Predictors of Relationship Self-Efficacy in Undergraduates Mollimichelle Cabeldue and Stefanie S
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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 COPYRIGHT 2012 BY PSI CHI, THE INTERNATIONAL HONOR SOCIETY IN PSYCHOLOGY (VOL. 17, NO. 4/ISSN 2164-8204) 155 Predictors of Relationship Self-Efficacy | Cabeldue and Boswell 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;