NIH Public Access

Author Manuscript
Psychol Assess. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.
Published in final edited form as:
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Psychol Assess. 2011 September ; 23(3): 725–738. doi:10.1037/a0023286.

Development and validation of the Delaying Gratification

Inventory
Michael Hoerger1,2, Stuart W. Quirk2, and Nathan C. Weed2
1 University of Rochester Healthcare Decision-making Group

2 Central Michigan University, Department of Psychology

Abstract
Deficits in gratification delay are associated with a broad range of public health problems, such as
obesity, risky sexual behavior, and substance abuse. However, six decades of research on the
construct has progressed less quickly than might be hoped, largely due to measurement issues.
Although past research implicates five domains of delay behavior, involving food, physical
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

pleasures, social interactions, money, and achievement, no published measure to date has tapped
all five components of the content domain. Existing measures have been criticized for limitations
related to efficiency, reliability, and construct validity. Using an innovative Internet-mediated
approach to survey construction, we developed the 35-item five-factor Delaying Gratification
Inventory (DGI). Evidence from four studies and a large, diverse sample of respondents (N =
10,741) provided support for the psychometric properties of the measure. Specifically, scores on
the DGI demonstrated strong internal consistency and test-retest reliability for the 35-item
composite, each of the five domains, and a 10-item short-form. The five-factor structure fit the
data well and had good measurement invariance across subgroups. Construct validity was
supported by correlations with scores on closely-related self-control measures, behavioral ratings,
Big Five personality trait measures, and measures of adjustment and psychopathology, including
those on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF).
DGI scores also showed incremental validity in accounting for well-being and health-related
variables. The present investigation holds implications for improving public health, accelerating
future research on gratification delay, and facilitating survey construction research more generally
by demonstrating the suitability of an Internet-mediated strategy.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Keywords
impulsivity; delay discounting; self-control; Internet research; test construction

Delaying gratification refers to the tendency to forego strong immediate satisfaction for the
sake of salient long-term rewards. Although most develop a burgeoning capacity to delay
gratification by early adolescence, adulthood is marked by substantial individual differences

Correspondence concerning this article can be directed to Michael Hoerger, University of Rochester Medical Center, Department of
Psychiatry, 300 Crittenden Blvd, Rochester, NY 14642. [email protected].
Michael Hoerger, University of Rochester Healthcare Decision-making Group and Department of Psychology, Central Michigan
University; Stuart W. Quirk, Department of Psychology, Central Michigan University; and Nathan C. Weed, Department of
Psychology, Central Michigan University.
Publisher's Disclaimer: The following manuscript is the final accepted manuscript. It has not been subjected to the final copyediting,
fact-checking, and proofreading required for formal publication. It is not the definitive, publisher-authenticated version. The American
Psychological Association and its Council of Editors disclaim any responsibility or liabilities for errors or omissions of this manuscript
version, any version derived from this manuscript by NIH, or other third parties. The published version is available at
www.apa.org/pubs/journals/pas
 Hoerger et al. Page 2

in delay behavior (Lee, Lou, Wang, & Chiu, 2008). National Institutes of Health (NIH,
2009, p.2) guidelines identify gratification delay as having a non-trivial impact upon public
health, with six decades of research linking poor gratification delay to societal problems,
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

including obesity, substance abuse, risky sexual behavior, psychopathology, consumer debt,
criminality, and low educational attainment (Baumeister, Vohs, & Tice, 2007; Bembenutty
& Karabenick, 2004; DeWall, Baumeister, Stillman, & Galliot, 2007; Gottdiener, Murawski,
& Kucharski, 2008; Seeyave et al., 2009; Wulfert, Safren, Brown, & Wan, 1999). Despite its
importance, research on gratification delay has not progressed as quickly as might be hoped
largely due to measurement limitations and inconsistent findings (Baumeister et al., 2007;
Lee et al., 2008; Mauro & Harris, 2000; McLeish & Oxoby, 2007; Richards, Zhang,
Mitchell, & de Wit, 1999; Smith & Hantula, 2008). We put forth a framework for
conceptualizing gratification delay, examine the relative merits of available measurement
strategies, and use a novel, Internet-mediated approach to survey development.

Theoretical Framework
Historically, terms like gratification delay, self-regulation, self-control, impulsivity, and ego
resiliency have often been used interchangeably or inconsistently (Funder, Block, & Block,
1983; Gailliot et al., 2007; Lee et al., 2008; Mauro & Harris, 2000; Mischel & Gilligan,
1964; Mischel, Cantor, & Feldman, 1996; Muraven, Baumeister, & Tice, 1999), ignoring
subtle distinctions between constructs (see Figure A1 of online supplemental Appendix A).
Authoritative reviews emphasize that under the umbrella of self-regulation exists self-
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

control (Baumeister et al., 2007; Gailliot et al., 2007), which can be understood as a
continuum of three constructs, with gratification delay occupying conceptual space between
impulse control and ego resiliency (Funder & Block, 1989). Delay of gratification is similar
to impulse control in that both involve resisting strong rewards, can occasionally be
disadvantageous, and have trait-like features (Baumeister & Vohs, 2004; Funder & Block,
1989; Funder et al., 1983; Gottdiener et al., 2008; Ramanathan & Menon, 2006).
Alternately, gratification delay is similar to ego resiliency (but different from impulse
control) in that both require a future time orientation, involve carefully weighing
consequences, and have ability features (Bembenutty & Karabenick, 2004; Funder & Block.
1989; Mischel, Shoda, & Peake, 1988; Twenge, Catanese, & Baumeister, 2003). Thus,
operationalizing gratification delay involves posing choices between evocative immediate
rewards and salient long-term consequences.

In addition to synthesizing past research to identify a clear definition of gratification delay,

there is a need to articulate the content domain of the construct. We examined five domains
of gratification delay, involving (1) food, (2) physical pleasures, (3) social interactions, (4)
money, and (5) achievement. Baumeister et al. (2007, Box 1, p. 353) described a somewhat
similar set of five domains of behavior with evolutionary significance that were vulnerable
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

to ego-depletion. Further, several additional studies have described at least two of the
hypothesized five factors of delay behavior (see online supplemental Table B1; e.g.,
Baumeister et al., 1994; Bembenutty & Karabenick, 1998, 2004; Lee et al., 2008; Mischel et
al., 1988; Ramanathan & Williams, 2007). This investigation was designed to develop a
scale measuring individual differences in the five domains of gratification delay that have
received attention in past research.

Measurement Strategies
In six decades, three types of measures have mainly been used to assess gratification delay:
early performance-based strategies, Mischel's paradigm, and delay discounting tasks.
Performance measures have included the number of human movement (M) responses on the
Rorschach, maze and tracing tasks, time estimation, the Stroop, and stop-signal tasks. In
addition to being time consuming, these measures have a disjointed theoretical relationship

Psychol Assess. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.

 Hoerger et al. Page 3

to gratification delay (Rapaport, 1951) and have demonstrated poor evidence of construct
validity (Nederkoorn et al., 2006; Singer, Meltzoff, & Goldman, 1952; Wormith &
Hasenpusch, 1979).
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Given these pitfalls, Mischel explored the behavioral decision making paradigm as a more
suitable method for assessing delay of gratification (Funder et al., 1983; Mischel, 1958;
Mischel & Ayduk, 2002; Mischel et al., 1988). As reviewed by Mischel (1996), classic
studies involved young children choosing between receiving one marshmallow immediately
or two marshmallows after a brief (e.g., 20 min) delay period. Although this constitutes a
clear operationalization of the construct, limitations of this strategy include narrow coverage
of the content domain, inefficiency, and low suitability to adult participants. Of greater
concern, this paradigm often relies upon one or a very limited number of choices, yielding a
dichotomous indicator of delay behavior, which attenuates reliability and validity estimates
(Funder et al., 1983; Mauro & Harris, 2000; Mischel, 1958; Wormith & Hasenpusch, 1979).
Multiple observations of delay behavior yield stronger results (Funder & Block, 1989;
Mischel & Gilligan, 1964) but narrow content domain and age limitations remain.

First designed for animal studies, delay discounting tasks have recently gained popularity for
assessing gratification delay in human adults (e.g., Reynolds, 2006). Using real or
hypothetical monetary reinforcers, the approach examines changes in response curves, or
other metrics, as a result of greater delays in reinforcement. The tasks consist of a lengthy
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

series of items that ask participants, for example, to choose between $50 today and $90
tomorrow. The delay period is incrementally increased until the examinee opts for the
immediate reward, signaling a maximum delay period. Task limitations include being time
consuming, covering only one aspect of the content domain (i.e., money), and being costly if
real reinforcers are used. Also, there is stronger evidence for predictive validity (Reynolds,
2006; Shamosh et al., 2008) than construct validity (McLeish & Oxoby, 2007; Richards et
al., 1999; Smith & Hantula, 2008; Wormith & Hasenpusch, 1979). This has led Reynolds
(2006, p. 665) to call for “a better understanding of what is being assessed with these
measures,” as they may tap working memory, logical reasoning, withdrawal sensitivity, or
other important constructs beyond gratification delay.

Survey methodology provides practical and psychometric benefits over alternative

strategies. The practical advantages of being able to recruit large samples of adults quickly
and inexpensively have been shown in studies on the three published scales, including the
12-item Deferment of Gratification Questionnaire (DGQ; Ray & Najman, 1986), 10-item
Academic Delay of Gratification Scale (ADOGS; Bembenutty & Karabenick, 1998), and
22-item Multidimensional Delay of Gratification scale (MDG; Ward, Perry, Woltz, &
Doolin, 1989). Yet, existing scales have room for improvement in content validity and score
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

reliability. Specifically, no published scale has explicitly addressed the entire content
domain relevant to measuring gratification delay. The DGQ was crafted without apparent
review of the broad content domain of gratification delay and the ADOGS focuses on
achievement. The MDG was intended to measure two sociopolitical aspects of gratification
delay in South African Apartheid-era opposition, but the factor structure was unsupported,
and additional domains were not included. Internal consistency reliability for scores on the
three measures has fallen short of expectations, ranging from .68 to .74, with potential
culprits including survey brevity and difficult item wording. Our goal was to extend upon
the practical advantages of surveys by developing a five-factor measure of gratification
delay that produces scores of high reliability.

Internet Methodology
The growth of publicly available web-based psychology studies suggests potential avenues
for scale development research. Compared to traditional laboratory studies conducted in-

Psychol Assess. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.

 Hoerger et al. Page 4

person with undergraduates, Internet-mediated research permits several advantages,

including increased sampling efficiency, greater sample heterogeneity, and decreased
research time and costs (Hoerger, 2010; Hoerger & Currell, in press). For example, two web
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

studies of individual differences have surpassed 100,000 participants (Nosek, Banaji, &
Greenwald, 2002; Srivastava, John, Gosling, & Potter, 2003). Large, heterogeneous samples
are particularly alluring for test construction projects. Power stabilizes item-total
correlations, allowing the “best” set of items to be selected from a larger item pool, and
sample heterogeneity improves external validity. In contrast, overreliance upon small
convenience samples can threaten cross-sample reliability estimates (e.g., the “Subtle” items
of the MMPI; Graham, 2006).

The upside of Internet-mediated studies can substantially overshadow risks. Foremost, early
methodological concerns about web-based research (e.g., measurement inequivalence) have
not been borne out by data (De Beuckelaer & Lievens, 2009; Gosling, Vazire, Srivastava, &
John, 2004). Further, technico-ethical issues, such as confidentiality and consent, can be
handled effectively for low-risk studies (Hoerger & Currell, in press; Kraut et al., 2004).
One realistic concern is that the public is unlikely to complete a lengthy battery of validity
measures (Krug, 2005). As such, we initiated a two-step approach to development and
validation. During development, the survey was to be administered to a broad public sample,
optimizing evidence for reliability and factor structure. Validation evidence from a lengthier
set of measures was to come primarily from traditional convenience samples of
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

undergraduates, who are less deterred by study length (Hoerger, 2010).

Present Investigation
The present investigation involved four Internet-mediated studies on the development and
validation of the Delaying Gratification Inventory. Studies 1 and 2 focused on scale
development, using a large, diverse sample of adults worldwide. These studies were
designed to provide evidence regarding internal consistency reliability, factor structure, and
measurement invariance, with ancillary analyses also providing provisional evidence of test-
retest reliability and construct validity. Study 1 involved administering a large pool of items
in order to craft the final 35-item scale, and Study 2 was a cross-sample replication and
extension. Studies 3 and 4 focused on validation, using smaller convenience samples of
undergraduates. Study 3 provides evidence of test-retest reliability, construct validity, and
incremental validity, whereas Study 4 focused exclusively on validity evidence involving
adjustment and psychopathology correlates of the resulting survey's scores.

Studies 1 and 2
Method
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Procedures—Large, worldwide samples participated in pilot testing and Studies 1 and 2

via the web. We rationally developed a large pool of items, based on our five-factor
framework, and these items were piloted extensively online to hundreds of participants.
Participant feedback via anonymous comments was used to remove or modify items that
were potentially confusing or biased. In combination with psychometric evidence, the item
pool was iteratively revised, ultimately resulting in a manageable set of 70 items measuring
the five domains of gratification delay. This item pool was administered online during Study
1. The results of Study 1 were used to devise the 35-item Delaying Gratification Inventory
(DGI), which was administered online in Study 2. These studies were intended to provide
replicable evidence of internal consistency, factor structure, and measurement invariance.
Also, a small set of additional items was administered in Study 2 to provide initial evidence
of construct validity, and test-retest reliability was examined for a subset of participants
completing the measure twice.

Psychol Assess. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.

 Hoerger et al. Page 5

These studies were designed to minimize cost, optimize participant recruitment, and meet
high ethical standards for Internet-mediated research (Hoerger & Currell, in press). The
study web site was accessible through research sites, search engines, relevant Wikipedia
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

pages, Facebook, discussion forums, and blogs. Upon entering the site, participants could
access the investigator's contact information, relevant research articles, IRB approval
documentation, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), and an online consent form to begin
participation. Upon completing the survey, participants received additional study
information, innocuous tailored personality feedback based on their survey responses (coded
using Perl CGI), and optional links for providing anonymous feedback and entering a cash
drawing of $100.

Numerous procedures were used to reduce repeat or invalid response contamination. For
most browsers, JavaScript ensured that all questions were answered prior to form
submission. To guard against multiple submissions, participants were asked directly whether
they had participated previously, and the top of the survey include an unusual picture to
assist their memory of the site (a picture of an okapi, a zebra-like animal). We also tracked
partial IP addresses (see Hoerger & Currell, in press), which are standard IP addresses but
with the leading digit removed, thereby ensuring some tracking capability while better
ensuring anonymity. Response validity items were also embedded within survey content.
Finally, participants had the incentive of responding honestly in order to gain realistic
personality feedback.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Measures—All study measures were completed in English. Participants indicated whether

they had completed the survey previously, and optionally provided demographic
information, including gender, age, ethnicity (based on the 2000 U.S. census categories),
location (all U.S. states, Canada, Mexico, Europe, Asia, Australia, South America, or
Africa), highest grade completed, and high school GPA.

DGI: The 35-item scale (see Table 1) yields gratification delay scores for five domains
(food, physical pleasures, social interactions, money, and achievement), a 35-item composite
(DGI-35), and a 10-item short-form composite (DGI-10). Seventeen items are reverse-
coded, and participants reported how well each item described themselves using a scale
from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).

Personality and behavioral tendencies: In Study 2 only, participants rated themselves on

30 single-item personality trait descriptors (e.g., “Neuroticism: to feel sad, worried, anxious,
nervous, depressed, moody, frustrated, irritated, and out of control”) and 17 single-item
behavioral tendencies (e.g., “I pay bills on time”); see Results section for a complete listing.
Participants rated how well traits described themselves on a scale from 1 (Below Average)
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

to 9 (Above Average), and rated behavioral tendencies on a scale from 1 (Never) to 5

(Always). Very brief measures have shown merit for studies in which hypothesized
correlations were sizeable (Donnellan, Oswald, Baird, & Lucas, 2006; Wanous, Reichers, &
Hudy, 1997), and brevity was necessary for maintaining participant recruitment (Hoerger,
2010; Krug, 2005).

Participants—Data from a large sample of survey respondents (n = 10,241) in Studies 1

and 2 were cleaned to remove invalid responses prior to core analyses. Reasons for
exclusion included missing data, invalid response sets, repeat participation as indicated by
self-report, repeat participation as indicated by a recurrent partial IP address with matching
demographics, and accidental duplicate form submissions. Ninety five percent of responses
were retained as valid (Study 1: 1,900 of 1,982; Study 2: 7,771 of 8,259). Participants were
diverse in terms of age (M = 30.6, SD = 10.9 years), ethnicity, location, and education level
(see Table 2).

Psychol Assess. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.

 Hoerger et al. Page 6

Results and Discussion

The results of Study 1 were used to develop a reliable 35-item scale, covering the five
domains of gratification delay (for item-total correlations, see Supplemental Tables B2 and
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

B3). Scale means, standard deviations, internal consistency reliabilities, and intercorrelations
are show for all U.S. participants from both studies in manuscript Table 3, and separated by
study, gender, and location in Supplemental Tables B4 to B8. Across subgroups, internal
consistency reliability was strong for scores on the DGI-35 composite scale (α ≥ .90) and
good for scores on the DGI-10 short form (α ≥ .77). Thus, both the long and short forms
produced reliable measurements of general individual differences in gratification delay.
Across participant groups, subscale scores also had good reliability (α = .69 to .89) and were
modestly intercorrelated (r = 23 to .60). Item-level statistics for the DGI-35 were stable
across samples, and items loaded relatively uniquely on their designated domains. As
expected, the five domains had modestly overlapping variance, but also accounted for
unique aspects of gratification delay.

Internal consistency and domain intercorrelations were similar across gender and participant
location, but some mean differences were present (see Supplemental Tables B5 to B8).
Specifically, females scored slightly higher than males in terms of composite gratification
delay (DGI-35: d = 0.17 to 0.21), and across most domains, with the greatest female
advantage observed in the achievement domain (d = 0.41 to 0.42). In contrast, males
reported greater gratification delay in the food domain (d = 0.22 to 0.28). In terms of
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

location, U.S. participants differed from international participants mainly in terms of greater
delay of gratification in the achievement domain (d = 0.25 to 0.32). Observed demographic
differences were present but generally small to moderate in size and consistent with prior
research.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis supported the hypothesized five-factor model, which was
robustly upheld across demographic groups. CFA model fit was examined with LISREL
8.80 using the Satorra-Bentler (1988) method, which corrects for interval data. To
adequately characterize model fit, most researchers report several fit statistics, such as the
Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Normed Fit Index (NFI), Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation (RMSEA), standardized Root Mean Residual (sRMR), the Akaike
Information Criterion (AIC), chi-square (χ2), and the ratio of chi-square to degrees of
freedom (χ2/df). First, we examined model fit for the entire sample of Study 1 and 2
participants. The hypothesized five-factor model (for a diagram, see Supplemental Figure
A2) fit the data well, CFI = .964, NFI = .962, RMSEA = .057, sRMR = .058, AIC = 18,031,
Satorra-Bentler scaled χ2 = 17,871, df = 550, p < .001, and χ2/df = 32.49. Because the
physical and achievement domains were the most related, we compared our theory-driven
model to a four-factor model combining these domains. We also used multigroup CFA to
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

compare the five-factor structure by study sample, gender, and participant location. The
four-factor model was rejected as it offered no appreciable improvement in fit, and the five-
factor model was found to have strong structural, factor, and variance-covariance invariance
across samples, genders, and participant locations (see Supplemental Table B9).

Table 4 shows initial validity evidence for DGI scores in Study 2. In general, scores
correlated highly with those from closely related constructs, such as self-discipline, self-
control, conscientiousness, and moderation. DGI composite scores were also strongly related
to health (r = .40 to .43) and well-being (r = .43 to .46), and scores increased slightly with
age and educational attainment. Patterns of correlations varied in theoretically-meaningful
ways across domains of gratification delay. Among the five domains, the food scale scores
correlated most highly with moderation/immoderation, health, anxiety, perceived
attractiveness, somatization, fast food consumption, thinking about food, exercise, soda
drinking, and watching television. Notable correlates of the physical subscale include

Psychol Assess. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.

 Hoerger et al. Page 7

sensation-seeking, reported lying, rebelliousness, rule-breaking, sexual thoughts, impulse

control, partying excessively, neuroticism, anxiety, excitement-seeking, smoking cigarettes,
risk-taking, gambling, and Machiavellianism. The social domain was most distinct, relating
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

to altruism, agreeableness, helping other people, prudence, patience, anger, openness to

experience, comprehension, and discussing intellectual topics. Money domain scores were
linked to extravagance, buying unneeded purchases, self-control, paying bills on time,
smoking cigarettes, checking financial news, and gambling. Finally, the achievement score
was predictive of achievement-striving, diligence, self-discipline, conscientiousness, well-
being, depression, high school GPA, education level, reading books, extraversion, and
perceived intelligence. Correlations between DGI-35 scores and the traits and behavioral
tendencies listed in Table 4 varied minimally across gender, location, and participant age
decade (average magnitude of deviation in r across subgroups was .03). In summary, the
food domain is related to delay behavior involving food, health and activity level; the
physical domain to sensation-seeking, drives, and thrills; the social domain to altruistic and
prosocial behaviors; the money domain to day-to-day financial management; and the
achievement domain to conscientiousness and achievement-striving. The validity of score
interpretations was consistent across demographic groups studied. Thus, promising initial
findings implicated the need for more detailed follow-up studies.

Finally, we conducted an exploratory analysis to examine test-retest reliability. Among all

participants, 151 self-reported having completed the measure more than once (repeat
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

responses excluded in previous analyses). For a subsample of them (n = 35), we were able to
identify their first and second survey submission based on their partial IP address and
matching demographic characteristics. On average, the duration between testing was
approximately two months (Mdn = 51.6 days, M = 74.7 days, SD = 94.6 days). Test-retest
correlations were strong across scale scores: food (r = .74), physical (r = .84), social (r = .
74), money (r = .90), achievement (r = .86), DGI-10 (r = .87), and DGI-35 (r = .90).
Although a more detailed follow-up is needed, available evidence supports strong test-retest
reliability of DGI scores.

Results support the utility of web-based scale development and provide strong psychometric
evidence for DGI scores. Based on a diverse worldwide sample of over 10,000 adult
respondents, we found evidence for internal consistency reliability, test-retest reliability, a
theoretically-driven factor structure, measurement invariance, and construct validity. Studies
3 and 4 were designed to pick up where Study 2 left off, by examining additional validity
evidence in greater depth.

Study 3
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Method
Participants and Procedures—Whereas Studies 1 and 2 focused on internal
consistency and factor structure, Study 3 was designed to examine test-retest reliability
under more controlled circumstances, additional evidence for construct validity, and
incremental validity. An undergraduate convenience sample was recruited, given the study
length and lack of substantive demographic differences in gratification delay in Study 2. The
study was administered in two phases, both through SurveyMonkey.com. In Phase I,
participants (n = 207) completed the DGI among measures for other studies; four
participants were dropped due to invalid response sets. A subset of participants (n = 64)
agreed to complete Phase II two months later, completing the DGI again and other measures
of personality and behavior. Participants were mainly young (Age: M = 19.3, SD = 2.4;
Standing: 76.4% freshmen), female (65.6%), white (93.8%), and of average academic ability
(ACT: M = 22.6, SD = 3.9). DGI scores were unrelated to age, years in school, and gender
(p > .10); findings for ACT scores and other cognitive indicators are reviewed later.

Psychol Assess. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.

 Hoerger et al. Page 8

Measures—Participants completed the 35-item DGI and the same single-item personality
and behavior ratings used in Study 2. They also reported demographic information,
including age, race, gender, high school and college GPA, and ACT score.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Self-control constructs: Participants completed three self-control measures. The 36-item

Self-Control Scale (SCS; α = .88; Tangney et al., 2004) primarily taps impulse control, but
also hits loosely on delay of gratification, competencies, and conscientiousness, with items
like, “I am good at resisting temptation,” rated on a scale from 1 (Not at all) to 5 (Very
much). The 30-item Barratt Impulsivity Scale (BIS; α = .87; Patton, Stanford, & Barratt,
1995) focuses on impulse control, but also taps broader aspects of self-control and emotional
stability. Items like, “I concentrate easily” are rated on a scale from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always).
Finally, the 10-item Academic Delay of Gratification Scale (ADOGS; α = .72; Bembenutty
& Karabenick, 1998) involves hypothetical decisions between immediate pleasures and
long-term academic goals. Participants respond to items like, “(A) Study a little everyday for
an exam and spend less time with your friend, OR (B) Spend more time with your friends
and cram just before the test?” using a scale from 1 (Definitely Choose A) to 4 (Definitely
Choose B).

Big Five: Participant completed a 150-item version of a Big Five personality questionnaire
(Goldberg, 2006). The scale measures neuroticism (α = .89), extraversion (α = .87),
openness to experience (α = .79), agreeableness (α = .89), and conscientiousness (α = .92),
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

as well as six facets for each domain. Items like, “Prefer variety to routine” are rated on a
scale from 1 (Disagree) to 9 (Agree).

Results and Discussion

Basic evidence of internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and construct validity of the
DGI support initial findings from Studies 1 and 2. Specifically, internal consistency and test-
retest reliabilities were strong for the DGI-35 composite (α = .88, rretest = .88) and subscale
scores (average α = .77, rretest = .76). Thus, in addition to performing well with a diverse,
worldwide sample, scores on the measure also demonstrated adequate reliability in a
university convenience sample. Before examining new validity evidence, DGI scores were
examined for their associations with trait descriptors and behavioral tendencies previously
investigated in Study 2 (for details, see Supplemental Table B10). The pattern of
correlations is notably similar to that of Study 2, providing replicable evidence, albeit basic,
that DGI scores are validly interpretable, even across distinct samples.

To provide additional evidence of the validity of DGI scores we examined correlates with
several indicators of academic achievement, the Big Five personality domains and 30
underlying facets, and several closely-related measures of self-control (see Table 5).
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Correlations with other self-control measures were generally strong, and the social and
achievement domains had sizeable correlations with ACT score and GPA. DGI scores were
generally associated with greater conscientiousness and reduced neuroticism. Specific DGI
domains were associated with aspects of agreeableness, extraversion, and openness. The
DGI social domain was particularly associated with altruism.

Scores on the DGI also showed solid evidence for incremental validity in predicting a broad
range of outcomes, including well-being and health-related behaviors. Specifically, we
examined how well DGI scores predicted relevant outcomes over and above five closely-
related “rival” measures, including the SCS, BIS, ADOGS, Big Five Agreeableness domain,
and Big Five Conscientiousness domain. Incremental validity was examined using two
analytic approaches. First, we examined whether any of the DGI scores outperformed all
five rival measures in predicting any of the 47 traits and behavioral tendencies listed in

Psychol Assess. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.

 Hoerger et al. Page 9

Table 4 (and Supplemental Table B10). Given that the DGI is composed of 35 items and the
rival measures collectively consisted of 136 items, evidence for incremental validity would
be notable in these statistically conservative analyses. For 57% of the trait descriptors, at
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

least one of the DGI scales had a higher correlation than all rival scales. Significantly, for
65% of the behavioral tendencies, at least one of the DGI scales outperformed each of the
five rival measures. Thus, the DGI correlated more highly with a wide range of
theoretically-related constructs than did a number of rival measures that consisted
collectively of a much larger item pool.

Hierarchical multiple regression was used to examine incremental validity in predicting

well-being and health-related variables. Outcomes variables examined were the single-item
ratings of well-being, perceived physical health, frequency of exercise, frequency
consuming fast food, and frequency of smoking cigarettes. DGI scores showed incremental
validity in predicting well-being, fast food consumption, and smoking, but not perceived
health or exercise frequency. In particular, the five rival measures accounted for 34% of the
variance in well-being, and the DGI achievement domain accounted for 5% of incremental
variance, ΔR2 = .05, ΔF(1,57) = 4.00, p < .05. Additionally, the five comparison measures
accounted for 10% of the variance in fast food consumption, but the DGI physical domain
accounted for an additional 9% of incremental variance, ΔR2 = .09, ΔF(1,57) = 6.03, p < .05.
Finally, the five comparison measures explained 15% of the variance in smoking, and the
DGI money domain accounted for an additional 7% of incremental variance in reported
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

smoking behavior, ΔR2 = .07, ΔF(1,57) = 4.89, p < .05. Results involving incremental
validity in predicting well-being and health-related behaviors are particularly notable given
that variance in the dependent variables was likely attenuated by both the use of single-item
measures as well as the relative homogeneity of the undergraduate sample on health-related
variables.

In summary, Study 3 extended upon the two previous DGI studies in several ways. This
study replicated evidence for core psychometric properties of the scale's scores, including
internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and construct validity. The DGI was shown to
correlate well with scores on existing survey measures of self-control and the Big Five,
providing stronger evidence for construct validity than could be obtained in Study 2.
Additionally, although the DGI correlated well with related constructs, it afforded
incremental validity in predicting self-reports of well-being and health-related behaviors.
Notwithstanding these strengths, evidence linking DGI scores to adjustment and
psychopathology would provide greater support for its applied use.

Study 4
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Method
Participants and Procedures—Study 4 was designed to gather additional evidence of
the validity of DGI scores, with a greater focus on correlates related to adjustment and
psychopathology. Due to proprietary restrictions, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF; Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008) had to be
administered in person; therefore, the study was divided into two phases. First, 293
undergraduate participants completed the majority of study measures online via
SurveyMonkey.com. Second, a subset of 58 participants agreed to complete the MMPI-2-RF
in a laboratory session two weeks later. We used validity items embedded within phase one
measures as well as MMPI-2-RF validity profile analysis (for guidelines, see Ben-Porath &
Tellegen, 2008) to eliminate a few invalid responders. The vast majority of phase one (n =
286) and MMPI-2-RF (n = 56) participants responded validly and were retained for
analyses. Participants were primarily young (Age: M = 19.7, SD = 2.1; Standing: 51%
freshmen), female (65.1%), and white (90.1%). The DGI social subscale scores increased

Psychol Assess. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.

 Hoerger et al. Page 10

slightly with age, r = .12, p = .04. Additionally, females scored higher than males on the
DGI-35 composite (d = 0.11, t(282) = 4.09, p < .001) and physical, social, and achievement
subscales (average d = 0.13).
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Measures—The DGI was administered again, and internal consistency remained adequate
for the DGI-35 composite (α = .87) and subscale scores (average α = .73). Demographic
information was also collected, including age, race, and gender.

Self-control constructs: To provide additional evidence for convergent validity, the DGI
was compared to three related measures. The 12-item Deferment of Gratification
Questionnaire (DGQ; α = .71; Ray & Najman, 1986) assesses gratification delay with items
such as, “Do you fairly often find that it is worthwhile to wait and think things over before
deciding?” The yes-no response format was altered to a scale from 1 (Completely Untrue) to
9 (Completely True). Ego-resiliency and impulse control were measured with Letzring,
Block, and Funder's (2004) 14-item Ego-Resiliency Scale (ERS; α = .74) and 37-item Ego-
Undercontrol Scale (EUS; α = .85). Items include, “I usually think carefully about
something before acting” and “I tend to buy things on impulse,” rated on a scale from 1
(Does not apply at all) to 4 (Applies very strongly).

Food-related problems: Problematic eating behavior was measured using the 33-item
Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire (DEBQ; α = .93; van Strien, Frijters, Berger, &
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Defares, 1986). Items like “Do you have a desire to eat when you are bored or restless?” are
rated on a scale from 1 (Never) to 5 (Very Often), and the scale produces three composite
scores, including restrained eating, emotional eating, and external eating (eating when
snacks are more readily available).

Physically risky behavior: Risky behaviors involving sex, drugs, and alcohol were
measured using 30 items adapted from the Add Health Questionnaire (α = .82; Resnick et
al., 1997), such as “Have you ever used chewing tobacco?” and “Have you ever paid
someone for sex?”

Social problems: The 32-item Inventory of Interpersonal Problems – Short Circumplex

form (α = .92; Soldz, Budman, Demby, & Merry, 1995) was used to measure social
adjustment problems along eight dimensions: domineering, vindictive, cold, socially
avoidant, nonassertive, exploitable, overly nurturant, and intrusive. Items like, “I keep other
people at a distance too much,” were rated on a scale from 1 (Completely Disagree) to 5
(Completely Agree).

Money problems: Financial problems were assessed using 10 items adapted from the Add
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Health Questionnaire (α = .57; Resnick et al., 1997), including, “In the past 12 months, was
there a time when you had to borrow money from a friend?” and “Do you have any credit
card debt?”

Achievement problems: The 25-item Academic Maladjustment scale from the Student
Adaptation to College Questionnaire (α = .86; Baker & Siryk, 1989) measured achievement
problems, using items like, “I am attending classes regularly,” rated from 1 (Applies very
closely to me) to 9 (Doesn't apply to me at all).

Psychopathology: The 338-item Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-

Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF; Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008) measures psychopathology
along 50 overlapping dimensions, using a true-false format. The MMPI-2-RF was
administered in a group setting two weeks after the initial measures were completed online.

Psychol Assess. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.

 Hoerger et al. Page 11

Results and Discussion

Scores on the DGI were related to those on a variety of other measures of self-control,
adjustment, and psychopathology. As hypothesized, the DGI demonstrated continued
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

evidence of construct validity in correlating well with self-control measures, and domains
were related to adjustment problems in theoretically-meaningful ways (see Table 6). The
food domain was associated with binge eating and idle snacking (external eating). The
physical domain was related to substance use and number of sexual partners. The social
domain predicted a broad range of interpersonal problems, though several domains had
relevant correlates. The money domain was mildly predictive of problematic personal
financial behaviors as well as substance use. Further, the achievement domain was strongly
related to academic adjustment.

DGI scores were also associated with scores on the MMPI-2-RF (see Table 7). In general,
DGI scores were associated with scores indicating positive psychological adjustment, as
noted by associations with validity indices and negative correlations with substantive scales.
In particular, DGI scores were powerfully predictive of decreased externalizing symptoms,
as measured by the BXD (Behavioral/Externalizing scale), RC4 (Antisocial Behavior scale),
JCP (Juvenile Conduct Problems scale), SUB (Substance Abuse scale), and related scales.
Correlates varied across domains. Those scoring high on the food domain were less likely to
have substance problems, atypical or unhelpful thinking patterns, hypomanic symptoms, and
behavior problems. They were also more likely to be introverted. The physical domain was
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

robustly related to fewer externalizing problems (e.g., r = -.57 with JCP and r = -.51 with
BXD scores), better self-control, fewer hypomanic symptoms, and less anger, aggression,
and resentment. The social domain was solely related to externalizing behaviors, and the
money domain to substance abuse. Finally, the achievement domain was associated with
reduced symptoms of depression, increased activation, fewer juvenile conduct problems, and
more cerebral interests. Results demonstrate the utility of the DGI in predicting adjustment
issues and follow-up studies involving clinical samples are warranted.

General Discussion
The present investigation drew upon six decades of research to shape the development of the
first known theoretically-driven five-factor measure of individual differences in the
tendency to delay gratification, the Delaying Gratification Inventory (DGI). The DGI was
designed to provide practical and psychometric advantages over past methods of
measurement (Mauro & Harris, 2000; Nederkoorn et al., 2006; Smith & Hantula, 2008),
thereby accelerating social and behavioral public health research (DeWall et al., 2007;
Gottdiener et al., 2008; NIH, 2009; Seeyave et al., 2009). Our innovative web-based strategy
to survey development and validation bolstered the recruitment of over 10,000 adult
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

participants worldwide, diverse in age, race, and educational attainment. Scores on the
resulting scale showed strong internal consistency, test-retest reliability, factor structure, and
construct validity. Further, findings have implications for clinical and public health
strategies, follow-up studies, and test construction projects.

Consistent with the hypothesized multidimensionality of gratification delay, the study

procedures produced a psychometrically strong survey measuring five domains of delay
behavior, involving food, physical pleasures, social interactions, money, and achievement.
Across studies and samples, scores on the DGI-35 composite, DGI-10 short form, and five
domains met conventional standards for internal consistency and test-retest reliability. The
full 35-item form clearly provides the richest set of information, but the reliability of the
short form composite supports its stand-alone use for studies in which a lengthier measure
may be overly burdensome. Additionally, the theoretically-derived five-factor model fit the
data well and was relatively robust when examined across various subgroups, showing little

Psychol Assess. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.

 Hoerger et al. Page 12

measurement invariance when constrained by factor structure, factor loadings, or the factor
variance-covariance matrix.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

The four studies in the present investigation clearly demonstrate that DGI composite and
domain scores correlate with theoretically-relevant traits, behavioral tendencies, adjustment
problems, and psychopathology symptoms. People who generally delay gratification well, as
indicated by the DGI-35 composite score, also scored highly on other measures of self-
control, conscientiousness, self-discipline, and achievement-striving, supporting the basic
construct validity of the measure. Additionally, delaying gratification was modestly
associated with improved health and well-being, increased exercise, better diet, altruistic and
agreeable traits, and openness to experience. Those scoring high on delay of gratification
also have somewhat reduced levels of binge eating, neuroticism, depression, anxiety, anger,
rebelliousness, sensation seeking, substance use, risky sexual behavior, interpersonal
problems, externalizing problems, and hypomanic symptoms. These results corroborate and
extend upon prior findings relating gratification delay to improved psychosocial adjustment
(Bembenutty & Karabenick, 2004; Funder & Block, 1989; Mischel & Mischel, 1983;
Funder & Block, 1989; Funder et al., 1983; Lee et al., 2008; Ramanathan & William, 2007).
The general pattern of correlations was similar, though slightly attenuated, for scores on the
DGI-10 short form composite scale, indicating its utility when administration of a lengthier
scale might be untenable. Additionally, correlates of DGI domain scores were distinct and
varied in theoretically-meaningful ways. The food domain was related to dietary habits,
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

preoccupation with food, and activity level. The physical domain was the greatest predictor
of externalizing behaviors, including aggression, sensation-seeking, substance use, risky
sexual behavior, and rule breaking. The social domain was related to altruism, interpersonal
warmth, open-mindedness, and prosocial behavior. The money domain was related to
splurging, paying bills on time, and financial distress. Finally, the academic domain was
related to conscientiousness, achievement-striving, academic adjustment, and well-being.

The present investigation must be qualified by several important limitations. One, findings
were based primarily on a broad, diverse sample of general adults, and no claims are made
about the generalizability of DGI correlates to specialized or clinical populations. Studies
linking gratification delay to specific physical and mental health problems are encouraged,
particularly given that findings involving the MMPI-2-RF were restricted to an
undergraduate sample. Two, outcome measures relied upon self-report. The incorporation of
structured behavioral observations, medical record data, or other non-self report methods
would provide additional tests of validity. Three, although test-retest correlations provide
evidence for the stability of DGI scores, this investigation does not directly address the
degree to which gratification delay is modifiable, indicating that prospective intervention
studies on emotional skill development are warranted. Four, additional evidence
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

documenting the association between DGI money scores and significant real-world financial
behavior is needed. Potential avenues include predicting business success, bankruptcy, credit
card debt, and retirement planning.

Study limitations are balanced by several strengths worth noting. First, the use of large,
diverse worldwide samples in Studies 1 and 2 afforded substantial statistical power and
facilitated the generalizability of the resulting scale. Second, the technico-ethical rigor of the
study web site reinforced APA ethical guidelines for Internet-mediated research (Hoerger &
Currell, in press), facilitated participant recruitment and enjoyment, and suggests strategies
for future web-based researchers. Third, the DGI was designed for flexible and widespread
use. The measure is non-proprietary, and clinicians and researchers have the option to
administer the 35-item inventory or 10-item short form, depending on their constraints and
interests.

Psychol Assess. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.

 Hoerger et al. Page 13

In conclusion, we hope the development of the DGI will provide a significant step forward
in research on gratification delay. Scores on the DGI have strong psychometric properties
and can be administered efficiently to diverse samples of adults. Regarding the
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

investigation's clinical and public health implications, the DGI could be used by trained
individual therapists, Department of Social Services workers, school counselors, community
social workers, prison group therapists, Alcoholics Anonymous, occupational rehabilitation
programs, and pastoral counselors to identify individuals at risk for particular adjustment
problems and better route clients to appropriate intervention services. The scale can also be
incorporated into public health studies attempting to predict academic achievement,
externalizing behavior problems, psychopathology, consumer financial planning, and
healthcare decision making. Finally, the methodological approach suggests avenues for
efficient, low-cost survey development.

Supplementary Material
Refer to Web version on PubMed Central for supplementary material.

Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the Central Michigan University Dissertation Research Support Grant and
T32MH018911 from the National Institutes of Health (USA).
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

References
Baker, R.; Siryk, B. SACQ: Student adaptation to college questionnaire manual. Los Angeles,
California: Western Psychological Services; 1989.
Baumeister, RF.; Vohs, KD. Understanding self-regulation: An introduction. In: Baumeister, RF.,
editor. Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications. New York: Guilford Press;
2004. p. 2
Baumeister R, Vohs K, Tice D. The strength model of self-control. Current Directions in
Psychological Science. 2007; 16:351–355.
Baumeister, RF.; Heatherton, TF.; Tice, DM. Losing control: How and why people fail at self-
regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1994.
Bembenutty H, Karabenick S. Academic delay of gratification. Learning and Individual Differences.
1998; 10:329–346.
Bembenutty H, Karabenick S. Inherent association between academic delay of gratification, future
time perspective, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review. 2004; 16:35–57.
Ben-Porath, YS.; Tellegen, A. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory -2 Restructured
Form: Manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation. Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota Press; 2008.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

De Beuckelaer A, Lievens F. Measurement equivalence of paper-and-pencil and Internet

organizational surveys: A large scale examination in 16 countries. Applied Psychology: An
International Review. 2009; 58:336–361.
DeWall CN, Baumeister RF, Stillman TF, Galliot MT. Violence restrained: Effects of self-regulation
and its depletion on aggression. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2007; 43:62–76.
Donnellan MB, Oswald FL, Baird BM, Lucas RE. The Mini-IPIP Scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures
of the Big Five Factors of Personality. Psychological Assessment. 2006; 18:192–203. [PubMed:
16768595]
Funder D, Block J. The role of ego-control, ego-resiliency, and IQ in delay of gratification in
adolescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1989; 57:1041–1050. [PubMed:
2614657]
Funder D, Block J, Block J. Delay of gratification: Some longitudinal personality correlates. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 1983; 44:1198–1213.

Psychol Assess. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.

 Hoerger et al. Page 14

Gailliot M, Baumeister R, DeWall C, Maner J, Plant E, Tice D, Brewer L, Schmeichel B. Self-control

relies on glucose as a limited energy source: Willpower is more than a metaphor. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 2007; 92:325–336. [PubMed: 17279852]
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Goldberg LR, Johnson JA, Eber HW, Hogan R, Ashton MC, Cloninger CR, Gough HC. The
International Personality Item Pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal
of Research in Personality. 2006; 40:84–96.
Gosling S, Vazire S, Srivastava S, John O. Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis
of six preconceptions about Internet questionnaires. American Psychologist. 2004; 59:93–140.
[PubMed: 14992636]
Gottdiener W, Murawski P, Kucharski L. Using the delay discounting task to test for failures in ego
control in substance abusers: A meta-analysis. Psychoanalytic Psychology. 2008; 25:533–549.
Graham, J. MMPI-2: Assessing personality and psychopathology. New York: Oxford University Press;
2006.
Hoerger M. Participant dropout as a function of survey length in Internet-mediated university studies:
Implications for study design and voluntary participation in psychological research.
CyberPsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking. 2010; 13:697–700.
Hoerger, M.; Currell, C. Ethical issues in Internet research. In: Knapp, S.; VandeCreek, L.;
Handelsman, M.; Gottlieb, M., editors. APA Handbook of ethics in psychology. Washington, D.C:
American Psychological Association; in press
Kraut R, Olson J, Banaji M, Bruckman A, Cohen J, Couper M. Psychological research online: Report
of Board of Scientific Affairs' Advisory Group on the conduct of research on the Internet.
American Psychologist. 2004; 59:105–117. [PubMed: 14992637]
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Krug, S. Don't make me think: A common sense approach to web usability. 2. Berkeley, CA: New
Riders; 2005.
Lee P, Lan W, Wang C, Chiu H. Helping young children to delay gratification. Early Childhood
Education Journal. 2008; 35:557–564.
Letzring TD, Block J, Funder DC. Ego-control and ego-resiliency: Generalization of self-report scales
based on personality descriptions from acquaintances, clinicians, and the self. Journal of Research
in Personality. 2004; 39:395–422.
Marcus B. An empirical examination of the construct validity of two alternative self-control measures.
Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2003; 63:674–706.
Mauro C, Harris Y. The influence of maternal child-rearing attitudes and teaching behaviors on
preschoolers' delay of gratification. The Journal of Genetic Psychology. 2000; 161:292–306.
[PubMed: 10971908]
McLeish KN, Oxoby RJ. Measuring impatience: Elicited discount rates and the Barratt Impulsiveness
Scale. Personality and Individual Differences. 2007; 43:553–565.
Mischel W. Preference for delayed reinforcement: An experimental study of a cultural observation.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1958; 56:57–61.
Mischel, W. From good intentions to willpower. In: Gollwitzer, PM.; Bargh, JA., editors. The
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Psychology of Action: Linking Cognitions and Motivation to Behavior. New York: Guilford;
1996. p. 197-218.
Mischel W, Ayduk O. Self-regulation in a cognitive-affective personality system: Attentional control
in the service of the self. Self Identity. 2002; 1:113–120.
Mischel, W.; Cantor, N.; Feldman, S. Principles in self-regulation: The nature of willpower and self-
control. In: Higgins, FT.; Gruglanski, A., editors. Social psychology: Handbook of basic
principles. New York: Guilford Press; 1996. p. 687-696.
Mischel W, Gilligan C. Delay of gratification, motivation for the prohibited gratification, and
responses to temptation. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1964; 89:411–417.
Mischel W, Shoda Y, Peake P. The nature of adolescent competencies predicted by preschool delay of
gratification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1988; 57:358–367. [PubMed:
2760808]
Muraven M, Baumeister R, Tice D. Longitudinal improvement of self-regulation through practice:
Building self-control strength through repeated exercise. Journal of Social Psychology. 1999;
139:446–457. [PubMed: 10457761]

Psychol Assess. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.

 Hoerger et al. Page 15

National Institutes of Health. NIH science of behavior change. 2009. Retrieved from NIH website:
http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/documents/SOBC_Meeting_Summary_2009.pdf
Nederkoorn C, Smulders F, Havermans R, Roefs A, Jansen A. Impulsivity in obese women. Appetite.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

2006; 47:253–256. [PubMed: 16782231]

Nosek B, Banaji M, Greenwald A. Harvesting implicit group attitudes and beliefs from a
demonstration web site. Group Dynamics. 2002; 6:101–115.
Patton JM, Stanford MS, Barratt ES. Factor structure of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. Journal of
Clinical Psychology. 1995; 51:768–774. [PubMed: 8778124]
Phillips D. Deferred gratification in a college setting: Some costs and gains. Social Problems. 1966;
13:333–343.
Ramanathan S, Menon G. Time-varying effects of chronic hedonic goals on impulsive behavior.
Journal of Marketing Research. 2006; 43:628–641.
Ramanathan S, Williams P. Immediate and delayed emotional consequences of indulgence: The
moderating influence of personality type on mixed emotions. Journal of Consumer Research.
2007; 34:212–223.
Rapaport, D. Organization and pathology of thought. New York: Columbia University Press; 1951.
Ray J, Najman J. The generalizability of deferment of gratification. Journal of Social Psychology.
1986; 126:117–119.
Resnick MD, Bearman PS, Blum RW, Bauman KE, Harris KM, Jones J, et al. Protecting adolescents
from harm. Findings from the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health. Journal of the
American Medical Association. 1997; 278:823–832. [PubMed: 9293990]
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Reynolds B. A review of delay-discounting research with humans: Relations to drug use and gambling.
Behavioural Pharmacology. 2006; 17:651–667. [PubMed: 17110792]
Richards JB, Zhang L, Mitchell SH, de Wit H. Delay or probability discounting in a model of
impulsive behavior: Effect of alcohol. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 1999;
71:121–143. [PubMed: 10220927]
Seeyave DM, Coleman S, Appugliese D, Corwyn RF, Bradley RH, Davidson NS, et al. Ability to
delay gratification at age 4 years and risk of overweight at age 11 years. Archives of Pediatrics and
Adolescent Medicine. 2009; 164:631–635.
Shamosh NA, DeYoung CG, Green AE, Reis DL, Johnson M, Conway ARA, Engle RW, Braver TS,
Gray J. Individual differences in delay discounting. Psychological Science. 2008; 19:904–911.
[PubMed: 18947356]
Singer JL, Meltzoff J, Goldman GD. Rorschach movement responses following motor inhibition and
hyperactivity. Journal of Consulting Psychology. 1952; 16:359–364. [PubMed: 13000042]
Smith CL, Hantula DA. Methodological considerations in the study of delay discounting in
intertemporal choice: A comparison of tasks and modes. Behavioral Research Methods. 2008;
40:940–953.
Soldz S, Budman S, Demby A, Merry J. A Short Form of the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems
Circumplex Scales. Assessment. 1995; 2:53–63.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Srivastava S, John OP, Gosling SD, Potter J. Development of personality in adulthood: Set like plaster
or persistent change? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2003; 84:1041–53. [PubMed:
12757147]
Twenge JM, Catanese KR, Baumeister RF. Social exclusion and the deconstructed state: Time
perception, meaninglessness, lethargy, lack of emotion, and self-awareness. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology. 2003; 85:409–423. [PubMed: 14498779]
van Strien T, Frijters JER, Berger GPA, Defares PB. The Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire
(DEBQ) for assessment of restrained, emotional, and external eating behavior. International
Journal of Eating Disorders. 1986; 5:295–315.
Wanous JP, Reichers AE, Hudy MJ. Overall Job Satisfaction: How Good Are Single-Item Measures?
Journal of Applied Psychology. 1997; 82:247–252. [PubMed: 9109282]
Ward WE, Perry TB, Woltz J, Doolin E. Delay of gratification among Black college student leaders.
Journal of Black Psychology. 1989; 15:111–118.

Psychol Assess. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.

 Hoerger et al. Page 16

Wormith J, Hasenpusch B. Multidimensional measurement of delayed gratification preference with

incarcerated offenders. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 1979; 35:218–225.
Wulfert E, Safren S, Brown I, Wan C. Cognitive, behavioral, and personality correlates of HIV-
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

positive persons' unsafe sexual behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 1999; 29:223–
244.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Psychol Assess. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.

 Hoerger et al. Page 17

Table 1
Delaying Gratification Inventory (DGI) Items by Domain
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Item Text

Food
1 I can resist junk food when I want to.
6 I would have a hard time sticking with a special, healthy diet. *†
11 If my favorite food were in front of me, I would have a difficult time waiting to eat it.*
16 It is easy for me to resist candy and bowls of snack foods.
21 Sometimes I eat until I make myself sick.*
26 I have always tried to eat healthy because it pays off in the long run. †
31 Even if I am hungry, I can wait until it is meal time before eating something.
Physical
2 I am able to control my physical desires.
7 I like to get to know someone before having a physical relationship.
12 My habit of focusing on what “feels good” has cost me in the long run.*
17 I have given up physical pleasure or comfort to reach my goals. †
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

22 I prefer to explore the physical side of romantic involvements right away.*

27 When faced with a physically demanding chore, I always tried to put off doing it. *†
32 I have lied or made excuses in order to go do something more pleasurable. *
Social
3 I hate having to take turns with other people. *
8 Usually I try to consider how my actions affect others.
13 I think that helping each other benefits society. *
18 I try to consider how my actions will affect other people in the long-term. †
23 I do not consider how my behavior affects other people. *†
28 I value the needs of other people around me.
33 There is no point in considering how my decisions affect other people. *
Money
4 When I am able to, I try to save away a little money in case an emergency should arise.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

9 It is hard for me to resist buying things I cannot afford. *

14 I try to spend my money wisely. †
19 I cannot be trusted with money. *†
24 When someone gives me money, I prefer to spend it right away. *
29 I manage my money well.
34 I enjoy spending money the moment I get it. *
Achievement
5 I worked hard in school to improve myself as a person.
10 I have tried to work hard in school so that I could have a better future.
15 In school, I tried to take the easy way out. *

Psychol Assess. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.

 Hoerger et al. Page 18

Item Text

20 I am capable of working hard to get ahead in life.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

25 I cannot motivate myself to accomplish long-term goals. *†

30 I have always felt like my hard work would pay off in the end. †
35 I would rather take the easy road in life than get ahead. *

Note.
*
indicates reverse-coded item.
†
indicates inclusion on DGI-10 short form composite.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Psychol Assess. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.

 Hoerger et al. Page 19

Table 2
Demographic Characteristics for Participants in Studies 1 and 2
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Study 1 Study 2

Demographic Characteristic n % n %

Age
18-19 322 17.5% 870 11.7%
20-29 808 44.0% 3,296 44.1%
30-39 369 20.1% 1,805 24.2%
40-49 215 11.7% 917 12.3%
50-59 100 5.4% 452 6.1%
60-69 21 1.1% 114 1.5%
70+ 3 0.2% 12 0.2%
Gender
Female 888 47.1% 3,578 46.3%
Male 997 52.9% 4,142 53.7%
Race/Ethnicity
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

White and non-Latino 1,401 74.4% 5,770 74.6%

Black or African descent 66 3.5% 237 3.1%
Asian descent 210 11.1% 919 11.9%
Hispanic or Latino of any race 71 3.8% 293 3.8%
Biracial or Multiracial 87 4.6% 285 3.7%
Other 49 2.6% 226 2.9%
Location
United States 1,178 62.9% 3,747 49.0%
Canada 146 7.8% 412 5.4%
Mexico 8 0.4% 15 0.2%
Europe 329 17.6% 1,088 14.2%
Asia 103 5.5% 402 5.3%
Australia 84 4.5% 1,879 24.6%
South America 18 1.0% 56 0.7%
Africa 7 0.4% 51 0.7%
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Education Level (U.S. Only)

Doctoral Degree 63 5.4% 264 7.1%
Masters Degree 160 13.7% 668 17.9%
Bachelors Degree 296 25.3% 966 25.9%
Some College 423 36.2% 1,214 32.6%
High School Diploma 162 13.9% 425 11.4%
Non- High School Graduate 65 5.6% 192 5.1%

Note. For Study 1, n = 1,900; however, responses missing for age (n = 62), gender (n = 15), ethnicity (n = 16), location (n = 27), education level (n
= 9), and GPA (n = 57). For Study 2, n = 7,771, and responses were missing for age (n = 305), gender (n = 51), ethnicity (n = 41), location (n =
121), education level (n = 18), and GPA (n = 134).

Psychol Assess. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.

 NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Table 3
DGI Scale Score Properties in Studies 1 and 2 for all U.S. Participants

Scale M SD F P S M A 10 35

Food 22.3 5.8 (.75)

Hoerger et al.

Physical 22.8 5.2 .43 (.71)

Social 29.3 4.4 .25 .43 (.81)
Money 26.8 6.4 .36 .50 .33 (.89)
Achievement 26.7 6.0 .33 .58 .43 .44 (.85)
DGI-10 36.3 6.9 .59 .73 .60 .66 .75 (.79)
DGI-35 127.9 20.2 .66 .81 .63 .75 .77 .92 (.91)

Note. N = 4,925. F = Food, P = Physical, S = Social, M = Money, A = Achievement, 10 = DGI-10 short form composite, 35 = DGI-35 composite. Table values are means, standard deviations, and
correlations, with alphas indicated in parentheses.

Psychol Assess. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.

Page 20
 NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Table 4
Correlations between DGI Scores, Demographics, Trait Descriptor Ratings, and Behavioral Tendency Ratings in Study 2

Measure F P S M A 10 35

Demographic
Hoerger et al.

Age .05 .14 .15 .10 .08 .12 .14

High School GPA .07 .23 .16 .27 .34 .28 .30
Education Level .03 .16 .19 .21 .25 .23 .23
Trait Descriptors
Moderation .53 .52 .29 .42 .37 .56 .59
Self-Discipline .37 .53 .27 .37 .57 .59 .59
Diligence .32 .50 .29 .33 .63 .59 .58
Conscientiousness .32 .49 .30 .36 .56 .57 .57
Self-Control .34 .47 .28 .53 .37 .51 .56
Extravagance -.28 -.40 -.21 -.74 -.29 -.48 -.55
Immoderation -.53 -.48 -.22 -.40 -.34 -.50 -.55
Achievement-Striving .24 .40 .29 .32 .64 .52 .53
Well-Being .26 .36 .29 .25 .41 .46 .43
Prudence .17 .34 .38 .32 .29 .36 .41
Patience .28 .32 .34 .29 .24 .35 .40
Perceived Health .36 .30 .18 .24 .33 .43 .40
Impulse Control .30 .33 .27 .26 .25 .36 .39
Rebelliousness -.13 -.39 -.31 -.27 -.32 -.32 -.39
Agreeableness .16 .29 .46 .19 .30 .34 .37

Psychol Assess. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.

Neuroticism -.26 -.33 -.21 -.23 -.28 -.36 -.36
Depression -.25 -.28 -.18 -.22 -.30 -.35 -.34
Anger -.24 -.27 -.30 -.21 -.22 -.30 -.34
Sensation-Seeking -.08 -.44 -.20 -.26 -.21 -.25 -.33
Altruism .11 .21 .53 .07 .26 .30 .30
Anxiety -.25 -.25 -.16 -.19 -.22 -.29 -.30
Perceived Attractiveness .33 .16 .08 .14 .21 .29 .26
Somatization -.20 -.16 -.13 -.18 -.15 -.23 -.23
Comprehension .14 .13 .21 .14 .17 .21 .21
Page 21
 NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Measure F P S M A 10 35

Excitement-Seeking .00 -.24 -.19 -.21 -.12 -.14 -.21

Perceived Intelligence .14 .12 .15 .15 .17 .20 .20
Risk-Taking .01 -.22 -.19 -.20 -.10 -.13 -.19
Hoerger et al.

Openness to Experience .12 .10 .28 .07 .15 .19 .19

Machiavellianism -.01 -.16 -.15 -.14 -.08 -.09 -.14
Extraversion .10 .05 .13 -.05 .18 .15 .11
Behavioral Tendency
Buy unneeded purchases -.32 -.33 -.20 -.58 -.23 -.41 -.48
Lie or hide the truth -.23 -.44 -.32 -.32 -.35 -.41 -.46
Pay bills on time .19 .32 .19 .47 .32 .40 .43
Bend or break the rules -.11 -.35 -.27 -.29 -.27 -.28 -.36
Eat fast food -.37 -.23 -.15 -.25 -.17 -.34 -.33
Exercise .32 .25 .13 .19 .27 .38 .32
Help other people .12 .26 .44 .08 .31 .30 .32
Party excessively -.08 -.33 -.14 -.26 -.17 -.20 -.27
Drink pop / soda -.28 -.17 -.14 -.19 -.12 -.26 -.25
Smoke cigarettes -.06 -.23 -.11 -.25 -.18 -.22 -.23
Think about sex -.05 -.35 -.13 -.13 -.15 -.17 -.22
Read books .11 .19 .19 .10 .20 .21 .21
Check financial news .16 .13 .06 .23 .16 .23 .21
Think about food -.39 -.13 -.02 -.13 -.05 -.14 -.21
Gamble -.08 -.19 -.16 -.16 -.15 -.17 -.20
Discuss intellectual topics .12 .09 .19 .13 .14 .18 .18

Psychol Assess. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.

Watch television shows -.18 -.10 -.06 -.08 -.06 -.12 -.13

Note. n = 7,771. F = Food, P = Physical, S = Social, M = Money, A = Achievement, 10 = DGI-10 short form composite, 35 = DGI-35 composite. To facilitate visual inspection, correlations greater than
magnitude r = .30 are in bold, though all greater than magnitude r = .02 are statistically significant (p < .05).
Page 22
 NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Table 5
Correlations between Scores on the DGI, Self-Control Measures, Cognitive Indicators, and Big Five Personality Traits in Study 3

Measure F P S M A 10 35

Self-Control
Hoerger et al.

SCS .51 .56 .23 .53 .59 .70 .71

BIS -.35 -.54 -.23 -.57 -.54 -.56 -.66
ADOGS .38 .28 .23 .30 .55 .51 .51
Cognitive Indicators
ACT Score -.15 -.04 .25 -.03 .04 .06 .02
College GPA -.12 .10 .34 -.06 .30 .16 .15
High School GPA -.07 .04 .15 .08 .25 .04 .13
Big Five Traits
Neuroticism -.47 -.31 -.22 -.29 -.41 -.49 -.50
Anxiety -.31 -.06 -.03 -.10 -.22 -.27 -.21
Anger -.07 -.16 -.39 -.18 -.16 -.28 -.28
Depression -.39 -.30 -.25 -.11 -.45 -.45 -.43
Self-Consciousness -.38 -.16 -.02 -.07 -.27 -.27 -.26
Immoderation -.59 -.38 -.06 -.55 -.34 -.52 -.57
Vulnerability -.35 -.28 -.13 -.32 -.32 -.35 -.41
Extraversion .19 .01 .30 .14 .35 .28 .29
Friendliness .06 .03 .56 .15 .32 .31 .33
Gregariousness .00 -.15 .18 -.09 .06 .03 .00
Assertiveness .26 .04 .07 .15 .23 .19 .23

Psychol Assess. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.

Activity level .35 .17 -.13 .12 .37 .27 .26
Excitement seeking .14 -.22 -.14 .05 .10 -.08 -.01
Cheerfulness .07 .25 .60 .26 .41 .46 .46
Openness .13 .15 .44 .14 .23 .21 .32
Imagination -.01 -.03 .31 .20 .16 .07 .19
Artistic interests .14 .17 .43 .13 .25 .24 .32
Emotionality -.18 .10 .34 .03 .07 .13 .10
Adventurousness .24 .15 .26 -.05 .11 .19 .20
Intellect .22 .26 .20 .32 .32 .29 .39
Page 23
 NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Measure F P S M A 10 35

Liberalism .06 -.15 .05 -.19 -.13 -.19 -.11

Agreeableness .03 .35 .74 .11 .32 .44 .44
Trust .06 .22 .41 -.07 .34 .30 .26
Hoerger et al.

Morality .03 .39 .50 .12 .34 .40 .39

Altruism .02 .29 .82 .11 .31 .41 .44
Cooperation .14 .33 .62 .22 .27 .52 .46
Modesty -.05 .12 .42 .07 .09 .11 .18
Sympathy -.09 .23 .62 .03 .09 .26 .24
Conscientiousness .46 .53 .19 .49 .72 .70 .71
Self-efficacy .36 .23 .14 .42 .57 .48 .52
Orderliness .26 .32 -.07 .37 .34 .42 .36
Dutifulness .27 .46 .44 .36 .52 .58 .60
Achievement-striving .32 .28 .19 .36 .68 .47 .54
Self-discipline .52 .52 .04 .26 .57 .58 .55
Cautiousness .29 .52 .21 .45 .53 .57 .59

Note. n = 64. F = Food, P = Physical, S = Social, M = Money, A = Achievement, 10 = DGI-10 short form composite, 35 = DGI-35 composite. To facilitate visual inspection, statistically significant
correlations are bold (p < .05).

Psychol Assess. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.

Page 24
 NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Table 6
Correlations between Scores on the DGI, Self-Control Measures, and Adjustment Measures in Study 4

Measure F P S M A 10 35

Self-Control
Hoerger et al.

DGQ .36 .47 .31 .73 .39 .58 .67

Ego Undercontrol Scale -.29 -.44 -.28 -.38 -.27 -.40 -.48
Ego Resiliency Scale .12 .10 .27 .01 .28 .27 .21
Eating Pathology (DEBQ)
Restrained Eating .10 .05 .13 .04 .07 .12 .11
Emotional Eating -.39 -.09 -.05 -.17 -.08 -.19 -.23
External Eating -.39 -.30 -.09 -.19 -.08 -.20 -.30
Physically Risky Behavior (AHQ)
Substance Problems -.18 -.48 -.13 -.22 -.15 -.25 -.33
Cigarette Smoking -.10 -.26 -.03 -.14 -.14 -.23 -.20
Alcohol Use -.15 -.38 -.14 -.19 -.19 -.23 -.30
Marijuana Use -.03 -.27 -.06 -.16 -.09 -.15 -.18
Risky Sexual Behavior -.08 -.16 -.09 -.15 -.10 -.12 -.17
Frequency of Sex -.02 -.14 .03 -.16 -.01 -.04 -.09
Number of Sexual Partners -.09 -.32 -.17 -.14 -.09 -.14 -.22
Social Problems (IIPSC)
Domineering -.31 -.23 -.26 -.07 -.13 -.26 -.28
Vindictive -.27 -.25 -.29 -.08 -.19 -.27 -.30
Cold -.17 -.16 -.24 .04 -.18 -.24 -.19

Psychol Assess. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.

Socially Avoidant -.10 -.10 -.12 .01 -.20 -.22 -.14
Nonassertive -.06 -.06 .11 .05 -.04 -.02 .00
Exploitable -.07 -.10 .10 -.06 -.08 -.10 -.07
Overly Nurturant -.07 .02 .20 -.03 .00 -.03 .02
Intrusive -.17 -.26 -.13 -.16 -.12 -.17 -.24
Monetary Distress (AHQ)
Financial Problems -.07 -.15 -.04 -.17 -.03 -.06 -.14
Borrowed Money -.14 -.16 .00 -.17 -.10 -.09 -.17
Paid Research Subject -.11 -.17 -.03 -.25 -.09 -.14 -.20
Page 25
 NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Measure F P S M A 10 35

Achievement Problems (SACQ)

Academic Maladjustment -.17 -.34 -.29 -.25 -.62 -.48 -.48

Note. n = 284. F = Food, P = Physical, S = Social, M = Money, A = Achievement, 10 = DGI-10 short form composite, 35 = DGI-35 composite, DGQ = Deferment of Gratification Questionnaire, DEBQ =
Hoerger et al.

Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire, AHQ = Add Health Questionnaire, IIPSC = Inventory of Interpersonal Problems - Short Circumplex, SACQ = Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire. To
facilitate visual inspection, statistically significant correlations are bold (p < .05).

Psychol Assess. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.

Page 26
 NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Table 7
Correlations between Scores on the DGI and MMPI-2-RF Psychopathology Scales in Study 4

MMPI-2-RF Scale F P S M A 10 35

Response Validity Scales

Hoerger et al.

Variable Responding (VRIN-r) -.05 -.09 -.05 .17 .12 .05 .03
True Response Inconsistency (TRIN-r) -.14 -.02 -.26 .08 .12 -.03 -.05
Infrequent Responses (F-r) -.03 -.31 -.07 .02 -.07 -.14 -.13
Infrequent Psychopathology Resp (Fp-r) -.17 -.25 -.21 .15 -.07 -.06 -.15
Infrequent Somatic Responses (Fs) .01 -.02 .07 .09 .09 -.01 .06
Symptom Validity (FBS-r) .04 .00 .17 .20 .07 .13 .14
Uncommon Virtues (L-r) .31 .35 .05 .19 .06 .24 .29
Defensiveness (K-r) .30 .19 .06 .03 .14 .17 .21
Higher Order Scales
Emotional/Internalizing (EID) -.01 -.05 .11 .05 -.12 -.04 -.01
Thought Dysfunction (THD) -.33 -.18 .13 -.06 .19 -.08 -.10
Behavioral/Externalizing (BXD) -.19 -.51 -.31 -.23 -.20 -.29 -.41
Restructured Clinical Scales
Demoralization (RCd) -.13 -.06 .00 .07 -.14 -.08 -.07
Somatic Complaints (RC1) -.02 -.11 -.06 .14 .01 -.06 -.01
Low Positive Emotions (RC2) .11 -.04 .10 .08 -.31 -.02 -.01
Cynicism (RC3) -.29 -.26 -.13 -.14 -.11 -.17 -.27
Antisocial Behavior (RC4) -.31 -.49 -.36 -.23 -.09 -.36 -.42
Ideas of Persecutions (RC6) -.35 -.36 -.05 -.01 .02 -.20 -.23

Psychol Assess. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.

Dysfunctional Negative Emotions (RC7) -.28 -.08 .00 .07 .14 -.08 -.05
Aberrant Experiences (RC8) -.30 -.22 .09 -.10 .06 -.12 -.15
Hypomanic Activation (RC9) -.35 -.36 -.19 -.12 -.01 -.20 -.30
Personality Psychopathology Five
Aggressiveness (AGGR-r) -.14 -.21 -.14 -.13 .07 -.11 -.16
Psychoticism (PSYC-r) -.22 -.13 .09 -.03 .07 -.04 -.08
Disconstraint (DISC-r) -.12 -.46 -.23 -.21 -.17 -.26 -.34
Negative Emotionality (NEGE-r) -.16 -.09 .05 -.02 .18 -.05 -.03
Introversion (INTR-r) .28 .10 -.03 .09 -.24 .05 .08
Page 27
 NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

MMPI-2-RF Scale F P S M A 10 35

Somatic
Malaise (MLS) -.01 -.03 .17 .20 -.04 .13 .08
Gastro-Intestinal Complaints (GIC) -.05 -.12 .00 .11 -.07 -.04 -.03
Hoerger et al.

Head Pain Complaints (HPC) .05 -.13 .13 .01 .02 .02 .02
Neurological Complaints (NUC) -.20 -.26 -.23 .02 -.07 -.16 -.20
Cognitive Complaints (COG) -.11 -.17 .05 .05 -.05 -.08 -.07
Internalizing
Suicidal/Death Ideation (SUI) -.14 -.10 -.02 .14 .01 .03 -.03
Helplessness/Hopelessness (HLP) -.11 -.23 .02 .05 -.27 -.12 -.15
Self-Doubt (SFD) -.08 .06 .09 .06 -.08 -.06 .02
Inefficacy (NFC) -.23 -.09 -.05 -.10 -.13 -.17 -.17
Stress/Worry (STW) -.09 -.04 .08 -.07 .06 .00 -.03
Anxiety (AXY) .02 -.07 .24 .23 .10 .08 .14
Anger Proneness (ANP) -.22 -.30 -.19 -.07 -.07 -.23 -.24
Behavior-Restricting Fears (BRF) -.02 .07 .08 .15 .12 .04 .11
Multiple Specific Fears (MSF) -.23 -.13 .13 -.08 -.02 .03 -.11
Externalizing
Juvenile Conduct Problems (JCP) -.27 -.57 -.40 -.18 -.33 -.36 -.49
Substance Abuse (SUB) -.37 -.49 -.26 -.30 .06 -.33 -.40
Aggression (AGG) -.17 -.31 -.14 -.14 -.07 -.18 -.24
Activation (ACT) -.35 .03 .19 .01 .35 .05 .04
Interpersonal Scales
Family Problems (FML) -.09 .10 .10 .14 .18 .03 .12

Psychol Assess. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.

Interpersonal Passivity (IPP) .11 .10 .04 .12 -.20 -.04 .06
Social Avoidance (SAV) .14 .13 -.09 .12 -.13 .04 .07
Shyness (SHY) -.09 -.07 -.16 -.10 -.17 -.17 -.16
Disaffiliativeness (DSF) .21 .10 -.15 .08 -.14 -.05 .05
Interest Scales
Aesthetic-Literary Interests (AES) -.16 .01 .10 .16 .28 .15 .10
Mechanical-Physical Interests (MEC) .22 -.18 -.12 -.05 -.23 -.10 -.09

Note. n = 56. MMPI-2-RF = Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form, F = Food, P = Physical, S = Social, M = Money, A = Achievement, 10 = DGI-10 short form composite, 35
= DGI-35 composite. Parenthetical acronyms refer to official MMPI-2-RF scale names. To facilitate visual inspection, statistically significant correlations are bold (p < .05).
Page 28