Make attributions specific, not global

Keep the explanation for failure in the domain where it happened — resist letting it spill into a verdict on your whole self.

Why it works

Global attributions — "I’m a failure" rather than "I failed at this presentation" — are more damaging than their specific counterparts because they predict failure broadly across domains and situations the original event had nothing to do with. Specificity contains the damage, preserves functioning in adjacent areas, and makes the attribution more accurate: a failure in one domain is genuinely informative only about that domain under those conditions.

How to do it

1. Write the failure and its explanation. Check: does the explanation name only what happened, or does it make a claim about you in general?
2. If general: rewrite with domain-specific language. Replace "I’m bad at relationships" with "That conversation didn’t go well because I was defensive when criticized."
3. Draw a mental circle around the specific domain, situation, and time. The attribution stays inside the circle.
4. Check adjacent domains: do you still feel competent there? Use any "yes" as evidence against globality.

Evidence

Seligman’s learned helplessness and explanatory style research identifies globality as a key predictor of generalized helplessness and depression; making attributions specific is a core component of cognitive-behavioral prevention work. (observational)

The globality dimension is well established in explanatory style research; specific containment as a practice is a clinical application rather than a separately trialed protocol.

Sources

• Peterson, Maier & Seligman (1993), Learned Helplessness: A Theory for the Age of Personal Control

Common mistake

Believing that a failure in a domain you care about deeply must say something about who you are across the board — the caring is not evidence of globality, the evidence of globality is actual failure across multiple domains.