Relationship-Contingent Self-Esteem and Inter- And

Home , Going Bad

RELATIONSHIP-CONTINGENT SELF-ESTEEM AND INTER- AND

INTRAPERSONAL OUTCOMES: ALL IN MODERATION

Thesis

Submitted to

The College of Arts and Sciences of the

UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

The Degree of

Master of Arts in Clinical Psychology

Frane Francis Santic, B.A.

Dayton, Ohio

December 2019

RELATIONSHIP-CONTINGENT SELF-ESTEEM AND INTER- AND

INTRAPERSONAL OUTCOMES: ALL IN MODERATION

Name: Santic, Frane Francis APPROVED BY:

Lee J. Dixon, Ph.D. Committee Chair Associate Professor and Chair

Catherine Zois, Ph.D. Committee Member Professor and Director of Psychology Graduate Programs

Erin O’Mara Kunz, Ph.D. Committee Member Associate Professor

Lee J. Dixon, Ph.D. Chair, Department of Psychology

Frane Francis Santic

2019

iii

ABSTRACT

RELATIONSHIP-CONTINGENT SELF-ESTEEM AND INTER- AND

INTRAPERSONAL OUTCOMES: ALL IN MODERATION

Name: Santic, Frane Francis University of Dayton

Advisor: Lee J. Dixon, Ph.D.

Relationship-Contingent Self-Esteem (RCSE) involves individuals basing their self-regard on the nature and outcome of their relationship (Knee, Canevello, Bush, &

Cook, 2008). RCSE is said to occur from a thwarting of basic psychological needs, including competence, relatedness, and autonomy (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Knee et al.,

2008). When these needs are not fulfilled, issues such as feelings of incompetence, a lack of feeling of control, and issues with connecting with others can occur (Hadden,

Rodriguez, Knee, & Porter, 2015). Further, those high in RCSE can have lower relationship satisfaction and experience higher levels of negative emotion (Knee et al.,

2008).

The objective of the study is to examine how certain personality risk and protective factors that are correlates of the basic psychological needs influence the relationship between RCSE and relationship satisfaction and the experience of negative emotion (i.e., depression). The study draws from a large sample of university alumni (N =

2903) ranging in age from 21 to 90 years old (M = 45.1) from a private Catholic US university. Participants were asked to complete a survey containing a range of measures that examined various personality factors, as well as their current level of depression and satisfaction.

Based on moderation analyses (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003), results indicated a significant positive association between RCSE and relationship satisfaction for males that weakened as level of competence increased. However, no significant association between RCSE and relationship satisfaction was found for any of the other correlates of the basic psychological needs. For both males and females low in autonomy, high in anxious attachment, and high in self-alienation, a significant positive association was found to exist between RCSE and depression. Similarly, a significant positive association was also found for females low in competence and self-compassion and for males low in relatedness and high in accepting external influence. Additionally, there was a significant positive association between RCSE and depression for females that weakened as level of authentic living increased, accepting external influence decreased, and relatedness increased. The results support the idea that RCSE’s negative influence on mental health outcomes depend on certain personality risk and protective factors.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First, I want to thank Dr. Lee J. Dixon for all the support you have provided me for the last two years. Your feedback and patience have not only contributed to the benefit of my thesis, but have also led to me becoming a stronger writer and a more aware researcher. Your help has provided me the opportunity to grow within both the field of psychology and as a person. I can never thank you enough for everything you have done.

I want to thank Dr. Catherine Zois and Dr. Erin O’Mara Kunz for not only agreeing to be on my thesis committee, but for the feedback you provided during my proposal that would allow my thesis to become as strong as possible. Additionally, I want to thank you both for the care and enthusiasm that you have brought to your courses.

Everything I learned within those courses allowed me to develop skills that not only have benefited me when writing this paper, but will continue to benefit me in my future endeavors.

I want to thank my parents for being patient throughout my time in graduate school and for providing me the opportunity to find my own path within life and career.

Thank you for all the sacrifices you made that allowed me the opportunity for higher education.

Finally, I want to thank my brother for always being there for me and for being a nonstop pillar of support, humor, and positivity. You have been one of my largest supporters throughout the program and I will always remember that.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... vi

LIST OF TABLES ...... viii

LIST OF FIGURES ...... ix

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... x

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

CHAPTER 2 METHOD ...... 14

CHAPTER 3 RESULTS ...... 19

CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION ...... 27

REFERENCES ...... 35

APPENDIX A Satisfaction with Life Scale...... 44

APPENDIX B Basic Psychological Needs Scale ...... 46

APPENDIX C Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Inventory ...... 48

APPENDIX D Relationship-Contingent Self-Esteem Scale ...... 50

APPENDIX E Authenticity Scale ...... 53

APPENDIX F Relationship Structures Questionnaire General ...... 54

APPENDIX G Self-Compassion Scale ...... 55

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Intercorrelations for all Variables ...... 19

Table 2. Cronbach’s Alphas, Means, and Standard Deviations of Variables ...... 20

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. A Visual Depiction of Hypothesis 1 ...... 40

Figure 2. A Visual Depiction of Hypotheses 2 Through 4 ...... 41

Figure 3. Results of the Moderation Analysis for Females ...... 42

Figure 4. Results of the Moderation Analysis for Males ...... 43

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AL Authentic Living - Authenticity Scale

ANX Relationship Structures Questionnaire

AUT Autonomy - Basic Psychological Need

CESD Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale

COM Competence - Basic Psychological Need

EXT Accepting External Influence - Authenticity Scale

RCSE Relationship-Contingent Self-Esteem

REL Relatedness - Basic Psychological Need

RS Relationship Satisfaction – Satisfaction with Life Scale

SA Self-Alienation - Authenticity Scale

SC Self-Compassion Scale

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Self-esteem can be defined as an individual’s identified self-worth. The way individuals view themselves can affect their behaviors and can influence the way they see others and themselves (Crocker & Park, 2004). Self-esteem can be influenced by multiple factors. When an individual’s self-esteem is affected by a specific outcome or situation, the individual is said to possess contingent self-esteem (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001).

Contingent self-esteem can exist within multiple domains where experiences, such as academic performance, influence the level of self-esteem an individual possesses

(Schwinger, Schöne, & Otterpohl, 2017). A positive outcome in a domain in which one’s self-esteem is contingent can lead to higher self-esteem, whereas a negative outcome can lead to lower self-esteem. Therefore, in order to feel validated, individuals strive to maintain success and minimize failures in specific domains upon which their self-esteem is contingent. The increased investment in said domains can then lead to the experiences within the domain affecting the individual to a greater degree (Crocker & Park, 2004).

When one’s self-esteem is reliant upon a specific domain, his or her self-esteem becomes more instable, due to preoccupation with outcomes of the domain. Further, individuals with instable self-esteem that also have depression have been found to be more likely to develop an increase in later depressive symptoms (Crocker, Karpinski,

Quinn, & Chase, 2003). Due to the stress surrounding an individual experiencing positive and negative events related to their contingent self-esteem, their own mental health is likely to be impacted (Crocker et al., 2003). A study by Lakey, Hirsch, Nelson, and

Nsamenang (2014) described how a sufficiently negative outcome could lead to self- loathing, depression, and even suicidal behavior, for those with high contingent self- esteem.

The detrimental impact that a high amount of contingent self-esteem can have highlights the importance of better understanding this construct. With this in mind, the purpose of this study is to examine how the relationships between Relationship-

Contingent Self-Esteem and mental health and relationship constructs are influenced by personality characteristics.

Relationship-Contingent Self-Esteem

It goes without saying that most people experience intimate relationships, including romantic relationships, and that sometimes these relationships involve or cause hardships and turmoil. For example, relationships can potentially have a detrimental impact on one’s self-esteem. Relationships are one of the domains that self-esteem can be contingent upon, which is known as Relationship-Contingent Self-Esteem (RCSE; Knee,

Canevello, Bush, & Cook, 2008). Individuals with RCSE base their self-regard on the nature and outcome of their relationship (Knee et al., 2008). Knee and colleagues posit that those higher in RCSE are hindered in competence, autonomy, and relatedness, also known as the basic psychological needs, within the relationship (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

The thwarting of the basic psychological needs helps explain why RCSE may cause the individual to feel a lack of competence within the relationship, a lack of control within the relationship, and a lack of caring for and being cared for by the individual’s partner

(Knee et al., 2008). Often those high in RCSE will preoccupy themselves with their relationship and how they are being viewed within the relationship. Further, those high in

RCSE may obsessively feel the need for the approval of their partner, further harming them. Much like other forms of contingent self-esteem, RCSE is related to various personal outcomes, including relationship satisfaction and depression.

Crocker and Park (2004) theorized that the long-term costs associated with the temporary satisfaction of domain contingent goals offset the short-term benefits that come from said satisfaction. The long-term problems they identified included the impact that anxiety and stress could have on an individual who had self-esteem contingent upon specific domains. Another harm the authors identified is the cost to one’s sense of autonomy, which is the degree to which one feels one is the cause of his or her intended behavior. This cost to autonomy occurs when an individual tries to increase or maintain the individual’s self-esteem based on certain outcomes, in place of basing it on oneself.

Autonomy is often connected to authentic and fulfilling relationships. Autonomous relationships have a higher positive association with supportiveness, care, and attention for an individual’s partner (Hadden et al., 2015).

Lakey and colleagues (2014) found that individuals with high contingent self- esteem had greater levels of depressive and suicidal symptoms if their goals were not met. Similarly, Knee et al. (2008) found a positive association between RCSE and negative emotion. Further, they found that those who were high in RCSE experienced higher levels of negative emotions following a negative relationship event, which in turn predicted lower levels of momentary self-esteem. These findings support the idea that even if the domain for contingent self-esteem is the relationship, negative emotion can still impact the way individuals feel about themselves. The further the negative emotions

impact an individual’s self-esteem, the lower their self-worth falls, which can then lead to a greater risk of depression, as noted by Lakey et al. (2014).

Despite what Knee et al. (2008) posited about RCSE and its negative outcomes, it may not always impact individuals negatively. The authors reported that those high in

RCSE are low in the basic psychological needs, but the associations reported between the two constructs do not seem to reflect that. Thus, those high in RCSE may not always be hindered in basic psychological need fulfillment. As a result, being high in RCSE may not always lead to negative outcomes, and more factors may be influential in the associations between RCSE and its reported negative outcomes. Additionally, RCSE is related to interdependence, or a motivation towards the well-being of a partner in a relationship (Feeney & Collins, 2001; Knee et al., 2008). Individuals that had relationship interdependence and a prosocial orientation have shown to experience higher levels of emotional support, a greater sense of commitment and closeness, and are more empathetic to their partners. However, when insecure attachment styles, such as avoidant and anxious, were significant within a relationship, those benefits were less likely to occur (Feeney & Collins, 2001). Those high in avoidant attachment were likely to not have a prosocial orientation and had lower levels of closeness and commitment with their partner. For those high in anxious attachment, they experienced relationship interdependence, but were likely to be controlling and lacking in trust towards their partners (Feeney & Collins, 2001). Self-esteem that is contingent upon the relationship may not be the primary reason why negative outcomes are experienced and other factors may be as influential. A lack of fulfillment of the basic psychological needs, along with

an individual’s level of specific correlates related to those needs, may influence if an individual high in RCSE is negatively impacted.

Basic Psychological Needs

Deci and Ryan (2000) state that self-determination theory, which describes how motivation and personality factors are related, suggests that competence, relatedness, and autonomy are fundamental needs that every individual must have met in order to avoid problems with behavior and mental health. Each need has its own importance, and if not fulfilled can lead to harm for the individual. However, when these basic psychological needs are fulfilled, a more authentic and positive sense of self-worth is developed, which can in turn lead to an individual feeling more satisfied and committed within an intimate relationship, even when conflicts occur (Knee et al., 2008).

Competence. Competence is described as the need to be challenged and the ability to feel mastery over a challenge. Without competence, individuals are less adaptable and prepared for new situations, as well as less able to handle the demands that their environment may seek from them (Deci & Ryan, 2000). In terms of intimate relationships, a lack of perceived competence could cause an individual to have difficulties with new problems appearing in the relationship, along with feeling ill- prepared to solve the new problems (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Knee et al. (2008) theorize that when a sense of competence is thwarted in the relationship, greater feelings of incompetence and an overall lower self-esteem can begin to develop. These feelings develop due to mistakes and disagreements creating a sense of threat, which then causes the individual to interpret arguments in maladaptive ways. In turn, the maladaptive thoughts lead to an individual feeling less effective and capable within the relationship.

Given RCSE’s association with a lack of competence, it is possible there are other personality factors related to competence that may be associated with RCSE and/or influence its association with other outcomes. For example, the level of self-compassion individuals have can influence their level of perceived competence (Ying, 2009).

By having higher self-compassion, a greater perceived competence is formed, which could potentially decrease the levels of certain negative mental health outcomes, such as level of depressive symptoms (Ying, 2009). Self-compassion is the ability for a person to be open about how much they are hurting, the ability to accept that they are hurting, and the ability to try to solve what is hurting them, all while not being overly critical towards themselves. Important components of self-compassion include how mindfully aware someone is, a belief in common humanity, and self-kindness (Ying,

2009). Mindful awareness permits an individual to react appropriately to a situation, instead of reacting negatively and defensively. In a relationship, being mindfully aware would allow an individual to not interpret disagreements as an attack on their competence, but rather a solvable problem. A belief in common humanity is the acknowledgement that failure is something felt universally, and not just by the individual.

This component allows a person to know that a relationship with problems is not singular to himself/herself, but something that everyone in a relationship has felt at some point.

Finally, self-kindness is the ability to self-forgive, despite any fault of the person. It was found that those who had higher levels of these three components of self-compassion experienced a greater sense of functional competence and a decrease in emotional problems (Neff, Hsieh, & Dejitterat, 2005; Ying, 2009).

On the other hand, a lack of self-compassion, due to overidentification, has been strongly correlated to feelings of poor competence and overall mental health issues.

Overidentification is the tendency to focus and fixate on anything negative occurring within an individual’s life (Ying, 2009). By fixating on what is going wrong within a relationship, a person becomes more likely to self-protect and develop feelings of incompetence. Overidentification can lead to poor emotion regulation and greater levels of negative emotions (Neff et al., 2005).

Along with a lack of self-compassion affecting the fulfillment of competence, anxious attachment has also been found to influence an individual’s sense of competence.

In a study that followed the relationship between attachment styles and different types of interpersonal feedback, Hepper and Carnelley (2010) found that people who were high in anxious attachment were more likely to seek feedback regarding their relationship, rather than regarding their own competence. Those with greater levels of anxious attachment relied more on interpersonal types of feedback to define their self-worth, which would then leave them more vulnerable to negative feedback and less likely to seek self-worth through their own competence. The participants were also more likely to experience low self-esteem and self-worth. In Knee et al. (2008), the authors state that RCSE and anxious attachment are similar due to the individual obsessing over the relationship, instead of focusing on one’s own competence. In addition, Hadden, Rodriguez, Knee, DiBello, and

Baker (2016) found that when an individual was higher in anxious attachment, the individual’s competence would then be thwarted. Both these studies highlight how the maladaptive thoughts and interpretations of the relationship that individuals with high

anxious attachment may make could lead to them feeling less capable within the relationship.

Relatedness. Relatedness is described as the need to feel connected with others

(León & Núñez, 2013). Deci and Ryan (2000) posited that a lack of perceived relatedness could cause problems with social protection and internal motivation. In the context of intimate relationships, a lack of perceived relatedness could lead to a lack of feeling validated, as well as a lack of desire to consider a partner’s needs. One construct that is similar in nature to relatedness is authenticity. Authenticity has been defined as a three- part construct that is made up of self-alienation, accepting external influence, and authentic living (Wood, Linley, Maltby, Baliousis, & Joseph, 2008). Each subscale of authenticity is important in developing a person’s awareness and how they communicate and behave. Self-alienation is the extent to which one’s conscious awareness and experience align (Wood et al., 2008). The better these things align, the more in touch with oneself a person feels. Authentic living is expressing oneself in a way that aligns with one’s beliefs; no matter what the situation is, a person will behave according to what values they hold, not acting against their true cognitions (Wood et al., 2008). However,

Murray, Holmes, and Griffin (1996) identified that individuals that had idealistic perceptions of their relationships were often more satisfied and had better impressions of their partners. The authors theorized that these positive illusions were necessary within maintaining satisfying relationships due to the individuals having a positive idealization of specific traits of their relationships. The last aspect of authenticity is how much an individual accepts other’s influence. The more an individual accepts external influence, the more the other two aspects of authenticity are affected, with self-alienation increasing

and authentic living decreasing (Wood et al., 2008). The more authentic individuals are, the more open, conscientious, and agreeable they are, and the less problems they have with social and emotional functioning, which in turn should allow for a greater fulfillment of relatedness (Wood et al., 2008). Those with balanced authenticity, which is when people keep true to themselves, while also accepting external influence, are more likely to experience communion, trying to meet the expectations that others hold. In turn, individuals with balanced authenticity should also have a better sense of relatedness

(Wang, 2016).

Conceptually, both communion and relatedness involve an individual wanting to connect and feel connected with others (Bauer & McAdams, 2000; Deci & Ryan, 2000;

Wang, 2016). Having these needs met are important in developing a strong well-being, and helps individuals feel connected and better able to care for others (Wang, 2016).

Therefore, when authenticity is only focused on the acceptance of self, this can create issues with how an individual connects with others. Ego-centric authenticity is when one is true to themselves at the expense of others. A study by Wang (2016) found that this form of authenticity was related to high agency, or at the expense of others, and low satisfaction within relationships. With RCSE, if the individual is more focused on what outcome he/she needs, then what the romantic partner thinks or wants becomes irrelevant.

Individuals that have problems considering their partners’ needs are more likely to have problems with relationship satisfaction, due to a lack of connecting with what the partner wants. In addition, anxious attachment can affect an individual’s perceived relatedness.

When an individual has high anxious attachment, they feel less attached to their partner,

due to feeling negative and unsure about how the relationship is going (Hadden et al.,

2016).

Autonomy. Finally, autonomy is the need to control, regulate, and to be the cause of one’s own behavior. Issues with struggling to regulate behaviors and being able to function on one’s own are said to arise from a lack of this basic psychological need (Deci

& Ryan, 2000). A lack of autonomy is believed to foster the development of RCSE, specifically due to it reflecting a lack of “personal endorsement of one’s involvement in the relationship” (Knee et al., 2008, p. 609). In the context of an intimate relationship, a lack of perceived autonomy could lead to individuals questioning if they are entering a relationship of their own volition, as well as if they are staying in the relationship because they want to. They may feel forced to stay due to needing a certain outcome, or because of a sense of coercion. When one feels that he or she is in a relationship not due to his or her own volition, issues such as lowered relationship satisfaction and negative emotion become likely to occur. In addition, autonomy can also be impacted by an individual’s anxious attachment (Bekker & Croon, 2010). Anxious attachment is often found to be related to individuals’ obsession with their own relationship. In addition, overdependence and preoccupation with the relationship have also been found to be related to anxious attachment. Therefore, how much autonomy individuals feel is likely influenced by their level of anxious attachment (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991).

However, authenticity can lead to greater feelings of autonomy, due to it creating a sense of agency. Depending on the type of authenticity, greater agency and relationship satisfaction can be developed. Balanced authenticity can benefit both an individual’s need

for autonomy and relatedness by controlling how much influence oneself and the environment have on the individual’s self-esteem and well-being (Wang, 2016).

The Proposed Study

In sum, Knee and colleagues proposed that RCSE occurs when one’s basic psychological needs are thwarted. It then stands to reason that it is the lack of these psychological needs being met that would cause RCSE to detrimentally impact both personal and interpersonal processes. Very little research has focused on possible personality risk and protective factors that may influence the relationship between RCSE and those outcomes. The question that this study hopes to help answer is this: “Is the negative impact of RCSE influenced by the degree to which one’s basic psychological needs, along with its associated constructs, are being fulfilled?” Specifically, this study will examine the moderating influences of the level of fulfillment of one’s psychological needs and their correlates (i.e., anxious attachment, self-compassion, and authenticity) on the association between RCSE and depression and relationship satisfaction.

The significance of this proposed project exists due to a large portion of the population experiencing intimate relationships for a significant period of their lives. In addition, how people identify their own self-worth is equally important because of the connections that it has to mental and physical health. Therefore, a project that continues the research of what influence an individual’s relationship has on their self-esteem has many important implications. Understanding what constructs act as risk or protective factors can inform either the creation of, or mending of, current interventions that are meant to specifically target these constructs. These interventions could in turn diminish the negative impact of RCSE.

Hypotheses

The overarching question of this study is “what kind of influence do personality risk and protective factors have on RCSE and its correlates?” This question will be answered through the examination of several specific hypotheses that are informed by the literature outlined above (Figure 1 & 2).

Hypothesis 1. For individuals low in relatedness there will be a stronger negative association between RCSE and relationship satisfaction. For individuals low in relatedness there will be a stronger positive association between RCSE and depression.

For individuals low in competence there will be a stronger negative association between

RCSE and relationship satisfaction. For individuals low in competence there will be a stronger positive association between RCSE and depression. For individuals low in autonomy there will be a stronger negative association between RCSE and relationship satisfaction. For individuals low in autonomy there will be a stronger positive association between RCSE and depression.

Hypothesis 2. For individuals low in self-compassion there will be a stronger positive association between RCSE and depressive symptoms. For individuals low in self-compassion there will be weaker negative association between RCSE and relationship satisfaction.

Hypothesis 3. For individuals high in anxious attachment there will be a stronger positive association between RCSE and depressive symptoms. For individuals high in anxious attachment there will be a stronger negative association between RCSE and relationship satisfaction.

Hypothesis 4. For individuals low in authentic living there will be a stronger positive association between RCSE and relationship satisfaction. For individuals low in authentic living there will be a stronger positive association between RCSE and depressive symptoms. For individuals high in self-alienation and accepting external influence there will be a stronger positive association between RCSE and depressive symptoms. For individuals high in self-alienation and accepting external influence there will be a stronger negative association between RCSE and relationship satisfaction.

CHAPTER 2

METHOD

Participants

The study draws from a large sample of alumni from a private Catholic US university. Participants (N = 2903; 1565 females; 1057 males; 274 missing; 7 other) ranged in age from 21 to 90 years old (M = 45.1).

Procedure

Participants were recruited by email. To encourage participation, 10 drawing winners could win a small prize after completion of the study. Participants were asked for full contact information, so they could be reached in the future if their email address changed. The contact information was separated from data to keep anonymity.

Participants completed online questionnaires, which included basic demographic items and items assessing personality dimension and well-being. The overarching purpose of the study was to assess the personalities, relationships, interests and other various aspects of individuals’ lives during their adult years. Following completion of the survey, participants were debriefed on the purpose of the study, which included contact information of the researchers, in case participants had questions or concerns. This study was reviewed and approved by the appropriate Institutional Review Board.

Measures

Participants were asked to complete a pool of items assessing personality dimensions and well-being. For this study, the measures for basic psychological needs,

relationship satisfaction and depression, RCSE, authenticity, anxious attachment, and self-compassion were used.

Relationship Satisfaction. Relationship satisfaction was measured using the

Satisfaction with Life Scale, which is a 15-item scale that evaluated items on 1

(Definitely Disagree) to 5 (Definitely Agree; Kobau, Sniezek, Zack, Lucas, & Burns,

2010; Appendix A). The items in the scale are organized into three groups of satisfaction: work, life in general, and romantic, with the latter being used for the purposes of this study. The romantic satisfaction domain had participants rate their agreement with different statements (e.g., “I am satisfied with my romantic relationship; “The conditions of my romantic relationship are excellent”). The internal reliability of the Satisfaction with Life Scale is α = .88. Satisfaction with life is positively correlated with global life satisfaction (r = .75) and global happiness (r = .62), but is negatively correlated with negative affect (r = -.39; Kobau et al., 2010).

Basic Psychological Needs. The basic psychological needs were assessed with the Basic Psychological Needs Scale, which is 21-item scale that evaluates on 1 (Not at

All True) to 7 (Very True; Deci et al., 2001; Appendix B). The scale assessed the three psychological needs of competence, autonomy, and relatedness for each participant. The items were rated on how true each statement was for the participant’s life (e.g., “I feel pressured in my life”; “People in my life care about me”). The internal reliability of the scale for measuring total need-satisfaction is α = .89. The internal reliability for the Basic

Psychological Needs Subscales of competence, relatedness, and autonomy are α = .73,

.84, and .79 (Deci et al., 2001). The scale positively correlated with autonomy need, competence need, and relatedness need, ranging from r = .61 to r = .66 (Gagné, 2003).

Depression. Depression was measured using the Center for Epidemiologic

Studies Depression Scale Depression Inventory (CES-D), a 20-item self-report scale that evaluates an individual’s depressive symptoms (Radloff, 1977; Appendix C). The participants indicated how often they had felt each statement for the past week (e.g., “I felt depressed, I felt fearful, and I felt hopeful about the future”). The statements were evaluated by the participants and the available response range from rarely to all the time.

The internal reliability of the CES-D Scale is α = .85 (Radloff, 1977). The CES-D scale correlated positively with the depression subscale of the Personality Assessment

Inventory (r = .57) and the negative affect subscale of the Positive and Negative Affect

Scale (r = .61; Olson, Presniak, & MacGregor, 2010).

RCSE. RCSE was measured on a 11-item Relationship-Contingent Self-Esteem

Scale (Knee et al., 2008; Appendix D). The scale evaluated individuals’ feelings about their romantic relationships (e.g., “I feel better about myself when it seems like my partner and I are getting along, My feelings of self-worth are based on how well things are going in my relationship”). The participants rated each statement on a scale from 1

(Not at All Like Me) to 5 (Very Much Like Me). The internal reliability of RCSE Scale is

α = .88 to .89. RCSE is negatively correlated with the construct of self-esteem (r = -.38), but is positively correlated with attachment anxiety (r = .52), general contingent self- worth (r = .61), negative emotion (r = .27), and inclusion of other in self (r = .17; Knee et al., 2008).

Authenticity. The Authenticity Scale is a 12-item scale that measures the three components of authenticity, which are self-alienation, authentic living, and accepting external influence (Wood et al., 2008; Appendix E). The items are assessed on a scale

from 1 (does not describe me at all) to 7 (describes me very well). The scale had participants rate the degree to which each statement described them (e.g., “I think it is better to be yourself, than to be popular”). The internal reliabilities of Authenticity

Subscales of authentic living, accepting external influence, and self-alienation are α =

.69, .78, and .78. The subscales of authentic living, accepting external influence, and self- alienation correlated with self-esteem (r = .23, -.27, -.45), subjective well-being (e.g.,

Satisfaction with life, r = .22, -.30, -.34, and negative affect, -.07, .20, .21), and psychological well-being (e.g., autonomy, r = .45, -.59, -.33, and self-acceptance, r = .28,

-.41, -.39;Wood et al., 2008).

Attachment Style. The Experiences in Close Relationship-Relationship

Structures Questionnaire General (ECR-RS General) is a 9-item questionnaire that was used to assess an individual’s attachment styles (Fraley, Heffernan, Vicary, &

Brumbaugh, 2011; Appendix F). The scale measured the level of anxious and avoidant attachment a participant has. The participants rated which statement best described their feelings on close relationships in general (e.g., “It helps to turn to people in times of need”). The participants rated the statements on 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly

Agree). The internal reliability of the ECR-RS General anxiety and avoidance subscales are α = .85 and .88. When compared to Rusbult’s Investment Model subscales of commitment, satisfaction, alternatives, and investment were correlated with anxious attachment (r = -.13, -.23, .07, -.02) and avoidant attachment (r = -.12, -.22, .06, .02).

Anxious attachment (r = .39) and avoidant attachment (r = .25) were positively correlated with CES-D (Fraley et al., 2011).

Self-Compassion. Self-compassion was measured using the Self-Compassion

Scale (SCS), which is a 12-item scale that assessed how participants act towards themselves in difficult times (Raes, Pommier, Neff, & Van Gucht, 2011; Appendix G).

The participants were asked how often they exhibited the behavior of certain statements

(e.g., “I try to be understanding and patient towards those aspects of my personality I don’t like”). How frequently participants acted a specific way was measured on 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always). The internal reliability of the SCS is α = .86. The scale correlated with the long form version (r ≥ .97; Raes et al., 2011).

CHAPTER 3

RESULTS

Values that were missing from the participants’ scales were replaced prior to the analyses by using the average of responses to all items on that scale. The values were only replaced if 80% of the scale items had been completed. Correlations between measures are outlined in Table 1. Cronbach’s alphas, mean values, and standard deviations are outlined in Table 2.

Table 1

Intercorrelations for all Variables

Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1.RS - -.20** .19** .25** .18** .25** -.20** .09** -.01 -.27** .19**

2.CESD -.28** - .22** -.51** -.48** -.42** .51** -.24** .27** .45** -.46**

3.RCSE .27** .13** - -.17** -.17** -.06* .24** -.19** .32** .23** -.36**

4.AUT .30** -.50** -.11** - .62** .58** -.53** .45** -.38** -.50** .52**

5.COM .29** -.49** -.13** .61** - .55** -.50** .37** -.32** -.41** .49**

6.REL .30** -.40** .03 .54** .54** - -.45** .26** -.12** -.49** .41**

7.SA -.24** .53** .16** -.53** -.55** -.46** - -.38** .41** .46** -.48**

8.AL .23** -.26** -.07* .39** .43** .31** -.39** - -.36** -.24** .36**

9.EXT -.06 .27** .27** -.38** -.32** -.12** .37** -.30** - .32** -.36**

10.ANX -.24** .45** .15** -.48** -.46** -.44** .46** -.26** .25** - -.51**

11.SC .29** -.52** -.20** .54** .55** .46** -.55** .32** -.32** -.49** - Note. Males are represented below the diagonal and females are represented above the diagonal; Relationship Satisfaction (RS)=Satisfaction with Life Scale; Depression (CESD)=Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale Depression Inventory; Relationship-Contingent Self- Esteem (RCSE)=Relationship-Contingent Self-Esteem Scale; Autonomy (AUT)=Basic Psychological Needs Scale; Competence (COM)=Basic Psychological Needs Scale; Relatedness (REL)=Basic Psychological Needs Scale; Self-Alienation (SA)=Authenticity Scale; Authentic

Living (AL)=Authenticity Scale; Accepting External Influence (EXT)=Authenticity Scale; Anxious Attachment (ANX)= Experiences in Close Relationship-Relationship Structures Questionnaire General; Self-Compassion (SC)=Self-Compassion Scale. *p<.05 **p<.01

Table 2

Cronbach’s Alphas, Means, and Standard Deviations of Variables

Male Female Measure α M SD α M SD 1.CESD .76 1.63 .29 .76 1.67 .30 2.RCSE .86 3.76 .65 .86 3.59 .68 3.SC .84 3.45 .62 .85 3.32 .67 4.ANX .89 2.43 1.43 .89 2.70 1.55 5.AUT .75 5.35 .89 .77 5.41 .89 6.COM .74 5.55 .91 .74 5.60 .92 7.REL .78 5.66 .78 .80 5.88 .79 8.SA .84 2.06 1.12 .85 2.06 1.15 9.EXT .83 3.05 1.15 .84 3.23 1.22 10.AL .77 5.77 .84 .78 5.77 .82 11. RS .95 3.79 1.09 .96 3.66 1.27 Note. Depression (CESD)=Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale Depression Inventory; Relationship-Contingent Self-Esteem (RCSE)= Relationship-Contingent Self-Esteem Scale; Self-Compassion (SC)=Self-Compassion Scale; Anxious Attachment (ANX)=Experiences in Close Relationship-Relationship Structures Questionnaire General; Autonomy (AUT)=Basic Psychological Needs Scale; Competence (COM)=Basic Psychological Needs Scale; Relatedness (REL)= Basic Psychological Needs Scale; Self-Alienation (SA)=Authenticity Scale; Accepting External Influence (EXT)=Authenticity Scale; Authentic Living (AL)=Authenticity Scale; Relationship Satisfaction (RS)=Satisfaction with Life Scale.

Analyses of Major Study Questions

The interaction of RCSE and personality factors in predicting depression and relationship satisfaction outcomes was analyzed using a series of regressions. In order to reduce multicollinearity, all interacting variables were mean centered prior to creating the interaction variables. If a significant relationship was found between the outcome variables and the interactions of RCSE and the moderating variables, then the interaction

was decomposed by testing the relationship between the predictor and outcome variables at high and low levels of the pertinent moderating variables (i.e., one standard deviation above and below the mean). Moderation analyses followed the procedures outlined by

Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken (2003). Eight regression equations were calculated: depression scores were regressed onto the predictor variables of RCSE and the basic psychological needs, and the interaction between RCSE and the basic psychological needs; depression scores were regressed onto to the predictor variables of RCSE and anxious attachment, and the interaction between RCSE and anxious attachment; depression scores were regressed onto RCSE and self-compassion, and the interaction between RCSE and self-compassion; depression scores were regressed onto RCSE and authenticity, and the interaction between RCSE and authenticity. The last four regression equations were the same as the previous four except satisfaction ratings replaced depression scores as the outcome variable.

For the first hypothesis, the basic psychological needs were examined as moderators for the relationship between RCSE and relationship satisfaction, and RCSE and depression. For female participants, there was not a significant interaction between

RCSE and the basic psychological need of autonomy in predicting level of relationship satisfaction, b = -.003, t(1003) = -.664, p = .507. Male participants, when testing the interaction between RCSE and autonomy, also did not have a significant interaction, b = -

.006, t(760) = -1.59, p = .112. However, there was a significant interaction between

RCSE and autonomy in predicting level of depression for both female, b = -.012, t(1034)

= -3.47, p = .001, and male participants, b = -.010, t(777) = -2.61, p = .009. The main effects of autonomy and RCSE on depression were significant for both male, b = -.432,

t(777) = -15.30, p < .001, b = .067, t(777) = 2.69, p = .007 and female participants, b = -

.448, t(1034) = -17.56, p < .001, b = .115, t(1034) = 5.43, p < .001, respectively.

Decomposing the interactions revealed there to be a significant positive association between RCSE and depression at low levels of autonomy for both females, b = .187, t(1034) = 6.04, p < .001, and males, b = .127, t(777) = 3.47, p = .001. When testing

RCSE and the basic psychological need of competence, there was not a significant interaction predicting level of relationship satisfaction for females, b = .007, t(1005) =

1.48, p = .140. For males, the interaction was significant, b = -.010, t(761) = -2.14, p =

.033. The main effects of competence and RCSE on relationship satisfaction were also significant, b = .331, t(761) = 9.97, p < .001, b = .241, t(761) = 9.61, p < .001, respectively. There was a significant positive association between RCSE and relationship satisfaction at low levels of competence, b = .293, t(761) = 7.71, p < .001, that was found to be stronger than at high levels of competence, b = .188, t(761) = 5.91, p < .001. For females, there a significant interaction between RCSE and competence in predicting level of depression, b = -.013, t(1036) = -3.32, p = .001, while the interaction for males was not significant, b = -.008, t(778) = -1.66, p = .098. The main effects for competence and

RCSE on level of depression for females were significant, b = -.479, t(1036) = -15.92, p

< .001, b = .114, t(1036) = 5.28, p < .001, respectively. Decomposing the interaction for females revealed there to be a significant positive association between RCSE and depression at low levels of competence, b = .184, t(1036) = 5.98, p < .001. Finally, the interactions between RCSE and the basic psychological need of relatedness were not significant in predicting level of relationship satisfaction for either females, b = .002, t(1005) = .557, p = .578, or males, b = -.002, t(761) = -.523, p = .601. For both males, b =

-.009, t(778) = -2.19, p = .029, and females, b = -.014, t(1036) = -4.05, p < .001, the interaction between RCSE and relatedness was significant in predicting level of depression. The main effects for relatedness and RCSE on level of depression were significant for male, b = -.358, t(778) = -11.10, p < .001, b = .109, t(778) = 4.24, p <

.001, and female participants, b = -.362, t(1036) = -13.75, p < .001, b = .149, t(1036) =

6.80, p < .001, respectively. Decomposing the interaction for females revealed a significant positive association between RCSE and depression at low levels of relatedness, b = .236, t(1036) = 7.86, p < .001, that was found to be stronger than at high levels of relatedness, b = .062, t(1036) = 1.97, p = .049. However, for males, there was a significant positive association between RCSE and depression only at low levels of relatedness, b = .163, t(778) = 4.50, p < .001.

When testing the second hypothesis, the moderating influence of self-compassion was examined in relation to RCSE and relationship satisfaction, and RCSE and depression. For males, there was not a significant interaction between RCSE and self- compassion in predicting level of relationship satisfaction, b = -.005, t(759) = -1.71, p =

.088, and depression, b = -.003, t(776) = -.926, p = .355. For females, the interaction between RCSE and self-compassion was also not significant in predicting level of relationship satisfaction, b = -.0002, t(1005) = -.067, p = .947, but was significant for predicting level of depression, b = -.007, t(1036) = -2.79, p = .005. The main effects for self-compassion and RCSE on level of depression were significant, b = -.322, t(1036) = -

15.03, p < .001, b = .048, t(1036) = 2.09, p = .037, respectively. Decomposing the interaction revealed a significant positive association between RCSE and depression at low levels of self-compassion, b = .105, t(1036) = 3.30, p = .001. The third hypothesis

was tested by examining the moderating influencing of level of anxious attachment on the relationship between RCSE and depression and relationship satisfaction. No significant interaction was found between RCSE and anxious attachment in predicting level of relationship satisfaction for either males, b = -.009, t(754) = -1.41, p = .160, or females, b = .002, t(999) = .297, p = .767. However, for depression the interaction between RCSE and anxious attachment was significant for both males, b = .019, t(760) =

2.96, p = .003, and females, b = .017, t(1012) = 3.47, p = .001. The main effects of anxious attachment and RCSE on level of depression were significant for male, b = .549, t(760) = 12.58, p < .001, b = .073, t(760) = 2.77, p = .006, and female participants, b =

.510, t(1012) = 13.68, p < .001, b = .099, t(1012) = 4.40, p < .001, respectively.

Decomposing the interaction for males and females revealed a significant positive association between RCSE and depression at high levels of anxious attachment, b = .153, t(760) = 3.71, p < .001, b = .177, t(1012) = 5.33, p < .001, respectively.

The fourth hypothesis was tested by examining the moderating influence of the different parts of authenticity on the relationship between RCSE and relationship satisfaction, and RCSE and depression. There was not a significant interaction between

RCSE and authentic living in predicting relationship satisfaction for both males, b = -

.012, t(757) = -1.57, p = .116, and females, b = .009, t(996) = 1.08, p = .281. For females, there was a significant interaction between RCSE and authentic living in predicting level of depression, b = -.017, t(1027) = -2.26, p = .024, while for males there was not a significant interaction, b = -.014, t(773) = -1.66, p = .097. The main effects for authentic living and RCSE on level of depression were significant for females, b = -.372, t(1027) =

-6.64, p < .001, b = .145, t(1027) = 6.01, p < .001, respectively. Decomposing the

interaction for females revealed a significant positive association between RCSE and depression at low levels of authentic living, b = .199, t(1027) = 5.48, p < .001, that was found to be stronger than at high levels of authentic living, b = .091, t(1027) = 2.91, p =

.004. Both males, b = .003, t(756) = .476, p = .634, and females, b = -.001, t(1000) = -

.110, p = .913, did not have a significant interaction between RCSE and self-alienation in predicting level of relationship satisfaction. There was a significant interaction between

RCSE and self-alienation in predicting level of depression for males and females, b =

.019, t(773) = 3.55, p < .001, b = .011, t(1031) = 2.34, p = .019, respectively. For females, the main effects for self-alienation and RCSE on level of depression were significant, b = .584, t(1031) = 14.81, p < .001, b = .090, t(1031) = 4.10, p < .001.

However, for males, the main effect of self-alienation was significant, b = .627, t(773) =

15.79, p < .001, but the main effect of RCSE was not significant on level of depression, b

= .045, t(773) = 1.82, p = .069. Decomposing the interactions for males, b = .129, t(773)

= 3.58, p < .001, and females, b = .141, t(1031) = 4.26, p < .001, revealed a significant positive association between RCSE and depression at high levels of self-alienation.

Finally, there was not a significant interaction between RCSE and accepting external influence in predicting level of relationship satisfaction for males, b = .010, t(755) = 1.79, p = .074, or females, b = -.007, t(1002) = -1.32, p = .188. There was a significant interaction between RCSE and accepting external influence in predicting level of depression for both males, b = .012, t(771) = 2.03, p = .043, and females, b = .010, t(1032) = 2.18, p = .029. The main effects for accepting external influence and RCSE on level of depression were significant for male, b = .293, t(771) = 6.52, p < .001, b = .059, t(771) = 2.02, p = .044, and female participants, b = .257, t(1032) = 6.71, p < .001, b =

.128, t(1032) = 5.10, p < .001. For females, there was a significant positive association between RCSE and depression at high levels of accepting external influence, b = .178, t(1032) = 4.78, p < .001, that was found to be stronger than at low levels of accepting external influence, b = .078, t(1032) = 2.58, p = .010. For males, there was a significant positive association between RCSE and depression at high levels of accepting external influence, b = .114, t(771) = 2.58, p = .010.

CHAPTER 4

DISCUSSION

The goal of this study was to explore the influence that the degree to which one’s basic psychological needs and their correlates are fulfilled has on the relationship between RCSE and personal outcomes. By examining if the basic psychological needs and their correlates moderate the relationship between RCSE and relationship satisfaction and depression, the study assessed if the degree to which RCSE negatively impacts those outcomes is influenced by other factors. The study explores this idea by testing four hypotheses that predict the moderating effects of specific protective and risk factors.

Specifically, the influence of the basic psychological needs, self-compassion, anxious attachment, and authenticity components were analyzed in an effort to understand how

RCSE’s negative influence is affected by these factors.

Consistent with the first hypothesis of this study, participants low in fulfillment of the basic psychological needs had a positive association between RCSE and depression.

Specifically, the findings suggest that RCSE and depression are positively related when a participant has lower fulfillment of relatedness and autonomy. However, competence was not found to moderate RCSE and depression’s relationship for male participants. One explanation for why competence was not significant for males is gender differences within the relationship and how a thwarting of competence impacts those in the relationship; an example of this exists with benevolent sexism (i.e., the idea that women need to be taken care of). If benevolent sexism is endorsed in a relationship, the female partners will often feel less competent and in turn are less likely to perceive positive

regard from their partners (Hammond & Overall, 2015). Conversely, males are less likely to experience this within a relationship, so they may not experience the same kind of competency problems that can lead to greater rates of depressive symptoms. Due to

RCSE being defined as self-worth dependent on the outcome of a relationship, if individuals high in RCSE feel they are not positively regarded by their partners they may then feel less competent within the relationship (Knee et al., 2008). As a result, they may be more likely to experience low self-worth, which may in turn lead to higher rates of depression. On the other hand, the basic psychological needs were not found to moderate

RCSE’s relationship with relationship satisfaction, with the exception being for competence in males.

The findings from this study are inconsistent with the literature (Knee et al., 2008) that posits that RCSE is a detrimental characteristic due to its originating from a thwarting of the basic psychological needs. Instead, we found that only if, and when, someone possesses lower levels of the basic psychological needs does RCSE have a negative influence on mental health outcomes. Additionally, this study failed to find significant correlations between RCSE and basic psychological needs (Table 1). In the

Knee et al. (2008) study, the associations between RCSE and the constructs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness had r values of -.18, -.09, and .03, respectively. However, these correlation coefficients are not strong enough to support the authors’ theory that

RCSE derives from the thwarting of the basic psychological needs. Further, contrary to

Knee and colleagues’ (2008) notion that low competence leads to low relationship satisfaction, the opposite relationship was found in this study. Based on this study’s findings, RCSE was positively correlated with relationship satisfaction, as well as

competence being positively associated with relationship satisfaction. As a result, the higher a participant is in RCSE, the higher one is in relationship satisfaction. However, the relationship between the two begins to weaken the higher one is in competence. More research needs to be explored on the relationship between RCSE and relationship satisfaction. Within this study, a pattern emerged where the basic psychological needs and the following correlates influenced the relationship between RCSE and depression, while no significant relationship was found with relationship satisfaction (Figure 3 & 4).

The results for the second hypothesis failed to support most of the predictions made that self-compassion would moderate the relationship between RCSE and relationship satisfaction and depression. However, for females, RCSE and depression were found to be positively related when a participant had lower levels of self- compassion. Previous studies found that with both adults and adolescents, females had lower levels of self-compassion than their male counterparts (Bluth & Blanton, 2015). As a result, female participants may be more likely to experience more severe outcomes related to lower levels of self-compassion, such as being more critical and less forgiving of oneself. Crocker and colleagues (2003) stated that an aspect of contingent self-esteem is preoccupation with the outcome of a specific domain. In the case of RCSE, the domain is relationships, and through the preoccupation of negative outcomes related to the relationship, symptoms such as self-loathing can occur. By being more critical, higher rates of depressive symptoms are likely to occur, which could then explain the difference in results for self-compassion between sexes.

Results for the third hypothesis were generally consistent with predictions that participants with high levels of anxious attachment would have a positive association

between RCSE and depression. Past studies support the results that participants that were high in anxious attachment were more likely to experience depression based on a tendency for individuals high in anxious attachment to develop negative interpretations of their relationships (Hadden et al., 2016). High levels of anxious attachment can then negatively contribute to the increased preoccupation with the relationship related to high

RCSE. As a result, the negative interpretations would then undermine how capable individuals felt in a relationship and would lead to negative feelings about the relationship and themselves. Despite consistencies with the literature for RCSE and depression, anxious attachment did not significantly moderate the relationship between

RCSE and relationship satisfaction.

Finally, the results support the fourth hypothesis that participants high in self- alienation and accepting external influence would have a positive association between

RCSE and depression. Wood and colleagues (2008) found that when individuals were high in accepting external influence and self-alienation, they would be lower in authentic living. However, in order for authenticity to be used to help develop distress tolerance, which helps protect against anxiety and depression, those aspects of authenticity should be more balanced. When individuals are high in self-alienation and accepting external influence, they are more likely to rely on avoidance techniques for coping with distressing situations (Boyraz, Waits, & Felix, 2014). Avoidance of the distressing situations can then contribute to greater levels of self-alienation, which then leads to even greater distress. Additionally, high levels of RCSE are often related to greater fixation on the relationship, and as a result, greater distress for these individuals can then lead to the development of negative emotion and depression (Knee et al., 2008). In addition, our

study found that the lower female participants were in authentic living, the stronger the positive association between RCSE and depression was, which was consistent with the hypothesis. However, male participants low in authentic living did not have a significant positive association between RCSE and depression. This discrepancy between males and females may be explained by how each sex reacts to not expressing oneself in a way that is consistent with their values. Hook, Gerstein, Detterich, and Gridley (2003) found that females were more likely than males to place an importance on expression of affection, as well as being more likely to share their emotions within their relationships. In turn, when individuals within the relationship could not connect with their partners in what they deemed an intimate way, they were at a greater risk for depression and other mental health problems. Therefore, if females high in RCSE feel they are not able to express themselves in a way that is consistent with their beliefs on maintaining an authentic relationship, they may feel less connected with their partners. They then would feel worse about themselves within their relationship and would be more likely to develop a risk for depression.

When it comes to mental health outcomes, this study helps support the idea that

RCSE’s negative influence on an individual for the outcome of depression is dependent on personality factors that influence that outcome. The basic psychological needs, anxious attachment, and authenticity were all found to influence the association that

RCSE has with depression scores. While there were differences between the significance for male and female participants for the moderating influence of competence, self- compassion, and authentic living, differences contributed specifically to sex cannot be determined and need to be further explored. Further exploration into if sex differences

exist can help identify how a lack of fulfilment in certain correlates affect males differently from females, as well as the level of severity of those mental health and relationship outcomes. Additionally, the differences can support what treatment methods may work best for males and females dependent on what construct they may be thwarted in.

These results have clinical implications in the treatment of individuals lacking in the correlates related to the basic psychological needs. Negative outcomes are likely to occur when a person is lacking in the correlates and need fulfillment. Thus, it stands to reason that working to fulfill those needs and correlates with the individuals who are thwarted in them would be beneficial. Developing treatments that target an individual’s perception of one’s own competence or ability to develop self-compassion, such as forgiving oneself, can begin to target areas that may be influencing an individual’s mental health issues (Neff, 2003). Additionally, while RCSE and relationship satisfaction did not appear to be significantly or consistently moderated by personality factors, the relationship between the two constructs was positively correlated. More research should be conducted on examining how level of RCSE impacts an individual’s satisfaction within a relationship and if RCSE has any sort of negative influence on relationship satisfaction.

A limitation of the study is that the results of correlational studies do not necessarily indicate causality. While the results suggest that the constructs analyzed were related, interpreting beyond that related nature should be done with caution. Future research that focuses on a longitudinal design would further contribute to the understanding that the related moderating variables have on the predictor (i.e., RCSE)

and outcome variables (i.e., relationship satisfaction, depression). Additionally, future research could also assess if the results of the study extends to other populations. The surveyed participants of this study were alumni of a private Catholic US university. More culturally diverse populations should be explored in order to see if the relationships between RCSE and relationship satisfaction and depression exists and are in turn moderated by specific factors for non-American cultures and different religions. Different cultures may have their relationships impacted by certain personality constructs to greater degrees than what is represented within American populations. Neff and Suizzo (2006) found that a lack of authenticity within Mexican American relationships could contribute to lower rates of self-esteem and higher rates of depression to those relationships than when compared to European American relationships. Religious background may have also impacted the results of the study. Due to the university where the data was collected being predominantly Catholic, many of the participants may share the same religious beliefs and values concerning romantic relationships. A study by Perry (2015) found that individuals whose religion was a prominent feature for both their and their partner’s relationship decisions would often be more likely to report positive marital outcomes. As a result, these values may then influence how the participants for this study reported or answered certain items on relationship-based measures. Beyond culture and religion, economic differences should be explored to see if the results from this may generalize to populations that do not have financial access to private education. More research is required to explore how generalizable the results were as well as if certain personality factors impact different populations in more distinct ways.

Despite these limitations in current research, our study has contributed more information on what personality factors impact the association of RCSE and mental health and relationship outcomes. While previous research on RCSE has determined the construct to be harmful and related to the outcomes of decreased relationship satisfaction and depression, this study provides support for the opposite relationship in some cases.

The results support the idea that RCSE in and of itself is not negative at all, but rather certain factors impact whether RCSE will negatively impact an individual’s relationship and mental health. Additionally, RCSE was positively related to relationship satisfaction within this study. As such, further exploration into if high levels of RCSE are positive for a romantic relationship should be conducted. Finally, this study helps support the notion that RCSE and mental health outcomes are related when important correlates are missing.

Self-compassion, anxious attachment, and authenticity are all personality factors that provide support or risk for individuals thwarted or fulfilled in them. It would then stand to reason that the same would occur with individuals high in RCSE, which is what the results of this study provide data for.

REFERENCES

Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A

test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 61(2), 226-244.

Bauer, J. J., & McAdams, D. P. (2000). Competence, relatedness, and autonomy in life

stories. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 276-279.

Bekker, M. J., & Croon, M. A. (2010). The roles of autonomy-connectedness and

attachment styles in depression and anxiety. Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships, 27(7), 908-923.

Bluth, K., & Blanton, P. W. (2015). The influence of self-compassion on emotional well-

being among early and older adolescent males and females. The journal of

positive psychology, 10(3), 219-230.

Boyraz, G., Waits, J. B., & Felix, V. A. (2014). Authenticity, life satisfaction, and

distress: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 61(3), 498.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple

regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences, 3rd ed. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Crocker, J., Karpinski, A., Quinn, D. M., & Chase, S. K. (2003). When Grades Determine

Self-Worth: Consequences of Contingent Self-Worth for Male and Female

Engineering and Psychology Majors. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 85(3), 507-516.

Crocker, J., & Park, L. E. (2004). The Costly Pursuit of Self-Esteem. Psychological

Bulletin, 130(3), 392-414.

Crocker, J., & Wolfe, C. T. (2001). Contingencies of self-worth. Psychological

Review, 108(3), 593-623.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The 'what' and 'why' of goal pursuits: Human needs

and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.

Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagné, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P.

(2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of

a former Eastern bloc country: A cross-cultural study of self-

determination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(8), 930-942.

Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2001). Predictors of caregiving in adult intimate

relationships: An attachment theoretical perspective. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 80(6), 972–994.

Fraley, R. C., Heffernan, M. E., Vicary, A. M., & Brumbaugh, C. C. (2011). The

experiences in close relationships—Relationship Structures Questionnaire: A

method for assessing attachment orientations across relationships. Psychological

Assessment, 23(3), 615-625.

Gagné, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in prosocial

behavior engagement. Motivation and Emotion, 27(3), 199-223.

Hadden, B. W., Rodriguez, L. M., Knee, C. R., DiBello, A. M., & Baker, Z. G. (2016).

An actor–partner interdependence model of attachment and need fulfillment in

romantic dyads. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(4), 349-357.

Hadden, B. W., Rodriguez, L. M., Knee, C. R., & Porter, B. (2015). Relationship

autonomy and support provision in romantic relationships. Motivation and

Emotion, 39(3), 359-373.

Hammond, M. D., & Overall, N. C. (2015). Benevolent sexism and support of romantic

partner’s goals: Undermining women’s competence while fulfilling men’s

intimacy needs. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 41(9), 1180-1194.

Hepper, E. G., & Carnelley, K. B. (2010). Adult attachment and feedback-seeking

patterns in relationships and work. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(3),

448-464.

Hook, M. K., Gerstein, L. H., Detterich, L., & Gridley, B. (2003). How close are we?

Measuring intimacy and examining gender differences. Journal of Counseling &

Development, 81(4), 462-472.

Knee, C. R., Canevello, A., Bush, A. L., & Cook, A. (2008). Relationship-contingent

self-esteem and the ups and downs of romantic relationships. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 95(3), 608-627.

Kobau, R., Sniezek, J., Zack, M. M., Lucas, R. E., & Burns, A. (2010). Well‐being

assessment: An evaluation of well‐being scales for public health and population

estimates of well‐being among US adults. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-

Being, 2(3), 272-297.

Lakey, C. E., Hirsch, J. K., Nelson, L. A., & Nsamenang, S. A. (2014). Effects of

contingent self-esteem on depressive symptoms and suicidal behavior. Death

Studies, 38(9), 563-570.

León, J., & Núñez, J. L. (2013). Causal ordering of basic psychological needs and well-

being. Social Indicators Research, 114(2), 243-253.

Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996). The benefits of positive illusions:

Idealization and the construction of satisfaction in close relationships. Journal of

personality and social psychology, 70(1), 79.

Neff, K. (2003). Self-compassion: An alternative conceptualization of a healthy attitude

toward oneself. Self and identity, 2(2), 85-101.

Neff, K. D., Hsieh, Y., & Dejitterat, K. (2005). Self-compassion, Achievement Goals,

and Coping with Academic Failure. Self and Identity, 4(3), 263-287.

Neff, K. D., & Suizzo, M. A. (2006). Culture, power, authenticity and psychological

well-being within romantic relationships: A comparison of European American

and Mexican Americans. Cognitive Development, 21(4), 441-457.

Olson, T. R., Presniak, M. D., & MacGregor, M. W. (2010). Reevaluating positive affect

in the Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression scale. Psychiatry

Research, 178(3), 545-549.

Perry, S. L. (2015). A match made in heaven? Religion-based marriage decisions, marital

quality, and the moderating effects of spouse’s religious commitment. Social

Indicators Research, 123(1), 203-225.

Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the

general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 385-401.

Raes, F., Pommier, E., Neff, K. D., & Van Gucht, D. (2011). Construction and factorial

validation of a short form of the Self-Compassion Scale. Clinical Psychology &

Psychotherapy, 18(3), 250-255.

Schwinger, M., Schöne, C., & Otterpohl, N. (2017). Structure of contingent self-esteem:

Global, domain-specific, or hierarchical construct?. European Journal of

Psychological Assessment, 33(5), 388-397.

Wang, Y. N. (2016). Balanced authenticity predicts optimal well-being: Theoretical

conceptualization and empirical development of the authenticity in relationships

scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 94, 316-323.

Wood, A. M., Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Baliousis, M., & Joseph, S. (2008). The authentic

personality: A theoretical and empirical conceptualization and the development of

the Authenticity Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55(3), 385-399.

Ying, Y. (2009). Contribution of self-compassion to competence and mental health in

social work students. Journal of Social Work Education, 45(2), 309-323.

Figure 1. A visual depiction of hypothesis 1.

Figure 2. A visual depiction of hypotheses 2 through 4.

Figure 3. Results of the moderation analysis for females. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.

Figure 4. Results of the moderation analysis for males. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.

APPENDIX A

Satisfaction with Work Life, Romantic Relationships, Life in General

Below are 15 statements that you may agree or disagree with. Using the 5-point scale below, indicate your agreement with each item.

1 2 3 4 5 Definitely Neutral Definitely Disagree Agree

Work Life:

______1. In most ways my work life is close to my ideal.

______2. The conditions of my work life are excellent.

______3. I am satisfied with my work life.

______4. So far I have gotten the important things I want in my work life.

______5. If I could live my work life over, I would change almost nothing.

Romantic:

______6. In most ways my romantic relationships are close to my ideal.

______7. The conditions of my romantic relationships are excellent.

______8. I am satisfied with my romantic relationships.

______9. So far I have gotten the important things I want in my romantic relationships.

______10. If I could do my romantic relationships over, I would change almost nothing.

Life in General:

______11. In most ways my life is close to my ideal.

______12. The conditions of my life are excellent.

______13. I am satisfied with my life.

______14. So far I have gotten the important things I want in life.

______15. If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing.

APPENDIX B

Basic Psychological Needs Scale

Feelings I Have

Please read each of the following items carefully, thinking about how it relates to your life, and then indicate how true it is for you. Use the following scale to respond:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Somewhat Very true true true

______1. I feel like I am free to decide for myself how to live my life.

______2. I really like the people I interact with.

______3. Often, I do not feel very competent.

______4. I feel pressured in my life.

______5. People I know tell me I am good at what I do.

______6. I get along with people I come into contact with.

______7. I pretty much keep to myself and don't have a lot of social contacts.

______8. I generally feel free to express my ideas and opinions.

______9. I consider the people I regularly interact with to be my friends.

______10. I have been able to learn interesting new skills recently.

______11. In my daily life, I frequently have to do what I am told.

______12. People in my life care about me.

______13. Most days I feel a sense of accomplishment from what I do.

______14. People I interact with on a daily basis tend to take my feelings into consideration.

______15. In my life I do not get much of a chance to show how capable I am.

______16. There are not many people that I am close to.

______17. I feel like I can pretty much be myself in my daily situations.

______18. The people I interact with regularly do not seem to like me much.

______19. I often do not feel very capable.

______20. There is not much opportunity for me to decide for myself how to do things in my daily life.

______21. People are generally pretty friendly towards me.

APPENDIX C

CES-D Depression Inventory

Below is a list of the ways you might have felt or behaved. Please tell us how often you have felt this way during the past week.

During the Past Week…

Rarely or Some or a Occasionally Most or all none of little of the or a of the time the time time (1-2 moderate (5-7 days) (less than days) amount of 1 day) time (3-4 days) 1. I was bothered by things □ □ □ □ that usually don’t bother me. 2. I did not feel like eating; □ □ □ □ my appetite was poor. 3. I felt that I could not shake off the blues even with help □ □ □ □ from my family or friends. 4. I felt I was just as good as □ □ □ □ other people. 5. I had trouble keeping my □ □ □ □ mind on what I was doing. 6. I felt depressed. □ □ □ □ 7. I felt that everything I did □ □ □ □ was an effort. 8. I felt hopeful about the □ □ □ □ future. 9. I thought my life had been □ □ □ □ a failure. 10. I felt fearful. □ □ □ □

11. My sleep was restless. □ □ □ □

12. I was happy. □ □ □ □

13. I talked less than usual. □ □ □ □

14. I felt lonely. □ □ □ □

15. People were unfriendly. □ □ □ □

16. I enjoyed life. □ □ □ □

17. I had crying spells. □ □ □ □

18. I felt sad. □ □ □ □ 19. I felt that people dislike □ □ □ □ me. 20. I could not get “going.” □ □ □ □

APPENDIX D

Relationship-Contingent Self-Esteem Scale

These next several questions are in regard to your feelings in romantic relationships in general. If you have never been in a romantic relationship, please skip these items. Please read each statement and circle the number (1-5) that indicates to extent to which that statement applies to you.

1. I feel better about myself when it seems like my partner and I are getting along.