Ability Versus Effort Attributional Feedback: Differential Effects on Self-Efficacy and Achievement

This experiment explored the effects of ability and effort attributional feedback given during subtraction competency development on children's perceived self-efficacy and achievement. Children who were deficient in subtraction skills received training on subtraction operations and engaged in problem solving, during which they periodically received ability attributional feedback for their progress, effort feedback, ability + effort feedback, or no attributional feedback. Children given only ability feedback demonstrated the highest subtraction skill and self-efficacy; the effort and ability + effort conditions did not differ, but each outperformed the no-feedback condition. Future research should examine in greater detail how children process attributional information and its effects on achievement outcomes. Article: According to Bandura's theory of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977, 1981, 1982), different treatments change behavior in part by creating and strengthening percepts of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy refers to judgments of how well one can organize and implement actions in specific situations that may contain ambiguous, unpredictable, and possibly stressful elements. Self-efficacy is hypothesized to affect choice of activities, effort expenditure, and perseverance in the face of difficulties. Efficacy information is conveyed through performance attainments, socially comparative vicarious means, social persuasion, and physiological indexes. Although actual performances provide the most reliable efficacy information, efficacy judgments are not mere reflections of those performances. Efficacy appraisal is an inferential process that involves weighting the relative contributions of many factors, such as self-perceptions of ability, task difficulty, effort expended, amount of external aid received, situational circumstances under which the performances occurred, and temporal pattern of successes and failures (Bandura, 1981). In the self-efficacy framework, attributional variables constitute an important source of efficacy information and influence performance primarily through their intervening effects on efficacy expectations. Attributional theories of behavior postulate that individuals make causal ascriptions for the outcomes of' their actions (Heider, 1958; Kelley, 1967; Kelley & Michela, 1980). In achievement contexts, outcomes often are attributed to ability, effort, task difficulty, or luck (Frieze, 1980; Weiner, 1979; Weiner et al., 1971). Future expectancies of success and failure in part depend upon ascriptions for prior outcomes (Weiner, 1977, 1979). If one believes that the conditions surrounding the task will remain much the same, attributions to relatively stable causes—such as ability or task difficulty--should result in future expectancies of similar outcomes, whereas attributions to the more unstable causes of effort or luck may lead to expectancy shifts (Frieze, 1980; Weiner, 1979). A number of research studies have at-tempted to modify children's achievement behaviors by providing effort attributional feedback for their performances (Andrews & Debus, 1978; Chapin & Dyck, 1976; Dweck, 1975; Medway & Venino, 1982; Schunk, 1982). Because effort presumably is under volitional control, ascribing past failures to insufficient effort should have motivational effects and lead to greater task persistence and a higher performance level. In support of this idea, Dweck (1975) had learned-helpless children solve arithmetic problems over trials. Children either always succeeded or occasionally failed to solve a criterion number of problems. When they failed, children were given effort attributional feedback by being told that they should have tried harder. Following training, subjects who had received the feedback improved or maintained their performances following failure, whereas the performances of children who always had succeeded became poorer. Other research has examined the effects of providing ability attributional feedback for successes. Such feedback also should exert motivational effects on achievement behavior: Children who believe that past successes are due largely to high ability should expect future success and perform at a high level. Miller, Brickman, and Bolen (1975) provided children with either attributional or persuasory feedback on their arithmetic assignments. Some attributional subjects received ability feedback informing them that they were good in arithmetic, whereas others received effort feedback that stressed their hard work. Persuasory-feedback subjects received either ability feedback to the effect that they should be good in arithmetic or effort feedback that they should work hard. Both forms of attributional feedback were significantly more effective than the persuasory conditions in increasing arithmetic performance; however, the two attributional conditions did not differ significantly from one another. In the present study, third-grade children participated in a subtraction competency-development program and periodically received ability attributional feedback for their task successes, effort feedback, both forms of feedback, or no attributional feedback. Although attributional feedback is viewed as an important influence on achievement behaviors by self-efficacy and attributional theories, there is little research comparing the effects of different types of feedback on self-efficacy and skills. Miller et al. (1975) included ability and effort feedback treatments; however, they did not assess children's specific performance expectancies, but rather, only mathematical skills and self-esteem. Specific expectancies (self-efficacy) constitute a theoretically crucial link between attributional feedback and subsequent behavioral change. Further, third-grade children were employed in the present study, whereas Miller et al. used second graders. As Nicholls (1978) has shown, third grade (around age 9) is important developmentally because the concept of ability begins to emerge. At earlier ages, children view effort as the prime cause of outcomes and ability-related terms as closely associated with effort, which could explain the similar effects of ability and effort feedback in the Miller et al. study. To the extent that the children in the present study had begun to differentiate ability from effort, important differences between the two forms of feedback might occur. Providing attributional feedback during competency development was expected to enhance children's rate of problem solving and lead to higher self-efficacy and skills compared with not providing attributional feedback. The present sample had experienced repeated difficulties with subtraction and was expected to enter the experiment with low subtraction efficacy. As children observe their progress during problem solving, they begin to develop a sense of efficacy. Young children value high ability and high effort (Harari & Covington, 1981), and they use both to explain successes in achievement contexts ,(Frieze, 1980; Frieze & Bar-Tal, 1980; Frieze & Snyder, 1980). In the self-efficacy model, attributional feedback constitutes a persuasive means of' conveying efficacy information. Telling children that they possess subtraction ability should support their perceptions of progress and help validate their sense of efficacy. A heightened sense of efficacy sustains task motivation and fosters skill development. Similarly, telling children that they have been working hard should convey that they are efficacious enough to succeed and that they can actualize their capabilities through sustained effort. Schunk (1982) found that providing effort attributional feedback for successful problem solving resulted in significantly higher levels of arithmetic skill and self-efficacy compared with feedback that stressed the need to work hard and with no attributional feedback. Although the different forms of attributional feedback were expected to enhance children's task motivation and rate of problem solving equally well, they were expected to differ in their effects on self-efficacy. It was predicted that ability feedback alone would promote self-efficacy more than effort feedback alone. Attribution research has shown that successes attained with low effort foster ability attributions, whereas the same level of success resulting from greater effort implies a lower ability level (Frieze, 1980; McMahan, 1973; Weiner, 1979). There is developmental evidence showing that third graders use inverse compensation in judging effort from ability information (Kun, 1977; Surber, 1980); that is, children infer less effort as outcomes are presented as resulting from higher ability. Thus, it was expected that effort feedback alone would lead to self-perceptions of greater effort expended than would ability feedback alone. Success attained with less effort promotes selfefficacy more than when greater effort is required (Bandura, 1981). Combining ability with effort feedback was not expected to promote self-efficacy in an additive fashion; rather, it was felt that these children might discount the ability information in favor of effort. Given the findings on inverse compensation (Kun, 1977; Surber, 1980), the ability feedback should result in perceptions of low effort expended; however, effort feedback conflicts with this perception. There is developmental evidence showing that some third graders also use inverse compensation in judging ability from effort (Surber, 1980). Because the present sample was expected to have begun to differentiate ability from effort, they might question their level of ability somewhat because of the effort feedback and thereby feel less efficacious than children receiving ability feedback alone.