University of North Florida UNF Digital Commons

All Volumes (2001-2008) The sprO ey Journal of Ideas and Inquiry

2003 The ffecE ts of Self-Esteem on Attribution Making in Close versus Casual Relationships P Nathaniel O'Brien University of North Florida

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unf.edu/ojii_volumes Part of the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons

Suggested Citation O'Brien, P Nathaniel, "The Effects of Self-Esteem on Attribution Making in Close versus Casual Relationships" (2003). All Volumes (2001-2008). 101. http://digitalcommons.unf.edu/ojii_volumes/101

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the The sprO ey Journal of Ideas and Inquiry at UNF Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Volumes (2001-2008) by an authorized administrator of UNF Digital Commons. For more information, please contact Digital Projects. © 2003 All Rights Reserved The Effects of Self-Esteem on There has been a significant amount of . Attribution Making in Close research conducted on relationships, versus Casual Relationships emotions, and how emotions affect attributions for positive and negative outcomes. What has not been sufficiently P. Nathaniel O'Brien explored is whether or not self-esteem as well as the degree of closeness of a Faculty Sponsor: Dr. Christopher Leone, relationship also influences attributions Professor of Psychology made by the members of that relationship. The current study addresses the effects of Abstract self-esteem, degree of closeness of a relationship, and how these two variables This study explored the effect of self­ influence the attribution making process. esteem on attributions made in close and Attributions are perceptions or acquaintance relationships. It was inferences of a cause (Kelly & Michela, predicted that people are more likely to 1980). The main focus of attribution theory is attribute negative events to others and on the process by which the average person are also more likely to attribute positive forms an understanding of events (Harvey, events to themselves. This trend was Orbuch, & Weber, 1992). The attributions expected more in casual relationships that individuals make about an event often than in close relationships and also more influence how they act or behave. for people with high self-esteem than There are two different types of people with low self-esteem. Students attributions: causal attributions and answered questions about hypothetical responsibility attributions. People make scenarios involving either a best friend or causal attributions to explain why people casual acquaintance. The measurements act, think, and feel the way that they do used in the survey were the Relationship (Jones et aI., 1972; Shaver, 1985). In other Attribution Measure and the Rosenberg words, people use causal attributions to Self-Esteem Scale. The second and third assess the factor(s) that have produced a hypotheses received limited support. The particular behavior, feeling, or thought importance of looking at friendships is (Fincham, Beach, & Nelson, 1987 exemplified by the importance of Causal attributions can be made on relationships to human nature. three different dimensions: locus, globality, and stability. The perceived locus of a cause The Effects of Self-Esteem on Attribution refers to whether people think the cause of Making in Close versus Casual an event is dispositional or situational. When Relationships: People need People. individuals explain an outcome as dispositional, they explain this outcome in The need for relationships is a vital part terms of the attributes, abilities, and values of life. When relationships are going well, that a person possesses. For example, people people tend to report feelings of happiness who make dispositional attributions would and optimism. They are likely to have a explain their success or failure as the result positive outlook toward the relationship and of their intelligence and natural ability. whatever problems that may arise. When When individuals explain an outcome as relationships are doing poorly, people tend to situational, they explain an outcome in terms report feelings of sadness and loneliness. of the environment, societal norms, or They are likely to have a negative outlook individual roles. For example, people who toward the relationship and whatever make situational attributions would explain problems that may arise. their success or failure as the result of task

Osprey Journal of Ideas and Inquiry 123 difficulty, a powerful other, or uncontrollable People make responsibility attributions outside forces. to pass moral judgment on the actions of The perceived globality of a cause refers other individuals. Individuals who make to whether or not people think the cause of responsibility attributions are concerned not an event is going to be cross-situational or with the reason behind a particular outcome situationally-specific. When individuals (behavior, feeling, or thought) but with how explain an action or behavior as cross­ much someone can be held accountable for situational, they perceive the cause of this a particular outcome according to a set of behavior as likely to affect other behaviors standards (Fincham et aI., 1987; Shaver, and actions at different times. When 1985). For example, a man has been individuals explain an action or behavior as assigned the task of watching over anther's situationally specific, they perceive the cause car. If the man allowed the car to be stolen, of the behavior as only affecting certain then he would be blamed for the theft behaviors and actions at certain times. For because he did not meet the expected example, most distressed couples would standards of watching over a car. explain the cause of their spouses' inability Responsibility attributions can be made to make them happy as a lack of an ability on three different dimensions as well: intent, that will be constant across most situations blame, and motivation. The perceived intent (Bradbury & Fincham, 1990; Fincham, of an action refers to whether or not the 1985; Holtzworth-Monroe & Jacobson, persons' actions were purposeful or 1985). On the other hand, most non­ accidental. When individuals explain an distressed couples explain the cause of their action as something that was done spouses' inability to make them happy as a purposely, they perceive the person lack of effort that will change across most committing the action as intentionally situations (Bradbury & Fincham, 1990; producing the outcome (Shaver, 1985). Fincham, 1985; Holtzworth-Monroe & When individuals explain an action as Jacobson, 1985). something that was done accidentally, they The perceived stability of a cause refers perceived the people committing the action to whether or not people think the cause of as unintentionally producing the outcome an event is going to be unchanging or (Shaver, 1985). Bradbury and Fincham transient. When individuals explain an (1990) found that in distressed couples, action or behavior as unchanging, they spouses explain their partner's negative perceive the cause of a behavior as likely to behavior (such as forgetting an anniversary) stay constant over time. When individuals as something done with the intent of hurting explain an action or behavior as transient, them. In non-distressed couples, spouses they perceive the cause of a behavior as explain their partner's negative behavior likely to change over time. For example, (such as forgetting an anniversary) as distressed persons will explain a partner's something done accidentally without the uncaring attitude as something that will not intent of hurting them. change over time and a partner's caring The perceived blame-worthiness of an attitude as something that will change over action refers to whether or not the persons time (Bradbury & Fincham, 1990; Jacobson, behind the action should be held personally McDonald, Follette, & Berley, 1985). Non­ accountable or unaccountable. When distressed couples explain a partner's individuals hold others as being accountable uncaring attitude as something that will for an action, these individuals perceive the change over time and a partner's caring people involved as performing the action attitude as something that will not change voluntarily and in full knowledge of the over time (Bradbury & Fincham, 1990; consequences (Leary, Springer, Negel, Jacobson et aI., 1985). Ansell, & Evans, 1998; Shaver, 1985).

124 Osprey Journal of Ideas and Inquiry When the consequences of the action are be made for positive behavior (Kelley & favorable and the people involved are seen Michela, 1980). On the other hand, the as accountable, then those people are seen attribution making process for negative as praise-worthy. If the consequences of the behavior followed a different trend. action are unfavorable and the individuals Negative behavior often lowers self-regard involved are seen as accountable, then they and therefore people tend to make external are seen as blame-worthy. When individuals attributions for negative behavior to protect explain people as being unaccountable for themselves (Bradbury & Fincham, 1990; their actions, they perceive the people Holtzworth-Monroe & Jacobson, 1985). involved as performing the action To gain a true understanding of the involuntarily and without full knowledge of attribution theory, the applications of the consequences (Leary et aI., 1998; attributions should be explored as well Shaver, 1985). If people are seen as (Kelley & Michela, 1980). There are a unaccountable, then they are not seen as surprising number of applications for the praise-worthy. Leary et aI. (1998) found that attribution theory. One of the most persons betrayed in distressed relationships interesting of these applications is how to attributed their hurt feelings to their partners use of the attribution theory to better by labeling them blame-worthy. understand intimate relationships and the The perceived motivation behind an conflicts within them (Thompson & Snyder, action refers to whether or not the 1986). Humans are very social creatures individuals responsible for the action were who thrive on interpersonal relationships seen as acting selfishly or unselfishly living every moment of their lives as a part (Kelley & Michela, 1980). When individuals of some type of relationship (Hartup & explain people's actions as selfish, they Stevens, 1999). Humans rely on perceive those people as acting for their relationships for everything such as food, own benefit. When individuals explain shelter, aid, and comfort. people's actions as unselfish, they perceive There are two main types of those people as acting for the benefit of relationships: close relationships and casual people instead of for their own benefit. For relationships. There has been a great deal of example, distressed spouses perceive their disagreement over a definition of "close partner's act of giving a gift as something relationships" (Berscheid & Peplau 1983). done for selfish reasons such as trying to get A formal definition has yet to be agreed out of trouble. In non-distressed couples, upon. Persons interviewed on the subject spouses perceive their partner's act of giving have offered many different definitions them a gift as something done for unselfish which included words such as "love," reasons such as trying to show affection and "caring," "intimacy," and "commitment" love (Bradbury & Fincham, 1990; Jacobson (Berscheid & Peplau, 1983; Berscheid, et aI., 1985; Thompson & Snyder, 1986). Snyder, & Omoto, 1989; Walker, 1995). Kelley and Michela (1980) found that Theorists and researchers defined a close there are many different reasons for the relationship as a relationship that is of different attributions that people make. They "strong, frequent, and diverse found that people often make attributions in interdependence that lasts over a order to protect their own self-esteem. In considerable period of time" (Kelley, H.H., Kelley and Michela's (1980) review of Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, lH., research conducted on attributions, it was Hudson, T.L., Levinger, G., McClintock, E., found that positive behavior enhances self­ Peplau, L.A., Peterson, D.R., 1983, p.38). esteem only if the persons who engaged in In partial support of this view, Hays (1989) the behavior could claim credit for their discovered that people in close relationships actions. An internal attribution will therefore reported a greater number of interactions for

Osprey Journal of Ideas and Inquiry 125 a longer period of time with their partners the other member of the relationship than than did poople in casual relationships. He people in close relationships. Individuals also found that people reported that their involved in casual relationships tend to interactions with someone in a close think more about themselves than about the relationship provided much more emotional other person involved in the relationship. and informational support than did The differences found between close and interactions with someone in a casual casual relationships are even more relationship. People involved in close pronounced when conflict occurs. relationships were also found to be much According to Hays (1989), casual less selfish than were individuals in casual friendships lack the foundation that is relationships. present in close friendships and, therefore, Close relationships are perhaps the are more likely to break up when faced with most important and beneficial of the two conflict than are people in close friendships. types of relationships (Hays, 1987). People Although an accepted definition of involved in close friendships generally feel conflict has not been adopted, Kelley et aI. better about themselves and others than do (1983) defined conflict as "an interpersonal people who are not in close friendships process that occurs whenever the actions of (Berscheid, Snyder, & Omoto, 1989; Hartup one person interfere with the actions of & Stevenson, 1999; Hays, 1989; Paul & another" (p. 365). Conflicts are present in Kelleher, 1995). Individuals in close every kind of relationship (Kelly et a!., friendships reported a higher occurrence of 1983; Leary et aI., 1998; Shackelford & self-disclosure within their friendships than Buss, 1996). People in a close relationship did individuals in casual relationships or are more interdependent, they can be hurt acquaintance relationships (Hays, 1989). easier, and they also spend much more time People involved in close relationships together compared to people in a casual resolve conflicts more effectively, have relationship (Hays, 1989; Kelly et aI., 1993; more emotional support, and also report Leary et aI., 1998). Although there are more having a higher self-esteem than do people opportunities for conflict within close involved in casual relationships (Berscheid relationships than casual relationships, close et aI., 1989; Hartup & Stevenson, 1999; relationships are better able to withstand Hays, 1989). There are benefits inherent to conflict than are casual relationships (Kelley close relationships that do not occur in et aI., 1983; Leary et aI., 1998; Shackelford casual relationships. & Buss, 1996). When compared, these two Leary et aI. (1998) found that even relationships appear to be opposites. Using though people in close relationships usually Kelly's aforementioned definition of a close fare better during conflict than those in relationship as a guide, a casual relationship casual relationships, conflicts have the may be defined as a relationship that is potential to destroy any kind of relationship weak, infrequent, lacks interdependence, if not handled properly. Conflicts can also and will most likely last for only a short cause hurt feelings within close time (Kelley et aI., 1983). The interactions relationships (Leary et aI., 1998; for close relationships differ greatly from Shackelford & Buss, 1996). Conflicts, those of casual relationships (Berscheid et especially when one person in the close aI., 1989; Hartup & Stevenson, 1999; Hays, relationship is perceived as harming the 1989). People involved in casual other emotionally, directly affect the relationships spend less time together, share attributions made by the other person less on an intimate level, perceive involved in the relationship (Leary et aI., themselves as receiving less benefits from 1998; Shackelford & Buss, 1996). the relationship, and be less likely to trust

126 Osprey Journal of Ideas and Inquiry Conflicts cause hurt feelings that lower with high self-esteem do not expect to fail self-esteem which results in feelings of in their endeavors. People with high self­ distress (Leary et aI., 1998; Shackelford & esteem tend to feel less worried and anxious Buss, 1996). These feelings of distress then than those with low self-esteem cause people in dissatisfied relationships to (Baumeister, 1999). People with low self­ make distress-maintaining attributions esteem focus more on self-protection. (Bradbury & Fincham, 1990; Fincham, 1985; Instead of trying to gain self-esteem these Jacobson et aI., 1985; Thompson & Snyder, individuals focus on not losing what self­ 1986). But what exactly is the role of esteem they have. feelings in the attribution making process? Studying self-esteem is very important Research seems to point to self-esteem (Baumeister, 1999). Self-esteem affects as an antecedent of the attribution making many different actions and reactions that process (Blaine & Crocker, 1993; Chandler, occur a variety of situations. Conflicts in Lee, & Pengilly, 1997; Shultz, 1998). Self­ close relationships provide opportunities for esteem refers to people's evaluations of which the effects of self-esteem on themselves (Baumeister, 1999; Blaine & individuals' actions and reactions in Crocker, 1993). For example, people might different circumstances can be witnessed. see themselves as mediocre athletes, When confronted with a conflict, high intelligent students, and loyal spouses. High and low self-esteem people tend to cope self-esteem is characterized by a positive differently with the problem (Baumeister, self-image (Baumeister, 1999; Blaine & 1997; Rusbult, Morrow, & Johnson, 1987; Crocker, 1993; Tice & Baumeister, 1990). Shultz, 1998). Shultz (1998) found that This self-image may include a healthy self­ people with high self-esteem responded to confidence and recognition of achievements conflict with positive, optimistic emotions and abilities (Blaine & Crocker, 1993). whereas those with low self-esteem People with a high self-esteem may also responded to conflict with negative, hold inflated self-perceptions. They also destructive emotions. Compared to people might exercise behavior that is conceited, with low self-esteem, people with high self­ egotistical, arrogant, and narcissistic (Blaine esteem approached the problem with more & Crocker, 1993). As Baumeister (1999) confidence and worried less about the said, "The common thread is thinking well problem. Individuals with low self-esteem of oneself - regardless of whether it is felt more threatened, stressed, guilty, and hurt justified or not" (p. 350). than did people who had high self-esteem Theorists believed until recently that (Shultz, 1998). During the course of a low self-esteem was the opposite of high conflict, people with low self-esteem tended self-esteem (Baumeister, 1999). People to place the blame more readily on their with low self-esteem have a negative and partners than did those with high self-esteem. uncomplimentary self-image. Baumeister There also is a distinct difference in the (1999) discovered that low self-esteem is an reactions of high and low self-esteem absence of a positive self-image rather than people when faced with an unsolvable the presence of a negative self-image. conflict. Rusbult et aI. (1987) found that People who have low self-esteem do not when problems became too much to bear believe that they are bad or unworthy and relationships became too destructive, people. Instead, they lack the self­ those with high self-esteem would engage in conviction that they are good people "exiting behavior" (i.e., leaving the (Baumeister, 1999). relationship and looking for another). Baumeister (1999) found that ( Under these circumstances people with low individuals possessing high self-esteem self-esteem displayed passive and work toward self- enhancement. People "neglecting behavior" (i.e., staying in a bad

Osprey Journal of Ideas and Inquiry 127 situation and doing nothing). (Baumeister, 1999; Blaine & Crocker, 1993; It seems that the drive to protect or Tice & Baumeister, 1990). They attack sustain self-image can even shape the every situation with a feeling of confidence attributions that individuals make. People and do not concern themselves with the usually act in a way that will help them possibility of failure. They potentially see increase or maintain their own self-worth every new situation as an opportunity to do (Baumeister, 1999). The self-serving bias is well and to enhance the self (Blaine & one way in which people accomplish this Crocker, 1993). Upon succeeding, increase or maintenance of self-worth. individuals with high self-esteem assume Blaine and Crocker (1993) defined the self­ that their abilities were the reason for that serving bias as "the tendency of people to success (Baumeister, 1997; Blaine & interpret and explain outcomes in ways that Crocker, 1993; Tice & Baumeister, 1990). have favorable implications for the self' They then continue to work mainly on the (p.55). They also found that there was a abilities and talents at which they excel in powerful relationship between self-esteem order to ensure continued success and and the use of self-serving biases. enhancement of self (Blaine & Crocker, A part of self-serving biases are self­ 1993; Tice & Baumeister, 1990). serving attributions (Chandler et aI., 1997). Upon failing, people with high self­ Self-serving attributions refer to the esteem are surprised because their self­ tendency for individuals to make internal image does not include failure (Blaine & attributions for positive outcomes and Crocker, 1993). When failure does occur, external attributions for the negative individuals with high self-esteem tend to outcomes (Blaine & Crocker, 1993). When distort reality by using attributions to restore people make internal attributions, they their lost self-image and positive affect credit an outcome of a situation in the terms (Blaine & Crocker, 1993; Chandler et aI., of traits, abilities, or personal efforts. For 1997). For example, they will attribute example, if people win a race, they will negative outcomes to external causes by credit this victory to their constant training devaluing the importance of the task, and athletic prowess. On the other hand, deciding that the evaluator is not credible, when people make external attribution, they or focusing on negative information about credit an outcome of a situation in terms of other people to make themselves feel better other people, the environment, luck, etc. For (Blaine & Crocker, 1993; Tice & example, if people lose a race, then they Baumeister, 1990). will most likely credit their failure to the In comparison to individuals with high rocky terrain or the weather. Clearly, self­ self-esteem, individuals with low self­ serving biases in attribution making may be esteem are plagued with uncertainty (Blaine characterized as self-enhancing or self­ & Crocker, 1993; Tice & Baumeister, 1990). protecting biases. People with low self-esteem are not Most people would explain that their confident that they possess positive abilities were responsible for their successes attributes and are convinced that they and that extenuating circumstances were to possess only negative attributes. Even so, blame for their failures. This relationship, they still care about having positive qualities however, does not always hold true. Self­ and not having negative one's (Baumeister, serving attributions are stronger in people 1999; Blaine & Crocker, 1993). People with who possessed high instead of low self­ low self-esteem fear they have more esteem (Blaine & Crocker, 1993). negative qualities than positive ones. In People who have high self-esteem are order to reduce that fear, they tend to distort confident that they posses important positive positive feedback in a negative direction qualities and not important negative ones (Blaine & Crocker, 1993). Upon receiving

128 Osprey Journal of Ideas and Inquiry positive feedback, for example, people with attribute positive events to themselves while low self-esteem might devalue the situation attributing negative events to the other as being something unimportant and thereby person in the relationship than would people maintain their belief that they might have involved in close relationships. Last, it was more negative qualities than positive ones. hypothesized that in both casual and close They also prepare themselves for failure relationships, people with high self-esteem before the task or situation occurs. Tice and would be more likely than those who have Baumeister (1990), in their study on self­ low self-esteem to attribute positive events esteem and self-handicapping, found that to themselves and negative events to others people with low self-esteem were more in order to maintain self-esteem. likely than people with high self-esteem to self-handicap when it would provide an Method excuse for failure. Even though they might try and devalue Participants their success in order to maintain their self­ image, people with low self-esteem are One hundred and seventy-four actually pleased when they succeed in a undergraduate psychology students (83% given task (Blaine & Crocker, 1993). between the ages of 18-23) from the However, individuals who possess low self­ University of North Florida were asked to esteem may be cautious about making an complete a questionnaire to receive extra internal attribution the reason for their credit toward their class grade. The success (Baumeister, 1997; Blaine & participants were mostly single (90%), Crocker, 1993; Schutz, 1998). For them, Caucasian (73%), and had known their best failure feedback is more likely to be friend or casual acquaintance 5 years or attributed to internal factors than is success longer (best friend - 39%; casual feedback (Blaine & Crocker, 1993). acquaintance - 33%). There were 73 males Upon receiving negative feedback, low and 99 females. Prior to completion of this self-esteem persons are not surprised. questionnaire, the participants signed an Blaine & Crocker (1993) found that people informed consent. All participants were with low self-esteem actually suspected and treated in accordance with the "Ethical prepared for this outcome all along. Even principles of psychologists and code of though failure is not a desired outcome, it is conduct" (American Psychological consistent with the self-image of low self­ Association, 1992). esteem people. People with low self-esteem attribute success and failure equally among Overview of Design external and internal causes because they are unsure if they possess positive qualities The design of this experiment was a 2 (Blaine & Crocker, 1993). (self-esteem: low vs. high) x 2 (scenarios: In light of the aforementioned theory positive vs. negative events) x 2 and research, the following hypotheses were (relationship: best friend vs. casual made. It was hypothesized that people are acquaintance) factorial design. The more likely to attribute negative events to relationship variable (best friend vs. casual others while attributing positive events to acquaintance) and the self-esteem variable themselves. It was also hypothesized that (low vs. high) were between subject there would be a significant interaction variables. The scenario variable (positive vs. between degree of closeness in a negative) was a within subjects variable. relationship and attribution making. Those The 174 participants were randomly involved in casual or acquaintance assigned to answer questions about relationships would be more likely to hypothetical scenarios (positive and negative

Osprey Journal of Ideas and Inquiry 129 events) involving either a best friend or a could be either a current or past best friend. casual acqiIaintance. They were told that they must choose one and respond to all scenarios with that person Procedure in mind. For the casual acquaintance survey, these steps were repeated with the exception The participants were recruited from that the participants were to thing about one several undergraduate psychology classes. person of whom they considered a casual Participants were placed into groups of 8 or acquaintance. The participants were told less. The experimenter began by explaining that a casual acquaintance could be a co­ the importance of the study. He continued worker, neighbor, or classmate. The by telling the participants that the study was participants were further informed that the being conducted to better understand how person they considered to be their casual people perceive and explain their acquaintance was to be someone that they relationships. The experimenter informed liked rather than someone that they disliked. the participants that they would be completing a survey that consisted of Measures questions gauging their perceptions about themselves and a best friend or casual Two measurements were used within acquaintance. the questionnaires handed to the Following this introduction, an participants. These measurements were the informed consent sheet was handed to each Relationship Attribution Measure (Fincham participant. The experimenter reviewed the & Bradbury, 1992), and the Rosenberg Self­ contents of the form with the participants Esteem Scale (1965). The questionnaire emphasizing the importance of responding was completed with demographic items honestly. The experimenter also explained (e.g., sex, age, and length of best that their answers were confidential. friend/casual acquaintance). Participants were reminded that they were volunteering in this study that they could Attributions withdraw at any time. They were also informed that they might ask questions at The attribution questionnaire used in any time during the course of the study. The this study was a variation of the participants were told that they would Relationship Attribution Measure (Fincham receive extra credit toward their class grade & Bradbury, 1992). The questions and for their participation in this study. Upon scenarios of the Relationship Attribution completing a review of the informed Measure were changed to fit the present consent the participants were asked to sign, study dealing with best friends and casual date, and then to pass the informed consent acquaintances. In every location where the to the experimenter. word "spouse" was used in the Fincham and After collecting the informed consents Bradbury Relationship Attribution Measure the experimenter randomly assigned the (1992), "best friend" or "casual participants one of two surveys. These acquaintance" was substituted (e.g., "Your surveys were identical with exception that spouse criticized something you said." was the subject of the questionnaire was either changed to "Your best friend/casual the respondent's best friend or casual acquaintance criticized something you acquaintance. For the best friend survey, the said".). Six positive behaviors were added to participants would be instructed to think the questionnaire used in this study to about one friend in their life that they provide balance between negative and considered their very best friend. The positive events (i.e., to be positive that the participants were informed that this friend outcome is due to dissatisfaction in the

130 Osprey Journal of Ideas and Inquiry relationship). Two of the six positive response. The responses for these items beqaviors were suggested filler items found were reversed scored so higher scores would in the Relationship Attribution Measure. also reflect more relationship-enhancing The remaining four positive scenarios were attributions. created for this study (e.g., "Your best The responsibility attributions measured friend is being warm and personable"). A the intent (e.g., "My best friend criticized complete list of all scenarios can be found me on purpose rather than in Appendix A. unintentionally."), motivation (e.g., "My In this study, the participants were best friend's behavior was motivated be presented with a total of 12 hypothetical selfish rather than unselfish concerns."), and events (6 positive and 6 negative) that were blame (e.g., "My best friend deserves to be likely to occur involving either a close blamed for criticizing me.") that the friend or casual acquaintance. The respondent placed on their best friend for participants were randomly assigned to each event. The scores on this dimension either of these conditions by the also ranged from 3 to 15 for each positive experimenter. The participants were then scenario with higher scores reflecting more asked to imagine that the target individual relationship-enhancing attributions (i.e., (either a close friend or a casual attributions that are more intentional, acquaintance) performed each of the twelve unselfishly motivated, and praiseworthy). behaviors one at a time. For each possible The scores for each negative scenario event (e.g., "Your best friend compliments on the responsibility dimension also ranged you," or "Your best friend treats you more from 3 to 15. The total score for the considerably," "Your best friend criticizes response to the responsibility attribution something you say," or "Your best friend items for each scenario (both positive and begins to spend less time with you."), negative) was also calculated by adding the participants were asked to respond on a 5- three responses. The responses for these point Likert scale according to their level of times were reversed scored so higher scores agreement or disagreement. would also reflect more relationship­ The six attribution statements consisted enhancing attributions. Immediately of three causal attributions and three following the questionnaire concerning responsibility attributions. The causal attributions, the experimenter deployed the attributions were used to measure the locus Rosenberg (1965) Scale to measure the self­ of attributions (e.g., "My best friend's esteem of the participant. behavior was due to something about him."), the globality of attributions (e.g., Self-Esteem Scale "The reason my best friend criticized me is something that affects other areas of our The Rosenberg (1965) Scale consisted friendship."), and the stability of attributions of 10 items (e.g., "I feel that I have a (e.g., "The reason my best friend criticized number of good qualities." and "I feel I do me is not likely to change). The scores for not have much to be proud of.). These were each positive scenario ranged from 3 to 15 designed to increase the ease of with higher scores reflecting more administration, decrease the time needed for relationship-enhancing attributions (i.e., completion, and increase face validity attributions that are more internal, stable, (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1991). The and global). The scores for each negative questions required the participants to report scenario also ranged from 3 to 15. The total feelings about themselves. This self-esteem score for the responses on the causal measure used a four-point response scale attribution items for each positive scenario (strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly was calculated by adding the scores for each disagree). It had a scale range of 10-40 with

Osprey Journal of Ideas and Inquiry 131 higher scores representing higher self­ partners in close relationships (M = 66.08, esteem. II} a review of self-esteem measures SD = 7.45) than to their partners in casual by Blascovich and Tomaka (1991), the relationships (M = 61.06, SD = 6.47). Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale was found to Participants with high self-esteem did not have internal consistency (a Cronbach alpha differentiate between close (M = 63.33, SD of .88), and a good test-retest validity (a = 10.93) and casual (M = 63.32, SD = 7.38) correlation of .82 for 259 male and female relationships when making attributions for subjects with a I-week interval). The positive events. participants in the present study will be For negative events, there was no 2 divided into high and low self-esteem groups (self-esteem:. high vs. low) x 2 (nature of the with the use of a median split. relationship: close vs. casual) interaction, F (1,167) = 2.00, p< .16. Participants with Results low self-esteem did not differentiate between close (M = 50.98, SD = 6.18) and Causal attributions were analyzed using a casual (M = 50.45, SD = 7.38) relationships three-way ANOYA. The predictor variables when making causal attributions. Similarly, were self-esteem, nature of the relationship, participants with high self-esteem did not and nature of the outcome. Repeated differentiate between close (M = 51.19, SD measures were taken on the last factor. = 9.84) and casual (M = 47.38, SD = 6.34) For causal attributions, there was a relationships when making casual main effect of nature of the relationship, F attributions. (1,167) = 1O.95,p< .01. Participants were Responsibility attributions were more likely to make relationship-enhancing analyzed using a three-way ANOYA as well. attributions in close relationships (M = The predictor variables were self-esteem, 58.00, SD = 4.99) than were participants nature of the relationship, and nature of who were in casual relationships (M = outcome. Repeated measures were taken on 55.59, SD = 4.05). There was also a main the last factor. effect of type of outcome on causal For responsibility attributions, there attributions, F (1,167) = 189.28, p< .01. was also a main effect of nature of Participants were more likely to make relationship, F (1,167) = 4.07, p< .05. relationship-enhancing attributions for Participants in close relationships were positive outcomes (M = 63.47, SD = 8.20) more likely to make relationship-enhancing than for negative outcomes (M = 50.17, SD attributions (M = 57.29, SD = 4.60) than = 7.52). There was a three-way interaction were participants who were in casual between self-esteem, nature of the relationships (M = 55.97, SD = 5.60). This relationship, and nature of the outcome, F main effect was qualified by two two-way (l, 167) = 4.50, p < .05. To isolate the source interactions. the three-way interaction, simple interaction There was an interaction between self­ effects were computed. The three-way esteem and nature of the relationship, F (1, interaction was broken down into two two­ 167) = 4.12, p < .05. People with high self­ way interactions. One ANOYA was run for esteem were more likely to make the positive events and one ANOYA was run relationship enhancing attributions in close for the negative events. relationships (M = 57.85, SD = 4.18) than in For positive events, there was a 2 (self­ casual relationships (M = 54.66, SD = esteem: high vs. low) x 2 (nature of the 6.40). People with low self-esteem were relationship: close vs. casual) interaction, F equally likely to make relationship­ (1,167) = 4.01, p < .05. Participants with enhancing attributions in close relationships low self-esteem were more likely to (M = 56.88, SD = 4.88) as they were in attribute the cause of positive events to their casual relationships (M = 56.89, SD = 4.82).

132 Osprey Journal of Ideas and Inquiry There was also an interaction between SD = 9.02) than to their partners in casual nature of outcome and nature of the relationships (M = 50.8, SD = 10.08). relationship, F (1, 167) = 12. 19, P < .01. For close relationships people were equally likely Discussion to make relationship-enhancing attributions for positive outcomes (M = 56.25, SD = 6.28) Recall the three hypotheses made and negative outcomes (M = 58.09, SD = earlier. First, it was hypothesized that 8.85). For casual relationships people were people would attribute negative events to more likely to make relationship-enhancing others and attributes positive events to attributions for positive outcomes (M = 57.78, themselves. Second, it was hypothesized SD = 6.40) than for negative outcomes (M = people involved in casual or acquaintance 54.15, SD = 9.28). relationships would be more likely than These two-way interactions were people involved in close relationships to qualified by a three-way interaction between attribute positive events to themselves while self-esteem, nature of the relationship, and attributing negative events to the other nature of outcome, F (1,167) = 10.60, P < person in the relationship. Last, it was .05. To isolate the source of the three-way hypothesized that in both casual and close interaction, simple interaction effects were relationships, people with high self-esteem computed. The three-way interaction was would be more likely than those who have broken down into two two-way interactions. low self-esteem to attribute positive events One ANOYA was run for the positive to themselves and negative events to others events and one ANOYA was run for the in order to maintain self-esteem. negative events. The first hypothesis was not supported. For positive events, there was no 2 For causal attributions, participants were (self-esteem: high vs. low) x 2 (nature of the more likely to attribute positive outcomes to relationship: close vs. casual) interaction, F their partners and negative outcomes to (1,167) = 1.78, P <. 18. Participants with themselves. Perhaps people give credit to low self-esteem did not differentiate their partners for positive outcomes and take between close (M = 57.06, SD = 6.13) and responsibility for negative outcomes to casual (M = 57.28, SD = 5.57) relationships maintain relationships (e.g., Berscheid, when making attributions for positive Graziano, Monson, & Dermer, 1976). By events. Similarly, participants with high doing so, people share both success and self-esteem did not differentiate between failure thereby splitting responsibility, close (M = 55.67, SD = 6.49) and casual (M maintaining equality, and promoting = 58.51, SD = 7.45) relationships when happiness within the relationship. For making responsibility attributions. responsibility attributions, participants did For negative events, there was a 2 (self­ not differentiate between positive or esteem: high vs. low) x 2 (nature of the negative outcomes. They were as likely to relationship: close vs. casual) interaction, F take responsibility for a negative outcome as (1,167) = 10.87, p< .01. Participants with they were to take responsibility for a low self-esteem did not differentiate positive outcome. Similarly, participants between close (M = 56.7, SD = 8.54) and were as likely to give responsibility to their casual (M = 56.5, SD = 7.98) relationships partner for a negative outcome, as they were when making responsibility attributions. to give responsibility to their partner for a Participants with high self-esteem were positive outcome. more likely to make relationship enhancing The second hypothesis was partially attributions for negative events to their supported but only with respect to (a) partners in close relationships (M = 60.02, responsibility attributions, (b) negative

Osprey Journal of Ideas and Inquiry 133 outcomes, and (c) casual relationships. In the nature of the survey used to collect the data. casual relationships, participants were more When the sample of an experiment likely to make distress-maintaining consists of college-age students, there is a attributions for negative outcomes than for chance that the sample in not representative positive outcomes. This particular trend of the general population (Sears, 1986). supported previous studies (Hays, 1989; There are major differences between a Kelley, & Michela, 1980; Thompson & college-age sample and the general Snyder, 1986). For close relationships, population including differences in age, people were equally likely to make intelligence, socio-economic status, sense of relationship-enhancing attributions for self, and level of cognitive ability (Sears, positive and negative outcomes. Perhaps 1986). These differences between a college­ people in close relationships overlook age sample and the general population could negative outcomes because there is more threaten the internal validity of the results. invested in the relationship and therefore However, recall that this experiment these members of close relationships have dealt with the subject of friendships. more to lose if the relationship should break Friendships occur across every stage of apart (Hays, 1989). development (Hartup & Stevens, 1999). The third hypothesis was also partially Therefore, there is little if any evidence that supported. For causal attributions, there was college-age students have fewer or different an interaction between self-esteem, nature types of friendships than the general of the relationship, and nature of the popUlation. The nature of the sample is, outcome as predicted. However, the means therefore, not a plausible alternative were not in the direction predicted. explanation as to why the results did not Participants with high self-esteem did not totally support the hypotheses. differentiate between close and casual Another possible reason for the relationships when making attributions for inconsistencies between the hypotheses and either positive or negative outcomes. the data collected is the nature of the Participants with low self-esteem only attribution scale. The attribution scale used differentiated between close and casual in this experiment was originally designed relationships when making attributions but to measure attribution making in married for positive outcomes. For responsibility couples (Fincham & Bradbury, 1992). attributions, there was also an interaction Instead of imagining a spouse as specified between self-esteem, nature of the in the original scale created by Fincham and relationship, and nature of the outcome as Bradbury (1992), participants in the present predicted. However, not all of the means study were asked to imagine their best were in the direction predicted. Participants friend or casual acquaintance. There are a with high self-esteem only differentiated number of differences between friendships between close and casual relationships when and marriages (Snyder & Simpson, 1984). making attributions for negative outcomes. The main differences include level of Participants with high self-esteem were commitment, legal status, level of self­ more likely to attribute responsibility for disclosure, level of intimacy, and emotional these negative outcomes to casual attachment (Snyder & Simpson, 1984). For acquaintances than to their best friends. example, people in marriages have a higher There are many potential reasons why the level of commitment than do people in results did not generally support the friendships. People in marriages would hypotheses. Among these potential reasons, show more relationship maintaining three specific areas were focused on. These behavior than would people in friendships. areas included the nature of the sample, the There were ways that the nature of the nature of the attribution scale that was used, and survey used to collect the data might

134 Osprey Journal of Ideas and Inquiry provide another plausible alternative need for relationships in everyday life is so explanation for the results collected. vital to human existence that people will Participants might answer questions to change their behavior to keep relationships present themselves in a socially desirable intact. People are not loners by nature. In manner. In other words, they want to appear all, people need people. fair and reasonable. People might report giving more credit for success and less References responsibility for failure to their partner for this hypothetical situation than they Baumeister, R.F. (1997). Esteem threat, normally would. However, the participants self-regulatory breakdown, and emotional were assured that their answers were totally distress as factors in self-defeating behavior. confidential. This assurance should have Review of General Psychology 1(2), 145-174. alleviated any doubts held by the participants that their answers would be Baumeister, R.F. (1999). Self-concept, connected with them. In tum, the self-esteem, and identity. In v.J. Derlega, A. participants should not be concerned with Winstead, & W.H. Jones (Eds.), Personality: coming across as unfair or unreasonable to Contemporary Theory and Research (2 nd the experimenter. ed.), pp. (339-375). Chicago, Ill.: Nelson­ Alternatively, the self-report survey used Hall Publishers. contained only hypothetical situations. It is possible that this experiment lacked Blascovich, J. & Tomaka, 1. (1991). experimental realism. The answers given by Measures of self-esteem. In Measures of the participants might have been different if Personality and Social Psychological faced with real-life consequences. A Attitudes, pp. (115-127). New York: hypothetical situation would not carry the Academic Press Inc. same threat to self-esteem as a real-life situation would. For example, participants Berscheid, E., Graziano, W., Manson, might not have been so quick to take T., & Dermer, M. (1976). Outcome responsibility for negative events and pass on dependency: attention, attribution, and responsibility for positive events if faced with attraction. Journal of Personality and Social consequences are possible threats to actual Psychology 34(5), 978-989. self-esteem. Therefore controlled real-life situations, such as an engineered disagreement Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., & Omoto, between two real friends, should be used A.M. (1989). Issues in studying close instead of the self-report method. relationships. Review of Personality and In sum, in addition to how well the Social Psychology 10, 63-91. relationship is functioning, self-esteem and degree of closeness of a relationship ought Berscheid, E. & Peplau, L.A. (1983). to influence attributions made by the Emerging science of relationships. In J. members of a relationship. Overall, the Wilson (Ed.), Close Relationships. pp. (20- more involved people are in a relationship, 65). New York: W.H. Freemen and the more likely they should be to try and Company. maintain that relationship. Even though self­ Blaine, B. & Crocker, J. (1993). esteem does play an intricate role in the Self-esteem and self-serving biases in attribution-making process, the individual reactions to positive and negative events. In effects of self-esteem may decrease as the R.F. Baumeister (Ed.), Self-Esteem: The degree of closeness in a relationship Puzzle of Low Self-Esteem. New York: increases. Relationships have been shown to Plenum Press. directly influence people's happiness. The

Osprey Journal of Ideas and Inquiry 135 Bradbury, T.N. & Fincham, F.D. (1990). study of close relationships. In J.H. Harvey, Attributioilll in marriage: Review and Critique. T.L. Orbuch, & A.L. Weber (Eds.), Psychological Bulletin 107 (1), 3-33. Attributions, Accounts, and Close Relationships. New York: Springer-Verlag. Bradbury, T.N. & Fincham, F.D. (1992). Attributions and behavior in marital Hays, R.B. (1989). The day-to-day interaction. Journal of Personality and functioning of close versus casual Social Psychology 63 (4), 613-628. friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Psychology 6, 21-37. Chandler, T.A., Lee, M.S., & Pengilly, lW (1997). Self-esteem and causal Holtzworth-Monroe, A. & Jacobson, attributions. Genetic, Social, General N.S. (1985). Causal attributions of married Monographs 123(4), 479-491. couples: When do they search for causes? What do they conclude when they do? Fincham, F.D. (1985). Attribution Journal of Personality and Social process in distressed and nondistressed Psychology 18 (1398-1412. couples: 2. Responsibility for marital problems. Journal of Abnormal Psychology Jacobson, N.S., McDonald, D.W., 94 (2), 183-190. Follette, We., & Berley, R.A. (1985). Attribution processes in distressed and Fincham, F.D., Beach, S., & Nelson, G. nondistressed married couples. Cognitive (1987). Attribution process in distressed and Therapy and Research 9 (1), 35-50. nondistressed couples: 3. Causal and responsibility attributions for spouse Janis, I.L. & Field, P.B. (1959). Sex behavior. Cognitive Therapy and Research differences and factors related to 11 (1),71-86. persuasability. In e.1. Hovland & I. L. Janis (Eds.), Personality and Persuasability. New Fincham, F.D. & Bradbury, T.N. Haven, CT: Yale University Press. (1992). Assessing attributions in marriage: The relationship attribution measure. Jones, E.E., Kanouse, D.E., Kelley, Journal of Personality and Social H.H., Nisbett, R., Valins, S., & Weiner, B. Psychology 62 (3), 457-468. (1972). Causal schemata and the attribution process. In Attributions: Perceiving the Fleming, J.S. & Watts, WA. (1980). Causes of Behavior. pp. (151-176). The Dimensionality of self-esteem: Some Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press. Results for a College Sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39 (5), Kelley, H.H. & Michela, J.L. (1980). 921-929. Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology 31, 457-501. Hartup, WW & Stevens, N. (1999). Friendships and adaptation across the life Kelley, H.H., Berscheid, E., span. Current Directions in Psychological Christensen, A., Harvey, J.H., Hudson, T.L., Science 8 (3), 76-79. Levinger, G., McClintock, E., Peplau, L.A., Peterson, D.R. (1983). Analyzing close Harvey, J.H., Orbuch, T., & Weber, A.L. relationships. In J. Wilson (Ed.), Close (1992). Introduction convergence of the Relationships. pp. (20-65). New York: WH. attributions and accounts concepts in the Freemen and Company.

136 Osprey Journal of Ideas and Inquiry Leary, M.R., Negel, L., Ansell, E., esteem in first-person accounts. European Evans, K, & Springer, C. (1998). The Journal of Personality 12, 169-186. causes, phenomenology, and consequences of hurt feelings. Journal of Personality and Shackelford, T.K & Buss, D.M. (1996). Social Psychology 74(5), 1225-1237. Betrayal in mateships, friendships, and coalitions. Personal and Social Paul, E.L. & Kelleher, M. (1995). Psychological Bulletin 22(11), 1151-1164. Precollege concerns about losing and making friends in college. Journal of College Student Shaver, KG. (1985). The Attribution of Development 36 (6),513-522. Blame: Causality, Responsibility, and Blameworthiness. New York: Springer­ Rusbult, C.E., Morrow, G.D., & Verlag. Johnson, D.J. (1987). Self-esteem and problem-solving behavior in close Snyder, M. & Simpson, J.A. (1984). relationships. British Journal of Social Self-monitoring and dating relationships. Psychology 26, 293-301. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 47(6),1281-1291. Sears, D.O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of Tice, D.T. & Baumeister, R.F. (1990). a narrow data base on social psychology's Self-esteem, self-handicapping, and self­ view of human nature. Journal of presentation: The strategy of inadequate Personality and Social Psychology 51(3), practice. Journal of Personality 58(2), 443-463. 515-530. Thompson, J.S. & Snyder, D.K. (1986). Schutz, A. (1998). Coping with threats Attribution theory in intimate relationships: to self-esteem: the differing patterns of A methodological review. The American subjects with high versus low trait self- Journal of Family Therapy 14 (2), 123-137.

Osprey Journal of Ideas and Inquiry 137