The Self-Dehumanization Scale: Three Studies on Its Development and Validation.

IF 2.8 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Journal of personality assessment Pub Date : 2024-06-28 DOI:10.1080/00223891.2024.2367543
Morgan Robison, Min Eun Jeon, Nikhila S Udupa, Miracle Potter, Lee Robertson, Thomas Joiner
{"title":"The Self-Dehumanization Scale: Three Studies on Its Development and Validation.","authors":"Morgan Robison, Min Eun Jeon, Nikhila S Udupa, Miracle Potter, Lee Robertson, Thomas Joiner","doi":"10.1080/00223891.2024.2367543","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Self-dehumanization, a phenomenon relevant to social psychology, has been somewhat absent from clinical psychology research. Furthermore, measures of self-dehumanization are few, and to our knowledge, no validated and generalizable self-report measure exists. To address this gap, we present a Self-Dehumanization Scale (SDS). This work incorporates evidence from three studies examining the reliability, validity, and factor structure of the SDS in an undergraduate sample, a clinically relevant community sample, and a sample with at least one minoritized identity. The SDS was derived from dehumanization theory and was developed to measure animalistic and mechanistic self-dehumanization. All studies suggested an 8-item SDS, with Study 1 suggesting a single-factor solution with, however, some indication of a two-factor structure, and Studies 2 and 3 affirming a two-factor solution. The SDS, and its respective factors, generally showed discriminant validity from related, yet distinct, measures of self-hate, self-esteem (Study 2), dissociation, and measures of discrimination (in Study 3). Finally, animalistic and mechanistic SDS showed somewhat mixed but promising evidence regarding their associations to minoritized identities and to symptoms of depression, and suicide risk, above and beyond each study's fairly stringent control variables. Thus, self-dehumanization may prove to be a clinically promising leverage point in assessing psychopathology, particularly among minoritized communities.</p>","PeriodicalId":16707,"journal":{"name":"Journal of personality assessment","volume":" ","pages":"1-17"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of personality assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2024.2367543","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Self-dehumanization, a phenomenon relevant to social psychology, has been somewhat absent from clinical psychology research. Furthermore, measures of self-dehumanization are few, and to our knowledge, no validated and generalizable self-report measure exists. To address this gap, we present a Self-Dehumanization Scale (SDS). This work incorporates evidence from three studies examining the reliability, validity, and factor structure of the SDS in an undergraduate sample, a clinically relevant community sample, and a sample with at least one minoritized identity. The SDS was derived from dehumanization theory and was developed to measure animalistic and mechanistic self-dehumanization. All studies suggested an 8-item SDS, with Study 1 suggesting a single-factor solution with, however, some indication of a two-factor structure, and Studies 2 and 3 affirming a two-factor solution. The SDS, and its respective factors, generally showed discriminant validity from related, yet distinct, measures of self-hate, self-esteem (Study 2), dissociation, and measures of discrimination (in Study 3). Finally, animalistic and mechanistic SDS showed somewhat mixed but promising evidence regarding their associations to minoritized identities and to symptoms of depression, and suicide risk, above and beyond each study's fairly stringent control variables. Thus, self-dehumanization may prove to be a clinically promising leverage point in assessing psychopathology, particularly among minoritized communities.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
自我非人性化量表:关于其开发和验证的三项研究
自我非人化是一种与社会心理学相关的现象,但在临床心理学研究中却有些缺失。此外,自我非人化的测量方法也很少,据我们所知,目前还没有经过验证的、可推广的自我报告测量方法。为了填补这一空白,我们提出了自我非人性化量表(SDS)。这项工作结合了三项研究的证据,这些研究分别考察了 SDS 在本科生样本、临床相关的社区样本以及至少有一种少数民族身份的样本中的信度、效度和因子结构。SDS 源自非人化理论,用于测量动物性和机械性自我非人化。所有研究都提出了一个 8 个项目的 SDS,其中研究 1 提出了一个单因素解决方案,但也有一些双因素结构的迹象,而研究 2 和研究 3 则确认了一个双因素解决方案。SDS 及其各因子与相关但不同的自我憎恨、自尊(研究 2)、解离和辨别能力(研究 3)的测量结果普遍具有区分效力。最后,动物性和机械性 SDS 在与少数群体身份、抑郁症状和自杀风险的关联方面,显示出了不同但有希望的证据,而且超出了每项研究相当严格的控制变量。因此,自我非人化可能会被证明是评估精神病理学的一个具有临床前景的杠杆点,尤其是在少数群体中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
8.80%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: The Journal of Personality Assessment (JPA) primarily publishes articles dealing with the development, evaluation, refinement, and application of personality assessment methods. Desirable articles address empirical, theoretical, instructional, or professional aspects of using psychological tests, interview data, or the applied clinical assessment process. They also advance the measurement, description, or understanding of personality, psychopathology, and human behavior. JPA is broadly concerned with developing and using personality assessment methods in clinical, counseling, forensic, and health psychology settings; with the assessment process in applied clinical practice; with the assessment of people of all ages and cultures; and with both normal and abnormal personality functioning.
期刊最新文献
Defenses and Attachment in Clinical Practice: What Came First? Further Validation of the Triarchic Model of Grit Scale (TMGS) in Chinese Adolescents. Opportunities for the AMPD: Commentary on Hopwood, 2024. Moving Toward an Online Thematic Apperception Test (TAT): The Impact of Administration Modifications on Narrative Length and Story Richness. Development and Validation of the Narrative Identity Self-Evaluation Scale (NISE).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1