Cited by 7,846Education, Achievement, and GiftednessMotivation and Self-Concept in SportsPsychological Testing and Assessment

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 125 of the 126 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion

Weiner, Bernard·1985·Psychological Review

Abstract

In this chapter a theory of motivation and emotion developed from an attributional perspective is presented. Before undertaking this central task, it might be beneficial to review the progression of the book. In Chapter 1 it was suggested that causal attributions have been prevalent throughout history and in disparate cultures. Studies reviewed in Chapter 2 revealed a large number of causal ascriptions within motivational domains, and different ascriptions in disparate domains. Yet some attributions, particularly ability and effort in the achievement area, dominate causal thinking. To compare and contrast causes such as ability and effort, their common denominators or shared properties were identified. Three causal dimensions, examined in Chapter 3, are locus, stability, and controllability, with intentionality and globality as other possible causal properties. As documented in Chapter 4, the perceived stability of a cause influences the subjective probability of success following a previous success or failure; causes perceived as enduring increase the certainty that the prior outcome will be repeated in the future. And all the causal dimensions, as well as the outcome of an activity and specific causes, influence the emotions experienced after attainment or nonattainment of a goal. The affects linked to causal dimensions include pride (with locus), hopelessness and resignation (with stability), and anger, gratitude, guilt, pity, and shame (with controllability).

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0033-295x.92.4.548

Cites

125 of 125 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 7,846

Metadata

Authors
Weiner, B.
Affiliations
University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Weiner, Bernard
Venue
Psychological Review
Published
1985
Volume
92
Issue
4
Pages
548-573
ISSN
  • 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1471
OpenAlex
W2018255452
Cited by
7,846
References
126
Citations by year
2026: 505 · 2025: 372 · 2024: 301 · 2023: 373 · 2022: 351 · 2021: 356 · 2020: 324 · 2019: 373 · 2018: 342 · 2017: 321 · 2016: 322 · 2015: 314 · 2014: 326 · 2013: 281 · 2012: 273
FWCI
64.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (MH38014)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Motivation and Self-Concept in Sports
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
attribution theory, achievement motivation, emotions, causal attribution, controllability, ability attribution, effort attribution, success and failure, pride, hopelessness, resignation, anger, guilt, shame, gratitude, pity, emotion and motivation
MeSH terms
Achievement, Anger, Aptitude, Criminal Law, Decision Making, Emotions, Guilt, Helping Behavior, Humans, Internal-External Control, Motivation, Psychological Theory, Shame, Smoking

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review