25.52%». ta... F

.r v.3 .4:

7. .11
. #1.... .2 .t:
v)

 

 

qufi 9x817

 

 

LIBRARY
MlCHIGAN STATE UNNERSH’Y

Michigan State \\\\\\\\:\’\\\\1\\§\\;\\1\5\\WMWEM

University _ I

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Self—Consoling Appraisal
and Individuation Level

presented by

Mary A. Newcomb

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M.A. degree in Psychology

, ,

Major professor

Date June 1988

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

JUN ciséfi'fl

 

0g 2 5 I993

Z\

 

 

 

£86

a
19)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

SELF-CONSOLING APPRAISAL
AND INDIVIDUATION LEVEL

BY
Mary A. Newcomb

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1988

\\‘5

’4. 9’
we)

.7

(or

ABSTRACT

SELF-CONSOLING APPRAISAL AND INDIVIDUATION LEVEL

BY
Mary A. Newcomb

Eighty-eight undergraduates (mean age 20.07 years)
were administered instruments to measure their level of
individuation, their use of self-consoling explanations for
real and hypothetical stressful life events, their emotional
reactions to the event, and their level of psychological
well-being. Results, obtained through simple and multiple
regressions, confirm the hypothesized relationship between
level of individuation and psychological well-being. The
hypothesis proposing a negative relationship between level
of individuation and frequency of illness was not confirmed.
The hypothesized positive relationship between level of
individuation and use of self-consoling appraisal was not
supported. Post-hoc analysis conducted using various
subscales of the Separation-Individuation Test of
Adolescence as indicators of problematic individuation
produced mixed results and suggest areas for further
research. Results are discussed in relation to the

literature on individuation and cognition.

To Howard

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the following individuals for their
assistance:

Dr. Bertram Karon, my committee chairman, for his continuous
encouragement, and valuable insights about the research
process:

Dr. Norman Abeles, committee member, for his thoughtful
review of drafts and helpful suggestions;

Dr. Dozier Thornton for helping me develop clarity in my
language and precision in my numbers;

Dr. Robert Caldwell for fostering my early discovery of the
stress and appraisal literature;

Robert Hill for his capable guidance in computer and
statistical tasks;

Carol Schwartz, for her friendship and intellectual
stimulation;

and Howard, for his supportiveness in all my endeavors.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE
LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vii
INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O 0 1

Descriptive Literature on

Self-Consoling Appraisal. . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Effectiveness of Self-Consolation . . . . . . . . 9
Research Findings: Induced Self-Consolation. . . 9

Research Findings: Naturally Occurring

Self-Consolations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
Research in Self-Perceptions. . . . . . . . . . .12
Distinguishing Features of Self-Consoling

Appraisals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Intentionality of Self— -Consoling Appraisal. .15
The Role of Denial in Self- Consolation. . . .16
Affective Experience and Self-Consoling

Appraisal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
Summary: Literature on Self-Consoling
Cognitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
Developmental Antecedents to Self- -Consoling
Appraisal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
Individuation Defined . . . . . . . . . . . .20
The Individuated State. . . . . . . . . . . .21
The Individuation Process . . . . . . . . .22
Developmental Phases of Separation-
Individuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
Conditions Promoting Individuation. . . . .23
Individuation and Self-Consoling Appraisal. . .25
Awareness of Continuity in Time . . . . . . .25

Recognition of Complexity . . . . . . . . . .27
Summary: Connection Between Self-Consoling
Appraisal and Individuation . . . . . . . .31

HYPOTHESES O O 0 O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O 3 3
METHODOLOGY 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O 3 6
sample 0 O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O 3 6
Administration of Measures. . . . . . . . .36
measures 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O O 0 O O O O O 3 7

RESULTS 0 O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 47

DISCUSSION. . . . . .‘. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63
General Summary of Findings . . . . . . .63
Psychological Well-Being and Individuation. . . .66
Frequency of Illness and Individuation. . . . . .66

V

Self-Consoling Appraisal: Perceived Benefit

to the Stressor and Individuation . . . . . . .68
Post-hoe Analysis: Self Centerdness and

Self-Consoling Appraisal. . . . . . . . . . .70
Post-hoc Analysis: Enmeshment and Self-

Consoling Appraisal . . . . . . . . . . . . .72
Post-hoc Analysis: Separation Anxiety and

Self- -Consoling Appraisal. . . . . . . . . . . .73
Negative Affects and Individuation. . . . . . . .76

Negative Affects and Individuation and
Psychological Well-Being, Psychological

Distress, and Self-Consoling Appraisal. . . .76
Limitations of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . .78
Areas for Further Research. . . . . . . . . . . .79
APPENDIX: Measures and Study Materials . . . . . . . .80
Informed Consent Form . . . . . . . . . . . . .81
Stressful Life Event. . . . . . . . . . . . . .82
Mental Health Inventory (MHI) . . . . . . . .83
Separation-Individuation Test of
Adolescence (SITA). . . . . . . . . . . . . .97
Differential Emotion Scale (DES- IV) . . . . . . 106
Attributional Style Questionnaire (ASQ) . . . . 112
Purpose of Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

10.

LIST OF TABLES

PAGE

Means and Standard Deviations for
Dependent Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

Comparison of Means and Standard Deviations

(Broken Down by Gender) for Independent

Variables From the Separation-Individuation

Test of Adolescence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

Simple Regression of Psychological Well-
Being and Distress on Healthy Separation. . . . .51

Simple Regression of Number of Illnesses and
Subjective Assessment of Benefits to the

Stressful Life Event On Individuation As

Measured by the Healthy Separation Subscale

Of the SITA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52

Regression of Self-Consoling Appraisal

(Composite Positive-Negative Score from the ASQ)

On Individuation (Healthy Separation

from the SITA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55

Multiple Regression of Self-Consoling
Appraisal Composite Positive-Negative, ASQ)
on Dimensions of Individuation. . . . . . . . . .56

Simple Regression of Negative Affects on
Healthy Separation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58

Comparison of Pearson R's For Hypotheses 1

through 5 with Sample Divided into Groups.

Group 1 = above 75th Percentile on One or

More Negative Affects; Group 2 = Below 75th
Percentile on all Negative Affects. . . . . . . .60

Gender Differences Among Variables. . . . . . . .61

Regression of Self-Consoling Appraisal on
Separation Anxiety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62

vii

Introduction

The relationship between level of individuation and
the capacity to cope through self-consolation will be
explored in this study.

Low correlations between stress and illness have
promoted the search for moderator variables which buffer the
impact of a stressful life event. One moderator of interest
to researchers is cognitive appraisal. This refers to the
subjective set of perceptions of the stressor before,
during, or after the encounter. The focus of this study
will be post-event appraisal. The post-event appraisals
thought to have the greatest impact on adjustment are those
which offer causal explanations of the event (Seligman,1979)
and those which address the meaning of the event and
implications for the future (Taylor, 1983). The degree to
which these appraisals are comforting and hopeful has been
associated by researchers with effective coping and positive
adjustment. The term self-consoling appraisal will be used
in this study to refer to these positive appraisals of an
event.

While research has linked self-consoling appraisals to
positive adjustment after exposure to a stressor, there has

been no research into the question of how the capacity to

2
produce self-consoling appraisal develops. The question of
what equips some people to take a positive perspective on a
negative event remains unanswered.

Certain cognitive capacities implicit in self-
consoling appraisal may shed light on this question. The
first such capacity is awareness of one's own continuity in
time. Second, is a recognition of and tolerance for
complexity of the self and the life event. These capacities
to recognize self continuity and complexity allow the person
a third capacity - to place the stressful life event in a
larger context. This context may be a vision of the self
from past, present, or future. Or, it may be a life plan or
the relatively greater difficulty of others troubles as
perceived by the subject.

These cognitive capacities are theoretically dependent
on successful resolution of separation-individuation tasks
during infancy and adolescence. Writings by theorists
concerned with separation-individuation can be extrapolated
from to suggest a positive association between self-
consolation and level of individuation.

This study sets out to establish with greater clarity
the theoretical relatedness between the capacity for

self-consolation and individuation level.

3
Descriptive Literature On Self-Consoling Appraisal

Several authors have described the benefits of a
capacity to console oneself by evaluating life experiences
in a positive way. Averill (1973) uses the term "cognitive
control" to describe the ability to interpret, appraise, and
incorporate stressful events into an ongoing life plan and,
thereby, deactivate their jarring effect. Taylor (1983)
describes the search for meaning, mastery, and control found
among breast cancer patients as evidence of "cognitive
flexibility." Kobasa (1979, p.4) found that cognitive
flexibility was typical of highly stressed but well adjusted
executives. She considers these individuals to have the
trait of "hardiness," defined as a composite of strong
commitment to self, vigorousness toward the environment, a
sense of meaningfulness, and an internal locus of control.

Other theorists have more precisely described actual
defense mechanisms which fit with the concept of
self-consolation. These include 1) rationalizing (or,
devaluing the stakes, Folkman, 1984, p. 844),2) searching
for alternative areas of mastery (Taylor,1983) 3)
highlighting the positive meaning of the event (Folkman,
1984; Taylor, 1983), 4) comparing one's situation favorably
to another‘s (Taylor,1983), 5) attributing the cause of an
event to external, specific, and unstable factors (Seligman,

1979), and, 6) blaming one's behaviors rather than one's

4
character (respectively, changeable versus unchangeable) for
causing the event (Janoff-Bulman,1982).

The first of these defenses, rationalization, occurs
when individuals convince themselves that the stressful
event is of limited importance. An example of a
rationalizing response would be: "Well I didn't get into
Harvard. But I'll be more comfortable at the State
University where all my friends are going anyway. "

When individuals find a way to take pride in their
coping or in some outcome of the situation despite the fact
that they failed to successfully resolve a problem or had no
opportunity to do so they are demonstrating the second form
of self-consoling appraisal identified above - a search for
alternative sources of mastery. A feeling of mastery is
possible by shifting one's focus away from the goal of
problem resolution and toward one's own personal growth as a
result of the hardship encountered. This modified vision is
exemplified by reflections such as: "I have to accept this
and it takes strength to accept this," "I have learned from
this situation even though it did not turn out the way I
wanted" and "I have grown from these experiences."

The third type of appraisal which offers self-
consolation emphasizes the meaning and benefit found in the
event. Researchers have found examples of the search for
meaning within a distressing event to be prevalent among

breast cancer patients (Taylor,1983) and parents with

5
leukemic children (Friedman,s., Chodoff, P., Mason, J.&
Hamburg, D.,1985). Kobasa's "hardy" executives are
characterized as having an "unshakable sense of

meaningfulness" (1979, p. 9). The hardy executive has:

the ability to evaluate the impact of (an

employer-initiated) transfer in terms of a general

life plan with its established priorities...the
transfer may have been initiated in an office above
him..., but he sees that the actual course it takes is
dependent on how he handles it. For all these reasons
he is not just a victim of a threatening change but an
active determinant of consequences it brings about.

The hardy individual has a way of reframing a life
event others see as stressful so that its benefits are kept
in mind.

A fourth version of self-consolation is social
comparison which means that an individual calls to mind
others' worse circumstances and compares his or her
situation favorably (Taylor, 1978). Taylor (1983) notes
that individuals suffering from breast cancer boosted their
own morale by comparing their ordeal with that of a patient
who did not fare as well. Mechanic (1985) describes the
"comforting cognitions" he found utilized among doctoral
students preparing for qualifying exams. These included
statements in which students compared themselves favorably

to their peers and reflected positively on their competence

to date.

6

A fifth type of self-consoling appraisal can be found
in a person's attributions about the event. Attributions are
the person's notion of what or who caused an event.
Seligman, Abramson, Semmel, and von Baeyer (1978) postulate
three dimensions to attributional style. The
internal-external dimension concerns respectively whether
the individual blames themselves or something outside
themselves for the stressor. The global-specific dimension
addresses whether the cause identified for this event is
going to influence many areas of life or will be limited to
influencing this specific occurrence. The stable-unstable
dimension concerns respectively whether the cause is
perceived as chronic or transient.

Seligman et a1. asked whether the attributions of
depressed persons differ systematically from those of
nondepressed persons. Attributional patterns were assessed
by the Attributional Style Questionnaire which asked
undergraduate subjects to envision themselves in various
real-life stressful situations such as an unsuccessful job
search. Subjects then rated each situation on the three
dimensions of internality, globality, and stability. In
contrast to depressed students, nondepressed students
reported internal, stable, and global attributions for good
outcomes, and external, unstable, specific attributions for
bad outcomes. In other words, they gave themselves credit

for good things which happened to them and blamed forces

7
outside themselves for bad outcomes. Further, the causes of
good outcomes were viewed as stable (for example, associated
with a personality feature) while bad outcomes were viewed
as connected with a transient cause. The causes of bad
outcomes were viewed as unique to the stressor (specific)
rather than extending to all areas of life (global).

The area of greatest debate in attributions research
concerns the internal-external dimension of an attribution.
While Seligman suggests that seeing the cause of negative
events as outside oneself to be the most health—promoting
type of attribution. Other authors have found that whether
an external or internal attribution is correlated with
positive adjustment depends on the nature of the event and
on the nature of the internal characteristics blamed.

Janoff-Bulman (1977) does not think the important
distinction in attributions is strictly between internal and
external attributions. She investigated attributions
directed at oneself as cause of an event in a study of
paraplegic accident victims. She distinguished attributions
which are harmful from those which are health promoting.
Respectively, she labeled these characterological versus
behavioral attributions. Behavioral attributions are the
sixth, and final, self-consoling appraisal to be considered
here.

Behavioral attributions are used when individuals

persuade themselves that had they used other coping

8

responses the event would not have turned out badly.
Characterological attributions occur when an individual
reasons that a trait they have has interfered with their
ability to successfully cope with a situation. Janoff-Bul-
man suggests that behavioral attributions are more hopeful
cognitions because they imply room for change and control
over that change. This is because our behaviors are by
definition subject to volition more than are our traits.
With this potential for control the future can be
different. Janoff-Bulman reports that accident victims who
manifested behavioral as opposed to characterological
attributions made better adjustment to their disabilities.

Behavioral attribution is represented by statements
such as "Well I lost that sale and it is my fault. If I had
not tried to prepare my presentation at the last minute I
might have done better. Next time I will have to pace
myself better." In contrast, someone who tends toward
characterological attribution will say, "I'm just phobic
about public speaking. That's why I lost that sale." The
first approach implies hopefulness that the future can be
different while the second suggests resignation that the
future will be the same.

Other authors delineate additional categories of
attribution. Miller and Porter (1983) suggest that the
effects of making characterological attributions may depend

on whether the person attributes negative outcomes to a

9

trait that they like or dislike, that they want to maintain
or change. Miller and Porter (1983,p.148) state:

Blaming negative outcomes on dispositional qualities,

even undesirable ones, may not lead to depression or

helplessness if these qualities are no longer seen to

characterize the self. In fact, blaming the traits of

a "former self" might even facilitate the adjustment

process since this type of blame would have the

advantage of both explaining the past and engendering

optimism in the future.

Effectiveness of Self-Consolation

The literature discussed thus far has emphasized that
self-consoling appraisals are ubiquitous coping mechanisms
but has not considered whether these cognitions are, in
fact, effective coping tools. Research addressing this
point will be described below. This literature evaluates

both experimentally induced and naturally occurring

self-consolation.

Research Findings: InducedpSelf—Consolation

The literature on experimentally-induced appraisal
suggests that self-consoling appraisals, depending on
whether they are induced before or after the event, can have
respectively a preventive or curative function. Positive
results have been found in studies in which patients are
encouraged to appraise medical procedures in a
self-consoling manner. Langer, Janis, and Wolfer (1975)
conducted a field experiment with surgical patients in which

pre-op interviews were conducted by a psychologist.

10

Patients were instructed to remind themselves of
compensatory features of their surgical procedures. These
included improvement in health, extra care, attention, and a
temporary vacation. Patients given this appraisal
intervention obtained lower scores on nurse's blind ratings
of pre-op stress.

In another study, Kendall, P., Williams, L., Pechacek,
T.F., Graham, L.E., Shisslack, C. & Hertzoff, N.
(unpublished, cited in Janis, 1983) found increased stress
tolerance among cardiac catheterization patients taught to
use appraisal. Positive self-talk was also found to be
effective in reducing the frequency, duration, and intensity
of muscle contraction headaches (Holyroyd, K.A. Andrasik, F.
and Westbrook, T., 1977) and was found to be successful in
managing chronic anxiety, anger, and pain (Meichenbaum,
1977; Turk, 1978).
Research Finding : Naturally Occurring Self-Consolations

The literature addressing naturally occurring
self-consoling appraisal concurs with the conclusions of the
literature on artificially induced appraisals. Several
types of reactions to a stressful life event have been
identified as important to positive adaptation: a search for
meaning, mastery, and self enhancement (Taylor, 1978), a
positive attitude toward change, and a strong commitment to
self (Kobasa, 1978; Pearlin and Schooler, 1978), perceptions

of high controllability (Janoff-Bulman, 1982; Taylor, 1978);

11

an ability to selectively ignore troubling stimuli in favor
of more pleasant aspects of a situation, (Sullivan, 1954); a
capacity to regulate mood states and anxiety levels through
self-reinforcement, self-evaluation and self-monitoring
(Rehm, 1978) an ability to diminish the importance of a
disappointing or threatening occurrence and to soothe
oneself with reassurances (Lazarus, 1985; Taylor, 1978).

Hill-Beuf and Porter (1984) found that children with
impaired appearance as a result of vitiligo (a skin disease
characterized by the occurrence of whitish nonpigmented
areas surrounded by hyperpigmented borders) fared better in
contending with the disorder when they developed other
competencies which enhanced their self-esteem. Rather than
dwell on the bad side of their situation these children
found compensating sources of mastery. They behaved in a
way consistent with the statement: "I cannot master this
illness but I can use this time to learn new things. I have
things out of my control that are discouraging but I also
have things under my control that I can take pride in."

Taylor, Lichtman, and Wood (1984) found that what they
called cognitive control (defined in their study as thinking
about an aversive experience differently and positively
which is synonymous with the definition for self—consoling
appraisal used here) was more strongly associated with
positive adjustment than behavioral control (taking direct

action) for cancer patients. Those who reported the self-

12
consoling appraisal that they benefitted from their cancer
experience by learning to take life more easily and to enjoy
it more because of their cancer experience were found to be

most well-adjusted.

Research in Self-Perceptions

Research in the area of self-perceptions also endorses
the notion that self-consoling appraisal is a stress
buffer. In such studies, typically, the self-perceptions of
depressed and nondepressed subjects are compared. A
particularly extensive area of research with implications
for self-consolation is that of attribution research
introduced above.

Lewinsohn, Mischel, Chaplin, and Barton (1980) found
that nondepressed subjects are less accurate in their recall
of low frequency negative feedback and that the realism of
the self-perceptions (generally more realistic than
controls) of depressed individuals decreased in the course
of treatment. These authors concluded that to feel good
about ourselves we may have to judge ourselves more kindly
than we are judged. Nondepressed individuals are charact-
erized as having a "halo" or "glow" that involves an
illusory self-enhancement which allows them to see
themselves more positively than others see them.

Alloy and Abramson (1979) found that nondepressed

students, unlike depressed students, overestimated their

13
control over desirable outcomes and underestimated their
control over undesirable outcomes. Alloy and Abramson
(1982) note that depressed subjects do not behave in a
manner consistent with egotism. They define egotism as the
tendency to see one's environment, one's self, and one's
interactions in a positive light even though this calls at
times for illusions and biases.

Rehm (1982) suggests that negative self-evaluations by
depressed individuals are due to overly stringent personal
standards for performance and selective self-monitoring of
negative information. This contrasts with the person who
would selectively monitor positive information about the
self and situation in an effort at self-consoling appraisal.

Nelson and Craighead (1977) found that depressed
subjects recalled less positive and more negative feedback
in laboratory tasks. In contrast, nondepressed subjects
tended to underestimate the frequency of negative feedback.
Depressed subjects were found to self-reinforce less
frequently than control subjects.

Rizley (1978) found that depressed students view
internal factors as more important in causing their failures
on a number-guessing game than did nondepressed students.
Klein, Fencil-Morse and Seligman (1976) reported that
depressed students attribute failure on discrimination
problems to internal factors unlike their nondepressed

counterparts who attributed failure to external actors.

l4
Kupier (1978) found that on word-association tasks depressed
students' attributions for failure were more internal than
nondepressed students' attributions for failure.

In a related area of research experiments have been
done to induce objective self-awareness (the capacity to
assess one's situation and behavior from the perspective of
an outsider). Subjects under this self-observing condition
were found to experience lowered self-esteem (Duval and
Wickland, 1972) This finding is consistent with the
conclusion above that the subjective assessment of self in
nondepressed persons is kinder than that offered by an
outsider. The lack of a kindly, subjective perspective is
equated by Bach (1985) with a loss of "the existential self"
and a loss of a sense of meaningfulness. Bach notes that
the lack of a subjective perspective on the self to balance
the objective perspective characterizes the narcissistic

personality disorders.

Distingpishinq Featuresiof Self-Consolinq Appraisals

 

It is important to consider the nature of self-
consoling appraisals in greater focus to delineate them from
other psychological constructs. The question of the
intentionality of self-consoling appraisal bears discussion
as does the relationship between the construct of
self-consoling appraisal and that of denial and related

defense mechanisms. An additional area requiring

15
clarification is the relationship between self-consoling

appraisals and affective experience.

Intentionality of Self-Consoling Appraisal

The self-consoling appraisals of distressing events
discussed above are not necessarily the product of conscious
deliberation. As Lazarus notes cognitive activity does not
imply anything about deliberate reflection, rationality, or
awareness (Lazarus,l982). He gives the example of a rabbit
which must appraise and react to danger. Because of the
immediacy of this reaction there is no time for deliberation
which causes some theorists to conclude that the reaction is
an emotional one antecedent to any cognitive activity.
Lazarus argues that as a result of "neural inheritance and
experience the rabbit already has cognitive schemata that
signify danger instantly at the sound of a slight rustle in
the grass or the sight of a dimly perceived shape." He
extends the concept of schemata to humans with the
qualification that "the schemata required in human social
affairs are apt to be far more complex and symbolic," but
nonetheless they are available so that "the appraisal of
danger does not have to be deliberate." (1982, p.252) The
concept of schemata appears to be applicable to post-event
appraisals. A self-consoling appraisal or set of such

appraisals may be an automatic coping response for some

16
persons whenever they are faced with trauma, disappointment,

failure, or any other type of negative stressor.

The Role of Denial in Self-Consolation

Mental health researchers have traditionally equated
positive mental functioning with reality testing. (Erikson,
1950; Haan, 1977; Jahoda, 1958, Maslow, 1954;, Menninger,
1963; Vaillant, 1977; Lazarus 1983 cited in Taylor, 1983,
Lazarus, 1985). Given this vieWpoint self-consoling
appraisals frequently earn the pejorative labels "dis-
tortion," and "denial."

Other theorists believe that coping mechanisms should
not be evaluated strictly on the basis of the reality
testing criterion. Lazarus (1985) attempts to put the use
of denial in broader perspective:

Herein lies the conceptual confusion. We treat a

process of coping as a static state of mind rather

than as a constant search for a way of comprehending
what is happening, a way that seeks simultaneously to
test reality and retain hope (p.62)....rarely does
denial become so consolidated as a mode of coping that
it is no longer subject to uncertainty, challenge or
even dissolution in the face of

evidence.(p. 61).(Lazarus, 1985)

Lazarus's statement makes two essential points. First,
there are varying levels of denial in amount and rigidity in
responses to stressors. The second point is that whatever
distortion is used in a coping mechanism is essential to get

the person from one point to another in the adjustment

process. This argument involves cost-benefit reasoning.

17
The cost is utter clarity in perception of harsh realities.
The benefit is hopefulness which theoretically fuels the
tenacity to cope with life's problems. Self-consoling
appraisals can be conceptualized as involving denial in a
minimal and flexible way to facilitate coping.

In her study of cancer patients, Taylor (1983)
concluded that individuals faced with uncontrollable
adversity will console themselves by searching for
etiological factors they can control in the future. When
forthcoming events disprove these theories patients discard
them and console themselves with alternative appraisals of
etiology that again give them the feeling that the future is
controllable and that they will be less vulnerable. Taylor
cites (anonymous) colleagues who label this process of
discarding successive hypotheses "learned haplessness." She
herself calls it "cheerful ineptitude" (Taylor, 1983)
(p.1169). Her choice of terminology does a disservice to
the phenomenon to which she calls attention. A better term
to convey what seems to be Taylor's own emphasis might be
learned hopefulness.

Learned hopefulness was probably first conceptualized
by Victor Frankl (1978) who put forth the notion that man
needs a sense of meaningfulness and will generate it from
within to allay despair. Toward this end persons
experiencing a stressful life event may need to generate

cognitions about the benefits of their hardships or about

18
the hopeful implications their experiences hold for the
longer term. Conversely, a lack of hope has ominous
consequences. A wave of teen suicides caused one mental
health expert to note that opting for suicide was the result
of a constrained vision of life's possibilities and of how
to resolve one's problems (Chicago Tribune, March 24,1987).
The capacity to self-console theoretically allows for a

broadening of this vision.

Affective Experience and Self-consoling Appraisal

Neither the argument that costs (lack of clarity in
reality testing) are outweighed by benefits (hopefulness,
tenacity) nor the argument that denial in the name of self-
consolation efforts is used flexibly, temporarily, and
minimally satisfy some critics (Taylor, 1983; Wortman,
1983). They see self-consoling appraisals as indicative of
unrealistic optimism often termed "Pollyannishness." They
claim that such appraisals trivialize life experience which
does not serve adjustment well.

These concerns are understandable when one considers
that self-consoling appraisals have been equated with the
popularization of the "positive mental attitude" concept.
This movement, represented by nonacademic authors who
espouse the importance of "willing" oneself to be more
positive and of learning to be kind to oneself.

Psychologists, particularly those with psychodynamic

19
training, have looked askance at this popular literature.
The professional view is that distressing affect is
important to experience because it is a signal of needed
change and a proven motivator (Tomkins, 1963) for necessary
coping efforts.

Taylor reinforces this viewpoint when she states that
the ability to see things in a positive light may "lead a
person to accommodate to situations that are quite
undesirable."..so that they "may have little motivation to
take coping action that would improve their situation in the
long run." (1983)

The self-consoling capacities referred to in this
study differ markedly from those discussed in the positive
mental attitude literature. This study will differentiate
between a superficial adoption of a "positive mental
attitude" (promoted by fear of experiencing affects or fear
of reactions of others to these affects) and the type of
self-consoling appraisal which occurs in conjunction with or

subsequent to the experience of distress.

Summary: Literature on Self-Consoling Cognitions

The literature reviewed thus far supports the notion
that self-consoling appraisals are frequent responses to
stressful life events. In addition the research clearly
supports the role of self-consoling appraisals in promoting

adjustment to the stressor.

20
Developmental Antecedents to Self-Consoling Appraisal

Research has not addressed the developmental origins
of the capacity to produce self-consoling appraisals. A
close examination of the content of self-consoling
appraisals suggests that specific advances in cognitive
development underlie the capacity to use these appraisals.
These developments include, first, the awareness of one's
own continuity in time. Secondly, they include a
recognition that one's self-definition is not comprised of
how one performs or defines oneself during one life event.
Finally, these developments involve an appreciation of the
complexity of one's self and life events. The latter means
that the individual can grasp positive and negative feelings
about an event. Individuation encompasses these cognitive
capacities (Levine, 1987) and is therefore conceptualized as

a precursor to the ability to use self-consoling appraisal.

Individuation Defined

Individuation refers to both a developmental
achievement and a process. The achievement is psychological
autonomy. Psychological autonomy is defined as having one's
own distinct intrapsychic structures (id, ego, superego)
apart from the guidance offered by parental and other
external figures. The process for achieving this autonomy
is described as "disengaging from infantile objects" by Blos

(1967, p.169). Infantile objects is a term from the object

21
relations literature referring to internal mental
representations of significant caretakers. These
representations help the growing individual regulate
anxiety. If development proceeds optimally the individual
will replace these representations of external figures with

self-representations.

The Individuated State
The individuated person is able to maintain self-
esteem in the face of day to day anxiety and larger
stressors. A high level of individuation is evidenced by
self-constancy in the face of environmental changes. Self-
constancy is defined as the maintenance of "a continuous
sense of self regardless of the state of drive activation or
environmental press" (Bach, 1985, p.178)
Blos (1967, p.163) elaborates on the results of
successful adolescent individuation:
Self and object representations acquire stability and
firm boundaries, i.e., they become resistant to
cathectic shifts. The oedipal superego-in contrast to
the archaic superego—loses in the process some of its
rigidity and power, while the narcissistic institution
of the ego ideal acquires more pervasive prominence
and influence. These structural changes establish
constancy of self-esteem and of mood as increasingly
independent from external sources or, at best,
dependent on the external sources of one's own
choosing.
The Individuation Process

The individuation process is gradual development of

one's own distinct psychic structures (id, ego, superego,)

22
through disengagement from supporting psychic structures
offered by parental figures throughout development. This
includes disengagement externally through exploration of the
physical world apart from the parent and internally through
intrapsychic movement away from reliance on internalized
representations of significant persons. The two steps are
reflected in the term separation-individuation which is
often interchangeable with the word individuation.

Fast (1985) labels the process of disentangling a
self from the internalized representations of others as
"self-other differentiation." She considers self-other
differentiation the fundamental task of separation-

individuation.

Developmental Phases pf Separation-individuation

Research has shown that the key developmental points
for individuation occur at eighteen months (Mahler,1968) and
then again at adolescence (Blos, 1967). Mahler (1968)
outlined four subphases to the early separation-
individuation process. These are differentiation,
practicing, rapprochement, and on-the-way-to-object
constancy. Differentiation as used by Mahler in this
description involves the gradual separation of a distinct
self from internalized object images. The term object as
used here again comes from the object relations literature

and refers to persons, not to inanimate objects.

23
The practicing subphase includes exploration of the wider
world and experience of elation which is essential to self
esteem and willingness to venture. Rapprochement is a
subphase in which the child becomes anxious and returns to
the primary caretaker for refueling. The last phase is an
open ended one in which the child develops firmer internal
images of self.

Blos calls adolescence the "second individuation"
finding many parallels between the tasks of adolescence and
the separation-individuation phase of infancy. What in
infancy is a "hatching from the symbiotic membrane to become
an individuated toddler" becomes in adolescence "the
shedding of family dependencies, the loosening of infantile
object ties in order to become a member of society at large,
or simply the adult world (p.163)."

As part of separation-individuation in infancy the
child internalizes representations of others. During the
second separation-individuation the adolescent disengages
from these infantile objects (Blos, 1967) and replaces them
with self-representations and with internal capacities to

manage anxiety and regulate self-esteem.

Conditions Promoting Individuation
Not all individuals attain the same level of

individuation in young adulthood. Several conditions must

24

be met to insure that the infant and adolescent can complete
individuating tasks. Mahler has characterized the necessary
conditions for infantile individuation as: the ascendancy of
the aggressive drive, which includes the need to exercise
developing functions; the increasing interest in the larger
world, and, finally, the caretaker's ability to relinquish
symbiosis with the child (Blanck and Blanck, 1986, p. 15)

Blos (1967) describes the conditions which are
essential for adolescent individuation. First, the
adolescent must be at a suitable level of maturation as
evidenced by drive activation. Second, environmental condi-
tions must support the internal restructuring represented by
this second individuation. One necessary environmental
condition is a moderate level of differentiation within the
family system. A second condition is empathy on the part of
the parents and is present only if the parents are well
individuated themselves.

Failures in individuation occur where parental
stability and empathy are not available or where the family
system is either highly disengaged or enmeshed. In the
disengaged family there are uncaring or expelling responses
to the adolescents move toward individuation while in the
enmeshed family there are anxious, clinging responses.

Under any of these less than optimal conditions devel-
opmental arrest may occur. Even if the adolescent emerges

into young adulthood appearing to be self sufficient it is

25
likely that under stress he or she will be less able than

more individuated peers to function self sufficiently.

Individuation and Self-Consoling Appraisal
A major tenet of this study is that the more

individuated the young adult is the more capable he or she
is of self-consoling in the face of adversity. This is
because, through the process of individuating, the
individual has attained capacities which have theoretical
relatedness to the ability to produce self-consoling
appraisals. These capacities are first, the appreciation of
one's own continuity or in other words the awareness of an
enduring self, and, second, the awareness of the complexity
of self and event and an appreciation for benefits as well
as losses given a stressful life event. Through a
combination of the recognition of continuity and complexity
the individuated person has the ability to place a stressful
life event in a context which, to paraphrase Averill (1973),

minimizes the jarring effects of the stressor.

Awareness of Continuity in Time

The individuated young adult understands his or her
continuity in time and has a core sense of self separate
from life events. This means that they are unlikely to
define themselves wholly by their performance on one

occasion or by one life event's toll (for example, "I am,

26
and will always be, a victim") but instead can draw on other
perceptions of self from both the past and future as
buffers. Hence the basis for producing self-consoling
appraisals of the sort Seligman addresses in his
attributional research. To have unstable and specific
causal explanations for an event whether the cause is viewed
as one's self or something outside oneself, is to see the
causes of a stressor as discontinuous relative to an
enduring self. Stable and global attributions suggest that
the self is continuously subject to outside forces.
Unstable and specific attributions suggests that the self
can transcend these forces, that this is one of many life
events which can be put in perspective.

Blos (1967) views a continuous positive self-image as
an outcome of successful separation-individuation. He notes
that the individuated young adult has internalized a narcis-
sistic balance. As Blos describes this balance it is
synonymous with what Bach (1985) calls self-constancy. This
term means the individual has a constant level of self
regard despite stressors which might challenge that self
regard.

The poorly individuated young adult is not as equipped
to sort out a positive self-perception from a negative event
because they lack narcissistic balance (Blos,1967). This
means that they do not maintain a constant level of

self-esteem but instead experience fluctuations in self-

27
esteem depending on the life situation they are in. Without
self regard as a constant it follows that they are unlikely

to have the capacity for self-consolation.

Recognition of Complexity

The content of self-consoling appraisals suggests a
multifaceted grasp of a stressful life event. For example,
while the doctoral students in Mechanic's study acknowledged
self-doubt and anxiety as they prepared for orals they also
acknowledged hopefulness based on a recognition of superior
skills relative to peers. They were able to simultaneously
process negative affect and cognitions about self and
situation along with positive affect and cognitions about
self and situation. This was also true of the breast cancer
patients interviewed by Taylor (1983). They were able to
state that their new view on the value of time with family
and friends was a positive aspect of their cancer experience
while still acknowledging that the experience was negative.

This appreciation of multiple aspects of self and
situation is a developmental achievement associated with the
self-other differentiation which Fast (1986) refers to as
the fundamental task in separation-individuation. In theory
these seemingly contradictory experiences of an event can
only be grasped by one who views self and object as complex
wholes. The developmental condition for grasping these

contradictions is successful separation-individuation.

28

Thompson offers a description of an early stage of
cognitive development which supports the hypothesized link
between individuation and the cognitive capacities
underlying self-consoling appraisals. She describes
"centration" as a stage of cognitive development wherein one
isolated feature of an objective situation captures a
child's attention and determines their entire concep-
tualization of the situation. At this stage in development
affect is viewed as "irreversible," meaning that:

While in one affect state the child cannot

conceptualize his or her relation ship to other affect

states or to other evaluations of the object. . . . A

hated object is a hateful object and cannot be

evaluated independently. (p.161, Thompson). Emotions
are viewed as caused by an external object. (The
subject) tends not to reflect on contributions of the
self to his or her current emotional evaluation of the
object.

Irreversibility of affect also leads to the inability

of the child to understand the possibility of mixed or

contradictory emotions. "Affectively complex views of

the same object are not possible" (p.162).

It is the grasp of contradictory aspects of an event
which is evident in the simultaneous experience of distress
and hopefulness. Such mixed emotional states and
contradictory perspectives on an event are evident in
self-consoling appraisal.

Fast (1985) proposes an integration of Freudian and
Piagetian theories to make a similar point about
development. Like Thompson she considers the recognition of

multiple aspects to self and events a hallmark of

development. She is more definitive in linking these

29
recognitions precisely to the achievements of individuation.
She finds the prototype for this recognition of complexity
in how an infant experiences an object (in this description
an inanimate object, a ring) (p.11).

In the simultaneous activation of the vision and grasp

schemes self and other are differentiated out of the

global action event and from each other. The
integration of part-selves and part-objects into
wholes is an aspect of the same process. The
simultaneous occurrence of self as seer and as grasper
which differentiates self from the vision and grasp
schemes also represents the integration of part-selves

into a larger whole as seer-grasper. The ring as a

seeable-graspable not only differentiates the ring

from global action schemes and from the self but
begins its constitution as a whole object.

A positive experience with the exploration phase of
individuation is theorized to underlie the capacity to see
the complexity of both animate objects (persons) and
inanimate objects (example: the ring). This study
extrapolates that the same theories concerning cognitive
approaches to persons and inanimate objects also can be
applied to one's perception of life events and the self.

While the infant is learning about and reconciling
multiple aspects of external objects (meaning inanimate
objects and significant caretakers) through activation of
simultaneous schemes as he or she interacts with caretakers,
the adolescent is experiencing, through drive activation,
rapidly changing and sometimes virtually simultaneous mood

states. The adolescent is learning about multiple aspects

of self and of events that evoke mood states.

30

The infant's struggle in individuation is to move
toward stable object representation while taking in the
complexity of the object. The adolescent's struggle in
individuation is to move toward stable self-representation
while taking in these complex views of self attained through
experience of diverse mood states in relation to events.

The recognition and acceptance of this self-com-
plexity can serve as a prototype for experience of stressful
life events, allowing the individual to pull out positive
and comforting views of the event alongside the more
negative and distressing views of the event. The
unindividuated person, by extrapolation is theorized to have
attributions which are stable, internal, and global about a
stressor while their individuated counterpart is likely to
have a more enduring sense of self and an understanding of
contradictory associations to an experience and therefore
attributions which are unstable, external, and global.

On the other hand, failed individuation promotes
development of defenses to eliminate contradictory reactions
to an event or object. These include oversimplification,
splitting, projecting. While these defenses reduce anxiety
momentarily, in the long run they leave the individual
experiencing a stressful life event little access to more
hopeful reconceptualizations of this event. Unlike self-

consoling appraisal which may involve subtle denial and

31
distortion, these defenses pose the threat of extreme losses

in reality testing.

Summary: Connection Between Self-Consoling Appraisal and
Individuation

Implicit in self-consoling appraisals is an awareness
of the complexity of oneself and the event and a view of the
self as continuous. The awareness of complexity is evident
in the cognitions which make up self-consoling appraisal.
Among these are cognitions which emphasize the positive
meaning in a situation despite negative affect about it,
cognitions about others in similar situations, and
cognitions about personal growth through hardship. The
awareness of self-continuity is evident in the view that the
cause of the event is not chronic and is not comprehensive
which leaves room for self-perceptions apart from the
stressor and leaves hope for change.

Recognition of complexity and continuity affords the
capacity to put a stressful life event into a larger context
of other persons and events which theoretically diminishes
its toll. For example, the hardy executive who is able to
diminish the stressfulness of a corporate relocation puts it
in the context of a life plan. He or she does so by
recognizing the positive aspects to the move in the midst of
acknowledging the distressing aspects, in other words, by

appreciating its complexity. In addition, the executive, in

32
reminding him or herself of a life plan frames this as
something he or she chooses in order to attain an
overarching set of goals. Thus the executive reminds
themselves of their continuity in time to facilitate their

adjustment to a stressful life change.

Hypotheses

Successful individuation was hypothesized to be
accompanied by a capacity to produce self-consoling
appraisals without denial, and, in turn, by psychological

and physical well-being despite exposure to a stressor.

The specific hypotheses tested were:

1. Level of Individuation as measured by the Separation-
Individuation Test of Adolescence (SITA) will be positively
associated with scores on the Psychological Well-being scale

of the Mental Health Inventory (MHI).

2. Level of Individuation as measured by the Separation-
Individuation Test of Adolescence (SITA) will be negatively
associated with scores on the Psychological Distress scale

Of the MHI.

3. Level of Individuation will be negatively correlated with
number of illnesses reported in response to the question,
"How many times have you been physically ill in the last

twelve months?"

33

34
4. Level of Individuation will be positively associated with
the dimension of self-consoling appraisal which addresses
the meaning of the event as measured by a "yes" response to
the question "Were there any benefits or positive outcomes

because of this event?"

5. Level of Individuation will be positively associated with
a positive attributional style as measured by the

Attributional Style Questionnaire.

6. Level of Individuation will be positively correlated with
scores on the Negative Affect Scales of the DES IV in

describing immediate reactions to the stressful life event.

7. Hypotheses 1 through 5 will be more strongly confirmed
for subjects who report an average score of at least 3 on at
least one of the Negative Affects assessed in the
Differential Emotions Scale (DES-IV) than in those who score

2 or below on all negative affects.

These hypotheses were tested using Pearson Product
Moment Correlation Coefficients. In the case of Hypothesis
7 subjects were divided into two groups - one low on
negative affects and one high on negative affects - and the
Pearson R's for each pair of independent and dependent

variables from hypotheses 1 through 5 were transformed using

35
Fisher's Z. The appropriate test for significance was then

performed.

 

Methodology
Sample
The sample consisted of 88 undergraduates, 51 females
and 37 males. Mean age of subjects was 20.07. Average age
of females was 19.8. Average age of males was 20.4.
Subjects were recruited through a large undergraduate
psychology course. Those participating did not receive

course credit.

Administration of Measures

Subjects were asked to read and sign a consent form.
They were then given a packet of materials to complete with
a preassigned 4-digit subject number. The initial digit of
the subject number, either a "1" or a "2" identified one of
two orderings for the packet materials in order to later
analyze for order effects. On a data sheet within the
packet each subject recorded personal information.

Subjects were asked to provide a summary of a serious
stressful life event which seemed unalterable to them.
Along with their description of the event subjects were
asked to answer four inquiries concerning attributions about
the event modeled after items from the Attributional Style
Questionnaire and to answer a question about benefits

realized through the life event. Subjects were asked to

36

37
complete the Differential Emotions Scale (DES IV) in order
to tap affective reactions to the Stressful Life Event.

They then completed the Attributional Style
Questionnaire. Next subjects completed the Mental Health
Inventory (MHI). They also responded to the
Separation-Individuation Test of Adolescence (SITA).

Packets were given in two different orderings. Half
of the subjects received packets asking for a Stressful Life
Event followed by the other psychological indices. The
other half received two of the psychological instruments -
the Mental Healthy Inventory (MHI) and the Separation-
Individuation Score of Adolescence (SITA) first and followed
this by the Stressful Life Event Questionnaire along with
the remaining psychological instruments, namely the
Differential Emotions Scale and the Attributional Style
Questionnaire. Materials distributed to subjects are found
in the Appendix.

After packets were completed and returned to the
experimenter subjects were given an explanation of the
purpose of the experiment and an opportunity to learn about
results and to discuss the experiment further if they

wished.

Measures
Level of Individuation. The Separation-Individuation

Test of Adolescence (Levine, Green & Millon, 1986) is based

38
on Mahler's descriptions of the child's psychological
separation and individuation from the primary caretaker
(Mahler, 1968; Mahler,Pine, & Bergman, 1975) as well as the
descriptions of analogous schema in adolescent development
(Blos, 1967). It is the first effort to develop an
objective measure of dimensions of separation-individuation
in adolescence.

Six basic dimensions of adolescent separation-
individuation were delineated from the relevant literature.
They are: nurturance-symbiosis (the enmeshment scale was
created out of some of these items at a later date) ;
engulfment anxiety; separation anxiety; need denial;
self-centeredness; healthy separation; Loevinger's (1957)
model is cited by Levine, Green and Millon as the basis for
the validation process employed which utilized three
steps: theoretical-substantive; internal-structural; and
external-criterion validation.

Theoretical-substantive validation was achieved by
having clinical graduate students and faculty review test
items for agreement with relevant theoretical concepts. When
six of eight raters agreed on an item it was considered to
have adequate substantive validity.

Internal-structural validation was achieved through
administration of the SITA to three samples of adolescents.

Samples were comprised of 90 students in grades 9-11 at a

39
Northeastern High School, 140 College Freshmen, and 75 upper
class students at a Southeastern University.

Items were factored by the method of principal
components and then rotated to a Varimax criterion. Items
were eliminated which did not meet both the criteria that
they correlate at .35 with their scale and correlated with
no other scale.

External criterion validation was provided through
data collected on personality dimensions for 181 subjects
completing the SITA and the Millon Adolescent Personality
Inventory (MAPI) (Millon, Green, & Meagher, 1982). For
each scale a significant difference was found among the
scores of various personality groups identified by the MAPI.
Significant differences were found, from less individuated
to more individuated, respectively, between clinical and
nonclinical populations.

As a result of a series of studies using the SITA the
instrument's author, John Levine, has advocated for the use
of a cluster of subscales as a more suitable measure of
Individuation than the originally identified index - the
Healthy Separation Subscale (Levine, 1987). Analyses on the
variables of central concern to this study were conducted
using both the single and the multiple scale methods.

Psychological Well Being and Disppggs. The Mental
Health Inventory (MHI) was used to assess psychological

functioning (Veit & Ware, 1983). The Mental Health

40
Inventory (MHI) is a 38-item measure of psychological
distress and well-being, developed for use in general
populations. Subjects are asked to rate, on a scale of 1 to
6, items describing various feeling states over the past
month. Each item has its own scale anchors which refer to
dimensions of frequency, quality, or intensity. This
instrument was chosen for this study because it defines
mental health on a continuum from distress to well-being
thereby acknowledging an optimal state of mental health
unlike other mental health indices. Well being as defined
by this instrument encompasses feeling cheerful and taking
an interest in life.

The MHI was piloted at six sites in the U.S. on a
diverse sample (nonclinical population aged 13-69) of 5,089
respondents. Longitudinal data for a l-year stability
analysis was collected from a subsample at each site for a
total N of 3525. The developers found support for their
hypothesized distinction between mental and physical func-
tioning items. The smallest difference in magnitude between
an item's factor loadings on the physical and mental factors
was about .30 indicating good discriminate validity for all
of the items.

Cross-validational and combined-sites analyses suggest
that the MHI is a hierarchical factor model composed of a
general underlying mental health factor, a higher order

factor structure and a lower order factor structure. The

41
higher order factor structure is defined by two correlated
factors - Psychological Distress which consists of all the
items that describe negative mental health states, and
Psychological Well-Being, which consists of all of the items
describing positive mental health states. Both factors are
unipolar in nature.

The reliability estimates for all scales range from
.83 to .91 for scales based on the five lower order factors
(Anxiety, Depression, Loss of Behavioral/Emotional
Control,General Positive Affect and Emotional Ties) and
from .92 to .96 for scales based on the two higher order
factors. The stability coefficients are in the .56 to .64
range, indicating that a substantial proportion of the
reliable variance in these scales is stable over a 1-year
interval.

One-, two-, and five-factor solutions have been
generated for these data all explaining significant portions
of the variance. In this study the two factor solution will
be used: The scales of Well Being comprised of General
Positive Affect and Emotional Ties subscales and the
Psychological Distress Scale comprised of Depression,
Anxiety, and Loss of Behavioral/Emotional Control Subscales.

Physiggl_flell;§gipg. Subjects were asked to record
how many times they had been physically ill in the last

twelve months.

42

Stressful Life Events. Stressful life events were the
stimuli for the cognitions offered by subjects in this
study. Because variations in types of life events can
determine subjects' responses, the life events of interest
in this study were rather narrowly defined. Subjects were
asked to discuss a life event which had occurred in the
past, were difficult to deal with, and, which, from their
point of view, could not be altered despite their efforts.

Rather than focus on an exam-taking scenario, for
example, the focus was on a situation such as one where the
exams have been handed back and the individual has to deal
with the unalterable fact of a failing grade. Other
examples of these types of situations, of varying intensity,
are: illness or death of a significant other, one's own
severe illness and injuries, employer-initiated change of
residence, loss of job, divorce, complication of pregnancy,
experiences of war or natural disasters (Caplan, G., 1981,
p. 413) accidents, handicaps, career setbacks.

Self - Consoling Appraisal: Causgl_Appripppigp§

The Attributional Style Questionnaire (ASQ; Peterson,

Semmel, von Baeyer, Abramson, Metalsky, & Seligman, 1982) is
a self- report measure of patterns of "explanatory style"
(Peterson & Seligman, 1984) which is the tendency to select
certain causal explanations for good and bad events. The
instrument taps three dimensions of attributions: their

locus (internal versus external), their stability (stable

43
versus unstable), and their globality (global versus
specific). In this study the self—consoling individual was
defined as employing external, unstable, and specific causal
explanations for negative life events.

The ASQ has been employed successfully with college
students (Peterson, Semmel, von Baeyer, Abramson, Metalsky,
& Seligman, 1982) clinically depressed individuals, (Raps,
Peterson, Reinhard, Abramson, & Seligman, 1982) and people
undergoing various stressful events (O'Hara, Rehm, Campbell,
1982; Manly, McMahon, Bradley, & Davidson, 1982). Two
studies have addressed the internal consistency of the
Locus, Stability, and Globality subscales. Peterson et
al.(l982) reported that scales had quite modest
reliabilities with Cronbach's (1951) alpha ranging from .44
to .69 in a sample of 100 undergraduates. The modest
levels of internal consistency are considered common among
scales with few items. Seligman and associates urge
investigators to combine scale scores into composite scores
which have higher levels of internal consistency (.75 for
good events and .72 for bad events). The composite scores
were the basis for regressions in this study.

Studies by Colin, Sweeney, Schaeffer (1981) and
Peterson, Semmel, von Baeyer, Abramson, Metalsky, & Seligman
(1982) demonstrate that in undergraduates attributional
style is a stable aspect of personality functioning over a

period of four to five weeks.

44

Peterson et al. followed a correlational approach to
demonstrate the criterion validity of the ASQ. Correlations
between spontaneously elicited causal explanations of events
and the ASQ ranged from .19 to .41. Construct validity was
demonstrated when the study replicated these findings with a
patient population and found that ASQ scores correlated
positively with scores on the Beck Depression Inventory.

Validity was further established using a criterion
groups approach in studies by Eaves and Rush (1984) of
female depressed psychiatric patients and in a study by
Seligman, Abramson, Semmel, and von Baeyer (1979) comparing
depressed and nondepressed college students.
Self-Consoling Appraisal: Cognitions about Meaning or
Benefit

Since cognitions are considered self-consoling not
only by how they explain the event but also by any meaning
or benefit they suggest for the event one question to assess
this dimension of meaning was included in the packet.
Subjects were asked to indicate whether they perceived any
benefits or positive outcomes to the stressful life event
they recorded. This question follows from Taylor's (1984)
work on appraisal.

Emotional Reactions as Measure of Lack of Denial

 

The Differential Emotion Scale is a 49-item pencil and
paper, self-report measure developed by Carrol Izard to tap

twelve distinct emotions which Izard's research shows to be

45
innately determined. These emotions are: anger, contempt,
disgust, enjoyment, guilt, fear, inner-directed hostility,
interest, sadness, shame, shyness, and surprise. Statements
indicating each of these feelings comprise the scale.
Subjects are asked to endorse the self-statements which
depicted their mood state immediately after exposure to the
stressful life event. Their choices range from 0 (rarely or
never) to 5 (very often).

Izard studied the twelve emotions comprising the DES
items in cross cultural research which supported his view
that certain expressive, subjective, and physical
manifestations typified and distinguished each emotion. It
is these indicators of the twelve emotions which provide the
content for the scale items.

This version (IV) of the DES is identical to the DES
III with the addition of subscales (two) designed to tap
depression (Izard, 1972), Inner Hostility and Shame. Thus,
the reliability and validity of the DES IV is supported by
two sources: studies of the DES III and correlation of the
DES IV with other instruments assessing depression. The DES
III has been shown to possess reliability and validity in
adolescents and in college students (Izard, Dougherty,
Bloxom, and Kotsch, 1974; Kotsch, Gerbing, and, Schwartz,
1982). The DES IV has been shown to correlate positively

with the Children's Depression Inventory (Blumberg and

46
Izard, 1985) and with the Depression subscale of the Mental

Health Inventory (Nelson, 1985).

Results

In addition to addressing the study hypotheses this
section provides information necessary for a more complete
understanding of the sample. Means and standard deviations
for all study variables are presented in Tables 1 and 2.
These are shown with norms where available. Where norms are
broken down by gender the means and standard deviations for
this study are also broken down by gender. Gender

differences are reported in Table 9.

47

48

Table 1

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR DEPENDENT VARIABLES

 

 

Study

Sample Veit & Ware (1983)
Variable Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
Mental Health
Inventory
Well-Being 45.14 10.62 59.16 12.16
Distress 67.15 17.56 47.54 15.39
DES-IV
Anger 3.43 .86
Contempt 2.58 .87
Disgust 2.53 1.07
Fear 2.74 1.10
Guilt 3.14 .98
Inner Hostility 2.77 .96
Sadness 3.57 .96
Shame 2.69 .79
Self-consoling Appraisal - Causal Attributions
Composite
Negative
-Positive 2.52 2.24
(CPCN)

Self-consoling Appraisal - Meaning or Benefit

Yes V. NO .54

Fregpency of Illness
Number of

Illnesses 2.06

.99

49

Table 2
COMPARISON OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS (BROKEN DOWN BY
GENDER) FOR INDEPENDENT VARIABLES FROM THE SEPARATION-
INDIVIDUATION TEST OF ADOLESCENCE

 

 

 

Variable Levine (1987) Sample
SITA

Males Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
Enmeshment 26.80 4.32 28.15 5.65
Healthy

Separation 33.67 5.09 38.16 4.16
Self

Centeredness 28.57 4.38 33.98 5.20
Symbiosis 27.16 3.91 29.51 5.10
Females Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
Enmeshment 26.98 4.45 28.39 6.26
Healthy

Separation 34.28 5.07 38.87 4.25
Self

Centeredness 28.71 4.50 31.80 6.02
Symbiosis 28.60 4.17 30.48 4.88

50
Hypothesis 1: Level of Individuation as measured by the
Separation-Individuation Test of Adolescence (SITA) will be
positively associated with scores on the Psychological

Well-being scale of the Mental Health Inventory (MHI).

This hypothesis was confirmed using a simple
regression with Healthy Separation scores from the SITA as a
predictor of Well-being. R =.28, p =.008. Results are

illustrated in Table 3.

Hypothesis 2: Level of Individuation as measured by the
SITA will be negatively associated with scores on the

Psychological Distress scale of the MHI.

This hypothesis was confirmed as illustrated in Table

3. R = -.27 , p = .012.

Hypothesis 3: Level of Individuation will be negatively
correlated with number of illnesses reported in response to
the question, "How many times have you been physically ill

in the last twelve months?"

As illustrated in Table 4 this hypothesis was not

confirmed.

51
Table 3
SIMPLE REGRESSION OF PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL BEING AND DISTRESS

ON HEALTHY SEPARATION
(N=87)

 

Variable Standardized Coefficient t p

 

Psvcholoqical Well-being
Healthy Separation .28 2.71 .01

R = .28 F = 7.32

Psychological Distress
Healthy Separation -.27 -2.56 .01

R = .27 F = 6.54

52
Table 4

SIMPLE REGRESSION OF NUMBER OF ILLNESSES AND SUBJECTIVE
ASSESSMENT OF BENEFITS TO THE STRESSFUL LIFE EVENT ON
INDIVIDUATION AS MEASURED BY THE HEALTHY SEPARATION

SCALE OF THE SITA
(N=86)

 

Variable Standardized Coefficient t p

 

Number of Illnesses

Healthy Separation -.15 -1.39 .16
(n.s.)

R = .15 F = 1.92

Benefits to Stressful Life Event (Yes vs. No)

Healthy Separation -.14 -1.34 .18
(n.s.)

R = .14 F = 1.79

53
Hypothesis 4: Level of Individuation will be positively
associated with the dimension of self-consoling appraisal
which addresses meaning as measured by a "yes" response to
the question, "Were there any benefits or positive outcomes

because of this event?"

This hypothesis was not confirmed. Data related to

this hypothesis is found in Table 4.

Hypothesis 5: Level of Individuation will be positively
associated with the dimension of self-consoling appraisal
which addresses the cause of the event as measured by the

Attributional Style Questionnaire.

This hypothesis was not confirmed using the Healthy
Separation Subscale of the SITA as illustrated in Table 5.
A combination of subscales were used from the SITA in post-
hoc analysis. This second form of analysis was conducted
because the SITA's author has recently noted that a cluster
of scale scores is a better measure of Individuation. These
results are found in Table 6. The overall R for this
analysis was .329, p = .023. As in the simple regression,
the Healthy Separation Scale is not significantly correlated
with Self-Consoling Appraisal. The Self-Centeredness scale
of the SITA is also not significantly correlated with Self-

Consoling Appraisal. A final subscale, Enmeshment is

54

negatively correlated with Self-Consoling Appraisal with R
-.243, p = .008. Further Pos-hoc analysis was conducted to
examine whether failure at individuation as measured by the
Separation Anxiety subscale would correlate with Self-
Consoling Appraisal. Separation Anxiety was significantly
related to some types of self-consoling attributions. (R =
.35, p = .002) as shown in Table 10. The implications of

these results are considered in the Discussion Section.

55
Table 5

REGRESSION OF SELF-CONSOLING APPRAISAL (COMPOSITE POSITIVE -
NEGATIVE SCORE FROM THE ASQ) ON INDIVIDUATION (HEALTHY
SEPARATION FROM THE SITA)

(N=88)

 

Variable Standardized Coefficient t p

 

Composite Positive

Healthy

Separation .05 .44 .66
(n.s.)

Composite Negative

Healthy

Separation .02 .18 .86
(n.s.)

Composite Positive-Composite Negative
Healthy
Separation .05 .37 .71

(n.s.)

56

Table 6

MULTIPLE REGRESSION OF SELF-CONSOLING APPRAISAL (COMPOSITE
POSITIVE - NEGATIVE, ASQ) ON DIMENSIONS OF INDIVIDUATION

 

 

(N=88)
Variable Standardized Coefficient t p
Composite Positive
Healthy Separation .05 .36 .71
(n.s.)
Enmeshment -.05 - .44 .66
(n.s.)
Self Centeredness .07 .63 .53
(n.s.)
R=.lO F=.25 p=.86
(n.s.)
Composite Negative
Healthy Separation -.05 -.42 .67
(n.s.)
Enmeshment .22 1.86 .07
(n.s.)
Self Centeredness -.08 -.70 .48
(n.s.)
R=.21 F=l.30 p=.28
(n.s.)
Composite Positive-Composite Negative
Healthy Separation .12 .98 .33
(n.s.)
Enmeshment -.32 —2.72 .01
Self Centeredness .19 1.67 .09
(n.s.)
R=.33 F=3.35 p=.02

(n.s.)

57

Hypothesis 6: Level of Individuation will be positively
correlated with scores on the Negative Affect Scales of the
Differential Emotion Scale (DES IV) in describing immediate

reactions to the stressful life event.

This hypothesis was not confirmed. A significant
relationship was noted between the negative affect Disgust
as measured by the DES-IV and Level of Individuation (as
measured by Healthy Separation) R=.23, p = .035. (Table 7)

This correlation was not in the expected direction.

None of the other Negative Affect Scales - Anger,
Contempt, Guilt, Fear, Inner Hostility, Sadness, or Shame -
were found to be significantly related to Healthy

Separation.

Hypothesis 7: Hypotheses 1 through 5 will be more strongly
confirmed for subjects who report an average score of at
least 3 on at least one of the Negative Affects tapped in
the DES-IV than in those who score 2 or below on all

negative affects.

This hypothesis was not confirmed. Table 8 shows

these results.

58

Table 7

SIMPLE REGRESSION OF NEGATIVE AFFECTS (ANGER, CONTEMPT,
DISGUST,FEAR GUILT, INNER HOSTILITY, SADNESS, AND SHAME) ON

HEALTHY SEPARATION

(N=88)

 

 

 

Variable Standardized Coefficient t p
Anger
Healthy Separation -.04 -.42 .68
(n.s.)
R=.05
Contempt
Healthy Separation .07 .68 .50
(n.s.)
R=.07
Disgpst
Healthy Separation -.23 -2.14 .04
R=.23
Fear
Healthy Separation .0 .08 .94
(n.s.)
R=.08
Gun—t
Healthy Separation .172 1.61 .11
(n.s.)

R=.17

59

Table 7
(Continued)

SIMPLE REGRESSION OF NEGATIVE AFFECTS (ANGER, CONTEMPT,
DISGUST, FEAR GUILT, INNER HOSTILITY, SADNESS, AND SHAME) ON
HEALTHY SEPARATION
(N=88)

 

Variable Standardized Coefficient t p

 

Inner Hostility

Healthy Separation -.10 .92 .36
(n.s.)
R=.10
§§Qfl§§§
Healthy Separation -.05 -.45 .65
(n.s.)
R=.05
Shame
Healthy Separation .05 .46 .65
(n.s.)

R=.05

60
Table 8

COMPARISON OF PEARSON R'S FOR HYPOTHESES 1 THROUGH 5
WITH SAMPLE DIVIDED INTO GROUPS.
GROUP 1 = ABOVE 75TH PERCENTILE
ON ONE OR MORE NEGATIVE AFFECTS;
GROUP 2 = BELOW 75TH PERCENTILE
ON ALL NEGATIVE AFFECTS

 

Standardized Correlation

Group 1 Group 2 P
Mental Health Inventory
Psychological Well-being .41 .16 1.00
(n.s.)
Psychological Distress -.39 -.16 .95
(n.s.)
Stress-Illness
Number of Illnesses -.02 -.22 .82
(n.s.)
Attributional Style
Perceived Benefit to
Stressor -.13 —.18 .21
(n.s.)
Composite Positive
minus
Composite Negative .19 -.06 1.00

(n.s.)

61
Table 9

GENDER DIFFERENCES AMONG VARIABLES

 

 

Variable Males (N=37) Females (N=51)

Mean S.D. Mean S.D. p
Mental Health
Inventory
Well-Being 45.60 8.97 45.39 11.38 .93
Distress 68.14 15.16 68.67 18.08 .14
Attributional Style Questionnaire
Composite
Positive- 2.27 1.77 2.87 2.38 .21
Composite
Negative
(CPCN)

Separation-Individuation Measure

Enmeshment 26.80 4.32 26.98 4.45 .85
Healthy

Separation 33.67 5.09 34.28 5.07 .56
Self-

Centeredness 28.57 4.38 28.71 4.50 .89
Symbiosis 27.16 3.91 28.60 4.17 .11

Stress-Illness

Number of

Illnesses 2.20 3.91 1.96 1.83 .49
DES-IV

Anger 9.86 2.67 10.70 2.48 .14
Contempt 8.11 2.46 7.44 2.70 .24
Disgust 7.78 3.38 7.36 3.15 .56
Fear 6.67 2.51 9.38 3.50 .00(a)
Guilt 9.22 3.05 9.76 2.44 .41
Inner Hostility 19.06 6.83 19.86 6.87 .59
Sadness 13.81 4.12 14.86 3.70 .22
Shame 21.81 7.72 30.44 9.31 .39

(a) indicates significance

N.B. There were no pairs of regressed variables in which
both were impacted by gender significantly

62
Table 10

REGRESSION OF SELF-CONSOLING APPRAISAL
ON SEPARATION ANXIETY

 

Variable Standardized Coefficient t p

 

Composite Positive

Separation

Anxiety .24 2.20 .03
Composite Negative

Separation .35 3.22 .00

Anxiety

Composite Positive - Composite Negative (ASQ)

Separation
Anxiety .03 -.26 .07
(n.s.)

Discussion

General Summary of Findings

The prediction that individuation would be
significantly related to psychological well-being and
negatively correlated with psychological distress was
upheld. The prediction that individuation would be
significantly correlated with frequency of illness was not
upheld. The tenuous nature of the measure Of illness
frequency may be the reason for this and is elaborated upon
below.

The key hypotheses of the study attempting to link
individuation level with capacity to use self-consoling
appraisal were not supported. Two dimensions of these
appraisals were regressed on individuation. These were 1)
perception of meaningfulness or benefit attached to the
stressor and 2) causal explanations that are external or
nonspecific or unstable.

The first dimension, meaning, was measured by direct
questioning of subjects about any perceived benefit to a
real life stressor they experienced. Their response to this
question was not significantly related to individuation
level.

The second dimension of self-consoling appraisal -
causal explanations- was measured using the Attributional
Style Questionnaire. It had been predicted that a self-

63

64
consoling style - synonymous with use of external, specific,
and unstable explanations for a negative event — would be
related to individuation level. This was not found to be
the case.

Further analyses were conducted on this hypothesized
relationship in line with Levine's recent recommendations
that a constellation of scale scores depict the Individuated
person better than do single scores from the Healthy
Separation scale. He characterizes the person who is
individuated as having elevations on Enmeshment, Healthy
Separation, and Self Centeredness Scales. This signifies a
capacity for intimacy, a capacity for independent endeavors,
and healthy narcissism respectively.

It appears that the causal dimension of self-
consoling appraisal is indeed related to some dimensions of
the well individuated person as conceptualized by Levine and
the authors (Mahler and Blos) whom he draws upon for his
theories. Specifically Self Centeredness, reconceptualized
after extensive research by Levine as a measure of healthy
and appropriate narcissism in young adults, approaches
significance as a predictor Of self-consoling causal
explanations. In the multiple regression, as in the simple
regression Healthy Separation was not found to be
significantly related to use of self-consoling causal

explanations. Self Centeredness was also found to not be

65
significantly related to use of self-consoling causal
explanations.

Levine states that the Enmeshment scale should
correlate with the Self Centeredness scale to reflect the
dual capacities Of the well individuated person - 1)
healthy amounts of self focus balanced by 2) the capacity to
give up narcissism and become invested in personal
relationships with others. The relationship between
Enmeshment and Self-consoling Appraisal was indeed
significant but not in the direction expected. Instead,
Enmeshment was significantly negatively correlated with
self-consoling appraisal. The more enmeshed the less likely
the person would use self-consoling appraisal. This result
suggests a need for a refining of concepts and of the scales

within the SITA.

66
Psychological Well-Being and Individuation

Since Individuation is considered contrary to
dysfunctional personality types (eg. Borderline) it is
consistent that the measure of Individuation chosen for this
study would correlate with a mental health measure of well-
being. The importance of the positive correlation with this
particular measure however is that the MHI Psychological
Well-Being Scale does not restrict itself to a minimal
definition of mental health with its usual emphasis on an
absence of dysfunction. Instead the Well-Being scale is
designed to encompass more optimal states of functioning
including items that cover feeling cheerful and showing
interest in and enjoyment in life. Therefore Individuation
is associated not just with an absence of pathology but with
a presence of a positive experience of daily living.

The confirmation of the hypothesis proposing a
significant negative association between Individuation and
Psychological Distress is consistent with previous studies
(Levine,1987) in which Individuation Scores differentiated
Clinical from Nonclinical Groups. The MHI measure is
distinct in tapping a wide range of psychological distress
symptoms such as Loss of Behavioral and Emotional Control,
Depression, and Anxiety.

Fregpency of Illness and Individuation
As noted by stress researchers the relationship

between stress and illnesses is a complex one with multiple

67

moderator variables involved. One possible moderator
variable interfering with a connection between individuation
and illness in this study is the youthfulness of this
sample. Relative to older populations subjects in this
sample are likely to have characteristics associated with
youth such as strong immune systems and available social
support both of which are known to buffer against illness.

An alternate explanation for the lack of a significant
relationship between individuation and illness is that the
measures in this study are not sufficiently refined to
capture the hypothesized connection between level of illness
and level of individuation. Subjects are asked to recall
the number of times they have been ill in the last twelve
months. A more appropriate measure might link illness
incidence to the stressor the subject identified. For
example, subjects would be asked to recall how often they
were ill in the twelve months following their exposure to
the stressor.

Another measurement problem might be that the method
for obtaining illness frequency is retrospective and
subjective. This leaves room for errors in recollection
that results in misportrayal of illness frequency. A
urinary tract infection, a common reaction to stress, may be
counted by some subjects as one illness even if it
eventually becomes a kidney infection. Similarly a cold

that becomes pneumonia and involves several doctor visits

68
over a period Of eight weeks should not be counted as one
illness.

One way to capture more accurate health data would
be to track records at a Student Health Center (with subject
release forms an obvious prerequisite). In lieu of this, a
subject diary, which would then be coded by the investigator
and which would eliminate recollection biases, would provide
better data.

In cases such as those described above, where
illnesses may become more serious over time, level Of
individuation may well be a factor because the self-
protectiveness and self-care which reduce the likelihood
that a condition will worsen are theoretically linked to

individuation.

Self-Consoling Appraisal: Perceived Benefit to the Stressor

 

and Individuation

The cognitions which emphasize a benefit to a
stressful life event are well documented by researchers such
as Kobasa (1979) and Taylor (1984). A more extensive
approach to the hypothesis linking these to individuation
should be employed before the lack of confirmation in this
study is considered definitive. The use of these cognitions
about benefit to the stressor was assessed in a limited way
- through the use of a single question. Asking this

question in more and different ways could allow for

69
assessing positive cognitions akin to those specified by
Taylor. Alternatively, an interview format could allow for
probing of cognitions about the event to determine if the
subject is resigned, cynical, bitter or feisty, reflective,
hopeful. The major studies conducted by researchers such as
Taylor, Janoff-Bulman, and Wortman have employed interview
techniques which in their interactive nature allow for more
flexibility.

In this study the stressor specified by the subject
was not categorized by content. While an attempt was made
to give homogeneity to the stressors considered by subjects
by specifying that the events "should be over rather than in
process and should be considered unchangeable and unwelcome
(precluding desired changes like planned pregnancy,
marriage, new job, or inheriting a large sum of money)"
higher quality data could be forthcoming from an effort to
categorize stressors more specifically by content. Data
could be analyzed with attention to interactions between
stressor type and cognitions. Stressor categories might
include loss of loved one, failure experience, debilitating

illnesses, and out of season death among others.

70

Pget-hoc Analveie: Self-Centerdness and Self-Consoling
Appraisal

The lack of a significant relationship between the
Healthy Separation Scale of the Individuation Measure and
Self-Consoling Appraisal as measured by the Attributional
Style Questionnaire was not considered conclusive in light
of the fact that Levine (1987) has recently advocated for
the use of a cluster of scale scores as a more significant
measure of the multiple dimensions of Individuation.

After noting weaknesses in the Healthy Separation
Scale as a measure Of Individuation the Instruments author
John Levine, in recent publications (1987) and in personal
communication (1988) with this study's author, proposes a
better measure of individuation. He notes that two
characteristics are associated in his recent studies with
the highly individuated personality - a focus on the self
and a capacity to form deep connections with others. In
other words "healthy narcissism" along with the ability to
give up narcissism to invest in relationships with others
are seen as characterizing the well individuated person.

These findings have caused Levine to recommend that a
combination of subscale scores from the SITA are a better
index of individuation than is the scale labeled Healthy
Separation. The specific scales Levine combines to measure
individuation are Enmeshment, Symbiosis, Healthy Separation,

and Self-Centeredness.

71

Levine notes that unfortunately terms like enmeshed
and self-centered, used for the original scale labels,
reflect a bias toward pathology when in fact in the amounts
tapped by the instrument they reflect a capacity to
experience attachment in balance with a healthy concern for
self. He makes the case that the ability to move between a
merged state with peers and significant others and a self-
focused state is the logical and Optimal outcome of Mahler's
stages of separation-individuation in early childhood and
Blos's stages of individuation in adolescence.

As a result of Levine's revised thinking on the scale
scores reflecting Individuation, hierarchical multiple
regression was employed so that the four scale scores
(Enmeshment, Symbiosis, Healthy Separation, and Self-
Centeredness) he specified were used to predict the chief
variable of interest in this study, Self-Consoling
Appraisal, as measured by the Attributional Style
Questionnaire.

The conceptual linkage between Enmeshed and Symbiosis
resulted in multicollinearity in the multiple regressions.
Therefore the scale contributing the most to the regression
was retained - Enmeshment.

Neither Self-Centeredness nor Healthy Separation were
found to be significantly related to use of self-consoling
causal explanations. The relationship between Enmeshment

and Self-consoling Appraisal was indeed significant but not

72
in the direction expected. Instead, Enmeshment was
significantly negatively correlated with self-consoling

appraisal.

Post-hoc Analysis: Enmeshment and Self-Consoling Appraisal

Enmeshment level is a negative predictor of self-
consoling appraisal. The more an individual has the
tendency to involve themselves in deep personal
relationships the more likely they are to use internal,
stable, and global attributions for negative life events.
These individuals do not use the same types of self-blaming
attributions for positive life events. It is possible that
internal, stable, global attributions are a method for
coping when blaming others would suggest to the enmeshed
person a possible disruption or conflict in a highly valued
relationship. Therefore they opt for blaming the self to
preserve the relationship. This approach to avoiding
conflict may well be extreme and unhealthy. Or, this person
may be sensitive to others as evidenced by their capacity of
depth in relationships and also sensitive to and
introspective about their role in events.

Self centeredness approaches significance as a
positive predictor of self-consoling appraisal. The fact
that self centeredness has this relationship to self-
consoling appraisal could be explained by virtue of this

scale being a measure of healthy narcissism and self-

73
consoling appraisal is theoretically a byproduct of the high
self esteem associated with healthy narcissism. Or, more
pessimistically, this may not be a person with a healthy
level of narcissism at all as evidenced by the fact that
enmeshment is a negative correlate. Instead this may be a
person who does not self blame because they find others more
convenient repositories for blame and because they generally
have superficial rather than deep relationships with others
which reinforces this tendency to not examine the self for
fault.

Regardless of which of these explanations hold up in
future research this data suggests that only some dimensions
of individuation are related to self-consoling appraisal.
This suggests that it is not individuation but narcissism or
self regard or superficiality which correlates with self-
consoling appraisal. The idea that individuation (as
defined by the clustering of scale scores selected by
Levine) is correlated with self consolation is not

supported.

Post-hoc Analysis: Separation Anxietv and Self-consoling

 

Appraisal

Further Post-hoc analysis was performed on this data
set. The Separation Anxiety Scale from the SITA was
regressed on the Self-consoling Appraisal Measure (The

Attributional Style Questionnaire). This analysis was

74
undertaken because the previous regressions did not
establish the hypothesized relationship between
Individuation Level and Self-consoling Appraisal.

The author was concerned about the quality of the
measure of Individuation used in this study and chose to
examine whether there is a relationship between Self-
Consoling Appraisal and the Separation Anxiety Subscale, a
scale which should indicate problems with individuation (or,
more precisely, the residual effects of struggles with
individuation during the rapprochement subphase of infancy
and adolescence). This analysis offers a different
perspective from that used to test the formal study
hypotheses. In contrast to the previous regression
analyses which examined the relationship between success at
individuation and Self-Consoling Appraisal this analysis was
concerned with the relationship between problems at
individuation and self-consoling appraisal.

The Separation Anxiety Scale scores were in fact
positively correlated with the Self-consoling Appraisal
Scores. Separation Anxiety Scores were significantly
correlated with the Composite Positive Scale of the

Attributional Style Questionnaire (R = .24, p = .031) and

with the Composite Negative Scale (R .35 , p = .002.)
These results are shown in Table 10.
As a result of being correlated with both composite

scale scores the Separation Anxiety scores were not found to

75
be significantly correlated with the overall Composite
Positive minus Composite Negative Score which measures use
Of internal, stable, and global attributions for positive
life events in relation to use of these attributions for
negative events. This result suggests that the cognitive
style Of these subjects is such that they cannot separate
themselves out from an event regardless of the nature of the
event.

Examination of the subscales which make up these
composite scores reveals that the separation anxious
individual uses stable and internal attributions. This
means that given a particular negative or positive life
scenario a separation anxious individual will see themselves
as the cause of the event and will see this cause within
themselves as continuing into the future. The data does
not establish a relationship between separation anxiety and
attributions which are global. This means that while
separation anxious individuals attribute negative and
positive occurrences to something permanent in themselves
they do not see this trait or behavior pattern as
necessarily influencing many situations in their life.

The question arises - why does Separation Anxiety
correlate significantly with self-consoling appraisal when
its conceptual opposite - Individuation - does not?

Levine has noted that the Healthy Separation Scale as

a measure of Individuation is less validated than are the

76
"pathology" indices within the instrument, among them the
Separation Anxiety scale. In other words, his instrument is
capturing dysfunctional individuation far better than

optimal individuation.

Negative Affects and Individuation

Only Disgust was found to be correlated with
Individuation among the negative affects examined in this
study and this correlation was not in the expected

direction.

Negative Affects and Individuation and Psychological Well-
Being, Psychological Distress, and Self-consoling Appraisal
This hypothesis was included to distinguish between
trivial adoption of an outward positive stance in order to
deny negative affect and the use of self-consoling appraisal
alongside or subsequent to the experience of negative
affect. Lack of denial was Operationalized as experience of
one or more negative affects at a moderate or high level.
The original plan to divide subjects into groups
scoring three or above versus below three on the Negative
Affects Scales was determined to be less sound (because it
relied on an arbitrary scale point) than dividing the
subjects into groups as determined by characteristic

responses Of this sample.

77

The analysis was performed using the criteria that all
subjects scoring in the 75th percentile or above on one or
more of the negative affects were placed in Group 1 (n=46)
and all subjects scoring below the 75th percentile on all
negative affects were placed in Group 2 (n=42). None of the
relationships considered in Hypotheses 1 through 5 were more
strongly confirmed when a tests for significance in the
difference between the Pearson R's was performed.

Inappropriate operationalization of denial could be
the reason for a lack of confirmation of the hypothesis in
question. While the DES-IV is a well respected instrument
for gauging affective reactions to events it may not be
useful in the role of a measure of denial. It does not ask
subjects explicitly about some feelings but gets at these
indirectly. A measure of denial should perhaps ask a
subject in an open ended manner to describe feelings
associated with the event.

In addition to measurement problems there may be other
explanations for the lack of confirmation of denial and
individuation as respectively negative and positive
predictors of self-consoling appraisal. The fact that
subjects were given wide latitude in reporting an event of
the recent or distant past could have effected results.
Recollection Of affective states for an event one month in
the past is undoubtedly different than recollection for an

event one year in the past. The variable of time in

78

relation to recollection of affective experience needs to be
more tightly controlled in order to obtain meaningful data.
Limitations of the Study

A replication of components of the study using tighter
measures of phenomenon of interest could be fruitful. In
this area of research either interview data which allows the
probing necessary for meaningful response or observer data
which allows for the study of Objective versus subjective
perceptions would likely produce more meaningful results.

Finally measures should be created to address the
major dependent and independent variables of this study in a
more concise manner. A measure of self-consoling cognitions
which is more expansive than that offered by the
Attributional Style Questionnaire and which captures the
variety of cognitions noted in Taylor's research would be
useful. The creation and validation of such an instrument
in itself could encompass a major research endeavor.

Further exploration of the concept of Individuation
by creating more refined instruments and by using the fine
scale developed by Levine is called for because this
construct promises clinicians meaningful data in the future.

One such study could compare associations to projectives
depicting scenes meaningful to separation-individuation
processes, i.e., leaving home and compare coded responses to
scores on the Individuation scales. It could informative to

study unconscious associations to separation-individuation

79
themes and compare these with the pencil and paper measures
to learn more about the complicated phenomena known as

individuation and self consolation .

Areas for Further Research

The results of this study suggest that further
research could be beneficial in distinguishing between so
called "healthy" versus "pathological" narcissism. It would
be important to know at what ages the elevations on
narcissism scales are a good indicator of individuation
versus at what ages they may indicate regression.

The relationship between individuation, narcissism,
and self-consoling forms of cognition should be explored
further. This study raises the question of whether those
individuals who have a healthy amount of narcissism but can
abandon narcissistic self concern to invest in generative
and intimate relationships with others would also be able to
employ self-consoling appraisal to buffer themselves against
taking in a harsh, depressing picture of a stressful life
event and its implications as can their counterparts who do
not invest in interpersonal relationships. Or, is their
sensitivity to relationship with others such that they
cannot be insensitive to any detail in their environment
which gives them more data for cynicism ultimately rather
than the illusions which bolster hopefulness that the self

consoler has at their disposal.

APPENDIX

INFORMED CONSENT FORM
STRESSFUL LIFE EVENT STUDY

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this study.

After you have completed the informed consent form, please
answer the questionnaires in the order that they appear
in. Record your answer on one of the two computer scoring
sheets. Remember to complete the forms in the order they
appear in.

When you are finished hand in your packet to the
experimenter. At that time you will be given a sheet
explaining the nature and purpose of the study and where to
go to learn more about this research if you are interested.
If you have any questions while completing the
questionnaires raise your hand and someone will come to your
desk. Otherwise, you may begin.

INFORMED CONSENT

I freely consent to participate in the study

entitled: Stressful Life Events. I understand that I will
be asked to complete several questionnaires about my
reactions to a stressful life event and about my current
feelings and thoughts in general and about the event. The
study questionnaires will take approximately 40 minutes to
complete.

I understand that my answers are kept completely
confidential and that I will remain anonymous. My answers
will be identified only by my subject number. I understand
that the results of this study will be made available to me
if I so wish but that I will not be personally identified
with these results. I also understand that, at any time
during the experiment I may discontinue my involvement.
After I complete and return the forms used for this study I
will receive a sheet explaining the purpose of this study.
I understand that if I have any questions I may contact
Mary Newcomb (312) 328-6002 or Bert Karon, Ph.D. 353-2159.

Signature

 

Date

 

81

RECENT STRESSFUL LIFE EVENT QUESTION:

Please describe an event that has occurred in your life that
'was difficult for you to deal with. The type of event we
would like to hear about should be one that you felt you
could not do anything to change. Some examples of this type
of event would be: a close friend moved far away, you broke
up with a girlfriend or boyfriend, your parents divorced, or
you or someone close to you was in an accident.

{After telling us what happened on the lines below, answer
the questions beginning on the next page about this event.
Record your answers on the computer scoring sheet.

 

 

 

82

MHI

THESE NEXT QUESTIONS ARE ABOUT HOW YOU FEEL, AND HOW THINGS
HAVE BEEN WITH YOU MOSTLY WITHIN THE PAST MONTH.

FOR EACH QUESTION, PLEASE FILL IN THE SPACE ON YOUR ANSWER
SHEET WITH THE NUMBER FOR THE ONE ANSWER THAT COMES CLOSEST
TO THE WAY YOU HAVE BEEN FEELING.

1. How happy, satisfied, or pleased have you been with
your personal life during the past month?

1. Extremely happy, could not have been more
satisfied or pleased.

2. Very happy most of the time

3. Generally satisfied, pleased
4. Sometimes fairly satisfied, sometimes fairly
unhappy.

5. Generally dissatisfied, unhappy
6. Very dissatisfied, unhappy most of the time

2. How much Of the time have you felt lonely during the
past month?

1. All of the time
2. Most of the time
3. A good bit of the time
4. Some of the time
5. A little Of the time
6. None of the time
3. How often do you become nervous or jumpy when faced
with excitement or unexpected situations during the
past month?
1. Always
2. Very often

3. Fairly Often

83

84

4. Sometimes
5. Almost never
6. Never

During the past month, how much of the time have you
felt that the future looks hopeful and promising?

1. All of the time

2. Most of the time

3. A good bit Of the time

4. Some Of the time

5. A little of the time

6. None of the time

How often do you eat too much?

1. Very often

2. Fairly often

3. Sometimes

4. Almost never

5. Never

How much of the time, during the past month, has your
daily life been full of things that were interesting
to you?

1. All Of the time

2. Most Of the time

3. A good bit of the time

4. Some of the time

5. A little of the time

6. None of the time

85

How much of the time, during the past month, did you
feel relaxed and free of tension?

1. All of the time

2. Most of the time

3. A good bit of the time

4. Some of the time

5. A little of the time

6. None of the time

During the past month, how much of the time have you
generally enjoyed the things you do?

1. All of the time

2. Most of the time

3. A good bit of the time

4. Some of the time

5. A little of the time

6. None of the time

During the past month, have you had any reason to
wonder if you were losing your mind, or losing control
over the way you act, talk, think, feel or of your
memory?

1. No, not at all

2. Maybe a little

3. Yes, but not enough to be concerned or worried
about it
4. Yes, and I am a little concerned

5. Yes, and I am quite concerned

6. Yes, and I am very much concerned about it

10.

11.

12.

13.

86

In general would you say your morals have been above

reproach?

1. Yes, definitely
2. Yes, probably
3. I don't know

4. Probably not

5. Definitely not

Did you feel depressed during the past month?

1.

5.

Yes, to the point that I did not care about
anything for days at a time

Yes, very depressed almost every day
Yes, quite depressed several times
Yes, a little depressed now and then

NO, never felt depressed at all

During the past month, how much of the time have you
felt loved and wanted?

1.

All of the time

Most of the time

A good bit of the time
Some of the time

A little Of the time

None of the time

How much of the time, during the past month, have you
been a very nervous person?

1.

All of the time
Most of the time
A good bit of the time

Some of the time

14.

15.

16.

17.

5.

6.

87
A little of the time

None of the time

When you got up in the morning, this past month, about
how Often did you expect to have an interesting day?

1.

Always

Very Often
Fairly Often
Sometimes
Almost never

Never

How often have there been times in your life when you
felt you acted like a coward?

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Very often
Fairly often
Sometimes
Almost never

Never

During the past month, how much of the time have you
felt tense or "high-strung"?

1.

All of the time

Most of the time

A good bit of the time
Some of the time

A little of the time

None of the time

During the past month have you been in firm control of
your behavior, thoughts, emotions, feelings?

1.

Yes, very definitely

18.

19.

20.

88

Yes, for the most part

Yes, I guess so

NO, not too well

No, and I am somewhat disturbed

No, and I am very disturbed

During the past month, how often did your hands shake
when you tried to do something?

Always

Very Often
Fairly Often
Sometimes
Almost never

Never

During the past month, how Often did you feel that you
had nothing to look forward to?

1.

6.

Always

Very often
Fairly often
Sometimes
Almost never

Never

Would you say you give every penny you can to charity?

1.

Yes, definitely
Yes, for the most part
Yes, I try

NO

89

How much of the time, during the past month, have you
felt calm and peaceful?

1. All of the time

2. Most of the time

3. A good bit of the time
4. Some of the time

5. A little of the time
6. None of the time

How much of the time during the past month have you
felt emotionally stable?

1. All of the time

2. Most of the time

3. A good bit of the time
4. Some of the time

5. A little Of the time
6. None of the time

How much of the time, during the past month, have you
felt downhearted and blue?

1. All of the time

2. Most of the time

3. A good bit of the time
4. Some of the time

5. A little Of the time
6. None Of the time

How often have you felt like crying, during the past
month?

1. Always

2. Very often

25.

26.

27.

9O

3. Fairly often

4. Sometimes
5. Almost never
6. Never

In choosing your friends, how important to you are

things like their race, their religion, or their
political beliefs?

1. Always very important

2. Almost always important
3. Usually important
4. Not too important

5. Hardly ever important

6. Not important at all

During the past month, how often did you feel that

others would be better Off if you were dead?
1. Always

2. Very often

3. Fairly often

4. Sometimes

5. Almost never

5 . Never

How much Of the time, during the past month, were you

able to relax without difficulty?
1. All of the time

2. Most of the time

3. A good bit of the time

4. Some Of the time

5. A little of the time

28.

29.

30.

6.

91

None of the time

During the past month, how much of the time did you
feel that your love relationships, loving and being
loved, were full and complete?

1.

5.

6.

All of the time

Most Of the time

A good bit of the time
Some of the time

A little of the time

None of the time

How often, during the past month, did you feel that
nothing turned out for you the way you wanted it to?

1.

Always

Very Often
Fairly often
Sometimes
Almost never

Never

How much have you been bothered by nervousness, or
your "nerves", during the past month?

1.

Extremely so, to the point where I could not take
care Of things

Very much bothered

Bothered quite a bit by nerves
Bothered some, enough to notice
Bothered just a little by nerves

Not bothered at all by this

31.

32.

33.

34.

92

During the past month, how much of the time has living
been a wonderful adventure for you?

1.

All of the time

Most of the time

A good bit Of the time
Some of the time

A little of the time

None Of the time

If it is more convenient for you to do so, how Often
will you tell a lie?

1.

5.

Very Often tell a lie
Fairly often
Sometimes tell a lie
Almost never

Never tell a lie

How often, during the past month, have you felt so
down in the dumps that nothing could cheer you up?

1.

Always

Very often
Fairly often
Sometimes
Almost never

Never

During the past month, did you ever think about taking
your own life?

1.

2.

3.

Yes, very Often
Yes, fairly often

Yes, a couple of times

35.

36.

37.

38.

93
4. Yes, at one time

5 . Never

During the past month, how much of the time have you
felt restless, fidgety, or impatient?

1. All of the time

2. Most of the time

3. A gOOd bit of the time
4. Some of the time

5. A little of the time
6. None of the time

How often have you done anything of a sexual nature
that society does not approve of?

1. Very often
2. Fairly often
3. Sometimes

4. Almost never
5. Never

During the past month, how much of the time have you
been moody or brooded about things?

1. All of the time

2. Most of the time

3. A good bit of the time
4. Some of the time

5. A little of the time
6. None of the time

How much of the time, during the past month, have you
felt cheerful, light-hearted?

1. All of the time

39.

40.

41.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

94
Most of the time
A good bit of the time
Some of the time
A little of the time

None of the time

During the past month, how often did you get rattled,
upset, or flustered?

1.

Always

Very Often
Fairly often
Sometimes
Almost never

Never

Are your table manners at home just as good as they
are when you are invited out to dinner?

1. Yes, always just as good

2. Yes, with rare exceptions

3. Yes, usually just as good

4. NO, usually worse at home

5. No, quite a bit worse at home

6. No, very bad at home

During the past month, have you been anxious or

worried?

1. Yes, extremely so, to the point of being sick or
almost sick

2. Yes, very much so

3. Yes, quite a bit

4. Yes, some, enough to bother me

42.

43.

44.

45.

5.

6.

95
Yes, a little bit

No, not at all

During the past month, how much of the time were you a
happy person?

1.

All of the time

Most of the time

A good bit Of the time
Some of the time

A little of the time

None of the time

How often during the past month did you find yourself
having difficulty trying to calm down?

1.

5.

6.

Always

Very Often
Fairly often
Sometimes
Almost never

Never

During the past month, how much of the time have you
been in low or very low spirits?

1.

5.

6.

All of the time

Most of the time

A good bit of the time
Some of the time

A little of the time

None of the time

How often, during the past month, have you been waking
up feeling fresh and rested?

46.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

96

Always, every day

Almost every day

Most days

Some days, but usually not

Hardly ever

Never wake up feeling rested

During the past month, have you been under or felt you
were under any strain, stress, or pressure?

Yes,
Yes,
Yes,
Yes,
Yes,

No,

almost more than I could stand or bear
quite a bit of pressure

some, more than usual

some, but about normal

a little bit

not at all

Listed below are a number of statements which describe
'various feelings, attitudes, and behaviors that people have
‘Read each statement and then mark on your answer sheet.

(0) if the statement is always true for you or you
strongly agree with it,

(1) if the statement is peuallv true for you or you
generally agree with it,

(2) if the statement is sometimes true for you or you
slightly agree with it,

(3) if the statement is hardly ever true for you or
you generally disagree with it,

(4) if the statement is never true for you or you
strongly disagree with it.

Please answer all of the questions. If you have difficulty
answering a particular question, choose the response which
is closest to your feelings on that item, even though you
may not feel strongly one way or another.

In marking your choices, be sure the number of the statement

you have just read is the same number you are marking on the
answer sheet.

*copyright, 1986, John Levine

NOTE: BEGIN WITH NUMBER 47 ON YOUR ANSWER SHEET

47. Sometimes my parents are so overprotective I feel
smothered.

48. I sometimes feel so powerful that it seems like there
is no feat which is too difficult for me to conquer.

49. Being alone is a very scary idea for me

50. Often I don't understand what people want out of a

close relationship with me.

51. I enjoy being by myself and with others approximately
the same.

97

98

(0) if the statement is always true for you or you
strongly agree with it,

(1) if the statement is usually true for you or you
generally agree with it ,

(2) if the statement is sometimes true for you or you
slightly agree with it,

(3) if the statement is hardly ever true for you or
you generally disagree with it,

(4) if the statement is never true for you or you
strongly disagree with it.

52. I can't wait for the day that I can live on my own and
am free from my parents.

53. Sometimes it seems that people really want to hurt me.
54. I worry about death a lot.

55. Most parents are overcontrolling and don't really want
their children to grow up.

56. Sometimes I think how nice it was to be a young child
when someone else took care of my needs.

57. I am friendly with several different types of people.
58. I don't see the point of most warm, affectionate
relationships.

59. I particularly enjoy looking at my own body in the
mirror.

60. One of my parents knows me so well they almost always
know what I'm thinking

61. If I told someone about the troubles I have, they
would probably not understand.

62. I do best when I'm by myself and don't have other
people around to bother me.

63. Even when I'm very close to another person, I feel I
can be myself.

64. Usually when I'm doing something with my friends I act
like a leader.

99

(0) if the statement is always true for you or you
strongly agree with it,

(1) if the statement is usually true for you or you
generally agree with it,

(2) if the statement is sometimes true for you or you
slightly agree with it,

(3) if the statement is hardly ever true for you or
you generally disagree with it,

(4) if the statement is never true for you or you
strongly disagree with it.

65. I feel lonely when I'm away from my parents for any
extended period of time.

66. During the past 10 years I have not slept more than 3
hours per night at any time.

67. Most people are basically worried about their own good
and don't care about helping other people.

68. I feel so comfortable with one of my friends that I
can tell him/her anything I feel.

69. I frequently worry about being rejected by my friends.
70. My friends and I have some common interests and some
differences.

71. I don't feel that love has much of a place in my life.

72. I frequently worry about breaking up with my
girlfriend/boyfriend.

73. My parents seem much more concerned about their own
plans than they do about mine.

74. Even with my good friends I couldn't count on them to
be there if I really needed them.

75. I feel that other people interfere with my ability "to
do my own thing"

76. Being close to someone else is uncomfortable.

77. Although my best friend does things I do not like, I
still care about him/her a great deal.

100

(0) if the statement is always true for you or you
strongly agree with it,

(1) if the statement is usually true for you or you
generally agree with it,

(2) if the statement is sometimes true for you or you
slightly agree with it,

(3) if the statement is hardly ever true for you or
you generally disagree with it,

(4) if the statement is never true for you or you
strongly disagree with it.

78. Considering most of the people I know, I find myself
comparatively better off.

79. I often feel rebellious toward things my parents tell
me to do.

80. I am comfortable with some degree of conflict in my
close relationships.

81. Sometimes I feel very sad about having to say goodbye
to a teacher I really like.

82. Sometimes I amaze myself with my own capabilities and
talents.

83. I think about some Of my friends when I'm alone
because I miss them.

84. My life is fulfilled without having best friends.

85. Although I'm like my close friends in some ways,
we're also different from each other in other ways.

86. I am quite worried that there might be a nuclear war
in the next decade that would destroy much of this world.

87. My friendships tend to be of the "best-friend" kind.
88. I feel dominated by my boyfriend/girlfriend.
89. I feel that other people admire and look up to me.

90. One Of my friends knows me so well I feel he/she can
practically read my mind.

101

(0) if the statement is always true for you or you
strongly agree with it,

(1) if the statement is usually true for you or you
generally agree with it,

(2) if the statement is sometimes true for you or you
slightly agree with it,

(3) if the statement is hardly ever true for you or
you generally disagree with it,

(4) if the statement is never true for you or you
strongly disagree with it.
91. Friendship isn't worth the effort it takes.

92. While I like to get along well with my friends, if I
disagree with something they're doing, I usually feel free
to say so.

93. I have a habit of switching from one close
relationship to another.

94. The teacher's opinion of me as a person is very
important to me.

95. My parents seem very uninterested in what's going on
with me.

96. I know some of my friends so well, it seems like I can
read their minds.

97. I feel overpowered or controlled by people around me.

98. When I'm with a group of friends, I sometimes act like
the leader and at other times more like a follower.

99. I think it is silly when people cry at the end of an
emotional movie.

100. With my favorite teacher, I can share some of my most
personal fears and concerns.

101. I believe that God looks over and protects me from
danger.

102. It sometimes seems that my parents wish they hadn't
ever had me.

103. I don't really need anyone.

102

(0) if the statement is always true for you or you
strongly agree with it,

(1) if the statement is usually true for you or you
generally agree with it,

(2) if the statement is sometimes true for you or you
slightly agree with it,

(3) if the statement is hardly ever true for you or
you generally disagree with it,

(4) if the statement is never true for you or you
strongly disagree with it.

104. It's quite a struggle for me to be a person
independent from my parents.

105. I had many fears of monsters and/or ghosts when I was
younger.

106. I'm quite worried about the possibility of one of my
parents dying.

107. When I think of the people that are most important to
me I wish I could be with them more and be closer to them
emotionally.

108. I feel particularly comfortable when I'm doing things
with a group of friends together rather than by myself.

109. It's hard for me to really trust anyone.

110. One of my favorite teachers is amazingly similar to me
in personality.

111. Even when they don't say it, I can sometimes tell that
people admire me by the look in their eyes.

112. I don't really love anyone.

113. My parents keep close tabs on my whereabouts.

114. In school, I have a special relationship with one
teacher that goes further than the average teacher-student
bond.

115. I feel my parents' rules restrict my freedom too much.

116. I have not seen the sun shine for over a year now.

 

 

103

(0) if the statement is always true for you or you
strongly agree with it,

(1) if the statement is usually true for you or you
generally agree with it,

(2) if the statement is sometimes true for you or you
slightly agree with it,

(3) if the statement is hardly ever true for you or
you generally disagree with it,

(4) if the statement is never true for you or you
strongly disagree with it.
117. People sometimes seem amazed by my own abilities

118. When I am truly friendly with someone, it's usually
the case that they know both my good parts and my bad parts.

119. Eating delicious food is one Of the greatest pleasures
in my life

120. I feel that the degree to which I satisfy the needs of
my friends and they satisfy my needs is approximately equal

121. There's a certain sense of oneness that I feel with
other people

122. I see dependency as a sign of weakness.

123. When I hope somebody will do something for me, I Often
find myself disappointed.

124. No one seems to understand me

125. Before I go to sleep at night, I sometimes feel lonely
and wish there were someone around to talk to or just to be
with.

126. If I let myself get close to someone else I would
probably get burned.

127. There is a sense of interconnectedness that links
people of all kinds together

128. God knows my life - I will go where he leads me.

129. Other people are easily impressed by me.

104

(0) if the statement is always true for you or you
strongly agree with it,

(1) if the statement is usually true for you or you
generally agree with it,

(2) if the statement is sometimes true for you or you
slightly agree with it,

(3) if the statement is hardly ever true for you or
you generally disagree with it,

(4) if the statement is never true for you or you
strongly disagree with it.
130. Sometimes it seems my parents really hate me.

131. I have no living relatives on this earth at the
present time.

132. As long as I don't depend on anyone I can't get hurt.
133. Knowing that other people find my physical appearance
attractive is very pleasing to me.

134. I Often sense admiration from those around me.

135. At home, I seem to be "in the way" a lot.

136. The idea of going to a large party where I would not
know anyone is a scary one for me.

137. I feel special, compared to other people.

138. In my group of friends I am often the center of
attention

139. I preferred the younger years of life when I could
rely more on my parents for guidance to get along.

140. I usually get positive "vibes" from other people
regarding how they feel about me.

141. I don't have much of a need for close friendships with
others.

142. I worry about being disapproved of by my teachers.

143. Other people seem to be impressed by my capabilities.

105

(0) if the statement is always true for you or you
strongly agree with it,

(1) if the statement is usually true for you or you
generally agree with it,

(2) if the statement is sometimes true for you or you
slightly agree with it,

(3) if the statement is hardly ever true for you or
you generally disagree with it,

(4) if the statement is never true for you or you
strongly disagree with it.

144. I would like to always live in the same town as my
parents and siblings so we could spend a lot of time
together.

145. My teachers give me advice about my social life.

146. I like parties best when my close friends are there
and there is an intimate atmosphere.

147. My personal plans are more important than my
relationships.

148. I am greatly looking forward to getting out from under
the rule of my parents.

149. I would get upset if I found out my teacher was mad at
me or disappointed in me.

 

Respondent #
DES-IV

Take a minute to think about how you felt right after you
became aware of the stressful situation you just mentioned.
In the first day or so after the stressful event, please
indicate how often you would:

(1) Rarely or Never

(2) Hardly Ever

(3) Sometimes

(4) Often

(5) Very Often
1. Feel regret, sorry about something you did
2. Feel sheepish, like you do not want to be seen
3. Feel glad about something
4. Feel like something stinks, puts a bad taste in your
mouth
5. Feel you can't stand yourself
6. Feel embarrassed when anybody sees you make a mistake
7. Feel unhappy, blue, downhearted
8. Feel surprised, like when something suddenly happens you
had no idea would happen
9. Feel like you are blushing
10. Feel like somebody is a low-life, not worth the time of
day
11. Feel like you are not worth anything
12. Feel shy, like you want to hide
13. Feel like what you're doing or watching is interesting

14. Feel scared, uneasy, like something might harm you

15. Feel mad at somebody

106

DES-IV Page 2

107

Respondent #

In the first day or so after the stressful event, how Often

did you:
(1
(2
(3
(4
(5
16. Feel
17. Feel
18. Feel
19. Feel
20. Feel
21. Feel
22. Feel

Rarely or Never
Hardly Ever
Sometimes

Often

Very Often

mad at yourself

ashamed because you do not know what to do
happy
like somebody is a "good-for-nothing"

you are a "good-for-nothing"
like someone made you look like a fool

so interested in what you're doing that you're

caught up in it

23. Feel amazed, like you can't believe what's happened, it

was

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

so unusual

Feel
Feel
Feel
Feel
Feel
Feel
Feel

Feel

fearful, like you're in danger, very tense

like you are dumb

like screaming at somebody or banging on something
sad and gloomy, almost like crying

like you did something wrong

bashful, embarrassed

disgusted, like something is sickening
joyful, like everything is going your way,

everything is rosy

32. Feel like people laugh at you

108

DES-IV Page 3 Respondent #

In the first day or so after the stressful event, how often

did you:

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
4o.
41.
42.
43.

44.

Rarely or Never
Hardly Ever

Sometimes

Often

Very Often

Feel like things are so rotten they could make you sick
Feel sick about yourself

Feel worried about the way you look

Feel like you are better than somebody

Feel you are no good, a nobody

Feel
Feel
Feel
Feel
Feel
Feel

Feel

like you ought to be blamed for something

like whatever you do will not be very good

the way you do when something unexpected happens
alert, curious, kind of excited about something
angry, irritated, annoyed with somebody

angry and annoyed with yourself

like you cannot say what you want to say as well as

others

45. Feel discouraged, like you can't make it, nothing's

going

right

46. Feel ashamed, like you want to disappear

47.

Feel

afraid

48. Feel like people always look at you when anything goes

wrong

49. Feel lonely

DES-IV Page 4

109

Respondent #

50. Rate how difficult this event was for you by filling

in the correct number

(0). not too difficult to deal with

(1). pretty difficult to deal with

(2). extremely difficult to deal with

(3). the most
with
51. How much time

occurred?

up to 1 month,

(0) more than
(1) more than
(2) more than
(3) more than
(4) more than
(5) more than
(6) more than

(7) more than

difficult kind of event to deal

has gone by since this event

answer 0

1 month and up to 3 months

3 months and up to 6 months
6 months and up to 1 year

1 year and up to 2 years

2 years and up to 3 years

3 years and up to 4 years

4 years and up to five years

5 years

What was the one major cause of this event?

Answer here:

Answer questions below on the computer sheet

110

DES-IV Page 5 Respondent #

(52) Is the cause of this situation due to something about
you or something about other people or circumstances?
Totally due Totally due

to other people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to me

(53) In the future, if you were in this situation again

would the cause mentioned in question 52 be present again?

Will never Will always
again be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 be present
present

(54) Is the cause of this situation something that just
affects this type of situation or does it also influence

other areas of your life?

Influences just Influences
this particular 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all
situations

situation in my life

(55) Were there any benefits or positive outcomes because of
this event?

if yes fill in "0"

if no fill in "1"

if yes, please explain here:

111

(56) How many times have you been physically ill in the last
twelve months (only consider illnesses that made you change
your normal routine of activities)? For zero to eight
times fill in the circle that matches your answer, for any
number over eight illnesses fill in space 9 on your answer

sheet.

ASQ

DIRECTIONS: 1) Read each situation and vividly imagine it
happening to you. 2) Decide what you believe would be the
major cause of the situation if it happened to you 3) Write
this cause in the blank provided 4) Answer three questions
about the cause, filling in one space per question. Choose
from spaces 1 - 7. Do not fill in 0,8, or 9. 5) Go on to
the next situation 6) Write on the answer sheet only.
Please do not write on this questionnaire

SITUATIONS:

YOU MEET A FRIEND WHO COMPLIMENTS YOU ON YOUR APPEARANCE

Write down the one major cause.

57) Is the cause of your friends compliment due to something
about yourself or something about other people or
circumstances?

record your aneyer on the computer sheet

Totally due Totally due
to other people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to me
or circumstances

58) In the future when you are with your friend, will this
cause again be present?

0 o swer on e com uter sheet
Will never Will always
again be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 be present

be present

59) Is the cause something that just affects interacting
with friends or does it also influence other areas of your
life?

record your answer on the computer sheet

Influences just Influences
this particular 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all situations
situation in my life

YOU HAVE BEEN LOOKING FOR A JOB UNSUCCESSFULLY FOR SOME
TIME.
Write down the one major cause.

112

113

60) Is the cause of your unsuccessful job search due to
something about yourself or something about other people or
circumstances?

Totally due Totally due
to other people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to me
or circumstances

61) In the future when looking for a job, will this cause
again be present?

Will never Will always
again be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 be present
be present

62) Is the cause something that just influences looking for
a job or does it also influence other areas of your life?

Influences just Influences
this particular 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all situations
situation in my life

YOU BECOME VERY RICH.
Write down the one major cause.

63) Is the cause of your becoming rich due to something
about yourself or something about other people or
circumstances?

Totally due Totally due
to other people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to me
or circumstances

64) In your financial future, will this cause again be
present?

Will never Will always
again be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 be present
be present

65) Is the cause something that just affects obtaining money
or does it also influence other areas of your life?

Influences just Influences
this particular 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all situations
situation in my life

A FRIEND COMES TO YOU WITH A PROBLEM AND YOU DON'T TRY TO
HELP THEM.
Write down the one major cause.

114

66) Is the cause of your not helping your friend due to
something about yourself or something about other people or
circumstances?

Totally due Totally due
to other people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to me
or circumstances

67) In the future when a friend comes to you with a problem,
will this cause again be present?

Will never Will always
again be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 be present
be present

68) Is the cause something that just affects what happens
when a friend comes to you with a problem or does it also
influence other areas of your life?

Influences just Influences
this particular 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all situations
situation in my life

YOU GIVE AN IMPORTANT TALK IN FRONT OF A GROUP AND THE
AUDIENCE REACTS NEGATIVELY.

Write down the one major cause.

69) Is the cause of the audience reacting negatively due to
something about yourself or something about other people or
circumstances?

Totally due Totally due
to other people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to me
or circumstances

70) In the future when giving talks, will this cause again
be present?

Will never Will always
again be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 be present
be present

115

71) Is the cause something that just influences giving talks
or does it also influence other areas of your life?

Influences just Influences
this particular 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all situations
situation in my life

YOU DO A PROJECT WHICH IS HIGHLY PRAISED
Write down the one major cause.

72) Is the cause of being praised due to something about
yourself or something about other people or circumstances?

Totally due Totally due
to other people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to me
or circumstances

73) In the future when doing a project, will this cause
again be present?

Will never Will always
again be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 be present
be present

74) Is the cause something that just affects doing projects
or does it also influence other areas of your life?

Influences just Influences
this particular 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all situations
situation in my life

YOU MEET A FRIEND WHO ACTS HOSTILELY TOWARDS YOU.
Write down the one major cause.

75) Is the cause of your friend acting hostile due to
something about yourself or something about other people or
circumstances?

Totally due Totally due
to other people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to me
or circumstances

76) In the future when interacting with friends, will this
cause again be present?

Will never Will always
again be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 be present
be present

116

77) Is the cause something that just influences interacting
with friends or does it also influence other areas of your
life?

Influences just Influences
this particular 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all situations
situation in my life

YOU CAN'T GET ALL THE WORK DONE THAT OTHERS EXPECT OF YOU.
Write down the one major cause.

78) Is the cause of your not getting the work done due to
something about yourself or something about other people or
circumstances?

Totally due Totally due
to other people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to me
or circumstances

79) In the future when doing the work that others expect,
will this cause again be present?

Will never Will always
again be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 be present
be present

80) Is the cause something that just affects doing work that
others expect of you or does it also influence other areas
of your life?

Influences just Influences
this particular 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all situations
situation in my life

YOUR SPOUSE (BOYFRIEND/GIRLFRIEND) HAS BEEN TREATING YOU
MORE LOVINGLY.
Write down the one major cause.

81) Is the cause of your spouse (girlfriend/boyfriend)
treating you more lovingly due to something about yourself
or something about other people or circumstances?

Totally due Totally due
to other people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to me
or circumstances

117

82) In the future interactions with your spouse
(boyfriend/girlfriend) will this cause again be present?

Will never Will always
again be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 be present
be present

83) Is the cause something that just affects how your spouse
(boyfriend/girlfriend) treats you or does it also influence
other areas of your life?

Influences just Influences
this particular 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all situations
situation in my life

YOU APPLY FOR A POSITION THAT YOU WANT VERY BADLY (EG.
IMPORTANT JOB, GRADUATE SCHOOL ADMISSION, ETC.) AND YOU GET
IT.

Write down the one major cause.

84) Is the cause of your getting the position due to
something about yourself or something about other people or
circumstances?

Totally due Totally due
to other people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to me
or circumstances

85) In the future when applying for a position, will this
cause again be present?

Will never Will always
again be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 be present
be present

86) Is the cause something that just influences applying for
a position or does it also influence other areas of your
life?

Influences just Influences
this particular 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all situations
situation in my life

YOU GO OUT ON A DATE AND IT GOES BADLY.
Write down the one major cause.

118

87) Is the cause of the date going badly due to something
about yourself or something about other people or
circumstances?

Totally due Totally due
to other people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to me
or circumstances

88) In the future when dating, will this cause again be
present?

Will never Will always
again be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 be present
be present

89) Is the cause something that just influences dating or
does it also influence other areas Of your life?

Influences just Influences
this particular 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all situations
situation in my life

YOU GET A RAISE.
Write down the one major cause.

90) Is the cause of your getting a raise due to something
about yourself or something about other people or
circumstances?

Totally due Totally due
to other people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to me
or circumstances

91) In the future on your job, will this cause again be
present?

Will never Will always
again be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 be present
be present

92) Is the cause something that just affects getting a raise
or does it also influence other areas Of your life?

Influences just Influences
this particular 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all situations
situation in my life

IDENTIFICATION FORM

So that your answers can be compared with others we need
information about your sex, age, and educational level. In
order to preserve your confidentiality do not place your
name on this form.

93. Sex (Fill in "0" for female and "1" for male on the
answer sheet)

94. Age (Fill in the number on the answer sheet that matches
the ages listed below)

(0) age 17 (1) age 18 (2) age 19 (3)20 (4)21
(5)22 (6)22 (7)23 (8)24 (9)25 or older
95. What is your educational level

(0) freshman
(1) sophomore
(2) junior

(3) senior

(4) all others

96. What is your current living situation? Please check the
answer below that applies to you

(0) I live at home with my family (fill in 0)

(1) I live with roommates in a dorm or an apartment (fill in
1)

(2) Other

97-99. In spaces 97-99 on the answer sheet fill in your
subject number. It is written on the top of your packet.

If your subject number is "100" for example you would fill
in "1" in space 97, and "0" in spaces 98 and 99.

119

NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE STRESSFUL LIFE EVENT STUDY

People cope in many different ways with stressful life
events. One way of coping, of interest in this study, is by
coming up with positive ways of interpreting the event after
it is over. For the purpose of this study looking at an

event in such a positive way is labeled self-consoling
appraisal.

Self-consoling appraisal has been shown to be an effective
way to cope. It is often found to be positively associated
with good mental and physical health. In other words those
people who are able to look at events positively, show more
positive adjustment after a stressful life event. Those who
do not use self consoling appraisal are thought to suffer

more physical and emotional distress after the event is
over.

Researchers have not looked into how the capacity to use
self-consoling appraisal as a coping strategy develops in
the individual. The author of this study thinks that the
content of these appraisals provides some clues to their
developmental origins. The types of statements people make
to themselves about the stressful life event when they use
self-consoling appraisals suggest that the person must have
achieved successful individuation. Individuation is a
process undergone in infancy and adolescence which brings
about certain emotional and mental capacities in the
individual.

The study you participated in examined subjects' level of
individuation and evaluated the relationship between this

and use of self consoling appraisal, physical health, and
mental health.

If you are interested in the results of the study after the
data has been analyzed and summarized you may contact Mary
Newcomb at (312) 328-6002 or by writing her at:

838 1/2 Judson Apt. 2-B
Evanston, IL. 60202

120

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Alloy, L.B. & Abramson, L.Y. (1982) Learned helplessness,
depression, and the illusion of control. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, A; (6), 1114-1126.

Averill, J. (1973) Personal control over aversive stimuli

and its relationship to stress. Psychological Bulletin
eg (4), 286-303.

Bach, S. (1985) Narcissistic etates and the therapeutic
Process. New York: Aronson.

Beck, A. (1979) Cognitive therapy and the emotional
disorders New York: The New American Library.

Blanck, G., Blanck, R. (1986) Beyond ego psychology:
developmental Objegt relations theory. New York:
Columbia University Press.

Blos, P. (1967) The second individuation of adolescence. The
Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 22, 162-186.

Bulman, R.J., Wortman, C.B.(1977) Attributions of blame and
coping in the "real world": severe accident victims

react to their lot. Journal of Personality and Social
Ps chOlO , e; (5), 351-363.

Caplan, G. (1981). Mastery of stress: psychosocial

aspects. The American Journal of Psychiatry,
138 (4), 413-420.

Fast, I. (1985). Event theorvzre Piaget-Freud integration
Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Folkman, S.(1984). Personal control and stress and coping
processes: a theoretical analysis. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, re, 839-852.

Folkman, S. & Lazarus, R.S. (1980). An analysis of coping in
a middle-aged community sample. Journal of Health and
Social Behavior, 2;, 219-239.

Frankel, A. & Snyder, M. (1978) Poor performance following
unsolvable problems: learned helplessness or

egotism? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
36 (12), 1415-1423.

 

Frankl, V. (1978) The unheard cry for meaning. New
York: Simon & Schuster.

122

123

Freud, A. (1949) On certain difficulties in the
preadolescent's relation to his parents The
Psychoanalytic Study of the Child

Holroyd, K.A., Andrasik, F. & Westbrook, T. (1977) Cognitive
control of tension headache Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 1, 121-134.

Janis, I. (1983) The role of social support in adherence to
stressful decisions American Ps cholo ist, 143-160.

Janoff-Bulman, R. (1979) Characterological versus behavioral
selfblame: inquiries into depression and rape. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, p1, 1798-1809.

Janoff-Bulman, R.J. (1982) Esteem and control bases of
lame: "adaptive" strategies for victims vs. observers
Journal of Personality, §Q(2), 180.

Klein, D.C., Pencil-Morse, E. & Seligman, M.E. P.
Depression, learned helplessness and the attribution Of

failure. Journal of Personality and Social PsychologyI
(1976), eg, 508—516.

Kobasa, S.C. Maddi, S.R., Courington,s. (1981) Personality
and Constitution as mediators in the stress-illness
relationship. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, re, 368-378.

Kobasa, S.C. (1979) Stressful life events, personality and
health: An inquiry into hardiness. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, ;1 (1), 1-11

Krantz, S.E. (1983) Cognitive appraisals and
problem—directed coping: a prospective study of stress.
Journal Of Personality and Social
Psychology, gr (3), 638-643.

Kupier, N. A. Depression and causal attributions for success
and failure. (1978) Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, ;§,236-246.

Langer, E.J., Janis, I., & Wolfer, J. Reduction of
psychological stress in surgical patients. Journal of
Erperimental Social Psychology, (1975) 1, 155-166.

Lazarus,R., Coyne,J.C., & Folkman, S. (1982) Cognition,
emotion and motivation: the doctoring of humpty
dumpty. In R.W.J. Neufeld (Ed.) Psychological stress

and psychopathology. (pp. 218-239). New
York: McGraw-Hill.

124

Lazarus, R.S. (1985) The costs and benefits Of denial. In
A. Monat & R.S. Lazarus (Eds.) Stress and coping: an

anthology. (pp. 154-173) New York: Columbia University
Press.

Lazarus, R.S. (1980) The stress and coping paradigm. In
C. Eisdorfer, D. Cohen, A. Kleinman, & P. Maxim (Eds.)

Theoretical bases for psychopathology. New
York: Spectrum

Levine, J.B., Green, C.J., Millon, T. (1986) The
Separation-Individuation Test of Adolescence Journal of

Personality Assessment, 123-137.

Levine, J.B., (1987) A Comprehensive analysis of the
discriminate and external validity, normative
properties and theoretical contributions of the
Separation-Individuation Test of Adolescence
Dissertation Abstracts International, No. 8716165

Lewinsohn, P., Mischel, W., Chaplin, W., & Barton, R. (1980)
Social competence and depression: the role of illusory
self-perceptions Journal of Abnormal Ps cholo , ;g(2),
203-212.

Mahler, M.S. (1967) Thoughts about development and

individuation The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child
307-324.

McCrae, R.R. (1984) Situational determinants of coping
responses: loss, threat, and challenge. Journal of
Personalit and Social Ps cholo , g§(4), 919-928.

Mechanic, D. (1985) Some modes of adaptation: Defense in A.
Monat & R.S. Lazarus (Eds.) Stress and Coping. (pp.
208-219) (second ed.). New York: Columbia University
Press.

Meichenbaum, D. H. (1977) Cognitive behavior modification:
Ap integrative approach. New York: Plenum Press

Mikhail, A. (1985) Stress: a psychophysiological conception
in A. Monat & R. S. Lazarus (Eds.). Stress and
coping.(pp.30-39) (second ed.). New York: Columbia
University Press

Murrel, S.A. & Norris, F. H. (1983) Resources, life events,
and changes in psychological states: a prospective
framework. American Journal of Communit Ps cholo , 11
(5), 473-491.

‘-

125

Pearlin, L.I. & Schooler, C. (1978) The structure of coping.
Journal Of Health and Social Behavior, 12, 2-21.

Perloff, L.S. (1983) Perceptions of vulnerability to
victimization Journal of Social Issues, ;2 (2), 41-61.

Peterson, C., Schwartz, S., & Seligman, M. (1981) Self-blame

and depressive symptoms. Journal of Personality and
Social Ps cholo , A; (2), 253-259.

Rabkin, J.G., & Struening, E. L. (1976) Life events, stress,
and illness. Science, 194, 1013-1020.

 

Rahe, R. H., Arthur, R.J. (1978) Life change and illness
studies: past history and future directions. Journal of
Human Stress March, 3-15.

Rehm, L.P. (1977). A self-control model of depression.
Behavior Therapy, e, 787-804.

Rizley, R.(1978) Depression and distortion in the
attribution of causality. Journal of Abnormal
Ps cholo ,gl, 32-48.

Sabatelli, R.M., Mazor, A. (1985) Differentiation,
individuation, and identity formation: The integration
of family system and individual development
perspectives Adolescence, 20 (79) 620-633.

Schulz, R. & Decker,S. (1985) Long-term adjustment to
physical disability: The role of social support,
perceived control, and self-blame. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology. Ag (5), 1162-1172.

Seligman, M.E.P., Abramson, L.Y., Semmel, A. & Von Baeyer,
C.(1979) Depressive attributional style. Journal of
Abnormal Ps cholo , §§ (3), 242-247.

Silver, R.L., Boon, C., & Stones, M.H. (1983) Searching for
meaning in misfortune: making sense of incest. Journal
of Social Issues, ;2 (2), 81-102.

Sullivan, H.S. (1954) The psychiatric interview.(pp. 207,
96-106, 213-214) New York: W.W. Norton.

Taylor, S.E. (1983). Adjustment to threatening events: A
theory of cognitive adaptation. American Ps cholo ist,
1161-1171.

Taylor, S.E. Lichtman, R.R. Wood, J.V.(1984) Attributions,
beliefs about control, and adjustment to breast cancer.

126

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, pp (3).
489-502.

Taylor, S. E., Wood, J.V., & Lichtman, R.R. (1983) It could
be worse: selective evaluation as a response to
victimization Journal of Social Issues, 12 (2). 19-40.

Thompson, A. E. (1985) The nature of emotion and its
development in Fast, I. (Ed.) Event Theory: A
Piaget-Freud integration. (pp. 151—170) Hillsdale,
N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Turk, D. Cognitive behavioral techniques in the management
of pin. In J.P. Foreyt & D.J. Rathgen (Eds.)(1978)
Cognitive behavior therapy: Research and application.
New York Plenum Press.

Veit, C.T. Ware, J.E. (1983) The structure of psychological
distress and well-being in general populations Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, p; (5), 730-742.

Wortman, C.B. (1983) Coping with victimization: conclusions
and implications for future research Journal of Social
Issues, 12 (2), 195-221.

-i . . It...ill|p.l .t it .. (-16:
l r a- . .. #2:»? i I..- T; O V.) I. \ 0 («vii 1 .9 .

 
 

HICH

IGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
WillWWWINHWWIWHWIIHHIIW
93006059657

312