There are two perspectives to consider: self-perception and the perception
of others. Certain attributions are maladaptive in that they are
likely to reduce achievement strivings. Among these are attributions of failure
to lack of ability, which produce low expectancies of future success
(tied to the stability dimension of causality), low self-esteem (linked with
the locus dimension), and humiliation and shame (because these are perceived
as uncontrollable). On the other hand, failure ascribed to insufficient
effort results in maintenance of expectancy of success and guilt, both motivators.
Continuing commerce with the task increases specific ability (which
is unstable, as opposed to underlying "intelligence" which is perceived as
stable). Thus, by influencing task persistence, attributions also influence actual
task ability.
The same is true from the perspective of others. If I ascribe your failure
to low ability, then I (as teacher) offer sympathy, do not punish for
failure, and give unsolicited help. All these are cues that you "cannot,"
which starts the cycle indicated above. So other-perception and self-perception
form a unity, together, which influence task persistence and, therefore,
actual ability. Some of this is captured in the false-expectancy
literature.