Premium
Could you be more specific, please: Self‐discrepancies, affect, and variation in specificity and relevance
Author(s) -
Rodebaugh Thomas L.,
Donahue Kelly L.
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
journal of clinical psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.124
H-Index - 119
eISSN - 1097-4679
pISSN - 0021-9762
DOI - 10.1002/jclp.20425
Subject(s) - psychology , affect (linguistics) , anxiety , context (archaeology) , relevance (law) , clinical psychology , variation (astronomy) , developmental psychology , social psychology , psychiatry , paleontology , communication , political science , law , biology , physics , astrophysics
Abstract Multiple studies have suggested that the use of the Selves Questionnaire to assess self‐discrepancies related to specific forms of affect may be problematic. The authors tested whether greater specificity in participant characteristics, study context, and form of assessment would increase the ability to detect the hypothesized differences. The Selves Questionnaire failed to show the hypothesized relations. A modified version of the Selves Questionnaire did show some of the hypothesized relationships; however, these relationships were stronger in regard to depression than anxiety, which also contradicted hypotheses. The results provide more evidence that the Selves Questionnaire, especially when used alone, may be of limited use in assessing self‐discrepancies as described by self‐discrepancy theory. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Psychol 63: 1193–1207, 2007.