Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Self-esteem, self-complexity, and reactions to naturally-occurring events Chew, Barry 1987

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1987_A8 C44.pdf [ 6.58MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0097255.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0097255-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0097255-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0097255-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0097255-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0097255-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0097255-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0097255-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0097255.ris

Full Text

SELF-ESTEEM, SELF-COMPLEXITY, AND REACTIONS TO NATURALLY-OCCURRING EVENTS By BARRY CHEW B . S c , The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1982 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of P s y c h o l o g y ) We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as co n f o r m i n g t o t h e r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1987 © B a r r y Chew, 1987 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of pgYCHnLOfiY The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 D a t e ^ E P T E M R C T R ^ 1Q<*T DE-6(3/81) i i ABSTRACT P r i o r r e s e a r c h has e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n s e l f - e s t e e m moderate r e a c t i o n s t o s e l f - r e l e v a n t e v e n t s . A l t h o u g h a l l people g e n e r a l l y f a v o u r p o s i t i v e outcomes to n e g a t i v e outcomes, low s e l f - e s t e e m (LSE) people e x h i b i t more a f f e c t i v e e x t r e m i t y i n response to a r t i f i c i a l l y - c o n t r i v e d e v e n t s than h i g h s e l f - e s t e e m (HSE) p e o p l e . That i s , LSE people e x h i b i t more p o s i t i v e a f f e c t i v e r e a c t i o n s to p o s i t i v e outcomes and more n e g a t i v e a f f e c t i v e r e a c t i o n s t o n e g a t i v e outcomes than HSE p e o p l e . Two competing t h e o r e t i c a l models have been proposed t o account f o r the s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n mood e x t r e m i t y i n the l a b o r a t o r y s e t t i n g — t h e d e f e n s i v e - s t y l e s h y p o t h e s i s and the l i f e - e v e n t s c o m p o s i t i o n h y p o t h e s i s . E v i d e n c e from two s t u d i e s , the Mood-Diary Study and the R o l e - P l a y i n g Study, p r o v i d e s u p p o r t f o r the f i r s t h y p o t h e s i s by d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t ( a ) e s t e e m - r e l a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s i n the c o g n i t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s and c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e s e l f - r e l e v a n t e v e n t s e x i s t f o r n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g e v e n t s as w e l l as l a b o r a t o r y - c o n t r i v e d feedback, (b) LSE s u b j e c t s c l a i m e d t h a t t h e s e e v e n t s had a g r e a t e r impact on t h e i r mood and t h a t they c o n s i d e r e d them t o be more p e r s o n a l l y i m p o r t a n t than d i d HSE s u b j e c t s , and f i n a l l y , ( c ) LSE s u b j e c t s were more v a r i a b l e i n t h e i r moods a c r o s s time than t h e i r HSE c o u n t e r p a r t s . A l t h o u g h e s t e e m - r e l a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s i n mood v a r i a b i l i t y were p r e d i c t e d f o r both d i f f e r e n c e s i n the e x t r e m i t y and f r e q u e n c y of mood changes, the d i f f e r e n c e s were o b t a i n e d o n l y on the f r e q u e n c y of change measure. A l t h o u g h the e v i d e n c e f o r the d e f e n s i v e - s t y l e s model was s u b s t a n t i a l , t h e r e was a l s o some e v i d e n c e f o r the l i f e - e v e n t s c o m p o s i t i o n model, which e s s e n t i a l l y p o s t u l a t e s t h a t the l i v e s of HSE and LSE i i i which e s s e n t i a l l y p o s t u l a t e s t h a t the l i v e s of HSE and LSE i n d i v i d u a l s d i f f e r e d m a rkedly. F i n a l l y , an e x p l o r a t o r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between s e l f - e s t e e m , s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y , and mood i n d i c a t e d t h a t the two i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e v a r i a b l e s were p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d and t h a t b o t h were r e l a t e d t o the f r e q u e n c y of change i n mood but not mood e x t r e m i t y . i v TABLE OF CONTENTS A b s t r a c t i i . L i s t of T a b l e s v i i . L i s t of F i g u r e s i x . Acknowledgements x. I . I n t r o d u c t i o n 1 A. S e l f - e s t e e m : C o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n and Measurement 3 B. The R o l e of Event V a l e n c e i n R e a c t i o n s to S e l f - r e l e v a n t E v e n t s 8 C. The R o l e of S e l f - e s t e e m i n M e d i a t i n g R e a c t i o n s t o S e l f - . r e l e v a n t E v e n t s 9 I I . I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Mood V a r i a b i l i t y : The Purpose of the P r e s e n t Study A. H y p o t h e s i s 1: S e l f - e s t e e m D i f f e r e n c e s i n Mood V a r i a b i l i t y Are M e d i a t e d By A t t r i b u t i o n a l D i f f e r e n c e s , Not A c t u a l D i f f e r e n c e s i n Event C o m p o s i t i o n 19 / 1. The d e f e n s i v e - s t y l e s model 20 2. The l i f e - e v e n t s c o m p o s i t i o n model 23 3. P r e d i c t i o n s based on the two competing models 31 B. H y p o t h e s i s 2: S e l f - e s t e e m D i f f e r e n c e s i n the V a r i a b i l i t y o f N a t u r a l l y - O c c u r r i n g Moods R e f e r to Both Mood E x t r e m i t y and Mood Frequency 36 C. S e l f - c o m p l e x i t y and Mood V a r i a b i l i t y 38 I I I . Method 42 A. Mood-Diary Study 43 1. S u b j e c t s 43 V 2. Subject recruitment 43 3. Procedure (a) Self^complexity questionnaire 44 (b) Mood and evaluation assessment overview 45 (c) Daily mood-ratings 46 (d) Descriptions of positive and negative events .... 47 (e) Causal a t t r i b u t i o n s for these events 48 (f) P o s i t i v i t y / n e g a t i v i t y , a f f e c t i v e impact, and importance of these events 49 4. Debriefing session 49 B. Role-Playing Study 50 1. Subjects 50 2. Stimuli 50 3. Procedure 51 IV. * Dependent Measures 51 A. Complexity Measures 52 B. Mood Scores 52 C. Causal A t t r i b u t i o n Scores 53 D. . P o s i t i v i t y / N e g a t i v i t y , A f f e c t i v e Impact, and Importance Scores • 55 V. Results A. Mood-Diary Study 1. Temporal s t a b i l i t y of self-esteem 55 2. Self-esteem and self-complexity 55 3. Self-esteem and mood 56 4. Mood and self-complexity 61 5. Self-esteem and reactions to events 65 v i B. R o l e - P l a y i n g Study 74 V I . D i s c u s s i o n A. Review of T h e o r e t i c a l E x p l a n a t i o n s U n d e r l y i n g S e l f - e s t e e m D i f f e r e n c e s i n Mood E x t r e m i t y 84 B. E v a l u a t i o n of the Hypotheses Based Upon E m p i r i c a l R e s u l t s 87 1. S e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s 88 2. S e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n h a b i t u a t i o n 90 3. S e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n mood v a r i a b i l i t y 91 C. S e l f - e s t e e m D i f f e r e n c e s i n the E x t r e m i t y and Frequency of Mood Changes 92 D. S e l f - e s t e e m , S e l f - c o m p l e x i t y , and Mood V a r i a b i l i t y 95 E. S e l f - e s t e e m D i f f e r e n c e s i n A c t u a l L i f e - E v e n t s 97 F. C o n c l u s i o n 102 R e f e r e n c e s 104 Appendix A. An example of R u s s e l l ' s (1983) A f f e c t G r i d ( m o d i f i e d ) 114 Appendix B. Consent form f o r the Mood-Diary Study 115 Appendix C. Consent form f o r the R o l e - P l a y i n g Study 117 Appendix D. A sample of the s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y q u e s t i o n n a i r e a d m i n i s t e r e d to Mood-Diary Study p a r t i c i p a n t s 118 Appendix E. I n s t r u c t i o n s and m a t e r i a l s f o r the Mood-Diary Study . 121 Appendix F. D e b r i e f i n g s t atement f o r the Mood-Diary Study 136 Appendix G. D e b r i e f i n g s t atement f o r the R o l e - P l a y i n g Study 139 Appendix H. The J a n i s - F i e l d F e e l i n g s of Inadequacy S c a l e ( E a g l y , 1967) 142 v i i LIST OF TABLES T a b l e I . I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s among s e l f - e s t e e m and the t h r e e i n d i c e s of c o m p l e x i t y o f s e l f - r e p r e s e n t a t i o n 57 T a b l e I I . I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s among the e i g h t mood measures and t h e i r c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h s e l f - e s t e e m 59 T a b l e I I I . C o r r e l a t i o n s between the t h r e e c o m p l e x i t y measures and the e i g h t mood measures 63 T a b l e IV. C o r r e l a t i o n s between measures of mood v a r i a b i l i t y w i t h s e l f - e s t e e m , and c o m p l e x i t y 66 T a b l e V. C o r r e l a t i o n s among the t h r e e c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n i t e m s , the t h r e e g e n e r a l impact i t e m s , and s e l f - e s t e e m f o r p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e e v e n t s 68 T a b l e V I . R e a c t i o n s of h i g h (HSE) and low s e l f - e s t e e m (LSE) Mood-D i a r y Study s u b j e c t s t o the most p o s i t i v e and most n e g a t i v e e v e n t s of the day 71 Ta b l e V I I . I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s among the t h r e e c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n i t e m s and the t h r e e g e n e r a l impact i t e m s f o r p o s i t i v e e v e n t s c o n t r i b u t e d by h i g h and low s e l f - e s t e e m s u b j e c t s from the Mood-Diary Study 75 Ta b l e V I I I . I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s among the t h r e e c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n i t e m s and the t h r e e g e n e r a l impact i t e m s f o r n e g a t i v e e v e n t s c o n t r i b u t e d by h i g h and low s e l f - e s t e e m s u b j e c t s from the Mood-Diary Study 76 T a b l e I X . R e a c t i o n s of h i g h (HSE) and low s e l f - e s t e e m (LSE) R o l e -P l a y i n g Study r a t e r s t o p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e e v e n t s c o n t r i b u t e d by HSE and LSE s o u r c e s 78 T a b l e X. Types of e v e n t s s u p p l i e d by Mood-Diary Study s u b j e c t s v i i i V f o r r a t i n g by R o l e - P l a y i n g Study s u b j e c t s 83 IX LIST OF FIGURES F i g u r e I . I d e a l i z e d d a t a r e v e a l i n g how d i f f e r e n c e s i n the f r e q u e n c y of mood changes can n o n e t h e l e s s , y i e l d s i m i l i a r w i t h i n - s u b j e c t s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s (mood e x t r e m i t y ) 54 F i g u r e I I . Rated i n t e r n a l i t y (INTERN), s t a b i l i t y (STABLE), g l o b a l i t y (GLOBAL), and im p o r t a n c e (IMPORT) f o r p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e e v e n t s by h i g h (HSE) and low s e l f - e s t e e m (LSE) s u b j e c t s i n the Mood-Diary Study .. 72 F i g u r e I I I . Rated i m p o r t a n c e by r a t e r s i n the R o l e - P l a y i n g Study f o r p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e e v e n t s p r o v i d e d by h i g h (HSE) and low s e l f - e s t e e m (LSE) Mood-Diary Study c o n t r i b u t o r s 80 X ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The c o n t r i b u t i o n s and a s s i s t a n c e o f v a r i o u s i n d i v i d u a l s were i n v a l u a b l e i n s e v e r a l s t a g e s of the p r e p a r a t i o n o f the p r e s e n t t h e s i s . F i r s t , I would l i k e t o e x p r e s s my a p p r e c i a t i o n t o a l l the i n t r o d u c t o r y P s y c h o l o g y s t u d e n t s who had demonstrated a s i n c e r e i n t e r e s t and p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the two s t u d i e s o f t h i s p r o j e c t . P a r t i c u l a r t h a nks a r e d i r e c t e d t o Mood-Diary Study s u b j e c t s , who o f t e n f e l t t h a t the number of e x t r a - c o u r s e c r e d i t s earned was not commensurate w i t h t h e i r f i n e e f f o r t s . Second, s p e c i a l t h anks must be g i v e n t o C a r o l y n Tees and the awesome speed and a c c u r a c y i n which she coded some o f the raw d a t a . T h i r d , p rofound g r a t i t u d e must be extended t o Dr. Lawrence Ward and my two committee members, D r s . Romauld L a k o w s k i and D a n i e l Perlman f o r t h e i r sound a d v i c e and encouragement, not mer e l y w i t h r e g a r d s t o t h i s p r o j e c t , but a l s o w i t h r e s p e c t t o the d i r e c t i o n o f my gr a d u a t e c a r e e r . Dan r e c e i v e s p a r t i c u l a r p r a i s e f o r h i s w i l l i n g n e s s t o s u b s t i t u t e f o r Dr. Robe r t Knox a t the time o f h i s sudden d e a t h . Bob's t h o r o u g h n e s s , i n s i g h t f u l comments, and t h o u g h t f u l c r i t i c i s m s improved e a r l i e r d r a f t s of the t h e s i s immensely. F o u r t h , h e a r t - f e l t thanks need t o be e x p r e s s e d t o Winona and Z a b r i n a , my two s i s t e r s who had l a b o r i o u s l y t y p ed much o f the work when they c o u l d be d o i n g o t h e r , more e n j o y a b l e t h i n g s . Love and a p p r e c i a t i o n must be mentioned when I c o n s i d e r the s u p p o r t , p a t i e n c e , and u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t my o t h e r f a m i l y members, e s p e c i a l l y my mother, showed me d u r i n g the f r u s t r a t i n g and a n x i o u s y e a r s i t r e q u i r e d t o f i n a l l y complete t h i s work. L a s t but c e r t a i n l y not l e a s t , I would l i k e to acknowledge the t i r e l e s s d e d i c a t i o n , good c h e e r , always h e l p f u l g u i d a n c e , and u n d e r s t a n d i n g of Dr. J e n n i f e r C a m p b e l l , my t h e s i s s u p e r v i s o r , who e x e m p l i f i e d deep c o n c e r n f o r my h e a l t h and academic c a r e e r beyond the normal r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of an a d v i s o r . 1 INTRODUCTION P r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h has i n d i c a t e d t h a t low s e l f - e s t e e m (LSE) people g e n e r a l l y e x h i b i t g r e a t e r a f f e c t i v e changes i n response to n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g ( Moreland & Sweeney, 1984) and a r t i f i c i a l l y - c o n t r i v e d s u c c e s s and f a i l u r e feedback than h i g h s e l f - e s t e e m (HSE) people (see J o n e s , 1973; Sh r a u g e r , 1975, f o r r e v i e w s ) . That i s , LSE people show more n e g a t i v e a f f e c t f o l l o w i n g -f a i l u r e feedback and more p o s i t i v e a f f e c t f o l l o w i n g s u c c e s s feedback than HSE p e o p l e . One immediate e m p i r i c a l q u e s t i o n i s the n a t u r e of the u n d e r l y i n g mechanisms which b r i n g s about t h i s s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e i n mood e x t r e m i t y . Another i n t e r e s t i n g i s s u e i s i f the demonstrated d i f f e r e n c e i n a f f e c t i v e r e s p o n s e t o p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e e v e n t s i s not a phenomenon of the e x p e r i m e n t a l paradigm, and LSE people e x p e r i e n c e g r e a t e r v a r i a b i l i t y i n n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g moods a c r o s s time than HSE p e o p l e , a r e t h e r e s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s a l o n g both a f f e c t i v e e x t r e m i t y and f r e q u e n c y , the two dimensi o n s of mood v a r i a b i l i t y ( L a r s e n , 1987). I t s h o u l d be noted t h a t u n l i k e the c o n t r o l l e d outcomes t h a t a r e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the m a j o r i t y of l a b o r a t o r y s t u d i e s , i n the n a t u r a l e c o l o g y , " f e e d b a c k " i s not a r t i f i c i a l l y c o n t r i v e d t o i n d u c e a maximal response from c o o p e r a t i v e s u b j e c t s . I n a d d i t i o n , n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g feedback a r i s e s from e v e n t s t h a t a r e t y p i c a l l y under v o l i t i o n a l c o n t r o l ; p e o ple can not o n l y e x e r c i s e some c o n t r o l over the s i t u a t i o n a l c o n t e x t s i n which they p l a c e t h e m s e l v e s , but they can a l s o e x e r t some c o n t r o l over the outcomes a r i s i n g from t h o s e s i t u a t i o n s . Of c o u r s e , many n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g e v e n t s do not e l i c i t any pronounced c o g n i t i v e and e m o t i o n a l r e a c t i o n s . 2 The f i r s t h y p o t h e s i s of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s t h a t the g r e a t e r mood f l u c t u a t i o n s r e p o r t e d by LSE s u b j e c t s compared to HSE p a r t i c i p a n t s i n resp o n s e t o v a l e n c e d l a b o r a t o r y feedback r e f l e c t an e s t e e m - r e l a t e d d i f f e r e n c e i n the u t i l i z a t i o n o f c o g n i t i v e d e f e n s e s which m a n i f e s t s i t s e l f i n a s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e i n the h a b i t u a l , m o t i v a t e d s t y l e of p e r f o r m i n g c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r such e v e n t s . One n e c e s s a r y i m p l i c a t i o n of t h i s h y p o t h e s i s i s t h a t the s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e i n mood e x t r e m i t y i s not c o n f i n e d to the l a b o r a t o r y , but can be g e n e r a l i z e d a c r o s s time and s i t u a t i o n i n terms of n a t u r a l mood v a r i a b i l i t y . A second r e l a t e d h y p o t h e s i s i s t h a t t h e s e e s t e e m - r e l a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s may be observed a l o n g b o t h d i m e n s i o n s of mood v a r i a b i l i t y — a f f e c t i v e e x t r e m i t y and f r e q u e n c y of mood changes. These p r e d i c t i o n s a r e e m p i r i c a l l y t e s t e d i n the two s t u d i e s r e p o r t e d h e r e , the Mood-Diary Study and the R o l e - P l a y i n g Study. I n a d d i t i o n , the r o l e of c o m p l e x i t y of the s e l f - r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n m e d i a t i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p between s e l f - e s t e e m and mood v a r i a b i l i t y i s examined. B e f o r e the i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s d e s c r i b e d , i t s t h e o r e t i c a l and e m p i r i c a l framework w i l l be o u t l i n e d . F i r s t , t h e c o n c e p t u a l and o p e r a t i o n a l s t a t u s of s e l f - e s t e e m as an i n d i v i d u a l - d i f f e r e n c e v a r i a b l e ( i . e . , as a t r a i t ) i s r e v i e w e d . Second, the r o l e of event v a l e n c e on p e o p l e ' s c o g n i t i v e and a f f e c t i v e r e a c t i o n s t o s e l f - r e l e v a n t e v e n t s i s d i s c u s s e d . T h i r d , the t h e o r e t i c a l and e m p i r i c a l l i t e r a t u r e s a d d r e s s i n g the r o l e of s e l f - e s t e e m i n m e d i a t i n g r e a c t i o n s t o s e l f - r e l e v a n t e v e n t s a r e d i s c u s s e d . F o u r t h , the i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h i s r e s e a r c h f o r : (a) s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n n a t u r a l mood v a r i a b i l i t y and (b) the p o s s i b l e t h e o r e t i c a l mechanisms t h a t may u n d e r l i e 3 these differences are considered. F i n a l l y , the construct of self-esteem and i t s r e l a t i o n to mood v a r i a b i l i t y are examined. Self-esteem: Conceptualization and Measurement Before considering the role of self-esteem i n mediating people's reactions to personally s i g n i f i c a n t , valenced ( i . e . , p o s i t i v e l y or negatively evaluated) events, i t i s important to consider b r i e f l y the current conceptual and operational status of self-esteem. The topic of self-esteem has enjoyed a p r o l i f i c l i t e r a t u r e , not only by personality and s o c i a l psychologists, but also by writers of popular magazines and so-called "self-awareness" books. The enormous popularity of t h i s i n d i v i d u a l - d i f f e r e n c e variable i s attested to by Crandall's (1973) observation that self-esteem "has been related to almost everything at one time or another (p.45)". This popularity i s not without j u s t i f i c a t i o n ; self-esteem has been shown to influence behaviour i n such widely diverse content areas as competition, conformity, a t t r a c t i o n , causal a t t r i b u t i o n s , achievement, and helping behaviour (Wells & Marwell, 1976). The pervasiveness of the concept of self-esteem associated with both personal and s o c i a l behaviour has unfortunately, created serious substantive and methodological problems for s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s . It i s perhaps the ease with which investigators and lay persons a l i k e can connote a meaning for the term "self-esteem" that gives i t s users the confidence to apply the term so widely and yet, so imprecisely, i n a large number of s i t u a t i o n s . From their extensive survey of the l i t e r a t u r e , Church, Truss, and V e l i c e r (1980) reported no less than forty operational and possibly, t h e o r e t i c a l , meanings of the term, "self-esteem". They have noted that the lack of a widely-accepted A c o n c e p t u a l or o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n of s e l f - e s t e e m has proven t o be d e t r i m e n t a l i n r e s e a r c h . T h i s l a c k of agreement has made the i n t e g r a t i o n and r e c o n c i l i a t i o n of d i v e r s e — n o t to mention a t t i m e s , p a r a d o x i c a l — e m p i r i c a l f i n d i n g s i n v o l v i n g s e l f - e s t e e m e x t r e m e l y d i f f i c u l t . I t has a l s o encouraged r e s e a r c h e r s t o d e s i g n t h e i r own s e l f - e s t e e m i n v e n t o r i e s o r t o c u s t o m i z e e x i s t i n g ones t o t h e i r n e e d s — t e s t s w i t h p s y c h o m e t r i c p r o p e r t i e s of unknown r e l i a b i l i t y and/or v a l i d i t y (Church e t a l . , 1 9 8 0 ) . To p r o v i d e some c l a r i t y as to the p r e s e n t c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of the term " s e l f - e s t e e m " , i t i s u s e f u l t o p a r t i t i o n the c o n s t r u c t i n t o two r e l a t e d , but c o n c e p t u a l l y d i s t i n c t , c o m p o n e n t s — g l o b a l o r c h r o n i c s e l f - e s t e e m and s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n . T h i s d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n i s by no means un i q u e ; s e v e r a l c u r r e n t s t u d i e s of s e l f - e s t e e m have r e c o g n i z e d and adopted t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n ( e . g . , C a m p b e l l , 1 9 8 A ; M c F a r l i n & B l a s c o v i c h , 1 9 8 1 ) . G l o b a l o r c h r o n i c s e l f - e s t e e m — o r s i m p l y , s e l f - e s t e e m — r e f e r s to a r e l a t i v e l y e n d u r i n g p e r c e p t i o n of s e l f - w o r t h or s e l f - c o m p e t e n c e . S t a t e d d i f f e r e n t l y , i t i s a g e n e r a l i z e d s e l f - r e f l e c t i v e , e v a l u a t i v e a t t i t u d e t h a t e x h i b i t s a r e m a r k a b l e degree of s t a b i l i t y o ver time and c i r c u m s t a n c e s ( M o r t i m e r , F i n c h , & Kumka, 1 9 8 2 ) . T h i s i s not t o say t h a t p e o p l e ' s temporary f e e l i n g s of s e l f - w o r t h a r e u n r e s p o n s i v e t o outcomes of e v e n t s t h a t h o l d s t r o n g i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the s e l f , but t h a t i n a d u l t s , a t l e a s t , g e n e r a l i z e d f e e l i n g s of s e l f - w o r t h a r e r e m a r k a b l y s t a b l e . S e l f - e v a l u a t i o n ( v a r i o u s l y known as t a s k - s p e c i f i c or s i t u a t i o n a l s e l f - e s t e e m i n the r e s e a r c h l i t e r a t u r e ) r e p r e s e n t s a more temporary s t a t e of s e l f - r e g a r d or s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e ; one t h a t may f l u c t u a t e w i t h t i m e , s e t t i n g , and c i r c u m s t a n c e s . S e l f - e v a l u a t i o n i s d e f i n e d o p e r a t i o n a l l y here as mood 5 because f l u c t u a t i o n s i n s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n a r e h y p o t h e t i c a l l y m a n i f e s t e d i n mood changes. I t seems r e a s o n a b l e t o assume t h a t e v e n t s t h a t p o t e n t i a l l y t h r e a t e n s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n w i l l produce n e g a t i v e moods, whereas e v e n t s t h a t p o t e n t i a l l y enhance s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n w i l l produce p o s i t i v e moods. The d i s t i n c t i o n between s e l f - e s t e e m and s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n i s p a r t i c u l a r l y i m p o r t a n t i n the p r e s e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n as b o t h c o n c e p t s a r e i n v o l v e d . S p e c i f i c a l l y , i t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t s e l f - e s t e e m may i n f l u e n c e how i n d i v i d u a l s p r o c e s s s e l f - r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n . D i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e s e i n f o r m a t i o n - p r o c e s s i n g s t r a t e g i e s may be r e f l e c t e d i n the impact of t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n on s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n and t h e r e b y mood. The o r i g i n of i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n s e l f - e s t e e m i s a t h e o r e t i c a l i s s u e of c o n s i d e r a b l e d ebate. One's p a r t i c u l a r l e v e l of s e l f - e s t e e m may be a t l e a s t p a r t i a l l y d e t e r m i n e d , as Cohen (1959) c l a i m e d , by p r e v i o u s p a t t e r n s of p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e s e l f - r e l e v a n t e x p e r i e n c e s . That i s , HSE c h i l d r e n might have c o n s i s t e n t l y e x p e r i e n c e d a more p o s i t i v e c o m p o s i t i o n of a c t u a l l i f e e v e n t s than LSE c h i l d r e n . Moreover, t h i s more f o r t u n a t e m i x t u r e of e v e n t s might have o c c u r r e d d u r i n g the c r u c i a l time when c h i l d r e n were c o n c e p t u a l i z i n g t h e i r s e l f - i m a g e s and d e v e l o p i n g t h e i r r e l a t i v e l y permanent l e v e l of s e l f - e s t e e m . Indeed, the g r e a t m a j o r i t y of p e r s o n a l i t y t h e o r i s t s ( e . g . , E p s t e i n , 1973) have e x p r e s s e d the b e l i e f t h a t the f o r m a t i o n of a l a s t i n g l e v e l of s e l f - r e g a r d o c c u r s p r e d o m i n a n t l y a t some e a r l y phase of c h i l d h o o d , and t h a t t h i s p a r t i c u l a r l e v e l i s h e a v i l y dependent upon p a r e n t a l , s o c i a l , and e n v i r o n m e n t a l cues of one's own w o r t h . Change to one's c h r o n i c , 6 p e r s i s t e n t s e l f - e x p e c t a n c i e s — e s p e c i a l l y a d r a m a t i c a l t e r a t i o n — i s t h e r e f o r e , e x t r e m e l y d i f f i c u l t i n l a t e r y e a r s , when the s e l f - c o n c e p t i s l e s s m a l l e a b l e and c o g n i t i v e c o n s i s t e n c y mechanisms a r e d e v e l o p e d . Hence, a l t h o u g h LSE people may not en c o u n t e r a s c h e d u l e of l i f e e v e n t s t h a t i s a p p r e c i a b l y d i f f e r e n t from t h a t o f HSE pe o p l e as  a d u l t s , t h e i r c h i l d h o o d s e t of c i r c u m s t a n c e s may produce i n d i v i d u a l s who a r e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y i n s e c u r e about t h e i r own worth as human be i n g s ( i . e . , who have low s e l f - e s t e e m ) . The i m p l i c a t i o n s of p o s s e s s i n g d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s o f s e l f - e s t e e m have been well-documented. The e a r l y y e a r s of s e l f - e s t e e m f o r m a t i o n may produce c o n s i s t e n t e x p e c t a n c i e s f o r f u t u r e outcomes a c r o s s many domains. Indeed, t h e s e g e n e r a l i z e d e x p e c t a t i o n s o f p e r s o n a l competency a r e so s t r o n g l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n s e l f - e s t e e m t h a t s e v e r a l i n v e s t i g a t o r s have employed measures of s e l f - e s t e e m t o o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d i f f e r e n c e s i n g e n e r a l i z e d e x p e c t a n c i e s . A l t h o u g h t h e c l a s s i c t h e o r i e s c o n c e r n i n g the s e l f — a s proposed by A d l e r ( 1 9 2 7 ) , Rogers ( 1 9 5 1 ) , and S u l l i v a n ( 1 9 5 3 ) — a r e d i s t i n c t l y d i f f e r e n t , they a l l i m p l y a g e n e r a l l y p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between s e l f - e s t e e m and p s y c h o l o g i c a l w e l l - b e i n g . C o n s i d e r a b l e s u p p o r t f o r t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n i s not d i f f i c u l t to f i n d i n the r e s e a r c h l i t e r a t u r e . A u t h o r s ( e . g . , C o o p e r s m i t h , 1967; D o r i s , 1959) have documented t h a t LSE i n d i v i d u a l s s u f f e r from h i g h l e v e l s of a n x i e t y . T h i s a n x i e t y can m a n i f e s t i t s e l f i n n e u r o t i c symptoms ( W y l i e , 1961), p s y c h o - s o m a t i c d i s o r d e r s , stomach u l c e r s , and i n s o m n i a ( C o o p e r s m i t h , 1967). I t has a l s o been shown t h a t persons of low p e r c e i v e d s e l f - w o r t h demonstrate a g r e a t e r l i k e l i h o o d t o be p a t h o l o g i c a l l y i n v o l v e d i n drugs (Brehm & 7 Back, 1968) and a l c o h o l (Wahl, 1956). Having low s e l f - e s t e e m can y i e l d o t h e r l e s s a p p a r e n t but no l e s s i n s i d i o u s consequences. Low s e l f - e s t e e m i n d i v i d u a l s may be t r a p p e d i n a " s e l f - d e f e a t i n g , v i c i o u s c y c l e " i n which t h e y , compared t o HSE p e o p l e , s e t lower e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r t h e i r performance i n many s i t u a t i o n s ( C o o p e r s m i t h , 1967; K i e s l e r & B a r a l , 1970), and thes e l o w e r e x p e c t a t i o n s reduce t h e i r e f f o r t s on t a s k s t h a t demand e f f o r t f o r achievement t o o c c u r ( D i g g o r y , K l e i n , & Cohen, 1964; Wattenburg & C l i f f o r d , 1964). The r e s u l t i n g poor performance (Hamachek, 1971), r e l a t i v e t o t h a t of HSE p e o p l e , s u b s t a n t i a t e s t h e i r i n i t i a l e x p e c t a n c i e s of s e l f - w o r t h . N e v e r t h e l e s s , b e f o r e one c o n c l u d e s t h a t h i g h s e l f - e s t e e m i s the o p t i m a l s t a t e of b e i n g , t h e r e i s a l s o some e v i d e n c e s u g g e s t i n g t h a t people w i t h moderate, not h i g h , s e l f - e s t e e m a r e p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y , t h e h e a l t h i e s t ( e . g . , S e l i g m a n , 1987). They have a more a c c u r a t e p i c t u r e of t h e i r p e r s o n a l l i m i t a t i o n s and can acknowlege f a i l u r e s as w e l l as s u c c e s s e s ( K i m b l e & H e l m r e i c h , 1972). Those w i t h h i g h o r low s e l f - e s t e e m depend more upon s o c i a l a p p r o v a l t o gu i d e them as t o o p i n i o n s about themselves ( K i m b l e & H e l m r e i c h , 1972), a r e more e a s i l y persuaded ( S i l v e r m a n , 1964), a r e more i n t o l e r a n t o f d i s s i m i l a r o t h e r s , and a r e more c r i t i c a l of f a l l i b i l i t y i n competent o t h e r s ( H e l m r e i c h , Aronson, & L e f a n , 1970), than moderate s e l f - e s t e e m p e r s o n s . M c F a r l i n and B l a s c o v i c h (1981) have s u r m i s e d , a l b e i t c a u t i o u s l y , t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h moderate s e l f - e s t e e m have no extreme e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r e i t h e r s u c c e s s or f a i l u r e , and hence, have a v e r t e d the p o t e n t i a l l y n e g a t i v e consequences o f bot h b e i n g too q u i c k to deny n e g a t i v e feedback ( as HSE people t y p i c a l l y would) and too 8 q u i c k t o a c c e p t i t a t f a c e v a l u e (as LSE people have a tendency t o d o ) . The R o l e of Event V a l e n c e i n R e a c t i o n s t o S e l f - r e l e v a n t E v e n t s B e f o r e d i s c u s s i n g the p o t e n t i a l r o l e of s e l f - e s t e e m i n m e d i a t i n g r e a c t i o n s t o s e l f - r e l e v a n t e v e n t s , i t i s i m p o r t a n t t o r e v i e w b r i e f l y some o t h e r more g e n e r a l f a c t o r s t h a t govern p e o p l e ' s r e a c t i o n s t o s e l f - r e l e v a n t e v e n t s . A s e l f - r e l e v a n t event may be l o o s e l y d e f i n e d as one t h a t produces outcomes or c a r r i e s i m p l i c a t i o n s t h a t p o t e n t i a l l y impact on a r e c i p i e n t ' s s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n . One major d e t e r m i n a n t of p e o p l e ' s r e a c t i o n s — b o t h c o g n i t i v e and a f f e c t i v e — t o p a r t i c u l a r e v e n t s i s event v a l e n c e ( M o r e l a n d & Sweeney, 1984). E v e n t s t h a t y i e l d i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the s e l f can be judged as e i t h e r p o s i t i v e o r n e g a t i v e . A l a r g e body of r e s e a r c h ( e . g . , Gruder, 1977; T e s s e r & C a m p b e l l , 1980; W i l l s , 1981) has s u p p o r t e d what i s a d m i t t e d l y , an i n t u i t i v e l y o b v i o u s o b s e r v a t i o n — t h a t people g e n e r a l l y p r e f e r e v e n t s t h a t have p o s i t i v e r a t h e r than n e g a t i v e i m p l i c a t i o n s . N e g a t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n i s more l i k e l y t o be a v o i d e d , i g n o r e d , or r e j e c t e d than p o s i t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n ( e . g . , Gibbons & W i c k l u n d , 1976). Perhaps t h i s may be why f a v o u r a b l e i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the s e l f a r e p r o c e s s e d q u i c k e r and remembered l o n g e r than e v e n t s w i t h u n f a v o u r a b l e i m p l i c a t i o n s ( M o r e l a n d & Sweeney, 1984). Moreover, p e o p l e ' s c a u s a l a s c r i p t i o n s f o r v a l e n c e d e v e n t s e x e m p l i f y a s e l f - s e r v i n g b i a s ; i n d i v i d u a l s a t t r i b u t e the a n t e c e d e n t s of p o s i t i v e outcomes t o i n t e r n a l f a c t o r s and n e g a t i v e outcomes t o f a c t o r s e x t e r n a l t o the s e l f ( e . g . , A r k i n , Cooper, & K o l d i t z , 1980; Green, P y s z e z y n s k i , & Solomon, 1982; Zuckerman, 1979). T h e r e f o r e , i t i s perhaps not s u r p r i s i n g t h a t the 9 majority of people have positive self-images and f e e l r e l a t i v e l y confident i n dealing with the challenges of l i f e (Moreland & Sweeney, 1984). The Role of Self-esteem i n Mediating Reactions to Self-relevant  Events Individual differences i n self-esteem are associated with an optimistic or pessimistic set of r e l a t i v e l y broad b e l i e f s about one's personal competency and one's degree of control over the environment (Moreland & Sweeney, 1984). However, two views have been advanced concerning the underlying mechanism r e l a t i n g self-esteem to d i f f e r e n t i a l reactions to valenced feedback. One model has been labeled self-enhancement theory (Shrauger, 1975). This theory, derived from past hedonic models (e.g., Millimet & Gardner, 1972), suggests that people are most receptive and react most favourably to information from the environment that enhances th e i r opinion and image of themselves. As most hedonic models provide a rationale for generalized reactions to positive and negative feedback, an important point i n self-enhancement theory i s that such reactions represent a need (McFarlin & Blascovich, 1981) or a basic desire (Shrauger, 1975) to view oneself as favourably as possible. This p a r t i c u l a r need—previously noted by personality theorists (e.g., Cohen, 1959; Dittes, 1959; Kaplan, 1975; Rogers, 1 9 5 9 ) — l i k e a l l other human needs, i s subject to the p r i n c i p l e s of drive reduction. One such p r i n c i p l e i s that any unsatisfied need or desire w i l l increase i n strength with time. In the present case, LSE i n d i v i d u a l s , whose need for positive self-evaluation i s t y p i c a l l y u n s a t i s f i e d and i s therefore stronger, w i l l respond more favourably to positive feedback and more n e g a t i v e l y t o d e l e t e r i o u s feedback than people w i t h h i g h s e l f - e s t e e m ( S h r a u g e r , 1975). I f s e l f - e v a l u a t i v e r e s p o n s e s a r e r e f l e c t e d i n a f f e c t o r mood, then LSE people s h o u l d , a c c o r d i n g to self-enhancement t h e o r y , d i s p l a y g r e a t e r p o s i t i v e a f f e c t t o p l e a s a n t , s e l f - e n h a n c i n g e v e n t s and g r e a t e r n e g a t i v e a f f e c t to u n d e s i r a b l e , s e l f - d e n i g r a t i n g e v e n t s than HSE p e o p l e . A second p o s i t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e u n d e r l y i n g p r o c e s s by which r e a c t i o n s t o e v a l u a t i v e feedback a r e r e g u l a t e d by s e l f - e s t e e m emerged from v a r i o u s c o g n i t i v e c o n s i s t e n c y t h e o r i e s such as c o g n i t i v e - d i s s o n a n c e ( A r o n s o n , 1968; F e s t i n g e r , 1957; G l a s s , 1968) and b a l a n c e t h e o r y (Newcomb, 1978). A l t h o u g h c o n s i s t e n c y t h e o r i e s v a r y t o some e x t e n t i n t h e i r a p p l i c a b i l i t y t o c e r t a i n b e h a v i o u r s and m o t i v a t i o n s , they have i n common the n o t i o n t h a t p e o p l e p o s s e s s an i n h e r e n t need t o m a i n t a i n c o n s i s t e n c y , congruence, or consonance i n t h e i r p e r s o n a l l y h e l d b e l i e f s and a t t i t u d e s . U n p l e a s a n t " a f f e c t i v e s t a t e s " or e m o t i o n a l d i s c o m f o r t t h e o r e t i c a l l y r e s u l t s when people h o l d i n c o n s i s t e n t or c o n t r a d i c t o r y b e l i e f s ( e . g . , F e s t i n g e r , 1957; H e i d e r , 1958). When a p p l i e d t o the r e s e a r c h on s e l f - e s t e e m , t h i s v i e w — v a r i o u s l y named c o g n i t i v e b a l a n c e ( S h r a u g e r , 1975), s e l f - c o n s i s t e n c y ( M o r e l a n d & Sweeney, 1981), or s i m p l y , c o n s i s t e n c y t h e o r y ( C a m p b e l l , 1984; Shr a u g e r , 1 9 7 5 ) — g i v e s a v e r y d i f f e r e n t p i c t u r e of the p o t e n t i a l e f f e c t s of s e l f - e s t e e m on r e s p o n s e s t o p o s i t i v e l y and n e g a t i v e l y v a l e n c e d feedback. As mentioned p r e v i o u s l y , because s e l f - e s t e e m i s l i n k e d t o g e n e r a l i z e d e x p e c t a n c i e s f o r p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e f e e d b a c k , t h i s t h e o r y s u g g e s t s t h a t o n l y feedback t h a t i s congruent w i t h t h e s e e x p e c t a n c i e s w i l l be a c c e p t e d . I n c o n g r u e n t feedback may be d i s c o u n t e d , be p e r c e p t u a l l y d i s t o r t e d , be 11 a t t r i b u t e d to e x t e r n a l f a c t o r s , o r s i m p l y , be p e r c e i v e d as l e s s c r e d i b l e and produce more n e g a t i v e a f f e c t than i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t c o n f i r m s one's s e l f - p e r c e p t i o n s ( S h r a u g e r , 1975). Thus, HSE i n d i v i d u a l s a r e e x p e c t e d t o respond more f a v o u r a b l y t o p o s i t i v e f eedback and l e s s n e g a t i v e l y t o a v e r s i v e feedback (because i t i s d i s c o u n t e d , e t c . ) than t h e i r LSE c o u n t e r p a r t s . T h i s h y p o t h e s i s i s known as the "modest" c o n s i s t e n c y e f f e c t ( S h r a u g e r , 1975). A more c o n t r o v e r s i a l p r e d i c t i o n t h a t a l s o a r i s e s from c o n s i s t e n c y t h e o r y , l a b e l l e d the " s t r o n g c o n s i s t e n c y e f f e c t " , i s c o n t r o v e r s i a l because i t s u g g e s t s t h a t LSE i n d i v i d u a l s s h o u l d be more a c c e p t i n g o f n e g a t i v e than p o s i t i v e e v a l u a t i v e feedback because such uncomplimentary i n f o r m a t i o n i s more cong r u e n t w i t h t h e i r i n i t i a l s e l f - e x p e c t a n c i e s . A l t h o u g h a c c e p t i n g n e g a t i v e feedback would deny the need f o r se l f - e n h a n c e m e n t , i t may be l e s s e m o t i o n a l l y d i s t r e s s i n g than h o l d i n g i n c o n s i s t e n t b e l i e f s about the s e l f . I n summary, a c c o r d i n g t o c o n s i s t e n c y t h e o r i s t s , n e g a t i v e p e r s o n a l feedback s h o u l d be more f a v o u r a b l y r e c e i v e d by LSE than HSE i n d i v i d u a l s . The self - e n h a n c e m e n t view makes the o p p o s i t e p r e d i c t i o n ; n e g a t i v e feedback s h o u l d be l e s s w e l l - r e c e i v e d by LSE than HSE p e o p l e . W i t h r e s p e c t to p o s i t i v e outcomes, the feedback s h o u l d be b e t t e r r e c e i v e d by HSE than LSE people i n a c c o r d w i t h c o n s i s t e n c y t h e o r y , whereas self-enhancement t h e o r y would p r e d i c t the r e v e r s e . I n a d d r e s s i n g t h i s a pparent c l a s h o f t h e o r i e s , t h e r e i s some e m p i r i c a l and t h e o r e t i c a l work s u g g e s t i n g t h a t b o t h t h e o r i e s may a p p l y , a l b e i t i n d i f f e r e n t c o n t e x t s . I n S h r a u g e r ' s (1975) comprehensive r e v i e w o f the l i t e r a t u r e on r e a c t i o n s t o performance e v a l u a t i o n s ( g i v e n p r e d o m i n a n t l y i n l a b o r a t o r y s i t u a t i o n s ) , he argued t h a t one's r e a c t i o n s can be p a r t i t i o n e d i n t o s i x d i f f e r e n t phases. These phases b r i e f l y , i n c l u d e : (a) the i n i t i a l r e c e p t i o n and l a t e r r e t e n t i o n of the e v a l u a t i o n ; (b) an assessment of the r e l i a b i l i t y and/or v a l i d i t y of i t s s o u r c e ; ( c ) a t t r i b u t i o n s of c a u s a l i t y and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r any p o s i t i v e or n e g a t i v e outcomes; (d) subsequent a l t e r a t i o n s i n one's p e r c e p t i o n s of the s e l f ; (e) r e s u l t i n g f e e l i n g s of s a t i s f a c t i o n or d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h the outcome; and ( f ) subsequent m o t i v a t i o n and d e s i r e t o p e r f o r m a f u t u r e t a s k . R e s e a r c h e r s l a t e r r e c o g n i z e d the i m p o r t a n c e of c l a s s i f y i n g t h e s e phases i n t o one of two c a t e g o r i e s — t h e c o g n i t i v e component of the r e a c t i o n t o feedback ( w h i c h c o n s i s t s of the f i r s t f o u r phases because they i n v o l v e i n f o r m a t i o n - p r o c e s s i n g or d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g ) , and the a f f e c t i v e component (wh i c h c o n s i s t s of the l a s t two phases due t o t h e i r e m o t i o n a l and m o t i v a t i o n a l n a t u r e ) . W i t h i n the domain of a f f e c t i v e r e s p o n s e s t o e v a l u a t i v e f e e d b a c k , Jones ( 1 9 7 3 ) , M o r e l a n d and Sweeney ( 1 9 8 4 ) , Shrauger ( 1 9 7 5 ) , among o t h e r s , have c o n c l u d e d t h a t s e lf-enhancement t h e o r y p r o v i d e s a b e t t e r e x p l a n a t i o n f o r s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n r e a c t i o n s t o such f e e d b a c k . These i n v e s t i g a t o r s have noted t h a t a l t h o u g h a l l people p r e f e r p o s i t i v e t o n e g a t i v e feedback ( e . g . , I l g e n , 1971; Weaver & B r i c k m a n , 1974), LSE p e ople l i k e p o s i t i v e e v a l u a t i o n s more and d i s l i k e n e g a t i v e e v a l u a t i o n s more than HSE p e ople ( e . g . , D i t t e s , 1959; J a c o b s , B e r s c h e i d , & W a l s t e r , 1971; W a l s t e r , 1965). W i t h r e s p e c t to c o g n i t i v e r e a c t i o n s , c o n s i s t e n c y t h e o r y i s g e n e r a l l y a b e t t e r model than s e l f - e n h a n c e m e n t t h e o r y i n a c c o u n t i n g f o r s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s . I n d i v i d u a l s w i l l c o g n i t i v e l y a c c e p t outcomes t h a t s u p p o r t t h e i r i n i t i a l e x p e c t a n c i e s because p r e v i o u s l i f e e x p e r i e n c e s have shown t h a t i n c o n s i s t e n t outcomes a r e p r o b a b l y temporary and i m p r o b a b l e ( M c F a r l i n & B l a s c o v i c h , 1981). The l i t e r a t u r e i s r e p l e t e w i t h s t u d i e s d e s c r i b i n g LSE and HSE i n d i v i d u a l s c o g n i t i v e l y d i s t o r t i n g o r f a i l i n g t o r e c a l l a c c u r a t e l y outcomes i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e i r o r i g i n a l p e r c e p t i o n s o f themselves or t h e i r a b i l i t i e s ( e . g . , C r a r y , 1966; S i l v e r m a n , 1964), d e l i b e r a t e l y c h anging r e s p o n s e s on t a s k s t o produce feedback c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e i r i n i t i a l e x p e c t a n c i e s (Aronson & C a r l s m i t h , 1962), and a s c r i b i n g c o n s i s t e n t outcomes t o i n t e r n a l c a u s a l f a c t o r s and i n c o n s i s t e n t outcomes t o e x t e r n a l c a u s a l f a c t o r s ( e . g . , F e a t h e r , 1969; Simon & F e a t h e r , 1973). Other r e s e a r c h e r s have proposed, as f u r t h e r e v i d e n c e i n s u p p o r t of c o n s i s t e n c y t h e o r y , more e l a b o r a t e u n d e r l y i n g p r o c e s s e s t h a t e s s e n t i a l l y make use of the o b s e r v a t i o n s o f e s t e e m - r e l a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s i n the employment of d e f e n s i v e s t r a t e g i e s . M i l l i m e t and Gardner (1972) have proposed t h a t HSE i n d i v i d u a l s p o s s e s s a h i g h t h r e s h o l d f o r p e r c e i v i n g t h r e a t t o t h e i r s e l f - r e g a r d c h i e f l y because of t h e i r e f f e c t i v e use of a v a i l a b l e d e f e n s e s or t o t h e i r use of more e f f e c t i v e d e f e n s e s , such as a v o i d a n c e . W i t h v e r y i n f r e q u e n t o c c u r r e n c e s when t h e i r d e f e n s e s a r e p e n e t r a t e d by a v e r s i v e i n f o r m a t i o n , HSE people a r e f r e e t o c o n c e n t r a t e on t h e i r p o s i t i v e q u a l i t i e s . (Hence, t h e s e p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l s t y p i c a l l y e x p e r i e n c e p o s i t i v e a f f e c t as a r e s u l t of s a t i a t i o n of the need f o r s e l f - e n h a n c e m e n t . ) I n sharp c o n t r a s t , LSE perso n s a r e assumed t o have a low t h r e s h o l d f o r p e r c e i v i n g t h r e a t to s e l f - e s t e e m m a i n l y because of t h e i r i n e f f e c t i v e employment of s e l f - d e f e n s i v e s t r a t e g i e s , o r t o t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n of d e f e n s e s l i k e " r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n , i n t e l l e c t u a l i z a t i o n , and o b s e s s i v e i d e a t i o n " ( M i l l i m e t & Gardner, 1972). These d e f e n s e s do not h e l p LSE i n d i v i d u a l s a v o i d p e r s o n a l l y t h r e a t e n i n g s t i m u l i , but merely modify them t o a l e s s e n d u r i n g and i n t e n s e form. C o n s e q u e n t l y , LSE perso n s a r e made p a i n f u l l y aware o f t h e i r own i n c o m p e t e n c i e s and i n a d e q u a c i e s . T h e i r r u m i n a t i o n over t h e i r u n d e s i r a b l e a t t r i b u t e s y i e l d s i n t e n s e n e g a t i v e e m o t i o n a l s t a t e s ( " n e g a t i v e " because o f an u n s a t i s f i e d need f o r s e l f - e n h a n c e m e n t ) . T h i s i s p a r t i c u l a r l y t r u e when they e n c o u n t e r f u r t h e r d i s p l e a s i n g s e l f - r e l e v a n t feedback (Cohen, 1959), which s e r v e s t o remind them of t h e i r p e r c e i v e d p e r s o n a l d e f i c i t s and s h o r t c o m i n g s , and t o r e i n f o r c e such b e l i e f s . The i d e a t h a t the l e v e l of s e l f - e s t e e m r e f l e c t s the use of d i f f e r e n t s e l f - p r o t e c t i v e , d e f e n s i v e mechanisms i s not new. Cohen (1959) and S i l v e r m a n (1964) s p e c u l a t e d t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s , v a r y i n g i n s e l f - e s t e e m , may u t i l i z e q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t " d e f e n s i v e s t y l e s " . To be s p e c i f i c , HSE perso n s h a b i t u a l l y employ " r e p r e s s i v e d e f e n s e s " , l i k e a v o i d a n c e and d e n i a l , w h i l e people w i t h LSE t y p i c a l l y evoke s o - c a l l e d " e x p r e s s i v e d e f e n s e s " , such as p r o j e c t i o n and i n t e l l e c t u a l i z a t i o n . These a u t h o r s f u r t h e r noted t h a t the e f f i c a c y of t h e s e p s y c h o l o g i c a l d e f e n s e s d i f f e r e d t r emendously and t h a t , a l m o s t i n v a r i a b l y , the t y p e s of d e f e n s e s employed by HSE i n d i v i d u a l s were c o n s i d e r a b l y more p o t e n t than t h o s e used by LSE p e r s o n s . " B l o c k i n g o u t " , d i s t o r t i n g , or somehow i n v a l i d a t i n g u n f a v o u r a b l e s e l f - r e l e v a n t i n p u t were assumed t o be the most t y p i c a l s t r a t e g y w i t h i n the HSE p e r s o n s ' r e p e r t o i r e of d e f e n s e s t o th w a r t u n p l e a s a n t p e r s o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n . A s e r i e s o f l a b o r a t o r y e x p e r i m e n t s has p r o v i d e d e v i d e n c e i n s u p p o r t o f thes e o b s e r v a t i o n s . Some examples 15 i n c l u d e the f i n d i n g s t h a t HSE as compared to LSE i n d i v i d u a l s tend t o f o r g e t f a i l u r e e x p e r i e n c e s more r e a d i l y ( S i l v e r m a n , 1964), t o o v e r r a t e t a s k performances which were a c t u a l l y s i m i l a r ( S h r a u g e r , 1972), and to d i s l i k e the s o u r c e of e v a l u a t i o n more when the e v a l u a t o r i s p e r c e i v e d not t o l i k e him ( W i e s t , 1955). A l o n g a s i m i l a r v e i n , C ampbell (1984) has d i f f e r e n t i a t e d " s e l f - p r o t e c t i v e s t r a t e g i e s " ( i . e . , r e s p o n s e s t o p o t e n t i a l l y damaging, p e r s o n a l s t i m u l i t h a t s e r v e the f u n c t i o n of p r o t e c t i n g or e n hancing s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n ) i n t o two c a t e g o r i e s . She l a b e l s one c a t e g o r y " d i s c o u n t i n g " s t r a t e g i e s and s u g g e s t s t h a t HSE p e o p l e u t i l i z e t h i s type of s t r a t e g y more than LSE p e o p l e . D i s c o u n t i n g s t r a t e g i e s a r e c o g n i t i v e mechanisms t h a t s e r v e t o t r a n s f o r m t h r e a t e n i n g e n v i r o n m e n t a l s t i m u l i i n t o e i t h e r l e s s p o t e n t or l e s s v a l i d i n d i c a t o r s of one's t r u e s e l f . Those d i s c o u n t i n g s t r a t e g i e s t h a t r e n d e r u n p l e a s a n t e v e n t s l e s s p o t e n t c o n s i s t of d e n i a l , s e l e c t i v e a t t e n t i o n or an absence of a t t e n t i o n ( e . g . , E l l i s & Holmes, 1982), d i s t o r t e d r e c a l l and/or l a c k of r e t e n t i o n ( e . g . , C r a r y , 1966), and r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of f e e d b a c k , even i f the feedback may not be ambiguous ( e . g . , Shrauger & Lund, 1975). D i s c o u n t i n g approaches t h a t make a v e r s i v e feedback l e s s v a l i d i n c l u d e d e r o g a t i o n of the s o u r c e of f e e d b a c k — w h e t h e r i t be an e v a l u a t i o n i n s t r u m e n t ( e . g . , Korman, 1968) or a human e v a l u a t o r ( e . g . , Shrauger & Lund, 1 9 7 5 ) — i n terms of c r e d i b i l i t y or competence, and s e l f - s e r v i n g c a u s a l a s c r i p t i o n s of one's t a s k performance ( e . g . , Zuckerman, 1979). D i s c o u n t i n g s t r a t e g i e s occupy the " f r o n t - l i n e " of d e f e n s e s a g a i n s t a v e r s i v e , p o t e n t i a l l y s e l f - d a m a g i n g f e e d b a c k . Because they c o g n i t i v e l y i n t e r c e p t and d e a c t i v a t e n e g a t i v e f e e d b a c k , t h e s e d e f e n s e s r e p r e s e n t 16 the most e f f e c t i v e means of p r o t e c t i n g the s e l f from p o t e n t i a l n e g a t i v e s e l f - r e f e r e n t s t i m u l i . Although LSE people r e l y l e s s on d i s c o u n t i n g s t r a t e g i e s than HSE people, Campbell suggests they are no l e s s motivated to m a i n t a i n a p o s i t i v e s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n . To accomplish t h i s , however, LSE people r e l y p r i m a r i l y on the second category of Campbell's s e l f - p r o t e c t i v e defense s t r a t e g i e s — t h e " c o p i n g " s t r a t e g i e s . These r e p r e s e n t a broad c l a s s of r e l a t i v e l y s i t u a t i o n - s p e c i f i c b e h a v i o u r a l mechanisms t h a t i n c l u d e h i n d e r i n g the performance of a b e t t e r - p e r f o r m i n g o t h e r (e.g., T e s s e r & Smith, 1980), s e l f - h a n d i c a p p i n g (e.g., B e r g l a s & Jones, 1978), changing the p e r s o n a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of an a t t r i b u t e i n response to n e g a t i v e feedback (e.g., T e s s e r & Campbell, 1980), and a v o i d i n g s e l f - e x p o s u r e f o l l o w i n g f a i l u r e (Gibbons & Wicklund, 1976). Thus, w h i l e HSE people m a i n t a i n a maximally p o s i t i v e s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n by c o g n i t i v e l y d i s c o u n t i n g n e g a t i v e feedback, an e f f e c t i v e s t r a t e g y t h a t l e a v e s t h e i r s e l f - r e g a r d r e l a t i v e l y i n t a c t and produces subsequently l i t t l e n e g a t i v e a f f e c t , LSE people respond w i t h more o v e r t , but l e s s e f f e c t u a l b e h a v i o u r a l attempts to cope wi t h t h r e a t e n i n g feedback. Because the l a t t e r are more c o g n i t i v e l y a c c e p t i n g of n e g a t i v e feedback, they e x p e r i e n c e more n e g a t i v e a f f e c t i v e s t a t e s . To summarize, i n d i v i d u a l s ' r e a c t i o n s to p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e s e l f - r e l e v a n t events have both an a f f e c t i v e and c o g n i t i v e component. In g e n e r a l , people are more l i k e l y to accept and to p r e f e r p o s i t i v e feedback. I n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n s e l f - e s t e e m moderate both of these t e n d e n c i e s , but the moderating e f f e c t of s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r s f o r c o g n i t i v e and a f f e c t i v e r e a c t i o n s . Low s e l f - e s t e e m people are l e s s c o g n i t i v e l y a c c e p t i n g of p o s i t i v e feedback and l e s s c o g n i t i v e l y 17 r e j e c t i n g of n e g a t i v e feedback than HSE people (because o f c o n s i s t e n c y t h e o r y ) . On the o t h e r hand, LSE p e o p l e e x p r e s s more pronounced p o s i t i v e a f f e c t i v e r e a c t i o n s t o p o s i t i v e feedback and more n e g a t i v e a f f e c t i v e r e a c t i o n s t o n e g a t i v e feedback than HSE people (because of self-enhancement t h e o r y ) . Hence, bo t h s e l f - e n h a n c e m e n t and c o n s i s t e n c y t h e o r i e s may account f o r the r e a c t i o n s o f LSE and HSE i n d i v i d u a l s t o s e l f - r e l e v a n t f e e d b a c k — e a c h approach i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r d i f f e r e n t f a c e t s o f the s e r e a c t i o n s . R e c e n t l y , M o r e l a n d and Sweeney (1984) examined s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n both c o g n i t i v e and a f f e c t i v e r e a c t i o n s t o a n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g s e l f - r e l e v a n t e v e n t — p e r f o r m a n c e on a mid-term e x a m i n a t i o n . They c o n c l u d e d t h a t c o n s i s t e n c y e f f e c t s o c c u r p r i m a r i l y on c o g n i t i v e r e a c t i o n s t o performance e v a l u a t i o n , whereas self-enhancement e f f e c t s o c c u r p r e d o m i n a n t l y on a f f e c t i v e o r e m o t i o n a l r e s p o n s e s . N o n e t h e l e s s , they observed t h a t : (a) self-enhancement e f f e c t s were more dominant than c o n s i s t e n c y e f f e c t s — t h e former e f f e c t s were o b t a i n e d on some r e s p o n s e s t h a t Shrauger (1975) l a b e l l e d c o g n i t i v e r e a c t i o n s ; c o n s i s t e n c y e f f e c t s have never been found i n a f f e c t i v e r e a c t i o n s , (b) self-enhancement e f f e c t s appeared more l i k e l y when the e v a l u a t i o n s were e m o t i o n a l l y i n v o l v i n g and s i g n i f i c a n t than when feedback was l e s s s e l f - r e l e v a n t , and ( c ) p e o p l e ' s a f f e c t i v e and c o g n i t i v e r e a c t i o n s t o feedback appeared t o be more i n f l u e n c e d by g e n e r a l , r a t h e r than more t a s k - s p e c i f i c , s e l f - e x p e c t a n c i e s . I t i s a l s o i m p o r t a n t to note t h a t s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n c o g n i t i v e r e a c t i o n s a r e more pronounced under c o n d i t i o n s o f n e g a t i v e r a t h e r than p o s i t i v e f e e d b a c k . That i s , s e v e r a l i n v e s t i g a t o r s ( B r o c k n e r , 1979; Ca m p b e l l , 1984; Cohen, 1959; DePaulo, Brown, I s h i i , & F i s h e r , 1981; D i e n e r & Dweck, 1978; Shrauger & Sorman, 1977) have found t h a t HSE s u b j e c t s a r e c l e a r l y l e s s a c c e p t i n g of n e g a t i v e feedback than LSE s u b j e c t s . W i t h p o s i t i v e outcomes, the r e l a t i v e l y g r e a t e r a c c e p t a n c e on the p a r t o f HSE s u b j e c t s than LSE s u b j e c t s o f t e n f a i l s to r e a c h s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . T h i s asymmetry i n s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n c o g n i t i v e r e a c t i o n s between p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e feedback i s o f t e n o b s e r v e d , even though most of the r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s c o n t i n u e t o r e v e a l an i n t e r a c t i o n between s e l f - e s t e e m and feedba c k . The asymmetry i s not t y p i c a l l y found f o r a f f e c t i v e r e a c t i o n s t o s e l f - r e l e v a n t f e e d b a c k . A r e c e n t s t u d y by Campbell and F a i r e y (1985) p r o v i d e s d r a m a t i c e v i d e n c e f o r the asymmetry i n c o g n i t i v e r e s p o n s e s to t h r e a t e n i n g e v e n t s . Low and h i g h s e l f - e s t e e m s u b j e c t s , who ex p e c t e d t o ta k e an anagram t e s t , were asked: (a) t o imagine t h a t they had a l r e a d y completed the t e s t and t h a t they had e i t h e r performed v e r y w e l l o r ve r y p o o r l y , and (b) t o w r i t e an e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h a t h y p o t h e t i c a l outcome. A c o n t r o l group n e i t h e r imagined nor e x p l a i n e d any outcome. Subsequent performance e x p e c t a n c i e s and a c t u a l performance were then measured. Bo t h LSE and HSE s u b j e c t s i n the s u c c e s s - e x p l a n a t i o n group e x h i b i t e d h i g h e r e x p e c t a n c i e s and performance than c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s . I n the f a i l u r e - e x p l a n a t i o n c o n d i t i o n , o n l y LSE s u b j e c t s e x h i b i t e d l o w e r e x p e c t a n c i e s and performance than c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s . S t a t e d d i f f e r e n t l y , t h e r e were no r e l i a b l e s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n e x p e c t a n c i e s and performance among c o n t r o l and s u c c e s s - e x p l a n a t i o n s u b j e c t s ; but among f a i l u r e - e x p l a n a t i o n s u b j e c t s , LSE s u b j e c t s demonstrated lower e x p e c t a n c i e s and performance than HSE s u b j e c t s . A c o n t e n t a n a l y s i s of the e x p l a n a t i o n s r e v e a l e d no s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n the c o n t e n t o f e x p l a n a t i o n s p r o v i d e d by the s u c c e s s - e x p l a n a t i o n group. However, the f a i l u r e - e x p l a n a t i o n s of LSE s u b j e c t s c o n t a i n e d more c h a r a c t e r o l o g i c a l ( i . e . , i n t e r n a l , s t a b l e , and g l o b a l ) r e a s o n s f o r f a i l i n g t h a n th o s e o f HSE s u b j e c t s (who e x p l a i n e d t h e i r h y p o t h e t i c a l f a i l u r e s i n terms o f e x t e r n a l , u n s t a b l e , and c i r c u m s c r i b e d f a c t o r s ) . T h e r e f o r e , the st u d y a l s o p r o v i d e d e v i d e n c e f o r the n o t i o n t h a t s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n r e a c t i o n to a c t u a l l y t h r e a t e n i n g e v e n t s may be mediated by s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n h a b i t u a l ways of e x p l a i n i n g n e g a t i v e outcomes. IMPLICATIONS FOR MOOD VARIABILITY: PURPOSE OF THE PRESENT STUDY H y p o t h e s i s 1: S e l f - e s t e e m D i f f e r e n c e s i n Mood V a r i a b i l i t y Are  M e d i a t e d By A t t r i b u t i o n a l D i f f e r e n c e s , Not A c t u a l D i f f e r e n c e s i n  Event C o m p o s i t i o n P r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h , r e v i e w e d above, has demonstrated t h a t , compared to HSE p e o p l e , LSE people have e x h i b i t e d g r e a t e r e x t r e m i t y i n t h e i r a f f e c t i v e r e a c t i o n s t o i s o l a t e d e v e n t s , e i t h e r l a b o r a t o r y - c o n t r i v e d e v e n t s ( J o n e s , 1973; Shr a u g e r , 1975) or n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g e v e n t s ( M o r e l a n d & Sweeney, 1984). That i s , LSE p a r t i c i p a n t s r e p o r t e d and d i s p l a y e d a g r e a t e r degree o f h a p p i n e s s and j o y t o p o s i t i v e outcomes and more i n t e n s e f e e l i n g s o f d i s a p p o i n t m e n t and unhappiness t o n e g a t i v e outcomes than t h e i r HSE c o u n t e r p a r t s . Two e x p l a n a t o r y m o d e l s — t h e d e f e n s i v e - s t y l e s h y p o t h e s i s and the l i f e - e v e n t s c o m p o s i t i o n h y p o t h e s i s — h a v e been d e v e l o p e d t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e s e s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s . The f i r s t b a s i c a l l y makes the p r e d i c t i o n t h a t e s t e e m - r e l a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s i n the employment of e f f e c t i v e d e f e n s i v e s t r a t e g i e s , and u l t i m a t e l y , i n the c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s for pos i t i v e and negative, s e l f - r e l e v a n t events are responsible. The second hypothesis ascribes the esteem-related differences i n a f f e c t i v e extremity to the processing of valenced, personal information that may or may not be consistent with chronic expectancies based upon esteem-related d i s t i n c t i o n s i n the composition of naturally-occurring events. The defensive-styles model. A defensive-styles model may be t h e o r e t i c a l l y useful i n explaining the d i f f e r e n t i a l patterns of cognitive and subsequent a f f e c t i v e responses exhibited by HSE and LSE in d i v i d u a l s . Although a l l people generally want pos i t i v e events to occur to them than negative events (a general s e l f - s e r v i n g bias for positive outcomes), self-esteem differences exist i n the r e l a t i v e strength of th i s preference. S p e c i f i c a l l y , HSE in d i v i d u a l s demonstrate a s l i g h t l y greater degree of cognitive acceptance for favourable, self-enhancing information than LSE i n d i v i d u a l s . However, HSE people show a sub s t a n t i a l l y greater degree of cognitive r e j e c t i o n for negative, s e l f - r e l e v a n t events than th e i r LSE counterparts. This does not imply that LSE in d i v i d u a l s accept unfavourable outcomes (that have potential implications for the s e l f ) , but, compared to HSE people, LSE people c o g n i t i v e l y r e j e c t these outcomes to a much lesser extent. This p a r t i c u l a r observation i s supported by the aforementioned asymmetry i n self-esteem differences i n causal a t t r i b u t i o n s for pos i t i v e and negative events—the i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n of pos i t i v e events i s not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t between esteem groups, but the i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n of negative events i s . People with high self-esteem are accustomed to receiving 21 s e l f - r e l e v a n t feedback t h a t i s g e n e r a l l y p o s i t i v e o r , a t the v e r y l e a s t , e v a l u a t i v e l y n e u t r a l because o f two major f a c t o r s . F i r s t , t hey u t i l i z e v a r i o u s c o g n i t i v e mechanisms or d e f e n s i v e s t r a t e g i e s , mentioned e a r l i e r , t h a t reduce t he potency o f p o t e n t i a l l y t h r e a t e n i n g f eedback o r d i s c o u n t i t s v a l i d i t y . Whatever the s e l f - p r o t e c t i v e s t r a t e g y t h a t i s employed, the u l t i m a t e r e s u l t i s t h a t n e g a t i v e e v e n t s a r e c a u s a l l y a t t r i b u t e d t o e x t e r n a l f a c t o r s , and p o s i t i v e e v e n t s a r e c a u s a l l y a t t r i b u t e d t o i n t e r n a l f a c t o r s ( i . e . , t h e i r a t t r i b u t i o n s demonstrate a s e l f - s e r v i n g b i a s ) . Because a v e r s i v e i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e s e l f i s i n c o n g r u e n t w i t h t h e g e n e r a l i z e d , c h r o n i c e x p e c t a n c i e s o f HSE p e o p l e (and i t c e r t a i n l y does not enhance the s e l f ) , t h e r e i s s u f f i c i e n t m o t i v a t i o n f o r HSE i n d i v i d u a l s t o a l t e r the i n f o r m a t i o n . Second, compared t o the t y p i c a l l y n e g a t i v e outcomes t h a t t e n d t o be l e s s c o g n i t i v e l y r e j e c t e d by LSE i n d i v i d u a l s (who a r e i n c l i n e d t o p r o v i d e more c h a r a c t e r o l o g i c a l c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r n e g a t i v e , s e l f - r e l e v a n t e v e n t s ) , t h e feedback a c c e p t e d by HSE i n d i v i d u a l s i s not u n d e s i r a b l e . Hence, due t o t h e s e two r e l a t e d f a c t o r s , t h e k i n d of feedback t h a t remains f o r HSE i n d i v i d u a l s i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y p o s i t i v e . I t i s of l i t t l e wonder t h a t they a r e accustomed t o t h i s t y p e of i n f o r m a t i o n t han t o n e g a t i v e f e e d b a c k . As a r e s u l t o f t h i s p r o c e s s o f h a b i t u a t i o n , HSE people s h o u l d not be o v e r l y e l a t e d o r e x c i t e d about p o s i t i v e feedback p r i m a r i l y because t h e s e t y p e s of outcomes become common, i n d i s t i n c t i v e e v e n t s . Hence, t h e i r a f f e c t i v e r e s p o n s e t o p o s i t i v e f e edback s h o u l d be o n l y m i l d l y or m o d e r a t e l y p o s i t i v e ( t h r o u g h h a b i t u a t i o n and c o n s t a n t f u l f i l l m e n t of the need f o r se l f - e n h a n c e m e n t ) and t h e i r r e s p o n s e t o n e g a t i v e feedback s h o u l d a l s o 22 be m i l d ( t h r o u g h c o g n i t i v e d e f e n s i v e s t r a t e g i e s ) . Low s e l f - e s t e e m i n d i v i d u a l s tend not t o employ the p o t e n t " f r o n t - l i n e " o f c o g n i t i v e d e f e n s e s when c o n f r o n t e d w i t h s e l f - d i r e c t e d n e g a t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n . I n s t e a d , t h e s e i n d i v i d u a l s t end t o a t t r i b u t e t h e causes o f n e g a t i v e feedback t o i n t e r n a l , s t a b l e , and g l o b a l f a c t o r s . As a consequence, they e x p e r i e n c e r e l a t i v e l y more n e g a t i v e p e r s o n a l outcomes than HSE p e o p l e . P o s i t i v e f e e d b a c k , when i t o c c u r s , i s g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d by bo t h HSE and LSE p e o p l e , but i t i s responded t o more p o s i t i v e l y by LSE than HSE i n d i v i d u a l s . T h i s more exu b e r a n t a f f e c t i v e r e s p o n s e by LSE people may be due t o t h e i r l a c k of h a b i t u a t i o n t o p o s i t i v e outcomes and/or the r e l a t i v e l y r a r e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r them t o f u l f i l l t h e i r need f o r s e l f - e n h a n c e m e n t . The d i f f e r e n t i a l p r o p e n s i t i e s o f h i g h and low s e l f - e s t e e m i n d i v i d u a l s t o u t i l i z e c o g n i t i v e d e f e n s e s and e x h i b i t t h e c h a r a c t e r o l o g i c a l s t y l e o f c a u s a l a s c r i p t i o n s i n the f a c e of u n f a v o u r a b l e s e l f - r e l e v a n t e v e n t s a r e a l s o i m p o r t a n t i n a c c o u n t i n g f o r t h e more n e g a t i v e a f f e c t o f LSE people compared t o t h e i r HSE c o u n t e r p a r t s . A l t h o u g h t he former r e c e i v e c o n f i r m a t i o n of t h e i r c h r o n i c a l l y d i s m a l e x p e c t a n c i e s o f t h e i r own i n t r i n s i c w o r t h , a b i l i t i e s , and d i s p o s i t i o n s when n e g a t i v e feedback i s e n c o u n t e r e d — a n d t h u s , s a t i s f a c t i o n of the need f o r c o n s i s t e n c y — a l l o w i n g t h e d e t r i m e n t a l e f f e c t s of such feedback t o impact f u l l y on t h e i r s e l f - c o n c e p t s a l s o , as s t a t e d b e f o r e , d e n i e s them the need f o r s e l f - e n h a n c e m e n t . S i n c e t h i s second need i s the major d e t e r m i n a n t of e m o t i o n a l r e a c t i o n s t o f e e d b a c k — n o t the need t o m a i n t a i n s e l f - c o n s i s t e n c y — t h e n i t i s r e a s o n a b l e t o e x p e c t t h a t LSE i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l e x p e r i e n c e more u n p l e a s a n t a f f e c t i v e r e a c t i o n s t han 23 HSE i n d i v i d u a l s t o n e g a t i v e e v e n t s , whether n a t u r a l o c c u r r e n c e s or l a b o r a t o r y - c o n t r i v e d f e e d b a c k . The l i f e - e v e n t s c o m p o s i t i o n model. Another e x p l a n a t i o n f o r s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n mood e x t r e m i t y i s t h a t LSE and HSE i n d i v i d u a l s a c t u a l l y e x p e r i e n c e d i f f e r e n c e s i n the c o m p o s i t i o n of t h e i r l i f e - e v e n t s . To c l a r i f y , many pe o p l e and some p e r s o n a l i t y t h e o r i s t s h o l d the b e l i e f t h a t LSE p e o ple have low s e l f - e s t e e m because th e y a r e i n d e e d , g e n e r a l l y l e s s competent and l e s s s o c i a l l y s k i l l e d i n d i v i d u a l s . These a b i l i t y / p e r s o n a l i t y d i f f e r e n c e s r e s u l t i n LSE p e o ple c o n f r o n t i n g more n e g a t i v e a c t u a l outcomes a c r o s s time than HSE p e o p l e . I f t h i s i s the case and assuming t h e r e a r e no d i f f e r e n c e s i n the c o g n i t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of e v e n t s , then the moods of LSE p e o p l e s h o u l d be more n e g a t i v e mi the average than t h o s e of HSE p e o p l e , but v a r i a b i l i t y i n moods a c r o s s t i m e s h o u l d be comparable f o r the two groups. However, the l a b o r a t o r y s t u d i e s n o t e d e a r l i e r i n d i c a t e t h a t LSE and HSE p a r t i c i p a n t s do e x h i b i t d i f f e r e n t c o g n i t i v e and a f f e c t i v e r e a c t i o n s t o i d e n t i c a l p e r s o n a l l y - r e l e v a n t f eedback ( J o n e s , 1973; M o r e l a n d & Sweeney, 1984; S h r a u g e r , 1975). T h e r e f o r e , i t seems t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s d i f f e r i n g i n s e l f - e s t e e m may not be s i m i l a r l y a f f e c t e d by the p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e l i f e - e v e n t s t h a t b e f a l l them. That i s , t h e y appear t o a c t i v e l y t r a n s f o r m the impact of t h e s e s e l f - r e f l e c t i v e outcomes i n d i f f e r e n t ways. These d i f f e r e n c e s may be governed by d i f f e r e n c e s i n i n f o r m a t i o n - p r o c e s s i n g , w h i c h a l s o i n v o l v e d i f f e r e n c e s i n the c o g n i t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and p e r c e p t i o n of e v e n t s i m p l i c a t i n g the s e l f . Because c o g n i t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of outcomes d e t e r m i n e the s u b j e c t i v e e x p e r i e n c e of r e c e i v i n g n e g a t i v e and p o s i t i v e r e i n f o r c e m e n t , t h e y i n t u r n , i n f l u e n c e a f f e c t i v e r e a c t i o n s t o f e e d b a c k . A l t h o u g h the l a b o r a t o r y s t u d i e s c o n s i s t e n t l y demonstrate s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n c o g n i t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f i d e n t i c a l f e e d b a c k , and f u r t h e r m o r e , employ t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s i n a c c o u n t i n g f o r the e s t e e m - r e l a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s i n a f f e c t i v e e x t r e m i t y , t h e s e r e s u l t s do not p r e c l u d e the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t they a r e s t i l l mediated by s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n the c o m p o s i t i o n of a c t u a l l i f e - e v e n t s . The l i f e - e v e n t s c o m p o s i t i o n h y p o t h e s i s b a s i c a l l y p r e d i c a t e s t h a t (a) HSE i n d i v i d u a l s do g e n e r a l l y e n c o u n t e r s e l f - r e l e v a n t outcomes i n l i f e t h a t a r e p r e d o m i n a n t l y p o s i t i v e , w h i l e LSE people e x p e r i e n c e , almost i n v a r i a b l y , n e g a t i v e p e r s o n a l outcomes i n l i f e , and (b) t h e s e t y p i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n the c o m p o s i t i o n of p e r s o n a l e v e n t s f o s t e r s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n the manner by which i n f o r m a t i o n i s p r o c e s s e d . That i s , s i n c e HSE people c o n f r o n t v e r y few n e g a t i v e outcomes i n the n a t u r a l environment, t h e y w i l l have s t r o n g e x p e c t a t i o n s of r e c e i v i n g p o s i t i v e outcomes from any s o u r c e , i n c l u d i n g a l a b o r a t o r y . T h e r e f o r e , t h e y tend t o d i s c o u n t any n e g a t i v e , f a l s e feedback p r o v i d e d by e x p e r i m e n t e r s s i m p l y because t h i s feedback r e p r e s e n t s a r e a l v i o l a t i o n o f e x p e c t a t i o n s HSE s u b j e c t s have c o n c e r n i n g t y p i c a l outcomes. S i m i l a r l y , due to the f a c t t h a t LSE p e o p l e o r d i n a r i l y e n c o u n t e r and e x p e r i e n c e m o s t l y n e g a t i v e , p e r s o n a l e v e n t s i n r e a l l i f e , a c c o r d i n g t o t h i s h y p o t h e s i s , they w i l l p o s s e s s e n d u r i n g e x p e c t a t i o n s of r e c e i v i n g n e g a t i v e outcomes i n the f u t u r e . T h i s i s the p r i m a r y r e a s o n f o r t h e i r g r e a t e r w i l l i n g n e s s t o a c c e p t n e g a t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n and t h e i r g r e a t e r tendency t o r e j e c t p o s i t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n t h a n HSE p e o p l e , even i f the i n f o r m a t i o n i s i n the form of f a l s e feedback i n an e x p e r i m e n t . The c r u c i a l p o i n t u n d e r l y i n g t h i s t h e o r y i s t h a t the c o g n i t i v e r e a c t i o n e x h i b i t e d by both HSE and LSE i n d i v i d u a l s does not r e p r e s e n t a m o t i v a t e d " d e f e n s i v e " s t y l e of p e r c e i v i n g v a l e n c e d , s e l f - r e l e v a n t outcomes, but a r a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n - p r o c e s s i n g s t r a t e g y t h a t i s m a n i f e s t e d i n the l o g i c a l r e j e c t i o n of u n u s u a l , a t y p i c a l outcomes which a r e not c o n s i s t e n t w i t h p a s t i n f o r m a t i o n , and the e q u a l l y l o g i c a l a c c e p t a n c e o f a n t i c i p a t e d , t y p i c a l outcomes which a r e . I n o r d e r t o account f o r s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n c a u s a l  a t t r i b u t i o n s t o i d e n t i c a l v a l e n c e d feedback and i n mood e x t r e m i t y w i t h i n the l a b o r a t o r y , one must (a) i n v o k e the n o t i o n o f the need f o r self-enhancement and (b) examine the n a t u r e of feedback t y p i c a l l y g i v e n i n s t u d i e s i n v e s t i g a t i n g s e l f - e s t e e m r e a c t i o n s t o such feedback. S i n c e HSE i n d i v i d u a l s e x p e r i e n c e p r e d o m i n a n t l y p o s i t i v e outcomes t h r o u g h o u t l i f e (by means of t h e i r g r e a t e r s k i l l s and a b i l i t i e s , or the s e l e c t i v e " f i l t e r i n g " of n e g a t i v e , s e l f - d i r e c t e d outcomes v i a i n f o r m a t i o n - p r o c e s s i n g ) , t h e i r need f o r s e l f - e n h a n c e m e n t — a need t h a t d i c t a t e s t h e e x t r e m i t y of e m o t i o n a l r e s p o n s e t o v a l e n c e d e v e n t s — i s c o n t i n u a l l y s a t i a t e d . As a r e s u l t , t h e i r a f f e c t i v e r esponse t o f a v o u r a b l e outcomes i s c o n s i d e r a b l y m i l d e r compared t o t h a t o f LSE p e o p l e . The l a t t e r , f r e q u e n t l y c o n f r o n t i n g n e g a t i v e , s e l f - r e l e v a n t e v e n t s , w i l l be more c o g n i t i v e l y a c c e p t i n g of t h e i r u n f o r t u n a t e l o t than HSE p e o p l e , as c o n s i s t e n c y t h e o r y s t a t e s , but a t the expense of d e n y i n g t h e i r need f o r se l f - e n h a n c e m e n t . C o n s e q u e n t l y , the y w i l l a f f e c t i v e l y respond more n e g a t i v e l y t han HSE i n d i v i d u a l s t o i d e n t i c a l n e g a t i v e e v e n t s . The pres e n c e of r e a l i s t i c p o s i t i v e , p e r s o n a l e v e n t s , w h i l e l e s s c o g n i t i v e l y a c c e p t e d by LSE p e o p l e than by HSE p e o p l e , w i l l 26 n o n e t h e l e s s , be r e c e i v e d by the former ( e x p l a i n e d b e l o w ) , and such a r e l a t i v e l y r a r e o p p o r t u n i t y t o f u l f i l l the need f o r self-enhancement means t h a t LSE i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l r espond more p o s i t i v e l y t o t h e s e e v e n t s than HSE p e o p l e . I t s h o u l d be mentioned t h a t the r e j e c t i o n of p e r s o n a l e v e n t s t h a t a r e a t y p i c a l by bo t h HSE and LSE people i s p r o b a b l y r e l a t i v e , not a b s o l u t e . That i s , p r i m a r i l y because i t i s h i g h l y u n l i k e l y t h a t the former w i l l e n c o u n t e r a l l s e l f - r e l e v a n t l i f e - e v e n t s as b e i n g p o s i t i v e , t h e y w i l l e n t e r t a i n t h e p o s s i b i l t y of c o n f r o n t i n g and c o g n i t i v e l y a c c e p t i n g a few n e g a t i v e e v e n t s as w e l l . L i k e w i s e , s i n c e the c o m p o s i t i o n of l i f e - e v e n t s w i l l not c o n s i s t c o m p l e t e l y o f n e g a t i v e e x p e r i e n c e s f o r LSE i n d i v i d u a l s , they w i l l not e n t i r e l y r u l e out the chance of e x p e r i e n c i n g a few p o s i t i v e e v e n t s . The m i x t u r e of p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e l i f e - e v e n t s , r e g a r d l e s s of how d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e i n f r e q u e n c y t h e i r o c c u r r e n c e s may be, l e a v e s HSE and LSE perso n s w i t h e x p e c t a t i o n s of e n c o u n t e r i n g and hence, c o g n i t i v e l y a c c e p t i n g a few r e a l n e g a t i v e and p o s i t i v e outcomes, r e s p e c t i v e l y . F u r t h e r m o r e , due t o asymmetry, LSE i n d v i d u a l s w i l l be more i n c l i n e d t o a c c e p t p o s i t i v e e v e n t s than HSE people w i l l a c c e p t n e g a t i v e e v e n t s . A l t h o u g h the presence of a s t r o n g a t t r i b u t i o n a l e f f e c t i n s t u d i e s (where LSE s u b j e c t s tend t o i n t e r n a l i z e n e g a t i v e , s e l f - r e l e v a n t feedback and e x t e r n a l i z e p o s i t i v e feedback more than HSE p a r t i c i p a n t s , who show a more pronounced, o p p o s i t e b e h a v i o u r p a t t e r n ) i s u s u a l l y i n t e r p r e t e d as s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n f a v o u r of the d e f e n s i v e - s t y l e s h y p o t h e s i s , i t does not n e c e s s a r i l y i n v a l i d a t e the n o n - a t t r i b u t i o n a l , i n f o r m a t i o n - p r o c e s s i n g e x p l a n a t i o n . I n e x p e r i m e n t s t h a t a t tempt t o demonstrate s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n c o g n i t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of i d e n t i c a l f e e d b a c k , i n v e s t i g a t o r s t y p i c a l l y employ a b e t w e e n - s u b j e c t s d e s i g n i n which HSE and LSE s u b j e c t s a r e exposed t o one - s h o t , e x p e r i m e n t e r - c o n t r i v e d feedback c o n c e r n i n g t h e i r performance on t a s k s o s t e n s i b l y i m p l i c a t i n g the s e l f . (To maximize the g r e a t e s t p o s s i b l e d i f f e r e n c e i n HSE and LSE s u b j e c t s ' r e a c t i o n s t o p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n , f a l s e feedback i s o r d i n a r i l y a l s o s e l e c t e d t o be as e x t r e m e l y p o s i t i v e o r e x t r e m e l y n e g a t i v e . ) S i n c e the feedback i s f a l s e , u n u s u a l , and h i g h l y v a l e n c e d , s u b j e c t s w i l l n a t u r a l l y demonstrate pronounced s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s i n the l a b o r a t o r y s e t t i n g which may be m i n i m i z e d or n e g l i g i b l e when s u b j e c t s a r e r e s p o n d i n g t o n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g , p e r s o n a l e v e n t s . Thus, f o r example, HSE s u b j e c t s may d i s c o u n t n e g a t i v e feedback p r o v i d e d by an e x p e r i m e n t e r and blame e x t e r n a l , u n s t a b l e , and l o c a l f a c t o r s f o r t h e i r o c c u r r e n c e w h i l e LSE s u b j e c t s w i l l be l e s s a c c e p t i n g of p o s i t i v e feedback and a l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e i r o c c u r r e n c e s i m p l y because the feedback i s a r t i f i c i a l and v e r y u n u s u a l . As a r e s u l t , the a t t r i b u t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s between the groups a r e c o n s i d e r a b l y widened. N e v e r t h e l e s s , HSE p a r t i c i p a n t s may not n e c e s s a r i l y a t t r i b u t e a c t u a l n e g a t i v e o c c u r r e n c e s to e x t e r n a l f a c t o r s to the same degree because the s e p a r t i c u l a r e v e n t s a r e r e a l l y (and " u n d e n i a b l y " ) happening i n t h e i r l i v e s . S i m i l a r l y , LSE s u b j e c t s may be more w i l l i n g to a s c r i b e i n t e r n a l , s t a b l e , and g l o b a l f a c t o r s f o r the o c c u r r e n c e o f p l e a s a n t , r e a l - l i f e e x p e r i e n c e s t h a t they a c c e p t c o g n i t i v e l y because the s e e v e n t s a r e r e a l . T h e r e f o r e , i n resp o n s e to a c t u a l , s e l f - r e l e v a n t e v e n t s , s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s may be g r e a t l y a t t e n u a t e d or n o n - e x i s t e n t . A c c o r d i n g to 2 8 the l i f e - e v e n t s c o m p o s i t i o n h y p o t h e s i s , the pre s e n c e of s t r o n g a t t r i b u t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s between HSE and LSE groups g i v e n f a l s e l a b o r a t o r y feedback i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the b a s i c t e n e t u n d e r l y i n g i n f o r m a t i o n - p r o c e s s i n g — t h e c o g n i t i v e r e j e c t i o n o f u n u s u a l , d i s t i n c t i v e e v e n t s s i m p l y because they h a r d l y ever happen t o t h e s e p e o p l e , and so they assume t h e i r o c c u r r e n c e s a r e s i t u a t i o n a l l y based. C o g n i t i v e r e j e c t i o n and e x t e r n a l i z a t i o n o f thes e a t y p i c a l e v e n t s need not be d e f e n s i v e mechanisms as the d e f e n s i v e - s t y l e s model would a s s e r t . I n c o n c l u s i o n , t h e l i f e - e v e n t s c o m p o s i t i o n model p r e d i c t s t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n the c o g n i t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s ( i . e . , c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s ) of e x p e r i m e n t a l f e e d b a c k , and the co n c o m i t a n t e s t e e m - r e l a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s i n mood v a r i a b i l i t y ( i . e . , mood e x t r e m i t y ) a r e phenomena t h a t a r e l i k e l y c o n f i n e d t o the l a b o r a t o r y and a r e n o n - e x i s t e n t i n the n a t u r a l e n v i r o n m e n t . The r e a s o n s a r e c l e a r . Low s e l f - e s t e e m people tend t o be c o g n i t i v e l y l e s s a c c e p t i n g of p o s i t i v e s e l f - r e l e v a n t e v e n t s w h i l e HSE i n d i v i d u a l s a l m o s t i n v a r i a b l y do not a c c e p t n e g a t i v e , p e r s o n a l e v e n t s , not because of any s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n d e f e n s i v e s t y l e s , but because of i n f o r m a t i o n - p r o c e s s i n g . That i s , any v a l e n c e d i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t have p o t e n t i a l i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the s e l f w h i ch i s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the e x p e c t a t i o n s of the type of l i f e - e v e n t s one has, w i l l be c o g n i t i v e l y r e j e c t e d . These e x p e c t a t i o n s a r e formed p r i m a r i l y on the b a s i s of a l o n g s e r i e s of p a s t v a l e n c e d outcomes i n one's l i f e , and s i n c e HSE and LSE people t h e o r e t i c a l l y p o s s e s s d i f f e r e n t c o m p o s i t i o n s of p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e l i f e - e v e n t s (as a r e s u l t of i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n competency, s o c i a l s k i l l s , and so o n ) , they w i l l n a t u r a l l y form d i f f e r e n t e x p e c t a n c i e s of f u t u r e s u c c e s s e s and f a i l u r e s . I n the l a b o r a t o r y s e t t i n g , HSE and LSE s u b j e c t s a r e i n t e n t i o n a l l y exposed t o f a l s e f e e d b a c k , but o n l y feedback which i s not a t y p i c a l , u n u s u a l , and d i s t i n c t i v e ( i . e . , i s congruent w i t h s u b j e c t s ' e s t e e m - r e l a t e d e x p e c t a n c i e s ) w i l l be c o g n i t i v e l y a c c e p t e d and i n t e r n a l i z e d ( i . e . , a t t r i b u t e d t o i n t e r n a l , s t a b l e , and g l o b a l c a u s a l f a c t o r s ) . F a l s e e x p e r i m e n t a l feedback which i s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h e x p e c t a n c i e s w i l l be r e j e c t e d , and f u r t h e r m o r e , be e x t e r n a l i z e d ( i . e . a t t r i b u t e d t o e x t e r n a l , u n s t a b l e , and l o c a l or s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s ) . T h e r e f o r e , LSE s u b j e c t s w i l l e x t e r n a l i z e p o s i t i v e f a l s e feedback and i n t e r n a l i z e n e g a t i v e f a l s e f e e d b a c k , whereas the r e v e r s e o c c u r s f o r HSE s u b j e c t s . These a t t r i b u t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s between the groups a r e much more pronounced i n the l a b o r a t o r y than i n r e a l - l i f e s i n c e t h e n a t u r e of the f a l s e feedback i s d e s i g n e d t o be e i t h e r c l e a r l y and d i s t i n c t i v e l y t y p i c a l or a t y p i c a l w i t h the s u b j e c t s ' e x p e c t a n c i e s . C o n s e q u e n t l y , the r e s u l t i n g a f f e c t i v e r e a c t i o n s due to th e s e pronounced a t t r i b u t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s w i l l a l s o be more s u b s t a n t i a l i n the l a b o r a t o r y than i n r e a l - l i f e . Low s e l f - e s t e e m s u b j e c t s , hence, e x h i b i t g r e a t e r mood v a r i a b i l i t y than HSE s u b j e c t s because when the former r e c e i v e and a c c e p t n e g a t i v e f e e d b a c k , t h e i r need f o r s e l f - e n h a n c e m e n t — a l r e a d y a t a c o n s t a n t h i g h due t o the c o m p o s i t i o n o f u s u a l l y n e g a t i v e l i f e - o u t c o m e s f o r LSE p e o p l e — b e c o m e s g r e a t e r w i t h e v e r y n e g a t i v e p i e c e o f s e l f - r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n . Because HSE s u b j e c t s c o n s t a n t l y r e c e i v e p o s i t i v e outcomes i n l i f e , and as a r e s u l t , l e a r n t o r e j e c t the n e g a t i v e , t h e i r need f o r self- e n h a n c e m e n t i s more s a t i s f i e d . Thus, LSE s u b j e c t s a r e a f f e c t i v e l y more de p r e s s e d than HSE s u b j e c t s to i d e n t i c a l n e g a t i v e f e e d b a c k . When LSE s u b j e c t s c o n f r o n t p o s i t i v e f e e d b a c k , they do not r e j e c t i t t o the same degree as HSE s u b j e c t s r e j e c t n e g a t i v e e v e n t s due t o the f o r m e r ' s p a s t e x p e r i e n c e w i t h a few p o s i t i v e l i f e - e v e n t s and asymmetry i n c o g n i t i v e a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e e v e n t s . T h e r e f o r e , LSE s u b j e c t s respond a f f e c t i v e l y v e r y p o s i t i v e l y s i n c e t h e i r need f o r self-enhancement i s s a t i a t e d , w h i l e HSE s u b j e c t s respond m o d e r a t e l y p o s i t i v e l y s i n c e one more p i e c e of p o s i t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n i n the background of a p e r s o n a l h i s t o r y of p o s i t i v e l i f e - e v e n t s does not a l t e r t h e i r need f o r self - e n h a n c e m e n t a p p r e c i a b l y . I t s h o u l d be mentioned t h a t a l t h o u g h HSE i n d i v i d u a l s a l s o e x p e r i e n c e a m i x t u r e of p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e e v e n t s i n l i f e (much more of the former than t h e l a t t e r ) , t h e i r e x t e r n a l i z a t i o n of n e g a t i v e s e l f - r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n i s not as weak as LSE i n d i v i d u a l s ' e x t e r n a l i z a t i o n of p o s i t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n because of asymmetry ( i . e . , t h e o v e r a l l , r e l a t i v e l y g r e a t e r a c c e p t a n c e o f p o s i t i v e e v e n t s than n e g a t i v e by a l l p e o p l e ) . I n d a i l y l i f e , o u t s i d e the c o n f i n e s o f the l a b o r a t o r y , s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r v a l e n c e d l i f e - e v e n t s a r e tremendously a t t e n u a t e d or n o n - e x i s t e n t , and the r e s u l t i n g e s t e e m - r e l a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s i n mood v a r i a b i l i t y a r e n e g l i g i b l e m a i n l y because (a) low and h i g h s e l f - e s t e e m p e o p l e tend t o c o n f r o n t and c o g n i t i v e l y a c c e p t e v e n t s of a v a l e n c e which c o r r e s p o n d t o t h e i r e x p e c t a t i o n s , and (b) even i f e v e n t s may not conform t o e x p e c t a t i o n s i n terms of v a l e n c e , t h e y , a t l e a s t , a r e n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g and hence, a r e much more r e a d i l y a c c e p t e d and i n t e r n a l i z e d t h a n the h i g h l y u n u s u a l , d i s t i n c t i v e f a l s e feedback p r o v i d e d by e x p e r i m e n t e r s . L a c k i n g any s e l f - r e l e v a n t e x p e r i e n c e s which a r e a t y p i c a l i n t h e i r 3 1 d a i l y l i v e s , no s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r r e a l - l i f e e v e n t s e x i s t , and no e s t e e m - r e l a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s i n the e m o t i o n a l r e s p o n s e t o t h e s e p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e e v e n t s a r e p o s s i b l e t h a t y i e l d s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n mood v a r i a b i l i t y . H i gh and low s e l f - e s t e e m i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l t h e o r e t i c a l l y , demonstrate m i l d and i n f r e q u e n t f l u c t u a t i o n s i n mood due t o the v e r y o c c a s i o n a l o c c u r r e n c e of a t y p i c a l e v e n t s , but as a whole, t h e r e w i l l o n l y be s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n average mood, not v a r i a b i l i t y of mood. Low s e l f - e s t e e m i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l respond i n a more d e p r e s s e d , or l e s s happy manner, on a v e r a g e , than HSE people due t o group d i f f e r e n c e s i n the c o m p o s i t i o n of v a l e n c e d , p e r s o n a l e v e n t s , a c c o r d i n g the l i f e - e v e n t s c o m p o s i t i o n h y p o t h e s i s . P r e d i c t i o n s based on the two competing models. C o n c e p t u a l l y , i n o r d e r t o d e t e r m i n e i f s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n c o g n i t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of outcomes and i n subsequent mood v a r i a b i l i t y r e f l e c t e s t e e m - r e l a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s i n d e f e n s i v e / a t t r i b u t i o n a l s t y l e s ( d e f e n s i v e - s t y l e s model) r a t h e r t h a t e s t e e m - r e l a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s i n the c o m p o s i t i o n of a c t u a l l i f e outcomes ( l i f e - e v e n t s c o m p o s i t i o n m o d e l ) , s e v e r a l c r i t e r i a must be s a t i s f i e d . F i r s t , i n terms of d a i l y , n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g moods, LSE s u b j e c t s must demonstrate g r e a t e r v a r i a b i l i t y than HSE p a r t i c i p a n t s . I t has a l r e a d y been e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n a f f e c t i v e e x t r e m i t y o c c u r i n s e v e r a l s t u d i e s i n w h ich a r t i f i c a l l y - c o n t r i v e d feedback was employed. N e v e r t h e l e s s , b o t h t h e o r e t i c a l models p r o v i d e d p l a u s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r t h i s phenomenon when i t was c o n f i n e d t o the l a b o r a t o r y . I t remains to be seen whether t h e s e models can a l s o a c c o u n t f o r e s t e e m - r e l a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s i n v a r i a b i l i t y of d a i l y moods. According to the defensive-styles hypothesis, LSE i n d i v i d u a l s should exhibit greater negativity than HSE people whenever negative, sel f - r e l e v a n t events occur since they tend to give more characterological a t t r i b u t i o n s for them and leave themselves unprotected by defenses, suffer a greater denial of t h e i r need for self-enhancement by doing so, and consequently, become a f f e c t i v e l y more depressed. In terms of p o s i t i v e , s e l f - r e l e v a n t events, self-esteem differences in causal a t t r i b u t i o n s for them are minimal or i n s i g n i f i c a n t due to asymmetry and the fact that defensive mechanisms are not required, and thus, both groups are more cognitively accepting of positive events than negative. As a r e s u l t , LSE i n d i v i d u a l s should a f f e c t i v e l y respond more p o s i t i v e l y due to f u l f i l l m e n t of the need for self-enhancement while HSE i n d i v i d u a l s , being habituated to positive events, should exhibit a more moderate positive response. In essence then, LSE in d i v i d u a l s should demonstrate greater a f f e c t i v e v a r i a b i l i t y than HSE with naturally-occurring, valenced, and se l f - r e l e v a n t events. The l i f e - e v e n t s composition model makes 110 such prediction with daily events but both t h e o r e t i c a l models jio anticipate that there w i l l be differences i n average daily mood between HSE and LSE people. This i s mainly because the two models find reason for HSE i n d i v i d u a l s to experience more positive events than LSE persons—the defensive-styles hypothesis predicts that the former have defenses to e f f e c t i v e l y ward off negative events and exhibit a s e l f - s e r v i n g bias in causal a t t r i b u t i o n s while the l i f e - e v e n t s composition hypothesis predicates that HSE people have a composition of naturally-occurring events which are b a s i c a l l y pleasant compared to the series of n e g a t i v e d a i l y e v e n t s e x p e r i e n c e d by LSE p e o p l e . The secojid p i e c e of e m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e which would f a v o u r the d e f e n s i v e - s t y l e s model over the l i f e - e v e n t s c o m p o s i t i o n e x p l a n a t i o n i s t h e presence of a s e l f - e s t e e m X event type ( p o s i t i v e , n e g a t i v e ) i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t f o r c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s . To r e i t e r a t e , the f i r s t model p r e d i c t s t h a t s e l f - e s t e e m a t t r i b u t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s would p r i m a r i l y o c c u r f o r n e g a t i v e , n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g e v e n t s due t o the tendency f o r LSE people t o implement a c h a r a c t e r o l o g i c a l s t y l e o f a c c o u n t i n g f o r t h e s e e v e n t s . T h i s tendency would not e x i s t o r , a t l e a s t , not be so pronounced f o r p o s i t i v e , d a i l y e v e n t s due t o asymmetry. The l i f e - e v e n t s c o m p o s i t i o n model s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e s e a t t r i b u t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s s h o u l d be g r e a t l y a t t e n u a t e d or n o n - e x i s t e n t when l a b o r a t o r y feedback i s not c o n s i d e r e d , o n l y n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g , a c t u a l e v e n t s . The t h i r d e m p i r i c a l r e s u l t t h a t would s u p p o r t the d e f e n s i v e - s t y l e s model i s the e x i s t e n c e o f a s e l f - e s t e e m main e f f e c t f o r h a b i t u a t i o n , o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d i n t h i s s t u d y as i m p a c t . H i g h s e l f - e s t e e m i n d i v i d u a l s h y p o t h e t i c a l l y s h o u l d become accustomed t o p o s i t i v e , s e l f - r e l e v a n t e v e n t s , a c c o r d i n g t o the model, due t o the s e l e c t i v e f i l t e r i n g by d e f e n s i v e mechanisms o f n e g a t i v e , p o t e n t i a l l y damaging e v e n t s and s e l f - s e r v i n g b i a s e s i n c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s . C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e c o n s t a n t exposure t o f a v o u r a b l e , s e l f - e n h a n c i n g s t i m u l i from the n a t u r a l environment ( r e l a t i v e t o LSE i n d i v i d u a l s ) s h o u l d i n c r e a s e the t h r e s h o l d t o which f u t u r e , s i m i l a r s t i m u l i make an a f f e c t i v e i m p a c t . The l i f e - e v e n t s c o m p o s i t i o n model p r e d i c t s no such s e l f - e s t e e m main e f f e c t . A l b e i t HSE people may have t h e i r needs f o r s e l f - e n h a n c e m e n t f u l f i l l e d due t o a predominance o f p o s i t i v e , 34 dai l y events in their l i v e s , and as a r e s u l t , display more moderate positive a f f e c t i v e responses to further positive events, the fact they experience a few negative outcomes makes them a_s appreciative of positive outcomes and kes them appraise the l a t t e r a_s_ i n f l u e n t i a l on their moods as do LSE people. Methodologically, to ascertain empirically i f these three c r i t e r i a are f u l f i l l e d , and hence, i f the defensive-styles model i s supported, two studies were proposed. In the Mood-Diary Study, LSE and HSE subjects are asked to rate the valence ( i . e . , the degree of pleasantness or unpleasantness) and the arousal components of their moods f i v e times a day over a two-week period. In addition, the Mood-Diary Study w i l l also request subjects to: (a) provide objective written descriptions of the most positive and most negative events that occur on each of the 14 consecutive days, (b) write down the perceived major cause of each event, and (c) rate their cognitive responses to these events, including the i n t e r n a l i t y , s t a b i l i t y , and g l o b a l i t y of every cause they offered; the perceived p o s i t i v i t y / n e g a t i v i t y of every event; the event's impact on mood; and i t s relevance or importance. A separate sample of LSE and HSE subjects from a subsequent Role-Playing Study are exposed to a random selection of the objective descriptions provided by HSE and LSE subjects i n the Mood-Diary Study and are asked to role-play these events, provide their own perceptions of the causes of these events, and rate their cognitive responses to them. The Mood-Diary Study, aside from furnishing objectively written, actual events to be role-played and rated by participants in the Role-Playing Study, i s uniquely useful i n (a) that i t confirms that 35 LSE i n d i v i d u a l s have s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower moods that HSE people (at least, in terms of their a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g s ) — t h i s i s predicted by both t h e o r e t i c a l models, and (b) that i t permits testing of the notion maintained only by the defensive-styles model of self-esteem differences i n v a r i a b i l i t y of naturally-occurring moods. Both Mood-Diary and Role-Playing Studies enable one to investigate for the possible existence of (a) the i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t of self-esteem and the valence of the event on causal a t t r i b u t i o n s for the event, and (b) the self-esteem main e f f e c t of impact ratings, as hypothesized by the defensive-styles model, but denied by the l i f e - e v e n t s composition model. The Role-Playing Study i s invaluable in adding credence for the l a s t two findings primarily because i t tests i f naive HSE and LSE raters w i l l or w i l l not provide s i m i l a r a t t r i b u t i o n s and impact ratings for objectively written, positive and negative events that their HSE and LSE authors had contributed. If LSE raters give ratings which are simil a r to those of HSE raters for the same valenced, actual l i f e - e v e n t s that were contributed by both HSE or LSE authors, then one can more confidently conclude that the t y p i c a l cognitive interpretations and perceptions of events by HSE and LSE people do not d i f f e r appreciably. This important result would tend to d i s c r e d i t the notion of defensive-styles influencing causal a t t r i b u t i o n s of naturally-occurring events. On the other hand, i f LSE raters provided a s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t pattern of ratings for causal a t t r i b u t i o n s and a f f e c t i v e impact than naive HSE raters of these very r e a l , objectively written experiences, then one can surmise that there are self-esteem differences in. defensive-styles (which are manifested i n esteem-related differences i n a t t r i b u t i o n s 36 of c a u s a l i t y and i m p a c t , or h a b i t u a t i o n , f o r t h e s e e v e n t s ) . The f i r s t r e s u l t i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h , and the second r e s u l t i s damaging t o the l i f e - e v e n t s c o m p o s i t i o n model s i n c e i t a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t such a t t r i b u t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s between HSE and LSE i n d i v i d u a l s would be g r e a t l y d i m i n i s h e d or n o n - e x i s t e n t w i t h a c t u a l l i f e - e v e n t s . To have such unambiguous i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the r e s u l t s , i t i s a b s o l u t e l y i m p e r a t i v e t o o b t a i n or e d i t , i f n e c e s s a r y , the d e s c r i p t i o n s of n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g e v e n t s from Mood-Diary p a r t i c i p a n t s i n o r d e r t o e l i m i n a t e any p o s s i b l e s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n the r e p o r t i n g of e v e n t s . To i l l u s t r a t e , HSE Mood-Diary Study p a r t i c i p a n t s may p r o v i d e n e g a t i v e , s e l f - r e l e v a n t e v e n t s which a r e w r i t t e n i n a more t r i v i a l i z e d , l e s s a f f e c t i v e l y i m p a c t f u l manner than the way i n w h i ch same n e g a t i v e , p e r s o n a l e v e n t s a r e w r i t t e n by LSE p a r t i c i p a n t s . C a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s made by s u b j e c t s i n the R o l e - P l a y i n g Study w i l l u n d o u b t e d l y be i n f l u e n c e d m e rely by the w r i t i n g s t y l e of t h e s e s u b j e c t i v e r e p o r t s u n l e s s t h e y have p r e v i o u s l y been e d i t e d e i t h e r by the s u b j e c t s or the e x p e r i m e n t e r t o remove n o n - f a c t u a l and e m o t i o n a l a s p e c t s . T h e r e a f t e r , any a t t r i b u t i o n a l or a f f e c t i v e impact r a t i n g d i f f e r e n c e s i n terms of s e l f - e s t e e m w i l l r e f l e c t the s e l f - e s t e e m of the r a t e r , not the s o u r c e ( u n l e s s , of c o u r s e , the t y p e s of e v e n t s of HSE c o n t r i b u t o r s a r e so q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t than t h o s e of the LSE c o n t r i b u t o r s t h a t t h e s e e v e n t s i n f l u e n c e r a t i n g s ) . E q u a l l y as i m p o r t a n t , the r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d from the R o l e - P l a y i n g Study w i l l r e p r e s e n t r e a c t i o n s t o o b j e c t i v e l y w r i t t e n , but n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g e v e n t s . H y p o t h e s i s 2; S e l f - e s t e e m D i f f e r e n c e s i n the V a r i a b i l i t y of 37 N a t u r a l l y - O c c u r r i n g Moods R e f e r t o Both Mood E x t r e m i t y and Mood  Frequency There i s ample e v i d e n c e ( e . g . , J o n e s , 1973; Sh r a u g e r , 1975) t h a t LSE s u b j e c t s have r e p o r t e d b e i n g more a f f e c t i v e l y p o s i t i v e o r n e g a t i v e than HSE s u b j e c t s when g i v e n i d e n t i c a l p o s i t i v e o r n e g a t i v e f e e d b a c k , r e s p e c t i v e l y . I t appears t o be a l o g i c a l e x t e n s i o n , t h e r e f o r e , ( w h i c h i s s u b s t a n t i a t e d w i t h the s u p p o r t of the d e f e n s i v e - s t y l e s model) t h a t i f LSE people produce g r e a t e r f l u c t u a t i o n s i n mood a t one p o i n t i n time i n resp o n s e to s e l f - r e l e v a n t f e e d b a c k , then they may a l s o e x h i b i t g r e a t e r v a r i a b i l i t y i n n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g moods over t i m e . A l t h o u g h t h e r e i s some s u p p o r t f o r such s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s w i t h r e s p e c t t o a c t u a l e v e n t s (see More l a n d & Sweeney, 1984), t h i s p r e s e n t p r o j e c t a t t e m p t s t o t e s t the s p e c u l a t i o n t h a t b o t h components of mood v a r i a b i l i t y — n a m e l y , the e x t r e m i t y and f r e q u e n c y o f a f f e c t i v e f l u c t u a t i o n s — w i l l be o b s e r v e d . Most s t u d i e s i n the pa s t have o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d mood v a r i a b i l i t y o n l y as a f f e c t i v e e x t r e m i t y (see L a r s e n , 1987). However, when e n c o u n t e r i n g a c t u a l e v e n t s which have p o t e n t i a l i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the s e l f , which a r e v a l e n c e d , and which o c c u r over a tim e p e r i o d ( t h e k i n d of s t i m u l i to which s u b j e c t s ' a f f e c t i v e r e s p o n s e s a r e m o n i t o r e d i n the Mood-Diary S t u d y ) , LSE peo p l e s h o u l d e x h i b i t g r e a t e r a m p l i t u d e s i n t h e i r mood changes than HSE people i n a d d i t i o n t o a g r e a t e r number of f l u c t u a t i o n s a c r o s s t i m e . There i s no r e a s o n why the d e f e n s i v e - s t y l e s model, which h y p o t h e s i z e s e s t e e m - r e l a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s i n mood v a r i a b i l i t y f o r n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g e v e n t s , w i l l p r e c l u d e the o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n o f mood v a r i a b i l i t y a l o n g b o t h e x t r e m i t y and f r e q u e n c y d i m e n s i o n s . 38 S e l f - c o m p l e x i t y and Mood V a r i a b i l i t y I n a d d i t i o n t o the hypotheses o u t l i n e d above, the p r e s e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n w i l l examine i n a more e x p l o r a t o r y f a s h i o n , the p o s s i b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between c o m p l e x i t y of the s e l f - r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , s e l f - e s t e e m , and mood v a r i a b i l i t y . The c o n s t r u c t of s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y assumes some i m p o r t a n c e i n the p r e s e n t p r o j e c t because t h e r e a r e b o t h t h e o r e t i c a l and e m p i r i c a l r e a s o n s t o b e l i e v e t h a t s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y may be n e g a t i v e l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h mood v a r i a b i l i t y . Of p a r t i c u l a r i m p o r t i s the r e c e n t r e s e a r c h conducted by L i n v i l l e ( 1 9 8 2 ) . I n L i n v i l l e ' s (1982) work, she d e f i n e s c o m p l e x i t y as the number of independent f e a t u r e s u n d e r l y i n g a p e r s o n ' s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of s t i m u l i i n a s p e c i f i c domain. When the domain of thought i s the s e l f , the term i s " s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y " - ' - . I t r e f e r s t o the number of independent d i m e n s i o n s people use i n t h i n k i n g about the s e l f . A c c o r d i n g t o L i n v i l l e ' s c o m p l e x i t y - e x t r e m i t y h y p o t h e s i s , i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h l e s s complex r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of a g i v e n domain w i l l e x h i b i t a f f e c t i v e e x t r e m i t y towards s p e c i f i c s t i m u l i ( e v e n t s ) w i t h i n t h a t domain. As the number of independent f e a t u r e s used t o p r o c e s s i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h i n the domain i n c r e a s e s , the p r o b a b i l i t y d e c r e a s e s t h a t any g i v e n s t i m u l u s ( e v e n t ) w i l l be p e r c e i v e d as b e i n g u n i f o r m l y f a v o u r a b l e or u n f a v o u r a b l e . E m p i r i c a l s u p p o r t f o r the c o m p l e x i t y - e x t r e m i t y h y p o t h e s i s has been o b t a i n e d i n two l i n e s o f r e s e a r c h . I n one s e t of s t u d i e s ( L i n v i l l e , 1982; L i n v i l l e & J o n e s , 1980), i t was demonstrated t h a t I t s h o u l d be mentioned t h a t t h e r e i s an e x t e n s i v e body of t h e o r e t i c a l and e m p i r i c a l l i t e r a t u r e a d d r e s s i n g " s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y " ( e . g . , S u e d f e l d , 1985; S u e d f e l d & Rank, 1976). N e v e r t h e l e s s , because t h i s r e s e a r c h i s d i f f e r e n t i n the measurement of c o m p l e x i t y and does not i n v o l v e mood v a r i a b i l i t y , i t w i l l not be of c o n c e r n i n the p r e s e n t p r o p o s a l . people w i t h more complex c o g n i t i v e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f v a r i o u s groups e x h i b i t e d l e s s e v a l u a t i v e e x t r e m i t y i n r a t i n g s p e c i f i c members of th o s e g roups. The o t h e r r e s e a r c h has f o c u s e d on s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y and i s of g r e a t e r r e l e v a n c e t o the p r e s e n t p r o p o s a l . L i n v i l l e (1982) r e p o r t e d two s t u d i e s i n which she r e l a t e d i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n c o m p l e x i t y of the s e l f - r e p r e s e n t a t i o n t o (a) a f f e c t i v e r e s p o n s e s t o m a n i p u l a t e d s u c c e s s and f a i l u r e f e e d b a c k , and (b) v a r i a b i l i t y i n n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g moods over an e i g h t - d a y span. She h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s who were h i g h e r i n s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y would e x h i b i t l e s s a f f e c t i v e e x t r e m i t y . To the e x t e n t one c o n c e p t u a l i z e s the s e l f a l o n g numerous independent d i m e n s i o n s , a f f e c t i v e r e s p o n s e s t o e v e n t s r e l e v a n t t o one d i m e n s i o n or domain of the s e l f would be c o n s t r a i n e d or l o c a l i z e d t o a r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l p r o p o r t i o n of the " t o t a l " s e l f . To i l l u s t r a t e , c o n s i d e r a h i g h s c h o o l s t u d e n t who c o n c e p t u a l i z e s h i m s e l f o n l y i n terms of b e i n g a b a s k e t b a l l p l a y e r . T h i s i n d i v i d u a l w i l l r e a c t v e r y n e g a t i v e l y t o i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t i n d i c a t e s he i s not s u f f i c i e n t l y t a l e n t e d or p r o f i c i e n t to r e p r e s e n t h i s h i g h s c h o o l b a s k e t b a l l team. On the o t h e r hand, a s t u d e n t who views and t h i n k s o f h i m s e l f s i m u l t a n e o u s l y as a b a s k e t b a l l p l a y e r , a f o o t b a l l p l a y e r , an a t h l e t e , a l e a d e r , a s t u d e n t , a m u s i c i a n , and a son would e x p e r i e n c e a more moderate n e g a t i v e r e a c t i o n t o the i d e n t i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n because o n l y a s m a l l p o r t i o n of the s e l f i s t h r e a t e n e d . I n the f i r s t s t u d y , L i n v i l l e gave s u b j e c t s a pa c k e t o f c a r d s c o n t a i n i n g 33 p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s and asked them t o s o r t the t r a i t s (one per c a r d ) i n t o p e r s o n a l l y m e a n i n g f u l p i l e s . They c o u l d form as many or as few p i l e s as they l i k e d . I n a d d i t i o n , they d i d not have to use a l l of the t r a i t s and could use a t r a i t in more than one p i l e (blank cards were provided). From t h i s sort, she calculated the s t a t i s t i c H (Scott, Osgood, & Peterson, 1979), which corresponds roughly to the number of independent dimensions needed to generate the sort (index of self-complexity). Later, these subjects were given success or f a i l u r e feedback on an embedded-figures task which ostensibly indicated i n t e l l i g e n c e . Dependent measures included change in mood and self-evaluation before and af t e r feedback. As predicted, there was a r e l i a b l e self-complexity X feedback i n t e r a c t i o n . In the f a i l u r e condition, subjects low i n self-complexity reported s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater decreases i n mood and self-evaluation than subjects higher in self-complexity. Given success feedback, in d i v i d u a l s low i n complexity reported somewhat greater increases in a f f e c t than those high in self-complexity. (The difference was not, however, r e l i a b l e in the success condition.) In the second study, L i n v i l l e anticipated that people with higher self-complexity would experience less mood v a r i a b i l i t y across time than those with more simple self-representations. To measure self-complexity i n the second study, college women were asked to make s i m i l a r i t y ratings among a l l possible pairs of ten s e l f - r o l e s (e.g., "myself as a student", "myself as a friend to men", "myself as a daughter"). The r e s u l t i n g s i m i l a r i t y matrix was subjected to a h i e r a r c h i c a l c l u s t e r i n g analysis (ADDTREE); complexity was defined as the number of nodes in the r e s u l t i n g "tree" structure. More complex indi v i d u a l s were assumed to possess more clusters of s e l f - r o l e branches and therefore, more nodes, than simpler i n d i v i d u a l s . These subjects then completed daily-mood questionnaires at the same time of day f o r e i g h t c o n s e c u t i v e days. The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h o s e s c o r i n g h i g h e r on the s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y measure were s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s v a r i a b l e i n terms of h a p p i n e s s , a c t i v e n e s s , s a d n e s s , a g g r e s s i o n , and o v e r a l l mood. Moreover, t h e r e was no r e l a t i o n between " s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y " and the o v e r a l l mean of the mood i n d e x . As noted above, L i n v i l l e c o n c e p t u a l i z e d and o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d c o m p l e x i t y as the number of independent d i m e n s i o n s or f e a t u r e s used to r e p r e s e n t s t i m u l i w i t h i n a domain. More r e c e n t l y , Judd and Lusk ( 1 9 8 4 ) , and M i l l a r and T e s s e r (1986) have demonstrated the u t i l i t y o f s e p a r a t e l y o p e r a t i o n a l i z i n g (a) the number of d i m e n s i o n s and (b) the e x t e n t t o which the d i m e n s i o n s a r e i n t e r c o r r e l a t e d . They a c c o m p l i s h e d t h i s by e mploying a v a r i a t i o n of L i n v i l l e ' s t r a i t - s o r t i n g t a s k . S p e c i f i c a l l y , s u b j e c t s were f i r s t r e q u e s t e d t o s o r t t r a i t s i n t o p i l e s o r boxes u s i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s s i m i l a r t o L i n v i l l e ' s . The number of boxes or p i l e s c o n s t i t u t e s the number of d i m e n s i o n s . They a r e then asked (a) t o p r o v i d e a summary l a b e l f o r each box and (b) t o r a t e each t r a i t w i t h r e s p e c t t o i t s d e s c r i p t i v e n e s s or a p p l i c a b i l i t y to each l a b e l . These s e t s of r a t i n g s a r e then c o r r e l a t e d f o r each p a i r of d i m e n s i o n s (boxes) and the average a b s o l u t e c o r r e l a t i o n c o n s t i t u t e s an o v e r a l l measure of the e x t e n t t o w h i c h the d i m e n s i o n s a r e i n t e r c o r r e l a t e d . When t h e s e a u t h o r s p a r t i t i o n e d c o m p l e x i t y ( t h e number of independent d i m e n s i o n s ) i n t o t h e s e two c o m p o n e n t s — n a m e l y , the number of d i m e n s i o n s , and t h e i r average i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n — t h e y o b t a i n e d a c o n s i s t e n t and p r o v o c a t i v e p a t t e r n w i t h r e s p e c t t o e v a l u a t i v e / a f f e c t i v e r e s p o n s e s towards s p e c i f i c members of groups. Congruent w i t h L i n v i l l e ' s r e s e a r c h , t h e y r e p o r t e d t h a t among s u b j e c t s 42 whose di m e n s i o n s were m o s t l y independent ( i . e . , t h e i r d i m e n s i o n s showed p r e d o m i n a n t l y low i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s ) , the g r e a t e r the number of d i m e n s i o n s the s u b j e c t s u t i l i z e d i n c o n c e p t u a l i z i n g the groups, the l e s s extreme were t h e i r e v a l u a t i v e / a f f e c t i v e r e s p o n s e s t o t a r g e t s ( s t i m u l i ) i n t h o s e groups. On the o t h e r hand, when the d i m e n s i o n s were more h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d , the g r e a t e r the number of d i m e n s i o n s , the more extreme were the s u b j e c t s ' e v a l u a t i v e / a f f e c t i v e r e a c t i o n s t o s p e c i f i c domain-bound t a r g e t s . These e m p i r i c a l r e s u l t s u n d e r l i n e the p o t e n t i a l i m p o r t a n c e of d i c h o t o m i z i n g s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y i n t o two p r i m a r y c o m p o n e n t s — t h e number of d i m e n s i o n s , and the degree t o which they a r e i n t e r c o r r e l a t e d . A l t h o u g h no s p e c i f i c h ypotheses a r e advanced h e r e , the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s between s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y , s e l f - e s t e e m , and mood v a r i a b i l i t y w i l l be e x p l o r e d i n the Mood-Diary Study. D u r i n g an i n i t i a l s e s s i o n , s u b j e c t s w i l l be r e q u e s t e d t o p e r f o r m a t r a i t - s o r t i n g t a s k , l a b e l the boxes, and r a t e the a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f each t r a i t f o r each l a b e l . From t h e s e d a t a , t h r e e i n d i c e s w i l l be c a l c u l a t e d — t h e H s t a t i s t i c ( L i n v i l l e ' s measure of the number of independent or o r t h o g o n a l d i m e n s i o n s u n d e r l y i n g a p e r s o n ' s t r a i t - s o r t ) , the number of d i m e n s i o n s or boxes (NDIM), and the average i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s between the v a r i o u s d i m e n s i o n s (AVER). METHOD To t e s t the hypotheses o u t l i n e d i n the i n t r o d u c t i o n , two s t u d i e s were p l a n n e d . I n - t h e f i r s t s t u d y ( t h e Mood-Diary S t u d y ) , LSE and HSE s u b j e c t s completed d a i l y mood i n v e n t o r i e s , p r o v i d e d o b j e c t i v e d e s c r i p t i o n s o f t h e i r most p o s i t i v e / n e g a t i v e d a i l y e v e n t s , and r a t e d t h e i r c o g n i t i v e p e r c e p t i o n s of t h e s e e v e n t s . I n the second s t u d y 43 ( t h e R o l e - P l a y i n g S t u d y ) , a new sample of LSE and HSE s u b j e c t s r e a d d e s c r i p t i o n s o f the e v e n t s p r o v i d e d by s u b j e c t s i n the f i r s t s tudy and r a t e d t h e s e e v e n t s . Mood-Diary Study S u b j e c t s . The s u b j e c t s were 67 s t u d e n t s (31 HSE s u b j e c t s ; 36 LSE s u b j e c t s ) i n i n t r o d u c t o r y p s y c h o l o g y c l a s s e s a t the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . The s u b j e c t s were s e l e c t e d from a l a r g e p o o l of s t u d e n t s who completed t h e r e v i s e d v e r s i o n of the J a n i s - F i e l d F e e l i n g s of Inadequacy S c a l e ( E a g l y , 1967) a t the b e g i n n i n g o f the academic y e a r . The s c a l e c o n s i s t s of 20 f i v e - p o i n t L i k e r t i t e m s , b a l a n c e d f o r a c q u i e s c e n c e r e s p o n s e . The r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y o f the i n s t r u m e n t have been f a v o u r a b l y demonstrated by Church, T r u s s , and V e l i c e r (1980; see a l s o R o b i n s o n & Shaver, 1973). (To demonstrate i t s t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y , w h i c h s h o u l d be h i g h g i v e n t h a t the c o n s t r u c t o f s e l f - e s t e e m i s t h e o r e t i c a l l y s t a b l e a c r o s s time and c i r c u m s t a n c e s , the same i n s t r u m e n t was a d m i n i s t e r e d a g a i n b e f o r e the Mood-Diary Study s u b j e c t s were d e b r i e f e d . C o r r e l a t i o n a l a n a l y s e s s h o u l d s u p p o r t i t s t e m p o r a l s t a b i l i t y . ) Component a n a l y s i s performed by Church e t a l . (1980) r e v e a l e d t h r e e d i s t i n c t components they l a b e l l e d c o n c e r n about e v a l u a t i o n , s e l f - r e g a r d , and i n t e r a c t i o n a n x i e t y . S u b j e c t R e c r u i t m e n t . S t u d e n t s who s c o r e d i n the u p p e r - t h i r d or the b o t t o m - t h i r d of the s c a l e were c l a s s i f i e d as HSE and LSE s u b j e c t s , r e s p e c t i v e l y . I f t h e s e s u b j e c t s i n d i c a t e d an i n t e r e s t i n p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n a p s y c h o l o g y e x p e r i m e n t f o r a d d i t i o n a l c o u r s e c r e d i t , they were s o l i c i t e d by t e l e p h o n e f o r a s t u d y p u r p o r t e d l y i n v e s t i g a t i n g "assessment o f mood as a f u n c t i o n o f time of day". No mention was made of the s e l f - e s t e e m p r e t e s t i n s t r u m e n t a t the time of 44 recruitment. During the phone conversation and the i n i t i a l session, subjects were informed that the study would consist of three parts: (a) an i n i t i a l meeting, during which they would complete a pre-study assessment instrument ( i . e . , the self-complexity questionnaire) and receive instr u c t i o n s for completing a daily-mood inventory, (b) the completion of a "mood-diary" for 14 consecutive days, and (c) a short f i n a l meeting i n which they would submit their mood-diaries, f i l l out the same self-esteem instrument completed two weeks e a r l i e r , and discuss the study with the experimenter. Subjects received extra course c r e d i t for p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Procedure. (a) Self-Complexity Questionnaire. Subjects reported i n d i v i d u a l l y for the f i r s t session. After informing them that the study was concerned with measurements of their moods as a function of time of day, the experimenter gave subjects a pretest instrument (the self-complexity questionnaire) to complete. He noted that the instrument was exploratory i n nature but there was some reason to believe that t h e i r responses might be related to mood. He added that i n the f i n a l session, he would give them more information about this instrument and i t s hypothesized relationship to mood. The f i r s t page of the instrument was designed to assess the number of dimensions subjects spontaneously used when thinking about the i r own t r a i t s or c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . A set of 27 t r a i t names were l i s t e d i n alphabetical order and subjects were instructed to write inside boxes l i s t s of two or more t r a i t names that they thought belonged together i n thinking about themselves. The set of t r a i t names covered a wide range of characteristics—some of which were derived from L i n v i l l e ' s (1982) work. Subjects were told that they could use as many boxes as they required; that they were not obligated to use a l l 27 t r a i t names ( i . e . , they could use as many or as few names as they required); and that t r a i t names could appear in more than one box. After subjects grouped the t r a i t s into the boxes, they were asked to provide a word or short phrase that indicated whatever i t was that the group of t r a i t s they had sorted together had i n common with each other. Strong emphasis was given to the statement that their p a r t i c u l a r responses r e f l e c t e d t h e i r own unique perso n a l i t i e s and hence, there were no "correct" or " i n c o r r e c t " responses. After subjects sorted the t r a i t s into boxes and l a b e l l e d each box, they transferred their labels to a second page, where they were instructed to rate on 11-point L i k e r t scales (0 = "not at a l l descriptive"; 5 = "neutral"; 10 = "very much descriptive") the extent to which each of the 27 t r a i t s was descriptive of each of the l a b e l s . Three measures were derived from the self-complexity questionnaire: NDIM, the number of dimensions (boxes) subjects used in grouping the t r a i t s ; the H s t a t i s t i c (Scott's H), a measure corresponding to the number of independent dimensions; and AVER, the average i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n among the dimensions. Actually, ZAVER, the r_-to-z_ Fisher transform of AVER, was used in subsequent analyses because ZAVER has better normal d i s t r i b u t i o n a l properties (see Steiger & Hakstian, 1982). (b) Mood and evaluation assessment overview. After completing the self-complexity questionnaire, subjects were given i n s t r u c t i o n s for completing the d a i l y mood inventory. B r i e f l y summarized, they 46 would: (a) pr o v i d e f i v e d a i l y mood-ratings employing R u s s e l l ' s (1983) A f f e c t G r i d ; (b) d e s c r i b e what they regarded as the most p o s i t i v e and the most n e g a t i v e event th a t o c c u r r e d t h a t day as o b j e c t i v e l y as p o s s i b l e ; (c) a t t r i b u t e causes f o r the occurrence of these two events and r a t e these causes i n terms of i n t e r n a l i t y , s t a b i l i t y , and g l o b a l i t y ; and (d) r a t e the p o s i t i v i t y / n e g a t i v i t y of the events, t h e i r p e r c e i v e d impact on the s u b j e c t ' s own mood, and the pe r s o n a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of the events. The experimenter emphasized the importance of honesty and accuracy i n p r o v i d i n g responses to the v a r i o u s q u e s t i o n s found i n the d a i l y i n v e n t o r i e s . S u b j e c t s were informed th a t t h e i r responses were anonymous, and that they were to attempt to complete every item and procedure to the best of t h e i r a b i l i t i e s . They were s p e c i f i c a l l y i n s t r u c t e d not to w r i t e any i d e n t i f y i n g i n f o r m a t i o n on the d i a r y s h e e t s . I t was noted th a t these sheets c o n t a i n e d code numbers which were used only to a l l o w responses on the p r e t e s t instrument to be matched with the responses on the mood i n v e n t o r i e s . They were a l s o requested not to complete these d i a r i e s i n the presence of o t h e r s . (c) D a i l y mood-ratings. S u b j e c t s were asked to pr o v i d e mood-ratings each day f o r 14 c o n s e c u t i v e days (two f u l l weeks). Using the mood-sampling schedule i n t r o d u c e d by P a r l e e (1982), s u b j e c t s were i n s t r u c t e d to r a t e t h e i r moods f i v e times over the course of a 24-hour p e r i o d : upon a r i s i n g , midmorning, midafternoon, a f t e r d i n n e r , and before going to bed. No a c t u a l c l o c k - t i m e e q u i v a l e n t s were i n d i c a t e d to a l l o w some f l e x i b i l i t y i n the Throughout the study, the words "mood" and " s p i r i t s " were used i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y i n v e r b a l and w r i t t e n i n s t r u c t i o n s to s u b j e c t s f o r c l a r i t y of meaning of the term "mood" (see Eckenrode, 1984). 47 mood-rating sessions; however, they were requested to record the exact times when the ratings were made. They were directed to provide post hoc estimates of their moods in situations where they had omitted mood-rating sessions due to forgetfulness, i l l n e s s , or times of extreme inconvenience or emergency only i f they were f a i r l y certain of the i r accuracy. Because accuracy was extremely important, they were instructed not to guess at omitted ratings that they did not remember c l e a r l y or had l i t t l e confidence i n , but simply to omit them. Subjects were advised to carry the questionnaires containing the Affect Grids along with them wherever they went and not to refer to previous ratings when making current ratings. Research participants were introduced to Russell's Affect Grid in a s i m p l i f i e d manner. Employing the analogy of a map, they were informed that the grid was a two-dimensional represention of emotions formed by the dimensions of the degree of pleasantness and the degree of arousal. To c l a r i f y the notion of arousal, the experimenter defined i t as "the state in which an i n d i v i d u a l f e e l s awake, a l e r t , activated, stimulated, invigourated, excited, and so on". It was explained that any emotional state could be represented by the placement of an "x" i n any one of the 81 squares of the 9 x 9 gr i d . Examples of how several moods could be located graphically on the grid were presented. These examples i l l u s t r a t e d , among other things, that the in t e n s i t y of a given emotion increases from the center to the periphery of the graph and that the pleasantness dimension i s d i s t i n c t l y d i f f e r e n t and orthogonal to the arousal dimension. (d) Descriptions of positive and negative events. Before 48 r e t i r i n g , subjects were requested to answer a short series of questions regarding th e i r a f f e c t i v e and cognitive reactions to events that had occurred during the day. F i r s t , they wrote a b r i e f objective description of the most positive and the most negative events they had experienced that day ( i . e . , the l a s t 24-hour period). Objective reporting of these events was i l l u s t r a t e d by a set of four examples of rather common everyday events—two events which were decidedly negative and two p o s i t i v e . An example of undesirable reporting was: "My best friend insulted me". A much more objective and hence, preferable version of t h i s same event would include an account of exactly what the friend said and the s i t u a t i o n . (e) Causal a t t r i b u t i o n s for these events. After describing the most positive and negative events of the day, subjects were asked seven questions pertaining to each event. Four questions examined subjects' causal perceptions of the event. These included a b r i e f written description of what they believed was the primary cause of the event, the degree to which the primary cause was due to themselves as opposed to other people or circumstances ( i n t e r n a l i t y ) , the degree of persistence of the cause to any future occurrence of the p a r t i c u l a r event ( s t a b i l i t y ) , and f i n a l l y , the degree to which the causal factor influenced and permeated other areas of the subjects' l i v e s , aside from the objectively reported s i t u a t i o n ( g l o b a l i t y ) . The format and wording of these items was patterned af t e r the Balanced A t t r i b u t i o n a l Style Questionnaire (BASQ; Peterson, Semmel, von Baeyer, Abramson, Metalsky, & Seligman, 1982). Ratings of the i n t e r n a l i t y , s t a b i l i t y , and g l o b a l i t y of causes were made on a 11-point s c a l e s . To a s s e s s the i n t e r n a l i t y of the cause, they were asked, " I s the cause of the event due to something about you or something about other people or c i r c u m s t a n c e s ? " ( " t o t a l l y due to other people or c i r c u m s t a n c e s " = -5, " t o t a l l y due to me" = +5, "both" = 0 ) . S t a b i l i t y of the antecedent was assessed by the q u e s t i o n , "In the f u t u r e ( i f t h i s event r e - o c c u r s ) , w i l l t h i s cause a g a i n be p r e s e n t ? " ( " w i l l never again be p r e s e n t " = -5, " w i l l always be p r e s e n t " = +5, "may be p r e s e n t " = 0 ) . The p e r v a s i v e n e s s of the given cause i n i n f l u e n c i n g a s p e c t s of the s u b j e c t s ' l i v e s other than the event d e s c r i b e d ( g l o b a l i t y ) was assessed by the q u e s t i o n , " I s the cause something th a t j u s t i n f l u e n c e s the event, or does i t a l s o i n f l u e n c e other areas of your l i f e ? " ( " i n f l u e n c e s j u s t t h i s p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n " = -5, " i n f l u e n c e s a l l s i t u a t i o n s i n my l i f e " = +5, "both" = 0 ) . ( f ) P o s i t i v i t y / n e g a t i v i t y , a f f e c t i v e impact, and importance of  these events. Three remaining q u e s t i o n s a s c e r t a i n e d how p o s i t i v e l y or n e g a t i v e l y the event was viewed; the p e r c e i v e d e f f e c t of the event on s u b j e c t s ' moods; and the p e r c e i v e d s i g n i f i c a n c e of the event. These q u e s t i o n s were formulated as f o l l o w s : (1) "How p o s i t i v e / n e g a t i v e do you view the event?" ("extremely n e g a t i v e " = -5, " n e u t r a l " = 0, "extremely p o s i t i v e " = +5); (2) "To what extent d i d t h i s event a f f e c t (change) your mood?" ("not at a l l " = 0, "very much so" = 10); and (3) "How p e r s o n a l l y important was t h i s event to you?" ("not at a l l important" = 0, "extremely important" = 10). D e b r i e f i n g s e s s i o n . Upon r e t u r n i n g t h e i r mood d i a r i e s a f t e r 14 continuous days of mood-assessments and s e l f - o b s e r v a t i o n s , s u b j e c t s were r e - a d m i n i s t e r e d the J a n i s - F i e l d F e e l i n g s of Inadequacy (self-esteem) instrument and were debriefed concerning the purposes and procedures of the study. (See Appendix F for the s p e c i f i c d e t a i l s of the debriefing procedures.) Subjects were also questioned about whether they had experienced some unusually po s i t i v e or negative events that might have seriously influenced their normal a f f e c t i v e responsiveness (e.g., a family death). F i n a l l y , subjects were requested to give permission to use their descriptions of daily events i n a subsequent study. It was explained that these descriptions would be typed and accompanied by no i d e n t i f y i n g information. Role-Playing Study Subjects. Subjects were 63 students (32 HSE subjects; 31 LSE subjects) selected from the same pool used for the Mood-Diary Study. They were recruited by telephone for a study "assessing responses to dai l y events". Subjects received extra course c r e d i t for p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Stimuli. The objectively written descriptions of two positive and ti^o negative events were randomly selected from the mood-diaries of 60 subjects (30 HSE and 30 LSE) who had participated i n the Mood-Diary Study. This procedure yielded a t o t a l of 240 events, 120 positive and 120 negative. The descriptions were typed on four-inch by six-inch cards. A unique i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number was printed i n the upper right-hand corner of each card. In addition, every card had a secret code in d i c a t i n g whether the event was reported as positive or negative, and whether i t had been reported by a LSE or HSE subject. Each subject was presented with a random se l e c t i o n and random arrangement of 16 cards (events), four from each of four 51 c a t e g o r i e s — n e g a t i v e e v e n t s r e p o r t e d by LSE s u b j e c t s , p o s i t i v e e v e n t s r e p o r t e d by LSE s u b j e c t s , n e g a t i v e e v e n t s r e p o r t e d by HSE s u b j e c t s , and p o s i t i v e e v e n t s r e p o r t e d by HSE s u b j e c t s . P r o c e d u r e . S u b j e c t s p a r t i c i p a t e d i n s m a l l groups of s i z e f o u r t o s i x . They were i n f o r m e d t h a t the st u d y was concerned w i t h p e o p l e ' s r e a c t i o n s t o v a r i o u s k i n d s of l i f e e v e n t s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , they would be g i v e n d e s c r i p t i o n s of 16 e v e n t s t h a t c o n s t i t u t e d a c t u a l l i f e e x p e r i e n c e s r e p o r t e d by o t h e r u n d e r g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s . F or each d e s c r i p t i o n , they were asked t o imagine t h a t the event had o c c u r r e d to them and then t o answer a s e t of q u e s t i o n s i n d i c a t i n g how they would r e a c t t o t h a t e v e n t . That i s , they would be asked t o i n d i c a t e what they b e l i e v e d was the major cause o f the e v e n t ; t o r a t e t h a t cause f o r i n t e r n a l i t y , s t a b i l i t y , and g l o b a l i t y ; to r a t e how p o s i t i v e l y or n e g a t i v e l y they would view t h a t e v e n t ; t o r a t e the degree t o which i t would a f f e c t t h e i r mood; and t o r a t e how p e r s o n a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t the event would be f o r them. A l l of t h e s e q u e s t i o n s and the response s c a l e s were i d e n t i c a l t o those used i n the Mood-Diary Study. A f t e r s u b j e c t s r a t e d the 16 e v e n t s , they were d e b r i e f e d c o n c e r n i n g the purposes and p r o c e d u r e s of the st u d y (see Appendix G). Eve r y c a r d ( e v e n t ) was r a t e d f o u r t i m e s , two r a t i n g s were g i v e n by HSE s u b j e c t s and two r a t i n g s by LSE s u b j e c t s . A f t e r a c a r d had r e c e i v e d the r e q u i s i t e number of r a t i n g s , i t was removed from the p o o l of e v e n t s . DEPENDENT MEASURES Four t y p e s of dependent measures a r e d e s c r i b e d b e l o w — c o m p l e x i t y , mood, c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n , and g e n e r a l impact measures. The Mood-Diary Study yielded a l l four types of measures whereas the Role-Playing Study involved only a t t r i b u t i o n a l and general impact measures. Complexity Measures As noted e a r l i e r , the three variables derived from the self-complexity questionnaire include NDIM, the number of dimensions (boxes) subjects used to d i f f e r e n t i a t e the t r a i t s within the domain of the s e l f ; AVER, the average c o r r e l a t i o n among the dimensions; and the H s t a t i s t i c , a measure of the number of independent dimensions underlying the t r a i t sort. Mood Scores Each Affect Grid yiel d s two 9-point scores—one along an unpleasant/pleasant dimension and the other along a sleepiness/arousal dimension (higher numbers in d i c a t i n g greater pleasantness and arousal, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . The means and standard deviations of the two mood variables (pleasantness and arousal) were computed for each subject for a l l d a i l y mood-ratings (except the da i l y global r a t i n g s ) , i r r e s p e c t i v e of the time of day or day of the week and across both weeks, r e s u l t i n g i n a grand mean and standard deviation (the measure of mood extremity). These calculations yielded four variables—mean pleasantness, mean arousal, and the standard deviations of the above. However, as noted by Larsen (1987), standard deviations represent only one aspect of mood Subjects also completed a retrospective o v e r a l l mood-rating at the end of each day. Means and standard deviations of the pleasantness and arousal dimensions of these 14 ratings were also computed and analyzed. These resul t s are not reported here because (a) the measures based on the global ratings correlated s u b s t a n t i a l l y with the measures based on the f i v e d a i l y ratings, and (b) the analysis of the global measures yielded r e s u l t s that were simil a r to those reported here. 53 v a r i a b i l i t y . "Any w i t h i n - s u b j e c t s s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s computed from mood-ratings by s i n g l e s u b j e c t s on s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s " w i l l i n d e x the "average e x t r e m i t y " or a m p l i t u d e of mood changes ( L a r s e n , 1987, p. 1195). An e q u a l l y i m p o r t a n t a s p e c t of mood v a r i a b i l i t y i s the f r e q u e n c y of mood f l u c t u a t i o n s or changes. Frequency of mood changes i s r e l a t i v e l y i ndependent of mood e x t r e m i t y . F or example, the mood diagrams p l o t t e d i n F i g u r e I f o r t h r e e h y p o t h e t i c a l s u b j e c t s a l l have the same s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n ( e x t r e m i t y ) , but d i f f e r g r e a t l y i n terms of the f r e q u e n c y of mood f l u c t u a t i o n s . A w i t h i n - s u b j e c t s t i m e - s e r i e s a n a l y s i s , known as s p e c t r a l a n a l y s i s , i s one means of a s s e s s i n g f r e q u e n c y of changes i n mood ( L a r s e n , 1987). However, i t s h i g h c o m p u t a t i o n a l c o s t s and the d i f f i c u l t y i n i n t e r p r e t i n g the r e s u l t s p r e c l u d e d i t s use i n t h i s p r o j e c t . C o n s e q u e n t l y , two i n d i c e s of the f r e q u e n c y of mood f l u c t u a t i o n s were computed f o r the a r o u s a l and p l e a s a n t n e s s r a t i n g s — t h e f r e q u e n c y of a d j a c e n t m o o d - r a t i n g s t h a t e x h i b i t e d any change, and the f r e q u e n c y of a d j a c e n t m o o d - r a t i n g s t h a t e x h i b i t e d a change i n v a l e n c e (where n e g a t i v e v a l e n c e i s d e f i n e d as a mood- r a t i n g from one to f o u r , n e u t r a l i s f i v e , and p o s i t i v e v a l e n c e i s s i x t o n i n e on a n i n e - p o i n t p l e a s a n t n e s s or a r o u s a l s c a l e ) . These f o u r f r e q u e n c y of changes m e a s u r e s — t h e f r e q u e n c y of any mood change i n a r o u s a l and i n p l e a s a n t n e s s , and the f r e q u e n c y of a change i n v a l e n c e i n a r o u s a l and i n p l e a s a n t n e s s — p r o d u c e a t o t a l of e i g h t dependent v a r i a b l e s a s s e s s i n g mood i n t h i s e x p e r i m e n t . C a u s a l A t t r i b u t i o n S c o r e s The p e r c e i v e d major cause of the most p o s i t i v e and most n e g a t i v e e v e n t s of the day were r a t e d on t h r e e s c a l e s i n d i c a t i n g i n t e r n a l i t y 5 4 F i g u r e I I d e a l i z e d d a t a r e v e a l i n g how d i f f e r e n c e s i n the f r e q u e n c y of mood changes can n o n e t h e l e s s , y i e l d s i m i l a r w i t h i n - s u b j e c t s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s (mood e x t r e m i t y ) . p o s i t i v e MOOD n e g a t i v e SUBJECT A 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 DAY NUMBER p o s i t i v e MOOD n e g a t i v e SUBJECT B 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 DAY NUMBER p o s i t i v e MOOD n e g a t i v e SUBJECT C 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 DAY NUMBER 55 (INTERNAL), s t a b i l i t y (STABLE), and g l o b a l i t y (GLOBAL) of the c a u s a l a s c r i p t i o n s . The c o n s t a n t 5 was added t o the o r i g i n a l s c a l e s , which ranged from -5 t o 0 t o +5, t o a v o i d n e g a t i v e numbers; h i g h e r numbers r e f l e c t i n c r e a s i n g i n t e r n a l i t y , s t a b i l i t y , and g l o b a l i t y . The means of t h e s e t h r e e v a r i a b l e s a c r o s s the 14 e v e n t s were computed s e p a r a t e l y f o r the p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e e v e n t s . P o s i t i v i t y / N e g a t i v i t y , A f f e c t i v e Impact, and Importance S c o r e s Means were a l s o computed a c r o s s the 14 p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e e v e n t s f o r the q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g the p o s i t i v i t y / n e g a t i v i t y of the r e p o r t e d e v e n t s , t h e i r i n f l u e n c e i n a l t e r i n g mood, and the i m p o r t a n c e of the o c c u r r e n c e of e v e n t s . H i g h e r means r e p r e s e n t g r e a t e r p o s i t i v i t y ( P OSITIVITY), g r e a t e r e s t i m a t e d impact on mood (IMPACT), and g r e a t e r i m p o r t a n c e of the e v e n t s (IMPORT). RESULTS Mood-Diary Study Temporal s t a b i l i t y of s e l f - e s t e e m . I t was assumed i n c o n d u c t i n g t h i s s t u d y t h a t s e l f - e s t e e m was a r e l a t i v e l y s t a b l e i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e . To p r o v i d e e m p i r i c a l s u p p o r t f o r t h i s a s s u m p t i o n , the r e v i s e d v e r s i o n of the J a n i s - F i e l d F e e l i n g s of Inadequacy S c a l e ( E a g l y , 1967) was a d m i n i s t e r e d e a r l y i n the academic term i n o r d e r t o s e l e c t s u b j e c t s f o r the Mood-Diary Study and, f o r t h o s e who p a r t i c i p a t e d , i t was completed a g a i n a t the end of the s t u d y , a p p r o x i m a t e l y two and a h a l f months l a t e r . The t e m p o r a l s t a b i l i t y c o r r e l a t i o n i n t h i s sample was j:(67)=.92, j K . 0 0 1 , thus s u p p o r t i n g the assumption t h a t s u b j e c t s ' l e v e l of s e l f - e s t e e m would remain s t a b l e a c r o s s t i m e . S e l f - e s t e e m and s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y . I n the i n i t i a l s e s s i o n of the Mood-Diary Study, s u b j e c t s performed a t r a i t - s o r t i n g t a s k t h a t y i e l d e d t h r e e measures of c o m p l e x i t y of the s e l f — N D I M , the number of d i m e n s i o n s (boxes) s u b j e c t s used i n g r o u p i n g the t r a i t s ; S c o t t ' s H, the number of independent (non-redundant) dimens i o n s u n d e r l y i n g the s o r t : and ZAVER, the average i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n among the d i m e n s i o n s (_r-to-z_ t r a n s f o r m ) . S e l f - e s t e e m ( i . e . , the f u l l - s c a l e s c o r e s of the J a n i s - F i e l d p r e - s t u d y q u e s t i o n n a i r e ) e x h i b i t e d m o d e r a t e l y p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h each of the t h r e e i n d i c e s of s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y (see T a b l e I ) . C o r r e l a t i o n s among the t h r e e c o m p l e x i t y i n d i c e s r e v e a l e d a s t r o n g p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n between S c o t t ' s H and NDIM but ZAVER was u n r e l a t e d t o the o t h e r two i n d i c e s of s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y . When the sample was d i v i d e d i n t o the low and h i g h s e l f - e s t e e m groups, a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e r e v e a l e d t h a t the main e f f e c t of s e l f - e s t e e m on each of the i n d i c e s was s i g n i f i c a n t , a l l F _ s ( l , 65)>4.51, _p_s<.04. HSE s u b j e c t s used more boxes (4.39) than LSE s u b j e c t s ( 3 . 8 1 ) ; HSE s u b j e c t s had a h i g h e r average i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n among dimensi o n s (0.40) than LSE s u b j e c t s ( 0 . 3 0 ) ; and HSE s u b j e c t s had h i g h e r H s c o r e s (2.70) than LSE s u b j e c t s ( 2 . 3 2 ) . S e l f - e s t e e m and Mood. S u b j e c t s r a t e d the p l e a s a n t n e s s and a r o u s a l components of t h e i r c u r r e n t moods f i v e t i m e s each day f o r two c o n s e c u t i v e weeks (14 d a y s ) . From t h e s e 70 p a i r s of r a t i n g s , e i g h t measures were d e r i v e d : the means of the (1) p l e a s a n t n e s s and (2) a r o u s a l d i m e n s i o n s ; the s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s of the (3) p l e a s a n t n e s s and (4) a r o u s a l d i m e n s i o n s : the p r o p o r t i o n of the 69 p a i r s of a d j a c e n t r a t i n g s t h a t r e p r e s e n t e d any change i n the (5) p l e a s a n t n e s s and (6) a r o u s a l r a t i n g s ; and the p r o p o r t i o n of t h e s e p a i r s t h a t r e p r e s e n t e d a change i n v a l e n c e i n (7) p l e a s a n t n e s s and (8) a r o u s a l . 5 7 T a b l e I I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s among s e l f - e s t e e m and the t h r e e i n d i c e s o f c o m p l e x i t y o f s e l f - r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . SELF-ESTEEM NDIM ZAVER SCOTT'S H SELF- •COMPLEXITY INDICES SELF-ESTEEM NDIM ZAVER. SCOTT'S H 1.00 o o * * .32 1.00 * .24 -.10 1.00 ** .32 *** .86 .005 1.00 N o t e ^ A l l c o r r e l a t i o n s a r e based on a sample s i z e o f 67, p<.05. p<.01. p<.001. 58 The f i r s t two measures r e p r e s e n t the average e l e v a t i o n of the two components; the l a s t s i x a l l a s s e s s the v a r i a b i l i t y of the two components. The standard d e v i a t i o n measures a s s e s s the o v e r a l l e x t r e m i t y of mood s h i f t s ; the l a s t f our measures tap the r e l a t i v e frequency of mood changes between adj a c e n t r a t i n g s . The i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s among these e i g h t mood v a r i a b l e s are pr o v i d e d i n Ta b l e I I . The c o r r e l a t i o n a l r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t the mean of the pl e a s a n t n e s s r a t i n g s c o r r e l a t e d moderately with the mean of the a r o u s a l r a t i n g s , r_(67) = .37, _p_<.01, but n e i t h e r of the e l e v a t i o n measures were r e l i a b l y c o r r e l a t e d with any measures of mood e x t r e m i t y ( s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s ) . In terms of i n d i c e s of the frequency of adj a c e n t mood changes, only mean p l e a s a n t n e s s showed s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s with the frequency of any changes i n p l e a s a n t n e s s , r_(67)=-.45, jK.001, and with the frequency of changes i n the val e n c e of p l e a s a n t n e s s r a t i n g s , j_(67)=-.59, jK.001. The standard d e v i a t i o n s of p l e a s a n t n e s s and a r o u s a l were c o r r e l a t e d h i g h l y p o s i t i v e l y between themselves, r_(67) = .50, _p_<.001. Although the standard d e v i a t i o n of p l e a s a n t n e s s was not s u b s t a n t i a l l y c o r r e l a t e d with the frequency of change i n p l e a s a n t n e s s , _r(67)=.21, _p_<=.10, the c o r r e s p o n d i n g measures f o r the a r o u s a l dimension of mood e x h i b i t e d a h i g h l y p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p . E x t r e m i t y of a r o u s a l was p o s i t i v e l y a s s o c i a t e d with the frequency of any change i n a r o u s a l , r_(67) = .73, _p_<.001, and with the frequency of change i n va l e n c e of a r o u s a l , r_(67) = .58, _p_<.001. S t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s e s of the fo u r i n d i c e s of frequency of T a b l e I I I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s among the e i g h t mood measures and t h e i r c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h s e l f - e s t e e m . MOOD ELEVATION MOOD EXTREMITY FREQUENCY OF ADJACENT MOOD CHANGES (MEAN) (STANDARD DEVIATION) ANY CHANGE CHANGE IN VALENCE (1)=PLEAS. (2) =AR0US. (3)=PLEAS. (4) =AR0US. (5)=PLEAS. (6)=AR0US. (7)=PLEAS. (8)=AROUS. (1) (2) 1.00 .37** 1.00 (3) (4) -.003 -.03 -.01 -.08 1.00 .50*** 1.00 (5) -.45*** -.14 .21! .37** 1.00 (6) -'.16 -.16 .24* .73*** . 5 7 * * * 1.00 (7) -.59*** -.18 .08 .18 . 7 5 * * * .37** 1.00 (8) - ! l 6 -.12 .07 .58*** .50*** . 7 9 * * * .35** 1.00 S.E. .55*** .26* -.05 -.097 -.37** -.16 -.36** -.10 Note. A l l c o r r e l a t i o n s are based on a sample s i z e of 67. !p<.10. *p<.05. **p<,01. ***p<.001. S.E. r e f e r s t o f u l l - s c a l e s e l f - e s t e e m s c o r e s . 60 a d j a c e n t mood c h a n g e s — t h a t i s , the f r e q u e n c y of any change i n p l e a s a n t n e s s and a r o u s a l , and the f r e q u e n c y of change i n v a l e n c e of both of the mood d i m e n s i o n s — r e v e a l e d t h a t they were a l l p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d among each o t h e r . W i t h the e x c e p t i o n s of the two moderate c o r r e l a t i o n s between f r e q u e n c y of any change i n a r o u s a l w i t h the f r e q u e n c y of change i n v a l e n c e i n p l e a s a n t n e s s , r^(67) = .37, j K . 0 1 , and the f r e q u e n c y of change i n v a l e n c e of p l e a s a n t n e s s w i t h t h a t of a r o u s a l , jr(67)=.36, j K . 0 1 , the r e m a i n i n g f o u r c o r r e l a t i o n s were s u b s t a n t i a l . T a b l e I I a l s o p r e s e n t s the r e s u l t s of c o r r e l a t i o n a l a n a l y s e s between the f u l l - s c a l e s e l f - e s t e e m s c o r e s and the e i g h t mood v a r i a b l e s . These r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d a r e l i a b l e , p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n between the i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e v a r i a b l e of s e l f - e s t e e m and the measures of e l e v a t i o n of a r o u s a l , j:(67) = .26, _p_<.05, and e s p e c i a l l y , of p l e a s a n t n e s s , jr(67) = .55, j K . 0 0 1 . Even though the magnitude of the c o r r e l a t i o n s d i d not approach s i g n i f i c a n c e , s e l f - e s t e e m was n e g a t i v e l y r e l a t e d to the s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s of both p l e a s a n t n e s s and a r o u s a l as a n t i c i p a t e d . S e l f - e s t e e m c o v a r i e d both n e g a t i v e l y and r e l i a b l y w i t h a n o t h e r i n d e x of mood v a r i a b i l i t y — t h e f r e q u e n c y of any change i n p l e a s a n t n e s s , jr(67)=-.37, _p_<.01, and the f r e q u e n c y o f a change i n v a l e n c e w i t h r e s p e c t t o p l e a s a n t n e s s , jr(67)=-.36, j K . 0 1 . The two f r e q u e n c y of change measures f o r a r o u s a l were not r e l i a b l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s e l f - e s t e e m ; however, both were i n the e x p e c t e d n e g a t i v e d i r e c t i o n . I n summary, s e l f - e s t e e m c o r r e l a t e d s t r o n g l y w i t h e l e v a t i o n i n p l e a s a n t n e s s , m o d e r a t e l y w i t h e l e v a t i o n i n a r o u s a l , and w i t h the f r e q u e n c y of change a l o n g the p l e a s a n t n e s s d i m e n s i o n . S e l f - e s t e e m d i d n o t , however, demonstrate r e l i a b l e c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h mood e x t r e m i t y i n terms of p l e a s a n t n e s s or a r o u s a l , or w i t h the f r e q u e n c y of change i n a r o u s a l . When the sample was d i v i d e d i n t o the two esteem groups ( i . e . , LSE and HSE), a n a l y s e s o f v a r i a n c e produced r e s u l t s t h a t were comparable t o the c o r r e l a t i o n a l r e s u l t s . Compared t o LSE s u b j e c t s , HSE s u b j e c t s r e p o r t e d moods t h a t were, on the av e r a g e , more p l e a s a n t (6.OA v e r s u s 5.38), F_( 1,65) = 15.62, j K . 0 0 1 , and somewhat h i g h e r i n mean a r o u s a l (5.12 v e r s u s A.87), F_( 1,65)=2.90, _p_<.10. W i t h r e s p e c t t o v a r i a b i l i t y of mood, the i n d i c e s of mood e x t r e m i t y ( i . e . , the s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s ) e x h i b i t e d no r e l i a b l e s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n e x t r e m i t y of e i t h e r the p l e a s a n t n e s s or a r o u s a l components, Fs<.008. However, the two measures a s s e s s i n g f r e q u e n c y of mood changes i n d i c a t e d t h a t LSE s u b j e c t s e x h i b i t e d more f r e q u e n t changes i n the p l e a s a n t n e s s component of t h e i r moods than HSE s u b j e c t s , F s ( l , 6 5 ) > 1 0 . 8 9 , j3s<.002. The LSE s u b j e c t s demonstrated a h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n of mood changes of any k i n d (73.79 v e r s u s 65.5A) and a h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n of changes i n mood v a l e n c e (3A.36 v e r s u s 27.77). The two groups d i d not d i f f e r i n the f r e q u e n c y w i t h which the a r o u s a l component of mood changed, Fs<.51. Mood and s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y . From the s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y q u e s t i o n n a i r e , t h r e e measures were d e r i v e d : NDIM, the number of dim e n s i o n s (boxes) s u b j e c t s used i n g r o u p i n g t r a i t s i n t o p e r s o n a l l y m e a n i n g f u l c l u s t e r s ; S c o t t ' s H, the number of non-redundant, independent di m e n s i o n s u n d e r l y i n g the t r a i t - s o r t i n g t a s k ; and ZAVER, a n o r m a l i z e d i n d e x of the average i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n among the d i m e n s i o n s . I t i s noteworthy t o mention t h a t NDIM and S c o t t ' s H a r e re g a r d e d as the s t a n d a r d i n d i c e s of the c o m p l e x i t y of the 62 s e l f - r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . I n c o n t r a s t , the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of ZAVER i s open t o q u e s t i o n . F or i n s t a n c e , a h i g h s c o r e f o r Z A V E R — i n d i c a t i n g a h i g h r e l a t i o n s h i p among the v a r i o u s d i m e n s i o n s — m a y r e p r e s e n t a c o n s i d e r a b l e degree of i n t e g r a t i o n of the d i s t i n c t d i m e n s i o n s u n d e r l y i n g the n a t u r e of the s e l f , o r the f a c t t h a t d i m e n s i o n s p r o v i d e d by the s u b j e c t a r e not c o m p l e t e l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d . Both c o g n i t i v e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n and i n t e g r a t i o n a r e t h e o r e t i c a l l y , m a n i f e s t a t i o n s of c o g n i t i v e c o m p l e x i t y ( S u e d f e l d , 1985). T a b l e I I I i l l u s t r a t e s the c o r r e l a t i o n s between the two s t a n d a r d measures of s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y and ZAVER w i t h each of the e i g h t mood measures. L i k e s e l f - e s t e e m , the two s t a n d a r d measures, S c o t t ' s H NDIM, were (a) p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the e l e v a t i o n i n p l e a s a n t n e s s , but not i n a r o u s a l , and (b) n e g a t i v e l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the two f r e q u e n c y of change i n d i c e s i n terms of p l e a s a n t n e s s , but a g a i n , not i n a r o u s a l . A l l o t h e r c o r r e l a t i o n s i n c l u d i n g t h o s e i n v o l v i n g mood e x t r e m i t y , f a i l e d t o a c h i e v e s i g n i f i c a n c e . The p a t t e r n of c o r r e l a t i o n s of s e l f - e s t e e m t o the mood i n d i c e s were i d e n t i c a l i n e v e r y r e s p e c t e x c e p t f o r the m o d e r a t e l y p o s i t i v e c o v a r i a t i o n between s e l f - e s t e e m and the e l e v a t i o n i n the a r o u s a l d i m e n s i o n of mood. ZAVER, the e x t e n t t o which the dimensi o n s were i n t e r c o r r e l a t e d , r a d i c a l l y d e p a r t e d from S c o t t ' s H and NDIM i n t h a t i t was p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h every mood measure w i t h which the s t a n d a r d i n d i c e s of s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d . The o n l y commonality among a l l t h r e e s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y v a r i a b l e s were t h e i r l a c k of a r e l i a b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the f r e q u e n c y of changes i n the v a l e n c e of a r o u s a l . Thus, ZAVER was p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d t o the e l e v a t i o n i n T a b l e I I I C o r r e l a t i o n s between the t h r e e c o m p l e x i t y measures and the e i g h t mood measures. MEASURES OF SELF-MOOD ELEVATION (MEAN) MOOD EXTREMITY FREQUENCY OF ADJACENT MOOD CHANGES (STANDARD DEVIATION) ANY CHANGE CHANGE IN VALENCE COMPLEXITY PLEAS. AROUS. PLEAS. AROUS. PLEAS. AROUS. PLEAS. AROUS. SCOTT'S H NDIM ZAVER .34** .007 .00 -.06 -.28* .03 -.29* .04 .30 .04 -.08 -.21! -.39 -.20 -.32 -.16 .07 .26 .28 .40 -.03 .31 -.17 .17 Note. A l l c o r r e l a t i o n s are based on a sample s i z e of 67. !p<.10. p<.05. p<.01. p<.001. 64 a r o u s a l , t o mood e x t r e m i t y i n terms of p l e a s a n t n e s s and a r o u s a l , and to the f r e q u e n c y of any changes i n a r o u s a l . As s t a t e d e a r l i e r , t h e two s e l f - e s t e e m groups d i d n o t , as a n t i c i p a t e d , d i f f e r i n the e x t r e m i t y of t h e i r m o o d - r a t i n g s over the two-week p e r i o d of the Mood-Diary Study. The two s t a n d a r d measures of i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n c o m p l e x i t y ( i . e . , S c o t t ' s H and NDIM) 'were a l s o not r e l i a b l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the e x t r e m i t y measures. L i n v i l l e ' s (1982) s t u d y , d e m o n s t r a t i n g a r e l a t i o n between s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y and mood e x t r e m i t y , d i f f e r e d from t h e p r e s e n t one i n a number of r e s p e c t s ( i . e . , the measure of c o m p l e x i t y , the mood measure, e t c . ) , i n c l u d i n g the number of mood assessments s u b j e c t s made. L i n v i l l e r e q u e s t e d her s u b j e c t s t o r a t e t h e i r moods once a day a t a p r e s p e c i f i e d time (chosen by the s u b j e c t ) . To a s c e r t a i n i f s e l f - e s t e e m or c o m p l e x i t y d i f f e r e n c e s i n mood e x t r e m i t y would emerge when d i f f e r e n t s u b s e t s of the moo d - r a t i n g s were c o n s i d e r e d , s e v e r a l a d d i t i o n a l a n a l y s e s were c o n d u c t e d . One a n a l y s i s a s c e r t a i n e d i f t h e r e were i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n the average mood e x t r e m i t y e x h i b i t e d by s u b j e c t s w i t h i n a day. Because s u b j e c t s had r a t e d t h e i r moods f i v e t i m e s each day, i t was p o s s i b l e to c a l c u l a t e , f o r each s u b j e c t , the average d a i l y s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n i n p l e a s a n t n e s s and a r o u s a l . The second a n a l y s i s a s c e r t a i n e d i f t h e r e were i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n e x t r e m i t y a c r o s s t h e 14 days c o n s i d e r i n g r a t i n g s t h a t were made a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h e same time each day. To a c c o m p l i s h t h i s , the s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f the 14 r a t i n g s made a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y the same time each day was c a l c u l a t e d f o r each of the f i v e t i m e - p e r i o d s and a summary measure ( i . e . , the average of t h e s e f i v e s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s ) was c a l c u l a t e d . These measures of e x t r e m i t y 65 w i t h i n a day and e x t r e m i t y a c r o s s days were c o r r e l a t e d w i t h s e l f - e s t e e m and the t h r e e c o m p l e x i t y measures. The c o r r e l a t i o n s a r e g i v e n i n T a b l e IV. A l t h o u g h the c o r r e l a t i o n s were g e n e r a l l y n e g a t i v e , as p r e d i c t e d , s e l f - e s t e e m was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o any of t h e s e e x t r e m i t y measures e i t h e r i n terms of p l e a s a n t n e s s or a r o u s a l . The c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h the two s t a n d a r d c o m p l e x i t y measures ( i . e . , S c o t t ' s H and NDIM) were a l s o , o v e r a l l , n e g a t i v e i n terms of t h e s e two dim e n s i o n s of mood, but o n l y the c o r r e l a t i o n between NDIM and the average e x t r e m i t y w i t h i n a day approached s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r p l e a s a n t n e s s , and was s i g n i f i c a n t f o r a r o u s a l , j r(65)=-.24, _p_<.05. However, s i m i l a r t o the e a r l i e r a n a l y s e s based on the e n t i r e s e t of m o o d - r a t i n g s , the average c o r r e l a t i o n among the u n d e r l y i n g d i m e n s i o n s of the s e l f (ZAVER) was p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h e x t r e m i t y o f mood, both w i t h i n days and a c r o s s days. A g a i n , t h e s e c o r r e l a t i o n s were g e n e r a l l y more s u b s t a n t i a l f o r the a r o u s a l component of mood than t h e p l e a s a n t n e s s component. I n summary, decomposing the e x t r e m i t y of p l e a s a n t n e s s r a t i n g s and a r o u s a l r a t i n g s i n t o two s u b s e t s — o n e c o n s i s t i n g o f a c r o s s - d a y s r a t i n g s and the o t h e r c o n s i s t i n g of w i t h i n - d a y r a t i n g s — y i e l d e d b a s i c a l l y the same i n f o r m a t i o n . S e l f - e s t e e m was s t i l l u n c o r r e l a t e d w i t h any subs e t of mood e x t r e m i t y , and g e n e r a l l y , n e i t h e r were the two s t a n d a r d measures of s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y . F i n a l l y , ZAVER remained p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the two e x t r e m i t y measures, but was more s u b s t a n t i a l f o r a r o u s a l r a t i n g s than p l e a s a n t n e s s r a t i n g s . S e l f - e s t e e m and r e a c t i o n s t o e v e n t s . To a s s e s s s u b j e c t s ' r e a c t i o n s t o t h e i r ( s e l f - s e l e c t e d ) most p o s i t i v e and most n e g a t i v e 66 T a b l e IV C o r r e l a t i o n s between measures of mood v a r i a b i l i t y w i t h s e l f - e s t e e m , and c o m p l e x i t y . DOMAIN OF SELF- MEASURES 01 ? SELF-C0MP1 .EXITY MEASUREMENT ESTEEM SCOTT'S H NDIM ZAVER P l e a s a n t n e s s r a t i n g s w i t h i n a day Mean of STDn -.12 -.15 -.22! - .23! P l e a s a n t n e s s r a t i n g s a c r o s s 14 days SDT1 .037 .12 .0036 • 2 1! SDT2 .046 .05 -.031 .28 SDT3 -.20 -.037 -.033 • U * SDT4 -.10 .14 .04 .28 SDT5 .030 -.012 -.039 • 1 6* Mean of SDTn , -.048 .068 -.016 .27* A r o u s a l r a t i n g s w i t h i n a day * .36** Mean of STDn -.090 -.094 -.24* A r o u s a l r a t i n g s a c r o s s 14 days .38r SDT1 .060 .15 .020 SDT2 -.17 .063 -.016 .41^** SDT3 -.022 .11 .042 SDT4 .087 .10 -.082 .17 SDT5 -.081 -.052 -.16 .37 Mean of STDn -.019 .096 -.057 Note. A l l c o r r e l a t i o n s a r e based on a sample s i z e o f 67. !p<.10. p<.05. p<.01. * p<.001. STDn r e f e r s t o a l l t he s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s of the moo d - r a t i n g s made on day n=l t o 14. SDT1 r e f e r s t o the s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s of the mo o d - r a t i n g s made on time one, a c r o s s 14 days. e v e n t s o f the day, s i x r a t i n g s were made f o r each type of ev e n t . These measures c o u l d be c a t e g o r i z e d as those e v a l u a t i n g t h e n a t u r e of the causes s u b j e c t s p e r s o n a l l y a t t r i b u t e d f o r the o c c u r r e n c e o f the e v e n t s , and thos e measures t a p p i n g i n t o the k i n d s of i m p r e s s i o n and g e n e r a l impact the e v e n t s had f o r the s u b j e c t s . The t h r e e c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n i t e m s c o n s i s t e d o f i n t e r n a l i t y , s t a b i l i t y , and g l o b a l i t y . The t h r e e i t e m s a s s e s s i n g g e n e r a l impact i n c l u d e d p o s i t i v i t y / n e g a t i v i t y ( i . e , t o what degree was the event viewed as b e i n g p o s i t i v e o r , n e g a t i v e ) , impact ( i . e . , t o what degree d i d the event a l t e r the s u b j e c t s ' c u r r e n t a f f e c t i v e s t a t e ) , and im p o r t a n c e ( i . e . , how p e r s o n a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t and m e a n i n g f u l was the e v e n t ) . C o r r e l a t i o n a l a n a l y s e s were performed u t i l i z i n g t h e s e s i x v a r i a b l e s t o a s c e r t a i n i f the t h r e e c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n i t e m s c o u l d be c o n v e n i e n t l y summed as an i n d e x of c h a r a c t e r o l o g i c a l s t y l e (CHAR), and i f the t h r e e g e n e r a l impact i t e m s c o u l d be u s e f u l l y added t o g e t h e r t o y i e l d an o v e r a l l measure o f n o n - c a u s a l response t o a c t u a l v a l e n c e d outcomes (GIMPACT). An i n d i v i d u a l w i t h c o m p a r a t i v e l y h i g h s c o r e s f o r CHAR p o s s e s s e s a tendency t o a s c r i b e p e r s o n a l l y r e l e v a n t e v e n t s ( e s p e c i a l l y t h o s e t h a t a r e n e g a t i v e ) t o i n t e r n a l , s t a b l e , and g l o b a l a n t e c e d e n t s . S i m i l a r l y , a person who views t h e event as e x t r e m e l y p o s i t i v e or n e g a t i v e 1 , i m p o r t a n t , and c l a i m s t h a t i t had a l a r g e impact on h i s mood s t a t e has a h i g h GIMPACT s c o r e . The outcomes of t h e s e c o r r e l a t i o n a l a n a l y s e s — p e r f o r m e d s e p a r a t e l y f o r p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e e v e n t s — a p p e a r i n T a b l e V. These a n a l y s e s employed as s c o r e s f o r the s i x v a r i a b l e s , the r a t i n g s averaged a c r o s s the 14 e v e n t s . ^ On the b a s i s of t h e s e i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s , i t was d e c i d e d not t o 68 Table V Corre la t ions among the three causal a t t r i b u t i o n items, the three general impact items, and self-esteem for pos i t i ve and negative events. EVENT TYPE CAUSAL ATTRIBUTION ITEMS GENERAL IMPACT ITEMS (VALENCE) INTERNAL STABLE GLOBAL POSITIVITY IMPACT IMPORT P o s i t i v e INTERNAL STABLE GLOBAL POSITIVITY IMPACT IMPORT .35** 1.00 .38 . 2 3 ^ 1 . 0 0 ^ .37** .51*** .45*** 1.00^ "".2?* "'.37** \ 5 1 * * * i o O * * * UAI*** 1.00 SELF-ESTEEM .024 .23! .12 .15 - .14 ..13 Negative INTERNAL STABLE GLOBAL POSITIVITY IMPACT IMPORT 1.00 -•11*** I ' 0 0 .41 '05 1.00 -.11 - .40* - .16* 1 - 0 0 ^ •12 -29 . 2 8 ^ - . 5 6 m 1 . 0 0 , „ .15 .21 .43 - .46 .75 1.00 ' SELF-ESTEEM - .29* - .19 - .22! .27* - .26* - . 2 0 ! Note. A l l c o r r e l a t i o n s are based on a sample s ize of 67. * * * * !p<.10. p<.05. p<.01. p<.001. combine t h e s e v a r i a b l e s i n t o the c h a r a c t e r o l o g i c a l / a t t r i b u t i o n a l and g e n e r a l impact i n d i c e s . A l t h o u g h the t h r e e c a u s a l i t y v a r i a b l e s were a l l m o d e r a t e l y c o r r e l a t e d f o r p o s i t i v e e v e n t s , the s t a b i l i t y v a r i a b l e was not a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the o t h e r two c a u s a l i t y v a r i a b l e s f o r n e g a t i v e e v e n t s . G i v e n t he magnitude of the s e c o r r e l a t i o n s and the f a c t t h a t the p a t t e r n d i f f e r e d somewhat f o r p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e e v e n t s , s e p a r a t e a n a l y s i s were conducted on each c a u s a l i t y component. A l t h o u g h the i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s were more s u b s t a n t i a l among the t h r e e g e n e r a l impact v a r i a b l e s , t h e s e components e x h i b i t e d a d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n of r e l a t i o n s t o the a t t r i b u t i o n a l components f o r p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e e v e n t s . For p o s i t i v e e v e n t s , i m p o r t a n c e and p o s i t i v i t y were more h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the t h r e e c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n i t e m s than i m p a c t . I n c o n t r a s t , f o r n e g a t i v e e v e n t s , impact c o r r e l a t e d more s u b s t a n t i a l l y w i t h the a t t r i b u t i o n a l i t e m s than e i t h e r n e g a t i v i t y or i m p o r t a n c e . C o r r e l a t i o n s between the f u l l - s c a l e s e l f - e s t e e m s c o r e s and the s i x r a t i n g s f o r p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e e v e n t s a r e g i v e n a l s o i n T a b l e V. D e s p i t e the f a c t t h a t the c o r r e l a t i o n s d i d not approach s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r p o s i t i v e e v e n t s , as a n t i c i p a t e d , s e l f - e s t e e m was p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d t o a l l r a t i n g s , w i t h the e x c e p t i o n of a f f e c t i v e i m p a c t , j:(65)=-.14, jp_>.10. For n e g a t i v e e v e n t s , the e x p e c t e d p a t t e r n of c o r r e l a t i o n s between s e l f - e s t e e m and the r a t i n g s was g e n e r a l l y e v i d e n t . H igh s e l f - e s t e e m s u b j e c t s r a t e d the causes of n e g a t i v e e v e n t s t o be l e s s i n t e r n a l , s t a b l e , and g l o b a l t h an LSE s u b j e c t s . They a l s o r e p o r t e d t h a t n e g a t i v e e v e n t s were l e s s n e g a t i v e (more ^ C o r r e l a t i o n s were a l s o c a l c u l a t e d employing the event as the u n i t of a n a l y s i s , r a t h e r than each s u b j e c t ' s average r a t i n g a c r o s s the 14 e v e n t s . These c o r r e l a t i o n s g e n e r a l l y produced the same p a t t e r n s and t h e r e f o r e , w i l l not be r e p o r t e d h e r e . 70 p o s i t i v e ) , had l e s s of an impact on t h e i r mood, and were l e s s p e r s o n a l l y i m p o r t a n t than LSE s u b j e c t s . S e l f - e s t e e m ( h i g h , low) X event typ e ( p o s i t i v e , n e g a t i v e ) a n a l y s e s of v a r i a n c e w i t h r e p e a t e d measures on the l a s t f a c t o r were conducted on the t h r e e c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n i t e m s and the t h r e e g e n e r a l impact i t e m s . The means a r e g i v e n i n T a b l e V I . The a t t r i b u t i o n a l measures a l l y i e l d e d r e l i a b l e s e l f - e s t e e m X event typ e i n t e r a c t i o n s , F s ( 1,65)>5.34, _p_s<.03. The means a r e g r a p h i c a l l y shown i n F i g u r e I I . High s e l f - e s t e e m s u b j e c t s made more i n t e r n a l , s t a b l e , and g l o b a l a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r p o s i t i v e e v e n t s than LSE s u b j e c t s , whereas LSE s u b j e c t s made more i n t e r n a l , s t a b l e , and g l o b a l a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r n e g a t i v e e v e n t s than HSE s u b j e c t s . A l t h o u g h t h i s p a t t e r n r e p l i c a t e s the c o n s i s t e n c y e f f e c t r e p o r t e d i n many e a r l i e r s t u d i e s , an a n a l y s i s of s i m p l e e f f e c t s a l s o i n d i c a t e d the asymmetry between p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e e v e n t s . T h i s a n a l y s i s r e v e a l e d t h a t on the i n t e r n a l i t y and g l o b a l i t y components, s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n a t t r i b u t i o n were h i g h l y r e l i a b l e on the n e g a t i v e e v e n t s , Fs (1,65)>6.96, _p_s<.01, but d i d not approach s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r the p o s i t i v e e v e n t s , F s < l . W i t h r e s p e c t to s t a b i l i t y , the d i f f e r e n c e was r e l i a b l e f o r p o s i t i v e e v e n t s , F_( 1,65)=8.65, j K . 0 1 , but not f o r n e g a t i v e e v e n t s , F ( l , 6 5 ) = 2.19, _p_>.05. The o n l y o t h e r r e l i a b l e e f f e c t on the a t t r i b u t i o n a l i t e m s was a main e f f e c t of event type on the s t a b i l i t y component, F_( 1,65) = 10.26, _p_<.002, w i t h p o s i t i v e e v e n t s b e i n g r a t e d as h a v i n g more s t a b l e causes than n e g a t i v e e v e n t s . The a n a l y s e s of the t h r e e g e n e r a l impact v a r i a b l e s y i e l d e d a s i m i l a r s e l f - e s t e e m X event type i n t e r a c t i o n on the r a t e d i m p o r t a n c e of t h e e v e n t , F(1,65)=3.44, JD<.07. A g a i n , LSE s u b j e c t s c l a i m e d t h a t 71 T a b l e VI R e a c t i o n s of h i g h (HSE) and low s e l f - e s t e e m (LSE) Mood-Diary Study s u b j e c t s t o the most p o s i t i v e and most n e g a t i v e e v e n t s o f the day. DEPENDENT POSITIVI I EVENT NEGATIVE EVENT MEASURES LSE SUBJECTS HSE SUBJECTS LSE SUBJECTS HSE SUBJECTS C a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n INTERNALITY STABILITY GLOBALITY 5.56 7.01 4.76 5.75 7.61 4.87 5.84 7.00 4.95 5.05 6.71 4.22 G e n e r a l impact POSITIVITY IMPACT IMPORTANCE 7.86 7.00 6.54 8.07 6.61 6.63 2.19 6.66 5.76 2.52 5.76 5.10 72 F i g u r e I I Rated i n t e r n a l i t y (INTERN), s t a b i l i t y (STABLE), g l o b a l i t y (GLOBAL), and importance (IMPORT) f o r p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e events by high (HSE) and low s e l f - e s t e e m (LSE) s u b j e c t s i n the Mood-Diary Study. INTERN 6 . 0 5 . 8 5 . 6 5 . 4 5 . 2 5 . 0 LSE STABLE p o s i t i v e n e g a t i v e EVENT TYPE 8 . 5 8 . 0 7 . 5 7 . 0 6 . 5 6 . 0 LSE HSE p o s i t i v e n e g a t i v e EVENT TYPE GLOBAL p o s i t i v e n e g a t i v e p o s i t i v e n e g a t i v e EVENT TYPE EVENT TYPE the negative events that occurred to them were more important than HSE subjects, F(1,65)=5.28, jg<.05. Although HSE subjects rated the positive events as being s l i g h t l y more important than LSE subjects, the difference was not r e l i a b l e , F_<1. Analysis of the p o s i t i v i t y / n e g a t i v i t y ratings yielded only a main eff e c t for event type, F_( 1,65) = 1051.71, _p_<.001. As expected, po s i t i v e events were rated p o s i t i v e l y , and negative events were rated negatively by both HSE and LSE subjects. Also, as anticipated, LSE subjects claimed that a l l events—both positive and negative—had a greater impact on their moods than did HSE subjects. In addition, there was a marginal self-esteem X event type i n t e r a c t i o n , F_(1,65)=2.58, j K . l l , i n d i c a t i n g that t h i s self-esteem e f f e c t was more pronounced for negative events, F(l,65)=16.86, -gK.OOl, than for positive events, F(l,65)=3.38, _p_>.05. F i n a l l y , for both a f f e c t i v e impact ratings and importance ratings, there were s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t s of event type, Fs(1,65)>15.08, _p_s<.001. This revealed that generally, positive events were more impactful and important to both esteem groups than negative events. An overview of the outcomes obtained by these analyses of variance indicated that certain d i s t i n c t i o n s could be made i n the t y p i c a l manner in which LSE and HSE subjects performed causal a t t r i b u t i o n s and responded to personally relevant, s e l f - s e l e c t e d , p o s i t i v e and negative l i f e - e v e n t s . Low self-esteem subjects generally attributed negative outcomes more to characterological ( i . e . , i n t e r n a l , stable, and global) factors than HSE subjects. The l a t t e r , on the other hand, showed a generally i n s i g n i f i c a n t tendency to ascribe p o s i t i v e outcomes more to characterological factors that LSE subjects. I n terms of the g e n e r a l impact of p e r s o n a l , v a l e n c e d outcomes, HSE s u b j e c t s t y p i c a l l y found b o t h t h e i r p o s i t i v e and t h e i r n e g a t i v e e v e n t s more p l e a s a n t ( o r l e s s u n p l e a s a n t ) than LSE s u b j e c t s . Moreover, the HSE s u b j e c t s r e p o r t e d t h a t b o t h t y p e s of e v e n t s , but p a r t i c u l a r l y the n e g a t i v e , were l e s s i m p a c t f u l or i n f l u e n t i a l i n a l t e r i n g t h e i r c u r r e n t moods compared t o LSE s u b j e c t s . F i n a l l y , w h i l e HSE i n d i v i d u a l s r e p o r t e d t h a t p o s i t i v e e v e n t s were s l i g h t l y ( b u t u n r e l i a b l y ) more p e r s o n a l l y i m p o r t a n t t o them than LSE p e r s o n s , the former d e f i n i t e l y and c o n s i s t e n t l y found n e g a t i v e outcomes l e s s i m p o r t a n t t o them than LSE i n d i v i d u a l s . R o l e - P l a y i n g Study I n the R o l e - P l a y i n g Study, low and h i g h s e l f - e s t e e m s u b j e c t s r a t e d a sample of the p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e e v e n t s g i v e n by the low and h i g h s e l f - e s t e e m p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the Mood-Diary Study on the same t h r e e c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n and t h r e e g e n e r a l impact i t e m s . C o r r e l a t i o n s among t h e s e s i x v a r i a b l e s were computed s e p a r a t e l y f o r the p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e e v e n t s g i v e n by the LSE and HSE Mood-Diary s u b j e c t s . These c o r r e l a t i o n s a r e g i v e n i n T a b l e s V I I and V I I I . The c o r r e l a t i o n s among the t h r e e a t t r i b u t i o n a l components ( i . e . , i n t e r n a l i t y , s t a b i l i t y , g l o b a l i t y ) were moderate f o r p o s i t i v e e v e n t s , but g e n e r a l l y not r e l i a b l e f o r n e g a t i v e e v e n t s . A l s o , the c o r r e l a t i o n s v a r i e d somewhat as a f u n c t i o n of the s e l f - e s t e e m of the s u b j e c t who had p r o v i d e d the e v e n t . A l t h o u g h the c o r r e l a t i o n s among the t h r e e g e n e r a l impact v a r i a b l e s were g e n e r a l l y more s u b s t a n t i a l , they were more h i g h l y r e l a t e d f o r p o s i t i v e than n e g a t i v e e v e n t s , and the impact i t e m y i e l d e d somewhat d i f f e r e n t c o r r e l a t i o n a l p a t t e r n s w i t h the a t t r i b u t i o n a l i t e m s as a f u n c t i o n o f event t y p e . T h e r e f o r e , 75 T a b l e V I I I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s among the t h r e e c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n i t e m s and the t h r e e g e n e r a l impact i t e m s f o r p o s i t i v e e v e n t s c o n t r i b u t e d by h i g h and low s e l f - e s t e e m s u b j e c t s from the Mood-Diary Study. ESTEEM OF CONTRIBUTOR CAUSAL ATTRIBUTION ITEMS INTERNAL STABLE GLOBAL GENERAL IMPACT ITEMS POSITIVITY IMPACT IMPORT Hi g h INTERNAL STABLE GLOBAL POSITIVITY IMPACT IMPORT i.oo^ .33 1.00 .20 .20 1.00 .24! .23! .20 .17 .14 .45 .13 .0047 .37 *** ** 1.00 .63 .55 *** *** .81 1.00 Low INTERNAL STABLE GLOBAL POSITIVITY IMPACT IMPORT 1.00, .29 .43 .10 .27 .11 *** 1.00 .39 .086 .061 -.020 #* 1.00 -. 23' •32* .28 1.00 .55 .56 *** *** .81 1.00 Note. A l l c o r r e l a t i o n s a r e based on a sample s i z e o f 63. !p<.10. p<.05. p<.01. p<.001. 76 T a b l e V I I I I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s among the t h r e e c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n i t e m s and the t h r e e g e n e r a l impact i t e m s f o r n e g a t i v e e v e n t s c o n t r i b u t e d by h i g h and low s e l f - e s t e e m s u b j e c t s from t he Mood-Diary Study. ESTEEM OF CONTRIBUTOI CAUSAL ATTRIBUTION ITEMS GENERAL IMPACT ITEMS INTERNAL STABLE GLOBAL POSITIVITY IMPACT IMPORT H i g h INTERNAL STABLE GLOBAL POSITIVITY IMPACT IMPORT 1.00 .10 1.00 .10 .04 1.00 -.17 .18 .23! 1.00 -.18 -.16 . 2 0 ^ -.25 1 . 0 0 m -.04 -.16 .46 -.22! .64 1.00 Low INTERNAL STABLE GLOBAL POSITIVITY IMPACT IMPORT 1.00 -.01 1 - 0 0 ^ -.01 .35 1.00 .04 -.01 .26. 1 . 0 0 ^ .01 -.06 .04 -.43 .57 1.00 Note. A l l c o r r e l a t i o n s a r e based on a sample s i z e of 63. !p<.10. p<.05. p<.01. p<.001. 77 r a t h e r t han combining the t h r e e a t t r i b u t i o n a l and t h r e e g e n e r a l impact measures i n t o summary i n d i c e s , each r a t i n g was a n a l y z e d s e p a r a t e l y . The s i x measures were a n a l y z e d i n the c o n t e x t of a s e l f - e s t e e m of r a t e r ( h i g h , low) X event t y p e ( p o s i t i v e , n e g a t i v e ) X s e l f - e s t e e m of event s o u r c e ( h i g h , low) ANOVA w i t h r e p e a t e d measures on the l a s t two f a c t o r s . The c e l l means as a f u n c t i o n o f event t y p e and s e l f - e s t e e m of r a t e r a r e g i v e n i n T a b l e IX ( s e l f - e s t e e m o f event s o u r c e produced o n l y one r e l i a b l e e f f e c t r e p o r t e d b e l o w ) . A n a l y s e s of the a t t r i b u t i o n a l i t e m s y i e l d e d o n l y a main e f f e c t of event t y p e on the s t a b i l i t y component, F_( 1,61 )=23.66, j K . 0 0 1 ; p o s i t i v e e v e n t s were a t t r i b u t e d t o more s t a b l e causes than n e g a t i v e e v e n t s . No o t h e r e f f e c t s approached s i g n i f i c a n c e . The p o s i t i v i t y r a t i n g s y i e l d e d a main e f f e c t f o r event t y p e , F ( l , 6 1 ) = 8 2 8 . 0 1 , .p_<.001. T h a t i s , p o s i t i v e e v e n t s donated by Mood-Diary Study s u b j e c t s were i n d e e d , r a t e d as b e i n g much more p o s i t i v e (7.71) than t he n e g a t i v e e v e n t s they d e s c r i b e d ( 2 . 6 7 ) . There was a l s o a m a r g i n a l s e l f - e s t e e m of r a t e r X event t y p e i n t e r a c t i o n , F_( 1,61)=2.61, _p_<.ll. S p e c i f i c a l l y , LSE r a t e r s viewed the p o s i t i v e e v e n t s somewhat more p o s i t i v e l y and the n e g a t i v e e v e n t s somewhat more n e g a t i v e l y than d i d HSE r a t e r s . Most i m p o r t a n t l y , t h e r e were no e f f e c t s f o r s e l f - e s t e e m of s o u r c e . To e l a b o u r a t e , even though LSE Mood-Diary Study s u b j e c t s viewed the e v e n t s t h a t o c c u r r e d t o them as b e i n g l e s s p o s i t i v e or more n e g a t i v e than d i d HSE Mood-Diary s u b j e c t s , n a i v e r a t e r s viewed the e v e n t s g i v e n by the LSE and HSE s u b j e c t s as b e i n g e q u i v a l e n t i n terms of p o s i t i v i t y / n e g a t i v i t y (5.13 v e r s u s 5.24, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . 78 T a b l e IX R e a c t i o n s of h i g h (HSE) and low s e l f - e s t e e m (LSE) R o l e - P l a y i n g Study r a t e r s t o p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e e v e n t s c o n t r i b u t e d by HSE and LSE s o u r c e s . DEPENDENT P0SITIV1 I EVENT NEGATIVE EVENT MEASURES LSE RATERS HSE RATERS LSE RATERS HSE RATERS C a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n INTERNALITY 5.34 5.47 5.55 5.55 STABILITY 7.30 7.57 6.58 6.95 GLOBALITY 5.24 5.31 5.22 4.93 G e n e r a l impact POSITIVITY 7.92 7.49 2.59 2.74 IMPACT 7.13 6.61 6.72 5.82 IMPORTANCE 6.44 5.71 5.87 5.20 79 The e x t e n t t o which s u b j e c t s b e l i e v e d t h e s e e v e n t s would have an impact on t h e i r moods a l s o produced a c o u p l e of i n t e r e s t i n g e f f e c t s . There was a main e f f e c t of event t y p e , F_(l ,61) = 14.48, j K . 0 0 1 . L i k e the Mood-Diary Study s u b j e c t s , the R o l e - P l a y i n g Study s u b j e c t s c l a i m e d t h a t p o s i t i v e e v e n t s would have a g r e a t e r impact on t h e i r mood (6.87) than n e g a t i v e e v e n t s ( 6 . 2 8 ) . There was a l s o a main e f f e c t f o r the s e l f - e s t e e m o f the r a t e r , J_( 1,61 )=5.01, _p_<.03. Low s e l f - e s t e e m r a t e r s c l a i m e d t h a t both p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e e v e n t s would have a g r e a t e r impact on t h e i r moods (6.93) than d i d HSE r a t e r s ( 6 . 2 2 ) . T h i s r e s u l t was a l s o o b t a i n e d i n the Mood-Diary Study where LSE s u b j e c t s c l a i m e d t h a t the p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e e v e n t s they had d e s c r i b e d had a g r e a t e r impact on t h e i r moods. However, R o l e - P l a y i n g Study s u b j e c t s e x h i b i t e d a m a r g i n a l tendency t o view the e v e n t s g i v e n by HSE Mood-Diary Study s u b j e c t s as h a v i n g a g r e a t e r p o t e n t i a l impact on mood (6.72) than t h o s e g i v e n by LSE Mood-Diary Study s u b j e c t s ( 6 . 4 4 ) , F_( 1,61 )=3.94, _p_<.06. No o t h e r e f f e c t s approached s i g n i f i c a n c e on t h i s measure. The a n a l y s i s of the i m p o r t a n c e r a t i n g r e v e a l e d a main e f f e c t of event t y p e , F_( 1, 61 ) = 10.36, _p_<.002, and s e l f - e s t e e m of r a t e r , F_( 1,61 )=4.30, _p_<.05. P o s i t i v e e v e n t s were viewed as b e i n g more p e r s o n a l l y i m p o r t a n t (6.08) than n e g a t i v e e v e n t s ( 5 . 5 4 ) , and LSE r a t e r s g e n e r a l l y viewed t h e e v e n t s as b e i n g more i m p o r t a n t (6.16) than d i d HSE r a t e r s ( 5 . 4 5 ) . The a n a l y s i s a l s o y i e l d e d a h i g h l y r e l i a b l e event type X s e l f - e s t e e m of s o u r c e i n t e r a c t i o n , F ( l , 6 1 ) = 19.48, _p_<'°°l' T h i s i n t e r a c t i o n (shown i n F i g u r e I I I ) i n d i c a t e d t h a t R o l e - P l a y i n g Study s u b j e c t s r a t e d p o s i t i v e e v e n t s c o n t r i b u t e d by a HSE s o u r c e as more i m p o r t a n t than p o s i t i v e e v e n t s 8 0 Figure III Rated importance by raters i n the Role-Playing Study for positive and negative events provided by high (HSE) and low self-esteem (LSE) Mood-Diary Study contributors. EVENT TYPE 81 c o n t r i b u t e d by a LSE s o u r c e . E x a c t l y the o p p o s i t e o c c u r r e d w i t h n e g a t i v e e v e n t s — i m p o r t a n c e r a t i n g s were h i g h e r when the e v e n t s were s u p p l i e d by a LSE than a HSE s o u r c e . G i v e n the p r e v i o u s l y mentioned o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t HSE and LSE R o l e - P l a y i n g Study s u b j e c t s viewed a l l e v e n t s a p p r o x i m a t e l y e q u a l i n terms of p o s i t i v i t y / n e g a t i v i t y , i t i s p a r a d o x i c a l t h a t the u n a n t i c i p a t e d event t y p e X s e l f - e s t e e m of s o u r c e i n t e r a c t i o n was o b t a i n e d f o r i m p o r t a n c e r a t i n g s . These f i n d i n g s suggest t h a t a l t h o u g h p o s i t i v e e v e n t s donated by HSE s o u r c e s were r a t e d as b e i n g more i m p o r t a n t than the p o s i t i v e e v e n t s c o n t r i b u t e d by LSE s o u r c e s , n a i v e r a t e r s do not f i n d t h e p o s i t i v e e v e n t s of HSE c o n t r i b u t o r s more p o s i t i v e than t h o s e of LSE c o n t r i b u t o r s . S i m i l a r l y , a l t h o u g h n a i v e r a t e r s r a t e d the n e g a t i v e e v e n t s s u p p l i e d by LSE Mood-Diary Study c o n t r i b u t o r s as b e i n g more i m p o r t a n t than the n e g a t i v e e v e n t s donated by t h e i r HSE c o u n t e r p a r t s , t h e s e r a t e r s found a l l n e g a t i v e e v e n t s t o be r o u g h l y e q u a l i n n e g a t i v i t y , r e g a r d l e s s of the s e l f - e s t e e m of the c o n t r i b u t o r . I n an attempt t o account f o r t h i s paradox, a c o n t e n t a n a l y s i s of a l l the p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e e v e n t s t h a t were r a t e d by HSE and LSE R o l e - P l a y i n g Study s u b j e c t s was c o n d u c t e d . T h i s a n a l y s i s c o n s i s t e d of c l a s s i f y i n g the e v e n t s i n t o one of f o u r c a t e g o r i e s : (a) a c a d e m i c / s c h o l a s t i c e v e n t s ( e . g . , " I r e c e i v e d 55/100 on my math t e s t . " ) ; (b) s o c i a l / i n t e r p e r s o n a l e v e n t s ( e . g . , " I d i d not say a word to B i l l ' s f r i e n d i n the c a r the whole n i g h t . " ) ; ( c ) a t h l e t i c / r e c r e a t i o n a l / h e a l t h ( e . g . , " I was a b l e t o do 50 push-ups."); and (d) e x t e r n a l e v e n t s ( e . g . , "My hockey team l o s t the game by a s c o r e of t h r e e t o f i v e . " , " I won 50 d o l l a r s i n a l o t t e r y . " , " I was n e a r l y s t r u c k by a c a r . " ) . By the o b j e c t i v e d e s c r i p t i o n s of the e v e n t s , the f i r s t t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s o f e v e n t s have one f a c t o r i n common—they a l l r e p r e s e n t e d e v e n t s which were p e r s o n a l l y mediated or i n s t i g a t e d by the r e p o r t e r . I n c o n t r a s t , the f o u r t h and f i n a l c a t e g o r y o f e v e n t s was a group of e x t e r n a l l y mediated or i n i t i a t e d e v e n t s — o c c u r r e n c e s which were more due to " o u t s i d e f o r c e s " ( e . g . , l u c k , f o r t u n e , a c c i d e n t , o t h e r s ) than " i n s i d e f o r c e s " ( e . g . , p e r s o n a l m o t i v a t i o n , a b i l i t y , s k i l l ) . The f r e q u e n c y of the e v e n t s which b e l o n g i n each of the f o u r c a t e g o r i e s a r e g i v e n f o r HSE and LSE r e p o r t e r s of the e v e n t s , and d i f f e r e n t i a t e d between p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e e v e n t s (see T a b l e X ) . A l t h o u g h c h i - s q u a r e a n a l y s i s d i d not i n d i c a t e t h a t the d i s t r i b u t i o n of e i t h e r the p o s i t i v e o r n e g a t i v e e v e n t s d i f f e r e d as a f u n c t i o n of s e l f - e s t e e m of the s u b j e c t s who s u p p l i e d the e v e n t s ( Q 5 ^ ^ 3 = 1 . 4 7 , _p_>.68 f o r p o s i t i v e e v e n t s ; 2 0 5 X . 3=4.08, _p_>.25 f o r n e g a t i v e e v e n t s ) , n o n e t h e l e s s , one c o u l d see t h e r e was an i n t e r e s t i n g p a t t e r n t o the k i n d s of e v e n t s t h a t were d e s c r i b e d . W i t h r e s p e c t t o a c a d e m i c / s c h o l a s t i c e v e n t s , HSE a u t h o r s d e s c r i b e d more p o s i t i v e e v e n t s o f t h i s t y p e than d i d LSE a u t h o r s , whereas LSE Mood-Diary Study s u b j e c t s d e s c r i b e d more n e g a t i v e e v e n t s of t h i s type than d i d HSE s u b j e c t s . There were no s u b s t a n t i a l s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n the f r e q u e n c y of p o s i t i v e as w e l l as n e g a t i v e e v e n t s b e l o n g i n g i n the s o c i a l / i n t e r p e r s o n a l c a t e g o r y and the a t h l e t i c / r e c r e a t i o n a l / h e a l t h c a t e g o r y . I n terms of e x t e r n a l l y mediated e v e n t s , HSE s u b j e c t s d e s c r i b e d more n e g a t i v e e v e n t s of t h i s type than d i d LSE s u b j e c t s , but LSE a u t h o r s p r o v i d e d more p o s i t i v e e v e n t s of t h i s type than HSE a u t h o r s . T h i s f i n d i n g was b a l a n c e d by the o v e r a l l p a t t e r n t h a t the HSE s u b j e c t s p r o v i d e d more p e r s o n a l l y m e d i a t e d , " i n t e r n a l " e v e n t s f o r p o s i t i v e o c c u r r e n c e s than LSE 83 T a b l e X Types of e v e n t s s u p p l i e d by Mood-Diary Study s u b j e c t s f o r r a t i n g by R o l e - P l a y i n g Study s u b j e c t s . DESCRIPTION HIGH SELF-ESTEEM AUTHORS LOW SELF-ES1 rEEM AUTHORS OF EVENTS POSITIVE EVENTS NEGATIVE EVENTS POSITIVE EVENTS NEGATIVE EVENTS P e r s o n a l l y mediated ACADEMIC/ SCHOLASTIC 19 20 16 28 SOCIAL/ INTERPERSONAL 27 12 26 11 ATHLETIC/ RECREATIONAL 2 7 1 9 E x t e r n a l l y mediated 12 21 17 12 s u b j e c t s , who, on the o t h e r hand, s u p p l i e d g e n e r a l l y more p e r s o n a l l y i n v o l v e d e v e n t s f o r n e g a t i v e happenings. DISCUSSION Review o f T h e o r e t i c a l E x p l a n a t i o n s U n d e r l y i n g S e l f - e s t e e m  D i f f e r e n c e s i n Mood E x t r e m i t y The purpose of the p r e s e n t t h e s i s i s t h r e e f o l d : (a) t o a s c e r t a i n whether s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n e x t r e m i t y of e m o t i o n a l r e s p o n s e s , o b t a i n e d i n l a b o r a t o r y s e t t i n g s u s i n g f a l s e f e e d b a c k , would be obse r v e d w i t h n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g e v e n t s a c r o s s t i m e , (b) t o a s c e r t a i n i f the proposed s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e i n mood v a r i a b i l i t y would be o b t a i n e d f o r bot h mood e x t r e m i t y and f r e q u e n c y of mood changes, and f i n a l l y , ( c ) t o examine the r e l a t i o n s h i p between s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y , s e l f - e s t e e m , and mood v a r i a b i l i t y . I n o r d e r t o account f o r the commonly observed and r e p o r t e d phenomenon t h a t LSE s u b j e c t s respond more n e g a t i v e l y t o n e g a t i v e l a b o r a t o r y feedback i m p l i c a t i n g t h e s e l f , and more p o s i t i v e l y t o p o s i t i v e , s e l f - r e l e v a n t feedback than HSE s u b j e c t s , two hypotheses were e n t e r t a i n e d . The g r e a t e r a f f e c t i v e e x t r e m i t y and g r e a t e r f r e q u e n c y i n mood changes ( a c r o s s t i m e ) of LSE s u b j e c t s r e l a t i v e t o HSE s u b j e c t s i n resp o n s e t o bot h p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e , l a b o r a t o r y - c o n t r i v e d as w e l l as n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g e v e n t s seemed t o be r e a s o n a b l y a ccounted f o r by the d e f e n s i v e - s t y l e s h y p o t h e s i s . T h i s e x p l a n a t i o n e s s e n t i a l l y s t a t e s t h a t LSE s u b j e c t s tend to p r o v i d e more c h a r a c t e r o l o g i c a l a t t r i b u t i o n s ( i . e . , i n t e r n a l , s t a b l e , and g l o b a l a n t e c e d e n t s ) f o r n e g a t i v e f e e d b a c k . That i s , LSE people a r e l e s s c o g n i t i v e l y r e j e c t i n g of n e g a t i v e feedback than HSE i n d i v i d u a l s . Because of t h i s t e n d e n c y , LSE pe o p l e e x h i b i t more pronounced n e g a t i v e 85 a f f e c t i v e r e a c t i o n s t o n e g a t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n . HSE and LSE people demonstrate about e q u i v a l e n t c o g n i t i v e a c c e p t a n c e of p o s i t i v e f e e d b a c k , however. Because p o s i t i v e e v e n t s a r e not t h r e a t e n i n g t o the s e l f , d e f e n s e s a r e not r e q u i r e d and hence, s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n c o g n i t i v e r e a c t i o n s a r e g r e a t l y a t t e n u a t e d . N o n e t h e l e s s , s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s do o c c u r i n the h a b i t u a t i o n t o such f e e d b a c k . S p e c i f i c a l l y , s i n c e HSE pe o p l e a r e l e s s a f f e c t e d by n e g a t i v e e v e n t s , the e v e n t s they c o g n i t i v e l y e x p e r i e n c e a r e , f o r the most p a r t , p o s i t i v e e v e n t s . T h e r e f o r e , i n c o n t r a s t t o LSE people who e x p e r i e n c e a more b a l a n c e d m i x t u r e of p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e e v e n t s , HSE people e x h i b i t l e s s pronounced p o s i t i v e a f f e c t i v e r e s p o n s e s t o t h e s e f a v o u r a b l e e v e n t s . P r e d i c t i o n s t h a t can be made based on the pr e m i s e s t h a t u n d e r l i e the d e f e n s i v e - s t y l e s h y p o t h e s i s i n c l u d e t h e f o l l o w i n g : (a) There s h o u l d be a s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e i n the c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g , p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e , s e l f - r e l e v a n t e v e n t s . T h i s d i f f e r e n c e s h o u l d be pronounced f o r n e g a t i v e e v e n t s ( i . e . , LSE i n d i v i d u a l s s h o u l d p r o v i d e more c h a r a c t e r o l o g i c a l a t t r i b u t i o n s t han HSE i n d i v i d u a l s ) , but be g r e a t l y a t t e n u a t e d or n o n e x i s t e n t f o r p o s i t i v e e v e n t s . (b) A l t h o u g h the average d a i l y mood f o r HSE people s h o u l d be more p o s i t i v e t han f o r LSE p e o p l e , LSE people s h o u l d demonstrate s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r mood v a r i a b i l i t y a c r o s s time ( i . e . , g r e a t e r e x t r e m i t y and g r e a t e r f r e q u e n c y i n mood c h a n g e s ) . The l i f e - e v e n t s c o m p o s i t i o n h y p o t h e s i s a s s e r t s t h a t s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n a f f e c t i v e e x t r e m i t y tend t o be r e s t r i c t e d t o the l a b o r a t o r y s e t t i n g due t o the s p e c i a l c o n d i t i o n s , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n 86 terms of v a l e n c e d , f a l s e feedback t h a t t y p i c a l l y e x i s t s t h e r e . The b a s i c t e n e t u n d e r l y i n g t h i s h y p o t h e s i s i s t h a t LSE and HSE people d i f f e r i n the f r e q u e n c y t o which each a c t u a l l y e n c o u n t e r s p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e e v e n t s i n d a i l y l i f e . Because HSE i n d i v i d u a l s p o s s e s s g r e a t e r competence, s o c i a l s k i l l s , a b i l i t i e s , p r e d i s p o s i t i o n s , and so on than LSE i n d i v i d u a l s , the former s h o u l d e n c o u n t e r more p o s i t i v e , s e l f - r e l e v a n t e v e n t s whereas the l a t t e r s h o u l d c o n f r o n t more n e g a t i v e e v e n t s . T h i s d i f f e r e n c e i n the f r e q u e n c y of p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e e v e n t s has an i m p o r t a n t i m p l i c a t i o n f o r how such i n f o r m a t i o n i s c o g n i t i v e l y r e c e i v e d and p r o c e s s e d . For p e o p l e of bo t h s e l f - e s t e e m groups, i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e i r e x p e c t a n c i e s ( d e v e l o p e d from t h e i r c o m p o s i t i o n s of l i f e - e v e n t s ) tends to be a c c e p t e d w h i l e i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t i s i n c o n g r u e n t t o t h e i r s e l f - e x p e c t a n c i e s tends t o be r e j e c t e d . I n the l a b o r a t o r y m i l i e u , where e x p e r i m e n t s a r e conducted t o e x p l o r e t he n a t u r e and i n t e n s i t y of c o g n i t i v e and e m o t i o n a l r e s p o n s e s of LSE and HSE s u b j e c t s t o p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e , s e l f - r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n , the e x p e r i m e n t a l paradigm u s u a l l y employs a o n c e - o n l y exposure t o p o s i t i v e or n e g a t i v e f e e d b a c k . Because c o n t r i v e d p o s i t i v e feedback i s somewhat l e s s t y p i c a l f o r LSE s u b j e c t s , they tend t o p r o c e s s t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n as more u n u s u a l and d i s t i n c t i v e , and a r e c o g n i t i v e l y l e s s a c c e p t i n g of i t . F a l s e , n e g a t i v e f e e d b a c k , b e i n g more c o n s i s t e n t w i t h LSE p e o p l e ' s e x p e c t a t i o n s t han t h o s e of HSE i n d i v i d u a l s tends t o be more i n t e r n a l i z e d by LSE p e o p l e . These d i f f e r e n c e s s h o u l d be most pronounced w i t h r e s p e c t to n e g a t i v e f e e d b a c k . S o c i a l c o n v e n t i o n s and norms make the r e c e i p t of n e g a t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n l e s s f r e q u e n t than 87 p o s i t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n . That i s , b o t h esteem groups a r e accustomed t o r e c e i v i n g p o s i t i v e feedback and t h e r e f o r e , e x h i b i t r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e i r c o g n i t i v e r e a c t i o n s t o i t . They d i f f e r p r i m a r i l y i n the e x t e n t t o which the y r e c e i v e n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g n e g a t i v e f e e d b a c k . S i n c e t h i s k i n d of feedback i s more d i s t i n c t i v e and " o u t - o f - t h e - o r d i n a r y " f o r HSE p e o p l e , when i t i s f a l s e l y g i v e n i n a l a b o r a t o r y s e t t i n g , i t i s a t t r i b u t e d t o chance or s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s . P r e d i c t i o n s based upon the l i f e - e v e n t s c o m p o s i t i o n model d i f f e r from those a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the d e f e n s i v e - s t y l e s model. S p e c i f i c a l l y , i t i s a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t : (a) The s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s t h a t were observed w i t h l a b o r a t o r y feedback s h o u l d be g r e a t l y a t t e n u a t e d o r n o n - e x i s t e n t when n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g , v a l e n c e d e v e n t s a r e e x p e r i e n c e d by HSE and LSE i n d i v i d u a l s . A l t h o u g h the n e g a t i v e e v e n t s e x p e r i e n c e d by HSE pe o p l e s h o u l d , on the av e r a g e , be l e s s n e g a t i v e than t h o s e e x p e r i e n c e d by LSE p e o p l e , c a u s a l • a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r t h e s e e v e n t s s h o u l d be s i m i l a r g i v e n t h a t t h e s e e v e n t s a r e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of d a i l y o c c u r r e n c e s . (b) T h i s h y p o t h e s i s i m p l i e s t h a t the moods of HSE people s h o u l d be more p o s i t i v e , on av e r a g e , than t h o s e of LSE p e o p l e . Low s e l f - e s t e e m i n d i v i d u a l s s h o u l d n o t , however, demonstrate a g r e a t e r e x t r e m i t y i n a f f e c t i v e r e s p o n s e s or a g r e a t e r f r e q u e n c y of mood changes a c r o s s t i m e . E v a l u a t i o n o f the Hypotheses Based Upon E m p i r i c a l R e s u l t s I n g e n e r a l , the r e s u l t s from the s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s e s on d a t a o b t a i n e d from t he Mood-Diary Study and the R o l e - P l a y i n g Study 88 s u p p o r t e d the d e f e n s i v e - s t y l e s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of mood v a r i a b i l i t y , but t h e r e was a l s o some e m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t i n g the l i f e - e v e n t s c o m p o s i t i o n model. S e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s . One i m p o r t a n t p r e d i c t i o n of the d e f e n s i v e - s t y l e s model i s t h a t s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g , not merely l a b o r a t o r y - c o n t r i v e d , s e l f - r e l e v a n t e v e n t s s h o u l d be o b s e r v e d . These d i f f e r e n c e s s h o u l d be more pronounced i n terms of n e g a t i v e e v e n t s than p o s i t i v e e v e n t s . I n the Mood-Diary Study, s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s were found. For n e g a t i v e e v e n t s , s e l f - e s t e e m c o r r e l a t e d n e g a t i v e l y w i t h i n t e r n a l i t y , s t a b i l i t y , and g l o b a l i t y ( a l t h o u g h the l a s t two c o r r e l a t i o n s were i n s i g n i f i c a n t ) . F or p o s i t i v e e v e n t s , s e l f - e s t e e m c o v a r i e d t o a l e s s e r degree w i t h a l l a t t r i b u t i o n a l i t e m s , but the c o r r e l a t i o n s were i n the a n t i c i p a t e d p o s i t i v e d i r e c t i o n . More r e v e a l i n g a r e the r e s u l t s from a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e p r o c e d u r e s , which i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e r e were s i g n i f i c a n t s e l f - e s t e e m X event type i n t e r a c t i o n s on a l l t h r e e a t t r i b u t i o n a l i t e m s . That i s , HSE s u b j e c t s p r o v i d e d more i n t e r n a l , s t a b l e , and g l o b a l a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r p o s i t i v e e v e n t s whereas LSE s u b j e c t s e x h i b i t e d more c h a r a c t e r o l o g i c a l c a u s a l a s c r i p t i o n s f o r n e g a t i v e e v e n t s . A s i d e from t h i s f a m i l i a r c o n s i s t e n c y e f f e c t , the presence of asymmetry was s t r o n g l y demonstrated by e xamining the s i m p l e e f f e c t s w h i c h showed t h a t f o r i n t e r n a l i t y and g l o b a l i t y , a t l e a s t , the s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s were r e l i a b l e f o r n e g a t i v e , but not f o r p o s i t i v e e v e n t s . The s t a b i l i t y component of c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s proved t o be p r o b l e m a t i c , however, as the s e l f - e s t e e m e f f e c t approached s i g n i f i c a n c e on n e g a t i v e e v e n t s , but a l s o , was h i g h l y 8 9 s i g n i f i c a n t f o r p o s i t i v e e v e n t s . I t seems r e a s o n a b l e t o i n c l u d e i m p o r t a n c e , one measure of g e n e r a l i m p a c t , w i t h the p r e s e n t d i s c u s s i o n on c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s s i n c e any event which i s c o n s i d e r e d t o be p e r s o n a l l y i m p o r t a n t s h o u l d be i n t e r n a l i z e d . C o n v e r s e l y , any event which i s a t t r i b u t e d t o e x t e r n a l causes i s not l i k e l y t o g a i n the same degree of p e r s o n a l i m p o r t a n c e as an i n t e r n a l i z e d e v e n t . Thus, i n the Mood-Diary Study, i m p o r t a n c e g e n e r a l l y behaved l i k e the t h r e e a t t r i b u t i o n a l measures, b e i n g n e g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h s e l f - e s t e e m f o r n e g a t i v e e v e n t s , and p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h s e l f - e s t e e m f o r p o s i t i v e e v e n t s . Importance a d d i t i o n a l l y , r e v e a l e d an a s y m m e t r i c a l p a t t e r n s i m i l a r t o the t h r e e measures. Low s e l f - e s t e e m s u b j e c t s c l a i m e d n e g a t i v e e v e n t s were s u b s t a n t i a l l y more i m p o r t a n t than HSE s u b j e c t s , but HSE s u b j e c t s r e p o r t e d p o s i t i v e e v e n t s t o be i n s i g n i f i c a n t l y more i m p o r t a n t than LSE s u b j e c t s . U n l i k e the Mood-Diary S t u d y , the R o l e - P l a y i n g Study p r o v i d e d no e m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e f o r s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s . T h i s i s perhaps not s u r p r i s i n g g i v e n the f a c t t h a t s u b j e c t s i n t h i s s t u d y were not exposed t o a c t u a l feedback (as i n most p r e v i o u s e x p e r i m e n t s ) , but were i n s t r u c t e d t o p r e t e n d and v i c a r i o u s l y e x p e r i e n c e the e v e n t s r e p o r t e d by o t h e r s . N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e r e s t i l l e x i s t e d a main e f f e c t of s e l f - e s t e e m of the r a t e r on i m p o r t a n c e r a t i n g s , i m p l y i n g t h a t a l l e v e n t s , p o s i t i v e or n e g a t i v e , h e l d g r e a t e r r e l e v a n c e t o LSE than HSE r a t e r s . I n c o n c l u s i o n , the p r e d i c t i o n t h a t t h e r e a r e s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n the c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s of n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g e v e n t s appeared t o be amply s u p p o r t e d by the Mood-Diary Study r e s u l t s , but not by the outcomes from the R o l e - P l a y i n g Study. Moreover, e m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e f o r a s y m m e t r i c a l s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r r e a l - l i f e e v e n t s a l s o was f u r n i s h e d by the Mood-Diary Study on a t l e a s t two of the a t t r i b u t i o n a l measures ( i . e . , i n t e r n a l i t y and g l o b a l i t y ) and i m p o r t a n c e . The R o l e - P l a y i n g Study p r o v i d e d a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e i n f a v o u r of e s t e e m - r e l a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s i n the r a t e d i m p o r t a n c e of r e a l - l i f e e v e n t s . A l l t h e s e r e s u l t s argued c o n v i n c i n g l y a g a i n s t the l i f e - e v e n t s c o m p o s i t i o n model which p r e d i c t e d t h a t s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s would be g r e a t l y d i m i n i s h e d or n o n - e x i s t e n t w i t h a c t u a l l i f e - e v e n t s ( i . e . , t h e r e would be no s i g n i f i c a n t s e l f - e s t e e m X event type i n t e r a c t i o n f o r a t t r i b u t i o n s o f t h e s e e v e n t s ) . S e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n h a b i t u a t i o n . A c c o r d i n g t o the d e f e n s i v e - s t y l e s model, HSE s u b j e c t s s h o u l d be more accustomed t o r e c e i v i n g p o s i t i v e , s e l f - r e l e v a n t e v e n t s than LSE p r i m a r i l y due t o the s e l e c t i v e f i l t e r i n g out of n e g a t i v e e v e n t s as a r e s u l t of the employment of s e l f - p r o t e c t i v e s t r a t e g i e s on the p a r t of HSE people and t h e i r more pronounced c o g n i t i v e r e j e c t i o n ( e x t e r n a l i z a t i o n ) o f n e g a t i v e e v e n t s than LSE p e o p l e . Both Mood-Diary Study and R o l e - P l a y i n g Study p r e s e n t e d s u p p o r t f o r t h i s p r e d i c t i o n . I n the two s t u d i e s , LSE s u b j e c t s c l a i m e d t h a t a l l e v e n t s , r e g a r d l e s s of v a l e n c e , e x e r t e d a s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r impact on t h e i r c u r r e n t mood s t a t e s than d i d HSE s u b j e c t s . S i n c e t h e l i f e - e v e n t s c o m p o s i t i o n model a n t i c i p a t e d no s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n h a b i t u a t i o n ( i . e . , i m p a c t ) to r e a l - l i f e e v e n t s , the f a c t t h a t HSE s u b j e c t s or r a t e r s r e p o r t e d t h a t p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e e v e n t s were l e s s a f f e c t i v e l y i m p a c t f u l than LSE s u b j e c t s on r a t e r s r e p r e s e n t s a n o t h e r damaging p i e c e of 91 information for the model. Self-esteem differences i n mood v a r i a b i l i t y . The th i r d c r u c i a l assumption underlying the defensive-styles model i s that LSE indiv i d u a l s should exhibit greater v a r i a b i l i t y i n daily moods than HSE i n d i v i d u a l s . From the Mood-Diary Study, i t could be seen that self-esteem correlated p o s i t i v e l y and r e l i a b l y with the elevations ( i . e . , means) of the arousal and pleasantness dimensions of actual, naturally-occurring moods. This p a r t i c u l a r finding i s consistent with the predictions of the defensive-styles model and the lif e - e v e n t s composition model. With respect to mood v a r i a b i l i t y , (a) self-esteem did not correlate r e l i a b l y with extremity of mood along the pleasantness or arousal dimensions (but the corre l a t i o n s were i n the anticipated negative d i r e c t i o n ) , (b) self-esteem covaried negatively, but i n s i g n i f i c a n t l y , with the frequency of mood changes along the arousal dimension, and (c) self-esteem was r e l i a b l y and negatively correlated with frequency of changes in mood along the pleasantness dimension. Analyses of variance were b a s i c a l l y comparable to these c o r r e l a t i o n a l r e s u l t s i n that they demonstrated that (a) HSE subjects reported s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher elevations i n pleasantness and arousal than LSE subjects, (b) no self-esteem differences existed in terms of extremity along the pleasantness or arousal dimensions, and (c) LSE subjects reported a greater frequency of changes i n pleasantness than HSE subjects. In conclusion, the predictions derived from the defensive-styles explanation that d i f f e r e n t i a t e d t h i s model from the li f e - e v e n t s composition model, were supported, at least i n part, by evidence from either or both the Mood-Diary Study and the Role-Playing Study. C o n s i s t e n t w i t h the d e f e n s i v e - s t y l e s model, LSE s u b j e c t s p r o v i d e d more c h a r a c t e r o l o g i c a l c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r n e g a t i v e , d a i l y e v e n t s than HSE s u b j e c t s whereas HSE s u b j e c t s tended t o a t t r i b u t e p o s i t i v e e v e n t s t o more i n t e r n a l , s t a b l e , and g l o b a l f a c t o r s . I n a d d i t i o n , the e x p e c t e d asymmetry i n a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e e v e n t s was fo u n d . The i m p o r t a n c e r a t i n g s of e v e n t s mimicked the t h r e e a t t r i b u t i o n a l i t e m s . Low s e l f - e s t e e m s u b j e c t s r e p o r t e d t h a t n e g a t i v e e v e n t s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more i m p o r t a n t than HSE s u b j e c t s , but HSE s u b j e c t s tended t o f i n d p o s i t i v e e v e n t s t o be more i m p o r t a n t . A l s o p r e d i c t e d by the d e f e n s i v e - s t y l e s model was the f i n d i n g of l e s s h a b i t u a t i o n t o p o s i t i v e (and n e g a t i v e ) e v e n t s on the the p a r t of LSE s u b j e c t s than HSE s u b j e c t s . That i s , LSE s u b j e c t s c l a i m e d t h a t b o t h k i n d s of e v e n t s e i t h e r had (Mood-Diary Study) or would have had ( R o l e - P l a y i n g Study) a g r e a t e r impact on t h e i r c u r r e n t mood. F i n a l l y , e m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e e x i s t e d f o r the g r e a t e r f r e q u e n c y of changes a l o n g t h e p l e a s a n t n e s s d i m e n s i o n of d a i l y moods f o r LSE s u b j e c t s compared t o HSE s u b j e c t s . And a l t h o u g h the c o r r e l a t i o n was not r e l i a b l e , g r e a t e r e x t r e m i t y i n p l e a s a n t n e s s was a l s o found f o r LSE s u b j e c t s t han HSE s u b j e c t s . S e l f - e s t e e m D i f f e r e n c e s i n the E x t r e m i t y and Frequency o f Mood  Changes P a r t o f the s u p p o r t f o r the d e f e n s i v e - s t y l e s model was the e x i s t e n c e of s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n mood v a r i a b i l i t y . Two i m p o r t a n t i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h i s f i n d i n g a r e t h a t the o f t e n - r e p o r t e d e s t e e m - r e l a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s i n a f f e c t i v e e x t r e m i t y c o u l d be g e n e r a l i z e d t e m p o r a l l y and t h a t , s i n c e the Mood-Diary Study i n c o r p o r a t e d n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g e v e n t s and not 9 3 a r t i f i c i a l l y - c o n t r i v e d laboratory feedback, these differences in extremity could conceivably r e s u l t from responding to actual, l i f e - e v e n t s . With regards to the f i r s t implication, i t i s reasonable to anticipate that the more extreme s h i f t s i n mood by LSE subjects compared to HSE subjects at one time period w i l l r e s u l t i n more frequent fluctuations i n mood by LSE subjects compared to HSE subjects when mood swings are projected time-wise. Besides, there i s nothing i n the defensive-styles model to preclude the p o s s i b i l i t y that self-esteem differences i n mood v a r i a b i l i t y refer to both mood extremity and mood frequency. In fact, as previously noted, by d e f i n i t i o n , mood v a r i a b i l i t y includes v a r i a b i l i t y i n the amplitude of mood changes ( i . e . , mood extremity) and the p e r i o d i c i t y or inversely, the frequency of such mood swings across a given time i n t e r v a l . Despite the lo g i c underlying the expectation of observing self-esteem differences i n mood extremity and mood frequency, r e s u l t s from the Mood-Diary Study furnished only conclusive evidence for a negative re l a t i o n s h i p between self-esteem and the frequency at which there were any changes i n pleasantness ratings, and the frequency at which there were changes i n valence i n pleasantness ratings. The predicted association between self-esteem and the extremity of both pleasantness and arousal ratings were merely suggestive a l b e i t i n the anticipated negative d i r e c t i o n . One plausible explanation i s that because Mood-Diary Study participants were instructed to record their moods f i v e times a day for 14 days, or 70 times during the study, there were s u f f i c i e n t opportunities for HSE subjects to report a few extreme mood s h i f t s i n addition to their usually moderate s h i f t s . Since most experimenters, including the author, u t i l i z e d the 94 w i t h i n - s u b j e c t s s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n as the s t a t i s t i c a l i n d e x of average mood e x t r e m i t y ( L a r s e n , 1987), a s t a t i s t i c t h a t i s s e n s i t i v e to the pre s e n c e o f o u t l i e r s i n the d a t a , the mood e x t r e m i t y of HSE s u b j e c t s i s t h e r e f o r e , comparable t o t h a t of LSE s u b j e c t s . Hence, no s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e i n mood e x t r e m i t y i s the r e s u l t . The v a s t m a j o r i t y of s t u d i e s which have r e p o r t e d t h i s d i f f e r e n c e employed a b e t w e e n - s u b j e c t s d e s i g n . T h i s p e r m i t t e d t h e i r s u b j e c t s t o be exposed once t o i d e n t i c a l f a l s e f e e d b a c k , not v a r i o u s i n t e n s i t i e s of f a l s e f e e d b a c k . An a l t e r n a t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the l a c k of e s t e e m - r e l a t e d d i f f e r e n c e i n mood e x t r e m i t y i n the Mood-Diary Study a l s o i n v o l v e t h e common p r a c t i c e of u s i n g a b e t w e e n - s u b j e c t s d e s i g n f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of such d i f f e r e n c e . I n the l a b o r a t o r y , s u b j e c t s t y p i c a l l y a r e g i v e n e i t h e r e x t r e m e l y p o s i t i v e or e x t r e m e l y n e g a t i v e f e e d b a c k . H i g h and low s e l f - e s t e e m s u b j e c t s , as groups, t h e n , e x p e r i e n c e d b o t h k i n d s o f e x t r e m e l y v a l e n c e d f e e d b a c k . C o n s e q u e n t l y , any s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e i r a f f e c t i v e r e s p o n s e t o one-time o c c u r r e n c e s of th e s e feedback tended t o be a c c e n t u a t e d compared t o e s t e e m - r e l a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s i n e m o t i o n a l r e s p o n s e t o n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g e v e n t s i n the Mood-Diary Study, which u s u a l l y were m o d e r a t e l y p o s i t i v e or mo d e r a t e l y n e g a t i v e . Because a c t u a l l i f e - e v e n t s u s u a l l y a r e not as extreme as l a b o r a t o r y f e e d b a c k , i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t e x t r e m i t y of mood i s r e l a t i v e l y i n s e n s i t i v e t o s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n mood v a r i a b i l i t y . S e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s w i t h r e s p e c t t o the o t h e r d i m e n s i o n of mood v a r i a b i l i t y , namely, the f r e q u e n c y of mood f l u c t u a t i o n s , c o u l d s t i l l e x i s t . Low s e l f - e s t e e m i n d i v i d u a l s swung i n mood more 95 f r e q u e n t l y s i n c e both p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e e v e n t s a f f e c t e d LSE people e m o t i o n a l l y . The r e s u l t s from the Mood-Diary Study, i n es s e n c e , d e p i c t e d the t y p i c a l p a t t e r n o f a f f e c t i v e r esponse t o n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g e v e n t s of HSE i n d i v i d u a l s as a waveform w i t h (a) a l o n g e r p e r i o d ( t o account f o r s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n f r e q u e n c y of changes i n p l e a s a n t n e s s ) , (b) an i n s i g n i f i c a n t l y s h o r t e r a m p l i t u d e ( t o a c c o u nt f o r the u n r e l i a b l e n e g a t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between s e l f - e s t e e m and e x t r e m i t y i n p l e a s a n t n e s s r a t i n g s ) , and ( c ) a h i g h e r e l e v a t i o n ( t o account f o r the s i g n i f i c a n t s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n mean p l e a s a n t n e s s ) than the waveform o f LSE i n d i v i d u a l s . (The o r d i n a t e i s the di m e n s i o n of mood, s p e c i f i c a l l y p l e a s a n t n e s s , w h i l e the a b s c i s s a i s the d i m e n s i o n o f t i m e . ) S e l f - e s t e e m , S e l f - c o m p l e x i t y , and Mood V a r i a b i l i t y E x p l o r a t o r y i n n a t u r e , the t h i r d purpose o f the p r e s e n t t h e s i s i s a l s o a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the i s s u e of s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n mood v a r i a b i l i t y . To be s p e c i f i c , m a i n l y due t o L i n v i l l e ' s (1982) r e p o r t of a n e g a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between c o m p l e x i t y of the s e l f - r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ( o p e r a t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d as the number of "nodes o f a t r e e " produced from a h i e r a r c h i c a l c l u s t e r i n g program, ADDTREE) and mood e x t r e m i t y ( i . e . , t h e w i t h i n - s u b j e c t s s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of m o o d - r a t i n g s ) , i t was of i n t e r e s t t o examine i f the i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e v a r i a b l e o f s e l f - e s t e e m would be r e l a t e d t o s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y s i n c e i t was h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t s e l f - e s t e e m would be r e l a t e d t o v a r i a b i l i t y i n mood. S t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s e s of the d a t a g e n e r a t e d from the Mood-Diary Study c o n f i r m e d not o n l y t h a t s e l f - e s t e e m was r e l i a b l y and p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the two t r a d i t i o n a l measures of s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y 96 ( i . e . , S c o t t ' s H and NDIM) and ZAVER, and t h a t t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t s e l f - e s t e e m main e f f e c t on t h e s e t h r e e measures, but a l s o t h a t S c o t t ' s H and NDIM resembled s e l f - e s t e e m i n (a) t h e i r p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h the e l e v a t i o n i n p l e a s a n t n e s s ( n o t a r o u s a l ) , (b) t h e i r n e g a t i v e c o v a r i a t i o n w i t h t h e two f r e q u e n c y of changes measures i n p l e a s a n t n e s s ( n o t a r o u s a l ) , and ( c ) t h e i r g e n e r a l l y u n r e l i a b l e , but n e g a t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h t h e e x t r e m i t y i n p l e a s a n t n e s s and a r o u s a l — e i t h e r w i t h i n the day, a c r o s s days, o r o v e r a l l . The r e a s o n s f o r t h e n o n - r e p l i c a t i o n o f L i n v i l l e ' s f i n d i n g s have a l r e a d y been d i s c u s s e d i n the R e s u l t s s e c t i o n . Moreover, t h e r e i s some e v i d e n c e i n s u p p o r t o f her h y p o t h e s i s i n terms of f r e q u e n c y o f mood changes. Perhaps of g r e a t e s t i n t e r e s t , however, i s the t i g h t meshing o f s e l f - e s t e e m and the two s t a n d a r d measures of s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y . I n d i v i d u a l s w i t h h i g h s e l f - e s t e e m may be a b l e t o d e v e l o p and r e t a i n numerous a s p e c t s and f a c e t s of t h e i r s e l f - i d e n t i t y because they have e f f e c t i v e s e l f - p r o t e c t i v e d e f e n s e s , i n c l u d i n g a s t r o n g s e l f - s e r v i n g b i a s i n c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s , t h a t can ward o f f or n e u t r a l i z e t h r e a t e n i n g , s e l f - r e l e v a n t s t i m u l i from t h e i r e n v i r o n m e n t — s t i m u l i t h a t can d i s q u a l i f y p o s i t i v e f a c e t s of the s e l f . W i t h p l e n t y of d e s i r a b l e a s p e c t s of the s e l f i n t a c t , HSE people have g r e a t e r s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y than LSE people and t h i s , i n t u r n , l e a d s t o lower mood v a r i a b i l i t y (as L i n v i l l e h y p o t h e s i z e d ) . Low s e l f - e s t e e m i n d i v i d u a l s , on the o t h e r hand, a r e v u l n e r a b l e t o p o t e n t i a l l y damaging s t i m u l i t h a t can "er o d e " the p o s i t i v e f a c e t s of the s e l f due to t h e i r employment o f weak d e f e n s e s , and t h e i r d i s p o s i t i o n to blame n e g a t i v e , s e l f - r e l e v a n t e v e n t s on c h a r a c t e r o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s . Hence, LSE people g e n e r a l l y have lower s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y and a c o n c o m i t a n t 9 7 g r e a t e r mood v a r i a b i l i t y t h an HSE p e o p l e . S e l f - e s t e e m D i f f e r e n c e s i n A c t u a l L i f e - E v e n t s From the r e s u l t s of the Mood-Diary Study and the R o l e - P l a y i n g Study, t h e r e i s ample e v i d e n c e i n s u p p o r t of the d e f e n s i v e - s t y l e s e x p l a n a t i o n of mood v a r i a b i l i t y ( a t l e a s t , mood f r e q u e n c y ) d i f f e r e n c e s between HSE and LSE i n d i v i d u a l s . As p r e v i o u s l y n o t e d , the p r e d i c t i o n s u n d e r l y i n g t h i s model were s u b s t a n t i a t e d — t h e n o t i o n t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s v a r y i n g i n s e l f - e s t e e m made d i s t i n c t l y d i f f e r e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s and c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r v a l e n c e d , n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g e v e n t s , t h a t HSE i n d i v i d u a l s were h a b i t u a t e d t o p o s i t i v e (and n e g a t i v e ) e v e n t s whereas LSE i n d i v i d u a l s were n o t , and t h a t LSE pe o p l e r e p o r t e d g r e a t e r v a r i a b i l i t y i n mood than HSE pe o p l e ( a t l e a s t , i n terms o f the f r e q u e n c y o f changes o f the p l e a s a n t n e s s d i m e n s i o n o f mood). N o n e t h e l e s s , t h e r e was some s u p p o r t f o r the n o t i o n t h a t HSE and LSE i n d i v i d u a l s may d i f f e r i n the k i n d s o f d a i l y e v e n t s they t y p i c a l l y e n c o u n t e r . The impetus f o r t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y o r i g i n a t e s from t h e f i n d i n g i n the R o l e - P l a y i n g Study t h a t w h i l e n a i v e r a t e r s viewed the e v e n t s p r o v i d e d by the HSE and LSE Mood-Diary Study c o n t r i b u t o r s as b e i n g a p p r o x i m a t e l y e q u i v a l e n t i n terms o f p o s i t i v i t y / n e g a t i v i t y , t h e s e same r a t e r s c o n s i d e r e d the p o s i t i v e e v e n t s of HSE s o u r c e s t o be more i m p o r t a n t than t h e p o s i t i v e e v e n t s of LSE s o u r c e s , and the n e g a t i v e e v e n t s g i v e n by LSE s o u r c e s t o be more i m p o r t a n t than the n e g a t i v e e v e n t s c o n t r i b u t e d by HSE s o u r c e s . To d e t e r m i n e how t h i s s e l f - e s t e e m of s o u r c e X event type i n t e r a c t i o n i n i m p o r t a n c e r a t i n g s c o u l d a r i s e g i v e n no e f f e c t s f o r s e l f - e s t e e m o f so u r c e on p o s i t i v i t y / n e g a t i v i t y r a t i n g s , the c o n t e n t a n a l y s i s on the d i s t i n c t kinds of events experienced by HSE and LSE Mood-Diary Study subjects was i l l u m i n a t i n g . Despite a lack of s i g n i f i c a n t differences between HSE and LSE subjects in terms of the d i s t r i b u t i o n s of positive and of negative events, the analysis revealed that HSE authors provided numerically more personally mediated or instigated happenings ( i . e . , academic/scholastic-related a c t i v i t i e s ) for positive events than LSE authors while the l a t t e r selected more externally mediated happenings as positive events than the former. In other words, HSE authors described more po s i t i v e , academic/scholastic events while LSE authors described more negative events of this type. In addition, HSE authors offered more negative, externally mediated events while LSE authors offered more positive events of this type. Two plausible interpretions of these p a r t i c u l a r r e s u l t s e x i s t , although they must await a future study to be tested e m p i r i c a l l y . The f i r s t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s that HSE and LSE in d i v i d u a l s do have d i f f e r e n t patterns of actual l i f e - e v e n t s . High self-esteem people, for whatever reason, tend to experience more positive events that are mainly brought about by their personal dispositions and actions (e.g., academic achievements) than through some external circumstance, others, or their environment. On the other hand, ind i v i d u a l s with low self-esteem are i n c l i n e d to find more successful and positive experiences that develop from "outside intervention" and situations than from within themselves. Although both can be equally positive or negative, personally mediated occurrences (e.g., earning a high grade on an exam) carry more i n t r i n s i c s i g n i f i c a n c e than externally mediated happenings ( e . g . , w i n n i n g 50 d o l l a r s ) because the former have i m p o r t a n t i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r one's f u t u r e outcome whereas the l a t t e r do n o t . C o n s e q u e n t l y , because HSE s u b j e c t s r e p o r t e d more p o s i t i v e , p e r s o n a l l y mediated e v e n t s than n e g a t i v e , p e r s o n a l l y mediated e v e n t s , n a i v e r a t e r s n a t u r a l l y would r a t e the p o s i t i v e e v e n t s of HSE s o u r c e s as more i m p o r t a n t than the p o s i t i v e e v e n t s of LSE s o u r c e s ( w h i c h tended t o be e x t e r n a l l y m e d i a t e d ) . F o l l o w i n g t h i s same l o g i c , s i n c e LSE s u b j e c t s r e p o r t e d more n e g a t i v e than p o s i t i v e , p e r s o n a l l y mediated e v e n t s , i t f o l l o w s t h a t r a t e r s would r a t e the n e g a t i v e e v e n t s of LSE s u b j e c t s to be more i m p o r t a n t than the n e g a t i v e ( p r e d o m i n a n t l y e x t e r n a l l y mediated) e v e n t s of HSE s u b j e c t s . B e f o r e g i v i n g w h o l e - h e a r t e d a c c e p t a n c e t o t h i s e v i d e n c e f o r e s t e e m - r e l a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s i n the c o m p o s i t i o n of a c t u a l l i f e - e v e n t s , i t i s a p p r o p r i a t e a t t h i s time t o r e c a l l t h a t the d e f e n s i v e - s t y l e s model has accumulated s u b s t a n t i a l s u p p o r t i n the p r e s e n t t h e s i s . I n a d d i t i o n , s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n the c o g n i t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s and c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s of s e l f - r e l e v a n t e v e n t s can p r o v i d e an a l t e r n a t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the s e l f - e s t e e m of s o u r c e X event type i n t e r a c t i o n on i m p o r t a n c e r a t i n g s . U n l i k e the l i f e - e v e n t s c o m p o s i t i o n model which p o s t u l a t e d t h a t t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n i s due t o c o n s i s t e n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the t y p e s of a c t u a l l i f e - e v e n t s t h a t HSE and LSE i n d i v i d u a l s have, the d e f e n s i v e - s t y l e s model s u g g e s t s t h a t a s e l e c t i o n b i a s i n r e p o r t i n g may have o c c u r r e d . S i n c e s u b j e c t s i n the Mood-Diary Study had complete freedom i n c h o o s i n g the e v e n t s t o be d e f i n e d as the most p o s i t i v e and most n e g a t i v e e x p e r i e n c e s of the day, the c h o i c e s t h a t s u b j e c t s u l t i m a t e l y made c o u l d c o n c e i v a b l y r e f l e c t t h e i r e s t e e m - r e l a t e d d e f e n s i v e s t y l e s . H i g h s e l f - e s t e e m 1 0 0 s u b j e c t s , f o r i n s t a n c e , would not n e c e s s a r i l y r e p o r t c e r t a i n u n f a v o u r a b l e , p e r s o n a l l y i m p o r t a n t o c c u r r e n c e s as b e i n g t h e i r most n e g a t i v e e v e n t s of the day u n l e s s t h e s e o c c u r r e n c e s d i d pose t h r e a t s to the s e l f . N e g a t i v e o c c u r r e n c e s which have p o t e n t i a l d e t r i m e n t a l i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the s e l f ( e . g . , f a i l i n g an e x a m i n a t i o n ) , would be made l e s s p o t e n t or l e s s v a l i d by s e l f - p r o t e c t i v e mechanisms, i n c l u d i n g c a u s a l l y a t t r i b u t i n g the o c c u r r e n c e s t o e x t e r n a l f a c t o r s ( e . g . , blaming t e s t f a i l u r e on the u n f a i r t e s t i n g methods or the incompetent p r e p a r a t i o n of the i n s t r u c t o r ) . Thus, t o HSE s u b j e c t s , p o t e n t i a l l y t h r e a t e n i n g e v e n t s t h a t a c t u a l l y o c c u r r e d ( e . g . , f a i l u r e on an i m p o r t a n t e x a m i n a t i o n ) may be viewed as not p a r t i c u l a r l y n e g a t i v e due t o t h e i r s t y l e of i n t e r p r e t i n g s e l f - r e l e v a n t , v a l e n c e d e v e n t s . C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e s e i n d i v i d u a l s might r e p o r t r e l a t i v e l y u n i m p o r t a n t , e x t e r n a l l y mediated o c c u r r e n c e s i n s t e a d ( e . g . , b e i n g n e a r l y h i t by a c a r ) as "the most n e g a t i v e d a i l y e v e n t s " . I n r e p o r t i n g the most p o s i t i v e e v e n t s of the day, no d e f e n s e s were r e q u i r e d s i n c e they posed a b s o l u t e l y no t h r e a t t o the s e l f and so, o c c u r r e n c e s which p r o b a b l y were the most p o s i t i v e happenings of the day tended t o be r e p o r t e d . I n the case of LSE Mood-Diary Study s u b j e c t s , e v e n t s which were n e g a t i v e , i m p o r t a n t ( s i n c e they i m p l i c a t e d the s e l f ) tended t o be r e c o r d e d as the most n e g a t i v e e v e n t s of the day m a i n l y because t h e s e i n d i v i d u a l s have i n e f f e c t i v e or c o u n t e r p r o d u c t i v e s e l f - p r o t e c t i v e s t r a t e g i e s , which i n c l u d e t h e i r making i n t e r n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r n e g a t i v e , s e l f - r e l e v a n t o c c u r r e n c e s . They, f o r example, more l i k e l y would r e p o r t a t e s t f a i l u r e over b e i n g a l m o s t h i t by a c a r as b e i n g the most n e g a t i v e event of the day because LSE p e o p l e a r e more c o g n i t i v e l y a c c e p t i n g of i n f o r m a t i o n which i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e i r s e l f - e x p e c t a n c i e s , and any i n f o r m a t i o n which i n v o l v e s the s e l f g a i n s g r e a t e r s a l i e n c y than i n f o r m a t i o n which does n o t . Due t o the asymmetry i n the c o g n i t i v e a c c e p t a n c e of p o s i t i v e v e r s u s n e g a t i v e , s e l f - r e l e v a n t o c c u r r e n c e s , however, LSE s u b j e c t s might a l s o i n t e r n a l i z e and hence, r e p o r t t h e i r most p o s i t i v e and i m p o r t a n t o c c u r r e n c e s as t h e i r most p o s i t i v e e v e n t s of the day. The a l m o s t o r d i n a l n a t u r e of the s e l f - e s t e e m of s o u r c e X event type i n t e r a c t i o n on i m p o r t a n c e r a t i n g s (see F i g u r e I I ) c l e a r l y s u g g e s t s t h a t s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n r a t e d i m p o r t a n c e were more pronounced f o r n e g a t i v e e v e n t s than f o r p o s i t i v e e v e n t s . I n o r d e r t o a s c e r t a i n which model p r o v i d e s a more cogent e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n , methods must be d e v e l o p e d t o a v o i d the p o s s i b i l i t y o f a s e l e c t i o n b i a s i n s u b j e c t s ' r e p o r t i n g of p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e , n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g e v e n t s . Two approaches t h a t may be employed i n f u t u r e e x p e r i m e n t s i n c l u d e h a v i n g s u b j e c t s e q u a l i z e t h e i r r e p o r t e d e v e n t s a c r o s s a f i x e d number of c a t e g o r i e s , and h a v i n g them r e c o u n t e v e n t s t h a t o c c u r r e d a t a f i x e d time randomly s e l e c t e d by the e x p e r i m e n t e r . W i t h r e g a r d s t o the f i r s t a p p r o a c h , s u b j e c t s are i n s t r u c t e d t o r e p o r t a t the end of the day, t h e i r most p o s i t i v e and most n e g a t i v e e v e n t s i n each of s e v e r a l c a t e g o r i e s , such as a c a d e m i c / s c h o l a s t i c , s o c i a l / i n t e r p e r s o n a l , a t h l e t i c / r e c r e a t i o n a l / h e a l t h , and e x t e r n a l l y m e d i a t e d . By f o r c i n g s u b j e c t s to e q u a l i z e t h e i r r e p o r t i n g of e v e n t s a c r o s s s p e c i f i c c a t e g o r i e s , the e x p e r i m e n t e r can d r a m a t i c a l l y reduce the chances of i n d i v i d u a l s s e l e c t i n g p a r t i c u l a r c a t e g o r i e s because a t t r i b u t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s l e d t o a r e d e f i n i t i o n of "most" p o s i t i v e or n e g a t i v e . 102 The second approach t o e r a d i c a t e or l e s s e n the p o s s i b i l i t y of s e l e c t i o n b i a s i n v o l v e s i n s t r u c t i n g s u b j e c t s t o r e c o u n t an " e v e n t " ( t o be o p e r a t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d by the e x p e r i m e n t e r ) t h a t i s o c c u r r i n g or has j u s t f i n i s h e d o c c u r r i n g a t a f i x e d time randomly p r e a s s i g n e d by the e x p e r i m e n t e r . Thus, s u b j e c t s have no o p p o r t u n i t y t o s e l e c t t h e e v e n t s t o r e p o r t because they have no c h o i c e of when t o r e p o r t t h e i r e v e n t s . T h i s p r o c e d u r e a g a i n , e q u a l i z e s t h e k i n d s o f ev e n t s t h a t a r e r e p o r t e d . C o n c l u s i o n W i t h the t h r e e p r e d i c t i o n s of the d e f e n s i v e - s t y l e s h y p o t h e s i s e m p i r i c a l l y s u p p o r t e d i n the p r e s e n t t h e s i s , t h e r e i s ample e v i d e n c e t h a t even i n n o n - l a b o r a t o r y s i t u a t i o n s , s u b s t a n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n the c o g n i t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s and c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e e v e n t s e x i s t between HSE and LSE i n d i v i d u a l s . E v i d e n c e i s a l s o p r e s e n t from both the Mood-Diary Study and the R o l e - P l a y i n g Study t h a t a l l v a l e n c e d , s e l f - r e l e v a n t e v e n t s , i n g e n e r a l , have more of an a f f e c t i v e impact on LSE people and t h a t they tend t o a t t r i b u t e more p e r s o n a l i m p o r t a n c e t o e v e n t s than HSE p e o p l e . G i v e n t h i s , i t seems r e a s o n a b l e t h a t one would see f o r LSE i n d i v i d u a l s , g r e a t e r v a r i a b i l i t y i n n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g moods, a t l e a s t i n terms o f the f r e q u e n c y of changes i n p l e a s a n t n e s s . I n o t h e r words, s i n c e people w i t h low s e l f - e s t e e m f i n d b a s i c a l l y a l l e v e n t s — p o s i t i v e or n e g a t i v e — t h a t o c c u r to them i m p o r t a n t and a f f e c t i v e l y i m p a c t f u l r e l a t i v e t o HSE p e o p l e , LSE people w i l l respond t o the s e e v e n t s by h a v i n g more mood f l u c t u a t i o n s a c r o s s the day. W h i l e HSE i n d i v i d u a l s e x h i b i t the same e x t r e m i t y ( a m p l i t u d e ) of mood changes, t o a c t u a l l i f e - e v e n t s they w i l l f l u c t u a t e e m o t i o n a l l y on a much more s t a b l e manner due t o t h e i r r e l a t i v e " i n s e n s i t i v i t y " t o t h e i r e v e n t s i n terms of p e r s o n a l i m p o r t a n c e and im p a c t . D e s p i t e overwhelming e v i d e n c e i n f a v o u r of the d e f e n s i v e - s t y l e s model, t he competing l i f e - e v e n t s c o m p o s i t i o n model i s s t i l l p o t e n t i a l l y v i a b l e . The p o s s i b i l i t y remains t h a t the l i v e s of LSE and HSE people t y p i c a l l y d i f f e r , but they a l s o may n o t , g i v e n the p o s s i b i l i t y of s e l e c t i o n b i a s i n s u b j e c t s ' c h o o s i n g what e v e n t s they have d e f i n e d t o be t h e i r most p o s i t i v e and most n e g a t i v e e x p e r i e n c e on the b a s i s of d i f f e r e n c e s i n d e f e n s i v e s t y l e s . I t s h o u l d be mentioned t h a t t h i s p r o j e c t p r o v i d e s some unique c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o the a l r e a d y s i z e a b l e l i t e r a t u r e on s e l f - e s t e e m and mood v a r i a b i l i t y . F i r s t , i t r e v e a l s t h a t e s t e e m - r e l a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s i n c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s may be found w i t h d a i l y r e a l - l i f e e v e n t s , not j u s t f a l s e e x p e r i m e n t a l f e e d b a c k . Second, i t i n d i c a t e s t h a t s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n the v a r i a b i l i t y of n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g moods a p p l y more t o the f r e q u e n c y d i m e n s i o n o f mood v a r i a b i l i t y , not e x t r e m i t y ; and t o the p l e a s a n t n e s s d i m e n s i o n o f mood, not a r o u s a l . T h i r d , i t p r o v i d e s e v i d e n c e f o r s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n h a b i t u a t i o n or a f f e c t i v e i m p a c t . F i n a l l y , i t b r i n g s f o r t h e v i d e n c e , a l b e i t p r e s e n t l y q u e s t i o n a b l e , t h a t the l i v e s o f i n d i v i d u a l s may d i f f e r depending on t h e i r s e l f - e s t e e m . REFERENCES Aderman, D. ( 1 9 7 2 ) . E l a t i o n , d e p r e s s i o n , and h e l p i n g b e h a v i o u r . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 24, 91-101. A d l e r , A. (19 2 7 ) . The p r a c t i c e and t h e o r y o f i n d i v i d u a l p s y c h o l o g y . New York: H a r c o u r t . A r k i n , R., Cooper, H. , & K o l d i t z , T. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . A s t a t i s t i c a l r e v i e w of the l i t e r a t u r e c o n c e r n i n g t h e s e l f - s e r v i n g a t t r i b u t i o n b i a s i n i n t e r p e r s o n a l i n f l u e n c e s e t t i n g s . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y , 48, 435-448. Aronson, E. ( 1 9 6 8 ) . D i s s o n a n c e t h e o r y : P r o g r e s s and problems. I n R. P. A b e l s o n , E. Aronson, W. J . McGu i r e , T. M. Newcomb, M. J . Rosenberg, & P. H. Tannenbaum ( E d s . ) , T h e o r i e s of c o g n i t i v e  c o n s i s t e n c y : k_ sourcebook. C h i c a g o : Rand M c N a l l y . Aronson, E. & C a r l s m i t h , J.M. ( 1 9 6 2 ) . Performance e x p e c t a n c y as a d e t e r m i n a n t of a c t u a l p erformance. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and  S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 65, 178-182. Beck, A.T. ( 1 9 6 7 ) . D e p r e s s i o n : C l i n i c a l , e x p e r i m e n t a l , and  t h e o r e t i c a l a s p e c t s . New York: Hoeber. B e r g l a s , S., & J o n e s , E.E. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . Drug c h o i c e as a s e l f - h a n d i c a p p i n g s t r a t e g y i n resp o n s e t o n o n - c o n t i n g e n t s u c c e s s . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 36, 405-417. B i e l i a u s k a s , L.A., & Webb, J.T. ( 1 9 7 4 ) . The s o c i a l r e a d j u s t m e n t r a t i n g s c a l e : V a l i d i t y i n a c o l l e g e p o p u l a t i o n . J o u r n a l of  Ps y c h o s o m a t i c R e s e a r c h , 18, 115-123. Brehn, M. & Bask, W. ( 1 9 6 8 ) . S e l f - i m a g e and a t t i t u d e s towards d r u g s . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y , 36, 299-314. Brewer, D., D o u g h t i e , E.B., & L u b i n , B. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . I n d u c t i o n o f mood and mood s h i f t . J o u r n a l o f C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 36, 215-226. B r o c k n e r , J . ( 1 9 7 9 ) . The e f f e c t s of s e l f - e s t e e m , s u c c e s s - f a i l u r e , and s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s on t a s k performance. J o u r n a l of  P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 37, 1732-1741. Buchwald, A.M., S t r a c k , S., & Coyne, J.C. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . Demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and the V e l t e n Mood I n d u c t i o n P r o c e d u r e . J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 49, 478-479. C a m p b e l l , J.D. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . P e r s o n a l communication. C a m p b e l l , J.D. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . S e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n the u t i l i z a t i o n o f s e l f - p r o t e c t i v e s t r a t e g i e s . U n p u b l i s h e d g r a n t p r o p o s a l . U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . 105 C a m p b e l l , J.D., & F a i r e y , P.T. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . E f f e c t s o f s e l f - e s t e e m , h y p o t h e t i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n s , and v e r b a l i z a t i o n s of e x p e c t a n c i e s on f u t u r e performance. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l  P s y c h o l o g y , 48, 1097-1111. C h r i s t e n s e n , L.B. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . E x p e r i m e n t a l methodology (Second E d i t i o n ) . T o r o n t o : A l l y n & Bacon, I n c . Church, M.A., T r u s s , C.V., & V e l i c e r , W.F. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . S t r u c t u r e of the J a n i s - F i e l d F e e l i n g s of Inadequacy S c a l e . P e r c e p t u a l and Motor  S k i l l s , 50, 935-939. Cohen, A.R. ( 1 9 5 9 ) . Some i m p l i c a t i o n s o f s e l f - e s t e e m f o r s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e . I n I . L . J a n i s e t . a l . ( E d s . ) , P e r s o n a l i t y and  p e r s u a s i b i l i t y . New Haven, Conn.: Y a l e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Coleman, R.E. ( 1 9 7 5 ) . M a n i p u l a t i o n of s e l f - e s t e e m as a d e t e r m i n a n t of mood o f e l a t e d and de p r e s s e d woman. J o u r n a l o f Abnormal  P s y c h o l o g y , 84, 693-700. C o o p e r s m i t h , S. ( 1 9 6 7 ) . The a n t e c e d e n t s of s e l f - e s t e e m . San F r a n c i s c o : Freeman. C r a n d a l l , R. ( 1 9 7 3 ) . The measurement of s e l f - e s t e e m and r e l a t e d c o n s t r u c t s . I n J . Robinson & P. Shaver ( E d s . ) , Measures of  s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l a t t i t u d e s . Ann A r b o r , M i c h . : I n s t i t u t e f o r S o c i a l R e s e a r c h . C r a r y , W.G. ( 1 9 6 6 ) . R e a c t i o n s t o i n c o n g r u e n t s e l f - e x p e r i e n c e s . J o u r n a l o f C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 30, 246-252. DePaulo, B., Brown, P., I s h i i , S., & F i s h e r , J . ( 1 9 8 1 ) . Help t h a t works: The e f f e c t s of a i d on subsequent t a s k performance. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 41, 478-487. D i e n e r , C . I . , & Dweck, C.S. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . An a n a l y s i s o f l e a r n e d h e l p l e s s n e s s : C o n t i n u o u s changes i n performance, s t r a t e g y , and achievement c o g n i t i o n s f o l l o w i n g f a i l u r e . J o u r n a l o f  P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 36, 451-462. D i g g a r y , J.C., K l e i n , S . J . , & Cohen, N.M. ( 1 9 6 4 ) . M u s c l e a c t i o n p o t e n t i a l s and e s t i m a t e d p r o b a b i l i t y of s u c c e s s . J o u r n a l of  Abnormal and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 59, 77-82. D o r i s , J . ( 1 9 5 9 ) . T e s t a n x i e t y and blame assignment i n grade s c h o o l c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l of Abnormal and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 58, 181-190. E a g l y , H.A. ( 1 9 6 7 ) . Involvement as a d e t e r m i n a n t of response t o f a v o u r a b l e and u n f a v o u r a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y  and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , Monograph, 7, Whole No. 643. Eckenrode, J . ( 1 9 8 4 ) . Impact of c h r o n i c and a c u t e s t r e s s o r s on d a i l y r e p o r t s of mood. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 106 43, 67-77. E p s t e i n , S. ( 1 9 7 3 ) . The s e l f - c o n c e p t r e v i s i t e d : or a t h e o r y of a t h e o r y . American P s y c h o l o g i s t , 28, 404-416. F e a t h e r , N.T. ( 1 9 6 9 ) . A t t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and v a l e n c e o f s u c c e s s and f a i l u r e i n r e l a t i o n t o i n i t i a l c o n f i d e n c e and t a s k performance. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 13, 129-144. Feshbach, S., & Weiner, B. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . P e r s o n a l i t y . T o r o n t o : D.C. Heath and Company. F e s t i n g e r , L. ( 1 9 5 7 ) . A t h e o r y o f c o g n i t i v e d i s s o n a n c e . E v a n s t o n , 111.: Row, P a t e r s o n . F r e u d , S. ( 1 9 5 7 ) . Mourning and m e l a n c h o l i a . I n J . S t r a c h e y (Ed. and T r a n s . ) , S t a n d a r d e d i t i o n o f the complete p s y c h o l o g i c a l works o f  Sigmund Freud ( V o l . 14, pp. 243-258). London: H o g a r t h . ( O r i g i n a l l y p u b l i s h e d , 1917). F r e i z e , I.H. ( 1 9 7 6 ) . C a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s and i n f o r m a t i o n s e e k i n g t o e x p l a i n s u c c e s s and f a i l u r e . J o u r n a l of R e s e a r c h i n  P e r s o n a l i t y , 10, 293-305. F r o s t , R.O., G r a f , M., & B e c k e r , J . ( 1 9 7 9 ) . S e l f - d e v a l u a t i o n and dep r e s s e d mood. J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y ,  47, 958-962. Gibb o n s , F.X., & W i c k l u n d , R.A. ( 1 9 7 6 ) . S e l e c t i v e exposure t o s e l f . J o u r n a l o f Re s e a r c h i n P e r s o n a l i t y , 10, 98-106. G l a s s , D.C. ( 1 9 6 8 ) . T h e o r i e s o f c o n s i s t e n c y and the s t u d y o f p e r s o n a l i t y . I n E.F. B o r g a t t a & W.W. Lambert ( E d s . ) , Handbook  o f p e r s o n a l i t y t h e o r y and r e s e a r c h . C h i c a g o : Rand M c N a l l y , 788-854. Goodwin, A.M., & W i l l i a m s , J.M.G. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . M o o d - i n d u c t i o n r e s e a r c h — i t s i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r c l i n i c a l d e p r e s s i o n . B e h a v i o u r a l  R e s e a r c h and Therapy, 20, 373-382. Gouaux, C , & Gouaux, S.W. ( 1 9 7 1 ) . The i n f l u e n c e of i n d u c e d a f f e c t i v e s t a t e s on the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of s o c i a l and n o n s o c i a l r e i n f o r c e r s i n an i n s t r u m e n t a l l e a r n i n g t a s k . Psychonomic  S c i e n c e , 22, 341-343. Greenberg, J . , P y s z c z y n s k i , T., & Solomon, S. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . The s e l f - s e r v i n g a t t r i b u t i o n a l b i a s : Beyond s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n . J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 18, 56-67. G r o s s c u p , S . J . , & Lewinsohn, P.M. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . U n p l e a s a n t and p l e a s a n t e v e n t s , and mood. J o u r n a l o f C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 36, 252-259. Gruder, C.L. ( 1 9 7 7 ) . C h o i c e o f comparison persons i n e v a l u a t i n g 107 oneself . In J . M . Suis & R . L . M i l l e r ( E d s . ) , S o c i a l comparison  processes: T h e o r e t i c a l and empir ica l perspect ives . Washington, D . C : Hemisphere. Hamachek, D. (1971). Encounters with the s e l f . New York: H o l t , Rinehart , & Winston. Hayes-Roth, B . , & Hayes-Roth, F . (1977). Concept learning and recogni t ion and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of exemplars. Journal of Verbal  Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 16, 321-338. Heider , F . (1958). The psychology of in terpersonal r e l a t i o n s . New York: Wiley . Helmreich, R . , Aronson, E . , & Lefan, J . (1970). To err i s humanizing—sometimes: Ef f ec t s of self-esteem, competence, and a p r a t f a l l on in terpersonal a t t r a c t i o n . Journal of Persona l i ty  and S o c i a l Psychology, 16, 259-264. Henderson, J . R . , & Lohr , J . M . (1982). The ef fect of statement valence and referent content upon mood and anagram performance. Cognit ive Therapy and Research, 6, 461-464. Holmes, D.S . (1970). D i f f e r e n t i a l change i n a f f e c t i v e i n t e n s i t y and the forget t ing of unpleasant pesonal experiences. Journal of  Personal i ty and S o c i a l Psychology, 15, 234-239. Holmes, T . H . , & Rahe, R . H . (1967). The s o c i a l readjustment r a t i n g sca le . Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 11, 213-218. H u r l b u r t , R . T . , Lech, B . C . , & Saltman, S. (1984). Random sampling of thought and mood. Cognit ive Therapy and Research, 8, 263-275. I lgen , D. (1971). S a t s i f a c t i o n with performance as a funct ion of the i n i t i a l l e v e l of expected performance and the deviat ion from expectat ions . Organizat ional Behaviour and Human Performance, 6j. 345-361. Jacobs, L . , Berscheid , E . , & Walster, E . (1971). Self-esteem and a t t r a c t i o n . Journal of Personal i ty and S o c i a l Psychology, 17, 84-91. J e r s i l d , A. (1931). Memory for the unpleasant as compared with the pleasant. Journal of Experimental Psychology, l4, 284-288. Jones, S . C . (1973). Se l f and in terpersonal evaluat ions: Esteem theories versus consistency theor ies . Psycholog ica l B u l l e t i n ,  79, 185-199. Judd, C M . , & Lusk, C M . (1984). Knowledge s tructures and evaluat ive judgments: Ef f ec t s of s t r u c t u r a l var iab les on judgmental extremity. Journal of Personal i ty and S o c i a l Psychology, 46, 1193-1207. 108 K a p l a n , H.B. ( 1 9 7 5 ) . P r e v a l e n c e of the s e l f - e s t e e m m o t i v e . I n H.B. K a p l a n ( E d . ) , S e l f - a t t i t u d e s and d e v i a n t b e h a v i o r . P a c i f i c P a l i s a d e s , C.A.: Goodyear P u b l i s h i n g Company. K i d d , R.F., & M a r s h a l l , L. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . S e l f - r e f l e c t i o n , mood, and h e l p f u l b e h a v i o r . J o u r n a l of R e s e a r c h i n P e r s o n a l i t y , 16, 319-334. K i e s l e r , S.B., & B a r a l , R.L. ( 1 9 7 0 ) . The s e a r c h f o r a r o m a n t i c p a r t n e r : The e f f e c t s o f s e l f - e s t e e m and p h y s i c a l a t t r a c t i v e n e s s on r o m a n t i c b e h a v i o r . I n K . J . Gergen & D. Marlowe ( E d s . ) , P e r s o n a l i t y and s o c i a l b e h a v i o r . R e a d i n g , Mass: Addison-Wesley. K i m b l e , C , & H e l m r e i c h , R. ( 1 9 7 2 ) . S e l f - e s t e e m and the need f o r s o c i a l a p p r o v a l . Psychonomic S c i e n c e , 26, 239-242. K l i n g e r , E. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . Modes of normal c o n s c i o u s f l o w . I n K.S. Pope & J. L . S i n g e r ( E d s . ) , The strea m of c o n s c i o u s n e s s : S c i e n t i f i c  i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o the f l o w o f human e x p e r i e n c e . New York: Plenum. Korman, A.K. ( 1 9 6 8 ) . Task s u c c e s s , t a s k p o p u l a r i t y , and s e l f - e s t e e m as i n f l u e n c e on t a s k l i k i n g . J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y , 52, 484-490. L a r s e n , R.J. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . The s t a b i l i t y of mood v a r i a b i l i t y : A s p e c t r a l a n a l y t i c approach t o d a i l y mood as s e s s m e n t s . J o u r n a l o f  P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 52, 1195-1204. L a r s o n , R., C s i k s z e n t m i h a l y i , M., & G r a e f , R. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . Mood v a r i a b i l i t y and the p s y c h o s o c i a l adjustment of a d o l e s c e n t s . J o u r n a l o f Youth and A d o l e s c e n c e , 9, 469-490. L i n v i l l e , P.W. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . A f f e c t i v e consequences o f c o m p l e x i t y r e g a r d i n g the s e l f and o t h e r s (Chapt. 4 ) . I n M.S. C l a r k & S.T. F i s k e ( E d s . ) , A f f e c t and c o g n i t i v e : The s e v e n t e e n t h a n n u a l  C a r n e g i e Symposium on C o g n i t i o n . H i l l s d a l e , New J e r s e y : Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s . L i n v i l l e , P.W., & J o n e s , E.E. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . P o l a r i z e d a p p r a i s a l s o f outgroup members. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 38, 689-703. L l o y d , G.G., & Lishman, W.A. ( 1 9 7 5 ) . E f f e c t o f d e p r e s s i o n on the speed o f r e c a l l o f p l e a s a n t and u n p l e a s a n t e x p e r i e n c e . P s y c h o l o g i c a l M e d i c i n e , 5^ , 173-180. M c F a r l a n e , J . ( 1 9 8 5 ) . A c t u a l and p e r c e i v e d mood f l u c t u a t i o n s : A comparison o f m e n s t r u a l , weekday, and l u n a r c y c l e s . U n p u b l i s h e d masters t h e s i s . U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . M c F a r l i n , D.B., & B l a s c o v i c h , J . ( 1 9 8 1 ) . E f f e c t s o f s e l f - e s t e e m and performance feedback on f u t u r e a f f e c t i v e p r e f e r e n c e s and 109 c o g n i t i v e e x p e c t a t i o n s . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l  P s y c h o l o g y , 40, 521-531. M c N a i r , D.M., L o r r , M., & Droppleman, L.F. ( 1 9 7 1 ) . P r o f i l e of mood s t a t e s . San D i e g o , C a l i f . : E d d u c a t i o n a l and I n d u s t r i a l T e s t i n g S e r v i c e . M e l t z e r , H. ( 1 9 3 1 ) . Sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n f o r g e t t i n g p l e a s a n t and u n p l e a s a n t e x p e r i e n c e s . J o u r n a l of Abnormal and S o c i a l  P s y c h o l o g y , 25, 450-464. M i l l a r , M.G., & T e s s e r , A. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . Thought-induced a t t i t u d e change: The e f f e c t s of schema s t r u c t u r e and commitment. J o u r n a l of  P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 5 1 ( 2 ) , 259-269. M i l l i m e t , C.R., & Gardner, D.F. (1972) I n d u c t i o n of t h r e a t t o s e l f - e s t e e m and the a r o u s a l and r e s o l u t i o n o f a f f e c t . J o u r n a l  of E x p e r i m e n t a l S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 8, 467-481. M i s c h e l , W. ( 1 9 7 3 ) . Toward a c o g n i t i v e s o c i a l l e a r n i n g r e c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of l e a r n i n g . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 80, 252-283. M o r e l a n d , R.L., & Sweeney, P.D. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . S e l f - e x p e c t a n c i e s and r e a c t i o n s t o e v a l u a t i o n s of p e r s o n a l performance. J o u r n a l of  P e r s o n a l i t y , 52, 156-176. M o r t i m e r , J.T., F i n c h , M.D., & Kumka, D. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . P e r s i s t e n c e and change i n development: The m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l s e l f - c o n c e p t . I n P.B. B a l t e s & O.G. B r i m , J r . ( E d s . ) . L i f e - s p a n development and  b e h a v i o r . V o l . 4. New York: Academic P r e s s . Newcomb, T.M. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . The a c q u a i n t a n c e p r o c e s s : L o o k i n g m a i n l y backward. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 36, 1075-1083. P a r l e e , M.B., ( 1 9 8 2 ) . Changes i n moods and a c t i v a t i o n l e v e l s d u r i n g the m e n s t r u a l c y c l e i n e x p e r i m e n t a l l y n a i v e s u b j e c t s . P s y c h o l o g y of Women Q u a r t e r l y , 7, 119-131. P a u l h u s , D. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . P e r s o n a l communication. P e t e r s o n , C., & S e l i g m a n , M.E.P. (1 9 8 4 ) . C a u s a l e x p l a n a t i o n s as a r i s k f a c t o r f o r d e p r e s s i o n : Theory and e v i d e n c e . P s y c h o l o g i c a l  Review, 91,»347-374. P e t e r s o n , C , Semmel, A., von Baeyer, C , Abramson, L.Y., M e t a l s k y , G.I., & S e l i g m a n , M.E.P. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . The A t t r i b u t i o n a l S t y l e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e . C o g n i t i v e Therapy and R e s e a r c h , 6, 287-299. P l e b a n , R., & T e s s e r , A. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . The e f f e c t s of r e l e v a n c e and q u a l i t y of a n o t h e r ' s performance on i n t e r - p e r s o n a l c l o s e n e s s . S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y Q u a r t e r l y , 44, 278-285. 110 P o l i v y , J . (1981). On the i n d u c t i o n o f emotion i n the l a b o r a t o r y : D i s c r e t e moods or m u l t i p l e a f f e c t s t a t e s ? J o u r n a l of  P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , A l , 803-817. P o l i v y , J . , & D o y l e , C. (1980). L a b o r a t o r y i n d u c t i o n of mood s t a t e s t h r o u g h the r e a d i n g of s e l f - r e f e r e n t mood s t a t e m e n t s : A f f e c t i v e changes or demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ? J o u r n a l o f Abnormal  P s y c h o l o g y , 89, 286-290. R o b i n s o n , P., & Shaver, P.R. (1973). Measures of s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l a t t i t u d e s . Ann A r b o r , M i : I n s t i t u t e f o r S o c i a l R e s e a r c h . R o g e r s , C.R. (1951). C l i e n t - c e n t e r e d t h e r a p y . B o s t o n : H o u g h t o n - M i f f l i n . Rogers, C.R. (1959). A t h e o r y of t h e r a p y , p e r s o n a l i t y , and i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s as devel o p e d i n the c l i e n t - c e n t e r e d framework. I n S. Koch ( E d . ) , P s y c h o l o g y : A st u d y o f s c i e n c e ( V o l . 3 ) . New York: M c G r a w - H i l l . Rogers, T., & C r a i g h e a d , W.E. (1977). P h y s i o l o g i c a l r e s p o n s e s t o s e l f - s t a t e m e n t s : The a f f e c t s of st a t e m e n t v a l e n c e and d i s c r e p a n c y . C o g n i t i v e Therapy and Research, 1 , 99-119. R o s e n z i v e i g , S., & Mason, G. (193A). An e x p e r i m e n t a l s t u d y o f memory i n r e l a t i o n t o the t h e o r y of r e p r e s s i o n . B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of  Psychology, 2 A , 2A7-265. R u s s e l l , J . (1983). U n p u b l i s h e d A f f e c t G r i d . R u s s e l l , J.A., & Meh r a b i a n , A. (1977). E v i d e n c e f o r a t h r e e - f a c t o r t h e o r y o f emotions. J o u r n a l o f Re s e a r c h i n P e r s o n a l i t y , 1 1 , 273-29A. S c h a r e , M.L., & Lisman, S.A. (198A). S e l f - s t a t e m e n t i n d u c t i o n o f mood: Some v a r i a t i o n s and c a u t i o n s on the V e l t o n p r o c e d u r e . J o u r n a l o f C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , AO, 97-99. S c h l e n k e r , B.R., S o r a c i , S., & McCarthy, B. (1976). S e l f - e s t e e m and group performance as d e t e r m i n a n t s of e g o - c e n t r i c p e r c e p t i o n s i n c o o p e r a t i v e groups. Human R e l a t i o n s , 29, 1163-1176. S c h r o d e r , H.M., D r i v e r , M.J., & S t r e u f e r t , S. (1967). Human i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g : I n d i v i d u a l s and groups f u n c t i o n i n g i n  complex s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s . New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t , & Wi n s t o n , I n c . S c o t t , W.A., Osgood, D.W., & P e t e r s o n , C. (1979). C o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e : Theory and measurement of i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s . Washington, D.C: W i n s t o n . S e a r s , R. (1936). F u n c t i o n a l a b n o r m a l i t i e s of memory w i t h s p e c i a l r e f e r e n c e s t o amnesia. P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 33, 229-27A. I l l S e l i g m a n , M.E.P. (1987, March 2 7 ) . Recent advances i n d e p r e s s i o n and l e a r n e d h e l p l e s s n e s s . C o l l o q u i u m g i v e n a t the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . S h r a u g e r , J.S. ( 1 9 7 5 ) . Responses t o e v a l u a t i o n as a f u n c t i o n of i n i t i a l s e l f - p e r c e p t i o n s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 82, 581-596. Sh r a u g e r , J.S. ( 1 9 7 2 ) . S e l f - e s t e e m and r e a c t i o n s t o b e i n g o b s e r v e d by o t h e r s . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 23, 192-200. Shra u g e r , J.S., & Lund, A.K. ( 1 9 7 5 ) . S e l f - e v a l u a t i o n and r e a c t i o n s t o e v a l u a t i o n s from o t h e r s . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y , 43, 94-108. Sh r a u g e r , J.S., & Rosenberg, S.E. ( 1 9 7 0 ) . S e l f - e s t e e m and the e f f e c t s o f s u c c e s s and f a i l u r e on p e r f r o m a n c e s . J o u r n a l of  P e r s o n a l i t y , 38, 404-417. S h r a u g e r , J.S., & Sorman, P.B. ( 1 9 7 7 ) . S e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s , i n i t i a l s u c c e s s and f a i l u r e , and improvement as d e t e r m i n a n t s of p e r s i s t e n c e . J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 45, 784-795. Shra u g e r , J.S., & T e r b o v i c , M.L. ( 1 9 7 6 ) . S e l f - e v a l u a t i o n and assessments of performance by s e l f and o t h e r s . J o u r n a l of  C l i n i c a l and C o n s u l t i n g P s y c h o l o g y , 44, 564-572. S i l v e r m a n , I . ( 1 9 6 4 ) . S e l f - e s t e e m and d i f f e r e n t i a l r e s p o n s i v e n e s s t o s u c c e s s and f a i l u r e . J o u r n a l of Abnormal and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y ,  69, 115-119 ( a ) . S i l v e r m a n , I . ( 1 9 6 4 ) . D i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t s of e g o - t h r e a t upon p e r s u a s i b i l i t y f o r h i g h and low s e l f - e s t e e m s u b j e c t s . J o u r n a l . of Abnormal and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 69, 567-572 ( b ) . Simon, J.G., & F e a t h e r , N.T. ( 1 9 7 3 ) . C a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r s u c c e s s and f a i l u r e a t u n i v e r s i t y e x a m i n a t i o n s . J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l  P s y c h o l o g y , 64, 46-56. S t a g n e r , R. ( 1 9 3 1 ) . The r e - i n t e g r a t i o n of p l e a s a n t and u n p l e a s a n t e x p e r i e n c e s . American J o u r n a l of P s y c h o l o g y , 43, 463-468. S t e i g e r , J.H. & H a k s t i a n , A.R. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . The a s y m p t o t i c d i s t r i b u t i o n o f elements of a c o r r e l a t i o n m a t r i x : Theory and a p p l i c a t i o n . B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of M a t h e m a t i c a l and S t a t i s t i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 35, 208-215. S u e d f e l d , P., & Rank, A.D. ( 1 9 7 6 ) . R e v o l u t i o n a r y l e a d e r s : Long-term s u c c e s s as a f u n c t i o n of changes i n c o n c e p t u a l c o m p l e x i t y . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 34, 169-178. S u e d f e l d , P. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . P e r s o n a l communication. 112 S u l l i v a n , H.S. ( 1 9 5 3 ) . The i n t e r p e r s o n a l t h e o r y o f p s y c h i a t r y . New York: N o r t o n . S u t h e r l a n d , G., Newman, B., & Rachman, S. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . E x p e r i m e n t a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of the r e l a t i o n s between mood and i n t r u s i v e unwanted c o g n i t i o n s . B r i t i s h J o u r n a l o f M e d i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 55, 127-138. T e a s d a l e , J.D., & F o g a r t y , S .J. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . D i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t s of i n d u c e d mood on r e t r i e v a l o f p l e a s a n t and u n p l e a s a n t e v e n t s from e p i s o d i c memory. J o u r n a l o f Abnormal P s y c h o l o g y , 88, 248-257. T e a s d a l e , J.D., T a y l o r , R., & F o g a r t y , S . J . ( 1 9 8 0 ) . E f f e c t s of i n d u c e d e l a t i o n - d e p r e s s i o n on the a c c e s s i b i l i t y o f memories o f happy and unhappy e x p e r i e n c e s . B e h a v i o u r R e s e a r c h and Therapy,  18, 79-86. T e s s e r , A. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . S e l f - g e n e r a t e d a t t i t u d e change. I n L. B e r k o w i t z ( E d . ) , Advances i n e x p e r i m e n t a l s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g y ( V o l . 11, pp. 290-338). New York: Academic P r e s s . T e s s e r , A., & C a m p b e l l , J . ( 1 9 8 0 ) . S e l f - d e f i n i t i o n : The impact o f the r e l a t i v e performance and s i m i l a r i t y o f o t h e r s . S o c i a l  P s y c h o l o g y Q u a r t e r l y , 43, 341-347. T e s s e r , A., & S m i t h , J . ( 1 9 8 0 ) . Some e f f e c t s of f r i e n d s h i p and t a s k r e l e v a n c e on h e l p i n g : You don't always h e l p the one you l i k e . J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 16, 582-590. Thayer, R.E. ( 1 9 6 7 ) . Measurment o f a c t i v a t i o n t h r o u g h s e l f - r e p o r t . P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s , 20, 663-678. V e l t e n , E. ( 1 9 6 8 ) . A l a b o r a t o r y t a s k f o r i n d u c t i o n o f mood s t a t e s . B e h a v i o u r R e s e a r c h and Therapy, 6, 473-482. Wahl, C. ( 1 9 5 6 ) . Some a n t e c e d e n t f a c t o r s i n the f a m i l y h i s t o r i e s of 109 a l c o h o l i c s . Q u a r t e r l y J o u r n a l o f S t u d i e s on A l c o h o l , 17, 643-654. W a l s t e n , E. ( 1 9 6 5 ) . The e f f e c t of s e l f - e s t e e m on r o m a n t i c l i k i n g . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1, 184-197. Wattenberg, W.W., & C l i f f o r d , C. ( 1 9 6 4 ) . R e l a t i o n o f s e l f - c o n c e p t t o b e g i n n i n g achievement i n r e a d i n g . C h i l d Development, 35, 461-467. Weaver, D., & B r i c k m a n , P. ( 1 9 7 4 ) . E x p e c t a n c y , f e e d b a c k , and d i s c o m f i r m a t i o n as independent f a c t o r s i n outcome s a t i s f a c t i o n . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 30, 420-428. W e l l s , L.E., & M a r w e l l , G. ( 1 9 7 6 ) . S e l f - e s t e e m : I t s c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n and measurement. B e v e r l y H i l l s , C a l i f . : Sage P u b l i c a t i o n s , I n c . 113 W i e s t , W.M. ( 1 9 6 5 ) . A q u a n t i t a t i v e e x t e n s i o n o f H e i d e r ' s t h e o r y of c o g n i t i v e b a l a n c e a p p l i e d t o i n t e r p e r s o n a l p e r c e p t i o n and s e l f esteem. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Monograph, 79 (Whole No. 607). W i g g i n s , J.S. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . A p s y c h o l o g i c a l taxonomy o f t r a i t - d e s c r i p t i v e terms: The i n t e r p e r s o n a l domain. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and  S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 37, 395-412. W i l l i a m s , J.M.G. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . G e n e r a l i z a t i o n i n the e f f e c t s o f a mood i n d u c t i o n p r o c e d u r e . B e h a v i o r R e s e a r c h and Therapy, 18, 565-572. W i l l s , T.A. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . Downward comparison p r i n c i p l e s i n s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g y . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 90, 245-271. W i l s o n , T.D., L a s e r , P.S., & St o n e , J . I . ( 1 9 8 2 ) . J u d g i n g the p r e d i c t o r s of one's own mood: A c c u r a c y and the use of shared t h e o r i e s . J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 18, 537-556. W y l i e , R.C. ( 1 9 6 1 ) . The s e l f - c o n c e p t . L i n c o l n : U n i v e r s i t y of Nebraska P r e s s . Zuckerman, M. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . A t t r i b u t i o n o f s u c c e s s and f a i l u r e r e v i s i t e d , o r : The m o t i v a t i o n a l b i a s i s a l i v e and w e l l i n a t t r i b u t i o n t h e o r y . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y , 47, 245-287. Zuckerman, M. ( 1 9 6 4 ) . The development of an A f f e c t A d j e c t i v e Check L i s t f o r the measurement o f a n x i e t y . J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g  P s y c h o l o g y , 24, 457-462. 114 APPENDIX A An example of R u s s e l l ' s (1983) A f f e c t G r i d ( m o d i f i e d ) . anger u n p l e a s a n t d e p r e s s i o n h i g h a r o u s a l j o y p l e a s a n t s l e e p i n e s s c o n t e n t e d 115 APPENDIX B Consent Form f o r the Mood-Diary Study I, f r e e l y and v o l u n t a r i l y agree t o be a p a r t i c i p a n t i n the r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t e n t i t l e d , "Mood Assessment", t o be conducted p a r t i a l l y i n the Douglas Kenny P s y c h o l o g y B u i l d i n g w i t h B a r r y Chew as Studen t I n v e s t i g a t o r and t h e i r purposes have been e x p l a i n e d t o me and I u n d e r s t a n d them. These p r o c e d u r e s i n c l u d e : (a) an i n i t i a l s e s s i o n i n which I complete a p r e - s t u d y i n s t r u m e n t and r e c e i v e i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r a d a i l y mood i n v e n t o r y . The i n s t r u m e n t i n v o l v e s s o r t i n g t r a i t names i n t o groups t h a t a r e m e a n i n g f u l t o me, and making s i m i l a r i t y r a t i n g s o f t h e s e t r a i t s . (b) c o m p l e t i n g a d a i l y mood i n v e n t o r y f o r 14 c o n s e c u t i v e days. ( c ) a f i n a l s e s s i o n i n which I r e t u r n the mood i n v e n t o r y and complete a p o s t - s t u d y i n s t r u m e n t b e f o r e I d i s c u s s the st u d y w i t h the e x p e r i m e n t e r . A l l my res p o n s e s on the st u d y i n s t r u m e n t s and on the mood-diary a r e c o m p l e t e l y c o n f i d e n t i a l . I w i l l not i d e n t i f y m y s e l f on any of th e s e m a t e r i a l s . I w i l l t r y t o complete a l l i t e m s and p r o c e d u r e s t o the b e s t of my a b i l i t y . A code number w i l l be a s s i g n e d t o me i n o r d e r t o compare my res p o n s e s on the p r e - s t u d y i n s t r u m e n t w i t h d a t a o b t a i n e d from my mood-diary. I u n d e r s t a n d t h a t I may withdraw from the s t u d y a t any time w i t h o u t e x p l a n a t i o n or p e n a l t y . I have been g i v e n the r i g h t t o ask q u e s t i o n s , and my q u e s t i o n s , i f any, have been answered t o my s a t i s f a c t i o n . The e x p e r i m e n t e r agrees t o p r o v i d e a ( o f f i c e : 1001; t e l e p h o n e : ). The p r o c e d u r e s t o be f o l l o w e d 116 f u l l d e s c r i p t i o n of the purpose and h y p o t h e s i s of the s t u d y upon i t s c o m p l e t i o n . I have read and u n d e r s t o o d the f o r e g o i n g . ( S i g n a t u r e o f P a r t i c i p a n t ) (Date of Reading) 117 APPENDIX C Consent Form f o r the R o l e - P l a y i n g Study I , , f r e e l y and v o l u n t a r i l y agree t o be a p a r t i c i p a n t i n the r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t e n t i t l e d , " R e a c t i o n s t o D a i l y E v e n t s " , t o be conducted i n the Douglas Kenny P s y c h o l o g y B u i l d i n g w i t h B a r r y Chew as Student I n v e s t i g a t o r ( o f f i c e : 1001; t e l e p h o n e : ). The p r o c e d u r e s t o be f o l l o w e d and t h e i r purposes have been e x p l a i n e d t o me and I u n d e r s t a n d them. I w i l l r e a d d e s c r i p t i o n s of 16 e v e n t s . For each e v e n t , I w i l l answer a s e r i e s of q u e s t i o n s i n d i c a t i n g how I b e l i e v e I would r e a c t t o t h a t event. Upon c o m p l e t i o n of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , I w i l l r e t u r n them and d i s c u s s the s t u d y w i t h the e x p e r i m e n t e r . T h i s s t u d y s h o u l d r e q u i r e a p p r o x i m a t e l y one hour. A l l my r e s p o n s e s t o the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s a r e c o m p l e t e l y c o n f i d e n t i a l . I w i l l not i d e n t i f y m y s e l f on any of t h e s e m a t e r i a l s . I w i l l t r y t o complete a l l i t e m s and p r o c e d u r e s t o the b e s t of my a b i l i t y . I u n d e r s t a n d t h a t I may withdraw from the study a t any time w i t h o u t e x p l a n a t i o n or p e n a l t y . I have been g i v e n the r i g h t to ask q u e s t i o n s , and my q u e s t i o n s , i f any, have been answered t o my s a t i s f a c t i o n . The e x p e r i m e n t e r agrees t o p r o v i d e a f u l l d e s c r i p t i o n of the purpose and h y p o t h e s i s of the study upon i t s c o m p l e t i o n . I have read and u n d e r s t o o d the f o r e g o i n g . ( S i g n a t u r e of P a r t i c i p a n t ) (Date of Reading) APPENDIX D 118 A sample of the s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y q u e s t i o n n a i r e a d m i n i s t e r e d t o Mood-Diary Study p a r t i c i p a n t s . Q u e s t i o n n a i r e I n s t r u c t i o n s : COMPUTER CODING NO.: Immediately below, you w i l l f i n d a l i s t of t r a i t names. A f t e r you r e a d t h i s l i s t , we would l i k e you t o t h i n k about y o u r s e l f and s o r t t h e s e t r a i t s i n t o groups t h a t you b e l i e v e b e l o n g t o g e t h e r . F o r example, d i f f e r e n t groups might r e p r e s e n t d i f f e r e n t f a c e t s o f your p e r s o n a l i t y , o r ways you behave i n d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n s . Because you ar e u n i q u e , your g r o u p i n g s of t h e s e t r a i t s w i l l a l s o be u n i q u e ; t h u s , t h e r e a r e no " r i g h t " or "wrong" answers. P l e a s e w r i t e t h e t r a i t names or t h e i r a b b r e v i a t i o n s ( g i v e n i n p a r e n t h e s e s ) i n s i d e t h e boxes to i n d i c a t e which ones you t h i n k b e l o n g t o g e t h e r . You may use as many or as few boxes as you want. You can a l s o use the same t r a i t name i n more than one box, and you s h o u l d not f e e l o b l i g a t e d t o use a l l of the t r a i t names, i f you do not want. P l e a s e g i v e each box a l a b e l or s h o r t phrase of your c h o o s i n g which r e p r e s e n t s t h e group o f t r a i t names w i t h i n the box. L i s t o f t r a i t names: I . a f f e c t i o n a t e ( a f f ) 2. a f r a i d ( a f r ) 3. a m b i t i o u s (amb) 4. a n x i o u s (anx) 5. a s s e r t i v e ( a s s e r t ) 6. c o m p e t i t i v e (comp) 7. c o n v e n t i o n a l ( c o n v e n t ) 8. courageous ( c o u r ) 9. humorous (hum) 10. i m a g i n a t i v e (imag) I I . i m p u l s i v e ( i m p u l ) 12. independent ( i n d e p ) 13. i n t e l l e c t u a l ( i n t e l l ) 14. l a z y ( l a z ) 15. mature (mat) 16. o u t g o i n g ( o u t ) 17. p e r s i s t e n t ( p e r s i s ) 18. p l a y f u l ( p l a y ) 19. p r e d i c t a b l e ( p r e d ) 20. q u i e t 21. r e b e l l i o u s ( r e b e l ) 22. r e f l e c t i v e ( r e f l ) 23. r e l a x e d ( r e l a x ) 24. r e l i a b l e ( r e l y ) 25. s i l l y 26. t r u s t i n g ( t r u s t ) 27. u n o r g a n i z e d (unorg) 119 L a b e l or s h o r t phrase L a b e l or s h o r t phrase L a b e l or s h o r t phrase L a b e l or s h o r t phrase L a b e l or s h o r t phrase L a b e l or s h o r t phrase 120 The l i s t o f t r a i t names a g a i n appear on the f i r s t column below. P l e a s e w r i t e a c r o s s , on the l i n e s p r o v i d e d , the words or s h o r t p h r a s e s you used t o l a b e l the boxes. T h i n k about each of the words or s h o r t p h r a s e s and r a t e t o what e x t e n t each of the t r a i t s a r e d e s c r i p t i v e of the l a b e l . P l e a s e make your r a t i n g s on the f o l l o w i n g 1 1 - p o i n t s c a l e . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 not a t a l l d e s c r i p t i v e n e u t r a l v e r y much d e s c r i p t i v e YOUR WORD OR SHORT PHRASE TRAIT NAME a f f e c t i o n a t e a f r a i d a m b i t i o u s a n x i o u s a s s e r t i v e c o m p e t i t i v e c o n v e n t i o n a l courageous humorous i m a g i n a t i v e i m p u l s i v e independent i n t e l l e c t u a l l a z y mature o u t g o i n g p e r s i s t e n t p l a y f u l p r e d i c t a b l e q u i e t r e b e l l i o u s r e f l e c t i v e r e l a x e d r e l i a b l e s i l l y t r u s t i n g u n o r g a n i z e d APPENDIX E I n s t r u c t i o n s and m a t e r i a l s f o r the Mood-Diary Study. Two-Week (14-Day) D i a r y of Your Mood I n t r o d u c t i o n : COMPUTER CODING NO.: I n t h i s s t u d y , you a r e r e q u e s t e d t o make d a i l y mood assessments and complete a few q u e s t i o n s each day f o r the next two-week (14-day) p e r i o d . Through t h i s p a r t i c u l a r method, the e x p e r i m e n t e r w i l l be a b l e t o g a t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g how p e o p l e ' s moods v a r y as a f u n c t i o n of the time of day and day of the week. I n o r d e r t o have v a l i d and r e l i a b l e d a t a , however, i t i s e s s e n t i a l f o r you t o be as honest and a c c u r a t e i n your p e r c e p t i o n s of your mood and i m p r e s s i o n s of l i f e e v e n t s . You w i l l be asked t o r e p o r t t h e s e p e r s o n a l a s p e c t s i n t h i s b o o k l e t , w h ich c o n s i s t s o f a s e t of q u e s t i o n n a i r e s f o r you t o complete f o r 14 c o n s e c u t i v e days. As you w i l l be e n t e r i n g i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t i s p e r s o n a l and most r e l e v a n t t o y o u r s e l f , you s h o u l d t r e a t t h i s b o o k l e t much l i k e a d i a r y . Your anonymity i s gu a r a n t e e d . A code number i s a t t a c h e d t o the d i a r y s h e e t s i n o r d e r to match your r e s p o n s e s on a p r e s t u d y i n s t r u m e n t w i t h your r e s p o n s e s on the d i a r y s t u d y . You a r e r e q u e s t e d not t o i d e n t i f y y o u r s e l f i n any of the pages of the b o o k l e t i n any way. You w i l l be r e q u e s t e d t o a s s e s s your moods or s p i r i t s f i v e t i m e s a day f o r 14 c o n s e c u t i v e days, b e g i n n i n g on the day a f t e r you have r e c e i v e d t h i s b o o k l e t . A l t h o u g h t h i s d a i l y r a t i n g t a s k may i n i t i a l l y appear t o be e x t r e m e l y time-consuming and i n c o n v e n i e n t , e f f o r t s have been made t o make the t a s k r e l a t i v e l y easy. Once you have become f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e p r o c e d u r e , i t s h o u l d become r o u t i n e and hence, q u i c k t o com p l e t e . S e c o n d l y , you have no f i x e d c l o c k t i m e s when t o 122 a s s e s s your moods each day, j u s t so l o n g as you make such e v a l u a t i o n s : (1) upon a r i s i n g ( 2 ) midmorning (3) m i d a f t e r n o o n (4) a f t e r d i n n e r (5) b e f o r e g o i n g t o bed These p e r i o d s a r e worded i n such a way as t o be f l e x i b l e enough not t o i n c o n v e n i e n c e you. Because the number of t i m e s you w i l l make mood e v a l u a t i o n s i s f r e q u e n t , i t i s a d v i s a b l e f o r you t o c a r r y the b o o k l e t w i t h you t o c l a s s , e t c . I f you s h o u l d miss a mo o d - r a t i n g s e s s i o n , you may complete the s e s s i o n l a t e r i f you b e l i e v e you can remember your mood a t t h a t t i m e . I f you a r e not s u r e , p l e a s e omit t h a t s e s s i o n . I t i s i m p o r t a n t t h a t the i n f o r m a t i o n be a c c u r a t e and not c o n s i s t of guesses t h a t you have a b s o l u t e l y no c o n f i d e n c e i n . The f i n a l f a c t o r t h a t r e d u c e s i n c o n v e n i e n c e i s the use of a new, q u i c k e r m o o d - r a t i n g t e c h n i q u e c a l l e d the A f f e c t G r i d . Once you have ga i n e d p r o f i c i e n c y a t u s i n g t h i s t e c h n i q u e by d o i n g a few examples, you w i l l d i s c o v e r t h a t each m o o d - r a t i n g s e s s i o n w i l l t a k e no l o n g e r than a minute. Use of the A f f e c t G r i d : The A f f e c t G r i d i s s i m p l y a 9 X 9 graph which "maps" or d e s c r i b e s v i s u a l l y your p e r c e p t i o n o f your mood, f e e l i n g s , " s p i r i t s " , e t c . a t a s p e c i f i c t i m e . There a r e two d i m e n s i o n s t o t h i s g r i d , as you can see below: 123 anger AN AFFECT GRID h i g h a r o u s a l u n p l e a s a n t j o y p l e a s a n t d e p r e s s i o n s l e e p i n e s s c o n t e n t e d The h o r i z o n t a l d i m e n s i o n i s the continuum o f p l e a s a n t n e s s . The f u r t h e r l e f t you p l a c e your "x", the more u n p l e a s a n t you f e e l . C o n v e r s e l y , t h e more you move t o the r i g h t , the more p l e a s a n t you p e r c e i v e your mood t o be. At the c e n t e r of the g r i d , d e s i g n a t e d w i t h a " c " , and e x t e n d i n g s t r a i g h t up and down from t h i s " c " , i s where you s h o u l d p l a c e your "x" i f you f e e l n e u t r a l , t h a t i s , n e i t h e r p o s i t i v e or n e g a t i v e . The v e r t i c a l d i m e n s i o n r e p r e s e n t s the continuum o f a r o u s a l . P l e a s e note t h a t a r o u s a l i s the s t a t e i n which you f e e l awake, a l e r t , a c t i v a t e d , s t i m u l a t e d , i n v i g o u r a t e d , e x c i t e d , and so on, and i s s e p a r a t e from and independent of whether you f e e l p o s i t i v e or n e g a t i v e . Above the c e n t e r of the g r i d t o the top i s where you s h o u l d p l a c e an 11 x" i f you f e e l more awake than u s u a l ; below t he c e n t e r t o the bottom of the g r i d i s where an "x" s h o u l d be p l a c e d i f your a r o u s a l s t a t e i s lo w e r than u s u a l . To g i v e you an i d e a o f how t o use the A f f e c t G r i d and t o i l l u s t r a t e how the degree of p l e a s a n t n e s s / u n p l e a s a n t n e s s i s independent o f the degree of a r o u s a l , l o o k a t where "x^" i s p l a c e d on the g r i d (above) when one f e e l s some s u r p r i s e ( h i g h a r o u s a l ) and 124 h a p p i n e s s ( p l e a s a n t f e e l i n g s ) say, when one i s g i v e n a s u r p r i s e b i r t h d a y p a r t y . A g a i n , examine t he g r i d f o r the l o c a t i o n of nX2", which d e s c r i b e s g r a p h i c a l l y the s u r p r i s e ( h i g h a r o u s a l ) and sadness ( u n p l e a s a n t f e e l i n g s ) when one i s t o l d of say, the death o f a c o u s i n . Even though a t both i n s t a n c e s , the person e x p e r i e n c e s h i g h a r o u s a l , p l e a s a n t n e s s or u n p l e a s a n t n e s s can be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h a t same a r o u s a l l e v e l . I n s t r u c t i o n s : A f t e r you have read and f u l l y u n d e r s t o o d the i n s t r u c t i o n s , p l e a s e b e g i n t o r a t e your moods ( s p i r i t s ) the f o l l o w i n g day f o r 14 c o n s e c u t i v e days. P l e a s e remember to a s s e s s your moods d u r i n g each of t h e f i v e p e r i o d s of the day (as o u t l i n e d on page 2 of t h i s b o o k l e t ) . At ev e r y m o o d - r a t i n g s e s s i o n , p l e a s e f i l l i n the time and then proceed t o p l a c e an "x" i n one of the 81 square s of the A f f e c t G r i d . T r y to a c c u r a t e l y r e p r e s e n t your mood e x p e r i e n c e d a_t t h a t  p a r t i c u l a r t i m e . Be c a r e f u l w i t h t h e s e r e s p o n s e s because f e e l i n g s have many shades and a wide range of i n t e n s i t y . To i l l u s t r a t e , e c s t a s y , e x c i t e m e n t , and j o y may be f e e l i n g s which a r e d i f f e r e n t t o you i n q u a l i t y and i n i n t e n s i t y . S i m i l a r l y , f e e l i n g s of calm, r e l a x a t i o n , and s e r e n i t y may be d i f f e r e n t f o r you i n t h e s e r e s p e c t s . P l e a s e do not c o n s u l t your p r e v i o u s m o o d - r a t i n g s when you a r e d o i n g a mood assessment i n o r d e r t o a v o i d b i a s i n g your r e s p o n s e s . To p r e v e n t b i a s e s from o t h e r p e o p l e ' s assessments of your mood, e t c . , p l e a s e complete the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s i n t h i s d i a r y p r i v a t e l y . We a r e i n t e r e s t e d p r i m a r i l y i n your p e r s o n a l f e e l i n g s and mood s t a t e s . You w i l l a l s o be asked t o answer a few a d d i t i o n a l q u e s t i o n s s h o r t l y b e f o r e you r e t i r e f o r the day. 125 1) The s i x t h A f f e c t G r i d i s p r o v i d e d f o r you t o r a t e your o v e r a l l mood f o r t h a t g i v e n day. That i s , do not make an assessment of your mood a t the time you a r e c o m p l e t i n g t h i s s i x t h g r i d , but i n s t e a d , r e p o r t what you b e l i e v e your g e n e r a l or o v e r a l l mood f o r the  day i s . 2) P l e a s e b r i e f l y and o b j e c t i v e l y d e s c r i b e the most p o s i t i v e and the most n e g a t i v e e v e n t s you have e x p e r i e n c e d d u r i n g t h a t day (24-hour p e r i o d ) . By an o b j e c t i v e d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e s e e v e n t s , the e x p e r i m e n t e r would l i k e s t a t e m e n t s which a r e as f r e e as p o s s i b l e from your p e r s o n a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e s e e v e n t s , and a r e f a c t u a l . The f o l l o w i n g examples s h o u l d be c l o s e l y examined. EXAMPLES OF UNDESIRABLE REPORTING EXAMPLES OF OBJECTIVE REPORTING " I ' v e got a t e r r i b l e s c o r e on my > G i v e your a c t u a l s c o r e , the p s y c h o l o g y t e s t . " c l a s s mean, e t c . "My b e s t f r i e n d i n s u l t e d me." > Gi v e an a c c u r a t e account o f the words and s i t u a t i o n . "My mother complimented me on my > G i v e an a c c u r a t e a c c o u n t o f c o o k i n g . " the words and s i t u a t i o n . " I saved a l o t on my g r o c e r y b i l l . " - > G i v e a c t u a l f i g u r e s on the amount of money saved. Upon c o m p l e t i o n o f the w r i t t e n d e s c r i p t i o n s f o r the most p o s i t i v e and most n e g a t i v e e v e n t s of the day, you w i l l be asked t o v i v i d l y i magine y o u r s e l f i n tho s e p a r t i c u l a r e v e n t s . (a) P l e a s e w r i t e down what you b e l i e v e d t o be the major cause o f the e v e n t . (b) P l e a s e i n d i c a t e whether t he cause of the event i s due t o something about you or something about o t h e r p e o p l e o r c i r c u m s t a n c e s . ( c ) P l e a s e i n d i c a t e whether the cause you have i n d i c a t e d w i l l 126 a g a i n be p r e s e n t i f the event s h o u l d r e o c c u r . (d) P l e a s e i n d i c a t e whether the cause j u s t i n f l u e n c e s the e v e n t , or does i t i n f l u e n c e o t h e r a s p e c t s of your l i f e as w e l l . (e) P l e a s e i n d i c a t e how p o s i t i v e / n e g a t i v e t h e e v e n t , i t s e l f , was. ( f ) P l e a s e i n d i c a t e t o what e x t e n t d i d t h i s p o s i t i v e / n e g a t i v e event a f f e c t (change) your mood. (g) P l e a s e show the i m p o r t a n c e of t h i s event t o you. I n c l o s i n g , p l e a s e remember t h a t you s h o u l d a c q u a i n t y o u r s e l f w i t h the p r o c e d u r e s f o r t h i s e x p e r i m e n t on the day t h i s package i s g i v e n t o you because you a r e t o b e g i n your d i a r y the next day. Make su r e you master how t o use the A f f e c t G r i d . Do not f o r g e t t o make f i v e mood assessments t h r o u g h o u t the day ( a t the g e n e r a l p e r i o d s of day s p e c i f i e d on page 2) f o r 14 c o n t i n u o u s days. D u r i n g each assessment, make s u r e you have t h i s d i a r y w i t h you, make s u r e you w i l l not be d i s t u r b e d , and l a s t l y , make s u r e your r e s p o n s e s a r e as a c c u r a t e as p o s s i b l e . At the end of each day, you a r e r e q u e s t e d t o make an e v a l u a t i o n of your g e n e r a l mood or s p i r i t s t h a t day, and r e p o r t o b j e c t i v e l y your most p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e e v e n t s of the day. F i n a l l y , answer 7 s h o r t q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e s e e v e n t s . P l e a s e submit your d i a r y t o room 1001 of the new Douglas Kenny P s y c h o l o g y B u i l d i n g . I f you have any q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h i s s t u d y , p l e a s e do not h e s i t a t e t o v i s i t me a t t h i s o f f i c e or t e l e p h o n e 228-6487 d u r i n g s c h o o l h o u r s . You can a l s o c o n t a c t me a t home by d i a l i n g 254-2583. Thank you i n advance f o r your t i m e , e f f o r t , and i n t e r e s t . B a r r y Chew, E x p e r i m e n t e r 127 Today's Date: / / COMPUTER CODING NO.:. (day) (mo.) ( y r . ) Day # of your 14-day d i a r y . Today's M o o d - r a t i n g s : 1) upon a r i s i n g ( t i m e : A.M./P.M.) anger h i g h a r o u s a l j o y u n p l e a s a n t p l e a s a n t d e p r e s s i o n s l e e p i n e s s c o n t e n t e d 128 2) midmorning ( t i m e : A.M./P.M.) anger u n p l e a s a n t h i g h a r o u s a l j o y p l e a s a n t d e p r e s s i o n s l e e p i n e s s c o n t e n t e d 129 3) m i d a f t e r n o o n ( t i m e : P . M . ) a n g e r h i g h a r o u s a l j o y u n p l e a s a n t p l e a s a n t d e p r e s s i o n s l e e p i n e s s c o n t e n t e d 130 4) a f t e r d i n n e r ( t i m e : P.M.) anger h i g h a r o u s a l j o y u n p l e a s a n t p l e a s a n t d e p r e s s i o n s l e e p i n e s s c o n t e n t e d 131 5 ) b e f o r e g o i n g t o bed ( t i m e : P.M./A.M.) anger h i g h a r o u s a l u n p l e a s a n t j o y p l e a s a n t d e p r e s s i o n s l e e p i n e s s c o n t e n t e d 132 6) average mood f o r today ( t i m e : P.M./A.M.) anger h i g h a r o u s a l u n p l e a s a n t j o y p l e a s a n t d e p r e s s i o n s l e e p i n e s s c o n t e n t e d 133 Ob jective descriptions of today's events: 1) Most positive event i n the l a s t 24-hour period: 2) Most negative event i n the l a s t 24-hour period. 134 R a t i n g s of the p o s i t i v e e v e n t ; P l e a s e v i v i d l y i magine y o u r s e l f i n t h i s e v e n t , (a) W r i t e down what you b e l i e v e d t o be the major cause o f t h i s e v e n t . (b) I s the cause o f the event (you j u s t wrote down) due t o something about you or something about o t h e r p e o p l e o r c i r c u m s t a n c e s ? -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 t o t a l l y due t o both t o t a l l y due t o o t h e r people o r me c i r c u m s t a n c e s ( c ) I n the f u t u r e ( i f the event r e - o c c u r s ) , w i l l t h i s cause a g a i n be p r e s e n t ? -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 • • • • • • • • • • • w i l l never a g a i n may be p r e s e n t w i l l a lways be be p r e s e n t p r e s e n t (d) I s the cause something t h a t j u s t i n f l u e n c e s the e v e n t , o r does i t a l s o i n f l u e n c e o t h e r a r e a s of your l i f e ? -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 i n f l u e n c e s j u s t t h i s both i n f l u e n c e s a l l p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n s i t u a t i o n s i n my l i f e ( e) How p o s i t i v e / n e g a t i v e do you view the e v e n t , i t s e l f ? -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 e x t r e m e l y n e g a t i v e n e u t r a l e x t r e m e l y p o s i t i v e ( f ) To what e x t e n t d i d t h i s event a f f e c t (change) your mood? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 not a t a l l v e r y much so (g) How p e r s o n a l l y i m p o r t a n t was t h i s event to you? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 not a t a l l i m p o r t a n t e x t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t 135 R a t i n g s of the n e g a t i v e e v e n t ; P l e a s e v i v i d l y i magine y o u r s e l f i n t h i s e v e n t , (a) W r i t e down what you b e l i e v e d t o be the major cause of t h i s e v e n t . (b) I s the cause of the event (you j u s t wrote down) due t o something about you or something about o t h e r p e o p l e o r c i r c u m s t a n c e s ? -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 t o t a l l y due t o both t o t a l l y due t o o t h e r p e o p l e or me c i r c u m s t a n c e s ( c ) I n the f u t u r e ( i f the event r e - o c c u r s ) , w i l l t h i s cause a g a i n be p r e s e n t ? -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 w i l l never a g a i n may be p r e s e n t w i l l a lways be be p r e s e n t p r e s e n t (d) I s the cause something t h a t j u s t i n f l u e n c e s t h e e v e n t , or does i t a l s o i n f l u e n c e o t h e r a r e a s of your l i f e ? -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 i n f l u e n c e s j u s t t h i s both i n f l u e n c e s a l l p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n s i t u a t i o n s i n my l i f e ( e) How p o s i t i v e / n e g a t i v e do you view t h e e v e n t , i t s e l f ? -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 e x t r e m e l y n e g a t i v e n e u t r a l e x t r e m e l y p o s i t i v e ( f ) To what e x t e n t d i d t h i s event a f f e c t (change) your mood? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 not a t a l l v e r y much so (g) How p e r s o n a l l y i m p o r t a n t was t h i s event t o you? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 not a t a l l i m p o r t a n t e x t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t APPENDIX F Debriefing Statement for Mood-Diary Study Thank you very much for your p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s research project. The purpose of t h i s form i s to b r i e f l y review and supplement what the experimenter has told you i n the verbal debriefing segment to ensure that no important information was inadvertently omitted and that you completely understand the purpose and procedures of your study. Laboratory research has reported that low self-esteem (LSE) people tend to exhibit greater a f f e c t i v e extremity to s e l f - r e l e v a n t outcomes than high self-esteem (HSE) people. That i s , LSE in d i v i d u a l s display more negative reactions to unfavourable events and more pos i t i v e reactions to po s i t i v e events than HSE i n d i v i d u a l s . This observation suggests that LSE i n d i v i d u a l s may exhibit greater v a r i a b i l i t y i n t h e i r d a i l y moods. Furthermore, because LSE and HSE people were exposed to exactly the same feedback i n the laboratory studies, i t seems that t h i s v a r i a b i l i t y may be due to differences i n how LSE and HSE people interpret the events (feedback). To test the hypotheses that: (a) LSE persons exhibit more v a r i a b i l i t y i n th e i r moods than HSE people, and (b) t h i s v a r i a b i l i t y i s due to differences i n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n rather than differences i n the kinds of events to which they are experienced, LSE and HSE participants were requested to make mood ratings f i v e times a day for 14 consecutive days. They were also asked to describe obj e c t i v e l y , the most positive/negative events that occurred each day and to make causal a t t r i b u t i o n s and estimate the degree of importance of these events. 137 The d a i l y m o o d - r a t i n g s you p r o v i d e d a l l o w us t o t e s t the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t LSE and HSE people d i f f e r w i t h r e s p e c t t o v a r i a b i l i t y i n t h e i r d a i l y moods. The c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s and i m p o r t a n c e r a t i n g s you p r o v i d e d a l l o w us t o t e s t the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t LSE and HSE people make d i f f e r e n t c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r n e g a t i v e and p o s i t i v e e v e n t s t h a t o c c u r . F i n a l l y , by h a v i n g LSE and HSE n a i v e j u d g e s r a t e the o b j e c t i v e d e s c r i p t i o n s of the most p o s i t i v e / n e g a t i v e e v e n t s g i v e n by LSE and HSE p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h i s s t u d y , we can t e s t the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t LSE and HSE people d i d not a c t u a l l y e x p e r i e n c e d i f f e r e n c e s i n the q u a l i t y of d a i l y e v e n t s . These same r a t e r s w i l l a l s o r a t e how they b e l i e v e they would r e a c t t o the e v e n t s i n terms o f mood and c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s . These r a t i n g s w i l l a l l o w us t o t e s t t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t LSE and HSE p e o p l e d i f f e r i n t h e i r r e a c t i o n s t o the same e v e n t . I n the f i r s t s e s s i o n of t h i s s t u d y , you completed a q u e s t i o n n a i r e a s k i n g you t o s o r t t r a i t names i n t o s e l f - l a b e l l e d g r oups, and r a t e the s i m i l a r i t y of t r a i t names w i t h the group l a b e l s . T h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e p r o v i d e s measures of the degree o f c o m p l e x i t y i n d i v i d u a l s use i n t h i n k i n g about t h e m s e l v e s . Because c o m p l e x i t y o f the s e l f - r e p r e s e n t a t i o n has been shown t o be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h mood v a r i a b i l i t y , t h e r e may be a c o n n e c t i o n between s e l f - e s t e e m , c o m p l e x i t y , and mood v a r i a b i l i t y . The s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y q u e s t i o n n a i r e you completed w i l l a l l o w us t o examine the s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s . We would l i k e t o a s s u r e you t h a t a l l o f the i n f o r m a t i o n you p r o v i d e d i n t h i s s tudy i s completely, c o n f i d e n t i a l . No i d e n t i f y i n g i n f o r m a t i o n i s c o n t a i n e d on any of the m a t e r i a l s . We a l s o would l i k e t o extend an i n v i t a t i o n t o you, i f you a r e i n t e r e s t e d , t o see the 138 r e s u l t s of the completed s t u d y ( w h i c h s h o u l d be a v a i l a b l e i n the summer, 1987). F i n a l l y , we ask t h a t you do not d i s c u s s t h i s e x periment w i t h your c l a s s m a t e s u n t i l the summer of 1987 as they may be p o t e n t i a l p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h i s s t u d y . P l e a s e r e a d and s i g n your name t o the f o l l o w i n g : " I have r e a d the above and u n d e r s t a n d i t . I have asked and have r e c e i v e d answers t o any q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h i s r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t . I pled g e not t o d i s c u s s the e x p e r i m e n t , i n whole or i n p a r t , w i t h f u t u r e p a r t i c i p a n t s . I agree t o a l l o w the e x p e r i m e n t e r t o use my d e s c r i p t i o n s of the p o s i t i v e / n e g a t i v e e v e n t s t h a t o c c u r r e d . I acknowledge t h a t t h e s e d e s c r i p t i o n s w i l l be typed w i t h no i d e n t i f y i n g i n f o r m a t i o n . " ( P a r t i c i p a n t ' s S i g n a t u r e ) Thank you once a g a i n f o r your p a r t i c i p a t i o n . B a r r y Chew, E x p e r i m e n t e r APPENDIX G D e b r i e f i n g Statement f o r R o l e - P l a y i n g Study Thank you v e r y much f o r your p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t . The purpose of t h i s form i s t o b r i e f l y r e v i e w and supplement what the e x p e r i m e n t e r has t o l d you i n the v e r b a l d e b r i e f i n g segment t o ensure t h a t no i m p o r t a n t i n f o r m a t i o n was i n a d v e r t e n t l y o m i t t e d and t h a t you c o m p l e t e l y u n d e r s t a n d the purpose and p r o c e d u r e s of your s t u d y . L a b o r a t o r y r e s e a r c h has r e p o r t e d t h a t low s e l f - e s t e e m (LSE) p e o p l e tend t o e x h i b i t g r e a t e r a f f e c t i v e e x t r e m i t y t o s e l f - r e l e v a n t outcomes than h i g h s e l f - e s t e e m (HSE) p e o p l e . That i s , LSE i n d i v i d u a l s d i s p l a y more n e g a t i v e mood i n r e s p o n s e t o u n f a v o u r a b l e e v e n t s and more p o s i t i v e mood i n r e s p o n s e t o p o s i t i v e e v e n t s than HSE i n d i v i d u a l s . T h i s o b s e r v a t i o n s u g g e s t s t h a t LSE i n d i v i d u a l s may e x h i b i t g r e a t e r mood v a r i a b i l i t y over time e i t h e r because they a c t u a l l y e x p e r i e n c e feedback ( e v e n t s ) from t h e i r environment which i s t y p i c a l l y more i n t e n s e l y p o s i t i v e or n e g a t i v e i n magnitude o r , because LSE people s i m p l y p e r c e i v e and i n t e r p r e t e v e n t s d i f f e r e n t l y from HSE p e o p l e . Because LSE and HSE p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e l a b o r a t o r y s t u d i e s were exposed t o e x a c t l y t he same feedback, i t appears t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the p e r c e p t i o n s of an event appear t o be the more p l a u s i b l e r e a s o n f o r the s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n mood v a r i a b i l i t y . One proposed d i f f e r e n c e between HSE and LSE i n d i v i d u a l s i s t h a t HSE i n d i v i d u a l s d i s c o u n t n e g a t i v e feedback i n f o r m a t i o n more than LSE i n d i v i d u a l s . I n o r d e r t o t e s t t he h y p o t h e s i s t h a t HSE p e r s o n s have a g r e a t e r tendency t o u t i l i z e d i s c o u n t i n g s t r a t e g i e s than LSE i n d i v i d u a l s (and 140 t h u s , not e x p e r i e n c e the i n t e n s e l y n e g a t i v e moods t o u n p l e a s a n t feedback t h a t the l a t t e r would f e e l ) , you read d e s c r i p t i o n s of p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e e v e n t s . These e v e n t s had been randomly s e l e c t e d from a p o o l of a c t u a l e v e n t s t h a t had been r e p o r t e d by HSE and LSE p a r t i c i p a n t s i n a p r e v i o u s s t u d y . The 16 e v e n t s you read c o n s i s t e d of f o u r from each of the f o l l o w i n g f o u r groups: n e g a t i v e e v e n t s r e p o r t e d by LSE s u b j e c t s ; p o s i t i v e e v e n t s r e p o r t e d by LSE s u b j e c t s ; n e g a t i v e e v e n t s r e p o r t e d by HSE s u b j e c t s ; and p o s i t i v e e v e n t s r e p o r t e d by HSE s u b j e c t s . You were asked t o r o l e - p l a y t h e s e e v e n t s , each time o f f e r i n g a p l a u s i b l e cause f o r the o c c u r r e n c e o f the e v e n t , whether the cause g i v e n was r a t e d as more i n t e r n a l v e r s u s e x t e r n a l , g l o b a l v e r s u s l o c a l , and s t a b l e v e r s u s u n s t a b l e . You a l s o r a t e d the p o s i t i v e n e s s / n e g a t i v e n e s s of the e v e n t , the p o t e n t i a l impact o f the event on your c u r r e n t mood, and how i m p o r t a n t you would view the e v e n t ' s o c c u r r e n c e . We a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t HSE p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h i s s t u d y a r e more l i k e l y than LSE p a r t i c i p a n t s t o a s c r i b e the n e g a t i v e e v e n t s t o causes t h a t a r e r e l a t i v e l y s p e c i f i c ( i . e . , l o c a l ) , u n s t a b l e ( i . e . , t e m p o r a r y ) , and s i t u a t i o n a l r a t h e r than d i s p o s i t i o n a l ( i . e . , e x t e r n a l ) . I n a d d i t i o n , HSE p a r t i c i p a n t s may not view t h e s e e v e n t s as n e g a t i v e l y , and not r a t e them as i n f l u e n t i a l i n a f f e c t i n g t h e i r c u r r e n t moods nor as p e r s o n a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . We a l s o a n t i c i p a t e t h a t the e v e n t s s u p p l i e d by LSE and HSE p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the e a r l i e r s t u d y would be viewed as s i m i l a r i n i n t e n s i t y and v a l e n c e . We would l i k e t o a s s u r e you t h a t a l l of the i n f o r m a t i o n you p r o v i d e d i n t h i s s t u d y i s c o m p l e t e l y c o n f i d e n t i a l . No i d e n t i f y i n g i n f o r m a t i o n i s c o n t a i n e d on any of the m a t e r i a l s . We a l s o would l i k e 141 to extend an i n v i t a t i o n t o you, i f you a r e i n t e r e s t e d , t o see the r e s u l t s of the completed s t u d y ( w h i c h s h o u l d be a v a i l a b l e i n the summer, 1987). F i n a l l y , we ask t h a t you do not d i s c u s s t h i s e x periment w i t h your c l a s s m a t e s u n t i l the summer of 1987 as they may be p o t e n t i a l p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h i s s t u d y . P l e a s e r e a d and s i g n your name to the f o l l o w i n g : " I have r e a d the above and u n d e r s t a n d i t . I have asked and have r e c e i v e d answers t o any q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h i s r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t . I pledge not t o d i s c u s s the e x p e r i m e n t , i n whole or i n p a r t , w i t h f u t u r e p a r t i c i p a n t s . " ( P a r t i c i p a n t ' s S i g n a t u r e ) Thank you once a g a i n f o r your p a r t i c i p a t i o n . B a r r y Chew, E x p e r i m e n t e r 142 APPENDIX H The J a n i s - F i e l d F e e l i n g s of Inadequacy S c a l e ( E a g l y , 1967). Ple a s e i n d i c a t e how o f t e n you experience the thoughts and f e e l i n g s d e s c r i b e d i n each item. Mark your answers on the IBM answer sheet p r o v i d e d ; do not make any marks on t h i s form. Use the f o l l o w i n g s c a l e f o r your responses: almost seldom or sometimes f a i r l y very never r a r e l y o f t e n o f t e n 1. How o f t e n do you have the f e e l i n g t h a t you can do e v e r y t h i n g w e l l ? 2. How c o n f i d e n t do you f e e l t h a t some day the people you know w i l l look up to you and r e s p e c t you? 3. How o f t e n are you t r o u b l e d by shyness? 4. How much do you worry about how w e l l you get along with other people? 5. How c o n f i d e n t are you that your success i n your f u t u r e job or ca r e e r i s assured? (e.g., very c o n f i d e n t ) 6. When you t a l k i n f r o n t of a c l a s s or a group of people of your own age, how pleased are you with your performance? (e.g., very pleased) 7. How o f t e n do you f e e l t h a t you are a s u c c e s s f u l person? 8. Do you ever f e e l so disco u r a g e d with y o u r s e l f t h a t you wonder whether an y t h i n g i s worthwhile? 9. In g e n e r a l , how c o n f i d e n t do you f e e l about your a b i l i t i e s ? 10. When you have to t a l k i n f r o n t of a c l a s s or a group of people your own age, how a f r a i d or worr i e d do you u s u a l l y f e e l ? (e.g., very a f r a i d ) 11. How o f t e n do you f e e l t h a t you d i s l i k e y o u r s e l f ? 12. How o f t e n do you f e e l i n f e r i o r to most of the people you know? 13. How o f t e n do you f e e l t h a t you have handled y o u r s e l f w e l l at a s o c i a l g a t h e r i n g ? 14. Do you ever t h i n k t h a t you are a w o r t h l e s s i n d i v i d u a l ? 15. When you speak i n a c l a s s d i s c u s s i o n , how sure of y o u r s e l f do you f e e l ? 143 16. How o f t e n do you have the f e e l i n g t h a t t h e r e i s n o t h i n g you can do w e l l ? 17. How c o m f o r t a b l e a r e you when s t a r t i n g a c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h people whom you don't know? ( e . g . , v e r y c o m f o r t a b l e ) 18. How o f t e n do you worry about whether o t h e r p e ople l i k e to be w i t h you? 19. How o f t e n do you f e e l s e l f - c o n s c i o u s ? 20. How sure of y o u r s e l f do you f e e l when among s t r a n g e r s ? 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0097255/manifest

Comment

Related Items