Attributional Style Among Married Couples

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology1989, Vol. 56, No. 4, 596-607

Copyright 1989 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.0022-35l4/89/$00.75

Attributional Style and Attributional Patterns Among Married Couples

Donald H. Baucom, Steven L. Sayers, and Autumn DuheUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Explored whether couples develop an attributional style in explaining marital behavior. Results dem-onstrate that spouses vary greatly in the extent to which they develop an attributional style in thisarea. Development of an attributional style is correlated with marital distress. Investigators haveassumed that simultaneous attributional ratings across several attributional dimensions best charac-terize the attributions that spouses make for marital events. Yet almost all studies to date haveconsidered each attributional dimension separately. The current investigation explored whethermeaningful attributional patterns across dimensions were discernible for marital events. Findingsindicate that such patterns do exist and are psychologically interpretable, and support the hypothesisthat distressed spouses tend to maximize negative partner behaviors while minimizing positive part-ner behaviors.

In recent years, a major focus within attribution research hasinvolved an attempt to differentiate among the types of attribu-tions provided by different individuals. At the center of theseinvestigations has been the construct of attributional style. In-voking the notion of an attributional style implies that an indi-vidual develops a consistent way of providing causal explana-tions across divergent situations, thus implying the existence ofa personality characteristic (Feather & Tiggemann, 1984).Much of the recent research in this area has been stimulated bythe reformulated learned helplessness theory (Abramson, Selig-man, & Teasdale, 1978) and the development of the Attribu-tional Style Questionnaire (Seligman, Abramson, Semmel, &von Baeyer, 1979). Learned helplessness theory proposed thatthere is an attributional style that is correlated with depression.However, other investigators have begun to question whetherattributional style is a meaningful construct. For example, Cu-trona, Russell, and Jones (1984) reported only weak evidencethat similar attributions were made in divergent situations.Similarly, Arntz, Gerlsma, and Albersnagel (1985) concludedthat there was little consistency in attributions across situations,and that the situation was a more important factor than attribu-tional style in influencing causal attributions.

Taking these findings into account, investigators have sug-gested that the notion of attributional style needs to be morenarrowly denned (Cutrona et al., 1984). That is, Arntz et al.(1985) suggested that attributional style or a consistency in pro-viding causal explanations may exist only within a particularbehavioral domain (e.g., interpersonal failure situations). An-derson, Jennings, and Arnoult (1988) referred to this as attribu-tional style operating at "moderate levels of specificity" (p.984). The results of several investigations are consistent withthe idea that an individual makes similar causal explanationsfor events that fall within a similar domain (Anderson & Ar-

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Don-ald H. Baucom, Department of Psychology, Davie Hall 013A, Univer-sity of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514.

noult, 1985a, 1985b; Anderson, Horowitz, & French, 1983; An-derson et al., 1988; Metalsky, Halberstadt, & Abramson, 1987).

One domain of particular importance to many adults is theirmarital relationship, and the role of causal attributions withinthe context of intimate relationships and marital adjustmenthas received considerable attention from a theoretical (e.g.,Baucom, 1987; Berley & Jacobson, 1984; Doherty, 1981; Fin-cham, 1983) and empirical perspective (Baucom, Wheeler, &Bell, 1984; Doherty, 1982; Fincham, 1985; Fincham, Beach, &Baucom, 1987; Fincham & O'Leary, 1983; Holtzworth-Munroe & Jacobson, 1985; Jacobson, McDonald, Follette, &Berley, 1985; Madden & Janoff-Bulman, 1981; Orvis, Kelley,& Butler, 1976; Passer, Kelley, & Michela, 1978; Thompson &Kelley, 1981). Consistent with the notion of attributional stylewithin the marital domain, Weiss (1980) has proposed the no-tion of sentiment override. He suggested that most spouses de-velop a general set of feelings toward their partner, and that thisset will influence the way in which the individual perceives andinterprets various marital events. As applied to attributions,this implies that more happily married individuals will supplyexplanations or attributions for marital events that serve to en-hance or maintain their happiness with the relationship. Thus,positive marital events will be attributed to the partner or therelationship and will be seen as relatively stable and likely toinfluence many situations and as reflecting the partner's posi-tive attitude toward the respondent. Conversely, to minimizethe impact of negative marital events, satisfied couples willmore likely attribute them to outside factors and view the causesas unstable and unlikely to affect many circumstances. Moredistressed couples will likely provide attributions that serve toemphasize negative aspects of the relationship by providing at-tributions opposite to those provided by nondistressed couples.

Although there are some discrepancies, the results of the pre-viously mentioned investigations generally support these hy-pothesized relations. These investigations have typically consid-ered an individual's mean attributions across situations; how-ever, the issue of consistency of attributions across differentmarital situations has not been investigated empirically. Thus,investigating this important interpersonal relationship can shed

596

ATTRIBUTIONAL STYLE 597

some light on the issue of whether individuals develop an attri-butional style within significant delineated areas of their lives.The current study explores the extent to which spouses do pro-vide similar explanations for different marital events andwhether the degree of consistency is related to level of maritaladjustment.

At present, at least two competing hypotheses seem plausiblein this regard. First, simplistically responding to a wide rangeof experiences with a similar explanation might be maladaptiveand result in marital discord; thus, greater demonstration of anattributional style would be correlated with decreased maritaladjustment. Second, consistent with sentiment override, bothdistressed and nondistressed spouses might provide explana-tions to maintain their perceptions of the relationship. If so,then the content of attributions offered by distressed and non-distressed spouses would differ, but both groups of spouseswould be characterized by consistent attributional styles.Therefore, degree of attributional style would not be linearlyrelated to level of marital adjustment. At present, there is nobasis to favor one of these two hypotheses over the other; there-fore, we considered the present investigation exploratory in thisregard.

To address this issue, we had to give thought to the most ap-propriate way to score and conceptualize attributional mea-sures. For example, most investigators would agree that pat-terns of attributions across dimensions are of utmost impor-tance in understanding an individual's attributions. However,investigators for the most part have analyzed attributional di-mensions separately, either correlating each dimension sepa-rately with marital adjustment or comparing clinic (couples re-ceiving marital therapy) and nonclinic couples on each dimen-sion one at a time. It is not appropriate to sum across findingsbased on separate dimensions to arrive at a description of thetypes of attributions made. For example, if distressed and non-distressed couples are found to differ on how stable they viewthe attributions for negative marital events and also on howglobal they perceive the attributions for negative marital eventsto be, it is not appropriate to conclude that distressed couplesmake more global-stable attributions for the same events. It isquite possible to obtain these findings yet have global attribu-tions be given in those very instances in which unstable attribu-tions are provided for a given marital event. Instead, a moremeaningful understanding of attributions might be obtained ifthe various dimensions used to rate an attribution were consid-ered simultaneously.

Recognizing that the various attributional dimensions mightmeaningfully be viewed in a pattern, Holtzworth-Munroe andJacobson (1985) devised a rating system to categorize attribu-tions as relationship enhancing, distress maintaining, or neu-tral. Each of these categories was determined by taking a num-ber of attributional dimensions into account. However, the pat-terns of attributions that resulted in the categorization wererationally derived by the investigators, and it is unclear whetherthese patterns conform to those actually used by couples. Analternative strategy would be to determine empirically the pat-terns that couples use in explaining relationship events. Thus,an additional goal of the current investigation was to determinewhether we could isolate empirically derived patterns of attri-butional dimensions that characterize couples' approaches to

explaining marital events. In addition, we explored the relationof these various patterns to marital adjustment.

Method

Subjects

This study focuses on the relation between marital adjustment andattributions. To obtain a wide range of marital adjustment, we gathereddata from couples requesting marital therapy and from nonclinic cou-ples.

Clinic couples. All clinic couples had requested marital therapy,which was being offered as part of a marital treatment outcome investi-gation in the University of North Carolina's psychology department(Baucom, 1985). The clinic group for this study was composed of thosecouples accepted for the outcome investigation who were legally mar-ried and who reported having marital difficulties.

The 49 clinic couples completed the questionnaires of interest to thisstudy as part of the routine initial assessment prior to beginning therapy.The men's ages ranged from 27 to 51 (M = 36.7) and the women's from24 to 46 (M = 33.9). The men averaged 16.5 years of education, and thewomen 15.5 years. There was an average 1.9 children per couple. Weassessed level of marital distress by using the Dyadic Adjustment Scale(DAS; Spanier, 1976). The men's and women's DAS scores averaged90.4 and 84.4, respectively. These DAS scores are very similar to averagepretreatment couple scores reported by Jacobson (1984) in a recentmarital therapy outcome investigation.

Nonclinic couples. At the same time the target couples were enteringtreatment, we generated a random sample of 225 couples from a ChapelHill community directory. Letters were sent to these couples introduc-ing the project as a study of marital attitudes. Of the initial group, 160couples were successfully contacted by telephone: 34 (21%) completedthe questionnaires. The nonclinic couples received a coupon for a freemeal at a local restaurant in appreciation for their participation.

The men's ages ranged from 21 to 75 (M = 41.4); the women's from23 to 68 (M = 39.0). The men averaged 18.1 years of education, andthe women 16.5 years. There were an average 1.7 children per couple.Significance tests indicated that nonclinic spouses were better educatedthan clinic spouses, men, F(l, 81) = 4.51, p < .05; women, ̂ (1,81) =6.3, p < .05, and older than clinic spouses, men, F(l, 81) = 7.09, p <.01; women, P(l, 81) = 4.59, p < .05. The DAS scores for the menaveraged 112.8; the women's averaged 111.8. We found significantdifferences in the expected direction between the mean DAS scores forthe clinic and nonclinic men, F(l, 81) = 43.59, p < .0001, and for theclinic and nonclinic women, F( 1, 81) = 72.24, p < .0001.

Because samples of clinic couples typically include some individualsin the nondistressed range of marital adjustment and because commu-nity samples typically include a substantial number of maritally dis-tressed couples, the data-analytic strategy did not focus on comparingclinic and nonclinic couples. Instead, we sampled these two populationsto provide a wide range of scores on marital adjustment for later correla-tional analyses. To justify such a data-analytic strategy, the combinedsample must provide a rather continuous range of scores on maritaladjustment. The combined sample of clinic and nonclinic couples metthese requirements. The men's DAS scores ranged from 68 to 132 withno more than a 2-point gap between obtained scores within this range.Similarly, the women's scores ranged from 70 to 126 on the DAS withno more than a 2-point gap in their scores within this range.

Materials

DAS. The DAS is a self-report inventory designed to provide a mea-sure of adjustment in intimate dyads, with higher scores indicatinggreater adjustment. The internal consistency of the scale as a whole, as

598 D. BAUCOM, S. SAVERS, AND A. DUHE

measured by Cronbach's alpha, is .96. The evidence for criterion-re-lated and construct validity is good. The DAS reliably discriminatesbetween married and divorced spouses and correlates highly with theLocke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976).

Dyadic Attribution Inventory (DAI). The DAI is the focus of thisstudy. Its design follows that of the Attributional Style Questionnaire(Seligman et al., 1979) used in learned helplessness research and themarital attributional questionnaire developed by Fincham and O'Leary(1983). The 24 items on the DAI describe hypothetical situationsadapted from the Spouse Observation Checklist (SOC; Weiss, Hops, &Patterson, 1973). All of the situations described in the DAI are internalto the marital relationship and involve both partners. The descriptionof each event is general enough to permit virtually all couples to imaginethe event occurring in their relationship. The 24 randomly arrangeditems are rationally assigned to two subscales. One subscale consists of12 items in which the outcome of the spouse's behavior is negative(NEC); the other consists of 12 items in which the outcome of thespouse's behavior is positive (POS). We sampled items from the SOC inthe following topic areas for both POS and NEG: affection, compliment-ing, consideration, sharing feelings (2 items, both positive and negativecontent), sex, household chores, personal habits, finances, companion-ship, and communication (2 items, both positive and negative content).In the categories of (a) sharing feelings and (b) communication, the con-tent of what was discussed could be positive or negative, independent ofthe outcome of the interaction as either positive or negative. Thus, weused all combinations of content and outcome in these two topic areas.For example, the DAI item focusing on negative content with a negativeoutcome in terms of sharing feelings is "\four partner does not appearto be listening as you describe how angry you are with him or her."

Respondents are asked to read the hypothetical situation presentedin the item and vividly imagine that the situation has just occurred intheir relationship. They then write down the major cause for thespouse's behavior in that situation and make five ratings that clarify theattribution (cause). The first three ratings focus on the extent to whichthe partner's behavior is due to the following sources: me (the respon-dent), partner, and outside circumstances (circumstances outside therelationship). A separate rating is made for each of these three scoreson a 7-point scale ranging from not at all due to this factor (1) to totallydue to this factor (7). Respondents then rate the cause on these attribu-tional dimensions: unstable-stable (i.e., extent to which the cause willcontinue to be present in the future) and specific-global (i.e., extent towhich the cause will affect numerous aspects of the relationship). Conse-quently, there are five attributional ratings made for each item. Two finalquestions for each item focus on (a) the importance of each situation ifit actually occurred (high scores reflect great importance) and (b) howpositively or negatively the partner's behavior would make the respon-dent feel (high scores reflect positive emotions).

The final scores on the DAI are the means of the ratings on eachdimension within each positive or negative category. For example, ascore for me-POS would be represented by the mean of the ratings forme on the 12 items with positive outcomes. For most purposes, 14scores are derived on the DAI, 7 for POS items: me, partner, outsidecircumstances, specific-global, unstable-stable, importance, and feel-ing. Seven similar scores are derived for NEG items.

Procedure

After instructions from research assistants, the clinic couples com-pleted all inventories at home before the first meeting with their thera-pist. Nonclinic couples were contacted by telephone soon after they re-ceived an introductory letter. Research assistants delivered copies of theDAI to the nonclinic couples' homes and picked them up after comple-tion. All spouses were told to complete the DAI without collaboratingwith each other. The DAI was explained in person to couples because

some individuals have questions about the various ratings and what todo if their spouses do not behave as described; after appropriate expla-nations, all couples completed the DAI without difficulty.

Results

We performed three sets of analyses to address the issues dis-cussed in the beginning of this article. First, we conducted anal-yses to assess the adequacy of the DAI as a measure of maritalattributions, and to investigate whether the findings using theDAI are similar to those obtained in earlier investigations. In asecond set of analyses, we explored whether there are meaning-ful patterns across dimensions that can be isolated empirically.Third, we explored attributional style within the marital con-text.

Dyadic Attribution Inventory

We performed the following analyses to ensure that the itemson the DAI had the intended valence, because the items hadbeen divided a priori into two major groupings: events havinga negative impact and events having a positive impact. To clarifywhether the husbands and wives viewed the items in this way,we analyzed the responses for each of the 24 items on the DAIfor Question (f) "If your partner behaved as described above,how would you feel?" Using a score of 4 as the midpoint, bothhusbands and wives rated each item on the expected side of themidpoint (husbands, POS mean = 5.5, NEG mean = 3.1;wives, POS mean = 5.6, NEG mean = 2.8). The / tests of corre-lated means between the means of POS and NEG indicated thatsubjects of each sex reported that they would feel worse if theirspouses engaged in the negative behaviors than the positive be-haviors; husbands,/(82) = 28.2,p < .0001; wives,/(82) = 25.98,p< .0001. Thus, the NEG and POS items had the intendedemotional valences.

To evaluate whether the general pattern of previous findingsregarding attributions and marital adjustment was replicatedwith the DAI, the subjects' DAI dimension scores for POS andNEG items were correlated with their DAS scores. We analyzedthe data for husbands and wives separately because it has beenargued that on both a conceptual (Baucom, 1983) and an em-pirical basis (Baucom & Mehlman, 1984), the frequently usedstrategy of averaging husbands' and wives' scores often disguisesimportant sex differences. Combining scores for husbands andwives on the DAI would be particularly problematic becausethe spouses typically provide different causes for the behavior,and the attributional ratings are made relative to the causes sup-plied by the respondents. Thus, combined scores across spouseswould be meaningless because the attributional ratings are notbased on the same cause. These correlations are presented inTable 1.

As is shown in Table 1, men with higher levels of marital ad-justment tended to attribute their partner's negative behaviorto circumstances outside the relationship, whereas the less mar-itally adjusted husbands attributed their partners' negative be-havior to the partner and to self. Husbands with lower DASscores also tended to see negative behavior as caused by rela-tively stable factors that affect many situations. For women, thepattern of correlational results for negative behaviors was al-


Table 1Pearson Product-Moment Correlations of Dyadic Attribution Inventory Attributions With Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS)

DAS

Negative behaviorMenWomen

Positive behaviorMenWomen

Me

-0.21*-0.34***

0.19*0.17

Partner

-0.32***-0.32***

0.15-0.15

Outsidecircumstances

0.42****"0.17

-0.05-0.24"

Stability

-0.27**-0.50****

0.41****0.16

Globality

-0.48****-0.57****

0.22*0.10

Importance

-0.44****-0.40****

0.21*0.27**

Feeling

0.35****0.39***

0.43****0.46****

Note. All tests one-tailed.1 Correlation adjusted for subjects' years of formal education.*p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.005. ****p<.001.

most identical. The only difference concerned the lack of rela-tion of marital adjustment to the outside circumstances dimen-sion. Also, for both men and women, the importance of negativebehaviors increased as marital adjustment decreased. Finally,the partners' negative behavior reportedly made them feel lessnegative as marital adjustment increased.

As shown in Table 1, the relations between marital adjust-ment and attributions for the partners' positive behavior are lessconsistent, although all significant findings are in the expecteddirection. Compared with more distressed husbands, less dis-tressed husbands view the causes for their wives' positive behav-ior as due more to themselves and as more stable, global, andimportant, and the positive behavior makes these men feel bet-ter. Wives with higher DAS scores view the causes for their hus-bands' behavior as less due to outside circumstances; also, com-pared with more distressed wives, less distressed wives view thepositive behaviors as more important and as having a more pos-itive emotional impact on them.

Exploring Profile Analyses With the DAI

Whereas the correlational results given in the preceding sec-tion suggest the utility of considering each dimension (and itsrelation to marital discord) separately, an additional challengewas to isolate patterns of attributions used when the dimensionswere considered simultaneously. To achieve this goal, we imple-mented the following general strategy. Instead of examining themean of the dimension score across 12 items (12 POS and 12NEG), we began the present analyses at the item level. That is,for each subject, we categorized each item on the DAI accordingto the pattern of scores on the attributional dimensions for thatitem. After using several techniques to reduce the number ofpatterns to a manageable level, we examined the extent to whicheach of these categories was used by subjects and correlated itwith the subjects' level of marital distress. In this manner, itwas possible to consider what type of attributional pattern(s)typified distressed couples, rather than considering one attribu-tional dimension at a time.

As an initial step in the process just described, we averagedthe globality and stability dimensions to reduce the number ofpossible patterns when considering each dimension simulta-neously. These dimensions were combined because on a con-ceptual basis they both represent consistency. That is, stability

assesses consistency across time, whereas globality assesses con-sistency across situations. To determine whether averagingacross the two dimensions was justifiable on an empirical basis,we computed correlations between the globality and stabilityratings (computed separately for each item). We then averagedthese correlation coefficients across the 24 items. The mean cor-relation between stability and globality was 0.40 for men and0.46 for women, indicating a positive relation between these di-mensions. All of the corresponding item correlations on thesetwo dimensions, for both sexes, were positive. The mean corre-lations between all other possible pairs of dimensions rangedfrom r = -0.11 to r = 0.27, indicating that the stability andglobality dimensions were the most highly correlated attribu-tional dimensions. On the basis of the conceptualization of thetwo scores as being related to both consistency and the support-ing empirical evidence, we averaged the stability and globalityratings on the item level to yield a single score for each itemreferred to as global-stable. The other dimensions, me, partner,and outside circumstances, were used as originally presented.

To categorize the dimension ratings into patterns of attribu-tions, we used the following strategy. If the rating on an itemwas greater than the midpoint of the scale (4), it was character-ized as high on that dimension; if the rating was less than orequal to the midpoint, it was characterized as low. A patternwas identified as the combination of high and low ratings acrossthe four attributional dimensions. For example, on Item 1, onesubject had the following scores: me = 5, partner = 7, outsidecircumstances = 3, and global-stable = 6. This would corre-spond to the pattern me = high, partner = high, outside circum-stances = low, global-stable = high. As presented in Table 2,16patterns of attributions for each item were possible with thismethod.

Analysis of this data proceeded separately for the 12 positiveand 12 negative items. For each subject, we formed a score foreach of the 16 patterns separately for positive and negativeitems, reflecting the frequency with which that pattern wasused. For example, if for a particular subject 3 of the 12 positiveitems were explained by high me, low partner, high outside cir-cumstances, and low global-stable, that pattern variable wouldhave a score of 3. An item was assigned only to one category.We used the same strategy in forming pattern scores for thenegative items. Thus, each of the subjects had 16 pattern vari-


Table 2Attributional Patterns on the Dyadic Adjustment Inventory

Eliminated forthe analyses on:

Men Women

POS

XXX

X

X

X

NEG POS

X

X

X X

X XX

X

NEG

X

X

X

X

fatternNo.

123456789

10111213141516

Me

LowHighLowLowHighHighLowHighLowHighLowLowHighHighLowHigh

Partner

LowLowHighLowHighLowHighHighLowLowHighLowHighLowHighHigh

uutsiaecircumstances

LowLowLowHighLowHighHighHighLowLowLowHighLowHighHighHigh

uiooai-stable

LowLowLowLowLowLowLowLowHighHighHighHighHighHighHighHigh

Note. POS = behavior with a positive outcome; NEG = behavior with a negative outcome. High = Ratingon this dimension is greater than the midpoint, 4. Low = Rating on this dimension is less than or equal tothe midpoint, 4.

ables for positive behavior and 16 pattern variables for negativebehavior, each with a possible value between 0 and 12.

Within each sex, we eliminated nine patterns from the analy-ses because they were infrequently used by the subjects. Thepatterns eliminated are indicated in Table 2. A pattern waseliminated (separately for men and women) if it met the follow-ing criteria: (a) if 95% of the subjects used that pattern only onceor not at all, or (b) if at least 80% never used it, and no subjectused it more than three times.

To further reduce the data, we performed a principal-compo-nents analysis with a varimax rotation on the remaining patternvariables. We performed the analysis separately for positive andnegative pattern variables within female subjects and withinmale subjects, resulting in four separate analyses. In each case,the number of components extracted was chosen according toinspection of a scree plot of the amount of variance accountedfor by the components. We selected five components for eachanalysis; for women, these components accounted for 82% (neg-ative components) and 88% (positive components) of the totalvariance, whereas the men's five components accounted for70% (negative components) and 84% (positive components) ofthe total variance. The factor loadings for each set of data arepresented in Table 3.

We interpreted the principal components formed by the pat-tern variables by examining loadings with an absolute value of.30 or greater. Considering men's and women's data separately,the number of components in the total dataset is still ratherlarge. Therefore, only the components that demonstrate a sig-nificant relation to marital discord are interpreted.

To clarify how these components related to marital adjust-ment, component scores were formed on the principal compo-nents and then correlated with the DAS.

For women, three of the component scores for negative be-havior were significantly correlated with the DAS. The DASscores were significantly correlated with the first component(r = 0.45, p < .001), which we labeled specific-unstable versusglobal-stable; the results indicate that attributing the spouse'snegative behavior to specific and transient causes is related togreater marital adjustment. The second component was sig-nificantly negatively correlated with the DAS (r = -0.22, p <.05). We labeled this component relationship versus partnerblame, because the patterns that defined this variable con-cerned attributions to the partner and the respondent; negativeloadings consisted of attributions to stable aspects of the re-spondent's partner. This suggests that placing blame on the rela-tionship is negatively associated with marital adjustment. Fi-nally, the third component was positively correlated with DASscores (r = 0.30, p < .01); we labeled this component partner'ssituation versus partner's traits because of the loading of thepattern variables that consisted of attributions to the partnerand inconsistent circumstances outside the relationship in con-trast to consistent aspects of the partner. This indicates that at-tributing the partner's negative behavior to the partner's situa-tion is associated with higher levels of marital adjustment.

Two of the women's components regarding attributions forpositive behavior were significantly correlated with DAS scores.First, there was a significant negative correlation between DASand the second component (r = -0.22, p < .05). This compo-nent, labeled individual versus relationship, reflects attributionsof positive behavior to either person alone versus both spouses;the correlation of DAS with this component indicates that giv-ing both partners credit for positive events instead of either onealone is related to marital adjustment. The fourth componentrepresented attributions to stable aspects of the partner and as-


TablesFactor Structure of the Attributional Pattern Variables

Rotated principal component number

Variable 1 2 3 4 5

Women: negative pattern

1345789

1112131516

Specific-unstablevs. global-stable

0.396"0.464"0.843"0.423"

-0.1080.101

-0.155-0.341"

0.159-0.311"-0.533"-0.224

Partner blamevs. relationship

-0.066-0.111-0.092-0.010-0.093

0.2710.010

-0.579"0.0360.591"

-0.0760.75 T

Partner's situationvs. partner's traits

-0.0150.1110.150

-0.0310.941"0.1170.025

-0.563"0.119

-0.0370.009

-0.262

-0.025-0.132

0.1090.017

-0.059-0.084-0.462"-0.462"-0.002-0.189

0.839"0.224

0.0030.842"

-0.347"0.097

-0.129-0.129

0.058-0.096-0.409"

0.0700.023

-0.110

Women: positive pattern

23579

101113141516

123457

10111213141516

12379

1011131516

0.631"0.652"0.478"0.406"

-0.1400.328"

-0.408"-0.285-0.006-0.127-0.233

0.318"0.377"0.783"0.2000.254

-0.176-0.102

0.074-0.611"-0.066-0.245-0.244-0.318"

-0.114-0.084-0.433"-0.100-0.147-0.035-0.623"

0.874"0.0600.014

Individual vs.relationship

0.0960.134

-0.1700.063

-0.0160.485"0.807"

-0.773"-0.006-0.063-0.125

Men:

Partner blamevs. inconsistentfactors outsiderelationship

-0.342"-0.082

0.035-0.560"-0.036-0.109

0.0360.974"

-0.2370.041

-0.1500.043

-0.109

Men:

-0.076-0.022-0.268"

0.081-0.008-0.042-0.544"-0.083-0.038

0.968"

-0.079-0.144

0.039-0.025-0.259-0.062-0.333"-0.190

0.307"-0.160

0.951"

negative pattern

Partner's situationvs. not partner

-0.347"0.094

-0.0630.348"

-0.0170.867"

-0.355"-0.070-0.439"-0.076

0.030-0.166

0.026

: positive pattern

Partner andoutside

circumstances vs.relationship

-0.066-0.029-0.218

0.409"-0.188-0.040-0.154-0.331"

0.928"0.049

Partner vs.relationship

-0.088-0.118-0.061

0.099-0.081-0.168-0.155-0.383"-0.063

0.969"0.021

-0.433"-0.057

0.224-0.158-0.136

0.0800.003

-0.074-0.071-0.329"

0.1360.902"

-0.104

Shared vs.individual

0.023-0.215-0.373"-0.117

0.920"-0.380"-0.028-0.116

0.1620.079

0.048-0.021-0.102-0.025

0.947"-0.036-0.200-0.368"-0.055-0.077-0.102

Shared vs.outside

circumstances0.189

-0.095-0.077-0.432"-0.064-0.041-0.027-0.098-0.465"

0.0520.0930.1010.864"

0.788"0.2640.2490.0120.1600.094

-0.518"-0.314"-0.122-0.118

1 Variables loading > +0.30 or < -0.30.


pects outside the relationship; it was labeled partner versus rela-tionship. It was significantly negatively correlated with DAS(r = -0.37, p < .001); attributions of positive events to stableaspects of the partner's life versus both persons in the marriageis associated with lower marital adjustment scores.

For the men, the scores on three components concerning at-tributions to negative behaviors correlated significantly withDAS scores. We labeled the second component partner blameversus inconsistent factors outside of the relationship because ofthe positive loading of global-stable partner attributions andthe negative loading of specific-unstable factors unrelated toeither spouse. The correlation of this component with the DASsuggests that blaming the partner is related to lower marital ad-justment (r = —0.51, p < .001); believing that the negative be-haviors have little to do with the couple and are also inconsistentseems to be related to higher marital adjustment. The thirdcomponent, labeled partner's situation versus not partner, rep-resented (a) attributions to transient factors concerning thepartner and circumstances outside the relationship versus (b)other attributions that do not include the partner. It is positivelycorrelated with DAS (r = 0.24, p < .05), indicating that attribut-ing the negative behavior to transient aspects of the partner andoutside circumstances is associated with higher levels of maritaladjustment. Finally, the fifth component concerning attribu-tions for negative behavior, called shared versus outside circum-stances, is defined by positive loadings of attributions to all pos-sible consistent sources versus negative loadings of attributionsto circumstances outside the relationship. The negative correla-tion (r = -0.32, p < .01) indicates that distributing causation toall sources in a global-stable manner is associated with maritaldistress, whereas attributing the negative event to factors out-side of the relationship is associated with marital adjustment.

Similar to the data on the women, two components concern-ing positive behavior correlated significantly with DAS amongmen. The third component, labeled partner's life and outsidecircumstances versus relationship, is defined by attributionsthat simultaneously concern the partner and circumstancesoutside the relationship versus attributions to both partners.The factor was negatively related to DAS (r = -0.19, p < .05).That is, attributing positive behavior to both spouses as com-pared with the partner and outside circumstances is related tomarital adjustment. The fourth component is characterized bya relatively small amount of causality attributed evenly to allsources versus attributions to the respondent or the partner; itwas labeled shared versus individual. The positive correlation(r = 0.30, p < .05) indicates that when the spouses and outsidecircumstances are seen as sharing the causality for positive be-haviors, as opposed to attributing them to only one spouse (re-spondent or partner), the husbands have higher levels of maritaladjustment.

These findings are rather complex; therefore, a summary andsynthesis of the pattern of findings is in order. The results indi-cated that marital adjustment is not a function of assumingjoint causality for the spouse's negative behavior. In no instancedid a pattern of attributing the negative behavior to both part-ners to a high degree correlate with marital adjustment. To thecontrary, among the wives attribution of the negative behaviorto the partner rather than to both people was related to adjust-ment. In addition, marital adjustment was related to attempt-

ing to minimize the importance of the negative behavior in sev-eral ways. First, the negative behavior was attributed to outsidecircumstances. Second, when the behavior was attributed to thepartner, it was viewed as inconsistent or specific and unstable.Finally, marital adjustment was related to viewing the cause asunstable and specific, regardless of who or what circumstancescaused the behavior. Thus, the findings overall support that lessdistressed spouses do attempt to minimize the importance ofnegative behavior from the partner, but that the spouses are notwilling to taking major personal responsibility for the partner'sbehavior.

Turning to positive spouse behavior, the various componentscorrelating with marital adjustment show one discernible pat-tern. More-adjusted respondents attributed the partners' posi-tive behavior to both partners. This was indicated in every com-ponent that correlated with marital adjustment for both sexes.

Attributional Style

First we examined the internal consistency of each DAI scale.Cronbach's alpha coefficients across all subjects were high. Forthe five attributional dimensions for the negative items, the co-efficients ranged from 0.71 to 0.88. For the positive items, thealphas ranged from 0.72 to 0.81. Thus, the subjects as a wholeresponded to each scale in a relatively predictable manneracross items.

We also examined the degree of variability shown by eachsubject in responding to the items. This was accomplished bycomputing, for each subject, the variance of that subject's rat-ings across the 12 positive and 12 negative items on a given attri-butional dimension. We computed the mean of these variancesacross the subjects separately for men and women. The resultsare presented in Table 4. On the average, both male and femalesubjects were more variable in their responses from situation tosituation for positive behaviors than for negative behaviors.That is, for both sexes, for every attributional dimension, themean variance for the positive items was greater than the vari-ance for the corresponding negative items, and 6 of the 10differences were statistically significant at p < .05. For bothmale and female subjects, the variance for the attributional di-mensions partner and globality for positive behavior was sig-nificantly greater than the variance for the same dimensionswhen the attributions concerned negative behavior. Further-more, for men the variance of the me and stability dimensionsfor positive behavior were also significantly greater than that fornegative behavior. This pattern indicates that people are gener-ally more variable from situation to situation in their attribu-tions for positive spouse behaviors than for negative spouse be-haviors when each attributional dimension is considered sepa-rately.

The subjects' variances on each dimension were correlatedwith their DAS scores, resulting in 10 correlation coefficientsfor each sex (five dimensions for positive behaviors, five for neg-ative). For women, variance scores were significantly positivelycorrelated with DAS scores for four dimensions: partner-NEG,r = .34, p < .01; stability-NEC, r = .20, p < .05; globality-NEG, r = .24, p < .05; and globality-POS, r = .23, p < .05.For men, variance scores were significantly correlated with DASscores for only one dimension: globality-POS, r = .26, p < .05.


Table 4Mean Variances oftheAttributional Dimensions and t Test of the Difference Betweenthe Mean Variances of the Positive and Negative Dimensions

Dimension

Positive behaviorsNegative behaviors

t

Me

3.202.256.18****

Partner

Men

2.621.705.20****

Outsidecircumstances

2.632.251.65

Stability

1.391.131.99*

Globality

2.411.922.58**

Women

Positive behaviorsNegative behaviors

t

3.002.591.74

2.161.722.61**

3.282.911.74

1.491.301.81

2.451.883.76***

Note. All tests two-tailed.*/><.05. **p<.01. ***p<.005. ****/?<.001.

Taken together, these findings suggest that across both positiveand negative relationship events, relationship adjustment is cor-related with greater variability in attributions across situations.This relation appears to be stronger for wives than for husbands.

These analyses focus on the consistency of attributions acrosssituations when each attributional dimension is considered sep-arately. However, another question is how consistent the sub-jects are in their use of the empirically derived attributionalpatterns discussed in the previous section. That is, across situa-tions does a subject have the tendency to make attributions thatare included in a pattern defined by a single principal compo-nent, or are several principal components necessary to repre-sent the individual's attributions? To examine this question, weconsidered all attributional pattern variables that loaded 0.30or greater in the same direction on a principal component asrepresenting one pole of a derived component. A new profilevariable was constructed to represent the frequency with whichthe subject used the patterns represented by a given principalcomponent. For example, the men's first component for nega-tive behavior consisted of attributional patterns numbered as 1,2, and 3 in Table 2. The value of the new profile variable foreach subject was the number of times (of the 12 negative itemson the DAI) that these patterns were used as the attributions fornegative marital events. Another profile variable consisted ofthe variables numbered 12 and 16, because they loaded nega-tively on the men's first component for negative behavior. Thisprocedure was repeated for the loadings on all of the principalcomponents described earlier. Many subjects did not use allpossible patterns defined by the principal components, and aprofile variable with the value of zero indicates that the subjects'attributional ratings did not fall into that category. For eachsubject, we counted the number of nonzero profile variables;this value indicated the number of principal components (actu-ally poles of a principal component) that a subject used in re-sponding to the 12 situations within the positive and negativesubscales of the DAI. On the average, men used 5.0 principalcomponents as attributions for the 12 positive items; on the av-erage they used 6.3 patterns to explain the negative maritalevents. There was also great variability in the number of pat-terns used by the different subjects in the study. For positive

behaviors, the smallest number of components used by anymale subject was 2, whereas the greatest number of componentsused by other men was 7. For negative behaviors, this countranged from 2 to 10. When the attributions concerned positivebehavior, women averaged 4.7 and the range was 2-7; for nega-tive behavior, women averaged 7.3, and the range was 3-10. Wethen computed correlations between the number of patternsused by subjects and their DAS scores. For men, the number ofpatterns used for negative situations was significantly correlatedwith DAS (r = 0.29, p < .01); this indicates that using a greaternumber of types of attributions across different negative situa-tions was associated with higher levels of marital adjustment.The correlation was not significant for positive situations. Forwomen, the correlations of this variable with DAS were not sig-nificant for positive or negative behaviors.

A final issue regarding consistency of attributions across situ-ations involved the extent to which a single component couldaccount for an individual's attributions for the 12 positive or 12negative marital events. We used the profile variables based onprincipal components, described in the preceding paragraph,for this purpose. The component used most frequently by eachsubject was determined separately for positive and negativeevents. The extent to which a single component was used toexplain various events varied widely from one subject to thenext. For male subjects, on the average the component usedmost frequently accounted for 52% of their explanations forpositive marital events and ranged from 16% to 92%. For nega-tive events, the most frequently used component accounted foran average of 48% with a range from 25% to 100%. For femalesubjects, the comparable findings were as follows: positiveevents, M = 51 %, range 25% to 91%; negative events, M = 57%,range 25% to 100%. When the percentage of attributions ac-counted for by this most frequently used component was corre-lated with marital adjustment, the results were significant forwomen considering negative events, r - —0.23, p < 0.05; thisfinding indicates that greater use of a single attributional pat-tern to explain negative events is related to greater marital dis-tress. The results were nonsignificant for positive marital eventsfor women and for positive and negative events for men.

Again, the analyses exploring attributional style were some-


what complex, but two major patterns of findings emerged fromthese analyses. First, there was great variability in the extentto which an individual developed an attributional style; somesubjects appeared to develop a clear attributional style in thisdomain; others did not. Second, the more an individual dis-played an attributional style, the more maritally distressed thatperson was.

Discussion

To investigate the primary issues of concern in this investiga-tion, we developed a new self-report inventory to assess attribu-tions for spouse behaviors, the DAI. Considering each attribu-tional dimension separately, the findings replicated many ear-lier findings, suggesting that the DAI serves as a meaningful setof stimuli on which to gather spouse attributions. That is, forboth sexes more maritally adjusted couples were less likely toattribute negative relationship events to either themselves ortheir partners and were more likely to see these events as unsta-ble and specific. The maritally adjusted men were also morelikely to attribute these negative events to outside circumstance.Regarding positive events, the correlations between attributionsand marital adjustment were almost all in the opposite direc-tion, although fewer of the correlations reached statistical sig-nificance. Quite interestingly, this pattern of findings is reminis-cent of those that are obtained when marital communication iscorrelated with marital adjustment. Previous investigationshave indicated that negative communication is consistently neg-atively correlated with marital adjustment, but that the rela-tionship between positive communication and marital adjust-ment is much less consistent (see Baucom & Adams, 1987, fora recent review). Similarly in the present investigation, whenattributions for negative spouse behavior were consideredacross sexes, 9 of the 10 correlations with marital adjustmentwere significant. However, considering attributions for positivespouse behaviors, only 4 of the 10 dimensions were significantlycorrelated with marital adjustment. Consequently, the findingfrom communication research that primarily the negative as-pects of marriage appear to be related to marital distress hasnow been extended to the study of attributions as well. In thepast, it has been unclear whether this relative importance ofnegatives was focal to communication and behaviors withinmarriage or whether it was representative of some more generalphenomenon. The findings from the current study suggest thatthere may be some general pattern across domains of maritalfunctioning such that the presence of negative aspects of themarriage rather than the absence of positives, whether behav-ioral or cognitive, are what most closely allied with maritaldistress.

Although these findings add to our knowledge of the relationbetween attributions and marital discord, the purpose of thisinvestigation was to focus on two issues that have previouslyreceived little attention. One issue addressed in the study waswhether there are meaningful patterns of attributions that canbe isolated and whether these are related to marital adjustment.The results indicated that there were patterns (principal com-ponents) that were psychologically interpretable and that tookthe various attributional ratings into account, some of whichwere significantly related to level of marital adjustment. What

is important for the current investigation is that the understand-ing gained from these analyses could not have been obtained byconsidering each dimension independently; that is, the analysesbased on principal components provide additional psychologi-cal insight into the attributional process as it is related to mari-tal adjustment. As mentioned earlier, marital adjustment is notrelated to assuming joint causality for the spouse's negative be-havior. In fact, the women with higher levels of marital adjust-ment attributed the negative behavior to the partner rather thanto both people; that is, respondents who have higher levels ofmarital adjustment seem to be saying that the partner is respon-sible for his or her own behavior. This conclusion could not bereached from considering only the correlations between maritaladjustment and the attributional dimensions one at a time. Thisparticular result is also interesting, considering that cognitivebehavioral marital therapists often attempt to have partnersrecognize how one's own behavior influences the partner's be-havior, that is, is one cause of the partner's subsequent behavior(Jacobson & Margolin, 1979).

The patterns of attributions for positive behaviors based onthe principal-components analysis again provide psychologicalinsights unavailable from considering each attribution dimen-sion separately. As noted earlier, the various patterns of attribu-tions derived from the principal-components analysis all con-firmed that more adjusted respondents attributed the partners'positive behavior to both partners. The respondents seemed tobe saying, "\bu behave positively toward me because of aspectsof both you and me." When the attribution dimensions for posi-tive behaviors are considered separately, marital adjustmentdoes not correlate significantly with attributions to the partnerfor either sex nor to the respondent for women. Thus, this infor-mation obtained from the principal components would havebeen totally overlooked on the basis of the correlations and con-sidering one dimension at a time.

This strong focus on shared attributions for positive behaviormeans that the patterns shown for negative behavior cannotsimply be interpreted as "Of course the partner is held responsi-ble for the behavior. It is the partner's behavior that is beingconsidered." Were this the case, then the pattern of attributingthe behavior to the partner would have been found for positivespouse behavior as well. Instead, this set of results suggests thatthe respondent who is more happily married does not see him-self or herself as a major cause of the partner's negative behaviorbut does see both people as the basis for the positive behavior.

The study of attributional patterns across attributional di-mensions was necessary to investigate properly the major focusof this investigation: the extent to which spouses seem to de-velop an attributional style in explaining marital events.Whereas Cronbach's alpha provides some useful informationin this regard, it must not be misinterpreted. The relatively highinternal consistency coefficients mean that one can predict aresponse on one item from knowing the response on otheritems. However, this does not mean that the respondent neces-sarily gives the same response across items, merely that the re-sponses are predictable across items. To assess consistency interms of actual level of response across items or situations, as-sessing variability is a more meaningful strategy. There is noabsolute answer to whether an individual or group of individu-als develops an attributional style in explaining situations; how-


ever, there are several findings that provide some insight intothe answer to this question.

Comparing the average variability across dimensions,spouses gave the most consistent ratings on the stability dimen-sion. This was true for both men and women, considering bothpositive and negative events. Also, the respondents gave consis-tent ratings for the extent to which the partner's behavior wasattributable to the partner. Combining these variability ratingswith the mean ratings given on these attributional dimensionsleads to the conclusion that respondents consistently attributedtheir partners' behavior largely to the partner and to stable as-pects. This finding is consistent with previous attributional re-search in which other peoples' behavior is attributed to person-ality aspects of that individual (Jones & Nisbett, 1972). On theother hand, the respondents showed much more variability inthe extent to which they attributed the partner's behavior to therespondent or to outside circumstances. Thus, it appears thatspouses are much more consistent on some attributional di-mensions than on others.

Assessing each attributional dimension independently, the re-sults also indicate that the spouses were more likely to developa given way of explaining negative events than positive events.The reason for this is unclear, but the other findings indicatethat the attributions for negative events are particularly relatedto marital adjustment. Perhaps spouses are most likely to de-velop an attributional set for those events that are of particularimportance to their relationship adjustment. This is clearly apost hoc interpretation, but it is one that could easily be ad-dressed in upcoming investigations. At the same time, this pat-tern of a greater attributional set or style for negative events isnot confirmed when the data are analyzed by the pattern ofattributions across dimensions. That is, there was no consistenttendency for spouses to use fewer attributional patterns for ex-plaining negative events than positive events, nor was an indi-vidual's most frequently used pattern more widely used in ex-plaining negative events than positive events. Consequently, thedata are unclear in suggesting whether spouses develop more ofan attributional set for negative compared with positive maritalevents.

What did become clear is that there is wide variability fromone person to the next in the extent to which they displayedan attributional style or set. Some persons used as few as twodifferent patterns or profiles of attributions in explaining 12marital events, thus responding in a manner consistent with arather strong attributional style. However, other people used asmany as 10 components to explain 12 events. This pattern ismuch more consistent with a situational approach to formingattributions. The question that results from such findings iswhether the tendency to form such attributional sets is mean-ingfully related to marital adjustment. Although the corre-lations were of modest magnitude, all of the significant findingsfrom both attributional dimensions considered separately andattributional patterns were consistent in demonstrating that theuse of a more consistent attributional style was related to mari-tal discord. Thus, these findings suggest that distressed couplesare particularly likely to develop a certain way of explainingtheir partners' behavior (particularly negative behavior) and touse this explanation in a wide variety of contexts.

On the basis of the current findings, the hypothesis that indi-

viduals develop an attributional style within a particular do-main of their lives appears to be an oversimplification. Somespouses develop such a style in explaining their partners' behav-iors, but others do not. Also, the presence or absence of thisstyle does not appear to be arbitrary; instead, it is related to levelof marital adjustment. It is important for other investigators toexplore whether the degree to which individuals develop attri-butional styles in other domains is related to their functioningin those areas.

On the basis of the correlations, it is tempting to concludethat a stereotypic way of explaining events makes the partnerinattentive to the complexity and changing nature of maritalrelationships and behavior. Such a rigid approach to under-standing spouse behavior could certainly lead to discord. How-ever, the current investigation is correlational, and cause-effectrelations cannot be drawn from it. It also is possible that ascouples become dissatisfied with their relationship, they cometo view their partners' various behaviors in a consistent manner.That is, they may be searching for an answer for why their rela-tionship is not proceeding well, and the answer they derive mayprovide the basis for an attributional style. For example, theconclusion that the relationship is going poorly because thepartner is immature and self-centered could serve as a cognitionaround which to form an attributional set for explaining a num-ber of specific behaviors. To address this issue of cause and effectmore clearly, longitudinal studies could be used in which thepresence or absence of attributional styles is determined priorto couples' becoming maritally distressed.

In addition, it is unclear whether the attributions given bydistressed couples in this investigation or in other attributionalstudies are in some way distorted because there are no criteriafor "accurate" attributions. Thus, the greater attributional styledisplayed by distressed couples might reflect some cognitiveoversimplification, or it might in some way be related to actualbehavioral or motivational differences between distressed andnondistressed couples, such that the attributions of distressedcouples meaningfully reflect the basis for relationship behavior.Cognitive therapy with couples is becoming increasingly fre-quent (e.g., Baucom & Lester, 1986; Epstein, Pretzer, & Flem-ing, 1982) and rests to an extent on the notion that many of thecognitions, including attributions, among distressed couplesare in some way distorted or oversimplified. To better under-stand the cognitive bases of marital discord and provide empiri-cally based intervention strategies, it is important for investiga-tors to attempt to clarify the extent to which attributionaldifferences among distressed and nondistressed couples reflectcognitive distortions.

Whereas our findings do contribute to understanding the at-tribution process in intimate relationships, there are certainlimitations of the study that must be recognized. First, thespouses are responding to hypothetical situations. Although theprevious marital attribution literature demonstrates similarcorrelational patterns for both actual and hypothetical events, itis important to replicate these findings on actual marital eventsbecause this data analytic strategy has not been used in the past.Second, the current study focuses solely on attributions for thepartner's behavior. Attributions for one's own behavior mightdemonstrate different patterns of results and could supplementthe current findings. In general, attribution studies within the


context of marital relationships have focused on attributionsfor a single individual's behavior. More realistically, most mari-tal and other dyadic events consist of a series of behaviors bythe two partners and assessing the attributions for this series ofinteractions is a major challenge to the field.

Despite these limitations, the current study provides note-worthy findings. First, one must be cautious in assuming thatall spouses have an attributional style that is operative when ex-plaining their partner's behaviors. Instead, the findings indicatethat some spouses do tend to give similar attributions acrosssituations, but others do not. The results also indicate that al-though the correlations are limited in magnitude and are notconsistent across all analyses, whenever significant correlationsdid occur they signified that the greater the presence of an attri-butional style, the more maritally distressed the individual was.Finally, the analyses using patterns of attributions indicatedthat meaningful patterns of attributions can be isolated, andthat considering these patterns does provide useful informationbeyond what is conveyed if individual attributional dimensionsare considered one at a time. We would encourage investigatorsto continue this effort to study attributions by considering sub-jects' attribution patterns.

References

Abramson, L. Y, Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. F. (1978). Learnedhelplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Ab-normal Psychology, 87, 49-74.

Anderson, C. A., & Arnoult, L. H. (1985a). Attributional models ofdepression, loneliness, and shyness. In J. Harvey & G. Weary (Eds.),Attribution: Basic issues and applications (pp. 235-279). New \brlc:Academic Press.

Anderson, C. A., & Arnoult, L. H. (1985b). Attributional style and ev-eryday problems in living: Depression, loneliness, and shyness. SocialCognition, 3, 16-35.

Anderson, C. A., Horowitz, L. M., & French, R. (1983). Attributionalstyle of lonely and depressed people. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 45, 127-136.

Anderson, C. A., Jennings, D. L., & Arnoult, L. H. (1988). The validityand utility of the attributional style construct at a moderate level ofspecificity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 979-990.

Arntz, A., Gerlsma, C., & Albersnagel, A. (1985). Attributional stylequestioned: Psychometric evaluation of the ASQ in Dutch adoles-cents. Advances in Behavioral Research and Therapy, 7, 55-89.

Baucom, D. H. (1983). Conceptual and psychometric issues in evaluat-ing the effectiveness of behavioral marital therapy. Advances in Fam-ily Intervention, Assessment, and Theory, 3,91-117.

Baucom, D. H. (1985, November). Enhancing behavioral marital ther-apy with cognitive restructuring and emotional expressiveness train-ing. Paper presented at the 19th Annual Convention of the Associa-tion for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy, Houston, TX.

Baucom, D. H. (1987). Attributions in distressed relationships: Howcan we explain them? In S. Duck & D. Perlman (Eds.), Heterosexualrelations, marriage, and divorce (pp. 177-206). Beverly Hills, CA:

Baucom, D. H., & Adams, A. (1987). Assessing communication in mar-ital interaction. In K. D. O'Leary (Ed.), Assessment of marital dis-cord (pp. 139-182). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Baucom, D. H., & Lester, G. W. (1986). The usefulness of cognitiverestructuring as an adjunct to behavioral marital therapy!''BehaviorTherapy, 17, 385-403.

Baucom, D. H., & Mehlman, S. K. (1984). Predicting marital statusfollowing behavioral marital therapy: A comparison of models ofmarital relationships. In K. Hahlweg & N. S. Jacobson (Eds.), Maritalinteraction: Analysis and modification (pp. 89-104). New \brk: Guil-ford Press.

Baucom, D. H., Wheeler, C., & Bell, G. W. (1984, November). Assessingthe role of attributions in marital distress. Paper presented at the 18thAnnual Convention of the Association for the Advancement of Be-havior Therapy, Philadelphia.

Berley, R. A., & Jacobson, N. S. (1984). Causal attributions in intimaterelationships: Toward a model of cognitive behavioral marital ther-apy. In P. Kendall (Ed.), Advances in cognitive-behavioral researchand therapy (Vol. 3, pp. 1-60).

Cutrona, C. E., Russell, D., & Jones, R. D. (1984). Cross-situationalconsistency in causal attributions: Does attributional style exist?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1043-1058.

Doherty, W. J. (1981). Cognitive processes in intimate conflict: 1. Ex-tending attribution theory. American Journal of Family Therapy} 9,3-13.

Doherty, W. J. (1982). Attribution style and negative problem-solvingin marriage. Family Relations, 31, 23-27.

Epstein, N., Pretzer, J., & Fleming, B. (1982, November). Cognitivetherapy and communication training: Comparison of effects with dis-tressed couples. Paper presented at the 16th Annual Convention ofthe Association of the Advancement of Behavior Therapy, Los Ange-les.

Feather, N. T, & Tiggemann, M. (1984). A balanced measure of attribu-tional style. Australian Journal of Psychology, 36, 267-283.

Fincham, F D. (1983). Clinical applications of attribution theory:Problems and prospects. In H. Hewstone (Ed.), Attribution theory:Social and functional extensions (pp. 187-205). Oxford, England:Blackwell.

Fincham, F. D. (1985). Attribution processes in distressed and nondis-tressed couples: 2. Responsibility for marital problems. Journal ofAbnormal Psychology, 94, 183-190.

Fincham, F. D., Beach, S. R., & Baucom, D. H. (1987). Attributionprocesses in distressed and nondistressed couples: 4. Self-partner at-tribution differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,52, 739-748.

Fincham, F. D., & O'Leary, K. D. (1983). Causal inferences for spousebehavior in maritally distressed and nondistressed couples. Journalof Social and Clinical Psychology, 1, 42-57.

Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Jacobson, N. S. (1985). Causal attributionsof married couples: When do they search for causes? What do theyconclude when they do? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,48, 1398-1412.

Jacobson, N. S. (1984). A component analysis of behavioral maritaltherapy: The relative effectiveness of behavior exchange and commu-nication/problem-solving training. Journal of Consulting and Clini-cal Psychology, 52, 295-305.

Jacobson, N. S., & Margolin, G. (1979). Marital therapy: Strategiesbased on social learning and behavior exchange principles. New \brk:Brunner/Mazel.

Jacobson, N. S., McDonald, D. W, Follette, W. C., & Berley,,R. A.(1985). Attribution processes in distressed and nondistressed mar-ried couples. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9, 33-50.

Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. E. (1972). The actor and the observer: Diver-gent perceptions of the causes of behavior. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Ka-nouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.),Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 79-94). Morris-town, NJ: General Learning Corporation.

Madden, M. E., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (1981). Blame, control, and mari-tal satisfaction: Wives' attributions for conflict in marriage.'Journalof Marriage and the Family, 44, 663-674.


Metalsky, G. I., Halberstadt, L. J., & Abramson, L. Y. (1987). Vulnera-bility to depressive mood reactions: Toward a more powerful test ofthe diathesis-stress and causal mediation components of the reformu-lated theory of depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 52, 386-393.

Orvis, B. R., Kelley, H. H., & Butler, D. (1976). Attributional conflictin young couples. In J. H. Harvey, W. Ickes, & R. Kidd (Eds.), Newdirections in attribution research (Vol. 1, pp. 353-386). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Passer, M. W., Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1978). Multidimensionalscaling of the causes for negative interpersonal behavior. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 36, 951-962.

Seligman, M., Abramson, L. Y., Semmel, A., & von Baeyer, C. (1979).Depressive attributional style. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88,242-247.

Spanier, C. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for as-sessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriageand the Family, 38, 15-28.

Thompson, S. C., & Kelley, H. H. (1981). Judgments of responsibilityfor activities in close relationships. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 41, 469-477.

Weiss, R. L. (1980). Strategic behavioral marital therapy: Toward amodel for assessment and intervention. In J. P. Vincent (Ed.), Ad-vances in family intervention, assessment, and theory (Vol. 1, pp. 229-271). Greenwich, CT: Jai Press.

Weiss, R. L., Hops, H., & Patterson, G. R. (1973). A framework forconceptualizing marital conflict, a technology for altering it, somedata for evaluating it. In L. A. Hammerlynk, L. C. Handy, & E. J.Mash (Eds.), Behavior change: Methodology, concepts, and practice(pp. 309-342). Champaign, IL: Research Press.

Received March 18, 1987Revision received June 10, 1988

Accepted August 17, 1988

Documents

Attributional Style Among Married Couples