Accepting our weaknesses and enjoying better relationships: An initial examination of self-security

Personality and Individual Differences 106 (2017) 64–70

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Accepting our weaknesses and enjoying better relationships: An initial examination of self-security Alice B. Huang ⁎, Howard Berenbaum Psychology Department, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 603 E. Daniel Street, Champaign, IL 61820, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 26 July 2016 Received in revised form 16 October 2016 Accepted 19 October 2016 Available online xxxx Keywords: Self-security Self-evaluation Acceptance Close relationships Attachment Relationship quality

a b s t r a c t The present research introduces self-security, a new indicator of healthy self-evaluation. Self-security is defined as the open and nonjudgmental acceptance of one's own weaknesses. To assess self-security, we developed the Security of “I” Assessment (SofIA), a self-report questionnaire. Study 1′s (N = 195) exploratory factor analysis suggested a single-factor model that Study 2′s (N = 158) confirmatory factor analysis supported as providing good fit to the data. In Study 3 (N = 195), the SofIA demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability. Using the SofIA, Study 1 also explored self-security's correlates in a sample of 195 undergraduates, with 279 of their close others (family, long-term friends, and romantic partners) reporting on the quality of their relationships with the participants. Self-security was significantly associated, but not redundant with, other aspects of selfevaluation (e.g., self-esteem, self-compassion). Self-security was also associated with self-evaluative interpersonal traits and attachment style. Importantly, even after simultaneously accounting for other aspects of selfevaluation, self-security predicted relationship quality, as independently reported by the participants and their close others. Specifically, participants' greater self-security significantly predicted their experiencing less conflict and emotional distress and their close others' reporting more support received from the participants. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Growth begins when we start to accept our own weakness.—Jean Vanier, Community and Growth A man should not strive to eliminate his complexes but to get in accord with them.—Sigmund Freud, letter to Sándor Ferenczi This being human is a guest house…some momentary awareness comesas an unexpected visitor…The dark thought, the shame… meet them at the door laughing,and invite them in.—Rumi, The Guest House

1. Introduction Across time and cultures, philosophers, psychologists, and even poets speak of accepting one's weaknesses, and people commonly use the words “secure/insecure” to describe how comfortable or bothered they feel about their weaknesses. Acceptance and mindfulness-based psychotherapies call for accepting—not “fixing”—these unflattering as⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (A.B. Huang).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.10.031 0191-8869/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

pects of the self (Hayes, 2004). Instead of eradicating, minimizing, or ignoring them, one allows them to enter the forefront of awareness, acknowledges openly their unpleasantness, and, without judgment, accepts them as they are. Nonetheless, empirical research examining individual differences in the acceptance of weaknesses has been, surprisingly, absent. The present research endeavors to contribute to self-evaluation research by introducing a new construct called self-security, defined as the acceptance of one's own weaknesses. Everyone feels vulnerable about certain aspects of the self (e.g., personal characteristics, past experiences, or simply certain thoughts and feelings). Self-security is openly and nonjudgmentally accepting these things that challenge our sense of self-worth. We consider self-security to be a single dimension, with acceptance of one's weaknesses at one end, and rejection of one's weaknesses at the other. Self-security is an aspect of self-evaluation, as are self-esteem, selfcompassion, and shame-proneness. Needless to say, a great deal of research has examined aspects of self-evaluation, especially self-esteem. Nearly a century of research has linked self-esteem to myriad important outcomes (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003). For example, low self-esteem is associated with psychopathological symptoms, whereas high self-esteem is associated with emotional well-being (Diener, 1984). Whereas self-esteem addresses how one feels about

A.B. Huang, H. Berenbaum / Personality and Individual Differences 106 (2017) 64–70

oneself overall, self-security addresses how one feels about one's weaknesses specifically. It is possible for some people to have high selfesteem but low self-security, because although their global selfevaluation is positive, they are critical of their specific weaknesses. Curiously, even though high self-esteem is associated with better relationships in general (e.g., Swann & Read, 1981; Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 2000), research has found that when people's sense of selfworth is threatened, only high-self-esteem participants become defensive and condescending (e.g., Kernis & Waschull, 1995), and reduce their support of others (Park & Crocker, 2005). These findings suggest two clues about self-evaluation and interpersonal relationships. First, having a favorable evaluation of one's overall self does not equal being at ease when confronted with things that make one feel vulnerable about self-worth. Second, being secure about self-worth may play a role in interpersonal traits and influence relationship outcomes. Unlike self-esteem, self-compassion addresses how people behave in vulnerable contexts. “Self-compassion entails three main components: (a) self-kindness—being kind and understanding toward oneself in instances of pain or failure rather than being harshly self-critical, (b) common humanity—perceiving one's experiences as part of the larger human experience rather than seeing them as separating and isolating, and (c) mindfulness—holding painful thoughts and feelings in balanced awareness rather than over-identifying with them.” (Neff, 2003a, p. 85). Self-compassion has been linked to other indicators of healthy self-evaluation, such as self-determination (Neff, 2003b). Moreover, research has found that people who practice self-compassion not only became less emotionally reactive to unfavorable outcomes (e.g., experience less unpleasant self-relevant emotions), but also behave less defensively (Leary, Tate, Adams, Allen, & Hancock, 2007). We would expect practicing self-compassion to soften one's rejection of one's own weaknesses—therefore increasing self-security. However, it is possible for some people to be highly self-secure without engaging in self-compassion: these people are able to accept potential threats to self-worth without actively directing love and tenderness toward themselves (the Self-Kindness/Self-Judgment dimension of selfcompassion), subscribing to the worldview that human suffering is shared universally (the Common Humanity/Isolation dimension), or regulating painful thoughts and feelings through mindfulness (the Mindfulness/Over-identification dimension). In sum, self-compassion largely concerns how one responds to emotional pain, whereas selfsecurity focuses exclusively on one's attitudes about one's own weaknesses. Shame-proneness is the tendency to “feel bad” about the self and to withdraw socially after some public failure or transgression (Wells & Jones, 2000). It differs from security of oneself in two ways. First, shame-proneness involves feeling badly about one's entire self, whereas self-security concerns how one feels specifically about one's weaknesses. Second, shame includes an action tendency, specifically the inclination to withdraw, whereas self-security does not. It is possible for some people to be low in self-security without being high in shameproneness: even though they feel badly about their specific weaknesses, they do not feel badly about their selves per se (and therefore do not withdraw socially). The present research is the first to examine individual differences in the acceptance of personal weaknesses. Our first goal was to develop an instrument to measure self-security, and to explore its psychometric properties. Our second goal was to use this instrument to explore selfsecurity's associations with other aspects of self-evaluation. Because we expect self-security to be an important indicator of healthy selfevaluation, we hypothesized that it would be substantially related to—albeit distinct from—self-esteem, self-compassion, and shameproneness. Because one's self-evaluation influences how one interacts with others, especially in contexts in which one's sense of self-worth is at stake, it should be expected that self-evaluation will be associated with self-evaluative interpersonal traits, such as fear of negative

65

evaluation–this has, in fact, been demonstrated (e.g., Mosewich, Kowalski, Sabiston, Sedgwick, & Tracy, 2011; Werner, Jazaieri, Goldin, Ziv, Heimberg, & Gross, 2012). Therefore, our third goal was to test our hypothesis that self-security, like other aspects of self-evaluation, would be associated with a wide variety of self-evaluative interpersonal traits. Specifically, we examined self-security's associations with three types of self-evaluative interpersonal traits: (a) hypersensitivity about others' evaluation; (b) anxiety about being emotionally vulnerable; and (c) self-aggrandizement. First, we theorized that people who reject their own weaknesses would be particularly vigilant against any hint of rejection by others; their lack of self-acceptance would also lead them to look to others' approval for sense of self-worth. Therefore, we hypothesized that lower levels of self-security would be associated with hypersensitivity about others' evaluation, and examined four traits about such hypersensitivity: (a) contingent self-esteem (dependency on others' evaluation for self-worth feelings); (b) fear of negative evaluation (anxiety about being judged by others); (c) external shame (easily experiencing others as shaming); and (d) self-sacrificing selfenhancement (sacrificing for others to feel good and important). Second, we also theorized that people who view their own weaknesses negatively would feel less safe opening up to others. Therefore, we hypothesized that lower levels of self-security would be associated with the aversion to being emotionally vulnerable with others, and examined two traits about such aversion: hiding the self (anxious and unwilling to expose one's vulnerabilities to others), and devaluation (blaming oneself for being disappointed by others). Third, we theorized that self-insecurity would deplete people's sense of self-worth, such that they would need to see themselves in unrealistically favorable light to defend against feelings of insecurity. Therefore, we hypothesized that lower levels of self-security would be associated with self-aggrandizement, a defining characteristic of narcissism, and examined two selfaggrandizing traits: grandiose fantasy (fantasizing about accomplishing huge feats and impressing others) and entitlement rage (anger at others for not treating one in accordance with one's exaggerated selfimportance). In sum, we expected self-security—like other aspects of self-evaluation—to be negatively associated with a wide variety of emotionally and socially problematic self-evaluative interpersonal traits; we did not expect self-security to be a unique predictor in this respect. Our fourth goal was to explore whether self-security is redundant with several major personality traits. Because we propose that selfsecurity plays a beneficial role in interpersonal contexts, we expected it to be positively associated (yet not redundant) with the two most frequently studied interpersonal traits: extraversion and agreeableness. Additionally, because we theorize that self-insecurity (i.e., the rejection of one's weaknesses) should overlap with—but be distinguishable from—the tendency to experience unpleasant affect, we expected selfsecurity to be negatively associated (yet not redundant) with neuroticism. Making oneself vulnerable is part and parcel of being close with others, and according to Cordova and Scott (2001), behaving vulnerably with others is the catalyst that initiates and fuels intimacy. We theorized that people who see their own weaknesses negatively would avoid intimacy—consequently, rejection of one's own weaknesses should obstruct the healthy development of close relationships. By the same token, being accepting about one's weaknesses would enable one to feel comfortable being close with others, and thus encourage quality relationships. Therefore, we propose that accepting one's weaknesses—being comfortable about them—predicts better close relationships. Further, we expect that it is this willingness to behave vulnerably with others (which we do not expect to be part of other aspects of self-evaluation; i.e., selfesteem, self-compassion, and shame-proneness) that would largely account for self-security being associated with healthy close relationships. Thus, our fifth and most important goal was to test the hypothesis that self-security would be associated with close relationships in terms of attachment style and relationship quality, even after simultaneously accounting for all other aforementioned aspects of self-evaluation.

66

A.B. Huang, H. Berenbaum / Personality and Individual Differences 106 (2017) 64–70

We examined both dimensions of attachment style: anxiety (worry about being rejected) and avoidance (discomfort with being emotionally vulnerable). We hypothesized that more self-secure individuals would be less anxiously and less avoidantly (i.e., more securely) attached. We examined relationship quality in terms of the amount of: (a) positives (e.g., how much support one receives, how much one values the relationships), and (b) negatives (e.g., how much conflict occurs, how emotionally distressed one feels). Importantly, we examined these facets of relationship quality from the perspectives of: (a) the participants (e.g., how much support they receive from their close others), and (b) their close others (e.g., how much support these close others receive from the participants). We hypothesized that the more self-secure the participants, the more positives and the less negatives they would share with close others. Further, we predicted that self-security would continue to be associated with attachment style and relationship quality even after simultaneously accounting for all other aforementioned aspects of self-evaluation (i.e., self-esteem, self-compassion, and shameproneness). In sum, we had five goals: (a) develop an instrument to measure self-security, and examine its psychometric properties (addressed in Studies 1, 2, and 3); (b) examine whether self-security is substantially related to, albeit distinct from, other aspects of self-evaluation (addressed in Study 1); (c) investigate self-security's negative associations with emotionally and socially problematic self-evaluative interpersonal traits (addressed in Study 1); (d) explore self-security's associations with extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism to see whether they were related but distinct traits; and, most importantly (addressed in Study 1); (e) test our hypothesis that self-security would be associated with secure attachment style and relationship quality even after simultaneously accounting for other aspects of self-evaluation (addressed in Study 1). 2. Study 1 2.1. Method 2.1.1. Participants and their close others Participants were 195 undergraduates (61.3% female), ranging in age from 18 to 26 (M = 19.3, SD = 1.2). Racially, the majority (74.0%) identified as White, followed by 11.5% Asian, 7.8% Black/African American, and 6.8% other or multiracial; ethnically, 7.2% identified as Latino/Hispanic. All received course credit for participation. Each participant was asked to identify up to four “most important people in your life.” These close others could be family, friends, or romantic partners as long as they had known the participant for at least six months. They also must have been at least eighteen years old and had internet access in order to be eligible to independently provide their own perspectives about the quality of their relationships with the participants. Participants were asked to invite these close others to provide confidential and independent reports on the quality of their relationships with the participants. Specifically, 163 (83.6%) participants emailed their close others a brief description of our study and a link to an online survey. Two hundred and seventy-nine close others (Mage = 40.3; 61.8% female) completed the surveys, providing data for 134 participants (68.7% of the entire sample). The majority were parents (48.8%), followed by friends (19.1%), siblings (9.8%), other relatives (9.4%), romantic partners (7.0%), and others (5.9%; e.g., roommates). 2.1.2. Procedure Participants completed all tasks and measures in one 50-minute lab session. They were tested individually. To help them identify and think deeply about their weaknesses, before completing the SofIA, they read about how weaknesses are defined in the present research: anything about oneself (e.g., physical appearance, inadequacies) or one's life (e.g., socioeconomic disadvantages, hurtful experiences), or simply certain private thoughts and feelings

that make one feel “touchy,” “unpleasantly self-conscious,” or “alone.” They also read descriptions and examples of weaknesses. Next, in a pencil and paper writing exercise, participants identified two of their weaknesses and answered open-ended questions about them. We informed them that their anonymous responses would not be shared with anyone and would be shredded at the end of their participation. Participants completed digital versions of all questionnaires. 2.1.3. Materials 2.1.3.1. Self-security. Self-security was measured using the Security of “I” Assessment (SofIA), a 13-item (see Appendix for the list of items) selfreport questionnaire that measures how much one accepts or rejects one's weaknesses. Response options range from 1 (strongly agree or completely) to 7 (strongly disagree or not at all). Higher scores indicate greater self-security. In the present sample, the SofIA had excellent internal consistency (α = 0.91). 2.1.3.2. Other aspects of self-evaluation 2.1.3.2.1. Self-esteem. We used the 10-item (e.g., “On the whole, I am satisfied with myself”; α = 0.90) Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965). 2.1.3.2.2. Self-compassion. We used the 26-item (e.g., “When I'm going through a very hard time, I give myself the caring and tenderness I need”; α = 0.93) Self-Compassion Scale1 (Neff, 2003b). 2.1.3.2.3. Shame-proneness. The 16-item (α = 0.71) subscale of the Test of Self-Conscious Affect-3 (Tangney, Dearing, Wagner, & Gramzow, 2000) presents scenarios (e.g., “You are driving down the road, and you hit a small animal”) followed by shame responses (e.g., “You would think: ‘I′m terrible’”). 2.1.3.3. Self-evaluative interpersonal traits 2.1.3.3.1. Self-evaluative interpersonal traits: Hypersensitivity about others' evaluation 2.1.3.3.1.1. Fear of negative evaluation. We used the 12-item (e.g., “I am afraid others will not approve of me”; α = 0.92) Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation (Leary, 1983). 2.1.3.3.1.2. External shame. We used the 18-item (e.g., “I think that other people look down on me”; α = 0.93) Other as Shamer Scale (Goss, Gilbert, & Allan, 1994). 2.1.3.3.1.3. Contingent self-esteem. We used the 12-item (e.g., “It's hard for me to feel good about myself unless I know other people like me”; α = 0.92) subscale of the Pathological Narcissism Inventory (PNI; Pincus, Ansell, Pimentel, Cain, Wright, & Levy, 2009). 2.1.3.3.1.4. Self-sacrificing self-enhancement. We used the 6-item (e.g., “I try to show what a good person I am through my sacrifices”; α = 0.74) subscale of the PNI. 2.1.3.3.2. Self-evaluative interpersonal traits: Aversion to being vulnerable with others 2.1.3.3.2.1. Hiding the self. We used the 7-item (e.g., “When others get a glimpse of my needs, I feel anxious and ashamed”; α = 0.77) subscale of the PNI. 2.1.3.3.2.2. Devaluation. We used the 7-item (e.g., “I sometimes feel ashamed about my expectations of others when they disappoint me”; α = 0.84) subscale of the PNI. 2.1.3.3.2.3. Self-evaluative interpersonal traits: Self-aggrandizement 2.1.3.3.2.3.1. Grandiose fantasy. We used the 7-item (e.g., “I often fantasize about being recognized for my accomplishments”; α = 0.87) subscale of the PNI. 2.1.3.3.2.3.2. Entitlement rage. We used the 8-item (e.g., “I typically get very angry when I'm unable to get what I want from others”; α = 0.87) subscale of the PNI. 1 The results concerning self-security did not change when the total score was replaced by any of the Self-Compassion Scale subscale scores.

A.B. Huang, H. Berenbaum / Personality and Individual Differences 106 (2017) 64–70

2.1.3.4. Personality. We used subscales from the Big Five Inventory (John & Srivastava, 1999). 2.1.3.4.1. Neuroticism. The 8-item (e.g., “Gets nervous easily”; α = 0.82) subscale measures emotional instability and the tendency to experience unpleasant affect. 2.1.3.4.2. Extraversion. The 8-item (e.g., “Generates a lot of enthusiasm”; α = 0.88) subscale measures interpersonal assertiveness and the tendency to actively engage in and enjoy social activities. 2.1.3.4.3. Agreeableness. The 9-item (e.g., “Is considerate and kind to almost everyone”; α = 0.69) subscale measures the tendency to interact socially in an easy and pleasant manner that benefits others. 2.1.3.5. Close relationship variables 2.1.3.5.1. Adult attachment style. We used the Experiences in Close Relationships—Relationship Structures Questionnaire (ECR-RS; Fraley, Heffernan, Vicary, & Brumbaugh, 2011), designed to assess attachment style in a wide variety of close relationships: between family, friends, and romantic partners. We reworded the instructions and items so that the questionnaire assessed each participant's overall attachment to the close others they had identified earlier (see above) (e.g., “I find it easy to depend on these people” instead of “I find it easy to depend on this person”). Two subscales constitute the ECR-RS: the 3-item Attachment Anxiety subscale (e.g., “I worry that these people won't care about me as much as I care about them”; α = 0.86) and the 6-item Attachment Avoidance subscale (e.g., “I don't feel comfortable opening up to these people”; α = 0.87).

67

amount of negatives the close others experienced in the relationships, we used four items from the QRI'S Conflict subscale (α = 0.76), which assesses how much conflict occurs in the relationships, how difficult the relationships are, how emotionally distressed the close others feel, and how nonaccepting of the close others the participants are. For participants with two or more close-others reports (n = 88), we averaged the relationship quality scores (separately for the positives vs. the negatives) across each participant's close others. Except for attachment anxiety, on which participants with close-others reports scored lower than participants without (t(108) = − 2.59, p b 0.05), the two groups did not significantly differ on any variable.

2.2. Results and discussion

2.1.3.5.2.1. Relationship quality: Reports from close others. The close others completed a subset of the original QRI items selected based on the authors' consensus judgment. To measure the amount of positives the close others experienced in their relationships with the participants, we used four items each from the Support and Depth subscales. These shortened subscales (α = 0.81 and 0.76, respectively) were highly correlated (r = 0.68, p b 0.00); we combined them by averaging across items. The resulting 8-item (α = 0.87) subscale assesses how much support and care the close others receive from the participants and how much the close others value the relationships. To measure the

We began by exploring the SofIA's dimensionality by conducting an exploratory factor analysis. A maximum likelihood factor analysis showed that the first factor accounted for almost half (49.0%) of the variance; no other factors accounted for much variance (the second factor accounted for only 11.6%). The scree plot (Fig. 1) showed a point of inflection suggesting a single underlying factor. Factor loadings, retaining a single factor, are presented in Table 1. Additionally, a parallel analysis showed that after accounting for the two reverse-scored items, only the first factor's eigenvalue exceeded the 95th percentile of the corresponding factor's eigenvalues based on random data. Collectively, the results of these analyses suggest that the SofIA measures a single construct. Next, we examined self-security's associations with: (a) other aspects of self-evaluation, (b) self-evaluative interpersonal traits, and (c) major personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism). As shown in Table 2, self-security, or accepting one's weaknesses, was significantly correlated in the expected directions with other aspects of self-evaluation. It was particularly strongly correlated—but shared b 50% variance—with self-esteem and self-compassion.3 Regarding major personality traits, as expected, accepting one's weaknesses was significantly positively correlated with extraversion and agreeableness—beneficial interpersonal traits—and significantly negatively correlated with neuroticism. Also as expected, accepting one's weaknesses was significantly negatively correlated with emotionally and socially problematic self-relevant interpersonal traits. Specifically, self-security was most strongly negatively correlated with hypersensitivity about others' evaluation, and moderately negatively correlated with aversion to being vulnerable with others, and with selfaggrandizement. None of the aforementioned associations was so strong as to suggest that self-security was indistinguishable from or redundant with any other construct. Next, we examined self-security's associations with close relationships in terms of attachment style and relationship quality. As shown in Table 3, accepting one's weaknesses was, as expected, significantly negatively correlated with attachment avoidance and anxiety, and was positively correlated with relationship quality as reported by both the participants and their close others (family, romantic partners, and long-term friends). Specifically, greater self-security of the participants significantly predicted: (a) their experiencing less negatives (e.g., conflict and emotional distress) in these relationships, (b) their experiencing more positives (e.g., support received from close others), and (c) their close others' experiencing more positives (e.g., support received from the participants). Although not statistically significant, selfsecurity's correlation with close-others-reported negatives was in the expected direction. Lastly, we tested our hypothesis that self-security would predict attachment style and relationship quality over and above other aspects of self-evaluation. We computed partial correlations, simultaneously

2 When correcting for attenuation, the Support and Depth subscales shared 86% of their variance.

3 Even after correcting for attenuation, self-security shared only 56% of variance with self-esteem and 43% of variance with self-compassion.

2.1.3.5.2. Relationship quality. We used the Quality of Relationship Inventory (QRI; Pierce, Sarason, & Sarason, 1991), rewording the instructions and items so that the questionnaire assessed the overall quality of each participant's relationships with the close others they had identified earlier (see above) (e.g., “How positive a role do these people play in your life?” instead of “How positive a role does this person play in your life?”). Three subscales constitute the QRI: Support, Depth, and Conflict. To measure the amount of positives the participants experienced in these relationships, we combined the 7-item Support and the 6-item Depth scales, which were strongly correlated (r = 0.70) and had only modest internal consistency (α = 0.80 and α = 0.71, respectively2). The resulting 13-item (α = 0.86) subscale assesses how much support and care the participants receive from their close others (e.g., “To what extent could you count on these people for help with a problem?”) and how much the participants value the relationships (e.g., “How significant are these relationships in your life?”). To measure the amount of negatives the participants experienced in these relationships, we used the QRI's 12-item (α = 0.83) Conflict subscale, which assesses how much conflict occurs in the relationships (e.g., “How much do you argue with these people?”), how difficult the relationships are (e.g., “How often do you have to work hard to avoid conflict with these people?”), how emotionally distressed the participants feel (e.g., “How upset do these people sometimes make you feel?”), and how nonaccepting of them their close others are (e.g., “How critical of you are these people?”).

68

A.B. Huang, H. Berenbaum / Personality and Individual Differences 106 (2017) 64–70 Table 2 Correlations between self-security and other variables. Other aspects of self-evaluation Self-esteem Self-compassion Shame-proneness Self-evaluative interpersonal traits Hypersensitivity about others' evaluation Contingent self-esteem Fear of negative evaluation External shame Self-sacrificing self-enhancement Aversion to being vulnerable with others Hiding the self Devaluation Self-aggrandizement Grandiose fantasy Entitlement rage Personality

Fig. 1. Scree plot of the Security of “I” Assessment showing a point of inflection that suggests a single underlying factor.

removing the shared variance accounted for by self-esteem, selfcompassion, and shame-proneness. Even after simultaneously accounting for all these other aspects of self-evaluation, accepting one's weaknesses continued to be significantly associated with anxious attachment style, self-reported negatives, and close-others reported positives. 3. Study 2 In Study 1, we demonstrated that self-security was significantly associated, but not redundant with, other aspects of self-evaluation, and that it is linked to healthy self-evaluative interpersonal traits, attachment style, and relationship quality. Moreover, the results of the exploratory factor analysis suggested a single-factor model. In Study 2, we tested this model by conducting a confirmatory factor analysis on a new sample. 3.1. Method 3.1.1. Participants and procedure In a separate study examining emotions, personality, rumination, and worry, participants completed a digital version of the SofIA. Participants were tested individually. (They also completed other tasks and measures not reported in this paper.) Table 1 Corrected item-total correlations and factor loadings of the Security of “I” Assessment. Item

CITC

EFAa

CFAb

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

0.68 0.64 0.70 0.62 0.54 0.76 0.62 0.69 0.76 0.59 0.55 0.54 0.54

0.74 0.69 0.71 0.62 0.54 0.82 0.67 0.72 0.80 0.62 0.58 0.56 0.57

0.71 0.69 0.72 0.68 0.59 0.82 0.59 0.62 0.79 0.62 0.56 0.60 0.50

Note. CITC = Corrected item-total correlations; EFA = exploratory factor analysis; CFA = confirmatory factor analysis. a The item-total correlation and exploratory factor analyses were conducted on Study 1′ s sample. b Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on Study 2′s sample.

Extraversion Agreeableness Neuroticism

0.68⁎⁎⁎ 0.60⁎⁎⁎ −0.31⁎⁎⁎

−0.61⁎⁎⁎ −0.53⁎⁎⁎ −0.52⁎⁎⁎ −0.41⁎⁎⁎ −0.33⁎⁎⁎ −0.32⁎⁎⁎ −0.32⁎⁎⁎ −0.32⁎⁎⁎ 0.26⁎⁎⁎ 0.12⁎ −0.52⁎⁎⁎

⁎ p b 0.05. ⁎⁎ p b 0.01. ⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001.

Participants were 158 undergraduates (69.3% female), ranging in age from 18 to 22 (M = 19.4, SD = 1.2). Racially, the majority (60.8%) identified as White, followed by 16.3% Asian, 11.1% Black/African American, and 8.5% other or multiracial; ethnically, 11.8% identified as Latino/Hispanic. All received course credit for participation. 3.2. Results and discussion We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using AMOS version 17.0. The majority of SofIA's items (10 of 13) share stems with other items. For example, three items share the stem, “Because of my weaknesses, I find it hard to…” The first of these three items ends with “… like myself”; the second, “… forgive myself”; and the third, “… respect myself.” There are three other stems, shared by seven items: “Despite my weaknesses, I find it hard to…” (two items); “My weaknesses make me …” (two items); and “My weaknesses make life less …” (three items). To account for this similarity, we covaried the errors of items sharing the same stem. The single-factor model assumed that all items would load on a single general self-security factor. The model had a chi-square statistic fit of χ2(58) = 133.573, p = 0.00. Because chi-squares of large samples can be misleading (Loehlin, 1987), we divided the chi-square by the degrees of freedom (df) as a test of goodness of fit. The chi-square/df ratio was 2.3, the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) was 0.09, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) was 0.94, and the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) was 0.06. These values indicate moderate to good fit for the model (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Factor loadings are presented in Table 1. In sum, consistent with the results of Study 1′s exploratory factor analysis, the results of the confirmatory factor analysis suggest that a single-factor model provides good fit to the data. 4. Study 3 The results of Study 1′s exploratory factor analysis as well as Study 2′ s confirmatory factor analysis supported a single-factor model for the SofIA, suggesting that self-security is a unidimensional construct. We theorized that acceptance of one's own weaknesses is relatively stable, and therefore hypothesized self-security's temporal stability to be large. We tested this hypothesis in Study 3 by examining the SofIA's test-retest reliability.

A.B. Huang, H. Berenbaum / Personality and Individual Differences 106 (2017) 64–70

69

Table 3 Correlations between aspects of self-evaluation and close relationship variables. Attachment style

Relationship Quality Positives

Zero-order correlations with: Self-security Self-esteem Self-compassion Shame-proneness Partial correlations with self-securitya

Negatives

Experienced by participants

Experienced by close others

Experienced by participants

Experienced by close others

0.21⁎⁎ 0.11 0.10 0.03 0.19⁎

−0.31⁎⁎⁎ −0.24⁎⁎⁎ −0.23⁎⁎⁎

−0.14 −0.06 −0.12 0.09 −0.12

Avoidance

Anxiety

−0.18⁎⁎ −0.24⁎⁎⁎ −0.16⁎

−0.31⁎⁎⁎ −0.28⁎⁎⁎ −0.31⁎⁎⁎

0.12⁎ 0.17⁎⁎ 0.13⁎

−0.01 −0.04

0.11 −0.14⁎

0.06 0.02

0.05 −0.19⁎⁎

a Simultaneously removing shared variance with self-esteem, self-compassion, and shame-proneness. ⁎ p b 0.05. ⁎⁎ p b 0.01. ⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001.

4.1. Method 4.1.1. Participants and procedure In a separate study examining emotions, personality, and depression, participants completed a digital version of the SofIA at two different time points separated by approximately one month. Participants were tested individually. (They also completed other tasks and measures not reported in this paper.) Participants were 195 undergraduates (63.7% female), ranging in age from 18 to 22 (M = 19.1, SD = 1.1). Racially, the majority (65.2%) identified as White, followed by 20.2% Asian, 11.4% Black/African American, and 3.1% other or multiracial; ethnically, 9.8% identified as Latino/Hispanic. All received course credit for participation. 4.2. Results and discussion The SofIA demonstrated excellent one-month test-retest reliability (r = 0.91). The results suggest that self-security is at least as temporally stable as other aspects of self-evaluation (e.g., Silber & Tippet, 1965; Neff, 2003b). 5. General discussion Bridging contributions in self-evaluation research and acceptancebased psychotherapies, the present research introduces self-security, a new indicator of healthy self-evaluation. Self-security is defined as the open and nonjudgmental acceptance of one's own weaknesses. We developed the SofIA, a self-report questionnaire to assess self-security. We found that the SofIA has excellent internal consistency (Study 1) and excellent one-month test-retest reliability (Study 3). The results of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (Studies 1 and 2, respectively), suggest that the SofIA is unidimensional. Our findings support self-security as a promising new indicator of healthy self-evaluation. Although self-security was substantially correlated with other aspects of self-evaluation (i.e., self-esteem, selfcompassion, shame-proneness), the correlations were not so strong as to suggest that it is redundant. Further, even after simultaneously accounting for all these other aspects of self-evaluation, self-security was associated with facets of attachment style and relationship quality. Our findings expand on the existing literature documenting selfevaluation's ties with interpersonal traits and close relationships (e.g., Swann & Read, 1981; Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 2000). We found that accepting one's weaknesses is negatively associated with a wide variety of maladaptive interpersonal traits (i.e., hypersensitivity about others' evaluation, anxiety about being emotionally vulnerable, and self-aggrandizement). Most importantly, we found that accepting one's weaknesses was associated with better close relationships: greater self-security was associated with participants' being more securely

attached to close others, experiencing less relationship conflict, and providing more support to close others, even after simultaneously taking into account other aspects of self-evaluation. To address the limitations of our cross-sectional and correlational study, future research could employ experimental and longitudinal methods to investigate potential causal mechanisms between selfsecurity and quality relationships. For example, self-security's negative associations with (a) hypersensitivity about others' evaluation, and (b) participant-reported negatives in close relationships (e.g., conflict and emotional distress) suggest a connection between rejecting one's own weaknesses and projecting and/or actually experiencing rejection by others. Self-security is also negatively associated with (a) aversion to being emotionally vulnerable with others, and (b) anxious and avoidant attachment styles. These findings support our theory that accepting one's weaknesses—being comfortable about them—is linked to being comfortable about opening up to others, which encourages emotional closeness (Cordova & Scott, 2001). Moreover, based on our finding that the participants' self-security predicted their close others' experiencing relationship positives (e.g., support received from the participants), we propose that accepting one's weaknesses also enables one to be attentive and caring when others open up. In sum, we propose that accepting one's weaknesses enhances one's relationships by increasing (a) one's acceptance by others, (b) one's comfort opening up to others, and (b) one's support of others. We further propose that healthy relationships, in turn, enhance one's self-security. We recommend future investigations into this beneficial cycle. We also recommend that future research examine self-security's links with emotional wellbeing and psychological distress. Extensive research documents how maladaptive self-evaluation (e.g., excessive selfcriticism when failing to meet self-standards; Higgins, 1987) intensifies unpleasant self-relevant emotions (e.g., shame; Tangney, Burggraf, & Wagner, 1995), which in turn contribute to a multitude of psychopathological outcomes (e.g., depression and anxiety; Kim, Thibodeau, & Jorgensen, 2011; Fergus, Valentiner, McGrath, & Jencius, 2010). We expect the rejection of one's weaknesses to exacerbate unpleasant selfrelevant emotions, which would in turn contribute to psychological distress (e.g., rumination and worry). Conversely, we expect that cultivating acceptance of one's weaknesses would ultimately contribute to emotional well-being. It will be important for future research to examine self-security in diverse populations varying in age, education, socioeconomic status, and culture. Last, but not least, future research should explore the potential value (or lack thereof) of having participants think and write about their own weaknesses prior to completing the 13 SofIA items. In conclusion, we propose a new aspect of self-evaluation, selfsecurity (i.e., one's acceptance of own weaknesses), developed the SofIA to assess self-security, and began to empirically validate selfsecurity's connections with other aspects of self-evaluation,

70

A.B. Huang, H. Berenbaum / Personality and Individual Differences 106 (2017) 64–70

interpersonal traits, and relationship quality. Our findings suggest that self-security plays an important role in healthy relationships—and raise the possibility that it plays a role in psychological well-being too. We hope that our study encourages further research that informs our understanding of a healthy sense of self founded on the acceptance of unflattering things that challenge one's sense of self-worth. Declaration of conflicting interests The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding source declaration This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Acknowledgements We thank Dov Cohen, Nathaniel Eckland, Catharine Fairbairn, Chris Fraley, Sarah Havens, Wenting Mu, and Christian Williams for their valuable comments on earlier drafts of this article. Appendix A. Security of “I” Assessment (SofIA) Items. My weaknesses make me feel like there's something wrong with me. My weaknesses make me wish I could fix myself. My weaknesses make life less enjoyable. My weaknesses make life less fulfilling. My weaknesses make life less meaningful. Because of my weaknesses, I find it hard to like myself. Because of my weaknesses, I find it hard to forgive myself. Because of my weaknesses, I find it hard to respect myself. My weaknesses bother me.a I would be happier without my weaknesses. I wish I didn't have my weaknesses. Despite my weaknesses, I find it easy to appreciate myself for who I am. (reverse-scored) Despite my weaknesses, I find it easy to be kind to myself. (reverse-scored) Note. Instructions for the SofIA read: “Earlier, you answered questions about your two biggest weaknesses. Now, think about your weaknesses in general. Indicate, by selecting one response, how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about your weaknesses in general.” Response options range from strongly agree to strongly disagree. a Before we updated this item's wording for Studies 2 and 3, in Study 1 it read: “How much do your weaknesses bother you?” and its response options ranged from completely to not at all.

Appendix B Supplementary data to this article can be found online at doi:10. 1016/j.paid.2016.10.031.

References Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4(1), 1–44. Cordova, J. V., & Scott, R. L. (2001). Intimacy: A behavioral interpretation. The Behavior Analyst, 24(1), 75. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being (1984). Psychological Bulletin, 95(3). Fergus, T. A., Valentiner, D. P., McGrath, P. B., & Jencius, S. (2010). Shame-and guiltproneness: Relationships with anxiety disorder symptoms in a clinical sample. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 24(8), 811–815. Fraley, R. C., Heffernan, M. E., Vicary, A. M., & Brumbaugh, C. C. (2011). The experiences in close relationships—Relationship structures questionnaire: A method for assessing attachment orientations across relationships. Psychological Assessment, 23(3), 615. Goss, K., Gilbert, P., & Allan, S. (1994). An exploration of shame measures—I: The other as Shamer scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 17(5), 713–717. Hayes, S. C. (2004). Acceptance and commitment therapy, relational frame theory, and the third wave of behavioral and cognitive therapies. Behavior Therapy, 35(4), 639–665. Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94(3), 319. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. Handbook of personality: Theory and research, 2(1999), 102–138. Kernis, M. H., & Waschull, S. B. (1995). The interactive roles of stability and level of selfesteem: Research and theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 93–141. Kim, S., Thibodeau, R., & Jorgensen, R. S. (2011). Shame, guilt, and depressive symptoms: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 137(1), 68. Leary, M. R. (1983). A brief version of the fear of negative evaluation scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9(3), 371–375. Leary, M. R., Tate, E. B., Adams, C. E., Allen, A. B., & Hancock, J. (2007). Self-compassion and reactions to unpleasant self-relevant events: The implications of treating oneself kindly. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(5), 887–904. Loehlin, J. C. (1987). Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and structural analysis. Hilssdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Mosewich, A. D., Kowalski, K. C., Sabiston, C. M., Sedgwick, W. A., & Tracy, J. L. (2011). Selfcompassion: A potential resource for young women athletes. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33(1), 103–123. Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (2000). Self-esteem and the quest for felt security: How perceived regard regulates attachment processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(3), 478. Neff, K. (2003a). Self-compassion: An alternative conceptualization of a healthy attitude toward oneself. Self and Identity, 2(2), 85–101. Neff, K. (2003b). The development and validation of a scale to measure self-compassion. Self and Identity, 2, 233–250. Park, L. E., & Crocker, J. (2005). Interpersonal consequences of seeking self-esteem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(11), 1587–1598. Pierce, G. R., Sarason, I. G., & Sarason, B. R. (1991). General and relationship-based perceptions of social support: Are two constructs better than one? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(6), 1028. Pincus, A. L., Ansell, E. B., Pimentel, C. A., Cain, N. M., Wright, A. G., & Levy, K. N. (2009). Initial construction and validation of the pathological narcissism inventory. Psychological Assessment, 21(3), 365. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image (p. 326). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Silber, E., & Tippett, J. S. (1965). Self-esteem: Clinical assessment and measurement validation. Psychological Reports, 16(3 suppl), 1017–1071. Swann, W. B., & Read, S. J. (1981). Self-verification processes: How we sustain our selfconceptions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17(4), 351–372. Tangney, J. P., Burggraf, S. A., & Wagner, P. E. (1995). Shame-proneness, guilt-proneness, and psychological symptoms. Tangney, J. P., Dearing, R. L., Wagner, P. E., & Gramzow, R. (2000). The test of self-conscious affect-3 (TOSCA-3). Fairfax. VA: George Mason University Unpublished manuscript. Wells, M., & Jones, R. (2000). Childhood parentification and shame-proneness: A preliminary study. American Journal of Family Therapy, 28(1), 19–27. Werner, K. H., Jazaieri, H., Goldin, P. R., Ziv, M., Heimberg, R. G., & Gross, J. J. (2012). Selfcompassion and social anxiety disorder. Anxiety, Stress & Coping: An International Journal, 25(5), 543–558.