In many situations, such as the mod

In many situations, such as the modern workplace, people are not only asked to
work alone but also to work as part of a team to achieve important objectives (Ilgen,
1999). In recent years, the shift toward group work has been so pronounced that it would
be difficult to find an organization that does not describe itself as “team” based (Locke,
Tirnauer, Roberson, Goldman, & Weldon, 2000). In light of these changes, it is becoming
increasingly important to extend attribution theory from the individual (Miller & Ross,
1975) to the group level (Forsyth & Schlenker, 1977); however a straightforward
extension of attribution theory to the group level may actually be more complex than it
first appears. For instance, unlike attributions for an individual’s behavior, attributions
about groups may refer to factors that emerge as a result of social interaction (Sherif,
1935), are shared by more than one person (Newman, 1981) and are thus irreducible to
the individual level (McGrath, 1964).
Acknowledging the unique complexities that may face perceivers who try to
explain the causes of group as opposed to individual outcomes, Goncalo (2004) proposed
a theoretical framework in which there are two types of internal attributions for group
performance. Attributions for a group outcome may be focused on (1) the properties of
the group as a whole or (2) the properties of each individual group member. This
attributional dimension is important because different types of attributions for past
performance have very different consequences for subsequent performance. Attributions
focused on individual contributions cause groups to generate a wider range of novel
ideas, to consider more alternatives prior to making a decision, to share more unique
information and reach more accurate decisions when critical information is unshared
(Goncalo, 2004; Goncalo & Duguid, 2008). Yet despite accumulating evidence that this
attributional dimension is important for a wide range of group performance outcomes,
there is currently no research to address the crucial question of whether or why some
people might focus their attention on one type of attribution over the other. Specifically,
when do perceivers take individual contributions into account when explaining the
outcomes of a collective endeavor?