MSC Dissertation PDF

CORRELATION OF ATTRIBUTIONAL
COMPLEXITY AND COGNITIVE

EMOTION REGULATION AMONG
EARLY ADOLESCENTS
HASNA K M
MARCH 2017
CORRELATION OF ATTRIBUTIONAL
COMPLEXITY AND COGNITIVE
EMOTION REGULATION AMONG
EARLY ADOLESCENTS
Dissertation submitted to
Manipal University
In partial fulfilment of the requirement of the degree of
M.Sc. Clinical Psychology
By
HASNA K M
Roll No.: 151199019
Under the guidance of
Guide Co-guide
Ms Indu Toby Mr Samir K Praharaj
Assistant Professor Associate Professor
Department of Clinical Psychology Department of Psychiatry
School of Allied Health Sciences Kasturba Medical College
Manipal University, Manipal Manipal University, Manipal
March, 2017
Certificate
This is to certify that this dissertation entitled “ Correlation of Attributional Complexity
and Cognitive Emotion Regulation among Early Adolescents” is an authentic record of
research work carried out by Ms Hasna K M in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Masters of Science in Clinical Psychology, under the guidance and supervision, and
that no part of this dissertation has been presented previously for the award of any degree,
diploma or fellowship of other similar title or recognition. This is a record of the candidate’s
personal effort.
Guide Co-guide
Ms Indu Toby Samir K Praharaj

Assistant Professor Associate Professor
Department of Clinical Psychology Department of Psychiatry
School of Allied Health Sciences Kasturba Medical College
Manipal University, Manipal Manipal University, Manipal
Forwarded By Forwarded By
Dr. Sebastian P Dr. B Rajashekhar

Head of the Department Dean
Department of Clinical Psychology School of Allied Health Sciences
Manipal University Manipal University
Place: Manipal
Date: 31-03-2017
i
Declaration
I, Hasna K M hereby declare that the dissertation entitled “Correlation of
Attributional Complexity and Cognitive Emotion Regulation among Early
Adolescents” which is submitted to the Department of Clinical Psychology, School
of Allied Health Sciences, Manipal University, is a bonafide record of research work
carried out by me, under the guidance of Ms Indu Toby, Department of Clinical
Psychology, Manipal University, and co-guidance of Mr Samir K Praharaj,
Kasturba Medical College, Manipal University, in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Science and that has not previously formed
the basis for the award of any degree, diploma, fellowship or any other similar title or
recognition.
Hasna K M
Place: Manipal
Date: 31-03-2017
ii
Acknowledgement
I, consider this as an opportunity to express my immense gratitude and indebtedness to
my guide Ms. Indu Toby, Assistant Professor, Department of Clinical Psychology, School of
Allied Health Sciences, Manipal University for her constant and continuous reassurance,
encouragement, appreciation, patience, support, persistence, and scholarly guidance throughout
the conduction of the study. I am deeply obliged to thank her for the massive amount of
motivation and support she provided me in successfully pursuing and completing my
dissertation.
I wholeheartedly thank my co-guide, Dr Samir K Praharaj, Associate Professor,
Department of Psychiatry, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal University for his warm support,
patience, time, and intellectual guidance from the start to the completion of my work. I extend
my deep sense of gratitude to him for sparing time for all clarifications and conduction of
statistical analyses amidst his busy schedule. The study would not have been successful
without his help.
I would like to thank Dr Sebastian Padickaparambil, the Head of the Department,
Department of Clinical Psychology, School of Allied Health Sciences, Manipal University for
giving us an opportunity to conduct research and providing help whenever required.
I extend my sincere gratitude to the faculty members of the Department of Clinical Psychology
Dr Dinesh. N, Dr Shweta Rai, Mrs Nitha Thomas, Ms Sahana Madhyastha, Mr Dan
Pothiyil, Mr Geo Joseph, Ms Anagha Deshmukh, Ms Rima Shetty and Mrs Apoorva Shetty
for their constant support and encouragement throughout the course.
I would like to thank Ms Amitha, PhD scholar, Department of Statistics, Manipal
University and Ms Melissa, PhD scholar, Department of Statistics, Manipal University for their
help and support in statistical analyses.
I also thank the Heads of schools in Udupi district, staffs, and the participants for their
iii
welcoming nature and approval of my permission to conduct the study. The study would not
have been completed without their cooperation, patience, and willingness to take part in the
study.
My heartfelt thanks to my beloved parents for all their prayers, sacrifice, financial and
emotional support. I thank my friends Aswathy Sampath, Haripriya. A, Amilin Mathews,
Evlin Roy, Marissa Menezes, and Pallavi Vasan for the encouragement and help during the
study. I especially thank my companion Omer Fayaz for giving me immense confidence,
support, optimism, and motivation during my hardest phases during the course and for trusting
my ability to successfully complete the work.
I take every opportunity to thank Almighty for his blessings without whom I would not
have completed this work.

iv
CONTENTS
Chapter. No Index Page No.
List of abbreviations i
List of Tables ii
List of Appendices iii
Abstract 1
1 Introduction 2- 8
2 Review of Literature 9- 28
2.1 Attributional Complexity 10- 19
2.2 Cognitive Emotion Regulation 19- 28
3 Method 29- 35
4 Results 36- 45
5 Discussion 46- 52
6 Summary and Conclusion 53- 56
References
Appendices
Running Head: ATTRIBUTIONAL COMPLEXITY IN ADOLESCENTS 1
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviations Full Form
AC 1 : Level of interest or motivation
AC 2 : Preference for complex rather than simple explanations
AC 3 : Presence of metacognition concerning explanations
AC 4 : Interaction with others
AC 5 : Tendency to infer causal complex internal attributions
AC 6 : Tendency to infer abstract external causal attributions
AC 7 : Tendency to infer external causes from the past
AC Total : Total score of Attributional Complexity
CER 1 : Self-blame
CER 2 : Acceptance
CER 3 : Rumination
CER 4 : Positive Refocusing
CER 5 : Refocus on Planning
CER 6 : Positive Reappraisal
CER 7 : Putting into Perspective
CER 8 : Catastrophizing
CER 9 : Other-blame
LISTS OF TABLES
Table No. Description Page No.
1 Descriptive statistics of the socio-demographic details 37
of age (N=330)
2 Descriptive statistics of the socio-demographic details 38
of gender (N=330)
3 Mean difference in attributional complexity scores across 39
gender (N=330)
4 Mean difference in attributional complexity (AC) scores across 40
males (n=132) and females (n= 198)
5 Mean difference in dimensions of cognitive emotion regulation 42
(CER) across males (n=132) and females (n= 198)
6 Correlation between Attributional Complexity (AC) and 43
Cognitive Emotion Regulation (CER)

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix No. Descriptions
A Institutional Research Committee, Certificate, SOAHS, Manipal
B Institutional Ethics Committee, Certificate, SOAHS, Manipal
C Deputy Director Of Public Instruction (DDPI) Permission
D Permission Letters
D1 Vidyodaya Public School
D2 Indrali Englis Medium Higher Primary School
D3 Sharada Residential School
D4 Madhav Kripa English Medium School
D5 St . Mary’s English Medium School
E Participant Information Sheet
F Informed Consent Form
G Socio-demographic Performa
H Measures
H1 Attributional Complexity Scale
H2 Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire

Abstract
Humans are sometimes considered as naïve psychologists, who evaluates social
information and assign complex meanings to observed behaviours, unlike simpletons who directly
judge person’s behaviour or a social event. A person with complex attributional schema is likely
to make fewer errors in social judgement and may evaluate social information more accurately. In
addition, people may engage in either adaptive or maladaptive cognitive strategies in regulating
their emotion and it may play a role in their attributional schema. Hence, the present study aims
at exploring the relationship between attributional complexity and cognitive emotion regulation.
A sample of 330, consisting of 132 males and 198 females were selected. The participants of the
study were school going early adolescents ranging from 12-15 years belonging to 8th and 9th grades
in schools in Udupi district, Karnataka. The participants were administered with Attributional
Complexity Scale and Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire. The results showed that there
was no significant gender difference in attributional complexity. However, in cognitive emotion
regulation strategies, females reported of using self-blame more often than males. In addition, the
correlational analysis revealed that there were significant associations between specific
dimensions of attributional complexity and cognitive emotion regulation strategies. The
correlations were mostly positive and two of the attributional constructs were negatively correlated
to certain cognitive emotion regulation strategies. The common trend found in the study was that
there are only significantly weak correlations among all dimensions. The study may provide useful
information in designing valuable interventions for altering the attributional schema by inculcating
more adaptive cognitive emotion regulation strategies.
Keywords: Attributional Complexity, Cognitive emotion regulation strategies, Cognitive
coping strategies.
ATTRIBUTIONAL COMPLEXITY IN ADOLESCENTS 2
Introduction
Introduction
Man being a social animal doesn’t live in isolation. He constantly interacts with one
another to acquire and maintain social bonds. From the early years to becoming a fully
matured adult, this process of communicating with one another is inevitable in a social
world. This constant sharing of information inculcates various virtues, values, culture, and
sense of self in an individual, which is crucial for the individual to co-exist. Interaction,
hence, is a key element which could foster the quality of social relationships. In addition,
social cognition also plays an important role in social interactions. As the term ‘cognition’
indicates, it involves various processes by which people understand and make sense of the
world. It is basically about how an individual process, store and retrieve social information
and apply it in social situations. An undeniable association with social cognition is
‘attribution’.
Humans are wired with a universal tendency to make inferences about the causes of
behaviours and events that occur to them. This motive enables them to understand their
experiences; also influence the way they interact with other individuals. Therefore, every
slight action or word spoken by an individual is judged by others and is subjected to
attributional analysis. They perceive cause and effect relationship in events and
occurrences. This process of ‘attributing behaviour’ involves seeking explanation, gaining
understanding, making a meaningful prediction, and eventual control of some phenomena
(Heider, 1958; Jones, 1965; Kelley, 1967).
The term attribution is widely used in the field of social psychology. It is the basic
process by which individuals explain the causes of behaviour and events that occur
to/around them. The concept of attribution originated from the works put forth by Friske
Heider, an Austrian psychologist. He paved the path for ‘Attribution theories’ in the early
twentieth century. Attribution theory deals with how the social perceiver uses information
to arrive at causal explanations for events. It examines what information is gathered and
how it is combined to form a causal judgement (Fiske & Taylor, 1991).
Attribution theory places a significant amount of importance in the field of psychology
because of its multiple connections with various concepts in social psychology viz
motivation, the locus of control, perception, judgement, bias etc. The behavioural responses
are influenced by how one attributes to the causes of the event. “Whether it is an
achievement failure, a stigmatizing condition, a need for help, or an aggressive act, if these
are attributed to controllable and intentional causes, responses of anger and reprimand or
neglect are more likely, whereas uncontrollable and unintentional attributions are more
likely to lead to sympathy and offers of assistance” (Weiner, 2004).
Attributional complexity is a concept which recently gained popularity and its roots can
be traced back to attribution theories. Attributional complexity is viewed as a personality
variable which refers to the extent to which an individual seeks a complex explanation for an
event or behaviour. A person with high attributional complexity tends to consider many
factors to explain an event or behaviour, say, situational, past experience or dispositional
factors. They also tend to make fewer errors in judgement (Fletcher et al., 1986). However,
the individuals with low attributional complexity are more likely to seek simple and direct
explanations. A research on Indian context found that individuals who are highly resilient
tend to use simpler attributions than complex ones (Annalakshmi, 2008). Another recent
study evidence that there is a positive correlation between wisdom and attributional
complexity among young adults (Webster, 2010).

Fletcher and his colleagues, in 1958, published a tool to measure the Attributional
complexity of individuals. The Attributional Complexity Scale (ACS) was originally
designed to identify individual differences in the inclination to produce complex
explanations to the behaviours of others. However, the scale measures seven attributional
constructs of an individual in which the constructs range along a simple-complex
continuum. ACS includes the following constructs: level of interest or motivation,
preference for complex rather than simple explanations, presence of meta-cognition
concerning explanations, awareness of the extent to which people’s behaviour is a function
of interaction with others, tendency to infer abstract or causally complex internal
attributions, tendency to infer abstract, contemporary, causally external attributions and
tendency to infer external causes operating from the past. Moreover, these constructs of
ACS were successfully been validated as original sub-components of Attributional
Complexity per se (Fletcher et al., 1986).
Emotion is an inevitable component which has a huge impact on social interaction.
Emotions are strong elements that influence a person’s daily activities and their behaviours.
"An emotion is a complex psychological state that involves three distinct components: a
subjective experience, a physiological response, and a behavioural or expressive response”
(Hockenbury & Hockenbury, 2007). It has the power to regulate most of our decision-
making processes including social judgement and attribution. Regulation of emotions tends
to bring about changes in behaviour and perception of an individual. “Emotion regulation is
a conscious or unconscious control of emotion, mood, or affect” (Van der Wal &
Kowalczyk, 2013). Emotional regulation refers to all the strategies that are used to reduce,
increase, or maintain emotion (Gross, 2001).

The way a person regulates his or her emotion determines his/her ability to relate to and
regulate social interaction. Emotion regulation also involves the role of cognition in it.
Hence, “Cognitive emotion regulation refers to the conscious, cognitive way of handling the
intake of emotionally arousing information” (Garnesfki, Kraiij, & Spinhoven, 2001;
Thompson, 1991). In the process of emotion regulation, we either change the way we think
about a situation or satisfies the demand posed by the situation. It is a coping strategy that
falls under the concept of emotional regulation. Coping is generally defined as “an
individual's efforts to master demands (conditions of harm, threat, or challenge) that are
appraised (or perceived) as exceeding or taxing his or her resources” (Monat & Lazarus.,
1991). It is broadly classified as Problem-focused coping and Emotion-focused coping.
Problem-focused coping strategies directly address the stressor whereas emotion-focused
coping consists of coping strategies aimed at regulating the emotions associated with the
stressor (Compas, Orosan & Grant, 1993).
Emotion regulation is been defined as “all the extrinsic and intrinsic processes
responsible for monitoring, evaluating, and modifying emotional reactions, especially their
intensive and temporal features” (Gross, 1999; Thompson, 1994). The major difference
between cognitive coping and cognitive emotion regulation is that the former include both
emotion and behaviour regulation, whereas the latter views acting and thinking as
completely different processes, and is separated from behavioural strategies (Garnefski et
al., 2001; Garnefski, van den Kommer et al., 2002).
The present study intends to determine the association between cognitive emotion
regulation and attributional complexity. As noted earlier, cognitive processes are an
important factor in regulating emotions. Cognitive processes can be divided into

unconscious and conscious cognitive processes. Unconscious cognitive processes include
projection, denial etc. and conscious cognitive processes include self-blame, other-blame,
rumination etc. In the current study, cognitive emotion regulation is measured by a
multidimensional tool ‘Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire’ (CERQ) developed by
Nadia Garnefski, Vivian Kraaij and Philip Spinhoven in 2001. CERQ exclusively deals
with the conscious cognitive processes, which are the self-regulating, conscious cognitive
components of emotion regulation. The questionnaire specifically measures the individual’s
thoughts that occur after experiencing a negative event and it identifies various cognitive
coping strategies used by the individual.
Rationale for the study
The period of adolescence is said to be the period of experiencing negative events,
emotional turmoil, and distress. It is also the period of establishing various interpersonal
relationships. Ability to regulate emotions is an essential factor in any social interaction. It
alternates the way the person thinks about a particular situation. The transition from
childhood to adolescence brings about a change in their coping repertoires. It may shift
from external behaviorally oriented coping strategies to more internal cognitive ones. The
period of adolescence is an important stage in the development of cognitive coping skills. It
is during this stage, the more advanced cognitive abilities are being mastered (Aldwin,
1994). These cognitive transitions of adolescence have various implications for the
psychological development (Steinberg, 1999). Also, the act of attributing complex
explanation to events or behaviour is also a major part of social interaction. It could change
the behavioural or emotional responses the person executes in a particular situation. An
individual with high level of attributional complexity tends to make fewer errors in
judgement than the individuals with low level. The current study intends to determine
whether there is any association between cognitive emotion regulation and attributional
complexity. Hence, the study is trying to explore which types of cognitive strategies are
equipped by individuals with high attributional complexity. The population chosen for the
current study is adolescents. The importance of executing appropriate and positive cognitive
emotion regulation strategies is relevant in this age group, in order to pave a way to healthy
relationships. Also, the stage is considered crucial in assessing attributional qualities and to
determine the level of attributional complexity. The implication of the study is that the
students could be made aware of the adaptive and non-adaptive coping strategies, and also
the relevance of attributing behaviours in everyday social interaction.

Review of Literature
ATTRIBUTIONAL COMPLEXITY IN ADOLESCENTS
10
Review of Literature
Multiple studies have been conducted related to the variables ‘Attributional
Complexity’ and ‘Cognitive emotion regulation’. The evidence from these researches are
necessary to provide justification for the present study. An extensive review of studies
related to the variables has been included in this chapter. Hence, the chapter provides an
overall summary and evaluation of the previous researches supporting the current study.
2.1 Attributional Complexity
Attributional complexity is viewed as a personality variable which refers to an extent
to which an individual seeks complex explanation for an event or behaviour. It describes the
extent to which an individual is interested in understanding the causes of other’s behaviour
and considers various possible causes (Fletcher et al., 1986). The concept of attributional
complexity gained popularity through the development of Attributional Complexity Scale
(Fletcher, Danilovics, Fernandez, Peterson, & Reeder, 1986). The scale was designed to
explore the individual differences in attributional complexity. The study of Fletcher and
colleagues revolved around the hypothesis that people hold different attributional schemata,
i.e., some people have a more complex attributional schema than others. Individuals high in
attributional complexity are theoretically considered as “good social psychologists”, i.e.,
they are more likely to consider dispositional factors, situational factors, and factors
operating from the past (Fletcher et al., 1986). High scorers on ACS spontaneously generate
a larger number of causes for behaviour, prefer complex rather than simple attributions, and
take more time in processing difficult problems than their lower-scoring counterparts
(Fletcher et al., 1992; 1986). Research has shown that attributionally complex individuals
are relatively less likely to fall prey to various errors of social judgment and in some cases
achieve greater accuracy, which may provide insight into the psychological basis of good
social judgment. This could be because when an individual is interested in understanding

11
behaviour and able to process social information, the person is less likely to make errors and
bias (Fletcher et al., 1990; Follett & Hess, 2002; Stalder & Baron, 1998). In contrary,
individuals low on attributional complexity is less likely to think about the causes of
behaviour or to consider multiple causes.
The concept of attributional complexity has its roots in attribution theory. Heider (1958)
suggested that people are naïve psychologists who try to make sense of the social world, and
they tend to explore the cause and effect relationship between behaviours and events that
occur. His theory of attribution emphasised two prominent concepts: internal motivation,
which is the process of assigning the cause of a behaviour to an internal characteristic rather
than external forces; external motivation, the process of assigning the cause of a behaviour
to an external characteristic rather than an internal cause. In addition, there are a few other
psychologists who immensely contributed to this field.
Jones and Davis (1965) proposed Correspondent Inference Theory, which states that
people tend to draw a correspondent inference by using information about another person’s
behaviour and its effects, in which the behaviour is attributed to a disposition or personality
characteristic. Moreover, the theory suggests that people are more likely to find
correspondence when the effects of the behaviour are undesirable. According to Jones and
Davis, people depend on certain sources of information to make a correspondent inference.
These include Choice (freely chosen behaviours are more likely to be due to
internal/dispositional factors); Accidental v/s Intentional behaviour (intentional behaviours
are attributed internally and accidental behaviours are attributed to external causes); Social
desirability (when behaviours are socially less desirable, it leads us to make dispositional
inferences than socially undesirable behaviours); Hedonistic relevance (if the other person’s
behaviour appears to benefit or harm us); and Personalism (the behaviour appears personal if
12
the other person’s behaviour has an impact on us).
Another well-known attribution theory is Kelley’s Covariation model, which suggests
that people rely on information that is acquired from multiple observations, at different times
and situations to assign the causes of behaviour (Kelley, 1967). He argued that people take
into account three types of causal information which include consensus, distinctiveness, and
consistency. The degree to which other people behave in the same way in a similar situation
as the person exhibiting that particular behaviour is termed as consensus whereas the extent
to which the person behaves in the same way in a similar situation is called distinctiveness in
behaviour. Consistency refers to the extent to which the person behaves the same way every
time the situation occurs.
Attributional Complexity Scale consists of seven attributional constructs that range along
a simple-complex dimension (Fletcher et al., 1986). These are as follows:
 Level of interest or motivation
 Preference for complex rather than simple explanations
 Presence of meta-cognition concerning explanations
 Awareness of the extent to which people’s behaviour is a function of interaction with others
 Tendency to infer abstract or causally complex internal attributions
 Tendency to infer abstract, contemporary, causally external attributions
 Tendency to infer external causes operating from the past
Individuals with a high level of attributional complexity are more likely to be
intrinsically motivated in understanding and explaining human behaviour. Hence, the
complexity of attributional schemata is associated with the level of interest in a given area
(Fiske & Taylor, 1984). Moreover, those with more complex schemata should tend to
generate more causes in their causal accounts than people with simpler schemata. In
13
addition, the role of metacognitive thinking is quite high in individuals with higher scores in
attributional complexity. Their ability to pay attention to the underlying mechanisms is
associated with the complex end of the continuum. Another aspect of attributional
complexity is that while making causal attributions, people who are attributionally more
complex would tend to take into account the information gathered from behavioural
interaction to a larger degree than the individuals who are less complex. Also, the tendency
to infer abstract or causally complex internal attributions is higher in complex individuals.
Furthermore, the individuals perceive behaviour as a function of concrete and salient events
such as physical space, environment, community etc. Hence, those who are considered
attributionally complex tends to infer abstract, contemporary, causally external attributions
better and it exists in a simple-complex continuum. Likewise, the ability to infer external
causes operating from the past is also high in people with higher complexity.
2.1.1 Attributional Complexity and gender
Fletcher and his colleagues (1986) conducted five different studies in relation to the
development of Attributional Complexity Scale (ACS). One among those studies examined
the test-retest reliability, internal reliability, and factorial structure of the scale ACS. The
questionnaire with 28 items was administered to 105 males and 184 females at Illinois State
University. One significant result emerged from factor analysis is the difference in the
levels of attributional complexity across gender. The results indicated that women were
significantly more complex than men based on the scores in Attributional Complexity Scale.
2.1.2 Attributional Complexity, Resilience, and Metacognition
A popular study was conducted in Indian context by Narayan (2009) to explore
whether Attributional complexity has a significant impact on Resilience. The role of
metacognition was also tested during the study. The sample for the study consisted of 114
students, both males and females studying in higher secondary classes ranging from age 15
14
to 16 years. The participants were administered with two tools, Attributional Complexity
Scale (ACS) and Resilience Scale for Adolescents (READ). The former was used to assess
the level of attributional complexity and the latter was used to assess the resilience of the
subjects. The variables of both the tools were compared and the results showed that certain
components of attributional complexity seemed to be highly contributing to resilience. The
findings indicated that highly resilient individuals seem to enjoy more complex explanations
to behaviour than simple explanations. Also, these individuals tend to employ more
metacognitive strategies concerning causal attributions than others.
2.1.3 Attributional complexity and intelligence
A few studies have been conducted to look at the association between attributional
complexity and intelligence. Fletcher et al. (1986) have proposed that attributional
complexity and intelligence are two distinct factors. They hypothesised that a person who is
attributionally complex will tend to take a specific interest in social behaviour and will be
motivated to understand it. However, a person who is intellectually superior may not always
be interested or motivated in understanding people's behaviour. On the other hand, a person
may have low intelligence and still be interested in and motivated to understand people’s
behaviour. This argument was evidenced by a study done by Fletcher and his colleagues.
Fletcher et al. (1986) conducted a study with 59 psychology students (22 male and 37
females) and 35 natural science students (20 males and 15 females) who are physics,
chemistry, and mathematics majors. Both the groups were administered with the
Attributional Complexity Scale. The findings confirmed that students who are psychology
majors tended to score higher in the scale than the natural science students. Using American
College Test (ACT) scores as a proxy measure of intelligence, the researchers found that
attributional complexity scale has a near zero correlation with intellectual ability.
15
2.1.4 Attributional styles, academic achievement, and locus of control
A study was conducted by Gibb, Zhu, Alloy and Abramson (2002) among university
students in order to explore the relation between attributional styles and academic
achievement. This longitudinal investigation looked at the attributional styles assessed
during the freshman year in college and the academic achievement of the entire college
career. The participants for the study were selected from Temple University and the
University of Wisconsin. They were administered with a modified version of Attributional
Style Questionnaire which is Cognitive Style Questionnaire (Abramson et al., 2002). The
cumulative GPA’s of the students for their entire time in college along with their SAT scores
were obtained for the study. The results showed that two of the three attributional
dimensions such as internality and stability were significantly related to the SAT scores to
predict cumulative GPAs. However, it was found that freshman with pessimistic
attributional styles received higher CGPAs during college if they had high levels of ability
whereas freshman with optimistic attributional styles received fairly equivalent CGPA
whether they had high or low levels of academic ability.
In addition, Fletcher et al., (1986) in his study “Attributional Complexity: An
individual differences measure” evidenced that there is no association between a person’s
complex schemata and academic ability. This study was conducted on students from
psychology field.
Park and Kim (1998) conducted a research to explore the relationship between
attributional style, the locus of control and academic achievement among honour students.
In the initial study, the locus of control and attributional styles were assessed among
students who received a scholarship and with those who were on academic probation. The
findings showed that the students who received scholarship have a more internal locus of
control and less external locus of control compared to the students who were on academic
16
probation. The students with high internal locus of control were more likely to attribute
their success to effort and the influence of other people. However, these students were less
likely to attribute their failure to a lack of ability and lack of support from significant others.
2.1.5 Attributional Complexity and Correspondence bias
Fletcher and Vivian (1990) conducted a research to explore the relation between
attributional complexity and the correspondence bias. Correspondence bias is the tendency
to assign dispositions that are congruent with behaviour that is performed under powerful
external constraints. The study included participants who were assigned to read essays that
were written by a separate group of participants. These participants were randomly assigned
to write essays either supporting or opposing the legalisation of homosexuality. The test
findings showed that attributionally complex subjects were more accurate in judging the
author’s real attitude towards legalisation of homosexuality (assessed before the essays were
written) than the simple subjects. However, it occurred only when the participants were
encouraged to process essays in-depth and elaborate manner. When the in-depth processing
was restricted there was no significant difference between the performance of attributionally
complex and simple subjects. Although the complex subjects were accurate in in-depth
processing, they were somewhat prone to correspondence bias than attributionally less
complex subjects.
2.1.6 Attributional Complexity, social competence and social behaviour
It is generally hypothesised that individuals who score higher in attributional
complexity have a better social interaction that others. One of the reasons for this positive
social behaviour is their ability to profoundly and intricately think about social information.
Another reason could be that attributionally complex individuals act in manners that elicit
better prosocial orientation. According to a study conducted by Baumeister & Vohs (2006)
17
and Funder (2001) suggests that people who are attributionally complex might tend to ask a
lot of questions and collect more information about their social worlds than the ones who are
less complex.
Sultan and Hagger (2014) conducted a study to examine the role of Attributional
complexity in determining the social competence among students. The participants chosen
for the study were between 12 to 14 years and the total number of participants was 188. The
tools, Attributional Complexity Scale and Social Competence Scale were administered to the
participants. The results indicated that there was a positive significant correlation between
attributional complexity and social competence among students. The study explained that
the students who were high in attributional complexity were found to be socially competent
than the students who were attributionally less complex. Also, the study depicted that the
dimensions of attributional complexity except for motivation component and abstract v/s
causal, are contributing in the prediction of social competence. Hence, it is to be noted that
the student's attributional styles should be considered in the explanation and understanding
of their social interactions and adjustment.
In addition, Tam, Au and Leung (2008) hypothesised that attributionally complex
individuals show less punitiveness and racism. This hypothesis was based on the previous
researches which evidenced that attributionally complex people tend to make less
fundamental errors. The participants included in the study were 102 undergraduates and the
results supported the hypothesis significantly. The effect of attributional complexity was
significant in two punitiveness measures, a rehabilitation support measure, and two different
racism measures. Moreover, attributional complexity mediated the effect of need for
cognition and gender on punitiveness and racism.
Furthermore, Fast, Reimer and Funder (2008) conducted a study concerning the
social reputation of attributionally complex individuals. They analysed how people viewed
18
those who scored higher in attributional complexity and how they behave. 178 participants
filled up the attributional complexity scale (ACS) and their behaviour was videotaped during
a social interaction. There were four observers each and they rated the participants based on
the videotaped information. The participants were also described by two acquaintances
along numerous personality characteristics. The results showed that behaviour of
individuals who were high in attributional complexity was observed to be relatively open,
positive, expressive and socially skilled. Moreover, these individuals were described by
peers as having empathy, openness, social wisdom, and thoughtfulness. All these
characteristics and behaviours associated with AC contributes to a good social judgement
2.1.7 Attributional styles and personality factors
Previous studies have suggested that the five-factor model of personality mirrors the
cognitive- affective system of the individual. Poropat (2002) demonstrated a study to look
at the role of attributional styles in five-factor model across gender. The results showed that
there are differences in five-factor dimensions amongst males and females. Regression
analysis suggested that there are three significant gender interactions observed in the study.
Results indicated that the internal attributional style for positive events and overall
attributional style predicts the openness dimension of five-factor model across gender and
the hopefulness is associated with gender in predicting extraversion dimension in FFM.
2.1.8 Attributional complexity and empathy
Joireman (2004) conducted a study to look at the relationship between attributional
complexity and empathy. Multiple studies have been proved that situationally-manipulated
attributions influence an observer’s emotional reactions toward and willingness to help
another in need. However, this study examines how individual differences in attribution
process relate to such outcomes. The aim of the study was to investigate the relationship
between attributional complexity and empathy. There was a sample of 180 undergraduate
19
students selected for the study. As predicted, results demonstrated that the individuals with
high attributional complexity have a high level of perspective taking and empathic concern.
It was found that perspective taking largely interfered the relationship between attributional
complexity and empathic concern.
2.1.9 Attributional Complexity and Depression
Not many studies have been conducted on the role of attributional complexity in
clinical depression. One such study was conducted by Flett & Hewitt (1990) among college
students to explore the association between attributional complexity and clinical depression.
The study was conducted in both clinically depressed patients and normal control group.
The attributional complexity of individuals with mild, moderate, and severe depression was
assessed. Results indicated that the participant with mild and moderate depression was
found to have a higher score in attributional complexity whereas the scores were low for
severely depressed patients. Moreover, the study clearly indicated that the severe depression
is negatively correlated with levels of attributional complexity among participants.
2.2 Cognitive emotion regulation
Emotion regulation refers to the processes by which we influence which emotions we
have, when we have them, and how we experience and express those emotions (Gross,
1998b). Emotion regulation involves a change in “emotion dynamics” in multiple domains
such as behavioural, physiological, cognitive and experiential (Thompson, 1991). Emotion
regulation need not always be conscious. In some cases, people are unaware of the emotion
regulation strategies they employ in daily life. For instance, a person may exaggerate his joy
upon receiving an unattractive present (Cole, 1986) or someone may quickly shift their
attention from an upsetting event or stimulus (Boden & Baumeister, 1997). According to
the process model of emotion regulation, the strategies used for emotion regulation can be
20
classified as antecedent-focused strategy and response- focused strategy. The former refers
to the strategies we employ or things we do before the emotion response tendencies have
become fully activated and have altered our physiological as well as behavioural responses.
For instance, considering a job interview as an opportunity to learn about the company
rather than as a pass-fail test. The latter category refers to the strategies we use once an
emotion is already underway after the response tendencies have been generated. For
instance, keeping one’s anxiety from showing as one leaves a child at school for the first
time.
The role of cognition in emotion regulation is inevitable. Cognitive processes are
required to help a person from being overwhelmed by emotions or feelings or to manage the
intensity of emotions after being experiencing a stressful or negative event. Some of the
conscious cognitive emotion regulation strategies are self-blame, rumination,
catastrophizing, positive reappraisal etc (Garnefski, Kraiij & Spinhoven, 2001). Cognitive
coping styles are defined as those strategies used for regulating the emotional responses to
events that exacerbate negative emotions, in a cognitive way (Thomson, 1991). These
coping styles are relatively stable in an individual, however, it can’t be compared to
personality traits. These coping styles are situational and vary from person to person.
Moreover, the cognitive coping styles could be influenced, changed, learned, and unlearned
through interventions or personal experiences (Garnefski et al., 2001).
Cognitive emotion regulation questionnaire (CERQ) assesses these cognitive
emotion regulation strategies which are commonly employed by individuals after
experiencing a negative event. Unlike other coping scales which assess both cognitive and
behavioural coping strategies, this tool is specifically designed to assess the cognitive coping
strategies employed by the individuals per se. Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire
21
(CERQ) intends to measure nine cognitive coping styles in individuals aged 12 years and
more. These are as follows:
 Self-blame - thoughts of blaming oneself for what one has experienced (Anderson, Miller,
Riger & Sedikides, 1994). For instance, “I feel that I am the one who is responsible for what
has happened” is indicative of this strategy (Garnefski et al., 2002).
 Acceptance - referring to thoughts of resigning to what has happened (Carver, Scheier &
Weintraub, 1989). For example, “I think that I have to accept the situation”.
 Rumination - referring to thinking all the time about the feelings and thoughts associated
with the negative event (Nolen-Hoeksema, Parker & Larson, 1994). “I am preoccupied with
what I think and feel about what I have experienced” is an item referring to ‘rumination’
subscale in CERQ.
 Positive refocusing - which refers to thinking of other, pleasant matters instead of the actual
event (Endler & Parker, 1990). An example would be, “I think of nicer things than what I
have experienced”.
 Refocus on planning - thinking about what steps to take in order to deal with the event
(Carver, et al., 1989; Folkman & Lazarus, 1989). For example, “I think about how to change
the situation” is indicative of this strategy.
 Positive reappraisal - thinking of attaching a positive meaning to the event in terms of
personal growth (Carver, et al, 1989; Spirito, Stark & Williams, 1988). For example, “I think
I can learn something from the situation”.
 Putting into perspective - thoughts of playing down the seriousness of the event when
compared to other events (Allan & Gilbert, 1995). For instance, “I think that it hasn’t been
too bad compared to other things”.

22
 Catastrophizing- referring to explicitly emphasising the terror of the experience (Sullivan,
Bishop & Pivik, 1995). An item from CERQ was “I keep thinking about how terrible it is
what I have experienced”.
 Other-blame - referring to thoughts of resigning to what has happened (Carver, Scheier &
Weintraub, 1989). An example would be “I feel that basically, the cause lies with others”.
The nine cognitive coping strategies of the cognitive emotion regulation questionnaire
are classified as adaptive and maladaptive based on their underlying cognitive processes.
There are four maladaptive subscales and five adaptive sub-scales. The adaptive subscales
are self-blame, other-blame, rumination, and catastrophizing. The adaptive subscales are
putting into perspective, positive refocusing, positive reappraisal, acceptance, and refocus on
planning.
2.2.1 Coping styles and gender
A recent study was conducted by (Naranjo & Cano, 2016) in order to look at the role
of daily stress and coping styles on hopelessness depression among adolescents. The
differences in gender in the relationship between these factors were also studied. The
participants for the study were 480 adolescents ranging from 13 to 17 years of age. They
were administered with four questionnaires- Hopelessness Scale, the Hopelessness
Depression Scale, the Problem Scale, and the Coping across Situations Questionnaire. The
regression analysis of these variables showed that there was a moderating effect of gender
on the relationship between daily stress and hopelessness expectations. This effect was
significant for boys even though the amount of stress experienced by girls is higher. With
regard to coping styles, the results implied that the avoidant coping style predicted
hopelessness depression independent of gender. Also, the study reported that there is a
moderating effect of gender for the active and internal coping styles. However, the active
23
coping style indicated a protective effect for hopelessness depression symptoms in girls
unlike the analogous role played by the internal coping style in boys. This suggested that
the girls would benefit better from being more action-prone and boys from being more
reflection-prone in order to prevent hopelessness depression.
2.2.2 Cognitive emotion regulation and cognitive appraisal
Sakakibara and Endo (2016) conducted a study to find out the relationship between
cognitive appraisal and the choice of cognitive emotion regulation strategies. The
participants for the study was 324 undergraduate students ranging from 18-31 years. They
were administered with Cognitive Emotion Regulation questionnaire (CERQ) and Cognitive
Appraisal Rating Scale (CARS). Results indicated that threat predicted cognitive strategies
such as other-blame, catastrophizing, and low positive reappraisal where as centrality
predicted adaptive strategies such as acceptance and positive reappraisal as well as
rumination and other-blame. In addition, commitment predicted self-blame, acceptance,
refocus on planning, positive reappraisal, and catastrophizing. However, the predictors of
injustice/unfairness was blaming others, catastrophizing, and low self-blame. Moreover, the
expectancy component did not predict any strategies where as expectancy predicted self-
blame, refocus on planning, and putting into perspective.
2.2.3 Cognitive emotion regulation in adults and adolescents
Garnefski, Legerstee, Kommer, Kraiij & Teerds (2002) conduted a study to compare the
cognitive emotion regulation strategies and their relation to depression and anxiety, in adults
and adolescents. The sample consisted of 487 secondary school going adolescents ranging
from 12-16 years and 630 adults from a general practitioners practice aged between 18-71
years. The two groups were administered with Cognitive Emotion Regulation questionnaire
(CERQ) to assess congnitive emotion regulatin strategies used and Symptom Check List-90
24
(SCL-90) for assessing depression and anxiety symptoms. Results indicated the most oftenly
used cognitive strategy by adolescents is ‘refocus on planning’ and least used strategy is
‘catastrophizing’. In the adult group, the result was found similar. However, it was found
that adults use all nine coping strategies more frequently than the adolescents. The
differences in comparison, was found higher in positive reappraisal, refocus on planning,
putting into perspective and rumination among adults and the least difference was for
acceptance, self-blame, positive refocusing, other-blame and catastrophizing. In addition, the
most significant predictors of depression symptoms in adolescent group were rumination,
self-blame and to a lesser extent positive reappraisal and catastrophizing. The adult group
also showed the similar predcitors for their depressive symptoms. In predicting anxiety
symtpms, highest predcitors in adolescents were rumination and self-blame where as in
adults it was catastrophizing, positive reappraisal, rumination and self-blame.
2.2.4 Cognitive coping strategies and psychopathology
Nadia Garnefski & Vivian Kraaij (2006) conducted an extensive study on
understanding the relationship between cognitive emotion regulation strategies and
depressive symptoms. They chose five specific samples for the study- early adolescents
(n=597, age range = 12-15), late adolescents (n= 1164, age range=16-18), adult general
population (n= 611, age range=18-65), elderly people (n= 89, age range= 66-97) and
psychiatric patients (n= 301, age range= 18-65). In the early adolescent group (n= 597). All
the groups were administered with cognitive emotion regulation questionnaire (CERQ) and
Symptom Checklist for depression (SCL-90). The findings elicited various significant and
reliable results. It showed that adolescent groups used less of cognitive emotion strategies
compared to adults and elderly people. In addition, posthoc tests revealed that the
maladaptive strategies such as catastrophizing, rumination, self-blame and other-blame were
used more by psychiatric group compared to other groups. Further, the Pearson correlation
25
between cognitive emotion regulation and depressive symptoms indicated that acceptance,
rumination, and catastrophizing have significant positive correlations in all the samples. In
addition, self-blame and other-blame had a positive significant correlation with depressive
symptoms in all groups except the elderly group. However, strategies such as positive
refocusing, planning, positive reappraisal, and putting into perspective have both positive
and negative significance in some and non-significance in other.
A cross-sectional study was conducted by Garnefski, Kraaij and Etten (2005) to
examine the determining role of cognitive emotion regulation strategies in internalising and
externalising problems. The sample size was 271 and the participants were students
between the age range of 12 and 18 years. The cognitive emotion regulation strategies of
the students were assessed by using Cognitive emotion regulation questionnaire (CERQ) and
the internalising and externalising problems were assessed using Youth Self-Report (YSR).
The selected adolescents belonged to four groups - the internalising problem group,
externalising problem group, comorbid internalising and externalising problems group and a
control group. These groups were compared to the cognitive emotion regulation strategies
and the results yielded that adolescents with internalising problems had a higher score on
strategies such as self-blame and rumination than the other groups. In addition, there were
certain specific relationships between internalising problems and self-blame, rumination and
positive appraisal and between externalising problems and positive refocusing. To
conclude, this study suggests that different cognitive intervention strategies must be
employed for internalising and externalising problems.
2.2.5 Cognitive emotion regulation and well-being
Balzarotti and colleagues (2016) did a cross-sectional study for finding the individual
differences in cognitive emotion regulation strategies and its association with subjective and
psychological well-being. The study consisted of 470 adults and their cognitive coping
26
strategies as well as psychological and subjective well-being was assessed. The results
indicated that the positive reappraisal and refocus of planning are positively related to
subjective as well as psychological well-being. However, the strategies such as rumination,
catastrophizing, and self-blame are associated with poor well-being. In addition, positive
refocusing, putting into perspective, and acceptance has found to show few significant
associations. Hence, the study evidence that the cognitive emotion regulation strategies may
have varied effects in promoting individual’s well-being.
A brief report on cognitive emotion regulation strategies and psychological adjustment in
adolescents with a chronic disease was published by Garnefski, Koopman, Kraaij and Cate
(2008). The sample consisted of 53 adolescents within the age groups of 12 and 18 with a
diagnosis of Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA). Internalising problems and quality of life
were assessed using a self-report questionnaire and cognitive coping strategies were
assessed using Cognitive emotion regulation questionnaire (CERQ). The findings showed
that rumination and catastrophizing were the most important predictors of psychological
maladjustment in these adolescents. This suggests that these two strategies are considered to
be the most maladaptive cognitive coping strategy in response to a chronic disease.
A recent study conducted by Lingyan Li, Xiongzhao Zhu, Yanjie Yang, et al., (2015) aimed
at finding the cognitive coping styles characterised in women with breast cancer and also the
effects of cognitive coping strategies in the quality of life. The tool, CERQ was
administered to two groups, 665 breast cancer diagnosed women and 662 healthy women.
The quality of life of these patients was also assessed using Functional Assessment of
Cancer Therapy for Breast Cancer Scale. The results showed that the breast cancer patients
reported the less frequent use of cognitive emotion strategies such as self-blame, rumination,
positive refocusing, refocusing on planning, positive reappraisal and other-blame and more
frequent use of acceptance and catastrophizing. In addition, catastrophizing, rumination,

27
and self-blame are negatively correlated with QOL, whereas acceptance and positive
reappraisal had positive effects when all the medical and socio-demographic factors were
controlled.
2.2.6 Cognitive emotion regulation and negative life events
A study conducted by Garnesfki et al (2001) focused on testing the psychometric
properties of the scale Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire and its relation to
negative life events and the measures of anxiety and depression. The study employed a test-
retest design and was conducted on 547 secondary school going students in Netherlands
ranging from 12-16 years. They were administered with Cognitive Emotion Regulation
Questionnaire (CERQ) to assess nine cognitive coping strategies and Symptom Checklist-90
(SCL-90) to measure depressive and anxiety symptoms. The study was carried out in two
different phases. In the first phase, the two scales were administered and scored and the data
was analysed. The second phase, a follow-up was conducted after 5 months. Both the data
was analysed using Principal Component Analyses (PCA’s) and it was found that there was
a good correlation between the subscales of CERQ and the measures of depression and
anxiety. Principal component analysis supported the allocation of items to subscales, while
alphas of most subscales were higher than 0.80. Hence, the research validates the crucial
role cognitive coping strategies play in the relationship between the experience of negative
events and the reporting of symptoms of depression and anxiety.
2.2.7 Cognitive emotion regulation, negative life events and depression
A very recent study was conducted by a group of researchers (Stikkelbroek et al.,
2016) aimed at examining the role of various cognitive emotion regulation strategies after
negative life events mediating depressive symptoms. The number of participants chosen for
the study was 398 adolescents between 11-21 age range amongst which 52 were depressed
28
outpatients who all reported of three major negative life events- loss of a loved one, health
threats or relational challenges. The participants were administered with cognitive emotion
regulation questionnaire (CERQ), Child Depression Inventory- 2 (CDI-2) and Life Events
Scale. The results indicated that amongst the negative life events, health threats and
relational challenging stressful events were associated with depressive symptoms, whereas
loss of loved ones was not. Participants who often used maladaptive strategies were related
to depressive symptoms and those who used more of adaptive strategies showed reduced
depressive symptoms. It was found that specific life events were associated with specific life
events. In the study, the relationship between challenging, stressful life events and
depressive symptoms in the whole group was mediated by maladaptive strategies such as
self-blame, rumination and catastrophizing. The adaptive strategies, however, did not show
any mediation effect.
Another study attempted to explore the role of cognitive emotion regulation
strategies in predicting negative emotions such anger, stress, depression and anxiety. The
study was conducted by Martin & Dahlen (2005) on participants by using CERQ. The
results showed that specific maladaptive cognitive emotion regulation strategies such as self-
blame, rumination, catastrophizing and, an adaptive cognitive coping strategy, positive
reappraisal were the highest predictors of these negative emotions independent of gender
differences.
29
Method
30
Method
This chapter encompasses the procedures followed for data collection and the
various statistical techniques utilized to analyze the collected data. The chapter will be
highlighting the variables in the study, research design, sampling method, measuring
instruments, the procedure for data collection and the statistical techniques used to analyse
the data.
Aim
The present study aims to explore the correlation of attributional complexity and
cognitive emotion regulation among early adolescents.
Objectives
1. To examine the relationship between components of cognitive emotion regulation and
attributional complexity among participants of classes 8th and 9th belonging to age group
12-15 years.
2. To study the gender difference in the cognitive emotion regulation strategies and level
of attributional complexity.
Variables
• Attributional Complexity
Attributional Complexity is defined as a psychological construct that describes the
degree to which an individual is interested in understanding the causes of other’s behaviour
and considers many different causes (Fletcher et al., 1986).
• Cognitive emotion regulation
“Cognitive emotion regulation refers to the conscious, cognitive way of handling the
intake of emotionally arousing information” (Garnefski, Kraiij, & Spinhoven, 2001;
Thompson, 1991).
31
Hypotheses
1. There will be no significant relationship between the strategies of cognitive emotion
regulation and the various components of attributional complexity among adolescents.
2. There will be no difference between the cognitive emotion regulation strategies used
and level of attributional complexity across gender.
Design
The research design employed for the present study is a cross-sectional design.
Convenient sampling was used to gather data for the current study.
Participants
The participants for the present study were school going adolescents in Udupi district
within the age range 12 and 15 years belonging to grade 8th and 9th. The sample included
both males and females and the total sample size is 330. It was made sure that participants
selected for the study met the inclusion criteria.
Inclusion Criteria for the study
• Indian students of grade 8th and 9th in Udupi locality schools
• Males and females between 12 and15 age range
• Students from English medium school
• Students who can read, write and speak English
• Students who are willing to participate
Exclusion Criteria for the study
• Adolescents having Neurological/ neurodevelopment disorder
Measure
1. Personal Data Sheet
The personal data sheet was used to obtain socio-demographic information
consisting of participant code, age, gender, grade, and family type (parents are together or
32
separated/divorced).
2. Attributional Complexity Scale (ACS) (Fletcher et al., 1986)
The Attributional Complexity Scale is designed to measure the level of attributional
complexity of an individual. This tool was developed by Garth. O. Fletcher and was
published in the year 1986. The scale has 28 items and the response choices range from
strongly disagree (-3) to strongly agree (+3) on a seven-point scale. The scale measures
seven facets of attributional complexity which include motivation component, preference for
complex explanations, meta-cognition, interaction with others, abstract or causal external
factors, abstract or causal internal factors and causes from the past. The internal reliability of
the scale is found to be 0.85 and the test-retest correlation is 0.80 which indicates the scale
has adequate internal reliability and test-retest reliability. The time required for the test
would be approximately 10 minutes.
3. Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ) (Garnefski et al., 2001)
The CERQ is a self-report questionnaire measuring cognitive coping strategies in
adults and adolescents aged 12 years and above. It was developed by Nadia Garnefski,
Vivian Kraaij, Philip Spinhoven in the year 2001. The questionnaire consists of 36 items,
each referring to what someone thinks and not what someone actually does when
experiencing threatening or stressful life events. The items are divided proportionally over
nine scales, each scale consisting of 4 items. The nine scales include self-blame, other-
blame, rumination, catastrophizing, putting into perspective, positive refocusing, positive
reappraisal, acceptance, and refocus on planning. It is a five-point scale with responses
ranging from ‘(almost) never (1), 'sometimes' (2), 'regularly' (3), 'often' (4), or '(almost)
always' (5). Scoring includes summing the scores marked for each item. The maximum
score for one coping strategy would be 20 and minimum would be 1. The correlation
between the subscales ranges from 0.3 to 0.7. The test takes about 10 minutes to complete
33
Procedure
The duration of the present study was from August 2016 to March 2017. The study
was conducted only after the approval from Indian Research Committee (IRC) and
Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC).
Prior to data collection, permission letters were submitted to the Heads of various
high schools in Udupi district with the approval from Deputy Director of Public Instruction
(DDPI) of the district. Data was collected from schools only after the permission was
granted and the officials were clearly informed about the purpose, relevance, duration and
importance of the study. It was also made sure that the academic functioning of the
respective schools was not disrupted due to the data collection.
Data was collected from high school students, particularly of 8th and 9th grade
belonging to the age group 12 to 15. Both boys and girls were included in the study. The
data was collected during an appropriate time allotted by the school staffs convenient for
both students and the investigator. The participants were given the Participant Information
Sheet explaining the details regarding the study and Informed Consent Form which was to
be duly signed by their parent/guardian. The assent from the participant was also obtained
by requesting them to sign the form. After fully obtaining the voluntary consent from both
parent and the participant, the participants were given a Personal Data Sheet incorporating
the socio-demographic details of the participant. The two questionnaires, Attributional
Complexity Scale and Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire were administered.
The administration of two scales was done in a group format wherein the investigator
clearly conveyed instructions to the participants. The duration of administration of the scales
ranged from 15-30 minutes for each group. The completed questionnaires were collected
and they also were debriefed.

34
Ethical consideration
The conduction of the present study was initiated following the approval of
Institutional Research Committee (IRC) and Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC). The
approval from Heads of various schools in Udupi district was also taken. The parental
consent and participant assent were taken prior to the administration of the questionnaires.
The questionnaires did not contain any form of degrading or discriminating data. The
purpose of the study was communicated to the participants. The collected data was kept
highly confidential.
Statistical Analysis
The analysis was carried out with the use of Statistical Package for Social Sciences
Version 23.0.
The descriptive statistics was used to analyse the socio-demographic details of age
and gender of the participants.
The independent t-test is generally used to compare the mean differences amongst
two groups. In the present study, the t-test was used to compare the differences in means of
the two groups, males and females with regard to the dimensions of attributional complexity
and strategies of cognitive emotion regulation independently.
Cohen’s d was used to determine the effect size of the differences between means of
two groups. Cohen’s d-value generally is an effect size that indicates the standardised
difference between two means. It can be used to report accompany reporting of t-test or
ANOVA. Cohen’s d-value is denoted as ‘d’. The range of effect size determines the
quantitative measure of the strength of the phenomenon. A value of 0.2 refers to small effect
size, 0.5 as moderate and 0.8 as high effect size.
Correlation is used to find the extent of the relationship between any two variables.
The extent of the relationship can be represented numerically in terms of coefficient of

35
correlation. The Pearson product-moment correlation can be defined as the measure of the
strength of linear association between two variables and it is denoted as ‘r’. The value of r
ranges from +1 to -1 and it represents a positive and a negative correlation respectively. The
value zero indicates that there is no correlation. In the present study, the Pearson product-
moment correlation test was used to analyse the relationship between the dimensions of
attributional complexity and the cognitive emotion regulation strategies. The correlation
between the total score of attributional complexity with each of the cognitive emotion
strategies was also examined.

36
Results
37
Results
The present study was designed to investigate the relationship between Attributional
Complexity and Cognitive Emotion Regulation among early adolescents.
This chapter consists of the findings elicited after various statistical analysis using
SPSS. The statistical analyses used for the present study includes descriptive statistics for
socio-demographic details of the participants, independent t-test and Karl Pearson
correlation. The results are tabulated and explained below.
Table 1
Descriptive statistics of the socio-demographic details of age (N=330)
Variables M (±) SD
Age 13.5 .67
Table 1 depicts the socio-demographic details of the age of the participants in the
present study with a total sample size of 330. The mean age of the participants is 13.5 with a
standard deviation of .67

38
Table 2
Descriptive statistics of the socio-demographic details of gender (N=330)
Variables Freq uency Percent
Gender Male 132 40%
Females 198 60%
Table 2 shows the socio-demographic details of the gender of the participants in the
present study with a total sample size of 330. The number of young adolescent males for the
study is 132 (40%) whereas the frequency of young adolescent females participated in the
study is 198 (60%).

39
Table 3
Mean difference in attributional complexity scores across gender (N=330)
Males Females T- test
M (±)SD M (±)SD t df p
AC Total 117.9 13.1 116.2 12.3 1.18 328 .237
Independent t-test was conducted to determine gender differences in the total score
of attributional complexity (AC Total) as shown in table 3. The means and standard
deviations of males and females for the total score of attributional complexity are 117.9
(SD=13.1) and 116.2 (SD= 12.3) respectively. This implies that the mean differences across
gender in the levels of attributional complexity are not significant, although the mean value
of males is found to be slightly higher than females; t (328) =1.18, p > 0.05.
40
Table 4
Mean difference in attributional complexity scores across males (n=132) and
females (n= 198)
Males Females t-test
M (±) SD M (±) SD t df p
AC 1 15.8 4.08 15.1 4.12 1.67 328 0.09
AC 2 15.6 4.12 14.8 3.54 1.93 328 0.05*
AC 3 18.8 2.81 19.2 5.50 -.67 328 0.50
AC 4 16.6 3.53 16.2 3.59 1.17 328 0.24
AC 5 16.8 3.43 18.0 3.36 -3.22 328 .001**
AC 6 16.5 3.84 16.1 3.99 .993 328 0.32
AC 7 17.4 3.85 16.5 4.00 1.93 328 0.05*
*. p < 0.05 (two-tailed)
**. p < 0.01 (two-tailed)
Table 4 illustrates the mean differences across gender in the dimensions of
attributional complexity. The mean differences between males and females is significant for
the three dimensions of AC. This indicates that the preference for complex rather than
simple explanations for behaviour is higher in males (M=15.6, SD= 4.12) than females (M=
14.8, SD=3.54) at a 0.05 level of significance; t (328) = 1.93, p=0.05. In addition, the
tendency to infer abstract or causally complex internal attributions is higher for adolescent
females (M= 18.0, SD= 3.36) than adolescent males at a highly significant level, i.e., 0.001
level of significance; t (328) = -3.22, p < 0.01. Also, there is a significant difference between
males and females in the means for the final construct in which the males (M= 17.4, SD=
41
3.85) have a higher tendency to infer external causes operating from past than the females
(M= 16.5, SD= 4.00) at 0.05 level of significance; t (328) = 1.93. The cohen’s d value was
calculated and the effect size for the component preference for complex rather than simple
explanations for behaviour was found to be weak (d= 0.2). In addition, the cohen’s d value
for the components the tendency to infer abstract or causally complex internal attributions
and tendency to infer external causes operating from past were found to be 0.3 and 0.2
respectively, which indicates that the effect size were weak for both the components.
42
Table 5
Mean difference in cognitive emotion regulation strategies across males (n=132) and
females (n= 198)
Males Females t-test
M (±) SD M (±) SD t df p
CER1 9.21 3.17 9.93 2.65 -2.25 328 .025*
CER2 10.56 3.28 10.92 3.02 -1.03 328 .302
CER3 10.53 3.03 10.90 2.92 -1.11 328 .266
CER4 11.53 3.23 12.12 3.37 -1.58 328 .114
CER5 13.15 3.36 13.64 3.61 -1.25 328 .211
CER6 13.63 3.86 13.67 3.48 -0.86 328 .931
CER7 9.85 2.80 10.46 2.94 -1.87 328 .062
CER8 8.72 2.86 9.87 3.70 -3.00 328 .003
CER9 8.79 2.98 8.81 2.93 -.068 328 .945
As indicated in table 5, the comparison of components of cognitive emotion
regulation (CER) between males and females shows that only one component, self-blame is
significantly different. The table suggests that the self-blame is used more by females (M=
9.93, SD= 2.65) than males (M= 9.21, SD= 2.65) and the level of significance is 0.02, i.e., t
(328) = -2.25, p<0.05. The cohen's d value for the component self-blame was calculated and
the effect size is found to be weak (d= 0.2).

43
Table 6
Correlation between Attributional Complexity (AC) and Cognitive Emotion Regulation
(CER)
CER1 CER2 CER3 CER4 CER5 CER6 CER7 CER8 CER9
AC1 .134* .133* .089 -.039 -.015 .015 .071 .055 .226**
AC2 -.122* -.120* -.074 -.126* -.122* -.081 .023 -.101 -.030
AC3 .078 .114* .098 .092 .113* .104 .100 -.031 -.066
AC4 .105 .120* .107 .115* .154** .120* .085 .011 -.002
AC5 .093 .150** .166** .063 .253** .063 .052 .016 .060
AC6 .125* .094 .049 -.103 -.032 -.065 .017 -.031 -.003
AC7 .132* .060 .178** .007 .071 .138* .117* -.029 .100
AC Total .174** .175** .191** .007 .128* .094 .145** -.032 .087
*Correlation is significant at 0.05 level of significance
**Correlation is significant at 0.01 level of significance

44
Table 6 represents the correlation between attributional complexity and cognitive
emotion regulation. Pearson’s product moment bivariate correlation was used to analyze the
correlation between these two variables. The results show that the level of interest or
motivation is positively correlated with the components of cognitive emotion regulation such
as self-blame (r = .134, p < 0.05), acceptance (r = .133, p < 0.05) and other-blame (r = .226,
p < 0.001). However, the correlation is found to be weak for these components. In contrast,
there is a weak negative correlation between the attributional construct, preference for
complex rather than simple explanations for behaviour and specific components of
cognitive emotion regulation at a 0.05 level of significance. These components are self-
blame (r = -.122, p < 0.05), acceptance (r = -.120, p < 0.05), positive refocusing (r = -1.26, p
< 0.05) and refocus on planning (r = -1.22, p< 0.05). Additionally, there is a weak
positive correlation between Presence of meta-cognition concerning explanations and
acceptance (r = .114, p < 0.05) as well as refocus on planning (r = .113, p < 0.05). The
tendency to infer abstract, contemporary, causally external attributions is also significantly
positively correlated with self-blame (r = .125, p < 0.05). The attributional construct
concerning the awareness of the extent to which people’s behaviour is a function of
interaction with others is found to be positively correlated with acceptance (r = .120, p <
0.05), positive refocusing (r = .115, p < 0.05) and positive reappraisal (r = .120, p < 0.05)
and negatively correlated with refocus on planning (r = .154, p < 0.001). Furthermore,
tendency to infer external causes operating from past is negatively correlated with
rumination (r = 1.78) at .001 level of significance and positively correlated at a significance
level of 0.05 with self- blame (r = .132), positive reappraisal (r = .138) and putting into
perspective (r = .117). One of the dimensions in attributional complexity, tendency to infer
abstract or causally complex internal attributions is negatively correlated with three
components of cognitive emotion regulation at a 0.001 level of significance. These

45
components are acceptance (r = .150), rumination (r = .166) and refocus on planning (r =
.253). Finally, the total score of attributional complexity is found to have weak positive
correlations with self-blame (r = .174), acceptance (r = .175), rumination (r = .191) and
putting into perspective (r = .145) at 0.01 level of significance. Additionally, the total
attributional complexity score has a weak positive correlation with refocus on planning (r =
.128) at 0.05 level of significance.

46
Discussion
47
Discussion
The present study attempted to explore the relationship between attributional
complexity and cognitive emotion regulation among early adolescents. This chapter
encompasses the findings elicited from the study and its detailed discussion with necessary
supporting literature.
The descriptive statistics for the socio-demographic details of age showed that the
mean age of the participants was 13.5 (SD = 0.67). In addition, among 330 participants, the
number of female participants was 198, which constituted 60% of the total sample and 132
male participants, which constituted the rest 40% of the sample. The students were taken
from 8th and 9th grades from various private and public schools in Udupi belonging to
different socio-economic status.
The independent t-test was conducted to analyse the gender differences in the levels
of attributional complexity. It was seen that males were found to have a slightly higher level
of attributional complexity than the female participants. However, this mean difference was
not found to be significant. This finding contradicts the previous studies which claim that
women have a higher level of attributional complexity than men (Fletcher et al., 1986). In
addition, this goes in contrary to the finding that women are more accurate in evaluating
social information than men (Costanzo 1992; Jackson &Hymes 1985). However, the
inconsistency might be due to the fact that this study was conducted on Indian population
and the cultural factors would have contributed to the differences in the results.
In order to discover the gender differences in various dimensions of attributional
complexity, independent t-test was carried out. There were significant differences between
three dimensions of attributional complexity across males and females. The preference for
complex rather than simple explanations was higher for males than females and the finding
48
was significant. This finding was consistent with the study conducted by Rose and Rudolph
(2006), which suggests that the adolescent boys tend to have more social network density,
ability to cooperate with group members and use strategies that would enhance the
dominance in the group. The second dimension which had significant mean difference
across gender was a tendency to infer abstract or causally complex internal attributions.
This dimension was found to be higher in females than males at a highly significant level.
Internal attributions or dispositions do no fall into one single category. Some are summary
terms for specific behaviours (eg: punctuality, talkativeness) and some dispositions refer to
more abstract cognitive mental structures (eg: beliefs, attitudes, abilities). In addition, some
internal causes can be combined together in complex sequences (eg: shyness causes anxiety,
which then causes insomnia) (Asch & Zukier, 1984). This indicated that the women might
have a greater tendency to explain and understand such specific behaviours and cognitive
mental structures, and might also be able to link the causes better than males. Further, the
tendency to infer external causes operating from the past was higher for males. This finding
was supported by the higher tendency of alcoholic and non-alcoholic males to attribute
external or situational causes to their drinking behaviour (Vuchinich, Tucker, Bordini, &
Sullwold, 1981) whereas the tendency of females to attribute their problem drinking to more
internal factors (Beckman, 1979). In addition, another study evidenced the alcoholic males
had less internal attribution than non-alcoholics (Thurman et al.,1990).
Amongst the nine different cognitive emotion regulation strategies, only one
particular strategy was identified as varying across gender, which was self-blame.
Independent t-test was used to assess the geder differences and it was found that self-blame
was employed more by females than males. This finding is consistent with the study that
under the influence of negative stressful events, self-blame is the highest contributing factor
of depressive symptoms among adolescents (Stikkelbroek et al., 2016). Moreover, one of

49
the studies conducted in adolescents revealed that the prevalence of girls with depression is
29% and the prevalence rate for boys is 23% in south India (Jayanthi & Thirunavukarasu,
2015). Also, the percentage of moderate to severe depression is found to be higher in
females than males (Mohanraj & Subbaiah, 2010). Therefore, the findings of the present
study could be an indication of psychopathology, particularly depression in adolescents.
One of the major observations found in the entire study was the significant weak
correlations between most of the dimensions of attributional complexity and cognitive
emotion regulation strategies. The first dimension of AC, the level of interest or motivation
had a positive correlation between three strategies of CER, which are self-blame, acceptance
and other-blame (highest correlation). Although the correlations between these dimensions
were weak, the level of significance was moderate to statistically high in these. This
indicates that a person who is interested or intrinsically motivated in understanding and
explaining causal behaviours of others will be indulging in cognitive coping strategies such
as self-blame, acceptance and other- blame. This, in turn, suggests that when a person has a
high internal motivation to explain behaviours, they may automatically tend to accept the
situations that occur to them, in spite of the negative consequences associated with it.
The tendency to prefer complex rather than simple explanations were negatively
correlated with self-blame, acceptance, positive refocusing and refocus on planning. This
indicates that a person who has a highly complex schema would tend to use less of cognitive
strategies such as self-blame, acceptance, positive refocusing and refocus on planning. This
is suggestive that people who adopt the role of naïve psychologist, who attribute causes to
more complex information, might not be adopting a maladaptive strategy like self-blame
when a negative consequence or scenario occurs. Instead, they would try to find a complex
explanation to whatever behaviour or situation had been exhibited. However, it is unclear
that how this tendency does not allow the individual to engage in adaptive cognitive
50
strategies such as acceptance, positive refocusing and refocus on planning. One reason might
be the person’s preference for complex explanations makes them less susceptible to easy
acceptance of the observed behaviour.
Next component of AC, the presence of meta-cognition concerning explanations has a
weak positive correlation with acceptance and refocus on planning. In this context,
metacognition refers to the tendency to think about the underlying processes involved in
causal attribution (Fletcher et al., 1986). This ability to reflect upon one’s own thoughts and
behaviour pervade many aspects of experience (Metcalfe, 1996). The findings indicate that
people who are capable of engaging in one’s own thinking process while attributing causes
of behaviour are more likely to use adaptive cognitive coping strategies such as acceptance
and refocus on planning. This could be because when a person is capable of understanding
the underlying causes of any behaviour or thought processes, he might as well be trying to
understand it better, which may eventually lead to acceptance of those behaviours. In
addition, due to this intense in-depth thinking ability, they might try to come up with new
ways of perceiving or explaining the event or behaviour than a person who lacks
metacognitive abilities.
When a person is aware of the fact that an individual’s behaviour is a function of
interaction with others, then he or she might tend to use cognitive coping strategies such as
acceptance, positive refocusing, refocus on planning and positive reappraisal. This indicates
that a person who knows that any individual is a part of the society and his or her behaviour
is highly dependent upon the social situation he is present in, are more likely to adopt
adaptive cognitive coping strategies such as acceptance, positive refocusing, refocus on
planning and positive appraisal. A person with more complex schemata would be more
aware of the power of the social situation. Not only in terms of the influence have other
individuals on one’s own behaviour, but also with regard to the power of one’s behaviour on
51
others (Fletcher, 1986). Hence, it is logically justifiable that a tendency of a person with
high complexity schema may tend to shift his attention to more positive social information
rather than focusing just on the behaviour that has been directly observed. He or she might
also tend to accept the situation despite the negative consequences associated with it. In
addition, the individual may dwell upon new ways of looking at the behaviour evaluating
other factors concerning the behaviour, such as the social situation, other people engaged in
the behaviour etc. Further, the observer may attribute more positive causes to the behaviour
than evaluating the negative factors associated with the person’s behaviour. Hence, this
construct of AC is highly associated with adaptive cognitive emotion regulation strategies.
Another finding is that a person’s tendency to infer abstract or causally complex internal
attributions has a weak positive correlation with acceptance, rumination and refocus on
planning. The ability to understand and explain abstract and complex behavioural causes in
terms of internal factors such as beliefs, attitudes and specific behaviours such as
talkativeness, shyness etc. are a characteristic of highly complex individuals (Asch &
Zukier, 1984). This tendency is, however, associated with certain cognitive emotion
regulation strategies such as acceptance, rumination and refocus on planning. In other
words, a person who is good at inferring these complex and abstract internal attributions is
more likely to employ strategies such as acceptance, rumination and refocus on planning.
The relation is explainable in terms of rumination wherein these individuals may think over
and over a particular behaviour before assigning a specific meaning to it. Moreover, the
readiness for accepting the complex internal attributions may also be high. However, the
highest correlation with this AC construct was for refocus on planning. This may be
indicative of the unique way of looking at the causal behaviours, which are fueled by the
adoption of different steps or lenses in altering the explanation for a specific behaviour.
52
Apart from these findings, the tendency to infer abstract, contemporary, causally external
attributions was found to be positively correlated with one particular cognitive emotion
regulation strategy, self-blame. Although the correlation was weak, the significance was
statistically relevant. When external factors influence a person’s behaviour, it generally
points out to the concrete or physical aspects of the environment, say the size of the room,
other people’s behaviour toward the person, university etc. (Fletcher, 1986). However, a
person high in this AC construct tends to use self-blame as s cognitive strategy which has a
contradictive effect as to what is logically expected.
Another significant finding that emerged from the study is that the tendency to infer
external causes operating from the past has a weak negative correlation with rumination.
This states that the person’s tendency to relate causes from the past while attributing a
behaviour leads to a maladaptive cognitive strategy, rumination. Rumination is the condition
in which an individual thinks over and over a situation that has occurred in the past or
present. This justifies the relationship between the two constructs. In addition, there are
other cognitive strategies that have a positive correlation with the AC construct. These are
self-blame, positive reappraisal and putting into perspective. Although putting into
perspective is an adaptive technique, it is about playing down the seriousness of the event
when compared to other events (Allan & Gilbert, 1995).
In general, the total score of attributional complexity was positively associated with
self-blame, acceptance, refocus on planning, putting into perspective and rumination being
the highest correlation. This implies that a person with high scores on attributional
complexity are more likely to use maladaptive cognitive emotion strategies such as self-
blame and rumination, and adaptive strategies like acceptance, refocus on planning and
putting into perspective.

53
Summary and Conclusion

54
Summary and Conclusion
The present study was done to explore the relationship between components of
attributional complexity and cognitive emotion regulation strategies. The study also focused
on finding the differences in attributional complexity and cognitive emotion regulation
across gender. A sample of 330 school going early adolescents ranging from 12-15 years
was selected. The sample consisted of 132 males and 198 females and they were selected
from 8th and 9th grades of co-education schools in Udupi district, Karnataka.
A cross-sectional design was employed for the study and the participants were
selected through purposive sampling. They were administered with two tools, Attributional
Complexity Scale (ACS) and Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ) after
taking the parental consent and participant’s assent. The group administration of the test
lasted for 30-45 minutes. The data was analysed using Statistical Package for Social
Sciences (SPSS-23.0).
The primary objective of the study was to find the relationship between the
dimensions of attributional complexity and cognitive emotion regulation. It was
hypothesised that there would be no significant association between attributional complexity
and cognitive emotion regulation. Moreover, the study aimed at finding the gender
differences among the total score of attributional complexity and strategies used for
cognitive emotion regulation. The null hypothesis stated that there would not be any
significant differences in these variables across gender.
Results of independent t-test revealed that there was no significant relationship
between males and females in the level of attributional complexity. Both the genders are
slightly similar in the total scores on attributional complexity. However, in terms of various
constructs of attributional complexity, two dimensions showed higher significance in males
for the preference for complex rather than simple explanations and tendency to infer external
55
causes operating from the past. But the tendency to infer abstract or causally complex
internal attributions was significantly higher for females. In addition, t-test was carried out
to find whether specific cognitive emotion regulation strategies are used more often by any
particular gender. The test findings revealed that there is one particular cognitive strategy
that is used more often by females, which is self-blame. Hence, these results rejected the
null hypothesis of the study.
The correlational analysis between attributional complexity dimensions and
cognitive emotion regulation strategy revealed some significant results. It was found that
most of AC dimensions except tendency to infer abstract, contemporary, causally external
attributions and tendency to infer external causes operating from the past were positively
correlated to acceptance. three out of seven dimensions of AC showed weak correlation with
self-blame and refocus on planning. Positive reappraisal and other-blame has the least
number of correlation with attributional complexity constructs. However, the cognitive
emotion regulation strategy, catastrophizing did not have correlation with any of the
dimesions of AC. In contrast, negative correlations were found between preference for
complex rather than simple explanations and self-blame, acceptance, positive refocusing and
refocus on planning. In addition, rumination was also negatively correlated with tendency to
infer external causes operating from the past. Furthermore, the total attributional complexity
score was positively correlated with five out of nine strategies of cognitive emotion
regulation, self-blame, acceptance, rumination, refocus on planning and putting into
perspective. All these findings rejected the null hypothesis of the study stating that there will
be no relationship between attributional complexity and congnitive emotion regulation.
Considering the adaptive and maladptive categorization of cognitive strategies, most
of the adaptive strategies were correlated with awareness of the extent to which people’s
behaviour is a function of interaction with others. Maladaptive strategies were used mostly
56
by people high on tendency to infer abstract, contemporary, causally external attributions
and tendency to infer external causes operating from the past.
In the whole study, there was an emergence of one significant trend. It is that there
are only weak positive and negative correlations between the dimensions of Attributional
complexity and cognitive emotion regulation. Also, all the significances were moderate to
statistically high in most of the findings. Hence, this study may be useful in considering the
significance of attributing causal behaviours or making less errors in social judgement and
the role of various congitive emotion regulation startegies among early adolescents.
57
Limitations of the study
 There might be chances of data bias as the study used self-report questionnaires while
conducting the study. This may have lead to marking of untrue responses or choosing the
socially desirable responses rather than marking honest responses.
 The generalizability of the study is doubted as the participants were chosen only from schools
of a particular district in Karnataka state. In addition, cultural bias also may affect the
generalzability of the study.
 The study may have had better and consistent precictions if the sampling design was
longitudinal rather than cross-sectional wherein the changes across lifespan cannot be studied.
 The study did not consider the socio-economic status, attachment style or family upbringing,
or current state of the participants which may have contributed to the varied results in the
study.
58
Future directions
 The future research can address the aforementioned limiations
 The attributional complexity scale is a self-report measure and it is difficult to visualize the
situation and respond correctly. In order to obtain a clear picture of how the individuals
engage in behaviours and make social judgements, it would be effective to conduct social
experiments rather than using self-report measures.
 To gain an in-depth understanding about the relationship between attributional complexity
and cognitive emotion regulation, it would be ideal to conduct experimental and longitudinal
study.
 This study could help in conducting further research concerning mediating roles of other
significant variables such as attachment styles, parental bond, resilience etc. in attributional
complexity and cognitive emotion regulation.
 To plan awareness and interventions regarding the importance of attributional behaviours in
everyday life and it’s major influence on cognitive emotion regulation.

59
References
60
References
Aldwin, C.M. (1994) Stress, Coping, and Development: An Integrative Perspective.
New. York: Guilford Press. American Psychiatry Association.
Allan, S., & Gilbert, P. (1995). A social comparison scale: Psychometric properties
and relationship to psychopathology. Personality and Individual Differences, 19(3),
293-299.
Anderson, C. A., Miller, R. S., Riger, A. L., Dill, J. C., & Sedikides, C. (1994).
Behavioral and characterological attributional styles as predictors of depression and
loneliness: review, refinement, and test. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 66(3), 549.
Asch, S. E., & Zukier, H. (1984). Thinking about persons. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 46(6), 1230.
Asch, S. E., & Zukier, H. (1984). Thinking about persons. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 46(6), 1230.
Balzarotti, S. T. E. F. A. N. I. A., Biassoni, F., Villani, D. A. N. I. E. L. A., Prunas, A.,
& Velotti, P. (2016). Individual differences in cognitive emotion regulation:
Implications for subjective and psychological well-being. Journal of happiness
studies, 17(1), 125-143.
Beckman, L. J. (1979). Reported effects of alcohol on the sexual feelings and behavior
of women alcoholics and nonalcoholics. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 40(3), 272-
282.
Boden, J. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Repressive coping: distraction using
pleasant thoughts and memories. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 73(1), 45.

61
Buck, R., Losow, J. I., Murphy, M. M., & Costanzo, P. (1992). Social facilitation
and inhibition of emotional expression and communication. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 63(6), 962.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies:
a theoretically based approach. Journal of personality and social psychology, 56(2),
267.
Cole, P. M. (1986). Children's spontaneous control of facial expression. Child
development, 1309-1321.
Compas, B. E., Orosan, P. G., & Grant, K. E. (1993). Adolescent stress and
coping: Implications for psychopathology during adolescence. Journal of
Adolescence, 16, 331-349.
Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. (1990). Multidimensional assessment of coping: a
critical evaluation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 58(5), 844.
Fast, L. A., Reimer, H. M., & Funder, D. C. (2008). The social behavior and reputation
of the attributionally complex. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(1), 208-222.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social cognition reading. MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition, 2nd. NY: McGraw-Hill, 16-15.
Fletcher, G. J., & Kininmonth, L. A. (1992). Measuring relationship beliefs: An
individual differences scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 26(4), 371-397.
Fletcher, G. J., Danilovics, P., Fernandez, G., Peterson, D., & Reeder, G. D.
(1986). Attributional complexity: An individual differences measure. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(4), 875.
Fletcher, G. J., Reeder, G. D., & Bull, V. (1990). Bias and accuracy in attitude attribution:
The role of attributional complexity. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 26(4), 275-288.

62
Follett, K. J., & Hess, T. M. (2002). Aging, cognitive complexity, and the fundamental
attribution error. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and
Social Sciences, 57(4), P312-P323.
Fritz, H. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. The Journal of Marketing,
56, 322.
Funder, D. C. (2006). Towards a resolution of the personality triad: Persons, situations, and
behaviors. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(1), 21-34.
Garnefski, N., & Kraaij, V. (2006). Relationships between cognitive emotion regulation
strategies and depressive symptoms: A comparative study of five specific
samples. Personality and Individual differences, 40(8), 1659-1669.
Garnefski, N., Koopman, H., Kraaij, V., & ten Cate, R. (2009). Brief report: Cognitive
emotion regulation strategies and psychological adjustment in adolescents with a
chronic disease. Journal of adolescence, 32(2), 449-454.
Garnefski, N., Kraaij, V., & Spinhoven, P. (2001). Negative life events, cognitive emotion
regulation and emotional problems. Personality and Individual differences, 30(8),
1311-1327.
Garnefski, N., Kraaij, V., & Spinhoven, P. (2002). CERQ: Manual for the use of
cognitive emotion regulation questionnaire, DATEC. Leiden University: The
Netherlands.
Garnefski, N., Kraaij, V., & van Etten, M. (2005). Specificity of relations between
adolescents’ cognitive emotion regulation strategies and internalizing and
externalizing psychopathology. Journal of adolescence, 28(5), 619-631.
Garnefski, N., Legerstee, J., Kraaij, V., Van Den Kommer, T., & Teerds, J. A. N. (2002).
Cognitive coping strategies and symptoms of depression and anxiety: A comparison
between adolescents and adults. Journal of adolescence, 25(6), 603-611.

63
Garnefski, N., van den Kommer, T., Kraaij, V., Teerds, J., Legerstee, J., & Onstein, E.
(2002a). The relationship between cognitive emotion regulation strategies and
emotional problems. European Journal of Personality, 16, 403-420.
Gibb, B. E., Zhu, L., Alloy, L. B., & Abramson, L. Y. (2002). Attributional styles and
academic achievement in university students: A longitudinal investigation. Cognitive
therapy and research, 26(3), 309-315.
Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review
of general psychology, 2(3), 271.
Gross, J. J. (1999). Emotion regulation: Past, present, future. Cognition & Emotion, 13(5),
551-573.
Gross, J. J. (2001). Emotion regulation in adulthood: Timing is everything. Current
directions in psychological science, 10(6), 214-219.
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1990). Perfectionism and depression: A multidimensional
analysis. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5(5), 423.
Hockenbury, D. H., & Hockenbury, S. E. (2007). Discovering psychology. New York, NY:
Worth.
Jayanthi, P., Thirunavukarasu, M., & Rajkumar, R. (2015). Academic stress and depression
among adolescents: A cross-sectional study. Indian pediatrics, 52(3), 217-219.
Joireman, J. (2004). Relationships Between Attributional Complexity and
Empathy. Individual Differences Research, 2(3).
Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions the attribution process in
person perception. Advances in experimental social psychology, 2, 219-266.
Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In Nebraska symposium on
motivation. University of Nebraska Press.
Kim, D., Pan, Y., & Park, H. S. (1998). High-versus low-context culture: A comparison of
64
Chinese, Korean, and American cultures. Psychology and Marketing, 15(6), 507-
521.
Li, L., Zhu, X., Yang, Y., He, J., Yi, J., Wang, Y., & Zhang, J. (2015). Cognitive emotion
regulation: characteristics and effect on quality of life in women with breast
cancer. Health and quality of life outcomes, 13(1), 51.
Martin, R. C., & Dahlen, E. R. (2005). Cognitive emotion regulation in the prediction of
depression, anxiety, stress, and anger. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(7),
1249-1260.
Metcalfe, J. (1998). Cognitive optimism: Self-deception or memory-based processing
heuristics?. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(2), 100-110.
Mohanraj, R., & Subbaiah, K. (2010). Prevalence of Depressive Symptoms among Urban
Adolescents of South India. Journal of Indian Association for Child and Adolescent
Mental Health, 6(2), 33-43.
Monat, A., & Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Stress and coping: an anthology. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Narayanan, A. (2008). The resilient individual: A personality analysis. Journal of the Indian
Academy of Applied Psychology, 34, 110-118.
Narayanan, A. (2009). Resilience, Metacognition, and Complexity. Journal of the Indian
Academy of Applied Psychology, 63, 112-118.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Parker, L. E., & Larson, J. (1994). Ruminative coping with depressed
mood following loss. Journal of personality and social psychology, 67(1), 92.
Poropat, G. (2002). U.S. Patent No. 6,442,476. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office.
Rodríguez-Naranjo, C., & Caño, A. (2016). Daily stress and coping styles in adolescent
hopelessness depression: Moderating effects of gender. Personality and Individual

65
Differences, 97, 109-114.
Rose, A. J., & Rudolph, K. D. (2006). A review of sex differences in peer relationship
processes: potential trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development of girls
and boys. Psychological bulletin, 132(1), 98.
Sakakibara, R. and Endo, T. (2016). Cognitive Appraisal as a Predictor of Cognitive
Emotion Regulation Choice. Jpn Psychol Res, 58: 175–185. doi:10.1111/jpr.12098
Steinberg L. (1999). Adolescence, 5th. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Stikkelbroek, Y., Bodden, D. H., Kleinjan, M., Reijnders, M., & van Baar, A. L. (2016).
Adolescent depression and negative life events, the mediating role of cognitive
emotion regulation. PloS one, 11(8), e0161062.
Sullivan, M. J., Bishop, S. R., & Pivik, J. (1995). The pain catastrophizing scale:
development and validation. Psychological assessment, 7(4), 524.
Sultan, S., & Hagger, M. (2014). Attributional complexity: A required constituent for social
competence among students. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences, 34(1), 131-138.
Tam, K. P., Au, A., & Leung, A. K. Y. (2008). Attributionally more complex people show
less punitiveness and racism. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(4), 1074-1081.
Thompson, R. A. (1991). Emotional regulation and emotional development. Educational
Psychology Review, 3(4), 269-307.
Thompson, R. A. (1994). Emotion regulation: A theme in search of definition. Monographs
of the society for research in child development, 59(2‐3), 25-52.
Thurman, P. J., Jones-Saumty, D., & Parsons, O. A. (1990). Locus of control and drinking
behavior in American Indian alcoholics and non-alcoholics. American Indian and
Alaska Native Mental Health Research.
van der Wal, C. N., & Kowalczyk, W. (2013). Detecting changing emotions in human
speech by machine and humans. Applied intelligence, 39(4), 675-691.

66
Vuchinich, R. E., Tucker, J. A., Bordini, E., & Sullwold, A. F. (1981). Attributions of
causality for drinking behavior made by alcoholics and by normal drinkers. Drug
and alcohol dependence, 8(3), 201-206.
Webster, J. D. (2010). Wisdom and positive psychosocial values in young
adulthood. Journal of Adult Development, 17(2), 70-80.
Weiner, B. (2004). Attribution theory revisited: Transforming cultural plurality into
theoretical unity. Big theories revisited, 4, 13-29.

67
Appendices
68
Appendix – A
69
Appendix- B
70
Appendix- C
71
Appendix – D1
72
Appendix – D2
73
Appendix – D3
74
Appendix – D4
75
Appendix – D5
76
Appendix – E
PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET
Project title: Correlation of Attributional complexity and cognitive emotion regulation

among early adolescents
IEC No.: IEC 576/2016
Sponsor Name:
Language: English
Principal Investigator: Hasna K.M

Designation: Student
Hospital:
Mobile number: 9008066938
Please read this form carefully. If you don’t understand the language or any information in
this document, please discuss with the research investigator. Your child’s participation in this
study is voluntary, and you can enquire about all details before giving your written consent
for your child’s participation in this study.
1. Introduction to the research study:
Your child is being invited to participate in a study/research titled “Correlation of Attributional

complexity and cognitive emotion regulation among early adolescents”. This study involves
administration of two questionnaires in which your child has to read the questions carefully
and tick the answers which he/she thinks is most appropriate. There are no right or wrong
answers to any of the questions. The study intends to assess two components such as
Attributional complexity and cognitive emotion regulation of your child. It is a paper-pencil
test which will be administered in a group. The time required for the study will not exceed 45
minutes. No harm or consequence will be present to your child during or after the study. The
confidentiality of your child’s study results will be kept confidential.
77
2. Purpose of the study:
To assess two components such as Attributional complexity and cognitive emotion regulation
of your child.
3. Who can take part:
Students who can read, write and speak English are included. Any child with chronic illness
will be excluded due to certain reasons.
4. Information about the study:
 No. of students expected to participate in the study is 330.

 The duration of the study will be less than 45 minutes.
5. What will happen during the study:
 Grouping of students based on their classes/ section/age

 Administration of two questionnaires titled “Attributional complexity scale”
and “Cognitive emotion regulation questionnaire”
 Your child have to read the questions carefully and tick the answers which he/she
thinks is most appropriate. There are no right or wrong answers to any of the questions.
 The time required to do the test is about 30-45 minutes.
 After the child has answered all the questions, the questionnaires will be
collected by the investigator.
 Any doubts or questions will be clarified during the session.
6. Your role/responsibility in the study :
 Provide accurate information whenever asked.

 Inform the researcher if any problem is encountered during the study.
 Follow the investigators instruction.
78
 Clarify your doubts regarding the study before or during the session to the investigator.
 If you want to discontinue from the study, inform the investigator.
7. What are the risks?

 There are no physical, behavioral or psychological risks related to the study.
8. What are the potential benefits of participating in the study:
Your child may or may not benefit from participating in this study. Your child may be
informed about the two components which are being assessed by the investigator. Any doubts
regarding the study will be clarified.
10. Cost of participating in the study:
There is no cost required for the study from your side.
12. Confidentiality of information:
Information from the study records including your child’s name, address, medical records,
results of tests, study results will be kept confidential and will be reviewed only by authorized
personnel from the sponsor or their representative, Ethics Committee or regulatory bodies.
The data will not be made available to another individual unless you specifically give
permission in writing. Information and results from this study may be presented at meetings
or published in journals without including your child’s name and personal identifications. No
reference will be made in oral or written reports which could link your child to the study.
13. New information about the study:
Any new information available during the course of the study will be informed to you if it has
relevance to your decision regarding continuing of your child in the study. Results of your
child’s participation will be disclosed to you if you indicate your desire for it.
79
14. Voluntary participation:
Your child’s participation in this study is voluntary; you may decline your child’s participation
at any time and you need not give any reason for the same, and such withdrawal shall be
without penalty and without loss of benefits to which your child is otherwise entitled.
If your child withdraws from the study before data collection is completed, your child’s data
collected until your child’s indicated withdrawal will be used in the study report. Sponsorer or
the investigator may stop the research or your child’s participation in it at any time for some
or other reason without your child’s permission.
15. Whom to contact in case of any questions:
If your child encounters any problem as a result of participating in this study, you may contact:
Name: Ms. Hasna K.M

Address: Dept. of Clinical Psychology, SOAHS, Manipal – 576104
Contact number: 9008066938
If you have any questions about the informed consent process or your child’s rights as a
participant, the Principal Investigator shall give you contact details of the Member Secretary
of the Kasturba Medical College and Kasturba Hospital - Institutional Ethics Committee.
If you have any questions about this form or any study related issue, you may contact the
following person.
Name : Dr. Sebastian Padickaparambil

Designation: Head of the Department
Institution: School of Allied Health Sciences
Address: Dept. of Clinical Psychology, SOAHS, Manipal – 576104
Telephone No : 0820- 2922415 (9 am to 5 pm)
80
Appendix – F
INFORMED CONSENT FORM
Project title: Correlation of Attributional complexity and cognitive emotion regulation

among early adolescents
I confirm I have read the Participant Information Sheet for the above study and its
contents were explained and I have had the opportunity to ask questions and received
satisfactory answers.
I understand that my child's participation in the study is voluntary and that my child has
the right to withdraw at any time without giving any reason, without my child's medical
care or legal rights being affected.
I agree to my child taking part in the above study. I confirm that I have received a copy of
the Participant Information Sheet along with this signed and dated informed consent form.
Name of the Research Participant:
Age of the Research Participant:
Address of the Research Participant:

_________________________________________ _________
Name and signature of the mother / Date
guardian of the research subject
_________________________________________ _________
Name & Signature of the participant child Date
for assent (if aged from 7 years to 18 years)
________________________ _________
Name & Signature of the witness Date
___________________________________________ _________
Name & Signature of the person explaining the consent Date
81
Appendix – G
SOCIO DEMOGRAPHIC PERFORMA
Participant Code:
Age:
Gender:
Class:
Section:
Family Type: Together/Separated

82
Appendix – H1
Attributional Complexity Scale
Instructions
This questionnaire has been designed to investigate the different ways that people think about
themselves and other people. The questionnaire is anonymous, so there is no need to put your
name on it. There are no right or wrong answers. We are interested in your own perceptions.
Please answer each question as honestly and accurately as you can, but don’t spend too much
time thinking about each answer.
In front of each of the items below, please write a whole number ranging from –3 to +3 to
indicate how much you agree with the item, according to the following scale:
-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3
Strongly Moderately Slightly Neither Slightly Moderately Strongly
disagree disagree Disagree agree nor Agree agree agree
disagree
____ 1. I don’t usually bother to analyze and explain people’s behavior.
_____ 2. Once I have figured out a single cause for a person’s behavior I don’t usually go
any further.
_____ 3. I believe it is important to analyze and understand our own thinking processes.
_____ 4. I think a lot about the influence that I have on people’s behavior.
_____ 5. I have found that relationships between a person’s attitudes, beliefs, and character
traits are usually simple and straightforward.
_____ 6. If I see people behaving in a really strange or unusual manner, I usually put it down
to the fact that they are strange or unusual people and don’t bother to explain it any further.
_____ 7. I have thought a lot about the family background and personal history of people who
are close to me, in order to understand why they are the sort of people they are.
83
_____ 8. I don’t enjoy getting into discussions where the causes for people’s behavior are
being talked about.
_____ 9. I have found that the causes for people’s behavior are usually complex rather than
simple.
_____ 10. I am very interested in understanding how my own thinking works when I make
judgments about people or attach causes to their behavior.
_____ 11. I think very little about the different ways that people influence each other.
_____ 12. To understand a person’s personality/behavior I have found it is important to know

how that person’s attitudes, beliefs, and character traits fit together.
_____ 13. When I try to explain other people’s behavior I concentrate on the other person and
don’t worry too much about all the existing external factors that might be affecting them.
_____ 14. I have often found that the basic cause for a person’s behavior is located far back
in time.
_____ 15. I really enjoy analyzing the reasons or causes for people’s behavior.
_____ 16. I usually find that complicated explanations for people’s behavior are confusing
rather than helpful.
_____ 17. I give little thought to how my thinking works in the process of understanding or
explaining people’s behavior.
_____ 18. I think very little about the influence that other people have on my behavior.
_____ 19. I have thought a lot about the way that different parts of my personality influence
other parts (e.g., beliefs affecting attitudes or attitudes affecting character traits).
_____ 20. I think a lot about the influence that society has on other people.
_____ 21. When I analyze a person’s behavior I often find the causes form a chain that goes
back in time, sometimes for years.
84
_____ 22. I am not really curious about human behavior.
_____ 23. I prefer simple rather than complex explanations for people’s behavior.
_____ 24. When the reasons I give for my own behavior are different from someone else’s,
this often makes me think about the thinking processes that lead to my explanations.
_____ 25. I believe that to understand a person you need to understand the people who that
person has close contact with.
_____ 26. I tend to take people’s behavior at face value and not worry about the inner causes
for their behavior (e.g., attitudes, beliefs, etc.).
_____ 27. I think a lot about the influence that society has on my behavior and personality.
_____ 28. I have thought very little about my own family background and personal history in
order to understand why I am the sort of person I am.
85
Appendix – H2
CERQ
© Garnefski, Kraaij & Spinhoven, 2001
How do you cope with events?
Everyone gets confronted with negative or unpleasant events now and then and everyone
responds to them in his or her own way. By the following questions you are asked to indicate what
you generally think, when you experience negative or unpleasant events.
almost some Reg oft
never ttimesul arly

enen
1. 1 feel that I am the one to blame for it 1 2 3 4
2. I think that I have to accept that this has happened 1 2 3 4
3. I often think about how I feel about what I have experienced 1 2 3 4
4. I think of nicer things than what I have experienced 1 2 3 4
5. I think of what I can do best 1 2 3 4
6. I think I can learn something from the situation 1 2 3 4
7. I think that it all could have been much worse 1 2 3 4
8. I often think that what I have experienced is much worse than what 1 2 3 4
ot others have experienced
9. I feel that others are to blame for it 1 2 3 4
10. I feel that I am the one who is responsible for what has happened 1 2 3 4
11. I think that I have to accept the situation 1 2 3 4

86
12. I am preoccupied with what I think and feel about what I have 1 2 3 4
experienced
13. I think of pleasant things that have nothing to do with it 1 2 3 4
14. I think about how I can best cope with the situation 1 2 3 4
15. I think that I can become a stronger person as a result of what has 1 2 3 4
happened
16. I think that other people go through much worse experiences 1 2 3 4
17. I keep thinking about how terrible it is what I have experienced 1 2 3 4
18. I feel that others are responsible for what has happened 1 2 3 4
19. I think about the mistakes I have made in this matter 1 2 3 4
20. I think that I cannot change anything about it 1 2 3 4
21. I want to understand why I feel the way I do about what I have 1 2 3 4
experienced
22. I think of something nice instead of what has happened 1 2 3 4
23. I think about how to change the situation 1 2 3 4
24. I think that the situation also has its positive sides 1 2 3 4
25. I think that it hasn’t been too bad compared to other things 1 2 3 4
26. I often think that what I have experienced is the worst that can happen 1 2 3 4
to a person
27. I think about the mistakes others have made in this matter 1 2 3 4
28. I think that basically the cause must lie within myself 1 2 3 4
29. I think that I must learn to live with it 1 2 3 4
30. I dwell upon the feelings the situation has evoked in me 1 2 3 4
31. I think about pleasant experiences 1 2 3 4
32. I think about a plan of what I can do best 1 2 3 4

87
33. I look for the positive sides to the matter 1 2 3 4
34. I tell myself that there are worse things in life 1 2 3 4
35. I continually think how horrible the situation has been 1 2 3 4
36. I feel that basically the cause lies with others 1 2 3 4

88

MSC Dissertation PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

MSC Dissertation PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

CORRELATION OF ATTRIBUTIONAL

COMPLEXITY AND COGNITIVE

Ms Indu Toby Samir K Praharaj

Dr. Sebastian P Dr. B Rajashekhar

I, Hasna K M hereby declare that the dissertation entitled “Correlation of

Attributional Complexity and Cognitive Emotion Regulation among Early

Adolescents” which is submitted to the Department of Clinical Psychology, School

of Allied Health Sciences, Manipal University, is a bonafide record of research work

Psychology, Manipal University, and co-guidance of Mr Samir K Praharaj,

Kasturba Medical College, Manipal University, in partial fulfillment of the

I, consider this as an opportunity to express my immense gratitude and indebtedness to

encouragement, appreciation, patience, support, persistence, and scholarly guidance throughout

motivation and support she provided me in successfully pursuing and completing my

I wholeheartedly thank my co-guide, Dr Samir K Praharaj, Associate Professor,

without his help.

I would like to thank Dr Sebastian Padickaparambil, the Head of the Department,

giving us an opportunity to conduct research and providing help whenever required.

Dr Dinesh. N, Dr Shweta Rai, Mrs Nitha Thomas, Ms Sahana Madhyastha, Mr Dan

for their constant support and encouragement throughout the course.

I would like to thank Ms Amitha, PhD scholar, Department of Statistics, Manipal

help and support in statistical analyses.

emotional support. I thank my friends Aswathy Sampath, Haripriya. A, Amilin Mathews,

my ability to successfully complete the work.

have completed this work.

Chapter. No Index Page No.

List of Appendices iii

2.1 Attributional Complexity 10- 19

2.2 Cognitive Emotion Regulation 19- 28

6 Summary and Conclusion 53- 56

Abbreviations Full Form

AC 1 : Level of interest or motivation

AC 2 : Preference for complex rather than simple explanations

AC 3 : Presence of metacognition concerning explanations

AC 4 : Interaction with others

AC 5 : Tendency to infer causal complex internal attributions

AC 6 : Tendency to infer abstract external causal attributions

AC 7 : Tendency to infer external causes from the past

AC Total : Total score of Attributional Complexity

CER 4 : Positive Refocusing

CER 5 : Refocus on Planning

CER 6 : Positive Reappraisal

CER 7 : Putting into Perspective

Table No. Description Page No.

1 Descriptive statistics of the socio-demographic details 37

2 Descriptive statistics of the socio-demographic details 38

3 Mean difference in attributional complexity scores across 39

4 Mean difference in attributional complexity (AC) scores across 40

males (n=132) and females (n= 198)

5 Mean difference in dimensions of cognitive emotion regulation 42

(CER) across males (n=132) and females (n= 198)

6 Correlation between Attributional Complexity (AC) and 43

Cognitive Emotion Regulation (CER)

Appendix No. Descriptions

A Institutional Research Committee, Certificate, SOAHS, Manipal

B Institutional Ethics Committee, Certificate, SOAHS, Manipal

C Deputy Director Of Public Instruction (DDPI) Permission

D1 Vidyodaya Public School

D2 Indrali Englis Medium Higher Primary School

D3 Sharada Residential School

D4 Madhav Kripa English Medium School

D5 St . Mary’s English Medium School

E Participant Information Sheet

F Informed Consent Form