Başarı Güdüsü ve Nedensellik Yükleme İlişkisi
The locus of control and stasis dimensions are seen as important in understanding emotional reactions to success or failure and in understanding the change in perception of the probability of success for future outcomes.
The locus of control dimension affects the emotional response of pride and shame. In a situation of success, people feel maximum pride (self-satisfaction) and attribute their own performance to effort or ability, or both internal causes. There is a very low sense of pride when the reasons for success are attributed to good luck or the ease of business. Failures, on the other hand, result in shame (self-dissatisfaction) when attributed to lack of skill or effort; however, when attributed to difficulty or bad luck, it results in little embarrassment, so no personal responsibility is taken for failure. The stasis dimension affects the cognitive changes that occur in the expectation of subsequent success or failure. When someone perceives that their success is due to good luck, their expectation of the outcome will be the possibility that failure may occur in the future. Because luck is believed to be an unsteady external factor. The same expectation can be seen in the attributed reasons for bad luck in failure situations. Attributions to a lack of effort (internal non-stationary cause) in failure situations will generate a higher expectation for future success than attributions to static causes. That's why the performance would have been better had the higher effort been put in. Failures attributed to a lack of talent will create a low expectation for future success, because the person will assume that his talent will not increase to a greater degree and therefore his future performance will show little improvement. At the same time, since talent is a static cause, success attributed to talent will create a high expectation for future achievements. For the same reason, successes attributed to the ease of the task will create a high expectation of success as a stagnant cause, and failures attributed to the difficulty of the task will cause low expectation of success (Bar-tal, 1978; 260-262). It can be argued that individuals who have failure to face (tolerance to frustration) will differ in their persistence in behavior because they attribute failure to causal factors that affect future success expectation differently (Weiner, 1972; 208).
Individuals with high achievement motivation will attribute their success to their own skills and efforts, and their failures to a lack of effort or external factors, compared to individuals with low achievement motivation. While individuals with low achievement motivation tend to perceive themselves as inadequate in terms of ability, they will attribute their failures to lack of skills and their successes to external factors (Bar-tal, 1978; 263). This result has been supported by various studies.
In a study by Weiner et al. (1972, 206-207; see Weiner and Kukla, 1970; Kukla, 1972), subjects had to determine whether 0 or 1 would be the next digit in a sequence of numbers from 1 to 9. has been requested. The subjects, who did not know that the numbers were randomly ordered, made their predictions about the sort order. After the completion of the experiment, the subjects who evaluated their performance as successful or unsuccessful attributed the results to luck, effort, skill or difficulty of the job. Subjects with a high achievement motivation attributed their success to high skill and positive effort compared to those with a low motivation, and their failure to a lack of effort. In addition, subjects with high achievement motivation perceived their efforts as an important determinant of success (high effort brings success, low effort brings failure). On the other hand, people with low achievement motivation perceived the relationship between results and efforts as weak and believed that personal failure was due to lack of skill.
Meyer (1970) found that people with high achievement motivation attribute their failures to lack of effort more than the other group, while individuals with low achievement motivation attribute their failures to low skill. The low skill perception distinction between these two groups increases with continued failure (Weiner, 1972; 207).
Weiner's assumptions can be combined with Atkinson's theory. The reasons that the person attributes to the results are effective in the formation of the encouraging values of success and failure. When the reason for success or failure is given to internal factors, the individual will be more proud of accomplishing a difficult task and more ashamed of failing to do an easy task. On the contrary, when the reason for success or failure is given to internal factors, the individual will feel less pride in accomplishing an easy task and less shame in failing a difficult task (Onaran, 1981; 224).
