The Attributional Leadership Model Reconsidered: The Influence of Implicit Theories on Leader Attributions and Behavior.

climbmoujeanteaSoftware and s/w Development

Dec 13, 2013 (3 years and 6 months ago)

94 views


climbmoujeantea_7c8c8332
-
9859
-
487a
-
b2e2
-
c59990b11409.doc
, Page
1

of
32






The Attributional Leadership Model Reconsidered:


The Influence of Implicit Theories on Leader Attributions and Behavior.







Don VandeWalle

Management and Organizations Department

Cox School of Business

Southern Methodist University

PO Box 750333

Dal
las, TX 75275
-
0333

Office: 214
-
768
-
1239

Fax: 214
-
768
-
4099

Email:
dvande@mail.cox.smu.edu

Web:
http://faculty.cox.smu.edu/~dvande/
















This pap
er was presented as a part of the Symposium “Social
-
Cognitive Approaches to
Personality and Motivation in Organizational Behavior” at the 2001 Academy of Management
National Meeting, Washington, D.C.


The author thanks Peter Heslin for his comments on a pr
ior version of this paper.



12/13/2013



climbmoujeantea_7c8c8332
-
9859
-
487a
-
b2e2
-
c59990b11409.doc
, Page
2

of
32




The Attributional Leadership Model Reconsidered:


The Influence of Implicit Theories on Leader Attributions and Behavior.


Abstract

This paper proposes a reassessment of the role of ability a
s a stable, uncontrollable factor
for influencing a leader’s attribution development about a subordinate’s behavior. Specifically, a
growing body of research findings from the fields of educational and social psychology indicate
that individuals hold impli
cit theories (beliefs) about whether personal characteristics such as
intellectual ability are stable or malleable in nature. A theoretical model is developed to propose
how a leader’s implicit theories about malleability influence the attribution pattern
s that the
leader develops for a subordinate’s behavior and performance. These leader attribution patterns
are then proposed to influence a leader’s behavior toward the subordinate. The paper concludes
with an exploration of the substantial ramifications o
f a leader’s implicit theories for setting into
motion upward and downward spirals of subordinate performance.


climbmoujeantea_7c8c8332
-
9859
-
487a
-
b2e2
-
c59990b11409.doc
, Page
3

of
32



Attribution theory describes how individuals develop causal explanations for behaviors
and outcomes, and how their causal explanations influence

subsequent reactions (Martinko,
1995). Although there are many variations of attribution theory, research on attributions has
primarily focused on two conceptual approaches; (1) achievement motivation models (e.g.,
Weiner, 1986) which emphasize how indivi
duals explain their own successes and failures; and
(2) observer models (e.g., Kelly, 1973) which emphasize how individuals explain the behaviors
and outcomes of others.

Attribution theory has played a prominent role in the development of the attributional

leadership model (e.g., Green & Mitchell, 1979; Mitchell, Green, & Wood, 1981). The
attributional leadership model is grounded in the concept of responsibility assignment. The
leader makes observations to determine which causal factors are responsible fo
r the subordinate's
behavior and outcomes. These attributions about causality then influence the leader's reactions to
the subordinate.

An important determinant of the casual attributions developed by a leader is the leader's
information processing of the
subordinate's behavior along the three dimensions of Kelly’s
(1967) covariation model: (1)
distinctiveness

--

did the subordinate’s behavior occur during the
performance of this task only? (2)
consistency

--

is this behavior unusual for the subordinate in
other situations? (3)
consensus

--

is this behavior unusual for the subordinate’s cohort? The
conclusions reached on these three dimensions influence whether the leader makes causal
attributions of responsibility for the behavior to the subordinate (an int
ernal attribution) or to
some aspect of the subordinate’s situation (an external attribution).

The attributional leadership model also posits that leaders evaluate subordinate behaviors
by using classification schema such as the classical two
-
dimensional m
odel of Weiner et al.

climbmoujeantea_7c8c8332
-
9859
-
487a
-
b2e2
-
c59990b11409.doc
, Page
4

of
32



(1972). The Weiner model is composed of (1) a
locus of control dimension

which delineates
whether the primary cause of the behavior is a characteristic of the subordinate (an internal
attribute) or a characteristic of the situation (a
n external attribute); and (2) a
stability dimension

which delineates whether or not the subordinate’s behavior is likely to remain constant (stable)
or change over time (unstable). The crossing of the locus of control and stability dimensions
produces a 2

by 2 matrix of four causal factors that a leader can utilize to explain a subordinate’s
behavior: stable/internal (
ability
); stable/external (
task difficulty
); unstable/external
(
luck/chance
); unstable/internal (
effort
).

As a leader determines the casual

factor(s) for a subordinate’s performance, the ascribed
attributions influence both the leader's expectations for future performance and his or her
behavior toward the subordinate. Leaders are more likely to take corrective action toward the
situation whe
n performance problems are attributed primarily to external causal factors. In
contrast, leaders are more likely to take corrective action toward the subordinate when a
performance problem is primarily attributed to internal factors (Mitchell & Wood, 1980)
. In
addition, corrective action is more likely to be punitive in nature when the leader attributes poor
performance to a lack of effort, as compared to a lack of ability. To illustrate the relationship
between a leader’s casual factor attributions and beh
avioral responses, consider several potential
attributional scenarios for when a salesperson has not met his or her district sales volume quota.
If the subordinate’s sales manager determines that the sales volume is a function of advertising
support for t
he district (a task difficulty attribution), the manager can direct effort toward
enhancing the advertising support for the sales district. If the subordinate is new to the position
and inexperienced at product sales (a low ability attribution), the manage
r can focus on skill
development by engaging in coaching activities and by providing training program opportunities.

climbmoujeantea_7c8c8332
-
9859
-
487a
-
b2e2
-
c59990b11409.doc
, Page
5

of
32



If the manager views the employee as lazy (a low effort attribution), the manager may engage in
a disciplinary action such as a reprimand,
demotion, or termination.

The Attributional Leadership Model and the Person
-
Situation Interaction

As noted by a number prominent scholars (e.g., Pervin, 1989), organizational behavior
theories often fall into one of two categories
--

behavior as a function

of the person or as a
function of the situation. Scholars (e.g., Mischel & Shoda, 1995, 1998; Mitchell, 1997), however,
have noted the need for a better understanding of the influence of the interaction of the person
and situation.

Consistent with Pervin’
s observation of the person
-
situation dichotomy, attributional
leadership models have been primarily developed and tested from the situational perspective.
Specifically, leaders develop attributions based on their observations of the situation (the
subordi
nate's behavior and context). Researchers such Martinko & Gardner (1987) have noted
that leader reactions to subordinate performance vary, and they suggested that individual
difference characteristics (of the leader) moderate the relationship between subor
dinate behavior
and leader attribution development. However, a review of the attributional leadership model
literature reveals that research on individual difference characteristics has primarily focused on
demographic variables such as gender and ethnicit
y. To summarize the status of attributional
models of leadership research to date, scholars have primarily used a situational perspective for
theory development and theory testing.

A growing body of research findings, reported primarily in the journals of

the educational
and social psychology, suggest a very promising individual difference variable candidate for
inclusion in the attributional leadership model
--

the construct of implicit theories (Dweck, 1999).
The paper next provides an overview of the imp
licit theories concept and then continues by

climbmoujeantea_7c8c8332
-
9859
-
487a
-
b2e2
-
c59990b11409.doc
, Page
6

of
32



developing the theoretical relationships between implicit theories and leader attribution
development about subordinate behavior.

Implicit Theories

A basic assumption found in most attribution theory models is t
hat attributions can be
organized within a limited number of underlying cognitive dimensions (Martinko, 1995). In
addition, most attribution theory models include a stable/unstable dimension and classify ability
as a relatively stable attribute (e.g., Wein
er et al., 1972).

In contrast to the assumption that ability is a stable attribute, research by Dweck and her
associates (e.g., Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995; Dweck, Hong, & Chiu, 1993) has found that
individuals differ considerably in the implicit theories (b
eliefs) they hold about the malleability
of various personal attributes.
Dweck’s early research program primarily focused on implicit
theories about intelligence (Dweck & Leggett, 1988), but her ongoing program of research has
found that individuals also h
old implicit theories about additional personal attributes such as
interpersonal skills, personality, and moral character (see Dweck, 1999 for an extensive review).

In the implicit theory model, some individuals endorse an
incremental theory
and believe t
hat
personal attributes such as intelligence are not innate, static qualities that they simply possess.
Rather, they believe that such attributes are dynamic and malleable in nature and can be
developed through sustained effort and experience. Research ind
icates that when faced with a
setback or challenge, individuals holding an incremental theory tend to remain task focused and
resilient. Specifically, they are more likely to have a learning goal orientation about the situation,
set goals for developing th
e requisite capabilities needed to eventually succeed, strategically
pursue development of the capabilities, and persist in their deployment of effort to succeed. In
contrast, other individuals endorse an
entity theory
and perceive that personal attributes

such as

climbmoujeantea_7c8c8332
-
9859
-
487a
-
b2e2
-
c59990b11409.doc
, Page
7

of
32



intelligence are innate, trait
-
like qualities that are fixed in nature and are difficult to change or
develop. When these individuals encounter a setback or challenge, they are prone toward anxiety
and tend to withdraw from the situation. In addit
ion, given the belief that personal capabilities
are difficult to develop, these individuals also tend to avoid pursuit of developmental
opportunities for developing the capabilities that could help them to eventually succeed in a
challenging situation. In
stead, they focus on performance goals of obtaining positive judgments
and avoiding negative judgments about their personal capabilities (Elliott & Dweck, 1988).

The most extensive implicit theory research has been conducted with an instrument
developed t
o assess implicit theories of intelligence (Dweck et al., 1995). An example item
reads, “You have a certain amount of intelligence and you really can’t do much to change it.”
Items are answered on a 6
-
point response scale from 1(
strongly agree
) to 6 (
stron
gly disagree
).
Although individuals have implicit theory beliefs that are located along a continuum of the entity
and incremental anchor end points, studies assessing implicit theories of intelligence and moral
character have found that about 42.5 percent
of the respondents endorse an entity theory (overall
score of 3.0 or below), an equal percentage endorse an incremental theory (overall score of 4.0 or
above), and a remaining 15 percent do not clearly endorse either theory (Dweck, 1996). For this
paper, D
weck’s classification prototypes are used for the sake of clarity.

Validation evidence on instruments developed to assess implicit theories is reported in
Dweck (1996) and Dweck et al. (1995). Across six samples, the internal reliability coefficients
for
the item responses ranged from .94 to 98, the test
-
retest reliability coefficients averaged .80,
and the exploratory factor analysis loadings conformed robustly to the hypothesized patterns.

Similar to personality variables such as hope, optimism, and anxi
ety, research indicates
that implicit theories occur in both trait and state forms (Dweck, 1999). An implicit theory is a

climbmoujeantea_7c8c8332
-
9859
-
487a
-
b2e2
-
c59990b11409.doc
, Page
8

of
32



trait in that it is a relatively stable belief that an individual will characteristically bring to a
situation. However, implicit theo
ries also have a state nature in that these beliefs can be
influenced with interventions. In laboratory studies, such as the seminal study conducted by
Wood and Bandura (1989), implicit theories have been manipulated by giving study participants
explicit i
nstructions about whether an attribute is fixed or malleable in nature. Implicit theory
interventions have also been conducted in longitudinal field study settings. For example,
Aronson and Fried (1998) developed a training program for African
-
American und
ergraduate
students to educate them on the concept of an incremental theory of intelligence. The training
program was composed of presenting research findings and testimonial evidence in video,
article, and lecture formats. Participants in the treatment gr
oup also wrote letters to grade
-
school
children that explained how intellectual ability could be developed. Compared to students in a
control group, the students in the incremental theory treatment group earned a higher level of
academic achievement at the

end of the semester and reported enjoying school more. In a later
section of the paper, I will discuss the managerial significance of being able to influence the
implicit theories held by individuals.

Finally, there is an interesting and pertinent paralle
l of attribution theories and implicit
theories to identify. As noted in the introduction, there are two primary conceptual approaches to
attributions theory
--

attributions about the self and attributions about others. Likewise, implicit
theory research h
as also found that individuals hold implicit theories about the self and about
others (Dweck, 1999). Although both conceptual approaches are employed in the paper, the
primary focus will be on how implicit theories about others influence leader attribution

development about subordinates.


climbmoujeantea_7c8c8332
-
9859
-
487a
-
b2e2
-
c59990b11409.doc
, Page
9

of
32



Implicit Theories and the Attribution Process

As outlined in the paper’s introduction, attributional leadership models propose that
leaders observe subordinates and develop attributions about the subordinates' behaviors an
d
performance based on covariation analysis. However, the findings from implicit theory research
(Dweck, 1999) indicate that attributions and subsequent reactions may not only arise from a
leader's observation of a subordinate, but that leaders also approa
ch a given situation with an
attributional process style that is grounded in the implicit theories they hold. The belief in an
entity versus an incremental theory about personal attributes can be seen as a core assumption by
which individuals construct the
ir reality. These implicit theories create the cognitive frameworks
for processing the environment and then foster judgments and reactions that are consistent within
these frameworks. I next review and synthesize the accumulation of implicit theory researc
h
findings to develop a contour of the relationship pattern of implicit theories and attribution
development.

Attributional Orientation

Among the core processes in the attributional leadership model, is the decision to make
an internal or external attribut
ion for a subordinate's behavior. In the social psychology literature,
researchers have found that in ambiguous situations, individuals are biased toward making
dispositional (internal) rather than situational (external) attributions (Jones, 1990). Researc
h
reported by Dweck et al. (1993) indicates that the bias toward making internal attributions is
further intensified when individuals hold an entity theory. The underlying logic of their research
is that entity theorists, who by definition believe that per
sonal attributes are fixed in nature,
believe that understanding themselves and others entails assessing underlying personal attributes
such as dispositions. They reported that entity theorists were more likely than incremental

climbmoujeantea_7c8c8332
-
9859
-
487a
-
b2e2
-
c59990b11409.doc
, Page
10

of
32



theorists to assume that one
's disposition was superior to one's situation for explaining behavior,
and entity theorists were are also more willing to make dispositional judgments about others
based on relatively small amounts of information. In addition, they found that in contrast
to
entity theorists, incremental theorists were able to generate significantly more situational factors
to explain an individual's behavior.

Ybarra and Stephan (1999) conducted a series of studies that provide a potentially
interesting extension to the ram
ifications of an individual being disposed toward making
dispositional or situational attributions. Their study did not use the Dweck framework of implicit
theories, but rather, they studied the relationship between one's attributional orientation and the
prediction of another's behavior. They found a positive relationship between the focus on a
dispositional attribution to explain behavior and the prediction that a target individual would
engage in negative behavior. In contrast they found a positive relat
ionship between the focus on
a situational attribution for explaining behavior and the expectancy that a target individual would
engage in positive behavior. These results were found both when the attributional orientation was
assessed as an individual dif
ference variable, and when it was primed with manipulation
information in an experiment. In tandem, the findings of the Dweck et al. (1993) and the Ybarra
and Stephan (1999) studies suggest that if entity theorists are prone to make dispositional
attributi
ons to explain behavior, that they may also have a propensity to expect negative
behaviors of a subordinate to occur or to continue.

Halo Effect

The research of Dweck et al. (1993) found that entity theorists tend to perceive a closer
correspondence betwee
n dispositional traits and behaviors than do incremental theorists. In
subsequent research, Chiu, Hong, & Dweck (1997) found that an entity theory was also

climbmoujeantea_7c8c8332
-
9859
-
487a
-
b2e2
-
c59990b11409.doc
, Page
11

of
32



associated with a halo effect type of phenomenon. Compared to the responses of incremental
theorists
, when entity theorists were provided with information about a target individual's
dispositional
-
relevant behavior for one occasion, they were more likely to expect similar
behavior to recur in the future in very different situations. The researchers also
found that entity
theorists, compared to incremental theorists, more strongly believed that even a single behavior
of an individual is very indicative of that individual's underlying moral character. Similar to the
dual research methodology approach that D
weck has used in much of her research, the
researchers also conducted an experiment where they manipulated implicit theories by having the
participants read a “scientific article” that was written to espouse and document either an entity
or an incremental
theory of human attributes. Parallel to the results found when the they assessed
dispositional implicit theories, Chiu et al., found that the participants who read the entity
-
theory
article were more likely than participants who read the incremental
-
theory

article to predict that a
single behavior could be used as a strong indicator of someone's underlying moral character.

To summarize, entity theorists appear to perceive a closer relationship between
dispositions and behaviors than do incremental theorists
. Entity theorists tend to use limited
information to develop dispositional explanations for behavior, and the inferred dispositions are
then extrapolated to develop more global judgments about the target and to predict behaviors in
other domains. Incremen
tal theorists are not as likely infer trait explanations for behavior, and do
not rely on such explanations as much to predict future behavior. Instead they are more likely to
focus on the larger context in which a behavior occurs when they seek to underst
and or explain
an individual's behavior (Dweck et al., 1995).


climbmoujeantea_7c8c8332
-
9859
-
487a
-
b2e2
-
c59990b11409.doc
, Page
12

of
32



Information Processing Styles

Another stream of implicit theory research has investigated information processing styles.
First, studies have found that entity and incremental theorists differ i
n their initial processing of
information. Sorich and Dweck (1994) found that entity theorists were quicker than incremental
theorists to develop attributions for behavior. As they encoded new information, entity theorists
also attach stronger positive and

negative evaluative labels to the information (Hong, Chiu,
Dweck, & Sacks, 1997). Second, entity and incremental theorists differ in the likelihood of
revising their initial judgments when subsequent counter evidence is presented. Erdley and
Dweck (1993)
had participants view slides of an individual who displayed negative behaviors.
When the study participants were later provided with counter positive evidence about the
individual, entity theorists were much less likely to revise their initial negative soc
ial judgment
about the individual. More recently, Plaks, Stroessner, Dweck, and Sherman (2001) investigated
how individuals respond to new information that was counter to the initial information provided
about hypothetical individuals and hypothetical grou
ps. After providing initial information about
an individual (a priest or a neo
-
Nazi skinhead), the researchers found that the entity theorists
consistently displayed greater attention to information that was congruent with the initial
stereotype informatio
n provided, whereas the incremental theorists tended to display greater
attention to information that was inconsistent with the initial stereotype information. For the
group stereotype study, the researchers also found that when participants were presented

with
counterstereotypic information, that entity theorists were less likely than incremental theorists to
revise their impressions about the hypothetical groups.

Social Stereotyping

An elegant series of studies by Levy, Dweck, & Stroessner (1998) found th
at implicit

climbmoujeantea_7c8c8332
-
9859
-
487a
-
b2e2
-
c59990b11409.doc
, Page
13

of
32



theories also predicted social stereotyping behavior. In the first study, the researchers asked the
participants (undergraduate psychology students) to generate lists of positive and negative
stereotypes for five ethnic groups and to indicate t
o what degree they believed that each
stereotype was true or false. Although individuals who were classified as either entity or
incremental theorists generated the same number of stereotypes, the entity theorists more
strongly endorsed the stereotypes as
being accurate. In the second study, a group of participants
were asked about the validity of a list of stereotypes about African
-
Americans. Compared to
incremental theorists, the entity theorists were again more likely to endorse the stereotypes as
being
accurate, and they were also more likely to indicate that the stereotypes reflected innate
characteristics of African
-
Americans rather than being a potential by
-
product of environmental
or social causes within the American society. A third study had partic
ipants read a scenario about
novel, hypothetical groups that behaved in either a generally desirable or undesirable manner.
The study found that when forming impressions of a positive or negative group on the basis of
relatively sparse information, individ
uals endorsing an entity theory made more extreme group
judgments than individuals endorsing an incremental theory. In addition entity theorists made
judgments more quickly, and they had greater confidence in the sufficiency of information used
to form the
ir judgments.

Summary on the Attribution Development Process


The research findings of Dweck and associates strongly suggests that beyond situational
covariation analysis of subordinate behavior, that implicit theories can be incorporated into the
attribu
tional leadership model to develop a more powerful and comprehensive explanatory
model of the attribution process. Compared to incremental theorists, entity theorists are more
likely to develop internal attributions for subordinate behavior, develop such a
ttributions rapidly,

climbmoujeantea_7c8c8332
-
9859
-
487a
-
b2e2
-
c59990b11409.doc
, Page
14

of
32



use a limited set of information, extrapolate attributions from specific situations to more global
expectations, endorse stereotypes, and resist revision of their judgments in the face of counter
evidence.

The above summary begets an
intriguing question: Why would individuals endorse an
entity theory rather than an incremental theory if the former appears to be counterproductive for
developing accurate attributions? It appears that holding an entity theory may give individuals a
sense
of security in a complex world. Individuals desire to be able to explain and predict events
(Kelly, 1967), and the cognitive framework fostered by an entity theory provides individuals
with a sense of surety that their world is predictable. However, with t
he feeling of security that
comes from a sense of being able to explain events, also comes the danger of reaching premature
judgments based on limited information, and, a resistance to changing such judgments in the face
of counter information.

We next tur
n to considering additional ramifications of implicit theories by proposing
how the different attributional patterns that are developed by holding an entity or incremental
theory also differentially influence the behavioral interactions of leaders with sub
ordinates.


Leader Attributions and Behavior

Classical attributional leadership models (i.e., Mitchell et al. 1981) propose two
significant patterns of leader responses to a subordinate when the subordinate’s behavior or
performance is problematic. First,
the leader's behavior is more positive in tone for external
attributions than for internal attributions. Second, the leader's behavior is more positive in tone
for ability attributions than for effort attributions.

The incorporation of a leader's implicit
theories into the attributional leadership model

climbmoujeantea_7c8c8332
-
9859
-
487a
-
b2e2
-
c59990b11409.doc
, Page
15

of
32



produces a more complex pattern of predicted leader attributions and behavioral responses.
Specifically, the behavioral response patterns will be significantly influenced by whether the
leader's attribution
development is primarily influenced by an entity or an incremental implicit
theory. The prior discussion of attribution development, and additional research on the influence
of implicit theories, suggest that implicit theories have considerable potential f
or explaining
leadership behaviors such as: 1) subordinate evaluations, 2) subordinate feedback and
development, 3) leader
-
subordinate relationship development, and 4) corrective actions.

Subordinate Evaluations

In the attributional leadership model, the i
nitial judgments that the leader makes about a
subordinate's behavior and performance are a central influence on the subsequent leadership
behavioral style. As noted earlier, leaders who endorse an entity theory will have a propensity to
make internal attr
ibutions about a subordinate's behavior and performance. In addition, leaders
who endorse an entity theory will tend to make their evaluations based on relatively limited
information. The propensity to make internal attributions with relatively limited inf
ormation is
likely to decrease the accuracy of the leader's evaluation and to decrease the leader's depth of
understanding of the contextual factors impeding the subordinate’s behavior and performance.

Subordinate Feedback and Development

Implicit theories

should also influence a leader's style of feedback giving and subordinate
development. By definition, a leader who endorses an entity theory believes that a given attribute
is fixed in nature and difficult to develop. If a leader perceives that ability de
ficiencies are
difficult to rectify, the leader should not feel that diagnostic/developmental feedback would be of
much utility. Rather, the feedback provided to the subordinate is likely to be evaluative in nature
(a judgment of the subordinate's deficien
cies). In addition, if an entity theorist has developed

climbmoujeantea_7c8c8332
-
9859
-
487a
-
b2e2
-
c59990b11409.doc
, Page
16

of
32



only a surface level understanding of the subordinate's behavior and contextual factors, then the
leader's wherewithal to actually provide accurate and useful diagnostic feedback about how to
improve
behavior or performance is diminished. In contrast, leaders who endorse an incremental
theory believe by definition that various personal attributes can be developed, so these leaders
should be more receptive to providing diagnostic and process type feedba
ck to foster subordinate
development. Given that incremental theorists have developed judgments about their
subordinates based on a richer repertoire of information, these leaders are also more likely to
have developed the requisite knowledge base to under
stand what feedback is needed to remedy
behavior and performance deficiencies. In addition, incremental theorists should be more likely
to develop an insightful understanding of what contextual factors for the subordinate will need to
be addressed. Increm
ental theorists are also more receptive to revising their judgments when
they receive new information. Thus, these leaders should more able to accurately recognize when
the feedback interventions are productive, and they should be more likely to update the
ir
assessment of the subordinate’s progress and their plan for future developmental support needs.

Relationship Development

Research on romantic relationships provides very interesting insights about how implicit
theories might influence the professional i
nterpersonal relationship of a leader with a
subordinate. Knee (1998) used the implicit theory framework to develop a conceptual model
about romantic relationship beliefs. Building on the entity theory concept, he proposed that some
individuals hold a
dest
iny belief

about romantic relationships and believe that the relationship
partners are either made for each other or they are not. Building on the incremental theory
concept, he proposed that other individuals hold a
growth belief

about relationships and b
elieve
that successful relationships are not based on destiny, but are cultivated and developed over time.

climbmoujeantea_7c8c8332
-
9859
-
487a
-
b2e2
-
c59990b11409.doc
, Page
17

of
32



Consistent with his hypotheses and the implicit theory framework, Knee found that individuals
who held a destiny belief made quick judgments about pr
ospective partners and were quick to
terminate dissatisfying relationships. In contrast, individuals who held a growth belief were more
likely to take a long
-
term approach to dating a new partner, and they were more likely to engage
in relationship develop
ment activities. In subsequent research, Knee, Nanaykkara, Vietor,
Neighbors, and Patrick (2001) found that individuals with a high
-
growth/low destiny belief
profile, compared to individuals who held one of the other three growth/destiny profile
combinatio
ns, were more likely to remain satisfied with their partner despite the partner's flaws
and limitations. Extending Knee's findings to leader
-
subordinate relationships, I propose that
leaders who endorse an incremental theory, compared to those to endorse a
n entity theory, will
also be more likely to consider their professional relationship with a subordinate as a long
-
term
developmental process, be more willing to engage in behaviors to develop the relationship, and
be less prone to focus on dissatisfaction

with their subordinate's flaws.

Preliminary research on demographic differences also suggests that implicit theories may
influence the professional relationship development of a leader and subordinate. Levy, Freitas, &
Dweck (1999) found that undergradua
te students who were entity theorists, compared to those
who were incremental theorists, played a game more competitively and less cooperatively when
they thought their opponent was a law student. However, the two groups of theorists played
equally competi
tively and cooperatively against an opponent’s student status was unspecified. In
a second study with undergraduate students, Levy et al., found that when they asked the study
participants to grade a group of student assignments, entity theorists were more

likely to vary
their grade assignment based on the ethnicity of the student. Specifically, the entity theorists
gave higher grades to the same paper when they thought that the student belonged to one ethnic

climbmoujeantea_7c8c8332
-
9859
-
487a
-
b2e2
-
c59990b11409.doc
, Page
18

of
32



group versus another. Extending these findings t
o leader
-
subordinate relationships, leaders who
are entity theorists may be less willing to devote time and energy to relationship development
when the subordinate differs from them on demographic variables such as gender or ethnicity.
This hesitation for
relationship development is likely to be exacerbated when an entity theorist
holds negative stereotypes about the subordinate's demographic group, and early in the
relationship, the leader develops negative attributions about the subordinate's behavior and

performance.

Leader Corrective Action

Studies by Mitchell and Wood (1980) and Green and Liden (1980) found that internal
attributions lead to punitive supervisory responses to a subordinate’s low performance
significantly more often than did external att
ributions. Leaders making external attributions are
less likely to punish subordinate failure because they perceive failure to be beyond the member's
control. For internal attributions, causal attributions to effort appear to be a primary determinant
of pu
nishment, whereas ability attributions are less likely to elicit punitive responses (Mitchell et
al., 1981). In general, it appears that leaders perceive ability to be less subject to subordinate
control and, consequently, less deserving of punishment. On
the other hand, because leaders
believe subordinates can control effort, they expect that punishment will lead to improved
performance. Of course some leaders who attribute member failure to ability will, nevertheless,
administer punishment.


Again, implic
it theories provide potential insight for explaining variance in leader
behaviors. As noted earlier, an entity theory predisposes a leader toward ascribing internal
attributions such as ability to explain the cause of behavior. In contrast, an incremental
theory

climbmoujeantea_7c8c8332
-
9859
-
487a
-
b2e2
-
c59990b11409.doc
, Page
19

of
32



predisposes a leader toward searching beyond internal attributions and to more actively also
consider contextual factors that could impact behavior.


Numerous studies conducted by Dweck and associates (i.e., Dweck et al., 1995; Gervey,
Chiu, Hong, &

Dweck, 1999) also suggest that a leader’s implicit theory may moderate his or her
reactions to a subordinate's behavior. Their research has found that when individuals holding an
incremental theory encounter problematic behavior by another individual, the
y are likely to
recommend positive interventions of training, education, and encouragement to change the
behavior. In contrast, when entity theorists make internal attributions, they are much less likely
to recommend positive interventions. In addition, en
tity theorists are likely to endorse
punishment and retribution and harbor ill will toward a target when they feel that the target has
harmed or violated them.


Attribution theory research by Weiner, Amirkhan, Folkes, and Verette (1987) provides
additiona
l insight about the potential relationship of implicit theories with corrective responses.
In their study, Weiner et al. found that when participants were provided with external causes to
explain a transgression by another, that the participants were less
angry and liked the
transgressor more. Integrating the research findings of Dweck and Weiner suggests that the
tendency of entity theorists to overlook potential external attributional causes for behavior could
explain why they also express harsh responses

when they feel that a subordinate has let them
down with low performance.


In commenting on this body of research, Dweck (1999) suggested that entity theorists do
not grant themselves, or others, the potential to grow and lose confidence in the future. Sh
e
continued by suggesting that incremental theorists see their own failures as problems to be
solved and grant others the same potential for their shortcomings. Although it remains to be

climbmoujeantea_7c8c8332
-
9859
-
487a
-
b2e2
-
c59990b11409.doc
, Page
20

of
32



empirically tested in work settings, I find it compelling to suggest
that the corrective response
patterns found by Dweck’s research program for entity and incremental theorists in laboratory
settings will also be found in future attributional leadership research.


The Subordinate Performance Spiral (Highway to Heaven or H
ell)

Research from the organizational behavior literature provides evidence to develop causal
pathways to explain the eventual influence of a leader’s implicit theories on a subordinate’s
behavior and performance.

Conveyance of Implicit Theories to Subord
inates

A seminal article by Wood and Bandura (1989) conducted an early test of the influence
of implicit theory induction on self
-
regulation and task performance. In a laboratory study with
MBA students, Wood and Bandura used treatment instructions to indu
ce entity or incremental
beliefs about managerial decision
-
making skills. The participants then served as decision
-
makers
in a simulated organization where they had to make decisions about employee utilization and
discover and apply managerial rules to max
imize organizational performance. After the implicit
theory treatments, participants in the entity treatment condition suffered a loss in self
-
efficacy,
lowered their goals, and became less efficient in their analytic strategies. Participants in the
increm
ental treatment condition maintained their self
-
efficacy, set challenging goals, and used
effective analytical skills. Path analysis revealed that the differences in self
-
regulation activities
also helped the participants in the incremental treatment condi
tion to achieve much high levels of
organizational performance than the participants in the entity treatment condition.

Additional evidence of the differential impact of inducing entity and incremental implicit
theories comes from Martocchio’s (1994) field

study of employees participating in a

climbmoujeantea_7c8c8332
-
9859
-
487a
-
b2e2
-
c59990b11409.doc
, Page
21

of
32



microcomputer skills training class. Eighty percent of the participants had never used a
computer, and the remaining participants indicated that their computer experience was limited to
following co
-
worker instruction
s on simple keyboard steps. Martocchio used treatment
instructions to induce entity or incremental beliefs about the ability of individuals to develop
computer operation skills. Compared to the participants in the incremental condition, the
participants in

the entity condition expressed greater anxiety and had lower self
-
efficacy about
using a computer correctly.

The findings of Wood and Bandura (1989) and Martocchio (1994) on the detrimental
impact of an entity theory on self
-
regulation and performance h
ave also been found in studies
conducted with adolescents and undergraduate students by Dweck and associates (see Dweck,
1999 for a comprehensive summary). In sum, the ramifications of these studies for employee
performance are profound. The research evide
nce strongly indicates that even though employees
hold characteristic implicit theories, these implicit theories can be influenced by information
from others. If a leader holds an entity theory about an important work related aptitude, and
conveys that bel
ief to a subordinate, the leader has the potential to influence the subordinate’s
implicit theory about that aptitude. A leader should be especially able to influence a
subordinate’s implicit theory framework when the subordinate is new to the position and

has a
limited experience base. Of course, the start of a new position by an inexperienced subordinate is
the very time when the subordinate would benefit most in being exposed to incremental (rather
than entity) theory to help master the challenge of lear
ning the skills needed to succeed in the
position.


climbmoujeantea_7c8c8332
-
9859
-
487a
-
b2e2
-
c59990b11409.doc
, Page
22

of
32



Stereotype Threat

Steele's seminal research on the stereotype threat syndrome suggests another pathway by
which a leader's implicit theory can influence a subordinate's performance. Steele (1997) and
Stee
le and Aronson (1995) found in their research that telling African
-
American participants that
a test was an indicator of intelligence resulted in poorer test performance compared to
participants who are not told such. Entity theorists tend to develop inter
nal attributions about
subordinate performance, to endorse stereotypes as accurate, and to encode information with
strong evaluative tags. This pattern of cognitive processing should make ability stereotype more
cognitively salient and enhance the likeliho
od of the leader conveying to a subordinate that an
aptitude (which is stereotyped as a weakness of the subordinate's social group) is an important
indicator of potential performance success. Steele's research indicates that the presentation of
such inform
ation can influence an individual to engage in stereotype
-
consistent behaviors that
undermines the individual’s potential for successful performance.

Pygmalion Effect

The Pygmalion effect, the process by which leader expectations have a self
-
fulfilling
pro
phecy impact on subordinates, is also likely to be differentially activated when a leader holds
an entity versus an incremental implicit theory. Eden and Shani (1982) conducted a field
experiment with participants in a leadership
-
training program. The stud
ents were actually
randomly assigned to one of the three groups of “assessed” leadership potential (unknown,
average, or high potential) and the leadership instructors were informed of each student’s
potential. Although the instructors actually received b
ogus assessment information, the students
in the high potential group classification had significantly higher post
-
training test scores and
more positive attitudes than the students in the unknown or average group classifications.


climbmoujeantea_7c8c8332
-
9859
-
487a
-
b2e2
-
c59990b11409.doc
, Page
23

of
32




The interplay of the Pyg
malion effect and implicit theories could occur as follows. A
leader who endorses an entity theory observes deficient behavior or performance by a
subordinate. The leader makes an attribution of low ability as the cause of the subordinate's
deficiency. Giv
en that the leader believes that the subordinate’s underlying ability to
performance is difficult to develop (a stable, fixed attribute), the leader’s expectations about the
subordinate’s future performance are likely to be low. The leader conveys these lo
w expectations
to the subordinate, and the self
-
fulfilling prophecy process leads to subordinate cognitions and
behaviors that sabotage the potential for the subordinate’s future performance improvement.

Leader Behavioral Patterns

In the prior sections of

the paper, entity and incremental theories were predicted to
influence leaders to engage in different attribution patterns, and in turn, different behavioral
patterns with subordinates. These different behavioral patterns should further differentiate the
potential level of subordinate performance. Compared to a leader who holds an entity theory, a
leader who holds an incremental theory is more likely to be conscientious and insightful when
making subordinate evaluations, to provide feedback that is diagnos
tic and developmental in
nature, to work at developing an effective professional relationship, and to utilize coaching,
training and encouragement to remedy performance problems. In contrast, a leader who endorses
an entity theory is more likely to make mo
re superficial evaluations, provide evaluative feedback
that does not give direction for improvement, be less willing to develop a professional
relationship, be skeptical about the value of coaching and training to remedy deficiencies, and be
willing to re
spond with negative behaviors such as punishment.

In summary, organizational research on the inducement of implicit theories, the
stereotype threat, the Pygmalion effect, and the proposed leadership behavior patterns strongly

climbmoujeantea_7c8c8332
-
9859
-
487a
-
b2e2
-
c59990b11409.doc
, Page
24

of
32



suggest that leaders who endo
rse an incremental theory will be more effective at enhancing
subordinate performance than will be leaders who endorse an entity theory.


Managerial Implications


With regard to leader selection, it would appear to be beneficial to screen leaders on the
ba
sis of their implicit theories. The endorsement of an implicit theory belief by a leader should
be especially valuable when a leader is in the role of working with new, inexperienced
employees who are in jobs that require substantial skill development. Suc
h leadership training
may also be especially useful in industries such as life insurance, financial services, and real
estate where the discouragement from low sales success results in high attrition rates for new
salespeople.


Implicit theories also hav
e implications for the management of incumbent leaders.
Training leaders on the concept of incremental theories can enhance leadership effectiveness for
managing subordinates. To maximize the training program impact, entity theorists will need to
be provi
ded with evidence that the skills they have assumed to be difficult to develop can indeed
be developed. In addition, incremental training programs will be more effective by providing the
leaders with requisite knowledge and procedures on how to effectively

help subordinates in their
skill development.


Boundary Conditions

Several comments regarding the focus and boundary conditions of the paper are specified
and discussed.

First, the attempt to resolve ambiguity about the causes of an individual's behavio
r is a

climbmoujeantea_7c8c8332
-
9859
-
487a
-
b2e2
-
c59990b11409.doc
, Page
25

of
32



primary driver for an observer to engage in the attribution process. Ambiguities often arise when
a target’s behavior or performance deviates from "normal" levels (Lord, 1997). Given that poor
performance often poses greater problems than average or

superior performance, leaders are
more likely to engage in attributional analysis when confronted with the former. The focus of
this paper, thus, has been primarily on the development of attributions for poor performance
rather than attributions for avera
ge or superior performance.

Second, the empirical research reported in this paper indicates that individuals who
endorse an entity theory are predisposed to develop internal, dispositional attributions to explain
behavior. As noted by Mitchell et al. (1981
), however, there are times when leaders are
confronted with situational factors such as organizational policies, social norms, and strong
contextual cues that can influence a leader's attributional development and responses to
subordinates. Research by Pl
aks et al. (2001) provides initial evidence that situational factors can
moderate the influence of implicit theories on the attribution process. In their study on
stereotypes, entity theorists were exposed to one of three levels of counter information afte
r they
had formed an initial impression of a target’s academic ability. They found that small or
moderate levels of counter information did not lead to judgment revision about the target.
However, entity theorists who were provided with very strong counter

expectant information (an
outstanding level of academic performance by the target) did revise their judgments upward
about how well the target would do in the future. Thus, in the face of very strong information
cues, entity theorists appear able to devia
te from their predictable cognitive patterns.

Third, this model is not a comprehensive discussion of the potential forms of leader
-
subordinate attribution development. For example, Martinko and Gardner (1987) extended the
original attributional leadership
model of Mitchell and his colleagues by describing the

climbmoujeantea_7c8c8332
-
9859
-
487a
-
b2e2
-
c59990b11409.doc
, Page
26

of
32



interactive
-
dyadic nature of the leader
-
subordinate attributional process. In a more recent article,
Lepine and Van Dyne (2001) developed an attributional model of helping behavior in the context
of gr
oups. To retain precision, the current paper is restricted to leader
-
subordinate dyadic
relationships, with the leader as the primary protagonist for attribution development.

Fourth, research indicates that implicit theories can differ by major domains in
one's life.
For example, an individual could hold an entity theory about intelligence, but hold an
incremental theory about other domains such as personality or moral character (Dweck, 1999;
Dweck et al., 1993). The domain specificity of implicit theories
will require that researchers
carefully assess which implicit theory domains are most appropriate for inclusion in empirical
testing of attributional leadership models.

Fifth, Lord (1997) noted that compared to individuals raised in Eastern cultures,
indiv
iduals raised in Western cultures may value the illusion that behaviors arise from internal,
stable, controllable causes. Lepine and Van Dyne (2001) made a similar observation that
attribution processes may be influenced by national culture. Along these li
nes, a study by Chiu et
al. (1997) found that American students tended to exhibit a somewhat greater tendency than
Hong Kong Chinese students to make trait indicative judgments about behavior, but they also
found support for cross
-
cultural generality of th
e
association

between implicit theories of
morality and the tendency to make moral trait attributions from behavior. Given the limited
research to date on the cross
-
cultural generality of implicit theories, there are considerable future
research opportunit
ies to conduct comparative studies of various Eastern and Western cultures
for various attribute domains for attributional leadership models.


climbmoujeantea_7c8c8332
-
9859
-
487a
-
b2e2
-
c59990b11409.doc
, Page
27

of
32



Conclusion

In summary, attributional leadership theory has been primarily developed from a
“situational” perspect
ive. The growing volume of evidence from implicit theory research,
however, indicates that further advances can be made by two actions: 1) relaxing the assumption
that ability is a fixed, uncontrollable attribute; 2) incorporating individual differences su
ch as
implicit theories in the model building and model testing of attributional leadership theory. The
predictive power and the managerial utility of attribution theory can be enhanced by including
implicit theories to explain how leaders develop attribut
ions about subordinates and to explain
how these attributions influence leader behavior. And finally, an understanding of the influence
of implicit theories can help us to develop the intervention practices that can improve leadership
effectiveness, and th
us, subordinate performance.


climbmoujeantea_7c8c8332
-
9859
-
487a
-
b2e2
-
c59990b11409.doc
, Page
28

of
32



References



Aronson, J., & Fried (1998) Add citation data.


Chiu, C., Hong, Y., and Dweck, C. S. (1997). Lay dispositionism and implicit theories of
personality.
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology
, 73, 19
-
30.


Dweck
, C. S. (1999).
Self
-
theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and
development
. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.


Dweck, C. S. (1996). Implicit theories as organizers of goals and behavior. In P. M.
Gollwitzer. & J. A. Bargh (Eds.),
The psy
chology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to
behavior
. New York, London: The Guilford Press.


Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995a). Implicit theories and their role in
judgments and reactions: A world from two perspectives.
Psycholog
ical Inquiry
, 6, 267
-
285.


Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995b). Implicit theories: Elaboration and
extension of the model.
Psychological Inquiry
, 6, 322
-
333.


Dweck, C. S., Hong, & Y. Chiu, C. (1993). Implicit theories: Individual differences i
n
the likelihood and meaning of dispositional inference.
Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin
, 19, 644
-
656.


Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social
-
cognitive approach to motivation and
personality.
Psychological Reviews
, 95, 256
-
273.


Ede
n, D. & Shani, A. B. (1982). Pygmalion goes to boot camp: Expectancy, leadership,
and trainee performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology
, 67, 194
-
199.


Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and
achievement.
Journal o
f Personality and Social Psychology
, 54, 5
-
12.


climbmoujeantea_7c8c8332
-
9859
-
487a
-
b2e2
-
c59990b11409.doc
, Page
29

of
32




Erdley, C. A., & Dweck, C. S. (1993). Children’s implicit personality theories as
predictors of their social judgments.
Child
-
Development
, 64, 863
-
878.


Gervey, B. M., Chiu, C., Hong, Y., & Dweck, C. S. (19
99). Differential use of person
information in decisions about guilt versus innocence: The role of implicit theories.
Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin
, 25, 17
-
27.

Green, S. G., & Liden, R. C. (1980) Contextual and attributional influences on c
ontrol
decisions.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 65
, 453
-
458.


Green, S. & Mitchell, T. (1979). Attributional processes of leaders in leader
-
member
interactions.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance
, 23, 429
-
458.


Hong, Y., Chiu, C., Dweck, C. S
., & Sacks, R. (1997). Implicit theories and evaluative
processes in person cognition.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
, 33, 296
-
323.


Hong, Y., Chiu, C., Dweck, C. S., Lin, D. M. S., & Wan, W. (1999). Implicit theories,
attributions, and copin
g: A meaning system approach.
Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology
, 77, 588
-
599.


Hong, Y., Levy, S. R., & Chiu, C. (2001). The contribution of the lay theories approach
to the study of groups.
Personality and Social Psychology Review
, 5, 98
-
10
6.


Jones, E. E. (1990).
Interpersonal perception
. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Co.


Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.),
Nebraska symposium on motivation
, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.


Knee,

C. R. (1998). Implicit theories of relationships assessment and prediction of
romantic relationship initiation, coping, and longevity.
Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology
, 74, 360
-
370.


climbmoujeantea_7c8c8332
-
9859
-
487a
-
b2e2
-
c59990b11409.doc
, Page
30

of
32




Knee, C. R., Nanayakkara, A., Vietor, N. A., Neighbors, C.
, & Patrick, H. (2001).
Implicit theories of relationships: Who cares if romantic partners are less than ideal?
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27
, 808
-
819.


Lepine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Peer responses to low performers: An
attrib
utional model of helping in the context of groups.
Academy of Management Review, 26,

67
-
84.


Levy, S. R., Dweck, C. S., & Stroessner, S. J. (1998). Stereotype formation and
endorsement the role of implicit theories.
Journal of Personality and Social Psy
chology
, 74,
1421
-
1436.


Levy, S. R., Freitas, A., & Dweck, C. S. (1999). Acting on Stereotypes. Unpublished
manuscript.


Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1990). Alternative information processing models and their
implications for theory, research, and prac
tice.
Academy of Management Review
, 15, 9
-
28.


Martinko, M. J., & Gardner, W. L. (1987). The leader member attribution process.
Academy of Management Review
, 12, 235
-
249.


Martinko, M. J. (1995).
Attribution theory: An organizational perspective
. Del
ray
Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press.


Martocchio, J. J. (1994). Effects of conceptions of ability on anxiety, self
-
efficacy, and
learning in training.
Journal of Applied Psychology
, 79, 819
-
825.

Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive
-
affective system t
heory of personality:
Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure.
Psychological Review, 102,
246
-
268.


climbmoujeantea_7c8c8332
-
9859
-
487a
-
b2e2
-
c59990b11409.doc
, Page
31

of
32



Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1998). Reconciling processing dynamics and personality
dispositions.
Annual R
eview of Psychology, 49
, 229
-
258.


Mitchell, T. R. (1997). Matching motivational strategies with organizational context. In
Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 3

(pp. 57
-
149). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.


Mitchell, T. R., Green, S. G., & Wood, R. E
. (1981). An attributional model of
leadership and the poor performing subordinate: Development and validation. In
Research in

Organizational Behavior
,
Vol. 19

(pp. 197
-
234). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.


Mitchell, T. R., & Wood, R. E. (1980). Superviso
r’s responses to subordinate poor
performance: A test of an attributional model.
Organizational Behavior and Human

Performance
, 25, 123
-
138.


Pervin, L. A. (1989). Persons, situations, interactions: The history of a controversy and a
discussion of theo
retical models.
Academy of Management Review
, 14, 350
-
360.


Plaks, J. E., Stroessner, S. J., Dweck, C. S., & Sherman, J. W. (2001). Person theories
and attention allocation: Preferences for stereotypic versus counterstereotypic information.
Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology
, 80, 876
-
893.

Sorich, L., & Dweck, C. S. (1994).
Implicit theories as predictors of attributions for and
response to wrongdoing

[Unpublished raw data]. Columbia University

Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air. How s
tereotypes shape intellectual identity and
performance.
American Psychologist, 52,

613
-
629.

Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test
performance of African Americans.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69
,

797
-
811.


Weiner, B. (1990). Attribution in personality psychology. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.),
Handbook of personality theory and research
. New York/London: The Guilford Press.


climbmoujeantea_7c8c8332
-
9859
-
487a
-
b2e2
-
c59990b11409.doc
, Page
32

of
32




Weiner, B., Amirkhan, J., Folkes, V., & Verette, J. (1987). An attributional
analysis of
excuse giving: Studies of a naïve theory of emotion.
Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 52
, 316
-
324.


Weiner, B., Frieze, I., Kukla, A., Reed, L., Rest, S., & Rosenbaum, R. (1972). Perceiving
the causes of success and failure. In E
. Jones, D. Kanouse, H. Kelley, R. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B.
Weiner (Eds.),
Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior
. Morristown, NJ: General
Learning Press.

Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on self
-
regulatory
mechan
isms and complex decision making.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56
,
407
-
415.


Ybarra, O., & Stephan, W. G. (1999). Attributional orientations and the prediction of
behavior the attribution
--

prediction bias.
Journal of Personality and So
cial Psychology
, 76,
718
-
727.