Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies-2012-Martinez-17-24

7/28/2019 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies-2012-Martinez-17-24

1/9

http://jlo.sagepub.com/Organizational StudiesJournal of Leadership &

http://jlo.sagepub.com/content/19/1/17The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1548051811425677

2012 19: 17 originally published online 18 November 2011Journal of Leadership & Organizational StudiesArthur D. Martinez, Mark J. Martinko and Gerald R. Ferris

Fuzzy Attribution Styles

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Midwest Academy of Management

can be found at:Journal of Leadership & Organizational StudiesAdditional services and information for

http://jlo.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jlo.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Nov 18, 2011OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Jan 19, 2012Version of Record>>

by guest on April 8, 2013jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/content/19/1/17http://jlo.sagepub.com/content/19/1/17http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.midwestacademy.org/http://www.midwestacademy.org/http://jlo.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jlo.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jlo.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jlo.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jlo.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://jlo.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/09/21/1548051811425677.full.pdfhttp://jlo.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/09/21/1548051811425677.full.pdfhttp://jlo.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/09/21/1548051811425677.full.pdfhttp://jlo.sagepub.com/content/19/1/17.full.pdfhttp://jlo.sagepub.com/content/19/1/17.full.pdfhttp://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://jlo.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/09/21/1548051811425677.full.pdfhttp://jlo.sagepub.com/content/19/1/17.full.pdfhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://jlo.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jlo.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.midwestacademy.org/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/content/19/1/17http://jlo.sagepub.com/


2/9

Journal of Leadership &

Organizational Studies

19(1) 1724 Baker College 2012

Reprints and permission:sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1548051811425677http://jlos.sagepub.com

According to fuzzy logic, an element can reside in more

than one set to different degrees of similarity (Mendel,

1995, p. 349). For example, when making an attribution

about an event, a persons attribution may belong to the set

internal to some degree while, simultaneously, belonging

to the set external to some degree. Fuzzy sets are charac-

terized by membership functions that take on values within

the interval [0, 1], whereas the more conventional crisp sets

are characterized by membership functions that can only

have values of 0 or 1 (Mendel, 1995). Thus, for the example

given, crisp sets would necessitate a persons attribution tobelong to either internal or not internal and to either

external or not external.

In this study, we argue that a persons attribution style

can be more or less fuzzy, and this has important implica-

tions for work outcomes. For example, employees with

more fuzzy attribution styles may have more difficulty

handling feedback. To illustrate, an employee might be

more uncertain if an unfavorable performance evaluation

was because of personal shortcomings (i.e., internal attri-

bution) or to rater biases (i.e., external attribution). If the

employee was convinced that it was because of personal

shortcomings, then the employee could concentrate on

improving his or her own shortcomings, whereas if the

employee was convinced that it was because of rater

biases, then the employee could direct his or her own

efforts to respond appropriately. However, because indi-

viduals with more fuzzy attribution styles would typically

be less certain of a cause (or unwilling to commit to the

most likely cause), their responses to these situations

would likely be inept (e.g., simultaneously accusatory

and apologetic).

In this study, we argue that employees who possess more

cognitively unstructured psychological environments are

more likely to possess fuzzy attribution styles. We suggest

that fuzzy attribution styles will be negatively related to

occupational self-efficacy, political skill, and career satis-

faction. Furthermore, we propose that fuzzy attribution

styles will be positively correlated with avoidant decision

styles and job tension. Contributions of this study, its practi-

cal implications, directions for future research, and strengths

and limitations were discussed.

Theory and Hypotheses

Fuzzy Attribution Styles: A Field-Theoretic

Explanation

The more a person lacks the capacity to behave appropri-

ately in various social situations (i.e., according to his or her

groups expectations), the more likely he or she is personally

maladjusted (Lewin, 1999). For example, a personally mal-

adjusted person might behave as though a formal business

meeting was an informal gathering, or conversely, as though

an informal gathering was a formal business meeting.

Maladjusted people tend to create unfavorable settings for

1Illinois State University, Normal, IL, USA2Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA

Corresponding Author:

Arthur D. Martinez, Department of Management and Quantitative

Methods, College of Business, Illinois State University, 250 College of

Business Building, Campus Box 5580, Normal, IL 61790-5580, USA

Email: [email protected]

Fuzzy Attribution Styles

Arthur D. Martinez1, Mark J. Martinko2,

and Gerald R. Ferris2

Abstract

This study introduced, and provided the first evidence for, the notion that people possess more or less fuzzy attribution

styles and that the degree of fuzziness affects important work variables (e .g., occupational self-efficacy and political skill). Field

theory was used to explain how fuzzy attribution styles might arise. Contributions of this study, its practical implications,

directions for future research, and strengths and limitations were discussed.

Keywords

attribution styles, attribution theory, career success and outcomes

http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/


3/9

18 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies19(1)

themselves, which heightens their emotional tensions,

thereby making them less able to view things realistically

(Lewin, 1941). Personal maladjustment is associated with

outcomes such as emotional instability, decreased well-

being, and unbalanced behavior (Lewin, 1941).

There are many potential factors that promote personal

maladjustment; as examples, racial minorities may becomepersonally maladjusted if they possess unhealthy relations

with their racial groups (Lewin, 1941), and adolescents

who are transitioning from childhood to adulthood may

experience degrees of personal maladjustment (Lewin,

1939). A key factor related to personal maladjustment is

how opposing goals affect ones overall cognitive structure

(Lewin, 1944).

According to field theory (Lewin, 1939), a goal or

force field has the conceptual dimension of a distribu-

tion of psychological forces in psychological space

(Lewin, 1944, pp. 39-40). The overlapping of at least

two force fields is viewed as a psychological conflict

(Lewin, 1944, p. 40). The conceptual dimension cogni-

tive structure refers to spatial relations of a multitude of

psychological regions (Lewin, 1944, p. 39). Persistent

psychological conflicts make it difficult to establish clear

boundaries between psychological regions. Taking the

previous example, the region informal gathering blurs

with the region formal business meeting, thus leading

to increased chances of inappropriate behavior in either

setting.

Humans need to understand their environments before

they can control them, so they are driven to attribute causes

to the events they perceive (Heider, 1958). Attributional

dimensions are basically psychological regions within thecognitive structure. For example, internal and external

are psychological regions that pertain to self versus non-

self. People with more developed cognitive structures would

possess clearer boundaries between what is considered self

and what is considered non-self. It follows that people who

are more personally adjusted will be more likely to commit

to clearer attributions because they possess more clearly dis-

tinct psychological regions, whereas personally maladjusted

people would be unlikely to make crisp attributions because

their psychological regions are indistinct or separated by

fuzzy boundaries.

Fuzzy Attribution Styles and Work Outcomes

Fuzzy attribution styles. A set of three distinct fuzzy attribu-

tion styles were investigated in this study: fuzzy attribution

styles associated with successes, fuzzy attribution styles asso-

ciated with failures, and composite fuzzy attribution styles

(i.e., they included both successes and failures). Martinko

(2002) made a persuasive case for the importance of the dif-

ferences between attributions made for successes versus those

for failures. As an example, the self-serving bias (see, e.g.,

Mezulis, Abramson, Hyde, & Hankin, 2004) is a widespread

tendency to attribute internal causes for successes and exter-

nal causes for failures. Attribution styles in this study were

based on the internalexternal attribution dimension.

Work capabilities. One reason humans make attributions

is to use them to control their environments (Heider, 1958).In other words, attributions facilitate adaptive behavior.

When causal attributions are clearer, one can take more

decisive actions. For example, if one were convinced that a

failure at work was because of an internal cause, then he or

she would probably focus on self-improvement. On the

other hand, if one were unsure whether a failure at work

was because of an internal or external cause, then he or she

would not be able to respond in a confident manner. In other

words, having a clearer understanding about cause and

effect in a work environment allows a person to develop a

course of action that is likely to secure desired rewards,

whereas failure to have a clear understanding of the causal

mechanisms at work likely results in unclear goals and a

lack of understanding of how to achieve desired rewards. In

this study, we investigated the effects of fuzzy attribution

styles on three important work capabilities: occupational

self-efficacy, avoidant decision styles, and political skill.

Rigotti, Schyns, and Mohr (2008) described occupational

self-efficacy as an employees felt job competence. Employees

with high occupational self-efficacy believe that they can

successfully perform their job tasks. Felt job competence is

a perception of personal control that likely derives from a

sufficient understanding of the job, including what causes

successful or unsuccessful job performance. In other words,

we suggest that felt job competence is based on more defini-tive attributions for job successes and failures (i.e., more per-

ceived certainty with regard to the causes of job successes

and failures). Indeed, the literature suggests that those who

tend to make more internal and stable attributions for suc-

cesses also tend to possess more self-efficacy (for a review,

see, e.g., Gist & Mitchell, 1992; Martinko, Harvey, &

Douglas, 2007). Fuzzy attribution styles would likely inhibit

the cultivation of felt competence as fuzzy attributions

inhibit the perceived understanding of the job. Therefore, we

offer the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Fuzzy attribution styles are negatively

related to occupational self-efficacy.

Avoidant decision styles are characterized by persistent

attempts to avoid decision making (Scott & Bruce, 1995).

One reason people might avoid decision making is because of

uncertain preferences. Fuzzy attribution styles bring about

uncertain preferences because preferences are based on attri-

butions of past successes and failures. In other words, things

that caused past successes are typically preferable to things

http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/


4/9

Martinez et al. 19

that caused past failures. If attributions of past successes and

failures are fuzzy, then chances that the person will form con-

fident preferences diminish. Therefore, fuzzy attribution

styles are likely positively related to avoidant decision styles.

Hypothesis 2: Fuzzy attribution styles are positively

related to avoidant decision styles.

Ferris, Davidson, and Perrew (2005) defined political

skill as the ability to understand others at work and to use

that knowledge to influence others to act in ways that

enhance ones personal or organizational objectives (p. 7).

Ferris and colleagues reasoned that political skill is associ-

ated with four dimensions: social astuteness, interpersonal

influence, networking ability, and apparent sincerity. The

degree to which one represents causes, for their successes

and failures, in sure and positive ways, undoubtedly affects

how and whether they are successful in achieving social

influence and, thus, obtaining organizational rewards

(Martinko et al., 2007). Political skill relies strongly on per-

ceptions of personal control in dealing with others; there-

fore, it also relies on unambiguous assessments of social

successes and failures.


related to political skill.

Affect-related work outcomes. Fuzzy attribution styles

reflect personal maladjustment, and personal maladjust-

ment is associated with affect-related outcomes such as

emotional instability and decreased well-being (Lewin,

1941). In this study, we investigate the impacts of fuzzyattribution styles on two important affect-related work out-

comes: job tension and career satisfaction. If perceived job

demands outweigh perceived control, then unresolved job

strain will be high (Karasek, 1979). We contend that people

who possess fuzzy attribution styles are generally more

uncertain about their job environments, and more uncertain

environments may be experienced as being more demand-

ing as well as less controllable. Also, Perrew and Zellars

(1999) argued that perceived job stressors are, to some

extent, partly a function of individual attributions. We con-

tend that fuzzy attributions are likely causes of perceived

job stressors. For these reasons, we offer the following

hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4: Fuzzy attribution styles are positively

related to job tension.

Career satisfaction is a persons attitude about his or her

career. Attitudes are psychological tendencies expressed by

evaluating entities with some degree of favor or disfavor

(Eagly & Chaiken, 1993, p. 1). We argue that attitudes are

informed by past attributions of successes and failures. People

who possess fuzzy attribution styles might view their careers

as being less predictable and, hence, less favorable.


related to career satisfaction.

Method

Sample

The study sample consisted of working adults across the

United States (N= 347). Responses were purchased from

an online survey panel vendor. The vendor compensated all

participants who completed the online survey. By design,

the respondents were racially/ethnically diverse: 25%

White, 25% Black, 25% Hispanic, 20% Asian, and 5%

other. The mean age was approximately 40 years and

ranged from 18 to 72 years. About 65% of the respondents

were female. Approximately 30% were high school gradu-

ates (or less), 28% possessed only 2-year college degrees,

30% had only 4-year college degrees, 10% possessed only

masters degrees, and 2% earned a doctoral degree. About

88% of the respondents were full-time employees. Roughly

45% worked for private employers, 45% for public employ-

ers, and 10% were self-employed. The average job tenure

was about 4.3 years. The average company tenure was 6.2

years. Roughly 22% were members of a labor union. The

average income was $50,000 per year and ranged from

$16,000 to more than $100,000 per year.

Measures

Internalexternal attribution style measures. Items from the

Organizational Attribution Style Questionnaire (Kent &

Martinko, 1995) were used to measure internalexternal

attribution styles for both successes and failures. The 7-point

response format included anchors of Completely because of

me at 1 and Completely because of other people or circum-

stances at 7. Hence, higher values corresponded with more

external attribution styles. The three success items were as

follows: You recently received an above average perfor-

mance evaluation from your supervisor, You have a great

deal of success getting along with your coworkers, and All

of the feedback you have received lately from your boss con-cerning your performance has been positive. The three fail-

ure items were as follows: You recently received a below

average performance evaluation from your supervisor, You

have a great deal of difficulty getting along with your cowork-

ers, and All of the feedback you have received lately from

your boss concerning your performance has been negative.

The instruction was as follows: To what extent would the

major causes of the following hypothetical situations be



5/9

20 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies19(1)

because of something about you or about other people or

circumstances?

The 3-item subscale for internalexternal attribution

styles for successes had a Cronbachs alpha of .83. The

3-item subscale for internalexternal attribution styles for

failures had a Cronbachs alpha of .84. The 6-item compos-

ite scale for both successes and failures had a Cronbachsalpha of .77.

Fuzzy attribution style measures. The same Occupational

Attributional Style Questionnaire items were used with a

recoded response scheme: Responses 1 through 4 remained

the same, with the 7s were recoded to 1s, the 6s to 2s, and

the 5s to 3s. The recoded responses produced a new scale

that ranged from 1 to 4, with 1 representing the completely

crisp case (i.e., completely certain) and 4 representing the

completely fuzzy case (i.e., completely uncertain). The

3-item subscale for fuzzy attribution styles for successes

had a Cronbachs alpha of .76. The 3-item subscale for

fuzzy attribution styles for failures had a Cronbachs alpha

of .80. The 6-item composite scale for both successes and

failures had a Cronbachs alpha of .81.

Occupational self-efficacy. The 6-item scale developed by

Rigotti et al. (2008) was used to measure occupational self-

efficacy. Representative items include I feel prepared for

most of the demands of my job and When I am confronted

with a problem in my job, I can usually find several solu-

tions. A 5-point Likert-type response format was used with

anchors not at all true to completely true. The Cronbach

alpha was .90.

Avoidant decision style. The 5-item avoidant decision

style subscale from the General Decision Making Style

scale was used (Scott & Bruce, 1995). Typical items includeI postpone decision making whenever possible and I put

off making many decisions because thinking about them

makes me uneasy. A 5-point Likert-type response format

was used with anchors strongly disagree to strongly

agree. The Cronbach alpha for this study sample was .92.

Political skill. The 18-item political skill inventory devel-

oped by Ferris et al. (2005) was used. Representative items

include I am able to make most people feel comfortable

and at ease around me and I always seem to instinctively

know the right things to say or do to influence others. A

7-point Likert-type response format was used with the

anchors strongly disagree to strongly agree. The Cron-

bach alpha was .93.Job tension. The 7-item scale developed by House and

Rizzo (1972) was used to measure perceptions of job ten-

sion. Typical items are I have felt fidgety or nervous as a

result of my job and I work under a great deal of tension.

A 5-point Likert-type response format with anchors

strongly disagree to strongly agree was used. The Cron-

bach alpha was .90.

Career satisfaction. The 5-item career satisfaction scale

developed by Greenhaus, Parasuraman, and Wormley (1990)

was used. Typical items are I am satisfied with the success

I have achieved in my career and I am satisfied with the

progress I have made toward meeting my overall career

goals. A 5-point Likert-type response format with anchors

strongly disagree to strongly agree was used. The Cron-

bach alpha was .93.

Control variables. Age and gender were controlled asthese factors are thought to influence attribution biases (see,

e.g., Frieze, Francis, & Hanusa, 1983; Martinko, Gundlach,

& Douglas, 2002). Age was measured via 12 equally spaced

categories (i.e., each category covered 4 years), with 1

being 18 to 21 years, 11 being 58 to 61 years, and 12 being

62 years or older. Gender was measured via one question

(male = 1 and female = 2).

Data Analyses Techniques

First, routine correlation analyses were performed. Then,

for each outcome variable, hierarchical regression analyses

(e.g., see Schwab, 2005) were used to determine if the

fuzzy attribution styles (e.g., fuzzy successes, fuzzy fail-

ures, and fuzzy composite) accounted for incremental vari-

ances after internalexternal attribution styles, age, and

gender were considered.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 provides means, standard deviations, correlations,

and reliabilities for the variables used in the study. Fuzzy

attribution styles for successes (M = 2.35, SD = 0.90)tended to be less fuzzy (i.e., = 0.26,p < .01) than fuzzy

attribution styles for failures (M= 2.61, SD = 0.92). Albeit,

this difference corresponds to a Cohens d of about .29,

which is considered a small effect size (Cohen, 1988).

Correlation Analyses

The correlations provided compelling preliminary support for

all hypotheses as fuzzy attribution styles for successes corre-

lated significantly with all five outcomes in the predicted

directions: occupational self-efficacy (r = .27, p < .01),

avoidant decision style (r= .15,p < .01), political skill (r=

.25,p < .01), job tension (r= .12,p < .05), and career satis-faction (r= .11,p < .05). However, fuzzy attribution styles

associated with failures only correlated significantly with two

outcomes: occupational self-efficacy (r= .13,p < .05) and

political skill (r= .13,p < .05). Also noteworthy, fuzzy attri-

bution styles for successes appeared to be more strongly cor-

related with the outcomes than fuzzy attribution styles for

failures. The composite fuzzy attribution style correlated sig-

nificantly, and in expected directions, with all outcomes

except career satisfaction: occupational self-efficacy (r= .23,



6/9

Martinez et al. 21

p < .01), avoidant decision style (r= .14,p < .01), political

skill (r= .22,p < .01), and job tension (r= .11,p < .05).

In sum, the correlation analyses provided at least par-

tial support for all hypotheses. The hypotheses concern-

ing occupational self-efficacy and political skill received

full support. The hypotheses concerning avoidant deci-

sion style, job tension, and career satisfaction received

partial support . Specifically, these three variables onlycorrelated with fuzzy attribution styles for successes. All

outcome variables, except career satisfaction, had sig-

nificant correlations with the composite fuzzy attribution

style.

Hierarchical Regression Analyses

Table 2 summarizes the results of the hierarchical regres-

sion analyses. Occupational self-efficacy and political skill

appeared to be the most affected by fuzzy attribution styles.

For example, composite fuzzy attribution styles predicted

incremental variances (R2 = .04,p < .01) for both occupa-

tional self-efficacy and political skill. Incidentally, thesetwo outcome variables were highly correlated (r= .58,p

Documents

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies-2012-Martinez-17-24