Tina FinebergAssociated PressLearning ObjectivesAfter.docx

Tina Fineberg/Associated Press
Learning Objectives
After reading this chapter, you should be
able to:
• Compare and contrast the interpersonal
model with neurobiological, psychodynamic,
behavioral, and cognitive models.
• Summarize the contributions of Harry Stack
Sullivan to the development of the interper-
sonal model.
• Explain Sullivan’s use of the term self-system.
• Describe the research Henry Murray carried
out at Harvard.
• Discuss the origin and uses of the Thematic
Apperception Test.
• Describe the two continua that define Timothy
Leary’s interpersonal circumplex model.
• Describe some of the revisions to the inter-
personal circumplex and the central themes
assessed by the circumplex.
Interpersonal Models of Personality 7

Chapter Outline
Introduction
7.1 Major Historical Figures
• Sullivan’s Theory of Interpersonal Relations
• Murray’s Unified Theory of Personality
• Evolution of the Circumplex Model
7.2 Contemporary Theoretical Models
• Benjamin’s Structural Analysis of Social
Behavior (SASB)
• Murray Bowen and His Contribution to the
Interpersonal System
• Klerman and Weissman’s Interpersonal
Model of Depression and Personality
• Kiesler’s Interpersonal Force Field
• Explain Lorna Smith Benjamin’s three copy processes: (1)
identification, (2) recapitulation, and (3) introjection.
• Describe Bowen’s systemic therapy and the importance of the
triangle.
• Describe how Klerman and Weissman’s interpersonal theory
originated from their effort to develop an effective
treatment for depression.
• Describe Donald Kiesler’s concept of transactional escalation.
• Describe attachment theory, the work of Bowlby and
Ainsworth, and the implications for adult intimate relationships.
• Identify some of the assessment tools used to evaluate

interpersonal processes.
Lec81110_07_c07_195-224.indd 195 5/21/15 12:40 PM
CHAPTER 7Introduction
7.3 Interpersonal Relations and Their Link
to Attachment Styles
• Bowlby and Ainsworth’s Attachment
Theory
• L’Abate’s Relational Competence
Theory
7.4 Assessment Strategies and Tools for
the Interpersonal Context
• Thematic Apperception Test
• Assessing the Interpersonal Circumplex
• Assessing Attachment Styles
• Other Measures Tapping Aspects of
Interpersonal Functioning
• Cultural Influences
Summary
Introduction
Researchers who study personality from an interpersonal
standpoint see inter-
actions with others as one of the best ways to examine
personality functioning.
Much of who we are is determined by our social relationships,
and social relation-

ships influence who we are. Family, friends, strangers, authority
figures, subordi-
nates—each of them influences how we act, and so who we are
as a person. Con-
sider how you behave with your mother or father, as opposed to
your best friend
or your intimate partner. Each relationship brings to the fore
different aspects of
your self, and this, in turn, influences the interpersonal
interaction.
Let’s consider the following video from an Occupy Wall Street
protest in Seattle:
http://ctgovernmentretaliations-
rosey.blogspot.com/2011/11/amazing-video-of
-violence-at.html. As a backdrop to the video, recall that the
Occupy Wall Street
movement began in September of 2011, in Zuccotti Park, which
is located near the
financial district of New York City. The movement was focused
on public percep-
tions that the financial sector, and the corporations it
represents, has too strong
of an influence over government, contributing to financial and
social inequalities
between the wealthiest individuals and the rest of the populace.
Although the
movement eventually grew to include other cities, even outside
the United States,
it was largely peaceful. The above video appears to illustrate an
exception.
What may have provoked this behavior by police? How would
you have reacted
had you been in the role of the police or the protestors?
Importantly, notice that

not all protestors and not all police behaved in the same
manner. Some individuals
appear more intent on provocation, defiance, and violent
response, whereas oth-
ers evidence considerably more restraint and submissive/passive
behavior.
The focus of this chapter is the role of interpersonal processes:
how they reflect
our personality, how they are shaped by our personality, and
how our responses to
others—whether they be close intimate partners, authority
figures, or even peers
we briefly encounter—play a pivotal role in determining how
we are (and allow
ourselves to be) treated.
Lec81110_07_c07_195-224.indd 196 5/21/15 12:40 PM
rosey.blogspot.com/2011/11/amazing-video-of-violence-at.html
rosey.blogspot.com/2011/11/amazing-video-of-violence-at.html
CHAPTER 7 7.1 Major Historical Figures
7.1 Major Historical Figures
The interpersonal model of personality represented a major
departure from previous mod-els, shifting the perspective from
a psychology of the individual to a psychology of interac-tions
between two individuals, otherwise known as dyadic
interaction. Examples of dyads
that can and have been studied include child-parent, husband-
wife, employer-employee, doctor-

patient, and teacher-student, to name a few. Importantly, dyads
are not static; they change both
as a function of time and as a function of their interdependence.
An important assumption of
this theory is that as a social interaction unfolds, the behavior
of one individual typically results in
complementary behavior by the other individual in the dyad.
Thus, the interpersonal perspective
assumes that personality is a fluid and evolving construct,
varying as a function of these interac-
tions. Of course, these interactions are not random. We play a
large role in determining with
whom we interact, how those interactions unfold, and even how
people respond to us. Thus,
although the model has the potential for the fluidity of
personality, the interactions generally tend
to reinforce our personalities.
When identifying theorists who emphasized the importance of
interpersonal interactions, the
list is long and distinguished. For example, William James
(1890) developed the concept of the
social me, Charles Horton Cooley (1902) introduced the term
looking-glass self to highlight how
people think others perceive them, George Herbert Mead (1913,
1934) emphasized that the self is
shaped by expected and actual reactions of others, and Alfred
Adler (1927) emphasized the social
motive (in German, gemeinschaftsgefuhl) as the fundamental
force driving human action. Some
theoreticians went a step further and centered their thinking
almost exclusively on interpersonal
behavior (broadly referred to as interpersonal models of
personality), and it is those individuals
who will be emphasized here.

One of the originators of the interpersonal model of psychology
was Harry Stack Sullivan, who was
the first to use the term interpersonal. Henry Murray was also
an early influential figure who
emphasized the use of scientific methods in studying dyads.
Murray Bowen was another signifi-
cant contributor to the interpersonal perspective, but he focused
on the three-person relationship
system (referred to as the trian-
gle). A fourth influential figure
was Timothy Leary, a notable
counterculture figure in the
1960s, who was a psychologist
who taught at Harvard until he
was dismissed because of his
experimentation with psyche-
delic drugs. Each of these indi-
viduals and their ideas will be
explored in this chapter along
with a number of other interper-
sonal theories. Attachment the-
ory, and especially its implica-
tions for adult intimate
relationships, will also be
discussed.
Beyond the Text: Classic Writings
Although not typically considered part of the interpersonal
tradition in psychology, George Herbert Mead penned
a classic paper in which he considered the social self as
central to any examination of self-identity. In this respect,
his ideas were very much in keeping with the major con-
tributors to the interpersonal movement. Read his paper,
“The Social Self,” (1913) at http://psychclassics.yorku.ca

/Mead/socialself.htm.
Reference: Mead, G. H. (1913). The Social Self. Journal
of Philosophy, Psychology, and Scientific Methods, 10,
374–380.
Lec81110_07_c07_195-224.indd 197 5/21/15 12:40 PM
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Mead/socialself.htm
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Mead/socialself.htm
Sullivan’s Theory of Interpersonal Relations
Harry Stack Sullivan, who was briefly discussed in Chapter 3, is
considered the father of interper-
sonal theory. The importance of Sullivan’s work relates not so
much to his theoretical contribu-
tions to personality, but rather to the fact that he shifted the
perspective from what occurs in the
mind to what is observable in human relationships
(Chrzanowski, 1977). Sullivan believed that
interpersonal patterns learned early in life are major
determinants of adult personality. In his
theory, the interpersonal situation is the key concept, expressing
his belief that to understand per-
sonality, the researcher should focus on the various ways in
which two people can relate (Pincus
& Ansell, 2003). Moreover, Sullivan believed that important
needs are essentially interpersonal
in nature and that satisfying those needs inevitably involves
others. Obviously, intimacy needs
are explicitly interpersonal, but so too is the need for
autonomy, as this involves the negotiation of depen-

dency needs. In fact, our survival depends on coopera-
tion and complementary transactions (also referred
to as reciprocal transactions, where the needs of all
individuals in the interaction are met), as well as on
our own need satisfaction.
Sullivan applied his theory to his experiences as a psy-
chotherapist to help him understand the interpersonal
processes at play between himself and his patients.
Unlike Freud’s transference relationship, which is
projected onto the psychiatrist by the patient, the
patient-therapist dyad that Sullivan described involves
a two-way relationship. Sullivan explains that both
participants in this interpersonal relationship are
co-constructing and co-evolving their experience as
they relate to one another, and he coined the term
participant-observer to describe this bidirectional
process. The point of emphasis is the evolving rela-
tionship that develops between therapist and client.
In other words, the analyst cannot be a blank screen;
by the very nature of the relationship, the therapist is
a participant in the analytic process—a process that
Sullivan describes as meaning making. The patient is
of course also an active participant; patients manage
their own needs and try to obtain approval from those
whose approval they desire, which could include the
therapist (Hazell, 1994). However, Sullivan believed that the
therapist’s participant-observer role
is deliberately non-authoritarian, because he believed that the
individual has to play the primary
role in driving therapeutic change. The participant-observer role
represents an important depar-
ture from Freud’s concept of the authoritarian therapist who
presents with neutrality and Kohut’s
mirroring relationship (both discussed in Chapter 3).

Mike Cherim/iStockphoto/Thinkstock
This person is being offered a drug for
the first time. Assuming he prefers not
to use the drug, then this decision can be
seen as a trade-off between a sense of
individuation and a desire to merge his
identity with that of the group via group
acceptance.
Lec81110_07_c07_195-224.indd 198 5/21/15 12:40 PM
The Role of Anxiety in Sullivan’s Interpersonal Theory
The central theme of Sullivan’s theory is that anxiety is the
primary force responsible for building
the self-system (Bischof, 1970), and that anxiety emerges
completely within the interpersonal
context. Specifically, he believed that anxiety increases when
our relationships are not mutually
satisfying, resulting from a mismatch between the two
individuals in the interaction, referred to
as a mismatch between two self-systems (see also Pincus &
Ansell, 2003).
Sullivan (1953) first coined the term self-system to account for
how interpersonal experiences
affect the manner in which personality is formed. He believed
the self-system was organized
around gaining satisfaction and avoiding anxiety. Insecurity and
unsatisfied organic needs gener-

ate tension or anxiety. Beginning from birth, humans attempt to
reduce anxiety by striving for
interpersonal security. Sullivan used the term “security
operations” to describe interpersonal tac-
tics to minimize anxiety by avoiding feeling abandoned or
denigrated. He also argued that security
operations serve to protect our self-esteem.
The individual strives for an optimum level of anxiety: Too
little, and there will be a lack of drive;
too much results in paralysis and inaction. Sullivan suggests
that conformity can lead to approval
from others, which all individuals seek. But conformity can
come at a cost to the true self, and that
also leads to anxiety. Among other things, anxiety interferes
with intimacy and hinders creativity
(Chrzanowski, 1977). Sullivan believed that individuals need to
learn to function in the presence of
anxiety without taking refuge in self-defeating actions like
conformity. In a sense, what we all are
attempting to do is balance the tension between our
individuality and our need for interpersonal
acceptance. For example, consider a situation where peers are
pressuring you to engage in risky
behavior, such as trying a drug. You are likely to feel that
trying the drug will lead to peer accep-
tance, but if this does not represent what you want to do, then
trying the drug and merging with
the peer group would be at the cost of part of your
individuality. Thus, the goal is to find a point
of balance where you can both express your individuality while
still being accepted. Of course,
healthy relationships are less likely to make us feel as though
we would be rejected for expressing
our individuality.

The Function of Anger
The way anger is managed is critical to our interpersonal
adjustment. Too much anger and our
interpersonal style will annoy and repel others. But if there is
not enough anger because we fear
alienating others, they may take advantage of us. Thus, how we
manage and express our anger is
critical to interpersonal functioning. Sullivan suggested that the
regulation of anger is also central
to intrapersonal functioning. In fact, personality problems are
often evident in those who are
unable to experience anger as well as those who chronically
react with irritation. Anger is a natural
response to an interpersonal injury. Fear of interpersonal
aggression and loss of control can inhibit
our experience of anger, but fear of anger in others can induce
anxiety (Chrzanowski, 1977). For
example, imagine that a colleague at work has intentionally
taken credit for your work. This is a
situation in which some anger would be an appropriate and
healthy response. In contrast, some
individuals would not display any anger for fear of losing
control (i.e., exhibiting too much anger;
sometimes referred to as over-controlled hostility) or because
they fear the anger will be recip-
rocated. Others might overreact or exhibit chronic anger. Thus,
the ability to experience anger
appropriately is critical to interpersonal functioning as
interpersonal injuries are inevitable in the
context of social interactions.
Lec81110_07_c07_195-224.indd 199 5/21/15 12:40 PM

Styles of Thinking and Communicating
Sullivan divided cognitive experience into three
developmentally based forms of thinking which
he labeled prototaxic, parataxic, and syntaxic. The term taxic
refers to the order or arrangement
of things, and each of these three types of thinking reflect the
lowest (or first) type of conscious
processes (prototaxic) to the last to develop and most mature
(syntaxic).
Prototaxic refers to the first type of conscious processes in
infancy and early childhood, in which
sensations and perceptions are fragmentary. In the absence of
direct exposure to someone, there
is no cognition regarding that person (i.e., out of sight, out of
mind). Prototaxic thinking in adult
interpersonal relationships reflects an infantile form of
communicating or of relating to others.
The term para means previous or earlier. Thus, parataxic refers
to responding to others based
on preconceived ideas about what they are like—that is, based
on pre-established schemata.
Parataxic behavior is similar to Freud’s notion of transference.
For example, those who tend to
respond to all authority figures as if they will be punitive
because they had fathers who were puni-
tive are engaging in parataxic behavior. Similarly, if you were
to avoid social interactions because
you assumed that others would insult or take advantage of you,
that would be parataxic.
The term syn refers to a fusion or bringing together. Syntaxic

refers to the ability to consider oth-
ers and use symbolic thinking. It is the most advanced
developmental level, according to Sullivan,
and allows for the highest level of communication with others.
Syntaxic behavior represents a
mature style of interpersonal communication. For example,
being able to identify and express
needs to others appropriately illustrates syntaxic behavior.
The theorists and researchers who followed Sullivan, such as
Murray, Leary, Benjamin, Bowen, and
Klerman and Wesserman (among others), built on this notion
and developed a variety of empirical
methods to study interpersonal interactions. The works of these
individuals will now be reviewed.
Murray’s Unified Theory of Personality
Murray was originally trained as a medical doctor and then
obtained a Ph.D. in biochemistry. Later,
he developed a passion for the field of psychology, and
especially personality theory. The goal of
Murray’s study of personality (which he termed personology),
was to integrate all of the ideas of
the leading theorists to allow for scientific testing. He referred
to this as the Unified Theory of
Personality. Murray amassed more personality data than any
researcher had previously, based on
extensive testing and interviewing of 51 male students at
Harvard. The results of this landmark
study were published in 1938. Although there were some mixed
reviews when it was published,
most workers in the field believed that Murray had succeeded in
strengthening the position of
psychoanalytic theory by bridging the gap between research and
analytic constructions (Winter &
Barenbaum, 1999).

Although he was highly influenced by both Freud and Jung,
Sullivan’s interpersonal perspective
also shaped him. As a result, the interpersonal influence is
highly evident in his writings and formu-
lations. For example, Murray believed that the dyad should be
thought of as a single system—one
that should be used to evaluate theory (Shneidman, 1981). Like
Sullivan, Murray believed that the
dyad should be the main focus of personality research. In his
view, understanding personality is
based on understanding the interpersonal processes that occur in
significant human relationships.
Lec81110_07_c07_195-224.indd 200 5/21/15 12:40 PM
Murray’s interest in the dyad led him to the idea that in
interpersonal transaction, themes are
expressed, and he believed these themes to be common to all
communication. Types of dyadic
themes include (1) reciprocation, (2) cooperation, (3)
competition, and (4) opposition. Murray
believed that some of the important components of personality
are better described by reference
to thematic dispositions, such as the tendency to cooperate or
compete, rather than in terms of
general personality predispositions (Shneidman, 1981).
Murray also proposed that themes are expressed and received in
a complementary way by two
participants. For example, an individual who needs to inform
(relate facts and/or rumors) is the

transmitter; the transmitter will require a receptor who needs
the information (state of curiosity
or personal interest). Murray was one of the first theorists to
embrace general systems theory
(von Bertalanffy, 1951), which was an attempt to identify
principles that can be applied to all disci-
plines, and apply it to the study of relationships (Shneidman,
1981). Indeed, this was the essence
of his Unified Theory of Personality. Murray’s contributions to
the systems theory approach was
the identification of 30 separate needs that he believed
subsumed the motivations for behavior.
Murray’s work was highly influential in stimulating research
among his many collaborators and
students. For example, his ideas were responsible for the later
development of what is known
as the interpersonal circle (IPC), which is a tool based on
Murray’s list of 30 needs. The IPC was
developed largely by Timothy Leary and his associates
(Freedman, Leary, Ossorio, & Coffey, 1951;
LaForge, Leary, Naboisek, Coffey, & Freedman, 1954; Leary,
1957). It is intended to provide a com-
plete system for analyzing interpersonal relationships and for
diagnosing psychological problems.
Evolution of the Circumplex Model
Influenced by the earlier work of Murray and several other
psychologists, along with Mead’s
(1934) sociological theory, Timothy Leary developed the
interpersonal circle within the field of
psychology (1957). Leary’s conceptual leap also owed much to
Sullivan’s notions about the impor-
tance of interpersonal behavior for diagnosing psychiatric
conditions (Benjamin, 1993). This view
insists that interpersonal behavior, rather than character traits or

symptom constellations, reflects
personality. Leary’s model of the interpersonal circle offered a
new conceptual framework for
understanding personality and a useful system for diagnosing
personality disorders. Leary (1957)
introduced the term interpersonal reflex to highlight the fact
that individuals will spontaneously,
and in an automated and involuntary manner, react to the
actions of others, and these reactions
can be classified by identifying a smaller number of underlying
constructs that characterize (and
are common to) all reactions.
Lec81110_07_c07_195-224.indd 201 5/21/15 12:40 PM
Figure 7.1: A depiction of Leary’s interpersonal circle
This represents one of the earlier versions of the interpersonal
circumplex, and although the essence of
the model has remained intact, some of the descriptive terms
have since been modified.
Source: Adapted from Kiesler, D. J. (1983). The 1982
interpersonal circle: A taxonomy for complementarity in human
transactions. Psychological Review, 90(3), 195–
214. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.90.3.185. Copyright © 1983 by
the American Psychological Association.
The basic dimensions of the IPC were used as the foundation,
and there are two axes (also
referred to as dimensions). The horizontal axis is labeled
“hostile,” or “cold,” or “distant” at the

left point and “love” or “friendly” at the opposing end. The
vertical axis is labeled “submissive”
(“non-assertive”) at the bottom and “dominant” (“controlling”)
at the top (see Figure 7.1). These
two dimensions result in four quadrants, which Leary
acknowledged were similar to the tempera-
ments described by Galen (also known as the four humors; see
Chapter 8 for a discussion).
Leary suggested that all dimensions of personality are
represented in this circular model. For
example, those who are stubborn and rigid in their relationships
would be placed in an octant
somewhere between dominance and love. And those who are
passive-aggressive would be some-
where between submission and hate. And those who are
perfectly adjusted, who have an optimal
blend of all characteristics, would find themselves in the middle
of this circle.
Guttman (1966) subsequently renamed Leary’s (1957)
interpersonal circle the circumplex model,
and this remains the more common term today. Like Leary’s
theory, the circumplex model is a
two-dimensional representation of interpersonal space, referring
to interpersonal needs, inter-
personal problems, interpersonal values, and the like. The
variables are theoretically organized
and represented as a circle (see also Kiesler, 1996; Wiggins,
1979), and the two dimensions that
define this interpersonal space and anchor the model are
typically referred to as agency and com-
munion. Agency refers to the process of becoming individuated
or of differentiating the self. Com-
munion refers to the process of becoming connected with others.
Thus, communion implicates

affiliation, friendliness, and love, whereas agency refers to
achieving status, controlling others,
striving for power and dominance (see Wiggins & Trapnell,
1996).
In 1983, Hogan provided a more simplified and colloquial
version of the circumplex, using the
terms get along and get ahead to define communion and agency,
respectively.
FriendlyHostile
Dominant
Competitive
Mistrusting
Cold
Assured
Aloof
Inhibited
Unassured
Exhibitionistic
Sociable
Submissive
Deferent
Trusting

Warm
Lec81110_07_c07_195-224.indd 202 5/21/15 12:40 PM
Research emerging from other traditions has defined the
circumplex factor space with the terms
affiliation and autonomy (see Benjamin, 1996), though the
resulting descriptors are very similar
(see Figure 7.2).
Figure 7.2: Revised circumplex model
This version of the circumplex model emphasizes agency and
communality as its two main factors, and
this is in keeping with the descriptive terms emphasized in most
circumplex models.
Source: Locke, K. D. (2005). Interpersonal problems and
interpersonal expectations in everyday life. Journal of Social
and Clinical Psychology, 24(7), 915–931.
Reprinted by permission of Guilford Publications.
Numerous researchers and theoreticians have adopted and
slightly modified Leary’s basic con-
cept, but the general characteristics remain essentially the same.
(Compare Figure 7.1 to 7.2.)
Sex Differences and the Circumplex Model
Research on the circumplex model suggests that it is a widely
replicable means of organizing

human behavior (e.g., Wiggins, 1979, 1991) and it has also been
used successfully in defining
personality disorders (Hennig & Walker, 2008; Lippa, 1995).
Some differences have emerged, how-
ever, in terms of how the circumplex model maps onto gender.
Critics contend that agency maps
onto masculinity and communion maps onto femininity (see also
Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974). For
example, Eagly (1995) notes that women demonstrate
interpersonal behaviors such as sensitivity,
friendliness, and concern for others, whereas men engage in
behaviors such as independence,
dominance, and control. A slightly different perspective was
adopted by Paulhus (1987), suggest-
ing that trait masculinity and trait femininity are essentially
mislabeled versions of (or proxies for)
the two circumplex dimensions.
In addition, researchers have also tried to identify the
descriptors from the circumplex model
that result in the largest sex differences. One of the more robust
sex differences with respect to
personality appears to be on the trait of aggression, with males
being considerably more verbally
Self-sacrificing
Cold/
Distant
Domineering/
Controlling
Vindictive/
Self-centered
Socially

inhibited
Intrusive/
Needy
Nonassertive
Overly
accommodating
CommunalUncommunal
U
n
a
g
e
n
ti
c
A
g
e
n
ti
c
Lec81110_07_c07_195-224.indd 203 5/21/15 12:40 PM
CHAPTER 7 7.2 Contemporary Theoretical Models
and physically aggressive than
females (Hyde, 2007). Similarly,

when considering the descrip-
tors of tender-mindedness and
warmth, females scored con-
siderably higher, whereas men
scored higher on assertiveness
(Feingold, 1994). One of the
reasons that researchers have
emphasized sex differences is
that the observed findings are
consistent with a number of
theoretical perspectives, includ-
ing gender schema theory (e.g.,
Bem, 1981) and sociobiological/
evolutionary theory (e.g., Schmitt & Buss, 2000). Despite
theoretical support and the observed
gender differences in some areas, the vast majority of the
descriptors appear to be more similar
than different on the interpersonal circumplex, and the
differences that do emerge tend to be
small to moderate (Hyde, 2005). Thus, researchers typically use
the same circumplex model to
characterize males and females alike, and this suggests that
male and female personalities are
more similar than dissimilar.
7.2 Contemporary Theoretical Models
Unlike the behavioral and cognitive models of personality, the
interpersonal models and the psychodynamic approaches
emerged out of efforts to develop treatments for mental disor-
ders. As we saw, the interpersonal movement was begun by
Harry Stack Sullivan’s work and
later expanded by Henry Murray and Timothy Leary, who were
primarily academics rather than
clinicians. In contrast, the theory and research presented in this
section emphasizes academia

within the clinical tradition, emphasizing the works of Lorna
Smith Benjamin, Murray Bowen, and
the combined efforts of Klerman and Weissman. Much of the
work to be reviewed draws heavily
upon the ideas formulated by Sullivan, Murray, and Leary.
Because of the significant number of theorists who have
developed or modified existing interper-
sonal models, and researchers who have validated many of these
concepts, there is now a general
consensus that interpersonal views of the self are a critical
component of any theory of personal-
ity. In fact, in a recent review of the extant literature,
researchers concluded that the self is essen-
tially a socially defined construct, and that an integrative view
of the self in relation to significant
others can consistently predict numerous outcomes in life
(Chen, Boucher, & Tapias, 2006). In
summarizing the literature, the authors conclude, among other
things, that what they term the
relational self (the self in relation to important others) is an
autonomous source of influence,
it provides meaning and orientation, it accounts for both the
continuity and situation-specific
manifestations of personality, and it is broadly linked to both
current and future psychological
well-being (Chen et al., 2006).
Beyond the Text: Clinical Applications
The interpersonal circumplex model for conceptualizing,
organizing, and assessing interpersonal behavior can be
applied to the individual, group, or even broad organiza-
tions (Wiggins, 2003). The link below allows you to explore
how the interpersonal circumplex applies to managerial
issues at all three levels. Personality psychology is quite

frequently applied to industrial and organizational settings
and this has led to a great deal of research. Explore here:
http://www.hsnz.co.nz/files/html5/circumplex/.
Lec81110_07_c07_195-224.indd 204 5/21/15 12:40 PM
Benjamin’s Structural Analysis of Social Behavior (SASB)
Lorna Benjamin’s work has resulted in one of the most widely
accepted, empirically based models
of contemporary personality theory—a model concerned with
the structural analysis of social
behavior (SASB; Benjamin, 1974, 1986, 1993, 1996, 2003).
Benjamin believes that biology and
social behavior are inextricably linked and that they evolve
together. Accordingly, she feels that
intrapsychic and social factors needed to be taken into account
to understand personality, and
that they should not be neglected in favor of trait descriptions
(1986).
In her early training, Benjamin worked with primates as a
student of Harry Harlow (Blum, 2002).
This experience had a strong influence on her scientific
interests in attachment and interpersonal
theory, as did her later training with Carl Rogers and her
experience as a clinical psychologist.
These training experiences provided her with a unique
combination of strong scientific, psycho-
therapeutic, and investigative skills.
The structural analysis of social behavior combines aspects of
both Leary’s model, discussed ear-

lier in this chapter, and Earl Schaefer’s model of parental
behavior (1965), which focused on the
tension that often develops as a result of the need to control
children and the opposing need to
allow them the independence so that they can become
responsible and autonomous adults (Mil-
lon, Davis, Millon, Escovar, & Meagher, 2000). Benjamin
(1986) was interested in relating social
variables to psychiatric diagnostic categories. In an effort to
provide empirical validation, she con-
ducted a study of 108 psychiatric inpatients using a variety of
measures, including the Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory.
The result of Benjamin’s research is the SASB model, which is
a tri-circumplex model of personal-
ity. It was developed as an objective measure of interpersonal
processes and can be used to code
both videotapes and audiotapes of social interactions—in
psychotherapy sessions or in family or
group encounters. It captures verbal interactions and allows
observers to code them for statistical
analysis. There are three classification dimensions: (1) love-
hate, (2) enmeshment- differentiation,
and (3) interpersonal focus. Each dimension is assigned a value,
and when these values are com-
bined, the SASB yields as many as 108 different classifications.
These, in turn, can be reduced to
simpler descriptions (Benjamin, 1986).
Benjamin also identified three ways in which interpersonal
patterns can be expressed or copied,
termed copy processes. They are: (1) identification, which
refers to behaving in a fashion simi-
lar to another person—in a sense, adopting their values and
characteristics; (2) recapitulation,

which is defined as acting as though someone from the past is
still present and in charge; and (3)
introjection, which occurs when individuals treat themselves as
they were previously treated. For
example, if you had a positive attachment figure who affirmed
your goodness, you might introject
this positive notion of goodness and make it part of your
internal model; if you had a more nega-
tive attachment, you might treat yourself poorly.
To illustrate these three copy processes, Benjamin (1993)
describes the case of a paranoid hus-
band, who observed his father exert hostile control over his
mother. As a result, the husband now
exhibits the same behavior with his wife. Benjamin described
this as an example of identification
of imitation. If the wife of the paranoid husband also had a
controlling and demeaning mother,
then a natural and adaptive response (at least adaptive in the
short run) would be to complement
the mother’s behavior with submissiveness. Benjamin suggested
that with prolonged exposure
Lec81110_07_c07_195-224.indd 205 5/21/15 12:40 PM
to her mother, the woman’s self-concept would internalize the
mother’s statements. Thus, as
an adult and when functioning within a marriage, her self-
concept and compliance to hostile
demands results in her strong commitment to the paranoid and
jealous husband. In essence, Ben-
jamin concluded that the husband’s hostility and control

reinforces and complements the wife’s
response, illustrating the principle of recapitulation. Their
interpersonal histories have therefore
determined (at least in the absence of any therapeutic
intervention) a stable, but miserable, mar-
riage (Benjamin, 1993). The flexibility of Benjamin’s theory is
demonstrated by the fact that she
utilizes behavioral concepts readily, and yet refers to internal
experiences (in keeping with psycho-
dynamic and cognitive models) in expressing her ideas.
Research suggests that these copy patterns can be recovered
using the SASB coding, and they
appear to be valid concepts (Critchfield & Benjamin, 2010).
Moreover, the SASB model can be
used to both predict what might happen after an interpersonal
event or what may have happened
beforehand.
Research examining some of the above-described interpersonal
patterns has been limited, but
that which has been done generally supports the theory.
Working within an interactionist perspec-
tive, Kausel and Slaughter (2011) tested the explanatory power
of the complementary hypotheses
in predicting attraction in organizational hiring practices.
Participants were 220 job seekers who
provided self-ratings on measures of personality, organizational
traits, and their level of attraction
toward a potential future employer. They found that
organizations that employed recruitment
strategies based on complementary personalities were more
successful than those using the strat-
egy of similarity.
The SASB has been used widely to study such things as

evaluations of initial dating interactions
(e.g., Eastwick, Saigal, & Finkel, 2010), predictions of
therapeutic outcomes for interpersonally
complementary relationships early in therapy (Maxwell, Tasca,
Gick, Ritchie, Balfour, & Bissada,
2012), and assessments of social perceptions (Erickson &
Pincus, 2005). It even shows some appli-
cability in the interpretation of dream content (Frick & Halevy,
2002).
Murray Bowen and His Contribution to the Interpersonal System
Murray Bowen developed systemic therapy, which is a type of
psychotherapy that addresses
people not on an individual level, as was common in earlier
forms of therapy, but as people in
relationship. Systemic therapy is essentially interpersonal
theory as applied to a clinical context.
It focuses on the interactions of groups, their interactional
patterns, and dynamics. Systemic ther-
apy has its roots in family therapy, or more precisely family
systems therapy, as it was later known.
Bowen developed his theory while working with families of
schizophrenic children, eventually
applying over two decades of clinical work and research to the
development of family systems
theory (Bowen, 1966). Bowen developed a number of concepts,
each having clear interpersonal
implications. Some of these concepts are here described, though
the constructs that relate more
directly (or exclusively) to his clinical work in family
dynamics, especially between parents and
their children, will not be reviewed.
Lec81110_07_c07_195-224.indd 206 5/21/15 12:40 PM

Wavebreak Media/Thinkstock
In this triangle, there is one party who is clearly less
involved in the interaction. Bowen would argue that this
leads to feelings of rejection and also to attempts to re-
enter the interaction. Could the overt look of dejection be
a means of re-engaging the other members?
The Triangle
Bowen believed the triangle, referring
to a three-person relationship, was the
smallest unit in an interpersonal context.
The triangle was considered the basic
building block of larger interpersonal
systems because it is the smallest stable
system of relationships. Bowen believed
that the two-person system (dyad) was
too unstable because it was unable to
tolerate tension without having to draw
in a third party. In contrast, the triangle
can tolerate considerable more ten-
sion because conflict can be diverted by
the third member when the other two
members are interacting and experienc-
ing tension. In essence, the tension in
a triangle can shift among three poten-
tial relationships, thereby spreading
the load and minimizing a break in the
triangle. Bowen also believed that if ten-
sion was too high for the triangle, then it
could spill over into interrelated triangles, thereby stabilizing
the system (though not necessarily

resolving the problem that caused the tension). Bowen also
notes that despite the stability of the
triangle, it always leaves one person as less involved,
connected, or interpersonally comfortable
relative to the other two individuals (the proverbial “outsider,”
“third wheel,” or “odd man out”),
and this can lead to feelings such as anxiety and rejection,
either from the anticipation of or from
actually being the third party. Bowen believed that individuals
move from the inside to outside
positions in the triangle as each negotiates to become an insider
(typically when the interactions
are calm and favorable) or when trying to become an outsider
(typically when there is too much
tension in the triangle and watching the other two in conflict is
now more desirable). Importantly,
although the interpersonal triangle grew out of the model of two
parents and one child, Murray
and others eventually applied it to all three-person
relationships.
Self-Differentiation
Another concept Bowen introduced that is central to systemic
therapy is that of self-differentiation,
which refers to the individual’s ability to maintain a distinct
sense of self, separate from the tri-
angle or group (Bowen, 1978). Bowen noted that we naturally
develop some sense of self, but
the extent to which it develops and is differentiated from others
is largely driven by the available
relationships in childhood and adolescence. Bowen believed that
with insufficient differentiation,
individuals are too focused on receiving acceptance and
approval from others, thereby empha-
sizing conformity over the true self. Similarly, Bowen

suggested that those who do not conform
(i.e., rebels) are also poorly differentiated; the difference is that
the “self” is now largely defined
Lec81110_07_c07_195-224.indd 207 5/21/15 12:40 PM
in opposition to others. Obviously, the goal is to achieve
differentiation, in which despite the rec-
ognition of the need for some interdependence, a separate self
emerges that can tolerate some
degree of rejection, conflict, and criticism (Bowen, 1978). For
example, the rebellious individual
can achieve a sense of autonomy by differentiating in some
respects from others, but it would be
maladaptive to simply be oppositional in all respects, since the
“self” would still be too tightly tied
to others. The latter strategy likely emerges from the
individual’s lack of differentiated sense of
self. Because all families, groups and triangles will vary in the
degree of self-differentiation of their
members, the interdependence, emotional intensity, and conflict
within the groups will also vary.
With greater interdependence (less differentiation of the self),
there will be more problems and
greater anxiety.
Bowen provided numerous examples of how this might manifest
with respect to one’s family of
origin, and in this respect, interpersonal theory here has some
parallels to theories that empha-
size family dynamics, such as psychodynamic theory. For
example, Bowen believed that while

everyone has some degree of unresolved problems with their
family of origin, those with less dif-
ferentiation of the self have more problems. Bowen suggested
that when you return home to visit
family, if you feel like a child and find it difficult to make
decisions for yourself, or if you experience
a considerable amount of guilt when in contact with your
parents, then these are signs of poorer
self-differentiation.
Notice how this aspect of Bowen’s interpersonal theory overlaps
with other theories discussed
earlier in the text. For example, Freud might refer to a less
well-formed ego as the cause of prob-
lems associated with poor self-differentiation when an adult
child returns to visit his or her family
of origin. Behaviorists might suggest that you are simply falling
back into well-learned conditioned
responses when returning home. Cognitive theorists might
suggest that the presence of your par-
ents in any context is likely to activate cognitive schemas that
you employed most frequently
when you interacted with them. Presumably, if interactions have
been minimal as an adult, it is
the childhood schemas that would be most accessible.
Emotional Cutoff
Bowen (1966) also introduced the term emotional cutoff to refer
to the termination of any emo-
tional contact with another individual in order to manage
unresolved issues. Importantly, the lim-
iting of contacting may decrease conflict and tension, but the
problem is not resolved. Moreover,
the individual is then vulnerable in other relationships that may
be sought out to compensate for

the one that has been cut off, thereby leading to decreased self-
differentiation in those relation-
ships and too much interdependence.
Research also appears to support the idea that poor self-
differentiation and the experience of
emotional cutoff leads to greater problems. For example, in one
study, researchers demonstrated
that three distinct factors underlying self-differentiation
(including the factors of emotional cut-
off and emotional reactivity) predicted the incidence of mental
health symptoms (Jankowski &
Hooper, 2012) and this parallels other work showing how the
differentiation of the self predicts
other aspects of psychological well-being (e.g., Hooper &
DePuy, 2010). Thus, there does appear
to be some recent empirical support for some of Bowen’s
primary theoretical positions.
Lec81110_07_c07_195-224.indd 208 5/21/15 12:40 PM
Societal Emotional Process
Although Bowen discussed the above concepts largely within
the context of nuclear and extended
families and expanded on the theory within the bounds of family
systems therapy (the context
within which he practiced), they can likewise be applied to
other interpersonal interactions.
Bowen did, however, introduce one concept that was explicitly
applied to groups outside the fam-
ily, which he referred to as societal emotional process. This

concept characterizes how societal
behavior is governed by emotional systems (as opposed to
simply focusing on cultural influences).
Thus, the societal emotional process involves how a society
reacts to the emotional needs of the
individual. In Bowen’s work with juvenile delinquents, he
hypothesized that the courts were play-
ing the role of parents for the juveniles by imposing
punishments and expressing disappointment
in their behavior. Parallels can also be drawn to interactions
that occur in schools and other gov-
ernment agencies, where the agency plays the role of parent.
Bowen suggested that in the fami-
lies of origin, parents often failed to deal with the delinquent’s
problems directly in order to avoid
anxiety and gain short-term peace, but that this was at a long-
term cost for the child and the fam-
ily unit. He characterized this decision as a regressive pattern,
and noted that institutions could
likewise fail to deal with problems and that this would result in
a regressive pattern for society
(e.g., less principled decision-making by community and
business leaders, bankruptcies, depletion
of resources, and the like). In this respect, Bowen believed that
his interpersonal theory would
better account for both periods of regression and progression in
society because it accounted for
the individual in context of society, rather than studying society
alone.
Klerman and Weissman’s Interpersonal Model of Depression
and Personality
In the 1970s, while researching the use of antidepressant
medication, Klerman and Weissman
developed an interpersonal model of depression based heavily
on Sullivan’s work; their work

later expanded to include other clinical syndromes and
personality disorders (Klerman & Weiss-
man, 1986; Klerman, Weissman, Rounsaville, & Chevron, 1984;
Weissman, Markowitz, & Klerman,
2000, 2007). Although their model is not considered a
personality theory, it deals with important
concepts in personality from an interpersonal perspective.
Klerman and Weissman ground their model on Bowlby’s (1982)
attachment theory (discussed in
Chapter 3). To review, attachment theory argues that humans
have an innate tendency to seek
and maintain attachments. Attachments lead to the formation
and expression of intense human
emotions, which strengthen and renew these bonds.
Furthermore, these attachments establish
caretaker-infant bonds that are fundamentally important for
human survival. Ainsworth’s work
with the experimental model known as the “strange situation”
allows observers to classify dif-
ferent types of attachment (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall,
1978); attachment styles from
infancy demonstrate stability over the lifetime. Research with
this model indicates that when
major attachments are disrupted, anxiety and sadness often
result and, in extreme cases, can
later predispose the individual to depression (Mills, 2005).
Emphasizing Social Roles in Defining the Self and
Psychopathology
The Klerman and Weissman model is especially interested in
social roles within the family, work-
place, community, and among peers (Klerman et al., 1984).
They note that these roles reflect
relationships that are often determined by the individual’s

position within the social system. Like
Sullivan, they believe that disturbed interpersonal relationships
are responsible for human dys-
function. Accordingly, the emphasis in this model is on
understanding and treating depression and
Lec81110_07_c07_195-224.indd 209 5/21/15 12:40 PM
other disorders, such as personality disorders, in an
interpersonal context. The model looks for
relationships between personality traits and depression, paying
close attention to three aspects
of personality and interpersonal relations:
1. Symptom function. Clinicians look at the development of
symptoms of depression (such
as sleep and appetite disturbance, low energy, frequent mood
variation, and increased
emotionality). These are presumed to have both biological and
psychological causes.
2. Social and interpersonal relations. Especially important are
interpersonal interactions,
whose patterns might be based on childhood experiences,
current social reinforcement,
and perceptions related to personal mastery and competence.
3. Personality and character problems. Clinicians also look at
enduring traits, such as inhib-
ited expression of anger or guilt, poor psychological
communication with significant
others, and difficulty with self-esteem. These traits determine a

person’s reactions to
interpersonal experience. Personality patterns form part of the
person’s predisposition to
depression (Klerman et al., 1984).
One of the assumptions of the Klerman
and Weissman model is that humans
are social beings and that healthy func-
tioning requires interpersonal connec-
tions. All interpersonal connections are
thought to be rooted in our attachment
experiences during infancy, but the
focus of assessment and intervention
would be on the interpersonal experi-
ences that are manifesting currently in
one’s life. Consider depression, which
often involves deficits in interpersonal
relationship skills, with some studies
suggesting that these deficits not only
vary as a function of transient depres-
sion, but also appear as stable defi-
cits over time in those with histories of
depression (e.g., Petty, Sachs-Ericsson,
& Joiner, 2004). For example, some
individuals lack the skills required for appropriate social
interaction, such as empathy (e.g.,
Grynberg, Luminet, Corneille, Grèzes, & Berthoz, 2010) or self-
assertion (e.g., Sanchez &
Lewinson, 1980). Others may have a limited number of
relationships due to social with-
drawal both in childhood (e.g., Katz, Conway, Hammen,
Brennan, & Najman, 2011) and adult-
hood (e.g., Choi & McDougall, 2007). Research also suggests
that depression can occur when
relationships are present, but are either perceived to be absent

(e.g., Cacioppo, Hawkley, &
Thisted, 2010) or perceived as shallow and unfulfilling (i.e.,
poor quality relationships; Leach,
Butterworth, Olesen, & Mackinnon, 2013).
iStock/Thinkstock
Do marital disputes lead to depression or does
depression result in more marital disputes?
Lec81110_07_c07_195-224.indd 210 5/21/15 12:40 PM
The conclusion is that interpersonal intimacy and closeness
seem to facilitate emotional respond-
ing and provide protection against stress and mental disorders.
Not surprisingly, many studies
have linked marital discord to depression (Whisman & Bruce,
1999), with meta-analytic summa-
ries of the literature finding a consistent and strong effect for
both men and women (Whisman,
2001). It seems clear that marital disputes may lead to
symptoms of depression; it isn’t certain,
although it is considered likely, that depression might also lead
to marital disputes. Even within
intimate relations, those who have a tendency to be highly
dependent are more likely to become
depressed and experience marital dissatisfaction (Uebelacker,
Courtnage, & Whisman, 2003). This
latter finding begins to bridge the connection between the
experience of mood states and more
stable personality dispositions—in this case, traits related to
dependency.

In a similar vein, disorders of personality are likewise
hypothesized to relate to interpersonal func-
tioning. For example, avoidant personality characteristics
appear to be related to interpersonal
competencies, such that conflict management skills appear to
mediate the relation between stress
symptoms of avoidant personality disorder (Cummings et al.,
2013). Borderline personality disor-
der is not only defined by interpersonal difficulties from a
diagnostic standpoint (American Psychi-
atric Association (APA), 2013), but research also implicates the
presence of interpersonal dysfunc-
tions (e.g., Minzenberg, Fisher-Irving, Poole, & Vinogradov,
2006). Research on those evidencing
schizotypal personality disorder also indicates that they are less
likely to have “real life” friends in
favor of interpersonal interactions that are internet-based
(Mittal, Tessner, & Walker, 2007). Even
schizoid personality disorder has been associated with
interpersonal deficits (Mittal, Kalus, Bern-
stein, & Siever, 2007). Given these findings and the fact that
interpersonal deficits are frequently
noted in the DSM-IV-TR (APA, 1994) diagnostic criteria, it is
not surprising that researchers have
recently proposed that the personality disorders defined in the
DSM-5 (APA, 2013) are similarly
related to deficits in interpersonal functioning (Skodol et al.,
2011). Thus, Klerman and Weissman
have provided an important interpersonal model for the
treatment of depression as well as a the-
oretical foundation for defining personality disorders. Their
theory and treatment approach has
a firm foundation in attachment theory, emphasizing the
importance of relationships for human
adaptation and functioning.

Kiesler’s Interpersonal Force Field
A final interpersonal model to be reviewed is Donald Kiesler’s
interpersonal force field (Anchin &
Kiesler, 1982; Kiesler, 1983), which is a two-dimensional
model based on the previously discussed
work of Leary (see Figure 7.3). Like its predecessor, the model
describes interpersonal interac-
tions in terms of two dimensions, using the terms affiliation
(love-hate, friendliness-hostility) and
control (dominance-submission, higher-lower status) (Kiesler,
1986). Kiesler believed that these
two dimensions dominate how individuals interact with each
other. Kiesler explains that begin-
ning very early in life, people begin to adopt a distinct and
identifiable interpersonal style. For
example, an individual might approach all new acquaintances in
a friendly, but highly dominant
manner. This mode of interacting contains a very clear message
concerning the degree of close-
ness and dominance that is expected of others. In future
interactions, patterns that are set during
Lec81110_07_c07_195-224.indd 211 5/21/15 12:40 PM
the first encounter are typically reinforced, with each person
influencing how the other reacts.
Kiesler (1986) refers to this as exuding a “force field,” which
largely determines the limited class of
responses that can be exhibited in response. In this sense,
individuals strongly encourage “com-
plementary” responses that essentially validate (behaviorists

would say “reinforce”) our inter-
personal style. Kiesler uses the expression interpersonal force
field to describe the influences at
play in interpersonal interaction.
The principle of complementarity styles was hypothesized to
occur in all relationships, but espe-
cially longer-term relationships (Carson, 1969; Kiesler, 1983;
Orford, 1986; Wiggins, 1982). Spe-
cifically, people in dyadic interactions are thought to negotiate
the definition of their relationship
through verbal and nonverbal cues, and the specific nature of
this give-and-take can be predicted
by a model (see Figure 7.3). As an illustration, negotiation
should occur along the following lines:
dominant-friendliness invites submissive-friendliness, and vice
versa, whereas dominant-hostility
invites submissive-hostility (e.g., passive-aggressive actions),
and vice versa.
A version of Kiesler’s (1986) interpersonal circle is depicted in
Figure 7.3 (see also adaption by Mil-
lon et al., 2000). Kiesler’s emphasis on the way relationships
and personalities interact and influ-
ence each other is clear in this model. It says, in effect, that if
you behave a certain way, others will
respond accordingly (the position on the circle opposite to the
one that describes your behavior).
As an example (as in Figure 7.3), if you behave in a cold-
punitive manner, the response will be
warm and pardoning. Similarly, controlling behavior will lead
to a docile response.
Lec81110_07_c07_195-224.indd 212 5/21/15 12:40 PM

Figure 7.3: Depiction of Kiesler’s interpersonal circle
This version of the interpersonal circumplex illustrates both
normal and pathological functioning.
Source: Adapted from Kiesler, D. J. (1983). The 1982
interpersonal circle: A taxonomy for complementarity in human
transactions. Psychological Review, 90(3), 195–
214. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.90.3.185. Copyright © 1983 by
the American Psychological Association.
Another concept introduced by Kiesler is what he calls
transactional escalation (Van Denburg &
Kiesler, 1993). Transactional escalation describes how stress
can make the individual’s patterns
of interpersonal behavior more extreme and rigid, thereby
reducing even further the range of
behavioral responses that the person might produce. For
example, an accountant who tends to be
compulsive (focused on details) and whose employer is facing
financial difficulties may become
highly anxious. Stress caused by his fear of losing his job may
lead him to become even more fix-
ated on minor details so that, in the end, his behavior becomes
even more compulsive.
Arrogant–
Rigidly
autonomous
Confident–
Self-reliant

Spontaneous–
Demonstrative
Outgoing
Histrionic
Frenetically
gregarious
Controlling
Dictatorial
Critical–
Ambitious
Rivalrous–
Disdainful
Suspicious–
Resentful
Paranoid–
Vindictive
Icy–Cruel
Rancorous–
Sadistic Devoted–
Indulgent
All-Loving–
Absolving

Gullible–
Merciful
Ambitionless–
FlatteringSubservient
Abrasive–
Helpless
Unresponsive
Escapistic
Cooperative–
Helpful
Warm–
Pardoning
Trusting–
Forgiving
Respectful–
Content
Docile
Self-
doubting–
Dependent
Taciturn
Aloof
Antagonistic–

Harmful
Cold–
Punitive
Hostile
Deta
ched
Friendly
WarmTrusting
D
e
fe
re
n
tS
u
b
m
is
si
ve
U
na
ss
ur

ed
In
hi
bi
te
d
Cold
Soci
able
Ex
hi
bi
tio
ni
st
ic
A
ss
ur
edM
istrusting
C
om

petitive
D
o
m
in
a
n
t
Relatively more normal
Relatively more pathological (outer circle)
Lec81110_07_c07_195-224.indd 213 5/21/15 12:40 PM
CHAPTER 7 7.3 Interpersonal Relations and Their Link to
Attachment Styles
7.3 Interpersonal Relations and Their Link to Attachment
Styles
Early contributors to attachment theory were reviewed in
Chapter 3, but the more central aspects of this theory clearly
apply to any interpersonal model of personality (see Fraley &
Shaver, 2008). The basic premise of attachment theory is that
early relationships with pri-
mary caregivers (typically referring to the infant-mother bond)
establish a framework for adult
attachments. In this section, we will review the works of early
contributors such as John Bowlby,
Mary Ainsworth, and Luciano L’Abate.

Bowlby and Ainsworth’s Attachment Theory
At the heart of attachment theory is the assumption that all
mammals begin with a basic need for
attachment to adult figures that is not only necessary for
survival (e.g., for food and protection)
but is also desired for higher-level needs, such as love (Bowlby,
1982). Thus, early attachments
form for all infants with the primary caregiver(s) who can
provide those basic needs. The relational
aspect of this theory is immediately apparent because it is the
caregiver’s response to the infant’s
basic needs that contributes to the somewhat stable pattern that
emerges and then sustains itself
throughout the infant’s life. John Bowlby adopted an
evolutionary perspective in studying attach-
ment, and he noted that this is an adaptive behavior that occurs
in most social primates.
Initially, Bowlby studied the process of
attachment by focusing on deprivation
of attachment (e.g., maternal loss), but
beginning in the 1950s, Bowlby began to
collaborate with the developmental psy-
chologist Mary Ainsworth. The research-
ers noted that attachment behavior early
in life has clear survival advantages, as it
results in receiving protection and mate-
rial support from the group (family, com-
munity, etc.) and minimizes the potential
dangers of being isolated. Moreover, the
researchers noted that seeking the prox-
imity of others during times of threat is
especially adaptive.
Based on the collaborative efforts of
Bowlby and Ainsworth, attachment

theory suggests that the primary care-
giver’s response, in conjunction with the
attachment-seeking behavior from the infant (i.e., the infant’s
needs), results in a series of expec-
tations formed by the infant, which in turn, manifest as stable
behavioral patterns in relationships
(see Bretherton, 1992). This was studied in an experimental
context by Ainsworth, in what she
termed the strange situation. This research paradigm involves
briefly separating a child from his
or her mother in a novel setting and introducing a stranger. The
goal of the research was to closely
study how the child responded to the absence and return of his
or her mother, and how that might
compare to the responses to the stranger. Ainsworth and
colleagues studied and classified the
children in terms of their behavioral responses in this situation
(Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall,
1978). Their initial work resulted in three classifications:
. Rayes/Lifesize/Thinkstock
This relationship and the bond that forms as a result is
thought to be central to the ability of the infant to form
healthy, secure relationships as an adult.
Lec81110_07_c07_195-224.indd 214 5/21/15 12:40 PM
Attachment Styles
1. Avoidant was applied to infants who generally avoid
opportunities to interact with their
primary caregivers, and as a rule are more isolative and least

affected by the mother’s
departure in the strange situation. Ainsworth hypothesized that
these infants were likely
rebuffed early on by their parents, and thus adopted this
interpersonal strategy.
2. Anxious-ambivalent was used to characterize infants who are
very clingy to their moth-
ers and become very upset when the primary caregiver leaves
the room. They also
appear to rebuff the caregiver upon their return to the strange
situation, despite the
apparent anxiety about her departure. These individuals are
thought to be more exag-
gerated in their attempts to attach with others, which in turns
drives many people away.
3. Secure infants easily explore the strange room while
maintaining contact with the care-
giver, decreasing exploratory behavior when the caregiver
leaves, and reattaching with
the caregiver upon her return. Thus, these infants are easily
soothed, and are not marked
by the isolation tendencies of the avoidant infant or the overly
clingy behavior of the
anxious-ambivalent.
Importantly, longitudinal research on a wide range of
individuals indicates that there is consider-
able stability over the first 20–25 years of life with respect to
these attachment styles (Waters,
Merrick, Treboux, Crowell, & Albersheim, 2000). Such findings
are critical as they confirm the basic
assumption that early attachments are critical to later life
attachments. Moreover, these early
patterns of attachment with one’s primary caregiver appear to

have lifelong implications for adult
intimate relationships.
Specifically, researchers have developed an adult self-report
measure of attachment styles (the
Adult Attachment Interview) that closely corresponds to the
attachment styles emerging from
the research with children (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Moreover,
the researchers concluded, using
self-report measures of adult romantic attachment, that the three
basic attachment styles lead
to distinct ways of experiencing romantic love, and these
distinctions are theoretically consistent
with the basic tenets of attachment theory (Hazan & Shaver,
1987). In this respect, researchers
have concluded that behavioral and emotional dynamics that are
at play in the infant’s relation-
ship with the caregiver are also at play when in adult romantic
relationships, and the stability of
these interpersonal patterns is consistent with the classic
individual difference (i.e., personality)
model of psychology (Fraley & Shaver, 2000).
More recently, a four-category model of adult attachment styles
was proposed, with each style
categorized by the person’s self-image (dependence) and image
of others (avoidance), and each
of these can be defined as being
either positive or negative (Bar-
tholomew & Horowitz, 1991).
Thus, the individual with a posi-
tive self-view and a positive view
of others is labeled secure, with
these individuals being comfort-
able with both autonomy and

intimacy. In contrast, the indi-
vidual with a negative view of
self and negative view of oth-
ers is labeled fearful, and they
are characterized as fearful of
intimacy and avoidant of social
interactions. The individual who
Beyond the Text: Clinical Applications
Following years of work within developmental psychology,
researchers and clinicians began to apply attachment the-
ory to clinical work as well. In this paper, the author, Meifen
Wei, examines some of these implications of attachment
theory to counseling and psychotherapy. Read it at http://
www.divisionofpsychotherapy.org/wei-2008/.
Reference: Wei, M. (2008). The implications of attachment
theory in counseling and psychotherapy. Retrieved from
http://www.divisionofpsychotherapy.org/wei-2008/.
Lec81110_07_c07_195-224.indd 215 5/21/15 12:40 PM
http://www.divisionofpsychotherapy.org/wei-2008/
Attachment Styles
has a negative self-view but a positive view of others is labeled
preoccupied because they tend to
be preoccupied with relationships. Finally, the individual with a
positive self-view but a negative
view of others is labeled dismissing, as they are generally

dismissive of others and intimacy. One
theoretical advantage of this model is that it fits better within
the framework of the circumplex
models discussed earlier in the chapter because each style has
an opposing pole, which would cor-
respond to the opposite side of the circumplex (Bartholomew &
Horowitz, 1991). It also appears
to be the case that there are important points of convergence
among the different models of
attachment styles (for a discussion, see Bartholomew & Shaver,
1998).
L’Abate’s Relational Competence Theory
Although considerably less well known than the other work
reviewed in this section, L’Abate’s
Relational Competence Theory (RCT) has gained some attention
and empirical support since its
introduction into the literature over 30 years ago (L’Abate,
1976, 2005). Essentially, RCT empha-
sizes how effectively we deal with other individuals, whether
these are individuals with whom
we are intimate, or those we know less well. In fact, L’Abate
notes that relationships can be cat-
egorized as intimate versus non-intimate, long lasting versus
brief, close versus distant, commit-
ted versus uncommitted, and differing with respect to their
dependence, interdependence, or
independence. L’Abate also emphasizes that all of these
relationships are bidirectional, with the
individual being influenced by others as much as he/she is
influencing others.
Similar to previously discussed theories, L’Abate (2009)
suggests that RCT applies to all interper-
sonal experiences, and he refers to such themes as the extent to
which the person’s identity is

differentiated, meaning, for example, whether priorities are
self-focused (satisfying one’s own
needs) or other-focused (satisfying the needs of others) and
what role they play in an interaction
(e.g., victim, persecutor, rescuer). RCT also involves the
constructs of communality and agency,
which we discussed with regard to the circumplex model, the
construct of “drama triangles,” and
many different types of communication (i.e., it is not limited to
face-to-face interactions). There-
fore, according to L’Abate, RCT is expandable to account for
the growing level of communication
that is Internet-based. Much like other interpersonal theories,
RCT also has several clinical appli-
cations, in the form of self-help and psychotherapy for couples
and families (e.g., L’Abate, 1992;
L’Abate & Weinstein, 1987) and defining personality disorders
in terms of RCT (L’Abate, 2006).
Despite its more than 30 years of published history, RCT has
been somewhat ignored in the
broader literature, and virtually all of the published work is by
the author who originated the the-
ory. Moreover, only the most testable components of RCT have
been empirically valuated, leaving
many central aspects of the theory untested. L’Abate (2006)
recently compared RCT to attachment
theory, referring to the former as a relatively small player when
compared to the extensive theory
and research on attachment styles.
Lec81110_07_c07_195-224.indd 216 5/21/15 12:40 PM
CHAPTER 7 7.4 Assessment Strategies and Tools for the

Interpersonal Context
7.4 Assessment Strategies and Tools for the
Interpersonal theory has resulted in the development of a wide
range of assessment tools. In discussing the assessment of any
interpersonal context, whether it be a dyad, triangle, or larger
group, it is important to note that these units are ever-changing
as a function of time, situation,
and the individuals involved. They also vary as a function of the
interactions themselves. That is,
following any given interaction, the interpersonal context can,
and often does, change. Because
there are multiple contributors to this construct, there is the
potential for even more change than
is often seen in an analysis of the individual in isolation. Thus,
one of the greatest challenges for
assessment is to be able to measure the variability in the
interpersonal context.
Presented here is a number of instruments that purport to assess
interpersonal interactions, and
it should be noted that researchers have developed statistical
models to help analyze the data
emerging from these assessments (e.g., Ferrer, Steele, & Hsieh,
2012). One of the bigger statistical
challenges for data coming from multiple interacting sources is
that they are no longer statistically
independent. That is, the data points influence each other (this
is a basic tenet of interpersonal
theory) and so they can’t be considered as independent
observations, which is a basic assump-
tion of any statistical analysis (the statistical independence of
each participant’s data). Therefore,
a statistical correction must be employed when assessing

interpersonal data (e.g., Kenny, 1996;
Kenny & Garcia, 2012).
Thematic Apperception Test
The interpersonal model has produced an array of assessment
strategies and tools. Probably the
best-known assessment tool in the interpersonal model is the
Thematic Apperception Test (TAT),
which was reviewed in detail in Chapter 2. However, it is worth
noting here that because it pur-
ports to measure Murray’s interpersonal needs, it is considered
an important measure for the
interpersonal perspective. The TAT assesses such interpersonal
needs as dominance, deference,
affiliation, exhibition, recognition, rejection, nurturance, and
succorance (having someone’s needs
met by another), to name a few (Murray, 1938).
The TAT is still very popular and used extensively in clinical
practice, although to a lesser degree in
research (Weiner & Greene, 2008). Its use in research is limited
because assessing the meaning of
respondents’ stories can be a highly subjective exercise that
cannot easily be validated—although
various authors have developed manuals to serve as guidelines,
in an attempt to standardize scor-
ing and increase the TAT’s validity (see, for example, Cramer,
1982, and Hibbard et al., 1994). Many
psychologists now consider it more appropriate to refer to the
TAT as a “tool” or “technique”
rather than a test, thereby minimizing some of the criticisms
with respect to less standardization
and some of the basic psychometric shortcomings (e.g., lower
reliability coefficients). Neverthe-
less, there is little doubt that its introduction by Murray was a
major innovation in personality

assessment and continues to be relevant in clinical practice and
in interpersonal research, more
than six decades after it was published.
Lec81110_07_c07_195-224.indd 217 5/21/15 12:40 PM
Assessing the Interpersonal Circumplex
A number of measures have been developed, largely for use in
research, to assess the interper-
sonal circumplex. Because the circumplex model has been
revised numerous times since Leary
first introduced it, the measures have likewise been revised to
match the evolving theory and
terminology, and as noted, even some of the more recent work
in the area of adult attachment
styles adopts a model that is consistent with the interpersonal
circumplex.
Interpersonal Adjectives Scale (IAS)
Generally used as a self-report measure of trait descriptors, the
128-item Interpersonal Adjec-
tives Scale (Wiggins, 1979) requires the person to rate
themselves on a series of adjectives. The
IAS maps on to the structural components of the circumplex
model, which guides its develop-
ment. The reliability, validity, and factor structure of the IAS
has been demonstrated using mul-
tiple methods and models (e.g., Gurtman & Pincus, 2000).
A revised version of the scale, the IAS-R, is now more

commonly used. This version reduced the
scale to a 64-item short form, though it measures the same
constructs and maintains or improves
on the psychometrics of the scale (Wiggins, Trapnell, &
Phillips, 1988). The adjectives are rated
on an 8-point scale, with 1 denoting “extremely inaccurate” to 8
meaning “extremely accurate”
self-descriptors.
The Inventory of Interpersonal Problems-Circumplex (IIP-C)
This measure is also tied to the interpersonal circumplex, but it
focuses on interpersonal problems,
rather than traits, which is the basis of the IAS (Alden,
Wiggins, & Pincus, 1990; Horowitz, Alden,
Wiggins, & Pincus, 2000). In contrast to the IAS and IAS-R,
which were developed to assess normal
variations in personality functioning from an interpersonal
context, the IIP-C is instead focused on
interpersonal distress and interpersonal difficulties. The scale
was created based on an analysis
of presenting complaints of clients seeking therapy based on
problems that were interpersonal
in their origin. A 64-item test was developed from an initial list
of 127 items (interpersonal com-
plaints), thereby yielding eight octant scales that not only map
on to the circumplex, but also on to
Wiggins’ IAS/IAS-R scales. Respondents rate their agreement
with a series of statements reflecting
interpersonal deficits.
The Circumplex Scales of Interpersonal Values (CSIV)
This self-report measure was designed to assess values that
correspond to the circumplex model
and map on to the basic constructs of agency and communality

(Locke, 2000). There are eight
8-item scales that have been shown to have good test-retest
reliability, as well as good internal
consistency, and they relate to other measures of trait
functioning that map onto the circumplex
model. The CSIV was also validated on the IIP-C and the TAT.
Lec81110_07_c07_195-224.indd 218 5/21/15 12:40 PM
Assessing Attachment Styles
A wide range of measures have been developed to assess adult
attachment styles, with most used
in research and, to a lesser extent, clinical settings. Although all
are based on attachment theory,
there are some differences in how the measures are employed.
Assessing Romantic Love as a Function of Adult Attachment
Hazan and Shaver (1987) developed one of the first
classifications of adult romantic styles using
three descriptors that map on to Ainsworth’s typologies of
children. These descriptions were used
in their research to recruit participants from the community.
The participants were asked to select
which of the three summaries best describes their feelings in
adult romantic relationships. The
three categories are reproduced here (from Hazan & Shaver,
1987, Table 2):
1. Secure—I find it relatively easy to get close to others and am
comfortable depending on

them and having them depend on me. I don’t often worry about
being abandoned or
about someone getting too close to me.
2. Avoidant—I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to
others; I find it difficult to
trust them completely, difficult to allow myself to depend on
them. I am nervous when
anyone gets too close, and often, love partners want me to be
more intimate than I feel
comfortable being.
3. Anxious/Ambivalent—I find that others are reluctant to get
as close as I would like. I often
worry that my partner doesn’t really love me or won’t want to
stay with me. I want to
merge completely with another person, and this desire
sometimes scares people away.
The researchers demonstrated that the three categories were
strongly related to the attachment
histories of the participants and their past experiences of
romantic love; they even associated the
categories with state and trait loneliness (Hazen & Shaver,
1987).
The Adult Attachment Scale (AAS; original and revised)
In 1990, Collins and Read developed the AAS to assess adult
attachment styles. This measure
was subsequently revised (Collins & Read, 1990), resulting in
an 18-item scale assessing three
subscales. One subscale (closeness) assesses the degree to
which the individual is comfortable
with intimacy. A second subscale (depend) assesses the degree
to which one is comfortable being

dependent on others. The final subscale (anxiety) assesses the
degree to which the individual is
preoccupied with being abandoned or rejected.
The Adult Attachment Interview (AAI)
The Adult Attachment Interview (George, Kaplan, & Main,
1984/1985/1996) tries to identify sta-
ble differences in how individuals experience attachment in
adult romantic relationships. This self-
report inventory was developed largely as a research tool, and
in addition to assessing romantic
relationships, it can also be employed to assess adult parental
and peer relationships.
Lec81110_07_c07_195-224.indd 219 5/21/15 12:40 PM
Four styles of adult attachment have been delineated: (1)
secure, (2) anxious-preoccupied, (3)
dismissive-avoidant, and (4) fearful-avoidant, with there being
considerable overlap with the
attachment styles emerging from Ainsworth’s strange situation
for infants. The secure adults are
described as having a positive self-image, along with favorable
views of their partners and relation-
ships. Secure adults tend to feel equally comfortable with
independence and intimacy in relation-
ships. In contrast, the anxious-preoccupied individual is in need
of a high degree of intimacy, even
after only a short period of initiating a relationship. These
people seek constant responsiveness

and approval from their partners, they worry excessively about
the relationship and its possible
demise, and they would be characterized as highly dependent.
The dismissive-avoidant individual
is highly independent even within the relationship, presenting
themselves as self-sufficient and
invulnerable. These people tend to be minimally expressive with
respect to emotions, and in fact
are uncomfortable with too much emotional closeness. Finally,
fearful-avoidant adults also seek
less intimacy and suppress emotions. They have an extreme fear
of real relationships because of
the emotional pain that can result. However, at the same time,
these individuals very much want
to approach others and make meaningful connections with them.
Adult Attachment Projective
More recently the AAI has been modified into a projective test
that is based on responses to a
series of seven drawings, each evoking attachment-related
themes (George & West, 2001). The
Adult Attachment Projective (AAP) uses the dimensions of
disclosure, content, and defensive pro-
cessing to assign participants to one of four adult classifications
(secure, dismissing, preoccupied,
and unresolved) that are similar in nature to the classifications
noted with previous inventories.
The measure was validated in three separate samples,
demonstrating good inter-rater reliability
and convergence with the AAI. Being a projective test, the AAP
also provides a closer conceptual
connection to the earliest roots of attachment theory, which date
back to psychoanalytic theory.
Other Measures Tapping Aspects of Interpersonal Functioning

Each year, new measures are developed, many of which have
important implications for the inter-
personal aspects of personality functioning. Below is a small
sampling of those instruments, pro-
viding some perspective on the breadth and diversity of these
measures.
The Person’s Relating to Others Questionnaire (PROQ and
PROQ2)
The PROQ (Birtchnell, Falkowski, & Steffert, 1992) is a self-
administered, 96-item questionnaire
that assesses one’s relational tendencies with others. A total of
12 items (each rated on a 0–3
scale) contribute to each of the eight scales, and these scales
correspond to the octants charac-
terized in the circumplex model. Each of the eight scales range
from 0–30, with a total maximum
score of 240. The items emphasize negative relating over
positive relating, with ten of the twelve
items focused on negative relating. This is in keeping with the
bulk of the research conducted in
the field and reviewed in this chapter, which tends to emphasize
the aversive consequences of
interpersonal interactions (see also Locke, 2006).
Lec81110_07_c07_195-224.indd 220 5/21/15 12:40 PM
A revision of this instrument, the PROQ2, was subsequently
developed, with the revision resulting
in an instrument with a better factor structure (i.e., scales that

better map on to the underlying
constructs—the octanes—they are supposed to measure)
(Birtchnell & Evans, 2003).
Test of Negative Social Exchange (TENSE)
Based on the premise that a significant portion of the literature
has relied on single-item, unidi-
mensional assessments of adverse social interactions, Ruehlman
and Karoly (1991) developed
the Test of Negative Social Exchange (TENSE). The TENSE
assesses the four subscales (factors) of
hostility/impatience, interference, insensitivity, and ridicule.
The scale was validated in two sepa-
rate samples, and the four factors (subscales) were established
using exploratory factor analysis
and then replicated using confirmatory factor analysis. The
TENSE demonstrated good test-retest
reliability, it can predict outcomes related to psychological
well-being (depression, anxiety and life
satisfaction), and it appears to be distinct from social support
(Ruehlman & Karoly, 1991).
Assessment Instruments Used in RCT
Several paper-and-pencil measures have been developed to
evaluate aspects of Relational Com-
petence Theory, including the Self-Other Profile Chart to assess
selfhood and the individual’s pri-
orities; the Sharing Hurts Scale (Stevens & L’Abate, 1989) to
assess the extent to which one is able
and willing to share intimacy and also to assess identity
differentiation; the Likeness Continuum
Task (Cusinato & L’Abate, 2008); and the Dyadic Relationships
Test (Cusinato & L’Abate, 2005a,
2005b).

Cultural Influences
Cultural influences are not a specific focus of the interpersonal
model; however, the theory rec-
ognizes that there is tremendous variation in the ways in which
people express their values and
preferences. In addition, the interpersonal model has been
applied to very diverse populations.
For example, Sullivan worked extensively with severely
disturbed individuals and with those who
suffered from schizophrenia. He also worked with African
American juveniles, but largely attrib-
uted any observed differences to cultural beliefs.
Although a thorough testing of a cross-cultural application of
this model has not been demon-
strated, its recognition of individual diversity suggests that it
would be useful for understanding
and counseling culturally diverse groups and minority groups
(see also L’Abate, 2006). Of course,
areas such as attachment theory are also thought to transfer well
across cultures, given that the
theory is built on basic human attachment that is neither
culture- nor species-specific (e.g., van
IJzendoorn, 1990). Furthermore, it includes factors such as
respect, acceptance, adopting the per-
spective of clients, and encouraging clients to explore their
values. These factors, note Sue and
Sue (2007), are qualities that transcend culture.
Lec81110_07_c07_195-224.indd 221 5/21/15 12:40 PM
CHAPTER 7Key Terms

Summary
The interpersonal model represents a remarkable departure from
previous theoretical sys-tems. In a nutshell, it initiated a
transition from its intrapsychic and behavioral predecessors to
the field of interpersonal interaction. The father of the
interpersonal model is Sullivan, a
clinician who was interested in severe emotional disturbances
such as schizophrenia. He devel-
oped a theory that emphasized the survival and adaptation
functions of interpersonal relations.
He coined the term participant-observer to account for the fact
that, with its own dynamics and
processes, a dyad is greater than the two individuals in
interaction. His main concern was with
transactions that occur in dyadic relationships. He also
introduced the expression self-esteem sys-
tem to describe how attachments and related anxiety issues
influence personality development.
Murray, another pioneer who was influenced by Sullivan, was
particularly interested in the dyad.
Murray recognized the importance of the newly developed
general systems theory, and thought it
would contribute much to a comprehensive system of
personality. He and his associate developed
the Thematic Apperception Test, a widely used projective
instrument both in clinical practice and
in research.
Leary, expanding on the work of Sullivan, made a major
contribution with his model of the inter-
personal circle. He used this model to identify aspects of
interpersonal relationships, which he
thought were a reflection of personality. Leary’s work led to
many theoretical advances and much

research. Most notable is Benjamin’s structural analysis of
social behavior, a widely cited, empiri-
cally derived application and integration of Sullivan’s and
Leary’s work. This model is the most
influential of the current interpersonal lines. Other theorists
have developed interpersonal mod-
els that have supported the theoretical emphasis of Benjamin’s.
Klerman and Weissman developed an interpersonal model
designed to understand and treat
depression. They emphasized the importance of interpersonal
roles and relations in the develop-
ment of depression and personality. Kiesler developed a two-
dimensional model using Leary’s
interpersonal circle; he described how relationships shape our
personalities and our actions, coin-
ing expressions such as transactional escalation to show how
traits can be exaggerated in inter-
personal transactions.
Other major contributors to interpersonal theory were the
theorists who contributed heavily to
attachment theory, which itself represents an interpersonal
model to human personality func-
tioning. Individuals such as John Bowlby, who studied
nonhuman species, and Mary Ainsworth,
the developmental psychologist, demonstrated that early
patterns of attachment can be reliably
measured, differentiated, and used to predict relationship
patterns as adults in a theoretically
consistent manner.
Key Terms
agency The process of becoming individuated.

anxious-ambivalent A term used to describe
infants who cling to their mothers and develop
anxiety at their mothers’ departures, and
rebuff them when they return.
anxious-preoccupied An individual in need of
a high degree of intimacy and constant respon-
siveness and approval from partners.
attachment theory The assumption that early
relationships with primary caregivers establish
a framework for adult attachments.
Lec81110_07_c07_195-224.indd 222 5/21/15 12:40 PM
CHAPTER 7Key Terms
avoidant A term used to describe infants who
generally avoid opportunities to interact with
their primary caregivers.
circumplex model A two-dimensional repre-
sentation of interpersonal space, such as inter-
personal needs, problems, and values.
communion The process of becoming con-
nected with others.
complementary transaction An interaction in
which the needs of all participating individuals
are met. Also called a reciprocal transaction.
copy processes Ways in which interpersonal
patterns can be repeated.

dismissive-avoidant A highly independent
and self-sufficient individual who minimally
expresses emotions.
dyadic interaction An interaction between two
individuals.
emotional cutoff The stopping of emotional
contact with another individual in order to
manage unresolved issues.
fearful-avoidant An individual who seeks less
intimacy and suppresses emotions.
identification The copy process of behaving in
a way similar to another person.
interpersonal circle (IPC) A model, based on
Murray’s list of 30 needs, intended to analyze
interpersonal relationships and to diagnose
psychological problems.
interpersonal force field The influences at play
in an interaction between people, influenced
by each person’s distinct style in dealing with
others.
interpersonal reflex An automatic and involun-
tary reaction to the action of others.
introjection The copy process of individuals
treating themselves as they were previously
treated.
parataxic The inclination to respond to

others based on preconceived ideas and
pre-established schemata.
participant-observer The bidirectional process
in which both participants in an interpersonal
relationship are co-constructing and co-
evolving their experience.
prototaxic The conscious processes in infancy
and early childhood, in which sensations and
perceptions are fragmentary.
recapitulation The copy process of acting as
though someone from the past is still present
and in charge.
relational self The self in relation to important
others.
secure adults A term to describe those who
have a positive self-image and favorable view of
their partners and relationships.
secure infants A term for those who easily
explore a strange room while maintaining con-
tact with their caregiver.
self-differentiation An individual’s ability to
maintain a distinct sense of self separate from
the triangle or group.
self-system Describes the personality as it
is organized around gaining satisfaction and
avoiding anxiety (or finding an optimal level of
anxiety) through interpersonal experiences.

societal emotional process A process focused
on how a society reacts an individual’s emo-
tional needs.
Lec81110_07_c07_195-224.indd 223 5/21/15 12:40 PM
CHAPTER 7Key Terms
syntaxic The most advanced developmental
level of thinking, which allows for the con-
sideration of others and the use of symbolic
thinking.
systemic therapy A type of psychotherapy that
addresses patients in relationships.
transactional escalation When stress makes
an individual’s interpersonal behavior patterns
more extreme, thereby reducing the range of
possible behavioral responses.
triangle A three-person relationship; the small-
est unit in Bowen’s systemic therapy.
Lec81110_07_c07_195-224.indd 224 5/21/15 12:40 PM
Creatas/Thinkstock
Learning Objectives
After reading this chapter, you should be

able to:
• Describe William James’ theory on multiple
selves.
• Characterize Carl Rogers’ humanistic
approach to understanding the self and the
constructs of unconditional positive regard
and conditions of worth.
• Identify Maslow’s needs hierarchy and its
relation to self-actualization.
• Characterize the views of the existential
theorists.
• Describe and critique the research examining
the emergence of the self, using self-directed
behavior in the mirror.
• Understand Markus and Nurius’ concept of
possible selves and how they can motivate
behavior.
Self-Psychology: Humanistic/
Existential Models of Personality 9
Chapter Outline
Introduction
9.1 Major Historical Figures in Self-Psychology
• William James and Multiple Selves
• Carl Rogers and the Humanistic Movement
• Abraham Maslow
• Søren Kierkegaard, Rollo May, Viktor Frankl,

Irvin Yalom, Fritz Perls, and the Existentialist
Movement
9.2 Testing the Emergence of the Self
• Testing Self-Recognition in Humans
• Testing Self-Recognition in Non-Human
Species
• A Critique of Research on Self-Directed
Behavior
• Describe Higgins’ self-discrepancy theory and the contrasts
among the actual, ideal, and ought selves.
• Contrast the public and private self and how these constructs
relate to individualism and collectivism.
• Describe terror management theory and how we experience
existential threats to the self via mortality salience and
the buffering effects of self-esteem.
• Name and describe several measures of self-related constructs.
Lec81110_09_c09_253-282.indd 253 5/22/15 3:23 PM
CHAPTER 9
Introduction
“There comes a time when you look into the mirror and you
realize that
what you see is all that you will ever be. And then you accept it.
Or you
kill yourself. Or you stop looking in mirrors.” Tennessee

Williams
I am a ____________. If you were asked to complete this
sentence, what would
you say? What word or phrase would best explain who you are?
You might say
“boyfriend/girlfriend of _______,” or “son/daughter of ______,”
or maybe you’d
use a trait like “funny” or “smart.” Or maybe the context of
your environment
would dictate your response. If you were traveling abroad, for
example, you might
claim your nationality, but at home you might claim your state
or town as integral
to your identity. Or maybe your response would be dictated by
your mood; you
then might be “thankful” on a holiday, “miserable” during
finals, or “angry” after
you fail your personality theory test. So which response(s)
defines the “real” you?
Of course, each of these responses (and the many more you
could have written)
reveals some aspect of who you are and begins to address what
will be termed
the self-concept.
The self-concept is, in essence, a theory one has about oneself.
It provides mean-
ing for one’s life, it makes predictions about the future, and it
guides motivated
behavior. When does the self-concept develop and does it
develop for non-human
species? How do we know when someone develops a self-
concept? What can the
mirror tell us about the self and can it induce greater self-
focused attention? Is

self-awareness the same as self-recognition? How do we
respond when the self is
threatened? How do other cultures view the self? These are
some of the questions
to be considered in this chapter to help us better understand
what is encompassed
by the self-concept. We will review the perspectives of
humanism and existential-
ism, along with the more traditional views of the self.
Introduction
9.3 Contemporary Theoretical Models of
the Self and Research
• Possible Selves
• Self-Discrepancy Theory
• The Private and Public Self
• Threats to the Self: Terror
Management Theory
9.4 Assessment Strategies for the Self
and Related Constructs
• The Q-Sort Methodology
• The Assessment of Possible Selves
• Assessing Self-Discrepancies
• Measuring Self-Actualization
• Measuring Self-Focused Attention:
The Self-Focus Sentence Completion
Blank (SFSC)
• Measuring Self-Consciousness:
The Self-Consciousness Scale (SCS)
• Measuring Personal Growth:

The Personal Growth Scale (PGIS)
Summary
Lec81110_09_c09_253-282.indd 254 5/21/15 12:40 PM
CHAPTER 9 9.1 Major Historical Figures in Self-Psychology
9.1 Major Historical Figures in Self-Psychology
Although virtually every prominent figure in psychology makes
reference to the self, a lim-ited number of theorists made this
the central theme of their theoretical contributions to
understanding the person. The theorists who reclaimed the
“self” as the focus of investigat-
ing human personality initiated a movement known as
humanism-existentialism. In this chapter,
we will review the works of those who contributed to this
movement and the emphasis on the
self, including William James, Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow,
Viktor Frankl, Rollo May, and others.
William James and Multiple Selves
William James was one of the earliest writers to expound on the
concept of self. He defined the
self as the sum total of everything that can be referred to as
ours, and he explicitly included our
“psychic powers” (i.e., internal mental experiences), as well as
all of our material possessions,
family, ancestors, friends, and even our body (James, 1890).
Because James adopts such a broad
view of the self, he considered it to encompass the constituent
parts of “I,” which is a subjective
sense of self, and reflects active thought (the knower), and

Tina FinebergAssociated PressLearning ObjectivesAfter.docx

Tina FinebergAssociated PressLearning ObjectivesAfter.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Tina FinebergAssociated PressLearning ObjectivesAfter.docx

Similar to Tina FinebergAssociated PressLearning ObjectivesAfter.docx (18)

More from juliennehar

More from juliennehar (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Tina FinebergAssociated PressLearning ObjectivesAfter.docx