Introduction
The
differentiation of self-construct is a developmental construct from the Murray
Bowen’s Family Systems Theory and comprise of both the intra and the interpersonal dimensions. Intrapersonal dimensions connote the capacity to regulate affects
whereas the interpersonal dimension refers the
ability to negotiate the
relational dialectic of togetherness and independence (Robinson, 1995). The
differentiation of self-has shown a
consistent positive relationship with a variety
of different signs of well-being.
Therefore, this empirical notion supports Bowen’s theoretical
affirmation that a person’s level of symptomatology and the relational distress
differ depending on the person’s extent of differentiation of self
(Perinbanayagam, 2000).
As a progressive process, self-differentiation
encapsulates the internal interplay between separation (autonomy) and
togetherness (connection) in its progress towards evolving goals. The pathway to adulthood is often a complex
process that is paved with challenges and difficulties. Differentiation of
self-underlines the primal task that every individual faces in this regard. The
Bowen theory emerges as one of the few comprehensive theories explaining from a
multigenerational and systemic perspective the psychological development. It is
the theory upon which the foundation of family therapy stands. Therefore, it is
distinct from other theoretical approaches to individual psychotherapy.
Background information
The essential ingredient in Bowen theory
differentiation of self emerges as the critical variable towards mature
development and the achievement of psychological health. In the theory, the
construct is viewed and defined differently. It is regarded as the degree to
which an individual has the potential to balance intellectual and emotional
functioning and maintain autonomy and intimacy is relationships (Carver & Scheier, 1978).
Intrapsychic level view the differentiation as the
ability of an individual to interject and differentiate feelings from thoughts
and choose between being guided by either intellect or emotion. A high level of
differentiation equips an individual with the ability to be calm and have the
ability to maintain logic in reasoning. Flexibility, adaptability and the
ability to cope with stress are some characteristics of differentiated
individual both at the rational and emotional levels while maintaining autonomy
(Hardy, 2013). On the contrary, emotional
outburst and reactiveness appears to be the character of poorly differentiated
persons. They find it inherently difficult to remain calm in their response to
the emotionality of others. They get trapped in the emotional world and the
decisions made are primarily based on what feels right as opposed to what is
right.
The differentiation of self within relationships has
certain attributes such an individual sense of their own limit with a clear
understanding of where their abilities end and someone else begin. Courage and
clarity and the ability to stay in course with a strong spiritual and emotional
stamina are also other attributes. Resisting the impulse to attack and always
staying connected are also some other characteristics of self-differentiated
individuals (Storek & Furnham,
2013). A differentiated individual frees themselves from their family’s
process in defining themselves. Therefore, one has different opinions and
values as opposed to their family members. Any conflict is analyzed calmly and
a different response is given in the future.
Fusion
and emotional cutoff do not prevail in a scenario where differentiated
individuals are overwhelmed by family and emotional relationships. Better
psychological adjustment is the preamble of differentiated individuals as they
are well adjusted based on the situation at hand. The level of differentiation
has various consequences to an individual such as chronic anxiety that is
predominant to less differentiated people. As a construct, self-differentiation
may be used to predict the level of an individual’s IQ and also the emotional
stability of the person.
Any
research has to be deemed as either varied or invalid on the basis of the
objectives, aims and hypothesis under study. In this case, the objective of
carrying out the research lies with the need to evaluate the differentiation of
self and determine its validity from using different parameters. From a
theoretical framework, the differentiation of self depicts how people react and
respond to different situations and circumstances posed by demands in life. The
reaction is relative to the pursuit of goals on a continuum ranging from the
most adaptive to the least adaptive. The adaptive approach and corresponding
variation depends on a variety of factors that are interconnected such as the
solid self which is a part of an individual that does not curve nor is it
negotiable for compromises in a relationship (Self,
2002). A good example is a person who is not swayed by fads and
opinions, but rather opts to be grounded in their belief and principles.
Some investigations
conducted on the self-differentiation have been in the university-based samples
(KOSEK, 1998). The setting was appropriate, as the
differentiation of self is a development construct associated with an essential
interpersonal negotiation of a family origin.
Therefore, individual relationships
and interpersonal association of the lived experience typically takes place during the stage when one attains
adulthood. Supporting the validity of the conducted research, a person’s extent of
differentiation of self or the initial process of defining self occasionally
associated with the act of leaving home (Storek
& Furnham, 2013). Followed by living an independent life out of
the control of one’s family of origin.
Hence, the whole process is associated with the emergence of adulthood
considered a defining key in this construct (Perinbanayagam, 2000).
Age is used as a variable in the definition of
self-differentiation. It offers the construct a validation evidence of
differentiation of self. The variable is given more weight by studying older
adults and adolescents. Families also
regulate how people think and behave and as such, the definition also outlines
some aspects of the family that correlate with the differentiation of self. The susceptibility to a group think varies
between individuals and the pressure exerted by the group towards conformity
also varies outlining the differences in self-differentiation (Robinson, 1995). Less development of an
individual differentiation means more impact from externalities as opposed to
more developed individuals. In addition, such individuals exercise less control
and a passive influence on the functioning of other individuals in the group or
the family. Poorly differentiated individuals have a tendency of dependence
especially on the approval of others and thus they have no voice of their own.
They are more likely to adjust or change their thinking or saying in attempt to
please others. Conformity is key in this case where the individuals align
themselves relative to thinking as a group as opposed to having independent
thoughts.
Construct
validation in self-differentiation is an extensive process. It is important as
an ongoing validity judgment derived from the integration of evaluating the cumulative
evidence of internal structure and the external correlations. The differentiation of the self, therefore, is considered in the light of
an evolving theoretical framework (Lampis, 2015).
Intrapsychic and interpersonal components are captured by the framework. From
history, theorists of transgenerational describe family and individual
functioning relative to the intergenerational and interpersonal family
processes. Some prevalent self-report instruments that are developed within
this tradition include the differentiation of self-scale, the emotional cutoff
scale and the family of origin scale. The different parameters have an
influence in impacting the range of components of differentiation at an
interpersonal level. The self-scale is of paramount importance as it outlines
the separation between emotional maturity, emotional autonomy and maturity.
A significant
proportion of the validation evidence comprises
of research that examines the external structure as well as the discriminant
and the convergence of associations between the differentiations of self. The intentional efforts in assessing the
internal structure at the initial scale development also comprise of the
undertakings. Although the efforts have
been from the exploratory factor analytic approach considered as the first
point in the ongoing construct validation process followed by confirmatory
factor analysis with some multiple
independent samples (Mezo & Short, 2012).
The
study is organized chronologically to determine the correlation of the
differentiation of self to the formulated definition and with specific interest
on the Bowen theory. The purpose of this study
was to contribute to the ongoing validation relating to the Bowen theory
construct of differentiation of self. Understanding
self-differentiation is important in determining the identity of an individual
relative to their family background. The rationale for conducting validity
study on the premise involved in the construct validation does not generalize to the populations or the settings varying from
those derived. An explicit validation studies, therefore, is relevant in the
cultural generalizability and in determining the internal structural validity
of the scale in use (Mezo & Short, 2012).
The rationale
for conducting construct validation study
falls under the clinical utility of differentiation of self. The emergence of differentiation of self as a
key indicator of the effectiveness of
clinical work with certain individuals and couples highlights the need for
confirming its factor structure. A
reliable and a valid clinical assessment of the capacity for the affect
regulation and interdependent relating do direct
not only the intervention efforts but also involves the facilitation of
the examination of the treatment progress.
Therefore, the intra and the
interpersonal dimension of differentiation of self-demonstrated the
associations with the clinical outcome of one's
wellbeing (Mezo & Short, 2012).
The
authenticity of any framework or model is determined through its conformity or
nonconformity to a given set of standards in the model analysis and evaluation
specification. In measuring the differentiation of self construct, the
participants comprised of 749 students made up of a large state university in
the South. They fluctuated in age from
eighteen to fifty having a mean age of 21.07.
The sample consisted of 56.1% female and 43.9% male. The
participants are comprised of 70.8% White American while 21.4% comprised of
Black American, the 4.0% of the mixed race, 1.5% Hispanic, 0.9% Asian or Asian
American and 0.7% Native American, and 0.8% other (Elieson, 2000).
Differentiation
of self-inventory revised is a 46-item, comprising of a self-report measure
used to evaluate Bowen’s construct relating to differentiation. Two of the subscales gauge the intrapersonal
aspect of differentiation as the other two subscales assesses the interpersonal
dimension. The higher scores reflect the
superior distinction. The participants asked to proportion how
accurate the items concerned them on a scale from one to six. The sample items noted a point of not getting
upset on things that one cannot change and on occasions that things go wrong, a talk on them makes things worse (Perinbanayagam, 2000).
The
measure also uses the parentification questionnaire that consists of 30-item
self-report gadget that retrospectively weighs three dimensions of
parentification. That is, expressive or
emotional parentification, instrumental parentification, and perceived
injustice of the parentification course (Shepherd
& Perinbanayagam, 2002). Of
the thirty items, ten relate to instrumental parentification, ten concern
expressive parentification while the last ten perceived unfairness. The applicants rated on how accurate their accounts are on a five-point
Likert scale from one indicating, “Strongly
disagree” to five showing, “Strongly agree.” Higher scores replicated greater
parentification and a perceived unfairness.
For this research, scores from three subscales demonstrated instrumental
Parentification of 82 while 85 indicated
expressive parentification and 90 as perceived injustice
(Mezo & Short, 2012).
The
Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) was used to evaluate the contestants’ level of
mental health symptoms. The Brief
Symptom Inventory of a 53-item self-report inventory considered reflecting
psychological indication patterns of the psychiatric and general community populations. The study used Global Severity Index of Brief
Symptom Inventory. The psychometric
properties of the Brief Symptom Inventory plus subscale
scores are excellent measures. The Cronbach’s alphas for nine sign sets and global
indices that range from 71 to 85 of the participants responded to the
questionnaire (Storek & Furnham,
2013).
They responded by the means of a five-point Likert scale as from zero to
four at the extreme. The
calculation of the Global Security Index scores is by a summation of the 53
items, and then dividing by 53 (Perinbanayagam, 2000).
The
differentiation of the self-validation study 231 Cronbach’s alpha for Global
Security Index was 97, specifically for this study sample. Following the Institutional Review Board
approval, the recruited contributors took part in the study investigating the
link between childhood characters and responsibilities and the adult
psychological functioning. With the
authorization of the university professors, the approached participants in the
undergraduate-level classrooms reached by email. It was
by an administration of an electronic survey packet using a web-based
functionality. The electronic invitation
encompassed a description of the study, a direct through a link to the electronic survey, and informed consent form
(Perinbanayagam, 2000). A demographic questionnaire and measures mentioned above was used.
The extra course credit provided as an inducement and a compensation for
taking part in the study.
The
factor structure of differentiation of self-inventory revised identified in the
study. The data on 1,375 contestants
initially examined for the missing data, outliers, and instances of normality,
the participants with significant missing
data and cases that involve univariate outliers and extreme multivariate
outliers based on Mahalanobis distance test.
It identified an analysis from that resulted in a sample of 1,279 participants
(Storek & Furnham, 2013). To obtain a proportionally diverse sample for
the existing study, an arbitrary sample of 50% of White American members removed from the analysis leading to a
final sample of 749 participants (Perinbanayagam, 2000).
Also, many of the variables displayed both the
univariate skew, for instance, skewness critical ratios greater than 2.5 or
less and univariate kurtosis and key
ratios greater than 2.5 or less than 2.5; the given multivariate non-normality,
multivariate kurtosis critical ratio identified greater than 5.00; and a
problematic skew and kurtosis values (Roberts
& McGinty, 1995).
Furthermore,
under non-normal situations, the comparative fit index aims to produce benefits that modestly
underestimated. In light of these
interpretations concerning non-normal data, determination of acceptable model
fit was bases on a composite picture of the fit indices. More explicitly, the ratios and guidelines for influential acceptable fit used in a
standardized root-mean-square residual the root mean square error of approximation and the corresponding probability
of a close fit (Perinbanayagam, 2000).
Measuring
the validity constructs of convergent is essential in determining the
differentiation of self. An essential test in measuring the validity of this
constructs is the depression anxiety test scales. There are three measurement
scales that are evaluated using this test. The three major variables that are
considered in carrying out the test are stress, depression and anxiety that are
applied by use of the seven items per scale. In an attempt of achieving a
better fit, the model specification in consideration of standardized residuals
greater than 4.00 structure and coefficients of less than 40. Response is measured using the frequency of
experience ranging from the severity to non-severity of the experience. The
presence of unnecessary parameters reflected by significant, negative
standardized residuals that suggest problematic indicators that are need of
dropping. On the other hand, items with large and negative standard residuals
were examined relative with their structure coefficients. The structure factors
were deemed as non-significant in terms in comparison to practical significance
and the problematic indicators dropped (Elieson, 2000). The examination of the
structural factors coincided with the analysis of the correlation between the
latent constructs and the cross-loading coefficients.
The
study seems to offer two crucial implications for family and couple
practitioners, predominantly when working with evolving adult clients. First, the support for the use of
differentiation of self-inventory revised in clinical assessment. The second
implication is the foundation for theoretical integration, which may enhance
clinical flexibility and effectiveness.
The psychometric information in the study suggests that differentiation of self-inventory revised offers
researchers and the clinicians a psychometrically sound degree of the construct
of differentiation of self (Perinbanayagam, 2000).
As built on the
result this study, the recommendation to use the 46 of the item differentiation
of self-inventory revised full-scale score as a general assessment of a
person’s intra and interpersonal means of controlling affect. It is possible with the attention to
functional or dysfunctional relational ways of doing so (Shepherd & Perinbanayagam, 2002). Furthermore, the study suggests that the use of
Differentiation of self-inventory revised subscale in combination with the
explicit relational subscale. It could
provide efficient yet more comprehensive means of assessing the differentiation
of self that provides direction for and helps elucidate the modality of
treatment (Elieson, 2000).
The
assessment of the construct of emotional reactivity can also aid the clinician
in the specialist care of the therapeutic
alliance given the finding that explicit relational subscale scores were a
significant correlate of the alliance
scores. The research has also
demonstrated that differentiation of self-holds
the potential to be a relevant
construct when assessing treatment effectiveness. Some explicit relational subscale scores
projected male partners’ improvement in couple therapy as restrained by
relationship (Roberts & McGinty, 1995).
In evaluating treatment effectiveness in both
individual and family treatment, predominantly researchers and clinicians are
interested in evaluating progress in affect
regulation and interdependent relationship. The clinical prominence of addressing affect management complications has drawn substantial
attention. Affect dysregulation appears
to underlie and be present in several types of pathology and emotion-focused
therapies. They seem to and intervene in affect regulation processes that have
demonstrated clinical effectiveness with a range of presenting concerns (Roberts & McGinty, 1995).
In
conclusion, there are two emotional processes that are captured by emotional
captured clinical interventions. The underlining need for these processes is
the promotion of positive affect through prosocial relations and resolving
negative emotions. The processes are outlined relative to Bowen’s ideas of
intra and interpersonal differentiation. Therefore, differentiation of self
emerges as a construct that provides a foundation for a clinical framework that
is founded on Bowen theory and the interventions based on emotions.
References
Carver, C., & Scheier, M. (1978). Self-focusing
effects of dispositional self-consciousness, mirror presence, and audience
presence. Journal Of Personality
And Social Psychology, 36(3),
324-332. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.36.3.324
Hardy, G. (2013). Academic Self-Concept: Modeling and
Measuring for Science. Res Sci
Educ, 44(4), 549-579.
doi:10.1007/s11165-013-9393-7
KOSEK, R. (1998). SELF-DIFFERENTIATION WITHIN COUPLES. PR, 83(5), 275.
doi:10.2466/pr0.83.5.275-279
Lampis, J. (2015). Does partners’ differentiation of self
predict dyadic adjustment?. J.
Fam. Ther., n/a-n/a. doi:10.1111/1467-6427.12073
Mezo, P., & Short, M. (2012). Construct validity and
confirmatory factor analysis of the Self-Control and Self-Management Scale. Canadian Journal Of Behavioural
Science/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement, 44(1), 1-8.
doi:10.1037/a0024414
Perinbanayagam, R. (2000). The presence of self. Lanham,
Md.: Rowman & Littlefield.
Roberts, S., & McGinty, S. (1995). Awareness of
Presence: Developing the Researcher Self.Anthropology & Education
Quarterly, 26(1),
112-122. doi:10.1525/aeq.1995.26.1.04x0789i
Robinson, G. (1995). Violence, Social Differentiation and
the Self. Oceania, 65(4), 323-346.
doi:10.1002/j.1834-4461.1995.tb02519.x
Self, P. (2002). Material presence and the mystery of the
object. Arq, 6(02).
doi:10.1017/s1359135502001653
Shepherd, G., & Perinbanayagam, R. (2002). The
Presence of Self. Contemporary
Sociology, 31(5), 560.
doi:10.2307/3090048
Storek, J., & Furnham, A. (2013). Gender, g , Gender
Identity Concepts, and Self-Constructs as Predictors of the Self-Estimated IQ. The Journal Of Genetic Psychology, 174(6), 664-676.
doi:10.1080/00221325.2013.772501
and 
, once said, 
