Attribution Styles Questionnaire 归因类型问卷（Martinko等，2007）

简介

领导力的归因模型已经提出了很多年，Martinko和Gardner（1987）是最早提出领导者和下属的归因类型对领导成员关系具有互动效应的研究者之一，并呼吁研究人员应更加关注领导者及其下属的内部归因和人际归因的动态相互作用，以及这种互动如何影响领导者与下属的关系，但是大部分研究人员仍把研究重点放在领导者归因上。

Martinko等（2007）进行了两次研究，以验证领导者和下属归因类型如何相互影响下属对领导者成员关系的认知。

信度与效度

Martinko等（2007）共进行了两次研究。研究1包括45组独立的领导下属组合，最初选举了58位领导者及对应的224位直接下属，51位领导者和138位对应直接下属回复了问卷，回复率为 88%和62%。剔除无效问卷，得到包括45位领导者和127为直接下属的样本。结果表明，归因类型问卷的两个分问卷领导者归因类型问卷（LASQ）和下属归因类型问卷（MASQ）的内部一致性系数分别为0.84和0.78。

研究2从美国东南部医疗行业三种类型组织：医院、长期护理和门诊取样，对领导者进行一次调查，对下属进行两次调查，中间相隔6周。选取了183组独立的领导下属组合，有效回复的146组。结果表明，归因类型问卷的两个分问卷领导者归因类型问卷（LASQ）和下属归因类型问卷（MASQ）的内部一致性系数分别为0.73和0.82。

量表

After reading each of the scenarios, leaders revealed their tendency to make internal or external social-attributions by indicating the extent to which they believed that the causes for these scenarios were“completely due to other people or circumstances”(1) as opposed to“completely due to the employee”(7). They also revealed their tendency to make stable or unstable social-attributions by indicating the extent to which the causes for each scenario were likely to exist in the future with scale anchors ranging from “never present”(1) to“always present”(7).
1. An employee that you manage receives a poor performance evaluation.
2. An employee that you manage fails to receive a promotion that was desired for a long time.
3. An employee that you manage receives almost no raise compared to others in your department.
4. Your company is downsizing and an employee that you manage is laid off.
5. You learn that a suggestion to improve work efficiently by a worker that you manage has been rejected by the quality control committee.
6. You have an employee that is being paid considerably less than other employees holding similar positions.
7. You have an employee who failed to achieve the majority of the required quarterly goals.
8. An employee that you manage gets into a fist fight with one of the other employees.
9. A patient/client/customer calls and complains about the poor service received from one of your employees.

Members indicated on 7-point Likert-type scales the extent to which they believed that the causes for these scenarios were“completely due to me”(1) as opposed to“completely due to other people or circumstances”(7), and the extent to which these causes were likely to exist in the future, with responses ranging from“always present”(1) to“never present”(7). Scores were summed such that higher scores indicated members with more optimistic self-attribution styles, whereas lower scores indicated members with less optimistic self-attribution styles.
10. You receive a poor performance evaluation.
11. You fail to receive a promotion that you wanted for a long time.
12. You receive almost no raise compared to others in your department.
13. Your company is downsizing and you are laid off.
14. A suggestion you made is rejected by the quality control committee.
15. You find out that you are being paid considerably less than others in your department who are doing the same work.
16. You fail to meet your quarterly performanc goals.
17. You become involved in a physical fight with a coworker.
18. A patient/client/customer calls and complains about the poor service received from you to your supervisor.

计分方法

归因类型问卷包括领导者归因类型问卷和下属归因类型问卷两个分量表，共18道题，可以计算各个量表所包含题目的总分和平均分。

领导者归因类型问卷：共9道题，包括第1-9题。
下属归因类型问卷：共9道题，包括第10-18题。

量表出处

Martinko, M. J., Moss, S. E., Douglas, S. C., & Borkowski, N. (2007). Anticipating the inevitable: When leader and member attribution styles clash. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104(2), 158-174.

参考文献

Martinko, M. J., & Gardner, W. L. (1987). The leader/member attribution process. Academy of Management Review, 12(2), 235-249.

友情提醒

为方便学术研究，根据公开发表的学术成果整理而成，供学者在学术研究中使用， 商业使用请与原作者联系。为了尊重作者的劳动成果， 请根据量表出处规范引用，谢谢！