CAUSAL ATTRIBUTION OF PERFORMANCE FAILURE VS. SUCCESS) OF A STUDENT AT AN EXAM DEEMED DIFFICULT ACCORDING TO HIS SOCIOECONOMIC ORIGIN
Background: This study aims to highlight the combined effect of performance and socioeconomic level of causal attribution made by the observer. This causal attribution is about the conduct of a student at an exam deemed difficult. Method: The study concerned 72 students who voluntarily agreed to participate. Results: The statistical results (ANOVA) have shown that the observer makes an internal or external attribution according to the student from a low socio economic or high socio economic level, that is to say, the effort, the ability etc. meanwhile those of socio economic level makes an external attribution, that is to say, to corruption, parents' support etc. Conclusion: It emerges from this that the actor and the observer do not infer the same causes for an event. It is therefore understandable that the information the subjects treat to formulate these judgments not only come from the situation or the environment in which the action takes place, but also the behavioral history of the actor. Keyswords: Causal attribution, performance, socioeconomic level, observer, actor INTRODUCTION In daily life, the question related to the cause of the events that happen, the reasons of our own behaviors or those of others is often asked. It fuels our daily conversations, guides our interactions with others, is part of our perception of the physical and social reality. Natural and spontaneous phenomenon, it is the object of the so called attribution theories (Petard, 2007) According to Heider (1958) we face a complex and changing world and we need to simplify it to understand, predict, control and master it. The attributions serve to achieve this goal by identifying stable behavior characteristics and events that help account for it. The attributions therefore to give an explanation and interpretation of reactions or behaviors that we observe in others and in oneself. It seeks to describe how the naive subject who observes a behavior proceeds to find a cause of his act. The need to explain the phenomena, to know the conditions of their expression is peculiar to human beings. The explanation is at the heart of human beings' everyday interactions with others. According to Kelley (1972) people, before they understand, explain above all. Their main motivation is the search for truth. In the context of causal attribution, our work focuses more on the actor observer phenomenon. This phenomenon is about the systematic differences revealed between the Asian Journal of Social Sciences Humanities Vol. 5(2) May 2016 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______ ___________________________________________________________________ ISSN: 2186 8492, ISSN: 2186 8484 Print www.ajssh.leena luna.co.jp Leena and Luna International, Oyama, Japan. Copyright (c) 2016 (Zhu rinaandorunaintanashiyonaru, Zhu Xi Shi ,Ri Ben P a g e 72 causal responses of the subjects who are for the ones, actor, that is to say, the one who acts and for the others, observers, that is to say, those who see the action being acted. This is specifically to show how the performance and the socioeconomic level can influence the explanation that the observer expresses as regards the actor's behavior. For its implementation, this study is articulated around three main axes. The first part deals with theoretical foundations in light of which the assumptions make. The second part examines the methodological approach used for data collection. Finally, in the third part, the analysis and interpretation of the results are discussed. PROBLEM School failure is a social problem for a society that wants all its children to reach the exercise of citizenship; it is also a political problem for the one that purports to be democratic (Meirien, 2008) The rapid development that the school failure phenomenon witnesses makes itself unbearable for many of us. According to Revol and FumeauxHunziker (2013) each year, approximately 150,000 students leave school without a diploma namely nearly one out of five young people while with their speeches, the will of successive ministers of education is to take at least 80% of young people to the baccalaureate. This situation therefore raises questions which can be summarized into one and essential: why such a development of failure? Such a question is to find an explanation to this phenomenon and to understand its causes. However, in our social context, despite attempts of solutions of governmental and non governmental organizations to deal with this phenomenon, we are far from the expected results, the situation goes from bad to worse, that is to say, moves ominously. Strategies to overcome this problem are considered. For Revol, Hunziker and Fumeaux (op. Cit. fight concretely against school failure requires at least a thorough reflection on our educational policies with all of its stakeholders namely teachers and parents included. Note that in general, the search for possible causes of an act or event is based on attribution theories. The attribution consists in giving an explanation to events for which we have no immediate and obvious account. The explanation may be connected with oneself (selfattribution) or others (hetero attribution) it then becomes the perceived cause of the event in question, that is to say a belief as to the cause of an act, an inference aimed at explaining the why of an event (Vallerand, 1994) According to Heider (1958) the attribution is the process by which man apprehends reality and is able to predict and control it, is a search for the causes of the perceived events. In these circumstances, it is appropriate to focus on how do people explain the events that happen to them or happen to others. Note that in different contexts, situations and roles, there are standards of explanation, socially valued answers, consciously or unconsciously used by everyone in interaction situations (Weiner, 1985) In other words, in the study of causal attribution mechanisms, many bias or standards raised by different authors are involved in explanations, in particular either an actor or spectator one may be (observer) of the event. We can higgledy piggledy quote the competence standard (Covington, 1984) the internality standard (Dubois, 1987) the accountability standard (Shaver and Down, 1986) Finally, we have the effort standard. Here, the subject when explaining a failure, prefers to avoid the attribution to the lack of effort and present his failure as the consequence of a lack of ability or difficulty of the task Asian Journal of Social Sciences Humanities Vol. 5(2) May 2016 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Copyright (c) 2016 Leena and Luna International, Chikusei, Japan. 73 P a g e (Zhu rinaandorunaintanashiyonaru, Zhu Xi Shi ,Ri Ben ISSN: 2186 8492, ISSN: 2186 8484 Print www.ajssh. leena luna.co.jp and the one who succeeds most often attributes his performance to effort. It is in this case that we also speak of bias standard of complacency where people explain success by internal factors and failure to external factors. In the literature on the field of causal attribution, actor is the person who, in a given situation, produces an action and the observer or spectator, the person who can see this action occurring (Ngbala, 1984) Jones and Nisbett (1972) in the conclusion of their analysis of the results of causal attribution experience, observe that the actor and the observer do not infer the same causes for an event. The expression of the actor observer phenomenon is used in the literature to characterize this type of systematic difference we noted in the explanations that the actor and the observer give for the same action. The information that the subjects treat to formulate these judgments come from two sources that are on the one hand the situation or the environment in which the action takes place, and on the other, the behavioral history of the actor. Jones and Nisbett(op. cit) think that the actor and the observer do not have the same environmental approach; they do not therefore treat the same information. The information regarding the actor behavioral history mainly concern the latter's reactions vis a vis other stimuli and his reactions whenever he was himself in the presence of that particular stimulus. They correspond to the information on the differentiation and consistency described by Kelley (1972) These information, declares Kelley, mostly fail in the outside observer's judgments making on the behavior of the actor he observes. It is therefore unlikely that the actor and the observer make the same judgments for the same action. Let's indicate, moreover, that if the proponents of the attribution approach have sought to highlight the effects of causal explanations in various areas and situations (Jones and McGillis, 1976. Weiner et al.(1988) it is within the education system framework that many studies have been conducted. C B Olivier and Benoit G. (2003) compare sociology students to business students at different times of the curriculum in terms of their attribution as regards unemployment and poverty point of view. Research works, investigated precisely the explanation of student performance (success failure) In this regard, Covington and Omelich (1979) were able to show that the success att