Welkom bij THIM Hogeschool voor Fysiotherapie & Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
THIM Hogeschool voor Fysiotherapie heeft ervoor gezorgd dat je Mijn BSL eenvoudig en snel kunt raadplegen. Je kunt je links eenvoudig registreren. Met deze gegevens kun je thuis, of waar ook ter wereld toegang krijgen tot Mijn BSL. Heb je een vraag, neem dan contact op met helpdesk@thim.nl.
Om ook buiten de locaties van THIM, thuis bijvoorbeeld, van Mijn BSL gebruik te kunnen maken, moet je jezelf eenmalig registreren. Dit kan alleen vanaf een computer op een van de locaties van THIM.
Eenmaal geregistreerd kun je thuis of waar ook ter wereld onbeperkt toegang krijgen tot Mijn BSL.
Login
Als u al geregistreerd bent, hoeft u alleen maar in te loggen om onbeperkt toegang te krijgen tot Mijn BSL.
Contemporary schema theories state that schema formation relies on early maladaptive experiences regarding the frustration of core emotional needs in childhood and adolescence. However, within a broad schema perspective on human emotion and cognition, it is plausible to assume that individuals may also develop adaptive schemas based on adaptive relational experiences. Despite recent studies addressing positive schemas, a clear theoretical articulation between maladaptive and adaptive core schemas is lacking. In this sense, the present paper introduces the notion of the Dialectical Core Schemas, based on empirical data. One hundred and seventy-four participants (Mage = 22.6, SD = 9.4) fulfilled self-report questionnaires in a cross-sectional design. Correlational data showed that adaptive core self and other schemas were positively correlated with wellbeing, while maladaptive core self and other schemas were negatively correlated with wellbeing and positively correlated with symptomatology. Adaptive and maladaptive core self-schemas mediated the relationship between psychological well-being and symptomatology. Results partially support theoretical claims showing that individuals may hold simultaneously adaptive and maladaptive core schemas about the self and others. Oppositional schemas may be framed in dialectical poles suggesting that schema activation may be dimensional rather than categorical. Implications regarding developmental perspectives, case conceptualization, and clinical decision-making are discussed.
Opmerkingen
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Introduction
The origin of the word Schema is schêma, and it comes from the Greek echo, which means to have. The verb to have, in Latin, is habere, which is associated with the word habitus. In this sense, the origin of the word schema is form, representation, pattern, or tendency (as a habit). This word has been systematically used by several authors to describe dysfunctional psychological structures underlying human suffering. Different theoretical orientations have different but similar notions of schemas, which can be found in the scientific literature, namely, cognitive schemas (Beck, 2015), early maladaptive schemas (Young et al., 2003), emotional schemas (Greenberg & Pavio, 1997; Leahy, 2015), and dysfunctional interpersonal schemas and cycles (Safran & Murran, 2000). Other definitions of schemas may also take the form of self-wounds (Wolf, 2005), irrational beliefs (Ellis & Bernard, 1985), and social scripts (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). This list of authors is not exhaustive – see (Horowitz, 1988), for details. All these definitions emphasize the notion of experience-based psychological structures that assign meaning to the events and are responsible for guiding human behavior, being the core aspects of the self. These structures orient the information processing towards salient internal and/or external stimuli, which are encoded in the deeply rooted core beliefs. Further, these definitions of schemas are unipolar which means that they are focused exclusively on defining a schema as a discrete construct. Nevertheless, a theoretical consensus between schema elements, domains, morphologies, and typologies is lacking. Efforts to surpass this theoretical issue are beyond the present work and are currently underway.
Previous research documented the relevance of early maladaptive schemas to mental health in several meta-analysis (e.g., Pilkington et al., 2024). Specifically, early maladaptive schemas were associated with psychological structural variables such as difficulties in the regulation of psychological needs and interpersonal dysfunctional cycles (Faustino & Vasco, 2020a), cognitive fusion (Faustino & Vasco, 2020b), and emotion processing difficulties (Faustino & Vasco 2020c). Also, emotional schemas were negativly correlated with mindfulness, self-compassion, unconditional self-acceptance (Faustino et al., 2020). One major aspect of dysfunctional schematic functioning concerns the mediational psychological function of schemas in information processing. Faustino and Vasco 2020c, showed that schema domains of disconnection and rejection, impaired autonomy, and impaired limits mediated the relationships between emotional processing difficulties and psychological needs. Similarly, emotion schemas of non-acceptance, uncontrollability, and emotional invalidation were shown to be a significant mediator of the relationships between emotion suppression and symptomatology (Faustino & Vasco, 2021). Moreover, early maladaptive schemas were also significant mediators in the relationships between rumination and depression (Balsamo et al., 2015), between the quality of attachment relationships and symptoms of depression (Roelofs, et al., 2011), between early life stress and psychiatric symptoms (Costa et al., 2020) and between perceptions of early parenting and depression and anxiety (Schatzman, 2009).
Empirical data on dysfunctional schemas are easily found in the literature, however, when it comes to research with adaptive schemas, much work still needs to be done. This can be seen as a bias in contemporary schema theories due to the excessive focus on the dysfunctional schema perspective. It is quite understandable that theorists, clinical psychologists, and psychotherapists tend to pay attention to maladaptive psychological constructs, due to the assumption that these constructs are the underlying causes of emotional suffering and symptomatology. In fact, according to Kahneman (2011), the evaluation of information can follow two distinct paths: system one, which can be fast, instinctive, emotional and/or irrational, being associated with maladaptive reasoning; and system two, which can be slower, reflexive and rational, being associated with adaptive reasoning. In this sense, humans may have two distinct and complex adaptive and maladaptive cognitive systems that can be evaluated simultaneously, rather than focusing only on the negative. In terms of schema theory, this situation created a gap in the theoretical conceptualization of a broad perspective on schema-based psychological functioning. However, recent efforts were made to overcome this issue (Freeman et al., 2023; Lockwood & Perris, 2012; Louis et al., 2018).
The notion that individuals may hold contradictory core beliefs about the self and others is mentioned in early cognitive theories, however, the theoretical emphasis was on dysfunctional beliefs (Beck, 1967). Padesky (1994) elaborated on the identification and modification of alternatives to maladaptive schemas. One strategy is described as “continuum methods” where individuals are invited to see two oppositional poles of the same schema (adaptive and maladaptive), which is aligned with the dialectical core perspective. Lockwood and Perris (2012) elaborated on the notion of early adaptive schemas as counterparts of the early maladaptive schemas. Based on this new perspective on Young´s Schema Model, Louis and colleagues (2018) developed the Positive Schema Questionnaire, which focused on the assessment of positive schemas. Research suggested that positive schemas are associated with gratitude, agreeableness, extraversion, intellectual openness, and life satisfaction and are negatively associated with neuroticism and symptomatology (Louis et al., 2018). Thus, several recent findings suggest that psychological constructs may function as dialectical poles, namely on psychological needs (Bach, et al., 2017; Blat, 2008; Sol & Vasco, 2017; Vasco et al., 2018) and states of mind (Faustino et al., 2021). These new theoretical and empirical works signal that a robust effort can be made to balance the theoretical conceptualization of schemas in a broad psychological perceptive rather than a specific/discrete view. However, a clear theoretical conceptualization between maladaptive and adaptive core schemas about the self and others is lacking. Also, the notion of positive schemas does not differentiate core from non-core schemas, which is also an important aspect to be considered. In this sense, as an attempt to overcome this theoretical gap a different perspective is suggested, entitled Dialectical Core Schemas Theory (DCST).
DCST relies on the coherent assumption that individuals tend to develop and hold contradictory core representations about themselves and others, developed due to a multifactorial interaction between previous maladaptive and adaptive emotional, behavioral, and relational experiences, not only during childhood but during their lifetime. For example, on one hand, if an individual is traumatized in childhood, he/she may develop a defectiveness schema, and similarly, if an adult individual is systematically bullied at work by his/her co-workers, he/she may also develop the same defectiveness schema. On the other hand, if an individual also has satisfactory emotional experiences in childhood and adulthood he/she may develop an adaptive core schema, which is the counterpart of the maladaptive schema of defectiveness. Thus, clinically it is quite common to see how contextual experiences in adulthood lead to schema development.
Dialectical Core Schemas (DCS) articulate both adaptive and maladaptive core beliefs/representations about the self and others which lie at the core of the self. In this sense, DCS are not beliefs but instead are the psychological structures where oppositive representational cognitions about the self and others (e.g., beliefs and images) are stored as dialectical poles. Another way of describing this construct is to emphasize that DCS are the cognitive and affective fundamental structures that result from the interaction between genetics (e.g., temperamental traits) and adaptive/maladaptive experiences to form stable psychological representations about the self and others. Repeated adaptive experiences tend to lead to adaptive core representations and repeated maladaptive experiences tend to lead to maladaptive core representations. Individuals during their lifetime tend to live adaptive and maladaptive situations which may lead to the development of adaptive and maladaptive beliefs and perspectives about the self and others. In this sense, it is possible to speculate that experiential learning, episodic memories, and self-other referential cognitions (e.g., imagery and statements) may be stored in a dialectical mental structure that encapsulates the adaptive and maladaptive emotional tone of the experiences. DCS lie on the self-self axis, when beliefs and representations are related to the self, and in the self-other axis when beliefs and representations are related to the self and others – see Fig. 1.
Fig. 1
Theoretical proposal of Dialectical Core Schemas about the self and others
×
Several variables may also be present in this equation, such as episodic memories, related emotions, somatic sensations, and future predictions. However, to keep the paper focused on schema core elements, they will be omitted—see Young et al., 2003, for details). These core schemas are the ones that define one´s identity guiding the emotional tone of how individuals assign meaning to internal and external events. Most individuals during their lifetime have countless adaptive and maladaptive experiences with significant others. However, only meaningful emotional experiences have the potential to unfold a psychological cascade of information-processing processes leading to schema formation. In this sense, core schemas are the psychological substrate of worldviews and are responsible for the way individuals see themselves, others, the world, and the future.
Given that individuals experience both meaningful adaptive and maladaptive situations during their lifetime it is quite understandable that the structure of psychological schemas may have a dialectical nature, where contradictory information is stored and kept for psychological processing. Psychodynamic theories emphasize the notion of internal conflicts of the self (Horowitz, 1988), where individuals seem to manifest opposite internal motivations. Oppositional core self-imagens or beliefs such as “I am lovable” and “I am unlovable”, lie at the core of different motivations, where the first lead the individual to be active and cheerful, while the latter leads the individual to stagnation and depression (Beck et al., 2015). However, when both these self-representations are activated, with some levels and degree of intensity, an internal conflict emerges within the self, fostering ambivalence, fragmentation, confusion, and psychological distress. It is the simultaneous activation of the dialectical poles of the DCS that first signals the articulation of both representations/core schemas in the mind and second, reveals how they can lead to symptomatology.
In this sense, contradictory adaptive and maladaptive core representations may be present in the information processing cascade when they are evoked and/or activated through internal and/or external stimuli. Contradictory core schemas may both be activated at the same time, leading to internal conflicts and causing difficulties in the decision-making process. This perspective emphasizes the conflictual and dimensional nature of the human mind where individuals tend to swing back and forth on a psychological continuum between adaptive and maladaptive core schemas, which are articulated dialectically. Therefore, individuals hold contradictory information about themselves and others which is embedded in core schemas. To test this theoretical claim the present paper relies on several mediation models with several adaptive and maladaptive core schemas about the self and others. It is expected that individuals respond to questions that represent both adaptive and maladaptive core schemas and that these domains showed to be statistically associated with psychological well-being, distress, and symptomatology.
A specific measure to assess the DCS construct was not developed yet, however, efforts are currently being made. In this sense to empirically explore these theoretical propositions the Brief Core Schemas Scales (BCSS, Fowler, et al., 2006), was used. The BCSS was developed to measure core adaptive and negative beliefs about the self and others in individuals with severe mental illness (Fowler, et al., 2006). It does not match any of the Young Schema questionnaire items because it focuses on extreme cognitive beliefs about the self and others. For example, the negative core self-subscale has items such as “I am a failure” or “I am weak”, while the positive core self-subscale has items such as “I am valuable” or “I am good”. The authors merge the notion of core schema with core beliefs, but it is not aligned with the present theoretical proposal. Core beliefs are the profound convictions about the self and others that individuals hold, while core schemas are the structures where these beliefs are embedded (Beck et al., 2015). In this sense, a DCS is a structure that organizes several oppositional cognitions in dialectical poles. To validate this theoretical claim, the BCSS was selected because it assesses adaptive and maladaptive cognitions about the self and others which is aligned with the purposed perspective of schemas. Moreover, satisfactory psychometric properties of the BCSS have been reported previously (Faustino, 2023; Fowler, et al., 2006).
Aims
To test previous theoretical claims the following hypotheses are raised: (H1a) Adaptive core self-schemas are positively correlated with psychological well-being and negatively correlated with distress and symptomatology, (H1b) while maladaptive core self-schemas are negatively correlated with well-being and positively correlated with distress and symptomatology; (H2a) Adaptive core other-schemas are positively correlated with psychological well-being and negatively correlated with distress and symptomatology, (H2b) while maladaptive core other self-schemas are negatively correlated with well-being and positively correlated with distress and symptomatology; (H3a) Adaptive and maladaptive core self and other-schemas are significant predictors of psychological well-being, distress, and symptomatology; (H4) Adaptive and maladaptive core self and other-schemas are significant mediators of the relationship between psychological well-being and symptomatology.
Methods
Participants
The sample consists of one hundred and seventy-six participants (N = 176). The age of the men varied between 18 and 64 years (M = 24.2, SD = 10.7) and the age of the women varied between 18 and 64 years (M = 22.2, SD = 9.04). Educational level frequencies were 7 (4.01%) with basic years of study, 144 (81.8%) with 12th grade, 15 (8.5%) with a bachelor’s degree and 10 (5.7%) with a master's or doctoral degree. Relationship status was 147 (83.5%) were single, 4 (2.3%) married, 24 (7.5%) living together, 13 (7.4%), 10 were divorced (5.7%) and 2 were widowed (1.1%).
Instruments
Brief Core Schemas Scales (BCSS)
The BCSS (Fowler, et al., 2006, translated and adapted to European Portuguese by Faustino (2023), is a self-report questionnaire aiming to assess positive and negative core cognitions about the self and others. It has 24 items divided into four dimensions with a five-point rating scale (0–4). The maladaptive self-subscale contains items such as “I am worthless”, and “I am vulnerable”; the adaptive self-subscale contains items such as “I am interesting”, and “I am talented”; maladaptive others-subscale contains items such as “Other people are hostile”, “Other people are harsh” and the adaptive others-subscale contains items such as “Other people are fair” and “Other people are good”. In the original study (Fowler, et al., 2006), through an exploratory factor analysis with varimax procedure, the BCSS showed a four-component solution in two samples representing 57% (non-clinical) and 58% (clinical) of variance, along with internal consistencies ranging from 0.78 to 0.88 (non-clinical) and 0.79 to 0.87 (clinical). In the present study, internal consistency was the following: maladaptive core self-schemas (α = 0.78), adaptive core self-schemas, (α = 0.77), maladaptive core other-schemas (α = 0.85), and adaptive core other-schemas (α = 0.90) being this considered adequate.
Mental Health Index (MHI-5)
The MHI-5 (Ware et al., 1979, translated and adapted to Portuguese by Ribeiro, 2001), is a self-report instrument aiming to assess psychological well-being and distress. It has 5 items on a Likert scale of five or six points. These items rely on overall self-appreciations about internal states of distress such as “Been a very nervous person?” or “Felt so down in the dumps that nothing could cheer you up?” and internal states of well-being such as “Felt calm and peaceful?” and “Been a happy person?”. Adequate psychometric properties were described in the adaptation study of the MH-5 to the Portuguese population (Ribeiro, 2001). Cronbach’s alpha was considered adequate (α = 0.76 for psychological distress and α = 0.70 psychological for well-being).
Brief Symptoms Inventory (BSI-53)
The BSI-53 (Derogatis, 1993, translated and adapted to Portuguese by Canavarro, 1999) is a self-report questionnaire aiming to assess generic psychopathological symptoms. It has 53 items, on a five-point Likert scale (0–4). In the present study, only the total index was used, and Cronbach’s alpha total score was considered very good (α = 0.97).
Analytical Strategy and Procedures
First, to explore whether adaptive and maladaptive core schemas are associated according to theoretical claims, Pearson's moment-to-moment correlations were used. Adaptive self and other core schemas are expected to be positively correlated with psychological well-being and negatively correlated with psychological distress and symptomatology. Further, maladaptive self and other core schemas are expected to be negatively correlated with psychological well-being and positively correlated with psychological distress and symptomatology. By showing a theoretically coherent correlation pattern between adaptive and maladaptive core schemas with the variables under study, this will be the first level of evidence to support the DCS construct.
Second, to explore whether adaptive and maladaptive core schemas about self and other have a predictive effect on psychological well-being, distress, and symptomatology, a hierarchical stepwise regression analysis was used. If the adaptive and maladaptive core schemas are significant predictors of the referred variables, they can be interpreted as the second level of evidence for the DCS construct, because if both the adaptive and maladaptive domains are statistically significant, this shows that schemas may have two opposite dialectical poles related to the self and the other.
Third, to explore whether adaptive and maladaptive core schemas about self and other have a mediation role on the relationship between psychological well-being and symptomatology, a mediation analysis was used. Based on previous literature, schemas have a mediation effect between several variables related to mental health (Balsamo et al., 2015; Costa et al., 2020; Faustino & Vasco, 2020c; Roelofs, et al., 2011; Schatzman, 2009). In this sense, if a significant mediation effect is shown, it may be regarded as a third level of evidence for the DCS construct. If both adaptive and maladaptive domains are significant it may suggest that self and other core schemas may have two oppositional/contradictory poles which may be articulated dialectically.
Normal distribution was tested. Skewness and Kurtosis values were between − 2 and + 2 and between − 7 and + 7 respectively, which means that data can be considered normal (Byrne, 2010) – see Table 1. Multicollinearity was analyzed and showed to be adequate for all analyses |VIF < 5; T < 2| and values are in Table 1 (Pallant, 2007). Spurious responses were checked and removed. Descriptive statistics were used for the sample basic description. The macro-Process for SPSS (Hayes, 2013) was used to perform the mediation analysis. Confidence intervals of 95% and a 10,000 number of bootstrap computations were used with a significance level of p < 0.05. All variables are using a continuous scale. Randomization of the presentation of the questionnaires was used to reduce the common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003). All analyses were performed in the 25 version of the SPSS and AMOS software.
Table 1
Descriptive statistics and normality indexes for variables under study (N = 176)
Mean
SD
Min
Max
SK
K
T
VIF
Maladaptive Core Self-Schemas
1.63
.55
1.00
3.33
1.08
.55
.536
1.864
Adaptive Core Self-Schemas
2.76
.61
1.00
4.00
− .12
.00
.659
1.517
Adaptive Core Other-Schemas
1.88
.63
1.00
4.00
.62
.11
.754
1.326
Maladaptive Core Other-Schemas
2.55
.58
1.67
4.00
.67
− .24
.820
1.220
Symptomatology
1.20
.73
.04
3.28
.61
− .22
.477
2.098
Psychological Well-Being
4.03
1.52
.04
7.00
.28
− .33
.719
1.391
Psychological Distress
3.57
1.35
1.67
7.00
.80
− .56
.762
1.313
SD Standard-Deviation SK Skewness K Kurtosis T Tolerance VIF Variance Inflation Factors
Participants were recruited from the community through social media (eg. Facebook). After receiving informed consent, participants were asked to fulfill a battery of questionnaires, within a day. Inclusion criteria were being over 18 years and less than 65 years old, speaking Portuguese as a native language, and not having a self-reported neurocognitive disorder. This research was approved by the ethics committee of the Faculty of Psychology of the University of Lisbon.
Results
Table 2 shows Pearson correlations between DCS, symptomatology, psychological well-being, and psychological distress. Almost all correlations were in the expected direction. Maladaptive core self-schemas were negatively correlated with psychological well-being, [r(174) = -0.35, p < 0.01], and positively correlated with psychological distress, [r(174) = 0.17, p < 0.01] and symptomology, [r(174) = 0.65, p < 0.01]. An inversed pattern was found to adaptive core schemas, where adaptive core self-schemas were positively correlated with psychological well-being, [r(174) = 0.36 p < 0.01] and negatively correlated with psychological distress, [r(174) = −0.24, p < 0.01] and symptomology, [r(174) = −0.50, p < 0.01] – see Table 2.
Table 2
Correlational analysis between Core schemas, symptomatology, psychological well-being, and psychological distress (N = 176)
Psychological Well-Being (MHI-5)
Psychological Distress (MHI-5)
Symptomatology (BSI-53)
Maladaptive Core Self-Schemas
− .35**
.17*
.65**
Adaptive Core Self-Schemas
.36**
− .24**
− .50**
Maladaptive Core Other-Schemas
− .10
.44**
.29**
Adaptive Core Other-Schemas
.22**
.13
− .30**
∗ ∗ p < .001
Table 3 shows three different hierarchical regressions with Stepwise criteria to explore the predictive power of core schemas in symptomatology, psychological well-being, and psychological distress. The first model was significant with all four predictors explaining 50% of the variances of symptomatology (b = 0.986, p < 0.05). The second model was significant with two predictors (maladaptive core self-schemas and adaptive core self-schemas) explaining 17% of the variances of symptomatology (b = 3.341, p < 0.05). The third model was significant with three predictors (maladaptive core self-schemas, adaptive core self-schemas, and adaptive core other schemas) explaining 25% of the variances of symptomatology (b = 2.077, p < 0.05).
Table 3
Hierarchical regression analysis with symptomatology (BSI-53), psychological well-being (MHI-5), and psychological distress (MHI-5) as dependent variables (N = 176)
R2
B
SE B
β
t
p
Symptomatology
Maladaptive Core Self Schemas
.42
.68
.08
.50
8.134
.00
Adaptive Core Self Schemas
.47
-.22
.08
− .18
− 2.880
.00
Adaptive Core Other Schemas
.48
− .21
.07
− .17
− 3.046
.00
Maladaptive Core Other Schemas
.50
.14
.06
.12
2.167
.03
F
43.54
Psychological Well-Being
Adaptive Core Self Schemas
.13
.63
.20
.25
3.209
.00
Maladaptive Core Self Schemas
.17
− .65
.22
− .23
− 2.982
.00
F
18.24
Psychological Distress
Maladaptive Core Self Schemas
.19
.84
.14
.395
5.778
.00
Adaptive Core Self Schemas
.21
− .44
.16
− .20
− 2.770
.01
Adaptive Core Other Schemas
.25
− .44
.16
.19
2.754
.01
F
18.79
∗ ∗ p < .001
Figure 1 shows a mediation model between psychological well-being and symptomatology with dialectical core self-schemas as mediators. Maladaptive core self-schemas showed to be significant mediators in the present model (b = −0.08, | −0.1271; −0486|, p < 0.05) along with adaptive core self-schemas (b = -0.03, | −0.0623; −0127|, p < 0.05). In this sense, the full model was significant – see Fig. 2.
Fig. 2
Mediation analysis of the relationship between psychological well-being and symptomatology with maladaptive and adaptive core self-schemas as mediators
×
Figure 2 shows a mediation model between psychological well-being and symptomatology with dialectical core other schemas as mediators. Maladaptive core other-schemas was not a significant mediator in the present model (b = −0.01, | −0.0361; 0051|, p > 0.05). However, the adaptive core self-schemas (b = −0.02, | −0.0483; −0055|, p < 0.05), was significant. In this sense, the full model was not significant. The traced line shows a non-significant regression—see Fig. 3.
Fig. 3
Mediation analysis of the relationship between psychological well-being and symptomatology with maladaptive and adaptive core other-schemas as mediators
×
Discussion
Study aims were achieved, and they partially support the hypothesized theoretical proposal. Adaptive and maladaptive core schemas may be articulated in dialectical poles based on self and other psychological domains. Nevertheless, some considerations may be described. The first hypothesis was confirmed. The polarity of adaptive and maladaptive core self-schemas was in the expected direction which supports the notion that adaptive views of the self are associated with psychosocial well-being, while maladaptive views of the self are associated with psychological distress and symptomatology (Faustino, 2023; Faustino & Louis, 2024; Freeman et al., 2023; Louis et al., 2018). These results are in line with consistent empirical findings that continue to solidify the notion that maladaptive schemas are one of the most relevant clinical constructs, especially when it comes to the association with emotional distress and psychopathological symptoms (Faustino & Vasco, 2020a, 2020b; Pilkington et al., 2024).
The second hypothesis was partially confirmed because maladaptive core other schemas did not correlate with psychological well-being and adaptive core other schemas did not correlate with psychological distress, however, the other correlational patterns were as expected. One likely explanation may lie in the specific nature of these psychological domains, which supports the notion of dialectical polarities. On one hand, maladaptive core schemas are associated with psychological distress and symptomatology, suggesting that this domain is more concerned with emotional suffering than psychological well-being. On the other hand, adaptive core other-schemas are associated with psychological well-being which suggests that adaptive views of others may also reflect internal states of mind of tranquility and calmness facilitating emotional bonding and interpersonal relationships (Faustino et al., 2021). By having these two core schematic representations (adaptive and maladaptive others-schemas) and the associated psychological domains, these schemas may be articulated dialectically and may be activated sequentially or simultaneously.
The third hypothesis was partially confirmed because only in the first model all schema domains were statistically significant. However, in two models the maladaptive core self-schemas were the most significant domain in predicting psychological distress, psychological well-being (by absence), and symptomatology. As stated previously, this domain seems to be extremely relevant in explaining and predicting psychological distress and symptomatology. However, in the second model, adaptive core self-schemas was the best predictor of psychological well-being, which emphasizes the importance of self-perspectives and adaptive assumptions when it comes to judging personal attributes that contribute to subjective well-being.
The fourth hypothesis was also partially confirmed. The first model was significant which suggests that both polarities of self-schemas are extremely relevant when it comes to understanding mediational phenomena between psychological well-being and symptomatology. In this sense, these two core self-schema domains may strengthen the relationships between psychological well-being and symptomatology through two alternative paths. If the maladaptive core self-schemas are activated, individuals begin to see and interpret themselves as unlovable, weak, unworthy, and defective, leading to lower levels of psychological well-being and higher levels of psychological distress and symptomatology. If adaptive core self-schemas are activated, individuals begin to see and interpret themselves as lovable, strong, dignified, and capable, leading to higher levels of psychological well-being and lower levels of psychological distress and symptomatology. The second model was not globally significant due to the relationship between psychological well-being and maladaptive core other schemas. A closer inspection of the items from the mental health inventory (Ware et al., 1979) and especially the item concerning the psychological well-being and distress subscales, reveals that the way in which the items are formulated is especially focused on self domains of psychological well-being and distress, leaving out the relational and/or interpersonal domain of mental health. In this sense, it is quite understandable that this polarity does not have the same correlational/predictive pattern, because it reflects the way how individuals see others, being associated with interpersonal domains of symptomatology (Roelofs, et al., 2011; Schatzman, 2009). Nevertheless, more research is required to explore these issues.
Despite the study's strengths, some limitations may be described. This study was conducted online and does not allow the control of responses by the researchers. The sample size is relatively small with a larger number of younger participants, which limits extrapolation to larger samples with older individuals. Also, the sample is mainly composed of women which may introduce some bias in the results. Another limitation is not having a specific questionnaire to assess DCS. Furthermore, it would be interesting to study the same variables in clinical samples to explore the stability of the current findings. Finally, subsequent confirmatory models should also explore whether adaptive and maladaptive self and other schemas can function independently as unique factors and as mediators of psychological well-being and symptomatology.
Theoretical and Clinical Implications
Three levels of evidence were detailed to initially validate the DCS construct. Overall, the correlational and regression analysis between adaptive and maladaptive core schemas about the self and others with psychological well-being, distress and symptomatology, showed that contradictory and oppositional poles are associated with the referred variables and they both have a significant effect (levels one and two). Mediation analysis also supports the notion that adaptive and maladaptive core schemas about the self and others may be regarded as oppositional poles articulated dialectically because both adaptive and maladaptive core schemas were significant in the domain of the self. If both oppositional poles are significant in the same analysis, this suggests that core schemas may be dialectical (level three). However, as discussed previously, in the domain of the other the mediation was not significant. Hypothetical reasons were described previously. Finally, having these results in a community sample suggests that DCS work as transdiagnostic variables beyond a categorical and/or discrete assuming a dimensional nature.
The present work aims not only to offer a different/alternative perspective of the schematic functioning but also to make some proposals at the theoretical and clinical level stating that: (1) schemas (as structures with self-other contents) are dialectical and dimensional; (2) they can significantly impact psychological well-being and symptomatology; (3) therapeutic work may be focused also in the adaptive aspect of schemas, not only in the on the dysfunctional aspect; (4) clinicians may engage in dialectical therapeutic tasks to facilitate psychological well-being; (5) dialectical core schemas may be used to foster case conceptualization and clinical decision-making.
The mediational models were chosen to test if adaptive and maladaptive core schemas were significant mediators between well-being and symptomatology. As stated before, core schemas may have two distinct psychological functions such as being both a predictor and mediator between different psychological variables (e.g., emotional states) which is in line cognitive theory of psychological functioning (Beck et al., 2015; Young et al., 2003). If DCS are associated with psychological symptoms and previous research showed that maladaptive schemas tend to have a mediating role within several psychological variables and symptomatology (Balsamo et al., 2015; Costa et al., 2020; Faustino & Vasco, 2020c, 2021; Schatzman, 2009), then, it is expected that adaptive and maladaptive core schemas would have a positive/negative mediation between well-being and symptomatology. This result was partially achieved which suggests that the oppositive self and other representations of the DCS have a significant impact on the relationship between well-being and symptomatology. Thus, statistical analysis showed that the oppositional poles of DCS are also significant predictors of psychological well-being, distress and symptomatology. This is suggestive that when both self-representations are activated, individuals may experience internal conflict and ambivalence fostering psychological distress and symptomatology, being aligned with previous theoretical claims. Nevertheless, other models should be tested in the future to explore how dialectical core schemas relate to other psychological variables and specific symptomatology (e.g., interpersonal distress or coping mechanisms).
Schemas can be conceptualized as dialectical and dimensional, where individuals swing back and forth from the adaptive to the maladaptive self-representations. Dysfunctional self-representations tend to be associated with depression, anxiety, and personality disorders (Beck, 2015; Costa et al., 2020). However, if both poles are activated, then hypothetically, an internal conflict emerges between the self. Internal conflicts between different self-representations may be viewed as one of the most pervasive issues in mental health. As core schemas of self and others may be articulated dialectally in opposite poles, this perspective may also help to understand different types of conflicts each lie at the bottom of psychological disorders.
Individuals process information as they oscillate back and forth on the continuum of adaptive and maladaptive core self-schemas dimensions. In this sense, adaptive and maladaptive core self-schemas lie at the end of the continuum as well as maladaptive and adaptive core others-schemas. The statistical analysis in the present work offers an initial validation of this claim by showing significant results in the correlations, regression, and mediations. This perspective is aligned with the developmental perspective of the schematic functioning, when it comes to schema formation, because rather than a rigid focus on childhood and adolescence, core schemas about the self and others may be formed during life cycles impacting the way individuals see themselves and others and mediating mental health. It is also important not only to focus on the dysfunctional aspect of schemas and this perspective considers the dynamic nature of the human mind expressed with a shared focus on the adaptive and maladaptive of self and others’ schematic functioning.
If schemas are articulated in dialectical poles and are activated by internal and/or external stimuli, then shared attention should be given to adaptive and maladaptive schemas to understand individuals functioning. Further, based on the previous statement, clinicians may engage in dialectical therapeutic tasks to facilitate psychological well-being. If adaptive core self-schemas are the stronger predictors of psychological well-being, while maladaptive core self-schemas are the stronger predictor of psychological distress and symptomatology, and they both may be present at a given moment in time, that this must be considered. Clinical psychologists and psychotherapists may engage in therapeutic tasks focused on weakening the severity of maladaptive schemas while strengthening the adaptive schemas. Thus, clinical validation of the present proposal could also refer to the assessment of DCS before and after treatment and explore whether adaptive schemas were strengthened and maladaptive schemas were weakened accompanied by symptom removal. Finally, all these aspects have an impact on case conceptualization and clinical decision-making, by having a similar emphasis on both adaptive and maladaptive self and other core schemas.
Conclusion
The present work offers an alternative perspective on the schematic functioning by proposing the Dialectical Core Schemas theory, where adaptive and maladaptive self and other core schemas are articulated in dialectical poles, being displayed on the same continuum. The notion of positive and maladaptive schemas is not new; however, a clear articulation was lacking. Statistical procedures gave partial support to the hypothesized theoretical assumptions. However, more research is required to explore the stability of the present findings.
Declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Consent to participate
All participants gave consent to participate.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Met BSL Psychologie Totaal blijf je als professional steeds op de hoogte van de nieuwste ontwikkelingen binnen jouw vak. Met het online abonnement heb je toegang tot een groot aantal boeken, protocollen, vaktijdschriften en e-learnings op het gebied van psychologie en psychiatrie. Zo kun je op je gemak en wanneer het jou het beste uitkomt verdiepen in jouw vakgebied.
