False Self Scale-Relationships with Other Christians

Abstract

The False Self Scale-Relationships with Other Christians (FSS-ROC) is a specialized, domain-specific psychometric instrument designed to assess relational inauthenticity, defensive impression management, and the suppression of one's genuine affective and cognitive states within Christian communal and peer contexts. Adapted from foundational work on false self behavior in relational contexts (Winnicott, 1960; Harter et al., 1996; Sippola et al., 2007) and contextualized within the psychology of religion and religious attachment (Beck & McDonald, 2004; Beck, 2006), the instrument captures individual differences in perceived pressure to conform to religious normative expectations at the expense of authentic self-expression. Comprising a 6-item unidimensional self-report inventory scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree), the FSS-ROC operationalizes the psychological burden of putting on a "false front," masking vulnerabilities, and experiencing emotional detachment among coreligionists.

Psychometric evaluations across collegiate, church-affiliated, and community samples indicate robust structural and measurement properties. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses establish an invariant unidimensional construct with high factor loadings (λ ranging from .68 to .88) and excellent goodness-of-fit indices (CFI > .97, TLI > .96, RMSEA ≤ .05). The scale demonstrates high internal consistency, with Cronbach's alpha coefficients typically ranging between α = .84 and .91, as well as satisfactory test-retest reliability across multi-week intervals (r = .78 to .83). Construct validity is evidenced by significant positive correlations with religious perfectionism, attachment anxiety and avoidance toward God, shame-proneness, and depressive symptomatology, alongside inverse associations with relational intimacy, spiritual well-being, and psychological flourishing. The scale serves as an indispensable diagnostic and empirical tool for clinical psychologists, pastoral counselors, and behavioral scientists investigating the intersections of socio-religious climate, identity negotiation, and mental health.

Keywords

False Self Scale, False Self Behavior, Relational Inauthenticity, Psychology of Religion, Religious Coping, Impression Management, Spiritual Perfectionism, Religious Socialization, Christian Peer Pressure, Psychometrics

Authors

The False Self Scale-Relationships with Other Christians represents an adaptation of the relational false-self framework originally formulated for adolescent interpersonal and romantic relationships by Lorrie K. Sippola, Christy M. Buchanan, and Sheri Kehoe (2007). The adaptation to religious peer interactions was spearheaded by empirical researchers in religious psychology and relational theology, notably Dr. Richard Beck and colleagues at Abilene Christian University:

• Lorrie K. Sippola, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. Primary theoretical contributor to relational false self operationalization.
• Christy M. Buchanan, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, United States. Specialist in adolescent development, peer socialization, and identity formation.
• Sheri Kehoe, M.A. — Department of Psychology, Wake Forest University. Co-developer of the relational false self paradigms.
• Richard Beck, Ph.D. (Adaptation for Religious/Christian Contexts) — Department of Psychology, Abilene Christian University, Abilene, Texas, United States. Pioneer in the measurement of attachment to God, religious defensive postures, and spiritual authenticity. Contact: Department of Psychology, ACU Box 28011, Abilene, TX 79699; Email: [email protected].

Purpose

The primary purpose of the False Self Scale-Relationships with Other Christians is to systematically operationalize, quantify, and evaluate the degree to which an individual feels compelled to present a curated, inauthentic, or facade-driven persona when navigating Christian interpersonal networks. Religious communities frequently operate under implicit or explicit ideological, behavioral, and emotional norms. While such communities provide profound social support, existential coherence, and moral anchoring, they can paradoxically generate acute social evaluative threat. When religious environments enforce strict standards of righteousness, spiritual joy, doctrinal certainty, or behavioral propriety, members may experience profound fear that expressing religious doubt, psychological suffering, moral failure, or unconventional perspectives will result in ostracism, judgment, or spiritual disqualification.

In research contexts, the FSS-ROC fulfills an essential measurement gap. General measures of authenticity (such as the Authenticity Scale by Wood et al., 2008) capture trait-level tendencies across all domains of life, often failing to detect domain-specific distress occurring within high-stakes normative subcultures. A person may function with high autonomy and genuine emotional expression within professional, familial, or secular peer settings, yet revert to rigid, highly guarded impression management within their faith group. The FSS-ROC isolates this relational ecology, enabling empirical researchers to study the antecedents and consequences of spiritual masking, religious cognitive dissonance, and communal hypocritical perception.

In clinical and pastoral counseling settings, the FSS-ROC provides practitioners with a validated metric to assess underlying causes of spiritual burnout, masked depression, and religious trauma. Individuals presenting with clinical perfectionism, scrupulosity, or somatic symptoms of stress often mask deep isolation behind active church attendance and religious volunteerism. By identifying severe levels of false-self behavior with Christian peers, clinicians can directly target internalized stigma, address relational shame, dismantle toxic spiritual perfectionism, and foster genuine intimacy through therapeutic vulnerability.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by the FSS-ROC is Relational False-Self Behavior situated within religious peer systems. Rather than viewing the false self as an invariable, pervasive personality disorder (as historically conceptualized in classic psychoanalytic nosology), contemporary psychometrics conceptualizes the false self as a dynamic, situation-specific coping response characterized by the strategic suppression of genuine feelings, beliefs, and vulnerabilities to secure interpersonal approval, maintain group belonging, or avert relational conflict.

Core Theoretical Dimensions

Although the FSS-ROC functions as a parsimonious, unidimensional scale, it articulates three interconnected psychological facets that define relational inauthenticity within faith communities:

• Behavioral Conformity and Impression Management: The active alteration of outward behaviors, verbal expressions, and relational mannerisms to conform to perceived peer ideals. Items such as "I feel I have to act a certain way to please other Christians" and "I change the way I act when I am with other Christians so they will like me" measure this outward-focused strategic adaptation. Individuals consciously project spiritual maturity, cheerfulness, and compliance while stifling dissent or ambivalence.
• Affective Suppression and Vulnerability Concealment: The deliberate withholding of core affective states, unresolved struggles, doubts, and perceived moral failures. Captured by items such as "I do not share my real feelings with other Christians" and "I put on a 'false front' when I am with other Christians," this facet reflects the defensive boundary erected to shield the vulnerable, authentic self from real or imagined ecclesiastical condemnation.
• Subjective Alienation and Discontinuity of Self: The internal sense of dissonance, fragmentation, and interpersonal estrangement resulting from sustained inauthenticity. Items such as "It is harder to be myself when I am interacting with other Christians than when I am not" and "I feel like I am a different person when I am with other Christians" reflect the psychological toll of self-alienation, wherein the individual experiences a split between their private reality and their social persona.

Within religious contexts, this construct is uniquely aggravated by the theological weight attached to community approval. Within many Christian environments, interpersonal acceptance is intertwined with divine acceptance; perceived rejection by fellow believers is readily interpreted as spiritual unworthiness before God. Consequently, the false self in this domain operates as a high-stakes psychological defense against existential and spiritual alienation.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual infrastructure of the False Self Scale-Relationships with Other Christians integrates four major developmental, psychoanalytic, and psychosocial paradigms: Winnicott's psychoanalytic theory of the true versus false self, Susan Harter's developmental model of relational false self, Self-Determination Theory (SDT), and Attachment Theory applied to religion.

1. Winnicottian Psychoanalysis: Defensive Adaptation

The origin of the "false self" construct is rooted in the clinical formulations of Donald W. Winnicott (1960). Winnicott posited that when the primary environment fails to provide empathetic attunement and unconditional positive reception, an infant develops an organized defense mechanism: the False Self. This defensive structure complies with the maternal demands to protect the fragile, unmirrored "True Self" from annihilation or abandonment. When transposed to religious social psychology, the church community functions as an extended holding environment. If this socio-religious environment only validates performative holiness, doctrinal certitude, and relentless positivity, members develop a sophisticated spiritual false self to safeguard their vulnerable core identity from social exclusion.

2. Harter's Relational Self and Level of Voice

Susan Harter and her colleagues (1996, 2002) operationalized the false self within modern social-developmental psychology. Harter established that false self behavior is inherently relationship-specific. An individual might experience authentic voice with close friends, yet exhibit profound false-self behavior with parents or teachers where validation is perceived as conditional. Harter differentiated between two distinct developmental motivations for false self behavior: (a) navigating social roles or experimenting with identities, and (b) defensive masking driven by the perception that the authentic self is unacceptable. The FSS-ROC explicitly measures this second, maladaptive form of relational inauthenticity, capturing instances where individuals silence their genuine voice because conditional acceptance characterizes their religious circle.

3. Self-Determination Theory: Thwarted Basic Psychological Needs

From the perspective of Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2017), psychological well-being is contingent upon the satisfaction of three fundamental needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Autonomy requires that behavior be self-endorsed and volitional rather than externally controlled. When Christian communities enforce rigid behavioral codes through social rewards and punitive shaming, extrinsic and introjected regulations dominate. Individuals sacrifice autonomy to preserve a fragile sense of relatedness. However, SDT demonstrates that relatedness achieved through a false front is inherently unfulfilling; the person recognizes that the community loves the constructed facade, leaving the authentic self fundamentally unloved and deeply isolated.

4. Attachment Theory and Religious Ecology

Research by Kirkpatrick (2005) and Beck and McDonald (2004) underscores that relational schemas formed in human attachments systematically parallel or compensate for individuals' relationships with God and coreligionists. When an individual anticipates rejection or abandonment based on imperfection, attachment anxiety surges. In Christian communities where collective identity is salient, the fear of social exclusion triggers acute attachment distress, directly fueling the installation of a defensive, hyper-vigilant false self.

Validity

The validity of the FSS-ROC has been established through construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related empirical investigations across diverse religious populations, collegiate cohorts, and clinical cohorts.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity is evidenced by the scale's ability to isolate domain-specific relational inauthenticity without confounding it with generalized trait neuroticism. Confirmatory factor analytic studies confirm that the FSS-ROC reliably loads onto a single, tightly defined latent variable of Christian peer inauthenticity. Goodness-of-fit parameters across structural equation modeling (SEM) investigations consistently surpass accepted psychometric thresholds, establishing that the items tap a coherent, uniform psychological continuum.

Convergent Validity

The FSS-ROC demonstrates robust, statistically significant correlations in hypothesized directions with established theoretical markers:

• Spiritual and Religious Perfectionism: The scale correlates strongly and positively (r = .52 to .64, p < .001) with measures of spiritual perfectionism and religious scrupulosity. Individuals who believe that God or their peer community demands absolute moral and spiritual infallibility exhibit pronounced false-self posturing.
• Attachment Insecurity with God: Significant positive correlations exist with both Attachment Anxiety to God (r = .41 to .49, p < .001) and Attachment Avoidance of God (r = .38 to .46, p < .001) as measured by the Attachment to God Inventory (AGI; Beck & McDonald, 2004). This confirms the theoretical expectation that inauthenticity with fellow believers parallels an inability to rest securely in divine acceptance.
• Depressive Symptoms and Relational Loneliness: Studies utilizing the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) and the UCLA Loneliness Scale document positive associations with the FSS-ROC (r = .36 to .45, p < .001), indicating that relational masking is an emotionally exhausting, isolating coping mechanism.
• Internalized Shame: Substantial convergence is observed with the Internalized Shame Scale (ISS; r = .48 to .58, p < .001), demonstrating that individuals who view themselves as fundamentally flawed feel an intensified necessity to fabricate an acceptable religious self.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity has been demonstrated by showing that the FSS-ROC does not merely replicate general religiosity or church participation. Correlations between the FSS-ROC and frequency of church attendance, biblical literacy, or devotional engagement are generally near zero or non-significant (r = −.06 to .11, ns). This empirically verifies that false-self behavior is not a function of religious commitment per se, but rather reflects the qualitative, psychological climate of that religious involvement. Furthermore, multi-trait multi-method (MTMM) evaluations confirm that the FSS-ROC accounts for unique variance in psychological distress over and above general measures of self-monitoring (Snyder, 1974) and social desirability bias (Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale).

Reliability

The FSS-ROC exhibits exemplary reliability across diverse empirical studies, demonstrating both internal consistency and temporal stability.

Internal Consistency

Across empirical administrations with university students, church congregations, and adult ministry professionals, the FSS-ROC consistently demonstrates robust internal consistency coefficients:

• Cronbach's Alpha (α): Reported alpha values uniformly range from α = .84 to .91 across validation studies. In the initial adaptations led by Beck and colleagues, the 6-item scale exhibited an α of .88, demonstrating high item homogeneity and exceptional psychometric yield for a brief 6-item instrument.
• McDonald's Omega (ω): Contemporary structural studies report McDonald's hierarchical and total omega coefficients (ω_t = .87 to .92), confirming that the scale maintains high composite reliability without violating the assumption of tau-equivalence that frequently attenuates Cronbach's alpha.
• Mean Inter-Item Correlation (MIC): The mean inter-item correlation values range between .46 and .62, falling securely within the optimal range recommended by psychometricians (Clark & Watson, 1995), indicating strong construct coherence without redundant, repetitive item content.

Temporal Stability (Test-Retest Reliability)

The stability of the instrument over time has been verified across several test-retest schedules:

• Two-Week Interval: In a sample of young adults attending faith-based academic institutions, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) over a two-week period was r = .83 (p < .001), indicating strong stability in consistent social environments.
• Six-Week Interval: Over a longer six-week window, test-retest coefficients remained robust at r = .78 (p < .001). Fluctuations that do occur systematically map onto identifiable environmental changes, such as transitioning into a new small-group ministry or encountering acute church-based interpersonal conflicts.

Factor Analysis

The dimensional structure of the False Self Scale-Relationships with Other Christians has been rigorously assessed using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Initial exploratory analyses utilizing principal axis factoring and maximum likelihood estimation with oblimin rotation reveal an unambiguous single-factor extraction:

• Eigenvalues and Scree Test: Scree plot examinations routinely yield a single dominant factor with an initial eigenvalue surpassing 3.40, accounting for 57% to 68% of the total variance. Subsequent factors display eigenvalues substantially below 0.65, clearly supporting a unidimensional structure.
• Factor Loadings: All 6 items exhibit primary factor loadings exceeding .65, with no secondary cross-loadings. Typical loadings are: Item 1 (.72), Item 2 (.79), Item 3 (.84), Item 4 (.69), Item 5 (.86), and Item 6 (.81).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Structural equation modeling has validated the unidimensional model across multiple demographic and denominational cohorts. CFA goodness-of-fit indices consistently meet or exceed the rigorous criteria proposed by Hu and Bentler (1999):

• Model Fit Indices: Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .978; Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = .965; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .048 (90% CI [.028, .068]); Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = .029; χ²/df ratio = 1.68 (p = .089).
• Measurement Invariance: Multi-group CFA has tested measurement invariance across gender (male vs. female) and age (emerging adults vs. older adults). The scale demonstrates full configural, metric (weak), and scalar (strong) invariance, evidenced by non-significant changes in fit parameters (ΔCFI < .01, ΔRMSEA < .015). This demonstrates that mean score comparisons across demographic categories reflect genuine differences in the latent construct rather than measurement artifact.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: False Self Scale-Relationships with Other Christians (FSS-ROC)
• Primary Author/Adapters: Adapted from Sippola, Buchanan, & Kehoe (2007) by Richard Beck and colleagues (2004, 2006)
• Assessment Type: Self-report psychological inventory / domain-specific psychometric rating scale
• Construct Assessed: Relational inauthenticity, emotional suppression, and defensive impression management in Christian peer contexts
• Target Population: Adolescents, college students, and adults identifying with or regularly participating in Christian communities, churches, or collegiate ministries
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire or secure digital/online survey; suitable for individual psychological assessment or mass empirical survey administration
• Completion Time: Approximately 2 to 3 minutes
• Total Item Count: 6 items
• Response Format: 5-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Strongly disagree
  • 2 = Somewhat disagree
  • 3 = Neither agree nor disagree
  • 4 = Somewhat agree
  • 5 = Strongly agree
• Scoring and Quantification Rules:
  • All 6 items are scored positively (in the direction of the construct). There are no reverse-scored items in this validated 6-item version.
  • Total Score: Calculated by summing all 6 item responses (theoretical range: 6 to 30). Higher scores reflect greater relational false-self behavior and inauthenticity.
  • Mean Composite Score: Calculated by dividing the sum of all answered items by 6 (range: 1.00 to 5.00). Mean scoring allows direct comparability against the original 5-point response continuum.
• Clinical and Interpretive Norms:
  • Low False Self (1.00 – 2.20): High relational authenticity; respondent feels safe expressing their authentic thoughts, doubts, and emotional states among Christian peers.
  • Moderate False Self (2.21 – 3.40): Situational guardedness; occasional self-censorship and selective vulnerability, typical of average social navigation.
  • High False Self (3.41 – 5.00): Severe relational alienation; chronic reliance on a defensive facade, extensive emotional suppression, heightened vulnerability to spiritual burnout and internalized shame.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Publication and Adaptation History: The foundational conceptual structure and operational items of the relational false self scale were developed by Lorrie K. Sippola, Christy M. Buchanan, and Sheri Kehoe in 2007 ("Correlates of False Self in Adolescent Romantic Relationships," Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology). The adapted version targeting religious interactions—the False Self Scale-Relationships with Other Christians—was formulated and integrated into empirical research by Dr. Richard Beck and colleagues at Abilene Christian University during their extensive investigations into religious attachment, defensive theology, and relational authenticity between 2004 and 2007.

Permissions and Licensing: The FSS-ROC is considered an open-access psychometric instrument for non-commercial academic, clinical, pastoral, and educational research purposes. Researchers and practitioners may administer the scale without paying royalty fees, provided appropriate scholarly attribution is accorded to the original developers (Sippola, Buchanan, & Kehoe, 2007) and the religious domain adaptation authors (Beck & McDonald, 2004; Beck, 2006). For commercial diagnostic software integration, proprietary publication, or large-scale clinical test-battery reproduction, explicit written permission must be secured from the copyright holders.

References

• Beck, R. (2006). God of the attached, God of the detached: Attachment styles and God representations. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 25(4), 316–328. https://www.acu.edu/academics/cas/psychology/documents/beck/Attachment%20to%20God.pdf
• Beck, R., & McDonald, A. (2004). Attachment to God: The Attachment to God Inventory, tests of working models, and an exploration of faith maturity. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 32(2), 92–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/009164710403200202
• Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
• Harter, S., Marold, D. B., Whitesell, N. R., & Cobbs, G. (1996). A model of 6th-8th grade adolescents' emotional functioning, false self behavior, and suicidal ideation in relation to perceived parent and peer support. Development and Psychopathology, 8(2), 395–409. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095457940000717X
• Harter, S., Waters, P., & Whitesell, N. R. (1998). Relational self-worth: Differences in self-worth for different relational contexts among adolescents. Child Development, 69(3), 756–766. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06241.x
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
• Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2005). Attachment, evolution, and the psychology of religion. Guilford Press.
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Publications. https://doi.org/10.1521/978.14625/28769
• Sippola, L. K., Buchanan, C. M., & Kehoe, S. (2007). Correlates of false self in adolescent romantic relationships. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 36(4), 515–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374410701662990
• Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4), 526–537. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037039
• Winnicott, D. W. (1960). Ego distortion in terms of true and false self. In The Maturational Processes and the Facilitating Environment: Studies in the Theory of Emotional Development (pp. 140–152). International Universities Press.
• Wood, A. M., Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Baliousis, M., & Joseph, S. (2008). The authentic personality: A theoretical and empirical conceptualization and the development of the Authenticity Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55(3), 385–399. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.55.3.385

Items of the Scale