Journal of Educational Psychology 1979, Vol. 71, No. 1,3-25 A Theory of Motivation for Some Classroom Experiences Bernard Weiner University of California, Los Angeles A theory of motivation based upon attributions of causality for success and failure is offered. The heart of the theory consists of an identification of the dimensions of causality and the relation of these underlying properties of causes to psychological consequences. Three central causal dimensions have been discerned: stability, locus, and control; these dimensions, respectively, are linked with expectancy change, esteem-related emotions, and interperso- nal judgments. Within achievement-related contexts, this theory is pertinent to a diverse array of phenomena and topics, including self-esteem mainte- nance, achievement-change programs, reinforcement schedules, hopelessness, sources of emotion, helping, evaluation, and liking. The range of the theory is further demonstrated by applications to hyperactivity, mastery, parole deci- sions, loneliness and affiliation, and depression. It appears that a general theory of motivation is under development that has important implications for the understanding of classroom thought and behavior. The attributional approach to classroom certain laws, while other notions remain motivation and experience has proven ex- unchanged. ceedingly rich. In this article I examine the particular attributional path I have followed and document its richness by outlining a few The Search for Causes of the empirical and theoretical relations A central assumption of attribution that appear to be conclusive. The extensity theory, which sets it apart from pleasure- of the theoretical network suggests that a pain theories of motivation, is that the search general theory of motivation is under de- for understanding is the (or a) basic "spring velopment; I also address the issue of theo- of action." This does not imply that hu- retical breadth here. mans are not pleasure seekers, or that they Some of the thoughts expressed in this never bias information in the pursuit of he- article have been voiced in previous reviews donic goals. Rather, information seeking (Weiner, 1972,1974,1976). With each op- and veridical processing are believed to be portunity to take stock of where we are, some normative, may be manifested in spite of a ideas become more firmly fixed, others are conflicting pleasure principle, and, at the discarded and new presumptions take their least, comprehension stands with hedonism place, some earlier evidence grows in stature, among the primary sources of motivation and other prior data require reinterpreta- (see W. Meyer, Folkes, & Weiner, 1976). tion. There certainly is some advantage to In a school setting the search for under- the dictum of publish and perish, which al- standing often leads to the attributional lows one to convey his or her ideas in a single, question of "Why did I succeed or fail?" or, self-contained, and final package. Like more specifically, "Why did I flunk math?" most others, however, I communicate my or "Why did Mary get a better mark on this thoughts as they evolve, and prior ques- exam than me?" But classrooms are envi- tionable truths give way to new, equally un- ronments for the satisfaction of motivations other than achievement. Thus, attribu- This article was written while the author was sup- tional questions also might pertain to, for ported by Grant MH 25687-04 from the National In- example, interpersonal acceptance or rejec- stitute of Mental Health. Requests for reprints should be sent to Bernard tion, such as "Why doesn't Johnny like me?" Weiner, Department of Psychology, University of Cal- However, for the time being attention will be ifornia, Los Angeles, California 90024. centered upon achievement concerns. Copyright 1979 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0022-0663/79/7101-0003$00.75 3 BERNARD WEINER Among the unknowns of this attributional the only perceived determinants of success analysis is a clear statement of when people or failure, or even that they were the most ask "why" questions. It has been demon- salient ones in all achievement situations. strated that this search is more likely given In later work (e.g., Weiner, 1974; Weiner, failure (rejection) than success (acceptance) Russell, & Lerman, 1978), we explicitly in- (Folkes, 1978). Furthermore, it is plausible dicated that factors such as mood, fatigue, to speculate that unexpected events are more illness, and bias could serve as necessary likely to lead to "why" questions than ex- and/or sufficient reasons for achievement pected events (Lau & Russell, Note 1) and performance. Research restricting causality that subjective importance also will influ- to the four causes given above at times might ence the pursuit of knowledge. Finally, it give rise to false conclusions. For example, has been demonstrated that during task assume that one is testing the hedonic bias performance "failure-oriented" or "helpless" notion that success primarily is self-ascribed. students especially tend to supply attribu- By not including help from others, for ex- tions (Diener & Dweck, 1978). Diener and ample, among the alternative causes, the Dweck also intimate that a subset of stu- hedonic bias hypothesis might be supported dents, called "mastery-oriented," do not because the given external causes (task dif- engage in attribution making. However, I ficulty and luck) do not adequately capture suspect that attributional inferences often the phenomenology of the subject. are quite retrospective, summarize a number In the last few years intuition has given of experiences, take place below a level of way to empirical studies attempting to immediate awareness, and are intimately identify the perceived causes of success and tied with self-esteem and self-concept. failure. At least four investigations of aca- Thus, I believe that attributions are supplied demic attributions (Elig & Frieze, 1975; by the mastery-oriented children as well, Frieze, 1976; Bar-Tal & Darom, Note 2; although not necessarily during or immedi- Cooper & Burger, Note 3) have been con- ately following all task performances. ducted (there undoubtedly are many more Our initial statement regarding the per- unknown to me), and there have been a ceived causes of success and failure (Weiner, number of studies that examine attributions Frieze, Kukla, Reed, Rest, & Rosenbaum, outside of the classroom context (e.g., work 1971) was guided by Heider (1958) as well as experiences and athletics). The methodol- our own intuitions. We postulated that in ogies of the classroom inquiries have minor achievement-related contexts the causes variations, with students or teachers stating perceived as most responsible for success and the causes of success or failure at real or im- failure are ability, effort, task difficulty, and agined events, and judging themselves or luck. That is, in attempting to explain the others. The responses are then categorized prior success or failure at an achievement- and tabulated. related event, the individual assesses his or Cooper and Burger (Note 3) provide a her level of ability, the amount of effort that concise summary of the data from three of was expended, the difficulty of the task, and the studies (see Table 1). It is evident that the magnitude and direction of experienced ability, effort (both typical and immediate), luck. We assumed that rather general and task difficulty are among the main per- values are assigned to these factors and that ceived causes of achievement performance. the task outcome is differentially ascribed to Thus, the prior intuitions of Heider (1958) the causal sources. In a similar manner, and my colleagues and me were not incor- future expectations of success and failure rect. In addition, Table 1 shows that others would then be based upon one's perceived (teachers, students, and family), motivation level of ability in relation to the perceived (attention and interest), and what Cooper difficulty of the task (labeled by Heider as and Burger label as acquired characteristics can), as well as an estimation of the intended (habits and attitudes) and physiological effort and anticipated luck. processes (mood, maturity, and health) In listing the four causes reported above comprise the central determinants of success we did not intend to convey that they were and failure. Luck is not included with the A THEORY OF MOTIVATION Table 1 Summary of Previous Coding Systems (Adapted From Cooper & Burger, Note 3) Frieze (1976) Bar-Tal & Darom (Note 2) Cooper & Burger (Note 3) Ability Ability Academic ability Stable effort Effort during test Physical and emotional ability Immediate effort Preparation at home Previous experience Task Interest in the subject matter Habits Other person Difficulty of the test Attitudes Mood Difficulty of material Self-perceptions Luck Conditions in the home Maturity Other Typical effort Effort in preparation Attention Directions Instruction Task Mood Family Other students Miscellaneous dominant causes but could be prominent on 1971). Heider also clearly acknowledged the specific occasions, particularly in career or distinction between a naive psychology and athletic accomplishments (see Mann, a scientific psychology. He stated, 1974). In sum, there are a myriad of perceived There is no prior reason why the causal description causes of achievement events. In a cross- [scientific language] should be the same as the phe- cultural study it was even reported that pa- nomenal description [naive language], though,