Cognitive Therapy and Research, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1981, pp. 105-108

Self-Referent Versus Non-Self-Referent

Statements in the Induction of Mood States

Gregory G. Sherwood,' Kiaus G. Sehroeder, Deborah L. Abrami, and Lynn E. Alden University o f British Columbia

Cognitive mediational constructs are increasingly prominent in research and theory on the affective disorders. Velten (1968) showed that elated and depressed mood states could be induced in the laboratory by having subjects read self-referent statements designed to be elating or depressing. Using this basic procedure, subsequent studies have replicated Velten's findings on a variety of self-report, cognitive, and behavioral measures (Hale & Strickland, 1976; Strickland, Hale, & Anderson, 1975). While it seems clear that it is the content of the statements that determines the direction of the mood effect, there have been no parametric investigations of factors that might determine the magnitude of the effect. One factor, the degree to which the statements refer or do not refer to the self, has important theoretical implications. According to Weiner's (1974) attribution theory, an individual's positive affective response following success and negative affective response following failure will be intensified when causality is attributed to internal as opposed to external causal factors (see also Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978). This suggests that the degree to which cognitions refer to, or have implications for, the self is related to the degree to which mood changes will occur. This possibility was tested in the context of a mood-induction experiment that experimentally manipulated the self-reference dimension. It was expected that self-referent statements would induce more affect in both the positive and negative directions than would non-self-referent statements.

~Address all correspondence, including requests for the mood-induction items utilized in this study, to Gregory G. Sherwood, Surrey Services Network Society, #5 10715 135 A Street, Surrey, B.C., Canada V3T 4E3.

105 0 1 4 7 - 5 9 1 6 / 8 1 / 0 3 0 0 - 0 1 0 5 5 0 3 , 0 0 / 0 © 1 9 8 1 P l enum Pub l i sh ing C o r 0 o r a t i o n

106 Sherwood, Schroeder, Abrami, and Alden

M E T H O D

Subjects and Procedure

Seventy-five female nursing students volunteered to participate in the study. Subjects were run in two groups by the same experimenter in the same classroom. Each subject was randomly assigned to one of five induction conditions, each of which involved reading through a booklet containing 15 statements. All statements had been part of a larger set judged in terms of their emotional content positive, negative, or neutral) and self-reference (self-referent or non-self-referent) by 12 staff and students from the psychology department at the University of British Columbia. With the exception o f the neutral items, which were taken directly from Velten (1968), all statements were specially designed to re- present the four quandrants of the orthogonal content and self-reference dimensions. Th e final statements consisted only of items on which judges had been in 1000/0 agreement. Examples are as follows: (a) negative self- referent, e.g., "I have very little to look forward to"; (b) negative non-self-referent, e.g., "The future looks mediocre if not totally grim"; (c) positive self-referent, e.g., " I have so much to look forward to"; (d) positive non-self-referent, e.g., "The future looks promising if not downright exciting"; and (e) neutral, e.g. , "Agricultural products comprised seventy percent of the income."

After receiving an instructional set designed to facilitate the mood-induction effect (see Velten, 1968), subjects were directed to read the statements in their booklets. The experimenter told them to turn to the next statement at 15-second intervals until the task was completed. Subjects were then directed to a second booklet where they completed Zuckerman, Lubin, and Robins' (1965) Multiple Affect Adjective Check List (MAACL) and Wonderlic's (1977) test of mental ability (Form A).

RESULTS

Analysis of variance revealed a significant effect of conditions on the MAACL's depression-elation scale, F(3,70) -- 6.68, p < .0001. The mean differences were all in the predicted direction; i.e., self-referent statements induced the most depression and elation, with the means for the neutral condition falling between the two non-self-referent conditions. Post hoc comparisons showed the means of the neutral group to be significantly different only from those of the positive and negative self-referent groups (see Table I). Analyses also revealed significant effects on the MAACL's measures of anxiety, F(4,70) = 4.07, p < .005, and hostility, F(4,70) =

Self-Reference and Mood Induction

Table I. Means and Standard Deviations for Dependent Variables

107

Groups

Negative Negative non- Positive-non- Positive Dependent measure self-referent self-referent Neutral self-referent self-referent

Depression M 26.27 23.40 19.93 17.80 13.13 SD 9.11 6.09 5.97 7.36 8.87

Anxiety M 11.13 11.00 9.47 8.40 6.40 SD 4.16 3.09 3.48 3.91 4.14

Hostility M 13.13 13.47 12.46 10.26 7.33 SD 4.40 3.56 3.94 4.46 4.40

Wonderlic M 26.13 28.60 28.33 25.33 28.53 SD 3.62 3.98 5.25 4.16 2.67

5.82, p < .0004. While the mean differences were generally similar to those on depression-elation, the neutral group's means were significantly different only from those of the positive self-referent group. Finally, there was a marginal effect on the ability measure, F(4,70) = 2.14, p < .08. From the mean differences it is apparent that the positive non-self-referent group performed most poorly and the negative non-self-referent group performed at the highest level, i.e., approximately the same as the positive self-referent and neutral groups.

DISCUSSION

The results on the affect dependent variables were clearly in accord with the predictions. The fact that the self-reported depression-elation of only the positive and negative self-reference groups differed significantly from the neutral group indicates the importance of this parameter in previous findings (e.g., Velten, 1968). Noteably, these findings were obtained despite a considerably abbreviated mood-induction procedure compared to that used in previous studies (Hale & Strickland, 1976; Strickland et al., 1975). Specifically, in the present study the procedure was (a) administered in groups, (b) administered on only one occasion (unlike previous studies that repeated the mood manipulation between dependent measures), and (c) involved approximately one-quarter the number of induction statements. This suggests that mood states may be manipulated in a more efficient and economical manner than has been heretofore realized.

The results on the ability test, although marginal, were sufficient to suggest an effect similar to the learned-helplessness phenomenon (cf.

108 Sherwood, Schroeder, Abrami, and Alden

Abramson et al., 1978). This is interesting given the abbreviated induction procedure and the fact that an IQ-type cognitive performance dependent measure was used rather than the more clearly mood-related indices (e.g., writing speed, graphic expansion) used in previous studies. More interesting, however, is the fact that the positive non-self-referent group performed most poorly. Implicit in this group's induction statements was an optimistically high expectation of noncontingent positive reinforcement. Perhaps subjects developed a sort of "welfare state" orientation that inhibited effortful responding. Like the Engberg, Hansen, Welker, and Thomas (1973) pigeons previously exposed to noncontingent food, these subjects may have exhibited what can be best characterized as "learned laziness." Such speculation must, of course, be regarded as tentative until confirmatory research is forthcoming. The mood-induction procedure described here seems well suited to such efforts.

REFERENCES

Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. D. Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1978, 87, 49-74.

Engberg, L. A., Hansen, G., Welker, R. L., & Thomas, D. R. Acquisition of k~y-pecking via autoshaping as a function of prior experience: "Learned laziness"? Science, 1973, 178, 1002-1004.

Hale, W. D., & Strickland, B. R. Induction of mood states and their effect on cognitive and social behaviors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1976, 44, 155.

Strickland, B. R., Hale, W. D., & Anderson, L. K. Effects of induced mood state on activity and self-reported affect. JournalofConsulting and ClinicalPsychology, 1975, 43, 587.

Velten, E. A laboratory test for induction of mood states. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1968, 6, 473-482.

Weiner, B. Achievement motivation as conceptualized by an attribution theorist. In B. Weiner (Ed.), Achievement motivation and attribution theory. New York: General Learning Press, 1974.

Wonderlic, E. F. Wonderlicpersonnel test manual. Northfield: Wonderlic, 1977. Zuckerman, M., Lubin, B., & Robins, S. Validation of the Multiple Affect Adjective Check

List in clinical situations. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1965, 29, 594.