We investigated how power distance beliefs shape attributions for group performance. Considerable research suggests that attributions for group performance may be focused either on (1) the contributions made by each individual member of the group or (2) the group as a whole. Yet to date there is no research to address whether or why people from different cultures might focus their attention on one type of attribution over the other. This gap is critical because different types of attributions for past group performance have been shown to influence subsequent group performance. In this paper, we develop a theory in which power distance beliefs are associated with a tendency to favor attributions focused on the individual over attributions focused on the group as a whole when explaining the causes of a collective outcome. The results of a scenario study conducted in both the United States and in India provided support for this prediction. This tendency is robust and holds when controlling for country of origin as well as perceptions of group performance, group member competence and group cohesion. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings for attribution theory and for the management of teams in high power distance cultures