ATTRIBUTIONS AND DEPRESSION ACROSS CULTURES Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this thesis is my own or was done in collaboration with my advisory committee. This thesis does not include proprietary or classified information. ____________________________________ Ryan Patrick Siney Certificate of Approval: ___________________________ ___________________________ Peter Harzem Virginia O?Leary, Chair Professor Professor Psychology Psychology ___________________________ ____________________________ Philip Lewis Stephen L. McFarland Professor Acting Dean Psychology Graduate School ATTRIBUTIONS AND DEPRESSION ACROSS CULTURES Ryan Patrick Siney A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science Auburn, Alabama December 16, 2005 iii ATTRIBUTIONS AND DEPRESSION ACROSS CULTURES Ryan Patrick Siney Permission is granted to Auburn University to make copies of this thesis at its discretion, upon request of individuals or institutions and at their expense. The author reserves all publication rights. ______________________________ Signature of Author _____________________________ Date of Graduation iv THESIS ABSTRACT Ryan Patrick Siney Master of Science, Auburn University, December 16, 2005 (Bachelor of Arts, Miami University, May 3, 2003) 111 Typed Pages Directed by Dr. Virginia O?Leary There is evidence that culture and depression can both affect the pattern of explanations that people give for events. To date, research on attributions has considered only culture or depression with respect to attributions, and no studies have investigated the cumulative effects of these factors. This study explores the differences in attributions introduced by both culture and depression. The samples used in this study (Nepal and the United States) are compared using several measures of depression and a measure of attributional style. Results support the hypothesis that there are differences in attributions based on both culture and depression and that depression may have a differential affect on attributions depending on an individual?s cultural background. v Style Manual Used: Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association Computer Software Used: Microsoft Word for Windows vi TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables????...???????????.?????..???.????vii Introduction???????..???.?.?????..???????...????..1 Method???????????..?.???????..?..?????..???...21 Results????????.???.??????????????.?..???...27 Discussion??????.???????????????????..??.?..33 References??????.????.???????????????..?..??43 Tables????????.???.????????????????.??.?.59 Appendices???????.??..?????????????.????.??85 A. Measure of Attributional Style???????..?????..???86 B. Nepali Version of Measure of Attributional Style????....???..98 vii LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Means and Standard Deviations for US and Nepal Samples ..............................59 Table 2: Means and Standard Deviations for Depressed Participants in US and Nepal Samples......................................................................................................................60 Table 3: Eigenvalues and Variances for Internality Dimension........................................61 Table 4: Eigenvalues and Variances for Generality Dimension........................................62 Table 5: Eigenvalues and Variances for Depressed Participants on Internality Dimension..................................................................................................................63 Table 6: Eigenvalues and Variances for Depressed Participants on Generality Dimension..................................................................................................................64 Table 7: Rotated Component Matrix for Internality Dimension in Nepal Sample............65 Table 8: Rotated Component Matrix for Internality Dimension for US Participants........66 Table 9: Rotated Component Matrix for Generality Dimension for Nepal Sample..........67 Table 10: Rotated Component Matrix for Generality Dimension for US Sample ............68 Table 11: Rotated Component Matrix for Internality Dimension for Depressed Participants in Nepal Sample.....................................................................................69 Table 12: Rotated Component Matrix for Internality Dimension .....................................70 Table 13: Rotated Component Matrix for Generality Dimension for Depressed Participants in Nepal Sample.....................................................................................71 Table 14: Rotated Component Matrix for Generality Dimension.....................................72 Table 15: Chi-Square Tests for Measure of Attributional Style Questions for US Sample .................................................................................................................73 Table 16: Chi-Square Tests for Measure of Attributional Style Questions for Nepal Sample .......................................................................................................................74 Table 17: Chi-Square Tests for Measure of Attributional Style Questions.......................75 Table 18: Chi-Square Tests for Measure of Attributional Style Questions for Depressed Participants in Nepal Sample.....................................................................................76 Table 19: Chi-Square Tests for Negative Consequences Dimension of the Measure of Attributional Style Questions for US Sample............................................................77 Table 20: Chi-Square Tests for Negative Consequences Dimension of the Measure of Attributional Style Questions for Nepal Sample .......................................................78 Table 21: Chi-Square Tests for Negative Consequences Dimension of the Measure of Attributional Style Questions for Depressed Participants in US Sample..................79 Table 22: Chi-Square Tests for Negative Consequences Dimension of the Measure of Attributional Style Questions for Depressed Participants in Nepal Sample..............80 Table 23: Binomial Tests for Measure of Attributional Style for Nepal Sample..............81 Table 24: Binomial Tests for Measure of Attributional Style for US Sample ..................82 Table 25: Binomial Tests for Measure of Attributional Style for Nepal Sample..............83 Table 26: Binomial Tests for Measure of Attributional Style for Nepal Sample..............84 1 Introduction Though the relationship between culture and mental processes is not completely understood, there is sufficient evidence that mental events are affected by the culture in which one develops. The field of psychology seems only to have just begun to explore the relationship between thought and culture, with many holes in the literature that need to be filled with data on this relationship. One area in which studies are virtually non- existent is the interaction between depression, attributions, and culture. Separate literatures exist for research on depression and culture and for attribution and culture, but no data has yet been published regarding the interaction of depression, attributions, and culture jointly. The goal of the present study is to examine this relationship by comparing a sample from an Eastern culture (Nepal) to that of a Western culture (the United States). The implications for studies such as this one are extensive; a large number of both medical doctors and psychologists are trained in the West (or are trained in the East using Western methods based on Western research). As data are collected that support differing patterns of psychological phenomena between the East and West, it should become clear that a universal psychology is ill-suited for a world in which culture?s effects are far reaching. Culture shows itself not only in the customs and traditions of a society but also in the moment to moment thoughts and behaviors of its members. The present study attempts to examine one way in which culture can manifest itself in those thoughts and behaviors, namely through depression and attributions. 2 Attributions Harold Kelley (1973) stressed the importance of studying attributions: he claimed they are the basis for one?s decisions about how to behave or respond in any given situation. The courses of action available to a person undeniably rely on the situations? attributions, or one?s reasoning about why an event happened or what caused an event to occur. Examining attributions across different events can give us clues about one?s attributional style, or a consistency in the way that one explains events. Obtaining information about one?s attributional style allows researchers and clinicians to make better predictions about other aspects of an individual, such as their happiness and health (Peterson, Buchanan, & Seligman, 1995). Peterson et al. (1995) suggest that the study of attributional style grew primarily out of research on learned helplessness and personal control. The learned helplessness model (Maier & Seligman, 1976; Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978) proposed that there can be cognitive, emotional, and motivational effects that result from an event over which an individual has no control. This approach to the study of attributional style is an attempt to identify the dimensions of control people feel they have over life events and to discover the effects of assigning such loci of control. Eisner (1995) has suggested that an array of influences may shape attributional style. One of these is genetic information. Schulman, Keith, and Seligman (1991) examined attributional style in identical twins and found that their attributions correlated at .48, while fraternal twins had a correlation of .00. Another early influence is the explanatory style of one?s parents. Seligman, Peterson, Kaslow, Tanenbaum, Alloy and Abramson (1984) compared the attributions of mothers with those of their 3 children and found that attribution for negative events was correlated at .39. Similarly, Dweck, Davidson, Nelson, and Edna (1978) found that young students? attributions about their classroom performance are correlated with their teachers? attributions about performance. Whether teachers attribute poor performance to a lack of effort or to a lack of intelligence, their students tend to make similar attributions (Dweck et al., 1978). Childrens? exposure to events that are uncontrollable may also play a role in developing an attributional style. Nolen-Hoeksema, Girgus, and Seligman (1991) report that children who experience a major uncontrollable event, such as the divorce of their parents, have more negative attributional styles compared to children with fewer uncontrollable life events. Eisner (1992, 1995) has found that trust in adolescence plays a role in attributional style as well; mistrust of others predicted a negative explanatory style, but negative explanatory styles did not reliably predict mistrust. This result indicates that trust might be an important factor in developing a negative attributional style rather than vice versa (Eisner, 1995). Measuring Attributional Style There are two measures widely used in research as tools for assessing attributional style: the Attributional Style Questionnaire (Peterson, Semmel, von Baeyer, Abramson, Metalsky, & Seligman, 1982) and the Content Analysis of Verbatim Explanations (Peterson, Luborsky, & Seligman, 1983). Both measures attempt to extract information from the participant about their attributions on three different dimensions, internal versus external, stable versus unstable, and global versus specific. The internal versus external dimension refers to the perceived locus of control for a particular event. The stability dimension attempts to asses whether the attributions made about an event 4 are stable across time for this event or are likely to change based on other circumstances. The global versus specific dimension reveals information about the specificity of the attribution to events similar to the event in question or particular to the event being assessed. Determining where the participant?s attributions lie on each of these three dimensions is the goal of these measures, and responses allow researchers to make general conclusions about the overall attributional style of the participant. One of the earliest measures of attributional style, and perhaps the most widely used, is the Attributional Style Questionnaire and its derivatives (Peterson, Semmel, von Baeyer, Abramson, Metalsky, & Seligman, 1982). The Attributional Style Questionnaire presents subjects with six positive events and six negative events (for example ?You meet a friend who acts hostilely towards you?). Additionally, six of the events concern interpersonal relationships and six contain achievement situations. For each event, the subject must write down one cause of the event and indicate the locus, stability, and specificity of the attribution. Scores are then computed for positive and negative events and for interpersonal and achievement situations. Variations of the Attributional Style Questionnaire has been constructed for specific types of attributional style by modifying the types of life events used, while keeping the test format and scoring constant. Some examples of these variations are the Children?s Attributional Style Questionnaire (Kaslow, Tannenbaum, & Seligman, 1978), the Organizational Attributional Style Questionnaire (Kent & Martinko, 1995), and the Academic Attributional Style Questionnaire (Peterson & Barett, 1987). The Content Analysis of Verbatim Expressions method was developed so that oral or written statements by any individual, not just those who have responded to 5 questionnaires, can be analyzed in an attempt to discern the individual?s attributional style. Experienced users of Content Analysis of Verbatim Expressions train other potential users in an eight hour workshop intended to teach researchers or therapists how to extract and rate attributes from speech or written words. Any attribution statement extracted by the reviewer is then rated on three scales for the locus, stability, and specificity of the attributions. Many researchers have expressed concerns about the measurement of attributional style using these measures. Low to moderate internal consistency and test- retest reliability coefficients have been found (Robins & Hayes, 1995; Cutrona, Russell, & Jones 1984; Johnson & Miller, 1990; Zautra, Guenther, & Chartier, 1985). Additionally, Robins and Block (1989) Zautra et al (1985) report finding low correlations between each of the three dimensions (locus, stability, and specificity) as measured by the Attributional Style Questionnaire. However, factor analyses of Attributional Style Questionnaire results have shown that distinct attributional styles exist for positive and negative life events (Xenikou, Furnham, & McCarrey, 1997). Peterson, Bettes, and Seligman (1985) obtained similarly low internal consistency for the Content Analysis of Verbatim Expressions method, but found inter-rater agreement to be adequate, as did Schulman, Keith, and Seligman (1989). Riskind, Castellon, and Beck (1989) and Schulman, Castellon, and Seligman (1989) both found the Content Analysis of Verbatim Expressions method to be successful in predicting depression, primarily using responses on the stability and specificity. Despite this, Schulman et al (1989) found that the Attributional Style Questionnaire had an even higher rate of success at predicting traits such as depression. Robins and Hayes (1995) suggest that the 6 lack of consistently high test-retest validity and internal consistency may be due to a difference in participants? attributions for events that are hypothetical versus events that occur ?naturally.? Results from many studies have found such differences in attributions for real versus hypothetical events (Brown & Harris, 1978; Zaurtra, et al., 1985; Cutrona, et al., 1984). Attributional Style and Depression A large proportion of the research concerning attributional style has focused on the relationship between depression and attributions. This is in part due to the reformulated model of learned helplessness by Abramson et al (1978), which proposed that an individual?s attribution about the cause of an event is a major determinant of their resulting experiences, among them helplessness and depression. Peterson and Seligman (1984) propose that a pessimistic attribution style, attributions which are internal (blamed on one?s self), stable (last for a long time), and global (applicable to many situations), is most related to depression. Attributions which fit these dimensions are considered to be depressogenic attributions. Numerous studies have revealed relationships between the presence of depressogenic attributions and symptoms of depression in various populations. Undergraduate Students Seligman et al. (1970) discovered that the presence of depressive symptoms is highly correlated with internal, stable, and global attributions (as measured by the Attributional Style Questionnaire) in college-age students. These results were corroborated by Peterson, Bettes, and Seligman (1985), who additionally found that the open-ended attributions provided by college students were correlated with depressive 7 symptoms regardless of the type of life event considered. It should also be noted that several studies, also using the Attributional Style Questionnaire, have failed to detect a significant relationship between attributions and depression using a college student sample (Peterson, Schwartz, & Seligman, 1981; Cochran & Hammen, 1985; Needles & Abramson, 1990). Women Peterson and Seligman (1984) examined the attributions of low socioeconomic status women and found that attributions that were internal and global were highly correlated with the presence of depression (as measured by the Beck Depression Inventory; Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock, & Erbaugh, 1961), but that the stability dimension was not correlated with depression. O?Hara, Rehm, and Campbell (1982) and Cutrona (1983) found that the presence of significantly more depressogenic attributions (internal, stable, and global attributions) than positive attributions in postpartum women reliably predicted the onset of postpartum depression. In fact, O?Hara et al. (1982) reported that a depressogenic attributional style was the single best predictor for the level of postpartum depression and the speed of recovery from that depression. Nevertheless, there are findings that contradict this evidence by failing to find significant relationships between attributions and depression in women (Manly, McMahon, Bradley, & Davidson, 1982; O?Hara, Neunaber, & Zekoski, 1984). Children Using the Children?s Attributional Style Questionnaire (Kaslow, et al., 1978) and the Children?s Depression Inventory (Kovacs and Beck, 1977), found that depressogenic attributions by children on all three attributional dimensions successfully 8 predicted symptoms of depression across six months. Similarly, Asarnow and Bates (1988) measured clinically depressed children and found that their attributions were significantly more internal, stable, and global than a nondepressed control. Results from another study on children substantiate this link, but only for the stability dimension (Robins & Hinkley, 1989). Nolen-Hoeksema, Girgus, and Seligman (1986) performed a more longitudinal study of children?s attributions and reported that non-depressed children who provided depressogenic attributions were more likely to be depressed three months later than those nondepressed children who made more positive attributions. Clinically Depressed Adults Raps, Peterson, Reinhard, Abramson, and Seligman (1982) compared attributions from clinically depressed hospital inpatients, nondepressed schizophrenics, and nondepressed hospital patients. An analysis of these attributions found that those who were clinically depressed made significantly more internal, stable, and global attributions than members of the other two groups. This suggests that depressogenic attributions are related to the presence of depression rather than to more general medical problems or other types of psychopathology. Raps at al (1982) further reported that a depressogenic attributional style for negative life events correlated significantly with the total amount of time the patient was depressed. Persons and Rao (1981) also found that internal and global depressogenic attributions correlated with clinical unipolar depression and that depressogenic attributions decreased in quantity as patients were treated with antidepressant drugs. 9 The studies which fail to offer evidence for a link between depression and attributions should be examined more closely. Most of these studies fail to measure attributional style across several types of life events and over an extended period of time (Peterson & Seligman, 1984; Epstein, 1980). Peterson and Raps (1983) analyzed methods and data from research on depression and attribution and found that nearly all of the studies which failed to show such a relationship asked participants for their attributions for only a single life event. All but one of the studies supporting such a relationship between attribution and depression asked participants about several situations. Robins (1988) cautions that many of these studies had insufficient statistical power to successfully assess the relationship between depression and attributions. After correcting for these concerns, Robins (1988) reports that there is strong evidence for a connection between depression and attributions, especially on the stability and specificity dimensions. Models of Attribution and Depression A key question raised by many of these studies is whether depressogenic attributions are one of the factors that lead to depressive symptoms or if depressogenic attributions are a symptom of existing depression. Several models have been proposed in an attempt to describe the relationship between depression and attributions (Brewin, 1985). One is the symptom model, which posits that depressogenic attributions are simply a symptom of depression and appear only when a participant is clinically depressed. Hamilton and Abramson (1983) compared a depressed group to a nondepressed control group and discovered that their attributions as measured by the Attributional Style Questionnaire were different. When the depressed group was tested 10 again after their depressive symptoms had subsided, their attributions were not significantly different than the control group. These results were corroborated by Fennell and Campbell (1984) and by Lewisohn, Steinmetz, Larson, and Franklin (1981). Brewin and Harris (1985) attempted to induce a negative mood state in otherwise nondepressed participants, and failed to find a difference in attributions for these participants when compared to a control group. Brewin (1985) points out that this may be due to the lack of uncontrollability which is important to depression and depressogenic attributional styles according to the learned helplessness of Abramson et al (1978). A second proposed model is the onset model. The onset model assumes that depressogenic attributions appear in the wake of a major uncontrollable life event, and that depressive symptoms then result from these attributions. According to Brewin (1985), there is little empirical support for this model; several studies have asked participants to report the single most upsetting life event and measured attributions related to the event, but the results of these studies have been conflicting and ambiguous (Gong-Guy & Hammen, 1980; Miller, Klee & Norman, 1982; Firth & Brewin, 1982; Hammen, Krantz, & Cochran, 1981). The vulnerability model suggests that a major negative life event can interact with an overall pre-existing negative attributional style to create even more depressogenic attributions, which ultimately leads to the onset of depression (Abramson, et al., 1978). Metalsky, Abramson, Seligman, Semmel, and Peterson (1982) found that students who performed poorly on an exam made more depressogenic attributions after the exam than prior to it, while students who did not experience the 11 negative event experienced no change in attributions. Rothwell and Williams (1983) found similar results in a group of men who had recently lost their jobs compared to men who had not. Williams (1985) and Brewin (1985) caution that the methodology used in these studies is not entirely sound and that a closer look at the results when accounting for these methodological problems may reveal that there is no support for the vulnerability model. Another conception is the recovery/coping model, which suggests that the onset of depression leads to depressogenic attributions for life events that preceded the onset of depression. Recovery from depression occurs when the patients cease to make depressogenic attributions. Several studies have provided support for using the presence of depressogenic attributions for predicting the remission of depressive symptoms, as suggested by the recovery model (Cutrona, 1983; Firth & Brewin, 1982; Lewisohn, Steinmetz, Larson, & Franklin, 1981; Miller & Norman, 1981; Golin, Sweeney, & Shaeffer, 1981). Though fewer in number, there are also studies in which the decline of depressogenic attributions did not predict subsequent alleviation of depressive symptoms (Peterson, Schwartz, & Seligman, 1981; Manly McMahon, Bradley, & Davidson, 1982). Attributional Style and Culture The notion that culture affects cognitions and behaviors is not a new one. The idea existed as long ago as 400 BC: Herodotus believed that the Greeks thought differently than the Egyptians since the Egyptian read from right to left instead of left to right, like the Greeks (Hunt & Agnoli, 1991). The hypothesis was more concretely formulated in the 20 th century by Benjamin Whorf and Edward Sapir (Sapir, 1951; 12 Whorf, 1956). The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is considered by many to have two versions, one strong and one weak (Malt, Sloman, & Gennari, 2003). The strong version insists that culture is inextricably linked to thought and that most, if not all, cognitive tasks are guided by the culture of the individual. A weaker version suggests that culture, language, and thought can be linked within the framework of some cognitive tasks, but not every cognitive task is influenced by culture or language. The ideas of Sapir and Whorf have led to the creation of an entire sub-discipline of psychology devoted to determining the effects, if any, of culture on our cognitive processes. An early hypothesis concerning the effects of culture on attributions was made by Hsu (1953) who proposed that Americans? conceptions of the world are centered on people, and that Chinese conceptions are based on situations. These findings have been replicated in samples from India and Bali (Dumont, 1970; Geertz, 1975). This coincides with Hofstede?s (1980) individualism-collectivism dimension of culture. Strongly individualistic cultures promote individuals as the main actor in life events and are concerned with meeting the goals of these individuals, while more collectivist cultures view the actions and needs of the group as most important. Hofstede (2001) measured several countries on the individualism-collectivism dimension and discovered that Americans scored as highly individualistic while those from Eastern cultures scored as more collectivist. This difference between Western and Eastern systems of thought has been extended to attributions. Attributions are, in part, an explanation of the perceived causes of events, which can be either internal or external. These perceived loci can vary as a result of culture (Bae & Crittenden, 2001). Higgins and Bhatt (2001) found that 13 individuals in India (a more collectivist culture) reported significantly higher external attributions about life events than did members of a more individualistic culture. Most studies, however, have reported that internal attributions are made more often than external attributions by members of Eastern cultures (Crittenden & Bae, 1994; Mezulis, Abramson, Hyde, & Hankin, 2004). Higgins and Bhatt (2001) also found support for differences in the way that these two cultures make attributions based on their sense of control (internal versus external) over life events. These findings support a difference in attributional styles across culture and imply that the learned helplessness model may apply cross-culturally for attributions. A clear problem in measuring attributions across cultures is that of equivalence. It is not certain that members of two different cultures will value a given life event in the same way. For example, the loss of one?s job is a major negative life event for an American, regardless of where that individual lies on most dimensions, such as depression. Different cultures, however, might lead their members to conceptualize an event differently such that differences in attributions about the event are not a result of the explanatory style of the individual or the culture but are rather a result of the interpretation of the life event (Oettingen, 1995). This concern is partially allayed by using the Content Analysis of Verbatim Expressions technique, which allows the researcher to draw attributions from a participant?s normal discourse rather than to survey them about possibly culturally-biased life events. Oettingen (1995) advocates the use of a blind Content Analysis of Verbatim Expressions technique, in which the Content Analysis of Verbatim Expressions coders are blind to the cultural background of the participant and thus the potential influence of culture on attributions. 14 Though culture?s effects on attribution likely extends into many different settings (Bond, 1983; Oettingen, 1995), published research has covered only a few of these settings. Academic Performance Studies on cross-cultural attributions for academic performance are the most abundant in the literature; Smith and Bond (1999) suggest that this is because educational settings are one of the few that are fairly comparable across many cultures. Not surprisingly, many of the studies on academic attributions across cultures have produced results that support differential effects of American and Eastern cultures (Yan & Gaier, 1994; Kashima & Triandis, 1986; Crittenden, 1991). Political and Religious Systems A handful of studies outside of the realm of academics have been conducted, overcoming some methodological concerns by using the Content Analysis of Verbatim Expressions method. Oettingen and Morawska (1990) found a difference in attributions for positive and negative life events between Jewish and Christian cultures and between religious-based and secular-based statements and documents within these cultures. Oettingen and Seligman (1990) compared attributions between East Germans and West Germans (prior to the fall of the Berlin wall) about events in the Olympics. Results indicated that attributions were much more negative for East Germans even when the outcome of an Olympic event favored the East Germans. Oettingen (1995) evokes the learned helplessness model in explaining these results: in cultures where there are less stable governments and economies, control over many life events is out of the hands of the individual. Additionally, as predicted by the learned helplessness model, Oettingen 15 and Seligman (1990) found support for higher levels of depressive symptoms in East Germans than in West Germans even when controlling for factors such as socioeconomic status. Language Many researchers use language as a means to study the deeper differences in thought and behavior among cultural groups. Differences in conceptions of time, number, naming, and classification have been discovered by examining the ways in which these concepts are conceptualized in a culture?s language (Miller, Smith, Zhu, & Zhang, 1995; Miura, Kim, Chang, & Okamoto, 1988; Kelly, Miller, Feng, & Fang, 1999; Boroditsky, 2001). Kanouse (1972) found that people?s attributions correlated with the type of verbs (manifest action verbs or subjective feeling verbs) used to describe their attributions. Languages which differ in the types of verbs used might lead their speakers to make different attributions; research by Malt et al. (2003) show evidence that speakers of Spanish and English make different attributions about the same events based on the type of verbs used in these languages. Further, Zarate, Uleman, and Voils (2001) found that English speakers had significantly faster reaction times to internally-oriented attribution words when the reaction time task was primed by internal attribution words. However, this effect was not seen for Spanish speakers. This suggests that language and culture indeed have an effect on attributional assessment. Bond (1983) found that native Chinese speakers who were proficient in English provided responses on a dogmatism scale that corresponded with Eastern thought when asked in Chinese but responded with more Westernized values when asked in English. This supports the idea that language is important in setting cultural frame with which to 16 evaluate the world. Attributions are a component of this world-view, and these results indicate that the languages used to describe and think about life events are important factors in understanding attributional style (Ross & DiTecco, 1975). Attributions in Nepal Very little research has been published about attributions in Nepal. Watkins and Regmi (1989) asked 308 undergraduate students at Tribhuvan University to complete the Causal Dimension Scale (Russell, 1982) regarding their most recent grades. The Causal Dimension Scale asks participants to attribute the cause of the event in question to either internal or external factors. Results showed that students who had high grades and students who had low grades did not significantly differ in the number of internal or external attributions made about those grades. Watkins and Regmi (1993) surveyed 228 graduate students at Tribhuvan University about their most recent grades and analyzed the content of their statements. Those students who performed well were more likely to attribute their success to effort, while those who scored poorly attributed their failure to illness (an internal factor) or to the poor quality of their education or a mistake by their professor. There were few attributions about ability. Past research has reported that students offering the type of attributions made by these Nepalese students (factors other than effort, which are not under the control of the student) lead to a decrease in future performance; teaching students to attribute both successes and failures to effort has been shown to stop this decrease in performance and is recommended here by Watkins and Regmi (Chapman & Lawes, 1987; Cullen, 1985; Dweck, et al., 1978 as cited by Watkins & Regmi, 1993). These results contradict the earlier findings by Watkins and Regmi (1989), but differ in 17 a manner consistent with the claims of Oettingen (1995) and Peterson et al (1983), who suggest that a content-analysis measure of attributional style is more appropriate than a standard measure such as the Causal Dimension Scale used by Watkins and Regmi (1989) in their earlier study. Paul (1995) indicates that difficulties in measuring attribution in Nepal arise from the fact that some sub-cultures within Nepalese society, particularly the Sherpas, are unwilling to make attributions that would harm or reduce the esteem of others, even if it means ignoring reality in favor of a inaccuracy. According to Paul (1977, 1995), members of the Sherpa culture have an implicit agreement not to talk about others in a way that would cause social conflict, and typically make attributions that are highly external and favor others rather than themselves. Of course, these are not necessarily the true feelings of the individual, but cultural expectations require that culturally acceptable attributions be made publicly. Paul (1995) proposes that this pattern of attribution among Sherpas may be due to the fact that, historically, the actors in all social interactions remained in close physical proximity with each other for their entire lives and learned that attributions that favor social harmony lead to a better quality of life than those which favor the individual. This is essentially a reformulation of Hofstede?s (1980) collectivist dimension. Another potential issue in researching attributions among Hindus in Nepal is the tendency for attributions to vary based on caste membership. Depression Across Cultures There is significant support in the literature for varying rates of depression across cultures (Becker & Schmaling, 1991; Aldwin & Greenberger, 1987; Tanka- 18 Matsumi, 2001). Parker, Gladstone, and Chee (2001), for example, examined rates of depression among Chinese individuals in China and Chinese immigrants in the US. They found that both groups had significantly lower rates of depression than is typical in Western societies. This suggests that the factors which act on depression are at least partly cultural and not environmental. Further, Parker et al (2001) found that the Chinese express their depression differently than Western individuals; depressed participants reported higher rates of denial of their depression and higher rates of somatic symptoms than their Western counterparts. Results from a World Health Organization (2004) study contradict those of Parker et al (2001): depressed individuals in Canada, Japan, Iran, and Switzerland reported experiencing the same types of symptoms of depression, such as a lack of energy, suicidal thoughts, high anxiety, and a change in appetite. There are a number of studies that have found similar consistency of symptoms across cultures (Keitner, et al, 1991; Haghighatgou & Peterson, 1995; Yamamoto, Soliman, Parsons, & Davies, 1987 as cited by Matsumoto & Juang, 2003). Harkness (1987), Prince (1967), and Schumaker (1996) suggest that pattern of depression seen in Western cultures is most different in cultures with the least contact with Western society. This has led to a number of studies on depression in China, which has tended to resist Western capitalistic ideas. Numerous studies have supported the work of Parker et al (2001) by confirming a difference in the rates and expression of depressive symptoms in Chinese versus Western samples (for example, Marsella, Sartorius, Jablensky, & Fenton, 1985; Stewart, Betson, Lam, Chung, & Chung, 1999; Chen, 1996; Stewart, Kennard, Lee, Hughes, Mayes, Emslie, & Lewishohn, 2004). Markus and Kitayama (1994) have suggested that this is due to a difference in the 19 cognitive styles of indivualistic versus collectivist cultures; individuals in more collectivist societies may tend to have a lower sense of worth, efficacy, and control over their lives. Triandis (1994) has correspondingly suggested that different ways of attributing events to internal or external forces may underlie the disparity in rates of depression across cultures, consistent with the prediction of the learned helplessness model. Depression in Nepal Few studies have attempted to asses the rate of depression in Nepal. Simpson, Schumaker, Dorahy, and Shrestha (1996) administered the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977) to 250 Nepalese undergraduates. When compared to a similar Australian sample, the Nepalese sample did not differ in overall rate of depression, although there were significantly more depressed men than woman in Nepal but not in Australia. A measure of life satisfaction for these samples showed that Australians showed a stronger link between low life satisfaction and depressive symptoms than did the Nepalese. Simpson et al (1996) interpret this to mean that depression is independent of life satisfaction in Nepal. However, Simpson et al (1996) report that individuals in the Nepali sample who were from more rural areas had higher rates of depression than those in urban areas. These results are interesting because some researchers (Harkness, 1987; Prince, 1967; Schumaker, 1996) have suggested that cultures whose contact with Western culture is minimal might experience different rates of depressive symptoms than those who have more contact with the West. This interpretation would suggest that Nepalese people from urban areas should have a different rate of depression than those in more isolated rural areas. Simpson et al. 20 (1996) posit that those in rural areas report higher rates of depressive symptoms because they are seen as more primitive by their cultural peers; the stigma of the lower socioeconomic status that can accompany living in more isolated areas in Nepal may serve to increase depressive symptoms. Despite the lack of research published on Nepal, it is expected that cultural factors mentioned above (such as language and socio-political conditions) will lead to differing attributional styles between the West and Nepal, and that these attributions will further differ in the context of depression. 21 Method Participants and Procedure Two groups of participants were recruited for this study. Questionnaire packets, containing demographic questions, The Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (Radloff, 1977), the Beck Depression Inventory (Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock, & Erbaugh, 1961) and the Measure of Attributional Style (Kwon & Whisman, 1992), were distributed in the undergraduate residence halls at Tribuhvan University in Kathmandu, Nepal. Each of these surveys was originally constructed in English, and was translated into Nepali by a native speaker of Nepali. The instruments were then successfully backtranslated into English to ensure the accuracy of the translation. One hundred sixty six undergraduate students (85 male and 81 female) responded and comprise the Nepali sample. Additionally, 122 (50 male and 72 female) undergraduate students at Auburn University were recruited in psychology courses to create the American comparison group. The mean age of participants in the Nepali sample was 24.7 years, compared to 20.6 years in the US sample. The marital status of participants in both groups was similar: 90.4% of Nepalis and 95.9% of Americans reported being single. The most obvious difference between the two groups was their religious background: a majority of the US sample considered themselves Christian (90.2%) while most Nepalis classified themselves as Hindu (90.4%). 22 Scores on the Beck Depression Inventory, Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale, and Measure of Attributional style will be used to explore the connections between culture and attributions and between depression and attributions, and attempt to understand the relationship that both culture and depression have on attributions. To date, no data has been available about the role of both depression and culture on attribution, thus the purpose of this study is to provide initial exploratory data that might serve to give direction to future experimental research. The Measure of Attributional Style Like the Attributional Style Questionnaire, the Measure of Attributional Style (Kwon & Whisman, 1992) presents participants with hypothetical life events, for which the participant selects a cause from among four choices. Unlike the Attributional Style Questionnaire, the Measure of Attributional Style is entirely forced-choice and dispenses with the problem of coding and scoring participant-provided attributions. Each choice contains an attribution which is either internal or external and either global or specific (each question has one response that is internal and global, external and global, internal and specific, and external and specific). Internal attributions are ones that are marked by some placement responsibility on oneself. For example, for the scenario ?You invited a bunch of people over to a party that you were having and only two people came?, the two possible internal attributions are ?You did not advertise the party as well as you could have,? and ?You are not a very good entertainer.? Note that one of these internal attributions is global and could generalize to many other situations (?You are not a very good entertainer,?) and one is more specific to the scenario in question (?You did not advertise the party as well as you could have?). The other two 23 choices are external, one specific (?Most of the people had other commitments and could not come,?) and one general (?People have a tendency to be asocial,?). The responses generate a total score for each of these two dimensions, internality and generality. Kwon (1999) reports that the generality dimension is intended to capture aspects of both the global-specific dimension and the stable- unstable dimension of attributions. Additionally, after each attribution question, the participant is asked to select the likelihood that the situation described will have a major negative consequence, for example, being fired from one?s job. These likelihood ratings yield a negative consequences score. The hypothetical life events described in the Measure of Attributional Style can be divided in two ways to provide information about different types of life events. Kwon and Whisman (1992) built into the Measure of Attributional Style a subscale for differences between interpersonal situations (scenarios involving friends and social events) and achievement situations (performance and work-related scenarios). Thus attributions can be examined across these situations to see if the same pattern of attributions exists for both interpersonal and achievement scenarios. Kwon and Whisman (1992) report a test-retest reliability for the Measure of Attributional Style generality dimension of .82 over 3 months, and an internal consistency reliability of .74 for the generality dimension. Kwon (1999) indicates that the Measure of Attributional Style is a more accurate predictor of depression and dysphoria than the Expanded Attributional Style Questionnaire (Peterson & Villanova, 1988), an updated and expanded version of the Attributional Style Questionnaire. 24 The Measure of Attributional Style was used here primarily because its forced- choice format dispenses with any response coding and translation issues. Due to differences in culture and language between the US and Nepal, using a measure such as the Attributional Style Questionnaire or the Content Analysis of Verbatim Expression technique is not a viable option for studying attributions because of the determining equivalence in responses across the two cultures. The Measure of Attributional Style allows responses to be compared more easily because of the forced-choice format and because the measure contains life events that are equivalent between the two cultures (work related events and interpersonal situations). The only non-equivalent life scenario is question 21, which concerns dating. Because of the large cultural differences in dating habits between the US and Nepal (many marriages in Nepal are arranged and thus dating does not have the same meaning as it might in the US), this item was dropped from the survey and no data was collected. Depression Measures Both the Beck Depression Inventory (Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock, & Erbaugh, 1961) and Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (Radloff, 1977) were administered to both US and Nepali samples. Both of these scales have been validated in samples from non-Western cultures. Gupta and Yick (2001) tested a sample of Chinese individuals using the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale and found that the scale accurately assessed depression and that there were no translation issues inherent in the test. Their results, however, indicated that a three factor solution fit the data better than the traditional four factor solution usually derived from the measure (Radloff, 1977). Cheung and Bagley (1998) similarly reported that the 25 Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale was an accurate predictor of depression in a Hong Kong sample and that the aspects of depression being measured are stable across time. Samples from Europe, Mexico, and Korea have further demonstrated the validity of the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale in non-American samples (Golding & Aneschensel, 1989; Noh, Avison, & Kaspar, 1992). The Beck Depression Inventory has demonstrated similar validity in other cultures. Tashakkori, Barefoot, and Mehryar (1989) used the Beck Depression Inventory in a sample of Iranian college students and found that it was a significant predictor of the presence of depressive symptoms. College students in Bahrain also provided data that demonstrate the validity and reliability of this assessment tool in Arabic (Al-Musawi, 2001). When administered to a Chinese sample, the translated version of the Beck Depression Inventory was an accurate predictor of major depressive symptoms and contained a factor structure similar to that of American respondents (Yeung, Howarth, Chan, Sonowalla, Neirenberg, & Fava, 2002; Skeck, 1990). The Beck Depression Inventory has also been validated in Spanish and Persian speaking samples (Bonicatto, Dew, & Soria, 1998; Hojat, Shapurian, & Mehrayr, 1986). Though both the Beck Depression Inventory and Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale have been validated cross-culturally, the Beck Depression Inventory will be used primarily in data analysis because of its more widespread use in assessing and diagnosing clinical depression in the United States and because it has been validated across cultures using college student participants. Results obtained using the Beck Depression Inventory to indicate depression will then be compared to the 26 results obtained by using the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale; results should match if the two scales are measuring the same aspects of depression in both cultures. 27 Results Results from the Measure of Attributional Style yield several variables: the total number of internal, external, global, and specific attributions made by each participant. Two additional scores are created by the totals for both the Beck Depression Inventory and the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (see Tables 1 and 2 for the means of these scores in each sample). These variables were used to analyze data in three ways: comparisons of the samples using means, comparisons of the samples using regression equations, and a comparison of the responses to the Measure of Attributional style using a confirmatory factor analysis for the interpersonal and achievement subscales. Comparisons of Group Means Depression data alone from the two samples were compared using an independent samples t-test procedure to determine if prevalence of depression was the same across the two samples. Results indicate that means of depression scores as measured by both the Beck Depression Inventory and The Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale do significantly differ between the two groups for both depression measures, t(286) = 2.586, p?.010 and t(286) = 2.646, p?.009 respectively. Using both measures, Nepali participants reported higher depression scores than US participants. 28 Data was next analyzed using independent sample t-tests to compare the mean scores of respondents on the internality and generality dimensions of the Measure of Attributional Style. Internality scores were significantly different between the US and Nepal samples, t(286) = 6.227, p ? .000, as were scores for generality, t(286) = 13.440, p ? .000. Additionally, scores for the negative consequences element were significantly different between the two samples, t(286) = 13.557, p ? .000. Mean scores for these three dimensions of the Measure of Attributional Style (shown in Tables 1 and 2) reveal that participants in the Nepal sample made more external and specific attributions than their American counterparts and indicated that a negative consequence was more likely to result from the events described in the questionnaire than did the US participants. Analyses were next conducted by examining responses on the Measure of Attributional Style separately for depressed and non-depressed participants within each group, using the Beck Depression Inventory criteria for diagnosis as clinically depressed (a score of 21 or over; Beck and Steer, 1993). This allows for comparisons between the depressed individuals within the Nepal group (n = 38) to depressed individuals within the US group (n = 18). The mean scores of the depressed participants within each cultural sample were significantly different on all three measures, internality t(54) = 3.003, p ? .004, generality, t(54) = 5.001, p ? .000, and negative consequences, t(54) = 3.313, p ? .002. Depressed participants in Nepal made significantly more external and global attributions than depressed US participants. The interpersonal and achievement subscales for attribution were analyzed next. For interpersonal situations, the total number of internal and external attributions was found to be significantly different across the samples, t(286) = 3.409, p ? .001, with 29 Nepalis making more internal attributions than US participants. Likewise, there was a significant difference between US and Nepali participants in the number of global and specific attributions for interpersonal situations, t(286) = 10.954, p ? .000, with Nepalis making more specific attributions. There was also a significant difference in the negative consequences dimension score for interpersonal scenarios, t(286) = 6.330, p ? .000; again, Nepali participants indicated that a negative consequence was more likely than did US participants. When only depressed participants are considered, the internality and negative consequences dimensions are no longer significant; only generality differs between the depressed US and depressed Nepali participants for interpersonal situations, t(54) = 2.546, p ? .014. Results for the achievement subscale showed that there were differences in the number of internal and external attributions and in the number of global and specific attributions between the US and Nepali samples regardless of depression, t(286) = 5.690, p ? .000 and t(286) = 11.096, p ? .000 respectively. Nepali participants were more likely to respond using an external and specific attribution. The difference between the negative consequences scores for US and Nepali participants failed to reach significance. Examining the influence of depression on the achievement subscale reveals that the internality and generality dimensions remain significantly different between the samples (t(54) = 3.215, p ? .002 and t(54) = 5.089, p ? .000 respectively). Depressed Nepali participants make more internal attributions than non-depressed Nepalis and both depressed and non-depressed US participants. The difference between the US and Nepal negative consequences scores for depressed participants again failed to reach significance. 30 Multiple Regressions One possible problem with the above data analysis is that, despite its use in clinical settings, utilizing the Beck Depression Inventory score of 21 or higher may mask some results due to the arbitrary nature of this cutoff point. A multiple regression procedure allows the total Beck Depression Inventory score to be used in data analysis, rather than using the categories of depressed and non-depressed. Two multiple regression procedures were employed. First, attribution scores (total number of internal attributions, total number of global attributions, negative consequences score) for each sample were regressed in an effort to predict depression as measured by Beck Depression Inventory total score. For the Nepali sample, the best regression model (R 2 = .18, F(1, 164) = 7.054, p ? .001) included the negative consequences score and the total number of internal attributions as significant predictors (for generality score, t(65)=3.259, p ? .001, for negative consequences, t(165)=2.037, p ? .043), but the internality score was not a significant predictor. For the US sample, all three scores were significant predictors for depression score, R 2 = .21, F(3, 188) = 10.609, p ? .000 (for generality, t(121) = 3.065, p ? .003, for internality, t(121) = 2.781, p ? .006, and for negative consequences t(121) = 2.461, p ? .015). These results indicate that there are different components to predicting depression based on attributions as assessed by the Measure of Attributional Style across the two samples. Next, the sample served as the dependent variable in an effort to determine if attributional style and depression significantly differentiate between participants in the two samples. This regression model, consisting of the Beck Depression Inventory Score and the scores for internality, generality, and negative consequences, was significant, 31 R 2 = .39, F(4, 51)= 17.220, p ? .000. Removing depression score from the regression still generates a significant model, R 2 = .32, F(3, 52)= 16.705, p ? .000, but the amount of variability accounted for, as measured via the R squared, is reduced from 39% to 32%. Each of the above regressions was next repeated using the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale score in place of the Beck Depression Inventory score. For the model predicting depression score for the Nepal sample, the model including only generality score and negative consequences score remained the best model, R 2 = .15, F(2, 163)= 9.074, p ? .003. Similarly, the model including all three scores remained the best model for the US sample, R 2 = .13, F(3, 118)= 9.078, p ? .000. The model which attempts to predict sample using depression score along with attribution scores also remained significant, R 2 = .51, F(4, 283)= 102.089, p ? .000. Correlating responses on the Beck Depression Inventory to responses to the Center for Epidemiological Studies yields a correlation coefficient of .656, supporting the hypothesis that levels of depression are being measured similarly in both of these measures. Factor Analysis of Subscales A confirmatory factor analysis was performed on responses to the Measure of Attributional Style in order to determine if the interpersonal and achievement subscales constituted separate factors in one or both samples. The factor analysis utilized the principal components extraction method and a varimax rotation. Any eigenvalue greater than one was accepted for inclusion (Pett, Lackey, & Sullivan, 2003). Eight separate analyses were produced: one for each dimension (internality and generality) for each 32 sample group, US, Nepal, US depressed, and Nepal depressed (depression was again defined as having scored 21 or higher on the Beck Depression Inventory). Eigenvalues and variances are reported in Tables 3 ? 6. Each of the factor analyses resulted in two factors. An examination of the questions that load onto each of these two factors (see Tables 7 ? 14) reveals that one factor corresponds to interpersonal situations and one factor corresponds to achievement situations (any factor loading of greater than .3 or less than -.3 was considered to have loaded onto a factor). Though the factor that accounts for the greater variance differs across the factor analyses run here, the same two-factor structure persists. 33 Discussion The results reported above unambiguously support the hypothesis that both culture and depression affect attributions and that the effect of depression on attributions is different across cultures. The means of scores on the internality dimension, the generality dimension, and the negative consequences dimension of attributions were significantly different both across cultures and between depressed individuals within those cultures. Further, the means of the depressed participants in the Nepali sample were different from those in the depressed US sample. These findings underscore the need to consider culture in the prediction, assessment, and treatment of psychological phenomena. Additionally, the data support the hypothesis that the construct of attribution is comprised of separate factors for achievement and interpersonal events. US and Nepali participants responded differently to the Measure of Attributional Style based on whether the question was related to interpersonal situations or to achievement situations. However, depressed individuals differed only on the generality dimension for interpersonal situations and on the negative consequences dimension for achievement situations. This suggests that some feature of attributional style which otherwise differentiates the US and Nepali samples on these dimensions is in some way mitigated in the context of depression. In other words, depressed participants responded similarly 34 regardless of culture, suggesting that some effects of depression on attribution can override differences in attributional styles present across cultures. A more detailed look at the results reveals some unexpected discoveries. For example, the Nepal sample as a whole made more external attributions than the US sample. This is contrary to many other studies which report that Eastern cultures make more internal attributions (Crittenden & Bae, 1994; Mezulia, Abramson, Hyde, & Hankin, 2004), as well as observational data made on the basis of cultural expectations (Lillard & Skibbe, 2001). This may explain why the regression model which predicts the Nepalis? depression score fails to include internality as a significant predictor; there may be enough variability in the internality scores in the Nepalese sample to attain a significant t when compared to the US sample, but not a strong enough difference to predict depression score reliably. What might contribute to this result? It should be noted that Nepal may not be a typical Eastern culture, especially considering current circumstances in Nepal. In an area only slightly larger than the state of Arkansas, people from more than 12 ethnic groups (each with their own dialect) live in less than ideal conditions. Nearly 50% of the population lives in poverty, making Nepal one of the poorest nations on Earth, and nearly 50% of the people are unemployed. To compound these problems, the people of Nepal are waging a civil war against Maoist guerillas who wish to destroy the constitutional monarchy form of government and replace it with a communist state. This has resulted in a multitude of terrorist attacks on the part of the Maoist insurgents, killing thousands of people over the last decade. Even the monarchy does not provide a firm source of strength for the Nepalese people. In 2001, the crown prince of Nepal 35 shocked the Nepalese people by murdering his father and mother (the king and queen) as well as several other members of the royal family. As a result, the current king, Gyanendra, was installed. In February of 2005, Gyanendra dissolved the government and suspended many of the freedoms formerly provided by the democratic constitution of Nepal and usurped much of the power for himself. What effect does this have on attributions and depression in Nepal? The learned helplessness model of Maier & Seligman (1976) and the model of hopelessness depression of Abramson, Metalsky, and Alloy (1989) predict that depressive symptoms result from feelings of helplessness and from negative events. It could certainly be predicted that the Nepalese might sense a lack of control over their life events given the unstable state of their country at present. This would explain the higher scores reported by the Nepalese on both the Beck Depression Inventory and the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale in this study. The empirically established links between depression and attributions would imply that the attributions of the Nepalese would be affected by these greater rates of depression. Features of Nepali culture suggest that there should be differences in attributional style as well, namely the Nepali language. Unlike English, Nepali sentences rarely indicate personal responsibility for an event. For example, while in English we might say ?I broke the glass?, a Nepali speaker would say ?The glass broke.? Personal responsibility is often omitted from this type of statement. It is reasonable to hypothesize that this linguistic difference could affect cognitions and thus attributions, and although that specific hypothesis was not investigated in this study, it could be one of the reasons that attributions differ between the US and Nepal (Edwards 36 & Potter, 1993). Future research should investigate the effects of the Nepali language on attributions. Another feature of Nepali culture that might affect attributions is the belief in fatalism, or the idea that actions and choices are unimportant because the future is predetermined. Bista (1991) reports that the value system of Nepal places no emphasis on the taking of responsibility for failures. For example, if a student fails an exam, it is typical for him to be upset with the teacher and not with himself for his failure. This is, in part, due the perception that personal effort has little to do with the outcome of an event, and thus attributions are much more likely to be external than internal for negative events. This fatalistic pattern of attributions also pervades social relations, family life, and political decisions, and it has been suggested that this approach to life events may contribute to the lack of development in Nepal (Bista, 1991). This aspect of Nepali society certainly suggests that attributional style differences would be detected between the US and Nepal, as the data in this study indicate. As is the case with all psychological measures that are used cross-culturally, the issue of whether the test is measuring equivalent constructs in each culture is important. This issue is resolved normally by conducting a confirmatory factor analysis of responses to the measure in each culturally sample and examining the amount of overlap that exists between the components that comprise each factor for each culture. The Measure of Attributional Style, however, is designed in such a way that makes such a factor analysis meaningless: the dimensions of attributional style, internality and generality, along with the negative consequences likelihoods, are embedded in the responses to the scenarios, not in the questions themselves. Because a factor analysis is 37 intended to find test items that hang together and not to analyze responses to those items, using a factor analysis to test equivalence was not an option for this study. Several non-parametric tests can serve to provide some data in place of a factor analysis. It would be expected that, if the Measure of Attributional Style is assessing some construct of attributions, response rates for each style of attribution (global or specific and internal or external) would be significantly different than chance would predict for the depressed sample. It would be expected that the depressed participants make more internal and global attributions than their non-depressed counterparts, who might perform more as chance would predict. One-sample Chi-Square tests were performed for each question in order to determine if responses on each question were significantly different from the null hypothesis that each style would receive 25% of the responses. For the US sample overall, only one question (question 45) failed to reach significance and thus responses were no different than predicted by chance (see Table 15). For the Nepali sample, only question 51 failed to reach significance (see Table 16). When depressed participants in each sample are considered, the number of questions that received responses varying significantly from chance is reduced drastically: only 15 questions attained significance for the US depressed participants and 10 questions for the Nepali depressed participants (see Tables 17 and 18). Eight of these questions overlap and failed to produce responses different than chance in either sample. Next, chi-square tests were performed on responses to the negative consequences questions. It would be expected that, by chance, responses would be evenly distributed among the six likelihood choices if the Measure of Attributional Style were not assessing some aspect of attributions. The chi-square tests for both the 38 US and Nepal samples reveal that each question received a number of responses that significantly differ from chance. Chi-square results are reported in Tables 19 and 20. Responses for only three questions no longer differed significantly from chance when only depressed participants are included for analysis in the Nepal sample, and responses for three questions in the depressed US sample are also significantly different than predicted by chance (see Tables 21 and 22). These chi-square procedures reveal that, when depression is not a factor, the Measure of Attributional Style does produce responses that may be assessing some feature of attributions. When only depressed participants are considered, however, responses often do not differ from chance predictions. In order to determine which questions received significantly different responses across the samples on the generality and internality dimensions, a binomial test was conducted. If the Measure of Attributional Style truly assessed some attributional construct, it would be expected that responses on these two dimensions for each question would be different from the expected chance outcome, that is that 50% of the responses will be internal and 50% external and that 50% will be global and 50% specific. Results for the Nepal sample (reported in Table 23) show that, using an alpha of .05, five of 25 questions for the internality dimension fail to reach a response level significantly different than chance and eight of 25 questions fail to attain significance on the generality dimension. None of the non-significant questions overlap between the two dimensions, indicating that 12 of the 25 questions produced responses that differed significantly from chance on either the internality and generality dimensions. 39 Results for the US sample (Table 24) reveal that six questions for the internality dimension and two questions for the generality dimension fail to attain significantly different responses than predicted by chance. Question 51 fails to achieve significance for both the internality and generality dimensions for the US sample. Thus, 18 questions do produce significantly different responses in this sample on both dimensions. Three of the items, questions 13, 29, and 47, fail to attain significance in either sample for the internality dimension and both question 47 and 51 fail to attain significantly different responses than chance for the generality dimension. The same pattern of significance holds for the generality and internality dimension for depressed participants as was true for chi-square tests for depressed participants: including only those with Deck Depression Inventory scores over 21 for analysis results in a drastic drop in the number of questions which produce responses that differ significantly from chance. For the cultural samples as a whole, results for these binomial tests are acceptable. It would be natural that several of the questions fail to discriminate between different styles of attribution or between different negative consequence probabilities within each sample. However, when depressed participants alone are considered, the number of significant questions drops to just a few. The opposite of this result is what should be expected: non-depressed participants might respond more as chance would predict, but depressed participants should produce responses that are significantly different than chance if they are indeed making more depressogenic attributions. Clearly, these questions cannot be considered to be meaningful for the purposes of interpretation because they fail to capture responses at anything other than a random probability. There are several possible explanations for this result. Both the US and 40 Nepal samples as a whole do produce responses that are different than chance on nearly all of the questions, but this significant difference disappears when non-depressed participants are removed from analysis. This suggests that depressed individuals in both samples may have a more disorganized pattern of attributions that is not found in the non-depressed sample. This result, however, would be contradictory to previous findings that propose that depressed individuals often have a stable attributional style. Another possible reason for this result is that the Measure of Attributional Style is not a well-constructed test for the purpose of determining the interacting effects of culture and depression on attributions. The Measure of Attributional Style has received very limited attention in the literature to date, so it is difficult to determine if the results obtained here using this measure are typical of other studies. It is also possible that the Measure of Attributional Style is capturing some aspect of attributions that was not accounted for by this study. Given that the measure does produce the predicted patterns of attributional difference between the US and Nepal, there must be some validity to the measure. There does seem to be specificity for depression in the measure given that there are wide differences in the number of questions that produce responses significantly different than chance between the depressed and non-depressed samples. The Measure of Attributional Style, while having very high face validity, has not established construct validity, which should be considered when interpreting results. A possible concern is that the measure is forced-choice, unlike most measures of attribution. While this forced choice format was necessary for this study because of translation difficulties, open-ended questions may be more appropriate for attributional assessments. Lillard and Skibbe (2001) reported that participants in their study were far 41 more likely to endorse internal attributions when given an open-ended question than when offered choices. They suggest that people may be inclined to posit an internal explanation for behavior unless presented with a possible external attribution that they would not have developed spontaneously. Another potential difficulty of interpreting results from the Measure of Attributional Style is that each of the items in the measure is a negative event, for example, having an argument with a friend or being fired from a job. Tripp, Catano, and Sullivan (1997) provide data that suggest that attributions for positive and negative events may be different, especially in the context of depression. Tripp et al. (1997) propose that attributions for positive and negative events actually constitute two separate factors of attributional style. If this were the case, the Measure of Attributional Style is measuring only one of these two proposed constructs. On the other hand, it should be noted that results strongly supported the hypothesis that interpersonal and achievement situations comprise two factors of attributional style. This finding indicates that the Measure of Attributional Style is useful for differentiating between these two types of life situations. More in-depth data are clearly needed before information gathered using the Measure of Attributional Style is easily interpretable. According to the World Health Organization (2004), depression will grow by 2020 to become the second leading cause of reduced productivity in the world. This highlights the need for diagnosis and treatment mechanisms that take cultural variations into account. Though difference in the incidence of depression and the patterns of attributions that were made across cultures were different in this study, the reasons for 42 these differences remain indefinable for the moment. Because of the socio-political climate of Nepal, it is reasonable to expect that different cognitive styles would emerge in comparison to Western inhabitants, but the methodology of the current study is not intended to tease out these influential cultural factors. Future research should use better attributional assessment tools to investigate the features of the culture that have effects on attributions or on cognition in general. 43 References Aldwin, C., & Greenberger, E. (1987). Cultural differences in predictors of depression. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 789-813. Al-Musawi, N. M. (2001). Psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory with university students in Bahrain. Journal of Personality Assessment, 77, 568-579. Abramson, L.Y., Metalsky, G.I., & Alloy, L.B. (1989). Hopelessness depression: A theory-based subtype of depression. Psychological Review, 96, 358-372. Abramson, L.Y., Seligman, M.E.P., & Teasdale, J.D. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 87, 49-74. Asarnow, J. R., & Bates, S. (1988). Depression in child psychiatric inpatients: Cognitive and attributional patterns. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 6, 601-615. Bae, H., & Crittenden, K.S. (2001). From attribution to dispositional inferences: Patterns of Korean students. Journal of Social Psychology, 129, 481-489. Beck, A.T. & Steer, R.A. (1993). Beck Depression Inventory manual. San Antonio, Texas: Harcourt Brace. 44 Beck, A. T., Ward, C. H., Mendelson, M., Mock, J., & Erbaugh, J. (1961). An inventory for measuring depression. Archives of General Psychology, 4, 561-571. Becker, J., & Schmaling, K. (1991). Interpersonal aspects of depression from psychodynamic and attachment perspectives. In J. Becker & A. Kleinman (Eds.), Psychosocial aspects of depression. (pp. 131-168). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bista, D.B. (1991). Fatalism and development: Nepal?s struggle for modernization. London: Sangam Books. Bond, M. H. (1983). Linking person perception dimensions to behavioral intention dimensions: The Chinese connection. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 14, 41-63. Bonicatto, S. Dew, A. M., Soria, J. J., (1998). Analysis of the psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Beck Depression Inventory in Argentina. Psychiatric Research, 79, 277-285. Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought? English and Mandarin speakers' conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43, 1-22. Brewin, C.R. (1985). Depression and causal attributions: What is their relation? Psychological Bulletin, 98, 297-309. Brewin, C. R. & Harris, J. (1985). Induced mood and causal attributions: Further evidence. Cognitive Therapy & Research, 2, 225-229. Brown, G., & Harris, T. (1978). Social origins of depression: A study of psychiatric disorder in women. New York: Free Press. 45 Chapman, J.W. & Lawes, M.M. (1987). Open-ended attributions for outcome on a major national examination. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 57, 205-211. Cheung, C., & Bagley, C. (1998). Validating an American scale in Hong Kong: The Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). Journal of Psychology, 132, 169-186. Cochran, S.D., & Hammen, C.L. (1985). Perceptions of stressful life events and depression: a test of attributional models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1562-1571. Crittenden, K.S. (1991). Asian self-effacement or feminine modesty? Attributional patterns of women in university students in Taiwan. Gender and Society, 5, 98-117. Cullen, J.L. (1985). Children?s ability to cope with failure: Implications of a metacognitive approach for the classroom. In D.L. Forrest-Pressley, G.L. MacKinninm & T.G. Walker (Eds.). Metacognition, cognition, and human performance. San Diego: Academic Press. Cutrona, C. E., Russell, D., & Jones, R. D. (1984). Cross-situational consistency in attributions: Does attributional style exist? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1043-1058. Cutrona, C. E. (1983). Causal attributions and perinatal depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 92, 161-172. 46 Dweck, C.S., Davidson, W., Nelson, S., & Enna, B. (1978). Sex differences in learned helplessness: (II) The contingencies of evaluative feedback in the classroom and (III) An experimental analysis. Developmental Psychology, 14, 268-276. Dumont, L. (1970). Homo hierarchus. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Eaves, G., & Rush, A.J. (1984). Cognitive patterns in symptomatic and remitted unipolar major depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 93, 31-40. Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1993). Language and causation: A discursive action model of description and attribution. Psychological Review, 100, 23-41. Eisner, J.P. (1992). Interpersonal trust in close relationships: The construct of its role in friendship formation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Eisner, J.P. (1995). The origins of explanatory style: Trust as a determinant of optimism and pessimism. In G. Buchanan & M.E.P. Seligman (Eds.), Explanatory style. (pp. 49-56). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Epstein, S. (1980). The stability of behavior: Implications for psychological research. American Psychologist, 89, 678-682. Fennell, M.J., & Campbell, E.A. (1984). The Cognitions Questionnaire: Specific thinking errors in depression. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 23, 81-92. Firth, J., & Brewin, C.R. (1982). Attributions and recovery from depression: a preliminary study using cross-lagged correlation analysis. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 21, 229-230. Geertz, C. (1975). The Integration of cultures. London: Hutchinson Publishers. 47 Golding, J. M., & Aneshensel, C. S. (1989). Factor structure of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale among Mexican-Americans and non- Hispanic whites. Psychological Assessment, 1, 163-168. Golin, S., Sweeney, P. D., & Shaeffer, D. E. (1981). The causality of causal attributions in depression: A cross-lagged panel correlational analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 90, 14-22. Gong-Guy, E., & Hammen, C. (1980). Causal perceptions of stressful events in depressed and nondepressed outpatients. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 89, 662-669 Lillard, A., & Skibbe, L. (2001). Theory of mind: Conscious attribution and spontaneous trait inferences. In R. Hassin, J. Uleman, & J. Bargh (Eds.), The new unconscious. (pp. 277-308). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hamilton, E.W., & Abramson, L.Y. (1983). Cognitive patterns and major depression disorder: A longitudinal study in a hospital setting. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 92, 173-184. Hammen, C., Krantz, S., & Cochran, S. D. (1981). Relationships between depression and causal attributions about stressful events. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 5, 351-358. Harkness, S. (1987). The cultural mediation of postpartum depression. Anthropological Quarterly, 1, 194-209. Higgins, N.C., & Bhatt, G. (2001). Culture moderates the self-serving bias: Etic and emic features of causal attributions in India and Canada. Social Behavior and Personality, 29, 49-62. 48 Haghighatgou, H., & Peterson, C. (1995). Coping and depressive symptoms among Iranian students. Journal of Social Psychology, 135, 175-180. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hojat, M., Shapurian, R., Mehrya, A.H., (1986). Psychometric properties of a Persian version of the short form of the Beck Depression Inventory for Iranian college students, Psychological Reports, 59, 331-338. Hsu, F. (1953). Americans and Chinese: Passages to differences. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press. Hunt, E., & Agnoli, F. (1991). The Worfian hypothesis: A cognitive psychology perspective. Psychological Review, 98, 377-389. Johnson, J.G., & Miller, S.M. (1990). Attributional, life event, and affective predictors of onset of depression, anxiety, and negative attributional style. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 417?430. Kaslow, N. J., Tanenbaum, R. L., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1978). The KASTEN: A children's Attributional Style Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript. University of Pennsylvania. Kelley, H.H. (1973). The process of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 82, 107-128. 49 Kelly, M., Miller, K., Fang, G., & Feng, G. (1999). When days are numbered: Calendar structure and the development of calendar processing in English and Chinese. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 73, 289-314. Kent, R. & Martinko, M. (1995). The development and evaluation of a scale to measure organizational attributional style. In Martinko, M. (Ed.), Attribution Theory: An Organizational Perspective (pp. 53?75). Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press. Kashima, Y., & Triandis, H.C. (1986). The self-serving bias in attributions as a coping strategy: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17, 83-97. Kovacs, M., & Beck, A.T. (1977) An empirical-clinical approach toward a definition of childhood depression. In J.G. Schulerbrandt & A. Askin (Eds.), Depression in childhood: Diagnosis, treatment, and conceptual issues (pp. 1- 27). New York: Raven. Kwon, P. (1999). Attributional style and psychodynamic defense mechanisms: Toward an integrative model of depression. Journal of Personality, 67, 645-658. Kwon, P., & Whisman, M.A. (1992, November). A longitudinal study of the hopelessness theory of depression: New measures for assessing depressogenic attributional style. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Behavior Therapy, Boston, MA. Lewisohn, P.M., Steinmetz, J.L., Larson, D.W., & Franklin, J. (1981). Depression- related cognitions: Antecedent or consequence? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 90, 213-219. 50 Maier, S.F., & Seligman, M.E.P. (1976). Learned helplessness: Theory and evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 105, 3-46. Malt, B.C., Sloman, S.A., & Gennari, S. (2003). Speaking vs. thinking about objects and actions. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.) Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 81-111). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Manly, P.C., McMahon, R.J., Bradley, C.F., & Davidson, P.O. (1982). Depressive attributional style and depression following childbirth. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 91, 245-254. Markus, H.R., & Kitayama, S. (1994). A collective fear of the collective: Implications for selves and theories of selves. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 568-579. Marsella, A.J., Sartorius, N., Jablensky, A., & Fenton, F. (1985). Cross-cultural studies of depressive disorders: An overview. In A. Kleinmann & B. Good (Eds.). Culture and depression (pp.299-324). Berkeley: University of California Press. Matsumoto, D., & Juang, L.P. (2003). Culture and psychology. New York: Wadsworth. Metalsky, G.I., Abramson, L.Y., Seligman, M.E.P., Semmel, A., & Peterson, C. (1982). Attributional styles and life events in the classroom: Vulnerability and invulnerability to depressive mood reactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 612-617. Mezulis, A. H., Abramson, L.Y., Hyde, J.S., and Hankin, B.L. (2004). Is there a universal positivity bias in attributions? A meta-analytic review of individual, 51 developmental, and cultural differences in the self-serving attributional bias. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 711-747. Miller, I. W., Klee, S. H., & Norman, W.H. (1982). Depressed and nondepressed inpatients' cognitions of hypothetical events, experimental tasks, and stressful life events. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 91, 78-81. Miller, I.W., & Norman, W.H. (1981). Effects of attributions for success on the evaluation of learned helplessness and depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 90, 113-124 Miller, K. F., Smith, C. M., Zhu, J., & Zhang, H. (1995). Pre-school origins of cross- national differences in mathematical competence: The role of number-naming systems. Psychological Science, 1, 56 - 60. Miura, I.T., Kim, C.C., Chang, C-M., & Okamoto, Y. (1988). Effects of language characteristics on children?s cognitive representation of number: Cross-national comparisons. Child Development, 59, 1445?1450. Needles, D. J., & Abramson, L. Y. (1990). Response to depressed mood: Cognitive and affective effects of rumination and distraction. Unpublished manuscript, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI. Noh, S., Avison, W. R., & Kaspar, V. (1992). Depressive symptoms among Korean immigrants: Assessment of a translation of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale. Psychological Assesment, 4, 84-91. Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Girgus, J. S., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1986). Learned helplessness in children: A longitudinal study of depression, explanatory style and academic achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 435-442. 52 Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Girgus, J. S., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1991). Sex differences in depression and explanatory style in children. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 20, 233?245. O'Hara, M. W., Neunaber, D. J., & Zekoski, E. M. (1984). A prospective study of postpartum depression: Prevalence, course, and predictive factors. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 93, 158-171. O'Hara, M. W., Rehm, L. P., & Campbell, S. B. (1982). Predicting depressive symptomatology: Cognitive-behavioral models and postpartum depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 91, 457-461. Oettingen, G. (1995). Explanatory style in the context of culture. In G. Buchanan & M.E.P. Seligman (Eds.), Explanatory style. (pp. 209-224). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Oettingen, G., & Morawska, E.T. (1990). Explanatory style in religious vs. secular domains in Russian Judaism vs. Orthodox Christianity. Unpublished manuscript, University of Pennsylvania. Oettingen, G., & Seligman, M.E.P. (1990). Pessimism and behavioural signs of depression in East versus West Berlin. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 207-220. Parker, G., Gladstone, G., & Chee, K.T. (2001). Depression in the planet?s largest ethnic group: The Chinese. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158, 857-864. Paul, R.A. (1977). The place of truth in Sherpa law and religion. Journal of Anthropological Research, 33, 179-194. 53 Paul, R.A. (1995). Act and intention in Sherpa culture and society. In L. Rosen (Ed.) Other intentions. (pp 15-46). Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press. Persons, J.B., & Rao, P.A. (1985). Longitudinal study of cognitions, life events, and depression in psychiatric inpatients. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 94, 51-63. Peterson, C., & Barrett, L. (1987). Explanatory style and academic performance among university freshman. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 603?607. Peterson, C., Bettes, B. A., & Seligman, M.E.P. (1985). Depressive symptoms and unprompted Causal attribution: Content analysis. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 23, 379-382. Peterson, C., Buchanan, G., & Seligman, M.E.P. (1995). Explanatory style: History and evolution of the field. In G. Buchanan & M.E.P. Seligman (Eds.), Explanatory style. (pp. 1-20). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Peterson, C., Luborsky, L. & Seligman, M. E. P. (1983). Attributions and depressive mood shifts. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 92, 96-103. Peterson, C., & Raps, C.S. (1983). Depression, attributions, and attributional style. Unpublished manuscript, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Peterson, C., Schwartz, S.M., & Seligman, M.E.P. (1981). Self-blame and depressive symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 253-259. 54 Peterson, C., Semmel, A., von Baeyer, C., Abramson, L.T., Metalsky, G.I., & Seligman, M.E.P. (1982). The Attributional Style Questionnaire. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 6, 287-300. Peterson, C., & Seligman, M.E.P. (1984). Causal explanations as a risk factor for depression: Theory and evidence. Psychological Review, 91, 347-374. Peterson, C., & Villanova, P. (1988). An expanded Attributional Style Questionnaire. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97, 87-89. Pett, M., Lackey, N., & Sullivan, J. (2003). Making sense of factor analysis: The use of factor analysis for instrument development in health care research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Prince, R. (1967). The changing picture of depressive symptoms in Africa: Is it fact or diagnostic fashion? Canadian Journal of African Studies, 1, 177-192. Radloff, L.S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401. Raps, C.S., Peterson, C., Reinhard, K.E., Abramson, L.Y., & Seligman, M.E..P. (1982). Attributional style among depressed patients. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 91, 102-108. Riskind, J. H., Castellon, C. S., & Beck, A. T. (1989). Spontaneous causal explanations in unipolar depression and generalized anxiety: Content analysis of dysfunctional thought diaries. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 13, 97-108. Robins, C.J. (1988). Attributions and depression: Why is the literature so inconsistent? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 880-889. 55 Robins, C.J., & Block, P. (1989). Cognitive theories of depression viewed from a diathesis-stress perspective: Evaluations of the models of Beck and of Abramson, Seligman, and Teasdale. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 13, 297-313. Robins, C.J., & Hayes, A.M. (1995). The role of causal attributions in the prediction of depression. In G. Buchanan & M.E.P. Seligman (Eds.), Explanatory style. (pp. 57-98). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Robins, C., & Hinkley, K. (1989). Social-cognitive processing and depressive symptoms in children: A comparison of measures. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 17, 29-36. Ross, M. & DiTecco, D. (1975). An attributional analysis of moral judgments. Journal of Social Issues, 31, 91-109. Rothwell, N., & Williams, J.M.G. (1983). Attributional style and life events. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 22, 139-140. Russell, D. (1982). The Causal Dimension Scale: A measure of how individuals perceive causes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 1137-1145. Sapir, E. (1951). Selected Writings of Edward Sapir (D.G. Mandelbaum, Ed.) Berkeley: University of California Press. Schulman, P., Castellon, C., & Seligman, M.E.P. (1989). Assessing explanatory style: The Content Analysis of Verbatim Explanations and the Attributional Style Questionnaire. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 27, 505-512. Schulman, P., Keith, D., & Seligman M.E.P. (1991). Is optimism heritable: A study of twins. Behavior Research and Therapy, 31, 569-574. 56 Schumaker, J.F. (1996). Psychopathology and psychotherapy: Lessons from the developing world. In S.C. Carr & J.F. Schumaker (Eds.). Psychology and the developing world. (pp 180-190). New York: Praeger. Seligman, M.E.P., Peterson, C., Kaslow, N.J., Tanenbaum, R.L., Alloy, L.B., & Abramson, L.Y. (1984). Attributional style and depressive symptoms among children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 93, 235-238. Simpson, P.L., Schumaker, J.F., Dorahy, M.J., & Shrestha, S.N. (1996). Depression and life satisfaction in Nepal and Austrailia. Journal of Social Psychology, 136, 783-790. Skeck, D.T. (1990). Reliability and factorial structure of the Chinese version of the Beck Depression Inventory. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 46, 34-43. Smith, P.B., & Bond, M.H. (1999). Social psychology across cultures. New York: Prentice Hall. Stewart, S.M., Betson, C., Lam, T.H., Chung, S.F., Ho H.H., & Chung T.F.C. (1999). The correlates of depressed mood in adolescents in Hong Kong. Journal of Adolescent Health, 25, 27-34. Stewart, S.M., Kennard, B.D., Lee, P.W.H., Hughes, C.W., Mayes, T.L., Emslie, G.J., & Lewisohn, P.M. (2004). A cross-cultural investigation of cognitions and depressive symptoms in adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113, 248-257. Tanka-Matsumi, J. (2001). Abnormal psychology and culture. In D. Matsumoto (Ed.) The handbook of culture and psychology. (pp. 265-286). New York: Oxford University Press. 57 Tashakkori, A., Barefoot, J., & Mehryar, A. H. (1989). What does the Beck Depression Inventory measure in college students? Evidence from a non-western culture. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 45, 595-602. Triandis, H. (1994). Theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of collectivism and individualism. In U. Kim, H. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, applications. (pp. 41-51). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tripp, D.A., Catano, V., & Sullivan, M.J.L. (1997). The contributions of attributional style, expectencies, depression, and self-esteem in a cognition-based model. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 29, 101-111. Watkins, D., & Regmi, M. (1993). Attributing academic success and failire in Nepal. Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 241-242. Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. (J. B. Carroll, Ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press. Williams, J.M.G. (1985). Attributional formulation of depression as a diathesis-stress model: Metalsky et al. reconsidered. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1572-1575. World Health Organization (2004). Promoting mental health: Summary report. Geneva: World Health Organization. Xenikou, A., Furnham, A., & McCarrey, M. (1997). Attributional style for negative events: A proposition for a more reliable and valid Measure of Attributional Style. British Journal of Psychology, 88, 53?69. 58 Yamamoto, K., Soliman, A., Parsons, J., & Davies, O. L. (1987). Voices in unison: Stressful events in the lives of children in six countries. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 28, 855-864. Yan, W., & Gaier, E. (1994). Causal attributions for college success and failure: An American Asian comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 25, 146-158. Yeung, A., Howarth, S., Chan, R., Sonowalla, S., Neirenberg, A., & Fava, M. (2002). Use of the Chinese version of the Beck Depression Inventory for screening depression in primary care. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 2, 94-99. Zarate, M. A., Uleman, J. S., & Voils, C. (2001). Effects of culture and processing goals on the activtion and binding of trait concepts. Social Cognition, 19, 295-323. Zautra, A. J., Guenther, R. T., & Chartier, G. M. (1985). Attributions for real and hypothetical events. Their relations to self-esteem and depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 94, 530-540. 59 TABLE 1 Means and Standard Deviations for US and Nepal Samples Nepal Sample (N = 166) Variable M SD Beck Depression Inventory Score 14.626 9.217 Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale Score 41.544 8.031 Total Number of Internal Attributions 11.133 2.673 Total Number of External Attributions 13.837 2.677 Total Number of Global Attributions 11.548 3.451 Total Number of Specific Attributions 13.422 3.447 Negative Consequences Score 65.759 5.809 US Sample (N = 122) Variable M SD Beck Depression Inventory Score 11.664 10.107 Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale Score 39.277 5.844 Total Number of Internal Attributions 13.205 2.965 Total Number of External Attributions 11.754 2.972 Total Number of Global Attributions 6.000 3.476 Total Number of Specific Attributions 18.959 3.505 Negative Consequences Score 50.025 13.312 60 TABLE 2 Means and Standard Deviations for Depressed Participants in US and Nepal Samples Nepal Sample (n = 38) Variable M SD Beck Depression Inventory Score 28.447 5.811 Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale Score 47.118 8.997 Total Number of Internal Attributions 11.500 2.836 Total Number of External Attributions 13.500 2.836 Total Number of Global Attributions 12.974 3.158 Total Number of Specific Attributions 12.026 3.158 Negative Consequences Score 64.763 6.069 US Sample (n = 18) Variable M SD Beck Depression Inventory Score 30.186 10.380 Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale Score 45.667 8.636 Total Number of Internal Attributions 14.167 3.618 Total Number of External Attributions 10.833 3.618 Total Number of Global Attributions 8.000 3.896 Total Number of Specific Attributions 17.000 3.896 Negative Consequences Score 58.722 6.986 61 TABLE 3 Eigenvalues and Variances for Internality Dimension Nepal Sample Component Eigenvalue % of Variance Cumulative % 1 11.808 17.231 17.231 2 11.770 17.078 34.309 US Sample Component Eigenvalue % of Variance Cumulative % 1 12.356 19.425 19.425 2 12.012 18.049 37.475 62 TABLE 4 Eigenvalues and Variances for Generality Dimension Nepal Sample Component Eigenvalue % of Variance Cumulative % 1 12.546 40.183 40.183 2 11.881 27.524 67.708 US Sample Component Eigenvalue % of Variance Cumulative % 1 13.068 42.272 42.272 2 11.839 27.358 69.629 63 TABLE 5 Eigenvalues and Variances for Depressed Participants on Internality Dimension Nepal Sample Component Eigenvalue % of Variance Cumulative % 1 13.251 43.005 43.005 2 12.501 30.004 73.009 US Sample Component Eigenvalue % of Variance Cumulative % 1 14.364 37.455 37.455 2 13.620 24.480 51.935 64 TABLE 6 Eigenvalues and Variances for Depressed Participants on Generality Dimension Nepal Sample Component Eigenvalue % of Variance Cumulative % 1 14.838 41.353 41.353 2 11.509 30.038 71.391 US Sample Component Eigenvalue % of Variance Cumulative % 1 13.963 39.853 39.853 2 10.630 24.519 64.372 65 TABLE 7 Rotated Component Matrix for Internality Dimension in Nepal Sample Component Question 1 2 1 0.009 -0.428 3 0.106 0.367 5 -0.334 -0.398 7 -0.278 0.368 9 0.469 -0.191 11 -0.017 0.344 13 -0.609 0.222 15 -0.284 -0.408 17 0.205 -0.363 19 0.375 0.113 23 0.305 -0.131 25 0.584 0.278 27 -0.409 0.221 29 -0.257 -0.377 31 0.011 0.413 33 -0.476 -0.049 35 0.461 -0.184 37 0.039 -0.608 39 0.075 0.393 41 0.361 -0.277 43 0.404 0.239 45 -0.037 0.381 47 0.287 0.509 49 -0.103 0.368 51 0.267 0.135 66 TABLE 8 Rotated Component Matrix for Internality Dimension for US Participants Component Question 1 2 1 -0.051 0.384 3 -0.001 -0.493 5 0.325 -0.133 7 0.196 0.351 9 0.519 0.216 11 0.156 -0.508 13 0.518 -0.100 15 -0.365 0.494 17 0.152 -0.579 19 0.493 -0.212 23 0.572 -0.057 25 0.585 0.132 27 -0.501 -0.280 29 0.213 0.436 31 0.132 0.502 33 0.526 0.287 35 0.324 -0.087 37 0.257 -0.351 39 0.142 0.436 41 0.524 0.219 43 0.325 0.034 45 0.267 -0.466 47 0.413 -0.259 49 0.013 -0.404 51 0.349 0.042 67 TABLE 9 Rotated Component Matrix for Generality Dimension for Nepal Sample Component Question 1 2 1 0.384 -0.250 3 0.591 -0.238 5 -0.047 0.467 7 0.323 -0.398 9 0.206 0.400 11 0.583 -0.229 13 0.471 -0.407 15 0.485 0.092 17 0.201 -0.011 19 0.021 -0.385 23 0.156 0.424 25 0.187 -0.623 27 0.154 -0.241 29 0.340 0.136 31 0.349 0.073 33 0.226 0.585 35 0.299 -0.543 37 0.461 0.388 39 0.305 -0.283 41 0.077 0.391 43 0.070 0.654 45 0.514 0.163 47 0.228 0.327 49 0.490 0.232 51 0.160 0.394 68 TABLE 10 Rotated Component Matrix for Generality Dimension for US Sample Component Question 1 2 1 0.257 -0.349 3 0.321 -0.419 5 0.565 0.143 7 0.198 0.428 9 0.105 0.119 11 0.225 0.475 13 0.574 0.226 15 0.211 -0.529 17 0.076 -0.610 19 0.369 -0.073 23 0.454 0.371 25 0.679 -0.032 27 0.329 0.148 29 0.425 -0.409 31 0.214 0.348 33 0.562 0.008 35 0.363 0.036 37 0.186 -0.536 39 0.310 -0.460 41 0.424 -0.080 43 0.488 -0.259 45 0.295 -0.407 47 0.351 0.459 49 0.068 0.429 51 0.485 0.174 69 TABLE 11 Rotated Component Matrix for Internality Dimension for Depressed Participants in Nepal Sample Component Question 1 2 1 0.539 -0.209 3 -0.041 0.084 5 0.248 -0.684 7 -0.363 -0.283 9 0.349 0.005 11 -0.508 0.073 13 0.213 0.603 15 0.522 0.041 17 0.588 0.265 19 -0.297 0.394 23 0.255 0.603 25 -0.274 0.348 27 -0.101 -0.483 29 0.537 -0.300 31 0.515 0.131 33 -0.062 -0.342 35 0.196 0.525 37 0.481 -0.204 39 -0.355 0.271 41 0.242 0.402 43 -0.113 0.494 45 0.578 -0.223 47 -0.147 -0.015 49 -0.602 0.158 51 -0.115 0.550 70 TABLE 12 Rotated Component Matrix for Internality Dimension for Depressed Participants in US Sample Component Question 1 2 1 0.575 -0.238 3 0.709 -0.292 5 0.155 0.123 7 -0.381 0.311 9 0.076 -0.689 11 -0.456 0.057 13 -0.035 0.791 15 -0.865 -0.069 17 0.491 0.160 19 0.545 0.382 23 0.535 0.348 25 0.173 0.442 27 0.183 -0.419 29 -0.573 0.169 31 0.844 0.063 33 0.171 0.378 35 -0.318 -0.309 37 -0.617 0.016 39 -0.310 0.145 41 -0.065 0.598 43 0.004 0.588 45 0.394 0.031 47 0.262 0.417 49 -0.425 0.031 51 0.034 0.331 71 TABLE 13 Rotated Component Matrix for Generality Dimension for Depressed Participants in Nepal Sample Component Question 1 2 1 -0.077 0.339 3 -0.142 -0.525 5 0.525 -0.113 7 -0.349 0.527 9 0.195 -0.477 11 0.217 0.509 13 -0.044 0.236 15 0.149 0.631 17 0.206 -0.046 19 -0.483 0.185 23 -0.376 -0.286 25 0.455 -0.129 27 -0.535 -0.059 29 0.036 0.602 31 0.260 -0.509 33 0.357 -0.029 35 0.616 0.128 37 0.470 0.504 39 0.213 0.408 41 0.301 -0.119 43 0.369 0.089 45 0.176 0.304 47 0.189 -0.014 49 0.093 -0.584 51 0.536 -0.168 72 TABLE 14 Rotated Component Matrix for Generality Dimension for Depressed Participants in US Sample Component Question 1 2 1 -0.006 -0.801 3 0.226 0.673 5 0.470 0.232 7 0.673 -0.333 9 -0.692 0.030 11 -0.085 0.256 13 0.468 -0.273 15 0.232 0.462 17 -0.094 0.086 19 0.567 -0.227 23 -0.327 0.213 25 -0.444 -0.051 27 -0.905 -0.046 29 0.140 -0.595 31 -0.198 -0.608 33 0.006 -0.014 35 0.407 0.007 37 -0.174 0.313 39 -0.071 -0.499 41 0.658 -0.041 43 -0.493 0.048 45 -0.139 0.001 47 0.416 0.137 49 -0.052 0.584 51 0.335 0.078 73 TABLE 15 Chi-Square Tests for Measure of Attributional Style Questions for US Sample Question p ? 2 p 1 3 41.181** 0.000 3 3 120.503** 0.000 5 3 40.024** 0.000 7 3 29.545** 0.000 9 3 31.349** 0.000 11 3 76.265** 0.000 13 3 37.614** 0.000 15 3 74.530** 0.000 17 3 31.928** 0.000 19 3 73.855** 0.000 23 3 21.885** 0.000 25 3 88.747** 0.000 27 3 128.795** 0.000 29 3 93.229** 0.000 31 3 79.494** 0.000 33 3 62.000** 0.000 35 3 46.530** 0.000 37 3 127.048** 0.000 39 3 26.006** 0.000 41 3 9.855** 0.020 43 3 36.892** 0.000 45 3 5.325 0.149 47 3 88.892** 0.000 49 3 36.699** 0.000 51 3 27.590** 0.000 *p?.05 **p?.01 74 TABLE 16 Chi-Square Tests for Measure of Attributional Style Questions for Nepal Sample Question df ? 2 p 1 3 160.426** 0.000 3 3 25.082** 0.000 5 3 88.223** 0.000 7 4 98.902** 0.000 9 3 97.410** 0.000 11 3 43.902** 0.000 13 3 56.164** 0.000 15 3 143.115** 0.000 17 3 109.148** 0.000 19 3 91.049** 0.000 23 3 70.918** 0.000 25 3 160.033** 0.000 27 3 100.033** 0.000 29 3 25.738** 0.000 31 3 66.918** 0.000 33 4 102.344** 0.000 35 3 64.426** 0.000 37 3 117.541** 0.000 39 4 154.721** 0.000 41 3 22.721** 0.000 43 3 71.902** 0.000 45 4 113.000** 0.000 47 3 67.705** 0.000 49 3 115.836** 0.000 51 3 2.262** 0.520 *p?.05 **p?.01 75 TABLE 17 Chi-Square Tests for Measure of Attributional Style Questions for Depressed Participants in US Sample Question df ? 2 p 1 3 12.667** 0.005 3 3 0.667 0.881 5 2 1.333 0.513 7 2 0.333 0.846 9 2 6.333* 0.042 11 3 1.111 0.774 13 2 1.333 0.513 15 3 17.111** 0.001 17 3 6.000 0.112 19 3 22.000** 0.000 23 1 0.222 0.637 25 3 13.556** 0.004 27 2 6.333* 0.042 29 3 2.000 0.572 31 3 10.000* 0.019 33 3 2.444 0.485 35 2 7.000* 0.030 37 2 4.333 0.115 39 3 4.667 0.198 41 3 2.889 0.409 43 3 4.667 0.198 45 2 1.000 0.607 47 2 6.333* 0.042 49 3 9.111* 0.028 51 3 2.000 0.572 *p?.05 **p?.01 76 TABLE 18 Chi-Square Tests for Measure of Attributional Style Questions for Depressed Participants in Nepal Sample Question df ? 2 p 1 3 7.263 0.064 3 3 12.737** 0.005 5 3 9.368* 0.025 7 3 6.842 0.077 9 3 11.474** 0.009 11 3 7.684 0.053 13 3 4.316 0.229 15 3 11.053** 0.010 17 3 3.474 0.324 19 3 19.053** 0.000 23 3 6.211 0.102 25 3 12.105** 0.007 27 3 9.579* 0.023 29 3 18.211** 0.000 31 3 8.105* 0.044 33 3 22.421** 0.000 35 3 6.842 0.077 37 3 33.368** 0.000 39 3 4.737 0.192 41 3 0.105 0.991 43 3 14.842** 0.002 45 3 6.000 0.112 47 3 15.263** 0.002 49 3 11.053* 0.011 51 3 7.263 0.064 *p?.05 **p?.01 77 TABLE 19 Chi-Square Tests for Negative Consequences Dimension of the Measure of Attributional Style Questions for US Sample Question df ? 2 p 2 5 111.803** 0.000 4 5 25.443** 0.000 6 5 65.869** 0.000 8 5 38.131** 0.000 10 5 24.459** 0.000 12 5 11.967** 0.035 14 5 52.689** 0.000 16 5 15.115** 0.010 18 5 36.361** 0.000 20 5 40.098** 0.000 24 5 55.344** 0.000 26 5 85.628** 0.000 28 5 25.443** 0.000 30 5 61.628** 0.000 32 5 16.306** 0.006 34 5 44.623** 0.000 36 5 64.197** 0.000 38 5 67.836** 0.000 40 5 49.344** 0.000 42 5 72.438** 0.000 44 5 58.098** 0.000 46 5 32.918** 0.000 48 5 61.049** 0.000 50 5 80.525** 0.000 52 5 40.098** 0.000 *p?.05 **p?.01 78 TABLE 20 Chi-Square Tests for Negative Consequences Dimension of the Measure of Attributional Style Questions for Nepal Sample Question df ? 2 p 2 5 113.108** 0.000 4 5 36.627** 0.000 6 5 88.313** 0.000 8 5 46.891** 0.000 10 5 42.554** 0.000 12 5 26.018** 0.000 14 5 59.614** 0.000 16 5 26.723** 0.000 18 5 33.446** 0.000 20 5 55.133** 0.000 24 5 51.084** 0.000 26 5 65.542** 0.000 28 5 33.373** 0.000 30 5 61.422** 0.000 32 5 17.831** 0.003 34 5 33.800** 0.000 36 5 74.578** 0.000 38 5 45.446** 0.000 40 5 49.855** 0.000 42 5 61.855** 0.000 44 5 84.265** 0.000 46 5 15.012** 0.010 48 5 65.831** 0.000 50 5 20.072** 0.001 52 5 71.400** 0.000 *p?.05 **p?.01 79 TABLE 21 Chi-Square Tests for Negative Consequences Dimension of the Measure of Attributional Style Questions for Depressed Participants in US Sample Question df ? 2 p 2 5 7.333 0.062 4 5 5.889 0.208 6 5 6.444 0.092 8 5 10.667 0.058 10 5 2.000 0.572 12 5 0.889 0.926 14 5 4.222 0.238 16 5 8.667 0.123 18 5 4.667 0.198 20 5 0.222 0.974 24 5 2.000 0.572 26 5 9.111* 0.028 28 5 15.889** 0.003 30 5 4.471 0.346 32 5 6.000 0.112 34 5 3.778 0.286 36 5 6.444 0.168 38 5 4.667 0.198 40 5 6.444 0.168 42 5 4.778 0.311 44 5 7.556 0.109 46 5 0.222 0.974 48 5 2.889 0.409 50 5 11.444* 0.022 52 5 7.778 0.051 *p?.05 **p?.01 80 TABLE 22 Chi-Square Tests for Negative Consequences Dimension of the Measure of Attributional Style Questions for Depressed Participants in Nepal Sample Question df ? 2 p 2 5 17.526** 0.002 4 5 10.947 0.052 6 5 4.316 0.229 8 5 18.842** 0.002 10 5 15.421** 0.004 12 5 12.135* 0.033 14 5 12.000* 0.017 16 5 16.000** 0.007 18 5 23.895** 0.000 20 5 15.684** 0.003 24 5 26.105** 0.000 26 5 20.421** 0.001 28 5 22.000** 0.001 30 5 9.368* 0.025 32 5 32.105** 0.000 34 5 12.526* 0.028 36 5 19.368** 0.001 38 5 9.105 0.059 40 5 14.105** 0.007 42 5 22.526** 0.000 44 5 18.053** 0.001 46 5 5.947 0.203 48 5 10.158* 0.038 50 5 20.105** 0.001 52 5 29.324** 0.000 *p?.05 **p?.01 81 TABLE 23 Binomial Tests for Measure of Attributional Style for Nepal Sample on Internality Dimension Question p Category with Higher Frequency 1 0.103 Internal 3 0.000** External 5 0.393 Internal 7 0.001** Internal 9 0.000** Internal 11 0.000** External 13 0.187 External 15 0.000** External 17 0.001** External 19 0.393 External 23 0.641 Internal 25 0.000** Internal 27 0.000** Internal 29 0.074 External 31 0.000** Internal 33 0.000** Internal 35 0.485 External 37 0.000** External 39 0.000** External 41 0.698 External 43 0.024* External 45 0.103 Internal 47 0.024* External 49 0.052 External 51 0.000** External *p?.05 **p?.01 82 TABLE 24 Binomial Tests for Measure of Attributional Style for US Sample on Internality Dimension Question p Category with Higher Frequency 1 0.000** External 3 0.174 External 5 0.000** External 7 0.000** Internal 9 0.000** Internal 11 0.123 External 13 0.174 Internal 15 0.000** External 17 0.000** Internal 19 0.000** External 23 0.001** External 25 0.000** External 27 0.000** Internal 29 1.000 Internal 31 0.001** External 33 0.000** External 35 0.000** Internal 37 0.000** Internal 39 0.000** Internal 41 0.037* External 43 0.000** External 45 0.000** External 47 0.786 External 49 0.000** External 51 0.786 Internal *p?.05 **p?.01 83 TABLE 25 Binomial Tests for Measure of Attributional Style for Nepal Sample On Generality Dimension Question p Category with Higher Frequency 1 0.074 Specific 3 0.000** Global 5 0.000** Global 7 0.000** Global 9 0.187 Global 11 0.000** Global 13 0.393 Global 15 0.000** Global 17 1.000 Global 19 0.000** Specific 23 0.000** Global 25 0.000** Specific 27 0.000** Specific 29 0.816 Global 31 0.000** Specific 33 0.036* Specific 35 0.024* Global 37 0.276 Global 39 0.043* Global 41 0.074 Specific 43 0.000** Global 45 0.140 Global 47 0.140 Global 49 0.000** Global 51 0.103 Global *p?.05 **p?.01 84 TABLE 26 Binomial Tests for Measure of Attributional Style for Nepal Sample On Generality Dimension Question p Category with Higher Frequency 1 0.000** Specific 3 0.000** Global 5 0.000** Specific 7 0.000** Specific 9 0.000** Specific 11 0.000** Specific 13 0.000** Specific 15 0.000** Specific 17 0.000** Specific 19 0.000** Global 23 0.000** Specific 25 0.000** Global 27 0.000** Specific 29 0.000** Specific 31 0.000** Specific 33 0.000** Global 35 0.023* Specific 37 0.000** Global 39 0.000** Global 41 0.008** Specific 43 0.000** Global 45 0.006** Specific 47 0.319 Global 49 0.000** Specific 51 0.239 Specific *p?.05 **p?.01 85 APPENDICES 86 Appendix A Measure of Attributional Style Directions: Listed below are a number of different possible life situations. For each situation, imagine as vividly as you can that the situation has just occurred in your life. First, you will be asked to choose the most likely cause of the situation. Choose the most likely response, and do not mark more than one response for any question. Second, you will be asked to judge the likelihood of a possible consequence of the event. You have recently noticed that you and your best friend are beginning to drift apart. 1. Which of the following is the MOST likely cause of this situation? a) You tend to get wary when you get close to somebody. b) It is common for friendships to fade with time. c) You have been busy lately and you have had less time for your social life. d) Your friend has been in a bad mood lately, which has led to some minor arguments. 2. What is the likelihood that this situation will lead to a breakup of your friendship? a) Extremely likely d) Somewhat unlikely b) Very likely e) Very unlikely c) Somewhat likely f) Extremely unlikely You have had an increasing number of arguments with your friend lately. 3. Which of the following is the MOST likely cause of this situation? a) People tend to demand unreasonable things from others close to them. b) You have had a difficult time at work lately, causing you to be tense. c) Your friend had a bad week and has been unusually argumentative. d) You have difficulty maintaining close relationships. 87 4. What is the likelihood that this situation will lead to a breakup of your friendship? a) Extremely unlikely d) Somewhat likely b) Very unlikely e) Very likely c) Somewhat unlikely f) Extremely likely You recently had an argument with your employer at work. 5. Which of the following is the MOST likely cause of this situation? a) Your employer was difficult to get along with that day because he/she was in a bad mood. b) You had an exceptionally bad day and lost your temper when your employer gave you some mild criticism. c) You have always resisted taking orders from people. d) People in power tend to get arrogant and disrespectful. 6. What is the likelihood that this situation will lead to serious problems at work? a) Extremely likely d) Somewhat unlikely b) Very likely e) Very unlikely c) Somewhat likely f) Extremely unlikely Lately, you have not been feeling that you have as many friends as you would like to have. 7. Which of the following is the MOST likely cause of this situation? a) You tend to be somewhat timid around other people. b) Other people tend to be very wary in forming friendships. c) Lately, you have had less time to socialize with others. d) The people that you have been meeting lately have not been very interesting. 8. What is the likelihood that this situation will lead to your feeling as if you have nobody to talk to? a) Extremely unlikely d) Somewhat likely b) Very unlikely e) Very likely c) Somewhat unlikely f) Extremely likely 88 You were recently fired from your job. 9. Which of the following is the MOST likely cause of this situation? a) The work involved in your job was not stimulating. b) You have difficulty fulfilling your potential. c) You made a rare error at your job at an unfortunate time. d) Employers tend to make unreasonable requests from their employees. 10. What is the likelihood that this situation will lead to overwhelming problems for your career? a) Extremely likely d) Somewhat unlikely b) Very likely e) Very unlikely c) Somewhat likely f) Extremely unlikely A few days ago, your friends went out to see a movie without calling you. 11. Which of the following is the MOST likely cause of this situation? a) You have difficulty maintaining close contact with your friends. b) Your friends mistakenly assumed that you were busy that day. c) You have been out of the house quite often lately and have been hard to reach. d) People can be very insensitive. 12. What is the likelihood that this situation will lead to your becoming more distrustful of your friends from now on? a) Extremely unlikely d) Somewhat likely b) Very unlikely e) Very likely c) Somewhat unlikely f) Extremely likely You have been looking for a job unsuccessfully for several weeks. 13. Which of the following is the MOST likely cause of this situation? a) Employers are very distrustful of job applicants. b) You do not have much to offer as a job applicant. c) You have not yet looked hard enough for a job because you have been busy lately. d) Business has been unusually slow in your town the past few weeks. 89 14. What is the likelihood that this situation will lead to a major setback in your search for employment? a) Extremely likely d) Somewhat unlikely b) Very likely e) Very unlikely c) Somewhat likely f) Extremely unlikely Recently, an acquaintance passed by you on the street without saying hello. 15. Which of the following is the MOST likely cause of this situation? a) You were in a hurry, and did not look like you wanted to be bothered. b) You tend to make other people uncomfortable. c) The person who passed you was daydreaming and did not see you until you passed by. d) Other people rarely go out of their way to be pleasant. 16. What is the likelihood that this situation will lead to your acting more distant from this person? a) Extremely unlikely d) Somewhat likely b) Very unlikely e) Very likely c) Somewhat unlikely f) Extremely likely You recently called an old friend who did not seem too excited to hear from you. 17. Which of the following is the MOST likely cause of this situation? a) Your friend happened to be very busy when you called. b) You have a tendency to think that you are friends with someone, when you really are not. c) Most people have no sense of loyalty. d) You had unusual difficulty thinking of things to say to your friend. 18. What is the likelihood that this situation will lead to a permanent disruption of your friendship? a) Extremely likely d) Somewhat unlikely b) Very likely e) Very unlikely c) Somewhat likely f) Extremely unlikely 90 You have recently been unable to complete all the work expected of you. 19. Which of the following is the MOST likely cause of this situation? a) You have not been in a very productive mood lately. b) People often heap too much responsibility on others. c) You tend to buckle when given too much responsibility. d) You have been unfairly given more work than you can possibly handle. 20. What is the likelihood that this situation will lead to a major nuisance in your life? a) Extremely unlikely d) Somewhat likely b) Very unlikely e) Very likely c) Somewhat unlikely f) Extremely likely You went out on a date and it went badly. 21. Which of the following is the MOST likely cause of this situation? a) You have had unusual difficulty in attracting dates lately and it affected your confidence. b) Your date was a boring person. c) It is difficult to understand how any two people could enjoy a first date. d) You have always felt uncomfortable on dates. 22. What is the likelihood that this situation will have a devastating impact on your social life? a) Extremely likely d) Somewhat unlikely b) Very likely e) Very unlikely c) Somewhat likely f) Extremely unlikely 91 You recently received a negative review from your employer. 23. Which of the following is the MOST likely cause of this situation? a) You usually have difficulty fulfilling people's expectations. b) Your employer had an incorrect negative impression of your work habits. c) You have had an unusual slump in productivity at work. d) Employers tend to be too impersonal and expect too much from their employees. 24. What is the likelihood that this situation will lead to major problems at work? a) Extremely unlikely d) Somewhat likely b) Very unlikely e) Very likely c) Somewhat unlikely f) Extremely likely You recently forgot an important appointment at work. 25. Which of the following is the MOST likely cause of this situation? a) You tend to forget things easily. b) You were busy at the time and neglected to check your calendar. c) Workplaces tend to be so cluttered that appointments are missed all the time. d) One of your coworkers forgot to remind you of your appointment. 26. What is the likelihood that this situation will lead to major problems and embarrassment at work? a) Extremely likely d) Somewhat unlikely b) Very likely e) Very unlikely c) Somewhat likely f) Extremely unlikely A few days ago, you were late to work. 27. Which of the following is the MOST likely cause of this situation? a) You had an unusually difficult time waking up that morning. b) You were caught in an unexpected traffic jam that morning. c) With employers demanding 8-hour workdays, there is never enough time to get adequate sleep. d) You have difficulty fulfilling your responsibilities quite often. 92 28. What is the likelihood that this situation will lead to irreversible problems at work? a) Extremely unlikely d) Somewhat likely b) Very unlikely e) Very likely c) Somewhat unlikely f) Extremely likely A friend has been overly critical of you lately. 29. Which of the following is the MOST likely cause of this situation? a) You have been busy lately and have not had a chance to be as pleasant as you usually are. b) People have a hard time accepting others as they are. c) You tend to procrastinate in doing things until people around you complain about it. d) Your friend has been in a bad mood lately. 30. What is the likelihood that this situation will lead to significant problems in your relationship with your friend? a) Extremely likely d) Somewhat unlikely b) Very likely e) Very unlikely c) Somewhat likely f) Extremely unlikely You recently went to a party and had a terrible time. 31. Which of the following is the MOST likely cause of this situation? a) Parties are a waste of time. b) You were not in the mood to go to a party, but felt obligated to go. c) The party that you went to was boring. d) You have a hard time loosening up in social situations. 32. What is the likelihood that this situation will lead to major problems in your social life? a) Extremely unlikely d) Somewhat likely b) Very unlikely e) Very likely c) Somewhat unlikely f) Extremely likely 93 You have been working overtime at work and nobody has noticed. 33. Which of the following is the MOST likely cause of this situation? a) The reason you need to stay overtime is that you always procrastinate at work. b) Everyone has been unusually busy at work and have not had much time to notice you. c) People are selfish and do not pay attention to the accomplishments of others. d) You have been unusually quiet at work lately. 34. What is the likelihood that this situation will lead to your becoming frustrated and upset at work? a) Extremely likely d) Somewhat unlikely b) Very likely e) Very unlikely c) Somewhat likely f) Extremely unlikely Going to work has become a nuisance lately. 35. Which of the following is the MOST likely cause of this situation? a) Your interest in your job has temporarily decreased because you have been under some stress lately. b) You tend to become bored with things too easily. c) Most people eventually begin resenting their job. d) Your employer has recently been overdemanding. 36. What is the likelihood that this situation will lead to major problems at work? a) Extremely unlikely d) Somewhat likely b) Very unlikely e) Very likely c) Somewhat unlikely f) Extremely likely 94 Your friend has not been a very good listener for you lately. 37. Which of the following is the MOST likely cause of this situation? a) Most people, deep inside, are selfish. b) Your friend has been stressed out lately. c) You tend to overburden others with your problems. d) You have been in an unusually irritable mood lately. 38. What is the likelihood that this situation will lead to major problems in your relationship? a) Extremely likely d) Somewhat unlikely b) Very likely e) Very unlikely c) Somewhat likely f) Extremely unlikely You recently got into a shouting match with a friend over something unimportant. 39. Which of the following is the MOST likely cause of this situation? a) It is difficult for people to get along. b) You tend to lose your temper easily. c) Your friend was being unusually stubborn that day. d) You were having a bad day and your friend irritated you at the wrong moment. 40. What is the likelihood that this situation will lead to some problems between you and your friend? a) Extremely unlikely d) Somewhat likely b) Very unlikely e) Very likely c) Somewhat unlikely f) Extremely likely You were recently denied a raise. 41. Which of the following is the MOST likely cause of this situation? a) Although you usually get a raise, your work has not been very outstanding lately. b) You never work hard enough to deserve a raise. c) Employers tend to be overly stingy. d) Your employer incorrectly evaluated your recent work. 95 42. What is the likelihood that this situation will lead you to leave your job? a) Extremely likely d) Somewhat unlikely b) Very likely e) Very unlikely c) Somewhat likely f) Extremely unlikely You have become dissatisfied with your position at work. 43. Which of the following is the MOST likely cause of this situation? a) The past week, several of your superiors have been unusually overdemanding. b) People in power tend to put down all their subordinates. c) You have had recent frustrations at work that will pass. d) You would have a better position if you had worked harder throughout your career. 44. What is the likelihood that this situation will lead to major problems at work? a) Extremely unlikely d) Somewhat likely b) Very unlikely e) Very likely c) Somewhat unlikely f) Extremely likely The other day, you accidentally bumped into someone at the supermarket and that person said something rude to you. 45. Which of the following is the MOST likely cause of this situation? a) The other person was having a bad day. b) People have little regard for other people's feelings. c) You should pay more attention to what you are doing. d) You were surprised and forgot to apologize. 46. What is the likelihood that this situation will lead to your feelings being severely hurt? a) Extremely likely d) Somewhat unlikely b) Very likely e) Very unlikely c) Somewhat likely f) Extremely unlikely 96 You recently had trouble understanding orders from your employer. 47. Which of the following is the MOST likely cause of this situation? a) People have a tendency to not explain things in adequate detail. b) Your employer was chewing gum while talking to you. c) You were busy with something else and did not hear everything your employer said. d) You rarely pay enough attention to what people say. 48. What is the likelihood that this situation will lead to major problems at work? a) Extremely unlikely d) Somewhat likely b) Very unlikely e) Very likely c) Somewhat unlikely f) Extremely likely You invited a bunch of people over to a party that you were having and only two people came. 49. Which of the following is the MOST likely cause of this situation? a) You did not advertise the party as well as you could have. b) People have a tendency to be asocial. c) Most of the people had other commitments and could not come. d) You are not a very good entertainer. 50. What is the likelihood that this situation will lead to your feelings being quite hurt from this? a) Extremely likely d) Somewhat unlikely b) Very likely e) Very unlikely c) Somewhat likely f) Extremely unlikely Your employer recently seemed impatient with the speed of your work. 51. Which of the following is the MOST likely cause of this situation? a) You have been unusually tired lately. b) Your employer has been under a lot of pressure lately. c) You tend to work more slowly than others. d) People often expect things from others that even they themselves cannot do. 97 52. What is the likelihood that this situation will lead to your dismissal from work? a) Extremely unlikely d) Somewhat likely b) Very unlikely e) Very likely c) Somewhat unlikely f) Extremely likely APPENDIX B Nepali Translation of the Measure of Attributional Style 98 99 100 101 102 103 104