 
  

NWIWHKHKIHW\Hl\‘i\|\\k“\‘\l

‘&

  

\l‘M‘lﬁHﬂ

 

O I Li til itL‘x t'i '{
FF 1 . .r. .1
2 OI I at. or: gen Stfiie
' l 1"!
L41: :‘Iu’C‘rC‘J 1-3,

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

AN EXAMINATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
PSYCHOANALYTIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE SELF AND
ATTRIBUTIONS AND EXPECTATION FOR EVENTS: AN
ATTEMPT AT BRIDGING POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY AND

KOHUT’S SELF-PSYCHOLOGY

presented by
Robert Babak Bastanfar

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

Doctoral degree in Counseling Psychology

// ///

Major Professor’s Signature

#2 49/424/67

Date

 

  
 

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

 

 

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 KzlProleccatPres/CIRCIDateDue.indd

AN EXAMINATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PSYCHOANALYTIC
DEVELOPMENT OF THE SELF AND ATTRIBUTIONS AND EXPECTATION FOR
EVENTS: AN ATTEMPT AT BRIDGING POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY AND
KOHUT’S SELF-PSYCHOLOGY
By

Robert Babak Bastanfar

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
For the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Counseling Psychology

2009

DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my wife and son, Christina and Nicholas, who
stood by me for many years and believed in me as I labored through graduate studies.
This dissertation is also dedicated to my mother and father, Azar and Mostafa, who have
supported me in so many ways. Finally, this work is in memory of my little brother

Neema, who sacriﬁced his life so others could see another day.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I must acknowledge the support and autonomy granted by my advisor and
committee chairperson, Dr. Nancy Crewe. I will forever appreciate her efforts, guidance,
and wisdom through the dissertation process. I would also like to recognize the efforts of
the remaining members of my dissertation committee, Dr. Thomas Novak, Dr. Bertram
Karon, and Dr. John Kosciulek, in guiding me through this research endeavor. All three
members demonstrated the research knowledge and practical know-how to make such a
project possible. Special thanks go to Dr. Michael Leahy, my teacher advisor, who
stepped in as a committee member at a moment’s notice. Much appreciation goes to Dr.
Mark Reckase and Dr. Kimberly Maier for their statistical consultation and expertise.
Also, I must thank my research assistant Lisa Buch for her work on this project. Others
who deserve thanks include Yu Fang and the Michigan State University C-Stat consulting
center for further statistical programming and consulting. Also, Tracy and the copy
center staff for the copies of questionnaire packets dutifully prepared in the name of
science. I’d also like to thank Dr. Callie Oneese and Dr. Dwaine Campbell for their
support and review of my work. My best friend, Parsia Kiani also deserves mention for
his unconditional support for 28 years. Finally, I’d like to thank the many students who

served as the participants of this study.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................. vii

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................. viii

Chapter I.
Introduction ............................................................................. 01
Hypotheses .................................................................. 06

Chapter II.

Review of Literature
Psychoanalysis ..............................................................
Psychoanalytic Self Psychology ..........................................
The Superiority and Goal Instability Scales ............................
The Self Object Needs Inventory ........................................
Psychoanalysis and Counseling ..........................................
Changes in Psychoanalytic Thinking and Practice ....................
Positive Psychology .......................................................
Attributions & Explanatory Style .......................................
Expectation & Models of Expectancy ..................................
Measuring Attributions and Expectations ..............................
Aims and Objectives of Present Study ..................................

Chapter III

Method
Participants ..................................................................
Measures .....................................................................

Procedures ...................................................................
Analysis ......................................................................

Chapter IV

Results
Study 1 ........................................................................
Study 2 ........................................................................

Chapter V

Discussion
Study 1 .........................................................................
Study 2 .........................................................................
Conclusion ....................................................................

10
16
22
23
25
26
29
37
41
46
48

50
53
56
57

59
67

78
82
84

Appendix A

Consent ........................................................................ 86
Appendix B
Demographics Questionnaire ............................................... 87
Appendix C
Measures
Life-Orientation Test-Revised (LOT-R) ......................... 89
Goal-Instability Scale (GI-Scale) ................................. 90
Superiority Scale (S-Scale) ........................................ 91
Self-Object Needs Inventory (SONI) ............................. 92
Extended Attributional Style Questionnaire (E-ASQ) ......... 97
Appendix D
Debrieﬁng ..................................................................... 110
Appendix E
Factor Loading of EF A ...................................................... 111
Appendix F
Glossary of Term ............................................................... 1 14
References ............................................................................ 1 16

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table l. Cross-Tabulation of Summary Statistics for Participant Ethnicity x Sex ....... 51
Table 2. Descriptive statistics Of variables analyzed by canonical correlation . . . . 59
Table 3. Bivariate matrix of variables used in canonical correlation analysis ............ 60
Table 4. Self psychology variables predicting the positive psychology variables ........ 62
Table 5. Regression analysis of independent variables to each dependent variable . . . 65
Table 6. Factor structure used as model of ﬁt in conﬁrmatory factor analysis .......... 67

Table 7. Tests of ﬁt for the 5-factor model ............................................. 69
Table 8. Intercorrelations of factors ﬁtting data to the 5-factor model .................. 70
Table 9. Item loadings of principle components analysis with varimax rotation ........ 71

Table 10. Factor structure found through exploratory factor analysis ................... 77

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1. Histograph of distribution of scores for items #16 and #34
with normal curve overlay ...................................................... 68
Figure 2. Scree plot Showing number of factors in relation to eigenvalues ......... 73

viii

CHAPTER 1 — Introduction

Counseling psychology has a natural connection with developmental and
personality psychology (Gelso & F assinger, 1992). Advances in developmental and
personality psychology have inﬂuenced counseling psychology training, research, and
practice. Although counseling psychology naturally aligns with developmental and
personality psychology, historically the relationship between these ﬁelds and counseling
psychology has been marked by ambivalence, as counseling psychology has not
optimally incorporated ﬁndings from within personality and developmental psychology.
Counseling psychology needs to further incorporate personality and developmental
psychology into counseling research and practice (Gelso & F assinger, 1992). Four areas
in which developmental and personality psychology have been successfully incorporated
into counseling are: career behavior, cultural identity, adult development, and
psychoanalytic theory. Particularly in the realm of psychoanalytic work, the mutual
inﬂuences of developmental, personality, and counseling psychology merge in the form
of self-psychological theory developed by Heinz Kohut (Patton & Meara, 1996; Gelso &
Fassinger, 1992).
Self-Psychology

More than any other psychoanalytic theory, self-psychology tries to understand
the client through empathy and with an appreciation of the functioning and structure of
the self (Gelso & Fretz, 2001). Healthy functioning is conceptualized as a function of the
cohesiveness of the self and supportive internalized self-objects. The focus on empathy,
growth, the self, self-esteem, and healthy development make self-psychology very

amenable in counseling psychology practice (Gelso & Fassinger, 1992). Self-psychology

has been proposed to have value and application in counseling settings such as college
counseling centers (Patton & Robbins, 1982) as the theory addresses modern day
counseling problems such as lack of ambition, lack of direction, low self-esteem, and
addiction (Patton & Meara, 1996). The growing prominence of self-psychology in the
realm of counseling psychology can be seen with the publication of Patton and Meara’s
Psychoanalytic Counseling (1992) and in self-psychology related publications in the
Journal of Counseling Psychology (Gelso & F assinger, 1992; Lee & Robbins, 1995;
Payne, Robbins, & Dougherty, 1991; Robbins, 1989; Robbins & Dupont, 1992; Robbins
& Patton, 1985; Robbins, Lee, & Wan, 1994) and Psychodynamic Counseling (Patton &
Meara, 1996).
Positive Psychology & the Healthy Personam

Although the aforementioned strides strengthen the connection of developmental
and personality psychology to counseling psychology, Gelso and F assinger (1992) posit
that still more can be done, especially research into what constitutes an adaptive and
“healthy personality” (p. 276). Optimal personality functioning has been a focus of the
positive psychology movement, with its emphasis on human adaptive functioning,
strengths, and virtues. Whereas self—psychology considers the construct of the self as the
center of motivation and behavior (Kohut, 1971, 1977, 1984), positive psychology
examines people’s expectations and attributions in determining behavior (Reivich &
Gillham, 2003).

When positive or negative events occur in life, people often attempt to explain the
cause, attributing events to something or someone. According to the reformulated

learned helplessness theory (RLHT; Abrahamson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978), how

people explain the events in their lives has consequences on behavior and mental health.
People with an optimistic explanatory style are more likely to attribute problems to
temporary, speciﬁc, and external causes whereas people with a pessimistic explanatory
style are more likely to attribute problems to stable, general, and internal causes.
Integrating RLHT and self-psychology, attributional style seems remarkably analogous to
a self-function and therefore would be affected, in self-psychological terms, by the
cohesiveness of the self-structure. In addition, both explanatory style and the degree of
self-cohesiveness moderate motivation, persistence, and vulnerability to depression in
their respective theories (Reivich & Gillham, 2003; Kohut, 1971, 1977, 1984).
Motivation and behavior are also determined by positive or negative expectations
in the pursuit of goals. According to the expectancy-value model of behavior, behavior is
a function of the pursuit of valued goals and the avoidance of undesirable consequences
(Carver & Scheier, 2003). A goal must be valued in order to be pursued and the pursuer
of the goal must have a general sense of assurance and conﬁdence in attaining the goal
for motivation to be maintained. Conﬁdence in attaining goals can also be
conceptualized as a function of the self and it goes to reason that those with a more
cohesive self would have more positive expectations in the pursuit of goals than those
with unmet self-object needs. In other words, those with a more cohesive self are likely
to be more optimistic than those with unmet self-object needs. Research on the optimistic
personality has shown optimism to be associated with enhanced physical and
psychological health as well as increased academic, athletic, and work-related

performance (Carver & Scheier, 2003).

Expectancies & Therapeutic Outcome

The study of the function of expectations and attributions originate from the
social-cognitive model of behavior. In the context of therapy, expectations and
attributions can combine to form the meta-factor known as expectancies. Expectancies
are considered to be responsible for the placebo effect, or treatment effects caused by
beliefs about the efﬁcacy of the treatment (Weinberger & Eig, 1999). Expectancies are
also identiﬁed as one of the common factors in psyChotherapy (Weinberger, 1995).
Common factors in psychotherapy have been posited to be the true causes of therapeutic
change (W ampold, 2001).

In psychodynamic therapy, expectancies can be conceptualized as the transference
conﬁguration that is projected on the therapist during the course of therapy (Weinberg &
Ei g, 1999). It should be noted that although expectancies do play a role in the
psychodynamic model, in the form of the transference conﬁguration, expectancies
(transference) are not the driving force of this model. All psychodynamic models of
behavior consider unseen and unconscious forces to be the determinants of motivation
and behavior (Gelso & F retz, 2001). The counseling psychology literature recognizes the
transference conﬁguration, along with the real relationship and the working alliance, as
important components of the therapeutic relationship, present more or less in all
orientations of therapy (Gelso & Carter, 1985, 1994). It is the analysis of the transference
conﬁguration, or expectancies, that form the crux of psychoanalytic therapy. The
psychoanalyst identiﬁes themes in the client transference and attempts to modify the
accompanying expectancies. Improvement in psychoanalytic therapy is helping clients

base their perceptions on reality rather than erroneous expectations. Strupp and Binder

(1984) ﬁt the expectancy formulation of behavior to a psychodynamic context and
created a short-term therapy known as Time-Limited Dynamic Psychotherapy (TLDP).
The interpersonal therapy of Klerrnan and Weisman (1982) also directly addresses client
expectancies during the course of therapy engendering hope in depressed clients. Despite
these examples, dynamic models of therapy and behavior have done little to directly
address the role of expectancies in motivation and behavior (Weinberg & Eig, 1999).
Considering the common factors role that expectancies play in psychotherapy, there
needs to be further investigation of expectancies in the psychodynamic context.
Relating Self-Psychology to Positive Psychology

The self-psychological model of behavior does not focus on attributions and
expectations but instead considers all behavior as a function of the cohesiveness of the
self. Like all psychoanalytic theories, self-psychology generally focuses on how self-
pathology affects behavior (Gelso & F retz, 2001). Speciﬁcally, the self-pathology takes
the form of deﬁcits in the person’s self-structure that lead to perceptual mistakes in the
interpretation of the outside world (Kohut, 1971, 1977, 1984). Much of the empirical
research conducted on self-psychology is on constructing measures that assess the
development and deﬁcits of the self, such as the grandiosity and goal instability scales
(Robbins & Patton, 1985), the social connectedness and social assurance scales (Lee &
Robbins, 1995), and the Self-Object Needs Inventory (SONI; Banai, Mikulincer, &
Shaver, 2005).

Although an individual’s perceptions are conceptualized as a ﬁrnction of the self,
there has been no investigation of expectations and attributions as a function of the self.

This study was an attempt to relate the self psychological variables of grandiosity and

goal instability with the positive psychology variables of general expectations and
attributions made for negative events. According to the self-psychological model, self-
object needs, grandiosity, and goal instability are a reﬂection of the stability of childhood
development as well as the functioning of the self which is demonstrated in adult
motivation, behavior, regulation of affect, and interpersonal functioning (Banai, et al.,
2005; Robbins & Patton, 1985). Empirically exploring attributions and expectations in
the self-psychological paradigm can lead to a better understanding of self functioning and
ultimately will be applicable to the therapy setting. Even with a better understanding of
client expectations and attributions, misunderstandings in the therapeutic setting will be
inevitable and can be effectively used for curative change. Relating the ﬁmctioning of the
self to expectations and attributions garners a new psychoanalytic paradigm for the
development of positive and negative expectancies. In addition, it is also important to
examine the expectations and attributional style of a person with a more cohesive and
healthy self as well, thereby heeding the wisdom of Gelso and F assinger (1992) for
further investigating healthy personality functioning. Taking a page from positive
psychology, a better understanding of strengths will only complement what is known
about pathology (Seligman, Steen, Park, & Peterson, 2005).
Research Question

How do variables pertaining to the functioning of the self relate with one’s
cognitive explanatory style for negative events and general outlook on the future? The
following research hypotheses were examined:

H01: There is no signiﬁcant expected canonical relationship between the two data

sets (Rc = 0).

H1: Grandiosity will be Si gniﬁcantly related to an external attributional style for
negative events.

H02: There is no signiﬁcant relationship expected between attributional style for
negative events and goal instability.

H03: There is no signiﬁcant relationship expected between expectations for life
events and grandiosity.

H04: There is no signiﬁcant relationship expected between expectations for life
events and goal instability.

The ﬁrst clinical hypothesis (H1) is the only directional hypothesis stated and is
based on the literature on narcissism (Campbell, Rudich, & Sedikides, 2002; Morf &
Rhodewalt, 2001; Campbell, Reeder, Sedikides, & Elliot, 2000). It is posited that
grandiosity will be signiﬁcantly related to an external attributional style. In other words,
those with extreme scores on the scale measuring grandiosity will make external causal
attributions for negative events. The external attributional style is not a ﬁrnction of an
optimistic personality, as the reformulated learned helplessness model would posit, but
instead the result of a perceptual construction of reality that is meant to maintain self-
esteem. The remaining hypotheses are stated as null hypotheses and are exploratory as
the relationship between self-psychological variables (grandiosity and goal instability)
and positive psychology variables (expectations and attributions) cannot be predicted at
this juncture. Thus, the ﬁrst part of the study examined and bridged theories within two
popular paradigms of psychology (psychoanalysis and positive psychology) by

examining the relationship between constructs within their respective theories. It was

hoped that a better understanding of cognitive functioning is garnered within a
psychoanalytic context of personality.

The hypotheses of the ﬁrst research question were examined by canonical
correlation analysis. The canonical procedure created linear combinations of the
variables for each set of variables; these new variables are known as canonical variates.
The relationship between the two data sets was determined by seeing how the canonical
variates related to each other as well as how they related to the original sets of self-
psychology and positive psychology variables. Signiﬁcant effects were determined by
tests of signiﬁcance as well as indexes of effect Size.

A second research question that was examined concerned the factor structure of
the Self-Object Needs Inventory (SONI; Banai, et al., 2005). The SONI was originally
written in Hebrew when developed at Bar-Illan University in Israel. This measure was
administered to 372 undergraduate participants; factor analysis showed the SONI to
consist of the following ﬁve factors: hunger for mirroring, hunger for idealization,
hunger for twinship, avoidance of mirroring, and the avoidance of idealization/twinship.
Essentially, we were trying to replicate the Banai et a1. study and conﬁrm the 5-factor
structure of the SONI using a slightly modiﬁed English version of the measure and using
a sample of undergraduates from a large Midwestern university in the United States. All
modiﬁcations to the SONI were approved by the original author. The hypothesis of the
second research question was examined by conﬁrmatory factor analysis. Model ﬁt was
determined through various indexes of ﬁt. The hypothesis that addresses the factor

structure Of the SONI was stated as follows:

H5: The factor structure of the Self-Object Needs Inventory consists of 5 factors:
hunger for mirroring, hunger for idealization, hunger for twinship, avoidance of
mirroring, and the avoidance of idealization/twinship.

Overall, this study was anticipated to yield a better understanding of a person’s
general expectations and explanatory style for events as a degree of optimal ﬁrnctioning
of the self and ultimately may be useful in understanding client expectations and
explanatory style in the therapeutic setting. The results may be useful for those mental
health professionals who would appreciate a theoretically integrative understanding of
clients and those who may not use self-psychological analytic techniques but may instead
prefer an analytically informed understanding of the person (Gelso & F retz, 2001). In an
era where theoretical eclecticism is embraced (Weiten & Lloyd, 2006; Garﬁeld & Bergin,
1986) and the contextual and common factors of therapy (such as client expectancies) are
being considered as the factors of change in outcome studies (W ampold, 2001), this

theoretically integrative study was indeed needed.

CHAPTER 2 — Review of the Literature
Psychoanalysis

The revolutionary accomplishments of Sigmund Freud have been compared with
that of Copernicus, Newton, and Darwin in that they have changed man’s views of reality
regarding human nature and behavior (Lapsley, 1994; Steinberg, 1987). Freud’s work
has impressed upon us the importance of parent and child dynamics as well as the
signiﬁcance of the formative years in childhood. Psychoanalytic theory not only
addresses issues of psychopathology but also comments on normal personality
ﬁmctioning, culture, art, and history (Wolitzky, 1995). This comprehensive theory is
considered the ﬁrst insight oriented therapy which served as the nexus of all insight-
oriented therapies (Gelso & F retz, 2001). In order to have a better understanding of
analytic theory it is important to examine its philosophy of science.

Psychoanalytic theory is considered a meta-psychology (Robbins, 1989). There is
a distinction to be made between empirically-based psychology and meta-psychology.
The science of psychology is based on empiricism and is therefore bound to the
principles of clarity, precision, and the intolerance for error (Weiten & Lloyd, 2006).
Psychoanalytic theory extends beyond the borders of empiricism and focuses on that
which cannot be seen or empirically veriﬁed. Robbins (1989) identiﬁes ﬁve propositions
that serve as the basis of psychoanalytic theory. These propositions consist of the
dynamic, economic, structural, genetic, and adaptive points of View. First,
psychoanalytic theory is a dynamic theory, and thus posits that behavior is inﬂuenced by
conﬂicting and unseen motivational forces. Next, psychoanalytic theory proposes that

motivational forces and energies seek means for discharge that are pleasurable. Third,

10

unseen psychological structures determine the functioning of the dynamic processes.
Fourth, psychoanalytic theory considers behavior to be a function of psychological
factors that develop from both the individual’s constitutional attributes and their
environment; this development progresses according to a set pattern of developmental
stages. Finally, adaptation occurs throughout life and these adaptive processes occur
because of changes in the individual and in the environment. Different contemporary
psychoanalytic theories emphasize these propositions to differing degrees; Freud’s
original psychoanalytic model has expanded and was further developed both by Freud
himself as well as those who followed him (Robbins, 1989). Gelso and Fretz (2001)
broadly identify four prominent schools of psychoanalytic thought: the drive model, ego-
psychology, object-relations, and self-psychology. The following is a brief outline of
these different schools of thought with the acknowledgement that what follows simply
scratches the surface of the vast literature and of each school of psychoanalytic thought.
Freud’s drive model started as a delineation of the levels of consciousness known.
as the topographical model. The conscious is all activity that is within awareness. The
preconscious is mental content just below awareness but cOuld easily reach conscious
awareness. Freud conceptualized the unconscious to be the level of the mind that stored
content that was not in awareness and was not easily accessible but can covertly inﬂuence
behavior and presents through dream activity. Freud believed that the unconscious
served as the storage for memories of repressed traumatic events (Robbins, 1989). The
conscious part of the mind operates logically and adaptively whereas the unconscious
realm of the mind is instinctual, biological, and in incessant need for expression of its

sexual energies. The sexual energy, referred to as libido, is the drive for self-preservation

11

and includes all behaviors and motivations that self-preservation entails. Freud posited
that libido can be invested in the self as well as on others. Libidinal energy invested in
the self became part of Freud’s conception of narcissism. Based on clinical Observations
of self-destructive and self-punitive behavior, Freud then revised his drive theory to
address the phenomenon of aggression. His dual-instinct theory consisted of an
instinctual drive for love and survival (Bros) and an instinctual drive for aggression and
self-destruction (Thanatos; Arlow, 1995).

Freud’s next revision of drive theory was to conceptualize the structure of the
mind into three components: the id, the ego, and the superego. The id represents the
instinctual drives and their pressure for expression (Arlow, 1995). The id resides in the
unconscious and operates according to the pleasure principle and thus demands
immediate gratiﬁcation (McWilliams, 1994). Through experiences with the outside
world, the inner world develops the ego. The ego acts as a mediator between the inner
world and the outside world and operates according to the reality principle in which
social constraints are considered. The ﬁnal component of the structural theory of mind is
the superego. The superego is comprised of parental moral inﬂuences and ideals. How
the ego mediates the conﬂicts between the id, ego, and superego becomes the deﬁnition
of mental health (Arlow, 1995). Although Freud put greater emphasis on the ego with
the development of structural theory, the crux of drive theory is how sexual and
aggressive drives are channeled into urges and inﬂuence behavior. Freud’s followers
emphasized and further delineated the adaptive functions of the ego. Their revision of
psychoanalytic theory developed into a second psychoanalytic school of thought known

as ego psychology (Gelso & F retz, 2001).

12

The efforts of Heinz Harttrnan (1939) and Anna Freud (1936) were crucial in
fortifying the adaptive View of ego functioning (Gelso & F retz, 2001; Gelso & Fassinger,
1992; Robbins, 1989). Ego psychology frames the ego as more than a structure that
simply reacts to inner psychic conﬂict, instead, focusing on the adaptive aspects of the
ego in relation to the environment (Josephs, 1991). Thus, how well a person
acknowledged reality without having to rely on defense mechanisms became known as
ego-strength (McWilliams, 1994). Ego-psychology emphasizes ego-strength,
development, defenses, and reality testing (Gelso & Fretz, 2001). Josephs (1991) frames
the functions of the ego (i.e. “judgment, planning, anticipation, reality testing, problem
solving, etc.”) as a cognitive style necessary for adaptation to the environment (pp. 6-7).

How the ego functions is dependent on its development as well as constitutional
factors. Ego psychology focuses on the pre-Oedipal formative years of ego development
and its inﬂuence on healthy ego functioning. Early trauma will have consequences for
subsequent ego development and functioning (Gelso & Fretz, 2001). The ego is also
conceptualized as having both conscious as well as unconscious aspects in its
functioning. The conscious part of the ego includes the experience-near construct of the
“I” or the “self.” The unconscious part of the ego mediates the defense mechanisms that
protect the ego from the striving of the id, disturbing reality experiences, and guilt from
the super ego. Ego psychology also differentiates the maturity and variety of defense
mechanisms used. Someone who consistently defends with certain defense mechanisms
such as projection and denial is considered to be rigid in coping style (McWilliams,
1994). Although ego psychology increased the clinical explanatory value of

psychoanalytic theory, many American and British psychoanalysts were further

13

developing psychoanalytic theory in new directions, focusing on the need to relate to
others. The next step in the development of psychoanalytic theory is the object-relations
school of thought (Gelso & F retz, 2001).

The object relations tradition is broad and encompasses relational theories such as
interpersonal theory and attachment theory (Gelso & Fretz, 2001). Work in object—
relations theory spans both Sides of the Atlantic. European psychoanalysts who have
contributed to object relations theory include Klein, F airbairn, and others. American
contributions to object-relations theory include the work of Kemberg, Mahler, and others
(Robbins, 1989).

The primary difference between the obj ect-relations and drive theory or ego
psychology is the theory of motivation. Whereas drive theory and ego psychology
conceptualized motivation and behavior as pleasure seeking, Object-relations theory
emphasizes the importance of relationships (current as well as early relationships), how
others are experienced, and the internal representations of others (in psychoanalytical
vernacular known as objects) that are products of relationships (Gelso & Fretz, 2001).
The object relations tradition grew from working with patients suffering from serious
psychological impairment (more serious pathology than Freud had originally thought
could proﬁt from analysis) and research on early mother and child relations. Thus, a new
understanding of psychopathology came to ﬁ'uition by conceptualizing pathology as the
client’s inner world inﬂuenced by representations of others (i.e. caretakers) in the client’s
early formative relations (McWilliams, 1994). Early relationships (as opposed to
conﬂicts) become the crux of psychological health and these relationships reﬂect on

current functioning in present relationships (Gelso & F retz, 2001).

14

All psychoanalytic theories of the person are developmental by nature (Gelso &
Fassinger, 1992). Object-relations research understood human development differently
from classic Freudian theory. Margaret Mahler (1960, 1971) conceptualized
psychological development as a progressive process in which the individual gradually
advances ﬁom a state of psychological union with the mother to a state of psychological
separateness and individuality. This process of separation and individuation is
conceptualized as three overlapping developmental phases of psychological growth
(normal autism, normal symbiosis, and separation and individuation). The separation and
individuation phase is ﬁrrther divided into the four sub—phases of differentiation,
practicing, rapprochement, and object constancy. Healthy progression through each
phase is dependent on the mother’s reaction to the infant’s strivings of exploring and
discovery of its body and the outside world (St. Clair, 1996). As opposed to Mahler’s
model of development where connectedness exists at the start of psychological
development, the attachment of Ainsworth and Bowlby (1991) conceptualizes
connectedness as an endpoint of healthy development (St. Clair, 1996). In this model of
attachment, responsive and supportive parents provide a secure base to explore the
environment and relate to others.

The importance of early relationships is also clear in Sullivan’s (1953)
interpersonal theory of motivation and behavior. According to Josephs (1991), Sullivan
expanded the ego-psychological View of adaptation from being entirely an intra-psychic
process to taking account of socio-cultural and contextual factors in an individual’s
development. Adaptation therefore is conceptualized as the individual having to

interpersonally assimilate to the circumstances of their environment. This interpersonal

15

assimilation to the environment must take place in order for the individual to be accepted
by others and maintain self-esteem. Karen Homey (1950), another interpersonal theorist,
also realized the importance of relationships in the development of an individual’s innate
potentialities and talents. Homey considered the interpersonal nurturance of natural
talents as the crux of healthy psychological development. Without the support of talents
and potentialities, the individual cannot develop into what they are supposed to.
Stymieing this natural development can lead to resentment and self-hatred. Heinz Kohut
(1971, 1977, 1984) combined the interpersonal need for acceptance and the need for
developing of natural potentialities in his model of the bi-polar self (Josephs, 1991) and
developed his theory of self-psychology, a new and radically different development in
psychoanalytic thinking. Self-psychology would have profound effects in
psychoanalytic thinking and ultimately bridge psychoanalytic theory with counseling
psychology (Gelso & F assinger, 1992).
Psychoanalm'c Self-Psychology

Self-psychology is a comprehensive theory of psychological development,
personality, and therapy that has become an inﬂuential school of thought among
psychoanalytic theories (Gelso & Fretz, 2001). Developed by Heinz Kohut, this
psychoanalytic theory holds true to the basic tenets of psychoanalysis but distances itself
from such concepts such as drives, conﬂict, and the tripartite structure of personality, and
instead, embraces the construct of the self as the center of motivation and behavior.
Kohut further differentiates self-psychological theory ﬁom classical drive theory by
considering the healthy development of narcissism as the means of achieving an adaptive

and cohesive self (Patton & Meara, 1996; Wolitzky & Eagle, 1997; Kohut, 1984; Kohut

16

& Wolf, 1978). Classical drive theory considers neurosis to be a function of ongoing
repressed oedipal conﬂict between the intact structures of personality (id, ego, and super-
ego). Kohut’s self-psychology carries psychoanalytic thinking in a new direction by
conceptualizing disorders of the self as a ﬁrnction of deﬁcits in the self-structure,
therefore, making self-psychology a deﬁcit model of psychopathology as opposed to a
conﬂict model (St. Clair, 1996; Baker, 1991). According to Baker (1991), four concepts
are critical to the understanding of self—psychological theory: the concept of the self, the
self-object, the purpose of symptoms in the disorders of the self, and the importance of
empathy in the treatment of the disorders of the self.

Kohut (1971, 1978, 1984) deﬁnes the self as the center of motivation and
behavior. The self consists of systems of feelings, thoughts, memories, sensations, and
attitudes that organize subjective experiences (Banai, Mikulincer, & Shaver, 2005; Baker,
1991; Kohut, 1971, 1977, 1984; Patton & Meara, 1996). The systems of the self develop
from the matrix of the child’s biological endowments and the environmental self-object
milieu provided by caretakers. The infantile self consists of two archaic self-objects, the
grandiose self and the idealized parent imago (Kohut & Wolf, 1978), also referred to as
the idealized parental image (Patton & Meara, 1996; Patton & Robbins, 1982). These
two parallel lines Of developmental narcissism are connected by a tension arc of talents
and skills. If narcissistic and self-object needs are not met in childhood these needs will
surface in adulthood in relational terms and result in a self that struggles to maintain
cohesion (Kohut, 1971, 1977, 1984).

The concept of the self-object is pivotal to self-psychology. Self-objects are

mental representations of people or things that are experienced as a part of the self and

17

carry out the ﬁrnctions of the self such as maintenance of self-esteem and regulation of
affect. The responsiveness of an individual’s self-object environment in childhood is
critical to the development of innate and healthy narcissism (Kohut, 1971). Kohut (1971,
1977) originally identiﬁed two kinds of self-objects that are critical for healthy
psychological development. The mirroring self-object conﬁrms the child’s sense of
greatness and maintains self-esteem whereas the idealized parental image serves as an
object of omnipotence and composure that the child can look up to and with which they
can merge. The grandiose-self develops by the mirroring response of caretakers to the
child’s exhibitionistic tendencies (caretakers serving as mirroring self-objects) which
develop into childhood assertiveness and ultimately becomes healthy ambition as a
source of vitality and greatness. Idealization of caretakers (caretakers served as idealized
self—objects) develops into admiration which ultimately becomes the ability to set healthy
and realistic goals (Kohut & Wolf, 1978). The twinship and connectedness self-object
was proposed later by Kohut (1984) which he conceptualized as the part of the self which
resulted in feelings of ﬁtting-in and similarity to others.

Another important and somewhat unique aspect of self-psychology is the concept
of symptoms of psychopathology being attempts at maintaining self-cohesion at times Of
psychological distress (Baker, 1991). Kohut developed self-psychological theory through
the analysis of clients with disorders of the self such as narcissistic and borderline
personality disorder (Kohut & Wolf, 1978). Through working with these clients, Kohut
theorized that symptoms of these disorders are the shortsighted efforts of the self to
maintain cohesion or some form of expression. Attempts to remedy deﬁcits in the self

take the form of defensive maneuvers and compensatory behaviors. Defensive

l8

maneuvers are attempts to cover and deny self-deﬁcit. The person looks outside the self
and uses other people and things to achieve a sense of greatness (defect in the grandiose
line of development) or to soothe the self (defect in the idealized parental image line of
development). Such defensive maneuvers may manifest as addiction to substances,
sexual perversion, Obesity, and delinquent behavior (Patton & Meara, 1996; Patton &
Robbins, 1982). The psychological roots of the term “comfort food” becomes apparent
when considering it as a defensive maneuver to soothe against anxiety that the self can
not mollify because of self-object deﬁcits. According to Patton and Robbins (1982),
compensatory strategies “are longer term behavior patterns that do not merely cover over
the defect, they actively make up for it” (p. 882). A person with deﬁcits in the grandiose
self may compensate for the defect by garnering admiration from others but still feel
empty (Patton & Meara, 1996; Patton & Robbins, 1982). Such pathology is considered
to run the continuum from adjustment disorders to psychosis (Baker, 1991).
Development of the self and its vulnerability to pathology is in large part determined by
parental character (Kohut & Wolf, 1978).

Self-psychological theory posits that the child’s psychological needs for self-
objects are analogous to the child’s biological needs of food and air in terms of survival.
Healthy development entails caretakers serving as self-objects for the child’s grandiosity
and idealization needs. No parent is perfectly attuned to a child’s self-object needs and
self-object needs are bound to be frustrated. If these frustrations in caretaker attunement
to the child’s self-object needs are not traumatic, the child’s archaic-self will further
develop replacing parental self-objects with a functioning self. A parent with unmet self-

object needs will most likely not be attuned to and accepting of the child’s developmental

19

narcissism (Kohut & Wolf, 1978). Failures in parental empathy which are chronic and
severe result in ﬁxation in the development of the grandiose self and/or the idealized self
(self-object imago). Fixation of the grandiose self results in dependency on others to
serve as a mirroring self-object to support the person’s infantile grandiosity and maintain
esteem. Fixation of the idealized self results in a person seeking merger with others
perceived as powerful. Targets of infantile idealization would include people and
organizations in the social, religious, and political realms (Patton & Meara, 1996).
Taxonomy of the disorders of the self has been delineated by Kohut and Wolf (1978).

The self-psychological model distinguishes between secondary disturbances of
the self and the more severe primary disturbances of the self. When referring to
secondary disturbances of the self, Kohut is conceptualizing a relatively intact and
cohesive self. The ability of the self to cope with a stressor is contingent upon its relative
cohesiveness. Kohut’s model of the self can be applied to how resilient one may be in the
face of such chronic frustrations as institutionalized racism, sexism, and ablism (Kohut &
Wolf, 1978).

The more severe disturbances of the self known as the primary disturbances result
from relatively more severe disorganization and disruption in the self-structure. There
are several categories of the primary disturbances of the self. Psychosis is experienced
when the self lacks structure or the structure of the self is severely disrupted. The deﬁcits
in the structure of the self can be because of the interaction of innate and environment
deﬁcits such as organic vulnerability to pathology or a severely traumatic and
invalidating upbringing. A second grouping of disturbances of the self consists of the

borderline states of self-pathology. What distinguish borderline disorders from

20

psychoses are the defenses used to cover the disorganization and fragmentation in the
self. A more resilient grouping of primary disturbances of the self would be that of the
narcissistic behavior disorders. This grouping of the primary disturbances manifests as
deviant and addictive behaviors in an attempt to restore a sense of vitality to a self-
structure with developmental deﬁcit (Kohut & Wolf, 1978). A ﬁnal group of primary
disturbances are the narcissistic personality disorders. Kohut and Wolf (1978) describe
the narcissistic personality disorders as similar to the narcissistic behavior disorders but
more pervasive, “. . .symptoms — e. g. hypochondria, depression, hypersensitivity to
slights, lack of zest — concern not primarily the actions and interactions of the individual
but rather his psychological state” (p. 416). Kohut’s taxonomy of disorders of the self
clearly differs from that of the DSM-IV—TR (2000). Kohut’s model of pathology is
rooted in psychoanalytic conceptions of the faulty development of narcissism and formed
from clinical observations in psychoanalytic sessions (Tesser, 1991), whereas the DSM-
IV -TR (American Psychiatric Association, 2000) is atheoretical and attempts to delineate
and describe the behaviors of different pathological conditions.

It is also through analysis of clients with disorders of the self that Kohut
discovered that empathic emersion into the world of the client is the best means of
helping clients. The analyst serves as a self-object for the client and through empathic
attunement and emersion into the world of the client, allows further development of a
strengthened self—structure within the therapeutic milieu. No therapist can be perfectly
empathically attuned to the client and the client will react to this lapse in empathic
attunement. This lapse in empathy serves as a non-traumatic frustration (an optimal

ﬁ'ustration) for the client and the therapist empathically interprets the client’s reaction.

21

Through optimal frustrations in empathy, the client’s self is strengthened through the
process of transmuting internalization (Kohut, 1971, 1977, 1984). Kohut has compared
transmuting internalization to the physiological process of digesting protein in order to
strengthening the body (Kohut & Wolf, 1978). Self- psychology and the above
mentioned constructs have had Signiﬁcant inﬂuence in psychoanalytic circles and the
theory has shown applicability in variety of settings and populations (Gelso & Fretz,
2001)

Kohut’s self-psychology has been compared to the humanistic psychology of Carl
Rogers and is considered to bridge counseling psychology and psychoanalysis because of
the theory’s emphasis on the self and empathic attunement to the client (Khan, 1985).
Self-psychology has also been proposed as: a remedial therapy in the college counseling
setting (Patton & Robbins, 1982), a short-term therapy (Baker, 1991), predictive of self-
perception of interpersonal behavior (Robbins & Dupont, 1992), applicable to vocational
issues (Robbins & Patton, 1985), relevant to Asian (Roland, 1996) and Arab (Zonis,
1980) cultures, and predictive of the adjustment of the elderly (Payne, Robbins, &
Dougherty, 1991). The above is just a short list of the applications of this incredibly
heuristic psychoanalytic theory.

The Superiority and Goal Instabilig Scales

The work of Steven Robbins (Lee & Robbins, 1995; Payne, Robbins, &
Dougherty, 1991; Robbins, Lee, & Wan, 1994; Robbins & Dupont, 1992; Robbins, 1989;
Robbins & Patton, 1985) and Michael Patton (Patton & Meara, 1996; Patton & Meara,
1992) has been instrumental in empirically investigating the concepts of self-psychology

and elucidating the use and function of self—psychology within counseling psychology.

22

One area of focus for these scholars has been the integration of self-psychology with
career decision making and planning (Patton & Robbins, 1985), an area congruent with
counseling psychology’s focus on career related issues (Gelso & F retz, 2001).

Using Kohut’s concepts of the grandiose and idealized self (Kohut, 1971, 1977,
1984), they developed the superiority and goal-instability scales as a measure of the
development and execution of career plans. Congruent with self-psychological theory,
people with an exaggerated sense of self-importance and who were dependent on others
to validate this sense of importance were less likely to pursue career related issues.
Likewise, individuals with deﬁcits in ideals and goals were likely to demonstrate
difﬁculty in career decision making. Goal instability and superiority are the respective
expressions of the developmental vectors of grandiosity and idealization in the model of
the bipolar self. lndices ﬁom these scales demonstrate ﬁrnctions of the self such as the
ability to realistically appraise talents and skills, having a reasonable and stable set of
goals, and being able to take action toward the completion of goals (Robbins & Patton,
1985)
The Self Object Needs lnventogy

The latest empirical investigation of the concepts of self—psychology by Banai et
a1. (2005) examines the interpersonal functioning of the self as a function of the self-
object deﬁcits in the self-structure. This line of research not only examines the validity
of the concepts of self-psychology but also bridges self-psychological theory with
empirical investigations of the self in the social psychology literature. In a series of
seven studies, Banai et a1. (2005) create a measure of self-object needs, the Self Object

Needs Inventory (SONI), and related this measure to several personality-related

23

variables. The ﬁnding of the seven studies were generally in support of Kohut’s theories
about the development of the self and interpersonal functioning of the self based on the
self-Object needs of individuals.

The ﬁrst of the seven studies created the SONI and administered it to 372 Israeli
undergraduates. The authors then examined the factor structure of the SONI and the
measure’s psychometric properties. Basic patterns of interpersonal functioning were that
of hunger for self-obj ects (because of a defective self-structure that is dependent on
others as external self-objects to maintain the functions of the self) or avoidance of self-
objects (socially avoidant behavior in anticipation of the frustration of self-object needs
by others). Factor analysis of the SONI revealed a ﬁve-factor structure: the hunger for
mirroring, the hunger for idealization, the hunger for twinship, the avoidance of
mirroring, and the avoidance of idealization/havinship. Banai et a1. expected that the
avoidance of idealization and twinship would be separate factors as Kohut’s writings
would predict, but this was not the case. A factor analysis was also performed on the
collapsed samples of studies two through seven (N=573) revealing the same structure of
ﬁve factors. The authors simply reasoned that anyone who would avoid the idealization
of another would also avoid situations that would lead to feelings of kinship and
connectedness. Banai et a1. did mention that future research may be able to distinguish
between the avoidance of idealization and twinship.

The results of Banai et a1. conﬁrm Kohut’s idea’s of a defective self resulting in
emotional maladjustment as both personality styles correlated with high levels of anxiety
and depression. Results diverge from Kohut’s ideas in that only the interpersonal pattern

of hunger for self-obj ects demonstrated low self-esteem whereas those demonstrating

24

avoidance of self-Objects did not experience lower self-esteem. The authors argued that
either the socially avoidant pattern has a protective function or that the measure of self-
esteem used (Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale; Rosenberg, 1979) was too overt of a
measure. Overall results Show that the SONI seems to measure self-object deﬁcits that
manifest as anxiety, depression, emotional dependence or hostility toward others, which
according to self-psychological theory are indicative Of the individual’s difﬁculties in
regulating affect and self-esteem internally (Kohut, 1984).

Psychoanalysis and Counseling

According to Gelso and Fretz (2001), counseling psychology truly owes a dept of
gratitude to Freud and his outstanding work for serving as the foundation of all
counseling interventions. Although psychoanalytic theory has been applicable to
counseling psychology (Bordin, 1980), it has never held a pivotal position in counseling
tradition (Borgen, 1984). Gelso and F retz (2001) highlight differences in the classical
psychoanalytic paradigm and the unifying themes of counseling psychology that make
counseling psychology and psychoanalytic theory “strange bedfellows” (p. 322).

The tenets of counseling psychology differ from that of classical analytic theory
on three levels. Classical analysis focuses on long-term treatment whereas brief-
treatrnent is a predominant theme of counseling psychology. Secondly, psychoanalysis
also emphasizes intra-psychic factors as the root of behavior whereas counseling
psychology considers person factors, environment factors, and the person-environment
interaction in determining behavior. An emphasis on intra-psychic factors as the
determinant of behavior has an impact on the cultural sensitivity of psychoanalytic theory

and therefore diminishing applicability to multicultural populations (Ponterotto & Casas,

25

1991). Finally, whereas psychoanalytic theory concentrates on client pathology (based
on conﬂict and developmental deﬁcit), counseling psychology emphasizes the strengths
of clients, even when considering clients who are highly pathological (Gelso & Fretz,
2001). Although strange bedfellows at one time, changes in psychoanalytic thinking
have made psychoanalytic theory and counseling psychology more compatible (Gelso &
Fretz, 2001; Gelso & Fassinger, 1992).
Changes in Psychoanalytic Thinking and Practice

Gelso and Fassinger (1992) identify four trends in psychoanalytic work that have
had consequences on counseling psychology, in large part making psychoanalytic theory
more congruent with counseling psychology (Gelso & F retz, 2001). The ﬁrst trend is an
emphasis on social, interpersonal, and cultural factors as opposed to the biological and
instinctual. This trend is congruent with counseling psychology’s emphasis on cultural
diversity and behavior as a function of the interaction of the person and environment
factors. Two groups are given credit for this ﬁrst trend. The ﬁrst group are the neo-
Freudians, analysts such as Horney, Sullivan, and Erickson as well as others. Object-
relations and self-psychology analysts, such as Mahler and Kohut, are the second group
responsible for this trend toward the social and interpersonal. These theorists have
added to the depth and breadth of psychoanalysis by investigating the development of
psychological health as opposed to concentrating on pathology.

The second trend identiﬁed is the emphasis on adaptation and coping. Robbins
(1989) notes the emphasis on ego-functioning in contemporary psychoanalytic theory is
congruent with counseling psychology’s focus on coping and adjustment. This trend

was started by Freud with his development of the structural model of personality and ego

26

psychology (as opposed to id psychology). This trend includes the diminished
importance of the phallic stage and the Oedipal complex. According to Gelso and F retz
(2001), there has been a reformulation of the Oedipal Complex where it is regarded as
more a psychosocial phenomenon rather than psycho-sexual (i.e. doing away with the
concept of penis envy; B. Karon, personal communication, October 5, 2005) and
therefore being less sexist and biased against women. Also, coping and adjustment
throughout the life cycle is addressed as opposed to the ﬁrst few years of life.

Another trend identiﬁed is the application of psychoanalytically based
developmental theories, such as separation-individuation and attachment theory, to
counseling psychology research. While psychoanalytic developmental theories are
concerned with the ﬁrst few years of life, counseling psychology looks at the application
of these theories to adolescence and adulthood. Lopez and Brennan (2000) offer a
description of a healthy and fully functioning self that is consistent with attachment
research. Blustein, Walbridge, F riedlander, and Palladino (1991) performed two studies
examining the relationship between difﬁculties in separation and attachment to career
indecision, career decision making efﬁcacy, and the career commitment process. Lopez,
Campbell, & Watkins (1986) examined the relationship between psychological separation
and the variables of family structure and college adjustment. All three studies were
published in the Journal of Counseling Psychology, a prominent counseling psychology
professional journal, thus showing the inﬂuence of psychoanalytic theory on counseling
psychology.

The fourth trend identiﬁed involves the study of therapist variables. Classical

analysis considered therapist variables as unimportant because counter-transference was

27

seen as something to be avoided, an unchecked therapist variable that can only impede
therapeutic progress. A burgeoning literature on counter-transference in counseling
psychology has highlighted the importance of therapist variables (i.e. therapist anxiety,
therapist empathy, therapist self-knowledge) in the effectiveness of treatment (Gelso &
F assinger, 1992). Patton and Meara (1996) posit that therapist variables are especially
important in the practice of self-psychological therapy; they compare the importance of
the character of the therapist to that of the client’s parents in achieving effective
therapeutic outcomes.

Finally, due to factors such as the streamlining of mental health services,
psychoanalytic therapy has made changes in the length of treatment. Although
psychoanalysis was ﬁrst proposed as an intensive and comprehensive treatment lasting
for years, short-term psychoanalytically-based therapies have become popular. These
brief analytic treatments are more structured, active, and focus on speciﬁc client
problems. This focus on briefer analytic treatments is congruent with counseling
psychology’s unifying theme of briefer interactions (Gelso & Fretz, 2001). Although
psychoanalytic therapy has become more congruent with counseling psychology with
time, the growing positive psychology movement with its focus on virtues and strengths
seems especially compatible with counseling psychology and formalizes a movement that
is dedicated to the study of the healthy and fully functioning personality. Gelso and
Fassinger’s (1992) call for the study of the development and functioning of the healthy

personality comes to fruition with the growth of this new perspective in psychology.

28

Positive Psychology

Positive psychology is the scientiﬁc study of human virtues and strengths such as
forgiveness, hope, courage, love, optimism, etc. The positive psychology movement
hopes to call attention to positive character traits and strengths in an attempt to more
completely understand human behavior and therefore bring better balance to the science
of psychology. A very signiﬁcant Sign of the growing strength of the positive
psychology movement is the many publications devoted to the subject of positive
psychology. One positive psychology publication that is worth mention is Character
Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classiﬁcation (CSV; Peterson & Seligman,
2004), which is a manual of classiﬁcation for human strengths which stands in stark
contrast to the American Psychiatric Association’s publication, the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric
Association), which is known for it’s classiﬁcation of psychopathology (Seligman, Steen,
Park, & Peterson, 2005).

Although positive psychology has been solidiﬁed and formalized as a new
movement, the roots of positive psychology are built upon the work of past scholars and
theorists. Carl Rogers is one of the many scholars whose work has been credited to be a
forerunner to the positive psychology movement (Seligman, Steen, Park, & Peterson,
2005). Rogers is known as one of the founders of the humanistic movement and the
creator of person-centered theory, a theory of personality development and
psychotherapy that emphasizes the needs of the self in relation to the interpersonal

context and environment. Humanistic theory in general, and speciﬁcally the work and

29

concepts of Rodgers, has had a tremendous impact on counseling psychology (Gelso &
F retz, 2001). Khan (1985) points out that the theories and work of both Rogers and
Kohut emphasize the self, free will, self-enhancement, the importance of supportive
relationships throughout life, and empathy in the therapeutic relationship.

Much like the applied clinical work of Rogers and Kohut, positive psychology
also has an applied facet in which positive interventions have the goal of inducing
positive emotions and therefore leading to a happier state of mind and ultimately, a
happier existence. Happy people are more healthy, social, and successful (Seligman,
Steen, Park, & Peterson, 2005). This causal relation permeates the psychoanalytic object-
relations literature as well which recognizes the connection between adjustment and
supportive relationships (Gelso & F assinger, 1992).

One of the most heuristic theories of happiness is the Brickrnan and Campbell
(1971) hedonic treadmill theory. According to the original version of this theory, both
happiness and unhappiness are transitory reactions to changes in circumstances in which
people habituate and return to a set-point of neutrality. Happiness and unhappiness are
conceptualized as transitory reactions to changes in circumstances rather than a result of
the circumstances themselves (Diener, Lucas, & Scollon,'2006). According to
Brickman, Coates, & J anoff-Bulman (1978), the transitory nature of happiness is a
function of adaptation. Experiences that are salient and relevant to other experiences
(Brickman et al.’s example was winning a million dollars) are susceptible to adaptation;
adaptation takes place by means of contrast and habituation. When an extremely salient
and relevant positive event takes place, other positive events of lesser magnitude will pale

in comparison; this would be an example of contrast. Furthermore, the same relevant

30

and salient positive event would lose its pleasurable impact with time; this is an example
of habituation. In order to empirically test this hypothesis, Brickman et al. (1977)
compared levels of happiness between 22 lottery winners, 29 people with acquired spinal
cord injury, and a control group of 22 participants who were neither lottery winners nor
accident victims. Results demonstrated that lottery winners were not happier than
controls (habituation) and experienced less pleasure from ordinary events (contrast).
Thus, in contrast to positive psychology (that seeks means of increasing a state of
happiness in people), hedonic treadmill theory considers the pursuit of happiness a futile
endeavor as long-term happiness is not truly achievable due to habituation to
circumstances and return to the neutral set point.

Although Deiner, Lucas, and Scollon (2006) agree with the crux of hedonic
treadmill theory, they recently revised the theory according to more contemporary
research on adaptation. According to the revised version of the theory, lasting changes in
happiness and subjective wellbeing can be achieved. The psychological literature on
happiness and subjective wellbeing supports this ﬁnding (i.e. Seligman, Steen, Park, &
Peterson, 2005; Emmons & McCullough, 2003; Fordyce, 1977, 1983).

The ﬁrst empirical investigations on increasing happiness were by F ordyce (1977,
1983). He was able to design and test a program of “14 fundamentals” (p. 516; F ordyce,
1977) that consisted of educational components as well as activities that make the
participant more cognizant of happiness. The exercises of the program include:

(a) keep busy and more active; (b) spend more time socializing; (c) be productive

at meaningful work; ((1) get better organized and plan things out; (e) stop

worrying; (t) lower your expectations and aspirations; (g) develop positive,

31

Optimistic thinking; (h) become present oriented; (i) work on a healthy
personality; (j) develop an outgoing, social personality; (k) be yourself; (1)
eliminate negative feelings and problems; (m) close relationships are the number
one source of happiness; (n) put happiness as your most important priority
(Fordyce, 1983; p. 484)
According to Fordyce (1977, 1983), exercises and suggestions of the 14 fundamentals
were taken from the psychological literature on happiness. Although some of the
suggestions seem vague, there was an educational component to the program so the
exercises were explained and elaborated on for the participants.

F ordyce (1977) came to several signiﬁcant conclusions. First, happiness can be
increased by pursuing it purposely. Also, everybody has the potential to increase their
happiness. Another conclusion was that happiness can be increased by self-efforts
through education and exercises. Finally, psychology can make great contributions in the
study and enhancement of happiness. Some concerns that Fordyce (1977) showed about
this line of research concerned the deﬁnition and measurement of happiness as well as
standardization in the presentation of his program. F ordyce’s concerns are addressed in
one of the latest positive psychology studies on increasing happiness by Seligman, Steen,
Park, and Peterson (2005).

In order to achieve greater happiness, happiness must be deﬁned and further
scientiﬁcally studied (Seligman, Steen, Park, & Peterson, 2005). Seligman (2002)
identiﬁes three components of happiness: positive emotions, engagement in life, and
meaning in life. These three components of happiness can be assessed through the Steen

Happiness Index (SHI; Seligman, Steen, Park, & Peterson, 2005), a measure created by

32

positive psychology researchers to get a more accurate and complete assessment of
happiness. The SHI and the Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale
(CES-D; Radloff, 1977) were used as dependent variables in an intemet based, random
assignment -— placebo control design study that examined the efﬁcacy of four different
positive psychology interventions in decreasing depression and increasing happiness.
The design of the study consisted of a “gratitude visit” condition, “three good things in
life” condition, “you at your best” condition, “using signature strengths in a new way”
condition, and the “identifying Si gnature strengths” condition. The interventions were
compared to a placebo condition of recalling and documenting early memories. In order
to truly appreciate this prime example of positive psychology research and its impact on
increasing happiness, it is important to further delve into the procedures, results, and
conclusions.

“The gratitude visit” intervention consisted of participants having a week to write
and deliver a letter of gratitude to someone who deserved thanks. In “the three good
things in life” intervention, participants identiﬁed and wrote three things that went well
each day for a week. Participants were also asked to include a causal explanation for the
good things that happened. Having participants identify their attributional process for
explaining events is important as attributional style plays a Si gniﬁcant role in the overall
construction of subjective reality; this point will be further explicated later. The “you at
your best” intervention required participants to reﬂect on personal strengths and write a
story about an incident in which they used these personal strengths and were at their best.
This intervention required participants to review their stories once a day and reﬂect on

the identiﬁed strengths. A fourth intervention known as “using signature strengths in a

33

new way” required participants to take an online personality inventory at
www.authentichappiness.org, a website dedicated to positive psychology assessment and
study. The personality inventory identiﬁed the top ﬁve signature strengths of each
participant. Participants were then to use these identiﬁed signature strengths in a new
way. Another version of this intervention, the ﬁfth intervention condition, was called
“identifying Si gnature strengths;” this intervention required participants to take the
personality inventory, have their signature strengths identiﬁed, and to use them more
frequently in the following week. In the placebo-control condition, participants were
asked to reﬂect on and write down early memories nightly for a week. It must be
highlighted that all interventions lasted only a week and assessment of levels of
happiness and depression were taken at pretest, immediate posttest, one week after
posttest, one month after posttest, three months after posttest, and six months after
posttest.

Results demonstrated that all intervention conditions were effective in promoting
happiness and/or attenuating depression at the immediate posttest assessment. Even the
placebo-control condition was effective at immediate posttest assessment. The true
effects of the different conditions started to manifest after the immediate posttest. The
placebo-control condition at one week after posttest, and all assessments thereafter,
Showed that happiness and depression levels did not Signiﬁcantly differ from the pretest
baseline. The signiﬁcant effects (increased happiness and attenuated depression) at
immediate posttest for the placebo-control condition (writing early memories)
demonstrate the power of motivation and expectations for improvement. The “you at

your best” and “identifying Signature strengths” conditions showed the same results as

34

the placebo-control condition, Signiﬁcant effects that did not last beyond immediate
posttest assessment. “The gratitude Visit” demonstrated the largest effects for increasing
happiness and decreasing depression at the immediate posttest as compared to all other
interventions; these beneﬁcial effects tapered off until there was no signiﬁcant difference
compared to placebo-control at three months assessment. This particular intervention
seems to immediately gratify as evidenced by the immediate posttest assessment, but this
gratiﬁcation apparently eventually fades. The two interventions that maintained
effectiveness, the “three good things in life” and “using signature strengths in a new
way,” did not Show truly beneﬁcial effects until the one month assessment. These two
interventions were the only ones to Show lasting beneﬁcial effects at the three and six
month assessments. Unlike the “gratitude visit,” these interventions did not involve
immediate gratiﬁcation but instead they seem to be learned skills that are self-reinforcing
and longer lasting. The self-reinforcing aspects of these treatments caused participants to
use these techniques for more than the prescribed week and thus experience lasting
beneﬁts at the six month assessment. The lasting effects of practice was evident even in
the experiments performed by F ordyce (1977, 1983), who had also found that long-term
practice of the exercises in his program had long-term effects in increasing happiness.
The Seligman et a1. (2005) study shows that positive interventions can be
effective in increasing happiness and ameliorating depression with the practicing of
exercises that can be performed routinely. The “three good things in life” and “using
signature strengths in a new way” in particular are exercises that require self-reﬂective
cognitive skills that strengthen with practice and Show the longest lasting beneﬁt.

Interestingly, several of the common elements to effective therapy identiﬁed by Frank

35

and Frank (1991) seem to be present in these two modes of intervention. Frank and
Frank identify the common elements of therapy to be: the therapeutic relationship,
maintaining expectation for improvement, providing new learning experiences, the
arousal of emotions in the therapeutic context, increasing client self-efﬁcacy, and
providing opportunities for practice of more adaptive behavior. Of these common
therapeutic factors, expectations for improvement, increasing self-efﬁcacy, the
opportunity for practice, and providing new learning experiences seem to be present in
the efﬁcacious happiness exercises that Showed lasting effects. In fact, the common
factor of providing new learning experiences may be what differentiates “using signature
strengths in a new way” from “identifying Signature strengths,” an intervention that did
not prove to have lasting effects. Another point of interest is the design of this study.
Seligman et al. (2005) are able to make causal inferences between the interventions and
happiness because the design of their study, a longitudinal ﬁeld experiment, is considered
scientiﬁcally rigorous as well as clinically relevant (Gelso & Fretz, 2001). The use of
quantitative data and an experimentally rigorous design adds scholarly legitimacy to the
idea of positive interventions having a clinical and applied value. Seligman et al. seem to
be following suit with the respected empirically supported treatments movement, which
attempts to validate what treatments are effective through experimental design and
scientiﬁc rigor.

Of particular note is the role of expectations in increasing happiness and
decreasing depression, as demonstrated by beneﬁcial effects in all conditions (including
placebo-control) at immediate post-test. It should also be noted that the longer lasting

interventions require the participant to make causal attributions for strengths (using

36

Si gnature strengths in a new way) and for positive events (three good things in life).
Within the positive psychology paradigm, expectations and attributions for events play a
large part in determining motivation and behavior (Carver & Scheier, 2003; Reivich &
Gillham, 2003).

Attributions & Explanatog Style

When people experience good or bad events, there is a tendency to try to explain
the cause of the events. This process of explaining is known as attribution. People make
causal attributions in order to make sense of the events and the world around them
(W eiten & Lloyd, 2006). According to Weiner (1979), people ask the question “why?”
especially in the face of failure, rejection, and when facing the unexpected. Task success
or failure may be attributed to ability, effort, difﬁculty, or luck; these factors can be
classiﬁed along the three dimensions of stability, controllability, and locus of causality.
These dimensions of attribution play a large part in determining further task motivation,
mood, esteem, and other behavioral outcomes (W einer, 1979). The following will further
explain and clarify the dimensions of causality.

The social psychologist Fritz Heider (1958) was the ﬁrst to posit that people look
to themselves or outside of themselves as causes. When a person infers the cause of an
event was because of factors pertaining to the self, they are making an internal attribution
(i.e. I did poorly on the exam because I was tired; I did well on the test because I’m
smart). In contrast, when an event is explained as due to factors other than the self (i.e.
environment, chance, etc.), it is considered an external attribution (i.e. I did poorly on the
exam because of too many distractions in the room; I did well on the test because it was

easy). This dimension of causality was also identiﬁed by Rotter (1966) and called locus

37

Of control. A person could have an internal locus of control in which they identify
personal factors as the cause of events or they may have an external locus of control in
which they see external factors as the cause Of events. In contrast to Rotter, Weiner
(1979) believes that the term locus of control really refers to locus of causality and that
the terms control and causality should be separated. In other words, the locus of causality
dimension determines whether events are explained as a function of the self (internal
locus) or the environment (external locus), whereas the control dimension of attribution
determines if the cause of an event is inferred to be controllable‘or uncontrollable. Thus,
according to Weiner, control and causality are separate and independent dimensions of
attribution.

The concept of locus, or source of causality, is instrumental to counseling
psychology in its application to cross-cultural counseling and the concept of client
worldview (Gelso & F retz, 2001). F ouad and Bingham (1995) deﬁne worldview as
“. . .the frame of reference through which one experiences life” (p.335). Sue and Sue
(1990) deﬁne worldview as a person’s perception of their relationship with the world.
This perception is determined by experiences with oppression, as well as social class,
religion, and sex. The Sue and Sue model of worldview focuses on the dimensions of
internal vs. external locus of responsibility and internal vs. external locus of control.
According to the internal control — internal responsibility worldview, success is the result
of one’s efforts and lack of success is due to one’s shortcomings. This worldview is held
by the majority (White) culture and the three prominent therapeutic approaches in
psychology (Psychodynamic, Behavioral, and Humanistic). The external control -

internal responsibility worldview accepts the western deﬁnition of self-responsibility but

38

feels little control over consequences. The person holding this worldview rejects their
culture and idealizes white culture. External control — external responsibility worldview
feels helpless in the face of prejudice and exhibits passivity, apathy, and depression.
Lastly, the person with the external responsibility — internal control worldview does feel
control over their own life and is able to perceive the barriers of prejudice and
discrimination. This individual is also likely to be very politically conscious (Sue & Sue,
1990). Appling these concepts to therapist effectiveness, being aware of one’s own
worldview and knowing the client’s worldview are criteria of therapist multicultural
competence. As can be seen, the intemal-extemal and controllable-uncontrollable
dimensions of attribution are heuristically rich concepts in the psychological literature
and especially pertinent in counseling psychology.

Another dimension of explanatory style based on the writings of Heider refer to
variability or temporal stability of events; events may be perceived as unchanging (stable)
or changing (unstable). The stability or instability of an event is seen as a function of the
stability or instability of factors pertinent to the event. Factors such as the inﬂuence of
one’s family and the person’s ability would be considered relatively stable, whereas
factors such as an individual’s attention and mood would be considered unstable. An
important aspect of the stability dimension is its inﬂuence on expectations for events. A
person who consistently fails at a task because of task difﬁculty (stable and relatively
unchanging factor) would expect to fail the task on further attempts. In contrast, a person
who fails because they were temporarily incapacitated because of alcohol or lack of sleep
(unstable and changing factor) might have more optimistic expectations for success

(W einer, 1979). Given the power of explanatory style and attribution in the

39

determination of mood, esteem, and behavior, attribution theory has been used to explain
different types of mental pathology. One very prominent attribution theory that addresses
the cognitive aspects of depression is the revised learned helplessness theory (RLHT) by
Abrahamson, Seligman, and Teasdale (1978).

According to RLHT, the dimensions of attribution that determine feelings of .
helplessness consist of the internal vs. external dimensions, the stable vs. unstable
dimensions, and a global vs. Speciﬁc dimension (Abrahamson, Seligman, & Teasdale,
1978). The intemal-external and stable-unstable dimensions are similar to what has been
reviewed. The global versus Speciﬁc dimension of attribution refers to whether the
explanation for the event can be generalized to other areas of life. According to Weiner
(1979), whereas stability refers to temporal generalization (it will not change), globality
refers to stimulus generalization (all things will be affected).

The dimensions of attribution have implications for the valence of the attribution
that is made. According to the RLHT model, explanatory styles can be classiﬁed as either
optimistic or pessimistic. Optimistic attributions are related to increased motivation and
vitality whereas pessimistic attributions are related to feelings of helplessness and
depression (Peterson & Villanova, 1988). Somebody who employs an optimistic
explanatory style considers negative events to be external (not personalizing), unstable
(not lasting), and Speciﬁc to the situation. For the pessimist, negative events are seen as
internal (personalizing), stable (lasting), and global (generalizing to all situations). For
example, social rejection could be pessimistically explained as a result of personal
qualities such as being unattractive or unlovable (internal locus); the expectation garnered

may be that rejection by others will not change (stable), and will apply to other areas of

40

life as well (global). In contrast, being rejected could be optimistically attributed to
external factors and not self-attributes (external); the rejection can be seen as an isolated
incident and not lasting (unstable), as well as not generalizing to other situations
(speciﬁc; Reivich & Gillham, 2003). A revision of the RLHT, called the hopelessness
theory (HT), posits that the global and stable dimensions of attribution have a greater
impact on explanatory style than the locus of causality dimension (internal vs. external
dimension). Depression is the result of three beliefs. First, negative events are construed
as global and stable. Also, negative events are magniﬁed and understood as catastrophic.
Finally, negative inferences are made about the self based on the negative events.

More recent exploration into the RLHT has cast light upon the mediating affect of
expectations on explanatory style in relation to depression. In other words, expectations
in large part determine how much impact explanatory style may have on depressive
symptoms. In line with hopelessness theory, whereas the stability and globality
dimensions seem to inﬂuence expectations, the locus of causality dimension has less
inﬂuence on expectations (Peterson & Vaidya, 2001). As can be seen, both attributional
style and expectations have consequences for depressive mood and feelings of
helplessness. The next section will further look at expectations and more speciﬁcally,
two models that are tied to positive psychology, self-efﬁcacy expectancies and the
expectancy-value model.

Expectation & Models of Expectancy

Much like attribution, expectation is based on a well researched and theoretically

rich literature. Noted psychologists such as Lewin (193 8), Tolman (1955), Edwards

(1954), Rotter (1954, 1966), and Bandura (1977), as well as others have inﬂuential

41

theories of behavior and motivation that have a basis in expectations. What makes this
cognitive phenomenon so well researched is probably the adaptive value it has in human
self-regulation. To be able to learn from the past and to anticipate ﬁrture consequences
are pertinent to goal setting and achievement (Maddux, 1999).

Within the social-cognitive paradigm, Maddux (1999) identiﬁes several types of
expectancy variables. The behavior-outcome expectancy is deﬁned as the expectation
that certain behaviors will lead to certain outcomes. Maddux further differentiates two
types of behavior-outcome expectancies: the behavior-stimulus expectancy and the
behavior-response expectancy. The behavior-stimulus expectancy is the belief that a
behavior with lead to an environmental event; the outcomes that result from a person’s
behavior is an external event such as dropping a glass will lead to the expectation that it
will shatter. The behavior-response expectancy is the belief that a behavior will lead to a
non-volitional response, such as sexual arousal or pain (internal outcome). Another
expectancy identiﬁed is the stimulus—outcome expectancy. Stimulus-outcome
expectancies are beliefs that certain external events act as cues for the occurrence of other
events. Stimulus-outcome expectancies can be differentiated into stimulus-stimulus
expectancies and stimulus-response expectancies. Stimulus-stimulus expectancies are
beliefs that the occurrence of an event indicates the occurrence of another event. For
example, after seeing a bolt of lightening, one expects to hear the crash of thunder. The
second kind of stimulus-outcome expectancy, known as stimulus—response expectancies
are beliefs that the occurrence of an environmental event will result in a non-volitional

response (internal outcome). Stimulus-outcome and behavior-outcome expectancies

42

differ from the third category of expectancy known as self-efﬁcacy expectancies
(Maddux, 1999).

The self-efﬁcacy expectancies (also known as self-efﬁcacy judgments) are beliefs
in one’s ability to coordinate Skills at a designated level of ability to achieve favorable
outcomes, whereas behavior-outcome expectancies are the expected results of those
outcomes. To have self-efﬁcacy in a domain of action is to have generative capability
rather than to simply have particular outcome expectations. These concepts are often
confused to be the same despite being different (Maddux, 1999; Bandura, 1986).
Bandura (1986) masterfully differentiates these concepts:

Efﬁcacy and outcome judgments are differentiated because individuals can

believe that a particular course of action will produce certain outcomes, but they

do not act on that outcome belief because they question whether they can actually
execute the necessary activities. Thus, expectations that high grades gain students
entry to medical school and that medical practice yields high incomes will not
steer undergraduates into premedical programs who have serious self-doubts that

they can master the science requirements (pp. 392).

Within Bandura’s example, it can be seen that although self-efﬁcacy expectancies
and outcome expectancies are conceptually different they are not independent of each
other. People’s actions and the outcomes that result ﬁom those actions depend on self-
efﬁcacy judgments. Self-efﬁcacy judgments inﬂuence the expenditure of effort on a task,
persistence in the face of failure, as well as task related thought patterns and emotional
reactions. Self-efﬁcacious perceptions regarding a task would promote enthusiastic

engagement in the task, whereas perceptions of low efﬁcacy lead to self-doubt and task

43

avoidance (Bandura, 1986). The agency enhancing quality is why increasing efﬁcacy is a
common factor in psychotherapeutic interventions (Frank & Frank, 1991); engagement in
new adaptive behaviors promotes new adaptive learning whereas avoidance of such
behaviors due to anxiety or self-doubt negates the opportunity for new adaptive learning
(Watchel, 1993). Increasing self-efﬁcacy seems to be a corner stone in most
psychotherapeutic work, whether behavioral exposure-therapy or psychodynamic
oriented modes of psychotherapy (although not conceptualized as increases in self-
efﬁcacy but instead as part of the general behavioral repertoire that accompanies the
expansion of the ego). Increases in self-efﬁcacy judgments are made through enactive
attainment, vicarious learning, verbal persuasion, and physiological arousal (Bandura,
1986). Although originating from Bandura’s social-cognitive theory, self-efﬁcacy is also
considered to be a positive psychology variable given its value in promoting adaptive
functioning and happiness (O’Brien, 2003).

Closely related to the construct of efﬁcacy is the positive psychology construct of
optimism. Both efﬁcacy and optimism speak to expectations in the form of a person’s
conﬁdence in achieving desirable outcomes. Although these constructs somewhat
overlap, they address different types of expectations. Self-efﬁcacy encompasses an
element of personal control and responsibility for desirable outcomes; the causal agent is
the self. Optimism entails a much broader sense of conﬁdence in achieving desirable
outcomes not solely due to the self; optimists would be conﬁdent in achieving favorable
outcomes for a variety of reason. Although optimism extends beyond the self as the

causal agent, favorable outcomes are contingent upon agency, continued pursuit of the

goal, and one’s own efforts. The concepts of optimism and pessimism are associated
with the expectancy-value model of motivation and behavior (Carver & Scheier, 2003).
The expectancy-value model considers all behavior in terms of the pursuit of a
goal. These expectancies are a kind of behavior-outcome expectancy in that one’s
behavior leads to certain expected outcomes. The two parts of this model, expectancy and
value, are both necessary for the initiation and maintenance of agency and motivation.
The goal must be perceived as attainable (expectancy) as well as important (value) for
action and motivation to persist. Valuing the goal increases motivation to attain the goal.
Also, if expectations to attain the goal are pessimistic, goal related activity would be
difﬁcult to initiate no less maintain. Therefore, optimism and positive expectations are
conceptualized as the engine of action and motivation (Carver & Scheier, 2003).
Expectations also have an important role in psychotherapeutic inventions and
therefore have relevance to mental health professionals of all therapeutic orientations
(Weinberger & Eig, 1999). The vast majority of the psychotherapy outcome literature
has demonstrated that it is the common factors in the psychotherapeutic effort (regardless
of therapeutic orientation) that are responsible for therapeutic effects (Wampold, 2001;
Frank & Frank, 1991). The psychotherapeutic common factors according to Frank have
already been mentioned. Weinberger (1995) identiﬁed a list of common factors similar to
that of Frank and Frank (1991) which includes: the therapeutic relationship, expectations
for improvement, confronting the problem, cognitive control and mastery over the
problem (analogous to self—efﬁcacy), and attributions made for therapy outcome.
Although the psychotherapy process and outcome literature is fraught with research on

the therapeutic relationship, confronting problems, and mastery over problems,

45

expectations and attributions are the least researched common factors of psychotherapy
(Weinberger & Ei g, 1999). In measuring attributions and expectations, the most utilized
measures are the Attributional Style Questionnaire (ASQ; Seliman, Abramson, Semmel,
& von Baeyer, 1979) and the Life Orientation Test-Revised (LOT-R; Scheier, Carver, &
Bridges, 1994).
Measuring Attributions and Expectations

The ASQ (Seligman, et al., 1979) is one of the most utilized methods for
assessing adult attributional style. Based on the RLHT, the ASQ is a self report
questionnaire consisting of six negative and six positive hypothetical situations that are
rated on the dimensions of locus of causality (internal vs. external), stability (stable vs.
unstable), and globality (Speciﬁc vs. global). Thus, the ASQ measures explanatory style
for positive as well as negative events. The open-ended nature of the items allows this
measure to act as a kind of projective test. After reading the hypothetical event, subjects
identify the causal factor of the event and rate it on the previously mentioned dimensions
using a 7-point scale. The ASQ provides 6 dimension scores: the intemality index for the
six negative events (IN), the globality index for the six negative events (GN), the stability
index for the six negative events (SN), the intemality index for the six positive events
(1P), the globality index for the six positive events (GP), and the stability index for the six
positive events (SP). Each dimension’s index is the average of the ratings for the
respective dimensions. The ASQ also yields three composite scores: the composite for a
negative explanatory style (CN), the composite for a positive explanatory style (CP), and
a total score composite which is the composite positive score minus the composite

negative score (CP- CN). The CP is calculated by adding the intemality score (1P), the

46

globality score (GP), and the stability score (SP) for the Six positive events. The CN is
calculated by adding the internality score (IN), the globality score (GN), and the stability
score (SN) for the six negative events. In sum, the ASQ can yield both dimensional
scores as well as composite scores in assessing explanatory style for both positive and
negative events (Reivich & Gilliham, 2003).

In an attempt to improve upon the reliability of the ASQ, two expanded versions
of the ASQ (E-ASQ: Peterson & Villanova, 1988; E-ASQ: Metalsky, Halberstadt, &
Abramson, 1987) have been created; the expanded versions of the ASQ include a greater
number of negative events than the original ASQ (Reivich & Gilliham, 2003).
Instructions and scoring of these versions are similar to that of the original ASQ
(Peterson & Villanova, 1988).

Optimism and pessimism are assessed through the assessment of expectations. To
assess expectations, Scheier and Carver (1985) created the Life Orientation Test (LOT).
Eight items directly assess expectations and ﬁller items serve as distracters so that the
assessment of expectations would not be obvious. Because of some problems with the
psychometric properties of the LOT, Scheier, Carver, and Bridges (1994) reworked the
measure to create the Life Orientation Test - Revised (LOT-R). Briefer than (consisting
of 10 items with 4 items acting as ﬁller items) but still Similar to the original measure, the
LOT-R has more of a focus on expectancies for the future. Like the LOT, the LOT-R
consists of items worded in both an optimistic and pessimistic direction. Items are scored
on a 5-point Likert scale from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” The distribution of
scores is continuous and slightly skewed toward optimism. Although people are often

thought of as two distinct dispositional sets of either optimists of pessimists, in reality the

47

majority of people fall between the extremes of very Optimistic and very pessimistic
(Carver & Scheier, 2003).
Aims and Objectives of Present Study

This chapter has been a review of two psychological perspectives that are
theoretically quite disparate, psychoanalytic theory and positive psychology. In relation
to the ﬁeld of counseling psychology, positive psychology has a natural connection with
counseling psychology because of the mutual focus on human strengths. Psychoanalytic
theory has changed with time and has evolved into a theory much more compatible with
counseling psychology. Kohut’s self psychology, a theory that emphasizes the
development of the self through empathic attunement from signiﬁcant others in one’s
life, is an illustration of the progressive changes in psychoanalytic theory as a theory of
development, personality, and therapeutic change. Banai et al. were among the ﬁrst to
empirically relate the self psychological concept of self-object needs and self—cohesion to
broader theoretical concepts of the self found in the social psychology literature such as:
self-discrepancy (Higgins, 1987), self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1979), affect regulation
(Mikulincer, 1994), and adult relational attachment style (Hazan & Shaver, 1987).

The aim of the following study is two-fold. One goal is to further connect
Kohut’s concepts to the positive psychology literature. The self psychological concepts
of grandiosity (superiority) and goal inconsistency will be related with the concepts of
attribution and expectation from the positive psychology literature. A better
understanding of self-functioning can be garnered by exploring attributions and
expectations within the self-psychological paradigm and this knowledge may ultimately

have application to the therapy setting. Relating the functioning of the self to expectations

48

and attributions garners a new psychoanalytic paradigm for the development of optimistic
expectations and attributions. In addition, this study explores the factor structure of the
English-version of the SONI in order to verify the factor structure discovered by Banai et
al. Replication. of the factor structure will serve as further evidence for the reliability of

the SONI.

49

CHAPTER 3 — Method
Participants

Participants consisted of 200 undergraduate students from psychology and
counseling and educational psychology classes at Michigan State University. This
population was chosen to be sampled because of their availability. As a sample of
convenience, generalizability of results to the population of college students and college
counseling is limited. Of the 237 questionnaire packets distributed, 219 were returned.
Of the questionnaire packets returned, 200 were able to be scored and 19 were not able to
be scored because of too much missing data.

Demographic information including sex, age, ethnicity, year of study, and sexual
orientation was assessed through questionnaire format. The demographics sheet also
assessed whether the participant was involved in a relationship, if the relationship
involved sex relations (not deﬁned), degree of satisfaction with the relationship, and the
number of sexual partners the study participant has been involved with. Information
concerning social and sexual relationships was used for descriptive purposes and not
further analyzed. This information was meant to be a snapshot of the relational dynamics
of the of the study participants. It was important to get this data regarding the ability of
participants to engage in relationship and if these relationships are satisfying.

Of the 200 students who returned completed and analyzable questionnaire
packets, age ranged from 17 to 39 years (M = 21.01, S_D = 2.55). Female participants (p
= 145) outnumbered male participants (p = 55) comprising 72.5% of total participants.

Considering sexual orientation, 95.5% of participants identiﬁed as heterosexual (p =

50

191), 1.5 % identiﬁed as gay (p = 3), 1% identiﬁed as lesbian (p = 2); two percent of
participants identiﬁed as bisexual (p = 4).

Seventy six percent of participants also self-identiﬁed as White, European-
American (p = 152), whereas 13% identiﬁed as Black, African-American (p = 26). The
remainder of the sample consisted of 5.5% of participants that identiﬁed as Asian, Asian-
American (p = 11), 2.5% identiﬁed as Hispanic-Latino (p = 5), 1% identiﬁed as
Multiracial, Mixed Race (p = 2), 0.5% identiﬁed as Paciﬁc Islander (n = 1), and 1.5%
identiﬁed as an “Other” ethnicity (p = 3). None of the participants identiﬁed as Native-
American. Table 1 displays the summary statistic for Ethnicity x Sex.

Table l

Cross-Tabulation of Summag Statistics for Participant Ethnicity x Sex .

 

 

 

.53
Males Females Tog]

Ethnicig
Asian, Asian-American

p = 04 07 11
Black, African-American

p = 05 21 26
Hispanic, Latino

p = 02 03 05
Paciﬁc Islander

p = 01 0 01
White European

p = 42 110 152
Multiracial, Mixed Race

p = 0 02 02
Other

n = 01 02 03
Total 55 145 200

 

51

One hundred-twelve of the 200 participants reported that they were currently in a
relationship whereas 88 participants reported not being in a relationship at the time of
completing the questionnaire packet. Of the 117 participants who answered the item
asking if they were sexually involved with their partner, 103 conﬁrmed having a sexual
relationship whereas 14 denied having a sexual relationship with their current partner.
One hundred-two of the 103 participants who reported to be engaged in sexual activity
also reported this to be in the context of a current relationship. Of the 14 students who
denied being sexually involved, 10 were in a current relationship, whereas 4 were not in a
relationship. Of 111 participants who answered the item asking whether they were
satisﬁed with their relationship, 51.4 % conﬁrmed that they were very satisﬁed (n = 57),
29.7% marked that they were satisﬁed (n = 33), and 16.2% marked that they were
somewhat satisﬁed (11 = 18). One person reported that they were unsatisﬁed with their
relationship (0.9%) and 2 people reported that they were very unsatisﬁed with their
relationship (1.8%). The number of sexual partners reported by the 200 participants
varied; the majority of participants (61.5%) reported having from 1 to 5 sexual partners.
Another 15.5% of participants reported never having a sexual partner. Twelve percent
reported of having 6 to 10 sexual partners, 8% reported having 11 to 15 sexual partners,
and 1% reported having 16 to 20 sexual partners. Interestingly, 2% reported to having 20
or more sexual partners.

Demographic information was collected for assessing sample characteristics. The
main hypotheses of the study do not involve the demographic information and instead

concentrate on the self psychological variables of grandiosity, goal instability, and self-

52

object needs, as well as the positive psychology variables of attributions for negative

events and general expectations.

Measures

Participant attributions for negative events are assessed through the Expanded
Attributional Style Questionnaire (E-ASQ; Peterson & Villanova, 1988). This measure
consists of 24 hypothetical negative events. Participants identify the perceived cause of
the negative event and identify the dimensions of intemality, stability, and globality, of
their attribution on a 7—point scale. Attributions are scored as internal (7) versus external
(1), stable (7) versus unstable (1), and global (7) versus speciﬁc (1). Internal consistency
is estimated to be fair to good; Cronbaeh’s alpha is estimated at .66 for intemality, .85 for
stability, and .88 for globality (Peterson & Villinova, 1988).

Expectations are assessed through the Life Orientation Test Revised (LOT-R;
Scheier et al., 1994). This measure consists of 10-items scored on a 5-point likert scale
ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5). Four of the items are ﬁller
items placed for the purpose of not making the assessment of expectations obvious.

Items include “If something can go wrong for me it will” (scored in reverse), “In
uncertain times, I usually expect the best,” and “I’m always optimistic about my ﬁrture.”
According to Carver and Scheier (2003) the LOT-R is internally consistent as Cronbach’s
alpha is estimated at the high .705 to the low .805.

Self-object needs are assessed using the Self Object Needs Inventory (SONI;
Banai et al., 2005). This 38-item measure assesses the interpersonal patterns that are

related to self-psychological deﬁcits in development. The speciﬁc interpersonal patterns

53

are a reﬂection of the degree of cohesiveness in the self. Factor analysis of this measure
found ﬁve independent factors that manifest as either a hunger or a rejection of the
interpersonal dynamics that were originally amiss in the individual’s development (Banai
et al., 2005). The ﬁve factors are: need for mirroring, need for idealization, need for
twinship, avoidance of mirroring, and avoidance of idealization/twinship. Cronbach’s
alpha for the 8-itemS assessing the hunger for twinship was estimated to be .91.
Examples from this scale include: “I feel better when I and someone close to me Share
Similar feelings toward other people,” and “It is important to me to feel that a close friend
and I are ‘in the same boat.’” Cronbach’s alpha for the 11-items assessing the avoidance
of idealization/twinship was estimated to be .83. Examples from this scale include: “I
would rather not belong to a group of people whose lifestyle is similar to mine,” and “I
ﬁnd it difﬁcult to accept guidance even from people I respect.” The 7-items assessing the
need for idealization had an estimated Cronbach’s alpha of .83. Examples of questions
from this scale include: “1 am attracted to successful people,” and “I feel better about
myself when I am in the company of experts.” The 8-items assessing the hunger for
mirroring were estimated as having a Cronbach’s alpha of .81. Examples of items from
this scale include: “I do not function well in situations where I receive too little
attention,” and “I feel hurt when my achievements are not sufﬁciently admired.” The last
factor garnered from the SONI was the avoidance of mirroring. The 6-items that
assessed this factor had an estimated Cronbach’s alpha of .79. Examples of items from
this scale include: “I do not really care what others think about me,” and “I do not need
support and encouragement from others.” Degree of participant agreement with items on

the SONI is rated on a 7-point scale ranging from “not at all” (1) to “very much” (7).

54

Although the SONI and its 5-factors were assessed to be valid and reliable in
seven independent studies, Since the present study is using an English translation, it iS
feared that some items may be somewhat poorly worded or confusing. Items of
particular concern are item 6 (I would just not be involved with people who suffer from
problems similar to me), item 20 (I would rather not be friends with people who are too
similar to me), and item 21 (I feel better when I and someone close to me Share similar
feelings to other people). Also, the 7-point response scale with the anchors of “Not at
all” (1) and “Very much” (7) seem confusing with negatively worded items (e. g. I don’t
need other people’s praise).

Through collaboration with one of the authors of the SONI (Mario Mikulincer),
changes were made in the wording of item 6 (I would prefer not to be involved with
people who suffer from problems similar to mine), item 20 (I would rather not have
friends who are too similar to me), and item 21 (I feel better when I and someone close to
me share similar feelings). The anchors of the response scale were also changed to
“Disagree” (1) and “Agree” (7) given that the original anchors of the response scale were
attempting to assess degree of agreement with the items. All changes were approved by
the original author of the SONI. Changes made were not meant to question the wording
of the original measure (written in Hebrew), but to clarify the measure’s English
translation.

Participant lack of realistic and cohesive goals is measured through the Goal
Inconsistency Scale and grandiosity is assessed with the Superiority Scale (Robbins &
Patton, 1985). These two scales attempt to assess the “self-expressive trends” (pp. 222)

posited to be a function of the two poles of development in the self-psychological model

55

(Robbins & Patton, 1985). Items from the Superiority Scale included: “My friends
follow my lead,” “My looks are one of the things that attract others to me,” and “I catch
myself wanting to be the hero.” Cronbach’s alpha was estimated at .81. Items from the
Goal Inconsistency Scale included: “It’s easier for me to start than to ﬁnish projects,” “I
have more ideas than energy,” and “I have confusion about who I am.” Cronbach’s alpha
for the Goal Inconsistency Scale was estimated at .76. Superiority and goal inconsistency
are measured on a 6-point scale ranging from strongly agree (1), moderately agree (2),
slightly agree (3), slightly disagree (4), moderately disagree (5), and strongly disagree
(6). The higher scores on each scale the less agreement with the particular construct of
superiority or goal inconsistency. The Superiority Scale measures a sense of arrogance
and perceived superiority to others that would be a function of an immature grandiosity
line of development. The Goal Inconsistency Scale measures lack of self-direction and
ideals that would accompany under-development in the idealization vector of the bipolar
self (Robbins & Patton, 1985).
Procedures

The sample for the study was obtained through advertisement in psychology and
counseling and educational psychology classes by the lead researcher during the spring-
terrn of 2007 at Michigan State University. The lead researcher approached class
instructors personally or asked permission to sample students through email and
telephone. Students heard about the study from the lead researcher when visiting classes.

Originally, participants were invited to a designated room, on a designated day, in
order to take part in the study. Asking undergraduate students to meet in a designated

location did not yield an adequate number of participants needed to complete sampling.

56

For the convenience of participants, students who were interested in participating in the
study were given the consent form (Appendix A) in the class they were being sampled
from. After giving consent, consent forms were collected in an envelope and participants
received the questionnaire packet (Appendix C); the questionnaire packet consisted of the
Expanded Attributional Style Questionnaire (E-ASQ; Peterson & Villanova, 1988), the
Life Orientation Test (LOT-R; Scheier et al., 1994), the Self Object Needs Inventory
(SONI; Banai et al., 2005), and the Superiority and Goal Instability Scales (Robbins &
Patton, 1985) as well as a demographics questionnaire (Appendix B) presented in random
order. Participants were allowed to complete questionnaire packets at their own
convenience. Classes were Visited within the Span of a day to a week to collect
completed surveys. Upon turning in completed questionnaires, participants wrote their
email addresses on a numbered ticket that was used in a random drawing for $ 100.
Participants were also provided the debrieﬁng form (Appendix D) explaining the purpose
of the study. If a participant chose not to complete their questionnaire packet, they were
handed their ticket and their questionnaire packet was destroyed. The debrieﬁng form
contained the lead researcher’s email address for participants to contact in case of further
questions about the study. Participants were included in a lottery drawing for a $100
grand prize. Participants provided informed consent by reading and signing the
informed consent form (Appendix A).
Analysis

The main analysis consisted of a canonical correlation between the self
psychological measures and positive psychology measures. The self-psychology

measures consisted of the Superiority Scale and the Goal Inconsistency Scale, and the

57

positive psychology measures consisted of the LOT-R and the Expanded ASQ. The self-
psychological variables of grandiosity and idealization served as predictor variables of
the positive psychology variables of expectations and attributions.

A second and separate analysis was conducted concerning the factor structure of
the SONI. The purpose of the second analysis was to examine the factor structure of the
SONI and ﬁnd out whether its structure resembles the 5-factor structure found by the
creator of the measure, Banai et al., 2005. The creators of the SONI found that the factor
structure of the measure reliably separated into the interpersonal rejection or the need for
the self psychological variables of twinship, mirroring, and idealization. Speciﬁcally, the
factor structure found was: (1) the hunger for mirroring, (2) the hunger for idealization,
(2) the hunger for twinship, (3) the rejection of mirroring, and (5) the rejection of
idealization/twinship. Banai et al. found this S-factor structure in seven independent
studies performed with the student population at Bar-[Ian University in Israel. The
reason to see if the factor structure of the SONI could be replicated is to ﬁnd if the
English version of the measure shares similar psychometric qualities as the Hebrew
version used by Banai et al. In addition, replication of Banai et al.’s results would be an

important next step in further validating this psychodynamic measure.

58

CHAPTER 4 — Results
Research Question #1

Canonical correlation analysis was performed between two sets of variables. The
ﬁrst included the self psychology variables of grandiosity (as measured by the Superiority
Scale) and goal-instability and the second set consisted of the positive psychology
variables of intemality, stability, and globality of attributions as well as general
expectations.

The analysis contained 200 hundred cases of which there was no missing data.
All variable distributions met the criteria for normality set forth by Huck (2004): kurtosis
between ranges of —1 and 2 and skewness between -1 and 1. Given the distributions have
met the criteria for univariate normality, the likelihood of multivariate normality is high
(Tabachnick & F idell, 2007). Table 2 provides the descriptive statistics for the variables
under analysis.
Table 2.

Descriptive statistics of variables analyzed by canonical correlation

 

 

 

 

Descriptive Statistics
N Min I Max Mean Std. Dev. Skew Kurt.
Stat Stat I Stat Stat Stat Stat Std. E. Stat Std. E.
lntemality 200 2.79 6.54 4.5754 .57989 -.240 .172 .646 .342
Stability 200 1 .25 6.17 4.3546 .73524 c.476 .172 1.043 .342
Generality 200 1 .83 6.17 4.0420 .88212 -.080 .172 .035 .342
Superior 200 1.5 4.8 3.186 .6731 -.153 .172 -.097 .342
Goal Ins. 200 2.0 6.0 4.127 .8816 -.021 .172 -.750 .342
Expect 200 1 .67 5.00 3.4324 .74783 -.376 .172 -.265 .342
alid N 200

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

59

Table 3 shows the bivariate intercorrelation matrix for all variables used in the
canonical correlation analysis. The intercorrelation matrix of variables shows that most
variables are moderately correlated both across variable sets and within variable sets.
The correlation between stability and globality (r = .605) is sizable, but this correlation is
below .70 so problems with multicolinearity are avoided (Tabachnick & F idell, 2007).

It should be noted that negative indices for scores on intemality, stability, and
globality are because of scaling of measures. Higher scores on the E-ASQ are indicative
of more dysfunctional thinking whereas lower scores on the superiority and goal
instability scales are indicative of higher levels of narcissism and goal instability.

Table 3

Bivariate intercorrelation matrix of variables used in canonical correlation analysis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Correlations
lntemality Stability Generality Superior Goal Ins. Expect

lntemality Pearson Corr. 1 .217" .254” .042 -.l64' -.003

Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .000 .558 .021 .969

N 200 200 200 200 200 200
Stability Pearson Corr. .217” 1 .605” -.066 -341” -284"

Sig. (2-tai1ed) .002 .000 .356 .000 .000:

N 200 200 200 200 200 200
Generality Pearson Corr. .254“ .605" l -.066 -353“ -.178'

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .355 .000 .012

N 200 200 200 200 200 200
Superior Pearson Corr. .042 -.066 -.066 l .107 -.042

Sig. (2-tailed) .558 .356 .355 .132 .552

N 200 200 200 200 200 200
IGoallns. Pearson Corr. -.164° -.341” -.353" .107 l .363"

Sig. (2-tailed) .021 .000 .000 .132 .000

N 200 200 200 200 200 200
Expect Pearson Corr. -.003 -284" -.178' -.042 .363“ 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .969 .000 .012 .552 .000

N 200 200 200 200 200 200

 

 

 

 

 

 

**. Correlation is signiﬁcant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is signiﬁcant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

60

 

 

 

Multivariate analysis of the two variable sets Shows statistical signiﬁcance, with a
Wilk’s lambda (A) of 0.754, F (8, 390) = 7.337, p < .000. Thus, the null hypothesis that
no relationship exists between variable sets was rejected (Rc 96 0). Examining the effect
Size for the full model, an index of 1- A = .246 accounts for the Shared proportion of
variance between variables sets across all canonical functions, this is indicative of a
medium-sized effect.

Canonical analysis of the two variable sets produced two canonical functions.
The ﬁrst canonical ﬁinction (Rcl) had a moderate correlation coefﬁcient of .485 and was
statistically Signiﬁcant, F (8, 388) = 7.337, p < .000. The coefﬁcient of determination for
the ﬁrst canonical function was a moderate .235, thus accounting for almost as much
shared variance between the two sets of variables as when testing for the full model. The
second canonical function was not signiﬁcant, Rc2 = .118, F (3, 195) = .917, p<.433, and
will not be further interpreted.

The ﬁrst canonical function accounts for 95.6% of the variance in the relationship

between the two variable sets. The analysis seems to have found moderate effects (RC2

= .235) in the relationship between the self psychology and positive psychology variables
sets. The next step in the interpretation of results is identifying what variables were most
responsible for the effects that were found. Finding the variables that contributed most to
the canonical relationship can be accomplished through examination of canonical
function coefﬁcients and structure coefﬁcients of both dependant and independent
variable sets. Table 4 shows the standardized canonical function coefﬁcients and
structure coefﬁcients across the ﬁrst canonical function as well as overall effect size and

redundancy coefﬁcients for both canonical variates.

61

Table 4.
Canonical Solution for the self psychology variables predicting the positive psychology

variables across the ﬁrst function.

 

 

 

Function 1

Variable Coef rs rsz

lntemality -. 189 -.347 12.04%
Stability -.220 -.696 48.44%
Globality -.428 -.720 51.84%
Expectations .622 .761 57.91%
Rdl 10.00%
Rc2 23.50%
Rd2 1 1.65%
Grandiosity -.O90 .017 0.02%
Goal Instability 1.006 .996 99.20%

 

Note. Coef. = canonical function coefﬁcients; rs = standardized structure coefﬁcients;
rs 2 = percent of variance explained; Rdl: redundancy coefﬁcient for dependent

variables; R02 = canonical correlation squared; Rd2 = redundancy coefﬁcient for
independent variables.

Goal instability loads heavily (1.006) and correlates strongly (rs = .996) with the
ﬁrst canonical function. In contrast, grandiosity loads (-0.090) and correlates (.017)
minimally with the ﬁrst canonical function. Clearly, goal instability and the ﬁrst function

are measuring the same dimensions as they share 99.2% variance. The variate that is a

62

linear combination of grandiosity and goal instability also extracts 11.65% variance from
the dependent variable set as Shown by the redundancy coefﬁcient in Table 3.

Considering the other side of the canonical equation, stability (-.220, rs = .696)
and globality (-.428, rs = -.720) of attributions as well as general expectations (.622, rs =
.761) load and show sizable correlations with the ﬁrst canonical function. lntemality
(-. 189, rs = -.347) loads and correlates more moderately with the ﬁrst canonical function.
The variate that is a linear combination of the dependent variables also accounts for 10%
of the variance from the independent variable set. Univariate F -tests are signiﬁcant for
the ﬁrst canonical function and intemality (F (2, 197) = 3.08, p < .048), stability (F (2,
197) = 13.11, p < .000, globality (F (2, 197) = 14.11, p < .000, and expectations (F (2,
197) = 15.81, p < .000.

Hypotheses pertaining to the canonical correlation between the self psychological
variables and the positive psychology variables include:

H01: There is no signiﬁcant expected canonical relationship between the two data
sets (Rc = O).

H 1: Grandiosity will be signiﬁcantly related to an external attributional style for
negative events.

H02: There is no signiﬁcant relationship expected between attributional style for
negative events and goal instability.

H03: There is no signiﬁcant relationship expected between expectations for life
events and grandiosity.

H04: There is no signiﬁcant relationship expected between expectations for life

events and goal instability.

63

Multivariate analysis of canonical functions was able to reject the ﬁrst null
hypothesis (H01: Rc = 0), Wilk’s lambda (A) of 0.754, F (8, 390) = 7.337, p < .000. H1
could not be conﬁrmed and H03 could not be rejected due to grandiosity’s very low
loading (-.090) and correlation (rs = .017) to the ﬁrst canonical function, Sharing only
0.02% variance. In other words, there were no signiﬁcant relationships between
grandiosity and any of the variables in the positive psychology data set.

In contrast, due to the high loading (1.006) and correlation (rs = .996) of goal
instability with the ﬁrst canonical ﬁrnction, H02 and H04 were rejected; there seems to be
a moderate relationship between goal instability and both attributions and expectations.
Goal instability seemed tantamount to the ﬁrst canonical function, sharing 99.2%
variance. The signiﬁcant F-tests between the individual variables in the positive
psychology data set (all at p <.000 level of signiﬁcance with the exception of intemality
which was at p < .048) and the ﬁrst canonical function serves as further evidence of the

signiﬁcance of the goal instability variable. In fact, the effect size of the ﬁrst canonical

function (RC2 = .235) is more reﬂective of variance accounted between data sets than the

redundancy coefﬁcient of the predictor variable set (Rd2 = .1165). Because the

redundancy coefﬁcient is the product of the adequacy coefﬁcient (the mean of structure

coefﬁcient effect size; rs 2 '1' r52 / 2) and the effect size of the canonical correlation for

the ﬁrst function (R02); the structure coefﬁcient for grandiosity seems to be suppressing

the effect Size of the redundancy coefﬁcient for the predictor variable data set. In other
words, goal instability by itself is a better predictor of the dependent variable data set

than when paired with superiority. Evidence of the importance of goal stability can be

64

seen when the predictor variables are regressed on each dependent variable. Table 5
presents the results of the regression analysis of the independent variables regressed on
each dependent variable.

Table 5

Regression analysis of independent variables to each dependent variable

Dependent Variable — Stability

 

Ind. Var. B beta Std. Error t-value Sig. oft
Superiority -.0321 1 -.02940 .074 -.437 .663
Goal Ins -.28219 -.33836 .056 -5.026 .000

 

Dependent Variable — Globality

 

Ind. Var. B beta Std. Error t-value Sig. oft
Superiority -.03724 -.02842 .088 -.424 .672
Goal Ins. —.35001 -.34979 .067 -5.587 .000

 

Dependent Variable — Expectation

 

Ind. Var. B beta Std. Error t-varlue Sig. oft
Superiority -.09107 -.08 197 .074 -1.232 .219
Goal Ins .31527 .37165 .056 5.587 .000

 

Dependent Variable — lntemality

 

Ind. Var. B beta Std. Error t-value Sigof t
Superiority .05152 .05981 .061 .848 .398
Goal Ins -.11179 -. 16995 .046 -2.408 .017

 

65

From the regression analysis it is evident that a statistically Signiﬁcant
relationship (p < .000) exists between goal instability and stability and globality of
attributions as well as general expectations. Goal instability also has a signiﬁcant
relationship with intemality (t = -2.408, p < .017) but seemingly with less of an effect
when compared to the other dependent variables. Implications of results are discussed in

the next chapter.

66

Research Question #2

A conﬁrmatory factor analysis was performed on the SONI to see if the factor
structure of this measure could be replicated. The speciﬁed 5-factor model consisted of
approach orientations to twinship, idealization, and mirroring, as well as avoidance
orientations to mirroring and idealization/twinship was used as the model for best ﬁt in
the analysis of the 38 items of the SONI. The analysis consisted of 200 participants with
one case deleted (11 = 199) because of missing data. It Should be noted that the difference
in the sample sizes of the ﬁrst study (n = 200) compared to the second study (n = 199) is
because the SONI was not used in the ﬁrst study and therefore there was no deletion of
cases in the ﬁrst Study. Table 6 shows the factor structure found by Banai et al.

Table 6

Factor structure used as model of ﬁt in conﬁrmatory factor analysis .

 

 

Fagp; Interpersonal Dynamic It_erp

1 Hunger for Twinship 27, 14, 22, 32, 12, 21, 8, 2

2 Avoidance of 20, 38, 16, 28, 9, 6, 3, 34, 13,
Idealization / Twinship 25, 30

3 Hunger for Idealization 17, 19, 36, 26, 4, 31, 10

4 Hunger for Mirroring ll, 7, 1, 29, 33, 35

5 Avoidance of Mirroring 23, 37, 24, 15, 18, 5

 

Sample size (n = 199) is sufﬁcient for analysis of the 38-item questionnaire
(Grimm & Yamold, 1995). The univariate distribution of all but 2 items (items #16 and

#34) ﬁt the criterion of skew (-1 to I) and kurtosis (-1 to 2) indicative of distribution

67

normality (Huck, 2004). Again, with the determination of univariate normality,
probability of multivariate normality is high (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Figure 1

illustrates the positively skewed distributions for items 16 and 34.

Figure 1

Histo h of distribution of scores for items #16 and #34 with normal curve overla .

 

 

 

Count
Count

 

 

 

 

 

   

Skew = 1.27 Skew = 1.25
Kurtosis = 1.96 Kurtosis = 1.45

 

Note: x-axis is 1 — 7 likert scale of SONI; y—axis is frequency count of the item scores.

In determining model ﬁt, chi-square test of goodness of ﬁt was signiﬁcant, X2

(655) = 1,461.922, p<.0000, indicating that ﬁtted residuals generated by the 5-factor
model are signiﬁcantly greater than zero and that the model generated by the data is
different. Since sample size greatly increases probability of chi-square signiﬁcance,

another indicator of ﬁt is the ratio of the chi-square index to the degrees of freedom and
it’s proximity to zero (Grimm & Yamold, 1995). Ratio of xz/df calculates to an index of

2.23, which indicates that although not a matching ﬁt, the 5—factor model approaches

68

being a relatively congruent ﬁt (M. Reckase, personal communication, February 5, 2008).
Another indicator of poor ﬁt is that the normed comparative ﬁt index (CF I) is .656 and
not close to 1.00 thus indicating the null model of no common factors cannot be rejected.
The TLI (Tucker-Lewis Index; another index of goodness of ﬁt) is .631, thus Showing
that not enough common variance can be accounted for (in relation to total variance) by
the 5-factor model. Finally, the root mean square residual (RMSR) is equal to .099 which
Shows that the average ﬁtted residuals for the 5-factor model is sizable and not close
enough to zero, another indicator of poor model ﬁt. Table 7 shows the different tests of ﬁt
for the 5-factor model.

Table 7

Tests of ﬁt for the 5-factor model

 

lest 1mg gLf 2-v_ah1_e
X2 1,461.922 655 0.000
xz/df 2.23

CFI .656

TLI .631

RMSR .099

 

Given the different indices of ﬁt, it seems that the 5-factor model speciﬁed by
Banai et al. (2005) is not a very congruent ﬁt given the data. The ﬁfth hypothesis (H5)

considering the ﬁt of the 5-factor model was stated as:

69

H5: The factor structure of the Self-Object Needs Inventory consists of 5 factors:
hunger for mirroring, hunger for idealization, hunger for twinship, avoidance of
mirroring, and the avoidance of idealization/twinship.

This hypothesis cannot be conﬁrmed given the results of the conﬁrmatory factor
analysis. Whereas the results of the conﬁrmatory analysis did not replicate the results of

Banai et al.’s (2005) 5-factor model, the factor structure obtained in the present study

does seem comparable to the 5-factor model given the ratio of the chi-square index to the

degrees of freedom (xz/df = 2.23). Table 8 displays the intercorrelation matrix between

factors given the 5-factor model.
Table 8

Intercorrelations of factors ﬁtting data to the 5-factor model

 

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5
Factor 1 1.00
Factor 2 -0.019 1.00
Factor 3 0.391 0.011 1.00
Factor 4 0.306 0.097 0.250 1.00
Factor 5 -0.260 -0.023 -0.228 -0.547 1.00

 

Given the mixed results of ﬁtting the data to the 5-factor model, a post-hoc
exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with principle components extraction was performed
on the data to examine what model best ﬁts the data. EFA reduced the 38 variables to 10
factors. Varimax rotation was performed on the factor matrix in order to make factors

more interpretable. Table 9 Shows how items loaded on respective factors.

70

Table 9

Item loadings of principle components analysis with varimax rciation

 

Rotated Component Matrix'

 

Com onent

 

5

6

10

 

Q37
Q24
Q5

Q33
Q15
Q23
Q29
Q9

Q3

Q30
Q13
Q31
Q26
Q4

Q17
Q12
Q8

Q2

Q1

Q7

Q18
Q21
Q22
Q32
Q16
Q28
Q34
Q38
Q6

Q14
Q27

 

 

.801
.724
.610
-.578
.569
.569
-.497

.457

 

.823
.822
.666
.645

 

.671
.670
.542
.534
.498
.497
.425

 

.814
.736
-.482

 

.737
.705
.620

71

 

.657
.645
.577
.522
.521

 

.418

.781
.623

 

 

 

.436

 

 

Table 9 Cotinued

1010 .778

Q36 .673
919 .484
Q1 1
Q20 .775
Q25 .503

35

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.671

 

 

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 16 iterations.

 

As evident by the scree test in Figure 2 below, 10 factors can be retained until
eigenvalues drop below 1.00. Factor rotation spread item loadings across factors and

made seven of these factors more easily deﬁnable.

72

Figure 2

Scree plot Showing number of factors in relation to eigenvalues.

 

Scree Plot

 

Eigenvalue

2—

 

 

 

0-1

 

11 TITIIIIIIIIqIII
13 5 7 91’113151719212325272931333537

Component Number

 

Note: Scree plot displays original components matrix before varimax rotation.

Several items loaded on multiple factors, in particular, the absolute value of the
factor loadings for Item 18 were similar on both factor 1 (.457; avoidance of mirroring)
and factor 4 (-.482; hunger for mirroring), loading positively and negatively on
respectively Opposite factors. What follows is examination of factors and the items
which had the highest loadings on those factors.

Seven items loaded on the ﬁrst factor; items which loaded highly on this factor
included “I don’t need support and encouragement from others” (801),” I know that I’m

73

successful, so I have no need for others’ feedback” (.724), and “I don’t need other
people’s praise” (.610). The ﬁrst factor could be interpreted as an avoidance of mirroring
factor. In fact, many of the items that loaded on this factor were the same as items which
loaded on the avoidance Of mirroring in the original study by Banai et al.

Four items loaded on factor 2; items which loaded highly on this factor include
“When I have a problem, it’s difﬁcult to accept advice even from experienced people”
(.822), “I ﬁnd it difﬁcult to accept guidance even from people I respect” (.823), and
“When I’m worried or distressed, getting advice from experts doesn’t help much” (.666).
The second factor could be interpreted as an avoidance of idealization factor. Again,
many of the same items loaded on this factor as in the original study; one noticeable
difference is that this study was able to garner a pure avoidance of idealization factor,
whereas the Banai et al. study could not differentiate between items that measured
avoidance of idealization from those items that measured avoidance of twinship,
therefore having to present the factor as a combined avoidance of idealization/twinship
factor.

Whereas Banai et al. found a combined avoidance of idealizatiOn/twinship factor,
Factor 3 of the present study combined items measuring hunger for idealization and
twinship. Seven items loaded on factor 3; items included “It’s important for me to be
around people who can serve as my role models” (.670), “Associating with successful
people allows me to feel successful as well” (.542), and “I feel good knowing that I’m
part of a group of people who share a particular lifestyle” (.498).

Factor 4 could be interpreted as a hunger for mirroring factor as items that loaded

clearly measured narcissistic needs. Only three items loaded on Factor 4; these items

74

 

 

 

consisted of “I feel hurt when my achievements are not sufﬁciently admired” (.814), “I’m
disappointed when my work is not appreciated” (.736), and “I have no need to boast
about my achievements” (-.482), which loaded fairly highly but negatively.

Three items also loaded on factor 5 which could be interpreted as a hunger for
twinship factor. It is not known what differentiates this factor from factor 3, the mixed
hunger for twinship and idealization factor. The items on this factor included “I feel
better when I and someone close to me Share similar feelings to other people” (.737),
“It’s important for me to be part of a group who share similar opinions” (.705), and “I
gain self-conﬁdence from having friends whose beliefs are similar to mine” (.620).
Again, this smaller set of items was among the items that loaded on the hunger for
twinship factor in the Banai et a1. study.

Factor 6 could be interpreted as an avoidance of twinship factor. The ﬁve items
that loaded on this factor included “It bothers me to be in close relationships with people
who are similar to me” (.657), “It’s difﬁcult for me to belong to a group of people who
are dealing with similar problems” (.645), “I ﬁnd it difﬁcult to be proud of the groups I
belong to” (.5 77). 1

Factor 7 seemed to be tapping into a “misery loves company” aspect of the
twinship dynamic. Items that loaded on this factor included, “It’s important for me to
feel that a close friend and I are ‘in the same boat” (.781) and “I feel stronger when I have
people around who are dealing with similar problems” (.623). Item #2 (“It’s important
for me to be around other people who are in the same situation as me”) also loaded on

this factor (.418), but loaded higher on factor 3 (.425).

75

 

Factor 8 could be interpreted as a hunger for idealization factor; the three items
that loaded on this factor included “I identify with famous people” (.778), “I feel better
about myself when I am in the company of experts” (.484), and “It’s important for me to
belong to hi gh-status, “glamorous” social groups” (.673). It is not known what
differentiates this factor from factor 3 which was the mixed factor of hunger for
idealization and twinship.

Factor 9 could be interpreted as another avoidance of twinship factor, but unlike
factor 6, only two items loaded on this factor. The items that loaded included “I would
rather have friends that are different from me rather than ones who are very Similar”
(.775) and “I’m bored by people who think and feel too much like me” (.503). Again, it
is uncertain what differentiates this factor from factor 6.

Factor 10 is a strange factor; it was extracted because of an eigenvalue over 1.00
but no items loaded on this factor before varimax rotation. The two items that loaded on
this factor are “Most of the time I feel like I’m not getting enough recognition from my
superiors” (.671) and “I need a lot of support from others” (.463), an item which also
loaded negatively (-.578) on factor 1, the avoidance of mirroring factor. Factor 10 seems
to be drawing from a need for mirroring dynamic.

It should be mentioned that Item 11 (“I don’t function well in situations where I
receive too little attention”), an item that seems to be measuring hunger for mirroring,
could not load on any factors after varimax rotation. Table 9 displays all factors and the

items associated with each factor.

76

Table 10

Factor structure found in the present study through exploratory factor analysis .

 

Factor
1

2

10

(7)

Interpersonal Dynamic
Avoidance of Mirroring
Avoidance of Idealization

Hunger for Idealization
[Twinship

Hunger for Mirroring
Hunger for Twinship
Avoidance of Twinship
Hunger for Twinship
Hunger for Idealization
Avoidance of Twinship
Hunger for Mirroring

Hunger for Mirroring

m
5,15,23,24,29,33,37
3, 9, 13, 30

2, 4, 8,12,17, 26, 31

l, 7, 18

21, 22, 32

6, 16, 28, 34, 38
14, 27

10,19, 36

20, 25

35

ll

 

Note: Items organized according to highest loadings on the factor

Appendix E also displays each item, the factor loadings, and the associated

factors. The way that most items correlated makes intuitive sense. Factors seemed to

have differentiated subdimensions which may be functions of language and culture, the

discerning difference between the original population of Israeli students from the Banai et

al. study and the American-Midwestem population from this study. Also, extracted

factors after the ﬁrst 5 factors may be highly unreliable and unstable due to the study’s

tenuous sample size. As Shown by the scree plot (Figure 2), eigenvalues sharply drop

after the ﬁrst 5 extracted factors. Implications of the results for conﬁrmatory and

exploratory factor analyses will be discussed in the next chapter.

77

CHAPTER 5 — Discussion
Research Question #1

Results of the canonical correlation relating the self psychological variables of
grandiosity and goal instability with the positive psychology variables of expectations
and attributions demonstrated that a Signiﬁcant relationship existed between the two
variable sets. The canonical analysis showed a moderate effect with the ﬁrst canonical
function being tantamount to the self psychology variable of goal instability. In contrast,
grandiosity was not relevant or related (bivariately or multivariately) to any of the
variables in the current study. The study’s ﬁrst clinical hypothesis, stating that
participants high in narcissism would tend to attribute negative events to external causes,
could not be conﬁrmed. This ﬁrst clinical hypothesis (H1) was based on the narcissistic
self-regulatory model (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001) where intra-personal processes protect
implicit vulnerabilities and the explicit grandiose self. It was hypothesized that these
intra-personal processes would have narcissistic participants extemalize attributions for
negative events relative to participants lower in narcissism. Given the results, the
narcissistic self-regulatory model (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001) may not have been relevant
because participants were sampled from a university population where narcissism is not
likely to be extreme. Although students in the general student population may also have
extreme narcissistic needs, their characteristics are likely to be counterbalanced by more
mature students sampled ﬁom the student population. Perhaps if this study was carried
out on a clinical population, grandiosity would be a more relevant variable. Probably the
true relationship between narcissism and expectations and attributions is multi-

dimensional and more subtle than effects found through simple pencil and paper

78

measures. It must be again noted that the redundancy coefﬁcient of the independent
variable set is deceptive (Rd2 = 11.65 %) because the grandiosity variable dilutes the
relational effect size of the independent variable set. A more accurate accounting of
effect Size can be seen in the canonical correlation index (RC2 = 23.5 %) which represents
dimensions of the self measured by the goal-instability scale. Thus, goal-instability was
the self-psychological variable which related best with the dependent variable set and was
the index of self-cohesiveness in the study’s sample.

These ﬁndings indicate that the ability to realistically appraise talents and skills,
have stable goals, and take action toward the completion of goals (description of a
cohesive self) correspond with optimistic expectations and attributional explanations for
events. Not only do these results make intuitive sense, but are congruent with the
literature in social learning theory and self-efﬁcacy (Bandura, 1977, 1986), information
processing models of behavior (Beck, 1976, 1995), and the learned helplessness model of
depression (Seligman, 1979; Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978).

These results also speak to relationally based common factors approaches in
counseling and psychotherapy that focus on growth of the self. According to most
theories of counseling and psychotherapy, it is the relationship between the therapist and
client that allows further growth. Speciﬁc to self-psychological theory, idealized self-
objects have a soothing quality in the face of ﬁ'ustration, thus, it follows that optimism
would be related to the idealization vector of the bipolar-self in the development of a
cohesive self.

Of all the variables in the positive psychology data set, the least signiﬁcant effects

were seen with the intemality dimension of attributional explanatory style, sharing only

79

12.04% variance with the ﬁrst canonical function. lntemality is the dimension of
attribution in which the person sees themselves as the primary cause of the event.
According to Peterson and Villinova (1988), intemality is “the least coherent dimension”
(pg. 88) of attributional style measured by the ASQ. The authors posit the difﬁculty with
this variable’s coherence may be due to the multidimensionality of the intemality
construct. The intemality dimension is interpreted as self-blame (when attributing for -
negative events) as it has been shown to relate to a depressive attributional style and loss
of self-esteem (Seligman et al., 1979). Offering a different perspective, a strong and
cohesive sense of self may attribute internally out of a sense of responsibility, a virtuous
characteristic which people who can self-soothe (a self-function that requires
development of the idealization vector of the bipolar self) have the capacity to
accomplish with no resulting loss in esteem. Whereas the majority of people may
attribute negative events internally out of self-condemnation, others may attribute
internally from a standpoint of responsibility. It may be that participants internally
attributed negative events for different reasons (ranging from condemnation to
responsibility) thus confounding effects between intemality of attributions and the
canonical function.

Among the limitations of this study is sampling from a population of convenience
where external validity is compromised. Moreover, there was no random selection of
participants therefore further limiting the inferences that can be made to the general
population. In addition, it would have been optimal to sample from the population of
clients undergoing counseling and psychotherapy. Relationships between self psychology

and positive psychology variables may have been more pronounced with a client

80

population with more extreme self-Object needs and maladaptive thinking. The angst of
extreme goal instability would certainly have repercussion for optimistic thinking. Also,
Since it is the client population that would ﬁnd the most utility from this study, it is this
population that Should be sampled for results to generalize.

As it stands, this study demonstrates the connection between self psychology and
positive psychology by revealing the relationship between cohesiveness of the self and
the degree of optimism in cognitive ﬁrnctioning. Future studies that investigate optimism
within a self psychological context should take the investigation beyond a sample of
convenience and the university population. In particular, populations with more extreme
self-object needs should be sampled such as the population of people seeking counseling
and psychotherapy. Within a Similar course of investigation the role of grandiosity on
cognitive functioning must be further examined; this would mean examining grandiosity
in both its archaic form as pathological narcissism and it’s more developed form as self-
esteem. Thus, investigators can try to differentiate between attributional functioning of
those who show high self—esteem (a function of the self) and true narcissists. Also, the
functions of the cohesive self in relation to optimism must be examined using more than
just self-report measures. The information garnered by self-report questionnaires can be
supplemented with more objective outcome measures such as agency Shown towards
goals whatever the goals may be (i.e. more ﬁiends, better job, completion of degree, etc.).

Future studies must also investigate other positive psychology variables in relation to the
cohesive self. Positive psychology variables such as emotional intelligence and the ability to
empathize can also be construed as self-functions; any investigation seeking common ground
between these two paradigms would be mutually beneﬁcial to each of these models of human

behavior.

81

Research Question #2

Results of the conﬁrmatory factor analysis were mixed as to the ﬁt of the 5-factor

model to the data of the present study. Whereas most indices did not show the 5-factor

structure to be a congruent ﬁt, the ratio of X2 to degrees of freedom (Xz/dT. = 2.23)

indicated that it was not completely poor ﬁtting. Given that the present study used an
English translation of the SONI and a culturally different population than that used by
Banai et al., differences in Israeli and American culture and language are posited to be a
factor in the mediocre ﬁt of the 5-factor model. Another issue which may be responsible
for differences in ﬁt may be that some of the variables measured are multidimensional
speciﬁcally within an American cultural context.

Evidence of the multidimensional aspects of self-Object needs was shown with a
post-hoe exploratory factor analysis using principle components extraction. The
exploratory factor analysis after varimax rotation revealed that the data could be reduced
to 10-factors. Just as in the Banai et al. study, some of the items measuring the
idealization and twinship constructs correlated resulting in combined factors, such as
factors 3 and 8 (See Appendix E).

Factors 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 seemed to most deﬁnitively and parsimoniously reﬂect
similar dimensions of hunger and avoidance of self-object needs as found in the Banai et
al. study. These factors can be labeled as avoidance of mirroring (factor 1), avoidance of
idealization (factor 2), hunger for idealization/twinship (factor 3), hunger for mirroring
(factor 4), and hunger for twinship (factor 5). As mentioned, factors 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10
may have been extracted due to the multidimensional nature of the self psychology

constructs within an American cultural context. For example, hunger for mirroring

82

seemed to be nuanced into the need to be recognized for one’s accomplishments (factor
4; “I feel hurt when my achievements are not sufﬁciently admired,” “I’m disappointed
when my work is not appreciated”) as well as a general need for recognition and support
(factor 10; “Most Of the time I feel like I’m not getting enough recognition from my
superiors”). AS another example, hunger for twinship seemed to be partitioned into the
need for afﬁliation with others in three areas: seeking others with a similar lifestyle
(factor 3; “It’s important for me to be around other people who are in the same situation
as me,” “I feel good knowing that I’m part of a group of people who share a particular
lifestyle”), similar mindset (factor 5; “I feel better when I and someone close to me share
similar feelings to other people,” “I gain self-conﬁdence from having ﬁiends whose
beliefs are Similar to mine”), as well as the need for connectedness in the face of
problems (factor 7; “It’s important for me to feel that a close friend and I are ‘in the same
boat,” “I feel stronger when I have people around who are dealing with similar
problems”). When considering other extracted factors, it is difﬁcult to readily determine
what differentiates two factors that represent one construct (i.e. factor 6 and factor 9 both
consist of very similar items that measure the avoidance of the twinship need). Further
complicating interpretation, Item #11 (“I don’t function well in situations where I receive
too little attention”) did not load onto any of the factors after varimax rotation. Also, the
multidimensional aspects of the factors may be an artifact of the sample data. In
addition, a grave limitation in the method of analysis of research question #2 is that a
sample size of 199 participants is small in the factor analysis of a 38-item questionnaire.
Although differences in the factor structure of this application of the SONI and

that of Banai et al. (2005) are notable, the ﬁrst ﬁve factors extracted seemed to be the

83

most stable and reliable. Arguably, a similar factor structure was found when compared
to the results of Banai et al. (2005) if looking at the ﬁrst ﬁve extracted factors. Whether
the differences in factor structures are a function of sample size, research artifact, culture,
language, the constructs themselves, or a combination of the three is yet to be determined
by future studies.
Conclusions
The interpersonal dynamics of self-object needs that were identiﬁed by Kohut

have the potential of expanding understanding of personality and human interaction as a
function of development. Although the interpersonal dynamics of self-object needs are
most apparent in the psychotherapy session as the transference conﬁguration,
psychologists are now quantifying and measuring these intrapersonal and interpersonal
expressions of development. Counseling psychology has been actively exploring the
tenets of self psychology because self psychology ﬁts well with counseling psychology’s
emphasis of growth and healthy functioning (Gelso & F retz, 2001; Patton & Meara,
1996). Positive psychology, the latest of the major paradigms in psychology, is at the
cutting edge of applied clinical research. Positive psychology is congruent with
counseling psychology’s emphasis on identifying and building on existing strengths.
Counseling psychology can only beneﬁt from considering what both paradigms of
behavior have to offer.

Study question #1 was an attempt to integrate self psychology with positive
psychology by examining the relationship between expectations and attribution with
goal-instability and grandiosity. The results showed that stable and realistic goals that are

followed through are predictive of a certain way of explaining and making meaning of

84

 

 

the world. Although several psychological theories make statements on how goals are
formed and carried through, the stability or instability of goals is the crux as well as a
speciﬁc developmental endpoint of the comprehensive theory of self psychology. AS
seen through a self psychological lens, stability of goals can be achieved through speciﬁc
developmental actions and events. Study question #2 also looked at the intrapersonal and
interpersonal effects of development as posited by self psychology. This second study
was an attempt to replicate the factor structure of the SONI as found by Banai et al.
(2005). The present study could not replicate the exact factor structure as found by Banai
et al., possibly due to language and/or cultural differences between the Israeli sample
used in the original study and the American sample used in the present study. Although
the Banai et al. factor structure was not replicated, the ﬁrst ﬁve factors were shown to be
the most valid and reliable when considering the data from the present study. This
measure of self-object needs seems promising and deserves further investigation.

It is the author’s hope that counseling psychology will continue to investigate
both the self psychology and positive psychology paradigms. Research that integrates
concepts of developmental, personality, and counseling psychology can only lead to a

more cohesive science of human behavior.

85

Appendix A
Consent Form
Student self-attitudes and interpersonal relationships

This is a research project that examines student self attitudes and ways of relating to others. Your
participation in this project will require completing ﬁve questionnaires and a demographics sheet. One of
the questionnaires presents a number of hypothetical negative events and requires you to identify the cause
of each event. Once the cause of the negative event has been identiﬁed, you are to identify different
distinguishing factors of the identiﬁed cause. Three other questionnaires ask about your attitudes
pertaining to yourself and others. There is also a page-long demographics sheet you are to complete. The
demographics sheet asks about pertinent variable such as gender, ethnicity, and age, as well as some more
personal questions such as, if you are in a romantic relationship and the number of sexual partners you have
been with. All information remains conﬁdential and cannot be traced to you in any way. Overall, the
questionnaire packet should not take more than 40 minutes to complete in total.

There are no foreseeable risks or signiﬁcant discomfort related to your participation. We
anticipate that your participation in the study will get you to think about yourself and interactions with
others. For your participation in the study, you will be entered into a lottery with a cash prize of $100.
Once you are ready to turn-in your questionnaire packet, you will be given a numbered ticket. I will keep
an identical ticket to the one that you have that will be used in the lottery drawing. You will write your
email address on the back of the ticket that I keep and I will email you if have been randomly chosen as the
winner of the drawing. Your course instructor might also give extra-credit for participating in this study (at
instructors’ discretion).

Again, all information and data will remain strictly conﬁdential. Reports of results will only be
given in the form of correlations between measures (questionnaires) and other statistical nomenclature;
individual names, scores, or other personal information cannot and will not be identiﬁed or traced to any
individual participant. If you have any questions about this study, please contact Robert Bastanfar at (517)
749-1356 or email at bastanfaﬁlmsuedu. My ofﬁce is in Erickson Hall, Room 401C. The principle
investigator of this research study is Dr. Nancy Crewe. Dr. Crewe can be reached at 517-355-1838 or
email at ncrewe@msu.edu. Also, If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a
study participant, or are dissatisﬁed at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact -
anonymously, if you wish, Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Director of the Human Research Protection
Programs (HRPP) at Michigan State University: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517)432-4503, email:
irb@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

You are under no obligation to participate in this study and are free to withdraw at any time.
There will be no penalty for withdrawal from the study. All participants will be included in the lottery
drawing even if they do not complete the study questionnaires.

We will be happy to answer any questions you have. F eel free to ask questions now, during the
study, or after. Your cooperation, honesty, and motivated performance are essential to the success of this
study. We will be happy to answer any questions about the goals, implications, and procedures of this
research. At the end of the study, we will provide you with a written explanation of the purpose of this
Study.

 

You are making a decision whether or not to be in this study. Your Signature below means that you
voluntarily agree to participate in this research study.

Participant Signature Date

 

Investigator Date

 

86

1.

2.

3.

\l

00

\0

Appendix B

Demographics Questionnaire
Sex
(1) Male
(2) Female

Age

 

Please circle the number next to your race/ethnicity
(1) Asian, Asian-American
(2) Black, Aﬁican-American
(3) Hispanic, Latino
(4) Native American
(5) Paciﬁc Islander
(6) White, European American
(7) Multiracial, Mixed Race
(8) Other, please specify

 

Year of academic study
(1) Freshman
(2) Sophomore
(3) Junior
(4) Senior

What is your sexual-orientation?
(1) Heterosexual
(2) Lesbian
(3) Gay
(4) Bi-sexual
(5) Transgendered

. Are you currently involved in a romantic relationship?
(1) Yes
(2) No

. If you marked yes to Item 6, are you sexually involved with your romantic partner?

(1) Yes
(2) No

. If you marked yes to Item 6, how satisﬁed are you in your current relationship?

(1) Very Satisﬁed

(2) Satisﬁed

(3) Somewhat Satisﬁed
(4) Unsatisﬁed

(5) Very Unsatisﬁed

. How many sexual partners have you been with?
(1)0
(2) 1 - 5
(3) 6 - 10
(4) 11 — 15
(5) l6 - 20
(6)20 +

87

Appendix C
Measures
The following are ﬁve surveys about attitudes you have about yourself and others as well
as a demographics questionnaire. We all have different attitudes or feelings about
ourselves, our futures, and others with whom we interact. It is very important that you

answer openly and honestly; there are no wrong answers.

88

10.

The LOT-R

ln uncertain times, I usually expect the best.
1 2 3 4
strongly
disagree

It is easy for me to relax.
I 2 3 4
strongly
disagree

If something can go wrong for me, it will.

1 2 3 4
strongly
disagree
I’m always optimistic about my future.
1 2 3 4
strongly
disagree
I enjoy my friends a lot.
1 2 3 4
Strongly
disagree
It’s important for me to keep busy.
1 2 3 4
strongly
disagree

I hardly ever expect things to go my way.

I 2 3 4
strongly
disagree

I don’t get upset too easily.
1 2 3 4
strongly
disagree

I rarely count on good things to happen to me.
1 2 3 4
strongly
disagree

Overall, I expect more good things to happen to me than bad.
1 2 3 4
strongly
disagree

89

5
strongly
agree

5
strongly
agree

5
Strongly
agree

5
strongly
agree

5
strongly
agree

5
strongly
agree

5
strongly
agree

5
strongly
agree

5
strongly
agree

5
strongly
agree

10.

It’s easier for me to start than to ﬁnish projects.

1
strongly
agree

I wonder where my life is headed.

1
strongly
agree

2
moderately
agree

2
moderately
agree

The Gl-Scale

3
slightly
agree

3
slightly
agree

I don’t seem to make decisions by myself.

1
Strongly
agree

I don’t seem to have the drive to get my work done.

1
strongly
agree

I lose my sense of direction.

1
strongly
agree

1 have more ideas than energy.

1
strongly
agree

I don’t seem to get going on anything important.

1
strongly
agree

1
strongly
agree

1 have confusion about who 1 am.

1
strongly
agree

2
moderately
agree

2
moderately
agree

2
moderately
agree

2
moderately
agree

moderately
agree

2
moderately
agree

2
moderately
agree

3
slightly
agree

3

slightly
agree

3
slightly
agree

3
slightly
agree

3
slightly
agree

After a while, I lose sight of my goals.
3

slightly
agree

3
slightly
agree

It’s hard to ﬁnd a reason for working.

1
strongly
agree

2
moderately
agree

3
slightly
agree

90

4
slightly
disagree

4
Slightly
disagree

4
slightly
disagree

4
slightly
disagree

4

slightly
disagree

4

slightly
disagree

4
slightly
disagree

4
slightly
disagree

4
slightly
disagree

4
slightly
disagree

5
moderately
disagree

5
moderately
disagree

5
moderately
disagree

5
moderately
disagree

5
moderately
disagree

5
moderately
disagree

5
moderately
disagree

5
moderately
disagree

5
moderately
disagree

5
moderately
disagree

6
strongly
disagree

6
strongly
disagree

6
strongly
disagree

6
strongly
disagree

6
strongly
disagree

6
strongly
disagree

6
strongly
disagree

6
strongly
disagree

6
strongly
disagree

6
Strongly
disagree

10.

The S-Scale

My friends follow my lead.

1 2 3 4
strongly moderately slightly slightly
agree agree agree disagree

I deserve favors from others.

1 2 3 4
strongly moderately slightly slightly
agree agree agree disagree

I’m witty and charming with others.

1 2 3 4
Strongly moderately slightly 5] i ghtly
agree agree agree disagree

My looks are one of the things that attract others to me.

I 2 3 4
strongly moderately slightly slightly
agree agree agree disagree

I could show up my friends if I wanted to.

l 2 3 4
Strongly moderately slightly Slightly
agree agree agree disagree

Running the Show means a lot to me.

1 2 3 4
strongly moderately slightly slightly
agree agree agree disagree

Being admired by others helps me feel fantastic.

1 2 3 4
strongly moderately slightly slightly
agree agree agree disagree

5
moderately
disagree

5
moderately
disagree

5
moderately
disagree

5
moderately
disagree

5
moderately
disagree

5
moderately
disagree

5
moderately
disagree

Achieving out of the ordinary accomplishments would make me feel complete.

1 2 3 4
strongly moderately slightly slightly
agree agree agree disagree

I catch myself wanting to be a hero.

1 2 3 4
strongly moderately slightly slightly
agree agree agree disagree

I know that l have more natural talents than most.

1 2 3 4
strongly moderately slightly slightly
agree agree agree disagree

91

5
moderately
disagree

5
moderately
disagree

5
moderately
disagree

6
strongly
disagree

6
strongly
disagree

6
strongly
disagree

6
strongly
disagree

6
strongly
disagree

6
strongly
disagree

6
strongly
disagree

6
strongly
disagree

6
strongly
disagree

6
strongly
disagree

The SONI

Please note that in this measure I = Strong Disagree whereas 7 = Strongly Agree

1.

1
Strongly
Disagree

2.

l
Strongly
Disagree

3.

1

Strongly
Disagree

4. Associating with successful people allows me to feel successful as well.

1
Strongly
Disagree

5.

1
Strongly
Disagree

6.

1
Strongly
Disagree

7.

1

Strongly
Disagree

I feel hurt when my achievements are not sufﬁciently admired.

2

It’s important for me to be around other people who are in the same situation as me.

2

When I have a problem, it’s difﬁcult to accept advice even from experienced people.

2

2

I don’t need other people’s praise.

2

I would prefer not to be involved with people who suffer from problems similar to mine.

2

I’m disappointed when my work is not appreciated.

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

92

5

5

5

5

6

6

6

Strongly
Agree

Strongly
Agree

7
Strongly
Agree

Strongly
Agree

Strongly
Agree

7
Strongly
Agree

Strongly
Agree

8. I seek out people who Share my values, Opinions, and activities.

1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly
Disagree

9. I ﬁnd it difﬁcult to accept guidance even from people I respect.

1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly
Disagree

10. I identify with famous people.

1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly
Disagree

11. I don’t function well in situations where I receive too little attention.
1 2 3 4 5 6

Strongly
Disagree

12. I feel good knowing that I’m part of a group of people who share a particular lifestyle.

1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly
Disagree

13. I feel bad about myself after having to be helped by others with more experience.

1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly
Disagree

14. It’s important for me to feel that a close friend and l are ‘in the same boat.”

1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly
Disagree

15. When I’m doing something, 1 don’t need acknowledgement from others.

1 2 3 4 5 6

Strongly
Disagree

93

7
Strongly
Agree

Strongly
Agree

Strongly
Agree

Strongly
Agree

Strongly
Agree

Strongly
Agree

Strongly
Agree

7
Strongly
Agree

16. It bothers me to be in close relationships with people who are similar to me.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly
Disagree

17. I am attracted to successful people.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly
Disagree

18. I have no need to boast about my achievements.

l 2 3 4 5
Strongly
Disagree

19. I feel better about myself when I am in the company of experts.
I 2 3 4 5

Strongly
Disagree

7
Strongly
Agree

7
Strongly
Agree

Strongly
Agree

7
Strongly
Agree

20. I would rather have friends that are different from me rather than ones who are very similar.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly
Disagree

21. I feel better when I and someone close to me share similar feelings to other people.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly
Disagree

22. It’s important for me to be part of a group who share similar opinions.
I 2 3 4 5

Strongly
Disagree

23. I don’t really care what others think about me.
1 2 3 4 5

Strongly
Disagree

94

7
Strongly
Agree

Strongly
Agree

7
Strongly
Agree

Strongly
Agree

24. I know that I’m successful, so I have no need for others’ feedback.

1
Strongly
Disagree

25. I’m bored by people who think and feel too much like me.

1
Strongly
Disagree

26. It’s important for me to be around people who can serve as my role models.

1
Strongly
Disagree

2

2

2

3

3

3

4

4

4

5

5

27. I feel stronger when I have people around who are dealing with similar problems.

1
Strongly
Disagree

28. It’s difﬁcult for me to belong to a group of people who are dealing with similar problems.

1
Strongly
Disagree

29. In order to feel successful, I need reassurance and approval from others.

1
Strongly
Disagree

30. When I’m worried or distressed, getting advice from experts doesn’t help much.

1
Strongly
Disagree

31. I try to be around people I admire.

1
Strongly
Disagree

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

95

5

5

5

5

6

6

7
Strongly
Agree

7
Strongly
Agree

Strongly
Agree

Strongly
Agree

Strongly
Agree

7
Strongly
Agree

Strongly
Agree

7
Strongly
Agree

32. I gain self-conﬁdence from having friends whose beliefs are similar to mine.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly
Disagree

33. I need a lot of support from others.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly
Disagree

34. I ﬁnd it difﬁcult to be proud of the groups I belong to.
1 2 3 4 5

Strongly
Disagree

35. Most of the time I feel like I’m not getting enough recognition from my superiors.

I 2 3 4 5
Strongly
Disagree

36. It’s important for me to belong to high-Status, “glamorous” social groups.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly
Disagree

37. I don’t need support and encouragement from Others.
1 2 3 4 5

Strongly
Disagree

38. I would rather not belong to a group of people whose lifestyle is similar to mine.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly
Disagree

96

6

7
Strongly
Agree

Strongly
Agree

7
Strongly
Agree

Strongly
Agree

Strongly
Agree

7
Strongly
Agree

Strongly
Agree

Interpretation of Events

Please try to imagine yourself in the situations that follow. If such a situation happened
to you, what would you feel would have caused it? While event may have many causes,
we want you to pick only one — THE MAJOR CAUSE IF THIS EVENT HAPPENED
TO YOU.

Please write the cause in the blank provided after each event. Next we want you to
answer three questions about the cause you provided. First, is the cause of this event
something about you or something about other people or circumstances? Second, is the
cause of this event something that will persist across time or something that will never
again be present. Third, is the cause of this event something that effects all situations in
your life or something that affects just this type of event?

To summarize, we want you to:

1. Read each situation and vividly imagine it happening to you.

2. Decide what you feel would be the one major cause of the situation if it
happened to you.

3. Write the cause in the blank provided.

4. Answer three questions about the cause.

97

1. You have been looking for a job unsuccessfully for some time.

A. Write down the one major cause:

B. Is the cause of this due to something about you or something about other people or

circumstances? (circle one number)

totally due totally due
to others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to me

C. in the future, will this cause again be present? (circle one number)
never always

present 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 present

D. Is this cause something that affects just this type of situation, or does it also influence
other areas of your life? (circle one number)

Just this all
situation 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 situations

 

2. A friend comes to you with a problem, and you don’t try to help.

A. Write down the one major cause:

6. Is the cause of this due to something about you or something about other people or
circumstances? (circle one number)

totally due totally due
to others 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 to me

C. in the future, will this cause again be present? (circle one number)
never always

present 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 present

D. Is this cause something that affects just this type of situation, or does it also influence
other areas of your life? (circle one number)

Just this all
situation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 situations

98

3. You give an important talk in front of a group, and the audience reacts negatively.

A. Write down the one major cause:

B. is the cause of this due to something about you or something about other people or
circumstances? (circle one number)

totally due totally due
to others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to me

C. in the future, will this cause again be present? (circle one number)
never always

present 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 present

0. Is this cause something that affects just this type of situation, or does it also inﬂuence
other areas of your life? (circle one number)

Just this all
situation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 situations

 

4. You met a friend who acted hostilely to you.

A. Write down the one major cause:

6. Is the cause of this due to something about you or something about other people or
circumstances? (circle one number)

totally due totally due
to others 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 to me

C. In the future, will this cause again be present? (circle one number)
never always

present 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 present

0. Is this cause something that affects just this type of situation, or does it also influence
other areas of your life? (circle one number)

Just this all
situation 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 situations

99

5. You can’t get all the work done that others expect you to.

A. Write down the one major cause:

B. Is the cause of this due to something about you or something about other people or
circumstances? (circle one number)

totally due totally due
to others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to me

C. In the future, will this cause again be present? (circle one number)
never always

present 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 present

D. Is this cause something that affects just this type of situation, or does it also influence
other areas of your life? (circle one number)

Just this all
situation 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 situations

 

6. You go out on a date and it goes badly.

A. Write down the one major cause:

B. Is the cause of this due to something about you or something about other people or
circumstances? (circle one number)

totally due totally due
to others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to me

C. In the future, will this cause again be present? (circle one number)
never always

present 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 present

D. Is this cause something that affects just this type of situation, or does it also influence
other areas of your life? (circle one number)

Just this all
situation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 situations

100

7. Your steady romantic relationship ends.

A. Write down the one major cause:

B. Is the cause of this due to something about you or something about other people or
circumstances? (circle one number)

totally due totally due
to others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to me

C. In the future, will this cause again be present? (circle one number)
never always

present 1 2 ' 3 4 5 6 7 present

D. Is this cause something that affects just this type of situation, or does it also influence
other areas of your life? (circle one number)

Just this all
situation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 situations

 

8. You experience a major personal injury.

A. Write down the one major cause:

6. Is the cause of this due to something about you or something about other people or
circumstances? (circle one number)

totally due totally due
to others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to me

C. In the future, will this cause again be present? (circle one number)
never always

present 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 present

D. is this cause something that affects just this type of situation, or does it also influence
other areas of your life? (circle one number)

Just this all
situation 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 situations

101

9. You are found guilty of a minor violation of the law.

A. Write down the one major cause:

B. Is the cause of this due to something about you or something about other people or
circumstances? (circle one number)

totally due totally due
to others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to me

C. In the future, will this cause again be present? (circle one number)
never always

present 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 present

D. Is this cause something that affects just this type of situation, or does it also inﬂuence
other areas of your life? (circle one number)

Just this all
situation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 situations

 

10. You and your family have a serious argument.

A. Write down the one major cause:

B. Is the cause of this due to something about you or something about other people or

circumstances? (circle one number)

totally due totally due
to others 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 to me

C. In the future, will this cause again be present? (circle one number)
never always

present 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 present

0. Is this cause something that affects just this type of situation, or does it also influence
other areas of your life? (circle one number)

Just this all
situation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 situations

102

11. You are fired from your job.

A. Write down the one major cause:

B. Is the cause of this due to something about you or something about other people or
circumstances? (circle one number)

totally due totally due
to others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to me

C. In the future, will this cause again be present? (circle one number)
never always

present 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 present

D. Is this cause something that affects just this type of situation, or does it also influence
other areas of your life? (circle one number)

Just this all
situation 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 situations

 

12. After your first term at school, you are on academic probation.

A. Write down the one major cause:

B. Is the cause of this due to something about you or something about other people or
circumstances? (circle one number)

totally due totally due
to others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to me

C. In the future, will this cause again be present? (circle one number)
never always

present 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 present

D. Is this cause something that affects just this type of situation, or does it also influence
other areas of your life? (circle one number)

Just this all
situation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 situations

103

13. Your best friend tells you that you are not to be trusted.

A. Write down the one major cause:

B. Is the cause of this due to something about you or something about other people or
circumstances? (circle one number)

totally due totally due
to others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to me

C. In the future, will this cause again be present? (circle one number)
never always

present 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 present

D. Is this cause something that affects just this type of situation, or does it also influence
other areas of your life? (circle one number)

Just this all
situation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 situations

 

14. You have a lot of trouble understanding what your new employer requires of you.

A. Write down the one major cause:

B. Is the cause of this due to something about you or something about other people or
circumstances? (circle one number)

totally due totally due
to others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to me

C. In the future, will this cause again be present? (circle one number)
never always

present 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 present

0. Is this cause something that affects just this type of situation, or does it also inﬂuence
other areas of your life? (circle one number)

Just this all
situation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 situations

104

15. You cannot sleep soundly.

A. Write down the one major cause:

B. Is the cause of this due to something about you or something about other people or
circumstances? (circle one number)

totally due totally due
to others 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 to me

C. In the future, will this cause again be present? (circle one number)
never always

present 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 present

D. Is this cause something that affects just this type of situation, or does it also influence
other areas of your life? (circle one number)

Just this all
situation 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 situations

 

16. You experience sexual difficulties.

A. Write down the one major cause:

B. Is the cause of this due to something about you or something about other people or
circumstances? (circle one number)

totally due totally due
to others 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 to me

C. In the future, will this cause again be present? (circle one number)

never always
present 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 present

0. Is this cause something that affects just this type of situation, or does it also influence
other areas of your life? (circle one number)

Just this all
situation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 situations

105

17. You confront a serious conflict in your values.

A. Write down the one major cause:

B. Is the cause of this due to something about you or something about other people or
circumstances? (circle one number)

totally due totally due
to others 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 to me

C. In the future, will this cause again be present? (circle one number)
never always

present 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 present

0. Is this cause something that affects just this type of situation, or does it also influence
other areas of your life? (circle one number)

Just this all
situation 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 situations

 

18. Your roommate tell you he/she is switching to a room down the hall.

A. Write down the one major cause:

8. Is the cause of this due to something about you or something about other people or
circumstances? (circle one number)

totally due totally due
to others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to me

C. In the future, will this cause again be present? (circle one number)
never always

present 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 present

D. Is this cause something that affects just this type of situation, or does it also influence
other areas of your life? (circle one number)

Just this all
situation 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 situations

106

19. There are few recreational activities in which you are interested.

A. Write down the one major cause:

B. Is the cause of this due to something about you or something about other people or
circumstances? (circle one number)

totally due totally due
to others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to me

C. In the future, will this cause again be present? (circle one number)
never always

present 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 present

D. Is this cause something that affects just this type of situation, or does it also influence
other areas of your life? (circle one number)

Just this all
situation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 situations

 

20. Your Christmas vacation plans are cancelled.

A. Write down the one major cause:

B. Is the cause of this due to something about you or something about other peOple or
circumstances? (circle one number)

totally due totally due
to others 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 to me

C. In the future, will this cause again be present? (circle one number)
never always

present 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 present

D. Is this cause something that affects just this type of situation, or does it also influence
other areas of your life? (circle one number)

Just this all
situation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 situations

107

21. You have trouble with one of your instructors.

A. Write down the one major cause:

6. Is the cause of this due to something about you or something about other people or
circumstances? (circle one number)

totally due totally due
to others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to me

C. In the future, will this cause again be present? (circle one number)
never always

present 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 present

0. Is this cause something that affects just this type of situation, or does it also influence
other areas of your life? (circle one number)

Just this all
situation 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 situations

 

22. You experience financial difficulties.

A. Write down the one major cause:

B. Is the cause of this due to something about you or something about other people or
circumstances? (circle one number)

totally due totally due
to others 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 to me

C. In the future, will this cause again be present? (circle one number)
never always

present 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 present

D. Is this cause something that affects just this type of situation, or does it also influence
other areas of your life? (circle one number)

Just this all
situation 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 situations

108

23. Your attempt to capture the interest of a specific person of the opposite sex is a failure.

A. Write down the one major cause:

B. Is the cause of this due to something about you or something about other people or
circumstances? (circle one number)

totally due totally due
to others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to me

C. In the future, will this cause again be present? (circle one number)
never always

present 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 present

D. Is this cause something that affects just this type of situation, or does it also influence
other areas of your life? (circle one number)

Just this all
situation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 situations

 

24. You feel sick and tired all the time.

A. Write down the one major cause:

B. Is the cause of this due to something about you or something about other people or
circumstances? (circle one number)

totally due totally due
to others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to me

C. In the future, will this cause again be present? (circle one number)

never always
present 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 present

D. Is this cause something that affects just this type of situation, or does it also influence
other areas of your life? (circle one number)

Just this all
situation 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 situations

109

Appendix D
Debrieﬁng Form

The study that you have just participated in examines how variables pertaining to self-functioning
(attitudes about oneself, ambition, and ability to strive towards goals) relate to one’s cognitive explanatory
style and general outlook on the future. In other words, one aspect of the study examines how your
attitudes about yourself and your abilities may relate to how optimistically you see and interpret life events.
We particularly looked at your general outlook towards life events and how you would explain the cause of
negative and unpleasant events. This is the ﬁrst study examining the possible connection between
psychoanalytic study of the self and the burgeoning ﬁeld of positive psychology.

Another aspect of this study examines how people function interpersonally. There is some
evidence in the psychological literature that some people are dependant on social relationships and others
are rejecting of social relationships. Several psychological theories posit that how one relates to others
(both socially and intimately) is tied to the stability of one’s development as a child. This study looked at
the dependant and rejecting patterns of relating to others that may be function of childhood stability and
healthy development.

It is hoped that both aspects of this study provide a better understanding of the self, cognitive
functioning as it relates to self-functioning, and patterns of self and other relationships. This information
may be useful in the context of counseling and psychotherapy and hopefully will contribute to the study of
personality and psychoanalytic psychology. Again, rest assured that conﬁdentiality will be maintained and
that no information can be traced back to you. If you have additional questions about the purpose of this
study or the results obtained, please leave your name and a message for me (Robert Bastanfar) at (517)
749-1356 or email me at bastanfa@msu.edu. I will return your call or reply to your email as soon as
possible. Also, If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or
are dissatisﬁed at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact - anonymously, if you wish,
Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Director of the Human Research Protection Programs (HRPP) at Michigan
State University: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, email: irb@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds
Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824. Again, we greatly appreciate your participation and contribution to our

research.

110

war

Appendix E

Factor Loading of Exploratory Factor Analysis of Self-Object Needs Inventory (SONI)

Factor I (Avoidance of Mirroring)

Q5 — factor I (.610)
I don’t need other people’s praise.

Q15 — factor I (.569)
When I’m doing something, I don’t need acknowledgement from others.

Q23 — factor 1 (.569)
I don’t really care what others think about me.

Q24 — factor 1 (.724)
I know that I’m successful, so I have no need for others’ feedback

Q29 - factor I (-.497)
In order to feel successful, I need reassurance and approval from others.

Q33 — factor 1 (-.578)
I need a lot of support from others.

Q37 — factor I (.801)
I don’t need support and encouragement from others

Factor 2 (Avoidance of Idealization)

Q3 — factor 2 (.822)
When I have a problem, it’s difﬁcult to accept advice even from experienced peOple.

Q9 — factor 2 (.823)
I ﬁnd it difﬁcult to accept guidance even from people I respect.

Ql3 — factor 2 (.645)
I feel bad about myself after having to be helped by others with more experience.

Q30 — factor 2 (.666)
When I’m worried or distressed, getting advice from experts doesn’t help much.

Factor 3 (Hunger for Idealization / Twinship)

Q2 -— factor 3 (.423)
It’s important for me to be around other people who are in the same situation as me.

Q4 — factor 3 (.542)
Associating with successful people allows me to feel successful as well.

111

Q8 — factor 3 (.497)
I seek out people who share my values, opinions, and activities.

Q12 — factor 3 (.498)
I feel good knowing that I’m part of a group of people who share a particular lifestyle

Q17 - factor 3 (.534)
I am attracted to successful people

Q26 — factor 3 (.670)
It’s important for me to be around people who can serve as my role models.

Q31 — factor 3 (.671)
I try to be around people I admire.

Factor 4 (Hunger for Mirroring)

Q1 - factor 4 (.814)
I feel hurt when my achievements are not sufﬁciently admired.

Q7 — factor 4 (.736)
I’m disappointed when my work is not appreciated.

Q18 — factor 4 (-.482)
I have no need to boast about my achievements.

Factor 5 (Hunger for Twinship)

Q21 — factor 5 (.737)
I feel better when I and someone close to me share similar feelings to other people.

Q22 — factor 5 (.705)
It’s important for me to be part of a group who share similar opinions.

Q32 — factor 5 (.620)
I gain self-conﬁdence from having friends whose beliefs are similar to mine.

Factor 6 (Avoidance of Twinship)

Q6 —- factor 6 (.521)
I would prefer not to be involved with people who suffer from problems similar to mine.

Q16 — factor 6 (.657)
It bothers me to be in close relationships with people who are similar to me.

Q28 — factor 6 (.645)
It’s difﬁcult for me to belong to a group of people who are dealing with similar problems.

112

Q34 — factor 6 (.577)
I ﬁnd it difficult to be proud of the groups I belong to.

Q38 — factor 6 (.522)
I would rather not belong to a group of people whose lifestyle is similar to mine.

Factor 7 (Hunger for Twinship)

Ql4 — factor 7 (.781)
It’s important for me to feel that a close friend and I are ‘in the same boat.”

Q27 — factor 7 (.623)
I feel stronger when I have people around who are dealing with similar problems.

Factor 8 (Hunger for Idealization/Twinship)

Q10 — factor 8 (.778)
I identify with famous people.

Q19 — factor 8 (.484)
I feel better about myself when I am in the company of experts.

Q36 - factor 8 (.673)
It’s important for me to belong to hi gh-status, “glamorous” social groups

Factor 9 (Avoidance of Twinship)

Q20 — factor 9 (.775)
I would rather have ﬁiends that are different from me rather than ones who are very similar.

Q25 — factor 9 (.503)

I’m bored by people who think and feel too much like me.

Factor 10 (Hunger for Mirroring)

Q35 — factor 10 (.671)

Most of the time I feel like I’m not getting enough recognition from my superiors.
Factor (‘2) [Hunger for Mirroring]

Q1 1 — factor (?)
I don’t function well in situations in situations where I receive too little attention.

113

Appendix F
Glossary of Terms

Attributional Style - a person’s tendencies when infem'ng the cause of behavior or
events. Three dimensions are often used to evaluate people’s attributional styles: the
intemal-extemal dimension (whether they tend to attribute events to the self or external
factors), the stable-unstable dimension (whether they tend to attribute events to enduring
or transient causes), and the global-speciﬁc dimension (whether they tend to attribute
events to causes that affect many events or just a single event).

Drive theory - psychoanalytic theory in which major emphasis is placed on the libido,
the stages of psychosexual development, and the Id instincts or drives.

Ego Psychology — in psychoanalysis, an approach that emphasizes the functions of the
ego in controlling impulses and dealing with the external environment.

Expectancy — in behavioral psychology, a state or condition in which an organism
anticipates a given stimulus or event on the basis of its previous experience with related
stimuli or events.

Grandiosity — an exaggerated sense of one’s greatness, importance, or ability.

Idealization — the exaggeration of the positive attributes and minimization of the
imperfections or failings associated with a person, place, or thing, or situation, so that it is
viewed as perfect or nearly perfect.

Mirroring — in self psychology, the positive responses of parents to a child that are
intended to instill internal self-respect.

Object — in psychoanalytic theory, the person, thing or part of the body through which an
instinct can achieve its aim of gratiﬁcation.

Object-relations theory — any psychoanalytically based that views the need to relate to
objects as more central to personality organization and motivation than the vicissitudes of
the instincts.

Positive psychology — a ﬁeld of psychological theory and research that focuses on the
psychological states (e. g., contentment, joy), individual traits or character strengths (e.g.,
intimacy, integrity, altruism, wisdom), and social institutions that make life most worth
living.

Psychoanalysis — an approach to the mind, psychological disorders, and psychological
treatment originally developed by Sigmund Freud at the beginning of the 20th century.
The hallmark of psychoanalysis is the assumption that much of mental activity is
unconscious and, consequently, that understanding people requires interpreting the
unconscious meaning underlying their overt or manifest behavior.

114

Self - the totality of the individual, consisting of all characteristic attributes, conscious
and unconscious, mental and physical.

Self-psychology — a school of psychoanalytic theory that stresses the importance of an
individual’s relationships with others to healthy self-development and locates the source
of many psychological problems in caregivers’ lack of responsiveness to the child’s
emotional needs.

Transference — in psychoanalysis, the displacement or projection onto the analyst of
unconscious feelings and wishes originally directed toward important individuals, such as
parents, in the patient’s childhood.

Note: All glossary deﬁnitions quoted from APA Dictionary of Psychology (2007).
115

References

Abramson, L.Y., Seligman, M.E.P., & Teasdale, JD. (1978). Learned helplessness in
humans: Critiques and reformulations. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49-
74.

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders-text revision (4lh ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Arlow, J .A. (1995). Psychoanalysis. In R.J. Corsini & D. Wedding (Eds), Current
psychotherapies (5th ed., pp. 15-50). Itasca, Illinois: F .E. Peacock Publishers.

Ainsworth, M.D.S., & Bowlby, J. (1991). An ethological approach to personality
development, American Psychologist, 46, 333-341.

Baker, HS. (1991). Short-term psychotherapy: A self-psychological approach. In P.
Crits-Christoph & J .P. Barber (Eds), Handbook of short-term dynamic
Psychotherapy (pp.287-322). USA: Basic Books.

Banai, E., Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, PR. (2005). “Self-object” needs in Kohut’s self
-psychology. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 22(2), 224-260.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self efﬁcacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social formulations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Beck, A.T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. New York:
International Universities Press.

Beck, A.T. & Weishaar, ME. (1995). Cognitive therapy. In R. Corsini and D. Wedding
(Eds). Current psychotherapies (5th ed., pp. 229 — 261). Itasca, IL: Peacock.

Blustein, D.L., Walbridge, M.M., Friedlander, M.L., & Palladino, DE. (1991).
Contributions of psychological separation and parental attachment to the career

development process. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38(1), 39-50.

Bordin, ES, (1980). A psychodynamic view of counseling psychology. The Counseling
Psychologist, 9(1), 62-70.

Borgen, F. (1984). Counseling Psychology. The Annual Review of Psychology, 35, 579
-604.

116

Brickman, P., & Campbell, D.T. (1971). Hedonic relativism and planning the good
society. In M.H. Appley (Ed.), Adaptation level theory: A symposium (pp. 287-
302). New York: Academic Press.

Brickman, P., Coates, D., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (1978). Lottery winners and accident

victims: Is happiness relative? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
36, 917-927.

Campbell, W.K., Reeder, G.D., Sedikides, C., & Elliot, AJ. (2000). Journal of Research
in Personality, 34, 329-347.

Campbell, W.K., Rudich, E.A., Sedikides, C. (2002). Narcissism, self-esteem, and the
positivity of self-views: Two portraits of self-love. Personality & Social
Psychology Bulletin, 28(3), 358-368.

Carver, C.S., & Scheier, M. (2003). Optimism. In SJ Lopez & C.R. Snyder (Eds),
Positive psychology assessment, a handbook of models and measures (pp. 75-
89). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Diener, E., Lucas, R.E., Scollon, ON. (2006). Beyond the hedonic treadmill. American
Psycholgist, 61(4), 305-314.

Edwards, W. (1954). The theory of decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 380-
417.

Emmons, R.A., & McCullough, ME. (2003). Counting blessings versus burdens: An
experimental investigation of gratitude and subjective well—being in daily life.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 377-3 89.

Fordyce, M.W. (1977). Development of a program to increase personal happiness.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 24, 511-520.

F ordyce, M.W. (183). A program to increase happiness: Further studies. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 30, 483-498.

F ouad, N.A., & Bingham, RP. (1995). Career counseling with racial and ethnic
minorities. In W.B. Walsh & H.S. Opsipow (Eds), Handbook of Vocational
Psychology (pp. 331-365). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Frank, J .D., & Frank, J .B. (1991). Persuasion and healing: A comparative study of
psychotherapy (3rd ed.). Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Freud, A. (1936). The writings of Anna Freud: Vol. 2. The ego and the mechanisms of
Defense. New York: International University Press.

Garﬁeld, S., & Bergin, A. (1986). Introduction and historical overview. In S. Garﬁeld &

117

 

A. Bergin (Eds), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (pp. 3-22).
New York: Wiley.

Gelso, C. & Fassinger, RE. (1992). Personality, development, and counseling
psychology: Depth, ambivalence, and actualization. Journal of Counseling

Psychology, 39(3), 275-298.

Gelso, C., & Fretz, B. (2001). Counseling psychology (2nd ). Orlando, FL: Harcourt
College Publishers.

Hartman, H. (1939). Ego psychology and the problem of adaptation. New York:
Intemational University Press.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, RR. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment
process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 51 1-524.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.

Higgins, ET. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological
Review, 94, 319-340.

Homey, K. (1950). Neurosis and human growth. New York: Norton.

Huck, S. (2004) Reading Statistics & Research (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

Josephs, L. (1991). Character structure, self-esteem regulation, and the principle of
identity maintenance. In R.C.Curtis (Ed.), The relational self (pp. 3-16). New
York: The Guilford Press.

Khan, E. (1985). Heinz Kohut and Carl Rogers, a timely comparison. American
Psychologist, 40(8), 893-904.

Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis of the self. New York: International University Press.
Kohut, H (1977). The restoration of the self. New York: International University Press.
Kohut, H. (1984). How does analysis cure? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kohut, H.,' & Wolf, ES. (1978). The disorders of the self and their treatment: An outline.
The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 59(4), 413-425.

Lapsley, M. (1994). Encyclopedia of human behavior (V 01. 2). New York: Academic
Press.

Lee, R.M.,& Robbins, SB. (1995). Measuring belongingness: The Social Connectedness
and Social Assurance Scales. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42, 232-241.

118

Lewin, K. (1938). The conceptual representation and measurement of psychological
forces. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Lopez, F.G., Campbell, V.L., & Watkins, C.E., Jr. (1986). Depression, psychological
separation, and college adjustment: An investigation of sex differences. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 33, 52-56.

Lopez, F .G., & Brennan, K.A. (2000). Dynamic processes underlying adult attachment
organization: Toward an attachment theoretical perspective on the healthy and
effective self. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47(3), 283-300.

Maddux, J .E. (1999). Expectancies and the social-cognitive perspective: basic
Principles, processes, and variables. In I. Kirsch (Ed.), How expectancies shape
experience (pp. 17-39). Ann Arbor, MI: Sheridan Press.

Mahler, MS. (1960). Symposium on psychotic object relationships: Perceptual de
—differentiation and psychotic “object relationship.” International Journal of
Psycho-Analysis, 41, 548—553.

Mahler, MS. (1971). A study of the separation-individuation process and its possible
application to borderline phenomenon in the psychoanalytic situation. Psycho
-analytic Study of the Child, 10, 403-422.

McWilIiams, N. (1994). Psychoanalytic diagnosis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Metalsky, G.I., Halberstadt, L.J., & Abramson, L.Y. (1987). Vulnerability to depressive
mood reactions: Toward a more powerful test of diathesis-stress and causal
mediation components of the reformulated theory of depression. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 386-393.

Mikulincer, M. (1994). Human learned helplessness. New York: Plenum Press.
Morf, C.C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Expanding the dynamic self-regulatory processing
model of narcissism: Research directions for the future. Psychological Inquiry,
12(4), 243-251.
O’Brian, K.M. (2003). Measuring career self-efﬁcacy: Promoting conﬁdence and
happiness at work. In S.J Lopez & C.R. Snyder (Eds), Positive psychology

assessment: A handbook of models and measures (pp. 75- 89). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.

Patton, M.J., & Meara, NM. (1992). Psychoanalytic counseling. New York: Wiley.

Patton, M.J., & Meara, NM. (1996). Kohut and counseling: Applications of self-
psychology. Psychoanalytic Counseling, 2(3), 328-355.

119

 

Payne, E., Robbins, S., & Dougherty (1991). Goal directedness and older adult
adjustment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 300-308.

Patton, M.J., & Robbins, SB. (1982). Kohut’s self-psychology as a model for college
-student counseling. Professional Psychology, 13(6), 876-887.

Peterson, C., & Vaidya, RS. (2001). Explanatory style, expectations, and depressive
symptoms. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 1217-1223.

Peterson, C., & Villanova, P. (1988). An Expanded Attributional Style Questionnaire.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97, 87-89.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M.E.P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook
and classiﬁcation. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

Ponterotto, J .G, & Casas, J .M. (1991). Hankbook of racial/ethnic minority counseling
Research. Springﬁeld, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Radloff, LS. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the
general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401.

Reivich, K., & Gillham, J. (2003). Leamed Optimism: The measurement of explanatory
style. In 8.] Lopez & C.R Snyder (Eds), Positive psychology assessment,
handbook of models and measures (pp. 57-74). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.

Robbins, SB. (1989). Role of contemporary psychoanalysis in counseling psychology.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36(3), 267-278.

Robbins, S.B., Lee, R.M., Wan, TH. (1994). Goal continuity as a mediator of early
retirement adjustment: Testing a multidimensional model. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 41, 18-26.

Robbins, S.B., & Patton, M.J. (1985). Self-psychology and career development:

Construction of the Superiority and Goal Instability Scales. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 32, 221-231.

Robbins, S.B., & Dupont, P. (1992). Narcissistic needs of the self and perceptions of
interpersonal behavior. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39(4), 462-467.

Roland, A. (1996). The inﬂuence of culture on the self and self object relationships, an
Asia-North American Comparison. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 6(4), 461-75.

Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books.

120

Rotter, J .B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.

Rotter, J .B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80(1, Whole No. 609).

Scheier, M.F., Carver, C.S., & Bridges, M.W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from
neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of

the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67,
1063- 1078.

Seligman, M.E.P., Abramson, L.Y., Semmel, A., & von Baeyer, C. (1979). Depressive
attributional style. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88, 242-247.

Seligman, M.E.P., Steen, T.A., Park, N., Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology
progress, empirical validations of interventions. American Psychologist, 60(5),
410-421.

Steinberg, T. (1987). Self psychology and American culture. The Psychohistory Review,
15(3), 3-28.

St. Clair, M. (1996). Object relations and self psychology. An introduction. (2nd ed.).
Paciﬁc Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Strupp, H.H. & Binder, J .L. (1984). Psychotherapy in a new key: A guide to time limited
dynamic psychotherapy. New York: Basic Books.

Sue, D.W., & Sue, D. (1990). Counseling the culturally different: Theory and Practice
(2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Sullivan, HS. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton.

Tabachnick, B.G., & F idell, LS. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics (5th ed.). Boston:
Pearson Education, Inc.

Tesser, A. (1991). Social versus clinical approaches to self-psychology: The self
-evaluation model and Kohutian object relations theory. In R.C.Curtis (Ed), The
relational self (pp. 257-281). New York: The Guilford Press.

Tollman, EC. (1955). Principles of performance. Psychological Review, 62, 315-326.

Wachtel, PL. (1993). Therapeutic communication: Principles and effective practice.
New York: Guilford Press.

Wampold, BE. (2001). The great psychotherapy debate: models, methods, and ﬁndings.
Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

121

 

Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 71(1), 3-25.

Weiten, W., & Lloyd, MA. (2006). Psychology applied to modern life: Adjustment in
the 21“ century. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Weinberger, J. (1995). Common factors aren’t so common: The common factors
dilemma. Clinical psychology: Science and practice, 2, 45-69.

Weinberger, J ., & Eig, A. (1999). Expectancies: The ignored common factor in
psychotherapy. In I. Kirsch (Ed.), How expectancies shape experience (pp. 357-
382. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Wolitzky, BL. (1995). The theory and practice of traditional psychoanalytic
psychotherapy. In A.S. Gurman & S.B. Wachtel (Eds), Essential
psychotherapies: theory and practice (pp. 12-54).

Wolitzky, D.L., & Eagle, MN. (1997). Psychoanalytic theories of psychotherapy. In
P.L. Wachtel & S.B. Messer (Eds), Theories of psychotherapy, origins and evolution
(pp. 39-96). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Vanderboss, G.R. (Ed.). (2007). APA dictionary of psychology (1‘5t ed.). Washington
DC: American Psychological Association.

Zonis, M. (1980). Some possible contributions of the psychology of the self to the study
of the Arab Middle-East. In A. Goldberg (Ed), Advances in self-psychology
(pp. 349-446). New York: International University Press, Inc.

 

122

   

”initiallyiiiiiiliiiir