Predictors of Relationship Self-Efficacy in Undergraduates Mollimichelle Cabeldue and Stefanie S

Home , Confidence

Predictors of Relationship Self-Efficacy in Undergraduates Mollimichelle Cabeldue and Stefanie S. Boswell* University of the Incarnate Word

ABSTRACT. Relationship self-efficacy (RSE) is confidence in one’s ability to support successful relationships. The present study investigated RSE’s relationship with attachment style (secure, anxious, and avoidant), jealousy, self-esteem, and gender. College undergraduates (N = 126) completed the Relationship Self-Efficacy Scale, Adult Attachment Scale, Self-Report Jealousy Scale, Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, and a demographic questionnaire. RSE was significantly correlated with self-esteem r( = .35), avoidant attachment style (r = -.23), and anxious attachment style (r = -.20). Stepwise multiple regression analysis revealed that self-esteem and jealousy were the only significant predictors of RSE R( 2 = .16, adjusted R2 = .14). Although jealousy and RSE did not have a significant bivariate relationship, a positive relationship emerged after controlling for the other variables. It is possible that jealous attitudes may spur individuals to be more attentive toward their relationship partner; increased focus on the relationship may be associated with increased RSE. The reverse direction of effect, in which RSE contributes to jealousy and self-esteem, remains an alternative plausible explanation of this association.

nitiation and maintenance of satisfying romantic Relationship Self-Efficacy relationships is an important developmental RSE is a form of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy refers to Itask of early adulthood (Conger, Cui, Bryant, individuals’ beliefs in their ability to achieve goals & Elder, 2001; Lopez, Morua, & Rice, 2007; (Bandura, 1977). Self-efficacy beliefs can influence Seiffge-Krenke, 2003). Moreover, involvement which activities a person pursues, which coping in romantic relationships has positive effects strategies a person uses while participating in the for psychological and physical health (Braithwaite, activity, and persistence in the activity when faced Delevi, & Fincham, 2010; Cui, Finchman, & Pasley, with obstacles (Bandura, 1977). The greater an 2008; Markey, Markey, & Gray, 2007). Although individual’s self-efficacy for a domain, the greater several variables are relevant to one’s ability the effort invested into activities within the domain. to develop and maintain interpersonal relationships, Additionally, self-efficacy is not fixed; it can vary a critical factor is confidence in one’s ability from domain to domain. For example, an individual to nurture them, or relationship self-efficacy may have high academic self-efficacy, but have low (RSE; Lopez et al., 2007). However, relatively athletic self-efficacy (Bandura, 1982). little empirical attention has focused on RSE Self-efficacy is also dynamic and may change in WINTER 2012 (Riggio et al., 2011). The current study explored RSE and its association with other important relationship 1Lopez et al. (2007) utilizes gender, rather than biological PSI CHI sex. To maintain consistency with previous research, we also JOURNAL OF factors, including attachment style, jealousy, utilized the construct gender. Additionally, RSE is a socially PSYCHOLOGICAL self-esteem, and gender1. defined behavior (Eryilmaz & Atak, 2011). RESEARCH

154 COPYRIGHT 2012 BY PSI CHI, THE INTERNATIONAL HONOR SOCIETY IN PSYCHOLOGY (VOL. 17, NO. 4/ISSN 2164-8204) *Faculty mentor Cabeldue and Boswell | Predictors of Relationship Self-Efficacy response to an individual’s experiences (Bandura, adult romantic relationships and found that adult 1977). Following a perceived success, individuals attachment relationships closely resemble the engage in self-attributions for the positive outcome, attachment styles observed in children. Adults who thus enhancing expectations for future success. have a romantic partner that they feel is available For example, individuals may report increased and supportive tend to feel secure and free to self-efficacy for relationships following successful “explore their environment confidently” (Fraley negotiation of a conflict with a romantic partner. & Shaver, 1998, p.1200). However, adults who feel These enhanced expectations for future success threatened or doubt about their partner’s support increase the probability that the individual will experience anxiety. Anxious adults worry that pursue more challenging future goals related to their partner does not love them as much as they the domain (Bandura, 1977). love their partner and thus fear abandonment. Lopez et al. (2007) conceptualized RSE as Much like infants, they try to regain this support three related components: mutuality, emotional by obtaining the attention of their partner. Avoid- control, and differentiation beliefs. Mutuality ant adults report uneasiness toward intimacy with refers to confidence in one’s ability to provide their partner and an unwillingness to rely on their or receive support from a relationship partner partner for support (Fraley & Shaver, 1998; Hazan during times of need. Emotional control refers & Shaver, 1987). to confidence in one’s ability to monitor and Although there are no published studies on manage unfavorable feelings such as annoyance attachment style and RSE, several studies suggest or anger toward a relationship partner. Finally, a robust relationship between attachment and differentiation encompasses confidence in one’s relationship outcomes. For example, Collins ability to preserve interpersonal boundaries with and Read (1990) investigated the association one’s partner (e.g., ask for time alone or to spend between attachment style and quality of romantic time with one’s friends). relationships. They found that among women, Existing research suggests that RSE exerts an those who had greater attachment anxiety also important influence on relationships. High RSE reported more negative relationship experiences has been associated with increased marital satisfac- and less satisfaction with their partners. Men who tion (Baker & McNulty, 2010; Fincham, Harold, & reported more secure attachment had partners Gano-Phillips, 2000), relationship satisfaction (Cui that reported more positive experiences in their et al., 2008), and proactive responses to relation- relationships. Furthermore, Collins, Cooper, ship conflicts (Baker & McNulty, 2010; Cui et al., Albino, and Allard (2002) found that adolescent 2008). With regard to gender, the extant literature attachment style predicted the type and quality of has yielded inconsistent results. Lopez et al. (2007) adulthood relationships. Collins et al. (2002) found found no gender differences in overall RSE; that secure adolescents reported more shared however, Riggio et al. (2011) found that overall RSE disclosure and favorable relationship outcomes is higher in women. Limited empirical attention than avoidant or anxious adolescents. In a longi- has focused on the factors that may contribute to tudinal study, Simpson (1990) found that securely the development or maintenance of RSE (Riggio attached individuals were more likely to be in et al., 2011). secure relationships, whereas those with avoidant or anxious attachment styles were more likely in Attachment Style relationships with less trust or intimacy. Attachment style refers to the bond that forms For the current study it was hypothesized that between child and parent (or caretaker)in attachment style would be associated with RSE. childhood (Collins & Read, 1990). Childhood Specifically, secure attachment style would be posi- attachment style may be described using the tively correlated with RSE and anxious and avoidant dimensions of secure, anxious, and avoidant. Both attachment style would be negatively correlated anxious and avoidant are classified as insecure with RSE. Securely attached individuals feel assured attachments (Ainsworth & Wall, 1979). and stable in their relationships and experience Although attachment style is established in relationship success (Collins et al., 2002; Collins & early childhood, it generally extends across the Read, 1990; Simpson, 1990). Given that self-efficacy WINTER 2012 lifespan and remains stable (Fraley & Shaver, is strengthened by feelings of success (Bandura, PSI CHI 1998; Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Hazan and Shaver 1977), secure individuals’ relationship successes JOURNAL OF (1987) extended attachment theory to characterize may facilitate the development of greater RSE. PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH

Insecurely attached individuals, however, report less satisfaction, greater doubts about their romantic satisfaction within their relationships (Collins et al., relationships, and greater concerns about rejec- 2002; Collins & Read, 1990; Simpson, 1990). These tion by their partners (Cramer, 2009; Zeigler-Hill, negative experiences or perceptions of relationship Fulton, & McLemore, 2011). failures may decrease RSE. Self-esteem and general self-efficacy are closely related. According to Bandura (1997), individuals Jealousy with high self-esteem possess and pursue more Romantic jealousy includes cognitive, affective, challenging goals and therefore tend to have and behavioral components that arise from higher self-efficacy. Furthermore, individuals with perceived threats to one’s romantic relationship high self-efficacy are likely to evaluate themselves (White, 1981). Jealousy is triggered by the threat and their accomplishments more positively; these of separation from one’s partner, especially when it positive self-evaluations in turn reinforce percep- is feared that the partner will be lost to a romantic tions of worth and confidence (Bandura, 1997). rival (Mathes, Adams, & Davies, 1985). Jealousy Luszczynska, Gutierrez-Dona, and Schwarzer produces an intimidating and often hostile situa- (2005) found a direct relationship between general tion that may activate the system of attachment. It self-efficacy and self-esteem. can also pose a threat to an individual’s self-esteem For the current study it was hypothesized (Guerrero, 1998). that self-esteem would be positively correlated Prior research shows a relationship between with RSE. Individuals with high self-esteem will most jealousy and attachment style (Collins & Read, likely report high RSE because they are more likely 1990; Guerrero, 1998). For example, people with to pursue romantic relationships and experience anxiety about their relationships (e.g., feelings of relationship successes compared to their counter- abandonment) are more likely to distrust their parts with low self-esteem. As RSE is a specific type partners, experience more jealousy, and display of general self-efficacy, it was expected that poor confidence in themselves as well as their participants that have high self-esteem would report relationships (Collins & Read, 1990). Similarly, high RSE. Guerrero (1998) found that individuals with insecure attachment styles were more likely to Gender experience jealousy within their relationships. In The relationship between gender and RSE is addition, jealousy was positively correlated with lack equivocal. Lopez et al. (2007) studied RSE and its of confidence in relationships. association with several factors, including gender. In the current study it was hypothesized that In their investigation, there were no gender dif- jealousy would be negatively correlated with RSE. ferences in overall RSE. Women scored higher In the face of a perceived relationship threat, on mutuality beliefs, while men scored higher on jealous individuals believe that their relationship emotional control beliefs. This pattern suggests is at risk (Sharpsteen & Kirkpatrick, 1997). The that gender is correlated with specific components belief that one’s relationship is threatened is of RSE, rather than overall RSE (Lopez et al., inconsistent with confidence in one’s ability to 2007). However, Riggio et al. (2011) found that support and maintain a romantic relationship. women reported overall greater RSE than men in The thought pattern that one may not be able their study. to support and maintain the relationship may be Although the evidence on gender differences related to lower RSE. in RSE is limited and inconsistent, there is clear evidence of gender differences in tasks related to RSE Self-Esteem outside of the context of romantic relationships. Self-esteem is a feeling that individuals have toward For example, MacGeorge, Clark, and Gillihan themselves that can relate to their worth or value (2002) found that women reported stronger self- (Rosenberg, 1989). Self-esteem is associated with efficacy beliefs for their ability to provide emotional various dimensions of interpersonal and romantic support to a friend in need. Additionally, Clark relationships (Cramer, 2009). Those with high self- (1993) found that women anticipated higher rates WINTER 2012 esteem are more likely to have better relationships of effectiveness before they provided emotional and higher relationship satisfaction (Sciangula support to a friend and reported higher rates of PSI CHI JOURNAL OF & Morry, 2009). However, individuals with lower success following the interaction. Participating PSYCHOLOGICAL self-esteem tend to report lower relationship women also indicated that they believed they were RESEARCH

156 COPYRIGHT 2012 BY PSI CHI, THE INTERNATIONAL HONOR SOCIETY IN PSYCHOLOGY (VOL. 17, NO. 4/ISSN 2164-8204) Cabeldue and Boswell | Predictors of Relationship Self-Efficacy more successful at this task than a man would have 1% of participants (n = 1) chose not to respond been. to the question about ethnicity. With regard to For the current study it was hypothesized that relationship status, 46.8% (n = 59) were in a com- women would have higher RSE. Women report mitted relationship, 46% (n = 58) were single, and stronger self-efficacy beliefs in their ability to pro- 7.1% (n = 9) were married. Finally, the sample vide emotional support (Clark, 1993; MacGeorge was comprised of 49.2% (n = 62) freshmen, 7.9% et al., 2002). Furthermore, increased experience (n = 10) sophomores, 14.3% (n = 18) juniors, and with a task, such as one related to relationship 28.6% (n = 36) seniors. maintenance, led to familiarity and higher rates Participants were recruited in social of success. As women experience emotional science and general education courses during the support provision at a higher rate than men, they summer and fall 2011 semesters. These courses may experience greater self-efficacy within this were chosen because they fulfill general core or particular domain (MacGeorge et al., 2002). Each graduation requirements across several majors; of the above mentioned variables contributes to therefore, students from diverse academic majors RSE and suggests that women may demonstrate were included in the sample. Potential participants higher RSE than men. received a verbal and written description of the study; this description was general and did not The Current Study provide information about specific study hypoth- Although research addresses other factors of eses. Participants completed all measures during interpersonal relationships, little empirical atten- class time and were not offered monetary incentive tion has focused on RSE itself (Riggio et al., 2011). or course credit for participation. Measures were The purpose of the current study was to further completed anonymously. The Institutional Review explore RSE and its correlates in undergraduate Board reviewed and approved this study (protocol students. We hypothesized that secure attachment #11-03-012). style and self-esteem would be positively correlated with RSE. Additionally, we hypothesized that anx- Materials ious and avoidant attachment styles and jealousy Demographic questionnaire. Participants provided would be negatively correlated with RSE. We also their age, gender, ethnicity, year in school, and hypothesized that women would report greater relationship status. RSE than men and that RSE would be significantly Attachment style. Participants completed the predicted by attachment styles (secure, anxious, and Adult Attachment Scale (AAS; Collins & Read, avoidant), jealousy, self-esteem, and gender. 1990). The AAS was chosen for this study because it was designed to measure three specific styles: Method secure, anxious, and avoidant. The AAS does not Participants and Procedure classify an individual as having a particular type Power analysis was conducted using G*Power of attachment; rather, it provides a profile for 3 (Erdfelder, Faul, & Buchner, 1996; Faul, Erd- each individual by yielding a score for each of the felder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007). A power of .90 three attachment dimensions. The AAS contains and an alpha level of .05 were used to calculate the 18 items that are scored on a 5-point Likert-type minimum number of participants needed to detect scale ranging from 1 (not at all characteristic) to 5 a small effect size. The analysis indicated that data (very characteristic). Examples of questions from this from a minimum of 88 participants would be nec- scale are, “I am comfortable having others depend essary. Participants were 126 (31.7%, n = 40, men; on me,” and “I often worry my partner will not want 68.3%, n = 86, women) undergraduates recruited to stay with me” (Collins & Read, 1990, p. 647). from a medium-sized university in the southwestern Overall, the measure has sound psychometric United States. Five individuals declined the invita- properties. Sperling, Foelsch, and Grace (1996) tion to participate in the study. Participants’ age demonstrated validity between the AAS and other ranged from 17 to 39 (M = 20.89, SD = 4.25). The measures of the adult attachment. Moreover, AAS sample was ethnically diverse; 49.2% of participants scores have been found to remain stable over time identified as Hispanic n( = 62) and 31% identified (Collins & Read, 1990). Cronbach’s alphas for the WINTER 2012 as White (n = 39). The remaining participants three subscales were .75, .72, and .69 in Collins PSI CHI identified as Asian (7.1%; n = 9), Black (6.3%; and Read’s (1990) validation study. The internal JOURNAL OF n = 8), and multiethnic (5.6%; n = 7). Less than reliability coefficients for the secure, avoidant, and PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH

anxious subscales in the present study were .64, .71, predictors of relationship outcomes such as and .64, respectively. relationship satisfaction (Lopez et al., 2007). The Jealousy. Jealousy was measured with the Self- overall reliability coefficient for the RSES in the Report Jealousy Scale (SRJS; Bringle, Roach, Andle, present study was .90. & Evenbeck, 1979). The SRJS contains 25 items that are scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging Results from 0 (pleased) to 4 (extremely upset). The scale was Bivariate correlations between RSE and attach- designed to measure jealousy with an emphasis ment style, jealousy, and self-esteem are displayed on romantic jealousy. Examples of the questions in Table 1. As predicted, self-esteem, avoidant from this scale are, “At a party, your partner kisses attachment style, and anxious attachment style someone you do not know,” and “At a party your were significantly correlated with RSE. Self-esteem’s partner dances with someone you do not know,” relationship with RSE had a moderate effect size; (Bringle, 1991, p. 122). This measure has sound anxious and avoidant attachment styles’ relation- psychometric properties; it has demonstrated an ships with RSE had small-to-moderate effect sizes internal consistency alpha of .88 and a test-rest cor- (Cohen, 1988). These results supported the study’s relation coefficient of .77 (Bringle, 1991; Bringle hypotheses. However, jealousy and secure attach- et al., 1979). The overall reliability coefficient for ment style were not significantly correlated with the SRJS in the present study was .86. RSE. These results did not support the study’s Self-Esteem. Participants completed the Rosen- hypotheses that these variables would be signifi- berg Self-Esteem Scale, (SES; Rosenberg, 1979). cantly related to RSE. A one-way ANOVA, F(1, 124) The SES is the most widely utilized measure of this = .85, p = .36, was conducted to investigate gender construct and contains 10 items that are scored differences in RSE. Contrary to the study’s hypoth- using a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from esis, RSE did not significantly differ between men 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) (Rosenberg, (M = 179.38) and women (M = 183.31). 1979). The scale is designed to measure individual A z-transformation was performed to standard- self-esteem with items such as: “I feel that I have a ize all variables prior to the analysis. Assumptions of number of good qualities,” and “I certainly feel use- linearity, normality, and homogeneity of variance less at times” (Rosenberg, 1979, p. 291). Rosenberg were tested and met for all variables prior to the and several colleagues have validated the measure regression analysis. Stepwise multiple regression (e.g., Rosenberg, 1979). The overall reliability analysis investigated the significance of attachment coefficient for the SES in the present study was .90. style (secure, avoidant, anxious), jealousy, self- Relationship self-efficacy. Participants com- esteem, and gender as predictors of RSE (see Table pleted the Relationship Self-Efficacy Scale, (RSES; 2). The analysis yielded a significant model for RSE Lopez et al., 2007). The RSES contains 35 items after two steps, R2 = .16, adjusted R2 = .14, F(2, 116) that are scored on a 9-point Likert-type scale rang- = 10.72, p < .001. The model included self-esteem ing from 1 (I am not sure at all) to 9 (I am completely (ß = .39, p < .001) and jealousy (ß = .19, p = .03). sure). This scale was designed to measure a person’s Although jealousy was not significantly related to confidence in his or her abilities to engage in rela- RSE at the bivariate level, a relationship did emerge tionship maintenance behaviors within intimate relationships (Lopez et al., 2007). Examples of TABLE 1 questions from this scale are, “Within your present Correlation Between Study Variables relationship how confident are you in your ability Variables 1 2 3 4 5 to tell your partner when you would prefer to be 1. RSE – alone?” and “Within your present relationship ** how confident are you in your ability to let your 2. Self-Esteem .35 – partner take care of you when you are ill?” (Lopez 3. Jealousy .11 -.19* – et al., 2007, p. 85). Overall, the measure has sound 4. Anxious -.20* -.40** .22* – psychometric properties. Although Lopez et al., Attachment Style (2007) did not report an overall internal reli- 5. Avoidant -.23* -.37** .07 .30** – Attachment Style WINTER 2012 ability coefficient for the RSES, Cronbach alphas for the three subscales were .93 (mutuality), .85 6. Secure .12 .29** -.26** -.15 -.58** Attachment Style PSI CHI (emotional control), and .79 (differentiation). JOURNAL OF *p = .05, **p = .01 PSYCHOLOGICAL Additionally, RSES results were found to be valid RESEARCH

158 COPYRIGHT 2012 BY PSI CHI, THE INTERNATIONAL HONOR SOCIETY IN PSYCHOLOGY (VOL. 17, NO. 4/ISSN 2164-8204) Cabeldue and Boswell | Predictors of Relationship Self-Efficacy after controlling for the other variables’ effects on the regression analysis; increases in jealousy pre- RSE. Despite their significant bivariate relation- dicted increases in RSE. This finding contradicts ships with RSE, avoidant and anxious attachment prior research that yielded a significant negative styles did not explain a significant proportion of relationship between jealousy and confidence RSE variance after controlling for the other study in relationships (Guerrero, 1998). This discrep- variables. Moreover, secure attachment style and ancy could be related to the diverse impacts that gender were not significant predictors of RSE. The jealousy may have on relationships. For example, significant prediction model for RSE supported the whereas one individual might feel threatened by study’s final hypothesis; however, contrary to this someone’s attraction to his or her spouse, another hypothesis, self-esteem and jealousy were the only person may view the attraction as a source of public significant predictors in the model. esteem (White, 1981). Moreover, some scholars have hypothesized that jealousy-related efforts to Discussion protect a valued relationship from perceived threat The present study investigated RSE’s relationships are adaptive for relationship maintenance. For with attachment style, jealousy, self-esteem, and example, increasing attention toward the romantic gender. RSE was significantly related to anxious partner, making efforts to improve communication attachment style, avoidant attachment style, and within the relationship, and insulting a potential self-esteem. It was initially hypothesized that attach- romantic rival in response to a perceived threat may ment style, jealousy, self-esteem, and gender would function as constructive behaviors to minimize the significantly predict RSE. However, self-esteem and attractiveness of a competing partner and in turn jealousy were the only variables that significantly protect the relationship (Bevan, 2008; Guerrero, predicted RSE. Anderson, Jorgensen, Spitzberg, & Eloy, 1995). Self-esteem’s significant bivariate and predic- Within long-term relationships, these jealous tive relationships with RSE support the study’s reactions may be perceived as appropriate and con- hypotheses. In the present study, individuals with tribute to the relationship’s on-going success (Aune a greater sense of worth (self-esteem) tended & Comstock, 1997; Mathes, 1986). The endurance to have greater confidence in their ability to of the relationship as a result of these jealous initiate and support romantic relationships (RSE). behaviors may in turn strengthen confidence in the According to Bandura (1997), individuals with ability to support the relationship (RSE). high self-esteem are more likely to have high Results supported the hypothesis that insecure self-efficacy because they attempt more challenging goals; success in ambitious goals reinforces these TABLE 2 positive self-appraisals and facilitates the develop- Stepwise Regression Analysis ment of positive expectations for future goals. With Predicting RSE (N = 126) regard to the present study, individuals with high Step and Predictor Variable R2 ΔR2 β self-esteem may be more likely to view themselves as Step 1: .12*** worthy of positive relationship outcomes, thus more *** likely to engage with their partners and work coop- Self-Esteem .35 eratively and proactively to address relationship Avoidant Attachment Style -.12 conflicts. Self-attributions for the resultant positive Anxious Attachment Style -.08 outcomes could not only reinforce the individual’s Secure Attachment Style .02 sense of worth and esteem, but also serve as mastery Jealousy .19 experience to bolster RSE (Bandura, 1977). This Gender .09 finding is consistent with previous research, finding Step 2: .16*** .03* self-esteem related to other forms of self-efficacy *** (Luszczynska et al., 2005). Self-Esteem .35 The findings did not support the hypothesis Avoidant Attachment Style .19* that jealousy would be negatively correlated with Anxious Attachment Style -.12 RSE; however, once the effects of self-esteem, Secure Attachment Style .11 attachment style, and gender were controlled for Jealousy .06 WINTER 2012 in the regression analysis, jealousy explained a Gender .05 significant portion in RSE. Unexpectedly, jealousy PSI CHI *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 JOURNAL OF had a significant positive relationship with RSE in PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH

attachment styles (anxious and avoidant) would perceive themselves to have different strengths be correlated with RSE. Individuals whose wor- within relationships, but overall equal confidence ries about their partners’ emotional investment in their ability to utilize their respective strengths led them to seek out intimacy and approval from to support relationships. However, there were their partners (anxious attachment style) tended significantly fewer men in the sample and this may to report lower RSE. Moreover, RSE tended to be limit the conclusions that may be drawn regarding lower in individuals who avoid depending on others gender differences in RSE. in relationships and find it difficult to trust relationship partners (avoidant attachment style). Anxious Limitations and Directions for Future Research and avoidant attachment styles’ correlations with The unequal distribution of gender is a limita- RSE are somewhat consistent with past research tion of this study; significantly more women that says attachment style is a good predictor of participated than men. As the study included other relationship characteristics such as relation- gender as a specific variable being tested, it is ship quality (Collins & Read, 1990; Simpson, 1990). difficult to confidently generalize the results to a However, results did not support the hypothesis general population from a sample that is primarily that secure attachment style would be correlated comprised of women. with RSE. Multiple studies have found secure Due to the correlational nature of the study attachment style to be indicative of relationship design, conclusions cannot be drawn about the satisfaction (Eðeci & Gençöz, 2006; Guerrero, causal relationship between the hypothesized Farinelli, & McEwan, 2009). The current findings predictors and RSE. Alternative directions of suggest that secure attachment style may play more effect are plausible. For example, RSE’s direct of a role in relationship satisfaction than in feelings relationship with self-esteem suggests that each of confidence in one’s ability to maintain romantic may facilitate development of the other. RSE’s relationships. Although relationship satisfaction inverse relationships with insecure attachment and RSE may be related in some relationships, they styles (avoidant and anxious) suggest a similar pro- are not necessarily synonymous. cess. Insecurely attached individuals may be more Contrary to the study’s hypothesis, secure, inhibited in relationships, which could contribute anxious, and avoidant attachment styles were not to poor relationship outcomes. Poor relationship significant predictors of RSE. The dimensions outcomes could decrease RSE. In turn, decreased of attachment style did not explain RSE beyond RSE may reinforce attitudes associated with inse- that explained by self-esteem. Securely attached cure attachment styles. individuals are characterized by high self-esteem; Unexpectedly, the current study found that individuals with high self-esteem are more likely jealousy had a positive predictive relationship with to engage others and utilize strategies to create RSE. Although often associated with poor relation- success in their goals (Baumeister, Tice, & Hutton, ship outcomes, some reactions to jealousy have 1989; Huis in ’t Veld, Vingerhoets, & Denollet, been associated with positive relationship effects 2012). However, anxious and avoidant individu- (Andersen, Eloy, Guerrero, & Spitzberg, 1995; als are characterized by low self-esteem; these Guerrero & Afifi, 1999). For example, jealousy can individuals are more likely to engage in behaviors trigger communication responses that improve designed to avoid failure, rather than create success confidence in maintenance of a threatened roman- (Baumeister et al., 1989; Huis in ’t Veld et al., 2012). tic relationship (Guerrero et al., 1995; Guerrero, After these effects of self-esteem on relationship Trost, & Yoshimura, 2005). Given that jealousy patterns were removed, attachment styles were not is multifaceted (White, 1981), future research significantly related to RSE. may investigate how its cognitive, behavioral, and Contrary to the study’s hypotheses, gender was affective facets independently relate to RSE. Addi- neither a significant predictor of RSE nor were tionally, responses that individuals utilize to cope women more likely to reporter greater RSE than with jealousy may mediate its relationship with RSE. men. This contradicts Riggio et al.’s (2011) findings Future research could investigate the possibility that women report overall greater confidence in of jealousy triggering relationship-maintenance- WINTER 2012 relationships; however, it supports Lopez et al.’s oriented behaviors as well as the positive role (2007) findings of gender differences in some jealousy may play in relationships PSI CHI JOURNAL OF components of RSE, but not overall RSE. This Additionally, future research could investigate PSYCHOLOGICAL pattern of results suggests that men and women the effect of degree of relationship commitment RESEARCH

160 COPYRIGHT 2012 BY PSI CHI, THE INTERNATIONAL HONOR SOCIETY IN PSYCHOLOGY (VOL. 17, NO. 4/ISSN 2164-8204) Cabeldue and Boswell | Predictors of Relationship Self-Efficacy on RSE. Previous research has found a correla- the experience, expression, and perceived appropriateness of jealousy. Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 23–31. tion between relationship commitment and RSE. doi:10.1080/00224549709595410 For example, Lopez et al. (2007) found that Baker, L., & McNulty, J. K. (2010). Shyness and marriage: Does shyness participants within committed relationships shape even established relationships? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 665–676. doi:10.1177/0146167210367489 reported greater confidence in caregiving and Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral their ability to protect a relationship by regulating change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215. doi:10.1037/0033- negative emotions. In addition, Le and Agnew 295X.84.2.191 Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American (2003) found that relationship commitment dif- Psychologist, 37, 122–147. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122 ferences were related to emotional investment and Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: interdependence of partners within relationships. W. H. Freeman & Co. Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Hutton, D. G. (1989). Self-presentation Results such as these indicate that commitment motivations and personality differences in self-esteem. Journal of status is related to facets of RSE. Further research Personality, 57, 547–579. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1989.tb02384.x could explore how commitment status affects dif- Bevan, J. L. (2008). Experiencing and communicating romantic jealousy: Questioning the investment model. Southern Communication ferent relationship-maintenance behaviors. Journal, 73, 42–67. doi:10.1080/10417940701815626 Further research could address the role that Braithwaite, S. R., Delevi, R., & Fincham, F. D. (2010). Romantic age plays in RSE and related variables. Davila, relationships and the physical and mental health of college students. Personal Relationships, 17, 1–12. doi:10.1111/j.1475- Burge, and Hammen (1997) found that instability 6811.2010.01248.x in attachment style ranged from 28% in a 6-month Bringle, R. G., Roach, S., Andler, C., & Evenbeck, S. (1979). Measuring period to 34% in a 2-year period in first year the intensity of jealous reactions. Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 9, 23–24. college women. This could suggest that attachment Bringle, R. G. (1991). Psychosocial aspects of jealousy: A transactional patterns vary in stability early in young adulthood. model. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. Data on the influence of age in relationship 102–131). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Clark, R. C. (1993). Men’s and women’s self-confidence in persuasive, maintenance could significantly aid in the process comforting, and justificatory communicative tasks.Sex Roles: A of providing counseling to young couples in rela- Journal of Research, 28, 553–567. doi:10.1007/BF00289680 tionships that might be struggling as a result of age. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Past research has found that individuals who marry Collins, N. L., Cooper, M. L., Albino, A., & Allard, L. (2002). Psychosocial younger are more likely to divorce than those who vulnerability from adolescence to adulthood: A prospective study of wait until they are older (Moore & Waite, 1981). attachment style differences in relationship functioning and partner choice. Journal of Personality, 70, 965–1008. doi:10.1111/1467- Investigation into the role that age plays in RSE and 6494.05029 related variables such as attachment style would Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models assist in this process. and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 644–663. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.58.4.644 Finally, further research could explore the Conger, R., Cui, M., Bryant, C. M., & Elder, G. H. (2001). Competence in correlation between relationship satisfaction and early adult romantic relationships: A developmental perspective on family influences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, RSE. Lopez et al. found the scores on the RSES 224–237. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.79.2.224 emotional control subscale to be predictive of Cramer, D. (2009). Self-esteem, demand for approval and the relationship satisfaction; this suggests that relation- facilitativeness of a romantic relationship. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 37, 169–178. doi:10.1080/03069880902728606 ship satisfaction and dimensions of RSE are closely Cui, M., Finchman, F. D., & Pasley, B. K. (2008). Young adult romantic related. If an association between these variables is relationships: The role of parents’ marital problems and relationship established, interventions to improve RSE may be efficacy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1226–1235. doi: 10.1177/0146167208319693 useful tools to improve relationship satisfaction. Davila, J., Burge, D., & Hammen, C. (1997). Why does attachment style Given that marital happiness and satisfaction are change? Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 73, 826–838. proactive influences against divorce (White & doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.826 Eðeci, Ý. Ý., & Gençöz, T. (2006). Factors associated with relationship Booth, 1991), knowledge of RSE and its association satisfaction: Importance of communication skills. Contemporary with relationship outcomes may be beneficial for Family Therapy: An International Journal, 28, 383–391. doi:10.1007/ individuals considering marriage. s10591-006-9010-2 Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., & Buchner, A. (1996). GPOWER: A general power analysis program. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, References & Computers, 28, 1–11. doi:10.3758/BF03203630 Ainsworth, M. D., Blehar, M.C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1979). Patterns of Eryilmaz, A., & Atak, H. (2011). Investigation of starting romantic intimacy attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation [Google in emerging adulthood in terms of self-esteem, gender, and gender Books]. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/ roles. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 11, 595–600. Andersen, P. A., Eloy, S. V., Guerrero, L. K., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1995). Retrieved from http://www.edam.com.tr WINTER 2012 Romantic jealousy and relational satisfaction: A look at the impact Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible of jealousy experience and expression. Communication Reports, 8, statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and PSI CHI 77–85. doi:10.1080/08934219509367613 biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. JOURNAL OF Aune, K., & Comstock, J. (1997). Effects of relationship length on doi:10.3758/BF03193146 PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH

Fincham, F. D., Harold, G. T., & Gano-Phillips, S. (2000). The longitudinal Psychological Reports, 58, 885–886. doi:10.2466/pr0.1986.58.3.885 association between attributions and marital satisfaction: Direction Mathes, E. W., Adams, H. E., & Davies, R. M. (1985). Jealousy: Loss of of effects and role of efficacy expectations. Journal of Family relationship rewards, loss of self-esteem, depression, anxiety, and Psychology, 14, 267–285. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.14.2.267 anger. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1552–1561. Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Airport separations: A naturalistic doi:10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1552 study of adult attachment dynamics in separating couples. Moore, K. A., & Waite, L. J. (1981). Marital dissolution, early motherhood, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1198–1212. and early marriage. Social Forces, 60, 20–40. doi: 10.2307/2577930 doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.75.5.1198 Riggio, H. R., Weiser, D., Valenzuela, A., Lui, P., Montes, R., & Heuer, J. Guerrero, L. K. (1998). Attachment-style differences in the experience (2011). Initial validation of a measure of self-efficacy in romantic and expression of romantic jealousy. Personal Relationships, 5, relationships. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 601–606. 273–291. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00172.x Guerrero, L. K., & Afifi, W. A. (1999). Toward a goal-oriented approach for doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2011.05.026 understanding communicative responses to jealousy. Western Journal Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York, NY: Basic Books. of Communication, 63, 216. doi:10.1080/10570319909374637 Rosenberg, M. (1989). Society and the adolescent self-image (Rev. ed.). Guerrero, L. K., Andersen, P. A., Jorgensen, P. F., Spitzberg, B. H., Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press. & Eloy, S. V. (1995). Coping with the green-eyed monster: Sciangula, A., & Morry, M. M. (2009). Self-esteem and perceived regard: Conceptualizing and measuring communicative responses to How I see myself affects my relationship satisfaction. Journal of romantic jealousy. Western Journal of Communication, 59, 270–304. Social Psychology, 149, 43. doi:10.3200/SOCP.149.2.143-158 doi:10.1080/10570319509374523 Seiffge-Krenke, I. (2003). Testing theories of romantic development Guerrero, L. K., Farinelli, L., & McEwan, B. (2009). Attachment from adolescence to young adulthood: Evidence of a developmental and relational satisfaction: The mediating effect of emotional sequence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27, 519. communication. Communication Monographs, 76, 487–514. doi: 10.1080/01650250344000145 doi:10.1080/03637750903300254 Sharpsteen, D. J., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1997). Romantic jealousy and adult Guerrero, L. K., Trost, M. R., & Yoshimura, S. M. (2005). Romantic jealousy: romantic attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Emotions and communicative responses. Personal Relationships, 12, 72, 627–640. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.72.3.627 233–252. doi:10.1111/j.1350-4126.2005.00113.x Simpson, J. A. (1990). Influence of attachment styles on romantic Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511–524. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511 971–980. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.59.5.971 Huis in ’t Veld, E. J., Vingerhoets, A. M., & Denollet, J. (2012). Sperling, M. B., Foelsch, P., & Grace, C. (1996). Measuring adult attachment: Attachment style and self-esteem: The mediating role of Type D Are self-report instruments congruent? Journal of Personality personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 1099–1103. Assessment, 67, 37–51. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6701_3 doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.01.034 White, G. L. (1981). A model of romantic jealousy. Motivation and Emotion, Le, B., & Agnew, C. R. (2003). Commitment and its theorized determinants: 5, 295–310. doi:10.1007/BF00992549 A meta–analysis of the investment model. Personal Relationships, White, L. K., & Booth, A. (1991). Divorce over the life course: The 10, 37–57. doi:10.1111/1475-6811.00035 role of marital happiness. Journal of Family Issues, 12, 5–21. Lopez, F. G., Morua, W., & Rice, K. G. (2007). Factor structure, stability, doi:10.1177/019251391012001002 and predictive validity of college students’ relationship self-efficacy Zeigler-Hill, V., Fulton, J., & McLemore, C. (2011). The role of unstable self- beliefs. Measurement & Evaluation in Counseling & Development, esteem in the appraisal of romantic relationships. Personality and 40, 80–96. Retrieved from http://counseling.org Individual Differences, 51, 51–56. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.00 Luszczynska, A., Gutierrez-Dona, B., & Schwarzer, R. (2005). General self-efficacy in various domains of human functioning: Evidence Author Note. Mollimichelle Cabeldue, Department of from five countries.International Journal of Psychology, 40, 80–89. Psychology, University of the Incarnate Word; Stefanie S. doi: 10.1080/00207590444000041 Macgeorge, E. L., Clark, R., & Gillihan, S. J. (2002). Sex differences Boswell, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of the in the provision of skillful emotional support: The mediating Incarnate Word. role of self-efficacy.Communication Reports, 15, 17–28. This research was supported by a grant from the Student doi:10.1080/08934210209367749 Research Fund at the University of the Incarnate Word School Markey, C. N., Markey, P. M., & Gray, H. (2007). Romantic relationships of Graduate Studies and Research. and health: An examination of individuals’ perceptions of their Correspondence concerning this article should be romantic partners’ influences on their health.Sex Roles: A Journal of addressed to Stefanie S. Boswell, Department of Psychology, Research, 57, 435–445. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9266-5 University of the Incarnate Word, 4301 Broadway CPO #9, Mathes, E. W. (1986). Jealousy and romantic love: A longitudinal study. San Antonio, TX 78209. Email: [email protected]

WINTER 2012

PSI CHI JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH