The Causal Dimension Scale: A measure of how individuals perceive causes.

A shortcoming of previous attribution research has been the assumption that researchers can accurately translate causal attributions into causal dimensions. Attributional statements are often ambiguous and even when clearly stated may be perceived quite differently by the attributor and the researcher. The studies reported describe the development of the Causal Dimension Scale, a measure designed to assess how the attributor perceives the causes he or she has stated for an event. This scale assesses causal perceptions in terms of the locus of causality, stability, and controllability dimensions described by Weiner. Two studies are reported that test the reliability and validity of the Causal Dimension Scale. All three subscales were found to be reliable and valid, and a three-mode factor analysis confirmed the three-dimensional structure of the scale. Results also indicated differences in the perception of causes of success and failure, with attributions for success being perceived as more internal, stable, and controllable than attributions for failure. The relationship between the Causal Dimension Scale and other attribution measures (such as locus of control or "attributional style " measures) is discussed. Previous attribution research has suffered from a basic problem that could be termed the "fundamental attribution researcher er-ror " (i.e., assuming that the researcher can accurately interpret the meaning of the sub-ject's causal attributions). In the traditional attribution paradigm, an essential step in-volves the translation by the researcher of causal attributions into causal dimensions, such as internal-external or stable-unstable. Based on this classification of the subject's causal attributions, the investigator can then test a variety of predictions about the attri-bution process. The danger in this procedure is that the researcher and the attributor may not agree on the meaning of a causal attribution. One This article is based on a doctoral dissertation sub-mitted to the Department of Psychology at the Univer-sity of California, Los Angeles. I would like to thank