Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 24 November 2014, At: 01:14Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Aging, Neuropsychology, andCognition: A Journal on Normal andDysfunctional DevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nanc20
Attributions for Memory Performancein Adulthood: Age Differences andMediation EffectsIlana Blatt-Eisengart & Margie E. LachmanPublished online: 09 Aug 2010.
To cite this article: Ilana Blatt-Eisengart & Margie E. Lachman (2004) Attributions for MemoryPerformance in Adulthood: Age Differences and Mediation Effects, Aging, Neuropsychology, andCognition: A Journal on Normal and Dysfunctional Development, 11:1, 68-79
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/anec.11.1.68.29364
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Aging Neuropsychology and Cognition2004, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 68–79
Attributions for Memory Performance in Adulthood:Age Differences and Mediation Effects
Ilana Blatt-Eisengart and Margie E. LachmanPsychology Department, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA, USA
ABSTRACT
We examined age differences in attributions to internal (controllable and uncontrollable), external (uncontrol-lable), and unstable factors for performance on a free recall memory task in 149 young, middle-aged, and olderadults. Attributions varied by age and by level of memory performance. Middle-aged and older adults ratedinternal, uncontrollable factors (ability and genes) as more influential for high performance than for lowperformance, and they were less likely than young adults to attribute low performance to these factors. Withinage groups, only the older adults rated memory ability as more influential than strategy use, even though theywere as likely as the other age groups to use a categorization strategy. Attributions to both internal controllable(strategy use) and uncontrollable (ability) factors as well as to health were associated with better memoryperformance. These attributions partially mediated the relationship between age and memory performance.Thus, attributions may provide some insight into sources of age differences in memory performance.
Age differences in memory performance are well
documented with older adults showing poorer
performance on many aspects of memory, includ-
ing episodic memory (Backman, Small, &
Wahlin, 2001). Much work has been focused on
identifying the sources of memory decline,
especially age related changes in speed and
attentional processes. There has been less empha-
sis on the attitudinal factors that could contribute
to memory decline, although there is evidence
that beliefs and attitudes about memory are re-
lated to performance on memory tasks (Lachman,
Steinberg, & Trotter, 1987; West & Thorn, 2001).
One set of beliefs, performance attributions, may
provide insight into the ways that the outcome of
a memory task is interpreted, which can in turn
affect future behavior in similar achievement
situations (Weiner et al., 1972). We view attribu-
tions as a stylistic tendency with trait-like qual-
ities (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978).
These attributional styles may vary across situa-
tions and with age.
Previous research has shown that older and
younger adults make different attributions for the
memory performance of others (Erber, Szuchman,
& Prager, 1997; Guo, Erber, & Szuchman, 1999),
as well as for their own memory performance
(Lineweaver & Hertzog, 1998). Such age differ-
ential patterns of attributions may contribute to
age differences in performance. For example,
those who attribute to internal or controllable
factors such as effort or strategy may be more
likely to use effortful or strategic resources avail-
able to them in order to optimize their memory
performance, whereas attribution to uncontrolla-
ble factors such as luck or task difficulty may
result in limited effort or strategy use (Weiner,
1985). In the present study, we examined age
Address correspondence to: Margie E. Lachman, Psychology Department, Brandeis University, MS 062, Waltham,Massachusetts 02454-9110, USA. E-mail: [email protected] for publication: August 27, 2003.
1382-5585/04/1101-068$16.00 # Taylor & Francis Ltd.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
01:
14 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
differences in patterns of attributions, and the
relationship between attributions, strategy use,
and performance on a free recall memory task
for young, middle-aged, and older adults.
Much of the prior research in this area has
focused on the attributions that people make for
performance of others in hypothetical situations.
Lachman and McArthur (1986) found that sub-
jects were more likely to make ability attributions
for the poor memory performance of older adults
and the good performance of younger adults.
More recently, it has been found that people are
more likely to attribute the failures of older adults
to internal, stable, and uncontrollable causes
(such as lack of ability) and the failures of
younger adults to internal, unstable, or controlla-
ble causes (lack of sufficient effort or attention)
(Bieman-Copland & Ryan, 1998; Erber, Prager,
Williams, & Caiola, 1996; Erber et al., 1997;
Lachman, 1990; McCracken, Hayes, & Dell,
1997).
Although most past research has dealt with
attributions for the performance of a hypothetical
other, there have been some studies of attribu-
tions for one’s own performance. Lachman and
her colleagues (Lachman et al., 1987) found that
among older adults, attributions to internal factors
were related to better performance and more
positive self-assessment on a memory task.
Additionally, several researchers have focused
on the distinction between controllable and un-
controllable attributions. Hultsch, Hertzog, and
Dixon (1987) and Lachman and Jelallian (1984)
found that older adults believed that they had less
memory ability and less control over their mem-
ory than did younger adults. Several studies have
found that in comparison to younger adults, older
adults are more likely to make attributions to
uncontrollable factors such as ability than to
controllable factors such as effort or strategy use
(Baldi & Hertzog, 2000; Devolder & Pressley,
1992). Within age groups, older adults are more
likely to attribute performance to uncontrollable
than controllable factors (Devolder & Pressley,
1992). Hertzog, McGuire, and Lineweaver (1998)
examined the relationship between attributions,
memory control beliefs, and strategy use in a free
recall memory task. They divided participants’
responses to an open-ended question into two
groups – those who attributed primarily to skill
(internal, controllable attributions) and those who
attributed primarily to ability (internal, uncontrol-
lable) attributions. They found that older adults
were less likely to attribute to skill (internal,
controllable) and more likely to attribute to abil-
ity (internal, uncontrollable) factors than were
younger adults.
Researchers have found a relationship between
attributions to controllable factors and perfor-
mance (Baldi & Hertzog, 2000). Devolder and
Pressley (1992) found that participants who per-
formed better on a memory task made more
attributions to controllable causes (effort, strategy
use), and that those older adults who attributed to
controllable causes performed as well as younger
adults.
Past work also shows that it is important to
differentiate between attributions made for suc-
cess and failure (Abramson et al., 1978; Lachman
& McArthur, 1986; Weaver & Lachman, 1990).
For success, internal and stable factors can be
self-enhancing by acknowledging credit for the
outcome and the likelihood of repeated success.
For failure, attribution to external and unstable
factors may serve a self-protective function. The
findings suggest that more adaptive attributions
(e.g., to more external or unstable factors) are
made for the failures of younger adults than those
of older adults (Erber et al., 1996; Lachman &
McArthur, 1986). Attributions to controllable
factors are usually considered adaptive regardless
of performance outcome, because attribution to
controllable causes may be associated with taking
responsibility for successful outcomes or with
the opportunity to change future outcomes when
unsuccessful by using more effort or new strate-
gies (Weiner, 1985).
In this study, we defined success and failure
groups based on participants’ actual performance
on a memory task. We predicted that age differ-
ences in attributional patterns would differ for
those subjects who performed well and those who
performed poorly on the task, with older adults
making less adaptive attributions (more internal,
stable, and uncontrollable causes) for failure than
younger adults.
We also examined the relationship between at-
tributions, strategy use, and memory performance
ATTRIBUTIONS FOR MEMORY 69
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
01:
14 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
as well as comparing the relationships of actual
strategy use and attribution to strategy use with
age and recall. Hertzog et al. (1998) found that
older adults felt less control over their memory
than the young, and those who felt less control
were less likely to show spontaneous strategy use
in completing the memory task. Hertzog et al.
(1998) also found that controlling for attributions
significantly reduced the effect of age on recall. In
the present study we tested this further by exam-
ining whether attributions for memory perfor-
mance would mediate the relationship between
age and performance on a memory task.
Past studies have either given participants a
relatively short list of attributions to consider or
have asked open-ended questions about attribu-
tions. In the present study, participants were asked
to make judgments about the influence of 13
different attributional variables. This expanded
list gave us an opportunity to examine age differ-
ences in a greater variety of performance attribu-
tions while using the same list of attributions for
all participants.
To review, we expected to find age differences
in attributions that vary by level of memory
performance. Based on findings from past studies
(e.g., Devolder & Pressley, 1992; Lachman &
McArthur, 1986), we expected that older adults’
attributions would be less adaptive than those of
younger adults. For poor performance, older
adults were expected to rate internal uncontrolla-
ble and stable factors as more influential than
did younger adults. Further, young adults were
expected to take credit for their good performance
by making more internal controllable and stable
attributions for high performance than older
adults. Within age groups, we expected older
adults to rate uncontrollable factors (e.g., ability)
as more influential for performance than control-
lable factors (e.g., strategy use) (Hertzog et al.,
1998). Middle-aged adults were expected to show
similar patterns of attribution to those made by
older adults as has been found in past work (Blank
& Levesque, 1993), even though their memory
performance is typically more similar to younger
adults (Miller & Lachman, 2000). We also ex-
pected attributions to internal and controllable
factors to be correlated with better performance
on the memory task. Additionally, we examined
whether age differences in memory would be
mediated by attributions.
METHOD
ParticipantsParticipants were 149 men and women between theages of 21 and 80 years. There were 50 young adultsranging in age from 21 to 40 years (M¼ 32.4,SD¼ 5.7), 50 middle-aged adults ranging in age from41 to 60 years (M¼ 48.5, SD¼ 5.4), and 49 older adultsranging in age from 61 to 80 years (M¼ 69.6, SD¼5.3). Sixty-five percent were female and 89% wereWhite (8% African-American, 2% Asian-American,1% unknown). Participants generally rated themselvesas healthy (young M¼ 4.0, SD¼ 0.9, middle-agedM¼ 4.1, SD¼ 0.8, older M¼ 3.9, SD¼ 1.2) based ontheir response to the question ‘‘Compared to othersyour age, how would you rate your overall health?’’(1¼ poor to 5¼ excellent). There were no significantage differences in health.
Participants were recruited from a random samplingof individuals living in the Greater Boston Metropol-itan Area (within a 20 mile radius of Waltham,Massachusetts) using lists that were stratified by ageand gender and generated by a sampling firm. Partic-ipants were initially contacted by mail and then bytelephone. Participants were excluded from the study ifthey had a history of stroke in the last 5 years, serioushead injury, or Parkinson’s disease, did not have full useof both of their hands, or were not native Englishspeakers. Participants received $25 for their time.
Measures
EducationEducation was measured on a 12-point scale with1¼ some grade school; 2¼ junior high/8th grade;3¼ some high school; 4¼Graduate EquivalencyDiploma (GED); 5¼ graduated from high school;6¼ 1–2 years of college, no degree; 7¼ 3 years ofcollege, no degree; 8¼ 2-year college degree, 9¼4-year college degree; 10¼ some graduate school;11¼master’s degree; 12¼ doctoral level degree (M¼8.48, SD¼ 2.14). There were no significant educationdifferences by age group (young M¼ 8.6, SD¼ 1.7,middle-aged M¼ 8.6, SD¼ 2.3, older M¼ 8.2,SD¼ 2.4).
Word List RecallTwo lists of 30 categorizable nouns developed byHertzog, Dixon, and Hultsch (1990) were used. Eachlist contained 6 words from five distinctive taxonomic
70 ILANA BLATT-EISENGART & MARGIE E. LACHMAN
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
01:
14 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
categories, which were developed using norms fromHoward (1980). The categories were: Metals, animals,trees, sports, flowers, relatives, fruit, birds, furniture,and weapons. The order of words was randomized, butwords from the same category did not appear adjacentto one another. Words were presented in two columnson a computer screen in the same random order for allparticipants. There were three consecutive trials foreach word list. Participants studied the word list for1 min at each trial and had unlimited time for recall ateach presentation of the list. The presentation orderof the two word lists was counterbalanced acrossparticipants.
Recall data were scored using the Scoring Optionsfor Recall Tests (SORT) Version 2.0 (Elie & Payne,1999). List recall was scored as the total number ofwords correctly recalled out of 30. The variable used inanalyses was the mean number of words recalled on thethird trial averaged across lists (M¼ 22.04, SD¼ 5.28).The SORT program was also used to calculate anAdjusted Ratio for Clustering (ARC) score (Roenker,Thompson, & Brown, 1971) indicating the extent towhich participants categorized the words at recall.Categorization scores range from 0 to 1 and higherscores reflect a greater degree of clustering. The ARCwas used as a measure of actual strategy use for therecall task (M¼ .76, SD¼ 0.23). There were nosignificant age differences in ARC.
Actual Performance LevelPerformance was recoded as a dichotomous variable(high vs. low) based on a median split of words recalledfor the third trial. Each age group’s median wasassessed and split separately: (young¼ 25.5, middle¼23.5, older¼ 19.5). Young adults had higher (p< .01)performance than middle-aged and older adults, andmiddle-aged adults were higher than older adults,F(2, 146)¼ 19.22, p< .001. Actual recall (youngM¼ 24.9, SD¼ 3.7, middle M¼ 22.2, SD¼ 5.4, olderM¼ 19.0, SD¼ 4.9) was significantly correlated(r¼ .631, p< .001) with perceived performance, asmeasured by response to the question ‘‘In general, howwould you rate the level of your performance?’’(1¼ very poor to 7¼ very good). This correlation wasalso significant for each individual age group (youngr¼ .42, p< .01; middle-aged r¼ .67, p< .001; olderr¼ .57, p< .001).
Performance AttributionsTask specific performance and attribution questionsadapted from Hertzog et al. (1998), Lachman et al.(1987), and Weaver and Lachman (1990) were used toassess performance attributions and perceived perfor-mance. The performance attribution questions askedparticipants to think about the factors that influenced
their performance on the word list recall test. Using a 5-point scale (1¼ not at all to 5¼ very much so),participants indicated to what extent they believed agiven factor influenced their performance (e.g.,‘‘________’’ influenced my memory performance).Items included ‘‘how tired I was’’, ‘‘my mood’’, ‘‘thedifficulty level of the task’’, ‘‘how hard I tried’’,‘‘luck’’, ‘‘my memory ability’’, ‘‘my age’’, ‘‘howrelevant or meaningful I found the task’’, ‘‘my health’’,‘‘my anxiety level’’, ‘‘the strategy I used’’, ‘‘medica-tion’’, and ‘‘my genes (inherited characteristics)’’.
Based on conceptual definitions from past research(Baldi & Hertzog, 2000; Devolder & Pressley, 1992;Hertzog, McGuire, Powell-Moman, & York, 2001;Weiner, 1985; Weiner et al., 1972), we organized theattribution variables into three subsets: internal con-trollable (effort, strategy use) and uncontrollable(ability, genes); external uncontrollable (task difficulty,task meaningfulness, luck); and unstable (tiredness,anxiety level, medications, health, mood). Age was notincluded in any subset because it was influenced by themanipulation used in the overall study as discussedbelow. Means and standard deviations for the attribu-tion variables organized by subset can be found inTable 1.
ProcedureThese data were collected as part of a larger studyexamining memory and control beliefs. All sessionswere run by one of two female experimenters. Fifty-eight percent of the participants were tested in theirhomes and 42% were tested in a university research lab.Age (3) by location (2) analyses of variance wereperformed for all variables, and no significant effects oflocation were found. Using MediaLab2000 software(Jarvis, 2000), most of the protocol was presented on alaptop computer (Dell Latitude CPx). Participants readinstructions on the computer screen and proceededthrough the session at their own pace. No computerexperience was necessary and the researcher wasavailable throughout the session. Participants first com-pleted the entire Word List Recall Test (two lists, threetrials each), and then the attribution questionnaire.
The purpose of the overall study was to examine theeffects of beliefs about memory on performance. Foranother aspect of the study, participants were randomlyassigned to three memory information groups (agedifferences, no age differences, and control) andmatched on education across age groups. Subjects weretold either that there were or were not age differences inperformance on the test that they were taking, or weregiven no information regarding age differences. [SeeAndreoletti & Lachman (2004, in press) for moredetails]. Although condition differences were not the fo-cus of this study, we performed Age (3)�Condition (3)
ATTRIBUTIONS FOR MEMORY 71
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
01:
14 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
analyses of variance for all variables and found asignificant difference on only the attribution to agevariable, F(2, 146)¼ 7.101, p< .01, which was thenexcluded from this study. As expected, those in the agedifferences condition attributed performance more toage than did those in the control condition (agedifferences condition, M¼ 3.00, control conditionM¼ 2.49, no age differences condition M¼ 2.20). Asno main effects of condition or age by conditioninteractions were found for other attributions, numberof words recalled, or strategy use, subjects werecollapsed across condition for all analyses presentedin this paper.
RESULTS
We first used multivariate analyses of variance to
examine whether the attributions differed by age
and whether age differences were qualified by
level of actual memory performance for the three
subsets of items. We also compared the level of
attribution ratings for ability and strategy use
within age groups as has been done in previous
studies (Hertzog et al., 1998). The second set of
analyses includes correlations between attribu-
tions and memory performance and a regression
analysis investigating whether age differences in
memory are mediated by attributions. Although
education level did not vary by age group, this
sample included a wide range of education levels.
Therefore, education was entered as a covariate
in all analyses to examine whether it affected
the results. Because including education did not
change the results, all analyses are presented
without the covariate.
Age and Performance Attributions
To examine the relationship between age, level of
memory performance, and performance attribu-
tions, a (3) Age Group (young, middle-aged, and
older) by (2) Performance (high, low) MANOVA
was performed on each of the three subsets of
attribution variables (internal, external uncontrol-
lable, and unstable). Pillai’s trace criterion was
used for all multivariate tests.
For the first set of variables, internal attributions,
results showed significant multivariate main effects
of age F(8, 282)¼ 4.80, p< .001, �2¼ .12 and
performance F(4, 140)¼ 4.91, p¼ .001, �2¼ .12.
Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations for Attribution Variables.
Attribution variable Younger adults Middle-aged adults Older adults Total
M SD M SD M SD M SD
Internal attributionsUncontrollable
Memory ability� 4.44 0.73 4.16 0.93 3.92 1.15 4.17 0.97Genes 2.86 1.21 2.68 1.33 2.37 1.48 2.64 1.35
ControllableStrategy use��� 4.38 0.86 4.08 1.01 3.12 1.22 3.87 1.16Effort 3.56 1.20 3.28 1.32 3.02 1.20 3.29 1.25
ExternalUncontrollable attributions
Task difficulty� 3.04 1.28 2.68 1.29 2.37 1.20 2.70 1.28Meaningfulness of task 2.62 1.31 2.80 1.41 2.31 1.21 2.58 1.32Luck�� 1.58 0.76 1.26 0.49 1.24 0.52 1.36 0.62
Unstable attributionsAnxiety level 2.40 1.14 2.52 1.40 2.04 1.15 2.32 1.25Health�� 2.68 1.41 2.34 1.52 1.80 1.35 2.28 1.47Mood 2.34 1.26 2.26 1.26 1.82 1.05 2.14 1.21Tiredness 2.38 1.24 1.98 1.00 1.92 1.08 2.09 1.12Medication 1.28 0.81 1.26 0.66 1.37 0.86 1.30 0.78
Note. Variables showing significant age differences are marked �p� .05; ��p� .01; ���p� .001.
72 ILANA BLATT-EISENGART & MARGIE E. LACHMAN
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
01:
14 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
These effects were qualified by an age�performance interaction F(8, 282)¼ 2.48, p< .05,
�2¼ .07. Univariate tests showed main effects of
age for memory ability F(2, 143)¼ 3.58, p< .05,
�2¼ .05 and strategy use F(2, 143)¼ 20.77,
p< .001, �2¼ .23, and main effects of performance
for memory ability F(1, 143)¼ 8.28, p< .01, �2¼.06, strategy use F(1, 143)¼ 10.22, p< .01, �2¼.07, and genes F(1, 143)¼ 7.35, p< .01, �2¼ .05.
For internal uncontrollable factors, these results
were qualified by age� performance interactions:
memory ability F(2, 143)¼ 6.02, p< .01, �2¼ .08
and genes F(2, 143)¼ 4.00, p< .05, �2¼ .05.
Post hoc pairwise comparisons showed that
young adults attributed significantly (p< .05)
more highly to memory ability than did older
adults. Young and middle-aged adults attributed
significantly more highly to strategy use than did
older adults. Means for these effects are presented
in Table 1. Across age, high performers rated in-
ternal dimensions as more influential than did low
performers for memory ability (High M¼ 4.40,
SD¼ 0.81, Low M¼ 3.97, SD¼ 1.06), strategy
use (High M¼ 4.14, SD¼ 0.91, Low M¼ 3.62,
SD¼ 1.30), and genes (High M¼ 2.94, SD¼1.24, Low M¼ 2.37, SD¼ 1.40). The age by
performance interactions for memory ability and
genes showed significant age differences in attri-
bution only among those with low performance.
Within this group, young adults attributed more
highly to memory ability than did the middle-
aged, who attributed significantly more highly to
ability than did older adults. Young adults attri-
buted more highly to genes than did middle-aged
or older adults. Further, middle-aged and older
adults made higher attributions to internal un-
controllable factors (ability and genes) for high
performance than for low performance, but the
young did not make different attributions as a
function of performance level. These results are
presented in Figure 1.
For the second set of variables, external attri-
butions, results showed a significant main effect
of age F(6, 284)¼ 2.75, p< .05, �2¼ .06, and
univariate tests showed significant main effects
of age for task difficulty F(2, 143)¼ 3.44, p< .05,
�2¼ .05 and luck F(2, 143)¼ 4.79, p¼ .01,
�2¼ .06. Post hoc pairwise comparisons showed
that young adults attributed significantly ( p< .05)
more highly to task difficulty than did older
adults, as well as attributing significantly more
highly to luck than did middle-aged and older
adults. Means for these effects are presented in
Table 1.
For the third set of variables, unstable attribu-
tions, results showed significant main effects of
age F(10, 280)¼ 2.08, p< .05, �2¼ .07 and per-
formance F(5, 139)¼ 4.34, p¼ .01, �2¼ .14.
Health was the only univariate variable with
significant age differences F(2, 143)¼ 4.93,
p< .01, �2¼ .06. Significant performance differ-
ences were found for health F(1, 143)¼ 6.61,
p< .05, �2¼ .04 and anxiety level F(1, 143)¼4.84, p< .05, �2¼ .03. Post hoc pairwise compar-
isons showed that both young and middle-aged
adults attributed more highly to health than did
older adults. Means for these effects can be found
in Table 1. Across age, higher performers rated
Fig. 1. Means for age� performance interactions for attributions to memory ability and genes.
ATTRIBUTIONS FOR MEMORY 73
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
01:
14 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
health as more influential than did those with
lower performance (High M¼ 2.59, SD¼ 1.57,
Low M¼ 2.00, SD¼ 1.31), while lower perfor-
mers rated anxiety level as more influential than
did those with high performance (High M¼ 2.09,
SD¼ 1.16 , Low M¼ 2.53, SD¼ 1.29).
Within Age Comparisons
To compare the attributions to internal control-
lable (strategy use) and uncontrollable factors
(ability) within age groups, a (3) age groups
(young, middle-aged, and older) by 2 (attribution)
repeated measures analysis of variance was per-
formed with attributions to memory ability and
attribution to strategy use as the within-subjects
variable. Tests of within subjects effect showed a
significant main effect of attribution F(1, 146)¼10.67, p< .01, �2¼ .07. This result was qualified
by a significant age by attribution interaction
F(2, 146)¼ 6.38, p< .01, �2¼ .08. Post hoc
comparisons within age groups showed that
young and middle-aged adults did not signifi-
cantly differ on attributions to strategy use and
to memory ability, whereas older adults were
significantly (p< .001) more likely to attribute to
memory ability (M¼ 3.92, SD¼ 1.15) than to
strategy use (M¼ 3.12, SD¼ 1.22). This result is
illustrated in Figure 2. An analysis adding per-
formance level as a between subjects factors
showed that the age by attribution effect did not
vary by level of performance.
Age, Recall, and Attributions
The correlations between the attribution variables,
age, and recall revealed that memory ability,
strategy use, and health attributions were related
to both age and recall (See Table 2). Those who
attributed more highly to these factors were
younger and had higher performance on the
memory task.
In order to examine whether attributions
mediated the relationship between age and recall,
we performed regression analyses as described by
Baron and Kenny (1986) to determine whether the
attribution variables reduced the effect of age on
performance. An initial regression showed that
age predicted recall F(1)¼ 47.08, p< .001, and a
second set of regressions showed that age also
predicted all three attributions F(1)¼ 9.51,
p< .01 (health), F(1)¼ 7.46, p< .01 (memory
ability), F(1)¼ 35.76, p< .001 (strategy use).
Thus, the preliminary assumptions for mediation
analysis were met. As shown in Table 3, at Step 1
we entered age as a predictor of recall. At Step 2,
we entered age and the three attributions, showing
that attributions and age significantly predicted
recall F(4)¼ 22.13, p< .001, and the effect of age
on performance was significantly reduced, as
indicated by the Sobel test statistic (z¼ � 3.89,
p< .001) for the average of the three attributions.
When each of the three attribution variables were
examined separately, each significantly reduced
the effect of age on recall as indicated by the
Sobel test statistic (health z¼ � 2.39, p¼ .01,
strategy use z¼ � 3.26, p¼ .001, memory ability
z¼ � 1.90, p¼ .057 (Kenny, Kashy, & Bolger,
1998).
Actual Strategy Use, Attributions,
and Performance
We looked separately at the relation between
actual strategy use (ARC), categorization, and the
Fig. 2. Means for age� attribution interaction for attributions to memory ability and strategy use.
74 ILANA BLATT-EISENGART & MARGIE E. LACHMAN
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
01:
14 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
attribution to strategy use, which showed the
highest correlations with age and memory per-
formance (see Table 2). Actual strategy use
(ARC), was also related to performance, but age
groups did not differ in their use of categorization.
Those who made attributions to strategy use were
significantly more likely to categorize the words
during recall. As reported above, attribution to
strategy use partially mediated the effects of age
on recall. Actual use of strategies, however, which
was not significantly related to age, was not a
mediator of the relationship between age and
recall.
DISCUSSION
Consistent with past research, our results demon-
strated that a relationship exists between age,
attributions, and performance on a memory task.
As expected, age differences in performance
attributions were found and in some cases they
varied by level of performance. Young adults
were expected to make more internal control-
lable attributions for high performance than for low
performance. Contrary to predictions, young adults
did not show different attributional patterns as a
function of performance, whereas middle-aged and
Table 3. Regression Analysis Showing the Effects of Age on Recall are Mediated by Internal Attributions.
Step and predictor variable B SE B � R2 �R2
Step 1 .24 .24���Age of participant � .16 .02 �.49���
Step 2 .38 .14���Age of participant � .11 .02 �.33���
AttributionsStrategy use .77 .36 .17�Memory ability .99 .39 .18�Health .80 .25 .22��
�p� .05; ��p� .01; ���p� .001.
Table 2. Correlations of Attributions With Age, Recall, ARC, and Education.
Age Recall ARC score Education
Age – – – –Recall � 0.49�� – – –ARC score � 0.02 0.41�� – –Education � 0.04 0.28�� 0.27�� –Memory ability � 0.20� 0.33�� 0.15 0.05Genes � 0.08 0.28�� 0.13 0.25��Strategy use � 0.43�� 0.45�� 0.25�� 0.23��Effort � 0.13 0.15 0.12 0.11Task difficulty � 0.17� 0.06 0.00 � 0.02Meaningfulness of task � 0.10 0.02 � 0.08 0.02Luck � 0.19� 0.08 0.04 0.22��Anxiety level � 0.09 � 0.09 � 0.10 � 0.02Health � 0.25�� 0.37�� 0.15 0.13Mood � 0.18� 0.12 0.08 0.20�Tiredness � 0.15 0.01 � 0.06 0.14Medication 0.08 � 0.08 � 0.09 � 0.02
�p� .05; ��p� .01.
ATTRIBUTIONS FOR MEMORY 75
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
01:
14 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
older adults made stronger attributions to internal
uncontrollable factors for high performance than
for low performance, an adaptive pattern. Con-
sistent with past work (Hertzog et al., 1998), when
comparing internal controllable and uncontrollable
attributions within age groups, middle-aged and
older adults were more likely to attribute to an
uncontrollable factor (ability) than to a controllable
factor (strategy use), irrespective of performance
level.
Older adults were expected to rate internal
uncontrollable and stable factors as more influ-
ential for poor performance than younger adults.
However, regardless of level of performance,
younger adults rated internal (ability, strategy
use), unstable (health), and external uncontrollable
(task difficulty, luck) factors as more influential
than older adults did. Interestingly, there were no
age differences for effort, an internal controllable
factor. Thus, although older adults were as likely as
the young to attribute performance to their effort,
they were less likely to attribute to use of strategies.
Post-performance attributions can be indica-
tive of strategies for management of success and
failure (e.g., Abramson et al., 1978; Weiner et al.,
1972). Those who blame themselves (i.e., make
internal attributions) for low performance or fail-
ure are likely to feel worse about their perfor-
mance than those who attribute failures to
external factors. Contrary to predictions, in this
study, middle-aged and older adults with low
performance were more likely than younger
adults to use adaptive attributions (i.e., lower
attributions to internal uncontrollable factors for
low performance compared to high performance).
Younger adults used internal attributions equally
for high and low performance, suggesting they do
not distinguish sources of success and failure.
This is consistent with recent findings by Wrosch
and Heckhausen (2002), which showed that
younger adults were more likely than older adults
to attribute failures to internal factors, without
negative emotional or motivational consequences.
Middle-aged and older adults who perform poorly
may use adaptive attributions (i.e., less internal)
as a protective strategy to avoid self-blame or
negative feelings.
Our findings regarding age differences in con-
trollability were not completely consistent with
our predictions. As predicted, attribution to strat-
egy use, an internal controllable factor, was
related to better performance on the memory
task, and attribution to external uncontrollable
factors was not related to performance. Contrary
to expectations, young adults attributed more
highly to some external uncontrollable factors
(luck and task difficulty) than middle-aged and
older adults regardless of performance.
The results supported our prediction of a rela-
tionship between internal attributions and perfor-
mance, but contrary to past findings (Devolder &
Pressley, 1992), both internal controllable and
uncontrollable factors were positively associated
with performance. Across age, internal attributions,
whether to controllable or uncontrollable factors,
were associated with better performance on the
memory task. Additionally, as predicted, these
attributions partially mediated the relationship
between age and performance. Although the effects
of age on performance were not fully mediated, the
results are consistent with past findings that age
differences in memory are not significant among
those who make internal controllable attributions
(Devolder & Pressley, 1992).
It is interesting to note that although attribution
to strategy use partially mediated the relation-
ship between age and performance, actual use of
strategies (as measured by the ARC score) was not
related to age. This is consistent with findings by
Hertzog et al. (1998), who found that there were
no age differences in actual strategy use but that
older adults were less likely to make attributions
to strategy (internal-skill). In the present study,
younger and older adults used categorization stra-
tegies equally, but after performance young and
middle-aged adults attributed to strategy use sig-
nificantly more than the older adults, suggesting
that older adults were less likely to see a connection
between use of strategies and performance. More-
over, older adults were more likely to attribute
performance to ability than to strategy use, whereas
young and middle-aged adults thought both factors
had similar levels of influence on performance.
This was contrary to our prediction that the attribu-
tions of middle-aged adults would be more similar
to those of older adults.
Middle-aged adults sometimes showed no dif-
ferences from other age groups, falling somewhere
76 ILANA BLATT-EISENGART & MARGIE E. LACHMAN
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
01:
14 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
in the middle (for memory ability and task diffi-
culty), sometimes were only significantly different
from older adults (for strategy use and health), and
sometimes were only significantly different from
younger adults (for genes, luck). When the age by
performance interaction for memory ability was
examined, there were significant differences
between all age groups among those with low
performance on the memory task. Middle-aged
adults and older adults both showed a similar
adaptive pattern by attributing more highly to
internal uncontrollable factors for high perfor-
mance than for low performance. This indicates
that by middle age, attributions may already serve
a self-enhancing function to protect against con-
cerns about memory loss (Lachman, 1991). In
fact, in this study middle-aged adults did have
significantly lower performance than the young,
although the findings from past research regarding
actual memory performance for middle-aged
adults are inconclusive (Lachman, 2004, in press).
Age differences in memory were partially
accounted for by internal attributions. However,
given the design, we cannot make clear inferences
about the directionality of these effects. As is
typically the case, the attributions were made
after the memory task was completed. Thus, it is
possible that performance outcomes influence attri-
butions, and that age differences in attributions are
mediated by performance. Conceptually, it is more
plausible that attributions, which are seen to be a
relatively stable explanatory style (Abramson et al.,
1978), should have an effect on performance,
through mechanisms such as effort expenditure
and strategy use (Lachman et al., 1987). Those
who attribute performance to internal or controlla-
ble factors should have higher performance
because they would be more likely to engage in
effortful and strategic behaviors (Bandura, 1997).
Indeed, we found that those who made more
internal attributions, especially to strategy use,
which is also controllable, were more likely to
use an adaptive organizational memory strategy.
Future research with multiple assessments of attri-
butions and performance and investigation of beha-
vioral mediators is needed to explore this.
Our study was limited by the removal of age
from the list of attributions analyzed, due to the
effect of the manipulation in the larger study.
Future work should explore the relationship of
attribution to age with recall and performance.
Further studies are also needed to explore the
relationship between performance attributions
and performance on other types of memory
tasks.
In summary, our results confirm previous find-
ings that there is a relationship between internal
attributions and memory performance. This was
true for both controllable (strategy use) and
uncontrollable (ability) factors. Among middle-
aged and older adults, lower performing partic-
ipants considered internal uncontrollable factors
to be less influential than higher performing par-
ticipants, a self-protective pattern. Attributional
style did not interact with performance in younger
adults, perhaps indicating that there is less need
for protective or self-enhancing attributions for
memory among young adults.
Attributions to internal factors partially
mediated the relationship between age and per-
formance. This research adds to the growing body
of work indicating that beliefs about memory are
related to performance. It is apparent that there
are age differences in beliefs about memory, and
that these age differences may be among the
factors contributing to age differences in memory
performance. It is possible that interventions
designed to influence older adults’ beliefs about
the importance of strategy use and other control-
lable factors would be useful in helping older
adults to preserve better memory functioning.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This research was funded by grant R01 AG17920 toMargie E. Lachman from the National Institute onAging. We appreciate Carrie Andreoletti’s many con-tributions to this project. We would also like to thankShana Ratner for her help with data coding and entry.
REFERENCES
Abramson, L.Y., Seligman, M.E.P., & Teasdale, J.D.(1978). Learned helplessness: Critique and reformu-lation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49–74.
Andreoletti, C., & Lachman, M.E. (2004, in press).Susceptibility and resilience to memory aging
ATTRIBUTIONS FOR MEMORY 77
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
01:
14 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
stereotypes: Education matters more than age.Experimental Aging Research, 30.
Backman, L., Small, B.J., & Wahlin, A. (2001). Agingand memory: Cognitive and biological perspectives.In K.W. Schaie (Ed.), Handbook of the psychologyof aging (5th ed., pp. 349–377). San Diego, CA: USAcademic Press.
Baldi, R., & Hertzog, C. (2000). Age differences inattributions about memory task performance byoneself and others. Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise ofcontrol. New York: Freeman.
Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator/mediator variable distinction in social psychologicalresearch: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical con-siderations. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 51, 1173–1183.
Bieman-Copland, S., & Ryan, E.B. (1998). Age-biasedinterpretation of memory successes and failures inadulthood. Journal of Gerontology: PsychologicalSciences, 53B, 105–111.
Blank, T.O., & Levesque, M.J. (1993). Constructingsuccess and failure: Age differences in perceptionsand explanations of success and failure. Interna-tional Journal of Aging and Human Development,37, 105–118.
Devolder, P.A., & Pressley, M. (1992). Causal attribu-tions and strategy use in relation to memoryperformance differences in younger and olderadults. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 6, 629–642.
Elie, C.J., & Payne, D.G. (1999). Scoring Options forRecall Tests (SORT), version 2.0: Updated toinclude false memory analyses, nominal groupcreation, and phenomenological measures. Behav-ioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Compu-ters, 31, 380–383.
Erber, J.T., Prager, I.G., Williams, M., & Caiola, M.A.(1996). Age and forgetfulness: Confidence in abilityand attribution for memory failures. Psychology andAging, 11, 310–315.
Erber, J.T., Szuchman, L.T., & Prager, I.G. (1997).Forgetful but forgiven: How age and life style affectperceptions of memory failure. Journal of Geron-tology: Psychological Sciences, 52B, P303–P307.
Guo, X., Erber, J.T., & Szuchman, L.T. (1999). Age andforgetfulness: Can stereotypes be modified? Educa-tional Gerontology, 25, 457–466.
Hertzog, C., Dixon, R.A., & Hultsch, D.F. (1990).Relationships between metamemory, memory pre-dictions, and memory task performance in adults.Psychology and Aging, 5, 215–227.
Hertzog, C., McGuire, C.L., & Lineweaver, T.T.(1998). Aging, attributions, perceived control andstrategy use in a free recall task. Aging, Neuropsy-chology and Cognition, 5, 85–106.
Hertzog, C., McGuire, C.L., Powell-Moman, A., &York, A. (2001). Implicit theories and self-referentbeliefs regarding control over memory. Paper pre-sented at the Annual Convention of the AmericanPsychological Association, San Francisco, CA.
Howard, D. (1980). Category norms: A comparison ofthe Battig and Montague (1969) norms with theresponses of adults between the ages of 20 and 80.Journal of Gerontology, 35, 225–231.
Hultsch, D.F., Hertzog, C., & Dixon, R.A. (1987). Agedifferences in metamemory: Resolving the incon-sistencies. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 41,193–208.
Jarvis, B. (2000). MediaLab2000 Research Software.Philadelphia, PA: Empirisoft.
Kenny, D.A., Kashy, D.A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Dataanalysis in social psychology. In G. Lindzey (Ed.),The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1,pp. 233–265). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Lachman, M.E. (1990). When bad things happen toolder people: Age differences in attributional style.Psychology and Aging, 5, 607–609.
Lachman, M.E. (1991). Perceived control over mem-ory and aging: Developmental and interventionperspectives. Journal of Social Issues, 47, 159–175.
Lachman, M.E. (2004, in press). Development inmidlife. Annual Review of Psychology, 55.
Lachman, M.E., & Jelallian, E. (1984). Self-efficacyand attributions for intellectual performance inyoung and elderly adults. Journal of Gerontology,39, 577–582.
Lachman, M.E., & McArthur, L.Z. (1986). Adulthoodage differences in causal attributions for cognitive,physical, and social performance. Psychology andAging, 1, 127–132.
Lachman, M.E., Steinberg, E.S., & Trotter, S.D. (1987).Effects of control beliefs and attributions onmemory self-assessments and performance. Psy-chology and Aging, 2, 266–271.
Lineweaver, T.T., & Hertzog, C. (1998). Adults’efficacy and control beliefs regarding memory andaging: Separating general from personal beliefs.Aging, Neuropsychology and Cognition, 5,264–296.
McCracken, J.E., Hayes, J.A., & Dell, D. (1997).Attributions of responsibility for memory problemsin older and younger adults. Journal of Counselingand Development, 75, 385–391.
Miller, L.S., & Lachman, M.E. (2000). Cognitiveperformance and the role of control beliefs inmidlife. Aging, Neuropsychology and Cognition, 7,69–85.
Roenker, D.L., Thompson, C.P., & Brown, S.C. (1971).Comparison of measures for the estimation ofclustering in free recall. Psychological Bulletin,76, 45–48.
78 ILANA BLATT-EISENGART & MARGIE E. LACHMAN
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
01:
14 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
Weaver, S.L., & Lachman, M.E. (1990). When memoryfails: Adulthood age differences in attribution formemory. Boston, MA: American PsychologicalAssociation.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achieve-ment motivation and emotion. PsychologicalReview, 92, 548–573.
Weiner, B., Frieze, I., Kukla, A., Reed, L., Rest, S., &Rosenbaum, R.M. (1972). Perceiving the causes ofsuccess and failure. In D.E. Kanouse (Ed.), Attribu-
tion: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 95–120). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
West, R.L., & Thorn, R.M. (2001). Goal-setting, self-efficacy, and memory performance in older andyounger adults. Experimental Aging Research, 27,41–65.
Wrosch, C., & Heckhausen, J. (2002). Perceivedcontrol of life regrets: Good for young and badfor old adults. Psychology and Aging, 17,340–350.
ATTRIBUTIONS FOR MEMORY 79
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
01:
14 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
