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. Eastern Washington State University, 1973 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y ( C l i n i c a l Psychology, Commerce, Counselling Psychology) We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l 1989 © Brian R. Harper, 1989 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date QfJ 0 m? r»F-Af*/A-n DISSERTATION ABSTRACT The Role" of Cognitive Attributions of Causality in the Maintenance of C o n f l i c t Negotiation Behavior by Brian R. Harper I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y Ph.D. Candidate University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1988 This study was based upon the general t h e s i s that i n d i v i d u a l performance expectations, a t t r i b u t i o n s of c a u s a l i t y and a c t u a l performance outcome i n t e r a c t to a f f e c t the maintenance and g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of performance demonstrated during t r a i n i n g . It compared the r e l a t i v e effectiveness of a management s k i l l t r a i n i n g program which i n c l u d e d s p e c i f i c negotiation s k i l l s and " a t t r i b u t i o n structuring" components (designed to a f f e c t both expectations and causal attributions) with a s i m i l a r program that included s k i l l t r a i n i n g only. "General Performance Orientation", a hypothesized cognitive s t r u c t u r e , comprising " e f f i c a c y " p r e d i c t i o n and causal a t t r i b u t i o n , was operationally defined to include four l e v e l s : i ) success - i n t e r n a l ; i i ) success - external; i i i ) f a i l u r e -i n t e r n a l ; and iv) f a i l u r e - external. A questionnaire which measured locus of control and required respondents to predict t h e i r success or f a i l u r e on a hypothetical negotiation task was d i s t r i b u t e d to a l l students i n an administrative management program at a technical t r a i n i n g school. One hundred and four volunteers from t h i s population were c l a s s i f i e d into three groups (one c e l l was empty as no subjects predicted success with an external causal a t t r i b u t i o n ) . Equal numbers of subjects from each group were then randomly assigned to each of the t r a i n i n g programs. During the course of t r a i n i n g a l l subjects engaged i n a simulated negotiation task and completed a post-task questionnaire which (i) measured t h e i r locus of control; ( i i ) assessed t h e i r evaluation and a t t r i b u t i o n of caus a l i t y for t h e i r performance on the task; and ( i i i ) asked them to predict t h e i r performance i n a s i m i l a r f u t u r e s i t u a t i o n . The simulation task was repeated i n a "non-training s e t t i n g " four weeks af t e r completion of the t r a i n i n g program. Subjects' performance on the post-training simulation task was expected tp be affected by an in t e r a c t i o n between i n i t i a l performance expectations, type of t r a i n i n g experienced, and the type of causal a t t r i b u t i o n employed i n explaining t h e i r performance during t r a i n i n g . The relationships among measured locus of control, performance expectations, and causal a t t r i b u t i o n s were investigated: i ) p r i o r to performance, i i ) i n reference to a c t u a l cause of performance e f f e c t i v e n e s s , and i i i ) post-performance . A n a l y s i s of scores on the n e g o t i a t i o n task four weeks following completion of t r a i n i n g revealed that the experimental t r a i n i n g group scores were s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than those of the t r a d i t i o n a l t r a i n i n g group. There was not a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between group scores on the negotiation task at the f i n a l t r a i n i n g session. The data were also supportive of the hypothesized i n t e r a c t i o n among locus of c o n t r o l , causal a t t r i b u t i o n s , and performance expectations. The hypothesized r e l a t i o n s h i p between locus of c o n t r o l and s u c c e s s f u l performance was not supported. Table of Contents ABSTRACT i i LIST OF TABLES v i i LIST OF FIGURES ix ACKNOWLEDGMENT X CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM 1 GENERALIZATION AND MAINTENANCE OF CHANGE 5 BEHAVIOR CHANGE AS SOCIAL INFLUENCE 7 CAUSAL ATTRIBUTION AND BEHAVIOR MAINTENANCE 9 Dimensions of Causal At t r i b u t i o n s 9 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STABILITY AND LOCUS OF CAUSAL ATTRIBUTIONS 12 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW AND DEVELOPMENT OF HYPOTHESES 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 3 5 ATTRIBUTION STRUCTURING, GENERALIZED CHANGE AND RECIPROCAL CAUSALITY 3 9 ATTRIBUTION STRUCTURING AND MANAGEMENT SKILL TRAINING ... 43 DEVELOPMENT OF HYPOTHESES 44 HYPOTHESES 47 Hypothesis l a 47 Hypothesis lb 47 Hypothesis I l a 48 Hypothesis l i b 48 Hypothesis III 49 Hypothesis IV 49 Hypothesis V 50 Hypothesis Via 51 Hypothesis VIb 51 Hypothesis VII 51 Hypothesis VIII 52 i v CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 5 3 TREATMENT CONDITIONS 5 5 T r a d i t i o n a l Training Program 55 Experimental Training Program 56 Presentation of Training Programs 57 SUBJECTS 58 INSTRUMENTS 59 Simulated Negotiation Task 59 Adapted I.A.R. Questionnaire 61 PROCEDURES 65 DESIGN 68 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 7 0 Data Preparation 70 Preliminary Analysis 70 Main Analyses 71 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS 73 HYPOTHESES I TO III AND VIII 73 Hypotheses l a and Ib 73 Hypotheses I l a and l i b 77 Hypothesis III 78 Hypothesis VIII 82 HYPOTHESES IV TO VII 85 Hypothesis IV 85 Hypothesis V 87 Hypotheses Via and VIb 88 Hypothesis VII 90 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS 93 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS RELATED TO HYPOTHESES I TO III AND VIII 93 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS RELATED TO HYPOTHESES IV TO VII.. 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 1 PERFORMANCE 107 CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS 112 IMPLICATIONS FOR BEHAVIOR CHANGE PROGRAMS 115 IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORIES OF BEHAVIOR CHANGE 117 v IMPLICATIONS FOR ATTRIBUTION THEORY 118 Causal A t t r i b u t i o n and Expectancy 118 The Process of Causal A t t r i b u t i o n 121 LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 123 IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 125 Methodology 125 Behavior Change Programs 126 Theory 126 REFERENCES 128 APPENDIX 1 TRAINING PROGRAMS 150 APPENDIX 2 SIMULATED NEGOTIATION TASK 196 APPENDIX 3 NEGOTIATION STYLE SURVEY INCLUDING ADAPTED I. A. R. QUESTIONNAIRE 211 APPENDIX 4 FIGURES AND TABLES 226 v i 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 Measures ANOVA of Negotiation Task Scores 74 3 Dependent Measures t - t e s t of TI and T2 Negotiation Task Scores of Experimental Training Group Subjects 76 4 Dependent Measures t - t e s t of TI and T2 Negotiation Task Scores of T r a d i t i o n a l Training Group Subjects 76 5 2 x 2 ANOVA of T2 Negotiation Task Scores 78 6 Repeated Measures ANOVA of Subjects' Causal Attributions 80 7 ANOVA Adapted I.A.R. Scores by Treatment 83 8 Dependent Measures t - t e s t of Experimental Training Group TI and T2 Adapted I.A.R. Scores 84 9 Dependent Measures t - t e s t of T r a d i t i o n a l Training Group TI and T2 Adapted I.A.R. Scores 85 10 Mean Locus of Control Scores for Subjects Employing Internal and External Predictive Attributions 86 11 Adapted I.A.R. Locus of Control - Locus of Causal A t t r i b u t i o n Frequency Table .• 88 12 MANOVA and Univariate Analyses: Adapted I.A.R. Success and Failure Subscale f o r Subjects Predicting Success and Failure 89 13 Mean Adapted I.A.R. Subscale Scores for Success and Failu r e Predicton 90 14 ANOVA of Negotiation Task Scores (T2) by Adapted I.A.R. Subscale Ratings 91 15 ANOVA of Negotiation Task Scores (T2) by Adapted I.A.R. Total Score 92 16 Repeated Measures ANOVA Negotiation Task Scores of Subjects Predicting F a i l u r e 95 17 Dependent Measures t - t e s t of TI and T2 Negotiation Task Scores of T r a d i t i o n a l Training Group Subjects Predicting Failure 97 v i i 18 Dependent Measures t - t e s t of T l and T2 Negotiation Task Scores of Experimental Training Group Subjects Predicting Failure • • • • 97 19 T l and T2 Negotiation Task Performance of Subjects Predicting Failure 99 20 T l and T2 Negotiation Task Performance of Subjects Predicting Success 100 21 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Male and Female Subjects by Treatment Groups 227 22 Repeated Measures ANOVA Instructors by Treatment 227 v i i i L i s t of Figures 1 Two Dimensional Model of Causality 11 2 Possible Behavioral Outcome - A t t r i b u t i o n Type C l a s s i f i c a t i o n 13 3 Hierarchy of Schemata and Locus of Attributed Causality 27 4 Dimensions of Causal A t t r i b u t i o n s and Expectancy 29 5 Situation Typology and Performance Expectations 37 6 Model Of Relationships Among Expectations, Performance, and A t t r i b u t i o n 40 7 Model Of Ef f e c t of Cognitive A t t r i b u t i o n Restructuring on Expectation-Performance-Attribution Relationship... 46 8 Repeated Measures F a c t o r i a l Design 69 9 Mean Negotiation Task Scores for Training Groups at T l and T2 75 10 Proportion of Internal Causal Attributions at Negotiation Task Performance 1 & 2 81 11 Mean I.A.R. Scores for Training Groups Pre-treatment and Post-treatment 84 12 Mean Negotiation Task Scores for Training Groups at T l and T2 for Subjects Predicting F a i l u r e 96 13 Reciprocal Relationship Among Expectancy -At t r i b u t i o n - Performance I l l 14 Experimental Group: Prediction - A t t r i b u t i o n -Performance Pattern 228 15 T r a d i t i o n a l Group: Prediction - A t t r i b u t i o n -Performance Pattern 229 ix ACKNOWLEDGMENT A d i s s e r t a t i o n i n v a r i a b l y r e f l e c t s the i n f l u e n c e and assistance of a number of in d i v i d u a l s . A l l the members of the committee have been extremely supportive and hel p f u l . The unwavering support, encouragement, and advice of the chairperson, Dr. Stephen Marks, have played a major role, not only i n determining the present form of t h i s document, but i n i t s very existence. I have also benefited greatly from the support of my f r i e n d and "brother", D a n i e l N a e g e l i , whose inputs were instrumental i n the i n i t i a l development of th i s project and who has continued to "be there" throughout i t s gestation. F i n a l l y , the assistance and support of Andi, Toby and Matt, who have s a c r i f i c e d much "that t h i s beast might l i v e " , have contributed to a l l phases of t h i s project. x CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM Behavior change i s not the exclusive domain of any single professional d i s c i p l i n e . It i s the s p e c i a l i t y of teachers, c o u n s e l l i n g and c l i n i c a l 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 c o n s u l t a n t s , among others. I t i s common however, that as individuals s p e c i a l i z e within a p a r t i c u l a r f i e l d , they focus upon the uniqueness of that area and i n the process s a c r i f i c e some of the•expertise of related d i s c i p l i n e s . This tendency i s perhaps most evident at the applied l e v e l where concentration upon s p e c i f i c techniques often diverts p r a c t i t i o n e r s ' attention from the underlying t h e o r e t i c a l perspective from which t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r techniques are derived. P r a c t i t i o n e r s tend to ignore many issues which are central to theory, but only peripheral to application. One such underlying issue concerns the major determining factors of human behavior. Human behavior has been perceived, v a r i o u s l y , as being determined by inherent t r a i t s , environmental events, intrapsychic events, cognitive processes, or some combination of these factors. The extent to which behavior i s i n t e r n a l l y ( c o n s c i o u s l y or unconsciously) or externally controlled has been a major t h e o r e t i c a l controversy growing out of and contributing to these various views. It i s 1 perhaps not surprising that p r a c t i t i o n e r s have tended to avoid t h i s issue since i t s history has been one of divisiveness amongst theorists for some time (Alker, 1972; Baars, 1986; Bern, 1972a; Epstein, 1986; Knapp & Robertson, 1986; Mischel, 1968; Rac h l i n , 1977a, 1977b, 1986; Skinner, 1977). While such t h e o r e t i c a l exchanges may appear of l i t t l e immediate value, e s p e c i a l l y to the p r a c t i t i o n e r , t h i s does not negate the he u r i s t i c p o s s i b i l i t i e s of examining t h i s same issue from an applied perspective. The problem i s , as Meichenbaum (1975, p. 237) has suggested, "... we have been seduced into arguing the either - or pos i t i o n rather than focusing upon our r e a l o b j e c t i v e which i s an in c r e a s e d understanding of human behavior. The r i g i d l y controlled procedures and impressive examples of behavior c o n t r o l which have been provided by numerous experimental and c l i n i c a l investigations i n the area of operant learning (Ayllon & Azrin, 1968; Baer, 1962; Ferster & Skinner, 1957; Lindsley, 1956; Lovass, 1966; M i l l e r , 1951; Premack, 1965; Skinner, 1953; Stuart, 1969) have rather convincingly demonstrated that manipulation of environmental variables can have a very powerful e f f e c t on the behavior of a wide var i e t y of populations. This evidence notwithstanding, i t i s equally clear that such manipulation does not s a t i s f a c t o r i l y account f o r a l l the v a r i a b i l i t y i n human behavior. That i n t e r n a l f a c t o r s are a l s o h i g h l y s a l i e n t , while an anathema to a "ra d i c a l behaviorist", i s c l e a r l y attested to by a renewed interest i n various cognitive elements evident i n the work of 2 an ever increasing number of investigators over the past two decades, (e.g., Beck, 1976, 1985; Kanfer, 1977, 1984; Kendler, 1974, 1981, 1985; Mahoney, 1977, 1985; Meichenbaum, 1974, 1979, 1985) . The emergence of t h i s v i t a l "cognitive - b e h a v i o r a l school" of c l i n i c a l psychology has not occurred without some detractors (e.g., Ledwidge, 1978, 1979; Skinner, 1977; Epstein, 1986; R a c h l i n , 1977a, 1977b, 1986 ) who tend to view i t as a fundamental reject i o n of s c i e n t i f i c p r i n c i p l e s , abandoning the "science" of psychology i n favor of a re-emergent "mentalism". Such a reaction i s perhaps not su r p r i s i n g when the history of psychology can be perceived of as having being dominated by two ". . . t h e o r e t i c a l perspectives that stressed overt behavior on the one hand and unconscious mentalism on the other" (Neimeyer & Neimeyer, 1981). Adoption of such a view, however, often r e s u l t s from a f a i l u r e to d i f f e r e n t i a t e those c o g n i t i v e approaches which are fundamentally a m o t i v a t i o n a l , such as A t t r i b u t i o n Theory (Heider, 1958; Kelley, 1967) and Information Processing Models (e.g., Hamilton 1979, 1980; Lachman, Lachman, & B u t t e r f i e l d , 1979; Neufeld & M o t h e r s i l l , 1980; Palmer & Kinchi, 1986; Suedfeld, 1971; Wyer, 1974, 1981), from those models d e r i v e d from psychodynamic or ego, t h e o r i e s (e.g., A r i e t i , 1980; Frankl, 1985; Holzman & Gardiner, 1959, 1960; Klein & Fontance, 1968; Rogers, 1959; Wylie, 1974). Controversy has continued to focus on the r e l a t i v e merits of i n t e r n a l versus external "causes" of behavior. This controversy has 3 commonly been r e s o l v e d by the adoption of the view that behavior i s a res u l t of an i n t e r a c t i o n of both personal and environmental factors (e.g., Endler, 1973; Schwitter, 1986). However, as Bandura (1978) has suggested, such int e r a c t i o n views are t y p i c a l l y accompanied by methodologies which r e f l e c t an u n i d i r e c t i o n a l causal approach to behavior. Explanations of human behavior have generally been couched i n terms of a l i m i t e d set of determinants. Exponents of environmental determinism study and t h e o r i z e about how behavior i s c o n t r o l l e d by s i t u a t i o n a l influences. Those favoring personal determinism seek the causes of human behavior i n d i s p o s i t i o n a l sources... I n t e r a c t i o n i s t s attempt to accommodate both 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 factors... However these views of interaction and the accompanying methodologies e s s e n t i a l l y retain a u n i d i r e c t i o n a l orientation toward behavior. (Bandura, 1978, p. 344-345). This u n d e r l y i n g s p l i t i s i m p l i c i t l y present i n the p r a c t i t i o n e r ' s choice and implementation of methodologies. Prac t i t i o n e r s who favor the primacy of environmental factors i n c o n t r o l l i n g behavior attempt to control and manipulate external environmental events beli e v i n g that such events are the key to a l t e r i n g behavior. Their more i n t e r n a l l y oriented colleagues focus t h e i r procedures on the individual's i n t e r n a l cognitive processes. While only the most r a d i c a l advocate of e i t h e r approach would t o t a l l y dismiss the other, each, i n emphasizing a p a r t i c u l a r set of variables, tends to negate the value of the other to a secondary or supportive role. 4 Bandura suggests that behavior i s a c t u a l l y a function of r e c i p r o c a l i n t e r a c t i o n among b e h a v i o r a l , c o g n i t i v e , and environmental variables (Bandura, 1977a, 1982, 1984). If t h i s i s true, the choice of either an environmental (e.g., Behavior M o d i f i c a t i o n ) or i n t e r n a l ( C o g n i t i v e ) approach to behavior change results i n the exclusion of variables "inappropriate" to the methodology of choice which are nevertheless highly s a l i e n t to behavior. Many contemporary c l i n i c a l p r a c t i t i o n e r s have developed procedures which are more consistent with Bandura's o r i g i n a l model t a k i n g advantage of both methodological approaches in what have been termed "cognitive - behavioral" therapies (Bandura & Schunk, 1981; Beck, Rush, Shaw & Emery, 1979; Craighead, 1982; Dobson, Jacobson & V i c t o r , 1988; D z u r i l l a , 1988; Jacobson, 1984; Kanfer, 1977; Kanfer & Hagerman, 1981; K e n d a l l , 1983; Meichenbaum, 1977, 1985; McMullen & Giles, 1981; Rehm & Rokke, 1988; Reynolds & Stark, 1983; Wilson, Golding & Charbonneau-Powis, 1983; Wolpe, 1981; Wolpe, Lunde, McNally & Schotte, 1985). GENERALIZATION AND MAINTENANCE OF CHANGE One major issue which has been central i n the c l i n i c a l application of cognitive, behavioral, and cognitive-behavioral o r i e n t e d approaches to behavior change i s the controversy surrounding the relationship between cognitive and behavioral change. Pra c t i t i o n e r s who advocate a focus upon the cognitions of the i n d i v i d u a l assume that a l t e r a t i o n of i n t e r n a l cognitions i s primary i n producing subsequent behavior change. Their more 5 behaviorally oriented colleagues argue for the opposite view, stressing the primary role of external contingency management in producing behavior change. The lack of convincing evidence that shows v e r b a l i z e d c o g n i t i v e changes to be r e l i a b l y associated with subsequent change in s p e c i f i c behavior has been cit e d by numerous authors (Bandura, 1969, 1977a; Fairweather, 1964; Kanfer, 1977; Lazarus, 1961; Paul, 1966; Rachlin, 1977a; Rachman, 1971; Risely, 1977). Cognitive th e o r i s t s , while generally accepting the e f f i c a c y of b e h a v i o r a l procedures i n a l t e r i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y d e f i n e d behaviors i n highly controlled s i t u a t i o n s , argue that change e f f o r t s focused s o l e l y upon environmental contingency manipulations are less e f f e c t i v e . Changes r e s u l t i n g from t h i s approach are l i k e l y to disappear quite rapi d l y when contingency control i s relaxed, or when the changee leaves the a r t i f i c i a l l y controlled environment (Beck & Rush, 1978; E l l i s , 1962; H a l l & H a l l , 1974; Jeffery, 1974; Locke, 1979; Mahoney, 1974; Marston & M c F a l l , 1974 Rosenthal, 1978; Rush & Beck, 1977). Such unenduring change i s often viewed as being a temporary response to the " c l i n i c a l " environment rather than a " r e a l " change i n the i n d i v i d u a l . The issue of generalization and maintenance of behavior change i s c e n t r a l to the present i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The major thesis i s that behavior change programs, i f they are to res u l t i n enduring change, must s p e c i f i c a l l y address a l l of the r e c i p r o c a l l y causal factors i d e n t i f i e d by Bandura (1977b). It 6 i s suggested that behavior change programs of any type, whether they are labeled therapy, education, t r a i n i n g or whatever, w i l l benefit by developing methodologies which, e x p l i c i t l y , address both the i n t e r n a l and external sources contributing to the behavior variance in t h e i r target populations. BEHAVIOR CHANGE AS SOCIAL INFLUENCE Behavior change programs, regardless of t h e i r cognitive or behavioral methodological bias, are i n fact attempts by one i n d i v i d u a l or group to i n f l u e n c e the behavior of another i n d i v i d u a l or group. I t may, t h e r e f o r e , be u s e f u l to c o n c e p t u a l i z e change methodologies i n r e l a t i o n to Kelman's (1958, 1974) model of the s o c i a l influence process. Kelman stressed the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the type of change which occurs and the process which i s employed i n bringing i t about. Behavior change which results from the a l t e r a t i o n of external environmental reinforcement contingencies i s labeled "compliance" by Kelman. Change r e s u l t i n g from an ind i v i d u a l ' s " s e l f - d e f i n i n g " r e l a t i o n s h i p with others i s c a l l e d " i d e n t i f i c a t i o n " , while change which results from the supplying of new c o g n i t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n which i s i n t e g r a t e d i n t o the i n d i v i d u a l ' s e x i s t i n g " b e l i e f system" i s r e f e r r e d to as " i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n " . Compliance r e s u l t s from changes i n contingencies of reinforcement and requires s t a b i l i t y i n the contingencies for i t s maintenance. Int e r n a l i z a t i o n requires no 7 such s t a b i l i t y in the external contingencies of reinforcement. Individuals are able to s e l f - r e i n f o r c e changes of t h i s type The relationship between Kelman's terms "compliance" and " i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n " and the issue of generalization of behavior change highlighted above seems obvious. His description of the alternative external power sources associated with each type of change i s cl o s e l y related to the controversy surrounding the r e l a t i v e merits of a behavioral versus cognitive focus by the external change agent. It might be assumed that a cognitive approach (supplying expert information) would r e s u l t i n change which w i l l be g e n e r a l i z e d while manipulating environmental variables would resu l t i n change which would not be maintained beyond the s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n . This assumption would however ignore the importance of the in t e r n a l cognitive processes of the changee. I t i s c l e a r from Kelman's d e s c r i p t i o n that i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n would only be expected to occur when the changee perceives the v a l i d i t y of the information supplied as being "expert". This perception may well be unrelated to any a c t u a l e x p e r t i s e on the part of the . change agent. Internalization would only be expected to occur i f the subject attributes "expertise" to the information source or external change agent. The int e r n a l cognitive processes of a t t r i b u t i o n are therefore a key variable i n determining the type of change which u l t i m a t e l y occurs. The focus of many c o g n i t i v e -b e h a v i o r a l c l i n i c i a n s upon the important r o l e played by indivi d u a l s ' b e l i e f s about the v a l i d i t y of the model of change employed and about the cause of change in t h e i r behavior i n 8 determining the effectiveness of therapy i s supportive of the importance of t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p (e.g., Bandura, Adams & Bayer, 1977; Kanfer & Scheft, 1987; Meichenbaum, 1985; Sonne & Janoff, 1982). CAUSAL ATTRIBUTION AND BEHAVIOR MAINTENANCE At t r i b u t i o n Theory maintains that individuals attempt to "cognitively" process perceptual data from t h e i r external environment into meaningful causal relationships (Heider, 1958; K e l l e y , 1967, 1971). According to Harvey, Ickes and Kidd, (1976), t h i s process involves an i n d i v i d u a l "acting l i k e a s c i e n t i s t , o b t a i n i n g i n f o r m a t i o n from h i s / h e r s o c i a l surroundings and t r y i n g to determine the causes and consequences of ongoing behavioral events" (Harvey, Ickes, & Kidd, 1976, p r e f a c e ) . Bern (1965, 1972b) suggested that i n d i v i d u a l s employ a s i m i l a r procedure i n attempting to understand and give meaning to t h e i r own behavior. Dimensions of Causal A t t r i b u t i o n s Rotter (1966) has i d e n t i f i e d g e n e r a l i z e d tendencies i n individuals to employ either external or i n t e r n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s of c a u s a l i t y i n reference to t h e i r own behavior. This generalized tendency or "locus of control" i s developed from the i n d i v i d u a l ' s p e r c e p t i o n s regarding c o n t i n g e n c i e s of 9 reinforcement i n the e a r l y years of l i f e . L e f c o u r t (1976) describes the process: It 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 that i s pertinent to the g e n e r a l i z e d expectancy of i n t e r n a l versus e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l , but r a t h e r i t i s the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the cause of these experiences. (Lefcourt, 1976, p. 28) Thus i t may 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 c a u s a l i t y concerning changes i n t h e i r own behavior rather than the actual external induction source (Kelman, 1958) that are the c r u c i a l factors i n determining whether such change i s due to compliance or to i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n . That i s , i f the i n d i v i d u a l attributes the cause to external factors, the change w i l l be due to compliance, and i f the change i s attributed to i n t e r n a l factors i t w i l l be due to i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n . It i s c r u c i a l therefore to consider t h i s a t t r i b u t i o n process i n designing change programs i f the goal i s to bring about changes which are independent of the environment in which they were acquired. In order to understand more c l e a r l y the r e l a t i o n s h i p between a t t r i b u t i o n of c a u s a l i t y and learning, one must examine findings regarding locus of control i n r e l a t i o n to a t t r i b u t i o n theory. Investigations into locus of control have suggested that the construct i s perhaps not quite so straightforward as i n i t i a l l y d e s c r i b e d by R o t t e r . A number of w r i t e r s have questioned the generality of locus of control. It has been demonstrated that locus of control may not be consistent for an 10 i n d i v i d u a l i n a l l s i t u a t i o n s . For example i n d i v i d u a l s may d i f f e r i n the locus of causal attributions' they employ fo r success and f a i l u r e (Crandall, Katcorsky, & Crandall, 1965; Mischel, Zeiss, & Zeiss, 1974; Weiner, 1974a). It also appears that the categories of i n t e r n a l and external are not s u f f i c i e n t to account adequately for the types of causal a t t r i b u t i o n s that individuals a c t u a l l y employ. Weiner and colleagues (Weiner, 1979, 1980a, 1985, 1986; Weiner, Frieze, Kukla, Reed, Rest, & Rosenbaum, 1971; Weiner, Heckenhauser, Meyer, & Cook, 1972; Weiner, Neirenberg & Goldstein, 1976; Weiner, Russel & Lerman, 1978) suggested causal a t t r i b u t i o n s involve both "stable" and "variable" factors which may be either external or i n t e r n a l i n locus. Thus they were able to employ a 2x2 table demonstrating four types of a t t r i b u t i o n regarding performance (see Figure 1). Figure 1 Two Dimensional Model of Causality Fixed Variable Internal personality e f f o r t External task d i f f i c u l t y luck (Weiner et a l . , 1971) Employing t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n model, a s i n g l e c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n regarding a s p e c i f i c event may f a l l into any of four categories. 11 A t t r i b u t i o n of Cause Category 1. 2. II II Because he i s stupid" Because he worked hard" Because i t was d i f f i c u l t " Because the weather was good Internal-Fixed Internal-Variable External-Fixed External-Variable 3 . 4. II II II When the above c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system i s combined with the differences related to success and f a i l u r e s i t u a t i o n s , the r e s u l t i n g model provides e i g h t p o s s i b l e c a t e g o r i e s of a t t r i b u t i o n type which may be employed f o l l o w i n g a s i n g l e behavioral performance (Figure 2). The a t t r i b u t i o n may vary depending upon the evaluation of the performance ( i . e . , success or f a i l u r e ) , the locus of the factor (i n t e r n a l or external) and the s t a b i l i t y of the factor (fixed or v a r i a b l e ) . Under t h i s eight category model there are now two alternatives for each of the four examples provided e a r l i e r . THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STABILITY AND LOCUS OF CAUSAL Weiner and his colleagues . have contended that i t i s the s t a b i l i t y dimension of causal a t t r i b u t i o n s that i s of major importance i n determining expectations r e g a r d i n g f u t u r e performance (Weiner, 1980a, 1985, 1986; Weiner, Heckenhauser, Meyer, & Cook, 1972; Weiner, Neirenberg & Goldstein, 1976; Weiner, Russel & Lerman, 1978). Numerous investigators have ATTRIBUTIONS AND PERFORMANCE 12 Figure 2 Possible Behavioral Outcome - A t t r i b u t i o n Type C l a s s i f i c a t i o n BEHAVIORAL OUTCOME CAUSAL ATTRIBUTION BEHAVIOR ->SUCCESS -> FAILURE -> INTERNAL •^EXTERNAL •>FIXED -> VARIABLE 'FIXED >VARIABLE -> INTERNAL • -» EXTERNAL •FIXED -> VARIABLE •FIXED VARIABLE 13 A t t r i b u t i o n of Cause Category 1. "Because he i s smart" S-internal-fixed l a . "Because he i s stupid" F - i n t e r n a l - f i x e d 2. "Because he worked hard" S-internal-variable 2a. "Because he didn't work hard enough" F-internal-variable 3 "Because i t was easy" S-external-fixed 3a. "Because i t was d i f f i c u l t " F-external-fixed 4. "Because the weather was good" S-external-variable 4a. "Because the weather was bad" F-external-variable S=Success F=Failure found that subjects a t t r i b u t i n g f a i l u r e to i n t e r n a l variable causes have s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r expectations of f u t u r e success and exhibit performance in the future that i s superior to that displayed by those who att r i b u t e f a i l u r e to i n t e r n a l fixed causal factors (Anderson & Jennings, 1980; Andrews & Debus, 1978; Jennings, 1980; Wilson & L i n v i l l e , 1982). The importance of the r e l a t i o n s h i p among performance, behavior, and locus of attributed cause has been demonstrated by Mischel, Zeiss and Zeiss (1974) who found that success, when attributed to in t e r n a l factors, was pred i c t i v e of "persistent e f f o r t s " i n performance s i t u a t i o n s , while u n s u c c e s s f u l performance attributed to external causal factors resulted i n "avoidance behaviors". A s i m i l a r study by Dweck and Repucci (1973) found that i n t e r n a l i t y f or f a i l u r e was " c l o s e l y akin" to exter n a l i t y i n i t s relat i o n s h i p to subsequent behavior. Such i n v e s t i g a t i o n s l i n k performance outcome with the locus of attributed cause in the determination of future performance. In doing so, they are c l o s e l y related to work of Abrahamson, 14 Seligman, and Teasdale (1978) i n the area of "learned helplessness", and numerous investigators employing Bandura's (1977b) " s e l f - e f f i c a c y " construct who have provided evidence of the importance of i n t e r n a l l y attributed control i n determining both expectations and f u t u r e performance (Bandura, Adams, Hardy, & Howells, 1980; Biram & Wilson, 1981; Winberg, Gould, & Jackson, 1979). The u n d e r l y i n g premise of t h i s study i s that behavior change programs are examples of a " s o c i a l influence" process (Kelman 1974) and that maintenance and g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of behavior affected by t h i s process are c l o s e l y related to the type of causal a t t r i b u t i o n s employed by the changee. Therefore, the i n c l u s i o n of s p e c i f i c procedures designed d i r e c t l y to influence the cognitive a t t r i b u t i o n process of participants i n change programs should have a s i g n i f i c a n t impact on the endurance of t h e i r behavior. This study was designed, to examine the role of cognitive a t t r i b u t i o n s t r u c t u r i n g procedures i n the maintenance and g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of performance. It was intended as an ex p l o r a t o r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n focused upon e v a l u a t i n g the effectiveness of an experimental t r a i n i n g program i n improving the maintenance and generalization of performance and examining the relationships among a number of factors (locus of control, causal a t t r i b u t i o n s and performance expectancy) believed to mediate performance maintenance and generalization. 15 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW AND DEVELOPMENT OF HYPOTHESES In the previous chapter several themes were i d e n t i f i e d as pertinent to the present study. This chapter w i l l examine the l i t e r a t u r e relevant to each of these investigative threads, present a conceptual model of the process of g e n e r a l i z e d , enduring, behavior change, and e s t a b l i s h a set of hypotheses for investigation. SOCIAL INFLUENCE AND GENERALIZATION The p a r a l l e l between the generalization and maintenance of behavior and Kelman's (1958) processes of compliance and i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n was noted above. In Kelman's model the terms compliance and i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n include a description of both the processes involved i n bringing about the change i n behavior and the factors c o n t r o l l i n g the behavior a f t e r a c q u i s i t i o n . Kelman's description of c o n t r o l l i n g factors -- compliance: the external 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 (Kelman, 1961, p. 57) — r e f l e c t s the internal-external controversy presented e a r l i e r and suggests that the i n t e r n a l i z e d change should g e n e r a l i z e and be maintained beyond the contingency environment i n which i t was acquired. Raven (1974) has also indicated that compliance and i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n are c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to the issue of 16 g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of change which i s central to the present i n v e s t i g a t i o n . He suggested that compliance and i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n can be p e r c e i v e d as having a one to one correspondence with the extremes of an environment dependent -environmental independent continuum (Raven, 1974, p. 177). Just as the factors c o n t r o l l i n g behavior i n Kelman's model r e f l e c t the internal-external dichotomy discussed e a r l i e r , his descriptions of the processes involved i n bringing about each of these types of change are c l o s e l y related to the controversy regarding cognitive and behavioral methodologies described i n Chapter 1. Kelman (1974) and others (French & Raven, 1959; Raven & Kruglanski, 1970) have stressed the importance of the external power source in bringing about change. The power to b r i n g about rewards and punishment i s seen as i n i t i a t i n g compliance changes, while the power of "expert" information produces i n t e r n a l i z e d change. According to t h i s model, supplying an i n d i v i d u a l with "expert" information should r e s u l t in behavior change which i s independent of' the environment i n which i t f i r s t occurs. It has been suggested however, that cert a i n i n t e r n a l cognitive processes of the i n d i v i d u a l may be equally or even more c r u c i a l than the power source of the induction agent i n determining the type of change which occurs (Raven, 1974; Schopler & Layton, 1974). Raven (1974) has suggested that i n t e r n a l c o g n i t i v e processes and s p e c i f i c a l l y a t t r i b u t i o n s regarding the locus of control over change are more c r u c i a l than the actual external power source in determining whether compliance or i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n occurs. More recently, many cognitive-behavioral c l i n i c i a n s have adopted a s i m i l a r approach to behavioral change. For example, Meichenbaum and h i s a s s o c i a t e s s t r e s s the importance of establishing a "collaborative" r e l a t i o n s h i p with the c l i e n t i n order to f a c i l i t a t e the development of a "reconceptualization" of the presenting problem i n therapy (Meichenbaum, 1985; Turk, Meichenbaum & Genest, 1983). These authors stress that the c l i e n t ' s b e l i e f i n and acceptance of t h i s new conceptualization are of primary concern to the t h e r a p i s t . The o b j e c t i v e v a l i d i t y of the r e c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n i s d e s c r i b e d as being r e l a t i v e l y unimportant i n determining the outcome of therapy. A second major focus of therapy i d e n t i f i e d by Meichenbaum et a l . and other 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 s t s i s upon getting c l i e n t s to perceive themselves as being responsible for any changes which do occur (Beck, 1985; D ' z u r i l l a , 1988; Jacobson, 1984; Kanfer, 1984). These f o c i correspond very closely, in both the i d e n t i f i e d goals and the description of the processes i n v o l v e d i n a t t a i n i n g them, to Kelman's description of " 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 " . These c l i n i c i a n s do not assume that supplying "expert information" w i l l automatically res u l t i n environmental independent change, nor that c o n t r o l l i n g c o n t i n g e n c i e s of reinforcement w i l l necessarily r e s u l t s o l e l y i n environmental dependent change. Changes of either type may occur independently of the external 18 change induction procedure depending upon the " b e l i e f s " and cognitive 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 CAUSAL ATTRIBUTION The construct locus of control has been the source of considerable controversy (Phares, 1973; Reid & Ware, 1973, 1974; Rotter, 1975; Williams & Stack, 1972). The controversy tends to focus upon a " t r a i t " versus "state" dispute not unlike the internal-external controversy described i n Chapter 1. This focus also tends to evoke an either/or approach d i s t r a c t i n g attention from the primary goal of understanding behavior. An i n d i v i d u a l ' s measured locus of c o n t r o l can vary depending upon performance success or f a i l u r e (Crandall et a l . , 1965; Mischel et a l . , 1974; Weiner, 1974a). In addition, numerous studies by Weiner and his colleagues have f a i l e d to f i n d a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between locus of control and performance expectancy which i s predicted by Rotter's o r i g i n a l conceptualization of the construct (Heckhausen & Weiner, 1972; Weiner et a l . , 1972; Weiner & Kukla, 1970). Investigations employing narrowly d e f i n e d b e h a v i o r a l measures such as resistance to extinction (Battle & Rotter, 1963) have also had disappointing r e s u l t s . On the other hand, more broadly based investigations employing natural s o c i a l settings have found s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s between locus of c o n t r o l and e f f e c t i v e functioning (Gurin, Gurin, Lao, & Beattie, 1969; Lao, 19 1970; Lefcourt, 1966; Rotter, 1966; Seeman, 1963; Seeman & Evans, 1962). These results are not surp r i s i n g when one considers that Rotter's o r i g i n a l 29 item s e l f - r e p o r t inventory remains the most commonly employed measure of the "generalized tendency" locus of control (Rotter, 1966). This scale i s designed to represent a large number of categories of behavior i n keeping with the conception of a generalized tendency (Rotter et a l . , 1961). Therefore i t follows that i t s v a l i d i t y would be related to "broad s o c i a l a c t i o n s " r a t h e r than t i g h t l y c o n t r o l l e d laboratory manipulations (Weiner, 1972). Weiner (1972, 1974a, 1980a, 1986), i n an expanded c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system, suggested that the locus of control c o n s t r u c t a c t u a l l y i n c o r p o r a t e s two separate dimensions. Weiner's system attempts to d i f f e r e n t i a t e a dimension which he labeled as "control" from the "locus" ( i n t e r n a l - external) dimension. In Weiner's c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system, " l o c u s " i s defined as a "backward looking b e l i e f " regarding the location of the cause of an event which has already occurred. "Control" i s defined as the degree to which a cause i s perceived as being controllable by the actor. Weiner acknowledges (Weiner, 1980a, p. 45) that there may be some weaknesses i n t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system. S p e c i f i c a l l y , he raised doubts regarding the degree of independence which exists between locus and c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y and whether or not external causes can ever r e a l l y be perceived as being controllable (pp. 45-47). 20 Weiner suggested "task d i f f i c u l t y " as an example of an external, unstable, and uncontrollable "cause" of students' grades and offered "teacher bias" as a cause which "might" be perceived as external, stable and c o n t r o l l a b l e . He suggested that "unusual help from others" i s an example of a cause which i s external, unstable but c o n t r o l l a b l e . Weiner concedes that the l a t t e r two examples may be considered suspect, and i t does seem somewhat u n l i k e l y that an i n d i v i d u a l would a c t u a l l y p e r c e i v e e i t h e r of these a t t r i b u t e d causes as being controllable by him/herself. Weiner's c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system i s also vulnerable to the c r i t i c i s m advanced by F e i d l e r (1982) and others (Renis, Hansen, & O'Leary, 1983; Tetlock & Levi, 1982), suggesting that much of the controversy i n A t t r i b u t i o n Theory r e s u l t s from i t s dependence upon the l e v e l of semantic in t e r p r e t a t i o n , rather than systematic i n v e s t i g a t i o n of o p e r a t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d and experimentally controlled variables. It i s apparent that the "control" and "locus" dimensions are not conceptually unrelated since as Weiner suggested a " c o n t r o l l a b l e " cause could also be c l a s s i f i e d as n e c e s s a r i l y being i n t e r n a l i n l o c u s . The relationship between s t a b i l i t y and control i s also unclear. It could be argued that for a factor to be c o n t r o l l a b l e i t must be variable. Meyer (.1978, 1980) i d e n t i f i e d the factors advanced i n Weiner's c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system with f a c t o r a n a l y s i s techniques, but found them to be non-orthogonal. Michela, Peplau and Weeks (cited i n Weiner, 1979) and Passer (1977) also employed f a c t o r a n a l y s i s techniques and f a i l e d to provide support f o r the exis t e n c e of the multitude of d i f f e r e n t dimensions which have been i d e n t i f i e d . Weiner (1980b) i d e n t i f i e d a fourth dimension, "Globality", but did not e x p l i c i t l y include i t i n his c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system at that time. In his 1986 expl i c a t i o n of his A t t r i b u t i o n a l Theory of Motivation and Emotion, " g l o b a l i t y " i s combined with " s t a b i l i t y " as the key f a c t o r i n determining expectancy (Weiner, 1986). E x p e r i e n t i a l l y " g l o b a l i t y " would appear to be clo s e l y related to the s t a b i l i t y dimension since i t i s defined as generalization of a cause across s i t u a t i o n s . S t a b i l i t y refers to such generalization over time. Weiner's description of g l o b a l i t y suggests that i t must be cl o s e l y associated with " i n t e r n a l i t y " since global causes must be present across a l l situations that an in d i v i d u a l enters. Very few external causal f a c t o r s could be expected to e x i s t i n every s i t u a t i o n an indi v i d u a l enters. G l o b a l i t y a l s o appears to be very c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to Bandura's (1977b) " s e l f - e f f i c a c y " construct. Examples of gl o b a l i t y provided by Weiner (1980a) are indistinguishable from common examples of s e l f - e f f i c a c y evaluations. An example of a global factor i s lack of i n t e l l i g e n c e evidenced i n the causal a t t r i b u t i o n f or f a i l u r e : "I am dumb". Furthermore, both of these c o n s t r u c t s would appear to f a l l i n t o the " i n t e r n a l -stable" category of Weiner's o r i g i n a l locus by s t a b i l i t y model of causal a t t r i b u t i o n s (Weiner, et a l . , 1971). In summary, the a d d i t i o n of t h e f a c t o r s g l o b a l i t y , i n t e n t i o n a l i t y , and c h a n g e a b i l i t y , and t h e s e p a r a t i o n of c o n t r o l from l o c u s have done l i t t l e t o enhance our understanding of the process of a t t r i b u t i n g c a u s a l i t y , and the r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h i s process and " e x p e c t a t i o n s " and/or " p e r f o r m a n c e " . S u p p o r t f o r t h e c o n t e n t i o n t h a t l o c u s of c o n t r o l i s u n r e l a t e d to performance e x p e c t a t i o n s has not been demonstrated d e s p i t e Weiner's (1986) claims t o the c o n t r a r y . I t i s advantageous to view both lo c u s of c o n t r o l and c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s as c o n t r i b u t i n g to i n d i v i d u a l s ' expectancy i n s t e a d of viewing one or the o t h e r as being primary. T h i s can be done i f each i s conceived of as r e p r e s e n t i n g a d i f f e r e n t l e v e l of a n a l y s i s . In t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n l o c u s of c o n t r o l i s conceived of as a c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e and c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s as a c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s . S p e c i f i c a l l y i t i s suggested t h a t l o c u s of c o n t r o l can best be understood as a measure of a l e a r n e d r e s p o n s e t e n d e n c y which r e f l e c t s an u n d e r l y i n g c o g n i t i v e schema, or s t r u c t u r e , r e l a t i n g t o the l o c u s of the cause of e v e n t s . C a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s a r e t h e c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s i n v o l v e d i n a s s i g n i n g c a u s a l i t y f o r events t h a t occur. The r e c i p r o c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between s t r u c t u r e s and p r o c e s s e s p r o v i d e s f o r c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s b e i n g i n f l u e n c e d by t h e u n d e r l y i n g c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e l o c u s of c o n t r o l and f o r l o c u s of c o n t r o l b e i n g i n f l u e n c e d by t h e p r o c e s s o f a t t r i b u t i n g c a u s a l i t y . 23 COGNITIVE STRUCTURES AND COGNITIVE PROCESSES Cognitive structures are defined (following A v e r i l l , 1979) as the " . . . e x i s t i n g cognitive models which give meaning to events". They are d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from cognitive processes, which are d e f i n e d as "thoughts, images ( s e l f statements, appraisals, .expectancies, etc.) that precede, accompany and follow event behaviors" (Meichenbaum, Butler, & Gruson, 1981 p. 37). From t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e , causal a t t r i b u t i o n s are "processes" while 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 a measure of an " e x i s t i n g model, or s t r u c t u r e " . In e f f e c t a t t r i b u t i o n of causality and locus of control each represent a d i f f e r e n t focus or l e v e l of analysis. They are i n t e r r e l a t e d , but c a t e g o r i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t phenomena ( G o l d f r i e d & Robins, 1983; Meichenbaum & Gilmore, 1984; Turk & Speers, 1983). Kelley postulated the existence of an i n t e r n a l cognitive schematic system, suggesting that individuals develop a number of d i f f e r e n t " c o g n i t i v e schemata", or "..general conceptions) . . . about how c e r t a i n kinds of causes interact to produce a c e r t a i n kind of e f f e c t " ( K e l l e y , 1972, p . l ) . According to K e l l e y d i f f e r e n t schema may be a c t i v a t e d i n p a r t i c u l a r situations and as a r e s u l t , d i f f e r e n t conclusions w i l l be reached about the cause of an event. Numerous subsequent investigators examining the a t t r i b u t i o n process have provided evidence that i s supportive of t h i s c ontention (Anderson, 1983a; Metalsky & Abrahamson, 1981; Reeder & Brewer, 1979; Reeder & Fulks, 1980; Schwartz & Higgins, 1979) and others have suggested that such structures are organized i n a h i e r a r c h i c a l form (e.g., H a s t i e , 1981; Meichenbaum, 1985; Meichenbaum & Gilmore, 1984). The S o c i a l Learning Theory c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of the organization of pot e n t i a l responses into a h i e r a r c h i c a l system provides a model for the organization and operation of such a schematic system (Bandura & Walters, 1963; Bandura, 1977a). Staats (1975) described behavior as r e s u l t i n g from "cumulative h i e r a r c h i c a l learning". That i s , a repertoire of associative or adaptive behaviors i s learned as a hierarchy of p o t e n t i a l responses. In subsequent situations the dominant behavior i n the hierarchy w i l l tend to be produced, r e s u l t i n g i n a response pattern that tends to be constant across s i t u a t i o n s . However, i f that behavior proves to be non-adaptive i n a s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n , a new behavior from the hierarchy w i l l be produced. Thus, variations between s p e c i f i c situations occur along with consistency across s i t u a t i o n s . Rotter (1954) described an inverse r e l a t i o n s h i p between g e n e r a l i z e d expectancies such as locus of c o n t r o l and an individual's f a m i l i a r i t y with a p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n . In the model advanced here, a system of c o g n i t i v e schemata i s conceived of as being organized i n a h i e r a r c h i c a l fashion, and locus of control i s conceptualized as being a dominant causal schema w i t h i n such a h i e r a r c h y . F o l l o w i n g t h i s model, a tendency to employ in t e r n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s of ca u s a l i t y could be dominant i n an individual's available hierarchy and therefore tend to be employed across a wide variety of si t u a t i o n s . This would be es p e c i a l l y l i k e l y i n situations which were novel, or highly nonspecific. However, i t would also be l i k e l y that some situations w i l l o f f e r s p e c i f i c cues which would tend to e l i c i t an alternate or non-dominant causal schema from the hierarchy. The differences i n locus of control for success and f a i l u r e might r e f l e c t such a process. An example of t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p i s presented i n Figure 3. As indicated i n Figure 3, when s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n a l cues are absent, the individual's dominant causal schema determines hi s / h e r a t t r i b u t e d c a u s a l i t y . When s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n a l information i s available, however, i t can cue an alte r n a t i v e causal schema from the i n d i v i d u a l ' s a v a i l a b l e schemata, re s u l t i n g i n an a t t r i b u t i o n which i s inconsistent with his/her dominant schema or measured locus of control. The present conceptual model of locus of control as a dominant cognitive schema i s consistent with both Heider's (1958) contention that c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s are sometimes determined by habits of thought, Kelley's (1972) description of int e r n a l causal schemata, Rotter's (1954) description of the relationship between a generalized expectancy and s i t u a t i o n s p e c i f i c expectations, and Lefcourt's (1975) findings r e l a t i n g locus of control, i n i t i a l expectations and performance outcome. More recently Kelley and Michela (1980) and Metalsky and Abrahamson (1981) have d e s c r i b e d s i m i l a r o r g a n i z a t i o n s of Figure 3 Hierarchy of Schemata and Locus of Attributed Causality (COGNITIVE STRUCTURE) (COGNITIVE PROCESS) Cognitive Hierarchy Attributed Locus of Schemata S i t u a t i o n a l Cues of Causality of Causality Absent Internal Dominant r locus of > Internal causality Present External Alternate—»locus of > External causality The placement of i n t e r n a l locus of ca u s a l i t y as a dominant causal structure or. schema i s for 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 domin-ancy could be reversed. c o g n i t i v e schemata, while P y z s e z i n s k i and Greenberg (1981) found that individuals employ "pre-existing causal theories" i n e x p l a i n i n g unexpected events. Weiner (1986) a l l u d e s to a simi l a r relationship between two cognitive variables which he refers to as an "underlying cognitive organization" and an 27 " a c t i v a t e d schema" (Weiner, 1986, p. 72). Ross' (1981) contention that the " f a l s e consensus a t t r i b u t i o n a l bias" i s accounted f o r by the f a c t that c e r t a i n choices are "more cognitively available" than others and Kahnmen and Tversky's (1973) description of the h e u r i s t i c s of information processing are also supportive of t h i s p o s i t i o n . Wong and Weiner (1981) i n d i c a t e d that locus and c o n t r o l were the most common heur i s t i c s employed in " a t t r i b u t i o n a l search". Ruble (1973), employing the same performance measure as used i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , found that i n d i v i d u a l s employ d i f f e r e n t factors i n predicting future behavior depending on the degree of s i m i l a r i t y between present and (expected) future s i t u a t i o n s . Ruble's r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e that the " l o c u s " of individuals' attributions affected t h e i r expectations about future performance i n d i s s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n s , while the " s t a b i l i t y " of t h e i r a t t r i b u t i o n s was most i n f l u e n t i a l i n determining expectations of performance i n f u t u r e s i m i l a r situations. In Ruble's study when individuals attributed t h e i r performance to stable causal factors they expected to repeat t h e i r performance in future s i m i l a r situations regardless of whether these causal factors were perceived as being i n t e r n a l or external i n locus. When they considered performance in f u t u r e d i s s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n s , however, the locus of t h e i r causal a t t r i b u t i o n was an important factor in determining t h e i r future performance expectations. 28 LOCUS OF CONTROL. CAUSAL ATTRIBUTIONS. AND PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS The relationship between the locus and s t a b i l i t y dimensions of causal a t t r i b u t i o n s i n determining performance expectations i s c r u c i a l to the present i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Weiner (1974a) contended that the relat i o n s h i p between i n t e r n a l and external locus of control and performance expectation i s less important than Rotter o r i g i n a l l y suggested. Weiner among others has argued that the stable-variable dimension of at t r i b u t i o n s i s more important than internal-external orientation i n a f f e c t i n g expectations and therefore future performance. The Weiner model i n d i c a t e s (Figure 4) that when an i n d i v i d u a l makes an a t t r i b u t i o n regarding the cause of a completed performance, i t i s the s t a b i l i t y dimension which determines expectations of future performance. Whether or not Figure 4 Dimensions of Causal At t r i b u t i o n s and Expectancy S t a b i l i t y •» Expectancy Causal A t t r i b u t i o n G l o b a l i t y Control » A f f e c t C o n t r o l l a b i l i t y (adapted from Weiner, 1986, p. 240) 29 the causal factor i s seen as being stable across time and sit u a t i o n i s the key to whether individuals w i l l expect s i m i l a r outcomes i n the future. In t h i s model, the locus of perceived cause i s viewed as being only p e r i p h e r a l l y i f at a l l involved in determining expectancy of future performance outcomes. Weiner suggests (1974 a&b, 1986) that previous investigations which have found a relat i o n s h i p between the locus dimension and expectancy were confounded by a f a i l u r e to consider the s t a b i l i t y dimension of a t t r i b u t i o n s . When the s t a b i l i t y dimension i s i n c l u d e d , Weiner contends locus of control has l i t t l e e f f e c t on expectancies regarding future performance. I f i n d i t unfortunate that psychologists continue to d i s c u s s locus of c o n t r o l i n re l a t i o n to expectancy of success and continue to confound the i n t e r n a l aspects of perceived c o n t r o l with the v o l i t i o n a l and s t a b l e dimensions of causality. (Weiner, 1974a, p. 61) Weiner (1986), i n summarizing the l i t e r a t u r e contrasting what he characterizes as the "Social Learning Theory" po s i t i o n in which "locus" of cause i s viewed as being the primary determinant of exp e c t a t i o n and the " A t t r i b u t i o n Theory" p o s i t i o n i n which " s t a b i l i t y " i s seen as being paramount, concluded that support for the l a t t e r p o s i t i o n i s overwhelming. However, he does acknowledge numerous problems i n the "quality" of many of the studies reviewed. In p a r t i c u l a r , the tendency to pre-determine the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of p a r t i c u l a r causes, 30 despite the fact that individuals might well c l a s s i f y them d i f f e r e n t l y , i s noted as a weakness of many investigations. For example, e f f o r t i s t y p i c a l l y c l a s s i f i e d as a "variable" causal factor although i t might i n fact be perceived by some subjects as being "stable". Rosenbaum (1973) attempted to address t h i s d i f f i c u l t y by suggesting the addition of a t h i r d variable which he c a l l e d " i n t e n t i o n a l i t y " . However in describing possible a t t r i b u t i o n s which might be employed by i n d i v i d u a l s , addressing a l l three variables, he was forced into the somewhat awkward position of constructing an example of a "stable-unintentional a t t r i b u t i o n for success" as follows: "blank i s the kind of person who u s u a l l y has the a b i l i t y " ; while i n the s u ccess-unstable-unintentional s i t u a t i o n : "subordinate's a b i l i t y to produce was  higher than usual on that occasion." While these a t t r i b u t i o n s may meet the requirements of the model, they appear rather a r t i f i c i a l . ' It i s much more l i k e l y that individuals i n the situations described would a t t r i b u t e the r e s u l t s to v a r i a b i l i t y i n e f f o r t , an unstable i n t e n t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n rather than to any actual changes in a b i l i t y which i s usually conceived as a r e l a t i v e l y s t a b l e f a c t o r . At any rate i n v e s t i g a t o r s have continued to ask subjects to choose between factors that have been p r e - c l a s s i f i e d and to assume that the subjects' percept-ions of these factors are i d e n t i c a l to t h e i r own. "Luck" and " e f f o r t " are defined as unstable for example, despite the fact both may well be perceived by many individuals as being highly stable factors. For example: "She i s lucky", "He i s lazy". A second area of concern i s that many investigations of t h i s type employ a t t r i b u t i o n s and expectations concerning another persons' behavior as dependent and independent variables (Kun & Weiner, 1973; Rest, Nierenberg, Weiner, & Heckhausen, 1973; Ruble, 1973; Weiner & Kukla, 1970). In those cases where the individual's own behavior i s employed, the a r t i f i c i a l nature of the s i t u a t i o n and/or the manipulation of a t t r i b u t i o n s make i n t e r p r e t a t i o n d i f f i c u l t ( F o e s t e r l i n g & Engleken, 1981; Holtzworth, Munroe & Jacobson, 1985; Meyer, 1980; Wong & Weiner, 1981). It i s unclear i n these studies that subjects a c t u a l l y believed the information supplied by the experimenter and/or employed i t in t h e i r a t t r i b u t i o n process (Kanfer, 1977). For example, Frieze and Weiner (1971) supplied subjects data on performance outcome and asked them to "imagine the data pertained to themselves". Kukla (1972) instructed subjects that outcome on a p a r t i c u l a r task was almost e n t i r e l y dependent on e f f o r t , or a l t e r n a t i v e l y , was dependent on both e f f o r t and a b i l i t y , but no attempt was made to discover whether the subjects a c t u a l l y believed these a t t r i b u t i o n s . Indeed the results indicate that they did not. While there have been attempts to overcome t h i s d i f f i c u l t y by employing more naturally occurring situations and simulations, most of these have not been concerned d i r e c t l y with the rel a t i o n s h i p between locus and s t a b i l i t y in r e l a t i o n to performance which i s the focus of i n t e r e s t i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n (Anderson, 1983a; Gilovich, 1983; Brunson & Matthews, 1981; Meyer & Koelbel, 1982) . 32 A t h i r d possible problem area acknowledged by Weiner (1986) i s the perhaps a r t i f i c i a l separation of locus of control and s t a b i l i t y . I t seems c l e a r that a c t u a l a t t r i b u t i o n s of causality involve both of these dimensions. It may be that while t h i s combination can be 'separated' for the purpose of research, i t i s not a n a t u r a l l y occurring process (Anderson, 1983a; Greenberg, Saxe & B a r - T a l , 1978, Weiner, 1986). Focusing on the "either - or" question may be a hindrance to our understanding of the j o i n t role they play i n mediating future expectations. Ruble (1973), for example, found that although the s t a b i l i t y dimension mediated expectations concerning behavior i n f u t u r e " s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n s " , expectations of f u t u r e behavior i n a d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n depended upon an int e r a c t i o n of both the s t a b i l i t y and locus dimensions. Weiner (1986) concludes that the lack of recent research i n thi s area i s appropriate since the question as to "... whether attributions and causal s t a b i l i t y relate to expectancy change and expectancy... has been determined both l o g i c a l l y and empirically". While he acknowledges that the " t h e o r e t i c a l analysis and the data" might be looked upon "with something less than enthusiasm" (Weiner, 1986, p. 94) t h i s i s not due to the problems with the studies that have been i d e n t i f i e d above. His comment i s meant to suggest that he believes the findings regarding the unimportance of locus are so l o g i c a l l y consistent with experience and so obvious as to seem t r i v i a l . Despite thi s " t r i v i a l i t y " , Weiner perceives these findings as having great import due to the fact that they are at at variance with Social Learning Theory predictions. It i s suggested here that while the studies he c i t e s are supportive of his contention that the s t a b i l i t y dimension i s important i n determining expectancy, they have many flaws, and do not provide any clear j u s t i f i c a t i o n for the dismissal of the importance of "locus" of cause (e.g., Anderson 1983a, 1983b; C l i f f o r d , 1986; Greenberg et a l . , 1978; Ruble, 1973) nor should they necessarily be viewed as a 'triumph' for A t t r i b u t i o n Theory. This investigation was undertaken from a perspective i n which locus of control measures and causal a t t r i b u t i o n measures i n c l u d i n g both s t a b i l i t y and locus are seen as a s s e s s i n g separate but interdependent l e v e l s of cognitive functioning. Cognitive structures and cognitive processes are both perceived as being involved i n the determination of expectancy. While the present investigation employed Weiner's two dimensional model of causal a t t r i b u t i o n s r e l a t i n g to performance situations, i t d i f f e r e d from Weiner i n i t s view of the import of the two dimensions. In t h i s study both the s t a b i l i t y and the locus of causal a t t r i b u t i o n s were viewed as important i n determining performance expectations. It was believed that the locus dimension would p l a y a major r o l e i n determining expectations i n situations that are defined i n "general" (non-s p e c i f i c terms), while the s t a b i l i t y dimension would be most important when more s p e c i f i c information about the performance sit u a t i o n was available. This rel a t i o n s h i p i s discussed more f u l l y below. 34 COGNITIVE SCHEMATA. PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS. AND SITUATION TYPOLOGY Weiner and his colleagues (1972) outlined a two dimensional model of causal a t t r i b u t i o n s regarding performance i n achievement related s i t u a t i o n s . In t h i s model the locus of control dimension i s viewed as being intimately related to "af f e c t i v e responses" to performance, while the s t a b i l i t y of causal a t t r i b u t i o n s i s seen as the major determinant of expectations. Ruble (1973) however, found a r e l a t i o n s h i p between both these f a c t o r s and expectations i n c e r t a i n situations. Ruble's results indicate that the locus dimension is. important when the f u t u r e p r e d i c t i o n s i t u a t i o n being considered i s d i f f e r e n t from the s i t u a t i o n recently completed. When future s i m i l a r situations are considered, however, he found a pattern s i m i l a r to that described by Weiner. These f i n d i n g s suggest the need f o r a model which 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 typologies i n explaining the causal a t t r i b u t i o n and expectancy rel a t i o n s h i p . In such a model i n d i v i d u a l s ' performance expectations and ca u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s may vary depending upon whether they are considering "the general" or "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 w i l l be i d e n t i c a l to those i n a f a m i l i a r s i t u a t i o n . Future situations which vary on such key components would, however, be the general performance case. Depending 35 upon which typology i s being considered, a d i f f e r e n t cognitive schema may be u t i l i z e d to determine performance expectations. The h i e r a r c h i c a l model of cognitive schemata would predict that i n the "general case" i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l u t i l i z e the dominant c o g n i t i v e schema i n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e i r l i k e l y performance. In the s p e c i f i c case i n f o r m a t i o n a l cues are a v a i l a b l e which may evoke an a l t e r n a t i v e schema from the available alternatives (see Figure 5). The model suggests that a dominant c o g n i t i v e schema determines the performance expectations of i n d i v i d u a l s considering "general case" performance. Such a dominant schema may incorporate either i n t e r n a l or external causal factors, and also include a personal e f f i c a c y evaluation (Bandura, 1977b). For example, the i n d i v i d u a l may perceive him/herself as being a generally e f f e c t i v e performer and therefore expect to succeed, or s/he may perceive him/herself to be generally i n e f f e c t i v e and expect to f a i l . In a d d i t i o n the causal a t t r i b u t i o n s r e l a t e d to the expectations may be e i t h e r to i n t e r n a l or external factors. Figure 6 indicates that individuals approaching the task have an i n i t i a l expectation regarding t h e i r performance and that they attribute t h i s expectation to e i t h e r i n t e r n a l or external factors. For example the i n d i v i d u a l might predict success based upon an i n t e r n a l causal a t t r i b u t i o n l i k e a b e l i e f that "I'm good at t h i s kind of thing". Success could also be 36 Figure 5 Situation Typology and Performance Expectations Hierarchy of  Cognitive Sche- mata re: Perf. Situation Typology Performance Expectation 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 success - a b i l i t y Failure-External (e.g. d i f f i c u l t task s p e c i f i c case (e.g. extremely d i f f i c u l t ) f a i l u r e - task d i f f i c u l t y 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 structures could be d i f f e r e n t . predicted with an external causal a t t r i b u t i o n . For example a b e l i e f that "they always make these things easy". S i m i l a r l y , one can expect to f a i l and a t t r i b u t e t h i s to i n t e r n a l causal factors. For example: "I am no good at t h i s " . F i n a l l y , a p r e d i c t i o n of f a i l u r e could employ an a t t r i b u t i o n to an external causal factor - "They never give you enough time". When actual performance confirms a prediction of success which was attributed to i n t e r n a l factors, then the postdiction or e x p l a n a t i o n of performance w i l l a l s o employ i n t e r n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s of c a u s a l i t y and subsequent tasks w i l l be approached with the same expectation. When actual performance disconfirms the prediction of success, the postdiction w i l l l i k e l y employ external a t t r i b u t i o n s as has been previously demonstrated (Baumgardner, Kepner & Arkin, 1986; Crandall et a l . , 1965; Lefcourt, 1975; Mischel et a l . , 1974). For example: "I am good at t h i s , I did not succeed, therefore there must be something e s p e c i a l l y d i f f i c u l t about t h i s p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n " . Subsequent performances i n related situations would be approached with the o r i g i n a l success expectation since one would have no reason to expect the same p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n to hold i n a new environment. When the i n i t i a l p r e d i c t i o n of success i s based upon e x t e r n a l f a c t o r s and s u c c e s s f u l performance f o l l o w s , p o s t d i c t i o n w i l l a t t r i b u t e to e x t e r n a l f a c t o r s and f u t u r e expectations w i l l depend upon whether the external factors are viewed as being s t a b l e or unstable. If e x t e r n a l f a i l u r e predictions are not confirmed by performance, that i s when the indi v i d u a l succeeds, the postdiction w i l l also be to external f a c t o r s and, i f these are viewed as unstable, f a i l u r e predictions are l i k e l y to be repeated i n regard to future situations. 38 The bottom of Figure 6 presents the r e l a t i o n s h i p between i n i t i a l expectation of f a i l u r e and subsequent post-performance expectations. As i s r e a d i l y apparent i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n i t i s expected that the performance experience, even when i t i s s u c c e s s f u l , w i l l not be expected to i n f l u e n c e f u t u r e performance ex p e c t a t i o n s . If i n t e r n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s are employed i n t h i s p r e d i c t i o n of f a i l u r e , then subsequent performance f a i l u r e simply confirms the accuracy of the o r i g i n a l a t t r i b u t i o n . A l t e r n a t i v e l y i f the performance does not confirm the i n i t i a l expectation ( i . e . , i t i s successful), then i t w i l l be a t t r i b u t e d to f a c t o r s e x t e r n a l to the i n d i v i d u a l and p e c u l i a r to t h i s p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n . As indicated i n Figure 6, i f i n i t i a l f a i l u r e expectations were attributed to external factors, actual successful performance w i l l again have l i t t l e e f f e c t on subsequent expectations. ATTRIBUTION STRUCTURING. GENERALIZED CHANGE AND  RECIPROCAL CAUSALITY The model which has been developed i n d i c a t e s that i n d i v i d u a l s who have a dominant c o g n i t i v e schema which includes an i n t e r n a l locus of c a u s a l i t y and personal e f f i c a c y , w i l l a t t r i b u t e s u c c e s s f u l performance to i n t e r n a l s t a b l e factors. For such i n d i v i d u a l s , any newly acquired behaviors which are a s s o c i a t e d with s u c c e s s f u l performance would be generalized to other environments.. The model also suggests that i f such behaviors are to be generalized by individuals who do not possess t h i s dominant schema, i t would be important for 39 F i g u r e 6 Model of the 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 , P e r f o r m a n c e , and A t t r i b u t i o n s EXPECTATION PERFORMANCE I PERFORMANCE 11 P r e d i c t i o n A t t r i b u t i o n SUCCESS-FAILURE--INTERNAL--EXTERNAL--INTERNAL--EXTERNAL-Performance • SUCCESS • FAILURE--SUCCESS -FAILURE--FAILURE-SUCCESS -FAILURE-SUCCESS -A t t r ibut ion -INTERNAL --EXTERNAL-EXTERNAL-1 EXTERNAL VARIABLE -EXTERNAL FIXED -INTERNAL -EXTERNAL VARIABLE• -EXTERNAL-EXTERNAL VARIABLE Performance E x p e c t a t i o n -SUCCESS SUCCESS - SUCCESS -SUCCESS -FAILURE -FAILURE -FAILURE •FAILURE -FAILURE them to develop a new schema or to a l t e r t h e i r hierarchy of causal schemata. This model suggests that the cau s a l attributions employed by the targets of change are as important as successful performance i n determining the effectiveness of change procedures. The a l t e r a t i o n or structuring of causal attributions i s therefore an important component of any change program. It has been demonstrated i n c l i n i c a l p r a c t i c e that cognitive a t t r i b u t i o n a l changes (Davison, 1966; E l l i s , 1958; Meichenbaum, 1971) and changes i n measured locus of control ( D ' z u r i l l a & Nezu, 1982; Nezu, 1982) can be achieved through d i r e c t c l i n i c a l intervention into the cognitive processes. In a d d i t i o n , i n v e s t i g a t o r s i n non-therapy s i t u a t i o n s have demonstrated the effectiveness of a cognitive a t t r i b u t i o n a l approach to behavior change (Anderson, 1983c; Anderson & Jennings, 1980; de Charms, 1972; Fowler & Peterson, 1981; Medway & Venino, 1982; Schunk, 1984; Dweck, 1975; Remanis, 1971). Employment of s i m i l a r cognitive procedures i n other behavior change s i t u a t i o n s would seem a p p r o p r i a t e . In management s k i l l t r a i n i n g programs, for example, one would not expect that supplying (a) i n s t r u c t i o n , (b) an opportunity to practice, and (c) reinforcement following performance, would produce any l a s t i n g behavioral change i f the student attributes the outcome to external factors. Bandura's (1978) model suggesting the r e c i p r o c a l l y d e t e r m i n i s t i c nature of b e h a v i o r a l , c o g n i t i v e , and environmental influences supports the use of t h i s approach as does the model of the rela t i o n s h i p between causal a t t r i b u t i o n s and expectations developed above. There i s convincing evidence (e.g., Dweck, 1975) that behavior change brought about through c o n t r o l l i n g environmental contingencies does not automatically nor p a r t i c u l a r l y e a s i l y generalize to other environments. C l i n i c a l experience, i l l u s t r a t e d by an anecdotal report by Lefcourt, supports t h i s p o s i t i o n as well. Lefcourt describes the patient, a man 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 that the patient was to perform certain tasks at work and home. It had been previously determined that he could perform these tasks successfully. The cooperation of his wife and boss was obtained and they were i n s t r u c t e d to be aware of h i s performance when i t occurred and to comment upon i t . Following a period of treatment the patient remarked: . . .my wife and boss do attend to me more now than they used to. They appreciate me more. But that i s because of you - you instructed them to be more appreciative. (Lefcourt, 1976, p. 24) This i s not an uncommon c l i n i c a l experience and i t c l e a r l y demonstrates how i n d i v i d u a l cognitive differences can and do mediate the e f f e c t s of contingency manipulation (e.g., Goldfried & Robins, 1983; Mahoney, 1985; Meichenbaum & Gilmore, 1984). An investigation by Dweck (1975) employing elementary school students demonstrates t h i s very v i v i d l y . Dweck found 42 that the type of att r i b u t i o n s employed by the students was much more i n f l u e n t i a l than t h e i r a c t u a l success or f a i l u r e , or amount of reinforcement, in learning mathematics. ATTRIBUTION STRUCTURING AND MANAGEMENT SKILL TRAINING A t t r i b u t i o n a l r e s t r u c t u r i n g procedures become e s p e c i a l l y important i n management t r a i n i n g when one considers the t y p i c a l participants i n these programs. Participant groups frequently i n c l u d e a high p r o p o r t i o n of low l e v e l management and supervisory personnel, as well as an increasing percentage of females. That these two factors are important i n determining the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t r a i n i n g programs i s apparent i n the findings of a number of investigators. S p e c i f i c a l l y t h e i r findings include: 1) Females generally have lower expectations for t h e i r own performance than males do (Deaux & F a r r i s , 1977; Montanelli & H i l l , 1969). 2) Females tend to a t t r i b u t e c a u s a l i t y to i n t e r n a l stable factors about themselves when these expectations are confirmed by subsequent performance (Bar-Tal & Frieze, 1976; Deaux & Emswiller, 1974; Deaux & F a r r i s , 1977). 3) Females tend to a t t r i b u t e c a u s a l i t y to external factors when subsequent performance disconfirms t h e i r expectations. ( C r a n d a l l , 1969; Deaux & F a r r i s , 1977; M o n t a n e l l i & H i l l , 1969) . 43 4) Both men and women who occupy p o s i t i o n s of powerlessness over extended periods of time tend to employ external a t t r i b u t i o n s of ca u s a l i t y (de Charms, 1972; Harvey, 1971; Stephens & Delys, 1973) and demonstrate learned helplessness behaviors i n performance situations (Dweck, 1975). These f i n d i n g s suggest that a s i g n i f i c a n t number of participants 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 a dominant cognitive schema which w i l l tend to i n h i b i t the generalization of successful performance demonstrated during t r a i n i n g . These individuals expect to f a i l i n achievement situations and, i f they do succeed, tend to at t r i b u t e success to external causes over which they have no control. DEVELOPMENT OF HYPOTHESES The central thesis i n the present investigation was that the i n c l u s i o n of cognitive structuring procedures designed to id e n t i f y , monitor, and control the at t r i b u t i o n s of causa l i t y of participants i n a management s k i l l s t r a i n i n g program would increase the maintenance and t r a n s f e r a b i l i t y of s u c c e s s f u l performance during t r a i n i n g to a negotiation task performed four weeks af t e r the completion of t r a i n i n g . It was believed that i f trainees altered t h e i r a t t r i b u t i o n s of ca u s a l i t y such that they attributed success to i n t e r n a l stable factors and f a i l u r e to in t e r n a l variable factors, they would perform more 44 successfully than t h e i r counterparts i n an i d e n t i c a l program where attempts to a l t e r a t t r i b u t i o n s of ca u s a l i t y were absent. The r a t i o n a l e u n d e r l y i n g t h i s b e l i e f i s that although the majority of participants i n both types of t r a i n i n g w i l l succeed on a performance task during t r a i n i n g , only those who at t r i b u t e t h e i r performance to factors they control w i l l demonstrate endurance and t r a n s f e r a b i l i t y of such performance to non-t r a i n i n g s i t u a t i o n s . P a r t i c i p a n t s who do not succeed and attribute t h e i r f a i l u r e to factors they do not control, either fixed i n t e r n a l or external factors, would not be expected to improve i n t h e i r subsequent performance. Figure 7 demonstrates the hypothesized r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the experimental a t t r i b u t i o n restructuring program and performance i n subsequent non-training environments. As shown the c o n t r o l of a t t r i b u t i o n s , r e g a r d l e s s of o r i g i n a l expectations or a c t u a l performance during t r a i n i n g , i s expected to mediate the . process outlined i n Figure 6 to f a c i l i t a t e successful post t r a i n i n g performance. Individuals in the experimental group w i l l a t t r i b u t e success to i n t e r n a l fixed or variable factors, and f a i l u r e to i n t e r n a l variable factors. Such att r i b u t i o n s are expected to f a c i l i t a t e post-t r a i n i n g performance because success attributed to i n t e r n a l fixed factors i s l i k e l y to r e s u l t i n expectations of success i n future s i t u a t i o n s . F a i l u r e attributed to i n t e r n a l variable factors f a c i l i t a t e s success expectations i n future situations since present f a i l u r e i s perceived as being caused by factors which are both changeable and under the individual's control. F i g u r e 7 Model o f the 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 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 EXPECTATION PERFORMANCE I PERFORMANCE 11 C T i P r e d i c t i o n A t t r i b u t i o n SUCCESS-• INTERNAL• -* EXTERNAL FAILURE--INTERNAL• EXTERNAL -Performance -SUCCESS--FAILURE-•SUCCESS--FAILURE--FAILURE-SUCCESS--FAILURE--SUCCESS A t t r i b u t i o n • INTERNAL--INTERNAL VARIABLE INTERNAL-INTERNAL VARIABLE --INTERNAL VARIABLE-•INTERNAL •INTERNAL VARIABLE-INTERNAL :  Performance Expectation -SUCCESS -SUCCESS -SUCCESS -SUCCESS -SUCCESS 'SUCCESS •SUCCESS SUCCESS * P i l o t data y i e l d e d no cases of success p r e d i c t i o n a t t r i b u t e d to e x t e r n a l f a c t o r s HYPOTHESES It was expected that there would be no s i g n i f i c a n t performance differences between t r a i n i n g groups immediately f o l l o w i n g the completion of the t r a i n i n g p e r i o d . I t was b e l i e v e d that the s p e c i a l circumstances of the t r a i n i n g s i t u a t i o n would induce success expectations i n a l l participants and they would tend to perform equally well on a l l tasks assigned as part of the t r a i n i n g program. S i g n i f i c a n t differences were expected on the 4 weeks post-training t r i a l , however, when the special t r a i n i n g environment was no longer present. The ef f e c t s of the experimental t r a i n i n g program were expected to mediate more successful performance i n t h i s l a t e r t r i a l . Hypothesis l a There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n performance between groups on the simulated negotiation task immediately following completion of t r a i n i n g . Hypothesis Ib The experimental t r a i n i n g group w i l l perform more 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 group on a simulated negotiation task four weeks a f t e r the completion of t r a i n i n g . A comparison of the top half of Figure 6 (page 42) and the top half of Figure 7 (page 48), and the bottom halves of these 47 same two f i g u r e s , r e v e a l s that c o g n i t i v e r e s t r u c t u r i n g procedures of the Experimental Training Program were expected to have the greatest influence on the causal a t t r i b u t i o n s , performance expectations, and subsequent performance of those subjects who i n i t i a l l y predicted that they would f a i l on a n e g o t i a t i o n performance task. The i n f l u e n c e of these procedures upon subjects who i n i t i a l l y expected to succeed was not expected to be s i g n i f i c a n t . Hypotheses I l a and l i b were established to test these anticipated e f f e c t s . Hypothesis I l a Those subjects who i n i t i a l l y predict f a i l u r e and who are i n the experimental group w i l l perform more e f f e c t i v e l y on the task four weeks af t e r t r a i n i n g than those subjects i n the t r a d i t i o n a l group who make the same prediction. Hypothesis l i b There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between experimental and t r a d i t i o n a l t r a i n i n g groups for those who i n i t i a l l y predict success. The c o g n i t i v e r e s t r u c t u r i n g procedures employed i n the Experimental T r a i n i n g Program were designed to induce p a r t i c i p a n t s to a t t r i b u t e performance outcomes to i n t e r n a l causal factors. Successful performance was to be attributed to either stable or variable i n t e r n a l factors, while unsuccessful performance was to be attributed to i n t e r n a l variable factors. Therefore, i f these procedures " were s u c c e s s f u l , the Experimental Training Group would be expected to employ more 48 i n t e r n a l causal a t t r i b u t i o n s than the T r a d i t i o n a l T r a i n i n g Group. Hypothesis III Members of the Experimental Training group w i l l employ s i g n i f i c a n t l y more i n t e r n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s than members of the T r a d i t i o n a l Training group i n explaining t h e i r performance on both negotiation tasks. These i n t e r n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s were expected to occur as follows: a) successful performance: i n t e r n a l f i x e d or variable a t t r i b u t i o n . b) unsuccessful performance: i n t e r n a l variable a t t r i b u t i o n In an attempt to throw more l i g h t on the actual nature of the construct locus of control and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to causal attributions and expectations, a measure of locus control was given to a l l subjects. Although a comprehensive investigation of these issues was beyond the scope of the present study, p r e l i m i n a r y hypotheses were e s t a b l i s h e d based upon the conceptualization of locus of control as a "dominant cognitive structure or schema" that was described above. Hypothesis IV Subjects who employ i n t e r n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s of c a u s a l i t y i n predicting t h e i r performance w i l l score s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher 49 (internal) on the locus of control measure than subjects who employ external a t t r i b u t i o n s i n t h e i r predictions. Comparison of performance outcome with p r e d i c t i o n was expected to r e s u l t i n c o n s i s t e n c y between locus of c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s and measured locus of c o n t r o l when outcome confirmed prediction, but inconsistency between the two was expected when outcome f a i l e d to confirm p r e d i c t i o n . When performance outcome f a i l e d to match predictions, individuals were expected to employ a t t r i b u t i o n s which could explain the outcome of the p a r t i c u l a r performance but were inconsistent with t h e i r "general or i e n t a t i o n " to performance. Hypothesis V Subjects i n the t r a d i t i o n a l t r a i n i n g group whose performance matches t h e i r p r e d i c t i o n w i l l employ post-performance causal a t t r i b u t i o n of a locus which matches t h e i r measured locus of control, while subjects whose performance f a i l s to match t h e i r prediction w i l l employ post-performance causal a t t r i b u t i o n s with a locus d i f f e r e n t than t h e i r measured locus of control. Claims that individuals exhibit differences i n locus of c o n t r o l f o r success and f a i l u r e and that i n t e r n a l i t y f o r success i s related to successful performance were examined by the following hypotheses: 50 Hypothesis Via Subjects who p r e d i c t success with an 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 w i l l score s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher on the locus of control measure subscale for success than those who predict f a i l u r e with an i n t e r n a l a t t r i b u t i o n . Hypothesis VIb Subjects who p r e d i c t f a i l u r e with an 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 w i l l score s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher on the locus of control measure subscale for f a i l u r e than subjects who predict success with an i n t e r n a l a t t r i b u t i o n . Hypothesis VII Subjects i n the t r a d i t i o n a l t r a i n i n g group who score inte r n a l f o r success w i l l perform s i g n i f i c a n t l y better on the negotiation task four weeks following the l a s t t r a i n i n g session than those who score i n t e r n a l f o r f a i l u r e or external for success. The model employed suggests that the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the cognitive process causal a t t r i b u t i o n and the cognitive structure locus of control was such that changes i n the former would r e s u l t i n subsequent changes i n the l a t t e r . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , i t was a n t i c i p a t e d that employment of the procedures for monitoring and c o n t r o l l i n g the locus of t h e i r causal a t t r i b u t i o n s would r e s u l t i n an increase i n the post 51 t r a i n i n g locus of c o n t r o l scores of s u b j e c t s i n the Experimental Training Group. Hypothesis VIII Subjects i n the experimental t r a i n i n g group w i l l score s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher (more internal) on the locus of control measure than subjects i n the t r a d i t i o n a l t r a i n i n g group following completion of t r a i n i n g . 52 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY As indicated above, a number of d e f i c i e n c i e s appear to exist i n a t t r i b u t i o n theory research. Kelley (1971) pointed out that although numerous studies assumed the mediational l i n k of a t t r i b u t i o n s , few up to that time had employed e x p l i c i t measures of t h i s mediating v a r i a b l e . More recent reviews (Harvey & Weary, 1984; Kelley & Michlea, 1980) have stressed a continuing need for systematic investigation of the process of a t t r i b u t i o n . While the l a s t decade has seen a dramatic increase i n the number of studies which have attempted to focus on a t t r i b u t i o n process d i r e c t l y , most have s u f f e r e d from shortcomings i n the manner by which subject a t t r i b u t i o n s were measured, manipulated, and/or c l a s s i f i e d . S p e c i f i c problems previously discussed include: 1) assumptions that certain a t t r i b u t i o n s are necessarily of a pa r t i c u l a r locus or are stable or variable; 2) assumptions that subjects necessarily accept experimenter descriptions of c o n t r o l l i n g factors as being accurate; 3) r e l i a n c e upon imagined r a t h e r than r e a l behavior situations; 53 4) f a i l u r e to recognize that the experimental s i t u a t i o n i t s e l f provides a strong influence on the type of a t t r i b u t i o n s subjects are l i k e l y to employ; and 5) employment of subject a t t r i b u t i o n s regarding the behavior of others, rather than t h e i r own behavior. The present investigation attempted to overcome some of these d e f i c i e n c i e s through some basic methodological changes. There was an attempt to make the experimental performance s i t u a t i o n more ' r e a l ' by engaging subjects i n a simulated negotiation task. The task i t s e l f was designed to provide subjects with c o n s i d e r a b l e freedom to vary t h e i r behavior w i t h i n a minimal number of p r e - s p e c i f i e d parameters. The performance s i t u a t i o n occurred f i r s t as part of a formalized t r a i n i n g program and then was repeated a month l a t e r i n a seemingly unrelated context allowing for some evaluation of the effects of the a r t i f i c i a l "experimental environment" and of the process of a t t r i b u t i o n . F i n a l l y the subjects' a t t r i b u t i o n s concerned t h e i r own behavior and the assessment t o o l employed did not force them to choose amongst s p e c i f i c a t t r i b u t i o n s which had been previously categorized as i n t e r n a l or external, fixed or variable. In general t h i s investigation can be categorized following Winer (1971) as a controlled experimental study employing a 2 X 3 X 2 (treatment by p r e d i c t i v e - a t t r i b u t i o n by occasion) f a c t o r i a l design with repeated measures on the l a s t factor. 54 The design provides a basis f o r i n f e r r i n g causal relationships between treatment conditions and subjects' performance. TREATMENT CONDITIONS Tr a d i t i o n a l Training Program The f a i l u r e of management s k i l l t r a i n i n g programs to produce co n v i n c i n g evidence that s k i l l s a c quired during t r a i n i n g are u t i l i z e d subsequently w i t h i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n environment has been recognized and described by a number of investigators (Feidler, 1967; M i t c h e l l , Larson, & Green 1977; Wolfe, 1975). The f a i l u r e of these t r a i n i n g programs might be explained by the fact that t h e i r c u r r i c u l a did not recognize and address the in t e r n a l cognitive processes and structures of indi v i d u a l students. T y p i c a l l y , the i n s t r u c t i o n a l procedures i n these programs are based upon p r i n c i p l e s of learning which have been derived from the ra t h e r comprehensive research r e l a t i n g to environmentally induced behavior change (operant conditioning) and are demonstrated i n e d u c a t i o n a l procedures such as " p r e c i s i o n teaching", or "systematic i n s t r u c t i o n " (Haring, L o v i t t , Eaton, & Hansen, 1978). This type of program has been labeled t r a d i t i o n a l in the present study. In t h i s approach, a global s k i l l to be learned i s f i r s t analyzed into s e r i a l l y constituent parts which become i n d i v i d u a l components of the 55 curriculum. The global s k i l l i s acquired 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 i s combined with each preceding component culminating i n a c q u i s i t i o n of a t o t a l s k i l l . The actual procedures employed in teaching a p a r t i c u l a r component follow a standard format. F i r s t a description of the required s k i l l i s provided, followed by a description of the f i r s t component to be mastered. Next the component s k i l l i s modeled and the student i s given an opportunity to practice with corrective feedback and reinforcement. When c r i t e r i o n levels are reached, the procedure i s repeated with subsequent components. Mastery of a given component or global s k i l l i s dependent upon the ind i v i d u a l ' s demonstrated a b i l i t y to perform i t e f f e c t i v e l y i n a given s i t u a t i o n . This i s t y p i c a l l y accomplished by u t i l i z i n g "simulations", designed to r e p l i c a t e a r e a l l i f e s i t u a t i o n within the t r a i n i n g session. Since t h i s entire procedure i s perceived as a shaping process, care i s taken to ascertain that the performance of each component i s s u c c e s s f u l i n order to provide a continuous schedule of po s i t i v e reinforcement during the a c q u i s i t i o n process. Experimental Training Program The Experimental Training Program consisted of the main elements of the t r a d i t i o n a l program plus an a d d i t i o n a l component comprised of procedures derived from a r e c i p r o c a l interaction model of behavior. The experimental program was designed to increase i n d i v i d u a l s ' sense of t h e i r own control 56 over any behavior a c q u i s i t i o n which occurred. This was accomplished through e x p l i c i t i n s t r u c t i o n i n self-monitoring, self-evaluation, and self-reinforcement because these factors have been i d e n t i f i e d (Kanfer, 1970, 1975; Kanfer & Karoly, 1972; Spates & Kanfer, 1977) as being c r u c i a l to i n t e r n a l ( s e l f ) control. Control of a t t r i b u t i o n s of c a u s a l i t y were a d i r e c t focus of i n s t r u c t i o n i n t h i s program. Complete descriptions of both the Experimental and T r a d i t i o n a l Training programs are found in Appendix 1. Presentation of Training Programs The T r a d i t i o n a l T r a i n i n g Program was designed to be presented within three, three hour sessions. Approximately one t h i r d of each session was u t i l i z e d for group exercises which simulate a c t u a l a p p l i c a t i o n of s k i l l s and f o r the presentation, analysis, and evaluation of assignments. The additional materials of the experimental program would re q u i r e that i t s s e s s i o n s be longer. Depending on the p a r t i c u l a r session, t h i s supplementary material took up to an a d d i t i o n a l hour of p r e s e n t a t i o n time. In order to allow s u f f i c i e n t time to present the supplementary material within a three hour session, the portion of time a l l o t t e d f o r assignment analysis/evaluation, and group task simulations was truncated for the experimental groups during sessions one and two. In these sessions instructors had to maintain the schedule and were required to present a l l material to each group; however, n e i t h e r the s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t y truncated nor the p r e c i s e reduction in time were controlled. This allowed instructors to adjust these a c t i v i t i e s in r e l a t i o n to s p e c i f i c class needs. It was noted that the length of the s e s s i o n s f o r a l l experimental groups exceeded the time a l l o t t e d by up to 30 minutes. There was no truncation of any a c t i v i t y for any group i n session three. The only difference between experimental and t r a d i t i o n a l group p r e s e n t a t i o n s f o r t h i s s e s s i o n was the inclusion of an additional b r i e f review of the supplementary experimental m a t e r i a l with the experimental groups. This resulted i n s l i g h t l y longer t h i r d sessions for the experimental groups. However a l l were completed within three hours. SUBJECTS The subjects were male (N=63) and female (N=41) volunteers drawn from the p o p u l a t i o n of students e n r o l l e d i n an administrative management program at a technical i n s t i t u t i o n . This p o p u l a t i o n i s made up of predominately low l e v e l management and supervisory personnel presently employed i n a variety of settings ranging i n size from very large to very small organizations in both the public and private sectors. The group was rather heterogeneous in that i t included both male and female members from various ethnic backgrounds and ranging i n age from t h e i r early twenties to late f i f t i e s . It 58 i s d i f f i c u l t to assess the representativeness of the sample i n terms of these factors. However, i t seems reasonable that the observed heterogeneity i s representative of the larger popula-t i o n employed i n various organizations. At any rate i t seems safe to conclude that t h i s population i s more representative of the general population than the t y p i c a l "college student" pool employed in the majority of published studies. INSTRUMENTS Simulated Negotiation Task The n e g o t i a t i o n task employed (see Appendix 2) i s an adaptation of one developed by Ruble (1973). Individuals are assigned a role as department manager, of either Children's Toys or Adult Games, within a medium sized toy company. A l l are provided with an i d e n t i c a l o u t l i n e of the company's s t r u c t u r e and the r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of each manager. The i n d i v i d u a l managers are then provided with more d e t a i l e d information about the needs of t h e i r s p e c i f i c departments. Included i n t h i s information i s a summary of the department's current performance i n r e l a t i o n to the t o t a l organization and a set of possible research projects which the department could undertake i n the. coming year. A b r i e f description of each research project including i t s cost and expected p r o f i t i s also provided. The two managers are then required to negotiate the allotment of the company's t o t a l "Research and Development" budget for the coming year. 59 In t h i s investigation a l l subjects were assigned the role of Manager of Children's Toys and t h e i r negotiating partners were assigned to manage Adult Games. Members of each group were t o l d that t h e i r counterparts also had a group of projects that they wished to develop but the t o t a l cost of both sets combined exceeded the t o t a l budget available f o r research and development. Their task was to negotiate a mutually acceptable a l l o c a t i o n of the t o t a l budget. Participants were instructed that t h e i r goals i n the n e g o t i a t i o n s e s s i o n were: 1) to maximize p r o f i t s for t h e i r own department, and 2) to maximize p r o f i t s f o r the t o t a l o r g a n i z a t i o n . At the end of the negotiation session the negotiators were required to complete and sign a form in d i c a t i n g projects they had agreed to pursue and the p r o f i t associated with each. I n d i v i d u a l performance scores were determined by f i r s t summing the t o t a l p r o f i t s associated with each department's projects and taking the difference between these t o t a l s . This value was then added to the t o t a l p r o f i t for a l l projects to determine the score for the i n d i v i d u a l managers. For example: a". Adult Games t o t a l p r o f i t = 13,200. Children's Toys t o t a l p r o f i t = 12.500. difference 700.00 Adult Games = +700 Children's Toys = -700 b. The t o t a l p r o f i t a l l projects = 25,700 Adult Games Score = 25,700 + 700 = 26,400 Children's Toys Score = 25,700 + (-700) = 25,000 60 P a r t i c i p a n t s were given 30 minutes to f a m i l i a r i z e themselves with t h i s material and then instructed to report to a room where they would meet the head of the other department. There was a d i r e c t i n s t r u c t i o n not to show any of t h e i r written material to the other manager but they were free to communicate any information they wished during the sessions. They were informed they had 15 minutes to complete negotiations and that the session would be halted at that point. A l l sessions were timed and not allowed to continue beyond 15 minutes. Adapted I.A.R. Questionnaire The measure of locus of control employed i n t h i s study was an adaptation of the I n t e l l e c t u a l Achievement Responsibility (I.A.R.) Scale (Crandall et a l . , 1965). The I.A.R. Scale was employed r a t h e r than the more commonly used Rotter (1975) measure because the former i s more c l o s e l y related to the type of s i t u a t i o n being investigated ( i . e . , work achievement) and offers the advantage of both an o v e r a l l internal-external score and subscale scores f o r both success and f a i l u r e . The subscales are important since a number of investigators have found a low co r r e l a t i o n between p o s i t i v e and negative outcome items (Crandall et a l . , 1965; Weiner & Kukla, 1970; Weiner & Potepan, 1970). The I.A.R. Scale was designed f o r elementary school students. However Weiner and Potepan (1970) employed an adapted version with college students and reported that "... transformation of some of the items so they are appropriate for adults does not destroy the v a l i d i t y of the index" (1970, p. 149) . 61 Following Weiner and Potepan, the items i n the o r i g i n a l (school r e l a t e d ) I.A.R. Scale were mod i f i e d i n t h i s investigation to make them appropriate for adults and to make them relevant to achievement i n a "work environment" rather than achievement in a school environment. For example an o r i g i n a l I.A.R. item was adapted as follows: Ori g i n a l I.A.R. Item: When a teacher says something nice about your work i s i t : A) because you did e s p e c i a l l y good work. B) because your teacher i s i n a good mood. Transformed I.A.R. Item: If you received a compliment from your superior about your work i s i t more l i k e l y to be: A) because your performance was e s p e c i a l l y 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 modified I.A.R. questionnaire was administered twice to a group of students (n = 50) from the same program as the subjects employed i n the present study i n order to assess i t s face v a l i d i t y and to obtain an estimate of i t s t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y . There was a four month i n t e r v a l between the two administrations. Table 1 presents the mean, range and standard deviation of I.A.R. scores for the two administrations. The 62 corresponding t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y was .70. P i l o t study subjects indicated that the modified questionnaire items were c l e a r and easy to understand, and were r e l e v a n t to t h e i r 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 Crandall et 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 to assess the influence of s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y on subjects' responses to the items. Based upon t h e i r results i t was concluded that s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y tendencies were of l i t t l e importance i n determining I.A.R. scores. However, in the present study adult subjects were assessed. Given t h i s difference between the samples i t could not be assumed that the subjects would not attempt to "fake" t h e i r answers in order to portray some desired p r o f i l e . Consequently a " l i e scale" was developed to make i t possible to i d e n t i f y such attempts. 63 The procedure followed i n developing the l i e scale was to i n i t i a l l y develop 25 questions which f i t with the "general nature" of the Adapted I.A.R. Questionnaire, but to which i t was f e l t the majority of adults would respond i n an i d e n t i c a l fashion. For example: Lie Scale Item: (1) If you were to describe your job would you say i t was: a) always stimulating and ex c i t i n g b) sometimes stimulating, but sometimes routine and r e p e t i t i v e . This i n i t i a l question pool was f i r s t administered, as an anonymous survey, to a group of 35 graduate students i n business administration and psychology. Of the 25 questions, 12 were answered i d e n t i c a l l y by a l l subjects. These 12 items were then embedded randomly i n the modified I.A.R. qu e s t i o n n a i r e . This new v e r s i o n of the I.A.R. was then administered to an a d d i t i o n a l 20 subjects from the same graduate student population. These subjects were asked to " t r y to respond to the questionnaire i n a fashion which w i l l make you look good". It was found that a l l of these subjects answered 10, 11 or 12 of the items d i f f e r e n t l y than the subjects i n the o r i g i n a l group of 35 who were asked to respond to the questions honestly. The 10 questions which " d i s c r i m i n a t e d " between the "faked" and "genuine" questionnaires in a l l 20 cases were retained and included as a 64 " l i e s c a l e " i n the f i n a l form of the Adapted I.A.R. Questionnaire. The Adapted I.A.R. Lie Scale scores from the P i l o t Study-data were compared with those from the group of subjects who had been instructed to attempt to "make themselves look good" when completing the Adapted I.A.R. The comparison revealed that no i n d i v i d u a l i n the P i l o t Study scored more than 3 on the L i e Scale, while a l l s u b j e c t s i n s t r u c t e d to "fake" t h e i r responses scored 10. A L i e Scale score exceeding 3 was established as the cutoff point for determining whether or not subjects' data would be included in the present investigation. PROCEDURES A l l students were i n i t i a l l y surveyed by questionnaire (see Appendix 3) at the beginning of the f a l l semester. A l l classes were informed that the questionnaire was part of a survey designed to investigate the negotiation styles t y p i c a l l y employed by i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s e t t i n g s . Included i n t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e was the modified locus of control measure. The students were also given a separate announcement at the f i r s t class meeting i n v i t i n g them to take part in a three session "Management S k i l l s Seminar" to be conducted over the next four weeks. The announcement gave a br i e f description of the various topics to be covered: Decision Making, Time Management, and C o n f l i c t Management. 65 I n d i v i d u a l s who a p p l i e d f o r the t r a i n i n g seminar were assigned to treatment c o n d i t i o n s i n the f o l l o w i n g manner. Subjects' responses to the Management Survey question asking them to predict t h e i r performance in a hypothetical c o n f l i c t s i t u a t i o n were employed to divide them into two groups: 1) predict success and 2) predict f a i l u r e . The two groups were sub-divided by employing the Management Survey question which required subjects to at t r i b u t e the cause of performance outcome in such a s i t u a t i o n to either: a) " 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 such as t h i s (e.g. the other person's experience, or power, or the complexity of the task) which determine the outcome regardless of an individual's s k i l l or e f f o r t ; or b) the indi v i d u a l ' s e f f o r t or s k i l l . Subjects who s e l e c t e d the former causal e x p l a n a t i o n were c l a s s i f i e d as "external" and those s e l e c t i n g the l a t t e r were c l a s s i f i e d as "i n t e r n a l " . These procedures had the po t e n t i a l to provide four subgroups of the o r i g i n a l pool of applicants. However, only three subgroups were a c t u a l l y formed because a l l subjects who predicted success selected the i n t e r n a l causal explanation. Equal numbers of subjects from each of these three subgroups were then assigned randomly to one of four t r a i n i n g classes. The four t r a i n i n g classes were comprised of two Experimental Training Program classes and two T r a d i t i o n a l Training Program classes. Each of the three subgroups i n i t i a l l y contained 40 subjects who were randomly assigned to the four t r a i n i n g groups. Of thi s t o t a l subject population (N=120), 9 f a i l e d to complete the 66 t r a i n i n g program. Data from an additional 7 subjects were randomly excluded from the analyses i n order to achieve equal N's. The Experimental Training Group included 31 male and 21 female subjects, while the T r a d i t i o n a l Training Group had 32 males and 20 females (see Appendix 4, p. 244). Two trained instructors (both female), each with one year's experience i n presenting these seminars, were randomly assigned to the groups so that each i n s t r u c t o r taught one experimental and one t r a d i t i o n a l group. The four treatment groups met for three hours, one evening per week for three consecutive weeks. At the c o n c l u s i o n of the f i n a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l s e s s i o n a l l subjects p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the simulated negotiation task with assigned partners who were volunteers from another class and were i d e n t i f i e d as such. Following the' completion of t h i s task subjects completed a questionnaire measuring t h e i r a t t r i b u t i o n s regarding t h e i r performance and the adapted I.A.R. Questionnaire (see Appendix 3). A second negotiation session was held four weeks l a t e r as part of the subjects' regular classroom a c t i v i t y . This was described to the subjects by t h e i r regular classroom i n s t r u c t o r as being a follow-up for a number of randomly selected students on the i n i t i a l n e g o t i a t i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e which had been completed during the f i r s t c l a s s s e s s i o n . At the second negotiation session each subject was assigned a negotiating partner from a volunteer pool. 67 The pool of negotiating partners were volunteers who had no previous experience with the n e g o t i a t i o n task but were i n s t r u c t e d to dress a p p r o p r i a t e l y ( i . e . , "business l i k e " appearance) to convey the impression that they were, i n fa c t , experienced managers. They were i d e n t i f i e d to the subjects as experienced, s k i l l e d , negotiators but they a c t u a l l y had no specia l i z e d t r a i n i n g or experience. The volunteer partners were given no special instructions or information and were free to act spontaneously. Following t h i s negotiation task, a l l subjects were given a b r i e f description of the entire study during which questions were answered and arrangements made to provide them with a summary of the findings when completed. DESIGN A schematic representation of the basic design of t h i s investigation appears as a three factor, f u l l y crossed repeated measures design (see Figure 8). The two grouping factors included treatment conditions (Tr a d i t i o n a l and Experimental T r a i n i n g Programs) and p r e d i c t i o n - a t t r i b u t i o n c a t e g o r i e s (success-internal, - f a i l u r e - i n t e r n a l , and f a i l u r e - e x t e r n a l ) . The repeated measures factor, measurement occasions or t r i a l s , varied with the p a r t i c u l a r measures. In the case of nego-t i a t i o n task, two occasions were employed (immediately follow-ing t r a i n i n g and four weeks a f t e r completion of t r a i n i n g ) ; for the Adapted I.A.R. Questionnaire the measurement occasions were pre-training and immediately following t r a i n i n g ; and, f i n a l l y , 68 causal a t t r i b u t i o n s were measured on three occasions: pre, post, and follow-up. The prediction - a t t r i b u t i o n factor was o r i g i n a l l y conceived of as two separate, f u l l y crossed, f a c t o r s : p r e d i c t i o n ( s u c c e s s - f a i l u r e ) and a t t r i b u t i o n (internal-external). However, there were no subjects i n the sample who, having predicted success, attributed the cause to external factors and the prediction and a t t r i b u t i o n categories were collapsed into one three l e v e l factor labeled prediction -a t t r i b u 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 TRAD N= 18 N=18 N=16 EXP N= 18 N=18 N=16 SUCC - INT FAIL - INT FAIL - EXT PREDICTION - ATTRIBUTION 69 The exploratory nature of t h i s study meant that i t was focused upon p a r t i c u l a r " s l i c e s " of the data corresponding to the hypotheses presented i n Chapter 2, For example while the o v e r a l l effectiveness of the Experimental Training Program was a major focus, i t was believed that the program's impact would be most pronounced upon subjects who anticipated f a i l u r e p r i o r to beginning t r a i n i n g . DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Data Preparation A l l questionnaire information, negotiation task scores, and adapted I.A.R. scores were transcribed and coded f o r computer entry. The i n i t i a l data t r a n s c r i p t i o n and coding were v e r i f i e d s e p a r a t e l y by two d i f f e r e n t observers and one e r r o r i n tr a n s c r i p t i o n was corrected. Data were entered by the U.B.C. Computing Center s t a f f with 100% v e r i f i c a t i o n . Preliminary Analysis P r i o r to conducting the main analyses, the data were subjected to a preliminary examination to i d e n t i f y any subjects who exceeded the Adapted I.A.R. Lie Scale c r i t e r i o n score, and to test for the possible confounding ef f e c t of the presence of two d i f f e r e n t instructors. Examination of the Adapted I.A.R. Questionnaires revealed that none of the subjects Lie Scale scores exceeded the cut off c r i t e r i o n of 3. 70 In order to ascertain i f subjects" scores were affected by differences between the two ins t r u c t o r s , the data were analyzed using a 2 x 2 (instructors by treatment) repeated measures analysis of variance. In order to increase the p r o b a b i l i t y of finding a s i g n i f i c a n t " instructor e f f e c t " , i f i t did ex i s t , the alpha l e v e l was relaxed to the .10 l e v e l . The results of t h i s a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e that there was no s i g n i f i c a n t main or interaction e f f e c t s for instructors (see Appendix 4, p. 224). Main Analyses The hypotheses investigated i n t h i s study can be divided into two groups. The f i r s t group was focused upon evaluating the effectiveness of the Experimental Training Program. The second set of hypotheses was pr i m a r i l y focused upon examining the cognitive processes which were thought to underlie the superior effectiveness of the Experimental Training Program. Therefore, the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the Experimental T r a i n i n g Program needed to be demonstrated p r i o r to t e s t i n g the second set of hypotheses. A l l hypotheses were tested at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . Hypotheses l a , Ib, I l a , l i b , III and VIII (see Chapter 2, p. 47 - 51) comprised the f i r s t hypotheses set. Analyses for each of these hypotheses compared data from the members of the two t r a i n i n g groups. Hypotheses IV, V, Via, VIb and VII comprised the second set which was focused upon examining the nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p among exp e c t a t i o n s , locus of control, a t t r i b u t i o n of causality, and performance without the confounding effects of the treatment. Therefore data from the Experimental Training group were not employed i n analyses where confounding could occur ( i . e . , Hypotheses V and VII). Since Hypotheses IV, Via and VIb were tested by analyzing data from the pre-training Negotiation Style Survey, data from the entire subject population were included i n these analyses. 72 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS As d e s c r i b e d i n the previous chapter, the hypotheses presented i n Chapter 2 were divided into two groups. The hypotheses in the f i r s t group were more d i r e c t l y concerned with the r e l a t i v e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the two t r a i n i n g programs employed while the hypotheses i n the second group were e s t a b l i s h e d p r i m a r i l y to shed a d d i t i o n a l l i g h t on the relationship among locus of control, a t t r i b u t i o n s of causality, and behavior. The results presented below are organized into two corresponding sections. Within each section, the results r e l a t i n g to each i n d i v i d u a l hypothesis are presented separately. A summary and discussion of the combined findings i s presented i n Chapter 5. HYPOTHESES I TO III AND VIII Hypotheses l a and lb Hypothesis l a proposed that there would be no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between t r a i n i n g groups on the negotiation task performed at end of the f i n a l t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n ; while Hypothesis l b proposed that there would be a s i g n i f i c a n t 73 performance d i f f e r e n c e between t r a i n i n g groups on th.e negotiation task performed four weeks following the end of t r a i n i n g where the experimental group would perform more e f f e c t i v e l y than the t r a d i t i o n a l group. A summary of the repeated measures ANOVA of negotiation task scores i s presented in Table 2. TABLE 2 2 X 3 X 2 Repeated Measures ANOVA of Negotiation Task Scores Source d.f. MS. F. Training Group (A) 1 173125120 4 12 * Pr e d i c t . - A t t r i b • (B) 2 40627072 97 A x B 2 9059696 22 Within 98 420004560. T r i a l s (C) 1 36238784. 4 75* A x C 1 122872112. 16 13* B x C 2 2972712. 39 A x B x C 2 14155768. 1 86 Within 98 7616219. *p<.05 Subsequent to f i n d i n g a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t between treatment and measurement occasion or t r i a l s (F=16.13; df=l,98; p<.05), the means f o r the two t r a i n i n g groups at each performance t r i a l (see Figure 9) were compared following the procedure described by Winer (1971, p. 559-567). The mean for the experimental group at T l (Time 1) was 23640.38 and for the t r a d i t i o n a l group i t was 23355.77. The F value for t h i s comparison was not s i g n i f i c a n t (F=.08, df=l,102; p>.05). The respective means at T2 (Time 2) were 24334.62 and 21013.46 which yielded a s i g n i f i c a n t F value (F=11.56, df=l,102; p<.05). FIGURE 9 Mean Negotiation Task Scores for Training Groups at TI and T2 G R 0 U P M E A N T H 0 U S A N D S 25--24--23--. 22-21 — 20 — TI T2 TRIALS Experimental Training a T r a d i t i o n a l Training • Subsequent dependent measures t-tests comparing the T r i a l 1 (TI) and T r i a l 2 (T2) means of the Experimental Training Group (Table 3) and the T r i a l 1 (TI) and T r i a l 2 (T2) means of the Tr a d i t i o n a l Training Group (Table 4) revealed no significance difference between TI and T2 for the former group (t=-1.71, df=51; p>.05) but a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e f o r the l a t t e r (t=4.93, df=51; p<.05). TABLE 3 Dependent Measures t - t e s t of T l and T2 Negotiation  Task Scores of Experimental Training Group Subjects T r i a l Mean d.f. t T l 23,640.38 51 -1.71 T2 24,334.62 TABLE 4 Dependent Measures t - t e s t of T l and T2 Negotiation  Task Scores of T r a d i t i o n a l Training Group Subjects T r i a l Mean d.f. t T l 23,355 . 77 51 4.93* T2 21,013.46 *p<.05 The findings are c l e a r l y supportive of hypotheses l a and Ib. Subjects i n the Experimental Training group performed more e f f e c t i v e l y four weeks following t r a i n i n g than subjects in the T r a d i t i o n a l Training group. The finding of no s i g n i f i c a n t performance difference between groups on the "during t r a i n i n g " t r i a l (Tl) indicates that the post t r a i n i n g difference was not due to s u p e r i o r s k i l l a c q u i s i t i o n , or a b i l i t y , of the Experimental Training group. The finding of a s i g n i f i c a n t 76 difference between TI and T2 performance for the T r a d i t i o n a l Training Group but not for the Experimental Training Group indicates that the Experimental Group's s i g n i f i c a n t l y superior performance at T2 can be attr i b u t e d to a deterioration i n the performance of the T r a d i t i o n a l Group from TI to T2 rather than to any s i g n i f i c a n t improvement i n the performance of the Experimental Group. Hypotheses I l a and l i b It was predicted in Hypothesis I l a that there would be a s i g n i f i c a n t difference (in favor of the Experimental group) between the Experimental and T r a d i t i o n a l Training groups on the n e g o t i a t i o n task t r i a l at the completion of t r a i n i n g f o r subjects who p r e d i c t e d they would f a i l p r i o r to beginning t r a i n i n g . Hypothesis l i b p r e d i c t e d there would not be a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the two t r a i n i n g groups on the negotiation task performance at the completion of t r a i n i n g f o r subjects who i n i t i a l l y predicted success. These hypotheses were tested employing a two-way ANOVA (prediction by training) of subjects' scores on the f i r s t negotiation task performance. A summary of t h i s analysis i s presented in TABLE 5. The A X B inte r a c t i o n e f f e c t was non-significant (F=.45; d.f.=1,100; p>.05) in d i c a t i n g that the data did not support Hypotheses I l a . While Hypothesis l i b was supported by the data, t h i s finding was of l i t t l e import by i t s e l f . These results are discussed more f u l l y i n Chapter V. 77 TABLE 5 2 X 2 ANOVA of T2 Negotiation Task Scores Source d.f. MS. F. Prediction (A) 1 32914888. 1.45 Training Group (B) 1 228955234. 10.07 * A x B 1 10181388. .45 Within 100 22738620. *p<.05 Hypothesis III Hypothesis III was established in order to provide evidence that the unique features of the Experimental Training program were a c t u a l l y r e f l e c t e d i n the behavior of the s u b j e c t s undergoing t h i s t r a i n i n g . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , i t was predicted that subjects exposed to the Experimental Training program would employ s i g n i f i c a n t l y more i n t e r n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s of causality regarding t h e i r performance on both Negotiation Task t r i a l s than subjects exposed to the T r a d i t i o n a l T r a i n i n g program. It was suggested that the pattern of i n t e r n a l causal attributions employed by subjects i n the Experimental Training Program would be consistent with the instructions contained i n that program. That i s they were expected to employ either i n t e r n a l / f i x e d or i n t e r n a l / v a r i a b l e c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s following successful performance, and i n t e r n a l / v a r i a b l e causal at t r i b u t i o n s following unsuccessful performance. 78 The q u a l i t a t i v e nature of these variables might suggest that non-parametric procedures are most ap p r o p r i a t e i n an a l y z i n g these data. However, the assumption that non-parametric analyses are most appropriate (or even required) with categorical variables i s not universal. Gaito (1980) c i t e s the argument, advanced p r e v i o u s l y by Lord (1958), Eisenhart (1947), and Savage (1957) that "data do not know where they come from" and concludes that "The only requirement for the use of ANOVA.. ( i s ) . . t h a t the mathematical assumptions underlying the procedure be met, or approximated" (Gaito, 1980, p. 566). Glass, Peckham, and Sanders (1972) suggest that even these c r i t e r i a are dictated more by t r a d i t i o n and convention than by any o b j e c t i v e n e c e s s i t y ; and they o f f e r r a t h e r convincing evidence that the underlying assumptions can be v i o l a t e d r a t h e r g r o s s l y with l i t t l e negative e f f e c t under certain circumstances. S p e c i f i c a l l y pertinent to the present study i s Lunney's (1970) findings that the F test i s extremely robust i n r e l a t i o n to n o r m a l i t y v i o l a t i o n s ( i n c l u d i n g the analysis of dichotomous data) so long as equal N's are present. The proportion of in t e r n a l causal a t t r i b u t i o n s employed by Experimental and T r a d i t i o n a l Training Group subjects following negotiation task performance 1 and 2 were compared employing a repeated measures ANOVA. Subjects' a t t r i b u t i o n s f o l l o w i n g s u c c e s s f u l task performance were c l a s s i f i e d as i n t e r n a l regardless of whether they were i n t e r n a l f i x e d or in t e r n a l variable, while subjects' a t t r i b u t i o n s following unsuccessful performance were only c l a s s i f i e d as i n t e r n a l i f they were 79 i n t e r n a l v a r i a b l e . I n t e r n a l f i x e d a t t r i b u t i o n s f o l l o w i n g unsuccessful performance were considered to be equivalent to external a t t r i b u t i o n s since c a u s a l i t y was attributed to factors which the i n d i v i d u a l was not able to control. A summary of the ANOVA r e s u l t s i s presented i n Table 6. The r e s u l t s TABLE 6 Repeated Measures ANOVA of Subjects'  Causal Attributions Source d.f . MS. F. Between Subs. Training Group (A) 1 15.62 59.28* Within 102 . 26 Within Subs. T r i a l s (B) 1 . 39 6.76* A x B 1 . 24 4 . 09* within 102 .05 * p < .05 indicate the presence of a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between t r i a l s and treatment (F=59.28, df=1,102; P<.05). Group mean comparisons were performed u t i l i z i n g the procedure described by Winer (1971, p. 559-567). These analyses revealed a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between groups at T l (F=15.87, df=1,102; p<.05) and T2 (F= 26.03 df= 1,102; p<.05). Figure 10 presents a comparison of 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 employed by s u b j e c t s i n the 80 Experimental and T r a d i t i o n a l T r a i n i n g groups on the Post Training Questionnaire (Appendix 3, p. 213) following each performance, and for both performances combined. The figure also presents between group comparisons of the proportion of int e r n a l causal a t t r i b u t i o n s of successful and unsuccessful performers for each performance, and for both performances combined. FIGURE 10 Proportion of Internal Causal Attributions  Negotiation Task Performance 1 & 2 Negotiation Task 1 Negotiation Task 2 Total Internal A t t r i b . TI & T2 Group Succ. I. F & I .V. F a i l I .V. Total Succ/ F a i l Succ. I .F. & I .V. F a i l I .V. Total Succ/ F a i l Succ. I..F. I .V. F a i l I .V. Total Succ/ F a i l 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 r e s u l t s of the ANOVA i n d i c a t e that the Experimental Training group did employ s i g n i f i c a n t l y more i n t e r n a l causal attributions following each performance and the pattern of those i n t e r n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s , revealed in Figure 10, indicates that the subjects i n the Experimental T r a i n i n g Program attributed c a u s a l i t y i n a manner which was consistent with the i n s t r u c t i o n s they r e c e i v e d i n the Experimental T r a i n i n g Program. Hypothesis III i s supported by these findings. The 81 fact that the differences between groups observed following the f i r s t . p e r f o r m a n c e were s t i l l present, i n a n o n - t r a i n i n g environment, one month following completion of t r a i n i n g suggests that the observed differences between the groups were not simply a response to the demands of the t r a i n i n g s i t u a t i o n . The proportion of i n t e r n a l causal a t t r i b u t i o n s employed by the two groups p r i o r to beginning t r a i n i n g , in predicting t h e i r performance, was equal. A reduction in the proportion of inte r n a l a ttributions between the predictive measures and the post-performance measures for the T r a d i t i o n a l Training Group was predicted by the model presented i n Figure 6. The present f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e that the Experimental T r a i n i n g Program prevented the decrease i n the p r o p o r t i o n of i n t e r n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s between the p r e d i c t i o n and post performance measures that was observed i n the T r a d i t i o n a l Training Group. Hypothesis VIII In Hypothesis VIII i t was predicted that the Experimental T r a i n i n g group would score s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than the T r a d i t i o n a l T r a i n i n g group on the Adapted I.A.R." s c a l e administered at the completion of t r a i n i n g . The hypothesis was t e s t e d by comparing s u b j e c t s ' p r e - t r a i n i n g Adapted I.A.R. scores with t h e i r end of t r a i n i n g Adapted I.A.R. scores employing a repeated measures ANOVA analysis. The analysis revealed a s i g n i f i c a n t treatment by t r i a l s i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t (F=16.13, df=1,102; p<.05). Summary data are presented i n Table 7. 82 Comparison of the group means for each t r i a l (Winer 1971, p. 559-567) revealed a s i g n i f i c a n t difference at the post-treatment t r i a l (F=6.00, df=1,102; p<.05) but not at the pre-treatment t r i a l comparison (F=.28, df=1,102; p<.05; see Figure 11) . TABLE 7 ANOVA Adapted I.A.R. Scores By Treatment Source d.f . MS . F. Between Subjects Training Program (A) 1 27.04 1.06 Within 102 25 .55 Within Subjects T r i a l s (B) 1 25 . 62 6.28 A x B 1 65.18 16.13* Within 102 4.08 *p<.05 The significance of the difference between the TI and T2 mean scores for each t r a i n i n g group was examined separately employing dependent measures t - t e s t s . The results of these analyses are presented i n Tables 8 and 9. The t value associated with the comparison of the Experimental Training 83 FIGURE 11 Mean I.A.R. Scores f o r T r a i n i n g Groups Pre-treatment ( T l ) and Post-treatment (T2) G R 24 — T l T2 TRIALS Experimental T r a i n i n g • T r a d i t i o n a l T r a i n i n g • TABLE 8 Dependent Measures t - t e s t of Experimental T r a i n i n g Group  T l and T2 Adapted I.A.R. Scores T r i a l Mean d.f. t T l 24 . 42 51 -4.22 * T2 26 . 25 * p<.05 84 Groups TI and T2 scores was s i g n i f i c a n t (t=-4.22, df=51; p<.05) while the t value for the T r a d i t i o n a l Training Group was not s i g n i f i c a n t (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 Training Group  TI and T2 Adapted I.A.R. Scores T r i a l Mean d.f. t TI 24.83 51 1.19 T2 24.40 Hypothesis VIII was supported by the data. This hypothesis was established i n order to provide additional support for the view that locus of control i s a "generalized o r i e n t a t i o n " which although i t i s believed to be r e l a t i v e l y stable under most conditions, can be affected by d i r e c t cognitive intervention under certain conditions. The present data suggest that a b r i e f , c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r a l , a t t r i b u t i o n r e s t r u c t u r i n g procedure can produce a l t e r a t i o n s i n measured locus of control. HYPOTHESES IV TO VII Hypotheses IV It was p r e d i c t e d that the a t t r i b u t i o n s of c a u s a l i t y subjects employed i n making predictions regarding performance 85 would tend to be c o n s i s t e n t with t h e i r measured locus of control. More s p e c i f i c a l l y i t was hypothesized that those i n d i v i d u a l s who employed 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 i n predicting performance would have higher Adapted I.A.R. scores than those whose predictive causal a t t r i b u t i o n s employed an external locus. A t- t e s t for independent means was u t i l i z e d to compare the means of these two groups. Group means are shown in Table 10. The obtained t value was s i g n i f i c a n t (t=6.40, TABLE 10 Mean Locus of Control Scores for Subjects Employing Internal  and External P r e d i c i t i v e A t t r i b u t i o n s Group Mean Score I.A.R. df t i n t e r n a l a t t r i b . 26 .10 102 6.40 * external a t t r i b . 21.40 *p<.05 df=102; p<.05) and thus supports the present hypothesis. These f i n d i n g s are c o n s i s t e n t with the contention that measured "locus of control" represents a dominant generalized tendency, or cognitive schema, which i s r e l i a b l y associated with the locus of causal a t t r i b u t i o n s i n d i v i d u a l s employ when a t t r i b u t i n g c a u s a l i t y to r e l a t i v e l y n o n s p e c i f i c or broadly defined events. 86 Hypothesis V In Hypothesis V i t was predicted that when subjects' actual performance outcome was consistent with t h e i r prediction, the locus of the causal a t t r i b u t i o n regarding that performance would be consistent with t h e i r measured locus of control but that when performance outcome did not match prediction, the locus of causal a t t r i b u t i o n would not match the measured locus of control. The hypothesis was tested employing a chi square analysis. Data were arranged i n a 2 X 2 frequency table wherein rows were agreements and disagreements between predicted and actual performance outcome. The columns were agreements and disagreements between measured locus of control and locus of causal a t t r i b u t i o n . These data are presented i n Table 11.. Only data pertaining to the T r a d i t i o n a l Training group were employed in t h i s analysis in order to avoid possible confounding by treatment e f f e c t s . Subjects' Adapted I.A.R. scores were c l a s s i f i e d as being i n t e r n a l or external based upon whether or not they exceeded the group mean. Four subjects were eliminated because t h e i r scores f e l l exactly on the mean, yi e l d i n g 48 subjects for t h i s analysis. The results (chi square =4.20, p<.05) support hypothesis V. When subjects prediction and performance agreed, whether they succeeded or f a i l e d , there was a tendency f o r the locus of th e i r causal a t t r i b u t i o n s to be consistent with t h e i r measured locus of c o n t r o l . If t h e i r p r e d i c t i o n and performance 87 disagreed, t h i s tendency was absent. This f i n d i n g i s consistent with the conceptualization of measured locus of control as a dominant cognitive schema or structure. TABLE 11 Adapted I.A.R. Locus of Control - Locus of Causal A t t r i b u t i o n Frequency Table Locus of Control 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 Via and VIb It was hypothesized in Via that subjects who predicted success employing 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 would score higher on the Adapted I.A.R. success subscale than those subjects who p r e d i c t e d f a i l u r e employing i n t e r n a l causal a t t r i b u t i o n s . In Hypothesis VIb i t was predicted that the l a t t e r group would score higher on the Adapted I.A.R. f a i l u r e subscale than the former. Hypotheses Via and VIb were tested by employing a MANOVA followed by univariate F-tests (Finn, 1974; Hummel & S l i g o , 1971). The MANOVA r e s u l t was 88 s i g n i f i c a n t (F=4.62, df=2,69; p<.05) as was the univariate test associated with Hypothesis VIb (F=9.36, df=l,70; p<.05). The u n i v a r i a t e t e s t of Hypothesis V i a was n o t ' s i g n i f i c a n t (F=.48, df=l,70;). Summary r e s u l t s of these analyses are presented i n Table 12. TABLE 12 MANOVA and Univariate Analysis: Adapted I.A.R.  Success and Failure Subscales for Subjects Predicting Success and Failure Multivariate Test (Hotellings) Univariate F Source df i F Source F Predictive A t t r i b . 2 4.62 * Succ.Subsc. . 48 Residual 69 F a i l . Subsc. 9.36 * * p<.05 It was expected that the respective subscale scores would be r e l i a b l y related to subjects' predictions of success and f a i l u r e . The results which are supportive of Hypothesis VIb, but f a i l to provide support f o r Hypothesis Via, indicate that the expected r e l a t i o n s h i p was evident f o r the f a i l u r e predictors but not for the success predictors. The means for each group f o r both the success subscale and the f a i l u r e subscale are presented i n Table 13. Subjects who employed 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 i n predicting f a i l u r e tended to score s i g n i f i c a n t l y more int e r n a l 89 on the f a i l u r e subscale than subjects who predicted success with i n t e r n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s ; but success and f a i l u r e predictors were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t >on the success subscale. TABLE 13 Mean Adapted I.A.R. Subscale Scores  for Success and Failur e Prediction Mean Sub-Scale Scores Pred. & A t t r i b . N Success Subscale Failur e Subscale Success Int. 36 14.58 10.78 Failure Int. 36 14.22 12.52 Non-significant S i g n i f i c a n t Hypothesis VII Hypothesis VII predicted that subjects who scored i n t e r n a l ( i . e . , exceeded the mean score f o r a l l subjects) on the success subscale of the Adapted I.A.R. would have higher negotiation task performance scores on the T2 t r i a l than subjects who scored i n t e r n a l ( i . e . , exceeded the mean score f o r a l l subjects) on the f a i l u r e subscale. Experimental Training group data were not included i n te s t i n g t h i s hypothesis i n order to avoid confounding by treatment e f f e c t s . Summary ANOVA data are presented i n Table 14. The ANOVA results were not s i g n i f i c a n t (F=3.02; p>.05) and therefore the hypothesis must be rejected. Hypothesis VII was tested employing data from only 30 subjects as a re s u l t of elimination of members of the Experimental Training program and those i n d i v i d u a l s i n the T r a d i t i o n a l T r a i n i n g program who scored external, or who scored i n t e r n a l on both the success and f a i l u r e subscales. As a re s u l t of the small number of subjects whose data were included in the analysis, the power of the test of t h i s hypothesis was reduced and the results are viewed as TABLE 14 ANOVA of Negotiation Task Scores (T2) By  Adapted I.A.R. Subscale Ratings Source d.f . MS . F. Main Ef f e c t s I.A.R. Rating 1 63130888.89 3 . 02 Residual 28 20867420.63 being very tentative i n l i g h t of the fact that the observed lack of s i g n i f i c a n t findings f or Hypothesis VII appears to be inconsistent with the findings of previous investigators. In order to shed more l i g h t on the relat i o n s h i p between int e r n a l locus of control and performance, a second analysis was performed. For t h i s analysis subjects were c l a s s i f i e d as being e i t h e r i n t e r n a l or e x t e r n a l based upon t h e i r t o t a l 91 Adapted I.A.R. s c a l e score, r e g a r d l e s s of t h e i r subscale c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . . Once again only data for subjects from the Tr a d i t i o n a l Training group were employed for t h i s analysis. A summary of the results of t h i s analysis i s presented i n Table 15. The s i g n i f i c a n t results (F=5.08, df=l,46; p<.05) for t h i s a n a l y s i s suggest that the f a i l u r e to f i n d support f o r Hypothesis VII which examined the relat i o n s h i p between success and f a i l u r e subscale scores and performance i s not d i r e c t l y comparable with investigations employing an o v e r a l l locus of c o n t r o l score. This r e s u l t w i l l be d i s c u s s e d f u r t h e r i n Chapter V. TABLE 15 ANOVA of Negotiation Task Scores (T2)  by Adapted I.A.R. Total Score Source d.f. MS. F. Main Ef f e c t s I.A.R. Rating 1 106212396.71 5.09* Residual 46 20877225.98 *p<.05 92 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS The results of the present study support the e f f i c a c y of the experimental causal a t t r i b u t i o n structuring procedures i n promoting the endurance of successful performance. The results are also supportive of the hypothesized relationships amongst the locus and s t a b i l i t y dimensions of causal a t t r i b u t i o n s , expectations, and performance which were delineated i n Figures 6 and 7 of Chapter 2. In t h i s chapter the results presented i n Chapter 4 are summarized and discussed. The discussion i s i n i t i a l l y focused separately upon each hypothesis set. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the integrated findings in r e l a t i o n to an unifying conceptual model. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS RELATED TO HYPOTHESES I TO III AND VIII The data indicate that the Experimental Training Program was e f f e c t i v e i n a l t e r i n g subjects' a t t r i b u t i o n s i n the manner which was p r e d i c t e d and that s u b j e c t s i n the Experimental T r a i n i n g Program were more s u c c e s s f u l than those i n the T r a d i t i o n a l Training Program on the performance t r i a l four weeks following completion of t r a i n i n g . The lack of support for Hypotheses I l a i s problematic for the model presented in Chapter 2 (Figures 6 and 7) which 93 p r e d i c t e d that the Experimental T r a i n i n g procedures would i n f l u e n c e subjects to change expectations of. f a i l u r e to expectations of success, and that individuals who expect to succeed would tend to perform more e f f e c t i v e l y than those who expect to f a i l . One of the f o c i of t h i s study was to explore the relationship between the experimental cognitive restructuring procedures, expectations, causal a t t r i b u t i o n s , and subsequent performance presented in Figures 6 and 7. Figures 6 and 7 i n d i c a t e that the experimental c o g n i t i v e r e s t r u c t u r i n g procedures were expected to have a greater impact upon the performance of subjects who i n i t i a l l y predicted f a i l u r e than they would on the performance of those who i n i t i a l l y predicted success. Unfortunately, i n t h i s study, the number of subjects who i n i t i a l l y predicted f a i l u r e (N=68) was almost twice the number that predicted success (N=36) and the ef f e c t of t h i s d i s p a r i t y on the power of the s t a t i s t i c a l test employed may have been a c o n t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r i n the f a i l u r e to f i n d a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between prediction and treatment i n the 2 X 2 ANOVA conducted for Hypotheses I l a and l i b . Because t h i s was an exploratory investigation, i t was decided to examine the data from those subjects who i n i t i a l l y predicted f a i l u r e separately from those who had predicted success. This was accomplished by employing a Repeated Measures ANOVA of the T l and T2 n e g o t i a t i o n task scores of Experimental and T r a d i t i o n a l Training Group subjects who predicted f a i l u r e . A summary of the results of thi s analysis i s presented i n Table 16. The results revealed a s i g n i f i c a n t treatment by t r i a l s i n t e r a c t i o n (F=20.31, df=l,66; p<.05). TABLE 16 Repeated Measures ANOVA of Negotiation Task Scores  of Subjects Predicting F a i l u r e Source d.f. MS . F. Between Training Group (A) 1 100139520. 2.63 Within 66 38145920. T r i a l s (B) 1 38645760. 5.44* A x B 1 144321024. 20.31* Within 66 7105691. *p<.05 The mean scores of the two groups at TI ( f i n a l t r a i n i n g session) and T2 (four weeks following completion of training) were compared employing the procedure described by Winer (1971, p. 559-567). The Experimental Training group mean at TI was 23158.82 while the T r a d i t i o n a l Training group mean at TI was 23502.94 (See Figure 12). The F value for t h i s comparison was not s i g n i f i c a n t . The T2 means f o r the two groups were: Experimental Training = 24152.94 and T r a d i t i o n a l Training = 20376.47. The F value for t h i s comparison was s i g n i f i c a n t (F=10.40; df=l,66; p<.05). 95 FIGURE 12 Mean Negotiation Task Scores at T l and T2  for Subjects Predicting F a i l u r e G R 0 U P M E A N T H 0 U S A N D S 25 — 24 — 23 — 22 — 21-20 — T l T2 TRIALS Experimental Training 0 T r a d i t i o n a l Training 0 A t - t e s t for dependent means was employed to examine the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the T l and T2 means of su b j e c t s who predicted f a i l u r e i n each t r a i n i n g group (Tables 17 and 18). The results of these tests indicate that the difference between the two groups on the T2 mean scores can be accounted for by a s i g n i f i c a n t d e t e r i o r a t i o n i n n e g o t i a t i o n task performance amongst members of the T r a d i t i o n a l Training Group. There was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between T l and T2 performance for the Experimental Training Group. TABLE 17 Dependent Measures t - t e s t of T l and T2 Negotiation Task Scores of T r a d i t i o n a l Training Group Subjects Predicting Failure T r i a l Mean d.f. t' T l 23,502.94 33 5.71 * T2 20,376.47 *p<.05 In summary, although Hypothesis I l a was r e j e c t e d , a subsequent analysis of the data from only those subjects who i n i t i a l l y predicted f a i l u r e was supportive of the existence of the relationship among the e f f e c t of the Experimental Training Program, expectations, and task performance which was predicted TABLE 18 Dependent Measures t - t e s t of T l and T2 Negotiation Task Scores  of Experimental Training Group Subjects Predicting Fail u r e T r i a l Mean d.f. t T l 23,158.82 33 -1.36 T2 24,152.94 by Figures 6 and 7 in Chapter 2. These data provide some basis for suggesting that the Experimental Training Program would be 97 p a r t i c u l a r l y e f f e c t i v e with i n d i v i d u a l s who have i n i t i a l expectations of f a i l u r e and demonstrate the need for further investigation of the relationships which were predicted. Examination of the p r e d i c t i o n - a t t r i b u t i o n - performance patterns for both t r a i n i n g groups (See Appendix 4, Figures 14 and 15) revealed that s u b j e c t s who f a i l e d to perform successfully on the t r i a l at the end of t r a i n i n g (TI) were, with the exception of two i n d i v i d u a l s , equally i n e f f e c t i v e on the performance t r i a l four weeks l a t e r (T2) regardless of the type of t r a i n i n g program or t h e i r i n i t i a l e x p e c t a t i o n s . However, subjects who p r e d i c t e d f a i l u r e and performed s u c c e s s f u l l y at TI were much more l i k e l y to repeat t h e i r successful performance at T2 i f they were i n the Experimental T r a i n i n g group (see Table 19). Subjects who i n i t i a l l y predicted success did not demonstrate, a s i m i l a r d i f f e r e n t i a l pattern between t r a i n i n g groups at TI and T2 (Table 20). The effectiveness of the a t t r i b u t i o n structuring procedures appears to have been concentrated i n that group of individuals who predicted f a i l u r e but a c t u a l l y succeeded on the performance at the end of the t r a i n i n g period. While the Experimental T r a i n i n g Program was c l e a r l y more e f f e c t i v e than the T r a d i t i o n a l T r a i n i n g Program, as evidenced by s u b j e c t s ' performance upon the t r i a l f o u r weeks a f t e r completion of t r a i n i n g , i t i s apparent that the key to the e f f i c a c y of the experimental program l i e s i n i t s c o n t r i b u t i n g to the maintenance of successful performance over time. The mediating 98 effects of a t t r i b u t i o n structuring procedures do not appear to be capable of overcoming l a c k of s k i l l i n i n f l u e n c i n g successful performance. These findings are consistent with the model of behavior change which underlies t h i s investigation. While the data support the contention that cognitive structuring can mediate the maintenance of behavior, they also c l e a r l y support the contention that such cognitive changes do not cause behavior change. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , i n t h i s study cognitive a t t r i b u t i o n r e s t r u c t u r i n g procedures mediated the a b i l i t y of c e r t a i n TABLE 19 TI and T2 Negotiation Task Performance  of Subjects Predicting F a i l u r e TI Success T2 Success Experimental 22 17 Training T r a d i t i o n a l 22 7 Training i n d i v i d u a l s to e f f e c t i v e l y employ s k i l l s which they had demonstrated during t r a i n i n g i n a subsequent "non-training" s i t u a t i o n . However, the a t t r i b u t i o n restructuring procedures did not e f f e c t i v e l y mediate post-training performance of individuals who were exposed to the same t r a i n i n g but f a i l e d to demonstrate e f f e c t i v e employment of these s k i l l s during t r a i n i n g . 99 TABLE 20 T l and T2 Negotiation Task Performance  of Subjects Predicting Success T l Success T2 Success Experimental Training 12 9 Tr a d i t i o n a l Training 11 7 These data suggest that the a t t r i b u t i o n r e s t r u c t u r i n g component of the Experimental Training Program was successful in a l t e r i n g subjects' cognitions regarding t h e i r a b i l i t y to control the cause of t h e i r performance and that the altered causal a t t r i b u t i o n s mediated t h e i r , a b i l i t y to repeat that successful performance in the future non-training performance si t u a t i o n . The fact that subjects i n the Experimental Training group continued to employ the " r e s t r u c t u r e d " a t t r i b u t i o n pattern one month following completion of t r a i n i n g suggests that t h i s a l t e r a t i o n was not simply compliance to t r a i n i n g expectations but represents some degree of change i n t h e i r o r i g i n a l c o g n i t i v e processes. These f i n d i n g s must be interpreted cautiously i n l i g h t of the exploratory nature of th i s investigation. The four week period between the two performance t r i a l s was a r e l a t i v e l y short i n t e r v a l and conclusions as to the " d u r a b i l i t y " of the observed effects can 100 not be made based upon these r e s u l t s . S i m i l a r l y , although the f i r s t and second performance environments were d i f f e r e n t i n a number of important ways, there were a substantial number of s i m i l a r i t i e s between the two s i t u a t i o n s . Therefore the degree of " g e n e r a l i z a t i o n " demonstrated i n these r e s u l t s must be viewed as being somewhat lim i t e d . F i n a l l y the r e s u l t s a s s o c i a t e d with Hypothesis VIII indicate that the cognitive a t t r i b u t i o n structuring procedures employed in the Experimental Training Program resulted i n an increase in i n t e r n a l i t y of.subjects' measured locus of control. This r e s u l t suggests that i f locus of control i s conceptualized as being a cognitive structure, then such structures can be i n f l u e n c e d by c o n t r o l l i n g c o g n i t i v e processes such as a t t r i b u t i o n of causality. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS RELATED TO HYPOTHESES IV TO VII Hypotheses IV through VII were included i n the present investigation in an attempt to provide support f o r the presumed interdependent r e l a t i o n s h i p s ,among locus of c o n t r o l , a t t r i b u t i o n s of causality, and performance. Locus of control was conceptualized as a cognitive structure which i s evidenced by a dominant generalized tendency or "orientation" toward i n t e r p r e t i n g c a u s a l i t y as having e i t h e r an i n t e r n a l or external locus. Attributions of c a u s a l i t y were defined as cognitive processes that i d e n t i f y the cause of any p a r t i c u l a r 101 event. The q u a l i t a t i v e difference between these two i s c r u c i a l to interpretation of the data relevant to t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p with one another and with performance. The po s i t i o n adopted was that locus of control scores would be a r e l a t i v e l y r e l i a b l e predictor of the locus of causal a t t r i b u t i o n s employed by s u b j e c t s making p r e d i c t i o n s about t h e i r future performance, but would not r e l i a b l y predict the locus of at t r i b u t i o n s regarding a just completed performance. In the l a t t e r case, s p e c i f i c information about the p a r t i c u l a r performance would be available and t h i s could lead individuals to employ alternative causal structures. Thus following a p a r t i c u l a r performance individuals might be expected to employ causal a t t r i b u t i o n s with a locus which i s inconsistent with t h e i r measured locus of control or "dominant orientation" to causality. The present data are g e n e r a l l y s u p p o r t i v e of t h i s conceptualization of locus of control and causal a t t r i b u t i o n s . The data i n d i c a t e that the locus of a t t r i b u t i o n s s u b j e c t s employed in explaining the cause of t h e i r predicted performance tended to be consistent with t h e i r measured locus of control score. However, t h i s c o n s i s t e n c y was not present when subjects' a t t r i b u t i o n s about the cause of t h e i r just completed performance was examined. In the l a t t e r s i t u a t i o n , the data indicate that performance - expectation consistency plays an important r o l e i n determining the locus of the causal a t t r i b u t i o n s s u bjects employ. When performance matched 102 expectations, the locus of subjects' attributed cause tended to be consistent with t h e i r measured locus of control score. When subjects' performance f a i l e d to match t h e i r expectations t h i s consistent relationship was not present. Hypotheses Via and VIb examined t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p from a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t perspective. These hypotheses were only concerned with subjects who employed i n t e r n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s for success or f a i l u r e in predicting t h e i r performance. Among t h i s group i t was expected that subjects who predicted success would score higher on the success subscale of the locus of control measure while subjects who predicted f a i l u r e would score higher on the f a i l u r e subscale. The results indicate that the group of subjects who predicted f a i l u r e did score higher than those who predicted success on the subscale for f a i l u r e . However, the subscale for success scores for the two groups were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . The implications of these findings are unclear. They suggest the p o s s i b i l i t y that there i s a difference between individuals who predict success and f a i l u r e such that those who predict f a i l u r e tend to be "generally" inte r n a l for both success and f a i l u r e while those who predict success tend to be in t e r n a l f o r success only. The f a i l u r e to f i n d the expected r e l a t i o n s h i p between locus of c o n t r o l subscale scores f o r success and f a i l u r e and subjects' negotiation task performance (Hypothesis VII) would be c o n s i s t e n t with t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y . If i n f a c t some individuals are in t e r n a l for success only while others are 103 "more generally i n t e r n a l " ( i . e . , f o r both success and f a i l u r e ) then a comparison of i n t e r n a l success and i n t e r n a l f a i l u r e subjects scores would i n c l u d e some i n d i v i d u a l s i n both categories. While these indiv i d u a l s were eliminated i n t h i s investigation, the limited number of subjects remaining i n the a n a l y s i s reduced the chances of f i n d i n g a s i g n i f i c a n t difference i f i t did e x i s t . The f a i l u r e to f i n d support for Hypothesis VII could also be accounted for by the unexpected presence of individuals who expected to f a i l w i t h i n the group of s u b j e c t s who scored inte r n a l for success. It was expected that group of subjects who scored i n t e r n a l on the success subscale would tend to be success predictors while indiv i d u a l s who scored i n t e r n a l on the f a i l u r e subscale would tend to be f a i l u r e predictors. However, the data from Hypotheses Via and VIb indicate that the group of subjects who scored i n t e r n a l on the subscale f o r success tended to include individuals who predicted they would succeed as well as individuals who predicted they would f a i l . However, the group of subjects that scored i n t e r n a l on the f a i l u r e subscale tended to i n c l u d e only i n d i v i d u a l s who p r e d i c t e d f a i l u r e . This suggests the p o s s i b i l i t y that the f a i l u r e to f i n d a s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n performance between these two groups may have been p a r t i a l l y accounted for by the mixture of performance expectations of the subjects i n the comparison groups. 104 THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG LOCUS OF CAUSAL ATTRIBUTION. STABILITY. AND PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION Weiner's (1985) contention that the locus of ca u s a l attributions i s unrelated to performance expectations was not supported by the findings of t h i s investigation. In t h i s study locus of control scores were r e l i a b l e indicators of the locus of a t t r i b u t i o n s i n d i v i d u a l s employed i n making predictions about a hypothetical novel s i t u a t i o n , but were not r e l i a b l e indicators of the locus of a t t r i b u t i o n s they employed f o l l o w i n g an a c t u a l performance. The c o n s i s t e n c y between i n i t i a l performance expectations and actual performance was the key factor i n determining whether or not the locus of causal a t t r i b u t i o n s f o l l o w i n g performance was c o n s i s t e n t with the locus of t h e i r predictive a t t r i b u t i o n s and locus of control scores. When performance expectations were confirmed, locus of control was a r e l i a b l e i ndicator of the locus of a t t r i b u t i o n s employed i n explaining performance. But when expectations were disconfirmed by performance, locus of c o n t r o l was not a r e l i a b l e predictor. In the l a t t e r s i t u a t i o n , i f the locus of causal a t t r i b u t i o n s employed in pr e d i c t i n g performance was i n t e r n a l , the locus of the causal a t t r i b u t i o n s they employed following unexpected outcome tended to s h i f t from i n t e r n a l to external f a c t o r s . In cases where the p r e d i c t i v e a t t r i b u t i o n s were external, the post-performance a t t r i b u t i o n ' s locus tended to remain external (See Appendix 4, Figures 14 and 15). Figure 105 14 also reveals that there was a small group of subjects i n the present study who o r i g i n a l l y p r e d i c t e d f a i l u r e employing external a t t r i b u t i o n s and subsequently altered the locus of t h e i r causal a t t r i b u t i o n s following unexpected success. One i m p l i c a t i o n of these f i n d i n g s i s that c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s regarding a just completed performance can be expected to be r e l i a b l y related to causal a t t r i b u t i o n s about future performance expectations only i n situations where the just completed performance outcome matches in d i v i d u a l s ' i n i t i a l performance expectations. This finding i s consistent with the contention that locus of control i s a cognitive structure and causal a t t r i b u t i o n , a c o g n i t i v e process. The discrepancy between Weiner's position regarding the unimportance of the locus dimension i n r e l a t i o n to expectancy and the present f i n d i n g of a systematic r e l a t i o n s h i p between locus and expectancy can be explained by the nature of the re l a t i o n s h i p between c o g n i t i v e processes and c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e s . In predicting future performance i n a hypothetical s i t u a t i o n , the individual's dominant cognitive (causal) structure i s employed. In s i t u a t i o n s where performance matches e x p e c t a t i o n s , the dominant causal schema would be employed on a l l measurement occasions ( i . e . , i n i t i a l p r e d i c t i o n , post-performance explanation, and future performance p r e d i c t i o n ) . In situations where o r i g i n a l performance expectations are not met, the unexpected outcome cues an a l t e r n a t i v e c o g n i t i v e (causal) structure and indi v i d u a l s ' post-performance causal a t t r i b u t i o n s 106 are based upon a d i f f e r e n t cognitive (causal) schema than was employed in the o r i g i n a l prediction. Thus, i n the l a t t e r s i t u a t i o n the dominant causal structure i s employed only when predictive attributions are made. That i s at the f i r s t and t h i r d i nstances of a t t r i b u t i o n measurement ( i . e . , i n i t i a l p r e d i c t i o n and p r e d i c t i o n of f u t u r e performance). On the occasion of the second a t t r i b u t i o n measurement (immediately following performance) a d i f f e r e n t cognitive causal schema i s employed in a t t r i b u t i n g casualty. If the process described i s employed in examining the studies that Weiner c i t e s to support his contention, i t i s apparent that the procedure employed i n many of these investigations would be i n s e n s i t i v e to the r e l a t i o n s h i p between causal structures and causal a t t r i b u t i o n processes described here. The experimental procedure employed assumes that an a t t r i b u t i o n regarding a single previous performance i s d i r e c t l y related to future performance expectations. Therefore, no measure of the s u b j e c t s ' o r i g i n a l expectations and attributions (prior to the performance) regarding performance i s included. As a r e s u l t , only a segment of an ongoing process i s being examined by such investigations. A MODEL OF THE RECIPROCAL CAUSALITY RELATIONSHIPS AMONG  LOCUS OF CONTROL. CAUSAL ATTRIBUTIONS. AND PERFORMANCE The results of t h i s study suggest that locus of control (cognitive structure), a t t r i b u t i o n s of c a u s a l i t y (cognitive 107 p r o c e s s ) , and performance are i n t e r r e l a t e d f a c t o r s i n determining the maintenance of performance demonstrated during a t r a i n i n g program. It has been demonstrated that changes in the types of attributions i n d i v i d u a l s employ can a f f e c t both t h e i r measured locus of c o n t r o l and the maintenance of performance. A close r e l a t i o n s h i p between in d i v i d u a l s ' locus of control and a t t r i b u t i o n s of c a u s a l i t y in c e r t a i n situations has also been established. The data did not support the predicted relationship between i n t e r n a l locus of control f o r success - i n t e r n a l locus of c o n t r o l f o r f a i l u r e and performance. However the f a i l u r e to f i n d the p r e d i c t e d relationship appears to have been related to the tendency for a number of individuals to score i n t e r n a l for both success and f a i l u r e . Analysis of the data for o v e r a l l Adapted I.A.R. scores did support the findings of previous investigators who have found i n t e r n a l i t y to. be associated with more e f f e c t i v e performance. C o l l e c t i v e l y the present findings provide some preliminary support for a model of r e c i p r o c a l c a u s a l i t y among a number of factors which a f f e c t performance and demonstrate the value of f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s amongst these variables. The s p e c i f i c factors included in t h i s model are a hypothesized c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e which i s ' l a b e l e d General Performance O r i e n t a t i o n (G.P.O.), the c o g n i t i v e process a t t r i b u t i o n of causality, and performance. General Performance Orientation i s conceptualized as comprising both a locus of c o n t r o l ( i n t e r n a l or e x t e r n a l ) and a general performance 108 expectation (success or f a i l u r e ) . Causal a t t r i b u t i o n s processes are viewed as being i n a r e c i p r o c a l l y c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p with the c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e G.P.O. A c t u a l performance has a si m i l a r r e c i p r o c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p with the other factors. A graphic presentation of the hypothesized relationships among these factors i s presented i n Figure 13. In Figure 13, " A l " represents the hypothesized cognitive structure labeled "General Performance Orientation" (G.P.O.). The cognitive structure G.P.O. i s conceptualized as consisting of both a s e l f - e f f i c a c y component and a locus of c o n t r o l component. An individual's G.P.O. i s viewed as having primacy i n determination of h i s / h e r expectancies and cau s a l attributions regarding performance when approaching a novel s i t u a t i o n . As i n d i c a t e d at p o i n t A2 i n Figure 13, however, i n approaching any given performance an i n d i v i d u a l may be provided with s p e c i f i c information about t h i s p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n or type of si t u a t i o n . Such information can provide "cues" which mediate the d i r e c t e f f e c t of G.P.O. i n determining an individual's expectations and causal a t t r i b u t i o n s regarding the s p e c i f i c performance (at Poin t "B"). The p a r t i c u l a r expectations and causal a t t r i b u t i o n s (whether determined by the G.P.O. or an alternate cognitive structure) a f f e c t i n d i v i d u a l s ' actual performance and evaluation at Point "C". 109 Assuming that there i s no information that would cue an alternative expectation and causal schema, an in d i v i d u a l w i l l approach a performance s i t u a t i o n with expectations based upon h i s / h e r G.P.O. The a c t u a l performance provides feedback indi c a t i n g that either, his/her expectations have been met ("Dl", Figure 13), or they have not been met ("D2", Figure 13). Performance which confirms expectations ("Dl") would tend to be attributed to the same factors as were employed at "B", and t h i s would strengthen h i s / h e r G.P.O. (dominant c o g n i t i v e structure), increasing the l i k e l i h o o d of i t being employed i n approaching future sit u a t i o n s . Performance outcome which d i s c o n f i r m s the i n d i v i d u a l ' s expectations would tend to be attributed to factors unique to the s i t u a t i o n ("D2") and would a f f e c t the future cue value of these s p e c i f i c factors ("A2") i n mediating the e f f e c t of G.P.O. However, because i t would be attributed to external factors unique to the p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n , the unexpected performance would' not be expected to produce changes i n the strength of his/her G.P.O. 110 FIGURE 12 R e c i p r o c a l R e l a t i o n s h i p Among  E x p e c t a n c y - A t t r i b u t i o n - P e r f o r m a n c e A l G e n e r a l P e r f o r m a n c e O r i e n t a t i o n ( I n c l u d i n g e x p e c t a t i o n a n d c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n ) A 2 S i t u a t i o n S p e c i f i c " C u e s " S t r e n g t h e n s G.P.O. B S p e c i f i c P e r f o r m a n c e E x p e c t a t i o n S i t u a t i o n a l I n f o r m a t i o n D l P e r f o r m a n c e m e e t s E x p e c t a t i o n s A c t u a l P e r f o r m a n c e E v a l u a t i o n D 2 P e r f o r m a n c e F a i l s t o meet E x p e c t a t i o n s CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS This i n v e s t i g a t i o n was undertaken i n an attempt to demonstrate that the a d d i t i o n of c o g n i t i v e a t t r i b u t i o n structuring procedures to a management s k i l l s t r a i n i n g program would improve p a r t i c i p a n t s ' a b i l i t y to reproduce t h e i r successful negotiation task performance on a performance t r i a l four weeks af t e r completion of t r a i n i n g . P r i o r to beginning t r a i n i n g subjects completed a locus of control measure and were divided into three groups on the basis of t h e i r predicted performance outcome and c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s regarding a hypothetical negotiation task. These were: predicted-success inte r n a l a t t r i b u t i o n , p r e d i c t e d - f a i l u r e i n t e r n a l a t t r i b u t i o n , and p r e d i c t e d - f a i l u r e external a t t r i b u t i o n . Then equal numbers from each group were randomly assigned to e i t h e r the Experimental T r a i n i n g Program which i n c l u d e d s p e c i f i c instructions on how to monitor and control causal a t t r i b u t i o n s , or the T r a d i t i o n a l Training Program which was i d e n t i c a l except f o r the absence of the a t t r i b u t i o n monitoring and c o n t r o l i n s t r u c t i o n . During the l a s t t r a i n i n g session a l l subjects participated i n a negotiation task which was s i m i l a r to the hypothetical negotiation task referred to above and once again completed the locus of control measure. Four weeks af t e r completion of the t r a i n i n g sessions a l l subjects p a r t i c i p a t e d in a second t r i a l of the negotiation task. 112 Examination of the scores of the two groups revealed that the experimental group performed more successfully than the comparison group on the t r i a l four weeks a f t e r t r a i n i n g but there was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between groups on the t r i a l during the l a s t t r a i n i n g session. Further analysis of the data highlighted several important points. 1) The data analysis associated with Hypotheses I l a and l i b was not supportive of these hypotheses. However, analyses of the data from only those subjects predicting f a i l u r e and v i s u a l examination of the expectation - performance - a t t r i b u t i o n patterns suggested that the Experimental Training Program was most e f f e c t i v e with those subjects who had predicted they would f a i l 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 but had a c t u a l l y succeeded on the a c t u a l n e g o t i a t i o n task d u r i n g the f i n a l t r a i n i n g session. 2) There was not a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the t r a i n i n g groups on a locus of control measure administered p r i o r to t r a i n i n g ; however, subjects i n the Experimental Training group scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher (more internal) than those i n the T r a d i t i o n a l Training group on an administration of the measure following completion of t r a i n i n g . 3) Analysis of subjects' stated a t t r i b u t i o n s demonstrated that those i n the Experimental T r a i n i n g group employed the 113 a t t r i b u t i o n control procedures that were taught during the tr a i n i n g . 4) The locus of c o n t r o l scores of sub j e c t s who employed inter n a l causal a t t r i b u t i o n s in predicting t h e i r performance were higher (more internal) than the locus of control scores of subjects who employed 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 s i n predicting performance. 5) Among sub j e c t s who employed i n t e r n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s i n predicting t h e i r performance, the group that predicted f a i l u r e scored higher (more i n t e r n a l f o r f a i l u r e ) than those who predicted success on the locus of control f a i l u r e subscale. There was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference in the success subscale scores of these two groups. 6) In the T r a d i t i o n a l Training group there was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between negotiation task performance scores of subjects who scored i n t e r n a l on the success subscale of the locus of control measure and those who scored i n t e r n a l on the f a i l u r e subscale. These results are generally supportive of the contention that the employment of a t t r i b u t i o n structuring procedures as an adjunct to a s k i l l t r a i n i n g program can increase the l i k e l i h o o d that t r a i n i n g participants w i l l be able to reproduce t h e i r " i n -t r a i n i n g " performance i n f u t u r e " n o n - t r a i n i n g " s i t u a t i o n s . They are a l s o g e n e r a l l y s u pportive of the model of, the r e l a t i o n s h i p s among cau s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s , performance 114 expectations, and performance which was proposed. While the present findings must be considered to be tentative i n l i g h t of the exploratory nature of the study, they provide considerable encouragement f o r f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n and have some important p r e l i m i n a r y i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r behavior change programs, behavior change theory and a t t r i b u t i o n theory, and future research i n these areas. IMPLICATIONS FOR BEHAVIOR CHANGE PROGRAMS It was the contention of the present investigation that s k i l l t r a i n i n g programs are behavior change processes and the r e s u l t s suggest that the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of behavior change programs (e.g., teaching, counselling, therapy, coaching, etc.) may be enhanced by the i n c l u s i o n of c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r i n g procedures designed to induce p a r t i c i p a n t s to monitor and control t h e i r i n t e r n a l cognitive processes. Although t h i s was an exploratory investigation and the findings require further c o n f i r m a t i o n , the r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e that maintenance and generalization of performance i s superior i f subjects are given in s t r u c t i o n , opportunities to practice, and feedback on how to control t h e i r causal a t t r i b u t i o n s and expectations regarding t h e i r own performance during the t r a i n i n g process. The importance of in d i v i d u a l s ' b e l i e f s about causes of changes i n t h e i r performance has been a major focus of cognitive-behavioral c l i n i c i a n s i n recent years (Meichenbaum, 115 1985 ; Turk et a l . , 1983 ). The present i n v e s t i g a t i o n demonstrates the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of a simple procedure f o r influencing individuals to control t h e i r b e l i e f s about the cause of t h e i r performance. This investigation was exploratory in nature and the effectiveness of the treatment program was only demonstrated by the maintenance of performance over a l i m i t e d p e r i o d of four weeks. However, the experimental t r a i n i n g procedures employed could be r e a d i l y integrated into a wide v a r i e t y of c l i n i c a l and n o n - c l i n i c a l programs making future more extensive evaluation a r e l a t i v e l y easy task. The enhanced effectiveness of the "cognitive structuring" t r a i n i n g appeared to be most evident in that group of subjects who predicted p r i o r to beginning the t r a i n i n g that they would f a i l i f asked to perform a task s i m i l a r to that employed in the t r a i n i n g program. However i t i s not believed that future attempts to employ these c o g n i t i v e a t t r i b u t i o n s t r u c t u r i n g procedures i n behavior change programs should be l i m i t e d to individuals who exhibit s i m i l a r i n i t i a l expectations f o r the following reasons: 1) The r e s u l t s obtained here i n d i c a t e that the r e l i a b l e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of such i n d i v i d u a l s , i n advance, may be very d i f f i c u l t i f not impossible to achieve. 2) The a t t r i b u t i o n structuring procedures employed in t h i s investigation are not d i f f i c u l t to employ. They could be i n t e g r a t e d i n t o e x i s t i n g and/or newly developed behavior 116 change programs with r e l a t i v e ease and very l i t t l e a dditional expense. 3) It i s believed that the a t t r i b u t i o n structuring procedure has more generalized benefits. The a b i l i t y to monitor and c o n t r o l ongoing c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s i n g i s b e l i e v e d to be a s k i l l which i s b e n e f i c i a l i n a wide v a r i e t y of everyday situations. IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORIES OF BEHAVIOR CHANGE The results of th i s investigation are supportive of the existence of a re c i p r o c a l causal r e l a t i o n s h i p among cognitive factors, external reinforcement contingencies, and behavior that i s postulated i n the Social Learning Theory model advanced by Bandura (1977a, 1978). The present findings indicate that the i n t e r a c t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p among c o g n i t i v e processes, cognitive structures, and performance feedback i s c r u c i a l to our understanding of behavior change. The data indicate that i n t e r n a l cognitive structures and processes are able to mediate the r e i n f o r c i n g e f f e c t s of performance feedback. They a l s o i n d i c a t e that i n t e r n a l c o g n i t i v e processes and s t r u c t u r e s can be i n f l u e n c e d by a t t r i b u t i o n s t r u c t u r i n g procedures and that performance maintenance and g e n e r a l i z a t i o n can be i n f l u e n c e d by a combination of a t t r i b u t i o n s t r u c t u r i n g procedures and performance feedback. A t t r i b u t i o n structuring procedures by 117 themselves, while they may have influenced subjects' i n t e r n a l cognitive structures, did not appear to mediate more successful performance in the future f o r subjects who f a i l e d to perform s u c c e s s f u l l y during the t r a i n i n g program. S i m i l a r l y , performance feedback of success at TI did not, i n the absence of a t t r i b u t i o n r e s t r u c t u r i n g , mediate maintenance and generalization of successful performance for subjects who had expected to f a i l . These re s u l t s indicate that i t i s important f o r behavior change t h e o r i e s to focus a t t e n t i o n upon delineation of the r e l a t i o n s h i p among cognitive structures and processes, c o g n i t i v e and b e h a v i o r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n s , and performance r a t h e r than upon attempting to determine the r e l a t i v e e f f i c a c y of cognitive or behavioral interventions i f the goal i s to increase our understanding of the process of behavior change. IMPLICATIONS FOR ATTRIBUTION THEORY Causal Attributions and Expectancy The present findings are supportive of Weiner's contention that i n d i v i d u a l s ' "perceived control" of causal factors plays a key r o l e i n determining t h e i r performance expectancy. In Weiner's (1985) model perceived "control" i s separated from " s t a b i l i t y " and "locus". The l a t t e r i s not viewed as being important i n determining i n d i v i d u a l s ' e x p e c t a t i o n s . The present data indicate the separation of "locus", "control", 118 and " s t a b i l i t y " in the determination of expectancy, i s not as straight-forward as has been suggested by Weiner. The data i n t h i s study i n d i c a t e that locus and c o n t r o l are r e l a t e d constructs i n the determination of expectancy. The locus of control construct suggests that individuals may perceive control as residing within themselves (i n t e r n a l locus) or outside of themselves (external locus). Thus an i n t e r n a l locus of c o n t r o l i s r e q u i r e d i n order f o r an i n d i v i d u a l to be able to perceive him/herself as being able to c o n t r o l causal f a c t o r s . Therefore c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y i s necessarily linked systematically to an i n t e r n a l locus of control but not to the s t a b i l i t y dimension. To i l l u s t r a t e , consider performance which i s attributed to an external cause (e.g., the weather). The cause i s not perceived as being controllable by the i n d i v i d u a l and future expectations are, therefore, determined by how probable the i n d i v i d u a l thinks i t i s that s i m i l a r weather w i l l occur in future s i t u a t i o n s ( i . e . , the r e l a t i v e s t a b i l i t y of t h i s f a c t o r ) . In t h i s case, even though i t i s perceived as being unstable, and subject to change i n a future s i t u a t i o n , the i n d i v i d u a l does not perceive him/herself as having any control over the causal factor. The same performance, i f attributed to an i n t e r n a l cause however, may be p e r c e i v e d as being under the i n d i v i d u a l ' s control regardless of the perceived s t a b i l i t y of the cause. An 119 i n t e r n a l , unstable, a t t r i b u t e d cause (e.g., e f f o r t ) i s percei v e d to be under the i n d i v i d u a l ' s c o n t r o l , and expectations regarding future performance are determined by consideration as to how much e f f o r t the i n d i v i d u a l w i l l choose to exert i n fut u r e performances. An i n t e r n a l , s t a b l e . a t t r i b u t e d cause (e.g., a b i l i t y ) may, however, a l s o be perceived as being under the control of the i n d i v i d u a l . Thus a b i l i t y , although a "stable", factor, may well be perceived as being under the individual's control i n future s i t u a t i o n s . Some i n t e r n a l , stable, causal factors w i l l also, t y p i c a l l y , be perceived as being beyond the control of the i n d i v i d u a l (e.g. i n t e l l i g e n c e ) . Attributions to causal factors of t h i s type would be equivalent to at t r i b u t i o n s to external factors i n so far as expectations are concerned. A s t a b l e i n t e r n a l c a u s a l f a c t o r may, t h e r e f o r e , be per c e i v e d by an i n d i v i d u a l as being under h i s / h e r own v o l i t i o n a l c o n t r o l . In such a case, f u t u r e performance expectations w i l l be determined by the i n d i v i d u a l ' s consideration df how t h i s v o l i t i o n a l control w i l l be exercised in the future, not by the " s t a b i l i t y " of the factor. The present data support a model which proposes that both locus and s t a b i l i t y are related to perceived control of causal f a c t o r s . Locus, i n t h i s model, represents a fundamental dimension of attributions because only a t t r i b u t i o n s to i n t e r n a l causes are perceived 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 by the i n d i v i d u a l . The r e l a t i o n s h i p between " s t a b i l i t y " and 120 c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y i s more complicated since either type of cause, stable or unstable, may be viewed as being controllable by an in d i v i d u a l , provided that i t i s i n t e r n a l . There i s , c l e a r l y , a need for further investigation of these relationships. The Process of Causal A t t r i b u t i o n In the present study expectations of future performance were more cl o s e l y related to the causal a t t r i b u t i o n s subjects employed i n predicting t h e i r i n i t i a l performance outcome than to the type of causal a t t r i b u t i o n s they employed i n explaining that i n i t i a l performance a f t e r i t had occurred. These results suggest that conclusions which are based upon data related to any single event may be misleading. Data pertaining to any ar b i t r a r y event, within a process, are not a r e l i a b l e basis for subsequent g e n e r a l i z a t i o n from the event to the process. Individuals do not experience "single i s o l a t e d events". Their attributions regarding a single event are not i s o l a t e d from previous events and t h e i r a t t r i b u t i o n s about those previous events.. When the a t t r i b u t i o n process i s conceptualized as a series of related events and a t t r i b u t i o n s , where and how often within the series measurements are taken becomes an important issue i n determining the v a l i d i t y of data c o l l e c t e d . The view of causal at t r i b u t i o n s as ongoing processes i s contradictory to suggestions that a t t r i b u t i o n s occur only when they are " t r i g g e r e d " by the occurrence of an "unexpected" event (Pyzsezinski & Greenberg, 1981; Ruble, 1973; Wong & Weiner, 1981). 121 I t i s contended here that causal a t t r i b u t i o n s are a component of an ongoing c o g n i t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g system, which "matches" various s t i m u l i (input from the sensory system) with an existent complex of cognitive structures. This i s believed to be an ongoing process which occurs outside of the focus of conscious a t t e n t i o n much of the time. An "unexpected" event ( i . e . , an event which does not assimilate rea d i l y into an e x i s t i n g dominant cognitive schema) results i n an i n d i v i d u a l becoming "aware" of i t s occurrence. In suggesting that i n d i v i d u a l s become "aware" of the occurrence of t h i s process, i t i s not implied that they are aware of "how i t occurs", only that i t i s occurring. The process continues to operate automatically in the sense that i t i s not " c o n t r o l l e d " by the i n d i v i d u a l ( S h i f f r i n & Schneider, 1977). That i s , awareness of i t s occurrence i s not synonymous with awareness of how the process i t s e l f operates. The l a t t e r requires what i s termed "meta-cognition" by some authors (e.g., Brown, 1977; Meichenbaum & Asarnow, 1979). It i s suggested that the impact of an "unexpected" event i s an "attention s h i f t " r e s u l t i n g in increased awareness of an  already occurring process rather than the sudden i n s t i g a t i o n of one which was previously not occurring. A s i m i l a r "attention s h i f t " can be produced by the investigators inquiry as to the perceived cause of an event. 122 LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This investigation attempted to provide a more "natural" experimental environment than many previous a t t r i b u t i o n studies. The hypotheses necessitated a design which allowed dependent measures to be taken within the t r a i n i n g environment and then repeated i n a contrasting more natural "everyday" setting. However, as indicated e a r l i e r , the r e l a t i v e l y b r i e f period (four weeks) of time between the f i n a l t r a i n i n g session and the follow-up measure, and the existence of a number of s i m i l a r i t i e s between the two performance s i t u a t i o n s , r a i s e questions about the degree to which subjects a c t u a l l y perceived them as being unrelated. Subjects' at t r i b u t i o n s about t h e i r own performance were examined i n a r e l a t i v e l y uncontrolled s i t u a t i o n designed to simulate a " r e a l " task which was relevant to t h e i r everyday l i v e s . There were few l i m i t a t i o n s upon t h e i r freedom of action within the performance s i t u a t i o n . However, a simulation no matter how r e a l i s t i c , i s not the same as "r e a l l i f e " and the results obtained suggest that the a r t i f i c i a l nature of the experimental s i t u a t i o n may have been a cue f o r a t t r i b u t i n g causality to the t r a i n i n g program i t s e l f . A major problem area for investigations of t h i s kind i s the d i f f i c u l t y of assessing causal at t r i b u t i o n s i n an unobtrusive manner. In t h i s investigation subjects were asked to select from descriptions of a t t r i b u t i o n categories which described 123 each of the u n d e r l y i n g dimensions of i n t e r e s t r a t h e r than asking them to choose from examples of a c t u a l c a u s a l at t r i b u t i o n s which were previously categorized by dimension. This procedure helped to avoid the p o s s i b i l i t y of d i f f e r e n t subjects perceiving the same causal factor (e.g. luck) as being at d i f f e r e n t extremes of a single underlying dimension (e.g. s t a b i l i t y ) . However, t h i s approach does not overcome the problem inherent i n presenting them with a choice i n the f i r s t p l a c e . P r o v i d i n g subjects with a choice between p o s s i b l e causes r i s k s the p o s s i b i l i t y that they may be influenced to consider, causal explanations that would not have occurred to them in more "natural" circumstances. F i n a l l y , the fact that the f i r s t two t r a i n i n g sessions for the Experimental Training Group were longer than those of the T r a d i t i o n a l T r a i n i n g Group c o n t r i b u t e d another element of uncertainty to t h i s study. While there i s no r e a d i l y apparent reason for assuming that t h i s additional time was a major f a c t o r i n determining the present f i n d i n g s , f u t u r e investigations should attempt to control t h i s v a r i a t i o n . This could be accomplished by the i n c l u d i n g a d d i t o n a l r e l e v a n t material to T r a d i t i o n a l Training Program to standardize the length of a l l t r a i n i n g sessions. A future design should also consider the addition of t h i r d non-training ("control" ) group which would meet for the same number of sessions (of equal duration) as the t r a i n i n g groups, but would not be presented materials relevant to the content of either the T r a d i t i o n a l or Experimental Training Programs. It i s not clear how great an impact these methodological shortcomings had on the present study. However, they do res u l t in l i m i t a t i o n s on the g e n e r a l i z e a b i l i t y of the findings and emphasize the need for further investigation. IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH This study was a p r e l i m i n a r y e x p l o r a t i o n of the effectiveness of an experimental t r a i n i n g program, and of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s amongst v a r i o u s c o g n i t i v e v a r i a b l e s and performance outcome. Implications for further research can be d i v i d e d i n t o three general areas, research methodology, behavior change programs, and theory. Methodology The results and l i m i t a t i o n s of the present study suggest that f u t u r e research should attempt to assess s u b j e c t s ' a t t r i b u t i o n s i n n a t u r a l l y o c c u r r i n g s i t u a t i o n s , and should attempt to develop unobtrusive assessment techniques such as structured interviews in attempting to i d e n t i f y the nature of the a t t r i b u t i o n s that subjects employ. It i s also evident that measures should be taken on more than one occasion i n order to detect and i d e n t i f y the r e l a t i o n s h i p between past, present and future a t t r i b u t i o n s regarding related issues. 125 Behavior Change Programs Further research i s r e q u i r e d to i n c r e a s e the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of the present findings. One thrust of such research would be to extend the present study by employing multiple dependent variables derived from subjects' day to day "job related" a c t i v i t i e s . These variables could be measured unobtrusively within the i n d i v i d u a l s ' actual work set t i n g . For example, i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of " r e a l " negotiation a c t i v i t i e s which subjects engage i n during t h e i r regular work routines would be used as one of the dependent variables i n a future r e p l i c a t i o n of the current study. A second d i r e c t i o n f o r future research i n t h i s area would be to evaluate the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of i n c o r p o r a t i n g the a t t r i b u t i o n structuring procedures employed i n t h i s study into a variety of e x i s t i n g "change programs" including management and other s k i l l t r a i n i n g a c t i v i t i e s . Theory Further research defining the nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p among the construct "General Performance Orientation", causal a t t r i b u t i o n processes, and s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n a l cues such as "unexpected outcome" i s required. A second focus of research in t h i s area should be the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and elaboration of the r o l e played by s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s , other than expectation - performance congruency, which may disrupt and/or cue s p e c i f i c cognitive processes and structures. The role that 126 other i n t e r n a l processes such as emotion p l a y i n these relationships i s another area which needs to be examined. F i n a l l y , i t i s r e i t e r a t e d that the present investigation was undertaken with the intent to further the integration of behavioral and cognitive t h e o r e t i c a l models as the most f e r t i l e approach for studying behavior change. The r e s u l t s obtained here are seen as being supportive of t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e . However, many of the constructs and concepts which are current in c l i n i c a l cognitive-behavioral theory are related to and/or derived from constructs employed i n the l i t e r a t u r e of other areas such as s o c i a l psychology, personality, l i n g u i s t i c s and information processing. The d i f f i c u l t y of overcoming the lack of c l a r i t y i n terminology i s a major impediment to the integration of e x i s t i n g research, and i t lends legitimacy to the claims of those c r i t i c s who suggest that there i s a corresponding conceptual " f u z z i n e s s " amongst c o g n i t i v e -behavioral theorists generally. If the cognitive-behavioral approach i s to f u l f i l l i t s early promise and avoid becoming simply another detour into the morass of populist "mentalism", i t i s imperative that f u t u r e i n v e s t i g a t i o n s place great emphasis on establishing research questions and procedures i n very p r e c i s e l y d e f i n e d terminology. I t w i l l be a major challenge for future investigations to accomplish t h i s goal while, at the same time, avoiding a process of reductionism that s a c r i f i c e s the meaningfulness of the phenomena of int e r e s t . 127 REFERENCES Abrahamson, L. Y.; Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned h e l p l e s s n e s s i n humans: C r i t i q u e and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49-74. Alker, H. (1972). Is personality s i t u a t i o n a l l y s p e c i f i c or 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 causal structure of situa t i o n s : The generation of p l a u s i b l e c ausal 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 of event s i t u a t i o n . J o u r n a l of  Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 393-407. Anderson, C. A. (1983b). Abstract and concrete data in the perseverence of s o c i a l theories: When weak data leads to unshakeable b e l i e f s . J o u r n a l of Experimental S o c i a l  Psychology, 19, 93-108. Anderson, C. A. (1983c). Motivational and performance d e f i c i t s in interpersonal settings: The eff e c t s of a t t r i b u t i o n a l s t y l e . The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1136-1147. Anderson, C. A., & Jennings, D. L. (1980). When experiences of f a i l u r e promote expectations of success: The impact of at t r i b u t i n g f a i l u r e to i n e f f e c t i v e strategies. Journal of  Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 393-407. Andrews, G. R., & Debus, R. L., (1978). Persistence and causal perception of f a i l u r e : Modifying cognitive a t t r i b u t i o n s . Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 154-166. A r i e t i , S. (1980). Cognition and psychoanalysis. Journal of  the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, 8, 3-23. A v e r i l l , J. A. (1979). A se l e c t i v e review of cognitive and behavioral factors involved i n the regulation of stress. In R. Depue (Ed.). The psychobiology of depressive  disorders: Implications f o r the effects of stress. New York: Academic Press. Ayllon, T., & Azrin, N. (1968). The token economy. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Baars, B. J. (1986). The cognitive revolution i n psychology. New York: Guildford Press. Baer, D. (1962). Laboratory c o n t r o l of thumb sucking by withdrawal and re-presentation of reinforcement. Journal  of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 5., 525-528. 128 Bandura, A. (1969). P r i n c i p l e s of behavior modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Bandura, A. (1971). Vicarious and self-reinforcement processes. In R. Glaser (Ed.), The nature of reinforcement. New York: Academic Press. Bandura, A. (1977a). Social learning theory. Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: Prentice H a l l . Bandura, A. (1977b). S e l f - e f f i c a c y : Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. Bandura, A. (1978). The self-system i n r e c i p r o c a l determinism. American Psychologist, 33, 344-358. Bandura, A. (1982). S e l f - e f f i c a c y mechanism i n human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147. Bandura, A. (1984). Recycling misconceptions of perceived s e l f -e f f i c a c y . Cognitive Therapy and Research. 8, 231-255. Bandura, A., Adams, N. E., & Bayer, J. (1977). Cognitive processes mediating b e h a v i o r a l change. Jo u r n a l of  Personality and Social 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. Cognitive 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 interest through proximal s e l f motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 586-598. Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1963). Social learning and  p e r s o n a l i t y development. New York: H o l t , Reinhart and Winston. Bar-Tal, D., & Frieze, I. (1976). Achievement motivation and gender as determinants of at t r i b u t i o n s for success and f a i l u r e . In J. H. Harvey, W. J. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions i n a t t r i b u t i o n research. Vol. 1, New York: John Wiley and Sons. Battle, E., & Rotter, J. B. (1963). Children's feelings of personal control as related to s o c i a l class and ethnic group. Journal of Personality, 31, 482-490. Baumgardner, B. I., Kepner, P., & Arkin, R. M. (1986). Role of causal a t t r i b u t i o n i n personal problem solving. Journal  of Personality and Social Psychology. 50., 636-643. 129 Beck, A. T. (1976). C o g n i t i v e therapy and the emotional  disorders. New York: International U n i v e r s i t i e s Press. Beck, A. T. (1985). C o g n i t i v e therapy, behavior therapy, pschoanalysis and pharmocatherapy: A cognitive continuum. In M. J . Mahoney & A. Freeman (Eds.), C o g n i t i o n and  psychotherapy. New York: Plenum Press. Beck, A. T. , & Rush, A. J. (1978). Cognitive approaches to depression and suicide. In G.B. Serbon (Ed.), Cognitive  defecits in the development of mental disorders. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Beck, A. T., Rush, A. J., Shaw, B., & Emery, G. (1979). The  cognitive therapy of depression. New York: Guildford Press. Bern, D. J. (1965 ). An experimental examination of s e l f -persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 199-218. y Bern, D. J . (1972a). C o n s t r u c t i n g c r o s s - s i t u a t i o n a l c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n behavior: Some thoughts on A l k e r ' s c r i t i q u e of Mischel. Journal of Personality. 40, 17-26. Bern, D. J. (1972b). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental s o c i a l psychology. (Vol. 6) New York: Academic Press. Biram, M., & Wilson, G. T. (1981). Cognitive versus behavioral methods i n treatment of phobic disorders: A s e l f - e f f i c a c y analysis. Journal of Consulting 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 cognition. In O.C. Anderson & J.G. Borkowski (Eds.), Experimental psychology: Research t a c t i c s and t h e i r  applications. Champaign, 111: Scott-Foresman. Bower, G. H. (1978). Contacts of cognitive psychology with s o c i a l learning theory. Cognitive Therapy and Research, .2, 123-146. Brody, N. (1971). Information theory, 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. Schroeder & P. Suedfeld (Eds.), Personality theory and information processing. New York: Ronald Press. Brown, A. L. (1977). Development, schooling and the aq u i s i t i o n of knowledge about knowledge. In R. Anderson, R. Spiro, & W. Montagne (Eds.), Schooling and the a q u i s i t i o n of  knowledge. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 130 Brown, I. J r . , & Inyoue, D. K. (1978). Learned helplessness through modelling: The role of perceived s i m i l a r i t y i n competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 900-908. Brunson, B. I., & Matthews, K. A. (1981). The type A coronary-prone behavior pattern and reactions to uncontrollable stress: An analysis of performance strategies, a f f e c t and 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, 40, 906-918. Campbell, P. T., & Stanley, S. C. (1966). Experimental and  quasi-experimental designs for research. 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 defensive bias i n a t t r i b u t i o n among two categories of observers. Personality and Social 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 , strategy and e f f o r t a t t r i b u t i o n s for educational, business and a t h l e t i c performance. B r i t i s h Journal of Educational Psychology. 56, 169-179. Craighead, W. P. (1982). A b r i e f c l i n i c a l h istory of cognitive-b e h a v i o r a l therapy with c h i l d r e n . School Psychology  Review, 11, 5-13. Crandall, V. C. (1969). Sex differences i n expectancy of i n t e l l e c t u a l and academic reinforcement. In C. P. Smith (Ed.), Achievement motives i n children. New York: Russell Sage. Crandall, V. C , Katcorsky, W. , & Crandall, V. J. (1965). Childrens' b e l i e f i n t h e i r control of reinforcements i n i n t e l l e c t u a l academic achievement behaviors. C h i l d  Development, 36, 101-109. Davison, C. (1966). D i f f e r e n t i a l reinforcement and cognitive restructuring i n therapy with a "paranoid schizophrenic" or "paranoid" s t a t e . Proceedings of the 74th annual  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 . 1 (Summary) 177-178 . Deaux, K., & Emswiller, T. (1974). Explanations of successful performance on sex linked tasks: What i s s k i l l f or the male i s luck for the female. Journal of Personality and  Social 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 for one's own performance: The e f f e c t s of sex. Journal of Research  in Personality, 11, 59-72. 131 de Charms, R. (1972). Personal causation t r a i n i n g in schools. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2, 95-113. Dobson, K., Jacobson, N., & Victor, J. (1988). Towards an integration of cognitive therapy and cognitive-behavioral marital therapy for depression. In J. Clark, G. Haas, & I. G l i c k (Eds.), Family v a r i a b l e s and i n t e r v e n t i o n i n  a f f e c t i v e disorders. New York: Guildford Press. Ducette, J., Wolk, S., & Soucar, E. (1972). A t y p i c a l pattern i n locus of control and non adaptive behavior. Journal of  Personality, 40, 287-297. Dweck, C. S. (1975). The role of expectations 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 learned helplessness. Journal of  Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 674-685. Dweck, C. S., & Reppuchi, N. D. (1973). Learned helplessness and reinforcement r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n children. Journal of  Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 109-116. D ' z u r i l l a , T. J. (1982). Social problem solving i n adults. In P. C. Kendall (Ed.), Advances i n cognitive-behavioral  research and therapy. New York: Academic Press. D ' z u r i l l a , T. J . (1988). Problem s o l v i n g t h e r a p i e s . In K. Dobson & L. Block (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive-behavioral  therapies. New York: Guildford Press. Eisenhart, C. (1947). The assumptions underlying the analysis of variance. Biometrics, 3, 1-21. E l l i s , A. (1958). Rational psychotherapy. Journal of General  Psychology, 59, 35-49. E l l i s , A. (1962). Reason and emotion i n psychotherapy. New York: Stuart. Endler, N. S. (1973). The person versus the s i t u a t i o n - a psuedo issue: A response to Alker. Journal of Personality, 41, 287-303. Epstein, R. (1986). Bringing cognition and c r e a t i v i t y into the behavioral laboratory. In T. S. Knapp & L. C. Robertson (Eds.), Approaches to c o g n i t i o n : Contrasts and  controversies. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 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. Feidle r , F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw H i l l Book Company. 132 Feidler, K. (1982). Casual schemata: Review and c r i t i c i s m of research on a popular construct. Journal of Personality  and Social Psychology. 42, 1001-1013. F e r s t e r , C. B. , & Skinner, B. F. ( 1957 ). Schedules of  reinforcement. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Finn, J . D. (1974). A general model f o r m u l t i v a r i a b l e  analyses. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 320-321. Foesterling, F., & Engleken, R. (1981). Expectations i n r e l a t i o n to success and f a i l u r e , causal a t t r i b u t i o n s and p e r c e i v e d task s i m i l a r i t y . 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 , 7, 578-582. Fowler, J. W. , & Peterson, P. L. (1981). Increasing reading persistance 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 learned helpless children. Journal of Educational Psychology. 73, 257-260 Frankl, V. E. (1985). Logos, paradox and the search for meaning. In M. J. Mahoney & A. Freeman (Eds.), Cognition  and psycotherapy. New York: Plenum Press. 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 for Social Research. F r i e z e , I., & Weiner, B. (1971). Cue u t i l i z a t i o n and a t t r i b u t i o n a l judgments for success and f a i l u r e . Journal  of Personality, 39, 591-606. Gaito, J. (1980). Measurement scales and s t a t i s t i c s : Resurgence of an old misconception. Psychological B u l l e t i n . 87, 564-567 . G i l o v i c h , T. (1983). Biased 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. Journal of Personality 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 underlying the fixed e f f e c t s analysis of variance and covariance. Review  of Educational Research, 42, 237-287. Goldfried, M. P., & Robins, R. (1983). Self schema, cognitive bias and the processing of therapeutic experience. In P. Kendall (Ed.), Advances i n cognitive behavioral research  in therapy (Vol. 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 locus of control following p o l i t i c a l disappointment. Psychological  Report, 23, 1094. 133 Greenberg, M. S., Saxe, L. , & Bar-Tal, D. (1978). Perceived s t a b i l i t y of t r a i t l a b e l 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 , 4, 59-62. Gurin, P., Gurin, G., Lao, R. C., & B e a t t i e , M. (1969). Internal-external control i n the motivational dynamics of negro youth. Journal of Social Issues, 25., 29-53. H a l l , S. M. , & H a l l , R. G. (1974). Outcome and methodological c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n b e h a v i o r a l treatment of o b e s i t y . Behavior Therapy, 5., 352-364. Hamilton, V. (1979). An information processing approach to neurotic anxiety and the schizophrenias. In V. Hamilton & D. M. Warburton (Eds.), Human stress and cogniton: An  information processing approach. Chichester, Eng.: Wiley. Hamilton, V. (1980). An information processing analysis of environmental stress and l i f e c r i s e s . In I. G. Sarason & C. D. Spielberger, (Eds.) Stess and anxiety (Vol. 2). Washington, D.C: Hemisphere. Hansen, R. D. (1980). Commonsense a t t r i b u t i o n s . Journal of  Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 996-1009. Haring, N. G, L o v i t t , T. C , Eaton, M. D., & Hansen, C. L. (1978). The force R: Research i n the classroom. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. M e r r i l l . Harvey, J. M. (1971). Locus of control i n the administrator. Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s , 33, 980-982. Harvey, J. H., Ickes, W. J., & Kidd, R. F. (Eds.). (1976). New  directions i n a t t r i b u t i o n research (Vol. 1). New York: John Wiley and Sons. Harvey, J . H., & Weary, G. (1984). Current i s s u e s i n a t t r i b u t i o n theory and research. American Review of  Psychology, 31, 457-501. Hastie, R. (1981). Schematic p r i n c i p l e s i n human memory. In E. Higgins, C. Herman & M. Zanna (Eds.), Social cognition:  The Ontario symposium. H i l l s d a l e , N.J. Hastorf, A., Schneider, D., & P o l e f k a , J . (1970). Person  perception. Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley. Heckhausen, H., & Weiner, B. (1972). The emergence of a c o g n i t i v e psychology of m o t i v a t i o n . In R. C. Dodwell (Ed.), New horizons i n psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Penguin Books, Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal r e l a t i o n s . New York: John Wiley and Sons. 134 Holzman, P. S., & Gardiner, R. W. (1959). L e v e l i n g and repression. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 59, 151-155. Holzman, P. S., & Gardiner, R. W. (1960). Leveling-sharpening and memory organization. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61, 176-180. Hotzworth-Munroe, A., & Jacobson, N. S. (1985). Causal att r i b u t i o n s of married couples: When they search f o r causes? What do they conclude when they do? Journal of  Personality and Social Psychology, 48. 1398-1412. Hummel, T. J., & Sligo, J.R. (1971). Empirical comparison of u n i v a r i a t e and m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s of varianc e procedures. Psychological B u l l l e t i n , 76 (1), 49-57. Jacobson, N. (1984). The modification of cognitive processes in behavioral marital therapy: Integrating cognitive and behavioral intervention stratagies. In K. Halvig & N. Jacobson (Eds.), M a r i t a l i n t e r a c t i o n : A n a l y s i s and  modification. New York: Guildford Press. James, W. H. (1957). I n t e r n a l versus e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l of reinforcement as a basic variable in learning theory. 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 , ( U n i v e r s i t y Microfilms, No. 57-3742) Jeffery, D. B. (1974). A comparison of the ef f e c t s of external control and s e l f control on modification and maintenence of weight. Journal 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 to i n e f f e c t i v e s t r a t e g i e s . D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s  International, 40, 5461-B. (University Microfilms, No. 80-11654.) Jennings, D., Amabile, T. M. , & Ross, L. (1980). Informal c o v a r i a t i o n assessment: Data based vs. theory based judgements. In D. Kahmeman, P. S l o v i c , & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heurestics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press. Jennings, D. L., Leper, M. R., & Ross, L. (1981). Persistence of impressions of personal persuasiveness: Perseverence of erroneous s e l f assessments outside of the d e - b r i e f i n g paradigm. Personality and Social Psychology B u l l e t i n . 1_, 257-263 Kahnmen, D., & Tversky, A. ( 1973 ). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80, 237-251. 135 Kanfer, F. H. (1970). S e l f - m o n i t o r i n g : Methodological l i m i t a t i o n s and c l i n i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n s . J o u r n a l of  Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 35, 148-152. Kanfer, F. H. (1971). The maintenance of behavior by s e l f -generated s t i m u l i and reinforcement. In M. A. Jacobs & L. Sachs (Eds.), The psychology of private events. New York: Academic Press, 39-57. Kanfer, F. H. (1975). Self-management methods. In F. H Kanfer & A. P. Goldstein (Eds.), Helping people change. New York: Pergamon Press. Kanfer, F. H. (1977). The many faces of s e l f control, or behavior modification changes i t s focus. In R. Stuart (Ed.), Behavioral 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. S t o l t e n b e r g (Eds.), I n t e r f a c e s i n  psychology (Vol. 2) Lubboc, Texas: Texas Tech University Press. Kanfer, F. H. , & Hagerman, S. (1981). The role of s e l f -regulation. In L. P. Rehm (Ed.), Behavior therapy for  depression: Present 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 Press. Kanfer, F. H., & Karoly, P. (1972). S e l f - c o n t r o l : 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 the l i o n s den. Behavior  Therapy. 3, 398-416. Kanfer, F. H. , & Scheft, B. K. (1987). Self-management therapy in c l i n i c a l p r a c t i c e . In N. S. Jacobson (Ed.), Psychotherapies i n c l i n i c a l p ractice. New York: Guildford Press. Kelley, 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 motivation. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press. Kelley, H. H. (1971). A t t r i b u t i o n in s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . New York: General Learning Press. K e l l e y , H. H. (1972). Causal schemata and the a t t r i b u t i o n  process. New York: General Learning Press. Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal a t t r i b u t i o n . American Psychologist, 28, 107-128. Kelley, H. H. (1983). Epilogue: Perceived causal structures. In J . Jaspars, F. Fincham, & F. Hewstone (Eds.), A t t r i b u t i o n theory and research: Conceptual, 136 developmental, and s o c i a l dimensions. London: Academic Press. Kelley, H. H. , & Michela, J. L. (1980). A t t r i b u t i o n theory and research. American Review of Psychology, 31, 457-501. Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, 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 : Three processes of a t t i t u d e change. Journal of C o n f l i c t Resolution, 2, 51-60. Kelman, H. C. (1961). Process of opinion change. Public Opinion  Quarterly, 25, 57-58. Kelman, H. C. (1974). Further thoughts on the processes of compliance, 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 . Tedeschi, (Ed.), Perspectives on s o c i a l power. Chicago: Aldine Press. Ke n d a l l , P. C. (1983). Advances i n c o g n i t i v e b e h a v i o r a l  research in therapy (vol. I I ) . New York: Academic Press. Ke n d a l l , P., & H o l l o n , S. (1979). C o g n i t i v e b e h a v i o r a l  interventions: Theory, research and procedures. New York: Academic Press. Kendler, H. H. (1974). The making of a neo-behaviorist. In T. S. Krawiec (Ed.), The psychologists. New York: Oxford University Press. Kendler, H. H. (1981). Psychology: A science i n c o n f l i c t . New York: Oxford University Press. Kendler, H. H. (1985). Behaviorism and Psychology: An uneasy a l l i a n c e . In S. Koch & D. Leary (Eds.), A century of ^psychology as a science. New York: McGraw-Hill. Klein, E. B., & Fontance, A. J. (1968). Self presentation and' the 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 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 Associates. Kukla, A. (1972). A t t r i b u t i o n a l determinants of achievement r e l a t e d behavior. 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, 21, 166-174. Kun, A., & Weiner, B. (1973). Necessary versus s u f f i c i e n t c a usal schemata f o r success and f a i l u r e . J o u r n a l of  Research in Personality, 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 psychology and i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g : An 137 introduction. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum. Lao, R. C. (1970). Internal-external control and competent and innovative behavior among negro college students. Journal  of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 263-270. Lau, R. R. , & Russel, D. (1980). Attributions i n the sports pages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 29-38. Lazarus, A. A. (1961). Group therapy of phobic disorders by systematic desensitization. Journal of Abnormal and Social  Psychology, 62, 504-510. Ledwidge, B. (1978). Cognitive behavior modification: A step i n the wrong direction? Psychological B u l l e t i n , 85, 353-375. Ledwidge, B. (1979). C o g n i t i v e behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n : A rejoinder to Locke and to Meichenbaum. Cognitive Therapy  and Research. 3., 133-139. Lefcourt, H. M. (1966). Internal verus external control of reinforcements: A review. Psychological B u l l e t i n , 65., 206-220. Lefcourt, H. M. (1975). Causal a t t r i b u t i o n s as a function of locus of c o n t r o l , i n i t i a l confidence, and performance outcomes. Journal of Personality and So c i a l Psychology. 32, 391-397. Lefcourt, H. M. (1976). Locus of control: Current trends i n  theory and research. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Lindsley, 0. R. (1956). Operant conditioning methods applied to  research in chronic schizophrenia. (Psychiatric Research Reports #5). Washington, D.C.: American P s y c h i a t r i c Association. Locke, E. A. (1979). Behavior modification i s not cognitive and other myths: A reply to Ledwidge. Cognitive Therapy and  Research, 3, 119-126. Lord, F. M. (1958). On the s t a t i s t i c a l treatment of f o o t b a l l numbers. American Psychologist, 8, 750-751. Lovass, 0. I. (1966). A behavior therapy approach to the treatment of childhood schizophrenia. In M. J. P. H i l l (Ed.), Minnesota symposium on c h i l d psychology (Vol.1). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Lunney, G. H. (1970). Using a n a l y s i s of varian c e with a dichotomous dependent v a r i a b l e : An e m p i r i c a l study. Journal of Educational Measurement, 7, 263-269. 138 Mahoney, M. J. (1974). Cognition and behavior modification. Cambridge, Mass.: Ball i n g e r . Mahoney, M. J . (1977). On the c o n t i n u i n g r e s i s t a n c e to thoughtful therapy. Behavior Therapy, 8, 673-677. Mahoney, M. J . (1985). Psychotherapy and human change processes. In M. J . Mahoney, & A. Freeman (Eds.), Cognition and psychotherapy. New York: Plenum Press, 3-48. Mahoney, M. J., & Kazdin, A. E. (1979). Cognitive behavior modification: The need f o r a f a i r e r assessment. Cognitive  Therapy and Research, 3., 127-132. Marascuilo, 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 the s o c i a l s c i e n c e s . Monterey: Brooks/Cole. Marston, H. R., & McFall, R. M. (1974) A comparison of behavior modification approaches to smoking reduction. Journal of  Consulting 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 well i n New Haven. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 316-318. McArthur, L. A. ( 1972 ). The how and what of why: Some determinants and consequences of c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 22, 171-193. McFarland, C , & Ross, M. (1982). Impact of causal a t t r i b u t i o n s on a f f e c t i v e reactions to success and f a i l u r e . Journal of  Personality and Social Psychology, 43. 937-946. McMahan, J. (1973). Relationships between causal a t t r i b u t i o n s and expectancy of success. Journal of Personality and  Social Psychology, 28, 108-114. McMullan, R., & Gi l e s , D. (1981). Cognitive-behavior therapy:  A restructuring approach. New York: Greene & Stratton. 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 children's a t t r i b u t i o n s and task persistance. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 1, 26-34. Meichenbaum, D. (1971). C o g n i t i v e f a c t o r s i n behavior  m o d i f i c a t i o n . (Research Report #25). Department of Psychology, U n i v e r s i t y of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ont. , Canada. Meichenbaum, D. (1974). C o g n i t i v e behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n . Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press. 139 Meichenbaum, D. (1975). Toward a c o g n i t i v e theory of s e l f control. In G. Schwartz & D. Shapiro (Eds.), Consciousness  and s e l f - r e g u l a t i o n : Advances i n research. New York: Plenum Press. Meichenbaum, D. (1977). Cognitive behavior modification: An  integrative approach. New York: Plenum. Meichenbaum, D. (1979). Cognitive behavior modification: The need f o r a f u r t h e r assessment. C o g n i t i v e Therapy and  Research, 3, 127-132. Meichenbaum, D. (1985). Stress inoculation therapy. New York: Pergammon Press. Meichenbaum, D., & Asarnow, J . (1979). C o g n i t i v e behavior modification and meta-cognitive development: Implications for the classroom. In P.C. Kendall & S. D. Hollen (Eds.), Cognitive - behavioral interventions: Theory and research. New York: Academic Press. Meichenbaum, D., Butler, L., & Gruson, L. (1981). Toward a conceptual model of s o c i a l competence. In J.D. Wine & M. D. Smye (Eds.), Social competence, New York: Guildford Press. Meichenbaum, D., & Gilmore, J. B. (1984). The nature of unconscious processes: A cognitive-behavioral approach. In D. Meichenbaum & K. Bowers (Eds.), The unconscious  r e v i s i t e d . New York: John Wiley & Sons. Merluzzi, T. V., Rudy, T. E., & Glass, C. R. (1981). The information processing paradigm: Implications for c l i n i c a l science. In T. Merluzzi, C. Glass & M. Genest (Eds.), Cognitive assessment. New York: Guildford Press. 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. S t r a t e g i e s f o r c o g n i t i v e b e h a v i o r a l  interventions. New York: Academic Press. Meyer, J . P. (1978). Dimensions of causal a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r success 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 . 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 Western Ontario, 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). Causal a t t r i b u t i o n s of success and f a i l u r e : A multivariate investigation of dimensionality formation and consequences. Journal of Personality and  Social Psychology, 38, 704-718. 140 Meyer, J. P., & Koelbel, S. L. M. (1982). Dimensionality of students causal a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r t e s t performance. Personality and Social Psychology B u l l e t i n , 8, 3-36. Michela, J. L. , Peplau, M. , & Weeks, J. (1979). Percieved dimensions and consequences of a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r l o n e l i n e s s . Unpublished Manuscript, U n i v e r s i t y 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 at t r i b u t i o n s f or success and f a i l u r e . Journal of Personality and Social  Psychology, 34, 901-906. M i l l e r , N. E. Learnable drives and rewards. (1951). In S. S. Stevens (Ed.), Handbook of experimental psychology. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 435-472. Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Mischel, W. , Zeiss, R., & Zeiss, A. (1974). Internal-external control and persistance: Validation and implications of the Stanford Preschool Internal-external Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 265-278. Mi 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 a t t r i b u t i o n a l analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human  Performance, 18, 254-268. Montanelli, D. S., & H i l l , K. T. (1969). Childrens' achievement expectations and performance as a f u n c t i o n of two consecutive reinforcement experiences, sex of subjects, and sex of experimentor. Journal of Personality and Social  Psychology. 13, 115-128. Neimeyer, G. J., & Neimeyer, R. A. (1981). Personal construct perspectives i n cognitive assessment. In M.T. Merluzzi, C. K. Glass & M. Genest (Eds.), Cognitive assessment. New York: Guildford Press, 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. S p e i l b e r g e r (Eds.), S tress and Anxiety ( V o l . 7). Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere. Nezu, A. (1982). E f f i c a c y of problem s o l v i n g therapy f o r unipolar depression. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l  Psychology, 54, 185-203. Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies  and shortcomings of s o c i a l judgement. Engelwood C l i f f s , New Jersey: Prentice H a l l . 141 Nisbett, R. E., & Schacter, S. (1969). Cognitive manipulation of pain. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2, 115-128. Palmer, S. E., & Kinchi, R. (1986). The information processing approach to cognition. In T. Knapp & L. C. Robertson (Eds.), Approaches to cogniton: 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 Associates. Passer, M. W. (1977). Perceiving the causes of success and f a i l u r e r e v i s i t e d : A multi-dimensional sc a l i n g approach. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of C a l i f o r n i a , 1977). Dissertation Abstracts International, 38, 5652B. Paul, G. L. (1966). Insight vs. desensitization i n psychology. Stanford, C a l i f . : Stanford University Press. Phares, E. J . (1973). Locus of c o n t r o l : A p e r s o n a l i t y  determinant of behavior. Morristown, New Jersey: General Learning Press. Pondy, R. L. (1967). Organizational c o n f l i c t : Concepts and models. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12121, 296-320. Premack, D. (1965). Reinforcement theory. In D. Levine (Ed.). Nebraska symposium on moti v a t i o n (1965). L i n c o l n , Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 123-180. Pyzsezinski, T., & Greenberg, J. (1981). Role of disconfirmed expectations i n the i n s t i g a t i o n of a t t r i b u t i o n a l processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 40, 31-88. Rac h l i n , H. (1977a). R e i n f o r c i n g and punishing thoughts. Behavior Therapy, 8, 659-665. Rachlin, H. (1977b). Reinforcing and punishing thoughts: A rejoinder to Mahoney and E l l i s . Behavior Therapy. 8, 678-681. Rachlin H. (1986). A defense of r a d i c a l behaviorism. In B. Baars (Ed.), The Cognitive Revolution i n Psychology. New York: The Guildford Press. Rachman, S. (1971). The e f f e c t s of psychotherapy. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Raven, B. H. ( 1974). Power and power p r e f e r e n c e . In J . Tedeschi, (Ed.), Perspectives on s o c i a l power. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. 142 Raven, B. H., & K r u g l a n s k i , A. w. ( 1 9 7 0 ) . C o n f l i c t and power. In P. Swingle (Ed.). The structure of c o n f l i c t . New York: Academic Press. Rehm, L., & Rokke, P. (1988). Self-management therapies. In K. Dobson & L. Block (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive behavioral  therapies. New York: Guildford Press. Rehm, L. P. ( 1 9 7 5 ) . A s e l f - c o n t r o l model of depression. Unpublished manuscript. U n i v e r s i t y of P i t t s b u r g h , Pittsburgh. Reid, D., & Ware, E. E. (1973) . Multidimensionality of locus of control: Implications for past and future research. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 5_, 264-271. Reid, D., & Ware, E. E. (1974) . Multidimensionality of locus of c o n t r o l : A d d i t i o n of a t h i r d dimension and non-d i s t i n c t i o n of s e l f versus others. Canadian Journal of  Behavioral Science, 6, 131-142. Reeder, G. D., & Brewer, M.B. (1979) . A schematic model of the di s p o s i t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n i n interpersonal perception. Psychological Review, 86, 61-79. Reeder, G. D., & Fulks, J. F. (1980) . When actions speak louder than words: I m p l i c a t i o n a l schemata and the at t r i b u t i o n of a b i l i t y , Journal of Experimental Social  Psychology, 16, 33-46. Remanis, G. (1971). Effects of experimental internal-external modification techniques and home environmental variables on locus of c o n t r o l . Paper presented to American Psychological Association Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C. Renis, D. L. , Hansen, R. D., & O'Leary, V. E. ( 1983 ) . Understanding the meaning of achievement a t t r i b u t i o n s : A test of derived locus and s t a b i l i t y scores. Journal of  Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 702-71. Rest, 'S., Nierenberg, R., Weiner, B., & Heckenhauser, H. ( 1 9 7 3 ) . 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 motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 187-191. Reynolds, W. M., & Stark, K. D. (1983) . Cognitive strategy research: The c l i n i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n of c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g i e s . In M. P r e s s l e y & J . R. Levine (Eds.), Cognitive strategy research: Psychological foundations. New York: Springer-Verlag. Riley, D., Brown, M. F., & Yoerg, S. (1986) . Understanding animal cognition: A short history of cognitive theory i n 143 animal psychology. In T. Knapp & L. C. Robertson (Eds.), Approaches to c o g n i t i o n : 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 Associates. Risely, T. R. (1977). The s o c i a l context of s e l f control. In R. Stuart (Ed.), Behavioral s e l f management. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Rogers, C. (1959). The essence of psychology: A c l i e n t centered view. American Psychological Monographs, 1, 51-57. Rosen, D . , & Stefan, W. E. (1977). When discounting f a i l s : An unexpected finding. Memory and Cognition. 5., 97-102. Rosenbaum, R. W. (1973). A dimensional analysis of perceived causes of success 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). Rosenthal, T. L. (1978). Bandura's s e l f - e f f i c a c y theory: Thought i s father to deed. Advances i n Behavior Research  and Therapy, 2, 203-209. Ross, L. (1981). The " i n t u i t i v e s c i e n t i s t " formulation and i t s developmental i m p l i c a t i o n s . In J . F l a v e l l & L. Ross (Eds.), Social cognitive development. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1980). The perseverence of selves: E m p i r i c a l and normative c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . In A. Shweder (Ed.), New d i r e c t i o n s f o r methodology of s o c i a l and  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 b e h a v i o r a l  research, San Fransico: Jossey-Bass. Ross, L. D., Roding, J., & Zimbardo, P. C. (1969). Toward an a t t r i b u t i v e therapy: The reduction of fear through induced cognitive-emotional r e a t t r i b u t i o n . Journal of Personality  and Social Psychology, 12, 279-288. Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and c l i n i c a l psychology. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 166-167. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for i n t e r n a l versus e x t e r n a l 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). Rotter, J. B. (1975). Some problems and misconceptions related 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 C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l  Psychology, 48, 56-67. 144 Rotter, J. B., Liverant, S., & Crowne, D. P. (1961). The growth and e x t i n c t i o n of expectations i n chance and controlled s k i l l e d tasks. Journal of Psychology. 5, 161-177 . Ruble, 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 c o n f l i c t handling behavior. ( D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , University of C a l i f o r n i a , 1973). Dissertation Abstracts  International, 34, 4409A. Rush, A. J . , & Beck, A. T. ( 1977 ). C o g n i t i v e therapy of depression and suicide. American Journal 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 Association, 52, 331-344. Schopler, J . , & Layton, B. D. (1974). A t t r i b u t i o n s of interpersonal power. In J. Tedeschi (Ed), Perspectives on  s o c i a l power. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. Schunk, D. H. (1984). Sequential a t t r i b u t i o n a l feedback and children's perception of achievement behaviors. Journal  of Educational Psychology, 75, 848-856. Schwartz, R. D., & Higgins, R. L. (1979). D i f f e r e n t i a l outcome from automated assertion t r a i n i n g as a function of locus of control. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 47, 686-699. Schwitter, R. (1986). A coordination 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 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 Associates. Seeman, M. (1963). A l i e n a t i o n and s o c i a l l e a r n i n g i n a reformatory. American Journal of Sociology. 69, 270-284. Seeman, M. , & Evans, J. (1962). Alienation and learning i n a hospital setting. American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. 27., 772-782. S h i f f r i n , R. N., & Schneider, G. (1977). C o n t r o l l e d and automatic information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychological  Review, 84, 127-190. Sicoly, F. , & Ross, M. (1977). F a c i l i t a t i o n of ego biased at t r i b u t i o n s by means of s e l f serving observer feedback. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 35, 734-791. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: McMillan. 145 Skinner, B. F. (1977). Why I am not a cognitive psychologist. Behaviorism, 5, 1-11. Smith, E. E. (1968). Choice reaction time: An analysis of the major t h e o r e t i c a l positions. Psychological B u l l e t i n , 69, 77-110. Sonne, J. L. & Janoff, D. S. (1982). Attributions and the maintennence of behavior change. In C. Antaki & C. Brewin (Eds.), Attributions and Psychological Change. New York Academic Press. Spates, C. R. , & Kanfer, F. H. (1977). Self-monitoring, s e l f -evaluation and self-reinforcement in children's learning: A test of a multi-stage s e l f - r e g u l a t i o n model. Behavior  Therapy, 8, 9-16. Staats, A. W. (1975). Social behaviorism. Homewood, I l l i n o i s : The Dorsey Press. Stephan, W. , & Gollwitzer, P. (1981). Affect as a mediator of a t t r i b u t i o n a l egotism. J o u r n a l of Experimental S o c i a l  Psychology, 17, 442-458. Stephens, M. W., & Delys, P. (1973). E x t e r n a l c o n t r o l expectancies amongst disadvantaged children at preschool age. Child Development, 44, 670-674. Storms, M. D., & Nisbett, R. F. (1970). Insomnia and the a t t r i b u t i v e process. Journal of Personality and Social  Psychology, 16, 319-328. Stuart, R. B. (1969). Operant i n t e r p e r s o n a l treatment of 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 and C l i n i c a l  Psychology, 3, 675-682. Suedfeld, P. (1971). Information processing as a personality model. In H. Schroeder & P. Suedfeld (Eds.), Personality  theory and information processing. New York: Ronald Press. Taylor, S. E., & Crocker, J. (1981). Schematic bases of s o c i a l information processing. In E. T. Higgins, 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 personality and psychology. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum. Tetlock, P. E., & Levi, A. (1982). A t t r i b u t i o n bias: On the i n c o n c l u s i v e n e s s of the c o g n i t i o n - m o t i v a t i o n debate. Journal of Experimental Social 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 organizational  psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally. 146 Turk, D., Meichenbaum, D., & Genest, M. (1983). Pain and  behavioral medicine. New York: Guildford Press. Turk, D., & Speers, M.A. (1983). C o g n i t i v e schemata and cognitive processes i n cognitive behavioral interventions: Going beyond the information given. In P. Kendall (Ed.), Advances in cognitive therapy research (Vol. 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 of  at t r i b u t i o n processes f o r the development of treatment of  emotional disorders. New York: General Learning Press. Va l l e , V. A., & Frieze, I. H. (1976). S t a b i l i t y of causal att r i b u t i o n s as a mediator i n changing expectations f o r success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 33., 579-587 . Walton, R. E. (1969). Interpersonal peacemaking: Confrontations  and t h i r d - p a r t y c o n s u l t a t i o n . Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley . Weiner, B. (1972). Theories of motivation: From mechanism to  cognition. Chicago: Rand McNally. Weiner, B. (1974a). Cognitive views of human motivation. New York: Academic Press. Weiner, B. (1974b). Achievement 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 Learning Press. Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of Educational Psychology. 71, 3-25. Weiner, B. (1980a). A theory of motivation f o r some classroom experiences. In M.D. G o r l i t z (Ed.), P e r s p e c t i v e s on  at t r i b u t i o n research and theory: The B i e l f e l d symposium. Cambridge, Mass.: Ball i n g e r . Weiner, B. (1980b). A cognitive ( a t t r i b u t i o n a l ) - emotion -a c t i o n model of motivated behavior: An a n a l y s i s of judgements of help giving. Journal of Personality and  Social Psychology, 39, 186-200. Weiner, B. (1985). An a t t r i b u t i o n a l theory of achievement motivation 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 motivation and  emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag. Weiner, B., Frieze, I., Kukla, A., Reed, L., Rest, S., & Rosenbaum, R. M. (1971). Perceiving the causes of success  and f a i l u r e . Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press. 147 Weiner, B., Heckenhauser, H. , Meyer, W. V., & Cook, R. E. (1972). Causal a s c r i p t i o n s and achievement behavior: Conceptual analysis of e f f o r t and reanalysis of locus of control. Journal of Personality, 21, 239-248. Weiner, B., & Kukla, A. (1970). An a t t r i b u t i o n a l analysis of achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social  Psychology. 15, 1-7. Weiner, B., Neirenberg, R. & Goldstein, M. (1976). Social learning (locus of control) versus a t t r i b u t i o n a l (causal s t a b i l i t y ) interpretations of expectancy success. Journal  of Personality, 44, 52-68. Weiner, B., & Potepan, P. (1970). a f f e c t i v e r e a c t i o n s towards f a i l i n g c o l l e g e students. Psychology, 72, 144-151. Weiner, B., Russel, D., & Lerman, D. (1978). A f e c t i v e consequences of ca u s a l a s c r i p t i o n s . J o u r n a l of Personality and Social Psychology. 37, 1211-1220. Willi a m s , J . G., & Stack, J . J . (1972). I n t e r n a l - e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l as a s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e i n determining information seeking by negro students. J o u r n a l of  Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 39, 187-193. Wilson, P., Golding, J . , & Charbonneau-Powis, M. (1983). Comparitive e f f i c i e n c y of b e h a v i o r a l and c o g n i t i v e treatments of depression. C o g n i t i v e therapy 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 freshmen: A t t r i b u t i o n therapy r e v i s i t e d . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 42, 367-376. Winberg, R. S., Gould, D., & Jackson, A. (1979). Expectations and performance: An empirical test of Bandura's s e l f -e f f i c a c y theory. Journal 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 experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Wolfe, G. A. (1975). A causal analysis of job perceptions and performance using i n t e r v e n i n g v a r i a b l e s of goals and rewards. Paper presented at the .Convention of The American Psychological Association. Chicago, 111. Wolpe, J. (1981). The dichotomy between c l a s s i c a l y conditioned and cogn i t i v e l y learned anxiety. Journal of Behavioral  Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry. 12, 35-42. Personality correlates and exams of succeeding and Jou r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l 148 Wolpe, J . , Lunde, S., McNally, R. , & Schotte, D. (1985 ). D i f f e r e n t a t i o n 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 based 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 . Journal of Behavioral Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry. 16, 287-293.. Wong, P. T., & Weiner, B. (1981). When people ask "why" questions, and the heurestics of a t t r i b u t i o n a l search. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 40, 650-663. Wyer, R. S., J r . (1974). Cognitive organization and change: An  information processing approach. Pointiac, Maryland: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Wyer, R. S., J r . (1981). An information processing perspective 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 Directions In A t t r i b u t i o n Research. (Vol. 3) New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 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 d i s o r d e r . J o u r n a l of the American P s y c h o a n a l y t i c  Association, 22, 310-328. 149 APPENDIX 1 TRAINING PROGRAMS Training Program Week 1 152 Training Program Week 1 Experimental Supplement .. 161 Training Program Week 2 174 Training Program Week 2 Experimental Supplement .. 181 Training Program Week 3 188 150 Training Programs Both the T r a d i t i o n a l and Experimental programs u t i l i z e a l l of the content l i s t e d f o r the t r a d i t i o n a l program. The Experimental t r a i n i n g program a l l o t s less time for presentation of these materials however, i n order to cover the additional content l i s t e d - under the Experimental Program. Three hour sessions are held for each group. 151 Training Program Week 1: Problem Solving and Decision Making I. Introduction and Group Formation A. Have students complete name tags and wear them. B. Brief introduction of yourself and your background. C. Brief outline of Seminar Schedule and tonight's schedule. (Emphasize applied nature of the t r a i n i n g ) . D. Group Formation (6 Groups of 5 members). 1) 10 minute period for mingling and meeting one another. 2) Participants form groups of 5 members. 3) Allow groups 5 minutes to get to know one another, and assign each i n d i v i d u a l the task of knowing the name of everyone in his/her group by the end of the night (instructors assignment i s to know everyone's names) Note to Instructor: The small group i s important to encourage i n d i v i d u a l attendance. Encourage them to talk to one another and to begin to es t a b l i s h relationships through shared tasks. II. Problem Solving and Decision Making A. Introduction 1) Examples of how managers' decisions get made (quotes). Charles Cox (Kennecot Copper): "I don't think businessmen r e a l l y know they make decisions. I know I don't." Charles Dickey (J.P. Morgan): "There are no rules." Dwight Joyce (Glidden Co.): "If a vice-president asked me how I was able to choose the right course, I'd have to say, 'I'm damned i f I know.'" 152 2) Question: Is there any right way? 3) Examine some t y p i c a l procedures: a) appealing to 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 A l l of these are employed and can be e f f e c t i v e but research has demonstrated that e f f e c t i v e problem solving and decision making i s a s k i l l which can be learned. The technique takes time and practice, and i s not for every s i t u a t i o n : a) some situations are r e l a t i v e l y simple and frequent, and the costs of a poor decision are small (e.g., deciding on what f l a v o r of ice cream to purchase at Baskin Robbins). In s i t -uations l i k e t h i s , decision making i s almost an automatic process. We ref e r to these as "Pre-programmed" situations i n which an elaborate decision making process i s inappropriate. b) Other situations are more unique, and the potent i a l costs of a poor decision are much greater (e.g. Purchasing a computer system). E f f e c t i v e decisions i n situations such as t h i s are c r u c i a l to e f f e c t i v e management. The decis-ion making technique presented here i s designed to r e s u l t in e f f e c t i v e , e f f i c i e n t decision making in these s i t u a t i o n s . B. The Process of E f f e c t i v e Decision Making Note to Instructor: project overhead diagram of process on screen and go over i t q u i c k l y (leave diagram projected on screen). Stress i n i n t r o d u c t o r y comment that t h i s i s a systematic four phase system made up of nine separate steps but i t i s not designed to be a "lock step" process. 153 PROBLEM SOLVING PROCESS 154 PHASE I: PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION Step #1: "Information Assembly" 1) Stress the need to be pro-active and anticipate. The need to arrange for regular flow, "monitoring systems" of the organization. 2) Examine the costs of obtaining value of additional information vs. costs of acting with too l i t t l e (Tourist Guide Joke - see page 215) Step #2: "Information C l a r i f i c a t i o n " 1) Make information concise and precise but not too narrow to exclude valuable information. 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 , morale, e t c . , are terms which need to be made observable and measurable). Discussion of how t h i s can be done: i) Key Question: How many? How often? i i ) . Goal : Quantify i i i ) Advantages: - indicates possible actions to remedy - makes i t easier to communicate accurately to 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 ) Structure of organization 2) Common Errors: i ) Premature conclusions i i ) Over s i m p l i f i c a t i o n (search for Single Central Problem) i i i ) Symptom l e v e l analysis iv) Problem-objective confusion Step #4: Outcome C r i t e r i a 1) Develop standards against which p o t e n t i a l solutions can be measured. 155 2) Define constraints - binding and non-binding 3) Examine organization objectives and personal objectives ( C i v i l Service Problem: group a c t i v i t y - see page 211) PHASE II GENERATION OF SOLUTIONS Step #5: Develop a number of alte r n a t i v e solutions 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) Brainstorming (Group Exercise - See page 216) 5) Creative Thinking Note: Stress the importance of i s o l a t i n g t h i s phase from phase I I I . Keep mind free of any constraints so wild and unusual solutions can be created. 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 in an e f f e c t i v e solution. PHASE III SELECTING A SOLUTION Step #6: Evaluate Alternatives 1) Compare Solutions to constraints i) eliminate the obvious - but look for ways to combine i i ) reduce to a "few best" 2) Task: Choose between possible solutions; A l l of which meet your c r i t e r i a to some degree. How? a) P r i n c i p l e of "Optimization" A l l things being equal, which alt e r n a t i v e has greatest value? How to decide? Assign " u t i l i t y " - assess value and costs of a p a r t i c u l a r course of action. 156 I t s "worth" or " u t i l i t y " i s the rel a t i o n s h i p between value and cost. Example Problem: Choosing a Mate in Kanta Burra -A s s i g n i n g U t i l i t i e s to Complex Alternatives (see page 212) b) Risks Real l i f e decisions involve choice i n uncertain situations. -- assessing 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 decision to carry umbrella depends on whether or not i t rains. *So in decision both u t i l i t y and chance factors must be included. EXAMPLE: Which do you prefer?: 1. $.10 with certainty or one chance i n ten at $1.00? 2. $1 3. $10 " 4. $100 11 5. $1000 " 6. $ l m i l l i o n • " $10 ' " $100 ' " $1000 1 " $10,000 $10,000,000 You are not i n d i f f e r e n t to any of the choices - i . e . , in case one you may prefer to gamble, also i n case 2 but at some point you w i l l reverse; unless you place extremely high u t i l i t y on r i s k . The switch occurs at point which u t i l i t y f or money begins growing less r a p i d l y than i t s d o l l a r value, i . e . , When the certainty of $100 i s chosen over a 10% chance for $1000. The u t i l i t y of $1000 i s less than 10 times $100. c) P r o b a b i l i t y The long run expectation of r e l a t i v e frequency of an event's occurrence range from 0 to 1. 157 Example: Pr o b a b i l i t y of l i v i n g forever i s 0. Pr o b a b i l i t y of dying i s 1. Pr 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 Objective Values based on physical properties (e.g., Coin -two sides, dice - s i x sides) d) Expected value Rational decision maker attempts to maximize his long-run expected gains. (Both p r o b a b i l i t y of events and t h e i r value are considered i n sel e c t i n g an optimal course of action) Example: Suppose you are i n v i t e d to play a game, f l i p p i n g a coin which w i l l pay you $10 each head, but cost you $5 each t a i l . SHOULD YOU PLAY? Expected value, or winnings expected in 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) + (vt x pt)=($10 x .5) + (-$5 x .5) = + $2.50 In long run you w i l l win $2.50 for each f l i p of the coin. This i s a procedure for optimal decision making but few people use i t because they don't understand i t , or i t i s too much trouble. Gambling Casinos and  Insurance Companies use i t . e) Subjective P r o b a b i l i t y : How l i k e l y a role 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 to happen soon (subjective notion of probability) but 158 actual (objective probabilit y) p r o b a b i l i t y i s  s t i l l one i n s i x . - People tend to overestimate the occurrence of events with low p r o b a b i l i t y and underestimate the occurrence of events with high p r o b a b i l i t y . - People tend to exhibit the gambler's f a l l a c y , predicting that an event that has not occurred for a while i s more l i k e l y to occur i n the near future. - People tend to overestimate the true p r o b a b i l i t y of events that are favorable to them and underestimate those that are unfavorable. It i s possible to combine subjective p r o b a b i l i t y with u t i l i t y , i n the same manner as above, in making decisions. Step #7: Choice PHASE IV IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION [The f i n a l phase, which i s also the f i r s t phase] Step #8: Implement 1) Consider: i ) Resources needed: Human, Fi n a n c i a l . i i ) Schedule: Time frame, Sequence. i i i ) Organizational Impact: People, Procedures, Structure. iv) Contingency Plan: Anticipate what can go wrong. Step #9: Evaluation 1) E s t a b l i s h a feedback system which supplies you r e l i a b l e information flow regarding progress, (actually step #1 repeated). C. Summarize 159 D. Assignment Hand out assignment and have them work together i n groups on the f i r s t decision making task. Move from group to group and f a c i l i t a t e i n t h i s process. At the same time c o l l e c t name tags from each group. Make sure you can id e n t i f y each i n d i v i d u a l and match them to t h e i r name tags, you w i l l be required to hand them out to the correct people next week (Keep name- tags i n groups to as s i s t t h i s process). 160 Training Program Week 1: Experimental Program Supplement 161 I. Introduction On blackboard: The Wages of S.I.N. Connect to problem s o l v i n g : The procedures for problem solving discussed tonight are f a i r l y simple and straightforward. The most d i f f i c u l t task in finding e f f e c t i v e solutions i s overcoming: SIN - "Self Imposed Negatives" II. The Perception - Behavior Connection Our actions are based upon what we perceive r e a l i t y to be, but do we p e r c e i v e " r e a l i t y " ? ? What we p e r c e i v e i s determined by a process of f i l t e r i n g and c l a s s i f y i n g . 1) The " f i l t e r i n g process": Our perceptual processes (e.g., v i s i o n , hearing, smell), " f i l t e r " incoming s t i m u l i : There are "sounds" "smells" etc. "out there" that we do not perceive.. a) This f i l t e r i n g occurs p a r t l y because of l i m i t a t i o n s on how much data we are able to process at one time, and the a b i l i t y of our sensory organs to detect s t i m u l i whose magnitude i s outside cer t a i n threshold values. E.g., sound waves which have a frequency inaudible to the human ear, but which animals can r e a d i l y detect (human range i s approximately 20 to 20,000 Hz). b) A second way i n which f i l t e r i n g occurs i s through the process of "Attending" - focusing our attention to certain s t i m u l i while shutting out others. Attending can be a p a r t i a l l y voluntary process where we consciously d i r e c t our attention to s p e c i f i c s t i m u l i ignoring others, or i t can be involuntary. 162 Involuntary a t t e n d i n g occurs when a stimulus because of some unique property (e.g., strength) forces our attention and as a r e s u l t we f a i l to attend to others even though we may have no conscious intent of doing so. E.g., Mothers who bring home a new baby often report being extremely t i r e d because the baby "fusses" and c r i e s during the night and as a r e s u l t they get very l i t t l e sleep. Interestingly, fathers often report that they hear nothing. WHY? Clea r l y the sounds are within the normal hearing 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 acutely aware that 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 re s u l t she i s very consciously tuned to any i n d i c a t i o n 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 (after a l l he knows she w i l l handle things) as a re s u l t he f a i l s to perceive these "low l e v e l " sounds. As mother becomes more sensitive i n her a b i l i t y to d i s t i n g u i s h "noise" from d i s t r e s s signals she begins to sleep through much of t h i s low l e v e l "fussing". Father often begins complaining about disturbed sleep at t h i s point. (Note: If the father were l e f t alone with the baby over night when i t f i r s t arrives home, he would l i k e l y be every b i t as sensitive to i t s noises i n the night as the mother i s . In fact he would probably be so attentive to the baby sounds the he would have a d i f f i c u l t time even going to sleep.) 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 or information which we do perceive must be organized in some way to give i t meaning. a) "Cognitive Maps" - i n t e r n a l models or templates that we employ to organize information so that i t has meaning. i) Information that we receive only has meaning when we can f i t i t to a cognitive map. E.g., number series...4 61 8 46 5 52 163 (every second term i s the square of the preceding one but "reversed") i i ) I t i s an a c t i v e process: We attend to information which f i t s e x i s t i n g maps and f a i l to p e r c e i v e much in f o r m a t i o n which might contradict them. Example: story about my f r i e n d the Doctor that i l l u s t r a t e s "sexual stereotyping" in the thinking of the average person) i i i ) The "F.O.F.O. P r i n c i p l e " (Count the F 1s ...) FINISHED FILES ARE THE RE-SULT OF YEARS OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH COMBINED WITH THE EXPERIENCE OF MANY YEARS When we Fix On s p e c i f i c information as being important, or upon certain ways of organizing that information, we automatically F i l t e r out other information which i s viewed as unimportant. We act as i f what we perceive i s a l l there i s . I l l . Self-Perception We have cognitive maps of ourselves which we construct as we grow up from e a r l i e s t childhood. 1) They begin to be formed when we have very l i m i t e d a b i l i t y or o p p o r t u n i t y to analyze, or to get alternative information. 2) A single event can be "reinforced" over and over again by our " r e l i v i n g " i t i n our mind. 3) The "self-image" becomes a "cognitive map" and as such i t i s employed to f i l t e r and organize new information (F.O.F.O) 4) Therefore, contradictory information or occurrences w i l l not automatically a l t e r self-image. 164 IV. Self-image and Performance Your cognitive map of yourself (your self-image) can influence your performance in any s i t u a t i o n . 1) The Self-image -- Self t a l k -- Performance connection a) We tend to act as i f our perceptions of ourself are i n fact r e a l i t y ( i . e . , the way we r e a l l y are). b) We tend to reinforce the way we perceive ourselves through our " s e l f - t a l k " . "Self t a l k s " are "conversa-tions we have within our mind and they often go some-thing 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: in approaching a s i t u a t i o n i n your mind you are thinking about your performance and t y p i c a l l y that i s what you experience. E.g. You think: "Oh no, I'm going to make a f o o l of myself" - and "sure enough", you do. (Henry Ford:"If you think you can, or you can't, you're probably right") 165 3) The Process of S.I.N.: Self Imposed Negatives a) Self .Image - "I'm r e a l l y dumb." b) Self Talk -"Oh, oh. This 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 trouble. Everyone else w i l l see how dumb I am." c) Performance - "Sure Enough." d) Self Talk -"I knew i t , I should never have gone into t h i s . Now everyone w i l l think I'm r e a l l y stupid. I'm not going back tomorrow." 4) S.I.N. Prevention a) S e l f - t a l k : "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 r e a l challenge for me. This i s a chance to stretch myself. I ' l l probably learn something new and useful." b) Performance: "Sure Enough." - i t does turn out to be d i f f i c u l t and you don't do very well but i t i s n ' t a t o t a l disaster. c) Self Talk: "Well, I didn't do as well as I can. I'm going to f i n d out where I went wrong. I know I was o.k. up u n t i l I had to transpose that vector - maybe someone can show me where I went wrong. If I take some time to practice t h i s i t w i l l be easier next time." 5) The Key to Escaping SIN: "Monitor your Self-Talk" a) We are usually not even f u l l y aware of our s e l f -t alk before, during 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 into the habit of checking your " s e l f t a l k " regularly. Assign: Monitor Self. Talk, during rest of evening, when we are working on Problem Solving. 166 Training Program Week 2: Time Management 167 I. Introduction A. Participants form into t h e i r groups - challenge them to name other members of the group. B. Demonstrate your memory by d i s t r i b u t i n g name tags to the entire class. II. Assignment Review A. Distribute Score Sheets and have groups go over each sequentially 1) Individuals score own decisions. 2) Group discussion of decision (assign a spokesperson) 3) Class discussion (relate to sequential III. Time and Management A. General Discussion 1) Question: "What i s time?" i ) a b i r d (time f l i e s ) ; a burden (time weighs heavily) i i ) a valuable commodity (time i s money) i i i ) a commodity of l i t t l e value ( i t w i l l only cost a l i t t l e time) 2) Question: "What i s time to YOU?" Write down d e f i n i t i o n s , discuss, and point out s i m i l -a r i t i e s . 3 basic views: i ) Time i s an enemy recorder/group process). 168 i i ) Time i s a valuable resource to be hoarded vi) "Time blindness" 3) Typical Managers view: "There i s never enough time" BUT!!! "Typical Manager" i s Wrong! There i s no such thing as "not enough time". No matter what your task, no matter, who you are, you have 24 hours a day - no more, no le s s . Key Point #1 (Project Transparency) "You have a l l the time there i s If you don't "have enough time" -you are tr y i n g to do too many things in the time avai l a b l e . " B. The Value of Time 1) Time i s money people s e l l i t (e.g., consultants) costs of products l a r g e l y represent person/hours re-quired for production and supervision. 2) Time i s a valuable commodity The supply i s fix e d the demand i n f i n i t e . Poor Richard: "Dost thou love l i f e ? Then do not squander time for that's the s t u f f l i f e i s made of." Key Point #2 (Project Transparency) "Time i s a manager's most valuable resource, i t s e f f e c t i v e use the greatest challenge." C. Understanding Time The key to 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 to present to future and for 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 longer exists The future - does not exi s t , but i t w i l l 169 The present - exists only very b r i e f l y , then i t w i l l be the past. Key Point #3 (Project Transparency) "The past and future don't e x i s t , a l l you have i s now and i t i s almost gone" 2) Control of the past i s impossible. What was done can-not 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 decisions we, or our predecessors, made i n the past. b) The present i s b r i e f , even i f we extend "present" to include t h i s week, and most of what we w i l l do i s already determined. Key Point #4 (Project Transparency) "Controlling Time i s only possible by orienting yourself towards the future, i n the present." D. Summarize: "The key to e f f e c t i v e management i s control over time. You can gain control over time by acting now to control the future." 1) The past and future do not exist - there i s only the present-now! 2) You can only act now. 3) The past can not be controlled. 4) The future can be controlled, but only by acting now. 170 IV. TIME MANAGEMENT A. The Time Trap The "Time trap": to get control over time takes time, and I don't have any time to do i t . 1) Escaping the Time Trap: It takes analysis, thought, imagination, and TIME a) Review key points above -you can only escape by orienting yourself towards the future. b) You either control time or i t w i l l control you, d i c t a t i n g your a c t i v i t i e s and always leaving you • with not enough time. c) If you act now to control time - TIME w i l l be your a l l y i n the future. B. Procedure Outline - Time Management 1) Examine how your time i s being used presently. a) Each i n d i v i d u a l i s asked to 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 beginning at time of a r r i v a l and broken into 15 minute periods u n t i l the end of the work day. b) Assignment:Instructor to hand out additional time log sheets and assign task of monitoring actual time use for next four work days.' T y p i c a l l y we f i n d that managers are not a c t u a l l y spending t h e i r time the way they think they are. 2) Identify your long and short term goals a) If you do not have clear p r i o r i t i z e d goals, i t i s impossible to decide how to use your time most e f f e c t i v e l y . b) Assignment: over the next few days while you are monitoring your time at work, i d e n t i f y and 171 p r i o r i t i z e clear long and short term goals for yourself in your job. 3) Analyze your Time Use a) M.B.O. (Management By Objectives) b) Evaluate t h e i r usefulness i n accomplishing your goals. Paretos law (20/80) "In any series of elements to be controlled, a certain small f r a c t i o n (approximately 20%) always accounts for the major portion (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  v i t a l 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 - guidelines a) Identify 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 to accomplishing your goals. 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 to do and arrange your schedule to do these in the most e f f e c t i v e possible 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 for the " t r i v i a l many". 5) Some points to consider a) The top 15 time wasters. b) E f f i c i e n c y vs Effectiveness c) A c t i v i t i e s vs Results d) Time Estimates (Murphy's 2nd Law), Planning (Murphy's 1st Law) e) Tyranny of the Urgent, Crises Response, Calculated Non-action f) Delegation - Up and Down 172 g) "Blocking" and "Chunking" h) Management by Exception V. Assignment: 1) Hand out material f o r assignment 2) Go over example 3) Participants to log t h e i r time for the next f i v e working days, completing analysis for each day. 173 Training Program Week 2: Experimental Supplementary Material 174 I. Review: Self-Talk monitoring assignment II. Review: Cognitive Maps, F.O.F.O, Self-concept, S e l f - t a l k , "Sure Enough" P r i n c i p l e II I . Improving Performance by Avoiding SIN A. Positive Thinking & Success 1) It i s not magic, success i s not guaranteed i f you just think p o s i t i v e l y , or engage in l o t s of p o s i t i v e s e l f - t a l k . a) Successful performance requires preparation and e f f o r t b) But,to insure the maximum benefit from your e f f o r t (in any a c t i v i t y ) your thinking i s v i t a l l y important. c) Focus on what you want to have happen. Believe i t w i l l happen, and work l i k e h e l l ! B. Positive and Negative Attitudes 1) Attitude = Lean a) Aeronautical d e f i n i t i o n - angle (or lean) of an a i r c r a f t moving through space. Toward = Positive Attitude i s a lean Away = Negative b) Your lean or attitude i s expressed i n your s e l f -t a l k . c) No matter how much e f f o r t and preparation, i f your attitude i s negative your chance of success i s limited. 175 E.g., Football game: On the l a s t play of the game - losing by 4 points and the b a l l i s on the 2 yard l i n e . You are the quarterback. You are thinking about what play to c a l l . You have two running backs. Both are i n top shape, and they are equally s k i l l f u l . Imagine you are able to monitor t h e i r s e l f - t a l k . Self Talk Attitude Player #1 "Give me the b a l l , man" + Player #2 "Geez, I hope he gives the b a l l to somebody else, I'm worn out!" Which player would you want carrying the b a l l ? #2 w i l l go into the l i n e "leaning away" #1 w i l l go into the l i n e "leaning toward" d) Summary "What we believe to be true, or possible, l i m i t s our a b i l i t y to achieve" (e.g. Ph.D. who believes he cannot do mathematics) Attitude (lean) > Performance Question: How many of your self-imposed l i m i t a t i o n s are real? C. Removing Self-imposed Limitations on Performance 1) Rule: "Control your thoughts or they w i l l control you" Caution: i t sounds simple - and i t i s - but i t s not easy, (demonstration of thought stopping) 176 Problem: old habits are hard to break, those negative thoughts keep creeping back (they probably always w i l l occasionally) a) It i s not enough to go around saying p o s i t i v e things to yourself and waiting for success. b) You have to believe those p o s i t i v e things. c) They have to become part of your "self-image". d) You have to "walk your t a l k " - act as i f what you are saying to yourself i s true. 2) How Do You Do It? a) Monitor and control your " s e l f - t a l k " . 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 stay at i t consistently i t w i l l become natural. It w i l l be "you". c) you must control your "lean" (attitude) through your s e l f - t a l k . D. Controlling Self-Talk 1) Pre-Performance S e l f - t a l k The s e l f - t a l k that 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 to p o s i t i v e : Self Talk •» Self Image Negative Pos i t i v e I hate t h i s kind of job This w i l l r e a l l y a challenge be I'm a f r a i d do well I won't This w i l l be a chance to see how much I've improved I have to I want to I can't do I'm going to 177 2) Performance Self-Talk The s e l f - t a l k that goes on during the actual perform-ance. T y p i c a l l y , i f performance i s going well, l i t t l e s e l f - t a l k i s occurring. However, when problems begin to appear, " s e l f - t a l k " begins to happen. When i t does, change negative to p o s i t i v e : Negative "Oh h e l l ! I'm screwing i t up. "This i s extremely complicated, I'm l o s t . There i s no way I ' l l ever solve i t . I give up." Positive "Wait a minute, I was doing OK. I must have have gone off on the wrong track, I ' l l go back over i t and see where 'I went wrong" "Now wait a minute, I can do t h i s e a s i l y as long as I go step by step and don't panic. 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 give you more time, i t s impossible I'm going to complain " "Well i t has taken me quite a while to get t h i s f a r but now that I've got the f i r s t part done the rest w i l l be much easier." 3) Post Performance Self-Talk The s e l f t a l k that goes on a f t e r the performance. T y p i c a l l y includes an evaluation of the performance. Change negative to p o s i t i v e : Negative Positive "Well I screwed up again." (just l i k e me) "I didn't do that very well, that's not l i k e me. I can c e r t a i n l y do better. I ' l l go back over i t and f i n d out exactly where I went wrong so i t doesn't happen again." 178 Negative "I can't believe I did so well. They made i t so easy anybody could have done i t " "Gawd that was awful I ' l l never t r y that again." Positive "Great I knew I would do well, I was well prepared. When you know what you're doing, things seem easy." "I didn't do very well, I need to be better prepared next time, I wonder who can help me practice E. Self Talk and Unsuccessful Performance 1) Performance: Don't attempt to " f o o l " yourself i n evaluating your performance, but no matter how you  evaluate it,take r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f or i t . a) Unsuccessful Performance: blamed on others, fate, the weather, or any other e x t e r n a l cause, i s beyond your control. b) Unsuccessful Performance: blamed on things about yourself which are perceived as being unchangeable (e.g., "I'm dumb", "uncoordinated", "unloveable", etc.) i s also beyond your control. c) Unsuccessful Performance: blamed on things about y o u r s e l f which you can change (e.g., e f f o r t , preparation, etc.) i s your r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , i t i s possible to control the cause and you can do something about i t . d) S e l f - t a l k which leads to Improved Performance. S e l f - t a l k which fix e s the blame for poor performance on uncontrollable factors does not allow you any way to take action to improve performance. If you believe you f a i l because you're stupid, i t doesn't matter how hard you study. If you believe you lose because you're "no good", i t doesn't matter how hard you practice. To allow improved performance, poor performance must be seen as being caused by factors over which you have some control. Following unsuccessful or disappointing 179 performance avoid " l i m i t i n g " s e l f - t a l k , and engage in posi t i v e s e l f - t a l k . Self-Talk to Avoid It was too hard They were too good I'm no good. I'm unlucky ... Positive Self Talk I can do better i f I tr y harder. I can r e a l l y improve - i f I pra c t i c e . I know I can do a l o t better than I did today, I'm r e a l l y going to work harder next time. I can do well when I st i c k with i t . I make my own luck. F. Assignment: Monitoring and Controlling Pre, During, and Post Performance Self-Talk. 1) Identify at least 3 discrete situations each day where you w i l l engage in some type of performance. 2) Begin to "monitor" your s e l f - t a l k p r i o r to the perform-ance and to eliminate " l i m i t i n g " s e l f - t a l k , replacing i t with 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 three occasions. Keep a written record of your s e l f - t a l k and bring i t with you next week. 180 Training Program Week 3: C o n f l i c t Management 181 I. Introduction (Participants i n groups - name challenge ) (Distribute name tags to a l l participants.) ( Ask i f anyone else would l i k e to t r y ) II. Review Time Management Assignment III . C o n f l i c t Management - Negotiation S k i l l s 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 or destructive to be reduced or eliminated. based on experience with negative results of c o n f l i c t (war, r i o t s , f i g h t s , divorce, etc.) 2) More recent p o s i t i v e view seen as a constructive process, the basis for a l l change. s h i f t i n emphasis from c o n f l i c t elimination to c o n f l i c t management. 3) It i s inevitable Wherever there are individuals (or groups) with incompatible goals, mutually exclusive 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 , etc. 4) Focus of Present Seminar - Interpersonal C o n f l i c t Thomas: The c o n f l i c t process begins when one party perceives that the other has frustrated or i s about to f r u s t r a t e some concern of h i s . 182 B. Model: Process of interpersonal c o n f l i c t E P I S O D E 1 • ' L T I S O i n : 1) Beginning point f r u s t r a t i o n . 2) Individual's conceptualization of the f r u s t r a t i o n -understanding of own concerns and some awareness of alternative actions and possible outcomes. 3) Action - behavior, based on individuals conceptualization, designed to cope with the f r u s t r a t i o n . 4) Reaction - other party's reaction 5) The reaction of the other party produces a feedback loop.to the i n d i v i d u a l s conceptualization of point 2. 6) C i r c u l a r process 2-3-4-2 continues u n t i l some outcome or resolution i s r e a l i z e d . 7) The outcome sets the stage for subsequent interaction C. Behavior i n C o n f l i c t Situations 1) It i s " i n t e r a c t i v e " - i . e . , the behavior of each participant has an e f f e c t on the other. 2) Each Individual's behavior i s complexly determined a) Individual predispositions and s o c i a l pressures. 183 b) Framework of "rules" which constrain possible alternatives. c) Incentives which are present i n the sit u a t i o n s . 3) Each individual's "conceptualization of the s i t u a t i o n " mediates the influence of the s i t u a t i o n a l variables. 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 constructive 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 in maximal possible outcomes for both partie s . 1) One Dimensional Model "Cooperation vs. Competition" a) Views c o n f l i c t behavior as being centered upon achieving one of two possible goals. i ) Individual Gain i i ) Mutual Welfare b) Is unsatisfactory because of tendency to focus upon a choice between dichotomous forms of behavior, neglecting other p o s s i b i l i t i e s . (Example: Prisoner's Dilemma Game) c) Is also viewed as having fostered win-lose thinking leading to "zero-sum" bargaining - leaving possible alternative solutions unexplored. d) More recent research indicates that these two p o l a r i t i e s are not adequate to describe actual behavior exhibited 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 ) Assertiveness - a desire to s a t i s f y ones own concerns i i ) Cooperativeness - a desire to s a t i s f y the concerns of the other party 184 b) Descriptions of C o n f l i c t Styles According to t h i s model individuals develop c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t y l e s of responding to c o n f l i c t s i t u a t i o n s . These styles are determined by combinations of the two dimensions. Thomas has i d e n t i f i e d four c h a r a c t e r i s t i c styles to which he has given labels. i ) Avoiding - unassertive, uncooperative i i ) Competitive - assertive, uncooperative i i i ) Accommodative - unassertive, cooperative iv) Compromising - somewhat assertive, somewhat cooperative v) Collaborating - assertive, cooperative As s er t i v e o <4-l cn • H co ca u w cu o O C •u o CU u • H cn cu Q U n a s s e r t i v e Compe t i t i v e C o l l a b o r a t i v e S h a r i n g Avo i d i n g Accommodative U n c o o p e r a t i v e C o o p e r a t i v e D e s i r e to S a t i s f y ; O t h e r ' s C o n c e r n s £; 185 3) Comparison of the Models Contrast two dimensional model with one dimensional model using Prisoner'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 to the "s t y l e s " which could produce them 4) What i s the best s t y l e a) There i s no single correct answer i ) C o n f l i c t behavior i s extremely complex, i i ) Individuals behavior i n c o n f l i c t situations i s part of an "i n t e r a c t i v e process", i i i ) Individual perceptions of the s i t u a t i o n , of possible outcomes, of motivation, etc., w i l l vary and may not r e f l e c t an objective r e a l i t y . b) In general, i f the goal of a l l people involved i s to maximize p o t e n t i a l outcomes f o r each, then a collaborative s t y l e should be most e f f e c t i v e . This would not necessarily be the case, however, i f the individuals do not share the same goals i n t h e i r approach to the s i t u a t i o n . IV. Negotiation Task Exercise (see Appendix 2) V. Discussion and Feedback. A) Brief discussion regarding the Negotiation Task Exercise. B) Brief outline of Research Project and t h e i r role in i t , indicate that results w i l l be made available to them when the analysis i s completed. 186 Answer any general questions you f e e l able to but keep the discussion 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 project and d i r e c t them to the room where I w i l l be available to respond to any further questions. Invite them to complete feedback/comment form. 187 Training Program Week 3: Experimental Supplement 188 Review Self-Talk and Re-Attribution Assignment Review Concepts -Cognitive Maps, F.O.F.O., Etc. Review: 3 Kinds of Self-Talk 189 EXAMPLE PROBLEM OUTCOME CRITERIA Creating a B i l i n g u a l C i v i l Service The e s t a b l i s h e d long term goal of the government i s the development of a completely b i l i n g u a l c i v i l s e r v i c e . The f o l l o w i n g o b j e c t i v e s were l i s t e d i n connection with accomplishing t h i s goal: a) To be accomplished within 10 years. b) To cause minimal disruption of present service delivery. c) To be national 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 personnel, i n a l l departments. f) To allow c i t i z e n s of any region of the country to receive services, i n t h e i r own l o c a l community, in both o f f i c i a l languages. g) Must not require 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 objectives, reduce the number where possible, i d e n t i f y any "binding constraints" ( i f present) 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 "progressive" land i n which the universe has already "unfolded as i t should". The kingdom i s run by women ( a c t u a l l y a "queen"dom) employing a type of democratic/monarchy which i s headed by an exalted personage known as the "Maga" . Men are r a t h e r i n s i g n i f i c a n t i n the p o l i t i c a l process of Kanta-Burra although they hold some value as mates. There has r e c e n t l y been an e l e c t i o n which has culminated i n the i n s t a l l a t i o n of a new Maga and, at the present time, she i s currently i n the market for a mate. Over the years, a l i s t of the most valued attributes i n a mate has been developed and the current l i s t of candidates has been tested on each established 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' to '+5' scale where '0' i s the average score. The l i s t of candidates has been re-duced to 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) Conversational s k i l l -2 4 d) Intelligence -4 3 e) Personality 4 3 f) Physical attractiveness 2 2 g) Prestige of family name 3 1 THE PROBLEM: HOW DO YOU COMPARE THEM ? e.g. 'sexual s k i l l ' with ' i n t e l l i g e n c e ' 'personality' with 'military s k i l l ' 191 THE SOLUTION: 1) A l l values must be put on a common scale. This can be accomplished by transposing each i n d i v i d u a l value to a corresponding value on an established single scale (e.g., money). In order to do t h i s , ask the question - How much monetary difference in purchase price i s needed to o f f s e t a rating difference of one point 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 rated one point higher than Malik. b) How much of a difference i n the asking price of Malik would be required to o f f s e t t h i s difference? (e.g., $1000) c) A u t i l i t y value of one rating point, on dimension 'c' has now been established ( I . , $1000). The same pro-cedure i s then repeated for each of the dimensions to esta b l i s h a common single scale upon which comparisons can be made. 2) Suppose that t h i s has been accomplished for our example ( i . e . , the values l i s t e d represent common scale u t i l i t y values). How w i l l you proceed to make a decision? a) Overall Ratings: examine each separately, e s t a b l i s h a single o v e r a l l rating of u t i l i t y and select the highest o v e r a l l rating. b) Dimensional Rating: Compare each dimension separately, one at a time, and select on the basis of which i s the leader on the most dimensions. PROBLEM: Overall Rating: SHAR = 10 MALIK = 13 Dimensional Rating: SHAR = 4 MALIK = 2 TIE = 2 A d i f f e r e n t decision w i l l be reached depending on which process i s employed There i s no single best answer. Overall ratings are probably the most accurate but are more d i f f i c u l t to employ. 192 Dimensional ratings are easier, but l i k e l y to be less e f f i c i e n t i n the long run. NOTE: In actual practice i t i s l i k e l y that one methodology or the other w i l l be employed up to a certain point, and then there w i l l be an e f f o r t to seek more information before making a f i n a l decision. For example in 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 comparing the two candidates, the Maga decided to i n v i t e each over f o r dinner " i n order to get better acquainted with them" (and as a re s u l t determined that 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 acting before you have s u f f i c i e n t information, as well as the costs of f a i l i n g to act when you have enough information.) A tour bus i s j u s t beginning to embark with a load of passengers on a tour of New York c i t y and the guide has indicated that he w i l l be announcing various points of inte r e s t as the bus moves through the c i t y . It i s apparent, from his rather loud and frequent comments, that a young man s i t t i n g i n the front 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 his knowledge and f a m i l i a r i t y with the c i t y . 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 the young man's comments to h i s companion. The guide announces that the passengers can see the Rockefeller 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 -"That i s the . home of Nelson Rockefeller, former governor of New York and son of John D. Rockefeller, and one of the wealthiest men i n the world." The guide remarks, with a s l i g h t look of annoyance but i n a quiet and p o l i t e voice - "Actually 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 younger son of John D. R o c k e f e l l e r " - and proceeds to o f f e r some additional information. The young man looks s l i g h t l y uncomfortable but offers no comment. The bus swings around a corner and the guide says "If you w i l l look to your l e f t , you w i l l see Central Park and the large building d i r e c t l y ahead, overlooking the park, i s the home of many very well known c e l e b r i t i e s such as the Kennedys, the .... ". At that point the young man's voice once again interrupted the guide's announcement with a loud comment to h i s companion d e s c r i b i n g the apartment of senator Ted Kennedy, which he claims to have v i s i t e d with friends and proceeding to describe 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 his story and then, i n a cold voice he once again corrects the young man explaining that the apartment building a c t u a l l y contains the apartment of the "Matriarch of the Kennedy clan - Mrs. Joseph Kennedy, nee F i t z g e r a l d " . At t h i s p o i n t the young man i s c l e a r l y embarrassed. He slouches i n his seat s i l e n t , and red-faced o f f e r i n g no more comments as the tour continues past many more points of i n t e r e s t . F i n a l l y the d r i v e r announces that the tour i s n e a r l y complete and that on the way back to t h e i r hotel, i f they look to the right as the bus passes the next street they w i l l catch a glimpse of the famous Christ Cathedral. Then turning slowly 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 quiet for the past half hour, he remarks i n a voice dripping with sarcasm "It's your l a s t chance son go ahead take a chance." 194 BRAINSTORMING EXERCISE INSTRUCTIONS: 1) Elect one member of your group to serve as chairperson and recorder. 2) Think of as many uses as you can for one red brick. 3) Spontaneously c a l l out these uses to your group. 4) The chairperson w i l l record a l l the groups ideas on the back of t h i s sheet of paper. 5) The chairperson w i l l also p a r t i c i p a t e in the exercise. 6) Do not at any time make any evaluation, or a n a l y t i c a l comments about any of the ideas or thoughts that are produced. A l l ideas are accepted and recorded. The task i s to produce ideas, not "good" ideas or " p r a c t i c a l " ideas. 7) You have f i v e minutes to complete t h i s task. 195 APPENDIX 2 SIMULATED NEGOTIATION TASK Simulated Negotiation Task 197 Sample Transcript of Negotiation Session 204 Examples of Negotiation Outcomes 209 196 Simulated Negotiation Task BACKGROUND The Lancer Toy Company i s a medium-sized manufacturer of toys and games. The company i s located in Southern C a l i f o r n i a and s e l l s i n eleven western s t a t e s . The company s t a r t e d as a manufacturer of children's toys in the early 1950's and enjoyed considerable success during the 1960's. However, due to the decline i n the b i r t h rate and s t i f f competition within the industry, sales of children's toys have leveled o f f . When the growth in the toy industry began to show signs of slowing, the company turned i t s a t t e n t i o n to other areas. Because of t h e i r expertise i n developing games, i t was natural for them to step i n the market for adult games. In the late 1960's and e a r l y 1970's, the market f o r a d u l t games has experienced tremendous growth. One important factor in t h i s growth has been an increasing use of games for educational purposes i n both schools and industry. Currently, the l i n e of adult games accounts for about one-third of the company's sales while the children's toys account for two-thirds of sales. Because the production f a c i l i t i e s , type of customer, and marketing channels are quite d i f f e r e n t for 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 follows: President I I I Manager Manager Manager Children's Toys Fin. & Acctg. Personnel Manager Adult Games R&D Prod. Mktg. 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 Research and Development, Production and Marketing of his product l i n e . SITUATION Each year the t o t a l budget fo r Research and Development (R&D) i s allocated to the two departments. Each department submits a 197 Budget Request to 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 projects the department w i l l work on and t h e i r costs. This year, the company has a maximum of $200,000.00 for R&D. The Manager of Finance and Accounting has asked the Managers of Children's Toys and Adult Games to reach an agreement on how much to request for R&D. The department managers have, i n turn, assigned the task of preparing the Budget Request to the respective R&D managers. The two R&D managers w i l l meet to decide which problems to work on t h i s year. ASSIGNMENT You w i l l act as one of the R&D managers. You are to negotiate a j o i n t budget with the other R&D manager. You w i l l have approximately 15 minutes to work out a budget with the other manager. You w i l l receive a form which must be completed, and signed by both partie s . This form w i l l i d e n t i f y the s p e c i f i c projects to be included i n the budget. The projects 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 costs l i s t e d . Remember the l i m i t of 200,000.00 for the budget. 198 YOU WILL ACT AS THE R&D MANAGER QF CHILDREN'S TOYS This i s one of your f i r s t assignments and you are anxious to make a good impression. During the past few years, sales i n children's toys have declined s l i g h t l y . You f e e l that part of t h i s decline i s a d i r e c t r e s u l t of low expenditures on R&D. Last year the budget for Children's Toys was approximately 102,000.00. This figure i s down from previous l e v e l s . At the present time, i t seems that the Children's Toys l i n e must be made competitive i f Lancer i s going to remain successful. This can only be accomplished through adequate expenditures on R&D. This year, you have a number of projects which should make money for your department, and you would l i k e to get as many approved as p o s s i b l e . You hope you can "turn around" the decline i n sales of children's toys by working on p r o f i t a b l e projects i n the coming year. PROJECTS The information you have concerning your project i s known only to you. The other manager has no idea of how many projects you can work on or the p r o f i t s you expect for each project. You may disclose as much or as l i t t l e of your information as you l i k e . You may use your information i n any way you wish to achieve your goals, BUT you cannot change the cost estimates. The cost estimates r e f l e c t the lowest p o s s i b l e costs 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 are reasonably good estimates but are s l i g h t l y conservative. Your s t a f f has i d e n t i f i e d f i v e projects you can work on during the coming year. The projects l i s t e d below are the only ones you can propose as i t i s too late to develop new ideas. 199 CHILDREN'S TOYS PROJECTS Project Expected Code Cost P r o f i t Description CT-07 $25,000 $2,500 To develop lower cost 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 stronger, new materials for various toys. CT-12 $75,000 $10,000 . To develop a new l i n e of Sesame Street d o l l s . CT-14 $13,000 800 To modernize our l i n e of checkers. CT-16 $3,000 — To develop toys to s e l l to schools at cost. There i s no $ p r o f i t here, but, we can gain goodwill. With only $200,000 to be allocated, i t i s clear that you cannot finance a l l your projects. You should think about p r i o r i t i e s before attending the negotiations. 200 YOU WILL ACT AS THE R&D MANAGER OF ADULT GAMES This i s one of your f i r s t assignments, and you are anxious to make a good impression. For the past few years, the growth of Lancer Company has come almost t o t a l l y from increased sales i n adult games. Accordingly, the R&D budget for Adult Games has increased s t e a d i l y . Last year, the budget was about $98,000.00. At the present time, i t seems that i f Lancer i s going to continue to grow, the Adult Games l i n e must stay ahead of i t s competition. This can only be accomplished through increased expenditures for R&D. You have a number of projects which should make money for your department, and you would l i k e to get as many approved as possible. You hope to maintain the strong p o s i t i o n of Adult Games by working on p r o f i t a b l e projects t h i s coming year. PROJECTS The information you have concerning your project i s known only to you. The other manager has no idea of how many projects you can work on or the p r o f i t s you expect for each project. You may disclose as much or as l i t t l e of your information as you l i k e . You may use your information i n any way you wish to achieve your goals, BUT you cannot change the cost estimates. The estimates r e f l e c t the lowest possible costs of completing the projects. The expected p r o f i t figures are reasonably good estimates but are s l i g h t l y conservative. Your s t a f f has i d e n t i f i e d f i v e the coming year. These are the i t i s too late to develop new below. projects you can work on during only projects you can propose as ideas. The projects are l i s t e d 201 ADULT GAMES PROJECTS Project Expected Code Cost P r o f i t Description AG-03 $36,000 $5,000 To develop games for college classrooms. AG-06 $31,000 $4,000 To develop a new game in non-verbal communication AG-08 $72,000 $9,800 To develop games for management development workshops. AG-09 $28,000 $3,400 To develop deluxe versions of various games AG-10 $16,000 $1,000 To develop new packaging for our Movie game With only $200,000 to be allocated, i t i s clear that you cannot finance a l l your projects. You should think about p r i o r i t i e s before attending the negotiations. 202 LANCER COMPANY BUDGET REQUEST PROJECTS ( l i s t e d by Code No.) COST TOTAL (not to exceed $200,000) If you could not agree, write NO AGREEMENT here: SIGN BOTH NAMES CLEARLY: 203 SAMPLE TRANSCRIPT OF NEGOTIATION SESSION CT = Manager Children's Toys AG = Manager Adult Games CT: Well I guess were supposed to decide how to divide up t h i s money AG: Yeah....how are we going to do i t . . . they said we weren't supposed to show you are project sheet.... CT: Yeah...well have you done t h i s before? AG: What? you mean t h i s case?. .or. . . . CT: Yeah..... AG: No have you? CT: Yeah we did i t a few weeks ago in a class I took. AG: So..I guess that means you have a big advantage eh? CT: Oh....I don't think so....I mean i t ' s pretty s t r a i g h t -forward don't you think? f AG: Yeah, I guess w e l l we probably should get started eh.... they said we only had 15 minutes. So what i s i t ? ...you have a sheet l i k e mine with a l i s t of projects ..and we have to decide how to divide up a t o t a l of 200,000 ... right? CT: Yep...and we're supposed to t r y to maximize p r o f i t s for the company ....what i s it...Lancer? AG: Right... I put together the projects which w i l l maxi-mize p r o f i t s for Adult Games and .... CT: Yeah well you know that when we both take our most p r o f i t a b l e projects the t o t a l cost i s going to be over the l i m i t so maybe we should t r y to look at options which w i l l t o t a l less than 200,000.... AG: Sure..ok....but how do we know that?...1 mean what the t o t a l w i l l be.. 204 CT: Well I've done t h i s before r i g h t , and that's the way they allocate the costs.... AG: Sure but how do you know the amounts aren'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 think we should just assume they are the same. CT: Well they look exactly the same to me Anyway we have to s t a r t somewhere I guess, so what have you got down there f o r a to t a l ? AG: Well I think that we should probably t r y to divide the t o t a l available as evenly as possible CT: Ok...so what do you have? AG: Well.. If I can do two projects I w i l l maximize the p r o f i t s available CT: Ok...so whats i t gonna cost? AG: Well..I would need just a l i t t l e more than 100,000.. CT: (chuckle)..really?..I am i n the very same po s i t i o n . . . so I guess that i s the point of t h i s eh? to nego-t i a t e some kind of compromise....Why don't we s t a r t by taking a look at the cost-benefit r a t i o for the projects each of us want and i f the goal i s to maximize the p r o f i t for the company i t should be poss-i b l e to f i n d a solu t i o n . . . . AG: Ok by me....lets take a look... A few minutes are spent discussing the p r o f i t and costs associated with each individual's selected projects. AG: Well...the o v e r a l l p r o f i t from my projects i s biggest so i f we go with them It w i l l maximize our outcome and i f we went with yours, I would have to scratch one of mine with a big p r o f i t and replace i t with something that i s n ' t much better than break even. CT: Yeah but i f we go with your two projects, I w i l l be in the same position . . . . i n f a c t, I wouldn't even be able to u t i l i z e a l l of the money that was l e f t over from your two..so that would even be a worse s i t u a t i o n . 205 AG: Well..maybe I could use what you didn't...how much would be l e f t ? CT: Uh..well..it wouldn't be much..but the point i s i t i s not the best way f o r us to go i f we want to maximize our resources. | PAUSE CT: Well I suppose I could just do the one project with the biggest p r o f i t and than do a d i f f e r e n t second project so the t o t a l cost f o r the two of them would be 100,000.. . . . . i t would cut th e . p r o f i t but at least the funds would be s p l i t evenly AG: Well..yeah but i f we did that then I would also have to do something less p r o f i t a b l e for my second project too and we would just be cutting our own throats, eh? CT: Sure so we have to decide what are we tr y i n g to do I mean I think the point of t h i s whole thing i s to see i f we can reach an agreement that i s mutually benefic-i a l . , or... i f we w i l l each t r y to get the most despite the cost i n o v e r a l l p r o f i t . . . . | PAUSE | right? AG: Right., so...what we need to do i s figure out a combina-tio n that w i l l provide the maximum o v e r a l l p r o f i t f or the t o t a l cost. CT: Ok, so l e t s forget about our big projects for a minute and look at the other p o s s i b i l i t i e s that each of us has available and see what we come up with. Besides those two big p r o f i t makers what other options do you have? They begin to develop a l i s t of alternatives f o r Adult Games and then for Children's Toys. After the l i s t s are completed they begin comparing the possible d i f f e r e n t combinations and come up with several d i f f e r e n t a l t e r n a t i v e s . 206 AG: Well i t looks l i k e we have can maybe each hang on to our one big p r o f i t maker and then put together a com-bination of smaller projects which w i l l s t i l l give each of us pretty 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 with my big project which gives us 10,000 p r o f i t right ...and then throw i n your three projects which give us another ..uh..12,400....and mine with 2500 that gives us uh....a t o t a l of 24,900 p r o f i t ...almost equally d i v i -ded between us and costs 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 project...with no p r o f i t but goodwill for the company ...and you could take the other 2. What do you say? AG: Well that's a p o s s i b i l i t y . . . but we could do better i f we were to go with my two biggies and your smaller ones our p r o f i t would be bigger right and that's the point ...right? CT: But the p r o f i t s would be large l y i n your d i v i s i o n that way...It wouldn't be nearly even. If we go with the f i r s t combination the t o t a l p r o f i t i s not much smaller and the s p l i t between departments i s almost exactly equal....and we are supposed to attempt to maximize the p r o f i t f or each of our departments as well..right? AG: Sure....but i f i t reduces the t o t a l i t s hurting us both in the long run.... CT: If i t was a big difference... sure ... but t h i s wouldn't make much impact and i t allows us to come away with an almost equal d i s t r i b u t i o n of the funds everybody wins... AG: Well.... i t s not quite equal you would be getting 103 and I would get 97.... | PAUSE | CT: Hey i f that's a l l i t i s . . . i t s easy. You take the whole thing ... the extra 5,000 doesn't mean any more p r o f i t for either of us I just thought that since I had that 3,000 project and you didn't have any thing you could use i t for i t made sense ....just a sort of goodwill thing for 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 before we run out of time.... AG: Well no that's not going to make any r e a l difference i f we are going to go with t h i s we might as well put the 3 in your budget I guess. CT: Hey, whatever you want...it doesn't matter to me either way l e t s just 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 EXAMPLE 1 PROFIT SUBJ. SCORE Adult Games: Project - 08 |- = 13,200 09 Child. Toys: Project - 12 |- = 12,500 07 25,700 25,000 EXAMPLE 2 Adult Games: Project - 08 06 - = 13,800 Child. Toys: Project - 12 |- = 12,800 09 26,600 25,600 EXAMPLE 3 Adult Games: Project - 08 |- = 14,800 03 Child. Toys: Project - 12 |- = 10,800 14 25,600 21,600 EXAMPLE 4 Adult Games: Project - 08 10 Child. Toys: Project - 12 11 |- = 10,800 = 14,800 25,600 29,600 209 EXAMPLE 5 Adult Games: Project - 08 |--= 10,800 10 | = 21,600 21,600 Child. Toys: Project - 12 |- = 10,800 14 210 APPENDIX 3 NEGOTIATION STYLE SURVEY INCLUDING ADAPTED I.A.R. QUESTIONNAIRE Negotiation Style Survey 212 Post Training Questionnaire 216 Adapted I.A.R. Scale 217 211 NEGOTIATION STYLE SURVEY The following questionnaire i s part of a survey of management negotiation s t y l e s . The survey i s not being conducted by the B r i t i s h Columbia Institute of Technology, nor w i l l the data be a v a i l a b l e to B r i t i s h Columbia I n s t i t u t e of Technology personnel. This survey i s being conducted as part of a research project at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, the data co 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. Following t h i s destruction, i t w i l l be impossible f o r anyone to connect any i n f o r m a t i o n with you personally. You are not required to complete the questionnaire 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 standing i n any course at the B r i t i s h Columbia Inst i t u t e of Technology. In fact you may simply turn i n the blank form and no one w i l l know whether you completed i t or not. Your cooperation i n completing the questionnaire i s requested however i n order to assure a l a r g e enough sample to make the data c o l l e c t e d meaningful. A small percentage of those who complete the questionnaire may be requested to take part i n a b r i e f follow-up s e s s i o n (approx. 1/2 hour) at a l a t e r date, however completion of the questionnaire i n no way obligates you to take part i n such a follow-up s e s s i o n . Completion of the questionnaire w i l l be interpreted as i n d i c a t i n g a willingness on your part to allow data c o l l e c t e d to 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: (indicate the size of the organization which employs you, small=less than 50 employees medium=50-100; large=100+) Small Medium Large 213 SECTION A: As part of your duties you are required to negotiate with the head of another department concerning the d i s t r i b u t i o n of a shared resource (example: worker time, equipment use, funds, etc.) the person with whom you have to negotiate i s a long time employee of the organization and i s head of a department which i s much larger than yours. O f f i c i a l l y your p o s i t i o n in the hierarchy of the organization i s approximately equal, however u n o f f i c i a l l y i t i s recognized that the person you must negotiate with has considerably more power than you. If you have never been i n a s i t u a t i o n s i m i l a r to t h i s in your work, t r y to imagine yourself i n the s i t u a t i o n , then respond to the questions on the following pages. 214 1. In the s i t u a t i o n outlined on the previous page, predict which i n d i v i d u a l would a t t a i n the greatest advantage ( i . e . which would end up with the greatest 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 factors" present i n negotiations 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 regardless of the individuals s k i l l or e f f o r t . B) The f i n a l outcome of such negotiations i s ultimately determined by the e f f o r t or s k i l l of the i n d i v i d u a l negotiator. 3. My past experience i n negotiations would lead me to c l a s s i f y myself as: A) an experienced, expert negotiator. B) a s k i l l f u l but r e l a t i v e l y inexperienced negotiator. C) a moderately s k i l l f u l negotiator. D) a novice, inexperienced negotiator. 215 Post Training Questionnaire 1. My evaluation of t h i s task i s ( c i r c l e one): A) I was more successful than my negotiating partner. B) My negotiating partner was more successful than me. C) Neither party was more successful than the other. 2. I would rate 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 describes your degree of s a t i s f a c t i o n . ) D i s s a t i s f i e d S a t i s f i e d 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. The most important factor i n determining the outcome of t h i s exercise was: ( c i r c l e one) A) my a b i l i t y or personality t r a i t s . B) the amount of e f f o r t I put into i t . C) factors 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 the task; my partner's s k i l l , luck, etc.) 4. How l i k e l y would i t be that a s i m i l a r outcome would occur i f you were to engage in a s i m i l a r task i n the future? Very L i k e l y Very Unlikely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 216 Adapted I.A.R In the following s i t u a t i o n , you are to c i r c l e either (a) or (b) depending upon which alt e r n a t i v e you believe i s most, accurate. There i s no right or wrong answer. Some people might choose one alternative while others would choose the other. It may be d i f f i c u l t to decide which i s most accurate i n some instances, however, you are asked to c i r c l e that which you think i s most generally true in your s i t u a t i o n . Please answer a l l questions and t r y to focus your attention on  what i s most accurate for you, personally, regardless of how  you think others might respond. 217 1) If you were to describe your job, would you say i t was: a) always stimulating and exci t i n g . b) sometimes stimulating, but sometimes routine and re p e t i t i v e . 2) If you were promoted at work would i t probably be: a) because of se n i o r i t y . b) because of the high q u a l i t y of work that you did. 3) When you perform a p a r t i c u l a r task well at work i s i t more l i k e l y to be: a) because of your knowledge and spec i a l s k i l l s . b) because most of the tasks you do at work are quite simple. 4) When you have d i f f i c u l t y understanding a p a r t i c u l a r task at work i s i t l i k e l y to be: a) because i t wasn't explained adequately. b) because you didn't l i s t e n c a r e f u l l y enough to the instructions. 5) When you read something and then can't remember much of i t , i s i t usually: a) because i t wasn't well written. b) because you weren't interested in i t . 6) When you have personal business to perform during the day, do you: a) make i t a rule to do i t only on your own time ( i . e . at lunch, during coffee breaks, or af t e r work). b) occasionally do i t on company time 218 7) When you receive a compliment from your superior 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) If you performed better than usual on a p a r t i c u l a r task would i t probably be because: a) you t r i e d harder than usual. b) you got some assistance from somebody else. 9) When you lose at a game of cards or checkers or some such contest i s i t usually because: a) the other player i s good at the game. b) you don't play the game very well. 10) Suppose someone thinks you aren't very bright or clever: a) you can change t h e i r opinion i f you r e a l l y t r y . b) some people w i l l think that way no matter what you do. 11) If you solve a puzzle quickly i s i t usually: a) because i t wasn't a very d i f f i c u l t puzzle. b) because you were very careful in working on i t . 12) If you were to describe your normal mood at work would you say you were: a) always cheerful and o p t i m i s t i c . b) usually cheerful, but occasionally discouraged and unhappy. 13) If somebody suggests you are dumb i s i t most l i k e l y that the reason they say i t i s : a) because they are mad at you. b) because you did something which was not very smart. 219 14) Suppose you decide to work r e a l l y hard to a t t a i n a certain position but f a i l to get i t . Would t h i s be most l i k e l y due to the fact that: a) you didn't work hard enough. b) you needed some assistance at some point which others did not give you. 15) When you learn a task quickly i s i t usually: a) because you concentrated on i t . b) because the explanation was very clear. 16) If your superior says "Your work i s f i n e " i s i t l i k e l y because: a) "bosses" usually say t h i s kind of thing to encourage subordinates. b) you are doing very good work. 17) When you f i n d a task at 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 didn't learn enough about i t before taking i t on. b) i t i s a very hard task. 18) If you were able to make changes i n your present work si t u a t i o n would you: a) probably make few changes because your present s i t u a t i o n i s quite s a t i s f a c t o r y . b) probably change a number of things which need improving. 19) When you forget something you have been t o l d i s i t l i k e l y : a) because i t wasn't explained adequately. b) because you didn't t r y to remember. 220 20) Suppose your superior asked you a p a r t i c u l a r l y d i f f i c u l t question and you weren't sure of the answer, but you repli e d as i f you knew and your answer was accepted. Is th i s l i k e l y to be because: a) your superior didn't r e a l l y care what kind of answer was given. b) your answer was the best one available. 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 interested i n i t . b) because i t was e s p e c i a l l y well written. 22) If someone t e l l s you that you are acting s i l l y and not thinking 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 that you did. b) they are in a bad mood. 23) When you don't perform a task well at 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 d i f f i c u l t . b) you did not prepare yourself adequately to perform i t well. 24) When you are at work do you f i n d that: a) your mind occasionally wanders to things that are not r e a l l y related to work. b) you are almost always concentrating on the task which you are performing. 25) When you win at a game of cards or checkers or other s i m i l a r game i s i t most l i k e l y : a) because you play well. b) because your opponent does not play well. 221 26) If people think you are bright and clever i s i t more l i k e l y : a) because they l i k e you. b) because you usually act that way. 27) If you f a i l e d to gain a promotion you were due for would i t probably be because: a) your superior didn't l i k e you. b) your work was not good enough. 28) Suppose you didn't perform a p a r t i c u l a r task as well as you usually do, would t h i s probably be because: a) you weren't as careful as usual. 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 usually do. 29) When you are not f e e l i n g very well, but are not r e a l l y sick, do you: a) occasionally take a day (or half of a day) sick leave. b) always go to work and hope you w i l l f e e l better i n a while. 30) If one of your co-workers were to t e l l you that they thought you were very smart, i s i t l i k e l y because: a) you have come up with some r e a l l y good ideas. b) they l i k e you. 31) Suppose you had achieved some pos i t i o n which you had been aiming at for some time. Would i t be because: a) others had been w i l l i n g to help you when you needed i t . b) you had worked very hard. 222 32) If you were to evaluate the things that were important to you i n your present job: a) money would not be an important factor. b) money would be an important factor. 33) Suppose your superior t e l l s you that your work i s unsatis-factory, i s t h i s l i k e l y due mainly to the fact that: a) your work has not been very good. b) your superior 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 learning the task, i s t h i s most l i k e l y because: a) they were unable to understand the task. b) you were unable to explain the task well. 35) When you f i n d your tasks at work easy, i s i t usually: a) because you have been given easy tasks to perform. b) because you analyzed them c a r e f u l l y before you began. 36) Suppose you have a choice between two tasks, one of which i s d u l l and r e p e t i t i v e and one stimulating and i n t e r e s t i n g . You know that i f you do one of them somebody else w i l l do the other. Would you most l i k e l y : a) do the boring one so somebody else doesn't have to. b) do the i n t e r e s t i n g one. 37) When you remember how to perform a s p e c i f i c task at work, i s i t usually: 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 made a special e f f o r t to explain i t well. 223 38) If you can't solve a puzzle i s i t more l i k e l y because: a) you are not good at working out puzzles. b) the instructions are somewhat confusing and unclear. 39) When you go to work each day would you describe yourself a) as always looking forward to the days work. b) as sometimes wishing you could just forget about work for the day. 40) If 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 that you did. 41) Suppose you were explaining something to a f r i e n d and she/he catches on very quickly, would t h i s l i k e l y be: a) because you explained i t very well. b) because your f r i e n d was clever and able to understand e a s i l y . 42) Suppose your superior asks you to solve 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 uncertain of the solution but supply an answer anyway. Later your superior indicates that she/he i s not pleased with the answer you gave. Is thi 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 to please. b) because you answered too quickly. 43) If your superior was to say to you " t r y to improve your work", would i t be because: a) t h i s i s something that they might say to anyone in order to motivate them to work harder. b) your work had not been as good as i t usually i s . 224 44) When you leave work each day would you describe yourself as: 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 that day. 225 APPENDIX 4 FIGURES AND TABLES 226 TABLE '21 Di s t r i b u t i o n of Male and Female Subjects  by Treatment Groups Exper. Training 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 Instructors by Treatment SOURCE DF MS F Between Treatment (A) 1 169022464 4.09* Instructors (B) 1 11967488 .28 AB . 1 3907072 .76 Within 100 41968592 T r i a l s (C) 1 35310080 4.63* AC 1 119861248 15.73* BC 1 1344512 .17 ABC 1 18064384 2 . 37 Within 100 7619215 *p<.10 227 FIGURE 14 Experimental Group: Prediction - A t t r i b u t i o n - Performance - Pattern P r e d i c t i o n A t t r i b u t i o n I Performance I A t t r i b u t i o n II Performance II A t t r i b u t i o n I II Success F a i l u r e to to co F a i l u r e •> Internal F. (18) — ->Success(12) --> Intern. F(12) j' -> Success(9 •> F a i l u r e ( 3 ->Fail(6) — ! •> Internal F.(18): — > F a i l ( 6 ) --->Intern. V . ( 4 ) — — — > F a i l u r e ( 4 —>External (2) —> F a i l u r e ( 2 —>External (2) > F a i l u r e ( 2 --Mntern. V.(4) ~-> Success(l '-> F a i l u r e ( 3 -> Success(9 ->Success(12) —->Intern. F.(12)-,-->Intern. V . ( 5 ) - ~ 1 — > F a i l u r e ( 3 ,—> F a i l u r e ( 4 ,— >Fail(6) ! -> External (16) — . i ->Intern. F . ( 1 ) ~ ->Intern. F.(10)-'—>Success(10) •Subjects who f a i l e d on Performance I and succeeded on Performance II —> Success(1 > F a i l u r e ( 1 7—> Success(8 '--> F a i l u r e ( 2 — > Int. F i x . — > Int. Var. — > Int. Var. — > External - - > External — > Int. F i x . 7-> Int. Var. ' - > Int. F i x . T-> Int. F i x . ' - > Int. Var. — > Int. Var. Int. F i x . Int. Var. — > Int. F i x . — > Int. F i x . — > Int. F i x . — > Int. Var. 9) 3) 4) 2) 2) 1) : 2) 1) 6) 3) 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 - P a t t e r n P r e d i c t i o n A t t r i b u t i o n I Performance I A t t r i b u t i o n II Success F a i l u r e to to VO F a i l u r e -> Internal F. (18) — •> In t e r n a l F.(18)-•> External (16)-->Success(ll) —> Intern. F ( l l ) ->Fail(7) — | - > F a i l ( 5 ) — - j' ->Success(13) • — >Fail(7) — — > E x t e r n a l --->Intern. V. — > I n t e r n . F. — > E x t e r n a l -7->Intern. F. i i '->External •->Intern. F. •->External ->Success ( 9 ) - T - > I n t e r n . F. •>External Performance II _,—> Success(7 1—> F a i l u r e ( 4 6)-D -2) -3) -5) — 8) — > F a i l u r e ( 6 > F a i l u r e ( l > F a i l u r e ( 2 > F a i l u r e ( 3 ,—> Success(3 •---> F a i l u r e (2 --> Success(2 --> F a i l u r e ( 6 2)-5)-•> F a i l u r e ( 2 -> F a i l u r e ( 5 4) — > Success(2 1 > F a i l u r e ( 2 5) > F a i l u r e ( 5 A t t r i b u t i o n III --> Int. Fix. (7) --> External (4) --> External (6) --> Int. F i x . (1) -—> Int. Fix. — > External ---> Int. F i x . — > External -—> Int. F i x . -T-> Int. F i x . '-> External -—> Int. F i x . -7-> External '-> Int. F i x . —> Int. F i x . —> Int. F i x . Int. F i x . '-> External (2) (3) (3) (2) (2) (4) (2) (2) (4) (1) (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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0076859/manifest

Comment

Related Items