Causes of Patterns

Attribution theorists have studied and identified a set of "attributions" that students possess. Attributions are the perceived factor for a student's failure. The three sets of attributions are: Locus, the perception of root cause as internal or external, Stability, whether the root cause is subject to change, and Controllability, whether the student perceives the root cause as controllable or not (Hunter and Barker, 1987).

With Locus, the cause of a failure would either be determined as a personal fault (i.e. low self-esteem, did not study enough) and therefore an internal cause, whereas the fault of anything or anyone else besides the individual as a result of failure (i.e. their bus was late and therefore they did not have enough time for the test) would constitute an external attribution.

In Stability, the cause of the factor may or may not be subject to relatively easy change. For example, one's health, especially during flu season, would be considered an unstable attribution, as the student could think their performance could be better if they were not sick. Inversely, if a student perceived intelligence or ability as a fixed trait, that would be a stable attribution, as the student believes their capabilities are fixed.

With Controllability, if a student believed that they could have done better on a test if they had studied more, that would be a controllable attribution, as the student acknowledges that they have control over the prep work involved in getting ready for an assessment. If a student believed that the course work is simply too difficult to complete, that would be an example of an uncontrollable attribution, as the student has no power over the curriculum presented to them.

Thus, the main causes of attributions that either enhance self-efficacy or learned helplessness could come from a multitude of sources. A student could be a generally self-loathing individual, therefore perpetuating notions within themselves that they are not good enough, which then contributes to a lack of effort based on the misconception that they are forever stuck in the ineptitude. Moreover, the aforementioned student might come from a household where their presence is unappreciated and actively demeaned, which would also perpetuate a sense of self-loathing and a perception that the student does not have the capacity to meet the expectations of course work, thus leading to perpetual, damaging attributions.

Outside of the household, teachers, administrators, and socioeconomic influences have heavy influences on the development of self-efficacy or learned-helplessness, and therefore positive attributions in students. Teachers' own sense of self-efficacy greatly impacts the development of self-efficacy, or lack thereof, in their students. Teachers who believe in their instructional efficacy inherently "create mastery experiences for their students," while those who criticize and are insecure in their own efficacy "construct classroom environments that are likely to undermine students' sense of efficacy and cognitive development" (Bandura, 1993, p. 140). Moreover, if school administrators make defecit-influenced assumptions about the ability of their students and teachers, they tend to not innovate towards plans and programs that could benefit the self-efficacy of their students and teachers (Bandura, 1993, p. 144). Lastly, socioeconomic factors play a huge role in the perceptions of teachers and administrators towards the self-efficacy abilities of their students. Teachers inherently possess "subtle expectations and beliefs about groups" that effect how they treat minority students, and this is evidenced in statistical data that shows "teachers expect lower achievement from African-American youths than from Caucasians" (Reyna, 2000, p. 86). On top of that, "women also receive less total communication, praise, and feedback than do men" (Reyna, 2000, p.86). In summary, it is the stereotypes that teachers and school administrators develop towards students that have the most negative effects on student self-efficacy.

Mindset theorists are concerned with the misconception that intelligence is a fixed trait. Mindset theorists contend that certain mindsets, differentiated as fixed and growth mindsets, are the most influential factors in "(a) academic underachievement and (b) the impact of peer exclusion and victimization" (Yeager and Dweck, 2012, p. 302). Moreover, Mindset theorists define "implicit theories" which are "core assumptions about the malleability of personal qualities," that are grafted onto students by themselves, by their parents, and by their teachers (Yeager and Dweck, 2012, p. 303).

Thus, much like Attribution Theory, Mindset Theory places the causes of either self-efficacy or learned-helplessness on mainly environmental factors that in some way have molded the student and their teachers to develop perspectives that ability, and therefore intelligence are fixed. The causes behind a fixed mindset are perpetuated by the student's unwillingness to exert academic effort in fear of appearing dumb or unintelligent and a perception that "if you have the ability, you shouldn't need effort" (Dweck, 2007, p. 35). Perhaps it was ridicule of their ability at home or in previous classrooms that aided the detrimental development of a fixed-minset. Maybe in the face of numerous failures, the student gave up and determined their abilities were not as they once were. In Mindset Theory, it is not "only the presence of social and academic adversity that determines a person's outcomes, but also a person's interpretations of those adversities" (Yeager and Dweck, 2012, p. 303).

Just as fixed-mindsets are molded by environmental forces, so too are growth-mindsets. Yeager and Dweck (2012) developed an experiment where they took samples of students possessing "incremental theory of personality" (growth-mindsets) and "entity theory of personality" (fixed-mindsets) and asked those students to make judgements on fabricated bullying situations and then analyzed the responses of the students to illuminate parallels between the specific held mindset and the ability to teach students how to develop growth mindsets. In short, Yeager and Dweck (2012) found that even students with fixed-mindsets could in fact be taught how to develop a growth mindset with instruction and guidance. Thus, the causes behind growth and fixed-mindsets are in several ways influenced by decisions made by teachers and parents to not actively foster and teach growth mindsets, which inevitably leads students to easily develop fixed-mindsets and become trapped in their perception of personal inability, which is not conducive to their future academic growth.