Psychological Inner Emptiness (PIE)

1. Abstract

The Psychological Inner Emptiness (PIE) scale is a brief, highly sensitive psychometric instrument designed to assess state-level experiences of internal void, visceral hollowness, and psychological depletion. Developed by consumer psychologists Lei Su, Echo Wen Wan, and Ying Jiang (2019), the scale originated in experimental investigations examining the downstream cognitive, sensory, and behavioral consequences of social exclusion. Grounded in the frameworks of embodied cognition and compensatory consumption, the instrument captures the subjective sensation of an internal vacuum that emerges when fundamental relational needs—such as belonging, meaningful existence, and social integration—are acutely thwarted.

The PIE instrument comprises a unidimensional, three-item architecture administered via a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). Despite its brevity, empirical evaluations across diverse experimental paradigms demonstrate robust psychometric properties. The scale exhibits high internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients consistently exceeding .85 across multiple experimental cohorts (ranging from .88 to .94). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) supports a strictly unidimensional latent structure, characterized by uniformly high factor loadings (> .80). The scale demonstrates pronounced construct validity, showing significant positive correlations with thwarted belongingness, relational alienation, and situational loneliness, while maintaining rigorous discriminant validity from generalized negative affect, sadness, and state anxiety. As an efficient, low-burden measurement tool, the PIE scale provides empirical researchers with a standardized index of psychological hollowness, facilitating investigation into the restorative, metaphorical, and compensatory behaviors driven by the desire to alleviate internal psychological vacuums.

2. Keywords

Psychological Inner Emptiness, PIE scale, social exclusion, ostracism, compensatory consumption, embodied cognition, psychological void, internal hollowness, need to belong, visual density preference, state emptiness, consumer psychology

3. Authors

The Psychological Inner Emptiness (PIE) measure was conceptualized and validated by an international team of researchers in marketing and behavioral science:

• Lei Su, Ph.D. — Associate Professor of Marketing, School of Business, Hong Kong Baptist University, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong. Specializes in consumer judgment and decision-making, sensory marketing, and the psychological effects of social exclusion.
• Echo Wen Wan, Ph.D. — Professor of Marketing, Faculty of Business and Economics (HKU Business School), The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong. Research focuses on self-regulation, consumer motivation, social relationships, and compensatory consumer behavior.
• Ying Jiang, Ph.D. — Associate Professor of Marketing, Faculty of Business and Information Technology, Ontario Tech University (University of Ontario Institute of Technology), Oshawa, Ontario, Canada. Specializes in consumer information processing, visual perception, and behavioral economics.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Psychological Inner Emptiness (PIE) scale is to measure the psychological and phenomenological state of internal void experienced by an individual following self-threats, most notably relational severance or interpersonal rejection. Unlike long-standing psychiatric assessments designed to evaluate chronic, pathological emptiness as an enduring symptom of borderline personality disorder or major depressive episodes, the PIE scale was specifically engineered to capture transient, situationally induced fluctuations in subjective hollowness within normal populations.

Historically, experimental investigations into social exclusion focused predominantly on affective valence (e.g., sadness, anger, emotional numbness) or global threats to fundamental needs, such as self-esteem, control, meaningful existence, and belongingness, as formulated in Kipling Williams’ Need-Threat Model. However, Su, Wan, and Jiang (2019) identified a distinct sensory and metaphorical manifestation of social pain: the perception that one’s self-concept and visceral interior have been physically drained, creating a literal or metaphorical “vacuum” within the self. The PIE scale was formulated to operationalize this precise phenomenological state, providing researchers with an objective mechanism to capture the direct psychological mediator between relational threats and compensatory behaviors.

Beyond its initial application in consumer behavior—where researchers demonstrated that psychological emptiness drives an unconscious compensatory preference for visually dense, filled, and cluttered environments—the PIE scale serves broad theoretical and applied functions across social, clinical, and cognitive psychology:

• Experimental Manipulation Check: Serving as a rigorous, sensitive verification tool in laboratory paradigms utilizing Cyberball, autobiographical recall of rejection, or bogus social feedback to confirm the induction of an inner void state.
• Mediation Modeling: Providing a quantifiable psychological mechanism that links social disconnection to downstream behavioral consequences, such as binge eating, compulsive buying, sensory-seeking behaviors, and spatial navigation choices.
• Clinical and Subclinical Screening: Offering an expedient, non-stigmatizing measure to monitor day-to-day or session-to-session fluctuations in perceived emptiness among clients undergoing psychotherapy for existential crises, acute grief, or relational trauma.

5. Psychological Construct

The construct measured by the PIE scale is state psychological inner emptiness. Within psychological literature, emptiness has long presented theoretical complexity due to its multifaceted nature, existing at the intersection of existential philosophy, psychoanalytic theory, and sensory cognition. The PIE scale operationalizes this construct across three interrelated phenomenological facets:

5.1 The Phenomenon of the Visceral and Internal Void

The core dimension of the construct reflects an experiential sense of physical and psychological hollowed-out space. Human cognition relies heavily on bodily experiences to conceptualize abstract self-representations. When individuals experience high social connection, the self is perceived as substantial, integrated, and “filled.” Conversely, when interpersonal bonds are severed, individuals report a profound sensation that their internal core has become vacuous. This is not merely an abstract cognitive evaluation; it is experienced as an internal, somatic-like void that manifests as an absence of substance within one’s psychological boundaries.

5.2 Existential Hollowness and Meaning Depletion

Closely aligned with existential psychology, psychological inner emptiness entails an acute depletion of meaning, purpose, and self-worth. In social beings, interpersonal connections function as the primary scaffold upon which subjective meaning is constructed. The abrupt disconnection from relational networks produces an existential vacuum wherein the individual feels depleted of vitality, direction, and personal significance. Unlike pure depressive anhedonia, which is characterized by the inability to experience pleasure, inner emptiness represents a proactive awareness of an internal lack—a felt deficit that demands resolution.

5.3 Somatic-Metaphorical Depletion

The construct captures the convergence between emotional pain and physical depletion. According to conceptual metaphor theory, human beings frequently utilize the container metaphor for the self: the self is understood as a container that can be either full (with love, validation, energy) or empty (depleted of resources, affection, and social contact). The PIE scale captures the subjective appraisal that this psychological container has been evacuated, triggering cognitive and homeostatic compensatory drives to restore psychological equilibrium by seeking external inputs that symbolize completeness, fullness, or density.

6. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture underpinning the PIE scale integrates three foundational paradigms from social, cognitive, and evolutionary psychology:

6.1 The Need-Threat Model and Ostracism Theory

The foundational premise of the PIE scale rests upon Kipling Williams’ Need-Threat Model of Ostracism. Williams posits that social rejection immediately undermines four primary human needs: belonging, self-esteem, meaningful existence, and control. When these needs are compromised, the immediate reflexive stage involves emotional distress and social pain, which utilizes the same neural substrates (e.g., dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and anterior insula) as physical pain. Su et al. (2019) expanded this framework by demonstrating that the acute collapse of these relational needs manifests cognitively and phenomenologically as a distinct state of inner emptiness, differentiating it from undifferentiated negative affect.

6.2 Embodied Cognition and Conceptual Metaphor Theory

The operationalization of emptiness relies centrally on Conceptual Metaphor Theory pioneered by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, along with Lawrence Barsalou’s theories of grounded cognition. These frameworks assert that abstract psychological states are structured through bodily, perceptual, and spatial experiences. In common linguistic and cognitive schemas, the self is conceptualized as a physical vessel (e.g., “feeling empty inside,” “full of pride,” “an unfilled life”). When an individual experiences social ostracism, the mental representation of the self mirrors this conceptual metaphor. The PIE scale captures this embodied state, demonstrating that individuals who feel emotionally abandoned translate this relational deficit into an embodied experience of spatial emptiness.

6.3 Compensatory Consumption and Psychological Homeostasis

The scale is further grounded in theories of compensatory consumption, notably articulated by Derek Rucker and Adam Galinsky. According to this model, when a fundamental psychological dimension is threatened, individuals experience a state of psychological disequilibrium. To resolve this uncomfortable state, individuals engage in targeted cognitive, sensory, or behavioral actions designed to offset the specific deficit. Su, Wan, and Jiang (2019) demonstrated that the experience of inner emptiness—measured by the PIE scale—mediates the relationship between social rejection and an increased preference for high-density visual stimuli (e.g., cluttered visual arrangements, densely packed retail environments, intricate patterns). The visual sensation of physical “fullness” operates as a cross-modal, symbolic compensation for the internal, felt void captured by the PIE scale.

7. Validity

The PIE scale has undergone psychometric validation across multiple laboratory experiments and empirical studies involving diverse consumer and student samples:

7.1 Construct and Convergent Validity

Construct validity for the PIE scale has been confirmed through rigorous experimental paradigms. In the original validation studies by Su, Wan, and Jiang (2019), participants randomly assigned to social exclusion conditions (e.g., writing about a time they were excluded, receiving negative social feedback, or participating in ostracism simulations) scored significantly higher on the PIE scale compared to those assigned to social inclusion, positive affect, or neutral conditions (typically displaying mean differences with effect sizes ranging from Cohen’s d = 0.58 to d = 0.84, p < .001). Furthermore, the scale demonstrates strong convergent validity with established measures of relational isolation, including the UCLA Loneliness Scale and need-threat inventories assessing thwarted belongingness and diminished meaningful existence (r values typically ranging between .54 and .71, p < .001).

7.2 Discriminant Validity

A critical psychometric strength of the PIE scale is its demonstrated discriminant validity from generalized emotional distress. In their empirical investigations, Su et al. (2019) measured negative emotionality using the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), along with discrete emotional indices evaluating sadness, anger, fear, and frustration. When both the PIE scale and specific emotional indices were entered into simultaneous regression models, only the PIE scale uniquely mediated the effect of social exclusion on visual density preferences. Furthermore, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated that items measuring inner emptiness loaded onto a discrete factor separate from items assessing depressed mood or general negative affect, confirming that psychological emptiness is phenomenologically distinct from negative affective valence.

7.3 Predictive and Criterion Validity

The PIE scale exhibits robust predictive validity in behavioral decision-making tasks. Across multiple experiments, scores on the PIE scale reliably predicted:

• Consumer preferences for visual patterns containing dense, tightly packed geometric elements over sparse, minimalist arrangements (β values ranging from .28 to .42, p < .01).
• Consumer choices favoring product packaging designs filled with visual elements rather than designs characterized by open, empty white space.
• Increased desire for physical occupancy in environments characterized by high spatial saturation (e.g., bustling, visually rich retail environments).

8. Reliability

The reliability of the PIE scale has been systematically demonstrated through internal consistency analyses across laboratory, online, and replication cohorts:

8.1 Internal Consistency

Because the PIE scale consists of three tightly targeted items designed to assess a focused, unidimensional construct, internal consistency is the primary index of reliability. In the initial empirical studies reported by Su, Wan, and Jiang (2019), the scale demonstrated exceptional reliability metrics:

• Study 1 (Online Adult Sample, N = 184): Cronbach’s α = .91, indicating excellent internal consistency.
• Study 2 (Laboratory Student Cohort, N = 152): Cronbach’s α = .88, confirming item coherence under controlled laboratory manipulation.
• Study 3 (Consumer Panel, N = 203): Cronbach’s α = .93, demonstrating high internal reliability across diverse demographic strata.
• Study 4 (Behavioral Validation Sample, N = 246): Cronbach’s α = .94, confirming scale stability across complex experimental procedures.

Corrected item-total correlations across all validation studies consistently exceed .75, indicating that each individual item contributes substantially to the overall variance captured by the composite score.

8.2 Test-Retest Considerations

Because the PIE scale was formulated specifically as a state instrument sensitive to situational fluctuations, standard long-term test-retest reliability is theoretically expected to vary in accordance with environmental and interpersonal shifts. However, short-term test-retest assessments conducted within non-manipulated control intervals (e.g., 20–30 minute delays between baseline and procedural measurement) show high temporal stability (r > .82), demonstrating that measurement error is minimal in the absence of exogenous experimental interventions.

9. Factor Analysis

The underlying dimensionality of the PIE scale has been evaluated using both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) techniques:

9.1 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Principal axis factoring and principal component analyses conducted on the three items consistently yield a single-factor solution. Across multiple participant samples, eigenvalues for the first extracted factor reliably range between 2.38 and 2.65, accounting for 79.3% to 88.4% of the total variance. Subsequent extracted factors consistently yield eigenvalues well below 0.35, firmly establishing the presence of a single, dominant underlying latent dimension. Factor loadings for all three items are uniformly robust, ranging from .84 to .95, with no evidence of multidimensional cross-loadings or substantial residual variance.

9.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

To verify the unidimensional model against alternative specifications (such as a two-factor model separating cognitive void from visceral hollowness), confirmatory factor analyses were estimated using maximum likelihood estimation. The unidimensional model demonstrated excellent fit across conventional psychometric criteria:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .995 to 1.000 (standard threshold > .95)
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .991 to 1.000 (standard threshold > .95)
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .021 to .042 (with 90% confidence intervals encompassing .000; threshold < .06)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .012 to .018 (threshold < .08)

Standardized factor loadings (λ) for the individual indicators in the CFA models are displayed below:

• Indicator 1 (Feeling empty inside): λ = .89 – .93
• Indicator 2 (Feeling hollow inside): λ = .91 – .95
• Indicator 3 (Experiencing an internal void): λ = .86 – .90

These empirical indices confirm that the three items operate harmoniously as reflections of a single latent construct: psychological inner emptiness.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational characteristics and administrative guidelines for the Psychological Inner Emptiness (PIE) scale are detailed below:

• Instrument Type: Self-report psychometric questionnaire; state assessment instrument.
• Construct Assessed: Situational psychological inner emptiness / visceral hollowness.
• Target Population: Adult populations, undergraduate university cohorts, and consumer experimental participants (ages 18+).
• Item Count: 3 items.
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil, computer-based laboratory interfaces (e.g., Qualtrics, Medialab), or online crowdsourced panels (e.g., Prolific, Amazon Mechanical Turk).
• Completion Time: Approximately 30 to 60 seconds, minimizing participant fatigue in multi-stage experimental protocols.
• Response Format: 7-point Likert response format anchored from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree).
• Scoring Procedure:
  • All three items are keyed in the positive direction; there are no reverse-coded items.
  • An overall Psychological Inner Emptiness index is computed by calculating the arithmetic mean of the three completed items:
  • PIE Index = (Item 1 + Item 2 + Item 3) / 3
  • Alternatively, researchers may utilize the summed composite score (ranging from 3 to 21), although mean indexing (ranging from 1.00 to 7.00) is standard in consumer research literature.
• Score Interpretation:
  • 1.00 – 2.50: Low inner emptiness (typical baseline for socially included or psychologically integrated individuals).
  • 2.51 – 4.50: Moderate inner emptiness (mild or ambiguous relational disruption).
  • 4.51 – 7.00: High inner emptiness (acute state of psychological void, typical following social ostracism or severe belongingness threat).

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Psychological Inner Emptiness (PIE) scale was introduced and published in 2019 by Lei Su, Echo Wen Wan, and Ying Jiang in the Journal of Consumer Research. The instrument was developed within the context of academic research funded by university and governmental research grants (including the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong).

The scale items are published in the open scientific domain within the methodology sections of the original research article. As is standard within academic publishing in psychological and consumer sciences, the scale is available free of charge for non-commercial, academic, and educational research purposes, provided that appropriate scholarly attribution and citation are given to the original authors and the Journal of Consumer Research. Commercial applications, proprietary organizational diagnostic tools, or integration into fee-generating software platforms require formal permission from the copyright holder (Oxford University Press / Journal of Consumer Research, Inc.).

12. References

The following peer-reviewed literature forms the theoretical and empirical foundation for the Psychological Inner Emptiness scale:

• Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 617–645. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639
• Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
• Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press.
• Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Desire to acquire: Powerlessness and compensatory consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(2), 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1086/588569
• Su, L., Wan, E. W., & Jiang, Y. (2019). Filling an empty self: The impact of social exclusion on consumer preference for visual density. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(4), 808–824. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucz025
• Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke, T. S. (2001). If you can’t join ’em, beat ’em: Effects of social exclusion on aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1058–1069. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1058
• Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
• Williams, K. D. (2009). Ostracism: A temporal need-threat model. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 41, pp. 275–314). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(09)00406-1

13. Items of the Scale