/96-6_files/96-600001im.jpg" width="718" height="1022" useMap="#Map">

Sport Psychology (PSY407)

Lesson 06

CAUSAL ATTRIBUTIONS IN COMPETITIVE SITUATIONS

A competitive situation is defined as one in which participants expect that their performance will be evaluated

by others in some way. It is an opportunity to compete with others for some internal or external reward.

Regarding the internal and external dimensions of attributions, several lines of research have evolved. In this

lecture we will be looking at two concepts: Locus of causality, and the covariation principle.

Locus of Causality

Previously called locus of control, locus of causality is the extent to which people believe they are responsible

for their behavioral outcomes. To avoid confusion between the terms locus of control and controllability, locus

of control dimension is renamed as the "locus of causality". Locus of causality can be of two types; internal

locus of causality, and external locus of causality. People with internal locus of causality tend to believe their

behaviors influence outcomes. They believe that they are responsible for the outcome and view themselves as in

control of their destiny. While those with an external locus of causality, tend to attribute outcomes to outside

forces such as fate, chance, and other people. They believe that their outcome is dependent on external sources

and so they see themselves at the mercy of the external events.

Perhaps the person most responsible for developing the conceptual framework for the locus of causality was

Julian B. Rotter. Rotter (1966) developed the 29-items Internal-External Locus of Control Scale to measure the

extent to which people believe they possess some control over their lives. Rotter (1971) stated the following

generalities about locus of causality: (1) children coming from a lower socioeconomic environment tend to be

external, (2) children tend to become more internal with age, and (3) highly external people feel they are at the

mercy of their environment and are continually being manipulated by outside forces.

While it is not appropriate for human beings to always give internal attributions to outcomes, research makes it

clear that in the sports environment it is better to have an internal as opposed to external locus of causality.

Research suggests that an internal orientation is more mature than an external orientation.

A study noted that gymnastic coaches typically rank-order their gymnasts from poorest to best for gymnastic

meets, on the theory that judges expect scores to improve as the meet progresses. The results showed that

judges who themselves had an internal locus of control were uninfluenced by order. Conversely, judges who had

external locus of control were influenced by order. This suggests that the judges who had an internal orientation

were able to overcome the order bias and judge solely on the basis of performance.

Even though an internal locus of causality appears to be preferable to an external locus of causality, this should

not be construed to mean that all external attributions are immature. Sometimes external attributions are

appropriate and expected. For example, it would be completely normal for athletes to blame defeat on poor

officiating if their team had been called for twice as many fouls as the other team.

Covariation Principle

A person's attributions for success or failure can be predicted on the basis of the performance of others

on the same task. This phenomenon has been named the covariation principle. According to this

principle, when the performance of others agrees with the performance of the participants, attributions

will be external. If the performance of others disagrees with the performance of participant, attributions

will be internal. For example, if I beat someone in tennis whom everyone else has lost to, I will certainly

attribute my victory to an internal cause such as superior ability. Conversely, if I defeat someone in

tennis everyone else has defeated, it is very likely that I will attribute my success to an external cause

such as my opponents' low ability. When your performance agrees with the performance of others,

your attributions are likely to be external in nature (e.g., task difficulty or luck). Conversely, when your

/96-6_files/96-600002im.jpg" width="718" height="1022" useMap="#Map">

Sport Psychology (PSY407)

performance disagrees with the performance of others, your attributions are likely to be internal in

nature (e.g., ability or effort).

Perceived Causality and Emotional Response

Emotional response to athletic outcomes occurs on two different levels; attribution free, and attribution

dependent. At the initial or primitive level, emotional responses are said to be attribution free. This

initial emotional response is given before the athlete had a chance to consider the cause of the outcome.

The initial response of an athlete to success is generally happiness of joy. The initial response of an

athlete to failure is generally disappointment or sadness.

At the second level, emotional response arise in direct response to causal attributions as to why the

outcome occurred. These emotions are attribution dependent, and are said to be distinct and separate

from the initial attribution-free emotional response. Theses attribution-dependent emotions reveal a

great deal about how the athlete feels about why the outcome occurred.

The affect-attribution relationship provides the sport psychologist with an excellent tool for

understanding the cognitions and thoughts of the athlete. Attributions are primarily linked to the

emotions of anger, gratitude, guilt, pity, shame pride, self confidence and competence. Failure that is

linked to personal controllability results in the emotions of shame, guilt, and perhaps depression.

Conversely, success that is linked to personal controllability results in the emotions of pride, self

confidence and competence.

Stability dimensions are linked to feelings of hopefulness or hopelessness. If you lose and attribute the

cause to something that is not going to change (stable cause) then hopelessness, or the feeling that

failure will continue , is the expected affective response. Conversely, if you win and attribute the cause

to a stable attribution, the expected emotional response is hopefulness, or the expectation that you will

continue to win. On the other hand, if an athlete loses but attributes the cause to something that is

unstable and can change, for example, not enough effort, then he can be hopeful that things will be

different next time with a little more effort. But if an athlete wins but attributes the cause to something

unstable, such as good luck, then the expected affect is uncertainty.

The kinds of attributions that young athletes make in response to success and failure are closely linked

to their feelings of self-esteem and self-confidence and suffering. Individuals suffering from low esteem

are more likely than individuals high in self-esteem to internalize a failure and respond with negative

affect.

Expectancy and Attribution

A hopeful individual has expectations that future contests will result in success, whereas a hopeless

individual has expectations that future contests will result in another defeat or failure. This has been

proven in the medical field too, as a hopeful patient suffering from a mental/physical disease has better

chance of recovering faster or surviving longer than a hopeless patient. Given that attributions are

linked to emotions and that emotions are linked to cognitions, we can see the critical importance of

attributions for athletic outcomes.

Learned Helplessness

Learned helplessness is a situation where an individual thinks that he has no control over the situation

and just gives up. This concept was developed by Seligman (1995) and he defines learned helplessness

in terms of the phrase "giving up without even trying". It is caused by the perception that one has no control

over his failures, and that failure is inevitable.

/96-6_files/96-600003im.jpg" width="718" height="1022" useMap="#Map">

Sport Psychology (PSY407)

Research done on children shows that "learned helpless" children who show a deterioration of performance

under the threat of failure tend to attribute their failure to stable factors such as lack of ability. Conversely,

"learned helpless" children who show enhanced performance under the threat of failure tend to choose unstable

factors such as luck or lack of effort. Attributing success to stable factors suggests to the child that success is a

realistic expectation for the future. On the other hand, attributing failure to a stable factor suggests to the child

that failure is a realistic expectation for the future.

Attributional Training

Research with attributional training has clearly shown that planned interventions can alter ways that an athlete

perceives outcome, as well as alter actual performance. A functional attribution strategy is one in which athletes

are taught to explain the causes of a failure outcome as being controllable and unstable. A dysfunctional

attribution strategy is one in which athletes are taught to explain the cause of a failure outcome as being

uncontrollable and stable. Research with children suggests that attributional training can positively influence a

child's future expectations and performance.

Attributional training can also be effective with adults, although not as effective as it is with children. Adults

respond well to attributional training as long as their perceived competence is not too low. Athletes with

maladaptive attributional patterns give failure attributions that are more internal, stable, uncontrollable, and

global than those of the nonmaladaptive athletes.

To help athletes choose suitable attributions, the following steps are recommended:

Record and classify attributions that athletes make to successful and unsuccessful outcomes

For each outcome, discuss with the athlete causes or attributions that might lead to a greater

expectancy for success and increased effort.

Provide an attributional training program for athletes who consistently give attributions that lead to

negative implications for the future outcomes.

For best results, combine planned goal setting with attributional training.

References

Cox, H. Richard. (2002). Sport Psychology: Concepts and Applications. (Fifth Edition). New York: McGraw-

Hill Companies

Lavallec. D., Kremer, J., Moran, A., & Williams. M. (2004) Sports Psychology: Contemporary Themes. New

York: Palgrave Macmillan Publishers