Past research has produced conflicting results concerning the manner in which Type As and Bs make attributions following success and failure. Some studies find that Type As are more likely than Type Bs to blame themselves for all outcomes, particularly failure. Other research indicates that Type As are more self-serving in their post-performance attributions. Research indicating more self-blame by Type As typically uses a causal source approach, that is, subjects are asked to indicate the extent to which common causal sources (e.g., ability, effort) produced the outcome. Assumptions are then made about the causal dimensions (e.g., internality, stability) that underlie the attributions. The causal dimension approach, used in studies that find Type As to be more self-serving than Type Bs, assesses the dimensional structure of causes directly. One possible explanation for the divergence in results is that Type As and Bs differ in their interpretations of the dimensional structure underlying common causal sources, with Type As interpreting those causes in a more self-serving manner. To test this hypothesis, 76 undergraduates classified as either Type As or Type Bs were induced to succeed or fail at anagram solving problems and then completed an attribution scale where the causal sources of ability and effort were rated on three dimensions (internality, stability, generality). Results provided support for the hypothesis in that Type As interpreted the dimensional structure of ability and effort differently than did Type Bs and in ways that were more self-serving. (Author/NB)