Behavioral Sciences and the Law, Vol.

15, 95±105 (1997) RESEARCH REPORT

Law School Performance

Predicted by Explanatory Style
Jason M. Satterfield, Ph.D.,* John Monahan,
Ph.D., and Martin E. P. Seligman, Ph.D.

The explanatory styles of 387 law students were assessed

prior to law school using the Attributional Style Question-
naire (ASQ). Longitudinal performance measures were
collected throughout law school and related to each
student's initial explanatory style. In contrast to studies
with undergraduates, students who made stable, global,
and internal attributions for negative events combined
with the converse attributions for success (typically called
pessimists) outperformed more optimistic students on
measures of grade point averages and law journal success.
We discuss the limitations of current attributional re-
search methodologies and suggest the prudent and
cautious perspective necessary for law or skill-based
professions may account for our findings. #1997 by John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Behav. Sci. Law Vol 15, 95±105, 1997.

No. of Figures: 0. No. of Tables: 1. No. of Refs: 34.

Emerging from the learned helplessness reformulation (Abramson, Seligman, &

Teasdale, 1978), explanatory style, or the habitual way an individual explains the
causes of events proved initially useful in demonstrating vulnerability to depression.
Seligman, Peterson, and others have extended the scope of this depressogenic
diathesis and shown explanatory style's usefulness in predicting success in areas as
diverse as insurance sales, academic grades, elections, and athletic events
(Buchanan & Seligman, 1995; Nolen-Hoeksema, Girgus, & Seligman, 1986;
Peterson & Barrett, 1987; Seligman, Nolen-Hoeksema, Thornton, & Thornton,
1990; Seligman & Schulman, 1986; Zullow & Seligman 1990). A pessimistic
explanatory style (the diathesis)Ðbelieving the cause of negative events (or
stressors) to be stable, far reaching, and internalÐhas been related to passivity,
poor problem solving, helplessness, indecisiveness, and continued failure (e.g.
Dweck & Licht, 1980; Peterson & Barrett, 1987; Peterson & Seligman, 1984;

*Correspondence to: Jason M. Satterfield, Ph.D., Division of General Internal Medicine, University of
California at San Francisco, 400 Parnassus Avenue, Box 0320, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA
Acknowledgments: This study was supported by the University of Virginia Law School Foundation
and grant MH 19604 from the National Institutes of Health. We would like to acknowledge the
significant contribution of Dr. Mary Anne Layden to the authorship of the ASQ and thank Richard
Merrill, Albert Turnbull, Elizabeth Lowe, Elaine Hadden, and Sharon Steadman for their assistance.

CCC 0735±3936/97/010095±11$17.50
#1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
96 J. M. Satterfield

Weiner, 1985). In contrast, an optimistic explanatory styleÐthe cause of a negative

event is external, unstable, and highly specificÐhas been associated with high
motivation, persistence, aggression, and resiliency (e.g. Satterfield & Seligman,
1994; Scheier, Weintraub, & Carver, 1986; Taylor & Brown, 1988).
An optimistic explanatory style seems most conducive to academic achievement.
First, the student is confronted with the task of learning new and challenging
material often requiring persistence and motivation. Secondly, most academic
environments employ clear evaluative criteria repeatedly highlighting successes or
failures. The optimistic student would be more motivated, more persistent in the
face of challenge, greatly encouraged by success, and more resilient to failures.
Indeed, Peterson and Barrett (1987), Kamen & Seligman (unpublished manu-
script, 1987), and Seligman, Schulman, Butler, Priest, and Burke (unpublished
manuscript, 1987; both also cited in Seligman, 1990, pp. 150±154) showed that
students scoring as optimists on an explanatory style questionnaire were superior to
pessimists on grade point averages even after controlling for ability (SAT scores)
and depression (BDI scores). In younger children pessimism was associated with
helplessness and failure while optimism was associated with greater persistence and
achievement (Dweck & Licht, 1980; Nolen-Hoeksema et al., 1986).
To test this theory at more demanding academic and professional levels, we
analyzed the explanatory styles of a sample of law students hoping to find a useful
predictor for achievement in law. While the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT)
and undergraduate grade point average (UGPA) have long been considered useful
predictors of performance in law school they are still unable to account for a large
percentage of the variance in performance particularly after the first year (Linn &
Hastings, 1984). It is possible that explanatory style could predict law school
achievement above and beyond LSAT and undergraduate GPA especially since the
intensity and competitiveness of the law school environment seem to demand the
degree of persistence, motivation, and resilience optimism can inspire. In diathesis-
stress terms, we expect the diathesis of pessimistic explanatory style to interact with
the stressors of law school to create depression-like behavioral and achievement
deficits. Students with an optimistic explanatory style (opposite of a depressogenic
diathesis) will be more resilient, high achievers.

METHOD

Subjects
All students entering the University of Virginia School of Law in the fall of 1987
were solicited to participate in the study. Cooperation was entirely voluntary and
full consent was obtained to access the relevant achievement variables over the
course of the study. Students were told the study would aid in understanding and
improving the law school experience. Overall response rate was 97% (n=387). The
subject sample was 58% male and 85.1% Caucasian with a mean age of 23.8 years.

Explanatory Style Measure

The Attributional Style Questionnaire or ASQ (Peterson, Semmel, von Baeyer,
Abramson, Metalsky, & Seligman, 1982) was given to all subjects during the last
 Law school performance 97

day of orientation. The ASQ is a self-report measure of explanatory style that

contains descriptions of twelve hypothetical events. Subjects are asked to imagine
the six positive and six negative events happening to them then told to state what
they believe would be the major cause of the situation. Using Likert scales ranging
from one to seven, three questions then follow each situation designed to tap into
the internal/external, stable/unstable, and global/specific dimensions central to the
Learned Helplessness model. The ASQ showed acceptable reliabilities in our
sample (0.73 for positive events, 0.74 for negative events) using Cronbach's (1951)
alpha. For a further discussion on the validity and reliability of the ASQ, see
Tennen & Herzberger (1985) and Peterson (1991a,b).
The most commonly used explanatory style score, composite negative
(CN=internal+stable+global for negative events), was our primary independent
variable followed by CPCN (Composite for positive events7CN) and composite
positive (CP). We believed our results would be strongest with explanatory style
scores for negative events given the learned helplessness emphasis on attributions
for aversive, uncontrollable events. In support, the latter two positive composite
scores have typically shown less robust results than CN (Peterson, 1991; Peterson,
Buchanan, & Seligman, 1995; Peterson & Seligman, 1984). Other negative
composites such as the hopelessness score (HN=stable + global for negative events)
advocated by some researchers were not used since we had no theoretical reason to
believe the individual dimensions of explanatory style would differentially affect
achievement (Peterson, 1991).

Achievement Measures

Over the course of the three years of law school, performance data were collected
each semester including course grades, class participation ratings, extra-curricular
involvement, moot court performance, and try-outs for law reviews. Grades were
measured by grade point averages taken from student transcripts and comprised
our primary dependent variable. Due to the small degree of variance found in
overall grade point averages (mean=3.0396, sd=0.284), we also tallied the
unusually high grades (A's) and unusually low grades (C's) to get a better look
at the exceptionally high and low achievers. Course instructors also rated each
student for class participation using a three-point scale ranging from ``participates
little'' to ``much class participation''. Participation in legal assistance and post
conviction assistance programs was noted by year. Moot court performance was
evaluated by documenting how far the student progressed in the competition before
being eliminated. For the various law journals, successful and failed tryouts were
noted as was election to a journal executive board.
Previous achievement or ability before law school was measured by the
``admissions index'' (ADMINDX) assigned to each student when applying for
law school. The ADMINDX is composed of scores on the Law School Admissions
Test (LSAT) and undergraduate grade point average (UGPA). This measure was
used to partial out the effect of prior ability on law school performance.
98 J. M. Satterfield

Statistical Methods

Zero-order correlations and multiple regressions were run for the full sample to
assess the relationship between explanatory style and grade point average. The data
sample was then trichotomized by CN to provide a closer comparative look at the
tails of the explanatory style distribution (students at the least or greatest risk for
Learned Helplessness). We believed these students would most clearly show the
performance effects of optimism and pessimism as measured by CN (explanatory
style for negative events; for further discussion see Peterson, 1988; Peterson,
Buchanan, & Seligman, 1995). Students within one standard deviation of the mean
CN score were placed in the midrange group. Students more than one standard
deviation above the mean CN (more negativity) were categorized as upper third
students and students more than one standard deviation below the mean CN (less
negativity) were called lower third students. Comparative analyses assessed
between group performance differences for all achievement measures. Post hoc,
we also trichotomized the sample using CP and re-ran the comparative analyses to
better examine the robustness of our CN findings.

RESULTS
Explanatory style scores significantly predicted GPA paradoxically showing more
pessimism related to higher achievement in the full and trichotomized samples.
When we compared the trichotomized groups (both CP and CN splits) on more
specific measures of success (number of A's, C's, semester by semester GPA, and
executive board membership on a law review), students scoring in the pessimistic
and midrange of explanatory style significantly outperformed optimistic students.
On other success measures including moot court performance, law review
membership, community involvement, or classroom participation our primary
composite measures of explanatory style were not predictive. Separate analyses by
gender and ethnicity also showed no significant effects.

Explanatory Style as a Continuous Variable

As shown in Table 1, Pearson correlational analyses showed significant negative

relationships between grade point average (CUMGPA) and the explanatory style
composite scores CPCN (r=70.1249, p=0.021 all p's two-tailed) and CP
(r=70.1349, p=0.012), indicating that more optimism was associated with lower
GPA. Both positive composite scores were also negatively correlated with the
admissions index (ADMINDX). Composite negative (CN) was not significantly
related to either grade point average or admissions index. Complete results
including correlations with the ADMINDX can be found in Table 1.
 Law school performance 99

Table 1. Correlations between explantory style and achievement

Achievement Measures

ASQ Scores ADMINDX GPA

CPCN 7.107** 7.125**

CN .016 .05
CP 7.148* 7.135**

Note. ADMINDX=Admission index, GPA=cumulative grade point average, CPCN=CP7CN,

CN=composite negative explanatory style score, CP=composite positive score.
*p50.01, **p50.05, all two-tailed.

Multiple and simple regression equations showed similar results with optimism
marginally predicting lower grade point averages. However, when ability was
controlled for using ADMINDX, explanatory style (CP, CPCN, and CN) lost its
predictive power. In order to separate out the influence of general ability
(undergraduate GPA) and context specific ability (LSAT), ADMINDX was
broken into its component LSAT and undergraduate GPA (UGPA) scores. LSAT
was found to be the strongest predictor of law school GPA, but both CP and
CPCN predicted law school GPA over and above UGPA (GPA=250.731+0.251
UGPA76.78CP, F=18.312, p<0.000; GPA=219.01+0.254UGPA74.53CPCN,
F=18.615, p<0.000). Thus, even after controlling for general ability as measured
by UGPA, optimism still predicted lower law school GPA. Regressions using
explanatory style composites for negative events (CN) did not significantly predict
GPA for the overall sample in any equations.

Explanatory Style as a Trichotomized Variable

As outlined in our methods section, we trichotomized the sample along CN into

upper third (pessimists), CN-midrange, and lower third (non-pessimists) using the
CN mean and standard deviation. Because of its frequent use and empirically
proven predictive power, we chose CN to explore between group performance
differences in a population so full of high achievers. Given our correlational findings
with CP, we also trichotomized the sample along CP into upper third (optimists),
CP-midrange, and lower third (non-optimists).
Rather than only assess the magnitude and direction of the relationship between
explanatory style and GPA as in the full sample analysis, we thought it essential to
compare law school performance between each of the trichotomized groups. Due to
the low variability in cumulative grade point average, we used the trichotomized
samples to examine the truly exceptional grades (A's) and the poor grades (C's) as
well as semester by semester GPA. For both the CN and CP splits, we first used
ANOVA to test the null hypothesis that the three groups (pessimists, CN-
midrange, and non-pessimists or optimists, CP-midrange, and non-optimists) were
equal. When the null hypothesis was rejected, the appropriate pair-wise
comparisons were made.
For the CN split groups, ANOVA results suggest the pessimists, CN-midrange,
and non-pessimists were significantly different on measures of C's per semester and
100 J. M. Satterfield

semester GPA (C's: F=9.762, p=0.002; semester GPA: F=4.146, p=0.037).

Pairwise comparisons of the mean number of C's made by each group showed non-
pessimists made significantly more C's than pessimists (T=-3.501, p=0.006). Non-
pessimists also made significantly more C's than CN-midrange students (T=6.244,
p=0.000). Non-pessimists were also significantly lower on semester GPA scores
than pessimists (T=2.914, p=0.015). Pessimists and CN-midrange students were
not significantly different on number of C's or semester GPA. These results suggest
that the poor ``C'' law students tend to be non-pessimists while the higher achievers
are pessimistic or midrange students.
For the CP split groups, similar ANOVA results suggest the optimists, CP-
midrange, and non-optimists were significantly different on measures of C's per
semester and semester GPA (C's: F=20.910, p=0.000; semester GPA: F=7.683,
p=0.005). Pairwise comparisons of the mean number of C's made by each group
showed optimists made significantly more C's than both non-optimists (T=-5.563,
p=0.000) and CP-midrange students (T=4.305, p=0.002). Optimists were also
signifcantly lower on semester GPA scores than non-optimists (T=3.270,
p=0.008). Non-optimists and CP-midrange students were not significantly
different on number of C's but non-optimists outperformed CP-midrange
students on semester GPA (T=2.331, p=0.042). These results suggest that the
poor ``C'' law students tend to be optimists while the higher achievers are non-
optimistic. The congruence of results between the CP and CN split samples
suggests that explanatory style for good (CP) and bad (CN) events influence law
school achievement in similar ways with CP being the stronger predictor.
No differences were found between groups (CP or CN splits) for measures of
community participation, class participation, or moot court performance.
Explanatory style composite scores also did not predict which students would try
out for a law review or journal. Furthermore, optimists (high CP) or non-pessimists
(low CN) were no more likely to persevere and try out a second time following
failure than were other students. The pessimists (high CN students) were
marginally more successful in making the executive boards of the law journals
than were non-pessimists ( p=0.068). In other words, even though identical
numbers of pessimists and non-pessimists gained membership on a journal, 20%
pessimist group went on the make the executive boards while only 9.2% of non-
pessimists met with such success.
In sum, our full sample analysis showed optimism as measured by CP and
CPCN to be indicative of lower law school GPA even after controlling for general
ability as measured by undergraduate GPA. Between group performance
comparisons of C's, semester GPA, and journal executive board membership
suggest pessimistic and non-optimistic students consistently outperform optimists
and non-pessimists.

DISCUSSION

Contrary to our initial hypothesis and previous studies with undergraduates, the
law school optimists, those students predicted to be most resilient and motivated,
performed poorly relative to their non-optimistic and midrange counterparts.
Furthermore, only non-optimism within a particular range was associated with
 Law school performance 101

improved academic performance which suggests an optimal margin for optimism in

law school. We will first discuss our failure to replicate the results of Peterson and
Barrett (1987), Kamen and Seligman (1986), and Seligman et al. (1987)
emphasizing differences in research methodologies and subject populations.
Secondly, we will propose some interesting post hoc explanations regarding the
mechanisms responsible for our results. More specifically, we will discuss the
cognitive and psychological demands of law school and the law profession
introducing the concept of prudence.

Contrast with Undergraduate GPA Studies

Contrary to our findings, Peterson and Barrett (1987) found that freshmen who
explain bad academic events with internal, stable, and global causes received lower
grades and were less likely to have specific goals or use academic advising.
Explanatory style did not predict responses to failure or a measure of goal efficacy
(confidence in achieving one's goals). Using a larger sample and examining both
freshmen and upperclassmen, Kamen and Seligman (1986) again found pessimism
significantly predicted lower performance. Similarly, Seligman et al. (1987) found
pessimism marginally predicted first year dropouts and lower grades among West
Point cadets.
Differences in research methodologies and questionnaire design suggest possible
explanations. Peterson & Barrett's explanatory style measure used 12 negative
events specific to academic life as opposed to the ASQ's six negative and six positive
events composed of half achievement and half affiliative questions. However, our
explanatory style measures were identical to that of Kamen and Seligman and
Seligman et al. Secondly, our longitudinal design followed the law students three
times longer than any other study. Perhaps the influence of explanatory style varies
over time as real experiences with success and failure mount. But analyzing first
year performance onlyÐthe time span of our data which matches the other
studiesÐstill did not show comparable results.
Differences in sample composition offer other possible explanations. Peterson
and Barrett and Seligman used only first year undergraduates with undecided
majors. Kamen and Seligman used a similar sample but included upperclassmen in
a second study. Our sample consisted of post-graduate professional students
selected from a pool of approximately 5,000 applicants. The pessimists in the law
school sample were already high academic achievers and relatively resilient in the
face of challenges as evidenced by their high LSAT scores (91st percentile
nationally) and high undergraduate GPA's (mean=3.6). Even if we assume a
pessimistic explanatory style predisposes one to Learned Helplessness and
depression, the special law school pessimists had already demonstrated some
degree of resilience and the potential to compensate for or perhaps even positively
utilize their pessimistic styles.
Learned helplessness theory emphasizes attributions for uncontrollable events;
however, explanatory style research often loses this essential dimension. Sellers and
Peterson (1993) looked specifically at how explanatory style affects coping with
controllable events and discovered that ``pessimists'' evaluate their coping
resources more positively and cope more effectively. Perhaps our results are due
102 J. M. Satterfield

to the controllable nature of law school stressors. Of course, this same argument
could be used for the undergraduate studies which found contrary results.
It is also possible that the primary dependent variable in our studyÐlaw school
GPAÐis significantly different from UGPA used in previous studies although both
are measures of academic success. This could account for explanatory style's
different relationship with law school GPA. Course work in law school would have
far less breadth but much greater depth than undergraduate classes perhaps making
special personal and intellectual demands on students. Recall that after splitting
ADMINDX into UGPA and LSAT, UGPA was predictive of law school GPA
suggesting some relationship between the two. However, explanatory style scores
were useful predictors of law school GPA over and above UGPA. Explanatory style
was clearly capturing a portion of the variance in law school GPA not accounted for
by UGPA.
Other unresolved theoretical points concern the analysis of individual
explanatory style dimensions, the continuity of explanatory style, and the
relationship between CP and CN. Peterson, Colvin, and Lin (1992) suggest
stable and global attributions for negative events impact achievement differently
than internal attributions. To test this possibility in our sample, correlational
analyses for each explanatory style dimension were run on GPA. No differences in
the relationships between individual dimensions and GPA were found thus
providing no justification for re-running the full analysis using individual
dimensions or other composites such as the the hopelessness score (HN=stable +
global for negative events).
Our lack of effects for CN as a continuous variable and the presence of effects in
the tails of the CN distribution suggest CN might not be a continuous variable (see
Peterson, 1988). This suggests that explanatory might have detectable effects only
at the extreme ends of the distribution. Further research must address this
question.
The relationship between explanatory style for positive and negative events
remains unclear. For CP and CN, we have attempted to avoid confusion by
referring to low CP students as non-optimists and high CN students as pessimists;
however, most of the explanatory style literature uses these terms interchangeably.
Our results suggest pessimism and non-optimism affect achievement in similar
directions; however, past research has demonstrated little to no relationship
between CP and CN (Peterson, 1991). Whether CN and CP affect achievement
through similar or different mechanisms is another interesting research question
which must be addressed in the future.
This leads us to a significant terminological point. ``Pessimism'' and
``depressogenic explanatory style'' are often used pejoratively in the literature but
seem somewhat misapplied with our sample. The law school ``pessimists'' did have
CN scores greater than those of unipolar depressed patients (our pessimistic
student mean CN=15.1, S.D.=0.84; unipolars CN=14.3, S.D.=2.1; from
Seligman, Castellon, Cacciola, Schulman, Luborsky, Ollove, & Downing, 1988)
but they showed no signs of performance deficits. On the contrary, they performed
better than non-pessimists and equal to midrange students. In fact, we feel the
differences between the usual group of depressogenic pessimists and our successful
law school ``pessimists'' were so striking, we need a more neutral term to describe
them. It is possible that the introduction of an intense stressor might activate the
 Law school performance 103

negative effects of a pessimistic diathesis; however, this particular group of

``pessimists'' have shown unusually high resilience for reasons we do not yet
understand.
It is possible that in some domains pessimism or non-optimism may be a
strength. Seligman (1990) speculated that pessimism might be advantageous in
professions which require more caution and reality appreciation than initiative or
creativity. Perhaps pessimism is associated with traits such as realism or
conservatismÐin short, the prudence which may loom large in a good legal
mind. Of course, we must remember that in our data, the ``pessimistic'' profile was
linked to achievement in law school and might not hold for achievement in the
practice of law. We will suggest below that what can be seen as pessimism in other
contexts may be better viewed as prudence, skepticism, or caution in the case of
legal education.

Prudence and Defensive Pessimism

Prudence, or more generally, ``good thinking'' is a likely candidate to explain the
benefits derived from pessimism in our sample. Perhaps under the more rigorous
demands and specific intellectual requirements of law school, diligent students who
develop a sense of healthy skepticism are the highest achievers. In fact, careful
attention to detail, considering all sides of an argument, seeing all potential pitfalls
or catastrophes, attention to precedent rather than saltatory creativity, and
thoroughness are typically seen as important traits for the successful lawyer.
Interestingly, there was a clear relationship between LSATÐan instrument
thought to measure essential analytical skillsÐand explanatory style (CN, r=0.130,
p=0.012; CPCN, r=70.190, p=0.000). Greater pessimism and non-optimism were
associated with higher LSAT scores and the analytical skills they measure. Perhaps
optimism or non-pessimism is positively related to more general forms of academic
achievement (e.g. SAT and UGPA) but is contraindicated for more quantitative,
logical tasks (e.g. LSAT, law school).
The concept of prudence also implies a more thorough and integrated perception
of circumstances across time and contexts as well as possessing a more realistic
knowledge of the self and the environment (Haslam, 1991; Haslam & Baron,
1994). Translated into ASQ dimensions, these aspects of prudence clearly relate to
pessimism and non-optimism. A prudent subject is more likely to dwell on future
occurrences (stability), more likely to examine far reaching ramifications, including
the most catastrophic ones (globality), and more likely to objectively and
mercilessly try to ascertain blame (internality). Of course, this does not mean all
prudent subjects must score high on all explanatory style dimensions and
composites regardless of reality. However, given their close and cautious
consideration of causality versus the typical subject's tendency for self-serving
positive distortions (e.g. Taylor & Brown, 1988; Darvill & Johnson, 1991; Miller &
Ross, 1975; Weinstein, 1980) the prudent subject could on average look more
pessimistic. In other words, successes (positive events) would be discounted and
failures (negative events) taken more seriously.
The more pessimistic or non-optimistic law students might appear more prudent
or cautious instead of helpless because other abilities or circumstances have
104 J. M. Satterfield

attenuated or minimized the depressogenic effects of a pessimistic explanatory

style. Perhaps talent, financial security, successful undergraduate experiences, or
interpersonal skills have helped compensate for what might otherwise predispose
them to depression and disempowerment. It is when they enter law school that their
prudent perspective becomes a real performance asset in and of itself in addition to
the existing compensatory skills which helped them throughout their under-
graduate career.
Of course, we cannot rule out the possibility that the law school ``pessimists'' are
at greater risk for depression. The current study had no measures of depression and
no follow-up data. Pessimism is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for
depression but increases the probability of depressive episodes. Perhaps other
conditions or stressors will conspire to adversely affect the students in our sample.
Only further research can answer this question.
A distinct second advantage that pessimism might confer involves the concept of
``defensive pessimism'' (Norem & Cantor, 1986a, 1986b; Showers & Rubin, 1990).
Defensive pessimism involves setting unrealistically low expectations in a risky
situation as a means of harnessing anxiety and enhancing motivation. Although
unclear how these expectations would be related to attributions, the ASQ's use of
hypothetical (and potential future) events could tap into a defensive pessimism bias.
The ASQ does not allow us to distinguish between actual pessimists and
defensive ones, but the positive event scores provide an intriguing hint. The
negative relationship found between explanatory style scores for positive events
(CP) and GPA, suggests that students who discount or have lower expectations for
their successes (lower internal, stable, and global attributions) show enhanced
performance much like the defensive pessimists of Norem and Cantor. It is possible
that the pessimists in our selected sample are more similar to defensive pessimists
than to the depressive pessimists found in the helplessness literature.
Our empirical findings of non-optimism and pessimism as a predictor of law
school success suggest the relationships between explanatory style, Learned
Helplessness, and achievement are far more complex than originally supposed.
Pessimism/non-optimism, or in this case, prudence may actually enhance
performance in certain contexts rather than engendering helplessness and
depressionÐparticularly in those people who have compensatory buffers. The
most likely mechanism involves matching quality and complexity of thought to task
and/or environmental requirements. It is plausible that other cautious, logic
intensive professions such as medicine or psychology might also require some level
of pessimism or prudence. A further a priori analysis of the relationship between
explanatory style, prudence, and domains of achievement seems not only warranted
but essential.

REFERENCES
Abramson, L.Y., Seligman, M.E.P., & Teasdale, J.D (1978). Learned helplessness in humans:
Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49±74.
Buchanan, G.M., & Seligman, M.E.P. (1995). Explanatory style. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Darvill, T.J., & Johnson, R.C. (1991). Optimism and perceived control of life events as related to
personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 951±954.
Dweck, C.S., & Licht, B. (1980). ``Learned helplessness and intellectual achievement,'' In Garber, J.
& Seligman, M.E.P. (eds.) Human helplessness: Theory and applications, (pp. 197±221), New York:
Academic Press.
 Law school performance 105

Haslam, N. (1991). Prudence: Aristotelian perspectives on practical reason. Journal for the Theory of
Social Behavior, 21, 151±169.
Haslam, N., & Baron, J. (1994). Intelligence, personality, and prudence. In R. Sternberg & P. Ruzgis
(Eds.), Personality and intelligence, (pp. 32±58), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kamen, L., & Seligman, M.E.P. (1986). Explanatory style predicts college grade point average.
Unpublished manuscript. University of Pennsylvania.
Linn, R.L., & Hastings, C.N. (1984). A meta analysis of the validity of predictors of performance in
law school. Journal of Educational Measurement, 21, 245±259.
Miller, D.T., & Ross, M.(1975). Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction?
Psychological Bulletin, 82, 213±225.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Girgus, J., & Seligman, M.E.P. (1986). Learned helplessness in children: A
longitudinal study of depression, achievement, and explanatory style. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51, 435±442.
Norem, J.K., & Cantor, N. (1986). Anticipatory and post hoc cushioning strategies: Optimism and
defensive pessimism in ``risky'' situations. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 10, 347±362.
Norem, J.K., & Cantor, N. (1986). Defensive pessimism: Harnessing anxiety as motivation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1208±1217.
Peterson, C. (1988). Explanatory style as a risk factor for illness. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 12,
117±130.
Peterson, C. (1991a). Further thoughts on explanatory style. Psychological Inquiry, 2, 50±57.
Peterson, C. (1991b). The meaning and measurement of explanatory style. Psychological Inquiry, 2,
1±10.
Peterson, C., & Barrett, L.C.(1987). Explanatory style and academic performance among university
freshmen. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 603±607.
Peterson, C., Buchanan, G.M., & Seligman, M.E.P. (1995). Explanatory style: History and evolution
of the field. In Buchanan, G.M., & Seligman, M.E.P. (Eds.), Explanatory style (pp. 1±20), Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Peterson, C., Colvin, D., & Lin, E.H. (1992). Explanatory style and helplessness. Social Behavior and
Personality, 20(1), 1±13.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M.E.P. (1984). Causal explanations as a risk factor for depression: Theory
and evidence. Psychological Review, 91, 347±374.
Peterson, C., Semmel, A., von Baeyer, C., Abramson, L.Y., Metalsky, G.I., & Seligman, M.E.P.
(1982). The attributional style questionnaire. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 6, 287±300.
Satterfield, J.M., & Seligman, M.E.P. (1994). Military aggression and risk predicted by explanatory
style. Psychological Science, 5, 77±82.
Scheier, M.F., Weintraub, J.K., & Carver, C.S. (1986). Coping with stress: Divergent strategies of
optimists and pessimists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 270±284.
Seligman, M.E.P. (1990). Learned Optimism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Seligman, M.E.P., Castellon, C., Cacciola, J., Schulman P., Luborsky, L., Ollove, M., & Downing, R.
(1988). Explanatory style change during cognitive therapy for unipolar depression. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 97, 1±6.
Seligman, M.E.P., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Thornton, N., & Thornton, K.M.(1990). Explanatory style
as a mechanism of disappointing athletic performance. Psychological Science, 1, 143±146.
Seligman, M.E.P., & Schulman, P.(1986). Explanatory style as a predictor of productivity and
quitting among life insurance sales agents. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 832±838.
Seligman, M.E.P., Schulman, P., Butler, R.P., Priest, R.F., & Burke, W.P. (1987). Explanatory style
predicts grades and retention among West Point cadets. Unpublished manuscript. University of
Pennsylvania.
Sellers, R.M., & Peterson, C. (1993). Explanatory style and coping with controllable events by student
athletes. Cognition and Emotion, 7(7), 431±441.
Showers, C., & Ruben, C.(1990). Distinguishing defensive pessimism from depression: Negative
expectations and positive coping mechanisms. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 385±399.
Taylor, S.E., & Brown, J.D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on
mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193±210.
Tennen, H., & Herzberger, S. (1985). Attributional style questionnaire. In D.J. Keyser, & R. C.
Sweetland (Eds.), Test critiques, Vol. 4, (pp. 20±30). Kansas City: Test Corporation of America.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological
Review, 92, 548±573.
Weinstein, N.D.(1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 39, 806±820.
Zullow, H.M., & Seligman, M.E.P.(1990). Pessimistic rumination predicts defeat of Presidential
candidates. Psychological Inquiry, 1, 52±61.