Enhancing Achievment Motivation

download Enhancing Achievment Motivation

of 37

Transcript of Enhancing Achievment Motivation

  • 8/3/2019 Enhancing Achievment Motivation

    1/37

    Research in Higher Education, Vol. 34, No. 6, 1993

    ENHANCING ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION ANDPERFORMANCE IN COLLEGE STUDENTS: ANATTRIBUTIONAL RETRAINING PERSPECTIVE

    Raymond P. Perry, Frank J. Hechter, Verena H. Menec, andLeah E. Weinberg . . . . . . , = , . = . , , . = . . . . = , , . . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . , . = . . . . , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    Academic performance in higher education ultimately involves a complex interplay ofstudent attributes and the educational environment. Although instruction is regardedas the major environmental factor affecting scholastic success, other factors canbecome more important when teaching does not produce the desired results. Attribu-tional retraining is one alternative that shows considerable promise for enhancingstudents' motivation and achievemen t stdving by changing how students think abouttheir successes and failures. This paper reviews attdbutional retraining studies pub-lished since 1985 having a higher education focus. Their conceptual and meth-odological strengths and weaknesses are discussed in relation to Weiner's attribu-tion theory. With in this contex t, attributional retraining is presented as a potentiallyviable and important intervention for improving college students' academic develop-ment, especially those studen ts deemed to be at risk. In particular, attdbutional re-train ing is considered as an adjunct to, and possible aspect of, effective teach ing., . . . . . , , , ~ . . . . . , . ~ , = , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . , . . . . = . . . . ,

    Scholast ic achievement in h igher educat ion is recognized as a complex in ter-play of s tudent abi l i t ies and the educat ional environment . In th is regard ins truc-t ion is seen as a key environmental factor affect ing s tudents ' success , withaccumulat ing empirical evidence from field and laboratory s tudies beginning toverify its muit ip le benefi ts (Feldman , 1989; Marsh and Dunkin, 1992; Murray,1991). Unfortunately , effect ive teaching does not have universal ly posi t ive re-sul ts for al l s tudents . Recent research suggests that some s tudents perforrnpoorly despi te h igh-qual i ty ins truct ion (Perry , 1991). Students who bel ieve theyhave l i t t l e con t ro l over the i r academic ach ievement per fo rm no be t te r fo l lowinga lecture from an effect ive, compared to an ineffect ive, ins tructor . Thus, the

    Address correspondence to: Raymond P. Perry, Centre for Higher Education Research and De-velopment, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2.Support for this research was provided to Raymond P. Perry by Franz E. Weinert, Max PlanckInstitute, Munich, and by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (# 41 0-91-1296). The junior authors contributed equally to the article and are listed alphabetically.687

    0361- 0365/93 / 1200- 0687507 . 00 /0 1993 H uman Sciences P r es s . I nc .

  • 8/3/2019 Enhancing Achievment Motivation

    2/37

    688 PERRY, HECHTER, MENEC, AND WEINBERGtypical pattern of low motivation, negative affect, and poor performance, char-acteristic of helpless orat-r isk college students, may o ccur even in the presenceof high-quality teaching.Under these circumstances other options are called for. Typically, most col-leges provide a variety of alternatives to assist students, ranging from formal,well-established interventions such as counseling services, time managementcourses, and written skills programs, to more informal, less-structured optionsconsisting o f peer advising, study groups, etc. On e alternative that appears tohave considerable potential to aid college students, particularly those at-risk, isattributional retraining, a recent development in the psychological literature(Weiner, 1979). A meta-analysis of generic programs intended to help at-riskstudents reveals small but significant improvements in those receiving interven-tions versus those who did not have any treatment (Kulik, Kulik, and Shwalb,1983). With its recent origins, it is unlikely that attributional retraining wouldhave been part of those generic programs, raising the possibility that, being atheoretically derived and empirically based intervention, it would have strongereffects. Applied to academic settings, attributional retraining is designed toenhance student motivation and achievement striving by changing how studentsthink about their successes and failures. Like effective teaching, it shares acommon objective in seeking to modify cognitive, affective, and motivationalprocesses responsible for students' scholastic performance.The purpose of this article is to critically review the empirical literature onattributional retraining in higher education that has emerged since 1985. Empir-ical studies were identified by a computer-assisted search of educationalresearch journals using the Social Sciences Citation lndex (SSCI) and the Edu-cational Resources Information Center (ERIC). Published programs of theAmerican Educational Research Association (AERA) annual meeting were alsoreviewed since 1985. To a large extent, this research can be framed within theeontext of Weiner's attribution theory (1986), and for this reason, as well as thetheory's suitability for the college classroom, the review will feature his model.For more general research on attributional retraining published prior to 1985,the reader is referred to comprehensive reviews by Frsterling (1985) andWeiher (1986). The review is comprised of four sections, the first providing anoverview of attribution theory and a brief description of attributional retraining.The second presents specific studies, and the third section discusses the criticalconceptual issues and recurring methodological flaws extant in the literature.The final one offers some general conclusions about attributional retraining andits implications for the college classroom.

    ATTRIBUTION THEORY AND ATTRIBUTIONAL RETRAININGAttributional retraining is rooted in attribution theory, originally introduced

    by Heider (1958) to account for how people perceive and interpret their social

  • 8/3/2019 Enhancing Achievment Motivation

    3/37

    ATTRIBUTIONAL RETRAINING 689

    environment. Attribution theory implies that people have a need to make senseof their world and that making sense of it has a functional value: it improvestheir chances of survival. Attributing a successful performance on a collegeentrance exam to ability, for exam pte, has marke dly different implications for astudent's academic development than believing that luck was the reason forsuccess. Subsequent research by Kelley (1967, 1972), Jon es and Davis (1965),W ein er (1972, 1979), and others (see Ross and Fletcher, 1985, for a review)has led to further development of Heider 's original thesis.

    We iner (1979, 198 6) has proposed on e accoun t that is particularly wellsuited for studying the college classroom because of its primary emphasis onachievement motivation and performance. According to his theory, people rou-tinely seek to explain outcomes and events in their environment, particularlythose wh ich are novel, im portant, or negative. The explanations, or causal attri-butions, generated by this casual search process have a direct impact on subse-quent cognitions, emotions, and behaviors. Weiner proposes a three-dimensiontaxonomy for classifying all attributions. Specifically, a locus of causality di-mension describes causes within (e.g., aptitude) or outside (e.g., chance) theperson; a stability dimen sion refers to causes that are either stable (e.g., indus-triousness) or unstable (e.g., fatigue), and a controllability dimension indicateswhether the cause can be influenced by the person (e.g., laziness versus eco-nomic recession).These three dimensions form a locus by stability by controllability taxonomythat can be used to classify any attribution resulting from the causal searchprocess, in its simplest configuration, the taxonomy can be thought of as alocus (internal, external) by stability (unstable, stable) by controllability (un-controllable, controllable) 2 x 2 z 2 factorial, although We iner maintains, infact, that each dimension is a continuum and not a dichotomy. By adopting thesimple 2 x 2 x 2 factorial, any causal attribution can be construed as "fittinginto" a cell in the taxonomy. For example, math aptitude would fall within theinternal, stable, and uncontrollable cell, whereas fate would be located withinthe external, unstable, and uncontrollable cell. (See Weiner, 1985, 1986, for adiscussion o f other possible dimensions.)

    These dimensional properties of causal attributions determine a person's sub-sequent cognitive, affective, and motivational reactions. Specifically, the sta-bility dimension influences future expectations: a stable attribution (e.g., apti-tude) about an o utcom e implies that it is m ore likely to reoccur than an unstableattribution (e.g., chance). Moreover, each of the three dimensions influencespecific emotions which, in combination with expectations generated by thestability dimension, lead to motivated behavior. The locus dimension can in-duce feelings of pride if an internal attribution (e.g., aptitude) is made forsuccess, bu t feelings of gratitude i f an external attribution (e. g. , instruction) wasthe explanation. Thu s, the unique locu s, stability, and controllability propertiesof an attribution have the capacity to substantially alter a person's motivation

  • 8/3/2019 Enhancing Achievment Motivation

    4/37

    690 PERRY, HECHTER, MENEC, AND WEINBERGand behavior regarding future outcomes and events. A more complete accountof this model is prov ided elsewhe re (Weiner, 1985, 1986).

    The theory's utility becomes paCicularly apparent when applied to specificachievem ent episodes. Suppose a student faiis an im poa ant test and, in seekingan appropriate explanation, attributes the poor performance to lack of ability.Because a bility is typically considered an internal, stable, an d uncontrollablecause, the student would regard h imse lf/herself as personaily responsible forthe negative outcome and would experience embarrassment, sadness, loweredself-esteem, and in extreme cases, depression. These negative emotions wouldmake the course much less attractive to the student and lead to avoidance.Coup led with high exp ectations of continued failure, assum ing lack of ability isa stable cause, these negative emotions would undermine the student's motiva-tion to succeed, thereby jeopardizing future performance and continuation inthe course. Such affect-expectanc y comb inations have been implicated inlearned helplessness in the college classroom (Perry and D ickens, 1984).

    In contrast, internal, unstable, and controllable attributions, such as effort,would have very different academic consequences. Similar to a lack of abilityattribution, a lack of effort attribution would generate negative affect, becausethe student feels responsible for the poor performance, but it would be far lessharmful. Shame is less likely, lowered self-esteem less probable, and helpless-ness-related emotions infrequent. More importantly, expectations about futureperformance wo uld be m uch m ore positive because lack of effort is an unstableand controllable cause and can be modified. This suggests an optimistic sce-nario in which failure resulting from lack of effort can be change d to success bytrying hard next time. Thus, the student may not feel good about the course,but will strive to do bettet.

    This stability/controllability difference between ability and effort lies at theheart of helpless and mastery orientations to academic achievement. Althoughboth are internal attributions, helplessness is more likely to result from a lack ofability attribution (stable/uncontrollable factor) for failure, whereas mastery ismore probable from a lack of effort attribution (unstable/controllable factor) forfailure. External attributions, such as luck or task difficulty, would create lessemotional arousal, be less harmful to a student's self-esteem, and be less likelyto generate helplessness.

    Thus, Weiner 's theory, applied to the college classroom setting, offers possi-bilities for a precise analysis of salient variables, of critical processes, and ofsequential associations. The theory describes attribution, expectation, affect,motivation, and achievement in explicit detail and specifies causal linkagesbetween them. As such, several major advantages are attained with this ap-proach: it focuses on achievement; it involves a broad range o f cognitive, affec-tive, and mo tivational consequences ; it features a well-articulated causal modelin which the various elements are explicitly linked, and it offers a strong con-

  • 8/3/2019 Enhancing Achievment Motivation

    5/37

  • 8/3/2019 Enhancing Achievment Motivation

    6/37

    692 PERRY, HECHTER, MENEC, AND WEINBERGUNDESlRABLE

    success l uck l ack of emotional lack of approachincentive (i.e., indif- towards achievem entference), mi n i ma l l y t as k sincreased expectanciesof success

    fa i l u re . l ac k o f ~ deb i l i t a t ing emo t i ons ~ l ac k of persistence,ability (e.g., feelings of in- avoida nce ofcompetence and depression) achievem ent t as k sdecreased expectanciesof success

    DESIRABLESuccess high , positive esteem-related .... app roac h t ow a rdsability emot i ons (e .g . , pride) achievement t as k s

    increased expectanciesfa i l u re , l a c k o f - - -~ motivating emotions ~ persistence,

    ef fo r t (e .g . , gu i l t) o r lack o f app roac h towardsdebilitating affects, achievem ent t as k smaintenance of relativelyhigh expectancies ofsuccess

    FIG. 1. Desirable and undesirable attributions for success and failure (fromFrsterling (1985); Copyright (1985) by the American Psychological Association.Reprinted by permission.)success to luck, an easy test, or inflated grading standards, and failure to lackof ability, attention deficits, hearing impairment, or prejudice of the marker.Evidence of dysfunctional behaviors could include boredom, apathy, avoidinghomework, not handing in assignments, and missing classes. Attributional re-training programs replace these maladaptive attributions with high ability forsuccess, lack of effort for failure, or others equally suitable. Accordingly, thealtered attribution should produce the necessary emotional and expectancychanges needed to facilitate subsequent motivation and achievement striving.Although many issues remain to be addressed, Frsterling (1985) was suffi-ciently impressed by existing empirical evidence to conclude "that attributionalretraining methods have been consistently successful in increasing persistenceand performance" (p. 509).

    ATTRIBUTIONAL RETRAINING IN HIGHER EDUCATIONMuch of the research on attributional retraining has focused on school chil-

    dren, with relatively few er studies done on colle ge students. The objectives inhigher education, nevertheless, are the same; either to prevent or remediate

  • 8/3/2019 Enhancing Achievment Motivation

    7/37

    ATFRIBUTIONAL RETRAINING 693

    negative causal ascriptions that lead to impaired scholastic performance. Theremainder of this review will focus on retraining studies at the college level.This section provides a review of the relevant literature and summarizes theempirical studies in Table I. The next section, Conceptual and MethodologicalConstraints, presents a critique of the studies in terms of subject selection,attributional retraining techniques and methods, and outcome measures.

    The majo rity of attributional retraining studies reported in Table 1 have sev-eral features in common. Typically, first-year students who exhibit some mal-adaptive cognition or behavior affecting their scholastic performance are thelargest population. A common assumption underlying these studies is that ifstudents could be "inoculated" against negative attributions for academic diffi-culties in their first year, tlaen according to W einer 's theory (1986; see alsoFigure 1) it would produce an increased expectancy of success, and increasedmotivation and mastery strivings. The appropriate attribution is typically pre-sented either by directly informing the students or by modeling the attributionin a structured interview, although other techniques have been used with non-college subjects. The induction usually occurs during a single episode, rarelythrough multiple exposures, after which students are tested on related tasks todetermine the program's effectiveness. Although no single approach has guidedthese studies, several common themes have emerged: quasi-experimental fieldstudies done in the actual classroom; attributional retraining supplemented byother techniques, such as discussion or strategy training, and laboratory experi-ments featuring a college classroom analog.

    The pioneering contribution to this literature was a field study undertaken byWilson and Linville (1982; see Table 1). First-year students who were ex-periencing failure or performing below their expectations were deemed to beat risk, as a result of mak ing attributions for their performan ce to stable, uncon-trollable causes. T he attribution-change program was de signed to alter students'expectancies about future success and to reduce negative affect about their cur-rent academic performance. Thus, rather than changing attributions for failurefrom lack of ability to lack of effort (Dweck, 1975), Wilson and Linville(1982) mo dified the stability of studen ts' attributions. Specifically, theyinformed the students that grades are generally lower in the first year and im-prove in the upper-class years. The students were tben shown videotaped inter-views of upper-class students in which they described their academic experi-ences in college, emphasizing their own improvement as they progressed totheir senior year. Most of the studies that have followed Wilson and Linvillehave generally used similar experimental procedures.Students who received the attributional retraining, compared to those whodid not, performed better on a dependent measure involving Graduate RecordExam items, had higher GPA scores one year after training, and were lesslikely to leave college by the end o f their sophom ore year. T hese findings agree

  • 8/3/2019 Enhancing Achievment Motivation

    8/37

    694 PERRY, HECHTER, MENEC, AND WEINBERGTABLE 1. Attributional Retraining Studies

    Study Subject Selection

    AttributionalRetraining

    Attribution Technique and Outcom eChange Methods Measures

    Wilson & Linville(1982)

    First year students Stable to unstable lndividual attr ibu- Short term:in psycholog y de- and temporary tional retraining 1. Readingpar tment subject causes , wi th exper imenter comprehen-pool. Selection in a single session sion test (6based on meet ing cons is ting of GRE-typeALL fol lowing GPA informat ion i tems)criteria: provided through 2. self-reported1. Ist seme ster written statistical question-GP A < 3.50 data or video- naires re-

    and taped interviews garding:2. self report of: with senior stu- a) atti tudes

    a) worry dents, aboutabout aca- perfor-demic per- manceformanc e b) expecta-> median; t ions of

    b) academic futureperfor- perfor-mance < manceability; and

    c) intellectual c) mood.compar ison Long term: G PAwith class- scores with firstmate peers semester GPA asnot greater baselinethan aver- I . GPA in sec-age. ond semes-

    ter of f irstyear.

    2. GPA ofboth firstand secondsemester ofsecond yearuniversity.

    Summarv o fresul ts : 1) reduction in withdrawal from university; 2) increase in GPA one year afterintervention and 3) increase performance in GRE-type items.Wilson & Linville Study 1: con - Stable to unstable lndividual attribu- Simila r to 1982(1985) ducted in second and temporary tional retraining study except that

    semester, causes (both rep- similar to 1982 short term mea-Subject selection lications), s tudy, sures were admin-based on: is tered one timeI. f irst seme ster only immediately

    GP A < me- after attr ibutionaldian (3.00) retraining inter-and vention.

  • 8/3/2019 Enhancing Achievment Motivation

    9/37

    ATTRIBUTIONAL RETRAINING 695

    2. self-reportedworry aboutacademic per-formance > 5on 7-pointLikert scale(median =5.4).

    Study 2: con- Same as Replica- Single session inducted in first se- t ion I . groups of 4 -6mester; subjects students. GP A in-selected from in- formation pro-troductory psy- vided throughcholo gy students statistical databased on self-re- and videtapedported: interviews of up-1. midterm exam per class students

    results < me- indicating thatdian (3.02) grades are oftenand low in first year

    2. worry about but improve inacadem ic per- succeedin g years.forma nce > 6 In addition, treat-on 9-point ment subjectsLikert scale were asked to(median = write an essay7.01 ). identify ing rea-

    sons tbr theiracademicperformance.

    Short term: Sameas 1982 study butwith expandedreading com pre-hension test (13GRE-type items).Long term: Sec-ond semesterGPA scores com-pared with firstsemester GPA asbaseline.

    Summary of results: Increase in performance on GRE-type items and increase in grades in follow-ing sernester.Jesse & Gregory All f irst year uni- Stable, uncontrol-(198 6-87 ) versity students lable to unstable,

    enrolled in intro- controllableductory psychol- causes.ogy course.Authors note thatno selective ad-mission criteria inplace at this uni-versity.

    Single in class Short term: Ma-session early in nipulation checksfirst seme ster in with scales as-groups of 6-2 9 sessing: beliefs instudents consist- s table or unstableing of: causes for successI. G PA informa- or failure and ex-

    tion supplied pectations for fu-with in vivo, ture academ icwritten and performance;four two min- Likel ihood of En-ute videotaped gaging in Stn-interviews dious Activitieswith senior Scale (LESA);stndents who Blaming Stableindicated that Factors (BSF) andgrades im- Blaming Unstableprove after Factors (BUF) forfirst year; test failure, and,

    2. imagined sce- a take hom e In-narios of four terpersonal Sup-

  • 8/3/2019 Enhancing Achievment Motivation

    10/37

    696 PERRY, HECHTER, MENEC, AND WEINBERGT A B L E 1 . (Continued)

    Study Subject Selection

    AttributionalRetraining

    Attribution Technique and OutcomeChange Methods Measures

    specific behav- port Evaluationior strategies List (ISEL) ques-linked to aca- tionnarie.demic perfor- Lon g term:mance and, 1. Reading com-attributional prehe nsion testretraining with (6 GRE-typ etwo written items) given 8case histories week s after in-of first year tervention.students indi- 2. GPA scorescating causes for Spring andof academic Fall semesterssuccess and with Americanfailure were College Testunder stu- (ACT) and in-dents ' control, dex of social

    support ascovariates.

    Summa~v of results: Those students who received GPA information maintained stable GPA scoresin Fall and Spring semesters while those not receiving GPA information experienced a decline inGPA in Spring semester. However, those students receiving both attributional retraining and GPAinformation did not benefit as much as those who received GPA information only.Noel, Forsyth, &Kelley (1987)

    First-year intro- From external,ductory psychol- uncontrollableogy students who causes for failurereceived either a to intemal andD or an F on the controllable. GPAfirst two exams in unstable, chang-the course. As- ing from poor insigned to either a first semester totraining or control satisfactory incondition, later semesters.

    Single-session at-tributional retrain-ing involvingvideotape of twoseniors givingreasons for theiracademic perfor-mance. Theynoted their GPAswere poor ini-tially but im-proved in latersemesters. Theyinitially blamedexternal factors,e ,g. , badteachers, difficulttests, for theirfailures, but nowknew that effort,

    Grades on thethird, fourth, andfinal (cumulative)tests.Attributions fo rtest pefformanceobtained afterfirst test and priorto the final test.

  • 8/3/2019 Enhancing Achievment Motivation

    11/37

    ATTRIBUTIONAL RETRAINING

    study habits , andhe lp-seeking weremore responsiblefor performance .Following thevideotape , sub-jects received awri t t en summaryof the point smade previous ly.

    697

    Summarv of results: Attribut ional retraining produced higher test performance and final grades.Also led to m odes t a t t ribut ion cha nges a t end of course .Van Overw alle , First year univer- Stable, endu ring Single in-class Short term: EndSegebar th , and s i ty s tudents en- and uncont rol la - group procedure of second te rmGoldchs te in rolled in second bie causes to un- of approximate ly theory and exer-(1989) semeste r eco- s table , t rans ient , 45 minutes con- c i se economics

    nom ics course and control lable sist ing of: a 13 exa m scores werewho fai led fi rst cause s, minu te videotape covaried with fi rstsemeste r theory of 4 upper c lass semeste r result s .and exerc i se eco- s tudents di scuss- Long term:nom ics exam. ing causes of aca- I . F inal exam s inThose s tudents demic success a ll courseswith a score < or and fai lure in fi rst were covaried= 4 out ot 20 in year fol lowed by with fi rst termboth theory and a videotape of a theory and ex-exerc i se exa ms psycholog y pro- e rc ise eco-were exc luded, fessor t a lking nomics exam

    about benef it s of scores , anda s tudy s t ra tegy 2. num ber of s tu-program emph a- dents pass ingsizing effort attri- first yearbut ions forsuccess . S tudentswere then askedto indicate inwri t ten form theimportant infor-mat ion providedin the videotapesand their react ion.This was fol -Iowed by a fiveminute group di s -cuss ion.

    Summ ary of resuhs: Higher scores in second s emeste r economics exa m as wei l as a l l f ina l examswere recorded for students receiving at t ribut ional retraining.Van Overwal leand De Met -senarere (1990)

    Study I: con- Study 1: Stableducted in second and uncontrol la-semeste r; al l f i rst- bie to unstab le

    Studv 1: Single Studv I:in-class grou p Final score onsess ion of approx- eeonom ies exam

  • 8/3/2019 Enhancing Achievment Motivation

    12/37

    698 PERRY, HECHTER, MENEC, AND WEINBERGT A B L E 1 . (Continued)

    Study Subject Select ion

    Attribut ionalRetraining

    At t r ibut ion Techniqu e and Outcom eCha nge Me t hods Me a sure s

    year universi ty and control lable imately 50-m inute at end of secondstudents enrol led causes, durat ion consist- seme ster within introductory ing of: fi rst seme sterecon omic s 1. a 13-minute score as covari-course, videotape of ate .

    interviews General ized ef-with 5 senior fects:econ omic s stu- I . s tudent pass-dents who re- ing rate onlated their econo micsdifficult ies in exam ;first year and 2. average scorecause s of suc- on al l final ex-cess and fai l - ams;ure for their 3. failure rate onacademic per- final exa msformance fol -lowed by

    2. a 2-minutevideotape of apsychologyprofessor whostressed effortand personalresponsibi l i tywhile discuss-ing benefi ts ofa remediallearning pro-gram;

    3. stu dents thenindividua!lywrote aboutand then dis-cussed as agroup thecauses for aca-demic successand fai lure.

    Studv 2: Study 2: Studv 2: Stuc(v 2:All fi rst-year uni- Stable, uncontrol- Three intervention Final exa m scoreversi ty students lable cause s to condit ions: in History of Lawenrol led in fi rst- unstable, tempo - I. Attribut ional course with fi rst-year law. rary, and control- retraining semes ter score as

    lable causes. (same as study covariate .I) .

  • 8/3/2019 Enhancing Achievment Motivation

    13/37

    ATTRIBUTIONAL RETRAINING 699

    2.

    3.

    ln-class studystrategy of ap-proximately 60minutes con-sisting of 3sections,namely, t imemanagement ,reading com-prehens ion,and studycourse mate-rial.Combinat ionof attr ibutionalretraining andstudy strategyof approx-imately 110minutes dura-tion.

    Generalized ef-fects: s imilar tostudy I .

    Summarv o f results. In study 1 a greater number of students who received attr ibutional retrainingpassed their f inal examinations compared to control students. In study 2 attr ibutional retrainingagain increased the number of students passing their f inal examinations compared to controls, butstudy strategies had no effect.Perry & Penner(1990)

    Voluntee r univer- Stable to unstable Groups of 15-25 1. 30-item multi-sity students en- causal attr ibutions studen ts in a sim- ple choicerolled in (effort and ability ulated classroom achievem entintroductory psy- as unstable), setting, test based oncholo gy course I . intemal/ex- videotapedwho received ternal locus lecture;credit towa rd of control 2. 10-item multi-course require- measure ple choicements . (MMCS); achievementExclusion criteria: t imed apti- test based on1. GP A < 2.10 tude test hom ework as-

    and followed by signment; and2. < 27% on 2. an 8-minu te 3. Causal attribu-

    postlecture color attr i- t ions usingachiev emen t butional re- Russell 'stest. training (1982) Causa l

    videotape of Dimensiona male psy- Scale (CDS),chologyprofessor.

    Summary o f results: Attributional retraining improved the perform ance of external, but not intema l,students, on both the postlecture test and the homework test. Expressive instruction also enhancedexternal, but not internal, s tudents ' pefformance on both tests .Cavana ugh (1991) Students enrolled Not indicated Attributional re- Pre/post tests on

    in a deve lopm en- training com bined two passages in-

  • 8/3/2019 Enhancing Achievment Motivation

    14/37

    700 PERRY, HECHTER, MENEC, AND WEINBERGTABLE 1 . (Continued)

    Study Subject Selection

    AttributionalRetraining

    Attribution Technique and OutcomeChange Methods Measures

    tal program in ajunior collegewith a below-av-erage readinglevel.

    with text compre- volving a free re-hensio n strate- call task and agies. Students multiple-choiceassigned to orte of short-answerthree groups: text comprehensioncomprehension test.strategies; attribu- Pre/post attribu-tional retraining tion measu res.with text compre-hension strategies;control. Threephases includedpretest, training,posttest.

    Summary o f results: Com bined attributional training and strategy was n ot superior to strategy alonecondition. Both training groups performed better on recall and sho rt-answer tests than controlgroup. No difference in attributions for any group.Menec, Perry, Study 1 Study ! Study 1 Study 1Struthers, Sch n- Vol unte er first- Chan ge attribu- In a three-se ssion 1. 30-item multi-wetter, Hechter & year introductory tions for failure to study, students ple-choiceEichholz (1992) psychology stu- lack of effort and were given a pre- achievement

    dents who re- inappropriate lecture achieve- test based onceived credit strategies, ment test and half-hour vid-toward course re- shown either eotaped lec-quirement; prelec- none, one, or two ture.ture achievement 8-minute video- 2. Expectationstest used to clas- tapes, depicting a concerningsify students into graduate student grade on nextfailure and suc- relating personal psych ologycess groups, or a friend's fail- test and final

    ure experiences, grade in psy-Experiences in- chologycluded: failure at course.an academic test,failure in pianoperformance, andfailure attainingscholarships. Thegraduate studentindicated thatchanging attribu-tions improvedperformance in

  • 8/3/2019 Enhancing Achievment Motivation

    15/37

    ATTRIBUTIONAL RETRAINING

    Studv 2Volunteer first-year introductorypsychology stu-dents who re-ceived credittoward course re-quirement . Onlysubjects who per-formed at or be-low the medianon a prelectureachievement tes twere included;students dividedinto internal andextemal locus ofcontrol groups.

    Study 2Change attr ibu-tions for failure tolack of effort andinappropriatestrategies.

    701

    the future. Ses-sions were held atone-week inter-vals.Study 2 Study 2In three sessions, I . 30-item multi-held one week ple-choiceapart, s tudents achievem entwrote a prelecture test based onachieve ment test, lecture.filled out an inter- 2. Attributio nsnal/extemal locus concerningof control mea- performancesure (MM CS), on theand viewed ei ther achievementnone, one, or two test including:6-minute attr ibu- abili ty, effort,tional retraining desire to dovideotapes. The welt, test diffi-tapes showe d two culty, luck,students discuss- and the pro-ing failure exp eri- fessor.ence s in either an 3. E xpectationsacademic achieve- concerningment or spor ts performancedomain. They on next psy-noted that by cholog y testchang ing attr ibu- and final gradetions their perfor- in psycholog ymance had course.improved cons id-erably. A psy-chology professorthen summarizedthe most impor-tant points oftheir discussion.

    Summary ofresuhs: In Study I , attr ibutional retraining enhanced performance on the achievementtest for students who had performed poorly (below the median) on the prelecture achievement test,but only whe n com bined with effective instruction. M ultiple attr ibutional retraining sessions did notimprove achievement as compared to a single attr ibutional retraining session. In Study 2, whencombined with effective instruction, attr ibutional retraining enhanced performance on the achieve-ment test for extemal, but not internal, locus students. Attributional retraining also induced a moreinternal attr ibution profile in extemals, and increased expectations concerning the next psychologytest and final grade in the psychology course for both externals and intemals. Again, these effectswere found only when students also received effective instruction.Perry & Magnus- Volun teer first- Three attr ibution Single group ap- 1. Prelecture testson (1989a) 2 year introductory cond itions in- plication to 25 - questionnaire

    psych ology stu- duced: abili ty, 30 students in a assessing: stu-

  • 8/3/2019 Enhancing Achievment Motivation

    16/37

    702 PERRY, HECHTER, MENEC, AND WEINBERGT A B L E 1 . (Continued)

    Study Subject Selection

    AttributionalRetraining

    Attribution Technique and Outcom eChange Methods Measures

    dents who re- effort, or test s imulated collegeceived credit difficulty, classroom; writtentoward course re- attr ibution induc-quirement. Stu- t ion to abili ty, ef-dents divided into fort , or taskdistortion/non- difficulty for per-distortion groups formanc e on abased on stu- prelecture testden ts ' interpreta- with failure feed-t ion of noncon- back.tingent failurefeedback on ap-titude test.

    dents ' reactionto their perfor-mance in rela-tion to ability,emotions; per-ceived controlover aptitudetest perfor-mance andperceived per-formance.

    2. Multiple-choiceachievementtest based onvideotapedleeture.

    3. Postlecture at-tribution ques-tionnaire toassess stu-dents ' percep-tions of theirperformance.

    Summary o f results: Causal attr ibutions differentially affected postlecture achievem ent and control.in addition, the quality of instruction appears to compensate for the detrimental effects of somecausal attributions.Perry & Magnus- Volun teer first- See Perry and Single group ap- See Perry andson (1989b) 2 year introductory Magnusson plication to 25 - Magnusson

    psyc holo gy stu- (1989a). 30 students in a (1989a).dents received simulated collegecredit toward classroom; writtencourse require- attr ibution induc-ment; divided into tion to abili ty, ef-perceived success/ fort , or testfailure groups difficulty for per-based on their formance on theperceived perfor- prelecture test;manc e on a pre- prelecture testlecture test. with no feedback.

    Summary o f results: Causal attr ibutions influenced postlecture and achievement differentially, de-pending on the quality of instruction.

  • 8/3/2019 Enhancing Achievment Motivation

    17/37

    ATTRIBUTIONAL RETRAINING

    Perry, Magnus- Volunteer first- Three attribution Single group ap-son, Schnwetter, year introductory conditions in- plication to 25 -& Struthers psychology stu- duced: ability, 30 students in a(1993) 2 dents received effort, or task simulated collegecredit toward difficulty, classroom; writtencourse require- attribution induc-

    ment. Students tion to ability, ef-divided into per- fort, or taskceived success/ difficulty for per-failure groups formance on thebased on stu- prelecture test;dents ' interpreta- prelecture testtion of nonco n- with success feed-tingent success back.feedback on pre-lecture test.

    703

    I. Prelecture testquestionnaireassessing: stu-dents' reactionto their perfor-mance in rela-tion to ability,effort, test dif-ficulty; per-ceived controlover aptitudetest perfor-mance; threeaffect-relateditems.

    2. Multiple-choiceachievementtest based onvideotapedlecture.3. Postlecturequestionnaireassessing stu-dents' subjec-tiveperceptions oftheir perfor-mance.

    Summary ofresults: The three attribution schemas influenced postlecture emotions, motivation, andperformance, depending on prelecture perceived success and instruction. Effort and ability gener-ated better pe rformance in low-success students receiving ineffective instruction. Attribution effectswem not evident in high-success students or when instruction was effective.I. Studies listed in approximate chronological order.2. This study used only elementary attributional retraining procedures.

    w i t h W e i n e r ' s t h e o r y i n th a t c h a n g i n g a t t r ib u t i o n s t o u n s t a b l e , a n d p o t e n t i a ll yc h a n g e a b l e , c a u s e s s h o u l d i n c r e a s e e x p e c t a n c i e s f o r f u t u r e s u c c e s s , h e i g h t e nm o t i v a t i o n , a n d e n h a n c e a c h i e v e m e n t s t r iv i n g s . T h e s u c c e s s o f t h e i n t e r v e n t io nw a s c h a l l e n g e d b y B l o c k a n d L a n n i n g ( 1 9 8 4) , h o w e v e r , w h o q u e s t i o n e d b o tht he v a l i d i t y o f W i l s o n a n d L i n v i l l e ' s m e a s u r e s a n d t h e s t r e n gt h o f t he l o n g - t e r mresu l t s .B l o c k a n d L a n n i n g a r g u e d t h a t s tu d e n t s w h o d r o p p e d o u t h ad h i g h e r g r a d ep o i n t a v e r a g e s t h a n s t u d e n t s w h o s t a y e d i n c o l l e g e , a n d th a t t he l o n g - t e r m G P Ai n c r e a s e f r o m t h e f i r s t s e m e s t e r i n c o l l e g e t o t h e s e c o n d s o p h o m o r e s e m e s t e r

  • 8/3/2019 Enhancing Achievment Motivation

    18/37

    704 PERRY, HECHTER, MENEC, AND WEINBERGwas of questionable reliability. To address these and other criticisms, Wilsonand Linville (1985) undertook two replications, one being almost identical tothe 1982 study; the second, introducing the intervention in the first instead ofthe second semester, after the midterm exams (see Table 1). The results of allthree studies (1982 and the two 1985 replications) again led Wilson and Lin-ville (1985) to conclude that a simple, one-time retraining intervention can haveshort-term and long-term benefits. An attempted replication by Jesse and Gre-gory (1986 -87), how ever, providing sim ilar attributional retraining using invivo discussion, as well as verbal, written, and videotaped information, failedto find any bene fit for retraining (Table 1).

    Van Overwalle and De Metsenaere (1990) used a comparable field studyapproach, but coupled videotaped information with an in vivo analysis of thecauses of academic achievement. College students received a 50-minute inter-vention in which the experimenter first discussed with students what theythought were causes of midterm exam performance. Next, students viewed vid-eotaped interviews with senior students wh o described significant academic im-provements after their first year, and then provided attributional informationabout their early academic failures, namely lack of effort, lack of experience,and ineffective study strategies in their first year. Again, this intervention wasintended to persuade first-year students to change maladaptive causal attribu-tions to unstable and mo difiable or controilable explanations. In comparison toa no-training control group, attributional retraining increased the passing rateon final exams of all courses, due primarily to fewer low scores. An earlierstudy by Van Overwalle, Segebarth, and Goldchstein (1989) employed twotraining conditions, on e involving a videotape-on ly treatment and the other, thevideotape plus study-skill training. Attributional retraining resulted in improve-ments of academic performance on an economics exam and increased examsession scores at the end of the year.

    Using more rigorous laboratory controls, Perry and Penner (1990) also pre-sented videotaped retraining to first-year psychology students, prior to a half-hour videotaped lecture. The lecture involved either effective or ineffectiveinstruction, thereby enabling attributional retraining to be studied in relation toquality of teaching. Teaching effectiveness was defined in terms of instructorexpressiveness, with unexpressive instruction regarded as ineffective and ex-pressive instruction as effective (see Feldman, 1989; Perry, 1985, for reviews).Before the training session, students were classified as having an internal orexternal locus of control orientation based on Lefcourt 's Multidimensional-Mu ltiattributional Cau sality Scale (1979). Rela tive to a no-treatm ent controlgroup, attributional retraining improved external, but not intemal, students'performance on two achievement tests based on the videotaped lecture and onhomework study materials. An extension of this approach was undertaken byMenec, Perry, Struthers, Schnwetter, Hechter, and Eichholz (1992). Attribu-

  • 8/3/2019 Enhancing Achievment Motivation

    19/37

    ATTRIBUTIONAL RETRAINING 705tional retraining facilitated performance increments for students who had expe-rienced prior failure (Study 1) or wh o had an external locus (Study 2), but on lywhen it was coupled with effective instruction.As can be seen from these examples and from Table 1, the empirical evi-dence is promising, but inconsistencies remain. It is encouraging to note thatthe benefits of attributional retraining have been observed in both field andlaboratory studies, with students enrolled in a variety of disciplines. It is alsoworth noting that the effects appear to be relatively enduring. However, oneshould keep in mind that the literature is not extensive, thereby preventingdefinitive conclusions from being reached. As w ell, som e inconsistency in find-ings arises from the methodological features of the studies, creating problemsof interpretation and raising issues for future research. A closer consideration ofthese issues is provided in the following section.

    CONCEPTUAL AND METHODOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTSThis review of the attributional retraining literature is limited to the college

    classroom, although it is recognized that attributional retraining can be appliedto a variety of other settings. There is no disputing the potential benefits ofinterventions designed to enhance student motivation and achievement, yet theneed for continued research to verify its benefits is also evident. In respondingto that need, a number of methodological and conceptual issues taust be ad-dressed and these are discussed in this section, namely subject selection, re-training techniques, and outcome measures.

    Subject SelectionSince attributional retraining is intended to enhance motivation and, as a

    result, increase performance and persistence, studies have typically includedsubjects wbo are most in need . Table 1 reveals considerable variability in sub-ject selection, resulting from inclusionary or exclusionary criteria that arecourse or group specific. Students hav e been enrolled in psycholog y courses,economics courses, and law courses; registered in law, engineering, and gen-eral arts programs; have experienced failure or success in their academic pro-gram; and have volunteered or been recruited/assigned to the respective study.While some studies include subjects in the retraining program on the basis oflow GPA scores (Wilson and Linville, 1982), other studies have no such crite-ria and include, for example, all students enrolled in first-year law (Van Over-walle and De Metsenaere, 1990).Given these differences in criteria for selecting subjects, it is important todetermine which students are likely to bene fit from attributional retraining. Stu-dent variables, such as ability, are likely to moderate the effectiveness of a

  • 8/3/2019 Enhancing Achievment Motivation

    20/37

    706 PERRY, HECHTER, MENEC, AND WEINBERGparticular retraining technique. In this regard, Perry and Penner (1990) ex-cluded students with very low grades and with poor performance because, theyargued, these students were unlikely to benefit from one brief attributional re-training intervention. They also found attributional retraining aided studentshaving an external locus of control, whereas it was of little benefit to thosehaving an internal locus. T he following sections classify subject selection crite-ria as either academic or nonacademic variables, with each discussed in turn.

    lndividual Dif ferences: AcademicStudents' ability and the importance they place on their performance appear

    to be two critical academic variables moderating the effectiveness of attribu-tional retraining. Several researchers have compared the effectiveness of attri-butional retraining for students who were not preselected for ability, but whowere included regardless of their academic performance. Van Overwalle andDe Metsenaere (1990) divided their sample into three groups--low, medium,and high abil i ty--on the basis of their performance on a course pretest . Sim-ilarly, Menec et al. (1992) used performance on a prelecture test similar to theGraduate Record E xam (Perry and Dickens, 1984) as the criterion to dividesubjects into success and failure groups. Results of the Van Overwalle and DeMetsenaere study (1990, Experiment 2) showed that only students in the me-dium-ability group benefited from attributional retraining. In Menec et al. 'sstudy, attributional retraining produced" performan ce increments only for stu-dents who had previously failed the GRE test.

    While these results suggest that attributional retraining is particularly usefulfor students who perform at, or below, average, an important consideration isthe magnitude of performance increments that can be anticipated. This questionis critical since attributional retraining should presumably affect performanceby raising overall academic grades. Research indicates that brief interventionsproduce at best a med ium effect (e.g., Wilson and L inville, 1985) or an in-crease in achievem ent scores of approxim ately 5 percent to 15 percent (Menecet al., 1992; Perry and Penner, 1990; Van Overwalle, S egebarth, and Goldch-stein, 1989; Van Overw alle and De M etsenaere, 1990). As Van Ov erwalle etal. (1989) noted, the optimal candidates for attributional retraining thereforeappear to be those students slightly below the passing grade level, but not ofsuch poor ability as to be unable to take advantage of the retraining program(see also Perry and Penner, 1990).

    Although marginal students may benefit the most from attributional retrain-ing, another critical factor to be taken into account is the importance that stu-dents place on their academic performance. With the exception of Wilson andLinv ille's studies (1982, 1985), which included only those students who wereconcerned about their performance, researchers have not attempted to isolate

  • 8/3/2019 Enhancing Achievment Motivation

    21/37

    ATTRIBUTIONAL RETRAINING 707

    the effects of this variable. Since the importance of the outcome is integral toWeiner's theory of motivation, it seems essential to differentiate students onthis basis. According to Weiner's (1986) model, a search for the cause of anevent is initiated if the outcome is perceived as important, negative, or unex-pected. However, the student who is content with a low grade might not engagein an attributional search and may, therefore, not experience any motivationaldeficits associated with poor performance. Clearly, attributional retrainingwould not be expected to improve the perforrnance of such a student. Lowgrades alone may, thus, be a poor indicator for selecting subjects for retraining,so that researchers would be advised to use more appropriate criteria, such asimportance, concern about grades, or perceived failure.

    Individual Differences: NonacademicFew researchers have investigated possible interactions between attributional

    retraining and nonacademic variables, perhaps because it has been assumed tbatuniversity students represent a homogeneous population. Although preliminaryevidence has indicated that attributional retraining improved the perforrnance ofmale, but not female, college students (Wilson and Linville, 1985), and forstudents with an external locu s of control, but not those with an internal locu s(Me nec et al., 1992; Perry and Penner, 1990), these variables and the mediat-ing factors require further investigation. In accounting for their findings, Perryand Penner maintained that attributional retraining introduced new causl attri-butions (effort) to external-locus students, whereas it only reinforced existingoptions for internal-locus students (ability and effort). Greater potential forchange exists, therefore, in external-locus students because they start with agreater attributional deficit.

    Furthermore, social and demographic variables, such as SES, previous edu-cational experiences, and age, have not been taken into consideration. Thepotential contribution o f these and other nonaca dem ic individual difference s isparticularly impo rtant in light of chang es fro m the traditional po pulation o funiversity students in North America, specifically the dramatic increase in part-time and older students from varying cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds.Although Weiher (1986) asserts that the basic properties of causality are pan-cultural, he acknowledges that the culture of the perceiver should influencespecific causal ascriptions. He further indicates that cross-cultural data could"provide insights about the mechanisms that mediate disparate behavioral andemotional reactions across cultures" (p. 73).It would appear, therefore, that in order to maximize the benefit of attribu-tional retraining at the postsecondary level, subject selection criteria should becomprised of both academic and nonacademic individual differences variables.Academic variables should include not only students' ability but also the con-

  • 8/3/2019 Enhancing Achievment Motivation

    22/37

    708 PERRY, HECHTER, MENEC, AND WEINBERGcern and the importance that the individual student places on his academicperformance. Nonacademic variables that have not been investigated exten-sively, but may be very critical to increasing the benefits of attributional re-training, would likely include gender, age, cultural and educational back-grounds, attributional style, etc.

    Attr ibut ional Retra in ing MethodsRegardless of subject selection, attributional retraining programs have con-

    centrated on altering stable, uncontrollable causal attributions to unstable, tem-porary, and controllable explanations. The causal ascription of ability is gen-erally thought to be a stable, uncontrollable attribute, and therefore someattributional retraining programs have focused on changing causal ascriptionsfrom lack of ability to lack of effort. In this connection Perry and Penner(1990) informed subjects that long-term effort, an internal, unstable, and there-fore controllable attribute, enhances ability. This implied that ability was alsosomewhat unstable and could increase through effort. Ability was also de-scribed as having skill-like qualities, further enhancing its capacity to increase.

    While attributional retraining studies with children typically involve multipleone-to-one interventions, with each subject being individually trained by theexperimenter, studies with university students frequently use group interven-tions. However, few studies have employed multiple sessions (but see Cav-anaugh, 1991; Me nec et al., 1992), with mos t having single-expo sure interven-tions varying in duration fro m eight minutes (Perry and Penner, 1990) to onehour (Van Ove rwalle and De Metsen aere, 1990). Surprisingly, Men ec et al.found that multiple exposures did not produce performance increments relativeto a single intervention. It is conc eivab le that repeated exp osure may be benefi-cial only for students performing weil below average, or experiencing severemotivational deficits, while a single intervention may be sufficient for ayeragestudents.Frsterling (1985) suggests a taxonomy for attributional retraining methodsthat includes information, operant methods/vicarious learning, and indirectcommunication. However, only informational methods, typically involvingstaged videotaped interviews with upper-class students and/or professors, havebeen employed in studies with college students. Occasionally, discussions orwriting essays about the causes of failure have supplemented the videotapes(Wilson and Linville, 1985, Replication 2; Van Overwalle and De Metsenaere,1990). The videotape format allows administration of the training program toentire groups and provides a viable technique for large-scale remediation. Sucha cost-effective remedial intervention might reasonably be provided to all first-year students, possibly as part of an orientation program, and may be thoughtof as a primary intervention procedure (see Jesse and Gregory, 1986-87). Ad-

  • 8/3/2019 Enhancing Achievment Motivation

    23/37

    ATTRIBUTIONAL RETRAINING 709

    ditional attributional retraining may be graduated, involving individual orsmall-group application, potentially with multiple exposures provided for thosestudents at risk. This approach will necessarily require significant additionairesources, including appropriate staffing and facilities.

    A critical problem exists for some attributional retraining programs thatstress increased effort as a means to successful academic performance. Whenan individual expends more effort and still does not achieve the desired out-come, self-concept of ability and expectancy for future success may decline(Covington and Omelich, 1981). A number of studies therefore protect self-esteem by indicating that a combination of unstable and controllable causes canenhanc e future perform ance (Menec et al., 1992; Van Overwa lle and De Met-senaere, 1990). Informa tion that grades are generally low in the freshman year,but improve in the senior years (Wilson and Linville 1982; 1985), indirectlysuggests that the causes of poor performance are in fact unstable, temporary,and possibly under students' control. More will be said about the ethical impli-cations of this issue in the final section of this review.

    Thus, the existing literature indicates that single, brief interventions can in-crease student achievement. The intervention programs have generally focusedon the causal dimensions of stability and controllability. Failure is frequentlyattributed to lack of effort and inadequate study strategies, whereas success isattributed to ability, proper study strategies, and effort, with these causal attri-butions being described as unstable and controllable. Additional researchshould consider alternate attributional retraining techniques, varying the dura-tion as weil as the frequency of the intervention, as weu as providing otherexplanations for failure such as test difficulty, quality of instruction, etc. Th eseissues, in combination with concerns associated with subject selection, mayenhance the efficacy of attributional retraining.

    O u t c o m e M e a s u r e sResearchers have been interested primarily in improving academic achieve-

    ment in college students using a variety of performance measures. These out-come measures are usually administered immediately after the intervention(Wilson and Linville, 1985), or a week or more after the training (Perry andPenner, 199 0; Van Overw alle et at., 1989). Such short-term and long-termindices include GPA scores, exam results, and drop-out rates. GRE-type testsare com mon to a number of studies (e.g. , Jesse and Gregory, 1986-87; Wiisonand Linviile, 1982; 1985). Because of this concern for achievement measures,researchers have frequently neglected to investigate the variables that mediateperformance changes (Frsterling, 1985). According to Weiner 's model, mo-tivated behavior is a function of both cognitions and affects, which are de-termined by the causal structure underlying the attributions. Therefore, at-

  • 8/3/2019 Enhancing Achievment Motivation

    24/37

    710 PERRY, HECHTER, MENEC, AND WEINBERGtributional retraining studies should focus not only on changes in academicachievement but also on measures of such mediating variables. The followingsections provide a review of the various mediating and performance measuresused in attributional retraining programs involving college students.

    AttributionsFew studies at the higher education level have demo nstrated changes in attri-

    butions following attributional retraining. Significant results were obtained byMen ec et al. (1992, Experim ent 2), wh o show ed that students receiving attribu-tional retraining attributed their test performance more to their ability, effort,desire to do well, and luck than did those in the control group. This effect wasfound only for students with an external, but not those with an internal, locusof control. These results indicate that attributional retraining induced a moreinternal attribution profile in external students.

    The lack of evidence for attributional changes in other studies may be due tomethodological problems. For example, some researchers have failed to con-sider subjects' perceptions of the specific attributional information providedduring the intervention. This is the case in Jesse and Gregory's (1986-87)study in which students were told that GPA improves over time. Changes inattributions were not measured directly, however, but were inferred from ques-tions pertaining to study strategies (e.g., note taking, poor study habits, etc.) .Given GPA information alone, students may not have concluded that their poorperformance was due to inadequate study strategies, and consequently, theyshould not be expected to place greater emphasis on this cause after the inter-vention. Moreover, few studies have assessed students' attributions prior to theintervention by comparing pretraining and posttraining scores. Posttest-only com-parisons between a treatment and control group usually do not provide an adequateassessment of any change in attributions produced by the training interventions.

    Although attributional retraining is based on the premise that it will result inlong-term attributional changes, attributions invoked during the intervention areiikely more salient immediately following it . It might therefore be advan-tageous to assess explanations shortly after the retraining sessions, as didM enec et al. (1992). In contras t, Perry and Penn er (1990) a dmin istered anattribution questionnaire one w eek follow ing retraining, which ma y account fortheir finding only minim al changes in causal ascriptions. A furthe r critical issueappears to be w hether general or task-specific attributions are measured. Effectsare usually found for task-specific explanations, whereas generalized percep-tions of causal attributions are frequently not influenced by intervention pro-grams (Borkowski, W eyhing, and Carr , 1988; Dweck, 1975; but see Reid andBorkowski, 1987, for positive resuits).

  • 8/3/2019 Enhancing Achievment Motivation

    25/37

    ATTRIBUTIONAL RETRAINING 711

    ExpectationsAccording to attribution theory, attributional retraining should lead to

    changes in expectations of future success. Consistent with this assumption,Menec et al. found that students who received attributional retraining expectedto be more successful on their next psychology test and expected a higher finalgrade in their psychology course, as compared to the control group. However,other studies have been less successful in demonstrating expectancy changes.This is likely due to insensitive, global questions. For example, Wilson andLinville (1982, 1985 ) assessed expectan cy changes by asking students abouttheir expectations of future grades. Thus, it appears important to use domain-specific expectancy measures.

    Performance MeasuresSince Wilson and Linville's (1982) promising findings, studies have consis-

    tently shown performance increments following attributional retraining. More-over, recent research has addressed criticisms of earlier performance measures(see Block and La nning , 1984; Frsterling, 1985) by using more specific andecologically valid measures. In the Manitoba laboratory (Menec et al., 1992;Perry and Penner, 1990) a multiple-choice achievement test was employedbased on a half-hour lecture. Furthermore, Perry and Penner (1990) adminis-tered a second achievement test related to a homework assignment. The inter-vention improved performance on both the iecture and the homework test oneweek later for students with an external locus of control.

    It is noteworthy that performance on the lecture and homework test in Perryand Penner's laboratory study reflects two types of learning activities encoun-tered in the college classroom: the relatively passive learning that occurs withsome forms of classroom instruction, in contrast to activities initiated by thestudent outside the classroom. Similarly, Menec et al. found increases inachievement immediately after the lecture in students who had previously per-formed poorly on an achievement test. These effects were also obtained oneweek after the intervention was adm inistered, sug gesting the potential for long-lasting improvements.

    Several field experiments hav e further contributed to the literature by demon -strating the effectiveness of attributional retraining in an actuai college class-room. These studies show that attributional retraining improved students' per-forma nce on an examination (Van O verwalle et al., 1989) and increased thepassing rate on a series of final exam s (Van O verwalle et al., 1989; Van Over-walle and De Metsenaere, 1990). In sum, attributional retraining appears tohold considerable promise for enhancing academic achievement in college stu-dents. The fact that the studies are reasona bly sound m ethodo logically rein-

  • 8/3/2019 Enhancing Achievment Motivation

    26/37

    712 PERRY, HECHTER, MENEC, AND WEINBERGforces this conclusion. That is, all the studies involve proper comparisongroups, with attributional retraining being compared to a no-intervention con-trol, which typically performs some filler task instead of viewing the attribu-tional retraining videotape. For example, in Menec et al. 's (1992) study, thecontrol subjects attended as many sessions as the retraining groups in order tocontrol for potential biases resulting from merely attending sessions. To ruleout the possibility that performance incremen ts might be due to dem and charac-teristics, W ilson and Linv ille (1985) also include d a control group that vieweda videotape similar to the one used for attributional retraining, but excludingany reference to students' GPA.

    Despite this favorable prognosis, the extant research has several weaknessesthat warrant closer attention. First, students' attributions, expectations, and af-fect prior to the attributional retraining interventions have typically not beenassessed. This is particularly important in the case of expectations, sinceWeiner 's (1986) theory predicts expectancy changes. Therefore, it is possiblethat no differences between attributional retraining and control groups emergefoltowing the intervention, even though the groups may in fact differ in termsof pre/post expectancy changes. Accordingly, pretest and posttest measures ofattribution and em otions mus t be routinely included in retraining studies, i f theyare to be evaluated properly from the perspective of Weiner 's theory.

    Second, some researchers have failed to take the student's unique perceptionof the attributional information into account or have ignored the subjective na-ture of causal analyses. As W einer (1983) points out, attribution measures suchas Russell 's (1982) Causal Dimension Scale avoid this problem by allowingstudents to categorize their attributions along the causal dimen sions, rather thanusing an a priori classification scheme. Lastly, studies have focused only on anarrow range of performance measures, such as achievement tests, GRE-typequestions, or GPA. However, it is equally important to investigate more spe-cific behavioral chan ges, including studying time, in-class participation, absen-teeism, etc. Such m easures should clarify which activities contribute to perfor-mance increments.

    FUTURE CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENTGiven the p aucity o f attributional retraining studies involving university stu-

    dents, several areas require further investigation. Some of these concerns havealready been raised by W einer (1983, 1988), who points out that researchershave failed to utilize attribution theory in its entirety, particularly in terms ofthe assessment of mediating variables and alternate retraining procedures. Tobegin with, little evidence is available that demonstrates changes in attribu-tions, expectations, and affects following attributional retraining. This lack ofevidence for changes in these med iating variables is partly due to inappropriate

  • 8/3/2019 Enhancing Achievment Motivation

    27/37

    ATTRIBUTIONAL RETRAINING 713

    general measures. For example, attempts to demonstrate mood changes follow-ing attributional retraining have been unsuccessful, so far, using general moodmeasures of depression, anxiety , etc. (e.g ., Wilson and Linville, 1982, 1985).However, working within Weiner 's framework, orte would want to assess spe-cific feelings, such as guilt , pride, or shame. Thus, selecting mediating andperformance measures based more fully on his theory should produce morepositive results in future research.

    W eine r (1988) further points out that the mo tivation al conseq uence s of attri-butions can vary dram atically, as in the case o f effort and task difficulty attribu-tions. Following failure, both attributions are assumed to increase motivationand achievement striving, hut with lack of effort generating guilt and an in-creased exp ectancy of success. In contrast, task difficulty decreases expecta-tions, but avoids creating guiit feelings and related threats to self-esteem. Com -parison of various causal ascriptions is not only of theoretical interest butshould also belp to identify characteristics of an optimal intervention program.For example, even though feelings of pride and guilt are theoretically bothpositive motivators, they may not be equally desirable for improving achieve-ment.

    A further limitation of current research is the exclusive focus on changing ttri-butions only, even though other aspects of attribution theory lend themseivesto interventions. Weiner proposes several plausible alternative interventionsthat could be applied separately from, or in comb ination with, each other. F irst,the initial appraisal o f the achievem ent outcom e could be m odified, particularlyfor failure evaluations. If the failure is made less extreme, unimportant, orirrelevant, then attributions, particularly lack of ability, would be less detrimen-tal to motivation and performance. Lacking ability to achieve an unimportantgoal would result in few, if any, affective or cognitive consequences. Second,the inform ation taken into consideration during causal search could be changed.For example, a student who performs poorly on a test may ascribe failure tolack of ability, but fail to take into account that the class average was very lowand test difficu lty might be a m ore appropriate attribution.

    Third, once a causal search has been completed one may attempt to modifythe individual 's perception of the causal structure underlying a causal ascrip-tion. Hence, a student may perceive lack of ability as stable and unchangeable.But if he or she can be convinced that low ability is unstable and can, there-fore, be increased, then a more optimistic attitude ensues. Lastly, Weiner pro-poses that behavioral responses can be altered in those instances in which attri-bution-linked affects and cognitions are not amenable to change. Thus, astudent who attributes failure to lack of ability may experience low self-esteemand expect to fail future tests. The student's response to these negative conse-quences may be modif ied, however, by convincing the student to switch ma-jors, rather than dropping out of universi ty.

  • 8/3/2019 Enhancing Achievment Motivation

    28/37

    714 PERRY, HECHTER, MENEC, AND WEINBERGAside from these theoretical ramifications, several methodological issues are

    in need of further clarification. In this respect, the role of individual differencesis particularly important for attributional retraining programs in higher educa-tion. Th e criteria used for subject selection in retraining programs require speci-fication, since it is unlikely that all first-year students should, or can, be in-cluded in such programs. In the studies reported here, several employed GPAscores as the selection criterion, yet some used low GPA, and others mediumGPA, for inclusion in training. Moreover, differences between first-year andmore senior students has not been considered in the current literature. Seniorstudents may require only attributional retraining, since study skills and strate-gies should have developed by that point in their academic careers, whereasjunior students may require attributional retraining and strategy development.Finally, differences between students in active versus passive approaches tofailure-prone experiences requires attention. A highly interactive retraining pro-gram may be more beneficial for some students than the seemingly passiveones developed to date.

    Another critical methodological issue for attributional retraining programsconcerns aspects of the training itself. The value of in vivo, compa red to video-taped, interventions should be evalua ted more fully. Th e benefits of controllingthe consistency of attributional retraining using videotapes must be judged inrelation to the spontaneity and rapport operating during in vivo sessions. Theoptimal amount of time for a training session and the optimal number of ses-sions also require further elaboration. As weil, the content of the training ses-sion, apart from the specific attributions, is of concern, e.g., sex differencesbetween the students and trainer; status of students and trainer (peer versusprofessor); num ber o f trainers presented; etc.

    APPLICATIONS TO THE COLLEGE CLASSROOMIt is clear from this review that attributional retraining promises a significantalternative to existing methods for enhancing college students ' scholastic per-

    formance. It has the potential to serve as both a remediation for failure-pronestudents and a facilitation to successfui students. Its derivation from a well-developed , highly regarded attribution theory (Weiner, 1986) adds further sub-stance to its validity and utility. Moreov er, both laboratory and field studies arebeginning to reveal en couraging em pirical support across diverse student popu-lations.

    Nevertheless, a critical concern rem ains at this early stage regarding the ex-tent to which these training benefits will transfer to classroom settings. Re-searchers, instructors, and administrators alike need to know whether trainingeffects maintain after the program ends; whether they transfer to some or allacademic tasks, or to social activities; whether they are of equal benefit to all

  • 8/3/2019 Enhancing Achievment Motivation

    29/37

    ATTRIBUTIONAL RETRAINING 715

    students; and whether they are complemented by existing teaching practices. Inreality students must return to and function in classroom conditions that may ormay not sustain the beneficial changes brought about through retraining. Thistransfer of attributional retraining effects to the college classroom, then, is thefocus of the remainder of the article.

    Durat ion and SpecificityResearch suggests that attributional retraining m ay have both short- and long-

    term consequences, increasing performance one week after the intervention(Menec et al. , 1992; Perry and Penner, 1990) and up to several months later(Van Ov erw alte et al., 198 9; Wilson and Lin ville, 1982). It is not clear, how-erer, what theoretical mechanism is responsible for such effects. Universitystudents, with their extensive experience with academic events, are likely tohave developed relatively stable explanatory schemas for achievement out-comes that incorporate various causal ascriptions such as effort, ability, andtask difficulty (Perry, Magnu sson, Schnwetter, and Struthers, in press). A stu-dent w ith a his tory of academic failure may have a longstanding schema incor-porating low-ability explanations for failure outcomes and low expectations ofsuccess. It is unlikely, therefore, that one brief intervention will result in per-manent changes to such well-established cognitive structures.It may be useful, then, to differentiate between two processes, one involvingtempo rary activation of causal schem as and the second resulting in restructuringof previously held schemas. Temporary activation may be thought of as anexternally driven, relatively passive process, similar to priming (e.g., Ander-son, 1983), and m ay a ccount for shrt-term attributional retraining effects. Re-structuring, by contrast, may be a more internally driven process, requiringactive reorganization of cognitive structures by the student over a longer periodof t ime. Thus, temporary activation may help explain Perry and Penner 's andMenec et al. 's short-term test results, whereas restructuring may account forWilson and Linvil le 's and Van Overwalle 's long-term GPA findings. Furtherresearch is needed to determine whether these two processes are related to theIongevity of training effects in the college classroom.

    A related issue concerns the degree to which the training program benefitsdiverse ac hievem ent tasks. The goal of attributional retraining is presumably toimprove performance in man y achievement domains. This should be possible i fattributions featured in the program are equally applicable to various tasks,such as multiple-choice tests, essays, and oral presentations. Weiner (1986)cknowledges that achievement outcomes, including those associated with bothacademic tasks and sporting events, can often elicit similar causal ascriptions.Causal attributions should, therefore, be more likely to transfer to other con-texts when the training situation and the classroom tasks are perceived to be

  • 8/3/2019 Enhancing Achievment Motivation

    30/37

    716 PERRY, HECHTER, MENEC, AND WEINBERGsimilar. For example, a student who is told to attribute failure to ineffectivestudy strategies within the context of an in-class essay test may transfer thiscausal schema to an oral presentation if he or she thinks the two tasks requiresimilar learning skilis, such as me mo ry storage, retrieval strategies, and organi-zational schemas. Training may not transfer to creative writing or architec-tural design, however, which may be perceived as involving quite differentskills.

    None of the attributional retraining studies reviewed has specifically ad-dressed the issue of task transfer. Most retraining programs stressed the impor-tance of attributions on academic performance in general, although such in-formation was usually supplemented with concrete examples. A noteworthyexception is Van Overwalle and De Metsenaere's intervention (1990) that fo-cused directly on course-related information. Specifically, students viewed in-terviews in which other students explained why they had failed the midtermeconomics exam. Interestingly, attributional retraining did not affect perfor-mance on the economics final, but did produce higher scores on final exams inother courses. T hese results sugge st that students can readily transfer informa-tion provided during retraining to other course material. Further research isrequired to systematically investigate how closely training information has tomatch the tasks in which outcome attributions are to be applied.

    Classroom ContextClassroom context differences such as instruction method, curriculum, peer

    group, and grading standards create learning conditions that support or under-mine students ' academic achievement. Since attributional retraining programsseek to foster achievement motivation and striving, these same conditions arelikely to influence how well training effects are sustained once the studentreturns to the classroom. Large classes, for example, coupled with poor instruc-tion could subvert training effects, whereas good instruction may support andenhance them , despite class size. A lternately, attributional retraining ma y serveto buffer students against impoverished learning conditions. Thus, it becomesimportant to examine these context variables to determine whether they aug-ment or reduce the effects o f attributional retraining.

    Although research on classroom context variables is sparse, some prelimi-nary evidence is available on the quality of teaching, considered to be a majorcontext variable affecting student learning. Five studies in Table 1 examinedattributional retraining in relation to effec tive and ineffective teaching, definedas a low- or high-expressive instructor delivering the same content during ahalf-hour videotaped lecture. Perry and Penner (1990) and Menec et al. (1992)presented the relevant attribution informa tion in a formal attribution retrainingprogram u sing videotaped scenarios, follow ed by either low- or high-expressive

  • 8/3/2019 Enhancing Achievment Motivation

    31/37

    ATTRIBUTIONAL RETRAINING 717

    instruction. In contrast, Perry and Magn usson (1989a, 1989b) and Perry, Mag -nusson, Schonwetter, and Struthers (in press) induced attribution information priorto the instruction manipulation by informing students that their performance ona prelecture test was du e to e ither ability, effort, or test difficulty. These latterthree studies were not originally designed as retraining interventions, but allfive studies had a common core experimental design featuring the attributionalinformation-instmction sequence and similar achievement and attribution mea-sures. Notable differences between these studies primarily involved the inclu-sion of other independent variables.

    Along with the retraining-instruction sequence, Perry and Penner (1990)added locus of control to their design and M enec et al. (1992) added prelecturetest performance (Study 1) and locus of control (Study 2) to theirs. In bothstudies attributional retraining improved extemal-locus, but not internal-locus,students ' performance when instruction was effective. This same patterneme rged for prelecture perform ance in that failure students benefited from attri-butional retraining, but success students did not. Once again, the effect wasfound only for at-risk students and only when instruction was effective. Oneexplanation o f these findings is that internal-locus and success students derivedlittle benefit from retraining because they had already incorporated the attribu-tional information into their cognitive schemas through prior experiences. Incontrast, attributional retraining is necessary for external-locus and failure stu-dents because such information is absent from their cognitive schemas. To-gether, these studies provide consistent evidence for the importance of individ-ual differences (i.e. , locus of control, prelecture performance) in moderatingattributional retraining benefits. M ore importantly, the y also suggest a possiblecompensatory role for instmction in which retraining is of benefit only whencombined with effective instruction.

    Perry and Ma gnu sson (1989a, 198 9b) and Pe rry et al. (in press) adopted asimilar experimental design as the previous studies, but with the attributional re-training modified as noted above, and with perceived success as the individualdifference variable. These three studies differed from each other primarily inthe amount of success feedback provided to all students on the prelecture test.The results w ere generally consistent across all three studies. W hen instructionwas ineffective, internal attributions produced better performance, with abilityattributions causing failure students to achieve more than success students.When instruction was effective, differences diminished between attributiongroups and between perceived success groups, again suggesting compensatoryeffects associated with expressive instruction. These three studies are also con-sistent with the two previous ones in that the quality of instruction, as a class-room contextual variable, produced strikingly diverse achievement patterns,and therefore should receive more attention when assessing the benefits of re-training procedures.

  • 8/3/2019 Enhancing Achievment Motivation

    32/37

    718 PERRY, HECHTER, MENEC, AND WEINBERGAside from teaching quality, another salient classroom context variable is

    course content or discipline. Courses differ in content, some having explicit,well-established stereotypes linking particular factors to success and failure.For instance, ability is considered critical to success in mathematics, physics,or music, but receives rauch less emphasis in comparison to effort in history,psychology, or sociology courses. Thus, the folklore associated with somecourses encourages students to explain their performance using specific attribu-tions that may or may not be compatible with an attributional retraining pro-gram. Those programs featuring effort, skill acquisition, and strategy attribu-tions may be more difficult to implement with mathematics students than withhistory students. In the studies reported here (Table 1) the students were fromeeonom ics (Van Ove rwalle et al. , 1989), law (Van Overwalle and De Met-senaere, 1990), and psych ology (Wilson and Linville, 1982); howe ver, no at-tempt was made by the respective researchers to compare retraining programsacross content or disciplines. T hus, although potentially important, course con-tent remains an unexamined context variable.

    College Teaching as Attributional RetrainingTo this point, attributional retraining has been presented as a highly struc-

    tured, theoretically derived remediation program, normally implemented out-side the classroom by trained personnel. Essential to most formal programs isthe trainer who com munica tes the desired attributions (Figure 1) to the student,either directly in person, or vicariously on videotape. With the former in vivoprocedure, the trainer not only presents the desired attributions but also oftencorrects undesirable attributions made by the student working on som e achieve-ment task. With the vicarious procedure, only the desired attributions are pre-sented without the trainer monitoring and correcting the student.

    Wh ile engaged in routine teaching activities, how ever, instructors ma y actu-ally function as trainers using these procedures--though inadvertently, ortenunintentionally, and nonnally without systematic application. During and afterclass students orten make statements such as: "l 'm not smart enough to pass,""I was just lucky to do well on the test," or "The material is too difficult."Faced with such attributional statements, the instructor has an ideal opportunityto encourage the student to think differently about the event, by suggesting amore suitable explanation: "You do have the ability; otherwise you would notbe hefe," "Luck has less to do with your success than your approach (strategy)to the course," or "This may be a difficult course, but you can toaster thematerial if you study harder."During these informal exchanges the instructor takes on the typical role ofthe in vivo trainer in more formal programs, by monitoring and correctingstudents ' attributional thinking. In a similar manner, the instructor may func-tion vicariously as a trainer by comm unicating attributional information during

  • 8/3/2019 Enhancing Achievment Motivation

    33/37

    ATTRIBUTIONAL RETRAINING 719a teaching episode through examples, analogies, and personal anecdotes. Usu-ally the inform ation is presented to the entire class, without an opportunity formonitoring or corrective feedback, in statements such as: "When I was a stu-dent studying for my finals . . . . " or "Pioneer societ ies took more respon-sibility for their problems than we do now," etc. Thus, these teaching episodesmay indirectly convey similar attributional information as formal training pro-grams offered outside the classroom.

    This congruence between teaching in the college classroom and formal attri-butional retraining programs creates considerable opportunity to systematicallyrespond to students ' motivational problems. Unfortunately, little research hasbeen done on classroom teaching as an attributional retraining paradigm per se,or on the m any issues affecting its implem entation including timing, frequ ency,context, and the qualities o f the instructor (trainer). M oreove r, littte interest hasbeen shown in the possible abuses of attributional retraining that may arisefrom the misapplication of procedures by the instructor. Just as achievementmotivation and performance are enhanced by inculcting desirable attributions,achievement demotivation and fai lure can be engendered by advocating unde-sirable attributions (Figure 1). Some instructors may inadvertently underminestudents ' motivation or self-worth by making claims such as: "Only the verybest pass this course," "The next exam will separate the wheat from the chaff,"or "You'll be lucky to get through this course." In some instances these admo-nitions are seemingly well intended--to motivate students through challenge; inothers, they are inspired by more sinister motives. In either case they do littleto a chieve the p ositive benefits of attributional retraining!

    Tr nsition from High School to CollegeThe transition from high school to college, although generally thougbt to be

    a positive rite of passage, is one aspect of life that may be extremely stressfulfor some students. This transition is thought to be an example of heightenedvulnerability (Bloom , 1971; Coelh o, 1979), creating the situation in which anindividual's coping resources may be taxed by their attempts to manage thedemands of the transition (Feiner, Farber, and Primavera, 1983). For example,Wag ner, C omp as, and H owell (1988) condu cted a partei design study of transi-tion from h igh school to college and argu ed that daily events act as a med iatingvariable between major life events and psych ological symptom s. This transitionperiod may, therefore, be an important and appropriate time for interventionprograms intended to reduce stress-related problems and to bolster personalsense of control.Attributional retraining may be aptly suited to this purpose; however, theattributional retraining studies reported here have not identified transition-yearvariables. For example, the institutions from which the student subjects weredrawn , residential or day -student facilities, have not been considered in attribu-

  • 8/3/2019 Enhancing Achievment Motivation

    34/37

    720 PERRY, HECHTER, MENEC, AND WEINBERGtional