Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1989, Vol. 56, No.

4, 596-607

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

Attributional Style and Attributional Patterns Among Married Couples

Donald H. Baucom, Steven L. Sayers, and Autumn Duhe University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Explored whether couples develop an attributional style in explaining marital behavior. Results demonstrate that spouses vary greatly in the extent to which they develop an attributional style in this area. Development of an attributional style is correlated with marital distress. Investigators have assumed that simultaneous attributional ratings across several attributional dimensions best characterize the attributions that spouses make for marital events. Yet almost all studies to date have considered each attributional dimension separately. The current investigation explored whether meaningful attributional patterns across dimensions were discernible for marital events. Findings indicate that such patterns do exist and are psychologically interpretable, and support the hypothesis that distressed spouses tend to maximize negative partner behaviors while minimizing positive partner behaviors.

In recent years, a major focus within attribution research has involved an attempt to differentiate among the types of attributions provided by different individuals. At the center of these investigations has been the construct of attributional style. Invoking the notion of an attributional style implies that an individual develops a consistent way of providing causal explanations across divergent situations, thus implying the existence of a personality characteristic (Feather & Tiggemann, 1984). Much of the recent research in this area has been stimulated by the reformulated learned helplessness theory (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978) and the development of the Attributional Style Questionnaire (Seligman, Abramson, Semmel, & von Baeyer, 1979). Learned helplessness theory proposed that there is an attributional style that is correlated with depression. However, other investigators have begun to question whether attributional style is a meaningful construct. For example, Cutrona, Russell, and Jones (1984) reported only weak evidence that similar attributions were made in divergent situations. Similarly, Arntz, Gerlsma, and Albersnagel (1985) concluded that there was little consistency in attributions across situations, and that the situation was a more important factor than attributional style in influencing causal attributions. Taking these findings into account, investigators have suggested that the notion of attributional style needs to be more narrowly denned (Cutrona et al., 1984). That is, Arntz et al. (1985) suggested that attributional style or a consistency in providing causal explanations may exist only within a particular behavioral domain (e.g., interpersonal failure situations). Anderson, Jennings, and Arnoult (1988) referred to this as attributional style operating at "moderate levels of specificity" (p. 984). The results of several investigations are consistent with the idea that an individual makes similar causal explanations for events that fall within a similar domain (Anderson & Ar-

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Donald H. Baucom, Department of Psychology, Davie Hall 013A, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514.

noult, 1985a, 1985b; Anderson, Horowitz, & French, 1983; Anderson et al., 1988; Metalsky, Halberstadt, & Abramson, 1987). One domain of particular importance to many adults is their marital relationship, and the role of causal attributions within the context of intimate relationships and marital adjustment has received considerable attention from a theoretical (e.g., Baucom, 1987; Berley & Jacobson, 1984; Doherty, 1981; Fincham, 1983) and empirical perspective (Baucom, Wheeler, & Bell, 1984; Doherty, 1982; Fincham, 1985; Fincham, Beach, & Baucom, 1987; Fincham & O'Leary, 1983; HoltzworthMunroe & Jacobson, 1985; Jacobson, McDonald, Follette, & Berley, 1985; Madden & Janoff-Bulman, 1981; Orvis, Kelley, & Butler, 1976; Passer, Kelley, & Michela, 1978; Thompson & Kelley, 1981). Consistent with the notion of attributional style within the marital domain, Weiss (1980) has proposed the notion of sentiment override. He suggested that most spouses develop a general set of feelings toward their partner, and that this set will influence the way in which the individual perceives and interprets various marital events. As applied to attributions, this implies that more happily married individuals will supply explanations or attributions for marital events that serve to enhance or maintain their happiness with the relationship. Thus, positive marital events will be attributed to the partner or the relationship and will be seen as relatively stable and likely to influence many situations and as reflecting the partner's positive attitude toward the respondent. Conversely, to minimize the impact of negative marital events, satisfied couples will more likely attribute them to outside factors and view the causes as unstable and unlikely to affect many circumstances. More distressed couples will likely provide attributions that serve to emphasize negative aspects of the relationship by providing attributions opposite to those provided by nondistressed couples. Although there are some discrepancies, the results of the previously mentioned investigations generally support these hypothesized relations. These investigations have typically considered an individual's mean attributions across situations; however, the issue of consistency of attributions across different marital situations has not been investigated empirically. Thus, investigating this important interpersonal relationship can shed
596

ATTRIBUTIONAL STYLE

597

some light on the issue of whether individuals develop an attributional style within significant delineated areas of their lives. The current study explores the extent to which spouses do provide similar explanations for different marital events and whether the degree of consistency is related to level of marital adjustment. At present, at least two competing hypotheses seem plausible in this regard. First, simplistically responding to a wide range of experiences with a similar explanation might be maladaptive and result in marital discord; thus, greater demonstration of an attributional style would be correlated with decreased marital adjustment. Second, consistent with sentiment override, both distressed and nondistressed spouses might provide explanations to maintain their perceptions of the relationship. If so, then the content of attributions offered by distressed and nondistressed spouses would differ, but both groups of spouses would be characterized by consistent attributional styles. Therefore, degree of attributional style would not be linearly related to level of marital adjustment. At present, there is no basis to favor one of these two hypotheses over the other; therefore, we considered the present investigation exploratory in this regard. To address this issue, we had to give thought to the most appropriate way to score and conceptualize attributional measures. For example, most investigators would agree that patterns of attributions across dimensions are of utmost importance in understanding an individual's attributions. However, investigators for the most part have analyzed attributional dimensions separately, either correlating each dimension separately with marital adjustment or comparing clinic (couples receiving marital therapy) and nonclinic couples on each dimension one at a time. It is not appropriate to sum across findings based on separate dimensions to arrive at a description of the types of attributions made. For example, if distressed and nondistressed couples are found to differ on how stable they view the attributions for negative marital events and also on how global they perceive the attributions for negative marital events to be, it is not appropriate to conclude that distressed couples make more global-stable attributions for the same events. It is quite possible to obtain these findings yet have global attributions be given in those very instances in which unstable attributions are provided for a given marital event. Instead, a more meaningful understanding of attributions might be obtained if the various dimensions used to rate an attribution were considered simultaneously. Recognizing that the various attributional dimensions might meaningfully be viewed in a pattern, Holtzworth-Munroe and Jacobson (1985) devised a rating system to categorize attributions as relationship enhancing, distress maintaining, or neutral. Each of these categories was determined by taking a number of attributional dimensions into account. However, the patterns of attributions that resulted in the categorization were rationally derived by the investigators, and it is unclear whether these patterns conform to those actually used by couples. An alternative strategy would be to determine empirically the patterns that couples use in explaining relationship events. Thus, an additional goal of the current investigation was to determine whether we could isolate empirically derived patterns of attributional dimensions that characterize couples' approaches to

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

Method Subjects
This study focuses on the relation between marital adjustment and attributions. To obtain a wide range of marital adjustment, we gathered data from couples requesting marital therapy and from nonclinic couples. Clinic couples. All clinic couples had requested marital therapy, which was being offered as part of a marital treatment outcome investigation in the University of North Carolina's psychology department (Baucom, 1985). The clinic group for this study was composed of those couples accepted for the outcome investigation who were legally married and who reported having marital difficulties. The 49 clinic couples completed the questionnaires of interest to this study as part of the routine initial assessment prior to beginning therapy. The men's ages ranged from 27 to 51 (M = 36.7) and the women's from 24 to 46 (M = 33.9). The men averaged 16.5 years of education, and the women 15.5 years. There was an average 1.9 children per couple. We assessed level of marital distress by using the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS; Spanier, 1976). The men's and women's DAS scores averaged 90.4 and 84.4, respectively. These DAS scores are very similar to average pretreatment couple scores reported by Jacobson (1984) in a recent marital therapy outcome investigation. Nonclinic couples. At the same time the target couples were entering treatment, we generated a random sample of 225 couples from a Chapel Hill community directory. Letters were sent to these couples introducing the project as a study of marital attitudes. Of the initial group, 160 couples were successfully contacted by telephone: 34 (21%) completed the questionnaires. The nonclinic couples received a coupon for a free meal at a local restaurant in appreciation for their participation. The men's ages ranged from 21 to 75 (M = 41.4); the women's from 23 to 68 (M = 39.0). The men averaged 18.1 years of education, and the women 16.5 years. There were an average 1.7 children per couple. Significance tests indicated that nonclinic spouses were better educated than clinic spouses, men, F(l, 81) = 4.51, p < .05; women, ^(1,81) = 6.3, p < .05, and older than clinic spouses, men, F(l, 81) = 7.09, p < .01; women, P(l, 81) = 4.59, p < .05. The DAS scores for the men averaged 112.8; the women's averaged 111.8. We found significant differences in the expected direction between the mean DAS scores for the clinic and nonclinic men, F(l, 81) = 43.59, p < .0001, and for the clinic and nonclinic women, F( 1, 81) = 72.24, p < .0001. Because samples of clinic couples typically include some individuals in the nondistressed range of marital adjustment and because community samples typically include a substantial number of maritally distressed couples, the data-analytic strategy did not focus on comparing clinic and nonclinic couples. Instead, we sampled these two populations to provide a wide range of scores on marital adjustment for later correlational analyses. To justify such a data-analytic strategy, the combined sample must provide a rather continuous range of scores on marital adjustment. The combined sample of clinic and nonclinic couples met these requirements. The men's DAS scores ranged from 68 to 132 with no more than a 2-point gap between obtained scores within this range. Similarly, the women's scores ranged from 70 to 126 on the DAS with no more than a 2-point gap in their scores within this range.

Materials
DAS. The DAS is a self-report inventory designed to provide a measure of adjustment in intimate dyads, with higher scores indicating greater adjustment. The internal consistency of the scale as a whole, as

598

D. BAUCOM, S. SAVERS, AND A. DUHE some individuals have questions about the various ratings and what to do if their spouses do not behave as described; after appropriate explanations, all couples completed the DAI without difficulty.

measured by Cronbach's alpha, is .96. The evidence for criterion-related and construct validity is good. The DAS reliably discriminates between married and divorced spouses and correlates highly with the Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976). Dyadic Attribution Inventory (DAI). The DAI is the focus of this study. Its design follows that of the Attributional Style Questionnaire (Seligman et al., 1979) used in learned helplessness research and the marital attributional questionnaire developed by Fincham and O'Leary (1983). The 24 items on the DAI describe hypothetical situations adapted from the Spouse Observation Checklist (SOC; Weiss, Hops, & Patterson, 1973). All of the situations described in the DAI are internal to the marital relationship and involve both partners. The description of each event is general enough to permit virtually all couples to imagine the event occurring in their relationship. The 24 randomly arranged items are rationally assigned to two subscales. One subscale consists of 12 items in which the outcome of the spouse's behavior is negative (NEC); the other consists of 12 items in which the outcome of the spouse's behavior is positive (POS). We sampled items from the SOC in the following topic areas for both POS and NEG: affection, complimenting, consideration, sharing feelings (2 items, both positive and negative content), sex, household chores, personal habits, finances, companionship, and communication (2 items, both positive and negative content). In the categories of (a) sharing feelings and (b) communication, the content of what was discussed could be positive or negative, independent of the outcome of the interaction as either positive or negative. Thus, we used all combinations of content and outcome in these two topic areas. For example, the DAI item focusing on negative content with a negative outcome in terms of sharing feelings is "\four partner does not appear to be listening as you describe how angry you are with him or her." Respondents are asked to read the hypothetical situation presented in the item and vividly imagine that the situation has just occurred in their relationship. They then write down the major cause for the spouse's behavior in that situation and make five ratings that clarify the attribution (cause). The first three ratings focus on the extent to which the partner's behavior is due to the following sources: me (the respondent), partner, and outside circumstances (circumstances outside the relationship). A separate rating is made for each of these three scores on a 7-point scale ranging from not at all due to this factor (1) to totally due to this factor (7). Respondents then rate the cause on these attributional dimensions: unstable-stable (i.e., extent to which the cause will continue to be present in the future) and specific-global (i.e., extent to which the cause will affect numerous aspects of the relationship). Consequently, there are five attributional ratings made for each item. Two final questions for each item focus on (a) the importance of each situation if it actually occurred (high scores reflect great importance) and (b) how positively or negatively the partner's behavior would make the respondent feel (high scores reflect positive emotions). The final scores on the DAI are the means of the ratings on each dimension within each positive or negative category. For example, a score for me-POS would be represented by the mean of the ratings for me on the 12 items with positive outcomes. For most purposes, 14 scores are derived on the DAI, 7 for POS items: me, partner, outside circumstances, specific-global, unstable-stable, importance, and feeling. Seven similar scores are derived for NEG items.

Results
We performed three sets of analyses to address the issues discussed in the beginning of this article. First, we conducted analyses to assess the adequacy of the DAI as a measure of marital attributions, and to investigate whether the findings using the DAI are similar to those obtained in earlier investigations. In a second set of analyses, we explored whether there are meaningful patterns across dimensions that can be isolated empirically. Third, we explored attributional style within the marital context.

Dyadic Attribution Inventory

We performed the following analyses to ensure that the items on the DAI had the intended valence, because the items had been divided a priori into two major groupings: events having a negative impact and events having a positive impact. To clarify whether the husbands and wives viewed the items in this way, we analyzed the responses for each of the 24 items on the DAI for Question (f) "If your partner behaved as described above, how would you feel?" Using a score of 4 as the midpoint, both husbands and wives rated each item on the expected side of the midpoint (husbands, POS mean = 5.5, NEG mean = 3.1; wives, POS mean = 5.6, NEG mean = 2.8). The / tests of correlated means between the means of POS and NEG indicated that subjects of each sex reported that they would feel worse if their spouses engaged in the negative behaviors than the positive behaviors; husbands,/(82) = 28.2,p < .0001; wives,/(82) = 25.98, p< .0001. Thus, the NEG and POS items had the intended emotional valences. To evaluate whether the general pattern of previous findings regarding attributions and marital adjustment was replicated with the DAI, the subjects' DAI dimension scores for POS and NEG items were correlated with their DAS scores. We analyzed the data for husbands and wives separately because it has been argued that on both a conceptual (Baucom, 1983) and an empirical basis (Baucom & Mehlman, 1984), the frequently used strategy of averaging husbands' and wives' scores often disguises important sex differences. Combining scores for husbands and wives on the DAI would be particularly problematic because the spouses typically provide different causes for the behavior, and the attributional ratings are made relative to the causes supplied by the respondents. Thus, combined scores across spouses would be meaningless because the attributional ratings are not based on the same cause. These correlations are presented in Table 1. As is shown in Table 1, men with higher levels of marital adjustment tended to attribute their partner's negative behavior to circumstances outside the relationship, whereas the less maritally adjusted husbands attributed their partners' negative behavior to the partner and to self. Husbands with lower DAS scores also tended to see negative behavior as caused by relatively stable factors that affect many situations. For women, the pattern of correlational results for negative behaviors was al-

Procedure After instructions from research assistants, the clinic couples completed all inventories at home before the first meeting with their therapist. Nonclinic couples were contacted by telephone soon after they received an introductory letter. Research assistants delivered copies of the DAI to the nonclinic couples' homes and picked them up after completion. All spouses were told to complete the DAI without collaborating with each other. The DAI was explained in person to couples because

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

599

Partner -0.32*** -0.32***

0.15 -0.15

Outside circumstances 0.42****" 0.17

-0.05 -0.24"

Stability -0.27** -0.50**** 0.41**** 0.16

Globality -0.48**** -0.57**** 0.22* 0.10

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

0.21* 0.27**

Feeling 0.35**** 0.39*** 0.43**** 0.46****

Negative behavior Men Women Positive behavior Men Women

1

-0.21* -0.34***
0.19* 0.17

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

most identical. The only difference concerned the lack of relation of marital adjustment to the outside circumstances dimension. Also, for both men and women, the importance of negative behaviors increased as marital adjustment decreased. Finally, the partners' negative behavior reportedly made them feel less negative as marital adjustment increased. As shown in Table 1, the relations between marital adjustment and attributions for the partners' positive behavior are less consistent, although all significant findings are in the expected direction. Compared with more distressed husbands, less distressed husbands view the causes for their wives' positive behavior as due more to themselves and as more stable, global, and important, and the positive behavior makes these men feel better. Wives with higher DAS scores view the causes for their husbands' behavior as less due to outside circumstances; also, compared with more distressed wives, less distressed wives view the positive behaviors as more important and as having a more positive emotional impact on them.

Exploring Profile Analyses With the DAI

Whereas the correlational results given in the preceding section suggest the utility of considering each dimension (and its relation to marital discord) separately, an additional challenge was to isolate patterns of attributions used when the dimensions were considered simultaneously. To achieve this goal, we implemented the following general strategy. Instead of examining the mean of the dimension score across 12 items (12 POS and 12 NEG), we began the present analyses at the item level. That is, for each subject, we categorized each item on the DAI according to the pattern of scores on the attributional dimensions for that item. After using several techniques to reduce the number of patterns to a manageable level, we examined the extent to which each of these categories was used by subjects and correlated it with the subjects' level of marital distress. In this manner, it was possible to consider what type of attributional pattern(s) typified distressed couples, rather than considering one attributional dimension at a time. As an initial step in the process just described, we averaged the globality and stability dimensions to reduce the number of possible patterns when considering each dimension simultaneously. These dimensions were combined because on a conceptual basis they both represent consistency. That is, stability

assesses consistency across time, whereas globality assesses consistency across situations. To determine whether averaging across the two dimensions was justifiable on an empirical basis, we computed correlations between the globality and stability ratings (computed separately for each item). We then averaged these correlation coefficients across the 24 items. The mean correlation between stability and globality was 0.40 for men and 0.46 for women, indicating a positive relation between these dimensions. All of the corresponding item correlations on these two dimensions, for both sexes, were positive. The mean correlations between all other possible pairs of dimensions ranged from r = -0.11 to r = 0.27, indicating that the stability and globality dimensions were the most highly correlated attributional dimensions. On the basis of the conceptualization of the two scores as being related to both consistency and the supporting empirical evidence, we averaged the stability and globality ratings on the item level to yield a single score for each item referred to as global-stable. The other dimensions, me, partner, and outside circumstances, were used as originally presented. To categorize the dimension ratings into patterns of attributions, we used the following strategy. If the rating on an item was greater than the midpoint of the scale (4), it was characterized as high on that dimension; if the rating was less than or equal to the midpoint, it was characterized as low. A pattern was identified as the combination of high and low ratings across the four attributional dimensions. For example, on Item 1, one subject had the following scores: me = 5, partner = 7, outside circumstances = 3, and global-stable = 6. This would correspond to the pattern me = high, partner = high, outside circumstances = low, global-stable = high. As presented in Table 2,16 patterns of attributions for each item were possible with this method. Analysis of this data proceeded separately for the 12 positive and 12 negative items. For each subject, we formed a score for each of the 16 patterns separately for positive and negative items, reflecting the frequency with which that pattern was used. For example, if for a particular subject 3 of the 12 positive items were explained by high me, low partner, high outside circumstances, and low global-stable, that pattern variable would have a score of 3. An item was assigned only to one category. We used the same strategy in forming pattern scores for the negative items. Thus, each of the subjects had 16 pattern vari-

600

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

Table 2 Attributional Patterns on the Dyadic Adjustment Inventory

Eliminated for the analyses on:

Men POS
NEG

Women
POS

NEG X

fattern No.

Me Low
High

Partner

uutsiae circumstances

uiooaistable

X X X X X X
X X X X

X X X X X X

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Low Low
High

Low Low
High High

Low Low Low

High

Low
High

Low
High High High

Low
High High

Low
High

Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low

High High High High High High High High

Low
High

Low Low
High

Low Low
High High

Low Low Low

High

Low
High

Low
High High High

Low
High High

Low
High

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

ables for positive behavior and 16 pattern variables for negative behavior, each with a possible value between 0 and 12. Within each sex, we eliminated nine patterns from the analyses because they were infrequently used by the subjects. The patterns eliminated are indicated in Table 2. A pattern was eliminated (separately for men and women) if it met the following criteria: (a) if 95% of the subjects used that pattern only once or not at all, or (b) if at least 80% never used it, and no subject used it more than three times. To further reduce the data, we performed a principal-components analysis with a varimax rotation on the remaining pattern variables. We performed the analysis separately for positive and negative pattern variables within female subjects and within male subjects, resulting in four separate analyses. In each case, the number of components extracted was chosen according to inspection of a scree plot of the amount of variance accounted for by the components. We selected five components for each analysis; for women, these components accounted for 82% (negative components) and 88% (positive components) of the total variance, whereas the men's five components accounted for 70% (negative components) and 84% (positive components) of the total variance. The factor loadings for each set of data are presented in Table 3. We interpreted the principal components formed by the pattern variables by examining loadings with an absolute value of .30 or greater. Considering men's and women's data separately, the number of components in the total dataset is still rather large. Therefore, only the components that demonstrate a significant relation to marital discord are interpreted. To clarify how these components related to marital adjustment, component scores were formed on the principal components and then correlated with the DAS.

For women, three of the component scores for negative behavior were significantly correlated with the DAS. The DAS scores were significantly correlated with the first component (r = 0.45, p < .001), which we labeled specific-unstable versus global-stable; the results indicate that attributing the spouse's negative behavior to specific and transient causes is related to greater marital adjustment. The second component was significantly negatively correlated with the DAS (r = -0.22, p < .05). We labeled this component relationship versus partner blame, because the patterns that defined this variable concerned attributions to the partner and the respondent; negative loadings consisted of attributions to stable aspects of the respondent's partner. This suggests that placing blame on the relationship is negatively associated with marital adjustment. Finally, the third component was positively correlated with DAS scores (r = 0.30, p < .01); we labeled this component partner's situation versus partner's traits because of the loading of the pattern variables that consisted of attributions to the partner and inconsistent circumstances outside the relationship in contrast to consistent aspects of the partner. This indicates that attributing the partner's negative behavior to the partner's situation is associated with higher levels of marital adjustment. Two of the women's components regarding attributions for positive behavior were significantly correlated with DAS scores. First, there was a significant negative correlation between DAS and the second component (r = -0.22, p < .05). This component, labeled individual versus relationship, reflects attributions of positive behavior to either person alone versus both spouses; the correlation of DAS with this component indicates that giving both partners credit for positive events instead of either one alone is related to marital adjustment. The fourth component represented attributions to stable aspects of the partner and as-

ATTRIBUTIONAL STYLE

601

Tables
Factor Structure of the Attributional Pattern Variables Rotated principal component number Variable
1 2 3 4 5

Women: negative pattern

1 3 4 5 7 8 9 11 12 13 15 16

Specific-unstable vs. global-stable 0.396" 0.464" 0.843" 0.423" -0.108 0.101 -0.155 -0.341" 0.159 -0.311" -0.533" -0.224

Partner blame vs. relationship -0.066 -0.111 -0.092 -0.010 -0.093 0.271 0.010 -0.579" 0.036 0.591" -0.076 0.75 T

Partner's situation vs. partner's traits -0.015 0.111 0.150 -0.031 0.941" 0.117 0.025 -0.563" 0.119 -0.037 0.009 -0.262

-0.025 -0.132 0.109 0.017 -0.059 -0.084 -0.462" -0.462" -0.002 -0.189 0.839" 0.224

0.003 0.842" -0.347" 0.097 -0.129 -0.129 0.058 -0.096 -0.409" 0.070 0.023 -0.110

Women: positive pattern 0.631" 0.652" 0.478" 0.406" -0.140 0.328" -0.408" -0.285 -0.006 -0.127 -0.233 Individual vs. relationship 0.096 0.134 -0.170 0.063 -0.016 0.485" 0.807" -0.773" -0.006 -0.063 -0.125 Partner vs. relationship -0.088 -0.118 -0.061 0.099 -0.081 -0.168 -0.155 -0.383" -0.063 0.969" 0.021

2 3 5 7 9 10 11 13 14 15 16

-0.079 -0.144 0.039 -0.025 -0.259 -0.062 -0.333" -0.190 0.307" -0.160 0.951"

0.048 -0.021 -0.102 -0.025 0.947" -0.036 -0.200 -0.368" -0.055 -0.077 -0.102

Men: negative pattern

1 2 3 4 5 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

0.318" 0.377" 0.783" 0.200 0.254 -0.176 -0.102 0.074 -0.611" -0.066 -0.245 -0.244 -0.318"

Partner blame vs. inconsistent factors outside relationship -0.342" -0.082 0.035 -0.560" -0.036 -0.109 0.036 0.974" -0.237 0.041 -0.150 0.043 -0.109

Partner's situation vs. not partner -0.347" 0.094 -0.063 0.348" -0.017 0.867" -0.355" -0.070 -0.439" -0.076 0.030 -0.166 0.026

-0.433" -0.057 0.224 -0.158 -0.136 0.080 0.003 -0.074 -0.071 -0.329" 0.136 0.902" -0.104

Shared vs. outside circumstances 0.189 -0.095 -0.077 -0.432" -0.064 -0.041 -0.027 -0.098 -0.465" 0.052 0.093 0.101 0.864"

Men:: positive pattern

1 2 3 7 9 10 11 13 15 16
1

-0.114 -0.084 -0.433" -0.100 -0.147 -0.035 -0.623" 0.874" 0.060 0.014

-0.076 -0.022 -0.268" 0.081 -0.008 -0.042 -0.544" -0.083 -0.038 0.968"

Partner and outside circumstances vs. relationship -0.066 -0.029 -0.218 0.409" -0.188 -0.040 -0.154 -0.331" 0.928" 0.049

Shared vs. individual 0.023 -0.215 -0.373" -0.117 0.920" -0.380" -0.028 -0.116 0.162 0.079

0.788" 0.264 0.249 0.012 0.160 0.094 -0.518" -0.314" -0.122 -0.118

Variables loading > +0.30 or < -0.30.

602

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

pects outside the relationship; it was labeled partner versus relationship. It was significantly negatively correlated with DAS (r = -0.37, p < .001); attributions of positive events to stable aspects of the partner's life versus both persons in the marriage is associated with lower marital adjustment scores. For the men, the scores on three components concerning attributions to negative behaviors correlated significantly with DAS scores. We labeled the second component partner blame versus inconsistent factors outside of the relationship because of the positive loading of global-stable partner attributions and the negative loading of specific-unstable factors unrelated to either spouse. The correlation of this component with the DAS suggests that blaming the partner is related to lower marital adjustment (r = 0.51, p < .001); believing that the negative behaviors have little to do with the couple and are also inconsistent seems to be related to higher marital adjustment. The third component, labeled partner's situation versus not partner, represented (a) attributions to transient factors concerning the partner and circumstances outside the relationship versus (b) other attributions that do not include the partner. It is positively correlated with DAS (r = 0.24, p < .05), indicating that attributing the negative behavior to transient aspects of the partner and outside circumstances is associated with higher levels of marital adjustment. Finally, the fifth component concerning attributions for negative behavior, called shared versus outside circumstances, is defined by positive loadings of attributions to all possible consistent sources versus negative loadings of attributions to circumstances outside the relationship. The negative correlation (r = -0.32, p < .01) indicates that distributing causation to all sources in a global-stable manner is associated with marital distress, whereas attributing the negative event to factors outside of the relationship is associated with marital adjustment. Similar to the data on the women, two components concerning positive behavior correlated significantly with DAS among men. The third component, labeled partner's life and outside circumstances versus relationship, is defined by attributions that simultaneously concern the partner and circumstances outside the relationship versus attributions to both partners. The factor was negatively related to DAS (r = -0.19, p < .05). That is, attributing positive behavior to both spouses as compared with the partner and outside circumstances is related to marital adjustment. The fourth component is characterized by a relatively small amount of causality attributed evenly to all sources versus attributions to the respondent or the partner; it was labeled shared versus individual. The positive correlation (r = 0.30, p < .05) indicates that when the spouses and outside circumstances are seen as sharing the causality for positive behaviors, as opposed to attributing them to only one spouse (respondent or partner), the husbands have higher levels of marital adjustment. These findings are rather complex; therefore, a summary and synthesis of the pattern of findings is in order. The results indicated that marital adjustment is not a function of assuming joint causality for the spouse's negative behavior. In no instance did a pattern of attributing the negative behavior to both partners to a high degree correlate with marital adjustment. To the contrary, among the wives attribution of the negative behavior to the partner rather than to both people was related to adjustment. In addition, marital adjustment was related to attempt-

ing to minimize the importance of the negative behavior in several ways. First, the negative behavior was attributed to outside circumstances. Second, when the behavior was attributed to the partner, it was viewed as inconsistent or specific and unstable. Finally, marital adjustment was related to viewing the cause as unstable and specific, regardless of who or what circumstances caused the behavior. Thus, the findings overall support that less distressed spouses do attempt to minimize the importance of negative behavior from the partner, but that the spouses are not willing to taking major personal responsibility for the partner's behavior. Turning to positive spouse behavior, the various components correlating with marital adjustment show one discernible pattern. More-adjusted respondents attributed the partners' positive behavior to both partners. This was indicated in every component that correlated with marital adjustment for both sexes.

Attributional Style
First we examined the internal consistency of each DAI scale. Cronbach's alpha coefficients across all subjects were high. For the five attributional dimensions for the negative items, the coefficients ranged from 0.71 to 0.88. For the positive items, the alphas ranged from 0.72 to 0.81. Thus, the subjects as a whole responded to each scale in a relatively predictable manner across items. We also examined the degree of variability shown by each subject in responding to the items. This was accomplished by computing, for each subject, the variance of that subject's ratings across the 12 positive and 12 negative items on a given attributional dimension. We computed the mean of these variances across the subjects separately for men and women. The results are presented in Table 4. On the average, both male and female subjects were more variable in their responses from situation to situation for positive behaviors than for negative behaviors. That is, for both sexes, for every attributional dimension, the mean variance for the positive items was greater than the variance for the corresponding negative items, and 6 of the 10 differences were statistically significant at p < .05. For both male and female subjects, the variance for the attributional dimensions partner and globality for positive behavior was significantly greater than the variance for the same dimensions when the attributions concerned negative behavior. Furthermore, for men the variance of the me and stability dimensions for positive behavior were also significantly greater than that for negative behavior. This pattern indicates that people are generally more variable from situation to situation in their attributions for positive spouse behaviors than for negative spouse behaviors when each attributional dimension is considered separately. The subjects' variances on each dimension were correlated with their DAS scores, resulting in 10 correlation coefficients for each sex (five dimensions for positive behaviors, five for negative). For women, variance scores were significantly positively correlated with DAS scores for four dimensions: partner-NEG, r = .34, p < .01; stability-NEC, r = .20, p < .05; globalityNEG, r = .24, p < .05; and globality-POS, r = .23, p < .05. For men, variance scores were significantly correlated with DAS scores for only one dimension: globality-POS, r = .26, p < .05.

ATTRIBUTIONAL STYLE Table 4 Mean Variances oftheAttributional Dimensions and t Test of the Difference Between the Mean Variances of the Positive and Negative Dimensions Dimension
Me

603

Partner
Men

Outside circumstances

Stability

Globality

Positive behaviors Negative behaviors t

3.20 2.25 6.18****

2.62 1.70 5.20****

2.63 2.25 1.65

1.39 1.13 1.99*

2.41 1.92 2.58**

Women Positive behaviors Negative behaviors t

3.00 2.59 1.74 2.16 1.72 2.61** 3.28 2.91 1.74 1.49 1.30 1.81 2.45 1.88 3.76***

Note. All tests two-tailed. */><.05. **p<.01. ***p<.005. ****/?<.001. Taken together, these findings suggest that across both positive and negative relationship events, relationship adjustment is correlated with greater variability in attributions across situations. This relation appears to be stronger for wives than for husbands. These analyses focus on the consistency of attributions across situations when each attributional dimension is considered separately. However, another question is how consistent the subjects are in their use of the empirically derived attributional patterns discussed in the previous section. That is, across situations does a subject have the tendency to make attributions that are included in a pattern defined by a single principal component, or are several principal components necessary to represent the individual's attributions? To examine this question, we considered all attributional pattern variables that loaded 0.30 or greater in the same direction on a principal component as representing one pole of a derived component. A new profile variable was constructed to represent the frequency with which the subject used the patterns represented by a given principal component. For example, the men's first component for negative behavior consisted of attributional patterns numbered as 1, 2, and 3 in Table 2. The value of the new profile variable for each subject was the number of times (of the 12 negative items on the DAI) that these patterns were used as the attributions for negative marital events. Another profile variable consisted of the variables numbered 12 and 16, because they loaded negatively on the men's first component for negative behavior. This procedure was repeated for the loadings on all of the principal components described earlier. Many subjects did not use all possible patterns defined by the principal components, and a profile variable with the value of zero indicates that the subjects' attributional ratings did not fall into that category. For each subject, we counted the number of nonzero profile variables; this value indicated the number of principal components (actually poles of a principal component) that a subject used in responding to the 12 situations within the positive and negative subscales of the DAI. On the average, men used 5.0 principal components as attributions for the 12 positive items; on the average they used 6.3 patterns to explain the negative marital events. There was also great variability in the number of patterns used by the different subjects in the study. For positive behaviors, the smallest number of components used by any male subject was 2, whereas the greatest number of components used by other men was 7. For negative behaviors, this count ranged from 2 to 10. When the attributions concerned positive behavior, women averaged 4.7 and the range was 2-7; for negative behavior, women averaged 7.3, and the range was 3-10. We then computed correlations between the number of patterns used by subjects and their DAS scores. For men, the number of patterns used for negative situations was significantly correlated with DAS (r = 0.29, p < .01); this indicates that using a greater number of types of attributions across different negative situations was associated with higher levels of marital adjustment. The correlation was not significant for positive situations. For women, the correlations of this variable with DAS were not significant for positive or negative behaviors. A final issue regarding consistency of attributions across situations involved the extent to which a single component could account for an individual's attributions for the 12 positive or 12 negative marital events. We used the profile variables based on principal components, described in the preceding paragraph, for this purpose. The component used most frequently by each subject was determined separately for positive and negative events. The extent to which a single component was used to explain various events varied widely from one subject to the next. For male subjects, on the average the component used most frequently accounted for 52% of their explanations for positive marital events and ranged from 16% to 92%. For negative events, the most frequently used component accounted for an average of 48% with a range from 25% to 100%. For female subjects, the comparable findings were as follows: positive events, M = 51 %, range 25% to 91%; negative events, M = 57%, range 25% to 100%. When the percentage of attributions accounted for by this most frequently used component was correlated with marital adjustment, the results were significant for women considering negative events, r - 0.23, p < 0.05; this finding indicates that greater use of a single attributional pattern to explain negative events is related to greater marital distress. The results were nonsignificant for positive marital events for women and for positive and negative events for men. Again, the analyses exploring attributional style were some-

604

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

what complex, but two major patterns of findings emerged from these analyses. First, there was great variability in the extent to which an individual developed an attributional style; some subjects appeared to develop a clear attributional style in this domain; others did not. Second, the more an individual displayed an attributional style, the more maritally distressed that person was. Discussion To investigate the primary issues of concern in this investigation, we developed a new self-report inventory to assess attributions for spouse behaviors, the DAI. Considering each attributional dimension separately, the findings replicated many earlier findings, suggesting that the DAI serves as a meaningful set of stimuli on which to gather spouse attributions. That is, for both sexes more maritally adjusted couples were less likely to attribute negative relationship events to either themselves or their partners and were more likely to see these events as unstable and specific. The maritally adjusted men were also more likely to attribute these negative events to outside circumstance. Regarding positive events, the correlations between attributions and marital adjustment were almost all in the opposite direction, although fewer of the correlations reached statistical significance. Quite interestingly, this pattern of findings is reminiscent of those that are obtained when marital communication is correlated with marital adjustment. Previous investigations have indicated that negative communication is consistently negatively correlated with marital adjustment, but that the relationship between positive communication and marital adjustment is much less consistent (see Baucom & Adams, 1987, for a recent review). Similarly in the present investigation, when attributions for negative spouse behavior were considered across sexes, 9 of the 10 correlations with marital adjustment were significant. However, considering attributions for positive spouse behaviors, only 4 of the 10 dimensions were significantly correlated with marital adjustment. Consequently, the finding from communication research that primarily the negative aspects of marriage appear to be related to marital distress has now been extended to the study of attributions as well. In the past, it has been unclear whether this relative importance of negatives was focal to communication and behaviors within marriage or whether it was representative of some more general phenomenon. The findings from the current study suggest that there may be some general pattern across domains of marital functioning such that the presence of negative aspects of the marriage rather than the absence of positives, whether behavioral or cognitive, are what most closely allied with marital distress. Although these findings add to our knowledge of the relation between attributions and marital discord, the purpose of this investigation was to focus on two issues that have previously received little attention. One issue addressed in the study was whether there are meaningful patterns of attributions that can be isolated and whether these are related to marital adjustment. The results indicated that there were patterns (principal components) that were psychologically interpretable and that took the various attributional ratings into account, some of which were significantly related to level of marital adjustment. What

is important for the current investigation is that the understanding gained from these analyses could not have been obtained by considering each dimension independently; that is, the analyses based on principal components provide additional psychological insight into the attributional process as it is related to marital adjustment. As mentioned earlier, marital adjustment is not related to assuming joint causality for the spouse's negative behavior. In fact, the women with higher levels of marital adjustment attributed the negative behavior to the partner rather than to both people; that is, respondents who have higher levels of marital adjustment seem to be saying that the partner is responsible for his or her own behavior. This conclusion could not be reached from considering only the correlations between marital adjustment and the attributional dimensions one at a time. This particular result is also interesting, considering that cognitive behavioral marital therapists often attempt to have partners recognize how one's own behavior influences the partner's behavior, that is, is one cause of the partner's subsequent behavior (Jacobson & Margolin, 1979). The patterns of attributions for positive behaviors based on the principal-components analysis again provide psychological insights unavailable from considering each attribution dimension separately. As noted earlier, the various patterns of attributions derived from the principal-components analysis all confirmed that more adjusted respondents attributed the partners' positive behavior to both partners. The respondents seemed to be saying, "\bu behave positively toward me because of aspects of both you and me." When the attribution dimensions for positive behaviors are considered separately, marital adjustment does not correlate significantly with attributions to the partner for either sex nor to the respondent for women. Thus, this information obtained from the principal components would have been totally overlooked on the basis of the correlations and considering one dimension at a time. This strong focus on shared attributions for positive behavior means that the patterns shown for negative behavior cannot simply be interpreted as "Of course the partner is held responsible for the behavior. It is the partner's behavior that is being considered." Were this the case, then the pattern of attributing the behavior to the partner would have been found for positive spouse behavior as well. Instead, this set of results suggests that the respondent who is more happily married does not see himself or herself as a major cause of the partner's negative behavior but does see both people as the basis for the positive behavior. The study of attributional patterns across attributional dimensions was necessary to investigate properly the major focus of this investigation: the extent to which spouses seem to develop an attributional style in explaining marital events. Whereas Cronbach's alpha provides some useful information in this regard, it must not be misinterpreted. The relatively high internal consistency coefficients mean that one can predict a response on one item from knowing the response on other items. However, this does not mean that the respondent necessarily gives the same response across items, merely that the responses are predictable across items. To assess consistency in terms of actual level of response across items or situations, assessing variability is a more meaningful strategy. There is no absolute answer to whether an individual or group of individuals develops an attributional style in explaining situations; how-

ATTRIBUTIONAL STYLE ever, there are several findings that provide some insight into the answer to this question. Comparing the average variability across dimensions, spouses gave the most consistent ratings on the stability dimension. This was true for both men and women, considering both positive and negative events. Also, the respondents gave consistent ratings for the extent to which the partner's behavior was attributable to the partner. Combining these variability ratings with the mean ratings given on these attributional dimensions leads to the conclusion that respondents consistently attributed their partners' behavior largely to the partner and to stable aspects. This finding is consistent with previous attributional research in which other peoples' behavior is attributed to personality aspects of that individual (Jones & Nisbett, 1972). On the other hand, the respondents showed much more variability in the extent to which they attributed the partner's behavior to the respondent or to outside circumstances. Thus, it appears that spouses are much more consistent on some attributional dimensions than on others. Assessing each attributional dimension independently, the results also indicate that the spouses were more likely to develop a given way of explaining negative events than positive events. The reason for this is unclear, but the other findings indicate that the attributions for negative events are particularly related to marital adjustment. Perhaps spouses are most likely to develop an attributional set for those events that are of particular importance to their relationship adjustment. This is clearly a post hoc interpretation, but it is one that could easily be addressed in upcoming investigations. At the same time, this pattern of a greater attributional set or style for negative events is not confirmed when the data are analyzed by the pattern of attributions across dimensions. That is, there was no consistent tendency for spouses to use fewer attributional patterns for explaining negative events than positive events, nor was an individual's most frequently used pattern more widely used in explaining negative events than positive events. Consequently, the data are unclear in suggesting whether spouses develop more of an attributional set for negative compared with positive marital events. What did become clear is that there is wide variability from one person to the next in the extent to which they displayed an attributional style or set. Some persons used as few as two different patterns or profiles of attributions in explaining 12 marital events, thus responding in a manner consistent with a rather strong attributional style. However, other people used as many as 10 components to explain 12 events. This pattern is much more consistent with a situational approach to forming attributions. The question that results from such findings is whether the tendency to form such attributional sets is meaningfully related to marital adjustment. Although the correlations were of modest magnitude, all of the significant findings from both attributional dimensions considered separately and attributional patterns were consistent in demonstrating that the use of a more consistent attributional style was related to marital discord. Thus, these findings suggest that distressed couples are particularly likely to develop a certain way of explaining their partners' behavior (particularly negative behavior) and to use this explanation in a wide variety of contexts. On the basis of the current findings, the hypothesis that indi-

605

viduals develop an attributional style within a particular domain of their lives appears to be an oversimplification. Some spouses develop such a style in explaining their partners' behaviors, but others do not. Also, the presence or absence of this style does not appear to be arbitrary; instead, it is related to level of marital adjustment. It is important for other investigators to explore whether the degree to which individuals develop attributional styles in other domains is related to their functioning in those areas. On the basis of the correlations, it is tempting to conclude that a stereotypic way of explaining events makes the partner inattentive to the complexity and changing nature of marital relationships and behavior. Such a rigid approach to understanding spouse behavior could certainly lead to discord. However, the current investigation is correlational, and cause-effect relations cannot be drawn from it. It also is possible that as couples become dissatisfied with their relationship, they come to view their partners' various behaviors in a consistent manner. That is, they may be searching for an answer for why their relationship is not proceeding well, and the answer they derive may provide the basis for an attributional style. For example, the conclusion that the relationship is going poorly because the partner is immature and self-centered could serve as a cognition around which to form an attributional set for explaining a number of specific behaviors. To address this issue of cause and effect more clearly, longitudinal studies could be used in which the presence or absence of attributional styles is determined prior to couples' becoming maritally distressed. In addition, it is unclear whether the attributions given by distressed couples in this investigation or in other attributional studies are in some way distorted because there are no criteria for "accurate" attributions. Thus, the greater attributional style displayed by distressed couples might reflect some cognitive oversimplification, or it might in some way be related to actual behavioral or motivational differences between distressed and nondistressed couples, such that the attributions of distressed couples meaningfully reflect the basis for relationship behavior. Cognitive therapy with couples is becoming increasingly frequent (e.g., Baucom & Lester, 1986; Epstein, Pretzer, & Fleming, 1982) and rests to an extent on the notion that many of the cognitions, including attributions, among distressed couples are in some way distorted or oversimplified. To better understand the cognitive bases of marital discord and provide empirically based intervention strategies, it is important for investigators to attempt to clarify the extent to which attributional differences among distressed and nondistressed couples reflect cognitive distortions. Whereas our findings do contribute to understanding the attribution process in intimate relationships, there are certain limitations of the study that must be recognized. First, the spouses are responding to hypothetical situations. Although the previous marital attribution literature demonstrates similar correlational patterns for both actual and hypothetical events, it is important to replicate these findings on actual marital events because this data analytic strategy has not been used in the past. Second, the current study focuses solely on attributions for the partner's behavior. Attributions for one's own behavior might demonstrate different patterns of results and could supplement the current findings. In general, attribution studies within the

606

D. BAUCOM, S. SAVERS, AND A. DUHE Baucom, D. H., & Mehlman, S. K. (1984). Predicting marital status following behavioral marital therapy: A comparison of models of marital relationships. In K. Hahlweg & N. S. Jacobson (Eds.), Marital interaction: Analysis and modification (pp. 89-104). New \brk: Guilford Press. Baucom, D. H., Wheeler, C., & Bell, G. W. (1984, November). Assessing the role of attributions in marital distress. Paper presented at the 18th Annual Convention of the Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy, Philadelphia. Berley, R. A., & Jacobson, N. S. (1984). Causal attributions in intimate relationships: Toward a model of cognitive behavioral marital therapy. In P. Kendall (Ed.), Advances in cognitive-behavioral research and therapy (Vol. 3, pp. 1-60). Cutrona, C. E., Russell, D., & Jones, R. D. (1984). Cross-situational consistency in causal attributions: Does attributional style exist? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1043-1058. Doherty, W. J. (1981). Cognitive processes in intimate conflict: 1. Extending attribution theory. American Journal of Family Therapy} 9, 3-13. Doherty, W. J. (1982). Attribution style and negative problem-solving in marriage. Family Relations, 31, 23-27. Epstein, N., Pretzer, J., & Fleming, B. (1982, November). Cognitive therapy and communication training: Comparison of effects with distressed couples. Paper presented at the 16th Annual Convention of the Association of the Advancement of Behavior Therapy, Los Angeles. Feather, N. T, & Tiggemann, M. (1984). A balanced measure of attributional style. Australian Journal of Psychology, 36, 267-283. Fincham, F D. (1983). Clinical applications of attribution theory: Problems and prospects. In H. Hewstone (Ed.), Attribution theory: Social and functional extensions (pp. 187-205). Oxford, England: Blackwell. Fincham, F. D. (1985). Attribution processes in distressed and nondistressed couples: 2. Responsibility for marital problems. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 94, 183-190. Fincham, F. D., Beach, S. R., & Baucom, D. H. (1987). Attribution processes in distressed and nondistressed couples: 4. Self-partner attribution differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 739-748. Fincham, F. D., & O'Leary, K. D. (1983). Causal inferences for spouse behavior in maritally distressed and nondistressed couples. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1, 42-57. Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Jacobson, N. S. (1985). Causal attributions of married couples: When do they search for causes? What do they conclude when they do? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1398-1412. Jacobson, N. S. (1984). A component analysis of behavioral marital therapy: The relative effectiveness of behavior exchange and communication/problem-solving training. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52, 295-305. Jacobson, N. S., & Margolin, G. (1979). Marital therapy: Strategies based on social learning and behavior exchange principles. New \brk: Brunner/Mazel. Jacobson, N. S., McDonald, D. W, Follette, W. C., & Berley,,R. A. (1985). Attribution processes in distressed and nondistressed married couples. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9, 33-50. Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. E. (1972). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 79-94). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Corporation. Madden, M. E., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (1981). Blame, control, and marital satisfaction: Wives' attributions for conflict in marriage.'Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 663-674.

context of marital relationships have focused on attributions for a single individual's behavior. More realistically, most marital and other dyadic events consist of a series of behaviors by the two partners and assessing the attributions for this series of interactions is a major challenge to the field. Despite these limitations, the current study provides noteworthy findings. First, one must be cautious in assuming that all spouses have an attributional style that is operative when explaining their partner's behaviors. Instead, the findings indicate that some spouses do tend to give similar attributions across situations, but others do not. The results also indicate that although the correlations are limited in magnitude and are not consistent across all analyses, whenever significant correlations did occur they signified that the greater the presence of an attributional style, the more maritally distressed the individual was. Finally, the analyses using patterns of attributions indicated that meaningful patterns of attributions can be isolated, and that considering these patterns does provide useful information beyond what is conveyed if individual attributional dimensions are considered one at a time. We would encourage investigators to continue this effort to study attributions by considering subjects' attribution patterns. References
Abramson, L. Y, Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. F. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49-74. Anderson, C. A., & Arnoult, L. H. (1985a). Attributional models of depression, loneliness, and shyness. In J. Harvey & G. Weary (Eds.), Attribution: Basic issues and applications (pp. 235-279). New \brlc: Academic Press. Anderson, C. A., & Arnoult, L. H. (1985b). Attributional style and everyday problems in living: Depression, loneliness, and shyness. Social Cognition, 3, 16-35. Anderson, C. A., Horowitz, L. M., & French, R. (1983). Attributional style of lonely and depressed people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 127-136. Anderson, C. A., Jennings, D. L., & Arnoult, L. H. (1988). The validity and utility of the attributional style construct at a moderate level of specificity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 979990. Arntz, A., Gerlsma, C., & Albersnagel, A. (1985). Attributional style questioned: Psychometric evaluation of the ASQ in Dutch adolescents. Advances in Behavioral Research and Therapy, 7, 55-89. Baucom, D. H. (1983). Conceptual and psychometric issues in evaluating the effectiveness of behavioral marital therapy. Advances in Family Intervention, Assessment, and Theory, 3,91-117. Baucom, D. H. (1985, November). Enhancing behavioral marital therapy with cognitive restructuring and emotional expressiveness training. Paper presented at the 19th Annual Convention of the Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy, Houston, TX. Baucom, D. H. (1987). Attributions in distressed relationships: How can we explain them? In S. Duck & D. Perlman (Eds.), Heterosexual relations, marriage, and divorce (pp. 177-206). Beverly Hills, CA: Baucom, D. H., & Adams, A. (1987). Assessing communication in marital interaction. In K. D. O'Leary (Ed.), Assessment of marital discord (pp. 139-182). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Baucom, D. H., & Lester, G. W. (1986). The usefulness of cognitive restructuring as an adjunct to behavioral marital therapy!''Behavior Therapy, 17, 385-403.

ATTRIBUTIONAL STYLE Metalsky, G. I., Halberstadt, L. J., & Abramson, L. Y. (1987). Vulnerability to depressive mood reactions: Toward a more powerful test of the diathesis-stress and causal mediation components of the reformulated theory of depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 386-393. Orvis, B. R., Kelley, H. H., & Butler, D. (1976). Attributional conflict in young couples. In J. H. Harvey, W. Ickes, & R. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (Vol. 1, pp. 353-386). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Passer, M. W., Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1978). Multidimensional scaling of the causes for negative interpersonal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 951-962. Seligman, M., Abramson, L. Y., Semmel, A., & von Baeyer, C. (1979). Depressive attributional style. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88, 242-247. Spanier, C. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15-28.

607

Thompson, S. C., & Kelley, H. H. (1981). Judgments of responsibility for activities in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 469-477. Weiss, R. L. (1980). Strategic behavioral marital therapy: Toward a model for assessment and intervention. In J. P. Vincent (Ed.), Advances infamily intervention, assessment, and theory (Vol. 1, pp. 229271). Greenwich, CT: Jai Press. Weiss, R. L., Hops, H., & Patterson, G. R. (1973). A framework for conceptualizing marital conflict, a technology for altering it, some data for evaluating it. In L. A. Hammerlynk, L. C. Handy, & E. J. Mash (Eds.), Behavior change: Methodology, concepts, and practice (pp. 309-342). Champaign, IL: Research Press.

Received March 18, 1987 Revision received June 10, 1988 Accepted August 17, 1988