1. Introduction

Albert Ellis’s Rational Emotive Therapy which recently renamed Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy has been one of the most leading forms of psychotherapy over the past three decades(Bernard, DiGiuseppe, 1989) [12] REBT is based on the A-B-C model of psychological interruption and therapy where ‘‘A’’ is some activating stressful factors, ‘‘B’’ is for irrational beliefs, and ‘‘C’’ refers to the psychological and behavioral consequences of these irrational beliefs, psychological disturbance and maladaptive behaviors. The main assumption of this model suggests and empirical support for this assumption has been reported in plentiful studies (Chang, D’Zurilla 1996 [6]; Malouff et al. 1992 [28]; Muran et al. 1989 [31]).

Frustration intolerance beliefs are fundamentals to the theory and practice of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy. However, there have been more researches on the content of these beliefs, and factual information linked to specific beliefs to distinct psychological difficulties is inadequate (Harrington, N2005) [20]. Frustration intolerance is equally used with the term discomfort disturbance. More particularly, these terms are used in the REBT literature to refer to a range of different content areas, such as intolerance of emotional discomfort uncertainty, and frustration (Dryden 1999) [13]. Frustration intolerance assumption are considered to be one of the major categories of irrational beliefs following emotional problems in REBT, in addition to those related to self-worth (Ellis, 1979, 1980) [15, 16]. The concept of frustration has been described as "the collision of a wish with an unyielding reality" (De Botton 2000) [11]. However, for REBT the mere frustration of desire is inadequate to cause psychological disturbance. Moreover, the belief that frustration absolutely should not exist and cannot be tolerated is critical. Frustration intolerance is essentially the pursuit to include reality to fit our desires, whilst tolerance is the acceptance of the undesirable in order to achieve longer-term goals. It is the task of therapy to show that frustration tolerance and discomfort is open to choice (Jibeen, 2013) [24].

The author examines the psychological factors that correlate and predict frustration intolerance especially with personality traits (locus of control – self-esteem –introversion).

2. Background and Literature Review

2.1. Frustration Intolerance

"Frustration intolerance represents the belief that reality should be how we want it to be, whilst ego disturbance is based on a definition of self-worth as dependent on meeting certain conditions. These two belief processes are assumed to partly interact, but also to have an independent and differential relationship with dysfunctional emotions and behavior" (Jibeen, 2013) [24].

Frustration intolerance beliefs play an important role in Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) and are one of the two main categories of assumption, along with self-worth assumption, posited to lead to emotional disturbance (Ellis, Dryden, 1987) [14]. Frustration intolerance represents the claim that reality should be as we want it to be and the refusal to accept the difference between a preference and reality. People may demand that frustration must not exist and be unwilling to tolerate such frustration or the discomfort associated with it (Ellis, 1980) [16]. Frustration intolerance beliefs are related to a range of difficulties encountered by many college students. Evidence has shown an association between frustration intolerance and increased procrastination on academic tasks (Harrington, 2005) [21]. Frustration intolerance beliefs have significantly positively associated with depression, anxiety, and hostility (Jibeen, 2013) [24]. Frustration intolerance had a significant relationship with state anxiety, trait anxiety, and depression. (Filippello et al, 2014) [17]

EBT proposes that frustration intolerance beliefs are definite from those regarding the self (Ellis, 1979) [15] initially described these two categories as ego disturbance and discomfort disturbance, and defined them in terms of their overall belief content. Thus, frustration intolerance referred to the demand for comfort, fulfillment, and ego disturbance to the demand that one must perform well, or gain approval to achieve self-worth. More generally, it has been proposed that self-worth and frustration intolerance are characterized by different types of cognition (DiGiuseppe 1996 [12]; Rorer 1989 [35]).

Although frustration intolerance has been considered a one dimensional concept, it has been dispute that it is composed of several dimensions (Dryden & Gordon 1993 [13]; Stankovic & Vukosavljevic-Gvozden, 2011 [40]).

LFT was also found to be a unique predictor of anxiety and depression in a college population. Furthermore, it has been found to be an unfair factor between clinical and student samples, both overall and on trait anxiety and depression; and the most influential irrational belief related to anger (Chang & D’Zurilla 1996 [6]; Muran et al. 1989 [31]; Martin & Dahlen 2004 [6]).

It has been indicated that contents of frustration intolerance may be of central importance in determining the type of emotional disturbance, Recent researches inspected the content of frustration intolerance beliefs that provides empirical evidence suggesting that different content areas might be differentially related to distinct dysfunctional emotions and disorders (Harrington, 2006 [20]). The prior researches investigating irrational beliefs with emotional problems have found a significant association between frustration intolerance dimensions and emotional problems (Harrington 2005 [19], 2006 [20]).

2.2. Self-esteem

Self-esteem is the assistive aspect of the self-concept that corresponds to an overall view of the self as worthy or unworthy (Baumeister, 1995, 1998) [3]. There are many theories about the source of self-esteem. For instance, William James (1890) argued that self-esteem developed from the accumulation of experiences in which people’s outcomes exceeded their goals on some important dimension, under the general rule that self-esteem = success/pretensions. From this perspective, assessment has to examine possible discrepancies between current appraisals and personal goals and motives. Moreover, self-perception skills that allow people to reach goals are also important to estimate. Thus, measures ought to include some reference to personal beliefs about competency and ability. (James, w. 1890) [23].

A lot of the most popular theories of self-esteem are based on Cooley’s (Cooley1902) [8] notion of the looking-glass self, in which self-appraisals are viewed as inseparable from of social milieu. Mead’s symbolic interaction is outlined a process by which people internalize ideas and attitudes expressed by significant figures in their lives. In effect, individuals come to respond to themselves in a manner consistent with the ways of those around them. Low self-esteem is likely a result of key figures reject, ignore, demean, or devalue of the person (Mead 1934) [30]. Subsequent thinking by Coopersmith (1967) [9] and Rosenberg (1965 [35], 1979 [36]), are among most recently self-esteem research, are well in accord with the basic tenets of symbolic interactionism. According to this perspective, it is important to assess how people perceive themselves to be viewed by significant others, such as friends, classmates, family members, and so on. Some recent theories of self-esteem have emphasized the norms and values of the cultures and societies in which people are raised. For instance, Luhtanen and her colleagues have believed that some people experience collective self-esteem because they are especially likely to base their self-esteem on their social identities as belonging to certain groups (Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992) [27].

Leary, Tambor, Terdal, and Downs (1995) have proposed a novel and important social account of self-esteem. Sociometer theory begins with the assumption that humans have a fundamental need to belonging that is rooted in our evolutionary history (Baumeister & Leary, 1995) [4].

The author indicated in his PHD thesis that "self-esteem is an individual assessment to his abilities, roles and effectiveness then become satisfied with them on their individual and social level. Also, the individual's sense of confidence in himself, and his self-respect" (Mohammad Abdel Fattah, 2009) [2].

2.3. Internal Locus of Control

Gomez (1997) describes locus of control (LOC) as the degree to which people think they or other factors control events in their lives. Internal locus of control (ILOC) is characterized by the conviction that people have control over their own life events, while external locus of control (ELOC) is characterized by the belief that outside sources control what happens to them, whether it is powerful to others, chance, or fate (Gomez, 1997). LOC is continuous, rather than a dichotomous variable and can vary between situations (Chubb & Fertman, 1997) [7].

ILOC has been investigated in many age-comparison studies, including comparisons between children, adolescents, young adults, middle age adults, and elderly (Blanchard-Fields & Irion, 1988; Chubb & Fertman, 1997; Gomez, 1997; Nunn, 1994; Riechard & Peterson, 1998; Ross & Mirowsky, 2002) [5]. Chubb & Fertman (1997) [7] found an interaction between gender and grade for LOC in adolescents.

Adolescent boys were found to be the first to have a decrease in internalization between 9th and 10th grades, and then have an increase in internalization between 10th grade and one year post-high school, with the biggest shift occurring between the 10th and 11th grades. Girls had their largest increase in internalization between 9th and 10th grades and maintained an overall ILOC throughout adolescence. In general, as adolescents grow older, LOC becomes more internal (Chubb & Fertman, 1997 [7]; Gomez, 1997 [18]; Nunn, 1994 [32]; Riechard & Peterson, 1998 [34]). This internalization is theoretically related to the increased responsibility, independence, and self-control associated with the transition to young adulthood. The observed gender differences may be related to sex differences with the onset of puberty.

According to Chubb & Fertman (1997) [7], some gender LOC comparisons in adults show women to be more external (Nunn, 1994 [32]; Ross & Nirowsky, 2002 [38]), while still others find men to be more external (Blanchard-Fields & Irion, 1988) [5]. Gender differences have been found in LOC when comparing older adults (over the age of 65), with men being more internal. These findings are potentially explained by generational differences, such as older women’s increased economic dependence and decreased career opportunities; this disparity has not been found in younger subjects (Ross & Mirowsky, 2002) [41].

People with a strong internal locus of control believe that the responsibility for whether or not they get reinforced ultimately lies with themselves. Internals believe that success or failure is due to their own efforts. In contrast, externals believe that reinforces in life are controlled by luck, chance, or powerful others. Therefore, they see little impact of their own efforts on the amount of reinforcement they receive (Abdelfattah, M. 2016) [2].

2.4. Introversion

The introversion is a personality pattern. The introvert tends to isolate himself from social life and avoid others. They have weakness in their relationship and lack of interest in their problems. (Taha, 1993) [38]

Some popular psychologists have characterized introverts as people whose energy tends to expand through reflection and dwindle during interaction. (Helgoe, 2008) [22]

Carl Jung indicated that introvert likes isolation. The introvert finds difficulties to make relationships with others, so he avoids social connections. He is timid, very sensitive to the observations of people, which many doubt the intentions of the people and their motivations. Also, he cares to details and amplifies trivial things, a moody for no apparent reason, and cares about his thoughts and feelings more than his interest in the outside world. (Rajeh, 1993) [33]

Carl Jung has used the concept of introversion; the he indicates the attitude towards the inner world more than outside world. He has personal model of some people who are moving their attention to their own thoughts and feelings of self rather than the world around them. (Akel, 1971) [1]

The author indicated in his PHD thesis that introversion is a personal trait that makes the person feel uncomfortable in social situations property. He prefers to be a loner. Also, he is not participating in team activates. He is shy, passive, and withdrawer from social situation. (Abdelfattah, M.2009) [2]

3. Methodology

3.1. Objectives

The main objective of this study is to:

a) Examine the relationship between Frustration Intolerance and (Introversion- Self-esteem – Internal locus of control)

3.2. Study Hypotheses

a. There is significant positive correlation between Frustration Intolerance and Introversion among students.

b. There is significant negative correlation between Frustration Intolerance and Self-esteem among students.

c. There is significant negative correlation between Frustration Intolerance and Internal locus of control among students.

d. Introversion, Self-esteem and Internal locus of control predict to Frustration Intolerance.

3.3. Study sample

The study sample consisted of (135 volunteers) university students in Najran, KSA, from different disciplines and faculties (age from 18 to 22).

3.4. Study Scales

The author developed four scales for Frustration Intolerance 24 items, Introversion 18 items, self-esteem 26 items and Internal locus of control 22 items. The four scales were evaluated by a group of reviewers to prove validity, also adopted the items that approved by reviewers rated (80%). The author examined reliability for each scale by Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient, Frustration Intolerance was (0.74), Introversion was (0.69), Self-esteem (0.84), and Internal Locus of Control was (0.79). This is a satisfactory rate for scales’ reliability.

4. Findings

The following tables show the findings of the research:

Table (1). The correlation between Frustration Intolerance and self-esteem among students

Table (1) indicates that there is significant Negative correlation between Frustration Intolerance and Self-esteem among students.

Table (2). The correlation between Frustration Intolerance and Introversion among students

Table (2) indicates that there is significant Positive correlation between Frustration Intolerance and Introversion among students.

Table (3). The correlation between Frustration Intolerance and Internal Locus of Control among students

Table (3) indicates that there is no significant correlation between Frustration Intolerance and Internal Locus of Control.

*Multiple linear regressions (stepwise) were employed to determine if the Introversion, Self-esteem and Internal Locus of Control could be used to predict Frustration Intolerance.

Model 1

Table (4)

Independent Variable (Frustration Intolerance) = 5.056+ {.333*Independent Variable (Introversion)}

The model (1) in table (4) indicates that introversion predicted to frustration intolerance.

Model 2

Table (5)

Independent Variable (Frustration Intolerance) = 2.496 + {0.551*Independent Variable 1. Introversion + 0.273* Independent Variable 2. Self-esteem }

The model (2) in table (5) indicates that introversion and low self-esteem predicted with frustration intolerance.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

The results indicated that there is significant Negative correlation between Frustration Intolerance and Self-esteem among students. Students who have a low self-esteem exists within the weakness of individual ability to tolerate frustration. When the individual assess himself negatively he may see that, he had a low ability to cope effectively with reality that includes challenges. In this case, a minimizing in an individual's ability to frustration intolerance may exist. This result agrees with previous studies concerning these issues. (Chang & D’Zurilla1996) [6]. (David et al. 2005 [10]; Martin & Dahlen 2004 [29]) have highlighted that there is a relationship between irrational beliefs and negative feelings. Also self-esteem exists within individual psychological disorders, that many theories attribute disorders to serval psychological reasons such as frustration. frustration intolerance belief processes is of primary importance in determining the form of psychological problems.

The results showed that there is significant Positive correlation between Frustration Intolerance and Introversion among students. Introversion is a personality trait that has role to individual isolating, and makes a person avoid his reality. It makes him also, spends more of his time to be fancy, and then has inefficacy to handle his reality to achieve his goals. So he cannot tolerate dissatisfaction so he withdraws from reality to fancy. That frustration intolerance is reducing.

The results indicated that there is no significant correlation between Frustration Intolerance and internal locus of control. The individual has whether internal locus of control or External locus of control that maybe feel frustration because it has internal and external Resources. So the author didn't find a significant correlation between frustration intolerance and internal locus of control.

The results showed that introversion predicted with frustration intolerance. When weaken the efficiency of the individual due to withdrawn from social activities maybe make individual like isolation from others, and tends to determine sample targets to achieve it easily and avoid failure. So introversion predicts low frustration intolerance. Also the study found that introversion and low self-esteem predicted with frustration intolerance. introversion and low self-esteem have a significant role in deficiency personal efficacy, this individual has low ability when dealing with reality. Which maybe predict with low intolerance in coping with difficult situation, make individual perceive the challenges greater than his efficacy. So that maybe predict with frustration intolerance.