Attributional style 1
Running Head: ATTRIBUTIONAL STYLE
Applied Psychology: An International Review (in press)
Attributional Style and Engagement/Disengagement Responses
in the Chinese Workforce
C. Harry Hui1, S. Tess Pak1, Siu-On Kwan2, & AnAn Chao1
1The University of Hong Kong
2City University of Hong Kong
Keywords: attributional style, pessimism, Chinese, internality, disengagement
Corresponding author: C. Harry Hui, Department of Psychology, University of Hong
Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong. Email: [email protected]; Phone: (852) 2859 2291; Fax:
(852) 2858 3518.
Authors’ Note
Order of authorship is arbitrary. All coauthors made equal contributions to this
paper. This research was supported by a Hong Kong Research Grant Council grant
HKU744608H to the corresponding author. We have benefited greatly from discussion
with Samuel Ho and his research team. We gratefully acknowledge Hannah Tai’s
assistance in the pilot study that generated items for the CMAS described here, and the
two reviewers for useful suggestions.
Attributional style 2
Abstract
Internal attribution for bad events, along with stable and global attributions, has been
regarded as a component of pessimism, a precursor of negative work outcomes. Most
evidence in support of this conceptualization has come from research conducted in
individualist cultures. We questioned if internal attribution has the same pessimistic
implication in a collectivist culture. Findings from two studies conducted on Chinese
employees supported our expectations that the stability and globality dimensions (but
not the internality dimension) would predict disengagement responses (such as quitting
and being neglectful at work) and lack of engagement responses (such as voicing
suggestions and being loyal to the organization). A reconceptualization of pessimism in
the workplace is therefore necessary. A dimensional, rather than a composite, scoring
method is proposed for maintaining the predictive and construct validities of
attributional style as an indicator of pessimism.
Attributional style 3
Attributional Style and Engagement/Disengagement Responses in the Chinese Workforce
Attributional style (AS) was introduced in Abramson, Seligman, and Teasdale’s
reformulated model of learned helplessness (1978) to account for people’s individual
differences in helplessness upon perceiving noncontingency between behavior and
outcomes. According to the theory, people who habitually explain bad events in terms of
stable, global and internal reasons rather than unstable, specific and external ones are
more likely to experience depression. Studies conducted with North American samples
have found that this pessimistic AS is related to low performance at school, sports, and
workplace (e.g., Clarke & Singh, 2005; Seligman & Schulman, 1986; Tiggemann,
Winefield, Goldney, & Winefield, 1992). Research with Chinese samples supports the
importance of AS for mental health (Anderson, 1999; Guo, Yao, Yi, Peng, & Yang, 2003;
Wei, Zhao, & Wu, 1999; Yu, Su, & Li, 2005). The extent to which a pessimistic AS is
associated with organizational outcomes in the Chinese workforce is, however, less
understood. In this regard, this paper has three aims. First, we shall make a theoretical
proposition that explaining bad events in terms of personal factors is not necessarily
pessimistic or maladaptive in the non-Western world. Second, we shall propose removing
internality from the pessimism composite score, and use only the stability and globality
dimensions for operationalizing pessimism. Third, we shall introduce an internet-friendly
measure of AS for use in personnel selection of Chinese employees.
Pessimistic Attributional Style and Its Correlates
Whether a bad event would result in helplessness depends on the kind of
attributions people make for the event (Abramson et al., 1978). Employees who explain
Attributional style 4
the bad event with stable causes (e.g., “the job is a dead end”) rather than unstable causes
(e.g., “the boss happened to be in a bad mood”) see it as permanent. Employees who feel
that the causes are global (e.g., “all job assignments are unfair”) rather than specific (e.g.
“this job assignment is unfair”) expect bad events to pervade across situations. Moreover,
the bad event is particularly damaging if the person attributes it to internal causes (e.g., “I
am slow”) rather than external causes (e.g., “the job is too demanding”). Sweeney,
Anderson and Bailey’s meta-analysis (1986) showed that attributing negative events to
internal, stable and global causes was associated with depression (average sample-
weighted effect sizes were .21, .20, and .22 respectively).
Over the years, research has uncovered links of pessimistic AS to outcomes in
many life domains. Pessimists were reported to have poorer health (Peterson, Seligman &
Valliant, 1988), poorer academic performance (Peterson & Barrett, 1987), poorer sports
performance (Seligman, Nolen-Hoeksema, Thornton, & Thornton, 1990), lower income
and shorter tenure (Seligman & Schulman, 1986), lower job satisfaction (Welbourne,
Eggerth, Hartley, Andrew, & Sanchez, 2007), and more relocation-related stress (Martin,
Leach, Norman, & Silvester, 2000).
Attributional Style among the Chinese
The negative correlates of stable and global ASs found in Western studies appear
to replicate in Chinese samples. Stable and global attributions about bad events predict
depression, anxiety, obsession and compulsion (see, e.g., Li, Qiu, & Wang, 2001). They
were associated with low self-efficacy, low sales performance, and high turnover
intention among Taiwanese insurance salespeople in underselling and rejection
situations (Chung, 2002).
Attributional style 5
As for the internality attributional dimension, findings are mixed. In one camp, Yu
et al. (2005) found a relationship between internality and low subjective well-being in
Chinese college students. Sweeney et al. (1986) found a positive association between
internality and depressive outcomes. In another camp, however, making external
attribution for real-life misfortunes was positively related to impairments in emotional
well-being and physical health (Tennen & Affleck, 1990). Guo et al. (2003) and Wei et
al. (1999) found that internality could not differentiate between the depressives and the
non-depressives. Given the sparse findings, it is difficult to affirm internality
attributional dimension as a component of pessimism for Chinese people. In the
following paragraphs, we shall advance a theoretical position that internality should be
separated from the pessimistic AS, at least for the Chinese.
Chinese Organizational Culture and Internality
Chinese societies value modesty, personal sacrifice, and group harmony (Hui,
Triandis, & Yee, 1991; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Maintaining relationship harmony is
critical to self-esteem and life satisfaction (Kwan, Bond, & Singelis, 1997) as well as job
satisfaction (Hui, Yee, & Eastman, 1995). Standing taller than one’s peers and blaming
others for one’s own mishaps are inconsistent with this set of values. As Hung (2004)
suggested, these values have become part of the Chinese organizational culture.
One desirable behavior in this culture is self-effacement, which includes accepting
responsibilities for failure and not claiming credit for success. For example, Asians who
make self-effacing attributions for their team’s success are more likeable than those who
self-enhance (Muramoto, Yamaguchi, & Kim, 2009). Along the same line, Chen, Chan,
Bond, and Stewart (2006) demonstrated that depression is correlated with low self-
Attributional style 6
efficacy more strongly among individualist American adolescents than among collectivist
Chinese adolescents. Whereas in other cultures like the U.S., where independence and
self-efficacy are central to a person’s identity (Anderson, 1999; Markus & Kitayama,
1991), making internal attribution for bad events hurts self-esteem (Abramson et al.,
1978).
Therefore, for the Chinese (Fernandez, Carlson, Stepina, & Nicholson, 1997;
Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002), acknowledging the self as the cause for bad
events might not be as self-defeating as some Western studies (Horney, 1937; Sweeney et
al., 1986) may suggest. Although Chinese people who self-efface their ability might be
seen as less competent, they are more likeable among their peers (Bond, Leung, & Wan,
1982). Likewise, a self-blaming group member could actually win colleagues’ acceptance
in Chinese societies, because this person contributes to the preservation of group
harmony (Sun, 2004). It is hence likely that Chinese employees high in internality
attributional dimension will put things back in their right order rather than withdrawing
from the scene.
Chinese Interdependence and Social Support
In our dealing with difficulties, people around us can help by reassuring us of our
worth despite temporary setbacks, providing us with aid and services needed, and
offering us insightful advice (Trivedi et al., 2009). Blaming others as the culprit of our
hardship, however, would turn them into enemies (Tennen & Afflect, 1990). People who
initially want to offer us help may withdraw support if we insist on making external
attribution for our failures, instead of working out the inadequacies. This other-blaming
Attributional style 7
is particularly disturbing among the Chinese, because they value interdependence over
independence (Markus & Kitayama, 1991),
A Psychometric Consideration
Apart from the unique Chinese organizational culture, there is a psychometric
reason for doubting if internality should be given the same weight alongside stability and
globality in the measurement of AS. For example, Zhang and Wang (1989) found that
among Chinese, internality for bad events correlated only weakly with stability and
globality (rs=.14 and .09, respectively). Internality in Guo et al.’s (2003) study was
correlated at r=.15 with stability and r=.16 with globality. In neither study was internality
correlated with depression.
Assessing the Role of Internality in Pessimism in the Workplace
To test the above proposition that internality is not a component in the construct
of pessimistic AS, we would examine the criterion-related validity of AS as measured
with two different scoring approaches. The first is to aggregate the stability and globality
dimensions, to contrast with the internality dimension. Another is the aggregation of all
three dimensions to form the conventional composite of pessimistic AS. The results
would inform us of the role of internality in pessimism among the Chinese.
Disengagement and Engagement Responses to Problems in the Workplace
There are various ways employees deal with difficulties and problems intrinsic to
their jobs (e.g., firefighters to extinguish a fire) and those which are contextual (e.g.,
office politics). Some of those ways can be called disengagement responses. They include
exit and neglect (Farrell, 1983). Exit signifies the determination and subsequent action to
separate from the employer. Examples include thinking about resigning, asking for a job
Attributional style 8
transfer, looking for alternative employment, and actually leaving the job. Neglect
represents the passive psychological withdrawal from the employment relationship.
Examples include absenteeism, increased error rates and other subjective withdrawal
behaviors. Others are engagement responses of voice and loyalty. Voice represents an
attempt to repair a deteriorating work context. This is often done through discussing the
problem with a supervisor or making suggestions to improve. Loyalty is showing
confidence and giving continual support such as extra-role behaviors to the employer. It
involves reframing the problems into a temporary challenge (Rusbult, Farrell, Rogers, &
Mainou, 1988).
Following Abramson et al.’s (1978) reasoning, we predicted disengagement
responses to be more common among Chinese employees who see difficulties in the
workplace as caused by stable and global factors, such as “the arrogant attitude is cast in
every level of our management”. In contrast, we expected a null or negative correlation
between internal attributions for bad events and disengagement responses among the
Chinese employees. Explaining bad events in terms of personal causes (e.g., “the
company’s failing the bid is due in part to my incompetence”) reduces the need for in-
group quarrels to assign blames. Social support from colleagues is hence likely and may
even encourage one’s volitional stay in the company. In addition, internal attribution is
positively related to the perception of personal responsibility for relationship problems
(Lussier, Sabourin & Wright, 1993). Hence, people who make internal attributions for
unpleasant events at work are unlikely to exhibit exit and neglectful behavior any more
than those who make external attributions. It may even be possible that those who make
Attributional style 9
internal attributions are less likely to give up, compared with those who make external
attributions. Therefore,
Hypothesis 1a: The stability and globality attributional dimensions for bad events
will be positively correlated with disengagement responses,
Hypothesis 1b: The internality attributional dimension for bad events will be
negatively or not correlated with disengagement responses.
Engagement responses are constructive. Voice behavior is intended to solve
problems by communicating with the management (Turnley & Feldman, 1999). The
primary purpose is to express discontent (Kowalski, 1996), and to restore the
relationship. Loyalty signifies an optimistic, albeit passive, hope and trust in the
employer (Hagedoorn, Van Yperen, Van de Vliert, & Buunk, 1999; Rusbult et al., 1988).
Conceivably, if the employee believes that problems in the workplace stem from causes
that are stable and global (therefore pessimistic), voice and loyalty would be minimal.
Conversely, the tendency to make internal attributions for bad events does not
have to depress engagement responses. Even when the difficulties are perceived to have
emerged from within the self, such admission would not hurt the self-esteem of Chinese
employees. This is because making such attributions is in line with the normative values
of modesty and group harmony. Given that internal attributions result in a sense of
personal responsibility (Lussier et al., 1993), the behavioral consequence could even be
more voice and requests for improving the work situation. Therefore,
Hypothesis 2a: The stability and globality attributional dimensions for bad events
will be negatively correlated with engagement responses.
Hypothesis 2b: The internality attributional dimension will be positively or not
Attributional style 10
correlated with the engagement responses.
Chinese Measure of Attributional Style (CMAS)
Hitherto, the most widely used instrument to measure AS is the Seligman
Attributional Style Questionnaire (SASQ; Peterson, Semmel, Baeyer, Abramson,
Metalsky, & Seligman, 1982). Respondents provide one important cause to each of 12
hypothetical events, of which six are bad and the other six are good. They then indicate
on a 7-point scale the extent to which the cause is internal (versus external) to the self,
stable (versus unstable) across time, and global (versus specific) in nature. The SASQ
yields a composite negative score and a composite positive score, from summing across
the three attributional dimensions. The composite positive score, derived from items
about the six good events, indicates a positive (optimistic) AS (i.e., attributing good
events to internal, stable and global factors). The composite negative score, which is
more widely used, is derived from items about the six bad events. It denotes a pessimistic
AS (i.e., attributing bad events to internal, stable and global factors).
There are variations of the SASQ. These include, for example, an ASQ for
General Use (Dykema, Bergbower, Doctora, & Peterson, 1996), an Academic ASQ
(Peterson & Barrett, 1987), a Sports ASQ (Le Foll, Rascle, & Higgins, 2006), an
Occupational ASQ (Furnham, Sadka, & Brewin, 1992), and a Financial Services ASQ
(Proudfoot, Corr, Guest, & Gray, 2001). These measures are similar to each other in their
inclusion of globality, stability and internality, but differ by the domain of interest. Guo et
al. (2003) developed a Chinese ASQ for the diagnosis of depressives.
To facilitate assessment of AS in the general Chinese population, we developed an
internet-friendly CMAS. This was to overcome a limitation of the original ASQ and ones
Attributional style 11
derived from it, namely requiring the respondents to answer open-ended questions. We
first described four bad events: having a serious argument with a family member
(Appendix A), being cheated in a purchase, failing a school test or some job assignment,
and having a conflict with a friend or colleague. These events were written after those in
previous, validated instruments. For example, the first event was taken from Dykema et
al. (1996), and the third from Dykema et al. as well as Furnham et al. (1992). The fourth
was very similar to an event in both Dykema et al. and Peterson et al. (1982). Considering
that the measure would be administered online and therefore has to be easy to respond to,
we elicited from six working adults in a pilot study during the instrument development
phase some explanations for those bad events. These explanations were then edited into
six to eight explanations (plus the generic “other reasons”) for each event. Such design
would relieve the respondents from the burden of typing on a keyboard.
Response to the CMAS consists of two steps. First, the participants chose from the
list what they perceived as the causes for each of the four hypothetical bad events.
Multiple responses were allowed. (The actual choices were not scored.) In the second
step, the participants rated, on a 7-point Likert scale, whether those selected causes were
internal (versus external), stable (versus unstable), and global (versus specific).
Summary
In this investigation, we will examine if internality differs from stability and
globality in the prediction of employees’ responses. Second, we will compare two scoring
methods of AS to determine if internality should be scored separately from stability and
internality. Finally, we will evaluate the psychometric properties of our AS measure.
Study 1
Attributional style 12
Method
Participants
We recruited adults with an email sent through the alumni affairs office of a
university in South China. The invitation described the purpose of a Chinese-language
online survey on work performance, included a URL link, and promised a free-of-charge
personality assessment in return for participation. Within a fortnight, 649 individuals
completed the survey. After excluding 102 individuals who described themselves as a
non-employee (i.e., “student”, “unemployed”, “self-employed” and “retired”), we had
547 Chinese employees in our sample. There were 179 men (32.72%), 364 women
(66.54%), and 4 (.70%) who did not report their gender. The modal age group was 26-30
years of age (42.60%), followed by the 21-25 years of age (35.20%).
Chinese Measure of Attributional Style
A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), following Hewitt, Foxcroft, and
MacDonald’s (2004) multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) approach, supported a 3-factor
structure (Table 1). Given that ratings on the three attributional dimensions were elicited
by common bad events (i.e., the same “methods”), the MTMM approach was more
appropriate than the traits-only or the methods-only CFA model. The data-model fit met
various benchmarks (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2000; MacCallum, Browne, &
Sugawara, 1996): the likelihood ratio of Chi-square (χ2 =59.84) to degree of freedom
(df=39) was 1.53; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .03; goodness of
fit (GFI) = .98 and adjusted GFI = .96. Items loaded on the respective dimensions as
expected.
To address the question regarding the uniqueness of internality, we examined the
Attributional style 13
internal consistency of AS scored in three different ways: (a) by individual dimensions
of internality, stability and globality; (b) by internality and an average of stability and
globality, which was to be called composite-2 for the sake of easy reference; and (c) by
the composite-3, which was an average of all three dimensions. Cronbach’s alphas of
internality, stability, globality, composite-2, and composite-3 were .38, .58, .69, .73
and .71 respectively. Replicating prior research, internality had the lowest reliability.
Whilst stability and globality were correlated at r=.46 (p<.001, two-tailed), internality
was correlated weakly with stability (r=.15, p<.001, two-tailed) and moderately with
globality (r=.29, p<.001, two-tailed). The correlation between internality and composite-
2 was r=.26 (p<.001, two-tailed), indicating not much of an overlap.
Disengagement and Engagement Responses
Disengagement responses were measured with six items written after similar
scales used in previous studies (e.g., Rusbult et al., 1988). The items tapped exit
intention (e.g., “I want to quit the job as soon as possible”) and neglect (e.g., “I now
work listlessly”). Engagement responses were measured with another six items, on voice
(e.g., “I would make suggestions to my supervisor to improve the current situation”) and
loyalty (e.g., “I still believe that my present employer is virtuous”.) The disengagement
and engagement responses were reliable (Cronbach’s alphas = .86 and .75 respectively)
and negatively correlated (r=-.68, p<.001, two-tailed).
Results and Discussion
Disengagement Responses
Disengagement responses correlated positively only with stability and globality,
but not with internality (Table 2). Regression analyses showed that AS as three separate
Attributional style 14
dimensions (i.e., scored using the dimensional scoring model) explained 2.40% (ΔR2,
p<.01, two-tailed) of the variance of disengagement responses, after controlling for
gender (n.s.) and age (β= -.15, p<.001, two-tailed). The effect came mainly from
globality (β= .11, p<.05, two-tailed). Internality and stability were unnecessary for the
prediction. Employees who explained bad events in terms of global causes were more
likely to disengage themselves from the organization. Therefore, H1a and H1b were
largely supported.
The internality and composite-2 scoring model explained 2.40% of the variance
(ΔR2, p<.001, two-tailed) after the demographic variables have been controlled for,
while the composite-3 scoring model (β=.14, p<.001, two-tailed) explained only 1.80%
of the variance (∆R2, p<.001, two-tailed). When compared with the other two scoring
models, the composite-3 (which treats internality as a component of pessimism) is the
least effective. It has the lowest criterion-related validity, and offers little information
about how AS would specifically impact on our disengagement responses. The
inferiority remained even when the number of predictors was considered by comparing
the adjusted variances across the models.
Engagement Responses
Consistent with H2a and H2b, stability and globality were correlated negatively
with engagement responses, while internality was not (Table 2). Regression analyses
(Table 3) showed that the dimensional model (i.e., consisting of three separate AS
dimensions) explained 2% (ΔR2, p<.05, two-tailed) of the variance of engagement
responses, after the effect of demographics (n.s.) had been controlled for. Closer
inspection shows that internality and globality did not predict. Only stability was
Attributional style 15
negatively related to engagement responses (β= -.11, p<.05, two-tailed). Employees who
explained bad events with stable causes were less likely to voice or stay loyal.
The internality and composite-2 model explained 1.90% variance (ΔR2, p<.001,
two-tailed) of engagement responses. This is comparable to that obtained in the
dimensional model. Internality was again redundant but there was a slightly increased
effect size of globality when joined with stability (β= -.14, p<.01, two-tailed). The
composite-3 (β=-.11, p<.01, two-tailed) explained only 1.20% variance (ΔR2, p<.01,
two-tailed) of engagement responses.
In sum, AS scored with these different scoring models did predict disengagement
and engagement responses (Table 3), with the predictive validity for the dimensional
model being slightly stronger. Consistent with prior research, attributing bad events to
stable and global causes was related to negative outcomes. Internality, however, did not
appear to be an integral component of pessimism. Furthermore, although not statistically
significant, the relationship of internality with the outcomes was in a direction opposite
to that found for stability and globality. As low reliability could be an alternative
explanation of why internality failed to be as predictive as the other two, we decided to
improve and retest the CMAS in another study, with a sample drawn from a different
working population.
Study 2
Method
Participants
Data were collected as part of a larger project. We emailed an invitation to
members of a Chinese professional society of insurance underwriters. The email stated
Attributional style 16
the purpose of developing a selection instrument for the insurance industry, and told
recipients that their participation would be voluntary and anonymous. A total of 497
individuals provided us with complete data on the internet. There were 179 men (36%),
258 women (51.90%), and 60 who did not disclose their gender (12.10%). Slightly over
half (55.70%) were sales agents, while the rest were sales managers. About 17.30% had
been with their companies for less than three years, 24.40% for 3 to 6 years, 19.80% for
7 to 10 years, and 38.40% for over 10 years. About 14.70% were aged 30 or below,
32.80% from 31 to 40, and 44.50% from 41 to 50. People above 50 accounted for 8% of
the sample.
Measures
To improve on the reliability of the CMAS dimensions, we added one scenario to
the measure: not being able to complete a job assignment on time. CFA of the five-
scenario CMAS by the MTMM approach can be found in Table 1. The likelihood ratio
of Chi-square (χ2 =221.72) to degree of freedom (df=72) was 3.08. This MTMM model
provides a good fit for the data: GFI = .94, AGFI = .90, RMSEA = .07. The three items
on the fifth scenario have significant loadings on their respective dimensions.
Cronbach’s alphas of internality, stability, globality, composite-2, and the
composite-3 were .58, .76, .80, .81 and .77 respectively (Table 4). Stability and globality
were correlated at r=.36 (p<.001, two-tailed), and internality was also correlated with
globality at r=.25 (p<.001, two-tailed). However, the correlation between internality and
stability was non-significant. The correlation between composite-2 and internality was
again relatively weak (r=.16, p<.001, two-tailed), despite lower measurement error this
time.
Attributional style 17
Cronbach’s alphas of disengagement and engagement responses were .79 and .76
respectively. The two scales were correlated negatively at r=-.58 (p<.001, two-tailed),
similar to what we found in the previous study.
Results and Discussion
Disengagement Responses
As shown in Table 4, stability and globality were positively correlated with
disengagement responses. There was a negative correlation (r = -.17, p < .001) between
internality and disengagement. Together, the three individual AS dimensions explained
5.20% (ΔR2, p<.001, two-tailed) of the variance in disengagement responses, after the
effects of gender (β=.11, p<.05, two-tailed), age (β=-.13, p<.05, two-tailed), rank (n.s.)
and tenure (n.s.) have been controlled for (Table 5). Internality negatively predicted
disengagement responses (β=-.19, p<.001, two-tailed). Globality positively predicted
disengagement responses (β=.15, p<.01, two-tailed) while stability showed no effect.
Insurance salespersons who explained bad events with external and global causes were
more likely to withdraw from their organization. In other words, internality and globality
exerted opposite effects. H1a and H1b were supported.
Engagement Responses
Stability and globality were negatively correlated with engagement responses
(Table 4). The dimensional model of AS explained 6.40% of the variance (ΔR2, p<.001,
two-tailed) of engagement responses, after the effects of gender (β=-.15, p<.001, two-
tailed), age (n.s.), rank (β=.11, p<.05, two-tailed) and tenure (n.s.) had been controlled
for (Table 5). Internality positively predicted engagement responses (β=.14, p<.05, two-
tailed) while stability negatively predicted the same (β=-.18, p<.001, two-tailed).
Attributional style 18
Insurance salespersons who explained bad events in terms of internal and unstable
causes would be more likely to voice their suggestions and stay loyal with the
organization. Internality was associated with engagement responses and not with
pessimism. Once again, H2a & H2b were supported.
Scoring Models
In the internality-composite-2 model, internality negatively predicted
disengagement responses (β=-.18, p<.001, two-tailed), while composite-2, as an
aggregate of stability and globality, predicted positively (β=.17, p<.001, two-tailed).
However, the composite-3 model did not predict disengagement responses at all. This
latter result can be attributed to the opposing effects of internality and composite-2, each
of comparable magnitude, cancelling out each other. Table 5 summarizes these results.
For engagement responses, AS measured with the internality-composite-2 model
explained 6.10% (ΔR2, p<.001, two-tailed) of the variance. Internality (β=.15, p<.001,
two-tailed) remained predictive of this outcome. Composite-2 performed better than
stability alone (β=.22, p<.001, two-tailed). However, composite-3 (β=-.12, p<.001, two-
tailed) could explain only 1.5% (ΔR2, p<.01, two-tailed) of the variance.
General Discussion
In our two studies, we found that among Chinese employees the internality
dimension of pessimistic AS, unlike the stability and globality dimensions, was neither
positively related to disengagement responses nor negatively related to engagement
responses in the workplace, as would have been expected on the basis of previous
findings in the West. Aggregating the internality, stability and globablity dimensions
into one incoherent construct of pessimistic AS would not only harm the predictive
Attributional style 19
validity but may also erroneously frame internality as an undesirable trait, at least among
Chinese employees. In short, the present investigation has three contributions.
First, we showed that making an internal attribution for bad events is not
necessarily maladaptive, and argued for the removal of internality from the pessimism
construct. Our proposition is consistent with a meta-analysis that showed an effect size
of .31 between externality and depression from 97 studies (Benassi, Sweeney, & Dufour,
1988). It is also consistent with findings that personal autonomy and self-determination
predict self-esteem (Deci & Ryan, 1985a, 1985b), adjustment (Koestner, Bernieri, &
Zuckerman, 1992; Philippe & Vallerand, 2008; Sheldon & Kasser, 1995), and
perseverance (e.g., Koestner, Otis, Powers, Pelletier, & Gagnon, 2008; Zhou, Ma, &
Deci, 2009).
Even within a North American culture, self-blame can be potentially beneficial.
Janoff-Bulman (1979) differentiated people into the characterological and behavioral
types. The former blames on one’s nonmodifiable character (“… for the kind of person
you are,” p.1803). This is a maladaptive mindset towards personal deservingness of
misfortune. The latter, behavioral type blames on the person’s own faulty but modifiable
behavior (“… for what you did,” p.1803). It implies controllability of the cause and
avoidability of recurrence. In other words, self-blame may be conducive to adaptation if
the attributor focuses on a personal, yet unstable and controllable cause. (Our measure,
however, did not include this subtle distinction.).
Furthermore, in a collectivist society like the Chinese, where modesty and group
harmony are valued, employees who make internal attribution for bad events preserve
harmonious working relationships and communicate humbleness. These individuals are
Attributional style 20
just as likely as coworkers with an external AS to voice and be loyal. At the same time,
they are not any more likely to show unproductive and disengagement responses such as
exit and neglect. This is not the pattern of correlation we had expected for pessimism.
Thus, for Chinese employees, pessimism is better conceptualized as viewing causes that
have led to failures as pervasive (global) and unchangeable (stable), rather than as
originating from oneself.
A second contribution of this investigation is methodological. Our findings
support the use of individual attributional dimensions over the conventional composite
scoring method. We showed that the three attributional dimensions when entered
separately into the regression model have higher predictive validity than the composite
AS score in predicting some work-related outcomes. We favor the dimensional scoring
approach, as it allows researchers to uncover any interactive relationships that may exist
among the attributional dimensions (Abramson, Dykman, & Needles, 1991; Janoff-
Bulman, 1979), and to appreciate the uniqueness of each dimension (Carver, 1989).
Third, an internet-friendly measure of AS is now available. The CMAS only
requires participants to choose from a list of common explanations, thus minimizing
cognitive demands on the respondents and eliminating the keyboard task. This procedure
would make the instrument easier for administration on a large scale and on the internet.
Apart from these contributions, some caveats and research implication have to be
mentioned. First, the AS measure in the present investigation includes only bad events.
Although some (e.g., Xenikou, Furnham, & McCarrey, 1997) have suggested that bad
events may be sufficient for tapping pessimism, future research could explore if
including good events in the measure may enhance the validity of the CMAS. Second,
Attributional style 21
there may be reasons to suspect common method variance between the predictor and the
criterion variables, as all data were collected at a single point in time (Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Lee, & Poksakoff, 2003). Fortunately, because of the non-transparency of
the CMAS, the problem of demand characteristics can be partially avoided. Third, our
two samples may not be representative of the entire Chinese workforce, despite the
Study 1 sample was fairly heterogeneous in occupation. For better generalizability,
future research should target Chinese from other locations and occupations, and perhaps
even non-Chinese Asians.
The effect size of AS predictors in applied research is often small to medium by
Cohen’s (1988) standard. For instance, AS for negative events was correlated with
performance outcomes at r=-.11 in retail salespeople (Silvester, Patterson, & Ferguson,
2003) and r=-.18 in life insurance agents (Seligman & Schulman, 1986). Similarly, AS
for positive events correlated with performance ratings at r=.21 (Silvester, et al., 2003),
with problem-solving coping at r=.21 (Welbourne, Eggerth, Hartley, Andrew & Sanchez,
2007), and with intention to quit at r=.24, (Proudfoot et al., 2001). The present
investigation is no exception.
With regards to practical implications, we encourage organizations to take into
account Chinese job candidates’ AS when making a personnel decision. Given the large
size of the Chinese workforce in the global economy, even a small change in employee
turnover, apathy, or organizational commitment could have considerable financial
implications for the organizations.
Attributional style 22
References
Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. (1978). Learned helplessness in
humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49-74.
Abramson, L.Y., Dykman, B. M., & Needles, D. J. (1991). Attributional style and theory:
Let no one tear them asunder. Psychological Inquiry, 2, 11-13.
Anderson, C. (1999). Attributional style, depression, and loneliness: A cross-cultural
comparison of American and Chinese students. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 25, 482-499.
Benassi, V. A., Sweeney, P. D., & Dufour, C. L. (1988). Is there a relation between locus
of control orientation and depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97, 357-
367.
Bond, M. H., Leung, K., & Wan, K. (1982). The social impact of self-effacing
attributions: The Chinese case. The Journal of Social Psychology, 118, 157-166.
Carver, C. S. (1989). How should multifaceted personality constructs be tested? Issues
illustrated by self-monitoring, attributional style, and hardiness. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 577-585.
Chen, S. X., Chan, W., Bond, M. H., & Stewart, S. M. (2006). The effects of self-
efficacy and relationship harmony on depression across cultures. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 37, 643-658.
Chung, Y. Y. (2002). Scale development and evaluation under selling and rejection
situations for insurance salespeople. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, National
Chiao Tung University, Taiwan.
Attributional style 23
Clarke, D., & Singh, R. (2005). The influence of pessimistic explanatory style on the
relation between stressful life events and hospital doctors' psychological distress.
Social Behavior and Personality, 33, 259-272.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985a). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. NY: Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985b). The general causality orientations scale: Self-
determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 109-134.
Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2000). Introducing LISREL: A guide for the
uninitiated. London: SAGE Publications.
Dykema, J., Bergbower, K., Doctora, J. D., & Peterson, C. (1996). An attributional style
questionnaire for general use. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 14, 100-
108.
Farrell, D. (1983). Exit, Voice, Loyalty, and Neglect as responses to job dissatisfaction:
A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 596-607.
Fernandez, D. R., Carlson, D. S., Stepina, L. P., & Nicholson, J. D. (1997). Hofstede's
country classification 25 years later. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 43-54.
Furnham, A., Sadka, V., & Brewin, C. R. (1992). The development of an occupational
attributional style questionnaire. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 27-39.
Guo, W., Yao, S., Yi, J., Peng, C., & Yang, B. (2003). The development of an
attributional style questionnaire. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 11, 92-95.
Hagedoorn, M., Van Yperen, N. W., Van de Vliert, E., & Buunk, B. P. (1999).
Attributional style 24
Employees’ reactions to problematic events: A circumplex structure of five
categories of responses, and the role of job satisfaction. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 20, 309-321.
Hewitt, A. K., Foxcroft, D. R., & MacDonald, J. (2004). Multitrait-multimethod
confirmatory factor analysis of the attributional style questionnaire. Personality and
Individual Differences, 37, 1483-1491.
Horney, K. (1937). The neurotic personality of our time. NY: Norton.
Hui, C.H., Triandis, H.C., & Yee, C. (1991). Cultural differences in reward allocation: Is
collectivism an explanation? British Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 145-157.
Hui, C.H., Yee, C., & Eastman, K.L. (1995). The relationship between individualism-
collectivism and job satisfaction. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 44,
276-282.
Hung, C. J. F. (2004). Cultural influence on relationship cultivation strategies:
Multinational companies in China. Journal of Communication Management, 8,
264-281.
Janoff-Bulman, R. (1979). Characterological versus behavioral self-blame: Inquiries into
depression and rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1798-1809.
Koestner, R., Bernieri, F., & Zuckerman, M. (1992). Self-regulation and consistency
between attitudes, traits, and behaviours. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 18, 52-59.
Koestner, R., Otis, N., Powers, T., Pelletier, L., & Gagnon, H. (2008). Autonomous
motivation, controlled motivation, and goal progress. Journal of Personality, 76,
1201-1229.
Attributional style 25
Kowalski, R. M. (1996). Complaints and complaining: Functions, antecedents, and
consequences. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 179-196.
Kwan, V. S. Y., Bond, M. H., & Singelis, T. M. (1997). Pancultural explanations for life
satisfaction: Adding relationship harmony to self-esteem. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 73, 1038-1051.
Le Foll, D., Rascle, O., & Higgins, N. C. (2006). Persistence in putting task during
perceived failure: Influence of state-attributions and attributional style. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 55, 586-605.
Li, Z., Qiu, B., & Wang, J. (2001). Attributional style and its correlation with mental
health in adolescents. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 15, 6-8.
Lussier, Y., Sabourin, S., & Wright, J. (1993). On causality, responsibility, and blame in
marriage: Validity of the entailment model. Journal of Family Psychology, 7, 322-
332.
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. W. (1996). Power analysis and
determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological
Methods, 1, 130-149.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,
emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
Martin, R., Leach, D. J., Norman, P., & Silvester, J. (2000). The role of attributions in
psychological reactions to job relocation. Work & Stress, 14, 347-361.
Muramoto, Y., Yamaguchi, S., & Kim, U. (2009). Perception of achievement attribution
in individual and group contexts: Comparative analysis of Japanese, Korean, and
Asian-American results. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 12, 199-210.
Attributional style 26
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and
collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses.
Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3-72.
Peterson C., & Barrett, L. C. (1987). Explanatory style and academic performance among
university freshmen. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 603-607.
Peterson, C., Seligman, M. E. P., & Valliant, G. (1988). Pessimistic explanatory style is a
risk factor for physical illness: A thirty-five-year longitudinal study. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 23-27.
Peterson, C., Semmel, A., Baeyer, C., Abramson, L. Y., Metalsky, G. I., & Seligman, M.
E. P. (1982). The attributional style questionnaire. Cognitive Therapy & Research,
6, 287-300.
Philippe, F.L., & Vallerand, R.J. (2008). Actual environments do affect motivation and
psychological adjustment: A test of self-determination theory in a natural setting.
Motivation and Emotion, 32, 81-89.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
Proudfoot, J. G., Corr, P. J., Guest, D. E., & Gray, J. A. (2001). The development and
evaluation of a scale to measure occupational attributional style in the financial
service sector. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 259-27.
Rusbult, C. E., Farrell, D., Rogers, G., & Mainous, A. G. (1988). Impact of exchange
variables on Exit, Voice, Loyalty, and Neglect: An integrative model of responses
to declining job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 599-627.
Attributional style 27
Seligman, M. E. P., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Thornton, N., & Thornton, K. M. (1990).
Explanatory style as a mechanism of disappointing athletic performance.
Psychological Science, 1, 143-146.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Schulman, P. (1986). Explanatory style as a predictor of
productivity and quitting among life insurance sales agents. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 50, 832-838.
Sheldon, K. M. & Kasser, T. (1995). Coherence and congruence: Two aspects of
personality integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 531-543.
Silvester, J., Patterson, F., & Ferguson, E. (2003). Comparing two attributional models of
job performance in retail sales: A field study. Journal of Occupational &
Organizational Psychology, 76, 115-132.
Sun, L. (2004). Zhongguo wen hua de shen ceng jie gou [The deep structure of Chinese
culture]. Guilin: Guangxi Normal University Press (Group).
Sweeney, P. D., Anderson, K., & Bailey, S. (1986). Attributional style in depression: A
meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 974-991.
Tennen, H., & Affleck, G. (1990). Blaming others for threatening events. Psychological
Bulletin, 108, 209-232.
Tiggemann, M., Winefield, H. R., Goldney, R. D., & Winefield, A. H. (1992).
Attributional style and parental rearing as predictors of psychological distress.
Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 835-841.
Trivedi, R. B., Blumenthal, J. A., O’Connor, C., Adams, K., Hinderliter, A., Dupree, C.,
Johnson, K., & Sherwood, A., (2009). Coping styles in heart failure patients with
depressive symptoms. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 67, 339-346.
Attributional style 28
Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (1999). The impact of psychological contract
violations on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Human Relations, 52, 895-922.
Wei, L., Zhao, J., & Wu, S. (1999). Study on relationship between depression and
attributional style. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 7, 213-215.
Welbourne, J. L, Eggerth, D., Hartley, T. A., Andrew, M. E., & Sanchez, F. (2007).
Coping strategies in the workplace: Relationships with attributional style and job
satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70, 312-325.
Xenikou, A., Furnham, A., & McCarrey, M. (1997). Attributional style for negative
events: A proposition for a more reliable and valid measure of attributional style.
British Journal of Psychology, 88, 53-69.
Yu, P., Su, S., & Li, L. (2005). The relationships between college students' attributional
style, self-efficacy and subjective well-being. Chinese Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 13, 43-44.
Zhang, Y.-X., & Wang, Y. (1989). Attributional style and depression. Acta Psychologica
Sinica, 21(2), 141-148. (In Chinese.)
Zhou, M., Ma, W.J., & Deci, E.L. (2009). The importance of autonomy for rural Chinese
children’s motivation for learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 492-
498.
Attributional style 29
Appendix A
Instruction: Please imagine as vividly as possible that if the following events had
occurred to you, what would have been the major cause(s)? Please indicate by checking
on the given cause(s). Then please proceed to answer three follow-up questions
regarding your chosen explanatory options.
Event 1. …having a serious argument with a family member.
A. Please select from below the important reasons that caused the above event (you
may choose more than one).
i personality problems
ii emotional problems
iii influence of past experience or feelings
iv being treated unfairly
v communication problems
vi misunderstandings
vii discrepancies in mutual expectations
viii other reasons
B. Is/are your cause(s) you selected due to something about you or to something
about other people or circumstances?
C. In the future when facing a similar event, will this/these cause(s) again be present?
D. Is/are the cause(s) something that had influence(s) on only the above event or
does it/do they also influence other areas of your life?
Attributional style 30
Table 1 Measurement Model of Variables in Chinese Measure of Attributional Style
Study 1 (N=547) Study 2 (N=497)
Measure and Variable Factor
Loading
R2
Uniqueness
Factor Loading
R2
Uniqueness
Internality int_1 .41 .17 .83 .22 .05 .95 int_2 .16 .03 .97 .43 .19 .81 int_3 .37 .14 .86 .61 .37 .63 int_4 .50 .25 .75 .45 .20 .80 int_5 - - - .61 .37 .63 Stability stab_1 .38 .14 .86 .51 .26 .74 stab_2 .58 .34 .66 .58 .33 .67 stab_3 .69 .48 .52 .72 .51 .49 stab_4 .36 .13 .87 .63 .39 .61 stab_5 - - - .70 .49 .51 Globality glob_1 .52 .27 .73 .50 .25 .75
Attributional style 31
glob_2 .55 .30 .70 .60 .36 .64 glob_3 .72 .52 .48 .73 .53 .47 glob_4 .64 .41 .59 .69 .48 .52 glob_5 - - - .80 .64 .36 Fitness Index Chi-square (df, p) 59.83 (39, .02) 221.72 (72, .00) GFI; AGFI .98; .96 .94; .90 RMSEA (90% C. I.) .03 (.01; .05) .07 (.06; .08)
Note. Estimation by maximum likelihood, LISREL 8.52. Error covariance values among variables were freed following the multitrait-multimethod approach (Hewitt,
Foxcroft, and MacDonald, 2004).
Attributional style 32
Table 2 Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities and Correlations of Variables in Study 1 (n=540 after listwise deletion) Correlation with Chinese Attributional Style
Mean SDReliability
(Cronbach’s α) Internality Stability Globality Composite-2
Composite-3
Internality 4.19 .84 .38 - .15 *** .29 *** .26 *** .61 *** Stability 4.49 .88 .58 - - .46 *** .81 *** .72 *** Globality 3.91 1.14 .69 - - - .89 *** .85 *** Composite-2 4.20 .87 .73 - - - - .93 *** Composite-3 4.20 .70 .71 - - - - - Gendera 1.67 .47 N/A .12 ** .06 ns .07 ns .08 ns .11 ** Ageb 3.01 1.09 N/A -.09 * -.07 ns -.08 ns -.09 * -.11 * Dependent Variable Disengagement responses 2.55 .85 .86 .04 ns .13 ** .16 *** .17 *** .16 *** Engagement responses 3.47 .65 .75 -.02 ns -.14 ** -.11 ** -.15 ** -.13 ** Dependent Variable, Controlled for Age and Gender (df=538) Disengagement responses .02 ns .12 ** .14 *** .16 *** .14 ** Engagement responses .00 ns -.13 ** -.10 * -.13 ** -.11 **
Attributional style 33
Note. Composite-2 is an average of Stability and Globality. Composite-3 is an average of Internality, Stability and Globality. aGender: 1=male; 2=female. bAge: 20 or below=1; 21-
25=2; 26-30=3; 31-35=4; 36-40=5; 41-45=6; 46-50=7; 51 or above=8. ***p<.001, **p<.01,*p<.05, two-tailed. ns non-significant.
Attributional style 34
Table 3
Summary of Regression Results Predicting Disengagement and Engagement Responses in Study 1 (n=540 after listwise deletion)
Disengagement Responses Engagement Responses
B SE B β B SE B β
By Attributional Style Dimensions
Step 1 Gender .08 .08 .05 ns -.09 .06 -.07 ns
Age -.12 .03 -.15 *** .04 .03 .07 ns
Step 2 Internality -.02 .05 -.02 ns .02 .03 .03 ns
Stability .07 .05 .07 ns -.08 .04 -.11 *
Globality .09 .04 .11 * -.03 .03 -.06 ns
R2 for Step 1 .03 .01
△R2 for Step 2 .02 ** .02 *
Final R2 (η2) .06 .03
Adjusted R2 (η2) .05 .02
F(5, 536)=6.24*** F(5, 536)=3.60**
By Internality and Composite-2
Step 1 Gender .08 .08 .05 ns -.10 .06 -.07 ns
Age -.12 .03 -.15 *** .04 .03 .07 ns
Attributional style 35
Step 2 Internality -.02 .04 -.02 ns .02 .03 .03 ns
Composite-2 .16 .04 .16 *** -.11 .03 -.14 **
R2 for Step 1 .03 .01
△R2 for Step 2 .02 *** .02 **
Final R2 (η2) .06 .03
Adjusted R2 (η2) .05 .02
F(4, 537)=7.79*** F(4, 537)=4.33**
By Composite-3
Step 1 Gender .07 .08 .04 ns -.09 .06 -.06 ns
Age -.12 .03 -.15 *** .04 .03 .06 ns
Step 2 Composite-3 .16 .05 .14 ** -.10 .04 -.11 **
R2 for Step 1 .03 .01
△R2 for Step 2 .02 *** .01 **
Final R2 (η2) .05 .03
Adjusted R2 (η2) .04 .02
F(3, 538)=9.25*** F(3, 538)=4.61**
Note. Coefficients shown here are from the final model. Intercepts are omitted. Composite-2 is an average of Stability and Globality. Composite-3 is an average
of Internality, Stability and Globality. ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.01, two-tailed. ns=non-significant.
Attributional style 36
Table 4
Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities and Correlations of Study Variables in Study 2 (n=434 after listwise deletion)
Correlation with Chinese Attributional Style
Mean SD Reliability
(Cronbach’s α) Internality Stability Globality Composite-2 Composite-3
Internality 4.58 .90 .58 - .01 ns .25 *** .16 *** .55 ***
Stability 3.95 1.07 .76 - - .36 *** .80 *** .68 ***
Globality 3.70 1.21 .80 - - - .85 *** .82 ***
Composite-2 3.83 .94 .81 - - - - .92 ***
Composite-3 4.08 .74 .77 - - - - -
Gendera 1.59 .49 NA -.20 *** .01 ns -.03 ns -.01 ns -.09 ns
Ageb 5.32 1.63 NA -.04 ns -.06 ns -.12 * -.11 * -.11 *
Rankc 1.43 .50 NA .02 ns .01 ns -.04 ns -.02 ns -.01 ns
Tenured 4.82 2.10 NA .05 ns -.06 ns -.14 ** -.12 ** -.08 ns
Dependent Variable
Disengagement responses
1.73 .58 .79 -.17 *** .11 * .13 ** .15 ** .06 ns
Engagement responses
3.83 .53 .76 .15 ** -.22 *** -.14 *** -.21 *** -.12 *
Attributional style 37
Dependent Variable, Controlled for Gender, Age, Rank, and Tenure (df=428)
Disengagement responses
-.15 *** .11 * .12 * .14 *** .06 ns
Engagement responses
.12 * -.22 *** -.12 * -.20 *** -.13 *
Note. Composite-2 is an average of Stability and Globality. Composite-3 is an average of Internality, Stability and Globality. aGender: 1=male; 2=female. bAge: 20 or below=1;
21-25=2; 26-30=3; 31-35=4; 36-40=5; 41-45=6; 46-50=7; 51 or above=8. cRank: agent=1; manager=2. dTenure: below 1 year=1; 1-2 years=2; 3-4 years=3; 5-6 years=4; 7-8
years=5; 9-10 years=6; above 10 years=7. ***p<.001, **p<.01,*p<.05, two-tailed. ns non-significant.
Attributional style 38
Table 5 Summary of Regression Results Predicting Disengagement Response and Engagement Response in Study 2 (n=434 after listwise deletion)
Disengagement Responses Engagement Responses
B SE B β B SE B β By Attributional Style Dimensions Step 1 Gender .13 .06 .11 * -.16 .05 -.15 **
Age -.05 .02 -.13 * .01 .02 .05 ns
Rank -.10 .06 -.09 ns .12 .05 .11 *
Tenure .02 .02 .06 ns .01 .01 .06 ns
Step 2 Internality -.12 .03 -.19 *** .08 .03 .14 **
Stability .03 .03 .06 ns -.09 .02 -.18 ***
Globality .07 .03 .15 ** -.04 .02 -.09 ns
R2 for Step 1 .04 .07 △R2 for Step 2 .05 *** .06 *** Final R2 (η2) .10 .13 Adjusted R2 (η2) .08 .12 F(7, 426)=6.40*** F(7, 426)=9.19***
By Internality and Composite-2 Step 1 Gender .13 .06 .11 * -.16 .05 -.15 **
Age -.05 .02 -.13 * .01 .02 .05 ns
Attributional style 39
Rank -.10 .06 -.09 ns .12 .05 .11 *
Tenure .02 .02 .06 ns .01 .01 .05 ns
Step 2 Internality -.12 .03 -.18 *** .09 .03 .15 **
Composite-2 .10 .03 .17 *** -.13 .03 -.22 ***
R2 for Step 1 .04 .07 △R2 for Step 2 .05 *** .06 *** Final R2 (η2) .09 .13 Adjusted R2 (η2) .08 .12 F(6, 427)=7.31*** F(6, 427)=1.44***
By Composite-3 Step 1 Gender .18 .06 .15 ** -.20 .05 -.18 ***
Age -.04 .02 -.12 * .01 .02 .03 ns
Rank -.10 .06 -.08 ns .11 .05 .10 *
Tenure .01 .02 .03 ns .02 .01 .08 ns
Step 2 Composite-3 .05 .04 .06 ns -.09 .03 -.12 **
R2 for Step 1 .04 .07 △R2 for Step 2 .00 ns .02 ** Final R2 (η2) .04 .08 Adjusted R2 (η2) .03 .07 F(5, 428)=4.18*** F(5, 428)=7.66***
Attributional style 40
Note. Coefficients shown here are from the final model. Intercepts are omitted. Composite-2 is an average of Stability and Globality. Composite-3 is an average of Internality, Stability and Globality. ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.01, two-tailed. ns=non-significant.