Social Decentering Scale (SDS)

Abstract

The Social Decentering Scale (SDS), developed by Redmond and Bunyi in 1993, is a self-report instrument designed to measure an individual’s capacity for Social Decentering. This construct involves the cognitive and affective ability to move beyond one’s own immediate perspective, attitudes, and values to accurately anticipate or understand the thoughts and feelings of others, especially those from different backgrounds or situations. The scale is frequently utilized in studies concerning Intercultural Communication Competence and the functional role of empathy in interpersonal relations. It consists of 36 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale, assessing the degree to which an individual attempts to understand the world from another person’s vantage point.

Keywords

Social Decentering, Perspective-taking, Empathy, Intercultural Communication Competence, Cognitive Decentering, Affective Decentering, Self-report scale, Communication.

Authors

Mark V. Redmond, J.M. Bunyi

Purpose

The primary purpose of the SDS is to provide a quantitative measure of an individual’s propensity and ability to engage in Social Decentering. This skill is critical for successful interpersonal and intercultural interactions, as it requires moving away from an egocentric viewpoint to achieve a more accurate understanding of another person’s internal state or situational context. Redmond (1995) positioned the SDS as a tool to explore how this decentering ability facilitates effective human relations and communication.

Specifically, the instrument aims to capture both the cognitive processes (e.g., anticipating reactions, considering background) and the affective responses (e.g., feeling similar pain or joy) associated with shifting perspective. Its initial application (Redmond & Bunyi, 1993) was focused on investigating the relationship between this competence and stress management among international students, highlighting its utility in assessing adaptation skills.

Construct

The SDS measures Social Decentering, which is defined as a complex psychological process encompassing both cognitive and affective dimensions of perspective-taking. It is a broader concept than simple empathy, incorporating the deliberate cognitive effort required to anticipate another person’s thoughts, attitudes, and behaviors based on known information about their background, culture, or situation.

Redmond’s multidimensional theory (1995) suggests that decentering is not a unitary trait but rather involves several distinct yet related abilities, often segmented into cognitive and emotional components. Cognitive decentering involves intellectual planning and anticipation of others’ states, while affective decentering involves experiencing emotional resonance or sympathy with the other person’s situation.

Validity

Various studies have provided evidence for the construct validity of the SDS. Redmond’s work established that the scale demonstrates expected correlations with measures of related constructs, such as general empathy, communication apprehension, and communication effectiveness. Specifically, the scale shows a strong positive correlation with measures of perspective-taking ability, confirming that it measures the intended construct.

Discriminant validity is supported by findings that Social Decentering, while related to empathy, is conceptually distinct, particularly in its emphasis on deliberate cognitive strategies used to predict or understand others. Its strong relationship with successful adaptation and reduced stress in high-contact situations, such as those faced by international students, further supports its criterion validity in the context of intercultural communication.

Reliability

The Social Decentering Scale (SDS) typically exhibits high internal consistency across diverse samples. Reliability studies often report Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from 0.85 to 0.92 for the full 36-item instrument, indicating strong homogeneity among the items measuring the overall construct. This high reliability suggests that the items consistently measure the underlying decentering capacity.

Test-retest reliability has also been deemed acceptable in longitudinal studies, suggesting that the scale provides stable measures of the decentering capacity over time, reinforcing its utility as a robust psychological assessment tool.

Factor Analysis

Initial factor analysis of the SDS suggested a multidimensional structure, supporting the theoretical distinction between cognitive and affective components of decentering, as outlined by Redmond (1995). This analysis moves beyond viewing decentering as a single trait.

Generally, key factors extracted include Affective Resonance (emotional response to others’ crises), Cognitive Anticipation (planning and predicting others’ reactions), and Cultural/Situational Perspective-Taking (considering background factors). These factors demonstrate the scale’s ability to measure the complexity of shifting perspective beyond mere emotional mirroring, providing nuanced insights into an individual’s decentering strategies.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report psychological inventory/Scale

Format: 36 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1=Almost never true, 2=Infrequently true, 3=Sometimes true, 4=Frequently true, 5=Almost always true).

Language Available: English (Original). Used internationally, suggesting subsequent translations may exist.

Population Group: General adult population; frequently employed in university student and international student samples.

Age Group: Adolescents and Adults (typically 18+).

Population Details: Originally validated primarily on college students, but applicable wherever interpersonal and intercultural competence are studied.

Test Methodology: Summation of scores across all 36 items, or specific subscales identified through factor analysis, yields a total Social Decentering score. Higher scores indicate greater decentering ability.

Keywords

Psychometrics, Self-report, Communication research, Interpersonal relations, Social cognition.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not specified in source documentation.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not specified in source documentation.

Correspondence Address: Refer to original academic publications for current author contact information (e.g., Mark V. Redmond, Iowa State University).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Social Decentering Scale (SDS) was first published in 1993 (Redmond & Bunyi). While the scale is often used freely for academic research purposes, users should consult the primary author, Mark V. Redmond, regarding specific permissions for commercial or large-scale applications. Information regarding standardized fees for use is not provided in the source material.

The original PDF of the instrument, as utilized in related dissertation work, can be downloaded here: https://minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au/bitstream/handle/11343/42255/PRICE_F.pdf?sequence=1

Reference’s

The foundational references for the development and theoretical grounding of the SDS include:

• Redmond, Mark V. (1989). The Functions of Empathy (Decentering) in Human Relations. Human Relations, 42(7), 593-605.
• Redmond, M.V. & Bunyi, J.M. (1993). The relationship of intercultural communication competence with stress and the handling of stress by international students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 17(2), 235-254.
• Redmond, Mark V. (1995). A Multidimensional Theory and Measure of Social Decentering. Journal of Research in Personality 29(1), 35-58.
• Price, Fiona Swee-Lin. (2000). Intercultural contact, ethnocentrism and the mediating role of epistemology. University of Melbourne, Doctoral Dissertation.

Items of the Social Decentering Scale (SDS)

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way. Responses are based on a 5-point Likert scale (1=Almost never true, 5=Almost always true).

1. I get emotional over anyone’s crisis.
2. I would be likely to feel a rush of excitement and enthusiasm while trying to guess what was making someone I didn’t know shout with joy.
3. When I hear about other people’s problems that I’ve never personally faced, I imagine what my thoughts would be if I were in their situation.
4. I have wondered what people in some foreign countries think about various world problems.
5. Sometimes when I daydream about situations I’ve never experienced before, my daydreams evoke strong emotional reactions in me.
6. I feel the pain my closest friends feel when they are in trouble.
7. There are times when I become quite emotional while watching TV.
8. Sometimes when I’m considering how to react to a person, I plan out what to do, and then imagine how I would feel if someone acted towards me the way I was planning to act.
9. (Think of a particular close friend) I try to anticipate and “second guess” what my friend will say in reaction to alternate ways I might phrase a problem I want to discuss with them.
10. When I watch a news story where a child has just suffered the tragic loss of his/her parents, I feel some of the same feelings the child is probably ha‎ving.
11. Sometimes I can understand what others are thinking by recalling the thoughts I have had when I experienced a similar situation.
12. If I thought about it, I could guess what people one hundred years from now will think about various major events that are occurring now.
13. I am likely to carefully consider what I know about a friend when planning on how to best approach them for something they might be reluctant to give or lend to me.
14. I would feel some of the same feelings as a close friend (think of a particular friend) if both his/her parents were killed in an automobile accident; my friend would probably have some feelings I would not feel, as well.
15. The way I think and behave serves as my general basis for understanding how people in general think and behave.
16. I would feel some of the feelings that a senior citizen I was talking to might have upon learning of the death of their spouse of fifty years.
17. I think about how I would handle situations that I hear or read about when confronting other people.
18. When I hear about a person’s problem that is similar to a problem I’ve experienced, I usually recall what I thought and did about my problem.
19. I usually get as excited as my best friend (think of a particular friend) when I find out something exciting has happened to him/her.
20. I get emotionally involved in news stories about the tragedies and joys of other people.
21. I take into consideration both the situation and a person’s cultural and ethnic background when I’m trying to understand the behaviour of someone I don’t know very well.
22. My emotions are easily aroused when I am imagining myself in another person’s predicament.
23. (Think of a particular friendship that you have recently developed). I have tried to understand how this person thinks by considering their background, personality, maturity, etc.
24. I can imagine how some of my attitudes, beliefs, and values might be different from the way they are if I had been raised in a different country’s culture.
25. I know my closest friend (think of a particular friend) so well that I even know how s/he thinks most of the time.
26. My emotional state sometimes seems determined by my best friend’s emotional state; when they’re down, I become down, when they’re up I become up.
27. I know some of the values, attitudes and thoughts associated with different cultural and ethnic groups.
28. I have learned about some of my feelings and emotional reactions by putting myself in situations confronting ch‎aracters in movies and books, and other people in general.
29. I often think about what it would be like for me to be in other people’s shoes; what I would say and what I would think.
30. My closest friend and I would probably experience some of the same feelings in reaction to the news that s/he had suddenly come into a large sum of money though my feelings would be different in a few ways.
31. I tend to feel some of the pain a parent must feel about the accidental death of one of their children when I read about such a tragedy in the news.
32. (Think of a close friend who has never been in trouble with the law). This friend and I would probably have the same emotional reaction to being mistakenly arrested.
33. I can tell a lot about a stranger’s attitudes, beliefs and values, after talking to him/her for just a minute or two.
34. I pay attention to the things I learn about acquaintances as we become closer, so that I can better understand how they think.
35. I try to guess what the circumstances might be surrounding a stranger’s emotional outburst (crying, cheering, etc.) and my speculations would arouse an emotional reaction in me similar to the stranger’s reaction.
36. I sometimes think about how my closest friend will think about a controversial subject even before we start to discuss it.