Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 419–430

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

The Levels of Self-Criticism Scale: comparative self-criticism

and internalized self-criticism
Richard Thompsona,*, David C. Zuroffb
a
Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania Health System, USA
b
Department of Psychology, McGill University, 1205 Dr. Penfield Ave., Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3A 1B1

Received 23 May 2002; received in revised form 12 December 2002; accepted 7 February 2003

Abstract
The Levels of Self-Criticism (LOSC) Scale was designed to measure two dysfunctional forms of negative
self-evaluation: Comparative Self-Criticism (CSC) and Internalized Self-Criticism (ISC). An initial pool of
34 items was subjected to reliability and item analyses with 282 participants. From these analyses, a final
scale of 12 items for CSC and 10 items for ISC was developed. These scales were then validated with 144
participants. As predicted, CSC and ISC were moderately correlated with each other. Each scale was
uniquely and predictably related to other measures of personality, attachment, and conflict resolution, and
these relationships did not appear to be primarily due to general relationships with Neuroticism. Implica-
tions for research and clinical practice are discussed.
# 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Self-criticism; Assessment; Attachment; Neuroticism; Depression

1. The Levels of Self-Criticism Scale

A variety of theorists have noted two basic outcomes of personality development: the develop-
ment of the capacity for healthy, constructive relationships and the development of a sense of
autonomy together with a positive personal identity (e.g. Bakan, 1966; Erikson, 1950; Freud,
1930/1961). Recent theoretical work has highlighted the ongoing dialectic between agency, the
drive toward individuation and self-definition, and communion, the drive toward engaging in
constructive relationships with others (Blatt & Blass, 1992).

* Corresponding author. Present address: Juvenile Protective Association, Research and Training Institute, 1165 N.
Clark Street, Suite 305, Chicago, IL 60610, USA. Tel.: +1-312-649-1426; fax: +1-312-649-1647.
E-mail address: rthompson@juvenile2.org (R. Thompson).

0191-8869/03/$ - see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00106-5
420 R. Thompson, D.C. Zuroff / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 419–430

In Blatt’s (1974) cognitive developmental terms, the anaclitic and introjective developmental
lines are the pathways to the two complementary goals of self-definition and relationship. A
problem in one or the other of these developmental lines may result in the development of
dysfunctional personality characteristics: dependency (abnormal anaclitic development) or self-
criticism (abnormal introjective development) (Blatt, 1974). The Depressive Experiences
Questionnaire (DEQ) was developed to assess these two dysfunctional personality configurations.
Although the constructs of dependency and self-criticism were developed within a psychodynamic
developmental perspective (Blatt, 1974), similar constructs have been proposed from a variety of
theoretical perspectives (e.g. Arieti & Bemporad, 1980; Beck, 1983; Bowtby, 1980, Horney, 1950).
Although labeled dependency and self-criticism, these personality configurations were construed
as much broader negative styles with an inordinate focus on relationships and self-definition,
respectively.
Both interpersonal dependency and self-criticism are relatively broad characterizations that
may not capture important subtypes of their respective constructs. There has been some work
differentiating the Dependency Scale of the DEQ into two distinct subtypes (Rude & Burnham,
1995), but this has not been done with self-criticism. Although low self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965)
is often thought of as a unitary construct, there are different ways in which a negative view of the
self may be expressed. For example, psychodynamic theorists have differentiated between guilt
and shame as negative self-concepts (Alexander, 1948), and perfectionism is thought to subsume
both socially prescribed and self-oriented perfectionism (Hewitt & Flett, 1991), with different
interpersonal correlates (Dunkley, Blankstein, Halsall, Williams, & Winkworth, 2000). However,
these constructs, while similar to self-criticism, do not entail the same level of global self-
denigration as does self-criticism. As well, they are not part of an elaborated theory that takes
into account both interpersonal and achievement focus.

1.1. Variations in self-criticism

Analysis of the structure of questionnaire measures of dependency, the dysfunctional anaclitic

personality style, has produced two distinct developmental levels: a reliance on undifferentiated
others (termed, dependence or neediness), and a focus on the need to maintain specific relation-
ships (termed, relatedness or connectedness; Blatt, Zohar, Quinlan, Zuroff, & Mongrain, 1995;
Rude & Burnham, 1995, respectively). Attempts to produce two levels of self-criticism have been
less successful. This may reflect the high internal consistency of the DEQ-Self-Criticism Scale.
In the present research, two developmental levels of self-criticism were identified and oper-
ationalized, based on Blatt and Blass’ (1992) theoretical description of introjection. In their fra-
mework, the development of maturity implies an internalization of standards, the self-regulation
of affect, an integrated and coherent sense of self, and a growing sense of competence grounded in
reality. Thus, self-criticism could be expected to vary on these dimensions. At one end of this
continuum would be a form of self-criticism based on standards that are still fairly externalized,
similar to a dominant other (Arieti & Bemporad, 1980) perspective. These externalized standards,
because of the sense of incompetence that is inherent in self-criticism, would be expressed as
perceptions of hostility and criticism from others, and a sense of falling short in comparison with
others. This form of self-criticism would also entail a global sense of inferiority and inability
to cope with life, and thus an avoidant way of dealing with problems, which are perceived as
 R. Thompson, D.C. Zuroff / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 419–430 421

insurmountable. At the other end of the continuum would be a form of self-criticism that entails
more internalized standards, similar to a dominant goal perspective (Arieti & Bemporad, 1980).
Thus, this form of self-criticism would entail criticism of the self that is self-generated, and a
chronic sense of falling short of one’s own ideals. It would also entail repeated attempts to meet
(impossibly high) goals.

1.2. Comparative self-criticism

The first level of self-criticism, comparative self-criticism (CSC), is defined as a negative view of
the self in comparison with others. The focus at this level is on the unfavorable comparison of the
self with others, who are seen as superior and as hostile or critical; consequently, there is dis-
comfort with being evaluated or exposed to others.
The concept of inferiority is in essence a relational concept. To be inferior, one must be com-
pared to another. Thus, this sense of self-denigration involves unsatisfactory comparisons of the
self with others. This is reminiscent of Hewitt and Flett’s (1991) concept of socially prescribed
perfectionism, the view of others as placing unreasonable demands on oneself.
As noted earlier, a number of predictions may be made about the interpersonal correlates of
CSC. One relational aspect of comparative self-criticism is interpersonal hostility. This aspect of
self-criticism may explain many of the interpersonal correlates of self-criticism, as measured by
the DEQ. If others are hostile and demanding, one cannot trust them, and, consequently, one
must protect oneself from exposure to these others or dominate them. Thus, self-criticism has
often been associated with interpersonal hostility and distrust (Zuroff & Fitzpatrick, 1995), and
with low levels of Agreeableness and Extraversion, as measured by the NEO (Zuroff, 1994).

1.3. Internalized self-criticism

The other level of self-criticism, internalized self-criticism (ISC), is defined by a negative view of
the self in comparison with internal, personal standards. These internal standards tend to be both
high and constantly receding, resulting in a chronic failure to meet one’s own standards. The
focus is not on comparison with others, or on the opinions that others have of one, but on one’s
own view of the self as deficient.
High standards are often seen as an integral component of self-criticism. Perhaps the construct
for which high standards hold the most important place is perfectionism. Self-oriented perfec-
tionism (Hewitt & Flett, 1991) is defined as ‘‘an intrapersonal dimension characterized by a
strong motivation to be perfect, setting and striving for unrealistic standards, focusing on flaws,
and generalization of self-standards’’ (p. 98). High standards, in and of themselves, do not,
however, necessarily imply a negative view of the self. Rather, high expectations of oneself can be
associated with adaptive characteristics such as self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965), efficacy (Blatt,
1974), adaptive perfectionism (Rice, Ashby, & Slaney, 1998), Positive Achievement Striving
(Frost, Heimberg, Holt, Mattia, & Neibauer, 1993), and active coping (Dunkley et al., 2000). In
short, high standards are not by themselves diagnostic of self-criticism. Rather, very high stan-
dards are one component of the internalized form of self-criticism.
A self-critical response to success entails negation of the experience of success by further raising
the standards. When high personal standards are met, the individual with internalized self-criti-
422 R. Thompson, D.C. Zuroff / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 419–430

cism is not satisfied, and is reluctant to reward or acknowledge his or her own success. Instead,
the individual responds to success by redefining it as failure and by raising the definition of suc-
cess to even higher levels. The problem is not simply an unrealistic definition of success, but also
the response to previously defined success.
The self-critical response to failure is no less problematic. Not only are the high standards of
mature self-critics constantly receding, but the penalties for falling short of these standards are
steep. A defining feature of self-criticism is the global self-punitiveness that failure engenders.
Failure does not lead to an adaptive consideration of how to succeed in the future. Rather, failure
engenders a global sense of worthlessness. Rather than acknowledge deficits in specific areas,
individuals with internalized self-criticism are likely to see specific deficits as evidence of complete
worthlessness.

1.4. The present study

The present paper describes the construction of a scale to assess two forms of self-criticism
differing in level of maturity, CSC and ISC. Study One describes the development of this scale,
the Levels of Self-Criticism Scale (LOSC). Study Two describes the validation of the LOSC.
Convergent and discriminant validity were established by assessing the relations of CSC and ISC
with dependency, self-criticism, self-esteem, psychological distress, and perfectionism. It was
predicted that the scales would correlate moderately with each of these variables. As well, the
relations of CSC and ISC with the Big Five personality constructs were examined, to assess the
validity of the distinction between CSC and ISC. Finally, the relations of CSC and ISC with
interpersonal variables—attachment style and style of handling interpersonal conflict—were
examined.

2. Study 1: construction of the LOSC

2.1. Method

2.1.1. Participants
Two-hundred and eighty-two undergraduate students participated in the scale development
phase of the study. Of the 282 students, 144 were female, and 138 were male. Questionnaire
packets were distributed in several undergraduate classes. Participants completed the ques-
tionnaire packets at home, and returned them to the researchers.

2.1.2. Scales
2.1.2.1. LOSC. Participants completed a 34-item version of the LOSC, which had been devel-
oped rationally. Each item was intended to reflect one of the levels of self-criticism described
above and to differentiate between the two levels of self-criticism. Participants rated how well
each item described them, using a Likert scale anchored by 1 (not at all) and 7 (very well).

2.1.2.2. Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responses (BIDR; Paulhus, 1984). The BIDR is a self-
report measure designed to assess the degree to which respondents are inaccurate in their self-report
 R. Thompson, D.C. Zuroff / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 419–430 423

responses. It consists of two subscales: Self-Deception and Impression Management. Self-

Deception refers to the tendency toward positively biased responding that the respondent believes
to be true (e.g. ‘‘I am a completely rational person’’). Impression Management refers to the
tendency to answer inaccurately because one is attempting to create a desirable impression in
others (e.g. ‘‘I never take things that don’t belong to me’’). The BIDR has adequate validity and
reliability (Paulhus, 1984, 1986).

2.2. Results and discussion

A principal-axis factor analysis revealed two factors with high eigenvalues (6.87 and 2.41),
accounting for 37% of the total variance. A subsequent factor analysis was conducted, specifying
a two-factor solution. Because of the expected correlation between the two scales, the factor
analysis was conducted using an oblique rotation. Items that did not load on either factor (above
0.25), or that loaded highly (above 0.5) on both factors were dropped from the scale. As well,
items that correlated highly with the BIDR (above 0.3) and items that did not have an adequate
variance of responses (standard deviation less than 1) were dropped from the scale.
A final scale, the LOSC Scale, consisting of 22 items, emerged from this analysis. There were 12
CSC items (e.g. ‘‘I fear that if people get to know me too well, they will not respect me.’’ and ‘‘I
have a nagging sense of inferiority.’’) and 10 ISC items (e.g. ‘‘Failure is a very painful experience
for me.’’ and ‘‘When I meet my goals easily, it means that I have not set them high enough.’’).
The scale scores were derived by summing the scores on the items in each scale. Internal con-
sistency for the two scales was acceptable (CSC a=0.81, ISC a=0.87).
The factor loadings for these 22 items are presented in the first three columns of Table 1. The
two LOSC Scales were moderately correlated with each other (r=0.45, P<0.05). ISC was not
significantly correlated with either self- or other-deception. CSC was significantly correlated with
self-deception (r= 0.17, P<0.05), but not with other-deception. Neither ISC nor CSC was cor-
related with age. Gender did not predict CSC, but predicted ISC; women (M=46.88) had higher
ISC scores than did men (M=43.02) (t=2.86, P<0.01).

3. Study 2: validation of the LOSC

Study 2 was conducted to examine convergent, discriminant and construct validity. Convergent
validity was examined by assessing the relation of CSC and ISC with the theoretically related
constructs of self-criticism, self-esteem, psychological distress, and perfectionism. Discriminant
validity was examined by assessing differences in the relation of CSC and ISC with the Big Five
personality constructs. Construct validity was examined by assessing the relation of CSC and ISC
with attachment style and style of handling interpersonal conflicts.

3.1. Method

3.1.1. Participants
The sample used in the validation of the LOSC consisted of 144 undergraduate students. Of the
144 students, 75 were female.
424 R. Thompson, D.C. Zuroff / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 419–430

Table 1
Rotated factor pattern matrix (Studies 1 and 2)
Item Study 1 Study 2

CSC ISC CSC ISC

1. I am very irritable when I have failed. 0.24 0.65 0.21 0.70

2. I have a nagging sense of inferiority. 0.58 0.35 0.52 0.47
3. I am very frustrated with myself when I don’t meet the standards I have for myself. 0.00 0.66 0.02 0.76
4. I am usually uncomfortable in social situations where I don’t know what to expect. 0.48 0.31 0.46 0.21
5. I often get very angry with myself when I fail. 0.17 0.83 0.09 0.84
6. I dont spend much time worrying about what other people will think of me. (R) 0.50 0.31 0.31 0.21
7. I get very upset when I fail. 0.16 0.84 0.17 0.89
8. If you are open with other people about your weaknesses, they are likely to still respect you. (R) 0.51 0.03 0.63 0.09
9. Failure is a very painful experience for me. 0.23 0.79 0.18 0.83
10. I often worry that other people will find out what I’m really like and be upset with me. 0.71 0.26 0.64 0.39
11. I don’t often worry about the possibility of failure. (R) 0.34 0.41 0.36 0.51
12. I am confident that most of the people I care about will accept me for who I am. (R) 0.72 0.13 0.54 0.28
13. When I don’t succeed, I find myself wondering how worthwhile I am. 0.50 0.66 0.43 0.70
14. If you give people the benefit of the doubt, they are likely to take advantage of you. 0.47 0.21 0.40 0.21
15. I feel like a failure when I don’t do as well as I would like. 0.29 0.75 0.28 0.54
16. I am usually comfortable with people asking me about myself. (R) 0.64 0.11 0.43 0.09
17. If I fail in one area, it reflects poorly on me as a person. 0.48 0.54 0.44 0.53
18. I fear that if people get to know me too well, they will not respect me. 0.71 0.20 0.72 0.35
19. I frequently compare myself with my goals and ideals. 0.11 0.57 0.03 0.50
20. I seldom feel ashamed of myself. (R) 0.53 0.22 0.45 0.30
21. Being open and honest is usually the best way to keep others’ respect. (R) 0.58 0.10 0.62 0.14
22. There are times that it is necessary to be somewhat dishonest in order to get what you want. 0.25 0.05 0.36 0.01

Italics indicate items that loaded significantly on respective factors.

3.1.2. Procedure
Volunteers were recruited from undergraduate psychology classes. Each participant was com-
pensated $10 for participation in the study. Participants completed a self-report questionnaire
packet consisting of the 22-item LOSC, along with the other scales presented. They completed the
scales in groups of 2–4.

3.1.3. Scales
LOSC. The LOSC scale consisted of the 22 items selected in study one. Coefficient a for the CSC
was 0.84 and for the ISC was 0.88.

3.1.3.1. The DEQ (Blatt, D’Afflitti, & Quinlan, 1976). The DEQ is a self-report measure of
Dependency and Self-Criticism. It has acceptable reliability and internal consistency (Zuroff,
Blatt, & Quinlan, 1990), and there is considerable evidence for its construct validity (e.g. Mon-
grain & Zuroff, 1989; Zuroff & Mongrain, 1987). As recommended by Zuroff et al. (1990), the
DEQ was scored using the factor scoring coefficients obtained for female subjects in the original
standardization sample (Blatt et al., 1976), where scores were standardized so that the mean was
zero and the standard deviation was 1 for both dependency and self-criticism.
The DEQ consists of 66 statements that participants rate on a Likert scale from 1 (Strongly
Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). Examples of items loading highly on Dependency include, ‘‘I
 R. Thompson, D.C. Zuroff / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 419–430 425

become frightened when I feel alone’’ and ‘‘After an argument I feel very lonely.’’ Examples
of items loading highly on Self-Criticism include, ‘‘I often find that I don’t live up to my own
standards and ideals’’ and ‘‘I am very satisfied with myself and my accomplishments’’ (reverse
loading).

3.1.3.2. The NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI: Costa & McCrae, 1992). The NEO-FFI is a
60-item personality inventory designed to measure five personality constructs: Neuroticism,
Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience. Neuroticism refers
to the tendency to experience distress. Extraversion refers to the tendency to be sociable and
active and to experience positive emotions. Agreeableness refers to the tendency to be trusting
and cooperative. Conscientiousness refers to the tendency to be well-organized and scrupulous.
Openness to Experience refers to the tendency to be intellectually curious and sensitive. The
NEO-FFI is widely used and has good reliability and validity (Costa & McCrae, 1992).

3.1.3.3. The Conflict Styles Inventory (CSI: Levinger & Pietromonaco, 1989). This self-report
inventory is designed to assess five styles of coping with interpersonal conflict. The styles are:
collaborating (‘‘I share the problem with the person so that we can work it through together’’),
avoiding (‘‘I put off talking about an issue about which we disagree’’), accommodating (‘‘If we
disagree, I adjust my views toward those of the person’’), compromising (‘‘I try to find a com-
promise solution’’), and contending (‘‘I try to get whatever I can’’). These five scales are moder-
ately intercorrelated (Levinger & Pietromonaco, 1989). The CSI has been used in previous
research and demonstrates adequate reliability and validity. It is related to attachment style and
depressive symptoms (Carnelley, Pietromonaco, & Jaffe, 1994).

3.1.3.4. Attachment Scales (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). The Attachment Scales are
designed to assess four attachment styles, based on Bartholomew and Horowitz’s (1991)
reconceptualization of Bowlby’s (1980) attachment styles as varying along the two dimensions
of avoidance of interpersonal intimacy and anxiety about the availability of others. The four
styles are secure (low avoidance, low anxiety), preoccupied (low avoidance, high anxiety),
fearful-avoidant (high avoidance, high anxiety) and fearful-dismissing (high avoidance, low
anxiety). The Attachment Scales consist of four short paragraphs, each describing one of the
four prototypical attachment styles. Respondents rate their degree of correspondence to each
of the styles on a seven-point Likert scale. It corresponds with interview-assessed attachment
styles, and is associated in predictable ways with self-concept and interpersonal behavior
(Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994).

3.1.3.5. Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS: Hewitt & Flett, 1989). The MPS is
designed to assess three facets of perfectionism: self-oriented perfectionism (e.g. ‘‘I set very high
standards for myself’’), socially-prescribed perfectionism (‘‘I feel that people are too demanding
of me’’), and other-oriented perfectionism (‘‘I have high expectations for the people who are
important to me’’). These three 15-item subscales are moderately correlated with each other.
The subscales are reliable, with coefficient alphas ranging from 0.74 to 0.88 (Hewitt & Flett,
1989). They are associated predictably with psychological well-being and with social behavior
(Hewitt & Flett, 1991).
426 R. Thompson, D.C. Zuroff / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 419–430

3.2. Results and discussion

3.2.1. Factor loadings

The LOSC items were submitted to a principal-axis factor analysis, specifying a two-factor
solution. As in Study 1, factor analysis was conducted using an oblique rotation. The rotated
factor loadings of the LOSC items are presented in the last two columns of Table 1. As can be
seen, they were very similar to those obtained in Study I. However, there were instances in which
the loadings on the two scales were much more similar than in the first study; in particular, item
2. Overall, however, correspondence between the two samples was high, with correspondence
coefficients of 0.92 for CSC and 0.93 for ISC. The two LOSC scales were moderately correlated
with each other (r=0.44, P<0.05). Neither gender nor age predicted ISC or CSC.

3.2.2. Prediction of other variables

The correlations between CSC and ISC and relevant variables are presented in Table 2, along
with the semi-partial correlations for the CSC controlling for ISC, for the ISC controlling for
CSC, and semi-partial correlations controlling for NEO Neuroticism. As predicted, both CSC
and ISC were moderately correlated with psychological distress as measured by the CES-D, and
were moderately negatively associated with self-esteem. The relationship of ISC to distress
appeared to be explainable by its association with NEO Neuroticism, but otherwise these rela-
tionships held under semi-partial correlations. Also as predicted, both scales were highly corre-
lated with the DEQ Self-Criticism Scale. They also correlated significantly with DEQ
Dependency, but this appeared to be attributable to their relationship with Neuroticism. Both the
CSC and the ISC were significantly correlated with Self-oriented, Other-oriented, and Socially
Prescribed Perfectionism. As predicted, the ISC was more strongly correlated with Self-oriented
Perfectionism than was the CSC, and this correlation approached the ISC’s correlation with self-
esteem and with DEQ self-criticism. In fact, when the ISC was controlled, the relations between
the CSC and Self- and Other-oriented Perfectionism were no longer significant; Neuroticism did
not appear to account for these relationships.
The relations of CSC and ISC with the Big Five personality variables as measured by the NEO-
FFI were also examined. Both scales were highly correlated with NEO-Neuroticism scale.
As expected, the CSC, but not the ISC, was significantly negatively correlated with NEO
Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. As well, when Neuroticism was controlled,
ISC was related to Conscientiousness. These differences support the distinctiveness of CSC and
ISC.
Finally, CSC was strongly correlated with preoccupied and fearful-avoidant attachment styles,
and negatively correlated with secure attachment style, although the relationship to preoccupied
attachment appeared to be attributable to Neuroticism. ISC displayed a similar pattern of
correlations with attachment styles, but the correlation coefficients, although still significant, were
smaller, and attributable to associations with Neuroticism.
The relations of CSC and ISC to conflict management variables revealed some areas of overlap,
but also much distinctiveness. Both the CSC and the ISC were related to avoidant and accom-
modating styles of handling conflicts, independent of their shared variance with Neuroticism. As
well, CSC was negatively correlated with compromising and contending styles of handling con-
flicts, and this relationship was not explainable by the correlation between CSC and Neuroticism.
 R. Thompson, D.C. Zuroff / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 419–430 427

Table 2
Correlations and semi-partial correlations of CSC and ISC with other personality and social variables

CSC ISC Semi-CSC Semi-ISC CSC-Neurot ISC-Neurot

Distress (CESD) 0.53 0.44 0.42 0.26 0.24 0.15

Self-Esteem 0.66 0.52 0.56 0.33 0.40 0.21

DEQ Self-Criticism 0.62 0.55 0.50 0.38 0.34 0.27

DEQ Dependency 0.32 0.28 0.23 0.18 0.05 0.02
DEQ Efficacy 0.10 0.19 0.27 0.23 0.10 0.25

MPS-Self 0.21 0.45 0.02 0.41 0.17 0.46

MPS-Other 0.21 0.24 0.11 0.17 0.18 0.22
MPS-Social 0.46 0.49 0.31 0.35 0.32 0.36

NEO Neuroticism 0.60 0.54 0.47 0.37 – –

NEO Extraversion 0.37 0.09 0.36 0.08 0.25 0.07
NEO Openness 0.11 0.01 0.12 0.06 0.17 0.02
NEO Agreeable 0.35 0.15 0.31 0.00 0.22 0.00
NEO Conscientious 0.34 0.07 0.35 0.10 0.12 0.21

Attachment-secure 0.44 0.18 0.61 0.09 0.49 0.04

Attachment-preoccupied 0.47 0.25 0.15 0.16 0.03 0.07
Attachment-fearful 0.30 0.18 0.54 0.12 0.48 0.15
Attachment-dismissing 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.05 0.07 0.09

Conflict-avoid 0.38 0.37 0.26 0.24 0.27 0.26

Conflict-accommodate 0.24 0.26 0.14 0.17 0.20 0.22
Conflict-compromise 0.23 0.05 0.23 0.06 0.17 0.04
Conflict-collaborating 0.40 0.19 0.36 0.01 0.32 0.07
Conflict-contending 0.16 0.17 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.11

Correlation coefficients that are significant at P< 0.05 are in italics.

4. General discussion

In Study 1, the LOSC was derived from a set of rationally generated items designed to assess
two forms of Self-Criticism, differing in developmental level of maturity. It was subjected to fac-
tor analysis and, as expected, two subscales, CSC and ISC were found. This factor solution was
replicated in Study 2, increasing confidence in the performance and stability of these scales.
There is reasonably good evidence for the convergent and discriminant validity of the LOSC.
Both the CSC and ISC correlated moderately with DEQ Self-Criticism, with low self-esteem, and
with psychological distress. The correlations with Self-Criticism were in the range of 0.55–0.65,
suggesting that these constructs are closely related to DEQ Self-Criticism, yet also distinct from
it. As well, both scales were correlated approximately 0.30 with DEQ Dependency. This is
somewhat higher than with the typical correlation between DEQ Self-Criticism and Dependency
(e.g. Zuroff, 1994; Zuroff, Stotland, Sweetman, Craig, & Koestner, 1995), but the DEQ is scored
using factor scores designed to produce an orthogonal relationship between Self-Criticism and
428 R. Thompson, D.C. Zuroff / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 419–430

Dependency, whereas the LOSC is scored by simply summing relevant items. As well, corre-
lations with self-esteem and psychological distress were significant as expected, but not so high as
to undermine discriminant validity.
As well, both scales were significantly correlated with all three perfectionism scales, but the
correlation of ISC with Self-oriented Perfectionism was much higher than that for CSC. As well,
when the shared variance between the CSC and ISC was taken into account, the only correlation
that remained significant for CSC was with Socially Prescribed Perfectionism. Thus, ISC has a
moderate correlation with all the perfectionism scales, especially Self-oriented Perfectionism,
whereas CSC has a moderate correlation with Socially Prescribed Perfectionism. The definition of
Self-oriented Perfectionism is similar conceptually to that of ISC, and the two scales were mod-
erately correlated. However, there appears to be an acceptable level of distinctiveness between the
scales. As well, the putative interpersonal characteristics of CSC is consistent with its moderate
correlation with Socially Prescribed Perfectionism. It is important to note, however, that the
relationship of ISC to Socially Prescribed Perfectionism was also high, and not attributable to
correlations between the ISC and CSC.
The relationships between the CSC and ISC and NEO Scales provide further evidence for the
validity of the LOSC, as well as indicating areas of uniqueness between the scales. Given the
correlation of Self-Criticism with Neuroticism (Zuroff, 1994), both CSC and ISC were expected
to correlate moderately with NEO Neuroticism, and did so. As well, CSC, but not the ISC, was
negatively correlated with NEO Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. This is
further evidence that CSC is capturing unique aspects of self-criticism. The low levels of Agree-
ableness associated with CSC are indicative of the interpersonal hostility and suspiciousness
associated with this construct. As well, low Extraversion is probably indicative of the reluctance
to expose oneself to the scrutiny of others. Finally, CSC, unlike ISC, is associated with low
Conscientiousness. The relationship between CSC and NEO personality factors is also reminis-
cent of the relationship of Self-Criticism with the NEO (Zuroff, 1994). It is important to note,
however, that the other results discussed in this study were not primarily due to relationships
between the LOSC and Neuroticism. Controlling for Neuroticism left unchanged most of the
relationships of ISC and CSC to other variables.
Finally, there is much evidence for the posited interpersonal patterns associated with CSC and
ISC. CSC was negatively correlated with secure attachment and positively correlated with fearful-
avoidant attachment. These attachment patterns are usually associated with Self-Criticism (Zur-
off & Fitzpatrick, 1995). In contrast, ISC is not primarily related to attachment issues.
CSC and ISC also both related in predicted ways with styles of handling conflicts. In general,
CSC was associated with a less collaborative, more avoidant style; people high on CSC were less
collaborating and compromising and more avoidant. ISC was also associated with avoidant
conflict management, but also with accommodating conflict management. In short, consistent
with its associations with NEO Extraversion and Agreeableness, CSC is associated with a gen-
erally hostile interpersonal style.
These studies had some limitations that should be kept in mind when interpreting the results.
First, the scale was validated on college students, most of whom were between the ages of 19 and
25. Thus, the scale may perform differently in other populations. Future work should replicate
the structure and correlates of the LOSC in other populations. As well, because all scales were
administered via self-report questionnaire, some of the relationships between variables may be
 R. Thompson, D.C. Zuroff / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 419–430 429

explained by shared method variance. Future studies should examine behavioral correlates of
CSC and ISC, as well as the way that individuals high on these scales are perceived by others.
These limitations aside, these initial data are promising.
The CSC and ISC Scales of the LOSC appear to measure distinct and coherent facets of DEQ
Self-Criticism. The factor structure of the LOSC was replicated in two independent samples, and
the scales related predictably with measures of personality and interpersonal style. Future
research should examine the relationship of CSC and ISC to behavioral measures of interpersonal
relationships and achievement and to other personality variables.

Acknowledgements

We thank Sylvette LaTouche, Tracy Robinson, and Kerry Shaz for their help in collecting this
data. We also thank David Dunkley, Isabel Igreja, and Sidney Blatt for their thoughtful com-
ments on earlier versions of the article and on the items comprising the LOSC scale.

References

Alexander, F. (1948). Fundamentals of psychoanalysis. New York: Norton and Company.

Arieti, S., & Bemporad, J. (1980). The psychological organization of depression. American Journal of Psychiatry, 136,
1365–1369.
Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: an essay on psychology and religion. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: a test of a four-category model.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226–244.
Beck, A. T. (1983). Cognitive therapy of depression: new perspectives. In P. J. Clayton, & J. E. Barrett (Eds.), Treat-
ment of depression: old controversies and new approaches (pp. 265–290). New York: Raven.
Blatt, S. J. (1974). Levels of object representation in anaclitic and introjective depression. Psychoanalytic Study of the
Child, 24, 107–157.
Blatt, S. J., & Blass, R. B. (1992). Relatedness and self-definition: two primary dimensions in personality development,
psychopathology, and psychotherapy. In J. Barron, M. Eagle, & D. Wolitsky (Eds.), The interface between psycho-
analysis and psychology (pp. 399–428). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Blatt, S. J., D’Afflitti, J. P., & Quinlan, D. M. (1976). Experiences of depression in normal young adults. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 85, 383–389.
Blatt, S. J., Zohar, A. H., Quinlan, D. M., Zuroff, D. C., & Mongrain, M. (1995). Subscales within the dependency
factor of the Depressive Experiences Questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64, 319–339.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: vol. 3. Loss, separation, and depression. New York: Basic Books.
Carnelley, K. B., Pietromonaco, P. R., & Jaffe, K. (1994). Depression, working models of others, and relationship
functioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 127–140.
Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Manual for the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI) and NEO Five-
Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Dunkley, D. M., Blankstein, K. R., Halsall, J., Williams, M., & Winkworth, G. (2000). The relation between perfec-
tionism and distress: hassles, coping, and perceived social support as mediators and moderators. Journal of Coun-
seling Psychology, 47, 437–453.
Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York: Norton.
Freud, S. (1961). Civilization and its discontents. In J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), The standard edition of the complete
works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 21, pp. 64–145). London: Hogarth Press.
Frost, R. O., Heimberg, R. G., Holt, C. S., Mattia, J. I., & Neubauer, A. L. (1993). A comparison of two measures of
perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 119–126.
430 R. Thompson, D.C. Zuroff / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 419–430

Griffin, D. W., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). The metaphysics of measurement: the case of adult attachment. In
K. Bartholomew, & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships. Vol. 5: Attachment processes in adulthood
(pp. 17–52). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. (1989). The Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale: development and validation. Canadian
Psychology, 30, 339.
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. (1991). Dimensions of perfectionism in unipolar depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
100, 98–101.
Homey, K. (1950). Neurosis and human growth. New York: Norton.
Levinger, G., Pietromonaco, P. (1989). Conflict Style Inventory. Unpublished scale, University of Massachusetts,
Amherst.
Mongrain, M., & Zuroff, D. C. (1989). Cognitive vulnerability to depressed affect in dependent and self-critical college
women. Journal of Personality Disorders, 3, 240–251.
Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 46, 598–609.
Paulhus, D. L. (1986). Self-deception and impression management in test responses. In A. Angleitner, & J. S. Wiggins
(Eds.), Personality assessment via questionnaires (pp. 143–165). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Rice, K. G., Ashby, J. S., & Slaney, R. B. (1998). Self-esteem as a moderator between perfectionism and depression: a
structural equations analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 304–314.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rude, S. S., & Burnham, B. L. (1995). Connectedness and neediness: factors of the DEQ and SAS dependency scales.
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 19, 323–340.
Zuroff, D. C. (1994). Depressive personality styles and the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 63, 453–472.
Zuroff, D. C., Blatt, S. J., & Quinlan, D. M. (1990). Psychometric properties of the Depressive Experiences Ques-
tionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55, 65–72.
Zuroff, D. C., & Fitzpatrick, D. A. (1995). Depressive personality styles: implications for adult attachment. Personality
and Individual Differences, 18, 253–265.
Zuroff, D. C., & Mongrain, M. (1987). Dependency and self-criticism:vulnerability factors for depressive affective
states. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 96, 14–22.
Zuroff, D. C., Stotland, S., Sweetman, E., Craig, J.-A., & Koestner, R. (1995). Dependency, self-criticism, and social
interactions. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 34, 543–553.