A bias of self‐reports among repressors: Examining the evidence for the validity of self‐relevant and health‐relevant personal reports

Abstract

Studies have shown that repressors tend to respond to self-report tools in a positive fashion which distorts the findings of studies based on questionnaires. The present study aimed to examine the way repressors respond to "Self-relevant" scales (which assess variables related to adaptive self-function) in comparison to "Health-relevant" scales (which assess physical and psychological health). Iranian university students (N = 271) responded to the Weinberger Adjustment Inventory (to differentiate between repressors and self-assured individuals), Mindful Attention and Awareness Scale, Self-control Scale, Integrative Self-knowledge Scale and Self-compassion Scale (to measure self-relevant variables), Bartone Symptoms checklist and the Depression and Anxiety Subscales of Depression, Anxiety and Stress Subscale (DASS-21) (to measure health-relevant variables). Based on responses to the Weinberger Adjustment Inventory, 101 participants fell into two groups, including repressors and self-assured individuals, and their data were further analysed. Multivariate analysis of variance showed no difference in repressors' scores in health-relevant scales compared to the self-assured group (healthy individuals), but they reported higher scores in adaptive self-relevant scales compared to the self-assured individuals. This study provides new evidence that compared to self-assured individuals, repressors differ in the way they respond to self-relevant versus health-relevant scales.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 9 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.