Title: Attribution, social comparison and academic performance

Transcription

1 Award no: R Award Holders: Diane M. Houston Title: Attribution, social comparison and academic performance Full Report of Research Activities and Results

2 Attribution, Social Comparison and Academic Performance ESRC Small Grants Scheme End of Award Report to ESRC Diane M. Houston Background This project was designed to explore the manner in which young people explain and evaluate their academic performance. The theoretical basis for the work was derived from findings by Houston (1994), who found that individuals with depressogenic attributional style tend to perform well on academic and ability tasks. These findings were in contrast to traditional findings in the attribution literature which have shown individuals with such styles perform poorly. The aim of the research was to investigate this apparent discrepancy and test hypotheses regarding processes underlying the attribution-performance relationship. The proposal was written in late 1996, awarded in The research began, on schedule, in June 1998 and was completed in April Prior to the commencement of the award a no-cost change was agreed by ESRC, this extended the project from 18 to 23 months and reduced the research assistant contract from 60% to 50%. This was done to ensure sufficient time for data coding. Theoretical background Perceptions of success and failure, and the causes of these perceived outcomes, are known to have a significant impact on mood and expectations of future performance (Weiner 1985). In psychology, the term 'attribution' has been given to the explanations people make for the cause of a behaviour or an event. The nature of attributions within educational contexts was the focus of a significant amount of research conducted in the USA during the 1970s. Much of the early work in this area (e.g. Frieze & Weiner, 1971) explored attributions following academic success or failure. Empirical findings suggested that 'self-serving' attributional patterns occur frequently in achievement settings, such that people attribute successful academic outcomes to internal and/or stable causes (ability or effort), while they attribute academic failures to external and/or unstable causes (task difficulty or luck). Abramson Seligman & Teasdale (1978) have also addressed the impact of attributions on performance and achievement. According to their reformulated model of helplessness and depression, individual differences in attributional style determine whether an individual is at risk of developing a set of cognitive, motivational and emotional deficits associated with learned helplessness. Within this model the attribution of good events to stable global and internal factors, and the attribution of negative events to external, unstable and specific factors is considered to be a 'healthy' attributional style. The opposite style - the attribution of negative events to internal, stable, and global causes - is categorised as a 'depressogenic' style of attribution. A number of studies within the helplessness and depression framework reveal that the latter style is related to poor performance (e.g. Seligman & Schulman, 1986). Houston (1994) reported three studies, which re-examined the role of attributions for academic performance in the context of examinations. These revealed a different pattern of performance-related findings. The results from these studies identify a set of people who tend to perform well academically despite having made stable and/ or global attributions for negative life events. These people are also those who volunteer to participate in achievement-orientated tests. Previous research has established that individuals with this style of attribution are most prone to depression and anxiety when they do fail (Metalsky, Halberstadt & Abramson 1987; Houston, 1995a,b).

3 Possible explanations for the seemingly contradictory findings were explored in the original proposal. The first relates to a notable aspect of much of the attribution and performance literature - amongst over 1000 articles written since 1974, only a handful actually measure academic performance. Closer inspection of these indicates much more equivocal support for Weiner's (1985) model. Most studies have focused on achievement needs and motivation or self-perceptions of success and failure, rather than achievement per se. Another explanation is that the individuals in Houston's (1994) study represent a high achieving sub-group of individuals whose attributional patterns differ substantially from more average individuals. A third addressed social comparison theory (Festinger 1954), and suggested that social comparison might be an important intervening variable. Integration of Social Comparison and attribution An integration social comparison and attribution processes in academic performance was proposed by Houston (1998) to account for the anomalous findings from previous research. Using a hypothetical test-outcome model it was proposed that academic results (test score, essay mark) would evoke a mood response, based upon prior personal aspiration for performance. Next the individual engages in social comparison and it is this process which determines whether the outcome is regarded as a positive or negative one. Once the valence of the outcome is determined, the individual engages in further social comparison and attributional analysis of others' results, and this forms the basis of an attributional 'conclusion' about their own performance. Whilst aspects of this model can only be assessed by laboratory research for the purposes of the present study it was proposed that; people with stable, global styles of attribution, who make upward comparison and stable global attributions for the performance of those to whom they compare themselves, will be likely to experience negative emotion and decreased persistence. People with the same style who make upward comparisons, but unstable, specific attributions for the performance of comparison others, are likely to experience more positive mood and increased persistence. For the former group there is a belief that stable, global factors affect one's own (relative) failure and the successes of others, whereas the latter group believe that whilst stable, global factors produce one's own failure, there are nonability factors which have produced the success of others. Thus in the latter case there is still some hope of changed fortune. The possibility of stable styles of social comparison had not been addressed in the psychological literature at the time the proposal was written. The original proposal stated that it was likely that these will exist in the same way as dispositional styles of attribution. Some individuals may have a stronger need for social comparison than others. It is likely that high achievers may engage in more social comparison than those who are low achievers, low achievers may simply accept academic results unquestioningly and have low, or no, aspirations for academic achievement. Since proposal was written Gibbons and Buunk have published a social comparison orientation scale (Iowa-Netherlands Comparison Orientation Measure (INCOM; Gibbons and Buunk, 1999), and the notion of individual differences in social comparison style addressed in the literature. Fortunately it was possible to include the scale in the present research and to make comparisons between this and the one designed by the author for this research. A project was therefore designed to examine the attribution-performance relationship in the classroom. The research focused on actual academic performance across all subjects studied and examined students' dispositional styles of attribution and social comparison, as well as their specific explanations and social comparisons for the outcome of their exams. High and low status educational establishments were examined.

4 Educational background The research took place in East Kent. Kent has retained an 'eleven plus' exam and still operates a Grammar School system. There are grammar schools, non-selective schools and a number of church controlled schools, which operate on a selection basis of religion rather than ability. In addition there are a number of public schools, which range in prestige and fee-scale. Examination of attribution and social comparison processes in these different educational establishments enabled the examination of educational context of academic performance. In a high-status educational establishment, there may be little opportunity to make non-ability attributions for academic performance. Objectives The research was designed and conducted in line with the original proposal and aimed to investigate a number of possible interpretations of Houston's (1994) findings. These were stated in the original proposal as follows: 1. The conclusions drawn from previous research may be ill-founded - the attributional patterns associated with academic performance are not actually consistent with those implied by previous research. Stable, global attributions for failure may be associated with high levels of academic performance. 2. Attributional patterns may vary with achievement. In high achieving groups stable/global attributions will be associated with high performance. In low achieving groups stable/global attributions will be associated with poor performance. 3. Individuals in high status educational institutions will be more likely, than those in low status institutions, to attribute poor performance to stable and global factors. 4. The response to any academic outcome will be determined by the interaction of social comparison and attribution processes as defined by the 'Test-Outcome Model'. Methods All of the schools that participated in the study had the same examination timetables. Thus it was possible to coordinate three testing periods which occurred in all of the schools within the same timeframe. Thus all students completed a questionnaire in the first term of the academic year, a second in the third term prior to their exams, and a third at home once their exam results had been received. When the research proposal was written it was envisaged that there might be a need to send a number of different aspiration and exam satisfaction sheets. As all the exams took place in a concentrated period this was not necessary. To increase response rates there was a prize draw for 100 for every school. Only students who completed all three questionnaires were eligible to enter. Sampling Three exam types were used GCSE, A level, and GNVQ. As proposed the samples were drawn from a variety of educational establishments in order to account for the differences, which may be caused by educational environment. Owing to the long time period that elapsed between the writing of the proposal and the conduct of the research, access to these establishments had to be renegotiated and some changes made. This did not affect the balance of high/low status, or state/ private or selective/non selective, but did take considerable time. This could not have been foreseen when the proposal was written, in the intervening period one headmaster retired and one head and another deputy died. As a result of these changes and an intensive period of re-

5 recruitment more schools than originally proposed took part in the study. The college and university samples remained as originally proposed. The following schools participated in the study. 1. Public School - higher academic status. 2. Public school - intermediate academic status 3/4/5. Two co-educational and one Boys Grammar Schools (3) - high academic status. 6/7. Two non-selective High Schools - low academic status. 8/9. Two Church Controlled School - intermediate academic status. 10. One school which selects at interview on the basis of technological ability. 11/12. Two further education colleges. Measures The original proposal gave an outline of the proposed measures. Specific details of the exact measures used the study are described below. All items were measured on a sevenpoint Likert scale unless otherwise stated. In addition to the measures outlined in the original proposal, a number of others were added. Additional measures are marked with a *. Time 1 (First term of the academic year.) Attributional Style (EASQ, Metalsky et al., 1987): An extended measure of attributional style (Houston, 1995) measuring attributional style and efficacy for academic outcomes which involve both success and failure. Social Comparison Scale (Houston 1998): A measure of social comparison style was developed and piloted specifically for this research. Details of this scale are provided below. Social Comparison Direction: Using a modification of the rank-order paradigm (Gruder, 1977) students ranked their academic performance with that of target peers within the classroom. Social Comparison with Different Groups: Students were asked to make comparisons between their own performance and that of a number of target groups on a five-point scale (well below average, below average, average, above average and well above average). The target groups were students in their year group boys in school, girls in school, close friends in school, all the students in school, students in other state schools, students in other public schools, all students in the UK. Own and Significant Others Perceptions of Ability and Performance. Students were asked to state how they perceived their own performance and ability (5-point scale, well below average to well above average). Also how their parents, friends and teachers perceived this. The Multiple Affect Adjective Checklist (MAACL, Today Form, Zuckerman & Lubin, 1965) TIME 1. This is a measure of state anxiety, depression and hostility. Demographic Details: Date of birth, parental occupation, age and sex of siblings, part-time employment. * Personal Self-Esteem (Rosenberg, 1965). Students completed a well-established measure of personal self-esteem.

6 * Identification with Educational Establishment (Brown, 1986). Students completed a measure of social identification with their school/college. *Collective Self-Esteem (Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992). Students completed an established measure of collective self-esteem. Time 2 (Beginning of third term of the academic year, prior to exam period.) Aspirations for Forthcoming Exams: Students were asked to list the exams they were about to take and the grade they hoped to attain in each. Also how likely it was that they would achieve these grades. Anticipated Comparison with Others: Students were asked to state how their exam results would compare with their friends and others in their school (much worse to much better). Anticipated Emotion on Receipt of Results: Students were asked to rate how they thought they would feel on receipt of results - happy, sad, frustrated and satisfied. Comparison Choice on Receipt of Results: Students were asked to rate how much they would like to find out the results of other groups friends, students in class, students in school, students in area, students in UK. Volunteers question: Students were asked to rate how much they would like to participate in a University-run study of academic ability. *Specific Intentions for the Future: Students were asked to rate how likely it was that they would follow certain paths in the next academic year return to school, work full-time, attend college, attend University etc. Those who intended to attend University or work were asked to give details. They were also all asked to state the highest level of qualification they thought that they would obtain in their lifetime (GCSE, A level, Diploma, GNVQ, Undergraduate degree, postgraduate degree). *General Intentions for the Future: Students were asked to rate how likely it was that they would do the following things in the future: Gain further educational qualifications, go to University, work, have a career, be unemployed, have children, get married, and cohabit. Multiple Affect Adjective Checklist (MAACL, Today Form, Zuckerman & Lubin, 1965)TIME 2. *Future Plans for work and childcare: Students were asked to rate how likely it was that they would carryout three different lifestyle options in relation to work and childcare stay at home and look after children until they go to school, work full-time and have their partner care for the children, both partner and self work and another person care for the children. *Iowa-Netherlands Comparison Orientation Measure (INCOM; Gibbons and Buunk, 1999). This is a recently developed measure of social comparison orientation. The scale comprises of two highly correlated factors, one that examines tendency to compare in ability contexts and the other in opinion contexts. To date most research has used the total scale scores incorporating both factors. Time 3 (On receipt of exam results.) Record of Exams and Results: Students were asked to record all their exam results.

7 Satisfaction with Exam Grades: Students were asked to rate how satisfied they were and how to what extend the results were as they expected them to be. Social Comparison with Different Groups II: A repeat of measures used at Time One, but focused on specifically on performance in the exams. Own and Significant Others Perceptions of Ability and Performance II. A repeat of measures used at Time One, but performance questions specific to the exams. Actual Emotion on Receipt of Results: Repeat of Time 2 - happy, sad, frustrated and satisfied. Comparison Choice on Receipt of Results: Repeat of Time 2, but this time who the students had actually compared with. *Specific Intentions for the Future: A repeat of measures used at Time 2. Multiple Affect Adjective Checklist (MAACL, Today Form, Zuckerman & Lubin, 1965) TIME 3. Particular Attributions Questionnaire (PAQ, Metalsky et al., 1987). A measure of attributional style focused specifically on attributions for the recent exams. Students complete slightly different questions depending on whether they are satisfied or dissatisfied with their own performance. This focused on attributions of own and others performance. Conduct of the research As stated above, access to schools had to be renegotiated at the beginning of the research project. This involved considerable time commitment for the principal investigator, visiting schools and meeting with head teachers. This had the unexpected benefit of gaining access to more schools than originally anticipated. It also allowed negotiation of access to data held by schools. Eventually all of the schools agreed to provide data on pupil s previous performance, predicted grades and actual grades once the results were known. Access to this data resulted in not having to ask students to record their attainment to date considerably shortening the questionnaire. This allowed the inclusion of further questions relating to psychological theory and the consequence of this is a much larger database than originally anticipated. The Time One and Two questionnaires were conducted in schools during class periods. The actual negotiation of the times for questionnaire administration was managed between the research assistant employed on the project and senior teachers in schools. Despite head teachers enthusiasm for the project, many teachers were often much less enthusiastic and very difficult to contact during working hours. On occasions the principal investigator had to intervene through further contact with head teacher. Individual teachers varied dramatically in their interest and cooperation, some responded to all requests within 24 hours and delivered data to us at the university, another was actually verbally abusive. Questionnaire responses were only identified by personal code, a separate record card with address details was also completed. At Time Three questionnaires were sent to the students home address. Non-respondents were followed up by telephone and letter. Schools provided data on student s performance prior to and during the study. Thus we were able to collect SATS scores, predicted grades and actual grades. In the case of some

8 schools this data took a long time to arrive, but was eventually received in time for completion of the project. Results Response Rates Across all the institutions 2015 students completed a Time 1 questionnaire. Though variations in school schedules resulted in not all of these completing a Time 2 Questionnaire, and others completing a Time 2, but no Time 1 questionnaire. Differences in the Time 1 and 2 samples do not reflect true response rates as the students who did not complete one or the other were simply not in class at the time of administration due to illness, extra lessons, class trips and sports commitments. Response rates are calculated within the sample that completed both a Time 1 and 2 questionnaire. School Sample 1195 students fully completed both the Time One and Two questionnaires and 889 students completed all Three questionnaires, yielding a response rate of 74%. There were no gender differences in response rates. College Sample Only 81 out of a possible 205 students completed both the Time 1 and Time 2 questionnaires. The more flexible nature of college life resulted in much poorer attendance levels than in the school samples. At Time 3, 51 students completed the final questionnaire, yielding a response rate of 63%. There were no gender differences in response rates Variations between schools in response rates There were variations in response rates between schools, schools in which the teachers treated the research with interest and respect yielded higher response rates at Time Three than those in which it was treated with resentment. In general students had no difficulty completing the questionnaire measures, with the exception of the attributional style questionnaire (EASQ, Metalsky et al., 1987), which was not completed in its entirety by some of the students in the non-selective schools. As this is a well-standardised measure it was not possible to make adjustments to it. However, use of the much shorter PAQ (Metalsky et al.,) in the third phase proved more successful. Response rates varied from 93% (grammar school) to 38% (non selective high school). Social Comparison Questionnaire Pilot studies were conducted in order to design a questionnaire for the research project, these took place in schools outside the sampling area. The aim of the questionnaire was to provide a measure individual differences in tendency to compare one s performance with others. As the project was solely focused on academic outcomes the questionnaire was designed to measure social comparison orientation in achievement contexts. Following the findings of pilot studies the questionnaire was based on twenty items, each rated on a seven point scale from 1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree. Examples of typical items are I am interested in how my friends are doing in school and In my work I aim for personal targets independent of how others do. The questionnaire yielded a respectable level of internal reliability (Cronbach s standardised item alpha.796) and was found to have a highly correlated two-factor structure. One factor related to how much students compare their performance and a second to the need for this comparison to show that they themselves were producing superior performance. Both subscales are highly reliable and show a similar pattern of relationships with other variables. Thus for the purposes of this report, findings related to the whole scale are reported.

9 Findings relating to key hypotheses 1. Stable, global attributions for failure may be associated with high levels of academic performance. Attributional patterns at Time One for both positive and negative events were examined in relation to actual performance in exams at Time Three. This was done for the entire sample using multiple regression procedures in order to control for the effect of school. Academic performance was calculated using the points system used by universities in order to produce on numerical score for each student. Attributions for positive events: Consistent with the established literature, making stable attributions for success was significantly associated with higher levels of performance in exams. Making global attributions for success was only associated with higher levels of performance in the sample taking GCSE exams. Attributions for negative events: There was no significant relationship between stable and global styles and performance at A level. At GCSE there was a positive relationship between stable attributional style for negative events and performance. This is the effect previously found by Houston (1994). By contrast, there was a negative relationship between global attributional style and performance at GCSE. 2. Attributional patterns may vary with achievement. In high achieving groups stable/global attributions will be associated with high performance. In low achieving groups stable/global attributions will be associated with poor performance. This hypothesis was examined in a number of ways using multiple regression procedures. First a very small subset of academic high flyers was identified, these were those who had the equivalent of 3 As or more at A level. Then a larger group representing the top 10 percent of scorers in their academic performance at Time Three. These analyses did not prove fruitful. Attributional stability or globality for negative events did not predict performance. Thirdly, the high and low achieving institutions were compared, this produced the same division of schools as described in (3) below. These analyses revealed a marked difference in the pattern of attribution-performance relationships. In high status schools attributional stability for negative events was significantly correlated with performance, by contrast, there was no relationship in low status schools and the two correlations differed significantly. Global attributions for negative events were negatively related to performance in both types of school. Stable attributions for positive events were positively correlated with performance in both types of school, global attributions for positive events were only related to performance in low status schools. 3.Individuals in high status educational institutions will be more likely, than those in low status institutions, to attribute poor performance to stable and global factors. The accepted division for schools in the area is for fee-paying and grammar schools to be perceived as high status. Within this group some are seen to be of higher academic status than others academically. This division was clearly displayed in our data, in relation to academic performance. For example, at GCSE the public schools and grammar schools were points above the rest (range being points). While the points measure of performance does not take into account the number of exams divided by grade, it is the method generally used of university entrance and sufficient for the present study. It also confirmed our intended division of schools in terms of status. Schools were therefore divided into high and low status groups and a number of comparisons made using analysis of variance. It was found that students in low status schools made more global attributions for failure and less stable attributions for success. Students in high status schools rate their own personal performance more positively than those in low status schools in relation to a number of comparison groups (students in my year group, students in other state and public schools in the area, all students of my age in the UK). While an effect in relation to other schools in the area seemed probable, it is particularly notable that students in the low status schools view there own performance more negatively even when compared to their own

10 year group. Students in high status schools have significantly higher scores on the Houston (1998) social comparison scale, indicating that they have a higher tendency to make social comparisons in performance contexts. There were no differences between the two groups on the INCOM (Gibbons and Buunk, 1999). 4. The response to any academic outcome will be determined by the interaction of social comparison and attribution processes as defined by the 'Test-Outcome Model'. As this model in still in early stages on development a number of analyses were conducted in order to identify possible pathways in relation to actual performance and mood response to performance. These analyses include many possible alternative models and are still ongoing. The most important finding to date indicates a role for the interaction of attribution and social comparison processes in determining actual performance. Making stable and global attributions for success (attributional generality) is predictive of exam performance, making upward social comparisons is also predictive of exam performance. When these two factors are accounted for, the interaction of the two predicts further variance in exam performance. The nature of this interaction is such that people who make stable and global attributions and upward comparisons have the highest level of performance and those who make unstable and specific attributions and downward comparison show the lowest levels of performance. Brief Overview of Additional Findings. Social Comparison Measures Both the Houston (1998) scale and the INCOM (Gibbons & Buunk, 1999) were related to exam performance when effect of school is controlled. In the case of both scales students who compare more show higher levels of performance. In addition, favourable comparison of one s own performance with others was related to higher levels of performance in relation to all target groups. Future Plans for Work and Childcare These variables were included to link with other ESRC-funded projects being held by Diane Houston (1998, 2000) Girls agreed significantly more than boys with statements such as in the future I will work/go to university they were also significantly less likely to anticipate being unemployed in the future. Identity and Self-Esteem Measures These variables were included to link with the growing interest in social comparison within theories of intergroup relations (a new ESRCfunded project at The University of Kent, held by Rupert Brown will examine Choice of Intergroup Comparisons: Antecedents and Consequences). As there was scope to increase the number of items on the questionnaire this was considered a potentially fruitful area for additional findings and subsequent publications. Collective self-esteem (the esteem one feels about being a member of a school) was significantly related to performance. Identification with one s school was not related to performance. Further Analyses From such a large data set it has only been possible to include a summary of all the findings. Further modelling and analyses are currently underway for the publications, plans of which are outlined below. Activities The research has been reported in a recent conference paper and will be reported in at least two further papers within the next twelve months. The paper to be given at a prestigious small group conference in the USA was originally planned for May 2000, but I had to be cancelled (I had to take on Chief Examiner duties in my department, owing to staffing problems). This has been rescheduled for 2001.

11 Houston, D.M. (2000). The impact of social comparison and attribution processes on academic achievement. Invited paper presented to the British Psychological Society Annual Conference. Winchester. April. Houston D.M. (2000). Re-examining the links between attribution processes and performance. Paper to be presented at the University of Surrey School of Human Sciences Seminar Series. (Nov) Houston, D.M. (2001). Attribution and social comparison processes in academic contexts. Paper to be presented at Social Science Conferences- The Sea Frolic, Florida, USA (May) Outputs The research was completed on schedule in April 2000, however the delays in obtaining performance data from schools resulted in the data set only being completed in this month. While it was possible for some analyses were conducted prior to the receipt of the performance data it was not possible to begin advance level analyses and those relating to proposed publications. Thus most of the analyses, and all of the writing have been/will be conducted after the end of the grant. This is often the case with longitudinal research. I am confident that the data set will provide an excellent resource for publications over the next twelve or twenty-four months. A number of papers are currently in the planning phase and these are detailed below. The data set will also be lodged with the ESRC data archive. 1. The Houston (1998) Social Comparison Scale psychometric properties, correlates and predictive value. 2. The re-examination of the stability dimension in attribution theory a challenge to current theory on attribution and performance. 3. The interaction between social comparison and attribution processes in predicting performance and mood response. 4. Social identity, collective self-esteem and academic performance 5. Young people s aspirations for work and parenthood. 6. Pupil s self-perceptions in selective and non selective schools. Impacts Findings which relate to predictors of academic performance should be of interest to the teaching profession, particularly those which challenge accepted beliefs. The impact of selection at eleven is very clear from the findings of this research, this should be of interested to government and policy makers. Once the relevant papers are published I will attempt to promote the findings to the relevant research users. Future Research Priorities Two clear priorities emerge from this research: 1. It would be fruitful to further investigate the impact of selection at eleven on children s self-concept and aspirations. Children in non-selective schools in an area where selection is conducted have lower levels of aspiration and feel less positively about their academic performance. What is not clear is whether these children felt this way before selection, in primary schools, did these children change as a result of failing selection test. Further, does the effect relate to actual ability or educational environment. 2. The temporal sequences proposed by the test-outcome model warrant further investigation in laboratory-based research. It is clear that attribution and social comparison processes interact. The influence of the two processes on each other,

12 and on performance could be further investigated by manipulating attribution and social comparison information in the laboratory. Some pilot studies in this area are currently being prepared. References Abramson, L.Y., Metalsky, G.I. & Alloy, L.B. (1989). Hopelessness depression: A theory-based subtype of depression. Psychological Review, 96, Abramson, L.Y., Seligman, M.E.P. & Teasdale, J. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans: Critique & reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, Brown,R., Hinkle, S., Ely, P.G., Fox-Cardamone, Maras, P. & Taylor, L.A. (1992). Recognising group diversity: Individualist-collectivist and autonomous-relational social orientations and their implications for intergroup processes. British Journal of Social Psychology, Festinger, L., (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, Frieze,I. & Weiner,B. (1971). Cue utilisation and Attributional judgements for success and failure. Journal of Personality, Gibbons and Buunk Gruder, C.L., (1977). Choice of comparison persons in evaluating onself. In J.M. Suls & R.L. Miller (eds), Social Comparison Processes: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives, pp Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Houston, D.M. (1994). Gloomy but smarter: The academic consequences of attributional style. British Journal of Social Psychology. 33, Houston, D.M. (1995a). Vulnerability to depressive mood reactions: Retesting the hopelessness model of depression. British Journal of Social Psychology. 34, Houston, D.M. (1995b). Surviving a failure: efficacy and a laboratory based test of the hopelessness model of depression. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, Houston, D. M. & Marks, G. (1998) >Employment choices for mothers of pre school children: A psychological perspective.= ESRC Future of Work Research Programme Grant. Houston, D. M. & Marks, G. (2000) >Paid and unpaid work in early parenthood: Psychological causes and consequences.= ESRC Future of Work Research Programme Grant. Luthanen and crocker

13 Metalsky, G.l., 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, Rosenberg Seligman, M.E.P. & Schulman, P. (1986). Explanatory style as a predictor of productivity and quitting among life insurance sales agents. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review White, P.A. (1991). Ambiguity in the internal/external distinction in causal attribution. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 47, Zuckerman, M. & Lubin, B. (1965). Manual for Multiple Affect Adjective Check List. San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.