Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26770054›Full record

ArticleCurrent psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.)

Self-Complexity and Self-Concept Differentiation - What Have We Been Measuring for the Past 30 Years?

Aleksandra Pilarska, Anna Suchańska

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. The multiple self and psychological openness.Frontiers in psychology · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Aleksandra PilarskaDepartment of Personality Psychology, Institute of Psychology, Adam Mickiewicz University, Szamarzewskiego 89, 60-568 Poznań, Poland.
Anna SuchańskaDepartment of Personality Psychology, Institute of Psychology, Adam Mickiewicz University, Szamarzewskiego 89, 60-568 Poznań, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research on the relation between the structure of the self-concept and psychological well-being has yielded seemingly inconsistent and even conflicting results. This article presents studies that examined the validity of often-used measures of self-complexity and self-concept differentiation and tested their ability to predict personal identity and active cognitive processing. The findings revealed several conceptual and methodological problems that continue to plague self-structure research, including the conflating of self-concept content and self-concept structure. In short, our data indicated that the commonly used indices of self-complexity and self-concept differentiation cannot be considered pure measures of the underlying dimensions of self-structure. In addition, only weak correlations of the self-structure variables with measures of personal identity and thinking dispositions have been found. Moreover, once the theoretically irrelevant sources of variance were controlled, the effects of the included structural features of the self-concept on the outcomes of interest either did not occur or were less pronounced. Given the above, it seems reasonable to suggest that at least some of the conclusions regarding the adaptive value of self-structural variables drawn from previous research in this field need revision.

Indexed as

Cognitive processingIdentityMeasurementSelf-complexitySelf-concept differentiation

Identifiers

PMID26770054
PMCPMC4703609

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.