Interpersonal Attributions of Responsibility in the

Chinese Workplace: A Test of Western Models in

a Collectivistic Context1

Aiqing Zhang2 Christine Reyna

School of Business DePaul University
Central University of
Finance and Economics
Beijing, People’s Republic of China

Zhenbo Qian and Guangtao Yu

School of Business
Central University of Finance and Economics,
Beijing, People’s Republic of China

When an employee fails in the workplace, judgments of responsibility based on

perceived locus and controllability guide how managers motivate the employee.
However, this model of attributions has not been tested in highly collectivistic
cultures. In the present study, 296 Chinese managers and employees made attribu-
tional judgments for a workplace failure, and then made suggestions for how to
respond to the failing employee. Results revealed that judgments of responsibility
were based on causal locus, as well as perceptions of controllability. Responsibility
elicited anger, less sympathy, and predicted behavioral response toward the failing
employee. Findings are discussed in terms of the similarities and differences in
attributional processes across cultures, especially as they apply to work-oriented
contexts.

China has witnessed an economic explosion over the last decade and, as
a result, an influx of Western investors, companies, employers, and entre-
preneurs seeking new financial opportunities are turning their attention to
China. China attracts more direct foreign investment than any other devel-
oping country, topping $153 billion in 2004 (U.S.–China Business Council,
2005). Between 1990 and 1996, the number of multinational companies in
Shanghai increased from 300 to 16,000 (Chen, 2003). In fact, more than
1
The authors acknowledge support provided by the National Natural Science Foundation of
China (Nos. 70371053 and 70771117) and NCET-07-0893. The authors thank Bernard Weiner
and the members of the attribution interest group in UCLA for their invaluable suggestions
about the present research.
2
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Aiqing Zhang, School of
Business, Central University of Finance and Economics, the South Road of XueYuan in
HaiDian District, Beijing, People’s Republic of China 100081. E-mail: Aiqingz@yahoo.com

2361

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2008, 38, 9, pp. 2361–2377.

© 2008 Copyright the Authors
Journal compilation © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
2362 ZHANG ET AL.

half of the Fortune 500 companies have operations in China (Yizan, 2004).
With these dizzying economic trends, more companies are finding it neces-
sary to redirect some portion of their business to China in order to stay
competitive.
Despite the attractive financial opportunities in China, Westerners find
that successfully doing business there can be a complex and frustrating
venture. First, there are different laws and systems to navigate. For example,
the majority of businesses are state-owned and, as a result, many of the laws
and regulations are extremely different in China, compared to the United
States. What may be even more challenging are the cultural differences that
define every aspect of life in China, especially in the workplace.
For example, according to Chen (2003), most businesses in China are
family-owned and operated. Filial obligations take precedence over stake-
holder profit, and the family elders who run the business are expected to keep
much of the important operations within the family and extended family
networks. Likewise, employees often put their responsibilities and duties to
the family above personal advancement, making it difficult for Western
companies to understand how to manage and motivate a Chinese workforce
using Western models.
In addition to the centrality of the family, Chinese economic systems are
heavily influenced by the tradition of guanxi or social networking. Guanxi is
considered one of the most important assets to a Chinese company. West-
erners who come to China and have yet to establish guanxi among key
stakeholders may feel as though they might not get the best access to oppor-
tunities or resources. Not understanding cultural differences in business
models, networking, and interpersonal dynamics has been one of the trickiest
and most frustrating hurdles for Westerners trying to work or do business in
China.
These challenges may become even more exaggerated once a partnership
is formed and a Western employer, manager, or business owner must com-
municate with, train, and motive a Chinese workforce. Filial obligations
and the emphasis on networking may be symptomatic of China’s larger
cultural orientation toward collectivism. Given the well established distinc-
tions between individualistic and collectivistic cultures in terms of how
people define the self, make attributions for performance, and respond to
different achievement outcomes (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis,
1994), it is imperative that we understand how these distinctions play out in
the workplace.
In the present study, we focus on interpersonal attributions of responsi-
bility in the Chinese workplace. We will test Weiner’s (1985, 2000) attribution
theory—the Western models in a collectivistic context—to see the social
psychological and cognitive determinants of performance appraisal and
 ATTRIBUTIONS IN THE CHINESE WORKPLACE 2363

decision making, especially the effects of causal locus and controllability on

responsibility judgments, affective responses (i.e., anger and sympathy), and
training decisions. All of these can make a significant contribution in the
development of a theory of personnel decision making in Chinese contexts
from an attributional perspective.

Attributions and Motivation

The study of attributions has been an important theme in understanding

motivation across a wide variety of achievement domains, including the
workplace (Pansu & Gilibert, 2002). Weiner’s (1993, 1995b; Weiner & Kukla,
1970, 2000) attribution theory has been especially useful in understanding not
only the role that personal attributions play in achievement motivation
(Weiner, 1985), but also the role of attributions in judging and motivating
others (Reyna & Weiner, 2001; Weiner, 1995b). Following an employee’s
poor performance, others (including managers and colleagues) will often try
to understand the causal underpinnings of the negative outcome.
According to Weiner’s (1985, 2000) theory, all causes can be understood
as a combination of three causal dimensions: locus (i.e., whether the cause is
internal or external to the actor), controllability (i.e., whether the cause was
under the actor’s volition or beyond his or her control), and stability (i.e., will
the cause likely persist across time or is the cause temporary or random). So,
for example, if an employee misses an important deadline because he or she
was not putting forth adequate effort, this cause will be perceived as internal
and controllable. If the employee is often lazy, the cause may also be deemed
stable. These attributions, in turn, result in specified emotions and behavioral
reactions. If the outcome was controllable, people will often respond with
anger and lack of sympathy, which, in turn, may result in reprimand or
punishment. If the employee missed a deadline because he or she was hit by
a car and was in the hospital (i.e., an external, uncontrollable, and unstable
cause), peers and supervisors will likely respond with sympathy and try to
help the employee. Attribution theory has been successfully applied to many
aspects of social life, such as social justice, management, and a variety of
achievement domains (see Farwell & Weiner, 2000; Reyna & Weiner, 2001;
Rudolph, Roesch, Greitemeyer, & Weiner, 2004; Weiner, Graham, & Reyna,
1997; Zhang & Liu, 2003; Zhang, Xia, & Li, 2007).
Responsibility judgments also play an important role in the motivation
of employees and the efficiency of the organization. Especially when an
employee fails to achieve important task goals, attributions for the failure
have a powerful impact on a supervisor’s response to the outcome and
reactions to the employee (e.g., punishment, training, forgiveness, tolerance),
which, in turn, can affect the employee’s future behavior and status in the
2364 ZHANG ET AL.

company (for a review, see Martinko, 1995). In attempting to achieve impor-

tant or challenging work goals, many employees invariably experience nega-
tive performance outcomes from time to time, including unsuccessful sales,
manufacture of faulty products, and missed deadlines. Following these fail-
ures, decisions must be made regarding how to handle the failure and what
the employee’s standing in the company will be in the future. For example,
should the employee be reprimanded or fired following a poor performance,
or should the employee be given constructive feedback and additional men-
toring or training?
Previous studies have examined the attributional consequences of differ-
ent failure outcomes in the workplace and found support for Weiner’s (1985,
2000) attributional theory. Specifically, internal and controllable causes (e.g.,
high ability, low effort) elicited greater inferences of responsibility, which, in
turn, increased anger and decreased sympathy. Higher rates of anger and
lower rates of sympathy predict more punitive responses toward employees
following a failure (Struthers, Weiner, & Allred, 1998; Weiner, 1995a). Even
coworkers follow a similar attributional pattern when determining how to
treat a colleague whose failure affected them personally. Specifically, failure
on interdependent tasks that were deemed caused by low effort (i.e., an
internal, controllable cause) resulted in the most punitive responses (e.g.,
warning other coworkers, reporting them to supervisors; Struthers, Miller,
Boudens, & Briggs, 2001).

Attributional Processes in Collectivistic Cultures

Despite the consistent support for Weiner’s (1985, 2000) attribution

theory across a variety of achievement domains, there are reasons to suspect
that attributional processes and their consequences may play out differently
in collectivistic cultures. Psychologists studying cultural differences have
emphasized the greater role that situational factors play in collectivistic, and
specifically Chinese, attributional processes (Markus & Kitayama, 1991).
Although there may be mean differences between individualistic and collec-
tivistic cultures on their readiness to make internal attributions, it is impor-
tant that we recognize that internal attributions are still made in collectivistic
cultures and do have important attributional consequences regarding judg-
ments of responsibility and behavioral response to failure.
Markus and Kitayama (1991) found that people in different cultures have
strikingly different construals of the self, of others, and of the interdepen-
dence between the two. These construals influence the very nature of indi-
vidual experience, including cognition, emotion, and motivation. Many
Asian cultures have distinct conceptions of individuality that are based on the
 ATTRIBUTIONS IN THE CHINESE WORKPLACE 2365

fundamental relatedness of individuals to each other. The emphasis is on

attending to others, fitting in, and harmonious interdependence over self-
promotion, as is often the motive in individualistic cultures (also see Triandis,
1994). As a result, those who live in collectivistic cultures tend to focus on
interdependent factors (e.g., receiving help) when making attributions for
personal success (e.g., Kashima & Triandis, 1986) and personal factors like
effort when making attributions for personal failure (Markus & Kitayama,
1991).
In addition to different strategies for making personal achievement-
related attributions, those in collectivistic cultures, especially China, may also
use different strategies when making interpersonal attributions. People from
individualistic cultures tend to make dispositional attributions when judging
the behavior and outcomes of others. Conversely, those in collectivistic cul-
tures (e.g., China) are more likely to focus on situational or contextual
factors when judging others, especially if the context is social (Morris & Peng,
1994). In a study conducted in China, Lin (2001) found different conse-
quences for attributions, suggesting that controllable attributions for a nega-
tive outcome could elicit help giving instead of punishment. However, Zhang
and Liu (2003) found that controllability attributions for Chinese students’
failure predicted punishment, while uncontrollable attributions predicted
consoling students. These findings paint a mixed picture of the role of attri-
butions on interpersonal behavior in Chinese culture.
A recent study in China (Zhang et al., 2007) found that some of the
basic tenets of attribution theory do apply with Chinese participants. For
example, as predicted in attribution theory, judgments of responsibility,
affective responses (i.e., anger and sympathy), and expectation for change
(i.e., stability) could serve as the antecedents of help giving. Specifically,
causal locus had direct and indirect links (mediated by judgment of respon-
sibility and affective responses) on help giving; and in Chinese culture,
people usually assigned behavioral responsibility according to the causal
locus (internal vs. external causes). These findings suggest that Chinese par-
ticipants do pay attention to internal attributions when making judgments
of responsibility.

The Present Study

This mixed attributional landscape underscores the necessity for further

research examining theoretical models relating attributions and interpersonal
behaviors in China, especially as they pertain to outcomes in the workplace.
We are particularly interested in exploring Weiner’s (1985, 2000) attribution
theory in a Chinese workplace context. Previous research has suggested that
2366 ZHANG ET AL.

attributional patterns and their related consequences may differ in Chinese

culture, so testing attributional theory with a Chinese population could be an
important theoretical advancement for understanding the cultural reach of
attributional theory. In addition, the quantitative relationships between
causal locus, responsibility judgments, and training decisions were seldom
considered in prior studies in China. However, training was the constructive
strategy used most often by Chinese managers in response to an employee
who failed a task. Finally, we still do not fully understand how Chinese
nationals assign behavioral responsibility and make training decisions
according to causal locus and controllability in Chinese workplace environ-
ments, which will be tested in the present research.

A Note About Training

Individual employees can be evaluated by comparing their current skill

levels or performance to the organization’s performance standards or antici-
pated needs. Based on past performance and attributions, a training need is
identified by any discrepancies between actual and anticipated skill levels.
The quality of employees and their development through training and edu-
cation are major factors in determining long-term profitability of a business.
So, training here refers to one kind of personnel decision that can be made
based on the attributional analysis of employees’ past performance.
It is ongoing training of current employees that helps them to adjust to
rapidly changing job requirements. Training also facilitates building a more
efficient, effective, and highly motivated team, which can enhance the com-
pany’s competitive position, improve employee morale, and enhance the
company’s ability to adopt and use new technologies because of a suffi-
ciently knowledgeable staff. If companies want to hire and keep good
employees, ongoing training will be a good strategy, as it allows the
company to invest in the development of employees’ skills so they can
increase company productivity.

Goals of the Present Research

The present study is designed to test Weiner’s (1985, 2000) attribution

theory, as applied to achievement failure in the Chinese workplace, with a
focus on the social psychological and cognitive determinants of performance
appraisal and decision making from an attributional perspective, all of which
can make a significant contribution in the development of a theory of per-
sonnel decision making in Chinese contexts. Our research strategies and goals
 ATTRIBUTIONS IN THE CHINESE WORKPLACE 2367

are to manipulate systematically the dimensions of attribution (e.g., locus,

controllability) in a workplace scenario wherein an employee fails to finish an
important task by a certain deadline.
We will measure Chinese nationals’ perceptions of locus, controllability,
responsibility, as well as emotional reactions of anger and sympathy. We will
also assess how participants would respond to the employee if they were his
supervisor. We propose the following:
Hypothesis 1. Weiner’s (1985, 2000) attribution theory will
apply to Chinese participants’ attributional processes.

Specifically, causal locus and controllability will be the antecedents of

responsibility judgments, which in turn will affect emotional responses and
personnel decisions (e.g., training). We also propose the following:

Hypothesis 2. Judgments of responsibility will mediate the rela-

tionship between causal ascriptions and personnel decisions.

Method

Participants

Study participants were 296 individuals (103 female, 147 male, 46 did not
specify their gender) from Beijing, Shanghai, and Wuhan, who volunteered
to take part in the study. The sample included 167 managers and 124 em-
ployees (and 5 missing data). Specifically, there were 86 participants from
businesses, 90 from governmental organizations, and 120 from universities.
Respondents’ mean age was 28 years (SD = 4.0; range = 22–38 years), and
they all had more than 2 years of work experience.

Materials and Procedure

Participants were approached in their workplaces and were asked to take

a moment to complete a brief questionnaire written in Chinese describing a
hypothetical incident at work involving an employee. They were instructed to
read the description as if they were the employee’s manager. They were
informed that they had prior knowledge about the target employee’s innate
abilities and diligence. They were also told that, following an evaluation, they
would give target employees verbal feedback regarding their performance
and grade.
2368 ZHANG ET AL.

Following the instructions, participants were presented with vignettes

describing employees who failed to finish an assigned task. Each vignette
contains manipulations of our two target causal ascriptions (i.e., ability and
effort). This resulted in a 2 (Ability: high vs. low) ¥ 2 (Effort: high vs. low)
design. The four vignettes were presented in the following manner:
1. Employee A has high ability. He or she did not work hard and had
not put forth effort in his work. Employee A failed to finish the
task, and the evaluation grade he or she got was far behind what his
or her colleagues got. (high ability + low effort)
2. Employee B has low ability. He or she did not work hard and had
not put forth effort in his or her work. Employee B failed to finish
the task, and the evaluation grade he or she got was far behind what
his or her colleagues got. (low ability + low effort)
3. Employee C has high ability. He or she worked hard and had put
forth effort in his or her work. Employee C failed to finish the task,
and the evaluation grade he or she got was far behind what his or
her colleagues got. (high ability + high effort)
4. Employee D has low ability. He or she worked hard and had put
forth effort in his or her work. Employee D failed to finish the task,
and the evaluation grade he or she got was far behind what his or
her colleagues got. (low ability + high effort)
Vignettes were presented within-groups; thus, all participants rated each
employee. The order of vignettes was completely counterbalanced across
participants. After reading each vignette, participants rated each target
employee on the two causal dimensions: locus, which locates the cause of the
event within the person (internal) or the environment (external); and control-
lability, which differentiates causes that are under the employees’ volition
(controllable) versus causes that are not under their volition (uncontrollable).
Participants identified the degree to which the cause of the failure was some-
thing that reflected an aspect of the situation or the target employee on a
7-point scale ranging from 1 (situation) to 7 (target employee). In addition,
participants identified the controllability of the failure on a 7-point scale
ranging from 1 (uncontrollable) to 7 (controllable).
Participants also rated the target’s responsibility for the poor per-
formance on two items that were combined to assess responsibility
(Cronbach’s a = .75) by how accountable (1 = not at all accountable to
7 = extremely accountable) and how much at fault (1 = not at all at fault to
7 = extremely at fault) the employee was for the failure. Participants indi-
cated their degree of anger (1 = not at all angry to 7 = extremely angry) and
sympathy (1 = none at all to 7 = a great deal) toward the target. Finally,
participants indicated their training evaluation of the target, indicating the
 ATTRIBUTIONS IN THE CHINESE WORKPLACE 2369

degree to which the participant would recommend the target for training on
a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (lowest recommendations for training) to 7
(highest recommendations for training).
Participants were told that their responses would remain confidential and
anonymous. The accompanying scales were randomized, and at the end of
the experiment, each participant was debriefed.

Results

MANOVA Analysis

Attribution manipulation checks and responsibility and training decisions.

We first conducted a MANOVA to check our manipulations, as well as to
test for any participant gender, work status, or location effects. The
MANOVA was a 2 (Gender) ¥ 2 (Identity: manager vs. employee) ¥ 3
(Source: enterprise, government, or university) ¥ 4 (Vignettes) design. The
results indicate that there were no consistent effects of gender, status, or
location; nor were there any interactions involving these variables, so these
variables will not be discussed further.
There were main effects of the vignettes on our critical variables. ANOVA
tests reveal that the vignettes had main effects on locus, F(3, 986) = 146.66;
controllability, F(3, 986) = 49.67; responsibility, F(3, 986) = 76.82; anger,
F(3, 986) = 41.90; sympathy, F(3, 986) = 30.19; and training, F(3, 986) =
23.57, all ps < .001. As shown in Table 1, the post hoc test indicates a number
of interesting findings.
Locus. First, Chinese participants did make internal attributions for
failure. As Table 1 indicates, the employee who had low ability and low effort
elicited the most internal attributions, followed by the high-ability/low-effort
and low-ability/high-effort employees (there were no significant differences
between the latter two). The only employee whose failure was deemed situ-
ational (below the midpoint of the scale) was the high-ability/high-effort
employee.
Controllability. Unlike locus, the employee who had high ability but low
effort and failed was perceived as having the most control over the failure.
This was followed by the low-ability/low-effort employee (both evaluated on
the controllable end of the scale). Both employees who did exert effort were
not seen as in control over their outcome (both evaluations below the mid-
point), with the high-ability/high-effort employee being judged least in
control. All differences were significant from each other.
Responsibility. Perceived effort was the primary determinant of judg-
ments of responsibility. Both the high-ability and low-ability employees who
Table 1

Means of Variables in the Four Vignettes

2370 ZHANG ET AL.

Locus Controllability Responsibility Anger Sympathy Training

Vignettes M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
High ability/Low 5.21a 1.66 5.28a 1.50 5.58a 0.92 3.94a 1.44 3.22a 1.49 4.50a 1.23
effort
Low ability/Low 5.75b 1.51 4.16b 1.71 5.40a 1.13 4.02a 1.59 3.47a 1.66 5.54b 1.31
effort
High ability/High 2.51c 1.63 3.20c 1.58 3.74b 1.47 2.58b 1.36 4.56b 1.55 4.70a 1.38
effort
Low ability/High 4.96a 1.80 3.79d 1.58 4.29c 1.36 2.77b 1.28 4.45b 1.53 5.82b 1.27
effort
Note. Subscripts are compared within columns, not across columns. Different subscripts within a column indicate that post hoc
tests reveal a significant difference between the variables ( p < .05). Means that share subscripts within a column indicate no
significant difference.
 ATTRIBUTIONS IN THE CHINESE WORKPLACE 2371

did not exert effort were judged equally responsible for their failure. The
low-ability/high-effort employee was judged somewhat responsible, which
may indicate a cultural difference in how controllable ability is believed to be
(see Triandis, 1994). The only employee who was not judged responsible for
the failure was the high-ability/high-effort employee.
Affect. Anger and sympathy followed a similar pattern, and affect was
once again driven primarily by effort. Those employees who did not put forth
effort elicited the most anger and the least sympathy; however, those who
tried hard elicited the least anger and the most sympathy.
Training. Training followed an interesting pattern that seemed to be
driven more by perceived ability than effort. Regardless of effort, those with
low ability received the highest recommendations for training, while those
who already have high ability received lower recommendations. It should be
noted that all employees were recommended for further training. However,
perhaps because training implies a lack of skill, the low-ability employees
were recommended over the low-effort employees.

Correlation Analysis

We also conducted a correlation analysis on our target variables in order

to test their interrelationships with structural equation modeling (SEM).
Because vignettes were evaluated within subjects, each participant read one
of the four vignettes (and responded to the questionnaires) selected at
random to ensure that the data remained independent. These data were then
combined into a new dataset that we used when calculating the correlation
matrix (see Table 2).
All of the variables were significantly correlated with the others (all
ps < .01), except the correlation between responsibility and training, which
was not significant. Locus and controllability were positively correlated with
responsibility, anger, and training; and were negatively correlated with sym-
pathy. Responsibility was positively correlated with anger, and was nega-
tively correlated with sympathy. Anger was negatively correlated with
sympathy, and was positively correlated with training; while sympathy was
negatively correlated with training. These patterns are consistent with our
theoretical predictions.

Structural Equation Modeling

A SEM analysis was performed to examine the fit of the data to our
model derived from Weiner’s (2000) attribution theory, as well as to test our
2372 ZHANG ET AL.

Table 2

Correlation Matrix

M SD 1 2 3 4 5
1. Locus 4.50 1.98 —
2. Controllability 4.57 1.71 .568 —
3. Responsibility 4.89 1.46 .619 .575 —
4. Anger 3.92 1.74 .578 .590 .599 —
5. Sympathy 3.47 1.56 -.404 -.466 -.527 -.523 —
6. Training 5.26 1.97 .219 .275 .103a .309 -.155
Note. N = 296.
a
All correlation coefficients are significant ( ps < .01), except for the correlations
between responsibility and training.

hypotheses concerning the mediational relationship between responsibility

judgments, anger, and sympathy on training decisions. Our hypothesis
was tested by EQS 6.0 (Bentler, 2000). We started with the theoretical model,
then reduced the lowest link step by step. The best model we found by
inspection of the EQS modification indexes is shown in Figure 1. The model
was tested with a maximum likelihood estimation method (see Bentler,
2000), c2(2, N = 296) = 0.54, p > .05; normed fit index = 1.00; non-normed
fit index = 1.02; comparative fit index = 1.00; root mean square error of
approximation = 0.00 (90% confidence interval is 0.00–0.08); and the
LISREL indexes of goodness-of-fit index = 1.00 and adjusted goodness-of-fit
index = 0.99. These fitness indexes show that the theoretical model fit the data
very well.
Standardized beta coefficients were estimated using the maximum likeli-
hood procedure. Locus was positively related to attributions of controllabil-
ity, judgments of responsibility, and anger. Controllability was positively
associated with responsibility and anger, but was negatively associated with
sympathy and training (further evidence for the proposition that training was
driven, in part, by perceptions of ability). Like controllability, judgments of
responsibility were also positively associated with anger, but were negatively
associated with sympathy and training. Anger and sympathy were negatively
related to each other, but only anger was positively associated with training.
In sum, these results suggest that locus had indirect links (through judg-
ment of responsibility and affect responses) with training decisions. Control-
lability was also an important dimension that could directly and indirectly
predict training decisions through responsibility and subsequent affective
 ATTRIBUTIONS IN THE CHINESE WORKPLACE 2373

.23* Anger
.72 E1

Locus .29*
.09
.28*
-.24*
.43 *
-.24*
.57* Responsibility Training

.33*

.74 E3
Controllability .93 E4
.30*

-.30*

-.24* Sympathy .83 E2

.20*

Figure 1. Structural equation model (*p < .05).

responses. Thus, in Chinese culture, people assigned behavioral responsibil-

ity not only according to causal controllability, but also according to the
perception of locus, which, in turn, elicited more anger and less sympathy,
and contributed to training decisions. These results are consistent with the
prediction that Chinese nationals would use attributional information in
ways similar to that proposed by Weiner (1985, 2000).

Discussion

As mentioned previously, many Westerners from individualistic cultures

are moving some portion of their business operations and investments over to
China. Being able to understand the interrelationships between causal ascrip-
tions and what is considered an appropriate response is essential for under-
standing complex cultural differences. In this study, we tested Weiner’s (1985,
2000) attributional model on Chinese managers and employees’ perceptions
of a hypothetical employee who failed to meet an important deadline.
MANOVA and structural equation analyses support the prediction that
attributional processes used in Western cultures have some parallel in China,
a highly collectivistic culture.
2374 ZHANG ET AL.

First, these results support our prediction that Chinese participants con-
sider locus (specifically internal attributions) an important dimension along
which to determine responsibility and guide training decisions. This finding
has not been sufficiently recognized in previous research as central to attri-
butions in collectivistic societies. Despite the central role that internal attri-
butions played in this study, it is possible that they may mean slightly
different things in China than they do in America. For example, internal
attributions of low ability may be considered more unstable and controllable
in collectivistic cultures than in individualistic cultures. Indeed, the low-
ability/high-effort employees were deemed more in control of their failure
than were the high-ability/high-effort employees. Also, internal attributions
were more strongly predictive of judgments of responsibility than were attri-
butions of controllability. In Western samples, usually controllability and
responsibility are more highly associated (see Weiner, 1995b). Once again,
this could be an indication that ability is perceived of as somewhat control-
lable in collectivistic cultures; thus, all low-effort as well as low-ability
employees will be deemed somewhat responsible.
Despite this notable distinction, what might be even more surprising is
how similar the attributional patterns were to what has been found in
Western cultures. By and large, participants perceived the low-effort em-
ployees as more in control of the poor outcome, more responsible for it,
and reacted to the employee with more anger and less sympathy than to
employees who did try hard. This is the classic attributional pattern that we
have seen in Western societies.
Second, controllability was also an important determinant of reactions to
employee failure. Controllability had direct effects on training decisions, as
well as indirect effects via responsibility judgments and affective responses
(i.e., anger and sympathy). Judgments of responsibility also had direct and
indirect effects (through affect responses) on training decisions. These find-
ings suggest that Chinese participants were not only willing to make internal
attributions, but also to blame and punish employees for personal failure. In
addition, these findings reveal that the relationships among these variables
were very complex. Thus, we must systematically consider the cognitive
factors (causal locus, controllability, and responsibility judgments), affect
factors (anger and sympathy), and their interrelationships when developing
models of personnel decision making and when applying these models to
actual workplace dynamics.
Third, the present study fulfilled its original purpose to test the theoretical
model of interpersonal attributions and training decisions in the achievement
context of the workplace. This is especially important, given that such pro-
cesses have not been fully investigated in China. It was found that, on the
whole, the model fit the data well across situations. Thus, Weiner’s (1985,
 ATTRIBUTIONS IN THE CHINESE WORKPLACE 2375

2000) classic model of attributions can apply in Chinese workplace contexts.

This is an important revelation, given that Westerners often attempt to
understand Chinese business systems through Western assumptions
about intrapsychic processes, interpersonal dynamics, and organizational
dynamics. Although many of these assumptions may lead a naïve Westerner
down a path of confusion, at least when it comes to attributions certain
dynamics seem to apply well across cultures.
From a functional point of view, it makes sense that the attributional
processes first proposed by Weiner (1985, 2000) have universal appeal, espe-
cially in workplace contexts. Using causal ascriptions to guide personnel
decisions serves many simultaneous functions for a company. Accurate attri-
butions enable a company to identify failures in the system (e.g., inefficient
procedures, poorly or improperly trained employees, low motivation) and
intervene before they become too costly. In so doing, a company can dramati-
cally increase productivity when proper intervention is applied to remedy
causes for failure or inefficiency. Another benefit is that judgments of respon-
sibility (which, in Weiner’s, 1985, 2000, model, are derived from internal,
controllable attributions) tie into many people’s notions of justice (Reyna,
Henry, Korfmacher, & Tucker, 2006; Weiner et al., 1997). It is deemed fair to
punish those who could have done better but chose not to, and unfair to punish
those who fail for uncontrollable reasons. Perceiving a company’s policies as
fair and just may contribute to employee morale and loyalty.
Of course, the present study used vignettes as the situations to elicit the
participants’ responses. We acknowledge that this approach has some limi-
tations. Specifically, participants were evaluating total strangers and were
given very little information about them. Attributional processes, or at least
their consequences, may differ for targets that are familiar or even related to
the manager or employee making the judgment. For example, as previously
mentioned, family and social networks play a very central role in the Chinese
workplace. Although attributional processes may be similar with a known
target, their consequences may differ, given the demands of the relationship.
However, there are many reasons to believe that the present vignettes
reflect a realistic situation for many Chinese employees and managers. China
is witnessing massive migrations from rural areas into the larger cities, as
farming families seek better financial opportunities in urban areas. As a result,
many employees may not have the family ties or social relations that have been
the hallmark of Chinese business. Also, many companies and workers are
migrating to China from other countries, and they, too, are likely to be
strangers. Future research can test these findings in more natural and even
cross-cultural settings. Despite some methodological limitations, the present
study has laid the theoretical groundwork for future explorations of attribu-
tional processes and their consequences in collectivistic cultures like China.
2376 ZHANG ET AL.

References

Bentler, P. (2000). EQS6 structural equations program manual. Encino, CA:

Multivariate Software.
Chen, M. (2003). Inside Chinese business: A guide for managers worldwide.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Farwell, L., & Weiner, B. (2000). Bleeding hearts and the heartless: Popular
perceptions of liberal and conservative ideologies. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 26, 845–852.
Kashima, Y., & Triandis, H. C. (1986). The self-serving bias in attributions as
a coping strategy: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psy-
chology, 17, 83–98.
Lin, Z. (2001). The college student’s attribution of responsibility of learning
behavior. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 33, 37–42.
Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for
cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.
Martinko, M. J. (1995). Attributional theory: An organizational perspective.
Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press.
Morris, M. W., & Peng, K. (1994). Culture and cause: American and Chinese
attributions for social and physical events. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 67, 949–971.
Pansu, P., & Gilibert, D. (2002). Effect of causal explanations on work-
related judgments. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 505–
526.
Reyna, C., Henry, P. J., Korfmacher, W., & Tucker, A. (2006). Examining
the principles in principled conservatism: The role of responsibility ste-
reotypes as cues for deservingness in racial policy decisions. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 109–128.
Reyna, C., & Weiner, B. (2001). Justice and utility in the classroom: An
attributional analysis of teachers’ punishment and intervention strategies.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 309–319.
Rudolph, U., Roesch, S. C., Greitemeyer, T., & Weiner, B. (2004). A meta-
analytic review of help giving and aggression from an attribution perspec-
tive: Contributions to a general theory of motivation. Cognition and
Emotion, 18, 815–848.
Struthers, C. W., Miller, D. L., Boudens, C. J., & Briggs, G. L. (2001). Effects
of causal attributions on coworker interactions: A social motivation per-
spective. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 23, 169–181.
Struthers, C. W., Weiner, B., &. Allred, K. (1998). The effects of causal
attributions on personnel decisions: A social motivation perspective.
Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 20, 155–166.
Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and social behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
 ATTRIBUTIONS IN THE CHINESE WORKPLACE 2377

U.S.–China Business Council. (2005). Foreign investment in China,

2004. Retrieved March 7, 2007, from www.uschina.org/statistics/
2005foreigninvestment.html.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement-related emotion
and motivation. Psychological Review, 29, 548–573.
Weiner, B. (1993). On sin versus sickness: A theory of perceived responsibil-
ity and social motivation. American Psychologist, 48, 957–965.
Weiner, B. (1995a). Attributional theory in organizational behavior: A rela-
tionship of mutual benefits. In M. J. Martinko (Ed.), Attribution theory:
An organizational perspective (pp. 3–6). Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press.
Weiner, B. (1995b). Judgments of responsibility: A foundation for a theory of
social conduct. New York: Guilford.
Weiner, B. (2000). Intrapersonal and interpersonal theories of motivation
from an attributional perspective, Educational Psychology Review, 12,
1–14.
Weiner, B., Graham, S., & Reyna, C. (1997). An attributional examination of
retributive versus utilitarian philosophies of punishment. Social Justice
Research, 10, 431–452.
Weiner, B., & Kukla, A. (1970). An attributional analysis of achievement
motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15, 1–20.
Weiner, B., & Kukla, A. (2000). An attributional analysis of achievement
motivation. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Motivational
science: Social and personality perspectives (pp. 380–393). New York:
Psychology Press.
Yizan, H. (2004). Fortune 500 companies boosting patent filings in China
(Elvio, PTE Ltd.). Retrieved March 10, 2007, from www.eivio.com/pdf/
Fortune.pdf.
Zhang, A., & Liu, H. (2003). Attributional analysis of interpersonal judg-
ment of responsibility and behavioral reaction strategies. Acta Psycho-
logica Sinica, 35, 1–7.
Zhang, A., Xia, F., & Li, C. (2007). The antecedents of help giving in Chinese
culture: Attribution, judgment of responsibility, expectation change, and
the reaction of affect. Social Behavior and Personality, 35, 135–142.