The SELF-DISS: A comprehensive measure of self-defeating interpersonal style

Volume 11, Issue 3, October 2018

Introduction

Prevailing views of human motivation propose an inherent desire to view oneself in as much a positive a light as possible (Leary, 2007; Sedikides & Gregg, 2008), as well as to minimize pain and maximize pleasure (e.g., Schwartz, 1986; Wilson, 1978). It has also been shown that certain individuals express many maladaptive behaviors which are inconsistent with their own best interests or long-term goals (e.g., abusing drugs or alcohol, putting themselves at risk of sexually transmitted infections, overeating, etc.; see Kopetz & Orehek, 2015). In the current research, a measure was developed to assess and reflect the motivating factors that underlie the expression of self-defeating patterns as they exist interpersonally. The self-defeating interpersonal style is held to represent a persistent manner of relating to others, typically motivated by disordered attachment styles, a negative working model of the self, and a tendency toward accepting and/or rationalizing various forms of mistreatment. The construct is proposed to be multidimensional, and motivated by these related underlying factors, whereby negative consequences in relationships (i.e., recurrent mistreatment) are ignored in place of more immediate, or perceivably more important, goal activation (i.e., perceived fulfilment of psychological needs).

The goal of the present research was to construct and validate a scale which assesses the self-defeating interpersonal style and which can be employed in future research in order to further elucidate the motivating factors underlying these behaviors. Study 1 describes the development of the Self-Defeating Interpersonal Style Scale (SELF-DISS) from a review of the relevant literature, the writing of items, the collection of data, and factor analyses and other item analyses, to item refinement. Study 2 used a second data set to replicate the findings in Study 1, as well as to finalize the item set. Study 2 also sought to validate the SELF-DISS scale by assessing relationships between it and 28 personality variables assessed with three measures created by Hogan Assessments that evaluate “Bright” side traits, “Dark” side traits, and motivators of human behavior.

Self-defeating Patterns and Attachment

Self-defeating patterns were recently described as an enduring set of behaviors reflecting pervasive and inflexible traits, primarily characterized by paying long-term psychological consequences for perceived immediate short-term benefits (Wei & Ku, 2007). It has been argued that those who engage in self-defeating patterns in general may be at risk of psychological difficulties (Hartzler & Brownson, 2001), and self-defeating patterns have been associated with emotional distress and depression (Baumeister & Scher, 1988). Development of these chronic and maladaptive patterns is commonly viewed to be related to early childhood experiences, where patterns of interactions with caregivers and significant others facilitate in creating “survival strategies” which then continue into adulthood (e.g., Teyber, 2005; Wei & Ku, 2007). Previous research has shown that adults who present with various self-defeating patterns often report inconsistent or rejecting caregivers (Zampelli, 2000), and a failure of caregivers to meet individual needs for acceptance, love and attention (Glickhauf-Hughes & Wells, 1991). Such self-preservation strategies are argued to become deleterious to well-being when they are applied, especially rigidly, in interpersonal relationships in adulthood (e.g., Wei & Ku, 2007; Wei, Mallinckrodt, Larson, & Zakalik, 2005).

Self-defeating Patterns and Goal Attainment

Research that has examined the psychology of goal pursuit may lend insight into self-defeating behavior. Goal pursuit can originate from various conscious and nonconscious sources, such as transfer of affect or experience with success or failure (e.g., Kopetz & Orehek, 2015; Aarts, Dijksterhuis, & De Vries, 2001; Fishbach, Shah, & Kruglanski, 2004). The process by which individuals set these goals and attempt to attain them is referred to as self-regulation. Interestingly, self-defeating behaviors have been discussed as representing both self-regulatory failures (e.g., Wagner & Heatherton, 2015) as well as self-regulatory successes (e.g., Kopetz & Orehek, 2015). For example, behaviors which are perceived as maladaptive today have been suggested to perhaps reflect evolutionary mechanisms that were developed to promote reproductive fitness (Steinberg & Belsky, 1996). Recent research suggests that these behaviors may not represent self-regulatory failures, but rather may serve to attain alternative goals which are prioritized by individuals as perceivably more important, relative to goals that are often more sensible.

The recent review by Kopetz and Orehek (2015), for instance, discussed self-defeating behavior as representing a type of self-regulatory success by examining drug use, risky sexual behavior, overeating, martyrdom, and self-harm. It was argued that self-defeating behaviors often tend to follow the general principles of goal pursuit: (1) behaviors are employed when perceived as instrumental to goal attainment; (2) behaviors acquire value as a function of their utility in the service of goal attainment; and (3) pursuit requires goal-conflict resolution and may result in inhibition of alternative considerations. Furthermore, self-defeating behavioral patterns were argued to be interpretable as success or failure of goal activation depending on how the term “success” is interpreted. For example, if regulatory success is based on an individual’s perceptions of their own goals and goal attainment, then suppressing health and safety objectives via employment of self-defeating behaviors (e.g., ignoring the consequences of hard drug use) to obtain an outcome that is prioritized as important may conceivably be understood to constitute a type of self-regulatory success in the short-term, even though other psychological and physical costs are likely present in the long-term. Similar perceptions of “successful” goal attainment could be proposed in this case to influence individuals who are predisposed toward tolerating mistreatment to prioritize acceptance, mate retention, and affection, above other important goals such as fair treatment in relationships, and physical and psychological safety. This process may further explicate how such maladaptive strategies are psychologically rewarded, rationalized, and preserved throughout adulthood when not intervened upon.

Self-esteem, Self-worth, and Deservingness

Certain individuals often prioritize the maintenance of harmful relationships over and above their own psychological or physical safety; therefore, research examining the theoretical underpinnings that motivate the preservation of these behavioral patterns is intrinsic to treatment and intervention efforts. Previous research has begun to empirically examine the principles governing how these maladaptive patterns are maintained into and throughout adulthood, as well as what individual difference variables may be contributing to their maintenance. Experimental evidence has shown that unintended negative experiences often elicit feelings of guilt in individuals (e.g., McGraw, 1987; Meindl & Lerner, 1984; Miller & Gunasegaram, 1990). Interestingly, such negative events — even when uncontrollable — have been shown to relate to devaluing or blaming oneself (e.g., Apsler & Friedman, 1975; Hall, French, & Marteau, 2003; Littleton, Magee, & Axsom, 2007), to selective recall of personal shortcomings (Callan, Kay, Davidenko, & Ellard, 2009), and to self-harm (e.g., Comer & Laird, 1975; Ferrari, 1990). Recent evidence has also suggested that uncontrollable or unforeseen misfortunes lower individual self-esteem, which can then lead to the adoption of self-defeating patterns (Callan, Kay, & Dawtry, 2014).

Research by Callan and colleagues (2014) that investigated self-esteem, deservingness, and self-defeating behavior yielded significant relationships between these variables. Specifically, bad (vs. good) “breaks” reportedly devalued individual self-esteem, and decrements to self-esteem were found to increase beliefs about deservingness of bad outcomes — regardless of whether the decrement to self-esteem was arrived at through failure or misfortune. This research drew on theory and empirical evidence which suggests that individuals are highly motivated to perceive the world as an orderly and just place, where people “get what they deserve” and “deserve what they get” (e.g., Hafer & Bègue, 2005; Kay, Gaucher, Napier, Callan, & Laurin, 2008). It was argued that because maintaining deservingness beliefs serves an adaptive function, many individuals may be highly motivated toward the rationalization of bad outcomes, which can then devalue individual perceptions of their own deservingness of negative consequences (Callan & Ellard, 2010; Hafer & Bègue, 2005; Jost & Kay, 2010; Callan et al., 2014). These findings were used to suggest that individuals can over-apply adaptive models of deservingness and thereby impact their own perceptions of self-worth when positive or negative outcomes occur (Callan et al., 2014); such a model may be able to explicate much of the development and maintenance of self-defeating behaviors in interpersonal relationships.

Research Predictions for Study 1

It was hypothesized in the present research that when adult persons display this recurrent self-defeating interpersonal pattern that individual perceptions of self-worth are likely to be chronically low and feelings of deservingness of negative outcomes are likely to be chronically high, resulting in a cyclical self-defeating interpersonal style which promotes the tolerance of mistreatment, especially in romantic relationships. It is also suggested that the self-defeating interpersonal style is necessarily maintained through an insecure attachment style—particularly through attachment anxiety.

Research examining how individuals work through self-defeating patterns may lend insight into the mechanisms underlying self-defeating behaviors as they relate intra- and interpersonally. As patterns solidify in an individual’s behavior, resources from the self (e.g., self-esteem) are used to evolve alternative strategies in order to decrease interpersonal or psychological distress.

A conceptual model of working through self-defeating patterns was developed and tested by Wei and Ku (2007) based on a review of the theoretical conceptualization and empirical and clinical evidence available in attachment literature, self-defeating patterns, distress, as well as potential mediators of the relationships between self-defeating patterns and psychological or interpersonal distress. The model draws on attachment theory, which operationalizes adult attachment as consisting of two relatively orthogonal dimensions: attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance (e.g., Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998; Wei & Ku, 2007; Mikulincer, Shaver, & Pereg, 2003). A higher level of attachment anxiety indicates a vulnerability to fear of abandonment, a negative working model of the self, and a tendency to use a hyperactivation strategy (i.e., a method of eliciting support and ensuring the availability of others; e.g., Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Cassidy, 1994; 2000; Cassidy & Kobak, 1988; Kobak & Sceery, 1988; Lopez & Brennan, 2000; Mikulincer et al., 2003; Pietromonaco & Feldman Barrett, 2000). The use of a hyperactivation strategy has been found to be associated with both depression and interpersonal distress (e.g., Fuendeling, 1998; Lopez, Mitchell, & Gormley, 2002; Wei, Vogel, Ku, & Zakalik, 2005), and has been noted as one form of self-defeating behavior in adult relationships where consequences are endured for the tradeoffs of support and caregiver availability (e.g., Wei & Ku, 2007).

It is proposed that the presentation of the self-defeating pattern described in the current research is a style of relating to others that results from at least three factors: i. insecure attachment, primarily attachment anxiety; ii. low self-worth that contributes to the rationalization of mistreatment; iii. sacrificing one’s own needs, such as equality or safety, in order to fulfill perceivably more important needs, such as belonging, affection, or mate retention. This research may provide valuable insight into the underlying influences that maintain these behavioral patterns in adulthood, despite potential or, at times, certain negative consequences. The development and subsequent refinement of a scale which assesses the self-defeating interpersonal style will allow further explication of these concepts.

Self-Defeating Personality Disorder

Based on a review of existing Self-Defeating Personality Disorder (SDPD; i.e., “masochistic” personality disorder) measures and their criteria, as well as comparison of the relevance of each criterion to the intended construct, preliminary items were created to form a collection of items designed to measure the multidimensional aspects of this particular self-defeating construct. Two “gold-standards” of these measures are the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual — Third Edition (DSM-III) criteria checklist for SDPD, and the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI-IV) which contains a scale that purports to measure SDPD.

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-III

Previous research that has investigated self-defeating behavior has derived definitional formulae for which their methodology employs in large part the self-defeating personality disorder content in Appendix A of the DSM-III. SDPD was included in the Appendix of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-III-R. However, SDPD was not admitted into the DSM-IV due to a lack of evidence supporting its validity as a distinct disorder rather than an influence of combined psychological difficulties (American Psychological Association, 1987). Overall, five of eight inclusion criteria were to be met for diagnosis, indicating a pervasive pattern of self-defeating behavior which causes significant distress and/or impairment and which begins in early adulthood. These behaviors were described as being present in a variety of contexts, occurring only when the individual is depressed, and they are not in anticipation of or in response to abuse. This pervasive pattern of behavior included:

choosing situations and relationships which result in failure, mistreatment, or disappointment (despite better options being available);
rejecting or rendering ineffective attempts by others to aid them;
responding with guilt, depression, or behaviors which produce pain when positive personal events are experienced;
inciting anger and rejection from others, and subsequently feeling hurt, humiliated, or defeated;
rejecting opportunities for and expression of pleasure;
failure to accomplish crucial personal goals despite showing the ability to help others achieve theirs;
disinterest or rejection of those who consistently treat them well;
engaging in excessive and unsolicited self-sacrifice.

The prevalence rates of self-defeating personality disorder as described in the DSM-III-R have been investigated; for example, an outpatient sample (N = 82) and a normal sample (N = 40) were compared on the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire (PDQ). Overall, 18.3% of outpatients and 5% of non-patients met criteria for SDPD, with a large overlap found (above 50%) with borderline, avoidant, and dependent personality disorders (Reich, 1987). However, validation as a personality disorder requires that the diagnoses contribute significantly to clinical and research interests in ways that are separate from the secondary personality disorder(s) that they are associated with. A relevant follow-up investigation evaluated the DSM criteria for SDPD in psychiatric outpatients using a standard measure.

Reich (1989) reported that the best individual diagnostic criterion was being taken advantage of by others; interestingly, sacrificing needs for others was of somewhat less predictive value, and responding to being hurt with sexual arousal was reported to be of little value. This is supportive of the notion that masochism and self-defeating behavior are at times overlapping, yet are distinct constructs. It was concluded that although histrionic, avoidant, and dependent criteria were also related to SDPD, the disorder itself did appear distinct and in some cases, could be diagnosed using only the criteria for the two factors of being taken advantage of and sacrificing needs for others. This research had implications for the construction of the current measure, specifically in separating the construct of the self-defeating interpersonal style from related constructs, such as masochism.

Overall, psychiatrists with particular interest in clinical personality disorders were inconsistent in supporting this category for inclusion as a personality disorder in the DSM-III-R. Nevertheless, the disorder’s diagnostic criteria had reportedly high sensitivity and specificity, further indicating a need for subclinical tools for deeper investigation into the facets of this construct in place of previously clinical SDPD criteria that overlap strongly with criteria of existing personality disorders. This is in reference to the clinical category’s limited descriptive validity and significant overlap with both borderline and dependent personality disorders (Spitzer, Williams, Kass, & Davies, 1989). The dissection of SDPD criteria aided in modelling a theory on which the SELF-DISS was based, serving as one platform on which comparisons to relevant empirical evidence could be made. Importantly, masochistic behaviors and self-defeating behaviors are not argued here to be synonymous or interchangeable as they have been in the past when considering self-defeating behavioral patterns. Masochism refers to the condition in which gratification, especially sexual, is derived from the individual’s physical pain, suffering, or humiliation. Thus, masochistic tendencies may be able to be defined as self-defeating patterns of self-harm, however, self-defeating patterns cannot be defined as inherently or intentionally masochistic in general; goal pursuit is often not associated with intentional self-harm in this case, but rather with some repression of consideration for longer-term consequences, often in favor of more immediate outcomes. Therefore, the toleration of maladaptive relationships with others cannot be presupposed to be driven by masochistic tendencies.

Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III

The Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI-IV; Millon, Grossman, & Millon, 2015) consists of 195 items and includes a “masochistic (self-defeating) personality” scale along with 14 other personality disorder scales, 10 clinical syndrome scales, and five validity scales. Millon’s (1996) diagnostic taxonomy attempts to employ a philosophy outside of typical psychological theories in order to comprise a comprehensive diagnostic taxonomy similar to the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). This scale is meant to be representative of a masochistic/self-defeating personality prototype; four “masochistic personality” subtypes are represented in the 15-item scale, consisting of the virtuous, possessive, self-undoing, and oppressed subtypes.

Virtuous masochists are described as being proudly unselfish and self-denying, burdens are viewed as noble and saintly; gratitude is expected for their altruism. Possessive masochists are described as “ensnaring” others by becoming jealous, indispensable, and overprotective; entrapping others through obligatory dependence and engaging in exceedingly sacrificial behaviors. Self-undoing masochists are described with the phrase, “wrecked by success” — explained as experiencing personal gratification through defeat, misfortunes or failures, specifically disregarding best interests, choosing to be “victimized, ruined, and disgraced”. Lastly, oppressed masochists are described as experiencing genuine anguish and torment, whereby such grievances are used to manifest guilt in others and resentments are exercised by placing responsibilities onto oppressors.

Virtuous, possessive, self-undoing, and oppressed masochistic personality subtypes are maintained in Millon’s taxonomy as containing histrionic, negativistic, dependent, and melancholic personality features, respectively. Examination of Millon's theory offered understanding of the structural attributes and functional processes underlying masochism and how this construct relates to self-defeating behavior. The MCMI-III also aided in conceptualizing some behavioral patterns that the self-defeating interpersonal style could present in. The ultimate goal of scrutinizing the MCMI-III was to partition the expectation of masochistic tendency away from the theoretical conceptualization of the self-defeating interpersonal style.

Method

Item generation and refinement

Over 200 preliminary items generated for inclusion in the SELF-DISS were discussed and refined in a series of work group meetings with test-construction experts. After selective refinement of the scale, items were presented to ten participants in two Q-sorts. Participants were first given descriptions of each of the factors and asked to assign the items to the scales; consisting of (A) Insecure attachment, (B) Undeserving self-image, and (C) Self-sacrificing nature. Insecure attachment was described as involving an anxious and fearful preoccupation with building and maintaining relationships; individuals experience consistent psychological and emotional distress due to fear of abandonment and rejection. Undeserving self-image was described as chronically devalued perceptions of self-worth, as well as beliefs of deservingness of bad outcomes and undeservingness of positive outcomes. Finally, self-sacrificing nature was defined as a pattern of sacrificial behaviors where individuals engage with others in an unassertive manner, tolerating mistreatment or blame from others in relationships and excessively sacrificing their own needs and wants to create feelings of acceptance or security.

Based on these and group discussions, items were further refined, deleted, and/or reworded to more accurately fit the intended construct. Misattributed items were retained, recategorized, or removed based on the theoretical necessity of the item in comparison to the reason for the misattribution.

Participants

A resulting 60-item version of the Self-Defeating Interpersonal Style Scale was given to 265 individuals. After cleansing the data (removing participants with large amounts of missing data and/or random responding), the final participant sample consisted of 256 individuals from North America, ages 18 to 74 (194 females and 62 males). Participants completed the full SELF-DISS measure as well as six items measuring the Dark Triad — two taken for each construct (Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy) based on the highest reliabilities in the Dirty Dozen — as a way to help to determine if the data were performing correctly based on expected correlations between the Dark Triad Traits.

Measures

The Self-Defeating Interpersonal Style Scale (SELF-DISS). The 60-items retained in the SELF-DISS were measured on a 10-point Likert scale from 0 (Strongly Disagree) to 10 (Strongly Agree). Initial reliability analyses before data cleansing and item refinement for the three scales reported an alpha value of .93 for scale A, .84 for scale B, and .89 for scale C.

The Dirty Dozen. The Dark Triad was measured using six of the 12 items contained in the Dirty Dozen (Jonason & Webster, 2010). This was done in order to inspect the performance of the data, and subsequently to examine the correlations between these three constructs and the SELF-DISS and its factors.

Procedure

Participants were recruited online via email using a registry of individuals who had completed past studies with us and who had consented to being contacted for future studies. Individuals received a recruitment invitation, and upon consenting to participate in the study, they were sent a link to the survey containing the SELF-DISS and Dirty Dozen items. Participants were entered into a draw to win one of ten $100 prizes as compensation for their time. The survey took approximately 30 minutes to complete. This study had received ethics approval from the University of Western Ontario’s ethics board.

Analyses, Results, and Discussion

Analyses and Results

The method followed in Study 1 was first to verify that the data were performing as expected, and subsequently to explore the underlying factors proposed in the SELF-DISS and to further refine each scale in order to improve the reliability of the measure. The data from Qualtrics were examined using SPSS 24 and Mplus 7. The Dirty Dozen items were combined into psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism variables, which correlated as expected (see Table 1). Item-level and scale-level analyses were then carried out to refine the SELF-DISS.

Table 1 - Bivariate Correlations among the Dark Traid traits

An Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was first performed on the data. Cases were excluded pairwise and the Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) method was used with Direct Oblimin rotation. This analysis yielded 10 factors with Eigenvalues greater than 1 that explained 69.5% of the cumulative variance; a large first factor was found and a scree-plot indicated three meaningful factors. Cronbach’s alpha for the total 60-item scale was initially .98. Based on successive item-level analyses in SPSS 24, eight items were removed from the item set to improve the reliability of the three scales and overall measure. These decisions were based on changes in Cronbach’s alpha for the scales and overall measure — with greater importance placed on the alpha differences within scales when each item was deleted — as well as low item-total correlations.

Following these changes, an EFA was conducted on the remaining 52 items. This yielded eight factors with Eigenvalues greater than 1 which accounted for 69.5% percent of the variance. Many of these factors accounted for small amounts of the variance, however, and another scree plot indicated that 3 factors should be retained. This three-factor solution accounted for 55% percent of the variance and items loaded for the most part onto the scales they were designed for. Reliability analyses of these 52 items yielded an alpha of .98 for the total SELF-DISS scale, .97 for the Insecure Attachment scale, .94 for the Undeserving Self-Image scale, and .92 for the Self-Sacrificing Nature scale. As expected, the latent factors were quite highly correlated; Insecure Attachment was most highly correlated with Self-Sacrificing Nature (r = .63), and similarly correlated with Undeserving Self-Image (r = .58). Undeserving Self-Image and Self-Sacrificing Nature were somewhat more modestly correlated (r = .47).

Based on an extensive review of relevant literature a model of self-defeating interpersonal style was developed which proposed 3 underlying correlated factors: Insecure Attachment, Undeserving Self-Image, and Self-Sacrificing Nature. In consultation with experts in test development an initial pool of over 200 items was generated and these were subsequently reduced to 60 items based on Q-Sorts and additional consultation. The 60-item version of the SELF-DISS was completed by 256 adults and, based on reliability checks, item analyses, and factor analyses 8 items were removed. The resulting 52-item scale and its factors showed excellent (> .90) reliabilities.

Study 2

Introduction

Study 2 aimed to further examine and refine the SELF-DISS measure to assess the extent to which the model showed a good fit on all fit indices. The second aim of study 2 was to examine relationships between the SELF-DISS and 28 individual difference variables, contained in three well-validated measures of personality, created and published by Hogan Assessments, in order to test the construct validity of the finalized SELF-DISS measure.

The Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI) was designed to measure seven normal, or bright-side personality traits, including Adjustment (confidence, self-esteem, and composure under pressure), Ambition (initiative, desire for leadership goals, and competitiveness), Sociability (extraversion, gregariousness, and need for social interaction), Interpersonal Sensitivity (ability to maintain relationships, perceptiveness, and tact), Prudence (self-discipline, responsibility, and thoroughness), Inquisitiveness (imagination, curiosity, and creative potential), and Learning Approach (achievement orientation, valuing education).

The Hogan Development Survey (HDS) assesses 11 dark-side personality traits that tend to emerge during stressful periods of time, and that may disrupt relationships, derail success, and damage reputations. These traits include Excitability (emotional volatility, moodiness, difficult to please), Skepticism (expecting betrayal, suspicious, sensitive to criticism), Cautiousness (risk aversion, resistance to change, and slow to make decisions), Reservation (aloofness, uncommunicative, and indifference to the feelings of others), Leisureliness (overtly cooperative, but privately irritable, stubborn, and uncooperative), Boldness (overly self-confident, arrogant, and entitled), Mischievousness (charming, risk-taking, and seeking excitement), Colorful (dramatic, interruptive, and attention-seeking), Imaginative (creative, but thinking and acting in an unusual or eccentric manner), Diligence (meticulous, micromanaging, precise, and hard to please), and Dutifulness (eager to please, reluctant to act independently or against popular opinion).

Lastly, the Motives, Values, and Preferences Inventory (MVPI) was designed to measure the core goals, values, motivators, and interests which determine what individuals strive to obtain. The MVPI assesses 10 personality traits including Recognition (responsive to attention, approval, and praise), Power (desiring success, accomplishment, status, and control), Hedonism (oriented toward fun, pleasure, and enjoyment), Altruism (wanting to help others and contribute to society), Affiliation (enjoying/seeking out social interaction), Tradition (dedicated to strong personal beliefs), Security (needing predictability, structure, and order), Commerce (interested in money, profit and investment, and business opportunity), Aesthetics (requiring self-expression, and concerned over look, feel, and design of work products), and Science (wanting knowledge, research, technology, and data).

Hypotheses

The bright-side traits assessed by the HPI were, in general, expected to be negatively related to the SELF-DISS and all of its scales. The nature of self-defeating behavior is, by definition, maladjusted and unambitious in at least one facet of an individual’s life. Therefore, Adjustment was predicted to be most strongly negatively related to the SELF-DISS, followed by Ambition due to a lack of desire for leadership roles, and subsequently by Interpersonal Sensitivity due to this variable’s assessment of the ability to maintain relationships. Negative relationships were also predicted between the SELF-DISS and Prudence, Learning Approach, Inquisitiveness, and Sociability, respectively, because individuals who score highly on the SELF-DISS were expected to lack self-discipline, positive achievement orientation, and need for social interaction on a broad scale.

The HDS variables were expected to correlate positively with the SELF-DISS in general, excluding Mischievousness, Colorfulness, Imagination, and Diligence, which were not expected to be significantly correlated with the SELF-DISS scales. Cautiousness (specifically due to risk aversion) was predicted to be most strongly related to the SELF-DISS, followed by Excitability (due to emotional volatility), Leisureliness (overtly cooperative, privately uncooperative), Skepticism (sensitive to criticism, expecting betrayal), Reservation (uncommunicative), and Dutifulness (eagerness to please). Boldness was the only variable on the HDS which was expected to correlate negatively with the SELF-DISS. Undeserving Self-Image was predicted to relate negatively to Boldness because of feelings of deservingness surrounding negative outcomes.

Finally, most of the MVPI scales were not predicted to yield significant relationships with the SELF-DISS, in part because the MVPI measures several variables related to business personnel selection (see above); however, Affiliation and Power were predicted to produce significant negative relationships with all SELF-DISS scales, and therefore the MVPI was included in Study 2. Recognition was predicted to relate positively to Insecure Attachment, while the other scales were not predicted to tap this construct. A negative relationship between Hedonism and Undeserving Self-Image was also expected, given the negative orientation of this factor with being oriented for pleasure. Finally, Security measured the need for predictability, structure, and order, and was predicted to be positively related to Insecure Attachment. However, the pattern displayed in this interpersonal style often leads afflicted individuals into situations which are anything but predictable, structured, or ordered. Nevertheless, the content of the Insecure Attachment items was expected to show a modest positive correlation with Security.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Participants were recruited by Hogan Assessments online via MTurk. Initially, 1000 individuals received a recruitment invitation for the first phase of data collection, and upon consenting to participate in the study, they were sent the link to the survey. Of these, 450 participants whose data suggested that they were responding truthfully and who had indicated an interest in being contacted in the future were sent follow-up questionnaires, which included the SELF-DISS, the HPI, the HDS, and the MVPI. After analyzing the data for random or missing responding, participants included in data analyses consisted of 323 individuals (148 males, 175 females) ranging in age from 18 to 64 (M = 33.9, s = 10.29). Participants were compensated $7.50 for their time by Hogan Assessments. The SELF-DISS survey and the Hogan Assessments questionnaires took approximately 60 to 75 minutes complete.

Measures

The Self-Defeating Interpersonal Style Scale (SELF-DISS). The revised SELF-DISS was employed in this study to assess the self-defeating interpersonal patterns which adults exhibit in relationships with others. The scale used in Study 2 consisted of 52 items, measured on a 10-point Likert scale from 0 (Strongly Disagree) to 10 (Strongly Agree). As reported, the scales and total scores of the SELF-DISS all have excellent reliabilities.

Hogan Assessments Measures. The Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI; Hogan, 1995) is a well validated measure that contains 206 True/False items which measure variables such as adjustment, sociability, and interpersonal sensitivity. The measure contains seven personality scales and one validity scale, with no item overlap. HPI scores have proven stable over time with test-retest reliabilities from .69 to .87 and the measure demonstrates adequate psychometric properties. The Hogan Development Survey (HDS; Hogan, 1997) contains 168 True/False items which measure variables such as skepticism, mischievousness, and cautiousness. The HDS contains a total of 11 scales, and scores obtained on these scales have proven stable over time; test-retest reliabilities range from .64 to .75 (M = .70). Finally, the Motives, Values, and Preferences Inventory (MVPI; Hogan & Hogan, 1996) consists of 200 items and is coded on a 3-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Disagree) to 3 (Agree). The measure contains 10 scales which measure variables such as recognition, altruism, and security, and demonstrates good psychometric properties with an average internal consistency of .77 (Feltham & Loan-Clarke, 2007; Roberts, 2001).

Analyses and Results

Analyses and Results

The method followed in Study 2 was first to examine the underlying structure of the 52-item SELF-DISS more stringently in order to refine and finalize the measure, and to subsequently validate the SELF-DISS via correlational analyses with the HPI, HDS, and MVPI. The data were exported into Mplus 7 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2012) where Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) were performed on the SELF-DISS and its scales. Multiple CFA’s — all reported in Table 2 — were performed on the items with a weighted least squares estimator with mean and variance adjusted chi-square test statistics (WLSMV). The categorical outcome variable option was specified to indicate that the indicator variables were measured on an ordered discrete category scale. A higher-order CFA Model was assessed with the 52 items where the items were specified as belonging to one of the three factors; these factors each contributed to the higher order SELF-DISS factor.

Table 2 - Fit indices of all tested measurement models

All indicator variables loaded significantly onto their respective factors, although two items loaded below .4 on Self-Sacrificing Nature. Upon examination of the item content, it made theoretical sense that to remove these two items would increase the scale’s reliability, without compromising the measurement of the intended construct. The model was run again without these two items, and this significantly improved the fit. Loadings on this revised model ranged from approximately .6 to .95, however, the residuals were still high and therefore a bi-factor CFA was conducted. The bi-factor model of the SELF-DISS greatly improved all fit indices indicating, as expected, that a large general factor underlies the SELF-DISS. This was further confirmed by large factor loadings on the general SELF-DISS factor (~.6 - .9), replicating Study 1. However, once this variance was accounted for, many of the loadings on the three SELF-DISS scales were attenuated to near zero or negative values, while many other loadings were significant and positive (~.4 - .6). Therefore, after multiple attempts at creating a parsimonious CFA model with a moderate-to-acceptable fit, Exploratory Structural Equation Model (ESEM) analyses were conducted to examine the issues still influencing the model.

Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling

ESEM analyses with a Target rotation were conducted in Mplus 7 in order to examine the loadings and cross-loadings of the indicator variables. ESEM combines Exploratory Factor Analysis and Confirmatory Factor Analysis such that, instead of simply employing a CFA measurement model, an EFA measurement model with rotations may be implemented in a structural equation model; the target rotation allows the transformation of structural coefficients, while still allowing access to the customary SEM parameters. Although the scale was designed in a manner that creates the expectation of cross-loadings, the investigation into which items were loading more highly on alternate factors than on their intended factors was important for allowing further revisions to the measure, and therefore significant improvement to the model fit. Multiple iterations of the ESEM model were run and examined to increase model fit step-by-step (see Table 2).

The first ESEM that was conducted after the bi-factor CFA resulted in a slightly larger Chi-square but a significantly lowered SRMR. Upon examination of the cross-loadings in ESEM#1, item IA15 was removed due to the very low loading on its intended factor (IA = .09) and a large loading on an unintended factor (SSN = .66). The second ESEM model resulted in an improved Chi-square, and the same method of examining the loadings and cross-loadings resulted in the decision to remove USI13; this again improved the Chi-square. This process of evaluating factor loadings and cross-loadings was repeated 18 times in total, with only one item removed during each procedure, which culminated in an excellent model fit as well as the removal of unintended cross-loadings. The fit indices are reported for each model in Table 2.

The final measure was refined to 35 items, which is expected to significantly increase the utility of the measure. The final scales yielded good reliabilities with an alpha of .97 for the total SELF-DISS scale, .97 for the Insecure Attachment subscale, .94 for the Undeserving Self-Image subscale, and .87 for the Self-Sacrificing Nature subscale. Insecure Attachment was most highly correlated with Self-Sacrificing Nature (r = .86, p < .001), and slightly less correlated with Undeserving Self-Image (r = .82, p < .001). Undeserving Self-Image and Self-Sacrificing Nature were similarly correlated (r = .81, p < .001). The 35 items also loaded highly on their intended factors without cross-loadings that were higher than the intended loadings. The 35 items of the SELF-DISS are reported in Appendix A.

Correlations with the HPI, HDS, and MVPI

The 35-item SELF-DISS and its three scales were then correlated with each of the 28 variables assessed by the HPI, the HDS, and the MVPI. Of the 112 correlations between these measures, 57 were statistically significant, with 43 correlations yielding p-values < .001. All correlations between the 28 variables and the total SELF-DISS measure, including its factors of Insecure Attachment, Undeserving Self-Image, and Self-Sacrificing Nature, are reported in Table 3. When correlations between all SELF-DISS scales and a variable yield the same significance value (e.g., p < .001), only the correlation between the total SELF-DISS and the given variable are presented in the text.

Table 3 - Bivariate Correlations among the SELF-DISS, the HPI, the HDS, and the MVPI

Correlations with the HPI

As expected, the seven HPI scales correlated negatively with the SELF-DISS and its three scales. Predictions were supported in that Adjustment was the most highly negatively correlated with the total SELF-DISS, r(261) = -.58, p < .001, and its scales, with Insecure Attachment yielding the strongest relationship, r(261) = -.59, p < .001. As predicted, the second strongest negative relationship with the SELF-DISS was with Ambition, r(261) = -.50, p < .001, followed by Interpersonal Sensitivity, r(261) = -.30, p < .001, Learning Approach, r(261) = -.21, p < .001, and Prudence, r(261) = -.19, p < .01, respectively. In each case, Insecure Attachment correlated most strongly with these variables in comparison to Undeserving Self-Image and Self-Sacrificing Nature, which were comparable in strength (see Table 4). Only Undeserving Self-Image yielded a significant negative correlation with Sociability, r(261) = -.14, p < .05, and Insecure Attachment, r(261) = -.14, p < .05, and the total SELF-DISS, r(261) = -.14, p < .05, produced significant negative relationships with Inquisitiveness. Notably, the non-significant relationships between the SELF-DISS and Sociability and Inquisitiveness were near significant (see Table 3). Therefore, overall predictions for significant negative relationships with the HPI were supported.

Correlations with the HDS

Overall predictions regarding relationships between the SELF-DISS and the HDS were supported. Significant positive correlations were obtained between the total SELF-DISS and its scales and Excitability, r(261) = .48, p < .001, Skepticism, r(261) = .37, p < .001, Cautiousness, r(261) = .58, p < .001, Reserved, r(261) = .26, p < .001, Leisureliness, r(261) = .40, p < .001, and Dutifulness, r(261) = .29, p < .001. With the exception of Dutifulness, each of the above variables displayed a similar pattern where Insecure Attachment yielded the strongest relationship with each variable, closely followed by both Undeserving Self-Image and Self-Sacrificing Nature. As expected, Undeserving Self-Image was most negatively correlated with Boldness, r(261) = -.17, p < .01; although correlations were negative, no other relationship between SELF-DISS variables and Boldness reached statistical significance. Finally, predictions for non-significant relationships were supported; Mischievousness, Colorfulness, Imagination, and Diligence yielded correlations with the SELF-DISS and its scales that were non-significant (see Table 3).

Correlations with the MVPI

As predicted, Affiliation was significantly negatively related to the SELF-DISS and its scales, r(261) = -.31, p < .001. As with the HPI and HDS, Affiliation correlated most strongly with Insecure Attachment, closely followed by the total scale, Undeserving Self-Image, and Self-Sacrificing Nature. Power was also negatively related with the total SELF-DISS, r(261) = -.14, p < .05, Insecure Attachment, r(261) = -.14, p < .05, and Undeserving Self-Image, r(261) = -.13, p < .05, however, the relationship between Power and Self-Sacrificing Nature did not reach significance, r(261) = -.12, p = .063. Although negative correlations were expected between Altruism and the SELF-DISS, significant relationships were not, yet Undeserving Self-Image was found to be significantly negatively related to Altruism, r(261) = -.13, p < .05. Consistent with predictions, Recognition was significantly related to Insecure Attachment, r(261) = .13, p < .05, but not to Undeserving Self-Image, r(261) = .05, p = .404, Self-Sacrificing Nature, r(261) = .06, p = .350, or to the total SELF-DISS measure, r(261) = .08, p = .240. Lastly, predictions for non-significant relationships were supported; Hedonism, Tradition, Commerce, Aesthetics, and Science were not significantly related to the SELF-DISS or its scales. Inconsistent with predictions, the correlations between the SELF-DISS and Security were not significant, although Insecure Attachment showed the strongest non-significant correlation with Security, r(261) = .10, p = .129.

General Discussion

The purpose of the present research was to develop and test the psychometric properties of a measure of self-defeating interpersonal style; with few exceptions, predictions were supported. A large general factor was replicated from Study 1 to Study 2, along with the three related underlying factors reflecting the intended factors: Insecure Attachment, Undeserving Self-Image, and Self-Sacrificing Nature. Insecure Attachment was described as pervasive attachment anxiety, consisting of preoccupation with abandonment and rejection, as well as a need for excessive reassurance. Undeserving Self-Image was defined as beliefs of deservingness of negative outcomes and feelings of unworthiness of positive outcomes, such as praise or pleasure. Self-Sacrificing Nature consisted of actions or inactions which forfeit an individual’s wants or needs for another individual, especially forfeiting available alternatives to enduring mistreatment. Following scale adjustments in Study 2, the SELF-DISS demonstrated high reliability as a distinct construct comprising three related yet distinct factors. Consistent with predictions, the SELF-DISS showed negative relationships with several bright-side, or normal, personality variables and positive relationships with several so-called dark-side, or maladaptive, personality variables. Future studies will seek to more thoroughly examine several of these relationships in order to assess relevant lower-order traits and how they relate to the SELF-DISS and its facets.

Several projects are also currently being undertaken to further elucidate the SELF-DISS factors. Among the variables we are currently investigating or are planning to investigate are social desirability, depression, the Big Five, the Dark Tetrad of personality, trait emotional intelligence, mental toughness and resiliency, humor styles, as well as substance abuse and other potentially related self-defeating behaviors. Once the SELF-DISS factors are further elucidated using the findings from these studies, populations will be procured that will allow us to investigate the manifestation of these cognitive and behavioral patterns as they exist in varying types of clinical samples.

Conclusion

The current research is overall supportive of the SELF-DISS factors as distinct, though largely overlapping, dimensions of a larger construct that represents a recurrent pattern of rationalizing and accepting varying degrees of mistreatment across several adult relationships due, in large part, to these underlying factors. The significance of the ability to measure this propensity is twofold; first, victims of mistreatment and abuse are able to be aided when the scientific and lay community can communicate insightfully regarding victimization and mistreatment without the perception or action of victim-blaming. The Self-Defeating Interpersonal Style Scale was constructed as a first-step toward identifying internal representations of the self and others as well as beliefs about oneself that may contribute to the development and maintenance of this specific interpersonal style. By asking questions about why some individuals do not believe that they deserve fair treatment, we open potential new avenues of research and therapy efforts that may aid efforts to break cycles of abuse.

Acknowledgments

Thanks are due to Robert Hogan and to Hogan Assessments both for supporting this research and for assisting with the data collection in Study 2. Thanks also to Brandon Ferrell at Hogan Assessments for his role in the data collection. Finally, thanks to Don Saklofske and Todd Shackelford for their invaluable advice and encouragement during the development of the SELF-DISS.

References

Aarts, H., Dijksterhuis, A., & De Vries, P. (2001). On the psychology of drinking: Being thirsty and perceptually ready. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 631-642.

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the Strange Situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

American Psychological Association. (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed., rev.) (DSM-III-R). Washington, DC: Author.

Apsler, R., & Friedman, H. (1975). Chance outcomes and the just world: A comparison of observers and recipients. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 887-894. doi:10.1037/h0076845

Baumeister, R. F., & Scher, S. J. (1988). Self-defeating behavior patterns among normal individuals: Review and analysis of common self-destructive tendencies. Psychological Bulletin, 104(1), 3-26.

Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46-76). New York: Guilford Press.

Callan, M. J., & Ellard, J. H. (2010). Beyond blame and derogation of victims: Just world dynamics in everyday life. In D. R. Bobocel, A. C. Kay, M. P. Zanna, & J. M. Olson (Eds.), The psychology of justice and legitimacy: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 11, pp. 53-77). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Callan, M. J., Kay, A. C., & Dawtry, R. J. (2014). Making sense of misfortune: Deservingness, self-esteem, and patterns of self-defeat. Journal of personality and social psychology,

107(1), 142-162.

Callan, M. J., Kay, A. C., Davidenko, N., & Ellard, J. H. (2009). The effects of justice motivation on memory for self- and other-relevant events. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 614-623.

Cassidy, J. (1994). Emotion regulation: Influences of attachment relationships. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59, 228-249.

Cassidy, J. (2000). Adult romantic attachments: A development perspective on individual differences. Review of General Psychology, 4, 111-131.

Cassidy, J., & Kobak, R. R. (1988). Avoidance and its relation to other defensive processes. In J. Belsky & T. Nezworski (Eds.), Clinical implications of attachment (pp. 300-323). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Comer, R., & Laird, J. D. (1975). Choosing to suffer as a consequence of expecting to suffer: Why do people do it? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 92-101.

Feltham & Loan-Clarke, (2007). Hogan’s Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI). In P. A. Lindley (Ed.), British Psychological Society Psychological Testing Center test reviews. London: British Psychological Society.

Ferrari, J. R. (1990). Choosing to suffer after failure: Effects of frequent failure on self- administered shock. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 5, 163-174.

Fishbach, A., Shah, J. Y., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2004). Emotional transfer in goal systems. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 723-738.

Fuendeling, J. M. (1998). Affect regulation as a stylistic process within adult attachment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 291-322.

Glickhauf-Hughes, C., & Wells, M. (1991). Current conceptualizations on masochism: Genesis and object relations. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 45, 53-68.

Hafer, C. L., & Bègue, L. (2005). Experimental research on just-world theory: Problems, developments, and future challenges. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 128-167. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.128

Hall, S., French, D. P., & Marteau, T. M. (2003). Causal attributions following serious unexpected negative events: A systematic review. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 22, 515-536.

Hartzler, B., & Brownson, C. (2001). The utility of change models in the design and delivery of thematic group interventions: Applications to a self-defeating behaviors group. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 5(3), 191-199.

Hogan, R. (1995). Hogan personality inventory. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.

Hogan, R. (1997). Hogan development survey manual. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems. Hogan, J., & Hogan, R. (1996). Motives, values, preferences inventory manual. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.

Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The dirty dozen: a concise measure of the dark triad. Psychological assessment, 22(2), 420-432.

Jost, J. T., & Kay, A. C. (2010). Social justice: History, theory, and research. In S. Fiske, D. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1122-1165). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Kay, A. C., Gaucher, D., Napier, J., Callan, M. J., & Laurin, K. (2008). God and the government: Testing a compensatory control mechanism for the support of external systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 18–35.

Kobak, R. R., & Sceery, A. (1988). Attachment in late adolescence: Working models, affect regulation, and representations of self and others. Child Development, 59, 135-146.

Kopetz, C., & Orehek, E. (2015). When the end justifies the means: Self-defeating behaviors as “rational” and “successful” self-regulation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(5), 386-391.

Leary, M. R. (2007). Motivational and emotional aspects of the self. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 317-344.

Littleton, H. L., Magee, K. T., & Axsom, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of self-attributions following three types of trauma: Sexual victimization, illness, and injury. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 515-538.

Lopez, F. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). Dynamic processes underlying adult attachment organization: Toward an attachment theoretical perspective on the healthy and effective self. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 283-301.

Lopez, F. G., Mitchell, P., & Gormley, B. (2002). Adult attachment and college student distress: Test of a mediational model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 460-467.

McGraw, K. M. (1987). Guilt following transgression: An attribution of responsibility approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 247-256.

Meindl, J. R., & Lerner, M. J. (1984). Exacerbation of extreme responses to an out-group. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 71-84.

Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., & Pereg, D. (2003). Attachment theory and affect regulation: The dynamics, development, and cognitive consequences of attachment-related strategies. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 77-102.

Miller, D. T., & Gunasegaram, S. (1990). Temporal order and the perceived mutability of events: Implications for blame assignment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59,1111-1118.

Millon, T. (Ed). (1996). The Millon Inventories. New York: Guilford.

Millon, T., Grossman, S., & Millon, C. (2015). MCMI-IV: Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory Manual (1st ed.). Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson, Inc.

Muthén, L.K.; & Muthén, B.O. (1998-2017). Mplus User’s Guide. Seventh Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

Pietromonaco, P. R., & Feldman Barrett, L. (2000). The internal working models concept: What do we really know about the self in relation to others? Review of General Psychology, 4, 155-157.

Reich, J. (1987). Prevalence of DSM-III-R self defeating (masochistic) personality disorder in normal and outpatient populations. Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases, 175, 52-54.

Reich, J. (1989). Validity of criteria for DSM-III self-defeating personality disorder. Psychiatry Research, 2, 145-153.

Roberts, B. (2001). [Review of the Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory]. In B. S. Plake & J. C. Impara (Eds.), The fourteenth mental measurements yearbook. Loncolm, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.

Schwartz, B. (1986). The battle for human nature. New York, NY: Norton.

Sedikides, C., & Gregg, A. P. (2008). Self-enhancement: Food for thought. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 102-116. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00068.x

Steinberg, L., & Belsky, J. (1996). An evolutionary perspective on psychopathology in adolescence. In D. Cicchetti & S. L. Toth (Eds.), Adolescence: Opportunities and challenges (pp. 93-124). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Spitzer, R. L., Williams, J. B., Kass, F., & Davies, M. (2007). National field trial of the DSM-III- R diagnostic criteria for self-defeating personality disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 146(12), 1561-1567.

Teyber, E. M. (2005). Interpersonal process in psychotherapy: An integrative model (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Wagner, D. D., & Heatherton, T. F. (2015). Self-regulation and its failure: Seven deadly threats to self-regulation. In E. Borgida & J. Bargh (Eds.), APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology: Vol. 1. Attitudes and social cognition (pp. 805-842). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Wei, M., & Ku, T. Y. (2007). Testing a conceptual model of working through self-defeating patterns. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(3), 295.

Wei, M., Mallinckrodt, B., Larson, L. A., & Zakalik, R. A. (2005). Attachment, depressive symptoms, and validation from self versus others. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 368-377.

Wei, M., Vogel, D. L., Ku, T.-Y., & Zakalik, R. A. (2005). Adult attachment, affect regulation, negative mood, and interpersonal problems: The mediating roles of emotional reactivity and emotional cutoff. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 14-24.

Wilson, E. O. (1978). On human nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Zampelli, S. O. (2000). Reach your true potential: How to overcome self-defeating behavior. New York: New Harbinger.

Appendix A: Final SELF-DISS Items

SELF-DISS: Self-Defeating Interpersonal Style Scale

Please read each item carefully. Indicate your agreement below, from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree), based on how true each statement is of you.

______________________________________________________________________________

1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree

A. Insecure attachment:

1.I am afraid my partner will leave me.

2. I feel powerless in my relationships.

3. I need the attention of others to feel worthwhile.

4. I need reassurance about my relationships with others.

5. I often worry that my partner is frustrated with me.

6. I’m afraid that my relationships will fail.

7. If I don’t hold on to those close to me tightly, they will abandon me.

8. I worry that my relationships will end badly.

9. I question my partner about their true feelings for me.

10. I worry that people in my life will leave me.

11. I am anxious about maintaining relationships.

12. I am afraid that I will be rejected by others if I let them get really close to me.

13. I feel self-conscious about myself in my relationships.

14. I feel secure in my relationships (R).

B. Undeserving self-image:

15. I deserve to be mistreated in my relationships.

16. I don’t believe I am as good as other people.

17. I deserve the disdain that others feel for me.

18. People should be critical of me.

19. I don’t deserve to experience pleasure in my relationships with others.

20. I am deserving of happy relationships. (R)

21. I shouldn’t be praised for the things I’ve done.

22. I tend to recollect the bad things I’ve experienced in my life.

23. I can’t experience much pleasure in my relationships because I don’t feel like I deserve it.

24. I feel deserving when bad things happen to me.

25. I am a person of worth (R).

26. I feel undeserving when positive things happen to me.

C. Self-sacrificing nature:

27. I don’t accept help from others when I am in a bad situation.

28. I’ve had significant others who abused me in some way.

29. I have accepted blame for things I didn't do.

30. I have difficulty accepting the support of others.

31. I keep people in my life who do not have my best interests in mind.

32. I have been taken advantage of by others.

33. I have tolerated mistreatment from other people.

34. I tend to stay in bad relationships longer than I should.

35. I seem to choose situations which lead to disappointment.

Back