Weiner’s attributional theory uses four dimensions to determine the causal beliefs of a social agent (i.e a student within the context of this study) by an observer (i.e a teacher within the context of this study). Causal beliefs are often interchangeable with attributional beliefs. 

The four dimensions include locus of causality (internal vs external causes), stability (whether a student’s trait/ability is stable or unstable), personal control, and other's (i.e the teacher’s) control. Many studies in the past focused on teachers’ causal beliefs about academic success within the scope of Weiner’s attributional theory. However, Brun et al. (2022), extended the work of Weiner’s theory by using complex mechanisms to not only assess attributional beliefs but also to create latent profiles of the teachers.

The study consisted of 289 elementary school teachers in France. Through a hypothetical scenario of a student presented to teachers and a series of Likert scales used to assess the scenario, researchers measured the teachers’ causal beliefs, cognitive reactions, emotional reactions, and behavioral reactions. Measures of causal beliefs were then used to create five latent profiles, differentiating the ways that teachers attribute the causes of students’ outcomes (failure vs success).

The five profiles were:

• Self-starter (low internal locus, and neutral levels of stability, student’s control, and other’s control)
• Conscientious (high internal locus, somewhat stable, high student control, and highly controllable by others)
• Vulnerable (high external locus, somewhat unstable, somewhat uncontrollable by students, and somewhat controllable by others), 
• Fatalistic (neutral locus, somewhat stable, and outside student’s and other’s control)
• Powerless (high external locus, outside student’s control, outside other’s control).

The findings defined several relationships between the measures. Teachers attributed failure to external and uncontrollable causes, while they attributed success to internal and controllable causes; teachers gave students credit for their success. Additionally, teachers believed students were responsible for their own outcomes when teachers perceived the cause of the outcome to be controllable and internal to the student.

Some of the most notable findings regarding profiles were from conscientious, vulnerable, and powerless profiles. Teachers in the conscientious profile perceived failure as controllable and internal to the student, thus believing that their students were responsible for their outcomes. They reported the lowest levels of shame and hopelessness and the highest levels of pride. Furthermore, they believed that students could not improve and there was nothing that they could do about it. Teachers in the vulnerable profile reported high guilt because they believed students’ outcomes were controllable by the teachers, even if they were uncontrollable by the students. Teachers in the powerless profile gave students credit for their success and believed that students were not responsible for their failure. However, since they believed that failure was highly uncontrollable by the student and others, they believed they were not able to help these students. Consequently, they reported the lowest helping behavior.

Overall, results demonstrated that distinct latent profiles were closely related to the teacher’s cognitive, emotional, and behavioral reactions. In turn, they played an important role in student achievement.

Brun et al.’s (2022) study informs EPIC researchers that a teacher’s perspective of a student may shape the way a student perceives an academic outcome. It also allows us to examine how and why students label events as a failure. Furthermore, it provides further insight in determining whether students believe their skills or effort can or cannot change after a failure event.

For deeper insight into the article, retrieve it at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10212-021-00551-3.

Reference:

Brun, L., Dompnier, B., & Pansu, P. (2021). A latent profile analysis of teachers’ causal attribution for academic success of failure. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 37, 185-206.