Cognition and Philosophy Lab, Philosophy Department, School of Philosophical, Historical and International Studies, Monash University, 29 Ancora Imparo Way, Clayton, VIC, 3800, Australia.
Monash Centre for Consciousness & Contemplative Studies, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.
BMC Psychol. 2022 Jun 30;10(1):165. doi: 10.1186/s40359-022-00870-0.
How we build and maintain representations of ourselves involves both explicit features which are consciously accessible on reflection and implicit processes which are not, such as attentional biases. Understanding relations between different ways of measuring self-cognition both within and across such cognitive domains is important for understanding how selves may differ from one another, and whether self-cognition is best understood as largely uni-dimensional or more multi-dimensional. Further, uncovering this structure should inform research around how self-cognition relates to psychiatric and psychological conditions. This study explores the relations between different constructs of self-cognition and how variability within them relates to psychiatric traits.
Our final dataset includes within-subject (n = 288, general population) measures of explicit self-concept (using both the Self Concept Clarity Scale and Self Concept and Identity Measure), implicit self-prioritisation in a shape-label matching task (for both reaction time and sensitivity) and measurement of traits for five psychiatric conditions (autism, borderline personality disorder, schizophrenia, depression and anxiety). We first test whether self-cognitive measures within and across domains are correlated within individuals. We then test whether these dimensions of self-cognition support a binary distinction between psychiatric conditions that either are or are not characterised in terms of self, or whether they support self-cognition as transdiagnostically predictive of the traits associated with psychiatric conditions. To do this we run a series of planned correlations, regressions, and direct correlation comparison statistics.
Results show that implicit self-prioritisation measures were not correlated with the explicit self-concept measures nor the psychiatric trait measures. In contrast, all the psychiatric traits scores were predicted, to varying degrees, by poorer explicit self-concept quality. Specifically, borderline personality disorder traits were significantly more strongly associated with composite explicit self-concept measures than any of depression, anxiety, or autism traits scores were.
Our results suggest that selves can differ considerably, along different cognitive dimensions. Further, our results show that self-cognition may be a promising feature to include in future dimensional characterisations of psychiatric conditions, but care should be taken to choose relevant self-cognitive domains.
我们构建和维护自我认知的方式涉及到有意识地反映出来的显式特征和无意识的隐式过程,如注意力偏差。理解不同自我认知测量方法之间的关系,无论是在同一认知领域内还是跨领域,对于理解自我认知之间的差异以及自我认知是否最好被理解为主要是单一维度的或更多维的都很重要。此外,揭示这种结构应该为研究自我认知与精神和心理状况的关系提供信息。本研究探讨了不同自我认知结构之间的关系,以及它们内部的变异性与精神特质的关系。
我们的最终数据集包括个体内(n=288,普通人群)的显式自我概念测量(使用自我概念清晰度量表和自我概念和身份量表)、形状-标签匹配任务中的隐式自我优先化测量(包括反应时间和敏感性)以及五种精神疾病(自闭症、边缘型人格障碍、精神分裂症、抑郁症和焦虑症)的特质测量。我们首先检验了同一个体内不同领域的自我认知测量之间是否相关。然后,我们检验了这些自我认知维度是否支持将具有或不具有自我特征的精神疾病进行二元区分,或者它们是否支持自我认知作为与精神疾病相关特质的跨诊断预测。为此,我们进行了一系列计划的相关性分析、回归分析和直接相关性比较统计分析。
结果表明,隐式自我优先化测量与显式自我概念测量或精神特质测量均不相关。相比之下,所有精神疾病的特质得分都在不同程度上被较差的显式自我概念质量所预测。具体来说,边缘型人格障碍特质与综合显式自我概念测量的相关性明显强于抑郁、焦虑或自闭症特质得分的相关性。
我们的结果表明,自我认知可以沿着不同的认知维度有很大的差异。此外,我们的结果表明,自我认知可能是未来精神疾病维度特征化的一个很有前途的特征,但应注意选择相关的自我认知领域。