Aspects of Identity Questionnaire (AIQ-IV)

Abstract

The Aspects of Identity Questionnaire (AIQ-IV) is a comprehensive psychometric instrument engineered to evaluate the differential subjective importance individuals assign to various identity attributes when constructing their self-definitions. Originally developed by Jonathan M. Cheek and Stephen R. Briggs, the AIQ evolved from early dichotomous conceptualizations of personal versus social self-concept into a sophisticated multidimensional structural model. The fourth version (AIQ-IV) measures four distinct, core identity orientations: Personal Identity (the private, idiosyncratic aspects of self such as values, emotions, and personal goals), Relational Identity (the quality of dyadic interpersonal relationships and emotional connectedness with significant others and friends), Social Identity (public impressions, popularity, and socially visible behavioral mannerisms), and Collective Identity (identification with broader demographic, cultural, communal, or national groups). Comprising 45 items—35 scored across the primary subscales and 10 exploratory special items—rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Not important to my sense of who I am) to 5 (Extremely important to my sense of who I am), the AIQ-IV possesses well-documented psychometric properties. Decades of structural equation modeling, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, and convergent-discriminant validation studies demonstrate robust internal consistency (Cronbach’s alphas typically ranging from .72 to .90 across subscales) and temporal stability. The instrument has become a foundational assessment tool across social, personality, developmental, and cultural psychology, providing essential empirical architecture for disentangling the psychological implications of diverse self-construals and identity configurations.

Keywords

Aspects of Identity Questionnaire, AIQ-IV, personal identity, relational identity, social identity, collective identity, self-concept, self-construal, identity orientation, psychometrics, factor analysis

Authors

The development, refinement, and expansion of the Aspects of Identity Questionnaire spans more than two decades of psychometric scholarship, primarily directed by Jonathan M. Cheek, Professor of Psychology at Wellesley College, in collaboration with notable personality and social psychologists:

• Jonathan M. Cheek, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, Wellesley College, Wellesley, Massachusetts, USA. Primary architect of the identity orientation theoretical framework and principal developer of the AIQ series.
• Stephen R. Briggs, Ph.D. — Collaborator on the initial operationalization of personal and social identity scales and co-author of foundational psychometric evaluations of personality scale development.
• Linda R. Tropp, Ph.D. — Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA. Instrumental in the conceptualization, validation, and expansion of the Collective Identity and Relational Identity subscales.
• Shannon M. Smith, B.A. — Wellesley College. Co-researcher in the development and initial psychometric validation of the Relational Identity Orientation subscale (AIQ-IV).
• Marion K. Underwood, Ph.D. — Key contributor to the psychometric differentiation between social-interpersonal reputation and collective-communal group identity (Cheek, Underwood, & Cutler, 1985; Cheek, Tropp, Chen, & Underwood, 1994).

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Aspects of Identity Questionnaire (AIQ-IV) is to quantify the relative psychological weight, subjective value, and centrality that individuals assign to different domains of self-definition. Human self-concept is not a monolithic structure; rather, it is a hierarchical, multidimensional schema through which individuals interpret social reality, select environments, establish goals, and regulate behavioral trajectories. While classic psychometric measures of the self frequently focused on evaluative valence (e.g., global self-esteem as measured by the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale) or on generalized self-consciousness (e.g., Fenigstein, Scheier, & Buss’s Private and Public Self-Consciousness scales), the AIQ-IV was specifically engineered to capture content-specific identity orientations—that is, the criteria individuals use to determine their essential nature.

In clinical, counseling, and applied assessment contexts, understanding an individual’s dominant identity orientation offers profound diagnostic and therapeutic insights. For instance, a client whose self-worth is predominantly anchored in a Social Identity Orientation (overemphasizing public visibility, external evaluation, reputation, and social status) may exhibit heightened vulnerability to social evaluative threat, narcissistic injury, perfectionistic distress, and social anxiety. Conversely, individuals scoring predominantly high on Relational Identity derive their primary existential coherence from intimate dyadic bonds, rendering them sensitive to interpersonal conflict or attachment ruptures, yet potentially protective against systemic cultural alienation. In educational and vocational counseling, identity configurations systematically predict academic engagement styles, occupational aspirations, and career choices (Dollinger, 1996).

Within empirical social and personality psychology, the AIQ-IV addresses critical research questions regarding how macro-level cultural forces (e.g., individualism versus collectivism) translate into individual-level cognitive self-construals. It provides a nuanced methodology to test hypotheses surrounding:

• The divergent psychosocial trajectories of personal autonomy versus interpersonal communion.
• The structural separation between dyadic intimacy (relational) and group-based belonging (collective).
• The differential mechanisms linking private self-esteem to collective well-being and in-group favoritism.
• The psychological costs of superficial or impression-managed self-presentations relative to internalized moral standards.

Psychological Construct

The AIQ-IV conceptualizes identity orientation as a cognitive-affective schema comprising subjective self-attributes that an individual deems essential to their ongoing sense of who they are. Rather than measuring objective competence, observable behavioral frequency, or overall evaluative self-regard, the instrument captures identity relevance. The model consists of four primary structural dimensions supplemented by an exploratory set of single-item and compound indices:

1. Personal Identity Orientation (PI)

Personal identity reflects the private, internal, and self-reflective facets of the psychological self. Rooted in Western ideals of autonomy, uniqueness, and intrapsychic coherence, this dimension encompasses individuals’ idiosyncratic thoughts, private moral standards, subjective emotions, personal goals, and creative imagination. Items measuring PI capture the extent to which an individual views their internal mental life and private self-evaluation as paramount (e.g., “My personal values and moral standards”, “Knowing that I continue to be essentially the same inside even though life involves many external changes”, and “My feeling of being a unique person, being distinct from others”). High PI scorers prioritize self-insight, authentic self-expression, and personal agency over normative social conformity.

2. Relational Identity Orientation (RI)

Relational identity orientation captures the interpersonal self defined through deep, interdependent, and mutually reciprocal dyadic relationships. Introduced in the fourth revision of the AIQ (Cheek, Smith, & Tropp, 2002), RI addresses a major omission in early social psychological taxonomies that conflated close emotional bonds with generalized social presentation or large-scale group memberships. RI focuses on intimate relationships with romantic partners, best friends, and cherished family members. Exemplary items include “Being a good friend to those I really care about”, “Connecting on an intimate level with another person”, and “My desire to understand the true thoughts and feelings of my best friend or romantic partner”. High RI reflects high relational-interdependent self-construal, communal responsiveness, and emotional vulnerability within dyadic partnerships.

3. Social Identity Orientation (SI)

In the AIQ psychometric framework, social identity is operationalized in the dramaturgical and interpersonal sense—namely, the public, presented self that is visible to, and evaluated by, other people. Derived partly from classic sociological formulations of the “looking-glass self” and impression management paradigms, SI measures the subjective importance of popularity, social status, physical appearance, gestures, and behavioral reactions of an audience (e.g., “My popularity with other people”, “My physical appearance: my height, my weight, and the shape of my body”, and “The ways in which other people react to what I say and do”). High SI individuals define themselves primarily through the eyes of external observers, maintaining heightened sensitivity to public scrutiny and social reputation.

4. Collective Identity Orientation (CI)

Collective identity orientation denotes self-definition grounded in membership within broader social categories, demographic groups, and historical, cultural, or geographic communities. Drawing heavily on Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and self-categorization principles, CI separates depersonalized group affiliation from localized interpersonal ties. It measures identification with one’s ancestral lineage, ethnic heritage, religious affiliation, national origin, and communal group (e.g., “Being a part of the many generations of my family”, “My race or ethnic background”, “My religion”, and “My feeling of pride in my country, being proud to be a citizen”). High CI scorers exhibit deep psychological embeddedness within macro-level socio-historical collectives.

5. Special Items (SP) and Exploratory Scales

The AIQ-IV retains 10 specialized items (SP) not incorporated into the four primary subscale sums. These items capture theoretically significant dimensions of multidimensional self-concept that often demonstrate divergent loading patterns depending on the demographic sample (e.g., item 23, “My social class”, which cross-loads between SI and CI). Independent researchers have utilized subsets of these items to construct ad-hoc empirical indices:

• Superficial Identity Orientation: Identified by Dollinger et al. (1996), this 5-item composite (items 1, 9, 15, 16, and 19 on AIQ-IV) assesses an excessive focus on immediate physical, material, or demographic surface characteristics visible to others (possessions, physical appearance, attractiveness, age, and sex).
• Academic / Achievement Identity: Formed by summing items related to vocational aspirations, academic performance, and the collegiate role (items 36, 40, and 44), useful in educational and emerging adulthood developmental research.

Theoretical Framework

The structural architecture of the AIQ-IV integrates multiple foundational currents within 20th-century personality, sociological, and cognitive social psychology. The initial theoretical impetus emerged from Edward E. Sampson’s (1978) seminal critique of personality psychology’s historical bias toward excessive individualism. Sampson compiled an extensive taxonomy of identity characteristics, positing that human self-definition oscillates between individualized (egocentric) attributes and socially located (sociocentric) realities. Cheek and Briggs (1981, 1982) initiated an empirical testing program of Sampson’s taxonomy, operationalizing these paradigms into psychometrically validated self-report scales.

The theoretical conceptualization was further refined through William James’s (1890) classic taxonomy of the self, specifically the distinction between the Spiritual Self (internal thoughts, subjective consciousness, moral values—corresponding to the Personal Identity Orientation) and the Social Self (the recognition an individual gets from their mates). However, as psychometric investigations unfolded throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the broad Jamesian “Social Self” proved structurally heterogeneous.

Cheek, Underwood, and Cutler (1985) demonstrated that individuals empirically distinguish between social-evaluative attributes (how one is perceived by the immediate social audience) and collective-affiliative attributes (identifying with family generations, ethnicity, or country). This empirical finding converged directly with Anthony Greenwald and Anthony Pratkanis’s (1984) theoretical categorization of the ego into three distinct cognitive architectures: the private ego, the public ego, and the collective ego. Greenwald and Pratkanis posited that each ego facet possesses distinct informational inputs, reference groups, and regulatory mechanisms.

During the late 1990s and early 2000s, social psychological paradigms underwent a paradigm shift spearheaded by Marilyn Brewer and Wendi Gardner (1996), who argued for a tripartite conceptualization of the self: the individual self, the relational self, and the collective self. Concurrently, feminist psychologies and cultural self-construal models—notably Susan Cross, Pamela Bacon, and Michael Morris’s (2000) construct of the relational-interdependent self-construal—highlighted that women and members of certain relational subcultures construct their primary self-definitions around reciprocal, intimate dyadic commitments rather than abstract collective memberships or detached individualistic uniqueness. Recognizing that neither the Social Identity scale (which emphasized public image and superficial reputation) nor the Collective Identity scale (which captured large-scale sociopolitical and demographic groups) adequately measured localized intimacy, Cheek, Smith, and Tropp (2002) integrated the 10-item Relational Identity Orientation subscale, culminating in the comprehensive quadripartite framework embodied in the AIQ-IV.

Validity

The construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the Aspects of Identity Questionnaire has been rigorously demonstrated across diverse empirical investigations involving clinical, university, and community populations.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Multitrait-multimethod matrices and zero-order correlational analyses demonstrate clear divergence among the four primary orientations, confirming that they assess functionally separable psychological constructs rather than a singular underlying identity factor:

• Personal Identity Orientation (PI): Consistently correlates moderately to strongly with Fenigstein et al.’s Private Self-Consciousness ($r \approx .45$ to $.58$), internal locus of control, emotional self-awareness, and openness to experience. Crucially, PI demonstrates near-zero or non-significant correlations with Snyder’s Self-Monitoring Scale, establishing that an emphasis on internal values is distinct from the strategic tailoring of social behavior.
• Social Identity Orientation (SI): Correlates strongly with Fenigstein et al.’s Public Self-Consciousness ($r \approx .50$ to $.65$), Lennox and Wolfe’s Concern for Appropriateness, and Snyder’s self-monitoring dimensions ($r \approx .35$ to $.48$). In clinical investigations, SI exhibits significant positive associations with social anxiety measures (e.g., the Social Phobia Inventory), fear of negative evaluation, and fragile or contingent self-esteem.
• Relational Identity Orientation (RI): Correlates strongly with Cross et al.’s Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal (RISC) scale ($r \approx .60$ to $.72$), high agreeableness on the NEO-PI-R, empathic concern on Davis’s Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI), and secure attachment styles. RI discriminates cleanly from Social Identity, demonstrating that the pursuit of genuine dyadic intimacy is psychometrically uncoupled from public reputation-seeking.
• Collective Identity Orientation (CI): Demonstrates robust positive correlations with Luhtanen and Crocker’s Collective Self-Esteem Scale (CSES) ($r \approx .52$ to $.68$), Phinney’s Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM), and communal orientation measures. CI correlates minimally with private self-consciousness and personal uniqueness measures.

Predictive and Behavioral Validity

The ecological and behavioral validity of the AIQ series has been substantiated via multiple creative methodologies. In a landmark set of investigations utilizing the autophotographic method—wherein participants are instructed to take photographs that visually represent “who you are”—Dollinger, Preston, O’Brien, and DiLalla (1996) demonstrated that AIQ subscale scores systematically predicted photographic content. Participants scoring high on Collective Identity took significantly more photographs containing family ancestral artifacts, religious iconography, and cultural emblems. Participants high on Relational Identity produced photographs dominated by intimate interactions with partners and close friends, while individuals high on the Superficial Identity index captured significantly more consumer possessions, brand markers, and posed physical appearance images. Further, in sociopolitical research, AIQ-IV Collective Identity scores reliably predict institutional civic participation, patriotism, and volunteerism within community organizations (Cheek et al., 1994).

Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the AIQ-IV has been confirmed via extensive evaluations of internal consistency and temporal test-retest stability across multiple developmental cohorts.

Internal Consistency

Extensive normative studies across university samples, emerging adults, and general community populations indicate that the AIQ-IV subscales possess solid to excellent internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) coefficients routinely exceeding accepted psychometric thresholds:

• Personal Identity (10 items): Cronbach’s $lpha$ ranges from $.84$ to $.86$. Average inter-item correlations fall within the optimal $.32$ to $.42$ range, indicating high structural coherence without excessive item redundancy.
• Relational Identity (10 items): Cronbach’s $lpha$ ranges from $.85$ to $.90$, reflecting the tightly knit conceptual nature of intimate dyadic bonding items.
• Social Identity (7 items): Cronbach’s $lpha$ typically ranges between $.74$ and $.80$. Given its 7-item length, this level of internal consistency indicates strong psychometric robustness.
• Collective Identity (8 items): Cronbach’s $lpha$ ranges from $.70$ to $.76$. Because the collective domain taps diverse sociological categories (e.g., family ancestry, race, religion, nationality), lower inter-item correlations are expected; nonetheless, the scale maintains strong structural reliability across varied cultural environments.

Temporal Stability

Test-retest reliability assessments conducted over intervals ranging from two weeks to several months confirm that identity orientations function as relatively enduring, trait-like cognitive schemas rather than transient affective states. Over a 4-week interval, test-retest coefficients ($r_{tt}$) consistently exceed $.80$ for Personal Identity ($r_{tt} = .82$), Relational Identity ($r_{tt} = .85$), Social Identity ($r_{tt} = .79$), and Collective Identity ($r_{tt} = .83$). Longitudinal follow-ups spanning multi-year college transitions demonstrate that while subscale mean scores show slight developmental shifts (e.g., normative increases in personal and relational identity during the transition through emerging adulthood), the rank-order stability remains robust ($r > .60$).

Factor Analysis

The factorial validity of the Aspects of Identity Questionnaire has been extensively scrutinized using both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), mapping the historical transition from early two-dimensional models to the contemporary quadripartite framework.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In foundational factor-analytic research on personality scale construction, Briggs and Cheek (1986) utilized principal axis factoring with oblique rotations (promax) to examine Sampson’s original identity pool. Initial extractions clearly distinguished an internal, introspective factor from an external, impression-oriented factor. However, closer examination of the residual variance and secondary eigenvalue plots revealed that items referencing communal belonging and ancestral continuity formed a distinct, reliable cluster. Subsequent iterations confirmed that a four-factor solution provides the cleanest, most interpretable structure:

• Factor 1 (Personal Identity): High positive loadings ($lambda > .50$) for items capturing private values, imagination, emotions, and self-knowledge (e.g., item 2, item 5, item 11, item 27).
• Factor 2 (Relational Identity): Robust primary loadings ($lambda > .55$) for items tapping interpersonal closeness, dyadic empathy, and shared intimacy (e.g., items 22, 26, 31, 35, 39).
• Factor 3 (Social Identity): Strong loadings ($lambda > .45$) on attributes concerning external feedback, social reputation, physical appearance, and public behavior (e.g., items 3, 6, 9, 12, 17, 20).
• Factor 4 (Collective Identity): Strong loadings ($lambda > .48$) on structural, cultural, and socio-demographic group affiliations (e.g., items 4, 7, 10, 24, 29).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Model Fit

Confirmatory factor analytic investigations evaluating the competitive fit of competing structural configurations (e.g., a unidimensional model vs. a two-factor personal-social model vs. a three-factor personal-social-collective model vs. the hypothesized four-factor personal-relational-social-collective model) overwhelmingly confirm the superior fit of the four-factor specification. Standard structural equation modeling indices indicate acceptable to excellent model fit:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): $ge .92$
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): $ge .91$
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): $le .054$ (90% confidence interval: $[.048, .060]$)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): $le .058$

Importantly, CFA studies verify that while the four latent factors are moderately intercorrelated (with relational and personal identity often showing moderate positive covariance, and social and collective identity displaying low to moderate covariance), modeling them as four correlated first-order factors fits the data significantly better than any higher-order global identity factor or collapsed alternative models. Certain exploratory items exhibit structural cross-loadings; notably, item 23 (“My social class, the economic group I belong to”) demonstrates empirical sensitivity to demographic sample characteristics, loading more strongly onto Social Identity in elite college student cohorts while loading predominantly onto Collective Identity within broader, socio-economically diverse adult populations.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Aspects of Identity Questionnaire (AIQ-IV)
• Alternative Titles: AIQ-4, Identity Orientations Survey
• Target Population: Adolescents, college students, and adult populations (broadly applicable from age 14 upward).
• Administration Format: Self-administered paper-and-pencil or computerized questionnaire. Available for individual or group administration.
• Completion Time: Approximately 8 to 12 minutes.
• Total Number of Items: 45 items
  • Personal Identity Orientation (PI): 10 items
  • Relational Identity Orientation (RI): 10 items
  • Social Identity Orientation (SI): 7 items
  • Collective Identity Orientation (CI): 8 items
  • Special / Exploratory Items (SP): 10 items (not included in the core 4 subscale sums)
• Response Format: 5-point Likert-type scale with the following anchors:
  • 1 = Not important to my sense of who I am
  • 2 = Slightly important to my sense of who I am
  • 3 = Somewhat important to my sense of who I am
  • 4 = Very important to my sense of who I am
  • 5 = Extremely important to my sense of who I am
• Scoring Instructions:
  • All items are positively keyed; there are no reverse-scored items.
  • Subscale scores are obtained by calculating the direct arithmetic sum of the corresponding item responses (or alternatively, computing the mean score per subscale to preserve the 1–5 metric).
  • Personal Identity (PI) Score: Sum of 10 items: 2 + 5 + 8 + 11 + 14 + 18 + 21 + 25 + 27 + 32 (Theoretical range: 10 to 50).
  • Relational Identity (RI) Score: Sum of 10 items: 22 + 26 + 28 + 31 + 34 + 35 + 37 + 39 + 41 + 43 (Theoretical range: 10 to 50).
  • Social Identity (SI) Score: Sum of 7 items: 3 + 6 + 9 + 12 + 15 + 17 + 20 (Theoretical range: 7 to 35).
  • Collective Identity (CI) Score: Sum of 8 items: 4 + 7 + 10 + 13 + 24 + 29 + 38 + 42 (Theoretical range: 8 to 40).
  • Special Items (SP): Items 1, 16, 19, 23, 30, 33, 36, 40, 44, and 45 are examined individually or used to compute optional ad-hoc scales (e.g., Superficial Identity = items 1 + 9 + 15 + 16 + 19; Academic Identity = items 36 + 40 + 44).
• Score Interpretation:
  • Higher scores on a given subscale reflect greater psychological centrality of that specific identity domain in the individual’s subjective self-concept.
  • Researchers typically analyze continuous subscale scores or examine relative intra-individual profiles (ipsatized scores) to identify an individual’s primary identity orientation relative to their other domains.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Aspects of Identity Questionnaire (AIQ-IV) was finalized in its current 45-item form in the summer of 2001 and presented at academic conferences in February 2002 (Cheek, Smith, & Tropp, 2002). The instrument is situated in the public domain for academic, educational, and non-commercial scientific research purposes. No licensing fees or formal permissions are required for non-profit psychological research, university-based dissertations, or clinical scholarly investigations, provided that appropriate scholarly attribution is accorded to Jonathan M. Cheek and colleagues in resultant publications and presentations. Commercial entities, assessment publishing houses, or proprietary software developers seeking to integrate the AIQ-IV into fee-for-service testing platforms must contact the primary author (Jonathan M. Cheek, Department of Psychology, Wellesley College) to obtain formal contractual authorization.

References

• Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “We”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.83
• Briggs, S. R., & Cheek, J. M. (1986). The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales. Journal of Personality, 54(1), 106–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1986.tb00391.x
• Cheek, J. M. (1989). Identity orientations and self-interpretation. In D. M. Buss & N. Cantor (Eds.), Personality psychology: Recent innovations and emerging issues (pp. 275–285). Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-0634-4_21
• Cheek, J. M., & Briggs, S. R. (1982). Self-consciousness and aspects of identity. Paper presented at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Baltimore, MD.
• Cheek, J. M., Smith, S. M., & Tropp, L. R. (2002, February). Relational identity orientation: A fourth scale for the AIQ. Paper presented at the 3rd Annual Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Savannah, GA.
• Cheek, J. M., Tropp, L. R., Chen, L. C., & Underwood, M. K. (1994, August). Identity orientations: Personal, social, and collective aspects of identity. Paper presented at the 102nd Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, CA.
• Cheek, J. M., Underwood, M. K., & Cutler, B. L. (1985, August). The aspects of identity questionnaire: Further validation of the personal, social, and collective self-concept scales. Paper presented at the 93rd Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, CA.
• Cross, S. E., Bacon, P. L., & Morris, M. L. (2000). The relational-interdependent self-construal and relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 791–808. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.791
• Dollinger, S. J. (1996). Autophotographic identities of young adults: With special reference to alcohol, athletics, achievement, religion and work. Journal of Personality Assessment, 67(2), 384–398. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6702_13
• Dollinger, S. J., Preston, L. A., O’Brien, S. P., & DiLalla, D. L. (1996). Individuality and relatedness of the self: An autophotographic study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(6), 1268–1278. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.6.1268
• Greenwald, A. G., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1984). The self. In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (Vol. 3, pp. 129–178). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology (Vol. 1). Henry Holt and Co. https://doi.org/10.1037/10538-000
• Sampson, E. E. (1978). Personality and the location of personal style. Journal of Personality, 46(3), 552–568. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1978.tb00192.x
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)