The Link Between Attributions and Happiness in Close Relationships: The Roles of Depression and...

Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, Vol 9, No 2, 1990, pp. 243-255

THE LINK BETWEEN ATTRIBUTIONS

AND HAPPINESS IN CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS:

THE ROLES OF DEPRESSION AND

EXPLANATORY STYLE

CARRH J. O. FLERCHER, JULIE FIRNESS, AND N. M. BLAMPIED

University of Canterbury, New Zealand

Rhis study examines whether depression and attributional style mediate the link

between causal attributions and relationship happiness in close relationships. Seventy-one subjects (35 men and 36 women) in long-term premarital relationships were

asked to imagine 20 hypothetical interactive behaviors within relationships that

varied in terms of valency and self- or partner initiation. Subjects then completed a

spontaneous attribution probe by stating what they would think and feel in response

to each behavior, and these verbal protocols were taped. Causal attributions that

occurred in these protocols were later coded as relationship-positive attributions or

relationship-negative attributions. Causal judgments were also later directly elicited

for each behavior on eight causal dimensions. Replicating previous research, results

from both the spontaneous attribution probe and the causal scales suggested that

happy partners produce attributions that enhance relationship quality, whereas unhappy

partners produce attributions th,at maintain their current levels of distress. Moreover,

regression analyses revealed a unique relation between relationship happiness and

attributions that was not mediated by depression or explanatory style, indicating that

neither depression nor explanatory style account for the link between attributions

and relationship happiness.

In recent years particular interest has focused on the role played bycausal attribution processes in close relationships (for reviews, see Berley& Jacobson, 1984; Fincham, 1985; Thompson & Snyder, 1986). A consistent

finding to emerge from this research is that happy partners, relative to

Rhis research was funded by a grant to Garth Fletcher and Neville Blampied from the

Social Sciences Research Fund Committee (RG 521048), and a research grant to Garth

Hetcher from the University of Canterbury (#576463). Rhanks are extended to Jean Hammond

and Krystina Rzoska for helping to collect the data, and to Kerelia Levin and to RanyaRremewan for assisting with the coding of the protocols. Requests for reprints should be

sent to Garth Fletcher, Psychology Department, University of Canterbury, Christchurch

1, New Zealand.

243

244 FLETCHER, FITNESS, AND BLAMPIED

unhappy partners, tend to perceive their partners' positive behaviors as

caused by internal, permanent, and global characteristics; conversely,

negative behavior is judged as more situationally determined, unstable,and less general. In contrast, unhappy partners, relative to happy partners,

adopt the reverse pattern for positive and negative behaviors, respectively.In short, happy partners attributionally accept the positive implicationsof positive events and "write off" the negative events (a relationship-

positive attributional pattern), whereas unhappy partners are more likelyto attributionally dismiss the positive implications of positive behavior

and accept the unpleasant implications of negative behavior (a relationship-

negative attributional pattern). This pattern has been found in both married

couples (Fincham, Beach, & Baucom, 1987; Fincham, Beach, & Nelson,

1987; Holtzworth-Munroe & Jacobson, 1985; Jacobson, McDonald, Follette,

& Berley, 1985) and in long-term premarital relationships (Fletcher, Fin

cham, Cramer, & Heron, 1987; Grigg, Fletcher, & Fitness, 1989).Of course, the fact that attributional patterns correlate with relationship

happiness levels does not necessarily imply the existence of a causal

relation. Unfortunately, experimental procedures in which relationship

happiness or attributions are manipulated are not normally available to

researchers, for obvious ethical reasons, though several such experimentshave been completed (e.g., Seligman, Fazio, & Zanna, 1980). There is

some evidence from longitudinal research that attributions have a causal

impact on relationship happiness over time, but not vice versa (Fincham& Bradbury, 1987b; Fletcher et al., 1987). However, longitudinal designsdo not rule out the possibility that other unmeasured variables are re

sponsible for the relation between relationship happiness and attributions.

On the basis of prior theorizing and research we considered that two

variables were especially plausible candidates for such unmeasured vari

ables: depression and explanatory style. In the current research we ex

amined the role of depression and explanatory style in mediating the

relation between attributions and relationship happiness in the context

of long-term premarital relationships.

RELATIONSHIP HAPPINESS AND ATTRIBUTIONAL

PATTERNS

The research evidence suggests an interesting pattern of relations between

these four variables in the context of close relationships. There is consistent

empirical evidence for a substantial positive correlation between depressionand marital distress (for a recent review, see Gotlib & Hooley, 1988). In

addition, although the research findings are more equivocal, there is

evidence that people who are depressed tend to produce attributions

ATTRIBUTIONS IN CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS 245

for positive and negative events that are similar to the prototypical at

tributional pattern we have previously described of people in unhappy

relationships (for a recent review, see Robins, 1988). One way of inter

preting the link between depression and attributions is in terms of a

preexistent explanatory style. Indeed, there is some evidence that in

dividuals who have an explanatory style that invokes internal, stable,

and global causes for negative events are predisposed to become depressedwhen bad events occur (Abramson, Alloy, & Metalsky, 1988; Peterson

& Seligman, 1984).One major difference between attributional models of depression

and close relationships is that research into depression takes the self as

the unit of analysis, whereas attributional models of close relationshipsfocus on the relationship. This distinction has the most clear-cut implications for attributions to one's partner; for example, a partner attribution

for positive behavior is clearly relationship-positive, whereas from the

perspective of an attributional model of depression it would be viewed

as negative for the self. However, a commonly accepted proposition is

that in close relationships one's self-concept and self-esteem are closelyconnected to the dyad, so the cognitive focus becomes "we" rather than

"I" and "he or she" (Fletcher et al., 1987). Hence, we might expect that

increased depression within close relationships is associated with a re

lationship-negative pattern rather than a prototypical self-negative pattern.We proposed to test this hypothesis in the current research.

Obviously, there are many plausible causal scenarios that are con

sistent with the relations between depression, explanatory style, rela

tionship happiness, and attributions sketched above. The plausible proposition we are concerned with in this research is that relationship happinessand attributional patterns within close relationships are independentlycaused by general levels of depression and/or explanatory style. Most

developing intimate relationships go through periods of conflict or relative

unhappiness. Perhaps people who have negative explanatory styles will,in these circumstances, generate relationship-negative attributional patterns that may in turn produce depression and more endemic levels of

relationship unhappiness. Alternatively, it may be that people who are

depressed before entering these relationships will both be more likelyto become unhappy in those relationships and tend to produce relationship-

negative attributional patterns (as a function of their depression).

1. Previous research does suggest that the negative thinking of the depressed person is

applied primarily to the self rather than to other people (e.g., Bargh & Rota, 1988; Pietromonaco

& Markus, 1985, Pyszczynski, Holt, & Greenberg, 1987). However, the "other people" insuch research are typically either acquaintances or generalized groups such as other students;hence, these findings have questionable relevance to a close relationship situation.


The upshot of these arguments is that it appears a plausible possibilitythat relationship happiness and attributions are coincidentally related,

not causally related. The major purpose of the present study was to test

this possibility.To measure subjects' attributional patterns we used a technique

developed by Grigg et al. (1989) that was in turn based on a methodology

pioneered by Holtzworth-Munroe and Jacobson (1985). In this method,

subjects in happy and unhappy relationships verbally state what theywould think and feel in response to a series of imagined hypothetical

relationship behaviors that are systematically varied in terms of positivityand self- or partner initiation. Attributions that occur spontaneously in

these protocols are then coded into relationship-positive attributions or

relationship-negative attributions, depending on whether they conform

to the prototypical happy or unhappy attributional relationship patterndescribed earlier. Causal ratings are also collected on structured causal

rating scales, thus providing a convergent validity check for the spon

taneous attributional measure and also a separate attributional measure

to test our hypotheses.

METHOD

SUBJECTS

Seventy-one undergraduate students (35 men and 36 women) attendingthe University of Canterbury were recruited for this study. The sampleconsisted generally of young students involved in long-term premarital

relationships. The mean age of the sample was 20.3 years (SD= 3.7

years), and the mean time reported dating was 54.5 weeks (SD = 48.4

weeks). Subjects were selected if they reported (a) not living together,(b) seeing their partners more than three times a month, and (c) datingfor longer than 1 month. Of the total sample, 2.8% reported the relationshipas casual, 29.6% reported steady dating, 62.0% reported serious dating,and 5.6% reported being engaged.

PROCEDURE AND OVERVIEW

Five hundred sixty-eight students in dating relationships initially completeda relationship happiness questionnaire during class. Subjects who scoredin the bottom and top tertiles (happy and unhappy groups) and indicatedtheir interest in taking part in further research were then recontacted


by phone and asked to participate in the study in return for the chance

to win a lottery prize ($80).

Subjects in the final selected sample (N= 71) first completed the

relationship happiness questionnaire a second time and also scales mea

suring depression and explanatory style (described later). They then

completed the spontaneous attribution probe, stating what they would

think and feel in relation to 20 hypothetical events in their relationships.These verbal protocols were recorded on tape. Subjects then judged the

same 20 events, rating the cause(s) of each behavior on six scales. The

hypothetical events consisted of interactive behaviors that were system

atically varied in terms of their valency (positive or negative) and who

initiated the behavior (self or partner). Subjects were assured that their

data were anonymous and confidential, and they were debriefed thor

oughly after each session.

MEASURES

Depression and Explanatory Style. The short form of Beck's Depression

Inventory (Beck, 1967) is a 13-item self-report questionnaire that assesses

the severity of common depressive symptoms. The Attributional StudyQuestionnaire (Peterson et al., 1982) requires subjects to rate the perceivedcauses of six positive and six negative events on the causal dimensions

of internality, stability, and globality. In accordance with the usual practice(Peterson & Seligman, 1984) the ratings are then summed separately for

the positive and negative events.

Relationship Happiness Questionnaire. This questionnaire was specifically

designed for premarital samples and includes a short set of global judgments (see Fincham & Bradbury, 1987a). The scale was adapted from

that used by Grigg et al. (1989) and included 6 items on 7-point Likert

scales measuring perceptions of love, happiness, general satisfaction,

relationship stability, seriousness of problems, and level of commitment.

Subjects also indicated their sex and length of time dating.This short scale showed good internal reliability, with an alpha level

of .87 (based on the sample of 568 students who originally completedthe scale), and correlated .90 across the two administrations (which

varied from 2 weeks to 7 weeks). This scale has also demonstrated strong

convergent validity with Sternberg's (1987) Triangular Love Scales mea

suring intimacy (r= .82), passion (r

=

.72), and commitment (r = .77)?

2. A complete copy of this scale is available from the first author.


The relationship happiness scores (from the second administration

of the scale) and the reported time dating were analyzed separately with

2 (sex) x 2 (happy vs. unhappy group) analyses of variance. The results

showed that subjects selected as happy obtained significantly higher

relationship happiness scores (M=

37.7) than those of the group previouslyidentified as unhappy (M =

26.2), F(38)= 114.6, p < .001. In addition,

the happy and unhappy subjects did not differ significantly in the lengthof time reported dating (happy group, M

= 57.1 weeks; unhappy, M=

51.9 weeks; F < 1). Finally, sex differences were small and nonsignificant,and there were no significant interactions between sex and relationship

happiness level.

Spontaneous Relationship-positive Attributions. This measure was similar

to that used by Grigg et al. (1989). Twenty hypothetical behaviors were

printed separately on individual sheets and placed in a booklet in a

separate random order for each subject. The list of behaviors was based

on those used by Grigg et al., which had previously been selected from

the Spouse Observation Checklist (Weiss & Margolin, 1977) and pretestedfor their generalizability to dating relationships and their positivity bya student sample (e.g., "I talk affectionately to my partner," "I criticize

my partner in front of others").3 Self- and partner behaviors were evenlydistributed over the positive and negative behaviors respectively. The

behavior descriptions were manipulated so that half of the subjects in

each group (n=

9) had the behaviors relating to self reworded to applyto the partner and vice versa for the partner behaviors.

Subjects were instructed to read each behavior out loud and then

vividly imagine the behavior actually occurring. They were to talk about

the thoughts and feelings they would have if this event took place.

Subjects were then left alone while their responses were taped and were

instructed to contact the experimenter when they had finished.

Typed transcripts of the verbal protocols were obtained and coded

for the presence of causal attributions, which were defined as any attemptto explain the supplied behavior with a causal explanation (e.g., "He

would have done that to get back at me") or some factor related to the

behavior (e.g., "I would feel hurt by that because it would show he did

not care"). The attributions were then coded as relationship-positive,

relationship-negative, or neutral. Relationship-positive attributions explain

positive events by attributing them to the actor's (self or partner) positivestable traits, but they dilute the negative events by explaining the behavior

as unintentional or attributing the behavior to outside circumstances or

unstable specific states of the actor. Relationship-negative attributions

adopt the opposite pattern, for example, by explaining positive behaviors

3. A copy of all behaviors used can be obtained from the first author.


with reference to outside circumstances, the actor's momentary state,

or the unintentionality of the behavior; conversely, negative behavior

would be attributed to intentional motives or personality traits. If it wasunclear to which category the attribution belonged it was coded as neutral.4

Two coders, blind to the subjects' status, independently coded all

typed transcripts. The two coders attained an 89% agreement rate con

cerning which verbal units constituted causal attributions. All disagreements were resolved in discussion, and the same coders independentlycoded the attributions into the three attribution categories. The agreementrates for the attribution categories were 97% for the relationship-enhancement attributions, 97% for the distress-maintenance attributions,

and 72% for the neutral attributions. An overall reliability of .91 was

obtained using Cohen's kappa.The percentage of relationship-positive attributions was finally ob

tained by subtracting the total number of relationship-negative attributionsfrom the total number of relationship-positive attributions and dividing

by the sum of the relationship-positive, relationship-negative, and neutral

attributions (see note 6).Elicited Relationship-positive Attributions. The same 20 behaviors were

presented to each subject in the same order as previously completed in

the spontaneous attribution probe. The eight causal dimension scales

used in this study were derived from the attribution literature alreadycited: to what extent was the cause located in the self, partner, or cir

cumstances; how global was the cause; how intentional was the cause;

how stable was the cause; and to what extent did the partner and the

self control the cause. Subjects were again asked to imagine the behaviors

occurring and to rate the perceived cause(s) for each event on 7-pointLikert scales according to the preceding eight dimensions.

A scale was created from the mean scores for each set of five behaviors

for these eight dimensions (four sets of behaviors per dimension producing32 subtotals). To carry out an internal reliability analysis, the scoring of

16 of these subtotals was reversed, depending on whether the behavior

was positive or negative, so high scores always represented a relationship-

positive attributional pattern; for example, causal stability scores for

positive behaviors were unchanged, whereas stability scores for negativebehaviors were reversed (as low stability causes for negative behavior

are relationship-positive). The self (locus and control) dimensions obtained

item-total correlations close to zero and hence were discarded. An overall

internal reliability coefficient of .82 was obtained for the remaining six

dimensions (24 subtotals), demonstrating adequate internal consistency

4. A complete version of the coding scheme can be obtained from the first author.

5. A full copy of these dependent measures is available from the first author.


for the scale. One overall variable, representing an elicited relationship-

positive attributional pattern, was obtained by subtracting the sum of

the 12 relationship-negative subtotals from the sum of the 12 relationship-

positive subtotals.

RESULTS

RELATIONS BETWEEN ATTRIBUTIONS, RELATIONSHIP

HAPPINESS, DEPRESSION, AND EXPLANATORY STYLE

The zero-order correlations between the two summated attribution vari

ables and other variables of interest are shown in Table 1. First, we note

that the two attribution variables show good convergent validity. The

way in which subjects spontaneously explain relationship behavior is

clearly related to the way they provide causal ratings on causal dimension

scales supplied by the experimenter. Second, as predicted, relationship

happiness is positively and significantly related to the two attribution

variables. Third, depression is also significantly related to both the at

tributional variables and relationship happiness: depressed subjects were

unhappier and produced a less positive attributional pattern. The ex

planatory style variables produced fewer significant correlations, but

subjects with a more negative explanatory style did produce significantlyfewer elicited relationship-positive attributions and were significantly

unhappier.In general, then, this pattern of correlations is consistent with the

hypothesis that attributional patterns and relationship happiness are

incidentally related, both being caused by depression and/or explanatory

style. To test this possibility, two simultaneous multiple regressions were

calculated with the two attributional variables as the dependent variables.

The results are shown in Table 2. As can be seen, in both cases the

standardized regression coefficients between relationship happiness and

6. Rhe free-response and elicited attributional data were also analyzed with analyses of

variance. Rhe full results, which are available from the first author, broadly replicatedother research that has examined self- versus partner-initiated behaviors (Fincham, Beach,

& Baucom, 1987; Grigg et al., 1989; Kyle & Falbo, 1985): Happy subjects produced significantlymore relationship-positive attributions than did unhappy subjects, positive behaviors elicited

significantly more relationship-positive attributions than did negative behaviors, and subjects

produced more relationship-positive attributions for self-initiated behavior than for partner-initiated behavior (an egocentric bias). It is important to note, however, that for both the

free-response and elicited attributional dependent measures, the critical Happiness x

Relationship-positive versus Relationship-negative interactions were not qualified by anyother interaction effects.


RABLE 1

Correlations between the Independent and Dependent Variables

VARIABLES i 2 3

1. Spontaneous

relationship-positiveattributions .52*** .40***

2. Elicited relationship-positive attributions .56***

3. Relationship happiness4. Depression

5. Sex

6. Positive attributional

style

7. Negative attributional

style

Note. Sex was coded as a dummy variable (men = 2, women =

1) All other variables were scored in

the same way as they are labeled. Relationship happiness was used as a continuous variable in all the

correlational analyses, with subjects' total scores from the relationship happiness questionnaire beingentered for this variable

*

p < .05. **;> < .01.***

p < 001.

the attributional dependent variables remained positive and significant,whereas no other independent variable attained significant regression

weights. Moreover, when the same regressions were repeated but lengthof relationship was entered as a covariate, the results changed very little,with the same variables producing significant regression coefficients.

These analyses suggest there is a unique relation between relationship

happiness and attributions that is not mediated by depression or ex

planatory style.As previously noted, the only attributional dimension that decisively

distinguishes a relationship-negative pattern from a self-negative patternis the partner-locus dimension; namely, a relationship-negative patterninvolves attributing negative events to one's partner to a greater extent

than for positive events, whereas a pure self-negative attributional tend

ency would appear to entail the opposite pattern. Exarriining the summaryindex from the elicited attributional measure for the locus-partner di

mension, depressed subjects, compared to nondepressed subjects, produced a less relationship-positive pattern rather than a more self-negative

pattern (r= -.28, p < .02); the correlation between relationship happiness

and the same attributional dimension obtained a similar relationship-

positive pattern (r= .37, p < .001). This result suggests that depressed

subjects are producing a relationship-negative attributional pattern rather

than a self-negative pattern.

4 5

-.30* .19

- 24* .08

-.45*** .02

.12

6 7

.13 -.19

.20 -.32**

.08 -.27*

.05 .17

.12 .10

-.11


RABLE 2

Standardized Regression Coefficients from Rwo Simultaneous Multiple

Regressions with the Relationship-Positive Attributional Measures

as the Dependent Variables

DEPENDENR VARIABLES

INDEPENDENR

VARIABLES

SPONRANEOUS R-P

ARRR1BURIONS

ELICIRED R-P

ARTRIBURIONS

Relationship happiness .28* 50**

Depression -.18 .00

Sex .21 .07

Positive attributional style .08 .14

Negative attributional style -.10 -.17

Note. R-P =

relationship-positive. Sex was coded as a dummy vanable (men= 2, wom

en =

1). All other variables were scored in the same way as they are labeled The multiplecorrelations were 48 for the spontaneous attributional measure, F(5, 65)

= 4.0, p < .01;

and .60 for the elicited attnbuhonal measure, F(5, 65) = 7 5, p < .001.

*

p < .05."

p< 001

Finally, in a further analysis, we replicated the regression analysesdescribed above but with an elicited attributional dependent measure

derived from the same attributional dimensions as used in the Attributional

Style Questionnaire and most commonly used in depression research:

locus (including the self, partner, and circumstances dimensions), stability,and globality. Again, the measures were combined so that the total scores

represented a relationship-positive pattern. The results were very similar

to the original analysis, with regression coefficients of .50 (p < .001) for

relationship happiness and .06 for depression. The only result different

from the earlier analysis was that negative attributional style obtained

a significant regression coefficient (-.26, p < .02). This does not alter

the conclusion that the relation between relationship happiness and

attributions is not mediated by explanatory style, but it suggests that

explanatory style and relationship happiness may independently influence

relationship attributions.

DISCUSSION

Our analysis of both the experimenter-elicited attributions and the spontaneous attributions support two major conclusions. First, our findingsreplicate previous findings that people in happy close relationships produceexplanations for both self- and partner behavior that appear designed


to enhance existing high levels of happiness and love; in contrast, unhappy

partners produce attributional patterns that are more likely to maintain

existing levels of unhappiness. More important, we also found a uniquerelation between the levels of relationship happiness and attributional

patterns that was not accounted for by either depression or explanatorystyle.

In addition, our results suggest that in close relationships, when

participants are explaining interactive behavior, depression is associated

with a relationship-negative pattern of attributions rather than with a

prototypical self-negative attributional pattern. Of course, if we acceptthat levels of self-esteem in intimate relationships are causally connected

to the partners' behavior and also to the participants' overall relationshipevaluations, then it is hardly surprising that relationship-negative attri

butions (e.g., attributing negative events to one's partner) may have

negative consequences for the self (such as increased depression). In

short, in the context of intimate relationships, relationship-negative at

tributional patterns may also constitute self-negative attributional patterns.These findings provide further evidence for the robust nature of the

relation between the attitudes people hold toward intimate relationshipsand their explanations for interactive behavior within such relationships.

Clearly, there are important differences between premarital and marital

relationships that suggest caution should be exercised in generalizingacross the two groups. Moreover, the subjects used in this research were

generally in stable long-term relationships. The extent to which such

factors as frequency of contact or relationship stage may qualify the

results presented here are questions for further research. However, our

findings from a sample of New Zealand students in premarital relation

ships, with respect to the relations between relationship happiness,

depression, and attributions, are similar to those found from research

with married couples living in the United States. This similarity suggestswe are dealing with some fundamental social psychological processesthat may apply generally to heterosexual close relationships.

It is important to note that our results do not show that depressionand explanatory style are necessarily causally unrelated to either rela

tionship happiness or attributions. The regression results do rule out

one causal model in which relationship happiness and attributions are

independently produced by depression and/or explanatory style and

hence are correlated but not causally related. However, our findings arealso consistent with other plausible causal models; for example, it is

possible that prior levels of depression and explanatory style are causallyrelated to relationship happiness levels, which in turn are related to

attributional patterns. Future investigation concerning the roles of

depression and explanatory style in the link between attributions and


behavior in close relationships is, in our view, a promising avenue of

research.

REFERENCES

Abramson, L. Y., Alloy, L. B., & Metalsksy, G. I. (1988). Rhe cognitive diathesis-stress

theories of depression: toward an adequate evaluation of the theories' validities. In

L. B. Alloy (Ed.), Cognitive processes m depression (pp. 3-30). New York: Guilford Press.

Bargh, J. A., & Rota, M E. (1988). Context-dependent automatic processing in depression:

Accessibility of negative constructs with regard to self but not others, journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 925-939.

Beck, A. T. (1967). Depression: Clinical, experimental ,and therapeutic aspects. New York: Harper

and Row.

Berley, R. A., & Jacobson, N. S. (1984). Causal attributions in intimate relationships:Rowards a model of cognitive-behavioral therapy. In P. Kendall (Ed.), Advances in

cognitive-behavioral research and therapy (Vol. 3, pp. 1-60). New York. Academic Press.

Fincham, F. D (1985). Attribution in close relationships In J H. Harvey & G. Weary

(Eds.), Contemporary attribution theory and research (pp. 203-234). New York: Academic

Press

Fincham, F. D., Beach, S. R., & Baucom, D. H. (1987). Attribution processes in distressed

and nondistressed couples. 4. Self-partner attribution differences, journal ofPersonalityand Social Psychology, 52, 739-748

Fincham, F. D., Beach, S., & Nelson, G. (1987). Attribution processes in distressed and

nondistressed couples: 3. Causal and responsibility attributions for spouse behavior.

Cognitive Therapy and Research, 11, 71-86.

Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1987a). Rhe assessment of marital quality: A reevaluation.

Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 797-809.

Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1987b). Rhe impact of attributions in marriage: A

longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 739-748.

Fletcher, G J Q, Fincham, F, Cramer, L., & Heron, N. (1987) Rhe role of attributions

in close relationships, fournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 481-489.

Gotlib, I H,& Hooley, J. M. (1988). Depression and marital distress: Current status and

future directions. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 543-580).New York: Wiley.

Grigg, F., Fletcher, G. ]. O., & Fitness, ] (1989). Spontaneous attributions in happy and

unhappy dating relationships, journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 61-68.

Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Jacobson, N. S. (1985). Causal attributions of married couples:When do they search for causes? What do they conclude when they do? Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1398-1412.

Jacobson, N. S., McDonald, D. W., Follette, W. C, & Berley, R. A. (1985). Attribution

processes in distressed and nondistressed married couples. Cognitive Therapy and

Research, 9, 35-50.

Kyle, S. Q, & Falbo, T. (1985). Relationship between marital stress and attributional

preferences for own and spouse behavior. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 3,335-351.

Peterson, C, & Seligman, M. E. P. (1984). Causal explanations as a risk factor for depression:

Rheory and evidence. Psychological Review, 91, 347-374.

Peterson, C, Semmel, A ,von Baeyer, C, Abramson, L. Y., Metalsky, G. I., & Seligman,

M. E. P. (1982). Rhe Attributional Style Questionnaire. Cognitive Therapy and Research,

6, 287-299.


Pietromonaco, P. R., & Markus, H. (1985) Rhe nature of negative thoughts in depression.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 799-807

Pyszczynski, R, Holt, K., & Greenberg, J. (1987). Depression, self-focused attention, and

expectancies for positive and negative future life events for self and others, journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 994-1001.

Robins, C. J (1988). Attributions and depression: Why is the literature so inconsistent?

journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 880-889.

Seligman, C, Fazio, R. H ,& Zanna, M. P. (1980). Effects of salience of extrinsic rewards

on liking and loving lournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 453-460.

Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Construct i>ahdation of a triangular theory of love. Unpublished manuscript,Yale University, New Haven, CR

Rhompson, J. S., & Snyder, D. K. (1986). Attribution theory in intimate relationships: A

methodological review. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 14, 123-138.

Weiss, R. L., & Margolin, G. (1977). Assessment of marital conflict and accord In A. R.

Ciminero, K. D. Calhoun, & H. E. Adams (Eds.), Handbook of behavioral assessment

(pp. 555-602). New York: Wiley.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

The Link Between Attributions and Happiness in Close Relationships: The Roles of Depression and...

Documents

Transcript of The Link Between Attributions and Happiness in Close Relationships: The Roles of Depression and...