Consequences of Attributing Failure on a Gross Motor Task to Lack of Effort or Ineffective Strategy

Abstract

This investigation was conducted to compare the effects of various attributions for failure on a gross motor task. Equal numbers of male (n = 25) and female (n = 25) University students were randomly assigned to five groups. These groups were oriented to perceive poor performance on a stabilometer as based on one of the following factors: lack of effort, ineffective attempts at using alternative strategies, both of the above, a low level of natural ability, or nothing in particular (control). Participants then received fictitious normative feedback suggesting they had performed below average on eight consecutive trials. Dependent variables included expectancies for success (11-point rating scale), performance scores (time on balance), affective reactions (11-point rating scale) and free-time persistence (time on task). Analysis indicated that the strategy-oriented group and the effort/strategy-oriented group persisted on the task more than the control group. In addition, the effort-oriented group reported less anxiety and frustration than the other groups. The results were discussed in terms of the general benefits of unstable, controllable attributions and the specific benefits of attributions to strategy.