Understanding colourism in the UK: development and assessment of the everyday colourism scale

Figures & data

Table 1. Participant demographics for Study 1 (N = 540) and 2 (N = 201).

	Study 1		Study 2
	Time 1 (N = 540)	Time 2 (n = 139)	(N = 201)
	% (n)	% (n)	% (n)
Gender
Woman	57.8% (312)	71.2% (99)	61.2% (123)
Man	41.1% (222)	26.6% (37)	37.8% (76)
Non-Binary/Gender Queer	1.1% (6)	2.2% (3)	1.0% (2)
Age
Mean (SD)	30.16 (9.33)	30.58 (9.44)	28.62 (9.17)
Ethnicity
Black/Black British	17.0% (92)	16.5% (23)	19.9% (40)
Black African	11.0% (60)	10.8% (15)	11.4% (23)
Black Caribbean	5.6% (30)	5.0% (7)	7.0% (14)
Black Other	0.4% (2)	0.7% (1)	1.5% (3)
Asian/Asian British	58.5% (316)	54.7% (76)	45.8% (92)
South Asian (e.g. Indian, Pakistani)	49.3% (266)	45.3% (63)	25.3% (51)
East & Southeast Asian (e.g. Chinese, Malay)	7.0% (38)	7.9% (11)	20.4% (41)
West Asian (e.g. Afghan, Turkish)	0.6% (3)	1.4% (2)	–
Asian Other (not specified)	1.7% (9)	–
Mixed	20.7% (112)	24.5% (34)	24.4% (49)
Black – White	10.2% (55)	13.7% (19)	9.5% (19)
Asian – White	6.7% (36)	6.5% (9)	9.0% (18)
Mixed Other (e.g. Arab – White, Black – Asian)	3.9% (21)	4.3% (6)	6.0% (12)
Other (e.g. South American, Arab)	3.0% (16)	4.3% (6)	8.5% (17)
Prefer not to say	0.7% (4)	–	1.5% (3)
Religion
Buddhist	1.9% (10)	1.4% (2)	2.0% (4)
Christian	19.3% (104)	17.3% (24)	22.9% (46)
Hindu	7.4% (40)	8.6% (12)	7.5% (15)
Muslim	33.3% (180)	25.9% (36)	21.4% (43)
Sikh	3.7% (20)	2.9% (4)	2.0% (4)
Other	3.0% (16)	2.9% (4)	3.0% (6)
No religion or belief	28.7% (155)	37.4% (52)	37.3% (75)
Prefer not to say	2.8% (15)	2.2% (3)	4.0% (8)
Sexual orientation
Asexual/Greysexual	0.6% (3)	–	1.0% (2)
Bisexual/Pansexual	7.4% (40)	10.1% (14)	9.5% (19)
Gay/Lesbian	2.4% (13)	2.2% (3)	2.5% (5)
Straight	87.2% (471)	84.2% (117)	82.1% (165)
Prefer not to say	1.5% (8)	2.2% (3)	4.0% (8)
Other	0.9% (5)	1.4% (2)	1.0% (2)
Relationship status
Single	48.3% (261)	48.9% (68)	53.7% (108)
In a relationship(s)	21.5% (116)	23.7% (33)	22.4% (45)
Married/Civil Partnership	28.0% (151)	23.7% (33)	22.4% (45)
Divorced, Widowed, or Other	2.3% (12)	3.6% (5)	1.5% (3)
UK region
Scotland/Wales	2.9% (16)	2.9% (4)	7.0% (14)
Yorkshire and the Humber	3.7% (20)	5.8% (8)	5.5% (11)
North West/East England	9.6% (52)	7.9% (11)	10.0% (20)
South West/East England	15.2% (82)	16.5% (23)	19.4% (39)
West/East Midlands	11.1% (60)	11.5% (16)	21.4% (43)
East of England	3.5% (19)	4.3% (6)	3.0% (6)
London	23.9% (129)	25.2% (35)	33.8 (68)
Missing*	30.0% (162)	25.9% (36)	–
Born in the UK
Yes	75.4% (407)	74.8% (104)	57.7% (116)
Education (highest obtained)
GCSE and Equivalents	6.5% (35)	6.5% (9)	5.5% (11)
A-Level and Equivalents	18.7% (101)	12.9% (18)	23.4% (47)
HE Diploma/Foundation Degree	6.9% (37)	6.5% (9)	8.5% (17)
Undergraduate Degree	42.0% (229)	41.7% (58)	41.3% (83)
Postgraduate Degree	24.3% (131)	30.2% (42)	20.9% (42)
Rather not say or Other	1.6% (9)	2.1% (3)	0.5% (1)
Annual income
Less than £15,000	25.0% (135)	20.1% (28)	38.8% (78)
£15,001–£25,000	21.6% (118)	19.5% (27)	19.9% (40)
£25,001–£35,000	19.4% (106)	21.5% (30)	14.4% (29)
£35,001–£45,000	12.4% (68)	11.5% (16)	8.0% (16)
£45,001–£55,000	3.5% (19)	5.8% (8)	2.5% (5)
More than £55,000	7.2% (40)	9.4% (13)	2.0% (4)
Prefer not to say or missing	11.1% (61)	12.3% (17)	11.4% (23)
Employment status
Student	19.6% (106)	20.9% (29)	30.8% (62)
Homemaker	2.0% (11)	0.7% (1)	2.5% (5)
Unemployed	5.9% (32)	5.8% (8)	3.5% (7)
Employed	70.4% (380)	70.3% (98)	62.5% (125)
Retired	0.2% (1)	–	0.5% (1)
Missing	1.8% (10)	1.4% (2)	0.5% (1)
Self-reported skin shade relative to ethnic group
Very dark	1.1% (6)	1.4% (2)	1.0% (2)
Dark	15.7% (85)	15.8% (22)	12.9% (26)
Medium	53.3% (288)	52.5% (73)	59.7% (120)
Light	25.9% (140)	25.9% (36)	24.4% (49)
Very light	3.9% (21)	4.3% (6)	2.0% (4)

Notes: (1) Breakdown by ethnicity does not add up to 100 as not all participants specified precise ethnicity beyond broad group. (2) Unfortunately, almost of a third of participants misread the free-text response question asking which UK county they resided in, responding either “England” or “UK”. This data was labelled as missing and the remaining data was categorized into collapsed UK regions.

Table 2. Item means (possible range = 1-5) and percentage endorsement for all original items for the ingroup and outgroup data – Study 1 at T1 (N = 540).

		Mean		Never (%)		Rarely (%)		Sometimes (%)		Often (%)		Always (%)
		In	Out	In	Out	In	Out	In	Out	In	Out	In	Out
1	… less attractive …	2.46	2.65	20.8	22.9	35.5	21.2	24.5	30.2	15.0	18.9	4.2	6.8
2	… less desirable as a potential romantic partner	2.39	2.70	24.9	22.9	33.1	17.8	24.3	32.8	14.1	19.4	3.7	7.1
3	… more feminine … .	1.71	1.65	51.9	56.1	30.5	28.1	12.6	11.2	4.2	3.7	0.7	0.9
4	… more masculine …	2.10	2.10	41.9	42.3	22.3	22.1	21.2	21.1	12.8	11.9	1.8	2.6
5	… more exotic …	2.22	2.90	36.8	18.9	23.6	17.5	24.0	30.7	11.7	21.0	3.8	11.9
6	… treat me with less courtesy …	2.23	2.56	32.4	23.1	28.9	23.9	24.3	32.7	11.9	14.7	2.6	5.7
7	… treat me with less respect … .	2.16	2.59	32.8	22.2	31.7	22.8	24.4	34.3	9.0	15.4	2.2	5.3
8	… treat me with greater suspicion …	2.21	2.59	36.1	24.4	27.3	20.4	20.0	28.3	12.6	20.0	4.0	7.0
9	… receive poorer service …	2.16	2.55	38.5	26.1	23.8	21.7	25.1	29.4	8.6	17.4	4.0	5.5
10	… avoid me more in public spaces …	1.84	2.32	49.1	32.1	27.5	25.1	15.2	25.7	6.4	12.3	1.8	4.8
11	… view me as more aggressive …	1.98	2.36	46.9	34.6	23.4	22.3	18.1	21.1	7.7	16.3	3.8	5.7
12	… view me as less trustworthy …	1.91	2.35	45.2	33.2	30.6	22.0	14.5	25.8	7.5	15.0	2.2	4.0
13	… view me as more threatening …	1.94	2.38	49.1	33.3	23.8	22.5	14.8	23.6	9.0	13.7	3.3	6.8
14	… view me as less intelligent … .	1.97	2.44	46.3	30.7	25.1	21.8	16.7	25.6	9.0	16.3	2.9	5.7
15	… view me as less educated …	2.02	2.49	46.1	29.8	22.9	21.6	17.4	24.7	10.3	17.6	3.3	6.4
16	… view me as less affluent …	2.21	2.64	38.3	27.6	23.3	15.9	21.6	27.6	13.0	22.7	3.8	6.2
17	… mistake me for someone in a service role …	1.90	2.30	50.2	35.3	22.7	22.5	16.5	24.5	8.1	12.8	2.6	4.9
18	… call me names … .	2.02	2.08	40.2	37.1	30.2	28.5	19.2	24.7	8.6	8.4	1.8	1.3
19	… insult me …	1.87	1.98	45.2	41.7	30.7	28.5	17.2	21.0	5.7	7.7	1.3	1.1
20	… make fun of my skin shade.	1.88	1.96	46.9	41.8	27.5	29.7	18.3	20.7	5.7	6.8	1.6	1.1
21	… make negative comments …	2.14	2.22	38.8	34.9	24.3	23.9	23.4	27.6	11.5	11.0	2.0	2.6
22	… more attractive if I had lighter skin.	1.83	1.69	55.6	59.2	20.1	22.7	13.2	9.7	8.0	6.9	3.1	1.5
23	… more attractive if I had darker skin.	1.34	1.36	77.3	76.4	13.7	14.6	7.1	6.2	1.5	2.0	0.4	0.7
24	… encourage me to lighten my skin shade	1.71	1.40	62.2	75.1	14.3	13.9	15.5	7.7	6.2	2.2	1.8	1.1
25	… encourage me to darken my skin shade	1.29	1.34	80.8	77.5	10.6	13.3	7.3	7.1	1.3	1.8	0.0	0.2
26	… question the extent to which I belong …	2.26	2.32	41.1	40.0	19.9	15.2	19.4	25.2	11.3	11.7	8.2	7.9
27	… tell me that it will be harder to find a partner	1.58	1.57	66.9	65.4	16.8	19.0	10.1	10.3	4.0	3.8	2.2	1.5

Figure 1. Scree plots for responses to the ECS based on ingroup and outgroup.

Table 3. Pattern matrices (coefficients under 0.3 suppressed) and corrected item-total correlation (CITC) for the ingroup and outgroup in EFA (Principal Axis factor with direct oblimin rotation) based on Study 1 data at T1 (N = 540).

	Ingroup				Outgroup
Item	Factor 1	Factor 2	CITC Factor 1	CITC Factor 2	Factor 1	Factor 2	CITC Factor 1	CITC Factor 2
7	.621		.758		.736		.836
8	.852		.857		.862		.864
9	.749		.816		.713		.813
10	.835		.813		.827		.821
11	.869		.807		.902		.826
12	.954		.865		.924		.905
13	.892		.852		.918		.866
14	.848		.803		.913		.828
16	.830		.809		.865		.837
17	.643		.682		.628		.725
18		.919		.818		.874		.805
19		.916		.853		.955		.877
20		.924		.841		.946		.865
21		.839		.816		.845		.828
22		.648		.683		.660		.694
27		.533		.666		.574		.621

Figure 2. CFA Model of ECS – ingroup and outgroup.

Table 4. CFA model fit statistics based on Study 1 and 2 data.

Study	Model	CMIN/df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA
1	Ingroup	2.72	0.95	0.94	0.08
	Outgroup	2.78	0.95	0.94	0.08
2	Ingroup	2.26	0.94	0.92	0.08
	Outgroup	2.42	0.95	0.93	0.08

Table 5. Internal Reliability and Test-Retest Reliability for EECS global and subscale scores – Cronbach’s α – Study 1, N = 540.

Reliability	Global score	Subtle subscale	Overt subscale
Internal reliability
Time 1 (α)
Ingroup	0.95	0.97	0.91
Outgroup	0.97	0.97	0.91
Time 2 (α)
Ingroup	0.96	0.96	0.91
Outgroup	0.96	0.97	0.90
Test-retest reliability
Ingroup (r)
Time 1 x Time 2	.82*	.74*	.82*
Outgroup (r)
Time 1 x Time 2	.76*	.77*	.72*

*p < .001.

Table 6. Means and SDs of the global and subscale scores for everyday experiences of colourism from the ingroup and outgroup from Study 1 at T1 and T2 (possible range = 1–5).

	T1 (N = 540)		T2 (N = 139)
	Ingroup	Outgroup	Ingroup	Outgroup
Global score	1.99 (.79)	2.26 (.88)	2.06 (.82)	2.32 (.81)
Subtle subscale	2.02 (.91)	2.46 (1.04)	2.08 (.91)	2.48 (.95)
Overt subscale	1.89 (.87)	1.92 (.85)	2.03 (.87)	2.03 (.80)

Table 7. Additional measures used in Study 2 to assess predictive validity.

Construct	Measure (s)	Cronbach’s Alpha
Skin shade (covariate)	Two single items. Compared with others: “Compared with people of the same ethnic group as you, is your skin shade: Very dark, dark, medium, light, or very light?” Skin Shade Chart: A skin shade colour chart comprising of nine skin colours (using colours from The Pantone Skin Tone Guide: www.pantone.com/) from dark (1) to light (9). Participants were asked to indicate which colour best represents their “current skin shade”.	n/a
Experiences of racism	Everyday Discrimination Scale (EDS; Williams et al. 1997) with the adapted stem “In your day-to-day life, how often have any of the following things (e.g. treated with less respect, called names or insulted) happened to you because of your race/ethnicity?” Response options to each of the 9-items are presented on a 6-point scale from 0 (never) to 5 (almost every day). Global scores were calculated by averaging participant responses for all items.	.90
	Schedule of Racist Events (SRE; Landrine and Klonoff 1996) The 18 items of the SRE were adapted for the present study to “because of your ethnicity” with a lifetime timeframe – i.e. “ever”. Participants were not asked about the frequency of such experiences in the past year or to rate how stressful they found them as specified in the original scale to reduce participant burden. Response options range from 1 (Never) to 6 (Almost all the time). Sample item = “How many times have you been treated unfairly by teachers and professors because of your ethnicity?”.	.89
Internalized colourism	Ingroup Colourism Scale (ICS; Harvey, Tennial, and Hudson Banks 2017). 20-items, five subscales: Self-Concept, Affiliation, Attraction, Impression Formation, and Upward Mobility. Sample items = “My skin tone is an important part of my self-concept” and “If you want to get ahead, you have to be the right skin tone”. Responses are on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree). A global score was calculated by summing and averaging all 20 items with higher scores indicating higher internalized colourism.	.85
Anxiety	General Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7; Spitzer et al. 2006). The GAD-7 asks participants to rate how often they have been bothered by seven core symptoms over the past two weeks. The GAD-7 items are: (1) nervousness; (2) inability to stop worrying; (3) excessive worry; (4) restlessness; (5) difficulty in relaxing; (6) easy irritation; and (7) fear of something awful happening. Response categories are “not at all” “several days” “more than half the days” and “nearly every day” scored as 0, 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The total score of the GAD-7 ranges from 0 to 21.	.92
Self-esteem	Rosenberg Global Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg 1965). Example items include “I feel that I have a number of good qualities” and “I have a positive attitude towards myself”. Items were measured on 4-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) and 4 (strongly agree). Five of the ten items were reverse scored so that higher mean scores indicate higher self-esteem.	.90
Perceived social support	Multidimensional Perceived Social Support Scale (MSPSS; Zimet et al. 1998). The MSPSS is a 12-item measure of two aspects of social networks (family network and friend networks) and response options were on a 7-point Likert scale (very strongly disagree to very strongly agree). An example item is “My friends really try and help me”. Higher mean scores indicate greater perceived social support.	.94
Life satisfaction	Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener et al. 1985). The scale has five items (e.g. “I am satisfied with my life” and “In most ways my life is close to ideal”) and responses options are presented on a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Total scores were averaged so that higher mean scores indicate greater life satisfaction.	.85
Self-reported health status	Single item: “In general, would you say your health was … bad/poor/fair/good/excellent”	n/a

Table 8. Study 2 variable correlations (N = 201).

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Everyday Colourism – Ingroup	–
2. Everyday Colourism – Outgroup	.68***	–
3. Schedule of Racist Events	.44***	.60***	–
4. Everyday Discrimination	.58***	.72***	.74***	–
5. Internalized Colourism	.32***	.34***	.25***	.29***	–
6. Anxiety	.11	.19**	.26***	.19**	.18*	–
7. General Health	−.09	−.09	−.06	−.16*	−.05	−.18*	–
8. Self-Esteem	−.17*	−.03	−.05	−.13	−.12	−.39***	.46***	–
9. Perceived Social Support	−.13	−.02	.01	−.12	−.07	−.07	.32***	.41***	–
10. Life Satisfaction	−.05	−.02	−.02	−.12	−.06	−.20**	.50***	.58***	.47***	–
Mean	1.80	2.09	2.73	1.32	2.84	10.26	3.76	2.89	4.81	3.10
Possible Range	1–5	1–5	1–6	0–5	1–7	0–21	1–5	1–4	1–7	1–5
SD	0.61	0.75	1.05	0.80	0.83	4.81	0.76	0.56	1.12	0.85
N	201	201	197	199	196	193	197	198	195	197
α	.918	.941	.885	.904	.854	.907	–	.897	.937	.853

Table 9. Hierarchical model predicting racialized discrimination and internalized colourism, Study 2 (N = 201).

	Everyday discrimination scale				Schedule of racist events				Internalized colourism
R^2	Step 1		Step 2		Step 1		Step 2		Step 1		Step 2		Step 3
	.09***		.53***		.06**		.37***		.02		.14***		.14***
	β	95% CI	β	95% CI	β	95% CI	β	95% CI	β	95% CI	β	95% CI	β	95% CI
1. Skin shade
Compared with others	−.10	−.28, .07	−.01	−.13, .12	−.05	−.23, .13	.03	−.12, .18	−.03	−.22, .16	.03	−.15, .20	.02	−.16, .20
Colour chart	−.23*	−.40, −.06	−.02	−.15, .11	−.21*	−.39, −.03	−.05	−.20, .11	−.10	−.29, .08	.01	−.17, .19	.02	−.17, .19
2. ECS
Ingroup	–		.16*	.03, .30	–		.06	−.09, .22	–		.14	−.04, .32	.14	−.05, .32
Outgroup	–		.61***	.47, .74	–		.55***	.40, .71	–		.27**	.09, .46	.23*	.01, .45
3. Experiences of Racism
SRE	–		–		–		–		–		–		.08	−.12, .23
EDS	–		–		–		–		–		–		.00	−.24, .23

***p < .001.

**p < .01.

* p < .05.

Table 10. Hierarchical model predicting general anxiety and self-esteem, Study 2 (N = 201).

	General anxiety								Self-esteem
R^2	Step 1		Step 2		Step 3		Step 4		Step 1		Step 2		Step 3		Step 4
	.01		.07**		.08		.11		.02		.07**		.08		.10
	β	95% CI	β	95% CI	β	95% CI	β	95% CI	β	95% CI	β	95% CI	β	95% CI	β	95% CI
1. Skin shade
Compared with others	.06	−.14, .25	.10	−.09, .29	.10	−.09, .29	.08	−.11, .27	−.17	−.36, .02	−.19*	−.38, −.00	−.19*	−.38, −.00	−.19*	−.38, −.00
Colour chart	.05	−.14, .25	.12	−.07, .31	.12	−.08, .31	.13	−.06, .32	.04	−.15, .23	−.02	−.21, −.17	−.02	−.21, −.17	−.02	−.20, −.17
4. ECS
Ingroup	–		.00	−.21, .20	.03	−.23, .18	−.04	−.25, .17	–		−.29**	−.48, −.10	−.27**	−.47, −.08	−.25*	−.44, −.05
Outgroup	–		.26*	.06, .46	.22*	.02, .43	.13	−.11, .37	–		.10	−.10, −.29	.12	−.08,   .32	.20	−.04,   .44
3. Internalized Colourism (IGS)	–		–		.13	−.02, .29	.12	−.04, .27	–		–		−.09	−.24,   .07	−.09	−.24,   .07
4. Experiences of Racism
SRE	–		–		–		.24	.03, .46	–		–		–		.15	−.06,   .37
EDS	–		–		–		−.06	−.31, .19	–		–		–		−.26*	−.51, −.02

***p < .001.

**p < .01.

* p < .05.

Table 11. Hierarchical model predicting perceived social support and life satisfaction, Study 2 (N = 201).

	Perceived social support								Life satisfaction
R^2	Step 1		Step 2		Step 3		Step 4		Step 1		Step 2		Step 3		Step 4
	.00		.04*		.04		.08		.02		.02		.02		.05
	β	95% CI	β	95% CI	β	95% CI	β	95% CI	β	95% CI	β	95% CI	β	95% CI	β	95% CI
1. Skin shade
Compared with others	.00	−.20, .19	−.01	−.21,   .18	−.01	−.20,   .19	−.01	−.20,    .19	−.17	−.36, .02	−.17	−.37, .02	−.17	−.37, .02	−.17	−.37,   .02
Colour chart	−.04	−.24, .15	−.08	−.28,   .11	−.08	−.28,   .11	−.08	−.28,    .11	.14	−.05, .33	.12	−.08, .32	.12	−.08, .32	.12	−.08,   .32
4. ECS
Ingroup	–		−.25*	−.46, −.05	−.25*	−.45, −.05	−.22*	−.42, −.02	–		−.04	−.24, .16	−.04	−.24, .16	.00	−.20,   .20
Outgroup	–		.12	−.09,   .33	.12	−.07,   .36	.22	−.03,    .49	–		.01	−.21, .19	.00	−.21, .21	.10	−.15,   .34
3. Internalized Colourism (IGS)	–		–		−.07	−.23,   .09	−.07	−.23,    .09	–		–		−.04	−.20, .12	−.04	−.20,   .12
4. Experiences of Racism
SRE	–		–		–		.21	.00,    .43	–		–		–		.14	−.07,   .37
EDS	–		–		–		−.31*	−.57, −.06	–		–		–		−.28*	−.54, −.04

***p < .001.

**p < .01.

* p < .05.

Table 12. Hierarchical model predicting self-reported general health, Study 2 (N = 201).

R^2	Step 1		Step 2		Step 3		Step 4
	.00		.02		.02		.04
	β	95% CI	β	95% CI	β	95% CI	β	95% CI
1. Skin shade
Compared with others	−.03	−.22, .17	−.04	−.24, .15	−.04	−.24, .15	−.04	−.24, .15
Colour chart	−.04	−.23, .16	−.07	−.27, .12	−.08	−.28, .12	−.08	−.28, .12
4. ECS
Ingroup	–		−.08	−.28, .12	−.08	−.28, .12	−.04	−.24, .16
Outgroup	–		−.08	−.29, .12	−.07	−.28, .13	.02	−.23, .26
3. Internalized Colourism (IGS)	–		–		−.02	−.19, .14	−.03	−.19, .13
4. Experiences of Racism
SRE	–		–		–		.13	−.09, .35
EDS	–		–		–		−.26*	−.52, −.01

***p < .001.

**p < .01.

* p < .05.

Table

1	2	3	4	5
Never	Rarely	Sometimes	Often	Always

Table

1	2	3	4	5
Never	Rarely	Sometimes	Often	Always

Williams, D. R., Y. Yu, J. Jackson, and N. Anderson. 1997. “Racial Differences in Physical and Mental Health: Socioeconomic Status, Stress and Discrimination.” Journal of Health Psychology 2 (3): 335–351. doi:10.1177/135910539700200305

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Landrine, H., and E. A. Klonoff. 1996. “The Schedule of Racist Events: A Measure of Racial Discrimination and a Study of Its Negative Physical and Mental Health Consequences.” Journal of Black Psychology 22 (2): 144–168. doi:10.1177/00957984960222002.

 Google Scholar

Harvey, R. D., R. E. Tennial, and K. Hudson Banks. 2017. “The Development and Validation of a Colourism Scale.” Journal of Black Psychology 43 (7): 740–764. doi:10.1177/0095798417690054.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Spitzer, R. L., K. Kroenke, J. B. Williams, and B. Löwe. 2006. “A Brief Measure for Assessing Generalized Anxiety Disorder: The GAD-7.” Archives of Internal Medicine 166 (10): 1092–1097. doi:10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rosenberg, M. 1965. Society and the Adolescent Self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

 Google Scholar

Zimet, G. D., N. W. Dahlem, S. G. Zimet, and G. K. Farley. 1988. “The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support.” Journal of Personality Assessment 52 (1): 30–41. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa5201_2

 Google Scholar

Diener, E. D., R. A. Emmons, R. J. Larsen, and S. Griffin. 1985. “The Satisfaction with Life Scale.” Journal of Personality Assessment 49 (1): 71–75. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

 Google Scholar