Australian Journal of Psychology 2016

doi: 10.1111/ajpy.12141

Expanding schema conceptualisation and assessment: Towards

a richer understanding of adaptive and maladaptive functioning
Patrick R. Steffen,1 Charles H. Elliott,2 Maureen K. Lassen,2 Joseph Olsen,3 and Laura L. Smith4
1

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

What is already known about this topic:

What this topic adds

1. Maladaptive schemas are commonly assessed in psychology and psychotherapy.

2. Schemas are generally employed to describe overly
negative dispositions.
3. No assessment measures to date take a balanced,
moderation perspective examining moderate dispositions between extremely negative or extremely positive dispositions across a range of domains.

1. The focus of this study is to examine a measure that

assesses adaptive moderation or a balance between
excessively low and excessively high schemas.
2. The results indicate that moderate schemas can be
effectively measured and that moderate schemas are
related to better mental health outcomes than excessively low or excessively high schemas.
3. The implications for this ndings include viewing
assessment procedures for schema measures from a
different perspective than past approaches.

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 &

Waller, 2008). Nevertheless, psychology traditionally has

focused primarily on the unhealthy, excessively negative
aspects of human functioning such as rumination and negative cognitions (e.g., negative automatic thoughts and schemas) that have long been considered to represent risk
factors for many types of psychopathology (e.g., Beck &
Bredemeier, 2016; Ingram, 2003). This focus shifted somewhat when Martin Seligman and others began the positive
psychology movement in the 1990s (Seligman, 2003; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). The approach often taken
in positive psychology has been that the more positive

Correspondence: Patrick R. Steffen, PhD, Department of

Psychology, Brigham Young University, 284 TLRB, Provo, UT
84602, USA. Email: steffen@byu.edu
Received 6 April 2016. Accepted for publication 17 June 2016.
2016 The Australian Psychological Society

P.R. Steffen et al.

thinking the better and that people should maximise the

positive and minimise the negative. However, some
researchers have cautioned that people can be overly optimistic and positive, resulting in negative outcomes
(e.g., Grant, 2013; Peterson & Vaidya, 2003).
In fact, an increasing body of research has pointed to the
potentially negative aspects of positive thinking and traits,
especially when taken to extremes. Thus, even seemingly
desirable attributes such as gratitude, self-control, happiness, optimism, generosity, empathy, and self-esteem
repeatedly have been shown to result in negative effects
when they reach exceptionally high levels (for a review, see
Grant & Schwartz, 2011). Consider as an additional example, those with excessively positive, grandiose self-views
(as prominently seen in narcissism and manic states) have
been shown to be especially vulnerable to threats or challenges to these views, often demonstrating increased anger
and/or anxiety when threats or trauma occur (Besser,
Zeigler-Hill, Pincus, & Neria, 2013). Finally, elements of
mania (including inated self-esteem) actually have been
shown to slow successful treatment time compared to treating pure depression alone (Shim, Woo, Jun, & Bahk, 2014).
The schema construct has had a rich history serving as a
core concept within cognitive approaches (e.g., Leahy,
Beck, & Beck, 2005), psychoanalytic theory (e.g., Horowitz,
1991), and psychotherapy integration models of psychopathology and personality (e.g., Greenberg & Pascual-Leone,
1995; Markus & Wurf, 1987), but has largely focused on
extreme, unipolar, negative aspects of human functioning.
Schemas are generally viewed as internal, metaphorical
structures that systematically organise information in recurrent patterns that create meaning and thereby inuence
how stimuli are conceptualised, perceived, encoded, organised, and retrieved (Johnson, 1987). The primary cognitive
content of self-schemas species tenaciously held, core
beliefs or views held about the self. Certain schemas and
associated thought patterns are widely thought to predispose individuals to depression, personality disorders, and
psychopathology in general (e.g., Beck & Bredemeier, 2016;
Ingram, 2003; Leahy et al., 2005). Young, Klosko, and
Weishaar (2006) construes schemas (or what he refers to as
early maladaptive schemas) as similar, unipolar, recurrent,
and enduring patterns. He also contends that clinically
important schemas almost always develop during childhood; a position that may have exceptions such as when
traumas, refugee displacement, and even therapy occur
later in life.
Whenever schemas develop, there may be considerable
value in construing schemas as bipolar opposites. The
groundwork for this idea can be found in the writings by
authors from diverse elds such as linguistics, philosophy,
psychology, and physics; to wit, the fact that meaning itself
often comes from an understanding of contrasting

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

Assessing adaptive moderation

polar opposite schemas. Individuals may, at different times,

process information in terms of either polar opposite.
In addition, they postulated that an integrated, moderate, schema exists in each schema domain for every pair of
opposite extremes. Presumably, individuals who exhibit
personality dysfunction tend to process information in terms
of polar opposites, sometimes vacillating from one extreme
to the other. By contrast, their model suggests that wellfunctioning individuals tend to assess information more
often in terms of integrated, moderate schemas. Perhaps
such schemas could serve as useful therapeutic goals once
their nature has been explored more fully. Therefore, the
primary purpose of the current study was to conduct a preliminary exploration of the nature and structure of moderate versus extreme schemas and how such schemas relate
to psychopathology, on one hand, and adaptive functioning
on the other. We assessed the utility of the instrument in
predicting psychological distress and attachment styles, testing three main hypotheses.
Hypotheses
First, we hypothesised that a schema questionnaire based
on a tripartite model of moderate responding versus high
and low extreme responding would be psychometrically
sound. Second, we hypothesised that high and low extreme
responders (or alternatively, described as either excessively
positive or negative), although quite disparate in schema
content, would be more similar to each other in terms of
outcomes than to moderate responders. In other words, both
extreme groups would demonstrate relatively greater psychopathology. And third, we hypothesised that those scoring higher on moderate schemas would also report less
distress as measured by the Symptom Checklist 90-Revised
(SCL-90R; Derogatis, 1992) and healthier attachment as
measured using Simpsons Adult Attachment Questionnaire
(AAQ; Simpson, Rholes, & Phillips, 1996), relative to those
scoring at the high or low extremes.
The development of the ASAP
When originally proposed, Elliott and Lassen (1997)
designed 18 bipolar domains (two opposite extremes in addition to one moderate schema in each domain). They gradually developed this list using sources such as Youngs initial
list of clinically derived schemas (Young & Lindemann,
1992) in addition to clinical literature including thinking
styles discussed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders (4th ed; American Psychiatric Association,
1994), their own clinical experiences and that of colleagues.
The original list was pared down to 10 (see Table 1) through
an iterative process of item generation and evaluation.
For each round of data collection, the current authors
generated three clusters of items for each domain: Two that
2016 The Australian Psychological Society

represent the bipolar ends of the construct and a third that

represents the moderate or adaptive integration. For
instance, the items I am way above most people, I feel
inferior to most other people, and I dont feel particularly
inferior or superior to others illustrate items from the three
clusters generated for the domain of Over-Inated, Inferior,
and Moderated self-view, respectively. For each round,
8 to 10 items were typically generated for each cluster. The
nal ASAP has six items per cluster.
Data were collected from 250500 individuals each
round. Participants were a mixture of college students and
clients of therapists associated with Fielding Graduate University. They were asked to respond to each item on a
5-point scale, where 1 = never or rarely describes me and
5 = always or very often describes me. In the instructions,
individuals were told that they might nd themselves
endorsing two seemingly contradictory statements and that
people are often inconsistent in their actions and attitudes.
Each round, we examined the statistical structure of each
construct domain. Our primary analyses were exploratory
factor analyses performed on each set of items generated for
each domain. We anticipated that, when two factors were
extracted, two specic axes could be found. One axis should
represent the two extreme poles of the dimension. On that
axis, items within the two clusters representing the
extremes should load on different ends, whereas items in
the cluster representing moderation should load near zero.
A second axis should represent moderation and exibility
versus lack of moderation or extremity. On one end of that
axis, items in the moderate cluster should load substantially.
On the other end of that axis, items in the two extreme
clusters should load moderately. In sum, then, we expected
that the three item clusters would form a kind of triangle
in a two-dimensional factor space (see Fig. 1) for any given
domain.
Based on this factor analysis for each domain, we identied items representing the three clusters that t the pattern,
if it existed. When anticipated structure was found, but not
all items t the pattern, we generated additional items based
on those that did work. When we did not nd anticipated
structure in a domain, we either dropped it in subsequent
rounds of data collection or altered our conception of the
domain and rewrote item content.
Over iterations of the deductive process of generating
items and the inductive process of rening interpretations
and item content based on empirical structure, anticipated
structure should increasingly correspond to actual empirical
structure (Tellegen, 1991). We stopped item generation and
scale renement when the anticipated structure indeed did
conform to observed structure. We rened the inventory
through ve rounds of item generation and evaluation. The
end result is the current ASAP as discussed in the following
section.

P.R. Steffen et al.

Table 1 The 10 Dimensions of the ASAP with sample questionnaire items

Entitled versus Unworthy
Deserving
Unworthy
Entitled
Excessive standards versus Lack of standards
Reasonable standards
Lack of standards
Excessive standards
Other-centredness versus Self-centredness
Balanced perspectives
Self-centred
Other-centred
Over-inated versus Inferior self-view
Balanced self-view
Inferior self-view
Overinated self-view
Attention seeking versus Attention avoidant
Attention-comfortable
Attention-avoidant
Attention-seeking
Avoidant attachment versus Anxious attachment
Secure attachment
Anxious attachment
Avoidant attachment
Emotion-hiding versus Emotion expressing
Comfortable expression
Excessive expression
Emotion avoidance
Help-avoidant versus Help-seeking
Interdependent
Help-seeking
Help-avoidant
Hedonic versus Anhedonic
Reasonable self-indulgence
Anhedonic
Hedonistic
Guild-ridden versus Guilt-free
Adaptive guilt
Excessive guilt
Minimal guilt

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.

ASAP = Assessment of Schema Adaptability Prole.

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

request) were highly similar. In addition, we believed it to

be more parsimonious to avoid running a greater number
of analyses because of potential loss of power and
increased error that would occur with an extra set of analyses. Institutional review board approval was obtained
prior to beginning the study and all participants read and
signed an informed consent form prior to completing the
questionnaires.

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

Assessing adaptive moderation

Figure 1 Two-factor structure of the domain of entitled versus

unworthy. Triangles correspond to items endorsing entitled.
Squares correspond to items endorsing unworthy Triangles correspond to items endorsing entitled. Diamonds correspond to items
endorsing exibility.

Assessment of Schema Adaptability Prole (ASAP)

The current version of the ASAP consists of 180 items, each
rated on a 5-point scale, where 1 is anchored with never or
rarely describes me, 3 is labelled sometimes describes me, and 5 is
anchored with always or very often describes me. Sample questions and sample items are presented by dimension in Table 1.
The Symptom Checklist 90-Revised (SCL 90-R)
This measure consists of 90 items rated on a 5-point scale,
from which nine subscales and a total score can be derived.
The SCL-90-R is a widely used instrument with established
reliability and validity (Derogatis, 1992). In this study, the
subscales of the nine subscales showed good reliability with
reliability estimates ranging from r = .70 to r = .89.
Adult Attachment Questionnaire
The AAQ is composed of 17 items that measure adult attachment orientations on two orthogonal dimensions, avoidance
and ambivalence. The avoidance dimension captures the tendency to avoid intimacy and hold negative views of others.
The ambivalent dimension measures the tendency to have
negative self-views and contradictory thoughts and feelings
about the commitment of relationship partners. The AAQ has
demonstrated reliability and validity (Simpson et al., 1996);
in this study, the reliability coefcient for avoidant attachment was r = .84 and for anxious attachment was r = .56.
Procedure
The ASAP is scored in two ways. First, six-item composites
are calculated for each of the three clusters within each
domain. As items within each cluster are fairly homogeneous, these composites should possess reasonable internal
consistency despite the small number of items. Second,
2016 The Australian Psychological Society

higher order composites are calculated to measure two key

aspects of the theory. A bipolar scale is calculated by subtracting the excessively high composite score from the
excessively low composite score. A scale that measures
moderation is calculated by subtracting composites representing the excessively high and low scores of the domain.
Specically, we measured this axis by taking the moderation cluster and subtracting the average of the extreme positive and negative clusters. An individual scoring high on
both extreme composites and low on the moderation composite would score in the middle of the bipolar scale and
very low on adaptive moderation. An individual scoring low
on both extreme composites and high on the adaptability
composite would also score in the middle of the bipolar scale
but would be very high on adaptability. Variations along the
bipolar scale are a function of relative scores on the positive
and negative composites alone. The latter scales per domain
are in fact ones that best correspond to the conceptual
dimensions of interest in context of understanding the role
of moderation in personality and psychological health.
RESULTS
Analytic approach
The six-item cluster scales (30 in total across ten domains)
had reasonable internal consistency for such short measures; mean was .73 (range .52.89). Thus, separate unipolar composites for the excessively high (H), excessively
low (L), and adaptive (A) self-schemas were constructed in
each of the 10 domains. Exploratory structural equation
modelling (ESEM) with Geomin rotation was used to analyse these original composites (see Table 2). A ve-factor
model was estimated using Mplus 6.12, and including corresponding within-domain error correlations. For example,
the model permitted the measurement errors for Adaptive
Ego-Control (Adaptive), Guilt-Free (Excessively High), and
Guilt-ridden (Excessively Low) to be mutually intercorrelated. Correlations with the SCL-90-R subscales and the
Simpson Attachment Questionnaire outcome variables were
also included as part of this analysis (see Table 2).
Identifying moderate and extreme schemas
The initial goal of this study was to examine whether it is
possible to distinguish between adaptive and excessively
high and low schemas. We hypothesised that the adaptive
composites would load together in a single factor and not
overlap with the high or low composites. Table 2 presents
the ESEM model for the adaptive, high, and low composites. In fact, the adaptive composites loaded together on a
single factor indicating that the adaptive responders
approached each of the domains in a similar fashion. Therefore, balanced response tendencies were evident with the

P.R. Steffen et al.

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.

adaptive composites loading together and not loading with

any of the high or low composites. This nding conforms to
the hypothesised model.
For the excessively high and low composites, there were
two factors underlying each (see Table 2). The excessively
high composites loaded on two different factors, the rst
containing the items entitled, self-centred, over-inated
self-view, and attention seeking (entitled), and the second
containing the items avoidant attachment, emotion-hiding,
and help-avoidant (avoidant). The excessively low composites also loaded on two factors, the rst containing the
items inferior self-view, anxious attachment, emotionexpressing, help-seeking, and guilt-ridden (anxious), and
the second containing undeserving, lack of standards, inferior self-view, and attention-avoidant (undeserving).

Overall, these dimensions t according to theory and did

not load with the adaptive composites. In this model, the
adaptive composite factor correlated .26 with F2 (entitled),
.30 with F3 (anxious), .16 with F4 (avoidant), and .28
with F5 (undeserving).

Relationship of the ASAP composite scores to

attachment and distress
A second key goal of this study was to examine the relationships between the Moderate, Excessively High, or Excessively Low composites derived from the ASAP and the
attachment and distress outcomes. The ESEM model in
Table 3 also included correlations of the ASAP factors with
the avoidant and anxious attachment subscales of the AAQ,
2016 The Australian Psychological Society

Assessing adaptive moderation

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***

Note. SCL = symptom checklist.

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

and the SCL90-R subscales. As hypothesised, those who

endorsed moderate schemas also reported lower distress
and decreased avoidant and anxious attachment (see
Table 3). Also, as hypothesised, both excessively high and
low composites were related to higher distress and increased
avoidant and anxious attachment orientations. Being
entitled was related to increased avoidant attachment but
not anxious attachment, and was related to seven of the
nine SCL90-R subscales (all except somatisation and phobic
anxiety). Scoring higher on ASAP anxious related items was
related to increased avoidant attachment on the AAQ but
surprisingly not related to anxious attachment.

The similarities between excessively high and low

schemas
A particularly intriguing goal of the current study was to
examine specic theoretically relevant relationships among
the adaptive and the excessively high and low schema composites. Combinations of the excessively high and low composites were then used to derive indicators of schema
bipolar contrast (high low schemas) and combined
schema extremity ((high + low schemas)/2). Within a given
domain, bipolarity taps the predominance of endorsing
excessively high versus extreme, low self-schemas. The
combination factor represents the simultaneous presence of
both high and low elements of a given domain, and might
be seen by some as representing inconsistent, ambivalent,
or conicting self-descriptions. As noted in the Discussion
section, this response pattern is recognised and explicitly
legitimised in the instructions for the instrument.
These measures of combination and bipolar contrast constitute a direct and complete re-expression of the information from the original excessively high and low composites
in a theoretically meaningful form consistent with the goals
of this study. Individuals with the excessively high or most
2016 The Australian Psychological Society

positive bipolarity scores endorse the excessively high items

but not the low items, while those with the lowest or most
negative bipolarity scores would endorse the excessively
low items but not the high items. Finally, those with the
highest combination scores endorse both excessively high
and low schemas.
Table 4 presents an ESEM model that included the adaptive, combination, and bipolar composites. We see that the
adaptive composites loaded strongly together again, the
excessively high and low composites loaded strongly
together, and the adaptive and excessive composites did not
overlap in their loadings. This result provides evidence that
moderate responders consistently approach each of the personality domains in a similar fashion. This nding also provides evidence that those who endorse both excessively
high and low schemas do so in a consistent fashion across
the ten domains. The adaptive composites correlated .425
with the combination composites.
We next looked at the bipolar composites relative to the
combination composites. Whereas the combination composites loaded on one factor, the bipolar composites were split
across three factors. The rst factor focused on entitlement
and self-view, the second factor focused on avoidance, and
the third factor focused on standards. The domains selfcentred versus other-centred, hedonistic versus anhedonic,
and guilt-free versus guilt-ridden did not load on any factor,
with the ndings being somewhat different from the positive and negative composites presented in Table 2. Overall,
the combination composites loaded together to form a single consistent factor whereas the bipolar composites were
split and did not include all domains.
DISCUSSION
The results demonstrated that the ASAP could distinguish
three types of self-schemas, based on a tripartite model,

P.R. Steffen et al.

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

individuals who endorsed the moderate schemas did so

consistently.
Of note, we also found that there is a subset of individuals
who endorse both excessively low and high items within the
same domains. This outcome was permitted with the ASAP
instructions by explicitly informing participants that people
at times think and behave in seemingly contradictory ways
and their responses may demonstrate such contradictions.
This notion is consistent with the idea that people demonstrate different cognitive and emotional responses when in
different psychological situations (Kross, Mischel, & Shoda,
2010). This pattern of vacillations also ts quite well with
Apters (1982) model of psychological reversals. His reversal
theory specically proposed that people frequently alternate
between mutually exclusive states of either bistability (vacillation among two states) or multistability when more
than two states are involved.
2016 The Australian Psychological Society

Assessing adaptive moderation

The process of such oscillations also conforms nicely with

Elliott and Lassens (1997) position that the same individual
can hold different schemas within a domain that are active
in different situations, though probably not simultaneously.
In other words, the ASAP model allows for recognizing vacillation within a domain. Yet, vacillation among domains
does not appear to be a feature captured by extant personality or schema assessment instruments.
The study next addressed whether different types of selfschemas would correspond to different levels of psychological
functioning. Specically, it was hypothesised that moderate
schemas would be related to adaptive functioning while
both extreme positive and negative schemas would be
related to maladaptive functioning. The results provided
evidence for these hypotheses. Individuals who endorsed
moderate schemas reported lower levels of psychopathology
on the SCL90-R, while individuals with either excessively
negative or overly positive schema composites showed
higher levels of psychological distress. The anxious composite items were positively correlated with all of the nine
SCL90-R subscales, as were the detached composite items.
The entitled composite items were positively correlated with
seven of the nine subscales and the withdrawn composite
items were positively correlated with three of the subscales
(interpersonal sensitivity, phobic anxiety, and psychoticism). The ndings on the excessively positive self-views of
the entitled and detached composites are consistent with
previous research ndings that excessively positive selfviews are related to maladaptive functioning (e.g., Hoorens,
Pandelaere, Oldersma, & Sedikides, 2012; Neckar, 2013;
Pincus & Lukowitsky, 2010; Robins & Beer, 2001). These
results thus demonstrate the need to identify excessively
positive self-schemas as well as negative self-schemas to
more fully understand psychological distress.
Adaptive schemas on the ASAP were hypothesised to be
associated with healthier relationships. As expected, those
with moderate schemas reported lower scores on avoidant
and anxious orientations on the AAQ. In contrast, both
extreme positive and negative composites were positively
associated with insecure attachment orientations. Higher
scores on the entitled items, the detached items, and the
anxious items were positively associated with avoidant
attachment. Higher scores on the withdrawn items were
correlated with anxious attachment. The one unexpected
nding in these results is that the ASAP anxious items did
not correspond with the anxious dimension on the AAQ.
While the results clearly show that both extreme positive
and negative composites are associated with problematic
attachment, further investigation of the anxious items and
attachment orientations is needed.
The ASAP appears to be a unique schema questionnaire
that offers a comprehensive picture of self-schemas within
ten important domains. Not only does the ASAP identify
2016 The Australian Psychological Society

negative schemas, it allows for the recognition of adaptive

schemas and problematic, excessively positive schemas. The
tripartite model of schemas and the ASAP offer promising
opportunities to better identify and understand self-views
that affect emotions and behaviour. We know of no other
current assessment instrument that has taken a balanced,
perspective examining moderate dispositions between a
range of extremely negative or extremely positive thinking
styles. We suggest that an instrument based on this tripartite
model will ultimately provide a richer, more complete picture of psychological adaptation versus dysfunction.
Limitations and future directions
An obvious limitation of the current study has to do with
the relatively limited sample size for the current study.
However, given the exploratory nature of this study, we feel
the sample represents a reasonable beginning. In addition to
larger, more diverse samples, future studies will need to utilise additional validity measures such as friend reports,
direct comparisons to the YSQ, and other measures of psychopathology. It will also be important to see if ASAP scores
change as a function of time and/or therapy. Implicit measures of schema content may hold additional promise for
validation of the instrument given the limited nature of
self-report data (cf., Mikulincer, 1995). Finally, we suspect
that the ASAP may have the potential to resolve the issue
of whether extreme content or extreme response style better predict depressive relapse.
NOTE
1. Consider a clinical example of the possible similarity in
outcome for overly negative and excessively positive thinking; it appears likely that individuals with opposing schemas
of entitlement and undeserving would feel that others
are quite inconsistent in meeting their needs.
REFERENCES
American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical
manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Apter, M. J. (1982). The experience of motivation: The theory of psychological reversals. London, England: Academic Press.
Beck, A. T., & Bredemeier, K. (2016). A unied model of depression: Integrating clinical, cognitive, biological, and evolutionary
perspectives. Clinical Psychological Science, Advance Online Publication, 124. doi:10.1177/2167702616628523
Besser, A., Zeigler-Hill, V., Pincus, A., & Neria, Y. (2013). Pathological
narcissism and acute anxiety symptoms after trauma: A study of
Israeli civilians exposed to war. Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes, 76, 381397. doi:10.1080/15298868.2014.966143
Calvete, E., Orue, I., & Gonzalez-Diez, Z. (2013). An examination
of the structure and stability of early maladaptive schemas by
means of the Young Schema Questionnaire3. European Journal
of Psychological Assessment, 29, 283290.

10

P.R. Steffen et al.

Derogatis, L. R. (1992). SCL-90-R administration and scoring manual.

Bloomington, MN: Pearson Education, Inc.
Elliott, C. H., & Lassen, M. K. (1997). A schema polarity model for
case conceptualization, intervention, and research. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 4, 1228. doi:10.1111/j.14682850.1997.tb00095.x
Forand, N. R., & DeRubeis, R. J. (2014). Extreme response style
and symptom return after depression treatment: The role of positive extreme responding. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82, 500509. doi:10.1037/a0035755
Friedmann, J., Lumley, M., & Lerman, B. (2016). Cognitive schemas as longitudinal predictors of self-reported adolescent depressive symptoms and resilience. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 45,
3248. doi:10.1080/16506073.2015.1100212
Grant, A. M. (2013). Rethinking the extraverted sales ideal: The
ambivert advantage. Psychological Science, 24, 10241030.
doi:10.1177/0956797612463706
Grant, A. M., & Schwartz, B. (2011). Too much of a good thing:
The challenge and opportunity of the inverted U. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 6, 6176. doi:10.1177//1745691610393523
Greenberg, L., & Pascual-Leone, J. (1995). A dialectical constructivist approach to experiential change. In R. A. Neimeyer &
M. J. Mahoney (Eds.), Constructivism in psychotherapy (pp. 169
191). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Hoorens, V., Pandelaere, M., Oldersma, F., & Sedikides, C. (2012).
The hubris hypothesis: You can self enhance, but youd better
not show it. Journal of Personality, 80, 12371274. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-6494.2011.00759.x
Horowitz, M. J. (Ed). (1991). Person schemas and maladaptive interpersonal patterns. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Ingram, R. E. (2003). Origins of cognitive vulnerability to depression. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 27, 7788. doi:10.1023/
A:1022590730752
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning,
imagination, and reason. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Kriston, L., Schafer, J., Jacob, G. A., Harter, M., & Holzel, L. P.
(2013). Reliability and validity of the German version of the
Young Schema Questionnaire- Short Form 3 (YSQ-S3). European
Journal of Psychological Assessment, 29, 205212.
Kross, E., Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (2010). Enabling self-control: A
cognitive-affective processing system approach to problematic
behavior. In J. E. Maddux & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Social psychological foundations of clinical psychology (pp. 375394). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Leahy, R. L., Beck, J., & Beck, A. T. (2005). Cognitive therapy for
the personality disorders. In S. Strack (Ed.), Handbook of personology and psychopathology (pp. 442461). Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons Inc.
Lumley, M., & Harkness, K. (2009). Childhood maltreatment and
depressotypic cognitive organization. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 33, 511522. doi:10.1007//s10608-009-9257-7
Markus, H., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic of self-concept: A social
psychological perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299338.
Mikulincer, M. (1995). Attachment style and the mental representation of the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68,
917925.

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.

2016 The Australian Psychological Society