Strive to Avoid Inferiority Scales

Abstract

The Strive to Avoid Inferiority Scales (SAIS) are a specialized dual-part psychometric instrument developed by Paul Gilbert and colleagues (2007) to operationalize the evolutionary, social, and clinical dynamics of competitive social rank mentalities. Grounded in evolutionary psychology and social rank theory, the instrument assesses the degree to which individuals feel compelled to relentlessly compete and strive in life not merely to achieve personal mastery or fulfillment, but primarily to avoid inferiority, rejection, marginalization, and social subjugation. The instrument consists of two distinct components. Part 1 (SAIS-P1) comprises 31 self-report items measuring two core dimensions of social motivation: Insecure Striving (19 items assessing the belief that acceptance, social rank, and interpersonal safety are conditional upon continuous achievement, outperforming others, and avoiding perceived weakness) and Secure Non-Striving (12 items capturing unconditional social safeness, perceived acceptance irrespective of performance, and freedom from coercive social comparison). Part 1 uses a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (“Never”) to 4 (“Always”). Part 2 (SAIS-P2) features 11 items assessing the anticipated interpersonal and social consequences of failing to compete successfully, structured across three distinct subscales: Losing Out (3 items assessing fears of lost opportunities and stunted personal advancement), Overlooked (4 items evaluating fears of passive exclusion, invisibility, and neglect), and Active Rejection (4 items assessing fears of active shaming, hostile exclusion, and interpersonal disdain). Part 2 utilizes a 10-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Don’t agree”) to 10 (“Completely agree”). Psychometric evaluations demonstrate robust internal consistency (Cronbach’s alphas ranging from .79 to .84 across subscales) and strong construct, convergent, and discriminant validity. Elevated scores on Insecure Striving and the fear subscales of Part 2 demonstrate substantial positive correlations with depression, anxiety, stress, external shame, conditional goal-orientation, and maladaptive perfectionism, establishing the SAIS as a vital diagnostic and research assessment tool in psychopathology, evolutionary clinical psychology, and Compassion Focused Therapy.

Keywords

Striving to Avoid Inferiority, Social Rank Theory, Insecure Striving, Secure Non-Striving, Evolutionary Psychology, Compassion Focused Therapy, Social Comparison, Shame, Fear of Failure, Depression, Psychometrics

Authors

The Strive to Avoid Inferiority Scales were developed and validated by an international research team led by Paul Gilbert, along with Chris Broomhead, Chris Irons, Kirsten McEwan, Rebecca Bellew, Adele Mills, Corinne Gale, and Rebecca Knibb. The initial validation study was conducted within the Mental Health Research Unit at Kingsway Hospital, Derby, United Kingdom, and the University of Derby.

• Paul Gilbert, Ph.D., FBPsS: Mental Health Research Unit, Kingsway Hospital, Derby, and Centre for Health and Social Care Research, University of Derby, UK. Pioneer of Compassion Focused Therapy (CFT).
• Chris Broomhead, D.Clin.Psy.: University of Derby and Derbyshire Mental Health Services NHS Trust, UK.
• Chris Irons, Ph.D.: Mental Health Research Unit, Kingsway Hospital, Derby, UK; currently Director at Balanced Minds, London.
• Kirsten McEwan, Ph.D.: Mental Health Research Unit, University of Derby, UK.
• Rebecca Bellew, D.Clin.Psy.: University of Derby, UK.
• Adele Mills, B.Sc.: Mental Health Research Unit, Kingsway Hospital, Derby, UK.
• Corinne Gale, Ph.D.: School of Health and Social Sciences, Coventry University, UK.
• Rebecca Knibb, Ph.D.: Department of Psychology, School of Life and Health Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, UK.

Purpose

The Strive to Avoid Inferiority Scales were formulated to address a critical theoretical and empirical gap in the psychological assessment of human motivation, competitive behavior, and affective vulnerability. While classical theories of achievement motivation (such as McClelland’s need for achievement or Nicholls’ achievement goal theory) often frame competitive drive in terms of mastery, competence acquisition, or self-actualization, clinical observations frequently reveal a much darker, defensive, and pathogenic dimension to human striving. Many individuals engage in relentless, exhaustive, and hyper-competitive striving not because they find pleasure or self-determination in the activity, but because they believe that any failure, plateau, or drop in rank will lead to social rejection, contempt, loneliness, and psychological destruction.

The overarching purpose of the SAIS is to distinguish between healthy, secure motivations for engagement and pathological, threat-based competitive striving. Specifically, the instrument aims to:

• Differentiate Secure from Insecure Striving: Clarify whether an individual’s achievement efforts are driven by self-actualization and secure social attachment (where self-worth and social belonging remain intact regardless of outcome) or by defensive maneuvers aimed at escaping the catastrophic social and emotional fallout of perceived inferiority.
• Elucidate the Fear Architectures of Underperformance: Identify the specific social threat schemas that mobilize competitive distress. Part 2 systematically delineates whether an individual primarily fears structural disadvantage (losing out), interpersonal neglect (being overlooked), or active hostility and social shaming (active rejection).
• Inform Clinical Conceptualization and Intervention: Provide clinicians working within cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), Compassion Focused Therapy (CFT), and schema therapy with a quantitative and qualitative assessment of the client’s competitive threat system. High Insecure Striving accompanied by low Secure Non-Striving signals chronic over-activation of the evolutionary threat-defense system and severe under-functioning of the soothe-safeness system.
• Advance Research in Evolutionary Psychopathology: Facilitate empirical investigations into the evolutionary origins of mood, anxiety, and personality disorders. By isolating the variance associated with rank preservation and fear of subordinate status, researchers can dissect how sociocultural pressures, modern neoliberal economic paradigms, and hyper-competitive educational environments exacerbate affective distress.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct captured by the SAIS resides at the intersection of evolutionary psychology, personality theory, and affective psychopathology. Central to this construct is the evolutionary concept of social rank mentalities and the psychological mechanisms governing human competition for resources, mates, prestige, and social belonging. Gilbert and colleagues operationalized the construct into two structurally interdependent domains across the scale’s two parts.

Part 1: Insecure Striving vs. Secure Non-Striving

Part 1 measures two antithetical orientations toward personal worth, social comparison, and achievement:

• Insecure Striving (19 items): This subscale reflects a cognitive-affective belief system wherein acceptance, love, and safety within a social group are perceived as precarious, transactional, and entirely contingent upon outperforming peers and demonstrating high status. Individuals scoring high on Insecure Striving view life as an unceasing, zero-sum competitive contest (“rat race”). For these individuals, social status is not an index of competence, but a non-negotiable defensive armor against interpersonal vulnerability. Illustrative cognitive appraisals include beliefs that one must out-perform others to earn respect, that mistakes render one unlovable, and that settling for equality or average performance guarantees being cast down into inferior status. Insecure striving is closely linked to chronic hyper-vigilance, external shame, conditional self-worth, and persistent fear of exposed weakness.
• Secure Non-Striving (12 items): This subscale measures the presence of an internalized felt sense of unconditional social safeness, acceptance, and interpersonal belonging that persists independently of performance, victory, or defeat. Individuals scoring high on Secure Non-Striving operate within an affiliative social mentality. They perceive their social environment as fundamentally benevolent, forgiving, and cooperative. They hold the firm conviction that failing at a task does not diminish their intrinsic value as a human being, nor does it jeopardize their emotional bonds or inclusion in their peer groups. Secure non-striving acts as a powerful psychological buffer against environmental stressors, performance failures, and depressive collapse.

Part 2: Fear Dimensions Underlying Competitive Striving

Part 2 measures the specific perceived social and interpersonal perils of failing to compete and succeed. It deconstructs the motivational threat architecture into three distinct empirical dimensions:

• Losing Out (3 items): Measures the pragmatic and structural anxieties associated with competitive failure, focused on falling behind peers, missing critical life opportunities, and failing to advance socioeconomically. This subscale captures perceived structural entrapment and socioeconomic vulnerability.
• Overlooked (4 items): Measures the anticipation of passive social exclusion, emotional abandonment, and interpersonal invisibility. Individuals high on this dimension fear that failing to stand out or excel will cause significant others and society to lose interest, pass them over, and treat them as though they do not exist.
• Active Rejection (4 items): Measures the anticipation of overt hostility, aggressive shaming, interpersonal ostracism, and direct social expulsion. This represents the most acute social threat, wherein underperformance is believed to actively invite public ridicule, disgust, criticism, and physical or relational eviction from the group.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical bedrock of the SAIS is rooted in Social Rank Theory (Gilbert, 1992, 2000; Price et al., 1994) and the broader framework of Evolutionary Psychopathology. In non-human animals, social rank hierarchies govern access to essential survival resources, including food, territory, and reproductive opportunities. Subordinate animals that lose competitive encounters typically enact ritualized submissive behaviors—inhibiting aggression, lowering posture, and signaling defeat—to prevent catastrophic physical injury from dominant conspecifics.

Gilbert adapted these observations to human evolutionary biology, proposing that modern psychological disorders (most notably major depression, social anxiety disorder, and chronic shame) frequently represent the dysfunctional activation of ancient involuntary subordinate strategies or involuntary defeat mechanisms. In humans, social rank is determined not merely through physical dominance (agonic systems), but primarily through social attractiveness, prestige, and perceived social value (hedonic and affiliative systems). When humans perceive themselves as inferior, undesirable, or socially low-ranking, their biological threat-defense systems register a life-threatening emergency: the danger of being socially marginalized, ostracized, or completely abandoned by the cooperative group.

Crucially, Gilbert distinguished between two fundamentally different motivational architectures or social mentalities:

• The Competitive / Dominance-Submission Mentality: Focused on relative status, power, comparison, self-protection, and out-competing others. In this mindset, relationships are characterized by vertical hierarchies. Others are viewed as competitors, evaluators, or judges who will exploit, dismiss, or punish vulnerability and failure.
• The Affiliative / Care-Cooperation Mentality: Focused on mutual support, cooperation, empathy, and unconditional belonging. In this mindset, relationships are characterized by horizontal, reciprocal bonds. Others are viewed as allies and safe sources of comfort, validation, and assistance.

The SAIS operationalizes what happens when an individual’s competitive mentality becomes hijacked by deep attachment insecurity and social threat. In such configurations, individuals believe that love and belonging cannot be accessed via the affiliative system; instead, they believe that acceptance must be violently or exhaustively extracted from the social world through the competitive mentality. Striving transforms from an expressive pursuit of mastery into a desperate, defensive effort to strive to avoid inferiority. When competitive efforts inevitably falter due to exhaustion, illness, or impossible standards, the individual is plunged into feelings of defeat, entrapment, and clinical depression.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the Strive to Avoid Inferiority Scales has been rigorously established across multiple independent clinical, student, and community cohorts.

Construct and Factorial Validity

In the foundational scale development study conducted by Gilbert et al. (2007) across student (N = 227) and adult community samples, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported the clear conceptual and structural independence of the two Part 1 factors (Insecure Striving and Secure Non-Striving) and the three Part 2 factors (Losing Out, Overlooked, and Active Rejection). Crucially, Insecure Striving and Secure Non-Striving do not behave as mere inverse polarities of a single unidimensional continuum; rather, they represent separate, partially orthogonal constructs that demonstrate differential patterns of association with affective outcomes.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Convergent validity has been repeatedly demonstrated through significant correlations with standardized instruments measuring psychological distress, social comparison, shame, and perfectionism:

• Affective Distress: In the original validation studies, Insecure Striving demonstrated strong positive correlations with the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scales (DASS-21): Depression (r = .43 to .51, p < .001), Anxiety (r = .39 to .46, p < .001), and Stress (r = .44 to .53, p < .001). Conversely, Secure Non-Striving exhibited moderate to strong negative correlations with depression (r = -.38 to -.45), anxiety (r = -.30 to -.36), and stress (r = -.33 to -.41).
• Social Comparison and Inferiority: Insecure Striving correlated negatively with the Social Comparison Scale (SCS; r = -.35 to -.48), indicating that individuals who feel compelled to strive defensively perceive themselves as lower in relative status, competence, and social attractiveness compared to their peers.
• External and Internal Shame: High Insecure Striving scores correlated robustly with external shame as measured by the Other As Shamer Scale (OAS; r = .52 to .61), affirming that competitive insecurity is fueled by chronic hyper-vigilance to external social evaluative threat and fear of public humiliation.
• Perfectionism Dimensions: Subsequent investigations (e.g., Stoeber et al., 2008; Dunkley et al., 2012) confirmed that Insecure Striving correlates strongly with socially prescribed perfectionism and evaluative concerns perfectionism (r > .55), whereas it shows little to no association with personal standards perfectionism once shared variance is statistically controlled, validating its discriminant specificity.

Predictive and Incremental Validity

Hierarchical regression analyses by Gilbert et al. (2007) revealed that Insecure Striving and the fear dimensions of Part 2 account for significant incremental variance in predicting depressive symptoms even after controlling for baseline demographic variables, self-esteem, and general neuroticism. When individuals believe that failure will lead to Active Rejection and shaming, the psychological risk of depressive decompensation following academic or occupational setbacks increases by more than twofold.

Reliability

The SAIS possesses strong and stable internal consistency across varied clinical, student, and cultural populations.

Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha)

In the seminal psychometric validation by Gilbert, Broomhead, Irons, et al. (2007), the scale subscales exhibited the following internal reliability coefficients:

• Part 1: Insecure Striving (19 items): Demonstrated high internal consistency across multiple studies, with Cronbach’s α ranging between .84 and .90.
• Part 1: Secure Non-Striving (12 items): Exhibited acceptable to good internal reliability, with Cronbach’s α values documented between .69 and .78.
• Part 2: Losing Out (3 items): Displayed robust internal consistency despite its brief length, yielding Cronbach’s α = .84.
• Part 2: Overlooked (4 items): Yielded strong internal reliability with Cronbach’s α = .80.
• Part 2: Active Rejection (4 items): Exhibited satisfactory internal consistency with Cronbach’s α = .79.

Cross-Cultural and Clinical Reliability

International validation studies in diverse cultural environments—including Portuguese adaptations (Pinto-Gouveia et al., 2014; Castilho & Pinto-Gouveia, 2011), Turkish validations, and East Asian samples—have corroborated these internal consistency values, with composite reliability coefficients routinely exceeding .80 for Insecure Striving and the Part 2 composite fear indices. Test-retest reliability across 4- to 8-week intervals has demonstrated high temporal stability (intraclass correlation coefficients r > .78), establishing the SAIS as a stable measure of pervasive social rank schema while remaining sensitive to therapeutic change following Compassion Focused Therapy interventions.

Factor Analysis

The empirical derivation of the SAIS factor structure utilized a combination of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and subsequent confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) across independent samples.

Part 1 Factor Structure

In the initial development phase, an item pool reflecting competitive beliefs, fear of falling behind, conditional self-worth, and unconditional social safeness was submitted to principal axis factoring with both orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Promax/Oblimin) rotations. The analytical output unequivocally demonstrated a robust two-factor solution accounting for substantial total variance:

• Factor 1 (Insecure Striving): Loaded heavily on 19 items reflecting competitive pressure, social ranking, zero-sum perspectives on achievement, and conditional acceptance. Primary item loadings ranged from .42 to .74 (e.g., “If I don’t strive to achieve I’ll be seen as inferior to other people” [.71]; “To be valued by others I have to strive to succeed” [.68]).
• Factor 2 (Secure Non-Striving): Loaded cleanly on 12 items capturing perceived unconditional acceptance and independence from competitive performance. Factor loadings ranged from .38 to .69 (e.g., “Whether I succeed or fail, people value me as a person” [.67]; “Win or lose, people accept me anyway” [.65]).
• The two factors demonstrated an inverse inter-factor correlation (typically between r = -.30 and -.42), confirming that while related, they are not reciprocal mirrors, justifying their separation into distinct subscales.

Part 2 Factor Structure

Exploratory factor analysis of the 11 items assessing the reasons and anticipated consequences of underperformance yielded a stable three-factor model:

• Factor 1: Losing Out (3 items; factor loadings .68 to .85): Specifically captures socioeconomic and structural loss of opportunities.
• Factor 2: Overlooked (4 items; factor loadings .61 to .81): Captures passive social abandonment, invisibility, and omission.
• Factor 3: Active Rejection (4 items; factor loadings .58 to .79): Specifically captures overt punitive social behaviors, including active exclusion, disgust, criticism, and shaming.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Fit Indices

Structural equation modeling and CFA conducted on independent adult and clinical samples have consistently validated this multidimensional architecture. Representative goodness-of-fit indices reported in subsequent psychometric investigations demonstrate adequate to excellent fit:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ≥ .92 to .95
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) ≥ .91 to .94
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤ .052 to .064 (90% CI [.045, .071])
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) ≤ .058

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Strive to Avoid Inferiority Scales is a dual-part, self-report psychological measurement battery designed for both group administration and individual clinical evaluation.

Structural Configuration

• Total Item Count: 42 items (Part 1 = 31 items; Part 2 = 11 items).
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire or digital/interactive computer-based assessment.
• Target Population: Adolescents (ages 16+) and adults across general, occupational, student, and psychiatric clinical populations.
• Estimated Completion Time: Approximately 8 to 12 minutes for both parts combined.

Response Scales

• Part 1 Response Format: 5-point Likert scale (0 = NEVER, 1 = RARELY, 2 = SOMETIMES, 3 = MOSTLY, 4 = ALWAYS).
• Part 2 Response Format: 10-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Don’t agree”) to 10 (“Completely agree”).

Scoring Protocols and Subscales

• Part 1: Insecure Striving Subscale
  • Items: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 27, 30, 31 (Total: 19 items).
  • Scoring Procedure: Sum the raw scores of the 19 designated items. Theoretical range: 0 to 76. Higher scores reflect elevated competitive insecurity, conditional self-worth, and compulsive status striving to escape perceived inferiority.
• Part 1: Secure Non-Striving Subscale
  • Items: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 21, 24, 26, 28, 29 (Total: 12 items).
  • Scoring Procedure: Sum the raw scores of the 12 designated items. Theoretical range: 0 to 48. Higher scores reflect high social safeness, unconditional self-worth, and resilience against competitive threat. Note: Items are kept separate and are NOT reverse-scored into Insecure Striving.
• Part 2: Losing Out Subscale
  • Items: 3 items (under Section 1: Losing Out).
  • Scoring Procedure: Sum the 10-point ratings (1 to 10) across all 3 items. Theoretical range: 3 to 30. Higher scores denote acute fear of missed life opportunities and socioeconomic stagnation.
• Part 2: Overlooked Subscale
  • Items: 4 items (under Section 2: Overlooked).
  • Scoring Procedure: Sum the 10-point ratings (1 to 10) across all 4 items. Theoretical range: 4 to 40. Higher scores denote high fear of becoming invisible, neglected, and forgotten.
• Part 2: Active Rejection Subscale
  • Items: 4 items (under Section 3: Active Rejection).
  • Scoring Procedure: Sum the 10-point ratings (1 to 10) across all 4 items. Theoretical range: 4 to 40. Higher scores denote catastrophic fears of overt social shaming, hostile rejection, and ostracism.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Strive to Avoid Inferiority Scales were published in 2007 by Paul Gilbert and co-authors in the British Journal of Social Psychology. The copyright of the original publication and the scale items is held by the authors (© Gilbert et al., 2007) and the British Psychological Society.

• Clinical and Academic Research Use: The SAIS is classified as an open-access psychometric instrument for non-commercial academic research and clinical practice. Clinicians and researchers are permitted to utilize, administer, and reproduce the instrument without payment of royalties, provided that proper formal academic citation is given to the original 2007 publication.
• Commercial Applications: Commercial usage, inclusion within fee-based digital health platforms, corporate human resources screening tools, or published testing batteries requires explicit written permission and formal licensing from the primary author (Prof. Paul Gilbert) and the respective copyright holders.

References

The following foundational and contextual scientific publications document the development, validation, theoretical foundation, and clinical application of the SAIS:

• Castilho, P., & Pinto-Gouveia, J. (2011). Auto-compaixão: Estudo da validação da versão portuguesa da Escala da Auto-Compaixão e da sua relação com as formas de auto-crítica e auto-tranquilização. Psychologica, 54, 203–226. https://doi.org/10.14195/1647-8606_54_8
• Dunkley, D. M., Blankstein, K. R., & Berg, J. L. (2012). Perfectionism dimensions and the five-factor model of personality. European Journal of Personality, 26(3), 233–244. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.829
• Gilbert, P. (1992). Depression: The evolution of powerlessness. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Gilbert, P. (2000). The relationship of shame, social anxiety and depression: The role of the evaluation of social rank. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 7(3), 174–189. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-0879(200007)7:3<174::AID-CPP236>3.0.CO;2-U
• Gilbert, P., Broomhead, C., Irons, C., McEwan, K., Bellew, R., Mills, A., Gale, C., & Knibb, R. (2007). Striving to avoid inferiority: Scale development and its relationship to depression, anxiety and stress. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46(3), 633–648. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466606X157789
• Gilbert, P., McEwan, K., Bellew, R., Mills, A., & Gale, C. (2009). The dark side of competition: How competitive behaviour and striving to avoid inferiority are associated with higher anxiety, depression and stress. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 82(2), 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1348/147608308X379806
• Pinto-Gouveia, J., Castilho, P., Matos, M., & Marcelino, D. (2014). The adaptation and psychometric properties of the Striving to Avoid Inferiority Scale in a Portuguese sample. Revista Iberoamericana de Diagnóstico y Evaluación – e Avaliação Psicológica, 37(1), 147–167.
• Price, J., Sloman, L., Gardner, R., Gilbert, P., & Rohde, P. (1994). The social competition hypothesis of depression. British Journal of Psychiatry, 164(3), 309–315. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.164.3.309
• Stoeber, J., Stoll, O., Salmi, O., & Tiikkaja, J. (2008). Perfectionism and achievement goals in young Finnish ice-hockey players: Aspiring to make the NHL. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 6(3), 329–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2008.9671875

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)