UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The role of cognitive attributions of causality in the maintenance of conflict negotiation behavior Harper, Brian R. 1989

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1989_A1 H37.pdf [ 9.2MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0076859.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0076859-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0076859-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0076859-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0076859-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0076859-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0076859-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0076859-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0076859.ris

Full Text

THE ROLE OF COGNITIVE ATTRIBUTIONS OF CAUSALITY IN THE MAINTENANCE OF CONFLICT NEGOTIATION BEHAVIOR by BRIAN R. HARPER M.Sc. E a s t e r n Washington State U n i v e r s i t y , 1973  A THESIS SUBMITTED  IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF  THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Interdisciplinary ( C l i n i c a l Psychology, Commerce, C o u n s e l l i n g We accept  Psychology)  t h i s t h e s i s as conforming  to the r e q u i r e d  standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April  ©  1989  B r i a n R. Harper, 1989  In  presenting  degree freely  this  thesis  in partial  fulfilment of the requirements for an  at the University  of British  Columbia, I agree that  available for reference and study. I further agree that  copying  of this  department publication  or  thesis by  of this  for scholarly  his or  thesis for financial  of  The University of British 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date  r»F-Af*/A-n  QfJ  0  Columbia  m?  may  her representatives.  permission.  Department  purposes  gain  shall  the Library shall permission  be granted  not be allowed  that  make it  for extensive  by the head  It is understood  advanced  of  my  copying  or  without my  written  DISSERTATION ABSTRACT The Role" of C o g n i t i v e A t t r i b u t i o n s of C a u s a l i t y i n the Maintenance of C o n f l i c t N e g o t i a t i o n Behavior by B r i a n R. Harper I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y Ph.D. Candidate U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1988 This  study  was  based  upon  the  i n d i v i d u a l performance e x p e c t a t i o n s , and  actual  performance  m a i n t e n a n c e and during  t r a i n i n g . It  management  skill  negotiation (designed  compared  interact  of  the  and  to  performance  relative  t r a i n i n g program  skills  thesis  a t t r i b u t i o n s of  outcome  generalization  general  causality  affect  demonstrated  included  and  components  t r a i n i n g only.  "General Performance O r i e n t a t i o n " , a hypothesized comprising  a t t r i b u t i o n , was  and  iv)  measured locus  prediction  operationally defined  i ) success - i n t e r n a l ; internal;  "efficacy"  of  to i n c l u d e  cognitive  and  causal  four  levels:  i i ) success - e x t e r n a l ; i i i ) f a i l u r e -  failure  -  external.  c o n t r o l and  required  A  questionnaire  respondents to  which predict  t h e i r success or f a i l u r e on a h y p o t h e t i c a l n e g o t i a t i o n task distributed program  at  volunteers groups  a  a l l students  in  an  administrative  t e c h n i c a l t r a i n i n g school.  from  training  then  as  no  classified  subjects  and  into  four three  subjects  were  empty  were  hundred  with an e x t e r n a l c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n ) . Equal numbers of group  was  population  management  success  each  cell  this  One  was  predicted  from  (one  to  a  causal a t t r i b u t i o n s )  with a s i m i l a r program t h a t i n c l u d e d s k i l l  structure,  of  specific  structuring"  to a f f e c t both e x p e c t a t i o n s  the  effectiveness  which  "attribution  that  randomly  programs. During the  assigned  course of  to  each  of  the  t r a i n i n g a l l subjects  engaged i n a simulated  n e g o t i a t i o n task  task q u e s t i o n n a i r e which ( i i ) assessed  ( i ) measured t h e i r  performance  in  s i m u l a t i o n task was weeks  after  performance tp  be  completed  a  l o c u s of  post-  control;  t h e i r e v a l u a t i o n and a t t r i b u t i o n of c a u s a l i t y f o r  t h e i r performance on the task; and their  and  a  similar  repeated  completion  of  (iii)  asked them t o p r e d i c t  future  situation.  i n a "non-training setting" the  training  program.  on the p o s t - t r a i n i n g s i m u l a t i o n  a f f e c t e d by  expectations,  an  type  causal  attribution  during  training.  interaction  of  training  employed The  The  between  task  experienced,  and  explaining  their  in  Subjects' was  initial  four  expected  performance the  type  of  performance  r e l a t i o n s h i p s among measured  locus  of  c o n t r o l , performance e x p e c t a t i o n s , and c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s were investigated:  i) prior  actual  of performance  cause  to  performance,  i i ) in  reference  e f f e c t i v e n e s s , and  to  i i i ) post-  performance . Analysis  of  scores  f o l l o w i n g completion training the  group  on  the  negotiation  of t r a i n i n g r e v e a l e d t h a t the  scores were s i g n i f i c a n t l y  traditional  task  training  group.  There  higher  was  not  four  weeks  experimental  than those a  of  significant  d i f f e r e n c e between group scores on the n e g o t i a t i o n task a t the final  training  session.  The  hypothesized  interaction  attributions,  and  relationship  among  performance  between  performance was not  data were a l s o s u p p o r t i v e  locus  supported.  locus  of  expectations. of  control  control, The and  of the causal  hypothesized successful  Table of Contents  ABSTRACT LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES ACKNOWLEDGMENT CHAPTER 1  i i v i i ix X  BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION  TO THE PROBLEM  GENERALIZATION AND MAINTENANCE OF CHANGE BEHAVIOR CHANGE AS SOCIAL INFLUENCE CAUSAL ATTRIBUTION AND BEHAVIOR MAINTENANCE Dimensions of Causal A t t r i b u t i o n s THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STABILITY AND LOCUS OF CAUSAL ATTRIBUTIONS CHAPTER 2  LITERATURE REVIEW AND DEVELOPMENT OF HYPOTHESES  1 5 7 9 9 12 16  SOCIAL INFLUENCE AND GENERALIZATION 16 LOCUS OF CONTROL AND CAUSAL ATTRIBUTION 19 COGNITIVE STRUCTURES AND COGNITIVE PROCESSES 24 LOCUS OF CONTROL, CAUSAL ATTRIBUTIONS, AND PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS 29 COGNITIVE SCHEMATA, PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS, AND SITUATION TYPOLOGY 35 ATTRIBUTION STRUCTURING, GENERALIZED CHANGE AND RECIPROCAL CAUSALITY 39 ATTRIBUTION STRUCTURING AND MANAGEMENT SKILL TRAINING ... 43 DEVELOPMENT OF HYPOTHESES 44 HYPOTHESES 47 Hypothesis l a 47 Hypothesis l b 47 Hypothesis I l a 48 Hypothesis l i b 48 Hypothesis I I I 49 Hypothesis IV 49 Hypothesis V 50 Hypothesis V i a 51 Hypothesis VIb 51 Hypothesis VII 51 Hypothesis V I I I 52  iv  CHAPTER 3  METHODOLOGY  53  TREATMENT CONDITIONS T r a d i t i o n a l T r a i n i n g Program Experimental T r a i n i n g Program P r e s e n t a t i o n of T r a i n i n g Programs SUBJECTS INSTRUMENTS Simulated N e g o t i a t i o n Task Adapted I.A.R. Q u e s t i o n n a i r e PROCEDURES DESIGN DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Data P r e p a r a t i o n Preliminary Analysis Main Analyses CHAPTER 4  RESULTS  73  HYPOTHESES I TO I I I AND V I I I Hypotheses l a and Ib Hypotheses I l a and l i b Hypothesis I I I Hypothesis V I I I HYPOTHESES IV TO VII Hypothesis IV Hypothesis V Hypotheses V i a and VIb Hypothesis VII CHAPTER 5  55 55 56 57 58 59 59 61 65 68 70 70 70 71  DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS  73 73 77 78 82 85 85 87 88 90 93  DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS RELATED TO HYPOTHESES I TO I I I AND V I I I 93 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS RELATED TO HYPOTHESES IV TO V I I . . 101 THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG LOCUS, OF CAUSAL ATTTRIBUTION, STABILITY, AND PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION 105 A MODEL OF THE RECIPROCAL CAUSALITY RELATIONSHIPS AMONG LOCUS OF CONTROL, CAUSAL ATTRIBUTIONS, AND PERFORMANCE 107 1  CHAPTER 6  SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS  IMPLICATIONS FOR BEHAVIOR CHANGE PROGRAMS IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORIES OF BEHAVIOR CHANGE  v  112 115 117  IMPLICATIONS FOR ATTRIBUTION THEORY Causal A t t r i b u t i o n and Expectancy The Process of Causal A t t r i b u t i o n LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Methodology Behavior Change Programs Theory  118 118 121 123 125 125 126 126  REFERENCES  128  APPENDIX  1  TRAINING PROGRAMS  150  APPENDIX  2  SIMULATED NEGOTIATION TASK  196  APPENDIX  3  NEGOTIATION STYLE SURVEY INCLUDING I. A. R. QUESTIONNAIRE  APPENDIX  4  FIGURES AND TABLES  vi  ADAPTED 211 226  L i s t of Tables 1  Comparison S t a t i s t i c s of Adapted I.A.R  63  2  2 x 3 x 2 Repeated Task Scores  74  3 4  Measures ANOVA of N e g o t i a t i o n  Dependent Measures t - t e s t of TI and T2 N e g o t i a t i o n Task Scores of E x p e r i m e n t a l T r a i n i n g Group Subjects  76  Dependent Measures t - t e s t of TI and T2 N e g o t i a t i o n Task Scores of T r a d i t i o n a l T r a i n i n g Group S u b j e c t s  76  5  2 x 2 ANOVA of T2 N e g o t i a t i o n Task Scores  78  6  Repeated Measures ANOVA of S u b j e c t s ' Causal A t t r i b u t i o n s  80  7  ANOVA Adapted I.A.R. Scores by Treatment  83  8  Dependent Measures t - t e s t of E x p e r i m e n t a l T r a i n i n g Group TI and T2 Adapted I.A.R. Scores Dependent Measures t - t e s t of T r a d i t i o n a l T r a i n i n g Group TI and T2 Adapted I.A.R. Scores  85  Mean Locus of C o n t r o l Scores f o r Subjects Employing I n t e r n a l and E x t e r n a l P r e d i c t i v e A t t r i b u t i o n s  86  Adapted I.A.R. Locus of C o n t r o l - Locus of Causal A t t r i b u t i o n Frequency Table .•  88  MANOVA and U n i v a r i a t e A n a l y s e s : Adapted I.A.R. Success and F a i l u r e Subscale f o r Subjects P r e d i c t i n g Success and F a i l u r e  89  Mean Adapted I.A.R. Subscale Scores f o r Success and F a i l u r e P r e d i c t o n  90  ANOVA of N e g o t i a t i o n Task Scores (T2) by Adapted I.A.R. Subscale Ratings  91  ANOVA of N e g o t i a t i o n Task Scores (T2) by Adapted I.A.R. T o t a l Score  92  Repeated Measures ANOVA N e g o t i a t i o n Task Scores of Subjects P r e d i c t i n g F a i l u r e  95  Dependent Measures t - t e s t of TI and T2 N e g o t i a t i o n Task Scores of T r a d i t i o n a l T r a i n i n g Group Subjects Predicting Failure  97  9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17  vii  84  18  19 20 21 22  Dependent Measures t - t e s t of T l and T2 N e g o t i a t i o n Task Scores of Experimental T r a i n i n g Group Subjects Predicting Failure • • • • T l and T2 N e g o t i a t i o n Task Performance of Predicting Failure  Subjects  T l and T2 N e g o t i a t i o n Task Performance of P r e d i c t i n g Success  Subjects  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Male and Female Subjects Treatment Groups  99 100 by  Repeated Measures ANOVA I n s t r u c t o r s by Treatment  viii  227 227  97  L i s t of F i g u r e s 1  Two Dimensional Model of C a u s a l i t y  11  2  P o s s i b l e B e h a v i o r a l Outcome - A t t r i b u t i o n Type Classification  13  3  H i e r a r c h y of Schemata and Locus of A t t r i b u t e d C a u s a l i t y  27  4  Dimensions of Causal A t t r i b u t i o n s and Expectancy  29  5  S i t u a t i o n Typology and Performance E x p e c t a t i o n s  37  6  Model Of R e l a t i o n s h i p s Among E x p e c t a t i o n s , Performance, and A t t r i b u t i o n Model Of E f f e c t of C o g n i t i v e A t t r i b u t i o n R e s t r u c t u r i n g  40  7  on E x p e c t a t i o n - P e r f o r m a n c e - A t t r i b u t i o n  R e l a t i o n s h i p . . . 46  8  Repeated Measures F a c t o r i a l Design  9  Mean N e g o t i a t i o n Task Scores f o r T r a i n i n g Groups at T l and T2 P r o p o r t i o n of I n t e r n a l Causal A t t r i b u t i o n s a t N e g o t i a t i o n Task Performance 1 & 2  10 11 12 13 14 15  69 75 81  Mean I.A.R. Scores f o r T r a i n i n g Groups Pre-treatment and Post-treatment  84  Mean N e g o t i a t i o n Task Scores f o r T r a i n i n g Groups at T l and T2 f o r Subjects P r e d i c t i n g F a i l u r e  96  R e c i p r o c a l R e l a t i o n s h i p Among Expectancy A t t r i b u t i o n - Performance  I l l  Experimental Group: P r e d i c t i o n - A t t r i b u t i o n Performance P a t t e r n  228  T r a d i t i o n a l Group: P r e d i c t i o n - A t t r i b u t i o n Performance P a t t e r n  229  ix  ACKNOWLEDGMENT A  dissertation  invariably reflects  a s s i s t a n c e of a number of i n d i v i d u a l s . committee  have  been  extremely  t h e i n f l u e n c e and  A l l the members of the  supportive  unwavering  support,  chairperson,  Dr. Stephen Marks, have p l a y e d  only its  i n determining very  support inputs project  the present  existence.  I have  o f my f r i e n d were  Matt,  Finally, who  have  Naegeli,  development  "that  in  whose  of t h i s  throughout i t s  this  of Andi, beast  l i v e " , have c o n t r i b u t e d t o a l l phases of t h i s p r o j e c t .  x  but  g r e a t l y from the  and support  much  of the  document,  t o "be t h e r e "  the a s s i s t a n c e  The  a major r o l e , not  Daniel  i n the i n i t i a l  sacrificed  advice  benefited  and " b r o t h e r " ,  instrumental  and  form of t h i s  also  and who has continued  gestation. and  encouragement,  and h e l p f u l .  Toby might  CHAPTER 1  BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM  Behavior  change i s not the e x c l u s i v e domain of any s i n g l e  professional  discipline.  counselling  and c l i n i c a l  consultants, individuals  among  of  teachers,  p s y c h o l o g i s t s , and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l  others.  specialize  upon the uniqueness  I t i s the s p e c i a l i t y  I t i s common  within  however,  a particular  field,  they  of t h a t area and i n the process  some of t h e • e x p e r t i s e of r e l a t e d d i s c i p l i n e s . perhaps most e v i d e n t a t the a p p l i e d l e v e l  the u n d e r l y i n g t h e o r e t i c a l  as  focus  sacrifice  T h i s tendency i s  where c o n c e n t r a t i o n  upon s p e c i f i c techniques o f t e n d i v e r t s p r a c t i t i o n e r s ' from  that  p e r s p e c t i v e from  attention  which  their  p a r t i c u l a r techniques are d e r i v e d . P r a c t i t i o n e r s tend t o ignore many i s s u e s which are c e n t r a l t o theory, but o n l y p e r i p h e r a l t o application. One factors  such  environmental some  behavior  issue  of human behavior.  variously,  or  underlying  as  being  concerns  the major  Human behavior  determined  by  determining  has been p e r c e i v e d , inherent  traits,  events, i n t r a p s y c h i c events, c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s ,  combination  of these  i s internally  factors.  The  extent  t o which  ( c o n s c i o u s l y or unconsciously)  e x t e r n a l l y c o n t r o l l e d has been a major t h e o r e t i c a l growing out of and c o n t r i b u t i n g t o these  1  or  controversy  v a r i o u s views.  It i s  perhaps not s u r p r i s i n g t h a t p r a c t i t i o n e r s have tended t o a v o i d this  issue  since  i t s history  has been  one  of  divisiveness  amongst t h e o r i s t s f o r some time ( A l k e r , 1972; Baars, 1986; Bern, 1972a; E p s t e i n , Rachlin,  1986; Knapp & Robertson,  1977a,  1977b,  1986;  Skinner,  theoretical  exchanges  especially  to the p r a c t i t i o n e r ,  heuristic applied 237)  may  possibilities  perspective.  1986; M i s c h e l ,  appear  of l i t t l e this  of examining  The problem  1977).  immediate  does  this  While  1968; such value,  not negate the  same  issue  i s , as Meichenbaum  from an (1975, p.  has suggested, "... we have been seduced i n t o a r g u i n g the  either  - or p o s i t i o n  objective  which  rather  i s an  than  increased  focusing  upon our r e a l  understanding  of  human  behavior. The of  rigidly  behavior  c o n t r o l l e d procedures  control  which  have  been  and impressive provided  examples  by numerous  experimental and c l i n i c a l  i n v e s t i g a t i o n s i n the area of operant  learning  1968; Baer, 1962; F e r s t e r  (Ayllon & Azrin,  1957;  Lindsley,  1965;  Skinner,  demonstrated  1956; Lovass, 1953; S t u a r t ,  that  manipulation  1966; M i l l e r , 1969) have  1951;  rather  of environmental  & Skinner, Premack,  convincingly v a r i a b l e s can  have a very powerful e f f e c t on the behavior of a wide of  populations.  clear for  that  such  This  evidence  manipulation  a l l the v a r i a b i l i t y  factors  are also  highly  "radical  behaviorist",  interest  i n various  notwithstanding, does  i n human  s a l i e n t , while  i s clearly  cognitive  attested  elements 2  i t i s equally  not s a t i s f a c t o r i l y behavior. an  That  account internal  anathema  t o by  evident  variety  a  to a  renewed  i n the work of  an  ever  increasing  decades, 1974,  number of  (e.g., Beck, 1976,  1981,  1985;  investigators  1985;  Mahoney, 1977,  Kanfer, 1985;  over  1977,  the  past  1984;  two  Kendler,  Meichenbaum, 1974,  1979,  1985) . The emergence of t h i s v i t a l of  c l i n i c a l psychology  (e.g.,  Ledwidge,  Rachlin,  has not o c c u r r e d without  1978,  1977a,  1979;  1977b,  fundamental r e j e c t i o n  psychology  &  1977;  tend  Epstein,  to  principles,  unconscious  1981).  from  a  are  of  to  on  such  a  view,  differentiate  fundamentally  Arieti,  1986;  1979;  Suedfeld,  d e r i v e d from 1980;  continued  versus  to  external  1971;  Wyer,  1985;  1968;  Holzman  Rogers, 1959;  focus "causes"  on  the  of  1980;  1974, or &  two  behavior  on  (Neimeyer  however,  often  cognitive  and  as  Information  Lachman, Lachman, 1980;  1981),  ego,  Palmer from  theories  Gardiner,  &  those (e.g.,  1959,  1960;  Wylie, 1974). Controversy  relative  behavior.  3  of  a m o t i v a t i o n a l , such  & Mothersill,  psychodynamic  Frankl,  K l e i n & Fontance, has  Neufeld  the  history  those  1979,  Butterfield,  a  "mentalism".  the o t h e r "  P r o c e s s i n g Models (e.g., Hamilton  models  as  abandoning  stressed overt  mentalism  Adoption  failure  which  that  K e l l e y , 1967)  Kinchi,  1986;  it  s u r p r i s i n g when the  A t t r i b u t i o n Theory (Heider, 1958;  &  view  i n f a v o r of a re-emergent  perspectives  hand and  approaches  who  some d e t r a c t o r s  can be p e r c e i v e d of as having being dominated by  Neimeyer,  results  1986 )  i s perhaps not  "...theoretical the one  Skinner,  of s c i e n t i f i c  " s c i e n c e " of psychology Such a r e a c t i o n  "cognitive - b e h a v i o r a l school"  merits  This  of  internal  controversy  has  commonly behavior  been is a  environmental However,  as  resolved result factors  Bandura  of  by  the  an  interaction  (e.g.,  adoption  Endler,  (1978)  has  views are t y p i c a l l y accompanied  of  of  1973;  the  both  view  personal  Schwitter,  suggested,  such  by methodologies  that and  1986).  interaction  which  reflect  an u n i d i r e c t i o n a l c a u s a l approach t o b e h a v i o r .  E x p l a n a t i o n s of human b e h a v i o r have g e n e r a l l y been couched i n terms of a l i m i t e d s e t o f determinants. Exponents of e n v i r o n m e n t a l determinism s t u d y and theorize about how behavior is controlled by situational i n f l u e n c e s . Those f a v o r i n g p e r s o n a l determinism seek the causes of human behavior in dispositional sources... Interactionists a t t e m p t t o accommodate b o t h s i t u a t i o n a l and d i s p o s i t i o n a l f a c t o r s . . . However these views of i n t e r a c t i o n and the accompanying methodologies essentially retain a unidirectional orientation toward behavior. (Bandura, 1978, p. 344-345). This  underlying  practitioner's  split  c h o i c e and  P r a c t i t i o n e r s who  is  implicitly  implementation  environmental events b e l i e v i n g behavior.  Their  focus t h e i r procedures processes.  While  of  in  the  methodologies.  f a v o r the primacy of environmental f a c t o r s i n  c o n t r o l l i n g behavior attempt t o c o n t r o l  altering  present  on  and manipulate  t h a t such events are the key t o  more  internally  the  individual's  o n l y t h e most  radical  oriented internal advocate  approach would t o t a l l y d i s m i s s the other, each, a p a r t i c u l a r s e t of v a r i a b l e s ,  colleagues cognitive of  either  i n emphasizing  tends t o negate the value of the  other t o a secondary or s u p p o r t i v e r o l e .  4  external  Bandura  suggests  reciprocal  that  interaction  environmental v a r i a b l e s i s t r u e , the  choice  Modification)  or  behavior among  behavioral,  (Bandura,  of e i t h e r an  internal  is actually a  cognitive,  1977a, 1982,  1984).  environmental  (Cognitive)  function  (e.g.,  approach  to  If  of and  this  Behavior behavior  change r e s u l t s i n the e x c l u s i o n of v a r i a b l e s " i n a p p r o p r i a t e " to the methodology of choice which are n e v e r t h e l e s s to behavior.  Many c o n t e m p o r a r y  developed procedures which are original  model  approaches  (Bandura  Craighead,  Dzurilla,  1988;  Hagerman,  1981;  advantage  Wilson,  Schunk,  1982;  1981;  Golding  termed  Dobson,  Kendall,  1983;  major  application oriented  of  issue  surrounding  the  Beck,  &  Kanfer,  which  to  -  behavioral"  Shaw & Emery, Victor,  1977;  Meichenbaum,  & Charbonneau-Powis,  Bandura's  methodological  Rush,  Jacobson  Kanfer 1977,  Reynolds 1983;  1988; &  1985;  &  Wolpe,  Stark, 1981;  1985).  MAINTENANCE OF CHANGE has  been  cognitive, behavioral,  approaches  both  Rehm & Rokke, 1988;  GENERALIZATION AND  with  "cognitive  1984;  Wolpe, Lunde, McNally & Schotte,  One  of  1981;  Jacobson,  McMullen & G i l e s , 1983;  &  p r a c t i t i o n e r s have  more c o n s i s t e n t  i n what have been  therapies 1979;  taking  clinical  highly salient  behavior  central and  change  r e l a t i o n s h i p between  in  the  clinical  cognitive-behavioral i s the and  behavioral  upon the  cognitions  of the i n d i v i d u a l assume t h a t a l t e r a t i o n of i n t e r n a l  cognitions  change. P r a c t i t i o n e r s who  i s primary i n producing  cognitive  controversy  advocate a focus  subsequent behavior 5  change. T h e i r more  behaviorally stressing in  oriented  the primary  producing  that  c o l l e a g u e s argue role  behavior  shows  of  opposite  view,  e x t e r n a l contingency management  change. The  verbalized  f o r the  lack  cognitive  of c o n v i n c i n g evidence  changes  to  be  reliably  a s s o c i a t e d w i t h subsequent  change i n s p e c i f i c behavior has been  cited  by  (Bandura,  1964;  Kanfer,  numerous authors 1977;  Rachman, 1971;  Lazarus, 1961;  Risely,  1969,  1977a;  P a u l , 1966;  Fairweather,  R a c h l i n , 1977a;  1977).  C o g n i t i v e t h e o r i s t s , w h i l e g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t i n g the of  b e h a v i o r a l procedures  behaviors  in highly  efforts  focused  manipulations approach  in altering  controlled  solely  are  less  specifically  situations,  upon  effective.  argue  environmental Changes  1974;  McFall,  unenduring to the  the  change  contingency  resulting  from  this  are l i k e l y t o d i s a p p e a r q u i t e r a p i d l y when contingency  c o n t r o l l e d environment  &  defined  that  c o n t r o l i s r e l a x e d , or when the changee leaves the  Hall,  efficacy  Jeffery, 1974  (Beck & Rush, 1978; 1974;  Locke,  Rosenthal,  1978;  change i s o f t e n viewed  "clinical"  1979;  environment  Ellis,  artificially 1962;  Hall  Mahoney, 1974;  Rush  & Beck,  r a t h e r than  a  Marston  1977).  as being a temporary "real"  &  Such  response change i n  individual. The  change  issue  of  reciprocally  causal factors  investigation.  behavior  result  must  present  of  t h e s i s i s t h a t behavior change programs, i f they are to change,  the  maintenance  major  enduring  to  and  The  in  i s central  generalization  specifically identified 6  by  address Bandura  a l l of (1977b).  the It  i s suggested  t h a t behavior change programs of any type, whether  they are l a b e l e d therapy, e d u c a t i o n , t r a i n i n g or whatever, w i l l b e n e f i t by d e v e l o p i n g methodologies both  the  internal  and  external  which, e x p l i c i t l y ,  sources  address  contributing  to  the  behavior v a r i a n c e i n t h e i r t a r g e t p o p u l a t i o n s .  BEHAVIOR CHANGE AS  SOCIAL INFLUENCE  Behavior change programs, r e g a r d l e s s of t h e i r behavioral individual  methodological or  individual  group  or  group.  conceptualize (1958, 1974)  to  bias,  are  in  fact  i n f l u e n c e the It  may,  attempts  behavior  therefore,  change m e t h o d o l o g i e s  c o g n i t i v e or  be  in relation  by  of  another  useful to  one  to  Kelman's  model of the s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e p r o c e s s .  Kelman s t r e s s e d the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the type of change which occurs and about.  Behavior  external  the process which i s employed change  environmental  "compliance"  by  which  results  reinforcement  from  relationship  the  alteration  contingencies  Kelman. Change r e s u l t i n g  "self-defining"  in bringing i t  with  from  an  others  is  of  labeled  individual's is  called  " i d e n t i f i c a t i o n " , while change which r e s u l t s from the s u p p l y i n g of  new  c o g n i t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n which  individual's  existing  "internalization".  "belief  Compliance  reinforcement  i s integrated into  system" results  referred  from  contingencies  of  contingencies  f o r i t s maintenance. I n t e r n a l i z a t i o n  7  and  is  to  changes  requires s t a b i l i t y  in  the as in the  r e q u i r e s no  such s t a b i l i t y  i n the e x t e r n a l c o n t i n g e n c i e s of r e i n f o r c e m e n t .  I n d i v i d u a l s are able t o The  relationship  "internalization"  s e l f - r e i n f o r c e changes of t h i s  between  Kelman's  terms  "compliance"  and the i s s u e of g e n e r a l i z a t i o n  change h i g h l i g h t e d above seems obvious.  type and  of behavior  H i s d e s c r i p t i o n of the  a l t e r n a t i v e e x t e r n a l power sources a s s o c i a t e d w i t h each type of change  i s closely  related  t o the c o n t r o v e r s y  r e l a t i v e m e r i t s of a b e h a v i o r a l versus external  change  approach  ( s u p p l y i n g expert  which w i l l  agent.  I t might  beyond  the s p e c i f i c  ignore  the importance  the  changee.  "expert".  actual  situation.  manipulating  This  assumption  of the i n t e r n a l  would  from  only  be e x p e c t e d  on  the  The i n t e r n a l  to occur  of  that  when t h e  t h e . change  t o occur  c o g n i t i v e processes  clinicians  and about  agent.  i f the s u b j e c t or external  of a t t r i b u t i o n  i n determining the type of change  occurs.  individuals' beliefs employed  however  description  " e x p e r t i s e " t o the i n f o r m a t i o n source  ultimately  behavioral  would  of the i n f o r m a t i o n s u p p l i e d as  part  are t h e r e f o r e a key v a r i a b l e which  environmental  c o g n i t i v e processes of  Kelman's  I n t e r n a l i z a t i o n would o n l y be expected  change agent.  i n change  T h i s p e r c e p t i o n may w e l l be u n r e l a t e d t o any  expertise  attributes  a cognitive  i n change which would not be maintained  changee p e r c e i v e s the v a l i d i t y being  that  i n f o r m a t i o n ) would r e s u l t  It i s clear  internalization  c o g n i t i v e focus by the  be assumed  be g e n e r a l i z e d w h i l e  v a r i a b l e s would r e s u l t  surrounding the  The  upon  focus  o f many  the important  role  cognitiveplayed  by  about the v a l i d i t y of the model of change the cause 8  of change  in their  behavior i n  determining  the  e f f e c t i v e n e s s of  importance of t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p 1977;  Kanfer  & S c h e f t , 1987;  therapy  i s supportive  of  the  (e.g., Bandura, Adams & Bayer,  Meichenbaum, 1985;  Sonne & J a n o f f ,  1982).  CAUSAL ATTRIBUTION AND  Attribution "cognitively"  Theory process  BEHAVIOR MAINTENANCE  maintains  that  perceptual  data  individuals from  attempt  their  external  environment i n t o meaningful c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s (Heider, Kelley,  1967,  (1976),  this  1971). A c c o r d i n g process  scientist,  obtaining  surroundings  and  consequences Kidd,  of  1976,  ongoing  employ  a  an  Harvey,  to  from  events"  (1965,  similar  "acting  the  procedure  and g i v e meaning to t h e i r own  Kidd, like  in  a  social  causes  (Harvey,  1972b)  1958;  and  his/her  determine  behavioral Bern  Ickes  individual  information  trying  preface).  individuals understand  involves  to  to  and  Ickes,  suggested  &  that  attempting  to  behavior.  Dimensions of Causal A t t r i b u t i o n s Rotter  (1966) has  identified  generalized tendencies  i n d i v i d u a l s to employ e i t h e r e x t e r n a l or  internal  of  own  causality  generalized the  in  reference  tendency  individual's  or  to  "locus  perceptions  9  their  of  control"  regarding  in  attributions  behavior. i s developed contingencies  This from of  reinforcement describes  i n the  the  early  years  of  life.  Lefcourt  (1976)  process:  I t i s not simply r e g i s t e r i n g of success or f a i l u r e experience t h a t i s p e r t i n e n t to the generalized e x p e c t a n c y of i n t e r n a l versus external control, but rather i t is the interpretation of the cause of these experiences. ( L e f c o u r t , 1976, p. 28)  Thus  i t may  concerning external  be  i n d i v i d u a l s ' a t t r i b u t i o n s of  changes i n t h e i r own induction  source  behavior r a t h e r than the  (Kelman,  1958)  that  are  f a c t o r s i n determining whether such change i s due or to i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n .  That  the  factors,  cause  to  external  causality  i s , i f the the  the  actual crucial  to compliance  individual attributes  change  will  be  due  to  compliance, and  i f the change i s a t t r i b u t e d t o i n t e r n a l f a c t o r s  it  to i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n . I t i s c r u c i a l  will  be  consider if  the  due  t h i s a t t r i b u t i o n process  goal  i n designing  In  order  to  understand  theory.  more  clearly  that  the  construct  the  into  locus  i s perhaps not  initially  described  questioned  the  by  generality  Rotter. of  locus  of  control  quite A  so  number of  demonstrated t h a t locus of c o n t r o l may 10  of  relationship  l e a r n i n g , one  locus of c o n t r o l i n r e l a t i o n  Investigations  independent  acquired.  between a t t r i b u t i o n of c a u s a l i t y and findings regarding  to  change programs  i s to b r i n g about changes which are  the environment i n which they were  therefore  must examine  to a t t r i b u t i o n have  suggested  straightforward of  control.  writers It  has  as  have been  not be c o n s i s t e n t f o r an  individual differ  in  success  and  in the  a l l situations.  For  locus  a t t r i b u t i o n s ' they  of  failure  Mischel,  Zeiss,  that the  categories  causal  (Crandall,  & Zeiss,  1974;  individuals 1979,  actually  1980a, 1985,  Rosenbaum,  1971;  Katcorsky,  suggested  employ.  Weiner  Weiner,  Heckenhauser, 1976;  attributions  Thus they were able  be  attribution four  this  regarding  Kukla, Meyer,  &  Cook,  involve  both  &  1972;  "stable"  or  table  and  internal in  demonstrating  performance (see F i g u r e  1).  Causality  personality  effort luck  difficulty  model,  s p e c i f i c event  11  (Weiner,  Reed, Rest,  Variable  categories.  appears  1  classification a  1965;  a t t r i b u t i o n s that  (Weiner Employing  for  sufficient  Fixed  task  may  Weiner, R u s s e l & Lerman,  Dimensional Model of  External  are not  colleagues  t o employ a 2x2  Figure  Internal  employ  Crandall,  either external  f o u r types of a t t r i b u t i o n r e g a r d i n g  Two  and  Weiner, F r i e z e ,  " v a r i a b l e " f a c t o r s which may locus.  external  1986;  causal  &  types of c a u s a l  Weiner, Neirenberg & G o l d s t e i n , 1978)  individuals  Weiner, 1974a). I t a l s o  of i n t e r n a l and  to account adequately f o r the  example  may  et a  al.,  single  fall  into  1971) causal any  of  A t t r i b u t i o n of Cause 1. 2. 3. 4.  II II II II  Because Because Because Because  he i s s t u p i d " he worked hard" i t was d i f f i c u l t " the weather was good  When the above differences resulting  model  behavioral  t o success  provides  type  Internal-Fixed Internal-Variable External-Fixed External-Variable  II  classification  related  attribution  Category  system i s combined and  eight  failure possible  w h i c h may be employed  performance  (Figure  w i t h the  situations,  the  categories  following  a  2 ) . The a t t r i b u t i o n  single  may  depending upon the e v a l u a t i o n of the performance ( i . e . ,  of  vary  success  or f a i l u r e ) , the l o c u s of the f a c t o r  ( i n t e r n a l o r e x t e r n a l ) and  the  or v a r i a b l e ) .  stability  of the f a c t o r  (fixed  Under  this  e i g h t category model there a r e now two a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r each of the f o u r examples p r o v i d e d  earlier.  THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STABILITY AND LOCUS OF CAUSAL ATTRIBUTIONS AND PERFORMANCE  Weiner and h i s c o l l e a g u e s . have stability  dimension of c a u s a l  importance performance Meyer, Weiner,  i n determining  contended t h a t  attributions  expectations  (Weiner, 1980a, 1985, 1986;  & Cook, Russel  1972; Weiner, & Lerman,  that  Neirenberg  1978). Numerous  12  i t is  the  i s of major  regarding  future  Weiner, Heckenhauser, &  Goldstein,  investigators  1976; have  Figure 2  Possible  Behavioral  Outcome - A t t r i b u t i o n  BEHAVIORAL  OUTCOME  Type  Classification  CAUSAL ATTRIBUTION  •>FIXED -> INTERNAL -> VARIABLE ->SUCCESS 'FIXED •^EXTERNAL >VARIABLE BEHAVIOR •FIXED -> INTERNAL • -> VARIABLE -> FAILURE •FIXED -» EXTERNAL VARIABLE  13  A t t r i b u t i o n of Cause 1. la. 2. 2a. 3 3a. 4. 4a.  "Because "Because "Because "Because "Because "Because "Because "Because  Category  he i s smart" he i s s t u p i d " he worked hard" he d i d n ' t work hard enough" i t was easy" i t was d i f f i c u l t " the weather was good" the weather was bad"  S-internal-fixed F-internal-fixed S-internal-variable F-internal-variable S-external-fixed F-external-fixed S-external-variable F-external-variable S=Success F=Failure  found  that  causes  subjects  have  attributing failure  significantly  greater  to i n t e r n a l variable  expectations  success and e x h i b i t performance i n the f u t u r e to  that  fixed  displayed  causal  by those who  factors  (Anderson  importance  behavior,  and locus  by M i s c h e l ,  i s superior  attribute failure  to internal  &  Jennings,  attributed efforts"  of the r e l a t i o n s h i p  1980; Andrews  among  performance, demonstrated  (1974) who found t h a t success,  when  t o i n t e r n a l f a c t o r s , was p r e d i c t i v e of " p e r s i s t e n t in  performance  situations,  performance a t t r i b u t e d t o e x t e r n a l "avoidance  &  1982).  of a t t r i b u t e d cause has been  Z e i s s and Z e i s s  future  that  Debus, 1978; Jennings, 1980; Wilson & L i n v i l l e , The  of  behaviors".  A  similar  while  causal study  unsuccessful  factors  resulted i n  by Dweck  and Repucci  (1973) found t h a t i n t e r n a l i t y f o r f a i l u r e was " c l o s e l y a k i n " t o externality  i n i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o subsequent  investigations  link  performance  outcome w i t h  a t t r i b u t e d cause i n the d e t e r m i n a t i o n doing  so, they  are c l o s e l y  related 14  behavior. the locus  Such of  of f u t u r e performance. In t o work  of Abrahamson,  Seligman,  and  helplessness",  Teasdale  (1978)  and numerous  both  Hardy, & Howells,  employing  "learned Bandura's  control  performance  i n determining  (Bandura,  Adams,  1980; Biram & Wilson, 1981; Winberg, Gould, &  u n d e r l y i n g premise  of t h i s  change programs are examples (Kelman  1974) and t h a t  behavior  affected  type of c a u s a l  influence  study  i s that  behavior  of a " s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e "  maintenance  by t h i s process  process  and g e n e r a l i z a t i o n  are c l o s e l y  related  of  t o the  a t t r i b u t i o n s employed by the changee. T h e r e f o r e ,  inclusion  change  of  1979).  The  the  area  who have p r o v i d e d evidence of  of i n t e r n a l l y a t t r i b u t e d  e x p e c t a t i o n s and f u t u r e  Jackson,  the  investigators  (1977b) " s e l f - e f f i c a c y " c o n s t r u c t the importance  in  of s p e c i f i c procedures  the c o g n i t i v e  programs  designed  d i r e c t l y to  a t t r i b u t i o n process of p a r t i c i p a n t s i n  should  have  a  significant  impact  on t h e  endurance of t h e i r behavior. This  study  attribution  was designed, t o examine  structuring  generalization  of  procedures  performance.  the r o l e  of  cognitive  i n t h e m a i n t e n a n c e and I t was  focused  as  investigation  effectiveness  of an experimental t r a i n i n g program i n improving of performance  the r e l a t i o n s h i p s among a number of f a c t o r s causal  attributions  mediate performance  evaluating  an  exploratory  the maintenance and g e n e r a l i z a t i o n  upon  intended  and performance  and examining  (locus  expectancy)  maintenance and g e n e r a l i z a t i o n .  15  the  of c o n t r o l , believed  to  CHAPTER 2  LITERATURE REVIEW AND  In  the p r e v i o u s chapter  pertinent  several  t o the present study.  literature  relevant  present  conceptual  a  enduring, for  DEVELOPMENT OF HYPOTHESES  behavior  to  This  each  of  model  of  change,  themes were i d e n t i f i e d as  and  chapter w i l l  these the  investigative  process  establish  a  generalized,  set  of  hypotheses  GENERALIZATION  The p a r a l l e l between the g e n e r a l i z a t i o n behavior  and  Kelman's  i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n was compliance  and  the  processes  above.  factors  i n bringing  controlling  the  and maintenance of of  compliance  In Kelman's model the  i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n include  Kelman's d e s c r i p t i o n external  (1958)  noted  the processes i n v o l v e d  a description  about  and terms  of  both  the change i n behavior  behavior  of c o n t r o l l i n g f a c t o r s  after  acquisition.  -- compliance:  the  demands of a s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n , and i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n :  a person's  value system  internal-external that  of  threads,  investigation.  SOCIAL INFLUENCE AND  and  examine the  the  (Kelman, 1961,  controversy  internalized  presented  change  maintained  beyond the  acquired.  Raven (1974) has a l s o  internalization  are  contingency  closely 16  p.  57)  —  earlier  should  r e f l e c t s the and  suggests  generalize  environment indicated  that  related  to  and  i n which  i t was  compliance the  be  issue  and of  generalizability  of  change  investigation.  He  internalization correspondence  can  which  suggested  be  that  perceived  independent  as  to  the  present  compliance  having  a  continuum (Raven, 1974,  J u s t as the f a c t o r s c o n t r o l l i n g the  central  one  and to  one  w i t h the extremes of an environment dependent -  environmental  reflect  is  behavior  p.  177).  i n Kelman's model  i n t e r n a l - e x t e r n a l dichotomy d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r ,  descriptions  of  the processes  his  i n v o l v e d i n b r i n g i n g about  each  of these types of change are c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o the c o n t r o v e r s y regarding Chapter  c o g n i t i v e and  1.  Kelman  b e h a v i o r a l methodologies  (1974) and  Raven & K r u g l a n s k i , 1970)  have  others  (French  s t r e s s e d the  &  i n b r i n g i n g about change.  bring  and  compliance produces  rewards  changes,  punishment  while  internalized  the  power  change.  is of  Raven,  importance  e x t e r n a l power source about  described i n  seen  The  1959; of  power t o  as  initiating  "expert"  information  According  to  this  model,  s u p p l y i n g an i n d i v i d u a l w i t h "expert" i n f o r m a t i o n should i n behavior  change which  which i t f i r s t It  has  cognitive  i s independent  been  suggested  processes than  determining  the  of  the  however,  the power source type  Layton,  of  internal  c o g n i t i v e processes of  may  of  environment i n  Raven  control  and  certain  be  the  change w h i c h  &  locus  1974).  that  individual  Schopler  the  of' the  result  occurs.  more c r u c i a l  regarding  the  e q u a l l y or  has  change  in  (Raven,  1974;  suggested  that  specifically  over  even  i n d u c t i o n agent  occurs  (1974)  internal  are  attributions more  crucial  than  the  actual  compliance More adopted  external  power  recently,  many  a s i m i l a r approach and  cognitive-behavioral  his associates  order t o f a c i l i t a t e  Meichenbaum  &  Genest,  client's belief  relatively  et  These  the  changes  Jacobson,  1984;  closely,  i n both  i n d e t e r m i n i n g the  the  processes  description clinicians will nor  of do  do  occur  Kanfer,  1984).  the  "identification" not  assume  automatically result that  controlling  necessarily  in  result  that  Changes of e i t h e r type may  The  by  being  therapy.  Meichenbaum  therapists  i s upon  D'zurilla,  foci  g o a l s and  attaining  1988;  correspond  the them,  very  description to  of  Kelman's  "internalization".  These  s u p p l y i n g "expert i n f o r m a t i o n "  i n environmental  independent  change,  reinforcement  i n environmental  dependent  occur independently of the 18  the  objective  outcome of  1985;  c o n t i n g e n c i e s of  solely  Turk,  as b e i n g r e s p o n s i b l e f o r  These  and  in  conceptualization  identified  (Beck,  identified  involved  of  that  i s d e s c r i b e d as  cognitive-behavioral  which  stress  therapist.  g e t t i n g c l i e n t s t o p e r c e i v e themselves any  importance  "reconceptualization"  authors  major focus of therapy other  For example,  (Meichenbaum, 1985;  reconceptualization  unimportant  a l . and  i n therapy  to  have  r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the c l i e n t  1983).  concern  the  A second  the  i n and acceptance of t h i s new  primary of  stress  the development of a  of the p r e s e n t i n g problem  validity  whether  clinicians  t o b e h a v i o r a l change.  establishing a "collaborative"  of  i n determining  or i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n o c c u r s .  Meichenbaum  are  source  will  change. external  change  induction  procedure  depending  upon  the  "beliefs"  and  c o g n i t i v e a t t r i b u t i o n s of c a u s a l i t y employed by the changee.  LOCUS OF CONTROL AND  The  construct  considerable 1974;  locus  of  controversy  Rotter,  1975;  CAUSAL ATTRIBUTION  control  (Phares,  Williams  &  has  1973;  Stack,  tends to focus upon a " t r a i t " versus  been  the  Reid  &  1972).  source  Ware,  The  1973,  controversy  " s t a t e " d i s p u t e not u n l i k e  the i n t e r n a l - e x t e r n a l c o n t r o v e r s y d e s c r i b e d i n Chapter 1. focus  also  tends  to  evoke an  e i t h e r / o r approach  a t t e n t i o n from the primary g o a l of understanding An  i n d i v i d u a l ' s measured  locus  depending upon performance success 1965;  Mischel  et  al. ,  1974;  find  a  significant  of  Weiner  et  construct  a l . , 1972;  Weiner  narrowly  defined  employing  &  investigations significant  results. employing  On  Kukla,  other  natural  relationships  addition,  of  control  Rotter's  1970).  e f f e c t i v e f u n c t i o n i n g (Gurin, Gurin, Lao,  and  1972;  Investigations  measures 1963)  such  as  have a l s o  had  settings  locus  to  original  hand, more b r o a d l y  social  between  19  In  (Heckhausen & Weiner,  behavioral  the  vary  have f a i l e d  locus  r e s i s t a n c e to e x t i n c t i o n ( B a t t l e & R o t t e r , disappointing  can  ( C r a n d a l l et a l . ,  his colleagues  performance expectancy which i s p r e d i c t e d by c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of the  behavior.  1974a).  r e l a t i o n s h i p between  This  distracting  control  or f a i l u r e  Weiner,  numerous s t u d i e s by Weiner and  of  of  have  control  & B e a t t i e , 1969;  based found and Lao,  1970;  Lefcourt,  Evans,  r e s u l t s are  Rotter's  original  of c o n t r o l  represent with  29  item  1963;  Seeman  measure  Therefore  Weiner  &  1966).  This  scale  construct  tendency  actions"  (1972,  actually  (Weiner,  1974a,  system,  rather  dimension.  tendency"  i s designed t o i n keeping  (Rotter  incorporates  1986),  that  the  two  the " l o c u s "  In W e i n e r ' s  classification  looking  belief"  in  et a l . ,  controlled  an  locus  separate  " c o n t r o l " from  as a "backward  tightly  control  dimensions.  a dimension which he (internal  -  system,  regarding  Weiner acknowledges  external)  "locus" i s the l o c a t i o n  i s d e f i n e d as the degree t o which a cause i s p e r c e i v e d c o n t r o l l a b l e by the a c t o r .  expanded  of  of the cause of an event which has a l r e a d y o c c u r r e d .  "Control" as being  (Weiner, 1980a,  p. 45) t h a t there may be some weaknesses i n t h i s system.  the  1972).  1980a,  suggested  than  system attempts t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e as  that  i t f o l l o w s t h a t i t s v a l i d i t y would be r e l a t e d  social  classification  defined  of the " g e n e r a l i z e d  of a g e n e r a l i z e d  l a b o r a t o r y manipulations  labeled  remains  a l a r g e number of c a t e g o r i e s of behavior  "broad  Weiner's  s e l f - r e p o r t inventory  (Rotter,  the conception  1961). to  Seeman,  not s u r p r i s i n g when one c o n s i d e r s  commonly employed  locus  1966;  1962).  These  most  1966; R o t t e r ,  S p e c i f i c a l l y , he r a i s e d doubts r e g a r d i n g  classification the degree of  independence which e x i s t s between locus and c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y and whether  o r not e x t e r n a l causes can ever r e a l l y be p e r c e i v e d as  being c o n t r o l l a b l e (pp. 45-47). 20  Weiner external,  suggested unstable,  grades and perceived that is  offered as  "task and  difficulty"  uncontrollable  "teacher b i a s "  external,  stable  and  the  u n s t a b l e but  l a t t e r two  seem  unlikely  either  c o n t r o l l a b l e by Weiner's  of  be  Tetlock  controversy upon  experimentally  in the  than s y s t e m a t i c  since  an  these  classification  " c o n t r o l " and  a cause which  controllable.  "might"  He  suggested  Weiner concedes  individual  system  is  would  causes  level  of  techniques, Peplau and  i t does actually  as  being  vulnerable  others  Theory  semantic  investigation  controlled  as  of  results  from  interpretation,  It  dimensions are not  necessarily  being  found  the  conceptually  internal  them  be  rather  that  also  locus.  c o n t r o l l a b l e i t must the  with  factors factor  non-orthogonal.  Weeks ( c i t e d i n Weiner, 1979)  and  and the  unrelated  control i s also unclear.  system to  in  its  defined  i s apparent  identified  classification but  to  (Renis, Hansen,  operationally  variables.  Meyer (.1978, 1980)  Weiner's  that  & L e v i , 1982), s u g g e s t i n g t h a t much of  Attribution  "locus"  also  (1982) and  argued t h a t f o r a f a c t o r to be  variable.  be  example of a cause which  attributed  r e l a t i o n s h i p between s t a b i l i t y and be  an  students'  as Weiner suggested a " c o n t r o l l a b l e " cause c o u l d  classified  could  of  of  him/herself.  & O'Leary, 1983;  dependence  example  c o n s i d e r e d suspect, and  that  c r i t i c i s m advanced by F e i d l e r  the  an  "cause"  controllable.  examples may  somewhat  perceive  in  as  "unusual help from o t h e r s " i s an  external,  as  be The It be  advanced analysis Michela,  Passer (1977) a l s o  employed  factor  support  analysis  techniques  f o r the existence  and f a i l e d  of the multitude  to provide  of  different  dimensions which have been i d e n t i f i e d . Weiner but at  (1980b) i d e n t i f i e d a f o u r t h  d i d not e x p l i c i t l y that  time.  include  In h i s 1986 e x p l i c a t i o n  as  closely related as  Experientially  generalization  of a  cause  g l o b a l i t y suggests that  "internality"  i n determining  since  global  across  causes must  factors  be e x p e c t e d  Stability description  associated  be p r e s e n t  across a l l  Very few e x t e r n a l  to exist  i n every  with  causal  situation  an  enters.  Globality Bandura's  i t i s defined  Weiner's  i t must be c l o s e l y  an i n d i v i d u a l e n t e r s .  individual  expectancy  situations.  over time.  s i t u a t i o n s that could  with  " g l o b a l i t y " would appear t o be  t o the s t a b i l i t y dimension s i n c e  r e f e r s t o such g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of  of h i s A t t r i b u t i o n a l  " g l o b a l i t y " i s combined  the key f a c t o r  (Weiner, 1986).  "Globality",  i t i n h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system  Theory of M o t i v a t i o n and Emotion, "stability"  dimension,  also  (1977b)  appears  t o be v e r y  "self-efficacy"  closely  construct.  related  to  Examples  of  g l o b a l i t y p r o v i d e d by Weiner (1980a) are i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e  from  common examples of s e l f - e f f i c a c y e v a l u a t i o n s . global  factor  attribution these stable"  i s lack  of i n t e l l i g e n c e  evidenced  f o r f a i l u r e : "I am dumb".  constructs  would  appear  An example of a  to f a l l  i n the c a u s a l  Furthermore, into  both of  the " i n t e r n a l -  category of Weiner's o r i g i n a l locus by s t a b i l i t y  of c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s  (Weiner, e t a l . , 1971).  model  In  summary,  the  intentionality, control  and  from  understanding  the  control  is  have  this  Support  unrelated  to  of  of viewing if  each  one  is  for  as  In  a  control  the  this  tendency or  involved  Causal in  reciprocal provides  of  representing  being  underlying control  causal  cognitive being  a  of  to  a  the  23  different  locus  by  the  be  of  a  of  a of  learned  cause  of  processes  occur.  The  processes  influenced  process  of  cognitive  and  control  as  locus  the  that  done  conceived  that  cognitive  events  of  instead  level  is  of  structures  locus  causal  can  underlying  the  for  been  attributions  a t t r i b u t i o n s being  causality.  not  of  contrary.  This  measure  an  are  between  influenced  locus  c o n t r o l and  control  the  and/or  has  t o the  of  causal  as  causality  structure  that  primary.  reflects  relating  relationship  c a u s a l i t y , and  i t i s suggested  attributions  assigning  for  and  understood  which  structure,  events .  locus  i n v e s t i g a t i o n locus  be  our  expectations  as  Specifically  best  enhance  i n d i v i d u a l s ' expectancy  process. can  of  "expectations"  other as  globality,  separation  to  (1986) c l a i m s  structure  response schema,  or  the  contention  performance  cognitive  cognitive  of  and  the  c o n t r i b u t i n g to  conceived  analysis. of  as  and  attributing  i s advantageous to view both  attributions  factors  little  process  demonstrated d e s p i t e Weiner's  It  the  done  process  between  "performance".  of  changeability,  locus of  relationship  addition  and  by  for  the locus  attributing  COGNITIVE STRUCTURES AND  Cognitive as  the  structures  "...existing  events".  They  which  defined  are  appraisals, follow p.  "processes" measure  of  this  while an  but 1983;  models  as  images  "thoughts, etc.)  that  (Meichenbaum,  perspective,  locus  of  "existing  control  postulated  the  different  "cognitive  c o n c e p t i o n s ) . . . about how produce  a  certain  According  to  particular  situations  will  be  Kelley  reached  kind  and  about  as  of  the  attributions  In  are as  a  effect a  interrelated, &  Robins,  an  internal  cognitive  i n d i v i d u a l s develop a number  effect"  a  1981  Turk & Speers, 1983).  c e r t a i n kinds of  different  Gruson,  (Goldfried  schemata",  of  and  &  They are  existence  schematic system, s u g g e s t i n g t h a t  accompany  c o n t r o l each r e p r e s e n t  c a t e g o r i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t phenomena Meichenbaum & Gilmore, 1984;  statements,  structure".  of  to  processes,  i s conceptualized  or  locus  (self  Butler,  1979)  meaning  cognitive  causal  model,  give  precede,  focus or l e v e l of a n a l y s i s .  Kelley  of  which  from  a t t r i b u t i o n of c a u s a l i t y and different  (following A v e r i l l ,  differentiated  behaviors"  From  defined  cognitive  .expectancies,  event  37).  are  are  COGNITIVE PROCESSES  result, of  subsequent i n v e s t i g a t o r s examining the  "..general  causes i n t e r a c t  (Kelley,  schema  cause  or  may  be  1972,  an  p.l).  activated  different event.  to  in  conclusions Numerous  a t t r i b u t i o n process have  provided  evidence  (Anderson, 1979;  that  supportive  of  &  Fulks,  others have suggested hierarchical  form  Social  1980;  Schwartz  t h a t such  (e.g.,  Meichenbaum & Gilmore,  &  Learning  1981;  Theory  Staats  responses  (Bandura  learning".  adaptive behaviors  responses.  1979)  and  organized  in a  Meichenbaum,  into a hierarchical  1985;  &  Walters,  That  is  In subsequent  1963;  Bandura, from  i s , a repertoire  the  system a  1977a).  "cumulative  of  associative  l e a r n e d as a h i e r a r c h y of situations  the  o p e r a t i o n of such  (1975) d e s c r i b e d b e h a v i o r as r e s u l t i n g  hierarchical or  Higgins,  c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of  p r o v i d e s a model f o r the o r g a n i z a t i o n and system  Reeder & Brewer,  s t r u c t u r e s are  Hastie,  contention  1984).  o r g a n i z a t i o n of p o t e n t i a l  schematic  this  1983a; Metalsky & Abrahamson, 1981;  Reeder  The  is  potential  dominant behavior  the h i e r a r c h y w i l l tend t o be produced, r e s u l t i n g i n a  in  response  p a t t e r n t h a t tends t o be constant a c r o s s s i t u a t i o n s .  However,  if  a  specific  be  produced.  that  behavior  situation,  a new  Thus, v a r i a t i o n s  proves  to  be  non-adaptive  in  behavior from the h i e r a r c h y w i l l between s p e c i f i c  situations  occur  along  with  c o n s i s t e n c y across s i t u a t i o n s . Rotter  (1954)  described  generalized  expectancies  individual's  familiarity  model  advanced  here,  such with  a  an  a  system  inverse as  relationship  locus  of  particular of  control  situation.  cognitive  conceived of as being o r g a n i z e d i n a h i e r a r c h i c a l locus of c o n t r o l  i s c o n c e p t u a l i z e d as being  between and In  schemata  an the is  f a s h i o n , and  a dominant  causal  schema  within  such a h i e r a r c h y .  Following  tendency t o employ i n t e r n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s dominant  i n an i n d i v i d u a l ' s  available  this  model,  of c a u s a l i t y c o u l d  hierarchy  and  highly nonspecific. situations w i l l an a l t e r n a t e The  i n situations  might r e f l e c t  This  which were n o v e l , o r  However, i t would a l s o be l i k e l y t h a t some  o f f e r s p e c i f i c cues which would tend t o e l i c i t  o r non-dominant  differences  be  therefore  tend t o be employed across a wide v a r i e t y of s i t u a t i o n s . would be e s p e c i a l l y l i k e l y  a  i n locus  causal  schema from the  of c o n t r o l  such a p r o c e s s .  f o r success  An example  hierarchy.  and  of t h i s  failure  relationship  i s presented i n F i g u r e 3. As are  indicated  i n Figure  3, when  absent, the i n d i v i d u a l ' s  his/her  attributed  information causal  schema  dominant  causality.  i s available, from  causal  When  however,  the  specific situational  schema determines  specific  The dominant (1958)  present  conceptual  cognitive contention  determined by h a b i t s internal  causal  relationship specific locus  schema that  of  locus  i s consistent  between  expectations,  a  Rotter's  generalized  and L e f c o u r t ' s  of c o n t r o l , i n i t i a l  of  with  attributions  of thought, K e l l e y ' s  schemata,  schemata,  with  his/her  of c o n t r o l .  model  causal  alternative  available  r e s u l t i n g i n an a t t r i b u t i o n which i s i n c o n s i s t e n t dominant schema o r measured locus  situational  i t can cue an  individual's  cues  control both are  as a  Heider's sometimes  (1972) d e s c r i p t i o n of  (1954)  description  expectancy and (1975) f i n d i n g s  of the  situation relating  e x p e c t a t i o n s and performance outcome.  More  recently  Abrahamson  Kelley  (1981) have  and M i c h e l a described  (1980) similar  and Metalsky  and  organizations  of  Figure 3 Hierarchy  of Schemata and Locus of A t t r i b u t e d  (COGNITIVE STRUCTURE) Cognitive Hierarchy of Schemata of C a u s a l i t y  Causality  (COGNITIVE PROCESS) S i t u a t i o n a l Cues  A t t r i b u t e d Locus of C a u s a l i t y  Absent  Dominant  Internal r locus of causality  > Internal  Present  External Alternate—»locus of causality  > External  The placement of i n t e r n a l locus of c a u s a l i t y as a dominant c a u s a l s t r u c t u r e or. schema i s f o r the purpose of i l l u s t r a t i o n only. For any given i n d i v i d u a l the r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n of dominancy could be reversed.  cognitive  schemata, w h i l e P y z s e z i n s k i  and G r e e n b e r g (1981)  found t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s employ " p r e - e x i s t i n g c a u s a l t h e o r i e s " i n explaining similar refers  unexpected  events.  r e l a t i o n s h i p between t o as an  Weiner  (1986) a l l u d e s  two c o g n i t i v e  "underlying  cognitive  27  variables  organization"  to a  which he and an  "activated  schema"  contention  that  accounted  for  cognitively  the by  also  "false  that  available"  than  others  of  the  that  p.  consensus  fact  s u p p o r t i v e of  indicated  1986,  the  (1973) d e s c r i p t i o n are  (Weiner,  certain and  heuristics  and  Ross'  attributional choices  Kahnmen  of  this position.  locus  72).  bias" are  is  "more  and  Tversky's  information  processing  Wong and  control  (1981)  were  Weiner  (1981)  most  common  the  h e u r i s t i c s employed i n " a t t r i b u t i o n a l s e a r c h " . Ruble used  in  this  different the  (1973),  employing  the  investigation,  factors  in  same  found  predicting  performance  that  future  individuals  behavior  degree of s i m i l a r i t y between present and  situations.  Ruble's  individuals' future  results  attributions  performance  affected  in  dissimilar  the  expectations  situations.  In Ruble's study when i n d i v i d u a l s a t t r i b u t e d  their  performance  whether these or  external  future  stable  causal in  similar  factors When  an  they  they  future  expected  situations as  considered  however,  the  the  influential  in  were p e r c e i v e d  situations,  c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n was future  factors  future  locus.  dissimilar  performance  causal  in  most  to  their repeat of  internal  performance locus  in  similar  regardless being  of  about  while  determining  of  was  "locus"  expectations  situations,  on  future  of  to  attributions  their  depending  (expected)  that  as  employ  "stability"  performance  their  indicate  measure  of  in  their  important f a c t o r i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e i r  performance e x p e c t a t i o n s .  28  LOCUS OF CONTROL. CAUSAL ATTRIBUTIONS. AND PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS  The  r e l a t i o n s h i p between the locus  of  causal  attributions  is  crucial  locus than  i n d e t e r m i n i n g performance  t o the present  contended t h a t  and s t a b i l i t y dimensions  investigation.  the r e l a t i o n s h i p  between  Weiner  internal  of c o n t r o l and performance e x p e c t a t i o n Rotter  argued  that  originally  suggested.  the s t a b l e - v a r i a b l e  more important  e x p e c t a t i o n s and t h e r e f o r e The  Weiner  individual completed  dimension  model  makes  future  indicates  important  others  has  of a t t r i b u t i o n s i s  orientation  (Figure  in affecting  4)  when  an  the cause  of a  stability  dimension  which  performance.  Figure  that  regarding  i t i s the  determines e x p e c t a t i o n s of f u t u r e  among  external  performance.  an a t t r i b u t i o n  performance,  (1974a)  and  i s less  Weiner  than i n t e r n a l - e x t e r n a l  expectations  Whether o r not  4  Dimensions of Causal A t t r i b u t i o n s  Stability  and Expectancy  •» Expectancy  Globality Causal A t t r i b u t i o n Control  »  Affect  Controllability (adapted from Weiner, 1986, p. 240)  29  the  causal  factor  i s seen  as being  stable  across  time  s i t u a t i o n i s the key t o whether i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l expect outcomes i n the f u t u r e . cause  i s viewed  as being o n l y p e r i p h e r a l l y  suggests  investigations  (1974  which  i f at a l l involved  have  a&b,  found  a  1986)  the s t a b i l i t y  stability control  dimension  has l i t t l e  dimension  on  that  previous  between the  by a f a i l u r e t o  of a t t r i b u t i o n s .  i s included, effect  outcomes.  relationship  locus dimension and expectancy were confounded consider  similar  In t h i s model, the l o c u s of p e r c e i v e d  i n d e t e r m i n i n g expectancy of f u t u r e performance Weiner  and  Weiner  When the  contends  expectancies  locus of  regarding  future  performance.  I find i t unfortunate that continue to discuss locus of r e l a t i o n t o expectancy of success to confound the i n t e r n a l aspects control with the v o l i t i o n a l dimensions of c a u s a l i t y . (Weiner,  Weiner  (1986),  i n summarizing  psychologists control i n and continue of p e r c e i v e d and stable 1974a, p. 61)  the l i t e r a t u r e  contrasting  what he c h a r a c t e r i z e s as the " S o c i a l L e a r n i n g Theory" in  which  "locus"  determinant position  of  of cause  i s viewed  expectation  i n which  and  "stability"  as  being  the primary  the " A t t r i b u t i o n  i s seen  as b e i n g  position  Theory"  paramount,  concluded t h a t support f o r the l a t t e r p o s i t i o n i s overwhelming. However, he does acknowledge numerous problems of many of the s t u d i e s to  pre-determine  reviewed.  In p a r t i c u l a r ,  the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n 30  i n the " q u a l i t y " the tendency  of p a r t i c u l a r  causes,  despite  the  fact  that  differently,  is  For  effort  example,  causal  factor  noted  Rosenbaum  he  constructing for  usually  has  was  meet  the  artificial.  as  actual  a  fact  be  address  third  on  as  a  "variable"  perceived  this  variable  is  by  some  that  while  which  of  in  kind  the  model,  likely  intentional  subjects  defined  the  to  are  to  called  attributions a l l three  of  person  they  appear  individuals  r e s u l t s to  rather in  than  conceived  as  investigators  the  subjects'  that  percept-  the  i s lucky",  "He  a  have  as u n s t a b l e f o r example, d e s p i t e many i n d i v i d u a l s as  to  have  "Luck"  For example: "She  the  variability  i d e n t i c a l to t h e i r own.  p e r c e i v e d by  was  attributions  choose between f a c t o r s  assume t h a t  who  to produce  these  that  rate  of  attribution  a t t r i b u t i o n rather  any  by  success-unstable-  which i s u s u a l l y At  he  addressing  o c c a s i o n . " While  factor.  difficulty  possible  the  would a t t r i b u t e the  of these f a c t o r s  stable factors.  them  investigations.  "stable-unintentional  i s much more  stable  w e l l be  classify  somewhat awkward p o s i t i o n  "blank  ability";  been p r e - c l a s s i f i e d and  both may  to  i n t o the  changes i n a b i l i t y  " e f f o r t " are  in  individuals,  follows:  unstable  continued to ask  ions  by  requirements  ' It  relatively  many  s i t u a t i o n : "subordinate's a b i l i t y  e f f o r t , an  any  a  example of  situations described in  of  forced  higher than u s u a l may  of  However i n d e s c r i b i n g  the  unintentional  i t might  employed  an  success"  weakness  well  typically classified  addition  be  might  "stable".  "intentionality".  variables,  is  a  (1973) attempted  the  which might  as  although  s u b j e c t s as being  suggesting  individuals  being  and fact  highly  i s lazy".  A this  second type  another  area  of concern  employ  attributions  persons'  variables  i s that  behavior  (Kun & Weiner,  many  i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of  and e x p e c t a t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g  as  dependent  1973; Rest,  and  independent  Nierenberg,  Weiner,  Heckhausen, 1973; Ruble, 1973; Weiner & Kukla, 1970). cases  where  artificial  1980;  own  behavior  nature of the s i t u a t i o n  attributions Engleken,  the i n d i v i d u a l ' s  make  and/or  interpretation  1981; Holtzworth,  Wong & Weiner,  1981).  In those  i s employed, the  the m a n i p u l a t i o n of  difficult  Munroe  &  (Foesterling  & Jacobson,  I t i s unclear  &  1985; Meyer,  i n these  studies  that s u b j e c t s a c t u a l l y b e l i e v e d the i n f o r m a t i o n s u p p l i e d by the experimenter  and/or  (Kanfer, 1977).  employed  data  attribution  process  For example, F r i e z e and Weiner (1971) s u p p l i e d  s u b j e c t s data on performance the  i t in their  outcome and asked them t o "imagine  p e r t a i n e d t o themselves".  Kukla  (1972)  instructed  s u b j e c t s t h a t outcome on a p a r t i c u l a r task was almost  entirely  dependent  on both  on e f f o r t ,  or a l t e r n a t i v e l y ,  was dependent  e f f o r t and a b i l i t y , but no attempt was made t o d i s c o v e r whether the s u b j e c t s a c t u a l l y b e l i e v e d these a t t r i b u t i o n s . results  indicate  that  attempts  to  naturally  occurring  they  overcome  focus  of i n t e r e s t  Gilovich,  this  by  there  have  employing  and s i m u l a t i o n s , most  in this  t o performance  investigation  & Matthews,  1982) .  32  1981; Meyer  &  more  between  which  (Anderson,  been  of these  d i r e c t l y w i t h the r e l a t i o n s h i p  in relation  1983; Brunson  While  difficulty  situations  have not been concerned locus and s t a b i l i t y  d i d not.  Indeed the  is  the  1983a; Koelbel,  A t h i r d p o s s i b l e problem area acknowledged by Weiner (1986) is  the perhaps  stability. causality while  seems  involve  research,  both  i t i s not  on  the  the  concerning expectations depended  these  can  Saxe  of  the  actual  control  and  attributions  of  I t may  occurring  process  1978,  that  role  be  they  dimension  behavior  of both  found  situations",  different  the  that  expectations  "similar in a  to  i n mediating  mediated  future  1986).  a hindrance  play  of  (Anderson,  Weiner,  (1973), f o r example,  interaction  be  'separated' f o r the purpose  Bar-Tal,  in  future  of  dimensions.  joint  Ruble  behavior  upon an  locus  - o r " q u e s t i o n may  stability  of  be  &  of  that  a naturally  future expectations. although  clear  "either  understanding  separation  of  combination  Greenberg,  Focusing our  It  this  1983a;  artificial  situation  stability  and  locus  dimensions. Weiner (1986) concludes t h a t the l a c k of r e c e n t r e s e a r c h i n t h i s area i s a p p r o p r i a t e s i n c e the q u e s t i o n as t o "... attributions and  and  causal  expectancy...  empirically". analysis  and  has  While the  stability been  he  t o expectancy  determined  acknowledges  d a t a " might  l e s s than enthusiasm"  relate  be  (Weiner,  1986,  both  that  looked  problems  His  comment i s meant to suggest t h a t  "with  this  r e g a r d i n g the unimportance with  experience and  this  "triviality",  so  something  i s not due  the  of locus are so l o g i c a l l y  obvious  Weiner  believes  as  to  seem  p e r c e i v e s these  and  "theoretical  w i t h the s t u d i e s t h a t have been i d e n t i f i e d he  change  logically  the  upon  p. 94)  the  whether  above.  findings  consistent  trivial. findings  to  Despite as  having  great import  due  to the f a c t  t h a t they are at a t v a r i a n c e w i t h  S o c i a l L e a r n i n g Theory p r e d i c t i o n s . while that  the  s t u d i e s he  the  stability  expectancy,  et  dimension  supportive is  of  important  his in  a l . , 1978;  1983a,  Ruble,  viewed as a 'triumph'  nor  should  clear  of " l o c u s " of  1986;  they  that  contention  do not p r o v i d e any  1983b; C l i f f o r d ,  1973)  here  determining  f o r the d i s m i s s a l of the importance  (e.g., Anderson  This  are  they have many f l a w s , and  justification cause  cites  I t i s suggested  Greenberg  necessarily  be  perspective  in  f o r A t t r i b u t i o n Theory.  investigation  was  undertaken  from  a  which l o c u s of c o n t r o l measures and c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n measures including separate  both but  stability  and  interdependent  locus  levels  are  of  seen  as  assessing  cognitive functioning.  C o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e s and c o g n i t i v e processes are both p e r c e i v e d as the  being  i n v o l v e d i n the  present  model  investigation  of  causal  situations, of the  the  two  determination  attributions  i t differed  Weiner's  In t h i s  causal a t t r i b u t i o n s  dimension  two  relating  study  to  would  play  a  both  While  dimensional performance  the  were viewed  determining performance e x p e c t a t i o n s . locus  expectancy.  from Weiner i n i t s view of the  dimensions.  l o c u s of  employed  of  I t was  major  import  stability  as  and  important  in  b e l i e v e d t h a t the  role  in  determining  e x p e c t a t i o n s i n s i t u a t i o n s t h a t are d e f i n e d i n " g e n e r a l "  (non-  specific  most  terms),  while  the  stability  important when more s p e c i f i c situation  was  available.  dimension  would  be  i n f o r m a t i o n about the performance  This relationship  f u l l y below. 34  i s d i s c u s s e d more  COGNITIVE SCHEMATA. PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS. AND SITUATION TYPOLOGY  Weiner and h i s c o l l e a g u e s model  of  causal  achievement control  "affective causal  i s viewed  attributions  between  situations.  t o performance,  Ruble  both  these  when  When  future  and  situations  findings  suggest  that  attribution  model  individuals'  attributions  may  a  prediction  of  relationship in  certain  dimension  situation  recently  are considered,  being  completed.  however,  he  d e s c r i b e d by Weiner. t h e need  and expectancy performance vary  to  determinant  the l o c u s  for a  d i f f e r e n t i a t e s between s i t u a t i o n a l t y p o l o g i e s causal  related  the s t a b i l i t y of  found  from the s i t u a t i o n  found a p a t t e r n s i m i l a r t o t h a t These  while  in  the locus of  expectations  indicate  the future  similar  model  as t h e m a j o r  factors  considered i s d i f f e r e n t  performance  intimately  (1973) however,  Ruble's r e s u l t s  important  In t h i s  as being  i s seen  a two d i m e n s i o n a l  regarding  situations.  responses"  expectations.  is.  attributions  related  dimension  (1972) o u t l i n e d  depending  model  i n e x p l a i n i n g the  relationship.  In such  expectations upon  which  and  whether  a  causal  they  are  considering  "the g e n e r a l " o r "a s p e c i f i c " case.  Future s i m i l a r  situations  would be an example of the " s p e c i f i c "  case i n which  key  components  situation. would,  will  be  identical  t o those  in a  familiar  Future s i t u a t i o n s which vary on such key components  however,  be the g e n e r a l  35  performance  case.  Depending  upon which t y p o l o g y i s being c o n s i d e r e d , a d i f f e r e n t schema may The that  be u t i l i z e d  to determine performance e x p e c t a t i o n s .  h i e r a r c h i c a l model of  in  the  dominant  "general  cognitive  performance. available  In  which  the  model  determines  evoke  may  include  or  s/he  and  in  an  considering  Figure  that  expect  perceive to  to  external  factors.  Figure have  an  that  they  external  the  dominant  6 indicates  initial  expectation  attribute factors.  that  this For  are  from  the  of  schema  individuals  Such a dominant schema  therefore to  may  be  causal  factors,  (Bandura,  be  causal  either  individuals regarding  example  the  i n t e r n a l causal  and  1977b).  to  their  succeed,  ineffective attributions internal  approaching  to  the  or  task  performance  either  individual  internal might  attribution like  of t h i n g " .  36  expect to  generally  the  expectation  good at t h i s k i n d  cues  cognitive  evaluation  addition  expectations  success based upon an "I'm  In  likely  p e r c e i v e h i m / h e r s e l f as being a  him/herself  fail.  schema  expectations  i n d i v i d u a l may  their  the  5).  a  a personal e f f i c a c y  predict  utilize  informational  alternative  e f f e c t i v e performer and may  will  e i t h e r i n t e r n a l or e x t e r n a l  related  that  individuals  performance  For example, the generally  schemata would  "general case" performance.  incorporate  also  (see  suggests  the  considering  case"  s p e c i f i c case  available alternatives The  cognitive  schema  may  cognitive  Success c o u l d  and or  predict a belief also  be  Figure Situation  5  Typology and Performance  Situation  H i e r a r c h y of C o g n i t i v e Schemata r e : P e r f .  Typology  Expectations  Performance E x p e c t a t i o n and Causal A t t r i b u t i o n  Success-Internal (e.g. a b i l i t y  Success-External (e.g. easy task)  general case  Failure-External (e.g.  success  f a i l u r e - task difficulty  s p e c i f i c case (e.g. extremely difficult)  difficult task  - ability  Failure-Internal (e.g. i n a b i l i t y )  For any given i n d i v i d u a l the order of these c o u l d be d i f f e r e n t . p r e d i c t e d with belief one  that  can  "they  expect  factors.  For  prediction external  an  to  external causal  example:  of  causal  attribution.  always make these fail  and "I  failure factor  could -  things  attribute am  no  structures  good  employ  "They never  this at  For  easy". to  give  causal  Finally,  attribution you  a  Similarly,  internal  this".  an  example  enough  to  a an  time".  When  actual  performance  confirms  a prediction  which was a t t r i b u t e d t o i n t e r n a l f a c t o r s , or  explanation  attributions  of performance  of  causality  will  and  disconfirms likely  the p r e d i c t i o n  employ  demonstrated al.,  external  "I am good a t t h i s , something  as  about  performances  would  have  no  s i t u a t i o n t o hold When  reason  t h e r e must be  this  particular situations  factors  postdiction  will  t h e same  prediction  and  of s u c c e s s  successful  attribute  performance  to external  factors  depend upon whether the e x t e r n a l  viewed  stable  predictions individual factors  or unstable.  succeeds,  the p o s t d i c t i o n  are l i k e l y  a r e viewed t o be  situations.  38  will  also  as  repeated  upon  follows, and  future  factors are  If external  a r e not confirmed by performance, t h a t  and, i f t h e s e  predictions  particular  i s based  expectations w i l l as b e i n g  since  i n a new environment.  the i n i t i a l  external  et  F o r example:  i n related  t o expect  will  previously  would be approached with the o r i g i n a l success e x p e c t a t i o n one  be  1986; C r a n d a l l  I d i d not succeed, t h e r e f o r e  Subsequent  will  performance  has been  & Arkin,  difficult  internal  the p o s t d i c t i o n  1975; M i s c h e l e t a l . , 1974).  especially  situation".  tasks  When a c t u a l  attributions Kepner  employ  subsequent  of success,  (Baumgardner,  1965; L e f c o u r t ,  then the p o s t d i c t i o n  also  approached w i t h the same e x p e c t a t i o n .  of success  failure  i s when the  be t o e x t e r n a l  unstable,  i n regard  failure to  future  The  bottom  initial  of  e x p e c t a t i o n of  expectations.  As  expected  the  that  6  Figure  failure  performance  will  performance  expectations.  employed  this  performance original not then  not  be  attribution.  it  the  individual indicated  be  and in  attributed  to  confirms  6,  external  to if  to  factors  subsequent the  performance  does  successful),  external  initial  failure  are  of  i t is  particular  w i l l again have l i t t l e e f f e c t on  i t is future  accuracy  i f the  actual  when  then  the  (i.e.,  i t is  attributions  this  factors,  situation even  failure,  expectation  peculiar  between  influence  internal  of  attributed  Figure  to  Alternatively  initial  will  in this  experience,  If  simply  relationship  subsequent post-performance  expected  prediction  failure  confirm  and  the  i s r e a d i l y apparent  successful,  in  presents  to  the  situation.  As  expectations  successful  were  performance  subsequent e x p e c t a t i o n s .  ATTRIBUTION STRUCTURING. GENERALIZED CHANGE  AND  RECIPROCAL CAUSALITY The  model  individuals includes will  an  which  are  generalized that do  who  has  have  a  For  such  to  other  and  performance  with  any  to be  to  newly  successful  environments..  indicates  that  schema  which  cognitive  causality  individuals,  associated  developed  dominant  successful  i f such behaviors are  not  been  i n t e r n a l locus of  attribute  factors.  which  The  personal  internal acquired  performance model  generalized  by  also  stable  behaviors would  be  suggests  individuals  possess t h i s dominant schema, i t would be 39  efficacy,  important  who for  Figure  Model  of the R e l a t i o n s h i p s  Expectations,  Performance,  EXPECTATION Prediction  Attribution  6  Among  and  Attributions  PERFORMANCE I  PERFORMANCE  Performance  A t t r ibut ion  • SUCCESS  -INTERNAL -  -SUCCESS  • FAILURE-  -EXTERNAL-  SUCCESS  EXTERNAL-  - SUCCESS  Performance  Expectation  -INTERNALSUCCESS-SUCCESS -EXTERNAL-FAILURE-  -FAILURE-  1  EXTERNAL VARIABLE -EXTERNAL FIXED  -SUCCESS -FAILURE  -INTERNAL  -FAILURE  -EXTERNAL VARIABLE•  -FAILURE  -EXTERNAL-  •FAILURE  -INTERNALSUCCESS FAILURE-FAILURE-EXTERNALSUCCESS -  EXTERNAL VARIABLE  11  -FAILURE  them  t o develop  causal  a new schema  schemata.  This  or to a l t e r  model  t h e i r hierarchy  suggests  that  the  of  causal  a t t r i b u t i o n s employed by the t a r g e t s of change a r e as important as  successful  change  performance  procedures.  attributions  i n determining  the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of  The a l t e r a t i o n o r s t r u c t u r i n g  i s therefore  an important  component  of  causal  of any change  program. It  has been  cognitive  a t t r i b u t i o n a l changes  Meichenbaum, (D'zurilla  1971)  & Nezu,  direct c l i n i c a l addition,  approach  intervention  behavior  change  management s k i l l expect  that  practice,  in  1972; F o w l e r  situations  would  seem  1958;  of c o n t r o l through  processes.  In have  attributional  1983c;  Anderson &  & P e t e r s o n , 1981;  1984; Dweck, cognitive  that  situations  cognitive  (Anderson,  of s i m i l a r  1975; Remanis,  procedures  i n other  appropriate.  In  t r a i n i n g programs, f o r example, one would not (a) i n s t r u c t i o n ,  (c) reinforcement  the outcome t o e x t e r n a l  deterministic  of a  change  produce any l a s t i n g b e h a v i o r a l  Bandura's  locus  non-therapy  1982; Schunk,  supplying  and  1966; E l l i s ,  i n t o the c o g n i t i v e  1980; de Charms,  Employment  (Davison,  practice  1982) can be achieved  the e f f e c t i v e n e s s  & Venino,  1971).  1982; Nezu,  to behavior  Jennings,  in clinical  and changes i n measured  investigators  demonstrated  Medway  demonstrated  (1978) nature  (b) an o p p o r t u n i t y  following  performance,  to  would  change i f the student a t t r i b u t e s  factors. model of  suggesting behavioral,  the  reciprocally  cognitive,  and  environmental  influences  supports the use  of t h i s  approach  as  does the model of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s and e x p e c t a t i o n s developed above. (e.g., Dweck, 1975) controlling  There i s c o n v i n c i n g evidence  t h a t b e h a v i o r change brought  environmental  C l i n i c a l experience, i l l u s t r a t e d supports t h i s  the p a t i e n t , a man  through  c o n t i n g e n c i e s does not a u t o m a t i c a l l y  nor p a r t i c u l a r l y e a s i l y g e n e r a l i z e t o o t h e r  Lefcourt,  about  position  environments.  by an a n e c d o t a l r e p o r t  as w e l l .  by  Lefcourt describes  reporting pervasive feelings  of  inadequacy.  The c l i n i c i a n had developed a treatment program which s p e c i f i e d t h a t the p a t i e n t was I t had  t o perform c e r t a i n t a s k s at work and home.  been p r e v i o u s l y determined  tasks s u c c e s s f u l l y . obtained  and  performance  The  they  t h a t he c o u l d perform  c o o p e r a t i o n of h i s w i f e and  were  instructed  to  be  a p e r i o d of treatment the p a t i e n t  boss  was  of  his  aware  when i t o c c u r r e d and t o comment upon i t .  these  Following  remarked:  . . .my w i f e and boss do a t t e n d t o me more now than they used t o . They a p p r e c i a t e me more. But t h a t i s because of you - you i n s t r u c t e d them t o be more a p p r e c i a t i v e . ( L e f c o u r t , 1976, p. 24) T h i s i s not an uncommon c l i n i c a l demonstrates mediate  how  the  individual  effects  of  experience and  cognitive contingency  G o l d f r i e d & Robins, 1983;  Mahoney, 1985;  1984).  by  school  An  investigation  students demonstrates  Dweck this  42  differences  can  manipulation  and  do  (e.g.,  Meichenbaum & Gilmore,  (1975) employing very  i t clearly  vividly.  elementary Dweck  found  t h a t the type of a t t r i b u t i o n s employed by the students was much more  influential  than  their  actual  amount of reinforcement, i n l e a r n i n g  ATTRIBUTION STRUCTURING Attributional  success  or f a i l u r e ,  or  mathematics.  AND MANAGEMENT SKILL TRAINING  restructuring  procedures  become  especially  important i n management t r a i n i n g when one c o n s i d e r s the t y p i c a l participants include  a  supervisory females. the  i n these programs. high  proportion  personnel,  Participant  of  as w e l l  findings  of a  findings  include:  of t r a i n i n g  number  1) Females  of  level  are important programs  investigators.  have  lower  and  percentage of i n determining  i s apparent  i n the  Specifically their  expectations  for their  own performance than males do (Deaux & F a r r i s , 1977;  Montanelli  & Hill,  generally  frequently  management  as an i n c r e a s i n g  That these two f a c t o r s  effectiveness  low  groups  1969).  2) Females tend t o a t t r i b u t e  causality to i n t e r n a l  stable  f a c t o r s about themselves when these e x p e c t a t i o n s are confirmed by  subsequent  performance  (Bar-Tal  &  Frieze,  1976;  Deaux  &  E m s w i l l e r , 1974; Deaux & F a r r i s , 1977). 3) Females tend t o a t t r i b u t e c a u s a l i t y t o e x t e r n a l when  subsequent  (Crandall,  performance  1969; Deaux  disconfirms  & Farris,  1969) .  43  their  factors  expectations.  1977; M o n t a n e l l i  &  Hill,  4)  Both  powerlessness external 1971;  men over  and  extended  attributions  Stephens  women  &  who  periods  of c a u s a l i t y  Delys,  1973)  occupy of  positions  time  tend  findings  participants a  dominant  Harvey,  and  learned  demonstrate  cognitive  training.  that  a  (Dweck, 1975).  significant  number  of  i n a t y p i c a l management t r a i n i n g program w i l l have  generalization  schema which  of s u c c e s s f u l  These  situations  suggest  employ  (de Charms, 1972;  h e l p l e s s n e s s b e h a v i o r s i n performance s i t u a t i o n s  These  to  of  will  performance  individuals  expect  tend  to inhibit  demonstrated  to f a i l  in  the  during  achievement  and, i f they do succeed, tend t o a t t r i b u t e success  to e x t e r n a l  causes over which they have no c o n t r o l .  DEVELOPMENT OF HYPOTHESES  The the  central  inclusion  thesis  i n the p r e s e n t  of c o g n i t i v e  structuring  investigation  was  that  procedures designed t o  i d e n t i f y , monitor, and c o n t r o l the a t t r i b u t i o n s of c a u s a l i t y of participants increase  in a  management  the maintenance  performance  during  skills  training  and t r a n s f e r a b i l i t y o f  training  to a  negotiation  four  weeks a f t e r the completion of t r a i n i n g .  that  i f trainees  that  they  failure  altered  attributed  program  their attributions  success  to internal variable  to internal factors,  44  successful  task I t was  performed believed  of c a u s a l i t y stable  they would  would  factors  such and  perform more  successfully  than  their  counterparts  where attempts t o a l t e r a t t r i b u t i o n s The  rationale  underlying  m a j o r i t y of p a r t i c i p a n t s  this  i n an  i d e n t i c a l program  of c a u s a l i t y were absent.  belief  i s that  although the  i n both types of t r a i n i n g w i l l succeed  on a performance task d u r i n g t r a i n i n g , o n l y those who their  performance  endurance training  to  factors  they  will  demonstrate  and t r a n s f e r a b i l i t y of s u c h p e r f o r m a n c e situations.  Participants  attribute t h e i r f a i l u r e to factors fixed  control  internal  or external  7  Figure  who  do n o t s u c c e e d and  would  performance.  demonstrates  i n subsequent  control  of  the  hypothesized  relationships  or  expected  mediate  to  facilitate in  actual  successful  or v a r i a b l e  factors. training  performance  will  during  Such a t t r i b u t i o n s because  attribute  and  failure  are expected success  As shown  of  original  training, i n Figure  post t r a i n i n g performance.  factors,  performance  regardless  the . p r o c e s s o u t l i n e d  the experimental group  fixed  program and  n o n - t r a i n i n g environments.  attributions,  expectations  either  not be expected t o  between the experimental a t t r i b u t i o n r e s t r u c t u r i n g performance  t o non-  they do not c o n t r o l ,  factors,  improve i n t h e i r subsequent  the  attribute  is 6 to  Individuals  success t o i n t e r n a l to i n t e r n a l  variable  to f a c i l i t a t e  attributed  to  post-  internal  f i x e d f a c t o r s i s l i k e l y t o r e s u l t i n e x p e c t a t i o n s of success i n future  situations.  factors since  facilitates  Failure  attributed  success e x p e c t a t i o n s  present f a i l u r e  i s perceived  to  internal  i n future  variable situations  as b e i n g caused by  which are both changeable and under the i n d i v i d u a l ' s  factors  control.  Figure  Model On  of  the  Effect  Expectation  -  of  Cognitive  Performance  Attribution Attribution  Restructuring Relationship  PERFORMANCE I  EXPECTATION Prediction  -  7  Attribution  PERFORMANCE 11  Performance  Attr ibution  Performance E x p e c t a t i o n  -SUCCESS-  • INTERNAL-  -SUCCESS  -FAILURE-  -INTERNAL VARIABLE  -SUCCESS  • INTERNAL• SUCCESS•SUCCESS-  INTERNAL-  -SUCCESS  -FAILURE-  INTERNAL VARIABLE -  -SUCCESS  -FAILURE-  -INTERNAL VARIABLE-  -SUCCESS  •INTERNAL  'SUCCESS  •INTERNAL VARIABLE-  •SUCCESS  -* EXTERNAL  CTi  -INTERNAL• SUCCESSFAILURE-FAILUREEXTERNAL -SUCCESS * Pilot  data yielded  no c a s e s o f s u c c e s s p r e d i c t i o n  INTERNAL attributed  SUCCESS  :  to external  factors  HYPOTHESES It  was  expected  performance  differences  following believed  that  between  the completion that  there  would  be  training  no  significant  groups  immediately  of the t r a i n i n g  the s p e c i a l  circumstances  period. of  the  I t was training  s i t u a t i o n would induce success e x p e c t a t i o n s i n a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s and  they  assigned  would as  tend  part  of  t o perform the  d i f f e r e n c e s were expected however, when the s p e c i a l present.  equally  training  well  on  program.  a l l tasks Significant  on the 4 weeks p o s t - t r a i n i n g training  environment  was  trial,  no l o n g e r  The e f f e c t s of the experimental t r a i n i n g program were  expected  t o mediate  more s u c c e s s f u l  performance  i n this  later  trial.  Hypothesis l a There between  will  groups  be  no  significant  difference  on the s i m u l a t e d n e g o t i a t i o n  in  performance  task  immediately  f o l l o w i n g completion of t r a i n i n g .  Hypothesis Ib The  experimental  training  group  e f f e c t i v e l y than the t r a d i t i o n a l t r a i n i n g negotiation  task f o u r weeks a f t e r  A comparison top  will  perform  group  on a s i m u l a t e d  the completion  more  of t r a i n i n g .  of the top h a l f of F i g u r e 6 (page 42) and the  h a l f of F i g u r e 7 (page 48), and the bottom halves of these  47  same  two  figures,  procedures to  have  that  cognitive  of the Experimental T r a i n i n g  the  greatest  performance subjects  reveals  influence  expectations,  who  initially  negotiation  and  established  t o be  the  that  task.  procedures upon s u b j e c t s who  Program were  subsequent  predicted  performance  not expected  on  initially  significant.  causal  attributions,  would  of  expected  those  fail  influence  Hypotheses  t o t e s t these a n t i c i p a t e d  expected  performance they  The  restructuring  on  of  these  t o succeed  I l a and  a  was  l i b were  effects.  Hypothesis I l a Those s u b j e c t s who the  experimental  task  four  weeks  i n i t i a l l y predict  group  will  after  training  t r a d i t i o n a l group who  perform  f a i l u r e and who  more  than  are i n  e f f e c t i v e l y on  those  subjects  in  the the  make the same p r e d i c t i o n . Hypothesis l i b  There  will  experimental  be  and  no  significant  traditional  training  difference groups  between  for  those  who  i n i t i a l l y p r e d i c t success. The  cognitive  Experimental participants causal  Training  performance Therefore,  Successful  or v a r i a b l e  was if  Experimental T r a i n i n g  were  performance performance  employed  designed  was  Group would 48  be  the  induce internal  t o be a t t r i b u t e d t o unsuccessful  to i n t e r n a l v a r i a b l e  p r o c e d u r e s " were  in  to  outcomes t o  i n t e r n a l f a c t o r s , while  to be a t t r i b u t e d these  procedures  Program  to a t t r i b u t e  factors.  either stable  restructuring  factors.  successful,  expected  to  employ  the more  internal  causal  attributions  than  the  Traditional  Training  Group.  Hypothesis I I I Members  of  significantly Traditional  the more  internal  Training  both n e g o t i a t i o n These  Experimental  Training  group  attributions  than  group i n e x p l a i n i n g  will  members  employ of  t h e i r performance  the on  tasks.  internal  attributions  were  expected  to  occur  as  follows: a)  successful  b)  unsuccessful  In an the  attempt  construct  attributions  performance: performance:  of  control  these  issues  preliminary  structure  was  of  beyond  the  their  actual  i t s relationship  locus  of  scope  locus  of  the  established  control described  Hypothesis  predicting  the  a measure of  were  or schema" that was  Subjects who  on  as  a  will 49  variable  attribution  nature to  of  causal  control  was  investigation  present  based "dominant  study,  upon  the  cognitive  above.  IV  employ i n t e r n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s performance  or  variable  Although a comprehensive  hypotheses  conceptualization  and  expectations,  given to a l l s u b j e c t s . of  internal  to throw more l i g h t  locus and  internal fixed attribution.  score  of  causality  in  s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher  (internal)  on  the  employ e x t e r n a l  to  confirmed  of  and  measured  outcome  were expected of  measure  but  to  the  outcome  of  to  to  match  to  of  who  was  causal  when  outcome  the  two  was  prediction.  predictions, which  performance  w i t h t h e i r "general o r i e n t a t i o n "  locus  between  confirm  attributions  particular  subjects  prediction  control  inconsistency  failed  employ  with  between  locus  failed  than  predictions.  consistency  when outcome  performance  outcome  in  prediction,  expected  control  performance  result  attributions  of  attributions in their  Comparison expected  locus  When  individuals  could  explain  were  inconsistent  but  the  performance.  Hypothesis V Subjects  in  performance  the  matches  performance  causal  locus  of  fails  match  their  causal locus  control,  of  control success  training  prediction a  while  prediction  a t t r i b u t i o n s w i t h a locus  will  locus  whose  employ  post-  which matches  subjects will  group  employ  whose  their  performance  post-performance  d i f f e r e n t than t h e i r measured  control.  Claims  the  their  a t t r i b u t i o n of  measured to  traditional  that  for  individuals  success  i s related  following  to  and  exhibit  failure  successful  hypotheses: 50  differences  and  that  in  locus  of  internality  for  performance were examined  by  Hypothesis Subjects attribution control  who will  measure  predict score  Via  success  significantly  subscale  f a i l u r e w i t h an i n t e r n a l  for  attribution  who will  failure  with  significantly  success w i t h an i n t e r n a l  internal  the  f o r success  the  those  locus  who  of  predict  an  internal  higher than  on  the  causal locus  s u b j e c t s who  of  predict  attribution.  Hypothesis in  than  on  causal  VIb  c o n t r o l measure subscale f o r f a i l u r e  Subjects  internal  attribution.  predict score  an  higher  success  Hypothesis Subjects  with  VII  traditional will  perform  training  group  significantly  who  score  b e t t e r on  the  n e g o t i a t i o n task f o u r weeks f o l l o w i n g the l a s t t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n than  those  who  score  internal  for  failure  suggests  that  the  or  external  for  success.  The the  model employed  cognitive  process  causal  s t r u c t u r e l o c u s of c o n t r o l was would  result  specifically, procedures causal  in  subsequent  i t was  attributions  attribution  changes  would  and  in  that  controlling  result  51  and  the  between  cognitive  such t h a t changes i n the  anticipated  f o r monitoring  relationship  i n an  the  latter.  employment the  former  locus  increase  in  More of  the  of  their  the  post  training  locus  Experimental  of  control  scores  of  subjects  in  the  T r a i n i n g Group.  Hypothesis V I I I Subjects significantly measure  than  in  the  higher  experimental (more  subjects  f o l l o w i n g completion  in  training  internal) the  of t r a i n i n g .  52  on  the  traditional  group locus  will of  training  score control group  CHAPTER 3  METHODOLOGY  As exist out of  indicated  above,  a number  i n a t t r i b u t i o n theory  research.  t h a t although numerous s t u d i e s attributions,  measures  few up t o t h a t  of t h i s mediating  of d e f i c i e n c i e s Kelley  appear t o  (1971)  pointed  assumed the m e d i a t i o n a l time  had employed  variable.  More  link  explicit  recent  reviews  (Harvey & Weary, 1984; K e l l e y & M i c h l e a , 1980) have s t r e s s e d a continuing  need f o r s y s t e m a t i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the process of  attribution. increase on  While  the l a s t  decade  has seen  a  dramatic  i n the number of s t u d i e s which have attempted t o focus  a t t r i b u t i o n process  shortcomings measured, previously  d i r e c t l y , most  i n the manner by which  manipulated, discussed  1) assumptions t h a t  and/or  have  subject  suffered  from  a t t r i b u t i o n s were  classified.  Specific  problems  include: c e r t a i n a t t r i b u t i o n s are n e c e s s a r i l y  of a  p a r t i c u l a r locus o r are s t a b l e o r v a r i a b l e ; 2)  assumptions  that  descriptions  3)  reliance  subjects  necessarily  accept  experimenter  of c o n t r o l l i n g f a c t o r s as b e i n g a c c u r a t e ;  upon  imagined  situations;  53  rather  than  real  behavior  4) f a i l u r e to r e c o g n i z e t h a t the experimental s i t u a t i o n  5)  provides  a  strong  subjects  are  employment of  likely  of  to  subject  present  employ;  an  situation  more  negotiation subjects within  through  attempt  task.  with  The  training  situation  program  seemingly  task  to  overcome  experimental subjects  itself  was to  vary  first  as  a  of  changes.  in a  simulated to  their  provide behavior  parameters.  part  repeated  some  performance  designed  pre-specified  was  behavior  of  The  a formalized  month  later  in  a  u n r e l a t e d context a l l o w i n g f o r some e v a l u a t i o n of the  e f f e c t s of the a r t i f i c i a l process  of  then  the  some b a s i c m e t h o d o l o g i c a l  occurred  and  regarding  attempted  engaging  number  attributions  and  c o n s i d e r a b l e freedom  a minimal  performance  by  of  behavior.  t o make t h e  'real'  type  attributions  investigation  deficiencies  T h e r e was  of  concerned did  the  o t h e r s , r a t h e r than t h e i r own  The these  i n f l u e n c e on  itself  not  which had  attribution.  their force  own them  "experimental environment" and of the Finally  behavior to  and  choose  the the  subjects'  assessment  amongst  been p r e v i o u s l y c a t e g o r i z e d as  attributions tool  employed  specific  attributions  internal  or e x t e r n a l ,  f i x e d or v a r i a b l e . In  general t h i s  investigation  can be  categorized following  Winer (1971) as a c o n t r o l l e d experimental study employing 3 X 2 factorial  (treatment design  by  with  predictive-attribution repeated  54  measures  on  the  by  a 2 X  occasion)  last  factor.  The  design p r o v i d e s  a basis f o r i n f e r r i n g  causal r e l a t i o n s h i p s  between treatment c o n d i t i o n s and s u b j e c t s ' performance.  TREATMENT CONDITIONS  T r a d i t i o n a l T r a i n i n g Program The  failure  produce  convincing  training  evidence  are u t i l i z e d  environment  has been  investigators  explained  training  that  skills  subsequently  within  1967; M i t c h e l l ,  that  their  by a number of & Green 1977;  t r a i n i n g programs might be curricula  the i n s t r u c t i o n a l  are based upon p r i n c i p l e s the  rather  environmentally  d i d not  induced  teaching",  recognize  and s t r u c t u r e s of  labeled t r a d i t i o n a l  behavior  constituent  parts  research  change  or "systematic  learned  which  is first  become  55  instruction"  study.  to  such  as  (Haring,  of program has been In t h i s  analyzed  individual  derived  conditioning)  procedures  T h i s type  programs  relating  (operant  i n educational  i n the present  t o be  i n these  of l e a r n i n g which have been  L o v i t t , Eaton, & Hansen, 1978).  skill  procedures  comprehensive  demonstrated  "precision  global  during  students.  Typically,  are  to  the o r g a n i z a t i o n  Larson,  address the i n t e r n a l c o g n i t i v e processes  from  programs  acquired  and d e s c r i b e d  The f a i l u r e of these  by the f a c t  individual  and  skill  recognized  (Feidler,  Wolfe, 1975).  and  of management  approach, a  into  components  serially of the  curriculum.  The  global s k i l l  i s a c q u i r e d through  a "chaining"  procedure  i n which the i n d i v i d u a l demonstrates mastery of each  separate  component  which  is  combined  with  each  component c u l m i n a t i n g i n a c q u i s i t i o n of a t o t a l The  actual  procedures  employed  in  component f o l l o w a standard format. required first  i s provided,  component  modeled with  skill  and  t o be  the  student  corrective  levels  are  feedback  reached,  components.  and  Mastery  of a  an  the  component  opportunity  component  or  of  the  skill  to  is  practice  When  i s repeated  given  particular  a description  reinforcement.  the procedure  a  F i r s t a d e s c r i p t i o n of the  Next  i s given  skill.  teaching  f o l l o w e d by  mastered.  preceding  criterion  with  subsequent  global  skill  is  dependent upon the i n d i v i d u a l ' s demonstrated a b i l i t y t o perform it  effectively  accomplished a real l i f e entire taken  in  situation.  This  is  " s i m u l a t i o n s " , designed  typically  to  s i t u a t i o n w i t h i n the t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n . i s perceived  ascertain  successful  given  by u t i l i z i n g  procedure to  a  in  t h a t the  order  to  as  a  shaping  performance  provide  a  of  replicate Since  process, each  continuous  this  care  is  component i s schedule  of  p o s i t i v e reinforcement d u r i n g the a c q u i s i t i o n p r o c e s s . Experimental T r a i n i n g Program The  Experimental  elements  of  component  comprised  interaction designed  to  the  Training  traditional  model of  of  Program program  procedures  behavior.  increase i n d i v i d u a l s '  56  c o n s i s t e d of plus  derived  The  an  from  experimental  sense  of  their  the  main  additional a  reciprocal program own  was  control  over  any  behavior  a c q u i s i t i o n which  accomplished through self-evaluation, have  been  1972;  and  &  control.  direct  focus  (Kanfer,  Kanfer,  of  of  as  one  of  three,  each  simulate  session  that  particular additional sufficient  this  actual  its  session, hour  of  Program hour  was  Kanfer  crucial  factors  &  Karoly,  to  internal  c a u s a l i t y were  program.  a  Complete  Traditional Training  utilized  of the be  of  for  to  be  Approximately group  skills  experimental  longer.  exercises  and  for  the  the  program would  Depending  supplementary m a t e r i a l  presentation  time to present  designed  e v a l u a t i o n of assignments.  sessions this  was  sessions.  application  additional materials  require  being  these  1.  three  p r e s e n t a t i o n , a n a l y s i s , and The  was  of T r a i n i n g Programs  within  third  which  in  Traditional Training  presented  1975;  Experimental and  programs are found i n Appendix  The  because  a t t r i b u t i o n s of  instruction  d e s c r i p t i o n s of both the  Presentation  1970,  1977)  Control  This  instruction in self-monitoring,  self-reinforcement  identified  Spates  (self)  explicit  occurred.  time.  In  on  took up  order  to  the to  an  allow  supplementary m a t e r i a l w i t h i n  a  three hour s e s s i o n , the p o r t i o n of time a l l o t t e d f o r assignment analysis/evaluation,  and  for  groups d u r i n g  the  these  experimental  sessions  group  i n s t r u c t o r s had  were r e q u i r e d to present  task  to  simulations sessions  one  maintain  the  a l l material  to  was  truncated  and  two.  schedule  each group;  In and  however,  neither  the  reduction adjust It  specific  truncated  i n time were c o n t r o l l e d .  these  was  activity  activities  noted  experimental  that  in  the  groups  the  precise  T h i s allowed i n s t r u c t o r s to  relation length  exceeded  nor  to  of  the  specific  the  time  class  sessions  allotted  needs.  for  by  up  all  to  30  group  in  minutes. There was session  no  three.  truncation The  traditional  group  inclusion  an  of  experimental  only  any  activity  difference  presentations  material  with  experimental  this  review  the  f o r any  between  for  additional brief  r e s u l t e d i n s l i g h t l y longer groups.  of  session  of  the  experimental  t h i r d sessions  and  was  the  supplementary groups.  f o r the  However a l l were completed w i t h i n three  This  experimental hours.  SUBJECTS  The  subjects  drawn  from  the  administrative This  were male  population  is  management  and  variety  settings  small The male  and  ranging  was  rather  female i n age  made  up  supervisory  organizations  group  of  management program  population  of  (N=63) and  at  in  the  both  size  from  technical  low  level  from  large  in  very  and  private  that  to  backgrounds  late  in  a  very  sectors.  i t included  ethnic  an  institution.  employed  e a r l y twenties to 58  in  presently  public  various  volunteers  enrolled  predominately  heterogeneous  from t h e i r  a  personnel in  (N=41)  students  of  ranging  members  female  fifties.  both and It  is d i f f i c u l t  t o assess  terms of these observed tion  the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s of the sample i n  factors.  heterogeneity  However, i t seems reasonable  i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the l a r g e r popula-  employed i n v a r i o u s o r g a n i z a t i o n s .  safe t o conclude  t h a t the  At any r a t e i t seems  t h a t t h i s p o p u l a t i o n i s more r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of  the g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n than  the t y p i c a l  " c o l l e g e student"  pool  employed i n the m a j o r i t y of p u b l i s h e d s t u d i e s .  INSTRUMENTS Simulated The  N e g o t i a t i o n Task negotiation  adaptation assigned  task  employed  of one developed  a  role  (see Appendix  by Ruble  as department  manager,  Toys or A d u l t  Games, w i t h i n a medium  are  with  provided  structure  identical  managers  information  about  in this  are then  the needs information  sized  of  their  of  with  the  All  company's  manager. more  specific  i s a summary  Children's  t o y company.  of e a c h  provided  i s an  I n d i v i d u a l s are  of e i t h e r  outline  and t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s  individual  Included  an  (1973).  2)  The  detailed  departments.  of the department's  c u r r e n t performance i n r e l a t i o n t o the t o t a l o r g a n i z a t i o n and a set  of p o s s i b l e r e s e a r c h  undertake  i n the. coming  p r o j e c t s which year.  A  brief  the department d e s c r i p t i o n of  r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t i n c l u d i n g i t s c o s t and expected provided. allotment  The two managers are then of the company's  total  budget f o r the coming year. 59  profit  could each  i s also  r e q u i r e d t o n e g o t i a t e the  "Research  and  Development"  In t h i s of  i n v e s t i g a t i o n a l l subjects  Manager of C h i l d r e n ' s  were assigned were t o l d that  they wished  allocation that  goals  maximize p r o f i t s  but the t o t a l budget  session  own  of each  group  cost  of both  sets  a v a i l a b l e f o r research a mutually  and  acceptable  P a r t i c i p a n t s were i n s t r u c t e d  i n the n e g o t i a t i o n  f o r the t o t a l  negotiation  Members  partners  a l s o had a group of p r o j e c t s  budget.  for their  the r o l e  negotiating  T h e i r task was t o n e g o t i a t e  of the t o t a l  their  profits  the t o t a l  their  Games.  counterparts  t o develop  exceeded  development.  and  t o manage A d u l t  that t h e i r  combined  Toys  were a s s i g n e d  session  were:  1) t o  department, and 2) t o maximize  organization.  the n e g o t i a t o r s  At  were  the  required  end  of the  t o complete  and  s i g n a form i n d i c a t i n g p r o j e c t s they had agreed t o pursue  and  the p r o f i t a s s o c i a t e d w i t h Individual  summing  performance  the t o t a l  profits  each.  scores  were d e t e r m i n e d  associated  with  each  by  first  department's  p r o j e c t s and t a k i n g the d i f f e r e n c e between these t o t a l s . value  was  then added t o the t o t a l  profit  f o r a l l projects to  determine the score f o r the i n d i v i d u a l managers. a". A d u l t Games t o t a l p r o f i t C h i l d r e n ' s Toys t o t a l p r o f i t difference  F o r example: = 13,200. = 12.500. 700.00  A d u l t Games = +700 C h i l d r e n ' s Toys = -700 b. The t o t a l p r o f i t a l l p r o j e c t s A d u l t Games Score  = 25,700  = 25,700 +  700  C h i l d r e n ' s Toys Score = 25,700 + (-700)  60  This  = 26,400 = 25,000  Participants themselves  were  given  30  minutes  to  familiarize  w i t h t h i s m a t e r i a l and then i n s t r u c t e d  to report to  a room where they would meet the head of the o t h e r department. There was  a d i r e c t i n s t r u c t i o n not t o show any of t h e i r w r i t t e n  m a t e r i a l t o the other manager but they were f r e e t o communicate any  i n f o r m a t i o n they  informed they had  wished  during  the  sessions.  15 minutes t o complete  the s e s s i o n would be h a l t e d  They  were  n e g o t i a t i o n s and  that  at that point.  timed and not allowed t o continue beyond 15  A l l s e s s i o n s were minutes.  Adapted I.A.R. Q u e s t i o n n a i r e The measure of l o c u s of c o n t r o l employed i n t h i s an  adaptation  of  (I.A.R.) S c a l e employed  the  Intellectual  ( C r a n d a l l et a l . , 1965).  r a t h e r than  the  measure because the former of  situation  Achievement  being  more  The  commonly  study  Responsibility  I.A.R. S c a l e  used  Rotter  (i.e.,  work  was  (1975)  i s more c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o the  investigated  was  type  achievement)  and  o f f e r s the advantage of both an o v e r a l l i n t e r n a l - e x t e r n a l score and  subscale  subscales  are  scores  important  found  a low  items  (Crandall  Potepan,  correlation  1970).  school students. adapted  for  both  since a  number  and of  between p o s i t i v e  et a l . , 1965; The  success  Weiner  I.A.R. S c a l e was  failure.  investigators  and  The have  n e g a t i v e outcome  & Kukla, designed  1970; for  Weiner  &  elementary  However Weiner and Potepan (1970) employed an  v e r s i o n with  college  students  and  reported that  "...  t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of some of the items so they are a p p r o p r i a t e f o r a d u l t s does not  d e s t r o y the  validity  149) . 61  of  the  index"  (1970,  p.  Following (school  Weiner  related)  investigation  and  Potepan,  I.A.R.  the  Scale  items  were  t o make them a p p r o p r i a t e  them  relevant  to  than  achievement  achievement in  a  in a  school  o r i g i n a l I.A.R. item was  i n the  modified  f o r adults  "work  original in  this  and t o make  environment"  environment.  For  rather  example  an  adapted as f o l l o w s :  O r i g i n a l I.A.R. Item: When a teacher says something n i c e about your work i s i t : A) because you d i d e s p e c i a l l y good work. B) because your t e a c h e r i s i n a good mood.  Transformed I.A.R. Item: If you r e c e i v e d a compliment from your s u p e r i o r about your work i s i t more l i k e l y t o be: A) because your performance was  especially  good.  B) because s/he i s i n good mood. Appendix  3  contains  a  complete  copy  of  the  modified  I.A.R.  questionnaire. The m o d i f i e d I.A.R. q u e s t i o n n a i r e was a  group  of  students  s u b j e c t s employed face  v a l i d i t y and  reliability.  deviation  of  from  i n the p r e s e n t to  There was  administrations.  (n = 50)  obtain  an  the  a d m i n i s t e r e d twice t o same  program  study i n order e s t i m a t e of  as  the  t o assess i t s  i t s test-retest  a f o u r month i n t e r v a l between the  two  Table 1 p r e s e n t s the mean, range and standard  I.A.R. scores  f o r the two  62  administrations.  The  corresponding subjects clear  test-retest  indicated  and  easy  that  reliability  was  .70.  Pilot  study  the m o d i f i e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e items  to understand,  and were  relevant to  were their  experience.  TABLE  1  Comparison S t a t i s t i c s of Adapted I.A.R.  Mean  Range  S.D.  P i l o t Study (Adapted I.A.R.) (Tl)  23.28  14-29  2.70  P i l o t Study (Adapted I.A.R.) (T2)  23 .40  15-29  2 .86  In the C r a n d a l l e t a l . , study a s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y measure was employed t o assess the i n f l u e n c e of s o c i a l s u b j e c t s ' responses was  concluded  little the  that  importance  present  t o the items.  study  social  adult  Based upon t h e i r  desirability  i n determining  d e s i r a b i l i t y on  tendencies  I.A.R. s c o r e s .  s u b j e c t s were  results i t  assessed.  were o f  However, i n Given  this  d i f f e r e n c e between the samples i t c o u l d not be assumed t h a t the s u b j e c t s would not attempt  t o "fake" t h e i r  p o r t r a y some d e s i r e d p r o f i l e .  Consequently  developed t o make i t p o s s i b l e t o i d e n t i f y  63  answers i n o r d e r t o a " l i e scale"  such  attempts.  was  The  procedure f o l l o w e d i n d e v e l o p i n g  initially nature" was  develop of  felt  the  25  questions  Adapted  which  the  l i e s c a l e was  f i t with  I.A.R. Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ,  but  the m a j o r i t y of a d u l t s would respond  fashion.  the  to  "general  to which i t  i n an  identical  For example:  L i e Scale Item: (1) I f you were to d e s c r i b e your job would you a) always s t i m u l a t i n g and  say i t was:  exciting  b) sometimes s t i m u l a t i n g , but sometimes r o u t i n e and repetitive.  This  initial  anonymous business  question  survey,  pool  to  a  was  group  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and  then  embedded  randomly  questionnaire.  This  administered  an  to  new  respond  you  look  answered  to the  10,  11  It or  was 12  s u b j e c t s i n the o r i g i n a l to  the  questions  "discriminated"  of  Of  the  in  the of  as  an  students  in  25  questions,  These 12  modified  the  items I.A.R.  I.A.R.  was  then  from  the  same  subjects  These s u b j e c t s were asked to " t r y in a  found  that  the  items  honestly.  q u e s t i o n n a i r e s i n a l l 20  graduate  f a s h i o n which w i l l  group of 35 who  between  administered,  a l l subjects.  version  questionnaire  good".  35  a d d i t i o n a l 20  graduate student p o p u l a t i o n . to  of  psychology.  12 were answered i d e n t i c a l l y by were  first  the  The  a l l of  these  differently  than  "faked"  questions and  cases were r e t a i n e d and  64  subjects  were asked to 10  make  the  respond which  "genuine" i n c l u d e d as  a  "lie  scale"  in  the  final  form  of  the  Adapted  I.A.R.  Questionnaire. The data had  Adapted  I.A.R. L i e  were compared with  Scale  those  from  been i n s t r u c t e d to attempt  when completing  the  scores  to  the  from  the  group  of  Pilot  subjects  "make themselves  Adapted I.A.R.  The  look  comparison  that no i n d i v i d u a l i n the P i l o t Study scored more than Lie  Scale,  responses  while  a l l subjects  scored  10.  A  Lie  i n s t r u c t e d to Scale  score  Studywho  good"  revealed 3 on  "fake"  exceeding  the  their 3  was  e s t a b l i s h e d as the c u t o f f p o i n t f o r determining  whether or  not  s u b j e c t s ' data would be i n c l u d e d i n the present  investigation.  PROCEDURES  All  students  Appendix classes  3)  were i n i t i a l l y  at  were  the  informed  survey designed by  Included  in this  individuals  in  measure.  a  three  conducted over  the  the  fall  questionnaire  (see  semester.  All  questionnaire  the  within  questionnaire The  announcement at the part  that  of  by  was  part  to i n v e s t i g a t e the n e g o t i a t i o n s t y l e s  employed  control  beginning  surveyed  students  first  class  session next  organizational was  the  were meeting  "Management  f o u r weeks.  given  inviting Skills  The  settings. locus a  them to  announcement  b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n of the v a r i o u s t o p i c s to be covered:  65  of  separate  Seminar"  Making, Time Management, and C o n f l i c t Management.  a  typically  modified  also  of  take  to  be  gave  a  Decision  Individuals assigned  who  applied  to treatment  Subjects'  responses  predict  were  performance  employed  success  sub-divided  conditions  Survey  them  question  into  and 2) p r e d i c t f a i l u r e . the Management  two  The  asking conflict  groups:  two  Survey  were  manner.  i n a hypothetical  to divide  by employing  seminar  i n the f o l l o w i n g  t o the Management  them t o p r e d i c t t h e i r situation  f o r the t r a i n i n g  groups  question  1) were  which  r e q u i r e d s u b j e c t s t o a t t r i b u t e the cause of performance outcome in  such a s i t u a t i o n t o e i t h e r : a) " s i t u a t i o n a l  in  negotiations  experience, determine effort;  o r power,  or  and those  "internal".  These  subgroups  o n l y three  The  then  Training  (e.g. the  complexity of an  other  of  causal  the task)  were  s e l e c t i n g the l a t t e r  Subjects  or who  classified  as  classified  as  were  had the p o t e n t i a l t o pool  which  individual's s k i l l  explanation  procedures  person's  of a p p l i c a n t s .  provide However,  subgroups were a c t u a l l y formed because a l l s u b j e c t s  numbers  four  o r the  of the o r i g i n a l  who p r e d i c t e d success  were  this  b) the i n d i v i d u a l ' s e f f o r t o r s k i l l .  the former  "external"  Equal  as  the outcome r e g a r d l e s s  selected  four  such  f a c t o r s " present  s e l e c t e d the i n t e r n a l c a u s a l  of s u b j e c t s  assigned training  from  randomly  each  of these  t o one of f o u r  c l a s s e s were  comprised  three  training  of two  Program c l a s s e s and two T r a d i t i o n a l  explanation. subgroups classes.  Experimental  T r a i n i n g Program  classes.  who  Each of the three subgroups i n i t i a l l y  contained  were  training  randomly  assigned  t o the f o u r  40 s u b j e c t s groups.  Of  t h i s t o t a l s u b j e c t p o p u l a t i o n (N=120), 9 f a i l e d t o complete the 66  training  program.  Data  from  randomly excluded from the N's.  The  female  Experimental  subjects,  males and Two  and  At  the  i n presenting  groups so  that  traditional  hours, one  the  Group  The  of  the  assigned  partners  were i d e n t i f i e d as such.  simulated  Following  s u b j e c t s completed a q u e s t i o n n a i r e their  Questionnaire  the  one  subjects'  initial  completed negotiation  year's assigned  groups met  consecutive  weeks.  session a l l  negotiation from  for  task  another  with  class  and task  measuring t h e i r a t t r i b u t i o n s and  the  adapted  I.A.R.  (see Appendix 3).  as being a follow-up the  32  experimental  s e s s i o n was  regular  held  classroom  f o u r weeks l a t e r activity.  This  d e s c r i b e d to the s u b j e c t s by t h e i r r e g u l a r classroom  on  21  had  the' completion of t h i s  performance  A second n e g o t i a t i o n of  male and Group  instructional  were v o l u n t e e r s  equal  each w i t h one  f o u r treatment  final  were  244).  each i n s t r u c t o r taught  p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the  regarding  31  these seminars, were randomly  group.  who  subjects  to achieve  included  evening per week f o r three  conclusion  7  Traditional Training  subjects  part  i n order  t r a i n e d i n s t r u c t o r s (both female),  one  three  analyses  Training  while  additional  20 females (see Appendix 4, p.  experience to the  an  during  the  session  first  each  p a r t n e r from a v o l u n t e e r  questionnaire class  subject pool.  67  which  session.  was  assigned  At a  was  instructor  f o r a number of randomly s e l e c t e d  negotiation  as  students had  the  been second  negotiating  The p o o l of n e g o t i a t i n g p a r t n e r s were v o l u n t e e r s who had no previous  experience  instructed  with  to dress  the  negotiation  appropriately  appearance) t o convey the impression  (i.e.,  They were i d e n t i f i e d  experienced,  negotiators  specialized  training  or  but  "business  were like"  t h a t they were, i n f a c t ,  experienced managers. skilled,  task  but  experience.  t o the s u b j e c t s as  they The  actually  volunteer  had  no  partners  were given no s p e c i a l i n s t r u c t i o n s or i n f o r m a t i o n and were f r e e to  a c t spontaneously.  subjects  were  given  Following  a brief  this  n e g o t i a t i o n task, a l l  description  of the e n t i r e  study  d u r i n g which q u e s t i o n s were answered and arrangements made t o p r o v i d e them w i t h a summary of the f i n d i n g s when completed.  DESIGN  A  schematic  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of  the b a s i c  design  of  this  i n v e s t i g a t i o n appears as a t h r e e f a c t o r , f u l l y c r o s s e d repeated measures  design  included  treatment  Training  (see F i g u r e  The  conditions  Programs)  (success-internal,  and  with  The  two  (Traditional  grouping and  -failure-internal,  the p a r t i c u l a r  and  categories  failure-external).  measurement o c c a s i o n s o r t r i a l s , measures.  In the case  t i a t i o n t a s k , two o c c a s i o n s were employed (immediately ing  factors  Experimental  prediction-attribution  repeated measures f a c t o r ,  varied  8).  t r a i n i n g and f o u r weeks a f t e r completion  of negofollow-  of t r a i n i n g ) ; f o r  the Adapted I.A.R. Q u e s t i o n n a i r e the measurement o c c a s i o n s were p r e - t r a i n i n g and immediately  following training; 68  and,  finally,  causal  attributions  were  post, and f o l l o w - u p . originally factors:  conceived prediction  (internal-external). sample who, external  were c o l l a p s e d  on  The p r e d i c t i o n of  as  two  three  However,  separate,  there  success,  and the p r e d i c t i o n  occasions:  - attribution factor  (success-failure)  having p r e d i c t e d  factors  attribution  measured  were  fully and  no  attribution i n the  the cause t o  and a t t r i b u t i o n  categories  i n t o one three l e v e l f a c t o r l a b e l e d p r e d i c t i o n -  (described  above). FIGURE 8  Repeated-Measures F a c t o r i a l Design  T R A I N I N G  was  crossed,  subjects  attributed  pre,  TRAD  N= 18  N=18  N=16  EXP  N= 18  N=18  N=16  SUCC - INT  FAIL - INT  FAIL - EXT  PREDICTION - ATTRIBUTION  69  The focused the  exploratory  nature  upon p a r t i c u l a r  hypotheses presented  overall  of  " s l i c e s " of  i t was  study the  i n Chapter 2,  e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the  a major focus,  this  data For  Experimental  that  it  was  corresponding  to  example w h i l e  the  T r a i n i n g Program  was  b e l i e v e d t h a t the program's impact would  be most pronounced upon s u b j e c t s who to beginning  meant  anticipated failure  prior  training.  DATA COLLECTION AND  ANALYSIS  Data P r e p a r a t i o n A l l questionnaire adapted  I.A.R. scores  entry.  The  i n f o r m a t i o n , n e g o t i a t i o n task s c o r e s , were t r a n s c r i b e d and  i n i t i a l data t r a n s c r i p t i o n  separately  by  transcription  two was  different  coded  and  and  Data were entered  Computing Center s t a f f with 100%  f o r computer  coding were v e r i f i e d  observers  corrected.  and  one by  error the  in  U.B.C.  verification.  Preliminary Analysis Prior  to  conducting  the  main  analyses,  the  data  s u b j e c t e d to a p r e l i m i n a r y examination to i d e n t i f y any who  exceeded the Adapted I.A.R. L i e Scale  to t e s t two  Questionnaires  instructors. revealed  that  Examination none  of  70  of  the  scores exceeded the cut o f f c r i t e r i o n of  subjects  c r i t e r i o n score,  f o r the p o s s i b l e confounding e f f e c t  different  were  3.  of the presence the  Adapted  subjects  Lie  and of  I.A.R. Scale  In  order t o a s c e r t a i n  i f subjects"  scores were a f f e c t e d  by  d i f f e r e n c e s between the two i n s t r u c t o r s , the data were a n a l y z e d using  a  2 x  2  (instructors  a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e . finding a significant alpha l e v e l was analysis  by  repeated  measures  In o r d e r t o i n c r e a s e the p r o b a b i l i t y of "instructor effect",  r e l a x e d t o the  indicate  treatment)  that  there  i f i t d i d e x i s t , the  .10 l e v e l . was  interaction effects for instructors  no  The  r e s u l t s of t h i s  significant  main  or  (see Appendix 4, p. 224).  Main Analyses The i n t o two the  hypotheses groups.  investigated The  effectiveness  first  group was  cognitive  superior  Program set of  the  needed  of  the  effectiveness  were  be  Program.  focused upon  thought  of  divided  evaluating  to  The  examining  underlie  Experimental T r a i n i n g  t o be demonstrated  of hypotheses.  can  focused upon  primarily  processes which  effectiveness  Therefore,  study  of the E x p e r i m e n t a l T r a i n i n g  second s e t of hypotheses was the  in this  the  Experimental  prior  to t e s t i n g  the  Program. Training  the  second  A l l hypotheses were t e s t e d a t the .05  level  significance. Hypotheses  l a , Ib, I l a , l i b , I I I and V I I I  p. 47 - 51) comprised the f i r s t  (see Chapter  hypotheses s e t .  2,  Analyses f o r  each of these hypotheses compared data from the members of the two  training  groups.  Hypotheses  comprised the second s e t which  was  IV,  V,  Via,  VIb  and  focused upon examining  VII the  nature  of  the  relationship  among  c o n t r o l , a t t r i b u t i o n of c a u s a l i t y , confounding  expectations,  locus  of  and performance without the  e f f e c t s of the treatment.  T h e r e f o r e data  from the  Experimental T r a i n i n g group were not employed i n analyses where confounding  c o u l d occur  (i.e.,  Hypotheses  V and V I I ) .  Hypotheses IV, V i a and VIb were t e s t e d by a n a l y z i n g data the p r e - t r a i n i n g N e g o t i a t i o n S t y l e Survey,  from  data from the e n t i r e  s u b j e c t p o p u l a t i o n were i n c l u d e d i n these a n a l y s e s .  72  Since  CHAPTER 4  RESULTS  As  described  presented  i n Chapter  hypotheses the  2 were  i n the f i r s t  relative  employed  i n the p r e v i o u s  divided  established  the  into  the  two  hypotheses  groups.  group were more d i r e c t l y concerned  e f f e c t i v e n e s s of  while  chapter,  hypotheses  primarily  to  shed  the  two  i n the  training second  additional  The with  programs  group  light  on  were the  r e l a t i o n s h i p among locus of c o n t r o l , a t t r i b u t i o n s of c a u s a l i t y , and  behavior.  The r e s u l t s  two corresponding relating separately.  to  presented  sections.  each  Within  individual  A summary  below are o r g a n i z e d each s e c t i o n ,  hypothesis  the r e s u l t s  are  presented  and d i s c u s s i o n of the combined  i s presented i n Chapter  into  findings  5.  HYPOTHESES I TO I I I AND V I I I  Hypotheses l a and l b Hypothesis  l a proposed  t h a t there would be no  difference  between  training  performed  at  of  Hypothesis  end  l b proposed  the  groups final  that  73  there  on  the  negotiation  training would  significant  session; be  a  task while  significant  performance negotiation training  difference task  where  effectively  between  performed  training  four  weeks  the e x p e r i m e n t a l  than  the  traditional  groups  following  group  would  group.  A  on  the  end  perform  summary  th.e of  more  of the  repeated measures ANOVA of n e g o t i a t i o n task scores i s presented i n Table 2.  TABLE 2 2 X 3 X 2  Repeated Measures ANOVA of N e g o t i a t i o n Task Scores  d.f.  MS.  F.  T r a i n i n g Group (A) P r e d i c t . - A t t r i b • (B) A x B Within  1 2 2 98  173125120 40627072 9059696 420004560.  4 12 * 97 22  T r i a l s (C) A x C B x C A x B x C Within  1 1 2 2 98  36238784. 122872112. 2972712. 14155768. 7616219.  Source  4 75* 16 13* 39 1 86  *p<.05 Subsequent between df=l,98;  to f i n d i n g  a significant  interaction  treatment and measurement o c c a s i o n or t r i a l s p<.05), the means f o r the two t r a i n i n g  performance  trial  (see F i g u r e  9) were  (F=16.13;  groups a t each  compared  procedure d e s c r i b e d by Winer (1971, p. 559-567). the  effect  following  the  The mean f o r  experimental group a t T l (Time 1) was 23640.38 and f o r the  traditional  group  comparison was  i t was  23355.77.  not s i g n i f i c a n t  The  F  value  for  this  (F=.08, df=l,102; p>.05).  The  respective  means  a t T2  (Time  2) were  which y i e l d e d a s i g n i f i c a n t F value  24334.62 and  21013.46  (F=11.56, df=l,102; p<.05).  FIGURE 9 Mean N e g o t i a t i o n G R 0 U P  Task Scores f o r T r a i n i n g Groups a t T I and T2  25-24--  M E A N  23--.  T H 0 U S A N D S  2221 —  20 — TI  T2 TRIALS  Experimental T r a i n i n g  a  Traditional Training  •  Subsequent dependent measures (TI) and T r i a l (Table  difference df=51;  2 (T2) means of the Experimental T r a i n i n g  3) and the T r i a l  Traditional  t - t e s t s comparing the T r i a l 1  Training between  1 (TI) and T r i a l  Group  (Table  2 (T2) means of the  4) r e v e a l e d  TI and T2 f o r the former  p>.05) b u t a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e  (t=4.93, df=51; p<.05).  Group  no s i g n i f i c a n c e group  (t=-1.71,  f o r the  latter  TABLE 3 Dependent Measures t - t e s t of T l and T2 N e g o t i a t i o n Task Scores of Experimental T r a i n i n g Group Subjects  Trial  Mean  Tl  23,640.38  T2  d.f.  t  51  -1.71  24,334.62  TABLE 4 Dependent Measures t - t e s t of T l and T2 N e g o t i a t i o n Task Scores of T r a d i t i o n a l T r a i n i n g Group Subjects  Trial  Mean  Tl  23,355 . 77  T2  21,013.46  t  d.f.  4.93*  51  *p<.05 The Ib.  findings  are  clearly  supportive  of  hypotheses  Traditional  Training  group.  The  finding  performance d i f f e r e n c e between groups on  due  and  Subjects i n the Experimental T r a i n i n g group performed more  e f f e c t i v e l y f o u r weeks f o l l o w i n g t r a i n i n g than s u b j e c t s  trial  la  ( T l ) i n d i c a t e s that to  superior  Experimental  skill  Training  the  the  of  no  in  significant  "during  training"  post t r a i n i n g d i f f e r e n c e was  acquisition,  group.  The  76  or  finding  ability, of  the  of  not the  a significant  difference Training  between TI and T2 performance  Group  indicates  f o r the T r a d i t i o n a l  but not f o r the Experimental  t h a t the Experimental  Training  Group  Group's s i g n i f i c a n t l y s u p e r i o r  performance  a t T2 can be a t t r i b u t e d  performance  of the T r a d i t i o n a l Group from TI t o T2 r a t h e r than  to  any s i g n i f i c a n t  improvement  to a deterioration  i n the performance  i n the  of the  Experimental Group.  Hypotheses I l a and l i b It  was p r e d i c t e d i n Hypothesis  significant  difference  ( i n favor  I l a that  t h e r e would  of the Experimental  be a group)  between the Experimental and T r a d i t i o n a l T r a i n i n g groups on the negotiation subjects  task  who  trial  at the completion  p r e d i c t e d they  training.  Hypothesis  significant  difference  who  of  p r e d i c t e d success.  a two-way ANOVA  s u b j e c t s ' scores on the f i r s t  interaction  effect  was  to beginning  would  n o t be a  groups on the  a t the completion of t r a i n i n g These  for  hypotheses  ( p r e d i c t i o n by t r a i n i n g )  n e g o t i a t i o n task  A summary of t h i s a n a l y s i s i s presented B  prior  between the two t r a i n i n g  initially  were t e s t e d employing  fail  l i bp r e d i c t e d there  n e g o t i a t i o n task performance subjects  would  of t r a i n i n g f o r  performance.  i n TABLE 5.  non-significant  (F=.45;  The  A X  d.f.=1,100;  p>.05) i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the data d i d not support Hypotheses I l a . While  Hypothesis  l i b was  was of l i t t l e import more f u l l y  supported  by i t s e l f .  i n Chapter V.  77  by the data, These  results  this  finding  are d i s c u s s e d  TABLE 5 2X2  ANOVA of T2 N e g o t i a t i o n Task Scores  Source  d.f.  Prediction (A) T r a i n i n g Group A x B Within  1.45 10.07 .45  32914888. 228955234. 10181388. 22738620.  1 1 1 100  (B)  F.  MS.  *  *p<.05 Hypothesis I I I Hypothesis I I I was that were  the  established  unique f e a t u r e s  actually  of  reflected  in  undergoing t h i s t r a i n i n g . that  subjects  would  exposed  employ  the  i n order to p r o v i d e evidence Experimental T r a i n i n g  the  behavior  More s p e c i f i c a l l y ,  to  the  Experimental  s i g n i f i c a n t l y more  than  program.  subjects  I t was  attributions  program.  internal/fixed following  suggested t h a t  employed by  Program would be that  That or  is  they  the  p a t t e r n of  following  to  causal  78  Task  causal  Training  contained employ  in  either  attributions  internal/variable  u n s u c c e s s f u l performance.  of  Training  Experimental  expected  and  program  internal  instructions  internal/variable performance,  predicted  Traditional  i n the  were  i t was  both N e g o t i a t i o n  the  w i t h the  subjects  attributions  to  subjects  consistent  successful  attributions  exposed  the  Training  internal  c a u s a l i t y r e g a r d i n g t h e i r performance on trials  of  program  causal  The that  qualitative  nature  non-parametric  analyzing  these  parametric  analyses  with  categorical  cites  procedures  data.  variables  (1947),  these than  (is)..that  Gaito  that  "data  are d i c t a t e d  evidence  more by t r a d i t i o n  necessity;  that  (1958),  requirement assumptions  ( G a i t o , 1980,  with  little  and convention  and t h e y  the u n d e r l y i n g  rather grossly  c e r t a i n circumstances.  offer  rather  assumptions  can be  negative  effect  in relation  under  S p e c i f i c a l l y p e r t i n e n t t o the present  study i s Lunney's (1970) f i n d i n g s t h a t the F t e s t robust  (1980)  do not know  the mathematical  be met, o r approximated"  any o b j e c t i v e  convincing violated  required)  G l a s s , Peckham, and Sanders (1972) suggest t h a t even  criteria by  ( o r even  p r e v i o u s l y by L o r d  (1957)  in  t h a t non-  and concludes t h a t "The o n l y  u n d e r l y i n g the procedure  suggest  appropriate  i s not u n i v e r s a l .  and Savage  f o r the use of ANOVA..  p. 566).  might  the assumption  appropriate  advanced  where they come from"  variables  a r e most  However,  are most  t h e argument,  Eisenhart  of these  to normality  violations  i s extremely  ( i n c l u d i n g the  a n a l y s i s of dichotomous data) so long as equal N's are p r e s e n t . The p r o p o r t i o n of i n t e r n a l Experimental  causal a t t r i b u t i o n s  and T r a d i t i o n a l T r a i n i n g  employed by  Group s u b j e c t s f o l l o w i n g  n e g o t i a t i o n task performance 1 and 2 were compared employing repeated  measures  successful regardless  task  were  Subjects'  performance  of whether  v a r i a b l e , while performance  ANOVA.  they  were  were  attributions classified  internal  fixed  a  following  as or  internal internal  subjects' attributions following unsuccessful only  classified 79  as i n t e r n a l  i f they  were  internal  variable.  unsuccessful external  performance  i n d i v i d u a l was  ANOVA  results  is  fixed  were  a t t r i b u t i o n s since  which the the  Internal  attributions  considered  c a u s a l i t y was  not  able  presented  to  be  following  equivalent  a t t r i b u t e d to  to  control.  A  in  Table  The  6.  to  factors  summary  of  results  TABLE 6 Repeated Measures ANOVA of S u b j e c t s ' Causal A t t r i b u t i o n s  Source Between Subs. T r a i n i n g Group Within  MS.  1 102  15.62 . 26  59.28*  1 1 102  . 39 . 24 .05  6.76* 4 . 09*  (A)  W i t h i n Subs. T r i a l s (B) A x B within * p <  indicate trials  .05  the  and  F.  d.f .  presence  treatment  of  a  significant  (F=59.28,  df=1,102;  interaction P<.05).  between  Group mean  comparisons were performed u t i l i z i n g the procedure d e s c r i b e d Winer  (1971,  p.  559-567).  significant difference p<.05) and  T2  Figure internal  10  (F=  analyses  revealed  a  between groups at T l (F=15.87, df=1,102;  26.03 df=  presents  causal  These  by  a  1,102; p<.05). comparison  attributions  80  of  employed  the by  proportion subjects  in  of the  Experimental Training  and T r a d i t i o n a l  Q u e s t i o n n a i r e (Appendix  performance, also  Training  causal  performers  p.  and f o r both performances  p r e s e n t s between  internal  3,  group  213)  of  the Post  following The  each figure  of the p r o p o r t i o n  successful  performance,  on  combined.  comparisons  attributions  f o r each  groups  and  of  and  unsuccessful  f o r both  performances  combined.  FIGURE 10 P r o p o r t i o n of I n t e r n a l Causal A t t r i b u t i o n s N e g o t i a t i o n Task Performance 1 & 2  Negotiation Succ. Group I. F & I .V.  Task 1  Fail I .V.  Total Succ/ Fail  Negotiation  Total Internal A t t r i b . TI & T2  Task 2  Succ. I .F. & I .V.  Fail I .V.  Total Succ/ Fail  Succ. F a i l I .V. I..F. I .V.  Total Succ/ Fail  Exp . Train  1.00  . 72  .90  1.00  .71  .86  1. 00  .71  .88  Trad. Train  .61  . 10  .31  1.00  . 00  .30  .72  . 30  . 35  The  results  Training  group  attributions  of  t h e ANOVA  d i d employ  following  indicate  significantly  each  performance  those  i n t e r n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s , revealed  that  the  the  and  internal  the p a t t e r n  i n Figure  Experimental  causal  10,  of  indicates Program  a t t r i b u t e d c a u s a l i t y i n a manner which was c o n s i s t e n t  w i t h the  instructions  Training  they  in  more  the Experimental  Training  Program.  subjects  that  received  i n the  Experimental  Hypothesis I I I i s supported by these f i n d i n g s . 81  The  f a c t t h a t the d i f f e r e n c e s between groups observed first.performance environment, suggests  were  one  still  month  in  a non-training  f o l l o w i n g completion  t h a t the observed  not simply a response  present,  groups  prior  performance,  t o the demands of the t r a i n i n g  internal  beginning  equal.  attributions  post-performance was  to  was  A  training, reduction  between the  measures  indicate  prevented  the  attributions  f o r the  the  observed  group  Traditional  tested  by  scores  with  revealed (F=16.13, Table  employed by  the  and  The  the  Group  Program  of  post  of  present  Training  proportion and  their  Training  i n F i g u r e 6.  prediction  the  proportion  measures  Traditional  the  internal  performance  i n the T r a d i t i o n a l T r a i n i n g Group.  VIII  i t was  would  score  Training  group  p r e d i c t e d t h a t the significantly on  administered at the completion  employing  in  Experimental  in  situation.  VIII  In Hypothesis Training  the  decrease  between  measures t h a t was  Hypothesis  that  training  in predicting  predictive  p r e d i c t e d by the model p r e s e n t e d  findings  of  d i f f e r e n c e s between the groups were  The p r o p o r t i o n of i n t e r n a l c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s two  f o l l o w i n g the  comparing  a  their  higher  Adapted  of t r a i n i n g .  end  of  training  measures  a significant  ANOVA  treatment  p<.05).  by  7. 82  the scale  hypothesis  was  Adapted  I.A.R.  Adapted  I.A.R.  scores  analysis.  The  trials  Summary  than  I.A.R."  The  subjects' pre-training  repeated  df=1,102;  the  Experimental  data  analysis  interaction are  effect  presented  in  Comparison of the group means p.  559-567) r e v e a l e d  a  f o r each t r i a l  significant  difference  (Winer 1971, a t the p o s t -  treatment  trial  (F=6.00, df=1,102; p<.05) but not a t the p r e -  treatment  trial  comparison  (F=.28, df=1,102; p<.05; see F i g u r e  11) .  TABLE 7 ANOVA Adapted I.A.R. Scores By Treatment  Source  F.  d.f .  MS .  Between Subjects T r a i n i n g Program (A) Within  1 102  27.04 25 .55  1.06  W i t h i n Subjects T r i a l s (B) A x B Within  1 1 102  25 . 62 65.18 4.08  6.28 16.13*  *p<.05  The mean  significance  scores  of the d i f f e r e n c e  f o r each  training  employing  dependent  analyses  are presented  associated  with  measures  group  was  t-tests.  i n Tables  the comparison  83  between  8  the TI and T2  examined  separately  The r e s u l t s and  9.  The  of the Experimental  of  these  t  value  Training  FIGURE 11 Mean I.A.R. S c o r e s  f o r T r a i n i n g Groups P r e - t r e a t m e n t P o s t - t r e a t m e n t (T2)  ( T l ) and  G R  24 — Tl  T2 TRIALS  Experimental Traditional  Training Training  • •  TABLE 8 Dependent M e a s u r e s t - t e s t o f E x p e r i m e n t a l T r a i n i n g T l and T2 A d a p t e d I.A.R. S c o r e s  Trial  Mean  Tl  24 . 42  T2  26 . 25  * p<.05  84  d.f.  t  51  -4.22  *  Group  Groups TI and T2 scores was s i g n i f i c a n t while  the t value  significant  (t=-4.22, df=51; p<.05)  f o r the T r a d i t i o n a l T r a i n i n g  Group  was not  (t=1.19, df=51;).  TABLE 9 Dependent Measures t - t e s t of T r a d i t i o n a l T r a i n i n g TI and T2 Adapted I.A.R. Scores  Trial  Mean  TI  24.83  T2  24.40  d.f.  t 1.19  51  Hypothesis VIII was supported by the data. was e s t a b l i s h e d i n order  to provide  Group  This  hypothesis  a d d i t i o n a l support f o r the  view t h a t locus of c o n t r o l i s a " g e n e r a l i z e d  o r i e n t a t i o n " which  although  stable  i t i s believed  conditions, under  can be a f f e c t e d  certain  brief,  t o be  conditions.  relatively  by d i r e c t  cognitive  The present  cognitive-behavioral,  data  most  intervention  suggest  attribution  procedure can produce a l t e r a t i o n s i n measured  under  that  a  restructuring  locus of c o n t r o l .  HYPOTHESES IV TO VII  Hypotheses IV It subjects  was  predicted  employed  that  i n making  the  attributions  predictions 85  of  regarding  causality performance  would  tend  control.  t o be c o n s i s t e n t w i t h More  individuals  specifically  who  employed  their  i t was  measured  hypothesized  internal  causal  locus of that  those  attributions  in  p r e d i c t i n g performance would have h i g h e r Adapted I.A.R. scores than  those  whose  external locus.  predictive  Table  10.  attributions  A t - t e s t f o r independent  compare the means of these in  causal  two groups.  The o b t a i n e d  t value  TABLE  employed  means was u t i l i z e d t o Group means a r e shown  was  significant  internal  Mean Score I.A.R.  attrib.  Internal  df  t  26 .10 102  external  (t=6.40,  10  Mean Locus of C o n t r o l Scores f o r Subjects Employing and E x t e r n a l P r e d i c i t i v e A t t r i b u t i o n s  Group  an  attrib.  6.40 *  21.40  *p<.05  df=102; p<.05) and thus supports the present h y p o t h e s i s . findings  are c o n s i s t e n t with  "locus of c o n t r o l " or  that  measured  r e p r e s e n t s a dominant g e n e r a l i z e d  tendency,  c o g n i t i v e schema,  locus  of  attributing defined  causal  which  the contention  These  i s reliably  attributions  causality  individuals  to r e l a t i v e l y  events. 86  a s s o c i a t e d with employ  the when  n o n s p e c i f i c or broadly  Hypothesis V In Hypothesis V i t was p r e d i c t e d t h a t when s u b j e c t s ' a c t u a l performance outcome was c o n s i s t e n t with locus  of the c a u s a l  would  be c o n s i s t e n t  that  when  attribution with  performance  their  outcome  their  p r e d i c t i o n , the  regarding  measured  that  locus  d i d not match  performance  of c o n t r o l but p r e d i c t i o n , the  locus of c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n would not match the measured of c o n t r o l . analysis. wherein  The hypothesis Data  rows  predicted  were  were  and a c t u a l  was t e s t e d employing  arranged  in a  agreements  and  performance  2 X  2  a c h i square  frequency  disagreements  outcome.  locus  Table  of c a u s a l  11..  Only  attribution.  data  These data  pertaining  table  between  The columns  agreements and disagreements between measured l o c u s and  locus  were  of c o n t r o l  a r e presented  in  t o the T r a d i t i o n a l T r a i n i n g  group were employed i n t h i s a n a l y s i s i n order t o a v o i d p o s s i b l e confounding  by treatment  effects.  scores were c l a s s i f i e d as being whether or not they  exceeded  Subjects'  Adapted  I.A.R.  i n t e r n a l o r e x t e r n a l based upon the group  were e l i m i n a t e d because t h e i r scores  fell  mean.  Four  subjects  e x a c t l y on the mean,  y i e l d i n g 48 s u b j e c t s f o r t h i s a n a l y s i s . The  r e s u l t s ( c h i square =4.20, p<.05) support  When s u b j e c t s succeeded  p r e d i c t i o n and performance  or f a i l e d ,  there  was  agreed,  a tendency  of  control.  If their  87  prediction  whether  V.  they  f o r the locus of  t h e i r c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s t o be c o n s i s t e n t with locus  hypothesis  t h e i r measured  and  performance  disagreed, consistent  this with  tendency  was  absent.  the c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n  This  finding  of measured  locus  is of  c o n t r o l as a dominant c o g n i t i v e schema o r s t r u c t u r e . TABLE 11 Adapted I.A.R. Locus of C o n t r o l - Locus of Causal A t t r i b u t i o n Frequency Table  Locus of C o n t r o l and A t t r i b u t i o n Locus Prediction-Performance  Agree  Disagree  Total  Agree  14  6  20  Disagree  10  18  28  Total  24  24  48  Hypotheses V i a and VIb It  was hypothesized  success  employing  higher  who  attributions. latter  1974;  predicted  In Hypothesis  Hummel  a MANOVA &  Sligo,  subjects  who  subscale  employing  internal  on the Adapted  score  than  VIb i t was p r e d i c t e d  higher  predicted  a t t r i b u t i o n s would  success  failure  than the former.  employing  causal  I.A.R.  group would score  subscale by  internal  on t h e A d a p t e d  subjects  i n V i a that  those causal  t h a t the  I.A.R.  failure  Hypotheses V i a and VIb were t e s t e d  followed 1971). 88  by u n i v a r i a t e F - t e s t s The  MANOVA  (Finn,  result  was  significant test The  (F=4.62,  df=2,69;  p<.05)  a s s o c i a t e d w i t h Hypothesis univariate  test  Summary  the u n i v a r i a t e  VIb (F=9.36, df=l,70;  of Hypothesis  (F=.48, d f = l , 7 0 ; ) .  as was  V i a was  results  p<.05).  not'significant  of these  analyses are  presented i n Table 12.  TABLE 12 MANOVA and U n i v a r i a t e A n a l y s i s : Adapted I.A.R. Success and F a i l u r e Subscales f o r S u b j e c t s P r e d i c t i n g Success and F a i l u r e  M u l t i v a r i a t e Test  (Hotellings)  Source  df  Predictive Attrib.  F  2  Residual  Univariate F i  F  Source  4.62 *  . 48  Succ.Subsc.  69  Fail.  Subsc.  9.36 *  * p<.05  I t was expected be  reliably  failure. but the  fail  that  related  the r e s p e c t i v e s u b s c a l e scores would  to subjects' predictions  The r e s u l t s which t o p r o v i d e support  expected  relationship  of success and  a r e s u p p o r t i v e of Hypothesis VIb, f o r Hypothesis was  Via, indicate  evident  f o r the  p r e d i c t o r s but not f o r the success p r e d i c t o r s . each  group  f o r both  the success  subscale  that  failure  The means f o r  and t h e  failure  subscale are presented i n Table 13. Subjects  who  predicting failure  employed tended  internal  causal  attributions in  t o score s i g n i f i c a n t l y more i n t e r n a l 89  on  the f a i l u r e  subscale  than  with i n t e r n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s ;  s u b j e c t s who  p r e d i c t e d success  but success and f a i l u r e p r e d i c t o r s  were n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t >on t h e s u c c e s s  subscale.  TABLE 13 Mean Adapted I.A.R. Subscale Scores f o r Success and F a i l u r e P r e d i c t i o n  Mean Sub-Scale Pred. & A t t r i b .  N  Success  Scores  Failure  Subscale  Success I n t .  36  14.58  10.78  Failure Int.  36  14.22  12.52  Subscale  Significant  Non-significant  Hypothesis VII Hypothesis VII p r e d i c t e d t h a t  s u b j e c t s who s c o r e d  internal  ( i . e . , exceeded the mean score f o r a l l s u b j e c t s ) on the success subscale task  of the Adapted  performance  scored  internal  subjects) group  data  on  I.A.R. would  scores (i.e.,  the f a i l u r e  were  on  the T2  exceeded  have trial  subjects  score  Experimental  i n testing  order t o a v o i d confounding by treatment data are presented i n Table 14.  than  t h e mean  subscale.  not i n c l u d e d  higher n e g o t i a t i o n  for  who a l l  Training  this  hypothesis i n  effects.  Summary ANOVA  The  ANOVA r e s u l t s were not s i g n i f i c a n t (F=3.02; p>.05) and  therefore tested  the hypothesis must be r e j e c t e d .  employing  data  from  only  Hypothesis V I I was  30 s u b j e c t s  as a r e s u l t of  e l i m i n a t i o n of members of the Experimental T r a i n i n g program and those  individuals  scored e x t e r n a l ,  i n the T r a d i t i o n a l  program  who  o r who s c o r e d i n t e r n a l on both the success and  f a i l u r e subscales.  As a r e s u l t of the s m a l l number of s u b j e c t s  whose data were i n c l u d e d of  Training  i n the a n a l y s i s , the power of the t e s t  t h i s hypothesis was reduced  and the r e s u l t s  are viewed as  TABLE 14 ANOVA of N e g o t i a t i o n Task Scores (T2) By Adapted I.A.R. Subscale Ratings  Source  being  d.f .  Main E f f e c t s I.A.R. R a t i n g  1  63130888.89  Residual  28  20867420.63  very  tentative  i n light  l a c k of s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g s  of the f a c t  order  internal  t o shed  locus  was performed. being  either  more  of c o n t r o l  light  the observed  investigators.  on the r e l a t i o n s h i p  and performance,  For t h i s analysis internal  that  3 . 02  f o r Hypothesis V I I appears t o be  i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the f i n d i n g s of p r e v i o u s In  F.  MS .  subjects  or external 91  based  a second  between analysis  were c l a s s i f i e d as upon  their  total  Adapted  I.A.R.  scale  classification.. Traditional  Once again  The s i g n i f i c a n t  analysis  suggest  Hypothesis and  control  only  data  of t h e i r  subscale  f o r subjects  from the  of t h i s  results  that  for this  a n a l y s i s i s presented  (F=5.08, df=l,46;  the  analysis. A  failure  to  i n Table  p<.05) f o r t h i s  find  support  VII which examined the r e l a t i o n s h i p between  failure  comparable  regardless  T r a i n i n g group were employed  summary of the r e s u l t s 15.  score,  subscale with  score.  scores  and performance  i n v e s t i g a t i o n s employing This  result  will  i s not  an o v e r a l l  be d i s c u s s e d  locus of  further in  TABLE 15 ANOVA of N e g o t i a t i o n Task Scores (T2) by Adapted I.A.R. T o t a l Score  d.f.  Main E f f e c t s I.A.R. R a t i n g  1  Residual  46  *p<.05  92  MS. 106212396.71 20877225.98  success directly  Chapter V.  Source  for  F. 5.09*  CHAPTER 5  DISCUSSION OF THE  The the  results  experimental  promoting  the  present  study  causal a t t r i b u t i o n  support  the  structuring  efficacy  of  procedures  in  the endurance of s u c c e s s f u l performance.  are a l s o the  of  FINDINGS  s u p p o r t i v e of  locus  and  the  stability  hypothesized dimensions  of  The  results  relationships  amongst  causal  attributions,  e x p e c t a t i o n s , and performance which were d e l i n e a t e d i n F i g u r e s 6 and 7 of Chapter Chapter  4  initially  are  2.  In t h i s chapter the r e s u l t s p r e s e n t e d i n  summarized  focused  and  discussed.  s e p a r a t e l y upon  each  The  hypothesis  chapter concludes w i t h a d i s c u s s i o n of the in  set.  The  integrated findings  r e l a t i o n to an u n i f y i n g c o n c e p t u a l model.  DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS RELATED TO HYPOTHESES I TO The was  discussion i s  data  indicate  effective  w h i c h was Training  that  in altering  p r e d i c t e d and Program  Traditional  were  Training  the  Experimental  Training  subjects' attributions that more  Program  subjects  the  VIII  Program  i n the manner  i n the  s u c c e s s f u l than on  I I I AND  Experimental those  performance  in  trial  the four  weeks f o l l o w i n g completion of t r a i n i n g . The the  l a c k of support f o r  model  presented  Hypotheses I l a i s p r o b l e m a t i c  i n Chapter 93  2  (Figures 6  and  7)  for which  predicted  that  influence  subjects  expectations  the Experimental t o change  of success,  Training  expectations  and t h a t  succeed would tend t o perform  procedures  would  of. f a i l u r e  to  individuals  who  expect t o  more e f f e c t i v e l y  than  those who  expect t o f a i l . One  of  the f o c i  relationship  between  of  this  study  the e x p e r i m e n t a l  was  to  cognitive  procedures,  expectations, causal a t t r i b u t i o n s ,  performance  presented  indicate  that  procedures  the  were  performance  i n Figures  6 and 7.  experimental  expected  t o have  of s u b j e c t s who  explore the restructuring  and subsequent  Figures  cognitive  restructuring  a greater  initially  6 and 7  impact  predicted  upon the  failure  they would on the performance of those who i n i t i a l l y  than  predicted  success. Unfortunately,  i n this  i n i t i a l l y predicted f a i l u r e t h a t p r e d i c t e d success  study,  (N=68) was almost  (N=36) and the e f f e c t  on the power of the s t a t i s t i c a l contributing  factor  the number of s u b j e c t s who  test  i n the f a i l u r e  twice the number of t h i s  disparity  employed may have been a to f i n d  a  significant  i n t e r a c t i o n between p r e d i c t i o n and treatment i n the 2 X 2 ANOVA conducted  for  exploratory  Hypotheses  investigation,  I l a and l i b .  predicted  from those who had p r e d i c t e d s u c c e s s .  negotiation  a  Repeated task  Measures  scores  this  was an  i t was d e c i d e d t o examine the data  from those s u b j e c t s who i n i t i a l l y  employing  Because  f a i l u r e separately  T h i s was accomplished by  ANOVA  of  of Experimental  t h e T l and T2 and  Traditional  Training  Group s u b j e c t s  the r e s u l t s  of t h i s  who p r e d i c t e d  analysis  failure.  i s presented  r e s u l t s revealed a s i g n i f i c a n t  A summary of  i n Table  treatment by t r i a l s  16.  The  interaction  (F=20.31, df=l,66; p<.05).  TABLE 16 Repeated Measures ANOVA of N e g o t i a t i o n Task Scores of Subjects P r e d i c t i n g F a i l u r e  Source  d.f.  F.  MS .  Between T r a i n i n g Group (A) Within  1 66  100139520. 38145920.  2.63  T r i a l s (B) A x B Within  1 1 66  38645760. 144321024. 7105691.  5.44* 20.31*  *p<.05  The mean scores  of the two groups at TI ( f i n a l  s e s s i o n ) and T2 ( f o u r weeks f o l l o w i n g  completion  training  of t r a i n i n g )  were compared employing the procedure d e s c r i b e d by Winer (1971, p. 559-567).  The Experimental  Training  group mean a t TI was  the T r a d i t i o n a l  Training  group mean a t TI was  23158.82  while  23502.94  (See F i g u r e 12).  not  significant.  Experimental 20376.47.  The F value f o r t h i s  The T2 means  Training  =  The F value  24152.94 for this  (F=10.40; df=l,66; p<.05). 95  f o r t h e two  comparison was groups  and T r a d i t i o n a l comparison  was  were:  Training  =  significant  FIGURE 12 Mean N e g o t i a t i o n Task Scores a t T l and T2 f o r Subjects P r e d i c t i n g F a i l u r e G R 0 U P  25 — 24 —  M E A N  23 —  T H 0 U S A N D S  22 —  21-  20 —  Tl  T2 TRIALS  Experimental T r a i n i n g  0  Traditional Training  0  A  t-test  relationship predicted The  f o r dependent between  failure  means was employed  t h e T l and T2 means  i n each t r a i n i n g group  t o examine the  of s u b j e c t s  (Tables  who  17 and 18).  r e s u l t s of these t e s t s i n d i c a t e t h a t the d i f f e r e n c e between  the two groups on the T2 mean scores can be accounted f o r by a significant  deterioration  i n negotiation  amongst members of the T r a d i t i o n a l T r a i n i n g no  task Group.  performance There was  s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between T l and T2 performance f o r the  Experimental T r a i n i n g  Group.  TABLE 17 Dependent Measures t - t e s t of T l and T2 N e g o t i a t i o n Task Scores of T r a d i t i o n a l T r a i n i n g Group Subjects P r e d i c t i n g F a i l u r e  Trial  Mean  Tl  23,502.94  T2  20,376.47  d.f.  t'  33  5.71 *  *p<.05 In  summary,  subsequent  although  Hypothesis  a n a l y s i s of the data  from  I l a was  only  i n i t i a l l y p r e d i c t e d f a i l u r e was s u p p o r t i v e the r e l a t i o n s h i p among the e f f e c t  those  rejected, subjects  a  who  of the e x i s t e n c e of  of the Experimental  Training  Program, e x p e c t a t i o n s , and t a s k performance which was p r e d i c t e d TABLE 18 Dependent Measures t - t e s t of T l and T2 N e g o t i a t i o n Task Scores of Experimental T r a i n i n g Group Subjects P r e d i c t i n g F a i l u r e  Trial  Mean  Tl  23,158.82  T2  24,152.94  by F i g u r e s 6 and 7 i n Chapter 2. f o r suggesting  t  33  -1.36  These data p r o v i d e some b a s i s  t h a t the Experimental  97  d.f.  T r a i n i n g Program would be  particularly  effective  expectations  of  investigation  with  f a i l u r e and  of  the  Examination  of  demonstrate  relationships  the  15)  revealed  successfully with the  the  on  the  exception  of  training  However,  at  two  successful  at  group  predicted  success  who end  of  their  equally  failure  were  much more  likely  did  not  19).  demonstrate, a  effectiveness  of the  at  p r e d i c t e d f a i l u r e but the  end  Training  of  the  Program  Traditional  Training  performance  upon  training,  the  period.  clearly Program, trial  program  maintenance of s u c c e s s f u l  as  lies  the in  its  the  20). procedures individuals performance Experimental  by  than  e f f i c a c y of  contributing The  the  subjects'  completion  performance over time.  98  their  differential  the  after the  the  initially  effective  to  on  Experimental  who  evidenced  key  of  repeat  group of  weeks  were,  performed  (Table  While  more  four  i t i s apparent t h a t  experimental  to  a c t u a l l y succeeded on  training was  and  attribution structuring  appears to have been c o n c e n t r a t e d i n that who  (TI)  expectations.  similar T2  14  perform  ineffective  Subjects  p a t t e r n between t r a i n i n g groups at TI and The  Figures to  i f they were i n the  Table  performance  4,  initial  predicted  (see  -  regardless  who  T2  further  predicted.  training  (T2)  initial  for  failed  f o u r weeks l a t e r  performance at  Training  the  or  need  Appendix  individuals,  program  TI  the  have  attribution  (See  trial  subjects  successfully  groups  subjects  performance t r i a l  type  -  that  of  who  which were  prediction  p a t t e r n s f o r both t r a i n i n g and  individuals  to  of the the  mediating  e f f e c t s of a t t r i b u t i o n s t r u c t u r i n g procedures do not appear t o be  capable  successful These change  overcoming  findings  of  are c o n s i s t e n t  underlies  this  the c o n t e n t i o n  maintenance  contention change.  lack  skill  in  influencing  performance.  which  support the  of  of  that  that  cognitive they  cognitive  More s p e c i f i c a l l y ,  restructuring  investigation.  behavior,  such  procedures  w i t h the model  While  structuring  also  changes  not  the  can  clearly do  of b e h a v i o r data  mediate  support  the  cause b e h a v i o r  i n t h i s study c o g n i t i v e  attribution  mediated  of  the  ability  certain  TABLE 19 TI  and T2 N e g o t i a t i o n Task Performance of Subjects P r e d i c t i n g F a i l u r e  TI Experimental Training  22  17  Traditional Training  22  7  individuals  to  demonstrated  during  situation. did  T2 Success  Success  not  effectively  employ  training  in  a  However, the a t t r i b u t i o n effectively  mediate  skills  which  subsequent  had  "non-training"  restructuring  post-training  they  procedures  performance  of  i n d i v i d u a l s who were exposed t o the same t r a i n i n g but f a i l e d t o demonstrate  effective  employment  training. 99  of  these  skills  during  TABLE 20 Tl  and T2 N e g o t i a t i o n of  Subjects  Traditional Training  suggest  altering  control causal  subjects'  11  7  that  the a t t r i b u t i o n  group  that  one month  this  this  investigation.  performance conclusions  trials  in light The  was  four a  t o repeat  that  performance  attribution  of t r a i n i n g  compliance  degree  processes.  cautiously  the a l t e r e d  non-training  completion  some  to  i n the Experimental T r a i n i n g  not simply  but r e p r e s e n t s  cognitive  interpreted  was  successful ability  and t h a t  the " r e s t r u c t u r e d "  following  alteration  expectations original  i n the f u t u r e  t o employ  their  their, a b i l i t y  The f a c t t h a t s u b j e c t s  continued  pattern  regarding  performance  a t t r i b u t i o n s mediated  situation.  restructuring  T r a i n i n g Program was  cognitions  performance  Success 9  the cause of t h e i r  successful  T2  12  component of the Experimental in  Success  Success  Experimental Training  data  Performance  Predicting  Tl  These  Task  of  These  to  change  findings  of the e x p l o r a t o r y week  period  relatively  between  short  suggests training in their must  be  nature of the two  interval  and  as t o the " d u r a b i l i t y " of the observed e f f e c t s can  100  not  be made based upon these r e s u l t s .  first  and  second performance  number of  important  of  "generalization"  the  environments were d i f f e r e n t i n  ways, t h e r e  s i m i l a r i t i e s between the  S i m i l a r l y , although  two  were a  substantial  situations.  demonstrated  in  number  T h e r e f o r e the  a of  degree  these  results  must  with  Hypothesis  be  viewed as being somewhat l i m i t e d . Finally  the  results  indicate  that  employed  i n the  increase  in i n t e r n a l i t y of.subjects'  This as  the  associated  cognitive  Experimental  r e s u l t suggests t h a t  being  a cognitive  influenced  by  a t t r i b u t i o n of  Training  i f locus  structure,  controlling  Program  resulted  measured locus  of c o n t r o l  then  such  cognitive  procedures  of  in  an  control.  i s conceptualized  structures processes  can  be  such  as  causality.  DISCUSSION OF  Hypotheses  attribution structuring  VIII  FINDINGS RELATED TO  IV  through  VII  were  HYPOTHESES IV TO  included  in  VII  the  present  i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n an attempt to p r o v i d e support f o r the presumed interdependent attributions  of  relationships causality,  and  ,among  performance.  was  c o n c e p t u a l i z e d as a c o g n i t i v e  by  a  dominant  interpreting external cognitive  locus.  generalized causality  Attributions  processes  that  structure  tendency as  having of  or  of  control,  Locus of  control  which i s evidenced  "orientation"  either  causality  i d e n t i f y the 101  locus  an  internal  or  defined  as  were  cause of  toward  any  particular  event. to  The q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e  interpretation  of the data  between these two i s c r u c i a l  relevant  to t h e i r  relationship  w i t h one another and w i t h performance. The  position  adopted  was  that  locus  would be a r e l a t i v e l y r e l i a b l e p r e d i c t o r attributions their  future  employed  by s u b j e c t s  performance,  locus of a t t r i b u t i o n s In  the l a t t e r  case,  a  of the l o c u s of c a u s a l  not  just  completed  s p e c i f i c information  about  and t h i s c o u l d  to  structures.  alternative  causal  p a r t i c u l a r performance causal their  attributions measured  individuals  with  locus  a  the  performance.  the  lead Thus  particular individuals  following  a  might be expected t o employ  locus  of c o n t r o l  about  r e l i a b l y predict  performance would be a v a i l a b l e employ  scores  making p r e d i c t i o n s  but would  regarding  of c o n t r o l  which or  i s inconsistent  "dominant  with  orientation"  to  causality. The  present  data  conceptualization The  data  employed tended  that  i n explaining  consistent  However,  subjects'  attributions  indicate important  was  that  this  and c a u s a l  of  -  employ. 102  latter  expectation  determining  subjects  was  the  not  When  subjects  performance of  control  present just  consistency of  the  performance  when  completed  situation,  locus  this  attributions.  locus  about the cause of t h e i r In the  of  attributions  t h e i r measured  consistency  performance in  locus  with  examined.  role  attributions  the  supportive  the cause of t h e i r p r e d i c t e d  score.  performance  generally  of locus of c o n t r o l  indicate  t o be  are  the  data  plays causal matched  an  e x p e c t a t i o n s , the l o c u s of s u b j e c t s ' a t t r i b u t e d cause tended t o be c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e i r measured l o c u s of c o n t r o l s c o r e .  When  subjects'  this  performance  failed  t o match t h e i r  expectations  c o n s i s t e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p was not p r e s e n t . Hypotheses  V i a and VIb examined t h i s  slightly  different  perspective.  concerned  w i t h s u b j e c t s who  These  relationship  hypotheses  were  score higher  only  employed i n t e r n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r  success o r f a i l u r e i n p r e d i c t i n g t h e i r performance. group i t was expected  from a  Among  this  t h a t s u b j e c t s who p r e d i c t e d success would  on the success  subscale  of the l o c u s  of c o n t r o l  measure while s u b j e c t s who p r e d i c t e d f a i l u r e would score h i g h e r on  the f a i l u r e  subscale.  The r e s u l t s  of s u b j e c t s who p r e d i c t e d f a i l u r e who p r e d i c t e d success the  subscale  significantly are  scores  different.  unclear.  They  d i d score  on the subscale  f o r success  indicate  that  internal  those  f o r both  of  findings  the p o s s i b i l i t y  failure  and f a i l u r e  f a i l u r e t o f i n d the expected  control  subjects' be  subscale  scores  n e g o t i a t i o n task  consistent  individuals  with  this  are i n t e r n a l  However,  The i m p l i c a t i o n s of these  success tend t o be i n t e r n a l f o r success The  those  were not  predict  success  than  f o r the two groups  suggest  who  higher  for failure.  d i f f e r e n c e between i n d i v i d u a l s who p r e d i c t such  t h a t the group  there  success  tend while  is a  and f a i l u r e  t o be " g e n e r a l l y " those  who  predict  only.  r e l a t i o n s h i p between l o c u s  f o r success  performance  f o r success  and  failure  (Hypothesis  possibility.  103  that  only  If  V I I ) would  i n fact  while  and  some  others are  "more g e n e r a l l y i n t e r n a l " then  a  comparison  subjects  of  scores  categories.  (i.e.,  internal  would  While  f o r both success  include  these  and  some  individuals  success and  failure)  internal  individuals  were  failure in  eliminated i n  i n v e s t i g a t i o n , the l i m i t e d number of s u b j e c t s remaining analysis  reduced  the  chances  of  both  finding  a  this  i n the  significant  difference i f i t did exist. The  f a i l u r e t o f i n d support f o r Hypothesis VII c o u l d a l s o  be accounted expected internal who  f o r by the unexpected  to  fail  within  f o r success.  scored i n t e r n a l  the  group  I t was  on  the  presence of i n d i v i d u a l s of  expected  success  s u b j e c t s who that  tend  of  s u b j e c t s who  tended  scored  internal  to i n c l u d e i n d i v i d u a l s who  as w e l l as i n d i v i d u a l s who the  group  of  subjects  subscale  tended  failure.  This  to  that  the  find a significant difference groups may performance  indicate the  that  subscale  the  of  success  p r e d i c t e d they would  succeed  scored  internal  individuals  possibility  that  i n performance  the  groups.  104  group  for  have been p a r t i a l l y accounted expectations  be  However,  p r e d i c t e d they would f a i l .  include only  suggests  on  to  s c o r e d i n t e r n a l on the  f a i l u r e s u b s c a l e would tend t o be f a i l u r e p r e d i c t o r s . the data from Hypotheses V i a and VIb  scored  group of s u b j e c t s  s u b s c a l e would  success p r e d i c t o r s w h i l e i n d i v i d u a l s who  who  on who the  However,  the  failure  predicted failure  between these  f o r by the mixture  subjects  in  the  to two of  comparison  THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG LOCUS OF CAUSAL ATTRIBUTION. STABILITY.  Weiner's  (1985)  attributions supported  AND  contention  i s unrelated  by  the  of c o n t r o l  locus  attributions  predictions reliable  of  this  following  an  locus  of  causal  expectations  investigation.  individuals  indicators  employed  was  not  In  this  of the  in  making  novel s i t u a t i o n , but were not  of the l o c u s  actual  the  scores were r e l i a b l e  about a h y p o t h e t i c a l  indicators  that  t o performance  findings  study locus of  PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION  of a t t r i b u t i o n s  performance.  The  they  employed  consistency  between  i n i t i a l performance e x p e c t a t i o n s and a c t u a l performance was key f a c t o r  i n determining whether  attributions locus  of  scores.  their  employed  predictive  a reliable  i n explaining  disconfirmed reliable  was  attributions  locus  of  consistent and  locus  causal  with of  the  control  by  indicator  of the locus  performance.  performance,  of  attributions  But when e x p e c t a t i o n s were  locus  of  control  was  not  a  the  locus  of  causal  predictor. the  latter  attributions the  performance  the  When performance e x p e c t a t i o n s were confirmed, locus of  c o n t r o l was  In  following  or not  the  locus  employed  situation,  in predicting  of the c a u s a l outcome tended  factors.  In c a s e s where the  remain e x t e r n a l  performance  attributions  unexpected  external,  if  to s h i f t  was  internal,  they employed  following  from  internal  the p r e d i c t i v e  post-performance (See Appendix 105  external  attributions  attribution's 4, F i g u r e s  to  locus  14 and  were  tended  15).  to  Figure  14 a l s o r e v e a l s  t h a t there was  present  who  study  external  a s m a l l group of s u b j e c t s i n the  originally  attributions  and  predicted  subsequently a l t e r e d  t h e i r causal  attributions following  One  of  implication  attributions expected future  regarding  t o be  performance  employing  the  locus  findings  is  just  completed  performance  related  to  expectations  only  causal  that  causal  contention that causal  attribution,  between locus  locus  Weiner's  dimension  finding  of  a  This  in situations  of c o n t r o l a cognitive  position  in relation  systematic  cognitive  predicting  future  relationship by  processes  In  performance  dominant  causal  occasions  schema  (i.e.,  original  unexpected structure  employed  prediction,  cues  an  expectations alternative  locus  and  relationship In  i s employed. the  a l l measurement post-performance  are  In s i t u a t i o n s not  cognitive  and i n d i v i d u a l s ' post-performance c a u s a l  106  present  expectations, on  the  s i t u a t i o n , the  performance p r e d i c t i o n ) .  performance  outcome  be  initial  e x p l a n a t i o n , and f u t u r e where  would  of  structures.  (causal) structure matches  the  between  cognitive  and  discrepancy  and  i n a hypothetical  cognitive  w i t h the  unimportance  the nature of the and  performance  where  the  the  initial  structure  The  to expectancy  i n d i v i d u a l ' s dominant situations  process.  be  about  where  i s consistent  i s a cognitive  regarding  expectancy can be e x p l a i n e d between  finding  can  attributions  j u s t completed performance outcome matches i n d i v i d u a l s ' performance e x p e c t a t i o n s .  of  unexpected success.  these a  reliably  failure  met,  the  (causal)  attributions  are  based upon a d i f f e r e n t  employed  in  situation  the  predictive third  the  original  dominant  prediction occasion  and  of  following  of  are  attribution  second  If studies  the  process  that  Weiner  that  structures  cites  The  to  is  at  latter  o n l y when  the  first  (i.e.,  measurement  cognitive  and  initial  performance).  On  the  (immediately  causal  employed  support  procedure  and  the  was  schema  is  casualty.  i n v e s t i g a t i o n s would be  here.  future  described  the  is  measurement  performance) a d i f f e r e n t  apparent  causal  of  in  i s employed  That  attribution  employed i n a t t r i b u t i n g  Thus,  structure  made.  prediction  the  ( c a u s a l ) schema than  prediction.  causal  attributions  instances  cognitive  his  experimental  in  many  the  it  of  is  these  r e l a t i o n s h i p between  attribution  procedure  examining  contention,  employed  i n s e n s i t i v e to the causal  in  processes  employed  described  assumes  that  an  a t t r i b u t i o n r e g a r d i n g a s i n g l e p r e v i o u s performance i s d i r e c t l y related  to  measure  future  of  performance  the  subjects'  attributions  ( p r i o r to  is  As  included.  MODEL  OF  LOCUS OF The  THE  expectations  performance)  regarding  such  no and  performance  investigations.  RECIPROCAL  CAUSALITY  RELATIONSHIPS  CONTROL. CAUSAL ATTRIBUTIONS. AND  results  (cognitive  original  Therefore,  a r e s u l t , o n l y a segment of an ongoing p r o c e s s  i s being examined by  A  the  expectations.  of  this  structure),  study  suggest  attributions  107  of  that  AMONG  PERFORMANCE locus  causality  of  control  (cognitive  process),  and  performance  determining the  maintenance of  a t r a i n i n g program. the  types  their  of  measured A  of c o n t r o l and has  also  locus close  -  been demonstrated individuals  of  control  relationship  established.  relationship  success  locus  However  that  employ  and  can  the  between  failure  to  not  locus  of  for find  individuals  failure.  Analysis  of  scores d i d  support  the  have  found  to  score the  internal  data  findings  i n t e r n a l i t y to. be  for of  for  associated  support  the  control  for and  predicted  tendency f o r a  both  previous  locus  situations  the  overall  of  failure  r e l a t i o n s h i p appears to have been r e l a t e d to the number of  both  individuals'  control  in  maintenance  did  internal  during  affect  The  data  in  changes  in certain  of  the  factors  causality  between  internal  performance.  interrelated  performance demonstrated  a t t r i b u t i o n s of  been  predicted  I t has  attributions  performance.  are  success  Adapted  I.A.R.  investigators  with  more  and  who  effective  performance. Collectively  the  present  support f o r a model of factors further  findings  reciprocal causality  which a f f e c t performance investigation  variables.  The  hypothesized Performance  of  the  cognitive  control  or  which the  performance.  conceptualized  (internal  demonstrate  included  (G.P.O.),  as  external) 108  a  preliminary  the  value  amongst  of of  these  i n t h i s model are  a  is' labeled  General  cognitive  process  General Performance  comprising and  some  among a number  relationships  structure  Orientation  is  and  specific factors  a t t r i b u t i o n of c a u s a l i t y , and Orientation  provide  both  general  a  locus  of  performance  expectation processes  (success  a r e viewed  relationship performance other  or  with has a  factors.  failure).  as b e i n g  in a  the c o g n i t i v e similar  Causal  A graphic  reciprocally  structure  reciprocal  relationship  presentation  Figure  structure The of  13, " A l " r e p r e s e n t s  labeled  "General  Actual with the  of the hypothesized i n F i g u r e 13.  the hypothesized  Performance  causal  G.P.O.  r e l a t i o n s h i p s among these f a c t o r s i s presented In  attributions  cognitive  Orientation"  (G.P.O.).  c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e G.P.O. i s c o n c e p t u a l i z e d as c o n s i s t i n g both  a self-efficacy  component. in  component  and a l o c u s  of c o n t r o l  An i n d i v i d u a l ' s G.P.O. i s viewed as having  determination  attributions  of  regarding  his/her  expectancies  performance  when  primacy  and  approaching  causal a  novel  situation. As  indicated  approaching  A2  i n Figure  13, however, i n  any given performance an i n d i v i d u a l may be p r o v i d e d  with  specific  type  of s i t u a t i o n .  mediate  at point  information  about  this  Such i n f o r m a t i o n  the d i r e c t  effect  of  particular can p r o v i d e  G.P.O.  s i t u a t i o n or "cues"  which  i n determining  an  i n d i v i d u a l ' s e x p e c t a t i o n s and c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s r e g a r d i n g the specific  performance  (at Point  e x p e c t a t i o n s and c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s  "B").  The  (whether determined by the  G.P.O. or an a l t e r n a t e c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e ) a f f e c t a c t u a l performance and e v a l u a t i o n a t P o i n t "C".  109  particular  individuals'  Assuming  that  there  i s no i n f o r m a t i o n  that  a l t e r n a t i v e e x p e c t a t i o n and c a u s a l schema, approach a performance s i t u a t i o n his/her  G.P.O.  indicating ("Dl",  that  either,  his/her  expectations  expectations  will  based upon  have  feedback been  met  F i g u r e 13), o r they have not been met ("D2", F i g u r e 13).  attributed  t o the same  would  expectations  strengthen  his/her  approaching  future situations.  expectations  of i t being  t o be a t t r i b u t e d  ("D2") and would a f f e c t  a t "B", and  (dominant  outcome w h i c h d i s c o n f i r m s  would tend  situation  employed  G.P.O.  i n c r e a s i n g the l i k e l i h o o d  Performance  ("Dl") would tend t o be  f a c t o r s as were  structure),  the  cue an  an i n d i v i d u a l  The a c t u a l p e r f o r m a n c e p r o v i d e s  Performance which confirms  this  with  would  cognitive employed i n  the i n d i v i d u a l ' s  t o f a c t o r s unique t o  the f u t u r e cue value of  these s p e c i f i c f a c t o r s ("A2") i n mediating  the e f f e c t of G.P.O.  However,  to external factors  because  i t would  unique t o the p a r t i c u l a r would' not be expected  be a t t r i b u t e d  situation,  t o produce  h i s / h e r G.P.O.  110  the unexpected performance changes  i n the s t r e n g t h of  FIGURE Reciprocal  12  R e l a t i o n s h i p Among  Expectancy - A t t r i b u t i o n  -  Performance  Dl Strengthens  Performance meets Expectations  G.P.O.  Al General Performance Orientation (Including expectation and c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n )  B Specific Performance Expectation  Actual Performance Evaluation  A2  Situation  Specific D2  "Cues"  Situational  Information  Performance F a i l s t o meet Expectations  6  CHAPTER  SUMMARY AND  This  investigation  demonstrate structuring would  that  successful  was  the  completion  subjects  completed  of a  locus  outcome  hypothetical  negotiation  predicted-failure each  group  Experimental instructions or the for  and  on  absence  instruction. participated  During in  a  b a s i s of  the  last  negotiation  training task  completion  the of  locus the  i n a second t r i a l  of  control  training of the  to  was  the  specific  attributions,  and  control  all  subjects  similar  above and Four  a l l subjects  n e g o t i a t i o n task. 112  either  i d e n t i c a l except  session  which  a  attribution,  to  causal  measure.  sessions  predicted  regarding  monitoring  hypothetical negotiation task r e f e r r e d completed  their  and  Then equal numbers  Program which was  attribution  trial  beginning  included  control  their  measure  internal  which  program  predicted-success  assigned  Program  the  to  attributions  randomly  Training of  Prior  These were:  to monitor and  training  control  to  attribution  reproduce  external attribution.  were  how  task.  of  the  causal  attempt  a performance  predicted-failure  Training  Traditional  the  to  training.  performance  attribution,  an  cognitive  n e g o t i a t i o n task performance on  i n t o three groups on  from  of  in  ability  were d i v i d e d  and  FINDINGS  a management s k i l l s  participants'  f o u r weeks a f t e r  internal  THE  undertaken  addition  procedures to  improve  training  IMPLICATIONS OF  to  the  once again weeks  after  participated  Examination of the  experimental  comparison there was  scores  group  group no  the  on  of  the  performed  the  trial  more  four  h i g h l i g h t e d s e v e r a l important  not  successfully  weeks  after  from  of  only  examination patterns  Further  training  but  of  those the  subjects  the  -  failure  performance  Experimental  fail  task  succeeded training  hypothetical on  the  negotiation  actual  negotiation  -  of  and  the  visual  attribution  Training  had  a  data  l i b was  However, analyses  predicting  expectation that  trial  a n a l y s i s of the  most e f f e c t i v e with those s u b j e c t s who  Program  was  p r e d i c t e d they would  task  but  had  during  actually the  final  session.  2) There was  not  groups  locus  on  a  a significant of  significantly  d i f f e r e n c e between the t r a i n i n g  control  t r a i n i n g ; however, s u b j e c t s scored  the  points.  these hypotheses.  suggested  on  that  than  data a n a l y s i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h Hypotheses I l a and  supportive  data  groups r e v e a l e d  s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between groups on the  d u r i n g the l a s t t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n .  1) The  two  measure  i n the  higher  administered  Experimental T r a i n i n g  (more i n t e r n a l ) than  T r a d i t i o n a l T r a i n i n g group on  an  prior  administration  those  of  the  to  group in  the  measure  f o l l o w i n g completion of t r a i n i n g . 3) A n a l y s i s those  in  of the  subjects'  stated  Experimental  113  a t t r i b u t i o n s demonstrated  Training  group  employed  that the  attribution  control  procedures  that  were  taught  during  the  training. 4)  The  locus  internal  of c o n t r o l  causal  scores  attributions  of s u b j e c t s  in predicting  were h i g h e r (more i n t e r n a l ) than the locus subjects  who  employed  predicting  performance.  5)  subjects  Among  predicting scored  There  (more  success  was  who  employed  their  internal  causal  internal  attributions predicted  of c o n t r o l  no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e  performance  attributions  for failure)  on the locus  employed  of c o n t r o l scores of  t h e i r performance, the group t h a t  higher  predicted  external  who  than  in  failure  those  failure  in  who  subscale.  i n the success  subscale  scores of these two groups. 6)  In the T r a d i t i o n a l T r a i n i n g  difference subjects locus  between  who  group t h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t  negotiation  scored  internal  task  performance  on the success  subscale  of c o n t r o l measure and those who scored  failure  scores  of  of the  i n t e r n a l on the  subscale.  These  results  are g e n e r a l l y  supportive  of the c o n t e n t i o n  that the employment of a t t r i b u t i o n s t r u c t u r i n g procedures as an adjunct t o a s k i l l  t r a i n i n g program can i n c r e a s e  the l i k e l i h o o d  that t r a i n i n g p a r t i c i p a n t s w i l l be able t o reproduce t h e i r " i n training" They  performance  are also  relationships  i n future  generally among  "non-training"  supportive  causal  114  of  situations.  t h e model  attributions,  of, t h e  performance  expectations,  and performance  which  was proposed.  While the  present f i n d i n g s must be c o n s i d e r e d t o be t e n t a t i v e i n l i g h t of the e x p l o r a t o r y nature of the study, encouragement important  f o r further  preliminary  programs,  behavior  investigation  implications  change  f u t u r e r e s e a r c h i n these  they p r o v i d e  theory  considerable  and  have  f o r behavior  and a t t r i b u t i o n  some change  theory, and  areas.  IMPLICATIONS FOR BEHAVIOR CHANGE PROGRAMS  It skill  was the c o n t e n t i o n training  results  of the present  programs a r e behavior  suggest  that  investigation  change processes  may  be enhanced  procedures control an  by t h e i n c l u s i o n  designed  their  to induce  internal  participants  the r e s u l t s  change  coaching, e t c . )  of c o g n i t i v e  c o g n i t i v e processes.  exploratory investigation  confirmation,  and the  the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of behavior  programs (e.g., t e a c h i n g , c o u n s e l l i n g , therapy,  that  structuring  t o monitor  Although  and  t h i s was  and the f i n d i n g s r e q u i r e f u r t h e r indicate  that  maintenance  and  g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of performance i s s u p e r i o r i f s u b j e c t s a r e g i v e n instruction, control  o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o p r a c t i c e , and feedback on how t o  their  causal  attributions  and e x p e c t a t i o n s  t h e i r own performance d u r i n g the t r a i n i n g The changes  importance in their  cognitive-behavioral  of i n d i v i d u a l s ' performance clinicians  115  process.  beliefs  has been i n recent  regarding  about  a major years  causes of focus  of  (Meichenbaum,  1985 ;  Turk  et  demonstrates influencing  al.,  the  1983 ).  effectiveness  individuals  to  nature  only  and  the  limited  period  This  by  the  of  variety  of  four  weeks.  clinical  enhanced  and  who fail  predicted  p r i o r to  program.  attempts  to  procedures  be  the  the  program  performance  However,  was  over  of  beginning  following The  However  behavior  who  it  experimental  readily integrated  the  into a  programs  "cognitive  i n that  the  exhibit  is  making  structuring"  group of  t r a i n i n g that  not  cognitive  change  a  a r e l a t i v e l y easy t a s k .  most e v i d e n t  employ t h e s e in  individuals  subjects  they would  that  attribution  programs  similar  believed  initial  should  the  future  structuring  be  limited  expectations  for  to the  reasons: results  identification very d i f f i c u l t 2)  about  exploratory  treatment of  for  i f asked to perform a t a s k s i m i l a r to t h a t employed i n  training  1)  procedure  beliefs  non-clinical  effectiveness  t r a i n i n g appeared to be  the  maintenance  f u t u r e more e x t e n s i v e e v a l u a t i o n The  simple  their  of  t r a i n i n g procedures employed c o u l d wide  a  investigation  i n v e s t i g a t i o n was  effectiveness  demonstrated  present  of  control  cause of t h e i r performance. in  The  The  of  such  i f not  attribution  investigation integrated  obtained  are  into  not  here  indicate  individuals,  that in  the  reliable  advance,  may  employed  in  be  i m p o s s i b l e to achieve. structuring difficult  existing  and/or  116  procedures to  employ.  newly  They  developed  could  this be  behavior  change  programs  with  relative  ease  and  very  little  a d d i t i o n a l expense. 3)  I t i s believed  has  more  control skill  that  generalized ongoing  which  the a t t r i b u t i o n s t r u c t u r i n g  benefits.  cognitive  The a b i l i t y  processing  is beneficial  i n a wide  procedure  t o monitor and  i s believed  t o be a  variety  everyday  of  situations.  IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORIES OF BEHAVIOR CHANGE  The  results  existence  of t h i s  of a r e c i p r o c a l c a u s a l  factors,  external  that i s postulated by the  investigation  Bandura  cognitive  relationship  reinforcement  among  contingencies,  and  of the  cognitive behavior  i n the S o c i a l L e a r n i n g Theory model advanced  (1977a, 1978).  interactive  are s u p p o r t i v e  The present  relationship  structures,  among  and performance  findings  indicate  cognitive feedback  that  processes,  i s crucial  to  our understanding of behavior change. The  data  processes  are able  performance cognitive  indicate  that  to mediate  feedback.  processes  They  and  attribution  structuring  maintenance  and  combination  of  performance  internal  structures  the r e i n f o r c i n g also  indicate can be  procedures  and  attribution  be  structuring  Attribution 117  can  internal  influenced  that  by  performance  influenced  by  procedures  structuring  and  e f f e c t s of  that  structures  generalization  feedback.  cognitive  procedures  a  and by  themselves, w h i l e  they may  have  c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e s , d i d not performance  i n the  successfully  future  during  performance feedback of of  attribution  generalization  behavior  relative the  change  rather  i s to  program.  mediate  performance  theories  and  than  to  upon  our  perform  Similarly,  subjects  absence and  who  had  i t i s important  focus  attention  upon  structures  and  interventions,  attempting or  to  maintenance  for  behavioral  cognitive  increase  internal  i n the  r e l a t i o n s h i p among c o g n i t i v e  e f f i c a c y of  goal  failed  success at TI d i d not,  cognitive  performance  who  These r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t  d e l i n e a t i o n of the processes,  training  successful  expected to f a i l . for  subjects  restructuring,  of  subjects'  appear to mediate more s u c c e s s f u l  for  the  influenced  to  behavioral  understanding  of  and  determine  the  interventions  if  the  process  of  behavior change.  IMPLICATIONS FOR  Causal A t t r i b u t i o n s and The  Expectancy  present f i n d i n g s  are  that i n d i v i d u a l s ' "perceived key  role  Weiner's  i n determining (1985) model  "stability" important present  and in  data  supportive  of Weiner's  perceived The  determining the  contention  c o n t r o l " of c a u s a l f a c t o r s p l a y s  t h e i r performance  "locus".  indicate  ATTRIBUTION THEORY  "control" latter  118  is  i s not  individuals' separation  expectancy.  of  separated viewed  as  expectations. "locus",  a In  from being The  "control",  and  "stability"  i n the  determination  s t r a i g h t - f o r w a r d as has this  study  indicate  may  locus  perceive  locus)  or  of  that  control  locus  internal  locus  of  of  causal  themselves is  necessarily  factors.  linked  an  illustrate,  external  perceived  as  expectations individual future  systematically  (internal  in  order  as being  Thus  an  for  an  able  to  controllability  to  an  internal  is  locus  of  dimension.  c o n s i d e r performance which i s a t t r i b u t e d to  c o n t r o l l a b l e by  are,  the  therefore,  thinks  i t is  situations  and  in  that i n d i v i d u a l s  him/herself  being  unstable,  as  related  locus).  required  (e.g.,  In t h i s  data  are  themselves  (external  cause  factor).  suggests  Therefore  c o n t r o l but not to the s t a b i l i t y To  The  control  residing within  control  i s not  of expectancy.  i n d i v i d u a l to be able to p e r c e i v e control  and  construct  c o n t r o l as  outside  expectancy,  been suggested by Weiner.  c o n s t r u c t s i n the d e t e r m i n a t i o n The  of  subject  the  The  similar  by  how  weather  relative  is  and  not  future  probable will  the  occur  in  stability  of  this  even though i t i s p e r c e i v e d  as  being  to  the  cause  individual  determined  that  (i.e., case,  weather).  change  i n d i v i d u a l does not p e r c e i v e  in  a  him/herself  future as  situation,  having  any  the  control  over the c a u s a l f a c t o r . The  same performance,  however, may  be  perceived  i f a t t r i b u t e d to as  being  under  c o n t r o l r e g a r d l e s s of the p e r c e i v e d s t a b i l i t y  119  an  internal  cause  the i n d i v i d u a l ' s of the cause.  An  internal,  unstable,  perceived  to  be  attributed  under  cause  the  individual's  consideration  as t o how much e f f o r t the i n d i v i d u a l w i l l  i n future  attributed  cause  performances.  (e.g.,  internal,  may,  however,  stable. also  of the i n d i v i d u a l .  ability,  may w e l l  being  under  the i n d i v i d u a l ' s  Some i n t e r n a l , s t a b l e ,  control  causal  p e r c e i v e d as being beyond the c o n t r o l intelligence).  Attributions  would be e q u i v a l e n t far  Thus  also,  situations. t y p i c a l l y , be  of the i n d i v i d u a l (e.g.  to causal  to a t t r i b u t i o n s  be  be p e r c e i v e d as  i n future  factors w i l l  by  choose  p e r c e i v e d as being under the c o n t r o l although a " s t a b l e " , f a c t o r ,  and  are determined  An  ability)  is  control,  regarding  exert  performance  effort)  expectations  to  future  (e.g.,  factors  of t h i s  to external  factors  type i n so  as e x p e c t a t i o n s are concerned. A  stable  perceived  by  volitional  consideration i n the f u t u r e ,  locus  an  will  In s u c h be  factor as  future  performance  the  individual's  by control  will  be  exercised  a model which proposes t h a t  model,  own  of the f a c t o r .  are r e l a t e d t o p e r c e i v e d in this  his/her  be  case,  a  not by the " s t a b i l i t y "  Locus,  therefore,  under  determined  present data support  may,  being  df how t h i s v o l i t i o n a l  and s t a b i l i t y  factors.  causal  individual  control.  expectations  The  internal  control  represents  a  both  of c a u s a l  fundamental  dimension of a t t r i b u t i o n s because o n l y a t t r i b u t i o n s t o i n t e r n a l causes are p e r c e i v e d individual.  The  as being p o t e n t i a l l y c o n t r o l l a b l e relationship  120  between  by the  "stability"  and  c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y i s more complicated s i n c e e i t h e r type of cause, s t a b l e or u n s t a b l e , may  be viewed as being  i n d i v i d u a l , provided that i t i s i n t e r n a l . need f o r f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n of these  controllable  by an  There i s , c l e a r l y , a  relationships.  The Process of Causal A t t r i b u t i o n In  the present  were more c l o s e l y employed to  expectations  related  i n predicting  of  future  suggest  their  initial  performance  performance a f t e r  event  may  be m i s l e a d i n g .  outcome  These  upon data  Data  subjects than  i n explaining  i t had o c c u r r e d .  t h a t c o n c l u s i o n s which are based  single  performance  t o the c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s  the type of c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s they employed  that i n i t i a l  any  study  results  related to  pertaining  t o any  a r b i t r a r y event, w i t h i n a p r o c e s s , are not a r e l i a b l e b a s i s f o r subsequent  generalization  from  I n d i v i d u a l s do not experience attributions  regarding and  a  events  their  events..  When the a t t r i b u t i o n  s e r i e s of r e l a t e d events within  "single  single  previous  the event  to the  isolated  event  events".  are not  attributions process  about  isolated those  from  previous  and a t t r i b u t i o n s , where and how o f t e n  the s e r i e s measurements are taken  c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s as ongoing  suggestions  that  attributions  "triggered"  by  (Pyzsezinski  & Greenberg,  the  Their  i s c o n c e p t u a l i z e d as a  becomes  an  i s s u e i n determining the v a l i d i t y of data c o l l e c t e d . of  process.  occurrence 1981;  1981).  121  important The view  processes i s c o n t r a d i c t o r y t o occur of  an  Ruble,  only  when  they  "unexpected" 1973;  Wong  are event  & Weiner,  It  is  contended  component  of  an  here  that  ongoing  causal  cognitive  system, which "matches" v a r i o u s  attributions  information  are  processing  s t i m u l i (input from the  sensory  system) w i t h an e x i s t e n t complex of c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e s . is the  believed focus  to be of  "unexpected"  an  ongoing  conscious  event  process  attention  (i.e.,  an  event  which much  which  occurs  of  the  does  r e a d i l y i n t o an e x i s t i n g dominant c o g n i t i v e  a  This  outside  of  time.  An  not  assimilate  schema) r e s u l t s i n  an i n d i v i d u a l becoming "aware" of i t s occurrence. In  suggesting  occurrence aware  of  of "how  this it  process continues it  is  not  that  i n d i v i d u a l s become  process, occurs",  to  only  operate  "controlled"  Schneider, 1977).  i t i s not  latter  requires  what  is  already one  they  are  occurring.  i n the  individual  The  sense  that  (Shiffrin  &  the  termed  process  itself  operates.  "meta-cognition"  by  some  impact of an  resulting  in  "unexpected" event i s  increased  awareness  of  an  o c c u r r i n g process r a t h e r than the sudden i n s t i g a t i o n of  which was  shift"  shift"  the  Meichenbaum & Asarnow, 1979).  I t i s suggested t h a t the "attention  the  how  authors (e.g., Brown, 1977;  an  i t is  that  of  awareness of i t s occurrence i s not  synonymous w i t h awareness of The  implied  automatically  by  That i s ,  that  "aware"  can  perceived  be  previously produced by  cause of an  not  occurring.  the  event.  122  A  similar "attention  i n v e s t i g a t o r s i n q u i r y as  to  the  LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This  investigation  experimental studies.  attempted  environment  to provide  than  The hypotheses  many  a more  previous  necessitated  attribution  a d e s i g n which allowed  dependent  measures t o be taken w i t h i n the t r a i n i n g  and  repeated  then  setting. period and  However,  i n a contrasting as i n d i c a t e d  more  earlier,  similarities  measure,  environment  natural  "everyday"  the r e l a t i v e l y  (four weeks) of time between the f i n a l  the follow-up  "natural"  training  and the e x i s t e n c e  between t h e two p e r f o r m a n c e  brief  session  of a number of  situations,  questions about the degree t o which s u b j e c t s a c t u a l l y  raise  perceived  them as being u n r e l a t e d . Subjects'  attributions  examined  in a  simulate  a "real"  lives.  relatively task  about  their  uncontrolled  which  own  situation  was r e l e v a n t  were  designed t o  to their  everyday  There were few l i m i t a t i o n s upon t h e i r freedom of a c t i o n  within  the performance  matter how r e a l i s t i c , results  obtained  experimental causality  situation.  However,  difficulty manner.  suggest  situation  that  the a r t i f i c i a l  may have  been  t o the t r a i n i n g program  of a s s e s s i n g In t h i s  descriptions  a simulation  i s not the same as " r e a l  causal  investigation  and the  nature  of the  attributing  itself. of t h i s k i n d i s the  attributions subjects  of a t t r i b u t i o n  123  no  life"  a cue f o r  A major problem area f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s  from  performance  i n an u n o b t r u s i v e  were asked  categories  which  to select described  each  of  the  asking  them  attributions This  underlying to  choose  which  were  procedure  helped  subjects  perceiving  being  different  at  (e.g. s t a b i l i t y ) .  causes  the  consider, c a u s a l  the  the  avoid same  extremes  factor  for  factor  in  causal  of  different luck)  be  material  with  the  a  that  explanations  that  a choice  choice  they would  i n the  between  may  be  not  have  first  possible  influenced occurred  length  of  consider  Training  Group  that  determining  which  accomplished  first  two  training  contributed While there  this  than  would  the  by  the  i s no  present  including  sessions.  a d d i t i o n of t h i r d meet the  for  to  sessions  for  those of  the  another  additional  Traditional Training  a l l training the  to  circumstances.  f a c t t h a t the  assuming  to  as  dimension  element  the  duration)  as  training  materials  r e l e v a n t to the  time  was  a  findings,  A  future  additonal to  major future  number  groups, content  but  of  should  ("control" sessions  would  not  of e i t h e r the  be  This  relevant  standardize  design  non-training  same  Experimental T r a i n i n g Programs.  Program  of  r e a d i l y apparent  i n v e s t i g a t i o n s should attempt t o c o n t r o l t h i s v a r i a t i o n . could  than  dimension.  single underlying  them with  possibility  u n c e r t a i n t y to t h i s study. reason  by  (e.g.  Experimental T r a i n i n g Group were longer  Traditional  actual  possibility  causal a  of  categorized  the  of  subjects  them i n more " n a t u r a l " Finally,  previously  to  i n t e r e s t rather  examples  i n presenting  Providing risks  from  of  However, t h i s approach does not overcome the  problem i n h e r e n t place.  dimensions  the also  ) group  (of  equal  presented  T r a d i t i o n a l or  It  i s not  shortcomings in  clear  how  great  an  had on the p r e s e n t study.  limitations  on  the  effectiveness  of  relationships  was an  a  However, they do of  the  preliminary  training  various  program, and  cognitive  Implications f o r further  divided  general  three  behavior change programs, and  findings  exploration  performance outcome. into  result and  FUTURE RESEARCH  experimental  amongst  methodological  investigation.  IMPLICATIONS FOR  study  these  generalizeability  emphasize the need f o r f u r t h e r  This  impact  areas,  of of  variables r e s e a r c h can  research  the the and be  methodology,  theory.  Methodology The that  results  future  attributions attempt  to  structured  and  limitations  research  should  in naturally  develop  of  the  present  attempt  to  assess  occurring situations,  unobtrusive  assessment  i n t e r v i e w s i n attempting  suggest  subjects' and  techniques  to i d e n t i f y  the a t t r i b u t i o n s t h a t s u b j e c t s employ.  should such  as  the nature  of  I t i s also evident that  measures should be taken on more than one d e t e c t and  study  o c c a s i o n i n order t o  i d e n t i f y the r e l a t i o n s h i p between p a s t , present  future a t t r i b u t i o n s regarding related  125  issues.  and  Behavior Change Programs Further  research  generalizability research  would  is  of the be  to  required  present extend  findings.  the  related" a c t i v i t i e s .  These  increase  One  present  m u l t i p l e dependent v a r i a b l e s d e r i v e d "job  to  t h r u s t of  study  by  day  could  such  employing  from s u b j e c t s '  variables  the  be  to  day  measured  u n o b t r u s i v e l y w i t h i n the i n d i v i d u a l s ' a c t u a l work s e t t i n g . example, i d e n t i f i c a t i o n subjects  of  engage i n d u r i n g  used as one  "real"  evaluate  replication  the  research  effectiveness  of  in this  area  and  e x i s t i n g "change programs"  other s k i l l  training  would  incorporating  a t t r i b u t i o n s t r u c t u r i n g procedures employed i n t h i s a v a r i e t y of  be  study.  A second d i r e c t i o n f o r f u t u r e to  which  t h e i r r e g u l a r work r o u t i n e s would  of the dependent v a r i a b l e s i n a f u t u r e  of the c u r r e n t  be  negotiation a c t i v i t i e s  For  the  study i n t o  i n c l u d i n g management  activities.  Theory Further among the  research construct  attribution  defining "General  processes,  and  the  nature  Performance  specific  "unexpected outcome" i s r e q u i r e d . in the  this  area  role  expectation cue  should  played  be by  the  the  Orientation",  A  second  126  and  cues  focus and  structures.  of  causal such  as  research  elaboration  variables,  - performance congruency, which may  s p e c i f i c c o g n i t i v e processes  relationship  situational  identification  situational  of  other  of  than  d i s r u p t and/or The  r o l e that  other  internal  processes  such  as  emotion  play  in  these  r e l a t i o n s h i p s i s another area which needs to be examined. Finally, was  i t is reiterated  undertaken with  b e h a v i o r a l and approach here  the  seen  as  clinical  derived areas  behavior  being  However, many of the in  constructs  such as  clarity  social  in  integration  of  the  of  claims  corresponding behavioral  simply it  employed  psychology, The  existing those  of  is  i s to  fulfill  a  the  fertile obtained  perspective. current  r e l a t e d to  literature  and/or  of  other  who  impediment  i t lends  suggest  "fuzziness" If  and  of overcoming the  the  lack  to  the  legitimacy  that  there  amongst  is  to a  cognitive-  cognitive-behavioral  i t s e a r l y promise  and  avoid  becoming  i n t o the morass of p o p u l i s t "mentalism",  that  p r e c i s e l y defined for  future  while,  the  same time, the  this  major and  future  investigations place  e s t a b l i s h i n g research  sacrifices  results  are  difficulty  critics  challenge  that  i n t e g r a t i o n of  personality, linguistics  research,  conceptual  imperative  at  investigation  concepts which are  in  theorists generally.  emphasis on very  The  supportive  terminology  another detour  is  f u r t h e r the  c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r a l theory  from  approach  present  change.  c o n s t r u c t s and  information processing. of  i n t e n t to  the  c o g n i t i v e t h e o r e t i c a l models as the most  f o r studying  are  that  questions  terminology.  It  i n v e s t i g a t i o n s to avoiding  a  meaningfulness  interest.  127  and  procedures  will  be  accomplish  process of  the  of  great  a  in  major  this  goal  reductionism phenomena  of  REFERENCES Abrahamson, L. Y. Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J . D. (1978). L e a r n e d h e l p l e s s n e s s i n humans: C r i t i q u e and r e f o r m u l a t i o n . J o u r n a l of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49-74. ;  A l k e r , H. (1972). Is p e r s o n a l i t y s i t u a t i o n a l l y s p e c i f i c o r i n t r a p s y c h i c a l l y c o n s i s t e n t ? J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y , 40, 1-6. Anderson, C. A. (1983a). The c a u s a l s t r u c t u r e of s i t u a t i o n s : The g e n e r a t i o n o f p l a u s i b l e c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s as a f u n c t i o n of the type o f event s i t u a t i o n . J o u r n a l of Experimental S o c i a l Psychology, 19, 393-407. Anderson, C. A. (1983b). A b s t r a c t and c o n c r e t e data i n the perseverence of s o c i a l t h e o r i e s : When weak data leads t o unshakeable b e l i e f s . J o u r n a l of E x p e r i m e n t a l Social Psychology, 19, 93-108. Anderson, C. A. (1983c). M o t i v a t i o n a l and performance d e f i c i t s i n i n t e r p e r s o n a l s e t t i n g s : The e f f e c t s of a t t r i b u t i o n a l s t y l e . The J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 45, 1136-1147. Anderson, C. A., & Jennings, D. L. (1980). When experiences of f a i l u r e promote e x p e c t a t i o n s of success: The impact of a t t r i b u t i n g f a i l u r e t o i n e f f e c t i v e s t r a t e g i e s . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 48, 393-407. Andrews, G. R., & Debus, R. L., (1978). P e r s i s t e n c e and c a u s a l p e r c e p t i o n of f a i l u r e : M o d i f y i n g c o g n i t i v e a t t r i b u t i o n s . J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology, 70, 154-166. A r i e t i , S. (1980). C o g n i t i o n and p s y c h o a n a l y s i s . J o u r n a l of the American Academy of P s y c h o a n a l y s i s , 8, 3-23. A v e r i l l , J . A. (1979). A s e l e c t i v e review of c o g n i t i v e and b e h a v i o r a l f a c t o r s i n v o l v e d i n the r e g u l a t i o n of s t r e s s . In R. Depue ( E d . ) . The p s y c h o b i o l o g y o f d e p r e s s i v e d i s o r d e r s : I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the e f f e c t s of s t r e s s . New York: Academic P r e s s . A y l l o n , T., & A z r i n , N. (1968). Appleton-Century-Crofts.  The token economy. New York:  Baars, B. J . (1986). The c o g n i t i v e New York: G u i l d f o r d P r e s s . Baer,  revolution  i n psychology.  D. (1962). L a b o r a t o r y c o n t r o l o f thumb s u c k i n g by withdrawal and r e - p r e s e n t a t i o n of r e i n f o r c e m e n t . J o u r n a l of Experimental A n a l y s i s of Behavior, 5., 525-528.  128  Bandura, A. (1969). P r i n c i p l e s of behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n . New York: H o l t , Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Bandura, A. (1971). V i c a r i o u s and s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t processes. In R. G l a s e r (Ed.), The nature of reinforcement. New York: Academic Press. Bandura, A. (1977a). S o c i a l l e a r n i n g theory. New J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e H a l l .  Englewood  Cliffs,  Bandura, A. (1977b). S e l f - e f f i c a c y : Toward a u n i f y i n g theory of b e h a v i o r a l change. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 84, 191-215. Bandura, A. (1978). The s e l f - s y s t e m i n r e c i p r o c a l determinism. American P s y c h o l o g i s t , 33, 344-358. Bandura, A. (1982). S e l f - e f f i c a c y mechanism American P s y c h o l o g i s t , 37, 122-147.  i n human  agency.  Bandura, A. (1984). R e c y c l i n g misconceptions of p e r c e i v e d s e l f e f f i c a c y . C o g n i t i v e Therapy and Research. 8, 231-255. Bandura, A., Adams, N. E., & Bayer, J . (1977). C o g n i t i v e processes mediating behavioral change. Journal of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 35, 125-139. Bandura, A. Adams, N. E. Hardy, A. B., & Howells, C. N. (1980). Tests of the g e n e r a l i t y of s e l f - e f f i c a c y therapy. C o g n i t i v e Therapy and Research, 4, 39-66. Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). C u l t i v a t i n g competence, s e l f - e f f i c a c y and i n t r i n s i c i n t e r e s t through proximal s e l f m o t i v a t i o n . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 41, 586-598. Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1963). S o c i a l l e a r n i n g and p e r s o n a l i t y d e v e l o p m e n t . New Y o r k : H o l t , R e i n h a r t and Winston. B a r - T a l , D., & F r i e z e , I. (1976). Achievement m o t i v a t i o n and gender as determinants of a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r success and f a i l u r e . In J . H. Harvey, W. J . Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New d i r e c t i o n s i n a t t r i b u t i o n r e s e a r c h . V o l . 1, New York: John Wiley and Sons. B a t t l e , E., & R o t t e r , J . B. (1963). C h i l d r e n ' s f e e l i n g s of p e r s o n a l c o n t r o l as r e l a t e d t o s o c i a l c l a s s and e t h n i c group. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y , 31, 482-490. Baumgardner, B. I . , Kepner, P., & A r k i n , R. M. (1986). Role of c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n i n p e r s o n a l problem s o l v i n g . Journal of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 50., 636-643.  129  Beck, A. T. (1976). C o g n i t i v e t h e r a p y and t h e e m o t i o n a l d i s o r d e r s . New York: I n t e r n a t i o n a l U n i v e r s i t i e s P r e s s . Beck, A. T. (1985). Cognitive therapy, behavior therapy, p s c h o a n a l y s i s and pharmocatherapy: A cognitive continuum. In M. J . Mahoney & A. Freeman ( E d s . ) , C o g n i t i o n and psychotherapy. New York: Plenum P r e s s . Beck,  A. T. , & Rush, A. J . (1978). C o g n i t i v e approaches t o d e p r e s s i o n and s u i c i d e . In G.B. Serbon (Ed.), C o g n i t i v e d e f e c i t s i n the development of mental d i s o r d e r s . New York: Brunner/Mazel.  Beck, A. T., Rush, A. J . , Shaw, B., & Emery, G. (1979). The c o g n i t i v e therapy of d e p r e s s i o n . New York: G u i l d f o r d Press. Bern,  D. J . (1965 ). An e x p e r i m e n t a l e x a m i n a t i o n o f s e l f p e r s u a s i o n . J o u r n a l of E x p e r i m e n t a l S o c i a l Psychology, 1, 199-218. y  Bern,  D. J. (1972a). Constructing cross-situational c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n b e h a v i o r : Some t h o u g h t s on A l k e r ' s c r i t i q u e of M i s c h e l . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y . 40, 17-26.  Bern, D. J . (1972b). S e l f - p e r c e p t i o n theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances i n e x p e r i m e n t a l s o c i a l psychology. ( V o l . 6) New York: Academic P r e s s . Biram, M., & Wilson, G. T. (1981). C o g n i t i v e versus b e h a v i o r a l methods i n treatment of phobic d i s o r d e r s : A s e l f - e f f i c a c y a n a l y s i s . J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 4_9, 886-899. Borkowski, J . G. (1979). Research t a c t i c s i n complex memory and c o g n i t i o n . In O.C. Anderson & J.G. Borkowski (Eds.), E x p e r i m e n t a l p s y c h o l o g y : R e s e a r c h t a c t i c s and t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n s . Champaign, 111: Scott-Foresman. Bower, G. H. (1978). Contacts of c o g n i t i v e psychology w i t h s o c i a l l e a r n i n g theory. C o g n i t i v e Therapy and Research, .2, 123-146. Brody, N. (1971). I n f o r m a t i o n t h e o r y , m o t i v a t i o n , and p e r s o n a l i t y . In H.M. S c h r o e d e r & P. S u e d f e l d ( E d s . ) , P e r s o n a l i t y t h e o r y and i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g . New York: Ronald P r e s s . Brown, A. L. (1977). Development, s c h o o l i n g and the a q u i s i t i o n of knowledge about knowledge. In R. Anderson, R. S p i r o , & W. Montagne ( E d s . ) , S c h o o l i n g and t h e a q u i s i t i o n o f knowledge. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s .  130  Brown, I. J r . , & Inyoue, D. K. (1978). Learned h e l p l e s s n e s s through m o d e l l i n g : The r o l e of p e r c e i v e d s i m i l a r i t y i n competence. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 36, 900-908. Brunson, B. I . , & Matthews, K. A. (1981). The type A coronaryprone b e h a v i o r p a t t e r n and r e a c t i o n s t o u n c o n t r o l l a b l e s t r e s s : An a n a l y s i s of performance s t r a t e g i e s , a f f e c t and attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 906-918. Campbell, P. T., & S t a n l e y , S. C. (1966). Experimental and q u a s i - e x p e r i m e n t a l designs f o r r e s e a r c h . Chicago: Rand McNally. Carver, C. S., DeGregario, E., & G i l l i s , R. (1980). F i e l d study evidence of an ego d e f e n s i v e b i a s i n a t t r i b u t i o n among two c a t e g o r i e s of o b s e r v e r s . P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology B u l l e t i n . 6, 44-50. C l i f f o r d , M. M. (1986). The e f f e c t s of a b i l i t y , s t r a t e g y and e f f o r t a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r e d u c a t i o n a l , b u s i n e s s and a t h l e t i c performance. B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology. 56, 169-179. Craighead, W. P. behavioral Review, 11,  (1982). A b r i e f c l i n i c a l h i s t o r y of c o g n i t i v e therapy with c h i l d r e n . School Psychology 5-13.  C r a n d a l l , V. C. (1969). Sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n expectancy of i n t e l l e c t u a l and academic r e i n f o r c e m e n t . In C. P. Smith (Ed.), Achievement motives i n c h i l d r e n . New York: R u s s e l l Sage. C r a n d a l l , V. C , Katcorsky, W. , & C r a n d a l l , V. J . (1965). C h i l d r e n s ' b e l i e f i n t h e i r c o n t r o l of r e i n f o r c e m e n t s i n intellectual academic achievement behaviors. Child Development, 36, 101-109. Davison, C. (1966). D i f f e r e n t i a l r e i n f o r c e m e n t and c o g n i t i v e r e s t r u c t u r i n g i n therapy w i t h a "paranoid s c h i z o p h r e n i c " or " p a r a n o i d " s t a t e . P r o c e e d i n g s of t h e 7 4 t h a n n u a l c o n v e n t i o n o f the A m e r i c a n P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n . 1 (Summary) 177-178 . Deaux, K., & E m s w i l l e r , T. (1974). E x p l a n a t i o n s of s u c c e s s f u l performance on sex l i n k e d t a s k s : What i s s k i l l f o r the male i s l u c k f o r the female. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 29, 80-85. Deaux, K., & F a r r i s , E. (1977). A t t r i b u t i n g causes f o r one's own performance: The e f f e c t s of sex. J o u r n a l of Research i n P e r s o n a l i t y , 11, 59-72.  131  de  Charms, R. (1972). P e r s o n a l c a u s a t i o n t r a i n i n g i n J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d S o c i a l Psychology, 2, 95-113.  schools.  Dobson, K., Jacobson, N., & V i c t o r , J . (1988). Towards an i n t e g r a t i o n of c o g n i t i v e therapy and c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r a l m a r i t a l therapy f o r d e p r e s s i o n . In J . C l a r k , G. Haas, & I. Glick (Eds.), F a m i l y v a r i a b l e s and intervention in a f f e c t i v e d i s o r d e r s . New York: G u i l d f o r d P r e s s . Ducette, J . , Wolk, S., & Soucar, E. (1972). A t y p i c a l p a t t e r n i n locus of c o n t r o l and non adaptive b e h a v i o r . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y , 40, 287-297. Dweck, C. S. (1975). The r o l e of e x p e c t a t i o n s and a t t r i b u t i o n s on the a l l e v i a t i o n of l e a r n e d h e l p l e s s n e s s . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 31, 674-685. Dweck, C. S., & Reppuchi, N. D. (1973). Learned h e l p l e s s n e s s and reinforcement r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 25, 109-116. D ' z u r i l l a , T. J . (1982). S o c i a l problem s o l v i n g i n a d u l t s . In P. C. K e n d a l l (Ed.), Advances i n c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r a l r e s e a r c h and therapy. New York: Academic P r e s s . D ' z u r i l l a , T. J . ( 1 9 8 8 ) . P r o b l e m s o l v i n g t h e r a p i e s . In K. Dobson & L. Block (Eds.), Handbook of c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r a l t h e r a p i e s . New York: G u i l d f o r d Press. E i s e n h a r t , C. (1947). The assumptions u n d e r l y i n g of v a r i a n c e . B i o m e t r i c s , 3, 1-21. E l l i s , A. (1958). R a t i o n a l Psychology, 59, 35-49. E l l i s , A. (1962). York: S t u a r t .  Reason  psychotherapy. and  emotion  in  the  Journal  of  analysis General  psychotherapy.  New  E n d l e r , N. S. (1973). The person versus the s i t u a t i o n - a psuedo i s s u e : A response to A l k e r . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y , 41, 287-303. E p s t e i n , R. (1986). B r i n g i n g c o g n i t i o n and c r e a t i v i t y i n t o the b e h a v i o r a l l a b o r a t o r y . In T. S. Knapp & L. C. Robertson (Eds.), Approaches to cognition: Contrasts and c o n t r o v e r s i e s . H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s . Fairweather, G. W. (1964). S o c i a l psychology i n t r e a t i n g mental i l l n e s s . New York: John Wiley and Sons. F e i d l e r , F. E. (1967). A theory of l e a d e r s h i p New York: McGraw H i l l Book Company.  132  effectiveness.  F e i d l e r , K. (1982). Casual schemata: Review and c r i t i c i s m of r e s e a r c h on a popular c o n s t r u c t . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 42, 1001-1013. F e r s t e r , C. B. , & S k i n n e r , reinforcement. New York: Finn,  J . D. analyses.  B. F. ( 1957 ). S c h e d u l e s Appleton-Century-Crofts.  of  (1974). A g e n e r a l model f o r m u l t i v a r i a b l e New York: H o l t , Rinehart and Winston. 320-321.  F o e s t e r l i n g , F., & Engleken, R. (1981). Expectations in r e l a t i o n to success and f a i l u r e , c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s and perceived task similarity. Personality and Social Psychology B u l l e t i n , 7, 578-582. Fowler, J . W. , & Peterson, P. L. (1981). I n c r e a s i n g reading p e r s i s t a n c e and a l t e r i n g a t t r i b u t i o n a l s t y l e of l e a r n e d h e l p l e s s c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology. 73, 257-260 F r a n k l , V. E. (1985). Logos, paradox and the search f o r meaning. In M. J . Mahoney & A. Freeman (Eds.), C o g n i t i o n and psycotherapy. New York: Plenum P r e s s . French, J . R. P., J r . , & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of s o c i a l power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies i n s o c i a l power. Ann Arbor, Michigan: I n s t i t u t e f o r S o c i a l Research. Frieze, I., & Weiner, B. (1971). Cue utilization and a t t r i b u t i o n a l judgments f o r success and f a i l u r e . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y , 39, 591-606. G a i t o , J . (1980). Measurement s c a l e s and s t a t i s t i c s : Resurgence of an o l d m i s c o n c e p t i o n . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n . 87, 564567 . G i l o v i c h , T. (1983). B i a s e d e v a l u a t i o n and p e r s i s t a n c e i n gambling. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 44, 1110-11126. Glass, G. V., Peckham, P. D., & Sanders, J . R. (1972). Consequences of f a i l u r e to meet assumptions u n d e r l y i n g the f i x e d e f f e c t s a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e and c o v a r i a n c e . Review of E d u c a t i o n a l Research, 42, 237-287. G o l d f r i e d , M. P., & Robins, R. (1983). S e l f schema, c o g n i t i v e b i a s and the p r o c e s s i n g of t h e r a p e u t i c experience. In P. K e n d a l l (Ed.), Advances i n c o g n i t i v e b e h a v i o r a l r e s e a r c h i n therapy ( V o l . I I I ) . New York: Academic Press, 33-80. Gorman, B. S. (1968). An o b s e r v a t i o n of a l t e r e d l o c u s o f c o n t r o l f o l l o w i n g p o l i t i c a l disappointment. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Report, 23, 1094.  133  Greenberg, M. S., Saxe, L. , & B a r - T a l , D. (1978). Perceived stability of trait labels. P e r s o n a l i t y and Social Psychology B u l l e t i n , 4, 59-62. G u r i n , P., G u r i n , G., Lao, R. C., & B e a t t i e , M. (1969). I n t e r n a l - e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l i n the m o t i v a t i o n a l dynamics of negro youth. J o u r n a l of S o c i a l Issues, 25., 29-53. Hall,  S. M. , & H a l l , R. G. (1974). Outcome and considerations i n b e h a v i o r a l treatment Behavior Therapy, 5., 352-364.  methodological of obesity.  Hamilton, V. (1979). An i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g approach to n e u r o t i c a n x i e t y and the s c h i z o p h r e n i a s . In V. Hamilton & D. M. Warburton (Eds.), Human s t r e s s and c o g n i t o n : An i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g approach. C h i c h e s t e r , Eng.: Wiley. Hamilton, V. (1980). An i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g a n a l y s i s of environmental s t r e s s and l i f e c r i s e s . In I. G. Sarason & C. D. S p i e l b e r g e r , (Eds.) Stess and a n x i e t y ( V o l . 2). Washington, D.C: Hemisphere. Hansen, R. D. (1980). Commonsense a t t r i b u t i o n s . J o u r n a l P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 39, 996-1009.  of  Haring, N. G, L o v i t t , T. C , Eaton, M. D., & Hansen, C. L. (1978). The f o r c e R: Research i n the classroom. Columbus, Ohio: C h a r l e s E. M e r r i l l . Harvey, J . M. (1971). Locus of c o n t r o l i n the P e r c e p t u a l and Motor S k i l l s , 33, 980-982.  administrator.  Harvey, J . H., Ickes, W. J . , & Kidd, R. F. ( E d s . ) . (1976). d i r e c t i o n s i n a t t r i b u t i o n r e s e a r c h ( V o l . 1). New York: John Wiley and Sons.  New  Harvey, J . H., & Weary, G. (1984). a t t r i b u t i o n t h e o r y and research. Psychology, 31, 457-501.  in of  Current American  issues Review  H a s t i e , R. (1981). Schematic p r i n c i p l e s i n human memory. In E. H i g g i n s , C. Herman & M. Zanna (Eds.), Social cognition: The O n t a r i o symposium. H i l l s d a l e , N.J. H a s t o r f , A., S c h n e i d e r , D., & P o l e f k a , J . (1970). p e r c e p t i o n . Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley.  Person  Heckhausen, H., & Weiner, B. ( 1 9 7 2 ) . The emergence of a c o g n i t i v e p s y c h o l o g y of m o t i v a t i o n . In R. C. D o d w e l l (Ed.), New horizons i n psychology ( V o l . 2). New York: Penguin Books, Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of New York: John Wiley and Sons. 134  interpersonal relations.  Holzman, P. S., & G a r d i n e r , R. W. ( 1 9 5 9 ) . L e v e l i n g and r e p r e s s i o n . J o u r n a l of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology. 59, 151-155. Holzman, P. S., & Gardiner, R. W. (1960). Leveling-sharpening and memory o r g a n i z a t i o n . J o u r n a l of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, 61, 176-180. Hotzworth-Munroe, A., & J a c o b s o n , N. S. (1985). Causal a t t r i b u t i o n s of m a r r i e d couples: When they search f o r causes? What do they conclude when they do? J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 48. 1398-1412. Hummel, T. J . , & S l i g o , J.R. (1971). E m p i r i c a l comparison of univariate and m u l t i v a r i a t e analysis of variance procedures. P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l l e t i n , 76 (1), 49-57. Jacobson, N. (1984). The m o d i f i c a t i o n of c o g n i t i v e processes i n b e h a v i o r a l m a r i t a l therapy: I n t e g r a t i n g c o g n i t i v e and behavioral intervention stratagies. In K. H a l v i g & N. Jacobson (Eds.), Marital interaction: Analysis and modification. New York: G u i l d f o r d P r e s s . James, W. H. ( 1 9 5 7 ) . I n t e r n a l v e r s u s e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l o f reinforcement as a b a s i c v a r i a b l e i n l e a r n i n g theory. Dissertation Abstracts International, (University M i c r o f i l m s , No. 57-3742) J e f f e r y , D. B. (1974). A comparison of the e f f e c t s of e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l and s e l f c o n t r o l on m o d i f i c a t i o n and maintenence of weight. J o u r n a l of Abnormal Psychology, 83, 404-410. Jennings, D. L. (1980). E f f e c t s of a t t r i b u t i n g f a i l u r e t o ineffective strategies. Dissertation Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 40, 5461-B. ( U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s , No. 8011654.) Jennings, D., Amabile, T. M. , & Ross, L. (1980). Informal c o v a r i a t i o n a s s e s s m e n t : Data b a s e d v s . t h e o r y based judgements. In D. Kahmeman, P. S l o v i c , & A. T v e r s k y (Eds.), Judgment under u n c e r t a i n t y : H e u r e s t i c s and b i a s e s . New York: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press. Jennings, D. L., Leper, M. R., & Ross, L. (1981). P e r s i s t e n c e of impressions of p e r s o n a l p e r s u a s i v e n e s s : Perseverence of erroneous s e l f assessments o u t s i d e of the d e - b r i e f i n g paradigm. P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology B u l l e t i n . 1_, 257-263 Kahnmen, D., & T v e r s k y , A. ( 1973 ). On t h e p s y c h o l o g y p r e d i c t i o n . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 80, 237-251.  135  of  Kanfer, F. H. (1970). Self-monitoring: Methodological limitations and clinical applications. Journal of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 35, 148-152. Kanfer, F. H. (1971). The maintenance of b e h a v i o r by s e l f generated s t i m u l i and r e i n f o r c e m e n t . In M. A. Jacobs & L. Sachs ( E d s . ) , The psychology of p r i v a t e events. New York: Academic P r e s s , 39-57. Kanfer, F. H. (1975). Self-management methods. In F. H Kanfer & A. P. G o l d s t e i n ( E d s . ) , H e l p i n g people change. New York: Pergamon P r e s s . Kanfer, F. H. (1977). The many f a c e s of s e l f c o n t r o l , or behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n changes i t s f o c u s . In R. S t u a r t (Ed.), B e h a v i o r a l s e l f management. New York: Brunner/ Mazel. Kanfer, F. H. (1984). Self-management i n c l i n i c a l and s o c i a l interactions. In J . H. Harvey, J . E. Maddox, R. P. McGlynn, & C. D. Stoltenberg (Eds.), Interfaces i n psychology ( V o l . 2) Lubboc, Texas: Texas Tech U n i v e r s i t y Press. Kanfer, F. H. , & Hagerman, S. (1981). The r o l e of s e l f regulation. In L. P. Rehm (Ed.), Behavior therapy f o r d e p r e s s i o n : P r e s e n t s t a t u s and f u t u r e d i r e c t i o n s . New York: Academic P r e s s . Kanfer, F. H., & Karoly, P. (1972). Self-control: A b e h a v i o u r i s t i c e x c u r s i o n i n t o t h e l i o n s den. B e h a v i o r Therapy. 3, 398-416. Kanfer, F. H. , & S c h e f t , B. K. (1987). therapy i n c l i n i c a l p r a c t i c e . In N. S. Psychotherapies i n c l i n i c a l p r a c t i c e . New Press.  Self-management Jacobson (Ed.), York: G u i l d f o r d  K e l l e y , H. H. (1967). A t t r i b u t i o n theory i n s o c i a l psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.). Nebraska symposium on m o t i v a t i o n . L i n c o l n , Nebraska: U n i v e r s i t y of Nebraska P r e s s . K e l l e y , H. H. (1971). A t t r i b u t i o n York: General L e a r n i n g P r e s s .  in social  interaction.  New  K e l l e y , H. H. (1972). C a u s a l schemata and t h e p r o c e s s . New York: General L e a r n i n g P r e s s .  attribution  K e l l e y , H. H. (1973). The processes of American P s y c h o l o g i s t , 28, 107-128.  attribution.  causal  K e l l e y , H. H. (1983). E p i l o g u e : P e r c e i v e d c a u s a l s t r u c t u r e s . In J . J a s p a r s , F. Fincham, & F. Hewstone (Eds.), Attribution theory and research: Conceptual, 136  developmental, Press.  and  social  dimensions.  London:  Academic  K e l l e y , H. H. , & M i c h e l a , J . L. (1980). A t t r i b u t i o n t h e o r y and r e s e a r c h . American Review of Psychology, 31, 457-501. Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification and i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n : T h r e e p r o c e s s e s o f a t t i t u d e change. J o u r n a l of C o n f l i c t R e s o l u t i o n , 2, 51-60. Kelman, H. C. (1961). Process of o p i n i o n change. P u b l i c Opinion Q u a r t e r l y , 25, 57-58. Kelman, H. C. (1974). F u r t h e r thoughts on the processes of c o m p l i a n c e , i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n . In J . T e d e s c h i , (Ed.), P e r s p e c t i v e s on s o c i a l power. Chicago: Aldine Press. K e n d a l l , P. C. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . Advances i n c o g n i t i v e behavioral r e s e a r c h i n therapy ( v o l . I I ) . New York: Academic P r e s s . K e n d a l l , P., & H o l l o n , S. (1979). C o g n i t i v e behavioral i n t e r v e n t i o n s : Theory, r e s e a r c h and procedures. New York: Academic P r e s s . Kendler, H. H. (1974). The making of a n e o - b e h a v i o r i s t . In T. S. Krawiec (Ed.), The p s y c h o l o g i s t s . New York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press. Kendler, H. H. (1981). Psychology: A s c i e n c e i n c o n f l i c t . York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s .  New  Kendler, H. H. (1985). Behaviorism and Psychology: An uneasy a l l i a n c e . In S. Koch & D. Leary (Eds.), A c e n t u r y of ^psychology as a s c i e n c e . New York: McGraw-Hill. K l e i n , E. B., & Fontance, A. J . (1968). S e l f p r e s e n t a t i o n and' t h e s c h i z o p h r e n i c . J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 32, 250-256. Knapp, T., & Robertson, L. C. (1986). Approaches t o c o g n i t i o n : C o n t r a s t s and c o n t r o v e r s i e s . H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s . Kukla, A. (1972). A t t r i b u t i o n a l related behavior. Journal Psychology, 21, 166-174. Kun,  determinants of of P e r s o n a l i t y  achievement and Social  A., & W e i n e r , B. ( 1 9 7 3 ) . N e c e s s a r y v e r s u s s u f f i c i e n t c a u s a l schemata f o r s u c c e s s and f a i l u r e . J o u r n a l o f Research i n P e r s o n a l i t y , 7, 197-201.  Lachman, R., Lachman, J . L., & B u t t e r f i e l d , E. C. (1979). C o g n i t i v e p s y c h o l o g y and i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g : An 137  i n t r o d u c t i o n . H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum. Lao,  R. C. (1970). I n t e r n a l - e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l and competent and i n n o v a t i v e behavior among negro c o l l e g e students. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 14, 263-270.  Lau,  R. R. , & Russel, D. (1980). A t t r i b u t i o n s i n the s p o r t s pages. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 39, 29-38.  Lazarus, A. A. (1961). Group therapy of phobic d i s o r d e r s by systematic d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n . J o u r n a l of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, 62, 504-510. Ledwidge, B. (1978). C o g n i t i v e behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n : A step i n the wrong d i r e c t i o n ? P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 85, 353-375. Ledwidge, B. (1979). C o g n i t i v e behavior modification: A r e j o i n d e r t o Locke and t o Meichenbaum. C o g n i t i v e Therapy and Research. 3., 133-139. L e f c o u r t , H. M. (1966). I n t e r n a l verus e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l of reinforcements: A review. P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 65., 206220. L e f c o u r t , H. M. (1975). Causal a t t r i b u t i o n s as a f u n c t i o n of locus of c o n t r o l , i n i t i a l c o n f i d e n c e , and p e r f o r m a n c e outcomes. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 32, 391-397. L e f c o u r t , H. M. (1976). Locus of c o n t r o l : Current trends theory and r e s e a r c h . New York: John Wiley and Sons.  in  L i n d s l e y , 0. R. (1956). Operant c o n d i t i o n i n g methods a p p l i e d t o research i n chronic schizophrenia. ( P s y c h i a t r i c Research R e p o r t s #5). W a s h i n g t o n , D.C.: American P s y c h i a t r i c Association. Locke, E. A. (1979). Behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n i s not c o g n i t i v e and other myths: A r e p l y t o Ledwidge. C o g n i t i v e Therapy and Research, 3, 119-126. Lord,  F. M. (1958). On the s t a t i s t i c a l treatment numbers. American P s y c h o l o g i s t , 8, 750-751.  of  football  L o v a s s , 0. I . (1966). A b e h a v i o r t h e r a p y a p p r o a c h t o t h e treatment of c h i l d h o o d s c h i z o p h r e n i a . In M. J . P. H i l l (Ed.), Minnesota symposium on c h i l d psychology ( V o l . 1 ) . M i n n e a p o l i s : U n i v e r s i t y of Minnesota P r e s s . Lunney, G. H. (1970). U s i n g a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e d i c h o t o m o u s dependent v a r i a b l e : An e m p i r i c a l J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Measurement, 7, 263-269.  138  with a study.  Mahoney, M. J . (1974). C o g n i t i o n and Cambridge, Mass.: B a l l i n g e r .  behavior  modification.  Mahoney, M. J . (1977). On t h e c o n t i n u i n g r e s i s t a n c e t h o u g h t f u l therapy. Behavior Therapy, 8, 673-677.  to  Mahoney, M. J. (1985). Psychotherapy and human change p r o c e s s e s . In M. J . Mahoney, & A. Freeman (Eds.), C o g n i t i o n and psychotherapy. New York: Plenum P r e s s , 3-48. Mahoney, M. J . , & Kazdin, A. E. (1979). C o g n i t i v e b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n : The need f o r a f a i r e r assessment. C o g n i t i v e Therapy and Research, 3., 127-132. M a r a s c u i l o , L. A., & McSweeney, M. (1977). Nonparametric and d i s t r i b u t i o n f r e e methods f o r t h e s o c i a l sciences. Monterey: Brooks/Cole. Marston, H. R., & M c F a l l , R. M. (1974) A comparison of b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n approaches t o smoking r e d u c t i o n . J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 42, 912-916. McArthur, L. A. (1970). Luck i s a l i v e and w e l l i n New Haven. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 16, 316-318. McArthur, L. A. ( 1972 ). The how and what o f why: Some d e t e r m i n a n t s and c o n s e q u e n c e s of c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 22, 171-193. McFarland, C , & Ross, M. (1982). Impact of c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s on a f f e c t i v e r e a c t i o n s t o success and f a i l u r e . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 43. 937-946. McMahan, J . (1973). R e l a t i o n s h i p s between c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s and expectancy of s u c c e s s . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 28, 108-114. McMullan, R., & G i l e s , D. (1981). C o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r therapy: A r e s t r u c t u r i n g approach. New York: Greene & S t r a t t o n . Medway, F. J . , & Venino, G. R. (1982). The e f f e c t s of e f f o r t feedback and performance on c h i l d r e n ' s a t t r i b u t i o n s and task p e r s i s t a n c e . Contemporary E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology. 1, 26-34. Meichenbaum, D. (1971). Cognitive factors i n behavior modification. (Research Report #25). Department of P s y c h o l o g y , U n i v e r s i t y of W a t e r l o o , W a t e r l o o , Ont. , Canada. Meichenbaum, D. (1974). C o g n i t i v e b e h a v i o r Morristown, N.J.: General L e a r n i n g P r e s s .  139  modification.  Meichenbaum, D. (1975). Toward a c o g n i t i v e t h e o r y of s e l f c o n t r o l . In G. Schwartz & D. Shapiro (Eds.), Consciousness and s e l f - r e g u l a t i o n : A d v a n c e s i n r e s e a r c h . New York: Plenum Press. Meichenbaum, D. (1977). C o g n i t i v e behavior i n t e g r a t i v e approach. New York: Plenum.  modification:  Meichenbaum, D. (1979). C o g n i t i v e behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n : need f o r a f u r t h e r a s s e s s m e n t . C o g n i t i v e T h e r a p y Research, 3, 127-132. Meichenbaum, D. (1985). Pergammon Press.  S t r e s s i n o c u l a t i o n therapy. New  An The and  York:  Meichenbaum, D., & Asarnow, J . ( 1 9 7 9 ) . C o g n i t i v e behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n and meta-cognitive development: I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the classroom. In P.C. K e n d a l l & S. D. H o l l e n (Eds.), C o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n s : Theory and r e s e a r c h . New York: Academic P r e s s . Meichenbaum, D., B u t l e r , L., & Gruson, L. (1981). Toward a conceptual model of s o c i a l competence. In J.D. Wine & M. D. Smye (Eds.), S o c i a l competence, New York: G u i l d f o r d Press. Meichenbaum, D., & Gilmore, J . B. (1984). The nature of unconscious processes: A c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r a l approach. In D. Meichenbaum & K. Bowers (Eds.), The unconscious r e v i s i t e d . New York: John Wiley & Sons. M e r l u z z i , T. V., Rudy, T. E., & G l a s s , C. R. (1981). The i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g paradigm: I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r c l i n i c a l s c i e n c e . In T. M e r l u z z i , C. Glass & M. Genest (Eds.), C o g n i t i v e assessment. New York: G u i l d f o r d P r e s s . Metalsky, G. I., & Abrahamson, L. Y. (1981). A t t r i b u t i o n a l s t y l e s : Toward a framework f o r c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n and assessment. Strategies for cognitive behavioral interventions. New York: Academic P r e s s . Meyer, J . P. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . D i m e n s i o n s of c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r success and failure: A multivariate investigation. D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of W e s t e r n O n t a r i o , London, Ont. D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 39, 4621-B. Meyer, J . P. (1980). C a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s o f s u c c e s s and f a i l u r e : A m u l t i v a r i a t e i n v e s t i g a t i o n of dimensionality formation and consequences. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 38, 704-718.  140  Meyer, J . P., & K o e l b e l , S. L. M. (1982). D i m e n s i o n a l i t y of students causal a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r test performance. P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology B u l l e t i n , 8, 3-36. M i c h e l a , J . L. , Peplau, M. , & Weeks, J . (1979). P e r c i e v e d dimensions and consequences of attributions f o r loneliness. Unpublished Manuscript, University of C a l i f o r n i a , Los Angelas. M i l l e r , D. T. (1976). Ego involvement and a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r success and f a i l u r e . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 34, 901-906. M i l l e r , N. E. Learnable d r i v e s and rewards. (1951). In S. S. Stevens (Ed.), Handbook of experimental psychology. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 435-472. M i s c h e l , W. (1968). P e r s o n a l i t y and assessment. Wiley and Sons.  New York:  John  M i s c h e l , W. , Z e i s s , R., & Z e i s s , A. (1974). I n t e r n a l - e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l and p e r s i s t a n c e : V a l i d a t i o n and i m p l i c a t i o n s of the S t a n f o r d P r e s c h o o l I n t e r n a l - e x t e r n a l S c a l e . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 29, 265-278. M i t c h e l l , T. R., Larson, J . R., & Green, S. G. (1977). Leader behavior, s i t u a t i o n a l moderators and group performance: An attributional analysis. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behavior and Human Performance, 18, 254-268. M o n t a n e l l i , D. S., & H i l l , K. T. (1969). C h i l d r e n s ' achievement e x p e c t a t i o n s and p e r f o r m a n c e as a f u n c t i o n o f two c o n s e c u t i v e r e i n f o r c e m e n t e x p e r i e n c e s , sex of s u b j e c t s , and sex of experimentor. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 13, 115-128. Neimeyer, G. J . , & Neimeyer, R. A. (1981). P e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t p e r s p e c t i v e s i n c o g n i t i v e assessment. In M.T. M e r l u z z i , C. K. Glass & M. Genest (Eds.), C o g n i t i v e assessment. New York: G u i l d f o r d P r e s s , 188-232. Neufeld, R. W. J . & M o t h e r s i l l , K. J . (1980). Stess as an i r r i t a n t of psychopathology. In I. G. Sarason & C. D. Speilberger (Eds.), Stress and A n x i e t y (Vol. 7). Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere. Nezu, A. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . E f f i c a c y o f p r o b l e m s o l v i n g u n i p o l a r d e p r e s s i o n . J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g Psychology, 54, 185-203.  therapy f o r and C l i n i c a l  N i s b e t t , R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human i n f e r e n c e : S t r a t e g i e s and shortcomings of s o c i a l judgement. Engelwood C l i f f s , New J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e H a l l .  141  N i s b e t t , R. E., & Schacter, S. (1969). C o g n i t i v e m a n i p u l a t i o n of p a i n . J o u r n a l of E x p e r i m e n t a l S o c i a l Psychology. 2, 115-128. Palmer, S. E., & K i n c h i , R. (1986). The i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g approach t o c o g n i t i o n . In T. Knapp & L. C. Robertson (Eds.), Approaches to cogniton: Contrasts and controversies. Hillsdale, N. J . : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Passer, M. W. (1977). P e r c e i v i n g the causes of success and f a i l u r e r e v i s i t e d : A m u l t i - d i m e n s i o n a l s c a l i n g approach. ( D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , 1977). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 38, 5652B. P a u l , G. L. (1966). I n s i g h t v s . d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n i n psychology. Stanford, C a l i f . : Stanford U n i v e r s i t y Press. P h a r e s , E. J . (1973). L o c u s of c o n t r o l : determinant of b e h a v i o r . Morristown, New Learning Press.  A personality J e r s e y : General  Pondy, R. L. (1967). O r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n f l i c t : Concepts and models. A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Q u a r t e r l y , 12121, 296-320. Premack, D. (1965). Reinforcement t h e o r y . In D. Levine (Ed.). Nebraska symposium on m o t i v a t i o n (1965). Lincoln, Nebraska: U n i v e r s i t y of Nebraska P r e s s , 123-180. P y z s e z i n s k i , T., & Greenberg, J . (1981). Role of d i s c o n f i r m e d expectations i n the instigation of attributional p r o c e s s i n g . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 40, 31-88. R a c h l i n , H. ( 1 9 7 7 a ) . R e i n f o r c i n g Behavior Therapy, 8, 659-665.  and  punishing  thoughts.  R a c h l i n , H. (1977b). R e i n f o r c i n g and p u n i s h i n g thoughts: A r e j o i n d e r t o Mahoney and E l l i s . Behavior Therapy. 8, 678681. R a c h l i n H. (1986). A defense of r a d i c a l b e h a v i o r i s m . In B. Baars (Ed.), The C o g n i t i v e R e v o l u t i o n i n Psychology. New York: The G u i l d f o r d P r e s s . Rachman, S. ( 1 9 7 1 ) . Pergamon P r e s s .  The  effects  of p s y c h o t h e r a p y .  Oxford:  Raven, B. H. ( 1974). Power and power p r e f e r e n c e . In J . T e d e s c h i , (Ed.), P e r s p e c t i v e s on s o c i a l power. Chicago: A l d i n e P u b l i s h i n g Company.  142  Raven, B. H., & K r u g l a n s k i , A. w. (1970). C o n f l i c t and power. In P. Swingle (Ed.). The s t r u c t u r e of c o n f l i c t . New York: Academic P r e s s . Rehm, L., & Rokke, P. ( 1 9 8 8 ) . Self-management t h e r a p i e s . In K. Dobson & L. Block (Eds.), Handbook of c o g n i t i v e b e h a v i o r a l t h e r a p i e s . New York: G u i l d f o r d P r e s s . Rehm, L. P. ( 1 9 7 5 ) . A s e l f - c o n t r o l model o f Unpublished manuscript. University of Pittsburgh.  depression. Pittsburgh,  Reid,  D., & Ware, E. E. ( 1 9 7 3 ) . M u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l i t y of locus of c o n t r o l : I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r past and f u t u r e research. Canadian J o u r n a l of B e h a v i o r a l Science, 5_, 2 6 4 - 2 7 1 .  Reid,  D., & Ware, E. E. ( 1 9 7 4 ) . M u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l i t y of locus of c o n t r o l : A d d i t i o n o f a t h i r d d i m e n s i o n and nond i s t i n c t i o n of s e l f versus o t h e r s . Canadian J o u r n a l of B e h a v i o r a l Science, 6, 1 3 1 - 1 4 2 .  Reeder, G. D., & Brewer, M.B. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . A schematic model of the dispositional attribution i n interpersonal perception. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 86, 6 1 - 7 9 . Reeder, G. D., & F u l k s , J . F. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . When a c t i o n s speak louder t h a n words: Implicational schemata and t h e a t t r i b u t i o n of a b i l i t y , J o u r n a l of Experimental S o c i a l Psychology, 16, 3 3 - 4 6 . Remanis, G. ( 1 9 7 1 ) . E f f e c t s of experimental i n t e r n a l - e x t e r n a l m o d i f i c a t i o n techniques and home environmental v a r i a b l e s on locus of c o n t r o l . Paper p r e s e n t e d t o American P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C. R e n i s , D. L. , Hansen, R. D., & O ' L e a r y , V. E. ( 1983 ) . Understanding the meaning of achievement a t t r i b u t i o n s : A t e s t of d e r i v e d locus and s t a b i l i t y s c o r e s . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 44, 7 0 2 - 7 1 . R e s t , 'S., N i e r e n b e r g , R., W e i n e r , B., & H e c k e n h a u s e r , H. (1973). Further evidence concerning the e f f e c t s of perceptions of e f f o r t and a b i l i t y on achievement m o t i v a t i o n . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 28,  187-191.  Reynolds, W. M., & Stark, K. D. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . C o g n i t i v e strategy research: The clinical application of cognitive s t r a t e g i e s . I n M. P r e s s l e y & J . R. L e v i n e (Eds.), Cognitive strategy research: Psychological foundations. New York: S p r i n g e r - V e r l a g . R i l e y , D., Brown, M. F., & Yoerg, S. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . Understanding animal c o g n i t i o n : A s h o r t h i s t o r y of c o g n i t i v e theory i n 143  animal psychology. In T. Knapp & L. C. Robertson (Eds.), A p p r o a c h e s t o c o g n i t i o n : C o n t r a s t s and c o n t r o v e r s i e s . H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s . R i s e l y , T. R. (1977). The s o c i a l context of s e l f c o n t r o l . In R. S t u a r t (Ed.), B e h a v i o r a l s e l f management. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Rogers, C. (1959). The essence of psychology: A c l i e n t c e n t e r e d view. American P s y c h o l o g i c a l Monographs, 1, 51-57. Rosen, D . , & S t e f a n , W. E. (1977). When d i s c o u n t i n g f a i l s : unexpected f i n d i n g . Memory and C o g n i t i o n . 5., 97-102.  An  Rosenbaum, R. W. (1973). A d i m e n s i o n a l a n a l y s i s of p e r c e i v e d c a u s e s of s u c c e s s and f a i l u r e . D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 35, 3637B. ( U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s No. 73-10475). R o s e n t h a l , T. L. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . B a n d u r a ' s s e l f - e f f i c a c y Thought i s f a t h e r t o deed. Advances i n Behavior and Therapy, 2, 203-209.  theory: Research  Ross, L. (1981). The " i n t u i t i v e s c i e n t i s t " f o r m u l a t i o n and i t s d e v e l o p m e n t a l i m p l i c a t i o n s . In J . F l a v e l l & L. Ross (Eds.), S o c i a l c o g n i t i v e development. New York: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press. Ross,  L., & Lepper, M. R. (1980). The perseverence E m p i r i c a l and n o r m a t i v e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . In (Ed.), New d i r e c t i o n s f o r m e t h o d o l o g y o f b e h a v i o r a l s c i e n c e : F a l l i b l e judgement i n r e s e a r c h , San F r a n s i c o : Jossey-Bass.  of s e l v e s : A. Shweder social and behavioral  Ross,  L. D., Roding, J . , & Zimbardo, P. C. (1969). Toward an a t t r i b u t i v e therapy: The r e d u c t i o n of f e a r through induced c o g n i t i v e - e m o t i o n a l r e a t t r i b u t i o n . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 12, 279-288.  R o t t e r , J . B. (1954). S o c i a l l e a r n i n g and c l i n i c a l psychology. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 166-167. R o t t e r , J . B. (1966). G e n e r a l i z e d e x p e c t a n c i e s f o r i n t e r n a l versus external c o n t r o l reinforcement. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Monographs, 80 (Whole No. 609). R o t t e r , J . B. (1975). Some problems and misconceptions r e l a t e d to the c o n s t r u c t of i n t e r n a l vs. e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l of reinforcement. J o u r n a l of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48, 56-67.  144  R o t t e r , J . B., L i v e r a n t , S., & Crowne, D. P. (1961). growth and e x t i n c t i o n of e x p e c t a t i o n s i n chance c o n t r o l l e d s k i l l e d t a s k s . J o u r n a l of Psychology. 5, 177 .  The and 161-  R u b l e , T. L. (1973). The r o l e of c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s i n conflict handling behavior. (Doctoral Dissertation, U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , 1973). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 34, 4409A. Rush, A. J . , & Beck, A. T. ( 1977 ). C o g n i t i v e t h e r a p y of d e p r e s s i o n and s u i c i d e . American J o u r n a l of Psychotherapy, 201-219. Savage, I. R. (1957). Non-parametric s t a t i s t i c s . Journal, of the American S t a t i s t i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , 52, 331-344. Schopler, J . , & Layton, B. D. (1974). A t t r i b u t i o n s i n t e r p e r s o n a l power. In J . Tedeschi (Ed), P e r s p e c t i v e s s o c i a l power. Chicago: A l d i n e P u b l i s h i n g Company.  of on  Schunk, D. H. (1984). S e q u e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n a l feedback and c h i l d r e n ' s p e r c e p t i o n of achievement b e h a v i o r s . Journal of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology, 75, 848-856. Schwartz, R. D., & H i g g i n s , R. L. (1979). D i f f e r e n t i a l outcome from automated a s s e r t i o n t r a i n i n g as a f u n c t i o n of l o c u s of c o n t r o l . J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 47, 686-699. Schwitter, R. (1986). A c o o r d i n a t i o n of d e f i n i t i o n s : Behavior, mentalism and the foundations of psychology. In T. Knapp & L. C. Robertson (Eds.), Approaches to c o g n i t i o n : C o n t r a s t s and c o n t r o v e r s i e s . H i l l s d a l e , N. J . : Lawrence E r l b a u m Associates. Seeman, M. ( 1 9 6 3 ) . A l i e n a t i o n and social learning in a reformatory. American J o u r n a l of S o c i o l o g y . 69, 270-284. Seeman, M. , & Evans, J . (1962). A l i e n a t i o n and l e a r n i n g i n a h o s p i t a l s e t t i n g . American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. 27., 772782. S h i f f r i n , R. N., & Schneider, G. ( 1 9 7 7 ) . C o n t r o l l e d and automatic i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g : I I . P e r c e p t u a l l e a r n i n g , automatic a t t e n d i n g and a g e n e r a l theory. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 84, 127-190. S i c o l y , F. , & Ross, M. (1977). F a c i l i t a t i o n of ego biased a t t r i b u t i o n s by means of s e l f s e r v i n g observer feedback. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 35, 734-791. Skinner, B. F. McMillan.  (1953).  Science  145  and  human behavior.  New  York:  Skinner, B. F. (1977). Why Behaviorism, 5, 1-11.  I am  not  a cognitive  psychologist.  Smith, E. E. (1968). Choice r e a c t i o n time: An a n a l y s i s of major t h e o r e t i c a l p o s i t i o n s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 77-110.  the 69,  Sonne, J . L. & J a n o f f , D. S. (1982). A t t r i b u t i o n s and the maintennence of behavior change. In C. A n t a k i & C. Brewin (Eds.), A t t r i b u t i o n s and P s y c h o l o g i c a l Change. New York Academic Press. Spates, C. R. , & Kanfer, F. H. (1977). S e l f - m o n i t o r i n g , selfe v a l u a t i o n and s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t i n c h i l d r e n ' s l e a r n i n g : A t e s t of a m u l t i - s t a g e s e l f - r e g u l a t i o n model. Behavior Therapy, 8, 9-16. S t a a t s , A. W. (1975). S o c i a l behaviorism. The Dorsey Press.  Homewood,  Illinois:  Stephan, W. , & G o l l w i t z e r , P. (1981). A f f e c t as a mediator of a t t r i b u t i o n a l e g o t i s m . J o u r n a l of E x p e r i m e n t a l S o c i a l Psychology, 17, 442-458. S t e p h e n s , M. W., & Delys, P. (1973). E x t e r n a l control expectancies amongst disadvantaged c h i l d r e n at p r e s c h o o l age. C h i l d Development, 44, 670-674. Storms, M. D., & N i s b e t t , R. F. (1970). Insomnia and the a t t r i b u t i v e process. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 16, 319-328. S t u a r t , R. B. (1969). O p e r a n t i n t e r p e r s o n a l m a r i t a l d i s c o r d . J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g Psychology, 3, 675-682.  treatment of and Clinical  Suedfeld, P. (1971). Information p r o c e s s i n g as a p e r s o n a l i t y model. In H. Schroeder & P. Suedfeld (Eds.), P e r s o n a l i t y theory and i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g . New York: Ronald P r e s s . T a y l o r , S. E., & Crocker, J . (1981). Schematic bases of s o c i a l i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g . In E. T. H i g g i n s , C. P. Herman, M. P. Zanna (Eds. ) , S o c i a l c o g n i t i o n : The Ontario Symposium on p e r s o n a l i t y and psychology. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum. T e t l o c k , P. E., & L e v i , A. (1982). A t t r i b u t i o n b i a s : On the inconclusiveness of t h e c o g n i t i o n - m o t i v a t i o n debate. J o u r n a l of Experimental S o c i a l Psychology. 18, 68-88. Thomas, K. W. (1974). C o n f l i c t and c o n f l i c t management. In M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of i n d u s t r i a l and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally. 146  Turk,  D., Meichenbaum, D., & Genest, M. (1983). b e h a v i o r a l medicine. New York: G u i l d f o r d P r e s s .  Pain  and  Turk,  D., & S p e e r s , M.A. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . C o g n i t i v e schemata and c o g n i t i v e processes i n c o g n i t i v e b e h a v i o r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n s : Going beyond the i n f o r m a t i o n g i v e n . In P. K e n d a l l (Ed.), Advances i n c o g n i t i v e therapy r e s e a r c h ( V o l . I I I ) . New York: Academic Press, 1-31.  V a l i n s S., & N i s b e t t , R. E. (1971). Some i m p l i c a t i o n s o f a t t r i b u t i o n processes f o r the development of treatment of emotional d i s o r d e r s . New York: General L e a r n i n g P r e s s . V a l l e , V. A., & F r i e z e , I. H. (1976). S t a b i l i t y of c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s as a mediator i n changing e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r success. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 33., 579-587 . Walton, R. E. (1969). I n t e r p e r s o n a l peacemaking: C o n f r o n t a t i o n s and t h i r d - p a r t y c o n s u l t a t i o n . R e a d i n g , Mass: A d d i s o n Wesley . Weiner, B. (1972). T h e o r i e s of m o t i v a t i o n : c o g n i t i o n . Chicago: Rand McNally. Weiner, B. (1974a). C o g n i t i v e views York: Academic P r e s s .  From mechanism t o  of human m o t i v a t i o n .  New  Weiner, B. (1974b). A c h i e v e m e n t m o t i v a t i o n and a t t r i b u t i o n theory. Morristown, N.J.: General L e a r n i n g P r e s s . Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of m o t i v a t i o n f o r some classroom e x p e r i e n c e s . J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology. 71, 3-25. Weiner, B. (1980a). A theory of m o t i v a t i o n f o r some classroom e x p e r i e n c e s . In M.D. G o r l i t z ( E d . ) , P e r s p e c t i v e s on a t t r i b u t i o n r e s e a r c h and theory: The B i e l f e l d symposium. Cambridge, Mass.: B a l l i n g e r . Weiner, B. (1980b). A c o g n i t i v e ( a t t r i b u t i o n a l ) - emotion a c t i o n model o f m o t i v a t e d b e h a v i o r : An a n a l y s i s o f judgements of help g i v i n g . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 39, 186-200. Weiner, B. (1985). An a t t r i b u t i o n a l theory of achievement m o t i v a t i o n and emotion. Psychology Review. 92., 548-573. Weiner, B. (1986). An a t t r i b u t i o n a l theory of m o t i v a t i o n and emotion. New York: S p r i n g e r - V e r l a g . Weiner, B., F r i e z e , I . , Kukla, A., Reed, L., Rest, S., & Rosenbaum, R. M. (1971). P e r c e i v i n g the causes of success and f a i l u r e . Morristown, N.J.: General L e a r n i n g P r e s s . 147  Weiner, B., Heckenhauser, H. , Meyer, W. V., & Cook, R. E. (1972). C a u s a l a s c r i p t i o n s and a c h i e v e m e n t b e h a v i o r : Conceptual a n a l y s i s of e f f o r t and r e a n a l y s i s of l o c u s of c o n t r o l . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y , 21, 239-248. Weiner, B., & Kukla, A. (1970). An a t t r i b u t i o n a l a n a l y s i s of achievement m o t i v a t i o n . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 15, 1-7. Weiner, B., Neirenberg, R. & G o l d s t e i n , M. (1976). Social l e a r n i n g (locus of c o n t r o l ) versus a t t r i b u t i o n a l ( c a u s a l s t a b i l i t y ) i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of expectancy s u c c e s s . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y , 44, 52-68. Weiner, B., & Potepan, P. (1970). P e r s o n a l i t y c o r r e l a t e s and a f f e c t i v e r e a c t i o n s t o w a r d s exams of s u c c e e d i n g and Journal of Educational failing college students. Psychology, 72, 144-151. Weiner, B., R u s s e l , D., & Lerman, D. (1978). Afective consequences of causal ascriptions. Journal of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 37, 1211-1220. W i l l i a m s , J . G., & S t a c k , J . J . (1972). I n t e r n a l - e x t e r n a l control as a s i t u a t i o n a l variable i n determining information s e e k i n g by n e g r o s t u d e n t s . J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 39, 187-193. W i l s o n , P., G o l d i n g , J . , & C h a r b o n n e a u - P o w i s , M. (1983). Comparitive efficiency o f b e h a v i o r a l and cognitive t r e a t m e n t s o f d e p r e s s i o n . C o g n i t i v e t h e r a p y and Research, 7, 111-124. Wilson, T. D., & L i n v i l l e , P. W. (1982). Improving the academic performance of c o l l e g e f r e s h m e n : A t t r i b u t i o n therapy r e v i s i t e d . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 42, 367-376. Winberg, R. S., Gould, D., & Jackson, A. (1979). E x p e c t a t i o n s and performance: An e m p i r i c a l t e s t of Bandura's selfe f f i c a c y theory. J o u r n a l of Sport Psychology. 1, 320-331. Winer, B. J . (1971). s t a t i s t i c a l p r i n c i p l e s i n d e s i g n . New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.  experimental  Wolfe, G. A. (1975). A c a u s a l a n a l y s i s of job p e r c e p t i o n s and performance u s i n g i n t e r v e n i n g v a r i a b l e s o f g o a l s and rewards. Paper p r e s e n t e d a t the .Convention of The American P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n . Chicago, 111. Wolpe, J . (1981). The dichotomy between c l a s s i c a l y c o n d i t i o n e d and c o g n i t i v e l y l e a r n e d a n x i e t y . J o u r n a l of B e h a v i o r a l Therapy and Experimental P s y c h i a t r y . 12, 35-42. 148  Wolpe, J . , Lunde, S., M c N a l l y , R. , & S c h o t t e , D. (1985 ). Differentation between classicaly conditioned and' c o g n i t i v e l y b a s e d n e u r o t i c f e a r s : Two p i l o t s t u d i e s . J o u r n a l of B e h a v i o r a l Therapy and Experimental P s y c h i a t r y . 16, 287-293.. Wong, P. T., & Weiner, B. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . When p e o p l e a s k "why" q u e s t i o n s , and the h e u r e s t i c s of a t t r i b u t i o n a l search. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 40, 650-663. Wyer, R. S., J r . (1974). C o g n i t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n and change: An i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g approach. P o i n t i a c , Maryland: Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s . Wyer, R. S., J r . (1981). An i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g p e r s p e c t i v e on s o c i a l a t t r i b u t i o n . In M. J . Harvey, W. Ikes, & R. Kidd (Eds.). New D i r e c t i o n s In A t t r i b u t i o n Research. ( V o l . 3) New York: Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s . Wylie, W. (1974). Threads i n the f a b r i c of a n a r c i s s i s t i c disorder. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic A s s o c i a t i o n , 22, 310-328.  149  APPENDIX 1  TRAINING PROGRAMS  T r a i n i n g Program Week 1  152  T r a i n i n g Program Week 1 Experimental Supplement T r a i n i n g Program Week 2  .. 161 174  T r a i n i n g Program Week 2 Experimental Supplement T r a i n i n g Program Week 3  .. 181 188  150  T r a i n i n g Programs Both  the T r a d i t i o n a l  the  content  listed  and  Experimental  for  the  traditional  Experimental t r a i n i n g program a l l o t s of  these m a t e r i a l s however,  content  l i s t e d - under  the  s e s s i o n s are h e l d f o r each  programs u t i l i z e  to  Experimental  151  program.  The  l e s s time f o r p r e s e n t a t i o n  i n order  group.  a l l of  cover  the  Program.  additional Three  hour  T r a i n i n g Program Week 1: Problem S o l v i n g and D e c i s i o n  Making  I. I n t r o d u c t i o n and Group Formation A. Have students complete name tags and wear them. B. B r i e f i n t r o d u c t i o n of y o u r s e l f and your background. C. B r i e f o u t l i n e of Seminar Schedule and t o n i g h t ' s schedule. (Emphasize a p p l i e d nature of the t r a i n i n g ) . D. Group Formation (6 Groups of 5 members). 1) 10 minute p e r i o d f o r m i n g l i n g and meeting one another. 2) P a r t i c i p a n t s form groups of 5 members. 3) A l l o w groups 5 minutes t o get t o know one another, and a s s i g n each i n d i v i d u a l the task of knowing the name of everyone i n h i s / h e r group by the end of the n i g h t ( i n s t r u c t o r s assignment i s t o know everyone's names) Note t o I n s t r u c t o r : The s m a l l group i s important t o encourage i n d i v i d u a l attendance. Encourage them t o t a l k t o one another and t o begin t o e s t a b l i s h r e l a t i o n s h i p s through shared t a s k s .  I I . Problem S o l v i n g and D e c i s i o n A.  Making  Introduction 1) Examples  of how managers' d e c i s i o n s get made  (quotes).  Charles Cox (Kennecot Copper): "I don't t h i n k businessmen r e a l l y know they make d e c i s i o n s . I know I don't." Charles D i c k e y (J.P. Morgan): "There are no r u l e s . " Dwight Joyce (Glidden Co.): " I f a v i c e - p r e s i d e n t asked me how I was able t o choose the r i g h t course, I'd have t o say, 'I'm damned i f I know.'"  152  2) Question: Is there any r i g h t way? 3) Examine some t y p i c a l procedures: a) a p p e a l i n g t o experts b) t r a d i t i o n c) "hunches" and i n s p i r a t i o n All of these are employed and can be e f f e c t i v e but r e s e a r c h has demonstrated that effective problem s o l v i n g and d e c i s i o n making i s a s k i l l which can be l e a r n e d . The technique takes time and p r a c t i c e , and i s not f o r every s i t u a t i o n : a) some s i t u a t i o n s are r e l a t i v e l y simple and frequent, and the c o s t s of a poor d e c i s i o n are s m a l l (e.g., d e c i d i n g on what f l a v o r of i c e cream t o purchase a t Baskin Robbins). In s i t u a t i o n s l i k e t h i s , d e c i s i o n making i s almost an automatic p r o c e s s . We r e f e r t o these as "Preprogrammed" s i t u a t i o n s i n which an e l a b o r a t e d e c i s i o n making process i s i n a p p r o p r i a t e . b) Other s i t u a t i o n s are more unique, and the p o t e n t i a l c o s t s of a poor d e c i s i o n are much g r e a t e r (e.g. P u r c h a s i n g a computer system). E f f e c t i v e d e c i s i o n s i n s i t u a t i o n s such as t h i s are c r u c i a l t o e f f e c t i v e management. The d e c i s ion making technique p r e s e n t e d here i s designed to r e s u l t i n e f f e c t i v e , e f f i c i e n t d e c i s i o n making i n these s i t u a t i o n s .  B. The Process of E f f e c t i v e D e c i s i o n Making Note  to Instructor:  p r o j e c t overhead diagram of process on s c r e e n and go o v e r i t q u i c k l y ( l e a v e diagram p r o j e c t e d on s c r e e n ) . S t r e s s i n i n t r o d u c t o r y comment t h a t this is a s y s t e m a t i c f o u r phase system made up of nine separate steps but i t i s not designed t o be a " l o c k s t e p " p r o c e s s .  153  PROBLEM SOLVING PROCESS  154  PHASE I: PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION Step #1: "Information 1)  Assembly"  S t r e s s the need t o be p r o - a c t i v e and a n t i c i p a t e . The need t o arrange f o r r e g u l a r flow, "monitoring systems" of the o r g a n i z a t i o n .  2) Examine the c o s t s of o b t a i n i n g value of a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n v s . c o s t s of a c t i n g with too l i t t l e ( T o u r i s t Guide Joke - see page 215) Step #2: "Information  Clarification"  1) Make i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c i s e and p r e c i s e but not too narrow to exclude v a l u a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n . 2)  Employ b e h a v i o r a l terms ( e . g . , job s a t i s f a c t i o n , m o r a l e , e t c . , a r e terms w h i c h need t o be made observable and measurable). D i s c u s s i o n of how t h i s can be done: i ) Key Question: How many? How often? i i ) . Goal : Q u a n t i f y i i i ) Advantages: - i n d i c a t e s p o s s i b l e a c t i o n s t o remedy - makes i t e a s i e r t o communicate a c c u r a t e l y t o others - aids i n evaluating  Step #3: P r i o r i t i z e 1)  Consider: i ) Immediacy - urgency of the problem i i ) Scope of the problem i i i ) S t r u c t u r e of o r g a n i z a t i o n  2) Common E r r o r s : i ) Premature c o n c l u s i o n s i i ) Over s i m p l i f i c a t i o n (search f o r S i n g l e C e n t r a l Problem) i i i ) Symptom l e v e l a n a l y s i s i v ) Problem-objective confusion Step #4: Outcome C r i t e r i a 1) Develop standards a g a i n s t which p o t e n t i a l s o l u t i o n s can be measured. 155  2) Define c o n s t r a i n t s - b i n d i n g and non-binding 3) Examine o r g a n i z a t i o n o b j e c t i v e s and p e r s o n a l o b j e c t i v e s ( C i v i l S e r v i c e Problem: group a c t i v i t y - see page 211)  PHASE II GENERATION OF SOLUTIONS Step #5: Develop a number of a l t e r n a t i v e s o l u t i o n s 1) Wisdom of the ages 2) P o s s i b i l i t y l i s t s 3) Consultants 4) B r a i n s t o r m i n g (Group E x e r c i s e - See page 5) C r e a t i v e Note:  216)  Thinking  S t r e s s the importance of i s o l a t i n g t h i s phase from phase I I I . Keep mind f r e e of any c o n s t r a i n t s so w i l d and unusual s o l u t i o n s can be c r e a t e d . Even the " c r a z i e s t " p o s s i b i l i t y may have some aspects which can be u t i l i z e d i n an e f f e c t i v e s o l u t i o n .  PHASE I I I SELECTING A SOLUTION Step #6: Evaluate A l t e r n a t i v e s 1) Compare S o l u t i o n s t o c o n s t r a i n t s i ) e l i m i n a t e the obvious - but combine i i ) reduce t o a "few b e s t "  look  f o r ways t o  2) Task: Choose between p o s s i b l e s o l u t i o n s ; A l l of which meet your c r i t e r i a t o some degree. How? a) P r i n c i p l e of " O p t i m i z a t i o n " A l l t h i n g s being equal, which a l t e r n a t i v e has g r e a t e s t value? How t o decide?  Assign  "utility"  156  - assess value and c o s t s of a p a r t i c u l a r course of a c t i o n .  I t s "worth" o r " u t i l i t y " i s the r e l a t i o n s h i p between value and c o s t . Example Problem: Choosing a Mate i n Kanta Burra Assigning Utilities to Complex A l t e r n a t i v e s (see page 212) b)  Risks Real l i f e d e c i s i o n s i n v o l v e c h o i c e i n u n c e r t a i n s i t u a t i o n s . -- a s s e s s i n g u t i l i t i e s and gambling on what w i l l a c t u a l l y happen. E.g. value of d e c i s i o n to c a r r y umbrella depends on whether o r not i t rains.  *So i n d e c i s i o n both u t i l i t y and chance be i n c l u d e d .  factors  must  EXAMPLE: Which do you p r e f e r ? : 1. $.10 with c e r t a i n t y or one chance i n t e n at $1.00? 2. $1 3. $10 4. $100  " 11  5. $1000 "  •  "  $10  '  "  $100  '  "  $1000  1  " $10,000 $10,000,000  6. $ l m i l l i o n  You are not i n d i f f e r e n t t o any of the c h o i c e s - i . e . , i n case one you may p r e f e r t o gamble, a l s o i n case 2 but a t some p o i n t you w i l l r e v e r s e ; u n l e s s you p l a c e extremely high u t i l i t y on r i s k . The switch occurs a t p o i n t which u t i l i t y f o r money begins growing l e s s r a p i d l y than i t s d o l l a r value, i.e., When the c e r t a i n t y of $100 i s chosen over a 10% chance f o r $1000. The u t i l i t y of $1000 i s l e s s than 10 times $100. c) P r o b a b i l i t y The long run e x p e c t a t i o n of r e l a t i v e an event's occurrence range from 0 157  frequency t o 1.  of  Example: Probability of l i v i n g f o r e v e r i s 0. P r o b a b i l i t y of d y i n g i s 1. P r o b a b i l i t y of f l i p p i n g a "head" i s .5 These are O b j e c t i v e Values based on physical p r o p e r t i e s (e.g., Coin -two s i d e s , d i c e - s i x s i d e s )  d) Expected v a l u e R a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n maker attempts t o maximize h i s long-run expected gains. (Both p r o b a b i l i t y of events and t h e i r v a l u e are c o n s i d e r e d i n s e l e c t i n g an o p t i m a l course of a c t i o n ) Example: Suppose you are i n v i t e d t o p l a y a game, f l i p p i n g a c o i n which w i l l pay you $10 each head, but c o s t you $5 each t a i l . SHOULD YOU PLAY? Expected v a l u e , or winnings expected i n long run: p. head = .5 v. head = $10 p. t a i l = .5 v. t a i l = -$5 Expected Value (EV) =(vh x ph) + ( v t x pt)=($10 = + $2.50  x .5) + (-$5 x .5)  In long run you w i l l win $2.50 f o r each f l i p coin.  of the  T h i s i s a procedure f o r o p t i m a l d e c i s i o n making but few people use i t because they don't understand i t , or i t i s too much t r o u b l e . Gambling Casinos and Insurance Companies use i t . e) S u b j e c t i v e P r o b a b i l i t y : How l i k e l y a r o l e of 7, i f 7 has not appeared i n l a s t 100 r o l l s ? Gambler w i l l bet "law of averages" say i t s got t o happen soon ( s u b j e c t i v e n o t i o n of p r o b a b i l i t y ) but 158  actual (objective probability) p r o b a b i l i t y s t i l l one i n s i x .  is  - People tend t o overestimate the occurrence of events w i t h low p r o b a b i l i t y and underestimate the occurrence of events with h i g h p r o b a b i l i t y . - People tend t o e x h i b i t the gambler's fallacy, predicting that an event t h a t has not o c c u r r e d f o r a w h i l e i s more l i k e l y t o occur i n the near future. - People tend t o overestimate the t r u e p r o b a b i l i t y of events that are f a v o r a b l e to them and underestimate those t h a t are u n f a v o r a b l e .  I t i s p o s s i b l e t o combine s u b j e c t i v e p r o b a b i l i t y w i t h u t i l i t y , i n the same manner as above, i n making decisions. Step #7:  Choice PHASE IV IMPLEMENTATION AND  EVALUATION  [The f i n a l phase, which i s a l s o the f i r s t Step #8:  phase]  Implement  1) Consider: i) Resources needed: Human, F i n a n c i a l . ii) Schedule: Time frame, Sequence. iii) iv)  O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Impact: People, Procedures, Structure. Contingency P l a n : A n t i c i p a t e what can go wrong.  Step #9: E v a l u a t i o n 1) E s t a b l i s h a feedback system which s u p p l i e s you r e l i a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n flow r e g a r d i n g p r o g r e s s , ( a c t u a l l y step #1 repeated).  C. Summarize  159  D. Assignment Hand out assignment and have them work t o g e t h e r i n groups on the f i r s t decision making task. Move from group t o group and f a c i l i t a t e i n t h i s p r o c e s s . At the same time collect name tags from each group. Make sure you can i d e n t i f y each i n d i v i d u a l and match them t o t h e i r name tags, you w i l l be r e q u i r e d t o hand them out t o the c o r r e c t people next week (Keep name- tags i n groups t o a s s i s t this process).  160  T r a i n i n g Program Week 1:  Experimental Program Supplement  161  I.  Introduction On blackboard:  The Wages of S.I.N.  Connect t o p r o b l e m s o l v i n g : The procedures f o r problem s o l v i n g d i s c u s s e d t o n i g h t f a i r l y simple and s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d . The most d i f f i c u l t i n f i n d i n g e f f e c t i v e s o l u t i o n s i s overcoming: SIN  II.  The Our but  - " S e l f Imposed  P e r c e p t i o n - Behavior  Negatives"  Connection  a c t i o n s are based upon what we do  we  perceive  determined by a process  are task  p e r c e i v e r e a l i t y to be,  "reality" ?? of f i l t e r i n g  What and  we  perceive  is  classifying.  1) The " f i l t e r i n g p r o c e s s " : Our p e r c e p t u a l processes (e.g., v i s i o n , h e a r i n g , s m e l l ) , " f i l t e r " incoming s t i m u l i : There are "sounds" "smells" e t c . "out t h e r e " t h a t we do not p e r c e i v e . . a)  This filtering occurs partly because of l i m i t a t i o n s on how much d a t a we a r e a b l e t o p r o c e s s a t one t i m e , and t h e a b i l i t y of our sensory organs to d e t e c t s t i m u l i whose magnitude i s outside c e r t a i n threshold values.  E.g.,  sound waves which have a frequency i n a u d i b l e to the human ear, but which animals can r e a d i l y detect (human range i s approximately 20 t o 20,000 Hz).  b) A second way i n which f i l t e r i n g the process of "Attending" - f o c u s i n g our s t i m u l i while s h u t t i n g out  occurs  i s through  a t t e n t i o n to others.  certain  A t t e n d i n g can be a p a r t i a l l y v o l u n t a r y process where we c o n s c i o u s l y d i r e c t our a t t e n t i o n to s p e c i f i c s t i m u l i i g n o r i n g o t h e r s , or i t can be involuntary.  162  I n v o l u n t a r y a t t e n d i n g o c c u r s when a s t i m u l u s because of some unique p r o p e r t y (e.g., s t r e n g t h ) f o r c e s our a t t e n t i o n and as a r e s u l t we f a i l to a t t e n d to oth e r s even though we may have no conscious i n t e n t of doing so. E.g.,  Mothers who b r i n g home a new baby o f t e n r e p o r t being extremely t i r e d because the baby " f u s s e s " and c r i e s d u r i n g the n i g h t and as a r e s u l t they get very l i t t l e sleep. I n t e r e s t i n g l y , fathers often report t h a t they hear n o t h i n g . WHY?  C l e a r l y the sounds are w i t h i n the normal h e a r i n g ranges yet one i n d i v i d u a l "hears" them and the other doesn't. Explanation: Mother i s very a c u t e l y aware t h a t the baby i s home now and i s a l l her r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . As a r e s u l t she i s very c o n s c i o u s l y tuned to any indication that the baby i s i n d i s t r e s s and immediately awakes at the s l i g h t e s t sound. Father, however, i s not so tuned i n ( a f t e r a l l he knows she w i l l handle t h i n g s ) as a r e s u l t he f a i l s to p e r c e i v e these "low l e v e l " sounds. As mother becomes more s e n s i t i v e i n her a b i l i t y to d i s t i n g u i s h " n o i s e " from d i s t r e s s s i g n a l s she begins to s l e e p through much of t h i s low l e v e l " f u s s i n g " . Father o f t e n begins complaining about d i s t u r b e d s l e e p at t h i s p o i n t . (Note: I f the f a t h e r were l e f t alone w i t h the baby over n i g h t when i t f i r s t a r r i v e s home, he would likely be every b i t as s e n s i t i v e to i t s n o i s e s i n the n i g h t as the mother i s . In fact he would probably be so a t t e n t i v e to the baby sounds the he would have a d i f f i c u l t time even going to s l e e p . ) 2) The  C l a s s i f y i n g - Organization  Process:  Unorganized s t i m u l i have no meaning Steamily organized a)  or i n f o r m a t i o n which we i n some way  do p e r c e i v e must be  to g i v e i t meaning.  " C o g n i t i v e Maps" - i n t e r n a l models or templates t h a t we employ to organize i n f o r m a t i o n so t h a t i t has meaning. i)  Information t h a t we r e c e i v e o n l y has meaning when we can f i t i t to a c o g n i t i v e map. E.g., number s e r i e s . . . 4 61 8 46 5 52 163  (every second term i s the square of the p r e c e d i n g but "reversed") ii)  one  I t i s an a c t i v e p r o c e s s : We a t t e n d t o i n f o r m a t i o n which f i t s e x i s t i n g maps and f a i l to perceive much i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h m i g h t c o n t r a d i c t them.  Example: s t o r y about my f r i e n d the Doctor t h a t illustrates "sexual s t e r e o t y p i n g " i n the t h i n k i n g of the average person) iii)  The "F.O.F.O. P r i n c i p l e " (Count the F s ...) 1  FINISHED FILES ARE THE RESULT OF YEARS OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH COMBINED WITH THE EXPERIENCE OF MANY YEARS When we F i x On s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n as being important, o r upon c e r t a i n ways of o r g a n i z i n g that information, we a u t o m a t i c a l l y F i l t e r out other i n f o r m a t i o n which i s viewed as unimportant. We a c t as i f what we p e r c e i v e i s a l l there i s . Ill.  Self-Perception We have c o g n i t i v e maps of o u r s e l v e s which we c o n s t r u c t we grow up from e a r l i e s t c h i l d h o o d . 1)  They begin t o be formed ability or opportunity a l t e r n a t i v e information.  when we have very to analyze, or  as  limited to get  2) A s i n g l e event can be " r e i n f o r c e d " over and over by our " r e l i v i n g " i t i n our mind.  again  3) The " s e l f - i m a g e " becomes a " c o g n i t i v e map" and as such i t i s employed t o f i l t e r and organize new information (F.O.F.O) 4)  Therefore, c o n t r a d i c t o r y information or w i l l not a u t o m a t i c a l l y a l t e r s e l f - i m a g e . 164  occurrences  IV. Self-image and Performance Your c o g n i t i v e map  of y o u r s e l f (your s e l f - i m a g e )  i n f l u e n c e your performance i n any  1) The  can  situation.  Self-image -- S e l f t a l k -- Performance connection  a) We tend to a c t as i f our p e r c e p t i o n s of o u r s e l f are i n f a c t r e a l i t y ( i . e . , the way we r e a l l y a r e ) . b) We tend to r e i n f o r c e the way we perceive ourselves through our " s e l f - t a l k " . " S e l f t a l k s " are "conversat i o n s we have w i t h i n our mind and they o f t e n go something l i k e t h i s : "Well there I go again, boy am  I ever clumsy".  •^Self-image Self-Talk  Self-Talk Performance 4-  2) The  "sure enough" phenomenon: i n approaching a s i t u a t i o n i n your mind you are t h i n k i n g about your performance and t y p i c a l l y t h a t i s what you experience.  E.g.  You  t h i n k : "Oh  no,  I'm  myself"  going t o make a  - and  "sure enough", you  (Henry F o r d : " I f you t h i n k you can, or you can't, probably r i g h t " )  165  f o o l of do.  you're  3) The  Process  of S.I.N.: S e l f Imposed  a) S e l f .Image - "I'm  Negatives  r e a l l y dumb."  b) S e l f T a l k "Oh, oh. T h i s i s going to be a math problem, I'm going to screw i t up then I'11 r e a l l y be i n t r o u b l e . Everyone e l s e w i l l see how dumb I am." c) Performance - "Sure Enough." d) S e l f T a l k "I knew i t , I should never have gone i n t o this. Now everyone w i l l t h i n k I'm r e a l l y s t u p i d . I'm not going back tomorrow." 4) S.I.N. P r e v e n t i o n a)  Self-talk: "Hey t h i s i s going to be i n t e r e s t i n g , Math i s a real challenge f o r me. This i s a chance to s t r e t c h myself. I ' l l probably l e a r n something new and u s e f u l . "  b) Performance: "Sure Enough." - i t does t u r n out to be d i f f i c u l t and you don't do very w e l l but i t i s n ' t a total disaster. c) S e l f T a l k : "Well, I d i d n ' t do as w e l l as I can. I'm going to f i n d out where I went wrong. I know I was o.k. up until I had to transpose t h a t v e c t o r - maybe someone can show me where I went wrong. I f I take some time to p r a c t i c e t h i s i t w i l l be e a s i e r next time."  5) The  Key  to Escaping  SIN:  "Monitor  your S e l f - T a l k "  a) We are u s u a l l y not even f u l l y aware of our s e l f t a l k b e f o r e , d u r i n g and a f t e r an a c t i v i t y . The f i r s t step i s to begin to become aware: - get i n t o the h a b i t of checking your " s e l f regularly. Assign:  talk"  Monitor Self. Talk, d u r i n g r e s t of evening, when we are working on Problem S o l v i n g . 166  T r a i n i n g Program Week 2: Time Management  167  I.  Introduction A. P a r t i c i p a n t s form i n t o t h e i r groups name other members of the group.  challenge  them t o  B. Demonstrate your memory by d i s t r i b u t i n g name tags t o the entire class.  II.  Assignment Review A. D i s t r i b u t e Score Sheets and have groups go over each sequentially 1) I n d i v i d u a l s score own d e c i s i o n s . 2) Group d i s c u s s i o n of d e c i s i o n ( a s s i g n a recorder/group spokesperson) 3) C l a s s d i s c u s s i o n ( r e l a t e t o s e q u e n t i a l p r o c e s s ) .  III.  Time and Management A.  General  Discussion  1) Question: "What i s time?" i)  a b i r d (time heavily)  i i ) a valuable iii)  flies);  a burden (time weighs  commodity (time  a commodity of l i t t l e l i t t l e time)  value  i s money) ( i t w i l l only cost a  2) Question: "What i s time t o YOU?" Write down d e f i n i t i o n s , d i s c u s s , and p o i n t out s i m i l arities . 3 b a s i c views: i)  Time i s an enemy  168  i i ) Time i s a v a l u a b l e r e s o u r c e t o be hoarded vi)  "Time b l i n d n e s s "  3) T y p i c a l Managers view: "There i s never enough time" BUT!!!  " T y p i c a l Manager" i s Wrong!  There i s no such t h i n g as "not enough time". No matter what your task, no matter, who you a r e , you have 24 hours a day - no more, no l e s s . Key P o i n t #1 ( P r o j e c t Transparency) "You have a l l the time t h e r e i s If you don't "have enough time" you are t r y i n g t o do too many t h i n g s i n the time a v a i l a b l e . " B. The Value of Time 1) Time i s money people s e l l i t (e.g., c o n s u l t a n t s ) c o s t s of products l a r g e l y r e p r e s e n t person/hours req u i r e d f o r p r o d u c t i o n and s u p e r v i s i o n . 2) Time i s a v a l u a b l e commodity The supply i s f i x e d the demand  infinite.  Poor R i c h a r d : "Dost thou love l i f e ? Then do not squander time f o r t h a t ' s the s t u f f l i f e i s made o f . " Key P o i n t #2 ( P r o j e c t Transparency) "Time i s a manager's most v a l u a b l e r e s o u r c e , e f f e c t i v e use the g r e a t e s t c h a l l e n g e . "  its  C. Understanding Time The key t o e f f e c t i v e use of time i s understanding i t . 1) Time i s a flow from past t o p r e s e n t t o f u t u r e and f o r a l l p r a c t i c a l purposes the flow i s i r r e v e r s i b l e . The past - no l o n g e r e x i s t s The f u t u r e - does not e x i s t , but i t w i l l 169  The present  - e x i s t s o n l y very b r i e f l y , be the p a s t .  then  i t will  Key P o i n t #3 ( P r o j e c t Transparency) "The  past and f u t u r e don't e x i s t , a l l you have i s and i t i s almost gone"  now  2) C o n t r o l of the past i s i m p o s s i b l e . What was done cannot be undone. The past i s not manageable. 3) The present  i s l a r g e l y determined by past  events.  a) In the present we l i v e with the d e c i s i o n s we, o r our p r e d e c e s s o r s , made i n the p a s t . b) The present i s b r i e f , even i f we extend "present" to i n c l u d e t h i s week, and most of what we w i l l do i s a l r e a d y determined.  Key P o i n t #4 ( P r o j e c t Transparency) " C o n t r o l l i n g Time i s o n l y p o s s i b l e by o r i e n t i n g y o u r s e l f towards the f u t u r e , i n the p r e s e n t . "  D. Summarize: "The key t o e f f e c t i v e management i s c o n t r o l over time. You can g a i n c o n t r o l over time by a c t i n g now to c o n t r o l the f u t u r e . " 1) The past and f u t u r e do not e x i s t the present-now!  there  is  only  2) You can only a c t now. 3) The past can not be c o n t r o l l e d . 4) The f u t u r e can be c o n t r o l l e d , but o n l y by a c t i n g now.  170  IV. TIME MANAGEMENT A. The Time Trap The  "Time t r a p " :  t o get c o n t r o l over time takes time, and I don't have any time t o do i t .  1) E s c a p i n g the Time Trap: I t takes a n a l y s i s , thought, i m a g i n a t i o n , and TIME a) Review key p o i n t s above -you can o n l y escape o r i e n t i n g y o u r s e l f towards the f u t u r e .  by  b) You e i t h e r c o n t r o l time or i t w i l l c o n t r o l you, d i c t a t i n g your a c t i v i t i e s and always l e a v i n g you • with not enough time. c) I f you act now t o c o n t r o l time - TIME w i l l be your a l l y i n the f u t u r e .  B. Procedure O u t l i n e - Time Management 1) Examine how your time i s being used p r e s e n t l y . a) Each i n d i v i d u a l i s asked t o go over a t y p i c a l day at work u t i l i z i n g a time sheet b e g i n n i n g at time of a r r i v a l and broken i n t o 15 minute p e r i o d s u n t i l the end of the work day. b) A s s i g n m e n t : I n s t r u c t o r t o hand out a d d i t i o n a l time l o g sheets and a s s i g n t a s k of m o n i t o r i n g a c t u a l time use f o r next f o u r work days.' T y p i c a l l y we f i n d t h a t managers are not a c t u a l l y spending t h e i r time the way they t h i n k they are. 2) I d e n t i f y your long and s h o r t term goals a) I f you do not have c l e a r p r i o r i t i z e d g o a l s , i t is impossible t o d e c i d e how t o use your time most effectively. b) Assignment: over the next few days w h i l e you are m o n i t o r i n g your time at work, i d e n t i f y and 171  p r i o r i t i z e c l e a r long and s h o r t term goals f o r y o u r s e l f i n your j o b . 3) Analyze your Time Use a) M.B.O. (Management By O b j e c t i v e s ) b) E v a l u a t e t h e i r u s e f u l n e s s i n a c c o m p l i s h i n g your goals. Paretos law (20/80) "In any s e r i e s of elements t o be c o n t r o l l e d , a c e r t a i n s m a l l f r a c t i o n (approximately 20%) always accounts f o r the major p o r t i o n (approximately 80%) i n terms of e f f e c t . Hence: 20% of a managers a c t i v i t i e s are the vital few. 80% of a managers a c t i v i t i e s are the t r i v i a l many.  4) Rearrange your a c t i v i t i e s - g u i d e l i n e s a) I d e n t i f y the v i t a l few - the 20% of your a c t i v i t i e s which are c r u c i a l t o a c c o m p l i s h i n g your g o a l s . b) Assume these a c t i v i t i e s are a l l you r e a l l y have t o do and arrange your schedule t o do these i n the most e f f e c t i v e p o s s i b l e way. c) When the v i t a l 20% of your a c t i v i t i e s are completed s a t i s f a c t o r i l y , u t i l i z e any remaining time f o r the " t r i v i a l many". 5) Some p o i n t s t o c o n s i d e r a) The top 15 time wasters. b) E f f i c i e n c y vs E f f e c t i v e n e s s c) A c t i v i t i e s vs R e s u l t s d) Time Estimates (Murphy's 2nd Law), P l a n n i n g (Murphy's 1st Law) e) Tyranny of the Urgent, C r i s e s Response, Non-action f ) D e l e g a t i o n - Up and Down 172  Calculated  g) " B l o c k i n g " and  "Chunking"  h) Management by E x c e p t i o n V.  Assignment: 1) Hand out m a t e r i a l f o r assignment 2) Go over example 3) P a r t i c i p a n t s t o l o g t h e i r time f o r the next f i v e working days, completing a n a l y s i s f o r each day.  173  T r a i n i n g Program Week 2: Experimental Supplementary M a t e r i a l  174  I.  Review: S e l f - T a l k m o n i t o r i n g assignment  II.  Review: C o g n i t i v e Maps, F.O.F.O, S e l f - c o n c e p t , Self-talk, "Sure Enough" P r i n c i p l e  I I I . Improving Performance A. P o s i t i v e T h i n k i n g  by A v o i d i n g  SIN  & Success  1) I t i s not magic, success i s not guaranteed i f you t h i n k p o s i t i v e l y , or engage i n l o t s of p o s i t i v e self-talk. a) S u c c e s s f u l performance effort  requires preparation  just  and  b) But,to i n s u r e the maximum b e n e f i t from your e f f o r t ( i n any a c t i v i t y ) your t h i n k i n g i s v i t a l l y important. c) Focus on what you want t o have happen. w i l l happen, and work l i k e h e l l !  Believe i t  B. P o s i t i v e and Negative A t t i t u d e s 1) A t t i t u d e = Lean a) A e r o n a u t i c a l definition - angle a i r c r a f t moving through space.  A t t i t u d e i s a lean  (or lean) of an  Toward = P o s i t i v e Away = Negative  b) Your lean or a t t i t u d e i s expressed i n your talk.  self-  c) No matter how much e f f o r t and p r e p a r a t i o n , i f your a t t i t u d e i s negative your chance of success i s limited.  175  E.g.,  F o o t b a l l game: On the l a s t p l a y of the game - l o s i n g by 4 p o i n t s and the b a l l i s on the 2 yard l i n e . You are the quarterback. You are t h i n k i n g about what p l a y t o c a l l . You have two running backs. Both are i n top shape, and they are e q u a l l y s k i l l f u l . Imagine you are able t o monitor t h e i r self-talk. Self Talk  Attitude  P l a y e r #1  "Give me the b a l l , man"  P l a y e r #2  "Geez, I hope he g i v e s the b a l l t o somebody e l s e , I'm worn o u t ! "  +  Which p l a y e r would you want c a r r y i n g the b a l l ? #2 w i l l go i n t o the l i n e  " l e a n i n g away"  #1 w i l l go i n t o the l i n e  " l e a n i n g toward"  d) Summary "What we b e l i e v e t o be t r u e , o r p o s s i b l e , l i m i t s our a b i l i t y t o a c h i e v e " (e.g. Ph.D. who b e l i e v e s he cannot do mathematics) Attitude  (lean)  > Performance  Question: How many of your self-imposed are r e a l ?  limitations  C. Removing Self-imposed L i m i t a t i o n s on Performance 1) Rule: " C o n t r o l your thoughts o r they w i l l c o n t r o l you" Caution:  i t sounds simple - and i t i s - but i t s not easy, (demonstration of thought stopping)  176  Problem: o l d h a b i t s are hard to break, those negative thoughts keep c r e e p i n g back (they p r o b a b l y always w i l l occasionally) a) I t i s not enough to go around s a y i n g p o s i t i v e t h i n g s to y o u r s e l f and w a i t i n g f o r success. b) You  have to b e l i e v e those p o s i t i v e t h i n g s .  c) They have to become p a r t of your  "self-image".  d) You have to "walk your t a l k " - act as i f what are s a y i n g to y o u r s e l f i s t r u e . 2) How  Do You  Do  you  It?  a) Monitor and  c o n t r o l your  "self-talk".  b) At f i r s t i t w i l l seem strange, even a r t i f i c i a l , but i f you s t a y at i t c o n s i s t e n t l y i t w i l l become n a t u r a l . I t w i l l be "you". Self  Talk  •» S e l f Image  c) you must c o n t r o l your " l e a n " your s e l f - t a l k .  (attitude)  through  D. C o n t r o l l i n g S e l f - T a l k 1) Pre-Performance The  Self-talk  s e l f - t a l k t h a t goes on i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of a  performance s i t u a t i o n . Change negative  Positive  Negative I hate t h i s k i n d job I'm afraid do w e l l  to p o s i t i v e :  of  I won't  This w i l l r e a l l y a challenge  This will be a chance to see how much I've improved  I have to  I want to  I can't  I'm  do  177  be  going to  2) Performance S e l f - T a l k The s e l f - t a l k t h a t goes on d u r i n g the a c t u a l performance. T y p i c a l l y , i f performance i s going w e l l , l i t t l e s e l f - t a l k i s o c c u r r i n g . However, when problems begin to appear, " s e l f - t a l k " begins t o happen. When i t does, change negative t o p o s i t i v e : Negative  Positive  "Oh h e l l ! I'm screwing i t up.  "Wait a minute, I was doing OK. I must have have gone o f f on the wrong t r a c k , I ' l l go back over i t and see where 'I went wrong"  "This i s extremely complicated, I'm l o s t . There i s no way I ' l l ever s o l v e i t . I g i v e up."  "Now wait a minute, I can do this easily as long as I go step by step and don't p a n i c . So f a r I've done 'a', and 'b', and now what i s next.'  "Oh, no I'm running out of time, I ' l l never f i n i s h , why don't they g i v e you more time, i t s i m p o s s i b l e I'm going t o complain "  "Well i t has taken me q u i t e a w h i l e t o get t h i s f a r but now t h a t I've got the f i r s t p a r t done the r e s t w i l l be much e a s i e r . "  3) Post Performance S e l f - T a l k The self talk t h a t goes on a f t e r the performance. T y p i c a l l y i n c l u d e s an e v a l u a t i o n of the performance. Change negative t o p o s i t i v e : Negative  Positive  "Well I screwed up again." ( j u s t l i k e me)  178  "I d i d n ' t do that very w e l l , that's not like me. I can c e r t a i n l y do b e t t e r . I ' l l go back over i t and f i n d out e x a c t l y where I went wrong so i t doesn't happen again."  Negative  Positive  "I can't b e l i e v e I did so w e l l . They made i t so easy anybody c o u l d have done i t "  "Great I knew I would do w e l l , I was w e l l prepared. When you know what you're doing, things seem easy."  "Gawd t h a t was awful I'll never try that again."  "I d i d n ' t do v e r y well, I need t o be b e t t e r prepared next time, I wonder who can help me p r a c t i c e  E. S e l f T a l k and U n s u c c e s s f u l Performance 1)  Performance: Don't attempt t o " f o o l " y o u r s e l f i n e v a l u a t i n g your performance, but no matter how you evaluate i t , t a k e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r i t .  a) U n s u c c e s s f u l Performance: blamed on o t h e r s , f a t e , the weather, o r any o t h e r e x t e r n a l c a u s e , i s beyond your c o n t r o l .  b)  U n s u c c e s s f u l Performance: blamed on t h i n g s about y o u r s e l f which are p e r c e i v e d as b e i n g unchangeable (e.g., "I'm dumb", "uncoordinated", " u n l o v e a b l e " , e t c . ) i s a l s o beyond your c o n t r o l .  c)  U n s u c c e s s f u l Performance: blamed on t h i n g s about y o u r s e l f w h i c h you can change ( e . g . , e f f o r t , p r e p a r a t i o n , e t c . ) i s your r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , i t i s p o s s i b l e t o c o n t r o l the cause and you can do something about i t .  d) S e l f - t a l k which leads t o Improved Performance. S e l f - t a l k which f i x e s the blame f o r poor performance on u n c o n t r o l l a b l e f a c t o r s does not a l l o w you any way to take a c t i o n t o improve performance. I f you b e l i e v e you f a i l because you're s t u p i d , i t doesn't matter how hard you study. I f you b e l i e v e you l o s e because you're "no good", i t doesn't matter how hard you p r a c t i c e . To a l l o w improved performance, poor performance must be seen as b e i n g caused by f a c t o r s over which you have some c o n t r o l . F o l l o w i n g u n s u c c e s s f u l o r d i s a p p o i n t i n g 179  performance a v o i d " l i m i t i n g " positive self-talk.  self-talk,  and engage i n  S e l f - T a l k t o Avoid  Positive Self Talk  I t was too hard  I can do b e t t e r i f I t r y harder.  They were too good  I can r e a l l y improve - i f I practice.  I'm no good.  I know I can do a lot better than I did today, I'm r e a l l y going t o work harder next time.  I'm unlucky ...  I can do w e l l when I stick with i t .I make my own l u c k .  F. Assignment:  M o n i t o r i n g and C o n t r o l l i n g Pre, During, and Post Performance S e l f - T a l k .  1) I d e n t i f y a t l e a s t 3 d i s c r e t e s i t u a t i o n s each day where you w i l l engage i n some type of performance. 2) Begin t o "monitor" your s e l f - t a l k p r i o r t o the performance and t o e l i m i n a t e " l i m i t i n g " s e l f - t a l k , r e p l a c i n g i t w i t h s e l f - t a l k which f a c i l i t a t e s maximum performance at a l l t h r e e o c c a s i o n s . Keep a w r i t t e n r e c o r d of your s e l f - t a l k and b r i n g i t w i t h you next week.  180  T r a i n i n g Program Week 3: C o n f l i c t Management  181  I.  Introduction ( P a r t i c i p a n t s i n groups - name c h a l l e n g e ) ( D i s t r i b u t e name tags t o a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s . ) ( Ask i f anyone e l s e would l i k e t o t r y )  II.  Review Time Management Assignment  I I I . C o n f l i c t Management - N e g o t i a t i o n  Skills  A. Views of C o n f l i c t 1) H i s t o r i c a l View Something bad o r d e s t r u c t i v e t o be reduced o r eliminated. based on experience with negative r e s u l t s of c o n f l i c t (war, r i o t s , f i g h t s , d i v o r c e , e t c . ) 2) More recent p o s i t i v e view seen as a c o n s t r u c t i v e process, change.  the b a s i s f o r a l l  s h i f t i n emphasis from c o n f l i c t e l i m i n a t i o n t o c o n f l i c t management. 3) I t i s i n e v i t a b l e Wherever there are i n d i v i d u a l s (or groups) with incompatible g o a l s , mutually e x c l u s i v e i n t e r e s t s , f a c t u a l disagreement, emotional h o s t i l i t y , e t c . 4) Focus of Present  Seminar - I n t e r p e r s o n a l  Conflict  Thomas: The  c o n f l i c t process  perceives  begins when one p a r t y  t h a t the other has f r u s t r a t e d o r i s  about t o f r u s t r a t e some concern of h i s . 182  B . Model: Process of i n t e r p e r s o n a l  EPISODE  •  1  '  conflict  LTISOin:  1) Beginning p o i n t f r u s t r a t i o n . 2) I n d i v i d u a l ' s c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of the f r u s t r a t i o n understanding of own concerns and some awareness of a l t e r n a t i v e a c t i o n s and p o s s i b l e outcomes. 3) A c t i o n - b e h a v i o r , based on i n d i v i d u a l s c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n , designed t o cope w i t h the frustration. 4) Reaction  - other p a r t y ' s  reaction  5) The r e a c t i o n of the other p a r t y produces a feedback loop.to the i n d i v i d u a l s c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of p o i n t 2. 6) C i r c u l a r p r o c e s s 2-3-4-2 continues or r e s o l u t i o n i s r e a l i z e d .  u n t i l some outcome  7) The outcome s e t s the stage f o r subsequent i n t e r a c t i o n C. Behavior i n C o n f l i c t  Situations  1) I t i s " i n t e r a c t i v e " - i . e . , the b e h a v i o r of each p a r t i c i p a n t has an e f f e c t on the o t h e r . 2) Each I n d i v i d u a l ' s behavior i s complexly determined a) I n d i v i d u a l p r e d i s p o s i t i o n s and s o c i a l 183  pressures.  b) Framework of " r u l e s " which c o n s t r a i n p o s s i b l e alternatives. c) I n c e n t i v e s which are present i n the  situations.  3) Each i n d i v i d u a l ' s " c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of the s i t u a t i o n " mediates the i n f l u e n c e of the s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s . D. C o n f l i c t Management C o n f l i c t Management i s based on the view of c o n f l i c t as a c o n s t r u c t i v e process which i f managed e f f e c t i v e l y w i l l r e s u l t i n maximal p o s s i b l e outcomes f o r both p a r t i e s . 1) One  Dimensional  Model  "Cooperation vs.  Competition"  a) Views c o n f l i c t b e h a v i o r as being c e n t e r e d upon a c h i e v i n g one of two p o s s i b l e g o a l s . i ) I n d i v i d u a l Gain i i ) Mutual Welfare b) Is u n s a t i s f a c t o r y because of tendency t o focus upon a choice between dichotomous forms of behavior, n e g l e c t i n g other p o s s i b i l i t i e s . (Example: P r i s o n e r ' s Dilemma Game) c) Is a l s o viewed as having f o s t e r e d w i n - l o s e t h i n k i n g l e a d i n g t o "zero-sum" b a r g a i n i n g - l e a v i n g p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s o l u t i o n s unexplored.  d) More recent r e s e a r c h i n d i c a t e s t h a t these two p o l a r i t i e s are not adequate t o d e s c r i b e a c t u a l behavior e x h i b i t e d i n c o n f l i c t s i t u a t i o n s . 2) Two  Dimensional  Model (Thomas)  a) The model views c o n f l i c t behavior as having  two  separate dimensions a r i s i n g from: i ) A s s e r t i v e n e s s - a d e s i r e t o s a t i s f y ones own concerns i i ) Cooperativeness - a d e s i r e t o s a t i s f y the concerns of the other p a r t y 184  b) D e s c r i p t i o n s of C o n f l i c t  Styles  A c c o r d i n g t o t h i s model i n d i v i d u a l s develop c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t y l e s of responding t o c o n f l i c t s i t u a t i o n s . These s t y l e s are determined by combinations of the two dimensions. Thomas has i d e n t i f i e d f o u r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t y l e s t o which he has given l a b e l s . i ) Avoiding - unassertive, i i ) Competitive  uncooperative  - assertive,  uncooperative  i i i ) Accommodative - u n a s s e r t i v e ,  cooperative  i v ) Compromising - somewhat a s s e r t i v e , cooperative v) C o l l a b o r a t i n g  - assertive,  somewhat  cooperative  As s e r t i v e Compe t i t i v e  Collaborative  o <4-l  cn  •H  co  Sharing  ca  u w cu O  o C  •u o CU  u •H  cn cu Q  Avo  Accommodative  iding  Unassertive Cooperative  Uncooperative Desire  to S a t i s f y ; Other's Concerns ; £  185  3) Comparison of the Models Contrast two dimensional model w i t h one dimensional model u s i n g P r i s o n e r ' s Dilemma Game as an example. Examine d i f f e r e n t outcomes i n r e l a t i o n t o the " s t y l e s " which c o u l d produce them  4) What i s the best  style  a) There i s no s i n g l e c o r r e c t answer i ) C o n f l i c t behavior i s extremely complex, i i ) I n d i v i d u a l s behavior i n c o n f l i c t s i t u a t i o n s i s p a r t of an " i n t e r a c t i v e p r o c e s s " , i i i ) I n d i v i d u a l p e r c e p t i o n s of the s i t u a t i o n , of p o s s i b l e outcomes, of m o t i v a t i o n , e t c . , w i l l vary and may not r e f l e c t an o b j e c t i v e r e a l i t y .  b) In g e n e r a l , i f the g o a l of a l l people i n v o l v e d i s to maximize p o t e n t i a l outcomes f o r each, then a c o l l a b o r a t i v e s t y l e should be most e f f e c t i v e . T h i s would not n e c e s s a r i l y be the case, however, i f the i n d i v i d u a l s do not share the same g o a l s i n t h e i r approach t o the s i t u a t i o n .  IV. N e g o t i a t i o n Task E x e r c i s e (see Appendix 2) V. D i s c u s s i o n and Feedback. A) B r i e f d i s c u s s i o n r e g a r d i n g the N e g o t i a t i o n Task Exercise. B) B r i e f o u t l i n e of Research P r o j e c t and t h e i r r o l e i n i t , i n d i c a t e t h a t r e s u l t s w i l l be made a v a i l a b l e t o them when the a n a l y s i s i s completed.  186  Answer any g e n e r a l q u e s t i o n s you f e e l a b l e t o but keep the d i s c u s s i o n b r i e f . Inform them of the name of the i n d i v i d u a l who i s i n charge of the p r o j e c t and d i r e c t them t o the room where I w i l l be a v a i l a b l e t o respond t o any f u r t h e r questions. I n v i t e them t o complete feedback/comment form.  187  T r a i n i n g Program Week 3: Experimental  188  Supplement  Review S e l f - T a l k and R e - A t t r i b u t i o n Assignment Review Concepts - C o g n i t i v e Maps, F.O.F.O., E t c . Review: 3 Kinds of S e l f - T a l k  189  EXAMPLE PROBLEM OUTCOME CRITERIA  Creating  a Bilingual Civil  Service  The e s t a b l i s h e d l o n g t e r m g o a l of the government i s t h e development of a c o m p l e t e l y b i l i n g u a l c i v i l service. The following objectives were listed in connection with accomplishing t h i s g o a l : a) To be accomplished w i t h i n  10  years.  b) To cause minimal d i s r u p t i o n of present s e r v i c e d e l i v e r y . c) To be n a t i o n a l i n scope. d) To operate on a budget of 10 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s per annum. e) To  include^ a l l p e r s o n n e l , i n a l l departments.  f) To allow c i t i z e n s of any r e g i o n of the country to r e c e i v e s e r v i c e s , i n t h e i r own l o c a l community, i n both o f f i c i a l languages. g) Must not r e q u i r e any a d d i t i o n a l l e g i s l a t i o n , nor v i o l a t e e x i s t i n g employer/employee agreements.  Your groups task i s to examine t h i s l i s t of o b j e c t i v e s , reduce the number where p o s s i b l e , i d e n t i f y any " b i n d i n g c o n s t r a i n t s " ( i f p r e s e n t ) and p r i o r i t i z e the remainder.  190  EXAMPLE PROBLEM ASSIGNING UTILITY Choosing  a Mate i n Kanta-Burra  The kingdom of Kanta-Burra i s a " p r o g r e s s i v e " l a n d i n which the u n i v e r s e has a l r e a d y "unfolded as i t should". The kingdom i s run by women ( a c t u a l l y a "queen"dom) e m p l o y i n g a type of democratic/monarchy which i s headed by an e x a l t e d personage known as t h e "Maga" . Men a r e r a t h e r i n s i g n i f i c a n t i n t h e p o l i t i c a l process of Kanta-Burra although they h o l d some value as mates. T h e r e has r e c e n t l y been an e l e c t i o n w h i c h has culminated i n the i n s t a l l a t i o n of a new Maga and, a t the present time, she i s c u r r e n t l y i n the market f o r a mate. Over the y e a r s , a l i s t of the most valued a t t r i b u t e s i n a mate has been developed and the c u r r e n t l i s t of candidates has been t e s t e d on each e s t a b l i s h e d c r i t i c a l dimension. They have each been assigned a numerical r a t i n g on a '-5' t o '+5' s c a l e where '0' i s the average s c o r e . The l i s t of candidates has been r e duced t o two.  Ratings of the Candidates  'Shar' and 'Malik':  SHAR  MALIK  a) M i l i t a r y s k i l l  2  1  b) Sexual s k i l l  5  -1  c) C o n v e r s a t i o n a l s k i l l  -2  4  d) I n t e l l i g e n c e  -4  3  e) P e r s o n a l i t y  4  3  f)  2  2  3  1  Physical attractiveness  g) P r e s t i g e of f a m i l y name  THE PROBLEM: HOW DO YOU COMPARE THEM ? e.g.  'sexual s k i l l ' 'personality'  191  with with  'intelligence' 'military s k i l l '  THE 1)  SOLUTION:  A l l v a l u e s must be put on a common s c a l e . T h i s can be accomplished by t r a n s p o s i n g each i n d i v i d u a l value t o a corresponding value on an e s t a b l i s h e d s i n g l e s c a l e (e.g., money). In order to do t h i s , ask the q u e s t i o n - How much monetary d i f f e r e n c e i n purchase p r i c e i s needed t o o f f s e t a r a t i n g d i f f e r e n c e of one p o i n t on a p a r t i c u l a r dimension?  i.e. a) Suppose both were equal on a l l dimensions except one (c) where Shar was r a t e d one p o i n t h i g h e r than M a l i k . b) How much of a d i f f e r e n c e i n the a s k i n g p r i c e of M a l i k would be r e q u i r e d t o o f f s e t t h i s d i f f e r e n c e ? (e.g., $1000) c) A u t i l i t y value of one r a t i n g p o i n t , on dimension 'c' has now been e s t a b l i s h e d ( I . , $1000). The same procedure i s then repeated f o r each of the dimensions to e s t a b l i s h a common s i n g l e s c a l e upon which comparisons can be made. 2)  Suppose t h a t t h i s has been accomplished f o r our ( i . e . , the values l i s t e d r e p r e s e n t common s c a l e v a l u e s ) . How w i l l you proceed t o make a d e c i s i o n ? a) O v e r a l l R a t i n g s :  b) Dimensional  example utility  examine each s e p a r a t e l y , e s t a b l i s h a s i n g l e o v e r a l l r a t i n g of u t i l i t y and s e l e c t the h i g h e s t o v e r a l l r a t i n g .  Rating:  Compare each dimension s e p a r a t e l y , one at a time, and s e l e c t on the b a s i s of which i s the l e a d e r on the most dimensions.  PROBLEM: Overall Rating:  SHAR = 10  MALIK = 13  Dimensional  SHAR = 4  MALIK =  Rating:  A different decision w i l l process i s employed  2  TIE = 2  be reached depending on which  There i s no s i n g l e best answer. O v e r a l l r a t i n g s are p r o b a b l y the most a c c u r a t e but are more d i f f i c u l t t o employ. 192  Dimensional r a t i n g s are e a s i e r , but l i k e l y t o be l e s s e f f i c i e n t i n the long run. NOTE: In a c t u a l p r a c t i c e i t i s l i k e l y t h a t one methodology o r the other w i l l be employed up t o a c e r t a i n p o i n t , and then t h e r e w i l l be an e f f o r t t o seek more i n f o r m a t i o n b e f o r e making a final decision. For example i n the above s i t u a t i o n , a f t e r going through the process of a s s i g n i n g u t i l i t i e s and c o m p a r i n g t h e two candidates, the Maga decided t o i n v i t e each over f o r d i n n e r " i n order t o get b e t t e r acquainted w i t h them" (and as a r e s u l t determined t h a t she would remain s i n g l e ) .  193  TOURIST GUIDE STORY ( I l l u s t r a t i n g the r i s k s of a c t i n g before you have s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a t i o n , as w e l l as the c o s t s of f a i l i n g to a c t when you have enough i n f o r m a t i o n . ) A t o u r bus i s just beginning t o embark w i t h a l o a d o f passengers on a t o u r of New York c i t y and the guide has i n d i c a t e d t h a t he w i l l be announcing v a r i o u s p o i n t s of i n t e r e s t as the bus moves through the c i t y . I t i s apparent, from h i s r a t h e r loud and frequent comments, t h a t a young man s i t t i n g i n the f r o n t seat i s attempting to impress the a t t r a c t i v e woman s i t t i n g next to him by h i s knowledge and f a m i l i a r i t y with the city. As the tour progresses, the guide's announcements are f r e q u e n t l y i n t e r r u p t e d by t h e young man's comments t o h i s companion. The guide announces t h a t the passengers can see the R o c k e f e l l e r Mansion i f they look out the windows on the r i g h t . The young man i n t e r j e c t s - " T h a t i s the . home of Nelson R o c k e f e l l e r , former governor of New York and son of John D. R o c k e f e l l e r , and one of the w e a l t h i e s t men i n the world." The guide remarks, with a s l i g h t look of annoyance but i n a q u i e t and p o l i t e v o i c e - " A c t u a l l y f o l k s , t h i s i s the home of David R o c k e f e l l e r , a y o u n g e r son o f John D. R o c k e f e l l e r " - and proceeds to o f f e r some a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n . The young man looks s l i g h t l y uncomfortable but o f f e r s no comment. The bus swings around a corner and the guide says " I f you w i l l look to your l e f t , you w i l l see C e n t r a l Park and the l a r g e b u i l d i n g d i r e c t l y ahead, o v e r l o o k i n g the park, i s the home of many very w e l l known c e l e b r i t i e s such as the Kennedys, the .... ". At t h a t p o i n t the young man's v o i c e once again i n t e r r u p t e d the g u i d e ' s announcement w i t h a l o u d comment t o h i s companion d e s c r i b i n g the a p a r t m e n t o f s e n a t o r Ted Kennedy, w h i c h he claims to have v i s i t e d with f r i e n d s and proceeding t o d e s c r i b e the senator i n glowing and very f a m i l i a r terms. The guide waits p a t i e n t l y while the young man completes h i s s t o r y and then, i n a c o l d v o i c e he once again c o r r e c t s the young man e x p l a i n i n g t h a t the apartment b u i l d i n g a c t u a l l y c o n t a i n s the apartment of the " M a t r i a r c h of the Kennedy c l a n - Mrs. Joseph Kennedy, nee Fitzgerald". At this point the young man is clearly embarrassed. He slouches i n h i s seat s i l e n t , and red-faced o f f e r i n g no more comments as the t o u r continues past many more p o i n t s of i n t e r e s t . F i n a l l y the d r i v e r announces t h a t the t o u r i s n e a r l y complete and t h a t on the way back to t h e i r h o t e l , i f they look to the r i g h t as the bus passes the next s t r e e t they w i l l c a t c h a glimpse of the famous C h r i s t C a t h e d r a l . Then t u r n i n g s l o w l y toward the young man, who has remained u n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y q u i e t f o r the past h a l f hour, he remarks i n a v o i c e d r i p p i n g with sarcasm " I t ' s your l a s t chance son go ahead take a chance."  194  BRAINSTORMING EXERCISE  INSTRUCTIONS: 1) E l e c t one member of your group t o serve as c h a i r p e r s o n and r e c o r d e r . 2) Think of as many uses as you can f o r one r e d b r i c k . 3) Spontaneously c a l l out these uses t o your group. 4) The c h a i r p e r s o n w i l l r e c o r d a l l the groups ideas on the back of t h i s sheet of paper. 5) The c h a i r p e r s o n w i l l a l s o p a r t i c i p a t e i n the e x e r c i s e . 6) Do not at any time make any e v a l u a t i o n , o r a n a l y t i c a l comments about any of the ideas o r thoughts t h a t are produced. A l l ideas a r e accepted and recorded. The task i s t o produce i d e a s , not "good" ideas o r " p r a c t i c a l " ideas. 7) You have f i v e minutes t o complete t h i s  195  task.  APPENDIX 2  SIMULATED NEGOTIATION TASK  Simulated N e g o t i a t i o n Task  197  Sample T r a n s c r i p t of N e g o t i a t i o n S e s s i o n  204  Examples of N e g o t i a t i o n Outcomes  209  196  Simulated N e g o t i a t i o n  Task  BACKGROUND The Lancer Toy Company i s a medium-sized manufacturer of toys and games. The company i s l o c a t e d i n Southern C a l i f o r n i a and s e l l s i n eleven w e s t e r n s t a t e s . The company s t a r t e d as a manufacturer of c h i l d r e n ' s toys i n the e a r l y 1950's and enjoyed c o n s i d e r a b l e success d u r i n g the 1960's. However, due to the d e c l i n e i n the b i r t h r a t e and s t i f f competition w i t h i n the i n d u s t r y , s a l e s of c h i l d r e n ' s toys have l e v e l e d o f f . When the growth i n the toy i n d u s t r y began to show signs of s l o w i n g , the company t u r n e d i t s a t t e n t i o n t o o t h e r areas. Because of t h e i r e x p e r t i s e i n d e v e l o p i n g games, i t was n a t u r a l f o r them to step i n the market f o r a d u l t games. In the l a t e 1960's and e a r l y 1970's, t h e market f o r a d u l t games has experienced tremendous growth. One important f a c t o r i n t h i s growth has been an i n c r e a s i n g use of games f o r e d u c a t i o n a l purposes i n both schools and i n d u s t r y . C u r r e n t l y , the l i n e of a d u l t games accounts f o r about o n e - t h i r d of the company's s a l e s while the c h i l d r e n ' s toys account f o r two-thirds of s a l e s . Because the p r o d u c t i o n facilities, t y p e of c u s t o m e r , and marketing channels are q u i t e d i f f e r e n t f o r the two l i n e s , the company has d i v i d e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y between two department managers. The company i s organized as f o l l o w s : President  I  I  Manager Manager C h i l d r e n ' s Toys F i n . & A c c t g .  R&D  Prod.  Mktg.  I  Manager Personnel  Manager A d u l t Games  R&D  Prod.  Mktg.  Each p r o d u c t - l i n e manager i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r R e s e a r c h Development, Production and Marketing of h i s product l i n e .  and  SITUATION Each year the t o t a l budget f o r Research and Development (R&D) i s a l l o c a t e d to the two departments. Each department submits a 197  Budget Request t o the Manager of Finance and Accounting. The Budget Request i d e n t i f i e s s p e c i f i c p r o j e c t s the department w i l l work on and t h e i r c o s t s . T h i s year, the company has a maximum of $200,000.00 f o r R&D. The Manager of Finance and A c c o u n t i n g has asked the Managers of C h i l d r e n ' s Toys and A d u l t Games t o reach an agreement on how much t o request f o r R&D. The department managers have, i n t u r n , a s s i g n e d the task of p r e p a r i n g the Budget Request t o the r e s p e c t i v e R&D managers. The two R&D managers w i l l meet t o decide which problems t o work on t h i s year. ASSIGNMENT You w i l l a c t as one of the R&D managers. You a r e t o n e g o t i a t e a j o i n t budget w i t h t h e o t h e r R&D manager. You w i l l have approximately 15 minutes t o work out a budget w i t h the o t h e r manager. You w i l l r e c e i v e a form which must be completed, and signed by both p a r t i e s . T h i s form w i l l i d e n t i f y the s p e c i f i c p r o j e c t s t o be i n c l u d e d i n the budget. The p r o j e c t s w i l l be i d e n t i f i e d by t h e i r code numbers and w i l l have t h e i r c o s t s l i s t e d . Remember the l i m i t of 200,000.00 f o r the budget.  198  YOU  WILL ACT  AS  THE  R&D  MANAGER QF  CHILDREN'S TOYS  T h i s i s one of your f i r s t assignments and you are anxious t o make a good impression. During the past few years, s a l e s i n c h i l d r e n ' s toys have d e c l i n e d s l i g h t l y . You f e e l t h a t p a r t of t h i s d e c l i n e i s a d i r e c t r e s u l t of low expenditures on R&D. L a s t year the budget f o r C h i l d r e n ' s Toys was approximately 102,000.00. T h i s f i g u r e i s down from p r e v i o u s l e v e l s . At the present time, i t seems t h a t the C h i l d r e n ' s Toys l i n e must be made competitive i f Lancer i s going to remain s u c c e s s f u l . T h i s can o n l y be accomplished through adequate expenditures on R&D. T h i s year, you have a number of p r o j e c t s which should make money f o r your department, and you would l i k e to get as many a p p r o v e d as p o s s i b l e . You hope you can " t u r n a r o u n d " the d e c l i n e i n s a l e s of c h i l d r e n ' s toys by working on p r o f i t a b l e p r o j e c t s i n the coming year.  PROJECTS The i n f o r m a t i o n you have concerning your p r o j e c t i s known o n l y to you. The other manager has no idea of how many p r o j e c t s you can work on or the p r o f i t s you expect f o r each p r o j e c t . You may d i s c l o s e as much or as l i t t l e of your i n f o r m a t i o n as you l i k e . You may use your i n f o r m a t i o n i n any way you wish t o achieve your g o a l s , BUT you cannot change the c o s t estimates. The c o s t e s t i m a t e s r e f l e c t the l o w e s t p o s s i b l e c o s t s of c o m p l e t i n g the p r o j e c t s . The e x p e c t e d p r o f i t f i g u r e s a r e reasonably good estimates but are s l i g h t l y c o n s e r v a t i v e . Your s t a f f has i d e n t i f i e d f i v e p r o j e c t s you can work on d u r i n g the coming year. The p r o j e c t s l i s t e d below are the o n l y ones you can propose as i t i s too l a t e to develop new i d e a s .  199  CHILDREN'S TOYS PROJECTS  Project Code  Expected Profit  Cost  Description  CT-07  $25,000  $2,500  To develop lower c o s t packaging.  CT-09  $22,000  $2,800  To develop a new l i n e of building sets.  CT-11  $33,000  $4,800  To develop s t r o n g e r , new materials f o r various toys.  CT-12  $75,000  $10,000 .  To develop a new l i n e of Sesame S t r e e t dolls.  CT-14  $13,000  800  To modernize our l i n e of checkers.  CT-16  $3,000  —  To develop toys t o s e l l to schools a t c o s t . There i s no $ p r o f i t here, but, we can gain goodwill.  With only $200,000 t o be a l l o c a t e d , i t i s c l e a r t h a t you cannot finance before  a l l your p r o j e c t s . You should a t t e n d i n g the n e g o t i a t i o n s .  200  think  about  priorities  YOU  WILL ACT AS THE R&D MANAGER OF ADULT GAMES  T h i s i s one of your f i r s t assignments, and you a r e anxious t o make a good impression. F o r the past few y e a r s , the growth of Lancer Company has come almost t o t a l l y from i n c r e a s e d s a l e s i n a d u l t games. A c c o r d i n g l y , the R&D budget f o r A d u l t Games has increased steadily. Last year, t h e budget was about $98,000.00. At the present time, i t seems t h a t i f Lancer i s going t o continue t o grow, the A d u l t Games l i n e must s t a y ahead of i t s competition. T h i s can o n l y be accomplished through i n c r e a s e d expenditures f o r R&D. You have a number of p r o j e c t s which should make money f o r your department, and you would l i k e t o get as many approved as p o s s i b l e . You hope t o m a i n t a i n the s t r o n g p o s i t i o n of A d u l t Games by working on p r o f i t a b l e p r o j e c t s t h i s coming year.  PROJECTS The i n f o r m a t i o n you have concerning your p r o j e c t i s known o n l y to you. The other manager has no i d e a of how many p r o j e c t s you can work on o r the p r o f i t s you expect f o r each p r o j e c t . You may d i s c l o s e as much o r as l i t t l e of your i n f o r m a t i o n as you l i k e . You may use your i n f o r m a t i o n i n any way you wish t o achieve your g o a l s , BUT you cannot change the c o s t e s t i m a t e s . The estimates r e f l e c t the lowest p o s s i b l e c o s t s of completing the p r o j e c t s . The expected p r o f i t f i g u r e s a r e reasonably good estimates but a r e s l i g h t l y c o n s e r v a t i v e . Your s t a f f has i d e n t i f i e d f i v e p r o j e c t s you can work on d u r i n g the coming year. These a r e theo n l y p r o j e c t s you can propose as i t i s t o o l a t e t o develop new i d e a s . The p r o j e c t s a r e l i s t e d below.  201  ADULT GAMES PROJECTS  Project Code  Expected Cost  Profit  Description  AG-03  $36,000  $5,000  To develop games f o r college classrooms.  AG-06  $31,000  $4,000  To develop a new game i n non-verbal communication  AG-08  $72,000  $9,800  To develop games f o r management development workshops.  AG-09  $28,000  $3,400  To develop deluxe v e r s i o n s of v a r i o u s games  AG-10  $16,000  $1,000  To develop new packaging f o r our Movie game  With cannot  only finance  $200,000  t o be a l l o c a t e d , i t i s c l e a r t h a t you  a l l your  projects.  You  should  p r i o r i t i e s b e f o r e a t t e n d i n g the n e g o t i a t i o n s .  202  think  about  LANCER COMPANY BUDGET REQUEST PROJECTS ( l i s t e d by Code No.)  TOTAL (not t o exceed  COST  $200,000)  If you c o u l d not agree, w r i t e NO AGREEMENT here:  SIGN BOTH NAMES CLEARLY:  203  SAMPLE TRANSCRIPT OF NEGOTIATION SESSION CT = Manager C h i l d r e n ' s Toys  AG  = Manager A d u l t Games  CT:  Well I guess were supposed t o decide how t h i s money  AG:  Yeah....how are we going t o do i t . . . they s a i d we weren't supposed t o show you are p r o j e c t sheet....  CT:  Yeah...well  AG:  What?  CT:  Yeah.....  AG:  No  CT:  Yeah we  AG:  So..I  CT:  Oh....I don't t h i n k so....I mean i t ' s p r e t t y forward don't you t h i n k ?  have you done t h i s  to d i v i d e  up  before?  you mean t h i s case?. .or. . . .  have you? d i d i t a few weeks ago  i n a c l a s s I took.  guess t h a t means you have a b i g advantage  eh?  straightf  AG:  Yeah, I guess w e l l we p r o b a b l y s h o u l d g e t s t a r t e d eh.... they s a i d we o n l y had 15 minutes. So what i s i t ? ...you have a sheet l i k e mine w i t h a l i s t of p r o j e c t s ..and we have t o decide how t o d i v i d e up a t o t a l of 200,000 ... r i g h t ?  CT:  Yep...and we're supposed t o t r y t o maximize p r o f i t s f o r the company ....what i s i t . . . L a n c e r ?  AG:  R i g h t . . . I put t o g e t h e r the p r o j e c t s which w i l l maximize p r o f i t s f o r A d u l t Games and ....  CT:  Yeah w e l l you know t h a t when we both take our most p r o f i t a b l e p r o j e c t s the t o t a l c o s t i s going t o be over the l i m i t so maybe we should t r y t o look at o p t i o n s which w i l l t o t a l l e s s than 200,000....  AG:  Sure..ok....but how t o t a l w i l l be..  do we  204  know that?...1 mean what the  CT:  Well I've done t h i s b e f o r e r i g h t , and t h a t ' s the they a l l o c a t e the c o s t s . . . .  way  AG:  Sure but how do you know the amounts a r e n ' t d i f f e r e n t t h i s time? I mean they might be d i f f e r e n t . . . I don't t h i n k we should j u s t assume they are the same.  CT:  Well they look e x a c t l y the same to me Anyway we have t o s t a r t somewhere I guess, you got down there f o r a t o t a l ?  so what have  AG:  W e l l I t h i n k t h a t we should p r o b a b l y t r y t o d i v i d e t o t a l a v a i l a b l e as e v e n l y as p o s s i b l e  the  CT:  Ok...so what do you  AG:  W e l l . . I f I can do two p r o j e c t s I w i l l maximize the profits available  CT:  Ok...so whats i t gonna c o s t ?  AG:  W e l l . . I would need j u s t a l i t t l e more than 100,000..  CT:  ( c h u c k l e ) . . r e a l l y ? . . I am i n the very same p o s i t i o n . . . so I guess t h a t i s the p o i n t of t h i s eh? t o negot i a t e some k i n d of compromise....Why don't we s t a r t by t a k i n g a look at the c o s t - b e n e f i t r a t i o f o r the p r o j e c t s each of us want and i f the g o a l i s t o maximize the p r o f i t f o r the company i t should be possi b l e to f i n d a s o l u t i o n . . . .  AG:  Ok by me....lets  have?  take a l o o k . . .  A few minutes are spent d i s c u s s i n g the p r o f i t and c o s t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h each individual's selected projects. AG:  Well...the o v e r a l l p r o f i t from my p r o j e c t s i s b i g g e s t so i f we go w i t h them I t w i l l maximize our outcome and i f we went w i t h yours, I would have t o s c r a t c h one of mine with a b i g p r o f i t and r e p l a c e i t w i t h something t h a t i s n ' t much b e t t e r than break even.  CT:  Yeah but i f we go the same p o s i t i o n to u t i l i z e a l l of your two..so t h a t  w i t h your two p r o j e c t s , I w i l l be i n . . . . i n f a c t , I wouldn't even be able the money t h a t was l e f t over from would even be a worse s i t u a t i o n . 205  AG:  Well..maybe I c o u l d use what you didn't...how much would be l e f t ?  CT:  U h . . w e l l . . i t wouldn't be much..but the p o i n t i s i t i s not the best way f o r us t o go i f we want t o maximize our r e s o u r c e s . | PAUSE  CT:  Well I suppose I c o u l d j u s t do the one p r o j e c t w i t h the b i g g e s t p r o f i t and than do a d i f f e r e n t second p r o j e c t so the t o t a l cost f o r the two of them would be 100,000.. . . . . i t would cut t h e . p r o f i t but at l e a s t the funds would be s p l i t evenly  AG:  Well..yeah but i f we d i d t h a t then I would a l s o have t o do something l e s s p r o f i t a b l e f o r my second p r o j e c t too and we would j u s t be c u t t i n g our own t h r o a t s , eh?  CT:  Sure so we have t o decide what are we t r y i n g t o do I mean I t h i n k the p o i n t of t h i s whole t h i n g i s t o see i f we can reach an agreement t h a t i s m u t u a l l y b e n e f i c i a l . , o r . . . i f we w i l l each t r y t o get the most d e s p i t e the c o s t i n o v e r a l l p r o f i t . . . . | PAUSE | right?  AG:  Right., so...what we need t o do i s f i g u r e out a combinat i o n t h a t w i l l p r o v i d e the maximum o v e r a l l p r o f i t f o r the t o t a l c o s t .  CT:  Ok, so l e t s f o r g e t about our b i g p r o j e c t s f o r a minute and look a t the o t h e r p o s s i b i l i t i e s t h a t each of us has a v a i l a b l e and see what we come up w i t h . Besides those two b i g p r o f i t makers what o t h e r o p t i o n s do you have? They begin t o develop a l i s t of a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r A d u l t Games and then f o r C h i l d r e n ' s Toys. A f t e r the l i s t s are completed they begin comparing the p o s s i b l e d i f f e r e n t combinations and come up w i t h several different alternatives. 206  AG:  Well i t looks l i k e we have can maybe each hang on t o our one b i g p r o f i t maker and then put t o g e t h e r a comb i n a t i o n of s m a l l e r p r o j e c t s which w i l l s t i l l g i v e each of us p r e t t y much the same net p r o f i t .  CT:  Yep what about t h i s as a p o s s i b i l i t y , we go w i t h my b i g p r o j e c t which g i v e s us 10,000 p r o f i t r i g h t ...and then throw i n your t h r e e p r o j e c t s which g i v e us another ..uh..12,400....and mine w i t h 2500 t h a t g i v e s us uh....a t o t a l of 24,900 p r o f i t ...almost e q u a l l y d i v i ded between us and c o s t s a t o t a l of..uh..195,000.. ..not bad eh.... and we can s p l i t the 5,000 l e f t over ...or i f I take 3 I can do one more p r o j e c t . . . w i t h no p r o f i t but g o o d w i l l f o r the company ...and you c o u l d take the other 2. What do you say?  AG:  Well t h a t ' s a p o s s i b i l i t y . . . but we c o u l d do b e t t e r i f we were t o go w i t h my two b i g g i e s and your s m a l l e r ones our p r o f i t would be b i g g e r r i g h t and t h a t ' s the point ...right?  CT:  But the p r o f i t s would be l a r g e l y i n your d i v i s i o n t h a t way...It wouldn't be n e a r l y even. I f we go w i t h the f i r s t combination the t o t a l p r o f i t i s not much s m a l l e r and the s p l i t between departments i s almost e x a c t l y equal....and we are supposed t o attempt t o maximize the p r o f i t f o r each of our departments as w e l l . . r i g h t ?  AG:  Sure....but i f i t reduces the t o t a l i n the long run....  CT:  I f i t was a b i g d i f f e r e n c e . . . sure ... but t h i s wouldn't make much impact and i t a l l o w s us t o come away w i t h an almost equal d i s t r i b u t i o n of the funds everybody wins...  AG:  W e l l . . . . i t s not q u i t e equal 103 and I would get 97....  i t s h u r t i n g us both  you would be g e t t i n g  | PAUSE | CT:  Hey i f t h a t ' s a l l i t i s . . . i t s easy. You take the whole t h i n g ... the e x t r a 5,000 doesn't mean any more p r o f i t f o r e i t h e r of us I j u s t thought t h a t s i n c e I had t h a t 3,000 p r o j e c t and you d i d n ' t have any t h i n g you c o u l d use i t f o r i t made sense . . . . j u s t a s o r t of g o o d w i l l t h i n g f o r the company H e l l i t ' s not worth 207  spending more time on ... l e t s put i t a l l i n your budget and get out of here b e f o r e we run out of time.... AG:  W e l l no t h a t ' s not going t o make any r e a l d i f f e r e n c e i f we are going t o go w i t h t h i s we might as w e l l put the 3 i n your budget I guess.  CT:  Hey, whatever you w a n t . . . i t doesn't matter t o me e i t h e r way l e t s j u s t get i t down and get out of here ...what do you say?  AG:  [laughs]..yeah l e t s do i t . .  208  EXAMPLES OF SOME POSSIBLE PROFITS AND RESULTING SCORES FROM SIMULATED NEGOTIATION TASK PROFIT  EXAMPLE 1 Adult Games: P r o j e c t -  08 |- = 13,200 09  C h i l d . Toys: P r o j e c t -  12 |- = 12,500 07  SUBJ. SCORE  25,700  25,000  26,600  25,600  EXAMPLE 2 A d u l t Games: P r o j e c t -  08  - = 13,800  06 C h i l d . Toys: P r o j e c t -  12 |- = 12,800 09  EXAMPLE 3 A d u l t Games: P r o j e c t - 08 |- = 14,800 03  25,600  21,600  25,600  29,600  C h i l d . Toys: P r o j e c t - 12 |- = 10,800 14  EXAMPLE 4 A d u l t Games: P r o j e c t - 08 |- = 10,800 10 C h i l d . Toys: P r o j e c t  - 12 11  209  = 14,800  EXAMPLE 5 A d u l t Games: P r o j e c t - 08 |--= 10  10,800 |  C h i l d . Toys: P r o j e c t - 12 |- = 10,800 14  210  =  21,600  21,600  APPENDIX 3  NEGOTIATION STYLE SURVEY INCLUDING ADAPTED I.A.R. QUESTIONNAIRE  N e g o t i a t i o n S t y l e Survey  212  Post T r a i n i n g Q u e s t i o n n a i r e  216  Adapted I.A.R. Scale  217  211  NEGOTIATION STYLE SURVEY The f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s p a r t of a survey of management negotiation styles. The survey i s not being conducted by the B r i t i s h Columbia I n s t i t u t e of Technology, nor w i l l the data be available to B r i t i s h Columbia Institute of Technology personnel. T h i s s u r v e y i s b e i n g c o n d u c t e d as p a r t of a r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, the data c o l l e c t e d w i l l be coded immediately and then the o r i g i n a l data w i l l be destroyed. F o l l o w i n g t h i s d e s t r u c t i o n , i t w i l l be i m p o s s i b l e f o r anyone t o c o n n e c t any i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h you p e r s o n a l l y . You are not r e q u i r e d t o complete the q u e s t i o n n a i r e and f a i l u r e to do so w i l l have no e f f e c t on your s t a n d i n g i n any course at the B r i t i s h Columbia I n s t i t u t e of Technology. In f a c t you may simply t u r n i n the blank form and no one w i l l know whether you completed i t or not. Your c o o p e r a t i o n i n completing the q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s requested however i n order t o a s s u r e a l a r g e enough sample t o make t h e d a t a collected m e a n i n g f u l . A s m a l l p e r c e n t a g e of t h o s e who complete the q u e s t i o n n a i r e may be requested to take p a r t i n a b r i e f f o l l o w up s e s s i o n ( a p p r o x . 1/2 hour) at a l a t e r date, however completion of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n no way o b l i g a t e s you t o take part i n such a follow-up session. Completion of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e w i l l be i n t e r p r e t e d as indicating a willingness on your p a r t t o a l l o w data c o l l e c t e d t o be used i n the manner described.  212  NAME : SEX: AGE: OCCUPATION: ( t i t l e and b r i e f  description)  YEARS IN PRESENT POSITION: SIZE OF ORGANIZATION: ( i n d i c a t e the s i z e of the o r g a n i z a t i o n which employs you, small=less than 50 employees medium=50-100; large=100+) Small  Medium  213  Large  SECTION A:  As p a r t head  of your d u t i e s you  of  shared  another  are r e q u i r e d  department  resource  (example:  concerning worker  to negotiate with the  time,  distribution  equipment  the  of  use,  a  funds,  e t c . ) the person w i t h whom you have t o n e g o t i a t e i s a long time employee of the o r g a n i z a t i o n and is  much l a r g e r  hierarchy  than  yours.  Officially  of the o r g a n i z a t i o n  unofficially  it  is  i s head of a department your  position  i n the  equal,  however  i s approximately  recognized  that  the  person  n e g o t i a t e w i t h has c o n s i d e r a b l y more power than  If  you  your  have  work,  never try  to  been  in  imagine  a  situation  yourself  in  respond to the q u e s t i o n s on the f o l l o w i n g  214  you  must  you.  similar the  which  to  this  situation,  pages.  in then  1. In the situation o u t l i n e d on the p r e v i o u s page, p r e d i c t which i n d i v i d u a l would a t t a i n the g r e a t e s t advantage ( i . e . which would end up with the g r e a t e s t share of the resource in question). A) myself . B) the head of the other department.  2.  C i r c l e one  of:  A) There are " s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s " present i n n e g o t i a t i o n s which as t h i s (e.g., the other person's experience, or power, or the complexity of the task) which determine the outcome r e g a r d l e s s of the individuals skill or effort. B) The final outcome of such n e g o t i a t i o n s i s u l t i m a t e l y determined by the e f f o r t or s k i l l of the individual negotiator.  3.  My past experience c l a s s i f y myself as:  in  A) an experienced,  expert  B) a s k i l l f u l  but  negotiations  lead  me  negotiator.  r e l a t i v e l y inexperienced  C) a moderately s k i l l f u l D) a novice,  would  negotiator.  inexperienced  215  negotiator.  negotiator.  to  Post T r a i n i n g  1. My  e v a l u a t i o n of t h i s task A)  I was  B) My  Questionnaire  is (circle  more s u c c e s s f u l than my  n e g o t i a t i n g p a r t n e r was  C) N e i t h e r  p a r t y was  one):  negotiating  partner.  more s u c c e s s f u l than  more s u c c e s s f u l than the  me.  other.  2. I would r a t e my degree of s a t i s f a c t i o n with the outcome achieved ( c i r c l e number which best d e s c r i b e s your degree of satisfaction.) Dissatisfied 1  2  Satisfied 3  4  5  6  7  3. The most important f a c t o r i n d e t e r m i n i n g the outcome of e x e r c i s e was: ( c i r c l e one) A) my  a b i l i t y or p e r s o n a l i t y  B) the amount of e f f o r t C) f a c t o r s task; my  I put  this  traits. into i t .  i n the s i t u a t i o n (E.G. the d i f f i c u l t y of p a r t n e r ' s s k i l l , luck, e t c . )  the  4. How l i k e l y would i t be t h a t a s i m i l a r outcome would occur i f you were to engage i n a s i m i l a r task i n the f u t u r e ?  Very L i k e l y 1  2  Very U n l i k e l y 3  4  216  5  6  7  Adapted  I.A.R  In the f o l l o w i n g s i t u a t i o n , you are to c i r c l e e i t h e r (a) or (b) depending upon which a l t e r n a t i v e you b e l i e v e i s most, a c c u r a t e . There i s no r i g h t or wrong answer. Some people might choose one a l t e r n a t i v e while others would choose the o t h e r . I t may be difficult to decide which i s most accurate i n some i n s t a n c e s , however, you are asked to c i r c l e t h a t which you t h i n k i s most g e n e r a l l y t r u e i n your s i t u a t i o n .  Please answer a l l q u e s t i o n s and t r y to focus your a t t e n t i o n on what i s most accurate f o r you, p e r s o n a l l y , r e g a r d l e s s of how you t h i n k others might respond.  217  1) I f you were t o d e s c r i b e your job, would you say i t was: a) always s t i m u l a t i n g and e x c i t i n g . b) sometimes s t i m u l a t i n g , but sometimes repetitive.  r o u t i n e and  2) I f you were promoted a t work would i t p r o b a b l y be: a) because of s e n i o r i t y . b) because of the high q u a l i t y of work t h a t you d i d . 3) When you perform a p a r t i c u l a r task w e l l a t work i s i t more l i k e l y t o be: a) because of your knowledge  and s p e c i a l  skills.  b) because most of the t a s k s you do a t work are q u i t e simple. 4) When you have d i f f i c u l t y u n d e r s t a n d i n g a p a r t i c u l a r task a t work i s i t l i k e l y t o be: a) because i t wasn't  e x p l a i n e d adequately.  b) because you d i d n ' t l i s t e n instructions.  c a r e f u l l y enough t o the  5) When you read something and then can't remember much of i t , is i t usually: a) because i t wasn't w e l l w r i t t e n . b) because you weren't i n t e r e s t e d i n i t . 6) When you have p e r s o n a l b u s i n e s s t o perform d u r i n g the day, do you: a) make i t a r u l e t o do i t o n l y on your own time ( i . e . a t lunch, d u r i n g c o f f e e breaks, or a f t e r work). b) o c c a s i o n a l l y do i t on company time  218  7) When you r e c e i v e a compliment from your s u p e r i o r on your work performance, i s i t more l i k e l y : a) because your work i s e s p e c i a l l y  good.  b) because s/he i s i n a good mood. 8) I f you performed b e t t e r than u s u a l on a p a r t i c u l a r would i t p r o b a b l y be because: a) you t r i e d  task  harder than u s u a l .  b) you got some a s s i s t a n c e from somebody e l s e . 9) When you l o s e at a game of cards or checkers o r some such c o n t e s t i s i t u s u a l l y because: a) the o t h e r p l a y e r i s good at the game. b) you don't p l a y the game v e r y w e l l . 10) Suppose someone t h i n k s you a r e n ' t v e r y b r i g h t or c l e v e r : a) you can change t h e i r o p i n i o n i f you r e a l l y t r y . b) some people w i l l t h i n k t h a t way  no matter what you do.  11) I f you s o l v e a p u z z l e q u i c k l y i s i t u s u a l l y : a) because i t wasn't a v e r y d i f f i c u l t p u z z l e . b) because you were v e r y c a r e f u l i n working on i t . 12) I f you were t o d e s c r i b e your normal mood at work would say you were: a) always c h e e r f u l and  you  optimistic.  b) u s u a l l y c h e e r f u l , but o c c a s i o n a l l y d i s c o u r a g e d and unhappy. 13) I f somebody suggests you are dumb i s i t most l i k e l y the reason they say i t i s : a) because they are mad  that  at you.  b) because you d i d something which was  219  not v e r y smart.  14) Suppose you decide t o work r e a l l y hard t o a t t a i n a c e r t a i n p o s i t i o n but f a i l t o get i t . Would t h i s be most l i k e l y due to the f a c t t h a t : a) you d i d n ' t work hard enough. b) you needed some a s s i s t a n c e a t some p o i n t which others d i d not g i v e you. 15) When you l e a r n a task q u i c k l y i s i t u s u a l l y : a) because you c o n c e n t r a t e d on i t . b) because the e x p l a n a t i o n was very 16)  clear.  I f your s u p e r i o r says "Your work i s f i n e " i s i t l i k e l y because: a) "bosses" u s u a l l y say t h i s k i n d of subordinates.  thing  to  encourage  b) you are doing very good work. 17) When you f i n d a task a t work e s p e c i a l l y d i f f i c u l t i s i t l i k e l y because: a) you d i d n ' t l e a r n enough about i t b e f o r e t a k i n g i t on. b) i t i s a very hard 18)  task.  I f you were able t o make changes i n your p r e s e n t work s i t u a t i o n would you: a) probably make few changes because your present situation i s quite satisfactory. b) probably change a number of t h i n g s which need improving.  19) When you f o r g e t something you have been t o l d i s i t l i k e l y : a) because i t wasn't e x p l a i n e d  adequately.  b) because you d i d n ' t t r y t o remember.  220  20) Suppose your s u p e r i o r asked you a p a r t i c u l a r l y d i f f i c u l t q u e s t i o n and you weren't sure of the answer, but you r e p l i e d as i f you knew and your answer was accepted. Is t h i s l i k e l y t o be because: a) your s u p e r i o r d i d n ' t r e a l l y care what k i n d of answer was g i v e n . b) your answer was the best one a v a i l a b l e . 21) When you read something and remember most of i t , i s i t usually: a) because you were e s p e c i a l l y i n t e r e s t e d i n i t . b) because i t was e s p e c i a l l y w e l l w r i t t e n . 22) I f someone t e l l s you t h a t you are a c t i n g s i l l y and not t h i n k i n g c l e a r l y i s i t more l i k e l y because: a) something i n p a r t i c u l a r t h a t you d i d . b) they are i n a bad mood. 23) When you don't perform a task w e l l a t work, i s i t l i k e l y because: a) the task was e s p e c i a l l y  difficult.  b) you d i d not prepare y o u r s e l f adequately t o perform i t well. 24) When you are a t work do you f i n d  that:  a) your mind o c c a s i o n a l l y wanders t o t h i n g s t h a t are not r e a l l y r e l a t e d t o work. b) you are almost always c o n c e n t r a t i n g on the task which you are performing. 25) When you win a t a game of cards o r checkers o r o t h e r s i m i l a r game i s i t most l i k e l y : a) because you p l a y w e l l . b) because your opponent  does not p l a y w e l l .  221  26) I f people t h i n k you are b r i g h t and c l e v e r i s i t more likely: a) because they l i k e you. b) because you u s u a l l y a c t t h a t way. 27) I f you f a i l e d t o g a i n a promotion you were due f o r would i t probably be because: a) your s u p e r i o r d i d n ' t l i k e you. b) your work was not good enough. 28) Suppose you d i d n ' t perform a p a r t i c u l a r t a s k as w e l l as you u s u a l l y do, would t h i s p r o b a b l y be because: a) you weren't as c a r e f u l as u s u a l . b) there was some d i s t r a c t i o n which kept you from working on i t as you u s u a l l y do. 29) When you are not f e e l i n g v e r y w e l l , but are not r e a l l y s i c k , do you: a) o c c a s i o n a l l y take a day (or h a l f of a day) s i c k  leave.  b) always go t o work and hope you w i l l f e e l b e t t e r i n a while. 30) I f one of your co-workers were t o t e l l you t h a t they thought you were very smart, i s i t l i k e l y because: a) you have come up w i t h some r e a l l y good  ideas.  b) they l i k e you. 31) Suppose you had a c h i e v e d some p o s i t i o n which you had been aiming a t f o r some time. Would i t be because: a) o t h e r s had been w i l l i n g t o help you when you needed i t . b) you had worked v e r y hard.  222  32) I f you were t o e v a l u a t e the t h i n g s t h a t were important t o you i n your p r e s e n t job: a) money would not be an important f a c t o r . b) money would be an important f a c t o r . 33) Suppose your s u p e r i o r t e l l s you t h a t your work i s u n s a t i s f a c t o r y , i s t h i s l i k e l y due mainly t o the f a c t t h a t : a) your work has not been v e r y good. b) your s u p e r i o r i s i n a bad mood. 34) Suppose you are i n s t r u c t i n g a co-worker and he/she i s having d i f f i c u l t y l e a r n i n g the task, i s t h i s most l i k e l y because: a) they were unable t o understand the t a s k . b) you were unable t o e x p l a i n the t a s k w e l l . 35) When you f i n d your t a s k s at work easy, i s i t u s u a l l y : a) because you have been g i v e n easy t a s k s t o perform. b) because you analyzed them c a r e f u l l y b e f o r e you began. 36) Suppose you have a c h o i c e between two t a s k s , one of which i s d u l l and r e p e t i t i v e and one s t i m u l a t i n g and i n t e r e s t i n g . You know t h a t i f you do one of them somebody e l s e w i l l do the o t h e r . Would you most l i k e l y : a) do the b o r i n g one so somebody e l s e doesn't have t o . b) do the i n t e r e s t i n g 37) When you remember how is i t usually:  one. t o perform a s p e c i f i c t a s k at work,  a) because you made a s p e c i a l e f f o r t to remember i t . b) because the person who showed you how e f f o r t to explain i t w e l l .  223  made a s p e c i a l  38) I f you can't s o l v e a p u z z l e i s i t more l i k e l y  because:  a) you are not good at working out p u z z l e s . b) the i n s t r u c t i o n s are somewhat c o n f u s i n g and u n c l e a r . 39) When you go t o work each day would you d e s c r i b e y o u r s e l f a) as always l o o k i n g forward t o the days work. b) as sometimes w i s h i n g you f o r the day.  could  just  forget  about work  40) I f someone you admire compliments you, i s i t more l i k e l y because: a) they are i n a good mood. b) because of something i n p a r t i c u l a r t h a t you d i d . 41)  Suppose you were e x p l a i n i n g something t o a f r i e n d she/he catches on very q u i c k l y , would t h i s l i k e l y be:  and  a) because you e x p l a i n e d i t very w e l l . b) because your f r i e n d was easily.  c l e v e r and able t o understand  42) Suppose your s u p e r i o r asks you t o s o l v e a p a r t i c u l a r l y d i f f i c u l t problem and you are u n c e r t a i n of the s o l u t i o n but supply an answer anyway. L a t e r your s u p e r i o r indicates that she/he i s not p l e a s e d w i t h the answer you gave. Is t h i s l i k e l y to be: ) a) because she/he i s p a r t i c u l a r l y hard t o p l e a s e . b) because you answered  too q u i c k l y .  43) I f your s u p e r i o r was t o say to you " t r y t o improve your work", would i t be because: a) t h i s i s something t h a t they might say t o anyone i n order t o motivate them t o work harder. b) your work had not been as good as i t u s u a l l y i s .  224  44) When you leave work each day would you d e s c r i b e as:  yourself  a) always having a good f e e l i n g about what you had accomplished that day. b) sometimes having a good f e e l i n g about what you had accomplished t h a t day.  225  APPENDIX 4  FIGURES AND TABLES  226  TABLE '21 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Male and Female by Treatment Groups  Exper.  Training  Subjects  Trad.  Training  Group  Male  Female  Tot.  Group  Male  Female  Tot.  A  15  11  26  C  15  11  26  B  16  10  26  D  17  9  26  Tot.  31  21  52  Tot.  32  20  52  TABLE 22 Repeated Measures ANOVA I n s t r u c t o r s by Treatment  SOURCE  DF  Between Treatment (A) I n s t r u c t o r s (B) AB Within T r i a l s (C) AC BC ABC Within *p<.10  227  MS  F  1 1 .1 100  169022464 11967488 3907072 41968592  4.09* .28 .76  1 1 1 1 100  35310080 119861248 1344512 18064384 7619215  4.63* 15.73* .17 2 . 37  FIGURE 14 E x p e r i m e n t a l Group: P r e d i c t i o n - A t t r i b u t i o n - P e r f o r m a n c e -  Prediction  Attribution I  Performance I  A t t r i b u t i o n II  ->Success(12) --> Success  F(12)  Attribution III > Int. Fix. 9) — > Int. Var. 3) —  •> I n t e r n a l F. (18) — ->Fail(6)  — !  •> I n t e r n a l  -->Intern. V . ( 4 ) — — — > — > E x t e r n a l (2) —> — > E x t e r n a l (2) - - M n t e r n . V.(4)  —>Fail(6)Failure  Intern.  Performance I I -> S u c c e s s ( 9 j' •> F a i l u r e ( 3  Pattern  F.(18):  Failure(4 Failure(2  > Failure(2 ~-> Success(l '-> F a i l u r e ( 3  — > — >  - - >  — >  7-> ' - >  to to co  -> S u c c e s s ( 9 ->Success(12) — - > I n t e r n .  T-> ' - >  F.(12)—> ,—> 1  Failure(3 Failure(4  —  >  ,-->Intern. V . ( 5 ) - ~ , — >Fail(6) Failure  -> E x t e r n a l  (16) —  • S u b j e c t s who  .i  '—>Success(10)  !  —>  ->Intern. F . ( 1 ) ~ ->Intern. F.(10)-  Success(1 > Failure(1 7—> Success(8 '--> F a i l u r e ( 2  —  >  —  >  —  >  —  >  f a i l e d on Performance I and s u c c e e d e d on Performance I I  I n t . Var. External  4) 2)  External Int. Fix. Int. Var. Int. Fix.  2) 1) 2) 1)  Int. F i x . Int. Var.  6) 3)  Int. Int. Int. Int. Int. Int. Int.  Var. Fix. Var. Fix. Fix. Fix. Var.  3)  1) 3) 1)* 1) 8) 2)  :  FIGURE 15 T r a d i t i o n a l Group: P r e d i c t i o n - A t t r i b u t i o n - Performance -  Prediction  Attribution I  Performance I  Attribution  ->Success(ll) —> Success  -> I n t e r n a l  — |  - > F a i l ( 5 ) — - j' •> I n t e r n a l  Performance I I _,—> Success(7 —> Failure(4  Intern. F ( l l )  1  F.(18)-  to to  6)—>External --->Intern. V. D -  > Failure(6 > Failure(l  — > I n t e r n . F. 2) —>External 3) -  > Failure(2 > Failure(3  -—> —>  I n t . F i x . (2) External (3)  ,—> — •--->  Success(3 F a i l u r e (2  ---> —>  I n t . F i x . (3) External (2)  --> -->  Success(2 Failure(6  -—> - -> '->  I n t . F i x . (2) I n t . F i x . (4) External (2)  •> ->  Failure(2 Failure(5  -—> -7-> '->  I n t . F i x . (2) External (4) I n t . F i x . (1)  > Success(2 > Failure(2 > Failure(5  —> —>  ->Success(13) •-7->Intern.  VO  F. 5)  i i  '->External  — >Fail(7) Failure  •> E x t e r n a l  A t t r i b u t i o n III --> I n t . F i x . (7) --> E x t e r n a l (4)  F. (18) — ->Fail(7)  Failure  II  Pattern  —  •->Intern. F. •->External  8)  —  2)5)-  (16)->Success ( 9 ) - T - > I n t e r n .  F.  4) — 1  •>External  5)  --> -->  T  '->  External (6) I n t . F i x . (1)  Int. Fix. Int. Fix. Int. Fix. External  (2) (2) (1) (4)  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0076859/manifest

Comment

Related Items