A Comparison of the Psychological Entitlement Scale and the Narcissistic Personality Inventory's Entitlement Scale: Relations With General Personality Traits and Personality Disorders

Two studies on the relations between various styles of defense and the power or validity of self-reports on objective personality questionnaires. The power of individual items on the Rotter Internal-External Locus of Control scale to discriminate between subjects defined as internals or externals by a median-cut procedure using the total score was not affected by the presence Or absence of a projective defensive style. However, the presence of repressive tendencies did appear to restrict item power. Prediction from two achievement scales taken from Gough's California Psychological Inventory was not influenced by level of repression, was affected somewhat adversely by a projective style, and was most clearly contaminated by a rationalizing defense. It was proposed that the differential effects of defensive styles upon the validity of personality tests depended upon the convergence or divergence of the cognitive operations involved in the type of defense and in the type of personality measure.     

A comparison of the Psychological Entitlement Scale and the Narcissistic Personality Inventory's Entitlement Scale: relations with general personality traits and personality disorders

Given the negative consequences of psychological entitlement, it is important to have a reliable and valid measure of the construct. We used an undergraduate sample (N = 271) to examine the Entitlement subscale (ENT) of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (Raskin & Terry, 1988) and the Psychological Entitlement Scale (PES; Campbell, Bonacci, Shelton, Exline, & Bushman, 2004) in relation to general personality traits (i.e., Revised NEO Personality Inventory; Costa & McCrae, 1992) and personality disorders (PDs; Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4; Hyler, 1994). We found similar personality correlates (e.g., disagreeableness; Cluster B PDs) for both measures, although ENT was comprised of greater disagreeableness and less warmth and positive affect. ENT was also more positively associated with schizoid and borderline PDs compared to the PES. Overall, these measures are closely related with regard to their relations with general and pathological personality dimensions, although the ENT scale may capture a slightly more pathological variant.     

Comparison of Three Self-Report Measures of Personality Pathology

Levels of convergence were examined among three personality instruments: the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4+ (PDQ-4+), the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders Questionnaire (SCID-IIQ) and the Multi-source Assessment of Personality Pathology (MAPP). Each personality questionnaire was administered three times in an alternating sequence over nine consecutive weekdays to a sample of college students. There was some degree of convergence among the three instruments, but there were also substantial empirical differences between them. The data suggest three related conclusions: (1) in general, the self-report version of the MAPP is more conservative than the other two questionnaires, (2) these questionnaires are not interchangeable measures of personality disorders, and (3) the breadth of measurement provided varies as a function of both the questionnaire and the personality disorder being measured.     

A Critical Appraisal of Self-Report Defense Mechanism Measures

Defense mechanisms have been a source of both fascination and frustration for most personality researchers because they are conceptually intriguing but their assessment is often problematic. To aid personality researchers in integrating defense mechanism theory into personality research, we review and critique the major existing self-report defense mechanism measures: the Coping and Defending Scales (Joffe & Naditch, 1977); the Defense Mechanisms Inventory (Gleser & Ihilevich, 1969); the Life-Style Index (Plutchik, Kellerman, & Conte, 1979); and the Defense Style Questionnaire (Bond, Gardner, Christian, & Sigal, 1983). We conclude that no self-report measure adequately assesses the defining features of defense mechanisms. We offer a number of person and situation variables that must be considered when evaluating any defense mechanism measure, and we conclude that the comprehensive assessment of defense mechanism use will likely require measures obtained from multiple sources.     

Narcissistic Measures of Lutheran Clergy Who Self-Reported Committing Sexual Misconduct

This study sought to determine if narcissism was a factor in Lutheran clergy who self-reported committing sexual misconduct. Sexual misconduct was defined as any activity in which a clergyperson, single or married, engaged in sexual behavior (sexual intercourse, kissing, touching or hugging with sexual intent, use of sexually explicit language) with a parishioner, client, or employee of the church (Francis & Turner, 1995). The results indicated that clergy who self-reported having committed sexual misconduct and had high levels of narcissism were not significantly different from those clergy who self-reported not having committed sexual misconduct. Demographic and related findings are also discussed. Former Lutheran minister and is currently an Assistant Professor of education atAssociate Professor of professional counseling in the Division of Professional Psychology at the     

Perceptions of Gender Differences in Self-Report Measures of Emotional Intelligence

Emotional Intelligence (EI) refers to the abilities/competencies that an individual has about emotions and has proven to be related to positive aspects in life. Despite its growing relevance, results about the existence and magnitude of gender differences have been inconclusive, with some studies suggesting that such differences depend on the theoretical approach and type of instrument used. In an effort to better understand these relationships, this study examined the stereotyped nature of self-report instruments of EI from the two main theoretical EI approaches (ability-based and mixed models). Two hundred sixty Spanish undergraduates from a university in the South of Spain indicated the extent to which they considered several EI competences as typical of women/men. Results show that most EI dimensions are biased by gender stereotypes, in terms of being perceived as more characteristic of one gender or the other. An in-group gender bias appeared particularly among female participants whereby they attributed higher scores to women than to men in most EI dimensions. Men also favored men giving higher scores than women did in some of the dimensions. These results suggest that self-report EI measures may be influenced by gender stereotypes, which has relevant implications for EI researchers.     

A Reliability Generalization Meta-Analysis of Self-Report Measures of Adult Attachment

This study is a reliability generalization meta-analysis that reviews 5 of the most frequently used continuous measures of adult attachment security: the Adult Attachment Scale, Revised Adult Attachment Scale, Adult Attachment Questionnaire, Experiences in Close Relationships, and Experiences in Close Relationships–Revised. A total of 313,462 individuals from 564 studies provided 1,629 internal consistency reliability estimates for this meta-analysis. We present the average internal consistency reliability of scores for each measure and test the consistency of score reliabilities across a wide variety of sample characteristics. In light of this, we highlight several issues in the measurement of adult attachment security and make concrete recommendations for researchers seeking to measure adult attachment.     

Validation of Self-Report Measures of Emotional and Physical Distress Tolerance

The Distress Tolerance Scale (DTS) and Discomfort Intolerance Scale (DIS) are self-report measures developed for the assessment of emotional and physical distress tolerance, respectively. However, little evidence exists for their construct and specifically criterion-related validity. The current study examined the associations of these self-report measures with lab-based assessments of perceived emotional tolerance and physical discomfort tolerance. Undergraduate participants (N?=?166) were administered four film clips intended to induce sadness, disgust, fear, and anger, and a handgrip persistence task intended to elicit physical discomfort. The DTS, but not the DIS, was significantly associated with self-reported emotional tolerance and perceived threat associated with each film after controlling for emotional intensity. Among DTS subscales, the absorption subscale was the only subscale incrementally predictive of negative perceptions of the sad film, the appraisal subscale was incrementally predictive of negative perceptions of the other three films, and little support for the incremental validity of the tolerance and regulation subscales was found. The DTS also incrementally predicted tolerance and perceived threat of film-elicited emotions across films after controlling for anxiety sensitivity. The DIS was only marginally predictive of handgrip task persistence and was unrelated to emotional film perceptions. Overall, these findings uniquely add to the empirical literature on the construct and criterion-related validity of the DTS and DIS.     

Effects of Weight Cue Reactivity on Self-Report Measures of Body Dissatisfaction

Research has shown that answers on self-report measures can be influenced by a participant’s awareness of information regarding the study (“reactivity”). There exists a gap in the literature regarding weight cue reactivity on self-report measures of body dissatisfaction (BD). This type of reactivity involves exposing participants to information regarding their height, weight, or body mass index (BMI). Ninety-Nine participants (45.5 % female, mean age = 20.17, SD = 3.08) were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: proximal weight cue (being weighed before completing measures); distal weight cue (knowledge of impending measurement following questionnaire completion); and no weight cues (control), all before measures of BD. Perceived body size and BD were measured using the Stunkard Figure Rating Scale. Two separate ANCOVAs revealed a significant main effect for condition on self-reported perceived body size F [2,92] = 5.22, p = 0.01, η2 = 0.10, as well as on BD, F [2,92] = 9.46, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.17, while controlling for BMI. Both proximal and distal cues elicited elevated BD; only proximal cues elicited self-reported perceived body size. These results quantify the impact of weight cue reactivity effects on self-report measures and suggest that researchers and/or clinicians collect answers on such measures prior to anthropometric data.     

Self-Report Measures of Boredom: An Updated Review of the Literature

A detailed review of the psychometric measures of boredom was published approximately 12 years ago (Vodanovich, 2003). Since that time, numerous studies have been conducted on existing scales, and new measures of boredom have been developed. Given these assessment advancements, an updated review of self-report boredom scales is warranted. The primary focus of the current review is research published since 2003, and it includes a total of 16 boredom scales. The measures reviewed consist of two trait assessments (Boredom Proneness Scale, Boredom Susceptibility subscale of the Sensation Seeking Scale), five context-specific trait boredom scales (Boredom Coping Scale, Leisure Boredom Scale, Free Time Boredom Scale, Sexual Boredom Scale, Relational Boredom Scale), three assessments of state boredom (Multidimensional State Boredom Scale, State Boredom Measure, Boredom Experience Scale), and six context-specific state boredom measures–Lee's Job Boredom Scale, Dutch Boredom Scale, Boredom Coping Scale (Academic), the Boredom subscale of the Achievement Emotions Questionnaire, Academic Boredom Scale, Precursors to Boredom Scale. In addition to providing a review of these measures, a brief critique of each scale is included, as well as suggestions for needed research focus.     

Self-Report Measures of Parent-Adolescent Attachment and Separation-Individuation: A Selective Review

The authors review and critique three self-report measures of parent-adolescent attachment and three self-report measures of parent-adolescent separation-individuation. Relevant issues in the conceptualization and measurement of attachment and separation-individuation constructs are also discussed.     

Assessing Adolescent and Adult Attachment: A Review of Current Self-Report Measures

Increased interest in attachment theory among counseling researchers and practitioners has led to the development of several measures of attachment-related constructs. Following a brief overview of the theoretical foundations of attachment theory as conceptualized by Ainsworth (1989) and Bowlby (1988), the authors of this article review four self-report measures of adolescent and adult attachment. Many considerations for the selection and use of these instruments in future counseling research and assessment are discussed.     

Using Self-Report Measures to Corroborate Theories of Depression: The Specificity Problem

Depression scales tend to correlate highly with measures of anxiety and other negative emotional states. If the same is true of scales measuring constructs from depression theories such as negative cognitions and anaclitic depression, it brings into question the specificity Of these models to depression. The overlap has been attributed to the common role of negative affect in depression and anxiety. Using a sample of college students, our study investigated the relationships among measures of depression, anxiety, positive and negative affect, and theory-relevant constructs. Theory-relevant scales related no more strongly to depression than anxiety measures. Furthermore, they related strongly either with negative or positive affect but usually not with both. These findings bring into question the specificity of depression models corroborated through the available self-report measures.     

Self-Report Measures of Individual Differences in Regulatory Focus: A Cautionary Note

Regulatory focus theory distinguishes between two independent structures of strategic inclination, promotion versus prevention. However, the theory implies two potentially independent definitions of these inclinations, the self-guide versus the reference-point definitions. Two scales (the Regulatory Focus Questionnaire, Higgins al., 2001, and the General Regulatory Focus Measure, Lockwood, Jordan, & Kunda, 2002) have been widely used to measure dispositional regulatory focus. We suggest that these two scales align respectively with the two definitions, and find that the two scales are largely uncorrelated. Both conceptual and methodological implications are discussed.