- Email: [email protected]
Enviousness and its relationship to maladjustment and psychopathology
Person. individ. Dif;l: Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 31 l-321, 1996
Pergamon SO191-8869(96)00081-5
Copyright 0 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 0191-8869/96 %15.00+0.00
ENVIOUSNESS AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO MALADJUSTMENT AND PSYCHOPATHOLOGY Brian T. Gold Department
of Psychology. York University, 4700 Keele Street, North York, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3 (Rewired 24 Nocember 1995)
Summary-This article attempted to demonstrate the existence of a pattern of cognition which collectively comprised an envious personality trait. Four studies provided support for the present conceptualization of enviousness through the development and validation of the York Enviousness Scale (YES). In Study 1 evidence for high internal consistency of the YES was advanced. In addition, the scale appeared to be minimally contaminated by social desirability. Study 2 provided support for the measure’s validity; correlations of the YES with validating measures of trait anger, hostility, inferiority, materialism, and jealousy were all significant and in the predicted directions. Study 3 established the temporal stability of the YES. Study 4 provided direct support for the present conceptualization of enviousness through the demonstration of the construct’s association with psychopathology. Significant sex differences in enviousness were found, with men scoring higher than women on the YES. These sex differences are explained in light of some proposed functional aspects of enviousness. Copyright #Q 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd
INTRODUCTION
Historically, envy has been examined as an emotion (Ben-Ze’ev, 1990) and as a social behaviour which serves an important role in society (Schoeck, 1969). In one of its many references, in Dante’s If&no, envy is one of the seven deadly sins. While envy has occasionally been viewed as a desirable trait as a basis for achievement in that it motivates a high degree of effort to attempt to acquire the desired object (Foster, 1972; Lyman, 1978; Sabini and Silver, 1982; Schalin, 1979) it has been linked to various negative outcomes including feelings of hostility (Smith, 1991), inferiority, guilt, and resentment (Parrott & Smith, 1993). In addition, envy has been associated with more serious forms of maladjustment such as anxiety and depression (Salovey & Rodin, 1984); personality disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 1994); and criminal behaviour such as arson, vandalism, assault, and even murder (Bakker & Bakker-Rabdau, 1973; Daniels, 1964; Joffe, 1969; Schoeck, 1969). Yet there have been very few systematic attempts to examine individual differences in enviousness and still fewer conceptualizations of enviousness as a personality trait. A common misconception is that envy is synonymous with covetousness, or one person’s longing for something which they do not have but that someone they know possesses. In fact, envy involves an urge to vitiate which is not present in covetousness. The word envy comes from the Latin ‘invidere’: to look hatefully at someone. Klein (1975) wrote that envy aims to hurt and ruin. Klein viewed the envious person as a hater of others’ joy; a spiteful, destructive spoiler who wishes to harm others. Envy is typically experienced as a feeling of inferiority. longing, or ill-will toward the envied person (Ben-Ze’ev, 1990; Klein, 1975; Neu, 1980; Parrott & Smith, 1993; Salovey & Rodin, 1984). Webster’s encyclopedic dictionary defines envy as: “A feeling of antagonism towards someone because of some good they are enjoying but which one does not have oneself’. Envy appears to be cross-cultural and universal (Cohen, 1986; Foster, 1972; Schoeck, 1969). Most cultures have terms to denote envy and phrases which relate to the behaviour. In several languages the expression “wear it in good health” exists and is expressed to those who have purchased a new piece of clothing. Cohen (1986) proposes that the expression has its origins as a means by which to protect the person from the evil that might follow their successful purchase by an envious individual who delivers the curse or evil eye. Similarly, in many cultures people engage in a mock spitting behaviour as a means to protect a loved one possessing a desirable trait, which may be envied by others. A systematic search of the York University library on-line system (Yorkline) revealed over 40 books on the topic of envy. Keyword searches on the library’s CD Rom system (PSYCHLIT) indicated that there have been close to 500 publications relating to the topic in psychology journals alone. Yet of the 492 published articles in psychology journals only 29 papers advance empirical 311
312
Brian T. Gold
findings relating to the measurement of envy. Quantitative research occurred in only six of these articles, the majority being clinically-oriented, qualitative research. Indeed, when searching under the word enviousness in the Thesaurus of Psychological Index Terms (1991), the primary psychological source for keywords, the reader is referred to “see jealousy”. Apart from covetousness, jealousy is the other emotion which is consistently confused with envy. Jealousy represents the wish to maintain (and the fear of losing) something that one has and that is perceived to be threatened by another (Ben-Ze’ev, 1990). Ben-Ze’ev (1990) notes that the term jealousy is commonly used in a broad manner to denote either its true meaning or envy’s meaning, Envy, on the other hand, is rarely used to denote jealousy. The overall similarity between envy and jealousy makes it important to establish an empirical relationship between the two constructs when developing a measure of enviousness. Cohen (1986) asked 300 women what they envy. Less intuitive responses included inner calm, not caring what others think, and the ability to find simple pleasure in day-to-day life without envying others. At the peripheral level, envy seems merely concerned with superficial attributes such as beauty and popularity. Being beautiful, or intelligent is desirable, but wanting to be beautiful, and even more so, envying someone else’s beauty, is socially-undesirable and is stigmatized by society. Consequently, enviousness would be expected to include a self-monitoring component. A valid measure of enviousness should therefore demonstrate a discriminant relationship with social desirability. There may be sex differences with respect to enviousness. Women tend in general to be choosier about their partners than men, making them more likely to insist that potential mates are intelligent, of high status, and have prospects for success (Buss, 1994; Daly & Wilson, 1983; Ellis, 1992). An adaptationist view (Mayr, 1983) could explain the cross-cultural nature and prevalence of enviousness in the following manner: Enviousness remains a prevalent psychological trait because it selectively advantaged males with respect to mating. If enviousness served to increase motivation toward the attainment of goals, then mildly envious males would have been more likely to acquire multiple partners, thereby increasing the chances for the maintenance of this trait in the population. Enviousness might be relatively less advantageous for females. Increased motivation toward goals would not necessary benefit women with respect to mate attraction since men tend to be choosy primarily with respect to the physical attractiveness of women (Daly & Wilson, 1983; Krebs & Adinolfi, 1975; Miller & Rivenbark, 1970) and not necessarily their level of status (Buss, 1994; Ellis, 1992). In general, previous attempts to measure enviousness have been limited and tangential. For instance, research has often utilized descriptive paragraphs which are intended to elicit the general emotion of envy and not discriminate between individual degrees of enviousness as a personality trait (see Parrott & Smith, 1993; Salovey & Rodin, 1986). In addition, these descriptive paragraphs have unknown validity. Belk (1985) developed an eight-item subscale labeled ‘envy’, however it is primarily intended to measure one of the three proposed components of materialism, and not to measure enviousness per se. The eight items are not sufficient to capture the full scope of envy, nor the envious personality. Further, the subscale simply assesses the longing and resentment components of envy without accounting for the feelings of ill-will toward the envied person which are basic to the experience of envy. At present there exists no published scale primarily intended to measure the present conceptualization of enviousness as a stable personality trait. There were three goals and one hypothesis with respect to the first study. First, it was expected that a measure of enviousness would be constructed possessing strong internal consistency. Second, it was anticipated that the measure would demonstrate some discriminant validity via a low correlation with a social desirability scale. Third, it was expected that some convergent validity for the scale would be established through a high correlation with a measure of jealousy. Finally, it was predicted that males would score significantly higher than females on the enviousness scale. STUDY
1
Item generation
Along with the author, three graduate students were asked to generate items that they felt addressed enviousness as defined by Webster’s encyclopedic dictionary. A total of 64 candidate
Enviousness, maladjustment and psychopathology
313
items were generated. Several guidelines were used for writing the items. First, both the behaviours and attitudes involved were to be specific, and the situations that led to them as close to universal as possible (Buss & Durkee, 1957). For example, in the item “I feel angry when others succeed” the “I feel angry” is a specific response, and “when others succeed” is a situation which people of most backgrounds and cultures can relate to regardless of how “success” is defined in that culture. Second, in order to avoid items which produced socially-desirable responses several idioms were used where applicable. Idioms tend to foster truthful responses since they are colloquial and have been heard and used by respondents in the past. Idioms will therefore stand a greater chance of being admitted to when such phrases apply to the individual in question. For instance, in attempting to assess whether someone begrudges another person’s enjoyment, the question which simply asks how spiteful one feels towards others is loaded with social-desirability. The item “It makes me feel good to rain on someone’s parade”, on the other hand, is well-understood and is probably viewed with less stigma because it is admitted to on a regular basis by those who use the expression. Third, reversed-items were included in the candidate items in order to control for response style bias (Jackson, 1970). Item refinement After initial generation two faculty members in the department of psychology were asked to identify items which were double-barrelled, repetitive, overly complex, or did not address the concept of envy. As a result, two questions were reworded and six were dropped from the list of candidate items. The remaining 58 items were placed into a seven-point Likert format. Reseurch participants Subjects were 361 undergraduate students. The sample included 224 females and 122 males and 15 who did not specify their sex. The age range was from 18 to 53, M = 28, SD = 8.96. Materials The 58 items produced in the initial phases of the item generation and refinement were presented in a Likert-type format. Respondents indicated their agreement with each statement on a sevenpoint scale ranging from disagree strongly to agree strongly. Additional scales were distributed to provide evidence of convergent and discriminant validity during the first phase of scale construction, as recommended by Jackson (1970). In order to test for social desirability contamination of both individual items and the whole scale, the 13-item short form of the Marlowe-Crowne Scale (Reynolds, 1982) was included. The short form of the Marlowe-Crowne test and the Marlowe-Crowne Standard test are highly correlated, r = 0.93. Participants also completed the cognitive subscale of the Multidimensional Jealousy Scale (MJS; Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989) in order to foster convergent validity. The MJS asks participants to think of a person with whom they are having, or have had a strong romantic relationship. This person is referred to as X. Items include “I suspect that X is secretly seeing someone else”. The cognitive subscale has been shown to be internally consistent with an alpha of 0.91 and has demonstrated strong correlations with other jealousy scales.
RESULTS
AND DISCUSSION
Item selection The 346 subjects was within the optimal subject/item ratio of between 5 : I to 10 : 1 as suggested by Nunnally (1978) for the initial phase of item selection. A total of 16 items were dropped due to item total correlations of less than 0.40. Seven items were discarded due to correlations with the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale of more than 0.30. Items were then selected on the basis of an overall assessment of their item-total correlation, correlations with social desirability, correlations with jealousy, and item direction, with preference given to reverse items since they were under-represented in the remaining list of 24 items. Item content was also taken into consideration in order to avoid content saturation, and to ensure that the scale represented a broad sample of the situations in which envy may manifest itself, and thus to ensure generalizability (Anastasi. 1988).
314
Brian T. Gold
Reliability
Analysis performed on the remaining 20-item York Enviousness Scale (YES) resulted in a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.91. The mean inter-item correlation was 0.32. This was well within the optimal range of 0.2 to 0.4 suggested by Briggs and Cheek (1986). These findings suggested that the scale had demonstrated a high level of internal consistency. Factor analysis
Principal components analysis was performed on the Envy Scale. Four factors were extracted accounting for 58% of the total variance. The first factor accounted for 37% of the total variance of the 20 items and indicated expressions of enviousness. None of the other factors accounted for more than 8% of the total variance. An application of the scree test (Cattell, 1966) appeared to indicate that only the first factor should be retained. The minimum loading on factor 1 was 0.42, indicating the homogeneity of the items. These data suggest that the Envy Scale is essentially a unidimensional measure. Additional analyses
The mean for the 20-item York Enviousness Scale was 53.06 on a scale of 20-140, indicating a tendency to respond in a non-envious manner. There was a significant sex difference, t(3 16) = 1.98, P < 0.05, with the mean for males, M = 59.17, SD = 18.28, and the mean for females, M = 5 1.05, SD = 17.42. In addition, there was a strong correlation with jealousy in the expected direction, r(331) = 0.68, P < 0.001. Finally, the correlation between the YES and social desirability was very low, r(322) = -0.06, ns. This low correlation indicated that the YES was not contaminated by social desirability. The correlation of the 20-item scale and the remainder of the candidate items was r(331) = 0.95, P < 0.001. The York Enviousness Scale developed in Study 1 appears to be a highly reliable one factor scale, which is relatively uncontaminated by social desirability. Evidence for face validity has also been demonstrated in Study 1. First, when asked, the majority of subjects who volunteered responses after completing the scale suggested that the measure dealt with envy. Second, the item selection process took item content into account, assuring that the broadest range possible of the envy domain was tapped by the scale. Third, there was a high correlation between the items selected for the YES and the remainder of the items that were not included in the final scale, but that also had been developed for their content (Stuckless & Goranson, 1992). Some convergent validity for the YES was established through the significant correlation with jealousy. As mentioned above, the word jealousy has historically been unintentionally misused to denote envy, making it important to differentiate between the two constructs. The correlation found here between enviousness and jealousy was higher than expected. The strong empirical relationship between enviousness and jealousy helps shed light on just why the two constructs have been consistently confused. Nevertheless, the correlation of 0.68 also indicates some difference between the two constructs and is evidence that while jealousy and envy are related they are different constructs.
STUDY
2
One requirement when developing a new measure of personality is the establishment of that scale’s construct validity. Construct validation involves an overall demonstration that a scale measures what it purports to measure (Campbell & Fiske, 1959; Cronbach & Meehl, 1955; Hogan & Nicholson, 1988). The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the construct validity of the YES by examining enviousness in the context of a number of potentially related constructs such as anger, hostility, inferiority, materialism, and social desirability. It was expected that scores on the YES would be significantly positively correlated with scores on measures of anger, hostility inferiority and materialism, and show little relationship with a social desirability scale. Subjects
The subjects were 101 York University undergraduate students who were asked to participate in this research. There were 32 males and 69 females who had an average age of, M = 23, SD = 4.73.
Enviousness, maladjustment
315
and psychopathology
Materials
All subjects completed the YES and the following scales: (a) The Struggling with Feelings of Inferiority (SFI) subscale from the Feelings, Reactions, and Beliefs Survey (FRBS: Cartwright, De Bruin & Berg, 1991). The SF1 subscale has an alpha of 0.72 and has demonstrated strong correlations with similar items on standard batteries such as the EPQ and the 16PF. (b) The Envy Subscale from the Materialism Scale (Belk, 1985). The Envy subscale is an eightitem measure in a five-point Likert format. The subscale has an alpha of 0.73 and has demonstrated moderate correlations with possessiveness and nongenerosity. (c) The Trait Anger Scale from the State-Trait Anger Scale (Spielberger, Jacobs, Russell & Crane, 1983). Scored on a scale from 1 to 4, the Trait Anger Scale is a 15-item measure which has high reliability and has been shown to be a valid measurement tool of individuals’ degree of anger. (d) The Irritability subscale from the Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory (BDHI: Buss & Durkee, 1957). The BDHI is generally regarded as the most carefully constructed measure of hostility (Spielberger et al., 1983). The BDHI has a test-retest reliability coefficient of 0.82 and has been shown to be a valid measure of hostility in several studies (see Petzel & Michaels, 1973; Schechter & Rand, 1974). (e) The Marlowe-Crowne Scale (Reynolds, 1982). The 13-item short form of the MarloweCrowne as described in Study 1. RESULTS
AND
DISCUSSION
Reliability
The YES had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.89, which was above the lower limit of 0.80 suggested by Nunnally (1978) for a personality measure intended for research purposes. The mean inter-item correlation of 0.29 is within the optimal range of 0.2 to 0.4, suggested by Briggs and Cheek (1986). As in Study 1, these results demonstrate the high internal consistency reliability of the YES. Social desirability
The correlation of the YES and the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale was r(lOO) = -0.27, P < 0.01. This low negative correlation indicates that the YES is minimally contaminated by social desirability. As already noted, enviousness may be inherently associated with self-monitoring and, therefore, social desirability. The enviers’ awareness that the behaviour is considered undesirable may lead to a habitual monitoring and over-compensation with respect to their own enviousness. Given the closeness of the two constructs some empirical relationship was expected. However, the small correlation found indicates that the YES measures enviousness, not social desirability, and is thus evidence of discriminant validity. Validity
The correlations between the YES and the validating measures are listed in Table 1. To assess concurrent validity, correlations were computed between the YES and the Envy Subscale from the Materialism Scale. The correlation between the YES and the Envy Subscale was very high. Construct validity was demonstrated by correlations between the YES and the Trait Anger Scale, the Hostility subscale from the BDHI, and the Inferiority subscale from the FRBS. There was a substantial
Table I. Correlations between YES and validating measures YES YES Anger Envy (Subscale) Hostility
** = P
< 0.01: *** = P < 0.001 N = 101.
Anger 0.43***
Envy (subscale) 0.70*** 0.41***
Hostility
Inferiority
0.47’;” 0.80*** 0.51***
0.45*** 0.45*** 0.3 I ** 0.40***
316
Brian T. Gold
correlation between the YES and Irritability and between the YES and Inferiority. There was also a moderate correlation between the YES and Trait Anger. The pattern of correlations found support for the present notion that enviousness seems to entail not simply longing for the possessions of others but also anger and hostility which stem from not having those resources. Inferiority also seems basic to the experience of envy. Someone who is consumed with what others possess probably feels a great deal of insecurity and low sense of selfworth because they are constantly coming up short on their comparisons. Indeed this finding is also in line with previous empirical relationships between enviousness and low self-esteem (Barth, 1988). Factor analysis A principal components factor analysis was performed on the YES. Four factors were extracted accounting for 57% of the total variance. Application of the scree test indicated that only the first factor should be retained. This factor accounted for 34% of the variance. None of the other factors accounted for more than 9% of the variance, nor were any of these factors interpretable. The mean factor loading for the 20 items was 0.57, demonstrating the homogeneity of the items. In addition, as in Study 1, the mean inter-item correlation of 0.29 supported the conception of a unidimensional factor structure (Briggs & Cheek, 1986).
STUDY
3
An important argument in the construction of a scale is to provide evidence that scores on the scale are stable over time. While stability is meaningful with respect to the scale’s reliability it becomes especially important when the scale is purported to measure a personality trait (Hewitt & Flett, 1991). The purpose of this study was to assess the test-retest reliability of the YES and to further investigate its psychometric properties. Subjects A total of 41 subjects (9 men and 32 women) with a mean age of 22.81 years, SD = 2.23, participated in this study and were recruited from an undergraduate class in physiological psychology. Materials The subjects completed the YES at Time 1 and 2 months later at Time 2 to assess test-retest reliability.
RESULTS
The test-retest reliability was r(41) = 0.75, P < 0.001. Cronbach’s alpha was again performed on the YES, and as in Study 1 and Study 2, it was high, 0.89 (0.89 at Time 1 and 0.90 at Time 2). Principal components analysis again indicated a unidimensional factor structure. The first factor accounted for 35.3% of the variance while none of the other factors accounted for more than 10%.
DISCUSSION
The results of this study provide further evidence of the internal consistency and unidimensional factor structure of the YES. Additionally, strong evidence of the temporal stability of the YES was found. The test-retest reliability of the YES is an indication that the scale elicits responses which tend to be stable over time. The fact that subjects tended to respond very similarly on separate administrations of the YES supports the argument that while envy is a basic human emotion, there seem to be significant individual differences in degrees of enviousness and that this enviousness can be conceptualized as a stable personality trait.
317
Enviousness, maladjustment and psychopathology STUDY
4
The results of the previous three studies indicate that the YES assesses the present conceptualization of enviousness in a reliable, valid manner and that the scale possesses temporal stability. As noted by Frese, Stewart and Hannover (1987), however, the mere demonstration that a new conceptualization of a construct exists is, by itself, insufficient. The practical importance of this new conceptualization must be demonstrated. One means of demonstrating the utility of the present understanding of enviousness would be to provide evidence that the construct is associated with psychopathology (Hewitt & Flett, 1991). It is expected that enviousness will be associated with a range of indices of maladjustment supporting the present conceptualization that enviousness is not merely longing but rather entails psychiatric symptomatology such as depression, obsessive-compulsive tendencies, anxiety. and paranoid ideation. According to the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) envy is one of the primary components of the narcissistic personality disorder. However, this diagnosis has been made largely through individual psychiatric assessments rather than quantitative personality assessment. Similarly, while some theorists have reported an observed relationship between envy and narcissism in clinical settings (Barth, 1988; Kernberg, 1975; Kohut, 1971) little quantitative research has been done in the area. Subjects
Male (21) and female (80) subjects with an average age of 20.44 years, SD = 2.97, were recruited from undergraduate courses in introductory and motivational psychology. Materials
All subjects completed the YES along with the following personality measures: (a) The Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI; Derogatis, 1983) is a 53-item self-report inventory designed to assess psychological symptoms. Developed from the Symptom Checklist 90-Revised (SCL-90; Derogatis, 1983) the BSI has been shown to be an acceptable short form of the complete scale. The BSI has demonstrated strong test-retest and internal consistency reliabilities along with high convergence with similar dimensions of the MMPI. (b) The Narcissistic Personality Inventory (Raskin & Terry, 1988) a 40-item forced choice inventory that provides a total score of narcissistic tendencies and subscales of authority, selfsufficiency, superiority, exhibitionism, exploitativeness, vanity, and entitlement.
RESULTS The correlations between enviousness and the BSI are listed in Table 2. In order to control for sex differences in scores (given the large difference in sample sizes of males and females) only correlations for females were computed. The pattern of correlations indicate that all of the symptom sub-scales were significantly associated with enviousness, as were overall scores for psychopathology. Also listed in Table 2 are correlations between enviousness and narcissism and between narcissism and the BSI. Enviousness was not correlated with narcissism. Surprisingly, narcissism was not correlated with overall scores for psychopathology nor was it related to hostility, psychoticism. or
Table 2. Correlations
Envy Narciwsm Envy
- 0.05
* = p < 0.05; ** = P. 0.01; N = 80 (females only).
between YES, narcissism.
and BSI subscales
BSI overall
Depression
Anxiety
Phobic anxiety
-0.21 0.48”’
-0.33** 0.41***
-0.17 0.43***
-0.36*** 0.47.”
*** = P < 0.001.
Somatizatlon -0.09 0.27*
Obsessive compulsive -0.22’ 0.37***
318
Brian T. Gold Table 3. Correlations
Authority
Self/ sufficient
Soperi0r.
-0.17
-0.18
0.01
Envy
between envy and narcissism
sub-scales
Exhibitionism
Exploit.
Vanity
0.05
0.10
0.08
Entitlement 0.06
N = 80 (females only)
paranoia. Scores on the narcissism scale were actually significantly negatively correlated with depression, phobic anxiety and obsessive compulsive tendencies. Table 3 lists the correlations between enviousness and the narcissism sub-scales. None of the seven components of narcissism were associated with enviousness. Sex d@erences in enviousness Although sex differences in enviousness were not found in Study 2 or Study 4 the magnitude of differences found between males and females on YES scores were highly similar in the two studies, each approximately five points higher for males. A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was carried out on the YES scores with sex and study as independent variables. There was no significant interaction between sex and study, F( 1,204) = 0.025, ns. Additionally, there was no significant main effect for study, F(1,204) = 1.96, ns, indicating that scores on the YES did not differ significantly between studies. The lack of interaction between study and sex demonstrated that the particular pattern of sex differences in enviousness found in Study 2 was not significantly different from the pattern found in Study 4. Together these data indicate that combining the scores into one larger set is appropriate. A t-test yielded significant sex differences for scores on the YES across the two studies t(204) = 2.00, P < 0.05. DISCUSSION The results of Study 4 both provide further evidence of the validity of the YES and demonstrate the presence of several heretofore unestablished correlates of enviousness. Enviousness was significantly correlated with each of the eight subscales of the BSI in addition to overall scores for psychopathology. The association of enviousness with psychiatric symptomatology supports the present conception that enviousness is not merely covetousness or longing, that there are significant individual differences in enviousness, and that the trait is an important index of maladjustment. The association between enviousness and both depression and anxiety is in line with previous research (Salovey & Rodin, 1984) and supports the present conceptualization of envious personalities being unhappy with their own situation. Also as expected, enviousness was significantly associated with other forms of anxiety such as phobic anxiety, somatization, and obsessivecompulsive tendencies. The finding that enviousness was significantly correlated with hostility also supports the present conceptualization of the enviousness construct and replicates the relationship found in Study 2 and elsewhere (Smith, 199 1). Obsessiveness may be a necessary condition for enviousness since a great deal of time is expended by the envier ruminating over the possessions of others and in subsequent hostile thoughts toward those individuals. Enviousness was also associated with paranoid ideation. This finding makes sense since both involve negative appraisals of others. Paranoia involves anger towards others which results from the suspicion that they intend to harm one in some way. Enviousness might involve a similar mechanism whereby the envier feels that the object of the envy is to blame for preventing him from attaining similar standards. The desire to avoid feelings of inferiority may result in a defensive reappraisal of the circumstances whereby the envied person is seen as the cause of the envier’s shortcomings (Salovey, 199 1). There are several possible reasons for the fact that enviousness was not correlated with narcissism. The conceptualization of narcissism which led to the construction of the NPI was based on the behavioural criteria of the narcissistic personality disorder provided by the American Psychiatric
Enviousness, maladjustment and psychopathology
319
Association (Raskin & Terry, 1988). However, one aspect of narcissism which is reported in the DSM IV but not reflected in the scale is the vulnerability in self-esteem which makes individuals with NPD very sensitive to injury from criticism or defeat. Kernberg (1975) and Kohut (1971) have each noted that individuals with NPD demonstrate a lack of internalization of mechanisms to regulate self-esteem, leading to an unconscious dependency on external sources of gratification. Model1 (1975) has added that this dependency on external sources of love forms the basis of the narcissist’s vulnerability and leads directly to their defenses aimed at creating the illusion of selfsufficiency. Outwardly grandiose and self-assured, the narcissist is in fact hampered by low selfesteem, shame propensity and hypochondria (Kohut, 1980). Raskin and Terry (1988) themselves note that the NPI items probably do not account for all of the psychological themes and behavioral dimensions that are central to narcissism. If the NPI assesses the aspects of narcissism which are associated with grandiosity and megalomania but does not account for the ruptured self-esteem that underlies these traits, then a relationship with enviousness would not be expected. Perhaps the fact that the NPI does not assess the low selfesteem and associated insecurities of the narcissist is the reason that narcissism was not related to enviousness or to a range of psychiatric symptomatology, and was in fact negatively correlated to depression, phobic anxiety, and obsessive compulsive tendencies in the present research.
GENERAL
DISCUSSION
There were five primary goals of the present research. The first goal was to advance the position that a pattern of cognition existed which collectively comprised an envious personality style. The second purpose was to develop a parsimonious measure which reflected this conceptualization of enviousness and possessed reliability and validity. The third goal was to demonstrate that this style is related to several forms of maladjustment. The fourth purpose was to determine whether enviousness was associated with psychopathology. The final goal of this research was to determine whether sex differences in enviousness existed. The present studies indicated that enviousness can be assessed in a reliable and valid manner, and that this personality style is associated with hostility, anger, jealousy and psychopathology (particularly depression, and anxiety). The fact that enviousness was most strongly correlated with total scores from the BSI suggests that general maladjustment may be central to the envious personality. More research is needed on the relationship between enviousness and narcissism. Although some conceptualizations of the personality disorder view the ultra-confidence of narcissists as a genuine expression of narcissists’ own views of themselves, other suggest that the excessive confidence is a defense against low self-esteem. It is also apparent that future study of the relationship between envy and narcissism should attempt to assess the relationship between the latter conceptualization of narcissism and enviousness, given the lack of association between enviousness and the former type found in the present research. It would be a mistake to view enviousness as merely a dysfunctional personality style. Mild enviousness can be functional in that it motivates effort toward the attainment of a goal. An adaptationist explanation of envy would suggest that enviousness conferred an advantage on early males in mate attraction. Enviousness could increase motivation toward attainment of power and status which in turn would lead to increased mating potential. On the basis of the possible functional adaptiveness of enviousness in men it was predicted that men would score higher on the YES than women and some support for this hypothesis was gained. Significant sex differences in enviousness response styles were found. However, interpretations about sex differences with respect to enviousness should be made with caution since differences barely reached significance in spite of the fact that large sample sizes were used in each study. A potentially interesting direction for future research on enviousness would be to determine whether highly envious individuals are more successful in terms of commonly valued and sought after resources such as grades in school, salary, popularity, etc. than are less envious individuals. Although the present research indicated that enviousness is associated with maladjustment and psychopathology, an adaptationist view of enviousness would support the idea that the reason for
320
Brian T. Gold
its continued presence as a human trait is that it also confers some advantage on its bearers. If envious individuals were found to be more successful than less envious people this would suggest that enviousness is similar to narcissism and psychopathy in that, while each trait is related to maladjustment, they also serve a valued function of increased motivation and effort toward the attainment of goals. Also of interest will be to determine the place of enviousness with respect to the Big Five personality model. The obsessiveness of the envier would lead one to expect that enviousness would be associated with neuroticism. The importance placed on social goals and image of the envier would suggest a tendency toward extraversion, and conservativeness on the openness dimension, since the envier probably internalizes the importance of commonly sought after rewards and resources. The relationship found here between enviousness and both hostility and anger indicate the potential for ruthlessness. Somewhat ironically, the envier would also be expected to display conscientiousness, however, overt caring would probably not emerge as an expression of genuine concern for others but rather as an image management mechanism to mask the social undesirability of their enviousness. Future research will address these hypotheses. Acknowledgements-The
author is grateful to Don Kastuk, Paul Lee, and Noreen Stuckless for helping generate items and to Hy Day, and Richard Goranson for identifying problematic items in the early stages of scale development. I would also like to thank Michael Ziegler, Richard Goranson and two anonymous reviewers for their suggestions on earlier versions of this article.
REFERENCES American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th edn). Washington, DC: Author. Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing (6th edn). New York: Macmillan. Bakker, C. B. & Bakker-Rabdau, M. K. (1973). No trespassing! E.rplorations in human territoriality. San Francisco, CA: Chandler. Barth, D. F. (1988). The role of self-esteem in the experience of envy. The American Journal of Psychoanal_vsis,48, 1988210. Belk, R. W. (1985). Materialism. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 265-280. Ben-Ze’ev, A. (1990). Envy and jealousy. Canadian Journal ofPhilosophy, 20,487-516. Briggs, S. R. & Cheek, J. M. (1986). The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales. Journal of Personality, 54, 106- 148.
Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies ofhuman mating. New York: Basic Books. Buss, A. H. & Durkee, A. (1957). An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. Journal of Consulting Psycholog.v, ?I, 343-349.
Campbell. D. T. & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod
matrix.
Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-I 05.
Cartwright, D., De Bruin, J. B. & Berg, S. (1991). Some scales for assessing personality based on Carl Rogers’ theory: Further evidence of validity. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 15 l-1 56. Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, I, 245-276. Cohen, B. (1986). The snow bvhitesyndrome: All about envy. New York: Macmillan. Cronbach, L. J. & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Buhetin, 52, 281-302. Daly, M. & Wilson, M. (1983). Sex, evolution, and behaviour (2nd edn). Belmont, Calif.: Woodsworth Publishing Co. Daniels, M. (1964). The dynamics of morbid envy in the etiology and treatment of chronic learning disability. Psychoanalytic Revielv, 51(4),
45-56.
Derogatis, L. R. (1983). Manual,for the SCL-90-R. Towson, MD: Clinical Psychometric Research. Ellis, L. (1992). The evolution of sexual attraction: Evaluative mechanisms in women. In Barkow, J. H., Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. (Eds) The adaptedmind Evolutionarypsychology and thegeneration of culture (pp. 267-288). New York: Oxford University Press. Foster, G. (1972). The anatomy of envy: A study in symbolic behavior. Current Anthropology, 13, 165-202. Frese, M., Stewart, J. & Hannover, B. (1987). Goal orientation and planfulness: Action styles as personality concepts, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52,
1182-I194.
Hewitt, P. L. & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts: conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of Persona1it.v and Social Psychology, 60.456470. Hogan, R. & Nicholson, R. A. (1988). The meaning of personality tests scores. American Psychologist, 43, 621-626. Jackson, D. N. (1970). A sequential system for personality scale development. In Spielberger, C. D. (Ed.) Current topics in clinical and community psychology (pp. 61-96). New York: Academic Press. Joffe, W. G. (1969). A critical review of the status of the envy concept. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 50,533-545. Kernberg, 0. (1975). Borderline conditions andpathological narcissism. New York: Jason Aronson. Klein, M. (1975). Envy andgratitude, and other works, 1946-1963. London: Hoaarth Press. Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis of the self. New York: International UniversitieHPress. Kohut, H. (1980). Advances in self psvcholoav. In Goldberg. A. (Ed.). New York: International Universities Press. Krebs, D. L. & Adinolfi, A. H. (i9’75). Physical attractiveness, social relations and personality style. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 245-253.
Lyman, S. M. (1978). The seven deadly sins: Society and evil. New York: St. Martin’s, Mayr, E. (1983). How to carry out the adaptationist program? American Naturalist, 121, 324-334.
Enviousness, maladjustment Miller. R. M. & Rivenbark. P.s~hological
Modell.
A. H.
W. (1970). Sexual differences
321
and psychopathology
in physical
attractiveness
as a determinant
of heterosexual
liking.
Repports. 27. 701-702.
( 1975). A narcissistic
defense
against
affects
and the illusion
of self-sufficiency.
International
Journul
of’
Pv~~chounul~~sis. 56. 275-282. Neu, J. (1980). Jealous thoughts.
In Rorty. A. 0. (Ed.) Explaining emotions (pp. 425463). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Ps~A~mrtric theor!.. New York: McGraw-Hill. Parrott. W. G. (1991). The emotional experiences of envy and jealousy. In Salovey, P. (Ed.) The psycholog), of jralous~~ und enr~~’(pp. 3330). New York: Guilford. Parrott, W. G. & Smith, R. H. (1993). Distinguishing the experiences of envy and jealousy. Journal ofPrrsonu/itI~ and .Soc~iu/ P.s~cho/oc/?~. 64. 906 -920.
Petzel. T. P. & Michaels.
E. J. (1973). Perception
of violence as a function
of levels of hostility.
Journal
of’C‘on.vultrtty
and
Clinrc~trl Ps~cholo,y~~. 41. 35536.
Pfeitfer. S. M. & Wong. P. T. P. (1989). Multidimensional Jealousy. Journal of Soctal and Personul Rekttionshrps, 6. IX1 196. Raskin. R. & Terry. H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal uf Personulitvand Social Psychology, 54, 890-902. Reynolds. W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and vahd short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of’ C‘linic~al P.s>~cholo,~~~, 38, 1199125. Sabini, J. & Silver, M. (1982). Moralities afeuer!duF life. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Salovey, P. ( I99 I). T/7(, p.s~~cho/o,g~ uf jealousy and envy. New York: Guilford Press, Salovey, P. & Rodin. J. (1984). Some antecedents and consequences of social-comparison jealousy. Journul o/ Prrsonalit~~ and Sociul P~cholog~~. 47. 780-792. Salovey. P. & Rodin, J. (I 986). The differentiation of social-comparison jealousy and romantic jealousy. Journul of Pervortulit~. attd Srtciul P.s~~cho/og,~~. 50. I IOO- I I 12. Schalin. L. J. (I 979). On the problem of envy: Social, clinical and theoretical considerations, Scandinurian P~~.c,h(l[rrru/~ti~, Rerten.. 2. 133 15X. Schechter. M. D. & Rand. M. J. (1974). Effect of acute deprivation and smoking on aggression and hostility. P.tj,chopartl7alo(Jia, .?_s.I9 -28. Schoeck, H. (1969). On.>,: .4 theory, of social hehmiour (Glenny. M. & Ross. B.. Trans.). New York: Harcourt. Brace & World. Inc. (Original work published 1966.) Smith, R. H. (I991 ). Envy and the sense of injustice. In Salovey. P. (Ed.) The psychology afjralous~ and em.!. (pp. 79-99). New York: Guilford. Spielberger. C. D.. Jacobs, G.. Russell, S. & Crane, R. S. (1983). Assessment of anger: The State-Trait Anger Scale. In Butcher J. N. & Spielberger. C. D. (Eds) Adtwnces in personality assessment (Vol. 2, pp. 161~189). Hillsdale. N.J.: Lawrence Erl baum. Stuckless. N. & Common. R. (1992). The Vengeance Scale: Development of a measure of attitudes toward revenge. Journal 01 Soc~ial Behtrrior and Personulit~. 7. 2542. W’ch\tev ‘j ~~rc,l,[,lo/‘c,t/rc, Dic~/ionur~~ of’ the English
Languuge
(Canadian
Edition).
(1988). New York: Lexicon.
Pergamon SO191-8869(96)00081-5
Copyright 0 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 0191-8869/96 %15.00+0.00
ENVIOUSNESS AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO MALADJUSTMENT AND PSYCHOPATHOLOGY Brian T. Gold Department
of Psychology. York University, 4700 Keele Street, North York, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3 (Rewired 24 Nocember 1995)
Summary-This article attempted to demonstrate the existence of a pattern of cognition which collectively comprised an envious personality trait. Four studies provided support for the present conceptualization of enviousness through the development and validation of the York Enviousness Scale (YES). In Study 1 evidence for high internal consistency of the YES was advanced. In addition, the scale appeared to be minimally contaminated by social desirability. Study 2 provided support for the measure’s validity; correlations of the YES with validating measures of trait anger, hostility, inferiority, materialism, and jealousy were all significant and in the predicted directions. Study 3 established the temporal stability of the YES. Study 4 provided direct support for the present conceptualization of enviousness through the demonstration of the construct’s association with psychopathology. Significant sex differences in enviousness were found, with men scoring higher than women on the YES. These sex differences are explained in light of some proposed functional aspects of enviousness. Copyright #Q 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd
INTRODUCTION
Historically, envy has been examined as an emotion (Ben-Ze’ev, 1990) and as a social behaviour which serves an important role in society (Schoeck, 1969). In one of its many references, in Dante’s If&no, envy is one of the seven deadly sins. While envy has occasionally been viewed as a desirable trait as a basis for achievement in that it motivates a high degree of effort to attempt to acquire the desired object (Foster, 1972; Lyman, 1978; Sabini and Silver, 1982; Schalin, 1979) it has been linked to various negative outcomes including feelings of hostility (Smith, 1991), inferiority, guilt, and resentment (Parrott & Smith, 1993). In addition, envy has been associated with more serious forms of maladjustment such as anxiety and depression (Salovey & Rodin, 1984); personality disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 1994); and criminal behaviour such as arson, vandalism, assault, and even murder (Bakker & Bakker-Rabdau, 1973; Daniels, 1964; Joffe, 1969; Schoeck, 1969). Yet there have been very few systematic attempts to examine individual differences in enviousness and still fewer conceptualizations of enviousness as a personality trait. A common misconception is that envy is synonymous with covetousness, or one person’s longing for something which they do not have but that someone they know possesses. In fact, envy involves an urge to vitiate which is not present in covetousness. The word envy comes from the Latin ‘invidere’: to look hatefully at someone. Klein (1975) wrote that envy aims to hurt and ruin. Klein viewed the envious person as a hater of others’ joy; a spiteful, destructive spoiler who wishes to harm others. Envy is typically experienced as a feeling of inferiority. longing, or ill-will toward the envied person (Ben-Ze’ev, 1990; Klein, 1975; Neu, 1980; Parrott & Smith, 1993; Salovey & Rodin, 1984). Webster’s encyclopedic dictionary defines envy as: “A feeling of antagonism towards someone because of some good they are enjoying but which one does not have oneself’. Envy appears to be cross-cultural and universal (Cohen, 1986; Foster, 1972; Schoeck, 1969). Most cultures have terms to denote envy and phrases which relate to the behaviour. In several languages the expression “wear it in good health” exists and is expressed to those who have purchased a new piece of clothing. Cohen (1986) proposes that the expression has its origins as a means by which to protect the person from the evil that might follow their successful purchase by an envious individual who delivers the curse or evil eye. Similarly, in many cultures people engage in a mock spitting behaviour as a means to protect a loved one possessing a desirable trait, which may be envied by others. A systematic search of the York University library on-line system (Yorkline) revealed over 40 books on the topic of envy. Keyword searches on the library’s CD Rom system (PSYCHLIT) indicated that there have been close to 500 publications relating to the topic in psychology journals alone. Yet of the 492 published articles in psychology journals only 29 papers advance empirical 311
312
Brian T. Gold
findings relating to the measurement of envy. Quantitative research occurred in only six of these articles, the majority being clinically-oriented, qualitative research. Indeed, when searching under the word enviousness in the Thesaurus of Psychological Index Terms (1991), the primary psychological source for keywords, the reader is referred to “see jealousy”. Apart from covetousness, jealousy is the other emotion which is consistently confused with envy. Jealousy represents the wish to maintain (and the fear of losing) something that one has and that is perceived to be threatened by another (Ben-Ze’ev, 1990). Ben-Ze’ev (1990) notes that the term jealousy is commonly used in a broad manner to denote either its true meaning or envy’s meaning, Envy, on the other hand, is rarely used to denote jealousy. The overall similarity between envy and jealousy makes it important to establish an empirical relationship between the two constructs when developing a measure of enviousness. Cohen (1986) asked 300 women what they envy. Less intuitive responses included inner calm, not caring what others think, and the ability to find simple pleasure in day-to-day life without envying others. At the peripheral level, envy seems merely concerned with superficial attributes such as beauty and popularity. Being beautiful, or intelligent is desirable, but wanting to be beautiful, and even more so, envying someone else’s beauty, is socially-undesirable and is stigmatized by society. Consequently, enviousness would be expected to include a self-monitoring component. A valid measure of enviousness should therefore demonstrate a discriminant relationship with social desirability. There may be sex differences with respect to enviousness. Women tend in general to be choosier about their partners than men, making them more likely to insist that potential mates are intelligent, of high status, and have prospects for success (Buss, 1994; Daly & Wilson, 1983; Ellis, 1992). An adaptationist view (Mayr, 1983) could explain the cross-cultural nature and prevalence of enviousness in the following manner: Enviousness remains a prevalent psychological trait because it selectively advantaged males with respect to mating. If enviousness served to increase motivation toward the attainment of goals, then mildly envious males would have been more likely to acquire multiple partners, thereby increasing the chances for the maintenance of this trait in the population. Enviousness might be relatively less advantageous for females. Increased motivation toward goals would not necessary benefit women with respect to mate attraction since men tend to be choosy primarily with respect to the physical attractiveness of women (Daly & Wilson, 1983; Krebs & Adinolfi, 1975; Miller & Rivenbark, 1970) and not necessarily their level of status (Buss, 1994; Ellis, 1992). In general, previous attempts to measure enviousness have been limited and tangential. For instance, research has often utilized descriptive paragraphs which are intended to elicit the general emotion of envy and not discriminate between individual degrees of enviousness as a personality trait (see Parrott & Smith, 1993; Salovey & Rodin, 1986). In addition, these descriptive paragraphs have unknown validity. Belk (1985) developed an eight-item subscale labeled ‘envy’, however it is primarily intended to measure one of the three proposed components of materialism, and not to measure enviousness per se. The eight items are not sufficient to capture the full scope of envy, nor the envious personality. Further, the subscale simply assesses the longing and resentment components of envy without accounting for the feelings of ill-will toward the envied person which are basic to the experience of envy. At present there exists no published scale primarily intended to measure the present conceptualization of enviousness as a stable personality trait. There were three goals and one hypothesis with respect to the first study. First, it was expected that a measure of enviousness would be constructed possessing strong internal consistency. Second, it was anticipated that the measure would demonstrate some discriminant validity via a low correlation with a social desirability scale. Third, it was expected that some convergent validity for the scale would be established through a high correlation with a measure of jealousy. Finally, it was predicted that males would score significantly higher than females on the enviousness scale. STUDY
1
Item generation
Along with the author, three graduate students were asked to generate items that they felt addressed enviousness as defined by Webster’s encyclopedic dictionary. A total of 64 candidate
Enviousness, maladjustment and psychopathology
313
items were generated. Several guidelines were used for writing the items. First, both the behaviours and attitudes involved were to be specific, and the situations that led to them as close to universal as possible (Buss & Durkee, 1957). For example, in the item “I feel angry when others succeed” the “I feel angry” is a specific response, and “when others succeed” is a situation which people of most backgrounds and cultures can relate to regardless of how “success” is defined in that culture. Second, in order to avoid items which produced socially-desirable responses several idioms were used where applicable. Idioms tend to foster truthful responses since they are colloquial and have been heard and used by respondents in the past. Idioms will therefore stand a greater chance of being admitted to when such phrases apply to the individual in question. For instance, in attempting to assess whether someone begrudges another person’s enjoyment, the question which simply asks how spiteful one feels towards others is loaded with social-desirability. The item “It makes me feel good to rain on someone’s parade”, on the other hand, is well-understood and is probably viewed with less stigma because it is admitted to on a regular basis by those who use the expression. Third, reversed-items were included in the candidate items in order to control for response style bias (Jackson, 1970). Item refinement After initial generation two faculty members in the department of psychology were asked to identify items which were double-barrelled, repetitive, overly complex, or did not address the concept of envy. As a result, two questions were reworded and six were dropped from the list of candidate items. The remaining 58 items were placed into a seven-point Likert format. Reseurch participants Subjects were 361 undergraduate students. The sample included 224 females and 122 males and 15 who did not specify their sex. The age range was from 18 to 53, M = 28, SD = 8.96. Materials The 58 items produced in the initial phases of the item generation and refinement were presented in a Likert-type format. Respondents indicated their agreement with each statement on a sevenpoint scale ranging from disagree strongly to agree strongly. Additional scales were distributed to provide evidence of convergent and discriminant validity during the first phase of scale construction, as recommended by Jackson (1970). In order to test for social desirability contamination of both individual items and the whole scale, the 13-item short form of the Marlowe-Crowne Scale (Reynolds, 1982) was included. The short form of the Marlowe-Crowne test and the Marlowe-Crowne Standard test are highly correlated, r = 0.93. Participants also completed the cognitive subscale of the Multidimensional Jealousy Scale (MJS; Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989) in order to foster convergent validity. The MJS asks participants to think of a person with whom they are having, or have had a strong romantic relationship. This person is referred to as X. Items include “I suspect that X is secretly seeing someone else”. The cognitive subscale has been shown to be internally consistent with an alpha of 0.91 and has demonstrated strong correlations with other jealousy scales.
RESULTS
AND DISCUSSION
Item selection The 346 subjects was within the optimal subject/item ratio of between 5 : I to 10 : 1 as suggested by Nunnally (1978) for the initial phase of item selection. A total of 16 items were dropped due to item total correlations of less than 0.40. Seven items were discarded due to correlations with the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale of more than 0.30. Items were then selected on the basis of an overall assessment of their item-total correlation, correlations with social desirability, correlations with jealousy, and item direction, with preference given to reverse items since they were under-represented in the remaining list of 24 items. Item content was also taken into consideration in order to avoid content saturation, and to ensure that the scale represented a broad sample of the situations in which envy may manifest itself, and thus to ensure generalizability (Anastasi. 1988).
314
Brian T. Gold
Reliability
Analysis performed on the remaining 20-item York Enviousness Scale (YES) resulted in a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.91. The mean inter-item correlation was 0.32. This was well within the optimal range of 0.2 to 0.4 suggested by Briggs and Cheek (1986). These findings suggested that the scale had demonstrated a high level of internal consistency. Factor analysis
Principal components analysis was performed on the Envy Scale. Four factors were extracted accounting for 58% of the total variance. The first factor accounted for 37% of the total variance of the 20 items and indicated expressions of enviousness. None of the other factors accounted for more than 8% of the total variance. An application of the scree test (Cattell, 1966) appeared to indicate that only the first factor should be retained. The minimum loading on factor 1 was 0.42, indicating the homogeneity of the items. These data suggest that the Envy Scale is essentially a unidimensional measure. Additional analyses
The mean for the 20-item York Enviousness Scale was 53.06 on a scale of 20-140, indicating a tendency to respond in a non-envious manner. There was a significant sex difference, t(3 16) = 1.98, P < 0.05, with the mean for males, M = 59.17, SD = 18.28, and the mean for females, M = 5 1.05, SD = 17.42. In addition, there was a strong correlation with jealousy in the expected direction, r(331) = 0.68, P < 0.001. Finally, the correlation between the YES and social desirability was very low, r(322) = -0.06, ns. This low correlation indicated that the YES was not contaminated by social desirability. The correlation of the 20-item scale and the remainder of the candidate items was r(331) = 0.95, P < 0.001. The York Enviousness Scale developed in Study 1 appears to be a highly reliable one factor scale, which is relatively uncontaminated by social desirability. Evidence for face validity has also been demonstrated in Study 1. First, when asked, the majority of subjects who volunteered responses after completing the scale suggested that the measure dealt with envy. Second, the item selection process took item content into account, assuring that the broadest range possible of the envy domain was tapped by the scale. Third, there was a high correlation between the items selected for the YES and the remainder of the items that were not included in the final scale, but that also had been developed for their content (Stuckless & Goranson, 1992). Some convergent validity for the YES was established through the significant correlation with jealousy. As mentioned above, the word jealousy has historically been unintentionally misused to denote envy, making it important to differentiate between the two constructs. The correlation found here between enviousness and jealousy was higher than expected. The strong empirical relationship between enviousness and jealousy helps shed light on just why the two constructs have been consistently confused. Nevertheless, the correlation of 0.68 also indicates some difference between the two constructs and is evidence that while jealousy and envy are related they are different constructs.
STUDY
2
One requirement when developing a new measure of personality is the establishment of that scale’s construct validity. Construct validation involves an overall demonstration that a scale measures what it purports to measure (Campbell & Fiske, 1959; Cronbach & Meehl, 1955; Hogan & Nicholson, 1988). The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the construct validity of the YES by examining enviousness in the context of a number of potentially related constructs such as anger, hostility, inferiority, materialism, and social desirability. It was expected that scores on the YES would be significantly positively correlated with scores on measures of anger, hostility inferiority and materialism, and show little relationship with a social desirability scale. Subjects
The subjects were 101 York University undergraduate students who were asked to participate in this research. There were 32 males and 69 females who had an average age of, M = 23, SD = 4.73.
Enviousness, maladjustment
315
and psychopathology
Materials
All subjects completed the YES and the following scales: (a) The Struggling with Feelings of Inferiority (SFI) subscale from the Feelings, Reactions, and Beliefs Survey (FRBS: Cartwright, De Bruin & Berg, 1991). The SF1 subscale has an alpha of 0.72 and has demonstrated strong correlations with similar items on standard batteries such as the EPQ and the 16PF. (b) The Envy Subscale from the Materialism Scale (Belk, 1985). The Envy subscale is an eightitem measure in a five-point Likert format. The subscale has an alpha of 0.73 and has demonstrated moderate correlations with possessiveness and nongenerosity. (c) The Trait Anger Scale from the State-Trait Anger Scale (Spielberger, Jacobs, Russell & Crane, 1983). Scored on a scale from 1 to 4, the Trait Anger Scale is a 15-item measure which has high reliability and has been shown to be a valid measurement tool of individuals’ degree of anger. (d) The Irritability subscale from the Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory (BDHI: Buss & Durkee, 1957). The BDHI is generally regarded as the most carefully constructed measure of hostility (Spielberger et al., 1983). The BDHI has a test-retest reliability coefficient of 0.82 and has been shown to be a valid measure of hostility in several studies (see Petzel & Michaels, 1973; Schechter & Rand, 1974). (e) The Marlowe-Crowne Scale (Reynolds, 1982). The 13-item short form of the MarloweCrowne as described in Study 1. RESULTS
AND
DISCUSSION
Reliability
The YES had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.89, which was above the lower limit of 0.80 suggested by Nunnally (1978) for a personality measure intended for research purposes. The mean inter-item correlation of 0.29 is within the optimal range of 0.2 to 0.4, suggested by Briggs and Cheek (1986). As in Study 1, these results demonstrate the high internal consistency reliability of the YES. Social desirability
The correlation of the YES and the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale was r(lOO) = -0.27, P < 0.01. This low negative correlation indicates that the YES is minimally contaminated by social desirability. As already noted, enviousness may be inherently associated with self-monitoring and, therefore, social desirability. The enviers’ awareness that the behaviour is considered undesirable may lead to a habitual monitoring and over-compensation with respect to their own enviousness. Given the closeness of the two constructs some empirical relationship was expected. However, the small correlation found indicates that the YES measures enviousness, not social desirability, and is thus evidence of discriminant validity. Validity
The correlations between the YES and the validating measures are listed in Table 1. To assess concurrent validity, correlations were computed between the YES and the Envy Subscale from the Materialism Scale. The correlation between the YES and the Envy Subscale was very high. Construct validity was demonstrated by correlations between the YES and the Trait Anger Scale, the Hostility subscale from the BDHI, and the Inferiority subscale from the FRBS. There was a substantial
Table I. Correlations between YES and validating measures YES YES Anger Envy (Subscale) Hostility
** = P
< 0.01: *** = P < 0.001 N = 101.
Anger 0.43***
Envy (subscale) 0.70*** 0.41***
Hostility
Inferiority
0.47’;” 0.80*** 0.51***
0.45*** 0.45*** 0.3 I ** 0.40***
316
Brian T. Gold
correlation between the YES and Irritability and between the YES and Inferiority. There was also a moderate correlation between the YES and Trait Anger. The pattern of correlations found support for the present notion that enviousness seems to entail not simply longing for the possessions of others but also anger and hostility which stem from not having those resources. Inferiority also seems basic to the experience of envy. Someone who is consumed with what others possess probably feels a great deal of insecurity and low sense of selfworth because they are constantly coming up short on their comparisons. Indeed this finding is also in line with previous empirical relationships between enviousness and low self-esteem (Barth, 1988). Factor analysis A principal components factor analysis was performed on the YES. Four factors were extracted accounting for 57% of the total variance. Application of the scree test indicated that only the first factor should be retained. This factor accounted for 34% of the variance. None of the other factors accounted for more than 9% of the variance, nor were any of these factors interpretable. The mean factor loading for the 20 items was 0.57, demonstrating the homogeneity of the items. In addition, as in Study 1, the mean inter-item correlation of 0.29 supported the conception of a unidimensional factor structure (Briggs & Cheek, 1986).
STUDY
3
An important argument in the construction of a scale is to provide evidence that scores on the scale are stable over time. While stability is meaningful with respect to the scale’s reliability it becomes especially important when the scale is purported to measure a personality trait (Hewitt & Flett, 1991). The purpose of this study was to assess the test-retest reliability of the YES and to further investigate its psychometric properties. Subjects A total of 41 subjects (9 men and 32 women) with a mean age of 22.81 years, SD = 2.23, participated in this study and were recruited from an undergraduate class in physiological psychology. Materials The subjects completed the YES at Time 1 and 2 months later at Time 2 to assess test-retest reliability.
RESULTS
The test-retest reliability was r(41) = 0.75, P < 0.001. Cronbach’s alpha was again performed on the YES, and as in Study 1 and Study 2, it was high, 0.89 (0.89 at Time 1 and 0.90 at Time 2). Principal components analysis again indicated a unidimensional factor structure. The first factor accounted for 35.3% of the variance while none of the other factors accounted for more than 10%.
DISCUSSION
The results of this study provide further evidence of the internal consistency and unidimensional factor structure of the YES. Additionally, strong evidence of the temporal stability of the YES was found. The test-retest reliability of the YES is an indication that the scale elicits responses which tend to be stable over time. The fact that subjects tended to respond very similarly on separate administrations of the YES supports the argument that while envy is a basic human emotion, there seem to be significant individual differences in degrees of enviousness and that this enviousness can be conceptualized as a stable personality trait.
317
Enviousness, maladjustment and psychopathology STUDY
4
The results of the previous three studies indicate that the YES assesses the present conceptualization of enviousness in a reliable, valid manner and that the scale possesses temporal stability. As noted by Frese, Stewart and Hannover (1987), however, the mere demonstration that a new conceptualization of a construct exists is, by itself, insufficient. The practical importance of this new conceptualization must be demonstrated. One means of demonstrating the utility of the present understanding of enviousness would be to provide evidence that the construct is associated with psychopathology (Hewitt & Flett, 1991). It is expected that enviousness will be associated with a range of indices of maladjustment supporting the present conceptualization that enviousness is not merely longing but rather entails psychiatric symptomatology such as depression, obsessive-compulsive tendencies, anxiety. and paranoid ideation. According to the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) envy is one of the primary components of the narcissistic personality disorder. However, this diagnosis has been made largely through individual psychiatric assessments rather than quantitative personality assessment. Similarly, while some theorists have reported an observed relationship between envy and narcissism in clinical settings (Barth, 1988; Kernberg, 1975; Kohut, 1971) little quantitative research has been done in the area. Subjects
Male (21) and female (80) subjects with an average age of 20.44 years, SD = 2.97, were recruited from undergraduate courses in introductory and motivational psychology. Materials
All subjects completed the YES along with the following personality measures: (a) The Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI; Derogatis, 1983) is a 53-item self-report inventory designed to assess psychological symptoms. Developed from the Symptom Checklist 90-Revised (SCL-90; Derogatis, 1983) the BSI has been shown to be an acceptable short form of the complete scale. The BSI has demonstrated strong test-retest and internal consistency reliabilities along with high convergence with similar dimensions of the MMPI. (b) The Narcissistic Personality Inventory (Raskin & Terry, 1988) a 40-item forced choice inventory that provides a total score of narcissistic tendencies and subscales of authority, selfsufficiency, superiority, exhibitionism, exploitativeness, vanity, and entitlement.
RESULTS The correlations between enviousness and the BSI are listed in Table 2. In order to control for sex differences in scores (given the large difference in sample sizes of males and females) only correlations for females were computed. The pattern of correlations indicate that all of the symptom sub-scales were significantly associated with enviousness, as were overall scores for psychopathology. Also listed in Table 2 are correlations between enviousness and narcissism and between narcissism and the BSI. Enviousness was not correlated with narcissism. Surprisingly, narcissism was not correlated with overall scores for psychopathology nor was it related to hostility, psychoticism. or
Table 2. Correlations
Envy Narciwsm Envy
- 0.05
* = p < 0.05; ** = P. 0.01; N = 80 (females only).
between YES, narcissism.
and BSI subscales
BSI overall
Depression
Anxiety
Phobic anxiety
-0.21 0.48”’
-0.33** 0.41***
-0.17 0.43***
-0.36*** 0.47.”
*** = P < 0.001.
Somatizatlon -0.09 0.27*
Obsessive compulsive -0.22’ 0.37***
318
Brian T. Gold Table 3. Correlations
Authority
Self/ sufficient
Soperi0r.
-0.17
-0.18
0.01
Envy
between envy and narcissism
sub-scales
Exhibitionism
Exploit.
Vanity
0.05
0.10
0.08
Entitlement 0.06
N = 80 (females only)
paranoia. Scores on the narcissism scale were actually significantly negatively correlated with depression, phobic anxiety and obsessive compulsive tendencies. Table 3 lists the correlations between enviousness and the narcissism sub-scales. None of the seven components of narcissism were associated with enviousness. Sex d@erences in enviousness Although sex differences in enviousness were not found in Study 2 or Study 4 the magnitude of differences found between males and females on YES scores were highly similar in the two studies, each approximately five points higher for males. A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was carried out on the YES scores with sex and study as independent variables. There was no significant interaction between sex and study, F( 1,204) = 0.025, ns. Additionally, there was no significant main effect for study, F(1,204) = 1.96, ns, indicating that scores on the YES did not differ significantly between studies. The lack of interaction between study and sex demonstrated that the particular pattern of sex differences in enviousness found in Study 2 was not significantly different from the pattern found in Study 4. Together these data indicate that combining the scores into one larger set is appropriate. A t-test yielded significant sex differences for scores on the YES across the two studies t(204) = 2.00, P < 0.05. DISCUSSION The results of Study 4 both provide further evidence of the validity of the YES and demonstrate the presence of several heretofore unestablished correlates of enviousness. Enviousness was significantly correlated with each of the eight subscales of the BSI in addition to overall scores for psychopathology. The association of enviousness with psychiatric symptomatology supports the present conception that enviousness is not merely covetousness or longing, that there are significant individual differences in enviousness, and that the trait is an important index of maladjustment. The association between enviousness and both depression and anxiety is in line with previous research (Salovey & Rodin, 1984) and supports the present conceptualization of envious personalities being unhappy with their own situation. Also as expected, enviousness was significantly associated with other forms of anxiety such as phobic anxiety, somatization, and obsessivecompulsive tendencies. The finding that enviousness was significantly correlated with hostility also supports the present conceptualization of the enviousness construct and replicates the relationship found in Study 2 and elsewhere (Smith, 199 1). Obsessiveness may be a necessary condition for enviousness since a great deal of time is expended by the envier ruminating over the possessions of others and in subsequent hostile thoughts toward those individuals. Enviousness was also associated with paranoid ideation. This finding makes sense since both involve negative appraisals of others. Paranoia involves anger towards others which results from the suspicion that they intend to harm one in some way. Enviousness might involve a similar mechanism whereby the envier feels that the object of the envy is to blame for preventing him from attaining similar standards. The desire to avoid feelings of inferiority may result in a defensive reappraisal of the circumstances whereby the envied person is seen as the cause of the envier’s shortcomings (Salovey, 199 1). There are several possible reasons for the fact that enviousness was not correlated with narcissism. The conceptualization of narcissism which led to the construction of the NPI was based on the behavioural criteria of the narcissistic personality disorder provided by the American Psychiatric
Enviousness, maladjustment and psychopathology
319
Association (Raskin & Terry, 1988). However, one aspect of narcissism which is reported in the DSM IV but not reflected in the scale is the vulnerability in self-esteem which makes individuals with NPD very sensitive to injury from criticism or defeat. Kernberg (1975) and Kohut (1971) have each noted that individuals with NPD demonstrate a lack of internalization of mechanisms to regulate self-esteem, leading to an unconscious dependency on external sources of gratification. Model1 (1975) has added that this dependency on external sources of love forms the basis of the narcissist’s vulnerability and leads directly to their defenses aimed at creating the illusion of selfsufficiency. Outwardly grandiose and self-assured, the narcissist is in fact hampered by low selfesteem, shame propensity and hypochondria (Kohut, 1980). Raskin and Terry (1988) themselves note that the NPI items probably do not account for all of the psychological themes and behavioral dimensions that are central to narcissism. If the NPI assesses the aspects of narcissism which are associated with grandiosity and megalomania but does not account for the ruptured self-esteem that underlies these traits, then a relationship with enviousness would not be expected. Perhaps the fact that the NPI does not assess the low selfesteem and associated insecurities of the narcissist is the reason that narcissism was not related to enviousness or to a range of psychiatric symptomatology, and was in fact negatively correlated to depression, phobic anxiety, and obsessive compulsive tendencies in the present research.
GENERAL
DISCUSSION
There were five primary goals of the present research. The first goal was to advance the position that a pattern of cognition existed which collectively comprised an envious personality style. The second purpose was to develop a parsimonious measure which reflected this conceptualization of enviousness and possessed reliability and validity. The third goal was to demonstrate that this style is related to several forms of maladjustment. The fourth purpose was to determine whether enviousness was associated with psychopathology. The final goal of this research was to determine whether sex differences in enviousness existed. The present studies indicated that enviousness can be assessed in a reliable and valid manner, and that this personality style is associated with hostility, anger, jealousy and psychopathology (particularly depression, and anxiety). The fact that enviousness was most strongly correlated with total scores from the BSI suggests that general maladjustment may be central to the envious personality. More research is needed on the relationship between enviousness and narcissism. Although some conceptualizations of the personality disorder view the ultra-confidence of narcissists as a genuine expression of narcissists’ own views of themselves, other suggest that the excessive confidence is a defense against low self-esteem. It is also apparent that future study of the relationship between envy and narcissism should attempt to assess the relationship between the latter conceptualization of narcissism and enviousness, given the lack of association between enviousness and the former type found in the present research. It would be a mistake to view enviousness as merely a dysfunctional personality style. Mild enviousness can be functional in that it motivates effort toward the attainment of a goal. An adaptationist explanation of envy would suggest that enviousness conferred an advantage on early males in mate attraction. Enviousness could increase motivation toward attainment of power and status which in turn would lead to increased mating potential. On the basis of the possible functional adaptiveness of enviousness in men it was predicted that men would score higher on the YES than women and some support for this hypothesis was gained. Significant sex differences in enviousness response styles were found. However, interpretations about sex differences with respect to enviousness should be made with caution since differences barely reached significance in spite of the fact that large sample sizes were used in each study. A potentially interesting direction for future research on enviousness would be to determine whether highly envious individuals are more successful in terms of commonly valued and sought after resources such as grades in school, salary, popularity, etc. than are less envious individuals. Although the present research indicated that enviousness is associated with maladjustment and psychopathology, an adaptationist view of enviousness would support the idea that the reason for
320
Brian T. Gold
its continued presence as a human trait is that it also confers some advantage on its bearers. If envious individuals were found to be more successful than less envious people this would suggest that enviousness is similar to narcissism and psychopathy in that, while each trait is related to maladjustment, they also serve a valued function of increased motivation and effort toward the attainment of goals. Also of interest will be to determine the place of enviousness with respect to the Big Five personality model. The obsessiveness of the envier would lead one to expect that enviousness would be associated with neuroticism. The importance placed on social goals and image of the envier would suggest a tendency toward extraversion, and conservativeness on the openness dimension, since the envier probably internalizes the importance of commonly sought after rewards and resources. The relationship found here between enviousness and both hostility and anger indicate the potential for ruthlessness. Somewhat ironically, the envier would also be expected to display conscientiousness, however, overt caring would probably not emerge as an expression of genuine concern for others but rather as an image management mechanism to mask the social undesirability of their enviousness. Future research will address these hypotheses. Acknowledgements-The
author is grateful to Don Kastuk, Paul Lee, and Noreen Stuckless for helping generate items and to Hy Day, and Richard Goranson for identifying problematic items in the early stages of scale development. I would also like to thank Michael Ziegler, Richard Goranson and two anonymous reviewers for their suggestions on earlier versions of this article.
REFERENCES American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th edn). Washington, DC: Author. Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing (6th edn). New York: Macmillan. Bakker, C. B. & Bakker-Rabdau, M. K. (1973). No trespassing! E.rplorations in human territoriality. San Francisco, CA: Chandler. Barth, D. F. (1988). The role of self-esteem in the experience of envy. The American Journal of Psychoanal_vsis,48, 1988210. Belk, R. W. (1985). Materialism. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 265-280. Ben-Ze’ev, A. (1990). Envy and jealousy. Canadian Journal ofPhilosophy, 20,487-516. Briggs, S. R. & Cheek, J. M. (1986). The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales. Journal of Personality, 54, 106- 148.
Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies ofhuman mating. New York: Basic Books. Buss, A. H. & Durkee, A. (1957). An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. Journal of Consulting Psycholog.v, ?I, 343-349.
Campbell. D. T. & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod
matrix.
Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-I 05.
Cartwright, D., De Bruin, J. B. & Berg, S. (1991). Some scales for assessing personality based on Carl Rogers’ theory: Further evidence of validity. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 15 l-1 56. Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, I, 245-276. Cohen, B. (1986). The snow bvhitesyndrome: All about envy. New York: Macmillan. Cronbach, L. J. & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Buhetin, 52, 281-302. Daly, M. & Wilson, M. (1983). Sex, evolution, and behaviour (2nd edn). Belmont, Calif.: Woodsworth Publishing Co. Daniels, M. (1964). The dynamics of morbid envy in the etiology and treatment of chronic learning disability. Psychoanalytic Revielv, 51(4),
45-56.
Derogatis, L. R. (1983). Manual,for the SCL-90-R. Towson, MD: Clinical Psychometric Research. Ellis, L. (1992). The evolution of sexual attraction: Evaluative mechanisms in women. In Barkow, J. H., Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. (Eds) The adaptedmind Evolutionarypsychology and thegeneration of culture (pp. 267-288). New York: Oxford University Press. Foster, G. (1972). The anatomy of envy: A study in symbolic behavior. Current Anthropology, 13, 165-202. Frese, M., Stewart, J. & Hannover, B. (1987). Goal orientation and planfulness: Action styles as personality concepts, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52,
1182-I194.
Hewitt, P. L. & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts: conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of Persona1it.v and Social Psychology, 60.456470. Hogan, R. & Nicholson, R. A. (1988). The meaning of personality tests scores. American Psychologist, 43, 621-626. Jackson, D. N. (1970). A sequential system for personality scale development. In Spielberger, C. D. (Ed.) Current topics in clinical and community psychology (pp. 61-96). New York: Academic Press. Joffe, W. G. (1969). A critical review of the status of the envy concept. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 50,533-545. Kernberg, 0. (1975). Borderline conditions andpathological narcissism. New York: Jason Aronson. Klein, M. (1975). Envy andgratitude, and other works, 1946-1963. London: Hoaarth Press. Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis of the self. New York: International UniversitieHPress. Kohut, H. (1980). Advances in self psvcholoav. In Goldberg. A. (Ed.). New York: International Universities Press. Krebs, D. L. & Adinolfi, A. H. (i9’75). Physical attractiveness, social relations and personality style. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 245-253.
Lyman, S. M. (1978). The seven deadly sins: Society and evil. New York: St. Martin’s, Mayr, E. (1983). How to carry out the adaptationist program? American Naturalist, 121, 324-334.
Enviousness, maladjustment Miller. R. M. & Rivenbark. P.s~hological
Modell.
A. H.
W. (1970). Sexual differences
321
and psychopathology
in physical
attractiveness
as a determinant
of heterosexual
liking.
Repports. 27. 701-702.
( 1975). A narcissistic
defense
against
affects
and the illusion
of self-sufficiency.
International
Journul
of’
Pv~~chounul~~sis. 56. 275-282. Neu, J. (1980). Jealous thoughts.
In Rorty. A. 0. (Ed.) Explaining emotions (pp. 425463). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Ps~A~mrtric theor!.. New York: McGraw-Hill. Parrott. W. G. (1991). The emotional experiences of envy and jealousy. In Salovey, P. (Ed.) The psycholog), of jralous~~ und enr~~’(pp. 3330). New York: Guilford. Parrott, W. G. & Smith, R. H. (1993). Distinguishing the experiences of envy and jealousy. Journal ofPrrsonu/itI~ and .Soc~iu/ P.s~cho/oc/?~. 64. 906 -920.
Petzel. T. P. & Michaels.
E. J. (1973). Perception
of violence as a function
of levels of hostility.
Journal
of’C‘on.vultrtty
and
Clinrc~trl Ps~cholo,y~~. 41. 35536.
Pfeitfer. S. M. & Wong. P. T. P. (1989). Multidimensional Jealousy. Journal of Soctal and Personul Rekttionshrps, 6. IX1 196. Raskin. R. & Terry. H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal uf Personulitvand Social Psychology, 54, 890-902. Reynolds. W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and vahd short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of’ C‘linic~al P.s>~cholo,~~~, 38, 1199125. Sabini, J. & Silver, M. (1982). Moralities afeuer!duF life. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Salovey, P. ( I99 I). T/7(, p.s~~cho/o,g~ uf jealousy and envy. New York: Guilford Press, Salovey, P. & Rodin. J. (1984). Some antecedents and consequences of social-comparison jealousy. Journul o/ Prrsonalit~~ and Sociul P~cholog~~. 47. 780-792. Salovey. P. & Rodin, J. (I 986). The differentiation of social-comparison jealousy and romantic jealousy. Journul of Pervortulit~. attd Srtciul P.s~~cho/og,~~. 50. I IOO- I I 12. Schalin. L. J. (I 979). On the problem of envy: Social, clinical and theoretical considerations, Scandinurian P~~.c,h(l[rrru/~ti~, Rerten.. 2. 133 15X. Schechter. M. D. & Rand. M. J. (1974). Effect of acute deprivation and smoking on aggression and hostility. P.tj,chopartl7alo(Jia, .?_s.I9 -28. Schoeck, H. (1969). On.>,: .4 theory, of social hehmiour (Glenny. M. & Ross. B.. Trans.). New York: Harcourt. Brace & World. Inc. (Original work published 1966.) Smith, R. H. (I991 ). Envy and the sense of injustice. In Salovey. P. (Ed.) The psychology afjralous~ and em.!. (pp. 79-99). New York: Guilford. Spielberger. C. D.. Jacobs, G.. Russell, S. & Crane, R. S. (1983). Assessment of anger: The State-Trait Anger Scale. In Butcher J. N. & Spielberger. C. D. (Eds) Adtwnces in personality assessment (Vol. 2, pp. 161~189). Hillsdale. N.J.: Lawrence Erl baum. Stuckless. N. & Common. R. (1992). The Vengeance Scale: Development of a measure of attitudes toward revenge. Journal 01 Soc~ial Behtrrior and Personulit~. 7. 2542. W’ch\tev ‘j ~~rc,l,[,lo/‘c,t/rc, Dic~/ionur~~ of’ the English
Languuge
(Canadian
Edition).
(1988). New York: Lexicon.