doi: 10.1111/ajpy.12141
Department of Psychology, 3College of Family, Home, and Social Sciences, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah,
Department of Psychology, Fielding Graduate University, Santa Barbara, California and 4Private Practice,
Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
Abstract
Objective: From a variety of perspectives, moderate self-views and behavioural patterns contribute to adaptive functioning.
However, current conceptualisations and measurement of schemas take an exclusively unipolar, extreme approach to assessing
schema domains primarily with highly negatively valenced content. The purpose of this study was to develop and examine a
psychometrically sound and theoretically grounded measure that assesses moderate schemas and contrasts them with excessively high or low schemas using the Assessment of Schema Adaptability Prole (ASAP). Method: A total of 233 participants
(average age 36, 36% females, 70% white) completed the Adult Attachment Questionnaire and the Symptom Checklist 90Revised to assess well-being as a validation instrument for the ASAP. The ASAP covers 10 schema dimensions (e.g., Entitled vs
Unworthy) with items addressing overly positive, over negative, and moderate aspects of schema functioning. Results: A single,
moderate adaptive response pattern was evident across all prole domains. Those who endorsed excessively high or low
responses loaded together and did not overlap with the moderate responders. Moderate responders reported increased wellbeing and positive attachment, whereas excessive responders reported decreased well-being and negative attachment. Conclusions: Overall, the ASAP identies and distinguishes between moderate and excessively high or low schemas and provides a
unique, useful tool for conducting schema-based research.
Key words: adaptive functioning, assessment, bipolar, distress, moderation, personality, schemas
According to a variety of theoretical perspectives, psychologically healthy behavioural styles are characterised by
moderation whereas unhealthy styles are characterised by
extreme or excessive styles (Grant & Schwartz, 2011;
Millon, 2011; Pincus & Lukowitsky, 2010; Tellegen &
opposites. Thus, what would heavy mean without knowing what light is? The same conceptualisation holds for dry
versus wet, tall versus short, and, for that matter, the schemas of entitled as opposed to unworthy (Elliott & Lassen, 1997).
To date, the most frequently used scale to assess schemas
has been the Young Schema Questionnaire (YSQ) (Young,
2016) which was developed as a unipolar schema inventory
to measure maladaptive schemas and it has been found to
be psychometrically sound in terms of reliability and validity
across a number of settings and populations (see for example, Calvete, Orue, & Gonzalez-Diez, 2013; Kriston, Schafer,
Jacob, Harter, & Holzel, 2013). Not surprisingly, the schemas addressed in the YSQ primarily focus on negatively
charged content with no explicit identication of inated,
overly positive schemas, and the concept of moderate schemas has not been addressed (Oei & Baranoff, 2007; Samuel & Ball, 2013) in either the YSQ or any other schema
assessment instrument we are aware of. On the other hand,
the concept of what appear to be moderate, adaptive schemas has been alluded to by Lumley and colleagues
(Friedmann, Lumley, & Lerman, 2016; Lumley & Harkness,
2009) in what they describe as positive schemas. Examples
of such positive schemas include I am a good person, I am
competent, and I am valuable, none of which appear to
be especially excessive or extreme.
The neglect of considering schemas as constructs construed as bipolar extremes may result in an incomplete picture. For example, some investigators (e.g., Forand &
DeRubeis, 2014) have expressed frustration with the difculties inherent in distinguishing between extreme response
styles versus extreme content in the prediction of depressive
relapse. They noted that extreme responses to the positive
items in the Dysfunctional Attitude Scale (DAS) (Weissman,
1979) were sometimes, but not always, associated with an
increased risk of depressive relapse. However, the positive
DAS items were considered functional and clearly appeared
moderate in nature (e.g., Making mistakes is ne because I
can learn from them). Ultimately, an instrument based on
bipolar opposites consisting of overly negative versus excessively positive could allow researchers to explore extreme
response styles (e.g., total number of 1 and 5 responses)
as opposed to scores on scales specically designed to assess
extreme content, both excessively positive and negative in
nature.
In order to examine issues such as extreme response style
versus content as well as the possibility that the downsides
of overly negative thinking may mirror the deleterious
effects of overly positive thinking, Elliott and Lassen
(unpublished) developed a new schema assessment instrument, the Assessment of Schema Adaptability Prole
(ASAP).1 In their construal of schemas (Elliott & Lassen,
1997), each schema domain consists of a pair of extreme,
2016 The Australian Psychological Society
I deserve what I get from life, but I dont have to have everything I want.
I dont deserve to be happy.
I deserve to get what I want.
I can feel accomplished without having to be perfect.
I dont have very high expectations of myself.
I hold myself to impossibly high standards.
I balance my needs with those of others.
I do very little for other people.
I always feel I should put others before myself.
I dont feel particularly inferior or superior to others.
I feel insignicant around people who are more important than me.
I feel I am better than most people.
Getting attention from others is okay, but I dont crave it.
I am very uncomfortable when attention is directed at me.
When I walk into a room, I want all eyes to be on me.
Life is better with someone to be close to, but I can function without someone.
Im lost if Im not in a relationship.
I dont like to get attached to people.
Negative emotions are okay to show in moderation.
My feelings always show, even when I dont want them to.
I always hide my emotions.
I prefer to handle most things myself, but I will seek help if I need it.
I rely on other people for most things.
I will not ask for help.
I enjoy having fun, but there are other priorities as well.
I feel having fun is a waste of time.
I will do anything to get pleasure.
I feel bad if I do something wrong, but I dont beat myself up about it.
I feel terribly guilty when I dont do the right thing.
My conscience never bothers me.
METHODS
Participants
The current study included 223 participants. Participants
were drawn from two populations. First, 126 students
(28 men and 92 women; 6 did not identify their sex) participated in return for credit towards a research requirement in a general psychology course. Second,
97 individuals (51 men and 39 women; 7 did not identify
their sex) in personal therapy were recruited. The sample
had an average age of 36 (standard deviation (SD) 14),
was 36% females, 70% white, 47% had at least a bachelors degree, and 51% were working fulltime. Both samples were included because we wanted to have a
reasonable range of distress and attachment levels. However, we report factor analyses on both samples combined
because results within subsamples (available upon
Measures
Background questionnaire
Participants reported their sex and ethnicity, education
level, region of birth, current employment and income, residence, marital status, number of children, number of
friends, and mood.
2016 The Australian Psychological Society
Table 2 Standardised factor loadings: Adaptive and excessively high and low schema composites (ESEM) from model that includes the SCL
subscales and avoidant and anxious attachment
F1
(adaptive)
Adaptive composites [A]
1. Deserving
2. Reasonable standards
3. Balanced perspective
4. Balanced self-view
5. Attention comfortable
6. Secure attachment
7. Comfortable emotional expression
8. Interdependent
9. Reasonable self-indulgence
10. Adaptive ego-control
Excessively high composites [H]
1. Entitled
2. Excessive standards
3. Self-centred
4. Over-inated self-view
5. Attention-seeking
6. Avoidant attachment
7. Emotion-hiding
8. Help-avoidant
9. Hedonistic
10. Guilt-free
Excessively low composites [L]
1. Undeserving
2. Lack of standards
3. Other-centred
4. Inferior self-view
5. Attention-avoidant
6. Anxious attachment
7. Emotion-expressing
8. Help-seeking
9. Anhedonic
10. Guilt-ridden
Factor intercorrelations
F2 Entitled
F3 Anxious
F4 Avoidant
F5 Withdrawn
F2
(entitled)
F3
(anxious)
F4
(avoidant)
F5
(undeserving)
.772
.604
.509
.526
.512
.646
.629
.702
.581
.504
.115
.001
.056
.137
.033
.051
.008
.110
.011
.135
.177
.283
.221
.013
.140
.172
.098
.012
.007
.184
.023
.235
.315
.034
.238
.050
.016
.043
.013
.183
.007
.061
.061
.093
.104
.076
.054
.005
.147
.083
.126
.020
.022
.003
.041
.049
.058
.019
.159
.056
.548
.193
.597
.651
.637
.372
.326
.302
.574
.531
.061
.377
.127
.019
.061
.049
.004
.168
.043
.094
.010
.362
.042
.042
.070
.556
.483
.615
.345
.005
.408
.152
.116
.283
.423
.231
.121
.040
.067
.050
.153
.028
.084
.022
.054
.062
.046
.108
.192
.190
.054
.080
.023
.007
.187
.093
.062
.079
.214
.022
.370
.088
.332
.612
.285
.774
.722
.568
.022
.488
.193
.115
.155
.029
.012
.149
.006
.467
.135
.179
.494
.581
.121
.551
.548
.093
.009
.042
.392
.026
.263
.301
.155
.284
.284
.037
.123
.063
.144
.284
Note. Chi-square (540) = 954.133, CFI = .914, RMSEA = .059; Factor loadings above .400 in bold.
Note. ESEM = exploratory structural equation modelling; SCL = symptom checklist.
Table 3 Correlations of factors with SCL subscales and with avoidant and anxious attachment
SCL-90-R
Somatisation
Obsessive-compulsive
Interpersonal sensitivity
Depression
Anxiety
Hostility
Phobic anxiety
Paranoid thinking
Psychoticism
Attachment questionnaire
Avoidant attachment
Anxious attachment
F1
(adaptive)
F2
(entitled)
F3
(anxious)
F4
(avoidant)
F5
(undeserving)
.273***
.262***
.308***
.344***
.254***
.150*
.165*
.217**
.362***
.104
.172*
.234**
.221**
.214**
.280***
.120
.395***
.304***
.372***
.558***
.591***
.627***
.538***
.352***
.346***
.379***
.479***
.283***
.328***
.239*
.396***
.304***
.318***
.195*
.321***
.255*
.099
.182
.298**
.152
.044
.035
.179*
.075
.206*
.306***
.187**
.341***
.069
.197*
.061
.515***
.175*
.129
.355***
Table 4 Standardised factor loadings: Adaptive, Combined, and Bipolar composites (ESEM)
F1
Adaptive composites [A]
1. Deserving
.786
2. Reasonable standards
.640
3. Balanced perspective
.525
4. Balanced self-view
.538
5. Attention comfortable
.522
6. Secure attachment
.652
7. Comfortable emotional expression
.645
8. Interdependent
.730
9. Reasonable self-indulgence
.595
10. Adaptive ego-control
.524
Combination of excessively high and low composites [C = (P+N)/2]
1. Both entitled and undeserving
.011
2. Both excessive standards and lack of standards
.019
3. Both self-centred and other-centred
.047
4. Both over-inated self-view and inferior self-view
.016
5. Both attention-seeking and attention avoidant
.001
6. Both avoidant attachment and anxious attachment
.101
7. Both emotion-hiding and emotion expressing
.112
8. Both help-avoidant and help-seeking
.074
9. Both hedonistic and anhedonic
.010
10. Both guilt-free and guilt-ridden
.109
Bipolar composite [B = (H L)]
1. Entitled versus undeserving
.177
2. Excessive standards versus lack of standards
.016
3. Self-centred versus other-centred
.083
4. Over-inated self-view versus inferior self-view
.018
5. Attention-seeking versus attention-avoidant
.044
6. Avoidant attachment versus anxious attachment
.021
7. Emotion-hiding versus emotion-expressing
.026
8. Help-avoidant versus help-seeking
.046
9. Hedonistic versus anhedonic
.205
10. Guilt-free versus guilt-ridden
.165
Factor intercorrelations
F2
.425
F3
.131
F4
.042
F5
.113
F2
F3
F4
F5
.040
.098
.121
.035
.098
.035
.063
.027
.004
.013
.036
.021
.162
.098
.047
.047
.038
.067
.110
.153
.094
.049
.060
.023
.248
.208
.046
.038
.004
.004
.082
.349
.231
.047
.133
.112
.019
.024
.001
.237
.663
.573
.687
.745
.550
.643
.554
.617
.728
.566
.245
.142
.048
.005
.090
.014
.037
.030
.033
.142
.027
.071
.134
.099
.094
.047
.019
.031
.044
.025
.036
.170
.090
.034
.085
.205
.393
.260
.395
.140
.020
.031
.049
.125
.012
.045
.015
.124
.165
.020
.647
.354
.187
.771
.753
.114
.031
.019
.335
.187
.053
.036
.140
.243
.002
.762
.563
.700
.203
.157
.044
.461
.225
.005
.031
.031
.072
.386
.243
.348
.072
.023
.280
.027
.247
.052
Chi-square (265) = 482.118, CFI = .919, RMSEA = .061; Factor loadings above .400 in bold.
Note. ESEM = exploratory structural equation modelling.
across ten domains. The adaptive schemas loaded on a single factor, which did not overlap with either the excessively
high or low composites. The excessively high composites
loaded on two different factors labelled as entitled and
avoidant. The excessively low composites also loaded on
two different factors labelled as anxious and undeserving.
The adaptive composite was negatively correlated with all
four of these extreme composites. The results supported
Elliott and Lassens view of self-schemas existing in a variety of domains consisting of excessively high and excessively low self-views and more moderate, adaptive schemas.
In analysing response patterns, most individuals tended
to endorse either moderate, excessively high, or excessively
low schemas consistently. In other words, those who
endorsed excessively high or excessively low schemas did so
consistently, with one group endorsing only negative items
and the other group only positive items. Likewise, the
10
Millon, T. (2011). Classifying personality disorders: An evolutionbased alternative to an evidence-based approach. Journal of Personality Disorders, 25, 279304. doi:10.1521/pedi.2011.25.3.279
Neckar, J. (2013). Self-enhancement and coping: The costs and
benets of positive illusions. Studia Psychologica, 55, 299309.
Oei, T. P. S., & Baranoff, J. (2007). Young Schema Questionnaire:
Review of psychometric and measurement issues. Australian
Journal
of
Psychology,
59,
7886.
doi:10.1080/
00049530601148397
Peterson, C., & Vaidya, R. S. (2003). Optimism as virtue and vice.
In E. C. Chang & L. J. Lawrence (Eds.), Virtue, vice, and personality: The complexity of behavior (pp. 2337). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10614-002
Pincus, A. L., & Lukowitsky, M. R. (2010). Pathological narcissism
and narcissistic personality disorder. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6, 421426. doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.121208.131215
Robins, R. W., & Beer, J. S. (2001). Positive illusions about the self:
Short-term benets and long-term costs. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 80, 340352. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.340
Samuel, D. B., & Ball, S. A. (2013). The factor structure and concurrent validity of the early maladaptive schema questionnaire:
Research version. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 37, 150159.
doi:10.1007/s10608-012-9439-6
Seligman, M. E. P. (2003). Positive psychology: Fundamental
assumptions. The Psychologist, 16, 126127.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 514.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5
Shim, H., Woo, Y., Jun, T.-Y., & Bahk, W. (2014). Mixed-state bipolar I and II depression: Time to remission and clinical characteristics. Journal of Affective Disorders, 152, 340346. doi:10.1016/j.
jad.2013.09.035
Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Phillips, D. (1996). Conict in close
relationships: An attachment perspective. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 71, 899914. doi:10.1037/00223514.71.5.899
Tellegen, A. (1991). Personality traits: Issues of denition, evidence,
and assessment. In W. M. Grove & D. Cicchetti (Eds.), Thinking
clearly about psychology. Volume 2: Personality and psychopathology
(pp. 1035). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Tellegen, A., & Waller, N. G. (2008). Exploring personality through
test construction: Development of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, &
D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory
and assessment, Volume 2: Personality measurement and testing (pp.
261292). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Weissman, A. N. (1979). The Dysfunctional Attitude Scale: A validation study. Dissertation Abstracts International, 40, 1389B-1390B.
(University Microlms No. 79-19, 33).
Young. (2016). Schema questionnaire. Retrieved from http://www.
schematherapy.com/id53.htm
Young, J. E., Klosko, J. S., & Weishaar, M. E. (2006). Schema therapy: A practitioners Guide (1st ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Young, J. E., & Lindemann, M. (1992). An integrative schemafocused model for personality disorders. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 5, 1123.