ATTRIBUTION PATTERNS OF LEARNING-DISABLED

BOYS:

CORRELATES AND IMPLICATIONS

by
DONNA MARIE HAQQ
B.A., The U n i v e r s i t y

of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1976

M.A., The U n i v e r s i t y

o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1979

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
in
THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
(Interdisciplinary

Studies)

We accept t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n as conforming
to the r e q u i r e d

standard

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

September, 1986
Donna

M a r i e Haqq, 1986

In

presenting

requirements

this

British

it

freely available

for

that

Columbia,

I agree

degree
that

f o r reference

permission

scholarly

i n partial

f o r an a d v a n c e d

of

agree

thesis

may

at the University

the Library

shall

and study.

f o r extensive

purposes

fulfilment of the

copying

be g r a n t e d

o r by h i s o r h e r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .

understood

that

for

copying

f i n a n c i a l gain

or publication

shall

of

n o t be a l l o w e d

J ^ l U t ^ ^ ^ ^

The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h
1956 Main M a l l
Vancouver, Canada
V6T 1Y3

Date

DE-6

(3/81)

Columbia

of this

without

JCXJJ\

thesis

o f my

I ti s

of this

permission.

Department

further

by t h e head

department

make

thesis
my

written

Abstract
Using

interview

learning
for

disabled children

success

and

i n t e r v i e w s and
learning
12

techniques,

failure.

an

years,

were

questionnaire
attributions
questionnaire
ascribed

In

and

38

"luck"

for

and

more

to a t t r i b u t e

involved

attributions

both
of

30

boys,

9-

pre-experimental
LD

"task

boys

ease."
both

causality

"lack of a b i l i t y . "

that

attributions

a c h i e v i n g (NLD)

failure,"

of

difficulty,"

On

shown

causal

manipulation,

to

"academic

have

which

success,"

and

levels

study,

normally

"academic

similar

willing

this

compared.

for
to

have m a l a d a p t i v e

experimental

d i s a b l e d (LD)

researchers

to

On

LD

pre-task
NLD

boys

luck,"

"task

boys

were

NLD

to

greater

and

"bad

However,

academic f a i l u r e

gave

task

their

own

lack

of

effort.
After
there

an

were

greater

experimental
no

manipulation

group e f f e c t s .

causality

to

v a r y i n g task

B o t h LD

"effort"

and

and NLD

difficulty,

boys

"ability"

attributed

in

the

"easy"

condi t i on.
While

t h e r e w e r e no
on

changes i n s c o r e s ( p r e - ,

experimental

task)

performances

were s i g n i f i c a n t l y

especially

on

Serial

processing)

and

on

six

cognitive

Recall

Color

measures,

different
(LDs

Naming

versus

on

a l l six

poorer

(LDs

LD

in

slower

post-

and

NLD

measures,
sequential

in

speed

of

processing).
There
"self,"

w e r e no
but

pre-task

after

group

d i f f e r e n c e s on

the e x p e r i m e n t a l

expectancy

manipulation

the

LD

for
boys

expected
higher
group

to do b e t t e r ,
self-expectancy

differences

after

the

expectancy

Using
found

on expectancy

"another

task,
boy,"

delinquent.

school

"other,"

the

LD

were

pre-task,

group

and both

Achenbach's C h i l d Behavior

to be l e s s competent,

were

for

There

had

groups

had
no

but,
higher

had

higher

f o r "other" i n the easy c o n d i t i o n .

more depressed,
and

and both LD and NLD boys

i n the easy c o n d i t i o n .

experimental
for

expectancy

overall,

Checklist,

socially

hyperactive,

and

LD

scholastically,

obsessive/compulsive,

D e s p i t e these LD/NLD d i f f e r e n c e s ,

b e t t e r than a c l i n i c a l l y
competence).

The

boys

were
and

aggressive,
the LD boys

r e f e r r e d group (except f o r

NLD group was comparable to

lower
non-

c l i n i c norm group (except f o r h i g h e r s c h o o l competence).

Implications

of

this

attribution retraining,
effort

r e s e a r c h l e d to

recommendations

for

both a s c r i p t i o n s of f a i l u r e s to l a c k of

or i n e f f e c t i v e s t r a t e g i e s , and a s c r i p t i o n of s u c c e s s e s to

good e f f o r t

and a b i l i t y .

T a b l e of

Contents
Page

Abstract

ii

T a b l e of Contents

iv

L i s t of T a b l e s

ix

L i s t of Appendices

xii

Acknowledgements
Chapter

I: The

xiv

Problem

Background

Statement of the Problem

Definitions

General T h e o r e t i c a l
Delimitation

13

of the Study

Justification
Chapter

Assumptions

15

of the Study

I I : Survey

of the

16

Literature

A t t r i b u t i o n : Theory and Research

19

What Is A t t r i b u t i o n Theory?

19

Origins

20

of A t t r i b u t i o n Theory

Attribution

and Achievement

Weiner's Reformulation

of

21

Achievement-related

Attributions

23

Learned

Helplessness

26

Learned

Helplessness C r i t i c i z e d

29

Learned

H e l p l e s s n e s s R e v i s e d (1978)

30

Validity
Learned

of the A t t r i b u t i o n a l A n a l y s i s
H e l p l e s s n e s s Update (1984)
iv

of H e l p l e s s n e s s

32
35

Page
Seligman's Learned

H e l p l e s s n e s s and Beck's C o g n i t i v e

Model of Depression
The

Learned

Criticized

37

H e l p l e s s n e s s Reformulation

and C h i l d r e n .

43

in Children.

44

Helplessness versus Mastery-Orientation

D e s c r i p t i o n of C h i l d h o o d Depression
Current Thoughts Regarding

Learning

50
Disabilities

and Depression

58

Assessment of C h i l d h o o d Depression

63

Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s

65

Def i n i t i o n

65

C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s

66

P r e v a l e n c e of L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s

69

E t i o l o g y or Types of L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t y

71

Follow-up

of C h i l d r e n w i t h L e a r n i n g

Outcomes and P r e d i c t o r s
The
Chapter

B r a i n and L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s

Disabilities:
73
78

I I I : Hypotheses

Hypotheses

83

R a t i o n a l e of the Hypotheses

85

Chapter

IV: Method

Subject Sample

92

Research Design

96

Summary of Method and Procedures

96

P r e l i m i n a r y Measures
C h i l d Behavior

Checklist

99

Page
Socioeconomic
Nechsler

Status

103

Intelligence Scale for Children -

R e v i s e d (WISC-R)

105

Bannatyne's R e c a t e g o r i z a t i o n of WISC-R Scores

Woodcock-Johnson P s y c h o - E d u c a t i o n a l

106

Battery -

Reading C l u s t e r

108

I n t e l l e c t u a l Achievement

Responsibility

Questionnaire

108

Pre-, and Post-Measures

I l l

Measure One: Raven's Coloured P r o g r e s s i v e

Matrices

115

Measure Two: S e r i a l R e c a l l

(SR)

118

Measure Three: Free R e c a l l

(FR)

120

Measure Four: C o l o r Naming (CN)

120

Measure F i v e : I d e a t i o n a l Fluency
Measure S i x : Aiming

(Fi)

121

(A)

124

Experimental Task: D e s c r i p t i o n and Procedure

.......

126

Cover Story

126

Game I n s t r u c t i o n s f o r Round-Robin Racing

126

Stimuli

and Sequence f o r the P i c t u r e Cards ....

127

P o s t - e x p e r i m e n t a l Task A t t r i b u t i o n Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ...

128

Expectancy

129

of Future Success

f o r S e l f and Other

A n c i l l a r y Measures

....

129

Mood Measure .

129

Debriefing

130

vi

Page

Chapter V:

R e s u l t s of the Study

Demographic

and S e l e c t i o n V a r i a b l e s

133

Pre-Task A t t r i b u t i o n s

135

Post-Task A t t r i b u t i o n s

139

Performance on P r e - , Post-Measures

142

Expectancy Measures

145

Expectancy f o r S e l f

145

Expectancy f o r Other

151

C h i l d Behavior C h e c k l i s t

156

R e s u l t s of A n c i l l a r y Measures

......................

A t t r i b u t i o n s f o r N i n n i n g / L o s i n g B a s e b a l l Game .
I n t e l l e c t u a l Achievement R e s p o n s i b i l i t y

169
169

Scale

and Dweck's Measure of M a s t e r y - O r i e n t a t i o n

versus Helplessness

172

A f f e c t or Mood Measure

174

Enjoyment

175

of the E x p e r i m e n t a l Task

Bannatyne's R e c a t e g o r i z a t i o n of WISC-R S c o r e s .

176

Chapter V I : D i s c u s s i o n and Recommendations

Overview

178

Causal A t t r i b u t i o n s

179

Pre-Task A t t r i b u t i o n s

179

Post-Task A t t r i b u t i o n s

181

Pre-, Post-Measure D i f f e r e n c e s

187

Supplementary I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s Regarding P r e - , P o s t Measures

191

Bannatyne's R e c a t e g o r i z a t i o n of WISC-R S c o r e s ......

vii

194

Page

Expectancies f o r Self

195

E x p e c t a n c i e s f o r Other

196

C h i l d Behavior C o r r e l a t e s

196

Affect

202

and Enjoyment of the Task

Implications

205

Future D i r e c t i o n s

208

Bibliography

210

viii

List

of T a b l e s
Page

T a b l e 5.1

A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e R e s u l t s f o r D e s c r i p t i v e
Variables

T a b l e 5.2

134-135

A n a l y s i s of .Variance R e s u l t s of A t t r i b u t i o n s
f o r Academic Success

(Pre-experimental

Ques-

tionnaire)
T a b l e 5.3

136

A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e R e s u l t s of A t t r i b u t i o n s
f o r Academic F a i l u r e ( P r e - e x p e r i m e n t a l

Ques-

tionnaire)
T a b l e 5.4

138

T a b l e of Means and Standard

Post-Task

D e v i a t i o n s f o r the

A t t r i b u t i o n s A c c o r d i n g to Group and

Condition
T a b l e 5.5

141

A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e R e s u l t s f o r Expectancy f o r
S e l f Pre-Task

T a b l e 5.6

A c c o r d i n g to Group

146

T a b l e of Means and Standard

D e v i a t i o n s f o r Ex-

pectancy

to Group and Con-

f o r Self According

d i t i o n , Pre-, and Post-Task

T a b l e 5.7

148

A n a l y s i s of C o v a r i a n c e R e s u l t s f o r Expectancy
for

S e l f Post-Task

A c c o r d i n g to Group and Con-

d i t i o n with'Pre-Task

Expectancy

f o r S e l f as the

Covariate
T a b l e 5.8

Summary T a b l e of A d j u s t e d Means f o r Expectancy

for

T a b l e 5.9

149

Self

(Post-Task)

150

A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e R e s u l t s f o r Expectancy f o r
Other,

Pre-Task,

According
ix

to Group

152

T a b l e 5.10

T a b l e of Means and Standard

pectancy

D e v i a t i o n s f o r Ex-

f o r Other A c c o r d i n g to Group and Con-

d t i o n , P r e - , and Post-Task
T a b l e 5.11

153

n
i\

Af a l y s i s of C o v a r i a n c e R e s u l t s f o r Expectancy

fur

Other

Post-Task

A c c o r d i n g to Group and Con-

d i t i o n w i t h Pre-Task

Expectancy

f o r Other

as the

Covar i a t e
T a b l e 5.12

Summary T a b l e of A d j u s t e d Means f o r Expectancy

f o r Other

T a b l e 5.13

154

(Post-Task)

155

A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e R e s u l t s f o r the S o c i a l
Competence S c a l e s (Achenbach, 1981)

T a b l e 5.14

A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e R e s u l t s f o r the Behavior
Problem S c a l e s

T a b l e 5.15

157

159-160

Comparison of Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of

the NLD Group w i t h the Achenbach and Edelbrock
(1983) N o n - c l i n i c Norm Group on the S o c i a l
Competence S c a l e s

T a b l e 5.16

162

Comparison of Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of

the NLD Group w i t h the Achenbach and Edelbrock
(1983) N o n - c l i n i c Norm Group on the Behavior
Problem S c a l e s

T a b l e 5.17

Comparison of Means and Standard

163-164
D e v i a t i o n s of

the LD Group and the Achenbach and Edelbrock

(1983) C l i n i c Group on the S o c i a l
x
Scales

Competence
166

T a b l e 5.18

Comparison of Means and Standard

D e v i a t i o n s of

the LD Group and the Achenbach and Edelbrock

(1983) C l i n i c Group on the Behavior

Problem

Scales
T a b l e 5.19

167-168

A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e R e s u l t s f o r A t t r i b u t i o n s
f o r Winning Game

T a b l e 5.20

170

A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e R e s u l t s f o r A t t r i b u t i o n s
f o r L o s i n g Game

T a b l e 5.21

171

A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e R e s u l t s f o r the I n t e l l e c t u a l
Achievement R e s p o n s i b i l i t y S c a l e and Dweck's
Measure of M a s t e r y - O r i e n t a t i o n v e r s u s H e l p l e s s ness

T a b l e 5.22

Pre-Task

173
A f f e c t Mean Scores A c c o r d i n g to

Group
T a b l e 5.23

Post-Task

174
A f f e c t Mean Scores A c c o r d i n g to

Group and C o n d i t i o n

175

T a b l e 5.24

Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s f o r Last A f f e c t

T a b l e 5.25

Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s f o r Enjoyment of

. 175

the Experimental Task A c c o r d i n g to Group and

Condition
T a b l e 5.26

Means and Standard

176
D e v i a t i o n s f o r Bannatyne's

R e c a t e g o r i z a t i o n of WISC-R S c a l e d Scores
T a b l e 6.1

177

Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of " A l l MasteryO r i e n t e d LD v e r s u s NLD C h i l d r e n " on Three P o s t Measures

192

xi

List

of Appendices
Page

Appendix

1.

Letter

to P r i n c i p a l s and T e a c h e r s

249-251

Appendix

2.

Letter

to P a r e n t ( s ) / G u a r d i a n ( s )

252-254

Appendix

3.

Parent Consent Forms

Appendix

4.

Student Consent Form

Appendix

5.

Mood ( A f f e c t ) Measure

Appendix

6.

Attribution

Appendix

7.

Pre-experimental A t t r i b u t i o n

255-258
-. . 259-260
261

Rating Scale T r a i n i n g

262-265

Questionnaire
Appendix

8.

I n t e l l e c t u a l Achievement
Questionnaire (Crandall

Appendix

9.

Appendix 10.

266-268

Directions

Responsibility
et a l . , 1965) ... 269-274

and Sample f o r "Aim" T e s t

.... 275-276

Expectancy of Success Measure f o r S e l f

and f o r Other, Pre-Task

Appendix 11.

277-278

Schematic Drawing of "Round Robin Racing"

Board Game

Appendix 12.

P o s t - E x p e r i m e n t a l Task

279
Attribution

Q u e s t i o n n a i r e , Easy C o n d i t i o n and
Difficult
Appendix 13.

Condition

Expectancy of F u t u r e Success f o r S e l f
and f o r Other

Appendix 14.

280-283

284-285

Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s f o r P r e Measures A c c o r d i n g to Group, C o n d i t i o n ,

and Order

286-288

Appendix 15.

Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s f o r P o s t Measures A c c o r d i n g to Group, C o n d i t i o n ,

and Order

289-291

xi i i

Acknowledgements
I

wish

to

thank

my

a s s i s t a n c e and guidance
Koopman,
Bryan

dissertation

committee

in this research.

for

I thank Dr.

their

Peggy R.

Chair (Educational Psychology/Special Education), Drs.

R.

Clarke

Psychology/Special
Demetrios

and

Education),

Papageorgis

(Paediatrics).
Papageorgis

David

C.
Drs.

(Psychology),

am

Kendall

especially

Kenneth

and Dr.
grateful

(Educational
D.

Craig

John U.
to

f o r h i s expert a s s i s t a n c e i n the

and

Crichton

Dr.

Demetrios

editing

of

the

advice

on

text.
The

following

methodological

individuals

issues:

Drs.

Psychology/Special Education),
and

Guy

analyses,

Psychology/Special
assistance
B.

with

Dr.

School

Ralph Hakstian

Board,

(Psychology),

F.
and

Jarman

Marsha

Schroeder.

teachers,

Dr.

Education).

U n i v e r s i t y ) f o r h i s expert a d v i c e on
approach taken

in this

acknowledge the c o o p e r a t i o n of

schools.

For

I thank

Burnaby

School Board,

and

the

study.

the

Vancouver

the

Vancouver

C a t h o l i c School Board i n a l l o w i n g me access to t h e i r

elementary

the

Ewart A. C. Thomas ( C h a i r , Department o f

and s t a t i s t i c a l

the

with

(Educational

both methodology and s t a t i s t i c s ,

Stanford

gratefully

(Educational

For a s s i s t a n c e

Boldt (Educational Psychology/Special

methodological
I

Ronald

Education),

a l s o wish to thank Dr.

Psychology,

Rogers

I thank Dr. M i c h a e l McRae (Human L e a r n i n g

Instruction),

Walter

A.

valuable

Todd

James Johnson ( P s y c h o l o g y ) .

statistical
and

gave

respective

Thanks a r e extended to a l l the p r i n c i p a l s ,

and p a r e n t s who gave consent

xiv

and to a l l the

children

who

participated

to Pam

i n t h i s study.

A special

"thank you" i s given

Healey f o r her a s s i s t a n c e as a c o n f e d e r a t e experimenter.

T h i s r e s e a r c h was
Educational

supported by a d i s c r e t i o n a r y grant from the

Research I n s t i t u t e of B r i t i s h Columbia,

T i n a and M o r r i s Wagner Foundation F e l l o w s h i p .

my

thanks

Columbia

to
and

the E d u c a t i o n a l Research
to

and

by

I want to express

Institute

of

the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia

British
for

this

assistance.
I

am g r a t e f u l

encouragement,

to my

f a m i l y and f r i e n d s f o r a l l

and s u p p o r t .

their

help,

CHAPTER I
The

Problem

Background
Issues
children,

of

- how

to

instill

motivation

or how to match programs of i n s t r u c t i o n

motivational
beginnings
the

motivation

overall

students,

schema

it

difficulties
educator

to c h i l d r e n ' s

p r e d i s p o s i t i o n s - have been of concern

of formal e d u c a t i o n .
of

i s probably
in

While m o t i v a t i o n

instruction

for

since

i s c e n t r a l to

normally-achieving

How does the

teacher

or

l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n when the c h i l d o f t e n demonstrates few,

Children's

have

special

n o u r i s h a c h i l d ' s i n t e r e s t and d e s i r e to succeed

or awkward s u c c e s s e s

the

c r u c i a l f o r those s t u d e n t s who

learning.

in

in

slow,

i n academic achievement?

affective

reaction

to

the

experience

of

c o n t i n u i n g s u c c e s s or f a i l u r e i n s c h o o l has been shown l i k e l y to

affect

their

academic m o t i v a t i o n and

1976;

concepts such as poor

self-

1973).

esteem,

poor m o t i v a t i o n , and d e p r e s s i o n have been c o n s i d e r e d as

failure

effects

t h i s regard,

(Bloom,

Phares,

direct

In

behavior

of a c h i l d ' s o v e r a l l e x p e r i e n c e of

a c r o s s a v a r i e t y of l e a r n i n g

situations

success
(Beck,

or

1971;

B l a c k , 1974; Coopersmith, 1967).

Several

researchers

have

shown,

in

support

propositions,

that attempts to help u n d e r a c h i e v i n g

be

i f not

hindered,

develop
(Covington

negative
&

affective

Beery,

learning-disabled

rendered

1976;

children

ineffectual,

if

responses

toward

Hamachek,

1978).

a r e seen as more

of

these

c h i l d r e n may
the

children

school
In

likely

tasks

addition,
than

are

nondisabled
that

c h i l d r e n to have n e g a t i v e

their

factors,

s u c c e s s e s are

and

that

self-concepts,

the r e s u l t of luck or other

t h e i r f a i l u r e s are i n s u p e r a b l e

i n t e r n a l causes such as l a c k of a b i l i t y
Pearl,

1979;

Bryan,

&

F r i e z e , 1980;

Donahue,

indication
increase

that
over

time,

Chapman, 1978;
In

the

children's

1979).

maladaptive

and

Patten,
There

beliefs

factors
of

some

attributions
(Boersma

&

intentions,

between

Based upon

theory,

research

such v a r i a b l e s as

achievement, and

(e.g., Stipek

and

been renewed

in

expectations

as

the
has

demonstrated

self-concept,

expectancy and

& Weisz, 1981;

Weiner, 1974;

c h i l d r e n are o f t e n d e s c r i b e d
they can

achieve,

their c a p a b i l i t i e s .

theoretical

1976;

1984).

as no

longer

even at tasks which

when

exhaustive,

been

used to t r a i n l e a r n i n g - d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n on very
tasks,

I t has

sometimes f a i l

problem s o l v i n g s t r a t e g i e s on

when they are presented to them l a t e r

Thomas,

1979).

success

and

been noted that

c a r e f u l l y s t r u c t u r e d remedial

they w i l l

The

"learned

Seligman & T e a s d a l e ,

helplessness"
1978;

to

use

are
even
have

specific

such

1980a;

welltasks
1980b;

t h i s l a c k of achievement

phenomena (e.g.,

Garber & Seligman,

programs

the same or s i m i l a r
(Douglas,

p a r a l l e l s between

causal

persistence

within

learned

Pearl,

i s also

well

of

to

Bryan &

1983;

or

i n t e r e s t has

in l e a r n i n g .

attribution

to b e l i e v e that

types

due

1980;

at l e a s t through grade e i g h t

Learning-disabled
able

Smith,

several years,

a t t r i b u t i o n s , school
tasks

Johnson, 1981;

interpretations,

relationships

at

(Bingham,

external

P e a r l et a l . 1980).
last

significant
framework

1980;

these

to b e l i e v e

1980)

Abramson,
are

quite

s t r i k i n g . By
one's

" l e a r n e d h e l p l e s s n e s s " i s meant the p e r c e p t i o n

responses

have

no e f f e c t

or are

independent

outcomes (see Seligman, M a i e r , & Geer, 1968).

nothing

an

happen.

i n d i v i d u a l can do
On

perceive

i s perceived

an achievement task,

independence

between

one's

In simpler words,

to matt r to what w i l l

f o r example,
a

of

response

a child

and

might

failure

a t t r i b u t i n g the outcome to the i n f l u e n c e of some e x t e r n a l

such

as

a teacher;

between

the

personal

inability

or the c h i l d might

response

and

t h i s in fact

as

uncontrollable,

and

debilitating

(e .g .,
be

of

whether or
i s seen

motivational,

and

i s unable to overcome f a i l u r e can

have

effects

studies

Dweck, 1975;

examined

role

in

to

result.

P e r c e i v i n g that one

demonstrated

independence

the s i t u a t i o n

performance,

by
agent

the outcome by a t t r i b u t i n g i t

i s t r u e . In e i t h e r case,

a f f e c t i v e d e f i c i t s may

highly

perceive

to perform the r e q u i r e d response,

not

that

on

scholastic

performance,

of l e a r n e d h e l p l e s s n e s s

in

as

children

Dweck & Reppucci, 1973). These s t u d i e s w i l l

i n g r e a t e r d e t a i l l a t e r s i n c e they
expectations

and

attributions

h e l p l e s s n e s s of n o r m a l l y - a c h i e v i n g

in

school-aged

elucidate
the

the

learned

children.

Statement of the Problem

Since

the

phenomenon

of l e a r n e d

helplessness

demonstrated i n normal s c h o o l p o p u l a t i o n s
Reppucci, 1973),
degree
who

may

failure.

there i s good reason

(Dweck,

has

1975;

been

Dweck &

to expect an even g r e a t e r

of l e a r n e d h e l p l e s s n e s s among l e a r n i n g - d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n
meet w i t h p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y g r e a t e r
Learning-disabled

childhood depression,

c h i l d r e n may

amounts

of

school

be more d i s p o s e d

as p r e s e n t l y understood ( S c h u l t e r b r a n d t

to
&

Raskin,
other

1977).

There

behavioral

may

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that

d i s a b l e d from normal s c h o o l
There

may

attributions

be

both

conditions.

be c e r t a i n p e r s o n a l i t y

Although

in

and a f t e r

Young

some

studies

and/or

or

difficult

task

have

examined

the

c h i l d r e n (e.g.,

Bar-Tal

&

1979; Dweck, 1975; Dweck & Reppucci, 1973; Weiner, 1974;

&

Egeland,

attributional
characterized
& Pearl,
the

learning-

expectancies

easy

a t t r i b u t i o n a l systems of normal school

Darom,

differentiate

or

children.

differences

before

traits

1976),

very few s t u d i e s have

systems of l e a r n i n g - d i s a b l e d
by f a i l u r e - d o m i n a t e d

1979;

school

explored

children,

P e a r l , Bryan,

who

h i s t o r i e s (e.g.

Grimes, 1981; P e a r l e t a l . , 1980).

and Donahue (1980) study,

the
are
Bryan

However, i n

and i n the

Pearl

(1982) study, c h i l d r e n were asked to r a t e the importance of f o u r

factors

(ability,

success

and f a i l u r e i n r e a d i n g ,

puzzles,

but u s i n g

experimental

Moreover,
especially

in

luck,

structured

task

ease/difficulty) for

in social situations,
interviews.

and

on

There was no a c t u a l

m a n i p u l a t i o n of s u c c e s s - f a i l u r e w i t h

disabled subject

failure.

effort,

learning-

population.
there

vulnerable

may be p a r t i c u l a r types of tasks

that a r e

to the a f f e c t i v e consequences of s u c c e s s -

These a r e some of the q u e s t i o n s that w i l l

be addressed

this dissertation.

Defini tions
The
of
the

following definitions w i l l

t h i s study.

prove h e l p f u l to the reader

These d e f i n i t i o n s a r e expanded i n Chapter

survey of the l i t e r a t u r e ,

and a r e

operationalized,

II,
where

necessary,

i n Chapter

Attribution.
by

the

term

referring
idea

behavior
an

study of p e r c e i v e d c a u s a t i o n i s i d e n t i f i e d

"attribution

to

of

The

IV, the method c h a p t e r .

theory,"

with

an

"attribution"

the i n f e r e n c e or p e r c e p t i o n of cause.

attribution

theory

is

i n terms of i t s causes,

important

that
and

The

individuals

main

interpret

these i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s play

r o l e i n d e t e r m i n i n g r e a c t i o n s to the b e h a v i o r .

Motivation.
approaches

to

according

to

Meiner

(1980;

1984)

has o u t l i n e d

the problem of m o t i v a t i o n that have

researchers'

orientations.

For

example,

clinical

many

been

and/or

motivation,

the

taken

experimental

as c o n c e p t u a l i z e d by

Freudian

p s y c h o a n a l y t i c t h e o r i s t s and H u l l i a n d r i v e

involves

tension

or need r e d u c t i o n as the b a s i c

theorists,

principle

of

r e s e a r c h e r s c o n c e i v e m o t i v a t i o n to be a f u n c t i o n

of

act i o n .
Other
the
value

expectancy
of

of g o a l attainment

the g o a l .

Lewin's (1938;
achievement

1951)

together w i t h the

These expectancy-value
field

motivation,

theory,

incentive

theories

include

A t k i n s o n ' s (1964) theory of

and R o t t e r ' s (1966) theory

of

social

learning.
T h e o r i s t s who

espouse a t t r i b u t i o n

example) and h u m a n i s t i c psychology

1959)
and

assume

(e.g.,

Maslow, 1971;

that i n d i v i d u a l s s t r i v e to understand

environment.

of

concerned

with

interpreting

theorists

and

and

Freud

themselves

d e t e r m i n i s t i c view of humans, which emphasized the importance

attribution

Hull

Rogers,

events,

While

for

accepted

past

their

theory ( H e i d e r , 1958,

humanists

are

more

the mental p r o c e s s e s i n v o l v e d i n e x p l a i n i n g

behavior.

L i k e the

expectancy-value

or

theorists,

attribution

t h e o r i s t s such as

such as Maslow,

r e l a t i o n s and that

they assume that

to v a r i o u s degrees,
Attribution

Schunk,

that

motivation,

accept

They

theorists
or

particular

the

motivation

the

espouse
the

mastery

In

competence

a cognitive

(Bandura,

approach

"how" and "under what

attributions)

are

principle,

human

conditions"

influence

concerned w i t h the

1977;

to

behavior.

perceptions

p e r c e i v e d reasons f o r the o c c u r r e n c e

purposes of t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n ,

taken

Accordingly,

by

attribution

of

of
a

a person's behavior given that

and

p e r c e p t i o n s of c a u s a l i t y .
and mood.

Affect

d i f f e r e n t i a t e d constructs.

theorists

Diagnostic
[DSM-I113.

activities.

is

to

adopted.

and mood a r e not,

generally,

Both d e a l w i t h "emotional"

When

cognitions

sharply

responses,

somewhat a r t i f i c i a l l y , to

distinction

i s made

(e.g.,

and S t a t i s t i c a l Manual of Mental D i s o r d e r s (3rd ed.)

American

r e f e r s to a u s u a l l y
often

approach

person's s p e c i f i c

e s p e c i a l l y when these a r e c o n t r a s t e d ,
cognitive

the

m o t i v a t i o n - i s d e f i n e d as the impetus or d i r e c t i o n

of

tone

action.

event.

For

Affect

i n d i v i d u a l s seek

cognitions ( i . e . ,

causality,

thought i n f l u e n c e s

future-oriented.

studying

Attribution

view of

i n d i v i d u a l s a r e always " a c t i v e " and,

theorists

1981).

specific

and humanists

They assume that mental events i n t e r v e n e between

input-output

contention

Kelley,

Rogers, and A l l p o r t , accept a c o g n i t i v e

human b e i n g s .

addition,

Heider and

Psychiatric

Association,

short-lived subjective

accompanied by b o d i l y

1980),

f e e l i n g or

expression noticeable

affect

emotional
by other

people.

On

emotional

the other
state

that

interrelationships
subject
1971;

hand,
colors

which
say

whole

l i t e r a t u r e (e.g.,

psychic

Deci,

i s beyond the scope of

Suffice

to

perhaps

the d i s t i n c t i o n

convenience:

the

prolonged
life.

The

between a f f e c t (mood) and c o g n i t i o n a r e the

of an e x t e n s i v e
1973)

mood r e f e r s to a r a t h e r

that

the connection
itself

"Cognition

this

i s a very

dissertation.
close

i s more a matter of

provides

s t a t e s , and a f f e c t p r o v i d e s

1975; M i s c h e l ,

the

one

and

conceptual

structure for affective

the energy f o r c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n i n g

( D e c i , 1975, p. 67)."
Of more d i r e c t r e l e v a n c e

to the present

study a r e the e f f e c t s

of mood and a f f e c t on s e l f - r e g u l a t e d performance.

For example,

Masters

contingently

and

verbalized

Santrock
or

(1976)

imagined

influence behavioral

affective

persistence.

much fun a task was ( c o n t i n g e n t

greater

task

persistence

task-irrelevant
longer
fun

phrase

that

responses

significantly

C h i l d r e n who t a l k e d about how

upon working a t the task) showed

than those c h i l d r e n who v e r b a l i z e d

(controls),

who,

in

turn,

than d i d those c h i l d r e n asked to t a l k about

the task was.

effects

demonstrated

of mood on self-management,

The

(e.g.,

Karoly,

subjective

construct

Learned H e l p l e s s n e s s

suggests

often
that

how

little

with g i r l s generally

being

goal-directed

1977).

r a t i n g s c a l e ( t o be f u l l y

depression

persisted

In a d d i t i o n , there a r e sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n the

more s u s c e p t i b l e to the emotional concomitants of

behavior

of " a f f e c t " may be

described

Theory.

tapped

by

i n Chapter IV, Methodology).

Seligman (1974) proposed

that

comes about through l e a r n e d h e l p l e s s n e s s .

although

anxiety

i s the i n i t i a l

response

He
to

stressful
the

s i t u a t i o n or event,

i t i s replaced

i n d i v i d u a l comes to b e l i e v e

Perceived

that c o n t r o l

by d e p r e s s i o n
is

unattainable.

independence between r e s p o n d i n g z;>a r e i n f o r c e m e n t

hypothesized

to

deleteriously

a f f e c t performance i n s t r e s s f u l s i t u a t i o n s

can,

lead

to

performance

if

decrements

which

is
may

which

i n f a c t , be c o n t r o l l e d .

Learning
reading,

Disabilities.

These a r e d i f f i c u l t i e s i n

mastering

a r i t h m e t i c , language or a r t i c u l a t i o n , w r i t i n g , o r other

important

skills,

that a r e not caused by

impairment of v i s u a l or a u d i t o r y

or c u l t u r a l d i s a d v a n t a g e .

"specific

developmental

Learning

discusses

procedural

of

current

identify
variables,

psychological

in

DSM-111

(American

1980).
In r e c e n t

of l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s ,

both the r e s e a r c h

and

other

These problems a r e c a l l e d

disorders"

disabled c h i l d .

classification

retardation,

functions,

disorders,

Psychiatric Association,

mental

reviews

on

diagnostic

Adelman (1979a; 1979b)

and e t h i c a l problems and p r a c t i c a l

problems i n v o l v e d . He s t a t e s that " . . . l i m i t a t i o n s

diagnostic

procedures make i t very

difficult

homogeneous groups of s u b j e c t s w i t h regard

thereby

almost g u a r a n t e e i n g that

any

given

sample w i l l

differ

the

'syndrome' m a n i f e s t e d .

to

to c r i t i c a l

the y o u n g s t e r s

in

as to the source of the problem and

T h i s , of c o u r s e , l i m i t s a n a l y s e s and

g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s of f i n d i n g s (Adelman, 1979b, p. 1 3 ) . "

Most
children
that

researchers

use as t h e i r

who have d i f f i c u l t y

learning

reading.

disabled

Torgesen (1975)

about 80% of l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s r e s e a r c h e r s

c h i l d r e n s ' reading

scores

to d e f i n e

t h e i r samples.

sample
reported

have

used

The

most commonly used d e f i n i t i o n

sample i s that
grade

level

below

grade

research

of the l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d

i t c o n s i s t s of c h i l d r e n r e a d i n g

i n the primary grades,

level

i n the higher

and

one

grades.

s i x months

and

one-half

Thus,

much

on l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n reduces to

below
grades
of

the

research

on

poor r e a d e r s (Bryan & Bryan, 1980).

The
child

other major c o n s i d e r a t i o n

should

generally

within

means

an

the normal range.

IQ of at l e a s t 70 on

Scale for Children

For

an

intelligence

clinical

For r e s e a r c h

Douglas,

and

Jenkins

1981)

(1979) suggest

learning disabled populations

categories:

situational

study

place,

took

included,

and

managers

purposes,

this

purposes, however,

suggest an

IQ of

w i t h i n at l e a s t the f o u r

v a r i a b l e s (such

the time i n v o l v e d ,

the

number and

involved),

sex,

that r e s e a r c h e r s

at

how

t r a i n i n g of

how

the

many s t u d e n t s

were

teachers

required

used to i n s t r u c t the s k i l l ,
to

(information

other

label), instructional

r e l a t e d to the t o p i c b e h a v i o r ,

techniques

or

demographic v a r i a b l e s ( i n c l u d i n g s u b j e c t ' s

r a c e , socioeconomic s t a t u s , and

skills

define

following

as where and

v a r i a b l e s ( i n c l u d i n g a d e s c r i p t i o n of s u b j e c t s ' past
on

test

80.
Lovitt

age,

has

This i s

the NISC-R (Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e

- Revised),

p r o f e s s i o n a l s (e.g.,

least

the l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d

demonstrate a normal p o t e n t i a l to l e a r n .

t r a n s l a t e d as the c h i l d who

score

many

i s that

reach

criterion),

about the c u r r e n t

and

and

and

an

performance

account

of

the

the l e n g t h of
motivational

past m o t i v a t i o n a l

time
level

levels

of

pupils).
The

fall,

1981

(volume 4 ) , i s s u e of the L e a r n i n g
9

Disability

Quarterly
Nye,

published

1981;

Olson

literature

for

s e v e r a l a r t i c l e s (Harber,
& Mealor,

the

on

populations.

Kavale & Nye,

the b a s i s of p r e v i o u s

words,

by

criteria
In up

or

children with behavioral

discrepancy
ability

with

between

(e.g.,

physical

language,
brain
most

and

s u b j e c t matter knowledge and

intellectual

ranged from one

years across

specified

criterion
their

(83%),

teacher

11%
IQ

to

five

s t u d i e s ) ; process

neurological
" s o f t " or

o f f e r e d only

(e.g.,

"hard"

one

is

considered

quarter

- 26%

level;

involvement

tentative

only);

an
and

i n t e l l i g e n c e (although
prerequisite

IQ,

and

one-half

r a t i n g s as the primary i n d i c a t i o n

10

and

included

for

most s p e c i f i e d a

behavior (over

as

evidence

- of the surveyed

s t i p u l a t e d a verbal

minimal

signs,

i d e n t i f i e d LD group only p o s s i b l y

intellectual

while

performance
used

only

an

209

including neurological

intelligence

designation,

- behavior

or mental r e t a r d a t i o n ;

subjects with neurological dysfunction);

average

- visual

handicaps);

as i n d i c a t e d by

investigators

that

other

communication

cognitive style);

identification

in

problems, a t t e n t i o n , memory, p s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c ,

dysfunction

admitted

or

magnitude of d i s c r e p a n c y

perceptual

studies

difficulties

disadvantage,

y e a r s w i t h an average of 1.76
(e.g.,

of the

c h i l d r e n w i t h sensory handicaps

environmental

children

select

Other c r i t e r i a used v a r i o u s l y

(e.g.,

and

to 50%

research

to

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n or d i a g n o s i s ,

were e x c l u s i o n

disorders,

used

&

1981), LD s u b j e c t s were s e l e c t e d

" l a b e l " or placement.

auditory;

Kavale

which surveyed the

identification

l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d (LO)
reviewed (e.g.,

1981)

1981;

7%

studies
total

specified

of
of

the

LD

IQ
a

studies

behavioral

s t a t u s - other

b e h a v i o r a l r a t i n g s were based on measures of peer

s t a t u s , and s o c i a l
In

reviewing

journals,
of

i n t e r a c t i o n ) (Kavale
229

LD r e s e a r c h

from 1978 to 1981,

these

studies

were

reports

from

two

major

in

nature;

(2)

i n t e l l i g e n c e ) were not a p p r o p r i a t e l y

(3) c o m p a r a b i l i t y

between experimental

and

groups was not adequately e s t a b l i s h e d i n many s t u d i e s ;

control
(4) l e s s

than h a l f of the s t u d i e s used s u b j e c t s c l a s s i f i e d as LD;

more

(5)

than t w o - f i f t h s of the s t u d i e s i n v o l v i n g LD s u b j e c t s ,

criteria
studies

f o r such c l a s s i f i c a t i o n were not g i v e n ;

which

LD

Harber (1981) found that (1) most

quasi-experimental

extraneous v a r i a b l e s (e.g.,
controlled;

& Nye, 1981).

d i d operationally define

and

learning

in

the

(6) the

disabilities

u t i l i z e d a wide range of c r i t e r i a .
Torgesen and Dice
in

(1980) examined almost 90 s t u d i e s

reported

major education/psychology j o u r n a l s over the p r e v i o u s

year

period

and

found that none of them used

reduce the h e t e r o g e n e i t y

any

three

system

of t h e i r samples of LD c h i l d r e n .

p r a c t i c a l l y a l l of the c u r r e n t LD r e s e a r c h

to

Thus,

i s being conducted on

heterogeneous samples of LD c h i l d r e n .
However,
devised

systematic

(Torgesen,

taxonomy of LD subtypes i s y e t to

1982)

so

the

requirement

be

of

reading

than mathematical achievement or

spelling

achievement,

rather

achievement,

lower than the 20th p e r c e n t i l e , f o r example, i s at

least

one

attempt at d e a l i n g w i t h a more

population.
many

This

researchers

strategy
who

Rapin,

1975).

has been t a c i t l y

concentrate

language) d i s a b i l i t i e s (e.g.,

homogeneous

Leong,

on

supported by

studying

1982;

subject

reading

the
(and

Matt i s ,

French, &

For example, Das, Leong, and W i l l i a m s

(1978), i n

t h e i r second experiment (Study 2 ) ,

boys

who

The

58

demonstrated s p e c i f i c r e a d i n g d e f i c i t s
dyslexic

control

s e l e c t e d only those d y s l e x i c

boys

from t h i s study were

group of 58 boys who

group:

110.93 months),

researchers

consistently
poorer
that

on

low

found

group: 107.57).

that the r e a d i n g d e f i c i t

i n simultaneous

two d i c h o t i c l i s t e n i n g

and

successive

tasks,

group

was

tests,

and

i n s p i t e of the

on nonverbal IQ.]

Leong

have

(1974) d o c t o r a l s t u d y .
eliminated

differentiated

To have matched

the v e r b a l

processes

the groups (Das et a l . ,

which

IQ

naturally

1978).
child

o p e r a t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d as a male c h i l d between the ages of 9-

0 and 12-0

y e a r s , whose IQ ( v e r b a l and performance) was at l e a s t

80, and whose r e a d i n g achievement was

age

also

on v e r b a l

For the purposes of t h i s study, the l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d

was

fact

r e t a r d e d r e a d e r s and c o n t r o l c h i l d r e n on n o n v e r b a l IQ i n

his earlier
would

(75th

and on Lorge-Thorndike nonverbal IQ

the two groups were matched

matched

readers

111.07 months; f o r

(mean nonverbal IQ f o r LD group: 102.45; f o r NLD

[These

with

These two groups were equated

on age (mean c h r o n o l o g i c a l age f o r LD group:

NLD

subjects.

compared

were above-average

p e r c e n t i l e on G a t e s - M a c G i n i t i e ) .

as

or lower.

In a d d i t i o n ,

at the 40th p e r c e n t i l e f o r

these c h i l d r e n had to be

English-

speaking ( i . e . , not r e c e n t l y a r r i v e d i n Canada w i t h E n g l i s h as a

second

language)

and had no s e r i o u s

physical,

emotional,

or

c u l t u r a l handicaps.
Normal
normal

Control C h i l d .

For the purposes of t h i s study,

c o n t r o l c h i l d was

between the ages of 9-0

o p e r a t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d as a male

and 12-0

12

(matched, f o r example,

the
child

from the

next

boy's

birthday
index

name

on the index

and g e n e r a l

c h i l d by the classroom t e a c h e r ) ,

reading

grade l e v e l
had

class

register

whose

a b i l i t y was judged c l o s e s t to that of

the HISC-R was at l e a s t 80,

both

child's

s c a l e IQ

on

and whose academic performance,

in

and a r i t h m e t i c ,

was at l e a s t at expected age

(.> 50th p e r c e n t i l e ) .

to be E n g l i s h - s p e a k i n g

whose f u l l

the

In a d d i t i o n ,

and

these c h i l d r e n

( i . e . , not r e c e n t l y a r r i v e d i n Canada

w i t h E n g l i s h as a second language) and had no

serious

physical,

e m o t i o n a l , or c u l t u r a l handicaps.
By
as

c h o o s i n g the c o n t r o l c h i l d from the same c l a s s or s c h o o l

the

index c h i l d ,

i t was a n t i c i p a t e d

that

differences

in

socioeconomic s t a t u s might be c o n t r o l l e d .
Male

c h i l d r e n only were used as s u b j e c t s

become apparent a f t e r r e a d i n g

because,

Chapter I I , the l i t e r a t u r e

there a r e well-documented sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n v a r i a b l e s

to t h i s study
incidence

patterns

of l e a r n i n g

Note
text

(e.g.,

and

that

as w i l l

of c a u s a l

review,
critical

a t t r i b u t i o n s , as w e l l as

disabilities).

the term "LD" w i l l o f t e n be used throughout

will

refer

either

to

the

"learning

c h i l d ( r e n ) , " or to " l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s ; "

the

disabled

w h i l e the term

"NLD"

w i l l r e f e r e i t h e r to the "not l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d c h i l d ( r e n ) , "

to "no l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s , "

i . e . , normally a c h i e v i n g

or

c h i l d or

normal achievement.
General T h e o r e t i c a l
Most

Assumptions

psychologists

who have w r i t t e n ,

intrinsic

motivation

and

Piagetian

framework

(e.g.,

assumptions

development,
Deci,

f o r example,
have worked

1975),

with

about

within
the

main

b e i n g that humans a r e a c t i v e organisms i n c o n t i n u a l

i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h t h e i r environment, and
with

that a l l humans are born

the b a s i c and u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d need f o r f e e l i n c ;

"

competent

"h
ti\

and s e l f - d e t e r m i n i n g .

i}

A l s o assumed i s that c h i l d r e n show q u a l i t a t i v e l y

different

modes of knowing at d i f f e r e n t j u n c t u r e s i n t h e i r development

that

the

moment

l e v e l of t h e i r c o g n i t i v e m a t u r i t y at

will

appreciate
within

place
the

l i m i t s upon

e x i s t e n c e of v a r i o u s k i n d s

themselves

Rholes,

obligatory

and

any

ability

knowledge

i n o t h e r s (Chandler & Boyes, 1982;

to
both

Ruble &

1981).

Briefly,
knowledge

P i a g e t (1926) d e s c r i b e s the o n t o g e n e t i c course of

acquisition

as an o r d e r e d sequence b e g i n n i n g w i t h

z e r o - o r d e r plane of m a t e r i a l t h i n g s and events and

a

particular

their
of

and

first

order non-symbolic

sensory-motor
object;

2)

presents"

knowing
a second

including:

mode of e n a c t i v e (Bruner,

which

takes

material

1964)

reality

as

f i r s t - o r d e r plane of non-symbolic

knowledge;

the

1)
or
its

order symbolic mode of knowing which

and r e f e r e n c e s what i s a l r e a d y known on

"re-

broader,

and 3) a t h i r d

or

m e t a - r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l mode of knowing which i n v o l v e s s y m b o l i z i n g

symbols

(i.e.,

second-order
modes

metacognition),

representational

of knowing r e f e r

to,

and

and which takes as i t s

knowledge.

Thus,

in part define,

these
Piaget's

object
three
pre-

o p e r a t i o n a l . c o n c r e t e o p e r a t i o n a l , and formal o p e r a t i o n a l s t a g e s
of c o g n i t i v e development.
Growth i n c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e s o c c u r s through
of

a s s i m i l a t i ng

Assimilation

and

accommodat i ng

to

the

i s the p r o c e s s whereby the organism

14

the p r o c e s s e s
environment.

i n c o r p o r a t e s or

merges a s p e c t s of the environment i n t o i t s p r e e x i s t i n g

structures.

And

organism

accommodation

adapts

environment.

i t s own

is

the

cognitive

A c c o r d i n g to P i a g e t ,

process

cognitive

whereby

structure

to

organisms a r e

the

f i t the

intrinsically

m o t i v a t e d to approach a c t i v i t i e s which i n v o l v e a s s i m i l a t i o n , but

not

completely so ( i . e . ,

accommodate
challenge

which p r o v i d e some c h a l l e n g e ) and then

and a s s i m i l a t e

those s i t u a t i o n s ( i . e . ,

conquer the

involved).

Also

assumed

develops

and

i n t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n i s that

interacts

undifferentiated

need

with

the

as

environment,

f o r competence

and

the

child

the

basic

self-determination

b e g i n s to d i f f e r e n t i a t e i n t o s p e c i f i c m o t i v e s , such as those f o r
achievement, s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n , e t c . These motives or p r o c e s s e s
may

be

a f f e c t e d by one's own f e e l i n g s of competence and

worth (Darley
as

level

& G o e t h a l s , 1980), and by many other f a c t o r s , such

of a s p i r a t i o n

(Atkinson

&

Feather,

f a i l u r e or f e a r of s u c c e s s (Zuckerman et a l . ,
of e x t e r n a l / i n t e r n a l c o n t r o l
1965;

self-

Rotter,

Chance,

(Crandall,

& Phares,

1966),
1980),

Katkovsky,

1972),

fear

learned

of

perception
& Crandall,
helplessness

(Seligman, 1975; Abramson e t a l . , 1978), and so f o r t h .

Delimitation
In

of the Study

addition

mentioned

under

to

the

pertinent

Defini tions.

characteristics

the s u b j e c t s

of t h i s study

boys o n l y ,

between the ages of 9-0 and 12-0,

speaking.

It

English-speaking
complete

was

Achenbach's

because
(1981a)

the
Child

parents
Behavior

were

who were E n g l i s h -

important f o r these c h i l d r e n

homes

already

to

were

come

from

c*<ed

to

Checklist,

and

competence i n the E n g l i s h language was necessary f o r t h i s .

Subjects
and

were o b t a i n e d from both

the p u b l i c s c h o o l

the p a r o c h i a l s c h o o l system i n two m e t r o p o l i t a n

system

cities.

J u s t i f i c a t i o n of the Study
The

q u e s t i o n s posed i n the Background and Statement of

Problem

sections

are those which have d i r e c t r e l e v a n c e to

h e a l t h and e d u c a t i o n of school-aged
c h i l d r e n who
have

been

formal
have

have d i f f i c u l t y
of

concern

education.
ranged

systematic
interest

to e d u c a t o r s s i n c e

the

programs designed

achievement.

If

important

those c h i l d r e n who
great

motivation

those

beginnings

Answers to q u e s t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g

incentive

the

Issues of m o t i v a t i o n

to

to the

promote

motivation

of

motivation
use

of

children's

i s central

to

schema of i n s t r u c t i o n f o r n o r m a l l y - a c h i e v i n g

think how

in learning.

especially

from the use of the rod or s t r a p ,

and

overall

children,

the

the

students,

i s in optimizing i n s t r u c t i o n

for

are having d i f f i c u l t i e s i n l e a r n i n g .

number

of

social-psychological

factors

affect

s c h o o l performance, and a p a r t i c u l a r s e t of v a r i a b l e s r e l a t e d to
p u p i l s ' b e l i e f s about why
is

especially relevant.

ideas

about

arithmetic,
degree

to

Beliefs
causal

why
etc.,

but

do

well

(or

not)

these same i n d i v i d u a l s may

c a u s a t i v e f a c t o r or another

Research

based on

the

about

important

why

a particular

predictor

reading,

differ
is

stressed.
known

as
of

individual's

s u c c e s s or f a i l u r e o c c u r s i s

both of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s r e a c t i o n

16

i n the

implications

v a r i o u s p a t t e r n s of a t t r i b u t i o n has shown that the

belief

in

the causes of s u c c e s s and f a i l u r e are

attributions.

tasks

A l l i n d i v i d u a l s have somewhat s i m i l a r

students

which one

about

they do w e l l or p o o r l y on s c h o o l

to

an
the

event, and

of e x p e c t a n c i e s r e g a r d i n g

Perception
intervening
of

of

construct

motivation.

exposed

control

to

events

is

It has

an

important

to the

discussion

been noted that s t u d e n t s who

have

u n s o l v a b l e problems or other u n c o n t r o l l a b l e

been

t h e i r u s u a l e f f o r t s at f i n d i n g

curtailed;

intellectual

and

performance and

that g e n e r a l s e l f - e s t e e m has
1975).

over

which i s most r e l e v a n t

have become l e t h a r g i c ;
have

future s i m i l a r events.

their

events
solutions

self-attitudes

regarding

competence have become so

suffered

(e.g.,

Most s i g n i f i c a n t l y , p u p i l s who

been

Hiroto

negative

& Seligman,

have been exposed to such

f a i l u r e e x p e r i e n c e s have a l s o shown peformance d e f i c i t s on

which

they

(Thornton

were

&

Jacobs,

d e a l i n g w i t h LD
may

not

initially

only

able

1971).

or

c h i l d r e n have o f t e n
evidence poor a b i l i t y

disabilities
In

the

proficiency

on

of

across

Coopersmith,
highlighted
which

also

tasks

successfully

other

professionals

remarked that

these c h i l d r e n

on

those tasks

that

they may

totally

related

to

show a l a c k

unrelated

to

of

such

(Douglas, 1980a; 1980b).

last

several

years,

esteem, poor m o t i v a t i o n , and

effects

complete

T e a c h e r s and

t h e i r s p e c i f i c d e f i c i t ( s ) , but
ability

to

tasks

concepts such as

poor

d e p r e s s i o n have been seen as d i r e c t

the c h i l d ' s o v e r a l l e x p e r i e n c e of s u c c e s s or
variety
1967;
the

influence

interpretations,

of

self-

learning

Phares, 1973).

situations
Cognitive

failure

(Beck,

psychologists

1971;
have

importance of

internal,

intervening

variables

learning

(Mischel,

1973).

Children's

intentions,

and

e x p e c t a t i o n s are

examined as s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r s i n l e a r n i n g
T h e r e f o r e , i t i s most a p p r o p r i a t e

and

now

being

(Thomas, 1979).
worthwhile to examine

the p a t t e r n s of a t t r i b u t i o n of LD c h i l d r e n ,

and

their

This

reactions

information

to

success

regarding

success/failure.

or

failure.

to

investigate
will

provide

the c o g n i t i v e v a r i a b l e s a s s o c i a t e d

After

such

knowledge

is

with

available,

i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs and/or management systems which take i n t o

consideration

the p a t t e r n s of a t t r i b u t i o n s of l e a r n i n g - d i s a b l e d

children

may

positive

self-regard.

youngsters,

be d e v i s e d

i n order

i t has already

For

to o p t i m i z e both l e a r n i n g

example,

with

normal

and

achieving

been suggested as d e s i r a b l e to change

students'

a t t r i b u t i o n s i n the d i r e c t i o n of emphasizing

ability

and

as the causes of s u c c e s s ,

as

effort

cause

of f a i l u r e .

maximize

and

l a c k of e f f o r t

the

These c a u s a l p e r c e p t i o n s have been found to

the academic performance of s t u d e n t s

1978).

18

(e.g.,

Bar-Tal,

CHAPTER II
Survey
This

of the L i t e r a t u r e

chapter reviews

the areas of a t t r i b u t i o n

theory o f l e a r n e d h e l p l e s s n e s s ,
with

various

theories

interdisciplinary
disabilities,
affect

of

together

of

with

the

and c h i l d h o o d d e p r e s s i o n , along

depression.

overview

theory,

the

In

addition,

field

of

an

learning

n e u r o l o g i c a l s u b s t r a t e s as

these

the l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d c h i l d , w i l l be o u t l i n e d .

A t t r i b u t i o n : Theory and Research

Research
attributions
outcomes.

on

learned

h e l p l e s s n e s s has

as

indices

of

such as l a c k of a b i l i t y ,

performance

attributions
factors,

regarding

focused
control

on
over

S p e c i f i c a l l y , a t t r i b u t i o n s of f a i l u r e s to r e l a t i v e l y

stable factors,
with

belief

often

of

such

maintenance

decrements under

or

failure

f a i l u r e s to r e l a t i v e l y

as

l a c k of e f f o r t ,

increments

in

have been

conditions,

u n s t a b l e or

have been

performance

( e . g . , Dweck, 1975; Dweck & Reppucci,

associated
while

modifiable

associated
following

with

failure

1973; Weiner, 1972; 1974).

Hhat i s A t t r i b u t i o n Theory?
Attribution
understand
and

and p r e d i c t

motives.

attribution
inference
that

i s the p r o c e s s through which people attempt to

The

study

of

perceived

theory," a t t r i b u t i o n r e f e r r i n g

of cause.

individuals

(antecedents)

t h e i r own and o t h e r s ' b e h a v i o r s ,

causation

behavior

i n terms

of

and that these i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s play an

r o l e i n d e t e r m i n i n g r e a c t i o n s to the behavior

19

is

termed

to the p e r c e p t i o n or

The main t h r u s t of a t t r i b u t i o n

interpret

traits,

theory

is

i t s causes
important

(consequences).

O r i g i n s of A t t r i b u t i o n Theory
The
of

f i e l d of a t t r i b u t i o n r e s e a r c h grew out of a convergence

v a r i o u s l i n e s of i n q u i r y w i t h a r e c o g n i t i o n of t h e i r

core

problems.

known

The

e a r l i e s t work grew out of the s u b j e c t

as " s o c i a l p e r c e p t i o n "

p e r c e p t i o n " (see H a s t o r f ,
excellent

synopsis

attributional
prominence
first

or,

of the study

approach

through

of

e.g.,

conditions

Heider's

observing
enduring
could

traits,

optimize

functioning

the

behavior

first

The
gained

work.

He

e f f e c t s of the p e r c e p t i o n

to

and

m o t i v e s and

"person
then

of

of
Egon

perception."

inferring

intentions,

order,

While person

and,

and

perceiver
thus,

the

perception focuses

attribution

of c a u s a l i t y of the person's

the
By

stable

the n a i v e

predictability

of the w o r l d .

loci

perception).

comprehensive

the d e s c r i p t i o n of the s t i m u l u s person,

with

f o r an

then extended h i s d i s c u s s i o n to

behavior,

the

P o l e f k a , 1970,

person

(1958)

effects relating

others"

and

area

"person

the t h e o r e t i c a l c o n t r i b u t i o n

1955), and

and

specifically,

to understanding

(acknowledging

Brunswik,

more

Schneider,

o u t l i n e d the c o n d i t i o n s and

entities

common

theory

behavior

on

deals

(Heider,

1958).
Social

s c i e n t i s t s s t u d y i n g human m o t i v a t i o n ,

achievement m o t i v a t i o n ,
attribution
Feather,
et

theory.

1966;

al.,

have c o n t r i b u t e d to the development

These

researchers

deCharms, 1968;

1972)

have

particularly

1972;

(e.g.,

Atkinson

1976;

Feather,

1967;

examined c o g n i t i v e

factors

involved

of
and

Weiner
in

i n d i v i d u a l s ' d i v e r s e r e a c t i o n s i n achievement or s u c c e s s / f a i l u r e
situations.
Katkovsky,

Work
&

dealing with

Crandall,

1965;
20

" l o c u s of
Rotter,

control"
1966)

(Crandall,

has a l s o

become

i n t e g r a t e d w i t h subsequent
well,

have

al.,

a t t r i b u t i o n a l research.

been Jones' r e s e a r c h on person p e r c e p t i o n (Jones et

1961)

and

self-presentation

(Jones

S c h a c h t e r ' s (1964) theory of emotion,

on s e l f - p e r c e p t i o n .
work

R e l e v a n t , as

were

&

Wortman,

1973),

and Bern's (1967) w r i t i n g s

The common themes i n these d i v e r s e l i n e s of

i d e n t i f i e d and e l u c i d a t e d i n t h e o r e t i c a l

Jones and D a v i s (1965) and K e l l e y

papers

by

(1967), and these have sparked

much subsequent r e s e a r c h .
Attribution
within

theory, then, attempts

the p e r c e i v e r

prediction

of

attribution

to s p e c i f y

that a r e i n v o l v e d i n the

behavior.

The

elements

or

the p r o c e s s e s

explanation
stages

and

of

this

p r o c e s s can be a f f e c t e d by any number of v a r i a b l e s ,

from the p e r c e i v e r ' s l e v e l of i n f o r m a t i o n to the b i a s e s i n h e r e n t

i n d i f f e r e n t p e r c e p t u a l or p s y c h o l o g i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e s (see Haqq,
1979;

Jones & N i s b e t t ,

1972;

1977; T a y l o r & F i s k e , 1978;

For

the

reader

(1975),

(1976; 1978;

1976;

Nisbett & Wilson,

Weary, 1980).

a more d e t a i l e d background

research,
Shaver

Miller,

i s referred

of a t t r i b u t i o n

theory

to Jones and o t h e r s

the volumes e d i t e d by Harvey,

I ekes,

and

(1972),
and

Kidd

1981), and the review a r t i c l e by K e l l e y and M i c h e l a

(1980).
A t t r i b u t i o n and

Achievement

Attributions
of

behavior

attributions
Phares

in

have been found to be important

achievement

upon achievement

(1957) who

situations.
s t r i v i n g s was

The
first

determinants
effect

of

examined

by

found that when s u b j e c t s were t o l d that

s u c c e s s on a judgement task was

21

due

to s k i l l ,

their

their

expectancy

of

future

due

to

rather

s u c c e s s was

chance.

higher than when s u c c e s s was

Contrariwise,

than s k i l l

failure attributed

y i e l d e d higher expectancy

These outcomes were c o n s t r u e d as r e f l e c t i n g

is

internal

to the person

(and

and

reactions

to

understanding

colleagues

(1972)

more c o n t r o l l a b l e )

controllable).

importance

in

T h e i r model

is

(i.e.,

behavior.

stimulus-organism

achievement

behavior.

that the two

causes used by Phares

not only d i f f e r e d

mediate

transactions

resulting

Weiner and h i s a s s o c i a t e s (1972)

(1957),

skill

in locus ( i n t e r n a l - e x t e r n a l ) ,

i d e n t i f i e d f o u r p o s s i b l e causes used

predict

the outcome of an a c h i e v e m e n t - r e l a t e d

effort.

task d i f f i c u l t y ,
These
an

effort

difficulty
task

are

causes

can

be

chance,

but a l s o

varied

internal

Thus,

or f a i l u r e e x p e r i e n c e ,

They

to i n t e r p r e t
event:

represented

dimension"

characteristics,

and

a b i l i ty.

et a l . , 1972;

are both s t a b l e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ,

and l u c k are u n s t a b l e .

attributions,

time.

Weiner,

along

(or

locus

and a " s t a b l e - u n s t a b l e dimension."

both

noted

versus

and l u c k are e x t e r n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .

difficulty

success

and l u c k (Weiner

"internal-external

c o n t r o l dimension),

between

and

t h e i r p e r c e i v e d s t a b i l i ty ( s t a b l e - u n s t a b l e ) over

1984).

cognitive

the causes of s u c c e s s

attributions)

antecedent

and

skill

great

causal

dimensions:

that

s u c c e s s and f a i l u r e are of

and

1976;

success.

how

that b e l i e f s about

therefore

chance

shown

based on the assumption

in

the f a c t

be

have

achievement-oriented

failure

to

to

of f u t u r e

therefore,

w h i l e chance i s e x t e r n a l (and, hence, l e s s

Neiner

said

of

Ability

while

task

Ability
while

two

and

effort

t h i s model p r e d i c t s that f o r any

there are four p o s s i b l e

causal

w i t h each of these a t t r i b u t i o n s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a
22

likely

a f f e c t i v e r e a c t i o n and an e x p e c t a t i o n

regarding

future

performance ( s e e B a r - T a l , 1975).
Bar-Tal

(1975) a l s o p o i n t e d out important

in a t t r i b u t i o n b e h a v i o r .
they

are less

while

(e.g.,

to be robust
Dweck

(1976),
Iekes

to d i f f e r

to a t t r i b u t e s u c c e s s

Bar-Tal & F r i e z e ,

1974).

as they have been r e p o r t e d ,

and G i l l i a r d

from boys i n that

to

high

ability,

to s e e f a i l u r e as caused by a l a c k

(1975),

and Layden (1978),

Dweck,

reviewed, or extended,
Bush

(1976),

F r i e z e et a l .

Davidson,

Nelson,

Deaux
(1978),

and

Dweck and Goetz (1978), Goetz and Dweck (1980),

Goetz,

and S t r a u s s

(1980),

of

These f i n d i n g s appear

Dweck and

B a r - T a l and F r i e z e (1976;1977),

(1978),

sex

willing

b e i n g more w i l l i n g

ability

by

G i r l s tend

sex d i f f e r e n c e s

and L i c h t and Dweck,

Dweck,

(1984).

d i f f e r e n c e p e r s i s t s even i n a d u l t females (e.g.,

Enna

This

Crittenden

& N i l e y , 1980).
It

i s p o s s i b l e that these sex d i f f e r e n c e s

behavior
finding
men

are related

to the well-documented

that r a t e s of d e p r e s s i o n

( Neissman & Klerman,

1974).
higher
result

Radloff

learned

helplessness

Goodwin,

&

Guze,

that the

among women a r e best e x p l a i n e d as a

helplessness.

The

theory

of

learned

may prove to be a h e u r i s t i c framework w i t h i n which

Weiner's Reformulation

especially

of A c h i e v e m e n t - r e l a t e d

In a recent r e f o r m u l a t i o n ,
motivation

epidemiological

f o r women than f o r

1977; Woodruff,

to conduct r e s e a r c h on d e p r e s s i o n ,

of

attribution

(1975), f o r one, has i n f a c t s p e c u l a t e d

l e v e l s of d e p r e s s i o n
of

a r e higher

in

i n women.
Attributions

Weiner (1979) o u t l i n e s a theory

based upon a t t r i b u t i o n s of c a u s a l i t y f o r

23

success

and

failure.

He

i d e n t i f i e s three c e n t r a l causal

dimensions:

s t a b i l i t y . l o c u s , and c o n t r o l . w i t h these dimensions

respectively,

w i t h expectancy

and i n t e r p e r s o n a l
The

change,

s t a b i 1 i ty

task d i f f i c u l t y may

dimension d e p i c t s causes as

after

perceived

results

or

in

increments
failure,

success

stability

Attribution

words,

if

of

ascription

do

failure

the

cause

of an

typical

expectancy

than

stable

For example, i n t e l l i g e n c e or

unstable.

and

greater
in

either

be c o n s i d e r e d s t a b l e , whereas e f f o r t

more o f t e n be c o n s i d e r e d

shifts

e s t e e m - r e l a t e d emotions,

judgements.

( i n v a r i a n t ) or u n s t a b l e ( v a r i a n t ) .

may

associated,

Generally,

are
of

outcome

shifts

expectancy

dependent
the

in

the

outcome.

stable

factors

expectancy,

i.e.,

a f t e r s u c c e s s and

a s c r i p t i o n s to u n s t a b l e

upon

prior

to

or mood

decrements
causes.

the c o n d i t i o n s or causes of an outcome,

after

In

other

success

or

f a i l u r e , a r e p e r c e i v e d as remaining unchanged, then that outcome

will
al.,

be expected w i t h a g r e a t e r degree of c e r t a i n t y

l o c u s of c a u s a l i t y dimension may

internal

or

distinction
his

external

to

the

as

locus

of c a u s a l i t y .

In Weiner's

ability,

effort,

mood,

s o u r c e s of c a u s a l i t y may

family.

However,
may

the

context,

and i s t h e r e f o r e

I n t e r n a l s o u r c e s of

external

dimension

Weiner

makes

as
a

between R o t t e r ' s (1966) dimension, l o c u s of c o n t r o l ,

l o c u s of c a u s a l i t y .

include

be c o n c e p t u a l i z e d

individual.

viewed as a "backward-looking b e l i e f "

to

et

1976).
The

and

(Weiner

relative

maturity,
include
placement

not be i n v a r i a n t over time

24

locus

referred

causality

and h e a l t h ,
teacher,

between

may
while

task,

of a cause on
or

is

or
this

people.

Neiner

(1979,

perceived

p.6)

as

an

gives

internal

the example:

"...health

('I am a s i c k l y

person')

might ,
< be
or

as ;;an

e x t e r n a l ('The " f l u bug" got me') cause of f a i l u r e . "

Weiner (1979, p.6) e x p l a i n s f u r t h e r :
Inasmuch

as

attribution

c a u s a l i t y , such p e r s o n a l
account.

That

theory d e a l s

possible

agreement

i s , the

taxonomic placement

individual

when

phenomenal

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s must be taken

depends upon i t s s u b j e c t i v e meaning.

of

with

Nonetheless,

variation,

distinguishing

of

there

causes

cause

in spite

is

as

into

general

internal

or

external.
The

locus

dimension

esteem.

For example,

ability

would

of c a u s a l i t y has i m p l i c a t i o n s

that

she

p r o b a b i l i t y of s u c c e s s at a task.
probably

mood)

which

future
ability

or

he

would

would l i k e l y

(i.e.,

not reduce expectancy of

t a s k s and would allow the i n d i v i d u a l

a s c r i b e d to a b i l i t y ,

have

Success,

of

on

and low expectancy

converse

analysis

would h o l d .

unstable

factors,

and f a i l u r e ,

Success would

success

on

high

would

be

expectancy

an i n i t i a l low

of
be

to low a b i l i t y .

it
or

the other hand,

a l s o i n c r e a s i n g the subsequent

ability

high

luck

to m a i n t a i n

of s u c c e s s and c o n f i r m i n g h i g h s e l f - e s t e e m . Given
self-concept

I f f a i l u r e then o c c u r r e d ,

be a s c r i b e d to u n s t a b l e causes

self-concept.

self-

an i n d i v i d u a l w i t h a h i g h s e l f - c o n c e p t o f

believe

would

for

success,
ascribed
These

the
to

latter

a t t r i b u t i o n s a r e p r e c i s e l y what d i s t i n g u i s h e s " l e a r n e d h e l p l e s s "

s t u d e n t s from "mastery-oriented"
1980).

Such

patterns

of

students

attributions

25

(e.g., Diener
would

result

& Dweck,
i n the

p r e s e r v a t i o n of i n i t i a l
1970;

Gilmor

foregoing

sef-concept (e.g.,

SMinton,

analysis

1974;

Ames,

IckesS

suggests

that

in

1978;

Layden,

1978).

modification

i n v o l v i n g s e l f - c o n c e p t or e x p e c t a n c i e s ,

Fitch,
The

programs

the p e r c e i v e d causes of

performance must be a l t e r e d or r e t r a i n e d . J u s t such

"attribution

retraining" efforts will

dissertation

(e.g.,

Andrews & Debus,

Dweck, 1978;

1980;

be d e s c r i b e d l a t e r
1978;

Chap in

in this

& Dyck,

(Weiner,

1979)

causes as c o n t r o l l a b l e v e r s u s u n c o n t r o l l a b l e .
and

differs

volitional

For example, both

control.

Independent
who

but

mood i n that only i t i s p e r c e i v e d as

Weiner

(1979) f e e l s that

construct

v a l i d a t i o n was

effort

subject

this

p l a y s an important r o l e i n i n t e r p e r s o n a l judgement

(1980)

categorizes

e f f o r t a r e i n t e r n a l and u n s t a b l e causes,
from

Diener &

Dweck, 1975).

A t h i r d dimension of c a u s a l i t y

mood

1976;

to

dimension

situations.

obtained

by

a l s o found the t h r e e dimensions suggested by

Meyer
Weiner

(1979) through a f a c t o r a n a l y s i s of a t t r i b u t i o n r a t i n g d a t a .
Learned H e l p l e s s n e s s
When

individuals

subsequent

outcomes,

helplessness"
The
related

of

to the e a r l i e r

Overmeier

was
and

they

may

come

to

( e . g . Seligman, M a i e r , & Geer,

phenomenon

(1960),

p e r c e i v e t h e i r a c t i o n s as i r r e l e v a n t

first

learned

exhibit

"learned

1968).

helplessness,

conceptually

view of "hopelessness" proposed by Mowrer

studied

Seligman

by Seligman

(1967).

and Maier

They drew

i n operant

through

subjects.

conducted w i t h animal

26

(1967)

attention

e f f e c t s of c o n t r o l v e r s u s l a c k of c o n t r o l
research

to

to

and
the

responding
In

initial

studies

(see

infrahuman

Maier and Seligman,

l i t e r a t u r e ) i t was

f o r a review

of

who

then were g i v e n a

chance

escape f u r t h e r punishment by the simple response of

from

one

failed
remained

learn

Contrariwise,
to

jumping

this

i n the f i r s t

exposed

animal

helplessness,"

learned

who

had

Rather,

not

the

punishment."

to

been

escape

by

to the s a f e compartment.

maladaptive

their

often

previously

phenomenon

a t t r i b u t e d i t to the f a c t
that

another,

they

their

shocks r e a d i l y l e a r n e d

i n a s h u t t l e box

termed
and

response.

compartment and "took

inescapable

(1975)

subjects

simple

subjects

over a b a r r i e r

Seligman

jumping

compartment of an e x p e r i m e n t a l apparatus to

to

the

found that animal s u b j e c t s exposed

to a s e r i e s of i n e s c a p a b l e shocks,
to

1976,

responses

that

were

"learned

the

animal

independent

of

r e i n f o r c e m e n t , that they c o u l d do n o t h i n g to stop the shocks.

suggested
caused

that

them

they

demonstrated

lowered

to make few responses i n the

e x p e r i e n c e d reduced c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n i n g ,
ability

effects

Seligman

exposed

to

Following

1974;

which lowered

problems
anagrams,

H i r o t o & Seligman, 1975).

(1975) study,

f o r example,

and
their

this

experience,
Those who

i n the f i r s t
consistent

studies
greater

were

insoluble

both groups attempted

had been exposed

also

In the H i r o t o

subjects

a s e r i e s of e i t h e r s o l u b l e or

s e r i e s of anagrams.

the

situation,

of u n c o n t r o l l a b l e events i n humans were

examined ( H i r o t o ,

Other

new

which

to l e a r n an e f f e c t i v e escape response.

The

and

motivation,

He

first

problems.

to. s o l v e

to the i n s o l u b l e

p a r t of the study d i d much worse

w i t h the theory of l e a r n e d

on

27

insoluble

the

helplessness.

r e p l i c a t e d these f i n d i n g s and demonstrated

subjects' experience with

problems

that
or

other

uncontrollable

helplessness,
(e.g.,
1975;

Klein,

the

Fencil-Morse,

basic

greater

their

feelings

the lower t h e i r performance on

Tennen & E l l e r ,
The

then,

and

events,

& Seligman,

1976;

later

tasks

Roth &

Kubal,

1977).

tenet

of the l e a r n e d

helplessness

hypothesis

i s that l e a r n i n g that outcomes are u n c o n t r o l l a b l e

non-contingent
deficits:

with

reinforcement)

motivational,

r e s u l t s i n three

cognitive,

and

deficit

responses and

i s i n t e r p r e t e d as a consequence of the

responding

difficulty

The

As produce Bs when such i s indeed

hypothesis

consequence
responding

of

that

only

learning

hypothesis.
exposure

exposure

increments

persistent

expectation
c o n s i s t s of

outcomes.

that

to

outcomes

subsequently

Eisenberger,

controllable

i n performance,

researchers
failure

L a s t l y , the

depressed

Benson and

i n d u s t r i o u s n e s s (see a l s o ,
speaking,

voluntary

For

are

or

as

independent

of

Seligman, 1975).

refined
Kennelly

Park, and

events

the

(1976)

have

found

accompanied

28

learned
concluded
led

to

Frank (1976) found

led

to

corresponding

an e f f e c t sometimes c a l l e d
K l e i n and

that

learned

affect

to u n c o n t r o l l a b l e a v e r s i v e events

learned helplessness.
that

predicts

investigators

helplessness

in

The

to l e a r n l a t e r

the case.

(see Garber & Seligman, 1980,

Many

of

has d e r i v e d a c o g n i t i v e s e t that A i s i r r e l e v a n t

then i t becomes more d i f f i c u l t f o r one

helplessness

types

of

cognitive deficit

i n l e a r n i n g that responses r e s u l t

example, i f one
to B,

includes retarded i n i t i a t i o n

i s useless.

(i.e.,

emotional.

motivational

that

of

learned

Seligman, 1976). G e n e r a l l y
that
by

it
the

takes

continued

perception

of

noncontingency
Learned
In

of responding

Helplessness C r i t i c i z e d
order

individuals
rendered

to e x p l a i n the seeming paradox

and c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s who

"helpless"

namely,
them

to produce l e a r n e d h e l p l e s s n e s s .

h o l d two

have

are themselves

"behavioral"
be seen

and

to blame f o r

failures,

"characterological."

Behavioral

attributions

behavior),

and

is

avoidability

of

blame,

the

on

attributions
one's

beliefs,

to

to

other

outcome.

hand,

a relatively

character),

and

with a

is

self-blame

or

maladaptive

control

a m o d i f i a b l e source

a negative

Janoff-Bulman

Accordingly,

self-blame i s

associated

(such

belief

in

related,
as

the

esteem-related,

non-modifiable

The

self-

involves

source

i s associated with a b e l i e f

one's
future

Characterological

d e s e r v i n g n e s s f o r past n e g a t i v e outcomes.

to

types of s e l f - b l a m e

as e i t h e r a d a p t i v e and f a c i l i t a t i n g ,

debilitating.

entails

experimentally

that they a r e both h e l p l e s s to c o n t r o l what happens

and

and

been

depressed

apparently inconsistent

(1979) has drawn a d i s t i n c t i o n between two

may

whereby

(such

in

as

personal

author g i v e s ,

as

an example, the case of rape where a woman can blame h e r s e l f f o r

having
let

walked

down a dark s t r e e t alone at n i g h t or f o r

a s p e c i f i c man

having

i n t o her apartment ( b e h a v i o r a l blame),

or

a l t e r n a t i v e l y , she can blame h e r s e l f f o r b e i n g "too t r u s t i n g

unable

to

say no"

or a " c a r e l e s s person who

out of t r o u b l e (Janoff-Bulman,
Janoff-Bulman
between

(1979)

1979,

points

i s unable

to

,
and

stay

p. 1799)."
out

that

this

c h a r a c t e r o l o g i c a l and b e h a v i o r a l s e l f - b l a m e

distinction
corresponds

to the d i s t i n c t i o n s drawn by Weiner and h i s a s s o c i a t e s (1972) i n

their

scheme

of

attributions
29

in

achievement-related

areas.

Individuals
that

who make an a t t r i b u t i o n to l a c k of a b i l i t y

there

succeed,

islittle

they can do to c o n t r o l the

because a b i l i t y

Individuals

who

believe

situation

i s s t a b l e and r e l a t i v e l y

make an a t t r i b u t i o n to e f f o r t ,

and

unchangeable.
on

the

other

hand,

can b e l i e v e

that as l o n g as they t r y h a r d e r , they w i l l be

able

to

obtain

Analogously,
ability

positive

characterological

attribution,

for perceived

personal

distinguishes

(e.g.

self-blame

while behavioral

an e f f o r t a t t r i b u t i o n ,

blame

outcome

Dweck,

corresponds

between

Thus,

behavioral

appears to be p e r c e i v e d

implications

the dimension which

and

characterological

controllability

or

Abramson,
original

Seligman,

learned

helplessness

framework

theoretical

controversies

uncontrollability
hypothesis
they
The

states

causal

as l a t e r

This

in

hypothesis

by

order to r e s o l v e
regarding

humans.

the

Basically,

or e x p l i c i t l y

proposing

several

an

of the

effects

the

of

reformulated

themselves

helpless,

ask why they a r e h e l p l e s s .

a t t r i b u t i o n s subsequently made then

and c h r o n i c i t y of the h e l p l e s s n e s s

influence

the

d e f i c i t s as

well

self-esteem.

Succinctly,
given

instance.

T e a s d a l e (1978) r e f o r m u l a t e d the

that when people f i n d

either implicitly

generality

in

self-

(1978)

and

attributional

best

modifiabi1ity

of the f a c t o r or f a c t o r s blamed i n any p a r t i c u l a r

Learned H e l p l e s s n e s s Revised

to an

s e l f - b l a m e corresponds to

each h a v i n g very d i f f e r e n t
control.

1975).

once an i n d i v i d u a l p e r c e i v e s

situation,

cause

may

noncontingency i n

he a t t r i b u t e s h i s h e l p l e s s n e s s

be s t a b l e or

30

unstable,

global

to a
or

cause.

specific,

internal

or

whether

expectation

acute,
lower

external.

broad

of f u t u r e h e l p l e s s n e s s w i l l

or narrow,

self-esteem,

helplessness

deduced

reformulated
cognitive,

be c h r o n i c

in fact,

i s a fourth deficit

or
will

hypothesis
and emotional

relevant

others,

who

contingent

(the others
deficits).

being

human

motivational,

They suggest that

will

believe

show lower

that

on a c t s i n

self-esteem

desired

outcomes

than

are

In other

will

neither

on a c t s i n t h e i r r e p e r t o i r e s nor c o n t i n g e n t

i n a "personal

persons

on a c t s i n the r e p e r t o i r e s

the r e p e r t o i r e s of r e l e v a n t o t h e r s .

people

of

by Abramson and a s s o c i a t e s (1978) i n the

b e l i e v e that d e s i r e d outcomes a r e not c o n t i n g e n t

persons

in

influence

and whether or not h e l p l e s s n e s s

t h e i r r e p e r t o i r e s but a r e c o n t i n g e n t
of

will

self-esteem.
Low

who

The a t t r i b u t i o n chosen

on

acts

words,

only

helplessness" c o n d i t i o n should

experience

l o s s of s e l f - e s t e e m .
Low s e l f - e s t e e m
depression
( e. g. ,

by

Beck,

the

has been regarded

authors

of

as a hallmark

several

symptom

theoretical

of

treatises

1967; 1976; B i b r i n g , 1953; Freud, 1917/1957). The

u n i v e r s a l v e r s u s p e r s o n a l h e l p l e s s n e s s d i s t i n c t i o n p r e d i c t s that
depressed

persons who a t t r i b u t e t h e i r h e l p l e s s n e s s to

factors (i.e.,
esteem

than w i l l

universal
found

personal

negative

lower

persons who make e x t e r n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s

helplessness).

that

h e l p l e s s n e s s ) w i l l evidence

internal

Ickes and Layden (1978) f o r

i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h low s e l f - e s t e e m

tend

self(i.e.,

example,

to a t t r i b u t e

outcomes to i n t e r n a l f a c t o r s and p o s i t i v e outcomes

external f a c t o r s ,
s*lf-esteem

while

to

the o p p o s i t e p a t t e r n was found f o r high

individuals.
31

Validity

of the A t t r i b u t i o n a l A n a l y s i s of

Recently,
that

the

easily

Abramson,

earlier

and

the r e f o r m u l a t e d

Anisman (1975) found

what they b e l i e v e d to be a simple

d e f i c i t s , whereas s u b j e c t s who
d i d not.
on

likely

effects

explained

by

dimension
have

been

deficits

associated

success

therapy

nondepressed
and

depressed

noise

subjects

or

solvable

original

( K l e i n & Seligman,

For

the

crucial
Success

prevent

cognitive

subequently

1976).

induced

incompetent"

more

specific attribution

problems),
noise

controlled

changes
The

only

after

reformulated

s u b j e c t s to r e v i s e t h e i r
noise

(e.g.,
to

incompetent on some tasks"

some l a b o r a t o r y t a s k s are too d i f f i c u l t " )

32

the
after

or " l a b o r a t o r y tasks are u n s o l v a b l e " )

("I'm

and

better

example,

a t t r i b u t i o n f o r the i n e s c a p a b l e

"I'm

"only

complex

made h e l p l e s s w i t h u n c o n t r o l l a b l e

that the therapy

global

(e.g.,

also

with

s u c c e s s f u l l y and showed normal expectancy

model suggests

or

12

failure

difficult.").

shown to both r e v e r s e and

helplessness.

task

external

global-specific.

s u b j e c t s given no n o i s e ,

s u c c e s s and f a i l u r e

the

immunization are

being

with

(4

their

to

the a t t r i b u t i o n a l r e f o r m u l a t i o n ,

attributional
experiences

and

on

later cognitive

f a i l e d on

t h e i r f a i l u r e more

of therapy

failed

internal factors

s p e c i f i c f a c t o r s (e.g., "These problems are too

The

more

f a i l e d on an assumed complex

whereas the s u b j e c t s who

attributed

be

For example,

that s u b j e c t s who

t a s k s more to g l o b a l and

stupid."),

tasks

hypothesis.

task evidenced

suggested

may

I t i s p o s s i b l e that s u b j e c t s a t t r i b u t e d

the simple

"I'm

Seligman (1980)

s t u d i e s on human h e l p l e s s n e s s

e x p l a i n e d by

Douglas

Qarber, and

Helplessness

after

the

intervening

success

expectation

experiences,

of c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y .

w h i l e both r e a l s u c c e s s
were

equally

thereby

Teasdale

experiences

and

e f f e c t i v e in s h i f t i n g

f a i l u r e from i n t e r n a l

increasing

an

(1978) a l s o found that

r e c a l l i n g past

attributions

successes

for

initial

to e x t e r n a l f a c t o r s , only r e a l s u c c e s s

was

e f f e c t i v e i n r e v e r s i n g the h e l p l e s s n e s s performance d e f i c i t s .
The

e f f e c t s of immunization

Klee & Meyer,

experience

1979)
should

helplessness
likely

may

be s i m i l a r l y

make

experience

the
less

i s important

global,

whether

and

all
been

pretreatment

the

phase,

subsequent

consequently

received contingent

were l a t e r

controlling

success

less

of h e l p l e s s n e s s .

d u r i n g the pretreatment

s u b j e c t s who

1977;

to note that d e b r i e f i n g has been found

s u b j e c t s had

reinforcement

Initial

for

a l t e r s u b j e c t s ' a t t r i b u t i o n s ( K o l l e r & Kaplan,

of

& Massad,

explained:

attribution

to l e a d to an e x p e c t a t i o n

It

(Jones, N a t i o n ,

informed

tone

or

In

spite

noncontingent

phase of the

experiment,

that the experimenter

and problem

performed w e l l on

1978).

to

solution

during

the t e s t

task

(op.

(1979),

using a

had
the

cit.,

1978).
Additionally,
laboratory

induced

inescapable

tones)

performance

on

Tennen

and

h e l p l e s s n e s s paradigm

subjects

in

reformulation
al.,

1978;

(with

the t e s t

task (anagrams).

The

classic

escapable

found that d e b r i e f i n g a c t u a l l y

d e b r i e f e d s u b j e c t s surpassed
c o n d i t i o n who

Gillen

facilitated

performance

that of s u b j e c t s i n the

of
Miller

escapable

condition.

The

33

1979)

suggests

of

attributional

the l e a r n e d h e l p l e s s n e s s model
& Norman,

of

inescapable

were not d e b r i e f e d and matched the performance

the

or

(Abramson

that

et

debriefing

should
it

be e f f e c t i v e i n r e v e r s i n g h e l p l e s s n e s s d e f i c i t s

because

l e a d s the s u b j e c t to make s p e c i f i c r a t h e r than g l o b a l c a u s a l

attributions.

Tennen

and

Gillen

(1979)

found

that

while

d e b r i e f e d s u b j e c t s tended to a t t r i b u t e u n c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y more to
experimenter c o n t r o l than d i d other
more s p e c i f i c a t t r i b u t i o n s ,
and

Gillen

of

also

Ross

et

of the n o i s e task,
In any

deception,
same

emphasis

al.'s,
where

and

may

case,

1975,

regarding

increase their

the

efforts

the r o l e of d e b r i e f i n g

distinction

s u b j e c t i s set

between

straight

in

(note

"outcome

regarding

any

"process d e b r i e f i n g , " where the s u b j e c t i s given

information
on

the

i n c l u d i n g the i d e a that d e b r i e f e d

h e l p l e s s n e s s r e s e a r c h i s of paramount importance

debriefing,"

the

for

i n the experimenter i s r e a f f i r m e d through

anagram task.

learned

m a r g i n a l . Tennen

their p r e - e x i s t i n g perceptions

uncontrollability
the

reversal,

whose f a i t h

verification

on

t h i s d i f f e r e n c e was

implying

(1979) c i t e s e v e r a l p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n s

debriefing-produced
subjects,

i n e s c a p a b l e groups,

the

as i n outcome

personal

debriefing

relevance

of

plus

false

further

impression

perseverance).
Several
impaired
events

other

studies

performance

(Roth & Kubal,

Hibscher,

1976;

by

have found

subjects

1975;

Tennen

exposed

Wortman,

& Eller,

improved
to

rather

uncontrollable

Panciera,

1977;

than

Shusterman, &

and Hanusa &

Schulz,

1977). Abramson et a l . (1980) propose that such f a c i l i t a t i o n

may

represent

once

the

she

was

subject
helpless.

compensatory
leaves
(See,

attempts to r e a s s e r t c o n t r o l

the o r i g i n a l s i t u a t i o n
f o r example,

34

i n which he or

Solomon and

Corbit,

1973,

for a

relevant

rebound theory.)

a n a l y s i s of f a c i l i t a t i o n ,

In accordance w i t h

attributional

s u b j e c t s who make i n t e r n a l ,

and

unstable

may

t r y to compensate by t r y i n g harder on

specific,

"effort" attributions f o r their early

Facilitation
controlling

an

may

also

response

occur

when

failure(s)

subsequent

subjects

task(s).

cannot

but have not yet concluded

that

find
they

a
are

helpless.
Learned

H e l p l e s s n e s s Update (1984)

The c e n t r a l p r e d i c t i o n of the 1978 r e f o r m u l a t i o n (Abramson et

al.,

1978) was that an e x p l a n a t o r y s t y l e i n which bad events a r e

e x p l a i n e d by i n t e r n a l ,

stable,

w i t h d e p r e s s i v e symptoms and,

and g l o b a l causes
in addition,

i s associated

such an e x p l a n a t o r y

s t y l e was c l a i m e d to be a r i s k f a c t o r f o r subsequent
upon

the

(1984)
the

experiencing

of bad e v e n t s .

Peterson

have more r e c e n t l y d e s c r i b e d s e v e r a l

helplessness

strategies:

(a)

reformulation

that

cross-sectional

longitudinal studies,

and

Seligman

investigations

employed

five

correlational

( c ) experiments

depression

research

studies,

and

(e) case s t u d i e s .

cit.,

find

that these s t u d i e s converge i n t h e i r

for

(b)

of n a t u r e , (d) l a b o r a t o r y

experiments,
1984)

of

Overall,

the authors (op.

support

the l e a r n e d h e l p l e s s n e s s r e f o r m u l a t i o n .
The

primary

method

used by

explanatory

these

researchers

to

style

has

with

attributions

or

Attributional

S t y l e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e (ASQ;

a l . , 1982). T h i s s e l f - ^ r e p o r t

instrument

been

Peterson,

external,

s p e c i f i c causes.

stable

35

et

f u r n i s h e s s c o r e s f o r the

versus unstable,

S u b j e c t s a r e asked

the

Semmel,

e x p l a n a t i o n of s i x bad events and s i x good events w i t h

versus

assess

and

to generate

global

internal
versus

t h e i r own cause

for

each

event

seven-point
and

then

s c a l e s corresponding

globality

administered
In

d e s c r i b e d and

dimensions.

but may

addition,

"attribution"

The

be given

which

may

converging

operations,

cause

to the i n t e r n a l i t y ,

along

stability,

q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s g e n e r a l l y group

and

"causal

construct

that

individually.

Peterson

or

to r a t e

Seligman

(1984)

explanation"

as

be measured w i t h a
no one

number

regard

an

hypothetical
of

different

of which d e f i n e s or exhausts

the

c o n s t r u c t , so t h a t , f o r example, b e h a v i o r a l o b s e r v a t i o n s as w e l l
as answers to q u e s t i o n n a i r e s may
i n d i v i d u a l ' s causal
The

authors

be r e l e v a n t to knowing about an

explanations.

(Peterson & Seligman,

1984)

d i s c u s s e d how

e x p l a n a t i o n s are determined by both s i t u a t i o n a l

E l l e r , 1977)
&

and d i s p o s i t i o n a l

Seligman,

reality

1984;

is

(e.g.,

Tennen &

(e.g., A l l o y , P e t e r s o n ,

Abramson,

Dweck & L i c h t ,

ambiguous

enough,

1980)

f a c t o r s and

an i n d i v i d u a l may

impose h a b i t u a l e x p l a n a t i o n s .

In such c a s e s ,

as

could

projective

individual's
described

test

and

characteristic
converging

causal

be

evidence

in

if

project

and

the ASQ

used

explanatory

how,

to

style.

support

of

would work

measure
They
the

an
also

central

p r e d i c t i o n of the l e a r n e d h e l p l e s s n e s s r e f o r m u l a t i o n , that i f an
explanatory
then

the i n d i v i d u a l

occur.
factor"

Such
for

encountered.
offer

s t y l e invokes

an

internal,

subsequent

explanations

and g l o b a l

tends to become depressed

explanatory

Also,

stable,

they

when

s t y l e i s claimed

depression
find

bad

bad
be

events
a

"risk

events

are

that i f respondents are asked to

about s e v e r a l

36

when

to

causes,

(hypothetical)

bad

events,

rather
that

than
the

f o r a s i n g l e event,
average

characteristic
Seligman's

Coyne

explanations

will

H e l p l e s s n e s s and Beck's C o g n i t i v e Model

of

Criticized

data

suggest

of

reflect

and G o t l i b (1983),

research

Kovacs

these

greater

style.

Learned

Depression

of

the chances are then

i n summarizing and e v a l u a t i n g

r e g a r d i n g the r o l e of c o g n i t i o n

that n e i t h e r Beck's model of

& Beck,

1978)

depression

empirical
problems

found

students

versus

results

are

individuals);

depression

Abramson

They

(1967;

et a l . , 1978)

(Coyne & G o t l i b ,

i n s u b j e c t samples:
non-depressed
not

depression,
1976;

nor Seligman's l e a r n e d h e l p l e s s n e s s model

(1975;

base.

in

the

mildly

to

point

strong
out

depressed

c o l l e g e students

generalizable

depressed

1983)

has

the

college

(perhaps

clinically

the

depressed

p a t i e n t s v e r s u s nondepressed n o n p a t i e n t

c o n t r o l s (when a nondepressed p a t i e n t c o n t r o l group i s necessary

to

rule

out

the " p s y c h o l o g i c a l

s t u d i e s have i n c l u d e d two
The

authors (Coyne & G o t l i b ,

differences
regarding
strong

control

between

depressed

deviation"

hypothesis).

[Few

groups.]
1983)

reported that,

overall,

and

nondepressed

subjects

changes i n performance e x p e c t a t i o n s have not been

or

as

consistent

as

originally

as

hypothesized

(e.g.,

reader

person

P r k a c h i n et a l . , 1977).
Coyne
variables

and

Gotlib

other

self-evaluation.

(1983)

remind

the

that

than d e p r e s s i o n have been a s s o c i a t e d w i t h

For example,

i n the absence of d i f f e r e n c e s i n

observer r a t i n g s , n o n a s s e r t i v e i n d i v i d u a l s e v a l u a t e t h e i r
behavior

less positively

social

than do a s s e r t i v e i n d i v i d u a l s (Alden
37

low

&

Cappe,

1981);

i n the absence of performance

test-anxious
positively

females

differences, high-

e v a l u a t e t h e i r anagram

performance

than do l o w - t e s t - a n x i o u s females ( H o l r o y d , Westbrook,

Wolf, & Badhorn,

Regarding

1978).

p e r c e p t i o n s of environmental s t i m u l i ,

model one would p o s t u l a t e that i n d i v i d u a l s d i s t o r t

negative

manner,

information
being

less

and

both

selectively

model,

individual,
bringing

Beck's

feedback
out

in a

positive

p e r c e i v i n g n e u t r a l or n e g a t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n

more n e g a t i v e than i t a c t u a l l y

helplessness

filtering

from

one

i s . And from

would p o s t u l a t e

that

the

the

as

learned
depressed

b e l i e v i n g that h i s / h e r responses are i n e f f e c t i v e i n

about a d e s i r e d outcome,

response-outcome

dependence

f a i l s to a c c u r a t e l y p e r c e i v e

when consequences

are,

in

fact,

c o n t i n g e n t upon r e s p o n s e s .
In

the

support
not

research

was

more

respect

found f o r Beck's model:

i n a c c u r a t e than were
to

environmental
No

their

example,
condition

was

perception

of

depressed
(task:

contingency,
the

(1983)

no

depressed i n d i v i d u a l s were

the

found f o r the

individuals

evaluative

Alloy,

students in a
contingency

contingency

learned

with

nature

learning
was

helplessness

of

set

model

and Rosoff (1981), f o r

"self-generated

s u b j e c t s were asked to generate t h e i r own

including

Gotlib

nondepressed

In a study by Abramson,

response-outcome

the

and

stimuli.

support

either.

reviewed by Coyne

problem
at

75%;

hypothesis"

in

which

half

of

the
the

hypotheses

concerning

and h a l f 'were given a s m a l l set of

hypotheses,

correct

one) were l e s s l i k e l y

38

to

perform

the

correct
less

controlling

response,

c o n t r o l over the outcome.

depressed
control

students'

judgments

and judged

of

they

exercised

I t was noted that a l t h o u g h

were an

they c o u l d have p o t e n t i a l l y

reflections

that

underestimate

exerted,

of the

they were

the amount of c o n t r o l which they

the

actual

actually

did

exert.
Overall,
of

the s t u d i e s examining

feedback,

are

and r e c a l l of p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e

equivocal,

negative

r e c a l l of i n f o r m a t i o n , r e c a l l

given

schema

Beck's h y p o t h e s i s

affecting

environmental s t i m u l i .

perception

of
and

experiences,

the d e p r e s s i v e s '
interpretation

of

Some s t u d i e s ( e . g . , G o t l i b , 1981) r e p o r t

that d e p r e s s e d . p a t i e n t s r e c a l l , f o r example, a d m i n i s t e r i n g fewer

self-rewards
actually
groups

the

case (compared w i t h s u b j e c t s i n two

- nondepressed

nonpatient
between
A

and a g r e a t e r number of s e l f - p u n i s h m e n t s than

controls).

number

of s t u d i e s

have

differences

s u b j e c t s (Buchwald,

examined

1977).

depressed-nondepressed

c o n s i s t e n t f i n d i n g of such s t u d i e s i s that

s u b j e c t s make more i n t e r n a l

do nondepressed

Johansen,

nondepressed

i n a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r experimenter-controlled success

and f a i l u r e . A f a i r l y
depressed

and

nondepressed

Other s t u d i e s have found no

depressed and nondepressed

differences

than

psychiatric inpatients

s u b j e c t s (e.g.,

attributions for
Rizley,

1978;

1980). However, two s t u d i e s that examined

failure

Zemore

find

hypothesized

group

differences

(Abramson,

Edwards, and Seligman, 1978; G o t l i b and Olson,

Several
and

individuals
39

failed
Garber,

1983).

s t u d i e s have a n a l y z e d the a t t r i b u t i o n s of

nondepressed

&

attributions

f o l l o w i n g s u c c e s s and f a i l u r e i n p a t i e n t p o p u l a t i o n s both
to

was

f o r hypothetical

good

depressed
and bad

events,

in

most

Questionnaire
(1979)

p a r t through use of the

(ASQ;

reported

Seligman

that,

as

et a l . , 1 9 7 9 ) .
hypothesized

helplessness

model,

depressed

stable,

global

attributions

and

Attributional

students
f o r bad

Seligman

(1982)

found

that,

et

al.

by

the

learned-

made

more

internal,

outcomes

nondepressed s t u d e n t s . M e t a l s k y , Abramson, Seligman,

Peterson

Style

than

did

Semmel, and

f o r a u n i v e r s i t y student

sample,

i n t e r n a l and g l o b a l a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r n e g a t i v e events on the

were s i g n i f i c a n t l y
following
A

c o r r e l a t e d w i t h an i n c r e a s e i n depressed mood

r e c e i p t of a low grade on a midterm exam.

number

of i n v e s t i g a t i o n s u s i n g

o b t a i n e d much weaker r e s u l t s ( e . g . ,
et

a l . , 1981).

hypothesized

And

the
Blaney

ASQ,

however,

depressed-nondepressed
(e.g.,

have

et a l . , 1980;

s e v e r a l s t u d i e s have f a i l e d

a t t r i b u t i o n a l dimension
al.,

ASQ

to

differences

find

the

any

ASQ

on

Manly et a l . , 1982;

Golin

Miller

et

whether t e n d e n c i e s to make p a r t i c u l a r k i n d s

of

1982).

In

examining

a t t r i b u t i o n s c o n s t i t u t e a source of v u l n e r a b i l i t y

to

subsequent

depression,

G o l i n et a l . (1981), f o r example, found

that s t a b l e

and

attributions

global

student

sample were r e l a t e d

However,

there was

attributions
since

f o r n e g a t i v e events

stability

and

3%

Depression

significant

and g l o b a l i t y

the

university

to depressed mood one month

f o r bad outcomes i s a c a u s a l f a c t o r

for

no support f o r the h y p o t h e s i s that

the s t a t i s t i c a l l y

of

in

variance,

Inventory

a t t r i b u t i o n s accounted

(BDI)

scores.

40

in

Other

internal

in depression,

cross-lagged

respectively,

later.

correlations
f o r only

subsequent
studies

1054
Beck

(e.g.,

Lewinsohn
that

1381; Manly

attributions

Thus,
to

et a l . ,

et a l . ,

1982) a l s o

d i d no : p r e d i c t subsequent

demonstrated

depressed

mood.

s t u d i e s examining t i e c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p of a t t r i b u t i o n s

d e p r e s s i o n have y i e l d e d

further

mixed r e s u l t s ,

and the i s s u e

needs

clarification.

S t u d i e s examining the responses of depressed and nondepressed

s u b j e c t s to s t r e s s f u l l i f e events ( e . g . ,
Hammen

&

DeMayo,

nondepressed

1982) have demonstrated that

individuals

to

be

nondepressed
internal

subjects,

their

finding

relative

to a t t r i b u t e s t r e s s f u l events

to

more

to

causes.

In many s t u d i e s (e.g.,
therefore,

although

attributions
attributions
external
one

in

The most c o n s i s t e n t

a tendency f o r depressed
subjects,

depressed and

do not d i f f e r c o n s i s t e n t l y

a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r s t r e s s f u l events.
seems

Barthe & Hammen, 1981;

Seligman et a l . ,

depressed s u b j e c t s may make more

for failure

than do nondepressed

for failure

than i n t e r n a l .

explanation

for

fact

involves

Blatt

Blatt,

McDonald,

identified

two

Chevron,
types

of

(1983),
possible

and c o l l e a g u e s ( B l a t t , 1974;

depression

&

Zuroff,

i n both

guilt,

self-criticism.

demonstrate d i f f e r e n t

w i t h the h e l p l e s s , dependent
external

causes,

and

helplessness

and

w h i l e the other f o c u s e s on f e e l i n g s of i n f e r i o r i t y ,
Supposedly,

on

clinical

dependency,

would

focuses

1982) have

samples.

depressives

type

the

more

subclinical

and

One

their

absolutely

A c c o r d i n g to Coyne and G o t l i b
this

internal

subjects,

are nevertheless

h e t e r o g e n e i t y of d e p r e s s i o n .
Quinlan,

1979; Z u r o f f , 1981)

these

two

attributional

and

types o f
styles,

d e p r e s s i v e s showing a t t r i b u t i o n s to

the

over-responsible,
41

self-critical

depressives

manifesting

collapsing
erode

more

internal

a c r o s s these two types of d e p r e s s i o n would

tend

number

Burger

of

(1980),

anxiety

researchers

have

found

attributions

other

therapy

that s o c i a l l y

position

i n t e r n a l i z e d d a t a - a n a l y s i s p r o c e s s e s (see

Coyne

individuals,

tend

make

and

G o t l i b (1983)

suggest

that

from e i t h e r p a t i e n t or student

negative

and

self-deprecating

also

while

samples,

responses

t a s k s and to h y p o t h e t i c a l and r e a l - l i f e

t h i s tendency

They

(Coyne

&

and

Beck's

Gotlib,

1983)

typically

involved

routinely

be as r e f l e c t i v e as r e s e a r c h e r s have hoped,

directing

according

to

more

capture

challenge

that

in

tasks

also

models

assumption

behave

experimental

cognitive

behavior.

typical,

r e f l e x i v e b e h a v i o r a l p r o c e s s e s (Langer,

42

1978).

to

situations,

i s not as s t r o n g or as c o n s i s t e n t as advocates

learned-helplessness

instead

that

s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s r a t h e r than,

depressed

assumed.

their

1982; T e t l o c k , 1981).

summary,

laboratory

They

would be e v a l u a t e d by an expert or n o t . A r k i n et a l .

as w e l l as,

to

task.

were a f f e c t e d by whether they b e l i e v e d that

attributions reflect

In

social

anxious s t u d e n t s '

r e p o r t t h i s f i n d i n g as support f o r t h e i r

Baumeister,

individual

f o r example, found a r e l a t i o n s h i p between

( A r k i n et a l . , 1980) a l s o found

(1980)

and

f o r a t t r i b u t i o n s . A r k i n , Appieman, and

and a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r f a i l u r e on a

performance

to

subjects.

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s important

the

Thus,

any r e a l a t t r i b u t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s between depressed

nondepressed

or

attributions.

the
People

of
have
the

processes
may

not

but

may

automatic,

or

Moreover,

what

people

think

probably

circumstances

or

depends

more on

what

their

external

environment

provide

than

the

learned-

Coyne,

1976;

Gotlib &

h e l p l e s s n e s s or Beck models assume ( c f .

Robinson,
The

1982).

Learned
In

H e l p l e s s n e s s Reformulation

r e c e n t study,

predictions
eight

to

found

that

stable,

Seligman

and C h i l d r e n

et

al.

(1984)

of the l e a r n e d h e l p l e s s n e s s r e f o r m u l a t i o n among
1 3 - y e a r - o l d boys and g i r l s .
children

who

Seligman

a t t r i b u t e d bad

than

external,

were

c h i l d r e n who

unstable,

and

al.
to

96

(1984)

internal,

to r e p o r t d e p r e s s i v e

attributed

specific

et

events

and g l o b a l causes were more l i k e l y

symptoms

investigated

these

causes.

events

Moreover,

to
this

d e p r e s s i v e a t t r i b u t i o n a l s t y l e p r e d i c t e d d e p r e s s i v e symptoms s i x
months

later,

depression.
Inventory

suggesting

[The
(CDI;

Attributional

Kovacs
Style

1984)

interval.]

Finally,

symptoms,
child's

&

Beck,

two

times,

Seligman
style

be a

risk

factor

the C h i l d r e n ' s

1977),

Questionnaire

at

composite

c h i l d ' s composite

i t may

c h i l d r e n completed

Seligman,

mother's

that

and

(CASQ;
separated

et a l .

(1984)

Depression

the
see
by

for

Children's
Peterson
a

&

six-month

found

that

the

f o r bad events c o r r e l a t e d

with

her

f o r bad events and w i t h her c h i l d ' s d e p r e s s i v e

that mother's d e p r e s s i v e symptoms c o r r e l a t e d w i t h her

d e p r e s s i v e symptoms,

and

that

style

and d e p r e s s i o n were not r e l a t e d

their

child.

Depression

[Parents
Inventory

had

father's

to s c o r e s of h i s mate

been asked

(BDI;

Beck,

A t t r i b u t i o n a l S t y l e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e (ASQ;

43

attributional

to

complete

1967)

and

the
the

or
Beck

adult

Peterson et a l . , 1982).]

Helplessness versus Mastery-Orientation i n Children

A

group

Dweck,

of

1975;

differential
ability

Dweck

&

effects

versus

children.

s t u d i e s by

Reppucci,

of

lack

Dweck and

her

associates (e.g.

1973)

demonstrated

a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r f a i l u r e to

of

effort

in

elementary

lack

role

These r e s e a r c h e r s a l s o p r o v i d e d evidence of how s e l f -

subsequent

behavior.

Specifically,

both " l e a r n e d h e l p l e s s " and " m a s t e r y - o r i e n t e d "

it is

important

i d e n t i c a l performance
equivalent

speed,

to note,

process

they examined the

of a t t r i b u t i o n s i n d e t e r m i n i n g the response

children,

of

school-aged

a t t r i b u t i o n s a c q u i r e d d u r i n g the c h i l d h o o d s o c i a l i z a t i o n
can a f f e c t

the

to f a i l u r e

children.

s t a r t out w i t h

of

These

virtually

b e f o r e a f a i l u r e e x p e r i e n c e - f o r example,

accuracy,

and

sophistication

of

problem-

s o l v i n g s t r a t e g i e s on t a s k s , and s i m i l a r r e s u l t s on s t a n d a r d i z e d
measures

of

intelligence.

are

failures.

In achievement s i t u a t i o n s ,
as

cognitions

later

children

typified

their

Nhat

having c o g n i t i o n s that

i n s u r m o u n t a b i l i t y of f a i l u r e ,
would

be

about

differentiates
their

successes

imply

children

(subjects
was taken

to ensure
given

Dweck and Reppucci

problems,

performance

distinguished

the

that c h i l d r e n
mastery
had

that

the

imply

(1973) gave one group

other,

insoluble

ones
care

i n the f a i l u r e c o n d i t i o n s were

commendable).

experimental
44

that

rectifiable.

e x p e r i e n c e s and made to

been

two

or

whereas m a s t e r y - o r i e n t e d c h i l d r e n

i n t h e i r s t u d i e s were i n grades f o u r to s i x and

subsequently
their

soluble

be

the i n e v i t a b i l i t y

t h e i r s u c c e s s e s a r e r e p l i c a b l e , and t h e i r e r r o r s

of

and

h e l p l e s s c h i l d r e n may

c h a r a c t e r i z e d as having c o g n i t i o n s

In one experiment,

these

Nhat

groups

feel

that

subsequently
were

their

a t t r i b u t i o n a l patterns,,
t h e i r academic
Measuring

s u c c e s s e s and f a i l u r e s (see Weiner,

children's

Achievement

t h e i r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c ways of e x p l a i n i n g

/'Attributions

Responsibility

1972;

by means of the

Scale

(Crandall,

1974).

Intellectual
Katkovsky,

&

i !'
U

Crandall,
who

Dweck and Reppucci

(1973) found that c h i l d r e n

p e r s i s t e d i n the f a c e of f a i l u r e p l a c e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y

emphasis
thus

on

motivational

implying

factor
the

1965),

that

that f a i l u r e i s surmountable
i s generally

individual.

tended

f a c t o r s as determinants of

more

The

perceived

c h i l d r e n whose

outcomes,

through

to be under

more

effort.

the c o n t r o l

performance

than p e r s i s t e n t c h i l d r e n to p l a c e

a
of

deteriorated

the

blame

for

t h e i r f a i l u r e s on l a r g e l y u n c o n t r o l l a b l e e x t e r n a l f a c t o r s r a t h e r
than e f f o r t .

If they d i d take r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r f a i l u r e s ,

were . r e l a t i v e l y

more

likely

blame t h e i r f a i l u r e on l a c k of
In another experiment
alter

children's

than the p e r s i s t e n t

to

failure

C h i l d r e n who

pattern

helplessness

divided

of

R e s p o n s i b i l i t y Scale

into

two

groups.

One

advocates

maladaptive

of

the

responses

by

altering

on

the

Intellectual

( C r a n d a l l et a l . ,
group

so-called
to f a i l u r e .

their

showed the a t t r i b u t i o n a l

received

e x p e r i e n c e s i n the treatment s i t u a t i o n ,
by

to

ability.

attributions for failure.

Achievement

children

(Dweck, 1975), an attempt was made to

responses

indicative

they

1965)

only

were

success

a procedure recommended

"deprivation
The second

theory"
group

of

received

a t t r i b u t i o n r e t r a i n i n g w i t h s u c c e s s e x p e r i e n c e predominating but
with several f a i l u r e

t r i a l s each day.

c h i l d ' s a c t u a l performance was

45

When f a i l u r e o c c u r r e d

compared to c r i t e r i o n

the

performance

and

the f a i l u r e was e x p l i c i t l y

a l a c k of e f f o r t

a t t r i b u t e d by the experimenter to

(internal/unstable attribution).

t r a i n i n g the second group

By the end of

showed no a p p r e c i a b l e impairment, and,

unexpectedly,

most of them showed improvement i n performance as

failure.

result

of

Children

i n the f i r s t

group

showed

no

improvement (they were given a t t r i b u t i o n r e t r a i n i n g , however, a t

the end of the e x p e r i m e n t ) .
Thus,
1973)

these two s t u d i e s (Dweck,

focused

children's
That

on

attributions

beliefs

1975;

for failure

Dweck &
as

Reppucci,

indicants

r e g a r d i n g the c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y

of

of

failure.

i s , f a i l u r e a t t r i b u t i o n s to s t a b l e f a c t o r s , such as l a c k of

ability,

imply

whereas

failure

insufficient

that

Note,
through

suggest

that

questionnaires

that

or v i a probes w i t h i n

to

possibility
some

such

as

remains

assessed
the

(either

experimental

these r e s e a r c h e r s had ipso

explain

their

that without

failure(s).

i n simply
There

asking
remained

and
facto
the
the

the cues given by the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s ,

c h i l d r e n may perhaps not have p e r c e i v e d themselves

failed

recur,

at p r e s p e c i f i e d times i n these two experiments,

the s i t u a t i o n as a f a i l i n g one,

children

or

factors

f u t u r e success

a t t r i b u t i o n s were

that by a s s e s s i n g a t t r i b u t i o n s ,
defined

to c o n t i n u e

( e . g . N e i n e r , 1972; 1974).

however,

situation)

i s likely

a t t r i b u t i o n s to l e s s s t a b l e

effort,

viable possibility

failure

at that s p e c i f i e d p o i n t

i n time.

Or,

if

to have

acknowledging

f a i l u r e , would they then have spontaneously made a t t r i b u t i o n s ?

In

order to answer these and other q u e s t i o n s ,

Dweck (1978),
would

i n a l a t e r experiment,

enable c h i l d r e n

Diener

and

employed a procedure

that

( f i f t h g r a d e r s ) to t e l l

46

them

what

their

c o g n i t i o n s were as they o c c u r r e d . In two s t u d i e s ,

the

sophistication

children

in

of

solving

problem-solving
a

the

strategies

mature s t r a t e g i e s over the f a i l u r e t r i a l s ,

The

critical

otherwise
(after

the

verbalize
differ

findings

identical
sixth

aloud

came

studies,
of

where the

eight

success

making

ability

(e.g.,

confusion).

They

task and a wish

fact

poor

training

were

to

problems

the course of the

Helpless

of

to

children

lack

ability

to express n e g a t i v e a f f e c t
the s i t u a t i o n ,

of

(e.g.,

toward

the

i n s p i t e of the

that only moments b e f o r e they were q u i t e content w i t h i t .

H e l p l e s s c h i l d r e n a l s o gave numerous t a s k - i r r e l e v a n t
which

may

have

cognitively,
discussion
In

r e p r e s e n t e d attempts

to escape from

statements
the

task

s i n c e i t was not p o s s i b l e to do so p h y s i c a l l y ( s e e

i n Dweck and L i c h t , 1980).

contrast,

attributions
they

two

asked

problems)

success

for failure

memory) or to a l o s s

to withdraw from

the

The two groups d i d not

However, over

attributions

began

maintain

of

children

c l e a r d i f f e r e n c e s emerged.

causal

to

second

d u r i n g the two

p r e c e d i n g the onset of fail'rs.

began

Conversely,

but some of them a l s o

i n the

as they d i d the t a s k .

trials,

failure.

strategies.

i n types of statements

failure

two-choice

c h i l d r e n were not only a b l e

began u s i n g more s o p h i s t i c a t e d

by

the h e l p l e s s c h i l d r e n ' s

d e t e r i o r a t e d w i t h the onset of

mastery-oriented

monitored
used

three-dimensional,

d i s c r i m i n a t i o n problem. In both s t u d i e s ,
stategies

they

for

mastery-oriented

the f a i l u r e s .

were making " m i s t a k e s ,

children

Though they acknowledged

t h e r e was l i t t l e

47

didn't

to

suggest

make
that
that

they

regarded

that

t h e i r present

they expected

their

s t a t e to c o n s t i t u t e

"failure"

to remain i n that s t a t e nuch l o n g e r .

statements

signified

greater

tat>k

or

Most of

involvement

and

4
increased orientation
in a f a i r

toward f i n d i n g the s o l u t i o n .

amount of s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n

They engaged

(e.g., reminding

to c o n c e n t r a t e ) , and s e l f - m o n i t o r i n g ( e . g . , c h e c k i n g
they

were

engaging

performance).
lends

in

[This

support

to

the

behaviors

categorization
the

of

r a t i o n a l e of

Sebastiano

(1975;

1980;

Santostefano

instructional

techniques

to

who

(1980a;

teach

statements

they

the

1980b),

such

insufficient

learning-disabled/hyperactive

challenge.

lesser

ability

achieved

effort,

than

either

problem-solving

by

c h i l d r e n gave a number

They

toward

the

expressed

task;

unflagging

previously believed
intensifying

children

present,

to dwell on

reflected

The

efforts,

or

could

or
be

changing

the c o g n i t i o n s of

tendency to
and

reflected

dwell

their

to s t r e s s the p o s i t i v e ,

and

the
the
from

mastery-oriented
tendency to look
to i n v e s t t h e i r

in a c t i v e l y pursuing relevant s t r a t e g i e s
48

on

to seek an escape

c o g n i t i o n s of the

the other hand,

toward the f u t u r e ,
energies

their

the n e g a t i v e ,

s i t u a t i o n at hand.
on

their

of the t a s k ,

- success

when f a i l u r e s o c c u r r e d ,

helpless

children,

greater d i f f i c u l t y

- bad

strategies.

In summary,

the

and
self-

c o n f i d e n c e that no matter what the cause of t h e i r m i s t a k e s

luck,

of

Donald

1971),

just

i n d i c a t i v e of p o s i t i v e a f f e c t

welcomed

thus,

programs

Goodman,

c h i l d r e n . ] Moreover, the m a s t e r y - o r i e n t e d
of

expedite

verbalizations,

Meichenbaum &
(1978),

to see that

would

therapeutic

p s y c h o l o g i s t s such as V i r g i n i a Douglas
Meichenbaum

that

themselves

for

problem

solution.
In

a more r e c e n t study

performed
failure

task

of

the

Dweck,

on which they encountered

( t h e task was

discrimination

(Diener &

the

same

problem used

1980),
success

and

three-dimensional,

i n the e a r l i e r ,

1978,

children

two-choice
study). Half

c h i l d r e n were q u e s t i o n e d about t h e i r performance

s u c c e s s and

the other h a l f a f t e r f a i l u r e . Pronounced

emerged.

Compared

children

both

overestimated

to

mastery-oriented

underestimated
the

the

helpless

successes

perceive

s u c c e s s e s as i n d i c a t i v e of a b i l i t y ,

and d i d not expect

successes

to

l e d them

Subsequent

p r e v i o u s performance,
appeared

that

"diagnostic"
children
and

Brickman,

salient,

unlike

helpless

to

devalue

their

the m a s t e r y - o r i e n t e d c h i l d r e n .

children

viewed

failure

as

It
more

of t h e i r l e v e l of a b i l i t y , whereas m a s t e r y - o r i e n t e d

seemed

concluded

failure

They d i d

and

not

continue.

number of f a i l u r e s .

of

after

differences

children,

number

then

that

to view s u c c e s s as more d i a g n o s t i c
1975).
for

The

authors

helpless

less predictive,

(Diener

children,

&

(see

Trope

Dweck,

1980)

successes

and l e s s enduring - i n

are

less

total,

less

successful.
A b r i e f overview
provide

of the area of c h i l d h o o d d e p r e s s i o n may

some i n s i g h t r e g a r d i n g d i f f e r e n c e s

mastery-oriented

children.

49

between h e l p l e s s

now
and

D e s c r i p t i o n of Childhood
In g e n e r a l ,
and

signs

Depression

there i s agreement on

of d e p r e s s i o n

in adults

the most common symptoms

(e.g.,

Robins & Guze, 1970). S i m i l a r l y , some f e e l

agreement

1970;

characteristics

of

studies

published

reviewed

concur

cognitive
list

1978).

childhood

and 1973.

A l l of

However,

childhood
notes

depression

that

nonspecific,
example).

somatic

Frommer

enuresis

be

per se.

negatively

Poznanski

and Z r u l l

nine

studies
of

studies
in

most

commonly

based on

of

pain,

a
for

and Huttunen (1972) l i s t

in

(1978) found e n u r e s i s and

with

symptom of

Frommer (1968)

( i n c r e a s i n g abdominal

associated
(1970),

the

as a primary

are

(1968) and A r a j a r v i

Pearce

from

disturbances

and e n c o p r e s i s as symptoms of d e p r e s s i o n

the other hand,

list

not a l l of the s t u d i e s p l a c e

complaints
nature

& Zrull,

and most

(Weinberg et a l . , 1973).

presenting

(e.g.,

i n v o l v e s some type

a t t i t u d i n a l and m o t i v a t i o n a l changes and

an emphasis on d y s p h o r i c mood,

to

Poznanski

i n the n e g a t i v e d i r e c t i o n ,

psychomotor f u n c t i o n i n g .

On

children

depressive disorders

between 1968

1976;

Kovacs and Beck (1977)

that c h i l d h o o d d e p r e s s i o n

change

in

M c C o n v i l l e et a l . , 1973;

P u i g - A n t i c h et a l . ,

1967;

that t h e r e i s g e n e r a l

r e g a r d i n g symptoms of d e p r e s s i o n

L i n g et a l . , 1970;

Beck,

depression

in

children.
encopresis
children.

the data r e c o r d s s e l e c t e d ,

l i s t e d n e g a t i v e s e l f - i m a g e as the most frequent d i s t u r b a n c e seen

within

the d e p r e s s i v e symtomatology.

&

Zrull,

1970)

a l s o noted

most

f r e q u e n t symptomatic behavior which i n i t i a t e d r e f e r r a l f o r

treatment.

that d i f f i c u l t y

They (Poznanski

Kuhn and Kuhn (1972),

50

i n h a n d l i n g a g g r e s s i o n was

i n a study

of the

the

imipramine

treatment
to be

of 100

depressed

children,

found

"morning t i r e d n e s s "

the c a r d i n a l symptom of a f f e c t i v e d e p r e s s i o n .

these

authors

resemble

i n c l u d e d e s c r i p t i o n s or

symptoms

the a d u l t d e p r e s s i v e syndrome,

the c h a r a c t e r of these symptoms may

In g e n e r a l ,
that

closely

sometimes n o t i n g

be somewhat d i f f e r e n t

that
(e.g.,

Krakowski, 1970).
S e v e r a l r e s e a r c h e r s (Bakwin,
1967;

Lesse,

1974;

Toolan,

or b e h a v i o r a l c o m p l a i n t s

following

underlying

symptom

depression

Cytryn

have noted

that psychosomatic

pictures

may

indicate

i n o l d e r c h i l d r e n and
behavior;

an

.adolescents:

(1)

(2)

or

McKnew

(1974) a l s o

view

these s i g n s of masked d e p r e s s i o n
aggressiveness,

psychosomatic symptoms.

psychoneurotic

"masked

in their

and

description:

school f a i l u r e , delinquency,

and

These authors note, however, that among

children,

more c l e a r l y

i d e n t i f i a b l e d e p r e s s i v e syndrome, w i t h

t h e r e i s a group that tends to p r e s e n t

symptoms such as sad a f f e c t ,

social failure,

depressive

in children

latency-age

helplessness,

that

(3) p s y c h o p h y s i o l o g i c r e a c t i o n s .

and

hyperactivity,

underlying

mask

r e a c t i o n " as the most common form of d e p r e s s i o n

include

Glaser,

(1967), f o r example, observed

b e h a v i o r a l problems and d e l i n q u e n t
r e a c t i o n s ; and

C o n n e l l , 1972;

among c h i l d r e n o f t e n mask an

a f f e c t i v e disturbance. Glaser
the

1962)

1972;

psychomotor

social

withdrawal,

retardation,

anxiety,

e a t i n g and s l e e p i n g d i s t u r b a n c e s ,

accompanying
hopelessness,
school
and

and

suicidal

ideation.
Other authors view d e p r e s s i o n
depressive

equivalents,

as masked, or as evidenced

at v a r i o u s phases of development.

example, i n a d d i t i o n to the symptoms noted

51

in
For

by o t h e r s (as above),

Renshaw

(1974) a s s e r t s that f i r e s e t t i n g

i s a means

of

acting

out c h i l d h o o d d e p r e s s i o n , and Malmquist (1972) i n c l u d e s a n o r e x i a

nervosa

and

o b e s i t y syndromes q s d e p r e s s i v e e q u i v a l e n t s .
!

Kovacs

and Beck (1977,

term "masked" d e p r e s s i o n may

Me

(j.ll),

however,

suggest

be m i s l e a d i n g and

know from a d u l t c l i n i c a l p r a c t i c e

malaise.

Yet

p r e s e n t i n g complaints

we

do

not

that

refer

or

Consequently,

manifesting
concepts

clinical

or

heuristic
events

as

The

masked

concept

that

initiate

adult

view them

discomfort.
depression

seems to

significance

or

accepted ways of

psychological

such

are unnecessary.

(1)

such

as "masking" d e p r e s s i o n . We

childhood

signifies:

patients

complaints

to

e i t h e r as " s o m a t i z a t i o n s " or as c u l t u r a l l y
construing

the

unnecessary:

o f t e n present w i t h e i t h e r n o n s p e c i f i c somatic
general

that

and

in

have

no

essentially

referral,

or

(2)

m a n i f e s t a t i o n s of a p s y c h o l o g i c a l d i s t u r b a n c e a c c e p t a b l e
a p p r o p r i a t e to that age
Nelner

(1978)

provided

category.
an

excellent

overview

p s y c h i a t r i c l i t e r a t u r e on c h i l d h o o d to that date.
there

is

depression.

no

general

Instead, she

i n c h i l d h o o d was
McKnew,
(e.g.,

1972;

agreement
found

on

Anthony & S c o t t ,

1968),
1960;

primary

Rapoport et a l . ,
and

secondary

1974).

that

that the d i a g n o s i s of

depression

impression

arbitrarily

(e.g.,

selected

Cytryn

&

criteria

Weinberg et a l . , 1973), or on a

No

depression

52

felt

the

childhood

f a v o r a b l e response to a n t i d e p r e s s a n t
1968;

criteria

She

of

for

based upon c l i n i c a l
Frommer,

or

drug therapy

(e.g.,Frommer,

d i s t i n c t i o n was
in

the

made between

literature.

In

l o n g i t u d i n a l s t u d i e s , Robins (1966) found that l e s s than one

cent

of the c h i l d r e n who

early

in

(1972),

life
in

were seen i n a c h i l d

l a t e r developed d e p r e s s i v e

h i s follow-up

of 2,199
and

psychosis.

d i d not

In the

(1970)

depression

was

identified

three

0.1

and

of

Dahl

severely

I s l e of Might e p i d e m i o l o g i c a l

discovered

low:

clinic

f i n d a s i n g l e case of manic-

c h i l d r e n between the ages of 10

Whitmore

illness;

study of a l a r g e s e r i e s

d i s t u r b e d Danish c h i l d r e n ,
depressive

guidance

per

per

and

that

11,

the

cent.

Rutter,

rate

Rutter

et

groups of d i s t u r b e d c h i l d r e n :

study

Tizard,

of

"pure"

al.

(1970)

group

with

conduct d i s o r d e r s , a group w i t h emotional d i s o r d e r s , and

a mixed

group c o n t a i n i n g

et a l . ,

1970)

components of both types.

found that

depressive
was

no

the d i s t u r b e d c h i l d r e n ,

difference

Weiner,

among

the

Weiner,

in adults.

evaluated
(Feighner

in

minor
(Weiner

study

et a l . ,

1972).

modification,

significant

that

i n c h i l d r e n i s very

met

the

Only one,

the a d u l t c r i t e r i a (Feighner

al.,

either

the

in

1977)

clinical
also

adult

felt

diagnostic

however, was

in

on

clinical

who

that
were

criteria

prepubertal

et a l . ,
studies
that

1972),
of

since

with

some

children.

They

they
and

found

yet d i d not

l e a r n i n g , or behavior problems i n
53

the

i t would seem r e a s o n a b l e

number of c h i l d r e n w i t h d e p r e s s i o n ,

f i n d more h y p e r a c t i v i t y ,

there

s i m i l a r to

F i v e of the 75 y o u n g s t e r s (about 7%)

the

et

that

Leonard (1977) found, based

c h i l d . Weiner et a l . (1977) judged that

use

had more

symptoms.

study of c h i l d r e n of depressed p a r e n t s ,

found

but

three subgroups

McCrary, and

symptomatology of d e p r e s s i o n

to

in general,

symptoms than n o n d i s t u r b e d c h i l d r e n ,

presence of or the r a t e of d e p r e s s i v e

their

They ( R u t t e r

this

h i g h r i s k group, the theory of "masked" d e p r e s s i o n

lost

support.

Nelner

(1978,

p. 59; ) concluded:

" I t i s not unusual

d e p r e s s i v e symptoms as </;ell as low s e l f - e s t e e m

disorders

other

than

depression.

problems, h y p e r a c t i v i t y , and
have low

s e l f - e s t e e m and

study

of

found

that

to express

earlier,

based

children,

they

are

affective disorder.
of

hyperactive

rather
26,

not

and

had

children

risk

also
more

Y e t , as mentioned

to

hyperactive

develop

primary

i n our o p i n i o n , the unhappiness

i s secondary

to

than a m a n i f e s t a t i o n of d e p r e s s i v e

35,

In our

significantly

f a m i l y s t u d i e s of

at a h i g h

Therefore,

learning

problems are known to

the normal c o n t r o l s .

on f o l l o w - u p

with

t h e i r s i b l i n g s (40) we

h y p e r a c t i v e probands

d e p r e s s i v e symptoms than

with

unhappiness (26,35).

h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n and
the

in children

Children

even behavior

to f i n d

their

hyperactivity

illness."

[References

and 40 r e f e r , r e s p e c t i v e l y , to Mendelson, Johnson,

Stewart,

1971;

R u t t e r , T i z a r d , and Whitmore, 1970;

and

and

Nelner,

Welner, Stewart, P a l k e s , and N i s h , 1977.]

Lefkowitz

and

Depression.
points

of

Burton

Lefkowitz

Criticize
and Burton

the

Concept

prevalence,

f o r example,

that any

and long-term
clinical

Childhood

(1978) d i s c u s s e d the

view r e g a r d i n g c h i l d h o o d d e p r e s s i o n

existence,

of

i n terms of

the

function
studies
Lapouse,

normal p o p u l a t i o n and
of development.
(e.g.,
1966;

d i a g n o s i s of c h i l d h o o d

behavior
behavior

the v a r i a t i o n s i n i n c i d e n c e as

They surveyed

Chess & Thomas,

1972;

MacFarlane et a l . , 1954;

54

its

outcome. They admonished,

s h o u l d be based upon knowledge of the i n c i d e n c e of such

in

various

several epidemiological
Kovacs
Pearce,

&

Beck,
1977;

1977;

Shepherd

et

al.,

1971;

incidence

Werry & Quay, 1971)

and concluded

several

seemingly

of

depression

behaviors

d i d not meet the c r i t e r i o n

by some e p i d e m i o l o g i s t s (Shepherd,
for

being

should

considered

be regarded

statistically

depression

clinical

Coste.il:>

an

Lefkowitz's

such

of

perspective

to age

depression

and

as

and

Burton.

While

c a l l f o r more r i g o r o u s r e s e a r c h i n the area of

put

thought

These

thought
disappear

the

(1980),

nevertheless,

in

Lefkowitz

the

three assumptions were:

to make up

normal c h i l d r e n ,
therefore

forth

and

syndrome does not e x i s t .

as

a f u n c t i o n of time,

and

and

with

childhood

Burton

(1) If the

the syndrome of d e p r e s s i o n

they cannot be regarded

with

questioned

three
(1978)

behaviors

are p r e v a l e n t

in

pathological,

and

(2) If

to compose the syndrome of d e p r e s s i o n

as

disease

regarding r e l i a b l e

their

assumptions

other

agreeing

methods of assessment f o r c h i l d h o o d d e p r e s s i o n ,

Costello

of

entity.

and Burton's (1978) concern

depression,

which,

time.

valid

critique.

behaviors

s t a t u s , e t c . ) , r a t h e r than from a

childhood

Lefkowitz

1971)

approached the phenomenon of

from.norms a c c o r d i n g

independent

Rebuts

deviant,

the passage of

1978)

socioeconomic

perspective

p r o c e s s and

or l e s s e s t a b l i s h e d

from the e p i d e m i o l o g i c a l

deviations

v a r i a b l e s (sex,

with

as t r a n s i e n t developmental phenomena

They ( L e f k o w i t z & Burton,

statistical

associated

Oppenheim, & M i t c h e l l ,

i f l e f t a l o n e , would d i m i n i s h w i t h

childhood

of 10%

that s i n c e the

the

behaviors

are d i s c o v e r e d to

they cannot be

regarded

p a t h o l o g i c a l . (3) Those problems that remit spontaneously

as

do

not

C o s t e l l o (1980) p o i n t e d

out

require c l i n i c a l intervention.
Regarding

the f i r s t

assumption,
55

that Shepherd et a l .
10%

for

"operational

distinguishing
Rather

between
r!
I-

syndrome

of

that

1978).

depression

in

statistical

and

clinical

changes
boys.

Costello
or

children

Lapouse,

abnormality.

have

resulted

certain

also

noted

that

from

occur w i t h h i g h
age,

although

such b e h a v i o r s

problems ( e . g . , Richman, 1977).

the second

may

among c h i l d r e n who

data

have

assumption,

Costello

that h y s t e r i a was

A u s t r i a i n the 19th c e n t u r y .
that

it

Rather,

since

prevalent

in

normal
with
number

that

sufficient
He gave the
historical

among

Costello

i s the degree of t r a n s i t o r i n e s s of

young

(1980) f e l t

a r g u i n g that h y s t e r i a i s normal,
shown

his

specific

have a

p r e v a l e n c e as a f u n c t i o n of age a r e not

of

aged

occur

base upon which to judge n o r m a l i t y and a b n o r m a l i t y .

example

of

cultural

frequency

of

on

syndrome

&

1966), he commented that the emergence

higher frequency

Regarding

the

Achenbach

to a g r e a t e r i n c i d e n c e of d e p r e s s i o n i n
(1980)

of

constitute

1966;

significantly
behavior

prevalence

As he d i d not f i n d such a syndrome i n

behavior may

of

behaviors,

(1978) a l s o found a

f a c t o r f o r boys may

leading

problem

(see

of

emphasized

h i s study of the behavior problems of boys

e a r l i e r work (Achenbach,
such

o b t a i n i n g data on the

Achenbach

through e l e v e n .

data

they

of b e h a v i o r s c o n s i d e r e d to

depression

Edelbrock,

of

and

(1980) advocated

constellations

six

purposes,"

than look; ng at p r e v a l e n c e data f o r s p e c i f i c

Costello
the

(1971) had used an a r b i t r a r y c r i t e r i o n

women

in

(1980) suggested

constellations

of

b e h a v i o r s that i s important.
And,

regarding

the

third

56

assumption,

Costello

(1980)

questioned

the

wisdom of p r o v i d i n g c l i n i c a l

when a problem p e r s i s t s , a r g u i n g
short

time,

prevent

i t might be w e l l

i t altogether

relationship

intervention

that w h i l e a problem may l a s t a

to t r y to shorten

because

of

it

further

i t s possible

He gave the

f e a r s such as f e a r s of the dark,

which Solyom,

or

functional

to l a t e r more p e r s i s t e n t d i f f i c u l t i e s .

example of c h i l d h o o d

only

of

being

alone,

and of s t r a n g e r s ,

Beck, Solyom and Hugal

(1974)

found to be more common i n a d u l t phobic p a t i e n t s than i n

matched normal c o n t r o l s .

While

L e f k o w i t z and Burton (1978) c a u t i o n e d

child

depressed so that the l a b e l i n g i t s e l f might

iatrogenic
advisable
better

effects,

C o s t e l l o (1980) suggested that

to i n t e r v e n e

directed

against l a b e l i n g

at

not

have

i t may

be

even though the " i n t e r v e n t i o n s might

be

the

labeling

processes

of

the

child's

o b s e r v e r s than at the c h i l d ' s behavior ( C o s t e l l o , 1980, p.188)."

Costello
attend

also
clinics

(Rutter,
the

referred

reason

have

don't

children

Costello

the data i n d i c a t i n g that c h i l d r e n

have a g r e a t e r
difficult

(1980,

pp.

in

have

relation

of

disorder

s i n c e some

received

"A r e l a t e d

t h i s problem

probability

of

effective

is

problem behavior w i l l
to the

who

that

probably
of

adult

only when the behavior o c c u r s i n the presence of one or

more other

o r g a n i s m i c or environmental f a c t o r s .

the behavior may be s i m i l a r to that p l a y e d

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n the work of Rutter

Graham,

adult

188-189) commented,

in researching

o c c u r r e n c e of the c h i l d h o o d
significance

risk

to i n t e r p r e t ,

would l i k e l y

f o r the d i f f i c u l t y

disorder

by

that

1972) a r e very

therapy.

the

felt

Rutter,

by

played

temperamental

and h i s c o l l e a g u e s

& George, 1973; R u t t e r ,

57

The r o l e

(e.g.,

1978). They found

that

children

living

temperamental
three

in

disharmonious

characteristics

times as l i k e l y

families

such

as low

as other c h i l d r e n

who

had

negative

malleability

to develop

were

psychiatric

problems d u r i n g the f o u r - y e a r f o l l o w - u p p e r i o d of the study."

Costello

(1980)

depression

concluded

s h o u l d account

that

studies

of

childhood

f o r and e v a l u a t e i s s u e s such

as

(1)

the d i s t i n c t i o n between symptoms and syndromes, (2) knowledge of

what

c o n s t i t u t e s the same behavior at d i f f e r e n t

limits

of a s t a t i s t i c a l

likely

complexities

criterion

of

the

ages,

of a b n o r m a l i t y ,

relationships

and

between

problems of c h i l d h o o d and a d u l t psychopathology.

to C o s t e l l o

Current Thoughts Regarding

L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s and

Many

clinicians

learning

and

disabilities

( Bemporad,

1982;

have

the

Lefkowitz

Depression

hypothesized

or underachievement l e a d
1982;

(4)

(1980).]

researchers

Kashani,

the

transient

[See

(1980) f o r a f u r t h e r r e p l y

(3)

Shapiro,

to

1985;

that

depression
Stevenson

&

Romney, 1984).
Stevenson
prevalence
103

and Romney (1984),

investigated

of d e p r e s s i o n amongst LD c h i l d r e n .

children

Depression

f o r example,

enrolled

Inventory

i n LD c l a s s e s complete
(CDI)

(Kovacs

&

First
the

Beck,

they

group).
orally
(CPQ)

and

1977).

These

the bottom q u a r t i l e " l e a s t depressed"

chosen

administered

s u b j e c t s were then v i s i t e d at
the C h i l d r e n ' s

( P o r t e r & C a t t e l l , 1979), and

Inventory

Personality

They
"most

(25 i n each
home

and

Questionnaire

the C u l t u r e - F r e e Self-Esteem

f o r C h i l d r e n (SEI) ( B a t t l e , 1981). No

58

had

Children's

d e s i g n a t e d s t u d e n t s s c o r i n g i n the top q u a r t i l e of the CDI

depressed"

the

d i f f e r e n c e s were

found

between

the two groups - "most depressed" v e r s u s

"least

depressed" - w i t h r e s p e c t to age, sex, i n t e l l i g e n c e (measured by

the

WISC-R),

reading,

type

of

writing;

learning

disability

or developmental,

e.g.,

p e r c e p t u a l or e x p r e s s i v e d i s o r d e r s ) ,
The

"most depressed" group was

(academic,
attention

or p a r e n t a l

neuroticism.

suggest

that

affective

in

The

found to be much lower

authors

dealing with

s t a t e and

with

earlier,

at age f i v e ,

blamed

developed

herself

but who,
for

was

1984)

children,

their

unconcerned

her

academic

very

difficulties
to her

as

basic

her

inadequate
and

had

learning

apprehension

and i s not yet generated from w i t h i n

e v a l u a t i o n s of one's own

with

d u r i n g middle c h i l d h o o d ,

a c h i l d ' s g r a t i f i c a t i o n comes "from a d i r e c t

deeper

Romney,

at age n i n e , f e l t

The author e x p l a i n e d how,

environment

associated

Bemporad (1982) d e s c r i b e d a youngster

d e p r e s s i v e symptoms secondary

disability.

LD

self-

handicap.

a s e v e r e l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t y who

problem
and

depressed

&

in

t h e i r p e r s o n a l i t y be taken i n t o account

w e l l as t h e i r obvious c o g n i t i v e
As mentioned

(Stevenson

deficit,

expectations.

esteem, tended to be o v e r s e n s i t i v e , and shared t r a i t s

with

e.g.,

of the

i n the form of

s e l f and o t h e r s (Bemporad,

1982,

p.277)."
The

o l d e r a c h i l d becomes,

component
Zrull
reacted
feeling

involved in depression.

(1970)

reported

that

For example,

maturing

of

disappointment

through ten,

within

themselves.

cognitive

Poznanski

latency-aged

l e s s to unpleasantness i n the environment

M c C o n v i l l e et a l .
eight

the g r e a t e r seems the

children

and more to a
Similarly,

(1973) found that depressed y o u n g s t e r s ,

expressed i d e a s of low
59

and

self-esteem,

aged
ideas

which had
Once

been absent i n younger d y s p h o r i c

a

sense

e v a l u a t i o n s may

of

is

generated

from

within,

remain s t a b l e a c r o s s m u l t i p l e s i t u a t i o n s .

o l d e r c h i l d r e n may
their

dysphoria

children.

Thus,

remain despondent d e s p i t e an a m e l i o r a t i o n

surroundings,

and

their

unhappiness

may

a c t i v i t i e s , such as r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h p e e r s and

affect

of
many

s c h o o l work, as

w e l l as behavior at home (Bemporad, 1982).

Bemporad

(1982)

d i s a b i l i t i e s , who
of

shame and

security

independence

the

family.

and

autonomy

Therefore,

estimation

of

the s e l f

researchers

This
in

that

and

&

Staton,

Colbert

late

create

adolescence

to help

i s based on l e s s

1983;

Colbert

et a l . (1982) f e e l

that

T h e i r study i n d i c a t e d that d e p r e s s i o n
performance i n c h i l d r e n who

without

of

Columbia,

the

and

for
early

involves

the c h i l d form a
demanding,

et

or

affects

al.,

1982;

teachers may

be

learning

r e s u l t e d i n poor

were i n t e l l e c t u a l l y

a specific learning d i s a b i l i t y .

Royal

the

problems

depressed c h i l d r e n as having a s p e c i f i c

t h e i r study were 212

Unit

performance a source

have h y p o t h e s i z e d that d e p r e s s i o n

& Dundon, 1985-1986).

school

learning

expectations.

Goldstein

problem.

may

the f a m i l y

(Brumback

misdiagnosing

with

r e t r e a t from s o c i e t y back to

learning

For example,

child

therapy w i t h such c h i l d r e n o f t e n

at l e a s t l e s s d i s t o r t e d ,
Other

poor s c h o o l

may

providing a c t i v i t i e s outside
new

that

f i n d s his/her

humiliation,

of

adulthood.

feels

The

capable

subjects

of

c h i l d r e n admitted to the Family P s y c h i a t r i c

Jubilee

between Feb.,

Hospital

1974,

60

and

in

Victoria,

June, 1977.

British

A l l children

had

s c o r e s from the WISC-R (Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e

for

Children

- Remised), the WRAT (Wide Range Achievement T e s t ) , and the PIAT

(Peabody I n d i v i d u a l Achievement T e s t ) .
were s u s p e c t e d ,
such

more i n - d e p t h t e s t i n g was done w i t h

as the B e e r y - B u k t e n i c a Developmental Test

Integration,
also

The

DSM

III c r i t e r i a ,

Statistical

Manual

Association,

1978), were

The

subjects

clinical
depressed.

normal

curve

The

study

of the I.Q.
skewed

intelligence;

special

classes

youngsters.
were
below

to

tested

[ I n the
to one

end.

retarded

Seventeen
range

of

i n the low normal range; 73 (48%)

25 (16%)

tested

i n the s u p e r i o r

and

severely

range.

When admitted
(73%)

were

programs

f o r mentally

and l e a r n i n g

i n regular

classes,

disabled
79 (71%)

u n d e r a c h i e v i n g one year or more

i n one or more academic a r e a s i n r e l a t i o n

61

in

attended s p e c i a l c l a s s e s . These

disturbed,

judged to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y

i n the h i g h normal

111 c h i l d r e n

included

Of the 111 c h i l d r e n

grade l e v e l

the lower

the m i l d l y

w h i l e 42 (27%)

autistic,

(54%) as

t e s t s of the 153 c h i l d r e n showed

P s y c h i a t r i c Unit,

varied

and

Psychiatric

the r a t i o was three boys

in

range; and 4 (.03%) t e s t e d

classes,

(American

i d e n t i f i e d 153 c h i l d r e n

i n the average range;

regular

Diagnostic

or

e t a l . (1982) study were t r u l y a

slightly

34 (22%)

the Family

in

child's

depressed

117 were boys and 36 were g i r l s .

(11%) t e s t e d

retarded,

Visual-Motor

applied.

of 9 to 11 y e a r s ,

Results

tested

of Mental D i s o r d e r s

Of these,

girl.]

children

as d e s c r i b e d

in t h i s Colbert

sample.

group

instruments

An independent observer reviewed the

i n order to determine whether a c h i l d was

not.

age

of

problems

and so f o r t h . Informal t e s t s and o b s e r v a t i o n s were

conducted.

chart

to

Where l e a r n i n g

to

expectations
Thirty
while
the

based on t h e i r

children

i n t e l l i g e n c e and

(27%) were judged to be doing

71%),

only 11 (7.2%) were diagnosed

disabilities,

using

together

the u n i t classroom

with

authors

found

as having

teachers'

parents.
of

depressed

recognize

They f e e l

education

and

[The

LD c r i t e r i a

began

their

They

treated

producing

t e a c h e r s , and

that l e a r n i n g r e t a r d a t i o n i s o f t e n

acknowledging

that

i t i s sometimes

the

child

in a

depressed

et a l .
may

be

(1982,
useful

pp.

to the

self-esteem;

behavior;

disturbances;

guilt;

to

setting,

335-336) o u t l i n e c e r t a i n

behaviors

of

childhood

psychomotor r e t a r d a t i o n ;

decreased

difficult

classroom

indicators

large

" d y s p h o r i a ; sadness; h o p e l e s s n e s s ;

disturbance;

suicidal

observations.

the l e s s e n e d energy and a t t e n t i o n a v a i l a b l e

including:

low

described

child.

While

Colbert

or

responded w e l l to the l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n

any p a r t i c u l a r remedial

result

children

when a p p r o p r i a t e l y

schoolwork that was p l e a s i n g to themselves,

their

Despite

specific learning

1982) used very s t r i c t

that many of these c h i l d r e n ,

without

(79

work,

as a f u n c t i o n of d e f e c t i v e c e r e b r a l p r o c e s s e s . ]

their depression,

sleep

average

the b a t t e r y of t e s t s p r e v i o u s l y

( C o l b e r t et a l . ,

explained

that

placement.

two c h i l d r e n (2%) were c o n s i d e r e d o v e r a c h i e v e r s .

d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e number of u n d e r a c h i e v e r s

for

grade

concentration;

social,

family,

loss

interest;

of

depression,

l o s s of a p p e t i t e ;
l o s s of p l e a s u r e ;

aggressive
and

general

somatic

behavior;
school

complaints;

s e p a r a t i o n a n x i e t y ; r e s t l e s s n e s s ; s u l k i n e s s ; l o s s of energy; and
irritability

( C y t r y n , McKnew, & Bunney 1980)."

62

Brumback and
of

Staton

c h i l d who

include

i s e x p e r i e n c i n g academic s c h o o l

evaluation

aggravated

for

d e p r e s s i on-induced

treatment

examination

problems
or

c o g n i t i v e d y s f u n c t i o n . They (op. c i t . ,

that a n t i d e p r e s s a n t
illness

(1983) a l s o b e l i e v e that the

d e p r e s s i on1983)

et a l . ,

1980;

suggest

of c h i l d h o o d endogenous d e p r e s s i v e

r e s u l t s i n marked improvement i n c o g n i t i v e

(Brumback

must

Staton et a l . ,

1981).

functioning

For

c h i l d h o o d d e p r e s s i o n , Brumback et a l . (1980) suggest

reactive

counselling

and s u p p o r t i v e psychotherapy.
In

many

direction

respects
of

i t i s not f r u i t f u l

depressive

children

- - whether

learning

disabilities

(1982,

p.

306;

i l l n e s s and

depression

depression
learning

affects learning

t h i s may

or whether a primary

help

or

As

depression

has

in

Poznanski
"With

to s o r t out whether

precipitated

Where a parent

the

whether

in the o r i g i n a l ) has commented:

d i s a b i l i t i e s have

at s c h o o l . . . .

about

disabilities

b r i n g about d e p r e s s i o n .

italics

learning

argue

learning

some young c h i l d r e n i t i s very d i f f i c u l t

child's

to

the

secondary

interfered

with

can g i v e a good h i s t o r y ,

to s e p a r a t e which c o n d i t i o n , the l e a r n i n g problems

or the d e p r e s s i o n ,

occurred f i r s t

sense,

the q u e s t i o n

of c o u r s e ,

i n the c h i l d ' s l i f e .

i s academic.

the c h i l d ' s d e p r e s s i o n , whether i t i s primary

An

In

one

improvement i n

or secondary, w i l l

g e n e r a l l y l e a d to improved s c h o o l performance."
Assessment of Childhood
As
of

one

can determine from the p r e c e d i n g

classificatory

depressed

Depression

child.

notwithstanding,

schemata e x i s t
The

lack

section,

a number

f o r the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of
of

agreement

on

the

nosology

however, a number of r e s e a r c h e r s have attempted

63

to

develop

depression

r e l i a b l e s t a n d a r d i z e d t o o l s f o r the
in

school-aged

children.

i n t e r v i e w s (some as yet unpublished)

clinical
al.,

e v a l u a t i o n of c h i l d r e n

1978),

developed
scales

and

several

Structured

(Kovacs,

1978;

types of r a t i n g

developed

i n v e n t o r y (Beck

include

Depression

& Beamesderfer,

self-report

Inventory

(CDI;

Depression S c a l e (CDS;
[e.g.,

Poznanski

et

Lang & T i s h e r ,

a l . , 1979;
and

have

been

Children's

clinician-rated

Rating

B e l l e v u e Index of

Scale

(CDRS;

Depression

(BID;

peer-nomination

scale

In a d d i t i o n , s e v e r a l r a t i n g

scales

newly developed

for "relevant others"

to

complete.

example of t h i s type of s c a l e i s Achenbach's

C h i l d Behavior C h e c k l i s t
Achenbach & E d e l b r o c k ,

scales

1980/1981); C h i l d r e n ' s

have

developed

Hamilton's

types of

1978)3,

Depression

and

[e.g.,

1980).

been

1974)
The

(Lefkowitz & Tesiny,

of

scales

scales

Kovacs, 1978;

Children's

1978)],

excellent

P u i g - A n t i c h et

instruments such as Beck's

clinician-rated psychiatric scale.

Petti,

f o r the

to a s s e s s c h i l d h o o d d e p r e s s i o n . Some of the c h i l d r e n ' s

self-report

scales

of

psychiatric

have been developed

have been modeled a f t e r a d u l t

(1960)

assessment

f o r Ages 4-16
1979;

(Achenbach,

One

(1981a)

1978;

1979;

1983). The advantage of t h i s

scale

is

that

i t a l l o w s the c l i n i c i a n

or

determine

if

other types of psychopathology

are

type

researcher
to

be

to

found

together w i t h d e p r e s s i o n . [The C h i l d Behavior C h e c k l i s t f o r Ages

4 - 16 ( e . g . ,
Chapter
The

Achenbach & E d e l b r o c k , 1983)

IV of t h i s

w i l l be reviewed

dissertation.3

f o l l o w i n g major s e c t i o n examines the l i t e r a t u r e i n

f i e l d of l e a r n i n g

in

disabilities.

64

the

Learning

Disabilities

Def i n i t i on
On

Sept.

22,

Association

1984,

the Board of D i r e c t o r s of

for Children

adopted

the

Learning

Disabilities:

and A d u l t s w i t h L e a r n i n g

following definition

S p e c i f i c Learning
presumed

Specific

condition,

Disabilities

intelligence,

i t s manifestations

education,

interferes

in

the

e x i s t s as

presence

and

The

of

distinct

average

to

condition

varies

i n degree of s e v e r i t y .

the c o n d i t i o n can

vocation,

adequate sensory and motor systems,

adequate l e a r n i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s .

life

of

abilities.

condition

Throughout

Specific

i n t e g r a t i o n , and/or demonstration of

Learning

handicapping

in

Disabilities

n e u r o l o g i c a l o r i g i n which s e l e c t i v e l y

v e r b a l and/or non-verbal

and

the

(U.S.)

D i s a b i l i t i e s i s a chronic condition

w i t h the development,

superior

of

the

socialization,

affect

self-esteem,

and/or d a i l y

living

activi ties.
An

important p o i n t

learning

disabilities

educators,

"there

development

estimates

is

universally

of

and

i s a discrepancy
what

capacity

or mental

as so d e f i n e d are not

retardation,

cultural,

serious

by

between a c t u a l

might be expected on

disabilities

or

accepted

of

parents,

p s y c h o l o g i s t s , or d o c t o r s , most d e f i n i t i o n s agree i n

s t a t i n g that
or

to r e a l i z e i s that while, no d e f i n i t i o n

ability,

and

the

13) ."
65

basis

that

( C r i c h t o n et

of

learning

secondary to g e n e r a l

sensory and/or e d u c a t i o n a l

emotional d i s t u r b a n c e

achievement

mental

deprivation,

al.,

1981,

p.

In

DSM-111

(American

Psychological

learning d i s a b i l i t i e s are categorized

S p e c i f i c Developmental
Among

under the A x i s

("dyslexia");

developmental

language

disorder

disorder

the p r e v i o u s
Age

include

onset,

(e.g.,
of

specific

one

specific

impairment,

and a t y p i c a l

s p e c i a l education

complications,

are discussed

Developmental
associated

under

the

heading, w h i l e the more

Reading

features,

and d i f f e r e n t i a l d i a g n o s i s .

by Forness and C a n t w e l l ,

Disorder)
prevalence,

[See the a r t i c l e

1982, f o r DSM I I I p s y c h i a t r i c diagnoses

categories.]

C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of L e a r n i n g

learning

in

mixed

i s more than

and sex r a t i o ,

discussion

f a m i l i a l pattern,

Many

in

( f o r those not covered by any of

course,

factors,

disorders
a

or d i f f i c u l t y

type);

S p e c i f i c Developmental D i s o r d e r s

specific

disorder:

specific categories).

of

predisposing

and

type,

but none i s predominant);

s p e c i f i c developmental d i s o r d e r

reading

(which i n v o l v e s d i f f i c u l t y

(when there

developmental d i s o r d e r ,

general

arithmetic

v e r b a l language - e x p r e s s i v e

developmental

II heading,

developmental

developmental

comprehending o r a l language - r e c e p t i v e
expressing

1980),

Disorders.

these d i s o r d e r s a r e i n c l u d e d

di sorder

Association,

Disabilities

characteristics
disabilities.

have been a s c r i b e d
The

ten most

to c h i l d r e n

frequently

with

mentioned

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ( c u l l e d from s e v e r a l s t u d i e s ) l i s t e d by Clements
(1966) were:
1.

Hyperactivity

2.

Perceptual-motor

impairments
66

3.

Emotional l a b i l i t y

4.

General o r i e n t a t i o n d e f e c t s

5.

Disorders

of a t t e n t i o n (e.g.,

short a t t e n t i o n

span,

distractibility)
6.

Impulsivity

7.

D i s o r d e r s of memory and t h i n k i n g

8.

Specific learning d i s a b i l i t i e s :

reading,

arithmetic,

signs,

and

w r i t i n g and s p e l l i n g
9.

Disorders

10.

of speech and h e a r i n g

Equivocal

neurological

electroencephalographic
Related

Diagnostic

conceptualizations
clinicians

in

characteristics

Labels.

defining

terminology

who

(Satz & F r i e l ,

strephosymbolia
impulse

disability,

specific

(Orton,

disorder,

disabilities

out

from

Some of the
(MCD), minimal

1980),

psychoneurological
dyslexia

(MBD).

learning
1960;

(DSM-III).
Crichton et a l .

aspect,

i n v o l v e the concept of "minimal b r a i n

learning

dysfunction,"

i n b r a i n f u n c t i o n which

i t s e l f i n any of the f o u r spheres of b r a i n

67

specific

(Ingram,

disorder

the medical

d e f i n e d as a s u b t l e and m i l d abnormality
may manifest

clinical

1928), h y p e r k i n e t i c syndrome,

developmental

that,

and

1973), l e a r n i n g d i s o r d e r s ,

Concept of Minimal B r a i n D y s f u n c t i o n
point

the

section.

Chadwick,

C r i t c h l e y , 1962), and a t t e n t i o n d e f i c i t

(1981)

varying

researchers

exhibit

i n the p r e v i o u s

(MBD) ( R u t t e r &

hyperkinetic

The

and

minimal c e r e b r a l d y s f u n c t i o n

learning d i s a b i l i t i e s
dyslexia,

children

listed

dysfunction

Diverse

have been used by d i f f e r e n t

terms used i n c l u d e :
brain

irregularities.

activity

- motor,
it

sensory,

intellectual,

or e l e c t r i c a l .

In other words,

r e f e r s to a syndrome encompassing:
1.

Minimal

cerebral
2.

motor d e f e c t s ,

l i k e c l u m s i n e s s or

mild

palsy,

Minimal

sensory d e f e c t s ,

like

perceptual

disturbances

of k i n e s t h e t i c (body movement)

3.

intellectual

Minimal

abstract
4.

very

defects,

like

d i s o r d e r or

information,

difficulties

with

concepts or concept f o r m a t i o n , and

Minimal

electric

disturbances,

d i s c h a r g e s without frank
In

any

event,

dysfunction
disorders

like

spike-wave

seizures.

i t i s agreed

that

minimal

brain

encompasses a wide and heterogeneous group

which

may

a l l be found i n

children

who

of
have

d i f f i c u l t i e s with l e a r n i n g . (Crichton

et a l . , 1981, p. 2 1 ) .

Rutter

evidence

damage"

(1977),

in

that

children

with

dysfunction

i t i s "highly
cerebral

of the b r a i n

and

in addition
obvious

"brain

children,
to

those

neurological

(Rutter,

1977, p.9)."

the a s s o c i a t i o n between b r a i n

q u i t e apart

from low I.Q.,

associated with s p e c i f i c reading

found

(1977,

p.13)

damage

and

difficulties:

However,

was

palsy

that

in

to t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n i s R u t t e r ' s

regarding

s p e c i f i c reading

also

likely

for

there a r e many o t h e r s w i t h some degree of damage or

Of r e l e v a n c e
paragraph

r e v i e w i n g the

what he termed " p s y c h i a t r i c d i s o r d e r "

concluded

conditions,

upon

in

neuro-epileptic

the I s l e of Wight study

disorders

(Rutter

b r a i n damage

difficulties.
of

et a l . .

children
1970

is
This
with

a ) , and

again i n the North London study ( S e i d e l et a l . . 1975). Half

68

the

cerebral

severe

palsied

reading

difficulties

c h i l d r e n w i t h other
pathology.
children

(whose mean I.Q.

1970

school
as

was

97)

(Chadwick and

b) both low

and

to

are

[Chadwick

and

M.

cited

Rutter,
Rutter,

Thus,

of the

Shaffer,

and

reading

Shaffer,

was

1975). As shown

1970

a;

Rutter

difficulties

mechanisms

et
are

d e v i a n c e at

brain

leading

to

a personal

communication

to

Schachar (1980, p. 41)

brain dysfunction

P r e v a l e n c e of L e a r n i n g
rates

not
and

added that

"the

i t i s j u s t that

f a c t . . . nevertheless,

of p s y c h i a t r i c syndromes

remains a r i c h source of

ideas

exploration."
Disabilities
are g r e a t l y dependent upon the

to determine l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s .

example, 2,800 c h i l d r e n i n the t h i r d and

school

years

as a g e n e t i c or m e t a b o l i c syndrome remains an

which warrant f u r t h e r

public

the

(1977).]

f i e l d of study of h y p e r k i n e s i s

used

of

with p s y c h i a t r i c disorder

important

1975,

i n Rutter

of an MBD

Prevalence

of

disorder.

Chadwick, and

to o r g a n i c

15%

the c o g n i t i v e sequelae of

- a s p e c u l a t i v e i d e a of i n t e r e s t and

due

had

involving brain

r i s k of b e h a v i o r a l

i n t e r e s t i n g h y p o t h e s i s worth f u r t h e r study but

the

only

were at l e a s t two

et a l . .

l e s s e r extent,

one

psychiatric

I.Q.

increased

shown at home.

damage

study

S i m i l a r l y , i n the head i n j u r y study, 38%

a s s o c i a t e d w i t h an

concept

compared w i t h

s e v e r a l s t u d i e s (see Rutter

al..

latter

c r i p p l i n g d i s o r d e r s not

backward i n r e a d i n g
in

c h i l d r e n i n the

population

In

one

study,

for

f o u r t h grades i n a

U.S.

were screened as p a r t of

69

criteria

research

project

at Northwestern

Using

an

with

stringent

were

& Boshes,

definition

of

1969).
learning

a c r i t e r i o n of underachievement a r a t i o

q u o t i e n t of l e s s than 90,

population

(Myklebust

educational-discrepancy

disabilities,
learning

University

identified

criteria.,

as

15 percent of the

underachievers.

the p r e v a l e n c e r a t e was

or

research

Using

determined

more

to be

to 8 p e r c e n t .
The

U.S.

Children

In
3.7%

be

Committee

c o n s i d e r e d as a p r e v a l e n c e

further

clearly

Advisory

on

Handicapped

(1968) recommended that 1 to 3 percent of

population
until

National

research

i d e n t i f y i n g these
their

the

estimate,

provides objective c r i t e r i a

school

at

least

for

more

children.

I s l e of Wight study, R u t t e r et a l . (1970a) found

prevalence rate,

reading retardation

among 2,334 9-11

year o l d s ,

for s p e c i f i c

( d e f i n e d as r e a d i n g 28 months or more

below

l e v e l of p r e d i c t e d r e a d i n g age).
Extending
Yule

t h e i r study

(1975) and Berger,

prevalence

to London s c h o o l c h i l d r e n , Rutter

and

Y u l e , and Rutter (1975) found a higher

r a t e - 6 to 8% - than

that found among I s l e of Wight

children.
There

is

disabilities,

with

preponderance
male/female

of

males

( t h r e e sources)

3.3:1
and

( s c h o o l ) ( i n a study by Lambert and o t h e r s , 1978).

For f u r t h e r

literature
MBD

learning

sex r a t i o s r a n g i n g from

( R u t t e r , T i z a r d , & Whitmore, 1970b) to 6.8:1

8.0:1

with

i n f o r m a t i o n , see Belmont's (1980) review of

r e g a r d i n g the epidemiology

i n the H.E.

Rie and E.D.

of l e a r n i n g d i s o r d e r s and

Rie ( e d i t o r s ) handbook

70

the

(1980).

E t i o l o g y or Types of L e a r n i n g
Learning
factors

disabilities

which

(Illingworth,
(Finucci

et a l . ,

1968),

perinatal
1980)

, low

Sladen,

epilepticus,

Chadwick et o l - ,

and

inappropriate

implicated

especially
1981;

1980),

1971;

brain

1978;

injuries

R u t t e r , 1977;

may

damage

severe

r e s e a r c h by Smith,

result

from

cerebro-vascular

Rutter

system.

meningitis,

accidents,

1977).

In

addition,

status

such as e a r l y severe

poor n u t r i t i o n
1980),

sensory

deprivation,

( B i r c h & Gussow, 1970), r a i s e d

d i f f e r i n g c u l t u r a l norms, and

instructional

techniques,
learning

Kimberling,

have

also

disabilities.

Pennington, and

form of r e a d i n g d i s a b i l i t y .

etiologic

analysis

with

produced

accepted

s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l f o r l i n k a g e i s a l o d s c o r e of

s c o r e of 3.241,

are encouraged and w i l l

71

and s i n c e

continue

reading
the

been

Lubs (1983) has

Linkage

apparent autosomal dominant

poor

[Recent

families

the authors

or

environmental

to a gene on chromosome 15 as p l a y i n g a major

lod

for

i n t o x i c a t i o n s from drug i n g e s t i o n

i n the e t i o l o g y of

i n one

Zerbin-

(Lansdell,

brain

lead l e v e l s (Rutter,

role

1980;

of the c e n t r a l nervous

fumes ( S c h a i n ,

parental i l l n e s s ,

pointed

Stewart,

and maturation

f a c t o r s (Werner, 1980)

or

1972;

irregularities

p r o g r e s s i v e hydrocephalus,

poisonous

adversely

s u s t a i n e d d u r i n g the y e a r s which are c r i t i c a l

postnatal

or

factors include genetic variations

i l l n e s s e s or i n j u r i e s ,

development

Such

functioning

i n s u l t s such as anoxia or trauma (Towbin,

1980)

factor

b i r t h weight (Dunn, i n p r e p a r a t i o n ; Wiener et

(Brown et a l . , 1981;

the

Such

1976;

be a t t r i b u t e d to any

neurologic

biochemical

or other

et a l . ,

may

affect

1980).

Rudin, 1967)
al.,

may

Disability

in

disability

traditionally

t h e i r study

3.0,

until

l o d s c o r e of at l e a s t

5 i s obtained.]

With such a p l e t h o r a of e t i o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s to choose

it

i s no wonder that r e s e a r c h e r s have

relating

educational

great

from,

difficulties

phenomena to b r a i n f u n c t i o n s or

in

external

influences.
N e v e r t h e l e s s , C r i c h t o n , C a t t e r s o n , K e n d a l l , and Dunn
p.

23)

have

coherence
brief,

o u t l i n e d a two-category

to

they

the epidemiology of

those

therefore

"constitutional"

abnormality

grounds
and

perinatal
that

acquired

the more s p e c i f i c ,

of

In

inherited

language

and

(i.e.,

and those i n whom t h e r e a r e

through

anoxia or s e v e r e head i n j u r y .

"The importance

some

learning-disabled

f o r p o s t u l a t i n g the d i s o r d e r

largely

lends

disabilities.

i n whom there i s probably an

r e a d i n g ) which i s l a r g e l y s p e c i f i c ;

diffuse

learning

d i s t i n g u i s h two broad groups of

children:

reasonable

schema which

(1981,

to

conditions

be

more

such

as

The a u t h o r s p o i n t out

of making the d i s t i n c t i o n

i s twofold:

(1)

s o - c a l l e d c o n s t i t u t i o n a l d i s a b i l i t y may a l s o

be found i n other members of the f a m i l y , and (2) the response to

stimulant

drugs may be b e t t e r

i n the second

type and may be of

great help i n management ( C r i c h t o n et a l . , 1981,

In

an

disability,

earlier
Silver

"developmental
primary
"organic

follow-up

and

group,"

Hagin

of

specific

(1964) d i s t i n g u i s h e d

reading
between

synonymous w i t h R a b i n o v i t c h ' s concept

reading d i s a b i l i t y
group,"

study

p.22)."

( R a b i n o v i t c h et a l . , 1954),

having the b a s i c syndrome

s t r u c t u r a l organic defect.
to twelve year i n t e r v a l ,

plus

a
of

and an

evidence

of

Comparing t h e i r p a t i e n t s a f t e r a ten
Silver

72

and Hagin

(1964) found that the

tendency

for

the

was

to r e t a i n

the

person

partially

with
or

of

teaching

appears

spatial

problems.

to d i s t i n g u i s h

from

to

areas,

deal
the

with

and

types

his

contrivance

the p a t t e r n

the

while

recovered

of

deficiencies.

between

prognostic

to

recommended

perceptual

disability

disability
him

appropriate

n e u r o l o g i c a l and

disabilities

They

reading

in a l l

reading

that enabled

procedures

important

"organic"

difficulties

"developmental"

adopted cues

and

"organic's"

with

his perceptual

temporal
new

individual

the

Thus, i t

of

educational

learning
management

p e r s p e c t i v e as w e l l .
Follow-up

of

Children with

Learning

Disabilities:

Outcomes

and

Predictors
In
that

this

area,

outcomes

personality,
upon many
be

for

evaluated

and

and

extrinsic

33

follow-up

majority

of

subjects

concerned

12

years

between

(Weiss et

to 34 m a l e ,

Regular
private

and

in

goals, are

studies

summer s c h o o l ,

client/patient

ratios

not

dependent

each study

must

population

18

ranging
13

sources

by

and
over.

The
of

to

five

majority
age.

( E a v e s and

design

and

had

another

f r o m 64 m a l e ,

clinic,
were

factors

studies

years

female

limited

73

and

salient

five

under,

and

reading

the

Only

and

12

with

1974-1975),

is

regarding

specific

reviewed

a g e d 19

s u b j e c t s were male,
1971)

life

the

studies.

subjects

adolescents

al,

i n mind

children,

v a r i a b l e s , and

to

( 1 9 8 0 ) o u t l i n e d and

of

examined

long-term

to keep

v a r i a b l e s examined.

findings

studies

and

according

characteristics

the caveat

learning-disabled

education,

intrinsic

Helper

especially,

Most
female

Crichton,

males

only.

hospital

clinic,

tapped

by

and
these

investigations.

Mean

i n t e r v a l s between d i a g n o s i s and

varied

between

approximately

1976),

and

two

years (Riddle

about 24 y e a r s (Menkes,

Rowe,

follow-up

and

and

Rapaport,

Menkes,

1967;

Rawson, 1968).
Few

of the s t u d i e s employed c o n t r o l groups,

time of i n i t i a l

d i a g n o s i s or at f o l l o w - u p . N o t a b l e e x e p t i o n s are

s t u d i e s by Ackerman,
Silver

and Hagin

Hagin,

1964)

Dykman,

(1964).

and P e t e r s

The

selected

latter

their

1977b),

and

investigators (Silver

and

for

group
children,

the e f f e c t s of b e i n g e v a l u a t e d , l a b e l l e d ,
given

the LD/MBD c h i l d r e n

c o u n s e l i n g or psychotherapy
Helper

(1980), who

found

two

but who

years

Satterfield,
treatment

child's

1979,

the
study

behavior

delinquent
initially

in

at

prospective

1980,

end
of

p.

years,

appropriate

to s t u d i e s w i t h f o l l o w -

comments that "No

medical,

85)."

study

was

psychotherapeutic

c a r r i e d out over

[Satterfield,

period

Cantwell,

of
and

r e p o r t e d the r e s u l t s

of

multimodality

of

of

the

first

year

84 h y p e r a c t i v e

boys.

and

emotional

and at one-year f o l l o w - u p .

the combination

etc.).

management.

at home and at s c h o o l ,

behavior,

controlling

and s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n a l

management was

(Helper,

were

medication,

i n which a program combining

educational

children

included

r e s t r i c t e d h i s review

i n t e r v a l of at l e a s t

and

from

to have some other i d e n t i f i a b l e problem ( t h u s

Treatment

up

(1977a;

control

e v a l u a t e d i n the same s e t t i n g as the MBD

found

e i t h e r at the

of a c l i n i c a l l y

74

Measures

academic
status

of

the

performance,

were

obtained

T h e i r r e s u l t s suggest

useful medication,

p s y c h o l o g i c a l treatment

three-year

that

together w i t h

and e d u c a t i o n a l management,

simultaneously
associated

d i r e c t e d to each of the c h i l d ' s d i s a b i l i t i e s ,

with

follow-up w i l l

an unexpectedly

these f o l l o w - u p

learning

over

One
time,

processing,

skills

(e.g.

can say
of

and

deficits

Ackerman,

(1973),

Dykman,

children

i n the I s l e of Wight s t u d i e s ,
reading

in

four-and

disability

in

at

found

age

of

c o u l d not be c o n s i d e r e d

reading progress,
The

the
of

two

children originally

at f o l l o w - u p ,

diagnosed

behavior

as MBD

and only

months).

below

grade l e v e l

school

They found
MBD

Thus,

by

f o r problems to p e r s i s t .

Eaves

and

research

that only
had

no

in

seven
school

restless,

only 3 of

to be f r e e of both

children

subjects.

Thus,

there was

39

learning

were

or o v e r a c t i v e ; and

i n academic

be,

the

( a t mean age of twelve

to 35% of the

sample would l i k e l y

for

i n mathematics.

study, w i t h a c l i n i c sample admittedly more severe

or

hope

three of those seven were a l s o

were found

Twenty-five

ominous
presence

much

children

diagnosed

problems at f o l l o w - u p

reported d i s t r a c t a b l e ,
were

MBD

of b e h a v i o r a l symptoms at home.

cases
and

of

of l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s .

39

problems
free

follow-up

of

presence

that the

offer

1977a;

had

(1974-1975) i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of outcome

field
the

11

though i t might f o r p r o g r e s s

five-year

Crichton

to

in

follow-up

that the

to

and

deficits

Peters,

five-year

f o r f u t u r e r e a d i n g p r o g r e s s and

IQ

in

and

implications
high

continue.]

attention

persistence

Yule

severe

further

t h a t , i n g e n e r a l , there i s

1977b).

of

Only

to summarize or g e n e r a l i z e from the data of

studies.

persistence,

information

outcome.

show whether these good r e s u l t s w i l l

It i s d i f f i c u l t

good

is

years,
still

almost
in

60%
this

than a random

a s t r o n g tendency

In

her d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n ,

f i n d i n g s of a f o l l o w - u p
children,
battery

tested
(De

Hirsch

kindergarten
originally
after

in

and

grade

three,

the

of a random sample of 2,000 k i n d e r g a r t e n

the

s p r i n g of 1972

et a l . ,

grade

diagnosed

Eaves (1983) r e p o r t e d

1966).

three,

LD had

She

five

caught up

with

the

found

out

De

Hirsch

that

of

between

106

children

to grade l e v e l ,

no more such c h i l d r e n caught up

but
to

that
grade

level.
Are

t h e r e any

Rawson
dyslexic
group

(1968)

boys

was

Binet,
IQs;

IQ

of

s y s t e m a t i c remedial

of 6.0

a lawyer,

two

on

the

r e p o r t e d as

school

Eighteen

advanced degrees;

professors,

two

her

The

Stanford-

even

higher

131.
(at

completed

education,

of the 20 were

a
an

slightly
college

two were p h y s i c i a n s ,

s c i e n t i s t s , and

20

received

instruction.

these d y s l e x i c boys had

y e a r s of post high

10 had

that

at i n t e r v a l s between 17 - 35 y e a r s

the n o n - d y s l e x i c s .

graduates and

122

for

and

the 36 c o n t r o l n o n - d y s l e x i c boys had

of 33 y e a r s ) ,

than

outset,

the 20 d y s l e x i c boys was

follow-up

age

acknowledging

at the

average IQ f o r a l l 56 boys was

average
more

intelligent

i n t e n s i v e and

while

Upon
mean

r e p o r t e d h i g h l y f a v o r a b l e outcomes

from a p r i v a t e s c h o o l ,

unusually

exceptionally
average

v a r i a b l e s which presage a b e t t e r outcome?

one

f o u r were s c h o o l

p r i n c i p a l s or t e a c h e r s . Two

were i n l a b o r i n g j o b s , one

and

A number of these s u b j e c t s , however,

one

a s k i l l e d laborer.

reported

that

reading

and s p e l l i n g were

still

a foreman

difficult

in

R e l a t i v e l y good outcomes were a l s o r e p o r t e d by Robinson

and

adulthood.

76

Smith

(1962;

(1967;

10-year

8-year

reading

follow-up),

follow-up)

clinics

who

and Preston

and

Yarington

s t u d i e d e x - c l i e n t s of

(University

of

Chicago

and

university

University

of

Pennsylvania,

r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . The median IQ of the Robinson

Smith

subjects

(1962)

Preston

and Y a r i n g t o n

Robinson
subjects
more

were

than

reference
only

who

found that

t h e i r parents

forty-one

mean

reported

by

98.

of

the

their

44

to read as much as

or

44

33

of

were

high

Only one

school

subject

was

out of work.

and

Yarington

points

(1967)

used

population

and found no e l e v a t i o n of dropout

4 of the 50 s u b j e c t s unemployed and

25%

the

27 were c o l l e g e graduates.

of s c h o o l and
Preston

while

(1962)

r e p o r t e d by

and

120,

(1967) was

Smith

average;

graduates;
out

and

was

and

out of

of those of c o l l e g e age were i n c o l l e g e ,

data
rates

school.

and

as
and

About

12 of the

21

were employed had w h i t e c o l l a r j o b s .

None of the. l a t t e r - m e n t i o n e d

1967;

Rawson,

1968;

mention of emotional
been
adult

Many

are

the

intensive

general

however,

apparently

because of t h e i r

finding

made

I t would have

higher

77

efforts

but

studies
child

social status i s

educational

when

intelligence,

These

that the LD/MBD

the

persist,

both f o r academic achievement and

systematic

Yarington,

were b r i g h t but poor r e a d e r s

when h i s / h e r IQ i s h i g h ,
and

&

problems a r i s e i n

to adapt more s u c c e s s f u l l y .

prognosis,

success,

i f any,

their d i f f i c u l t i e s

especially
able

demonstrate
better

of

1962),

or b e h a v i o r a l d i f f i c u l t i e s .

y e a r s of d y s l e x i c s who

presumably,
they

Robinson & Smith,

i n s t r u c t i v e to know what,

young.

s t u d i e s ( Preston

do

has

vocational
high,
have

and
been

undertaken.
In

recently

Stanford Medical
data

revealed

significantly

with

ten-year

School ( H a r t z e l l &

academic s u c c e s s ,
compared

published

Compton,

group

high

IQ,

personality

family function,

factors
the

concomitant d i s a b i l i t y

in

controlling

the

for

and

evaluations

of

etc.)

IQ and

equivocal,

that

Brain
A

s u c c e s s i n the

LD

disability,

child,

effective
level

l e v e l a t t a i n e d by the

presence

of

longitudinal
using

severe

degree

hyperactivity,

research

of

and

should

well-defined

socioeconomic

status,

interventions

behavior
to

Short-term

management,

the

professionals

knowledge,

working w i t h

be

populations,
and

examining

a s p e c t s of l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s ,

multi-faceted

and

both

long-term

(pharmacological,
psychotherapeutic,
now

sparse

and

learning-disabled

need.

and L e a r n i n g

thorough

No

Significant

learning

a more

interaction.

contribute

c h i l d r e n so badly
The

in

education,

would

severe

included

future,

c o g n i t i v e and b e h a v i o r a l
separately

to s c h o o l

when

i n mathematics.

comprehensive

undertaken

remedial

less

satisfaction.

and high education

disability,

More

attainment,

strong family support, high occupational

Negative

learning

interview

disabilities.

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n the

of f a m i l y breadwinner,
mother.

from

and s o c i a l s u c c e s s f o r 144 LD s t u d e n t s ,

f a c t o r s which c o n t r i b u t e d

positive

1984),

144 s i b l i n g s without l e a r n i n g

included

study

lower l e v e l s of s c h o o l

d i f f e r e n c e was found i n l e v e l of j o b
positive

follow-up

Disabilities

discussion

of

78

the

brain

and

neurological

substrates involved in learning d i s a b i l i t i e s

i s beyond the scope

of t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n .

However, the author has found many recent

studies

prove e x c i t i n g and

which

particularly

would

i n t e r e s t e d i n such t o p i c s .

g i v e the reader
Most
Duffy

were

colleagues

(1980a;

recorded

1980b).

1980a),

recently

the

first

Hughes and

Denckla,

by

study

EEG and evoked p o t e n t i a l data

10

(These r e s e a r c h e r s adopted the

d i s t i n c t i o n between " d y s l e x i a - p u r e "

their

In

done.

d u r i n g b e h a v i o r a l t e s t i n g from 8 d y s l e x i c and

normal boys aged 9 to 11 y e a r s .

by

those

One example f o l l o w s to

r e s e a r c h has been c a r r i e d out

(Duffy et a l . ,

reported

for

an i d e a of the type of r e s e a r c h b e i n g

exciting

and

heuristic

reported

and " d y s l e x i a - p l u s " proposed

i n Hughes,

1978, and l i m i t e d

c o n s i d e r a t i o n s to d y s l e x i a pure - the " p l u s " r e f e r r i n g to

the common accompanying symptoms of h y p e r a c t i v i t y , d y s c a l c u l i a ,

and motor i n c o o r d i n a t i o n ) .
Spontaneous
conditions

or s t a t e s ,

d u r i n g simple
and

during

(speech

EEG was recorded

designed

reading

ten d i f f e r e n t

which were designed

resting brain a c t i v i t y
tests

and

during

recording

(with eyes open or c l o s e d ) ,

to a c t i v a t e

tasks),

to permit

testing

the

left

the r i g h t hemisphere

hemisphere
(music

and

geometric f i g u r e s ) , and both hemispheres at once ( p a i r e d v i s u a l verbal associations).

The
visual
PS-2

three

evoked p o t e n t i a l (EP) t e s t

states

were:

evoked p o t e n t i a l (VEP) - over 500 f l a s h e s from

strobe

stimulator

presented

intervals

always

exceeding

intensity

8 and p l a c e d 20 cm.

at

one second;

random

Grass

interstimulus

the u n i t was

s e t at

from the s u b j e c t ' s c l o s e d

(2) a u d i t o r y evoked p o t e n t i a l (AEP) - over 500 c l i c k s

79

(1)

eyes;

similarly

presented

v i a earphones at 92 db sound p r e s s u r e l e v e l ;

"tight-tyke"

auditory

presentations
presented,
tyke:
for

of

evoked

the

tape-recorded

and

intermixed

subjects

were asked

half

potential

(TTAEP)
word

- over

t i ght

the p r e s e n t a t i o n and

(3)
250

randomly

w i t h a s i m i l a r number of
to count

and

the

word

the number of t i g h t s

tykes f o r the remainder

heard
of

the

presentation.
Topographic
activity
the
more

two

of

the

subjects'

brain

electrical

d i s c l o s e d f o u r d i s c r e t e r e g i o n s of d i f f e r e n c e
groups,

than

i n v o l v i n g both c e r e b r a l hemispheres,

the

restricted
cortical

mapping

to

region

Conspicuous

right.

Aberrant

dyslexic

s i n g l e l o c u s but was
generally

involved

physiology

found
in

group d i f f e r e n c e s were noted

in

between
the

left

was

not

of

the

much

reading

and

speech.

i n the b i f r o n t a l

area

o
in

addition

posterior

to

the

quadrant

more

regions.

expected
Although

left

temporal

activation

and

tasks

produced

more prominent group d i f f e r e n c e s , d y s l e x i c s d i f f e r e d from

subjects
for

even when at r e s t .

the d y s l e x i c s ,

EEG

suggesting r e l a t i v e c o r t i c a l

that group when compared w i t h the

Having

demonstrated

normal

increased

inactivity

in

normals.

differences

d i s t r i b u t i o n of b r a i n e l e c t r i c a l
and

alpha a c t i v i t y was

left

activity

in

the

topographic

between e i g h t d y s l e x i c

ten normal boys (Duffy et a l . , 1980a), Duffy et a l . (1980b)

then went on

to e x p l o r e the u s e f u l n e s s of q u a n t i f i e d measures of

such

brain a c t i v i t y

data

recorded

i n the d i a g n o s i s of d y s l e x i a .

from 13 normal and 11 d y s l e x i c boys

R e g i o n a l measurements taken from

80

EEG
were

and

EP

used.

the subsequent t o p o g r a p h i c maps

were used t o :
difference

between

multivariate
rules,
rule

(1) c a l c u l a t e the s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of the

analysis,
(3)

and

developed

identified

suggested

The

that

testing.

previously

rules

for classification

nature

of

in

and

( I t should

electrical

the r o u t i n e

specificity

by

they

have

been

i n the l e f t

as

during

an

anterior

area

region,

from EEG data.)

measurements

research,

their results

a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e i r method. They
yet

demonstrated

that would a l l o w d y s l e x i a

forms of l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t y ,

include

involves

that

1980b) do suggest that

not

Ransohoff and F e i n s t e i n

to

well

also

rule

measurements

of d y s l e x i a , and i n d y s l e x i a

do

that

initial

(BEAM methodology) may prove u s e f u l

et a l . ,

not yet j u s t i f y

noted

the

accurately

dyslexia

s u c c e s s suggests that

the a u t h o r s (Duffy

other

be

derived

activity

diagnosis

technique,

helpful
in

diagnostic

that

i s present at r e s t as

such p r o s p e c t i v e

the c l i n i c a l

feel

the most

by

not used f o r the

not used i n the

unexplored i n d y s l e x i a ,

While

subjects

Using a s t a t i s t i c a l l y based

p r o v i d e d the best f e a t u r e s

of b r a i n

on s u b j e c t s

aberrant neurophysiology

hemispheres

complex

control

(2) develop a f o r m a l s e t of

80 to 90% of s u b j e c t s

development.

both

and

test r u l e v a l i d i t y

development.

authors

dyslexic

(1978),

the

relative

to be diagnosed from among

and note the caveat

who emphasized that

t e s t s of s p e c i f i c i ty i n a d d i t i o n

a major reason why p r o m i s i n g d i a g n o s t i c

raised
failure

to s e n s i t i v i ty
t e s t s have

has

failed

when put i n t o p r a c t i c e .
Nevertheless,
1980b),
exciting

using

the

work

of Duffy and

colleagues

such o b j e c t i v e n e u r o p h y s i o l o g i c a l

possibilities.

Clinically,
81

i t allows

(1980a;

testing, offers
freedom

from

s u b j e c t i v e s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l b i a s i n d i a g n o s i s . It may
used

prophylac: i c a l l y

failure

at the p r e s c h o o l

can l e a d to secondary

level,

symptomatology.

a l s o be

before
From a

school
research

viewpoint,

i t cm y soon be p o s s i b l e to determine whether there i s

only

syndrome

one

dyslexia

of d y s l e x i a ,

represents

a developmental

"different" brain organization,

responds to therapy
The

newer

of whatever

techniques

f u n c t i o n are at present
youngsters

or

for

many

assessing

structure

But

instruction

and

i n f r e q u e n t l y used w i t h l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d

g i v e r e s e a r c h e r s some i n s i g h t

The

brain

(except f o r the commonly given n e u r o p s y c h o l o g i c a l

day

sort.

may

disabled

or

and whether d y s l e x i a p h y s i o l o g y

tests).

classroom,

whether

or m a t u r a t i o n a l l a g

educational
one

syndromes,

those procedures

found s a f e and

and

helpful

i n t o b e t t e r methods of

and b e h a v i o r a l management

for

learning

youngsters.
next

brief

study.

a l s o be

given.

chapter w i l l

discussion

of

this

of the r a t i o n a l e f o r the hypotheses

will

32

o u t l i n e the hypotheses

CHAPTER I I I
Hypotheses
[For

convenience

altogether
writer

clear

with

has chosen

although
hypotheses
this

in testing,

the

a n d b e c a u s e the l i t e r a t u r e i s not

r e s p e c t to many of

to s t a t e these hypotheses

c o n j e c t u r e i s that

will

the measures,

hold.

i n the

i n many cases the

R a t i o n a l e f o r the hypotheses

null

the
form,

alternative
will

follow

listing.]

PRE-TASK ATTRIBUTIONS:
Hypothesis I .
There w i l l
attributions
success"

be no group e f f e c t

(ease

(LD/NLD) i n e x t e r n a l

of the task or l u c k ) on the

pre-experimental

task a t t r i b u t i o n

"academic

questionnaire.

Hypothesis I I .
There

will

attributions
"academic

be no group e f f e c t

(lack

of a b i l i t y

failure"

(LD/NLD) i n

internal

or l a c k of e f f o r t ) on

pre-experimental

the

task

attribution

(LD/NLD)

in external

questionnaire.
POST-TASK ATTRIBUTIONS:
Hypothesis I I I .
There

will

attributions

be no group e f f e c t

(ease

the experimental

of the task or l u c k ) a f t e r s u c c e s s

on

task.

H y p o t h e s i s IV.
There
attributions

will

be no group e f f e c t

(lack

of

ability

f a i l u r e on the experimental
83

task.

or

(LD/NLD)

in

internal

l a c k of e f f o r t )

after

PERFORMANCE ON PRE-. POST-MEASURES:

H y p o t h e s i s V.
1.

There w i l l

pre-,
2.

be no group e f f e c t

post-measures

There

measures
3.

There

scores.

will

be

(easy/difficult/no

(LD/NLD) on the s i x

no

task)

on

condition
the

effect

s i x pre-, post-

scores.
will

be no s i g n i f i c a n t j o i n t

effects

of

group membership and c o n d i t i o n on the s i x p r e - , p o s t measures

scores.

Hypothesis V I .
In
effect

the d i f f i c u l t ( f a i l u r e ) c o n d i t i o n ,
(LD/NLD)

measures,

regarding

S e r i a l Recall

to s p e c i f i c l e a r n i n g

performance

there w i l l

be no group

change on those

and Color Naming, which a r e most

postrelated

disabilities.

EXPECTANCY FOR SELF:

Hypothesis V I I .
1.

There w i l l

be no group e f f e c t

task "expectancy f o r s e l f "

2.

There w i l l

be no

(LD/NLD) on the p o s t -

measure.

condition effect

on the p o s t - t a s k "expectancy f o r s e l f "

3.

There w i l l

membership
for s e l f "

and

be no s i g n i f i c a n t

(easy/difficult)
measure.

j o i n t e f f e c t s of group

c o n d i t i o n on the p o s t - t a s k

measure.

84

"expectancy

EXPECTANCY FOR

OTHER

Hypothesis V I I I .
1.

There w i l l

task
2.

"expectancy
There w i l l

on

be no group e f f e c t

be no c o n d i t i o n e f f e c t

and c o n d i t i o n on

(easy/difficult)

f o r o t h e r " measure.

There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t

membership

the p o s t -

f o r o t h e r " measure.

the p o s t - t a s k "expectancy

3.

(LD/NLD) on

the

j o i n t e f f e c t s of group
post-task

"expectancy

f o r o t h e r " measure.
CHILD BEHAVIOR CHECKLIST
Hypothesis
There

IX.
will

subscales

be no group d i f f e r e n c e s (LD/NLD) on
of

(especially

Achenbach's (1981a)

Child

the

Behavior

various
Checklist

the Depression s u b s c a l e ) .

R a t i o n a l e of the Hypotheses
Hypotheses I and
great

more

IV

are based i n

p a r t upon the experimental f i n d i n g s of two r e c e n t s t u d i e s

- Bryan
Pearl

II and Hypotheses III and

and P e a r l ,
et a l .

likely

1979,

(1980) found

and P e a r l ,

Bryan,

and Donahue,

that l e a r n i n g - d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n

than n o n d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n

to have

negative

1980.
are
self-

c o n c e p t s , to b e l i e v e that t h e i r s u c c e s s e s are the r e s u l t of l u c k

or

other people,

They

found

established
more
Bryan

and that t h e i r f a i l u r e s

insurmountable.

that these m a l a d a p t i v e b e l i e f s and a t t r i b u t i o n s

by about

n i n e y e a r s of age and become

n e g a t i v e w i t h age
and

are

Pearl

(through grade e i g h t ,

(1979) a r t i c l e r e p o r t e d the

85

are

increasingly

at l e a s t ) .
general

[The

findings

which

were

subsequently p u b l i s h e d w i t h

r e s u l t s s e c t i o n s i n P e a r l , Bryan, and
In

a l a t e r study,

Pearl

full

methodology

Donahue, 1980.3

(1982) examined t h i r d and

grade LD c h i l d r e n ' s a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r s u c c e s s and

subjects
(1980)

study

i n that

in

failures

a s s i s t a n c e from

resource

beliefs

room.

about

that were h e l d by

P e a r l et a l .
children.
is

(Pearl,

1982)

control

children

in

effective
it

children

the

These

LD

"label"

learning

only

for social

for failures

indicated

the

successes

and

in

the

labeled

the

two

recent

situations.

t h i s study b e l i e v e d

Pearl
study

be

that

to

limit

the l a b e l

The

on

words,

the

LD

could

be

author

"learning disabled"

their negative

suggested
allows

self-evaluations

to

factors

(ability,
failure

86

their

importance

effort,

luck,

in reading,

in s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s in structured interviews.

r a t i o n a l e f o r Hypotheses I and

the

activities.

P e a r l s t u d i e s asked c h i l d r e n to r a t e the
four

than

and

that f u r t h e r e f f o r t

i n overcoming s o c i a l f a i l u r e .
may

In other

LD

reading

on

II

stems d i r e c t l y

task

puzzles,

There was

a c t u a l experimental m a n i p u l a t i o n of s u c c e s s / f a i l u r e .
the

and

that

more

in

of

disability

the u n d e r a c h i e v i n g c h i l d r e n

c h i l d r e n in the

al.

personnel,

the causes of t h e i r

e a s e / d i f f i c u l t y ) f o r s u c c e s s and
and

the

school"

Results

performance i n a c h i e v e m e n t - r e l a t e d

the

The

a t t r i b u t e d f a i l u r e s l e s s to a l a c k of e f f o r t
children

not

received

d i f f e r e n c e between the r e s u l t s of

that

puzzles,

of

failure.

(1980) study were a l s o h e l d by f o r m a l l y

One

studies

that

daily

pessimistic

these s u b j e c t s had

been i d e n t i f i e d as such by

receiving

teacher

the

fourth

i n t h i s study d i f f e r e d from those i n the P e a r l et

LD - they had
were

and

no

Therefore,
from

the

Pearl

et

a l . (1980)

and

the

Pearl

(1982)

studies,

while

Hypotheses I I I and IV

a r e an e x t e n s i o n of the same s t u d i e s . The

expectation

s u c c e s s w i l l be

factors

is

(easy

that

task or l u c k ) , w h i l e f a i l u r e w i l l

i n t e r n a l f a c t o r s (absence of a b i l i t y
The

similar

tasks

(e.g.,

Weiner et a l . ,
tasks,

such expectancy

causal
1974;

success generally

t a s k s - i n t h i s study,

s u c c e s s on f u t u r e
3.)

external

be a t t r i b u t e d to

of e f f o r t ) .

i n the a t t r i b u t i o n l i t e r a t u r e .

has been found that

on

or l a c k

to

r a t i o n a l e s f o r Hypotheses V. 1., 2., and 3. stem from a

number of f i n d i n g s
it

attributed

For example,

f a c i l i t a t e s performance

p a r a l l e l forms of

1972).

however,

Regarding

a t t r i b u t i o n made to e x p l a i n

same

expectancy

(Hypotheses V I I ,

i s r e l a t e d as w e l l

the

of

1., 2., and

to the s t a b i l i ty of the

the outcome (e.g.,

Fontaine,

McMahan, 1973; V a l l e and F r i e z e , 1976; Weiner, N i e r e n b e r g ,

& Goldstein,
such

as

1976).

ability

expectancies
similar
luck,

that

tasks,

Attributions

or

to r e l a t i v e l y s t a b l e

ease/difficulty

outcomes

of

the

task,

w i l l c o n t i n u e to be

the

whereas more u n s t a b l e a t t r i b u t i o n s ,

effort,

or mood,

causes,
produce
same

on

such as

to

tend to produce expectancy s h i f t s away

from the o r i g i n a l l y a n t i c i p a t e d

outcome.

In g e n e r a l , t o o , unexpected outcomes, or outcomes that

widely

from

initial

expectancy,

tend

to

be

attributed

vary
to

u n s t a b l e causes (such as l u c k ) , w h i l e expected outcomes a r e more

likely

to

be

attributed

(e.g.,

Feather & Simon,

to s t a b l e f a c t o r s (such
1971a;

1971b;

Th'_-^, an expected outcome i s a t t r i b u t e d

Simon & F e a t h e r ,

1973;

Valle & Frieze,

8 7

as

ability)

Valle & Frieze,

1976).

to s t a b l e f a c t o r s

(e.g.,

1976),

which i n

turn

l e a d s to an expectancy
same

level.

If

that f u t u r e outcomes w i l l

the

outcome

however,

an a t t r i b u t i o n w i l l

in

leads

turn

unusual
future

and

high

that t h i s

not c o n t i n u e ,

specific

resulting

1976).

expectations,

maintain

them

F r i e z e , 1980,

expect

while

to do w e l l w i l l

those who

regardless

of how

have low

they

low,
which

outcome

was

i n l i t t l e change

T h i s has been seen to l e a d to a

prophecy where those who

the

or

expectancy from the i n i t i a l p r e t e s t expectancy

Frieze,

high

i s unexpectedly

be made to u n s t a b l e f a c t o r s

to the b e l i e f

will

c o n t i n u e at

in

(Valle

&

self-fulfilling
continue

to h o l d

expectations

actually

will

perform

(see

f o r a thorough d i s c u s s i o n of e x p e c t a n c i e s ) .

S t u d i e s have a l s o shown that LD c h i l d r e n are lower i n s e l f esteem

than

Patten,
this

are NLD

1983;

lower

regarding

and

to a f f e c t

according

helplessness

LD

learned
than

and

to

primarily

Garber,

reformulated
1978),

future

model

of

lower
has
1.,
tasks

1980;

thereby

88

helplessness

more

instances

of responses and

l e a d i n g to s t a b l e ,

internal attributions for f a i l u r e .

of

Abramson et a l . , 1978).

have e x p e r i e n c e d

h e l p l e s s n e s s (noncontingency

learned

f a i l u r e i s a subset

overlapping with personal

& Seligman,

the c o n t r o l c h i l d ,

This

self

3.).

the

c h i l d would l i k e l y

for

task performance (Hypotheses V,

(Abramson et a l . ,

helplessness,
(Abramson,

2.,

that

P a t t e n , 1983)

as w e l l as expectancy f o r s e l f on

(Hypotheses V I I , 1.,
Also,

1981).

1981;

and

l e a d s to a lower expectancy

i n LD c h i l d r e n ( e . g . , B l a c k , 1974;

3.)

Chapman,

Thomas, 1979)

f u t u r e t a s k s (Boersma & Chapman,

been h y p o t h e s i z e d

The

Boersma &

Stevenson & Romney, 1984;

self-esteem

self-esteem

2.,

c h i l d r e n (e.g.,

If the LD c h i l d

of

outcomes)

g l o b a l , and
attributes

failure
this

internally (i.e.,

child

ability

to

1978;

and e s p e c i a l l y i f

f e e l s that other c h i l d r e n would probably

have

succeed,

"personal

helplessness,"
al.,

l a c k of a b i l i t y ) ,

she

or

he

would

experience

the

accompanied by a l o s s of s e l f - e s t e e m (Abramson e t
a l s o see the s e c t i o n e n t i t l e d Learned

Helplessness

R e v i s e d i n Chapter II of t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n ) .
Hypothesis
(1981b)

at

IX

stems from i n f o r m a t i o n

a conference e n t i t l e d C l i n i c a l

Development:

Focus on C o g n i t i o n .

best

discriminators

help

a r e "unhappy,

(also

see

children
may

and

Edelbrock,

by-product or end p o i n t

preclude e f f i c i e n t

specific

learning

differences
Child

with

disabilities.

special services

Childhood

current

schoolwork"
He f i n d s

that

learning

that

but that sad mood

other

difficulty.

or behavior

Information

problems

regarding

have
any

(1981a)

s h o u l d prove h e l p f u l f o r p r o f e s s i o n a l s
to LD c h i l d r e n . [The s e c t i o n s

Depression i n Chapter II

outline

1984),

some h y p o t h e s i z i n g

(Brumback & S t a t o n ,

& Young, 1982; G o l d s t e i n

the

various

1983;

to

depression

that

depression

Colbert,

Newman,

& Dundon, 1985-1986), w h i l e

o t h e r s have commented on the b i d i r e c t i o n a l i t y o f , f o r

89

dealing

LD and d e p r e s s i o n - some

LD or underachievement l e a d

(Stevenson & Romney,

Ney,

some

the two

w h i l e some c h i l d r e n may

t h e o r i e s and thoughts r e g a r d i n g

hypothesizing

affects

"poor

between LD and NLD c h i l d r e n on Achenbach's

Behavior C h e c k l i s t

providing

of

Child

professional

1983).

some d i s o r d e r s

learning,

in

He has found that

s a d , or depressed" and

Achenbach

Achenbach

Concerns

a r e seldom r e f e r r e d f o r d e p r e s s i o n ,

be

by

f o r c h i l d r e n needing s p e c i a l

Regarding poor schoolwork,

may

given

still

example,

affect

and c o g n i t i o n (Barden e t a l . , 1981; Barnett

et a l . , 1982;

C a i r n s & V a l s i n e r , 1984)].
Hypothesis
with

VI

cognitive

predict

was generated

l e a r n i n g s t y l e s of LD

might

that LD c h i l d r e n would have p a r t i c u l a r d i f f i c u l t y

with

p r o c e s s i n g , and w i t h

which i n v o l v e s s e q u e n t i a l or s u c c e s s i v e

the C o l o r Naming task, which i n v o l v e s speed

mental p r o c e s s i n g as w e l l as v e r b a l responding

1979;

Intelligence

al.,

useful

recategorization

of

WISC-R

(Wechsler

S c a l e f o r C h i l d r e n - Revised) s u b t e s t s c o r e s c o u l d
i n the r e s o l u t i o n of

categorization

(Bannatyne,

this

1968) was

question.

His

revised

in

Bannatyne, 1974), g i v i n g the f o l l o w i n g c o n c e p t u a l

four

(Das e t

Das et a l . , 1980).
Bannatyne's

be

children.

dealing

One

the S e r i a l R e c a l l task,

of

from the l i t e r a t u r e

earlier

1974 ( s e e

categories for

areas:
S p a t i a l : P i c t u r e Completion, Block

Design,

Conceptual:. Comprehension, S i m i l a r i t i e s ,

Object

Assembly;

Vocabulary;

S e q u e n t i a l : D i g i t Span, A r i t h m e t i c , Coding;
Acquired

Knowledge: I n f o r m a t i o n , A r i t h m e t i c ,

In h i s e a r l i e r work,
children

with

category,

intermediate

reading
scores.
Rugel,

who

1971) r e p o r t e d that

genetic d y s l e x i a scored highest

i n the Conceptual

the S e q u e n t i a l c a t e g o r y .
(1974)

Bannatyne (1968;

reviewed

disabled

in

category,

categorization

the

25 p u b l i s h e d and unpublished

c h i l d r e n which r e p o r t e d WISC

has a l s o p r o v i d e d j u s t i f i c a t i o n
( a s w e l l as being
90

instrumental

Spatial

and lowest i n

T h i s same o r d e r i n g was found

by Rugel

studies

subtest

F a c t o r a n a l y t i c r e s e a r c h (e.g., Bortner
1974)

Vocabulary.

of

scaled

& B i r c h , 1969;

f o r Bannatyne's
in

Bannatyne's

1974

d e c i s i o n to drop the P i c t u r e Arrangement s u b t e s t from

Sequential
subtest).
same

category
In l a t e r

and

to

replace i t

research,

with

Smith et a l .

Spatial>Conceptual>Sequential

the

the

Arithmetic

(1977) r e p o r t e d

pattern for

the

school-verified

LD c h i l d r e n .
Given
children,

the

Spatial>Conceptual>Sequential

i t would be r e a s o n a b l e

of performance on

those

by

Das

et a l .

tasks i n v o l v i n g sequencing,

(1978) has

LD

i . e . , tasks

r e c a l l , although

demonstrated

r e a d e r s perform p o o r l y on both s u c c e s s i v e and

(such as the Raven's Coloured

for

to p r e d i c t g r e a t e s t d i s r u p t i o n

t a p p i n g s u c c e s s i v e p r o c e s s i n g , such as s e r i a l
study

pattern

that

disabled

simultaneous

tasks

P r o g r e s s i v e M a t r i c e s ; Raven,

1956,

1962).
The
outlined

reader

i s a l s o reminded that the " S e q u e n t i a l *

by Bannatyne (1974) i s i d e n t i c a l

Distractibility"

factor

(Arithmetic,

t r i a d ) o u t l i n e d by Kaufman (1975;
his

f a c t o r a n a l y t i c work w i t h

the WISC-R.

91

to the "Freedom

D i g i t Span,

1979a;

category

1979b;

from

and

Coding

1981)

through

CHAPTER IV
Method
S u b j e c t Sample
Experimental
12-0

years,

I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e f o r C h i l d r e n - R e v i s e d (WISC-

were at l e a s t 80 on both the v e r b a l and

and whose r e a d i n g achievement

score
the

performance

scale,

as measured by the r e a d i n g

cluster

of the Woodcock-Johnson P s y c h o - e d u c a t i o n a l B a t t e r y was at

40th p e r c e n t i l e or lower.

These y o u n g s t e r s were

speaking ( i . e . , not r e c e n t l y a r r i v e d

c u l t u r a l handicaps.

range)

stems

demonstrate

physical,

emotional,

The s t i p u l a t i o n of IQ > 80 (low average

from the c o n s i d e r a t i o n
a

English-

i n Canada w i t h E n g l i s h as a

second language) and d i d not have s e r i o u s

or

and

i n Grades Four, F i v e , or S i x , whose IQs as measured

by the Wechsler
R)

s u b j e c t s were boys between the ages of 9-0

normal p o t e n t i a l

that

the LD

to l e a r n .

While

child
for

should
clinical

purposes t h i s means an IQ of at l e a s t 70, f o r r e s e a r c h purposes,

many
least

p r o f e s s i o n a l s (e.g.,
80.

1981)

suggest an IQ of

A r e a d i n g p e r c e n t i l e of 20 or lower was

operational

definition

disability)

since

definition

Douglas,

of

for learning disability

this

f i g u r e i s comparable

LD i n the h i g h e r elementary grades

r e a d i n g one and o n e - h a l f grades below grade l e v e l

Bryan, 1980;

Kavale & Nye,

same

or S i x ,
school)

the WISC-R),

the
of

reading
typical
children

(e.g., Bryan &

1981).

C o n t r o l s u b j e c t s were boys, aged 9-0

Five,

used as the

(i.e.,
to

to 12-0,

i n Grades Four,

chosen from the same c l a s s r o o m s . ( o r at l e a s t

who

met

at

the same c r i t e r i a - IQ > 80 (measured

English-speaking,
92

the
on

and f r e e from s e r i o u s p h y s i c a l ,

emotional,
range
the

or c u l t u r a l handicap.

They were w i t h i n the

normal

(>. 50th p e r c e n t i l e ) i n r e a d i n g achievement as measured

reading

cluster

score

of

the

Woodcock-Johnson

by

Psycho-

educational Battery.
Boys

only

were

Chapter

II,

there

variables

critical

used as s u b j e c t s because,
are

well-documented

to t h i s study

(e.g.,

d i s a b i l i t i e s , and p a t t e r n s of c a u s a l

as

sex

outlined

in

differences

in

i n c i d e n c e of

learning

attributions).

From an o r i g i n a l sample of 108 c h i l d r e n (50 LD;

58 NLD),

10

c h i l d r e n were e l i m i n a t e d from the a n a l y s e s because they d i d

not

meet

the

designated
>

reading

achievement

criterion:

six

originally-

LD c h i l d r e n had r e a d i n g achievement p e r c e n t i l e s c o r e s

50th p e r c e n t i l e ;

f o u r o r i g i n a l l y - d e s i g n a t e d NLD

c h i l d r e n had

r e a d i n g achievement p e r c e n t i l e s c o r e s < 50th p e r c e n t i l e .

Upon i n i t i a l

a n a l y s e s of the d e s c r i p t i v e data,

that a l a r g e d i s c r e p a n c y

Therefore,

a d e c i s i o n was made-to

equate the two groups of c h i l d r e n , LD and NLD,

as

it

performance

IQ

provides

intellectual potential
full

verbal

(Bannatyne,
Arithmetic,
affected

scale

1974)
and
by

disabilities

more

constellation

learning

93

the

indication

of

the v e r b a l IQ s c o r e or the

the
of

Acquired
subtests

which i s known

disabilities,

1982).

valid

children

1975).

encompasses

Vocabulary)

(Sattler,

than do e i t h e r

s c a l e IQ s c o r e (Torgesen,

The

on performance IQ

has been demonstrated that f o r LD

score

found

e x i s t e d between the two groups (LD;NLD)

on a l l s c a l e s of the WISC-R.

alone,

i t was

to

Knowledge

(Information,
be

especially

adversely
reading

The
of

full

s c a l e IQ s c o r e ,

composed as i t i s of a combination

v e r b a l s c a l e IQ and performance s c a l e IQ,

indicator
there

of i n t e l l i g e n c e f o r LD

i s a statistically

verbal

particularly

s i g n i f i c a n t discrepancy

Kaufman

found

Acquired

and

Arithmetic,

listed

Knowledge g r o u p i n g ( e . g . ,

Smith,

Coleman,

depressed

achievement

(Kaufman,

between

ability

Reading and l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n s have

to s c o r e low on two of the

Information

the

1982).

(1979b) d i s c u s s e s the d i s t i n c t i o n

and achievement.

when

between

and performance s c a l e s (performance > v e r b a l )

1979a; 1979b; S a t t l e r ,

been

children,

may be an i n v a l i d

Dokecki,

&

three
in

subtests, i . e . ,

Bannatyne's

Clarizio &

Davis,

Bernard,

1977).

inadequate

acquired

1981;

"Consequently,

and FS IQs may be a d i r e c t e f f e c t of

and

(1974)

learnings

poor

school

for

these

y o u n g s t e r s , thereby p r o v i d i n g an i n c o r r e c t e s t i m a t e of t h e i r s o called ability,

learning
normal

or

potential,

r e a d i n g d i s o r d e r s that

intelligence

concludes:

verbal
scale

of

Children

i n c l u d e the s t i p u l a t i o n

p.20)."

who a s c r i b e a

large

i n r e a d i n g f a i l u r e o f t e n use the

test

l i k e the Wechsler

highest

are

Intelligence

role

to

performance
Scale f o r
normal

ability."

Consequently,
performance

of

Torgesen (1975, p.

(NISC) to i d e n t i f y poor r e a d e r s w i t h o t h e r w i s e

intellectual

the

1979b,

"Investigators

processes

e t c . Any d e f i n i t i o n s of

as a p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n

t h e r e f o r e suspect (Kaufman,
418)

capacity,

rank o r d e r i n g of both LD and NLD groups

IQ was made

and the groups were matched by

30 LD c h i l d r e n and the lowest 38 NLD

performance IQ. Thus, the f i n a l

94

on

taking

children

on

sample of s u b j e c t s had 30 LD and

38 NLD c h i l d r e n (68 t o t a l ) , matched on performance IQ.

In

terms of r a c i a l / e t h n i c background,

Caucasian,
Indian,
child.
East

three

one

native

one

Indian,

Of the LD s u b j e c t s ,

Japanese/Caucasian,

and one

native

two

60
East

Indian/Caucasian

27 were Caucasian,

one Chinese,

one

I n d i a n , and one n a t i v e I n d i a n . Of the NLD s u b j e c t s , 33 were

Caucasian,
and

Chinese,

subjects included

two Chinese,

one n a t i v e
Sixty-five

systems

of

district

one Japanese/Caucasian, one East

Indian/Caucasian.
children

two

and

Indian,

were

students

metropolitan

10 from another

school

in

the

districts

district),

while

public
(55

school

from

three

one

children

were s t u d e n t s from two urban p a r o c h i a l s c h o o l s .

I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of both LD and NLD s u b j e c t s was f a c i l i t a t e d by
examination

of the s c h o o l - r e c o r d e d

( K i n g et a l . ,
public

Canadian T e s t of B a s i c

1981) r e s u l t s , a v a i l a b l e f o r a l l s t u d e n t s

school d i s t r i c t s .

Skills
i n both

P e r c e n t i l e s c o r e s were a v a i l a b l e f o r

vocabulary

and r e a d i n g (comprehension).

teachers,

l e a r n i n g a s s i s t a n c e t e a c h e r s , and p r i n c i p a l s a i d e d i n

selection

of LD and NLD s u b j e c t s a c c o r d i n g

criteria

outlined

earlier.

(See

P r i n c i p a l and Teachers.)

95

In a d d i t i o n ,

Appendix

to the
1

for

classroom

experimental
Letter

to

Research

Design

Using
(1963),
LD
LD
LD

NLD
NLD
NLD

the

conventional

n o t a t i o n of

Campbell

and

the q u a s i - e x p e r i m e n t a l design was:

X easy

X difficult

X (no

X easy

.3

X difficult

X (no

[n=12]

[n=10]

task)

Cn= 8]

[n=12]

[n=16]

task)

[n=10]

where LD stands f o r l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d experimental

stands

for

observations
taken

normally

achieving control subject;

taken d u r i n g S e s s i o n I;

Session I I I .

Fourteen

subject;
C^

refers

observations

Og to prevent

to

taken

days (or more i n a few i n s t a n c e s

due to i l l n e s s of s u b j e c t or s c h o o l p r o f e s s i o n a l day)
from

NLD

0^ r e f e r s to o b s e r v a t i o n s

d u r i n g S e s s i o n I I ; and 0^ r e f e r s to

during

0^

Stanley

confounding

due to p r a c t i c e

separated
effects.

stands f o r random assignment to the e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n ,

and

represents

the

2 ) , consent

form

(easy

task;

experimental

difficult

event

task;

no

or m a n i p u l a t i o n .

Summary of Method and

Procedures

Parents r e c e i v e d a covering l e t t e r
(Appendix
stamped
completed

3),
return

task)

and C h i l d Behavior
envelope.

the C h i l d Behavior

If

Checklist

consent

Checklist

96

(Appendix

was

together w i t h
granted,

(Achenbach,

parents

1981a),

and

all

c h i l d r e n (LD and NLD) p a r t i c i p a t e d

oyer

i n three t e s t i n g

a two to two and one-half week p e r i o d ,

session

lasting

from one to two hours.

sessions

w i t h each

(See

testing

Appendix

4 for

Student Consent Form.)

Session

I . (C^)

Administration o f :
1. A f f e c t measure (Appendix 5)
2.

WISC-R

(Wechsler

Intelligence

Scale

for

Children

Revised)
3.

Woodcock-Johnson

Cluster

(three

Psycho-educational

subtests:

Letter-Word.

Battery

- Reading

Identification;

Word

A t t a c k ; Passage Comprehension)
4. A f f e c t measure

S e s s i on I I . (Og)
Attribution

rating

scale

training

(Appendix

6)

and

administration of:
1. A f f e c t measure
2. Pre-task
and

attribution questionnaire ( a b i l i t y , e f f o r t ,

task d i f f i c u l t y )
3.

order

Intellectual

luck,

(Appendix 7)
Achievement R e s p o n s i b i l i t y (IAR) S c a l e ,

to determine h e l p l e s s n e s s v s . m a s t e r y - o r i e n t e d

in

categories

(Diener & Dweck, 1978; 1980) (Appendix 8)

4.

Pre-measures

(counterbalanced

with

post-measures,

also

1i s t e d below):
(a) Raven's Coloured

Progressive Matrices,

(Raven, 1956, 1962)

97

Form A or Ag

(b) Free R e c a l l and S e r i a l R e c a l l ,

first

or second

set

of 12 word groups (Das e t a l . , 1979)

(c) C o l o r Naming (Das et a l . , 1979), I or II
(d) I d e a t i o n a l Fluency

( H a k s t i a n & C a t t e l l , 1976), I or

II
(e) Aiming (Hakstian & C a t t e l l , 1976), I or II (Appendix
9)
5. A f f e c t measure
S e s s i o n I I I . (Og)
Administration of:
*

1. P r e - a f f e c t measure

2. Expectancy

of s u c c e s s measure f o r s e l f

3. Expectancy

of s u c c e s s measure f o r other

4.

Experimental

manipulation:

board

(easy,

game

(Appendix
*

(Appendix
(Appendix

10)

task = Round-Robin Racing,

difficult,

or

no

task

condition)

11)

5. P o s t - t a s k

attribution

questionnaire

(ability,

l u c k , and task e a s e / d i f f i c u l t y ) (Appendix

*

10)

6. Expectancy

effort,

12)

of f u t u r e s u c c e s s measure f o r s e l f

(Appendix

of f u t u r e s u c c e s s measure f o r other

(Appendix

13)
*

7. Expectancy
13)

8. P o s t - t a s k

a f f e c t measure

9. Post-measures
in S e s s i o n

( c o u n t e r b a l a n c e d w i t h pre-measures l i s t e d

I I . ) : P a r a l l e l forms of 3. a, b, c, d, e.

98

10.

D e b r i e f i n g ( i n c l u d i n g the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the easy

task

and

task

the

those

attribution

initially

questionnaire

given

f o r the

the d i f f i c u l t

easy

task)

11. F i n a l a f f e c t measure
*

second

Session

experimenter

III.

in

order

administered
to

reduce

experimenter

a s s i s t a n t randomly a s s i g n e d experimental
the

easy,

difficult,

or

no

s t e p s 1 through

and

bias.

in
This

c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s to

experimental

task

treatment

condi t i o n s .

P r e l i m i n a r y Measures
C h i l d Behavior C h e c k l i s t
P a r e n t s were asked to complete a C h i l d Behavior
Ages 4 - 16
provided

(Achenbach,

i n f o r m a t i o n f o r answering Hypothesis

(1981a) C h i l d Behavior
the

NLD

.05)

on

1981a) f o r t h e i r c h i l d .

Checklist,

Checklist for
This checklist

IV: On

LD c h i l d r e n w i l l

Achenbach's
differ

from

c h i l d r e n at the c o n v e n t i o n a l l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e (p <
the v a r i o u s s u b s c a l e s ,

subscale,

while

the NLD

i n p a r t i c u l a r on

c h i l d r e n w i l l correspond

the

Depression

to Achenbach's

n o n - c l i n i c norm group.
Achenbach's
was

to develop

used

goal

in developing

the C h i l d Behavior

a descriptive classification

to group c h i l d r e n f o r r e s e a r c h and

reflect

Checklist

system that c o u l d

clinical

a d a p t i v e competencies as w e l l as behavior

purposes,
problems,

be
to
and

to f a c i l i t a t e q u a n t i t a t i v e assessment of b e h a v i o r a l change. T h i s
descriptive
Child

classification

Behavior

system i s embodied i n a

P r o f i l e s that are s t a n d a r d i z e d

99

series

separately

of
for

children

of each sex at ages 4-5,

Behavior P r o f i l e used
Child

Behavior

6-11,

i n t h i s study was

Checklist

is

and 12-16.

Competence

involvement

Items.

and attainment

Activities

Scale.

This

The

comprised,

then,

social

and

of

The
social

items.

competence

scale

taps

i n the three areas d e s c r i b e d below.

scale

c o n s i s t s of s c o r e s

amount and q u a l i t y of a c h i l d ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n

(b) nonsports hobbies,

Child

f o r boys aged 6-11.

competence items as w e l l as behavior problem

Social

The

activities,

for

i n (a)

and games;

and

the

sports;
(c) jobs

chores.

Social

Scale.

child's
number

This

scale

c o n s i s t s of s c o r e s f o r

membership and p a r t i c i p a t i o n

in

(a)

the

organizations;

of f r i e n d s and c o n t a c t s w i t h them;

and

(c)

(b)

behavior

alone and w i t h o t h e r s .
School S c a l e . The s c h o o l s c a l e c o n s i s t s of s c o r e s f o r (a) the
average

of the c h i l d ' s performance

placement

i n a r e g u l a r or s p e c i a l c l a s s ;

regularly
school

i n academic s u b j e c t s ;

or h e l d back;

and

(c) b e i n g

Somatic

Depressed,

Complaints,

and Delinquent
After
(1981a)
was

of

problems.
f a c t o r a n a l y s i s of

d i s t u r b e d boys y i e l d e d n i n e behavior problem

Schizoid,

promoted

(d) the presence or absence

Behavior Problem S c a l e s . For boys, aged 6-11,

450

(b)

S o c i a l Withdrawal,

(narrow

successive

Uncommunicative,

Obsessive-Compulsive,

Hyperactive, Aggressive,

band s c a l e s ) .
revisions

of

pilot

f i n a l i z e d 118 behavior problem

allotted

scales labeled

editions,

items.

Note that

f o r p a r e n t s to i n d i c a t e "other p h y s i c a l
100

Achenbach
space

problems

without

known m e d i c a l cause"

c h i l d has
A

and

that were not l i s t e d above" (Item

three-step

response

"any

easier

untrained

raters.

currently

or w i t h i n the l a s t

each

item

that

scale

for

describes

s i x months,

the

The

child

p a r e n t s are asked
of

to

their

1 i f the item i s "somewhat" or "sometimes t r u e "

t h e i r c h i l d ; and 0 i f the item i s "not

first

t r u e " of t h e i r

of

child.

f i v e problem s c a l e s l o a d on a second-order

Internalizing,

labeled

E x t e r n a l i z i n g (the one mixed syndrome i s r e p r e s e n t e d by

Social

Withdrawal s c a l e )

E d e l b r o c k , 1983). The
based

on

the

repeatedly
reviews,

(Achenbach,

broad-band groupings
in

other

overcontrolled
antisocial,

distinction
behavior

versus

versus

Aggression

&

one

Conduct Problem
(Miller,

(Achenbach,

Quay,

hand,
on

and

to

1966),

and

as

1961),

(for

1979), and
inhibited,
aggressive,

the o t h e r . These

(Peterson,
1967),

problems

analyses

fearful,

have been v a r i o u s l y r e f e r r e d

Problem

Externalizing

the

u n d e r c o n t r o l l e d behavior

groupings

factor

Achenbach

behavior

1978;

between

on

of

multivariate

see Achenbach and E d e l b r o c k ,

a

1978;

I n t e r n a l i z i n g - E x t e r n a l i z i n g dichotomy i s

identified

reflects

band

two

three l o a d on

factor

labeled

the

w h i l e the l a s t

is

most

the

2 i f the item i s "very t r u e " or " o f t e n t r u e "

child;

your

chosen s i n c e i t

than a present v e r s u s absent

For

problems

113).

s c a l e (0,1,2) was

typically

circle

(Item 56h)

broad-

Personality
Inhibition

Internalizing

versus

Overcontrolled

versus

U n d e r c o n t r o l l e d (Achenbach & E d e l b r o c k , 1978).

For boys aged 6-11,
factor

the I n t e r n a l i z i n g Syndromes found

a n a l y s i s of the C h i l d Behavior

1 0 1

Checklist

through

(syndromes

are

listed
order

i n descending order of the l o a d i n g s shown f o r the secondI n t e r n a l i z i n g and E x t e r n a l i z i n g

Schizoid

or Anxious

include:

.81

Depressed

.74

Uncommunicative

.73

Obsessive/Compulsive

.68

Somatic Complaints

.64

The E x t e r n a l i z i n g

factors)

Syndromes i n c l u d e :

Delinquent

.87

Aggressive

.85

Hyperactive

.63

The one mixed syndrome i s the S o c i a l Withdrawal

Though

the I n t e r n a l i z i n g and E x t e r n a l i z i n g

contrasting
exclusive.
two

types of behavior problems,

studied.

between t o t a l
clinical

samples,
were

they are not

Through
p.

factor

33) r e p o r t

analyses,

for

samples

to be .48.

computed by d e l e t i n g

i n Achenbach

the

Achenbach

Across their six

the few

.63.

and

and E d e l b r o c k ,

1983,

scale,

of

but Appendix

redundant

were .59

.73 f o r t h e i r n o n - c l i n i c a l

102

correlations

I n t e r n a l i z i n g and

s c o r e s f o r boys aged 6-11

sample, and

normative

p r e s e n t s the c o r r e l a t i o n s

These Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n s between t o t a l

T

(These

in

items that a r e s c o r e d on both

a l l sex/age groups without d e l e t i o n

clinical

of

I n t e r n a l i z i n g and t o t a l E x t e r n a l i z i n g T s c o r e s

the average c o r r e l a t i o n was

Externalizing

the

the average Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n

an I n t e r n a l i z i n g s c a l e and an E x t e r n a l i z i n g
E,

mutually

groupings depends upon c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

Edelbrock (1983,

six

groupings o u t l i n e

The degree and d i r e c t i o n of c o r r e l a t i o n between

broad-band

sample

scale.

for

sample.)

items.
total
their

Achenbach
few

and Edelbrock

o v e r l a p p i n g items,

behaviors
this

(1983) r e p o r t that even without

there i s a p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n

that a r e o f t e n viewed as o p p o s i t e s .

i s because

tests,
to

behavior

among

ability

so that i n d i v i d u a l s who s c o r e very h i g h i n one area

score

Despite
whole,
are

among

(g) dimension

be above average i n other areas as w e l l ,

who

between

They e x p l a i n that

there i s a g e n e r a l dimension

problems that resembles the g e n e r a l

p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n found

however,

primarily

the authors f e e l

between

tend

individuals
areas.

i n t h e i r samples

as

that some c h i l d r e n ' s problems

I n t e r n a l i z i n g and other c h i l d r e n ' s

p r i m a r i l y E x t e r n a l i z i n g . They f e e l
relation

while

very low i n one a r e a tend to be low i n other

the

the

problems

are

that t h i s i s analogous to the

the V e r b a l IQ and the Performance IQ

on

the

Wechsler i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s - a c r o s s groups, t h e r e i s a p o s i t i v e
correlation

between

individuals

have

the V e r b a l and Performance

much

lower

IQ,

s c o r e s i n one area

but

than

some

i n the

other.
Socio-economic S t a t u s
Of

the s t a t u s v a r i a b l e s having an impact

children
disorders,

at

risk

none

socio-economic

for learning

upon the behavior of

disabilities

i s seen as more c r i t i c a l

s t a t u s or SES (Robins,

than

1979;

or

behavior

that of p a r e n t a l

Werner, 1980). For

example, Werner and Smith (1977) r e p o r t e d that three out of four

children
from

low

considered
SES homes.

i n need of placement i n an LD

class

came

And i n a comparison of low a c h i e v e r s ( i n

r e a d i n g / s p e l l i n g ) w i t h a c a d e m i c a l l y s u c c e s s f u l c o n t r o l s , matched
by

IQ and r a c e ,

Broman (1977) showed that i n d i c e s of SES

103

prior

to

birth

and

at age seven were more s t r o n g l y r e l a t e d

achievement than Apgar s c o r e s ,

neurological

soft

significantly

frequent

than

among

c a l c u l a t i o n of SES was
Mueller

and

literature,

status
authors

that

three

and

the

latter

black

matched

and

white

controls).

Thus,

i n t h e i r review
in

the

relevant,

s i n g l e best

of

study

and

of

SES.

1961)

1971),

or

both

the

measures

c o ^ c i . (They do not recommend use of the H o l l i n g s h e a d

Social

three-digit

These

occupation

of

the

occupational

of

(Duncan,

and

the

Index

data,

social

power,

that

indicator

relevant

requiring

Two-Factor

raw

were

study.

P r e s t i g e S c o r i n g System ( S i e g e l ,
same

the

both

recommend u s i n g the Duncan SEI

Siegel

complications,

dimensions - economic,

theoretically

represents

IQ

(1981),

concluded

p r e s t i g e - are

among

included in t h i s

Parcel

stratification,

low

s i g n s at age seven (though

more

underachievers

obstetrical

to

Position,

1957,

U.S.

because

Census

it

is

outdated.)
There
index

i s now

for

based on
from

available,

occupations

income l e v e l

however,

i n Canada ( B l i s h e n &

and

1971,

expressed
i n 1970

grade 12

In

and whose 1970

of males who

an occupation

i n 1970

i f the p r o v i n c e of s c h o o l i n g was

104

and

Statistics

income

level

is

occupation

$6,500 or over.

as the percentage
and who

1976),

using information

worked i n an

employment income was

v a r i a b l e i s expressed

in

1963,

the present s c a l e ,

as the percentage

education
worked

1972.

socioeconomic

McRoberts,

educational status,

the Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s ,

Canada,

revised

of males

had attended
P r i n c e Edward

at

The
who

least
Island,

New

Brunswick,

Ontario,

B r i t i s h Columbia,

Canada, or who had attended

had

been

undertaken

Manitoba,

d i f f e r e n c e s into
SES

or

Alberta,

Nova
thus

Scotia,
taking

l i s t e d by B l i s h e n and McRoberts (1976).

(1981a) C h i l d Behavior
provided

Type of Work" and

I f both p a r e n t s r e p o r t e d p a i d o c c u p a t i o n s ,

status

occupation

was

used

to s c o r e

SES

seven-point

the W e c h s l e r - B e l l e v u e

was

designed

This

is

although

1974) was p u b l i s h e d

twenty-

(Wechsler,

the W e c h s l e r - B e l l e v u e

(1939),

11 or Army Wechsler (1942). The WISC-R

to t e s t c h i l d r e n whose ages range from 6-0 to 16-11

y e a r s , and c o n t a i n s twelve
(1974,

"multidimensional
independent,

to the

i n t u r n , as a downward e x t e n s i o n of

adult i n t e l l i g e n c e tests,

and

higher-

(WISC-R)

the o r i g i n a l p u b l i c a t i o n of the WISC

which was developed,

of

s c a l e f o r a s s e s s i n g SES.

The WISC-R (Wechsler,

f i v e years a f t e r

Wechsler

the

(1983),

Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e f o r C h i l d r e n - Revised

the

Type

i n d i c e s of B l i s h e n and McRoberts (1976).

they use H o l l i n g s h e a d ' s

1949),

On Achenbach's

according

procedure used by Achenbach and Edelbrock

Description.

occupational

"Mother's

Work."

the

provincial

C h e c k l i s t f o r Ages 4-16, t h e r e a r e spaces

f o r "Father's

socioeconomic

Quebec,

account.

data f o r t h i s study were r e c o r d e d from the

indices

or o u t s i d e

at l e a s t grade 11 i f t h e i r s c h o o l i n g

i n Newfoundland,

Saskatchewan,

Yukon,

p.
and

uniquely

subtests.

5)

conceptualized

multifaceted
defined t r a i t , "

entity

intelligence
rather

as

than

and the c o n s t r u c t i o n

a
an
of

the WISC-R r e f l e c t s t h i s c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n .
On

the WISC-R,

s i x of the s u b t e s t s form the V e r b a l S c a l e

105

Information,

Similarities,

Comprehension,
Performance
Block

Performance

separate

S c a l e IQ,

Completion,

IQ

Coding,
scores:

s i x form

Picture
and Mazes.

Verbal

and a F u l l S c a l e IQ.

The WISC-R

Scale

IQ,

A l l t h r e e IQs a r e

IQs, o b t a i n e d by comparing the s u b j e c t s ' s c o r e s w i t h

own

(the WISC-R was s t a n d a r d i z e d on 2,200 w h i t e and

American
based

the

Arrangement,

s c o r e s earned by a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e sample of t h e i r

group

children

reasonably

on 1970 U.S.

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the

census d a t a ) .

scores,

so

standard

d e v i a t i o n of 15.

D e v i a t i o n IQs

age

nonwhite

population

are

standard

that each of the three IQs has a mean of 100 and

Bannatyne's R e c a t e g o r i z a t i o n of WISC-R
Bannatyne (1968;
the

Vocabulary,

Span - w h i l e another

Object Assembly,

three

deviation

Digit

Scale- -Picture

Design,

provides

the

and

Arithmetic,

Scores

1971; 1974) developed

a r e c a t e g o r i z a t i o n of

WISC-R s u b t e s t s so that each category

represents a s p e c i f i c

ability,

thus

d i v e r g i n g from Wechsler's (e.g.,

performance dichotomy.

The groupings,

1974)

together w i t h

verbal-

the WISC-R

s u b t e s t s i n c l u d e d , a r e as f o l l o w s :
S p a t i a l = P i c t u r e Completion, Block
Conceptual

Design,

= Comprehension, S i m i l a r i t i e s ,

and Object

Assembly;

Vocabulary;

S e q u e n t i a l = A r i t h m e t i c , D i g i t Span, Coding;
Acquired = Information, A r i t h m e t i c ,
Bannatyne

(1974)

h i g h e s t on S p a t i a l
tasks,

and

Vocabulary.

has h y p o t h e s i z e d

t a s k s , next

that

LD

h i g h e s t on V e r b a l

lowest

on

(Spatial>Conceptual>Sequencing).

106

children

score

Conceptualizing

Sequencing

tasks

T h i s p a t t e r n has been found f o r

both r e a d i n g - d i s a b l e d
et

al.,

1977)

Sequencing

category

that

subtests
field
1977).

Sequencing

successive/sequential
The

WISC-R

Bannatyne's

comprises

have been found to be c l o s e l y

simultaneous/holistic

data

that

to Kaufman's

category

Witkin

a d d i t i o n , Kaufman

Spatial/low

also

Bannatyne's

(1979a)

Freedom

f a c t o r ( A r i t h m e t i c , D i g i t Span, and Coding)

independence (e.g.,
In

Recall

i s identical

the S p a t i a l
that

1974) and l e a r n i n g - d i s a b l e d (Smith

youngsters.

from D i s t r a c t i b i l i t y
and

(Rugel,

et a l . ,

three

WISC-R

associated

1974; W i t k i n

with
et a l . ,

(1979a) suggests that the

pattern
processing

processing
from

the

may

relate

coupled

were

Spatial>Conceptual>Sequential

107

with

superior
inadequate

(see a l s o , Kaufman, 1975).

t h i s study

c h i l d r e n c o u l d be examined.

to

higher

analyzed

so

pattern

for

that
LD

Woodcock-Johnson P s y c h o - E d u c a t i o n a l
The
1977;
27

Woodcock-Johnson
1978;

Psycho-Educational

i n d i v i d u a l l y administered,

of f u n c t i o n i n g : c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y ,
Tests

include

Battery

(Woodcock,

Woodcock & Johnson, 1977)) i s a comprehensive set of

tests,

The

B a t t e r y - Reading C l u s t e r

of

achievement, and

Cognitive A b i l i t y ,

twelve s u b t e s t s that cover

vocabulary,

spatial

relations,

that a s s e s s e s

Part I

of

three

areas

interest.
the

battery,

a v a r i e t y of domains such

and

so f o r t h .

The

Tests

Achievement i n Part II i n c l u d e ten achievement a r e a s ,

as
of

including

r e a d i n g , s p e l l i n g , c a p i t a l i z a t i o n , p u n c t u a t i o n , and knowledge of
science,

humanities,

in Part I I I ,
reading,

and s o c i a l s t u d i e s . The T e s t s of I n t e r e s t ,

cover f i v e a r e a s :

preference for p a r t i c i p a t i o n in

mathematics, language, p h y s i c a l a c t i v i t i e s ,

and

social

the

three

activi ties.
In

this

reading

study,

subtests

a l l children
(Letter-Word

Passage Comprehension)
of

(LD/NLD) were given

Identification;

Intellectual

(IARQ)

(Crandall

Achievement

et

individual's belief
for,

B a t t e r y (Woodcock

to determine r e a d i n g p e r c e n t i l e ( f o r age)

I n t e l l e c t u a l Achievement R e s p o n s i b i l i t y
The

Responsibility

a l . , 1965)

i n h i s own

was

describing

of

34
a

forced-choice

designed

c o n t r o l over,

positive

or

items,

negative

108

&

levels.

Questionnaire
Questionnaire
to

and

measure

with

each

achievement

an

responsibility

i n t e l l e c t u a l - a c a d e m i c s u c c e s s e s and f a i l u r e s . The

composed

Attack;

from The T e s t s of Achievement i n P a r t II

the Woodcock-Johnson P s y c h o - E d u c a t i o n a l

Johnson, 1977)

Word

scale i s

item
event

stem
which

commonly o c c u r s i n a c h i l d ' s day-to-day e x p e r i e n c e . Each stem i s

f o l l o w e d by one a l t e r n a t i v e
the

child

ascribing

(e.g.,

stating

good work,

that

the event was caused by

e f f o r t ) and another

alternative

the event to the behavior of someone e l s e

important i n

the

c h i l d ' s environment

of

the items tap the c h i l d ' s acceptance of

positive
and

events ( I ,

for

negative

p a r e n t , teacher, p e e r ) . One h a l f

tap the c h i l d ' s acceptance of

events

(I ,

or

internal

f a i l u r e s ) . The sum of the I**" and I

(total

scales

tape r e c o r d e r ,

allowed
own.

responsibility

responsibility

for

gives a t o t a l I score

children

to c h i l d r e n

the s c a l e

below the

o r a l l y by means

sixth

grade,

above the s i x t h grade to do the s c a l e

and

on t h e i r

In the present study, the IARQ was a d m i n i s t e r e d o r a l l y , by

the

author and

placed
child

her

without a tape

chair

recorder.

The

experimenter

i n such a way as to a f f o r d p r i v a c y

to

each

(LD or NLD) as he made h i s responses to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e .

The

decision

and

so f o r t h ,

to a d m i n i s t e r a l l q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , s c a l e s ,
orally,

without

voice

could

be

better

optimum s t i m u l a t i o n
From
students,

their

I t was f e l t

and more s w i f t l y

given each t e s t i n g

t o t a l sample of 923

Crandall

et a l .

measures,

the use of a tape r e c o r d e r ,

based upon p r a c t i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s .

and

for

i n t e r n a l or s e l f - r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ) .

C r a n d a l l et a l . (1965) a d m i n i s t e r e d
of

responsibility

or i n t e r n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r s u c c e s s e s )

the other h a l f

(e.g.,

that

altered

to

the human
provide

situation.

elementary- and

high-school

(1965) r e p o r t e d the f o l l o w i n g

s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s f o r boys i n Grades 4,

IARQ:

109

was

5,

means

and 6, on the

Total

S.D.

S.D.

S.D.

Grade 4 (n=59)

24.83

3.00

12.41

2.07

12.42

2.08

Grade 5 (n=52)

24.04

3.69

12.38

2.52

11.65

2.46

Grade 6 (n=93)

24.74

4.57

12.99

2.54

11.75

2.79

C r a n d a l l et a l . (1965) r e p o r t e d
r e l a t i o n s between

and I

I~

v a r i a b l e , but g e n e r a l l y low,

s c a l e s (data

i n c l u d e boys and g i r l s ,

grades 3 to 1 2 ) . For grades 4 to 6, the c o r r e l a t i o n s were:

I

versus I

Grade 4 (n=103)

.11

Grade 5 (n= 99)

.11

Grade 6 (n=166)

.38*

* p < .001
C r a n d a l l et a l .
subscale
the

(1965) suggested that

the low a s s o c i a t i o n of

s c o r e s f o r c h i l d r e n i n the lower grades may r e s u l t from

possibility

that

f a i l u r e s may be l e a r n e d

self-responsibility

for

separately,

the young c h i l d

and that

successes

and
may

assume more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the one than f o r the o t h e r .

A

subset of 10 items on the IARQ s p e c i f i c a l l y

attributions
(1978;
children
Those

of

1980)

failure

to l a c k of e f f o r t .

helplessness

children

obtaining

and
scores

c l a s s i f i e d as m a s t e r y - o r i e n t e d ,
designated

all

children

Diener

and

d e s c r i b e how t h i s subset may be used to

into

are

taps a c h i l d ' s

as h e l p l e s s .
in

mastery-oriented
greater

than

Dweck

classify

categories.
seven

are

w h i l e those s c o r i n g below seven

A "Dweck" s c o r e was c a l c u l a t e d f o r

t h i s study.

110

Pre-, and

Post-Measures

Selection Rationale.
measures

An

Apart

from

u s e f u l n e s s i n t e s t i n g the hypotheses of t h i s study,

i t was

hoped

such

an

regarding

to

some h e u r i s t i c

these

rationale.

that

according

attempt had been made to choose

attempt

might

i n i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g and

p o i n t i n g the way
Parallel

forms

demands,

a l o n e , might r e s u l t

i t was

at time

difficult

measures,

two.

performance,

LD
thus

populations.
practice
task

i n advantage to the s u b j e c t s (both

If d i f f e r e n c e s ,

condition,

had

especially

been noted

for

decrements
the

post-

these would have r e p r e s e n t e d very s t r o n g evidence f o r

manipulation.

s t r i c t matching of the task forms was

of

i n t e r e s t was

interaction,
and NLD

and

r e c o g n i z e d that knowledge of the

the e f f e c t s of the e x p e r i m e n t a l

point

information

of these t e s t s were used to reduce

although

LD and NLD)

task

to f u t u r e s t u d i e s w i t h LD and NLD

effects,

the

important

p o s s i b l e d i f f e r e n c e s between n o r m a l - a c h i e v i n g

children

in

provide

not

O v e r a l l , however,

paramount because

the degree of s h i f t ,

r a t h e r than

or the

degree

the a b s o l u t e s c o r e s o b t a i n e d by

groups i n the easy,

difficult,

the
of

the

or no experimental

LD

task

conditions.
Information

regarding

the n e u r o l o g i c a l

t a s k s , o u t l i n e d below, w i l l
Simultaneous/Successive
has

include

the f a m i l i a r

work of C a t t e l l
Thurstone

(e.g.,

1938;

Intellectual

s e v e r a l approaches

a b i l i t i e s approach,

(e.g.,

of

the

be given as a v a i l a b l e .

P r o c e s s i n g Model.

been s t u d i e d through

correlates

1963;

1971;

Thurstone

111

or

behavior

models.

These

as e x e m p l i f i e d by

Hakstian

& Thurstone,

& Cattell,

the

1974),

1962), G u i l f o r d

(e.g.,

1967; G u i l f o r d H o e p f n e r , 1971), and many o t h e r s . Other

researchers
behavior
1974;

have

approached an understanding

of

from a developmental p e r s p e c t i v e (e.g.,

intellectual

Elkind,

1969;

Kagan e t a l . , 1963; 1964; P i a g e t , 1926).

More

recently,

"ability"

researchers,

assuming

that

d i f f e r e n c e s u n d e r l i e d i f f e r e n c e s i n performance,

have

advocated a "process"
analysis

of

models
1973;

of

approach, c o n s i s t e n t w i t h

l e a r n i n g processes

more u s e f u l ( E s t e s ,

instead

1974).

the view that an

u n d e r l y i n g an a b i l i t y

i s much

For example, i n f o r m a t i o n

have been o u t l i n e d by

processing

Hunt and c o l l e a g u e s (Hunt,

1971;

Hunt & Lansman, 1975; Hunt, Lunneborg, & Lewis, 1975). In

addition,

an attempt

to d e s c r i b e the t r a d i t i o n a l primary mental

abilities,

i n terms of the c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s

which u n d e r l i e them, has been made by

In

recent

years,

great

Carroll

deal

of

and memory s t o r e s
(1976).
understanding

of

i n t e l l e c t u a l f u n c t i o n s i n terms of the workings of the b r a i n has

been accomplished,
North

i n great p a r t ,

American and S o v i e t s c i e n t i s t s (e.g.,

1973).

Das,

information

Kirby,

processing

and

Jarman

model

to an a b i l i t y

by

strategies

used

c o u l d be d i r e c t l y

opening

up

the

by the i n d i v i d u a l

outlined

evolved

from

an

Soviet

Das e x p l a i n s : "An a l t e r n a t i v e

possibility
learner.

f o r looking
These

at

strategies

r e l a t e d to ways of s t r u c t u r i n g i n p u t . Then, of

the manner

i n s t r u c t i o n a l methods.
a

and L u r i a ,

approach i s a p r o c e s s model, which p r o v i d e s u s e f u l

information

of

Pribram

(1975) have

which has

neuropsychology. In an i n t e r v i e w ,

course,

through the c o l l a b o r a t i o n of

i n which input i s o r g a n i z e d
So you see the e d u c a t i o n a l

i s related

implications

p r o c e s s model a r e q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from those based on

112

to

an

a b i l i t i e s model,
1981,

which f o c u s e s s o l e l y

on

Luria's

investigations,

Das

processing

containing

four

registration,
presented

sensory

al.
may

(1975)

external

manner.

refers

unit

may

or

to

groups,

and

in

stimuli

output.

of two

either

basic

represented

relationship

T h i s o r g a n i z a t i o n may
in

of

speech

in

of the

successive

organized

in

to

Simultaneous and

reciprocal

synthesis

composites

synthesis

one

a n a l y s i s of

between

s u c c e s s i v e - and

113

of
the

Instead,

sequence-dependent

to i n d i v i d u a l

making i s dependent upon the two

and

or

another

i s a form

another.

component i n the c e n t r a l

relationships

i n the

simultaneous

s u c c e s s i v e s y n t h e s e s are merged w i t h a

decision-making

task,

logical-grammatical

temporal,

only l i m i t e d a c q u i s i t i o n

to

be s p a t i a l , or i t may

complex

m u l t i p l e elements

is

with

simultaneous

into

o r g a n i z a t i o n which does not permit

decision

subject

Simultaneous

information

fashion,

or

forms

Contrariwise,

information

simultaneous

that the r e l a t i o n s h i p of elements to one

be determined.

model
sensory

This processing

the o r g a n i z a t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n

such

be

are immediately

synthesis.

human

S t i m u l i may

depending upon the nature

take one

successive

that

input,

structures.

with

Malloy,

neurological

postulate

external

input

The

1973)

be passed on f o r c e n t r a l p r o c e s s i n g .

synthesis

and

&

be d e s c r i b e d i n terms of

processing,

r e g i s t r a t i o n , and

central

be

1966b;

components:

central

for

successive

(1966a;
et

information

may

(Das

p. 350)."

Based

may

on output

them.

elements.
planning

processing

unit,

Planning

forms of s y n t h e s i s

a l s o determines the form

and
of

s y n t h e s i s f o r some t a s k s . And, f i n a l l y ,
information
completion
The

organized

two forms of s y n t h e s i s a r e found i n

perceptual,

task

dependent upon the form of i n f o r m a t i o n

or simultaneous input i n any of the

result

one

in

or the other

form

input

task

The

may

type

of

i s determined mainly

by

f u n c t i o n , and the demands of the task

Regarding

- either

modalities

of s y n t h e s i s .

synthesis entailed in a particular

the p l a n n i n g

mnestic

t a s k s . Moreover, the types of s y n t h e s i s

successive

itself.

the n e u r o l o g i c a l c o r r e l a t e s of t h i s theory

(Das et

1975), simultaneous s y n t h e s i s i s seen as a f u n c t i o n of the

o c c i p i t a l - p a r i e t a l area,
information
parts

are

1966b;

being concerned w i t h

i n forms which a r e n o n - l i n e a r ,
mutually

1973).

regarded

as

surveyable

For

Lesions

simultaneous

result

in

the p r o c e s s i n g of

and f o r which

accessible

arithmetic

(Luria,

1966a;

problem-solving

p r o c e s s i n g because

the

lesions

is

i n the

i n a c a l c u l i a (Das et a l . ,

1979).

the p a r i e t o - o c c i p i t a l r e g i o n s have been r e p o r t e d to

i n a general

tactile

spatially

and

example,

o c c i p i t a l - p a r i e t a l lobe r e s u l t

or

for

(Das, 1980).

not

al.,

u n i t uses the

by the c e n t r a l p r o c e s s i n g u n i t

(memory), and c o n c e p t u a l
are

the output

inability

stimuli

organized

into

"...to integrate i n d i v i d u a l

simultaneous

and.

in

visual

particular,

groups ( L u r i a , 1966b, p. 125, i t a l i c s

i n the

original)."
Successive

s y n t h e s i s i s seen as a f u n c t i o n of

(fronto-temporal)
information

regions,

i n a temporal,

limited acquisition,
in

and

refers

to the

the

processing

sequence-dependent form,

with

t h e r e f o r e , to i n d i v i d u a l elements.

the f r o n t a l and f r o n t o - t e m p o r a l

anterior
of
only

Lesions

r e g i o n s have been r e p o r t e d to

result

i n a general

inability

and a c o u s t i c s t i m u l i

"... to i n t e g r a t e i n d i v i d u a l motor

into successive.

serially

organized

groups

( L u r i a , 1966b, p. 125, i t a l i c s i n the o r i g i n a l ) . "

Measure One:
Raven's Coloured
The

first

Progressive Matrices

p r e - and

(RCPM)

post-measure

used i n

Raven's Coloured

Progressive Matrices test

1965),

that l o a d s h i g h l y on

task

d e s c r i b e d by Das et a l . . (1975;

(Raven,

the

1979),

this

study
1956;

simultaneous

was
1962;

factor

since solutions require

the c o n s t r u c t i o n of a s p a t i a l p a t t e r n or scheme.
The

ease of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and the requirement

instructions

has

culturally-reduced
between

5-0

and

resulted

in

wide

use

t e s t of i n t e l l e c t u a l
11-11 y e a r s .

of

of few
the

reasoning

C o n s i s t i n g of

verbal

RCPM

as

for children

36

matrices

or

d e s i g n s , each having a p i e c e which has been removed, the task i s

to
36

choose the m i s s i n g
matrices

comprising
the
end
at

a r e grouped i n t o

to complete continuous

of the s e t ,
the same time.

which

three s e r i e s ,

with

12 m a t r i c e s of i n c r e a s i n g d i f f i c u l t y .

ability

figures

i n s e r t from s i x p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s . The

as

completes

the

missing part.

towards the

i n two d i r e c t i o n s

r e q u i r e s the a b i l i t y

s p a t i a l l y r e l a t e d wholes,

to see d i s c r e t e

and to choose
Set

series

Set A r e q u i r e s

p a t t e r n s which,

c h a n g e , f i r s t i n one and l a t e r
Set Ag

each

includes

figure
problems

i n v o l v i n g a n a l o g i e s and s h o u l d show whether or not an i n d i v i d u a l

i s capable
Heidi

of a b s t r a c t t h i n k i n g .
and C a r l s o n

(1976) a d m i n i s t e r e d

the RCPM to 180 f i r s t ,

second, and t h i r d grade c h i l d r e n . F a c t o r a n a l y s i s r e v e a l e d

three

o r t h o g o n a l , f a c t o r s which were i n t e r p r e t e d as (1)

abstract

;-easoning,

(2)

continuous

completion,-,!and (3) p a t t e r n

completion

and

with

discrete

i d e n t i f y i n g the b r a i n c o r r e l a t e s

found that Ravens C o l o u r e d P r o g r e s s i v e

and

l o a d e d on F a c t o r

recognition

(factor

V,

pattern

o t h e r s (1976), which

factors,
III,

of

-.64,

Matrices

-.63,

was

cognitive

t e n t a t i v e l y i n t e r p r e t e d as

loadings

and

through c l o s u r e .

A f a c t o r f a n a l y t i c study by Royce and

concerned

concrete

I, I I ,
pattern

and

-.41,

respectively).
Poor
the

pattern

left

parietal

recognition

is

The

hemisphere

several
1969;

and

better

frontal region.
left

recognition

occipital

&

Smyth,

impairments
a l . , 1976,

for
pp.

not

consistent

(Costa,

1962)

who

of

pattern

&

found b i l a t e r a l

of

and

temporal

Matrices

the

Ritter,

DeRenzi & F a g l i o n i , 1965;

pattern

lobe

(Royce

et

r e c o g n i t i o n , on which

left

recognition

hemisphere;

and

T a b l e 11,

is

included

temporal
p.

the more s t r o n g l y

p o i n t s are

these two

116

in

lobe,

the
right

410).

the m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l s c a l i n g of a l a r g e

mental t e s t s (the c l o s e r two

space,

left

findings

Horowitz,

the Ravens P r o g r e s s i v e

hemisphere (Royce et a l . , 1976,

In d i s c u s s i n g

the

i s more n e u r a l l y d i f f u s e . C l a s s i f i e d by major

correlates,
lobe,

pattern

to

the

to

399-400).

the Ravens l o a d s ,

occipital

with

Vaughan,

Thus, the f i r s t - o r d e r f a c t o r V,

neural

while

f o r those w i t h damage

Colonna & F a g l i o n i , 1966;

Piercy

areas

damage

c o r r e l a t i o n of t h i s f a c t o r w i t h only

is

researchers

i s associated with

in

battery

two-dimensional

t e s t s are c o r r e l a t e d ) ,

Snow

(1980, pp. 35-36) e x p l a i n s :

...

The

other
be

more c e n t r a l

t e s t s c o r r e l a t e w i t h a wider range

t e s t s (hence the term g e n e r a l ) . and G^

the

most c e n t r a l .

degree

t e s t s appear to

Perhaps they r e p r e s e n t

to a

greater

the k i n d s of assembly and c o n t r o l p r o c e s s e s needed to

organize

on

solving

short-term

novel

problems.

basis
The

sequence of novel problems,

system

needs to be.

perhaps

the

The

t e s t s may
similar

adaptive

strategies

more complex and

varied

as i n F i g .

task,
2.2.

and

The

o r g a n i z a t i o n s of such p r o c e s s e s , w i t h other
therefore,

the Raven's Coloured

reasoning;

as

than

Molloy,
measure

1975);
of

as a measure

G^. or

cerebral

(Snow,

1980);

hemispheres,

hemisphere,

and

and/or

Progressive
cognitive

of

abstract

" f l u i d abi 1 i t y " ( C a t t e l l ,

as a measure that i s more g e n e r a l ,

most

left

&

one

tests....

M a t r i c e s (RCPM) were used as a measure of simultaneous

(Das

c e n t r a l , and

complex

and as a measure which engages

particularly
the temporal

is

central

a l s o share p a r t i c u l a r performance p r o c e s s e s ,

processing

the

Raven P r o g r e s s i v e M a t r i c e s T e s t

a r c h e t y p i c a l example of such a

In t h i s study,

for

the more a d a p t i v e the p r o c e s s i n g

u s u a l l y f i n d s i t i n the c e n t e r ,

1971);

of

the o c c i p i t a l l o b e
l o b e i n the r i g h t

both

in

the

hemisphere

(Royce et a l . , 1976).
For
half

the
of

pre-measure,

a l l subjects,

Series

while

the second h a l f of a l l s u b j e c t s .

A was

Series

administered

Ag was

For the

post-measure,

had been given S e r i e s A as a pre-measure were given

Ag,

while

The

c h o i c e of these two

initially

one-

administered

who

those

to

to

those
Series

given S e r i e s Ag were given S e r i e s A.

s e r i e s stems from the

factor

loadings

found

by Royce e t al.,1976 (-.64 f o r RCPM I;

and -.41 f o r RCPM I I I ) ,

so that the f i r s t

-.63 f o r RCPM I I ;

two s e t s appear

most

s i m i l a r . A l s o , s e r i e s B i n v o l v e s a n a l o g i e s , and may t h e r e f o r e be
more u n l i k e the other
parallel

two s e t s . The aim was to use two as n e a r l y

forms of a t e s t as p o s s i b l e ,

even though t h i s

feature

was not e s s e n t i a l to the s t u d y .

Measure Two: S e r i a l R e c a l l (SR)
The

second pre,

loads

post-measure used was S e r i a l R e c a l l ,

h i g h l y on the s u c c e s s i v e f a c t o r d e s c r i b e d by Das

which
et a l .

(1979).
D e s c r i p t i o n of S e r i a l R e c a l l (SR)
S t i m u l i were p r e s e n t e d o r a l l y
task

was

to

recall,

verbally,

immediately

of

four

words

s i m i l a r (e.g.,

man.

mat.

presentation,
acoustically
(e.g.,

groups

day., h o t . cow.

scored

to each s u b j e c t .

book) .

Each

following

which
mad.

of

f o u r words,

each

were

either

cab) or

neutral

s e r i e s of f o u r words was

f o r words i n the c o r r e c t s e r i a l p o s i t i o n .

groups

The s u b j e c t ' s

There were

24

so that 12 groups c o u l d be used as the

pre-measure, w h i l e 12 groups c o u l d be used as the post-measure.

By exchanging items 12 and 13 (Das e t
214),
each

one

d e r i v e s two p a r a l l e l

a l . , 1979,

pp. 213-

t e s t s of groups of four

words,

w i t h s i x a c o u s t i c a l l y s i m i l a r and s i x a c o u s t i c a l l y n e u t r a l

word g r o u p i n g s .
Examples f o r p r a c t i c e s e s s i o n :
a. b i g

long

great

b. cow

day

key

few

c. man

mad

map

pan

118

tall

First

s e t of 12 groups:

1. key

hot

cow

pen

7. key

few

hot

book

2. cab

cat

mad

can

8. can

pan

tap

cab

3. day

cow

w a l l bar

9. tap

mat

pan

cat

4. man

mad

pan

10. key

day

cow

bar

5. pen

w a l l book key

11.

cab

cap

cat

tap

12. cab

man

mad

map

6. book bar
Second set

mat

w a l l hot
of 12 groups:

1. bar

pen

few

day

7. few

day

cow

book

2. mat

can

cap

man

8. cap

man

mad

tap

3. few

pen

hot

wall

9. key

book day

hot

4. day

cow

bar

wall

10. cab

tap

man

cat

5. cap

pan

cat

can

11. can

cap

pan

mad

6. man

mad

mat

pan

12. pen

few

w a l l cow

Instruct ions for

"I am going
to

Ser i a l R e c a l l

to say some words.

say the words j u s t

the way I s a i d them.

words i n each group. I ' l l repeat

say

some groups of words.

the words j u s t
Ready?

want

the i n s t r u c t i o n s .

them.

great.

big. long. great. t a l l .

There w i l l

tall.

L e t ' s t r y a group of words.

(Pause) You s h o u l d have s a i d ,

Each time I say a o'-siip of four words, I

L e t ' s t r y another group of words.

(Pause) You s h o u l d have s a i d ,

s h o u l d have s a i d ,

Ready?

cow.

that I do.

day. key. few.

cow, day. key. few. L e t ' s t r y one

Ready?

man.

four

I am going to

you to say the words i n e x a c t l y the same order

more group of words.

be

When I am f i n i s h e d I want you to say

the way I s a i d

b i g . long.

When I am f i n i s h e d I want you

man.

mad.

map.

119

mad.
pan

map.

pan. (Pause) You

You see, when I say a

group
Now

of words,

let's

I want you

to say

t r y some other groups of words. Ready? (Begin

(from Das

Measure T h r e e : Free R e c a l l
The

the same words j u s t as I do.

Serial

et a l . , 1979,

s e r i e s was

214)

(FR)

R e c a l l t e s t was

s c o r e d on a f r e e

thus c r e a t i n g a second s c o r e from the one

p o s i t i o n was

p.

test.)

recall

basis,

administration

(serial

not r e q u i r e d , only r e c a l l of a l l f o u r words i n each

counted).

Measure Four: C o l o r Naming

(CN)

T h i s task taps the speed of p r o c e s s i n g f a c t o r o u t l i n e d by

et a l .

(1979).

by Stroop

I t i s based on one

of the three t a s k s

(1935) ( a l s o see Jensen and

Rohwer,

developed

J r . , 1966). E i g h t

rows of c o l o r e d bars w i t h f i v e p o s i t i o n s i n a row were

on a white background c a r d measuring 28"
were 3" l o n g and

3/4"

wide,

with red,

x 30".
green,

Das

The

presented

c o l o r e d bars

y e l l o w , and

blue

bars a l t e r n a t i n g , f o r a t o t a l of 10 p r e s e n t a t i o n s of each c o l o r ,
thus r e p l i c a t i n g
After
was

the Stroop

(1935) task.

a p r e l i m i n a r y check f o r c o l o r b l i n d n e s s ,

p l a c e d seven f e e t from the c a r d ,

each

color successively,

by rows.

seconds, that i t took the c h i l d

For
turned

the post-measure,
upside-down,

and
The

then was
s c o r e was

to complete the

the

subject

asked to name
the time,

task.

the white background c a r d was

providing

p a r a l l e l form

( o r i g i n a l order of c o l o r e d bars = Form I;

Form I I ) .

120

in

of

the

simply
task

upside-down v e r s i o n =

I n s t r u c t i o n s f o r C o l o r Naming:
"I

have here a board w i t h s t r i p s of d i f f e r e n t

The c o l o r s a r e r e d ,

blue,

green,

and y e l l o w .

colored

When I turn the

board over, I want you to s t a r t here at the top l e f t

name the c o l o r s g o i n g a c r o s s .
here

(point

When you f i n i s h

finger).
quickly

( p o i n t ) and

the f i r s t

to the second row l e f t ) and work a c r o s s .

the c o l o r e d b a r s i n t h i s way (demonstrate

Remember,

( S t a r t stopwatch.)

row, go

Name a l l

the p a t t e r n w i t h

you a r e b e i n g timed,

as you c a n . A r e you ready?

bars.

your

so name the c o l o r s as

(Turn board over.)

Begin.

(adapted from Das et a l . , 1979, p. 217)

C o l o r Chart

Red

Green

Yellow

Green

Blue

Green

Blue

Yellow

Red

Blue

Blue

Green

Red

Yellow

Red

Yellow

Red

Blue

Green

Yellow

Blue

Yellow

Red

Blue

Green

Yellow

Red

Green

Yellow

Blue

Blue

Green

Red

Yellow

Green

Red

Yellow

Blue

Green

Red

Measure F i v e : I d e a t i o n a l Fluency ( F i )
The

last

Comprehensive
1976).

The

two

pre-,

Ability

post-measures

Battery,

or CAB

are

taken

(Hakstian

an

economical

comprehensive
ability

&

the

Cattell,

g u i d i n g p r i n c i p l e i n the development of the CAB was

to p r o v i d e a broad b a t t e r y of s h o r t t e s t s p r o v i d i n g
with

from

vehicle

f o r assessing

( H a k s t i a n & Bennet,

constructs.

wide,

or

1977) range of the important

There a r e 20 t e s t s i n the

121

researchers

CAB,

each

one

designed to measure a s i n g l e a b i l i t y
The
the

fifth

CAB,

rapidly

pre-,

post-measure,

and without much a t t e n t i o n

adjectives

to a given

school

and

productive

thing.

Fluency

idea

to q u a l i t y .

< F i ) , from

in

especially

order

to

Fluency

by

the

is

that c o u l d

be

important

in

i n which

fluent

and

( F i ) Measure

lessen

the

f o r the LD c h i l d r e n ,

recorded

is

i s required.

d i r e c t i o n s i n the CAB booklet

However,

T h i s F i task

i n a f i x e d time,

situations

generation

topic

i n which s u b j e c t s must l i s t as

Ideational fluency

occupational

Directions f o r Ideational

and

type,

as they can,

applied

The

Ideational

i s concerned w i t h p r o d u c i n g i d e a s about a given

of the " a t t r i b u t e - l i s t i n g "

many

factor.

require written
difficulty

of

responses.
the

o r a l responses were

examiner.

The

directions

task,

requested
were

s i m p l i f i e d f o r use w i t h school-aged c h i l d r e n and were

also

elaborated

when n e c e s s a r y :
"In

this

test,

you

a r e to t e l l me as

many

single

words

( a d j e c t i v e s ) as you can that d e s c r i b e

a c e r t a i n t h i n g . Remember,

an a d j e c t i v e i s a word that d e s c r i b e s

or t e l l s about

For

example,

that
say

i f I say 'blue s k y , ' ' b l u e '

describes
'little

something.

i s a word or a d j e c t i v e

'sky;' i t t e l l s me what k i n d of sky i t i s .

puppy,' ' l i t t l e ' i s an

adjective

that

If I

describes

'puppy.'
Can
'cake?'
use

you t e l l me an a d j e c t i v e that you might use to

...

Good.

to d e s c r i b e

Can you t e l l me an a d j e c t i v e that you might

a 'dark cave?' ... Good.

Do not t e l l me o b j e c t s
for

CLASSROOM.

describe

r e l a t e d to the t h i n g ,

like

'children'

Do not t e l l me more than one word that means the

122

same

thing,

because
may

such as ' b i g , ' ' l a r g e , ' 'enormous,' and so

you would get only

use

opposites,

one p o i n t f o r a l l of them.

so that

' b i g ' and ' s m a l l , ' to

forth,

But you

describe

CLASSROOM, would each get a p o i n t .

Now t r y the f o l l o w i n g example:
Example X (30 seconds)
Tell

me

as

describe

You

many

words ( a d j e c t i v e s ) as

But s a y i n g

"Now

you w i l l

I):

have two minutes to t e l l me as many

words

as

have two minutes to t e l l me as many words

as

can that d e s c r i b e a NEN RED CAR."

"Now

you

II ( F i

will

II):

can that d e s c r i b e a LARGE CITY."

[The

CAB a l l o w s

l i m i t was m o d i f i e d
Hakstian
taking
II,

and

1 1/2 minutes f o r t h i s t e s t ,

Cattell

taken

(1976) a s s e s s

the sum of an i n d i v i d u a l ' s s c o r e s

and

Fi-Part

I I I , but

Ideational

time

I ( o r Part

of

this

by

Fi-Part
study,

II f o r c o u n t e r b a l a n c i n g )

was

and I d e a t i o n a l Fluency Part II

I f o r c o u n t e r b a l a n c i n g ) was taken as the

123

Fluency

on F i - P a r t I,

f o r the purposes

as the pre-measure s c o r e ,
Part

but t h i s

to two minutes f o r a l l c h i l d r e n , LD and NLD.]

I d e a t i o n a l Fluency Part

(or

might

c o l d , warm, g u r g l i n g , r u s h i n g , b e a u t i f u l ,

I (Fi

I d e a t i o n a l Fluency

you

that

' f i s h , ' f o r example, would not get a p o i n t . "

I d e a t i o n a l Fluency

you

can

a MOUNTAIN STREAM

might have l i s t e d :

etc.

you

post-measure

s c o r e . [The I d e a t i o n a l Fluency s c o r e s f o r the post-measures were

calculated

by

the main

i n v e s t i g a t o r b e f o r e the

f i n i s h e d w i t h the s e s s i o n ,

and,

therefore,

children

before

were

becoming

aware of the c h i l d r e n ' s experimental c o n d i t i o n assignment.]

Measure S i x : Aiming (A)
The

Aiming (A) p r e - ,

Comprehensive A b i l i t y
Aiming

refers

require

Battery

Aiming

is

Aiming

lines,
This

test,

psychomotor

ability

in specially

which
timed

may

be

manual.

On

controlled

constructed

t e s t was chosen because t h i s r e s e a r c h e r

eye-hand c o o r d i n a t i o n s k i l l s ,

which

is

the

1976).

under

primarily

the examinee draws f i n e l y

as q u i c k l y as he can,

from

movements

c o o r d i n a t i o n and which are done

c o n s i d e r e d one of f i n e muscle d e x t e r i t y ,
the

taken

(CAB) ( H a k s t i a n & C a t t e l l ,

to the c a r r y i n g out of p r e c i s e

eye-hand

conditions.

post-measure was a l s o

pencil
figures.

interested

s k i l l s which a r e important

in

i n both

s c h o o l and work s i t u a t i o n s . T h i s t e s t a l s o seemed more "pure" as

a t e s t of v i s u a l - m o t o r c o o r d i n a t i o n
Gestalt Test

(Bender, 1938) or the Beery/Buktenica Developmental

T e s t of V i s u a l - M o t o r
coding

tasks

tasks,

irv g e n e r a l ,

which

Integration

keeping

understanding

one's
of

(Beery,

have been used i n

1967),
other

of symbols,

place while

working,

a code's concept,

in

or the v a r i o u s
studies.

Coding

memory,

visual

good f i x a t i o n

ability

involve short-term v i s u a l

perception f o r d i r e c t i o n a l i t y
for

than the Bender V i s u a l Motor

together
addition

with
to

eye-hand

c o n t r o l and motor speed. The CAB Aiming t e s t , on the other

uses

some

hand,

only one f i g u r e so that i t becomes more e x c l u s i v e l y a task

of eye-hand c o o r d i n a t i o n and motor speed. While the C o l o r Naming

124

t e s t r e q u i r e d a v e r b a l response,
test

required

conditions,
regarding

and

conditions,

paper-and-penci1 motor response

should

respective

similar s k i l l s

under timed

thus

provide

important

for school

under

additional

performances of LD and

this

NLD

timed

information
children

on

success.

D i r e c t i o n s f o r Aiming ( A ) :
The

directions

test booklet.
instruction
read

Each s u b j e c t was
page was

along.

extended,

were i d e n t i c a l

If

or

to those p r o v i d e d i n the

given two

read aloud by

necessary,

they were understood.

directions

the examiner was

[See Appendix 9

consisted

of

35

minute time l i m i t .

Both

The

s c o r e was

were f i n i s h e d w i t h the s e s s i o n ,
aware

of

assignment.]

125

the main

the

and
1/2
drawn

[The Aiming s c o r e s f o r

the

condition

identical

the number of c o r r e c t l y

were c a l c u l a t e d by

became

that

given as a p r e - ,

t e s t f i g u r e s to be completed w i t h i n a

post-measures

investigator

repeated,

satisfied

Part I and Part II were

f i g u r e s completed w i t h i n the time l i m i t .

children

subject

task.]

E i t h e r Aiming, Part I or Aiming, P a r t II was

post-measure.

were

the

f o r the complete page of

d i r e c t i o n s a l o n g w i t h a sample of the Aiming

or

p e n c i l s and

the examiner as the

the

elaborated u n t i l

sharp

CAB

investigator
b e f o r e the

children's

before
main

experimental

Experimental Task: D e s c r i p t i o n and

Procedure

Cover Story
For

those

subjects

randomly a s s i g n e d to

manipulation

(easy or d i f f i c u l t

experimenter

was

when ushered

into

said:

the

conditions),

i n t r o d u c e d as a f r i e n d who

the

was

confederate

h e l p i n g out

the t e s t i n g room a l o n e w i t h the

"While we're w a i t i n g f o r Mrs.

experimental

subject,

you,

I wonder i f you'd be k i n d enough to t r y out a

game

that

we're

eight

and

together,
it

developing for c h i l d r e n
Usually,

[Confederate

ages

of

or three c h i l d r e n would

play

it

cards,

making i t up, we'd

etc.

Round-Robin Racing, may

l a y s out board game,

schematic

be found

" T h i s i s a road r a c e game.

yellow,

cards

or

tell

are

11.]

You

begin by c h o o s i n g e i t h e r

B e s i d e each car you see a p i l e

So,

of

your game c a r d s are the r e d c a r d s .

You

get

to the f i n i s h l i n e each time you

what i s on the f a c e or f r o n t of a c a r d .

all

the

you

and o t h e r s may

p i c t u r e s or s i l h o u e t t e s of

silhouette i s l i k e this:
each

game,

if

c a r d s you w i l l f i n d easy,
they

drawing of the board

f o r example,

move one square c l o s e r

me

cars,

Racing

i n the same c o l o r as the c a r .

choose the r e d c a r ,
to

blue car.

right."

w i t h toy

i n Appendix

Game I n s t r u c t i o n s f o r Round-Robin

red,

l i k e to g i v e

at a time to see i f i t w i l l work a l l

experimenter

board

between the

but s i n c e we're s t i l l

to c h i l d r e n one

stimulus

two

she

Haqq to do some more t h i n g s

with

12.

and

Some

of

126

the

be more d i f f i c u l t , but
ordinary

things.

( p o i n t i n g to s i l h o u e t t e of a cow).

c a r d you w i l l see a l e t t e r

can

i n the upper l e f t - h a n d

A
On

corner,

like

this

. . . ( p o i n t i n g ) . . . so you t e l l me, f o r example, 'I think

Card A i s an e l e p h a n t ' . . .
whatever.
at

or,

T h e r e a r e 10 c a r d s i n each p i l e ,

least

seven c a r d s r i g h t

card,

the

turn

a l l ten

questions?"

[The

the game,

goes to the c h i l d

p o s i t i o n , but s i n c e we a r e j u s t
through

of

the

and you have to get

i n order to r e a c h the winner's

When two or t h r e e c h i l d r e n play

a

'I think Card A i s a c a r r o t , ' or

in

the

next

row.

experimenter

Do

clockwise

you

have

any

ensured

that

the

d i r e c t i o n s were understood and then a d m i n i s t e r e d the

of

misses

t r y i n g t h i s game out, you can go

cards i n a

confederate

when one c h i l d

box.

expectancy

s u c c e s s measure f o r s e l f and f o r other - Appendix 10.]

Then the c o n f e d e r a t e experimenter c o n t i n u e d :

over

the

first

c a r d and g i v e me the l e t t e r

"O.K.

on i t and

Now

turn

tell

me

what i t i s . " [ C o n f e d e r a t e experimenter r e c o r d e d the responses.]

Easy C o n d i t i o n D i f f i c u l t C o n d i t i o n
1. r a b b i t

(A)

[topcard]

easy

easy

easy

difficult

difficult

easy

4. umbrella (U)

easy

difficult

5. s c i s s o r s (K)

easy

difficult

difficult

easy

7. lamp (R)

easy

difficult

8. basket ( J )

easy

di f f i c u l t

9. t r e e (M)

easy

difficult

10. cup (C)

easy

difficult

2. hand ( I )
3. c h a i r (B)

6. a p p l e (S)

[The

experimental

Wertman T e s t :

p i c t u r e c a r d s a r e adapted from the H i g g i n s -

T h r e s h o l d of V i s u a l C l o s u r e , 1968. The easy c a r d s

are

from frame 1 of the b o o k l e t s ,

from frame 13 of the b o o k l e t s .

and the d i f f i c u l t

The l e t t e r s i n parentheses

each s t i m u l u s item s e r v e d as the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n

An

attempt

would

be

The former

i s the l a t t e r .

example,

that

manipulating

task

that

easy/difficult

criterion

i s met more e a s i l y ,

I t has been

found

(Rusch,

however,

1971), f o r

good r e a d e r s i n Grade One s c o r e d higher

Higgins-Wertman

Test

.01).

However,

there

would

be apparent,

easy

after

and a l s o one that would not d i f f e r e n t i a l l y p e n a l i z e

LD c h i l d r e n .
than

in

are

f o r that card.]

had been made to choose an experimental

straightforward

conditions,

cards

on the

of V i s u a l C l o s u r e than poor r e a d e r s (p_ <

no

differences

and w i t h which one might e a s i l y

manipulate

versus d i f f i c u l t

may be no task on which

conditions.

So i t was d e c i d e d to use the

r e l e v a n t frames of the Higgins-Wertman T e s t : T h r e s h o l d of V i s u a l

Closure,
all

which does r e q u i r e a b i l i t i e s

children,

requires
parts,

whether

knowledge
and

revealed
stimuli

of

learning

disabled

or

good v i s u a l f u n c t i o n i n g s k i l l s .

were s u f f i c i e n t
conditions!

(See Rusch,

1970,

versus

P o s t - e x p e r i m e n t a l Task A t t r i b u t i o n

Questionnaire

experimental
perceived
luck,

in

the easy

condition

was

test

had

of the
difficult

f o r r e l i a b i l i t y of

Closure.)

child

testing

and sequence of p r e s e n t a t i o n

f o r m a n i p u l a t i n g easy

to

s t r u c t u r e or

Pilot

the Higgins-Wertman T e s t of V i s u a l

Each

n o t . The

common o b j e c t s and t h e i r

that the s t i m u l i

experimental

that should be common

given

the

post-

task a t t r i b u t i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e f o r e v a l u a t i n g the

contribution

ability,

of

the f o u r c a u s a l

factors

- effort,

and ease of the task - i n s u c c e s s f u l l y g e t t i n g a

128

r a c i n g c a r to the winner's box.

Each

child

experimental
perceived
luck,

c o n d i t i o n was given

contribution

of the f o u r

Expectancy

Attribution

post-

in either

an expectancy

factors

the

- effort,
to get a

[See Appendix 12 f o r the P o s t -

Questionnaires.]

of Future Success

Each c h i l d

causal

of the task - i n f a i l i n g

car to the winner's box.

Experimental

the

task a t t r i b u t i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e f o r e v a l u a t i n g

a b i l i t y , and d i f f i c u l t y

racing

given

i n the d i f f i c u l t

f o r S e l f and Other

the easy

or d i f f i c u l t

c o n d i t i o n was then

of f u t u r e s u c c e s s measure f o r s e l f and f o r

o t h e r . [See Appendix 13 f o r the Expectancy

of F u t u r e Success f o r

S e l f and Other measures.]

Ancillary

Measures

Mood Measure
At

the b e g i n n i n g and end of each t e s t i n g s e s s i o n ,

(LD/NLD)

in

Appendix

5 ) , which

arranged

vertically,

"very,

a l l conditions

was given

consisted
labelled

of a page

very bad" at the bottom.

very

mood
with

measure
seven

and

from "very, very happy" to

sad." The i n s t r u c t i o n s were:

r e c o r d e d f o r the p r e - e x p e r i m e n t a l
the p o s t - e x p e r i m e n t a l

"faces

The f a c e s had s m i l e s or frowns

"Please put an

b e s i d e the f a c e which best shows how you f e e l r i g h t

were

(see

"very, very good" at the top, and

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the range of a f f e c t
"very,

each c h i l d

now."

' X '

Scores

task a f f e c t measurement,

task a f f e c t measurement.

T h i s mood measure has been used by s e v e r a l r e s e a r c h e r s (e.g.,

Rholes

e t a l . , 1980) i n order

129

to tap c h i l d r e n ' s

affect.

D e b r i e f i n ci
Eas!'

Condition

).|pon

completing

(including
Aiming

the

administration

of

the

post-measures

the immediate marking of the I d e a t i o n a l Fluency

tasks),

the

primary i n v e s t i g a t o r (D.

Haqq),

who

t h e r e t o f o r e unaware of the e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n assignment

the

specific child,

said:

"That's g r e a t ,

J u s t wait a moment and I ' l l see i f Mrs.

about

anything

testing
had

been g i v e n ,

Mrs.

of

Healey wants to ask you

Upon s e e i n g

Healey s a i d ,

was

we're a l l f i n i s h e d .

e l s e . " [Mrs. Healey w a i t e d

room at t h i s time.]

and

just

that

outside

the

the post-measures

"No, t h a t ' s f i n e , we're a l l

f i n i s h e d too."
Then, i n the easy c o n d i t i o n , the c h i l d was thanked f o r h i s
participation
-

"Finding

"learning

and c o o p e r a t i o n

out

what c h i l d r e n r e a l l y

how

children

remembering words,
emphasized.
what e l s e ,
in s c h o o l
any

the

on

various

things"

tasks

such

success.

Each c h i l d was q u e r i e d

about

the

research,

and

and
as

and so f o r t h " - was

that,

no

" t r y i n g hard" was the most important f a c t o r

matter
involved

to f i n d out i f he had
to

check

that

the

enjoyable.

Condition

the d i f f i c u l t
post-measures

was

about

out to each c h i l d

condition,
(including

f o l l o w i n g the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of
the

immediate

I d e a t i o n a l Fluency and Aiming t a s k s ) ,

who

think

t h i n k i n g up a d j e c t i v e s ,

e x p e r i e n c e had been

In

perform

I t was p o i n t e d

questions

Difficult

and the importance of the r e s e a r c h

theretofore

unaware

130

of

marking

of the

the primary i n v e s t i g a t o r ,

the

experimental

condition

assignment of the p a r t i c u l a r c h i l d ,
all

finished.

wants

to

J u s t wait a moment and

ask

you about

anything

c o n f e d e r a t e experimenter,
at

this

given,

time.]
Mrs.

afraid

I'll

see i f

else."

[Mrs.

Mrs.

Healey

Healey

Healey,

the

waited j u s t o u t s i d e the t e s t i n g

s a i d : "Oh,

Mrs.

Haqq, I'm

room

had

been

so s o r r y , but

I'm

that I made a t e r r i b l e mistake when I gave [ c h i l d ' s name]

him

game!
expected

Unfortunately,

the c a r d s got mixed up,

and I

the c a r d s that are meant f o r the ADULT VERSION of

[A

were

"That's g r e a t , we're

Upon s e e i n g that the post-measures

the board game.

gave

said:

d i s c u s s i o n then ensued about how

to get h i s car to the winner's box

meant f o r a d u l t s .

In f a c t ,

i t was

no c h i l d

would

the
be

given the c a r d s that

p o i n t e d out

that even

a d u l t s had d i f f i c u l t y w i t h the a d u l t c a r d s . ]
Mrs.

Healey

then

had

the c h i l d do

v e r s i o n of the board game,

administered

the

questionnaire
thanked

for

the

"easy"

success

and upon s u c c e s s f u l c o m p l e t i o n ,

post-experimental
the

or

task

easy c o n d i t i o n .

The

attribution

child

was

f o r h i s c o o p e r a t i o n and d e b r i e f e d i n the same manner

d e s c r i b e d above (easy

school

especially
which
the
both

districts

since

the

and

the

two

parochial

WISC-R i s an important

s h o u l d not be r e - a d m i n i s t e r e d w i t h i n a
author
LD

completion

and

submitted a p s y c h o e d u c a t i o n a l
NLD,
of

to the
all

parent(s)/guardian(s)].
with p r i n c i p a l s ,

then
as

condition).

[In exchange f o r the p r i v i l e g e of u s i n g c h i l d r e n from

public

she

respective

testing
In

teachers,

many

[with

the

schools,

diagnostic
two-year

report for

tool

period,
children,

school

principal

upon

the

consent

of

cases the author

conferenced

and p a r e n t s f o r the LD and some

131

two

NLD

children

in

the

study.

In

few

cases

there

was

also

communication w i t h f a m i l y p h y s i c i a n s and h o s p i t a l p e r s o n n e l .
well,

parents

author.
both

of

g i f t e d NLD c h i l d r e n were

impairment).

Although

parental

of

WISC-R

suspected

and

the c h i l d r e n

being s p e c i f i c a l l y

132

(e.g.,

p e r m i s s i o n was

of c e r t a i n s c o r e s ( i . e . ,

r e a d i n g s c o r e s ) to the s c h o o l ,
unmindful

by

the

I f a m e d i c a l problem became suspect d u r i n g the t e s t i n g ,

s c h o o l and p a r e n t s were n o t i f i e d

release

contacted

As

hearing

requested

for

Woodcock-Johnson

i n the study

e v a l u a t e d on these

seemed

measures.]

CHAPTER V
Results
Demographic

and S e l e c t i o n

As shown
no

in

on

Variables

T a b l e 5.1,

statistically

children

of the Study

results indicated

that

there were

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the LD and

the age v a r i a b l e ,

socioeconomic s t a t u s

(SES),

F (1,66) = .12,

F (1,66) = .63,

p_

<

NLD

.73,

p_ < .43,

on

or grade

l e v e l , F (1,66) = 3.46,p_ < .07.

Results

also

significant

indicated

that

there

was

no

d i f f e r e n c e between the two groups,

LD and

NLD,

IQ

for

Children

- R e v i s e d (WISC-R).

for

performance s c a l e IQ were 111.77 and 111.47, r e s p e c t i v e l y , F

=

.02,

deliberately
indication
either

p_

been
of

two

.88.

group

10.64),

groups

(1,66)

on
and

(LD/NLD),

subjects,

effect

= 0;
of

for

score.

however,

were

group

at

valid
than

significantly

19.93

(S.D.=

group = 76.34 (S.D.= 14.55),F

thus v a l i d a t i n g s u b j e c t

and >. 50 ( f o r age) f o r the NLD

mu^

more

had

children

r e a d i n g p e r c e n t i l e <. 40 ( f o r age)

H^:

groups

LD

achievement p e r c e n t i l e

p_ < .0001,

[ The s t a t i s t i c a l
- mug

two

s c a l e IQ

the mean f o r the NLD

of

the

groups

to r e a d i n g a b i l i t y j w i t h the mean f o r the

reading

= 316.71,

criterion

that

on Performance IQ,

IQ or the f u l l

d i f f e r e n t with respect
LD

Recall

matched

Scale

Means of the LD and NLD

intellectual potential

the v e r b a l

The

<

by the Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e

on

Performance

(1,66)

as measured

statistically

for

selection
the

LD

subjects.

hypotheses t e s t e d were of the form: H^:

- mu^
the

? 0.

There w i l l

.05 l e v e l

variables listed.]
133

of

be no

mu^

significant

significance

on

the

Table

5.1.

Analysis

of

Variance

Results

for

Descriptive

Vari ables.
Variable

Mean

S.D.

F(l,66)

p_

Age ( i n mos.)
LD

127.67

8.92

128.47

10.16

LD

4.63

.81

NLD

5.00

.80

LD

45.78

13.62

NLD

49.03

18.77

LD

100.00

6.65

NLD

116.18

10.13

LD

111.77

8.17

NLD

111.47

8.20

LD

105.70

6.21

NLD

115.50

8.48

NLD

.12

<.73

3.46

<.07

.63

<.43

Grade

SES

V e r b a l IQ
57.03

<.0001*

Performance IQ

Full

.02

<.88

S c a l e IQ
28.11

<.0001*

316.71

<.0001*

Reading P e r c e n t i l e
LD

19.93

10.64

NLD

76.34

14.55

134

Word

Identification
LD

30.97

4.14

NLD

39.92

3.15

9.43

3.70

20.34

3.13

102.71

<.0001

173.27

<.0001

69.38

<.0001

Nord A t t a c k
LD
NLD

Passage Comprehension

LD

13.07

2.75

NLD

18.53

2.63

= 30. n = 38.
b

*p_ < .0001.

Pre-Task

Attributions:

Hypothesi s i .
There

will

be

attributions
"academic

no group e f f e c t

(ease
success"

of

the

(LD/NLD)

task

or

pre-experimental

in

luck)
task

external
on

the

attribution

questionnaire.
Hypothesi s I I .
There

will

attributions

be

(lack

"academic

no group e f f e c t
of

failure"

ability

(LD/NLD)

or lack

pre-experimental

in

of e f f o r t )
task

internal
on

the

attribution

questionnaire.
[The

statistical

- mUg = 0;
group

H^:

effect

internal

hypotheses t e s t e d

mu^ - mu^ ^ 0.

were of the form:

There w i l l

be no

at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e

attributions.]

135

on

H Q : mu^

significant
external

or

Table

5.2.

Analysis

of V a r i a n c e R e s u l t s of

Attributions

for

Academic Success ( P r e - e x p e r i m e n t a l Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ) .
Variable

Mean

S.D.

(1(66)

p_

'ft

Effort

Attribution

LD

6.60

.62

NLD

6.60

.68

LD

4.63

2.08

NLD

3.05

1.93

LD

5.80

1.60

NLD

5.58

1.22

Luck

.00

<.97

Attribution

Ability

10.52

<.01*

Attribution

Ease/Difficulty

.42

<.52

Attribution

LD

5.43

2.03

NLD

4.00

1.98

*p_ < .01.

136

8.61

<.01*

multivariate

Guide, New

regarding causal

group

differences

(4,63) = 3.53,

p_ < .01.

(ANOVA) r e v e a l e d
luck,
the

ease of

finding
Pearl,

than NLD

is

consistent

1979;

therefore

the

not

SPSS

s i g n i f i c a n t at

p_ < .01,

and

p_ < .01.

on

Users

examining group

a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r academic
the

.01

on

success
level:

a n a l y s e s of

s i g n i f i c a n t group d i f f e r e n c e s

F (1,66) = 8.63,

g r e a t e r extent
or

(MANOUA;

Further u n i v a r i a t e

F (1,66) = 10.52,

task,

luck

of v a r i a n c e

York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1983)

differences
revealed

analysis

variance

attribution

to

a t t r i b u t i o n to ease of

Thus,

LD

children,

to a

c h i l d r e n , a t t r i b u t e d academic s u c c e s s to
task,

both

external

w i t h the l i t e r a t u r e

P e a r l , Bryan, and
supported,

and

tenable.

137

attributions.
(e.g.,

Bryan

This
and

Donahue, 1980). H y p o t h e s i s I. i s
the

alternative

hypothesis

is

Table

5.3.

A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e R e s u l t s of A t t r i b u t i o n s

Academic F a i l u r e

(Pre-experimental

Variable

Mean

S.D.

LD

3.90

2.31

NLD

5.08

2.15

LD

3.17

2.20

NLD

2.66

1.74

Effort

Luck

for

Questionnaire)
F(l,66)

p_

Attribution
4.72

<.03*

1.13

<.29

.06

<.80

.59

<.44

Attribution

Ability

Attribution

LD

3.00

2.18

NLD

3.13

2.12

Ease/Difficulty

Attribution

LD

4.87

1.81

NLD

4.53

1.81

p_ < .05.

138

m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e

examining

group

attributions

differences

- effort,

academic f a i l u r e ,
further
revealed

univariate
that

NLD

p_ < .03.

ascribe
oriented

ability,

of

and

variance

1983)

four

causal

difficulty

- for

significance. [ A

(ANOVA),

however,

c h i l d r e n were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more w i l l i n g
to t h e i r own

Dweck (1975) has

failure

SPSS*,

all

to reach s t a t i s t i c a l

analysis

a s c r i b e academic f a i l u r e
4.72,

regarding

luck,

failed

(MANOVA;

to

children,

to

lack of e f f o r t , F (1,66) =

demonstrated that w i l l i n g n e s s

effort

is a

children

who

characteristic
persevere

in

of

to

mastery-

the

face

of

difficulty.]
H y p o t h e s i s II
between
of

the LD

ability

i s therefore
and NLD

for

tenable.

There was

groups i n the c a u s a l

academic f a i l u r e ,

However, they d i d d i f f e r

no

difference

a s c r i p t i o n of

F (1,66) = .06,

p_

lack

<

.80.

i n the a s c r i p t i o n of l a c k of e f f o r t

academic f a i l u r e , F (1,66) = 4.72,

p_ <

for

.03.

Post-Task A t t r i b u t i o n s :
Hypothesis I I I .
There

will

be

attributions

no

group e f f e c t

(ease

of

s u c c e s s on

the experimental

Hypothesis

IV.

There

will

be

no

the experimental

task

or

139

luck)

(LD/NLD)

or l a c k of e f f o r t )

task.

in

external
after

task.

group e f f e c t

a t t r i b u t i o n s ( l a c k of a b i l i t y
on

the

(LD/NLD)

in
after

internal
failure

[ The s t a t i s t i c a l
mu

effect

0;

hypotheses t e s t e d were of the form:

mu^

- mu^

rt 0.

There w i l l

be no

of group at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e on

internal

attributions.]

1 4 0

H:
Q

mu^^

significant
external

T a b l e 5.4.

T a b l e of Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s f o r the P o s t -

Task A t t r i b u t i o n s A c c o r d i n g

to Group and C o n d i t i o n .

EFFORT ATTRIBUTION
Easy C o n d i t i o n
M

Difficult

SD

Condition

SD

LD

5.33

1.56

2.20

1.81

NLD

6.08

1.00

2.69

1.74

LUCK ATTRIBUTION
Easy C o n d i t i o n
M

Difficult

SD

Condition
SD

LD

1.83

1.19

3.70

2.58

NLD

3.08

1.98

2.12

1.41

ABILITY ATTRIBUTION
Easy C o n d i t i o n
M

Difficult

SD

Condition
SD

LD

5.50

1.51

3.00

2.05

NLD

5.25

1.36

2.56

1.46

EASY/DIFFI CULT ATTRI BUTI ON

Easy C o n d i t i o n
M

Difficult

SD

Condition
SD

LD

4.42

1.78

4.50

2.17

NLD

3.83

2.25

4.50

1.71

141

m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e

revealed

no s i g n i f i c a n t

(MANOVA;

group d i f f e r e n c e s ,

group by c o n d i t i o n d i f f e r e n c e s .

SPSS*,

and no

1983)

significant

There was a h i g h l y

significant

d i f f e r e n c e due to c o n d i t i o n , however, F (4,43) =18.21, p_ < .01.

Both

LD

and NLD c h i l d r e n a s c r i b e d g r e a t e r

and a b i l i t y

c a u s a l i t y to

i n the easy ( s u c c e s s ) c o n d i t i o n .

effort

The u n i v a r i a t e

F-

t e s t f o r e f f o r t was F (1,46) = 54.08, p_ < .01; the u n i v a r i a t e Ft e s t f o r a b i l i t y was F (1,46) = 33.35, p_ < .01.
Mention

s h o u l d be made as w e l l of one s i g n i f i c a n t

condition
7.51,
greater

interaction

p_

< .01.

In the easy c o n d i t i o n ,

external

condition,

e f f e c t f o r luck,

a t t r i b u t i o n s to l u c k ,

the LD c h i l d r e n made g r e a t e r

group

by

u n i v a r i a t e F (1,46)
the NLD c h i l d r e n
w h i l e i n the
external

made

difficult

a t t r i b u t i o n s to

luck.
Overall,
since

therefore,

there

significant

Hypotheses

were no group

I I I and IV

effects.

There

are

was,

tenable,

however,

e f f e c t due to c o n d i t i o n .

Performance on P r e - . Post-Measures:
Hypothesis V.
1.

There w i l l

post-measures
2.

There

be no group e f f e c t (LD/NLD) on the s i x p r e - ,

scores.

will

be

no c o n d i t i o n e f f e c t

task) on the s i x p r e - , post-measures

3.

There

will

membership

and

be no s i g n i f i c a n t
condition

on the

scores.

142

(easy/difficult/no

scores.
joint

effects

of

group

s i x p r e - , post-measures

[ The
0;

statistical
mUj

H^:

at

mu^

- mu^

condition effect,
condition

hypotheses were of the form: H :

^

0.

There w i l l

and no j o i n t

the

be no

group

- mug

effect,

no

e f f e c t s of group membership

.05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e on

the

six

and
pre-,

post-measures.]
[Refer

to

Appendix

14

f o r the T a b l e of

D e v i a t i o n s f o r Pre-Measures A c c o r d i n g
Order.

and

Means

to Group.

and

Standard

Condition.

to Appendix 15 f o r the T a b l e of Means and

D e v i a t i o n s f o r Post-Measures A c c o r d i n g

to Group.

and

Standard

Condition,

and

Order.]
Hypotheses V.

1.,

2.,

3.,

were s t u d i e d through a s e r i e s of

repeated measures a n a l y s e s of v a r i a n c e (BMDP:2V,

C a l i f o r n i a Press,
of

1981;

v a r i a n c e (MANCrVA;

Two

omnibus

performed

1983),

and d i s c r i m i n a n t

measures a n a l y s e s

( t a k i n g LD and NLD

c o n d i t i o n at three l e v e l s (easy,

task),

and

order of p r e s e n t a t i o n of pre-,

levels

(Set

Press,

Set Ag

1981;

of

first)

see

(number of measures) l e v e l s .

a n a l y s e s demonstrated s i g n i f i c a n t
scores

on

groups,
condition,
a

very

and

NLD.

There

grouping
and

1981).

University
The

R e s u l t s of these two

no

f o r the

significant

level

order of p r e s e n t a t i o n , or o c c a s i o n e f f e c t s , and

minor o c c a s i o n x measure
143

order

effect.

two
of

and

initial

e f f e c t s f o r measures o n l y .

were

no

dependent

occasions

the s i x measures d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y
LD

were

post-measures at

(BMDP:2V,

Dixon,

two

difficult,

v a r i a b l e s were the s i x p r e - , post-measures at two

six

variance

data s e p a r a t e l y ) w i t h

variables,

California

analyses

analyses.

repeated

A first;

of

see Dixon, 1981), m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s e s

SPSS ,

(SPSS*, 1983). I n i t i a l

University

The
two
of
only

Therefore,

Hypothesis V . l .
effect
are

i s not s u p p o r t e d . There was a s i g n i f i c a n t group

on a l l s i x measures.

tenable,

condition

Hypotheses V.2. and V.3., however,

s i n c e no c o n d i t i o n

e f f e c t s and no j o i n t

group

by

e f f e c t s were found.

Hypothesis V I .
In the d i f f i c u l t
effect

(LD/NLD)

measures,

( f a i l u r e ) condition,

regarding

performance

there w i l l

be no group

change on those

post-

S e r i a l R e c a l l and Color Naming, which a r e most r e l a t e d

to s p e c i f i c l e a r n i n g
Repeated

disabilities.

measures

analyses

(BMDP:2V,

University

of

C a l i f o r n i a , 1981; see Dixon, 1981) examining p r e - , post-measures

alone

revealed

ordinal

no i n t e r a c t i o n f o r LD c h i l d r e n ,

and very

weak

i n t e r a c t i o n f o r the NLD c h i l d r e n .

While there were no s i g n i f i c a n t p r e - , p o s t - , d i f f e r e n c e s , the

two groups' performances were s i g n i f i c a n t l y

d i f f e r e n t on the s i x

measures.
A m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e
the

pre-measures a c c o r d i n g

and

order

.02,

and

showed that
was

(1,2),
group

to group ( 1 , 2 ) ,

SPSS*, 1983) on

condition

(1,2,3),

demonstrated s i g n i f i c a n t order e f f e c t s ,
effects,

the major

p_ < .01. The d i s c r i m i n a n t

c o n t r i b u t i n g measure f o r group

the S e r i a l R e c a l l task

coefficient

(MANOVA;

(standardized

p_ <

analysis
differences

discriminant

function

= -.76).

multivariate

measures a c c o r d i n g

a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e
to group (1,2),
a

(MANOVA) on

condition

the

(1,2,3), and order

(1,2),

demonstrated

s i g n i f i c a n t group x c o n d i t i o n

effect

(p_ < .05), a s i g n i f i c a n t group x c o n d i t i o n

144

post-

order

e f f e c t (p_

<

.02

p_ < .06),

discy'jiminant
group

and a s i g n i f i c a n t

a n a l y s i s showed that

differentiation:

Serial

group e f f e c t (p_ < .01).

two measures

contributed

R e c a l l (-.72) and C o l o r

(.54XJ(standardized d i s c r i m i n a n t

The
to

Naming

f u n c t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r group

effect).
A

separate

demonstrated
mainly

on

that
the

discriminant
and

discriminant

analysis

the two groups,

Serial

function

Recall

(SPSS ,

LD/NLD,

task

coefficient

also

were d i f f e r e n t i a t e d

(standardized

= .90) on the

on S e r i a l R e c a l l and Color Naming

discriminant

1983)

54

canonical

pre-measures,

(standardized

f u n c t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s = .70, and

canonical

.50, r e s p e c t i v e l y )

on the post-measures.
Thus,
Serial

the

c h i l d r e n performed

Recall,

processing,
LD

LD
a

task

involving

both on the pre-measure

significantly
successive

or

poorer

sequential

and on the post-measure.

c h i l d r e n a l s o demonstrated slower speed of p r o c e s s i n g

Color

Naming

supported,

post-measure

but

task.

Thus,

on

H y p o t h e s i s VI

The

on the
is

not

the a l t e r n a t i v e h y p o t h e s i s of a group e f f e c t on

S e r i a l R e c a l l and Color Naming i s t e n a b l e .

Expectancy

Measures:

Expectancy f o r S e l f .
Hypothesis V I I .
1.

There w i l l

be no group e f f e c t (LD/NLD) on the

post-task

"expectancy f o r s e l f " measure.

2.

There

will

the post-task

be no c o n d i t i o n e f f e c t

(easy/difficult)

"expectancy f o r s e l f " measure.

145

on

3.

There

will

membership

and

be

no s i g n i f i c a n t j o i n t

effects

c o n d i t i o n on the p o s t - t a s k

of

group

"expectancy

for

s e l f " measure.
B e f o r e d i s c u s s i n g the r e s u l t s of the hypotheses r e g a r d i n g the
post-task

"expectancy f o r s e l f " measure,

out t h a t ,

on the p r e - t a s k "expectancy f o r s e l f " measure,

was
p_

no d i f f e r e n c e between the LD and NLD

<

.94.

Means of the LD and NLD

r e s p e c t i v e l y . [See T a b l e

i t s h o u l d be

pointed
there

groups, F (1,48) =

groups were 7.00

and

.01,
7.04,

5.5.]

T a b l e 5.5. A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e R e s u l t s f o r Expectancy f o r S e l f
Pre-Task A c c o r d i n g to Group
Source

Group

Sum

of Squares

df

Mean Square

.02

.02

Residual

134.96

48

2.81

Total

134.98

49

2.76

146

.007

p_

.94

Post-task
analysis

"expectancy

f o r s e l f " was

of c o v a r i a n c e (SPSS*,

(LD/NLD)

and

"expectancy

condition

1983) w i t h

for self"

as

the

for

! O

C^

the i n t e r a c t i o n

corresponding

o /^/
:

'

effect
variable

statistical

condition

were of the
hypothesis

H^ioC^J^

t e s t e d were:

for self;"

= 0.

The

There w i l l be

at the .05 l e v e l of

"post-task expectancy

expectancy

of

group

pre-task

f o r main e f f e c t s ,

hypotheses

no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t of group

"pre-task

with

an

covariate.

e f f e c t was of the form:

statistical

on the v a r i a b l e

through

two l e v e l s of

(easy/difficult)

[ The s t a t i s t i c a l hypotheses,
forms:

examined

significance

f o r s e l f " when a d j u s t e d on

there w i l l

be

no

significant

at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e

on

the

" p o s t - t a s k expectancy f o r s e l f " when a d j u s t e d on " p r e -

task

expectancy

joint

effects

significance

for self;"
of

on

group

and there w i l l be

and c o n d i t i o n

the v a r i a b l e

at

no

the

.05

"post-task expectancy

when a d j u s t e d on "post-task expectancy

147

for self."]

significant
level
for

of

self"

Table

5.6.

Table

of

Means

Expectancy f o r S e l f A c c o r d i n g

and

Standard

Deviations

to Group and C o n d i t i o n .

for

P r e - , and

Post-Task.
EXPECTANCY FOR SELF PRE-TASK
Easy
Mean

Condition

Difficult

S.D.

Condition

Mean

S.D.

LD

7.25

1.71 (n=12)

6.70

1.64 (n=10)

[6.98]

NLD

6.92

1.78 (n=12)

7.12

1.67 (n=16)

[7.02]

[7.08]

EXPECTANCY

[6.91]

[7.02]

FOR SELF POST-TASK

Easy C o n d i t i o n

Mean

Difficult

S.D.

Condition

Mean

S.D.

LD

8.25

1.71 (n=12)

6.20

2.10 (n=10)

[7.22]

NLD

6.83

1.85 (n=12)

5.81

1.22 (n=16)

[6.32]

[7.54]

Note.

[6.01]

M a r g i n a l means a r e given

143

in brackets,

[6.72]

Table
Self

5.7.

A n a l y s i s of Covariance

Post-Task A c c o r d i n g

Expectancy f o r S e l f as the

to Group and

Condition

with

for

Pre-Task

Covariate

Sum of Squares

Source

R e s u l t s f o r Expectancy

df

Mean Sauare

P.

A Group

10.31

10 .31

4.28

.04

B Condition

25.96

25.96

10.78

.01

1.51

1.51

45

2.41

AB
Error

108.33

.43

.63

48
[A

t e s t f o r the e q u a l i t y of the s l o p e s of the r e g r e s s i o n

f o r each group was

hypothesis

c a r r i e d out. The

test

of e q u a l i t y of s l o p e s was

lines

i n d i c a t e d that the

null

t e n a b l e at the a l p h a =

.01

l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . ]
The

analysis

of c o v a r i a n c e

significant

group

significant

differences

10.78,
group

p_

< .01;

and

V I I , 3.,

differences,

and

condition,

Hypo theses V I I ,

(refer

1.

4.28,

no s i g n i f i c a n t
p_

<

revealed
p_

<

.04;

(1,45)

joint effect
.43.

are not supported,

but

=
of

Therefore,
Hypothesis

i s tenable.

F o l l o w i n g the a n a l y s i s of c o v a r i a n c e ,
for

5.7)

to c o n d i t i o n ,

F (1,45) = .63,

and 2.,

Table

(1,45) =

according

there was

to

the c o v a r i a t e and

are presented

the a d j u s t e d means d i f f e r

i n T a b l e 5.8.

very l i t t l e

149

the means were a d j u s t e d

One

notes

from the unadjusted

that

means.

T a b l e 5.8.

Summary T a b l e of A d j u s t e d Means f o r Expectancy

for

Self (Post-Task).

Unadjusted Mean

A d j u s t e d Mean

Group
LD

7.22

7.24

NLD

6.32

6.32

Easy

7.54

7.52

Difficult

6.01

6.06

Condi t i o n

Overall,

the

LD c h i l d r e n expected to do b e t t e r

NLD c h i l d r e n , and both LD and NLD c h i l d r e n

had g r e a t e r p o s t - t a s k s e l f - e x p e c t a n c y .

150

than d i d the

i n the easy

condition

Expectancy

f o r Other.

Hypothesis V I I I .
1.

There

will

be no group

effect

(LD/NLD) on the

post-task

"expectancy f o r o t h e r " measure.

2.

There w i l l

post-task
3.

be no c o n d i t i o n e f f e c t

"expectancy

There

will

membership

and

( e a s y / d i f f i c u l t ) on the

f o r o t h e r " measure.

be no s i g n i f i c a n t

joint

effects

c o n d i t i o n on the p o s t - t a s k

of

group

"expectancy

for

o t h e r " measure.
C

The s t a t i s t i c a l

form: H : o C ^
Q

for

= 0; H :flj,

f o r main e f f e c t s ,
i

no s i g n i f i c a n t

statistical
effect

hypotheses

of group

were of the

statistical

hypothesis

the i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t was of the form:

corresponding

on

hypotheses,

fi>

t e s t e d were:

at the .05 l e v e l of

effect

of

condition

f o r other;"

significance

expectancy

joint

effects

significance

be no s i g n i f i c a n t

group

on

the

f o r o t h e r " when a d j u s t e d on " p r e -

f o r o t h e r ; " and there w i l l

of

adjusted

at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e

v a r i a b l e "post-task expectancy
task

there w i l l

The

There w i l l be

the v a r i a b l e "post-task expectancy f o r other" when

on "pre-task expectancy

=0.

and c o n d i t i o n at

be

no

the

.05

on the v a r i a b l e "post-task expectancy

when a d j u s t e d on "pre-task expectancy

151

f o r other."]

significant
level

for

of

other"

Before d i s c u s s i n g the r e s u l t s of the hypotheses r e g a r d i n g the

post-task
out

"expectancy f o r o t h e r " measure,

that,

on the pre-task

i t should be

pointed

"expectancy f o r o t h e r " measure,

there

was

a t r e n d f o r the LD s u b j e c t s to expect more of "another

boy"

than

f o r the NLD s u b j e c t s ,

the

LD and NLD groups were 7.77 and

Table

5.9.]

Table

5.9.

Analysis

p_ < .09.

r e s p e c t i v e l y . [See

for

df

Mean Square

12.00

12.00

Residual

194.58

48

4.05

Total

206.58

49

4.22

Post-task
analysis

"expectancy

of c o v a r i a n c e

(LD/NLD)
"expectancy

and

f o r o t h e r " was

(SPSS ,

condition

Means of

Expectancy

for

to Group

Sum of Squares

Group

6.79,

of V a r i a n c e R e s u l t s

Other. Pre-Task. A c c o r d i n g

Source

F (1,48) = 2.96,

1983) w i t h

5.11.]

152

p_

2.96

examined

.09

through

two l e v e l s of

(easy/difficult)

f o r other" as the c o v a r i a t e .

with

an

group

pre-task

[See T a b l e s 5.10

and

Table

5.10.

Table

of

Means

Expectancy f o r Other A c c o r d i n g

and

Standard

Deviations f o r

to Group and C o n d i t i o n . P r e - , and

Post-Task.
EXPECTANCY

FOR OTHER PRE-TASK

Difficult

Easy C o n d i t i o n
M

SD

Condition

SD

LD

8.17

1.70 <n=12)

7.30

2.36 (n=10)

[7.74]

NLD

6.67

1.87 (n=12)

6.88

2.16 (n=16)

[6.78]

[7.42]

EXPECTANCY

[7.09]

[7.22]

FOR OTHER POST-TASK

Easy C o n d i t i o n

Difficult

SD

Condition

SD

LD

8.58

1.68 (n=12)

7.10

1.66 (n=10)

[7.84]

NLD

6.67

2.39 (n=12)

5.69

1.54 <n.=16)

[6.18]

[7.62]

Note.

[6.40]

M a r g i n a l means a r e given

153

in brackets.

[6.90]

Table

5.11.

A n a l y s i s of Covariance

Other

Post-Task A c c o r d i n g

R e s u l t s f o r Expectancy

to Group and C o n d i t i o n w i t h

for

Pre-Task

Expectancy f o r Other as the C o v a r i a t e

Source

Sum of Sauares

A Group

14.40

14.40

6.96

.01

B Condition

13.18

13.18

6.37

.02

.02

.90

AB

df

.03
Error

93.07

Mean Square

.03

45

2.07

P.

48
[

A t e s t f o r the homogeneity of the s l o p e s of the

lines
the

f o r each group was c a r r i e d o u t . The t e s t

null

regression

indicated

h y p o t h e s i s of e q u a l i t y of s l o p e s was t e n a b l e

that

at

the

a l p h a = .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . ]
R e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s of c o v a r i a n c e
group e f f e c t ,
effect,

F (1,45) = 6.96, p_ < .01, a s i g n i f i c a n t c o n d i t i o n

F (1,45) = 6.37,

condition
Therefore,
Hypothesis

interaction

p_ < .02,

effect,

Hypotheses V I I I ,

1.

but no s i g n i f i c a n t
(1,45)

differ

.02,

p_

<

.90.

V I I I , 3., i s t e n a b l e .

take the c o v a r i a t e i n t o account,

presented

group

and 2., a r e not supported, but

F o l l o w i n g the a n a l y s i s of c o v a r i a n c e ,
to

indicated a significant

in

T a b l e 5.12.

very l i t t l e

One notes

from the unadjusted

154

the means were a d j u s t e d

and the a d j u s t e d means a r e

that

the

means.

adjusted

means

Table
Other

5.12.

Summary T a b l e of A d j u s t e d Means f o r Expectancy f o r

h

(Post-Task).

Unadjusted Mean

Ac j u s t e d Mean

Group
LD

7.84

7.55

NLD

6.18

6.43

Easy

7.62

7.51

Difficult

6.40

6.47

Condition

Overall,
class

the

LD

to do b e t t e r

children

had

c h i l d r e n expected "another boy"

than d i d the NLD c h i l d r e n .

a h i g h e r p o s t - t a s k "expectancy

in

their

Both LD and

NLD

f o r o t h e r " i n the

easy e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n .
H y p o t h e s i s IX.
There

will

be no group

of

Achenbach's

subscales
(especially

effect

=0;

H^:

of group

Competence

(1981a)

Child

the v a r i o u s

Behavior

Checklist

the Depression s u b s c a l e ) .

[ The s t a t i s t i c a l
- mu

d i f f e r e n c e s (LD/NLD) on

and

hypotheses

mu^ - mu^ ?

t e s t e d were of the form:

0.

There w i l l

be no

H^: mu^

significant

at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e on the

Behavior Problem

Checklist.]

155

s c a l e s of the

Child

Social

Behavior

C h i l d Behavior

Checklist

S o c i a l Competence
A

multivariate

examining

a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e

(MANOVA;

the s o c i a l competence items r e v e a l e d

differences
Further

significant

univariate

significant

group

(1,66) = 6.16,
127.57,

Scales

at the .01 l e v e l ,

analyses

of

SPSS ,
group

F (3,64)

variance

1983)

(ANOVA)

d i f f e r e n c e s on S o c i a l Competence

(LD/NLD)
=

42.86.
revealed

Social,

p_ < .02, on S o c i a l Competence S c h o o l , F (1,66) =

p_ < .01,

and on the T o t a l S o c i a l Competence

score,

(1,66) = 22.31, p_ < .01. There was no group d i f f e r e n c e on S o c i a l

Competence

Activities,

(1,66) = .73,

5.13.]

156

p_ < .40.

[See

Table

Table

5.13.

Analysis

of

Variance

Results

for

the

Social

Competence S c a l e s (Achenbach. 1981)

Scale

Social

Mean

S.D.

F(l,66)

p_

Competence

Acti vi t i e s
LD

7.92

1.89

NLD

8.30

1.73

Social

.73

<.40

6.16

<.02

127.57

<.01

22.31

< .01

Competence

Soci a l
LD

6.41

1.86

NLD

7.56

1.92

Social

Competence

School
LD

3.06

1.01

NLD

5.15

.46

Social
Total

Competence
Score

LD

17.40

3.38

NLD

21.02

2.95

p_ < .02.
p_ < .01.

157

Behavior Problem
A

Scales

m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e

examining the behavior

(LD/NLD)

problem s c a l e s r e v e a l e d s i g n i f i c a n t

differences,

univariate

analyses

SPSS*, 1 9 8 3 )

(MANOVA;

(12,55)

of v a r i a n c e

= 2 . 1 6 ,

(ANOVA)

p_

<

Further

. 0 3 .

revealed

group

significant

group d i f f e r e n c e s at p_ < . 0 1 , or b e t t e r , on the Depressed s c a l e ,

F

(1,66)

18.06,

= 7 . 6 1 ,

p_ <

7.71,

p_

Internalizing
(1,66)

. 0 1 , and
F

= 9 . 1 1 ,

revealed

(1,66)

p_ <

significant

Obsessive/Compulsive
Aggressive
scale,

the H y p e r a c t i v e

. 0 1 ,

scale,

(1,66)

f o r the T o t a l Behavior Problem s c o r e , F

. 0 1 ,

<

p_ <

scale,
(1,66)

on

the

= 6.84,

. 0 1 .

two

p_ <

(1,66)

= 5 . 5 7 ,

(1,66)

= 3 . 8 3 ,

p_ <

. 0 2 .

158

= 4 . 9 1 ,

p_ <

scales,

of v a r i a n c e

group d i f f e r e n c e s at alpha l e v e l
F

and E x t e r n a l i z i n g F

U n i v a r i a t e analyses

scale,

(1,66)

second-order

. 0 1 ,

. 0 5 ,

[See T a b l e

JJ

<

(ANOVA)

. 0 5 on the
. 0 3 ,

the

and the Delinquent

5.14.3

T a b l e 5.14. A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e R e s u l t s f o r the Behavior Problem

Scales.
Scale

Mean

S.D.

LD

1.70

1.76

NLD

1.08

1.00

LD

5.43

5.06

NLD

2.84

2.51

F ( l , 66)

p_

Schizo i d
3.36

<.07

7.61

<.01

2.67

<.ll

Depressed

Uncommun i c a t i ve
LD

2.87

2.49

NLD

1.97

2.02

Obsessi ve/Compulsiye
LD

4.30

3.80

NLD

2.63

2.38

4.91

<.03*

2.35

<.13

3.37

<.07

Somatic Complaints
LD
NLD
Social

1.33

1.09

.79

1.68

Withdrawal

LD

2.17

2.17

NLD

1.37

1.40

LD

6.47

4.58

NLD

2.76

2.50

LD

10.73

7.85

NLD

7.50

5.78

Hyperactive
18.06

<.01

A g g r e s s i ve

159

3.83

<.05*

Delinquent
LD

2.73

3.25

NLD

1.34

1.46

LD

4.77

3.94

NLD

3.60

3.01

LD

12.93

10.44

NLD

7.71

5.82

LD

18.17

12.78

NLD

10.58

7.81

Other

5.57

<.02*

1.90

<.17

6.84

<.01**

9.11

<.01**

7.71

<.01**

Problems

Internalizing

Ex t e r n a l i z i ng

Total

Behavior Problem

Score

LD

34.40

24.80

NLD

21.18

13.98

* fi. < .05

** fi < .01
Overall,

Hypothesis

alternative

hypothesis

significantly

from

competence

scales,

Competence

School,

score;

and

behavior

Total

they

problem

Hyperactive,
order

IX

i s not

i s tenable.

the

NLD

Social
as

well

differ

children
Competence

Behavior Problem

on

two

(Depressed,

160

the

do

differ

the

social

and

Social

on f i v e

Social

Competence

of

the

nine

Obsessive/Compulsive,

D e l i n q u e n t ) as w e l l

score.

of

Social,

as on the T o t a l

f a c t o r s of I n t e r n a l i z i n g

Rather,

The LD c h i l d r e n

significantly

scales

Aggressive,

supported.

as on the second-

and E x t e r n a l i z i n g ,

and

on

the

As w e l l ,
norm

data from

the NLD

group data r e p o r t e d f o r n o n - c l i n i c c h i l d r e n

and

Edelbrock,

1983,

in

Appendices 16 and 17.

e v a l u a t e the correspondence
with

the NLD

Joiner,
since
to

c h i l d r e n do not d i f f e r

group from

the

by

Achenbach

In

order

to

of Achenbach's n o n - c l i n i c norm group

t h i s study,

the MINITAB program (Ryan,

and Ryan, P e n n s y l v a n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ,

t h i s program a l l o w s one

a s i n g l e value.

from

to s e t the mean (mu)

1981)

(Appendix

Achenbach

and

Edelbrock,

1983)

were compared w i t h the s c a l e s c o r e s from

the

and T a b l e 5.16.]

161

in

6-11,

group

d a t a . [See T a b l e 5.15

211,

group

non-clinic

NLD

p.

used

of one

The mean s c a l e s c o r e s f o r boys aged

D,

was

Table
NLD

5.15.
Group

Comparison of Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s

w i t h the Achenbach and Edelbrock

Norm Group on the S o c i a l Competence

Scale

Mean

(1983)

Non-clinic

Scales.

S.D.

S o c i a l Competence
Activi ties
NLD

8.30

1.73

Non-clinic

7.9

1.9

1.42

<.16

1.16

<.25

3.33

<.01

1.93

< .06

S o c i a l Competence
Soci a l
NLD

7.56

1.92

Non-cli n i c

7.2

1.7

Social
School

Competence

NLD

5.15

Non-cli n i c

4.9

.46
1.0

S o c i a l Competence
T o t a l Score
NLD

21.02

2.95

Non-clinic

20.1

3.2

* p. < .01

162

of the

Table
NLD

5.16.
Group

Comparison

of Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of the

w i t h the Achenbach and Edelbrock

Norm Group on the Behavior Problem

Scale

Mean

S.D.

NLD

1.08

1.00

Non-clinic

1.3

1.4

NLD

2.84

2.51

Non-clinic

3.2

3.4

NLD

1.97

2.02

Non-clinic

2.0

1.9

(1983)

Non-clinic

Scales.
p_

Schizoid
-1.37

<.18

.88

<.39

.08

<.94

.70

<.49

.04

<.97

Depressed

Uncommun i cat i ve

Obsessi ve/Compulsi ve
NLD

2.63

2.38

Non-clinic

2.9

2.8

Somatic

Complaints

NLD

.79

1.68

Non-clinic

.8

1.3

NLD

1.37

1.40

Non-clinic

1.7

1.8

NLD

2.76

2.50

Non-clinic

3.2

2.9

NLD

7.50

5.78

Non-clinic

7.3

5.7

Social

Withdrawal
-1.46

<.15

-1.08

<.29

.21

<.83

Hyperact i ve

A g g r e s s i ve

163

Delinquent
NLD

1.34

1.46

Non-clinic

1.0

1.7

NLD

7.71

5.82

Non-clinic

8.4

6.7

NLD

10.58

7.81

Non-clinic

10.8

8.2

1.45

<.16

.73

<.47

.17

<.86

.23

<.82

In t e r n a l i z i ng

Externalizing

Total

Behavior Problem Score

NLD

21.18

13.98

Non-clinic

21.7

15.0

The

group

NLD

Achenbach's

non-clinic

Activities
Social
Total
a

was

scale,

scale,
Score,

not

significantly

different

from

norm

group on

the

Social

Competence

T = 1.42,

p_ < .16,

the

Social

Competence

T = 1.16,

p_ < .25,

or on the S o c i a l

T = 1.93, p_ < .06. However,

Competence

the NLD group d i d have

higher mean on the S o c i a l Competence School s c a l e

(5.15

vs.

4.90) , T = 3.33, p_ < .01.

There
and

were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s

Achenbach's

Problem s c a l e s :
.88,

p_

<

between the NLD

n o n - c l i n i c norm group on any of

Schizoid,

.39;

the

group

Behavior

T = -1.37, p_ < .18; Depressed, T = -

Uncommunicative,

-.08,

p_

<

.94;

Obsessive/Compulsive, T = -.70, p_ < .49; Somatic Complaints, T =

-.04,

p_

<

Hyperactive,

-9 'i

Social

-1-08,

Withdrawal,

-1.46,

p_

<

.15;

p_ < .29; A g g r e s s i v e , T = .21, p_ < .83;

164

D e l i n q u e n t , T = 1.45, p_ < .16; I n t e r n a l i z i n g , T = -.73, p_ < .47;

T = -.17, p_ < .86; T o t a l Behavior Problem Score,

Externalizing,

T = -.23, p_ < .82.

In

the main,

Achenbach's
Social
group
in

therefore,

n o n - c l i n i c norm group.

Competence School s c a l e may

f o r t h i s study was

reading a b i l i t y ,

scholastic
selected
While
NLD
norm

the NLD

group d i d not d i f f e r
[The one e x c e p t i o n

of

selected a priori

The

the

be e x p l a i n e d because the NLD

as average or

above

a c r i t e r i o n which would f a c i l i t a t e

achievement.

from

Achenbach

norm

group

higher
was

not

on t h i s b a s i s . ]
the LD and NLD

group

groups d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y ,

corresponded g e n e r a l l y w i t h

group,

significantly

i t should be noted that

Achenbach's

and T a b l e 5.18.]

165

non-clinic

the LD c h i l d r e n were

d i f f e r e n t from the c l i n i c groups

s t u d i e s . [See T a b l e 5.17

and the

in

also

Achenbach's

T a b l e 5.17.
LD

Comparison of Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of

the

Group and the Achenbach and Edelbrock (1983) C l i n i c Group on

the S o c i a l Competence S c a l e s .
Scale

Mean

S.D.

LD

7.92

1.89

CIi n i c

6.3

2.3

LD

6.41

1.86

Clinic

4.8

1.9

LD

3.06

1.01

CIi n i c

3.6

1.2

S o c i a l Competence
Activi ties

Social
Soci a l

Social
School

4.71

<.01*

4.73

<.01*

-2.90

<.01*

3.89

<.01*

Competence

Competence

S o c i a l Competence
T o t a l Score
LD

17.40

3.38

Clinic

15.0

3.7

* p, < .01.
The LD c h i l d r e n had g r e a t e r s o c i a l competence i n the areas of
activities,
score

and

on

the t o t a l s o c i a l

competence

than d i d the Achenbach and Edelbrock (1983) c l i n i c group.

[Note,
for

socializing,

however, that the S o c i a l Competence

the LD c h i l d r e n

priori

School mean i s lower

i n t h i s study as they had been

because of low r e a d i n g a b i l i t y ,

lower s c h o l a s t i c performance.]
166

selected

a factor associated with

T a b l e 5.18.

Comparison

of Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of

LD

Group and the Achenbach and Edelbrock (1983) C l i n i c

the

Behavior Problem

Scale

Group on

Scales.

Mean

S.D.

LD

1.70

1.76

Clinic

3.5

2.6

5.43

5.06

p_

Schi zo i d
-5.59

<.01*

-5.05

<.01*

-5.14

<.01*

-4.76

<.01*

-2.84

<.01*

-6.66

<.01*

-3.15

<.01*

Depressed
LD
CIi n i c

10.1

6.4

Uncommun i cat i ve
LD

2.87

2.49

CIi n i c

5.2

2.9

Qbsessi ve/Compulsi ve
LD

4.30

3.80

CIi n i c

7.6

4.6

Somatic

Complaints

LD

1.33

1.09

Clinic

1.9

2.3

LD

2.17

2.17

Clinic

4.8

3.1

LD

6.47

4.58

CIi n i c

9.1

4.1

S o c i a l Hi thdrauial

Hyperact i ve

167

the

A g g r e s s i ve
LD

10.73

7.85

CIi n i c

19.1

9.2

-5.84

<.01*

-4.33

<.01*

-5.34

<.01*

D e l i nquen t
LD

2.73

3.25

CIi n i c

5.3

4.1

LD

12.93

10.44

CIi n i c

23.1

12.2

LD

18.17

12.78

CIi n i c

30.5

13.1

Internalizing

Ex t e r n a l i z i ng

Total

Behavior Problem

<.01*

Score

LD

34.40

24.80

Clinic

58.9

24.0

-5.41

< . O'l*

* p. < .01.

Thus,

although

behavioral
this

study,

the

group

displayed

s i g n i f i c a n t l y more

problems i n some areas than d i d the NLD c h i l d r e n

they a r e not so b e h a v i o r a l l y

group of c h i l d r e n
in

the LD c h i l d r e n

main,

referred

disordered

are

to a c h i l d p s y c h i a t r i c f a c i l i t y . And,

correspondence

was demonstrated

between the

i n t h i s study and the norm group d e s c r i b e d

and Edelbrock

as

in

(1983).

163

by

NLD

Achenbach

R e s u l t s of A n c i l l a r y
Attributions

Measures:

to B a s e b a l l Game (from a t t r i b u t i o n

rating

scale

t r a i n i ng).
Multivariate

a n a l y s e s of v a r i a n c e (MANDVAS; SPSS*, 1983) were

s i g n i f i c a n t f o r group e f f e c t s at the .01 a l p h a l e v e l f o r winning

a b a s e b a l l game,

F (4,63) = 4.14, p_ < .01, and at the .02 alpha

l e v e l f o r l o s i n g a b a s e b a l l game,
both
luck

situations

the LD c h i l d r e n

than d i d the NLD c h i l d r e n .

F (4,63) = 3.32,
attributed

g r e a t e r c a u s a l i t y to

U n i v a r i a t e a n a l y s e s f o r "winning

game" r e v e a l e d a s i g n i f i c a n t group e f f e c t f o r l u c k ,
10.05,

p_

<

.01,

effect f o r luck,
and

and f o r " l o s i n g game," a

F (1,66) = 10.27,

T a b l e 5.20.]

169

p_ < .02. In

p_ < .01.

F (1,66)

significant

group

[See T a b l e s 5.19,

Table

5.19. A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e

Results f o r A t t r i b u t i o n s f o r

Winning Game.
WIN GAME
Attribution

Mean

S.D.

LD

6.43

.94

NLD

6.18

1.20

LD

4.13

2.19

NLD

2.63

1.72

LD

5.93

1.01

NLD

6.13

.81

LD

4.10

2.31

NLD

3.37

1.53

F(l,66)

EFFORT
.87

<.36

LUCK
10.05

<.01*

ABILITY
,80

<.37

2.45

<.12

EASE

* p_ < .01.

170

Table

5.20. A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e R e s u l t s f o r A t t r i b u t i o n s f o r

L o s i n g Game.
LOSE GAME
Attribution
EFFORT
LD

Mean

4.10

S.D.

F(l,66)

2.34
1.87

NLD

4.82

1.97

3.93

2.08

2.50

1.61

LD

3.03

1.96

NLD

3.32

1.99

LD

4.50

2.24

NLD

4.53

1.83

LUCK
LD
NLD

p_

10.27

<.18

<.01*

ABILITY
,34

<.56

00

<.96

DIFFICULTY

* p_ < .01.

171

Intellectual
(Crandall.
of

Achievement

Katkovsky,

and

Mastery-Orientati*n

1978;

Responsibility

C r a n d a l l . 1965) , and

analyzing

the IAR

However,

SPSS , 1983)

demonstrates that NLD

credit
(l"*~)

(i.e.,
than do

ascription
total

group

Dweck.

inappropriate
linearly

a u n i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e
c h i l d r e n accept more

(ANOVA;
personal

make i n t e r n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s ) f o r p o s i t i v e
LD

children.

There were no

group

i n t e r n a l i z i n g score

measure,

Appendix

11).

of a p o s s i b l e
groups.

the Dweck

subset
The

(Total I ) .

of

10

ten, and

[Diener

and

e i g h t or more on

or

on

it failed

for

As w e l l , there was

the IAR

scale

(refer

the Dweck measure was

to d i s c r i m i n a t e

Dweck (1978;
this scale

those s c o r i n g s i x or l e s s as h e l p l e s s .

no

as

1980)

between

designate

to

seven
the

those

mastery-oriented,

and

Those s c o r i n g seven, at

the median, are dropped from the a n a l y s e s . ] [See T a b l e 5.21.]

172

in

mastery-orientation/helplessness

items on

median s c o r e

events

differences

of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r n e g a t i v e events (I ),

d i f f e r e n c e on

scoring

(MANOVA) i s

s c a l e because the s u b s c a l e s are

dependent.

two

and

1980).

for

out

( IAR)

Dweck's Measure

v e r s u s H e l p l e s s n e s s (Deiner

A m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e

the

Scale

Table

5.21. A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e R e s u l t s f o r the I n t e l l e c t u a l

Achievement R e s p o n s i b i l i t y S c a l e and Dweck's Measure of MasteryOrientation versus Helplessness.

Scale
I

I~

Mean

S.D.

Scale
LD

13.17

2.91

NLD

14.37

1.87

LD

11.40

2.66

NLD

11.63

2.70

LD

24.57

4.20

NLD

26.00

3.76

LD

6.90

1.84

NLD

7.34

1.95

F(l,66)

4.26

p_

<.04*

Scale

Total

.12

<.72

2.20

<.14

.90

<.34

I Score

Duieck Measure

p_ < .05.
C r a n d a l l et a l .
r e l a t i o n s between
grades

(1965) r e p o r t e d v a r i a b l e , but g e n e r a l l y low,

+

t h r e e to 12.

and I

s c a l e s ( d a t a i n c l u d e boys and

For grades f o u r to s i x ,

were:
Grade 4 (n = 103)

r = .11

Grade 5 (n =

r = .11

99)

Grade 6 (n = 166)

r =

.38

* p_ < .001.
173

girls,

the c o r r e l a t i o n s

In

t h i s study, c o r r e l a t i o n s

r_ = .13, p_ < .24,

between the I

and

s c a l e s were

f o r LD s t u d e n t s , and r_ = .33, p_ < .02,

for

NLD

students.
Affect
The

or Mood Measure
affect

or mood measures were a n a l y z e d through

v a r i a n c e (ANOVAS; SPSS , 1983).

X

differ

The

two

on pre-exper imen t a l task a f f e c t ,

.74. Nor

d i d the two

groups,

task a f f e c t , no matter
randomly

to which experimental

condition

they were

f o r group: F (1,46) = .004,

Main e f f e c t

f o r c o n d i t i o n : F (1,46) = .325,

this

was

effects

one check that

due

condition:

.95,
p_ <

F (1,46) = .408,

there were

to random assignment
affect

p_ <

no

group membership or experimental

p_ <

.40.

differential

to the

s c o r e s were not

.32,

"difficult"

influenced

condition.

[See

T a b l e 5.22.

NLD

Pre-Task

(n=30)
(n=38)

Affect

Mean Scores A c c o r d i n g to Group.

5.67
5.58

174

by

Table

and T a b l e 5.23.]

LD

<

post-experimental

Main e f f e c t

experimental

5.22

p_

assigned:

deleterious

either

LD/NLD, d i d not

F (1,66) = .115,

LD/NLD, d i f f e r on

Group x C o n d i t i o n i n t e r a c t i o n :
Thus,

groups,

a n a l y s e s of

Post-Task

T a b l e 5.23.

A f f e c t Mean Scores A c c o r d i n g to Group and

Condi t i o n .
Easy

Condition

Difficult

Condition

LD

6.17 (n=12)

5.80

(n=10)

NLD

6.00

6.00

(n=16)

In
to

addition,

the

after
task

f o r those LD and NLD s u b j e c t s randomly

difficult

the

(n=12)

condition,

c h i l d subsequently

(upon d e b r i e f i n g ) .

a last

a f f e c t measure

completed

the

easy

assigned

was

taken

experimental

There were no s i g n i f i c a n t

differences

between the LD and NLD c h i l d r e n on t h i s measure, F (1,24) = .70,

p_ < .41. [See T a b l e

5.24.]

T a b l e 5.24. Means and Standard

Mean

D e v i a t i o n s f o r Last A f f e c t .

Standard D e v i a t i o n

LD (n=10)

5.90

1.37

NLD (n=16)

6.25

.77

,Enjoyment of the Experimental Task - Round Robin

On
(see

the

post-experimental

Appendix

12),

c o n d i t i o n was asked:
response
very

enjoyable"

"How

i n both

to

questionnaire

the easy

e n j o y a b l e d i d you f i n d

"not

enjoyable

or

r a t i n g s c a l e from
at

group x c o n d i t i o n i n t e r a c t i o n ,

of

condi t i o n .

the

the

experimental

task,

LD c h i l d r e n expressed

5.25.]
175

difficult

t h i s game?

a l l . " There

His

"very,
was

F (1,46) = 4.82, p_ <

In the easy c o n d i t i o n the NLD c h i l d r e n expressed

enjoyment

Table

each c h i l d

attribution

was r e c o r d e d on a seven-point

significant
.03.

task

Racing.

while in
greater

the

greater
difficult

enjoyment.

[See

T a b l e 5.25.

Means and Standard

Experimental Task A c c o r d i n g

D e v i a t i o n s f o r Enjoyment of

to Group and C o n d i t i o n .

Easy C o n d i t i o n
Mean

D i f f i c u l t Condition

S.D.

Mean

5.75

.87

6.40

.84

NLD

5.83

.94

5.31

1.01

6.04;

T o t a l Mean f o r NLD

Bannatyne's R e c a t e g o r i z a t i o n of NISC-R
Recall

that

Bannatyne

Spatial>Conceptual>Sequential
subtest
found

scores
for

disabled

and

both

seven

(1974)
pattern

has

been

a
WISC-R

consistently

1974)

and

or 63.33% of the LD

or 18.42% of the NLD

Spatial>Conceptual>Sequential
significant

hypothesized

learning

children.

19 out of 30,

out of 38,

5.54

f o r LD s t u d e n t s '

that t h i s p a t t e r n

(Smith et a l . , 1977)

Scores

r e a d i n g d i s a b l e d (Rugel,

In t h i s study,
and

S.D.

LD

T o t a l Mean f o r LD =

the

pattern.

group d i f f e r e n c e ,

children,

children follow this

This

represents

c h i - s q u a r e (1, N = 68)=

12.48,p_ <

.01. A p a r a l l e l a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e r e v e a l s F (1,66) = 17.60, p_

< .01.

Thus,

f o r t h i s sample, Bannatyne's h y p o t h e s i z e d p a t t e r n

of S p a t i a l > C o n c e p t u a l > S e q u e n t i a l

f o r LD s u b j e c t s i s upheld.

[See

T a b l e 5.26.]
The

two

category

groups
(Picture

Assembly).
differentiated
Similarities,

were

and

differentiated

Completion,

However,
by

not

the

the

Block
two

Conceptual

Vocabulary),
176

Design,

groups

were

category
the

by

the

Spatial

and

Object

significantly
(Comprehension,

Sequential

category

(Arithmetic,
category

(16,

N = 68) =

Conceptual
2

and

Coding),

and by

the

Acqu i red

category:

(1,66) =

Span,

( I n f o r m a t i o n , A r i t h m e t i c , and V o c a b u l a r y ) :

Spatial
x

Digit

(23,

p_ < .95;

8.05,

.02, p_ < .88;

category:
p_ < .04;

N = 68) = 35.88,

(1,66) = 33.09, p_ < .01;

Sequential
x

(22,

category:
N = 68) = 34.41,

p_ <

.04;

p_ <

.01;

(1,66) = 29.40, p_ < .01;

Acquired
x

(24,

category:
N = 68) = 50.46,

(1,66) = 79.03, p_ < .01.

Table

5.26.

Means

and

Standard

R e c a t e g o r i z a t i o n of NISC-R S c a l e d
Spat i a l
M

S.D.

Concep t u a l
M

S.D.

Deviations

for

Bannatyne's

Scores
Sequen t i a l
M

Acqu i r e d

S.D.

S.D.

LD

36.93

4.47

32.00

4.16

26.93

4.14

28.37

3.54

NLD

37.10

4.48

38.95

5.48

32.53

4.28

37.16

4.41

The

means

listed

the

summed

Note.

i n d i c a t e the average of

s c a l e d s c o r e s f o r the three r e l e v a n t s u b t e s t s .

1 7 ^

CHAPTER VI
D i s c u s s i o n and Recommendations
Qverv i ew
Professionals

working

with learning disabled children

have

l o n g been f r u s t r a t e d by the slow academic p r o g r e s s shown by such

children

even

educational

In

recent

achievement

intellectual
and

importance

child's

beliefs

mediate

achievement
this

motivational,

to

and

by

(e.g.,

the

academic

have

behavioral

factors,

or

Weiner

shown

how

a r e of
behavior.

the

causes

of

transactions

and

Butkowsky

contribution

that

of
in

was examined i n order

&

Willows,
cognitive,

particular,
to e v a l u a t e

r o l e such f a c t o r s play i n the academic p r o g r e s s of l e a r n i n g

disabled
The

children.

experimental m a n i p u l a t i o n ,

the "Round-Robin Racing"

game, was s u c c e s s f u l . A l l c h i l d r e n
the

regarding

and

recognized

s u c c e s s and f a i l u r e

antecedent

behavior

a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r performance,

determined

and

given

achievement-oriented

between

study,

been

and c o l l e a g u e s )

or a t t r i b u t i o n s

resulting

In

Dweck

i n understanding

may

the

psychological,

s e v e r a l r e s e a r c h e r s (e.g.,

reactions

behavior

1980).

i t has

i s not s o l e l y

and

cognitive/emotional

medical,

years

f a c t o r s . Rather,

colleagues,

great

thorough

diagnoses and recommendations have been

implemented.
academic

after

easy

(success)

experimental
subjects

task.

originally

condition

board

(LD/NLD) randomly a s s i g n e d to

d i d , indeed,

succeed

on

the

Three of the LD s u b j e c t s and one of the NLD

a s s i g n e d to the d i f f i c u l t

178

condition

also

managed

to

succeed

on the task,

"success"

group.

A l l other

difficult

condition f a i l e d

thus becoming

part

of the

s u b j e c t s randomly a s s i g n e d

to the

to succeed on the experimental

board

game task.
On

the whole,

earlier

while

studies

t h i s study

regarding

supports

learning

the

results

disabled

of

children's

m a l a d a p t i v e a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r imagined s u c c e s s / f a i l u r e events, no
support

was found f o r d i f f e r e n t i a l LD/NLD a t t r i b u t i o n s given an

actual

success

cognitive

or f a i l u r e

experience.

In

addition,

several

p r o c e s s i n g and b e h a v i o r a l d i f f e r e n c e s between LD

and

NLD c h i l d r e n were noted.

Results

pertaining

discussed

along with a n c i l l a r y

hypotheses.
of

to the d i s s e r t a t i o n hypotheses

Following

r e s u l t s as these r e l a t e

be

to the

the d i s c u s s i o n of the r e s u l t s , an o u t l i n e

the p s y c h o l o g i c a l and e d u c a t i o n a l

will

will

i m p l i c a t i o n s of the

study

be g i v e n . F i n a l l y , some thoughts r e g a r d i n g f u t u r e p e r t i n e n t

research w i l l

be. o u t l i n e d .

Causal A t t r i b u t i o n s
Pre-Task
that

Attributions.

The

l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d boys,

boys,

aged

9-0

attributional

to

system

12-0,
when

r e s u l t s of Hypothesis I
compared w i t h
give

evidence

revealed

normally-achieving
of

a s c r i b i n g causes

maladaptive

f o r an

imagined

s u c c e s s f u l academic performance. Given the pre-experimental

task

attribution

the

LD
and

q u e s t i o n n a i r e f o r "academic success

boys gave s i g n i f i c a n t l y
to

g r e a t e r c a u s a l a s c r i p t i o n s to " l u c k "

"ease of the task," both

viewed e x t e r n a l f o r c e s as having
than

d i d the NLD boys.

on a t e s t , "

external

a greater r o l e i n their

This finding
179

attributions.

i s consistent

They

success

with

the

literature

(e.g.,

Bryan,

Donahue,

&

emphasize that
ability

and

Bryan &
1980).

internal,

consistent

remain most a d a p t i v e .
NLD

boys,

ability
the

did

and

1979;

Pearl,

Pearl,

Note, however, that

quantitatively

they simply

(1978)

global attributions ( i . e . ,

e f f o r t ) f o r s u c c e s s or

factors

1982;

R e c a l l that Abramson et a l .

s t a b l e , and

ascribe

effort;

external

Pearl,

positive

events

the LD boys, l i k e
greater

causality

also ascribed a greater

of luck and

task

ease.

the

Given

to

r o l e to
personal

h i s t o r i e s of academic f a i l u r e , or at l e a s t l e s s e r academic ease,

t h i s p a t t e r n would seem l o g i c a l .
Results

of H y p o t h e s i s II r e v e a l e d

ascribed

similar

difficulty,
failure

and

levels

of

task

the LD

causality

l a c k of a b i l i t y ,

(pre-experimental

that

to

LD

(e.g.,

P e a r l et a l . ,

"helpless-oriented"
Wortman,

1982).

learned
that

helplessness

individuals

internal,

stable,

that

the

reformulation

who

&

nearly

equal

The

and

on

1978;

style

i t was

13 NLD)

events o c c u r .
found that

of

Dweck

that

&

of

the

1978)

is

invokes
bad

However,

there
17

of

NLD)

were
or

children.

boys d i d d i f f e r ,

180

This

reported

a b i l i t y ) for

numbers of m a s t e r y - o r i e n t e d (13 LD;

LD and NLD

academic

the p a r t

(Abramson et a l . ,

g l o b a l causes ( i . e . ,

i n t h i s study

h e l p l e s s - o r i e n t e d (11 LD;

task

the p a r t

central prediction

events tend to become depressed when bad

counterintuitively,

generally

Dweck,

have an explanatory

and

luck,

f o r f a i l u r e on
1980),

c h i l d r e n (Diener

Recall

boys

attribution questionnaire).

a s c r i p t i o n of l a c k of a b i l i t y

children

bad

NLD

in a t t r i b u t i o n s for

i s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the l i t e r a t u r e which has

greater

and

however,

in

the

emphasis

placed

upon

willing

to a s c r i b e

Dweck and
have

"effort."

her

were

significantly

c o l l e a g u e s (Dweck,

1975;

that w i l l i n g n e s s

lack

r e f l e c t s an

of e f f o r t .

to a t t r i b u t e f a i l u r e

acknowledgement of

which the LD

c h i l d may

not

more

Dweck & Reppucci,

p e r s e v e r e i n the f a c e of d i f f i c u l t y . An

effort

something
NLD

boys

of e f f o r t i s a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of m a s t e r y - o r i e n t e d

c h i l d r e n who
to

NLD

academic f a i l u r e to t h e i r own

demonstrated

lack

The

1973)
to

children,

attribution

"personal

control,"

endorse as r e a d i l y as

the

child.
In a r e c e n t l y

the c a u s a l
causal

p u b l i s h e d study,

a t t r i b u t i o n s of LD

attributions

and

through

L i c h t et a l .
NLD

an EAX

(1985) examined

boys and

girls.

(Effort

vs.

Measuring

Ability

vs.

E x t e r n a l ) S c a l e ( m o d i f i e d from the s c a l e used by N i c h o l l s ,

and

P e a r l , 1982), the authors ( L i c h t et a l . , 1985)

comparison w i t h NLD

boys,

LD

external
NLD

factors.

However,

boys in the extent

insufficient

the LD

and

to which they a t t r i b u t e d

ability.

Thus,

the

to

more l i k e l y

boys d i d not

1979,

found that

boys were l e s s l i k e l y

t h e i r f a i l u r e s to i n s u f f i c i e n t e f f o r t ,

to

to blame

differ

from

their

failures

f i n d i n g s of

measuring instruments f o r tapping c a u s a l

Post-Task
pertains

Attributions.

this

showed

unique part

(failure) situation.

differences
that

" e f f o r t " and

both LD

in a t t r i b u t i o n
and

"ability"

NLD

of

this

actual

There were
patterns,

boys a s c r i b e d

study
the

dissertation

easy
no

(success)
significant

overall.

Results

greater c a u s a l i t y

in the s u c c e s s (easy) c o n d i t i o n ,

181

the

attributions differed.

to LD/NLD a t t r i b u t i o n s a f t e r an

difficult

group

The

in

attribute

correspond w i t h the L i c h t et a l . (1985) r e s u l t s , even though

or

to
most

adaptive
due

pattern.

There was demonstrated a s i g n i f i c a n t

to e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n ,

effectiveness

of

the

thus p r o v i d i n g

success/failure

effect

evidence f o r the

or

easy/difficult

manipulation.
In

addition,

there

was an i n t e r e s t i n g group

i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t f o r " l u c k " where,

NLD c h i l d r e n made g r e a t e r
the

difficult

attribution
suggested
causal

luck.

i n the easy c o n d i t i o n , the

the LD c h i l d r e n made g r e a t e r

T h i s appears to be c o n t r a r y
For example,

i n most

of m a s t e r y - o r i e n t e d s u b j e c t s

in failure situations.

not

Helpless

(Dweck & Reppucci,

i s wise to r e c a l l

that

a r e to

1973). However, here

i n t h i s study

differentiated

by

Generally,

(such

again,

the LD and NLD s u b j e c t s

the

Dweck

mastery-

There were f a i r l y

information

f o r a t t r i b u t i o n to l u c k ,

pattern

outcomes.

(although

NLD =

17

For example, f l i p p i n g a c o i n , or drawing

will

logically

a s c r i p t i o n s f o r both s u c c e s s and f a i l u r e .

generally,

each

boys).

p l a y i n g c a r d from a s h u f f l e d deck,

of

do

the most s a l i e n t cue f o r luck a t t r i b u t i o n s i s the

s t r u c t u r e of the task.

luck

their

numbers of m a s t e r y - o r i e n t e d and h e l p l e s s boys w i t h i n

m a s t e r y - o r i e n t e d and 13 h e l p l e s s

is

studies,

group (LD = 13 m a s t e r y - o r i e n t e d and 11 h e l p l e s s boys;

what

subjects generally

o r i e n t a t i o n / h e l p l e s s n e s s - o r i e n t a t i o n measure.
equal

to

external

i n s u c c e s s s i t u a t i o n s , and to changeable f a c t o r s

the r e v e r s e

were

condition

e x t e r n a l a t t r i b u t i o n to l u c k , w h i l e i n

the l i t e r a t u r e .

attributions

as l u c k )

it

to
by

abilities

just

condition,

by

can

The more

i s the c a u s a l

be a m i s p e r c e p t i o n
182

factor

of a

in

valid

comes from

Independence and randomness of

i n d i c a t e that luck
there

however,

result

the

outcome,

responsible

chance

task

as

skill-determined).

Unique

attributions,

f i n d i n g money on

e.g.,

failure

after

Feather

&

s e r i e s of

Simon,

administered

only one

may

time,

also

yield

the s t r e e t or

successes

1971b).

as a unique event.
the

events

(e.g.,

luck

experiencing

Feather,

The

experimental

may

a c c u r a t e l y have been

1969;

task, as

[ P a r e n t h e t i c a l l y , i t should

it

was

perceived

be r e c a l l e d

that

LD boys gave g r e a t e r a s c r i p t i o n s to " l u c k " f o r both w i n n i n g

and

l o s i n g a b a s e b a l l game,

during

the a t t r i b u t i o n r a t i n g s c a l e

training.]
It

seems

chance

in

that the NLD

the

experimental

condition, while

greater,

motivated

to

accept

given

luck a s c r i p t i o n s i n the d i f f i c u l t

Objectively,

the

boys

c l e a r e s t f i n d i n g of what appears to

be

i s that i n d i v i d u a l s are

prone

f o r s u c c e s s w h i l e p l a c i n g the blame f o r f a i l u r e

there

the experimental

chosen

(success)

error in a t t r i b u t i o n

credit

easy

of

c o n d i t i o n as

on an e x t e r n a l cause (e.g., M i l l e r , 1976;

in

the

( f a i l u r e ) c o n d i t i o n . Perhaps the LD

means of s a v i n g f a c e . The
a

task

element

the LD boys p e r c e i v e d a g r e a t e r c o n t r i b u t i o n of

chance i n the d i f f i c u l t
made

boys p e r c e i v e d a g r e a t e r

was

the s l i g h t e s t element of chance

was

to m a n i p u l a t e s u c c e s s / f a i l u r e but w i t h an allowance

for

Insoluble
arbitrary,
possibility

of success

anagrams,
and
of

randomly a s s i g n e d

The

& Ross, 1975).

v i s u a l c l o s u r e type of task

possibility

task.

only

Miller

under both experimental

f o r example,

i t was
success

seemed too m a n i p u l a t i v e

d e s i r e d that the c h i l d r e n p e r c e i v e
under e i t h e r

condition.

to the easy c o n d i t i o n succeeded;

the LD s u b j e c t s and

one

conditions.

of the NLD

183

and
some

All

children

and

three of

subjects o r i g i n a l l y

assigned

to

the

"difficult"

experimental

task,

experimental

condition

managed

succeed

on

the

thereby ending up i n the "success" or "easy"

condition.

So

while

the

cards

"stacked

a g a i n s t them" i n the d i f f i c u l t

remained

some o u t s i d e chance of s u c c e s s .

experimental

to

manipulation

was

were

condition,
[Pilot

c a r r i e d out

literally
there

also

t e s t i n g of the

before

the

study

began.]
Subjective

task d i f f i c u l t y

is,

in part,

a f u n c t i o n of

p e r c e i v e d performance of other i n d i v i d u a l s at the t a s k .

other

i n d i v i d u a l s succeed,

succeed,
a

key

then
cue

then

the task i s "easy;"

the

I f many

but i f few

i t i s " d i f f i c u l t . " Thus, consensus i n f o r m a t i o n i s

in i n f e r r i n g d i f f i c u l t y .

But

in

this

study,

no

i n f o r m a t i o n was given r e g a r d i n g the performance of o t h e r s on the

experimental

task.

experimental
"Some

In

giving

instructions

for

board game, the c o n f e d e r a t e experimenter

of the c a r d s you w i l l

difficult,

the

f i n d easy,

the

said only:

and o t h e r s may be

more

but they a r e a l l p i c t u r e s or s i l h o u e t t e s of o r d i n a r y

things."
The

easy/difficult

task

attribution

revealed

differences.

Indeed, the mean a t t r i b u t i o n

the d i f f i c u l t

or f a i l u r e c o n d i t i o n was i d e n t i c a l

NLD s u b j e c t s .
deliberately

and

painstakingly

chosen

find

which would not d i f f e r e n t i a l l y

s t u d e n t : the r e s u l t s suggest
While

in

f o r both LD and

T h i s f i n d i n g was h e a r t e n i n g i n that the task

f o r both LD and NLD s u b j e c t s .

task

group

to task d i f f i c u l t y

easy/difficult
a

no

to

be

equally

The d e s i r e was
penalize

was

the

to
LD

that t h i s was indeed the c a s e .

the two groups (LD/NLD) were not d i f f e r e n t i a t e r f c f i

the

Dweck m a s t e r y - o r i e n t a t i o n v e r s u s h e l p l e s s n e s s measure, they were

184

d i f f e r e n t i a t e d on the I
Responsibility
accepted
than

Scale

measure of the I n t e l l e c t u a l Achievement

(Crandall

f a r l e s s c r e d i t or r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

d i d the NLD boys.

the

LD

and

for positive

greater causal

events
that

ascriptions
the

measures p r o v i d e e v i d e n c e of a sense of l a c k of

1981)

boys

to
pre

task a t t r i b u t i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e . The r e s u l t s of both

c o n t r o l or s e l f - e f f i c a c y

LD

LD

"ease of the task" ( e x t e r n a l f a c t o r s ) on

experimental
these

The

T h i s corresponds w i t h the f i n d i n g

boys gave s i g n i f i c a n t l y

"luck"

et a l . , 1965).

(e.g.,

Bandura,

1977;

1981;

personal
Schunk,

r e g a r d i n g p o s i t i v e outcomes or events on the p a r t of

the

children.
The

two groups d i d not d i f f e r

i n a s c r i p t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

f o r n e g a t i v e events, I , or on the T o t a l
s c o r e s f o r both p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e
Thus,

the

attributions

LD

for

and

NLD

groups

"success"

I s c o r e , which combines

events.
differed

than f o r " f a i l u r e . "

a t t r i b u t e d s u c c e s s on the p r e - e x p e r i m e n t a l
"luck"
NLD

on

The

boys;

and

boys.

they

attributed

their
LD

boys

task q u e s t i o n n a i r e to

and "ease of the task" s i g n i f i c a n t l y more than

(attribution
NLD

more

winning

the

d i d the

baseball

game

r a t i n g s c a l e t r a i n i n g ) to " l u c k " more than d i d the

As L i c h t

(1983) has remarked:

however,

that

when

examined

separately,

external

attributions

" I t has

e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r s u c c e s s and
the

tendency

f o r LD

o c c u r s p r i m a r i l y when

s u c c e s s e s (Boersma & Chapman,

1981;

been

noted,

failure

children

to

explaining

Chapman & Boersma,

are
make
their

1979b;

P e a r l et a l . , 1980; . . . ) . "
The

LD boys i n t h i s study,

on both the pre-experimental

185

and

post-experimental
failure

to

"lack

( e .g ., P e a r l
subject
have

a t t r i b u t i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , d i d not
l<f a b i l i t y , "

et a l . , 1980).

population

used

both

( e .g .,

Boersma & Chapman,

Pashley,
reported

&

1982).

Boersma,
Butkowsky

studies

I t i s u n l i k e l y that t h i s i s due to

r e s e a r c h has

in

1978;

used
1981;

1979(a);
and

Canadian

of

the

& Willows,

1978;

W i l l o w s (1980),

area

populations

Butkowsky

Kuiper,

this

Much

Thomas

for

that poor r e a d e r s d i s p l a y e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

of l e a r n e d h e l p l e s s n e s s ,
of

reported

American and Canadian s u b j e c t s .

helplessness

Chapman

other

differences since researchers

learned

1980;

as i n

attribute

&

example,

indicative

i . e . , a t t r i b u t i o n s of f a i l u r e s to l a c k

ability.
Ability

i n f e r e n c e s a r e p r i m a r i l y determined

about the p a s t .

Repeated s u c c e s s

whether an i n d i v i d u a l
label

students

are

performance.
little,

notorious
On

while

some

inconsistency
ascribe

good

inferences.

for their
days

on other

in relation

of the t a s k ) . T h e r e f o r e ,

cue f o r a b i l i t y

teachers by producing

there

1958, gave the

"can" to one's p e r c e i v e d l e v e l of a b i l i t y

important

consistency i s

and

an LD c h i l d w i l l

days he or she w i l l

inconsistent

accomplish

to

causes other

very

astound

classroom

schoolwork.

Thus, the

of o v e r a l l performance may l e a d the LD

failure

to

But l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d

variable

q u i t e praiseworthy

information

i n p a r t , suggests

"can" or "cannot" ( H e i d e r ,

the p e r c e i v e d d i f f i c u l t y
an

or f a i l u r e ,

by

than l a c k of

child

ability,

a r e some o c c a s i o n s when s c h o o l performance

to

since

demonstrates

ability.

Regarding

effort

attributions,

performance or outcome i n f o r m a t i o n
186

individuals

generally

to i n f e r how hard

they

use

tried,

even i n chance s i t u a t i o n s ( e . g . ,
1970).

One

Kukla,

1972;

Weiner &

a t t r i b u t i o n a l e x p l a n a t i o n of t h i s p e r c e p t i o n

misperception)

is

that,

in

one's l i f e ,

individual

i n f e r s the presence of e f f o r t , w h i l e given a

1980).
NLD

individual

In t h i s r e g a r d ,

boys.

success

Given

to

condition,

positive

outcome,

the LD boys were no d i f f e r e n t

effort,

but given

the

an

negative
(Weiner,
from

they

difficult

a s c r i b e d a l e s s e r r o l e to

(or

outcome

i n f e r s the absence of e f f o r t

the easy ( s u c c e s s ) c o n d i t i o n ,

good
they

given

and

covary.

the

Therefore,

effort

generally

outcome,

Kukla,

the

ascribed
(failure)

effort.

Pre-. Post-Measure D i f f e r e n c e s
It

had

chapter,

been hoped,
that

heuristic
and

NLD

which

the

s e l e c t e d pre-,

most

R e s u l t s of t h i s study

differentiated

Recall"

(on

Serial

prove

Das

et

of

showed that the

the LD and NLD

tasks (see Das

R e c a l l task has been found

"successive factor"
1980;

Method

might

children

both p r e - and post-measures)

Naming" (post-measure o n l y )
The

post-measures

the

f o r f u t u r e s t u d i e s comparing the performances

children.

"Serial

as o u t l i n e d in Chapter IV,

tasks

were

and

Das,

Leong,

the

"Color

et a l . , 1979).
to

contribute

to

i n many f a c t o r a n a l y t i c s t u d i e s (e.g.,

al.', ' 1975;

LD

&

Williams,

Das,
1978).

S u c c e s s i v e s y n t h e s i s i s a form of i n f o r m a t i o n o r g a n i z a t i o n which
does

not

permit

elements to one

analysis

another.

of

the

Instead,

relationship

information

temporal,

sequence-dependent

acquisition

to i n d i v i d u a l elements (see Das

Successive

fashion,

multiple

i s organized

with

only

in a

limited

et a l . , 1979).

s y n t h e s i s i s seen as a f u n c t i o n of
187

of

the

anterior

(fronto-temporal)

regions.

temporal

regions

have

inability

"...to

into
125,

Duffy

serially

i n the

subjects'

d i s c r e t e regions
and

been r e p o r t e d

organized

to r e s u l t

general

acoustic stimuli

groups ( L u r i a ,

1966b,

p.

t o p o g r a p h i c a l l y mapped

brain e l e c t r i c a l

activity,

of d i f f e r e n c e between the two

their

disclosed

four

groups ( d y s l e x i c s

n o r m a l s ) , i n v o l v i n g both c e r e b r a l hemispheres, the l e f t more

than the r i g h t .
to

Aberrant d y s l e x i c p h y s i o l o g y

a s i n g l e l o c u s but was

generally

involved

more expected l e f t
They

in reading

and

speech.

temporal and

left

from

EEG

further

anterior region,
data.

Ongoing and

illuminate

the

not

restricted

provided

in addition

group
to

the

regions.

unexplored i n d y s l e x i a ,

the best

future research

neurological

region

Conspicuous

p o s t e r i o r quadrant

noted a l s o that an area p r e v i o u s l y

the l e f t

was

found i n much of the c o r t i c a l

d i f f e r e n c e s were noted i n the b i f r o n t a l area

in

in

fronto-

original)."

et a l . (1980a; 1980b), who

dyslexic

i n the f r o n t a l and

i n t e g r a t e i n d i v i d u a l motor and

successive.
italics

Lesions

features
will

correlates

derived

undoubtedly
of

learning

disabilities.
The

Color

o u t l i n e d by Das
contribute
(e.g.,

One
the

et a l .

taps a "speed of

(1979).

processing"

Color Naming has

et a l . , 1975;
unrelated

can

Das

et a l . , 1978). [The

factor

been found

to a "speed" f a c t o r i n many f a c t o r a n a l y t i c

Das

generally

Naming task

studies

speed f a c t o r i s

to the s i m u l t a n e o u s - s u c c e s s i v e

.tests.]

gain an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h i s Stroop-type task

thorough review a r t i c l e by Jensen and

These r e v i e w e r s found that

Rohwer,

the most b a s i c of

188

to

from

Jr.

(1966).

the Stroop

factors

is

probably

the speed f a c t o r or

and M e l l i n g e r
readers
faster

"personal

( s u b j e c t s were 46 c o l l e g e freshmen) were

Jensen and

Rohwer,

significant
individual

Jr.

(1966,

improvement
differences

in

p.

52)

color

naming

lateralization;
deprivation
physiological
dysfunction
the
it

lag;

Whishaw,

is

brain dysfunction

r e s u l t s from d e f e c t i v e

argued

that

than

conclusion

Firstly,

Douglas

Firestone

require

"arousal

o t h e r s (e.g.,
and Minde,

to

r e g i o n would

1975)

have found

that

the

that

the

to p a r t i c u l a r

missing

stimuli

dysfunction.
sources.

Douglas,

1976;

Campbell

tasks which

which

ignoring

Cohen, Weiss,

reaction-time

(see

189

while

Test;

the c h i l d r e n to have slower mean r e a c t i o n

On

or

learning-disabled

show

1971).

Since

structures,

continuous-performance t e s t s

In a s i m i l a r f a s h i o n ,

et a l . ,

of

principal

Stroop Color-Word I n t e r f e r e n c e

1972).

view

were

(e.g.,

on

cerebral

environmental

subcortical

colleagues

react

the

c i t e d as

mechanisms."

her

have d i f f i c u l t y
them

(e)

One

been deduced from two

and

remarkably

hypothesis holds

specific cortical

& Douglas,

children

and

i f the s u b c o r t i c a l input

has

show

abnormal

1980).

neocortex i s normally a c t i v a t e d by

abnormal,
This

or

&

practice,

(a) s t r u c t u r a l damage;

(c)

maturational

(Kolb

the

with

f a c t o r s are most f r e q u e n t l y

dysfunction;

(d)

"Despite

stage."

major n e u r o l o g i c a l

physiological

And

Ss m a i n t a i n p r e t t y much

p o s s i b l e causes of l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s :
(b)

readers.

s t a t e that

i n c o l o r naming speed

same rank order at every

significantly

than were slow

i n t e r a c t i o n with p r a c t i c e ;

Five

Thurstone

(1953) c a l l e d i t . Thurstone (1944) found that f a s t

at c o l o r naming (p_ < .05)

little

tempo," as

studies

times to s i g n a l s
involve

visual

searching,

where

alternatives
(e.g.,

the

for

Matching

learning
making

child

i s asked

to s e a r c h

picture identical

to

Familiar Figures Test;

disabled

children

choose

tasks

activation.
indeed

result

Douglas

found

that performance

interference
(viz.

stimulants

66) had r e p o r t e d e a r l i e r

improve

LSD)

and

1964),

quickly,

who

perform

the d e f i c i t s on
inadequate

these

cerebral

these forementioned

(see Cohen et a l . , 1971).

the

cerebral

on

caffeine

drugs

al.,

and s e v e r a l of her d o c t o r a l s t u d e n t s

with

p.

picture

children,

from some form of

improved

(1966,

standard

impulsively

more s l o w l y . Douglas (1976) c o n c l u d e s that

of

several

Kagan et

many more e r r o r s than do normal

types

among

performance
measures,

such

as

Jensen

is

and

and

Rohwer,

Jr.

that "In g e n e r a l , s t i m u l a n t

on a l l Stroop

cards

have the o p p o s i t e e f f e c t . " R e c a l l

(VER)

tests

amphetamine

w h i l e d e p r e s s a n t s and

v i s u a l - e v o k e d responses

have

and

decrease

psychotomimetics
that,

in general,

of MBD/SLD c h i l d r e n have been

r e p o r t e d as immature,

demonstrating

amplitudes, resembling

the responses of younger normal c h i l d r e n .

Given

that

longer l a t e n c i e s and

l a t e n c i e s presumably r e f l e c t

processing,

of

mental

and given that l a t e n c i e s decrease w i t h age,

longer

l a t e n c i e s r e p r e s e n t immature responses
In any
LD

and

speed

case,
NLD

of

perhaps

speed

(Accardo, 1980).

the s i g n i f i c a n t

d i f f e r e n c e between

groups on a task such as C o l o r Naming,

mental

p r o c e s s i n g or " p e r s o n a l

Mellinger,

1953),

that

children

such

the

larger

should

to r e a c t

190

require extra

to i t .

taps

(Thurstone

i n d i c a t e to t e a c h e r s of LD

legitimately

p r o c e s s i n f o r m a t i o n and

tempo"

which

the

time

&

children
to

both

Supplementary I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s

Regarding

P r e - , and Post-Measures.

I n t e r e s t i n g d i f f e r e n c e s on the p r e - , post-measures were noted

when

comparison

subjects",

and

was made of " a l l h e l p l e s s

a l l h e l p l e s s LD and NLD c h i l d r e n d i f f e r e d

only

two of the pre-measures,

F

versus

" a l l m a s t e r y - o r i e n t e d LD v e r s u s NLD

The

39.15;

LD

(1,22) = 4.52,

subjects."

significantly

Free R e c a l l 1 (LD = 34.18;

p_ < .04),

NLD

and S e r i a l

on

NLD =

R e c a l l 1 (LD

28.73; NLD = 35.85; F (1,22) = 6.32, p_ < .02) and on none of the
post-measures.
The

a l l mastery-oriented

differed

significantly

following)
(LD

and

a l l six

NLD

children,

pre-measures

NLD = 11.18;

R e c a l l 1 (LD = 36.08;

F (1,

NLD = 40.12;

28) = 5.72,

however,

(immediately

and on three post-measures (see T a b l e 6.1):

= 10.31;

Serial

on

LD

Raven

p_ < .02);

Free

F ( 1 , 28) = 9.94, p_ < .01);

R e c a l l 1 (LD = 31.85; NLD = 37.24; F ( 1 , 28) = 12.46, p_ <

.01); C o l o r Naming 1 (LD = 33.31; NLD = 28.47; F ( 1 , 28) = 4.79,

p_ < .04); I d e a t i o n a l
= 5.83,
16.17,

p_ < .02);
p_ < .01).

also d i f f e r e d

Fluency 1 (LD = 5.38; NLD = 9.29; F ( 1 , 28)

Aim 1 (LD = 10.31;

NLD = 15.76; F ( 1 , 28) =

The a l l m a s t e r y - o r i e n t e d LD and NLD

on three post-measures (see T a b l e 6.1).

191

children

Table

6.1.

Means

and

Standard D e v i a t i o n s

of

" A l l Mastery-

Q-jented LD v e r s u s NLD C h i l d r e n " on T h r e e Post-Measures.

Ccilor Naming 2
"i.

Mastery LD

Mastery NLD

ij*

Easy C o n d i t i o n

32.00 (5.57)

27.00 (6.23)

Difficult

31.60

26.40:(3.47)

Condition

Main e f f e c t

(6.11)

f o r Group, F (1, 20) = 5.06, p_ < .04.

I d e a t i o n a l Fluency

2
Mastery LD

Mastery NLD

Easy Condi t i o n

4.00

(5.29)

10.17

(5.04)

Difficult

3.60

(2.41)

8.50

(5.15)

Condition

Main e f f e c t

f o r Group, F (1, 20) = 6.89, p_ < .02.

Aim 2
Mastery LD
Easy C o n d i t i o n
Difficult

Condition

Main e f f e c t

Mastery NLD

16.00

(1.73)

12.83

(3.76)

9.60

(3.21)

18.80

(2.10)

f o r Group, F (1, 20) = 5.77, p_ < .03.

Group x C o n d i t i o n

interaction,

F ( 1 , 20) = 24.25, p_ < .01

192

From

this

"helpless"

data,

it

orientation

appears

are

t a s k s r e q u i r i n g sequencing
When

comparing

significant
measures,
measures
verbal

on

dexterity

those

two

found on a l l

of

children,

the
The

six

pre-

three

post-

of mental p r o c e s s i n g ( a l l three t a s k s ) ,

(Ideational

Fluency

2),

and

visual

motor

(Aim 2 ) .

helpless

LO

s u b j e c t s o n l y , who

(n. = 11) v e r s u s m a s t e r y - o r i e n t e d

d i f f e r e n c e s arose on

when

have

or s u c c e s s i v e p r o c e s s i n g .

three of the post-measures.

In a n a l y z i n g data from

no

who

d i f f e r e n t i a t e d only on

were

i n v o l v e d speed
fluency

children

a l l " m a s t e r y - o r i e n t e d " LD and NLD

differences
and

that

analyzing

helpless

data

the p r e - ,

from

NLD

or

are d i v i d e d

(n, = 13)

categories,

post-measures.

subjects

(n. = 13) v e r s u s m a s t e r y - o r i e n t e d

only,

into

However,

divided

(n, = 17)

into

categories,

d i f f e r e n c e s were noted on

the pre-measure, Aim

1 ( h e l p l e s s NLD

11.15;

NLD

28) = 14.39,

.01),

mastery-oriented
and

on

m a s t e r y - o r i e n t e d NLD

and Aim

2 ( h e l p l e s s NLD

28)

= 5.05,

processing

or

beyond

the

specifically
attributional
may

= 12.92; m a s t e r y - o r i e n t e d NLD

"reaction

general,

"helplessness

= 26.59; F (1, 28) = 4.47,

p_ <

time"

with

affected

by

.04)

of mental

helpless

subjects.
analyses

orientation"
scope

is

p_ <

= 16.24; F

p_ < .03). It would appear that speed

o r i e n t a t i o n f o r NLD
In

F (1,

the post-measures C o l o r Naming 2 ( h e l p l e s s NLD

30.08;

(1,

= 15.76;

of

this

and

interpretations

versus

"mastery

dissertation,

orientation"
which

comparisons between LD and NLD

style.

However,

these few

according

deals

i n s p i r e f u t u r e r e s e a r c h i n the area of h e l p l e s s n e s s
193

are
more

students

forementioned

to

in

results
versus

mastery-orientation.
Bannatyne's R e c a t e g o r i z a t i o n
For

LD

subjects,

of WISC-R Scores

Bannatyne's

Spatial>Conceptual>Sequential
pattern

Moreover,

Ryckman's and E l r o d ' s

which

required

Sequential
Elrod

the LD s u b j e c t s

be 10 or more lower than S p a t i a l .

Bannatyne's r e c a t e g o r i z a t i o n paradigm.

Elrod,

1983) f e l t

The

LD

clarify
and

differentiated
categories

that

NLD groups i n t h i s
on

(NLD s c o r e s were higher

the

and that

Design,

and Object Assembly.

subject

sample of 98 s u b j e c t s

Acquired

f o r a l l c a t e g o r i e s ) , but were
Remember,
matched

though,

on

(44 LD;

Block

b e f o r e matching, w i t h a
54 NLD),

the two

d i f f e r e n t i a t e d on a l l c a t e g o r i e s ,

the S p a t i a l category beyond the alpha

WISC-R

i s composed

- P i c t u r e Completion,

[Indeed,

194

&

variation

and

the S p a t i a l category

of three performance s c a l e s u b t e s t s

children

significantly

Sequential,

LD and NLD groups were i n i t i a l l y

significantly

LD

and

They (Ryckman

were

d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by the S p a t i a l c a t e g o r y .

performance s c a l e IQ,

were

[The Ryckman

and r e m e d i a t i o n . ]

study

the C o n c e p t u a l ,

also

dyslexia,"

that r e c o g n i t i o n of such i n t r a g r o u p
i s s u e s of d i a g n o s i s

of

than Conceptual and that

(1983) study demonstrated f i v e subgroups of

would help

This

description

(1983) subgroup of " g e n e t i c

that S p a t i a l be g r e a t e r

of

study.

i n t h i s study

within

not

pattern

was upheld i n t h i s

i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h Bannatyne's (1971)

genetic dyslexia.
fit

hypothesized

= .01 l e v e l . ]

groups

including

Expectancies for Self

There

were

"expectancy

no

differences

between

LD

and

f o r s e l f , " p r e - t a s k . However, group

revealed in post-task self-expectancy r a t i n g s .

across conditions,
post-task

rating

expected to do b e t t e r .
scale,

self-expectancy

ratings

self-expectancy

ratings

typical
after

both LD and NLD

i n the "easy"
in

the

s h i f t s i n expectancy,
s u c c e s s and decrements

result

(Weiner

perceived

et a l . , 1376).

ability

children

to

gave

condition,

future

good

ability

expectancy

have been found to

to

or p e r c e i v e d e a s i n e s s or d i f f i c u l t y

of

the

than l u c k - d e t e r m i n e d s e t t i n g s ) .

high a b i l i t y

expectancy
ascribed

to
of

to

stable
be

(McMahan,

or

Such

may

or to the ease of the task

s u c c e s s at that

luck

lower

condition.

increments i n

the

higher

and

found to l e a d to g r e a t e r increments i n the s u b j e c t i v e

of

on

These s t a b l e f a c t o r s

( i n s k i l l - rather

ascribed

children,

In a d d i t i o n ,

failure,

in

d i f f e r e n c e s were

from a t t r i b u t i o n or a s c r i p t i o n of an outcome

factors

task

after

boys

The LD

"difficult"

i.e.,

NLD

the
future

1373).

task than does s u c c e s s

As w e l l ,

difficulty

of

Success
has

expectancy

ascribed

f a i l u r e a s c r i b e d to
the

task

decreases

goal attainment more than

bad l u c k or to a l a c k of e f f o r t

been

does

(Valle

to
low
the

failure

&

Frieze,

1376).
Overall,
NLD

the LD youngsters expected to do b e t t e r

youngsters.

expectancy,

Both groups d i s p l a y e d

than d i d the
in

self-

i . e . , increments a f t e r s u c c e s s , and decrements

after

failure.

195

typical shifts

E x p e c t a n c i e s f o r Other
On
for

the "expectancy

for other," pre-taskj

the LD c h i l d r e n ,

compared to the NLD

b e t t e r performance f o r "another

children,

to

expect
for

o t h e r , " p o s t - t a s k , r e g a r d l e s s of c o n d i t i o n , the LD c h i l d r e n

gave

NLD

expectancy

And,

a trend

f o r "expectancy

higher

boy."

there was

of s u c c e s s r a t i n g s f o r "other" than d i d

the

children.
Both

for

LD and NLD

c h i l d r e n had a higher p o s t - t a s k

o t h e r " i n the easy

"expectancy

experimental c o n d i t i o n .

C h i l d Behavior C o r r e l a t e s
Examination
lead

to

the

of the C h i l d Behavior

c o n c l u s i o n that the LD and NLD

significantly

different

Achenbach and Edelbrock

report

items,

school

the

(CBCL)
boys

results

are

scales.
(1981) r e p o r t e d that among the s o c i a l

open-ended item r e q u e s t i n g

parents

problems showed the l a r g e s t e f f e c t s of

w i t h other items t a p p i n g s c h o o l f u n c t i o n i n g and

behavior

a l s o showing l a r g e e f f e c t s of c l i n i c a l

e f f e c t s than any

items. In t h i s study,
LD

and

NLD

of t h e i r

boys on a l l the forementioned

competence

individual

there were s i g n i f i c a n t

component

d i f f e r e n c e s between
scores.

There

group d i f f e r e n c e s at the a l p h a = .01 l e v e l f o r S o c i a l

School,

and

difference
Social

at

scale.

Social

Competence

Total

Score;

and

the alpha = .02 l e v e l f o r the S o c i a l

(There was

no s i g n i f i c a n t

196

social

s t a t u s . However,

the t o t a l s c o r e s f o r behavior problems and f o r s o c i a l

larger

to

clinical

status,

showed

indeed

i n a number of competency areas and on a

number of behavior problem

competence

Checklist

difference,

were

Competence
a

group

Competence
however,

between

the LD and NLD

scale.)
fact
the

The

boys on

the S o c i a l Competence A c t i v i t i e s

reader s h o u l d n e v e r t h e l e s s a l s o keep i n

that the LD boys' s c o r e s on both

those

of

l e v e l ) . The

significantly

different

Achenbach's c l i n i c p o p u l a t i o n ( a t a l p h a

LD c h i l d r e n had s i g n i f i c a n t l y

S o c i a l Competence A c t i v i t i e s ,

the

the competency s c a l e s and

behavior problem s c a l e s were a l s o

from

mind

.01

g r e a t e r competence f o r

S o c i a l Competence S o c i a l ,

and

on

the S o c i a l Competence T o t a l Score. However, the LD c h i l d r e n were

significantly
having

lower

been

behavior

on

chosen a p r i o r i

problem s c a l e s ,

higher (worse) than

Regarding
Edelbrock

the S o c i a l

f o r low r e a d i n g

behavior

problem

"Unhappy,

sad,

"Unhappy,

sad, or depressed,"

scale,

and
study

depressed"

#103,

s c a l e , and

significantly

Achenbach

and

(1981) suggest

c o n t r i b u t e s to two

w h i l e the

the

childhood depression

to

E x t e r n a l i z i n g s c a l e . The
from

the NLD

that the f a c t

level.

that

behavior
and

"Poor

behavior
LD boys i n
of

Internalizing,
Achenbach

"Unhappy,

c u r r e n t upsurge

referral
in

(e.g., S c h u l t e r b r a n d t & Raskin,

197

item

boys on a l l

Hyperactive,

the alpha = .01

the

items

item

Hyperactive

most s t r o n g l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h

justification

the

"Poor s c h o o l work." The

scale,

s c a l e s , Depressed,
at

were

of

the Uncommunicative s c a l e ,

differed significantly

was

groups

c o n t r i b u t e s to

the second-order

Externalizing,

Edelbrock

and

Internalizing

#61,

the forementioned

lends

the

level).

scales,

age/gender

or depressed,"

second-order
work,"

and

across

the Depressed

school

this

On

(1981) have r e p o r t e d that the l a r g e s t main e f f e c t s

status

the

scale,

ability.

the LD group ( a l p h a = .01

the

School

the c l i n i c sample s c o r e d

clinical

scales,

Competence

sad,

and
or

status

concern
1977).

for

In a d d i t i o n to the Depressed, H y p e r a c t i v e , I n t e r n a l i z i n g , and

Externalizing scales,
on

the LD and NLD boys d i f f e r e d

the T o t a l Behavior

Obsessive/Compulsive,
.05

Problem Score

( a l p h a = .01), and on

A g g r e s s i v e , and Delinquent

the

s c a l e s (alpha =

or l e s s ) .
Again,

while
with

it

LD

is

important

NLD

behavior
NLD

to keep i n mind the

boys' s c o r e s a r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y
boys',

their

scores are

compared to a c l i n i c a l l y

higher

fact

when

significantly

that
compared

lower

when

r e f e r r e d p o p u l a t i o n ( a l p h a = .01 on a l l

problem s c a l e s ) .

I t should a l s o be mentioned that

the

boys i n t h i s study were comparable to the n o n r e f e r r e d

used

in

Achenbach's

differences

between

behavior

scales,

of

social

the

children,

norm group.
NLD

were

no

and no s i g n i f i c a n t

of

the

d i f f e r e n c e s on a l l but

one

scales.

Understandably,

the

were s e l e c t e d as s u b j e c t s by the c r i t e r i o n

the S o c i a l Competence School

It s h o u l d be mentioned here

boys

significant

and n o n - c l i n i c groups on any

competency

who

There

r e a d i n g p e r c e n t i l e s c o r e >. 50, had s i g n i f i c a n t l y

on

significantly

higher

NLD

of

scores

scale.
that McConaughy and R i t t e r

(1385)

have r e c e n t l y p u b l i s h e d data on s o c i a l competence and b e h a v i o r a l

problems
their

f o r 123 l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d boys aged 6

subjects

were

psychoeducational
Communication
in

this

youngsters.
were

those

who

assessment

had

been

at the Center

at the U n i v e r s i t y of Vermont,

study

were

"school-identified"

In the McConaughy and R i t t e r

significantly

lower

than

198

- 11.

referred

However,
for

for Disorders
while

a
of

the s u b j e c t s

learning

(1985) study,

the normative samples

disabled
LD boys
in

their

participation
and

in

in a c t i v i t i e s (unlike t h i s dissertation's

their

social

(corresponding
behavior
scores

to

problem
for

involvement

school

t h i s s t u d y ' s LD sample).
scales,

including

and

those

uncommunicativeness,

As

performance
well,

on

the LD boys had s i g n i f i c a n t l y

both " e x t e r n a l i z i n g "

problems,

and

sample),

"internalizing"

related

to

obsessive-compulsive

the

higher

types

of

depression,

behaviors,

social

w i t h d r a w a l , h y p e r a c t i v i t y , a g g r e s s i v e n e s s and d e l i n q u e n c y . These
results

correspond

McConaughy

to

and R i t t e r

differences

on

withdrawal"

the two
(p_

<

additional
.07

(p_

<

except

health c l i n i c s ,

behavior

in

this

.11

in

this

scales,

higher than

to mental

The

total

the t o t a l f o r the NLD

number

control

a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower

than the t o t a l f o r a c l i n i c

The

"school-identified"

boys from

overall,

McConaughy and R i t t e r

than

children,

psychopathology.
LD

children

evaluate

are

study

the " c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d "

group,
group.

seem

less

LD boys of the

(1985) study.

It would appear that LD c h i l d r e n ,

NLD

this

of

however, w h i l e

was

disturbed,

In

behavior d i s t u r b a n c e , i n

(1985) study.

LD

and

w i t h i n what

referred

behavior problems r e p o r t e d i n t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n ,
significantly

"social

dissertation).

range f o r c h i l d r e n

the

significant

dissertation),

suggesting s i g n i f i c a n t

McConaughy and R i t t e r

that

demonstrated

the t o t a l number of behavior problems was

i s c o n s i d e r e d the c l i n i c a l

the

of t h i s study

(1985) r e s u l t s

"uncommunicati veness"
addition,

those

at

as a whole, i n r e l a t i o n

somewhat

greater

risk

to
for

E d u c a t o r s and other p r o f e s s i o n a l s d e a l i n g w i t h

should

LD c h i l d r e n

be aware of t h i s ,

and s h o u l d

attempt

i n p s y c h o l o g i c a l and b e h a v i o r a l
199

areas

to
as

well

as

in

e d u c a t i o n a l ones.

behaviors

outlined

childhood

depression

behavior;
NLD

For

example,

by C o l b e r t et a l .
(e.g.,

several

of

the

(1982) as i n d i c a t i v e

dysphoria;

sadness;

of

aggressive

r e s t l e s s n e s s ) are b e h a v i o r s which d i f f e r e n t i a t e LD

and

children.
At

the

same

time,

s p e c i f i c LD c h i l d ,
not

be

for

example,

factors

to be r e c o g n i z e d

that

for

p e r s o n a l i t y or b e h a v i o r a l f a c t o r s may

particularly

performance.

i t has

r e l e v a n t to

review

in-school

or

low

p o i n t s to the s u b s t a n t i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n of g e n e t i c

i t i s not unusual

self-esteem

hyperactivity,

depressive

disorder.

develop

based upon follow-up

environmental

It
social
means

affective
factors

be

the case

competency and

For

role

that another

a child's

example,

if

into mastery-oriented

" a l l mastery-oriented
are

play

disorder.

Johnson, & Stewart,

Organismic
in

the

significant

variable,

behavioral factors,

understanding

performance.
subdivided

family

as

to

well

as

development

of

disorder.

may

of

and

and/or

Rowe, & Menkes, 1967), are not at a h i g h r i s k

primary

psychiatric

concluded

in c h i l d r e n w i t h l e a r n i n g d i s o r d e r s

such c h i l d r e n ,

Menkes,

Recall

to f i n d d e p r e s s i v e symptoms as w e l l

s t u d i e s of h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n (Mendelson,
1971;

may

depression,

that Weiner (1978), i n r e v i e w i n g c h i l d h o o d d e p r e s s i o n ,

as

or

out-of-school

of the l i t e r a t u r e r e g a r d i n g

i n the e t i o l o g y of major

that w h i l e

any

LD and NLD

the

may

motivation
LD

and

with

provide a better
and
NLD

subsequent
groups

are

versus h e l p l e s s c a t e g o r i e s
c h i l d r e n " are

group d i f f e r e n c e s only f o r

200

together

compared,
Social

and

there

Competence

School

(LD = 3.00;

NLD = 5.18;

( 1 , 28) = 46.38,

T o t a l S o c i a l Competence (LD = 17.50;

11.05,

children"

are

However,

(1,

28) =

compared,

when " a l l h e l p l e s s LD and

there

d i f f e r e n c e s on S o c i a l Competence School

.01),

p_ < .01), and H y p e r a c t i v e (LD = 5.69; NLD = 3.06; ( 1 ,

28) = 4.11 p_ < .03) s c a l e s .

NLD

NLD =21.17,

p_ <

( 1 , 22)

= 51.65,

17.58;

NLD = 20.47;

2.36;

NLD

are

significant

(LD = 3.16;

group

NLD = 5.06;

p. < .01), T o t a l S o c i a l Competence (LD

( 1 , 22) = 4.65, p_ < .04), S c h i z o i d

1.00;

(1,

22)

6.01,

p.

<

(LD =
.02),

Obsessive/Compulsive (LD = 5.45; NLD = 2.00; ( 1 , 22) = 7.72, p.

< .01), Somatic Complaints (LD = 1.54;
6.66,

NLD = .54;

( 1 , 22) =

p_ < .02), H y p e r a c t i v e (LD = 7.09; NLD = 2.23; ( 1 , 22) =

8.92, p_ < .01), and I n t e r n a l i z i n g (LD = 14.82; NLD = 7.54; ( 1 ,

22)

4.31

p_

Internalizing
.03),

<

.05) s c a l e s ,

(LD = 59.27;

as w e l l

NLD = 50.38;

as

on

score f o r

( 1 , 22) = 5.40, p_ <

and T s c o r e f o r E x t e r n a l i z i n g (LD = 58.27; NLD = 48.69;

(1, 22) = 4.21, p_ < .05) .

I n t e r e s t i n g l y , the " a l l m a s t e r y - o r i e n t e d LD and NLD c h i l d r e n "
differed

significantly

on

Achievement R e s p o n s i b i l i t y
(p

<

.05),

of

the I n t e l l e c t u a l

S c a l e (p < .03), on the T o t a l

I scale

with

these

NLD

c h i l d r e n having higher s c o r e s on a l l of

<

But the m a s t e r y - o r i e n t e d LD and NLD c h i l d r e n d i d not

i n a s c r i p t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r n e g a t i v e events,

&

Recall
Dweck,

responsibility
failure

scale

(p

scale.

(Diener

.02), and on the Dweck m a s t e r y / h e l p l e s s n e s s s c o r e

measures.
differ

the I

that

a mastery-oriented c h i l d ,

1978;

1980),

i s one who

by d e f i n i t i o n

accepts

f o r n e g a t i v e events. He i s the c h i l d who

to h i s own l a c k

personal
ascribes

of e f f o r t and who p e r s i s t s i n the

201

the

face

of d i f f i c u l t y . A t t r i b u t i o n
Dweck,
or

(see Dweck, 1975; Diener &

1978; 1980; L i c h t , 1983), which i n v o l v e s e i t h e r

direct

effort,"

instruction

i n a t t r i b u t i n g f a i l u r e s to

thus appears q u i t e

There
Dweck

retraining

however,

"lack

of

justified.

were no group d i f f e r e n c e s

measure,

indirect

for

on the IAR s c a l e s

the

" a l l helpless

or on the

LD

and

NLD

children."
Overall,
reticent

learning

disabled

children

appear

about a c c e p t i n g r e s p o n s i b i l i t y or c r e d i t

events,

even those LD c h i l d r e n

outlined

more than

children

failure

should

to a "lack

s u c c e s s to t h e i r
Affect

NLD

I t was

children,

i n c l u d e both t e a c h i n g
of e f f o r t , "

"good e f f o r t "

such

retraining for

them

to

attribute

and t e a c h i n g them

to

attribute

and " a b i l i t y . "

and Enjoyment of the Task

There
the

positive

s u c c e s s (on a q u e s t i o n n a i r e ) to e x t e r n a l f a c t o r s

as luck and ease of the task. Perhaps a t t r i b u t i o n

LD

for

who a r e m a s t e r y - o r i e n t e d !

beforehand how LD c h i l d r e n ,

attribute

especially

were no d i f f e r e n c e s

LD

task.

and NLD boys e i t h e r

Affect

scores

were

i n r e p o r t e d a f f e c t or mood between
b e f o r e or
not

influenced

membership or experimental c o n d i t i o n .
significant
assigned

differences

to

the

after

condition

measure, taken a f t e r d e b r i e f i n g

by

In a d d i t i o n ,

between LD and NLD

difficult

the

on

experimental
either

there were no

children
the

group

randomly

"last

affect"

and subsequent completion of the

easy e x p e r i m e n t a l task. A l l s u b j e c t s , both LD and NLD, seemed to

thoroughly
expressed

enjoy

their

disappointment

participation

in

the

study.

when the three t e s t i n g s e s s i o n s

202

Many
were

finished.
Children
asked,
this

a f t e r the experimental
game?"

condition

Their

greater

difficult

enjoyment.

had

task,

"How

condition,
the

the LD
LD

was

children's
especially
Recent

significant

children

feeling
during

research

during

states during

the

Or

this
the

study

shown,

for

a f f e c t i v e s t a t e s enhance l e a r n i n g ,

task)

and

s t a t e s were s t r o n g l y

accuracy

influenced

of

children's

(Masters & Furman, 1976;

that

simply

& Ross, 1975).

monitor

sessions,

that

positive

while negative states

retard

n e g a t i v e expressed

learning,

and

negative

(i.e.,

Masters and

M a s t e r s et a l . , 1979)

states

the r a p i d i t y

his

colleagues

have demonstrated

c h i l d r e n have the p o t e n t i a l

for

the

t h e i r own

and

"the

cognitive

s e l f - c o n t r o l of

e f f e c t s on

l e a r n i n g i n d i c a t e that even t r a n s i e n t mood s t a t e s

produce

the

a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the o v e r a l l r a t e

reported).

young nursery s c h o o l

session.

example,

the speed of c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s i n g

w i t h which a s o l u t i o n was

by

they have

testing

l e a r n i n g (Masters et a l . , 1979). P o s i t i v e and

affective

greater

upset

to

three

t h i r d (experimental
has

w h i l e in

t h i s r e s u l t may
Miller

by

children

in general,

b i a s ( M i l l e r , 1976;

measured

the NLD

less

find

group

expressed

were

f a i l u r e e x p e r i e n c e because,

a motivational

Affect

children

were

e n j o y a b l e d i d you

the experimental task,

more exposure to f a i l u r e events.

reflect

conditions

In the easy c o n d i t i o n ,

enjoyment of

Perhaps

(contrived)

the d i f f i c u l t

responses r e v e a l e d

interaction.

expressed
the

i n both the easy and

l a s t i n g changes i n behavior

380).

203

affective states,

(Masters et a l . ,

1979,

may
p.

...The i n f l u e n c e of a f f e c t i v e v a r i a b l e s on
at

effortful

behavior

effects,

if

the

valence,

such

may

be

variables

as

(Masters & Santrock,

mediated

are

of

by

persistence
reinforcement

positive

f a v o r a b l e or u n f a v o r a b l e

or

negative

self-evaluation

1976) and i f they a r e consequent

to the

e f f o r t f u l b e h a v i o r . There i s some evidence, however, that the

impact
may

of s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s and t h e i r emotional

affect

learning

mechanisms
occur

in

Furman,

through

&

Barden,

of

1977).

contingent

relationship

performance,

learning,

processes

i n c e n t i v e or other

that a r e not consequent

anticipation

but

concomitants

to l e a r n i n g but

intellectual
Thus,
to

motivational

mood

mastery
states

performance

through m o t i v a t i o n a l

or

(Masters,
bearing

may

or mastery not through

actually

no

affect

reinforcement

arousal

components

(Masters, Barden, & Ford, 1979, pp. 380 - 381).

Weiner
examining

(1983)
the

and

colleagues are also

r o l e of a f f e c t

in

the

process

achievement-related

(e.g., Weiner, R u s s e l l , & Lerman, 1978).

204

in

of

behavior

Implications
In recent
Licht,

years,

1983;

chain

of

reason

Thomas,

events

or

i t has been suggested (e.g.,

combination
abilities,

they do w i l l

help

d i f f i c u l t material,

beliefs

difficulties.
generalized

of f a c t o r s ) l e a d s
and,

efforts,

result

especially

and t h i s ,

they

lack

( f o r whatever

them to

doubt

to doubt that

their

anything

when

dealing

i n turn, increases

the

with

the l i k e l i h o o d

s t r e n g t h e n s the LD c h i l d r e n ' s
ability

to

overcome

their

As these b e l i e f s become s t r e n g t h e n e d , they become

so that even e a s i e r academic e x p e r i e n c e s come to

i n t e r p r e t e d i n a maladaptive
Even

therefore,

f a i l u r e which, a g a i n ,

that

failure

educational

s p e c i f i c remedial program

program)

he or she

responsibility for i t .

be

fashion.

i f the c h i l d does e x p e r i e n c e some s u c c e s s ( e . g . ,

of

them overcome t h e i r problems. They then l e s s e n

achievement

of c o n t i n u e d

1974;

that LD c h i l d r e n a r e caught i n

wherein e a r l y s c h o o l

intellectual

their

1979)

Black,

Instead,

may not

or

an

as

individualized

acknowledge

personal

he or she may a t t r i b u t e s u c c e s s

to e x t e r n a l f a c t o r s , such as luck or ease of the task.

The

i m p l i c a t i o n of the f o r e g o i n g

remediation
to

be

a n a l y s i s i s that more

of academic d e f i c i t s i s r e q u i r e d

disentangled

from t h i s

cyclical

than

i f the LD c h i l d i s

pattern.

The

child's

m a l a d a p t i v e b e l i e f s or a t t r i b u t i o n s must be d e a l t w i t h as w e l l .
Dweck
1975;
for

and c o l l e a g u e s

( Diener & Dweck,

1978;

1980;

Dweck,

Dweck & Reppucci, 1973) have o u t l i n e d e x c e l l e n t s t r a t e g i e s

optimizing

adaptive

school-aged c h i l d r e n .

patterns

of a t t r i b u t i o n f o r

elementary

They have demonstrated that c h i l d r e n

205

who.

tend

to

h o l d b e l i e f s which imply

surmountable

through

t h e i r own

that

their

efforts will

difficulties

are

be most l i k e l y

to

engage i n a d a p t i v e a c h i e v e m e n t - o r i e n t e d b e h a v i o r s .
demonstrated

that

"attribution

retraining"

children

were taught to a t t r i b u t e

received

to

"success

only"

failure.

The

lack

of e f f o r t ,

greater

taught

to

was

more

successful

mastery-oriented

children

mastery-oriented

style

difficult

tasks

and

materials

should

increased

efforts

In essence,

to

showed

helpless

began

as

well.

their

in

to cope
They

will,

indeed,

to

that

result

in

of

in

persist

improved.

arranged i n such a way

who

manner

failure

began

performance

ability

children

the

with

responses

group

their f a i l u r e s

they

than

tendency to emphasize e f f o r t over

attribute

be

whereby

the programmed f a i l u r e s

retraining"

as a determinant of f a i l u r e .
were

treatment,

treatment i n a l t e r i n g c h i l d r e n ' s
"attribution

significantly

Dweck (1975)

a
at

[Training
the

child's

improved

task

performance.]
In a d d i t i o n ,
recommends

There

is

she

organized

or he may

an

of

LD

difficulty,

the

Licht,

failures

"ineffective

retraining"

that

1976).
first

discouraged

had

been

literature,

important c o n t r i b u t i n g
children

to

become even more

"attribution

strategies
Douglas,

see Torgesen and

i f a c h i l d increases e f f o r t ,

c o n s i d e r a b l e body of

that

performance

one's

reasons that

e f f o r t s at

suggests

(e.g.,

She

fails,

before

(1983; a l s o

attributing

strategies."
still

Licht

as

factor

i s their f a i l u r e

to

are w i t h i n

their level

"Perhaps,

when

alternative
206

that

1983)

and
than

initiated.
well,

that

the

poor

to
use
of

children

planned,
ability
confront

they s h o u l d c o n s i d e r

is

increasing

their

efforts.

In

the event that

succeed, changing to an a l t e r n a t i v e s t r a t e g y
( L i c h t , 1983,
Several
methods

ha e attempted to

children's

Pascarella
and

Pearl

l o c u s of c o n t r o l ,
responsible

particular

and

cues i n o r a l r e a d i n g ) ;

Pascarella,

who

do

not

errors"

Nhalen,

between

locus

program

used

intervention

effort)

failures,

and

learned

condition.

an

believe

that

more
an

in

children.

produced s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r

are

context
of

"student

earlier

Henker (1977) a l s o found an

hyperactive

they

internal locus

of c o n t r o l and most e f f e c t i v e type

for

Pflaum,
external

(task: using

In

For

l e a r n e d more i n a

w h i l e c h i l d r e n w i t h an

(particularly

Bugental,

considered

style.

(1983) found that c h i l d r e n w i t h

i . e . , those

of

not

instructional

attributional

Pflaum (1981) and

f o r t h e i r s u c c e s s e s and

determination

might be

match

"teacher d e t e r m i n a t i o n of e r r o r s " c o n d i t i o n

control

does

researchers

to

example,
Bryan,

p. 48?)."

this

study,

interaction
of

tutoring

"self-control"

error reduction

on

the mazes ( t a s k : P o r t e u s Mazes; P o r t e u s , 1942)

for children with

(a)

(b)

high

children;
trends

perceived

personal c a u s a l i t y

while a "social-reinforcement"

toward g r e a t e r

perceived

and

error reduction

p e r s o n a l c a u s a l i t y and

nonmedicated

intervention

produced

f o r (a) c h i l d r e n w i t h

(b) medicated c h i l d r e n

low

(Ritalin

or m e t h y l p h e n i d a t e ) .
From the f i n d i n g s of
upon

attribution

success."
encouraged

Learning
to

t h i s study, one

retraining
disabled

accept

credit

207

might recommend emphasis

regarding
children
or

"positive

events

or

especially

should

be

responsibility

for

their

successes.
good

A s c r i p t i o n s of c a u s a l i t y to i n t e r n a l f a c t o r s such as

effort

attention

and

good a b i l i t y

should

be

encouraged.

might be p a i d to those LD s t u d e n t s who

helpless"

i n o r i e n t a t i o n to

Special

are

"learned

failure.

Future D i r e c t i o n s
The

results

suggestions.
with

of

First

this

and

study

lead

one

to

foremost, t h i s study

number

s h o u l d be

replicated

LD g i r l s s i n c e i t has been demonstrated i n the

(e.g.,

Dweck & Bush,

1976;

Dweck,

1978)

that

when

compared

with

that

is

predictive

girls,

attributional

style

h e l p l e s s n e s s and,
Wortman,
1977).

1982;

The

Nelson,
normal

more

perhaps, even l a t e r
also

Dweck

and

Davidson,

see R a d l o f f ,

and

literature

N e l s o n , & Enna,

boys,

depression

1975;

exhibit
of

the

( e . g . , Dweck &

Dweck,

Klerman,
Davidson,

Enna (1978) s t u d i e s used as s u b j e c t s g i r l s who

achievers.

an

learned

Weissman &

Bush (1976) and

of

I t would be i n s t r u c t i v e to see what

were

results

would be found w i t h l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d g i r l s .
The

experimental

differentially
situation,
would

be

t h e i r own
occurring
sections

task was

penalize

overall,

the

was

chosen w i t h great c a r e so as not

LD

boys.

But

a c o n t r i v e d one.

the

experimental

Ecological

validity

enhanced by o b t a i n i n g the c h i l d r e n ' s a t t r i b u t i o n s

classrooms,

the

in

p r e f e r a b l y immediately a f t e r a n a t u r a l l y -

event such as,

of

to

f o r example,

t e s t i n g on

the

S t a n f o r d Achievement T e s t s (Gardner

reading
et

al.,

1973)

or the Canadian T e s t s of B a s i c S k i l l s ( K i n g et a l . , 1981).

Most

school

prescribed

d i s t r i c t s administer
intervals,

and

these s t a n d a r d i z e d

i t s h o u l d not be

208

too

tests

difficult

at
to

coordinate
This
in

a f i e l d experiment

w i t h i n such a c o n t e x t .

study demonstrated that LD boys d i f f e r e d from

s e v e r a l competency and behavior problem areas of

Behavior

Checklist

differences?
personality

Is

(CBCL;

there

that causes

Achenbach,

1981a).

the

Child

Nhy a r e

there

something i n t r i n s i c i n the
these d i f f e r e n c e s ?

Do these

a r i s e a f t e r s e v e r a l y e a r s of e x p e r i e n c i n g d i f f i c u l t y
Only

longitudinal

explanations.
complete

Perhaps
Child

kindergarten.
two

research

will

provide

LD

C h e c k l i s t f o r each

child's

differences
in

some

each s c h o o l board c o u l d ask

Behavior

NLD boys

school?

acceptable
parents

child

entering

With repeat CBCLs at i n t e r v a l s o f , perhaps,

or t h r e e y e a r s ,

to

every

i t s h o u l d be p o s s i b l e to answer some of the

q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g competency and behavior problems f o r v a r i o u s

s u b p o p u l a t i o n s of s c h o o l c h i l d r e n .
Finally,
learning

closer

examination

this
and

that

d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n who a r e " h e l p l e s s "

l e a r n i n g t a s k s , r a t h e r than
clearer

of

remedial

study

of

i n o r i e n t a t i o n to

" m a s t e r y - o r i e n t e d , " may l e a d to even

and a m e l i o r a t i v e recommendations.

i n d i c a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s on both

behavioral

sub-population

performance

measures a c c o r d i n g to mastery

o r i e n t a t i o n f o r both LD and NLD boys.

209

versus

Data

from

measures
helpless

Bibliography
Abramson, L.Y., A l l o y , L.B., & R o s o f f , R. (1981). D e p r e s s i o n and
the
g e n e r a t i o n of complex hypotheses i n the judgment of
c o n t i n g e n c y . Behavior Research and Therapy. 19. 75-86.
Abramson, L.Y., Garber,
J . , Edwards, N.B., & Seligman, M.E.P.
(1978). Expectancy changes i n d e p r e s s i o n and s c h i z o p h r e n i a .
J o u r n a l of Abnormal Psychology. 87. 102-109.
Abramson, L.Y., Garber, J . , & Seligman, M.E.P. (1980). Learned
h e l p l e s s n e s s i n humans: An a t t r i b u t i o n a l a n a l y s i s .
In J .
Garber
and M.E.P. Seligman ( E d s . ) ,
Human h e l p l e s s n e s s :
theory and
a p p l i c a t i o n s . New York: Academic P r e s s .
Abramson, L.Y., Seligman,
M.E.P., & T e a s d a l e , J.D. (1978).
Learned h e l p l e s s n e s s i n humans: C r i t i q u e and r e f o r m u l a t i o n .
J o u r n a l of Abnormal Psychology. 87. 49-74.
Accardo,
P . J . (1980). A neurodevelopmental
p e r s p e c t i v e on
s p e c i f i c l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s . B a l t i m o r e , MD: U n i v e r s i t y
Park P r e s s .
Achenbach,
T.M.
(1966). The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n
of c h i l d r e n ' s
psychiatric
symptoms:
A
factor
analytic
study.
P s y c h o l o g i c a l Monographs. 80, (7, Whole No. 615).
Achenbach, T.M. (1978). The c h i l d behavior p r o f i l e : I . Boys aged
6-11.
J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 46.
478-488.
Achenbach,
T.M.
(1979).
The c h i l d
behavior p r o f i l e : An
empirically
based
system
for
assessing
children's
b e h a v i o r a l problems and competencies. I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l
of Mental H e a l t h . 7, 24-42.
Achenbach, T.M. (1981a). C h i l d behavior c h e c k l i s t f o r ages 4-16.
U n i v e r s i t y of Vermont, B u r l i n g t o n , VT, 05405.
Achenbach, T.M. (1981b, May 4 ) . Norkshop B: C h i l d Behavior
C h e c k l i s t f o r Ages 4 - 16. Address and workshop p r e s e n t e d
at
the c o n f e r e n c e e n t i t l e d " C l i n i c a l Concerns i n C h i l d
Development:
A
Focus
on C o g n i t i o n . "
Simon
Fraser
University,
Burnaby, BC.
Achenbach, T.M., & E d e l b r o c k , C.S. (1978). The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of
c h i l d psychopathology: A review and a n a l y s i s of e m p i r i c a l
e f f o r t s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n . 85. 1275-1301.
Achenbach, T.M., & E d e l b r o c k , C.S. (1979). The c h i l d behavior
p r o f i l e : I I . Boys aged 12-16 and g i r l s aged 6-11 and 12-16.
J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 47, 223-233.

210

Achenbach, T.M.,
& E d e l b r o c k , C.S. (1981). B e h a v i o r a l problems
and
competencies r e p o r t e d
by p a r e n t s
of normal
and
disturbed
c h i l d r e n aged 4 through 16. Monographs of the
Society f o r
Research i n C h i l d Development. 46. ( S e r i a l
No. 188).
Achenbach, T.M., & E d e l b r o c k ,
behavior
checklist
and
Queen C i t y P r i n t e r s I n c .

C.S. (1983). Manual f o r the c h i l d

revised child
behavior
Profile.

Ackerman, P.T., Dykman, R.A., & P e t e r s , J . E . (1977a). L e a r n i n g

disabled
boys as a d o l e s c e n t s .
Journal
of the American
Academy of C h i l d P s y c h i a t r y . 16. 296-313.
Ackerman, P.T., Dykman, R.A., & P e t e r s , J . E . (1977b). Teenage
s t a t u s of h y p e r a c t i v e and non-hyperactive l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d
boys. American J o u r n a l of O r t h o p s y c h i a t r y . 47. 577-596.
Adelman, H.S.
practical
Disability

(1979a). D i a g n o s t i c
classification
of LD: A
necessity
and a p r o c e d u r a l
problem.
Learning
Q u a r t e r l y . 2, 56-62.

Adelman, H.S. (1979b). D i a g n o s t i c c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of LD: Research

and
e t h i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e s as r e l a t e d to p r a c t i c e .
Learning
D i s a b i l i t y Q u a r t e r l y . 2, 5-16.
Alden,
L., & Cappe, R. (1981). N o n a s s e r t i v e n e s s : S k i l l d e f i c i t
or s e l e c t i v e s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n ? Behavior Therapy. 12, 107114.
Alloy,
L.B., P e t e r s o n ,
C., Abramson, L.Y., & Seligman, M.E.P.
(1984). A t t r i b u t i o n a l s t y l e and the g e n e r a l i t y of l e a r n e d
h e l p l e s s n e s s . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology.
46, 681-687.
American
Psychiatric Association
(1980).
Diagnostic
and
statistical
manual
of mental
disorders
(3rd ed.).
Washington,
DC: Author.
Ames,

C. (1978). C h i l d r e n ' s achievement a t t r i b u t i o n s and s e l f reinforcement:

E f f e c t s of s e l f - c o n c e p t
and
competitive
reward s t r u c t u r e . J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology. 70,
345-355.

Andrews, G.R.,
& Debus, R.L. (1978). P e r s i s t e n c e and c a u s a l
perception
of f a i l u r e :
Modifying cognitive
attributions.
J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology. 70, 154-166.
Anthony, E . J . , & S c o t t , P. (1960). Manic d e p r e s s i v e p s y c h o s i s i n
childhood.
J o u r n a l of C h i l d Psychology and P s y c h i a t r y .
l
53-72.
f

211

Arajarvi,
T., & Huttunen, M. (1972). E n c o p r e s i s and e n u r e s i s as
symptoms of d e p r e s s i o n . In A.L. A n n e l l ( E d . ) : D e p r e s s i v e
States
i n C h i l d h o o d and A d o l e s c e n c e
(pp.
212-217).
Stockholm: Almquist & H i k s e l l .
Arkin,
R.M.,
Appieman, A . J . , & Burger,
J.M. (1980). S o c i a l
anxiety,
self-presentation
and the s e l f - s e r v i n g
bias in
causal
attributions.
J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y
and S o c i a l
Psychology. 38. 23-39.
The

(U.S.) A s s o c i a t i o n f o r C h i l d r e n and A d u l t s w i t h L e a r n i n g
Disabilities
(1984). Answering
the c r i s i s
in learning
disabilities.
Ottawa,
ON:
Canadian
Association for
C h i l d r e n and
Adults with Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s .

Atkinson,
J.N.
Nostrand.

(1964).

An

introduction

to

m o t i v a t i o n . Van

Atkinson,
J.W., & F e a t h e r , N.T. (1966). A theory of achievement
m o t i v a t i o n . New York: W i l e y .
Bakwin, H. (1972). D e p r e s s i o n a mood d i s o r d e r i n c h i l d r e n and
a d o l e s c e n t s . Maryland S t a t e M e d i c a l J o u r n a l . 21, 55-61.
Bandura,
A. (1977). S e l f e f f i c a c y : Toward a u n i f y i n g theory of
b e h a v i o r a l change. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review. 84. 191-215.
Bandura,
A. (1981). S e l f - r e f e r e n t
thought: A
developmental
analysis
of s e l f - e f f i c a c y .
In J.H. F l a v e l l
& L. Ross
(Eds.),
Social
cognitive
development:
F r o n t i e r s and
possible
futures.
Cambridge,
England:
Cambridge
University Press.
Bannatyne,
A. (1968). D i a g n o s i n g l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s
and
writing
remedial p r e s c r i p t i o n s .
J o u r n a l of
Learning
D i s a b i l i t i e s . 7, 272-273.
Bannatyne,
A.
(1971).
Language.
reading
and
d i s a b i l i t i e s . S p r i n g f i e l d , I I : C h a r l e s C. Thomas.

learning

Bannatyne,
A. (1974). D i a g n o s i s : A note on r e c a t e g o r i z a t i o n of
the WISC s c a l e d s c o r e s . J o u r n a l of L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s .
7, 272-273.
Barden,
R.C., Garber, J . , Duncan, S.W., & Masters, J.C. (1981).
Cumulative e f f e c t s o f induced a f f e c t i v e s t a t e s i n c h i l d r e n :
Accentuation,
inoculation,
and r e m e d i a t i o n . J o u r n a l of
P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 40, 750-760.
B a r n e t t , M.A., Howard, J.A., Melton, E.M., & Dino, G.A. (1982).
Effect
of i n d u c i n g sadness about s e l f or other on h e l p i n g
behavior
i n h i g h - and
low-empathic
children.
Chi Id
Development. 53. 920-923.

212

Bar-Tal,
D.
(1975).
I n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s and
attributional
a n a l y s i s of a c h i e v e m e n t - r e l a t e d b e h a v i o r . P i t t s b u r g h ,
PA:
Learning
Research
and Development C e n t e r , U n i v e r s i t y
of
Pi t t s b u r g h .
Bar-Tal,
D.
(1978). A t t r i b u t i o n a l
analysis
of
achievementr e l a t e d b e h a v i o r . Review of E d u c a t i o n a l Research. 48. 259271.
B a r - T a l , D., & Darom, E. (1979). P u p i l ' s a t t r i b u t i o n s of s u c c e s s
and f a i l u r e . C h i l d Development. 50, 264-267.
Bar-Tal,D.,
& Frieze,
I . (1974). Achievement m o t i v a t i o n and
gender
as determinants of a t t r i b u t i o n s
f o r success
and
failure.
Unpublished m a n u s c r i p t , U n i v e r s i t y of P i t t s b u r g h ,
P i t t s b u r g h , PA.
Bar-Tal,
D., & F r i e z e , I.H. (1976). A t t r i b u t i o n s of s u c c e s s and
failure
f o r a c t o r s and o b s e r v e r s . J o u r n a l of Research i n
P e r s o n a l i t v . 10. 256-265.
Bar-Tal,
D.,
& F r i e z e , I.H. (1977). Achievement m o t i v a t i o n f o r
males and
females
as a determinant of a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r
s u c c e s s and f a i l u r e . Sex R o l e s . 3, 301-313.
Barthe,
D.G., & Hammen, C.L. (1981). The a t t r i b u t i o n a l model of
depression:
A
naturalistic
extension. Personality
and
Social
Psychology B u l l e t i n . 7, 53-58.
Battle,
J . (1981). C u l t u r e - f r e e
self-esteem inventories for
c h i l d r e n and a d u l t s . S e a t t l e : S p e c i a l C h i l d P u b l i c a t i o n s .
Baumeister,
R.F.
(1982). A s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n a l view of s o c i a l
phenomena. P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n . 91. 3-26.
Beck,

A.
T.
(1967). D e p r e s s i o n : C l i n i c a l .
e x p e r i m e n t a l and
t h e o r e t i c a l a s p e c t s . New York: Harper & Row.

Beck,

A.T.
(1971). C o g n i t i o n ,
affect,
and
psychopathology.
A r c h i v e s of General P s y c h i a t r y . 24, 495-500.

Beck,

A. T. (1976). C o g n i t i v e therapy and emotional d i s o r d e r s .

New York: I n t e r n a t i o n a l U n i v e r s i t i e s P r e s s .

Beck, A.T., & Beamesderfer, A. (1974). Assessment of d e p r e s s i o n :

the d e p r e s s i o n i n v e n t o r y . In P. P i c h o t (Ed.) P s y c h o l o g i c a l
measurements i n psychopharmacology.
Modern Problems
in
Pharmacopsvchiatry. 7. Karger, B a s e l , S w i t z e r l a n d .
Beery,
K.E.
(1967).
Developmental
T e s t of V i s u a l - M o t o r
I n t e g r a t i o n . Chicago: F o l l e t t E d u c a t i o n a l C o r p o r a t i o n .
Belmont, L.
(1980). Epidemiology.
In H.E.
R i e and E.D.
Rie
(Eds.),
Handbook of minimal b r a i n d y s f u n c t i o n s . New York:
John N i l e y & Sons.
213

Bern, D.J. (1967). S e l f - p e r c e p t i o n : an a l t e r n a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n

of c o g n i t i v e dissonance phenomena. P s y c h o l o g i c a l
Review.
74, 183-200.
Bemporad, J.R. (1982). Childhood d e p r e s s i o n from a developmental
perspective.
In
L.
Grinspoon
(Ed.),
Psychiatry
1982:
Annual
Review.
Washington, DC:
American P s y c h i a t r i c
P r e s s , Inc.
Bender, L. (1938). A V i s u a l Motor G e s t a l t T e s t and i t s c l i n i c a l
use.
American
Orthopsychiatric
Association
Research
Monograph. No. 3.
Benson, J.S., & K e n n e l l y , K.J. (1976). Learned h e l p l e s s n e s s : The
result
of u n c o n t r o l l a b l e r e i n f o r c e m e n t s or
uncontrollable
aversive
stimuli?
Journal
of
Personality
and
Social
Psychology. 34. 138-145.
Berger, M.,
Yule,
W.,
& Rutter,
M.
adjustment i n two g e o g r a p h i c a r e a s .
specific
reading
retardation.
P s y c h i a t r y . . 126. 510-519.

(1975). Attainment and

I I . The p r e v a l e n c e of
British
Journal
of

B i b r i n g , E. (1953). The mechanism of d e p r e s s i o n . In P. Greenacre

(Ed.),
Affective disorders.
New
York:
International
U n i v e r s i t i e s Press.
Bingham, G.
specific
41-47.

(1980). S e l f - e s t e e m
among boys w i t h and
without
l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s . C h i l d Study J o u r n a l .
10.

Birch,
H.G.,
& Gussow,
Health.
nutrition.
Brace Jovanovich.

J.D.
(1970). Disadvantaged c h i l d r e n :
and s c h o o l f a i l u r e . New York: Harcourt

Black,
F.W.
(1974). S e l f - c o n c e p t as r e l a t e d to achievement
age i n l e a r n i n g - d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n . C h i l d Development.
1137-1140.

and
45.

Blaney, P.H.,
Behar, V.,
& Head, R. (1980). Two measures of
depressive
c o g n i t i o n s : Their association with
depression
and
w i t h each o t h e r . J o u r n a l of Abnormal Psychology. 89,
678-682.
B l a t t , S.J. (1974). L e v e l s of o b j e c t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n a n a c l i t i c
and
i n t r o j e c t i v e depression.
P s y c h o a n a l y t i c Study of
the
C h i l d . 29, 107-157.

214

Blatt,
S.J.,
Quinlan,
D.M.,
Chevron, E.S.,
McDonald,
C.,6
Zuroff,D.
(1982).
Dependency
and
self-criticism:
Psychological
dimensions
of
depression.
Journal
of
Consulting
and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 50, 113-124.
B l i s h e n , B.R., & McRoberts, H.A. (1976). A r e v i s e d socioeconomic
index
f o r o c c u p a t i o n s i n Canada. The Canadian
Review of
S o c i o l o g y and Anthropology. 13. 71-79.
Bloom, B.S.
(1976). Human c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and s c h o o l l e a r n i n g .
New York: McGraw H i l l .
Boersma, F . J . , & Chapman, J.W.
(1978).
S e l f - p e r c e p t i o n s of
ability,
e x p e c t a t i o n s and l o c u s of c o n t r o l i n
elementary
l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n . U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a .
Boersma, F . J . , & Chapman, J.W. (1981). Academic s e l f - c o n c e p t ,
achievement
expectations,
and
l o c u s of
control
in
elementary
learning disabled
children.
Canadian
J o u r n a l of B e h a v i o u r a l S c i e n c e . 13. 349-358.
B o r t n e r , M.,
& Birch,
H.G.
(1969).
P a t t e r n s of i n t e l l e c t u a l
ability
in emotionally
d i s t u r b e d and
brain
damaged
c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l of S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n . 3, 351-369.
Broman,
S.H.
(1977, March). E a r l y
development
and
family
characteristics
of low a c h i e v e r s . Paper p r e s e n t e d at
the
14th
I n t e r n a t i o n a l Conference
of
the A s s o c i a t i o n f o r
C h i l d r e n w i t h L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s , Washington, DC.
Brown, G.,
Chadwick, O.P.D., S h a f f e r , D., R u t t e r , M., & Traub,
M.
(1981).
A
p r o s p e c t i v e study of
children
with
head
injuries:
III.
Psychiatric
sequelae.
Psychologi c a l
M e d i c i n e . 11. 63-78.
Brumback, R.A.,
& S t a t o n , D.R. (1983). L e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t y and
c h i l d h o o d d e p r e s s i o n . American J o u r n a l of O r t h o p s y c h i a t r y .
53, 264-281.
Brumback,
R.A.,
Staton,
D.,
&
Wilson,
H.
(1980).
Neuropsychological
study
of
children
d u r i n g and
after
r e m i s s i o n of endogenous d e p r e s s i v e e p i s o d e s . P e r c e p t u a l and
Motor S k i l l s . 50, 1163-1167.
Bruner,
J.S.
(1964).
P s y c h o l o g i s t . 19.

The course of c o g n i t i v e growth. American

1-15.

Brunswik, E. (1955). R e p r e s e n t a t i v e design p r o b a b i l i s t i c

P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review. 62. 193-217.

theory.

Bryan, T.H.,
& Bryan, J.H. (1980). L e a r n i n g d i s o r d e r s . In H.E.
Rie
and
E.D.
Rie
( E d s . ) , Handbook of minimal b r a i n
d y s f u n c t i o n s . New York: John Wiley & Sons, 456-482.

215

Bryan, T., & P e a r l ,

R. (1979).
S e l f concepts and l o c u s of
c o n t r o l of l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l of C l i n i c a l
and C h i l d Psychology. 8, 223-226.
Buchwald,
A.M.
(1977). D e p r e s s i v e mood and e s t i m a t e s of
reinforcement
f r e q u e n c y . J o u r n a l of Abnormal
Psychology.
86f
443-446.
Bugental,
D.B., Nhalen, C ,
& Henker, B. (1977). Causal
attributions
of h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n
and m o t i v a t i o n a l
assumptions of two behavior change approaches: Evidence f o r
an i n t e r a c t i o n i s t p o s i t i o n . C h i l d Development. 48. 874-884.
Butkowsky, I.S., & W i l l o w s , D.M. (1980). C o g n i t i v e - m o t i v a t i o n a l
characterstics
of c h i l d r e n v a r y i n g
in reading
ability:
E v i d e n c e f o r l e a r n e d h e l p l e s s n e s s i n poor r e a d e r s . J o u r n a l
of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology. 72. 408-422.
Cairns,
R.B., & V a l s i n e r ,
J . (1984). C h i l d psychology. Annual
Review of Psychology. 35. 553-578.
Campbell,
D.T., & S t a n l e y , J.C. (1963).Experimental and q u a s i e x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n s f o r r e s e a r c h on t e a c h i n g . In N.L. Gage
(Ed.),
Handbook
of r e s e a r c h on t e a c h i n g . Chicago: Rand
McNally.
[Also
p u b l i s h e d as Experimental and q u a s i experimental
d e s i g n s f o r r e s e a r c h (1966). Chicago:
Rand
McNally.]
Campbell,
S.B., Douglas,
V . I . , & Morgenstern,
G.
(1971).
C o g n i t i v e s t y l e s i n h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n and the e f f e c t o f
methyphenidate. J o u r n a l of C h i l d Psychology and P s y c h i a t r y .
12, 55-67.
Carroll,
J.B. (1976). Psychometric t e s t s as c o g n i t i v e t a s k s : A
new s t r u c t u r e of i n t e l l e c t . In L. Resnick ( E d . ) , The n a t u r e
of i n t e l l i g e n c e . H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Erlbaum.
Cattell,
R.B.
(1963).
Theory
of f l u i d
and c r y s t a l l i z e d
i n t e l l i g e n c e : A c r i t i c a l experiment. J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l
Psychology. 54. 1-23.
Cattell,
R.B. (1971). A b i l i t i e s :
T h e i r s t r u c t u r e , growth and
a c t i o n . Boston: H o u g h t o n - M i f f l i n .
Chadwick, O.P.D., R u t t e r , M., Brown, G., S h a f f e r , D., & Traub,
M.
(1981). A p r o s p e c t i v e study
of c h i l d r e n
with
head
injuries:
I I . Cognitive sequelae. Psychological Medicine.
11, 49-61.
Chandler, M., & Boyes, M. (1982). S o c i a l - c o g n i t i v e development.
In B. Wolman ( E d . ) ,
Handbook of developmental p s y c h o l o g y .
Englewood C l i f f s , NJ: P r e n t i c e H a l l .

216

Chapin, M. , & Dyck, D.G. (1976).

Persistence in children's
r e a d i n g behavior as a f u n c t i o n of N l e n g t h and a t t r i b u t i o n
r e t r a i n i n g . J o u r n a l of Abnormal Psychology. 85. 511-515.
Chapman, J.W., & Boersma, F . J . (1979a). Academic s e l f - c o n c e p t i n
elementary
learning
d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n : A study w i t h the
Student's P e r c e p t i o n of A b i l i t y S c a l e .
Psychology i n the
S c h o o l s . 16, 201-206.
Chapman, J.N., & Boersma, F . J . (1979b). L e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s ,
l o c u s of c o n t r o l ,
and mother
attitudes.
J o u r n a l of
E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology. 71. 250-258.
Chess,
S., & Thomas, A. (1972). D i f f e r e n c e s i n outcome w i t h
e a r l y i n t e r v e n t i o n i n c h i l d r e n w i t h behavior d i s o r d e r s . In
M.F. R o f f , L.N. Robins, & M. P o l l a c k ( E d s . ) , L i f e h i s t o r y
r e s e a r c h i n psvchopathology. M i n n e a p o l i s , MN: U n i v e r s i t y of
Minnesota P r e s s .
Clarizio,
H., & Bernard, R. (1981). R e c a t e g o r i z e d WISC-R s c o r e s
of
l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n and d i f f e r e n t i a l
diagnosis.
Psychology i n the S c h o o l s . 18. 5-12.
CIsments,
S.D. ( P r o j e c t d i r e c t o r ) (1966). National" p r o j e c t on
minimal
brain
dysfunction in children
- Terminology and
i den t i f i c a t i on
(Phase
one of a t h r e e phase
project;
monograph No. 3; P u b l i c
H e a l t h S e r v i c e P u b l i c a t i o n No.
1415,
Superintendent, of Documents, Government
Printing
O f f i c e , Washington, DC).
Cohen, N.J., Douglas, V . I . , & Morgenstern, G. (1971). The e f f e c t
of
methylphenidate
on a t t e n t i v e
behavior and autonomic
a c t i v i t y in hyperactive children.
Psychopharmacologia. 22.
282-294.
Cohen, N.J., Weiss, G., & Minde, K. (1972). C o g n i t i v e s t y l e s i n
a d o l e s c e n t s p r e v i o u s l y diagnosed as h y p e r a c t i v e . J o u r n a l of
C h i l d Psychology and P s y c h i a t r y . 13. 203-209.
Colbert,
P., Newman, B., Ney, P., & Young, J . (1982). L e a r n i n g
disabilities
as a symptom
of d e p r e s s i o n i n c h i l d r e n .
J o u r n a l of L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s . 15. 333-336.
Colonna,
A.,
& Faglioni,
P. (1966). The performance of
h e m i s p h e r i c damaged p a t i e n t s on s p a t i a l i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s .
C o r t e x . 2, 293-307.
Connell,
H.M. (1972). Depression i n c h i l d h o o d . C h i l d
and Human Development.4. 71-85.
Coopersmith,
S. (1967).
F r a n c i s c o : Freeman.

The

217

Psychiatry

antecedents of s e l f - e s t e e m . San

Costa,
L.D., Vaughan, H.G., J r . , Horowitz, M., & R i t t e r , W.
(1969). P a t t e r n s
of b e h a v i o r a l d e f i c i t
associated
with
v i s u a l s p a t i a l n e g l e c t . Cortex. 5, 242-263.
Costello,
C.G. (1980). C h i l d h o o d d e p r e s s i o n :
Three b a s i c but
questionable
assumptions
i n the L e f k o w i t z
and Burton
c r i t i q u e . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n . 87. 185-190.
Covington,
M.V.,
& Beery, R.G. (1976). S e l f - w o r t h and s c h o o l
l e a r n i n g . New York: H o l t , Rinehart and Winston.
Coyne, J.C. (1976). Depressions
and the response o f
J o u r n a l of Abnormal Psychology. 85. 186-193.

others.

Coyne, J.C., & G o t l i b ,

I.H. (1983). The r o l e of c o g n i t i o n i n
depression:
A c r i t i c a l appraisal. Psychological B u l l e t i n .
94>
472-505.
Crandall,
V.C.,
Katkovsky, W.,
& C r a n d a l l , V . J . (1965).
C h i l d r e n ' s b e l i e f i n t h e i r own c o n t r o l of r e i n f o r c e m e n t s i n
i n t e l l e c t u a l achievement s i t u a t i o n s . C h i l d Development. 36.
91-109.
Crichton,
J . , Catterson,
J . , K e n d a l l , D., & Dunn, H. (1981).
Learning d i s a b i l i t i e s :
A p r a c t i c a l o f f i c e manual. 2nd Ed.,
V i c t o r i a , BC: M o r r i s s P r i n t i n g Co. L t d .
Critchley,
M. (1962). Developmental d y s l e x i a : A c o n s t i t u t i o n a l
dysymbolia.
In A.W.
F r a n k l i n ( E d . ) , Word-blindness or
s p e c i f i c developmental d y s l e x i a (pp. 45-48). London: Pitman
Medical P u b l i s h e r s .
Crittenden,
K.S., & W i l e y , M.G. (1980). Causal a t t r i b u t i o n and
behavioral
response
to
failure.
Social
Psychology
Q u a r t e r l y . 43. 353-358.
Cytryn,
L., & McKnew, D.H. (1972). Proposed c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of
c h i l d h o o d d e p r e s s i o n s . American J o u r n a l of P s y c h i a t r y . 129,
149-155.
Cytryn,
L., & McKnew, D.H. (1974). F a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g the
changing
c l i n i c a l e x p r e s s i o n of the d e p r e s s i v e p r o c e s s i n
c h i l d r e n . American J o u r n a l of P s y c h i a t r y . 131. 879-881.
Cytryn,
L., McKnew, D.H., & Bunney, W.E.
(1980).
Factors
influencing
the changing
clinical
expression
of
the
depressive
process
in children.
American
Journal
of
Psvchi a t r v . 137. 22-25.

218

Dahl,

V.
(1972). A
f o l l o w - u p study of a c h i l d
psychiatric
clientele,
with
special
regard
to
manic-depressive
psychosis.
In A.L.
Annell (Ed.),
Depressive states in
childhood
and
adolescence
(pp. 534-541).
Stockholm,
Sweden: Amquist and
Niksell.

Darley,
J.M., & G o e t h e l s , G.R. (1980). People's a n a l y s e s of the
causes of a b i l i t y - l i n k e d performances. In Leonard Berkowitz
( E d . ) , Advances
i n e x p e r i m e n t a l s o c i a l psychology ( V o l .
13). New York: Academic P r e s s .
Das,

J.P.
(1980). P l a n n i n g : T h e o r e t i c a l
considerations
and
e m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Research. 41. 141-151.

Das,

J.P.,
Kirby,
J . , & Jarman, R.F. (1975). Simultaneous and
successive
s y n t h e s e s : An a l t e r n a t i v e model f o r c o g n i t i v e
a b i l i t i e s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n . 82. 87-103.

Das,

J.P., K i r b y , J.R., & Jarman, R.F. (1979). Simultaneous

s u c c e s s i v e c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s . NY: Academic P r e s s .

Das,

J.P.,
Leong,
C.K.,
& W i l l i a m s , N.H.
r e l a t i o n s h i p between l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t y and
successive
p r o c e s s i n g . J o u r n a l of L e a r n i n g
11, 618-625.

Das,

J.P., & M a l l o y , G.N. (1975). V a r i e t i e s of simultaneous and

successive
processing in children.
J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l
Psychology. 67. 213-230.

Das,

J.P.,
& M a l l o y , G.
(1981). Of
brain
f u n c t i o n s . Academic Therapy. 16. 349-358.

Das,

J.P.,
Mulcahy, R., & W a l l , A.E. (Eds.) (1980). Theory and
r e s e a r c h i n l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s . New York: Plenum P r e s s .

and

(1978).
The
simultaneousDisabilities.

divisions

and

Davison,
G.C.,
& Neale,
J.M. (1982). Abnormal psychology ( 3 r d
E d . ) . New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Deaux, K. (1976). Sex: A p e r s p e c t i v e on the a t t r i b u t i o n p r o c e s s .
In J.H.
Harvey,
W.J.
Ickes, and R.F.
Kidd ( E d s . ) ,
New
d i r e c t i o n s i n a t t r i b u t i o n r e s e a r c h ( V o l . 1,
pp. 335-352).
H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s .
de Charms, R.
Press.

(1968).

Personal causation.

New

York: Academic

de

Charms, R.
(1972). P e r s o n a l c a u s a t i o n t r a i n i n g
i n the
s c h o o l s . J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d S o c i a l Psychology. 2, 95-113.

de

Charms, R.
(1976). Enhancing m o t i v a t i o n : A change i n the
c l a s s r o o m . New York: I r v i n g t o n , H a l s t e a d - W i l e y .

D e c i , E.L. (1975). I n t r i n s i c m o t i v a t i o n . New

219

York: Plenum P r e s s .

de H i r s c h , K., Jansky, J . J . , & L a n g f o r d , W.S. (1966). P r e d i c t i n g

reading f a i l u r e ;
A p r e l i m i n a r y s t u d y . New York:
Harper &
Row.
De R e n z i , E., & F a g l i o n i , P. (1965). The comparative e f f i c i e n c y
of
intelligence
and
vigilance
tests
in
detecting
h e m i s p h e r i c c e r e b r a l damage. C o r t e x . 1, 410-433.
D i e n e r , C.I., & Dweck, C A .
(1978). An a n a l y s i s of l e a r n e d
helplessness:
Continuous changes i n performance, s t r a t e g y ,
and
achievement c o g n i t i o n s f o l l o w i n g f a i l u r e .
J o u r n a l of
P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 36. 451-462.
D i e n e r , C.I.,
& Dweck, C A .
(1980). An a n a l y s i s of
learned
helplessness:
I I . The
p r o c e s s i n g of s u c c e s s . J o u r n a l of
P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 39. 940-952.
Dixon, W.J.
(Chief
E d i t o r ) (1981). BMDP S t a t i s t i c a l
1981. B e r k e l e y , CA: U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a P r e s s .

Software

Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s ,
1961, Census of Canada. B u l l e t i n
3.1-9, Ottawa, ON: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1963.
Douglas,
V.I.
(1976). P e r c e p t u a l and
cognitive
factors
as
determinants of l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s :
A
review
chapter
with
s p e c i a l emphasis on a t t e n t i o n a l f a c t o r s .
In R.M.
K n i g h t s and
D.J.
Bakker
( E d s . ) , The neuropsychology of
learning
disorders.
Baltimore,
MD:
U n i v e r s i t y Park
Press.
Douglas,
V.I.
(1980a).
Higher mental p r o c e s s e s i n h y p e r a c t i v e
children:
Implications for t r a i n i n g .
In R.M.
K n i g h t s and
D.J.
Bakker
(Eds.).
Rehabilitation.
treatment
and
management of l e a r n i n g
disorders.
Baltimore: University
Park P r e s s .
Douglas,
V.I.
(1980b). Treatment
and t r a i n i n g approaches
to
hyperactivity:
E s t a b l i s h i n g i n t e r n a l or e x t e r n a l
control.
In C K .
Whalen and B.
Henker, H y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n :
The
social
ecology of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and treatment. New York:
Academic P r e s s .
Douglas,
V.
(1981,
May 5 ) . Workshop A:
A cognitive training
approach
f o r the i m p u l s i v e c h i l d .
Clinical
Concerns
in
C h i l d Development: A Focus on C o g n i t i o n Conference.
Simon
F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y , Burnaby, B C
Douglas,
D.,
& Anisman, H. (1975). H e l p l e s s n e s s or e x p e c t a t i o n
incongruency: E f f e c t s of a v e r s i v e s t i m u l a t i o n on subsequent
performance.
J o u r n a l of Experimental
Psychology: Human
P e r c e p t i o n and Performance. 1, 411-417.

220

Duffy,
F.H., Denckla, M.B.,
Bartels,
P.H., S a n d i n i ,
G., &
Kiessling,
L.S. (1980a). D y s l e x i a : R e g i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n
b r a i n e l e c t r i c a l a c t i v i t y by t o p o g r a p h i c mapping. A n n a l s of
Neurology. 7, 412-420.
Duffy,
F.H., Denckla, M.B.,
Bartels,
P.H., S a n d i n i ,
G., &
K i e s s l i n g L.S. (1980b).
Dyslexia:
automated d i a g n o s i s by
computerized
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of b r a i n e l e c t r i c a l
activity.
A n n a l s of Neurology. 7, 421-428.
Duncan, O.D. (1961). A socioeconomic index f o r a l l o c c u p a t i o n s .
In A . J . R e i s s ,
J r . ( E d . ) , Occupations and s o c i a l s t a t u s .
New York: Free P r e s s .
Dunn, H.G. ( i n p r e p a r a t i o n ) .
Sequelae
of Low B i r t h
Vancouver
Study. New York: Heinemann.

Weight:

Dweck, C.S. (1975). The r o l e of e x p e c t a t i o n s and a t t r i b u t i o n s i n

the a l l e v i a t i o n
of l e a r n e d
helplessness.
Journal
of
P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 31. 674-685.
Dweck, C.S., & Bush, E.S. (1976). Sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n l e a r n e d
helplessness:
I. D i f f e r e n t i a l
d e b i l i t a t i o n w i t h peer and
a d u l t e v a l u a t o r s . Developmental Psychology. 12, 147-156.
Dweck, C.S., Davidson, W., N e l s o n , S., & Enna, B. (1978). Sex
differences i n learned helplessness:
I I . The c o n t i n g e n c i e s
of
evaluative
feedback
i n the classroom and I I I . An
experimental a n a l y s i s .
Developmental Psychology. 14. 268276.
Dweck, C.S., & G i l l i a r d ,
D.
determinants of r e a c t i o n s
p e r s i s t e n c e and expectancy
and S o c i a l Psychology. 32.

(1975). Expectancy statements as

to f a i l u r e :
Sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n
change. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y
1077-1084.

Dweck, C.S., & Goetz, T.E. (1978). A t t r i b u t i o n s and l e a r n e d

helplessness.
In J.H. Harvey,
W.J. Ickes, and R.F. Kidd
( E d s . ) , New d i r e c t i o n s i n a t t r i b u t i o n r e s e a r c h . ( V o l . 2,
pp. 157-179). H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s .
Dweck, C.S., Goetz, T.E. , & S t r a u s s , N.L.(1980). Sex d i f f e r e n c e s
in
learned
helplessness:
IV.
An e x p e r i m e n t a l
and
naturalistic
study
of f a i l u r e
generalization
and i t s
m e d i a t o r s . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l
Psychology.
38, 441-452.
Dweck, C.S., & L i c h t ,
B.G. (1980). Learned h e l p l e s s n e s s and
i n t e l l e c t u a l achievement.
In J . Garber & M.E.P.
Seligman
Human H e l p l e s s n e s s : Theory and a p p l i c a t i o n s (pp. 197-221).
New York: Academic P r e s s .
Dweck, C.S., & Reppucci, N.D. (1973). Learned h e l p l e s s n e s s and
reinforcement
responsibility
in children.
J o u r n a l of
P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 25. 109-116.
221

Dweck, C.S., & Wortman, C.B. (1982). Learned

helplessness,
anxiety,
and achievement m o t i v a t i o n . In H.W. Krohne and L.
Laux ( E d s . ) , Achievement. s t r e s s .
and a n x i e t y . New York:
Hemisphere Pub. Corp.
Eaves, L.C. (1983). Some p r e d i c t i v e antecedents of poor s c h o o l
achievement.
Unpublished
doctoral dissertation,
Simon
Fraser
U n i v e r s i t y , Burnaby, BC.
Eaves, L . C , & C r i c h t o n , J.U. (1974-75). A f i v e - y e a r follow-up
of
c h i l d r e n with
minimal
brain dysfunction.
Academic
Therapy. 10, 173-180.
Eisenberger,
R., Park, D . C , & Frank, M. (1976).
Learned
i n d u s t r i o u s n e s s and s o c i a l
reinforcement.
Journal
of
P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 33. 227-232.
Elkind,
D., (1969). P i a g e t i a n and psychometric c o n c e p t i o n s of
i n t e l l i g e n c e . Harvard E d u c a t i o n a l Review. 39. 319-337.
E l k i n d , D. (1974). C h i l d r e n and a d o l e s c e n t s : I n t e r p r e t i v e essays
on Jean P i a g e t . London: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s .
E s t e s , W.K.
(1974). L e a r n i n g theory and i n t e l l i g e n c e . American
P s v c h o l o g i s t . 29. 740-749.
Feather,
N.T. (1967). V a l e n c e
of outcome and e x p e c t a t i o n of
success
i n r e l a t i o n to task d i f f i c u l t y and p e r c e i v e d l o c u s
of c o n t r o l .
J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l
Psychology.
7, 372-386.
Feather,
N.T. (1969). A t t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and v a l e n c e
of
success
and f a i l u r e i n r e l a t i o n to i n i t i a l
confidence
and
task performance. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l
Psychology. 13, 129-144.
Feather,
N.T.,
& Simon,
J.G.
(1971a).
A t t r i b u t i o n of
responsibility
and v a l e n c e
of outcome i n r e l a t i o n to
initial
c o n f i d e n c e and success and f a i l u r e of s e l f and
other. Journal
of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 18.
173-188.
Feather,
N.T., & Simon, J.G. (1971b). Causal a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r
success
and f a i l u r e i n r e l a t i o n to e x p e c t a t i o n s of s u c c e s s
based
upon s e l e c t i v e or m a n i p u l a t i v e c o n t r o l .
J o u r n a l of
P e r s o n a l i ty. 39. 527-554.
Feighner,
J . , Robins, E., Guze, S., et a l . ( 1 9 7 2 ) . D i a g n o s t i c
criteria
f o r use i n p s y c h i a t r i c
r e s e a r c h . A r c h i v e s of
General P s y c h i a t r y . 26. 57-63.
F i n u c c i , J.M., G u t h r i e , T.T., C h i l d s , A.L., Abbey, H., & C h i l d s ,
B.
(1976). The g e n e t i c s of s p e c i f i c r e a d i n g
disability.
A n n a l s of Human G e n e t i c s . 40, 1-23.
222

F i r e s t o n e , P., &
punishment
hyperactive
Psychology.

Douglas, V . I . (1975). The e f f e c t s of reward and

on
reaction
times and autonomic
activity
in
and normal c h i l d r e n .
J o u r n a l of Abnormal C h i l d
3, 201-215.

F i t c h , Q. (1970). E f f e c t s of s e l f - e s t e e m , p e r c e i v e d performance,
and c h o i c e on c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s ,
J o u r n a l of
Personality
and S o c i a l Psychology. 16. 311-315.
Fontaine,
Q. (1974). S o c i a l comparison and some determinants of
expected p e r s o n a l c o n t r o l and expected performance
in a
novel
situation.
J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y
and
Social
Psychology. 29.
487-496.
Forness,
S.R.,
& C a n t w e l l , D.P.
(1982). DSM I I I p s y c h i a t r i c
diagnoses and s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n c a t e g o r i e s . The J o u r n a l of
S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n . 16. 49-63.
Freud, S.
(1957). Mourning & m e l a n c h o l i a . In J . Strachey (Ed.
and t r a n s . ) , Standard e d i t i o n of the complete p s y c h o l o g i c a l
works of Sigmund Freud. V o l . 14.
London: Hogarth P r e s s ,
1957 ( O r i g i n a l l y p u b l i s h e d , 1917).
Frieze,
I. (1980).
Beliefs
about s u c c e s s and f a i l u r e i n the
c l a s s r o o m . In J.H. M c M i l l a n ( E d . ) , The s o c i a l psychology of
s c h o o l l e a r n i n g (pp. 39-78).
New York: Academic P r e s s .
Frieze,
I.H.,
Fisher,
J . , Hanusa, B., McHugh, M.C., & V a l l e ,
V.A.
(1978). A t t r i b u t i o n s
of
the causes of s u c c e s s
and
f a i l u r e as i n t e r n a l and e x t e r n a l b a r r i e r s to achievement i n
women. In J.A.
Sherman and
F.L.
Denmark
(Eds.),
The
Psychology
of Women: F u t u r e d i r e c t i o n s i n r e s e a r c h .
New
York: P s y c h o l o g i c a l Dimensions, Inc.
Frommer, E.
(1968). D e p r e s s i v e i l l n e s s i n c h i l d h o o d .
J o u r n a l of P s y c h i a t r y . 2, 117-123.
Garber,
J.,
&
helplessness:
Press.

Bri t i s h

Seligman,
M.E.P.
(Eds.)
(1980).
Human
Theory and a p p l i c a t i o n s . New York: Academic

Gardner, E.F., Rudman, H.C., K a r l s e n , B., & Merwin, J.C. (1973).

S t a n f o r d Achievement T e s t : 7th e d i t i o n . San A n t o n i o , TX: The
Psychological Corporation.
Gilmor, T.M.,
& Minton,
H.L. (1974). I n t e r n a l v e r s u s e x t e r n a l
a t t r i b u t i o n s of task performance as a f u n c t i o n of l o c u s of
control,
initial
c o n f i d e n c e and s u c c e s s - f a i l u r e
outcome.
J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y . 42, 159-174.
Glaser,
K. (1967). Masked d e p r e s s i o n i n c h i l d r e n & a d o l e s c e n t s .
American J o u r n a l of Psychotherapy. 21. 565-574.

223

Goetz, T.E., & Dweck, C.S. (1980).

social
situations.
J o u r n a l of
Psychology. 39. 246-255.

Learned h e l p l e s s n e s s i n
Personality
and S o c i a l

Goldstein,
D.,
& Dundon,
W.D.
(1985-1986).
Affect a n d
cognition
in learning d i s a b i l i t i e s .
In
S. J .
Ceci
(Ed.),
Handbook
of
cognitive.
soci a l .
and
neuropsychological
a s p e c t s of l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s (2
vols.
i n one, V o l s .
1 and 2 ) . New York: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associ ates.
Golin,
S., Sweeney, P.D.,
& S c h a e f f e r , D.E. (1981). The
causality
of c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s i n d e p r e s s i o n : A
crosslagged
panel c o r r e l a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s .
J o u r n a l of Abnormal
P s y c h o l o g y . 90, 14-22.
G o t l i b , I.H. (1981). S e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t and r e c a l l : D i f f e r e n t i a l
deficits
in
depressed
and
nondepressed
psychiatric
inpatients
on chance and s k i l l e d
tasks.
J o u r n a l of
Abnormal Psychology.
90, 521-530.
G o t l i b , I.H., & Olson, J.M. (1983). D e p r e s s i o n , psychopathology,
and s e l f - s e r v i n g a t t r i b u t i o n s .
B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of C l i n i c a l
Psychology. 22. 309-310.
Gotlib,
I.H., & Robinson,
L.A. (1982). Responses to depressed
individuals:
Discrepancies
between
self-report
and
observerr a t e d b e h a v i o r . J o u r n a l of Abnormal Psychology.
91, 231-240.
Graham, P., R u t t e r , M.,
& George, S. (1973). Temperamental
characteristics
as p r e d i c t o r s
of behavior d i s o r d e r s i n
c h i l d r e n . American J o u r n a l of O r t h o p s y c h i a t r y . 43. 328-339.
Grimes,
L. (1981). Learned h e l p l e s s n e s s and a t t r i b u t i o n t h e o r y :
Redefining
children's
learning
problems.
Learning
D i s a b i l i t y Q u a r t e r l y . 4, 91-100.
Guilford,
J.P. (1967).
York: McGraw-Hill.

The n a t u r e of human i n t e l l i g e n c e .

Guilford,
J.P.,
& Hoepfner,
R. (1971).
i n t e l l i g e n c e . New York: M c G r a w - H i l l .

The

H a k s t i a n , A.R., & Bennet,

R.N. (1977). V a l i d i t y
the Comprehensive A b i l i t y
B a t t e r y (CAB):
achievement
criteria.
Educational
and
Measurement. 37. 425-437.

analysis

New
of

studies using
I . Academic
Psychological

H a k s t i a n , A.R., & C a t t e l l , R.B. (1974). The c h e c k i n g of primary

ability
structure
on a broader
b a s i s of performances.
B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology. 44, 140-154.

224

Hakstian,
A.R.,
& Cattell,
R.B.
(1976). Manual
Comprehensive
Ability
Battery
(CAB).
1976
Champaign,
IL:
Institute
f o r P e r s o n a l i t y and
T e s t i ng.
Hamachek, D.E. (1978). Encounters w i t h
R i n e h a r t & Winston.

the s e l f . New

for
the
Edition.
Ability

York: H o l t ,

Hamilton, M.
(1960). A r a t i n g s c a l e f o r d e p r e s s i o n . J o u r n a l
Neurology. Neurosurgery and P s y c h i a t r y . 23. 56-61.

of

Hammen, C.L.,
& deMayo, R.
(1982). C o g n i t i v e c o r r e l a t e s of
teacher
s t r e s s and d e p r e s s i v e symptoms: I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r
attributional
models of d e p r e s s i o n .
Journal
of
Abnormal
Psychology. 91, 96-101.
Hanusa, B.H.,
& Schulz,
R. (1977). A t t r i b u t i o n a l m e d i a t o r s of
learned
helplessness.
Journal
of P e r s o n a l i t y and
Social
Psychology. 35. 602-611.
Haqq,

D.M.
(1979). Temporal
perspective
in
attribution.
Unpublished master's t h e s i s ,
B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, BC.

actor-observer
U n i v e r s i t y of

Harber, J . (1981). L e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t y r e s e a r c h : How f a r have

p r o g r e s s e d ? L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t y Q u a r t e r l y . 4, 372-381.
Hartzell,
H.E.,
& Compton, C. (1984). L e a r n i n g
year f o l l o w - u p . P e d i a t r i c s . 74. 1058-1064.

we

disability:

10-

Harvey, J.H.,
Ickes,
W.J.,
& Kidd,
R.F.
(Eds.) (1976).
d i r e c t i o n s in a t t r i b u t i o n research (Vol. 1). H i l l s d a l e ,
Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s .

New
NJ:

Harvey, J.H.,
Ickes, W.J.,
& Kidd,
R.F.
(Eds.) (1978).
d i r e c t i o n s in a t t r i b u t i o n research (Vol. 2). H i l l s d a l e ,
Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s .

New
NJ:

Harvey, J.H.,
Ickes, W.J.,
& Kidd,
R.F.
(Eds.) (1981). New
d i r e c t i o n s in a t t r i b u t i o n research.
(Vol. 3).
Hillsdale,
NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s .
Hastorf,
A.,
Schneider,
D.,
& Polefka,
J.
p e r c e p t i o n . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Heider,
New

F.
(1958). The
York: W i l e y .

(1970).

Person

psychology of i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s .

Helper,
M.M.
(1980). Follow-up of c h i l d r e n w i t h minimal b r a i n
dysfunctions:
Outcomes & p r e d i c t o r s . In H.E. R i e and
E.D.
Rie (Eds.) Handbook of minimal b r a i n d y s f u n c t i o n s (pp.
75114).
New York: John Wiley & Sons.

225

Higgins,
C,
& Wertman,
Albany, NY: A u t h o r s .

H. (1968). V i s u a l c l o s u r e

assessment.

Hiroto,
D.S. (1974). Locus of c o n t r o l and l e a r n e d h e l p l e s s n e s s .
J o u r n a l of E x p e r i m e n t a l Psychology. 102. 187-193.
Hiroto,
D.S., & Seligman, M.E.P. (1975). G e n e r a l i t y of l e a r n e d
helplessness
i n man. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y
and S o c i a l
Psychology. 31, 311-327.
H o l l i n g s h e a d , A.B. (1957). Two-factor index of s o c i a l
Unpublished m a n u s c r i p t , Y a l e U n i v e r s i t y .

position.

Holroyd,
K.A., Westbrook, T., Wolf, M., & Badhorn, E . (1978).
Performance,
cognition,
and p h y s i o l o g i c a l r e s p o n d i n g i n
test
a n x i e t y . J o u r n a l o f Abnormal Psychology. 87. 442451.
Hughes,
J.R.
(1978).
Electroencephalographic
and
neurophysiological studies in dyslexia.
In A.L. Benton & D.
Pearl
(Eds.),
D y s l e x i a : An a p p r a i s a l of c u r r e n t
knowledge
(pp. 205-240). New York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s .
Hunt,

E. (1971). What k i n d
Psychology. 2, 57-98.

Hunt,

E. (1973). The memory we must have.

In R. Shank and K.
Colby ( E d s . ) ,
Computer models of thought and language. San
F r a n c i s c o : Freeman.

Hunt,

E., & Lansman, M.

(1975). C o g n i t i v e theory a p p l i e d to
individual differences.
In W.K.
Estes (Ed.),
Handbook of
l e a r n i n g and c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s ( V o l . 1 ) . H i l l s d a l e , NJ:
Erlbaum.

Hunt,

E., Lunneborg, C., & Lewis, J . (1975). What does i t mean

to be h i g h v e r b a l ? C o g n i t i v e Psychology. 7, 194-227.

226

of computer

i s man?

Cogni t i v e

I c k e s , N.J.,
& Layden, M.A.
(1978). A t t r i b u t i o n a l s t y l e s . In
J.H.
Harvey, N.J.
Ickes, and
R.F.
Kidd
(Eds.),
New
d i r e c t i o n s i n a t t r i b u t i o n r e s e a r c h ( v o l . 2 ) . H i l l s d a l e , NJ:
Erlbaum.
I l l i n g w o r t h , R.S. (1980). Developmental v a r i a t i o n i n r e l a t i o n to
minimal b r a i n d y s f u n c t i o n . In H.E. R i e and E.D. R i e ( E d s . ) ,
Handbook of minimal b r a i n d y s f u n c t i o n s (pp. 522-565).
New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Ingram,
T.T.S.
(1960).
Pediatric
aspects
of
specific
developmental d y s p h a s i a , d y s l e x i a and d y s g r a p h i a . C e r e b r a l
P a l s y B u l l e t i n . 2, 254-277.
Janoff-Bulman,
R.
(1979). C h a r a c t e r o l o g i c a l v e r s u s b e h a v i o r a l
self-blame:
I n q u i r i e s i n t o d e p r e s s i o n and rape. J o u r n a l of
P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 37. 1798-1809.
Jensen, A.R., & Rohwer, J r . , W.D.
(1966). The Stroop c o l o r - w o r d
t e s t : A review. A c t a P s y c h o l o g i c a . 25. 36-93.
Johnson, D.S.
(1981). N a t u r a l l y a c q u i r e d l e a r n e d h e l p l e s s n e s s :
The r e l a t i o n s h i p of s c h o o l f a i l u r e to achievement b e h a v i o r ,
attributions,
and
self-concept.
J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l
Psychology. 73. 174-180.
Jones,
E.E.,
& D a v i s , K.E. (1965). From a c t s to d i s p o s i t i o n s :
The a t t r i b u t i o n a l p r o c e s s i n person p e r c e p t i o n . Advances i n
E x p e r i m e n t a l S o c i a l Psychology. 2, 219-266.
Jones,
E.E.,
D a v i s , K.E., & Gergen, K.J. (1961). Role p l a y i n g
variations
and
their
informational
value f o r
person
p e r c e p t i o n . J o u r n a l of Abnormal S o c i a l Psychology. 63. 302310.
Jones, E.E., Kanouse, D.E., K e l l e y , H.H., N i s b e t t , R.E., V a l i n s ,
S.,
Weiner, B. (Eds.) (1972). A t t r i b u t i o n : P e r c e i v i n g the
causes of b e h a v i o r . Morristown, NJ: General L e a r n i n g P r e s s .
Jones, E.E., & N i s b e t t , R.E. (1972). The a c t o r and the o b s e r v e r :
Divergent
p e r c e p t i o n s of the causes of b e h a v i o r . In
E.E.
Jones et a l . (Eds.) A t t r i b u t i o n :
P e r c e i v i n g the causes of
b e h a v i o r . Morristown, NJ: General L e a r n i n g P r e s s .
Jones,
S.L.,
N a t i o n , J.R.,
& Massad, P. (1977). Immunization
against
l e a r n e d h e l p l e s s n e s s i n man.
J o u r n a l of Abnormal
Psychology. 86. 75-83.
Jones,
E.E.,
& Wortman,
a t t r i b u t i o n a l approach.
Press.

C.
(1973).
Ingratiation:
An
Morristown, NJ:
General L e a r n i n g

227

Kagan, J . , Moss, H.A., & S i g e l ,

I.E. (1963). P s y c h o l o g i c a l
s i g n i f i c a n c e of s t y l e s of c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n . In J.C. Wright
and J . Kagan ( E d s . ) , B a s i c c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s i n c h i l d r e n .
Monograph of the S c c i e t y f o r Research i n C h i l d Development,
S e r i a l No. 86.
Kagan, J . , Rosman, B.'L., Day D. , A l b e r t , J . , &
(1964).
Information p r o c e s s i n g i n the c h i l d :
of
a n a l y t i c and ;) r e f l e c t i v e
attitudes.
Monographs: General and A p p l i e d . 78. ( 1 , Whole

P h i l l i p s , W.
Significance
Psvchologi c a l
No. 578).

Karoly,
P. (1977). B e h a v i o r a l
self-management
in children:
Concepts, methods,
i s s u e s , and d i r e c t i o n s . In M. Hersen,
R.M. E i s l e r ,
& P.M. M i l l e r ( E d s . ) ,
P r o g r e s s i n behavior
m o d i f i c a t i o n . New York: Academic P r e s s , 5, 197-262.
Kashani,
J.H. (1982). Epidemiology of c h i l d h o o d d e p r e s s i o n . In
L.
Grinspoon
(Ed.),
Psychiatry
1982:
Annual Review.
Washington, DC: American P s y c h i a t r i c P r e s s , I n c .
Kaufman, A.S. (1975). F a c t o r a n a l y s i s of the WISC-R a t eleven
age
levels
between
6.5 and 16.5 y e a r s .
J o u r n a l of
C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 43. 135-147.
Kaufman, A.S. (1979a). I n t e l l i g e n t
York: John Wiley & Sons.

t e s t i n g with

the WISC-R. New

Kaufman,
A.S.
(1979b). WISC-R r e s e a r c h :
Implications f o r
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . School Psychology D i g e s t . 8, 5-26.
Kaufman, A.S. (1981). The WISC-R and
assessment:
State
of the a r t .
D i s a b i l i t i e s . 14, 520-526.

learning
disabilities
Journal
of
Learning

Kavale,
K., & Nye, C. (1981).
Identification criteria for
l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s : A survey of the r e s e a r c h l i t e r a t u r e .
L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t y Q u a r t e r l y . 4, 383-388.
K e l l e y , H.H. (1967). A t t r i b u t i o n theory i n s o c i a l psychology. In
D. L e v i n e ( E d . ) , Nebraska symposium on m o t i v a t i o n . L i n c o l n ,
NE: U n i v e r s i t y of Nebraska P r e s s .
Kelley,
H.H., & M i c h e l a ,
J . L . (1980). A t t r i b u t i o n theory and
research.
In Rosenzweig & P o r t e r ( E d s . ) , Annual review of
p s y c h o l o g y . (Vol.31, pp. 457-501).
King,

E.M. and o t h e r s (1981). Canadian t e s t of b a s i c s k i l l s :

T e a c h e r ' s guide
[ o r i g i n a l t e s t by E.F. L i n d q u i s t , A.N.
Hieronymus,
and o t h e r s ] . Scarborough, ON: Thomas Nelson &
Sons (Canada) L i m i t e d .

Klee,

S.,
& Meyer,
R.6. (1979). P r e v e n t i o n
of l e a r n e d
h e l p l e s s n e s s i n humans. J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l
Psychology. 47. 411-412.

228

Klein,
D.C., & Seligman, M.E.P. (1976). R e v e r s a l of performance
deficits
and p e r c e p t u a l d e f i c i t s i n l e a r n e d h e l p l e s s n e s s
and d e p r e s s i o n . J o u r n a l of Abnormal Psychology. 85. 11-26.
Klein,
D.C., F e n c i l - M o r s e , E., & Seligman,
M.E.P.
(1976).
Learned
helplessness,
depression,
and a t t r i b u t i o n of
failure.
J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 33.
508-516.
Kolb,

B., & Nhishaw,

I.Q. (1980).
Fundamentals of
neuropsychology. San F r a n c i s c o : W.H. Freeman and Co.

human

Koller,
P.S., & Kaplan,
R.M.
(1978). A two-process theory of
learned
h e l p l e s s n e s s . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y
and S o c i a l
Psychology. 36, 1177-1183.
Kovacs,
M.
(1978).
Children's depression
inventory
Unpublished M a n u s c r i p t , U n i v e r s i t y of P i t t s b u r g h .

(CDI).

Kovacs, M. (1980/81).
R a t i n g s c a l e s to a s s e s s d e p r e s s i o n i n
school-aged c h i l d r e n . A c t a p a e d o p s y c h i a t r i c a . 46. 305-315.
Kovacs, M., & Beck, A.T. (1977). An e m p i r i c a l - c l i n i c a l approach
toward
a definition
of c h i l d h o o d d e p r e s s i o n . In J.G.
Schulterbrandt
and A.
Raskin
(Eds.),
Depression i n
childhood:
D i a g n o s i s . treatment. & c o n c e p t u a l models. New
York: Raven P r e s s .
Kovacs,.
M.,
& Beck,
A.T. (1978). M a l a d a p t i v e
cognitive
s t r u c t u r e s i n d e p r e s s i o n . American J o u r n a l of P s y c h i a t r y .
135. 525-533.
Krakowski,
A . J . (1970).
D e p r e s s i v e r e a c t i o n s of c h i l d h o o d and
a d o l e s c e n c e . Psychosomatics. 11. 429-433.
Kuhn,

B., & Kuhn, R. (1972).

Drug therapy f o r d e p r e s s i o n i n
children.
In A.L. A n n e l l ( E d . ) , D e p r e s s i v e s t a t e s i n
childhood
and adolescence (pp. 163-203). New York:
John
Wiley
and Sons.

K u i p e r , N.A. (1978).
Depression
and c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r
s u c c e s s and f a i l u r e .
J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y
and S o c i a l
Psychology. 36. 236-246.
Kukla, A. (1972). A t t r i b u t i o n a l determinants of
related
behavior.
J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y
Psychology. 21, 166-174.

achievementand
Social

Lambert, N.M.,
Sandoval,
J . , & Sassone,
D. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . M u l t i p i e
prevalence
e s t i m a t e s of h y p e r a c t i v i t y
i n school
children
and the r a t e of
occurrence
of
treatment
regimens.
American
J o u r n a l of
Orthopsychiatry.
48.
446-463.

Lang,

M.,
& T i s h e r , M.
(1978). C h i l d r e n ' s Depression
A u s t r a l i a n J o u r n a l of Psychology. 13. 293.

Scale.

Langer, E . J .
(1978). R e t h i n k i n g the r o l e of thought i n s o c i a l
interaction.
In J . Haryey, W. Ickes, & R.F. Kidd ( E d s . ) ,
New
d i r e c t i o n s in a t t r i b u t i o n
research
(yol.
2).
H i l l s d a l e , NJ:
Erlbaum.
Lansdell,
H.
(1980). T h e o r i e s
of b r a i n mechanisms i n minimal
b r a i n d y s f u n c t i o n s . In H.E. R i e & E.D. Rie ( E d s . ) , Handbook
of minimal b r a i n d y s f u n c t i o n s (pp. 117-151). New York: John
N i l e y & Sons.
Lapouse, R.
(1966). The epidemiology of behavior d i s o r d e r s i n
c h i l d r e n . American
J o u r n a l of D i s e a s e s of C h i l d r e n . I l l .
594599.
Lefkowitz,
M.M.
(1980). C h i l d h o o d
depression:
A
C o s t e l l o . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n . 87. 191-194.

reply

to

Lefkowitz,
M.M.,
& Burton,
N. (1978). Childhood d e p r e s s i o n : A
c r i t i q u e of the concept.
Psychological B u l l e t i n .
85. 716726.
Lefkowitz,
M.M.,
depression.
48, 43-50.

& T e s i n y , E.P. (1980). Assessment of c h i l d h o o d

J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l
Psychology.

Leong,
C.K.
(1974). An
investigation
of
spatial-temporal
information
processing in children with
specific
reading
d i s a b i 1 i t y . Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n ,
Department
of
Educational
Psychology,
U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a ,
Edmonton, Canada. D i s c u s s e d i n Das
et a l . , 1979.
Leong, C.K.
(1982). Promising areas of r e s e a r c h i n t o l e a r n i n g
d i s a b i l i t i e s w i t h emphasis on r e a d i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s . In J.P.
Das,
R.F.
Mulcahy, and
A.E.
Wall
( E d s . ) , Theory
and
research
i n l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s (pp.
3-26). New
York:
Plenum P r e s s .
Lesse,
S.
(1974). Depression
masked by
acting-out
behavior
p a t t e r n s . American J o u r n a l of Psychotherapy. 28. 352-361.
Lewin,
K.
(1938). The
conceptual
representation
and
the
measurement
of p s y c h o l o g i c a l f o r c e s . Durham, NC:
Duke
University Press.
Lewin, K.
(1951).
Harper.

Field

theory

in s o c i a l science.

Lewinsohn, P.M.,
Steinmetz, J.L., L a r s e n , D.W.,
(1981).
Depression-related
cognitions:
consequence? J o u r n a l of Abnormal Psychology.

230

New

York:

& Franklin, J.
Antecedent
or
90, 213-219.

Licht,
B.G.
(1983).
Cognitive-motivational
factors
that
contribute
to
the achievement
of
learning-disabled
c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l of
L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s . 16. 483-490.
Licht,
B.G.,
& Dweck, C.S.
(1984). Determinants of academic
achievement: The
i n t e r a c t i o n of
children's
achievement
o r i e n t a t i o n s w i t h s k i l l a r e a . Developmental Psychology. 20,
628-636.
Licht,
B.G.,
Kistner,
J.A.,
Ozkaragoz, T.,
Shapiro,S.,
&
Clausen,
L.
(1985). Causal a t t r i b u t i o n s of l e a r n i n g
disabled
children:
I n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s and
their
implications for
persistence.
J o u r n a l of
Educational
Psychology. 77. 208-216.
L i n g , W. , O f t e d a l , G., & Weinberg, W. (1970). D e p r e s s i v e
i n c h i l d h o o d p r e s e n t e d as s e v e r e headache. American
of D i s e a s e s of
C h i l d r e n . 120. 122-124.
Lovitt,
T.C.,
research:
Quarterly.

& Jenkins,
Defining
2, 46-50.

J.R.
(1979).
populations.

Learning
Learning

Luria,
A.R. (1966). Higher c o r t i c a l f u n c t i o n s
B a s i c Books, ( a ) .
L u r i a , A.R. (1966). Human b r a i n and
York: Harper & Row,
(b).
L u r i a , A.R.
(1973). The
Pengu i n.

disabilities
Disability

i n man.

psychological

illness
Journal

New

York:

processes.

New

working b r a i n . Harmondsworth, England:

231

MacFarlane,
J.N.,
Allen,
L., & Honzik, M.P.
(1954). A
developmental
study
of the behavior problems
of normal
children
between 21 months and 14 y e a r s . B e r k e l e y , CA:
U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a P r e s s .
Maier,
S.F., & Seligman,
Theory
and e v i d e n c e .
G e n e r a l . 105. 3-46.

M.E.P. (1976). Learned h e l p l e s s n e s s :

J o u r n a l of E x p e r i m e n t a l
Psychology:

Malmquist,
CP.
(1972).
D e p r e s s i v e phenomena i n c h i l d r e n . In
B.B. Nolman
( E d . ) , Manual of C h i l d Psvchopathology ( p p .
497-540). New York: M c G r a w - H i l l .
Manly, P . C , McMahon, R.J., B r a d l e y , C.F., & Davidson, P.O.
(1982).
Depressive a t t r i b u t i o n a l
style
and d e p r e s s i o n
following childbirth.
J o u r n a l of Abnormal Psychology. 91,
245-254.
Maslow, A.H. (1971). The f a r t h e r reaches of human n a t u r e . New
York: V i k i n g P r e s s .
Masters,
J . C , Barden,
R.C,
& F o r d , M.E. (1979). A f f e c t i v e
states,
e x p r e s s i v e b e h a v i o r , and l e a r n i n g i n c h i l d r e n .
J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 37. 380-390.
Masters,
J . C , & Furman, W. (1976). E f f e c t s of a f f e c t i v e s t a t e s
on
noncontingent
outcome e x p e c t a n c i e s and b e l i e f s
in
internal
or e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l .
Developmental P s y c h o l o g y .
12, 481-482.
Masters,
J . C , Furman, W. , & Barden, R.C. (1977). E f f e c t s of
achievement s t a n d a r d s , t a n g i b l e rewards, and s e l f - d i s p e n s e d
achievement
e v a l u a t i o n on c h i l d r e n ' s task m a t t e r s .
Child
Development. 48. 217-224.
Masters,
J . C , & Santrock, J.W.
(1976). S t u d i e s i n the s e l f r e g u l a t i o n of b e h a v i o r : E f f e c t s of c o n t i n g e n t c o g n i t i v e and
a f f e c t i v e e v e n t s . Developmental Psychology. 12, 334-348.
M a t t i s , W.,
French, J.H., & Rapin,
I . (1975). D y s l e x i a i n
children
and
young
adults:
Three
independent
neuropsychological
syndromes. Developmental M e d i c i n e and
C h i l d Neurology. 17, 150-163.
McConaughy, S.H., & R i t t e r , D.R. (1985). S o c i a l competence and
behavioral
problems
of l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d boys aged
6-11.
J o u r n a l of L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s . 18. 547-553.
McConville,
B . J . , Boag, L . C , & P u r o h i t , A.P. (1973). Three
types
of d e p r e s s i o n . Canadian
Psychiatric
Association
J o u r n a l . 18. 133-138.

232

McMahan, I . (1973). R e l a t i o n s h i p s between c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s

and
expectancy
of s u c c e s s . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y
and
S o c i a l Psychology. 28. 108-114.
Meichenbaum,
D.
(1975).
S e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n a l methods. In F.H.
Kanfer
and A.P. G o l d s t e i n ( E d s . ) ,
H e l p i n g people change
(pp. 357-391). New York: Pergamon.
Meichenbaum,
D.
(1980). C o g n i t i v e behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n w i t h
exceptional
children:
A
promise
yet
unfulfilled.
E x c e p t i o n a l E d u c a t i o n Q u a r t e r l y . 1., 83-88.
Meichenbaum,
D.,
& Goodman, J . (1971). T r a i n i n g
impulsive
c h i l d r e n to t a l k to themselves: A means of d e v e l o p i n g s e l f control.
J o u r n a l of Abnormal Psychology. 77. 115-126.
Mendelson, W., Johnson, N., & Stewart, M.A. (1971). H y p e r a c t i v e
children
as teenagers: A f o l l o w - u p s t u d y . J o u r n a l of
Nervous and Mental D i s e a s e s . 153. 273-279.
Menkes, M.J.,
Rowe, J.S., & Menkes, J.H. (1967). A t w e n t y - f i v e
year f o l l o w - u p study on the h y p e r k i n e t i c c h i l d w i t h minimal
b r a i n d y s f u n c t i o n . P e d i a t r i c s . 39. 393-399.
M e t a l s k y , G.I., Abramson, L.Y., Seligman, M.E.P., Semrnel, A., &
Peterson,
C. (1982). A t t r i b u t i o n a l s t y l e s and l i f e events
in
the c l a s s r o o m : V u l n e r a b i l i t y and i n v u l n e r a b i l i t y to
d e p r e s s i v e mood r e a c t i o n s .
J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y
and
Social
Psychology. 43. 612-617.
Meyer, J.P. (1980). Causal a t t r i b u t i o n f o r s u c c e s s and f a i l u r e :
A m u l t i v a r i a t e i n v e s t i g a t i o n of d i m e n s i o n a l i t y , f o r m a t i o n ,
and
consequences.
J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y
and
Social
Psychology. 38. 704-718.
Miller,
D.T.
(1976). Ego
involvement
and a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r
s u c c e s s and f a i l u r e .
J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y
and
Social
Psychology. 34.. 901-906.
Miller,
D.T.,
& Ross, M.
(1975). S e l f - s e r v i n g b i a s e s i n the
attribution
of c a u s a l i t y :
Fact or f i c t i o n ?
Psvchological
B u l l e t i n . 82, 213-225.
M i l l e r , I . , & Norman, J . (1979). Learned h e l p l e s s n e s s i n humans:
A review
and a t t r i b u t i o n
theory model.
Psvchologi cal
B u l l e t i n . 86. 93-118.
Miller,
I.N., K l e e , S.H., &
nondepressed i n p a t i e n t s '
experimental t a s k s ,
and
Abnormal Psychology. 91,

Norman, N.H. (1982). Depressed and

c o g n i t i o n s of h y p o t h e t i c a l e v e n t s ,
s t r e s s f u l l i f e e v e n t s . J o u r n a l of
78-81.

Miller,
L.C. (1967). L o u i s v i l l e behaviour c h e c k l i s t f o r males,
6- 12 year of age. P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s . 21, 885-896.

233

Mischel,
T.
(1971).
Piaget: Cognitive
conflict
and
the
m o t i v a t i o n of thought.
In T. M i s c h e l (Ed. ), Cogni t i ve
development
and
epistemology
(pp. 311-355). New
York:
Academic P r e s s .
Mischel,
W.
(1973).
reconceptualization
80, 252-283.
Mowrer, O.H.
Wiley.

(1960).

Toward
a cognitive
social
learning
of p e r s o n a l i t y .
P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review.
L e a r n i n g theory and b e h a v i o r .

Mueller,
C.W.,
& P a r c e l , T.L.
status:
Alternatives
Development. 52. 13-30.

New

York:

(1981). Measures of socioeconomic

and
recommendations.
Child

Myklebust,
H.,
& Boshes, B. (1969, J u n e ) . Minimal b r a i n damage
in
children.
Final report,
U.S.
Public
Health
Service
C o n t r a c t 108-65-142. U.S. Department of H e a l t h , E d u c a t i o n ,
&
Welfare.
Evanston,
IL:
Northwestern
University
Publication.
Nicholls,
J.G.
(1979). Development
of p e r c e p t i o n of
own
attainment
and c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r s u c c e s s and f a i l u r e
in
r e a d i n g . J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology.
71. 9499.
Nisbett,
R.E.,
& W i l s o n , T.
(1977). T e l l i n g more than we can
know: V e r b a l r e p o r t s on mental
processes. Psychological
Review. 84. 231-259.
Olson,
J.L., & Mealor,
D.J.
(1981).
Learning
disabilities
identification:
Do r e s e a r c h e r s have the answer? L e a r n i n g
D i s a b i l i t y Q u a r t e r l y . 4, 389-400.
Or ton,
S.T.
(1928).
Specific
strephosymbolia.
Journal
of
A s s o c i a t i o n . 90, 1095-1099.

reading
disability
the
American
Medical

Overmier,
J.B.,
& Seligman,
M.E.P.
(1967). E f f e c t s
of
i n e s c a p a b l e shock
upon subsequent escape
and
avoidance
learning.
Journal
of Comparative
and
Physiological
Psychology. 63. 28-33.
Pascarella,
E.,
& Pflaum,
S.W.
(1981). The i n t e r a c t i o n
of
children's
attribution
and
l e v e l of c o n t r o l
over
error
corrections in reading i n s t r u c t i o n .
J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l
Psychology. 73. 533-540.
Pascarella,
E.T.,
Pflaum,
S.W.,
Bryan, T.H.,
St P e a r l , R.A.
(1983).
Interaction
of
internal attribution for effort
and
teacher
response mode i n r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n :
A
replication
n o t e . American E d u c a t i o n a l Research
Journal.
20, 269-276.

234

P a t t e n , M.D. (1983). R e l a t i o n s h i p s between s e l f - e s t e e m , a n x i e t y ,

and
achievement
i n young l e a r n i n g
disabled
students.
Journal
of L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s . 16. 43-45.
Pearce, J . (1977). D e p r e s s i v e d i s o r d e r s i n c h i l d h o o d . J o u r n a l of
C h i l d Psychology and P s y c h i a t r y . 18. 79-83.
Pearce,
J.B. (1978). The r e c o g n i t i o n of d e p r e s s i v e d i s o r d e r i n
children.
J o u r n a l of the Royal S o c i e t y of M e d i c i n e . 71,
494-500.
Pearl,
R. (1982). LD c h i l d r e n ' s a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r s u c c e s s and
failure:
A r e p l i c a t i o n w i t h a l a b e l e d LD sample.
Learning
D i s a b i l i t i e s Q u a r t e r l y . 5, 173-176.
Pearl,
R., & Bryan, T., & Donahue, M. (1980). L e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d
children's
a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r s u c c e s s and f a i l u r e .
Learning
D i s a b i l i t y Q u a r t e r l y . 3 . 3-9.
Peterson,
C,
Semmel, A., von Baeyer,
C. , Abramson, L.Y.,
Metalsky,
6.I.,
&
Seligman,
M.E.P.
(1982).
The
Attributional
Style
Q u e s t i o n n a i r e . C o g n i t i v e Therapy
and Research. 6, 287-299.
Peterson,
C , & Seligman, M.E.P. (1984). Causal e x p l a n a t i o n s as
a
risk
factor
f o r d e p r e s s i o n : Theory
and e v i d e n c e .
P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review. 91, 347-374.
Peterson,
D.R.
(1961). Behavior problems of middle
J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g Psychology. 25. 205-209.

children.

Petti,
T.A. (1978). Depression i n h o s p i t a l i z e d c h i l d p s y c h i a t r y
patients.
Journal
of the American
Academy
of C h i l d
P s y c h i a t r y . 17, 49-59.
Phares,
E . J . (1957). Expectancy
changes i n s k i l l and chance
s i t u a t i o n s . J o u r n a l of Abnormal S o c i a l Psychology. 54. 339342.
Phares, E . J . (1973). Locus of c o n t r o l : A p e r s o n a l i t y determinant
of b e h a v i o r . Morristown, NJ: General L e a r n i n g P r e s s .
Piaget,
J . (1926). The language and thought of the c h i l d .
York: H a r c o u r t , Brace.

New

P i e r c y , M.F., & Smyth, V. (1962). Right hemisphere dominance f o r

c e r t a i n non-verbal i n t e l l e c t u a l s k i l l s . B r a i n . 85. 775-790.
Porter,
R.B.,
Cattell,
R.B. (1979). Handbook
f o r the
Children's
Personality
Questionnaire.
Champaign,IL:
Institute
for
Personality
and
Ability
Testing,
Incorporated.

235

Porteus,
S.E. (1942). Q u a l i t a t i v e performance i n the maze t e s t .
V i n e l a n d , NJ: Smith.
Poznanski,
E.O.
(1982).
The
clinical
characteristics
of
childhood
depression.
In L.
Grinspoon ( E d . ) , P s y c h i a t r y
1982.
Annual
Review.
Washington,
DC:
American
P s y c h i a t r i c Press.
Poznanski, E.O., Cook, S.C., & C a r r o l l ,
B.J.
(1979). A
depression
rating
scale for
children.
P e d i a t r i c s . 64. 442-450.
Poznanski,
E.O.,
Cook, S.C.,
& Carroll,
B.J.
(1979). A
depression r a t i n g s c a l e f o r c h i l d r e n .
P e d i a t r i c s . 64. 442450.
Poznanski,
E.,
& Zrull,
J.P.
(1970). C h i l d h o o d d e p r e s s i o n :
Clinical
characteristics
of o v e r t l y depressed
children.
A r c h i v e s of General P s y c h i a t r y . 23.
8-15.
Preston,
R.C.,
& Yarington,
D.J.
(1967). S t a t u s
of
retarded
readers
eight
years
after
reading
diagnosis.
J o u r n a l of Reading. 11, 122-129.

fifty
clinic

Pribram,
K.H.,
& Luria,
A.R.
(1973). Psychophysiology
f r o n t a l l o b e s . New York: Academic P r e s s .

of

the

Prkachin,
K.M.,
C r a i g , K.D.,
Papageorgis,
D.,
& Reith,
G.
(1977). Nonverbal
communication d e f i c i t s and response
to
performance feedback i n d e p r e s s i o n .
Journal
of
Abnormal
Psychology. 86. 224-234.
Puig-Antich,
J . , Blau,
S.,
Marx, N.,
Greenhill,
L.L.,
&
Chambers,
W.
(1978). P r e p u b e r t a l
major
depressive
disorder;
P i l o t study.
J o u r n a l of
the American
Academy
of C h i l d P s y c h i a t r y . 17. 695-707.
Quay, H.C.
Werry
(2nd

(1979). R e s i d e n t i a l treatment.
In H.C.
( E d s . ) , P s y c h o p a t h o l o g i c a l d i s o r d e r s of
e d . ) . New York: W i l e y .

236

Quay & J .
childhood

Rabinovitch,
R.D.,
Dr ew
A.L.|
De Jong,
R.,
Ingram, W., &
Withey,
L.
(1954).
A
r e s e a r c h approach
to r e a d i n g
retardation.
In R. M c i n t o s h & C.C. Hare,
(Eds.) Neurology
and p s y c h i a t r y i n c h i l d h o o d (pp. 363-395). B a l t i m o r e , MD:
W i l l i a m s and W i l k i n s .
(

Radloff,
L.
(1975). Sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n d e p r e s s i o n . The e f f e c t s
of o c c u p a t i o n and m a r i t a l s t a t u s . Sex R o l e s . 1., 249-265.
Ransohoff,
D.F., & F e i n s t e i n , A.R. (1978). Problems of spectrum
and
b i a s i n e v a l u a t i n g the e f f i c a c y of d i a g n o s t i c
tests.
New England J o u r n a l of M e d i c i n e . 299. 926-930.
Rapoport,
J.L., Quinn,
P.O.,
Bradbard,
G.,
R i d d l e , K.D., &
Brooks,
E.
(1974).
Imipramine
and
methylphenidate
treatments
of h y p e r a c t i v e boys.
A r c h i v e s of
General
P s y c h i a t r y . 30, 789-793.
Raven, J.C. (1956,1962). C o l o u r e d P r o g r e s s i v e M a t r i c e s . London:
H.K. Lewis & Co., L t d .
Raven, J.C.
(1965). Guide
to u s i n g the C o l o u r e d
M a t r i c e s . London: H.K. Lewis & Co., L t d .

Progressive

Rawson, M.B.
(1968). Developmental language d i s a b i l i t y : A d u l t
accomplishments of d y s l e x i c boys.
B a l t i m o r e : Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Renshaw, D.C.
(1974).
Suicide
and
depression
J o u r n a l of School H e a l t h . 44. 487-489.

in

children.

Rholes, W.S.,
B l a c k w e l l , J . , Jordan, C., & W a l t e r s , C. (1980). A
developmental study of l e a r n e d h e l p l e s s n e s s .
Developmental
Psychology. 16. 616-624.
Richman, N.
(1977). Short term outcome of behavior problems i n
three
year
old children.
In
P.J.
Graham
(Ed.),
E p i d e m i o l o g i c a l approaches i n c h i l d p s y c h i a t r y . New
York:
Academic P r e s s .
Riddle,
K.D., & Rapoport, J.L. (1976). A 2-year f o l l o w - u p of 72
hyperactive
boys.
The
J o u r n a l of Nervous and
Mental
D i s e a s e . 162. 126-134.
Rie,

H.E.,
& R i e , E.D.
(1980). Handbook of
d y s f u n c t i o n s . New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Rizley,
R.C.
attribution
87, 32-48.

minimal

brain

(1978).
Depression
and
distortion
i n the
of c a u s a l i t y .
J o u r n a l of Abnormal Psychology.

237

Robins,
E. , & Guze, S. (1970).
Establishment of d i a g n o s t i c
validity
in psychiatric
illness:
Its application
to
s c h i z o p h r e n i a . American J o u r n a l of P s y c h i a t r y .
126.
983987.
Robins,
L.N.
(1966). Deviant
Williams & Wilkins.

c h i l d r e n grown

UP.

Baltimore:

Robins,
L.N.
(1979). Follow-up s t u d i e s . In H.C. Quay and J.S.
Werry
(Eds.),
P s v c h o p a t h o l o g i c a l d i s o r d e r s of c h i l d h o o d
(pp. 483-513). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Robinson,
H.M.,
& Smith, H.K. (1962). Reading c l i n i c c l i e n t s 'ten y e a r s a f t e r . The Elementary School J o u r n a l . 63. 22-28.
Rogers,
C.R.
(1959). A
theory of therapy, p e r s o n a l i t y ,
and
interpersonal
relationships,
as developed i n the
clientc e n t e r e d framework. In S.
Koch ( E d . ) , Psychology: A study
of
a s c i e n c e ( V o l . 3 ) . New York: M c G r a w - H i l l .
Ross,

L.,
Lepper, M.R.,
& Hubbard, M. (1975). Perseverance i n
s e l f - p e r c e p t i o n and s o c i a l p e r c e p t i o n : B i a s e d a t t r i b u t i o n a l
processes
in
the d e b r i e f i n g
paradigm.
Journal
of
P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 32. 880-892.

Roth,

S.,
& Kubal, L.
(1975). E f f e c t s
of
noncontingent
reinforcement
on
tasks
of
differing
importance:
Facilitation
and
learned
helplessness.
Journal
of
P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 32. 680-691.

Rotter,
J.B.
(1966). G e n e r a l i z e d e x p e c t a n c i e s
versus external c o n t r o l
of r e i n f o r c e m e n t .
Monographs. 80, ( 1 , Whole No. 609).

for
internal
Psychological

Rotter,
J . C , Chance, J.E., & Phares, E . J . (1972). A p p l i c a t i o n s
of a s o c i a l l e a r n i n g theory of p e r s o n a l i t y . New York: H o l t ,
R i n e h a r t & Winston.
Royce, J.R.,
Y e u d a l l , L.T., & Bock, C. (1976). F a c t o r a n a l y t i c
s t u d i e s of human b r a i n damage: I. F i r s t and second-order
factors
and
their
brain
correlates.
Multivariate
B e h a v i o r a l Research. 4, 381-418.
Ruble,
D.N.,
Rholes, W.S.
(1981). The
development
of
children's
p e r c e p t i o n s and a t t r i b u t i o n s about t h e i r s o c i a l
world.
In J.H.
Harvey,
W. I c k e s , & R.F. Kidd ( E d s . ) , New
directions
i n a t t r i b u t i o n r e s e a r c h ( V o l . 3,
pp.
3-36).
H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rugel, R.P.
(1974). WISC s u b t e s t s c o r e s of d i s a b l e d r e a d e r s : A
review
with respect
to Bannatyne's
recategorization.
J o u r n a l of L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s . 7, 48-55.
Rusch, R.R.
(1970). R e l i a b i l i t y of the Higgins-Wertman T e s t of
V i s u a l C l o s u r e . P e r c e p t u a l and Motor S k i l l s . 30, 879-885.
238

Rusch, R.R.
(1971). Note on the v a l i d i t y of the c l a i m that f i n a l
c l o s u r e i s r e l a t e d to r e a d i n g achievement. P e r c e p t u a l
and
Motor S k i l l s . 32. 394.
Rutter,
M.
(1972). R e l a t i o n s h i p
between
child
and
adult
p s y c h i a t r i c d i s o r d e r s . A c t a P s v c h i a t r i c a S c a n d i n a v i c a . 48.
321.
R u t t e r , M. (1977). B r a i n damage syndromes i n c h i l d h o o d : Concepts
and
f i n d i n g s . J o u r n a l of C h i l d Psychology and P s y c h i a t r y .
16, 181-197.
Rutter,
M. (1978). E a r l y s o u r c e s of s e c u r i t y and competence. In
J.S.
Bruner
& A.
Garton
(Eds.),
Human growth
and
development.
Oxford: Clarendon P r e s s .
Rutter,
M.
(1980).
Raised
lead
levels
and
impaired
c o g n i t i v e / b e h a v i o r a l f u n c t i o n i n g : A review of the evidence.
Supplement
to Developmental M e d i c i n e and C h i l d Neurology .
Vol.22, No.
1.
Supplement No. 42. S p a s t i c s I n t e r n a t i o n a l
Medical
Publications
in association with
Wm.
Heinemann
M e d i c a l Books L t d . , Tadworth, Surrey; J.B. L i p p i n c o t t Co.,
East Washington Square, P h i l a d e l p h i a , PA., 19105. London:
1980.
(b)
Rutter,
M., & Chadwick, 0. (1980). N e u r o b e h a v i o r a l a s s o c i a t i o n s
and syndromes of "minimal b r a i n d y s f u n c t i o n . " In F.C.
Rose
( E d . ) , C l i n i c a l neuro-epidemiology. Tunbridge W e l l s : Pitman
Medical.
Rutter,
M.,
Chadwick, 0., & Schachar, R. (1980). H y p e r a c t i v i t y
and minimal b r a i n d y s f u n c t i o n : E p i d e m i o l o g i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e s
on
questions
of cause and
classification.
Presented
at
Symposium
on
Minimal B r a i n D y s f u n c t i o n
and
Hyperkinetic
Behavior i n C h i l d r e n . A p r i l 25, 1980, Omaha, Nebraska.
Rutter,
M.,
Chadwick, 0.,
S h a f f e r , D., & Brown, G. (1980). A
p r o s p e c t i v e study of c h i l d r e n w i t h head i n j u r i e s : I. Design
and methods. P s y c h o l o g i c a l M e d i c i n e . 10. 633-645.
Rutter,
M.,
Graham, P.,
study i n c h i l d h o o d .
Publications.

& Y u l e , W. (1970a). A n e u r o p s y c h i a t r i c
London: S p a s t i c s I n t e r n a t i o n a l M e d i c a l

Rutter,
M.,
T i z a r d , J . , & Whitmore, K.
(Eds.)
(1970b).
Education,
h e a l t h and b e h a v i o r .
The I s l e of Wight
Study.
London: Longmans.
Rutter,
M.,
& Y u l e , W. (1975). The concept of s p e c i f i c r e a d i n g
retardation.
Journal
of C h i l d Psychology and
Psychiatry.
16. 181-197.

239

Ryan,

T.A., J r . , J o i n e r ,
' - *van,
B.F.(1981). MINITAB
Reference Manual. U n i v e r s i t y Park,
PA: P e n n s y l v a n i a S t a t e
University.
A companion
to MINITAB Student
Handbook.
Boston,
MA: Duxbury P r e s s .
B

Ryckman, D.B., & E l r o d , G.F. (1983). Once i s not enough. J o u r n a l

of L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s . 16. 87-89.
S a n t o s t e f a n o , S. (1978). A biodevelopmental approach
p s y c h o l o g y . New York: John Wiley & Sons, I n c .

to c l i n i c a l

Satterfield,
J.H., C a n t w e l l , D.P., & S a t t e r f i e l d , B.T. (1979).
Multimodality
treatment. A r c h i v e s of General
Psychiatry.
36. 965-974.
Sattler,
J.M. (1982). Assessment of c h i l d r e n ' s i n t e l l i g e n c e and
special a b i l i t i e s .
2nd e d i t i o n .
Boston: A l l y n and Bacon,
Inc.
Satz,

P. & F r i e l ,
J . (1973). Some p r e d i c t i o n antecedents of
specific
learning
disability:
A preliminary
one year
follow-up.
In P. Satz and J . Ross ( E d . s ) , The d i s a b l e d
learner:
Early
detection
and treatment
(pp.
79-98).
Rotterdam U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s .

Schachter,
S.
(1964).
The i n t e r a c t i o n
of c o g n i t i v e and
p h y s i o l o g i c a l determinants of emotional s t a t e . Advances i n
Experimental S o c i a l Psychology. 1, 49-80.
Schain,
R.J. (1977). Neurology of c h i l d h o o d l e a r n i n g d i s o r d e r s .
(2nd e d . ) . B a l t i m o r e : The W i l l i a m s & W i l k i n s Co.
Schulterbrandt,
J.G., & R a s k i n , A. (1977). Depression i n
c h i l d h o o d : D i a g n o s i s , treatment, and c o n c e p t u a l models. New
York: Raven P r e s s .
Schunk, D.H. (1981). Modeling
and a t t r i b u t i o n a l e f f e c t s on
c h i l d r e n ' s achievements
A s e l f - e f f i c a c y analysis. Journal
of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology. 73. 93-105.
Seidel,
V.P.,
Chadwick.
O.F.D.,
& Rutter,
M.
(1975).
P s y c h o l o g i c a l d i s o r d e r s i n c r i p p l e d c h i l d r e n . A comparative
study
of
children
w i t h and without
brain
damage.
Developmental M e d i c i n e and C h i l d Neurology. 17. 563-573.
Seligman, M.E.P. (1974). Depression and l e a r n e d h e l p l e s s n e s s . In
R.J.
Friedman
& M.M.
Katz
( E d s . ) , The psychology of
depression:
Contemporary theory and r e s e a r c h .
Washington:
V.H. Winston.
Seligman,
M.E.P.
(1975).
Helplessness:
On
depression,
development.
and death. San F r a n c i s c o : W.H.
Freeman.
Seligman, M.E.P., Abramson, L.Y., Semmel, A., & von Baeyer,
C.
(1979). D e p r e s s i v e a t t r i b u t i o n a l s t y l e . J o u r n a l of
Abnormal Psychology. 88. 242-247.
240

Seligman,
M.E.P., Abramson, L.Y., Semmel, A., & von Baeyer, C.
(1979). D e p r e s s i v e a t t r i b u t i o n a l s t y l e . J o u r n a l of Abnormal
Psychology. 88. 242-247.
Seligman,
M.E.P., & M a i e r ,
S.F.
(1967). F a i l u r e to
escape
t r a u m a t i c shock. J o u r n a l of E x p e r i m e n t a l Psychology. 74, 19.
Seligman,
M.E.P.,
Maier,
S.F.,
& Geer,
J . (1968).
The
a l l e v i a t i o n of l e a r n e d h e l p l e s s n e s s i n the dog.
J o u r n a l of
Abnormal Psychology. 73. 256-262.
Seligman,
M.E.P., P e t e r s o n , C , Kaslow, N.J., Tanenbaum, R.L.,
Alloy,
L.B.,
& Abramson, L.Y. (1984). A t t r i b u t i o n a l s t y l e
and
d e p r e s s i v e symptoms among
children.
J o u r n a l of
Abnormal Psychology. 93. 235-238.
Shapiro,
J . (1985,
Sun, p. A5.

March 6 ) .

Letter

to the e d i t o r .

Vancouver

Shaver,
K.G.
(1975). An i n t r o d u c t i o n to a t t r i b u t i o n p r o c e s s e s .
Cambridge, MA: Winthrop Pub. Inc.
Shepherd,
M.,
Oppenheim, B., & M i t c h e l l , S. (1971). C h i l d h o o d
behavior and mental h e a l t h . New York: Grune & S t r a t t o n .
Siegel,
P.M.
(1971). P r e s t i g e
i n the American o c c u p a t i o n a l
s t r u c t u r e . Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of
Chicago.
S i l v e r , A.A., & Hagin, R.A. (1964). S p e c i f i c r e a d i n g d i s a b i l i t y :
f o l l o w - u p s t u d i e s . American J o u r n a l of O r t h o p s y c h i a t r y . 34.
95-102.
Simon, J.G.,
& F e a t h e r , N.T.
(1973). Causal a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r
s u c c e s s and f a i l u r e at u n i v e r s i t y e x a m i n a t i o n s . J o u r n a l of
E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology. 64, 46-56.
Sladen,
B.K. (1972). Some g e n e t i c a s p e c t s of d y s l e x i a .
of the Orton S o c i e t y . 22. 41-53.

Bulletin

Smith, M.D.
(1979). P r e d i c t i o n of s e l f - c o n c e p t among l e a r n i n g
disabled
children.
J o u r n a l of L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s .
12,
664-669.
Smith, M.D.,
Coleman, J.M., Dokecki, P.R., & D a v i s , E.E. (1977).
R e c a t e g o r i z e d NISC-R s c o r e s of l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d
children.
J o u r n a l of L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s . 10., 437-443.
Smith,
S.D.,
K i m b e r l i n g , N.J., Penningtcr* B.F. , & Lubs, H.A.
(1983). S p e c i f i c r e a d i n g d i s a b i l i t y :
I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of an
inherited
form
through l i n k a g e
analysis.
Science.
219.
13451347.
r

241

Snow,

R.E. (1980). A p t i *
p r o c e s s e s . In R.E. Snow, P.A.
Federico,
N.E. Montague ( E d s . ) , A p t i t u d e , l e a r n i n g , and
instruction.
Vol.
I;
Cognitive
p r o c e s s a n a l y s e s of
a p t i tude. H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Pub.
u d e

Solomon, R.L., & C o r b i t , J.D. (1973). An opponent-process theory

of m o t i v a t i o n : I I . C i g a r e t t e a d d i c t i o n . J o u r n a l of Abnormal
Psychology. 81, 158-171.
Solyom, L., Beck, P., Solyom, C., & Hugal, R. (1974). Some
etiological
factors
in
phobic
neurosis.
Canadi an
Psychiatric
A s s o c i a t i o n J o u r n a l . 19. 69-78.
8PS8i

(1983). User's Guide. New York: M c G r a w - H i l l .

S t a t i s t i c s Canada, (1971) Canadian C l a s s i f i c a t i o n

of O c c u p a t i o n s . Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r .
Statistics
Canada,
(1972). D i c t i o n a r y
Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r .

and D i c t i o n a r y

of 1971 Census

Terms.

Staton,
R.D., W i l s o n , H., & Brumback, R. (1981). C o g n i t i v e
improvement
associated with
tricyclic
antidepressant
treatment of c h i l d h o o d major d e p r e s s i v e i l l n e s s . P e r c e p t u a l
and Motor S k i l l s . 53. 219-234.
Stevenson,
D.T., & Romney, D.M. (1984). Depression i n l e a r n i n g
disabled
children.
J o u r n a l of L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s . 17.
579-582.
Stewart, M.A.
(1980). G e n e t i c , p e r i n a t a l ,
& constitutional
f a c t o r s i n minimal b r a i n d y s f u n c t i o n s . In H.E. R i e and E.D.
Rie
(Eds.),
Handbook of minimal b r a i n
d y s f u n c t i o n s . New
York: John Wiley & Sons, 155-168.
Stipek,
D.J.,
and academic
101-137.

& Weisz, J.R. (1981). P e r c e i v e d p e r s o n a l c o n t r o l

achievement. Review of E d u c a t i o n a l Research. 51,

S t r o o p , J.R. (1935). S t u d i e s of i n t e r f e r e n c e i n s e r i a l v e r b a l
r e a c t i o n s . J o u r n a l of Experimental Psychology. 18. 643-661.
Taylor,
S.E., & F i s k e ,
S.T. (1978). S a l i e n c e , a t t e n t i o n , and
a t t r i b u t i o n : Top of the head phenomena. In L. Berkowitz,
( E d . ) , Advances i n e x p e r i m e n t a l s o c i a l psychology ( v o l . 11,
pp. 249-288). New York: Academic P r e s s .
Teasdale,
J.D. (1978). E f f e c t s of r e a l and r e c a l l e d s u c c e s s or
learned
h e l p l e s s n e s s and d e p r e s s i o n . J o u r n a l of Abnormal
Psychology. 87. 155-164.
Tennen, H., & E l l e r ,
S . J . (1977). A t t r i b u t i o n a l components of
learned
helplessness
and
facilitation.
Journal
of
P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 35. 265-271.

242

Tennen, H.,
& Gillen,
R.
(1979). The e f f e c t of d e b r i e f i n g on
l a b o r a t o r y induced h e l p l e s s n e s s : An a t t r i b u t i o n a l a n a l y s i s .
J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y . 47. 629-642.
T e t l o c k , P.E. (1981). The i n f l u e n c e of s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n a l g o a l s
on a t t r i b u t i o n a l r e p o r t s .
S o c i a l Psychology Q u a r t e r l y . 44,
300-311.
Thomas, A. (1979). Learned h e l p l e s s n e s s and expectancy f a c t o r s :
Implications for research in learning d i s a b i l i t i e s .
Review
of E d u c a t i o n Research. 49. 208-221.
Thomas, A., & P a s h l e y , B. (1982). E f f e c t s of c l a s s r o o m t r a i n i n g
on
LD
s t u d e n t s ' task p e r s i s t e n c e
and
attributions.
Learning
D i s a b i l i t y Q u a r t e r l y . 5, 133-144.
Thornton,
J.W.,
& Jacobs, P.D. (1971). Learned h e l p l e s s n e s s i n
human s u b j e c t s .
J o u r n a l of E x p e r i m e n t a l Psychology.
87.
367-372.
Thurstone,
L.L.
(1938). Primary mental a b i l i t i e s . Psychometric
Monographs. No. 1.
Thurstone,
L.L.
(1944). A
factorial
study
Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s .

of

perception.

Thurstone,
L.L.,
S M e l l i n g e r , J . J . (1953). The Stroop T e s t .
Chapel H i l l , NC: The Psychometric L a b o r a t o r y , U n i v e r s i t y of
N o r t h C a r o l i n a , no. 3.
Thurstone,
L.L.,
& Thurstone,
A b i l i t i e s . Chicago: SRA.

T.S.

(1962). SRA

Primary Mental

Toolan,
J.M.
(1962). Depression
in children
& adolescents.
American J o u r n a l of O r t h o p s y c h i a t r y . 32. 404-414.
Torgesen,
J . (1975). Problems and p r o s p e c t s i n the study
of
learning
disabilities.
In E. Mavis H e t h e r i n g t o n
(Ed.),
Review of C h i l d Development Research
( v o l . 5),
Chicago:
U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s .
Torgesen,
J . (1982). Use
of r a t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d subgroups i n
research.
In J.P. Das, R.F. Mulcahy, and A.E. N a i l ( E d s . ) ,
Theory
and
research in learning d i s a b i l i t i e s .
New
York:
Plenum P r e s s .
Torgesen,
J . , & D i c e , C. (1980). C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of r e s e a r c h on
learning
disabilities.
J o u r n a l of L e a r n i n g
Disabilities.
13, 531-535.
Torgesen,
J.K.,
& Licht,
B.6.
(1983). The l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d
c h i l d as an i n a c t i v e l e a r n e r :
R e t r o s p e c t and p r o s p e c t s . In
J.D.
McKinney
& L. Feagans ( E d s . ) ,
Current
topics in
learning
disabili ties
( V o l . 1 ) . Norwood, NJ:
Ablex
Publishing.
243

Towbin,
A. ( 1 9 7 1 ) . O r g a n i c c a u s e s o f m i n i m a l b r a i n
dysfunction:
Perinatal
o r i g i n of m i n i m a l c e r e b r a l l e s i o n s . J o u r n a l
of
t h e A m e r i c a n M e d i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n . 217. 1207-1214.
Towbin,
A.
organic
Journal

(1978).
C e r e b r a l d y s f u n c t i o n s r e l a t e d to p e r i n a t a l
damage:
Clinical-neuropathologic
correlations.
o f A b n o r m a l P s y c h o l o g y . 87, 617-635.

Towbin,
A.
(1980).
Neuropathologic
f a c t o r s i n minimal
brain
dysfunction.
In H.E.
R i e & E.D.
Rie (Eds.),
Handbook o f
minimal b r a i n d y s f u n c t i o n s (pp.
185-209).
New Y o r k :
John
Wiley & Sons.
Trope,
Y.,
& B r i c k m a n , P. ( 1 9 7 5 ) . D i f f i c u l t y and d i a g n o s t i c i t y
as
determinants
of
choice
among
tasks.
Journal
of
Personality
and
S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y . 31. 918-926.

244

Valle,
V.A., & F r i e z e , I.H. (1976). S t a b i l i t y
of c a u s a l
attributions
as a mediator i n changing
expectations f o r
success.
J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 33.
579-587.
Weary, G. (1980). Examination of a f f e c t and egotism as m e d i a t o r s
of b i a s i n c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s .
J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and
S o c i a l Psychology. 38. 348-357.
Wechsler, D. (1939). W e c h s l e r - B e l l e v u e

I.

Wechsler, D. (1942). W e c h s l e r - B e l l e v u e

I I . Army Wechsler.

Wechsler,
D. (1949). Manual f o r the Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e
f o r C h i l d r e n . New York: P s y c h o l o g i c a l C o r p o r a t i o n .
Wechsler, D. (1974). Manual f o r the Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e
for
Children
- Revised.
New
York:
Psychological
Corporation.
Weidl,
K.H., & C a r l s o n , J.S. (1976). The f a c t o r i a l s t r u c t u r e of
the
Raven C o l o r e d P r o g r e s s i v e M a t r i c e s T e s t .
Educational
and P s y c h o l o g i c a l Measurement. 36. 409-413.
Weinberg, W.A., Rutmen, J . , S u l l i v a n , L., Penick, E.C., & D i e t z ,
S.G.
(1973).
Depression
i n c h i l d r e n r e f e r r e d to an
educational
diagnostic center:
Diagnosis
&
treatment.
J o u r n a l of P e d i a t r i c s . 83. 1065-1072.
Weiner, B. (1972). T h e o r i e s of m o t i v a t i o n :
cogni t i o n . Chicago: Rand M c N a l l y .

From mechanism to

Weiner,
B. (1974). Achievement m o t i v a t i o n
and a t t r i b u t i o n
theory. Morristown, NJ: General L e a r n i n g P r e s s .
Weiner, B. (1976). An a t t r i b u t i o n a l approach f o r e d u c a t i o n a l
psychology.
In L. Shulman ( E d . ) , Review of r e s e a r c h i n
e d u c a t i o n ( v o l . 4, pp. 179-209). I t a s c a , I L : F.E. Peacock.
Weiner,
B. (1979). A theory
of m o t i v a t i o n
f o r some
classroom
experiences.
J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology.
71, 3-25.
Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of m o t i v a t i o n f o r some classroom
e x p e r i e n c e s . J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology. 71, 3-25.
Weiner, B. (1980). Human m o t i v a t i o n . New York: H o l t ,
and Winston.

Rinehart,

Weiner, B. (1983). S p e c u l a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g the r o l e of a f f e c t i n

achievement-change
programs
guided
by
attributional
principles.
In J.M. L e v i n e & M.C. Wang ( E d s . ) , Teacher and
student p e r c e p t i o n s : I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r l e a r n i n g (pp. 57-73).
H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

245

Weiner, B. (1984). P r i n c i p l e s f o r a theory of student m o t i v a t i o n

and t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n w i t h i n an a t t r i b u t i o n a l framework. In
R. Ames & C. Ames ( E d s . ) , Research
on m o t i v a t i o n i n
e d u c a t i o n ( V o l . 1, Student M o t i v a t i o n , pp. 15-38). New
York: Academic P r e s s .
Weiner,
B., F r i e z e ,
I . , Kukla, A., Reed, L., Rest, S.,
Rosenbaum, R.M.
(1972).
P e r c e i v i n g the causes of s u c c e s s
and
failure.
In E.E. Jones et a l ( E d s . ) , A t t r i b u t i o n :
P e r c e i v i n g the causes of behavior (pp. 95-120). Morristown,
NJ: General L e a r n i n g P r e s s .
Weiner, B., & K u k l a , A. (1970). An a t t r i b u t i o n a l a n a l y s i s of
achievement m o t i v a t i o n . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l
Psychology. 15. 1-20.
Weiner, B., N i e r e n b e r g ,
R., & G o l d s t e i n , M. (1976). S o c i a l
learning
( l o c u s of c o n t r o l ) v e r s u s a t t r i b u t i o n a l
(causal
stability)
interpretations
of expectancy
of
success.
Journal
of P e r s o n a l i t y . 44. 52-68.
Weiner, B., R u s s e l l ,
D., & Lerman, D. (1978). The c o g n i t i v e emotion p r o c e s s i n a c h i e v e m e n t - r e l a t e d c o n t e x t s . J o u r n a l of
P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 37. 1211-1220.
Weiss, G., Minde, K., Werry, J . Douglas,
V., & Nemeth, E.
(1971).
S t u d i e s on the h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d ,
V I I I . Five-year
f o l l o w - u p . A r c h i v e s of General P s y c h i a t r y . 24. 409-414.
Weissman, M.M., & Klerman, G.L. (1977). Sex d i f f e r e n c e s and the
epidemiology of d e p r e s s i o n . A r c h i v e s of General P s y c h i a t r y .
34i 98-111.
Weiner, Z. (1978).
Childhood
d e p r e s s i o n : An overview.
J o u r n a l of Nervous and Mental D i s e a s e . 166. 588-593.

The

Weiner, Z., Weiner, A., McCrary, M.A., & Leonard, M.A.

(1977).
Psychopathology i n c h i l d r e n of i n p a t i e n t s w i t h d e p r e s s i o n :
A
controlled
study.
J o u r n a l of Nervous and Mental
D i s e a s e . 164.
408-413.
Weiner, Z., Weiner, A., Stewart,
M., P a l k e s , H., & Wish, E.
(1977).
A controlled
study
of s i b l i n g s of h y p e r a c t i v e
children.
J o u r n a l of Nervous and Mental D i s e a s e . 165. 110117.
Werner, E.E. (1980). Environmental i n t e r a c t i o n i n minimal b r a i n
dysfunctions.
In H.E. R i e and E.D. R i e ( E d s . ) , Handbook of
minimal b r a i n c y s f u n c t i o n s (pp.
210-231). New York:
John
Wiley & Sons.
Werner, E.E., & Smith,
R.S. (1977). Kauai's c h i l d r e n come of
age. H o n o l u l u : U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s of Hawaii.

246

Werry, J.S.,
& Quay, H.C.
(1971). The p r e v a l e n c e of behavior
symptoms i n younger elementary s c h o o l
children.
American
J o u r n a l of O r t h o p s y c h i a t r y . 41, 136-143.
Wiener, 6.,
Rider,
R.V.,
Oppel, W.C.,
& Harper, P.A. (1968).
C o r r e l a t e s of low b i r t h weight. P s y c h o l o g i c a l s t a t u s at
e i g h t to ten y e a r s of age. P e d i a t r i c Research. 2, 110-118.
Witkin,
H.A.,
Dyk,
R.B.,
F a t e r s o n , H.G.,
Goodenough, D.R.,
&
Karp, S.A. (1974). P s y c h o l o g i c a l d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n . Potomac,
MD: Erlbaum.
W i t k i n , H.A., Moore, C.A., Goodenough, D.R.,
& Cox, P.W.
(1977).
Field-dependent
and f i e l d - i n d e p e n d e n t c o g n i t i v e s t y l e s and
their
educational
implications.
Review of
Educational
Research. 47.
1-64.
Woodcock,
R.W.
(1977). Woodcock-Johnson
Psvcho-educat i onal
B a t t e r y : T e c h n i c a l Report. Boston: T e a c h i n g Resources.
Woodcock, R.W.
(1978). Development and s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n of
Woodcock-Johnson P s y c h o - e d u c a t i o n a l B a t t e r y . Hingham,
T e a c h i n g Resources C o r p o r a t i o n .
Woodcock,
R.W.,
& Johnson, M.B.
Psycho-educational
Battery.
Resources C o r p o r a t i o n .

(1977).
Hingham,

the
MA:

Woodcock-Johnson
MA:
Teaching

Woodruff, R.A.,
Goodwin, D.W.,
& Guze, S.B. (1974). P s y c h i a t r i c
D i a g n o s i s . New York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s .
Wortman, C.B.,
Panciera,
L.,
Shusterman, L., & H i b s c h e r , J .
(1976).
Attributions
of
causality
&
reactions
to
uncontrollable
outcomes. J o u r n a l of
Experimental
Social
Psychology. 12. 301-316.
Young, E., & Egeland, B. (1976). R e p e t i t i o n c h o i c e behavior as a
function
of
c h r o n o l o g i c a l age,
task
difficulty
and
expectancy of s u c c e s s . C h i l d Development. 47. 682-689.
Yule,

W. (1973). D i f f e r e n t i a l p r o g n o s i s of r e a d i n g backwardness
and
specific
reading
retardation.
British
Journal
of
E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology. 43. 244-248.

Zemore, R.,
& Johansen, L.S. (1980). D e p r e s s i o n , h e l p l e s s n e s s
and
failure attributions.
Canadian J o u r n a l of
Behavioral
S c i e n c e . 12. 161-174.
Zerbin-Rudin,
the Orton

E. (1967). C o n g e n i t a l word b l i n d n e s s . B u l l e t i n
S o c i e t y . 17. 47-54.

of

Zuckerman, M.,
Larrance,
D.T.,
Porac, J.F.A., & Blanck,
P.D.
(1980). E f f e c t s of f e a r of s u c c e s s on i n t r i n s i c m o t i v a t i o n ,
causal
attribution,
and
choice
behavior.
Journal
of
P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 39. 503-513.
247

Zuroff,
D.C.
(1981). Depression and a t t r i b u t i o n :
and
a review of o l d d a t a . C o g n i t i v e Therapy
5,
273-281.

248

Some new d a t a
and Research.

Appendix 1
THE

UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

F a c u l t y of Education
2125 Main M a l l
U n i v e r s i t y Campus
Vancouver, B.C., Canada
VST 1Z5
January 17, 1984

Dear P r i n c i p a l and T e a c h e r s :
The

School

conduct

research for a doctorate

(Special

Education;

elementary s c h o o l s .
especially

on

of

important
tasks.

Clinical

or

would

attributional

a t t r i b u t i o n s or

be

systems

valuable

we

the

you

c o u l d make an i n i t i a l

for

us.

of

f o r educators

to

we

to

be

kinds

of

know

the

well

in

order

to

difficulty.
in

and the three r e a d i n g s u b t e s t s of

Psychoeducational

determine achievement l e v e l

Basically,

shown
many

w i l l be a d m i n i s t e r i n g the WISC-R

Woodcock-Johnson

performances

been

of both c h i l d r e n who a r e doing

determine i n t e l l i g e n c e l e v e l ,

regarding

Such i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the

of f u t u r e p e r s i s t e n c e on

s c h o o l , and those who a r e having

Although

Studies

P e d i a t r i c s ) i n the

explanations

poor performance have

predictors
It

Interdisciplinary

Psychology;

game-like t a s k s .

good

in

to

We a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n c h i l d r e n ' s m o t i v a t i o n ,

children's

performance
causes

Board has given us p e r m i s s i o n

in reading,

Battery

in

order

to

we would be g r a t e f u l i f

judgment r e g a r d i n g s u b j e c t
want to compare the

l e a r n i n g - d i s a b l e d boys w i t h

selection

attributions
those of

and

normally

a c h i e v i n g boys.
For

experimental

subjects,

249

we a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n boys

only,

between the ages of 9 y e a r s 0 months to 11 y e a r s 11

Grades

4,

5,

or

6,

learning d i s a b i l i t i e s ,
Performance,
achievement
a

or.

Basic S k i l l s

speakers

in

or i n a s p e c i a l i z e d c l a s s placement
whose IQs are at l e a s t 80

Full

Scale

scores),

and

(on

for

the V e r b a l ,

whose

reading

i s at the 20th p e r c e n t i l e f o r t h e i r age or lower

standardized

Christmas

months,

reading

that was

break).
(i.e.,

physically,

test

(such as on

the Canadian T e s t s

of

given on a d i s t r i c t - w i d e b a s i s b e f o r e

These

youngsters

not ESL)

must

be

native

and must not be s e r i o u s l y

e m o t i o n a l l y , or c u l t u r a l l y .

hearing aids,

or other c o r r e c t e d sensory

example,

a c c e p t a b l e . ) These

are

on

the

English

handicapped

(Children with glasses,

or minor d e f i c i t s ,

learning-disabled

for

youngsters

o f t e n have h i s t o r i e s of s c h o o l d i f f i c u l t i e s from Grade One;

have

uneven performance r e c o r d s , i . e . , good i n some s u b j e c t s and

poor

in

others;

and

have

had

an e a r l y d i a g n o s i s of

LD

(medical,

p s y c h o l o g i c a l , or e d u c a t i o n a l ) .
For

c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s we

are i n t e r e s t e d i n boys

between

the

ages of 9 y e a r s 0 months and 11 y e a r s 11 months, i n Grades 4,

or

6,

preferably

boys from the same c l a s s e s (or at l e a s t

same s c h o o l ) as the experimental

choose the boy

on

>.

80,

preferable,

and be f r e e

or c u l t u r a l handicap. But

the normal range (expected

to s e l e c t

regarding

example, f a m i l y o c c u p a t i o n s

from

to

socioeconomic

are known).
250

serious

he must be w i t h i n

grade l e v e l ) i n r e a d i n g .

" s t a r s " as c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s ,
even

best method i s to

c h i l d . He must meet the same c r i t e r i a

n a t i v e language E n g l i s h ,

p h y s i c a l , emotional,

not

the

the c l a s s l i s t whose b i r t h d a y comes c l o s e s t

that of the experimental

IQ

s u b j e c t s . The

5,

It i s

best

as a c l o s e match i s
status

(if,

for

Appendix
THE

UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

F a c u l t y of Education
2125 Main M a l l
U n i v e r s i t y Campus
Vancouver, B.C., Canada
V6T 1Z5
January 15,

1984

Dear P a r e n t ( s ) / G u a r d i a n ( s ) :
The

School

conduct

research

(Special

and

how

for a doctorate

Education;

elementary

Clinical

schools.

Ne

Studies

Pediatrics)

in

the

It would be v a l u a b l e f o r

to Know the m o t i v a t i o n a l systems of both c h i l d r e n

would l i k e

grateful

two-week

those who

are having

to i n c l u d e your c h i l d

period,

be

i n t h i s study

three i n d i v i d u a l

and

each l a s t i n g approximately

c h i l d ' s classroom

teacher. A l l t e s t i n g w i l l

and

Results

information

will

not

be

will

remain

given

to

would
in

our

t e s t i n g s e s s i o n s over
one

hour.

be done at your c h i l d ' s s c h o o l at a time arranged

privately.

who

difficulty.

i f you would allow him/her to p a r t i c i p a t e

r e s e a r c h . There w i l l

will

Psychology;

to

are i n t e r e s t e d i n c h i l d r e n ' s m o t i v a t i o n

are doing w e l l i n s c h o o l , and

be

permission

in I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y

i t a f f e c t s s c h o o l performance.

educators

Ne

Board has given us

Testing
w i t h your

be done i n d i v i d u a l l y

strictly
teachers

confidential;
or

to

school

personnel.
The

first

individualized

session

i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t and

used i n the s c h o o l s .
of

two

involves

The

the

administration

achievement t e s t s

second s e s s i o n i n v o l v e s the

of

commonly
completion

q u e s t i o n n a i r e s that show what f a c t o r s c h i l d r e n f e e l

252

an

are

important
short

tasks.

survey
For

in

achievement s i t u a t i o n s ,
The

third session involves further

q u e s t i o n s and completion

some

difficult

and completion

The f i n a l

five

motivational

of f i v e or s i x games or

of the s t u d e n t s one of the games w i l l

than f o r o t h e r s .

of

be

tasks.

made

more

tasks f o r a l l c h i l d r e n a r e

simple ones to ensure that they l e a v e the experimental

situation

w i t h p o s i t i v e f e e l i n g s of s u c c e s s . The purpose of the study

will

be

that

explained

children find

to

time

previous research

has

revealed

these tasks/games i n t e r e s t i n g and e n j o y a b l e .

Participation
any

them;

i n the p r o j e c t i s v o l u n t a r y and withdrawal

i s permissible.

A l l i d e n t i f y i n g information w i l l

coded to ensure anonymity, and access to the data c o l l e c t e d

be

restricted

to the r e s e a r c h e r s (below) and

doctoral dissertation
If
study,

you

members

to a l l o w your c h i l d ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n

( e i t h e r parent

together

with

of

be
will
the

committee.

we would ask you to complete the e n c l o s e d C h i l d

Checklist
it

agree

at

or guardian may f i l l

the a t t a c h e d consent

form

in

this

Behavior

i t out) and r e t u r n
in

the

envelope

provided.
If

you

have any q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g the

p l e a s e f e e l f r e e to telephone

research

project,

e i t h e r of us at the numbers

below.
Thank you.
Yours

253

truly,

given

Appendix 3
THE

UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

F a c u l t y of E d u c a t i o n
2125 Main M a l l
U n i v e r s i t y Campus
Vancouver, B.C., Canada
V6T 1Z5
PARENT CONSENT FORM

Project T i t l e :
Principal
I

Investigator:

consent

educational
of

weeks,

p r o j e c t being

results

will

be

will

released.
i s voluntary

University

involve

three

experimenter

two

and

the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of the

be m a i n t a i n e d and that no i n d i v i d u a l
understand that

participation

scores
in

this

and may be terminated at any time.

hereby g i v e my permission
educational

i n the

over a p e r i o d of

graduate student

a s s i s t a n t . I understand that

test

British

this will

of approximately one hour each,

research

participation

conducted by the

I am aware that

by

Children

Dr. Peggy R. Koopman

's

research

conducted

project

of School-Aged

to

B r i t i s h Columbia.

sessions

the

A t t r i b u t i o n Patterns

research

f o r my c h i l d

being

to

participate in

conducted by the U n i v e r s i t y

of

Columbia.

YES
( s i gnature)
I have completed the C h i l d Behavior C h e c k l i s t

and

r e t u r n i n g i t i n the envelope p r o v i d e d .

check.)

I
research

would r a t h e r

(Please

not have my c h i l d p a r t i c i p a t e i n

p r o j e c t and am r e t u r n i n g
255

am

this

the unanswered C h i l d Behavior

Checklist

i n the envelope p r o v i d e d .

NO

School:

256

(signature)

(Parent consent
THE

Appendix 3
f o r r e l e a s e of two t e s t s '

scores)

UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

F a c u l t y of Education
2125 Main M a l l
U n i v e r s i t y Campus
Vancouver, B.C., Canada
V6T 1Z5
January 23, 1984

Dear

Parent(s)/Guardian(s):

As

you

1984),

will

the

first

administration
WISC-R,
and

note i n the l e t t e r

of

attached

(dated January

s e s s i o n of my r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t
an

individualized

involves

intelligence

test

or Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e f o r C h i l d r e n

Your
retain

c h i l d ' s p r i n c i p a l has expressed

the

s c o r e s from these

the
- the

- Revised,

the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the three r e a d i n g achievement

from the Woodcock-Johnson P s y c h o - e d u c a t i o n a l

15,

subtests

Battery.

a d e s i r e to r e c e i v e and

two t e s t s only

i n order

to

best

help your c h i l d at s c h o o l .
Please
If
not

i n d i c a t e your consent

you wish your c h i l d

wish any s c o r e s given

below

and

by completing

the form below.

to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study,
to the s c h o o l ,

complete the consent

but

please i n d i c a t e

form at the end of

the

attached.
Thank you.
Donna M. Haqq, M.A.

257

do
this

letter

Appendix 4
STUDENT CCNSFNT FORM
By

way of i n t r o d u c t i o n to the study,

consent

from the c h i l d s u b j e c t ,

paraphrased
"I
You

the f o l l o w i n g w i l l

to o b t a i n

be s a i d

or

to each c h i l d b e f o r e S e s s i o n I b e g i n s :

am i n t e r e s t e d i n your i d e a s and o p i n i o n s about some t a s k s .

will

hard.

probably

f i n d some of these t a s k s easy

and some of them

C h i l d r e n u s u a l l y f i n d a l l of these t a s k s very

though.
you

and i n order

I will

ask you to e x p l a i n how you think you d i d and why

think you d i d w e l l or not w e l l on some of

important

thing

is

f o r example,

and 16;
will

the

tasks.

that you do your best and answer

q u e s t i o n s as w e l l as you c a n . The f i r s t
you,

interesting

task I'm going

The

a l l the
to

give

i s meant f o r c h i l d r e n between the ages of 6

so some of the q u e s t i o n s w i l l

be easy

and some of

them

J u s t do the best

that

when I ask f o r your o p i n i o n on some q u e s t i o n s I

will

be hard - meant f o r o l d e r c h i l d r e n .

you c a n .
Later,

read the q u e s t i o n s out l o u d w h i l e you f o l l o w a l o n g . I f you don't

understand
All

a word or sentence,

of

p l e a s e ask about i t .

your answers a r e p r i v a t e and

except me and my teachers at U.B.C.

in

fact,

name w i l l
of

will

will

confidential.

No

know about them,

one
and,

be c o d i n g everyone's papers so that no

one's

be on them - only an i d e n t i f y i n g number to keep

track

them. (Coded q u e s t i o n n a i r e s may then be shown to the c h i l d to

show what i s meant by "coded.")

Your p a r e n t ( s ) has/have given p e r m i s s i o n

f o r you to take p a r t

in our p r o j e c t , but you have to agree to take p a r t too. You have

259

the

right

time
for

to d i s c o n t i n u e or stop being i n the p r o j e c t

without
a

three

anyone s a y i n g a n y t h i n g about i t . And

break to r e s t or s t r e t c h i f you l i k e .
times,

hopefully,

you

for

about 1 to 1 1/2

won't

q u i t e i n t e r e s t i n g and
At

the

end

e x p l a i n why
have

to you

why

meet

though,
find

ask

so

at

that,

everything

s e s s i o n we

have

together

will

the q u e s t i o n s I w i l l be a s k i n g , and why

be g i v i n g

you.

You

will

are doing t h i s p r o j e c t when I e x p l a i n i t a l l

then.

Do you have any

*

the l a s t

the t a s k s that I w i l l
we

you may

Ne w i l l

and you w i l l

any

enjoyable.

I've asked

given you

understand

of

get t i r e d

hours,

at

i.e.,

q u e s t i o n s b e f o r e we

the N e c h s l e r

begin?

I n t e l l i g e n c e Test for Children

(WISC-R)

260

- Revised

Appendix

MOOD MEASURE
Please
right

put an "X" b e s i d e the f a c e which b e s t shows how you f e e l

now.

V e r y , very

good

Very

good

Good

Don't know

Bad

Very bad

V e r y , very bad

261

Appendix

v.

Att -jbution Rating Scale T r a i n i n g

I
One

am i n t e r e s t e d

i n how you think or f e e l

way to show h w you f e e l

if

things.

about something i s to r a t e i t on a

scale.

For

cream?

Put an 'X' b e s i d e the words that best d e s c r i b e how

you l i k e

example,

about some

I ask you "How much do you

like

ice
much

i c e cream." Nhere would you put your 'X'?

My f e e l i n g s about i c e cream a r e that

Now,
feel

put

1.

I love i t

2.

I really

3.

I like i t

4.

I don't c a r e one way or the other

5.

I don't l i k e i t

6.

I really

7.

I hate i t

like i t

don't l i k e i t

an 'X' b e s i d e the words that best d e s c r i b e how you

about doing d i s h e s . Where would you put your 'X'?

My f e e l i n g s about doing the d i s h e s a r e that

1.

I love i t

2.

I really

3.

I like

4.

I don't c a r e one way or the other

5.

I don't l i k e i t

6.

I really

7.

I hate i t

like i t

it

don't l i k e i t

Remember, t h e r e i s no r i g h t way to answer these q u e s t i o n s ; it_

262

all

depends on your own f e e l i n g s and o p i n i o n s .

Now I'm going

to t e l l

you about a s i t u a t i o n

and I want you to

t e l l me how much you think each t h i n g i s important.

pretend
1.

that you a r e on a b a s e b a l l team, and your team wins.

How

much

do you think that your team won

whole team was t r y i n g hard

2.

For example,

How

much

because

the

because

the

to win?

1.

v e r y , very much

2.

very much

3.

much

4.

d i d n ' t matter

5.

somewhat

6.

a l i t t l e bit

7.

not much at a l l

do you think that your team won

whole team was l u c k y ?

3.

How

1.

very, very much

2.

very much

3.

much

4.

d i d n ' t matter

5.

somewhat

6.

a l i t t l e bit

7.

not much at a l l

much do you think that your team won

teammates a r e good p l a y e r s - they

1.

very, very much

2.

very much

3.

much

263

have good

because
ability?

your

4.

How

much

opposite

4.

d i d n ' t matter

5.

somewhat

6.

a little bit

7.

not much at a l l

do you think that your team won

because

the

team d i d not have good p l a y e r s - the game

was

easy?

Now, pretend
1.

How

1.

v e r y , very much

2.

very much

3.

much

4.

d i d n ' t matter

5.

somewhat

6.

a little bit

7.

not much at a l l

that your team l o s t

much

the b a s e b a l l game.

do you think that your team l o s t

whole team wasn't t r y i n g hard

2.

How

the

because

the

to win?

1.

very, very much

2.

very much

3.

much

4.

d i d n ' t matter

5.

somewhat

6.

a little bit

7.

not much at a l l

much do you think that your team l o s t

whole team was unlucky?

1.

v e r y , very much

2.

very much
264

because

How

3.

much

4.

d i d n ' t matter

5.

somewhat

6.

a little bit

7.

not much at a l l

much do you think that your team l o s t because

team has poor p l a y e r s - they have poor

How

much

opposite

1.

v e r y , very much

2.

very much

3.

much

4.

d i d n ' t matter

5.

somewhat

6.

a l i t t l e bit

7.

not much at a l l

do you think

ability?

that your team l o s t

because

team had good p l a y e r s - the game was hard?

^

1.

very, very much

2.

very much

3.

much

4.

d i d n ' t matter

5.

somewhat

6.

a little bit

7.

not much at a l l

265

your

the

Appendix
Pre-experimental
Now,

pretend

attribution

questionnaire

that you a r e doing a t e s t

i n s c h o o l and you do

very w e l l on i t ; you get an 'A.'

1.

How

much

do you think that you d i d w e l l

on

the

test

you think that you d i d w e l l on

the

test

the

test

because you t r i e d

2.

How

much

hard?

1.

v e r y , very much

2.

very much

3.

much

4.

d i d n ' t matter

5.

somewhat

6.

a little bit

7.

not much at a l l

do

because you were l u c k y ?

3.

How

much

1.

v e r y , very much

2.

very much

3.

much

4.

d i d n ' t matter

5.

somewhat

6.

a l i t t l e bit

7.

not much at a l l

do you think that you d i d w e l l

because of your a b i l i ty - you were smart?

1.

very, very much

2.

very much

3.

much
266

on

4.

How

much

4.

d i d n ' t matter

5.

somewhat

6.

a l i t t l e bit

7.

not much at a l l

do

you think that you d i d w e l l on

the

test

because the t e s t was easy?

Now,

pretend

very badly
1.

How

1.

v e r y , very much

2.

very much

3.

much

4.

d i d n ' t matter

5.

somewhat

6.

a l i t t l e bit

7.

not much at a l l

that you a r e doing a t e s t

How

do

on i t ; you get an 'F' or 'E.'

much

do you think

that you d i d p o o r l y on the

because you d i d n ' t t r y hard

2.

i n s c h o o l and you

enough?

1.

v e r y , very much

2.

very much

3.

much

4.

d i d n ' t matter

5.

somewhat

6.

a l i t t l e bit

7.

not much at a l l

much do you think that you d i d p o o r l y on

because you were unlucky?

1.

v e r y , very much

267

test

the

test

3.

How

much

2.

very much

3.

much

4.

d i d n ' t matter

5.

somewhat

6.

a l i t t l e bi t

7.

not much at a l l

do you think that you d i d p o o r l y on the

because of your poor a b i l i t y

4.

How

- you were dumb?

1.

v e r y , very much

2.

very much

3.

much

4.

d i d n ' t matter

5.

somewhat

6.

a little bit

7.

not much at a l l

much do you think that you d i d p o o r l y on

because the t e s t was hard?

1.

very, very much

2.

very much

3.

much

4.

d i d n ' t matter

5.

somewhat

6.

a little bit

7.

not much at a l l

268

test

the

test

Appendix
I n t e l l e c t u a l Achievement

Responsibility Questionnaire

( C r a n d a l l , Katkovsky, and C r a n d a l l , 1965)

Directions:
This

i s a q u e s t i o n n a i r e to f i n d out how you f e e l about

t h i n g s that happen to you i n your d a i l y l i f e .

put

a check

some

For each q u e s t i o n

i n f r o n t of the one c h o i c e that best d e s c r i b e s what

happens or how you f e e l .

or wrong answers.

T h i s i s not a t e s t . There a r e no r i g h t

Your answers w i l l

not be shown to anyone e l s e

i n your s c h o o l . P l e a s e be s u r e to answer a l l of the q u e s t i o n s .

[Note: Item numbers preceded by + a r e those items which
the I

s u b s c a l e . Those preceded by - comprise the I

In a d d i t i o n ,

those items marked w i t h an a s t e r i s k ,

used to c l a s s i f y

comprise

subscale.
*, a r e those

s u b j e c t s i n t o h e l p l e s s n e s s and m a s t e r y - o r i e n t e d

c a t e g o r i e s (Diener & Dweck, 1978; 1980).]

1.

If

teacher passes you to the next

grade,

would

it

probably be

+
2.

a.

because she l i k e d you, or

b.

because of the work you d i d ?

When you do w e l l on a t e s t

in school,

i s i t more l i k e l y

to be
+_ a.
b.
* 3.

because you s t u d i e d f o r i t , or
because

the t e s t was e s p e c i a l l y

easy?

When you have t r o u b l e u n d e r s t a n d i n g something

in school,

i s i t usually
a.

because

the teacher d i d n ' t e x p l a i n

269

i t c l e a r l y , or

-_

b.

because you d i d n ' t l i s t e n

carefully?

When you read a s t o r y and can't remember much of i t ,

is

usually

a.

because the s t o r y wasn't w e l l w r i t t e n , or

b.

because you weren't i n t e r e s t e d i n the s t o r y ?

Suppose your p a r e n t s say you are doing w e l l

this likely
+_ a.
_

in school,

to happen

because your s c h o o l work i s good, or

b.

because they a r e i n a good mood?

Suppose you d i d b e t t e r

than usual

i n a s u b j e c t at scho<

Would i t probably happen

a.

because you t r i e d

b.

because someone h e l p e d you?

When

you l o s e at a game of c a r d s or c h e c k e r s ,

usually

-_

harder, or

does

happen

a.

because the other p l a y e r

b.

because you don't p l a y w e l l ?

Suppose

i s good at the game, or

a person doesn't think you are very

bright

clever.
-_

a.

Can you make him change h i s mind i f you t r y t o , o

b.

are

there some people who w i l l

think you're

no

very b r i g h t no matter what you do?

If you s o l v e a p u z z l e q u i c k l y , i s i t
a.
+_ b.

because i t wasn't a very hard p u z z l e , or

because you worked on i t c a r e f u l l y ?

I f a boy or g i r l
likely
a.

t e l l s you that you a r e dumb, i s i t mo

that they say that

because they are mad

270

at you, or

-_ b.
*

11.

because what you d i d r e a l l y wasn't

Suppose

you study

to become a

doctor and you f a i l .

*

-_ a.
b.

teacher,

scientist,

or

Do you think t h i s would happen

because you d i d n ' t work hard enough, or

because you needed some h e l p ,
didn't g i v e ' i t

12.

very b r i g h t ?

and

other

people

to you?

When you l e a r n something q u i c k l y i n s c h o o l , i s i t u s u a l l y

+_ a.
b.

13.

because you p a i d c l o s e a t t e n t i o n , or
because the teacher e x p l a i n e d i t c l e a r l y ?

I f a teacher says to you, "Your work i s f i n e , "

is it

a.

something t e a c h e r s u s u a l l y say to encourage

b.

because you d i d a good

pupils,

or
__+_
*

14.

When you f i n d

i t hard

job?

to work a r i t h m e t i c or math problems

at s c h o o l , i s i t
*

a.

because
tried

b.

you d i d n ' t study w e l l enough b e f o r e

you

them, or

because the teacher gave problems that

were

too

hard?
*

15.

*
16.

When you f o r g e t something you heard

is it

a.

because the teacher d i d n ' t e x p l a i n i t very w e l l , or

b.

because you d i d n ' t t r y very hard

Suppose

right. Is i t l i k e l y
a.
b.

to remember?

you weren't s u r e about the answer to a q u e s t i o n

your teacher asked you,

in class,

but your answer turned out to be

to happen

because she wasn't

as p a r t i c u l a r

as u s u a l , or

because you gave the best answer you c o u l d

271

think

When

you read a s t o r y and remember most of

i t ,isit

usually
a.

because you were i n t e r e s t e d

b.

because the s t o r y was w e l l w r i t t e n ?

If

your

parents t e l l

thinking clearly,
a.

i n the s t o r y , or

you you're a c t i n g s i l l y

i s i t more l i k e l y

and not

to be

because of something you d i d , or

. b.

because they happen to f e e l cranky?

When you don't do w e l l on a t e s t at s c h o o l , i s i t

. a.
b.

because the t e s t was e s p e c i a l l y

hard, or

because you d i d n ' t study f o r i t ?

When

you

win a t a game of c a r d s or c h e c k e r s ,

does i t

happen
a.

because you play r e a l w e l l , or

. b.
If

because the other person doesn't play w e l l ?

people think you're b r i g h t or c l e v e r ,

_ a.
+_ b.
If

is it

because they happen to l i k e you, or

because you u s u a l l y a c t that way?

a teacher d i d n ' t pass you to the next grade, would i t

probably be
a.

because she "had i t i n f o r you," or

b.

because your s c h o o l work wasn't

Suppose

good enough?

you don't do as w e l l as u s u a l i n a

subject

at

s c h o o l . Would t h i s probably happen

_ a.
b.

because you weren't

because

as c a r e f u l as u s u a l , or

somebody bothered you and kept you

working?
272

from

If

a boy or g i r l

t e l l s you that you a r e b r i g h t ,

isi t

usually
+

a.

because you thought up a good i d e a , or

b.

because they l i k e you?

Suppose

you

became a

famous

teacher,

scientist,

or

d o c t o r . Do you t h i n k t h i s would happen

a.

because other people helped you when you needed i t ,

or

b.

because you worked

Suppose

very hard?

your p a r e n t s say you a r e n ' t d o i n g w e l l

s c h o o l work. I s t h i s l i k e l y

in

to happen more

a.

because your work i s n ' t very good, or

b.

because they a r e f e e l i n g cranky?

Suppose you a r e showing a f r i e n d how to p l a y a game

he has t r o u b l e w i t h i t .
a.

because he wasn't

your

Mould

and

that happen

a b l e to understand how to p l a y ,

or
-_ b.

because you c o u l d n ' t e x p l a i n

i t well?

When you f i n d i t easy to work a r i t h m e t i c or math problems

at s c h o o l , i s i t u s u a l l y
a.

because

the

teacher

gave

you

especially

easy

problems, or
+

b.

because you s t u d i e d your book w e l l b e f o r e you t r i e d

them?

When

you remember something you heard i n c l a s s ,

usually
a.

because you t r i e d hard to remember, or

273

isit

_ b.

because the teacher e x p l a i n e d i t w e l l ?

If you can't work a p u z z l e , i s i t more l i k e l y

to happen

at

working

because the i n s t r u c t i o n s weren't w r i t t e n

clearly

a.

because

you a r e not e s p e c i a l l y good

p u z z l e s , or
_

b.

enough?
If your p a r e n t s t e l l

you that you a r e b r i g h t or

clever,

i s i t more l i k e l y
a.

because they a r e f e e l i n g good, or

+_ b.

because of something you

Suppose

you

friend

were

did?

e x p l a i n i n g how

and he l e a r n s q u i c k l y .

to p l a y a game

Mould

that

happen

to

more

of ten
a.

because you e x p l a i n e d i t w e l l , or

b.

because he was

Suppose
your
to

a b l e to understand i t ?

you're not s u r e about the answer to a

question

teacher asks you and the answer you g i v e t u r n s out

be wrong.

Is i t l i k e l y

to happen

a.

because she was more p a r t i c u l a r

b.

because you answered

than u s u a l , or

too q u i c k l y ?

If a teacher s a y s to you, "Try to do b e t t e r , " would i t be

because

t h i s i s something she might say

p u p i l s to t r y h a r d e r , or
b.

because your work wasn't

274

as good as u s u a l ?

to

get

Appendix

D i r e c t i o n s and Sample of the "Aim" P r e - , Post-Measure

CAB-A
. this test, you are to draw lines on a page full of figures just like this:

LTJ

orking as quickly and carefully as you can

(1) draw a line freehand all the way around between the outer and inner squares, and then
(2) draw a circle around the dot.

'AMPLES:

careful
(1) not to let your line touch either of the squares or the dot, and
(2) to make the lines complete: that is. go all the way around between the squares and around the dot.
e following would not get a point because the line either touched one of the squares or the dot. or was incomplete:

E H S

n't use a ruler to draw the lines. All pencil marks must be drawn freehand. Finish each figure completely before going on
he next one.
u score will be the number of figures with correctly drawn lines, so you should go as fast as you can without making errors.
AMPLES:
practice, do the following examples as quickly and accurately as you can. You will have 30 seconds:

E3

Ice sure you have two sharp pencils ready. If not. sharpen two pencils in the space below, so that you will have a sharp
cil for each of the two pans of this test. You will have 2 A minutes for each of two pages of figures.
l

DO NOT TURN THIS PAGE UNTIL ASKED TO DO SO.

275

PART I

3.

11.

iH

16.

21.

26.

31.

iH

10.

12.

13.

14,

15.

17.

18.

19,

20.

22,

23.

24.

2.5.

27.

28.

!H

29,

30.

Hi

33,

34,

35,

32.

27S

Appendix
Exped%ancv
Before
well

10

o f Success Measure f o r S e l f . Pre Task

you play

t h e game,

you t h i n k M y o u w i l l

I wonder

i f you c o u l d

do on t h i s game.

show me

Do you t h i n k

you

how
will

\i

be a b l e

t o g u e s s none o f t h e p i c t u r e

them?

three

beside

the

think

o f them?
number

you w i l l

I think

o f them?

on t h e page t h a t

be a b l e

I will

four

cards?

a l l o f them?

Put an

'X'

shows how many o f them

you

to get r i g h t .

be a b l e

to guess

1 picture

card

2 picture

cards

3 picture cards
4 picture

cards

5 picture cards
6 picture

cards

7 picture

cards

8 picture cards
9 picture

cards

10 p i c t u r e

cards

277

one o f them? two o f

correctly

Expectancy of Success Measure f o r Other

(Pre-Task)

If another boy from your c l a s s were g i v e n t h i s same game, how

many

p i c t u r e c a r d s do you think he would get r i g h t ?

Put an 'X'

b e s i d e the number on the page showing how many of them he

would

be a b l e to get r i g h t .

think

another

boy from my c l a s s would be a b l e

correctly
1 p i c t u r e card
2 p i c t u r e cards
3 p i c t u r e cards
4 p i c t u r e cards
5 p i c t u r e cards
6 p i c t u r e cards
7 p i c t u r e cards
8 p i c t u r e cards
9 p i c t u r e cards
10 p i c t u r e c a r d s

273

to

guess

Appendix

11

Schematic Drawing of Board Game

"Round-Robin

Racing"

if

(Experimental

Manipulation

Task

/ [

Conditions)

Scale =

4:1

279

for

Easy

and

Difficult

Appendix
Post-experimental

12

Task A t t r i b u t i o n

Questionnaire

Easy C o n d i t i o n
Good f o r you. You got your c a r to the winner's box.
1.

2.

3.

How much was t h i s because you t r i e d hard?

1.

very, very much

2.

very much

3.

much

4.

d i d n ' t matter

5.

somewhat

6.

a little bit

7.

not much at a l l

How much was t h i s because you were l u c k y ?

1.

very, very much

2.

very much

3.

much

4.

d i d n ' t matter

5.

somewhat

6.

a little bit

7.

not much at a l l

How much was t h i s because you a r e good at t h i s k i n d of game

- you have good a b i l i t y ?

1.

very, very much

2.

very much

3.

much

4.

d i d n ' t matter

5.

somewhat
280

4.

5.

6.

a l i t t l e bit

7.

not much at a l l

How much was t h i s because the game was easy?

1.

v e r y , very

2.

yery much

3.

much

4.

d i d n ' t matter

5.

somewhat

6.

a l i t t l e bit

7.

not much a t a l l

How e n j o y a b l e d i d you f i n d

6.

Do

you

have

t h i s game?

1.

v e r y , very .enjoyable

2.

very

3.

enjoyable

. 4.

much

enjoyable

can't

decide

5.

somewhat e n j o y a b l e

6.

a little

7.

not e n j o y a b l e at a l l

enjoyable

any s u g g e s t i o n s about how t h i s game

improved?

281

can

be

P o s t - e x p e r i m e n t a l Task A t t r i b u t i o n
Difficult
You
1.

were unable

to get your

c a r to the winner's box.

1.

very, very much

2.

very much

3.

much

4.

d i d n ' t matter

5.

somewhat

6.

a l i t t l e bit

7.

not much at a l l

How much was t h i s because you were

_____

3.

Condition

How much was t h i s because you d i d n ' t t r y hard enough?

'

2.

Questionnaire

unlucky?

1.

v e r y , very much

2.

very much

3.

much

4.

d i d n ' t matter

5.

somewhat

6.

a l i t t l e bit

7.

not much at a l l

How much was t h i s because you a r e poor at t h i s k i n d of game

- you have poor a b i l i t y ?
1.

v e r y , very much

2.

very much

3.

much

4.

d i d n ' t matter

5.

somewhat

282

4.

5.

6.

How much was t h i s

6.

a little bit

7.

not much at a l l

because

he game was hard?

1.

v e r y , very much

2.

very much

3.

much

4.

d i d n ' t matter

5.

somewhat

6.

a little bit

7.

not much at a l l

How e n j o y a b l e d i d you f i n d t h i s game?

Oo

you

have

1.

very, very

enjoyable

2.

very

3.

enjoyable

4.

can't

5.

somewhat

enjoyable

6.

a little

enjoyable

7.

not e n j o y a b l e at a l l

enjoyable

decide

any sugges i o n s about how t h i s game

improved?

283

can

be

Appendix 13
Expectancy

If
them
number

you

of F u t u r e Success f o r S e l f

were g i v e 10 more p i c t u r e c a r d s to do,

do you think you would get r i g h t ?

showing

how many

Put an "X" b e s i d e

how many p i c t u r e c a r d s you think you

a b l e to guess c o r r e c t l y .
1 picture card
2 picture cards
3 p i c t u r e cards
4 p i c t u r e cards
5 p i c t u r e cards
6 picture cards
7 p i c t u r e cards
8 p i c t u r e cards
9 p i c t u r e cards
10 p i c t u r e c a r d s

284

would

of
the
be

Expectancy

If

another

cards

to do,

of Future Success

f o r Other

boy from your c l a s s were given 10

more

picture

how many of them do you think he would get r i g h t ?

Put an "X" b e s i d e the number showing how many p i c t u r e c a r d s

you

think he would be a b l e to guess c o r r e c t l y .

think

another

boy from my c l a s s would be a b l e

correctly
1 p i c t u r e card
2 picture cards
3 p i c t u r e cards
4 p i c t u r e cards
5 p i cture cards
6 p i cture cards
7 p i c t u r e cards
8 p i c t u r e cards
9 p i c t u r e cards
10 p i c t u r e c a r d s

285

to

guess

Appendix 14
Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s f o r Pre-Measures
A c c o r d i n g to Group. C o n d i t i o n , and Order
Ravenl
LD
Mean
Easy

NLD
S.D.

Condition

Mean
Easy

S.D.

Condition

Order 1

10.57

.98 (n=7)

Order 1 11.00

.89 (n=6)

Order 2

10.00

1.41 (n=5)

Order 2 10.83

1.17 (n=6)

Difficult

Difficult

Condition

Condition

Order 1

10.00

.63 (n=6)

Order 1 10.78

.44 (n=9)

Order 2

9.00

.82 <n=4)

Order 2 11.14

1.07 (n=7)

No Task C o n d i t i o n
Order 1

11.25

Order 2

11.00

No Task C o n d i t i o n
.96 (n=4)
2.00 <n=4)

Order 1 11.00

1.00 (n=5)

Order 2 11.20

.84 (n=5)

Free R e c a l l 1
LD
Mean
Easy

NLD

S.D.

S.D,

Mean

Easy C o n d i t i o n

Condition

Order 1

32.86

4.45 (n=7)

Order 1

35.67

4.46 (n=6)

Order 2

39.80

5.07 <n=5)

Order 2

40.83

2.71 (n=6)

Difficult

Difficult

Condition

Condition

Order 1

35.17

4.07 (n=6)

Order 1

38.89

4.23 (n=9)

Order 2

33.25

7.09 (n=4)

Order 2

41.43

3.21 (n=7)

No Task C o n d i t i o n

No Task C o n d i t i o n
Order 1

36.00

2.45 (n=4)

Order 1

41.20

2.77 (n=5)

Order 2

39.75

4.64 (n=4)

Order 2

42.40

1.14 (n=5)

286

Serial Recall 1
LD
Easy

NLD

Condition

Easy

Condition

Order 1

26.71

5.41 (n=7)

Order 1

30.50

3.94 (n=6)

Order 2

34.40

8.20 (n=5)

Order 2

38.17

2.32 (n=6)

Difficult

Condition

Difficult

Condition

Order 1

31.33

6.92 (n=6)

Order 1

36.11

4.57 (n=9)

Order 2

28.25

6.65 (n=4)

Order 2

38.28

4.54 (n=7)

No Task

Condition

No Task

Condition

Order 1

31.25

3.10 (n=4)

Order 1

36.80

3.83 (n=5)

Order 2

36.25

6.08 (n=4)

Order 2

39.60

1.14 (n=5)

Color Naming l
LD
Easy

NLD

Condition

Easy

Condition

Order 1

39.14

12.03 (n=7)

Order 1

26.67

8.57 (n=6)

Order 2

30.60

4.83 (n=5)

Order 2

33.17

7.52 (n=6)

Difficult

Condition

Difficult

Condition

Order 1

32.83

7.25 (n=6)

Order 1

30.00

6.08 (n=9)

Order 2

36.00

6.98 (n=4)

Order 2

30.14

5.58 (n=7)

No Task

Condition

No Task

Condition

Order 1

33.25

6.18 (n=4)

Order 1

28.00

3.81 (n=5)

Order 2

31.25

3.59 (n=4)

Order 2

33.00

4.30 (n=5)

287

I d e a t i o n a l Fluency 1
LD

NLD

Mean

S.D.

Mean

Easy C o n d i t i o n

S.D.

Easy C o n d i t i o n

Order 1

6.00

4.00 (n=7)

Order 1

11.50

4.37 (n=6)

Order 2

6.20

1.64 (n=5)

Order 2

9.33

5.32 (n=6)

Difficult

Condition

Difficult

Condition

Order 1

6.83

5.84 (n=6)

Order 1

7.67

4.47 (n=9)

Order 2

4.75

5.50 (n=4)

Order 2

6.86

4.30 (n=7)

No Task

Condition

No Task C o n d i t i o n

Order 1

7.50

5.32 (n=4)

Order 1

10.80

3.49 (n=5)

Order 2

5.00

3.74 (n=4)

Order 2

4.20

4.21 (n=5)

Aim 1
LD

NLD

Easy C o n d i t i o n

Easy C o n d i t i o n

Order 1

11.14

7.15 (n=7)

Order 1

13.67

1.50 (n=6)

Order 2

15.80

3.42 (n=5)

Order 2

12.67

4.50 (n=6)

Difficult

Condition

Difficult

Condition

Order 1

9.17

4.62 (n=6)

Order 1

13.11

4.62 (n=9)

Order 2

9.75

4.11 (n=4)

Order 2

15.43

4.24 (n=7)

No Task C o n d i t i o n

No Task C o n d i t i o n

Order 1

10.00

1.41 (n=4)

Order 1

14.00

1.87 (n=5)

Order 2

9.00

2.45 (n=4)

Order 2

11.40

4.56 (n=5)

288

Appendix 15
Means

and

Standard D e v i a t i o n s f o r Post-Measures

According

Group. C o n d i t i o n , and Order of P r e s e n t a t i o n

Raven 2
LD
Mean

NLD
Mean

S.D.

Easy C o n d i t i o n

S.D.

Easy C o n d i t i o n

Order 1

10.86

.90 (n=7)

Order 1

9.67

2.25 (n=6)

Order 2

10.60

.55 (n=5)

Order 2

11.17

.75 (n=6)

Difficult

Condition

Difficult

Condition

Order 1

9.50

2.34 (n=6)

Order 1

11.33

.71 (n=9)

Order 2

11.25

1.50 (n=4)

Order 2

11.14

.90 (n=7)

No Task C o n d i t i o n

No Task C o n d i t i o n
Order 1

10.50

1.29 (n=4)

Order 1

11.20

.84 (n=5)

Order 2

10.75

.96 (n=4)

Order 2

11.00

.71 (n=5)

Free R e c a l l 2
LD

NLD

Easy C o n d i t i o n

Easy C o n d i t i o n

Order 1

37.00

5.03 (n=7)

Order 1

37.67

5.64 (n=6)

Order 2

36.80

4.32 (n=5)

Order 2

39.17

3.87 (n=6)

Difficult

Condition

Difficult

Condition

Order 1

36.67

3.98 (n=6)

Order 1

40.44

2.13 (n=9)

Order 2

35.50

3.51 (n=4)

Order 2

39.00

3.65 (n=7)

No Task C o n d i t i o n

No Task C o n d i t i o n

Order 1

38.00

4.69 (n=4)

Order 1

43.00

3.08 (n=5)

Order 2

39.00

2.00 (n=4)

Order 2

39.80

2.77 (n=5)

289

to

Serial Recall 2
LD
Mean
Easy

NLD
S.D.

Mean

Condition

Easy

S.D.

Condition

Order 1

32.00

7.39 (n=7)

Order 1

34.83

5.00 (n=6)

Order 2

32.20

7.33 (n=5)

Order 2

35.67

4.55 (n=6)

Difficult

Condition

Difficult

Condition

Order 1

32.33

5.43 (n=6)

Order 1

37.33

3.54 (n=7)

Order 2

32.50

6.14 (n=4)

Order 2

36.14

4.10 (n=7)

No Task

Condition

No Task

Condition

Order 1

35.00

5.66 (n=4)

Order 1

41.60

3.29 (n=5)

Order 2

33.25

3.59 (n=4)

Order 2

37.40

3.97 (n=5)

C o l o r Naming 2
LD
Easy

NLD

Condition

Easy

Condition

Order 1

37.14

7.82 (n=7)

Order 1

25.83

6.31 (n=6)

Order 2

29.80

4.60 (n=5)

Order 2

32.33

5.78 (n=6)

Difficult

Condition

Difficult

Condition

Order 1

30.33

5.46 (n=6)

Order 1

28.44

4.30 (n=9)

Order 2

33.00

5.77 (n=4)

Order 2

27.28

4.11 (n=7)

No Task

Condition

No Task

Condition

Order 1

33.50

5.92 (n=4)

Order 1

28.40

4.50 (n=5)

Order 2

36.00

9.34 (n=4)

Order 2

29.60

3.78 (n=5)

290

I d e a t i o n a l Fluency 2
LD
Mean

NLD
S.D.

Mean

Easy C o n d i t i o n

S.D.

Easy C o n d i t i o n

Order 1

4.43

3.91 (n=7)

Order 1

9.00

7.48 (n=6)

Order 2

6.20

1.30 (n=5)

Order 2

10.83

4.62 <n=6)

Difficult

Condition

Difficult

Condition

Order 1

4.50

3.08 (n=6)

Order 1

4.89

2.93 <n=9)

Order 2

10.50

4.93 (n=4)

Order 2

10.28

5.99 (n=7)

No Task C o n d i t i o n

No Task C o n d i t i o n

Order 1

4.25

4.99 (n=4)

Order 1

10.20

6.76 (n=5)

Order 2

9.25

4.27 (n=4)

Order 2

9.00

2.92 (n=5)

Aim 2
LD

NLD

Easy Condi t i on

Easy C o n d i t i o n

Order 1

12.57 5.35 (n=7)

Order 1

11.67

3.01 (n=6)

Order 2

14.20

Order 2

12.17

4.12 (n=6)

Difficult

1.64 <n=5)

Condition

Difficult

Condition

Order 1

11.17 5.08 (n=6)

Order 1

15.67

4.24 (n=9)

Order 2

10.75 4.79 (n=4)

Order 2

18.57

3.78 <n=7)

No Task C o n d i t i o n

No Task C o n d i t i o n
Order 1
Order 2

10.25 1.89 (n=4)

8.50

3.70 (n=4)

291

Order 1

14.80

4.49 (n=5)

Order 2

13.00

3.16 (n=5)