Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract : Thirty-two subjects of simple and thirty-two subjects of complex conceptual structure participated as dyads in an experimental simulation. The teams made decisions on military, economic, and other matters under conditions of increasing success and increasing failure. Subjects' perceived estimates of causality indicated the percent of environmental conditions which in their opinions were due to (1) their own decisions, (2) decisions of a (non-existent) opposing team, (3) various chance factors, (4) arbitrary decisions made by the experimenters, and (5) characteristics of the environment. Subjects also rated each other on semantic differential attitude scales. It was found that attribution of causality varies with environmental conditions. Under experimentally-induced increasing success, subjects take increasing credit for that success. Under experimentally-induced failure, subjects ascribe equal causality to their own decisions and to decisions of the opposing team. These findings are somewhat more pronounced for simple subjects than for complex subjects. Interpersonal attitudes are closely related to attribution of causality under both success and failure conditions. As more credit is taken for success, attitudes become more favorable. Under failure conditions, attitude change is less likely to occur. An attempt is made to review and explain differences in some findings concerned with success - failure and attitudes reported in the literature. (Author)
Streufert et al. (Sat,) studied this question.