sitar newsletter

I admit that it is difficult to direct my thoughts to consider-ing our annual meeting when it is months away. The New Year has just opened along with the new semester. Far away as it seems, we are planning our next meeting. It will take place in Madison Wis-consin on June 18-19. We decided to return to the Midwest, site of memorable meetings in the past. Our meeting is moved back a month to coincide with the Society for Psychotherapy Research (SPR) meeting which will convene in Madison on June 20-23. Hopefully, this jux-taposition will enable our mem-bers and SPR members to at-tend each others’ meetings. Ken Locke has already put together the call for programs which is enclosed and also can

be accessed at the SITAR web-site. So please consider submit-ting your work to share with others. I would encourage you

to propose not just empirical pieces for presentation but also theoretical pieces. While this could be construed as heresy coming from me, the die-hard empiricist that I am, I think that we should expand our

presentation and discussion of theory/theoretical premises.

I have found our annual meet-ings among the most rewarding for many reasons. It is a small group and this enables greater discussion of ideas. At the same time, I have been impressed with the overall quality of the discussion and interaction. I find that most scientific meet-

ings do not allow for extended discussion of the concepts and ideas other than in very small groups or one-on-one. SITAR is unique in this regard in that these discussions involve many of us. In addition, I see the camaraderie evident in our meetings unmatched in others. So as you can sense, I see our annual meetings as a very re-warding experience. If you have not attended or have not attended in a while, I strongly urge you to consider coming to Madison so that you too can enjoy the benefits.

We are privileged to have two distinguished keynote speakers this year: Professors Jacques Barber and Bruce Wampold. Jacques Barber is a professor of psychology and associate director of the Center for Psychotherapy Research in the

I am pleased to be the local host for our 10th Annual Meet-ing, as we return to Madison, Wisconsin, on June 18 and 19. Best known as both the capital of the state and the home of the sprawling campus of the University of Wisconsin, Madison is a charming and vibrant city with much to offer. It has, for example, more restaurants per capita than any other American

Past President Debbie Moskowitz, Ph.D. Psychology Department McGill University 1205 Dr. Penfield Avenue Montreal, QC H3A 1B1 CANADA [email protected] President Terence J. G. Tracey , Ph.D. 446J Payne Hall, MC 0611 Arizona State University Tempe, AZ 85287-0611 [email protected] President-Elect Kenneth Locke, Ph.D. Department of Psychology Student Health, Room 204 University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844-3043 [email protected] Vice President Pamela Sadler, Ph.D. Department of Psychology Wilfrid Laurier University Waterloo, ON N2L 3C5 CANADA [email protected] Executive Officer Stephen Strack, Ph.D. VA Ambulatory Care Center 351 East Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 [email protected] Members-at-Large Marc Fournier, Ph.D. University of Toronto [email protected] Lynne Henderson, Ph.D. Stanford University [email protected] Martin Grosse Holtforth, Ph.D. University of Bern [email protected] Graduate Student Representative Lindsay Ayearst York University [email protected]

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

SITAR Newsletter

President’s Message Terence Tracey

S o c i e t y f o r I n t e r p e r s o n a l

T h e o r y a n d R e s e a r c h

city, and perhaps the Midwest's best farmer's market held every summer weekend at the

steps of the state capitol. Madison is also known for its natural beauty. Situated on a narrow isthmus be-tween the lakes of Monona and Mendota, the city is a delight for those who en-

joy the outdoors—biking, hik-ing, sailing and just simply walk-ing are all popular activities.

(Indeed, Madison is one of the most pedestrian‑ and bike‑friendly places in the country.) Madi-son also offers

many museums, galleries, book-stores, coffee houses, and other indoor venues for those who wish to explore them.

February 2007

Volume 7, Issue 2

[continued on page 8]

Now is the Time to Make Your Reservations for SITAR’s 10th Annual Meeting in Madison, WI Michael Gurtman


The historian in me came to the fore when I was asked to draft an article for this news-letter. When and where did the “interpersonal school” emerge? Who set the foundations, who led the way and where are we now? I suspect many SITAR mem-bers know the answers, so I’ll be brief.

He may be overlooked today, but we owe much to Alfred Adler, who broke with Freud’s instinct-oriented theory in 1911 and asserted the importance of social factors in understanding psychic pathology. It was not until the 1930s and 1940s, however, when the psycho-social wing of psychoanalysis took ma-jor form in the neo-analytic writings of Karen Horney, Erich Fromm and, most especially, Harry Stack Sullivan. Sulli-van’s ideas, promoted vigorously by his psychiatric disciples, served as the inspi-rational foundation of the modern in-terpersonal school in the 1940s and 1950s. A group of young psychologists, not psychiatrists, at UC Berkeley, be-came centrally involved in further ad-vancing the subject, most notably re-searchers comprising the mentors and colleagues of Timothy Leary, part pio-neer and part folk legend, who drafted their ideas as the senior author of Inter-personal Diagnosis of Personality (1957), the key stimulus for personality circum-plex models. This book stirred a num-ber of then young thinkers around the US who became the fount of interper-sonal ideas in the 1960s and 1970s. Notable among them were/are, in al-phabetical order: Lorna Benjamin, Bob Carson, Don Kiesler, Maury Lorr, Ted Millon and Jerry Wiggins. They, in turn, served as mentors for an energetic and bright crop of current interpersonal leaders, such as Jack Anchin, Len Horowitz, Aaron Pincus, and Steve Strack. What a rich and fertile group of psychologists they are, imaginative and pro-lific in ideas and research.

My task in this brief essay is to convince SITAR readers of the legiti-macy for listing myself among this au-gust group of early interpersonalists. This I do with mixed feelings given that I was a true devotee of the interper-sonal school, but have, as only a few others in this coterie, “moved on” to

cast my lot with evolutionary thought, which, by the way, retains at its heart a central role for interper-sonal/psychosocial ideas.

I should like to illustrate my interper-sonal bona fides by drawing on some of my major early writings, most nota-bly my 1969 Modern Psychopathology (MP) book. The following are para-phrasings of that text, thoughts I’ve carried into my extensive later writ-ings on personality disorders (Millon, 1981, 1996) and psychotherapy (Millon, 1997; Millon & Grossman, 2007). I wrote then and continue to assert:

The categories of psychopa-thology represent features sig-nificant to the accomplishment of a number of useful clinical functions and goals. It is logical that the label designating the title of the categories should reflect some feature or attribute that has proved central to these func-tions.

What label shall we affix?

Numerous writers have sug-gested that the interpersonal behavior dimension provides particularly useful information for diagnostic and prognostic decisions. Along the same line, there are others who suggest that interpersonal behaviors should take primacy over other symptoms since interpersonal variables play a crucial role in therapy. It has been proposed, further, that interpersonal classi-fications would clarify the study of etiology in psychopathology… for example, if one specifies the particular deviant manner in which a patient interacts with others, then one would have a useful basis for tracing the kinds of learning experiences in which he acquired these behaviors. It appears from the above, then, that the interpersonal dimension may provide a focus for patho-logical syndromes that lends itself to a number of significant clinical goals – diagnosis, progno-sis, therapy and etiology.

The logic for this interpersonal thesis applies especially to the less severe or mild personality

SITAR NEWSLETT ER


patterns. These individuals remain in their normal social environ-ment, operating daily in a variety of interpersonal relationships. The style of interpersonal behavior exhibited in these relationships in large measure will determine the future course of the impairments. (Millon, 1969, p. 223)

In 1974 I was asked to join the then-forming DSM-III Task Force. I accepted and recommended to its incoming chairman, Robert Spitzer, M.D., that he read my MP book as a guide to my thinking. He then asked me to take on the role of primary theorist and author of the Axis II personality disorders section. The upshot of that fortuitous opportunity led me to name most (not all) of the DSM personality disorders with reference to their central, inter-personal trait (e.g., avoidant, histrionic, narcissistic, negativistic).

As I wrote in my MP book, and sought to convince my DSM-III colleagues:

Although labeling is the least im-portant task of clinical analysis, it serves the purpose of focusing attention on the characteristic which the clinician considers most important. The interpersonal label seems especially useful, not only in being therapeutically relevant or in influencing and being influenced by the patient’s defense mechanisms, but because it reflects the way in which the patient relates to others, the social machinery by which he works out his conflicts and anxie-ties, the effects he has had upon others, and the probable reactions he has evoked from them; in short, a whole complex of present rela-tionships, past experiences and future effects may be inferred from the patient’s interpersonal style.

The patient can function in every-day social environment at a mild

My Interpersonal Bona Fides by Theodore Millon, Institute for Advanced Studies in Personology and Psychopathology

“My task in this brief essay is to convince SITAR readers of the

legitimacy for listing myself among this august group of early

interpersonalists.”

VOLUM E 7, ISSUE 2

7. The passive-ambivalent (conforming) strategy is based on a combination of anger toward others and a fear of social rejec-tion and disapproval…The person overcomplies on the surface; however, lurking behind this front of propriety are intense contrary feelings.

8. The active-ambivalent (negativistic) strategy represents conflicts…that remain close to consciousness and intrude into everyday life. The individual gets himself into endless wrangles and disappointment as he vacillates between deference and confor-mity, at one time, and aggressive negativism, the next.

The circumplex grid comprising Figure 1 (see page 5) from my MP book (p. 106) lists several concepts characteris-tic of each personality style. Progressing from the center of the diagram to the perimeter are (a) self-image, (b) inter-personal attitude, and (c) interpersonal behavior. Sections (d) and (e) together represent the interpersonal coping strategy. For example, in (6) the individ-ual’s self-image is that he is an “assertive” person. This image often is correlated with a “vindictive” interper-sonal attitude, that is, that betrayal and retribution characterize the nature of man’s relationship to man. Patients in this syndrome usually display “aggressive” interpersonal behaviors; we characterize these persons as “actively” striving to assert their “independence” from others.

Similar to the early circumplex models of Leary (1957), my “circulargram” was grounded in an original biosocial inter-personal learning theory, first published in the 1969 MP book. Although elabo-rated and modified in subsequent theo-

stage of pathology; his interper-sonal style of functioning takes on additional significance because his relationships with others at this stage will determine the future course of his difficulties. His pre-sent interpersonal behavior, in large part, will influence how oth-ers react to him, and in turn, will lead either to a stabilization or a deterioration in his overall func-tioning. (pp. 104-105).

Two tables from the MP book (p. 81 and 84) are presented here to illustrate my strong commitment to differentiate and describe the key interpersonal elements of DSM personalities, their interpersonal behaviors and their inter-personal attitudes. The behavioral chart of Table 1 from MP includes descriptive

terms characterizing each of the “basic” eight disorders, which I’ll elabo-rate in later paragraphs. Table 2 in-cludes two sets of attitudes, the first of each pair denotes attitudes that the person believes others manifest toward him/her (“they are”); the second phrase (“I am”) describes the atti-tudes/feelings an insightful person might admit he/she feels toward others.

A third component of my DSM pro-posal related to what I termed interper-sonal coping strategies, strategies devel-oped on the basis of constitutional proclivities, early life experiences and learned interpersonal styles which come to characterize the individual’s personality: the following briefly por-trays these styles (pp. 91-92).

1. The passive-detached (asocial) strategy is characterized by social impassivity; affectionate needs and emotional feelings are mini-mal, and the individual functions as a passive observer detached from the rewards and dangers of human relationships.

2. The active-detached (avoidant) strategy represents a fearful mis-trust of others. The individual maintains a constant vigil lest his impulses and longing for affection result in a repetition of the pain and anguish he has experienced previously; distance must be kept between himself and others.

3. The passive-dependent (submissive) strategy is characterized by a search for relationships in which one can lean upon others for affection, security and leader-ship…The person has learned to assume a passive role in interper-sonal relations, accepting what-ever kindness and support he may find.

4. The active-dependent (gregarious/histrionic) strategy is typified by an insatiable and indis-

criminate search for stimulation and affection…Beneath the overt sociable guise lies a fear of auton-omy and an intense need for signs of social approval and affection. Affection must…be obtained from every source of interper-sonal experience.

5. The passive-independent (narcissistic) strategy is noted by…self-involvement…an over-valuing of self-worth. Confidence in superiority may be based on false premises…

6. The active-independent (aggressive) strategy reflects mistrust of others and a desire to assert autonomy; the result is an indis-criminate striving for power. Rejection of others is justified because they cannot be trusted.

Theodore Millon (continued)


Table 1: Interpersonal Behaviors 1. Asocial: passive, reticent, withdrawn; unfeeling, unaware, unresponsive. 2. Avoidant: shy, ill-at-ease, evasive; guarded, secretive, suspicious. 3. Submissive: conciliatory, suggestible, placating; helpless, sacrificing, clinging. 4. Gregarious: frivolous, demonstrative, exhibitionistic; capricious, unpredictable. 5. Narcissistic: snobbish, boastful, disdainful; pretentious, grandiose, contemptuous. 6. Aggressive: arrogant, domineering, dogmatic; derisive, cruel, malicious. 7. Conforming: conscientious, polite, deferential; autocratic, legalistic, ritualistic. 8. Negativistic: petty, stubborn, resentful; spiteful, provocative, contentious.

Table 2: Interpersonal Attitudes 1. Indifferent: they are inattentive, disinterested and distant; I am aloof, reserved and uncaring. 2. Distrustful: they are critical, rejecting and humiliating; I am apprehensive, shy and suspicious. 3. Compliant: they are friendly, nurturant and thoughtful; I am responsible, obliging and grateful. 4. Seductive: they are attracted, titillated and lustful; I am affectionate, flirtatious and manipulative. 5. Exploitive: they are admiring, respectful and envious; I am superior, competitive and contemptuous. 6. Vindictive: they are fearful, resentful and hostile; I am envious, deprecatory and scornful. 7. Respectful: they are strict, coercive and punitive; I am brotherly, dutybound and moralistic. 8. Vacillation: they are impatient, changeable and nonunderstanding; I am confused, cynical and guilt-ridden.

(using different nomenclatures) by Don Jackson, Jay Haley, Theodore Lidz, and Lyman Wynne for families with a se-verely disturbed member. Carson illus-trated his point about “negotiated mal-adjustment” via discussion of common themes identified by these therapists. Here is an example:

...no member of the family affirms what any other member has said unless the (disturbed) son is be-having in a ‘symptomatic’ way – either by claiming amnesia or by falsifying reality. In acquiescing to these demands, the son exhibits ‘pathological’ behavior – behavior that is evidently more tolerable to his parents than is calling a spade a spade (Carson, 1969, p. 211).

Now forbidden to be spoken of, much less studied, these and related descrip-tions of problematic (and correctible) family interactions were compelling at the time, and remain so to anyone who continues to be open to objective, albeit nuanced, observations of interactive patterns in the social contexts of se-verely disordered individuals. It should be noted that Carson qualified his state-ments about ‘negotiated maladjustment’ appropriately. He added,

No claim of proof is made on the basis of examples. On the other hand, the case is not wholly without empirical support. I look forward eagerly to research of future years, which should settle the question for us (Carson, 1969, p. 213).

Following the release of this stunning book, Bob's publications increasingly focused on interactional aspects of per-sonality. Of particular relevance to psy-chotherapists were studies or commen-taries on therapist-client matching, ex-change in developing relationships, and self-fulfilling prophecy. With his unwav-ering insistence that we consider con-text and between-person interactions when describing personality, Bob con-tinued the great tradition begun by Sulli-van, who said, "Personality is manifest in interpersonal situations and not other-wise."

Not surprisingly, Bob was a critic of the DSM, in part because of its failure to take a social context and interactional

SITAR NEWSLETT ER

With great sadness we mark the passing of Robert Carson, Profes-sor Emeritus of Duke University, major contributor to interpersonal theory, and friend to many of us in this society. Bob was born in Provi-dence, RI, and served in the Navy before attending Brown University, where he was inducted into Sigma Xi and Phi Beta Kappa. He com-pleted his doctoral training at North-western University in 1957, after which he served on the faculty at the University of Chicago for three years. He joined Duke University in 1960, attained full professor status in 1968, and was a member of both the Medical and the Arts and Sciences faculties until his retirement in 2000. During his 40-year tenure he served as Head of the Division of Medical Psychology at Duke Medical Center, Chair of the Department of Psychology, and Direc-tor of Clinical Training. He taught psychology to undergraduates virtually uninterrupted, and in 1993-94 was named a Distinguished Teacher in Duke University’s Trinity College. Also in recognition of his teaching contributions, he was appointed a G. Stanley Hall Lecturer by the American Psychological Association in 1989. He maintained a leadership role in several professional organizations, including President of the North Carolina Psy-chological Association (1967-68). He held editing positions with numerous professional journals, including associ-ate editor the Journal of Clinical and Consulting Psychology.

Bob’s publications consistently re-flected his integration of clinical and scholarly activity. In the late 1960s and early 1970s he generated a number of papers on schizophrenia, as well as commentaries on group dynamics and the therapeutic community. In 1969, his focus on interpersonal aspects of personality was delineated in his land-mark book: Interaction Concepts of Personality (Chicago: Aldine). In this book Carson developed the interac-tional implications of the single circum-plex (IPC) that had been constructed on orthogonal love-hate and domi-nant-submit axes. Previously, Leary (1957, Interpersonal Diagnosis of Person-ality), one of the principal authors of the IPC, had used the circumplex to describe different levels within an individual (I = Public Communication;

II = Conscious Communica-tion; III= Private Symboliza-tion, Perception; IV= Unex-pressed, Unconscious; V = Values). Leary’s result was an interpersonal diagnostic sys-tem that characterized vari-ous personality types in terms of each of the levels of the IPC. Rather than focus as

Leary did on the description of individu-als, Bob applied the IPC to focus on the interactional patterns between individu-als. By attending to context and patterns of interactions, Carson explicated the central, significant concept of comple-mentarity (and anticomplementarity), which has subsequently been studied at great length - often by members of this society. Bob’s descriptions were refresh-ingly expressed in everyday language, as in his illustrative normative case of "the handsome lad and the pretty maid." He showed that each person has a reper-toire of possible responses affected by many factors, including what the other person does. He made theoretical pre-dictions as to which combinations of response would be satisfactory to both persons in a dyadic exchange, and which

would go awry. His classifications and discussion of interactional events clearly demonstrated the descriptive and pre-dictive utility of coding transactions via the interpersonal circumplex. He even tackled interpersonal implications of more complex and pathological interac-tions, like those described in Eric Bern’s (1964) Games People Play (e.g., “Now I’ve got you, you SOB”), or “negotiated mal-adjustment” independently described

Remembering Robert C. Carson by Lorna Smith Benjamin, University of Utah

APA 1994. Clockwise from top left: Bob Carson, Len Horowitz, Maury Lorr, Jerry Wiggins, Timothy Leary, and Lorna Smith Benjamin.


retical forms, most notably those I an-chored to the “principles of evolution” (Millon, 1990), the interpersonal circum-plex concept retained a central role in all of my later digres-sions. For example, in my forth-coming three book series on “personalized psychotherapy” (Millon & Grossman, 2007a, b, c) I not only utilize the circumplex frame-work to characterize all major domains of personality functioning, but continue to give the interpersonal domain a, if not the, key focus of therapeutic action, as illustrated in the following quote about the "borderline" personality from the third book of the series (p. 234, 2007c).

Because borderlines seek the good-will of those upon whom they de-pend, they will try to express their inner tensions subtly and indirectly at first. Depression is among the most common of these covert ex-pressions. Thus, the pleading an-guish, despair, and resignation voiced by borderlines serve to release ten-sions and to externalize the torment they feel within themselves. For some, however, depressive lethargy and sulking behavior are a means primarily of expressing anger. De-pression serves as an instrument for them to frustrate and retaliate against those who have “failed” them or “demanded too much.” By exag-gerating their plight and by moping about helplessly, they effectively avoid responsibilities, place added burdens upon others, and thereby cause their families not only to take care of them but to suffer and feel guilt while doing so. Similarly, suici-

VOLUM E 7, ISSUE 2

Millon, T. (1981). Disorders of personality. New York: Wiley.

Millon, T. (1990). Toward a new personology: An evolutionary model. New York: Wiley-Interscience.

Millon, T., with Davis, R.D. (1996). Disorders of personality: DSM-IV and beyond. New York: Wiley.

Millon, T. (Ed) (1997). The Millon inventories: Clini-cal and personality assessment . New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.

Millon, T. & Grossman, S. (2007a). Resolving Diffi-cult Clinical Syndromes: A Personalized Psychother-apy Approach. Hoboken, NJ, US: Wiley.

Millon, T. & Grossman, S. (2007b). Overcoming Resistant Personality Disorders: A Personalized Psychotherapy Approach. Hoboken, NJ, US: Wiley.

Millon, T. & Grossman, S. (2007c). Moderating Severe Personality Disorders: A Personalized Psychotherapy Approach. Hoboken, NJ, US: Wiley.

patterns into consideration. More re-cently, he joined the chorus of critics advocating that personality disorder be described in dimensional rather than cate-gorical terms. He agreed that the five factor model would be a reasonable can-didate. Nonetheless, he cautioned that we should not transform descriptions based on factor analysis, which also have subjective aspects, into static (i.e. not interactional) designations.

Starting in 1980, Bob coauthored several editions of the enormously successful

dal threats, gambling, and other im-pulsively self-damaging acts may function as instruments of punitive blackmail, a way of threatening oth-ers that further trouble is in the offing, and that they had best “make up” for their prior neglect and thoughtlessness.

I’ll leave it to the reader to judge whether my interpersonal ideas are of interest to their own research or clinical work.

References

Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personal-ity; a functional theory and methodology for per-sonality evaluation . Oxford, England: Ronald Press.

Millon, T. (1969). Modern psychopathology: A bioso-cial approach to maladaptive learning and func-tioning. Philadelphia: Saunders. (Reprinted 1985, Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press)

Figure 1. Eight basic personality patterns. Diagrammatic representation of typical characteristics of the eight basic pathological patterns. Among those noted on the figure are A. Self-image; B. Interpersonal attitude; C. Manifest interpersonal behavior; D and E. Interpersonal coping strategy. From Millon, 1969.

My Interpersonal Bona Fides by Theodore Millon (continued)

Remembering Robert C. Carson (continued) textbook, Abnormal Psychology and Mod-ern Life, which was selected as the basis for a PBS telecourse series in 1992. In the eighth through eleventh editions, he was first author. That text was consis-tently of high quality, guided by Bob's standards. It was clinically relevant, accu-rate, clear, thorough, and warmly human-istic.

Carson grew up with a tough crowd, but then, as an ex-serviceman and young adult in the celebratory years following World War II, he could party with the

best of ‘em and lived the twinkle in his eye. Bob had integrity and compassion. Never manipulative, bitter, sniping, nor petty, he was bursting with positivity, support, and love for just about every-one. We shall truly miss him. In tribute, let us remember his many contributions, think interactionally, and celebrate life as it comes.

Everyone is at least occasionally an-noyed with the behaviors of specific other people in their lives. Social aller-gens, such as conversational interrup-tions, unwanted suggestions, posses-sive jealousy, and inattentiveness, may seem objectively minor from the per-spectives of outside observers, but they can grate on our nerves and gen-erate emotionally major aversive per-sonal experiences (Cunningham et al., 1997). Relationships may deteriorate because sensitive individuals often do nothing and stew in their discomfort, and because individuals some-times explode with more hostile expressions of irri-tation and annoyance.

My interest is social allergens was fu-elled by the facts that, although every-one has been annoyed by the behav-iors of others, and although some people experience such annoyances on a daily basis, there has been almost no research on the topic (Kowalski, 2001). More importantly, the social allergen phenomenon provides a use-ful, sweaty context for examining a somewhat neglected, abstract concept that is central to interpersonal theory: extremity.

Some individuals are believed to be relatively inflexible and display an ex-treme but narrow band of social ac-tions which is annoying to others and ultimately maladaptive. Rigid and ex-treme behaviors are believed to exert aversive pulls on others, and the mal-adaptive transactions that ensue con-tribute to the development and main-tenance of symptoms. Normal and abnormal individuals may be found in the various segments of the interper-sonal circle, and they presumably differ primarily with regards to the intensity and rigidity of their behavioral expres-sions. On the interpersonal circle, rigid and extreme behaviors are located on the outer edges, farther from the flexi-ble center. These important theoreti-cal assumptions are prominent in the writings of Leary, Wiggins, Carson, Kiesler, Andrews, and many others, but they remain almost untested.

Two Studies of Social Allergens and Inter-personal Theory We’ve conducted two studies (O’Connor & Nadin, 2004, 2006) that involved asking individuals to describe

behaviors from others that they experi-enced as aversive. Participants then separately rated both the behaviors and the people who displayed them using the Interpersonal Adjective Scales (IAS). Following Wiggins, Phillips, and Trapnell (1989), scores representing the dual construct of “rigidity and extremity” (more on this later) were computed using the Pythagorean theorem:

Vector Length = ( (Dominance - 0)2 + (Friendliness2 - 0) )1/2

In the first study (N = 712), we found that the vector length scores for the allergens, and for the persons who dis-played the allergens, were significantly higher than the vector length scores for the baseline self-ratings, and for the ratings of other persons who did not generate allergic reactions in partici-pants. The effects sizes were huge, with Cohen d values well over 2.0. Social allergens were thus perceived as ex-treme behavioral manifestations and they were situated on the outer edges of the interpersonal circle, at least in the perceptions of allergic individuals.

We were more surprised to find that 97% of the nominated allergens fell on the hostile side of the circle, and that less than one percent of the allergens were on the friendly side of the circle. Interpersonal theorists claim that aver-sive behaviors can be situated in all regions of the circle, and are repre-sented by vector length and not re-gional location. Allergens should thus have been found in many regions of the interpersonal space, but this did not happen in our study.

We also had participants de-scribe the allergens and all of the above targets on five-factor model traits. The two-dimensional con-ceptualization of rigidity and extremity described in interpersonal theory can be extended to the more comprehen-

SITAR NEWSLETT ER

sive five-factor model (O’Connor & Dyce, 2001). Abnormal personalities can be viewed as maladaptive and ex-treme variants of the five basic factors of personality, and the Pythagorean theorem can be extended to measure vector length in the five-dimensional configuration. The above pattern of findings for the IAS ratings was clearly also evident in the five-factor model ratings: Allergens and the people who displayed them were located in the outer regions of the five-factor space, as indicated by the five-dimensional vector length scores, but they were confined to relatively few regional locations, mainly those defined by high N, low O, low A, and low C. Geomet-ric concepts from interpersonal theory can thus be meaningful additions to the more comprehensive five-factor model.

In a second study, we queried partici-pants (N = 151) for possible allergic reactions to behaviors from different regions of the interpersonal circle. We sequentially described each octant of the circle to participants and asked them to “describe annoying behaviors from as many regions of the circle as you can.” Participants were able to describe allergens from all regions of the circle. Their IAS ratings of allergens from the hostile and dominance-based octants of the circle fell on the hostile side of the circle, as expected. But there was variation in their ratings of allergens from the friendly and submis-sive octants. Only about 50% of the time were the ratings of such allergens located on the friendly side of the circle. For the remaining 50% of the time allergens nominated from non-hostile octants were rated as being hostile. There were thus discrepancies between private evaluations of aller-gens and the overt features of the behaviors, especially whenever overt friendliness was involved. Here is a prototypical description of an allergen from the Friendly-Dominant octant:

[T]hey make me feel slightly annoyed and agitated as I don’t like being the recipient of an overbearing, perky someone who thinks they are in charge of me.

Using Social Allergens to Test Concepts from Inter-personal Theory by Brian O’Connor, Lakehead University


“...the social allergen phenomenon provides a useful, sweaty context for examining a somewhat neglected, abstract

concept that is central to interpersonal theory: extremity.”

VOLUM E 7, ISSUE 2

Such discrepancies between private evaluations and the overt features of some allergenic behaviors is reminiscent of a phenomena described by interper-sonal theorists. In Coyne’s (1976; Coyne, Burchill, & Stiles, 1991; also see Katz & Joiner, 2001 for a review) inter-actional model, depressed people are believed to exert strong pulls on others for support and reassurance. Other people often reply with support for the depressed person, but they also often eventually leak expressions of annoy-ance and their support has been de-scribed as “insincere”. Discrepancies between overt behaviors and covert impacts are also prominent features of Kiesler’s (1996) model of maladaptive interpersonal transactions and psycho-pathology. The same kinds of public-private discrepancies are apparently involved in many friendly-behavior-based social allergens.

As in the first study, the vector length scores for the described allergens were higher than the vector length scores for the baseline self-ratings on the IAS. The same was true for allergens from all circle octants. But there was variation in the vector length scores of allergens from different octants. Allergens from the three hostile octants, and from the Dominant octant, had the longest vec-tor lengths, and these vector lengths were significantly longer than the mean vector lengths for allergens from the Submissive, Friendly-Submissive, Friendly, and Friendly-Dominant octants. Extremity is thus a feature of most allergens, but hostile and dominant allergens are more extreme, and presumably more annoying, than are friendly and submissive allergens.

Implications For Interpersonal Theory The findings provide much-needed em-pirical support for the claim that ex-tremity, as represented by geometrically based vector-length scores computed from interpersonal circumplex profiles, can be aversive to others. Social aller-gens can exist in all regions of the inter-personal circle and they provide poten-tially revealing pathways to understand-ing maladaptive transaction cycles. However, the overt characteristics of interpersonal behaviors sometimes tell us very little about their covert impacts. Social allergens may exert pulls for

complementary responses that allergic persons are reluctant to provide. Investi-gations of the reasons why particular allergens are aversive would be highly informative regarding the range of basic

interpersonal motivations. Another chal-lenge is differentiating rigidity from ex-tremity in cross-sectional circumplex profiles. Rigidity and extremity are theo-retically closely related concepts, and they are confounded in the formula for vector length. But surely some people are extreme without being rigid, and vice versa. I suspect that investigations that focus on the joint operation of diverse interpersonal constructs are the ones most likely to make further break-throughs.

References Coyne, J. C., (1976). Toward an interactional

description of depression. Psychiatry, 39, 28-40.

Coyne, J. C., Burchill, S. A. L., & Stiles, W. B. (1991). An interactional perspective on depression. In C. R. Snyder & D. R. Forsyth (Eds.), Handbook of Social and Clinical Psy-chology (pp. 327-349). New York: Perga-mon.

Cunningham, M. R., Barbee, A. P., & Druen, P. B. (1997). Social allergens and the reactions that they produce: Escalation of annoyance and disgust in love and work. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.), Aversive interpersonal behav-iors (pp. 190-215). New York: Plenum.

Katz, J., & Joiner, T. E. (2001). The aversive interpersonal context of depression: Emerging perspectives on depressotypic behavior. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed), Behaving badly: Aversive behaviors in interpersonal relationships (pp. 117-147). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Kowalski, R. M. (Ed.). (2001). Behaving badly: Aversive behaviors in interpersonal relation-ships. Washington, DC: American Psycho-logical Association.

Kiesler, D. J. (1996). Contemporary interper-sonal theory and research: Personality, psycho-pathology, and psychotherapy. New York, NY: Wiley.

O’Connor, B. P., & Dyce, J. A. (1997). Inter-personal rigidity, hostility, and complemen-tarity in musical bands. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 362-372.

O’Connor, B. P., & Dyce, J. A. (2001). Rigid and extreme: A geometric representation

of personality disorders in five-factor model space. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1119-1130.

O'Connor, B. P., & Nadin, S. (2004). “I can’t stand it when you do that!”. Programs and abstracts of the seventh annual meeting of the Society for Interpersonal Theory and Research. Toronto, Canada.

O'Connor, B. P., & Nadin, S. (2006). “I can’t stand it when you do that!”: The location of social allergens in interpersonal space. Manuscript under review.

Wiggins, J. S., Phillips, N., & Trapnell, P. (1989). Circular assumptions about inter-personal behavior: Evidence concerning some untested assumptions underlying diagnostic classification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 296-305.

Brian O’Connor (continued)

“There were thus discrepancies between private evaluations of allergens and the overt features

of the behaviors, especially whenever overt friendliness was

involved. ”

Our conference is scheduled to take place in the splendid conference facili-ties of the Pyle Center. On the lake-front and a block away from (famous) State Street, the Pyle Center is in the center of Madison and close to many attractions. For accommodations, con-ference attendees can choose between two nearby hotels. The Lowell Inn and Conference Center is a block away from the Pyle Center, and offers very reasonable rates. The Doubletree Ho-tel Madison is a full‑service hotel, and also within walking distance of the conference center. See the newsletter insert or the SITAR web site for addi-tional information on accommodations.

Welcome to Madison—one of my favorite cities! I look forward to seeing you there in June. For more on the many attractions of Madison and nearby areas, go to http://www.visitmadison.com/.

SITAR’s 10th Annual Meeting (continued)

SITAR NEWSLETT ER

Department of Psychiatry at the Uni-versity of Pennsylvania School of Medi-cine. His research is in the areas of psychotherapy process and outcome using randomized clinical trials. His work emphasizes careful examination of both relational and technical aspects.

Bruce Wampold is a Professor and Chair of the Counseling Psychology Department at the University of Wis-consin at Madison. His work focuses on understanding the determinants of psy-chotherapeutic efficacy. His work is a careful balance of conceptual and em-

pirical examination of these issues. His recent book, The Great Psychotherapy Debate: Models, Methods, and Findings, has served as a compelling case against

the medical model (e.g., empirically supported treatments) for evaluating psychotherapy. He focuses on general factors and therapist effects as espe-

Jacques P. Barber, Ph.D., ABPP, is a professor of psy-chology and asso-ciate director of the Center for Psychotherapy Research in the department of

psychiatry at the University of Pennsyl-vania School of Medicine, and Foreign Adjunct Professor in the department of clinical neurosciences at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm Sweden. He is currently president-elect of the Society for Psychotherapy Research and was a recipient of its early career award 10

Terence Tracey’s President’s Message (continued)

Bruce E. Wampold Bruce E. Wampold, Ph.D., ABPP, who was trained in mathematics (BA, Uni-versity of Washington) before earning his doctorate in Counseling Psy-chology (Ph.D., University of Cali-fornia, Santa Barbara), is Professor of Counseling Psychology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association (Divisions 12, 17, 29, 45) and a Diplomate in Counseling Psychol-ogy of the American Board of Pro-fessional Psychology. Currently his work involves understanding counseling

and psychotherapy from empirical, historical, and anthropological perspec-tives. His analysis of empirical evidence,

which has led to the devel-opment of a contextual model from which to under-stand the benefits of coun-seling and psychotherapy, is found in The Great Psycho-therapy Debate: Models, meth-ods, and findings (2001, Erl-baum and Associates). He is the author of over 100 books, chapters, and articles

related to counseling, psychotherapy,

statistics, and research methods, and will be the recipient of the 2007 Distin-guished Professional Contributions to Applied Research Award from the American Psychological Association.

cially salient in psychotherapy efficacy. He refers to his model as the contex-tual model as it incorporates the con-text of the participants’ beliefs in ther-apy, their relationship, and the treat-ment rationale. The approaches of both of our keynote speakers thus fit well with our interpersonal focus and I am sure that their presentations will serve as an exciting stimulus for us all.

Although the meeting is still far away, I am eagerly awaiting it. It looks to be very exciting. Please submit your best work and plan on coming.

Jacques P. Barber years ago. He has been conducting research on the outcome and process of dynamic and cognitive therapies for depression, substance dependence and personality disorders. He is currently finishing a NIMH funded Randomized Clinical Trial (RCT) of dynamic therapy vs. SSRI/SNRI for major depression. In collaboration with Barbara Milrod at Cornell, he has recently embarked on a two site NIMH funded RCT of dynamic therapy vs. CBT for panic disorder. In terms of psychotherapy process re-search, he has examined the impact of the therapeutic alliance and of thera-pists' use of theoretically relevant inter-ventions on the outcome of different

therapies. Most important, he is exam-ining models of therapeutic change that emphasize both relational and technical factors. He has conducted research on core conflicts and metacognition. To-gether with Hadas Wiseman, he is cur-rently co-authoring a book titled Echoes of the Trauma: Relationship Themes and Emotions in the Narratives of the Children of Holocaust Survivors to be published by Cambridge University Press.

Introducing the Guest Speakers for SITAR’s 10th Annual Meeting in Madison, Wisconsin

VOLUM E 7, ISSUE 2

Hello grad students! I hope you all managed to find some time to relax and enjoy the holiday season, and get away from the routine of grad school for a while. In keeping with our on-going

Graduate Student Corner series, an-other group of students kindly accepted my invitation to introduce themselves to our membership. I hope you have en-joyed hearing from some of our student members about their current projects and interpersonal research interests. This issue features two students from Dr. Terry Tracey’s lab as well as two students who have previously attended SITAR meetings, although they are not currently associated with any particular SITAR member’s lab.

I’d like to also take this opportunity to remind you all that the annual meeting is coming up! We always have a great student turnout and a number of superb student presentations (both poster and paper). I encourage you all to submit abstracts. The SITAR meeting is a great opportunity to present your work at an international conference in a very non-threatening environment! Last year at the meeting we had a special social-hour arranged for the graduate students to get together and meet each other, which I believe was well received. We plan to arrange a similar social hour for the upcoming conference in Madison. The SITAR meeting is always a great two-day event, so I hope you can make it!

Hi, my name is Christy Hofsess, and I am a sixth year graduate student in the Counseling Psy-chology doctoral program at Arizona State University un-der the advisement of Dr. Terry Tracey. I am currently on my internship at the University of California –Davis’ Counseling and Psychological Services Center. I have been a student member of SITAR for six years and have really enjoyed attending and presenting at the annual conferences. The meetings are a rich source of learning and support for me. I have presented various re-search projects over the years, including my Master’s thesis, which examined the

circumplex as the structure of interper-sonal capabilities, and iterations of an ongoing project with Debbiesiu Lee, PhD, on a model for covert and overt interpersonal interactions. A presenta-tion at one of the recent meetings in-spired the theoretical framework and methodology for my dissertation, which is on the prototype of countertransfer-ence. I look forward to continuing my involvement with SITAR and collaborat-ing with other members of the society.

Hi, my name is Jamie Bludworth, and I am a doctoral candidate in Coun-seling Psychology at Arizona State University (ASU) under the advise-ment of Terry

Tracey, Ph.D. I am currently completing my internship at the ASU university counseling center. My research inter-ests are in assessment and interper-sonal models of psychotherapy and supervision. I am currently working on two research projects. The first is my dissertation, which is a construct valid-ity study of the Inventory of Interper-sonal Problems using item response theory. The second is an independent study (in collaboration with Dr. Tracey) of the role of interpersonal comple-mentarity in the parallel process of psychotherapy and supervision. I am new to SITAR and look forward to attending future conferences.

My name is Anthony C. Ruocco and I am a fourth year doc-toral student in the Clinical Psychology program, Neuropsy-chology track, at Drexel University in Philadelphia. I com-pleted my under-graduate degree at York University with Krista Trobst, who introduced me to the world of personality and inter-personal theory. My research interests revolve around the neurobiological substrates of personality, with an eye toward increasing the ecological validity of brain‑behavior investigations of per-sonality and personality disorders. In this vein, my dissertation examines the neural correlates of interpersonal rejec-

tion in borderline personality disorder. Using both functional magnetic resonance imaging and near

infrared spectroscopy, my aim is to examine functional cerebral activation (primarily in the frontal lobes) involved in social exclusion as it comes about within an actual interpersonal interac-tion. The overarching aim of my re-search is to derive a dimensional, neu-ropsychologically informed model of personality. I am currently applying for my predoctoral internship in clinical neuropsychology.

Hello, my name is Chris Hopwood. I was fortuitously introduced to inter-personal theory and research by my doctoral advisor, Les Morey, at Texas A&M University. Attending my first SITAR meeting last year in Philadelphia was a highlight of my professional life up to this point, and I can’t wait for the next meeting. My research interests involve personality assessment, border-line personality, and interpersonal proc-ess. These topics are reflected in my dissertation, which was inspired by Dr. Pamela Sadler’s work, and aims to in-vestigate disruptions in interpersonal process (i.e., complementarity) associ-ated with borderline personality. I am currently in my fourth year at Texas A&M, and hope to be on internship next year. My favorite element of inter-personal theory is that it is among the few perspectives from which one can seamlessly navigate and integrate the-ory, empirical data, and practice, and so it is not surprising that I would ulti-mately like to be somewhere that would provide the opportunity to en-gage in both research and clinical work. Whatever happens, I am confident that you will be able to find me at SITAR meetings for years to come. See you there!

Graduate Student Corner

SITAR: Mission, Aims, and Activities

The Society is an international, multidisciplinary, scientific association devoted to inter-personal theory and research. By encouraging systematic theory and empirical re-search, it seeks to clarify the processes and mechanisms of interpersonal interactions that explain interpersonal and intrapersonal phenomena of normal and abnormal psy-chology.

The goals of the Society are (1) to encourage the development of this research, (2) to foster the communication, understanding, and application of research findings, and (3) to enhance the scientific and social value of this research.

The activities of the Society include: (1) regular meetings for the communication of current research ideas, methods, and findings; (2) discussion of work in progress; (3) maintenance of an inventory of data and data-gathering resources available for use by members of the Society; and (4) facilitation of collaborative research.

Social News and Announcements Lindsay Ayearst is happy to announce that she became engaged on her 30th birth-day (December 6, 2006) at Niagara Falls. She and her fiancé plan to get married on September 15, 2007.

Myriam Mongrain is pleased to announce the arri-val of her new baby boy, Jacob James Mongrain. He arrived on October 11, 2006, weighing a healthy 8 pounds and 2 ounces. He is the pride and joy of both his parents, and of his older brother, Samuel, 4.5 years.

2020 Fremont Avenue

P.O. Box 608 South Pasadena, CA 91031-0608

Phone/FAX: 626-441-0614

Newsletter e-mail: [email protected]

Listserve: [email protected]

Web Site: www.sitarsociety.org

S o c i e t y f o r I n t e r p e r s o n a l

T h e o r y a n d R e s e a r c h

SITAR

AWARDS Sidney Blatt (Professor of Psychiatry and Psychology, and Chief of the Psychol-ogy Section in the Department of Psychia-try at Yale University) recently received the Mary S. Sigourney Award for distin-guished life‑time contributions to psycho-analytic theory and research. The Sigour-ney Award, considered the most distin-guished international award for contribu-tions to psychoanalysis, includes a prize of $50,000.

Aaron Pincus was awarded the Ameri-can Psychological Foundation and APA Division 12 2007 Theodore Millon mid‑-career award for exemplary contributions made to the field of personality psychol-ogy. The $1,000 award will be presented at the APA Convention in San Francisco in August 2007. In addition, Aaron will give a 50‑minute invited address about his research as part of the Div. 12 program.

Chris Hopwood was recently awarded a NIMH Ruth H. Kirchenstein National Predoctoral Research Fellowship (NRSA)

to investigate breakdowns in interper-sonal complementarity among individuals with borderline personality features. He has also received several awards from Texas A&M University for this project.

Anthony Ruocco received the Ameri-can Psychological Association's Disserta-tion Award for his research investigating the neural correlates of emotional and interpersonal processes in borderline personality disorder. In addition, he was honoured with the American Neuropsy-chiatric Association's Young Investigator Award for his research examining the neurobiological basis of personality.

PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS Martin Grosse Holtforth accepted a stand‑in full professorship at the Univer-sity of Freiburg, Germany, for October 2006 until February 2007.

Carolina McBride became the Intern-ship Director (and Director‑of‑Training) for the CPA/APA Internship Program in Clinical Psychology at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) in Toronto, Ontario in September 2006.

Pamela Sadler was granted tenure and promotion to Associate Professor in the Social/Developmental division at Wilfrid Laurier University. This promotion be-comes official in July 2007. She also con-tinues to supervise the clinical work of graduate students in her role as Adjunct Professor in the Department of Psychol-ogy at the University of Waterloo.

Professional News and Announcements

Myriam Mongrain and newborn Jacob James Mongrain.

sitar newsletter

Documents