Research Digest
Attribution Theory and Learner Motivation:
Can Students Be Guided Towards Making
More Adaptive Causal Attributions?
David McLoughlin
Nagoya University of Commerce and Business
Attribution theory investigates the ways in which people seek
causal explanations for events in their lives, other people’s behaviouror their own behaviour. Such lay explanations are derived from aprocess of causal attribution whereby individuals attribute outcomes,
events or behaviours to particular causes. These are the causes asperceived by the individual and can have significant psychologicaland behavioural consequences, regardless of their accuracy (Pintrich& Schunk, 1996).
For the past four decades, attributions have been researched
in a wide range of psychological disciplines: social, educational,
experimental, clinical, organisational and motivational (Försterling,2001). The topic of attributions in foreign or second language learning
is a relatively unexplored area, though in recent years, the role of
attributions in language learning motivation has increasingly been
examined (McLoughlin, 2004; Tse, 2000; Williams & Burden, 1999;
Williams, Burden, & Al-Baharna, 2000; Williams, Burden, & Lanvers,
2002; Williams, Burden, Poulet & Maun, 2004). This reflects the factthat research into motivation in foreign language learning has begun
to focus increasingly on cognitive factors in motivation (Dörnyei &Schmidt, 2000; Oxford & Shearin, 1994; Williams & Burden, 1997),
30

OnCUE Journal

moving away from
more traditional views of motivation as a fairly static mental
or emotional state . . . to a more process-oriented approach inwhich individuals’ thoughts and beliefs play the predominantpart (Williams, Burden, & Lanvers, 2002, p. 505).
The growing interest in attributions in the field of language learnermotivation arises because attribution theory offers an insight into howlearners’ perceptions of the reasons for past performance can affecttheir future motivation and achievement. So, in a language learning
context, someone might want to know why he or she did badly in agrammar test and seek reasons for this outcome. According to attribution
theory and the concept of motivation outlined above, it is not only the
failure outcome itself that may affect the individual’s future behaviour,motivation, and performance; that person’s thoughts and beliefs
about the causes of failure also have consequences on motivation.
This leads to the insight that learners can make attributions that are
maladaptive (having negative consequences for future motivation andachievement). This in turn raises the question of whether teachers
can direct learners towards making more adaptive attributions. In thispaper, I will present an overview of attribution theory and offer someideas about how teacher intervention might help students make more
adaptive attributions.

Overview of Attribution Theory
Research seems to show that people do engage in spontaneous
attributional search (Weiner, 1985). Attributional search is more likely
to occur when an event or outcome is unexpected or uncommon(Wong & Weiner, 1981). Moreover, failure may trigger more causal
search than success (Wong & Weiner, 1981), giving attributional
search an adaptive function.
31

McLoughlin

Potentially, there is a vast number of different attributions an
individual could make. However, certain attributions appear to beprevalent. Ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck have traditionallybeen cited as the most common (Weiner, 1979), although some recent
studies in language learning contexts (Tse, 2000; Williams et al., 2004)
have found a greater range of attributions.
Weiner et al. (1971) classified attributions along certain dimensions.
The locus dimension categorizes attributions according to whether
they are seen as internal or external to an individual. The stability
dimension is concerned with the temporal nature of a cause. So, acause may be seen as fixed or likely to change with time.
This original classification (Weiner et al., 1971) was a relatively
simple one. Ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck were identified as theprincipal attributions. Ability and effort were both classed as internal,
with ability being perceived as stable and effort as unstable. Task
difficulty and luck were both external; task difficulty was classed asstable and luck as unstable. Today, ability covers innate aptitude as well
as skills or knowledge that can be acquired and can therefore be seen
as either stable or unstable; effort can be dispositional or temporary;task difficulty takes into account objective task characteristics as wellas an individual’s perceptions of the task; and, finally, chance is theterm used more often today instead of luck since being lucky could beseen as a stable, dispositional trait.
Weiner (1979) postulated a third dimension: controllability.
Controllability reflects the degree of volitional influence people feelthey have over a cause (Weiner, 1983). For example, people tend tofeel they have control over effort but not over aptitude; therefore, effort
can be seen as internal and controllable, while aptitude is internal anduncontrollable.
The relevance of attribution theory to the study of motivation, andtherefore to language learning, stems from Weiner’s attribution theoryof motivation and emotion (2000). This asserts that each dimension is32

OnCUE Journal

associated with certain psychological consequences (Weiner, 1979;
1983): affective states and expectancies for future success. These canhave a bearing on an individual’s subsequent behaviour (Weiner,
1992).
Each causal dimension is thought to be linked to particularaffective states (Weiner, 1985). The locus of causality dimension
maps onto changes in pride and self-esteem. The stability dimension
is linked to feelings of hopelessness or hopefulness. The controllability
dimension links to emotions such as anger, gratitude, guilt, pity andshame. All of these affective states can have subsequent behaviouralconsequences.
Of more direct relevance to the topic of this paper is expectancy
for future performance, which is connected to the stability dimension.
Weiner (1985) suggests that, for failure, it would be better to makeinternal, unstable and controllable attributions than internal, stableand uncontrollable ones. If a person attributes failure to an internal,
but unstable, factor (namely, lack of effort), there is every reason to
expect a better performance in the future as long as the unstablefactor is altered i.e. more effort is expended. On the other hand, if
an individual ascribes failure to an internal, and stable, factor (lack ofability), the very stability of this cause makes it seem unlikely that any
future outcome will be a radical improvement.
The central point, therefore, of the attribution theory of achievement
motivation and emotion is this: the cognitive processes that produce
attributions have consequences on the learning process because theyaffect individuals’ expectancies for future success, their affective
states, and their subsequent behaviour and performance. Therefore,
individuals’ perceptions can at times lead to attributions that havenegative consequences (maladaptive). The question is: might it bepossible for educators to direct learners towards attributions thatwould have a more desirable effect on future learning?

33

McLoughlin

Attribution Retraining
Attribution retraining is one technique that has been used to achieve
this (Försterling, 2001). It is concerned with converting maladaptive
into adaptive causal attributions. Attribution retraining “focuses on
inducing effort attributions for failure and related unstable, controllablecauses, thereby increasing students’ perception of control over theiracademic performance” (Ruthig et al., 2004, p. 713).
The whole premise of attribution retraining is based on theassumption that we can tell if an attribution is realistic or not. Is thisa valid assumption? According to Försterling (2001), it is. Attribution
theories propose that people assess consensus, distinctiveness andconsistency information to reach realistic attributions. For example,
if a student fails a class test, a teacher can use available information
to make a realistic attribution. So, if all other students had done
well in the test (low consensus), and the student had always failed
similar tests (high consistency) and other tests in different courses (lowdistinctiveness), then an internal attribution (either effort or aptitude)
would be more realistic than an external one (task or teacher).
Attribution retraining has had its successes (Försterling, 2001),
leading to enhanced motivation, an increase in perceived control andimproved academic performance (Ruthig et al., 2004). As a specificexample, Ruthig et al.’s study (2004) concluded that attribution
retraining had improved academic achievement, lowered test anxiety
and reduced course withdrawals among first-year college students in
the U.S.
Attribution retraining, however, requires intervention in a learning
process, which is time consuming. Learner attributions have to begathered and analyzed, maladaptive attributions need to be identified,and candidates for retraining have to be chosen. The retraining process
then takes place, in which learners are shown the possible effects ofmaladaptive attributions and are encouraged to make more adaptive
ones. Finally, the effectiveness of the intervention has to be evaluated34

OnCUE Journal(Försterling, 2001). In many educational contexts, this may not bepractical. However, individual teachers can help their own learners
through the feedback they give.

Implications for the Classroom - Teacher Feedback
Failure is more likely to lead to attributional search on the partof the learner than success. After failure, therefore, it is important
for a teacher to ask the learners why they think they failed. It is also
important for teachers to then say why they think the learner failed.
At this point, the teacher has to be careful to maintain positive beliefs
about students’ abilities. This essentially means that it is advisable not
to attribute learner failure to stable dispositions such as laziness orinability. Rather, emphasis should be placed on unstable situational
factors that the learner may have some control over, like effort.
However, beliefs about learners’ abilities, as well as the feedback given
to them, need to be realistic. Feedback is not simply an opportunity toencourage the learner. This is important, of course, but the feedback
also needs to be accurate because this can help learners themselves tomake more accurate and more adaptive attributions in the future.
Sometimes students do try hard and still fail. What other adaptive
attribution can those students make? In these cases, a teacher may
have to focus on lack of ability. This focus, however, does not haveto be on ability as aptitude; instead, the teacher can target certain
skills, learning strategies or knowledge areas that he or she feels thestudent lacks. Like effort, such attributions are unstable as skills can be
developed and knowledge can be attained. Teachers can help students
become more aware of skills and learning strategies they may needto develop; furthermore, teachers can encourage students to seek
effective ways of developing those skills and strategies. As Graham(1991) notes, it is the instability of a cause that is important, not thecause per se, so any self-attribution that the learner sees as unstable
35

McLoughlin

could have the same positive effects as an attribution to lack of effort.
As well as being realistic and adaptive, attributional feedback
should be specific. Attributing a learner’s failure to lack of effort may
be better than ascribing it to lack of ability; however, the student may
not derive much benefit if he or she is simply told: “You didn’t work
hard enough.” If students have only a surface level of metacognitiveawareness of their language learning, they may be unable to target
highly specific areas where they lack ability or where they need to
expend greater effort. With students like these, it is up to the teacher
to indicate such areas, possibly helping to raise their metacognitiveawareness in the process.
To conclude, by knowing what types of attributions are adaptive
or maladaptive, teachers can assist learners in perceiving their past
performances in ways that will positively affect their future learning.
For educators in Japan, where effort is seen as important (Holloway,1988), and persistence is admired, it may be particularly helpful to get
students to pinpoint lack of effort as a cause of failure. Knowledge oflearners’ causal attributions and their consequences can aid educators’
understanding of learner motivation and achievement.

References
Dörnyei, Z., & Schmidt, R. (Eds.). (2000). Motivation and second language
acquisition. (Technical Report #23). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i,
Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Försterling, F. (2001). Attribution: An introduction to theories, research andapplications. Hove, Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.
Graham, S. (1991). A review of attribution theory in achievement contexts.
Educational Psychology Review, 3(1), 5-39.
Holloway, S. (1988). Concepts of ability and effort in Japan and the UnitedStates. Review of Educational Research, 58(3), 327-345.
McLoughlin, D. (2004). The use of small-scale research studies as a means
36

OnCUE Journalof investigating language learners’ causal attributions for failure. In J.
Hull, J. Harris, & P. Darasawang (Eds.), Research in ELT: Proceedingsof the International Conference, 9-11 April 2003 (pp. 94-104). Schoolof Liberal Arts, King Mongkuts’ University of Technology, Thonburi,
Thailand.
Oxford, R., & Shearin, J. (1994). Language learning motivation: Expanding
the theoretical framework. Modern Language Journal, 78(1), 12-28.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory,
research, and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ruthig, J. C., Perry, R. P., Hall, N. C., & Hladkyj, S. (2004). Optimism andattributional retraining: Longitudinal effects on academic achievement,
test anxiety, and voluntary course withdrawal in college students.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(4), 709-730.
Tse, L. (2000). Student perceptions of foreign language study: A qualitative
analysis of foreign language autobiographies. Modern Language Journal,
84, 69-84.
Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 1-29.
Weiner, B. (1983). Some methodological pitfalls in attributional research.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(4), 530-543.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation andemotion. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548-573.
Weiner, B. (1992). Human motivation: Metaphors, theories, and research.
London: Sage Research.
Weiner, B. (2000). Intrapersonal and interpersonal theories of motivationfrom an attributional perspective. Educational Psychology Review,
12(1), 1-14.
Weiner, B., Frieze, I., Kukla, A., Reed, L., Rest, S., & Rosenbaum, R.M.
(1971). Perceiving the causes of success and failure. In E.E. Jones, D.
E. Kanouse, H.H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.),
Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
37

McLoughlin
Williams, M., & Burden, R.L. (1997). Psychology for language teachers.
Cambridge: CUP.
Williams, M., & Burden, R.L. (1999). Students’ developing conceptions ofthemselves as language learners. Modern Language Journal, 83(2), 193201.
Williams, M., Burden, R.L., & Al-Baharna, S. (2000). Making sense of
success and failure: The role of the individual in motivation theory.
In Z. Dörnyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language
acquisition (Technical Report #23, pp. 169-182). Honolulu: Universityof Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Williams, M., Burden, R.L., & Lanvers, U. (2002). French is the language oflove and stuff. British Educational Research Journal, 28(2), 503-528.
Williams, M., Burden, R.L., Poulet, G., & Maun, I. (2004). Learners’
perceptions of their successes and failures in foreign language learning.
Language Learning Journal 30, 19-29.
Wong, P. T. P., & Weiner, B. (1981). When people ask “why” questions, andthe heuristics of attributional search. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 40, 650-663.

38