’s performance (Swim & Sanna, 1996).
However, perceivers made different attribu-
tions on some tasks, in particular masculine
tasks (e.g., those involving math abilities).
On masculine tasks, perceivers attributed
women’s success to effort and men’s success
to ability. Thus, perceivers are attributing
men’s success to a stable cause and women’s
success to an unstable cause, implying that
men’s success is more likely than women’s toacross time and situations. In the context of
performance (as shown in Figure 6.9), an in-
ternal, stable attribution would be your ability
or lack thereof. An internal, unstable attribu-
tion would be how much effort you put into
the task, presumably by studying. An exter-
nal, stable attribution would be the difficulty
of the test, an unchangeable, inherent char-
acteristic of the task. An external, unstable
attribution would be luck or some transient
environmental factor, such as the weather.
The locus of causality dimension has
implications for self-esteem. An internal attri-
bution for failure (I am stupid) will decrease
self-esteem, whereas an internal attribution
for success (I am a brain) will increase self-
esteem. An external attribution for failure will
preserve self-esteem (It wasn’t my fault that
my computer crashed), whereas an external
attribution for success does not confer any
self-esteem. (The teacher must not have been
paying attention when she graded my essay.)
The stability dimension has implica-
tions for persistence. An unstable attribution
for failure (I did not study) may lead us to try
harder or to try to change the environment.
A stable attribution for failure (I do not have
the ability) may lead us to give up. A stable
attribution for success (The teacher is an easy
grader) will encourage us to continue with
the behavior or to keep the environment the
same (e.g., don’t switch teachers). An unsta-
ble attribution for success (The teacher didn’t
have her glasses on) merely tells you that the
performance may not be repeated, so you will
need to continue to exert the same level of
effort or keep the environmental conditions
the same (e.g., hide the teacher’s glasses).Sex Comparisons. Do women and men
differ in their attributions for success and fail-
ure? In 1984, Kay Deaux developed a model
of how people’s expectancies about women’sM06_HELG0185_04_SE_C06.indd 203 6/21/11 8:10 AM