The SCORS, or Social Cognition and Object Relations Scales

  

The SCORS, or Social Cognition and Object Relations Scales, were developed by Drew Westen to assess dimensions of social cognition and object relations in projective tests. Drew Westeis a professor of psychology and psychiatry at Emory University in the United States. He also serves as a strategic consultant to nonprofit and political organizations.

Drew Westen

The SCORS have been studied extensively with individuals from nonclinical populations and individuals with psychiatric disorders, and with children, adolescents, and adults. It would be impossible to cover all this research here, so here is a little taste of the instrument. I will refer to the older, original version of the SCORS, because Drew Westen recommends beginning with this version.

Theoretical Background

Object relations theory was developed by British theorists such as Winnicott, Bion, and Bowlby. Here, we will focus primarily on Winnicott’s ideas.

The term “object” refers both to the real people surrounding the child and to the internalized representations of significant people whom the child carries within. Object relations are enduring patterns of interpersonal behavior and cognitive and emotional processes that influence functioning in close relationships. A child’s object relations are shaped through the child’s relationship with the primary caregivers during infancy, usually the parents. The theory assumes that conflicts and difficulties arise from problematic internal representations of the self, of others, and of the relationship between the self and others. Such internal representations interfere with emotional regulation, interpersonal relationships, and the ability to work.

At the first stage of development, “there is no such thing as a baby without a mother.” The mother is deeply absorbed in caring for the infant, a state known as primary maternal preoccupation, and there is no psychological separation between them. The mother, as well as the father or other primary caregivers, creates a holding environment around the infant that mediates the world for the infant. Good-enough parents actively adapt themselves to the infant’s needs. At the beginning of the infant’s life, this adaptation is almost complete, and it gradually diminishes.

Initially, the infant perceives the caregiving figures not as whole people with all their different aspects, but as “part objects.” The infant focuses on those parts of the objects that satisfy or frustrate the infant’s needs. When the caregiving environment is “good enough,” and the level of frustration experienced by the infant is appropriate rather than excessive and frightening, a potential space develops between the infant and the caregivers. Within this space, the infant can use internal representations of the caregiving figures to help overcome experiences of frustration. Appropriate frustration makes it possible for the infant to develop an experience of separateness, a sense of being a separate self from the caregivers, a process known as differentiation, as well as a sense of competence.

A “good-enough” caregiving environment is also one that can contain the infant’s or child’s natural aggression without being “destroyed” by it. The child discovers that the parents are durable, strong, and protective, and begins to experience concern and love for them. In this way, the parents’ ability to contain aggression enables the child to develop empathy and the capacity to perceive the other person as a whole individual.

Under the conditions provided by a good-enough caregiving environment, the infant develops a true self. The infant feels able to express the full range of emotions without fear and experiences a sense of vitality and authenticity. When the infant learns that all the emotions within the self are legitimate, the infant also learns that all the emotions within another person are legitimate. The infant begins to perceive others as whole objects who contain complexity, both good and bad. The child understands that positive and negative experiences can occur with the same person, and that every person, including the child, is complex and not one-dimensional, not “only good” or “only bad,” and also exists independently. This process is known as integration.

When parents fail, in an extreme way, to provide a good-enough environment, for example, when they are not sufficiently emotionally available to respond reasonably to the infant’s needs, place their own needs before the infant’s, or are “destroyed” by the infant’s aggression, the infant must adapt to them. The infant learns that certain emotions cannot be expressed and must be contained within. In this way, the infant develops the experience of a false self. As a result, the infant has difficulty achieving healthy differentiation and integration, both within the self and in relation to other people, and relies more heavily on splitting.

Not everything is the parents’ “fault.” When an infant is born with neurological or temperamental difficulties, which may perhaps later lead to learning disabilities, caring for the infant is more difficult. It may be more difficult to understand the infant’s needs and respond to them. This, too, can result in an environment that is not sufficiently good enough.

According to Winnicott, every person has both a true self and a false self. The false self is the part of us that adapts to the environment and “complies” with accepted social conventions. We can voluntarily set it aside in situations that allow intimacy and present our true self. When a person feels unable to express the true self and believes it must constantly be concealed, this is a pathological condition.

The Four SCORS Scales

The four SCORS scales assess different dimensions of object relations:

A. Complexity of Representations of People

This scale assesses the extent to which a person clearly distinguishes between their own perspective and the perspectives of others. It examines the extent to which the person views the self and others as having stable, enduring, and multidimensional characteristics, and as psychological beings with complex motivations and subjective experiences.

B. Affective Quality of Relationships

This scale assesses the extent to which, on the basis of past experiences, the person expects the world and other people to intend to cause harm or terrible pain, or alternatively, the extent to which the person views interpersonal relationships as beneficial and enriching.

C. Capacity for Emotional Investment in Relationships and Moral Standards

This scale assesses the extent to which the person treats others as ends in themselves rather than as means to an end. It examines whether the person relates to others mainly in terms of their ability to satisfy the person’s needs, or whether the person is capable of investing in values, ideals, and committed relationships. It also examines the extent to which the person has developed moral standards and experiences interpersonal relationships as meaningful and involving commitment.

D. Understanding of Social Causality

This scale assesses the extent to which the person attributes causes to actions, thoughts, and feelings in a logical, accurate, complex, and psychologically minded manner. When a person understands that another individual has a complex inner world, the person also understands that the other individual acts for particular reasons rather than arbitrarily.

Each scale has five rating levels on which a child may receive a score. In other words, each projective story told by the child receives four scores, one for each scale.

All the scales except the affective quality of relationships have a developmental aspect. This means that, as children develop, they are expected to receive progressively higher scores on these scales.

For example, in relation to the first scale, the complexity of representations of people, kindergarten-aged children tend to define themselves through observable external categories: boy or girl, five years old, big or small, having light or dark hair, and so forth. When children describe others, they describe them in terms of the activities they perform, their profession or role, or their physical characteristics.

As development progresses, there is a shift away from a focus on concrete and external features toward an emphasis on psychological inner experience. Children begin to define themselves through their thoughts, feelings, and personal tendencies. When describing other people, they begin to refer to abstract personality traits, attitudes, and beliefs.

Descriptions of different people become more clearly differentiated from one another and also more qualified: “He is usually like this, but not always,” or “In certain situations, he behaves this way.” At this stage, children understand that people can change and may express different aspects of their personalities in different ways and in different situations. They also begin to understand that unconscious processes exist.

The complete SCORS manual is available online here.

I should note that using these scales is not easy. To use them properly, it is important to read the manual.

I believe it is less practical, and perhaps also less interesting, to score every story told by a child on every scale. In my opinion, the main value of the SCORS lies in becoming familiar with the different dimensions so that clinicians know what to look for when analyzing projective stories.

Westen, D. (1991). Clinical assessment of object relations using the TAT. Journal of Personality Assessment, 56(1), 56–74.