Development of the Uskudar Self-Consciousness Scale and Examination of its Psychometric Properties in the Context of Skepticism and Narcissism

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4867600/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Development of the Uskudar Self-Consciousness Scale and Examination of its Psychometric Properties in the Context of Skepticism and Narcissism

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4867600/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background

Self-consciousness means focusing on one’s own actions, knowing oneself, and is also a sign of increasing psychological problems in our age. Because a person’s lack of consciousness of their inner world, inconsistencies in their behaviors in the face of events, and the accompanying decrease in emotional literacy can disrupt the person’s integrity within themselves and within society. Skepticism and increasing narcissism can cause these situations, as well as being the root causes of lack of self-consciousness.

Methods

This study aimed to develop a valid and reliable dimensional Uskudar Self-Consciousness Scale (USSCS) that includes two perspectives by focusing on skepticism and narcissism, and to examine its psychometric properties. Data were collected from 1119 participants across Turkey.

Results

As a result of the study, the Uskudar Self-Consciousness Scale consisted of two independent scales: Uskudar Skepticism Scale (USSES) and Uskudar Narcissism Scale (USNAS). The first scale, USSES, consisted of 20 items and 4 dimensions, and the structure explained 52.92% of the total variance. Cronbach Alpha internal consistency reliability coefficient was found to be .89 in the total scale. The second scale, USNAS, consisted of 25 items and 5 factors. The total variance explained was 52.75%. Cronbach Alpha internal consistency was found to be .90. As a result of the modeling studies of both scales, the scale structures were confirmed, and the goodness of fit values were within the acceptable range.

Conclusions

According to the first results obtained in the study; (a) Young generations are more skeptical and their narcissism is high, (b) Skepticism and narcissism increase as the level of education increases, (c) In the 1119-person Turkey sample, skeptical affect and narcissism were found to be at a low level. As a result, the emergence of a valid, reliable and dimensional self-consciousness self-assessment scale that includes skepticism and narcissism and its introduction to the literature has emerged as the original aspect of this study.

Skepticism

Narcissism

Self-Consciousness

Scale Development

Validity

Reliability

Psychology

Self-consciousness can be defined as focusing on one’s own actions, thinking about them, and paying attention to what others think about oneself [1]. Self-consciousness is the directing of attention to internal latent aspects, feelings, and thoughts, or the focusing of attention on the aspects of the self that are reflected externally and are open to others and on presenting oneself [2]. According to Fenigstein, Scheier and Buss [1], self-consciousness consists of three sub-dimensions: private self-consciousness, public self-consciousness, and social anxiety (1975). Private self-consciousness is related to the person’s internal processes and includes awareness of feelings, thoughts, motives, and aspects of the self that are hidden from others [3]. Public self-consciousness includes the individual’s awareness of the aspects of oneself reflected in the social world and the way one presents oneself to others, and one’s concern with how others perceive one and the impressions one leaves on others. Social anxiety is related to discomfort and anxiety felt in the presence of others [4, 5].

To measure self-consciousness, a 23-item Self-Consciousness Scale was developed by Fenigstein and colleagues [1]. In this scale, self-consciousness was found to consist of three sub-dimensions: private self-consciousness, public self-consciousness and social anxiety [6].In a study conducted by Vleeming and Engelse [7], it was determined that the scale consisted of three sub-dimensions, similar to the original study. Subsequent studies revealed that the self-consciousness scale consisted of more than three structures. Burnkrant and Page [8] proposed that private self-consciousness consists of two factors. Thus, they redefined the scale developed by Fenigstein et al. (1975) as a four-factor scale, and revealed that private self-consciousness consists of two sub-dimensions: self-reflectiveness and internal state awareness. Subsequent studies revealed that private self-consciousness has a two-factor structure [9, 10]. While high levels of internal state awareness are seen as a sign of psychological health, high levels of self- reflectiveness are often associated with psychological maladjustment and psychopathology [11]. Thus Mittal & Balasubramanian [9] suggested a 5-factor model for the Self-Consciousness Scale. According to them, private self-consciousness consists of two sub-dimensions as put forward by Burnkrant and Page [8], and public self-consciousness consists of two sub-dimensions: style consciousness and appearance consciousness. In a study conducted by Nystedt and Ljungberg [12], the sub-dimensions of private and public self-consciousness were confirmed. In this study, the number of dimensions of self-consciousness increased to five when social anxiety was also taken into account. In a study conducted by Rugancı [13] with Turkish university students, it was found that the private self-consciousness scale consisted of two sub-dimensions.

Self-reflectiveness, a sub-dimension of private self-consciousness, involves thinking about oneself, including one’s childhood experiences. In addition, self-reflectiveness is associated with excessive self-reflection and often associated with psychopathology. Internal state awareness is the awareness of emotions and emotional changes, and is a concept that includes objective evaluations of oneself and is generally associated with positive psychological characteristics [6]. Public self-consciousness is related to awareness of the outward aspects of the self and a high level of public consciousness is associated with social phobia [4]. Therefore, as people’s efforts to present themselves to the outside world and create a good impression increase, that is, as their level of public self-consciousness increases, social anxiety may also increase.

Studies on self-consciousness are contradictory. A study by Smith and Shaffer [14] found that people with high private self-consciousness were more likely to help someone in need. In a study conducted by Sarı, Kabadayı and Şahin [15], a positive correlation was found between professional self-efficacy and self-consciousness. In a study conducted by Alkal, Akça and Korkmaz [16], a 10-session psychoeducation program was created to increase self-consciousness. As a result of this program, the participants’ self-consciousness increased. In this study, the increase in self-consciousness was evaluated as a positive quality. In a study emphasizing the positive aspects of high self-consciousness, it was found to be positively related to positive future expectations. Also, it was emphasized that self-consciousness would make the individual more resilient to negative experiences and make them hopeful [17].

Narcissistic individuals have high self-consciousness in matters related to their ideal self, which they are flattered with [18]. Otherwise, these individuals have low self-awareness regarding their negative characteristics. A study conducted by Uji, Nagata and Kitamura [19] found that narcissism leads people to self-conscious emotions such as achievement-oriented pride and hubristic pride, but prevents the feeling of shame.

Narcissism is a personality disorder characterized by a grandiose sense of self-importance, self-praise, superiority over others, poor empathy, and fantasies of unlimited brilliance, success, and beauty. In psychology, many theories have been developed since Freud to explain the dynamics of narcissism. Kohut [20, 21] argued that humans come into the world with a raw and primitive narcissistic self, which can mature through the primary and secondary mirroring provisions of parents, thus transitioning from archaic primary narcissism to mature secondary narcissism. In the meantime, in order to get out of archaic narcissism, it is necessary to experience optimal frustration in childhood, that is, to face the realities of the external world appropriately. Frustration below and above the optimal in childhood prevent the primitive narcissistic self from maturing. While those with primary mirroring deficiency always want to praise, highlight and show themselves; those with secondary mirroring deficiency want to take shelter under the wings of external objects representing the idealized father imago, which they believe will meet their needs such as protection and guidance, and they idealize others.

People who are narcissistic are under the influence of the splitting defense and these people have “single-mindedness”, which is the inability to empathize with others and to understand that others may not think like themselves. When they want to establish genuine and sincere relationships with others, put aside their grandiose attitudes and activate their true self, they fall into abandonment depression, that is, they switch to the aggressive component of the splitting defense. Since they experience fragmentation in this part of the splitting defense, they immediately cut off the activation of the real self and continue to live their lives with their false self. Grandiose narcissists try to attract attention in order to get the admiration and applause of others. Devaluation narcissists, unlike grandiose narcissists, live in the aggressive component of the split and always project the bad within themselves onto others, that is, they always find faults and flaws in others [22, 23].

Doubt is an emotion that becomes apparent when an obstacle is encountered on the way to achieving goals and motivates the mind to inquire, that is, to produce new solutions [24]. Skepticism can be seen on a wide spectrum, from severe clinical conditions such as delusions to more reasonable and non-clinical doubts that can be seen in many people [25]. The form of suspicion that negatively affects daily life and becomes a personality trait is called paranoid personality disorder. Paranoid delusions occur when suspicion becomes unreal and strange. Paranoid delusions cannot be changed even with clear evidence that the opposite of the delusional thoughts is true [26]. One of the reasons for skepticism is early traumatic experiences. Experiences such as abuse, rape, parental lying, and exposure to severe manipulation at an early age can cause skepticism to become established in the self characterologically [27].

When we look at narcissism and skepticism, we can conclude that those who experience these problems think too much about certain issues. This indicates that their self-reflectiveness, which is the unhealthy dimension of self-consciousness, is high. In addition, the fact that narcissistic people do not want to see their true selves and suppress fragile emotions indicates that these people may have lower internal state awareness. In this study, the validity and reliability of the Skepticism and narcissism scales in the context of Self-Consciousness will be discussed. There is no scale development study in Turkish literature that combines skepticism and narcissism under the title of self-consciousness. In this respect, the scale whose validity and reliability study will be conducted will make an original contribution to the literature.

Participants

The sample of the research consists of 1119 participants over the age of 18. 89.1% of the participants were women (n = 975), 12.3% were men (n = 138). Their ages range from 18 to 75, and the average age is 35. 48.3% of the participants have university education, 24.5% have high school education, 10.7% have primary education, 7.4% have college education, and 8.3% have postgraduate education. 60% of the participants did not report their marital status, the remaining 23.4% were married, 12.5% were single, and 3.6% were divorced or widowed.

Data collection tools

A survey containing the two scales developed in the study and a demographic information form was used as data collection tools in the study.

Demographic information form

Participants were asked about gender, age, education level, marital status, daily social media usage time and frequencies of loneliness perception in the demographic information form.

Uskudar self-consciousness scale (USSCS)

Uskudar Self-Consciousness Scale (USSCS), developed in this study, consists of two scales. The first is the Skepticism Scale, while the second is the Narcissism Scale. For the validity and reliability studies of Uskudar Self-Consciousness Scale (USSCS) developed in this study, content validity, construct validity, confirmatory factor analysis and internal consistency reliability were performed. First, an in-depth literature review was conducted by the researchers for both scales and an item pool was created by taking into account research in the field of psychology [28]. Six experts were consulted for their opinions. With the expert evaluation inventory, questions in each draft scale were evaluated as “It is appropriate for the item to remain on the scale”, “The item may remain on the scale, but unnecessary” and “It is not appropriate for the item to remain on the scale”. A pool of experts was formed with two academicians from each of the fields of psychology, psychiatry, and communication in order to include interdisciplinary views. Inventories were sent to the experts via e-mail. Subsequently, the compatibility ratios of the items were calculated with the help of the formula proposed by Miles and Huberman [29].

Compliance rates were calculated for each item using the ratings in the inventory. Accordingly, care was taken to ensure that the relevant item was scored between 0 and 1 and not below ,80. In addition, each item was revised and arranged in terms of spelling and grammar, taking into account the section in which the experts expressed their opinions. Then, the 26-item Uskudar Skepticism Scale (USSES) and the 27-item Uskudar Narcissism Scale (USNAS) draft scale forms were prepared in a 5-point Likert type (from Strongly Disagree to Totally Agree) and the data collection phase was started for factor analysis.

Explanatory Factor Analysis is one of the statistical calculation techniques performed in accordance with a large number of variables and is frequently applied within the scope of construct validity of scale development. Before performing EFA, it is necessary to test whether the data set is suitable for factor analysis [30]. For this, Bartlett Test of Sphericity and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test were applied to the obtained data [31, 32]. A KMO value of .90 and above is “excellent”, between .80-.89 is “very good”, between .70-.79 is “good”, between .60-.69 is “moderate”, between .50-.59 is “weak”, and below is considered “unacceptable”. Furthermore, the Bartlett Sphericity value is expected to be significant.

When the construct validity phase of the scales is proceeded, the number of factors can be determined with the EFA. For this, the Eigenvalues is used. According to the Eigenvalues, factors with this value equal to or greater than 1 are considered significant, and when it is less than 1, they are not taken into account [33].

Again, when the explained variance rate revealed by factor analysis varies between 40% and 60% it is ideal in social sciences [30]. On the other hand, in the criterion validity studies of each scale, correlation values are examined in the relations of the scales with each other. It is stated that when interpreting the correlation values, the correlation value between 0.30–0.70 is “medium”; values above 0.70 indicate a “high” relationship, and values below 0.30 indicate a “weak” relationship [30].

The Confirmatory Factor Analysis is carried out to determine whether the parameters revealed by factor analysis confirm the scale structure, and the goodness-of-fit values are calculated with the structural equation modeling. Goodness-of-fit values are expected to be within acceptable ranges in the literature. During the reliability studies, internal consistency analysis for items is performed according to the item variances of the scales and Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients were calculated.

Criteria for inclusion/exclusion

In the study, being under the age of 18 was determined as an exclusion criterion. Voluntariness and age criteria were sufficient as inclusion criteria for the study.

Procedures

Pilot Application

The comprehensibility of the questions was tested by applying the online questionnaire, which was prepared as a data collection tool in the research, to 15 people for trial purposes. It was determined that no problem was encountered during the pilot application, and then the field application was started.

Field Application

The online questionnaire including Demographic Information Form, and the USSCS Scale, which includes the USSES and USNAS scales, was applied to both groups on a voluntary basis for a month on 1–30 April 2024 in digital environments such as e-mail, WhatsApp application, social media stories and feed.

Data processing and statistical analysis

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was applied in the construct validity studies of two scales within the scope of the USCSC. The correlation coefficient of the Pearson product of moments was calculated for the relationship between the dimensions of the scales and the sum of the scales. Pearson Correlation Coefficient test was applied in criterion validity studies. The internal consistency reliability coefficient of the scales was determined by the Cronbach Alpha value. In the confirmatory factor analysis study, the goodness of fit values (X²/df, RMSEA, NFI, NNFI, CFI, GFI, AGFI) were evaluated on a data set of 400 people with the help of structural equation modeling. SPSS 26.0 was used for all validity and reliability analyses and comparison tests. AMOS was used in structural equation modeling studies and confirmatory factor analysis calculations.

Validity and reliability studies of the uskudar self-consciousness scale (USSCS)

In this section, first the validity and reliability studies of the Uskudar Skepticism Scale (USSES) and then the Uskudar Narcissism Scale (USNAS) will be included. At the beginning of the validity and reliability studies, whether the data were suitable for factor analysis was examined with the Kaiser Meyer Olkin (KMO) sampling coefficient and the Bartlett Test of Sphericity. Accordingly, the KMO coefficient value was found to be .92. The result of the Bartlett Test of Sphericity was found to be significant (X² = 7500.809; df:190; p = 0.000). Thus, the results showed that the data were suitable for factor analysis [32]. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed with 26-item candidate scale data created after the expert opinion phase. During EFA, values with eigenvalue greater than 1 formed a factor and a 4-factor structure emerged for USSES [33].

Table 1

USSES Factor Structure and Explained Variance Ratio
USSES	Eigenvalue	Variance	Cumulative Variance
Factor 1	6,89	34,48	34,48
Factor 2	1,50	7,49	41,98
Factor 3	1,11	5,56	47,54
Factor 4	1,07	5,37	52,92

As seen in Table 1, the eigenvalues of the factors vary between 6.89 and 1.07. The explained variance rate in the total scale was 52.62%. After determining the number of factors, item factor loadings were examined and items with overlapping or low factor loadings (9,10,16,19,22,26) were removed from the scale. The factor loadings of the remaining 20 items after the removal of 6 items are given in Table 2.

Table 2

USSES Item Factor Loads, Item Total Correlations and Cronbach Alpha Values
Factor	New Item No.	Items	Factor Load	Item Total Correlation	Cronbach Alpha
F1	1	Q14: I cut people out of my life because of a small mistake.	,66	,62	,81
	2	Q20: I do not forgive people; I consider it my right to take revenge.	,65	,60
	3	Q1: My sense of revenge is strong and I never know what I will be angry about.	,65	,65
	4	Q2: I would consider going to court even for a simple reason.	,60	,44
	5	Q13: I am special and I cannot handle criticism.	,59	,55
	6	Q21: I like myself and always defend myself against people.	,51	,51
	7	Q11: I make a big deal out of something simple; I enjoy testing people.	,51	,54
	8	Q18: I perceive a simple mistake or omission as disloyalty.	,43	,66
	9	Q7: I make comments that upset others even though they are not true.	,43	,38
F2	10	Q24: Sometimes I do not trust even my closest people, I think I will be deceived.	,83	,36	,68
	11	Q25: I agree with the statement that you should not even trust your father in this world.	,79	,35
	12	Q23: I remember the saying: “Human beings do not always behave decently” every day. I always fear so that they would not hurt me.	,67	,30
	13	Q8: I am confident, but I am a skeptic, I do not believe people easily.	,51	,38
F3	14	Q15: I protect the person I love at all costs.	,73	,62	,81
	15	Q17: I see various connections between events.	,67	,49
	16	Q12: I do not forget the bad treatment done to me.	,55	,37
F4	17	Q5: I am different and I believe in metaphysical things easily.	,77	,34	,64
	18	Q6: I recommend exaggerated punishments for some people, and sometimes I start by saying, “These people...”	,52	,33
	19	Q4: Trusting people makes me anxious; even if two people are talking from afar and do not look at me, I take it upon myself.	,49	,38
	20	Q3: I often question people’s commitment and loyalty to me.	,46	,38
Total					,89

Explanation

As a result of the EFA, the USSES scale form, consisting of 20 items and 4 factors, was rated on a 5-point Likert type as “Strongly Disagree”, “Slightly Agree”, “Moderately Agree”, “Very Agree”, “Strongly Agree”. A minimum of “1” and a maximum of “5” points can be obtained from each item There are no items that need to be reverse scored.

As seen in Table 2, the factor and item distributions in the scale were determined, and the items were renumbered. Subsequently, each of the factors to which the new numbered items belong was given a name. Accordingly, Factor 1 (Items 1–9) is “Seeking Revenge”; Factor 2 (Items 10–13) “Fear of Harm”; Factor 3 (Items 14–16) “Sense of Grandeur”; Factor 4 (Items 17–20) “External Attribution”. Item-total correlations were found to be within the acceptable range for each item and correlated with the scale (r > .30). Within the scope of reliability studies, Cronbach Alpha values, which are the internal consistency coefficients of the factors and the scale total, were calculated. The Cronbach Alpha values of the factors were found to be between .64 and .81; and the total scale was found to be .89.

After the USSES factor structure was formed, a scale model was drawn using the AMOS program with the data set consisting of 400 people, and confirmatory factor analysis was applied in Fig. 1. The goodness-of-fit values were found to be in the acceptable range and the model was validated (X²/sd = 2.99 < 3; RMSEA = .07 < .08; NFI = .91 > .90; NNFI = .96 > .95; CFI = .96 > .95; GFI = .92 > .90; AGFI = .86 > .85).

In the second stage of the study, validity and reliability studies of the USNAS Scale were conducted. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted with the 27-item candidate scale data created after the expert opinion phase. After the EFA, Eigenvalue values greater than 1 for USNAS formed factors and a 5-factor structure emerged as seen in Table 3.

Table 3

USNAS Factor Structure and Explained Variance Ratio
USNAS	Eigenvalue	Variance	Cumulative Variance
Factor 1	7,62	30,50	30,50
Factor 2	2,01	8,04	38,54
Factor 3	1,32	5,28	43,83
Factor 4	1,20	4,82	48,65
Factor 5	1,02	4,09	52,75

As seen in Table 3, the eigenvalues of the factors vary between 7.62 and 1.02. The explained variance rate in the total scale was 52.75%. When two overlapping items were removed from the scale (9,15), a 25-item and 5-factor scale structure emerged. The factor loadings of the items are given in Table 4.

Table 4

USNAS Item Factor Loads, Item Total Correlations and Cronbach Alpha Values
Factor	New It. No.	Items	Factor Load	Item Total Correlation	Cronbach Alpha
F1	1	I5: I enjoy paying attention to other people’s flaws.	,70	,45	,81
	2	I4: It is easy for me to make negative comments about others.	,68	,57
	3	I23: When there is a problem, my first reaction is usually to look for fault in others.	,63	,56
	4	I7: Most of the time I do not think I am making a mistake.	,60	,47
	5	I6: I get angry when I do not get what I want, the reasons for the situation are not important to me.	,58	,61
	6	I16: Most of the time I want the rules to be tailored to me.	,48	,59
	7	I10: I do not mind using others to achieve my goal.	,47	,49
	8	I17: When asking questions in a meeting, I make comments that show that I know more than the speaker.	,46	,52
	9	I22: When others criticize me, I think they are jealous of me.	,40	,60
F2	10	I1: I have dreams of being big, famous and rich, I like to pretend that these dreams have come true.	,68	,54	,74
	11	I26: Being successful, powerful and rich is one of my primary interests.	,67	,64
	12	I24: I often think that it is better not to live than to be an ordinary person.	,64	,54
	13	I27: Someone else’s success does not make me happy, even if it is the person I love, and I even get jealous sometimes.	,48	,40
	14	I21: I love competition, but I cannot stand losing.	,47	,66
F3	15	I18: I often think that other people misunderstand me.	,81	,56	,72
	16	I19: I often think that I am treated unfairly.	,78	,60
	17	I8: If I realize I did something wrong, I can easily feel depressed.	,51	,55
	18	I20: People see my successes but say I am difficult.	,41	,56
F4	19	I12: I am very selective about the people I meet and the people in my life.	,74	,45	,67
	20	I11: I categorize everything and prioritize what is most important to me.	,66	,56
	21	114: I do not care about other people’s feelings and thoughts if they do not benefit me.	,63	,49
	22	I25: Things that do not conform to my ideal have no value.	,48	,59
F5	23	I3: I have more success than my peers.	,82	,46	,72
	24	I2: I am important, smart and talented.	,80	,52
	25	I13: I feel special in the way I dress and the car I drive.	,47	,56
Total					,90

Explanation

As a result of the EFA, the USNAS scale form, consisting of 25 items and 5 factors, was rated on a 5-point Likert type as “Strongly Disagree”, “Slightly Agree”, “Moderately Agree”, “Very Agree”, “Strongly Agree”. A minimum of “1” and a maximum of “5” points can be obtained from each item There are no items that need to be reverse scored.

As seen in Table 4, the factor and item distributions in the scale were determined, and the items were renumbered. Subsequently, each of the factors to which the new numbered items belong was given a name. Accordingly, Factor 1 (Items 1–9) is “Egocentrism and Devaluing Others”; Factor 2 (Items 10–14) “Grandiose Fantasy”; Factor 3 (Items 15–18) “Entitlement and Inability to Self-Criticize”; Factor 4 (Items 19–22) “Exhibitionism Factor 5 (Items 23–25) “Superiority”. Item-total correlations were found to be within the acceptable range for each item and correlated with the scale (r > .30). Within the scope of reliability studies, Cronbach Alpha values, which are the internal consistency coefficients of the factors and the scale total, were calculated. The Cronbach Alpha values of the factors were found to be between .67 and .81; and the total scale was found to be .90.

After the USNAS factor structure was formed, a scale model was drawn using the AMOS program with the data set consisting of 400 people, and confirmatory factor analysis was applied. The goodness-of-fit values were found to be in the acceptable range and the model was validated in Fig. 2 (X²/df = 2.97 < 3; RMSEA = .07 < .08; NFI = .94 > .90; NNFI = .98 > .95; CFI = .96 > .95; GFI = .92 > .90; AGFI = .87 > .85).

After determining the dimensional structure of both scales, the relationship between the dimensions was examined with the Pearson Correlation coefficient analysis and the results are given in Table 5.

Table 5

USSCS Scale and Relationship of Factors
USKUDAR SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS SCALE
Uskudar Skepticism Scale	F1	F2	F3	F4	Uskudar Narcissism Scale	F1	F2	F3	F4	F5
F1: Seeking Revenge	1				F1: Egocentrism and Devaluing Others	1
F2: Fear of Harm	.56	1			F2: Grandiose Fantasy	.63	1
F3: Sense of Grandeur	.55	.63	,1		F3: Entitlement and Inability to Self-Criticize	.60	.53	1
F4: External Attribution	.63	.59	.61	1	F4: Exhibitionism	.47	.49	.46	1
-					F5: Superiority	.39	.45	.33	.49	1
USSCS	.85	.81	.81	.83	USSCS	.85	.81	.77	.74	.64

As expected, the scales are dimensionally consistent within themselves, that is, the dimensions are moderately correlated (r > .30 < .70) and highly correlated with the scale total scores (r > .70).

After developing the USSCS scale, the psychometric examinations were conducted. First, it was examined whether there was a relationship between the Uskudar Skepticism Scale and Uskudar Narcissism Scale. A high level of relationship was found (r > .70) as seen in Table 6.

Table 6

Pearson Correlation Value of Scales
Scales	N	X	r	p
USSES & USNAS	1119	41.26	.77	.000
USSES & USNAS	1119	49.60	.77	.000

First, the average scores obtained from the scales were calculated and the results are given in Table 7. Then, differences according to gender, age and some social media questions were tested with parametric tests.

Table 7

Average USSCS Scores of Groups
Groups /USSES	X	Sd	Groups /USNAS	X	Sd
F1: Seeking Revenge	14.67	5.42	F1: Egocentrism and Devaluing Others	14.38	5.39
F2: Fear of Harm	9.49	3.99	F2: Grandiose Fantasy	8.44	3.79
F3: Sense of Grandeur	9.28	2.90	F3: Entitlement and Inability to Self-Criticize	9.40	3.78
F4: External Attribution	7.80	3.18	F4: Exhibitionism	10.30	3.57
-			F5: Superiority	7.11	2.86
Total (n = 1119)	41.26	12.75	Total (n = 1119)	49.64	15.10

When Table 6 is examined, it is seen that the average score from the total USSES scale is X = 41.26; and from the USNAS scale, it is seen that the average score is X = 49.64. When the evaluation intervals obtained with the equal spacing technique are taken into consideration, in the 1119-person Turkey sample in which the study was conducted, the skepticism and narcissism was found to be at a low level. The evaluation intervals and application forms of the scales are given in Appendix-1.

In the study where self-consciousness was examined, it can be said that self-consciousness was at a low level. When the sub-dimensions were examined in terms of skepticism, seeking revenge was found to be “none”, the fear of harm and external attribution were found to be at a low level, and the sense of grandeur was found to be at a medium level. When the sub-dimensions were evaluated in terms of narcissism, egocentrism and devaluing others, grandiose fantasy were evaluated as “none”. In other dimensions, a low level of narcissism was revealed (Entitlement and inability to self-criticize, exhibitionism, superiority). The graphs created with the total scores of the scale are given in Graph 1.

*USSES can be seen on the left side; USNAS can be seen on the right side

Graph 1. USSES & USNAS Average Score

Within the scope of psychometric studies, the differences in two separate scale scores according to the age variable were analyzed. The age variable was first grouped as X, Y, Z according to the generation theory. One-Way ANOVA and LSD analysis technique were preferred for the difference between the groups. Highly significant differences emerged in each category (p < 0.001). In this direction, the total scores of the two scales and the Cohen d calculations showing the mean scores, standard deviations and the effect size created by the difference according to the generations are given in Table 8 and Table 9.

When the results are examined, it is seen that the Generation Z group (Age: 18–30) has the highest average scores in both scales and dimensions. Especially the difference between Generation Z and Generation X (Age: >45) is seen to be high (d > 0.50). Thus, it can be said that as age increases, skepticism and narcissism tendencies decrease, as seen in generation groups. As age decreases, skepticism, narcissism and the level of self-consciousness in general increase.

Table 8

Average USSES Scores of Age Groups of Generations
Scale	X	Sd	d
USSES – Generation Z: 18–30 (n = 420)	46.14	13.07	0.95^ac 0.53^ab 0.38^bc
USSES – Generation Y: 30–45 (n = 512)	39.40	12.11
USSES – Generation X: >45 (n = 177)	35.20	9.46
Sub-Scales
Seeking Revenge – Generation Z: 18–30 (n = 420)		16.31	5.94	0.73^ac 0.41^ab 0.30^bc
Seeking Revenge – Generation Y: 30–45 (n = 512)		14.03	5.11
Seeking Revenge – Generation X: >45 (n = 177)		12.67	3.79
Fear of Harm – Generation Z: 18–30 (n = 420)		10.70	4.12	0.73^ac 0.41^ab 0.31^bc
Fear of Harm – Generation Y: 30–45 (n = 512)		9.05	3.78
Fear of Harm – Generation X: >45 (n = 177)		7.91	3.45
Sense of Grandeur – Generation Z: 18–30 (n = 420)		10.05	2.68	0.69^ac 0.35^ab 0.29^bc
Sense of Grandeur – Generation Y: 30–45 (n = 512)		9.03	3.01
Sense of Grandeur – Generation X: >45 (n = 177)		8.20	2.64
External Attribution – Generation Z: 18–30 (n = 420)		9.06	3.51	0.87^ac 0.57^ab 0.33^bc
External Attribution – Generation Y: 30–45 (n = 512)		7.26	2.76
External Attribution – Generation X: >45 (n = 177)		6.40	2.37

The range is between 1–5.

^aReference group was calculated as Scale & Subscale: Age/Generation Z total X₁-X₂/SD _{Generation Z}

^bReference group was calculated as Scale & Subscale: Age/Generation Y total X₁-X₂/SD _{Generation Y}

^cReference group was calculated as Scale & Subscale: Age/Generation X total X₁-X₂/SD _Generation

Table 9

Average USNAS Scores of Age Groups of Generations
Scale	X	Sd	d
USNAS – Generation Z: 18–30 (n = 420)	55.60	15.75	0.93^ac 0.56^ab 0.36^bc
USNAS – Generation Y: 30–45 (n = 512)	47.25	13.86
USNAS – Generation X: >45 (n = 177)	42.59	11.72
Sub-Scales
Egocentrism and Devaluing Others – Generation Z: 18–30 (n = 420)		15.84	6.14	0.62^ac 0.37^ab 0.25^bc
Egocentrism and Devaluing Others – Generation Y: 30–45 (n = 512)		13.77	4.83
Egocentrism and Devaluing Others – Generation X: >45 (n = 177)		12.63	3.93
Grandiose Fantasy – Generation Z: 18–30 (n = 420)		10.13	4.12	0.98^ac 0.67^ab 0.30^bc
Grandiose Fantasy – Generation Y: 30–45 (n = 512)		7.63	3.18
Grandiose Fantasy – Generation X: >45 (n = 177)		6.77	2.54
Entitlement and Inability to Self-Criticize – Generation Z: 18–30 (n = 420)		10.76	3.88	0.77^ac 0.52^ab 0.23^bc
Entitlement and Inability to Self-Criticize – Generation Y: 30–45 (n = 512)		8.79	3.56
Entitlement and Inability to Self-Criticize – Generation X: >45 (n = 177)		8.00	3.17
Exhibitionism – Generation Z: 18–30 (n = 420)		11.09	3.70	0.55^ac 0.28^ab 0.28^bc
Exhibitionism – Generation Y: 30–45 (n = 512)		10.08	3.42
Exhibitionism – Generation X: >45 (n = 177)		9.13	3.31
Superiority – Generation Z: 18–30 (n = 420)		7.75	2.89	0.62^ac 0.27^ab 0.33^bc
Superiority – Generation Y: 30–45 (n = 512)		6.96	2.82
Superiority – Generation X: >45 (n = 177)		6.05	2.57

The range is between 1–5.

^aReference group was calculated as Scale & Subscale: Age/Generation Z total X₁-X₂/SD_{Generation Z}

^bReference group was calculated as Scale & Subscale: Age/Generation Y total X₁-X₂/SD_{Generation Y}

^cReference group was calculated as Scale & Subscale: Age/Generation X total X₁-X₂/SD_{Generation X}

Another analysis was made according to the level of education. The level of education was grouped as primary school, high school, college, university and postgraduate. For this, variance analysis One-Way-ANOVA and LSD difference test were applied and significant differences were found in both scales (p < 0.005). Although there were significant differences in each category in the dimensions, the results according to the total scores of the scale are given in Table 10.

Table 10

Average USSES & USNAS Scores According to Education Level
Scale	X	Sd	d
USSES – Primary education (n = 120)	35.83	9.33	0.63^ab
USSES – High school (n = 274)	40.86	12.20
USSES – College (n = 83)	42.19	13.55
USSES – University (n = 540)	42.51	12.94
USSES – (n = 93)	43.33	13.71
USNAS – Primary education (n = 120)		43.93	12.97	0.59^ab
USNAS – High school (n = 274)		47.54	14.28
USNAS – College (n = 83)		49.45	15.63
USNAS – University (n = 540)		51.51	15.12
USNAS- Postgraduate (n = 93)		52.30	14.99

The range is between 1–5.

^aReference group was calculated as Scale & Subscale: Primary education total X₁-X₂/SD_{Primary education}

^bReference group was calculated as Scale & Subscale: Postgraduate total X1-X2/SD_Postgraduate

When the average scale scores in Table 10 are examined, it is seen that skepticism and narcissism increase as the level of education increases. According to the Cohen (d) effect analysis, the effect size between the lowest and highest scores was found to be high (d > 0.50). Thus, it can be said that people with a postgraduate education level have a higher level of skepticism and narcissism than others. In second place are those with a university education level. People with a primary school education level have the lowest level of skepticism and narcissism.

In this study, the concept of self-consciousness was addressed within the scope of two perspectives, skepticism and narcissism. The focus was on developing a measurement tool and examining its psychometric properties. In this context, a valid, reliable and dimensional tool called the Uskudar Self-Consciousness Scale, which actually includes two independent scales called the Uskudar Skepticism Scale and the Uskudar Narcissism Scale, was added to the literature. According to the initial research findings obtained with the measurement tools, low self-consciousness was observed in 1119 participants from various age groups in the Turkish sample. This means low skepticism and low narcissism. Significant results were obtained in the detailed analyses conducted according to the independent variables and scale dimensions. It was understood that these results were consistent with and supported by the research findings on these subjects in the literature.

According to the first results, although the skepticism and narcissism levels of 1119 participants of various ages across Turkey were found to be low, in the comparison made according to age groups, the narcissism and skepticism of young people between the ages of 18–30, called Generation Z, were found to be high compared to other generations. When the sub-dimensions are examined, it is striking that Generation Z makes a difference in the narcissism dimensions of “Egocentrism and Devaluing Others”, “Grandiose Fantasy”, “Entitlement and Inability to Self-Criticize”, “Exhibitionism”, “Superiority”. When the literature is researched, it is stated that the Instagram application is the most preferred by young people, especially in Turkey, and is frequently used as a tool for self-presentation and identity construction [34]. Self is a concept that includes the characteristics that a person attributes to his/her personality in order to define himself/herself [35]. In his work The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Goffman exemplifies how people perform to display the desired self in interpersonal interactions by comparing the behavior of people on and off stage with theater [36].

In Goffman’s self-presentation approach, the concepts of performance and showcase have an important place. According to Goffman, performance is defined as all activities that a person performs in front of a certain audience for a certain period of time and has an effect on the audience. He explains the concept of showcase as the stereotyped expression forms used by the person, knowingly or unknowingly, while performing [36]. Goffman evaluates body language, posture, gestures and facial expressions, as well as demographic characteristics of individuals such as age and gender, racial structure and physical characteristics such as height and appearance, as parts of the individual’s personal showcase [36]. Goffman places the presentation of the self in a theatrical framework by using concepts such as performance, showcase and set in the presentation of the self in daily life. Although this study does not include a result focused on the use of social media by young people, it has been revealed in many studies conducted throughout Turkey that Generation Z is a pioneer in social media use, especially in Instagram use [37]. Therefore, experts state that social media platforms are a medium where young people’s narcissistic characteristics are exhibited [38] and it is necessary to thoroughly understand the psychology of social media, as it will also support clinical treatments [39].

The finding regarding the level of education in the study is also significant and it has been found that as the level of education increases, skepticism and narcissism increases. The increase in self-consciousness, also increases the skeptical effect of people. However, according to the general results of the study, this skepticism is at a low level. Again, the fact that the narcissism levels of people with university and postgraduate education are higher may be related to the fact that the level of education is displayed on social media as an important capital tool today. It can be said that the reasons for this result need to be investigated in future studies. It can be suggested that the first psychometric examinations and results of the two valid and reliable scales developed in the study be discussed with the findings of the future studies.

USSCS Uskudar Self-Consciousness Scale

USSES Uskudar Skepticism Scale

USNAS Uskudar Narcissism Scale

EFA Exploratory Factor Analysis

CFA Confirmatory Factor Analysis

KMO Kaiser Meyer Olkin

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Uskudar University and NPIstanbul Brain Hospital for support to this study.

Authors' contributions

NT was a major contributor in advising the manuscript and to the conception of the study; ATÜ collected, analyzed, reported data and wrote the manuscript; M.A. was a contributor in writing the background part of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

The authors declare that the study have no funding.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study received ethical approval from the Uskudar University Non-Interventional Research Ethics Committee report number of 61351342/April 2021-27 (30 April 2021). This study was performed according to the principles set out by the Declaration of Helsinki for the use of humans in experimental research.

Consent for publication

All participants in study engaged with a Participant Information Sheet which informed them of the researchers’ intent to publish the findings in journal. All participants provided consent for the following: “I understand that confidentiality and anonymity will be maintained, and it will not be possible to identify me in any research outputs.” For study, consent to use the anonymised data for publication purposes was provided was the owners.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests

Fenigstein A, Scheier MF, Buss AH. Public and private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1975;43(4):522.
Scheier MF, Carver CS. Optimism, coping, and health: assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychol. 1985;4(3):219.
Scandell DJ, Scandell D. The personality correlates of public and private self-consciousness from a five-factor perspective. J Social Behav Personality. 1998;13(4):579–92.
Hope DA, Heimberg RG. Public and private self-consciousness and social phobia. J Pers Assess. 1988;52(4):626–39.
Scheier MF, Buss AH, Buss DM. Self-consciousness, self-report of aggressiveness, and aggression. J Res Pers, 1978(12): p. 133–40.
Öveç Ü. An investigation of the relationships between self-compassion, self-consciousness, depression, anxiety and stress with structural equation modeling. Education Sciences. Sakarya University: Sakarya, Turkey; 2007.
Vleeming RG, Engelse JA. Assessment of private and public self-consciousness: A Dutch replication. J Pers Assess. 1981;45(4):385–9.
Burnkrant RE, Page TJ Jr. A modification of the Fenigstein, Scheier, and Buss self-consciousness scales. J Pers Assess. 1984;48(6):629–37.
Mittal B, Balasubramanian SK. Testing the dimensionality of the self-consciousness scales. J Pers Assess. 1987;51(1):53–68.
Piliavin JA, Charng HW. What is the factorial structure of the private and public self-consciousness scales? Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1988;14(3):587–95.
Creed AT, Funder DC. The two faces of private self-consciousness: self report, peer‐report, and behavioral correlates. Eur J Pers. 1998;12(6):411–31.
Nystedt L, Ljungberg A. Facets of private and public self-consciousness: Construct and discriminant validity. Eur J Pers. 2002;16(2):143–59.
Ruganci RN. Private and public self-consciousness subscales of the Fenigstein, Scheier and Buss self-consciousness scale: A Turkish translation. Pers Indiv Differ. 1995;18(2):279–82.
Smith JD, Shaffer DR. Self-consciousness, self-reported altruism, and helping behaviour. Social Behav Personality: Int J. 1986;14(2):215–20.
Sarı SV, Kabadayı F, Şahin M. Explanation of vocational outcome expectation: Self-transcendence, self-consciousness and self-control / self-management Turkish Psychological Counseling and Guidance Journal, 2017. 7(48).
Alkal A, Akça MŞ, Korkmaz O. The effect of the self-consciousness psycho-education program on the self-consciousness levels of university students. Electron J Social Sci. 2019;18(70):569–82.
Yurtkoru S, Taştan S. The effect of self-consciousness perception on positive future expectancy: an evaluation with the background of positive psychology and resource-oriented approach. J Bus Sci. 2018;6(2):1–24.
Koşan Y, Kılıç E. Determining Facebook behaviors affecting the narcissism and aggression levels of university students by chaid analysis. J Mus Alparslan Univ Fac Educ. 2022;2(2):348–69.
Uji M, Nagata T, Kitamura T. Narcissism: Its function in modulating self-conscious emotions. Bull Menninger Clin. 2012;76(3):211–34.
Kohut H. Analysing the self 2020: Metis Publishing.
Kohut H. Reconstruction of the self 2023: Metis Publishing.
Masterson JF. The birth of the self 2012: Psychotherapy Institute.
Masterson JF. Psychotherapy for borderline adults. Lıtera Publishing; 2013.
Vazard J. (Un)reasonable doubt as affective experience: obsessive–compulsive disorder, epistemic anxiety and the feeling of uncertainty. Synthese. 2021;198(7):6917–34.
Tone EB, Davis JS. Paranoid thinking, suspicion, and risk for aggression: A neurodevelopmental perspective. Dev Psychopathol. 2012;24(3):1031–46.
Öztürk M, Uluşahin N. Mental Health and Disorders 14th Edition. 2016, Ankara, Turkey: Bayt Ltd. Şti.
Young JE, Klosko J, Weishaar ME. Schema therapy: A practitioner's guide. New York: Guilford Press; 2003.
Tarhan N. Psychological Warfare. 22 ed. Timaş Publishing; 2017.
Tavşancıl E, Aslan AE. Content analysis and application examples for oral, written and other materials. Epsilon; 2001.
Büyüköztürk Ş. Manual of data analysis for social sciences. Pegem Citation Index; 2018.
Kalaycı Ş. SPSS applied multivariate statistical techniques (Vol. 5). Istanbul, Turkey: Asil Publishing; 2010.
Sharma S. Applied Multivariate Techniques. John Wiley&Sons Inc; 1996.
Tinsley H, Tinsley D. Uses of factor analysis in counseling psychology research. J Couns Psychol. 1987;34(4):414–24.
Kavut S. Identity construction in social media as part of Goffman’s theory of self presentation: A research on Instagram Nosyon. Int J Soc Cult Stud. 2018;1:1–12.
Hortaçsu N. The most beautiful psychology is social psychology. Istanbul, Turkey: Imge Publishing; 2012.
Goffman E. Presentation of the self in everyday life. Istanbul, Turkey: Metis Publishing; 2014.
Tutgun-Ünal A, Deniz L. Social media usage levels and preferences of social media generations. Int J Soc Researches. 2020;15(22):125–44.
Tarhan N. Narcissistic people have empathy blindness. 2020; https://uskudar.edu.tr/tr/icerik/4805/prof-dr-nevzat-tarhan-narsistik-kisilerde-empati-korlugu-vardir
Tarhan N, Tutgun-Ünal A. Social media psychology. Der Publishing; 2020.

Graph 1 is available in the Supplementary Files section.

No competing interests reported.

floatimage3.jpeg
USSES & USNAS Average Score *USSES can be seen on the left side; USNAS can be seen on the right side
APPENDIX.docx

Download PDF

Editorial decision: Revision requested
13 Aug, 2024
Editor assigned by journal
12 Aug, 2024
Submission checks completed at journal
12 Aug, 2024
First submitted to journal
06 Aug, 2024

You are reading this latest preprint version

Development of the Uskudar Self-Consciousness Scale and Examination of its Psychometric Properties in the Context of Skepticism and Narcissism

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Figures

Introduction

Materials and methods

Participants

Data collection tools

Demographic information form

Uskudar self-consciousness scale (USSCS)

Criteria for inclusion/exclusion

Procedures

Data processing and statistical analysis

Results

Validity and reliability studies of the uskudar self-consciousness scale (USSCS)

Conclusion and Discussion

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Graph

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1