Explaining the Causes of Performance Outcomes - Coursework Example

Attribution Theory: Explaining the Causes of Performance Outcomes Name: Lecturer: Course: Date: 22nd April 2012 Based on either of the Weiner etal; (1971, 1985) attribution models, what would be the proper casual explanations for the following situations? Weiner’s attribution theory is aimed at examining the way individuals make an evaluation of theory success or failure in a sporting performance. It has a casual explanation for events with the emotional and behavioral repercussions for the explanations (Weiner, 1985). Let us look into the casual explanations in the following situations in sport; A team that consistently wins has just lost a game For this situation, the loosing of the game may be attributed to the opponent team being tough that they exploited their weaknesses such that this team never played to their expected standards and therefore the loss. Secondly, there is also the attribution of effort i.e. how difficult the game was to them due to the ability of their opponents considering that as individuals they had control over these elements. Thirdly, it may be explained by the attribution of bad luck as well as the referee being in favor of the other team. They are the external causes that can casually explain why the consistently winning team lost in a game. On the other hand, it could be attributed to the team that has just won being in good form in the recent past; having strengthened their self-esteem for instance. A team tends to lose has just won the game For this situation, the attribution of this team’s success can as well be explained casually by the fact that they have been in good form recently which has led to their self-esteem being strengthened. On the other hand, there is luck being on them mostly resulted from the conditions of the playing surface or even the weather which may favor the team which has always lost to winning this game. On the other hand this team that tends to lose winning a game, the explanation may be that they knew of the teams playing style having done a detailed analysis before entering into the match therefore knew how to counter the consistently winning team’s playing strategy well. A player made a physical error on a relatively easy play According to Weiner (1985) the attribution of this player’s physical error on a relatively easy task would be that he was not good enough which can be explained casually by his ability which is an internal factor. This would result to the attribution of the player’s fitness for playing in that game; was not fit enough to play in the game. The situation can also be explained with the past experiences that this player had been experiencing consistent failure as well as negative emotional reactions which will influence this future result and behavior (Weiner, 1985). On the other hand, there is the skill level effect on the player making a physical error on a relatively easy task. The differing casual labels which are given according to the skill level of a player may result to the player perceiving themselves as having low levels of ability and therefore attribute their failures to unstable, internal causes. The underdog team won According to Weiner (1985), the low achievers will often attribute their success to external factors which include the task, and also luck. And on the other hand attribute their failures to the stable factors of their not being good enough or being less as compared to the big teams making them find the achievement situation less satisfying or less motivated. According to Weiner (1972), when a particular task performance outcome happens to conflict with the outcomes in the past, the subject is more likely to ascribe the results to the unstable factors which include their effort as well as luck (Frieze and Weiner 1972). For this fact, the proper explanation for the situation that an underdog team won in a game is that the opponent team did not put proper effort in the game since they were playing an underdog team and that the underdog team was on a lucky day and therefore won the match. A player failed to catch a pass after slipping on the field This situation can be explained using the third attribution dimension by Weiner which is control. This states that the attributions can be categorized as either being under the players control or that they are not. According to Weiner, the controllability factor is purely limited to the internal locus of control dimensions only. The slipping was beyond the players control since there was no internal factor that would have made the player resisting slipping on the field. On the other hand, the external factors of the playing field environment or weather may be used to explain why the player slipped on the field such that he did not catch a pass. We may therefore attribute the slipping of the player on the field to bad weather conditions for playing such as rains. This can properly be explained by the situation of the field of play which may not be what the player is used to incase it is an away game where they are playing at their visitors home ground. The team, despite making several physical and mental errors, beat a poorly skilled opponent With the explanation given by Weiner (1972), Weiner labels “outcome-dependent affects” as affecting the future performances as well as expectations. For this reason, the poorly skilled team has a negative feeling about themselves that they perceive themselves as unsuccessful in the sporting event. This bad feeling properly explains this outcome of them losing the game. From the Frieze and Weiner (1972) investigation on the self-serving attribution bias, they explained why having high levels of ability and skill has consistence of successes. This means that the poorly skilled team were bound to ;loose based on their skill level which put the team making mistakes have confidence of beating the unskilled team (Frieze and Weiner, 1972). A batter just struck out against a poor pitcher Weiner (1985), underlines that a low achiever will often attribute their success to external factors, which include the task and also luck. They will on the other hand attribute their failures to the stable factors of their not being good enough or being less as compared to the better players making them find the achievement situation less satisfying or less motivated. According to Weiner (1972), when a particular task performance outcome happens to conflict with the outcomes in the past, the subject is more likely to ascribe the results to the unstable factors which include their effort as well as luck (Frieze and Weiner 1972). For this fact, the proper explanation for the situation that the poor pitcher struck out the batter is that is that the batter did not put proper effort in the batting of the ball since they were playing against a poor pitcher. Moreover, the being struck out by a poor pitcher maybe attributed to mare luck on the side of the poor pitcher and bad luck for the batter leading to him being struck out. The referee called a penalty that disallowed your team’s goal The outcome of such an unfortunate outcome may be attributed to bad luck. This is because for instance the referee made a wrong call to award a penalty for a given incidence on the field of play. Moreover, it may be attributed to the referee not liking the team’s particular playing style even if it is the best or it was of greater skill than that of the opponent team. These explanations can be greatly attributed to the loosing of this team. On the other hand, the loss of the team may be attributed to the stability; these are the stable and unchangeable factors such as the referees call which the players do not have control over. There is nothing the players or the team could have done to change the situation leading to the referee making the call which results to the loss of the team. The team just lost to an opponent with inferior skills This can casually be attributed to the team having over confidence towards beating the inferiorly skilled team that it ends up being beaten. The proper casual explanation for this situation nevertheless can be attributed to differing causal labels which are ascribed according to the skill level of the team. Since one of the teams is seen to have lower levels of skill and ability, the loss of the team may be attributed to stable as well as internal causes. These maybe that the team seen as the more skilled one did not put more effort in the game or that luck was not on their side that they never scored against their poorly skilled opponent. The unchangeable factor of the referee being in favor of the team with the inferior skills may not be ignored. The team with the inferior skills luck may have been from the referees being sympathetic to them thereby making calls in favor of them. Bibliography Read More