Reports
Effects of status and outcome on attributions and just-world beliefs: How the social distribution of success and failure may be rationalized

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.12.002Get rights and content

Abstract

The distribution of success and failure to social groups is supported by lay theories about the characteristics of social groups and the causes of their outcomes, as well as by beliefs about entitlement of groups to succeed or fail. This paper presents a study where a target individual’s socio-economic status (high vs. low) and outcome in a major academic achievement task (success vs. failure) were manipulated in a 2 × 2 experimental design. It was found that high-status success and low-status failure, i.e. the system-consistent outcomes, were attributed relatively more to stable internal causes (ability), whereas high-status failure and low-status success, i.e. the system-inconsistent outcomes, were attributed relatively more to unstable causes (effort). Second, participants’ belief in a just world was higher in high-status success and low-status failure than in high-status failure and low-status success.

Section snippets

Attribution to ability vs. effort

Attributions are largely driven by the dominant ideas and ways of making sense circulating in society (Deschamps and Beauvois, 1994, Moscovici, 1984), as illustrated in a number of studies on the perceived causes of poverty and/or wealth (e.g. Cozzarelli et al., 2001, Feagin, 1972, Forgas et al., 1982). So far, research has established the justificatory function of attributions for the outcomes of social groups holding asymmetrical positions by pointing to systematic differences in the use of

Beliefs in a just world

Just-world theory (Lerner, 1980) posits that individuals need to believe that good and bad outcomes, as well as rewards and punishments, are not distributed at random. At an early age, people learn that the world is a place where additional investment may entitle them to better outcomes, and subsequently conduct their adult lives accordingly. In a ‘just-world’ order, low-status groups seem doomed to failure, whereas high-status groups are bound to succeed (for a review see Furnham, 2003). This

Participants and experimental design

One hundred and twenty-six university students of both sexes (56 male and 70 female), aged 18–29 (Mage = 20.1), from one of three universities in Athens, participated in this study. Participants were randomly assigned to the four experimental conditions, in a 2 (outcome: success vs. failure) × 2 (status: High vs. Low) between-participants factorial design.

Procedure

Data were collected in a few sessions in the classroom, each session lasting approximately 30 min. Participants were asked to take part

Results

Seven of the 126 participants, evenly distributed across experimental conditions (χ2(1) = .06, ns), failed the manipulation checks and their data were excluded from further analysis.

Discussion

One way in which lay theories and beliefs explain the distribution of outcomes to social groups might be the systematic variation in the attribution of success and failure to ability and effort. Participants in this study generally endorsed effort more than ability as a causal attribution, probably reflecting the emphasis laid on effort within the present type of societal organization, where diligence is worshiped as the cornerstone of individual mobility, and where common assumptions such as

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Bernard Weiner for his kind suggestions and help with attribution measures, and Jamin Halberstadt for his comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

References (51)

  • A. Buss

    Causes and reasons in attribution theory: A conceptual critique

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1978)
  • C.-K. Cheung et al.

    Underachievement and attributions among students attending schools stratified by student ability

    Social Psychology of Education

    (2003)
  • C. Cozzarelli et al.

    Attitudes toward the poor and attributions for poverty

    Journal of Social Issues

    (2001)
  • J.-C. Croizet et al.

    Extending the concept of stereotype and threat to social class: The intellectual underperformance of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds

    Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

    (1998)
  • J.M. Darley et al.

    A hypothesis-confirming bias in labelling effects

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1983)
  • K. Deaux et al.

    Explanation of successful performance on sex-linked task: What is skill for male is luck for the female

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1974)
  • J.-C. Deschamps et al.

    Attributions intergroupes

  • W. Doise

    Levels of explanation in social psychology

    (1986)
  • A. Ehrenberg

    Le culte de la performance

    (1991)
  • J.R. Feagin

    Poverty: We still believe that God helps them who help themselves

    Psychology Today

    (1972)
  • N.T. Feather

    Attitudes towards high achievers, self-esteem, and value priorities for Australian American and Canadian students

    Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology

    (1998)
  • J.P. Forgas et al.

    Lay explanations of wealth: Attributions for economic success

    Journal of Applied Social Psychology

    (1982)
  • I.H. Frieze et al.

    Cue utilization and attributional judgements for success and failure

    Journal of Personality

    (1971)
  • J. Gardner

    Excellence: Can we be excellent and equal too?

    (1961)
  • S. Graham

    Classroom motivation from an attributional perspective

  • Cited by (22)

    • Social stratification in downgrading during secondary school after ambitious track choices

      2022, Research in Social Stratification and Mobility
      Citation Excerpt :

      Low-SES families are less familiar with the educational system and have few other sources of information about their child’s probability of success besides the child’s grades. In addition, low-SES parents tend to attribute bad grades to a lack of ability rather than to a lack of effort (Iatridis & Fousiani, 2009). Finally, they may be less confident than high-SES parents regarding their future capacity to positively influence their child’s school performance.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    Now with the University of Crete.

    View full text