See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/229102284

The Self-Absorption Scale: Reliability and validity in non-clinical samples

Article  in  Personality and Individual Differences · December 2008

DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2008.07.020

CITATIONS READS

51 3,732

2 authors:

Karyn S. Mckenzie Rick H Hoyle

Georgetown College Duke University
2 PUBLICATIONS   267 CITATIONS    152 PUBLICATIONS   19,504 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Rick H Hoyle on 01 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Author's personal copy

Personality and Individual Differences 45 (2008) 726–731

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

The Self-Absorption Scale: Reliability and validity in non-clinical samples

Karyn S. McKenzie a, Rick H. Hoyle b,*
a
Department of Psychology, 400 East College Street, Georgetown College, Georgetown, KY 40324, USA
b
Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, Box 90086, 9 Flowers Drive, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708-0086, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The lack of a measure of self-absorption, an excessive, sustained, and rigid focus on the self, has limited
Received 16 January 2008 progress in research on the role of attentional processes in psychopathology. We describe the develop-
Received in revised form 8 July 2008 ment of a measure of self-absorption that yields scores for private and public self-absorption. Factor anal-
Accepted 24 July 2008
yses indicated that the measure has a clean factor structure, with two correlated factors. In a preliminary
Available online 31 August 2008
validation study using non-clinical participants, we embedded the private and public self-absorption con-
structs in a nomological network of constructs that implicate attentional processes. Both forms of self-
Keywords:
absorption are correlated with a wide array of constructs in a pattern that corresponds to the conceptual
Self-awareness
Self-consciousness
definition of the construct. They also evidence incremental validity over their self-consciousness counter-
Self-regulation parts in associations with key constructs. These preliminary findings provide a firm basis for investiga-
tions of the role of self-absorption in psychopathology.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction ‘‘self-absorption is defined by excessive, sustained, and rigid atten-

Self-awareness is a critical feature of conscious experience that
gives rise to adaptive capacities such as an enduring, cognitive rep-
resentation of self and the ability to establish and pursue goals that
are tied to this self-representation (Sedikides & Skowronski, 1997).
Yet, the capacity for self-awareness is a two-edged sword. Self-
awareness is critical for the self-regulation of behavior (Hoyle &
Sowards, 1993) and emotional experience (Carver & Scheier,
1990); however, self-awareness is associated with maladaptive
patterns of cognition, affect, and behavior (Baumeister, 1991; Teas-
dale & Green, 2004; Watkins & Teasdale, 2004). Virtually all of the
research on the role of self-awareness in maladaptive processes
has concerned self-awareness in a form typical of adaptive func-
tioning. The goal of the present research was to develop and vali-
date a measure of self-awareness tailored to the study of
maladaptive processes.
1.1. Self-absorption
Based on a comprehensive review of the literature on self-
awareness and psychopathology, Ingram (1990) concluded that
the form of self-awareness that accompanies maladjustment
differs in degree and kind from ‘‘normal” self-awareness. Ingram
proposed and elaborated the ‘‘pathological equivalent” of self-
awareness, self-absorption. He posited that self-awareness varies
along three dimensions-degree, duration, and flexibility-and that
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +919 660 5791; fax: +919 660 5726.
E-mail address: rhoyle@duke.edu (R.H. Hoyle).
tion to information emanating from internal sources” (p. 169). In-
gram argued that self-absorption is a common thread that runs
through many forms of pathological cognition that involve self-
awareness.
Although Ingram’s (1990) analysis is persuasive, the self-absorp-
tion construct has not assumed a place of prominence in relevant
literatures. Two reasons for this limited influence are apparent.
First, no measure or manipulation of self-absorption has been
developed. Second, Ingram’s conceptualization does not distinguish
between private and public self-awareness, a distinction that has
proven useful, for example, for distinguishing manifestations of
self-conscious emotions (e.g. Gilbert, 2007). This distinction would
be important for integrating the self-absorption construct into the
large literature on psychopathology and self-awareness as mea-
sured by the Self-Consciousness Scale (SCS; Fenigstein, Scheier &
Buss 1975), which yields separate private and public scores.
Research of indirect relevance to the private form of self-
absorption has begun to accumulate as a result of multiple factor
analyses showing two distinct forms of private self-consciousness:
internal state awareness (ISA) and self-reflectiveness (SR; see Trap-
nell & Campbell, 1999, for a review). Whereas ISA reflects a basic
awareness of self, SR reflects an evaluative examination of self.
The SR items reflect the degree component of self-absorption and
evince a pattern of correlations similar to what might be expected
for private self-absorption (Mor & Winquist, 2002); however, they
do not explicitly tap the duration and flexibility components of the
construct.
Building on this finding of a reliable bifurcation of private self-
consciousness items, Trapnell and Campbell (1999) developed the

0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.07.020
 Author's personal copy
K.S. McKenzie, R.H. Hoyle / Personality and Individual Differences 45 (2008) 726–731
Rumination-Reflection Questionnaire (RRQ). As with the SR items,
the rumination items tap aspects of Ingram’s (1990) model of self-
absorption but do not fully reflect the construct. Although
perseveration of specific self-referent thoughts is one form of
self-absorption with maladaptive consequences (Pyszczynski &
Greenberg, 1987), it is not difficult to imagine excessive, sustained,
and rigid attention to self more generally and without rumination
(Lyubomirsky & Tkach, 2004). Moreover, rumination does not
always concern the self (Papageorgiou & Wells, 2004). Thus, a
measure of self-absorption would complement, but not duplicate,
measures of rumination.
Neither the RRQ nor the public subscale of the SCS provide
items that tap public self-absorption. A measure of maladaptive
attention to public self-aspects would be valuable for research on
disordered cognition, affect, and behavior (e.g. social anxiety,
excessive shame and guilt) that stems from attention to self from
the imagined perspective of others. Such a measure also would
contribute to more theory-oriented research on the components
of self-consciousness by offering parallel self-absorption measures.
1.2. The present studies
Our goal was to develop and conduct preliminary validation
work on a brief self-report measure of private and public self-
absorption that follows directly from Ingram’s (1990) conceptual
definition of self-absorption. We expected our measure to be mod-
estly correlated with measures that reflect normal self-awareness.
Moreover, we expected our measure to afford incremental predic-
tion over such measures for constructs that involve a maladaptive
focus on the self.
2. Study 1
Our efforts at developing the measure were guided by two
goals: (1) ensure that items tap the excessive, sustained, and rigid
qualities that distinguish self-absorption from normal self-aware-
ness; (2) include items for private and public self-absorption in
sufficient numbers to enable subscale scores to be generated. To
achieve these goals, we wrote a large number of candidate items,
to which responses were provided by a large sample of nonclinical
participants. We used judges’ ratings as well as exploratory and
confirmatory factor analysis to reduce the candidate item pool to
a final set.
2.1. Method
2.1.1. Participants
Nine hundred and twelve undergraduates provided responses
to the candidate items for course credit. Data from 12 participants
were unusable; hence, the main analysis sample comprised 900
participants (592 females, 302 males, 6 unspecified).
An additional 234 undergraduates constituted a cross-valida-
tion sample.
2.1.2. Item generation
Our goal was a measure comprising 15–20 items, with private
and public self-absorption subscales of equivalent length. To this
end, we generated a large pool of candidate items, each designed
to reflect primary characteristics of self-absorption as defined by
Ingram (1990). After training in the definition of the construct,
two psychology graduate students rated the degree to which each
candidate item reflected the construct definition and a private or
public focus. A candidate item was retained in the pool if the
judges agreed that it unambiguously referenced private or public
self-absorption. This process resulted in a pool of 35 candidate
727
items, to which participants in the main sample responded. Among
the candidate items were 16 concerning private 19 concerning
public self-absorption. The goal of analyses was the selection of
the 8–10 items for private and public self-absorption that yielded
the cleanest factor structure.
Participants indicated the degree to which the statements de-
scribed them on five-point scales anchored by not at all like me
and very much like me. For the main sample, the candidate items
were embedded in a battery of questionnaires; the order of appear-
ance of the candidate item set in the battery was randomized. Par-
ticipants in the cross-validation sample completed only the final
set of items.
2.2. Results and discussion
2.2.1. Exploratory factor analysis
Initially, we examined communality estimates from an unrotat-
ed principal axes factoring, eliminating seven items because they
generated relatively little common variance (h2 < .25). Further
exploratory factor analyses focused on the 28 remaining candidate
items.
Because our goal was a clean two-factor solution, we extracted
and obliquely rotated two factors. The elimination of items with
loadings less than .50 or secondary loadings greater than .20 re-
sulted in eight private and 13 public items. In order to achieve sub-
scales of equivalent length, we eliminated the four remaining
public self-absorption items with the lowest loadings. This left a
set of 17 items, of which eight formed a private subscale and nine
a public subscale.
We initially evaluated the factor structure of the 17-item set
using exploratory factor analysis. A comparison of eigenvalues
from a principal axis extraction with random-data eigenvalues
(Hoyle & Duvall, 2004) suggested five factors. An oblique rotation
of five factors indicated that the public and private item sets split
into two highly correlated factors (interfactor rs = .71. and .72).
No item loaded above .40 on the fifth factor. The public items split
into four and five item sets according to whether the items explic-
itly mentioned evaluation rather than simply viewing self from the
perspective of others. The private items split into three and five
item sets that differed in terms of whether they explicitly men-
tioned self as opposed to one’s life more broadly.
Although a strictly exploratory analysis pointed to four factors
rather than two, the four factors were simple splits of the subscales
on qualities not relevant to the self-absorption construct. An anal-
ysis in which we extracted and obliquely rotated two factors
yielded a near simple-structure pattern of loadings. The primary
loadings of the eight private self-absorption items ranged from
.52 to .65, and the highest secondary loading was .05. The primary
loadings for the public self-absorption items ranged from .59 to
.73. The highest secondary loading was .15, but the average sec-
ondary loading across the nine items was only .08. The inter-factor
correlation was .53.
A subset of the main sample (N = 210) also completed the SCS,
which permitted us to conduct an exploratory factor analysis that
included composite private and public self-consciousness scores as
marker variables. We repeated the two-factor analysis and exam-
ined the alignment of the self-consciousness composites with the
self-absorption factors. The public self-consciousness composite
loaded with the public self-absorption items (loading = .66) but
not the private self-absorption items (loading = .10). The private
self-consciousness composite aligned more closely with the
private self-absorption items (loading = .27) than the public self-
absorption items (loading = .18), but the absolute value of the
loading was smaller than the standard salience criterion of .30.
Following the norm in the self-consciousness literature, we re-
scored the private self-consciousness subscale into internal state
 Author's personal copy

728 K.S. McKenzie, R.H. Hoyle / Personality and Individual Differences 45 (2008) 726–731

awareness and self-reflectiveness composites and re-ran the anal-
ysis. Consistent with the literature on these forms of private self-
consciousness, internal state awareness loaded on neither factor
(loadings were .03 and .09 for private and public, respectively),
but self-reflectiveness loaded with the private (loading = .40) but
not the public items (loading = .24).
2.2.2. Confirmatory factor analysis
In order to more rigorously evaluate the factor structure of our
item set, we used confirmatory factor analysis (Hoyle, 2000) to fit a
two-correlated-factor model using data from the cross-validation
sample. We contrasted this hypothesized model with two more
parsimonious models, one with a single factor and one with two
uncorrelated factors. To evaluate model fit, we consulted the com-
parative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990), and the root mean square er-
ror of approximation (RMSEA; Steiger, 1990). We use the v2
estimate only for comparing nested models. A value of .90 is com-
monly used as a cutoff for CFI, but .95 has been recommended for
measurement models (Hu & Bentler, 1999). At this preliminary
stage, we used .90 for models that were fully hypothesis driven
and included no adjustments to maximize model fit. For RMSEA,
values between 0 and .08 indicate acceptable fit (MacCallum,
Browne, & Sugawara, 1996).
Values of the fit indices indicated that the hypothesized model
provided an acceptable account of the data, v2(118,
N = 234) = 203.65, p < .001; CFI = .91, RMSEA = .07. This model
clearly outperformed both a one-factor model, Dv2(1,
N = 234) = 133.35, p < .001, and a model with uncorrelated factors,
Dv2(1, N = 234) = 68.57, p < .001. These results provided initial
support for the hypothesized structure of the Self-Absorption
Scale, which is shown in Table 1.
The full set of loadings (all significant at p < .001) appears in the
last two columns of Table 1. The average loading was .58 for the
eight private items and .66 for the nine public items. The inter-fac-
tor correlation was .67.
2.2.3. Subscale characteristics
Coefficient alpha was .81 for the private items and .89 for the
public items. Internal consistency estimates were equivalent for
women and men. Two hundred and three participants from the
main sample completed the measure a second time about seven
weeks later. The test-retest correlations were .60 for private and
.73 for public self-absorption.
Comparisons of mean scores for women and men revealed a sig-
nificant sex difference on private self-absorption, F(1, 892) = 4.40,
p < .05. Women (M = 1.74), on average, scored higher than men
(M = 1.66); however, the difference was small (effect size r = .07).
Mean scores for women (M = 2.44) and men (M = 2.55) on public
self-absorption were not significantly different, F(1, 892) = 3.13,
p = .08, r = .06.
3. Study 2
The purpose of study 2 was to examine the convergent and dis-
criminant validity of the Self-Absorption Scale.
3.1. Method
3.1.1. Participants
Two hundred and three participants, who were part of the main
sample for study 1, provided data for the study.
3.1.2. Materials and procedure
Participants completed a battery of questionnaires in which the
Self-Absorption Scale appeared first; the order of the remaining
questionnaires was randomized.
We assessed five constructs that primarily concern intraper-
sonal processes. Private self-consciousness was assessed by the pri-
vate subscale from the SCS (Fenigstein et al., 1975). The 10 items
were scored both as a single composite and as separate internal
state awareness and self-reflectiveness composites. Self-esteem
and self-efficacy were measured using the Self-Esteem Scale
(Rosenberg, 1965) and the General Self-Efficacy Scale (Sherer
et al., 1982), respectively. Depressive symptoms were assessed using
the Beck depression inventory (Beck, 1978). Finally, the ruminative
responses subscale from the response styles questionnaire (Nolen-
Hoeksema & Morrow, 1991) was used to measure rumination.

Table 1
Items, descriptive statistics, and factor loadings for items of the Self-Absorption Scale

Factor
Item M SD PrSA PubSA
Private self-absorption
4. I think about myself more than anything else. 1.85 1.05 .61
5. When I try to think of something other than myself, I cannot. 1.26 0.61 .55
6. When I have to perform a task, I do not do it as well as I should because my concentration is interrupted with thoughts of 1.42 0.77 .57
myself instead of the task.
9. My mind never focuses on things other than myself for very long. 1.47 0.76 .55
11. I cannot stop my head from thinking thoughts about myself. 1.70 0.96 .69
12. Sometimes I am so deep in thought about my life I am not aware of my surroundings. 1.80 1.08 .53
14. I do not spend long amounts of time thinking about myselfa 2.40 1.16 .48
15. When I think about my life, I keep thinking about it so long I cannot turn my attention to tasks that need to be done. 1.61 0.87 .65
Public self-absorption
1. I find myself wondering what others think of me even when I don’t want to. 3.15 1.29 .65
2. I have difficulty focusing on what others are talking about because I wonder what they’re thinking of me. 1.93 1.08 .68
3. I feel like others are constantly evaluating me when I’m with them. 2.39 1.24 .75
7. I wish others weren’t as critical of me as they are. 2.27 1.17 .63
8. I am very aware of what others think of me, and it bothers me. 2.07 1.09 .71
10. When I start thinking about how others view me, I get all worked up. 1.86 1.03 .73
13. It upsets me when people I meet don’t like me. 3.20 1.33 .57
16. When I’m about to meet someone for the first time, I worry about whether they’ll like me. 3.05 1.33 .59
17. After being around other people, I think about what I should have done differently when I was with them. 2.85 1.30 .63

Note: PrSA = private self-absorption. PubSA = public self-absorption. Factor loadings are completely standardized maximum likelihood estimates. Off-loadings were con-
strained to zero.
a
Reverse scored item; descriptive statistics and factor loading reflect reverse scoring.
 Author's personal copy

K.S. McKenzie, R.H. Hoyle / Personality and Individual Differences 45 (2008) 726–731 729

We also assessed five constructs that primarily concern inter- independent correlations of private and public self-absorption
personal processes. Using the Self-Consciousness Scale (Fenigstein with depressive symptoms and rumination are considered, an
et al., 1975), public self-consciousness and social anxiety were mea- unexpected pattern emerges: Both aspects of self-absorption are
sured. Social desirability, the need for approval or avoidance of dis- independently related to depressive symptoms and rumination;
approval from others, was assessed by the Crowne–Marlowe Social however, public self-absorption is significantly more strongly re-
Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). The 25-item Self- lated to depressive symptoms than is private self-absorption
Monitoring Scale (Snyder, 1974) was used to measure self-monitor- (p < .05).
ing. We assessed extraversion using Goldberg’s (1992) lexical-based
measure. 3.2.2. Nomological network: Interpersonal constructs
Coefficient alpha for all measures is displayed in the rightmost Relevant correlation coefficients are displayed in the bottom
column of Table 2. portion of Table 2. Both forms of self-absorption were correlated
with public self-consciousness; however, the public self-absorp-
3.2. Results and discussion tion correlation was the stronger of the two. When public self-
absorption was partialed from private self-absorption, that correla-
The first two columns of coefficients in Table 2 reflect the sim- tion dropped to near zero, whereas partialing private from public
ple association between private or public self-absorption and the self-absorption affected the correlation of the latter with public
various individual differences. The next two columns include self-consciousness minimally. A virtually identical pattern
semi-partial coefficients that partial public from private and pri- emerged for social anxiety. Both facets of self-absorption are re-
vate from public self-absorption before each is correlated with lated to social anxiety, but it is the unique variability in public
the individual differences. self-absorption that drives the association.
Two interpersonal constructs, social desirability and self-moni-
3.2.1. Nomological network: intrapersonal constructs toring, concern self-presentation. Only the correlation with public
Both aspects of self-absorption were correlated with private self-absorption remained significant in the semi-partial analyses;
self-consciousness. The semi-partial coefficients indicate that the however, the two semi-partial correlations are not significantly
apparent correlation between public self-absorption and private different. Both private and public self-absorption are correlated
self-consciousness is attributable to the overlap between private with self-monitoring. In the semi-partial analyses, only the corre-
and public self-absorption. When private self-consciousness is bro- lation involving public self-absorption remains significant. Fol-
ken out into internal state awareness and self-reflectiveness com- low-up analyses indicate that this association is wholly
ponents, it is clear that the self-reflectiveness component is attributable to the other-directedness dimension of self-monitor-
responsible for these associations. ing. Taken together, these associations indicate that individuals
The zero-order correlations involving self-esteem and self-effi- high in public self-absorption are more likely than individuals
cacy are similar for private and public self-absorption. Participants low in public-self-absorption to look to other people for behavioral
who were more self-absorbed-private or public-were lower in self- cues (other-directedness) but less likely to need other people’s ap-
esteem and self-efficacy. The semi-partial analysis indicates that proval of their behavior (social desirability).
the self-esteem association is primarily attributable to public We expected a negative correlation between public self-absorp-
self-absorption. Both private and public self-absorption are inde- tion and extraversion because, although individuals high in public
pendently related to self-efficacy. self-absorption are highly aware of how others perceive them, they
Depressive symptoms and rumination are associated (e.g. are uncomfortable around others. The zero-order correlations
Lyubomirsky, Caldwell, & Nolen-Hoeksema, 1998); hence, we con- involving extraversion were negative and significant for both pri-
sidered their association with self-absorption together. When the vate and public self-absorption, but the correlation with public
self-absorption was significantly stronger. When public self-
absorption was partialed from private self-absorption, the correla-
tion between private self-absorption and extraversion approached
zero. Conversely, the correlation between public self-absorption
Table 2
Correlations of public and private self-absorption with other individual differences
and extraversion remained strong even when controlling for pri-
vate self-absorption.
Zero-order Semi-partial
Measure Private Public Private Public Alpha 3.2.3. Incremental validity
Self-absorption We next undertook a set of analyses to evaluate the degree to
Private .83 which private and public self-absorption are predictive of selected
Public .53** .90 constructs beyond well-established associations of those con-
Intrapersonal Constructs structs with private and public self-consciousness. We first consid-
Private self-consciousness .37** .30** .26** .12 .53 ered the association between private self-consciousness and
Internal state awareness .09 .03 .12 .09 .32
depressive symptoms (e.g. Smith & Greenberg, 1981). Recall that
Self-reflectiveness .37** .35** .22** .18* .69
Self-esteem .31** .40** .12 .28** .83 the zero-order correlation between private self-absorption and
Self-efficacy .38** .37** .21** .20** .84 BDI scores was .35. The zero-order correlation between private
Depressive symptoms .35** .41** .15* .27** .91 self-consciousness and depressive symptoms was .37. When pri-
Rumination .36** .41** .17* .26** .93
vate self-absorption was partialed from private self-consciousness,
Interpersonal Constructs the correlation dropped to .08 (p > .20). When private self-con-
Public self-consciousness .33** .54** .05 .43** .73
sciousness was partialed from private self-absorption, the correla-
Social anxiety .32** .50** .07 .39** .68
Social desirability .27** .30** .13 .18* .84
tion between the latter and depressive symptoms was .29. At the
Self-monitoring .15* .20* .05 .14* .68 subscale level, internal state awareness was not correlated with
Extraversion .18* .32** .01 .27** .92 depressive symptoms and did not alter the association between
Note: Ns ranged from 200 to 203.
private self-absorption and depressive symptoms. Self-reflective-
*
p < .05. ness was correlated .23 with depressive symptoms, but the corre-
**
p < .01. lation dropped to.11 (p > .10) when private self-absorption was
 Author's personal copy
730 K.S. McKenzie, R.H. Hoyle / Personality and Individual Differences 45 (2008) 726–731
partialed out. The association between private self-absorption and
depressive symptoms was minimally affected by controlling for
self-reflectiveness (sr = .28). This finding is consistent with In-
gram’s (1990) argument that it is self-absorption, not normal
self-awareness, that accompanies mood disorders such as
depression.
We conducted a similar analysis involving public self-absorp-
tion and social anxiety. At the zero-order level, public self-absorp-
tion is correlated r = .50, and public self-consciousness r = .41, with
social anxiety. When public self-consciousness is partialed from
public self-absorption, the correlation drops but remains signifi-
cant at sr = .34. When public self-absorption is partialed from pub-
lic self-consciousness, the correlation involving public self-
consciousness remains significant but drops to a relatively modest
value of r = .16.
4. General discussion
Our findings provide preliminary support for the Self-Absorp-
tion Scale, a measure of excessive, rigid, and sustained self-aware-
ness. The measure is brief, self-administered, and yields separate
scores for private and public self-absorption. Although the private
and public subscales are appreciably correlated, when one is par-
tialed from the other, predicted associations of each with other
constructs persist. Importantly, associations involving the self-
absorption subscales and key outcomes persist when the corre-
sponding self-consciousness subscale is partialed. Although the
items do not refer specifically to self-directed affect, the subscales
relate as expected to affective outcomes such as depressive symp-
toms and social anxiety.
To date, in virtually every study in which self-awareness was
measured rather than manipulated, self-awareness was operation-
ally defined using the SCS. In studies that focus on adaptive behav-
ior this is not ill-advised because it is now well-established that the
private self-consciousness subscale from the SCS is a proxy for the
transient state of self-awareness induced by environmental factors
(e.g. Fejfar & Hoyle, 2000). In studies that focus on maladaptive af-
fect and cognition, however, self-consciousness is an unsuitable
substitute for the pathological form of self-awareness that is most
relevant for psychopathology (Ingram, 1990). Although extreme
scores on measures of self-consciousness adequately capture the
quantitative difference between self-consciousness and self-
absorption, they do not capture the qualitative distinctions—
namely, the sustained and inflexible nature of self-absorption.
Similarly, measures of rumination capture a specific instance of
self-absorption but not the construct in its broader sense. The
Self-Absorption Scale captures all aspects of pathological self-
awareness, providing a means of empirically validating models of
psychopathology that implicate self-attention and self-regulation
(e.g. Baumeister, 1990; Pyszczynski & Greenberg, 1987).
A feature of our measure that extends the conceptual model
developed by Ingram (1990) is the distinction between private
and public self-absorption. The distinction between private and
public self-consciousness elaborated by Buss (1980) and mani-
fested in the SCS has given rise to two rich and relatively distinct
literatures. Whereas private self-consciousness has been central
in research on intrapersonal processes (e.g. Trapnell & Campbell,
1999), public self-consciousness has contributed to research on a
range of interpersonal processes (e.g. Pontari & Schlenker, 2000).
Similarly, we might expect private and public self-absorption to
contribute to the prediction and explanation of different forms of
psychopathology and maladjustment. By building the private-pub-
lic distinction into our measure, we offer the opportunity to build
on work inspired by the SCS while extending the conceptual anal-
ysis of pathological self-awareness.
In conclusion, the Self-Absorption Scale is a viable alternative to
measures of normal self-awareness for research on attentional pro-
cesses and psychological dysfunction. Unlike measures of normal
self-awareness and rumination, the Self-Absorption Scale captures
in the broadest sense the extended duration and maladaptive
rigidity that distinguish pathological from normal self-awareness
(Ingram, 1990; see also, Muraven (2005)). This qualitative
distinction may prove critical to an understanding of how self-
awareness should be incorporated into process models of
psychopathology.
References
Baumeister, R. F. (1990). Suicide as escape from self. Psychological Review, 97,
90–113.
Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Escaping the self: Alcoholism, spirituality, masochism, and
other flights from the burden of selfhood. New York: Basic Books.
Beck, A. T. (1978). Beck depression inventory. San Antonio, TX: Psychological
Corporation.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological
Bulletin, 107, 238–246.
Buss, A. H. (1980). Self-consciousness and social anxiety. San Francisco: Freeman.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive and negative
affect: A control-process view. Psychological Review, 97, 19–35.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent
of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354.
Fejfar, M. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (2000). Effect of private self-awareness on negative affect
and self-referent attribution: A quantitative review. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 4, 132–142.
Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self-
consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 43, 522–527.
Gilbert, P. (2007). The evolution of shame as a marker for relationship security: A
biopsychosocial approach. In J. L. Tracy, R. W. Robins, & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), The
self-conscious emotions: Theory and research (pp. 283–309). New York: Guilford.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the big-five factor structure.
Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42.
Hoyle, R. H. (2000). Confirmatory factor analysis. In H. E. A. Tinsley & S. D. Brown
(Eds.), Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling
(pp. 465–497). New York: Academic Press.
Hoyle, R. H., & Duvall, J. L. (2004). Determining the number of factors in exploratory
and confirmatory factor analysis. In D. Kaplan (Ed.), Handbook of quantitative
methodology for the social sciences (pp. 301–315). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Hoyle, R. H., & Sowards, B. A. (1993). Self-monitoring and the regulation of social
experience. A control-process model. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 12,
280–306.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Ingram, R. E. (1990). Self-focused attention in clinical disorders: Review and a
conceptual model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 156–176.
Lyubomirsky, S., Caldwell, N. D., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1998). Effects of ruminative
and distracting responses to depressed mood on retrieval of autobiographical
memories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 166–177.
Lyubomirsky, S., & Tkach, C. (2004). The consequences of dysphoric rumination. In
C. Papageorgiou & A. Wells (Eds.), Depressive rumination: Nature, theory, and
treatment (pp. 21–41). West Sussex, England: Wiley.
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and
determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological
Methods, 1, 130–149.
Mor, N., & Winquist, J. (2002). Self-focused attention and negative affect: A meta-
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 638–662.
Muraven, M. (2005). Self-focused attention and the self-regulation of attention:
Implications for personality and pathology. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 24, 382–400.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Morrow, J. (1991). A prospective study of depression and
posttraumatic stress symptoms after a natural disaster: The 1989 Loma Prieta
earthquake. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 115–121.
Papageorgiou, C., & Wells, A. (2004). Nature, functions, and beliefs about depressive
rumination. In C. Papageorgiou & A. Wells (Eds.), Depressive rumination: Nature,
theory, and treatment (pp. 3–20). West Sussex, England: Wiley.
Pontari, B. A., & Schlenker, B. R. (2000). The influence of cognitive load on self-
presentation: Can cognitive busyness help as well as harm social performance?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1092–1108.
Pyszczynski, T., & Greenberg, J. (1987). Self-regulatory perseveration and the
depressive self-focusing style: A self-awareness theory of reactive depression.
Psychological Bulletin, 102, 122–138.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University.
Sedikides, C., & Skowronski, J. J. (1997). The symbolic self in evolutionary context.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 80–102.
 Author's personal copy
K.S. McKenzie, R.H. Hoyle / Personality and Individual Differences 45 (2008) 726–731
Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R.
W. (1982). The Self-Efficacy Scale: Construction and validation. Psychological
Reports, 51, 663–671.
Smith, T. W., & Greenberg, J. (1981). Depression and self-focused attention.
Motivation and Emotion, 5, 323–331.
Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 30, 526–537.
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval
estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173–180.
View publication stats
731
Teasdale, J. D., & Green, H. A. C. (2004). Ruminative self-focus and
autobiographical memory. Personality and Individual Differences, 36,
1933–1943.
Trapnell, P. D., & Campbell, J. D. (1999). Private self-consciousness and the five-
factor model of personality: Distinguishing rumination from reflection. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 284–304.
Watkins, E., & Teasdale, J. D. (2004). Adaptive and maladaptive self-focus in
depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 82, 1–8.