Self-serving attributions among children in a competitive sport setting: some theoretical and methodological considerations
|
 |
|
Post a Comment
|
|
|
|
|
|
ABSTRACT:
Presently, in the sport attribution literature, there are two major alternatives which attempt to explain the antecedents of causal attributions. One alternative suggests that individuals evoke certain causal attributions as a result of logical, information processing; the second explanation holds that the causal attributions in sport are often a function of a self-serving bias. At both a theoretical and methodological level, there are several limitations in sport attribution research which confound this "attributional dilemma". The purpose of the present work is to highlight some of these limitations by examining the causal attributions of children participating in a competitive one-to-one basketball game. In general, the present study suggests that it is necessary to consider four important points when trying to understand the psychological mechanisms underlying causal attributions among young sport participants: (1) the significance of examining causal attributions in respect to subjective and objective definitions of sport success and failure, (2) the importance of considering perceptions of competence when analyzing sport attribution patterns, (3) the need to go beyond the traditional four attribution elements (ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck), and (4) the influence of the method of assessing causal attributions on the major findings in attribution research. Examined possible distinctions in forced-choice and open-ended causal attributions of young boys in a competitive sport setting. Attributional patterns were considered in terms of both objective and subjective success and failure, and perceptions of competence. Subjects were 42 boys who signed up for a one-on-one basketball tournament. Found that: 1) a significant number of children experienced subjective success regardless of whether they won or lost, attributions were categorized as ability, effort, opponent difficulty and luck, and 3) attributional patterns for winners and losers differed significantly as a function of the type of attribution assessment utilized. Concluded that there may be a relationship between perceived competence, subjective perceptions of success and failure, and causal attribution.
|
|
|
|
STATISTICS
|
|
Click on # to view
|
|
Citations
|
|
0
|
|
References
|
|
0
|
|
Comments
|
|
0
|
|
Quality
|
|
0/0.00
|
|
Interest
|
|
0/0.00
|
|
View(er)s
|
|
5/653
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Prev |
Next |
|