{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0361890694239291, 'fraction_numerical': 0.019940915805022157, 'mean_word_length': 5.843434343434343, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The two faces of private self‐consciousness: self report, peer‐report, and behavioral correlates

The positive and negative aspects of private self‐consciousness were examined through a variety of methods. Previous analyses have revealed that the private self‐consciousness factor of the Self‐Consciousness Scale (SCS) (Fenigstein, Scheier and Buss, 1975) consists of two factors (Burnkrant and Page, 1984; Mittal and Balasubramanian, 1987; Piliavin and Charng, 1988). A principal‐components analysis confirmed the presence of these factors in a new sample of 149 undergraduates (83 females, 66 males), and identified the relevant items. Scores on these factors, named internal state awareness and self‐reflectiveness, exhibited a markedly different pattern of personality correlates with both self‐ and peer descriptions of personality and scores on three of the Big‐Five NEO‐PI Factors. While the content of the correlates of internal state awareness is almost universally positive, that of self‐reflectiveness is largely negative in both self‐ and peer descriptions of personality. These results suggest that, while a high level of self‐reflectiveness may entail a psychologically maladaptive style of private self‐consciousness, a high level of internal state awareness may be one manifestation of psychological health. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.