On the nature of attributional artifacts in qualitative research: Herzberg's two‐factor theory of work motivation

Heider's notions of attribution are presented as a theoretical underpinning for the empirical findings of Herzberg concerning the nature of motivation in industrial contexts. Herzberg's methodology is treated as an example of the ‘new’ methods advocated by Harré and Secord: the collection of naive, unnegotiated ‘accounts’. It is suggested that attributional artifacts are potentially present when an investigator invites lay informants to make causal attributions concerning two oppositely valued states and then accepts these ‘accounts' at face value as constituting the ‘findings' of the study. Favourable outcomes tend to be attributed to the self and unfavourable ones to the environment. The self is seen as the source of job satisfaction and the environment as the source of job dissatisfaction. Evidence from other areas of research supporting this interpretation is presented. A sharp distinction is made between the attributional biases of informants and those of investigators. The role of positive self‐concepts, rather than of defensive reactions, is stressed as a determinant of the ‘structure’ found in the ‘accounts’.