CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,258Personality Traits and PsychologyCultural Differences and ValuesIdentity, Memory, and Therapy

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 101 of the 102 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Self-concept clarity: Measurement, personality correlates and cultural boundaries

Campbell, Jennifer D., Trapnell, Paul D., Heine, Steven J., Katz, Ilana M., Lavallee, Loraine F., Lehman, Darrin R.·1996·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
DOI 10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.141
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Self-concept clarity (SCC) references a structural spect oftbe self-concept: the extent to which self-beliefs are clearly and confidently defined, internally consistent, and stable. This article reports the SCC Scale and examines (a) its correlations with self-esteem (SE), the Big Five dimensions, and self-focused attention (Study l); (b) its criterion validity (Study 2); and (c) its cultural boundaries (Study 3). Low SCC was independently associated with high Neuroticism, low SE, low Conscien-tiousness, low Agreeableness, chronic self-analysis, low internal state awareness, and a ruminative form of self-focused attention. The SCC Scale predicted unique variance in 2 external criteria: the stability and consistency of self-descriptions. Consistent with theory on Eastern and Western self-construals, Japanese participants exhibited lower levels of SCC and lower correlations between SCC and SE than did Canadian participants. Within the last couple of decades, psychologists ' view of the self-concept has undergone a dramatic transformation (Markus & Wurf, 1987). Early researchers treated the self-concept as a unitary, monolithic entity--a stable, generalized view of the self--and typically focused their research efforts on a single as-pect of the self-concept, self-esteem. Contemporary research-ers, in contrast, rely on a multifaceted, ynamic construal in which the self-concept is defined as a cognitive schema--an or-ganized knowledge structure that contains traits, values, epi-sodic and semantic memories about the self and controls the processing of self-relevant information (e.g., Greenwald & Prat-

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.141

Cites

101 of 101 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 2,258

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Campbell, J. D., Trapnell, P. D., Heine, S. J., Katz, I. M., Lavallee, L. F., & Lehman, D. R.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
1996-01
Volume
70
Issue
1
Pages
141-156
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
DOI
10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.141
OpenAlex
W2155241100
Cited by
2,088
References
102
Citations by year
2026: 162 · 2025: 148 · 2024: 128 · 2023: 111 · 2022: 150 · 2021: 106 · 2020: 153 · 2019: 120 · 2018: 112 · 2017: 96 · 2016: 85 · 2015: 73 · 2014: 72 · 2013: 69 · 2012: 57
FWCI
15.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
correction (2010-07-12)
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Cultural Differences and Values
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Identity, Memory, and Therapy
Keywords
self-concept clarity, self-concept, self-esteem, Big Five personality traits, self-focus, rumination, self-analysis, self-construal, East-West comparison, criterion validity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review