four factor model of control savoring coping avoiding attaining bryant r

8/12/2019 Four Factor Model of Control Savoring Coping Avoiding Attaining Bryant R

1/26

AFour-Factor M odelofPerceived Control:Avoiding, Coping, Obtaining, and Savoring

Fred B. BryantLoyola U niversityofC h i c a go

ABSTRACT Th is study provides evidence that people evaluate their controlover eventsandover feelings separately with respect to both positive and nega-tive experiences Confirmatory factor analyses revealed that subjects made sep-arate self-evaluations of control regarding their ability to a)avoid negative out-comes,(b)cope with negative outcom es,(c)obtain positive ou tcomes, and d)savor positive outcomes Inaddition, beliefs about avoiding and obtaining weremore highly correlated r = 50) than were beliefs about copingandsavoring(r= 27) ItIS argued that copingand savoring involve different setsofcogni-tive and behavioral skills Multiple regression analyses generally indicated thatbeliefs about avoidingandcoping related m ore strongly to measuresofsubjec-tivedistress, whereas beliefs about obtaining and savonng related more stronglyto measuresofsubjective w ell-being These four control belietsarediscussedmrelationto other conceptual modelsofcontrol,andwaysmwhich savonngmay promote perceived control are descnbedAlthough successful mastery or control of the environment is often as-sumed to be beneficial and rewarding to the individual deCharms, 1968,Phares, 1976, White, 1959), there is relatively little agreement as to howpeople go about evaluating personal control in their lives Some basic

The research reportedinthis article w as supported by a Research Stimulation Awardfrom Loyola University of Chicago Theauthor wishes to thank Lynn Davidson,Yanghui H an , and Fran W eaver for he lp in data co din g, Todd M iller and Paul Yamoldfor assistanceindata analysis,andM aggie Melville for typing the m anuscn pt 1am


2/26

774 Bryantheoretical frameworks, for instance, treat perceived control as a simplunidimensional constructthat is, people are presumed to assess personal control along only a single , global continuum ranging from the absence of control to complete control (Langer, 1975, Rotter, 1966, Seligman, 1975) Other theon sts, in contrast, have argued that people assespersonal control along more than one dimension (Bar-Zohar & Nehan1978,Gregory, 1978, Paulhus, 1983) For exam ple, Rothbaum , Weiszand Snyder (1982) have proposed a two-process m odel of perceived control, in which people's controlling responses are classified as either attempts to change the world (l e , primary control) or attempts to changoneself to fit in with the world (l e , secondary control) Many of thesemultidimensional frameworks suggest that people evaluate control oveevents separately from control over feelings m response to eventsBesides distinguishing between primary and secondary control, othetheonsts have suggested that people evaluate control separately m rela-tion to positive and negative events (Bryant & Veroff, 1984, Gregory1978,Reich & Zautra, 1981) As Gregory (1978) has noted, controllingpositive outcomes involves attaining a positive reinforcer, whereas con-trolling nega tive outcom es involves avoiding an aversive event Despitethe intuitive appeal of these conceptual models, however, therehavebeenno formal attempts to integrate the distinctions between (a) pnmary andsecondary control and{b)control over positive and negative expenenceFor exam ple, in discussmg pnm ary and secondary control, Rothbaumeal (1982) focused exclusively on peop le's judgments about control overnegative events and control over feelings m response to negative eventsHowever, peop le may also make separate judgm ents of pnm ary and sec-ondary control m relation to positive events that is , they may also eval-uate their ability to obtain positive outcomes and to expenence positivefeelings m response to positive events

AFom-Factoi Model ol Perceived ControlBy crossing pnmary-secondary control with positive-negative expen-


3/26

Perceived Control 775Thompson (1981) has noted, it is the perception of control, and not actualcontrol, that is cnticalAvoiding The perceived ability to avoid negative outcomes may resultfrom beliefs about {a)direct behavioral control that one has over aver-sive events (Avenll, 1973,Miller, 1979, Thompson, 1981), (*) one's per-sonal good fortune (Rothbaum et al , 1982) or inherent moral character(Janoff-Bulman, 1979, Lem er, 1980), (c) on e's ability to predict nega-tive events so as to avoid them (Avenll, 1973,Bandura, 1977, Rothbaumet al , 1982),{d)one's ability to ward off bad events through supersti-tious ntu als or magical "ch arm s" (Malinowski, 1948), or(e)one's pro-tection from negative outcomes by powerful others (Bandura, 1977,Rothbaum et al , 1982)Coping The perceived ability to cope with negative outcomes maystem from beliefs about {a)direct or indirect coping strategies that onecan use to minimize or curtail distress (Avenll, 1973, Lazarus, 1966,Thompson, 1981), {b) one's ability to predict negative events so as toavoid disappointment (Avenll, 1973, Lazarus, 1966, Rothbaum et al ,1982),(c) one's ability to overcome problems through the help of pow-erful others (Bnckm an et al , 1982, Rothbaum et al , 1982), or{d)one'spersonal relationship with God, which can provide solace, inspiration,and meaning in the face of adversity (Rothbaum et al , 1982)Obtaining As with the perceived ability to avoid negative outcomes,theperceived ability to obtain positive outcomes may result from beliefsabout (a) dire ct behavio ral control that one has over pleasant events(deCharms, 1968, Langer, 1975, Reich & Zautra, 1981),{b)one's dis-positional good luck (Rothbaum et al , 1982) or inherent moral character(Lemer, 1980), (c) one 's ability to predict positive events so as to obtainthem (Rothbaum et al , 1982),{d) one's ability to bnng about goodevents through superstitious ntuals or "good luck charms" (Gmelch,1978,Henslm, 1967), or{e)powerful others who can give one positive


4/26

776 Bryansure m the present, (c) on e's ability to recall past positive events in waythat enhance present well-being, or(d)friends or relatives who can helone enjoy positive events, even if one cannot do so aloneIn contrast to other dimensions of perceived control, relatively littlwork has focused directly on peop le's beliefs about their ability to savopos itive events It is often assum ed that people naturally experiencpleasure in response to positive events (Freud, 1920, Skinner, 1971)This assum ption , however, may be at least partly unwarranted Becaushappiness may be relative (Bnckman, 1978, Bnckman & Campbell1971), positive events may be expenenced as more or less pleasurabldepending on on e' s "hedonic base line" or standard of com panson Foexample, an extremely positive event, such as winning a state lotterymay make everything else seem less positive by companson (BnckmanCoate s, & Bulm an, 1978), whereas an extremely negative event, such abeing blinded, may make everything else seem less negative by comparison (Cam eron, T itus , Kostin, & Kostm, 1973) And in the long runpeople may adapt to extremely positive or negative events, take them fogranted , and cease to use them as a standard by which to judge whethethey are happy or not (B nckm an , 1978) Th is suggests that obtaininggood things and enjoying good things may involve two separate pro-cesses

R esea r ch Ob jec t iv esTesting m odels of perceived control The present study had two maiobjectives The first objective was to test how well this four-factor modelexplains people's self-evaluations of control relative to other models ofperceived control To accom plish th is, a set of items assessing beliefsabout avoiding, coping, obtaining, and savoring were generated, andconfirmatory factor analyses were used to contrast the fit of variousmodels to responses to these items Beliefs about avoiding and obtainingwere expected to be relatively correlated, based on the notion that theyreflect interrelated perceptions of control over environmental events (cf


5/26

PerceivedControl 777mensions of perceived control relate to subjective well-being and dis-tress Num erous theon sts (e g , deCharms, 1968, Seligman, 1975) haveargued that a belief in personal control is psychologically beneficial andthat perceived loss of control is psychologically harmful Butdodifferentdimensions of perceived control relate more strongly to certain aspectsof adjustment than to others'With respect to subjective adjustment, a wealth of research indicatesthat people evaluate positive subjective experience, or well-being, sep-arately from negative subjective expenen ce, or distress (Bradbum , 1969,Bryant &Veroff, 1982, 1984, Headey, Holmstrom, & Wearing, 1984,Veit & Ware, 1983) A growing body of evidence further suggests thatthe occurrence of negative events and one's capacity to cope with theseevents pnmanly influence one's level of subjective distress, whereas theoccurrence of positive events and one 's level of self-remforcing activitypnmanly influence one's level of subjective well-being (Reich & Zautra ,1981,1988, Zau tra & Reich, 1983) Considered together, these findingssuggest that beliefs about avoiding and coping should relate morestrongly to distress than to well-being, whereas beliefs about obtainingand savonng should relate more strongly to well-being than to distress

METHODSample and Procedure

Respondents were 157 male and 367 female un dergraduates at a m idwe stemuniversity, who participated anonymously in partial fulfillment of an intro-ductory psycho logy c ourse requirem ent The ir average age was 18 6 yea rs,and there was no significan t sex difference in age Sam e-sex groups of5to10 students completed a self-report questionnaire concerning "people's per-ceptions of their own lives "

Dependent Measures


6/26

778 Brya1 Unhappiness, an affective evaluation of positive exp en en ce , is coposed of Items assessing general happin ess, past hap pin ess, and futmorale2 Lack of Gratification, a cogn itive evaluation of positive expe ne nc e

defined by items tapping satisfaction and value fulfillment in ongoirole relationships3 Strain, an affective evaluation of negative exp en en ce , is com posedItems assessing physical (til health), psychological (anxiety and immobilization), and behavioral (dnnking and drug taking) reactions stress4 Feelings qf Vulnerability, a cognitive evaluation of nega tive expeence , IS defined by items tapp ing the degre e to which one feels ovwhelmed, susceptible to bad events, and prone to a "nervous breadown "5 Lack qf Self-Confidence, a cog nitiv e and affective evaluation of poitive and negative aspects ofoneself, is charactenzed by low self-eteem, depression, perceptions of outcomes as uncontrollable , anfeelings of anomie6 Uncertainty, a cogn itive and affective evaluation of the futu re, is chaactenzed by frequent worrying, life dissatisfaction, immobilizatioanxiety, and self-doubt

Unhappiness and Lack of Gratification are considered measures of subjetive well-being. Strain and Feelings of Vulnerability are considered mesures of subjective distress, and Lack of Self-Confidence and Uncertaintare con sidere d me asu res that com bine distress and well-be ing Th is six-fator model has been used to operationally define subjective mental health ipast research on occupational complexity (Adelman, 1987), mantal statu(Wemgarten & Bryant, 1987), intimacy motivation (McAdams & Bryan1987), educational attainment (Bryant & Marquez, 1986), and Type A bhavior (Bryant & Yamold, m press)Th e Items constitu ting thes e six factors were extracted from Veroff et al(1981) interview schedule m their ongmal order of appearance and werphrased identically ' Responses to these items were coded according t1 The one exception to this rule involvedtheindices of role adjustmentthat comprthe Lack of Gratification factor Tomeasure Lack of GraUfication m the onginaltional survey, adults were asked to indicate how much satisfaction and value fulfil


7/26

PerceivedControl 779Bryant and Veroff (1984) so that high scores reflected distress or lack ofwell-beingPerceived control T he second set of m easures consisted of 15 additiona lItems designed to assess various aspects of perceived control m people'slives (see Table 1) Th ese item s were based on measures of person al controland measures of affect developed by previous researchers, including Brad-bum (1969 ), Rotter (19 66) , and Wortman (1975) Three items were intendedto tap perceived ability to avoid negative outcomes, 3 items were intendedto tap perceived ability to cope with negative outcomes, 4 items were in-tended to tap p erceived ability to obtain positive outcom es, and 5 items wereintended to tap perceived ability to savor positive outcom es Three differenttypes of response scales (4-, 5-, and 7-point scales) were interspersedamong the 15 items and some of the items were reversed to counteract theresponse bias that migh t occu r if only one type of format were used Itemswere coded so that high scores represented a high degree of perceived con-trol

Itestmg Models of Perceived ControlOnepurpose of this study was to com pare alternative theoretical m odels forexplaining how p eop le evalua te personal control in their lives The Tucker-Lewis coefficient (TLC, Tucker & Lewis, 1973) was used to gauge theamount of common vanance m perceived control measures explained byeach model (see Bryant & Veroff, 1982, 1984) LISR EL IV (Joreskog &Sorbom, 1978) was used to perform confirmatory maximum-likelihood fac-tor analyses to test how well the h ypo thesize d four-factor model fit the dataand to com pare its fit with that of seven simpler measurem ent m ode ls aglobal one-factor model, two two-factor models, and four three-factormodels These simpler models embodied more parsimonious views on thestructure of perc eive d con trol ag ains t which the more complex four-factormodel was contrasted (see Bentler & Bonett, 1980)

All multidimensional models were specified as having correlated latentfactors, in order to exam ine factor inte rrelationsh ips In add ition, a rep re-sentative Item on each factor was constrained to an unstandardized value of


8/26

IONo

r

rfN

?o

t~

s

00ONf N

vO

oor


9/26

I IooO\

O -H

ccau ro

ca

a q^ 6

oaX


10/26


11/26


12/26

7 8 4 BryaTabl2Chi-Square Stcrtistics and Measures of Relative Fit for the Eight Modeof Perceived Control

Model X^ df x^tdf TLC"1 One global factor 918 530 90 10 206 552a Control over positiveexpenence and controlover negative expenence 599 780 89 6 739 722b Control over events andcontrol over feelings 835 036 89 9 382 593a Avoiding, coping, andcontrol over positiveexpenence 546 979 87 6 287 743b Ob taining, savonng, andcontrol over negative3c3d4

exjjenenceAvoiding, obtaining , andcontrol over feelingsCoping, savonng, andcontrol over eventsAvoiding, coping,obtaining, and savonng

492 443756 652568 801434 822

87878784

5 6608 6976 5385 176

77627383

Note A = 524a As this ratio decreases and approaches zero, the fit of the given model improve(Hoelter, 1983)b This Tucker-Lewis coefficient reflects the proportion ofcommonvanance explainebythegiven model As thecoefficient increases and approaches10, theitofthe moimproves (Bryant&Veroff, 1982,1984,Tucker&Lewis, 1973)control over feelings and that they assess control over events in a unidimensional fashion To test the fit of Model 3d , the 5 item s des igne d to tap beliefabout savonng were constrained to load only on one factor, the 3 items designed to tap beliefs abou t coping to load only on a second factor, and the Items desig ned to tap control over events to load only on a third factor


13/26

78 5ately w ith respect to both positive and negative expe nen ce To test theel 4, th e 4 item s designed to tap beliefs abou t obtaining were con -

avo iding to load o nly on a third factor, and tbe 3 items design ed to tapiefs abou t copin g to load only on a fourth factor Th e major h ypothesiss that the four-factor m odel (M odel 4) would explain su bjects ' respo nsesthe perceived control items better than any of the other m odels

R e l cr tm g P e r c e i v e d C o n t r o l a n d S u b j e c t i v eM e n t a l H e a l t htest hypo theses abou t relationships between perceived co ntrol and su b-

ived con trol and sub jective m ental hea lth factors ^ To create an overallndardized and the unweighted mean of these items was com puted M ul-e regression analy ses w ere then conducted using scores on the perceivedtrol factors to pred ict sco res on the subjective m ental health factors ' A lliple reg ress ion s contro lled for the mam effect of gender by includ ing sex

RESULTS A N D DI SCUS SI ONThe Structure of Perceived Control

alternative models T a b l e 2 p r e s e n t s t h e c h i - s q u a r e s t a t i s -and m ea su re s o f r e l a t iv e fit fo r t he e igh t conf i rm a to ry m od e l s o f pe r -

iv ed c o n t r o l A s c a n b e s e e n f r o m t h e T L C s m t h is t a b l e , t h e o n e - f a c t o rConfirmatory factor ana lyse s revealed that the six-factor model of subjective m en-health prov ided a reason ably good fit for the data of the college sa mp le, x^(256)

x^/df = 2 18 ,/7< 0000 1 Simultaneous confirmatory analyses furthere original nation al sam ple of adults and the present college sam ple , x^(23) = 45,p > 50 However, three items were no longer charactenstic of Uncertaintythe college sample econ om ic w om es , dissatisfaction with time use, and low fu-

morale It wa s thu s decide d to exclude these three items in building factor score sr the Uncertainty dim ens ion


14/26

78 6 Biymodel accounted for slightly more than 50% of the common vananthe vanou s two- and three-factor models explained from 59% to 77%the common vanance, and the four-factor model explained 83% of common vanance in the perceived control measuresTo test the hypothesis that perceived control is multidimensional, chi-square value obtained using the one-factor model was contraswith the chi-square values obtained using the two -, three -, and four-ftor models Each of the multidimensional models represents a highly nificant improvement in fit over the one-factor model (allps


15/26

\

787

Degree of personal control over bad thingsFrequency of bad thingsLikelihood of bad things

bility to cope with bad thingsHow much bothered by bad thingsHow long bad things affect feelings

Degree of personal control over good thingsPersonal responsibility for good thingsFrequency of good thingsLikelihood of good things

bility to enjoy good thingsHow much pleased by good thingsHow long good things affect feelings

Frequency of feeling on top of the worldFrequency of feeling overjoyed

Figur e 1The Four -Fac to r M od e l ol Pe rce ived C on t role These results are from a confimiatory factor analysis, x'( 84 ,N = 524) = 434 82 ,


16/26

78 8 BryFactor interrelationships Confirming predictions, beliefs about aving and obtaining were more highly correlated (r = 50) than wereliefs about coping and savonng (r = 27 ), sharing over three timesmuch vanance To test whether these two correlations are significandifferent, an additional confirmatory analysis was conducted that costrained the correlation between the avoiding and obtaining factorsequa l the correlation between the cop ing and savoring factors Tmodel with this equality constraint did not fit the data nearly as wellthe model without this equality constraint, x '( l ) = 781,/?


17/26

c a

C OC/2

i3 00c cS Sea .IS2Q

U

O CO.

*Tj*O0 0

O

o

I*oro

00o oI I

O H

SI I

* *fN tNVO ITI I

^ 00 oI I

* * ^ f N

I I*

I IV

\D

*fN fN mI I

o ooI

I I*

I IO fN

I I*ro ro

fN 00

*00fN

*OOr

*fNO

* *ro fN

I I* *ro fNV } ro

* *fNr~

* fN n rin - ^I I

* *00 ONro fN

m '' ^ fN


18/26

790 Brydition, beliefs about coping were significantly related to levels of distreand were unrelated to Lack of Gratification, but beliefs about copiwere also significantly related to Unhappiness, suggesting that eitherperceived inability to cope may contnbu te to unhappiness or the percetion that one is unhappy may make one feel less able to cope (BryantVeroff, 1982)

Partially supporting the hypo theses, beliefs about obtaining were sinificantly related to Lack of Gratification and were unrelated to Straibut beliefs about obtaining were also unrelated to Unhappiness and wesignificantly related to Feelings of Vulnerab ility In addition, belieabout savonng were significantly related to levels of well-being andwunrelated to Feelings of Vulnerability, but beliefs about savonng wealso significantly related to Strain, suggesting that either the perceiveability to enjoy life may reduce symptom s of distress (Lazarus, Kanne& Fblkm an, 1980, Reich & Zautra , 1981) or the perception that onerelatively free of sym ptom s may make it easier for one to savor Thatliefs about savonng were related to happiness whereas beliefs abouttaining were not suggests that reported happiness has more to do wiperceived control over positive feelings than it has to do with perceivecontrol over positive events Partially confirming predictions, all peceived control factors (except for beliefs about obtammg) were signifcantly related to dimensions of subjective mental health that combinewell-being and distress (l e , Lack of Self-Confidence and Uncertainty

Construct Validity IssuesOne crucial analytical issue concerns the discnm mant validity ofth e peceived control factors relative to the subjective mental health factors Abeliefs about avoiding, copmg, obtaining, and savonng truly distinconstructs from dimensions of subjective well-being and distress'' Athough this study cannot resolve the question definitively, two additiontypes of analyses were conducted to evaluate the discnmmant validitythe perceived control factorsAs an initial test of discnmmant validity, the subjective mental healt


19/26

Control 791l model should decrease substantially as the control items try to mergeh the subjective mental health factors This result, however, did not

S equ ivalent to that of both the separate 4-factor and6-factorx''(581) = 1284 80 , x^ldf = 2 21, TLC = 88 This finding

s This combined confirmatory analysis also provided estimates ofized subjective mental health factors that are free of measurement er-

d their pattern generally supports the initial hypothesesHierarchical confirmatory analyses were also conducted specificallye major potential problem m the model is that savonng simply may be

onal indicator of distress If this were the case, then a confirmatoryel specifying {a) strain and perceived vulnerability as first-order in- {b) happiness andatification as first-o rder indicators of a higher order construct of well-

nd savonng are structured as additional first-order indicators of distressvonng are structured asfirst-orderndicators ofaseparate higher orderstruct of perceived control Again , however, this was not so A modelping and savonng beliefs are first-order indicators actually provides aginally better fit than a model that includes higher-order factors onlyr distress and well-be ing, x^(3) = 6 32, p < 05 This evidence sug-

Given that beliefs about avoiding, coping, obtaining, and savonngTotry


20/26

792 Bryavoiding, coping, obtaining, and savonng, (b)Rotter's (1966) InternExternal (I-E) scale, and (c) Rosenbaum's (1980) Self-Control scheduScores on the I-E scale, which predominantly taps perceived control oenvironmental events, correlated significantly with beliefs about avoing, r = 51,p


21/26

793

s of Items actually represent beliefs about control Indeed, the inclu-

ions between them (N icholls, Licht, & Pearl, 1982) When the of-nding Items are removed from the factor scores and the multiple regres-ons are repeated, however, the cntica l relationships remain statisticallyficant, and the pattern of results is the same Nevertheless, moretems that direc tly assess beliefs about control are needed for each factorAnother way to improve the present m easures is to increase their pre-sion For ins tance, the savonng factor does not distinguish between in-

s who believe they are incapable of enjoying and individuals whoieve they are able to enjoy but who choose not to do so Disciplined, for exam ple, may delay gratification to increase productivity,ut may be fully capable of savonng Indeed, the delay of gratification

ast" (B nckman & Cam pbe ll, 1971) The present items represent avements in scope and specificity are clearly needed

In attempting to clanfy these four dimensions of perceived control, it important to place the present framework in the context of controlls that others have proposed One of the most popular distinctions

an directly influence a negative event) and cognitive control (the beliefgative event) Although this distinction has been used exclusively inlation to negative events , it seems applicable to positive events as well

al control, or instrum ental control (Miller, 1979) However, percep-ons that one can indirectly influence outcomes, as through predictive,nous, or illusory control (Avenll, 1973,Rothbaum eta l , 1982), mayso foster beliefs in one 's ability to avoid or to obtain


22/26

794 Bryacontrol over negative feelings through informational or interpretive formof cognitive control People may also believe they can control negatifeelings through prd)lem-focused or emotion-focused behaviors (Folman & Lazarus, 1980)

W hile It seems fairly clear that coping processes may provide peopwith a sense of contro l, how perceived control relates to savonng, on tother hand , may seem less evident Fteople who savor positive outcommay not have to consciously control the expenence the way they mighave to control their reactions to a negative event However, although svonng may not always require conscious effort, people may learn anthen consciously use strategies that help them enjoy positive outcomand that give them a sense of control over positive feelingsPeople may also learn that certain savonng strategies are ineffective counterproductive for them, and they may consciously avoid thethoughts or actions (e g , not companng one's level of enjoyment withat of co-participants, not getting drunk or overeating at a celebrationIn addition, people may learn to plan and structure activities consciousm ways that m aximize the intensity and duration of their enjoyment anthat give them a sense of control over positive feelings (e g , by allowintime for solitude , by inviting fnends to share m the expenence, or bplaying m usic during the activ ity) Clearly, however, there are othforms of savonng that involve the absence of conscious effort, as witabsorption orflowexpenences, and self-awareness may well reducepoitive affect in these situations (Bnckman, 1978, Czikszentmihaly1975)

In sum, this study's main contnbution to our understanding of peceived controlISthat it identifies savonng as a control-related phenomnon The notion that people stnve to maintain a belief in control ovpositive feelings has important theoretical and practical implications Foexample, learned helplessness theonsts (e g , Seligman, 1975) have focused exclusively on people 's percep tions of control over environmentaoutcomes But there may be a form of helplessness specifically assocated with the perceived inability to savor positive expenence This mhelp to explain the paradox of "success depression" (Berglas, 1986),


23/26

Perceived Control 79 5REFERENCES

Adelman, P K (1987) Occupational complexity, control, and personal income Theirrelation to psychological well-being in men and women Journalof AppliedPsychol-ogy,72 , 529-53 7Avenll, J R (1973) ftersonal control over aversive stimuh and its relation to stress Psy-cholog ical Bulletin, 80 , 286-303

Bandura, A (1977) Self-efficacy Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change Psy-chologicalReview,84 , 191-215Bar-Zohar, Y , & N eha n, Y (1978) Conceptual structure of the multidimensionahty oflocus of control Psychological Reports, 42, 363-36 9Bentler, P M , & Bone tt, D G (1980) Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in theanalysis of covanance structures Psychological Bulletin 88 588-606Berglas, S (1986) The success syndrome Hittingbottom when youreach thetop NewYork Plenum PressBradbum, N M (1969) The structure ofpsychologicalwell-being Chicago AldineBnckman, P (1978) Happiness Can we make itlast Unpubhshed manuscnpt. North-western University Evanston, ILBnckman, P , & Cam pbe ll, D T (1971) Hedonic relativism and planning the good so-ciety In M H App\ey (Ed), Adaptationlevel theory(pp 28 7-3 02 ) New York Ac-ademic P ressBnckman, P , C oate s, D , & Bulman, R (1978) Lottery winners and accident victims

Ishappmessrelative'^ Journalof Personality and SocialPsychology, 30, 917-927Bnckman, P , Ra bm owitz, V C , Karuza, J , Jr , Coates, D , Cohn, E & Kidder, L(1982) Models of helping and coping AmericanPsychologist, 37, 30 -3B4Bryant, F B , & M arquez, J T (1986) Educational status and the structure of subjectivewell-being m men and women SocialPsychology Quarterly, 49, 142-153Bryant, F B , &Veroff, J (1982) The structure of psychological well-being A socio-histoncal analysis Journal qf Personality and SocialPsychology, 43 , 653-673Bryant, F B , &Veroff, J (1984) Dimensions of subjective mental health in Am encanmen and women Journal cf Health and SocialBehavior, 25, 116-135Bryant, F B , & Yamold, P R (in press) The impact of Type A behavior on subjectivehfe quality Bad for the heart, good for the sou PJournalof SocialBehaviorandPer-

sonalityCameron, P , Titu s, D G , Kostin, J ,& Kostin, M (1973) The life satisfaction of non-normal persons Journal qf Coun seling and ClinicalPsychology, 4 1, 207-221Cook, T D , & Camp bell, D T (1979) Quasi-expermentation Design and analysis

issues for field settings Chicago RandMcNallyCzikszentmihalyi, M (1975) Beyond reedom and anxiety San Francisco Jossey-BassdeCharms, R (1968) Personal causation Theinternal affectivedeterminants of behav-ior New York Academic Press


24/26

796 BryaGregory W L (1978) Locus of control for positive and negative outcomes Journa

Personality and Social Psychology, 36 840-849Heady, B Ho lmstrom , E , & W eanng, A (1984) W ell-being and lll-being Differedimensions'^ Social Indicators Research, 14, 115-139

Henslm, J M (1967) Craps and magic Am erican Journal qf Sociology 73 ,316 -33Hoelter, J W (1983) The analysis of covan ance structures Goodness of fit indicesciological M ethods and Research, 11 , 325-34 4Janoff-Bulman, R (1979) Characterological versus behavioral self-blame Inqu inesindepression and rape Journal qf Personality and SocialP sychology, 37, 1798-180Joreskog, K G , & Sorbom, D (1978) LISREL IV Analysis of linear structuralretionships by the method of maximum likelihood Chicago National Educational Rsources, IncLanger, E J (1975) The illusion of control Journal qfPersonality a nd SocialPsychoogy,32, 31 1-328Lazarus, R S (1%6 ) Psychological stress and the coping process New York MGraw-HiULaz arus, R S , Kanner, A D , & Fblkm an, S (1980) Emotions A cognitive phenomenological analysis In R Plu tch ik& H KeWerman(Eds , Theories of emotion (1,pp 189 -217 ) New York Academic PressLemer, M J (1980) The belief in a just world New York Plenum PressMa linowski, B (1948) Magic, science, and religion Garden City, NJ DoubledayM cA dam s, D P , & Bryant, F B (1987) Intimacy motivation and subjective mentahealth m a nationwide sample Journal of Personality,55 , 1-19Miller, S M (1979) Con trollability and human stress Method, evidence, and theoryBehavior Research andTherapy,17, 287-3 04Nicholls, J G , L i c h t , B G , & Pearl, R A (1982) Some dangers of using personalityquestionnaires to study personality Psychological Bulletin, 92 , 572-580Pau lhus, D (1983) Sphere-specific measures of perceived control Journal of Persoahty an d Social Psychology 44, 1253-1265Pha res, E J (1976) Locus o f control in personality M om sto w n,N J General Learning

Re ich, J W , & Zautra , A (1981) Life events and personal causation Some relationships with satisfaction and distress Journal qfPersonality a nd SocialP sychology,41002-1012Re ich, J W , & Za utra , A J (1988) Direct and stress-moderatmg effects of positivelife expenences In L H Cohen (Ed), Life events and psychological functioning pp149 -180 ) Beverly Hills SageRosenbaum , M (1980) A schedule for assessing self-control behaviors Preliminaryfindings BehaviorTherapy,11, 109-121Ro thbau m, F , W eisz, J R , & Snyder, S S (1982) Changing the world and changingthe self A two-p rocess m odel of perceived control Journal cfPersonality and SocPsychology,42 , 5 -37


25/26

erceive d Control 797Tucker, L R , & Lewis, C (1973) A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood fac-tor analysis Psychometrika,38, 1010Ulem an, J S (1987) Consciousness and control The case of spontaneous trait infer-ences Personality and SocialPsychologyBulletin, 13 ,337- 354Veit, C T , & Ware , J E , Jr (1983) The structure of psychological distress and well-being in general populations Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 5 1 ,730- 752Veroff, J , Do uvan, E , & Kulka, R (1981) The inner Am erican New York BasicBooksWemgarten, H , & Bryant, F B (1987) Mantal status and the meaning of subjectivewell-being A structural analysis Journal ofMarriagea ndthe Family 4 9 , 8 8 3 - 8 9 2White, R W (1959) Motivation reconsidered The concept of competence Psycholog-

icalReview, 66,291-333Wortman, C B (1975) Some determinants of perceived control Journalof Personalityand SocialPsychology, 31 , 282- 294Zautra, A J & Reich, J W (1983) Life events and perceptions of life quality Devel-opments m a two-factor approach Journal ofCommunityPsychology, 11, 121-132

Manuscnpt receivedOctober 171988. re\isedMay 25 1989


26/26

four factor model of control savoring coping avoiding attaining bryant r

Documents