Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the interaction effect of goal-performance discrepancy and achievement attribution on task performance. A control theory proposed that as the goal-performance discrepancy increases, the amount of performance in the following trial increases. However, a theory of achievement attribution proposed that if the discrepancy is ascribed to stable causes(e.g., ability. task difficulty, etc.), the expectancy of success and the performance thereafter decreases, and if a failure is ascribed to unstable causes(e.g., effort, luck, etc.), the expectancy of success could change and hence the performance in the following trial would be expected to increase. Thus, the present study hypothesized that if the goal-performance discrepancy is attributed to lack of one's effort, performance increase will be maximized in the medium discrepancy condition, compared to the small or large discrepancy condition. But, if the goal-performance discrepancy is attributed to the .other three causes, performance will not be influenced by the goal-performance discrepancy. Also, it was tested how the expectancy of success and the anticipated self-dissatisfaction affected performance in the next trial. A 4(ability. effort, task difficulty, and luck attribution) × 3(small, medium, and large goal-performance discrepancy) completely randomized factorial experiment was conducted with 156 subjects. Results showed that the goal-performance discrepancy affected task performance only in effort condition, not in other three conditions, as hypothesized. In addition, when subjects ascribed a failure to unstable causes, the expectancy of success and task performance in the next trial were higher than they were when a failure was scribed to stable causes. Finally, the anticipated self-(dis)satisfaction was higher when subjects anticipated a failure due to lack of effort than when a failure was anticipated due to bad luck, and so was task performance.