Explanatory Style In College Students: Gender Differences And Disability Status - Statistical Data Included

The explanatory style scores of 38 persons with physical disabilities (PWPD) and 32 persons not physically disabled (PNPD), all attending college, were assessed using the Academic Attributional Style Questionnaire (AASQ). The research literature suggests that females tend to possess an explanatory style that is somewhat more pessimistic than males. Furthermore, women with physical disabilities have been described in the literature as being passive and dependant, which may suggest the presence of a pessimistic explanatory style. For these reasons, it might have been expected that female participants with physical disabilities would obtain the most pessimistic explanatory style scores. Because such an explanatory style has been linked to deficits in a variety of life domains, this difference can be significant. However, the results of the present study showed that females with physical disabilities obtained the most optimistic explanatory style scores. These results suggest a need to reconceptualize how gender and disability relate to explanatory style.

The reformulated model of learned helplessness suggests that not all individuals are at the same risk for developing signs of learned-helplessness (e.g., deficits in mood and motivation) when confronting some unpleasant event (e.g., failing a test or not understanding the contents of a lecture). Those who attribute their own roles in such negative situations to factors that are internal (i.e., it happened because of me), stable (i.e., it will always be this way), and global (i.e., it will be this way with everything I try) are said to possess a pessimistic explanatory style (ES). A pessimistic explanatory style is then thought to make persons subsequently prone to experience learned-helplessness deficits. On the other hand, those who attribute their failures to factors that are external/unstable/specific, the optimistic ES, tend to face life's failures with renewed energy and determination.

The pessimistic explanatory style has been linked to deficits in a variety of life domains. For example, research has shown a relation with depression (Peterson & Seligman, 1984), health problems (Kamen-Siegel, Rodin, Seligman, & Dwyer, 1991), diminished work productivity (Seligman & Schulman, 1986), and poorer school performance (Peterson & Barrett, 1987). Additionally, research has shown that women are more likely to utilize a pessimistic explanatory style than are men, which suggests that they are at greater risk for having problems related to these areas (Nolen-Hoeksema, Girgus, & Seligman, 1992).

Seligman, Nolen-Hoeksema, Thornton, and Thornton (1990) examined the relation between athletic performance and explanatory style. Their findings showed that male swimmers obtained explanatory style scores that were significantly more optimistic than the female swimmers. In fact, female swimmers, despite their status as world-class athletes, obtained explanatory style scores equivalent to their typical college female counterparts. This finding is especially significant when considering the primary research findings which demonstrated that swimmers with the more optimistic ES scores showed enhanced performance following an artificially induced failure condition.

Gender deficits such as these are important when one considers the relation between ES and the previously mentioned life domains. These gender differences are further compounded by the finding that women with physical disabilities have been viewed by society as passive and dependent (Vash, 1981; Healey, 1993). Because passivity and dependance are considered to be characteristic behaviors of learned helplessness, it could be hypothesized that females with physical disabilities would exhibit a pessimistic explanatory style. On the other hand, the perception of females with disabilities as being passive and dependent might reflect derogatory social stereotypes that are groundless. The present study examined these two alternatives in a sample of college students with disabilities.

Methods

Participants

Thirty-eight persons with physical disabilities (PWPD) and 32 matched persons not physically disabled (PNPD) were examined. Participants were matched on gender and age ([+ or -] 4 years). As older age matched controls became difficult to recruit, certain PWPD members remained unmatched. Despite this, the two groups measured similarly on various demographic variables (see Table 1). PWPD females made up 55.30% (n = 21) and PNPD females made up 68.80% (n = 22) of their respective groups. The total sample was comprised of 61.40% females.

Table 1 Demographic Information

                PWPD    PNDP    COMB    df    t      p
Variable

AGE       M    33.37   30.66   32.13   68   1.07    .29

          SD   10.63   10.43   10.55

YRS       M     4.13    4.47    4.28   63   -.54    .59

          SD    3.02    1.76    2.50

HRS       M    95.52   94.20   94.89   57    .09    .93

          SD   65.50   44.26   55.96

GPA       M     3.12    3.06    3.09   62    .43    .67

          SD    0.47    0.50    0.48

SES       M    37.72   39.63   38.57   59    .54    .59

          SD   13.87   13.57   13.66