ReviewFrontiers in psychology2026
Self-concept clarity: a comprehensive and integrative review.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Self-concept clarity (SCC) refers to the extent to which individuals' self-beliefs are clearly and confidently defined, internally consistent, and stable over time (Campbell et al., 1996). This review synthesizes conceptual, methodological, and empirical work on SCC and situates it within the broader science of the self. Its distinctive contribution is twofold. First, I sharpen the conceptual boundaries of SCC by treating it explicitly as a structural, metacognitive property of the self-concept, a judgment about the form of self-knowledge rather than its content or evaluative tone, and I disentangle the terms self-concept, self-beliefs, self-knowledge, and identity that are often used interchangeably. Second, I organize a large and uneven literature around an integrative framework that distinguishes the roles SCC can play: as an outcome of developmental, familial, cultural, and digital antecedents; as a predictor of adjustment; as a mediator of those antecedents' effects; and as a moderator that buffers stress. Within this framework I review the measurement of SCC and offer a critical appraisal of its near-total reliance on self-report; evaluate evidence linking SCC to well-being, self-esteem dynamics, emotion regulation, interpersonal functioning, and psychopathology, attending to the strength of evidence and to inconsistencies; examine lifespan development, family socialization, and cultural variability; and consider cognitive, motivational, social, and neurobiological mechanisms. I close by identifying conceptual and methodological limitations, including mono-method assessment, unresolved causal ordering, sparse cross-national validation, and the open question of domain-specificity, and by proposing priorities for a cumulative science of SCC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.