|
Integrated Self-Discrepancy Index (ISDI) |
|
Erin E. Hardin Home > Research Interests > ISDI
A manuscript detailing the
development and validation of the ISDI is now in press at Journal of
Personality Assessment.
Click here to download a
preprint of this paper.
Rationale
Description
Development
Scoring
Reliability and Validity Data
Permission to use the Measure
Downloads
References
Rationale
There are several methods of measuring self-discrepancies in the literature. The
original Selves questionnaire (Higgins, Klein & Strauman, 1985) is an
idiographic method that, though widely used, has been criticized for being too
difficult for participants, which may limit the ability to obtain unique
self-representations (Tangney et al., 1998). It is also difficult and
time-consuming to score. A nomothetic method of assessing self-discrepancies,
designed to be easier for participants (Tangney et al., 1998), has been
criticized for not allowing participants to choose attributes most important to
themselves, which may make the self-discrepancies ratings obtained invalid
(Higgins, 1999). The method described here was developed to address these criticisms by
combining idiographic and nomothetic methods, which allows participants the
opportunity to generate attributes most salient to themselves (as recommended by
Higgins, 1987) and also provides help to those participants for whom the task of
idiographically generating attributes is too difficult (as suggested by Tangney
et al., 1998). In addition, it is much easier and quicker to score and is
appropriate for use in classroom settings.
Description
Consistent with Higgins’ original methodology
(Higgins, Klein, & Strauman, 1985), participants are asked to generate a list of
attributes for each domain of the self, from their own standpoint, and the
standpoint of a self-generated significant other (e.g., mother), resulting in up
to six self states: ideal/own, ideal/other, ought/own, ought/other,
undesired/own, and undesired/other (see Ogilvie, 1987, 1992 for descriptions of
the undesired self). Participants are then given a list of 100 attributes to
consult in order to complete or modify their lists for the six self states. The
attributes in the list, which are the same for all participants, are randomly
selected from Anderson’s (1968) list of 555 trait words. After the participants’
attribute lists are completed, they are asked to rate the extent to which each
attribute generated to describe their ideal, ought, and undesired selves
actually applies to them at that time. A five-point rating scale is used (1 –
Does not Describe me at all, 2 – Describes me slightly, 3 – Describes me
somewhat, 4 – Describes me well, 5 – Completely Describes me).
Thus, participants directly rate the extent to which they perceive a discrepancy
between their actual self and the three target selves, consistent with previous
methodologies (e.g., Carver et al., 1999; Cheung, 1997).
Development
A pilot study was conducted to
compare participants' responses when the word list was provided after each of
the six self-states ("Intermittent" group) versus after all of the self-states
("End" group). Not surprisingly, participants in the End group, who were
given an opportunity to consult the nomothetic list of adjectives only after
attempting to idiographically generate attributes for all six self-states,
generated significantly more attributes than participants in the Intermittent
group, who were presented with the nomothetic list after each of the six
self-states. Thus, presenting the nomothetic list at the end seems to increase
the likelihood that participants will generate attributes that are most relevant
to themselves, rather than being constrained by the adjectives listed in the
nomothetic list. In addition, participants in the End group were no more likely
to change their idiographically generated words than participants in the
Intermittent group. The fact that participants in both groups do change a small
percentage of their words does suggest that providing the nomothetic list is
helpful to some participants. Finally, participants in the End group did not
find the task any more difficult than participants in the Intermittent group.
Together, these data suggest that providing a nomothetic list of adjectives to
participants after they have attempted to idiographically generate attributes
for all of the self-states maximizes the number of idiographic traits generated
without creating a task that is too difficult for participants. Details of the
pilot study may be found in Hardin (2002).
Several refinements have been made to the basic method described in Hardin (2002) and Hardin & Leong (2005). These refinements are based on our experience using the measure in subsequent studies, observations of participants, and participants' responses to open-ended questions about their understanding of the difference between the ideal and ought selves. These changes include:
Reversing the order of ratings so that 1 corresponds to "Does not describe me at all" and 5 corresponds to "Completely describes me." Participants reported this order is more intuitive and easier to use.
Grouping self-states by domain (Ideal, Ought, Undesired) rather than by standpoint (Own versus Other). Participants reported that this minimized confusion about the definitions of the different domains.
Providing additional examples of how the ideal and ought domains are different. Several common misunderstandings about the definitions of these domains emerged from the qualitative data. These were that the ideal self is perfect and unattainable and that the ought self refers to who I am now (i.e., is the same as the actual self). Additional information was added to the instructions that specifically targets these common misperceptions.
Adding validity check questions. Given the importance of participants' ability to accurately distinguish between the different domains of the self, validity check questions were added to allow researchers to identify those participants who do and do not have an accurate understanding of the ideal and ought selves. The options provided in the validity check questions were based on the common errors indicated by participants in the qualitative data.
Scoring
Self-discrepancy scores are computed by averaging the ratings of the attributes
generated for each of the self-states (e.g., averaging the ratings of the five
Ideal/Own attributes to yield an overall Ideal/Own self-discrepancy score;
averaging the ratings of the ten Ought/Own and Ought/Other attributes to yield
an overall Ought self-discrepancy score). These overall self-discrepancy scores
may range from 1 to 5. The ratings indicate the extent to which the actual/own
self-state differs from the target self state. For the ideal and ought
self-discrepancies, lower scores indicate greater self-discrepancies, and thus
indicate a more detrimental state. For the undesired self-discrepancy, higher
scores indicate a more detrimental state, as they indicate greater similarity to
the undesired self. For ease of interpretation, ideal and ought scores may be reverse-scored
so that for all three self-states, higher scores indicate the more detrimental
state.
Reliabilities:
| Type of self-discrepancy |
Race / Ethnicity of Participants |
|
| Asian / Asian Americans | non-Hispanic European Americans | |
| Ideal | .85 | .83 |
| Ought | .88 | .81 |
| Undesired | .83 | .73 |
Based on 10 attribute ratings per SD (e.g., 5 ideal-own and 5 ideal-other)
Source: Hardin, E. E. (2002). Depression and social anxiety among Asian and European Americans: The roles of self-discrepancy, optimism, and pessimism (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63, 2056.
Evidence Supporting Validity:
Using this method, Leonardelli, Lakin, Lynch, and Arkin (2003, Study 3) tested the specific predictions of Higgins' theory that Actual-Ideal self-discrepancies predict dejection-related affect and Actual-Ought self-discrepancies predict agitation-related affect. Using simultaneous regressions1, they found that, as predicted by self-discrepancy theory:
Ideal self-discrepancies were associated with dejection-related affect (b = .19, p < .001) but not with agitation-related affect (b = -.08, p = .08)
Ought self-discrepancies were associated with agitation-related affect (b = .15, p = .001) but not dejection-related affect (b = -.03, p = .56).
Given that much previous research has failed to find support for these unique relationships as predicted by Higgins (e.g., Tangney et al., 1998), and that this failure has been attributed to methodological problems (e.g., Higgins, 1999), these results provide strong evidence for the validity of the method.
1In both regressions, Ideal and Ought self-discrepancies were entered simultaneously. In the first regression, dejection scores were the criterion variable and agitation scores were entered as a covariate. In the second regression, agitation scores were the criterion variable, with dejection scores entered as a covariate.
Source: Leonardelli, G.J., Lakin, J.L., Lynch, M. E., & Arkin, R.M. (2003). Distinguishing self-doubt from self-esteem: Affective experience and self-discrepancies. Unpublished manuscript.
Permission to use the Measure
Please
send me an
e-mail to let me know you are interested in using the measure. I would
appreciate it if you would share reliability / validity data based on the
measure, as well as a copy of any manuscript that uses the measure.
Downloads
All are in rich-text or .doc format.
A copy of the single-questionnaire packet pencil-and-paper version, booklet format (Includes the word list as part of the packet. May require the insertion of blank pages to ensure the word list is on the back of a page -- see basic instructions. Modify as needed depending on types of self-discrepancies being measured)
A copy of the alternate pencil-and-paper version (Places the word list in a separate envelope to ensure participants do not see the word list before they have attempted to generate their own lists -- see basic instructions. Requires less paper, since the word lists may be reused. Modify as needed depending on types of self-discrepancies being measured)
Word list that includes negative words (if including undesired self)
Suggested Reminder scripts (Provided to participants who are having trouble understanding the difference between the ideal and ought selves. Ensures all participants receive the same explanation of the selves. May be modified as desired.)
Click here for a zipped file containing all 6 of the above files
Anderson, N. H. (1968). Likableness ratings
of 555 personality-trait words. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9,
272 – 279.
Carver, C. S., Lawrence, J. W., & Scheier, M.
F. (1999). Self-discrepancies and affect: Incorporating the role of feared
selves. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 783 – 792.
Cheung, S. K. (1997). Self-discrepancy and
depressive experiences among Chinese early adolescents: significance of identity
and the undesired self. International Journal of Psychology, 32, 347-359.
Hardin, E. E. (2002). Depression and social
anxiety among Asian and European Americans: The roles of self-discrepancy,
optimism, and pessimism (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University,
2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63, 2056.
Hardin, E. E. & Leong, F. T. L.
(2005). Optimism and Pessimism as mediators of the relations between
self-discrepancies and distress among Asian and European Americans. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 52, 25 - 35.
Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A
theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319-340.
Higgins, E. T. (1989). Self-discrepancy
theory: What patterns of self-beliefs cause people to suffer? In L. Berkowitz
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 22, pp. 93 –
136). New York: Academic Press.
Higgins, E. T. (1999). When do
self-discrepancies have specific relations to emotions? The second-generation
question of Tangney, Niedenthal, Covert, and Barlow (1998). Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1313 – 1317.
Higgins, E. T., Klein, R., & Strauman, T.
(1985). Self-concept discrepancy theory: A psychological model for
distinguishing among different aspects of depression and anxiety. Social
Cognition, 3, 51-76.
Leonardelli, G.J., Lakin, J.L., &
Arkin, R.M. (2003). Distinguishing self-doubt from self-esteem: Affective
experience and self-discrepancies. Unpublished manuscript.
Ogilvie, D. M. (1987). The undesired self: A
neglected variable in personality research. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 52, 379 - 385.
Ogilvie, D. M. & Clark, M. D. (1992). The
best and worst of it: Age and sex differences in self-discrepancy research. In
R. P. Lipka and T. M. Brinthaupt (Eds.), Self-perspectives across the life
span (pp. 186 – 222). Albany, NY: State University of New York
Press.
Tangney, J. P., Niedenthal, P. M., Covert, M.
V., & Barlow, D. H. (1998). Are shame and guilt related to distinct
self-discrepancies? A test of Higgins’s (1987) hypotheses. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 256 - 268.
