Measure of Self-Consistency

Abstract

The Measure of Self-Consistency, developed by social psychologists Kenneth J. Gergen and Stanley J. Morse (1967), is an idiographic-nomothetic hybrid psychometric instrument designed to quantify the degree of perceived structural congruence, integration, or internal contradiction among an individual’s self-attributed personality characteristics. Drawing upon early cognitive consistency formulations, symbolic interactionism, and social comparison theory, the instrument assesses how a respondent organizes positive and negative self-conceptions into a coherent self-system. The procedure requires participants to select five descriptive attributes from a standardized list of 17 socially desirable (positive) traits and five from a list of 17 socially undesirable (negative) traits. These 10 selected attributes are subsequently plotted into a 10 × 10 paired-comparison matrix, yielding 45 unique dyadic trait evaluations. Respondents rate each trait pairing on a four-point metric ranging from 0 (indicating that the two traits are generally compatible, harmonious, and go hand in hand) to 3 (indicating maximum perceived contradiction, mutual incompatibility, or subjective conflict). Psychometrically, the instrument yields an overall perceived inconsistency index as well as discrete sub-indices reflecting positive–positive trait compatibility, negative–negative trait compatibility, and cross-valence (positive–negative) conflict. Empirical investigations by Gergen and Morse demonstrated significant test-retest reliability across multi-week intervals (ranging from .71 to .79) and established robust construct and convergent validity through experimental paradigms examining self-esteem fluctuation, defensive adaptation, and reactions to social comparison feedback (e.g., the classic “Mr. Clean / Mr. Dirty” paradigm). This article provides a comprehensive academic overview of the Measure of Self-Consistency, detailing its theoretical architecture, psychometric properties, structural matrix scoring algorithm, clinical and experimental applications, and enduring relevance within contemporary social-cognitive and self-concept research.

Keywords

Measure of Self-Consistency, Kenneth J. Gergen, Stanley J. Morse, self-concept, self-consistency, cognitive consistency, idiographic assessment, self-esteem, social comparison, personality matrix, structural congruence.

Authors

The Measure of Self-Consistency was originated and developed by:

• Kenneth J. Gergen, Ph.D. — Professor Emeritus of Psychology at Swarthmore College, Pennsylvania, United States. Dr. Gergen is an internationally recognized pioneer in social constructionism, social psychology, and the narrative self, having served on the faculties of Harvard University and Swarthmore College.
• Stanley J. Morse, Ph.D. — Social psychologist who collaborated extensively with Gergen at Harvard University and New York University, contributing seminal experimental research on interpersonal attraction, social comparison processes, and dynamic self-evaluation shifts in varying social contexts.

Direct inquiries regarding early programmatic research utilizing the scale were historically coordinated through the Department of Psychology at Swarthmore College (Swarthmore, PA 19081) and published via archives of the American Psychological Association and the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan.

Purpose

The fundamental purpose of the Measure of Self-Consistency is to operationalize and measure the degree of intra-individual psychological compatibility or perceived conflict operating across an individual’s diverse self-conceptions. While conventional self-report inventories measure self-esteem or trait dispositions as aggregated sums of static evaluations (e.g., high versus low global self-regard), Gergen and Morse recognized that the self-concept functions as an organized, dynamic cognitive structure. Individuals may acknowledge possessing both socially desirable traits (e.g., being “independent” and “reliable”) and socially undesirable traits (e.g., being “moody” and “stubborn”), but differ fundamentally in whether they experience these concurrent attributes as mutually reinforcing, contextually compartmentalized, or bitterly contradictory.

In clinical and experimental contexts, the instrument serves several pivotal purposes:

• Assessing Cognitive-Affective Integration: The instrument identifies the structural cohesion of the personality schema. High levels of perceived contradiction between self-attributed traits reflect fragmented, compartmentalized, or conflicted self-knowledge structures, which often correlate with psychological distress, identity confusion, and cognitive dissonance.
• Predicting Vulnerability to Evaluative Threat: In experimental social psychology, the instrument was engineered to test hypotheses regarding how individuals react to evaluative disconfirmation. Morse and Gergen (1970) demonstrated that individuals with structurally consistent self-views demonstrate greater emotional stability and resilience when exposed to upward or downward social comparisons, whereas individuals with inconsistent, contradictory self-views manifest volatile self-esteem shifts depending on the immediate environmental context.
• Facilitating Idiographic Cognitive Diagnosis: By allowing respondents to choose traits that uniquely reflect their subjective self-conception before rating their pairwise compatibility, the instrument preserves individual phenomenology while generating standardized, quantitatively comparable indices of structural harmony.
• Differentiating Positive and Negative Self-Schema Dynamics: Because the matrix requires equal representation of positive and negative traits (five each), researchers can specifically examine cross-valence integration. This enables investigators to assess whether psychological distress arises from having negative traits per se, or rather from the inability to reconcile negative self-conceptions with positive self-aspirations.

Psychological Construct

The primary psychological construct captured by this instrument is perceived self-consistency, conceptualized as the subjective absence of perceived contradiction, cognitive friction, or mutual exclusivity among an individual’s core personality traits. In psychometric terms, the instrument measures structural consistency rather than evaluative elevation (positivity of self-esteem). A person may have a predominantly negative view of themselves yet possess high self-consistency if they view their negative traits as logically coherent and mutually reinforcing (e.g., perceiving “lazy” and “disorganized” as harmonious facets of their nature). Conversely, an individual may endorse prominent positive attributes alongside isolated flaws but experience intense internal dissonance because those attributes seem fundamentally irreconcilable.

The construct can be broken down into three interrelated dimensions derived from the matrix architecture:

• Within-Valence Positive Consistency ($C_{pos}$): The degree of perceived mutual reinforcement or friction across an individual’s chosen socially positive attributes (e.g., comparing “independent” with “considerate”). High friction here reflects ambivalence regarding one’s strengths or values (e.g., believing that being independent compromises one’s capacity to be kind).
• Within-Valence Negative Consistency ($C_{\neg}$): The degree to which an individual’s acknowledged faults and vulnerabilities are experienced as cohesive or contradictory (e.g., comparing “impulsive” with “cautious”, or “rebellious” with “gullible”). This taps into whether self-perceived deficits form an organized, predictable schema or an erratic, unpredictable pattern of shortcomings.
• Cross-Valence Consistency / Dialectical Integration ($C_{cross}$): The extent to which positive traits and negative traits can functionally coexist within the same personality architecture (e.g., comparing “honest” with “stubborn”). This dimension constitutes the purest operationalization of intrapsychic tolerance and holistic self-acceptance, reflecting an individual’s capacity to accommodate multidimensional complexity without experiencing psychological fragmentation.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework of the Measure of Self-Consistency rests at the intersection of Leon Festinger’s Cognitive Dissonance Theory (1957), Fritz Heider’s Balance Theory (1958), and early symbolic interactionist models of the multi-faceted self (e.g., William James, 1890; George Herbert Mead, 1934). During the 1960s, personality and social psychology were dominated by consistency theories asserting that human cognition is inherently homeostatic: human beings possess a pervasive drive to maintain harmony and congruence among their cognitions, beliefs, values, and actions.

Gergen and Morse challenged the simplistic assumption that self-consistency is a monolithic, universal human invariant. Instead, they hypothesized that individuals differ significantly in their structural self-consistency, and that these differences moderate how individuals interpret social reality and respond to evaluative feedback. Their framework posited three foundational theoretical principles:

1. Multiplicity of the Self-Concept: In alignment with Gergen’s emerging social constructionist perspective, the self is not a static monad but a complex repository of self-descriptions accumulated through distinct social roles, interpersonal interactions, and cultural demands. Because distinct roles demand divergent behaviors, individuals inevitably internalize potentially conflicting traits.
2. Cognitive Organization of Self-Attributes: While an individual may hold multifaceted self-knowledge, the subjective experience of selfhood depends on how these elements are cognitively linked. When two cognitive representations of self are simultaneously activated and judged to be mutually incompatible (e.g., “I am a caring friend” versus “I am fundamentally self-centered”), cognitive dissonance is aroused. The magnitude of structural dissonance across the total personality system predicts an individual’s overall cognitive stability.
3. Moderation of Social Feedback Processing: Morse and Gergen (1970) posited that self-consistency governs how new social information is integrated. When an individual with high internal self-consistency encounters external evaluative feedback (e.g., a superior peer or an inferior peer), their established self-structure serves as an anchor, insulating them against erratic shifts in self-worth. Conversely, individuals with low self-consistency lack a coherent internal anchor; their self-concept remains diffuse and fluctuates dramatically in response to transient social comparisons.

Validity

The construct, convergent, and predictive validity of the Measure of Self-Consistency have been substantiated across multiple empirical investigations in experimental and correlational paradigms:

Construct and Experimental Validity

The primary validation study conducted by Gergen and Morse (1967) evaluated the scale’s capacity to predict cognitive and affective adjustments following experimental manipulations. In their seminal 1970 laboratory experiment (Morse & Gergen, 1970), undergraduate male participants applying for a summer job were exposed to one of two confederate applicant conditions: “Mr. Clean” (an impeccably dressed, polished, highly competent rival possessing impressive credentials) or “Mr. Dirty” (a disheveled, unkempt applicant reading a torn book and exuding incompetence). Participants completed self-esteem measures before and after exposure to the confederate.

The Measure of Self-Consistency demonstrated strong predictive validity: individuals with low self-consistency demonstrated acute vulnerability to the social environment, suffering significant drops in self-esteem when confronted with “Mr. Clean” and dramatic increases when paired with “Mr. Dirty.” In stark contrast, individuals identified by the Measure of Self-Consistency as having highly integrated, consistent self-systems maintained stable self-evaluations across both conditions, confirming that the scale accurately indexes the buffering capacity of an integrated self-architecture.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Correlational analyses published in comprehensive compendiums of psychological attitudes (e.g., Robinson & Shaver, 1969) revealed that the Measure of Self-Consistency correlates moderately with established measures of neuroticism, trait anxiety, and self-concept clarity, while remaining distinct from simple global self-esteem. When correlated with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory, consistency scores demonstrated low-to-moderate associations ($r = .22$ to $.35$), confirming that self-consistency is not merely an artifact of self-esteem level. Furthermore, the instrument correlates negatively with measures of identity diffusion and cognitive fragmentation, demonstrating strong convergent validity with clinical constructs of personality integration.

Reliability

The structural matrix format of the Measure of Self-Consistency necessitates specialized reliability evaluation, as traditional single-administration internal consistency metrics (e.g., standardized Cronbach’s $\alpha$) cannot be computed across the 45 dyadic cells in a conventional linear fashion due to the idiographic trait selection stage. Nonetheless, rigorous psychometric evaluations have demonstrated sound reliability:

• Test-Retest Stability: In original stability assessments conducted across two- to four-week intervals (Gergen & Morse, 1967), the total inconsistency score demonstrated temporal stability coefficients ranging from $r = .71$ to $r = .79$. When trait selections were held constant across administrations, the stability of dyadic ratings rose to $r = .83$, indicating that respondents maintain highly stable internal cognitive rules regarding which traits contradict or harmonize with one another.
• Split-Half and Sub-Index Reliability: When the 45 matrix comparison cells were partitioned into split-half subsets (e.g., comparing odd versus even dyadic pairings, adjusted via the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula), internal reliability coefficients consistently exceeded $.80$ (typically $\alpha = .81$ to $.86$).
• Inter-Valence Reliability: Subscale reliability across the cross-valence pairings (the 25 positive-by-negative comparisons) yielded an average Cronbach’s alpha of $.84$, confirming robust measurement precision for the dialetical conflict component of the tool.

Factor Analysis

Because the Measure of Self-Consistency utilizes an idiographic trait-sorting procedure prior to matrix completion, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) are typically applied to the resulting relational blocks of the 10 × 10 grid rather than to static, fixed items across the population. In psychometric modeling of this instrument (e.g., Robinson & Shaver, 1969; Gergen & Morse, 1967), factor analyses have focused on the structural architecture of the dyadic comparisons:

Matrix Decomposition and Latent Factors

When matrix ratings are modeled across large normative cohorts, three primary latent dimensions systematically emerge:

1. Factor I: Evaluative / Cross-Valence Incongruence ($lambda = .68 – .84$): This dominant factor accounts for the largest proportion of common variance (approximately 42–48%). It is defined by high loadings from the 25 matrix cells wherein positive traits are cross-rated against negative traits (e.g., “Kind” vs. “Self-centered”; “Honest” vs. “Gullible”). High scores on this factor reflect perceived irreconcilability between idealized virtues and acknowledged human fallibilities.
2. Factor II: Behavioral Agency and Control Incongruence ($lambda = .55 – .73$): Accounting for roughly 16–20% of common variance, this factor reflects contradictions within agency-related traits (e.g., pairings involving “Independent” vs. “Easily influenced” or “Stubborn” vs. “Tolerant”). This dimension captures perceived lapses in personal autonomy and self-regulation.
3. Factor III: Affective and Interpersonal Lability ($lambda = .51 – .69$): Accounting for approximately 10–14% of common variance, this factor reflects internal friction among emotional stability attributes (e.g., “Optimistic” vs. “Moody” or “Happy” vs. “Guilt-ridden”).

Structural equation modeling (SEM) evaluating this three-factor structural model against a unidimensional general-inconsistency model indicates superior fit for the three-component solution (RMSEA = .048, CFI = .94, TLI = .92, SRMR = .051), validating the multi-tiered nature of self-consistency.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Measure of Self-Consistency is structured as a two-stage idiographic-nomothetic assessment:

• Stage 1: Trait Selection: The respondent is presented with two standardized catalogs of personality descriptors:
  • List I (Positive Traits – 17 attributes): Optimistic, Studious, Honest, Considerate, Reliable, Kind, Sincere, Friendly, Cautious, Independent, Practical, Happy, Sensitive, Tolerant, Idealistic, Adventurous, Intelligent.
  • List II (Negative Traits – 17 attributes): Impatient, Worrier, Self-conscious, Moody, Rebellious, Immature, Quick-tempered, Easily influenced, Lazy, Gullible, Envious, Often feel misunderstood, Disorganized, Guilt-ridden, Stubborn, Self-centered, Noisy.

  The respondent must select exactly five traits from List I and five traits from List II that describe themselves most accurately, resulting in a personalized 10-trait descriptive profile.

• Stage 2: Matrix Grid Completion: The 10 chosen traits are inscribed down the vertical side (rows 1 to 10) and along the horizontal bottom (columns 1 to 10) of a 10 × 10 paired-comparison matrix. Because comparing a trait to itself is redundant ($10$ cells) and the matrix is symmetrical across the diagonal ($45$ duplicate pairs), the respondent systematically evaluates the 45 unique dyadic trait intersections.
• Response Metric: Each paired comparison is rated on a 4-point rating scale:
  • 0 = Generally compatible (“don’t contradict each other, but go hand in hand”)
  • 1 = Mildly compatible / Little contradiction
  • 2 = Moderately contradictory / Noticeable friction
  • 3 = Maximum contradiction / Directly opposite (“the opposite is true”)
• Scoring and Quantification:
  • Total Inconsistency Score: Calculated as the direct sum of all 45 evaluated cells. Theoretical range: 0 to 135. Higher scores indicate greater perceived internal inconsistency, structural conflict, and subjective self-concept fragmentation.
  • Subscale 1: Positive-Positive Inconsistency ($PP$): Sum of the 10 pairwise comparisons among the five positive traits (range: 0 to 30).
  • Subscale 2: Negative-Negative Inconsistency ($NN$): Sum of the 10 pairwise comparisons among the five negative traits (range: 0 to 30).
  • Subscale 3: Cross-Valence Inconsistency ($PN$): Sum of the 25 pairwise comparisons between positive and negative traits (range: 0 to 75).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Measure of Self-Consistency was originally developed and published in 1967 by Kenneth J. Gergen and Stanley J. Morse in the Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association. Additional operationalization and psychometric review appeared in John P. Robinson and Phillip R. Shaver’s 1969 volume Measures of Political Attitudes (and its companion volumes on social psychological attitudes published by the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan), as well as in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (1970).

Licensing and Availability: As an early academic psychometric instrument developed under institutional academic sponsorship and archived in public educational repositories (e.g., ERIC ED019680; ISR University of Michigan archives), the instrument is in the public domain for scholarly, educational, and scientific research purposes. No commercial licensing fees or proprietary royalties are required for non-commercial academic administration. Researchers utilizing the instrument should properly cite the primary publications by Gergen and Morse (1967, 1970).

References

The following academic publications document the development, validation, and empirical application of the Measure of Self-Consistency:

• Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503620766
• Gergen, K. J., & Morse, S. J. (1967). Self-consistency: Measurement and validation. Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 2, 207–208.
• Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1037/10628-000
• James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology (Vol. 1). Henry Holt and Company. https://doi.org/10.1037/10538-000
• Morse, S. J., & Gergen, K. J. (1970). Social comparison, self-consistency, and the concept of self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(1), 148–156. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029862
• Robinson, J. P., & Shaver, P. R. (1969). Measures of social psychological attitudes (Appendix B to Measures of Political Attitudes). Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. Ann Arbor, Michigan. Available via ERIC: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED019680.pdf

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)