search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATIONS “I wanna thank me”:


Reputational consequences of attribution locus depend on


ÖVÜL SEZER ASSISTANT PROFESSOR


Cornell Peter and Stephanie Nolan School of Hotel Administration,


Cornell SC Johnson College of Business Cornell University


outcome valence Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 120, September 2025 LINK TO PAPER


Co-authors • Övül Sezer


Assistant Professor, Cornell Peter and Stephanie Nolan School of Hotel Administration, Cornell SC Johnson College of Business, Cornell University


• Deming Wang, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China • Ignazio Ziano, Geneva School of Economics and Management, University of Geneva, Switzerland


Summary People can attribute any outcome to either internal or external sources. For


example, a basketball player can blame a game loss on internal sources, such as their own lack of effort or skill, or external sources, such as their teammates’ mistakes or bad luck. People, particularly those from Western cultures, often explain others’ successes and failures by attributing them to different causes than they use to explain their own outcomes. Specifically, they tend to see others’ behaviors as stemming from internal causes such as personality traits while viewing their own behaviors as more influenced by external causes such as situational factors.


Previous research finds that people use different strategies when communicating success vs. failure. An important yet understudied aspect of outcome attributions is how people who adopt different attribution strategies are perceived by others. Research in this domain has largely been limited to the consideration of positive outcomes. For instance, hiding success and “humblebragging” both appear to be judged unfavorably. For example, when communicating a success, they underestimate the audience’s acceptance of internal attribution and convey their own effort less than observers would prefer. And for group endeavours, the way in which credit and blame are distributed appears to depend on outcome valence: after a success, people praise many others, but after a failure, they blame only a few people.


CONTENTS TO MAIN


| RESEARCH WITH IMPACT: CORNELL SC JOHNSON COLLEGE OF BUSINESS • 2025 EDITION


31


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100