2%

 

IVERSI SITY LIB
I'HESIs

7 _ IHINUI1lH||Hi|UH|l|\\|\|\H\NIH“0:

3 1293 0156

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

          

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ATTACHMENT AND DEFENSIVE STYLES
AND PERCEPTIONS OF STRESSFUL AND RENARDING LIFE EVENTS

presented by

Michelle L. Toma

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

Ga , Stollak
Date /€/Aé r

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

 

 

 

____._..____

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to roman this chockout from your rocord.
TO AVOID FINES roturn on or boioro duo duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

Mu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

—MSUI-An“" - — -~

\.v' a' E, , - .‘5' . ‘r ‘

4v. ., \ i‘.‘ 1i". 1'\\""v-;- “It—i. . -".“

g
9
§
E3
5
g
E
a

By

Michelle Lynette Toma .

Lg" ~talterssfui o: -.
9,3, .
figlflmwlwpn . A
i “w _ A'I'HESIS
’ ,_ . int’aczrii .- 1 w
Submittedto
MicliantateUnivcrsityt
inpafitalfitlfillmcntoftherequircmcnts
forlhedegroeof . . I

. 51-x

 

 

.il

Md 4 MASTEROFARTS «a»; '
’hphcwm - ' Deparuncnt-ofPsychology' . ~

I o} gubwhm “1 ~ - 1996 ,:

 

 

THE

attack
stress
1500 ‘
these I
Uplifis
EIOUp.
Signifi.
uplifis
The im

[hEOn'eg

ABSTRACT

THE RELATIONSTHP BETWEEN ATTACHMENT AND DEFENSIVE STYLES AND
PERCEPTIONS OF STRESSFUL AND REWARDING LIFE EVENTS

By

Michelle Lynette Toma

This study attempted to test the hypothesis that two person-based factors,
attachment and defensive styles, were related to perceptions of daily life events as
stressful or rewarding. Ninety-nine undergraduates were chosen from approximately
1500 who participated in a larger study (Aronoff & Stollak, 1994). Several months later,
these 99 students completed a questionnaire assessing perceptions of daily hassles and
uplifts in their lives. Results indicated that subjects in the “Resilient” personality style
group, as classified by attachment and defensive styles, reported that they perceived
significantly fewer and less intense hassles and significantly more and more intense
uplifis than did subjects in the “Dependent” and “Disengaging” personality style groups.
The implications of these findings are discussed in terms of their impact on current

theories of subjective well-being and stress and coping.

 

 

 

 

F or t]
twp]

and CI
Stolla
for thi

out 1hc
CSpeci
PaniCL

regard:
difficu
researc

imPOFL'
Of this .

endun'n

not be i
only Ca;

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

For their part in helping me complete this project, I would like to thank the following
people:

My Committee:

My Chair, Dr. Gary Stollak, for his professional advice, guidance, availability,
and continued support throughout this process. I would also like to thank Dr. Gary
Stollak, along with Dr. Joel Aronoff, for making a portion of their data set available to me
for this project.

Dr. Larry Messé, for his statistical guidance, assistance in the process of carrying
out the statistical analyses, and in the organization and preparation of this thesis,
especially for his invaluable advice regarding the Methods and Results sections in
particular.

Dr. Joel Aronoff, for his important contributions to the organization of this thesis,
regarding the literature review specifically and my writing style in general, and for his
difficult theoretical questions which enabled me to think about the larger scope of this
research and its impact on others.

Dr. Michael Lambert, for his continued support and encouragement and for his
important feedback during the development of this thesis which facilitated my completion
of this project.

My family:
My parents, Jack and Dorothy Toma, and my fiance, Jeff Brumbaugh, for their
enduring love, support, encouragement, and midnight phone calls, without which I would

not be here. Thank you also for instilling in me the knowledge that, as a woman, I not
only can set high goals, but I can achieve them as well.

iii

 

Us
US;
Intri

Cha‘;
Liter

Chapte.
Hi'poth

Chapter
Memod

lm'

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ...................................................... vi
List of Figures ..................................................... vii
List of Appendices .................................................. viii
Introduction ....................................................... 1
Chapter 1
Literature Review ................................................... 5
Attachment ................................................... 6
Continuity Between Attachment in Childhood and in Adulthood . . . . 7
Adult Attachment ......................................... 8
Adult Attachment Styles and Responses to Stress ................ 9
Defensive Styles ............................................... 12
Defensive Styles and Perceptions of Life Experiences ............ 14
Defensive Styles and Well-Being ............................ 15
Subjective Well-Being .......................................... 19
Conceptualizations of Stress ................................ 19
Relationship Between Life Stress and Well-Being ............... 21
Daily Hassles and Uplifis ................................... 23
Personality Variables and Daily Life Events .................... 24
Rationale for Hypotheses ........................................ 26
Chapter 2
Hypotheses ........................................................ 31
Hassles and Uplifis Overall Frequency and Intensity .................. 31
Hassles and Uplifis Content ...................................... 32
Chapter 3
Method ........................................................... 34
Subjects ..................................................... 34
Demographic Characteristics ................................ 34
Initial Data Collection Procedure .................................. 37
iv

 

C 113}
Resr

Chapte
Discus

Initial Measures ............................................... 37

Demographic and Background Information .................... 37
Defense Mechanism Inventory .............................. 37
Relationships Questionnaire ................................ 38
Initial Data Analyses and Grouping of Subjects ...................... 40
Measures .................................................... 43
Hassles and Uplifts Questionnaire ............................ 43
Chapter 4
Results ........................................................... 47
Psychometric Examination of Scales ............................... 48
Reliability of Subscales .................................... 48
Correlations Between Hassles and Uplifis Overall Frequency and
Intensity Scales on the Revised Hassles and Uplifts Questionnaire . . 48
Correlations Between the Revised Hassles and Uplifts Content
Subscales ............................................... 48
Tests of Hypotheses ............................................ 53
Planned Comparisons - Hypotheses la, 1b, 1c: Patterns of Hassles
and Uplifis Within Personality Groups ........................ 53
Planned Comparisons - Hypotheses 2a and 2b: Between-group
Hypotheses for the Overall Frequency and Intensity of Hassles and
Uplifts ................................................. 54
Planned Comparisons - Hypotheses 3a, 3b, and 3c: Personality
Style Differences on Social and Non-social Hassles and Uplifis
Content Subscales ........................................ 55
Exploratory Hypotheses - Hypotheses 4a, 4b, and 4c: Personality
Style Differences on Health Hassles, Inner Concerns, and Academic
Hassles ................................................. 56
Supplemental Analyses ......................................... 58
Chapter 5
Discussion ........................................................ 64
Implications of Findings for the Top-Down Approach to Subjective
Well-Being ................................................... 64
Implications of Findings for the Threat Model of Stress and Coping:
Theoretical Implications ........................................ 66
Implications of Findings for the Study of Adult Attachment ............ 68
Limitations of Study ........................................... 69
Future Directions .............................................. 73
Summary and Conclusions ...................................... 74
References ........................................................ 76

 

Tab

Tab

Tabl

Tabb

Tablc‘

Table

Table

Table

Table 1

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 - Demographic Characteristics of the Sample (N=99) ................ 35

Table 2 - Correlations Between the Relationships Questionnaire and Defense
Mechanism Subscales (N =1248) ............................... 42

Table 3 - Reliability Coefficients, Mean Subject Scores, and Standard Deviations
for the Revised Hassles and Uplifts Questionnaire Overall and Content
Subscales .................................................. 50

Table 4 - Correlations Between Hassles and Uplifis Frequency and Intensity
Scores .................................................... 5 1

Table 5 - Correlations Between Hassles and Uplifts Subscale Frequency Scores . . 52

Table 6 - Relationships Between Hassles and Uplifis Frequencies Within
Personality Style Group ...................................... 60

Table 7 - Relationships Between Personality Style Groups and Hassles and
Uplifis Frequencies and Intensities: Overall Analyses of Variance . . . . 61

Table 8 - Cell Means and Standard Deviations for the Personality Style Groups
on the Proportion of Social Hassles, Social Uplifts, and Non-social
Hassles Reported ............................................ 62

Table 9 - Cell Means and Standard Deviations for the Personality Style Groups
on the Proportion of Health Hassles, Inner Concerns, and Academic
Hassles Reported ............................................ 63

 

Figure

Figure

UBISTDFWZS

    

”mmta‘ucuuwuig‘di}....................4.2
Wafsmby-Samfl'mamyflmup .............493

. z“ . ‘ '01:

'» TM‘L- bit-3:2. - ~~ - ‘— '- . , Wis

 

cum-em...

L_".

01..

 

Appenc
Appenc
Appenc
Appenc
Appcm
APptm

Appem

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A - The Defense Mechanism Inventory (DMI) .................... 82
Appendix B - The Relationships Questionnaire (RQ) ....................... 93
Appendix C - Relationships Questionnaire Subscale Items .................. 98
Appendix D - The Hassles and Uplifis Scale .............................. 100
Appendix E - Modifications to the Hassles and Uplifis Scale ................ 108
Appendix F - Hassles Content Subscale Items ............................ 111
Appendix G - Uplifis Content Subscale Items ............................ 113
viii

 

subjecti
stressfu'
illness 3
Rubenfc‘
S}‘mptor
Russell
f0UO\\'e(
With life
this area
there is 3
“Peder
Well-bei.
ACCordir
lNations

taxing. Or

INTRODUCTION

The literature on stress and coping has uncovered a strong relationship between
subjective experiences of stress and physical and psychological well-being. Specifically,
stressful life experiences have been linked to the subsequent development of somatic
illness and psychopathology (Kanner, Coyne, Schaefer & Lazarus, 1981; Varni,
Rubenfeld, Talbot & Setoguchi, 1989). This trend holds true even when initial levels of
symptomatology are taken into account (Wolf, Elston & Kissling, 1989; Cummins, 1990;
Russell & Cutrona, 1991; Johnson & Bomstein, 1993). Traditionally, this research has
followed a change model of stress and coping, which equates stressful life experiences
with life changes (Burks & Martin, 1985; Wagoner, 1990). Therefore, most research in
this area has focused on coping responses in the face of objective life changes. However,
there is increasing empirical support for the threat model of stress and coping in which
experiences are perceived as stressors when they threaten the physical or psychological
well-being of an individual (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Burks & Martin, 1985).
Accordingly, Lazarus and F olkman (1984) define psychological stress as “a particular
relationship between the person and the environment that is appraised by the person as

taxing or exceeding his or her resources and endangering his or her well-being.” (p. 19).

 

 

threat at
because
threaten
ditl‘eren
persona
physica
Of an ex
apprais:
event ('I

Zika ll

2

This theoretical shifi in viewing stressful life events as those reflecting potential
threat adds a cognitive appraisal component to the experience of life events. Thus,
because different people will not necessarily perceive the same event as equally
threatening, the threat model refines the change model by accounting for individual
differences in the evaluation of events as potential stressors. Thus, in the threat model
personal characteristics not only mediate the impact of experienced stressful events on
physical and psychological well-being, but such characteristics also affect the perception
of an event as a potential stressor. Change is not always stressful; it is the individual’s
appraisal of and response to a particular event that determines the stressfulness of that
event (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Burks & Martin, 1985; Wagner, 1990; Chamberlain &
Zika, 1990).

In studying the implications of this model, the task becomes not only to determine
which coping styles best equip the person to handle stressful life situations, but also to
identify personal characteristics that moderate the tendency to perceive different types of
events as stressors in the first place. Lazarus & Folkman (1984) propose that people
become susceptible to stress as a result of some sensitivity or vulnerability to certain
types of events. They further hypothesize that vulnerability is due to the relationship
between the patterns of meaning of particular events to the individual, labeled
commitments, and the individual’s resources for warding off perceived threats to those
commitments. Thus, in this model, vulnerability is viewed as a tendency to perceive
threat in areas that hold particular meaning to an individual. When an event has

psychological significance for an individual, it may be more likely to be remembered, and

 

therefor
the the
by a ra
deterrr

situati

envirt
Shr0t
Guug
dour
TOp-
inter-
colo‘
Ofst
CVal
DYEd
defe
Perc
vthe

dail;

TIIEr;

 

3
therefore more likely to be reported. Lazarus & Folkman (1984) also hypothesized that
the classes of events to which individuals become vulnerable may be, in turn, determined
by a range of person factors. These person variables, then, may influence appraisal by
determining which life events are relevant to the individual’s well-being in a given
situation.

Consequently, several authors have called for an investigation of the personal and
environmental correlates and antecedents of stressful experiences (Dohrenwend &
Shrout, 1985; Zika & Chamberlain, 1987; Blankstein & Flett, 1992; Fame, Sebellico,
Gnugnoli & Corallo, 1992). This method of investigation has been described as the top-
down approach to subjective well-being (Feist, Bodner, Jacobs, Miles & Tan, 1995).
Top-down theories of subjective well-being propose that people are predisposed to
interpret life experiences in either positive or negative ways. This predisposition, then,
colors individual’s evaluation of satisfaction in particular life domains. The threat model
of stress and coping is an example of a top-down theory. This research investigation
evaluated, in part, the first assumption of the top-down approach, that people are
predisposed to interpret life experiences in characteristic ways. Adult attachment and
defensive styles are two person variables that have been hypothesized to be related to
perceptions of life experiences as stressors or uplifis. Therefore, this study examined
whether people who differ in their adult attachment and defensive styles tend to interpret
daily life experiences in characteristically positive or negative ways.

In the pages that follow, the relevant attachment, defense style, and stress

literature will be reviewed. A rationale for the current study’s hypotheses is then

 

prese
grou1
sectit
hum
result

and St

4
presented along with a listing of the hypotheses. The procedures for selecting and
grouping subjects and a description of the questionnaires are presented in the Methods
section. Next, the Results section describes the analyses carried out in testing the
hypotheses and reports the findings of these analyses. Finally, the implications of the
results are discussed in terms of their impact on current theories of subjective well-being

and stress and coping.

 

stress
demor
researc
stresso
develo;
broad \
of attac
Present:
exPetier
(IGTEnSi‘.
[he defer
SIFles ler
Fina“): t.

literanIre.

Chapter 1

LITERATURE REVIEW

This literature review will present the relevant attachment, defensive style, and
stress and coping literature. The review of attachment research will begin with a
demonstration of the application of the attachment construct to adult relationships. Next,
research studies regarding attachment style differences in perceptions of and responses to
stressors are reviewed. This research will be discussed in terms of its relevance to the
development of generalized internal working models that are hypothesized to reflect
broad views of the rewards and dangers of various life experiences. Following the review
of attachment literature, a review of the relevant defensive style research will be
presented. The manner in which defensive styles influence perceptions of life
experiences will be discussed followed by an examination of the relationship between
defensive styles and psychological symptomatology. It will be shown that the weight of
the defensive style literature indicates that individuals using different primary defensive
styles tend to report differences in the appraisal and reporting of psychological distress.
Finally, this review will conclude with an examination of the relevant stress and coping

literature.

 

Attachu

reaction

period 0

attachmr

out of ft:

and cogr

conceptt

of attach

.VOUng 01

over tim.

another I
IlleOry pt
aditptit'e
caIEng-e]
of the car
(1978,) pr
T.

a comTile;
best desc]
DIOlejt).

Attachment

The modern conceptualization of attachment was initiated by Bowlby (1951) as a
reaction to Spitz and Wolf’s (1947) work with children raised in orphanages. Over a
period of several years, Bowlby refined his theory into a form that closely resembles
attachment theory as it is known today (Bowlby, 1969). Attachment theory developed
out of four main theoretical traditions (ethology, psychoanalysis, control-systems theory,
and cognitive theory), each of which provided an important part of Bowlby’s overall
conceptualization of attachment. From ethology came the mainstay of Bowlby’s theory
of attachment, namely the notion that strong social bonds develop between adults and
young of a species in order to facilitate the development of reciprocal interaction patterns
over time. Psychoanalytic theory added the importance of the special relationship with
another person that is necessary in the development of attachment. Control-systems
theory provided the foundation for Bowlby’s conceptualization of attachment as an
adaptive regulatory mechanism for maintaining the infant’s close proximity to the
caregiver. Finally, cognitive theory supplied the concept of the internal working model
of the caregiver that infants develop and that allowed for the development of Ainsworth’s
(1978) procedure for assessing infant attachment.

Taken together, the existing theoretical notions described above were weaved into
a complex theory of the attachment process (Bowlby, 1969). The attachment process is
best described as “an adaptive behavioral system with limits that concern the infant’s
proximity to significant others” (Bowlby, 1988). The major feature of attachment, the

control system, is hypothesized to maintain homeostasis by using increasingly

 

sophist
the an:
behaxi
an evo
infant 1
ohms
circum
the attz
memt
emmm
0f pro)

Senino

SYSIEne

deb’el 0

7
sophisticated methods of communication for keeping distance from and accessibility to
the attachment figure within acceptable limits. Thus, attachment is a process of adaptive
behaviors that evolve as caregivers and infants negotiate an adaptive fit to each other. In
an evolutionary sense, then, attachment behaviors serve the function of bringing the
infant and caregiver into some degree of proximity. Attachment behaviors are generally
observed when stressful or threatening conditions are present. It is especially under these
circumstances that the adaptive function of attachment behavior is apparent; closeness to
the attachment figure reduces the threat of physical and psychological harm and increases
the infant’s likelihood of survival. Ainsworth expanded this notion and added the
emphasis that the set goal of the attachment behavioral system was not the maintenance
of proximity, per se, but the young child’s feelings of security, which interact with the
setting to activate or terminate attachment behavior.

The goal of felt security is attained by the infant’s use of the caregiver as a secure
base. Security and exploration needs are balanced through the attachment behavioral
system which regulates the proximity of the infant to the mother until the infant is
developmentally able to recognize danger signals on his/her own. The phenomenon of
the secure base led Ainsworth and her colleagues (Ainsworth & Wittig, 1969; Ainsworth,
Blehar & Waters, 1978) to develop the Strange Situation as a means of assessing the
quality of infant-caregiver attachment.

(‘ *' "y i‘ L f“ L ‘inC‘L'UL ‘ andinAdultthd. Although the
application of attachment theory to adulthood is somewhat controversial, there is ample

evidence which suggests that the application is warranted. Indeed, it appears to be the

8
internal factors discussed above, labeled internal working models, that form the link

between attachment in infancy and childhood and attachment in adulthood (Rothbard &
Shaver, 1994; Teti & Nakagawa, 1990). Internal working models have been described as
by-products of attachment related experiences that include affective, defensive, and
descriptive cognitive components (Rothbard & Shaver, 1994; Bretherton, 1985; Main,
Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985). They act as heuristics for anticipating and interpreting the
behavior and intentions of others (Rothbard & Shaver, 1994; Berman & Sperling, 1994).
To the extent that differences in attachment relationships elicit differential social
responsiveness, this differential treatment may confirm expectations about the world,
which in turn strengthens internal working models and, thus, the stability of attachment
patterns across the lifespan (Jacobsen & Wille, 1986; Rothbard & Shaver, 1994).
Similarly, internal working models may change through the experience of model-
disconfirming social experiences. Studies suggest that this is indeed the case. Rothbard
& Shaver (1994) conclude that internal working models appear to mediate the
relationship between attachment history and subsequent adult personality by
consolidating information about social experiences gathered throughout development.

AdultAttachment. The conclusion that working models mediate the relationship
between infant and adult attachment is consistent with findings reported in Hazan and
Shaver’s (1987) landmark paper extending attachment theory to adult relationships.
Hazan and Shaver reported demographic, retrospective, and predictive data that provide
evidence for the application and continuity of the attachment construct to adult

relationships. In their study, the proportions of adults that rated themselves as securely

 

attached.
the prop<
versus 6:
respectiv
perceptic
mth eacl
their pare
described
adults de:
findings 1
by simila
adult ana.
relationsk
0“ attach;

At

Rholes an
how adult
Under Sire
of a stress
then rem”
were ObSe]

811139011 SO.

9
attached, avoidantly attached, and anxiously attached was similar, based on inspection of
the proportions, to the proportions of children similarly categorized (56%, 25%, and 19%
versus 62%, 23%, and 15% (Campos, 1983, cited from Hazan & Shaver, 1987),
respectively). Furthermore, the best predictor of adult attachment type was the subject’s
perceptions of the quality of the relationship with parents and the parents’ relationship
with each other. Specifically, securely attached adults described their relationship with
their parents as warmer than did insecurely attached adults. Avoidantly attached adults
described their mothers as cold and rejecting, while anxiously/ambivalently attached
adults described their fathers as unfair. Hazan & Shaver (1987) concluded that these
findings lent support to the notion that attachment styles in adulthood may be determined
by similar forces as those affecting attachment in infants and children. In addition, the
adult attachment styles were predictive of adults’ descriptions of their romantic
relationships in expected directions derived from extrapolation of findings from research
on attachment in infants and children.

AdultAttachmenLStylesandResponseszStress. Simpson (1990) and Simpson,
Rholes and Nelligan (1992) added to Hazan and Shaver’s (1987) findings by showing
how adult attachment style was related to support seeking in romantic relationships when
under stressful conditions. Simpson et al. (1992) exposed female partners to a description
of a stressful experience in which they would be participating. The female partners were
then returned to the waiting room where their interactions with their male counterparts
were observed. The results indicated that attachment styles influenced the degree of

support sought from the partners; securely attached women sought out more support as

their anti
meaningl
has demt
understar
Simpson
I
beliefs a
recently
The cur
tiews a
risks an
has TQCI
differer
Soles.
and hu:
Statem
adult a
inti‘ITte
SOCial
adulrh

TElatig

1 0
their anxiety increased, while more avoidant women did not. By identifying theoretically
meaningful relationship patterns of adults with different attachment styles, some research
has demonstrated that attachment theory can provide a viable framework for
understanding adult interpersonal relationships (Hazan and Shaver, 1987; Simpson, 1990;
Simpson et al., 1992).

Unlike attachment in childhood, which is considered to be primarily related to
beliefs and behavior pertaining to social interaction, attachment styles in adulthood have
recently been hypothesized to influence a wider range of adult perception and behavior.
The cumulative effects of attachment styles in adulthood may not only influence adults’
views about the nature of their social world, but may also influence their views about the
risks and rewards inherent in the experiences involved in everyday living. This notion
has received preliminary support from Feeny and Noller (1990), who have focused on the
differential experience of interpersonal relationships by people with different attachment
styles. They reported that mental model statements regarding general views of the self
and human relationships discriminated between attachment categories better than did
statements regarding specific beliefs. Based on this finding the authors suggested that
adult attachment styles exert pervasive influence on interpersonal relationships because
internal working models seem to reflect general views about the rewards and dangers of
social interaction. This finding expands previous applications of attachment theory to
adulthood by including all social relationships, in addition to parental and primary love

relationships.

news wt
on the ba
Israel. T
Gulf Wa
consister
that exag
uncontro
anxious-
distress.

awarene

Stressful
emachm.
infOrma'
being a
su€g€su
Classific
expefier
peTSOna
this “‘3:

COUCius

ll

Mikulincer et al., (1993) have recently included an even wider range of world
views which may be influenced by internal working models of attachment relationships
on the basis of their study of the influence of attachment on the impact of the Gulf War in
Israel. They reported that attachment style differences in level of distress just afier the
Gulf War were not mediated by the use of different coping strategies. Their data are
consistent with the hypothesis that insecure people may have generalized working models
that exaggerate the appraisal of life adversities as threatening, irreversible, and
uncontrollable. They also reported that, compared with secure people, people with
anxious-ambivalent attachment styles tend to be described as hypervigilant to sources of
distress, while avoidantly attached persons seem to divert negative emotions from
awareness.

One personal variable, then, that has the potential to influence the perception of
stressful life events is an individual’s adult attachment style. One possible way for
attachment to influence perceptions of life experiences is through the, “ability to shut off
information of certain specified types and of doing so selectively without the person
being aware of what is happening.” (Bowlby, 1988, p. 34). Bowlby’s hypothesis
suggests that one possible interpretation is that individuals with different adult attachment
classifications by selectively attending or inattending to particular aspects of life
experiences may be predisposed to view these experiences as more or less stressful. One
personality construct that has been theorized to influence awareness of life experiences in
this way is an individual’s defensive style. This possibility is supported by the

conclusion reached by Mikulincer et a1. (1993) that ambivalently attached individuals,

i)

when con
hjperxigi
negative 1
styles ma
more or I

DCT€D51V

unconsci
Christiar
this reco
constrict
enable ;
SIE‘liStic
Perceivc
cufient
individl

ConSlSte

pOSlIlV'c
intEma]

0T DQIQ‘

12
when compared with people who are securely attached, are described as being
hypervigilant to sources of distress, while avoidantly attached persons seem to divert
negative emotions from awareness. In this way, adult attachment styles and defensive
styles may work in combination to influence individual’s appraisal of life experiences as
more or less distressing or as more or less rewarding.
kaensimStyles

Defenses may be viewed as unconscious processes that are “consciously or
unconsciously designed to reconcile internal and external demands” (Bond, Gardner,
Christian & Sigal, 1983). According to Ihilevich & Glesser (1986), defenses accomplish
this reconciliation by influencing our perceptions. These influences may work both as
constricting processes that limit growth and as adaptive mechanisms that protect and
enable people to function. In as much as the use of particular defenses becomes a
stylistic way of dealing with conflict or stress, such use may serve to predispose people to
perceive their environments and actions in characteristic ways. In an attempt to fit
current events into existing self and world views, defensive styles may predispose
individuals to approach their life experiences in predictable ways and to appraise them as
consistently stressful or rewarding.

A second personal variable, then, that may influence appraisals of life events as
positive or negative is an individual’s defensive style. According to Morelli & Andrews
(1982), the major function of defenses is to resolve conflict between perceptions and
internalized values. Defenses function by resn-icting or focusing the range of memories

or perceptions toward which attention is directed, especially if those memories or

perceptions
1988‘). Thu
incorporate
promote the
begin to de'
inclined to

Ihil
defenses. '
styles tltror
uidely use
framewort
used mam
Stiles incl
Pfincipali;

Ihi
the Persor
‘0 abstrac:

allOujng 1

l3

perceptions are expected to arouse anxiety (i.e., under stressful circumstances; Crarner,
1988). Thus, defenses may influence or distort appraisals of life events in order to
incorporate them more harmoniously into existing self and world views as well as to
promote the self in socially desirable ways (Ihilevich & Gleser, 1986). If individuals
begin to develop a pattern of reliance on particular types of defenses, they may be more
inclined to perceive their environments in predictably positive or negative ways.

Ihilevich & Gleser (1986) developed a five-part system for the classification of
defenses. Their system of classification revolutionized the measurement of defensive
styles through the development of a measure of defense mechanisms which has been
widely used in research. Their five defense categories also provide a convenient
framework with which to organize existing findings in the literature which previously had
used many labels and systems of classifying defense mechanisms. The five defensive
styles included in the Ihilevich & Gleser (1986) classification system include
principalization, reversal, turning against others, projection, and turning against self.

Ihilevich & Gleser (1986) define the principalization defenses as those that reduce
the personal significance of perceived threats by diverting attention from specific issues
to abstract issues. The affect associated with the specific issue is decreased or detached,
allowing the basic issue to remain without its original emotional significance. Defense
mechanisms included in this category are intellectualization, rationalization, and denial.
Threatening content and negative affect are removed from consciousness with the use of
reversal defenses. These defenses are expressed as exaggeratedly cheerful emotions or

positive responses to frustrating or threatening events. Defense mechanisms associated

pith this
object de
aggressic
dominant
mechanis
either the
This cate
displacer
feelings.
them. T
Character
Sense of
Others \\
PTOJCCtic
delusion
exaEllen
Sen'e to
In Other
SCIf‘eSte

meChanl'

I

relations

14

with this category are denial, repression, and reaction-formation. The turning against
object defense are defined as those that involve direct or indirect expressions of
aggression. These defenses serve to “bolster self-esteem by creating the illusion of
dominance, strength, and control.” (p. 19). Individuals employing these defense
mechanisms seem to feel as if an attack is their best defensive alternative resulting in
either the masking of painful inner conflicts or in perceived mastery of external threats.
This category subsumes the defense mechanisms of identification with the aggressor and
displacement. Projection defenses are defined as those used to justify hostile thoughts,
feelings, or behavior toward others by attributing negative intent or characteristics to
them. These defenses bolster self-esteem through a disowning of undesirable
characteristics or expressing them in order to make downward comparisons. An illusory
sense of mastery over the negative characteristics is gained by rejecting or attacking
others who possess the negative attributes. These defenses include most forms of
projection and extemalization including prejudice, scapegoating, jealousy, and paranoid
delusions. Finally, the turning against self defenses are often expressed in terms of
exaggerated self-criticism, negative expectations, and depressed affect. These defenses
serve to bolster self-esteem by reducing the threatening effects of negative experiences.
In other words, by “anticipating the worst” the consequences of negative experiences for
self-esteem are reduced. This category of defense mechanisms includes intrapunitive
mechanisms including self-inflicted and other-inflicted pain and disappointment.

DefensiveStylesandEerceptionsnflifeExperiences. Following this, several

relationships have been reported between the use of defense mechanisms and individuals’

apprai

overall
es'aluat
estimat
projecti
lnteresti
change i
the abilit
K
the accur
themselw
tended to
importam
reversal S
Panicipan
tOgi‘ther, 1
I101 lead It
inflHence
negative
De
(1988‘) mg

the van' on:

15
appraisals of their life experiences. Gleser and Sacks (1973) asked students to rate their
overall level of skill prior to taking an ability test; the students were also asked to
evaluate their abilities after taking the test. The results indicated that at post-test, higher
estimates of ability were related to the use of the defenses turning against others and
projection and lower estimates were related to the use of reversal and turning against self.
Interestingly, individuals who primarily utilize principalization as a defense reported no
change in their post-test estimates of ability, although they tended to score the worst on
the ability test.

Kipper and Ginot (1979) also reported that subjects’ defensive styles influenced
the accuracy of their self-evaluations. When evaluating videotaped segments of
themselves and others, people who primarily used the defenses projection and reversal
tended to respond with the greatest distortions in the reporting of their behavior. It is
important to underscore that these distortions only occurred when the high projection and
reversal subjects rated their own behavior. When these subjects evaluated the other
participants’ behaviors, they were as accurate as were the objective raters. Taken
together, these two studies lend support to the notion that although defensive styles may
not lead to distortions in the appraisal of non-salient events, they can and do exert an
influence over individual’s perceptions of their own life experiences as positive or
negative.

DefensmeStylesandflellJiemg. In a recent review of the literature, Cramer

(1988) argued that the bum " ' U’ :2. " ' g tendencies inherent in the structure of

 

the various defensive styles may manifest themselves in the willingness of the individual

to report
characte
inhibit tl
against 0
C ramer c
defenses ‘
defenses.
relationsh;
psycholog'
Recklitis, ]
Set
SFmptomat.
refleet actuz
3 socially d.
Hackney, l
RCVCrSa] am
Denial and L
and [0 def ens
subsequent 31
Soda] desirab
subjects Were

designed to ta.
1

16
to report psychological distress as well as in the propensity to interpret life experiences in
characteristic ways. For example, the psychological defense of principalization seems to
inhibit the reporting of symptomatology, while those employing the defense turning
against others appear to be more willing to report symptomatology. More specifically,
Cramer concluded that women who primarily use turning against others and projection as
defenses were more likely to report psychological distress than were those using other
defenses. Principalization and reversal were negatively related to symptom distress. This
relationship between the use of principalization and reversal and lack of reporting
psychological symptomatology gained additional support in a later study (Noam &
Recklitis, 1990).

Several researchers have suggested that the relationship between lack of reporting
symptomatology and the psychological defenses principalization and reversal may not
reflect actual lower levels of distress, but alternatively may be reflective of a bias towards
a socially desirable presentation and denial of symptoms (Haan, 1965; Gordon &
Brackney, 1979; Kipper & Ginot, 1979; Cramer, 1988; Noam & Recklitis, 1990).
Reversal and principalization have been shown to be positively related to the MMPI
Denial and Lie Scales, to the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Haan, 1965)
and to defensiveness (Gordon & Brackney, 1979). These findings were supported by two
subsequent studies which also indicated that reversal and principalization were related to
social desirability and/or to distortions in the appraisals of life events. In one study, when
subjects were instructed to respond in a socially desirable way to a questionnaire

designed to tap defensive styles, they tended to decrease their usage of turning against

others an
1978). It
ability te:
Gleser &
as a defer
The autht
estimates
the distor
Ht
Principali;
“ilh that r
Selfor pro
defensive ;
“”5 Study,
The results

of projectit

1 7
others and projection and increased their use of principalization and reversal (Dudley,
1978). In a second study, students gave self-ratings of their propensity to succeed at an
ability test (unknown to the students, the test was constructed to be extremely diflicult;
Gleser & Sacks, 1973). Results indicated that students who tended to use principalization
as a defense reported no change in their estimates of their abilities afier failing the test.
The authors concluded that the failure of subjects who use principalization to change their
estimates of their abilities was reflective of either a bias toward social desirability or of
the distortions these subjects made in their appraisals of the event.

However, other researchers contend that the lack of reporting associated with
principalization and reversal does reflect an actual lower level of distress when compared
with that reported by individuals using primarily turning against others, turning against
self or projection (Wilson, 1982; Morelli & Andrews, 1982). Wilson (1982) reported that
defensive styles predicted fear prior to surgery and response to stress after surgery. In
this study, women undergoing surgery were followed throughout their recovery periods.
The results indicated that fear prior to surgery was positively related to the patients’ usage
of projection and turning against others and negatively related to their usage of reversal
and turning against self. Furthermore, women who were low on the defenses of
projection and turning against others and who were high on the use of reversal and
turning against self reported better hospital recoveries, used less medication, and required
less contact with physicians. This study was able to demonstrate a link between
individual’s defensive styles and their appraisals of and reactions to stressful life events.

To date, very few studies like Gleser and Sacks (1973) and Wilson (1982) have been

conducted
styles with

In .
outside of
extemalizi
sell) are p
1990; Klu
psycholog
“ith exter
women (is
associated
thought di
Similar fir
mechanisr
the defeng
(littered 0
feelingS 0

Q.
in the app
primes d

teams, 0t

1 8
conducted that have compared retrospective reports of individuals differing in defensive
styles with appraisals and behavioral observations of those events.

In general, the literature suggests that the use of defenses that locate conflict
outside of the self (turning against others and projection) are positively associated with
externalizing symptomatology; those that locate conflict within the self (turning against
self) are positively associated with internalizing symptomatology (Noam & Recklitis,
1990; Klusman, 1982; Gur & Gut, 1975; Gleser & Sacks, 1973). The use of the
psychological defense turning against others has been shown to be consistently associated
with externalizing psychopathology, aggression, and delinquency in both men and
women (Noam & Recklitis, 1990). In this same study, projection was positively
associated with externalizing problems and aggression in women and with depression and
thought disorder in men. In women, turning against self was associated with depression.
Similar findings were achieved by a study that examined the relationship between defense
mechanisms and affective responses to external threats (Klusman, 1982). In this study,
the defense turning against others was most strongly positively associated with hostility
directed outward, while turning against self was most strongly positively related to
feelings of anxiety and hostility directed inward.

Overall, it appears that the weight of the literature indicates that a difference exists
in the appraisal and reporting of psychological distress by individual’s using different
primary defensive styles. In general, individuals primarily utilizing the defenses tuming

against others and projection tend to report more distress and symptomatology than do

those indi

against se

SubjCCIiV'

C (

there are t

the freque

1981; Del

Dohrenwe

1990; Rus

defines str.
of stress as
life Chan ge
traIlsélction
hassles. T]
deemed str
1985). Cor
and decreag
Res.

311633. One
Change Witt
indit-‘idUars

SIICSSfulneSS

19
those individuals who primarily utilize the defenses reversal, principalization, and turning
against self.

ConcepmalizationsnfStLess. According to the literature on stress and coping,
there are two ways to conceptualize life stress: as the frequency of major life events or
the frequency and intensity of daily hassling events (Kanner, Coyne, Schaefer & Lazarus,
1981; DeLongis, Coyne, Dakof, Folkman & Lazarus, 1982; Monroe, 1983; Dohrenwend,
Dohrenwend, Dodson & Shrout, 1984; Burks & Martin, 1985; Flannery, 1986; Wagner,
1990; Russell & Cutrona, 1991). The conceptualization of stress as major life events
defines stress as equivalent to change (Burks & Martin, 1985; Wagner, 1990). The focus
of stress as major life events is on the individual’s social readjustment following major
life changes. In contrast, the daily hassle conceptualization of stress focuses on the
transactional nature of stress and on the individual’s cognitive appraisal of the events as
hassles. This conceptualization has been termed the threat model in which events are
deemed stressful only when reflecting a problem or potential threat (Burks & Martin,
1985). Correlations between major life events and daily hassles are moderate (r = .50)
and decrease (r = .38) when overlapping content items are excluded.

Researchers have noted strengths and weaknesses in both conceptualizations of
stress. One of the main criticisms of the major life events approach is that it confuses
change with stress (Wagner, 1990). Change is not always stressful, and it is the
individual’s appraisal of and response to a particular event that determines the

stressfulness of that event (Burks & Martin, 1985; Wagner, 1990; Chamberlain & Zika,

1990). I.
perceive:
conceptu
conceptu
A

lack ever
hand. cor
F;
physical :
been criti
affected t
(1985) re]
the remai:
Symptom:
hassles an
Simptom
QUEStion 1
Because tl
indit'idUal
actually be
hassleg_ T

P @5160] W

20
1990). In contrast, by definition daily hassles are those daily events that the individual
perceives as distressing. Thus, in terms of this criticism, the daily hassles
conceptualization of stress is an improvement over the major life events
conceptualization.

A second major criticism of the major life events conceptualization is that they
lack event detail; they only include broad categories of items. Daily hassles, on the other
hand, consist of minute, detailed events that cover a broad range of topic categories.

Finally, according to Wagner (1990), major life events may have less relevance to
physical and psychological functioning than do daily hassles. Even so, daily hassles have
been criticized for being too subjective and appraisal-based and are possibly more
afi’ected by psychological symptomatology and mood. However, Dohrenwend & Shrout
(1985) reported that after confounded daily hassles items were removed from analyses,
the remaining unconfounded items were as highly correlated with measures of
symptomatology as were the original items. In addition, the relationship between daily
hassles and psychological outcomes is moderate and significant even afier initial
symptom levels are considered (Monroe, 1983; Lu, 1991). These frndings call into
question the criticism that daily life events are confounded with psychological distress.
Because they found that major life events had more of an impact than daily hassles on an
individual’s energy level, DeLongis et a1. (1982) suggested that major life events may
actually be more likely to be confounded with psychological well-being than are daily
hassles. The authors also hypothesized that a strong relationship between hassles and

physical well-being would decrease the likelihood that the relationship between hassles

and/)8"
results 5

notbe a

literatun

physical

between

that dailj

life even

life even'

reported

life event

accountet
“13101 life
[his findir
Cutmna (
affecting 1
their Stud }
the)" are m
psi'ChOTOgi
Ont

SubleCts' in

21
and psychological symptomatology is an artifact of an underlying stress factor. Their
results supported this view. Taken together, these findings suggest that daily hassles may

not be as confounded with psychological symptomatology as once thought.

n ' -- L‘_ P L Life StressandjhlellgBeing. The main debateinthe

 

literature centers around which conceptualization of stress is the best predictor of later
physical and psychological outcomes. Several studies have investigated the relationship
between stress and physical and psychological well-being. It appears from the literature
that daily hassles are better predictors of physical and mental well-being than are major
life events (Burks & Martin, 1985). In the earliest study comparing daily hassles to major
life events in the prediction of later psychological symptomatology, Kanner et a1. (1981)
reported that hassles were better overall predictors of symptomatology than were major
life events. Furthermore, major life events rarely added to the amount of variance
accounted for by daily hassles, indicating that daily hassles subsumed the effects due to
major life events. In as much as major life events influence the details of daily living,
this finding makes intuitive sense. This conclusion has been supported by Russell &
Cutrona (1991), who suggest that major life events exert their influence on depression by
affecting the experience of daily hassles. Chamberlain & Zika (1990) concluded from
their study that daily hassles are also independently predictive of psychological outcome;
they are not merely moderators of the relationship between major life events and
psychological outcomes.

One criticism of the Kanner et al. (1981) study is that it failed to control for the

subjects’ initial levels of psychopathology, making it difficult to conclude that hassles

were p01
Monroe
Results (
spuptorr
the relati
more oft
I
provide a
relationsh
Consisten
Psl'ChOlog
Si'mptoma
hassles an.
Partialled <
Smpmrna'
Fin
Inar‘or life .
and hequer
W0”Fine. 1
27% of the

Major life 6‘

22
were potent predictors of subsequent symptomatology. This study was improved upon by
Monroe (1983), who included subjects’ initial levels of psychopathology in his analyses.
Results of this study indicated that the relationship between daily hassles and
symptomatology was reduced when previous symptomatology was considered, although
the relationship remained significant. In addition, daily hassles continued to explain
more of the variance in symptomatology than did major life events.

Two more recent studies by Wolf, Elston, & Kissling (1989) and Lu (1991)
provide additional support for these initial findings. Wolf et a1. (1989) examined the
relationship between daily hassles and mood in a sample of freshman medical students.
Consistent with earlier findings, they reported that hassles were significantly related to
psychological well-being even after controlling for initial levels of mood and
symptomatology. Lu (1991) reported a moderate positive relationship between daily
hassles and subsequent psychopathology after initial levels of psychopathology were
partialled out. It was concluded that hassles are a significant predictor of psychological
symptomatology even after initial psychological symptoms are considered.

Finally, Russell & Davey (1993) examined the relationship between daily hassles,
major life events, and anxiety in college undergraduates. They reported that the severity
and frequency of daily hassles, but not major life events, were related to anxiety and
worrying. In a multiple regression analysis, the severity of daily hassles accounted for
27% of the variance in trait anxiety and accounted for 13% of the variance in worrying.

Major life events did not add significantly to the prediction.

to major
that majt
literature
not be (it
other no
psycholo
1985).

D
relationsl
hassles c:
h€en COIII
finding a
W011~ et a
ignored it
coping ill
health, 01
daily Upli
Lazarus.
mm an
to rCflem

23

Thus, the overall pattern of results seems to indicate that daily hassles are superior
to major life events in the prediction of physical and psychological well-being. It may be
that major life events indirectly influence well-being. Furthermore, the trend in the recent
literature suggests that this stronger relationship between daily hassles and outcomes may
not be due to a confound between daily hassles and psychological symptomatology. In
other words, it may be that daily hassles’ more proximal effects are more salient to
psychological well-being than are major life events’ more distal effects (Burks & Martin,
1985).

DaibLHasslesandDailyjlplifls. Researchers have also focused on the direct
relationship between daily hassles, daily uplifls, and psychological well-being. If daily
hassles can be defined as specific, narrowly defined, negative events, daily uplifls have
been conceptualized to be the positive counterpart to daily hassles. Many studies report
finding a significant, positive, low-order correlation between hassles and uplifls (e.g.,
Wolf et al., 1989); others report no correlation (Monroe, 1983). Daily uplifts are often
ignored in the research literature. In part this negligence is due to the current stress and
coping literature’s focus on negative affect, psychological symptomatology, and physical
health, outcome variables that tend to be significantly related to daily hassles but not to
daily uplifts (Kanner et al., 1981; Monroe, 1983; DeLongis, Coyne, Dakof, Folkman &
Lazarus, 1982). The two studies that reported a significant correlation between daily
uplifis and physical and psychological symptomatology concluded that the results seemed
to reflect shared variance between hassles and uplifts (Kanner et al., 1981; DeLongis et

al., 1982).

affect is :
of uplifts
replicate
significar
major lift
Even mo:
uplifts. pt
control 0'
low percg
depressio
mediated
effects of
Elationsh
the Sharec

Pe
hfisles an
psi’ChOlOg
experienc‘
BecauSe t
happening

vaniahles a

24

The available information regarding the relationship between uplifts and positive
affect is also inconsistent. Kanner et a1. (1981) reported that the frequency and intensity
of uplifis is significantly related to positive mood. However, a more recent study did not
replicate this finding (Wolf et al., 1989). These authors reported that uplifts were not
significantly related to either positive or negative mood. Rather, life stress (hassles and
major life events) accounted for significant amounts of the variance in positive mood.
Even more recently, Kanner & Feldman (1991) reported that it is not the frequency of
uplifts, per se, that is related to subsequent mood, but it is the individual’s perceived
control over uplifts that is significantly related to well-being. In this study, individual’s
low perceived control over hassles and uplifts was significantly related to high levels of ,
depression. Furthermore, high perceived levels of control over uplifis more strongly
mediated the positive effects of uplifis on good psychological outcomes than the negative
effects of hassles on good psychological outcomes. The authors concluded that the
relationship between perceived control over daily hassles and outcomes exists because of
the shared variance between this construct and perceived control over uplifts.

Personalrtgflanahlesandflailylafefixents. Thus far, the concepts of daily life
hassles and uplifis have been used primarily as independent variables in the prediction of
psychological well-being. But, how is it that individuals, when faced with similar daily
experiences, evaluate and interpret the potential for threat and satisfaction differently?
Because the appraisal process is hypothesized to result in an individual’s evaluating daily
happenings as problematic or rewarding, many researchers have focused on personal

variables as important determinants of the experience of daily hassles and uplifis.

stress an
Show it
variables
& Corall
“barrier"
experient
distress 1"
correlatic
despite tb
hipOtbesi
PSYChOpa'
impact of
adiUStmer
UpljfiS Wa
Significan‘
to replicatr
rehoned 11
adjustmem
daily Stress
Zika & Ch;

11353198 and

25

Studies of the mediating effects of personal variables on the relationship between
stress and well-being have not been fruitful. Although personal variables have been
shown to be related to both daily hassles and subjective distress, evidence for such
variables mediating the hassles-distress relationship is sparse (Fame, Sebellico, Gnugnoli
& Corallo, 1992). Fame et al. (1992) reported that the variables of “ego strength” and
“barrier” are significantly negatively correlated with the number of daily hassles
experienced (r = -.32 and -.59, respectively) and are negatively correlated with subjective
distress (r = -.19 and -.53, respectively). However, this study relied mostly on
correlational data which are not sufficient to test the mediation hypothesis. Therefore,
despite the authors’ contention that the correlational data support the mediation
hypothesis, no firm conclusion regarding personality mediation of the stress-
psychopathology relationship can be drawn. Kanner & Feldman (1991) examined the
impact of perceived control over hassles and uplifts on sixth graders’ psychological
adjustment. They reported that only when subjects reported high perceived control over
uplifts was the relationship between uplifis and positive psychological adjustment
significant. However, a more recent study conducted by Blankstein & Flett (1992) failed
to replicate Kanner & Feldman’s (1991) findings. Instead, Blankstein & Flett (1992)
reported that although locus of control accounted for unique variance in psychological
adjustment for both men and women, it neither moderated nor mediated the effects of
daily stress on adjustment. This pattern of results supports the conclusion reached by
Zika & Chamberlain (1987) that personality variables, although related to both daily

hassles and subjective distress and well-being, do not moderate or mediate the stress-

distress r
influence
the effect
model, di
similar co
anteceden
hassling 2n
Blankstein
conducted
Thi
Variables th
rewarding e
usefulness c
are PiediSpo
wEtys.

Ratioaalefo

 

 

26
distress relationship. Instead, they reasoned that personal characteristics are likely to
influence people’s appraisal of daily life events as hassling. Thus, rather than moderating
the effects of stress on well-being, personal variables may exert influence earlier in the
model, directly through the appraisal of daily hassles. Several researchers have reached
similar conclusions and have called for investigations of the personal and environmental
antecedents of individual and group differences in the experience of life events as
hassling and rewarding (Lazarus & F olkman, 1984; Dohrenwend & Shrout, 1985;
Blankstein & Flett, 1992; Zika & Chamberlain, 1987). To date, few studies have been
conducted that have examined these potential relationships.

This study was conducted in a preliminary effort to identify two personal
variables that, in combination, may be related to individuals’ perceptions of hassling and
rewarding events in their lives. In doing so, it also provides preliminary evidence for the
usefulness of top-down theories of subjective well-being; that is, the theory that people
are predisposed to interpret life experiences in characteristically positive or negative
ways.

“ " ‘ for I!“ ‘L

This study was an evaluation of part of the first assumption of the top-down
theory of subjective well-being, that people are predisposed to interpret life experiences
in either positive or negative ways. To that end, the association between constellations of
adult attachment and defensive styles to the interpretation of life events as stressful and
rewarding were examined. Adult attachment and defensive styles were grouped to form

aggregates of individuals that range in their adaptive capacity to cope with stressful life

experienc:
“Resilient
defensive
defensive
& Woike.
Th
defensive
group con.
classified 1
individual
adult attac
selection ;
Ind
mature. T
generally I
d€fenses tl
these Chart
1988; Near
TECmrefieS

1993). The

hASSles TEla

27
experiences. This arrangement resulted in the formation of three groups reflecting
“Resilient”, “Dependent”, and “Disengaging” styles based upon the grouping of their
defensive and attachment categories. A similar procedure for grouping subjects by
defensive classification has been used successfully in previous studies (Aronoff, Stollak,
& Woike, 1994; Woike, Aronoff, Stollak & Loraas, 1994).

The Resilient group consists of individuals who tend to be more mature in their
defensive functioning and who have secure adult attachment styles. The Dependent
group consists of individuals who are less mature defensively and who have been
classified as anxiously attached. Finally, the Disengaging group included those
individuals who tend to be less defensively mature and who have predominantly avoidant
adult attachment styles. (See Methods Section for a more detailed description of the
selection procedure and grouping criteria).

Individuals in the Resilient group are securely attached and defensively more
mature. That is, they have been shown to possess internal working models that reflect
generally positive views about the world and their experiences, as well as to possess
defenses that have been shown to limit the existence or reporting of distress. People with
these characteristics have reported fewer physical and psychological symptoms (Cramer,
1988; Noam & Recklitis, 1990), reported less fear prior to surgery and better hospital
recoveries (Wilson, 1982), and reported less distress after the Gulf War (Mikulincer et al.,
1993). Therefore, I hypothesized that they will report a lower frequency and intensity of

hassles relative to uplifis. In addition, it was hypothesized that this pattern of lower

hassles a
both the

T
ambivalc
shovm t(
on maniz
Recklitis
threats (l
1988). T
of both i

F
(liven en
These ch
Strategie;
negative
(Simpsor
hassles a
hiTIOthes

and resin

T

frequfintl

Dependel

28
hassles and higher uplifis would also hold true when the Resilient group is compared to
both the Dependent and Disengaging groups.

The Dependent group has been described as being hypervigilant to and
ambivalent about their life experiences. People with these characteristics have been
shown to report more emotional highs and lows (Hazan & Shaver, 1987), higher scores
on mania (F eeney & Noller, 1990), more externalizing symptomatology (Noam &
Recklitis, 1990; Klusman, 1982; Our & Gur, 1975), hostile affective responses to external
threats (Klusman, 1982), and increased reporting of psychological distress (Crarner,
1988). Therefore, I hypothesized that they would report high frequencies and intensities
of both hassles and uplifts.

Finally, the Disengaging group has been described as possessing a tendency to
divert emotions from awareness and as approaching their life experiences with caution.
These characteristics have been associated with increased use of distancing coping
strategies (Mikulincer, Florian, & Weller, 1993), a tendency to defensively inhibit
negative emotional experiences, and reduced support seeking in threatening situations
(Simpson, 1990). Therefore, I hypothesized that they would report low levels of both
hassles and uplifis. Thus, the between-group patterns of hassles and uplifts were
hypothesized as follows: dependent hassles reported > avoidant hassles > resilient hassles
and resilient uplifts > dependent uplifts > avoidant uplifis reported.

The second set of hypotheses concerns the content of the life experiences most
frequently reported as hassling and rewarding by each personality style group.

Dependent individuals tend to have difficulty in their social relationships and have also

been dc
endurir
1987), ]
preoccu
scores (Q
relations
hypothe:

either tin

gTOup ou
have uns;
fIOm au‘a
1990), an.
(Simpson.
1"” ge num
Significant
Styles of D
interacnon.
Proportion
report a gre

“ Well as if

29
been described as being hypervigilant to sources of distress. Socially, they report less
enduring relationships and extreme sexual attraction and jealousy (Hazan & Shaver,
I987), higher levels of hostility (Mikulincer, Florian, & Weller, 1993), obsessive
preoccupation with romantic relationships, emotional dependence, and low friendship
scores (F eeney & Noller, 1990), and they reported less commitment and trust in their
relationships (Simpson, 1990). Therefore, on the basis of these patterns of results, I
hypothesized that they would report a greater proportion of social/family hassles than will
either the Resilient or the Avoidant groups.

At first glance, it may appear to be an oversight to have lefi the Disengaging
group out of this prediction. However, although Disengaging individuals should tend to
have unsatisfactory interpersonal relationships, they also tend to divert negative emotions
from awareness, reported fewer and less intense love relationships (Feeney & Noller,
1990), and reported less emotional distress following the dissolution of a relationship
(Simpson, 1990). For these reasons, they were not predicted to report a significantly
large number of social hassles and, instead, I hypothesized that they would report a
significantly lower proportion of social uplifts. Furthermore, because the attachment
styles of Disengaging individuals should lead them to be avoidant of significant social
interactions in general, it was expected that they will report experiencing a greater
proportion of non-social life events overall. Therefore, I hypothesized that they would
report a greater proportion of non-social uplifis than social uplifis relative to themselves

as well as to the Resilient and Dependent groups.

~71 -

F in
Questionnz
literature rt
emphasis 0
being and 1
theoreticall
or sense of
concems. '
Hence. no 5

personality

30

Finally, several content areas were tapped by the Revised Hassles and Uplifis
Questionnaire that have not been routinely investigated by research in the summarized
literature review presented above, although some studies may have placed a greater
emphasis on them than others. However, the importance of these variables to the well-
being and psychosocial adjustment of the college students in this investigation is
theoretically important. These variables include health concerns, concerns about the self
or sense of competence concerns (termed inner concerns), and academic or work
concerns. These variables were included in this investigation on an exploratory basis.
Hence, no specific directional hypotheses were made regarding their relationship to the

personality styles.

Hassles
l. Witl

hypothe

Chapter 2

HYPOTHESES

H l l 11 Hi E l I .
l. Within-group hypotheses for the frequency and intensity of hassles and uplifis were
hypothesized to be as follows:
a. Participants in the Resilient personality style group will tend to report low
frequency and intensity of hassles and high frequency and intensity of uplifts.
b. Subjects in the Dependent group will tend to report high frequencies and
intensities of both hassles and uplifis.

c. Participants in the Disengaging group will tend to report low fi'equencies and

intensities of both hassles and uplifls.

PemonalinLGroup Hassles Uplifls

Resilient Low High

Dependent High High
Low Low

Disengaging
2. Between-group hypotheses for the frequency and intensity of hassles and uplifts were
hypothesized as follows:
a. Participants in the Dependent personality style group will report the highest
number and intensity of hassles compared to the Resilient and Disengaging
personality style groups.
3 l

Hassles 2

3. Betw

fl

32

b. Individuals in the Disengaging personality style group will report the lowest
number and intensity of uplifts compared to the Resilient and Dependent
personality style groups.

Hasslesandllplifisflontcm

3. Between-group hypotheses for the content of hassles and uplifts were as follows:
a. People in the Dependent personality style group will report a greater proportion
of social/family hassles than will either Disengaging or Resilient individuals.
b. Participants in the Disengaging personality style group will report a lower
proportion of social/family uplifts than will those in the Resilient and Dependent
personality style groups.
c. Individuals in the Disengaging personality style group will report a greater
proportion of non-social uplifts than will those in the Resilient or Dependent
personality style groups.

4. Exploratory Hypotheses
a. The literature on defensive styles has investigated the relationship between the
use of particular defense mechanisms and reported health concerns. Because this
area has been an important area of focus in past literature, the potential
relationships between personality style (as defined by attachment and defensive
classifications) and reported health concerns was explored.
b. Because personal well-being is an important related concept to stress, the
potential relationship between personality style and the proportion of inner

concerns reported was be examined.

co

rel

33

c. Because of the importance of academic work to the psychosocial adjustment of
college students, who served as participants in this investigation, the potential
relationships between personality style and the proportion of academic concerns

was examined.

Subjects
I'
lfichigar
mvohed
Stollak, I
were enro
compensa
p5)'Cl10l0g
IDe;
the subject
57% of the
Thesan1ple
(NH) and g
and marital

amendance ,

 

Chapter 3

METHOD

Subicnts

The subjects for this study were 99 undergraduate psychology students attending
Michigan State University who were part of a larger sample (approximately 1500)
involved in an ongoing study regarding stress and coping in college students (Aronoff &
Stollak, 1994). The students were recruited in two ways: (1) a portion of the volunteers
were enrolled in Interdisciplinary Studies in Social Sciences courses and received no
compensation for participation; (2) other participants were enrolled in introductory
psychology classes and received research credits in return for their participation.

Demographic Characteristics. Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics of
the subjects used in this study. Forty-three percent of the sample was male (N =43) and
57% of the sample was female (N=56). The age of the participants ranged from 17 to 22.
The sample was 88.5% Caucasian (N=85), 5.2% African American (N=5), 4.2% Hispanic
(N=4) and 2.1% Asian (N=2). Table 1 also presents family income, parents’ educational
and marital status, participants’ relationship status, and the participants’ years in

attendance at Michigan State University.

34

 

Table l

Demogra;

_____—

Sex
M
Fe

VMMM

ParllClpa

WUUV)

35
Table 1

 

 

 

 

Total Percent of Sample

Sex

Males 43 43

Females 56 57
Age

17-18 75 77.3

19-20 19 19.6

21-22 3 3.1
Ethnicity

Caucasian 85 88.5

African American 5 5.2

Hispanic 4 4.2

Asian 2 2.1
Family Income

< 3 10,000 1 1

$ 10-30,000 8 8.2

$ 30-60,000 18 18.6

$ 60-100,000 48 49.5

> $ 100,000 22 22.7
Participant’s Relationship Status

Single not dating 35 36.1

Dating several people 34 35.1

Dating for at least one year 25 25.8

Engaged 3 3.1

 

Table l

Demogr

Number

hle‘J—fi

36

Table 1 cont’d

Demographicfiharacteristicsofthefiamplecontidms 99)

 

 

Total Percent of Sample
Number years at MSU
1 79 81.4
2 13 13.4
3 4 4.1
4 1 1.0
Father’s Education
Dr0p out 4 4.1
High school 6 6.2
Some college 22 22.7
College graduate 36 37.1
Professional/graduate degree 29 29.1
Mother’s Education
Drop out 1 1.0
High school 18 18.6
Some college 18 18.6
College graduate 36 37.1
Professional/graduate degree 24 24.7
Parents’ Marital Status
Married 67 75.3
Separated l 1.1
Divorced within the past year 2 2.2
Divorced over one year 7 7.9

Remarried 1 2 l 3 .5

lnilial D

l
lnterdisc
Psychol<
completi
relations
sessions
approxir
Student.
contacte
Initial hi

I
question
Slants of

I
Appendj
Styles. ]

eaCh of‘

37

In Fall, 1993, Michigan State University undergraduates were recruited through
Interdisciplinary Studies in Social Sciences courses and through the MSU Department of
Psychology Subject Pool. The nearly 1500 students who volunteered were asked to
complete consent forms and several questionnaires regarding themselves, their
relationships, and their defensive styles (Aronoff & Stollak, 1994). These testing
sessions were conducted in groups of approximately 40 to 300 students each and lasted
approximately two hours. Each group was monitored by a first or second year graduate
student. At that time the undergraduates were also asked for their permission to be
contacted for future research opportunities.

InitialMeasures

Demographrdandflackgmundlnfonnatron. Subjects were asked to respond to a
questionnaire concerning sex, age, racial background, marital/relationship status, marital
status of parents, and family background.

DefenseMechanismlnventogz. The Defense Mechanism Inventory (See
Appendix A;Gleser & Ihilevich, 1969) was used as a measure of students’ defensive
styles. The DMI is a ZOO-item, multiple-choice questionnaire consisting of ten vignettes,
each of which is hypothesized to represent one of five conflict areas (Ihilevich & Gleser,
1986). The conflict areas addressed by the DMI are: situational, authority,
independence, competition, and either masculinity or femininity. Students were
instructed to read each vignette and then to rate five response alternatives based on their

actual responses, their impulsive responses, their thoughts, and their feelings in relation to

the situa
represen
Principa
are instri
of their t
statemen
rated em
to each a
T
test-retes
a test-rere
average t:
an averag
and an an
COHSlSICrlc
Re
RElallonSh
COmpilati
Shovm to
1990; C011
The reguh

statements

38

the situation described in the story. Each of the five response alternatives presented
represents one of five defenses: Turning Against Self (TAS), Projection (PRO),
Principalization (PRN), Turning Against Object (TAO) , and Reversal (REV). Students
are instructed to rate each defense response alternative according to its representativeness
of their typical reaction to the situation. Only the most and least representative
statements are singled out (rated a 3 and 1 respectively), while all other statements are
rated equally (2). An individual’s preferred defensive style is the sum of the ratings given
to each alternative.

The DMI subscales have been shown to have adequate internal consistency and
test-retest reliabilities. The TAO subscale has an average internal consistency of .80 and
a test-retest reliability of .82, PRO has an average internal consistency of .61 and an
average test-retest reliability of .62, PRN has an average internal consistency of .69 and
an average test-retest reliability of .72, TAS has an average internal consistency of .70
and an average test-retest of .71, and the REV subscale has an average internal
consistency of .78 and an average test-retest reliability of .78 (Ihilevich & Gleser, 1986).

Relationshipsflnestionnaire. Adult attachment style was measured via the
Relationships Questionnaire (See Appendix B; Aronoff & Stollak, 1994), which is a
compilation of several pre-existing measures of adult attachment, each of which has been
shown to possess good reliability and validity (e.g. Hazen & Shaver, 1987; Simpson,
1990; Collins & Read, 1990; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Brennan & Shaver, 1993).
The result was a 58 item, forced-choice questionnaire which asked the respondent to rate

statements regarding his/her general views about relationships. Statements were rated on

a five poir
Me (5). I
and requir
best descr
five point
responder
relationsh

leg. frien

39

a five point Likert-type scale that ranges from Not at All Like Me (1) to Very Much Like
Me (5). The last question (based on Hazan & Shaver, 1987) deviated fi'om this format
and required the student to evaluate the three attachment styles and to choose the one that
best describes him or her. Secondly, each attachment style was rated according to the
five point scale outlined above. In order to arrive at a rating that would reflect the
respondent’s general relationship style, care was taken in wording questions so that the
relationship statements would apply to a wide range of possible attachment relationships
(e. g. friends, family, romantic relationships).

The factor structure of the Relationship Questionnaire (Aronoff & Stollak, 1994),
based on 1,364 protocols, indicated that three factors reflecting mistrust of intimate
contact, fear of loss, and secure intimacy emerge (See Appendix C for a listing of items).
The Mistrust of Intimacy Scale consisted of 9 items, had a reliability of .85 (coefficient
Alpha), and accounted for 22.7% of the variance of the questionnaire. The Fear of Loss
Scale consisted of 19 items, had a reliability of .91 , and accounted for an additional 9.6%
of the variance of the questionnaire. The Secure Intimacy Scale consisted of 10 items,
had a reliability of .85, and explained an additional 4.5% of the variance of the
questionnaire. These three attachment style factors correspond well with the three
general attachment styles identified in infants and children (i.e., secure (secure), anxious
ambivalent (dependent), and anxious avoidant (disengaging); Ainsworth, 1978) and

correspond well with those that are predicted to be present in adulthood (Bowlby, 1988).

Initial D

S
and Dise
immatur
defensiv:
Principal
Against 1
To be cla
the mean
or Tumjn

Against 5

40

Subjects were divided into three personality groups labeled Resilient, Dependent,
and Disengaging. Subjects were assigned to “defensively mature” and “defensively
immature” groups based on their pattern of scores on the DMI. To be classified as
defensively mature, subjects had to score one standard deviation above the mean on
Principalization, one standard deviation below the mean on either Projection or Turning
Against Self, and at or below the mean on the other (Projection or Turning Against Self).
To be classified as defensively immature, subjects scored one standard deviation below
the mean on Principalization, one standard deviation above the mean on either Projection
or Turning Against Self, and at or above the mean on the other (Projection or Turning
Against Self).

To be classified as Resilient, subjects who were also classified as defensively
mature (on the basis of DM1 data) needed to score above the mean on Secure Intimacy,
and below the mean on Mistrust of Intimacy and Fear of Loss scales of the Relationships
Questionnaire. To be classified as Dependent, subjects had to be classified as defensively
immature on the basis of the DM1 and had to score below the mean on Secure Intimacy,
at or below the mean on Mistrust of Intimacy, and above the mean on the Fear of Loss
Scale. To be classified as Disengaging, subjects had to be classified as defensively
immature and had to score below the mean on Secure Intimacy, at or below the mean on

Fear of Loss, and above the mean on Mistrust of Intimacy.

41

This method of selecting subjects resulted in the identification of three distinct
personality groups, labeled as Resilient, Dependent, and Disengaging, characterized as
follows (See Figure 1).

This method of grouping subjects was supported by correlational analyses

between the above subscales. Table 2 presents these correlations for the entire sample

 

 

 

 

 

GH=1500)
Variable Personalityflroup
DMI Principalization 1 SD. above the mean 1 SD. below 1 SD. below
the mean the mean
Projection and 1 SD. below the mean 1 SD. above 1 SD. above
Turning on one and at or below the mean on the mean on
Against Self the mean on the other one and at or one and at or
i above the above the
mean on the mean on the
other other
RQ Secure Above the mean Below the Below the
Intimacy mean mean
Fear of Loss Below the mean Above the At or below
mean the mean
Mistrust of Below the mean At or below Above the
Intimacy the mean mean

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1 - Subject Grouping Procedures

Of the students whose scores classified them into one of the three personality
groups, ninety-nine agreed to be interviewed, resulting in the following sex X personality

distribution (See Figure 2).

Table 2

Correlat

DMI Sub

Principali
Reversal
Projectior

Turning 2
Other

Turning /
Self

Mann-it)

\\ -‘_
. P335011
’ p < .05
in < .0

p < .(

42

 

 

 

Table 2
COI‘oOI..WOIIO O ‘ nu.‘.|0 D“I'U‘I.uu o
(LLEIZAB)
T — A Relationships Questionnaire Subscale—
Mistrust of Intimacy Fear of Loss Secure
Intimacy
DMI Subscale
Principalization -.10*** -.29*** .08"
Reversal -.18"‘** -.30*** .11***
Projection .08“ .14*** -.12***
Turning Against .09" .14*** -.07"‘
Others
Turning Against .10” .26*** .02
Self
Maturity -.l4*** -.27*** .12***

 

 

' Pearson r’s for the correlations between RQ and DMI subscales-
* p < .05

** p < .01

"* p < .001

 

Fe

M

43

 

 

Personalityfiroup
Jamm— _,_mmmm_ Disengagingwfl_Totals
Female 21 17 18 56
Sex
Male 16 13 14 43
Totals“ #8378— T" ‘ ___3_0 ___ ' “3‘2” “ J T96

Figure 2 - Distribution of subjects by sex and personality group

Approximately one semester later, students who agreed to return participated in an
1 1/2 hour videotaped interview in which they were asked first to complete and then to be
interviewed about their responses to the Hassles and Uplifts questionnaire.
Undergraduate assistants served as the interviewers. At that time, students also
participated in a food savoring task, which is not related to this thesis study. Students
were each paid $10 for their participation in this phase of the research project.
Measures

HasslesandllplifisQnestionnaire. A modified version of the Hassles and Uplifts
Questionnaire (See Appendix D; Lazarus & Folkman, 1989) was used to measure the
content, frequency, and intensity of daily life events (both positive and negative). This
questionnaire was initially developed for use with an adult population and was modified
for use with college students. More specifically, the list of possible hassles and uplifis
was modified to omit items that appeared to be irrelevant to the college setting and items

were added that seem to occur more commonly in college settings. The rationale for this

44

is supported by Kanner et al’s (1981) findings that samples of middle aged adults and
college students differed in the top ten items they endorsed (as measured by percent of
endorsement for each item; See Appendix E for a list of modifications).

The modified Hassles and Uplifts Questionnaire (HU Q) is a self report
questionnaire that consists of 91 hassle items and 110 uplift items. Hassles are defined as
“irritants that can range from minor annoyances to fairly major pressures, problems, or
difficulties.” The subject was asked to identify each hassle that has occurred within the
last month. Next, the subject was instructed to rate each selected hassle on a three-point
Likert scale (ranging from somewhat severe to extremely severe) that most accurately
reflected the severity of each hassle during the past month. All hassles were identified
and rated before continuing to the uplifts section of the questionnaire. Uplifts were
defined as “events that make you feel good”. Again, subjects were asked to identify each
uplift that occurred within the last month. Instead of rating the intensity of each uplift (as
hassles were rated), the subject was instructed to rate the frequency of occurrence of each
uplift on a three-point Likert scale (ranging from somewhat often to extremely often) that
reflected the frequency of each uplift during the past month.‘

Scoring for the modified Hassles and Uplifts Questionnaire was based upon the

scoring of the original instrument as outlined by Lazarus & Folkman (1989). Three types

 

‘ The subject’s rating of the frequency of each uplift is termed extremity as indicated by
how often the uplift occurred within the past month. The difference between extremity as it
relates to uplifts and severity as it relates to hassles should be noted. The difference between
extremity and severity reflects non-parallelism between the instructions for the two scales. In
order to facilitate discussion, both extremity of uplifts and severity of hassles will be labeled as
intensity.

45

of scores are possible for the Hassles and Uplifts Scales: frequency, intensity, and
content. The frequency of daily hassles and uplifts is calculated by summing the number
of hassles items endorsed. The severity (intensity) score is computed by averaging the
severity (intensity) ratings of all endorsed hassles (uplifts) items.

Because of the hypothesized connection between relationship styles and specific
categories of hassles and uplifts, subscales were created to form groups of items that
appear to be consistent in content. An attempt was made to conform to Lazarus &
Folkman’s (1989) factor analytic categories. However, because of the modifications
made in an attempt to make the Hassles and Uplifts Questionnaire more applicable to a
college student population, several additional content categories were added. New or
revised items were added to the subscales according to the agreement of several judges
(graduate students). Items not unanimously agreed upon were omitted from the
subscales. Of the additional subscales, the Social hassles and uplifts, non-social uplifts,
health hassles, academic hassles, and inner concerns subscales were relevant to this
proposal (See Appendices F and G). Content scores were obtained by computing
frequency and severity scores for endorsed items in the content areas.

Test-retest reliability coefficients for the original Hassles and Uplifts
Questionnaire differed between the hassles and uplifts scales (Kanner et a1, 1981). Test-
retest reliabilities were measured in nine monthly intervals. For hassles, the average test-
retest reliability for frequency was reported as r = .79, while the average reliability for
hassles intensity was r = .48. For uplifts, the average test-retest reliability for frequency

was mported as .72, while the average reliability for uplifts intensity was .60. Similar

46

test-retest reliabilities were reported by DeLongis et a1. (1982). Items on the Hassles and
Uplifts Scales appear to be face valid. Evidence for moderate discriminant validity was
reported between the Hassles and Uplifts Questionnaire and the Bradbum Morale Score,
which is used as an index of well-being with two subscales: positive and negative

emotions (Kanner et al., 1981).

 

cor
Sul
ana
talc
U56.

Van

out

anal
are (
ln16r
resu]

Prese

Chapter 4

RESULTS

Planned comparisons were used to test the general hypotheses relating the
composite personality variable to the frequency and intensity of hassles and uplifts.
Subscales on the revised Hassles and Uplifts Scale were developed using the factor
analysis performed by Lazarus & Folkman, 1989, as a guide. Coefficient alphas were
calculated to ensure adequate subscale reliabilities. Planned comparisons were then be
used to test the hypotheses regarding the relationship between the composite personality
variable and the content subscales.

The following section presents the results of the data analyses that were carried
out in the process of testing the hypotheses.2 First, the results of the psychometric
analyses of the Revised Hassles and Uplifts Questionnaire overall and content subscales
are discussed. These analyses included a reliability analysis of the scales as well as
intercorrelations between the overall scales and between the content subscales. Next, the
results of the planned-comparisons that were used in testing the specific hypotheses are

presented. Finally, the results of post-hoe supplemental analyses are reported. These

 

2 Before beginning statistical analyses, the data set was screened for missing data. There
were no instances of missing data for this sample.

47

48

analyses were performed in order to explore potential effects in addition to those
hypothesized.

ReliabilityhfSuhscales. Table 3 presents the reliability coefficients and mean
subject scores for the Revised Hassles and Uplifts subscales. The Cronbach’s alpha for
the Revised Hassles and Uplifts Subscales ranged from .60 to .88 for hassles subscales
and from .71 to .88 for uplifts subscales. Based on these analyses, the Revised Hassles
and Uplifts subscales were shown to have adequate reliabilities.

ontheRemseiHasslesandllpliflsQuesfionnaire. Table 4 lists the correlations
between the hassles and uplifts frequency and intensity scales on the Revised Hassles and
Uplifts Questionnaire. Correlational analyses revealed that the hassles frequency scale
was significantly positively correlated with the hassles intensity scale and with the uplifts
frequency scale. Hassles and uplifts intensity scores were not significantly correlated
with each other. The significant moderate correlation between hassles and uplifts
frequency scores is not necessarily surprising. Currently, in the stress literature some
studies report a significant, positive, low to moderate correlation between hassles and
uplifts (Wolf et al., 1989) while others report no such correlation (Monroe, 1983).

u- . n :‘h": u- :- '-. u ‘-u . i, u ‘0 . . - . Table
5 contains the correlations between the Revised Hassles and Uplifts Content subscales
frequency and intensity scores. Correlational analyses revealed several significant

relationships. Of the 15 correlations, four relationships were not significant, while eleven

49

correlations were significant or marginally significant in the positive direction. Two of
the four nonsignificant findings related the Inner Hassles content subscale to the Uplifts
content subscales (Social and Non-Social). All of the Hassles content subscales were
significantly positive correlated. Similarly, the two Uplifts content subscales were
significantly positively correlated. Additionally, the Interpersonal Hassles content
subscale was significantly positively correlated with both the Interpersonal and Non-

interpersonal Uplifts content subscales.

50

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3
i 0 \ win ‘I U‘-I o‘ 0‘ no 100400‘ .on o I':
H l 111 1'13 3 . . I] ll 1 C S l 1

Total Health Interpersonal Inner
Hassles Hassles Hassles Concerns

Alpha .91 .60 .79 .85

Mean 21.36 1.88 4.44 3.05

(SD) (11.38) (1.52) (4.71) (2.53)
Academic Total Interpersonal Non-social
Hassles Uplifts Uplifts

Uplifts
Alpha .73 .92 .88 .86
Mean 3.70 30.74 8.15 12.80

(SD) (2.05) (14.38) (4.14) (7.15)

 

 

51

 

 

 

 

Table 4
II‘.IIa3'\.‘v.‘II. ' .II II ‘O'I .II I‘I\ I‘

Hassles Hassles Uplifts
Frequency Intensity Frequency

Hassles .27 **

Intensity

Uplifts .33** -.07

Frequency

Uplifts -.l7* .14 .11

Intensity

 

' Pearson r’s for the correlations between the Revised Hassles and Uplifts frequency
and intensity scales

*p < .10
**p < .01

Table 5

52

 

Health
Hassles

 

Interpersonal .53***
Hassles

Inner .48***
Hassles

Interpersonal . 18*
Uplifts

Non-social .15
Uplifts

Academic .43***
Hassles

 

 

u . u n . n 0 es

Interpersonal Inner Interpersonal Non-social
_ 3811:1816”- __ ”3“” ___ _U‘L’T‘LL
.52***

.26** .08

.25"‘* .03 .67***

.40*** ..44*** .29** .24

 

 

‘ Pearson r’s for the relationship between the Revised Hassles-wand Uplifts subscale

frequency scores

*p< .10
**p< .05
***p< .001

53

Iestsanypotheses

.II.'—,I IllO-IOI -.‘I,II' . I ‘ .I‘u I .. ‘ .IJ I|

withinEersnnalitgLGroup. This set of hypotheses predicted within-group
patterns of hassles and uplifts for each of the personality style groups. Due to a
discrepant number of items on the hassles and uplifts questionnaires, the hassles and
uplifts frequency scores were converted to percentages for the following comparisons.
Table 6 contains the cell means, standard deviations, and planned comparison results
for the personality style groups on the hassles and uplifts frequency and intensity
scales.

Hypothesis 1a predicted that participants in the Resilient personality style group
would report lower frequency and intensity of hassles compared to higher frequency
and intensity of uplifts. A within-subject, repeated measures AN OVA revealed a
significant difference between hassles frequency and uplifts frequency in the predicted
direction (mean = .17 versus .33, respectively), t(36) = -7.04, p< .001. A second
repeated measures AN OVA revealed a significant difference between hassles and
uplifts intensities in the predicted direction (mean = 1.59 versus 2.08, respectively),
t(36) = -7.33, p< .001. Hypothesis 1b, the hypothesis that subjects in the Dependent
personality style group would report high frequencies and intensities of both hassles
and uplifts was not supported by inspection of the group means. Examination of these
group means revealed that although the proportion of hassles reported by the
Dependent personality style group was above the overall sample mean, the proportion

of uplifts reported was not. Furthermore, the hassles and uplifts intensity scores also

54

did not exceed the overall sample mean. Consequently, no further analyses were
conducted for this hypothesis. Similarly, Hypothesis 1c, the hypothesis that
participants in the Disengaging personality style group would report low frequencies
and intensities of both hassles and uplifts was not supported by inspection of the group
means. Compared to the overall sample mean, the proportion of hassles reported by
Disengaging subjects was not low. Similarly, the Disengaging personality style
group’s hassles and uplifts intensity scores were not lower than the overall sample
mean intensity scores. Therefore, no additional analyses were conducted for this
hypothesis.

theflxeralLErequencLandIntensitythasslesandflplifts. Tables 6 and 7
contain the cell means and standard deviations for the personality style groups on the
overall frequencies and intensities of hassles and uplifts. This set of hypotheses was
tested using planned comparisons that were performed within the framework of
omnibus 2X3 one-way AN OVAs.

Hypothesis 2a predicted that individuals in the Dependent personality style
group would report the highest number and intensity of hassles compared to the other
personality style groups. This hypothesis gained partial support. Planned-comparisons
revealed a significant effect for the Dependent personality group on hassles frequency
in the predicted direction, [(93) = 2.91, p = .005, but not for hassles intensity,

t(93) = .843, p< .41. Hypothesis 2b predicted that individuals in the Disengaging

personality style group would report the lowest number and intensity of uplifts

55

compared to the other two personality style groups. This hypothesis, too, was partially
supported. Planned comparisons revealed a significant effect for the Disengaging
personality style group on uplifts frequency in the predicted direction, t(93) = -2. l9,

p< .04, but not for uplifts intensity t(93) = .49, p< .63.

.1333 IIII.III -IIIII' . |.l' II.\ \‘.l"l‘

onSocraLandhlonzsocraLHasslesandllphflsfiontenLSuhscales. Table 8
presents the cell means and standard deviations for the personality groups on the
relevant content subscales. This set of hypotheses concerns the proportion of social
and non-social hassles or uplifts endorsed by the participants. In order to ensure
accurate comparison across subjects endorsing different number of hassles and uplifts
overall, the frequencies of social and non-social hassles and uplifts were converted to
percentages by dividing these frequencies by the total number of overall hassles or
uplifts endorsed by the subject. This set of hypotheses was also analyzed by planned-
comparisons performed within the framework of 2X3 one-way AN OVAs.

Hypothesis 3a predicted that subjects in the Dependent personality style group
would report a greater proportion of interpersonal hassles than would participants in
the Resilient or Disengaging personality style groups. Planned comparisons revealed a
marginally significant effect in the predicted direction, t(93) = 1.87, p < .07.
Hypothesis 3b predicted that participants in the Disengaging personality style group
would report a lower proportion of interpersonal uplifts than would participants in the
Resilient or Dependent personality style groups. The planned comparison for this

hypothesis was not significant, t(93) = -1.18, p< .25. Hypothesis 3c predicted that

56

participants in the Disengaging personality style group would endorse a greater
proportion of non-social uplifts than would subjects in the Resilient or Dependent
personality style groups. This planned comparison was also not significant, t(93) =
.954, p < .35.
.0 or: It I In. I” .' - I A... l‘ ' ‘. ‘0 o“ ‘.' " 0|. .\ \ '

DI‘ -...- n .-,. ... - u.- o. .-u .u ; ...-.. .. - . Table
9 contains the cell means and standard deviations for the personality style groups on
health hassles, inner concerns, and academic hassles. This set of hypotheses concerns
the proportion of health hassles, inner concerns, and academic hassles endorsed by the
participants. In order to ensure accurate comparison across subjects endorsing different
number of hassles, the frequencies of health hassles, inner concerns, and academic
hassles were converted to percentages by dividing these frequencies by the total number
of overall hassles endorsed by the subject. 2X3 AN OVAs were performed exploring
the overall effects of subject sex and personality style on the proportion of health
hassles, inner concerns, and academic hassles endorsed by participants.

Hypothesis 4a proposed to examine potential effects of personality style on the
proportion of health concerns endorsed by the subjects. An overall 2X3 AN OVA
revealed a main effect of personality style group on the proportion of health hassles
reported, E(2,97) = 4.81, p= .01. Post-hoe analysis using Tukey’s Honestly
Significant Difference test revealed a significant difference between the Dependent
personality group and the Resilient personality group in the proportion of health hassles

reported, p < .05, due to the former reporting a greater proportion of health hassles

57

(mean = .11) than did the latter (mean = .06). Inspection of these group means
revealed that the Dependent personality style group reported a significantly greater
proportion of health hassles than did the Resilient personality style group.
Additionally, there was no significant main effect of sex, E(1,98) = 2.07, p< .16, or
sex X personality style interaction, F(5,93) = .35, p< .71.

Hypothesis 4b proposed to examine the potential effects of personality style on
the proportion of inner concerns reported. An overall 2X3 AN OVA revealed a
significant main effect for personality style group affiliation on the proportion of inner
concerns endorsed, F(2,97) = 8.18, p=.001. Post-hoe analysis using Tukey’s
Honestly Significant Difference test revealed a significant difference between the
Resilient personality style group and both the Dependent and Disengaging personality
style groups, p < .05. Inspection of these group means revealed that the Dependent and
Disengaging personality style groups reported a significantly greater proportion of
inner concerns (mean = .15, .18, respectively) than did the Resilient personality style
group (mean = .09). Additionally, neither subjects’ sex, E(l,98) = .08, p< .78, nor
the interaction of sex by personality style, E(5,93) = 1.42, p< .25, was significant.

Hypothesis 4c proposed to evaluate the potential effects of personality style on
the proportion of academic hassles reported. An overall, 2X3 ANOVA revealed that
the effect of personality style on academic hassles reported was not significant, E(5,93)
= 1.5, p < .25. However, subject sex did have a significant main effect on the

reporting of academic hassles, F(1,98) = 4.11, p< .05. Examination of the relevant

58

cell means indicates that men reported a significantly greater proportion of academic
hassles (mean = .20) than did women (mean = .16).
W

In addition to the tests of the hypotheses, overall analyses were performed in
order to explore potential unpredicted effects of personality style and sex on the
participants reports of hassles and uplifts. Table 7 presents the cell means, standard
deviations, and results of the 2X3 ANOVAs for effect of personality style on the
overall frequency and intensity of hassles and uplifts. These analyses revealed a
significant main effect for personality style on the overall frequency of hassles, F(5,93)
= 4.27, p< .005, and on the overall intensity of hassles, E(5,93) = 2.41, p< .05.
Post-hoe analyses using Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference test revealed that in
addition to the predicted effect, both the Dependent and Disengaging personality style
groups reported a significantly greater number and intensity of hassles than did the
Resilient personality style group, p < .05. In addition, a marginally significant main
effect was found for subjects’ sex on the intensity of hassles, with female participants
reporting more intense hassles (mean = 1.76) than male participants (mean = 1.64)
E(1,98) = 3.46, p< .07. The interaction between subjects’ sex and personality style
was not significant for the overall intensity of hassles, E(2,97) = .052, p < .96.

These analyses also revealed a significant main effect for personality style on
the overall frequency of uplifts, E(5,93) = 3.20, p= .01, and on the overall intensity of
uplifts, E(5,93) = 5.26, p< .001. Post-hoe analysis using Tukey’s Honestly

Significant Difference test revealed a significant difference between the Dependent

59

personality style group and both the Disengaging and Resilient personality style groups,
with the Dependent personality style group reporting the lowest intensity of uplifts
compared to the other two groups, p < .05. In addition, a significant main effect was
also achieved for subjects’ sex on the overall frequency of uplifts, F(1,98) = 5.21,
p < .03, with women reporting significantly more uplifts than men. The interaction
between subjects’ sex and personality style was not significant for the overall frequency
of uplifts, E(2,97) = .62, p< .54.

2X3 AN OVAs were also performed in order to explore potential unpredicted
effects of subject sex and personality style on the hassles and uplifts content subscales
The results of these analyses failed to reach significance, F(5,93) = 1.25, p < .30 for
interpersonal hassles, F(5,93) = .379, p< .87 for interpersonal uplifts, and E(5,93) =
1.38, p< .26 for non-social hassles. Therefore, no additional post-hoe analyses were

conducted for these variables.

60

 

 

Table 6
{ III II {I II II II It I
Hassles Frequency
Personality Style Group
Resilient
Mean .17
(SD) (.09)
[t(1.36)]
Dependent
Mean .29
(SD) (.13)
Disengaging
Mean .26
(SD) (. 13)

 

 

 

*p< .001

 

Uplifts Frequency

 

.33
(.13)
-7.04*

.27
(.12)

.24
(.13)

 

61

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7
{ IIII .\.°—.‘I" II.\ \' II .III. ‘.II II III
1 I . . _ D 11 g 1 E1! .
Personality Style Group
Resilient Dependent Disengaging [F(5,93)]
Hassles Frequency
Mean 15.59” 26.33“ 23.38a 427*
(SD) (8.03) (11.61) (11.86)
Hassles Intensity
Mean 1.59b 1.75a 1.80a 2.41***
(SD) (.28) (.31) (.37)
Uplifts Frequency
Mean 35.73‘I 29.70a 25.94b 3.20**
(SD) (14.59) (13.07) (13.85)
Uplifts Intensity
Mean 2.08b 1 .74a 1 .94b 5 .26*
(SD) (.27) (.22) (.37)

 

Note: Within a measure, values identified with different subscripts differed
significantly from each other.

*p< .005
**p< .01
**"‘p< .05

62
Table 8

U',.l .IJ .I.I.O.[ - 0| 0 I- 'Ixil- \ \' 0 0 II l'hOhOIOI

 

 

 

 

 

 

Personality Style Group
Resilient Dependent Disengaging

Social Hassles

Mean .11a .14“ .101.

(SD) (.10) (.09) (.07)
Social Uplifts

Mean .27 .27 .25

(SD) (.09) (.07) (.09)
Non-Social Hassles

Mean .40 .42 .43

(SD) (.10) (.10) (.11)

 

 

Note: Within a measure, values identified with different subscripts were marginally ‘ i
significantly different from each other.

 

*p<.07

63

U‘.«l .II .I,I.I.‘ .II I I”‘ II.\ \' I I II I'TdIIJIOI

 

 

 

 

Personality Style Group
Resilient Dependent Disengaging

Health Hassles

Mean .06" .1 13* .08

(SD) (.06) (.07) (.06)
Inner Concerns

Mean .09" .15’** .18a

(SD) (.07) (.09) (.12)
Academic Hassles

Mean .19 .16 .19

(SD) (.10) (.07) (.11)

 

Note: Within a measure, values identified with different subscripts differed
significantly from each other.

*p<.01
**p<.001

Chapter 5

DISCUSSION

m. .'.. . Hun: . r “_h m u. h . . .._ ..‘ _ -.-'.-

This study contributes to the current literature two personality variables,
attachment and defensive styles, that, in the aggregate, were found to be related to
participants’ reports and appraisals of patterns of hassles and uplifts in their lives. These
associations hold true for both patterns of stress and rewards within groups (i.e., that
Resilient individuals reported significantly more and more intense uplifts compared to
hassles while the other groups did not) as well as patterns between groups (that
Dependent and Disengaging participants reported significantly more hassles than did the
Resilient group, Disengaging participants reported significantly fewer uplifts, while
Dependent participants reported significantly less intense uplifts than did the other two
comparison groups).

Furthermore, not only were these personality constellations related to general
patterns of daily hassles and uplifts, they are also related to patterns of stresses and uplifts
in salient content areas. For example, subjects in the Dependent personality style group
tended to report a greater proportion of interpersonal hassles than did either Resilient or

Disengaging subjects. They also reported a greater proportion of health concerns than did

64

65

resilient subjects. In addition, participants in the Dependent and Disengaging personality
style groups reported a greater proportion of inner concerns than did subjects in the
Resilient personality style group. However, not all content areas assessed revealed
significant differences between personality style groups. The hypotheses that significant
personality style differences would exist in the proportion of social and non-social uplifts
reported were not supported.

In general, however, these findings do provide continued support for the top-down
approach to subjective well-being. Top-down theories propose that people are
predisposed to interpret life experiences in either positive or negative ways. As an
alternative, bottom-up theories suggest that well-being is related to objective life
circumstances. Due to the cross-sectional nature of the current investigation, a firm
conclusion regarding the predisposition of these subjects to appraise their life experiences
in characteristic ways cannot be drawn. However, the finding that different types of
people report experiencing different patterns of stresses and rewards in their lives
supports the importance of identifying person variables that may color an individual’s
evaluation of life events. In addition, the finding that participants differed in their
perceptions of the hassles and uplifts in their lives sets the stage for future longitudinal
investigations focused on the possibility that people who differ in their relationship and
defensive styles are, in fact, predisposed to view their life experiences in characteristic

ways.

66

III .III I III' I I' III'.- UIII‘ I I‘ 'I' "'1 "i. '

In this study, subjects in the Dependent and Disengaging personality style groups
reported more daily hassles and fewer or less intense daily uplifts than did Resilient
subjects. This pattern relates to the general pattern of overall number of daily hassles and
uplifts in the subjects’ lives, irrespective of the content area. The threat model of stress
and coping proposes that experiences are perceived as stressful when they threaten the
physical or psychological well-being of an individual (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
Following this, the Dependent and Disengaging subjects’ reporting of more overall daily
hassles than the Resilient group is suggestive that these two groups perceive their worlds
as more inherently threatening than do Resilient subjects. This finding also provides
support for Mikulincer’s et a1. (1993) thesis that the experiences of insecure people may
develop into generalized working models that are more likely to perceive life experiences
as threatening.

When more specific contrasts were performed to examine the effects of
personality style on the content of hassles and uplifts the results were mixed. Although
all of the personality style groups reported proportionally more non-social hassles than
social hassles, participants in the Dependent personality style group reported
proportionally more social hassles than did subjects in the Resilient or Disengaging
groups. According to Lazarus and Folkman (1984), individuals are more likely to
appraise life events as stressful when they possess some vulnerability to the event.

Vulnerability to particular life experiences arises from the commitments a person holds.

67

It may be that participants identified as belonging in the dependent personality style
group have unusually strong commitments to social experiences which would tend to
increase their vulnerability to potential threat in social interactions. In addition, the
Dependent personality style group also reported proportionally more health hassles and
inner concerns (regarding self-competence) than did the Resilient personality style group.
These findings are in line with reports that Dependently attached individuals tend to be
hypervigilant to sources of distress (Mikulincer et al., 1993) and may reflect a particular
vulnerability toward appraising their life events as stressful. Indeed, Dependent subjects
reported proportionally more hassles than Resilient subjects in each of the three areas that
showed differences due to personality style. Disengaging subjects also reported
proportionally more inner concerns than did Resilient subjects.

Taken together, the finding that the insecure subjects reported proportionally more
inner concerns suggests that these subjects hold stronger commitments to viewing
themselves as competent, which would tend to increase their vulnerability to perceiving
threats to their sense of competence in their environments. Commitments may also
function by increasing or decreasing attentiveness to particular life event domains. The
vulnerabilities to perceived threat created by commitments may work by influencing an
individual’s attentiveness to the sensitive life area. It is understandable that people who
are vulnerable to perceiving threat in a specific domain would tend to be more attentive to
events and happenings within that domain. In this way, the finding that Dependent

subjects reported proportionally more perceived social hassles may indicate that

68

Dependent subjects were more attentive to their social interactions, and therefore, were
more likely to remember and report negative interpersonal experiences.

Alternatively, this pattern of results of fewer and less intense hassles and more
frequent and more intense uplifts for Resilient subjects may reflect the Resilient subjects’
better overall psycho-social adjustment. This possibility is consistent with past research
that has reported lower levels of psychological distress for securely attached and
defensively mature individuals and higher levels for insecurely attached and defensively
immature individuals (Mikulincer et al., 1993; Cramer, 1988; Wilson, 1982; Morelli &
Andrews, 1982).

1].. fE'l'filSlf11111

Because the person factors were analyzed in the aggregate there is some difficulty
in interpreting the implications of this study’s results as pertinent to a single person
factor, in this case adult attachment style versus the defensive structure of the subjects.
However, if it can be shown that this study’s pattern of results holds true for people
differing in attachment styles (separate from the aggregate), then the results of the current
study may pose an interesting methodological challenge for attachment researchers.
Traditional investigations of attachment expose individuals with different attachment
styles to stressors and observe differences in coping and outcome. These investigations
rest on the assumption that the presented stressors are perceived as similarly stressful,
regardless of participants’ attachment styles. However, the findings of Mikulincer et al.,
(1993) suggest that individuals with different attachment patterns may possess world

views which predispose them to perceive adversities as differentially stressful. The

69

findings of this study provide additional, although non-causal, evidence that people
differing in attachment and defensive styles perceive different levels of stressors and
rewards in their lives. These findings raise the possibility that people differing in
attachment styles experience and interpret life experiences differently. This differential
appraisal of life experiences as more or less threatening may influence the degree to
which attachment behavior is induced, the amount and type of coping response selected,
and the subsequent impact of the event on the individual. It will be important for future
research to determine that the experimental manipulations designed to induce attachment
behavior through the presentation of a stressful event are perceived as equally threatening
by individuals with different attachment styles.

There are several methodological limitations to the current study. First, it is likely '
that a social desirability bias towards decreased reporting of negative experiences
influenced subjects’ responses on the questionnaires (Paulhus, 1991). This bias may be
of particular importance to the current study as previous studies have reported a link
between social desirability and the use of certain defensive styles, mainly principalization
and reversal (Cramer, 1988; Noam & Recklitis, 1990). Social desirability may have a
greater impact on the results of this study for the Resilient participants, as they were
selected on the basis of their characteristic use of principalization. However, the debate
continues in the literature regarding whether the tendency for people who use primarily
principalization and reversal reflects actual differences in symptom levels and

psychological distress or response bias (Cramer, 1988).

70

Another methodological difficulty lies in the measurement of life experiences.
One potential flaw inherent in the use of retrospective accounts of individuals’ life
experiences is that there is no way to substantiate that the hassling and uplifting
experiences endorsed by the participants actually occurred. Nor is there a way to
substantiate that the reported emotional valence of the event is accurate. However, the
accuracy of subjects’ perceptions of their life events is not central to this study. What
was important to the current investigation is whether or not people who differed in
relationship and defensive styles would tend to perceive their life experiences as
differentially stressful or rewarding. To the extent that it is the perception of an event as
stressful or rewarding that has consequences for an individual’s functioning and psycho-
social adjustment, objective corroboration of the accuracy of participants’ responses
becomes less of an issue. That is not to say that objective verification of the reported life
events is not important. It is, and would be, extremely important, particularly when
evaluating accuracy or distortions or when trying to identify potential avenues for
intervention. In as much as individuals affect and create their own environments, it is
important to make a distinction between whether people who differ in attachment and
defensive styles perceive their life experiences differently, or are actually experiencing
different levels stresses and rewards in their lives. However, given that the aim of the
current study was to determine whether people differing on these variables perceive their
lives differently, and was not to determine if, indeed, their life experiences actually were

different, self-reports of the participants’ perceptions, however biased, are sufficient. In

71

this study, subjects’ perceptions of the stresses and uplifts in their lives were the relevant
target information.

The method of subject selection by grouping subjects simultaneously on the basis
of relationship and defensive styles is another limitation of this study that makes it
difficult to draw conclusions about the separate contributions of attachment or defensive
styles to the participants’ reports of differential patterns of hassles and uplifts. For
example, it is difficult, if not impossible, to discern whether the tendency for Resilient
subjects to report fewer and less intense hassles than the Dependent and Disengaging
groups is more likely due to differences in the subjects’ approaches to social
relationships, to differences in defensive structures, or to some combination of both.
Unfortunately, the forced method of selecting this study’s subjects omits three important
subject groupings necessary for testing the differential contribution of attachment and
defensive styles: those subjects who were securely attached but defensively immature,
those who were defensively mature and dependently attached, and those who were
defensively mature and avoidantly attached. Understandably, there may be theoretical
reasons to suggest that the development of attachment and defensive styles may follow
along similar adaptive lines, rarely resulting in the three groupings that were not included
in this study. An examination of data presented in Table 2 reveals that there are several
significant correlations between defensive and attachment styles. The patterns of
intercorrelations seem to fall along adaptive lines (i.e. “more mature” defenses are
significantly positively correlated with Secure Intimacy and are significantly negatively

correlated with Mistrust of Intimacy and Fear of Loss while “less mature” defensive

72

styles are significantly negatively correlated with Secure Intimacy and significantly
positively correlated with Mistrust of Intimacy and Fear of Loss) which supports the
combination of attachment and defensive styles into an aggregate person variable. Still,
statistically speaking, the magnitude of some of the significant correlations is small, and
the omission of the three groups that were not included in this study precludes analysis of
the personality variables’ independent contributions to the subjects’ perceptions of their
daily life events.

Finally, another methodological limitation of this study was that the sample
consisted of university undergraduates. On the whole, university undergraduates tend to
be a fairly high fimctioning population of late adolescents. Because of this, it is possible
that they may have reported a limited range of negative experiences. However, in
anticipation of the uniqueness of the student population, the dependent measure (the
Hassles and Uplifts Questionnaire) was modified in order to make it more applicable to
the unique challenges and rewards faced by the young, college student population. In
addition, an examination of the norms for the original Hassles and Uplifts Scales reveals
that the subjects in the current study reported similar frequencies and intensities of
hassles [average frequency = 21.4 (SD. = 11.4), average intensity = 1.71 (S. D. = .33)]
compared to Lazarus & F olkman’s (1989) sample of middle-aged adults [average
frequency = 20.5 (S. D. = 17.7), average intensity = 1.47 (S. D. = .39)]. In addition, the
sample was largely Caucasian (88.5%). Because of this, it is difficult to generalize these

results beyond Caucasian, middle class, young college undergraduates.

73

EumreDirections

The method and results of this investigation point to several additional avenues
for study. First, it would be useful to conduct a study similar to the current investigation
that allows an analysis of the differential effects of relationship versus defensive styles
(or other possible personality variables, e.g., self esteem, ego resiliency, depression) on
the perceptions of life events as stressful and uplifting. It would also be useful to obtain
reports from subjects’ significant others, (parents, roommates, partners) regarding life
events that have occurred in subjects’ lives. This would provide some measure of the
accuracy of individuals’ self-reports of their life experiences. The inclusion of a measure
of physical and psychological symptomatology would also be an important addition to
future research. This would allow for an evaluation of self-reported well-being and
would also make possible an analysis of how person variables, in this case attachment
and defensive styles, and daily life experiences are related to psycho-social adjustment.

Secondly, longitudinal investigations are needed that expose individuals differing
in attachment and defensive styles (or other person factors) to stressful and rewarding
events in the laboratory. This type of investigation would serve two purposes: (1) it
would allow for the objective rating of the emotional valence of the event as well as
subjects’ responses to the event and (2) it would permit causal interpretations to be made.
Longitudinal investigations are also needed which would follow people for several years
who differ on relevant person variables. Again, this would allow causal interpretations to
be made and would make it possible to evaluate whether the lives of the participants are

truly different. Given the limitations of the present study, it is not clear whether person

74

variables (in this study, attachment and defensive styles) color an individual’s evaluation
of life events, whether differential experiencing of life events results in the development
of different personality styles, whether some combination of both are at work, or whether
some third (as yet unmeasured) factor is accounting for the development of both
variables. Longitudinal studies, such as the ones suggested above, would be able to
provide important information that bears on these possible causal interpretations.

Finally, following Lazarus & Folkman’s (1984) suggestions, it would be
important to conduct investigations of different patterns of commitments held by people
differing on important person factors, including attachment and defensive styles. This
would aid research on stress and coping by facilitating interpretations of findings as
possibly reflecting differences in the meanings and significance of particular life events to
individuals differing on relevant person variables.

Summarsaandjlnnelusions

Research has documented a strong relationship between subjective experiences of
life stress and physical and psychological well-being (Kanner, Coyne, Schaefer &
Lazarus, 1981; Varni, Rubenfeld, Talbot, & Setoguchi, 1989). The current model for
understanding stress and coping suggests that personal characteristics influence
perceptions and appraisals of life events as more or less stressful and as more or less
satisfying (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Thus, one important aim for researchers is to
identify person factors that influence the appraisal of life events. The current study has

identified two person factors, namely attachment and defensive styles, that, in

75

combination, are related to different perceptions of stresses and rewards in the daily lives
of the participants.

The results of the current study support the notion that people who vary in their
relationship and defensive styles perceive varying degrees of threat in their life
experiences. Specifically, subjects who were characterized as defensively mature and
securely attached reported perceiving fewer and less intense hassles and more frequent
and more intense uplifts in their daily lives than did subjects who were classified as
defensively immature and insecurely attached. Furthermore, the current study’s finding
of personality style differences in the proportion of the content of hassles reported
provides indirect support for Lazanrs and Folkman’s (1984) proposal that individuals will
perceive greater potential for threat from life experiences that are uniquely salient to
them.

This research does not purport, however, to say that the experiences of people
who differ in attachment and defensive styles are truly different. They may or may not
be. What it can and does show is that people who differ on these dimensions do report
that they perceive differential patterns of stress and rewards in their lives. What is yet
needed is objective verification, to the extent possible, that the reported events have
indeed occurred and that the reported emotional valence of the event is consistent with

the subject’s actual experiencing of that event.

Chapter 6

REFERENCES

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., &Wall, S. (1978). Patterns
ofattachmentnApsychologidaLsmdyhflthejtrangeSimation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Aronoff, J., Stollak, G., & Woike, B. (1994). Affect regulation and the

breadth of interpersonal engagement. loumalanersonalitsLancLSocialPsycholngy,
61(1), 105- 114.

Aronoff, J., & Stollak, G. (1994). Bufferingstressjnyouthnjlariationsjn
adaptationduringliferoursetransitions. Unpublished manuscript.

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

adults: A test of a four category mode1.lourna1_oflersonalit;LaanSeeiaLBsychnlngy,
61(2), 226-244.

Berman, W. H., & Sperling, M. B. (1994). The structure and function of
adult attachment. In M. B. Sperling & W. H. Berman (Eds.,) AttachmentjnAdnlts;

ClinicaLandDexelopmentalLPerspeetixes (pp. 3- 28). New York: The Guilford Press.

Blankstein, K. R, & Flett, G. L. (1992). Specificity 1n the assessment of daily
hassles. Hassles, locus of control, and adjustment 1n college students. Canadian

loumalthehayroralfieienceJAG), 382- 398.

Burks, N., & Martin, B. (1985). Everyday problems and life change events:
Ongoing versus acute sources of stress. InumaLofHumarLStress,111, 27-35.

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment (Vol. 1 of Attachmenrandlnss, 2nd ed.).
New York: Basic Books, Inc.

Bowlby, J. (1988). Asecurehasezlarentzchildattachmenmndhealthxhuman
dexelopment. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

76

77

Bretherton, I. (1985). Attachment theory: Retrospect and prospect. In I
Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds. ). Growing points for attachment theory and research.

“Olin... 0 I‘ I. '\ 0 :". | I '0. '0." I .' f.- K.

209), 3-35.

Chamberlain, K., & Zika, S. (1990). The minor events approach to stress:
Support for the use of daily hassles. Britishloumalnstychologlefl, 469-481.

Cramer, P. (1988). The defense mechanism inventory: A review of research

and discussion of the scales. InumalanemonalrgaAssessmentJXl), 142- 164.

Cummins, R. (1990). Social insecurity, anxiety, and stressful events as
antecedents of depressive symptoms. BehayioralMedicine,J6(4), 161-164.

DeLongis, A., Coyne, J. C., Dakof, G., Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S.
(1982). Relationship of daily hassles, uplifts, and major life events to health status.
HealthPsycholngMQ), 119-136.

Dohrenwend, B. S., Dohrenwend, B. P., Dodson, M., & Shrout, P. E. (1984).
Symptoms, hassles, social supports, and life events: Problem of confounded

measures. lournalthhnormaLEsycholngyfila), 222-230.

Dohrenwend, B. P., & Shrout, P. E. (1985). “Hassles” in the

conceptualization and measurement of life stress variables. AmericanPsychologist,
40(1), 780-785.

Fame, M., Sebellico, A., Gnugnoli, D., & Corallo, A. (1992). Personality
variables as moderators between hassles and subjective indications of distress. 3rd
International Society for the Investigation of Stress conference: Vulnerability to stress

(1990, Padua, Italy). mm, 161-165.

Feist, G. J., Bodner, T. E., Jacobs, .1. F, Miles, M., &Tan, V. (1995).
Integrating top-down and bottom-up structural models of subjective well-being: A

longitudinal investigation. loumalhfPersonalrnLancLSeeraLEsychologyflm, 138-
150.

Feeny, J. A., & Noller, P. (1990). Attachment style as a predictor of adult
romantic relationships. InumalhffiersonahtxandfiocraLEsychologym, 281-291.

Flannery, R. B. (1986). Major life events and daily hassles 1n predicting
health status: Methodological mquiry.loumal_of_Clm1caLBs¥chology,A2(3),485-487.

78

Gleser, G. C., & Ihilevich, D. (1969). An objective instrument for measuring
defense mechanisms. lounmlnfflonsulnngandflmrcalfisycholngyhfl, 51-60.

Gleser, G. C., & Sacks, M. (1973). Ego defenses and reaction to stress: A
validation study of the defense mechanisms inventory. lournaLQLConsultingand

C1m1caLEsychology,A0(2),181- 187.

Gordon, N. G., & Brackney, B. E. (1979). Defense mechanism preference
and dimensions of psychopathology. 25W, 188- 190.

Grossman, K. E., & Grossman, K. (1991). Attachment quality as an organizer
of emotional and behavioral responses in a longitudinal perspective. In C.M. Parkes,
J. Stevenson-Hinde & P. Marris (Eds), AttachmemacrosstheJifecycle (pp. 93-114).
London: Tavistock/ Routledge.

Gur, R. E., & Gur, R. C. (1975). Defense mechanisms, psychosomatic

symptomatology, and conjugate lateral eye movements. lournaLoannsultingand
ClrnrcaLBsychologyAfll), 416-420.

Haan, N. (1965). Coping and defense mechanisms related to personality
inventories. IoumalhfflonsultingPsychologyJM, 373- 378.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an
attachment process. WWW, 511-52.4

Ihilevich, D., & Gleser, G. C. (1986). DefenseMeehanismerheir
' . II II'._‘ .II II III 1 II D I U' III. II I ‘IIu

Owosso, MI: DMI Associates.

Jacobson, J. L., & Wille, D. E. (1986). The influence of attachment pattern
on developmental changes in peer interaction from the toddler to preschool period.

ChildDexelopmemJl, 338- 347.

Jenkins, C. D. (1979). Psychosocial modifiers of responses to stress. Journal
ofHumanStresm, 3-15.

Johnson, J. G. & Bomstein, R. F. (1993). The Revised Hassles Scale predicts
psychopathology symptoms when pre-existing psychopathology' rs accounted for.

loumaLoLSocmlBehaymLandPersonalrnLM, 123- 128.

Kanner, A. D., Coyne, J. C., Schaefer, C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1981).
Comparisons of two modes of stress measurement: Daily hassles and uplifts versus

major life events. IoumalnfBehauioraLMedicine,A(1), 1-23.

79

Kanner, A. D., & Feldman, S. S. (1991). Control over uplifts and hassles and

its relationship to adaptational outcomes. W, 187 -
201.

Kipper, D. A, & Ginot, E. (1979). Accuracy of evaluating videotape

feedback and defense mechanisms. InumalnannsflfingandflmmalPsM
41(3), 493-499.

Klusman, L. E. (1982). The defense mechanisms inventory as a predictor of
affective response to threat. InumaLofClmrcalPsycholan), 151- 155.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). W. New
York: Springer Publishing Company.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1989). ManuaLfoLthehasslesandhplifts
scales (Research ed.). Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.

Lu, L. (1991). Daily hassles and mental health: A longitudinal study. British
loumalansychologyfl, 441-447.

Main, M., Kaplan, N. & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood,
and adulthood: A move to the level of representation. In I Bretherton & E. Waters

(Eds. ), Growing points of attachment theory and research. MonographshftheSociety
foLResearchmfihrldDexelopmemnsmLZMalhlnrzOQ), 66-104.

Main, M, & Weston, D. (1981). Quality of attachment to mother and father:
Related to conflict behavior and the readiness for establishing new relationships.

W, 932- 940.

Matas, L., Arend, R. A., & Sroufe, L. A. (1978). Continuity of adaptation in
the second year: The relationship between quality of attachment and later competence.

ChrldJlexelopmeM, 547-556.

Mikulincer, M., Florian, V., & Weller, A. (1993). Attachment styles, coping
strategies, and posttraumatic psychological distress. The impact of the Gulf War In

Israel. loumaLofBersonahnLandSocralPsyehologym, 817- 826.

Monroe, S. M. (1982). Major and minor life events as predictors of

psychological distress: Further issues and findings. IournalthehayioralMedicine.
6(2), 189-205.

Morelli, G. & Andrews, L. (1982). Cognitive irrationality and defensiveness.
PsychologrcalReM, 387- 393.

80

Noam, G. G. & Recklitis, C. J. (1990). The relationship between defenses

and symptoms in adolescent psychopathology. InumaLofBersonalinLAssessment,
54(1&2), 311 -.327

Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P.

Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds). Measuresrzfllersonalrtgaand
SociaLBsychologicalAttimdes (V 01 1). California. Academic Press.

Rosenblith, J. F. (1992). WWW
3313M (20d 6d-)- Newbury Park. CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Rothbard, J. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Continuity of attachment across the
life span. In M. B. Sperling & W. H. Berman (Eds.,) AttachmentunAdultlelrmcal

andDexelopmentalPerspectirtes (pp. 31-71). New York: The Guilford Press.

Russell, D. W. & Cutrona, C. E. (1991). Social support, stress, and
depressive symptoms among the elderly. Test of a process model. Psychologyand

AgngQ) 190201

Russell, M., & Davey, G. C. L. (1993). The relationship between life event

measures and anxiety and its cognitive correlates. BersonaLandJndistiduaLDifferenees,
14(2), 317- 322.

Simpson, I. A. (1990). Influence of attachment styles on romantic
relationships. loumalanersonahnLandSmialPsychologynm, 971- 980.

Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S, & Nelligan, J. S. (1992). Support seeking and
support giving within couples in an anxiety-provoking situation: The role of attachment
styles. IoumaLofPersonality.andSociaIPsychology,_62(l), 434—446.

Teti, D. M., & Nakagawa, M. (1990). Assessing attachment in infancy: The
strange situation and alternate systems. In E. D. Gibbs & D. M. Teti (Eds. ),
I'I III.°II"III.I.3II . IIIIIIII'II.

(pp. 191-214). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Varni, J. W., Rubenfeld, L. A., Talbot, D., & Setoguchi, Y. (1989). Stress,
social support, and depressive symptomatology 1n children with congenital/acquired

limb deficiencies. W, 515-530.

Wagner, B. M. (1990). Major and daily stress and psychopathology: On the
adequacy of definitions and methods. StressMedicineJ, 217-226.

81

Waters, E. (1978). The reliability and stability of individual differences in
infant-mother attachment. ChildhexelopmentAQ, 483 -494.

Waters, E., Wippman, J ., & Sroufe, L. A. (1979). Attachment, positive
affect, and competence in the peer group: Two studies in construct validation. Child

Dexelopmentfl, 821-829.

Woike, B., Aronoff, J., Stollak, G., & Loraas,] “(1993) Links between
intrapsychic and interpersonal defenses 1n dyadic interaction. .IoumalofResearchin
Personality.

Wolf, T. M., Elston, R. C., & Kissling, G. E. (1989). Relationship of
hassles, uplifts, and life events to psychological well-being of freshman medical
students. BehaxioralMedicine,Ji(1),37-45.

Zika, S., & Chamberlain, K. (1987). Relation of hassles and personality to
subjective well-bemg.1oumalofPersonahtuancLSoc1aLPsychology,153(1),155-l62.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A

THE DEFENSE MECHANISM INVENTORY

INSTRUCTIONS: Read carefully.

On each of the following pages is a short story. Following each story there are four
questions with a choice of five answers for each. The four questions relate to the
following four kinds of behavior: actual behavior, and impulsive behavior in fantasy,
thoughts, and feelings. Of the four, it is only actual behavior which is outwardly
expressed; the other three take place only in the privacy of one’s mind.

What we want you to do is to select the one answer of the five which you think is the
most representative of how you would react, and mark the number corresponding to
that answer on the computer answer sheet by darkening the space marked three (3) next
to that number. Then select the one answer you think is least representative of how
you would react and mark it by darkening the space marked one (1) next to that
number. The other three responses should be marked as two (2).

Read all the five answers following the question before you make your selections. In
marking your answers on the computer sheet, be sure that the number of the answer
agrees with the number on the computer sheet.

82

83

You are waiting for the bus at the edge of the road. The streets are wet and muddy after
the previous night’s rain. A car sweeps through a puddle in front of you, splashing your
clothing with mud.

WhatwouldyourACIllALreactronhe?

I would note the car’s license number so that I could track down that
careless driver.

I’d wipe myself off with a smile.

I’d yell curses after the driver!

I would scold myself for not having at least worn a raincoat.

I’d shrug it off; after all things like that are unavoidable.

WhaLwouldyoulMPULSlVELYfinfantasyhuauLtodo?

6. Wipe that driver’s face 1n the mud.

7. Report that incompetent driver to the police.

8. Kick myself for standing too close to the edge of the road.

9. Let the driver know that I don’t really mind.

10. lnforrn that driver that bystanders have rights.
WhatIHOlLGHImigbtoccurtoyou?

11. Why do I always get myself into things like this?

12. To hell with that driver!

13. I’m sure that basically that driver is a nice fellow.

14. One can expect something like this to happen on wet days.

15. I wonder if that driver splashed me on purpose.
HomwouldyouFEELandwhy?

16. Satisfied, after all it could have been worse.

17. Depressed, because of my bad luck.

18. Resigned, for you’ve got to take things as they come.

19. Resentment, because the driver was so thoughtless and inconsiderate.

20. Furious, that driver got me dirty.

84

In the army you hold a post of responsibility for the smooth operation of an important
department which is constantly under great pressure to meet deadlines. Because things
haven’t been running as smoothly as they should lately, despite your initiative and
resourcefulness, you have planned some changes in personnel for the near future.

Before you do so, however, your superior officer arrives unexpectedly, asks some
brusque questions about the work of the department, and then tells you that you are
relieved of your post and your assistant is assigned to take your place.

WhatwouldyourACIUALreactionhe?

21. I’d accept my dismissal gracefully, since my superior is only doing his
job.

22. I’d blame my superior for having made up his mind against me even
before the visit.

23. I’d be thankful for having been relieved of such a tough job.

24. I’d look for an opportunity to undercut my assistant.

25. I’d blame myself for not being competent enough.

WhatayérgrldyoulMPULSIVELY (mfantasybyanttorlo?

Congratulate my assistant on the promotion.

27. Expose the probable plot between my superior and my assistant to get rid
of me.

28. Tell my superior to go to hell.
29. I’d like to kill myself for not having made the necessary changes sooner.
30. I’d like to quit, but one can’t do that in the army.

MatIHOIlGHImightoeeurtoyou?
31. I wish I could come face to face with my superior in a dark alley.
32. In the army it is essential to have the right person in the right job.
33. There is no doubt that this was just an excuse to get rid of me.

34. I’m really lucky that I only lost my job and not my rank as well.
35. How could I be so dumb as to let things slide?

HomldyouPEELandsyby?
36. Resentful, because he had it in for me.
37. Angry, at my assistant for getting the job.
38. Pleased that nothing worse happened.
39. Upset that I am a failure.
40. Resigned, after all one must be satisfied with having done the best one
can.

85

You are living with your aunt and uncle, who are helping to put you through college.
They have been taking care of you since your parents were killed in an automobile
accident when you were in your early teens. On a night that you have a late date with
your “steady”, there is a heavy storm outside. Your aunt and uncle insist that you call
and cancel your date because of the weather and the late hour. You are about to disregard
their wishes and go out the door when your uncle says in a commanding tone of voice,
“Your aunt and I have said that you can’t go, and that is that.”

WhatsymrldyourAClllALreactionhe?
41. I would do as my uncle said because he has always wanted what was best
for me.
42. I’d tell them, “I always knew you didn’t want me to grow up.”
43. I would cancel my date, since one must keep peace in the family.
44. I’d tell them it was none of their business and go out anyway.
45. I’d agree to remain at home and apologize for having upset them.

IbZhatsyouldyoulMPULSIVELYfinfantasypyanLto do?
46. Knock my head against the wall.
47. Tell them to stop ruining my life.
48. Thank them for being so concerned with my welfare.
49. Leave, slamming the door in their faces.
50. Keep my engagement, rain or shine.

WhatIHQUGHImighLoccurto you?
51. Why don’t they shut up and let me alone?
52. They never have really cared about me.
53. They are so good to me, I should follow their advice without question.

54. You can’t take without giving something in return.
55. It’s all my own fault for planning such a late date.

HomouldyouFEELanthy?
56. Annoyed, that they think I am a baby.
57. Miserable, because there is nothing much I can do.
58. Grateful, for their concern.
59. Resigned, after all, you can’t get your own way every time.
60. Furious, because they interfere with my private affairs.

86

You are extremely eager to do well in sports, but all of those at which you have tried your
hand, only basketball have you been able to achieve a measure of success. However,
until now, whenever you have applied for membership in a team or sports club, although
the judges have appeared impressed with your initial performance, their final decision has
always been the same -- they tell you that you’ve just missed making the grade.
One afternoon your car breaks down and you are forced to take a bus home during
the rush hour. As you stand in the crowded bus, you hear your wife’s voice. She is
seated together with the manager of the team to which you have just applied. You
overhear the manager tell her, “Your husband has a nice style of play, we’re drinking of
asking him to join our club.” Then you hear your wife laugh and reply, “Take it from me,
he hasn’t got what it takes in the long run.”

IIZhatwouldyourACIUALreaetionhe?

61. I’d tell her off when we got home.

62. I would greet her affectionately as usual, when I arrived home, because I
know that she really appreciates me.

63. I’d be quiet and withdrawn for the rest of the evening, not mentioning
what I had overheard.

64. I’d take it in stride, for women’s talk is never taken seriously.

65. I’d tell her that I wasn’t surprised by what I’d overheard because I had

always thought she was two-faced.

WhatmuldytmlMPULSlYELflmfantasyManttodo?

Tell my wife that I overheard her and was proud of her frankness.

67. Break her neck.

68. Tell her that men expect loyalty from their wives.

69. Let her know that I’d always suspected her of talking behind my back.

70. Stop off somewhere so I wouldn’t have to face her.
WhatIHQllGHImightoccnrtoyou?

71. I bet she talks about me that way to everybody.

72. What could I have done that makes her feel that way about me?

73. I’m sure she’s only kidding.

74. One shouldn’t be bothered by that kind of talk.

75. She needs to be taught a lesson.
HowsyouldyouFEELandayby?

Worthless, because I’d realize what a failure I was as a husband.

77. Furious at her for speaking about me that way.

78. Unconcemed, because women are like that.

79. Outraged, because her gossip has probably contributed to my past failures.

80. Serene, because I know the manager will realize that she doesn’t know

what she is talking about.

87

At your job you want to impress upon your foreman the fact that you are more skilled that
your fellow workers. You are eagerly awaiting an opportunity to prove yourself.

One day a new machine is brought into the factory. The foreman calls all the
workers together and asks whether anyone knows how to operate it. You sense the
chance you have been waiting for, so you tell the foreman that you have worked with a
similar machine and would like a chance to try your hand at this one. He refuses, saying,
“Sorry, we can’t take a chance,” and calls a veteran worker to come over and try to get
the machine started.

No sooner has the veteran worker pulled the starter, than sparks begin to fly and
the machine grinds to a halt. At this point the foreman calls and asks you if you still want
a chance to try and start the machine.

WhatmuldyourACTTlALreactionhe?

81. I’d say that I doubt if I could do it either.

82. I’d tell my fellow workers that the foreman wants to hold me responsible
for the machine’s crack up.

83. I’d tell the foreman that I appreciated being given the chance.

84. I’d decline, cursing the foreman under my breath.

85. I’d tell the foreman that I would try because one must never back down
from a challenge.

WWW?
86. Tell that foreman that he’ll not make me the scapegoat for a broken
machine.
87. Thank the foreman for not letting me try it first.
88. Tell the foreman that he should try to start the broken machine himself.
89. Point out to the foreman that experience doesn’t guarantee success.
90. Kick myself for talking myself into an unbearable situation.

IMhatIHQUCH’Lmightoeourtoyou?
91. That foreman is really a pretty decent guy.
92. Damn him and his blasted machine.
93. This foreman is out to get me.
94. Machines are not always reliable.
95. How could I be so stupid as to even think of operating that machine.

HowsatouldyouEEELandsyhy?
96. Indifferent, because when one’s abilities are not appreciated, one’s
enthusiasm is lost.
97. Angry that I was asked to do an impossible job.
98. Glad that I didn’t wreck the machine.
99. Annoyed that I was purposely put on the spot.
100. Disgusted with myself because I risked making a fool out of myself.

88

On your way to catch a train, you are hurrying through a narrow street lined with tall
buildings. Suddenly, a piece of masonry comes crashing down from a roof where
repairmen are working. A piece of brick bounces off the sidewalk, bruising your leg.

IllflratmuldyourACIUALreaetionbe?

101.
102.
103.

104.
105.

I’d tell them I ought to sue them.

I’d curse myself for having such bad luck.

I’d hurry on, for one should not permit oneself to be diverted from one’s
plans.

I’d continue on my way, grateful that nothing worse had happened.

I’d try to discover who these irresponsible people are.

WhatsyouldyouJMPULSlVELYfinfantasyhyanttodo?

106. Remind the repairmen of their obligation to public safety.

107. Assure those men that nothing serious had happened.

108. Give them a piece of my mind.

109. Kick myself for not having watched where I was going.

110. See to it that those careless workers pay for their negligence.
WhatIHQllGHImigbtocourtoyou?

111. Those repairmen don’t know how to do their job right.

112. I’m lucky that I wasn’t seriously hurt.

113. Damn those men!

114. Why do these things always happen to me?

115. One can’t be too careful these days.
HowwouldyouFEELandwhy?

116. Angry, because I was hurt.

117. Furious, because I was almost killed by their negligence.

118. Calm, for one must practice self control.

119. Upset by my bad luck.

120. Thankful that I’d gotten away with no more than a scratch.

89

Driving through town in the late afternoon, you arrive at one of the busiest intersections.
Although the light has changed in your favor, you see that pedestrians are not obeying the
“wait” sign and are blocking your path. You attempt to complete your turn with due
caution before the light turns against you, as the law requires. As you complete the turn,
a traffic policeman orders you over to the side and charges you with violating the
pedestrians’ right-of-way. You explain that you had taken the only possible course of
action, but the policeman proceeds to give you a ticket, nevertheless.

WhatsarouldyouLACTTlALreactionhe?
121. I’d blame myself for having been careless.
122. I’d go to court and bring counter charges against the policeman.
123. I’d ask the policeman why he has such a grudge against drivers.
124. I’d try to cooperate with the policeman, who, after all, is a good guy.
125. I’d take the ticket without question, since the policeman was just doing his
duty.

MW?
126. Tell the policeman he can’t use his position .to push me around.
127. Kick myself for not having waited for the next green light.
128. Thank the policeman for saving me from a possible accident.
129. Stand up for my rights as a matter of principle.
130. Slam the door in his face and drive off.

MatIHQUflHTLmightocouLtoyou?
131. He’s doing the right thing, actually, I ought to thank him for teaching me
an important lesson.
132. Each man must carry out his job as he sees it.
133. This guy ought to go back to pounding a beat.
134. How could I be so stupid.
135. I bet he gets a kick out of giving tickets to people.

HowwouldyouEEELandayhy?
136. Boiling anger, because he’s making trouble for me.
137. Resentment, because he’s picking on me.
138. Ashamed, because I was negligent.
139. Indifferent, after all, this sort of thing happens all the time.
140. Relieved, because I’d been prevented from getting into worse trouble.

90

You return home after spending two years in the army. At the time you joined, you had
had a choice between enlistment and a position in your father’s business. You preferred
the army despite parental advice. Now that you are home again, you find that your range
of opportunity hasn’t widened appreciably. You can either join your father’s business or
get a job as an untrained worker. You would like to open a coffee shop, but you lack the
capital necessary to carry out such an enterprise. After a great deal of hesitation, you
decide to ask your father to put up the money. After listening to your proposal, he
reminds you that he had wanted you to take a job with his firm instead of joining the
army. Then he tells you, “I’m not prepared to throw away my hard-earned on your crazy
schemes. It’s time you started helping me in my business.”

WhatsazouldyourACTllALreactionhe?

141.
142.
143.
144.
145.

I’d accept his offer since everyone depends on everyone else in this world.
I would admit to him that I guess I am a bad risk.

I’d tell him off in no uncertain terms.

I’d tell him that I’d always suspected that he had a grudge against me.

I’d thank him for holding a job open for me all these years.

What wouldyoulMPULSlVELYfinfantasManttodo?

146. Go to work for him and make him happy.

147. Give up trying and end it all.

148. Take my father’s offer since offers like that don’t grow on trees.

149. Let him know what a miser everyone thinks he is.

150. Tell him that I wouldn’t work for him if he were the last man on earth.
MatJ’HQILGHImightoocuLto you?

151. He’ll get what’s coming to him one day.

152. Family considerations can’t enter into business decisions.

153. Why was I so stupid as to bring the subject up.

154. I must admit that my father is acting for my own good.

155. This proves what I’ve suspected all along, that my father has never

believed in me.

HomwouldyouFEELandsyby?

156. Angry, because he doesn’t want me to succeed on my own.

157. Grateful, for his offer of a job with a future.

158. Resentful, that he is sabotaging my future.

159. Resigned, since you can’t have everything your own way all of the time.

160. Hopeless, because I couldn’t get my father’s approval.

91

One afternoon while you and a close friend are cramming for exams, your girlfriend
drops by unexpectedly. Although you and she have been going steady for over a year,
you have not been able to see much of each other lately; therefore you are very happy she
has come. You invite her in and introduce her to your fiiend and the three of you spend a
pleasant hour together. A few days later you ring her up and invite her to go out on the
town to celebrate the end of exam week, but she tells you that she has come down with a
bad cold and thinks that it is best for her not to leave the house. After dinner you feel sort
of let down and decide to go to the movies by yourself. Coming out of the movie theater,
you come upon your pal arm-in-arm with your girlfriend.

WhatsyouldyourACIUALreactionhe?
161. I’d tell my girl she could have told me it was over instead of cheating
behind my back.

162. I’d greet them politely as a civilized person should.

163. I’d make sure they both knew I wanted nothing more to do with them.
164. I’d tell them that I am delighted that they have become friends.

165. I’d duck out of sight to avoid facing them.

W?
166. Go home and sulk.
167. Knock him down and grab the girl away.
168. Show them the I really don’t mind their being together.
169. Ask him if stealing is the only way he knows of getting a woman.
170. Indicate that it takes more that one battle to win a war.

WhatIHQllGH'Lmightoccurtoyou?
171. This wouldn’t have happened if I had been more attentive to her.
172. All’s fair in love and war.
173. They certainly are a pair of double-crossers.
174. I hope they get what they deserve.
175. I was getting tired of her anyhow.

HomrldyouEEELandsyhy?
176. Relieved, that I was free again.
177. Upset, because I shouldn’t have been so trusting.
178. Resigned, because you’ve got to take life as it comes.
179. Disgusted, because of their dishonesty.
180. Furious, at them because of what happened.

92

You and an old school fiiend are competing for a newly vacated executive position in the
firm where you work. Although both your chances seem about equal, your fiiend has had
more opportunity to show resourcefulness in critical situations. Recently, however, you
have successfully pushed through some excellent deals. In spite of this, the board of
directors decides to promote your friend rather than you.

MatwouldyourACIUALreactionhe?
181. I’d try to find out which director “blackballed” me.
182. I’d continue to do my duty as a responsible person must.
183. I’d accept the outcome as proof that I’m not executive material.
184. I’d protest the decision of the board most vehemently.
185. I’d congratulate my friend on the promotion.

W?

186. Ask the board to reconsider, since a mistake would be detrimental to the
company.
187. Kick myself for having aspired to a job for which I wasn’t qualified.
188. Show the board how biased they’ve been in their unjust treatment of me.
189. Help my friend make a success at the new job.
190. Break the neck of each and every member of the board of directors.
WhatIHQUGHImightoecuLtoyou?
191. I guess I just don’t have what it takes.
192. I probably wouldn’t enjoy an executive position as much as the one I have
now.
193. There certainly is something fishy about the board’s decision.
194. One must take a blow such as this in one’s stride.
195. Damn that board of directors.
HomldyouEEELandsyhy?
196. Happy, that I still have the job I am used to.
197. Upset, because my inadequacy was made public.
198. Furious, at the directors because of their treatment of me.
199. Resigned, for that’s the way it goes in the business world.
200. Angry, because I have been the victim of an unjust decision.

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B

QUESTIONNAIRE ABOUT RELATIONSHIPS

This questionnaire is concerned with your experiences in relationships. Take a moment
to think about these experiences and answer the following questions with them in mind.
Select the choice that you feel best describes how you feel in relationships. Indicate your
choice by marking the appropriate response on the enclosed computer scoring sheet.
Note: The words “close” and “intimate” refer to psychological or emotional
closeness with others. “Others”, “people”, and “partner(s)” refer to people who you
encounter frequently, including special friendships, romantic partners, co-workers,
acquaintances, roommates, your parents, other adults, and other relatives including
your siblings.

Using the scale below, fill in the appropriate number (1 through 5) on the scoring sheet
for each question.

Not at all like me Somewhat like me Very much like me
or or or
Strongly disagree Neither agree or disagree Strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
1. I find it easy to get emotionally close to others.

2. I’m not very comfortable having to depend on other people.
3. I’m comfortable having other people depend on me.

4. I worry about being abandoned by others.

5. I don’t like people getting too close to me.

6. I’m somewhat uncomfortable being too close to others.

93

94

Using the scale below, fill in the appropriate number (1 through 5) on the scoring sheet
for each question.

Not at all like me Somewhat like me Very much like me
or or or
Strongly disagree Neither agree or disagree Strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5

7. I find it difficult to trust others completely.

8. I worry about others getting too close to me.

9. Others often want me to be closer that I feel comfortable being.
10. I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like.
11. I often worry that others don’t or won’t really love me.

12. I rarely worry about others leaving me.

13. I often want to merge completely with others, and this desire sometimes scares
them away.

14. It is very important to me to be independent.

15. I worry that I will be hurt if I allow myself to become too close to others.

16. I am comfortable without close emotional relationships.

17. I am not sure that I can always depend on others to be there when I need them.
18. I worry about being alone.

19. I worry that others don’t value me as much as I value them.

20. I know that others will be there when I need them.

21. I haven’t received enough appreciation from others.

22. I don’t hesitate to ask for help when I need it.

23. I’m often not sure how I feel about people.

95

Using the scale below, fill in the appropriate number (1 through 5) on the scoring sheet
for each question.

Not at all like me Somewhat like me Very much like me
or or or
Strongly disagree Neither agree or disagree Strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5

24. I find it easy to trust others.

25. Other people have not been as consistently available as I would like.
26. Other people don’t take my concerns seriously.

27. When something good happens, I can hardly wait to tell certain people.
28. I don’t mind asking others for comfort, advice, or help.

29. Certain people have rarely given me enough of their time.

30. People have often let me down.

31. I like to tell my partner(s) all about my day.

32. I. rarely ask others for any kind of help.

33. I sometimes get fi'ustratedl and angry because no one loves me the way I’d like to
be loved.

34. 1 like to share new ideas with my partner(s).

35. I’m not the kind of person who readily turns to others in times of need.
36. I sometimes feel that getting too close will cause trouble for me.

37. Some people have often been inconsiderate.

38. I seek comfort from others when I’m troubled or ill.

39. Sometimes when I get what I want in a relationship, I’m not sure I want it
anymore.

96

Using the scale below, fill in the appropriate number (1 through 5) on the scoring sheet
for each question.

Not at all like me Somewhat like me Very much like me
or or or
Strongly disagree Neither agree or disagree Strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5

40. My partner(s) haven’t usually understood what I needed.

41. I miss my partner(s) intensely when we’re apart, but sometimes when we’re
together I feel like escaping.

42. It’s best to be cautious in dealing with most people.
43. I often get frustrated because others don’t understand my needs.
44. I’ve generally been able to count on partner(s) for comfort and understanding.

45. Often, just when you think you can depend on someone, the person doesn’t come
through.

46. When I’m not involved in a relationship, I feel somewhat anxious and insecure.
47. My partner(s) make me doubt myself.

48. I don’t seek out others when I am feeling troubled or ill.

49. I sometimes feel angry or annoyed with my partner(s) without knowing why.
50. It’s risky to open up to another person.

51. My partner(s) usually do what they want regardless of my wishes.

52. I usually prefer to be alone rather than with others.

53. I’m not very comfortable being away from my partner(s).

54. I’ve often gotten angry at partner(s) for ignoring me.

97

55. Now read each of the three self-descriptions of “relationship styles” below (A, B,
and C). Select the choice that you feel best describes how you feel in relationships.
Indicate your choice by marking the appropriate response for Question #55 on the
enclosed computer scoring sheet. Again: The words “close” and “intimate” refer to
psychological or emotional closeness with others. “Others”, “people”, and
“partner(s)” refer to people who you encounter frequently, including special
friendships, romantic partners, co-workers, acquaintances, roommates, your
parents, other adults, and other relatives including your siblings.

StyleA (Choice 1). I am uncomfortable getting close to others. 1 want emotionally
close relationships, but I find it difficult to trust others completely, or to depend on them.
I worry that I will be hurt if I allow myself to become too close to others.

StyleB (Choice 2). I want to be completely emotionally intimate with others, but I
often find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I am uncomfortable
without close relationships, but I sometimes worry that others don’t value me as much as h
I value them.

 

StyleC (Choice 3). It is easy for me to become emotionally close to others. I am
comfortable depending on others and having others depend on me. I don’t worry about
being alone or having others not accept me.

Now please rate each of the relationship styles described above according to the extent to
which you think each description corresponds to your general relationship style. Fill in
the appropriate number (1 through 5) on the scoring sheet for each question.

Not at all like me Somewhat like me Very much like me

56. Style A is: 1 2 3 4 5
57. Style B is: l 2 3 4 5

58. Style C is: l 2 3 4 5

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX C

RELATIONSHIPS QUESTIONNAIRE SUBSCALE ITEMS3

 

 

l l' [I . S l

Itemhlo. Item _

5. I don’t like people getting too close to me

6. I’m somewhat uncomfortable being too close to others

7. I find it difficult to trust others completely

8. I worry about others getting too close to me

9. Others often want me to be closer than I feel comfortable being

24. (I find it easy to trust others)4

36. I sometimes feel that getting too close will cause trouble for me

42. It’s best to be cautious in dealing with most people

50. It’s risky to open up to another person

EeaLofLossSeale

ltemNo. Item ._

4. I worry about being abandoned by others

10. I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like

11. I often worry that others don’t or won’t really love me

12. (I rarely worry about others leaving me)

13. I often want to merge completely with others, and this desire
sometimes scares them away

19. I worry that others don’t value me as much as I value them

21. I haven’t received enough appreciation from others

25. Other people have not been as consistently available as I would

like

 

3 From Aronoff & Stollak, 1994

‘1 Items in parentheses are reverse scored

98

99

 

 

 

 

EeaLofLossSoaleeontid

ltemNo. Item .1

26. Other people don’t take my concerns seriously

29. Certain people have rarely given me enough of their time

30. People have often let me down

33. I sometimes get frustrated and angry because no one loves me the
way I’d like to be loved

37. Some people have often been inconsiderate

43. I often get fi'ustrated because others don’t understand my needs

45. Often, just when you think you can depend on someone, the person
doesn’t come through

46. When I’m not involved in a relationship, I feel somewhat anxious
and insecure

47. My partner(s) make me doubt myself

54. I’ve often gotten angry at partner(s) for ignoring me

SeoureJntimacySoale

ItemNo. Item _ 1,.

22. I don’t hesitate to ask for help when 1 need it

27. When something good happens, I can hardly wait to tell certain
people

28. I don’t mind asking others for comfort, advice, or help

31. I like to tell my partner(s) all about my day

32. (I rarely ask others for any kind of help)

34. I like to share new ideas with my partner(s)

35. (I’m not the kind of person who readily turns to others in times of
need)

38. I seek comfort from others when I’m troubled or ill

44 I’ve generally been able to count on partner(s) for comfort and
understanding

48. (I don’t seek out others when I am troubled or feeling ill)

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX D

THE HASSLES AND UPLIFTS SCALE
HASSLES SCALE

Directions: Hassles are irritants that can range from minor annoyances to fairly major
pressures, problems, or difficulties. They can occur few or many times.

Listed on the following pages are a number of ways in which a person can feel hassled.
Read through the list, and every time you find a hassle thathashappenedtoyouintbe
pastmonth, underline that item. For example, the first item on the list 1s “Misplacing or
losing things.” If this has been an annoyance or problem for you inthepastmontb, then
underline that statement. For now, ignore the items to the right of the statement. Just
read through the list and underline ALL the items that have hassled you. If an item has
not hassled you in the past month, don’t underline it.

Somewhat Moderately Extremely

Severe Severe Severe

l. Misplacing or losing things ........ 1 2 3
2. Troublesome roommates/suitemates

ballmates/neighbors .................... 1 2 3
3. Social obligations ................................ 1 2 3
4. Inconsiderate smokers .................... 1 2 3
5. Troubling thoughts about your future 1 2 3
6. Thoughts about death .................... 1 2 3
7. Health of a family member ........ 1 2 3
8. Not enough money for college ........ 1 2 3
9. Not enough money for luxuries ........ 1 2 3
10. Concerns about owing money ........ 1 2 3
ll. Concerns about getting credit ........ l 2 3
12. Concerns about money for emergencies 1 2 3
13. Someone owes you money ........ l 2 3
14. Smoking too much .................... l 2 3
15. Use of alcohol ................................ 1 2 3

l6.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.

25.
26.
27.
28.
29.

30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.

45.

101

Somewhat
Severe

Personal use of drugs ................... 1
Too many responsibilities ....... 1
Decisions about having children ....... 1
Care for pet ............................... 1
Cleaning up ............................... 1
Concerned about the meaning of life 1
Trouble relaxing ............................... 1
Trouble making decisions ....... 1
Problems getting along with other

people ........................................... 1
Concerns about succeeding in school 1
Problems with classwork ....... 1
Don’t like current work duties ....... 1
Don’t like fellow workers ....... 1
Not enough money for basic

necessities ............................... 1
Too many interruptions ................... 1
Unexpected company ................... 1
Too much time on hands ................... 1
People making you wait ................... 1
Accidents ........................................... 1
Being lonely ............................... 1
Not enough money for healthcare 1
F ear of confronting others ....... l
Silly practical mistakes ................... 1
In ability to express yourself ....... 1
Physical illness ............................... 1
Side effects of medication ....... 1
Concerns about medical treatment 1
Physical appearance ................... 1
Fear of rejection ............................... 1
Sexual problems, physical ....... 1

Moderately
Severe

NNNNNNNN

NNNNN

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

Extremely
Severe

wwwwwwww

wwwww

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

46.
47.
48.
49.
50.

51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.

61.

62.
63.

65.

66.
67.
68.
69.
70.

102

Somewhat
Severe

Concerns about health in general 1
Friends or relatives too far away ........ 1
Preparing meals ................................ 1
Wasting time ................................ 1
Problems with auto or other
transportation ................................ 1
Filling out forms ................................ 1
Being exploited ................................ l
Concerns about bodily functions 1
Not getting enough rest .................... 1
Not getting enough sleep ........ 1
Problems with brothers and/or sisters 1
Problems with your lover ........ 1
Too many family responsibilities 1
Too many things to do .................... 1
Concerns about meeting high
standards ............................................ 1
Financial dealings with fiiends or
acquaintances ................................ 1
Worries about decision to change jobs 1
Trouble with reading, writing, or
spelling abilities ................................ 1
Trouble with arithmetic skills ........ 1
Gossip and other things that people
say ............................................ 1
Concerns about weight .................... 1
Any problems about television ........ 1
Not enough personal energy ........ 1
Concerns about inner conflicts ........ l
Regrets over past decisions ........ 1

Moderately
Severe

NNNNNNNNNN NNNN

N

NM

NM

NNNNNN

Extremely
Severe

wwww

wwwwwwwwww

WU)

wwwwww

103

Somewhat Moderately Extremely

Severe Severe Severe

71. Menstrual (period) problems ........ l 2 3
72. Nightmares ................................ 1 2 3
73. Hassles from boss or supervisor ........ 1 2 3
74. Difficulties with friends .................... 1 2 3
75. Not enough time for family ........ l 2 3
76. Not enough money for entertainment

and recreation ................................ 1 2 3
77. Annoyances when shopping ........ 1 2 3
7 8. Prejudice and discrimination from

others ............................................ l 2 3
79. Not enough time for entertainment

and recreation ................................ 1 2 3
80. Noise ............................................ 1 2 3
81. Crime ............................................ 1 2 3
82. Traffic ............................................ 1 2 3
83. Pollution ............................................ 1 2 3
84. Concerns about your major ........ 1 2 3
85. Problems with roommates ........ l 2 3
86. Problems with instructors ........ l 2 3
87. Don’t like certain classes ........ 1 2 3
88. Concerns about exams .................... 1 2 3
89. Concerns about school work ........ 1 2 3
90. Roommates taking things that are

yours ............................................ 1 2 3

HAVE WE MISSED ANY OF YOUR HASSLES? IF SO, WRITE THEM IN BELOW:
. _______ _ , l 2 3

NOW GO BACK TO PAGE ONE, and for all the items that you’ve underlined, think
about how severe the hassle has been in the past month, and give your answer by circling

a 1, 2, or 3. inyrircletbeitemsyouhayealreadyhnderlined Leave the others blank.

UPLIFTS SCALE

Directions: Uplifts are events that make you feel good. They can be sources of peace,
satisfaction, or joy. Some occur often, others are relatively rare.

Read through the list on the following pages and every time you find a event thathas

madeyoufeelgoodinthepastmonth, underline that item. For example, the first item on
the list rs “Getting enough sleep.” If this has been an uplift for you inthepastmonth,

then underline that statement. For now, ignore the items to the right of the statement.
Just read through the list and underline ALL the items that have made you feel good. If
an item has not made you feel good in the past month, don’t underline it.

Somewhat Moderately Extremely

Often Often Often

1. Getting enough sleep .................... 1 2 3
2. Practicing your hobby .................... 1 2 3
3. Being lucky ................................ 1 2 3
4. Saving money ................................ 1 2 3
5. Nature ............................................ 1 2 3
6. Liking fellow workers .................... 1 2 3
7. Gossiping: “shooting the bull” ........ 1 2 3
8. Successfirl financial dealings ........ 1 2 3
9. Feeling healthy ................................ 1 2 3
10. Finding something presumed lost 1 2 3
11. Recovering from illness .................... 1 2 3
12. Staying or getting in good physical

shape ............................................ 1 2 3
13. Being with children .................... 1 2 3
14. “Pulling something of’; getting away

with something ................................ 1 2 3
15. Visiting, phoning, or writing someone I 2 3
16. Relating well with your lover ........ 1 2 3
17. Completing a task .................... 1 2 3
18. Giving a compliment .................... l 2 3
19. Meeting family responsibilities ........ 1 2 3
20. Relating well with friends ........ 1 2 3

21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.

31.
32.
33.
34.
35.

36.
37.

38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.

105

Somewhat
Often

Being efficient ................................ 1
Meeting your responsibilities ........ 1
Quitting or cutting down on alcohol 1
Quitting or cutting down on smoking 1
Solving an ongoing practical problem 1
Daydrearning ................................ 1
Weight ............................................ 1
Sex ............................................ 1
Friendly people ................................ 1
Having enough time to do what you
want ............................................ 1
Getting out of a bad relationship ........ 1
Eating out ................................ 1
Resolving inner conflicts ........ 1
Being with older people .................... 1
Finding no prejudice or
discrimination when you expect it 1
Cooking ............................................ 1
Capitalizing on an unexpected
opportunity ................................ 1
Life being meaningful .................... 1
Being well-prepared .................... 1
Eating ............................................ 1
Relaxing ............................................ 1
Being visited, phoned, or sent a letter 1
Thinking about the future ........ 1
Spending time with family ........ 1
Home (inside) pleasing you ........ 1
Reading ............................................ 1
Giving a present ................................ 1
Getting a present ................................ 1
Having enough money for health care 1
Traveling or commuting .................... 1

Moderately
Often

NNNNNNNNN

NNNNN

NM

NNNNNNNNNNNNNN

Extremely
Often

wwwwwwwww

wwwww

Mb)

wwmwwwwwwwwuww

Somewhat
Often

51. Having enough money for

transportation ................................ 1
52. Health of a family member improving 1
53. Resolving conflicts over what to do 1
54. Thinking about health .................... l
55. Being a “good” listener .................... 1
56. Socializing (parties, being with

fiiends, etc.) ................................ 1
57. Making a friend ................................ 1
58. Sharing something .................... 1
59. Having someone listen to you ........ 1
60. Entertainment (movies, concerts,

TV, etc.) ............................................ 1
61. Good news on local or world level 1
62. Getting good advice .................... 1
63. Recreation (sports, games,

hiking, etc). ................................ l
64. Paying off debts ................................ l
65. Using skills well at work .................... l
66. Past decisions “panning out” ........ 1
67. Growing as a person .................... l
68. Being complimented .................... l
69. Having good ideas at work ........ 1
70. Improving or gaining new skills ........ l
71. Expressing yourself well .................... 1
72. Laughing ............................................ 1
73. Liking work duties .................... 1
74. Music ............................................ 1
7 5. Getting unexpected money ........ 1
76. Changing jobs ................................ 1
77. Dreaming ............................................ 1
78. Having fun ................................ 1
79. Going someplace that’s different ......... 1
80. Pets ............................................ 1
81. Car working/running well ........ 1
82. Pleasant smells ................................ l
83. Getting love ................................ 1
84. Successfully avoiding or dealing with

bureaucracy or institutions .................... 1
85. Making decisions .................... 1

106

Moderately
Often

NNNNN

NNNN

NNN

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

N

Extremely
Often

DJ wwww LAID-303030)

WW

wwwwwwwwwwwuwwwwwwwww

WU)

 

107

Somewhat Moderately Extremely

Often Often Often

86. Thinking about the past .................... 1 2 3
87. Giving good advice .................... l 2 3
88. Praying ............................................ 1 2 3
89. Meditating ................................ 1 2 3
90. Fresh air ............................................ 1 2 3
91. Confronting someone or something 1 2 3
92. Being accepted ................................ 1 2 3
93. Giving love ................................ 1 2 3
94. Boss pleased with your work ........ 1 2 3
95. Being alone ................................ l 2 3
96. Feeling safe ................................ 1 2 3
97. Working well with fellow workers 1 2 3
98. Knowing your job is secure ........ 1 2 3
99. Feeling safe in your neighborhood 1 2 3
100. Doing volunteer work .................... 1 2 3
101. Contributing to a charity ........ 1 2 3
102. Learning something .................... l 2 3
103. Being “one” with the world ........ 1 2 3
104. Fixing/repairing something (besides

at your job) ................................ 1 2 3
105. Making something (besides at your

job) ............................................ l 2 3
106. Exercising ................................ 1 2 3
107. Meeting a challenge .................... 1 2 3
108. Hugging and/or kissing .................... 1 2 3
109. Flirting ............................................ 1 2 3

HAVE WE MISSED ANY OF YOUR UPLIFTS? IF SO, WRITE THEM IN BELOW:

110. , -__ 1 2 3

NOW, GO BACK TO PAGE SIX, and for off the items that you’ve underlined, think
about Men the uplift event has made you feel good in the last month, give your

answer by circling a 1, 2, or 3. inyacrrclethertemstbatyouhayealreadyunderlined.
Leave the others blank.

APPENDIX E

 

APPENDIX E

MODIFICATIONS TO THE HASSLES AND UPLIFTS SCALE

ltemsAddedtotbeHasslesSeale

Cleaning up

Concerns about succeeding in school
Problems with classwork

Problems with brothers or sisters
Concerns about your major
Problems with roommates

Problems with instructors

Don’t like certain classes

Concerns about exams

Concerns about schoolwork
Roommates taking things that are yours

 

ItemsDeletedfromtbeHasslesSeale

Financial responsibility for someone who doesn’t live with you
Cutting down on electricity, water, etc.

Non-family members living in your house

Customers or clients giving you a hard time

Home maintenance (inside)

Concerns about job security

Concerns about retirement

Laid-off or out of work

Not enough money for food

Financial security

Difficulties with getting pregnant

Sexual problems other than those resulting fiom physical problems
Not seeing enough people

Neighborhood deterioration

108

1 O9
ItemsDeletedfromtbeHasslesSealeLcont’d

Financing children’s education

Problems with employees

Problems on the job due to being a woman or a man
Declining physical abilities

Rising price of common goods

Problems with aging parents

Problems with your children

Problems with persons younger than yourself
Difficulty seeing or hearing

Unchallenging work

Job dissatisfactions

Too many meetings

Problems with divorce or separation

Legal problems

Not enough time to do the things you need to
Feeling conflicted over what to do

The weather

Concerns about getting ahead

Transportation problems

Not enough money for transportation
Property, investments, or taxes

Yardwork or outside home maintenance
Concerns about news events

ltemsAddedtrLtbellpliftsScale

Getting out of a bad relationship
ltemsDeleterLfromthejlplifisSeale

Not working (on vacation, laid-off, etc.)

Being rested

Financially supporting someone who doesn’t live with you
Divorce or separation

Having enough personal energy

Using drugs or alcohol

Having the “right” amount of things to do

The weather

Being with younger people

Buying things for the house

 

110
ItemsDeletedfromtbeleliftsSealeeont’tl

Shopping

Smoking

Buying clothes

Becoming pregnant or contributing thereto

Doing yardwork or outside housework

Your yard or outside of house is pleasing

Looking forward to retirement

Having enough money for entertainment and recreation
Job satisfying despite discrimination due to your sex
Free time

Vacationing without spouse or children

Having good credit

Deciding to have children

Enjoying non-family members living in your house
Neighborhood improving

Children’s accomplishments

Things going well with employee(s)

APPENDIX F

Healthassles

15.
16.
40.
42.
43.
46.
66.
68.

InterpersonalHassles
ItemNo.

24.
37.
44.
61.
65.
74.
85.
90.

APPENDIX F

HASSLES CONTENT SUBSCALE ITEMS

Item

Use of alcohol

Personal use of drugs

Physical illness

Concerns about medical treatment
Physical appearance

Concerns about health in general
Concerns about weight

Not enough personal energy

Item

Troublesome roommates/suitemates/hallmates/neighbors
Problems getting along with other people

Fear of comforting others

Fear of rejection

Financial dealings with fiiends or acquaintances

Gossip and other things people say

Difficulties with friends

Problems with roommates

Roommates taking things that are yours

111

 

21.
23.
35.
39.

69.
70.

AeademioHassles

25.
26.

84.
86.
87.
88.
89.

112

Item

Troubling thoughts about your future
Thoughts about death

Concerned about the meaning of life
Trouble making decisions

Being lonely

Inability to express yourself

Fear of rejection

Concerns about inner conflicts
Regrets over past decisions

Item _ 1.
Concerns about succeeding in school
Problems with classwork

Trouble with arithmetic skills
Concerns about your major
Problems with instructors

Don’t like certain classes

Concerns about exams

Concerns about schoolwork

 

APPENDIX G

Interpersonalllplifis
Itemhlo.

7.

APPENDIX G

UPLIFTS CONTENT SUBSCALE ITEMS

Item

Gossiping: “Shooting the bull”

 

15. Visiting, phoning, writing someone

20. Relating well with fiiends

29. Friendly people

42. Being visited, phoned, or sent a letter

55. Being a “good” listener

56. Socializing (parties, being with fiiends, etc.)
57. Making a fiiend

58. Sharing something

59. Having someone listen to you

62. Getting good advice

68. Being complimented

83. Getting love

87. Giving good advice

91. Confronting something or someone

92. Being accepted

93. Giving love

Non-Joterpersonaljlplifts

113mm Item _1, 1
9. Feeling healthy

10. Finding something presumed lost

12. Staying or getting in good physical shape
14. “Pulling something off”; getting away with something
17. Completing a task

113

114

Ngn-|n1c[pgrsflnal I Iplifls QQDI’d

ItemlSlo.
21.
23.
25.
27.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
43.
45.
52.
53.
54.
60.
63.
66.
67.
69.
70.
71.
72.
77.
79.
82.
85.
86.
96.
100.
102.
104.
105.
106.
107.

Item

Being efficient

Quitting or cutting down on alcohol
Solving an ongoing practical problem
Weight

Capitalizing on an unexpected opportunity
Life being meaningful

Being well-prepared

Eating

Relaxing

Thinking about the future

Home (inside) pleasing you

Health of a family member improving
Resolving conflicts over what to do
Thinking about health

Entertainment (movies, concerts, TV, etc.)
Recreation (sports, games, hiking, etc.)
Past decisions “panning out”

Growing as a person

Having good ideas at work

Improving or gaining new skills
Expressing yourself well

Laughing

Dreaming

Going someplace that’s different
Pleasant smells

Making decisions

Thinking about the past

Feeling safe

Doing volunteer work

Learning something

Fixing/repairing something (besides at your job)
Making something (besides at your job)
Exercising

Meeting a challenge

   

IES

nIlllllllllllllllllllilllll