There is much literature and research on attribution theory. Weiner (1980) summarizes
the theory by saying "attribution theorists assume that individuals utilize a number of
ascription's both to postdict (interpret) and to predict the outcome of achievement-related
event" (p.328).  In explaining prior success or failure, an individual would assess the level
of ability, the amount of effort that was expended, the difficulty of the task, and the
magnitude and direction of experienced luck. Weiner (1984) further explains that  "the
guiding principal of attribution theory is that an individual's search for understanding,
seeking to discover why an event has occurred" (p.19). Attribution theory looks at both
thoughts and feelings as motivators of human learning.   

Educators have long recognized a relationship between self-concept and achievement. 
Butkowsky and Willows (1980) discussed Weiner's (1974) two dimensional taxonomy of
the causes of success and failure. Ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck are shown to
be important in children's achievements. Ability and effort are internal characteristics. 
Task difficulty and luck are  external factors. Task difficulty and ability are stable
factors, whereas effort and luck change for different situations.  Students who experience
repeated failures in reading are likely to see themselves as being less competent in
reading.  This self-perception of reading ability should reflect itself in children's
expectations of success on reading tasks and reasoning of success or failure of reading. 
Weiner (1984) states " Within the classroom, where success and failure are so prevalent,
examination performance and social comparison provide constant and important inputs
that in part determine self-worth and personal esteem" (p.17). 

Butkowsky & Willow (1980) found that poor readers have low self-concepts of ability
and this was reflected in their lower initial expectancies of success on a reading task. 
They also found that poor readers displayed greater decrements in the expectancy of
success following failure in reading than average and good readers. "Their confidence
appears to be easily shaken and their ability to cope with failure seems less efficient than
that of children of higher relative reading ability" (p. 419).  Their results also confirmed
evidence for Weiner's (1974) study in showing that poor readers were more likely to
attribute failure to stable factors, especially ability. The poor reader anticipates his
failure  to be due to low ability, decreasing expectancy of future success, thus
maintaining a low-self concept of ability.  Good readers tend to attribute failure to more
variable factors and do not lower expectancies of future success as a function of failure in
reading.

Butkowsky & Willows (1980) report studies of Ostrove (1978),  Valle & Frieze (1976),
and Weiner, Nierenberg & Goldstein (1976) that found causal attribution of outcome to a
stable factor, such as ability, increases the probability of reading success in following
situations and decreases expectancy of success following failure to an unstable cause
such as effort or luck. 

Ostrove (1978)  found that a  person's  present success and expectations for future success
are based largely on attributions that are made to past performance, expecting success
following  earlier success and failure following earlier failure for situations where ability
or task difficulty is important.  People perceive effort as transient. They can succeed if
they try, but if they do not exert themselves they will not do well.

Marsh (1986) discusses a review of literature that shows most subjects are more
likely to attribute their successes to internal causes such as ability and effort and to
attribute their failures to external causes such as task difficulty, luck and the influence of
powerful others. Marsh (1986)  quotes Riess, Rosenfield, Melburg, and Tedeschi (1981)
who said "they imply that individuals actually perceive themselves as more responsible
for their positive than for their negative outcomes and accurately report their true private
perceptions when offering causal attributions for these outcomes" (p.190).