1. Model of 1
Likeness
Differentiatio
n Continuum in
Intimate
Relationships
Walter
Colesso
University of
Padova

2. 2
The Continuum of Likeness-Differentiation in Intimate Relationships
(a)Theoretical and research studies on the
similarity construct in intimate relationships don’t
have a long history. They have flourished within
the myriad of analogous terms, like similarity,
identification, attraction, imitation, and so on.
(b) It has been usually studied according to a
dichotomous model, especially in developmental
psychology.

3. 3
The Continuum of Likeness-Differentiation in Intimate Relationships
16
14
12
(c) Nevertheless,
10
8
several authors 6
4
have proposed 2
0
analogous 1 2 3 4 5 6
concepts or
Berne (1964) Parent Adult Child
Harvey (1961) System 1 (conforming) Systems 3 & 4 (independent) System 2 (r ebelling)
terms with Johnson (1972)
Kelly (1955)
Conservatives
Similar
Independents
Dissimilar
Liberals
Contrasting
three or four Kohlberg (1963) Approval-oriented Authority-rules Social & Moral Principles Instrumental Egoi sm
degrees, as Lövinger (1966) Symbiosis Coscientious-integrative
Autonomous
Impulsive-ridden
Self-protective
L’Abate
Lynn (1969) Parental Distance “close” Higher Cognitive Functioning Parental Distance “distant”
Mahler (1965) Symbiotic Differenti ated Autistic
summarized in Peak (1960) Assimilation Similarity Oppositeness/Isolation
1997 (see
Rotter (1966) Locus ofControl: External Internal External
Willis (1965) Yes-man Independent Thinker No-man
Figure 1). Witkin (1962) Cognitiv e Sty le: Global Articulated Global
Adapted from: L’Abate, 1997.
Figure 1. The Continuum of Likeness and Compatible Theoretical Formulations

4. 4
The Continuum of Likeness-Differentiation in Intimate Relationships
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6
(d) L’Abate (1999) proposes a continuum of likeness-differentiation
with six degrees that works in a dichotomous fashion but at three
different levels: The formal model proposes that individuals make
choices (consciously and/or unconsciously) moving from one pole
to the other but at different levels according to:
– their stage of life,
– their functional level of relational competence,
– their individual history, their gender, socio-cultural status, etc.
(e) This formal model may be outlined as a bell-distribution, where
functionality may be placed toward the center and disfunctionality
toward the extremes. A functional profile will be bell-distributed
with few values at the two extreme degrees and many more items
in the central degrees.

5. 5
From a model to an empirical check
Likeness Continuum Task – LT
(Cusinato & Colesso, 2008)
supports the existence and
influence of an underlying
continuum of likeness in intimate
relationships. It’s a laboratory
experiment of clinical psychology
where the subject is asked to
make “forced choices” and give
reasons for such choices. — nine items of the taxonomy “people of your
life”;
The task develops in four steps: — introducing the six ranges;
— the subject is provided with ten 5-cent
(a) “intimate identification” coins and invited to place them on six cells
corresponding to the ranges of the continuum;
(b) “test training” — the subject is asked to explain his/her coin
distribution and produce some real examples
(c) “coins placement” to check the right use of the continuum.
(d) “inquiry”

6. 6
From a formal model to an empirical check
The results of two studies are presented:
First study: it concerns a large application of LT to non-clinical
subjects to verify if the continuum of a large group,
comparable to a non-clinical population sample, has a bell-
shaped.
Second study: it concerns some applications to two clinical
groups compared with non-clinical control group to investigate
which relationships with significant others in their life contexts
induce subjects to activate different modalities along the
likeness continuum.
Data analyses were performed with log-linear models.
Significant Zs were identified for p = .05*, .01**, .001***, in
marginal and/or cell analyses.

7. 7
STUDY 1: The likeness continuum in LT with non-clinical individuals
- LT was applied to a large
group of non-clinical
individuals.
-The overall analysis
specifically verified the
continuum distribution by
comparing the data of 172
subjects with the formal
model (Figure 5).
Two aspects emerged:
1. The bell distribution appeared rather
precise: “differentiation” degrees shift
toward the center, while “identity”
degrees are a little bit lower: why?
2. The Analyses of “degrees x intimate
items” offer an orientation for personal
relationships, but this picture is rather
inaccurate for different interpretation of
the same items.

8. 8
STUDY 1 (continuation)
The analyses analyses: males vs. females
compared Male
vs. female sub-
groups
Results:
- Males are distributed on
“opposition” and “alienation”,
while females on “similarity”
and “differentiation” .
- Table “degrees x intimates”
does not produce significant
Zs.

9. 9
STUDY 2: The likeness continuum in LT with clinical people
-Two different types of First analyses: anorexics and non clinical females
clinical subjects were
considered: anorexic
females vs non clinical
females and psychotic
males and females vs a
non-clinical control
group.
Non-clinical subjects
show:
- a bell-shape
distribution,
- a higher identity score
then anorexics.

10. STUDY 2 (continuation) 10
Second analyses: psychotics and non clinical subject
Histograms
show the bell
distribution of
non-clinicals
and a flat one
of psychotics;
central
degrees for
the firsts,
extreme ones
for the
seconds.

11. 11
Conclusions
Our research on Likeness Continuum seems to offer positive perspectives:
1. All analyses of non-clinical individuals corroborate the bell-shaped
distribution according to the formal model.
2. The distributions of clinical groups differ from non-clinical individuals.
Likeness Continuum (LT) supports Likeness-Continuum model in
relationships.
Cusinato, M., & Colesso, W. (2008). Validation of the Continuum of Likeness in Intimate
Relationships. In L. L’Abate (Eds.), Toward a Science of Clinical Psychology. Laboratory
Evaluations and interventions (pp. 337-352). New York: Nova Publisher
We, Cusinato and I, have created paper-and pencil self-report Likeness
Scales for each degree. Its validation is in progress.

12. 12
Thank You
walter.colesso@unipd.it
glad to be collaborating to Relational Competence studies
in Family Psychology