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.Sc,  The U n i v e r s i t y  of B r i t i s h Columbia,  1982  A THESIS SUBMITTED I N PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department o f 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 conforming  to t h e r e q u i r e d  standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF B R I T I S H COLUMBIA S e p t e m b e r , 1987 ©Barry  Chew, 1987  In  presenting  degree  this  thesis  in partial  fulfilment  of the requirements  at the University of British Columbia, I agree  freely available for reference and study. I further copying  of this  department publication  Department of pgYCHnLOfiY The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 a  t  e  DE-6(3/81)  agree that permission for extensive  It  by the head of  is understood  that  of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without  permission.  D  that the Library shall make it  thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted  or by his or her representatives.  for an advanced  ^ E P T E M R C T R ^ 1Q<*T  my  copying or my written  ii  ABSTRACT Prior  research  self-esteem  moderate r e a c t i o n s  people g e n e r a l l y self-esteem  has e s t a b l i s h e d  favour  that  individual differences i n  to s e l f - r e l e v a n t events.  p o s i t i v e outcomes t o n e g a t i v e  Although a l l  outcomes, low  ( L S E ) p e o p l e 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  to a r t i f i c i a l l y - c o n t r i v e d  events than high  self-esteem  i n response  (HSE) p e o p l e .  T h a t i s , LSE p e o p l e 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 t o p o s i t i v e o u t c o m e s and more n e g a t i v e o u t c o m e s t h a n HSE p e o p l e .  affective reactions  the laboratory  setting—the  in and  Study, provide  by d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t  that  t h e s e e v e n t s had a g r e a t e r  they c o n s i d e r e d  esteem-related  ( c ) LSE s u b j e c t s  i m p o r t a n t t h a n d i d HSE  were more v a r i a b l e i n t h e i r  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  d i f f e r e n c e s were o b t a i n e d  only  subjects  i m p a c t on t h e i r mood and t h a t  t i m e t h a n t h e i r HSE c o u n t e r p a r t s .  both d i f f e r e n c e s i n the e x t r e m i t y  Although were p r e d i c t e d f o r  and f r e q u e n c y o f mood c h a n g e s , t h e  on t h e f r e q u e n c y o f c h a n g e m e a s u r e .  Although the evidence f o r the d e f e n s i v e - s t y l e s there  differences  attributions for positive  f e e d b a c k , ( b ) LSE  them t o be more p e r s o n a l l y  s u b j e c t s , and f i n a l l y , moods a c r o s s  support f o r the  s e l f - r e l e v a n t events 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 claimed  and t h e  (a) esteem-related  t h e 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 negative  hypothesis  extremity  E v i d e n c e f r o m two s t u d i e s , t h e  M o o d - D i a r y S t u d y and t h e R o l e - P l a y i n g hypothesis  d i f f e r e n c e s i n mood  defensive-styles  life-events composition hypothesis.  first  negative  Two c o m p e t i n g t h e o r e t i c a l m o d e l s have been  proposed t o account f o r the self-esteem in  to  m o d e l was s u b s t a n t i a l ,  was a l s o some e v i d e n c e f o r t h e 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 ,  which e s s e n t i a l l y p o s t u l a t e s  that  t h e l i v e s o f HSE and L S E  iii  which  essentially  postulates  t h a t t h e l i v e s o f HSE and L S E  i n d i v i d u a l s d i f f e r e d markedly.  Finally,  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  o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n 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 indicated positively  t h a t t h e 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  c o r r e l a t e d a n d t h a t b o t h were r e l a t e d t o t h e f r e q u e n c y o f  c h a n g e i n mood b u t n o t mood  extremity.  iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract  i  i  List  of Tables  v i i .  List  of Figures  ix.  Acknowledgements  I.  x.  Introduction  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 B. The R o l e o f E v e n t V a l e n c e  and Measurement  i n Reactions  3  to S e l f - r e l e v a n t  Events  8  C. The R o l e o f S e l f - e s t e e m  i n Mediating Reactions to Self- .  r e l e v a n t Events II.  .  9  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 P u r p o s e o f t h e 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  Are Mediated Differences /  Variability  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 , N o t A c t u a l i n Event Composition  19  1. The d e f e n s i v e - s t y l e s m o d e l  20  2. The 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  23  3. P r e d i c t i o n s b a s e d on t h e two c o m p e t i n g m o d e l s  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  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 and  i n the V a r i a b i l i t y  t o B o t h Mood  Mood F r e q u e n c y  C. S e l f - c o m p l e x i t y III.  i n Mood  and Mood V a r i a b i l i t y  Extremity 36 38  Method  42  A. M o o d - D i a r y S t u d y  43  1. S u b j e c t s  43  V  2. Subject r e c r u i t m e n t 3.  43  Procedure (a) 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  44  (b) Mood and e v a l u a t i o n assessment overview  45  (c) D a i l y  46  mood-ratings  (d) 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 events (e) Causal a t t r i b u t i o n s  f o r these events  ....  47 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. D e b r i e f i n g s e s s i o n  49  B. R o l e - P l a y i n g Study  IV.  50  1. S u b j e c t s  50  2. S t i m u l i  50  3. Procedure  51  * Dependent Measures A. Complexity  51  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 V.  •  55  Results A. Mood-Diary Study 1. Temporal s t a b i l i t y  of s e l f - e s t e e m  55  2. Self-esteem and s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y  55  3. Self-esteem and mood  56  4. Mood and s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y  61  5. Self-esteem and r e a c t i o n s to events  65  vi B. R o l e - P l a y i n g VI.  Study  74  Discussion A. R e v i e w  of T h e o r e t i c a l Explanations  Differences B. E v a l u a t i o n  Underlying  Self-esteem  i n Mood E x t r e m i t y of the Hypotheses  84 Based  Upon E m p i r i c a l  Results  87  1. S e l f - e s t e e m  differences i n causal attributions  88  2. S e l f - e s t e e m  differences i n habituation  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  Differences  i n the Extremity  and F r e q u e n c y  o f Mood C h a n g e s D. S e l f - e s t e e m , E. S e l f - e s t e e m  92  Self-complexity, Differences  and Mood V a r i a b i l i t y  i n Actual Life-Events  97  F. C o n c l u s i o n  102  References Appendix  95  104  A. An e x a m p l e o f R u s s e l l ' s ( 1 9 8 3 ) A f f e c t G r i d (modified)  114  Appendix  B. C o n s e n t  form f o r the Mood-Diary  Appendix  C. C o n s e n t  form f o r t h e R o l e - P l a y i n g  Appendix  D. A s a m p l e  of the s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y  administered  t o Mood-Diary  Study  115  Study  117  questionnaire  Study p a r t i c i p a n t s  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 t h e M o o d - D i a r y  Appendix  F. D e b r i e f i n g  statement f o r the Mood-Diary  Appendix  G. D e b r i e f i n g  statement f o r the Role-Playing  Appendix  H. The J a n i s - F i e l d 1967)  Feelings  of Inadequacy  118 Study  Study  136  Study  Scale  . 121  139  (Eagly, 142  vii L I S T OF TABLES Table  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 indices of complexity  Table  II.  of self-representation  57  I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s among t h e e i g h t mood m e a s u r e s a n d their  Table  and t h e t h r e e  c o r r e l a t i o n s with self-esteem  I I I . C o r r e l a t i o n s between t h e t h r e e c o m p l e x i t y  59 m e a s u r e s and  t h e e i g h t mood m e a s u r e s Table  IV.  63  C o r r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n m e a s u r e s o f mood v a r i a b i l i t y  with  s e l f - e s t e e m , and c o m p l e x i t y Table  V.  C o r r e l a t i o n s among t h e t h r e e c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n the  three general  VI.  Reactions  of high  items,  i m p a c t 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 Table  66  events  68  ( H S E ) and l o w s e l f - e s t e e m  ( L S E ) Mood-  D i a r y S t u d y s u b j e c t s t o t h e most p o s i t i v e and most negative Table  events  o f t h e day  71  V I I . I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s among t h e t h r e e c a u s a l items events  and t h e t h r e e g e n e r a l  impact items  attribution for positive  c o n t r i b u t e d by h i g h and l o w s e l f - e s t e e m  subjects  from the Mood-Diary Study Table  75  V I I I . I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s among t h e t h r e e c a u s a l items events  and t h e t h r e e g e n e r a l  impact items  attribution f o r negative  c o n t r i b u t e d by h i g h a n d l o w s e l f - e s t e e m  subjects  from t h e Mood-Diary Study Table  IX.  Reactions  of high  ( H S E ) and l o w s e l f - e s t e e m  76 (LSE) Role-  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 contributed Table  X.  events  by HSE a n d L S E s o u r c e s  Types o f events  s u p p l i e d by M o o d - D i a r y S t u d y  78 subjects  viiiV for  rating  by R o l e - P l a y i n g S t u d y s u b j e c t s  83  IX  L I S T OF FIGURES Figure  I.  I d e a l i z e d data frequency  r e v e a l i n g how d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e  o f mood c h a n g e s c a n n o n e t h e l e s s ,  s i m i l i a r w i t h i n - s u b j e c t standard  yield  d e v i a t i o n s (mood  extremity) Figure  II.  54  Rated i n t e r n a l i t y globality  (INTERN), s t a b i l i t y (STABLE),  ( G L O B A L ) , a n d i m 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 self-esteem Figure  e v e n t s by h i g h  (HSE) a n d l o w  (LSE) s u b j e c t s i n the Mood-Diary Study  I I I . R a t e d i m p o r t a n c e by r a t e r s i n t h e R o l e - P l a y i n g for (HSE)  p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e and l o w s e l f - e s t e e m  contributors  events provided (LSE) Mood-Diary  by  ..  72  Study  high  Study 80  X  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The c o n t r i b u t i o n s a n d 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 w e r e invaluable i n several stages of the preparation of the present thesis. F i r s t , I w o u l d 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 t h e 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 h a d d e m o n s t r a t e d a s i n c e r e i n t e r e s t a n d p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e 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 n k s a r e d i r e c t e d t o M o o d - D i a r y S t u d y s u b j e c t s , who o f t e n f e l t t h a t t h e number o f e x t r a - c o u r s e c r e d i t s e a r n e d was n o t commensurate w i t h t h e i r f i n e e f f o r t s . S e c o n d , s p e c i a l t h a n k s must be g i v e n t o C a r o l y n T e e s a n d t h e awesome s p e e d a n d a c c u r a c y i n w h i c h s h e c o d e d some o f t h e r a w d a t a . T h i r d , p r o f o u n d g r a t i t u d e must be e x t e n d e d t o D r . L a w r e n c e Ward a n d my two c o m m i t t e e members, D r s . Romauld L a k o w s k i a n d D a n i e l P e r l m a n f o r t h e i r s o u n d a d v i c e a n d encouragement, n o t merely w i t h r e g a r d s t o t h i s p r o j e c t , b u t a l s o w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e d i r e c t i o n o f my g r 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. Robert Knox a t t h e t i m e o f h i s s u d d e n 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, a n d t h o u g h t f u l c r i t i c i s m s i m p r o v e d e a r l i e r d r a f t s o f t h e t h e s i s immensely. F o u r t h , h e a r t - f e l t t h a n k s need t o be e x p r e s s e d t o W i n o n a a n d Z a b r i n a , my two s i s t e r s who h a d l a b o r i o u s l y t y p e d much o f t h e work when t h e y 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 m e n t i o n e d when I c o n s i d e r t h e s u p p o r t , p a t i e n c e , a n d 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 m o t h e r , showed me d u r i n g t h e f r u s t r a t i n g a n d 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 b u t c e r t a i n l y n o t l e a s t , I w o u l d l i k e t o a c k n o w l e d g e t h e t i r e l e s s d e d i c a t i o n , good c h e e r , a l w a y s 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 o f D r . 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 t h e normal r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f an advisor.  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 people g e n e r a l l y  exhibit  naturally-occurring  reviews). failure  s u c c e s s and f a i l u r e  (HSE) p e o p l e  (see Jones,  feedback  than h i g h  1973; S h r a u g e r ,  1975,  T h a t i s , L S E p e o p l e show more n e g a t i v e a f f e c t  f e e d b a c k and more p o s i t i v e a f f e c t  t h a n HSE p e o p l e . the  g r e a t e r a f f e c t i v e changes i n response t o  ( M o r e l a n d & Sweeney, 1 9 8 4 ) and  artificially-contrived self-esteem  that low s e l f - e s t e e m (LSE)  following  for  following  success  -  feedback  One i m m e d i a t e e m p i r i c a l q u e s t i o n i s t h e n a t u r e o f  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 . demonstrated  Another  interesting  d i f f e r e n c e i n a f f e c t i v e response  issue i s i f the  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 n o t a phenomenon o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l p a r a d i g m , and LSE  people experience g r e a t e r v a r i a b i l i t y  i n naturally-occurring  moods a c r o s s t i m e t h a n 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 along both a f f e c t i v e mood v a r i a b i l i t y It  e x t r e m i t y and f r e q u e n c y , t h e two d i m e n s i o n s o f  ( L a r s e n , 1987).  s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t u n l i k e t h e c o n t r o l l e d  associated with the majority of laboratory ecology, "feedback"  i s not a r t i f i c i a l l y  response from c o o p e r a t i v e s u b j e c t s . feedback a r i s e s control;  studies,  i n the natural  contrived  t o induce a maximal  In addition,  naturally-occurring  from e v e n t s t h a t a r e t y p i c a l l y  under  volitional  p e o p l e c a n n o t o n l y e x e r c i s e some c o n t r o l o v e r t h e  situational  c o n t e x t s i n which  they p l a c e themselves, but they can  a l s o e x e r t some c o n t r o l o v e r t h e o u t c o m e s a r i s i n g situations. any  outcomes t h a t a r e  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  p r o n o u n c e d c o g n i t i v e and e m o t i o n a l  reactions.  from  those  e v e n t s do n o t e l i c i t  2 The  first  hypothesis  of t h i s  mood f l u c t u a t i o n s r e p o r t e d  investigation  by L S E s u b j e c t s c o m p a r e d t o HSE  p a r t i c i p a n t s i n response to valenced esteem-related  motivated  itself  i n a self-esteem  s t y l e of performing  One n e c e s s a r y  implication  be g e n e r a l i z e d a c r o s s  variability.  causal attributions  i s not confined  time  A second r e l a t e d  esteem-related  and s i t u a t i o n hypothesis  d i f f e r e n c e s may be o b s e r v e d  mood v a r i a b i l i t y — a f f e c t i v e  f o r such  to the l a b o r a t o r y , but i n t e r m s o f n a t u r a l mood  i s that along  these both  dimensions of  o f mood  changes.  t e s t e d i n t h e two s t u d i e s  reported  t h e M o o d - D i a r y S t u d y and t h e R o l e - P l a y i n g S t u d y .  the r o l e of c o m p l e x i t y relationship Before  between s e l f - e s t e e m the i n v e s t i g a t i o n  and mood v a r i a b i l i t y  be o u t l i n e d .  ( i . e . , as a t r a i t ) on p e o p l e ' s  s e l f - r e l e v a n t events  i s examined.  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  operational status of self-esteem  valence  In addition,  of the s e l f - r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n mediating the  e m p i r i c a l framework w i l l  variable  First,  t h e c o n c e p t u a l and  a s an i n d i v i d u a l - d i f f e r e n c e  i s reviewed.  Second, the r o l e of event  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 s discussed.  empirical l i t e r a t u r e s addressing reactions to self-relevant  T h i r d , t h e t h e o r e t i c a l and  the r o l e of self-esteem  events  are discussed.  i n mediating  Fourth, the  i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h i s research f o r : (a) s e l f - e s t e e m  events.  i s that the self-esteem  e x t r e m i t y and f r e q u e n c y  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 here,  of c o g n i t i v e defenses  difference i n the h a b i t u a l ,  of t h i s hypothesis  d i f f e r e n c e i n mood e x t r e m i t y can  l a b o r a t o r y f e e d b a c k r e f l e c t an  d i f f e r e n c e i n the u t i l i z a t i o n  which manifests  i s that the greater  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 ) t h e p o s s i b l e t h e o r e t i c a l m e c h a n i s m s t h a t may u n d e r l i e  3 these d i f f e r e n c e s are c o n s i d e r e d . s e l f - e s t e e m and  Finally,  the c o n s t r u c t of  i t s r e l a t i o n to mood v a r i a b i l i t y  Self-esteem:  C o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n and  are examined.  Measurement  Before c o n s i d e r i n g the r o l e of s e l f - e s t e e m i n mediating  people's  r e a c t i o n s to p e r s o n a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , valenced  (i.e.,  n e g a t i v e l y evaluated)  to c o n s i d e r b r i e f l y  events,  c u r r e n t conceptual  and  of s e l f - e s t e e m has  enjoyed  p e r s o n a l i t y and magazines and  i t i s important  positively  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 . a prolific  literature,  The  not only  books.  The  the  topic  by  s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i s t s , but a l s o by w r i t e r s of  s o - c a l l e d "self-awareness"  or  popular  enormous  p o p u l a r i t y 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 v a r i a b l e i s a t t e s t e d to by C r a n d a l l ' s (1973) o b s e r v a t i o n that s e l f - e s t e e m "has almost e v e r y t h i n g at one not without behaviour  behaviour The both  justification;  i n such widely  conformity,  time or another  (p.45)".  s e l f - e s t e e m has  d i v e r s e content  been r e l a t e d  This popularity i s  been shown to i n f l u e n c e  areas as  competition,  a t t r a c t i o n , c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s , achievement, and  (Wells & Marwell, pervasiveness  p e r s o n a l and  s u b s t a n t i v e and  to  helping  1976).  of the concept  s o c i a l behaviour  methodological  of s e l f - e s t e e m a s s o c i a t e d with  has u n f o r t u n a t e l y , c r e a t e d s e r i o u s  problems f o r s o c i a l  perhaps the ease with which i n v e s t i g a t o r s and  scientists.  l a y persons a l i k e  It i s can  connote a meaning f o r the term " s e l f - e s t e e m " that g i v e s i t s users confidence  to apply  the term so widely and  l a r g e number of s i t u a t i o n s .  f o r t y o p e r a t i o n a l and "self-esteem".  yet, so i m p r e c i s e l y , i n a  From t h e i r e x t e n s i v e survey  l i t e r a t u r e , Church, T r u s s , and  Velicer  of  the  (1980) r e p o r t e d no l e s s  than  p o s s i b l y , t h e o r e t i c a l , meanings of the term,  They have noted  the  that the l a c k of a  widely-accepted  A conceptual  or o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n  detrimental i n research.  This  of d i v e r s e — n o t  I t has a l s o encouraged  self-esteem  i n v e n t o r i e s or t o customize with  psychometric  To p r o v i d e  some c l a r i t y  to design  existing  term " s e l f - e s t e e m " ,  two  r e l a t e d , but c o n c e p t u a l l y  unique; s e v e r a l current distinction 1981).  Blascovich,  own  reliability  c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of  i t i s useful to p a r t i t i o n distinct,  the construct  studies of self-esteem  self-reflective,  i s by no means  have r e c o g n i z e d  and  (e.g., Campbell, 1 9 8 A ; M c F a r l i n &  Global or chronic  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 or self-competence.  into  components—global or chronic  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  this  their  ones t o t h e i r  p r o p e r t i e s o f unknown  as t o the present  the  adopted  researchers  extremely  (Church et a l . , 1 9 8 0 ) .  and/or v a l i d i t y  self-esteem  to mention a t times,  findings involving self-esteem  difficult.  needs—tests  h a s p r o v e n t o be  l a c k o f a g r e e m e n t h a s made t h e  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 paradoxical—empirical  of self-esteem  Stated  self-esteem—or  enduring  differently,  simply,  perception  of s e l f - w o r t h  i ti s a generalized  e v a l u a t i v e a t t i t u d e that e x h i b i t s a remarkable  degree of s t a b i l i t y  over  Kumka, 1 9 8 2 ) .  i s not t o say t h a t people's temporary f e e l i n g s of  This  time and c i r c u m s t a n c e s  self-worth are unresponsive implications  f o r the s e l f ,  research  but that i n a d u l t s , a t l e a s t ,  known a s t a s k - s p e c i f i c  literature)  represents  strong  generalized  Self-evaluation  or s i t u a t i o n a l  self-esteem  i n the  a more t e m p o r a r y s t a t e o f s e l f - r e g a r d  o r 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 , circumstances.  Finch, &  t o outcomes o f e v e n t s t h a t h o l d  f e e l i n g s of s e l f - w o r t h are remarkably s t a b l e . (variously  (Mortimer,  Self-evaluation i s defined  s e t t i n g , and  o p e r a t i o n a l l y h e r e a s mood  5 because f l u c t u a t i o n s in  mood c h a n g e s .  potentially  in self-evaluation  are  hypothetically  I t seems r e a s o n a b l e t o assume t h a t  threaten self-evaluation  whereas events t h a t  will  manifested  events  that  p r o d u c e n e g a t i v e moods,  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  will  produce  p o s i t i v e moods. The  d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n s e l f - e s t e e m and  particularly are  i m p o r t a n t i n the  involved.  influence  how  Differences reflected  self-evaluation  p r e s e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n as  S p e c i f i c a l l y , i t i s hypothesized  that  i n d i v i d u a l s process s e l f - r e l e v a n t i n these i n f o r m a t i o n - p r o c e s s i n g  i n the  impact of  that  on  both  concepts  self-esteem  may  information.  strategies  information  is  may  be  self-evaluation  and  t h e r e b y mood. The  o r i g i n of  theoretical issue s e l f - e s t e e m may c l a i m e d , by  individual differences of  be  at  considerable debate. least partially  p r e v i o u s p a t t e r n s of  experiences.  i n self-esteem i s a  T h a t i s , HSE  One's p a r t i c u l a r l e v e l  d e t e r m i n e d , as  p o s i t i v e and  children  LSE  children.  conceptualizing  that  the  self-esteem.  theorists  Indeed, the  (e.g., Epstein,  particular  some e a r l y  level i s heavily  phase of  events  m i x t u r e of  than  events might  were  1973)  great majority have e x p r e s s e d  self-regard  c h i l d h o o d , and  d e p e n d e n t upon p a r e n t a l ,  e n v i r o n m e n t a l c u e s o f o n e ' s own  self-relevant  developing t h e i r r e l a t i v e l y  f o r m a t i o n of a l a s t i n g l e v e l of  predominantly at  life  c r u c i a l t i m e when c h i l d r e n  t h e i r s e l f - i m a g e s and  permanent l e v e l of personality  the  (1959)  consistently  actual  M o r e o v e r , t h i s more f o r t u n a t e  have o c c u r r e d d u r i n g  negative  might have  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 o f  Cohen  of  worth.  of the  belief  occurs that  this  social,  Change t o o n e ' s  and  chronic,  6 persistent  self-expectancies—especially  therefore, extremely i s less malleable Hence, a l t h o u g h events  difficult  their  LSE people  childhood  The  may n o t e n c o u n t e r a s c h e d u l e  developed.  of l i f e  f r o m t h a t o f HSE p e o p l e may p r o d u c e  i n s e c u r e about t h e i r  as  individuals  own w o r t h a s human  who h a v e l o w s e l f - e s t e e m ) .  i m p l i c a t i o n s of possessing  have been w e l l - d o c u m e n t e d .  Indeed, these  different  The e a r l y y e a r s  may p r o d u c e c o n s i s t e n t e x p e c t a n c i e s domains.  y e a r s , when t h e s e l f - c o n c e p t  s e t of circumstances  who a r e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y (i.e.,  alteration—is  and c o g n i t i v e c o n s i s t e n c y m e c h a n i s m s a r e  that i s appreciably different  adults,  beings  i n later  a dramatic  levels of self-esteem  of self-esteem  formation  f o r f u t u r e outcomes a c r o s s  generalized expectations  many  of personal  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  differences i n  self-esteem  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 o f  self-esteem  to operationalize differences i n generalized  expectancies. Although by A d l e r  the c l a s s i c  (1927),  different,  they  theories concerning  Rogers (1951), a l l imply  and S u l l i v a n  t h i s proposition i s not d i f f i c u l t  LSE  distinctly  to find  Considerable  between  support f o r  i n the research  literature.  ( e . g . , C o o p e r s m i t h , 1967; D o r i s , 1959) have documented  individuals suffer  manifest  (1953)—are  proposed  a generally positive relationship  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 .  Authors  the s e l f — a s  itself  disorders,  from high l e v e l s of a n x i e t y .  i n n e u r o t i c symptoms ( W y l i e , 1 9 6 1 ) ,  stomach u l c e r s , and i n s o m n i a  (Coopersmith,  a l s o been shown t h a t p e r s o n s o f l o w p e r c e i v e d a greater likelihood  that  This a n x i e t y can psycho-somatic 1967).  I t has  s e l f - w o r t h demonstrate  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 d r u g s (Brehm &  7 Back, 1968) and a l c o h o l (Wahl, Having low self-esteem i n s i d i o u s consequences. in  a "self-defeating,  people,  s e t lower  situations lower for  i n d i v i d u a l s may be  reduce t h e i r  p e r f o r m a n c e i n many  before  p o o r p e r f o r m a n c e (Hamachek, 1 9 7 1 ) , substantiates their  one c o n c l u d e s  (Kimble  self-esteem  1987).  & Helmreich,  They h a v e a more a c c u r a t e  1972).  depend more upon s o c i a l  (Silverman,  approval  to guide  & Helmreich,  1 9 6 4 ) , a r e more i n t o l e r a n t  i n competent  others  self-esteem  M c F a r l i n and B l a s c o v i c h ( 1 9 8 1 ) h a v e s u r m i s e d ,  albeit  t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h m o d e r a t e s e l f - e s t e e m h a v e no  extreme e x p e c t a t i o n s  to  easily  of d i s s i m i l a r  1970), than moderate  Aronson, & Lefan,  them a s t o  1 9 7 2 ) , a r e more  (Helmreich,  averted  picture  Those w i t h h i g h o r low  of f a l l i b i l i t y  cautiously,  that  are p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y , the  o t h e r s , and a r e more c r i t i c a l  persons.  suggesting  i s the  l i m i t a t i o n s and c a n acknowlege f a i l u r e s as w e l l as  o p i n i o n s about themselves (Kimble persuaded  initial  that high self-esteem  t h e r e i s a l s o some e v i d e n c e  (e.g., Seligman,  personal  successes  effort  K l e i n , & C o h e n , 1964; W a t t e n b u r g &  w i t h moderate, not h i g h , s e l f - e s t e e m  of t h e i r  these  of s e l f - w o r t h .  optimal s t a t e of being,  healthiest  trapped  e f f o r t s on t a s k s t h a t demand  (Diggory,  less  c o m p a r e d t o HSE  1967; K i e s l e r & B a r a l , 1 9 7 0 ) , a n d  The r e s u l t i n g  Nevertheless,  people  for their  t o t h a t o f HSE p e o p l e ,  expectancies  l e s s a p p a r e n t b u t no  v i c i o u s c y c l e " i n which they,  (Coopersmith,  1964).  other  Low s e l f - e s t e e m  achievement to occur  relative  can y i e l d  expectations  expectations  Clifford,  1956).  for either  the p o t e n t i a l l y  deny n e g a t i v e  negative  success  or f a i l u r e ,  and hence, have  consequences of both  f e e d b a c k ( a s HSE p e o p l e  being  too quick  t y p i c a l l y w o u l d ) and t o o  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 ( a s LSE  p e o p l e have a tendency  to  do). The  Role of Event Valence  Before discussing  i n Reactions to S e l f - r e l e v a n t  Events  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 to s e l f - r e l e v a n t events, i t i s important to review 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 g o v e r n s e l f - r e l e v a n t events. a s one  t h a t produces  potentially  impact  A self-relevant  people's r e a c t i o n s  e v e n t may  Events  outcomes or c a r r i e s i m p l i c a t i o n s  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 .  that One  i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the s e l f  c a n be  major  affective—to  e v e n t s i s e v e n t v a l e n c e ( M o r e l a n d & Sweeney,  that y i e l d  to  be l o o s e l y d e f i n e d  d e t e r m i n a n t o f 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 particular  briefly  1984).  judged  as  either  p o s i t i v e or n e g a t i v e . A l a r g e body o f r e s e a r c h ( e . g . , G r u d e r , Campbell,  1980;  intuitively  Wills,  1981)  has  1977;  s u p p o r t e d what i s a d m i t t e d l y , an  than n e g a t i v e i m p l i c a t i o n s .  i n f o r m a t i o n i s more l i k e l y  Negative  favourable implications  1976).  may  be why  and  remembered l o n g e r t h a n e v e n t s w i t h u n f a v o u r a b l e  ( M o r e l a n d & Sweeney, 1 9 8 4 ) .  events  t o be a v o i d e d , i g n o r e d , o r r e j e c t e d  p o s i t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n (e.g., Gibbons & Wicklund,  than  Perhaps  this  f o r the s e l f are processed q u i c k e r implications  Moreover, people's c a u s a l a s c r i p t i o n s  for valenced events exemplify a s e l f - s e r v i n g  and  &  obvious 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  t h a t have p o s i t i v e r a t h e r  attribute  Tesser  bias;  individuals  the a n t e c e d e n t s o f p o s i t i v e outcomes t o i n t e r n a l  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  to the s e l f  Cooper, & K o l d i t z ,  1980;  Zuckerman, 1979).  T h e r e f o r e , i t i s perhaps  factors  (e.g., Arkin,  Green, P y s z e z y n s k i , & Solomon,  1982;  not s u r p r i s i n g  that  the  9 majority  of people have p o s i t i v e s e l f - i m a g e s  c o n f i d e n t i n d e a l i n g with  the c h a l l e n g e s  and  feel  of l i f e  relatively  (Moreland & Sweeney,  1984). The  Role of Self-esteem  i n Mediating  Reactions  to S e l f - r e l e v a n t  Events Individual differences i n self-esteem  are a s s o c i a t e d with  an  o p t i m i s t i c or p e s s i m i s t i c 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 c o n t r o l over the  (Moreland & Sweeney, 1984). concerning  the u n d e r l y i n g  However, two  views have been advanced  mechanism r e l a t i n g s e l f - e s t e e m  d i f f e r e n t i a l r e a c t i o n s to valenced l a b e l e d self-enhancement theory  environment  feedback.  One  (Shrauger, 1975).  to  model has This  been  theory,  d e r i v e d from past hedonic models (e.g., M i l l i m e t & Gardner, 1972), suggests t h a t people are most r e c e p t i v e and information  r e a c t most f a v o u r a b l y  from the environment that enhances t h e i r o p i n i o n  image of themselves.  As most hedonic models provide  g e n e r a l i z e d r e a c t i o n s to p o s i t i v e and p o i n t i n self-enhancement theory  need—previously D i t t e s , 1959;  feedback, an  important  or a b a s i c d e s i r e (Shrauger,  as p o s s i b l e .  time.  a 1975)  This p a r t i c u l a r  Rogers, 1 9 5 9 ) — l i k e  1959;  a l l other human  to the p r i n c i p l e s of d r i v e r e d u c t i o n .  p r i n c i p l e i s that any s t r e n g t h with  a rationale for  noted by p e r s o n a l i t y t h e o r i s t s (e.g., Cohen,  Kaplan, 1975;  needs, i s s u b j e c t  and  i s that such r e a c t i o n s r e p r e s e n t  need ( M c F a r l i n & B l a s c o v i c h , 1981) to view o n e s e l f as f a v o u r a b l y  negative  to  One  such  u n s a t i s f i e d need or d e s i r e w i l l i n c r e a s e i n In the present  case,  LSE  i n d i v i d u a l s , whose need  f o r p o s i t i v e s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n i s t y p i c a l l y u n s a t i s f i e d and therefore stronger, w i l l  respond more f a v o u r a b l y  is  to p o s i t i v e 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 f e e d b a c k t h a n p e o p l e w i t h  self-esteem reflected  (Shrauger,  1975).  I f s e l f - e v a l u a t i v e responses are  i n a f f e c t o r mood, t h e n L S E p e o p l e s h o u l d ,  self-enhancement theory, self-enhancing  according to  display greater p o s i t i v e affect  e v e n t s and g r e a t e r  self-denigrating  high  negative  e v e n t s t h a n HSE  A second p o s i t i o n r e g a r d i n g  affect  to pleasant,  to undesirable,  people. the underlying  process  by w h i c h  r e a c t i o n s t o e v a l u a t i v e f e e d b a c k a r e r e g u l a t e d by s e l f - e s t e e m 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 cognitive-dissonance and  balance  vary  theory  motivations, inherent their  they  ( A r o n s o n , 1968; F e s t i n g e r , 1957; G l a s s , 1968)  i n their  Although  applicability  need t o m a i n t a i n  consistency,  discomfort  theoretically  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  theory  (Campbell,  (Moreland  Unpleasant  r e s u l t s when  (Shrauger,  1984; S h r a u g e r , 1 9 7 5 ) — g i v e s  p r e v i o u s l y , because 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  feedback.  a very  feedback that i s congruent with  these  on r e s p o n s e s t o  As m e n t i o n e d  theory  expectancies  suggests that  expectancies  I n c o n g r u e n t f e e d b a c k may be d i s c o u n t e d ,  consistency  different  i s linked to generalized  feedback, t h i s  this  1975),  & Sweeney, 1 9 8 1 ) , o r s i m p l y ,  and n e g a t i v e l y v a l e n c e d  people  on s e l f - e s t e e m ,  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 self-esteem positively  "affective  ( e . g . , F e s t i n g e r , 1957;  When a p p l i e d t o t h e r e s e a r c h  self-consistency  and  congruence, or consonance i n  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 1958).  theories  to c e r t a i n behaviours  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 .  Heider,  consistency  h a v e i n common t h e n o t i o n t h a t p e o p l e p o s s e s s an  s t a t e s " or emotional hold  t h e o r i e s such as  (Newcomb, 1 9 7 8 ) .  t o some e x t e n t  emerged  will  be  only  accepted.  be p e r c e p t u a l l y d i s t o r t e d , be  11 attributed  to external f a c t o r s , or simply,  c r e d i b l e and p r o d u c e more n e g a t i v e confirms  affect  be p e r c e i v e d  than i n f o r m a t i o n  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 ,  i n d i v i d u a l s are expected  1975).  t o r e s p o n d more f a v o u r a b l y  e t c . ) than t h e i r LSE c o u n t e r p a r t s .  known a s t h e " m o d e s t " c o n s i s t e n c y  to p o s i t i v e  (because i t i s This hypothesis i s 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  theory,  labelled  the "strong  consistency  effect  that  T h u s , HSE  f e e d b a c k 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 f e e d b a c k discounted,  as l e s s  effect",  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  (Shrauger,  i s c o n t r o v e r s i a l because i t  be more a c c e p t i n g  than p o s i t i v e e v a l u a t i v e feedback because such i n f o r m a t i o n i s more c o n g r u e n t w i t h t h e i r Although  accepting  negative  feedback should  individuals. prediction;  f e e d b a c k w o u l d deny t h e need f o r distressing  than  to consistency  theorists,  be more f a v o u r a b l y  negative  r e c e i v e d by L S E t h a n  negative  feedback should  HSE  With respect  be l e s s w e l l - r e c e i v e d by L S E  t o p o s i t i v e outcomes, t h e feedback  be b e t t e r r e c e i v e d by HSE t h a n L S E p e o p l e i n a c c o r d  consistency  holding  The s e l f - e n h a n c e m e n t v i e w makes t h e o p p o s i t e  t h a n HSE p e o p l e . should  self-expectancies.  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 personal  negative  uncomplimentary  initial  s e 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 inconsistent  of  theory,  whereas self-enhancement theory  with  would p r e d i c t the  reverse. In addressing  t h i s apparent c l a s h of t h e o r i e s , there  e m p i r i c a l a n d t h e o r e t i c a l work s u g g e s t i n g apply,  albeit  i n different  comprehensive review  contexts.  of the l i t e r a t u r e  i s some  t h a t b o t h t h e o r i e s may  In Shrauger's  (1975)  on r e a c t i o n s t o p e r f o r m a n c e  evaluations  ( 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  t h a t one's r e a c t i o n s can These phases b r i e f l y ,  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.  i n c l u d e : (a) the  r e t e n t i o n of the e v a l u a t i o n ; and/or v a l i d i t y responsibility  ( b ) an  of i t s source; f o r any  i n i t i a l r e c e p t i o n and  assessment of  p o s i t i v e or n e g a t i v e of  the  Researchers l a t e r p h a s e s i n t o one  o f two  r e a c t i o n to feedback  the  the  Within  the  Jones (1973),  motivational  feedback.  M o r e l a n d and  first  last  two  Shrauger  evaluations  Jacobs, Berscheid, With respect  the  feedback (e.g.,  more t h a n HSE 1971;  among a  better  such a l l people  I l g e n , 1971;  Weaver  p o s i t i v e e v a l u a t i o n s more  & Walster,  &  and  people (e.g., D i t t e s , Walster,  1965).  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  differences.  to  feedback,  provides  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 self-esteem  and  (1975),  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  d i s l i k e negative  because  p h a s e s due  d i f f e r e n c e s i n r e a c t i o n s to  people l i k e  the  four phases  that self-enhancement theory  for self-esteem  B r i c k m a n , 1 9 7 4 ) , LSE  for  these  nature).  Sweeney ( 1 9 8 4 ) ,  p r e f e r p o s i t i v e to negative  1959;  task.  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  o t h e r s , have c o n c l u d e d explanation  (f)  or d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g ) ,  a f f e c t i v e component ( w h i c h c o n s i s t s o f t h e and  o u t c o m e ; and  c o g n i t i v e component o f  (which c o n s i s t s of the  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  t h e i r emotional  subsequent  importance of c l a s s i f y i n g  categories—the  and  (e) r e s u l t i n g f e e l i n g s  d e s i r e to perform a f u t u r e  recognized  reliability  outcomes; (d)  self;  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 and  the  later  (c) a t t r i b u t i o n s of c a u s a l i t y  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  subsequent m o t i v a t i o n  argued  Individuals will  theory in  is  accounting  c o g n i t i v e l y accept  outcomes t h a t s u p p o r t life  experiences  their  expectancies  because p r e v i o u s  h a v e shown t h a t i n c o n s i s t e n t o u t c o m e s a r e  t e m p o r a r y and i m p r o b a b l e literature  initial  ( M c F a r l i n & B l a s c o v i c h , 1981).  The  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 L S E and HSE  cognitively  distorting  or f a i l i n g  inconsistent with their  original  to r e c a l l  ( e . g . , C r a r y , 1966; S i l v e r m a n ,  responses  on t a s k s t o p r o d u c e f e e d b a c k  expectancies  (Aronson  outcomes t o i n t e r n a l  individuals  a c c u r a t e l y outcomes  p e r c e p t i o n s of themselves  abilities  or  1964), d e l i b e r a t e l y  (e.g., Feather,  1969; Simon & F e a t h e r ,  e s s e n t i a l l y make u s e o f t h e o b s e r v a t i o n s o f d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e employment  i n support  self-regard  e f f e c t i v e use o f a v a i l a b l e d e f e n s e s  when t h e i r  i n f o r m a t i o n , HSE qualities.  such  people  as a v o i d a n c e .  defenses  very  I n sharp  a high  chiefly  ineffective  on t h e i r  positive  typically  or t o t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n of defenses  like  experience  o f t h e need f o r  c o n t r a s t , LSE p e r s o n s  employment  because  infrequent  a r e assumed  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 t o s e l f - e s t e e m because of t h e i r  and  by a v e r s i v e  individuals  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 self-enhancement.)  With  are penetrated  particular  Millimet  o r t o t h e i r u s e o f more  are free to concentrate  (Hence, these  that  i n d i v i d u a l s possess  f o r perceiving threat to t h e i r  1973).  esteem-related  of defensive s t r a t e g i e s .  G a r d n e r ( 1 9 7 2 ) h a v e p r o p o s e d t h a t HSE  occurrences  initial  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 o u t c o m e s t o  o f 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  e f f e c t i v e defenses,  changing  consistent with their  O t h e r r e s e a r c h e r s have p r o p o s e d , as f u r t h e r e v i d e n c e  of t h e i r  their  & C a r l s m i t h , 1 9 6 2 ) , and a s c r i b i n g c o n s i s t e n t  external causal factors  threshold  probably  to  mainly  of s e l f - d e f e n s i v e s t r a t e g i e s , "rationalization,  intellectualization, 1972).  and o b s e s s i v e i d e a t i o n "  (Millimet &  Gardner,  T h e s e d e f e n s e s do n o t h e l p L S E i n d i v i d u a l s a v o i d  threatening  stimuli,  i n t e n s e form.  but merely modify  personally  them t o a l e s s e n d u r i n g a n d  C o n s e q u e n t l y , L S E p e r s o n s a r e made p a i n f u l l y  aware o f  their  own i n c o m p e t e n c i e s a n d i n a d e q u a c i e s .  their  undesirable a t t r i b u t e s y i e l d s intense negative emotional  ( " n e g a t i v e " b e c a u s e o f an u n s a t i s f i e d This i s particularly self-relevant their such  T h e i r r u m i n a t i o n over  need f o r s e l f - e n h a n c e m e n t ) .  t r u e when t h e y e n c o u n t e r f u r t h e r  feedback  (Cohen, 1959), which  perceived personal d e f i c i t s  displeasing  serves t o remind  different  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  idea that the l e v e l self-protective,  of self-esteem r e f l e c t s  the use of  d e f e n s i v e m e c h a n i s m s i s n o t new.  ( 1 9 5 9 ) and S i l v e r m a n ( 1 9 6 4 ) 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 , s e l f - e s t e e m , may  utilize  qualitatively  be s p e c i f i c , HSE p e r s o n s h a b i t u a l l y  different  so-called  Cohen  varying i n  "defensive styles".  employ " r e p r e s s i v e  defenses",  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 p e o p l e w i t h L S E t y p i c a l l y  evoke  " e x p r e s s i v e d e f e n s e s " , s u c h a s p r o j e c t i o n and  intellectualization. of  them o f  beliefs. The  To  states  these psychological  almost i n v a r i a b l y ,  These a u t h o r s f u r t h e r noted defenses d i f f e r e d  that the e f f i c a c y  tremendously  and t h a t ,  t h e t y p e s o f d e f e n s e s e m p l o y e d by HSE  individuals  were c o n s i d e r a b l y more p o t e n t t h a n t h o s e u s e d by L S E p e r s o n s . "Blocking out", d i s t o r t i n g , self-relevant  o r somehow i n v a l i d a t i n g  unfavourable  i n p u t were assumed t o be t h e most t y p i c a l  strategy  w i t h i n t h e HSE p e r s o n s ' r e p e r t o i r e o f d e f e n s e s t o t h w a r t u n p l e a s a n t personal information.  A s e r i e s o f l a b o r a t o r y experiments has  provided evidence i n support of these o b s e r v a t i o n s .  Some e x a m p l e s  15 include forget  the  findings  failure  that  HSE  as  c o m p a r e d t o LSE  e x p e r i e n c e s more r e a d i l y  i n d i v i d u a l s tend  (Silverman,  1964),  o v e r r a t e t a s k p e r f o r m a n c e s w h i c h were a c t u a l l y s i m i l a r 1 9 7 2 ) , and  to d i s l i k e  the  evaluator i s perceived  source of  not  Along a s i m i l a r vein, "self-protective  t o l i k e him  (i.e.,  damaging, p e r s o n a l s t i m u l i t h a t  category "discounting" utilize  this  strategies  are  threatening valid that  type of  strategy  indicators  categories.  and  potentially  She  more t h a n LSE  serve to  self.  1982), d i s t o r t e d  an  recall  reinterpretation  of  labels  of  people  transform  of  less  strategies  denial,  (e.g., E l l i s  retention  f e e d b a c k , even i f the  one  l e s s p o t e n t or  attention  or  Discounting  Those d i s c o u n t i n g  absence of  and/or l a c k  protecting  HSE  people.  render unpleasant events l e s s potent consist or  of  suggests that  mechanisms t h a t  of one's t r u e  differentiated  function  environmental s t i m u l i into either  selective attention  and  i n t o two  the  1955).  responses to  s e r v e the  strategies  cognitive  (Wiest,  to  (Shrauger,  more when  C a m p b e l l ( 1 9 8 4 ) has  strategies"  enhancing s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n )  evaluation  &  Holmes,  (e.g., Crary,  f e e d b a c k may  not  1966), be  ambiguous ( e . g . , Shrauger & Lund, 1975).  D i s c o u n t i n g approaches  make a v e r s i v e  d e r o g a t i o n of  feedback l e s s v a l i d  f e e d b a c k — w h e t h e r i t be o r a human e v a l u a t o r credibility  or  an  include  evaluation  instrument  s e l f - s e r v i n g causal  one's t a s k performance ( e . g . , Zuckerman, 1979). strategies  occupy the  potentially intercept  "front-line"  self-damaging feedback.  and  deactivate  of  that  source  terms  of  1968)  of  ascriptions  of  Discounting  defenses against Because they  the  ( e . g . , Korman,  ( e . g . , Shrauger & Lund, 1 9 7 5 ) — i n  c o m p e t e n c e , and  to  aversive,  cognitively  negative feedback, these defenses  represent  16 the  most e f f e c t i v e means o f  negative  self-referent  A l t h o u g h LSE people, Campbell positive rely  defense class  of  hindering &  1978),  changing  Smith,  negative  w h i l e HSE  little  negative  effectual  feedback,  they are  no  less  1980), the  they  general,  feedback.  of  and  cognitively  strategies to  than  maintain  however, LSE  Campbell's  failure  a  people to  but  intact  more n e g a t i v e  accepting  to  accept  effect  positive  Low  avoiding Thus,  of  states. and  to  negative component.  prefer  positive  moderate  both  self-esteem  self-esteem  feedback  less  feedback.  cognitive  and  but  negative  positive and  that  subsequently  threatening of  by  strategy  produces  in self-esteem  reactions. of  to  response  1976).  effective  affective  affective  moderating  affective  in  accepting  reactions  differences the  attribute  w i t h more o v e r t ,  cope w i t h  (e.g.,  Jones,  self-evaluation  and  respond  more c o g n i t i v e l y  more l i k e l y  an  that  other  1 9 8 0 ) , and  positive  feedback,  relatively  attempts  an  broad  Berglas &  (Gibbons & Wicklund,  negative  LSE  of  a  self-protective  better-performing (e.g.,  HSE  people  These r e p r e s e n t  & Campbell,  a maximally  individuals'  are  a  significance  (e.g., Tesser  are  Individual  tendencies,  of  strategies.  e v e n t s h a v e b o t h an  people  cognitive  category  personal  experience  summarize,  potential  motivated  this,  self-handicapping  affect,  latter  accomplish  performance  self-regard  self-relevant  less  the  behavioural  Because the  for  discounting  "coping"  discounting  their  these  on  second  following  leaves  from  less  To  people maintain  cognitively  self  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  feedback  self-exposure  In  the  relatively  Tesser  To  rely  suggests  strategies—the  include  to  people  on  the  stimuli.  self-evaluation.  primarily  protecting  and  less  of  differs  people  are  cognitively  17 rejecting  o f n e g a t i v e f e e d b a c k t h a n HSE p e o p l e ( b e c a u s e o f  consistency  theory).  On t h e o t h e r h a n d , L S E 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 f e e d b a c k a n d more  negative a f f e c t i v e reactions  t o n e g a t i v e f e e d b a c k t h a n HSE  (because of self-enhancement  theory).  and c o n s i s t e n c y  Hence, b o t h  people  self-enhancement  t h e o r i e s may a c c o u n t f o r t h e r e a c t i o n s  o f L S E and HSE  i n d i v i d u a l s to 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 for d i f f e r e n t f a c e t s of these r e a c t i o n s . Recently,  M o r e l a n d and Sweeney ( 1 9 8 4 ) e x a m i n e d  self-esteem  d i f f e r e n c e s i n b o t h 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 naturally-occurring examination.  self-relevant event—performance  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  on c o g n i t i v e r e a c t i o n s self-enhancement  effects—the Shrauger  e f f e c t s occur p r i m a r i l y  evaluation,  e f f e c t s w e r e more d o m i n a n t t h a n  f o r m e r e f f e c t s were o b t a i n e d  more l i k e l y  i n v o l v i n g and s i g n i f i c a n t  on some r e s p o n s e s  when t h e e v a l u a t i o n s  were  emotionally  by g e n e r a l ,  rather  t o feedback t h a n more  self-expectancies.  i s a l s o important to note that  self-esteem  differences i n  c o g n i t i v e r e a c t i o n s a r e more p r o n o u n c e d u n d e r c o n d i t i o n s rather  effects  t h a n when f e e d b a c k was l e s s s e l f - r e l e v a n t ,  t o be more i n f l u e n c e d  task-specific,  that  (b) self-enhancement  ( 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  It  consistency  (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 appeared  appeared  whereas  Nonetheless, they observed t h a t : (a)  h a v e n e v e r been f o u n d i n a f f e c t i v e r e a c t i o n s ,  and  on a m i d - t e r m  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  emotional responses. self-enhancement  to performance  to a  than p o s i t i v e feedback.  of negative  That i s , s e v e r a l i n v e s t i g a t o r s  (Brockner,  1979; C a m p b e l l ,  & F i s h e r , 1981; Diener found  1 9 8 4 ; C o h e n , 1959; D e P a u l o , B r o w n ,  & Dweck, 1 9 7 8 ; S h r a u g e r & S o r m a n , 1 9 7 7 ) h a v e  t h a t HSE s u b j e c t s a r e c l e a r l y  feedback  than LSE s u b j e c t s .  greater acceptance often f a i l s  Ishii,  With  less accepting of negative  p o s i t i v e outcomes, t h e r e l a t i v e l y  on t h e p a r t o f HSE s u b j e c t s t h a n L S E s u b j e c t s  to reach s t a t i s t i c a l  significance.  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 often observed,  findings continue  t o r e v e a l an i n t e r a c t i o n  feedback.  e v e n t h o u g h most o f t h e r e s e a r c h  The a s y m m e t r y i s n o t t y p i c a l l y  reactions to self-relevant A recent study  between s e l f - e s t e e m and found  for affective  feedback.  by C a m p b e l l a n d F a i r e y ( 1 9 8 5 ) p r o v i d e s  evidence  f o r t h e asymmetry i n c o g n i t i v e r e s p o n s e s  events.  Low a n d h i g h s e l f - e s t e e m s u b j e c t s , who e x p e c t e d  anagram t e s t , were a s k e d :  (a) t o imagine  c o m p l e t e d t h e t e s t and t h a t t h e y very  to threatening t o t a k e an  t h a t they had a l r e a d y  had e i t h e r  performed very w e l l or  p o o r l y , a n d ( 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  Subsequent performance e x p e c t a n c i e s measured.  Both  n o r e x p l a i n e d any outcome.  and a c t u a l p e r f o r m a n c e w e r e  L S E a n d HSE s u b j e c t s i n t h e s u c c e s s - e x p l a n a t i o n  exhibited higher expectancies In  dramatic  and p e r f o r m a n c e than  then group  control subjects.  t h e 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  lower  expectancies  and p e r f o r m a n c e than  control subjects.  Stated  differently,  t h e r e w e r e no r e l i a b l e  self-esteem differences i n  expectancies  and p e r f o r m a n c e 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 ; b u t 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 , L S E s u b j e c t s demonstrated lower  expectancies  a n d p e r f o r m a n c e t h a n HSE s u b j e c t s .  A content  a n a l y s i s of the explanations  d i f f e r e n c e s i n the content success-explanation subjects contained and  more c h a r a c t e r o l o g i c a l ( i . e . , than those  their hypothetical failures  circumscribed  factors).  threatening  self-esteem  by t h e  internal,  o f HSE s u b j e c t s  stable, (who  i n terms o f e x t e r n a l , u n s t a b l e ,  Therefore,  evidence f o r the notion that self-esteem actually  provided  no  However, t h e f a i l u r e - e x p l a n a t i o n s o f LSE  global) reasons f o r f a i l i n g  explained and  group.  of explanations  revealed  the study  also  provided  d i f f e r e n c e s i n r e a c t i o n to  e v e n t s may be m e d i a t e d by  self-esteem  d i f f e r e n c e s i n h a b i t u a l ways o f e x p l a i n i n g n e g a t i v e  outcomes.  IMPLICATIONS FOR MOOD V A R I A B I L I T Y : PURPOSE OF THE PRESENT STUDY Hypothesis Mediated Event  1: S e l f - e s t e e m  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 , N o t A c t u a l D i f f e r e n c e s i n  Composition Previous  research,  c o m p a r e d t o HSE p e o p l e , in  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  their  reviewed  above, has demonstrated  LSE p e o p l e have e x h i b i t e d g r e a t e r  affective reactions to isolated  laboratory-contrived naturally-occurring  events (Jones, events (Moreland  participants reported  events,  1 9 7 3 ; S h r a u g e r , 1975) o r & Sweeney, 1 9 8 4 ) .  and  unhappiness to negative  prediction  o u t c o m e s t h a n t h e i r HSE  self-esteem  hypothesis—have  differences.  that esteem-related  e f f e c t i v e defensive  disappointment  counterparts.  models—the defensive-styles hypothesis  l i f e - e v e n t s composition these  T h a t i s , LSE  and d i s p l a y e d a g r e a t e r d e g r e e o f h a p p i n e s s and  t o p o s i t i v e o u t c o m e s a n d more i n t e n s e f e e l i n g s o f  for  extremity  either  joy  Two e x p l a n a t o r y  that,  and t h e  been d e v e l o p e d t o a c c o u n t  The f i r s t  b a s i c a l l y makes t h e  d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e employment o f  s t r a t e g i e s , and u l t i m a t e l y , i n t h e 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 events are responsible.  The second  h y p o t h e s i s a s c r i b e s the esteem-related  d i f f e r e n c e s i n a f f e c t i v e extremity to the p r o c e s s i n g of valenced, p e r s o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n that may or may not be c o n s i s t e n t with c h r o n i c e x p e c t a n c i e s based composition The  upon esteem-related  of n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g  d e f e n s i v e - s t y l e s model.  d i s t i n c t i o n s i n the  events. A d e f e n s i v e - s t y l e s model may be  t h e o r e t i c a l l y u s e f u l i n e x p l a i n i n g the d i f f e r e n t i a l c o g n i t i v e and subsequent a f f e c t i v e responses individuals.  Although  p a t t e r n s of  e x h i b i t e d by HSE and LSE  a l l people g e n e r a l l y want p o s i t i v e events to  occur to them than n e g a t i v e events  (a g e n e r a l s e l f - s e r v i n g b i a s f o r  p o s i t i v e outcomes), s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t i n the r e l a t i v e s t r e n g t h of t h i s p r e f e r e n c e .  S p e c i f i c a l l y , HSE i n d i v i d u a l s  demonstrate a s l i g h t l y g r e a t e r degree of c o g n i t i v e acceptance f o r f a v o u r a b l e , s e l f - e n h a n c i n g i n f o r m a t i o n than LSE i n d i v i d u a l s . However, HSE people show a s u b s t a n t i a l l y g r e a t e r degree of c o g n i t i v e r e j e c t i o n f o r n e g a t i v e , s e l f - r e l e v a n t events than t h e i r LSE counterparts. unfavourable self),  T h i s does not imply t h a t LSE i n d i v i d u a l s accept outcomes ( 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  but, compared to HSE people, LSE people c o g n i t i v e l y  these outcomes to a much l e s s e r e x t e n t . i s supported  by the aforementioned  reject  This p a r t i c u l a r observation  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 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 events—the  i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n of p o s 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 n e g a t i v e  events i s . People with high s e l f - e s t e e m are accustomed to r e c e i v i n g  21  self-relevant  feedback that  least, evaluatively they u t i l i z e  neutral  i s generally  that  mechanisms o r d e f e n s i v e  that  threatening  Whatever t h e s e l f - p r o t e c t i v e  i s employed, the u l t i m a t e  r e s u l t i s that  events are c a u s a l l y  attributed  to external  events are causally  attributed  to internal factors  attributions  First,  strategies,  reduce the potency of p o t e n t i a l l y  feedback or discount i t s v a l i d i t y . strategy  o r , a t the very  b e c a u s e o f two m a j o r f a c t o r s .  various cognitive  mentioned e a r l i e r ,  positive  demonstrate a s e l f - s e r v i n g  factors,  bias).  negative  and p o s i t i v e (i.e.,  Because  their  aversive  information regarding the s e l f i s incongruent with the  generalized,  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 ( a n d i t c e r t a i n l y d o e s n o t e n h a n c e the  self),  alter  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  the information.  outcomes t h a t (who  Second, compared t o t h e t y p i c a l l y n e g a t i v e  t e n d t o be l e s s c o g n i t i v e l y  f o r negative, self-relevant  a c c e p t e d by HSE i n d i v i d u a l s related  individuals that  by L S E  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  attributions  two  rejected  factors,  causal  events), the feedback  i s not undesirable.  the kind  individuals  of feedback that  i s characteristically positive.  H e n c e , due t o t h e s e r e m a i n s f o r HSE  I t i s of l i t t l e  wonder  they a r e accustomed t o t h i s type of i n f o r m a t i o n than t o n e g a t i v e  feedback.  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 ,  s h o u l d n o t be o v e r l y primarily  elated  or excited  people  feedback  b e c a u s e t h e s e t y p e s o f o u t c o m e s become common,  indistinctive  events.  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 e d b a c k s h o u l d be o n l y m i l d l y habituation  about p o s i t i v e  HSE  or moderately p o s i t i v e  (through  a n d c o n s t a n t f u l f i l l m e n t o f t h e need f o r  s e 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 f e e d b a c k s h o u l d  also  22  be m i l d  (through cognitive defensive 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 t e n d n o t t o e m p l o y t h e 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 negative information.  I n s t e a d , these i n d i v i d u a l s tend t o a t t r i b u t e  the causes of n e g a t i v e feedback factors.  self-directed  to internal,  s t a b l e , and g l o b a l  As a c o n s e q u e n c e , t h e y e x p e r i e n c e r e l a t i v e l y  p e r s o n a l o u t c o m e s t h a n HSE p e o p l e .  more n e g a t i v 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 b o t h HSE a n d L S E p e o p l e , b u t i t i s responded  t o more p o s i t i v e l y  by L S E t h a n HSE i n d i v i d u a l s .  T h i s more  e x u b e r a n t a f f e c t i v e r e s p o n s e by L S E p e o p l e may be due t o t h e i r 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 t h e r e l a t i v e l y o p p o r t u n i t y f o r them t o f u l f i l l The  differential  individuals to u t i l i z e  their  lack  rare  need f o r s e l f - e n h a n c e m e n t .  p r o p e n s i t i e s o f h i g h and l o w s e l f - e s t e e m 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 of causal a s c r i p t i o n s i n the face of unfavourable s e l f - r e l e v a n t events are also important i n accounting f o r t h e more n e g a t i v e a f f e c t o f L S E p e o p l e c o m p a r e d t o t h e i r counterparts. chronically abilities,  HSE  Although the 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  dismal expectancies of t h e i r  own i n t r i n s i c  worth,  a n d d i s p o s i t i o n s when n e g a t i v e f e e d b a c k i s  encountered—and  t h u s , s a t i s f a c t i o n o f t h e need f o r  consistency—allowing  the 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  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  on t h e i r  them t h e need f o r s e l f - e n h a n c e m e n t .  Since this  second  need i s t h e  major determinant 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 maintain self-consistency—then individuals will  t h e need t o  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  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  reactions  than  23 HSE  i n d i v i d u a l s to n e g a t i v e e v e n t s , whether n a t u r a l  laboratory-contrived The  differences  Another explanation  i n mood e x t r e m i t y  i s t h a t LSE  i n d i v i d u a l s a c t u a l l y experience differences their  life-events.  t h e o r i s t s hold  the  because they are skilled  To  people confronting  HSE  people.  moods o f LSE  comparable f o r the earlier  groups. and  However, the HSE  to i d e n t i c a l  be  the  befall  them.  the  may  p o s i t i v e and  g o v e r n e d by  differences  no  which also  involve  differences  i n the  perception  of events i m p l i c a t i n g the  the  studies  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  noted  personally-relevant Shrauger,  1975).  i n self-esteem  may  the  not  that  impact  These  information-processing,  cognitive interpretation self.  those  be  negative l i f e - e v e n t s  in  than  exhibit different  outcomes i n d i f f e r e n t ways.  be  r e c e i v i n g n e g a t i v e and  result in  average than  That i s , they appear to a c t i v e l y t r a n s f o r m  of t h e s e s e l f - r e f l e c t i v e differences  socially  events, then  p a r t i c i p a n t s do  M o r e l a n d & Sweeney, 1984;  by  are  laboratory  individuals differing  affected  less  i n moods a c r o s s t i m e s h o u l d  T h e r e f o r e , i t seems t h a t similarly  self-esteem  assuming there  more n e g a t i v e mi  affective reactions  f e e d b a c k ( J o n e s , 1973;  of  some p e r s o n a l i t y  l e s s c o m p e t e n t and  c a s e and  variability  i n d i c a t e t h a t LSE  c o g n i t i v e and  composition  p e o p l e have low  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  two  HSE  more n e g a t i v e a c t u a l o u t c o m e s a c r o s s t i m e  p e o p l e s h o u l d be  p e o p l e , but  and  for  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  I f t h i s i s the i n the  i n the  many p e o p l e and  indeed, generally  LSE  o f HSE  clarify,  b e l i e f t h a t LSE  individuals.  differences  or  feedback.  l i f e - e v e n t s c o m p o s i t i o n model.  self-esteem  occurrences  Because subjective  and  cognitive experience  p o s i t i v e reinforcement, they i n  turn,  of  influence a f f e c t i v e r e a c t i o n s to Although  feedback.  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  self-esteem 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 feedback,  and  furthermore,  the e s t e e m - r e l a t e d  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  d i f f e r e n c e s i n a f f e c t i v e extremity, these  do n o t p r e c l u d e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y  t h a t they are s t i l l  The  l i f e - e v e n t s composition hypothesis b a s i c a l l y  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  that are predominantly  n a t u r a l environment,  p o s i t i v e outcomes from Therefore, they  any  real violation outcomes. encounter life,  and  due  negative, false  That  receiving  represents a  s u b j e c t s have c o n c e r n i n g  t o t h e f a c t t h a t LSE  for their  their  typical  self-esteem  people  negative, personal events possess  to r e j e c t  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  feedback  i n an e x p e r i m e n t .  crucial  This i s negative  positive information  t h a n HSE  The  in real  enduring  greater w i l l i n g n e s s to accept  g r e a t e r tendency  typical  ordinarily  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 .  i n f o r m a t i o n and  almost  feedback  simply because t h i s feedback  experience mostly  reason  life  n e g a t i v e outcomes i n the  a c c o r d i n g to t h i s h y p o t h e s i s , they w i l l  the primary  (a)  source, i n c l u d i n g a l a b o r a t o r y .  o f e x p e c t a t i o n s HSE  Similarly,  foster  have s t r o n g e x p e c t a t i o n s of  t e n d t o d i s c o u n t any  p r o v i d e d by e x p e r i m e n t e r s  (b) these  information i s processed.  c o n f r o n t v e r y few they w i l l  experience,  and  d i f f e r e n c e s i n the composition of p e r s o n a l events  people  life-events.  predicates that  people  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 ,  s i n c e HSE  by  s e l f - r e l e v a n t outcomes i n  p o s i t i v e , w h i l e LSE  d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e manner by w h i c h  results  mediated  self-esteem d i f f e r e n c e s i n the composition of a c t u a l  is,  identical  of  false  point underlying this  theory  is  t h a t t h e 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 b o t h HSE a n d L S E  i n d i v i d u a l s does n o t r e p r e s e n t perceiving valenced,  past  "defensive"  s e l f - r e l e v a n t outcomes, but a  information-processing r e j e c t i o n of unusual,  a motivated  strategy that i s manifested  s t y l e of  rational i n the l o g i c a l  a t y p i c a l outcomes w h i c h a r e n o t c o n s i s t e n t  with  i n f o r m a t i o n , and t h e 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 ,  typical  outcomes w h i c h a r e .  In order attributions  to account f o r self-esteem to i d e n t i c a l valenced  differences i n causal  f e e d b a c k a n d i n mood  w i t h i n t h e l a b o r a t o r y , one must ( a ) i n v o k e s e l f - e n h a n c e m e n t and ( b ) e x a m i n e t h e n a t u r e given  i n studies i n v e s t i g a t i n g self-esteem  feedback.  Since  HSE i n d i v i d u a l s e x p e r i e n c e  outcomes t h r o u g h o u t l i f e abilities,  ( b y means o f t h e i r  or the s e l e c t i v e " f i l t e r i n g "  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 n o t i o n o f t h e need f o r of feedback  predominantly greater  their milder  affective  self-directed  need f o r  accepting theory  of t h e i r  The l a t t e r ,  s e l f - r e l e v a n t events,  unfortunate  will  l o t t h a n HSE p e o p l e ,  Consequently, they  will  frequently  as c o n s i s t e n c y need f o r  affectively  n e g a t i v e l y t h a n 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 presence of r e a l i s t i c c o g n i t i v e l y accepted  positive,  As a r e s u l t ,  be more c o g n i t i v e l y  s t a t e s , but a t the expense of denying t h e i r  self-enhancement.  emotional  outcomes i s c o n s i d e r a b l y  compared t o t h a t o f LSE p e o p l e .  confronting negative,  of  events—is continually satiated.  response t o favourable  positive  s k i l l s and  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 response to valenced  typically  r e a c t i o n s t o such  of negative,  their  extremity  personal  events,  r e s p o n d more events.  while  less  by L S E p e o p l e t h a n by HSE p e o p l e ,  will  The  26  n o n e t h e l e s s , be r e c e i v e d  by t h e f o r m e r  relatively  rare  opportunity  means t h a t  LSE i n d i v i d u a l s  e v e n t s t h a n HSE It that  will  b e l o w ) , and s u c h a  t h e need f o r s e l f - e n h a n c e m e n t  r e s p o n d more p o s i t i v e l y t o t h e s e  people.  s h o u l d be m e n t i o n e d t h a t  the r e j e c t i o n  of personal  absolute.  the  former w i l l  That i s , p r i m a r i l y  cognitively  because i t i s h i g h l y  encounter a l l s e l f - r e l e v a n t  p o s i t i v e , they w i l l  entertain  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 . not consist  t h e c h a n c e o f e x p e r i e n c i n g a few p o s i t i v e  in  that  as b e i n g  the p o s s i b i l t y of confronting  composition of l i f e - e v e n t s w i l l  positive  unlikely  life-events  and  Likewise,  since  completely of  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 , t h e y w i l l out  events  a r e a t y p i c a l by b o t h HSE a n d L S E p e o p l e i s p r o b a b l y r e l a t i v e ,  not  the  to f u l f i l l  (explained  not e n t i r e l y  events.  rule  The m i x t u r e o f  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 o f how  disproportionate  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 b e , l e a v e s HSE a n d L S E p e r s o n s  w i t h e x p e c t a t i o n s o f e n c o u n t e r i n g and h e n c e , c o g n i t i v e l y few  r e a l n e g a t i v e and p o s i t i v e  due  t o asymmetry, LSE i n d v i d u a l s  positive  outcomes, r e s p e c t i v e l y . will  e v e n t s t h a n HSE p e o p l e w i l l  accepting a Furthermore,  be more i n c l i n e d t o a c c e p t accept negative  events.  Although the presence of a strong a t t r i b u t i o n a l e f f e c t i n studies  (where LSE s u b j e c t s t e n d t o i n t e r n a l i z e  self-relevant  f e e d b a c k and e x t e r n a l i z e  HSE p a r t i c i p a n t s ,  f e e d b a c k more  who show a more p r o n o u n c e d , o p p o s i t e  pattern) i s usually  interpreted  the  defensive-styles  the  non-attributional,  experiments that  positive  negative,  as s u b s t a n t i a l  than  behaviour  evidence i n favour of  h y p o t h e s i s , i t does n o t n e c e s s a r i l y  invalidate  information-processing explanation.  In  attempt t o demonstrate self-esteem d i f f e r e n c e s  in  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 typically  employ a b e t w e e n - s u b j e c t s  feedback,  design  investigators  i n w h i c h HSE and L S E  s u b j e c t s a r e exposed t o one-shot, e x p e r i m e n t e r - c o n t r i v e d concerning self.  their  p e r f o r m a n c e 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 t h e  (To m a x i m i z e t h e 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 L S E  subjects' feedback  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 s ordinarily  extremely highly  negative.)  valenced,  information, false  a l s o s e l e c t e d t o be a s e x t r e m e l y Since  the feedback  subjects w i l l  naturally  i s false,  s e t t i n g w h i c h may be m i n i m i z e d responding  positive  w h i l e LSE s u b j e c t s w i l l and a l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  because the feedback the a t t r i b u t i o n a l  provided  by an  factors for  be l e s s a c c e p t i n g o f for their  occurrence  simply  As a r e s u l t ,  d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e groups a r e c o n s i d e r a b l y  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 n o t n e c e s s a r i l y  degree because these happening i n t h e i r  occurrences  particular  lives.  cognitively  self-relevant  are really  (and  t o t h e same  "undeniably")  s t a b l e , and g l o b a l f a c t o r s f o r t h e  of pleasant, r e a l - l i f e because these  events  to e x t e r n a l factors  S i m i l a r l y , L S E s u b j e c t s may be more  to ascribe i n t e r n a l ,  occurrence  actual,  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 .  a t t r i b u t e actual negative  willing  Thus, f o r  a n d blame e x t e r n a l , u n s t a b l e , and l o c a l  feedback  widened.  i n the l a b o r a t o r y  personal events.  e x a m p l e , 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  occurrence  pronounced  o r n e g l i g i b l e when s u b j e c t s a r e  to naturally-occurring,  experimenter  positive or  u n u s u a l , and  demonstrate  self-esteem differences i n causal attributions  their  feedback  events  events,  experiences are real.  t h a t they  Therefore,  accept i n response  to  self-esteem differences i n causal  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 non-existent.  According to  28  the l i f e - e v e n t s composition attributional  hypothesis,  the presence of strong  d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n HSE and L S E g r o u p s g i v e n  l a b o r a t o r y feedback i s c o n s i s t e n t with the b a s i c tenet information-processing—the distinctive people,  events  simply  underlying  c o g n i t i v e r e j e c t i o n of unusual,  because they  h a r d l y ever  and s o t h e y assume t h e i r o c c u r r e n c e s  happen t o t h e s e  are situationally  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 t h e s e not  false  based.  a t y p i c a l events  need  be d e f e n s i v e m e c h a n i s m s a s t h e d e f e n s i v e - s t y l e s m o d e l w o u l d  assert. In conclusion, the l i f e - e v e n t s composition significant (i.e.,  self-esteem  differences 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  causal a t t r i b u t i o n s ) of experimental  concomitant  esteem-related  f e e d b a c k , and t h e  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  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 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 reasons are c l e a r . less accepting  Low s e l f - e s t e e m  do n o t a c c e p t  b e c a u s e o f any s e l f - e s t e e m  confined  (i.e.,  to the  i n the n a t u r a l environment. people  of p o s i t i v e s e l f - r e l e v a n t  almost i n v a r i a b l y  model p r e d i c t s t h a t  tend  events  t o be c o g n i t i v e l y w h i l e HSE  negative, personal  differences i n defensive  because of i n f o r m a t i o n - p r o c e s s i n g .  The  individuals  events, not s t y l e s , but  T h a t i s , any v a l e n c e d  information  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 t h e s e l f w h i c h i s i n c o n s i s t e n t with the expectations cognitively  rejected.  of the type  o f l i f e - e v e n t s one h a s , w i l l  be  T h e s e e x p e c t a t i o n s a r e f o r m e d p r i m a r i l y on t h e  basis of a long s e r i e s of past valenced s i n c e HSE and L S E p e o p l e  theoretically  of p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e  life-events  d i f f e r e n c e s i n competency, s o c i a l  outcomes i n one's l i f e , and possess d i f f e r e n t  compositions  (as a r e s u l t of i n d i v i d u a l  skills,  a n d so o n ) , t h e y  will  naturally  form  failures.  d i f f e r e n t e x p e c t a n c i e s o f f u t u r e s u c c e s s e s and  I n t h e l a b o r a t o r y s e t t i n g , HSE a n d L S E s u b j e c t s a r e  intentionally  exposed t o f a l s e feedback,  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 subjects' and  esteem-related  internalized  causal factors).  attributed  variables). feedback  (i.e.,  expectancies) w i l l  (i.e.,  attributed  which i s  i s congruent  with  be c o g n i t i v e l y  to i n t e r n a l ,  F a l s e e x p e r i m e n t a l feedback  with expectancies w i l l (i.e.  but only feedback  accepted  s t a b l e , and g l o b a l  which  i s inconsistent  be r e j e c t e d , a n d f u r t h e r m o r e , be e x t e r n a l i z 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  T h e r e f o r e , LSE s u b j e c t s w i l l  externalize positive  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 ,  o c c u r s f o r HSE s u b j e c t s .  or s i t u a t i o n a l  These a t t r i b u t i o n a l  false  whereas t h e r e v e r s e  d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e  g r o u p s a r e much more p r o n o u n c e d i n t h e l a b o r a t o r y t h a n i n r e a l - l i f e since the nature of the f a l s e clearly  and d i s t i n c t i v e l y  expectancies.  feedback  the r e s u l t i n g  these pronounced a t t r i b u t i o n a l  a f f e c t i v e r e a c t i o n s due t o  differences will  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  b e c a u s e when t h e f o r m e r  t o be e i t h e r  t y p i c a l or a t y p i c a l with the s u b j e c t s '  Consequently,  s u b j e c t s , hence, e x h i b i t  i s designed  a l s o be more  in real-life.  g r e a t e r mood v a r i a b i l i t y r e c e i v e and a c c e p t  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  Low s e l f - e s t e e m t h a n HSE s u b j e c t s  negative feedback,  their  a t a c o n s t a n t h i g h due t o t h e  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 greater with every negative piece of s e l f - r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n . B e c a u s e 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 o u t c o m e s i n l i f e , and  as a r e s u l t ,  self-enhancement  learn to reject  the negative, t h e i r  i s more s a t i s f i e d .  a f f e c t i v e l y more d e p r e s s e d  need f o r  Thus, LSE s u b j e c t s a r e  t h a n HSE s u b j e c t s t o i d e n t i c a l  negative  feedback. reject  When L S E s u b j e c t s c o n f r o n t p o s i t i v e  i t t o t h e same d e g r e e a s HSE s u b j e c t s r e j e c t  due  t o the former's  and  asymmetry i n c o g n i t i v e  events.  attributions  T h e r e f o r e , LSE s u b j e c t s respond  moderately  negative  for positive  i s satiated,  and n e g a t i v e  w h i l e HSE s u b j e c t s  of p o s i t i v e  self-enhancement  I t s h o u l d be m e n t i o n e d t h a t a l t h o u g h HSE  also experience a mixture (much more o f t h e f o r m e r negative self-relevant externalization  positively  p o s i t i v e l y s i n c e one more p i e c e o f p o s i t i v e  d o e s n o t a l t e r t h e i r need f o r  appreciably.  events  life-events  a f f e c t i v e l y very  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 life-events  t h e y do n o t  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  s i n c e t h e i r need f o r s e l f - e n h a n c e m e n t respond  feedback,  individuals  o f p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e e v e n t s than the l a t t e r ) ,  in life  their externalization  of  i n f o r m a t i o n i s n o t a s weak a s L S E i n d i v i d u a l s '  of p o s i t i v e  the o v e r a l l , r e l a t i v e l y  i n f o r m a t i o n because o f asymmetry  greater acceptance  of positive  events  (i.e., than  n e g a t i v e by a l l p e o p l e ) . In d a i l y l i f e ,  outside the confines of the l a b o r a t o r y ,  self-esteem differences i n attributions tremendously  f o r valenced  a t t e n u a t e d o r n o n - e x i s t e n t , and t h e r e s u l t i n g  esteem-related  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  because ( a ) l o w and h i g h s e l f - e s t e e m p e o p l e cognitively  accept  events  are negligible  tend  of a valence which  e x p e c t a t i o n s , and ( b ) even i f e v e n t s in  life-events are  t o c o n f r o n t and  correspond  to their  may n o t c o n f o r m t o e x p e c t a t i o n s  terms of v a l e n c e , they, 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  h e n c e , a r e much more r e a d i l y highly  unusual,  accepted  and i n t e r n a l i z e d  d i s t i n c t i v e f a l s e feedback  L a c k i n g any s e l f - r e l e v a n t  mainly  experiences which  p r o v i d e d by  and  than the experimenters.  are a t y p i c a l i n t h e i r  31  daily  lives,  no  self-esteem  real-life  events  emotional  response to these  that y i e l d  exist,  self-esteem  self-esteem  differences i n causal attributions  and  no  esteem-related  p o s i t i v e and  theoretically,  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 but  individuals will  of v a l e n c e d ,  l i f e - e v e n t s composition  people  personal  t h e two  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f o u t c o m e s and esteem-related  o n l y be  events,  of a c t u a l l i f e  established in  according  less  the  Conceptually,  i n s u b s e q u e n t mood  variability  satisfied.  t h a n HSE  that self-esteem  First,  s u b j e c t s must  participants.  I t has  Nevertheless,  both  explanations  for this  laboratory.  I t r e m a i n s t o be  composition i n terms  of  demonstrate already  been  differences i n affective extremity feedback  occur  was  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  phenomenon when i t was  account f o r esteem-related  styles  differences in  outcomes ( l i f e - e v e n t s  must be  in  differences in cognitive  s e v e r a l s t u d i e s i n which a r t i f i c a l l y - c o n t r i v e d  employed.  or  to group d i f f e r e n c e s i n  competing models.  n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g moods, LSE  greater v a r i a b i l i t y  Low  differences in defensive/attributional  model), s e v e r a l c r i t e r i a daily,  occurrence  self-esteem  o f mood.  due  low  and  occasional  ( 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 the composition  H i g h and  r e s p o n d i n a more d e p r e s s e d ,  to determine i f self-esteem  reflect  are p o s s i b l e  hypothesis.  P r e d i c t i o n s b a s e d on order  to the very  variability  happy manner, on a v e r a g e , t h a n HSE the composition  events  the  demonstrate mild  as a w h o l e , t h e r e w i l l  d i f f e r e n c e s i n a v e r a g e mood, n o t self-esteem  negative  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 .  individuals will  of a t y p i c a l events,  differences in  for  confined  seen whether these  to  the  models can  differences i n variability  also  of d a i l y  moods.  According to 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 , LSE i n d i v i d u a l s exhibit  greater negativity  self-relevant  people whenever n e g a t i v e ,  events occur s i n c e they tend to g i v e more  characterological unprotected  than HSE  attributions  by defenses,  f o r them and  leave  suffer a greater denial  of t h e i r need f o r  by doing so, and  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  self-esteem differences or i n s i g n i f i c a n t due  consequently,  themselves  self-enhancement  in causal a t t r i b u t i o n s  to asymmetry and  mechanisms are not r e q u i r e d , and cognitively  become a f f e c t i v e l y  f o r them are  than n e g a t i v e .  while HSE  being h a b i t u a t e d to p o s i t i v e events, should e x h i b i t  naturally-occurring,  valenced, and  l i f e - e v e n t s composition  than HSE  self-relevant  differences i s mainly  i n average  d a i l y mood between HSE  with  events.  than LSE  defensive-styles hypothesis predicts  with d a i l y  and LSE people.  This  individuals  to  exhibit  have defenses  a self-serving  i n c a u s a l 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 p r e d i c a t e s t h a t HSE  be  persons—the  that the former  e f f e c t i v e l y ward o f f n e g a t i v e events and  The  that there w i l l  because the two models f i n d reason f o r HSE  experience more p o s i t i v e events  individuals,  should  model makes 110 such p r e d i c t i o n  but both t h e o r e t i c a l models jio a n t i c i p a t e  to  a more moderate  then, LSE i n d i v i d u a l s  demonstrate g r e a t e r a f f e c t i v e v a r i a b i l i t y  As a r e s u l t ,  more p o s i t i v e l y due  f u l f i l l m e n t of the need f o r self-enhancement  In essence  minimal  thus, both groups are more  should a f f e c t i v e l y respond  p o s i t i v e response.  events,  the f a c t t h a t d e f e n s i v e  a c c e p t i n g of p o s i t i v e events  LSE i n d i v i d u a l s  events  should  people have a composition  of  to  bias  hypothesis  naturally-occurring  events which are b a s i c a l l y p l e a s a n t compared to the s e r i e s of  negative  daily  The  events  experienced  people.  secojid p i e c e o f e m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e  d e f e n s i v e - s t y l e s model over is  by L S E  the l i f e - e v e n t s composition  the presence of a self-esteem  interaction effect  which would favour the  X event type  f o r causal attributions.  (positive,  accounting  f o r these  events.  T h i s tendency would not e x i s t  The l i f e - e v e n t s c o m p o s i t i o n  attributional non-existent  d i f f e r e n c e s should  daily  events  model s u g g e s t s  third  or,at  due t o that  these  be g r e a t l y a t t e n u a t e d o r  when l a b o r a t o r y f e e d b a c k i s n o t c o n s i d e r e d ,  naturally-occurring, actual The  due t o t h e  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  l e a s t , n o t be so p r o n o u n c e d f o r p o s i t i v e , asymmetry.  the f i r s t  d i f f e r e n c e s would  f o r negative, n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g events  t e n d e n c y f o r LSE p e o p l e  negative)  To r e i t e r a t e ,  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 p r i m a r i l y occur  explanation  only  events.  empirical result  t h a t would support the  d e f e n s i v e - s t y l e s model i s t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a s e l f - e s t e e m main for  habituation, operationalized i n this  self-esteem positive,  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 should  self-relevant  selective filtering damaging e v e n t s Consequently, stimuli should  study  events,  according  as impact.  the constant  t o t h e m o d e l , due t o t h e  biases i n causal  potentially  attributions.  exposure to favourable,  from the n a t u r a l environment ( r e l a t i v e  self-enhancing  t o LSE i n d i v i d u a l s )  increase the t h r e s h o l d to which f u t u r e , s i m i l a r  an a f f e c t i v e i m p a c t .  High  become a c c u s t o m e d t o  by d e f e n s i v e m e c h a n i s m s o f n e g a t i v e ,  and s e l f - s e r v i n g  effect  The l i f e - e v e n t s c o m p o s i t i o n  stimuli  make  m o d e l 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 p e o p l e  for  due t o a p r e d o m i n a n c e o f p o s i t i v e ,  self-enhancement f u l f i l l e d  may h a v e t h e i r  needs  34 d a i l y events i n t h e i r l i v e s , and as a r e s u l t , d i s p l a y more moderate p o s i t i v e a f f e c t i v e responses to f u r t h e r p o s i t i v e events, the f a c t they experience a few n e g a t i v e outcomes makes them a_s a p p r e c i a t i v e of p o s i t i v e outcomes and kes them a p p r a i s e the l a t t e r a_s_ i n f l u e n t i a l  on  t h e i r moods as do LSE people. M e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y , to a s c e r t a i n e m p i r i c a l l y c r i t e r i a are f u l f i l l e d , supported, two and HSE  and hence,  i f these three  i f the d e f e n s i v e - s t y l e s model i s  s t u d i e s were proposed.  In the Mood-Diary Study,  s u b j e c t s are asked to r a t e the valence ( i . e . ,  LSE  the degree of  pleasantness or unpleasantness) and the a r o u s a l components of t h e i r moods f i v e times a day over a two-week p e r i o d .  In a d d i t i o n ,  the  Mood-Diary Study w i l l a l s o request s u b j e c t s t o : (a) p r o v i d e o b j e c t i v e w r i t t e n d e s c r i p t i o n s of the most p o s i t i v e and most n e g a t i v e events that occur on each of the 14 c o n s e c u t i v e days, (b) w r i t e down the p e r c e i v e d major cause of each event, and  (c) r a t e t h e i r  responses to these events, i n c l u d i n g the i n t e r n a l i t y ,  cognitive  stability,  and  g l o b a l i t y of every cause they o f f e r e d ; the p e r c e i v e d 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 r e l e v a n c e or importance. s u b j e c t s from a subsequent  A separate sample of LSE and  R o l e - P l a y i n g Study are exposed  HSE to a random  s e l e c t i o n of the o b j e c t i v e d e s c r i p t i o n s provided by HSE and  LSE  s u b j e c t s i n the Mood-Diary Study and are asked to r o l e - p l a y  these  events, provide t h e i r own  p e r c e p t i o n s of the causes of these events,  and r a t e t h e i r c o g n i t i v e responses to them. The Mood-Diary Study, a s i d e from f u r n i s h i n g o b j e c t i v e l y  written,  a c t u a l events to be r o l e - p l a y e d and r a t e d by p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the R o l e - P l a y i n g Study, i s u n i q u e l y u s e f u l 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  least,  lower moods that HSE people ( a t  i n terms of t h e i r a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g s ) — t h i s i s p r e d i c t e d  both t h e o r e t i c a l models, and (b) that notion  maintained only  differences  Mood-Diary and R o l e - P l a y i n g possible  existence  i t permits t e s t i n g of the  by the d e f e n s i v e - s t y l e s  in variability  by  model of s e l f - e s t e e m  of n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g  moods.  Both  S t u d i e s enable one to i n v e s t i g a t e  f o r the  of (a) the i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t of s e l f - e s t e e m and  the  valence of the event on c a u s a l  (b)  the s e l f - e s t e e m main e f f e c t of impact r a t i n g s , as hypothesized by  the  defensive-styles  model. the  model, but denied by the l i f e - e v e n t s composition  The R o l e - P l a y i n g  last  a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r the event, and  Study i s i n v a l u a b l e  i n adding credence f o r  two f i n d i n g s p r i m a r i l y because i t t e s t s i f naive HSE and LSE  r a t e r s 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 f o r objectively written,  p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e events  t h e i r HSE and LSE authors had c o n t r i b u t e d .  I f LSE r a t e r s  that  give  r a t i n g s which are s i m i l a r to those of HSE r a t e r s f o r the same valenced, a c t u a l l i f e - e v e n t s that were c o n t r i b u t e d authors, then one can more c o n f i d e n t l y cognitive  by both HSE or LSE  conclude that  the t y p i c a l  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s and p e r c e p t i o n s of events by HSE and LSE  people do not d i f f e r a p p r e c i a b l y . to d i s c r e d i t the notion  This  important r e s u l t would tend  of d e f e n s i v e - s t y l e s  influencing  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  events.  LSE  d i f f e r e n t pattern  r a t e r s provided a s i g n i f i c a n t l y  causal  causal  On the other hand, i f of r a t i n g s f o r  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 r a t e r s of  these very r e a l , o b j e c t i v e l y w r i t t e n surmise that  e x p e r i e n c e s , then one can  there are s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s  in. d e f e n s i v e - s t y l e s  (which are manifested i n esteem-related d i f f e r e n c e s  in attributions  36 o f c a u s a l i t y and first the  i m p a c t , or h a b i t u a t i o n ,  result i s consistent  with,  and  greatly To  differences  diminished  b e t w e e n HSE  or n o n - e x i s t e n t  imperative  descriptions  to obtain  or  i n the  reporting  events which are impactful  with  LSE  subjects  LSE  i n the  m e r e l y by  way  be  actual life-events. results, i t is  e d i t , i f necessary,  the  been e d i t e d  Thereafter,  any  in  self-esteem  illustrate,  negative,  HSE  self-relevant  less affectively personal  S t u d y w i l l u n d o u b t e d l y be these s u b j e c t i v e  e i t h e r by  the  and  reports  subjects  emotional  or  (unless,  are  contributors  that  so  will reflect  the  of c o u r s e , the  unless  represent reactions  from the  aspects.  self-esteem  ratings).  of  differences the  rater, HSE  the  Equally  Role-Playing  t o o b j e c t i v e l y w r i t t e n , but  they  the  q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t than those of  r e s u l t s obtained  by  types of e v e n t s of  these events i n f l u e n c e  events  influenced  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  contributors  i m p o r t a n t , the  To  self-esteem  C a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s made  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  source  possible  provide  participants.  Role-Playing  have p r e v i o u s l y  any  i n w h i c h same n e g a t i v e ,  the w r i t i n g s t y l e of  terms of  such  i n d i v i d u a l s would  w r i t t e n i n a more t r i v i a l i z e d ,  manner t h a n t h e  w r i t t e n by  the  and  of e v e n t s .  M o o d - D i a r y S t u d y p a r t i c i p a n t s may  not  i t anticipated that  to  of n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g events from Mood-Diary  p a r t i c i p a n t s i n order to e l i m i n a t e differences  The  second r e s u l t i s damaging  have s u c h unambiguous i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the  absolutely  are  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  attributional  f o r these events).  Study  LSE as  will  naturally-occurring  events. H y p o t h e s i s 2;  Self-esteem Differences  i n the  Variability  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 B o t h Mood E x t r e m i t y a n d Mood Frequency There i s ample e v i d e n c e LSE  (e.g., Jones,  1973; S h r a u g e r ,  s u b j e c t s h a v e 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  n e g a t i v e t h a n HSE s u b j e c t s when g i v e n i d e n t i c a l feedback,  respectively.  therefore,  1975) t h a t  positive or  positive or negative  I t a p p e a r s t o be a l o g i c a l e x t e n s i o n ,  (which i s s u b s t a n t i a t e d w i t h the support 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 t i m e i n r e s p o n s e t o self-relevant variability  feedback,  t h e n t h e y may a l s o e x h i b i t g r e a t e r  i n n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g moods o v e r  time.  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 s u c h s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s with respect t o a c t u a l events present project attempts  to test  o f mood v a r i a b i l i t y — n a m e l y , fluctuations—will  (see Moreland  1987).  the s p e c u l a t i o n that both  be o b s e r v e d .  components  Most s t u d i e s i n t h e p a s t have o n l y as a f f e c t i v e e x t r e m i t y ( s e e  H o w e v e r , 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 w h i c h  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 occur over a time p e r i o d  (thekind  a f f e c t i v e responses are monitored people should e x h i b i t  have  a r e v a l e n c e d , and w h i c h  of s t i m u l i  to which  subjects'  i n t h e Mood-Diary S t u d y ) , LSE  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 c h a n g e s  HSE p e o p l e i n a d d i t i o n t o a g r e a t e r number o f f l u c t u a t i o n s time.  this  t h e 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  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 Larsen,  & Sweeney, 1 9 8 4 ) ,  T h e r e i s no r e a s o n why t h e d e f e n s i v e - s t y l e s m o d e l ,  than  across 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 naturally-occurring mood v a r i a b i l i t y  events, w i l l  preclude the o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n of  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  dimensions.  38 S e l f - c o m p l e x i t y and In  Mood  Variability  a d d i t i o n to the hypotheses o u t l i n e d above, the  investigation will  e x a m i n e i n a more e x p l o r a t o r y f a s h i o n ,  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 s e l f - e s t e e m , and  mood v a r i a b i l i t y .  The  a s s u m e s some i m p o r t a n c e i n t h e p r e s e n t t h e o r e t i c a l and  the  of the s e l f - r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ,  c o n s t r u c t of s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y p r o j e c t because t h e r e are  both  e m p i r i c a l reasons to b e l i e v e that s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y  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 .  is  the recent In  present  r e s e a r c h c o n d u c t e d by L i n v i l l e  Linville's  ( 1 9 8 2 ) w o r k , she  Of  particular  may  import  (1982).  defines complexity  as  the  number  of independent f e a t u r e s u n d e r l y i n g a person's r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of stimuli self,  in a specific  domain.  When t h e d o m a i n o f t h o u g h t i s t h e  the term i s "self-complexity"-'-.  independent dimensions people According  to L i n v i l l e ' s  use  I t r e f e r s t o t h e number o f  i n t h i n k i n g about the  complexity-extremity  self.  hypothesis,  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 affective extremity domain.  As  towards s p e c i f i c  stimuli  individuals exhibit  (events) w i t h i n that  t h e number o f i n d e p e n d e n t f e a t u r e s u s e d t o  process  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 t h a t any  given  favourable  or  Empirical been o b t a i n e d (Linville,  stimulus  (event) w i l l  be  perceived  as b e i n g  decreases uniformly  unfavourable. support i n two  1982;  f o r the c o m p l e x i t y - e x t r e m i t y  l i n e s of r e s e a r c h .  Linville  & Jones,  I n one  1 9 8 0 ) , i t was  hypothesis  s e t of  has  studies  demonstrated  that  I t s h o u l d be m e n t i o n e d t h a t t h e r e i s an e x t e n s i v e body o f 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, 1 9 7 6 ) . 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 t h e m e a s u r e m e n t o f c o m p l e x i t y and d o e s n o t 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 n o t be o f c o n c e r n i n t h e present proposal.  p e o p l e w i t h more c o m p l e x c o g n i t i v e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s exhibited those is  less evaluative extremity  groups.  The o t h e r  of greater  relevance  Linville individual  span.  on s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y a n d  proposal.  two s t u d i e s i n w h i c h s h e r e l a t e d  differences i n complexity  of the s e l f - r e p r e s e n t a t i o n to  responses to manipulated  (b) v a r i a b i l i t y  success  and f a i l u r e  i n n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g moods o v e r an  She h y p o t h e s i z e d  feedback, eight-day  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 . extent  groups  s p e c i f i c members o f  has focused  to the present  (1982) r e p o r t e d  (a) a f f e c t i v e and  research  i n rating  of various  one c o n c e p t u a l i z e s  the s e l f along  To t h e  numerous i n d e p e n d e n t  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 o r d o m a i n o f t h e s e l f w o u l d be c o n s t r a i n e d  or l o c a l i z e d  relatively  self.  consider  small proportion of the " t o t a l "  a high school  terms o f being negatively talented  student  a basketball player.  On t h e o t h e r  to represent  hand, a student  simultaneously  himself  individual will  h i s high  school  only i n react  very  moderate n e g a t i v e  a musician,  In the f i r s t  study,  Linville  i n f o r m a t i o n because  only  gave s u b j e c t s a p a c k e t o f c a r d s and a s k e d them t o s o r t t h e t r a i t s  personally meaningful p i l e s .  many o r a s f e w p i l e s a s t h e y  a more  i s threatened.  33 p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s  per card) i n t o  p l a y e r , an a t h l e t e ,  and a s o n w o u l d e x p e r i e n c e  r e a c t i o n to the i d e n t i c a l  a small p o r t i o n of the s e l f  b a s k e t b a l l team.  who v i e w s a n d t h i n k s o f h i m s e l f  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  a leader, a student,  (one  This  illustrate,  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 n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y  or p r o f i c i e n t  containing  who c o n c e p t u a l i z e s  To  to a  liked.  They c o u l d  I n a d d i t i o n , they  form as  d i d n o t have  to use a l l of the t r a i t s and c o u l d use a t r a i t (blank cards were p r o v i d e d ) .  i n more than one  From t h i s s o r t , she c a l c u l a t e d  s t a t i s t i c H ( S c o t t , Osgood, & P e t e r s o n , 1979), which roughly to the number of independent the s o r t  dimensions  (index of s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y ) .  given success or f a i l u r e feedback ostensibly indicated  intelligence.  the  corresponds  needed to generate  L a t e r , these s u b j e c t s were  on an embedded-figures  task which  Dependent measures i n c l u d e d  change i n mood and s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n before and a f t e r feedback. p r e d i c t e d , there was interaction.  a r e l i a b l e self-complexity X  feedback  g r e a t e r decreases i n mood and  s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n than s u b j e c t s higher i n s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y . success feedback,  d i f f e r e n c e was  than those high i n s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y .  not, however, r e l i a b l e  In the second  Given  i n d i v i d u a l s low i n complexity r e p o r t e d somewhat  greater increases i n a f f e c t  study, L i n v i l l e a n t i c i p a t e d  that people with  time than those with more simple s e l f - r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s . s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y i n the second  (The  i n the success c o n d i t i o n . )  higher s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y would experience l e s s mood v a r i a b i l i t y  across  To measure  study, c o l l e g e women were asked  to make  r a t i n g s among a l l p o s s i b l e p a i r s of ten s e l f - r o l e s (e.g.,  "myself as a student", "myself as a f r i e n d daughter").  The r e s u l t i n g  to men",  s i m i l a r i t y matrix was  "myself as a  s u b j e c t e d to a  h i e r a r c h i c a l c l u s t e r i n g a n a l y s i s (ADDTREE); complexity was the number of nodes i n the r e s u l t i n g " t r e e " s t r u c t u r e . i n d i v i d u a l s were assumed to possess more c l u s t e r s of branches  As  In the f a i l u r e c o n d i t i o n , s u b j e c t s low i n  self-complexity reported s i g n i f i c a n t l y  similarity  pile  and  d e f i n e d as  More complex  self-role  t h e r e f o r e , more nodes, than s i m p l e r i n d i v i d u a l s .  s u b j e c t s then completed  daily-mood  These  q u e s t i o n n a i r e s 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 d a y s .  The  results indicated  that  those  s c o r i n g h i g h e r on t h e s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y m e a s u r e were s i g n i f i c a n t l y  less  v a r i a b l e i n t e r m s o f 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,  " s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y " and As n o t e d a b o v e ,  t h e r e was  no r e l a t i o n  between  t h e o v e r a l l mean o f t h e mood i n d e x . Linville  c o n c e p t u a l i z e d and  operationalized  c o m p l e x i t y a s t h e number o f i n d e p e n d e n t d i m e n s i o n s o r f e a t u r e s  used  to  Lusk  r e p r e s e n t s t i m u l i w i t h i n a domain.  ( 1 9 8 4 ) , and M i l l a r  M o r e r e c e n t l y , J u d d and  and T e s s e r ( 1 9 8 6 ) h a v e d e m o n s t r a t e d  separately operationalizing  ( a ) t h e number o f d i m e n s i o n s and  extent to which the dimensions are i n t e r c o r r e l a t e d . a c c o m p l i s h e d t h i s by e m p l o y i n g a v a r i a t i o n trait-sorting  task.  Specifically,  sort t r a i t s  into  p i l e s or boxes  Linville's.  The  dimensions.  They a r e t h e n a s k e d  e a c h box and  (b) to r a t e each  number o f b o x e s  to  c o n s t i t u t e s t h e number o f  to each l a b e l .  f o r each p a i r  the  extent to which the dimensions are  These s e t s  of  of dimensions (boxes)  and  c o n s t i t u t e s an o v e r a l l m e a s u r e o f  When t h e s e a u t h o r s p a r t i t i o n e d  intercorrelated.  c o m p l e x i t y ( t h e number o f  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 , t h e number  d i m e n s i o n s , and  c o n s i s t e n t and  their  average i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n — t h e y  obtained a  provocative pattern with respect to  evaluative/affective Congruent  requested to  ( a ) t o p r o v i d e a summary l a b e l f o r  average a b s o l u t e c o r r e l a t i o n  of  Linville's  using instructions similar or p i l e s  (b) the  They  s u b j e c t s were f i r s t  the  independent  of  of  t r a i t with respect to 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 r a t i n g s are then c o r r e l a t e d  the u t i l i t y  r e s p o n s e s t o w a r d s s p e c i f i c members o f  with L i n v i l l e ' s  research, they reported  groups.  t h a t among  subjects  42 whose d i m e n s i o n s were m o s t l y i n d e p e n d e n t  (i.e.,  showed p r e d o m i n a n t l y l o w i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s ) , of dimensions the s u b j e c t s u t i l i z e d the l e s s extreme  were t h e i r  ( s t i m u l i ) i n those groups.  t h e more e x t r e m e specific  t h e g r e a t e r t h e number  i n conceptualizing  the g r e a t e r  domain-bound t a r g e t s .  targets  dimensions  evaluative/affective reactions  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  number o f d i m e n s i o n s , and  into  to the  two  the degree  to which  intercorrelated.  A l t h o u g h no s p e c i f i c interrelations  hypotheses a r e advanced  between s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y ,  variability will initial  groups,  t h e number o f d i m e n s i o n s ,  p o t e n t i a l importance of dichotomizing s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y  they are  the  t h e o t h e r h a n d , when t h e  were t h e s u b j e c t s '  primary components—the  dimensions  e v a l u a t i v e / a f f e c t i v e responses to On  were more h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d ,  their  trait-sorting each t r a i t  s e l f - e s t e e m , and mood  be e x p l o r e d i n t h e M o o d - D i a r y  session, subjects w i l l task, label  calculated—the H statistic  Study.  the a p p l i c a b i l i t y  of  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  ( L i n v i l l e ' s m e a s u r e o f t h e number o f  independent or o r t h o g o n a l dimensions u n d e r l y i n g a trait-sort),  t h e number o f d i m e n s i o n s o r b o x e s  average i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s  D u r i n g an  be r e q u e s t e d t o p e r f o r m a  t h e b o x e s , and r a t e  f o r each l a b e l .  here, the  person's  ( N D I M ) , and  between t h e v a r i o u s d i m e n s i o n s  the (AVER).  METHOD To  test  were p l a n n e d .  the hypotheses o u t l i n e d In-the f i r s t  s u b j e c t s completed  i n the i n t r o d u c t i o n ,  study ( t h e Mood-Diary  d a i l y mood i n v e n t o r i e s ,  S t u d y ) , LSE  studies and  HSE  provided objective  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 their  two  c o g n i t i v e p e r c e p t i o n s of these events.  e v e n t s , and  I n the second  rated  study  43 (the  R o l e - P l a y i n g S t u d y ) , a new s a m p l e o f L S E a n d 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 of the events and  r a t e d these  Study The s u b j e c t s w e r e 67 s t u d e n t s  subjects) i n i n t r o d u c t o r y psychology British  Columbia.  c l a s s e s a t the U n i v e r s i t y of  the revised  a l a r g e pool of  version of the J a n i s - F i e l d Feelings  Inadequacy S c a l e ( E a g l y , 1967) a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e academic  year.  The s c a l e c o n s i s t s o f 20 f i v e - p o i n t L i k e r t  acquiescence  response.  The r e l i a b i l i t y  h a v e been f a v o u r a b l y d e m o n s t r a t e d see  ( 3 1 HSE s u b j e c t s ; 36 L S E  The s u b j e c t s were s e l e c t e d f r o m  s t u d e n t s who c o m p l e t e d of  study  events.  Mood-Diary Subjects.  p r o v i d e d by s u b j e c t s i n t h e f i r s t  a l s o Robinson  reliability,  which  & Shaver,  and v a l i d i t y  by C h u r c h ,  1973).  items, balanced f o r of the instrument  T r u s s , and V e l i c e r  (To d e m o n s t r a t e i t s t e s t - r e t e s t  s h o u l d be h i g h g i v e n t h a t t h e c o n s t r u c t o f  self-esteem i s theoretically  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 , t h e  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 t h e M o o d - D i a r y s u b j e c t s were d e b r i e f e d . temporal  (1980;  stability.)  Study  C o r r e l a t i o n a l analyses should support i t s  Component a n a l y s i s p e r f o r m e d  (1980) r e v e a l e d t h r e e d i s t i n c t  by C h u r c h e t a l .  components they l a b e l l e d  concern  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 . Subject Recruitment.  Students  who s c o r e d i n t h e u p p e r - t h i r d o r  t h e b o t t o m - t h i r d o f t h e s c a l e were c l a s s i f i e d subjects, respectively. participating credit,  I f these  i n a psychology  t h e y were s o l i c i t e d  investigating  a s HSE a n d L S E  subjects indicated  experiment  by t e l e p h o n e  an i n t e r e s t i n  f o radditional f o r a study  course  purportedly  " a s s e s s m e n t o f mood a s a f u n c t i o n o f t i m e  m e n t i o n was made o f t h e 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  of day".  No  a t the time of  44 recruitment.  During the phone c o n v e r s a t i o n and the i n i t i a l s e s s i o n ,  s u b j e c t s were informed t h a t the study would c o n s i s t of three p a r t s : (a) an i n i t i a l meeting,  during which they would complete  assessment instrument  (i.e.,  a pre-study  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 )  and r e c e i v e i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r completing a daily-mood  inventory,  (b) the completion of a "mood-diary" f o r 14 c o n s e c u t i v e days, (c)  a s h o r t f i n a l meeting mood-diaries, completed  fill  i n which they would submit  and  their  out the same s e l f - e s t e e m instrument  two weeks e a r l i e r ,  and d i s c u s s the study with the  experimenter. S u b j e c t s r e c e i v e d e x t r a course c r e d i t  for participation.  Procedure. (a) 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 . i n d i v i d u a l l y f o r the f i r s t s e s s i o n . study was  concerned  Subjects r e p o r t e d  A f t e r i n f o r m i n g them that  with measurements of t h e i r moods as a f u n c t i o n of  time of day, the experimenter  gave s u b j e c t s a p r e t e s t instrument  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 ) to complete. instrument was  He noted  e x p l o r a t o r y i n nature but there was  that  (the  the  some reason to  b e l i e v e that t h e i r responses might be r e l a t e d to mood. i n the f i n a l  the  He added  s e s s i o n , he would g i v e them more i n f o r m a t i o n about  that this  instrument and i t s hypothesized r e l a t i o n s h i p to mood. The  f i r s t page of the instrument was  number of dimensions t h e i r own listed  designed to assess the  s u b j e c t s spontaneously  t r a i t s or c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  used when t h i n k i n g  about  A s e t of 27 t r a i t names were  i n a l p h a b e t i c a l order and s u b j e c t s were i n s t r u c t e d to w r i t e  i n s i d e boxes l i s t s of two belonged  or more t r a i t names that they  together i n t h i n k i n g about  themselves.  The  thought  set of  trait  names covered a wide range of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s — s o m e derived  from L i n v i l l e ' s  (1982) work.  Subjects  could use  as many boxes as they r e q u i r e d ;  obligated  to use  as few  more than one  box.  After subjects  they were asked to provide whatever i t was  that they  they could use  as many or  that t r a i t names could appear i n grouped the t r a i t s i n t o the boxes,  a word or short phrase that i n d i c a t e d  that the group of t r a i t s  i n common with each o t h e r .  were t o l d  that they were not  a l l 27 t r a i t names ( i . e . ,  names as they r e q u i r e d ) ; and  of which were  they had  Strong emphasis was  sorted  given  to  together the  statement t h a t t h e i r 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 p e r s o n a l i t i e s and responses. each box,  hence, there were no  After subjects  sorted  unique  " c o r r e c t " or " i n c o r r e c t "  the t r a i t s i n t o boxes and l a b e l l e d  they t r a n s f e r r e d t h e i r l a b e l s to a second page, where they  were i n s t r u c t e d to r a t e on  11-point L i k e r t s c a l e s (0 = "not  d e s c r i p t i v e " ; 5 = " n e u t r a l " ; 10 = "very to which each of the 27 t r a i t s was Three measures were d e r i v e d  the H s t a t i s t i c  from the s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y  ( S c o t t ' s H),  used i n grouping  AVER, the  used i n subsequent analyses  Hakstian,  1982). e v a l u a t i o n assessment overview. questionnaire,  the  A c t u a l l y , ZAVER, the r_-to-z_  b e t t e r normal d i s t r i b u t i o n a l p r o p e r t i e s  the s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y  the  average  ZAVER has  (b) Mood and  questionnaire:  a measure corresponding to  i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n among the dimensions. of AVER, was  extent  d e s c r i p t i v e of each of the l a b e l s .  number of independent dimensions; and  F i s h e r transform  at a l l  much d e s c r i p t i v e " ) the  NDIM, the number of dimensions (boxes) s u b j e c t s traits;  had  because  (see S t e i g e r &  After  completing  s u b j e c t s were given i n s t r u c t i o n s  f o r completing the d a i l y mood i n v e n t o r y .  Briefly  summarized, they  46 would:  (a) provide  (1983) A f f e c t positive  Grid;  daily  mood-ratings  ( b ) d e s c r i b e what  and t h e most n e g a t i v e e v e n t  objectively these  five  as p o s s i b l e ;  two e v e n t s  stability,  these  and g l o b a l i t y ;  the e v e n t s ,  their  causes  and ( d ) r a t e  p e r c e i v e d impact  significance  of the events.  The  experimenter  emphasized  daily  i n p r o v i d i n g responses  inventories.  anonymous, procedure  to the best  instructed sheets.  only  matched w i t h requested (c)  that  after  equivalents  sheets  were  that  these  They were  going  and  contained  every  were  i t e m and  specifically  c o d e numbers instrument  also  of o t h e r s .  weeks). (1982),  times  midmorning,  No a c t u a l  t o be  They were  (two f u l l  moods f i v e  which  to provide  i n t r o d u c e d by P a r l e e  to bed.  responses  i n the presence  S u b j e c t s were a s k e d  their  i n the  i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e d i a r y  on t h e p r e t e s t  diaries  to rate  indicated  their  t o complete  p e r i o d : upon a r i s i n g ,  d i n n e r , and b e f o r e  of honesty  on t h e mood i n v e n t o r i e s .  t h e mood-sampling s c h e d u l e  o f a 24-hour  f o r the occurrence of  the p o s i t i v i t y / n e g a t i v i t y of  day f o r 14 c o n s e c u t i v e d a y s  s u b j e c t s were i n s t r u c t e d  day a s  i n terms o f i n t e r n a l i t y ,  abilities.  these  mood-ratings.  each  that  t o the v a r i o u s q u e s t i o n s found  to allow responses  the responses  Daily  causes  t o attempt  of their  not to complete  mood-ratings  course  were  a s t h e most  the importance  n o t t o w r i t e any i d e n t i f y i n g  I t was n o t e d  were used  Using  they  regarded  occurred  S u b j e c t s were i n f o r m e d  and t h a t  Russell's  on t h e s u b j e c t ' s own mood, and t h e  personal  accuracy  that  (c) attribute  and r a t e  they  employing  over the  midafternoon,  clock-time  t o a l l o w some f l e x i b i l i t y  i n the  T h r o u g h o u t t h e s t u d y , t h e words "mood" and " s p i r i t s " were u s e d 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 t o s u b j e c t s f o r c l a r i t y o f m e a n i n g o f t h e t e r m "mood" ( s e e E c k e n r o d e , 1984).  47 mood-rating  s e s s i o n s ; however, they were requested to r e c o r d the  exact times when the r a t i n g s were made. They were d i r e c t e d  to provide post hoc estimates of t h e i r moods  i n s i t u a t i o n s where they had omitted mood-rating forgetfulness, i l l n e s s ,  s e s s i o n s due to  or times of extreme inconvenience or  emergency only i f they were f a i r l y Because accuracy was extremely  c e r t a i n of t h e i r  important,  accuracy.  they were i n s t r u c t e d not to  guess a t omitted r a t i n g s that they d i d not remember c l e a r l y or had little  c o n f i d e n c e i n , but simply to omit  them.  S u b j e c t s were advised  to c a r r y the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s c o n t a i n i n g the A f f e c t G r i d s along with them wherever they went and not to r e f e r  to p r e v i o u s r a t i n g s when  making c u r r e n t r a t i n g s . Research  p a r t i c i p a n t s were i n t r o d u c e d to R u s s e l l ' s A f f e c t  in a simplified informed  manner.  Employing  the analogy  that the g r i d was a two-dimensional  formed by the dimensions of a r o u s a l .  To c l a r i f y  of the degree  of a map,  Grid  they were  r e p r e s e n t i o n of emotions  of pleasantness and the degree  the n o t i o n of a r o u s a l , the experimenter  d e f i n e d i t as "the s t a t e i n which an i n d i v i d u a l f e e l s 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".  I t was  explained  that any emotional s t a t e could be represented by the  placement  of an "x" i n any one of the 81 squares of the 9 x 9  grid.  Examples of how s e v e r a l moods could be l o c a t e d g r a p h i c a l l y on the g r i d were presented.  These examples i l l u s t r a t e d ,  among other t h i n g s ,  that the i n t e n s i t y of a given emotion i n c r e a s e s from the c e n t e r to the p e r i p h e r y of the graph and that the p l e a s a n t n e s s dimension i s distinctly  d i f f e r e n t and orthogonal to the a r o u s a l  dimension.  (d) D e s c r i p t i o n s of p o s i t i v e and negative events.  Before  48 r e t i r i n g , s u b j e c t s were requested to answer a s h o r t s e r i e s of q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e i r 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 to events that had occurred during the day.  First,  they wrote a b r i e f  o b j e c t i v e d e s c r i p t i o n of the most p o s i t i v e and the most negative events they had experienced that day ( i . e . ,  the l a s t  O b j e c t i v e r e p o r t i n g of these events was i l l u s t r a t e d examples of r a t h e r common everyday  events—two  d e c i d e d l y negative and two p o s i t i v e . r e p o r t i n g was: "My best f r i e n d  24-hour p e r i o d ) . by a s e t of four  events which were  An example of u n d e s i r a b l e  i n s u l t e d me".  A much more o b j e c t i v e  and hence, p r e f e r a b l e v e r s i o n of t h i s same event would i n c l u d e an account of e x a c t l y what the f r i e n d s a i d 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 f o r these events.  A f t e r d e s c r i b i n g the  most p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e events of the day, s u b j e c t s were asked seven q u e s t i o n s p e r t a i n i n g to each event. s u b j e c t s ' c a u s a l p e r c e p t i o n s of the event.  Four q u e s t i o n s examined These i n c l u d e d a b r i e f  w r i t t e n d e s c r i p t i o n of what they b e l i e v e d 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 the degree  (internality),  of p e r s i s t e n c e of the cause to any f u t u r e occurrence of  the p a r t i c u l a r event  (stability),  and f i n a l l y ,  the degree  to which  the c a u s a l f a c t o r i n f l u e n c e d and permeated other areas of the subjects' l i v e s ,  a s i d e from the o b j e c t i v e l y r e p o r t e d s i t u a t i o n  (globality). The format and wording  of these items was patterned a f t e r the  Balanced 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 (BASQ; Peterson, Semmel, von Baeyer, Abramson, Metalsky, & Seligman, internality,  stability,  1982).  Ratings of the  and g l o b a l i t y of causes were made on a  11-point asked,  scales.  " I s the cause  something other  the  about  people  = 0).  To a s s e s s  of the event  other  people  ("will  p r e s e n t " = +5,  = -5, " t o t a l l y  event  never  "may  again  event  described  ( g l o b a l i t y ) was  cause  something  that areas  particular  situation"  +5,  = 0).  "both"  aspects  events.  Three  life?"  remaining was  q u e s t i o n s were f o r m u l a t e d  positive/negative "neutral" this  event  = 0,  ("not  "extremely  affect  s o " = 1 0 ) ; and  do you v i e w  continuous  positive"  (change) your  ( 3 ) "How  at a l l important" Debriefing  other  session.  (1)  Upon  this  important"  returning their  =  of  positively of the event event.  n e g a t i v e " = -5,  ( 2 ) "To what  was  life"  "How  mood?" ("not a t a l l "  = 0, " e x t r e m e l y  " I s the  i n my  of the  ("extremely  p e r s o n a l l y important  than the  and i m p o r t a n c e  significance  = +5);  be  this  a s c e r t a i n e d how  the event?"  be  o r does i t a l s o  impact,  as f o l l o w s :  "both"  of the given  the p e r c e i v e d e f f e c t  s u b j e c t s ' moods; and t h e p e r c e i v e d  These  always  ("influences just  questions  viewed;  = +5,  by t h e q u e s t i o n ,  affective  due t o  cause again  = -5, " i n f l u e n c e s a l l s i t u a t i o n s  or n e g a t i v e l y the event on  this  i n f l u e n c e s the event,  of your  were  by t h e q u e s t i o n , " I n  of the s u b j e c t s ' l i v e s  (f) Positivity/negativity, these  due t o me"  The p e r v a s i v e n e s s  assessed  they you o r  ("totally  assessed  be p r e s e n t " = 0 ) .  just  about  be p r e s e n t " = - 5 , " w i l l  i n influencing  other  was  re-occurs), will  cause  influence  due t o s o m e t h i n g  of the antecedent  future ( i fthis  of the cause,  or c i r c u m s t a n c e s ? "  or circumstances"  Stability  present?"  the i n t e r n a l i t y  extent d i d  = 0,  "very  event  much  t o you?"  = 10).  mood d i a r i e s  after  14  d a y s o f m o o d - a s s e s s m e n t s 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  ( s e l f - e s t e e m ) instrument and  procedures  and were d e b r i e f e d concerning the  of the study.  (See Appendix F f o r the  d e t a i l s of the d e b r i e f i n g procedures.) about whether they had n e g a t i v e events  experienced  specific  S u b j e c t s were a l s o  questioned  some u n u s u a l l y p o s i t i v e or  that might have s e r i o u s l y i n f l u e n c e d t h e i r normal  a f f e c t i v e responsiveness were requested  purposes  (e.g., a f a m i l y d e a t h ) .  to g i v e p e r m i s s i o n to use  events i n a subsequent study.  I t was  F i n a l l y , subjects  t h e i r d e s c r i p t i o n s of  daily  e x p l a i n e d t h a t these  d e s c r i p t i o n s would be typed and accompanied by no  identifying  information. R o l e - P l a y i n g Study Subjects.  S u b j e c t s were 63 students (32 HSE  subjects) selected They were r e c r u i t e d d a i l y events".  from the same pool used by telephone  s u b j e c t s ; 31  LSE  f o r the Mood-Diary Study.  f o r a study " a s s e s s i n g responses  to  S u b j e c t s r e c e i v e d e x t r a course c r e d i t f o r  participation. Stimuli. and  The  o b j e c t i v e l y w r i t t e n d e s c r i p t i o n s of two  ti^o negative events were randomly s e l e c t e d from  of 60 s u b j e c t s (30 HSE Mood-Diary Study. p o s i t i v e and  and  30 LSE) who  T h i s procedure  120 n e g a t i v e .  by s i x - i n c h c a r d s .  A unique  The  had  p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the events,  120  d e s c r i p t i o n s were typed on f o u r - i n c h  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number was  p r i n t e d i n the  In a d d i t i o n , every card had  s e c r e t code i n d i c a t i n g whether the event was  Each s u b j e c t was  mood-diaries  y i e l d e d a t o t a l of 240  upper r i g h t - h a n d corner of each c a r d .  n e g a t i v e , and whether i t had  the  positive  a  r e p o r t e d as p o s i t i v e or  been r e p o r t e d by a LSE or HSE  presented with a random s e l e c t i o n and  arrangement of 16 cards ( e v e n t s ) , four from each of four  subject. random  51 categories—negative reported and  events reported  by L S E s u b j e c t s ,  negative  p o s i t i v e events reported Procedure.  to s i x .  Subjects  t h e y w o u l d be g i v e n life  by HSE  that  to various  kinds  by o t h e r  to that event.  groups of s i z e  of l i f e  events.  Specifically,  undergraduate students.  questions  significant  debriefed  occurred  i n d i c a t i n g how t h e y  and g l o b a l i t y ;  to rate  that  how  they would view t h a t event; t o r a t e t h e  t h e e v e n t w o u l d be f o r them.  a n d t h e r e s p o n s e s c a l e s were i d e n t i c a l  Mood-Diary Study.  F o r each  t h e e v e n t had  d e g r e e t o w h i c h i t w o u l d a f f e c t t h e i r mood; and t o r a t e personally  actual  T h a t i s , t h e y w o u l d be a s k e d t o i n d i c a t e  stability,  or n e g a t i v e l y  four  with  was t h e m a j o r c a u s e o f t h e e v e n t ; t o r a t e  cause f o r i n t e r n a l i t y , positively  subjects,  t h e s t u d y was c o n c e r n e d  t h e y were a s k e d t o i m a g i n e t h a t  what t h e y b e l i e v e d  by HSE  subjects.  t o them and t h e n t o a n s w e r a s e t o f q u e s t i o n s would r e a c t  p o s i t i v e events  d e s c r i p t i o n s o f 16 e v e n t s t h a t c o n s t i t u t e d  experiences reported  description,  events reported  participated i n small  They were i n f o r m e d  people's reactions  by L S E s u b j e c t s ,  After subjects  rated  how  A l l of these  t o those used i n t h e  t h e 16 e v e n t s , t h e y  were  c o n c e r n i n g t h e p u r p o s e s and p r o c e d u r e s o f t h e s t u d y ( s e e  Appendix G). Every card by  HSE s u b j e c t s  received pool  ( e v e n t ) was r a t e d  four  times,  two r a t i n g s were  and two r a t i n g s by L S E s u b j e c t s .  given  A f t e r a c a r d had  t h e r e q u i s i t e number o f r a t i n g s , i t was removed f r o m t h e  of events. DEPENDENT  MEASURES  Four types 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  attribution,  and g e n e r a l  impact  measures.  The Mood-Diary Study y i e l d e d a l l four types of measures  whereas the R o l e - P l a y i n g Study i n v o l v e d only a t t r i b u t i o n a l g e n e r a l impact  measures.  Complexity As noted  and  Measures  earlier,  the three v a r i a b l e s d e r i v e d 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 i n c l u d e NDIM, the number of dimensions (boxes) s u b j e c t s used to d i f f e r e n t i a t e the t r a i t s w i t h i n 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; the H s t a t i s t i c ,  a measure of the number of independent dimensions  u n d e r l y i n g the t r a i t Mood  sort.  Scores  Each A f f e c t G r i d y i e l d s two unpleasant/pleasant  dimension  s l e e p i n e s s / a r o u s a l dimension pleasantness and  and  9-point  scores—one  along  an  the other along a  (higher numbers i n d i c a t i n g  arousal, respectively).  d e v i a t i o n s of the two  The  means and  mood v a r i a b l e s ( p l e a s a n t n e s s and  greater standard a r o u s a l ) were  computed f o r each s u b j e c t f o r a l l d a i l y mood-ratings (except daily  g l o b a l r a t i n g s ) , i r r e s p e c t i v e of the time of day  week and a c r o s s both weeks, r e s u l t i n g  i n a grand  d e v i a t i o n (the measure of mood e x t r e m i t y ) . yielded standard (1987),  and  four v a r i a b l e s — m e a n  standard  or day of  mean and  the  standard  These c a l c u l a t i o n s  p l e a s a n t n e s s , mean a r o u s a l , and  d e v i a t i o n s of the above.  the  However, as noted  by  the  Larsen  d e v i a t i o n s r e p r e s e n t only one aspect of mood  S u b j e c t s a l s o completed a r e t r o s p e c t i v e o v e r a l l mood-rating at the end of each day. Means and standard d e v i a t i o n s of the pleasantness and a r o u s a l dimensions of these 14 r a t i n g s were a l s o computed and a n a l y z e d . These r e s u l t s are not r e p o r t e d here because (a) the measures based on the g l o b a l r a t i n g s c o r r e l a t e d 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 r a t i n g s , and (b) the a n a l y s i s of the g l o b a l measures y i e l d e d r e s u l t s that were s i m i l a r to those r e p o r t e d here.  53 variability. mood-ratings "average 1195).  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  e x t r e m i t y " or amplitude  o f mood f l u c t u a t i o n s o r c h a n g e s .  relatively  diagrams  independent  plotted  Frequency  o f mood e x t r e m i t y .  index the  i s the  o f mood c h a n g e s  F o r e x a m p l e , t h e mood  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  t h e same s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of t h e f r e q u e n c y  from  o f mood c h a n g e s ( L a r s e n , 1 9 8 7 , p.  An e q u a l l y i m p o r t a n t a s p e c t o f mood v a r i a b i l i t y  frequency is  "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 c o m p u t e d  o f mood  ( e x t r e m i t y ) , but d i f f e r  greatly  i n terms  fluctuations.  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 a s s p e c t r a l analysis, (Larsen,  i s one means o f a s s e s s i n g f r e q u e n c y 1987).  difficulty project.  o f c h a n g e s i n mood  H o w e v e r , 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 t h e  i n interpreting Consequently,  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  two i n d i c e s o f t h e f r e q u e n c y  o f mood  f l u c t u a t i o n s w e r e c o m p u t e d f o r t h e a r o u s a l and p l e a s a n t n e s s ratings—the  frequency  of adjacent mood-ratings  change, and t h e f r e q u e n c y  t h a t e x h i b i t e d any  of adjacent mood-ratings  that exhibited  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 f r o m one t o f o u r , n e u t r a l i s f i v e ,  o f changes m e a s u r e s — t h e frequency  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  Causal A t t r i b u t i o n The  These f o u r  o f a n y mood c h a n g e i n  a r o u s a l a n d i n p l e a s a n t n e s s , and t h e f r e q u e n c y  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  mood-rating  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 o r a r o u s a l s c a l e ) . frequency  a  a total  o f a change i n v a l e n c e o f e i g h t dependent  experiment.  Scores  p e r c e i v e d major cause  o f t h e most p o s i t i v e a n d most n e g a t i v e  e v e n t s o f t h e 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  internality  5 4  Figure  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 t h e f r e q u e n c y o f mood c h a n g e s c a n 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 ) . SUBJECT A  positive  MOOD  negative 1  10  20  30  40  50  60  DAY  NUMBER  70  80  90  100  SUBJECT B  positive  MOOD  negative  1  10  20  30  40  50  60  DAY  NUMBER  70  80  90  100  SUBJECT C  positive  MOOD  negative  1  10  20  30  40  50  60  DAY  NUMBER  70  80  90  100  55 (INTERNAL), s t a b i l i t y ascriptions. ranged  The  f r o m -5  reflect  ( S T A B L E ) , and  c o n s t a n t 5 was  t o 0 t o +5,  globality  (GLOBAL) o f t h e c a u s a l  added t o the o r i g i n a l  scales,  t o a v o i d n e g a t i v e numbers; h i g h e r  increasing internality,  stability,  and  globality.  which  numbers  The  means  o f 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 t h e 14 e v e n t s were c o m p u t e d s e p a r a t e l y f o r t h e p o s i t i v e and Positivity/Negativity,  negative  Affective  events.  I m p a c t , and  Importance  Means w e r e a l s o c o m p u t e d a c r o s s t h e 14 p o s i t i v e and events  negative  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  reported  events,  their  of the occurrence positivity and  Scores  i n f l u e n c e i n a l t e r i n g mood, and  of events.  (POSITIVITY),  greater importance  Higher  the  importance  means r e p r e s e n t g r e a t e r  g r e a t e r e s t i m a t e d impact  of the events  the  of  on mood  (IMPACT),  (IMPORT).  RESULTS Mood-Diary  Study  Temporal s t a b i l i t y this  study  t h a t s e l f - e s t e e m was  difference. revised  To  provide empirical  was  approximately  two  and  completed  assumption  that subjects' level  stable  individual  f o r t h i s assumption,  i n the academic term and,  f o r those  a g a i n a t t h e end  a h a l f months l a t e r .  c o r r e l a t i o n i n t h i s s a m p l e was  assumed i n c o n d u c t i n g  F e e l i n g s of Inadequacy  s u b j e c t s f o r the Mood-Diary Study i t was  across  support  administered early  participated,  I t was  a relatively  v e r s i o n of the J a n i s - F i e l d  ( E a g l y , 1967) select  of s e l f - e s t e e m .  j:(67)=.92,  The  of the  Scale i n order  to  who study,  temporal  jK.001,  the  stability  thus s u p p o r t i n g  of s e l f - e s t e e m would remain  the  stable  time.  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 . In the i n i t i a l  s e s s i o n of  the  Mood-Diary Study, yielded  s u b j e c t s performed a t r a i t - s o r t i n g  t h r e e measures of c o m p l e x i t y  dimensions  task  of the s e l f — N D I M ,  (boxes) s u b j e c t s used i n g r o u p i n g  the  sort:  and  t h e number o f  traits;  t h e number o f i n d e p e n d e n t ( n o n - r e d u n d a n t ) d i m e n s i o n s  Scott's  underlying  ZAVER, t h e a v e r a g e i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n among t h e  (_r-to-z_ t r a n s f o r m ) . Janis-Field  Self-esteem  pre-study  (i.e.,  that  the f u l l - s c a l e  H, the  dimensions s c o r e s of  q u e s t i o n n a i r e ) e x h i b i t e d moderately  the  positive  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 Table  I).  strong  C o r r e l a t i o n s among t h e  three complexity  p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n b e t w e e n S c o t t ' s H and  unrelated  to the other  two  When t h e s a m p l e was groups,  divided into  t h e l o w and  ( 3 . 8 1 ) ; HSE  among d i m e n s i o n s  HSE  and  s u b j e c t s had  Mood.  a r o u s a l components of t h e i r c o n s e c u t i v e weeks (14 d a y s ) .  a r o u s a l dimensions;  adjacent and  Subjects  represented  and  70  times  e a c h day  (1) p l e a s a n t n e s s (3)  t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e 69 change i n t h e  the p r o p o r t i o n of these  a change i n v a l e n c e  and  p a i r s of r a t i n g s ,  d e v i a t i o n s of the  any  subjects  r a t e d the p l e a s a n t n e s s  From t h e s e  r a t i n g s that represented  HSE  (2.32).  c u r r e n t moods f i v e  the standard  (6) a r o u s a l r a t i n g s ;  subjects  LSE  intercorrelation  s u b j e c t s ( 0 . 3 0 ) ; and  t h e means o f t h e  (4) a r o u s a l dimensions:  of  significant, a l l  a higher average  ( 2 . 7 0 ) t h a n LSE  m e a s u r e s were d e r i v e d :  was  self-esteem  s u b j e c t s u s e d more b o x e s ( 4 . 3 9 ) t h a n  ( 0 . 4 0 ) t h a n LSE  higher H scores Self-esteem  and  high  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  F _ s ( l , 6 5 ) > 4 . 5 1 , _p_s<.04.  had  NDIM b u t ZAVER  a  i n d i c e s of s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y .  s e l f - e s t e e m on e a c h o f t h e i n d i c e s was  subjects  indices revealed  i n (7) p l e a s a n t n e s s  and  eight (2)  of  pleasantness  pairs and  two  pleasantness  pairs (5)  for  that  (8) a r o u s a l .  57  Table 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 complexity of self-representation.  and t h e t h r e e  SELF- •COMPLEXITY  SELF-ESTEEM SELF-ESTEEM NDIM ZAVER SCOTT'S H  NDIM  ZAVER.  indices  of  INDICES  SCOTT'S H  1.00 o o * *  .32  * .24 .32  **  1.00 -.10  1.00  *** .86  N o t e ^ A l l c o r r e l a t i o n s a r e b a s e d on a s a m p l e p<.05. p<.01. p<.001.  .005 s i z e o f 67,  1.00  58 The  first  two m e a s u r e s r e p r e s e n t  components;  the l a s t  components.  the average e l e v a t i o n  s i x a l l assess  The s t a n d a r d  the v a r i a b i l i t y  o f mood  shifts;  frequency  o f mood  c h a n g e s between a d j a c e n t  intercorrelations  o f t h e two  d e v i a t i o n measures a s s e s s  extremity  the l a s t  among t h e s e  f o u r measures  o f t h e two  the o v e r a l l  tap the r e l a t i v e  ratings.  e i g h t mood v a r i a b l e s  The are provided i n  Table I I . The  correlational  pleasantness arousal  ratings  ratings,  adjacent  r_(67) = .37,  deviations). mood  relationships  changes, with  pleasantness The  Although  correlated  o f mood  extremity  of the frequency showed  the frequency  between  the frequency  significant  of changes i n the v a l e n c e  and a r o u s a l were  themselves,  o f change  measures  a highly positive associated with  r_(67) = .73,  _p_<.001, and w i t h  r_(67) = .50, _p_<.001. was n o t s u b s t a n t i a l l y  i n pleasantness,  _r(67)=.21,  f o r the a r o u s a l dimension  relationship. the frequency the frequency  Extremity  analyses  o f mood  o f a r o u s a l was  o f any c h a n g e i n a r o u s a l , o f change i n v a l e n c e o f  r_(67) = .58, _p_<.001.  Statistical  of  o f any c h a n g e s i n p l e a s a n t n e s s ,  d e v i a t i o n of pleasantness  positively  arousal,  t h e mean o f t h e  any m e a s u r e s  d e v i a t i o n s of pleasantness  _p_<=.10, t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g exhibited  with  o n l y mean p l e a s a n t n e s s  highly positively  with  with  In terms o f i n d i c e s  and w i t h  the standard  correlated  moderately  t h e mean o f t h e  r a t i n g s , j_(67)=-.59, j K . 0 0 1 .  standard  correlated  that  _p_<.01, b u t n e i t h e r o f t h e e l e v a t i o n  the frequency  r_(67)=-.45, j K . 0 0 1 , of  indicated  correlated  m e a s u r e s were r e l i a b l y (standard  results  of the four i n d i c e s  of frequency  of  Table I I Intercorrelations  (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) S.E.  among t h e e i g h t mood m e a s u r e s a n d t h e i r  correlations with  self-esteem.  MOOD ELEVATION MOOD EXTREMITY FREQUENCY OF ADJACENT MOOD CHANGES (MEAN) (STANDARD DEVIATION) ANY CHANGE CHANGE I N VALENCE ( 1 ) = P L E A S . ( 2 )=AR0US. ( 3 ) = P L E A S . ( 4 )=AR0US. ( 5 ) = P L E A S . (6)=AR0US. ( 7 ) = P L E A S . (8)=AROUS. 1.00 .37** 1.00 -.003 -.01 1.00 -.08 -.03 .50*** 1.00 -.45*** -.14 .21! .37** 1.00 -'.16 -.16 .24* .73*** . 5 7 * * * 1.00 . 7 5 * * * .37** -.59*** -.18 .08 .18 1.00 .58*** . 5 0 * * * . 7 9 * * * -.12 .07 -!l6 .35** 1.00 .55*** .26* -.05 -.097 -.37** -.16 -.36** -.10  Note. ***p<.001.  A l l c o r r e l a t i o n s a r e b a s e d on a s a m p l e s i z e o f 6 7 . 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 .  !p<.10.  *p<.05.  **p<,01.  60 a d j a c e n t mood c h a n g e s — t h a t  i s , the frequency  p l e a s a n t n e s s a n d a r o u s a l , and t h e f r e q u e n c y b o t h o f t h e mood d i m e n s i o n s — r e v e a l e d c o r r e l a t e d among e a c h o t h e r .  o f change i n v a l e n c e o f  t h a t t h e y were a l l p o s i t i v e l y  W i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n s o f t h e two m o d e r a t e  c o r r e l a t i o n s between f r e q u e n c y frequency  o f any change i n  o f any change i n a r o u s a l w i t h t h e  o f c h a n g e 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 frequency  o f change i n v a l e n c e o f p l e a s a n t n e s s w i t h t h a t o f  a r o u s a l , jr(67)=.36, j K . 0 1 , the remaining  four correlations  were  substantial. Table  I I also presents the r e s u l t s of c o r r e l a t i o n a l  between t h e f u l l - s c a l e variables.  s e l f - e s t e e m s c o r e s and t h e e i g h t mood  These r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d  between t h e i n d i v i d u a l  analyses  a reliable,  positive  association  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 and t h e  m e a s u r e s o f e l e v a t i o n o f a r o u s a l , j:(67) = .26, _p_<.05, and e s p e c i a l l y , o f p l e a s a n t n e s s , j r ( 6 7 ) = .55, j K . 0 0 1 .  Even though t h e magnitude o f t h e  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 , negatively related and  to the standard  a r o u s a l as a n t i c i p a t e d .  reliably  w i t h another  s e l f - e s t e e m was  d e v i a t i o n s of both  pleasantness  S e l f - e s t e e m c o v a r i e d b o t h n e g a t i v e l y and  i n d e x o f mood v a r i a b i l i t y — t h e  frequency  c h a n g e i n p l e a s a n t n e s s , j r ( 6 7 ) = - . 3 7 , _p_<.01, and t h e f r e q u e n c y  o f any  of 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  o f change measures f o r a r o u s a l were n o t 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 ; h o w e v e r , b o t h were i n t h e e x p e c t e d negative direction.  I n summary, s e l f - e s t e e m c o r r e l a t e d  strongly with  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 with  the frequency  Self-esteem  o f change a l o n g  the pleasantness  d i d n o t , however, demonstrate r e l i a b l e  dimension. correlations  with  mood e x t r e m i t y  i n terms o f p l e a s a n t n e s s  or a r o u s a l , or with the  f r e q u e n c y o f change i n a r o u s a l . When t h e s a m p l e was d i v i d e d i n t o LSE  and HSE), a n a l y s e s  of variance  comparable t o the c o r r e l a t i o n a l  t h e two e s t e e m g r o u p s  produced r e s u l t s  results.  that  (i.e.,  were  Compared t o L S E s u b j e c t s ,  HSE s u b j e c t s  reported  (6.OA  5 . 3 8 ) , F_( 1,65) = 1 5 . 6 2 , j K . 0 0 1 , and somewhat h i g h e r i n  versus  mean a r o u s a l  (5.12 versus  to v a r i a b i l i t y standard  moods t h a t w e r e , on t h e a v e r a g e , more  A . 8 7 ) , F_( 1,65)=2.90, _p_<.10.  o f mood, t h e i n d i c e s o f mood e x t r e m i t y  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  extremity  of e i t h e r the pleasantness  H o w e v e r , t h e two m e a s u r e s a s s e s s i n g indicated  t h a t LSE s u b j e c t s  pleasantness  higher The  With  respect  ( i . e . , the  self-esteem  differences i n  o r a r o u s a l components, Fs<.008. f r e q u e n c y o f mood  e x h i b i t e d more f r e q u e n t  changes  changes i n t h e  component o f t h e i r moods t h a n HSE s u b j e c t s ,  F s ( l , 6 5 ) > 1 0 . 8 9 , j3s<.002. proportion  pleasant  The L S E s u b j e c t s  o f mood c h a n g e s o f a n y k i n d  proportion  demonstrated a  (73.79 v e r s u s  o f c h a n g e s i n mood v a l e n c e  two g r o u p s d i d n o t d i f f e r  higher  65.5A) and a  (3A.36 v e r s u s  27.77).  i n the frequency with which the a r o u s a l  component o f mood c h a n g e d , F s < . 5 1 . Mood and s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y . questionnaire, dimensions  From t h e s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y  t h r e e measures were d e r i v e d :  (boxes) s u b j e c t s used i n grouping  meaningful c l u s t e r s ;  NDIM, t h e number o f traits  into  personally  S c o t t ' s H, t h e number o f n o n - r e d u n d a n t ,  independent dimensions underlying  the t r a i t - s o r t i n g  of the average i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n  task;  a n d ZAVER,  a normalized  index  dimensions.  I t i s n o t e w o r t h y t o m e n t i o n t h a t NDIM and S c o t t ' s H a r e  r e g a r d e d as t h e s t a n d a r d  i n d i c e s of the complexity  among t h e  of the  62 self-representation. open t o q u e s t i o n . high  I n c o n t r a s t , t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f ZAVER i s  For instance, a high  score  f o rZAVER—indicating  r e l a t i o n s h i p among t h e 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  considerable underlying provided  degree of i n t e g r a t i o n of t h e d i s t i n c t  the nature  of the s e l f ,  or the fact  by t h e s u b j e c t a r e n o t c o m p l e t e l y  cognitive differentiation manifestations  a  dimensions  that  dimensions  differentiated.  Both  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 ,  of c o g n i t i v e complexity  Table I I I i l l u s t r a t e s  a  (Suedfeld,  1985).  t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n t h e two  standard  m e a s u r e s o f s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y a n d ZAVER w i t h e a c h o f t h e e i g h t mood measures.  Like self-esteem,  NDIM, were ( a ) p o s i t i v e l y pleasantness, the  correlated with  measures, S c o t t ' s H  the e l e v a t i o n i n  b u t n o t 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  two f r e q u e n c y  again,  t h e two s t a n d a r d  o f change i n d i c e s i n terms o f p l e a s a n t n e s s ,  not i n a r o u s a l .  A l l other  i n v o l v i n g mood e x t r e m i t y ,  failed  correlations including to achieve  pattern of c o r r e l a t i o n s of self-esteem i d e n t i c a l i n every  respect  significance.  with  but  those The  t o t h e mood i n d i c e s were  except f o r the moderately 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 t h e e l e v a t i o n i n t h e a r o u s a l  d i m e n s i o n o f mood. ZAVER, t h e e x t e n t radically  departed  t o w h i c h t h e d i m e n s i o n s were i n t e r c o r r e l a t e d ,  f r o m S c o t t ' s H and NDIM i n t h a t i t was  c o r r e l a t e d w i t h every  mood m e a s u r e w i t h w h i c h t h e s t a n d a r d  s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y were n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y among a l l t h r e e reliable arousal.  related.  The o n l y  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  r e l a t i o n s h i p with  the frequency  T h u s , ZAVER was p o s i t i v e l y  positively i n d i c e s of commonality  lack of a  o f changes i n t h e v a l e n c e  r e l a t e d to the e l e v a t i o n i n  of  Table I I I Correlations  MEASURES OF SELFCOMPLEXITY  between t h e t h r e e  MOOD ELEVATION (MEAN) PLEAS. AROUS.  c o m p l e x i t y m e a s u r e s a n d t h e e i g h t mood  MOOD EXTREMITY (STANDARD DEVIATION) PLEAS. AROUS.  SCOTT'S H  .34**  .007  NDIM  .30  .04  -.08  ZAVER  .07  .26  .28  Note. p<.001.  .00  measures.  FREQUENCY OF ADJACENT MOOD CHANGES CHANGE I N VALENCE ANY CHANGE PLEAS. AROUS. PLEAS. AROUS.  -.06  -.28*  -.21!  -.39  -.20  -.32  -.16  .40  -.03  .31  -.17  .17  A l l c o r r e l a t i o n s a r e b a s e d on a s a m p l e s i z e o f 6 7 .  .03  !p<.10.  -.29*  p<.05.  .04  p<.01.  64 arousal,  t o mood e x t r e m i t y  i n t e r m s o f p l e a s a n t n e s s and a r o u s a l , and  t o t h e f r e q u e n c y o f any c h a n g e s i n a r o u s a l . As  stated  anticipated,  earlier,  differ  two-week p e r i o d of i n d i v i d u a l  i n the extremity  differences  groups d i d n o t , as  of t h e i r mood-ratings over the  of the Mood-Diary Study.  'were a l s o n o t r e l i a b l y Linville's  t h e two s e l f - e s t e e m  i n complexity  correlated with  The two s t a n d a r d (i.e.,  Scott's  the extremity  (1982) study, d e m o n s t r a t i n g a r e l a t i o n  self-complexity  and mood e x t r e m i t y ,  a number o f r e s p e c t s  (i.e.,  differed  H a n d NDIM)  measures.  between  f r o m t h e p r e s e n t one i n  t h e measure o f c o m p l e x i t y ,  t h e mood  measure, e t c . ) ,  i n c l u d i n g t h e number o f mood a s s e s s m e n t s  made.  requested her subjects  Linville  to rate  or complexity d i f f e r e n c e s  when d i f f e r e n t  were i n d i v i d u a l  exhibited  by s u b j e c t s  moods f i v e subject, arousal.  i n mood e x t r e m i t y  differences  i n t h e a v e r a g e mood  w i t h i n a day.  Because s u b j e c t s  the average d a i l y  standard deviation  The s e c o n d a n a l y s i s a s c e r t a i n e d i n extremity  the  several  extremity had r a t e d  their  i n p l e a s a n t n e s s and  i f there  were  a c r o s s t h e 14 d a y s c o n s i d e r i n g  the standard deviation  emerge  t o c a l c u l a t e , f o r each  were made a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h e same t i m e e a c h d a y . this,  would  One a n a l y s i s a s c e r t a i n e d i f  t i m e s e a c h d a y , i t was p o s s i b l e  differences  To a s c e r t a i n i f  s u b s e t s o f t h e m o o d - r a t i n g s were c o n s i d e r e d ,  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 . there  subjects  t h e i r moods o n c e a day  a t a p r e s p e c i f i e d t i m e ( c h o s e n by t h e s u b j e c t ) . self-esteem  measures  individual ratings  that  To a c c o m p l i s h  o f t h e 14 r a t i n g s made a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y  same t i m e e a c h day was c a l c u l a t e d f o r e a c h o f t h e f i v e  t i m e - p e r i o d s a n d a summary m e a s u r e ( i . e . , standard deviations)  was c a l c u l a t e d .  the average of these  These measures o f  five  extremity  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 d a y s were c o r r e l a t e d s e l f - e s t e e m and t h e t h r e e c o m p l e x i t y m e a s u r e s .  with  The c o r r e l a t i o n s a r e  given i n Table IV. Although  t h e 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 , a s p r e d i c t e d ,  s e l f - e s t e e m was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y  related  measures e i t h e r i n terms o f p l e a s a n t n e s s c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h t h e two s t a n d a r d H and NDIM) were a l s o , o v e r a l l , dimensions  t o any o f t h e s e or a r o u s a l .  extremity  The  c o m p l e x i t y measures ( i . e . ,  Scott's  n e g a t i v e i n t e r m s o f t h e s e two  o f mood, b u t o n l y t h e c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n NDIM a n d t h e  a v e r a g e e x t r e m i t y w i t h i n a day a p p r o a c h e d 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 , a n d was s i g n i f i c a n t However, s i m i l a r mood-ratings, of the s e l f  to the e a r l i e r  f o r a r o u s a l , j r ( 6 5 ) = - . 2 4 , _p_<.05.  a n a l y s e s b a s e d on t h e e n t i r e s e t o f  t h e a v e r a g e c o r r e l a t i o n among t h e u n d e r l y i n g (ZAVER) was p o s i t i v e l y  b o t h w i t h i n d a y s and a c r o s s d a y s .  dimensions  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, Again,  these 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 t h e a r o u s a l component o f mood t h a n t h e p l e a s a n t n e s s component. pleasantness  I n summary, d e c o m p o s i n g t h e e x t r e m i t y o f  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  c o n s i s t i n g of across-days  and  subsets—one  r a t i n g s and t h e o t h e r c o n s i s t i n g o f  within-day r a t i n g s — y i e l d e d S e l f - e s t e e m was s t i l l  two  basically  t h e same i n f o r m a t i o n .  u n c o r r e l a t e d w i t h any s u b s e t  o f mood e x t r e m i t y ,  g e n e r a l l y , n e i t h e r w e r e t h e two s t a n d a r d m e a s u r e s o f  self-complexity.  Finally,  ZAVER r e m a i n e d p o s i t i v e l y  correlated  with  t h e two e x t r e m i t y m e a s u r e s , b u t 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 pleasantness  ratings.  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 . reactions to their  To a s s e s s s u b j e c t s '  ( s e l f - s e l e c t e d ) most p o s i t i v e and most  negative  66 T a b l e IV C o r r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n m e a s u r e s o f mood v a r i a b i l i t y s e l f - e s t e e m , and c o m p l e x i t y .  DOMAIN OF MEASUREMENT Pleasantness ratings w i t h i n a day Mean o f STDn Pleasantness ratings a c r o s s 14 d a y s SDT1 SDT2 SDT3 SDT4 SDT5 Mean o f SDTn , Arousal ratings w i t h i n a day Mean o f STDn Arousal ratings a c r o s s 14 d a y s SDT1 SDT2 SDT3 SDT4 SDT5 Mean o f STDn  SELFESTEEM  MEASURES 01 SCOTT'S H  ?  with  SELF-C0MP1.EXITY ZAVER NDIM  -.12  -.15  -.22!  .037 .046 -.20 -.10 .030 -.048  .12 .05 -.037 .14 -.012 .068  .0036 -.031 -.033 .04 -.039 -.016  -.090  -.094  -.24*  .060 -.17 -.022 .087 -.081 -.019  .15 .063 .11 .10 -.052 .096  .020 -.016 .042 -.082 -.16 -.057  *  -  .23!  • ! 2 1  .28  • * U  .28  • * 1 6  .27*  .36**  .3 r 8  .41^** .17 .37  Note. A l l c o r r e l a t i o n s a r e b a s e d on a s a m p l e s i z e o f 6 7 . !p<.10. p<.05. p<.01. * p<.001. STDn r e f e r s t o a l l t h e s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s o f t h e m o o 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 t h e s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s o f t h e m o o d - r a t i n g s made on t i m e o n e , a c r o s s 14 d a y s .  e v e n t s o f t h e d a y , s i x r a t i n g s w e r e made f o r e a c h  type of event.  T h e s e m e a s u r e s c o u l d be c a t e g o r i z e d a s t h o s e e v a l u a t i n g t h e n a t u r e o f the causes  subjects personally attributed  e v e n t s , and t h o s e measures t a p p i n g i n t o g e n e r a l impact attribution The  t h e k i n d s o f i m p r e s s i o n and  t h e e v e n t s had f o r t h e s u b j e c t s .  items consisted of i n t e r n a l i t y ,  three items a s s e s s i n g g e n e r a l impact  positivity/negativity being p o s i t i v e event a l t e r (i.e.,  (i.e,  the subjects'  (i.e.,  and i m p o r t a n c e  utilizing  these s i x i t e m s c o u l d be  style  i t e m s c o u l d be u s e f u l l y  (CHAR),  added  an o v e r a l l measure o f n o n - c a u s a l r e s p o n s e  v a l e n c e d outcomes (GIMPACT).  (especially  global antecedents.  to actual  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 t e n d e n c y events  state),  i fthe three causal a t t r i b u t i o n  i fthe t h r e e g e n e r a l impact  viewed as  t o what d e g r e e d i d t h e  summed a s a n i n d e x o f c h a r a c t e r o l o g i c a l  together to y i e l d  and g l o b a l i t y .  and m e a n i n g f u l was t h e 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 p e r f o r m e d  and  stability,  included  current affective  significant  variables to ascertain  The t h r e e c a u s a l  t o what d e g r e e was t h e e v e n t  o r , n e g a t i v e ) , impact  how p e r s o n a l l y  conveniently  f o rthe occurrence of the  to ascribe personally  those that are negative) t o i n t e r n a l , Similarly,  relevant  s t a b l e , and  a p e r s o n who v i e w s t h e e v e n t a s  e x t r e m e l y p o s i t i v e o r n e g a t i v e , i m p o r t a n t , and c l a i m s t h a t i t had a 1  l a r g e impact  on h i s mood s t a t e h a s a h i g h GIMPACT s c o r e .  outcomes o f 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 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.  employed as s c o r e s f o r t h e s i x v a r i a b l e s ,  The  separately f o r  These a n a l y s e s  the r a t i n g s averaged  across  t h e 14 e v e n t s . ^ On t h e b a s i s o f 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 n o t t o  68 Table V C o r r e l a t i o n s among the three c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n i t e m s , the three 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 negative events.  EVENT TYPE (VALENCE) Positive INTERNAL STABLE GLOBAL POSITIVITY IMPACT IMPORT SELFESTEEM  CAUSAL ATTRIBUTION ITEMS INTERNAL STABLE GLOBAL .35** .38 .37** "".2?*  !p<.10.  *  1.00^ .45***  "'.37**  \51***  .024  Negative INTERNAL STABLE GLOBAL POSITIVITY IMPACT IMPORT ' SELFESTEEM Note.  1.00 . 2 3 ^ .51***  .23!  .12  1.00 -•11*** .41  I'  -.11 •12 .15  -.40* -29 .21  -.16* .28^ .43  -.29*  -.19  -.22!  GENERAL IMPACT ITEMS POSITIVITY IMPACT IMPORT  1.00^ ioO***  .15  AI***  1.00  -.14  ..13  U  0 0  '05  1.00 1-00^ - . 5 6 -.46  1.00,„ .75 1.00  m  .27*  -.26*  A l l c o r r e l a t i o n s are based on a sample s i z e p<.05.  p<.01.  ***  p<.001.  of 67.  -.20!  combine t h e s e v a r i a b l e s  i n t o t h e 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  general impact i n d i c e s . all  Although the three c a u s a l i t y v a r i a b l e s  moderately c o r r e l a t e d  was n o t a s s o c i a t e d negative events. fact  that  with  f o r p o s i t i v e events, the s t a b i l i t y  t h e o t h e r two c a u s a l i t y  d i f f e r e d somewhat f o r p o s i t i v e and  events, separate analysis  A l t h o u g h t h e 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  different  pattern  were more h i g h l y  than e i t h e r  V.  Despite the f a c t that  f o r negative  events,  the a t t r i b u t i o n a l items  s e l f - e s t e e m s c o r e s and t h e  the c o r r e l a t i o n s  related  to a l l ratings, with  correlations  self-esteem  For negative events, the expected  High self-esteem subjects  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 , that  was  the exception of a f f e c t i v e  b e t w e e n s e l f - e s t e e m and t h e r a t i n g s  reported  i n Table  d i d not approach  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 ,  i m p a c t , j : ( 6 5 ) = - . 1 4 , jp_>.10.  They a l s o  causal  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  significance  evident.  the three  In contrast,  between t h e f u l l - s c a l e  ratings  of  with  or importance.  six  positively  a  F o r 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  more s u b s t a n t i a l l y w i t h  negativity  Correlations  among t h e  t h e s e components e x h i b i t e d  correlated  a t t r i b u t i o n items than impact. impact c o r r e l a t e d  component.  o f r e l a t i o n s t o t h e 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 . positivity  and t h e  negative  w e r e c o n d u c t e d on e a c h c a u s a l i t y  three general impact v a r i a b l e s ,  variable  variables for  Given the magnitude of these c o r r e l a t i o n s  the pattern  were  rated  was  pattern  generally  the causes of negative  and g l o b a l  t h a n LSE  subjects.  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 e m p l o y i n g t h e e v e n t a s t h e 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 t h e 14 e v e n t s . T h e s e c o r r e l a t i o n s g e n e r a l l y p r o d u c e d t h e same p a t t e r n s and t h e r e f o r e , w i l l n o t be r e p o r t e d h e r e .  70 positive),  h a d l e s s o f an i m p a c t on t h e i r  personally  important  Self-esteem analyses  than  ( h i g h , low) X event type  F s ( 1,65)>5.34, _p_s<.03. High self-esteem attributions  events  than  negative  highly did  stable,  reported  reliable  not approach s i g n i f i c a n c e  respect  to s t a b i l i t y ,  events,  F_( 1,65)=8.65, j K . 0 1 ,  F ( l , 6 5 ) = 2.19, _p_>.05. attributional  items  Although  this  The a n a l y s e s similar  of t h e event,  pattern  replicates  s t u d i e s , an a n a l y s i s  differences i n attribution  events,  events,  but not f o r negative  The o n l y o t h e r  reliable  was a m a i n e f f e c t  of the three general  Fs<l.  With  events,  effect  on t h e on t h e s t a b i l i t y  events  being  r a t e d as  events. impact v a r i a b l e s y i e l d e d a  interaction  F ( 1 , 6 5 ) = 3 . 4 4 , JD<.07.  were  for positive  of event type  negative  and  F s ( 1 , 6 5 ) > 6 . 9 6 , _p_s<.01, b u t  t h e d i f f e r e n c e was r e l i a b l e  s e l f - e s t e e m X event type  and g l o b a l  t h a t on t h e i n t e r n a l i t y  f o r the p o s i t i v e  more s t a b l e c a u s e s t h a n  shown i n F i g u r e I I .  between p o s i t i v e and  c o m p o n e n t , F_( 1,65) = 1 0 . 2 6 , _p_<.002, w i t h p o s i t i v e having  interactions,  and g l o b a l a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r  This analysis revealed  on t h e n e g a t i v e  general  LSE s u b j e c t s , whereas LSE  i n many e a r l i e r  components, s e l f - e s t e e m  were  attributional  stable,  e f f e c t s a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h e asymmetry events.  globality  than  HSE s u b j e c t s .  the c o n s i s t e n c y e f f e c t  The  s e l f - e s t e e m X event type  events  factor  and t h e t h r e e  VI.  s u b j e c t s made more i n t e r n a l ,  s u b j e c t s made more i n t e r n a l ,  of simple  items  The means a r e g r a p h i c a l l y  for positive  negative)  m e a s u r e s on t h e l a s t  The means a r e g i v e n i n T a b l e  measures a l l y i e l d e d r e l i a b l e  negative  (positive,  on t h e t h r e e c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n  impact items.  less  LSE s u b j e c t s .  of variance with repeated  conducted  mood, a n d w e r e  Again,  on t h e r a t e d  importance  LSE s u b j e c t s c l a i m e d  that  71 Table VI  Study day.  R e a c t i o n s o f h i g h (HSE) a n d l o w s e l f - e s t e e m ( L S E ) M o o d - D i a r y s u b j e c t s t o t h e 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 t h e  DEPENDENT MEASURES Causal attribution INTERNALITY STABILITY GLOBALITY General impact POSITIVITY IMPACT IMPORTANCE  LSE  POSITIVII EVENT SUBJECTS HSE SUBJECTS LSE  NEGATIVE EVENT SUBJECTS HSE SUBJECTS  5.56 7.01 4.76  5.75 7.61 4.87  5.84 7.00 4.95  5.05 6.71 4.22  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 Figure II 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 ( G L O B A L ) , and i m 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 h i g h (HSE) and low s e l f - e s t e e m ( L S E ) s u b j e c t s i n t h e M o o d - D i a r y Study.  8.5  LSE  6.0  by  5.8  8.0  5.6  7.5  LSE  STABLE  INTERN 5.4  7.0  5.2  6.5  HSE  6.0  5.0 positive  negative  EVENT TYPE  positive  negative  EVENT TYPE  GLOBAL  positive  negative  EVENT TYPE  positive  negative  EVENT TYPE  the negative events t h a t occurred to them were more important HSE  s u b j e c t s , F(1,65)=5.28, jg<.05.  Although HSE  subjects rated  p o s i t i v e events as being s l i g h t l y more important than LSE the d i f f e r e n c e was  not r e l i a b l e , F_<1.  positivity/negativity  the  subjects,  A n a l y s i s of the  r a t i n g s y i e l d e d only a main e f f e c t  type, F_( 1,65) = 1051.71, _p_<.001.  than  f o r event  As expected, p o s i t i v e events were  r a t e d p o s i t i v e l y , and n e g a t i v e events were r a t e d n e g a t i v e l y by both HSE  and LSE s u b j e c t s .  A l s o , as a n t i c i p a t e d , LSE s u b j e c t s claimed  that a l l e v e n t s — b o t h p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e — h a d a g r e a t e r impact t h e i r moods than d i d HSE  subjects.  on  In a d d i t i o n , there was  a marginal  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_(1,65)=2.58, j K . l l ,  indicating  that t h i s s e l f - e s t e e m e f f e c t was  more pronounced f o r n e g a t i v e events,  F(l,65)=16.86, -gK.OOl, than f o r p o s i t i v e events, F(l,65)=3.38, _p_>.05. Finally,  f o r both a f f e c t i v e impact  r a t i n g s 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.  T h i s r e v e a l e d that g e n e r a l l y , p o s i t i v e events were more  i m p a c t f u l and important to both esteem groups than n e g a t i v e events. An overview of the outcomes obtained by these a n a l y s e s of v a r i a n c e i n d i c a t e d t h a t c e r t a i n 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 i n which LSE and HSE a t t r i b u t i o n s and responded  s u b j e c t s performed  to p e r s o n a l l y r e l e v a n t ,  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 .  Low  causal  self-selected,  self-esteem subjects  g e n e r a l l y a t t r i b u t e d n e g a t i v e outcomes more to 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 ) f a c t o r s than HSE  subjects.  l a t t e r , on the other hand, showed a g e n e r a l l y i n s i g n i f i c a n t  tendency  to a s c r i b e p o s i t i v e outcomes more to c h a r a c t e r o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s LSE  subjects.  The  that  In terms of the g e n e r a l impact HSE s u b j e c t s t y p i c a l l y events  more p l e a s a n t  found  both  of personal, valenced  their  p o s i t i v e and t h e i r  (or less unpleasant)  altering  types  c u r r e n t moods c o m p a r e d t o L S E s u b j e c t s .  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 ( 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  important  definitely  and c o n s i s t e n t l y  t o them t h a n L S E  Role-Playing  found  C o r r e l a t i o n s among t h e s e  l o w and h i g h s e l f - e s t e e m  i n t h e M o o d - D i a r y S t u d y on t h e same items.  g i v e n by t h e L S E and HSE M o o d - D i a r y  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  stability,  V I I and  VIII.  components  g l o b a l i t y ) were m o d e r a t e f o r p o s i t i v e  generally not r e l i a b l e  f o r negative events.  c o r r e l a t i o n s v a r i e d somewhat  events,  as a f u n c t i o n of the s e l f - e s t e e m of the  the event.  the three 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  were more h i g h l y r e l a t e d  (i.e.,  A l s o , the  s u b j e c t who had p r o v i d e d  Although  for positive  i t e m y i e l d e d somewhat  with the a t t r i b u t i o n a l  subjects  g i v e n by t h e l o w  The c o r r e l a t i o n s among t h e t h r e e a t t r i b u t i o n a l  the impact  less  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  t h e p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e e v e n t s  they  persons,  n e g a t i v e outcomes  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 i m p a c t  but  slightly  Study  high self-esteem participants  internality,  were  t o them t h a n L S E  r a t e d a s a m p l e o f t h e p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e e v e n t s  subjects.  Finally,  individuals.  In the R o l e - P l a y i n g Study,  and  of events, but  t h e n e g a t i v e , were l e s s i m p a c t f u l o r i n f l u e n t i a l i n  their  the former  negative  than LSE s u b j e c t s .  M o r e o v e r , t h e 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 particularly  outcomes,  different  the c o r r e l a t i o n s  among  substantial,  than n e g a t i v e  events,  correlational  patterns  items as a f u n c t i o n o f event  type.  and  Therefore,  75 Table V I I I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s among t h e 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 t h e t h r e e g e n e r a l i m p a c t 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 l o w s e l f - e s t e e m s u b j e c t s f r o m t h e M o o d - D i a r y S t u d y .  ESTEEM OF CONTRIBUTOR High INTERNAL STABLE GLOBAL POSITIVITY IMPACT IMPORT  CAUSAL ATTRIBUTION ITEMS INTERNAL STABLE GLOBAL  i.oo^  Low INTERNAL STABLE GLOBAL POSITIVITY IMPACT IMPORT Note. !p<.10.  GENERAL IMPACT ITEMS P O S I T I V I T Y IMPACT IMPORT  .33 .20 .24! .17 .13  1.00 .20 .23! .14 .0047  1.00 .20 .45 *** .37 **  1.00 .63 *** *** .55  .81  1.00  1.00, .29 .43 *** .10 .27 .11  1.00 .39 #* .086 .061 -.020  1.00 -. 2 3 ' •32* .28  1.00 *** .55 *** .56  .81  1.00  A l l c o r r e l a t i o n s a r e b a s e d on a s a m p l e s i z e o f 6 3 . p<.05.  p<.01.  p<.001.  76 Table  VIII  I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s among t h e 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 a n d t h e t h r e e g e n e r a l i m p a c t 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 l o w s e l f - e s t e e m s u b j e c t s from t h e Mood-Diary S t u d y .  ESTEEM OF CONTRIBUTOI High INTERNAL STABLE GLOBAL POSITIVITY IMPACT IMPORT  CAUSAL ATTRIBUTION ITEMS INTERNAL STABLE GLOBAL  Low INTERNAL STABLE GLOBAL POSITIVITY IMPACT IMPORT  Note. !p<.10.  1.00 .10 .10 -.17 -.18 -.04  1.00 .04 .18 -.16 -.16  1.00 .23! . 2 0 ^ .46  1.00 -.25 -.22!  1.00 -.01 -.01 .04  1-00^ .35 -.01  1.00 .26.  1.00^  .01  -.06  A l l correlations p<.05.  GENERAL IMPACT ITEMS P O S I T I V I T Y IMPACT IMPORT  p<.01.  .04  -.43  1 . 0 0 .64  .57  a r e b a s e d on a s a m p l e s i z e o f 6 3 . p<.001.  m  1.00  1.00  77 r a t h e r than combining impact measures i n t o  the three a t t r i b u t i o n a l summary i n d i c e s ,  and t h r e e g e n e r a l  e a c h r a t i n g was a n a l y z e d  separately. The  s i x measures were a n a l y z e d i n t h e c o n t e x t o f a s e l f - e s t e e m  of r a t e r  ( h i g h , low) X event type ( p o s i t i v e ,  of event  source  two  factors.  (high,  The c e l l  negative) X self-esteem  l o w ) ANOVA w i t h r e p e a t e d m e a s u r e s on t h e l a s t means a s a f u n c t i o n o f e v e n t  t y p e and  s e l f - e s t e e m o f 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 source produced  o n l y one r e l i a b l e  of the a t t r i b u t i o n a l on t h e s t a b i l i t y were a t t r i b u t e d  items yielded  type  events  than n e g a t i v e events.  No o t h e r  significance. ratings yielded  F ( l , 6 1 ) = 8 2 8 . 0 1 , .p_<.001.  positive  Analyses  o n l y a main e f f e c t o f event  t o more s t a b l e c a u s e s  positivity  Mood-Diary Study  reported below).  c o m p o n e n t , F_( 1,61 )=23.66, j K . 0 0 1 ; p o s i t i v e  e f f e c t s approached The  effect  T  h  a main e f f e c t  f o r event  a t i s , p o s i t i v e events donated  type,  by  s u b j e c t s were i n d e e d , r a t e d a s b e i n g much more  (7.71) than t h e n e g a t i v e events they d e s c r i b e d ( 2 . 6 7 ) .  T h e r e was a l s o a m a r g i n a l s e l f - e s t e e m o f r a t e r X e v e n t 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  t h e 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 somewhat more n e g a t i v e l y  events  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 o f s o u r c e . s u b j e c t s viewed  viewed  and t h e n e g a t i v e  t h a n d i d HSE r a t e r s .  t h o u g h LSE Mood-Diary Study  type  To e l a b o u r a t e , e v e n  the events that occurred  t o them a s b e i n g l e s s p o s i t i v e o r more n e g a t i v e t h a n 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  t h e e v e n t s g i v e n by t h e L S E  and HSE s u b j e c t s a s b e i n g e q u i v a l e n t i n t e r m s o f positivity/negativity  ( 5 . 1 3 v e r s u s 5.24,  respectively).  78 Table IX R e a c t i o n s o f h i g h ( H S E ) and l o w s e l f - e s t e e m ( L S E ) R o l e - P l a y i n g S t u d y 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 MEASURES Causal attribution INTERNALITY STABILITY GLOBALITY General impact POSITIVITY IMPACT IMPORTANCE  P 0 S I T I V 1I EVENT L S E RATERS HSE RATERS  NEGATIVE EVENT LSE RATERS HSE RATERS  5.34 7.30 5.24  5.47 7.57 5.31  5.55 6.58 5.22  5.55 6.95 4.93  7.92 7.13 6.44  7.49 6.61 5.71  2.59 6.72 5.87  2.74 5.82 5.20  79 The impact There  extent to which  subjects believed  on t h e i r moods a l s o p r o d u c e d was a m a i n e f f e c t o f e v e n t  the Mood-Diary Study  subjects,  these events would  a couple of i n t e r e s t i n g  have an  effects.  t y p e , F_(l ,61) = 1 4 . 4 8 , j K . 0 0 1 .  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 events would mood ( 6 . 8 7 ) t h a n n e g a t i v e e v e n t s  have a g r e a t e r impact  (6.28).  There  on t h e i r  was a l s o a m a i n  e f f e c t f o r t h e s e l f - e s t e e m o f t h e r a t e r , J_( 1,61 ) = 5 . 0 1 , _p_<.03. 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 b o t h p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e would  have a g r e a t e r i m p a c t  (6.22). LSE  Like  Low  events  on t h e i r moods ( 6 . 9 3 ) t h a n d i d HSE  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 t h e M o o d - D i a r y S t u d y  raters where  s u b j e c t s c l a i m e d t h a t t h e 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 y had  d e s c r i b e d had a g r e a t e r i m p a c t Study  subjects exhibited  by HSE M o o d - D i a r y S t u d y  on t h e i r moods.  a m a r g i n a l tendency  However, R o l e - P l a y i n g  t o view the events  s u b j e c t s as having a g r e a t e r p o t e n t i a l  given impact  on mood ( 6 . 7 2 ) t h a n t h o s e g i v e n by L S E M o o d - D i a r y S t u d y s u b j e c t s ( 6 . 4 4 ) , F_( 1,61 )=3.94, _p_<.06. s i g n i f i c a n c e on t h i s The event  No o t h e r e f f e c t s  approached  measure.  a n a l y s i s of the importance  rating  r e v e a l e d a main e f f e c t o f  t y p e , F_( 1, 61 ) = 1 0 . 3 6 , _p_<.002, and s e l f - e s t e e m o f 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 v i e w e d  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 events r a t e r s g e n e r a l l y viewed t h a n d i d HSE r a t e r s reliable  event  indicated  ( 5 . 5 4 ) , and L S E  t h e e v e n t s a s b e i n g more i m p o r t a n t  (5.45).  T  h  i  s  (6.16)  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  type X s e l f - e s t e e m of source  F ( l , 6 1 ) = 1 9 . 4 8 , _p_<'°°l'  a s b e i n g more  interaction  t h a t R o l e - P l a y i n g Study  interaction,  (shown i n F i g u r e I I I )  subjects rated positive  events  c o n t r i b u t e d by a HSE s o u r c e a s more i m p o r t a n t t h a n p o s i t i v e  events  80 F i g u r e III Rated importance 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 negative events provided by high (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 .  EVENT TYPE  81 c o n t r i b u t e d by a LSE  source.  negative events—importance s u p p l i e d by a LSE  Exactly  the o p p o s i t e o c c u r r e d w i t h  r a t i n g s were h i g h e r when t h e e v e n t s were  t h a n a HSE  source.  G i v e n t h e p r e v i o u s l y m e n t i o n e d o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t HSE R o l e - P l a y i n g Study  s u b j e c t s viewed  terms of p o s i t i v i t y / n e g a t i v i t y , unanticipated  a l l events approximately equal i n  i t i s paradoxical that  ratings.  the  These f i n d i n g s suggest  a l t h o u g h p o s i t i v e events donated  by HSE  more i m p o r t a n t t h a n t h e p o s i t i v e  events contributed  n a i v e r a t e r s do n o t f i n d  was  that  s o u r c e s were r a t e d a s  t h e p o s i t i v e e v e n t s o f HSE  t h a n t h o s e o f LSE  raters rated  LSE  event type X s e l f - e s t e e m of source i n t e r a c t i o n  obtained f o r importance  positive  and  contributors.  Similarly,  the n e g a t i v e events s u p p l i e d  by LSE  being  sources,  c o n t r i b u t o r s more although naive  by LSE M o o d - D i a r y  Study  c o n t r i b u t o r s a s b e i n g more i m p o r t a n t t h a n t h e n e g a t i v e e v e n t s by t h e i r HSE  donated  c o u n t e r p a r t s , these r a t e r s found a l l n e g a t i v e events  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 o f t h e s e l f - e s t e e m o f contributor.  I n an a t t e m p t  to account  a n a l y s i s o f a l l t h e p o s i t i v e and HSE  and  LSE  consisted  R o l e - P l a y i n g Study  of c l a s s i f y i n g  test."); to B i l l ' s  conducted.  one  events  s t r u c k by a c a r . " ) .  " I won By  analysis (a)  math  ( e . g . , " I d i d n o t s a y a word  ( e . g . , " I was  ( e . g . , "My  score of three to f i v e . " ,  This  by  of f o u r c a t e g o r i e s :  i n the c a r the whole n i g h t . " ) ;  (d) e x t e r n a l events  nearly  s u b j e c t s was  ( e . g . , " I r e c e i v e d 55/100 on my  athletic/recreational/health 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  (b) s o c i a l / i n t e r p e r s o n a l friend  the  f o r t h i s paradox, a content  the events i n t o  academic/scholastic events  to  (c)  a b l e t o do 50  h o c k e y team l o s t  push-ups.");  t h e game by  50 d o l l a r s i n a l o t t e r y . " ,  the o b j e c t i v e d e s c r i p t i o n s of  "I  a was  the  events,  the f i r s t  three c a t e g o r i e s of events  h a v e one f a c t o r i n  common—they a l l represented  events  instigated  I n c o n t r a s t , t h e f o u r t h and  category  by t h e r e p o r t e r .  of events  w h i c h w e r e more due t o " o u t s i d e f o r c e s " ( e . g . ,  f o r t u n e , a c c i d e n t , o t h e r s ) than  motivation, a b i l i t y , belong  skill).  "inside  The f r e q u e n c y  f o r c e s " (e.g.,  of the events  personal  which  i n e a c h o f t h e 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 a n d L S E  reporters of the events, negative events  and d i f f e r e n t i a t e d  (see Table  X).  i n d i c a t e that the d i s t r i b u t i o n events  final  was a g r o u p o f e x t e r n a l l y m e d i a t e d o r i n i t i a t e d  events—occurrences luck,  w h i c h were p e r s o n a l l y m e d i a t e d o r  differed  supplied  Although of e i t h e r  b e t w e e n p o s i t i v e and  chi-square a n a l y s i s d i d not the p o s i t i v e or negative  a s a f u n c t i o n o f s e l f - e s t e e m o f t h e s u b j e c t s who  the events  (  Q 5  ^ ^ = 1 . 4 7 , _p_>.68 f o r p o s i t i v e  events;  3  2  0 5 X . 3=4.08, _p_>.25 f o r n e g a t i v e t h e r e was an i n t e r e s t i n g described.  With  events), nonetheless,  one c o u l d s e e  p a t t e r n t o the kinds of events  t h a t were  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  d e s c r i b e d more p o s i t i v e  events  of this  type  than  authors  d i d LSE a u t h o r s ,  w h e r e a s L S E M o o d - D i a r y S t u d y 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 of t h i s  type  than  d i d HSE s u b j e c t s .  T h e r e w e r e no  self-esteem d i f f e r e n c e s i n the frequency negative  events  belonging  substantial  of p o s i t i v e as w e l l as  i n the s o c i a l / i n t e r p e r s o n a l  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 category.  than  events  d i d LSE s u b j e c t s , b u t LSE a u t h o r s  of t h i s  the o v e r a l l  type  t h a n HSE a u t h o r s .  c a t e g o r y and  I n terms of e x t e r n a l l y  m e d i a t e d 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 type  events  events  p r o v i d e d more  of t h i s  positive  T h i s f i n d i n g was b a l a n c e d  by  p a t t e r n t h a t t h e 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  mediated, " i n t e r n a l "  events  f o r p o s i t i v e occurrences  than LSE  83 Table X T y p e s o f e v e n t s s u p p l i e d by M o o d - D i a r y S t u d y s u b j e c t s by R o l e - P l a y i n g S t u d y s u b j e c t s .  DESCRIPTION OF EVENTS Personally mediated ACADEMIC/ SCHOLASTIC SOCIAL/ INTERPERSONAL ATHLETIC/ RECREATIONAL Externally mediated  HIGH SELF-ESTEEM AUTHORS POSITIVE NEGATIVE EVENTS EVENTS  f o r rating  LOW SELF-ES1rEEM AUTHORS POSITIVE NEGATIVE EVENTS EVENTS  19  20  16  28  27  12  26  11  2  7  1  9  12  21  17  12  s u b j e c t s , who, on t h e o t h e r involved  h a n d , 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  events f o r negative  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 D i f f e r e n c e s i n Mood The  purpose of t h e present  thesis i s t h r e e f o l d : (a) to ascertain  differences i n extremity  i n laboratory s e t t i n g s using  of emotional  a s c e r t a i n i f the proposed self-esteem  self-complexity, In order  time,  (b) to  d i f f e r e n c e i n mood  f o r b o t h mood e x t r e m i t y  c h a n g e s , and f i n a l l y ,  responses,  f a l s e f e e d b a c k , w o u l d be  observed with n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g events across  w o u l d be o b t a i n e d  Self-esteem  Extremity  whether s e l f - e s t e e m obtained  Underlying  and f r e q u e n c y  variability o f mood  ( c ) t o examine t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between  self-esteem,  a n d mood  variability.  t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e commonly o b s e r v e d and r e p o r t e d  phenomenon t h a t L S E s u b j e c t s r e s p o n d more n e g a t i v e l y t o n e g a t i v e laboratory positive,  feedback i m p l i c a t i n g the s e l f ,  s e l f - r e l e v a n t f e e d b a c k t h a n HSE s u b j e c t s , two h y p o t h e s e s  were e n t e r t a i n e d . frequency  and more p o s i t i v e l y t o  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  i n mood c h a n g e s ( a c r o s s t i m e ) o f L S E 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 r e s p o n s e t o b o t h p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e , laboratory-contrived be  reasonably  a s w e l l a s 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  a c c o u n t e d f o r by 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 .  explanation essentially  s t a t e s t h a t LSE s u b j e c t s tend  characterological attributions antecedents) f o r negative cognitively  rejecting  (i.e.,  feedback.  of negative  internal,  to provide  This more  s t a b l e , and g l o b a l  That i s , LSE p e o p l e a r e l e s s  f e e d b a c k t h a n HSE  individuals.  B e c a u s e o f t h i s t e n d e n c y , L S E p e o p l e e x h i b i t more p r o n o u n c e d  negative  85 a f f e c t i v e reactions to negative information. HSE and L S E p e o p l e acceptance  of p o s i t i v e  demonstrate about e q u i v a l e n t c o g n i t i v e feedback,  however.  are not t h r e a t e n i n g t o the s e l f ,  Because p o s i t i v e  defenses  events  a r e n o t r e q u i r e d and h e n c e ,  self-esteem differences i n cognitive reactions are greatly attenuated.  Nonetheless,  h a b i t u a t i o n t o such  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  feedback.  Specifically,  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 , experience  the events  who e x p e r i e n c e  they  cognitively  p o s i t i v e a f f e c t i v e responses Predictions  t o these  attributions  favourable  pronounced  events. that underlie  include the following:  fornaturally-occurring, events.  negative events  (i.e.,  greatly attenuated  p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e ,  This d i f f e r e n c e should  be p r o n o u n c e d f o r  LSE i n d i v i d u a l s s h o u l d  provide  characterological attributions  positive  less  be a s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e c a u s a l  self-relevant  (b) Although  exhibit  mixture of  t h a t c a n be made b a s e d on t h e p r e m i s e s  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 (a) There should  Therefore, i n  a more b a l a n c e d  p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e e v e n t s , HSE p e o p l e  than  or nonexistent f o r p o s i t i v e  f o r LSE p e o p l e ,  LSE p e o p l e  g r e a t e r mood v a r i a b i l i t y  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 l i f e - e v e n t s composition  i n mood  hypothesis  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 laboratory setting  more  t h a n HSE i n d i v i d u a l s ) ,  t h e a v e r a g e d a i l y mood f o r HSE p e o p l e  significantly  The  s i n c e HSE p e o p l e a r e  a r e , f o r t h e most p a r t , p o s i t i v e e v e n t s .  c o n t r a s t t o LSE people  i n the  should  b u t be  events. should  be more  demonstrate  across time  (i.e.,  greater  changes). asserts that  t o be r e s t r i c t e d  self-esteem to the  due t o t h e 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 basic tenet underlying differ and  feedback  that t y p i c a l l y  there.  t h i s h y p o t h e s i s i s t h a t L S E and HSE  i n the frequency t o which each a c t u a l l y  negative events i n d a i l y  g r e a t e r competence, s o c i a l on t h a n L S E i n d i v i d u a l s , self-relevant  exists  life.  skills,  encounters  people positive  B e c a u s e HSE i n d i v i d u a l s abilities,  events whereas t h e l a t t e r  possess  predispositions,  t h e f o r m e r s h o u l d e n c o u n t e r more  The  and s o  positive,  s h o u l d c o n f r o n t more n e g a t i v e  events. T h i s d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e f r e q u e n c y o f p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e e v e n t s h a s an i m p o r t a n t i m p l i c a t i o n r e c e i v e d and p r o c e s s e d .  f o r how s u c h i n f o r m a t i o n i s c o g n i t i v e l y  For people of both s e l f - e s t e e m groups,  information that i s consistent with their from t h e i r  c o m p o s i t i o n s o f l i f e - e v e n t s ) t e n d s t o be a c c e p t e d w h i l e  information that i s incongruent to their be r e j e c t e d . conducted  expectancies (developed  s e l f - e x p e c t a n c i e s tends to  I n t h e 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  t o e x p l o r e t h e n a t u r e and i n t e n s i t y  o f 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 o f L S E and HSE s u b j e c t s t o p o s i t i v e a n d n e g a t i v e , self-relevant  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  a once-only exposure contrived  positive  to positive  or negative feedback.  f e e d b a c k i s somewhat l e s s t y p i c a l  s u b j e c t s , they tend to process t h i s distinctive,  and a r e c o g n i t i v e l y  employs  Because  f o r LSE  i n f o r m a t i o n a s more u n u s u a l and  l e s s accepting of i t .  False,  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 L S E p e o p l e ' s e x p e c t a t i o n s t h a n t h o s e o f HSE i n d i v i d u a l s internalized  by L S E p e o p l e .  t e n d s t o be more  T h e s e 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 feedback.  S o c i a l c o n v e n t i o n s and  norms make t h e r e c e i p t o f 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 t h a n  87  positive information. receiving  positive  That i s , both  feedback  differences i n their  and  and t h e r e f o r e , e x h i b i t  cognitive reactions to i t .  primarily i n the extent negative feedback.  esteem groups a r e accustomed t o  to which they  Since  They  small  differ  receive naturally-occurring  t h i s k i n d of feedback  " 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 ,  a laboratory setting,  relatively  i t i s attributed  i s more  distinctive  when i t i s f a l s e l y  given i n  t o chance o r s i t u a t i o n a l  factors. P r e d i c t i o n s b a s e d upon t h e l i f e - e v e n t s c o m p o s i t i o n from those it  a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e d e f e n s i v e - s t y l e s model.  i s anticipated  observed  w i t h l a b o r a t o r y feedback  than  attributions events  valenced  by HSE and L S E i n d i v i d u a l s .  experienced  negative  Specifically,  those  by HSE p e o p l e experienced  f o r these  events  more p o s i t i v e ,  events are  Although  the negative  s h o u l d , on t h e a v e r a g e , by L S E p e o p l e ,  given that  than  less  these  occurrences.  i m p l i e s t h a t t h e moods o f HSE p e o p l e on a v e r a g e ,  be  causal •  s h o u l d be s i m i l a r  are r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of d a i l y  (b) T h i s h y p o t h e s i s  t h a t were  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 , experienced  differ  that:  ( 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  events  model  those  should  o f LSE p e o p l e .  be  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 greater extremity i n a f f e c t i v e responses o f mood c h a n g e s a c r o s s  or a g r e a t e r  frequency  time.  E v a l u a t i o n o f t h e H y p o t h e s e s B a s e d Upon E m p i r i c a l R e s u l t s In obtained  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  analyses  on d a t a  f r o m t h e M o o d - D i a r y S t u d y and t h e R o l e - P l a y i n g S t u d y  88 supported but  t h e 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 o f mood  t h e r e was  composition  a l s o some e m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e  supporting  differences i n causal attributions.  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 differences i n causal attributions  These d i f f e r e n c e s s h o u l d  globality For  should  In the Mood-Diary Study, For  (although  the l a s t  c o r r e l a t i o n s were  self-esteem  items,  but  direction.  T h a t i s , HSE  negative self-esteem  Aside  a s y m m e t r y was  the r e s u l t s  i n t e r a c t i o n s on a l l t h r e e  subjects provided for positive  from a n a l y s i s of significant  attributional  more i n t e r n a l ,  events  from t h i s f a m i l i a r  w h e r e a s LSE  s t a b l e , and  subjects  p r o v e d t o be  consistency effect,  s t r o n g l y d e m o n s t r a t e d by and  d i f f e r e n c e s were r e l i a b l e  p o s i t i v e events.  The  stability  problematic,  and  t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s were i n t h e a n t i c i p a t e d  w h i c h showed t h a t f o r i n t e r n a l i t y self-esteem  events,  degree w i t h a l l  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 events.  observed.  insignificant).  w h i c h i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e r e were  s e l f - e s t e e m X event type  be  stability,  c o v a r i e d to a l e s s e r  More r e v e a l i n g a r e  variance procedures,  global attributions  two  not  negative  correlated negatively with i n t e r n a l i t y ,  attributional  items.  important  be more p r o n o u n c e d i n t e r m s o f  p o s i t i v e events.  p o s i t i v e events,  positive  One  self-esteem  events  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 f o u n d . self-esteem  life-events  for naturally-occurring,  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  than  the  model.  Self-esteem  events  variability,  a p p r o a c h e d s i g n i f i c a n c e on n e g a t i v e  the presence  examining the simple globality,  at l e a s t ,  f o r n e g a t i v e , but  component o f c a u s a l  h o w e v e r , as  negative  the  but  the  not  for  attributions  self-esteem  events,  effects  effect  a l s o , was  highly  of  89 significant It  for positive  seems r e a s o n a b l e  general impact, s i n c e any be  events. to i n c l u d e importance,  w i t h the present  Conversely,  e x t e r n a l causes i s not i m p o r t a n c e a s an  likely  internalized  any  t o be  personally important  event.  same d e g r e e o f  the  for negative  for positive  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  the t h r e e measures.  self-esteem  were s u b s t a n t i a l l y more i m p o r t a n t reported LSE  p o s i t i v e events  t o be  to  personal  three a t t r i b u t i o n a l  correlated with self-esteem  Low  should  Thus, i n the Mood-Diary  negatively correlated with self-esteem  positively  attributions  event which i s a t t r i b u t e d  to gain the  i m p o r t a n c e g e n e r a l l y behaved l i k e being  measure of  d i s c u s s i o n on c a u s a l  event which i s considered  internalized.  one  measures, events,  pattern similar negative  s u b j e c t s , b u t HSE  insignificantly  and  events.  subjects claimed  t h a n HSE  Study,  to  events  subjects  more i m p o r t a n t  than  subjects. U n l i k e the Mood-Diary Study, the R o l e - P l a y i n g Study provided  e m p i r i c a l evidence attributions.  T h i s i s perhaps not  subjects i n this most p r e v i o u s  for self-esteem  study  were n o t  experiments),  differences i n causal surprising  given the  but were i n s t r u c t e d t o p r e t e n d  experience  there 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  held  the events  reported  by  implying that a l l events,  greater relevance  fact  t o LSE  that  exposed to a c t u a l feedback (as i n  vicariously  importance r a t i n g s ,  no  than  HSE  others.  and  Nevertheless,  of the r a t e r  positive  or  on  negative,  raters.  In 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 are  self-esteem  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 events a p p e a r e d 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 t h e o u t c o m e s f r o m t h e R o l e - P l a y i n g  evidence f o r asymmetrical self-esteem real-life least  e v e n t s a l s o was f u r n i s h e d  Study.  by t h e M o o d - D i a r y S t u d y on a t  The R o l e - P l a y i n g  of esteem-related  rated  events.  convincingly predicted be  that  self-esteem  A l l these r e s u l t s argued  or non-existent  a t t r i b u t i o n s of these  with  self-esteem  the  a t t r i b u t i o n s would  actual life-events  events).  m o d e l , HSE s u b j e c t s  should  According  to the  be more a c c u s t o m e d 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 t h a n L S E p r i m a r i l y due t o  selective filtering  out of negative  events as a r e s u l t of t h e  employment 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 on t h e p a r t and  (i.e.,  X event type i n t e r a c t i o n  Self-esteem differences i n habituation.  receiving  d i f f e r e n c e s i n the  differences i n causal  w o u l d be no s i g n i f i c a n t  defensive-styles  provided  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 which  greatly diminished  there for  against  i n t e r n a l i t y and  Study  a d d i t i o n a l evidence i n favour importance of r e a l - l i f e  empirical  differences i n a t t r i b u t i o n sf o r  two o f t h e a t t r i b u t i o n a l m e a s u r e s ( i . e . ,  g l o b a l i t y ) and i m p o r t a n c e .  Moreover,  o f HSE  people  t h e i r more p r o n o u n c e d 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  negative  e v e n t s than LSE p e o p l e .  Role-Playing  Study presented support f o r t h i s  s t u d i e s , LSE s u b j e c t s exerted  claimed  a significantly  t h a n d i d HSE s u b j e c t s . anticipated to r e a l - l i f e  B o t h M o o d - D i a r y S t u d y and  that a l l events, regardless  greater Since  no s e l f - e s t e e m  prediction.  i m p a c t on t h e i r  t h a n LSE s u b j e c t s  of  mood  the l i f e - e v e n t s composition  differences i n habituation  e v e n t s , t h e f a c t t h a t HSE s u b j e c t s  t h a t p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e  current  or r a t e r s  valence, states  model  (i.e.,  e v e n t s were l e s s a f f e c t i v e l y  on r a t e r s r e p r e s e n t s  I n t h e two  impact)  reported  impactful  a n o t h e r damaging p i e c e o f  91 i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the model. Self-esteem  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 .  assumption u n d e r l y i n g i n d i v i d u a l s should HSE  individuals.  self-esteem  e x h i b i t greater v a r i a b i l i t y  c o r r e l a t e d p o s i t i v e l y and r e l i a b l y with  (a) s e l f - e s t e e m  dimensions of a c t u a l ,  This p a r t i c u l a r finding  model.  With r e s p e c t to mood  i s consistent  the pleasantness  direction),  (b) s e l f - e s t e e m  the frequency  the a r o u s a l dimension, and ( c ) s e l f - e s t e e m  n e g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d with frequency dimension.  comparable to these  Analyses  covaried  of mood changes  was r e l i a b l y and  of changes i n mood along the  of v a r i a n c e were b a s i c a l l y  c o r r e l a t i o n a l r e s u l t s i n that they  (a) HSE s u b j e c t s r e p o r t e d  pleasantness  of mood  or a r o u s a l dimensions (but the c o r r e l a t i o n s  n e g a t i v e l y , but i n s i g n i f i c a n t l y , with  pleasantness  variability,  d i d not c o r r e l a t e r e l i a b l y with extremity  were i n the a n t i c i p a t e d negative  that  the e l e v a t i o n s  the 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 model and the  l i f e - e v e n t s composition  along  i n d a i l y moods than  From the Mood-Diary Study, i t could be seen that  n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g moods.  along  crucial  the d e f e n s i v e - s t y l e s model i s that LSE  ( i . e . , means) of the a r o u s a l and pleasantness  with  The t h i r d  s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher  demonstrated  elevations i n  and a r o u s a l than LSE s u b j e c t s , (b) no s e l f - e s t e e m  d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d i n terms of extremity  along  the pleasantness or  a r o u s a l dimensions, and ( c ) LSE s u b j e c t s reported a g r e a t e r of changes i n pleasantness  frequency  than HSE s u b j e c t s .  In c o n c l u s i o n , the p r e d i c t i o n s d e r i v e d from the d e f e n s i v e - s t y l e s explanation  that d i f f e r e n t i a t e d  t h i s model from the l i f e - e v e n t s  composition  model, were supported,  at l e a s t i n p a r t , by evidence  e i t h e r or both the Mood-Diary Study and the R o l e - P l a y i n g  Study.  from  C o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e 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  provided  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 , t h a n HSE s u b j e c t s w h e r e a s HSE s u b j e c t s e v e n t s t o more i n t e r n a l ,  e v e n t s was f o u n d .  In addition,  f o r p o s i t i v e and  negative  The i m p o r t a n c e r a t i n g s o f e v e n t s m i m i c k e d t h e  three a t t r i b u t i o n a l negative  items.  Low s e l f - e s t e e m  e v e n t s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y  b u t HSE s u b j e c t s t e n d e d t o f i n d  subjects reported  more i m p o r t a n t  t h a n HSE  that  subjects,  p o s i t i v e e v e n t s t o be more  important.  A l s o p r e d i c t e d by t h e d e f e n s i v e - s t y l e s m o d e l was t h e f i n d i n g 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 ) s u b j e c t s t h a n HSE s u b j e c t s . kinds  events  tended t o a t t r i b u t e p o s i t i v e  s t a b l e , and g l o b a l f a c t o r s .  the e x p e c t e d asymmetry i n a t t r i b u t i o n s  daily  of l e s s  e v e n t s on t h e t h e p a r t o f L S E  T h a t i s , LSE s u b j e c t s c l a i m e d  that  both  o f e v e n t s e i t h e r had ( M o o d - D i a r y S t u d y ) o r would have had  (Role-Playing Finally,  Study) a greater  i m p a c t on t h e i r  current  e m p i r i c a l evidence e x i s t e d f o r the greater  changes along  the pleasantness  reliable,  greater extremity  LSE  s u b j e c t s t h a n HSE s u b j e c t s . Self-esteem  frequency  of  d i m e n s i o n o f d a i l y moods f o r L S E  s u b j e c t s c o m p a r e d t o HSE s u b j e c t s . not  mood.  And a l t h o u g h  i n pleasantness  Differences i n the Extremity  the c o r r e l a t i o n  was  was a l s o f o u n d f o r  a n d F r e q u e n c y o f Mood  Changes Part of the support existence of self-esteem important  f o r t h e d e f e n s i v e - s t y l e s m o d e l was t h e 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 m p l i c a t i o n s of this finding  esteem-related generalized incorporated  differences i n affective  temporally  Two  are that the often-reported extremity  could  and t h a t , s i n c e t h e Mood-Diary  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 n o t  be  Study  93  artificially-contrived extremity  l a b o r a t o r y feedback, these  could c o n c e i v a b l y r e s u l t  life-events.  With regards  differences in  from responding  to the f i r s t  to a c t u a l ,  i m p l i c a t i o n , i t i s reasonable  to a n t i c i p a t e that the more extreme s h i f t s i n mood by LSE s u b j e c t s compared to HSE s u b j e c t s at one time p e r i o d w i l l frequent  result  f l u c t u a t i o n s i n mood by LSE s u b j e c t s compared to HSE  s u b j e c t s when mood swings are p r o j e c t e d time-wise. nothing  i n more  i n the d e f e n s i v e - s t y l e s model to preclude  that 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 extremity  and mood frequency.  d e f i n i t i o n , mood v a r i a b i l i t y  Despite  there i s  the p o s s i b i l i t y r e f e r to both mood  In f a c t , as p r e v i o u s l y noted, by includes v a r i a b i l i t y  mood changes ( i . e . , mood e x t r e m i t y ) the frequency  Besides,  i n the amplitude of  and the p e r i o d i c i t y or i n v e r s e l y ,  of such mood swings across a given time  interval.  the l o g i c u n d e r l y i n g the e x p e c t a t i o n of o b s e r v 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 extremity  and mood frequency,  from the Mood-Diary Study f u r n i s h e d only c o n c l u s i v e evidence n e g a 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 the frequency there were any changes i n pleasantness which there were changes i n valence  r a t i n g s , and the frequency a t  i n pleasantness  ratings.  and a r o u s a l r a t i n g s were merely s u g g e s t i v e  a n t i c i p a t e d negative d i r e c t i o n .  for a a t which  p r e d i c t e d a s s o c i a t i o n between s e l f - e s t e e m and the e x t r e m i t y pleasantness  results  The  of both  a l b e i t i n the  One p l a u s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n i s that  because Mood-Diary Study p a r t i c i p a n t s were i n s t r u c t e d to r e c o r d moods f i v e times a day f o r 14 days, or 70 times there were s u f f i c i e n t  their  during the study,  o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r HSE s u b j e c t s to r e p o r t a few  extreme mood s h i f t s i n a d d i t i o n to t h e i r u s u a l l y moderate Since most experimenters,  i n c l u d i n g the author,  shifts.  u t i l i z e d the  94 within-subjects standard a v e r a g e mood e x t r e m i t y to  d e v i a t i o n as t h e s t a t i s t i c a l index of  ( L a r s e n , 1987), a s t a t i s t i c  the presence of o u t l i e r s  i n the data,  that i s sensitive  t h e mood e x t r e m i t y o f 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 o f LSE s u b j e c t s . self-esteem  d i f f e r e n c e i n mood e x t r e m i t y  m a j o r i t y o f s t u d i e s w h i c h have r e p o r t e d between-subjects design. once t o i d e n t i c a l  false  i s the r e s u l t . this  This permitted  H e n c e , no  The v a s t  d i f f e r e n c e employed a  their  s u b j e c t s t o be e x p o s e d  feedback, not various i n t e n s i t i e s  of f a l s e  feedback. An  a l t e r n a t i v e explanation f o r the lack of  esteem-related  d i f f e r e n c e i n mood e x t r e m i t y i n t h e M o o d - D i a r y S t u d y a l s o i n v o l v e t h e common p r a c t i c e o f 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 of such d i f f e r e n c e . e i t h e r extremely low  self-esteem  extremely  negative  s u b j e c t s , as groups, t h e n , feedback.  differences i n their these  In the laboratory, subjects t y p i c a l l y  p o s i t i v e or extremely  valenced  for investigations  Consequently,  feedback.  experienced  are given H i g h and  both  kinds of  any s e l f - e s t e e m  a f f e c t i v e response t o one-time occurrences  f e e d b a c k t e n d e d t o be a c c e n t u a t e d  differences i n emotional  compared t o  of  esteem-related  response t o n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g events i n  t h e Mood-Diary S t u d y , w h i c h 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 o r moderately negative.  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 n o t as  e x t r e m e a s 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 o f mood is  relatively  insensitive  to self-esteem  d i f f e r e n c e s i n mood  variability. Self-esteem mood v a r i a b i l i t y , still  exist.  differences with respect namely, t h e frequency  Low s e l f - e s t e e m  to the other  dimension of  o f mood f l u c t u a t i o n s ,  individuals  swung i n mood more  could  95 frequently people  s i n c e both  emotionally.  essence,  p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e The r e s u l t s  depicted the t y p i c a l  naturally-occurring a longer  events  pattern of affective  shorter  correlation  i n pleasantness  ( t o account f o r the s i g n i f i c a n t than  d i f f e r e n c e s i n frequency  ( b ) an i n s i g n i f i c a n t l y  (to account f o r the u n r e l i a b l e negative  mean p l e a s a n t n e s s )  response to  o f HSE i n d i v i d u a l s a s a w a v e f o r m w i t h ( a )  of changes i n p l e a s a n t n e s s ) ,  elevation  a f f e c t e d LSE  from t h e Mood-Diary Study, i n  period ( t o account f o r self-esteem  s e l f - e s t e e m and e x t r e m i t y  events  between  ratings),  and ( c ) a h i g h e r  self-esteem  differences i n  t h e waveform o f LSE i n d i v i d u a l s .  o r d i n a t e i s t h e d i m e n s i o n o f mood, s p e c i f i c a l l y  amplitude  (The  pleasantness,  while  the a b s c i s s a i s t h e dimension o f time.) Self-esteem, Exploratory  S e l f - c o m p l e x i t y , a n d Mood i n nature,  the t h i r d  Variability  purpose of the present  i s a l s o associated with the issue of self-esteem variability.  To be s p e c i f i c , m a i n l y  of a negative  r e l a t i o n s h i p between c o m p l e x i t y  self-representation  thesis  d i f f e r e n c e s i n mood  due t o L i n v i l l e ' s  (1982) r e p o r t  of the  ( o p e r a t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d a s t h e number o f " n o d e s o f  a t r e e " produced from a h i e r a r c h i c a l mood e x t r e m i t y  (i.e.,  mood-ratings),  i t was o f i n t e r e s t  clustering  p r o g r a m , ADDTREE) and  the w i t h i n - s u b j e c t s standard  d e v i a t i o n of  t o examine i f t h e 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 w o u l d be r e l a t e d t o self-complexity related  s i n c e i t was h y p o t h e s i z e d  to v a r i a b i l i t y  Statistical Study confirmed  t h a t s e l f - e s t e e m w o u l d be  i n mood.  analyses  of the data  generated  from the Mood-Diary  n o t 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 t h e two t r a d i t i o n a l m e a s u r e s o f s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y  96 (i.e.,  S c o t t ' s H a n d NDIM) a n d ZAVER, a n d t h a t t h e r e was a  significant  s e l f - e s t e e m m a i n e f f e c t on t h e s e  three measures, but a l s o  t h a t S c o t t ' s H a n d NDIM r e s e m b l e d s e l f - e s t e e m  i n (a) t h e i r  c o r r e l a t i o n with the e l e v a t i o n i n pleasantness their in  negative  but n e g a t i v e  ( n o t a r o u s a l ) , and ( c ) t h e i r  for the non-replication of L i n v i l l e ' s discussed i n the Results s e c t i o n . support  o f changes measures  generally  unreliable,  c o r r e l a t i o n s with the extremity i n pleasantness  a r o u s a l — e i t h e r w i t h i n t h e day, a c r o s s  in  ( n o t a r o u s a l ) , (b)  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  pleasantness  positive  of her hypothesis  days, or o v e r a l l .  and  The r e a s o n s  f i n d i n g s have a l r e a d y  M o r e o v e r , t h e r e i s some  i n terms of frequency  been evidence  o f mood c h a n g e s .  Perhaps o f g r e a t e s t i n t e r e s t , however, i s t h e t i g h t meshing o f s e l f - e s t e e m a n d t h e two s t a n d a r d  measures o f 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 numerous a s p e c t s effective  and f a c e t s o f t h e i r  s e l f - p r o t e c t i v e defenses,  bias i n causal a t t r i b u t i o n s , threatening, self-relevant that can d i s q u a l i f y desirable aspects  stimuli  including a strong  from t h e i r  of the s e l f  self-serving  With plenty of  i n t a c t , HSE p e o p l e  mood v a r i a b i l i t y  (as L i n v i l l e  and t h i s ,  have  greater  i n t u r n , leads t o lower  hypothesized).  Low  self-esteem  on t h e o t h e r h a n d , 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  that can "erode" the p o s i t i v e  e m p l o y m e n t o f weak d e f e n s e s ,  negative, self-relevant LSE p e o p l e  have  environment—stimuli  p o s i t i v e facets of the s e l f .  than LSE people  to t h e i r  because they  t h a t can ward o f f o r n e u t r a l i z e  self-complexity  individuals,  self-identity  and r e t a i n  events  g e n e r a l l y have l o w e r  and t h e i r  f a c e t s o f t h e s e l f due disposition  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 . s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y and a  t o blame Hence,  concomitant  97  g r e a t e r mood v a r i a b i l i t y  t h a n HSE p e o p l e .  Self-esteem Differences i n Actual Life-Events From t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e M o o d - D i a r y S t u d y and t h e 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 o f t h e 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 o f mood v a r i a b i l i t y  ( a t l e a s t , mood  d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n HSE and L S E i n d i v i d u a l s .  frequency)  As p r e v i o u s l y  noted,  t h e 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  different  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 , naturally-occurring positive  e v e n t s , t h a t HSE i n d i v i d u a l s w e r e h a b i t u a t e d t o  ( a n d n e g a t i v e ) e v e n t s w h e r e a s L S E i n d i v i d u a l s w e r e n o t , and  t h a t LSE p e 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 (at l e a s t , dimension  i n mood t h a n HSE  people  i n terms o f t h e 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 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 t h e n o t i o n t h a t HSE a n d LSE  i n d i v i d u a l s may d i f f e r  typically  encounter.  from t h e f i n d i n g  i n the kinds of daily  events  The i m p e t u s f o r t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y  they originates  i n t h e 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  v i e w e d t h e e v e n t s p r o v i d e d by t h e HSE a n d L S E M o o d - D i a r y  raters  Study  c o n t r i b u t o r s as being 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 positivity/negativity,  t h e s e same r a t e r s c o n s i d e r e d t h e p o s i t i v e  e v e n t s o f HSE s o u r c e s t o be more i m p o r t a n t t h a n t h e p o s i t i v e  events  o f L S E s o u r c e s , and t h e n e g a t i v e e v e n t s g i v e n by L S E s o u r c e s t o be more i m p o r t a n t t h a n t h e 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  determine  i n importance  how t h i s  s e l f - e s t e e m of source X event  ratings could arise  s o 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  type  interaction  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  ratings,  t h e c o n t e n t a n a l y s i s on t h e  d i s t i n c t kinds of events experienced s u b j e c t s was i l l u m i n a t i n g .  by HSE and LSE Mood-Diary Study  D e s p i t e a l a c k of s i g n i f i c a n t  differences  between HSE and LSE s u b j e c t s i n terms of the d i s t r i b u t i o n s of p o s i t i v e and of negative events, the a n a l y s i s r e v e a l e d t h a t HSE authors provided n u m e r i c a l l y more p e r s o n a l l y mediated or i n s t i g a t e d happenings ( i . e . , a c a d e m i c / s c h o l a s t i c - r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s ) f o r p o s i t i v e events  than LSE authors while the l a t t e r  e x t e r n a l l y mediated happenings as p o s i t i v e events  s e l e c t e d more than the former.  In other words, HSE authors d e s c r i b e d more p o s i t i v e , a c a d e m i c / s c h o l a s t i c events while LSE authors d e s c r i b e d more n e g a t i v e events of t h i s type.  In a d d i t i o n , HSE authors o f f e r e d more n e g a t i v e ,  e x t e r n a l l y mediated events while LSE authors o f f e r e d more p o s i t i v e events of t h i s  type.  Two p l a u s i b l e i n t e r p r e t i o n s of these p a r t i c u l a r r e s u l t s although The  first  they must await a f u t u r e study  to be t e s t e d e m p i r i c a l l y .  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s that HSE and LSE i n d i v i d u a l s do have  d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n s of a c t u a l l i f e - e v e n t s . f o r whatever reason, mainly  brought  tend  circumstance,  High  about by t h e i r  some e x t e r n a l On the other hand,  i n d i v i d u a l s with low s e l f - e s t e e m are i n c l i n e d that develop  s i t u a t i o n s than from w i t h i n Although  from  to f i n d more s u c c e s s f u l  " o u t s i d e i n t e r v e n t i o n " and  themselves.  both can be e q u a l l y p o s i t i v e or n e g a t i v e , p e r s o n a l l y  mediated occurrences more i n t r i n s i c  that are  p e r s o n a l d i s p o s i t i o n s and a c t i o n s  o t h e r s , or t h e i r environment.  p o s i t i v e experiences  s e l f - e s t e e m people,  to experience more p o s i t i v e events  (e.g., academic achievements) than through  and  exist,  (e.g., earning a high grade on an exam) c a r r y  s i g n i f i c a n c e than e x t e r n a l l y mediated happenings  ( e . g . , w i n n i n g 50 d o l l a r s ) b e c a u s e t h e f o r m e r h a v e i m p o r t a n t i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r o n e ' s f u t u r e outcome w h e r e a s t h e l a t t e r Consequently, mediated  b e c a u s e 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 ,  events than n e g a t i v e , p e r s o n a l l y mediated  r a t e r s n a t u r a l l y would  t o be e x t e r n a l l y m e d i a t e d ) .  e v e n t s o f LSE  Following this  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  rate  sources (which  e v e n t s o f HSE  Before g i v i n g whole-hearted  personally  i s appropriate at t h i s  m o d e l has a c c u m u l a t e d addition,  mediated  time to r e c a l l  that the  life-events,  defensive-styles  support i n the present t h e s i 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 c o g n i t i v e  interaction  of s e l f - r e l e v a n t  on i m p o r t a n c e  c o m p o s i t i o n model which  ratings.  In  interpretations  e v e n t s c a n p r o v i d e an  U n l i k e the  type  life-events  postulated that this i n t e r a c t i o n  c o n s i s t e n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the types of a c t u a l l i f e - e v e n t s  i s due  to  that  HSE  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  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 Mood-Diary Study  had  complete  have o c c u r r e d .  freedom  d e f i n e d a s t h e most p o s i t i v e and  i n choosing the events to  most n e g a t i v e e x p e r i e n c e s o f  their esteem-related defensive styles.  a  S i n c e s u b j e c t s i n the be  the  t h e 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  reflect  LSE  to t h i s evidence f o r  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 source X event  day,  LSE  subjects.  acceptance  substantial  causal attributions  and LSE  tended  the n e g a t i v e events 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 c o m p o s i t i o n of a c t u a l  and  since  as  t o be more i m p o r t a n t t h a n t h e 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)  it  personally  sources  same l o g i c ,  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 t h a n p o s i t i v e ,  not.  events, naive  r a t e t h e p o s i t i v e e v e n t s o f HSE  more i m p o r t a n t t h a n t h e p o s i t i v e  subjects  do  High self-esteem  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  report  certain  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 a s b e i n g t h e i r most negative events  o f t h e 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 .  Negative occurrences which  implications  f o r the s e l f (e.g., f a i l i n g  made l e s s p o t e n t o r l e s s including  causally  (e.g., blaming  have p o t e n t i a l d e t r i m e n t a l an e x a m i n a t i o n ) , w o u l d  v a l i d by s e l f - p r o t e c t i v e  a t t r i b u t i n g the occurrences  test  f a i l u r e on t h e u n f a i r  be  mechanisms,  to external  factors  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 ) .  T h u s , t o HSE  potentially  t h r e a t e n i n g events  occurred (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 ) n e g a t i v e due events.  may  be v i e w e d  to t h e i r s t y l e of i n t e r p r e t i n g  Consequently,  unimportant,  that actually  externally  these i n d i v i d u a l s mediated  subjects,  as not p a r t i c u l a r l y self-relevant,  valenced  might r e p o r t r e l a t i v e l y  occurrences instead  (e.g., being  n e a r l y h i t by a c a r ) a s " t h e most n e g a t i v e d a i l y e v e n t s " .  In  reporting  were  required  t h e most p o s i t i v e  s i n c e t h e y p o s e d a b s o l u t e l y no  occurrences which day  tended In  e v e n t s o f t h e day,  no  defenses  t h r e a t t o t h e s e l f and  p r o b a b l y were t h e most p o s i t i v e  happenings  so,  of  the  t o be r e p o r t e d .  the case  o f LSE  negative, important  Mood-Diary Study  (since  s u b j e c t s , events which  they i m p l i c a t e d  the s e l f ) tended  to  r e c o r d e d a s t h e most n e g a t i v e e v e n t s o f t h e day m a i n l y b e c a u s e  were be these  individuals  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  strategies,  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  negative, self-relevant  occurrences.  T h e y , f o r e x a m p l e , more  would r e p o r t a t e s t f a i l u r e over being almost t h e most n e g a t i v e e v e n t  o f t h e day  b e c a u s e LSE  h i t by a c a r a s p e o p l e a r e more  likely being  cognitively accepting self-expectancies, greater  self-relevant  o c c u r r e n c e s as  negative  which i n v o l v e s  w h i c h does not.  h o w e v e r , LSE  subjects  t h e i r most p o s i t i v e e v e n t s o f the  self-esteem Figure  of  the  gains  the negative,  also important  day.  The  almost  source X event type i n t e r a c t i o n  II) clearly  suggests  that  i m p o r t a n c e were more p r o n o u n c e d  t o a s c e r t a i n w h i c h model p r o v i d e s  for  p o s i t i v e and  of a s e l e c t i o n b i a s i n s u b j e c t s '  negative,  t h a t may  be  equalize  their  are  p o s i t i v e and  developed to reporting  n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g events.  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 reported  events across  the  experimenter.  most n e g a t i v e  academic/scholastic,  approaches  having  subjects  categories,  end  of the  first day,  randomly  approach, their  most  events i n each of s e v e r a l c a t e g o r i e s ,  such  social/interpersonal,  athletic/recreational/health, to e q u a l i z e  at the  avoid  of  at a f i x e d time  With r e g a r d s to the  i n s t r u c t e d to r e p o r t  Two  a f i x e d number o f  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  s e l e c t e d by  a more c o g e n t  f o r t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n , m e t h o d s must be  possibility  subjects  self  to  might  their  events than f o r p o s i t i v e events.  explanation  subjects  the  Due  t h e i r most p o s i t i v e and  differences i n rated  In order  as  information  hence, r e p o r t  importance r a t i n g s (see  self-esteem  which i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h  c o g n i t i v e acceptance of p o s i t i v e versus  o r d i n a l n a t u r e of  and  any  occurrences,  i n t e r n a l i z e and  the  and  s a l i e n c y than i n f o r m a t i o n  asymmetry i n the  on  of i n f o r m a t i o n  their  and  e x t e r n a l l y mediated.  r e p o r t i n g of events a c r o s s  categories,  the  e x p e r i m e n t e r can  dramatically  individuals  selecting particular categories  By  specific  reduce the  because  forcing  chances  attributional  d i f f e r e n c e s l e d to a r e d e f i n i t i o n of "most" p o s i t i v e or  negative.  of  102 The  second  approach  to 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  selection bias involves instructing (to  be o p e r a t i o n a l l y  or  has j u s t  by  the experimenter.  the events their  s u b j e c t s t o r e c o u n t an " e v e n t "  d e f i n e d by t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r )  finished  occurring at a fixed  that i s occurring  time randomly  preassigned  T h u s , s u b j e c t s h a v e no o p p o r t u n i t y t o s e l e c t  t o r e p o r t b e c a u s e t h e y h a v e no c h o i c e o f when t o r e p o r t  events.  This procedure  again, e q u a l i z e s the kinds of events  that are reported. Conclusion With  the three 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 hypothesis  empirically  supported  i n the present t h e s i s ,  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 ,  t h e r e i s ample  substantial  differences 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 and is  negative events a l s o p r e s e n t from  Study of  exist both  impact  the Mood-Diary Study  on L S E p e o p l e  more p e r s o n a l i m p o r t a n c e  for positive  b e t w e e n HSE and L S E i n d i v i d u a l s .  that a l l valenced, self-relevant  an a f f e c t i v e  to events  frequency  e v e n t s , i n g e n e r a l , h a v e more  and t h a t t h e y t e n d t o a t t r i b u t e  t h a n HSE p e o p l e .  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  o f changes i n p l e a s a n t n e s s .  w i t h low s e l f - e s t e e m f i n d negative—that relative  occur  basically  Given  this, i t  greater  i n terms o f the  I n o t h e r words, s i n c e  people  a l l e v e n t s — p o s i t i v e or  t o 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  t o HSE p e o p l e , L S E p e o p l e w i l l  respond  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 t h e d a y . exhibit  Evidence  and t h e R o l e - P l a y i n g  seems r e a s o n a b l e t h a t one w o u l d s e e f o r L S E i n d i v i d u a l s , variability  evidence  t o t h e s e e v e n t s by W h i l e HSE  individuals  t h e same e x t r e m i t y ( a m p l i t u d e ) o f mood c h a n g e s , 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  stable  manner due t o t h e i r of p e r s o n a l favour  relative  i m p o r t a n c e and i m p a c t .  of the d e f e n s i v e - s t y l e s  c o m p o s i t i o n model i s s t i l l remains that  the l i v e s  subjects'  potentially  The  possibility d i f f e r , but  of s e l e c t i o n bias i n t o be t h e i r  e x p e r i e n c e on t h e b a s i s  be m e n t i o n e d t h a t  contributions to the already mood v a r i a b i l i t y .  just  life-events  most  of differences i n  styles.  should  causal  viable.  c h o o s i n g what e v e n t s t h e y h a v e d e f i n e d  defensive  events i n terms  overwhelming evidence i n  model, t h e competing  the p o s s i b i l i t y  p o s i t i v e and most n e g a t i v e  in  Despite  to their  o f L S E and HSE p e o p l e t y p i c a l l y  t h e y a l s o may n o t , g i v e n  It  "insensitivity"  First,  this project provides  sizeable literature  i treveals  feedback.  on s e l f - e s t e e m  that esteem-related  a t t r i b u t i o n s may be f o u n d w i t h  f a l s e experimental  some u n i q u e  daily real-life  Second, i t i n d i c a t e s  and  differences events, not that  self-esteem  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  moods a p p l y  more t o t h e 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 , n o t  extremity;  and t o t h e 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 t a r o u s a l .  Third, i tprovides habituation  of n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g  evidence f o r self-esteem  or a f f e c t i v e  albeit  presently  differ  d e p e n d i n g on t h e i r  impact.  questionable,  Finally,  that  differences i n i tbrings  forth  evidence,  the l i v e s of i n d i v i d u a l s  self-esteem.  may  REFERENCES Aderman, D. ( 1 9 7 2 ) . E l a t i o n , d e p r e s s i o n , a n d 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 , 2 4 , 9 1 - 1 0 1 . A d l e r , A. ( 1 9 2 7 ) . The p r a c t i c e a n d t h e o r y o f i n d i v i d u a l New Y o r k : H a r c o u r t .  psychology.  A r k i n , R., C o o p e r , 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 o f the l i t e r a t u r e concerning the 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 interpersonal influence settings. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y , 48, 435-448. A r o n s o n , 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 p r o b l e m s . I n R. P. A b e l s o n , E. A r o n s o n , W. J . M c G u i r e , T. M. Newcomb, M. J . R o s e n b e r g , & P. H. Tannenbaum ( E d s . ) , T h e o r i e s o f c o g n i t i v e c o n s i s t e n c y : k_ s o u r c e b o o k . C h i c a g o : Rand M c N a l l y . A r o n s o n , E. & C a r l s m i t h , J.M. ( 1 9 6 2 ) . Performance expectancy as a determinant of a c t u a l 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 , 65, 178-182. B e c k , 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 Y o r k : H o e b e r . 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 response to non-contingent success. 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 scale: V a l i d i t y i n a college population. Journal of P s y c h o s o m a t i c R e s e a r c h , 18, 115-123. B r e h n , M. & B a s k , 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 J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y , 36, 299-314. B r e w e r , D., D o u g h t i e , and mood s h i f t .  drugs.  E.B., & L u b i n , B. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . I n d u c t i o n o f 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, 215-226.  Brockner, J . (1979). The e f f e c t s o f 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 p e r f o r m a n c e . Journal 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 , 3 7 , 1 7 3 2 - 1 7 4 1 . B u c h w a l d , A.M., S t r a c k , S., & C o y n e , J . C . ( 1 9 8 1 ) . Demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a n d t h e 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. Campbell,  J.D. ( 1 9 8 5 ) .  Personal  communication.  C a m p b e l l , J.D. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . Self-esteem differences i n the u t i l i z a t i o n of self-protective strategies. Unpublished grant proposal. U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia.  105 C a m p b e l l , J.D., & F a i r e y , P.T. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . Effects of self-esteem, 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 o f 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 Toronto: A l l y n & Bacon, I n c .  (Second  Edition).  C h u r c h , 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 o f I n a d e q u a c y S c a l e . P e r c e p t u a l and M o t o r S k i l l s , 50, 935-939. C o h e n , 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 influence. 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 persuasibility. New H a v e n , Conn.: Y a l e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . C o l e m a n , 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 determinant of mood o f e l a t e d a n d d e 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 F r a n c i s c o : Freeman.  of self-esteem.  San  C r a n d a l l , R. ( 1 9 7 3 ) . The m e a s u r e m e n t o f s e l f - e s t e e m and r e l a t e d constructs. I n J . R o b i n s o n & P. S h a v e r ( E d s . ) , M e a s u r e s o f social psychological attitudes. 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 Research. C r a r y , W.G. ( 1 9 6 6 ) . Reactions to incongruent 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. D e P a u l o , B., B r o w n , P., I s h i i , S., & F i s h e r , J . ( 1 9 8 1 ) . Help t h a t w o r k s : The e f f e c t s o f a i d on s u b s e q u e n t t a s k p e r f o r m a n c 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 , 4 1 , 4 7 8 - 4 8 7 . 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 p e r f o r m a n c e , 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 . Journal 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, 451-462. D i g g a r y , J . C . , K l e i n , S . J . , & C o h e n , N.M. ( 1 9 6 4 ) . Muscle 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 o f s u c c e s s . Journal of A b n o r m a l and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 5 9 , 7 7 - 8 2 . D o r i s , J . (1959). T e s t a n x i e t y a n d blame a s s i g n m e n t i n g r a d e s c h o o l children. J o u r n a l o f 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 o f 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 , M o n o g r a p h , 7, Whole No. 6 4 3 . Eckenrode, J . (1984). r e p o r t s o f mood.  I m p a c t o f 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 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 : o r a t h e o r y o f a theory. 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 o f 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. F e s h b a c h , S., & W e i n e r , B. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . and Company.  Personality.  Toronto:  F e s t i n g e r , L. ( 1 9 5 7 ) . A theory of cognitive dissonance. 1 1 1 . : Row, P a t e r s o n .  D.C.  Heath  Evanston,  F r e u d , S. ( 1 9 5 7 ) . M o u r n i n g and m e l a n c h o l i a . I n J . S t r a c h e y ( E d . and T r a n s . ) , Standard e d i t i o n o f t h e complete p s y c h o l o g i c a l works o f Sigmund F r e u d ( V o l . 14, pp. 2 4 3 - 2 5 8 ) . London: Hogarth. ( 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 Research 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 d e p r e s s e d mood. J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g a n d C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 47, 958-962. G i b b 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 J o u r n a l o f R e s e a r c h i n P e r s o n a l i t y , 10, 98-106.  to self.  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 t h e s t u d y o f personality. I n E.F. B o r g a t t a & W.W. L a m b e r t ( E d s . ) , Handbook o f p e r s o n a l i t y t h e o r y a n d 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. G o o d w i n , A.M., & W i l l i a m s , J.M.G. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . Mood-induction r e s e a r c h — i t s implications f o r c l i n i c a l depression. Behavioural R e s e a r c h and T h e r a p y , 20, 373-382. G o u a u x , C , & Gouaux, S.W. ( 1 9 7 1 ) . The i n f l u e n c e o f i n d u c e d a f f e c t i v e s t a t e s on t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f 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. G r e e n b e r g , J . , P y s z c z y n s k i , T., & S o l o m o n , 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 . , & L e w i n s o h n , 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 , 3 6 , 2 5 2 - 2 5 9 . Gruder,  C.L. ( 1 9 7 7 ) .  Choice  of comparison  persons  i nevaluating  107 oneself. In J . M . S u i s & R . L . M i l l e r ( E d s . ) , S o c i a l comparison p r o c e s s e s : T h e o r e t i c a l and e m p i r i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e s . Washington, D . C : Hemisphere. Hamachek, D. (1971). Encounters with the s e l f . R i n e h a r t , & Winston.  New York: H o l t ,  Hayes-Roth, B . , & Hayes-Roth, F . (1977). Concept l e a r n i n g and r e c o g n i t i o n and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of exemplars. J o u r n a l of V e r b a l L e a r n i n g and V e r b a l B e h a v i o u r , 16, 321-338. H e i d e r , F . (1958). York: W i l e y .  The psychology  of i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s .  New  H e l m r e i c h , R . , Aronson, E . , & L e f a n , J . (1970). To e r r i s humanizing—sometimes: E f f e c t s of s e l f - e s t e e m , competence, and a p r a t f a l l on i n t e r p e r s o n a l a t t r a c t i o n . 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 Psychology, 16, 259-264. Henderson, J . R . , & L o h r , J . M . (1982). The e f f e c t of statement valence and r e f e r e n t content upon mood and anagram performance. C o g n i t i v e 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 the f o r g e t t i n g of unpleasant pesonal e x p e r i e n c e s . P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 15, 234-239.  i n t e n s i t y and J o u r n a l of  Holmes, T . H . , & Rahe, R . H . (1967). The s o c i a l readjustment r a t i n g scale. J o u r n a l of Psychosomatic Research, 11, 213-218. H u r l b u r t , R . T . , L e c h , B . C . , & Saltman, S. (1984). Random sampling of thought and mood. C o g n i t i v e Therapy and Research, 8, 263-275. I l g e n , D. (1971). i n i t i a l level expectations. 6j. 345-361.  S a t s i f a c t i o n with performance as a f u n c t i o n of the of expected performance and the d e v i a t i o n from O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behaviour and Human Performance,  J a c o b s , L . , B e r s c h e i d , E . , & W a l s t e r , E . (1971). S e l f - e s t e e m and attraction. 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 Psychology, 17, 84-91. J e r s i l d , A. (1931). Memory f o r the unpleasant as compared with the pleasant. J o u r n a l of E x p e r i m e n t a l Psychology, l4, 284-288. J o n e s , S . C . (1973). t h e o r i e s versus 79, 185-199.  S e l f and i n t e r p e r s o n a l e v a l u a t i o n s : Esteem consistency theories. Psychological B u l l e t i n ,  Judd, C M . , & Lusk, C M . (1984). Knowledge s t r u c t u r e s and e v a l u a t i v e judgments: E f f e c t s of s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s on judgmental extremity. 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 Psychology, 46, 1193-1207.  108 K a p l a n , H.B. ( 1 9 7 5 ) . Prevalence of the self-esteem motive. 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 . Pacific P a l i s a d e s , C.A.: G o o d y e a r 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, a n d helpful behavior. J o u r n a l o f 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 partner: The e f f e c t s o f s e l f - e s t e e m a n d 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 . G e r g e n & D. M a r l o w e ( 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 , M a s s : 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 a n d t h e 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 o f n o r m a l 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 s t r e a m o f c o n s c i o u s n e s s : Scientific i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o t h e f l o w o f human e x p e r i e n c e . New Y o r k : Plenum. K o r m a n , 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 a s 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. Larsen, R.J. (1987). The s t a b i l i t y o f 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 a p p r o a c h t o d a i l y mood a s s e s s m e n t s . Journal 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 2 , 1 1 9 5 - 1 2 0 4 . 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 t h e p s y c h o s o c i a l a d j u s t m e n t o f a d o l e s c e n t s . J o u r n a l o f Y o u t h a n d A d o l e s c e n c e , 9, 4 6 9 - 4 9 0 . 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 t h e s e l f and o t h e r s ( C h a p t . 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 ) . Polarized appraisals of o u t g r o u p members. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y a n d 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., & L i s h m a n , 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 t h e s p e e d 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^, 1 7 3 - 1 8 0 . McFarlane, J . (1985). 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 c o m p a r i s o n o f m e n s t r u a l , w e e k d a y , and l u n a r c y c l e s . Unpublished masters t h e s i s . U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. 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 p e r f o r m a n c e f e e d b a c k 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 a n d  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 o f P e r s o n a l i t y and P s y c h o l o g y , 40, 5 2 1 - 5 3 1 .  Social  M c N a i r , D.M., L o r r , M., & D r o p p l e m a n , L . F . ( 1 9 7 1 ) . P r o f i l e o f mood states. 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 Service. 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 o f A b n o r m a l and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 25, 4 5 0 - 4 6 4 . 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 o f schema s t r u c t u r e and c o m m i t m e n t . 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 , 5 1 ( 2 ) , 2 5 9 - 2 6 9 . M i l l i m e t , C.R., & G a r d n e r , D.F. ( 1 9 7 2 ) I n d u c t i o n o f t h r e a t t o s e l f - e s t e e m and t h e 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 . Journal 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 , 8, 4 6 7 - 4 8 1 . 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, 252-283.  80,  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, 1 5 6 - 1 7 6 . 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 c h a n g e i n d e v e l o p m e n t : 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 d e v e l o p m e n t and behavior. V o l . 4. New Y o r k : A c a d e m i c P r e s s . Newcomb, T.M. (1978). The a c q u a i n t a n c e p r o c e s s : Looking mainly backward. 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, 1075-1083. P a r l e e , M.B., (1982). C h a n g e s i n moods and a c t i v a t i o n l e v e l s the menstrual c y c l e i n e x p e r i m e n t a l l y naive s u b j e c t s . P s y c h o l o g y o f Women Q u a r t e r l y , 7, 1 1 9 - 1 3 1 . P a u l h u s , D.  (1985).  Personal  during  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 : T h e o r y and e v i d e n c e . P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e v i e w , 91,»347-374. P e t e r s o n , C , Semmel, A., von B a e y e r , C , A b r a m s o n , 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 Questionnaire. C o g n i t i v e T h e r a p y and R e s e a r c h , 6, 2 8 7 - 2 9 9 . P l e b a n , R., & T e s s e r , A. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . The q u a l i t y of another's performance 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,  e f f e c t s o f r e l e v a n c e and on i n t e r - p e r s o n a l c l o s e n e s s . 278-285.  110 P o l i v y , J . (1981). On t h e i n d u c t i o n o f e m o t i o n i n t h e l a b o r a t o r y : D i s c r e t e moods o r m u l t i p l e a f f e c t s t a t e s ? Journal 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 o f mood s t a t e s t h r o u g h t h e r e a d i n g o f s e l f - r e f e r e n t mood s t a t e m e n t s : Affective c h a n g e s o r 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., & S h a v e r , P.R. (1973). Measures of s o c i a l psychological attitudes. 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 Research. R o g e r s , C.R. (1951). Client-centered Houghton-Mifflin.  therapy.  Boston:  R o g e r s , C.R. (1959). A t h e o r y o f 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 asdeveloped i n the c l i e n t - c e n t e r e d f r a m e w o r k . I n S. K o c h ( E d . ) , P s y c h o l o g y : A study of science (Vol.3). New Y o r k : McGraw-Hill. R o g e r s , 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 responses t o self-statements: The a f f e c t s o f s t a t e m e n t v a l e n c e a n d discrepancy. C o g n i t i v e T h e r a p y a n d R e s e a r c h , 1 , 99-119. R o s e n z i v e i g , S., & M a s o n , 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 to the theory of repression. British Journal of P s y c h o l o g y , 2 A , 2A7-265. R u s s e l l , J . (1983).  Unpublished  Affect  Grid.  R u s s e l l , J . A . , & M e h r a b i a n , A. (1977). Evidence f o r a t h r e e - f a c t o r theory of emotions. J o u r n a l of Research 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., & L i s m a n , S.A. (198A). Self-statement induction of mood: Some v a r i a t i o n s and c a u t i o n s o n t h e 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., & M c C a r t h y , 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 o f 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 Y o r k : H o l t , R i n e h a r t , & W i n s t o n , Inc. S c o t t , W.A., O s g o o d , 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 : T h e o r y and measurement o f i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s . Washington, D.C: Winston. 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 o f 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.  Ill  S e l i g m a n , M.E.P. ( 1 9 8 7 , M a r c h 2 7 ) . Recent advances i n d e p r e s s i o n l e a r n e d h e l p l e s s n e s s . Colloquium g i v e n at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia.  and  Shrauger, J.S. (1975). 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 self-perceptions. P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 82, 581-596. Shrauger, J.S. (1972). 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 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 , 23, 192-200. S h r a u g e r , J . S . , & L u n d , 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. S h r a u g e r , J . S . , & R o s e n b e r g , S.E. ( 1 9 7 0 ) . S e l f - e s t e e m and t h e 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 ) . Self-evaluations, i n i t i a l s u c c e s s and f a i l u r e , and i m p r o v e m e n t a s d e t e r m i n a n t s o f persistence. 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 , 784-795.  45,  S h r a 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 a s s e s s m e n t s o f p e r f o r m a n c e by s e l f and o t h e r s . J o u r n a l o f 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, 5 6 4 - 5 7 2 . Silverman, I . (1964). 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 o f A b n o r m a l and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 6 9 , 115-119 ( a ) . Silverman, I . (1964). D i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t s o f 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 l o w 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 . o f A b n o r m a l and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 69, 567-572 ( b ) . S i m o n , J.G., & F e a t h e r , N.T. ( 1 9 7 3 ) . Causal a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r success 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, 4 6 - 5 6 . 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 o f p l e a s a n t and u n p l e a s a n t experiences. 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 e l e m e n t s o f a c o r r e l a t i o n m a t r i x : T h e o r y 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 o f 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 , 3 5 , 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 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 , 34, 1 6 9 - 1 7 8 . S u e d f e l d , P.  (1985).  P e r s o n a l communication.  112 S u l l i v a n , H.S. ( 1 9 5 3 ) . York: Norton.  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  S u t h e r l a n d , G., Newman, B., & Rachman, S. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . Experimental i n v e s t i g a t i o n s o f t h e r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n mood a n d 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 Psychology, 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 f r o m e p i s o d i c memory. J o u r n a l o f A b n o r m a l P s y c h o l o g y , 8 8 , 2 4 8 - 2 5 7 . 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 t h e a c c e s s i b i l i t y o f m e m o r i e s o f happy a n d 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 a n d T h e r a p y , 18, 7 9 - 8 6 . 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 c h a n g e . I n L. B e r k o w i t z ( E d . ) , A d v a n c e s 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 . 1 1 , pp. 290-338). New Y o r k : A c a d e m i c 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 i m p a c t o f t h e r e l a t i v e p e r f o r m a n c e and s i m i l a r i t y o f o t h e r s . Social 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 o f f r i e n d s h i p a n d t a s k r e l e v a n c e on h e l p i n g : Y o u d o n ' t a l w a y s h e l p t h e one y o u 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. T h a y e r , R.E. ( 1 9 6 7 ) . Measurment o f a c t i v a t i o n P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s , 20, 663-678.  through  self-report.  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 B e h a v i o u r R e s e a r c h a n d T h e r a p y , 6, 4 7 3 - 4 8 2 .  states.  W a h l , 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 t h e f a m i l y h i s t o r i e s o f 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 , 1 7 , 643-654. W a l s t e n , E. ( 1 9 6 5 ) . The e f f e c t o f 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, 1 8 4 - 1 9 7 . W a t t e n b e r g , W.W., & C l i f f o r d , C. ( 1 9 6 4 ) . Relation of self-concept to 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. W e a v e r , 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 a s i n d e p e n d e n t 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 ) . Self-esteem: I t s c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n and measurement. Beverly H i l l s , Publications, Inc.  Calif.:  Sage  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 extension of Heider's theory 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 M o n o g r a p h , 79 ( W h o l e No. 6 0 7 ) . Wiggins, J.S. (1979). A psychological t e r m s : The i n t e r p e r s o n a l d o m a i n . 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 ) . induction procedure. 565-572.  taxonomy o f t r a i t - d e s c r i p t i v e J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and  G e n e r a l i z a t i o n i n t h e e f f e c t s o f a mood B e h a v i o r R e s e a r c h and T h e r a p y , 1 8 ,  W i l l s , T.A. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . Downward c o m p a r i s o n p r i n c i p l e s i n s o c i a l psychology. 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., & S t o n e , J . I . ( 1 9 8 2 ) . Judging the p r e d i c t o r s o f o n e ' s own mood: A c c u r a c y a n d t h e u s e o f s h a r e d theories. 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 . Nebraska Press.  L i n c o l n : U n i v e r s i t y of  Z u c k e r m a n , 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 a n d w e l l i n a t t r i b u t i o n theory. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y , 47, 245-287. Z u c k e r m a n , M. ( 1 9 6 4 ) . The d e v e l o p m e n t o f a n A f f e c t A d j e c t i v e C h e c k L i s t f o r t h e measurement o f a n x i e t y . Journal of Consulting P s y c h o l o g y , 24, 457-462.  114 APPENDIX A An e x a m p l e o f R u s s e l l ' s  anger  (1983) A f f e c t G r i d  high  arousal  joy  pleasant  unpleasant  depression  (modified).  sleepiness  contented  115 APPENDIX B C o n s e n t Form f o r t h e M o o d - D i a r y  Study freely  I, and  voluntarily  entitled,  agree  and  their  i n the research  "Mood A s s e s s m e n t " , t o be c o n d u c t e d  Kenny P s y c h o l o g y (office:  t o be a p a r t i c i p a n t  partially  B u i l d i n g w i t h B a r r y Chew a s S t u d e n t  1001; t e l e p h o n e : purposes  These procedures  ).  The p r o c e d u r e s  project  i n the Douglas  Investigator t o be f o l l o w e d  h a v e 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.  include:  ( a ) an i n i t i a l  s e s s i o n i n which  I complete  a pre-study  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 inventory.  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  groups t h a t a r e meaningful r a t i n g s of these  t o me, a n d m a k i n g  trait  names i n t o  similarity  traits.  ( 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 (c)  a final  s e s s i o n i n which  complete  days.  I r e t u r n t h e mood i n v e n t o r y and  a post-study instrument before I d i s c u s s the study  with the experimenter. A l l my r e s p o n s e s  on t h e s t u d y i n s t r u m e n t s and on t h e m o o d - d i a r y  are completely c o n f i d e n t i a l . these m a t e r i a l s .  I will  t h e b e s t o f my a b i l i t y .  I will  not i d e n t i f y  t r y t o complete  myself  on any o f  a l l i t e m s and p r o c e d u r e s t o  A c o d e 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 r e s p o n s e s  on t h e p r e - s t u d y i n s t r u m e n t w i t h  data  o b t a i n e d f r o m my m o o d - d i a r y .  I understand  from  t h a t I may w i t h d r a w  t h e s t u d y a t any t i m e w i t h o u t e x p l a n a t i o n o r p e n a l t y . given the right  I h a v e been  t o a s k q u e s t i o n s , and my q u e s t i o n s , i f a n y , h a v e b e e n  a n s w e r e d 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  to provide a  116 full  d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e p u r p o s e and h y p o t h e s i s  completion.  I have r e a d and u n d e r s t o o d  (Signature of  Participant)  of the study  the f o r e g o i n g . (Date of  Reading)  upon i t s  117 APPENDIX C C o n s e n t Form f o r t h e R o l e - P l a y i n g  Study  I,  , freely  voluntarily entitled,  agree  and  their  a participant  i n the r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t  "Reactions to Daily Events",  Kenny P s y c h o l o g y (office:  t o be  1001;  t o be  telephone:  ).  The  r e a d d e s c r i p t i o n s o f 16 e v e n t s .  t h a t event.  them and  Upon c o m p l e t i o n  my  responses  confidential. I will  I will  t r y to complete  ability.  I understand  one  q u e s t i o n s , and  my  satisfaction.  The  t h e p u r p o s e and  h a v e r e a d and  i n the  Douglas  I understand  For each event,  them. I  will  I b e l i e v e I would r e a c t  of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , I w i l l  to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s are not i d e n t i f y  myself  a l l i t e m s and t h a t I may  return  This study  should  experimenter  completely  on any  procedures  withdraw from  of these m a t e r i a l s . to the best of t h e s t u d y a t any  I have been g i v e n t h e r i g h t  q u e s t i o n s , i f any,  h a v e been a n s w e r e d t o  agrees  to provide a f u l l  to  (Date  of  time ask  description  the f o r e g o i n g .  Participant)  my  my  h y p o t h e s i s o f t h e s t u d y upon i t s c o m p l e t i o n .  understood  ( S i g n a t u r e of  t o be f o l l o w e d  hour.  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 .  of  how  and  d i s c u s s the study w i t h the e x p e r i m e n t e r .  require approximately All  procedures  h a v e been e x p l a i n e d t o me  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 to  conducted  B u i l d i n g w i t h B a r r y Chew a s S t u d e n t I n v e s t i g a t o r  purposes  I will  and  Reading)  I  118 APPENDIX D A sample o f t h e s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y Mood-Diary Study p a r t i c i p a n t s .  questionnaire  administered  to  Questionnaire Instructions:  COMPUTER CODING  I m m e d i a t e l y below, you w i l l you  read t h i s  list,  sort these t r a i t s  find  we w o u l d l i k e  a list  of t r a i t  names.  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 .  unique, your groupings of these t r a i t s w i l l a r e no " r i g h t "  names o r t h e i r  o r "wrong" answers.  abbreviations  (given  Please  of the t r a i t  write the t r a i t  or short  trait  names w i t h i n t h e b o x .  You may u s e a s  You c a n a l s o u s e t h e same not f e e l  names, i f y o u do n o t w a n t .  label  Please  obligated give  phrase of your choosing which r e p r e s e n t s  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 ) 3. a m b i t i o u s (amb) 5. a s s e r t i v e ( a s s e r t ) 7. c o n v e n t i o n a l ( c o n v e n t ) 9. humorous (hum) II. impulsive (impul) 13. i n t e l l e c t u a l ( i n t e l l ) 15. m a t u r e ( m a t ) 17. p e r s i s t e n t ( p e r s i s ) 19. p r e d i c t a b l e ( p r e d ) 21. r e b e l l i o u s ( r e b e l ) 23. r e l a x e d ( r e l a x ) 25. s i l l y 27. u n o r g a n i z e d ( u n o r g )  thus,  i n p a r e n t h e s e s ) i n s i d e t h e boxes  name i n more t h a n one b o x , and y o u s h o u l d all  Because you  a l s o be u n i q u e ;  t o i n d i c a t e w h i c h ones you t h i n k b e l o n g t o g e t h e r . many o r a s f e w b o x e s a s y o u w a n t .  For  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 y o u b e h a v e i n d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n s .  there  After  you t o t h i n k a b o u t y o u r s e l f and  example, d i f f e r e n t groups might represent  are  NO.:  trait t o use  e a c h box a t h e group o f  2. a f r a i d ( a f r ) 4. a n x i o u s ( a n x ) 6. c o m p e t i t i v e (comp) 8. c o u r a g e o u s ( c o u r ) 10. i m a g i n a t i v e ( i m a g ) 12. i n d e p e n d e n t ( i n d e p ) 14. l a z y ( l a z ) 16. o u t g o i n g ( o u t ) 18. p l a y f u l ( p l a y ) 20. q u i e t 22. r e f l e c t i v e ( r e f l ) 24. r e l i a b l e ( r e l y ) 26. t r u s t i n g ( t r u s t )  119  Label  or short  phrase  Label  or short  phrase  Label  or short  phrase  Label  or s h o r t  phrase  Label  or short  phrase  Label or short  phrase  120 The  list  Please write  of t r a i t  names a g a i n a p p e a r on t h e f i r s t  a c r o s s , on t h e l i n e s  column  below.  p r o v i d e d , t h e words o r s h o r t  p h r a s e s you used t o l a b e l  t h e boxes.  or  t o what e x t e n t e a c h o f t h e t r a i t s a r e  s h o r t p h r a s e s and r a t e  descriptive 11-point  T h i n k about each o f t h e words  o f t h e l a b e l . P l e a s e make y o u r r a t i n g s  on t h e f o l l o w i n g  scale. 0  1  2  not a t a l l descriptive  3  4  5  neutral  6  7  8  9  v e r y much descriptive  YOUR WORD OR SHORT PHRASE TRAIT NAME affectionate afraid ambitious anxious assertive competitive conventional courageous humorous imaginative impulsive independent intellectual lazy mature outgoing persistent playful predictable quiet rebellious reflective relaxed reliable silly trusting unorganized  10  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 t h e Mood-Diary Two-Week  ( 1 4 - D a y ) D i a r y o f Y o u r Mood  Introduction: In and  this  COMPUTER CODING NO.:  s t u d y , you a r e r e q u e s t e d  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  f u n c t i o n of t h e time valid  two-week  Through t h i s p a r t i c u l a r method, t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r  able t o gather  and r e l i a b l e  of l i f e  events.  You w i l l  be a s k e d  will  In order  d a t a , however, i t i s e s s e n t i a l p e r c e p t i o n s o f your  (14-day) be  moods v a r y a s a  o f day and day o f t h e week.  h o n e s t and a c c u r a t e i n your  in  t o make d a i l y mood a s s e s s m e n t s  c o m p l e t e a f e w q u e s t i o n s e a c h day f o r t h e n e x t  period.  Study.  t o have  f o r y o u t o be a s  mood and i m p r e s s i o n s  t o r e p o r t these  personal  aspects  t h i s b o o k l e t , which c o n s i s t s o f a s e t o f q u e s t i o n n a i r e s f o r you t o  c o m p l e t e f o r 14 c o n s e c u t i v e d a y s .  As y o u 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 , y o u should  treat  guaranteed.  t h i s b o o k l e t much l i k e a d i a r y . A c o d e number i s a t t a c h e d  to  match your  on  the d i a r y study.  any  responses  on a p r e s t u d y  Your anonymity i s  t o the d i a r y sheets instrument  You a r e r e q u e s t e d  i n order  w i t h your  not to i d e n t i f y  responses  yourself i n  o f t h e p a g e s o f t h e b o o k l e t i n any way. You  will  be r e q u e s t e d  to assess  a day f o r 14 c o n s e c u t i v e d a y s , received this booklet. a p p e a r t o be e x t r e m e l y  your  beginning  Although  this  on t h e d a y a f t e r  daily  rating  five  f a m i l i a r with the procedure, Secondly,  i tshould  easy.  times  you have  t a s k may  initially  t i m e - c o n s u m i n g and i n c o n v e n i e n t , e f f o r t s  b e e n made t o make t h e t a s k r e l a t i v e l y  quick t o complete.  moods o r s p i r i t s  have  Once y o u h a v e become  become r o u t i n e a n d h e n c e ,  y o u h a v e 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 y o u r moods e a c h d a y , j u s t s o l o n g a s y o u make s u c h evaluations: (1) (2)  upon  arising  midmorning  (3)  midafternoon  (4)  after dinner  (5)  b e f o r e g o i n g t o bed  T h e s e p e r i o d s a r e w o r d e d i n s u c h a way a s t o be f l e x i b l e not t o inconvenience you.  Because  enough  t h e number o f t i m e s y o u 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 y o u t o c a r r y t h e b o o k l e t w i t h you t o c l a s s , s e s s i o n , y o u may c o m p l e t e  etc.  the session l a t e r  remember y o u r mood a t t h a t t i m e . that session.  I f you s h o u l d miss a mood-rating i f you b e l i e v e you c a n  I f you a r e n o t s u r e , p l e a s e omit  I t i s i m p o r t a n t t h a t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n be a c c u r a t e a n d  n o t c o n s i s t o f g u e s s e s t h a t y o u h a v e a b s o l u t e l y no c o n f i d e n c e i n . The  final  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 t h e u s e o f a new,  quicker mood-rating technique c a l l e d gained p r o f i c i e n c y a t using t h i s you w i l l  the Affect Grid.  Once y o u h a v e  t e c h n i q u e by d o i n g a f e w e x a m p l e s ,  d i s c o v e r t h a t each mood-rating 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 Affect  The  Affect Grid  Grid:  i s s i m p l y a 9 X 9 g r a p h w h i c h "maps" o r  describes visually  y o u r p e r c e p t i o n o f y o u r mood, f e e l i n g s ,  etc.  time.  at a specific  you c a n s e e b e l o w :  There  a r e two d i m e n s i o n s t o t h i s  "spirits", g r i d , as  123  AN AFFECT GRID high  anger  arousal  joy  pleasant  unpleasant  depression The  sleepiness  h o r i z o n t a l dimension i s the continuum of pleasantness.  further left Conversely,  y o u p l a c e y o u r " x " , t h e more u n p l e a s a n t t h e more y o u move t o t h e r i g h t ,  p e r c e i v e y o u r mood t o b e . a " c " , and e x t e n d i n g should or  contented  At the center  The  you f e e l .  t h e more p l e a s a n t you  of the g r i d ,  s t r a i g h t up and down f r o m t h i s  designated  with  " c " , i s where you  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  positive  negative. The  Please  vertical  dimension represents  the continuum of a r o u s a l .  n o t e t h a t a r o u s a l i s t h e s t a t e i n w h i c h y o u f e e l awake, a l e r t ,  activated, separate  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 o n , a n d i s  from and i n d e p e n d e n t o f w h e t h e r you f e e l  negative.  Above t h e c e n t e r o f t h e g r i d  should  p l a c e an  center  t o the bottom of the g r i d  11  t o t h e t o p i s where you  x" i f y o u f e e l more awake t h a n  your a r o u s a l s t a t e i s lower  than  p o s i t i v e or  u s u a l ; below t h e  i s w h e r e an " x " s h o u l d  be p l a c e d i f  usual.  To g i v e y o u an i d e a o f how t o u s e t h e A f f e c t G r i d and t o illustrate  how t h e d e g r e e o f 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  is  i n d e p e n d e n t o f t h e degree o f a r o u s a l , l o o k a t where " x ^ " i s p l a c e d the  grid  ( a b o v e ) 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  on  124 happiness  ( p l e a s a n t f e e l i n g s ) s a y , when one i s g i v e n a s u r p r i s e  birthday party. which  A g a i n , examine t h e g r i d  describes graphically  the surprise  ( 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 Even though a t both  arousal  n  ( h i g h a r o u s a l ) and s a d n e s s  of say, the death  i n s t a n c e s , the person  pleasantness or unpleasantness  f o r the l o c a t i o n of X2",  of a cousin.  experiences high arousal,  c a n be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h a t same  level.  Instructions: A f t e r y o u h a v e r e a d and f u l l y  understood  p l e a s e b e g i n t o r a t e y o u r moods ( s p i r i t s ) c o n s e c u t i v e days.  the following  At every mood-rating  then proceed Grid.  session, please f i l l  i n t h e t i m e and  t o p l a c e an " x " i n one o f t h e 81 s q u a r e s  time.  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  h a v e many s h a d e s and a w i d e r a n g e o f i n t e n s i t y . ecstasy, excitement,  of the A f f e c t  relaxation,  Similarly,  and s e r e n i t y may be d i f f e r e n t  P l e a s e do n o t c o n s u l t y o u r  b i a s e s from complete  You  other people's  primarily  will  i n your  a l s o be a s k e d  s h o r t l y b e f o r e you r e t i r e  illustrate, are different to  f o r you i n these r e s p e c t s .  your  when y o u a r e d o i n g a responses.  To  prevent  a s s e s s m e n t s o f y o u r mood, e t c . , p l e a s e  the questionnaires i n t h i s diary  interested  To  feelings  f e e l i n g s of calm,  previous mood-ratings  mood a s s e s s m e n t i n o r d e r t o a v o i d b i a s i n g  a_t t h a t  because  and j o y may be f e e l i n g s w h i c h  i n q u a l i t y and i n i n t e n s i t y .  each  on page 2 o f t h i s  T r y t o a c c u r a t e l y r e p r e s e n t y o u r mood e x p e r i e n c e d  particular  you  d a y f o r 14  P l e a s e remember t o a s s e s s y o u r moods d u r i n g  o f t h e f i v e p e r i o d s o f t h e day ( a s o u t l i n e d booklet).  the i n s t r u c t i o n s ,  privately.  We a r e  p e r s o n a l f e e l i n g s and mood t o answer a few a d d i t i o n a l  f o r t h e day.  states. questions  125 1) The s i x t h A f f e c t G r i d o v e r a l l mood f o r t h a t of  i s p r o v i d e d f o r you t o r a t e  g i v e n day.  T h a t i s , do n o t make an a s s e s s m e n t  y o u r mood a t t h e t i m e y o u a r e c o m p l e t i n g  instead,  r e p o r t what y o u b e l i e v e  your  your  this  s i x t h g r i d , but  g e n e r a l o r o v e r a l l mood f o r t h e  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 t h e most p o s i t i v e a n d  t h e most n e g a t i v e e v e n t s (24-hour  period).  experimenter your  you have e x p e r i e n c e d  By an o b j e c t i v e  would l i k e  statements  d u r i n g t h a t day  d e s c r i p t i o n of these events, the which  a r e as f r e e as p o s s i b l e  p e r s o n a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e s e e v e n t s , and a r e f a c t u a l .  following  from The  e x a m p l e s s h o u l d be c l o s e l y e x a m i n e d .  EXAMPLES OF UNDESIRABLE REPORTING  EXAMPLES OF OBJECTIVE REPORTING  "I've got a t e r r i b l e psychology t e s t . "  > Give your a c t u a l s c o r e , the c l a s s mean, e t c .  s c o r e on my  "My b e s t f r i e n d i n s u l t e d me." "My m o t h e r c o m p l i m e n t e d me on my cooking." "I  saved  > G i v e an a c c u r a t e a c c o u n t o f t h e w o r d s and s i t u a t i o n . > G i v e an a c c u r a t e account o f t h e words and s i t u a t i o n .  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 t h e amount o f money  Upon c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e w r i t t e n d e s c r i p t i o n s  f o r t h e 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 t h e day, you w i l l  vividly  p a r t i c u l a r events.  imagine  yourself  (a) P l e a s e w r i t e the  i n those  down what y o u b e l i e v e d  saved.  be a s k e d t o  t o be t h e m a j o r c a u s e o f  event.  (b) P l e a s e i n d i c a t e whether t h e cause o f t h e event something  about you o r something  i s due t o  about o t h e r people o r  circumstances. ( c ) P l e a s e i n d i c a t e whether t h e cause you have i n d i c a t e d  will  126 a g a i n be p r e s e n t  i f t h e event  should  reoccur.  (d) P l e a s e i n d i c a t e whether t h e cause j u s t o r does i t i n f l u e n c e o t h e r a s p e c t s  i n f l u e n c e s the event,  o f your  life  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 ,  itself,  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  affect  (change) your  ( g ) P l e a s e show t h e i m p o r t a n c e In with  closing,  mood. of t h i s event  p l e a s e remember t h a t y o u s h o u l d a c q u a i n t y o u r s e l f  the procedures  f o r t h i s experiment  g i v e n t o you because you a r e t o b e g i n  on t h e day t h i s your  s u r e y o u m a s t e r how t o u s e t h e A f f e c t G r i d . f i v e mood a s s e s s m e n t s t h r o u g h o u t day  specified  t o you.  package i s  d i a r y the next  day.  Make  Do n o t f o r g e t t o make  t h e day ( a t t h e g e n e r a l p e r i o d s o f  on page 2) f o r 14 c o n t i n u o u s  days.  During  each  a s s e s s m e n t , make s u r e y o u h a v e t h i s d i a r y w i t h y o u , make s u r e y o u will  n o t be d i s t u r b e d , and l a s t l y ,  a c c u r a t e as p o s s i b l e .  Finally,  your  g e n e r a l mood o r s p i r i t s  most p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e  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  P l e a s e submit your Psychology  Building.  a r e as  t h a t d a y , and events  of t h e day.  events.  d i a r y t o room 1001 o f t h e new D o u g l a s Kenny  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  p l e a s e do n o t h e s i t a t e t o v i s i t 228-6487 d u r i n g s c h o o l h o u r s . dialing  responses  A t t h e end o f e a c h d a y , y o u a r e r e q u e s t e d t o  make a n e v a l u a t i o n o f y o u r report objectively  make s u r e y o u r  me a t t h i s o f f i c e  or  study,  telephone  Y o u c a n a l s o c o n t a c t me a t home by  254-2583.  Thank y o u i n a d v a n c e f o r y o u r  time, e f f o r t ,  and i n t e r e s t .  B a r r y Chew, Experimenter  127  Today's Date:  / (day)  Day #  /  COMPUTER CODING  NO.:.  (mo.) ( y r . )  o f y o u r 14-day  diary.  Today's M o o d - r a t i n g s : 1) upon a r i s i n g anger  (time:  A.M./P.M.) high arousal  unpleasant  depression  joy  pleasant  sleepiness  contented  128 2) m i d m o r n i n g ( t i m e :  anger  A.M./P.M.)  high  arousal  unpleasant  depression  joy  pleasant  sleepiness  contented  129  3) m i d a f t e r n o o n anger  (time:  P.M.)  high arousal  pleasant  unpleasant  depression  joy  sleepiness  contented  130  4)  after  anger  dinner  (time:  P.M.) high arousal  pleasant  unpleasant  depression  joy  sleepiness  contented  131  5)  before  anger  going  t o bed  (time: high  P.M./A.M.) arousal  pleasant  unpleasant  depression  joy  sleepiness  contented  132  6)  a v e r a g e mood f o r t o d a y ( t i m e :  anger  high  arousal  joy  pleasant  unpleasant  depression  P.M./A.M.)  sleepiness  contented  133  Ob j e c t i v e d e s c r i p t i o n s of today's events: 1) Most p o s i t i v e event i n the l a s t  24-hour p e r i o d :  2) Most n e g a t i v e event i n the l a s t  24-hour p e r i o d .  134 Ratings of the p o s i t i v e event; Please v i v i d l y imagine y o u r s e l f i n t h i s event, ( a ) W r i t e down what y o u b e l i e v e d t o be t h e m a j o r c a u s e o f t h i s  event.  ( b ) I s t h e c a u s e o f t h e e v e n t ( y o u j u s t w r o t e down) due t o s o m e t h i n g about you o r something about o t h e r people o r c i r c u m s t a n c e s ? -5  -4  -3  -2  -1  0  t o t a l l y due t o other people or circumstances (c) I n the future present? -5  -4  •  2  3  both  ( i f t h e event -3  •  1  -2  •  •  w i l l never again be p r e s e n t  -4  influences particular  -3  re-occurs),  will  -5  -4  extremely (f)  -3  0  1  2  3  4  5  •  •  •  •  •  •  -1  will  0  do y o u v i e w -1  negative  0  1  2  3  2  4  5  6  4  5  itself?  1  4  2  3  5  extremely  a f f e c t (change) your 7  8  9  i m p o r t a n t was t h i s e v e n t  2  not a t a l l important  3  4  5  6  7  be  o r does i t  positive  mood?  10 v e r y much so  ( g ) How p e r s o n a l l y 1  the event,  the event,  not a t a l l  0  3  always present  influences a l l s i t u a t i o n s i n my l i f e  neutral  To what e x t e n t d i d t h i s e v e n t 0  1  both  -2  c a u s e a g a i n be  •  just this situation  ( e ) How p o s i t i v e / n e g a t i v e  this  -1  may be p r e s e n t  -2  5  t o t a l l y due t o me  (d) I s the cause something t h a t j u s t i n f l u e n c e s a l s o i n f l u e n c e o t h e r areas of your l i f e ? -5  4  8  9  t o you? 10  extremely  important  135 Ratings of the negative  event;  Please v i v i d l y imagine y o u r s e l f i n t h i s event, ( a ) W r i t e down what y o u b e l i e v e d t o be t h e m a j o r c a u s e o f t h i s  event.  ( b ) I s t h e c a u s e o f t h e e v e n t ( y o u j u s t w r o t e down) due t o s o m e t h i n g about you o r 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  t o t a l l y due t o other people or circumstances (c) I n the future present? -5  2  3  both  ( i f the event  -4  1  -3  -2  w i l l never again be p r e s e n t  0  1  will  2  3  may be p r e s e n t  -4  influences particular  -3  -2  -4  extremely  -3  do y o u v i e w  -2  -1  negative  1  2  3  1  2  both  0  4  event 5  6  the event,  4  be  o r does i t  5  1  4  2  3  5  extremely (change) your  8  9  positive  mood?  10 v e r y much so  ( g ) How p e r s o n a l l y 1  always present  itself?  not a t a l l  0  3  5  the event,  affect 7  4  influences a l l s i t u a t i o n s i n my l i f e  neutral  ( f ) To what e x t e n t d i d t h i s 0  0  just this situation  ( e ) How p o s i t i v e / n e g a t i v e -5  -1  t h i s c a u s e a g a i n be  will  (d) I s t h e cause something t h a t j u s t i n f l u e n c e s a l s o i n f l u e n c e o t h e r areas o f your l i f e ? -5  5  t o t a l l y due t o me  re-occurs),  -1  4  i m p o r t a n t was t h i s  2  not a t a l l important  3  4  5  6  7  event 8  9  t o you? 10  extremely  important  APPENDIX F D e b r i e f i n g Statement  f o r Mood-Diary  Study  Thank you very 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 project.  The  purpose  of t h i s form i s to b r i e f l y review  supplement what the experimenter  has t o l d  and  you i n the v e r b a l  d e b r i e f i n g segment to ensure t h a t no important 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 omitted and t h a t you completely understand and procedures of your  the  purpose  study.  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) people tend to 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 to 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)  people.  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 r e a c t i o n s to unfavourable events and more p o s i t i v e r e a c t i o n s to p o s i t i v e events than HSE T h i s o b s e r v a t i o n suggests that LSE i n d i v i d u a l s may variability  i n t h e i r d a i l y moods.  people were exposed  Furthermore,  to e x a c t l y the same feedback  s t u d i e s , i t seems that t h i s v a r i a b i l i t y may how  LSE and HSE  people i n t e r p r e t  To t e s t the hypotheses variability i s due  that:  individuals.  exhibit greater  because  LSE and  HSE  i n the l a b o r a t o r y  be due to d i f f e r e n c e s i n  the events ( f e e d b a c k ) . (a) LSE persons e x h i b i t more  i n t h e i r moods than HSE  people, and  (b) t h i s  variability  to d i f f e r e n c e s i n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n r a t h e r than d i f f e r e n c e s i n  the k i n d s of events to which they are experienced, LSE and  HSE  p a r t i c i p a n t s were requested to make mood r a t i n g s f i v e times a day f o r 14 c o n s e c u t i v e days.  They were a l s o asked to d e s c r i b e o b j e c t i v e l y ,  the most p o s i t i v e / n e g a t i v e events that occurred each day and to make c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s and estimate the degree of importance events.  of these  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  hypothesis in  their  you  a l l o w us t o t e s t t h e  t h a t L S E and HSE p e o p l e d i f f e r w i t h d a i l y moods.  provided  The c a u s a l  respect  a t t r i b u t i o n s and i m p o r t a n c e  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  a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r negative  that  by h a v i n g L S E and HSE n a i v e  Finally,  a n d HSE p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h i s  people  and p o s i t i v e e v e n t s judges rate the  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 most p o s i t i v e / n e g a t i v e LSE  ratings  t h a t L S E a n d HSE  make d i f f e r e n t c a u s a l occur.  to v a r i a b i l i t y  events given  s t u d y , we c a n t e s t t h e  by  hypothesis  t h a t L S E a n d HSE p e o p l e d i d n o t 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  events.  T h e s e same r a t e r s w i l l  they b e l i e v e they would r e a c t causal  attributions.  hypothesis  also rate  how  t o t h e e v e n t s i n t e r m s o f mood a n d  These r a t i n g s w i l l  t h a t L S E and HSE p e o p l e d i f f e r  allow  us t o t e s t t h e  i n their  reactions  to the  same e v e n t . In the f i r s t questionnaire  session  asking  of t h i s  you t o s o r t t r a i t  g r o u p s , and r a t e t h e s i m i l a r i t y This  questionnaire  s t u d y , you c o m p l e t e d a  provides  names i n t o  of t r a i t  names w i t h  complexity,  there  and mood v a r i a b i l i t y .  completed w i l l We w o u l d l i k e  provided  i n this  information  may be a c o n n e c t i o n  allow  between  complexity  Because complexity  s e l f - r e p r e s e n t a t i o n h a s b e e n shown t o be a s s o c i a t e d  variability,  you  the group l a b e l s .  measures o f t h e degree o f  i n d i v i d u a l s use i n t h i n k i n g about themselves. the  self-labelled  with  The s e l f - c o m p l e x i t y  questionnaire  us t o examine t h e s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s .  study i s completely,  t o e x t e n d an i n v i t a t i o n  mood  self-esteem,  t o a s s u r e you t h a t a l l o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n  i s contained  of  confidential.  on any o f t h e m a t e r i a l s .  you  No i d e n t i f y i n g We a l s o w o u l d  t o y o u , i f you a r e i n t e r e s t e d , t o see t h e  like  138 r e s u l t s of the completed summer, 1 9 8 7 ) . experiment  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  F i n a l l y , we a s k t h a t y o u do n o t d i s c u s s t h i s  w i t h your classmates u n t i l  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  t h e summer o f 1987 a s t h e y may  study.  P l e a s e r e a d and s i g n  your  name t o t h e f o l l o w i n g : " I have r e a d t h e above and u n d e r s t a n d  it.  I have asked  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 pledge not to d i s c u s s the experiment, future participants.  I agree  research project.  I  i n whole o r i n p a r t , w i t h  to allow the experimenter  t o u s e 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 events that occurred. acknowledge t h a t these d e s c r i p t i o n s w i l l  be t y p e d w i t h no  (Participant's participation.  B a r r y Chew, Experimenter  I  identifying  information."  Thank y o u o n c e a g a i n f o r y o u r  and h a v e  Signature)  APPENDIX G D e b r i e f i n g Statement Thank you project.  The  f o r R o l e - P l a y i n g Study  v e r y much f o r y o u r p a r t i c i p a t i o n purpose  of t h i s  i n this research  form i s to b r i e f l y  what t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r has  told  debriefing  segment t o e n s u r e  i m p o r t a n t i n f o r m a t i o n was  inadvertently and  o m i t t e d and  procedures  of your  r e p o r t e d t h a t low s e l f - e s t e e m  greater affective  extremity to  people.  That  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  typically  experience feedback more i n t e n s e l y  b e c a u s e LSE f r o m HSE  people  people.  self-relevant  to unfavourable  individuals  over time e i t h e r because  ( e v e n t s ) from t h e i r  B e c a u s e LSE  and  to exactly  HSE  interpret  events  which i s  t h e same f e e d b a c k ,  d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n HSE  and  i n d i v i d u a l s d i s c o u n t negative feedback  LSE  differently  i n the  laboratory  i t appears  that  t o be t h e more  p l a u s i b l e r e a s o n f o r t h e s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n mood proposed  may  they  environment  participants  d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e p e r c e p t i o n s o f an e v e n t a p p e a r  One  HSE  p o s i t i v e or n e g a t i v e i n magnitude o r ,  s i m p l y p e r c e i v e and  s t u d i e s were e x p o s e d  (LSE)  to p o s i t i v e events than  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  g r e a t e r mood v a r i a b i l i t y  actually  purpose  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  exhibit  the  study.  o u t c o m e s t h a n h i g h s e l f - e s t e e m (HSE)  individuals.  verbal  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  L a b o r a t o r y r e s e a r c h has people tend to e x h i b i t  i n the  and  supplement  t h a t no  you  review  variability.  i n d i v i d u a l s i s that  i n f o r m a t i o n more t h a n  HSE  LSE  individuals. I n o r d e r t o t e s t t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t HSE tendency  to u t i l i z e  p e r s o n s have a g r e a t e r  d i s c o u n t i n g s t r a t e g i e s t h a n LSE  individuals  (and  140 thus, not experience the i n t e n s e l y feedback  t h a t t h e l a t t e r would  p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e e v e n t s . selected and  n e g a t i v e moods t o u n p l e a s a n t  feel),  you r e a d d e s c r i p t i o n s o f  These e v e n t s had been  f r o m a p o o l o f 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  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 .  c o n s i s t e d o f f o u r from each  The 16 e v e n t s y o u r e a d  of the following  e v e n t s r e p o r t e d by L S E s u b j e c t s ;  f o u r groups:  e v e n t s r e p o r t e d by HSE s u b j e c t s . e v e n t s , each  time o f f e r i n g  to role-play  these  f o r the occurrence of  and s t a b l e v e r s u s u n s t a b l e .  versus  You a l s o  the p o s i t i v e n e s s / negativeness of the event, the p o t e n t i a l  impact  o f the event  the event's  likely  on y o u r c u r r e n t mood, and how i m p o r t a n t y o u w o u l d  occurrence.  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  t h a n LSE p a r t i c i p a n t s  that are r e l a t i v e l y  specific  t e m p o r a r y ) , and s i t u a t i o n a l external).  to ascribe (i.e.,  the negative events t o causes  local),  unstable  (i.e.,  r a t h e r than d i s p o s i t i o n a l  (i.e.,  I n a d d i t i o n , HSE p a r t i c i p a n t s may n o t v i e w t h e s e  a s n e g a t i v e l y , and n o t r a t e them a s i n f l u e n t i a l c u r r e n t moods n o r a s p e r s o n a l l y the events s u p p l i e d would  and p o s i t i v e  g i v e n was r a t e d a s more i n t e r n a l  e x t e r n a l , global versus l o c a l ,  view  You were a s k e d  a p l a u s i b l e cause  the event, whether t h e cause  negative  p o s i t i v e e v e n t s r e p o r t e d by L S E  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 ;  rated  randomly  be v i e w e d We w o u l d  provided i n this  their  We a l s o a n t i c i p a t e  by L S E and HSE p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e e a r l i e r  as s i m i l a r  like  significant.  i n affecting  events  i n intensity  that  study  and v a l e n c e .  t o a s s u r e you t h a t a l l o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n you  study i s completely c o n f i d e n t i a l .  i n f o r m a t i o n i s c o n t a i n e d on a n y o f t h e m a t e r i a l s .  No  identifying  We a l s o w o u l d  like  141 t o e x t e n d an i n v i t a t i o n r e s u l t s of t h e completed summer, 1 9 8 7 ) . experiment  study  t o see t h e  ( w h i c h s h o u l d be a v a i l a b l e  i n the  F i n a l l y , we a s k t h a t y o u do n o t d i s c u s s t h i s  w i t h your  be p o t e n t i a l  t o y o u , i f you a r e i n t e r e s t e d ,  classmates u n t i l  participants i n this  t h e summer o f 1987 a s t h e y may  study.  P l e a s e r e a d and s i g n  your  name t o t h e f o l l o w i n g : " I have r e a d t h e above and u n d e r s t a n d  it.  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 . pledge not t o d i s c u s s the experiment, future  i n whole o r i n p a r t , w i t h  participants." (Participant's  Thank y o u o n c e a g a i n f o r y o u r  participation.  B a r r y Chew, Experimenter  Signature)  I  142 APPENDIX H The  Janis-Field Feelings  of Inadequacy  Scale  (Eagly,  1967).  P l e a s e i n d i c a t e how o f t e n you e x p e r i e n c e t h e t h o u g h t s and f e e l i n g s d e s c r i b e d i n each i t e m . Mark y o u r a n s w e r s on t h e IBM answer s h e e t p r o v i d e d ; do n o t make any marks on t h i s f o r m . Use t h e f o l l o w i n g s c a l e f o r your r e s p o n s e s :  almost never  seldom or rarely  fairly often  How o f t e n well?  2.  How c o n f i d e n t do you f e e l t h a t some day t h e p e o p l e l o o k up t o you and r e s p e c t you?  3.  How  4.  How much do you w o r r y people?  5.  How c o n f i d e n t a r e you t h a t career i s assured? (e.g.,  6.  When you t a l k i n f r o n t o f a c l a s s o r a g r o u p o f p e o p l e o f y o u r own a g e , how p l e a s e d a r e you w i t h y o u r p e r f o r m a n c e ? (e.g., very pleased)  7.  How  8.  Do you e v e r f e e l whether a n y t h i n g  9.  In general,  10.  When you have t o t a l k i n f r o n t o f a c l a s s o r a g r o u p o f p e o p l e y o u r own a g e , how a f r a i d o r w o r r 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  often  do you f e e l  that  12.  How  often  do you f e e l  inferior  13.  How o f t e n do you f e e l social gathering?  14.  Do you e v e r  15.  When you s p e a k feel?  often  the f e e l i n g that  very often  1.  often  do you have  sometimes  a r e you t r o u b l e d  do you f e e l  think  how w e l l  your very  that  that  you g e t a l o n g  s u c c e s s i n your confident)  you know  yourself  do you f e e l  you d i s l i k e  about  with  future  you a r e a s u c c e s s f u l  so d i s c o u r a g e d with i s worthwhile?  how c o n f i d e n t  everything  will  by s h y n e s s ?  about  that  you c a n do  job or  person?  that  your  you wonder  abilities?  yourself?  t o most o f t h e p e o p l e  you have h a n d l e d  you a r e a w o r t h l e s s  i n a class discussion,  other  yourself  you know? well  at a  individual?  how s u r e  of y o u r s e l f  do you  143 16.  How o f t e n do y o u h a v e t h e f e e l i n g do w e l l ?  that there  i s nothing  17.  How c o m f o r t a b l e a r e y o u when s t a r t i n g a c o n v e r s a t i o n whom you d o n ' t know? (e.g., very comfortable)  18.  How o f t e n do y o u w o r r y a b o u t w h e t h e r o t h e r you?  19.  How o f t e n do y o u f e e l  20.  How s u r e  with  people l i k e  self-conscious?  o f y o u r s e l f do y o u f e e l when among  you c a n  strangers?  people  t o be w i t h  

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:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0097255/manifest

Comment

Related Items