Measure of Self-Consistency

Abstract

The Measure of Self-Consistency is a psychological instrument developed by Gergen and Morse to quantify the degree of internal coherence or perceived compatibility among an individual’s self-ascribed traits. The scale operates on the premise that individuals possess both positive and negative attributes, and the perceived consistency between these characteristics is a crucial indicator of self-structure integrity. Respondents select 10 highly self-descriptive traits (five positive and five negative) and then use a structured matrix to rate the degree of conflict or harmony between every unique pair of chosen traits. The resulting score provides an index of the individual’s overall Self-Consistency, a construct highly relevant to theories of self-concept and cognitive balance.

Keywords

Self-Consistency, Self-Concept, Personality Traits, Psychological Measurement, Social Psychology, Trait Compatibility, Self-Perception, Cognitive Consistency.

Authors

Kenneth J. Gergen, Stanley J. Morse, John P. Robinson, Phillip R. Shaver.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Measure of Self-Consistency is to provide an empirical and idiographic assessment of the internal stability of the self-structure. By focusing on the perceived relationships between salient attributes, the instrument operationalizes the theoretical construct of self-consistency, allowing researchers to study its role in psychological functioning and adjustment.

This measure is particularly valuable in research contexts where the coherence of the self is hypothesized to influence behavior, motivation, or response to external stimuli, such as social comparison. The use of personally selected traits ensures that the resulting consistency score reflects the individual’s most psychologically meaningful attributes.

Construct

The central construct measured is Self-Consistency. Rooted in consistency theories within social psychology, this construct refers to the degree to which an individual perceives their various personality components (traits, beliefs, attitudes) as mutually compatible and non-contradictory. A high score on this measure indicates low self-consistency, suggesting significant internal conflict among the individual’s self-perceptions.

Unlike scales that measure trait quantity (e.g., how much of a trait a person possesses), this instrument measures trait structure—the relational quality between selected attributes. The inclusion of both positive and negative traits is essential to capturing the realistic complexity of the self-concept, where potentially conflicting attributes (e.g., being “optimistic” and a “worrier”) may coexist.

Validity

Initial validation of the Measure of Self-Consistency was demonstrated by Gergen and Morse (1967), showing its relevance in predicting psychological reactions, particularly in relation to social feedback. The construct validity of the scale is often supported by correlations indicating that low self-consistency tends to be associated with negative mental health outcomes, such as heightened anxiety, lower self-esteem, and increased defensiveness.

The instrument’s design inherently possesses strong content validity, as the traits used are commonly recognized descriptors of human personality, and the methodology requires respondents to engage in deep introspection regarding their personal trait compatibility.

Reliability

While the unique, idiographic nature of the matrix comparison makes standard psychometric assessment of internal consistency (like Cronbach’s Alpha) inappropriate, the reliability of the Self-Consistency Measure is typically assessed through test-retest procedures. Studies have generally shown that an individual’s self-consistency score exhibits acceptable temporal stability over short intervals, confirming that the scale provides a reliable measure of the structural organization of the self at a given time.

Factor Analysis

The Measure of Self-Consistency does not lend itself to traditional factor analysis because it is designed to produce a single, holistic index of structural coherence, derived from the interaction of 45 binary comparisons. It does not aim to uncover underlying factors of personality, but rather to quantify the degree of conflict or harmony existing among the individual’s most salient personality traits.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-Report, Idiographic Trait Assessment

Format: Forced-choice selection followed by subjective matrix comparison (10×10 matrix)

Language Available: English (Original)

Population Group: General Population, typically used in social psychology research.

Age Group: Adolescent to Adult (typically 16+)

Population Details: Successfully employed across various educational and non-clinical samples, including college students and adults.

Test Methodology: The methodology requires the participant to first select five positive and five negative traits that describe them most accurately from the provided lists. These ten traits are then listed on the axes of a 10×10 matrix. The participant then compares each trait with every other trait (excluding self-comparison and redundant pairs, resulting in 45 unique comparisons). The degree of consistency for each dyad is rated on a 4-point scale, typically ranging from 0 (highly compatible) to 3 (highly contradictory). The final score is the sum of these 45 ratings, providing a total inconsistency index.

Keywords

Self-Perception, Personality Assessment, Psychological Index, Coherence, Gergen, Morse, Trait Matrix, Self-Theory.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Information not available.

Affiliation Email addresses: Information not available.

Correspondence Address: Information not available.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Measure of Self-Consistency was first published in 1967. Given its historical context and widespread inclusion in non-commercial academic compendiums, the instrument is widely used for research purposes. Researchers are generally required to provide appropriate citation but typically do not need to pay a fee or seek formal permission for academic use of the standard measure. The scale is documented in detail in resources such as the 1969 “Measures of Political Attitudes” monograph by Robinson and Shaver.

Reference’s

• Gergen, K. J., & Morse, S. J. (1967). Self-consistency: Measurement and validation. Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 2, 207-208.
• Robinson, John P., Shaver, Phillip R. (1969). Measures of Political Attitudes. Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan/. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
• Morse, S., Gergen, K. (1970). Social comparison, self-consistency, and the concept of self. J. Person. Soc. Psychol. 16:148-56.

The original PDF documentation for this instrument can be accessed via the following links:

• https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED019680.pdf
• https://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/dis/infoserv/isrpub/pdf/Measuresofsocialpsychologicalattitudes_2928_.PDF

Items of the Measure of Self-Consistency

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

List I (Positive)

• Optimistic
• Studious
• Honest
• Considerate
• Reliable
• Kind
• Sincere
• Friendly
• Cautious
• Independent
• Practical
• Happy
• Sensitive
• Tolerant
• Idealistic
• Adventurous
• Intelligent

List II (Negative)

• Impatient
• Worrier
• Self-conscious
• Moody
• Rebellious
• Immature
• Quick-tempered
• Easily influenced
• Lazy
• Gullible
• Envious
• Often feel misunderstood
• Disorganized
• Guilt-ridden
• Stubborn
• Self-centered
• Noisy

1. Choose those five traits from each of the two lists (positive and negative) which describe him most accurately.
2. List the 10 chosen traits down the side and across the bottom of a 10 X 10 matrix.

A 10×10 matrix is used here for item comparison.

3. Compare each trait with each of the others‚ and for each comparison indicate the degree of consistency on a four point scale (a zero rating to be given when the two traits are “generally compatible” and “don’t contradict each other‚ but go hand in hand” and a rating of three when the opposite is true‚ etc.).