CHAPTER 7
SOCIAL PERCEPTION AND ATTRIBUTIONS
CHAPTER SUMMARY
Perception is a cognitive process that allows us to interpret and understand our surroundings. Social
cognition is the study of how people perceive one another. The four-stage sequence presented in Figure
7-1 presents a basic social information processing model. The four stages include: selective
attention/comprehension, encoding and simplification, storage and retention, and retrieval and response.
Since we do not have the mental capacity to fully comprehend all of the stimuli within the environment,
we selectively perceive portions of environmental stimuli. Attention is the process of becoming
consciously aware of something or someone. We tend to pay attention to salient stimuli. Encoding and
simplification involves interpreting or translating raw information into mental representations. These
mental representations are then assigned to cognitive categories. Categories are defined as a group of
objects that are considered equivalent. As part of the categorization process, people, events and objects
are compared with schemata. A schema represents a person’s mental picture or summary of a particular
event or type of stimulus. The third phase involves storage of information in long-term memory. Longterm memory consists of separate but connected categories. The final stage requires drawing on,
interpreting, and integrating categorical information to form judgments and decisions. This social
information process has profound managerial implications.
Person perception is susceptible to several errors including halo, leniency, central tendency, recency
effects, and contract effects (see Table 7-2). Person perception also is prone to the formation of
stereotypes. A stereotype is an individual’s set of beliefs about the characteristics or attributes of a group.
Stereotypes may or may not be accurate and are not always negative. Different kinds of stereotypes
include sex-role, age, race, and disability stereotypes.
People’s expectations or beliefs determine their behavior and performance through the self-fulfilling
prophecy, and thus serve to make their expectations come true. Figure 7-2 presents a model of the selffulfilling prophecy showing how supervisory expectations affect subordinate performance. First, high
supervisory expectancy produces better leadership, leading employees to develop higher selfexpectations. Higher expectations motivate employees to exert greater effort, ultimately increasing
performance and supervisory expectancies. Finally, successful performance also improves an employee’s
self-expectancy for achievement. Managers must harness the potential of the self-fulfilling prophecy by
building a hierarchical framework that reinforces positive performance expectations.
Attribution theory holds that people attempt to infer causes for both our own and others’ observed
behavior. Kelley’s model of attribution is based on the premise that behavior can be attributed to either
internal factors within a person (e.g., ability) or to external factors within the environment (e.g., task
difficulty). To make attributions, we gather information along three behavioral dimensions: consensus,
distinctiveness, and consistency. Consensus involves a comparison of an individual’s behavior with that
of his or her peers. Distinctiveness is determined by comparing a person’s behavior on one task with his
or her behavior on other tasks. Consistency is decided by judging if the individual’s performance on a
given task is consistent over time. According to Kelley, people attribute behavior to external causes when
they perceive high consensus, high distinctiveness, and low consistency. Internal attributions are made
when the observed behavior has low consensus, low distinctiveness, and high consistency.
The fundamental attribution bias reflects one’s tendency to attribute another person’s behavior to his or
her personal characteristics rather than to situational factors. The self-serving bias represents one’s
tendency to take greater personal responsibility for success than for failure.
Social Perceptions and Attributions
These findings have important implications for managers. Managers tend to disproportionately attribute
behavior to internal causes, which may result in inaccurate performance evaluations, and thus reduce
employee motivation. Also, since managers’ responses to employee performance vary according to their
attributions, attributional biases may lead to inappropriate managerial actions. Finally, an employee’s
attributions for his or her own performance have dramatic effects on subsequent motivation,
performance, and personal attitudes such as self-esteem.
75
Chapter 7
LECTURE OUTLINE
I.
An Information Processing Model of Perception (PPT Slides: 4-5, Self-Exercise: Does a Schema Improve
the Comprehension of Written Material?, and Group Exercise: Win, Lose or Schema apply here)
A. Four-Stage Sequence and a Working Example
1. The fours stages of social information processing are: selective attention/comprehension,
encoding and simplification, storage and retention, and retrieval and response. .
B. Stage 1: Selective Attention/Comprehension (Ethical Dilemma: Should Brain Scans be Used to Craft
Advertising applies here).
II.
1. People are continuously bombarded by physical and social stimuli in the environment.
Since they are unable to fully comprehend all this information, they selectively attend to
subsets of environmental stimuli that include salient or important information.
C. Stage 2: Encoding and Simplification
1. Before information is stored, it must be interpreted or translated into mental
representations. Perceivers assign pieces of information to cognitive categories. People,
events, and objects are interpreted and categorized by comparing their characteristics
with schemata.
D. Stage 3: Storage and Retention
1. Long-term memory consists of separate but connected categories containing different
types of information. Information also passes among the categories.
E. Stage 4: Retrieval and Response
1. Ultimately, judgments and decisions are the product of drawing on, interpreting, and
integrating categorical information stored in long-term memory.
F. Managerial implications
1. Inaccurate impressions regarding the fit between the applicant and the job requirements
lead to poor hiring decisions, inaccurate performance appraisals, distorted evaluations of
leaders, distorted communication, aggressive and antisocial behavior, and negatively
affects employee well-being.
Stereotypes: Perceptions about Groups of People (PPT Slides: 7-12, Supplemental PPT Slides: 31, 3340, Self-Exercise: How Do Diversity Assumptions Influence Team Member Interactions?, and Group Exercise: Do
Stereotypes Unconsciously Influence the Perception Process? apply here)
Table 7-2 describes five common perceptual errors including halo, leniency, central tendency,
recency effects, and contrast effects.
A. Stereotype Formation and Maintenance
1. Stereotypes can lead to poor decisions, create barriers for women, older individuals,
people of color, and those with disabilities, and can undermine job satisfaction.
2. Stereotyping is a four-step process. First, people are categorized into groups according to
various criteria, such as gender, age, race, and occupation. Next, we infer that all people
within a particular category possess the same traits or characteristics and then we form
expectations of others and interpret their behavior according to our stereotypes. Finally,
we maintain our stereotypes.
B. Sex-Role Stereotypes
1. Research indicates than men and women do not systematically differ in the manner
suggested by traditional stereotypes, yet the stereotypes persist.
C. Age Stereotypes
76
Social Perceptions and Attributions
III.
1. Age stereotypes depict older employees as less satisfied, involved, and motivated.
Research suggests that these stereotypes are not accurate.
D. Racial and Ethnic Stereotypes
1. One study found that black and white managers did not differentially evaluate their
employees based on race, but research also suggests a same-race bias for Hispanics and
blacks in the interview process.
E. Disability Stereotypes
1. 62% of the disabled are unemployed and make less money than those without
disabilities.
F. Managerial Challenges and Recommendations
1. Organizations need to educate themselves about the problem of stereotyping.
2. Organizations must reduce stereotypes throughout the organization. This can be done by
increasing the amount of quality contact among members of different groups.
3. Managers should identify valid individual differences that differentiate between
successful and unsuccessful performers and use these criteria.
4. Managers should remove promotional barriers for men and women, for people of color,
and those with disabilities.
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: The Pygmalion Effect (PPT Slides: 13-15 and Supplemental PPT Slides: 28-29
apply here)
IV.
A. Research and an Explanatory Model
1. Raising instructors' and managers' expectations for individuals can produce higher levels
of achievement and productivity.
2. The self-fulfilling prophecy works in both positive and negative directions.
B. Putting the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy to Work
1. Managers need to harness the Pygmalion effect by building a hierarchical framework that
reinforces positive performance expectations throughout the organization.
2. Managers can create positive performance expectations when they recognize the
potential to increase performance, instill confidence, set high performance goals,
positively reinforce employees, provide constructive feedback, help employees advance
through the organization, introduce new employees as if they have outstanding potential,
become aware of personal prejudices, encourage employees to visualize successful task
completion, and help subordinates master key skills and tasks.
Causal Attributions (PPT Slides: 16-25 and Group Exercise: Using Attribution Theory to Resolve Performance
Problems apply here)
A. Kelley's Model of Attribution
1. Behavior can be attributed either to internal factors within a person (e.g., ability) or to
external factors within the environment (e.g., task difficulty).
2. People make causal attributions after gathering information on three dimensions of
behavior: consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency.
a. Consensus involves a comparison on an individual's behavior with that of peers.
b. Distinctiveness is determined by comparing a person's behavior on one task with his
or her behavior on other tasks.
c. Consistency is determined by judging if the individual's performance on a given task
is reliable over time.
77
Chapter 7
B. Attributional Tendencies
1. The fundamental attribution bias causes perceivers to ignore relevant environmental
forces which may significantly influence behavior.
2. The self-serving bias makes it difficult to accurately assess personal responsibility for
mistakes.
C. Managerial Application and Implications
1. Managers tend to disproportionately attribute behavior to internal causes, leading to
inaccurate performance evaluations and reduced employee motivation.
2. Managers' attributional biases may lead to inappropriate managerial actions, including
promotions, transfers, or layoffs.
3. An employee's attributions for his or her own performance have important effects on
subsequent motivation, performance, and personal attitudes.
78
Social Perceptions and Attributions
OPENING CASE SOLUTION
1.
Why do people from China and the United States have different perceptions of the same events? Explain.
Different perspectives between two such different cultures can stem from a variety of sources including
education, history, and language. Complicating matters are the sometimes distorted perspectives that each
culture may have of the other.
OB IN ACTION CASE SOLUTION
1.
Would you go under the knife to enhance your career opportunities? Why or why not?
This is a personal opinion question.
2.
What negative stereotypes are fueling the use of cosmetic surgery to change one’s appearance?
Age stereotypes begin by categorizing an individual into a group based on his or her age. Next, the stereotype
holder infers that all people within that age group possess the same traits or characteristics. Based on these
beliefs, the stereotype holder forms expectations about the stereotyped group and interprets the behavior of all
group members according to stereotypic beliefs. Finally, the holder perpetuates his or her stereotype by
overestimating the frequency of stereotypic behaviors exhibited by group members, incorrectly explaining
observed behaviors, and mentally differentiating those forty-something and over from himself or herself.
Age stereotypes typically portray older workers as less satisfied, not as involved with their work, less
motivation, not as committed, less productive, more apt to be absent from work, and more accident prone.
Executives are certainly aware of these stereotypes. “They believe that looking older in business now means
looking vulnerable, not wise and experienced.” The vast majority survey respondents, mostly in their 40s and
50s, “thought age had cost them a shot at a particular job.” According to Rick Miners, “ageism is unfortunate but
it exists, and if you aren’t looking good, you aren’t a player.”
3.
To what extent does the Pygmalion effect, Galatea effect, and Golem effect play a role in this case?
Explain.
According to the self-fulfilling prophecy, or Pygmalion effect, people's high expectations or beliefs determine
their behavior and performance, thus serving to make their expectations come true. The Golem effect is a loss in
performance resulting from low leader expectations. We strive to validate our perceptions of reality, no matter
how accurate or inaccurate those perceptions may be. Figure 7-2 presents a model of the self-fulfilling prophecy.
It’s important to remember that the self-fulfilling prophecy works in both positive (Pygmalion) and negative
(Golem) directions. The Galetea effect occurs when an individual’s high self-expectations for himself or herself
lead to high performance.
The anonymous 56-year-old public-relations manager who had his lower eyelids done feels that “his new look
has given him more confidence at work, prompting him to volunteer for new projects.” This man’s experiences
demonstrate the Galetea effect. When being 40 or 50 “means looking vulnerable,” it’s quite likely that other’s
lower expectations also lead to the Golem effect.
4.
Based on this case and what you learned in this chapter, do the skills that come with age and experience
count for less than appearance in today’s organization? Discuss your rationale.
This is a personal opinion question, but the executives mentioned in the case certainly feel that the skills that
come with age and experience count for less than appearance in today’s workforce. In one survey, 82% rated age
bias a serious problem. Additionally, 94% of respondents (mostly in their 40s & 50s) said they thought age had
cost them a shot at a particular job.
79
Chapter 7
INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
See “Do Stereotypes Unconsciously Influence the Perception Process?” and “Win, Lose or
Schema” by A. Johnson & A. Kinicki in An Instructor’s Guide to an Active Classroom, 2006,
McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Age stereotypes are discussed in The Aging Work Force, (Washington D.C.: American
Association of Retired Persons Work Force Programs Department).
See “Gender, Age, and the MBA: An Analysis of Extrinsic and Intrinsic Career Benefits” by R.
Simpson, J. Sturges, A. Woods, & Y. Altman in Journal of Management Education, 2005, 29(2),
pp. 218-247.
All sides of the Pygmalion effect are covered in W. Rowe and J. O’Brien, “The Role of Golem,
Pygmalion, and Galatea Effects on Opportunistic Behavior in the Classroom” Journal of
Management Education, December 2002, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 612-628.
TOPICAL RESOURCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
A great chat on perceptual biases can be found in “The Actor-Observer Asymmetry in
Attribution: A (Surprising) Meta-Analysis” by: B. Malle in Psychological Bulletin, 2006, 132, pp
895-919.
See “Penalties for Success: Reactions to Women Who Succeed at Male Gender-Typed Tasks” in
Journal of Applied Psychology, 2004, 89(3), pp. 416-427.
See “Using SAT – Grade and Ability – Job Performance Relationships to Test Predictions
Derived From Stereotype Threat Theory” by M. Cullen, C. Hardison, & P. Sackett in Journal of
Applied Psychology, 2004, 89(2), pp. 220-230.
See “The Effect of Physical Height on Workplace Success and Income: Preliminary Test of A
Theoretical Model” by T. Judge & D. Cable in Journal of Applied Psychology, 2004, 89(3), pp.
428-441.
An interesting discussion of attribution and bias in a very modern work context can be found in
“Misattribution in Virtual Groups: The Effects of Member Distribution on Self-Serving Bias and
Partner Blame” by: J. Walther and N. Bazarova in Human Communication Research, 2007, 33,
pp. 1-26.
VIDEO RESOURCES
McGraw-Hill Supplements:
1. The Organizational Behavior Video DVD, Volume One contains the following videos that
correspond with this chapter content: Gender Pay Gap and Wal-Mart Faces Discrimination Lawsuit.
Suggested teaching notes and discussion questions are located in the Video Cases and in a separate
PowerPoint file containing all Videos on the book’s website at www.mhhe.com/kreitner.
Additional Video Resources:
1.
The damaging influence of negative expectations is explored in the film "Case of the Missing
Person" (CRM Films).
80
Social Perceptions and Attributions
2.
3.
4.
The managerial implications of attributional tendencies are clarified in the film, "Managing
Motivation," (Salenger Educational Media).
The impact of the perceptual process is the subject of the film, "Perception," (McGraw-Hill
Films).
The power of the self-fulfilling prophecy is examined in the film "Productivity and the SelfFulfilling Prophecy: The Pygmalion Effect" and its sequel "The Galatea Effect: Managing the
Power of Expectations," (CRM Films).
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Describe your schema of a typical college professor.
Apply the four-stage social information processing model to the purchase of a new car.
Describe a situation in which you were guilty of making a fundamental attribution bias or selfserving bias.
Apply attribution bias and self-serving bias to an important situation in your life.
How might your instructor utilize the self-fulfilling prophecy to increase student test scores?
81
Chapter 7
SUPPLEMENTAL EXERCISE 1: PAUL’S NEW JOB
APPLICATION
The mini-case presented below may be used to illustrate concepts of Kelley’s model of attribution. It
describes a situation in which a new hire, Paul, exhibits behavior which demonstrates low consensus (he
doesn’t act sociable and friendly as others do), low distinctiveness (he behaves the same way in a variety
of situations), and high consistency (he behaved in this manner over a three month period). There is also
evidence of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Paul’s coworkers now believe he is unfriendly, and thus behave in
unfriendly ways toward him. He then withdraws even more, confirming their original impression.
Discussion questions follow the mini-case.
***
Paul Johnson just returned from his probationary performance review, which is given 90 days after initial
employment. While he got generally favorable marks from his boss, Sam, he was disappointed to be
marked low in “teamwork and working with others.” Sam told him he seemed aloof. His coworkers
complained that he was unfriendly and not a “team player.”
When Paul first came to work at the company, he was overwhelmed by how much there was to learn. He
thought the best way to go about learning it all was to work hard and stay focused. He went straight to his
work station every day without stopping for coffee and chit-chat with his coworkers, even though he was
invited more than once. He brought his lunch from home so he could keep learning about his new job
over the lunch hour. He was pleasantly surprised at how social everyone was at lunch time, but he
thought it was more important to learn rapidly and work hard in order to make a good impression. He
also tried hard to learn the names of all the people he worked with, but ended up knowing only a few
after three months time. To disguise the fact that he didn’t know people’s names, he would look down
when he passed someone in the hall. His feelings of being “out of the loop” were especially pronounced
during staff meetings when everyone else was full of ideas, comments, and humorous remarks. It was
hard for Paul to understand everything people were talking about because he just didn’t have the
background that others did. He remained quiet during staff meetings so that he wouldn’t say anything
foolish that might draw attention to himself. After about two months on the job, he realized that his
attention to his work was paying off and that he had learned most of what he needed in order to perform
well. He started stopping by in the lounge in the mornings for coffee and asked some of his coworkers to
go to lunch with him. He was disappointed at the negative responses he received. People tended to ignore
him in the mornings and not accept his lunch invitations. When he made a comment at the next staff
meeting, a coworker said “Well, what do you know, it speaks.” Everyone laughed at the joke and ignored
his contribution. At this point, Paul is honestly confused about what has gone wrong and how he ended
up with low marks for teamwork. He is beginning to wonder if he has a future at this company.
1. Using Kelley’s model of attribution, explain how Paul ended up with a low rating for
“teamwork and working with others.”
2. Is there a self-fulfilling prophesy at work here? Explain.
3. What can or should Paul do now if he wants to change his image at this organization?
82
Social Perceptions and Attributions
SUPPLEMENTAL EXERCISE 2: ROBERTA CHALLENGES HER STAFF1
APPLICATION
This is the second installment of the continuing Roberta case. Students should preferably read
“Introduction to Roberta” from Chapter 1 to provide background information. Other installments may be
used in conjunction with each other or independently. In this installment, Roberta’s staff has become
trapped in a self-fulfilling prophecy. Roberta works to break through their self-set perceptual barriers.
This installment may also be used to demonstrate motivational issues. Students may discuss the case
questions after reading the case, or you may prefer to use it as a written assignment. Discussion questions
are provided at relevant points throughout the case.
***
Roberta was pleased with the changes her department had made in the past three months. Complaints
about the old "Complaint Department," now renamed the Customer Service Department, were down to a
trickle. Although there was still some "holdout" behavior from a few members of the group, overall they
were working well together. The department was starting to develop a team attitude.
As Roberta walked down the hall to her boss's office, she reviewed the successes of the past months. Her
positive thoughts were echoed by Sam Moore as she entered his office.
"Roberta, I am very pleased with the progress your department has made. Complaints from our customers
have stopped almost entirely, and I hear good comments about the customer service department from our
internal people on a regular basis."
"Thanks Sam," responded Roberta. "I have to give a lot of the credit to my team. They really have begun
to pull together."
"The main reason I called you in today, Roberta, is to discuss the effect our purchase of Medium
Conglomerate, Inc. will have on your department. Since M.C. Inc. has no customer service department,
you won't have to worry about integration like some of the other departments. However, we expect this
merger to increase sales by 30 percent over last year. What I need is an estimate of the personnel and cost
increases required to keep your department operating at its current level of performance. We have plenty
of time on this. I'll need the information by late next month, when the merger is completed."
"I will be able to get you that information easily by then," Roberta stated. "I may need to speak with the
manager of sales at M.C. Inc. to get more information on the type of product packages they work with
and their customer base."
"That will be no problem. I will get you his name and phone number. By the way, I found an article in
this month's copy of Industry News that I think might be helpful to you. It looks at customer service
departments of five companies in our industry who are rated tops in customer satisfaction. There are
some productivity measures listed. It might be interesting to compare their figures with ours."
"Thanks Sam," said Roberta, "I'll take a look at this."
1
Originally developed and written by Maria Muto, Arizona State University. Cooperatively revised by Maria Muto,
Arizona State University, and Edwin C. Leonard, Jr., Indiana-Purdue University at Fort Wayne.
83
Chapter 7
When Roberta got back to her office, she pulled last month's progress report and compared their
productivity figures to the published data. She was surprised to discover that her department, even with
all the improvements, had a productivity level that averaged 60 percent of the ones listed. With Sam
Moore's request for the cost and personnel increases needed to absorb a higher work load, this article was
particularly timely. Maybe her department could increase efficiencies instead of costs. She decided to
bring this up at Monday's staff meeting.
Monday morning, Roberta walked into the meeting armed with copies of the monthly productivity totals
set next to the averages provided in the article. After explaining the situation, she asked for input.
"I don't understand," Jenny exclaimed, "You said you wanted the customer to get lots of attention, and
now you're telling us we spend too much time with them. You can't have both."
"I agree," said Bill, the veteran of the office. "It's impossible to complete any billing exchange in less
than two hours. No one can go any faster than we do and do a truly good job."
Dolores, one of the best performers in the department responded, "You know, Roberta, we're pleased
with the changes in the department since you came. I'm willing to try whatever you suggest to improve
productivity, but I really don't see what else we can do to go faster."
"I'm going to do some research on the techniques these other departments are using," answered Roberta.
"All I want is your guarantee to try out new ideas and see how they work."
"We'll try them," said Jenny, "But I still don't believe that we can save any more time."
1. What common perceptual problem did Roberta uncover in her staff meeting? Explain.
2. What steps could Roberta take to begin to turn around her group's self-perception?
Roberta knew that her first job was to convince her department that they were capable of improving their
performance. To break through their static perceptions of how much they could accomplish, Roberta
decided to use a variation on a Total Quality Management technique, benchmarking. Through contacts
with a local professional association, and from her old school friends, she knew people at three of the
five companies mentioned in the article. Since their product lines were non-competitive, Roberta was
able to arrange for one of her employees to spend a day at each of the three departments. For the visits,
she choose three staff members who were receptive to new ideas, and who had some influence over the
team. Their instructions were to look for new, more efficient ways of doing things.
In addition, on the days when they were gone, Roberta filled in, discovering several short-cuts and
demonstrating them to the staff at their next meeting. Each staff member who visited one of the other
three companies came back and made a presentation of the ideas and techniques that could work in their
department. Each possibility was discussed, and some were implemented. As a result, the weekly
performance reports began showing a steady rise in productivity. Roberta knew she had broken through a
barrier when Bill remarked one day, "I guess you were right Roberta, there's always room for
improvement."
Roberta had some ideas for continuing to improve the productivity of her department, but she needed
Sam Moore's support. She walked into his office one day prepared to lay out a detailed plan for absorbing
the workload created by the merger with Medium Conglomerate, Inc.
84
Social Perceptions and Attributions
"Sam, as you know, we will have to absorb a 35 percent sales increase over the next 8 months due to the
gradual consolidation with M.C. Inc. Under my department's past productivity levels, I would need seven
more customer service representatives in order to maintain comparable performance with the sales
increases. This is based on an estimate that each of our customer service representatives currently
manages 5 percent of our sales concerns. However, I believe that there is an alternative. I would like to
improve productivity in my department to absorb the increase without increasing staff. This would move
our department productivity levels to within 10%of the norm in our industry for firms with higher
performance and customer satisfaction standards."
"Sounds good," said Sam. "That would be a significant cost savings for the company. But I am
concerned. A 35% increase in productivity is ambitious for any department."
"I know the goal will be a stiff challenge," Roberta replied. "But based on my research and the
information provided through some benchmarking we've done, I think it's achievable. Over the past
month, we have already reached a 10% productivity increase, and my people are using the extra time to
explore other time-saving options. I have set a schedule for improvement, and every staff member will
get a copy of their own and the department's productivity levels on a weekly basis. With tangible,
measurable goals and the ideas for improving productivity, I think this will work. The main concern I
have is keeping my group motivated to reach that goal, and that's where I need your help."
"What do you want me to do?" Sam asked.
"Well, because of the problems with this department in the past, merit raises were rare and turnover high.
Consequently, most of my staff are close to the bottom of their pay scales. I want the company to invest
some of the money saved from the productivity improvements back into my staff.
With your support, I would like to offer them the opportunity to get some of that cost savings in their
paychecks. The amount should be significant for them, so I was thinking of $500 a year or more per
person for every 5% increase in productivity. This pay raise would be in addition to their standard raises
at the end of the year. It would be something special. Doing this will still cost HRI less than half the
salary cost of adding the new staff, not considering the facilities and benefits expenses. I also believe that
this vote of confidence and support will make a big difference on every aspect of my staff's selfperceptions and performance.
"I like the idea," said Sam after a few minutes of thought. "It is daring but I think you may be able to
make it work. I'll OK it on one condition: that you keep detailed notes on this project so we can use it as
a pilot study for productivity improvement in other departments."
"I will be happy to do that," Roberta replied. "I am glad you accepted the idea. Before I go, I do have one
other request. I do not expect to be included in the $500 raise aspect of this, but if I succeed in absorbing
the entire 35% sales increase....
"Shall we say a $10,000 raise for you, as additional motivation?" replied Sam, smiling. "That sounds
fair," answered Roberta.
3. Provide some practical suggestions for tactics that could help Roberta challenge her staff to
improve their productivity. Feel free to draw upon the motivational and goal-setting concepts
presented in Chapters 7 and 8.
85
Chapter 7
SUPPLEMENTAL LECTURETTE 1: WEINER’S MODEL OF ATTRIBUTION APPLIED
TO GENDER DIFFERENCES IN MANAGERIAL EXPECTATIONS 1
APPLICATION
This lecturette introduces another popular attribution model – of Weiner’s model of attribution. Gender
differences in causal attributions for success and failure are discussed.
***
Bernard Weiner, a noted motivation theorist, developed an attribution model to explain achievement
behavior and to predict subsequent changes in motivation and performance. Weiner believes that the
attribution process begins after an individual performs as task. A person’s performance leads him or her
to judge whether it was successful or unsuccessful. This evaluation then produces a causal analysis to
determine if the performance was due to internal or external factors. Weiner proposes that attributions
vary along two dimensions: locus (the extent to which a cause is internal to the individual or something
in the environment) and stability (the extent to which the cause remains stable over time across similar
tasks). (Weiner also discusses a third dimension – controllability – but the other two factors have
received the majority of the research attention.) Ability and effort are the primary internal causes of
performance and task difficulty, luck, and help from others the key external causes. The two primary
dimensions yield four causes of performance. Ability is internal and more stable, effort is internal but
less stable, luck is external and less stable, and task difficulty is external and stable. These attributions
for success and failure then influence how individuals feel about themselves. For example, a metaanalysis of 104 studies involving almost 15,000 individuals found that people who attributed failure to
their lack of ability (as opposed to bad luck) experienced psychological depression. The exact opposite
attributions (to good luck rather than to high ability) tended to trigger depression in people experiencing
positive events.2 In short, perceived bad luck took the sting out of a negative outcome, but perceived
good luck reduced the joy associated with success.
Note that the psychological consequences can either increase or decrease depending on the causes of
performance. For example, student self-esteem is likely to increase after receiving an “A” on an exam if
he or she believes that performance was due to ability or effort. In contrast, the same grade can either
increase or decrease self-esteem if the student believes that the test was easy. Finally, the feelings that
people have about their past performance influences future performance. Future performance is higher
when individuals attribute success to internal causes and lower when failure is attributed to external
factors. Future performance is more uncertain when individuals attribute either their success or failure to
external causes.
In further support of Weiner’s model, a study of 130 male salespeople in the United Kingdom revealed
that positive, internal attributions for success were associated with higher sales and performance ratings. 3
A second study examined the attributional process of 126 employees who were permanently displaced by
a plant closing. Consistent with the model, as the explanation for job loss was attributed to internal and
1
Adapted from P. Rosenthal, D. Guest, and R. Peccei, “Gender Differences in Managers’ Causal Explanations for
Their Work Performance: A Study in Two Organizations” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology
1996, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 145-151; L. Larwood and M. Wood, “Training Women for Management: Changing Priorities”
Journal of Management Development, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 54-64.
2
See P. Sweeney, K. Anderson, and S. Bailey, “Attributional Style in Depression: A Meta-Analytic Review” in Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, May 1986, pp. 974-991.
3
See “P. Corr & J. Gray, “Attributional Style as a Personality Factor in Insurance Sales Performance in the UK” in
Journal of Occupational Psychology, March 1996, pp. 83-87.
86
Social Perceptions and Attributions
stable causes, life satisfaction, self-esteem, and expectations for reemployment diminished.1 Furthermore,
research also shows that when individuals attribute their success to internal rather than external factors,
they have higher expectations for future success, report a greater desire for achievement, and set higher
performance goals.2
Women still face unequal career progression in management compared to men. Weiner’s attribution
model provides one potential explanation for this state of affairs. Laboratory studies have found
differences when men and women provide explanations for identical levels of their own performance.
Women tend to attribute the cause of their success less to ability than do men, and be more likely to
believe that their failures result from a lack of ability. If this finding generalizes to an organizational
setting, it could help explain the unequal career progression of men and women. Women may be less
likely to perform the types of self-promoting career development necessary to advance.
Rosenthal, Guest, and Peccei tested this idea in an organizational setting. They surveyed junior- and
middle-level managers in two organizations: a hospital and the head office of a financial services firm.
Managers were asked to discuss two examples of their behavior – one representing successful and the
other unsuccessful performance. Then they were asked to make attributions for each outcome.
Attributions were assessed by asking managers to rate the extent to which four key factors had
contributed to the performance outcome. For successful performance, the factors were (1) your personal
skills and abilities, (2) the hard work and effort you invested in the task, (3) the positive circumstances in
which you found yourself, and (4) the relative ease of the task at hand. In the case of unsuccessful
performance, the factors were (1) deficiencies in your personal skills and abilities, (2) the lack of effort
you invested in the task, (3) the negative circumstances in which you found yourself, and (4) the relative
difficulty of the task at hand.
Results indicated no gender differences in managers’ explanations for unsuccessful performance.
However, female managers attributed their successful performance significantly less to ability than did
male managers. Further anecdotal evidence is also disturbing. A survey of men and women executives
found that women do not expect to be as financially successful as men. Men expected to be rewarded for
their work, and are indignant and vocal when they are overlooked. Women hope to be recognized, but
they don’t demand or feel entitled. Finally, women want to be chosen for key training and assignments,
but men tend to be more assertive and initiate requests for special development.
If women managers are more hesitant to attribute their successes to high ability, they may be setting a
self-fulfilling prophecy in motion. Their attributions may constrain expectancies for future success and in
turn affect motivation to succeed, leading to less successful behaviors.
1
See G. Prussia, A. Kinicki & J. Bracker, “Psychological and Behavioral Consequences of Job Loss: A Covariance
Structure Analysis Using Weiner’s (1985) Attribution Model” in Journal of Applied Psychology, June 1993, pp. 38294.
2
See B. Weiner, An Attributional Theory of Motivation and Emotion (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1985).
87
Chapter 7
SUPPLEMENTAL LECTURETTE 2: SHIFTING STANDARDS AND STEREOTYPE
ACCURACY 1
APPLICATION
This lecturette may be used to expand on the chapter’s coverage of stereotype formation and
maintenance.
***
One rationale used to explain the use of stereotypes in social cognition is the shifting standards model.
Briefly, this model suggests that when stereotype holders make judgments about others on stereotyperelevant issues, they do so by calling to mind a within-group standard of comparison. For example, male
targets are judged relative to a male standard while female targets are judged according to a female
standard. This model assumes that the use of stereotypes involves perceived between-group differences,
and that the perceiver shifts or alters his or her standards of judgment depending on the target’s social
category. The use of different standards of comparison may mean that the labels applied to targets from
different social groups are not directly comparable. A commonly held sex-role stereotype might include
greater aggressiveness on the part of men than women. When making judgments regarding how
aggressive an individual man or women is, the perceivers’ standards are likely to shift according to this
expectation. A woman’s aggressive behavior is more inclined to be perceived as such because this
behavior is more likely to surpass the perceiver’s expectations for the typical aggressiveness of women
than of men. This may be the case even if the aggressive woman’s behavior is less objectively aggressive
than the aggressive man’s. Thus, the label “very aggressive” when applied to a woman communicates a
different meaning than when it is applied to a man.
Is there a way to avoid the inconsistency caused by the use of shifting standards and come to a common
conclusion? Yes, by using a more objective, externally anchored rule of judgment (e.g.. 5’9” rather than
‘average height’). The disadvantage, of course, is that objective standards are not readily available in
many instances in which we make judgments. The use of (shifting) subjective standards may serve to
hide the operation of stereotypes, while objective scales (which don’t shift) may reveal the existence of
stereotypes. That is, subjective standards may mask the extent to which we are guided by our stereotypes.
Indeed, a number of studies support this conclusion.
As an example, one study asked participants to read a short article attributed to either a female (Joan) or
male (John) author. The article focused on either a masculine (e.g., bass fishing), feminine (e.g., cooking)
or gender-neutral topic. Readers judged the monetary worth of the article in either objective (e.g., if you
were the editor, how many dollars would you pay the author?) or subjective (e.g., ‘very little money’ to
‘lots of money’) terms. As expected, in the objective judgment condition, feminine articles were viewed
more positively when written by Joan than by John (i.e., Joan was paid significantly more money than
John). Masculine articles were judged more positively when written by John than by Joan. Readers in the
subjective judgment condition did not differentially judge male and female authors by topic.
How might the shifting standards phenomenon appear in real-world judgments? Take the case of an
employer who ascribes to traditional gender stereotypes (e.g., males are more capable than females)
1
Adapted from M. Biernat “The Shifting Standards Model: Implications of Stereotype Accuracy for Social Judgment”
in Stereotype Accuracy: Toward Appreciating Group Differences, 1995 Lee, Jussim & McCauley eds., American
Psychological Association: Washington DC, pp. 87-114; M. Biernat and M. Manis “Shifting Standards and
Stereotype-Based Judgments” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1994, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 5-20.
88
Social Perceptions and Attributions
faced with a hiring decision involving two objectively equal job applicants, one male and one female.
Will the employer be affected by his pro-male bias and thus hire the male? Or will he evoke shifting
standards and be impressed that this individual woman has surpassed his (relatively low) expectations for
female competence and hire her? As often is the case in organizational behavior, the answer must be “it
depends.” One factor which may influence the outcome is the attribution made for the women’s
competence. An ability attribution might sway the decision in the woman’s favor. Research along this
line is continuing to explore factors such as credibility of the perceiver and knowledge of the perceiver’s
standards.
89