.,'J;J_;ugmg.-ui.m*1xi J "* - ' ~r- is. in. f . n K 14' l" .5.) L J a ‘ - Michigan Stair: .. University ~ ;‘ ‘Q W“ “U Illlll l2|\\‘fl\||\\\l\\ “ \l \l L 129 10 32.5283 UH THESIS This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE RELATIONSHIP OF PERSONAL POWER FUNCTIONS TO GENERAL HAPPINESS, INTERPERSONAL RISK, INTERPERSONALLY INDUCED ANXIETY, AND SECURITY OPERATIONS presented by Gregory James Gavrilides has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. deg-36in SOCIaI SCience 2 Major préssor Date May 12, 1980 0-7839 MSU ’ LIBRARIES \— RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. be charged if book is FINES will returned after the date stamped below. ’ ‘0p0 find-l5: ‘ "W “I" norm nee-MM ax 0 f ék‘pfiigfigqggfl' ‘ FEB'DTsoa“ - 1 . W 3 19 , UUN 2 8l994‘ lqfliki£§lill M5231? 020955 ‘ OCT 2 6 2023 102517 .(ul! '5 . rink.» Cu. of... © 1980 GREGORY JAMES GAVRILIDES All Rights Reserved THE RELATIONSHIP OF PERSONAL POWER FUNCTIONS TO GENERAL HAPPINESS, INTERPERSONAL RISK, INTERPERSONALLY INDUCED ANXIETY, AND SECURITY OPERATIONS By Gregory James Gavrilides A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Social Science 1980 r-’ ABSTRACT THE RELATIONSHIP OF PERSONAL POWER FUNCTIONS TO GENERAL HAPPINESS, INTERPERSONAL RISK, INTERPERSONALLY INDUCED ANXIETY, AND SECURITY OPERATIONS By Gregory James Gavrilides The present study was designed to assess the relationship between an individual's personal attributes (personal power func- tions) and his level of general happiness, degree of manifested interpersonal anxiety, utilization of particular interpersonal security operations, and level of interpersonal risk-taking as reflected in occupation and leisure time activities. Forty adult men and women from the general local population, accessed through a large, non-denominational, non-ecclesiastical Christian organization, participated on a volunteer basis in a personal interview of a biographical nature and completed a ques- tionnaire concerning certain perceptions they had on their own life. Two trained researchers conducted the interviews. Their observa- tions, combined with information from tapes of the sessions, were independently recorded on instruments designed to assess personal power, interpersonal anxiety, and security operations. An inter- view questionnaire was also utilized which was designed to elicit Gregory James Gavrilides self-disclosures which generate positive and negative self- conceptions in the interpersonal situatiOn. In addition, each subject participated in a brief period of eyes-closed free association, reporting images and feelings, serving to intensify negative self-conceptions in relation to others due to the lack of explicit criteria for self-evaluation of the adequacy of performance. The hypothesized relationship of personal attributes (power functions) to general happiness, interpersonal anxiety, and behavior all were supported at high levels of statistical signif- icance. The higher the personal power, the greater general happiness and the less manifested anxiety. Subjects categorizable as high interpersonal risk-takers due to the high level of inter- personal interaction characterizing their occupations and leisure time activities had greater personal power, less anxiety, and were happier than subjects categorizable as low interpersonal risk- takers. Additionally, high risk-takers were found to differ from low risk-takers in specific security operations: they interrupt more, are less reticent, edit their speech less, laugh less compul- sively, and are less self-effacing. The importance of personal power functions for social rela- tions theory and personality theory is noted and discussed. Some critical questions are raised. Personal power functions subsumed under the categories of communication variables and achievement/ status variables are discussed as being of particular relevance for interpersonal effectiveness. The applications of the research Gregory James Gavrilides results to the areas of personnel selection, vocational placement and counseling, and management development are also noted. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It is with heartfelt gratitude and appreciation that I acknowledge the invaluable assistance of those who made this research possible. I would like to thank my chairman, Dr. Joseph Reyher, for his enthusiastic guidance and masterful help in completing this work, which could not have been done without his extensive contri- butions. I also express appreciation to my other committee members, Dr. Sheldon Lowry, Dr. Robert Trojanowicz, and Denise Coburn, for their helpful suggestions and patient support. Special thanks go to Mary HhhenStein, Gerald Munk, and Ellen Rzepka, for their many hours of assistance in collecting data and preparing the manuscript. My wife, Rosemary, also deserves much thanks for her unwavering encouragement, support, and the confidence she always expressed. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . INTRODUCTION AND CONCEPT REVIEW The Concept of Personal Power Functions . The Personal Power Functions Profile . Personal Power Functions and Interpersonal Security Operations . The Security Operations Inventory. . Personal Power Functions and Personal Happiness Personal Power Functions and Manifested Interpersonal Anxiety Personal Risk-Taking HYPOTHESES METHOD Subjects Materials . . Experimental Setting Procedures Administration of Self- Disclosure Questionnaire. The Interpersonal Induction of Positive and Negative Conceptions . . Intensifying Negative Self-Conceptions Important Dynamics of the Experimental Procedure : RESULTS Scoring and Inter-Rater Reliability Experimental Hypotheses . Summary . . DISCUSSION REFERENCES APPENDICES. . I. Personal Power Functions Profile iii Page II. III. IV. VI. The Self-Concept: A Selective Literature Review of Concepts and Theorists Security Operations Inventory The Watson Happiness Questionnaire Anxiety Indicators Scale . Self-Disclosure Questionnaire iv Page 57 181 186 192 194 Table l. 2. LIST OF TABLES T-Ratios and Significance for the Comparison of Mean Scores on Personal Power Functions, Between High Risk-Taking (n = 20) and Low Risk-Taking Groups (n = 20), on the Personal Power Functions Profile . . T-Ratios and Significance for the Comparison of Mean Scores on Individual Security Operations, Between High Risk (n = 20) and Low Risk (n = 20) Groups, on the Security Operations Inventory Page 34 35 INTRODUCTION AND CONCEPT REVIEW In the context of interpersonal interaction and social relations, the fact that some people have a greater positive impact than others, are more effective, exert more influence, and exhibit less anxiety, is indeed a universal and observable truth of human experience. In short, the "personal power" of individuals varies from person to person and makes a difference in their social and interpersonal experience. It is toward the purpose of more clearly identifying, establishing, and understanding this difference, the differential power of personal attributes in interpersonal inter- actions, that this present research is directed. The Concept of Personal Power Functions The concept of personal power‘is deeply embodied in the massive behavioral science literature and research on power, particularly social power. Jacobson (l972) refers to "resources of the agent" and includes status, education, authority, communications skill, and interpersonal abilities. Gold (1958), in research on high and low power children in the classroom, speaks of personal "properties" of individuals which function as determinants of influence potential and effectiveness in interpersonal relations. The well-known theoretical discussions by Dahl (1957) of the concept of power and the comparison of individuals in terms of power offer further support, for example, " . . . much of the most important and useful research and analysis on the subject of power concerns . the properties of the actors exercising power . . ." (p. 206, emphasis mine). In summarizing the work of Heider (l958) on interpersonal power, Minton (in Maher, l968) identifies personal power variables to include ability, knowledge, intelligence, strength, status, and competence. Minton's comprehensive analysis of power incorporates a major discussion of the objective sources which contribute to the power of an individual. One of the categories of power sources he utilizes is that of "organismic" power, referring to power functions based on the characteristics of the individual. Particular attri- butes comprising the organismic power category include skills, intelligence, knowledge, and education, with an emphasized though not limited application to social influence situations. Also in his discussion, Minton provides an important footnote, figuratively speaking, on the concept of personal power functions. Namely, that "the possession of personal power characteristics will not pgggs; sarily_lead to feelings of powerfulness or competence" (p. 256, emphases mine). The degree of effectiveness or influence operating for an individual in a given situation may diverge significantly from the individual's attitudes and feelings about his personal power. Thus we are reminded of the value of focusing on the more visible or overt personal attributes in terms of personal power, as distinct from private or covert affects and strivings. It is difficult to dichotomize perfectly between externally and internally based personal power functions. DeCharm's (1968) work on motivation and personal causation accepts Heider's (l958) definition of personal power as the ability to influence the social and physical environment of another person, and sees personal power as deriving from what a person possesses. An individual may possess internal resources, such as skills, intelligence, traits, or external power resources, such as status, fame, or material things valued by society. Other personal power functions which can be perceived by others include speech patterns, voice, physical poise, and social "savoir faire." The concept of personal power functions is somewhat more specialized than the concept of "social power." Personal power is often a variable subsumed under the monumental amount of behavioral science research and discussion on social power, most of which is not being cited here. Tedeschi (l972), in his seminal treatment of the social influence processes, clearly states the distinction between social and personal power: Thus, within the context of a person as a social element, power can be analyzed either in a given situation which involves some interaction with another person or persons (social power) or as a relatively consistent attribute of the person across situations (personal power) (p. lO4). Personal power functions of an externalized nature clearly fall under Tedeschi's definition of personal power, for example, physical attractiveness, education, speech, personal and family fame. Tedeschi, Schlenker, and Bonoma (l973) present research which discusses the characteristics of expertise, interpersonal attraction, status, and prestige as the primary sources of personal power and social influence possessed by an individual. Their analysis of factor analytical studies on social influence processes resulted in their conclusion that these characteristics probably account for a great deal of the behavior variance in interpersonal influence interactions. They do not, however, argue that other personal power characteristics do not exist. The notion of personal power and personal power functions is a meaningful and operational concept, utilized by individuals in everyday experience. In a psychometric analysis of the dif- ferential attribution of trait-descriptive terms to self and others, Goldberg (1978) reports that individuals tend to view the behavior of others as caused by functions of their pgr§9g_rather than the situation, while explaining their own behavior more in terms of situation functions than personal functions. The point to be emphasized here is simply that people do tend to observe and be influenced by personal attributes of others, and to regard the behavior of others in terms of their personal attributes (i.e. power functions). Kaplowitz (1978) in a comprehensive discussion of power attribution theory and dynamics, presents compelling evidence that people do in fact attribute power to others, and more importantly for this discussion, "people do in fact view power as relatively constant across situations" (p. 132, emphasis mine). In his conclusion, Kaplowitz states, "Power is not the sole determinant of human social interaction. But if power is not the whole ball- game, it is certainly an important part of it. Even when people cannot measure it accurately, they do attribute it, and these attributions have important consequences" (p. 146). The "power" of personal power functions is well depicted in a research paper by Zander and Cohen (1955). They present an experimental classroom demonstration involving the reactions of group members toward persons with high attributed power and low attributed power. The authors state their pivotal assumption to be that ". . . individuals are likely to be sensitive and alert toward persons to whom they attribute much power, and relatively less concerned with those who are viewed as having little power" (p. 490) The impact of personal power is clearly demonstrated; students reacted in very different ways to two "newcomers" in the group experiment, one with high attributed power and one with low power. The personal power functions concept is sometimes criticized as being too subjective, too much "in the eye of the beholder," to be of any real use in generalizing about interpersonal interactions. However, much of the evidence already cited points out that the more externalized personal power properties tend to be consistent across social situations, and that in fact people view them that way. For example, eloquent speaking habits or interpersonal savior faire operate as functions of personal power in virtually all inter- personal relations. In addition, Mettlin and Hsu (1975) conducted an investigation into the "significance" of “significant others" which concluded that the subject's evaluation of the significance of others is not enough to determine accurately and fully the actual significance of influence the "other" exerts. It seems eminently _reasonable to say that personal power functions, as they are being conceptualized here, exist and operate constantly, albiet with differing degrees of impact, across a full range of interpersonal and social relations. Rosen, Levinger, and Lippitt (1961), in the beginning of their research paper on perceived sources of social power, state the case quite succinctly: ". . . there are properties of people, valued by others, which are in fact 'cross-situational' sources of power. That is to say, persons derive power from the possession of attributes that have utility for others in many different kinds of situations" (p. 439). Nagel (1968) has also dealt directly with several critical questions raised concerning the concept of power. The questions include whether or not a person must ggt_in order to possess power, whether there must be a "connection" between individuals for power to operate, and whether an individual must affect the behavior of another in order to be exerting power. Nagel's analysis reveals that it is not automatically necessary for action to happen, or behavior affected, or that a special "connection" exist, for one to conclude that individual A has power in relation to individual B. The concept of personal power functions does not rest solely on the measurable actions and reactions of people in interpersonal interaction. The Personal Power Functions Profile The behavioral science research and literature cited so far suggest a number of specific personal power functions accruing to individuals. Yet, few instruments exist which attempt to profile or delineate a comprehensive range of primary personal power func- tions, particularly the more externalized power functions which create positive conceptions in others. A new instrument developed by Joseph Reyher (see Appendix 1) attempts to do just that. The instrument is referred to as the Personal Power Functions Profile (PPFP) and is utilized in this research (see Method section). The PPFP lists 16 separate personal power functions, discoverable either through observation or biographical information. These PPFP items relate to physical characteristics (attractiveness, height, stature, carriage), interpersonal skills (social savoir faire, eye contact, speech, knowledge/ability/talent germane to interaction), personal-social attributes (socio-economic status, personal fame, family fame, authority-occupation, education, attire), and personal characteristics (voice, expression of ideas). An individual can be rated on each item, on a one-to-five range of low to high power in terms of that item. The particular items, i.e. personal power functions, included in the PPFP are well supported by the behavioral science literature of the last two or three decades. The personal-social characteristics listed above have been referenced repeatedly in the research cited throughout this discussion. In this category, another interesting analysis is contributed by David Ho (1976). Ho discusses the concept of "face," incorporating notions of personal power in terms of face, particularly the impact of authority, status, and prestige. He presents an analysis of face and social control wherein it is powerfully argued that the "high-face" person (high in the personal power functions relating to the personal- social category) is able to exercise a great deal of influence and even control over others, both directly and indirectly, in social relations. Ho's conceptualization of face purports to tie together characteristics such as status, authority, prestige (or fame). Status, prestige, and education also emerge as personal power func- tions in an experimental study conducted by Bass and Wurster (1953) on the performance of supervisors in a large oil refinery. It is worth reviewing briefly a sampling of the research support for some of the other PPFP items. One of the personal power functions, physical attractiveness, has been extensively researched and soundly established as a major factor of influence in inter- personal relations. Goldman and Lewis (1977) present experimental evidence that physically attractive individuals are also more socially skillful. Subjects tended strongly to attribute qualities such as intelligence, warmth, capability, to physically attractive others, and the physically attractive persons did in fact display a higher level of social savoir faire than those of lesser attractive- ness. Dion, Berscheid, and Walster (1972) experimentally estab- lished not only the existence and efficacy of physical attractive- ness as a personal power function, but also that the physically attractive are assumed by others to be happier and more successful. In researching the effects of physical attractiveness, Benson, Karabenick, and Lerner (1976) report on the powerful impact of this characteristic. Their review of the literature reveals the physically attractive person, compared with lesser attractive, is liked more, is more socially desired, is attributed more personal power, is expected to achieve more educationally, is evaluated more favorably on performance. Cash, Begley, McCown, and Weise (1975) studied the impact of attractive and unattractive counselors on 72 undergraduate students who viewed a videotaped presentation of an attractive or unattractive counselor. The attractive counselor was perceived as more intelligent, friendly, assertive, trustworthy, competent, warm, likeable. This despite the fact that two control groups who heapd but did not pigw_the same presentations did not differ in their evaluations of the counselors. Physical attractiveness appears to be something like a "high priority” personal power function. Of course, it is the most accessible personal characteristic in interpersonal interaction. Miller (1970), using photographs and adjective scales, has demon- strated that physical attractiveness is indeed a major determinant of the impressions of persons form of other people. This impact of attractiveness extends to the accomplishments of attractive indi- viduals also, as shown by Landy and Sigall (1974). Anderson's (1978) investigation found that the physically attractive are also perceived as having a higher internal locus of control. Repeatedly, research confirms that physical attractiveness is a personal characteristic of immense power and impact. McCroskey and McCain (1974) summarize one conclusion as follows: "The more we are 10 -attracted to another person, the more influence that person has on us in interpersonal communication" (p. 261). The personal power functions related to communication, e.g. speech ability, vocal tone, capacity for articulation, expression of ideas, have also been shown to be of major impact in terms of interpersonal influence and social effect. Bord's (1975) analysis of charismatic social influence processes show message delivery characteristics and features of speech to be major determinants of social influence and positive attributions to the speaker. Erickson, Lind, Johnson, and O'Barr (1978) studied the effects of "powerful" and "powerless" speech. Subjects were asked to hear and . evaluate courtroom testimony of witnesses using either a powerful or powerless speech style, wherein "powerless“ speech was charac- terized by hesitations, halting presentation, tentative intonation, and hedging, and "powerful" speech was marked by much less use of these features. The powerful speech style resulted in greater attraction to the witness, greater perceived credibility, and greater acceptance of the position being advocated. Miller, Maruyama, Beaber, and Valone (1976) conducted two field experiments to investigate the relationship of speech and persuasion. They found that speech rate is an important variable. Rapid speech, as opposed to halting, hesitant presentation, produced more persuasion and higher attributions of intelligence, knowledge, and objectivity. Riecken (1958) demonstrated that talkativeness and the assertive expression of ideas result in significantly greater 11 influence on others. And again, greater positive attributions are made to the speaker. Other studies establishing and confirming particular personal power functions can be cited. In a study of social skill and visual interaction, Cherulnik, Neely, Flanagan, and Zachau (1978) highlight the importance of eye contact in the social influence process. The authors report, "The importance of social skill was demonstrated by findings that the high-skill subjects engaged in more eye contact, looked more at their partners while speaking . . ." (p. 263). The significance of eye contact in terms of personal influence is further confirmed by the research and discussions of Libby and Yaklevich (1973) and Kendon (1967). The effects of dress or attjpg_ ‘are reflected in the experimental work of Schneider (1974), demonstrating that well-dressed subjects presented themselves more positively, had greater interpersonal impact. The dynamics of ppgy_ carriage are discussed and examined by Fast (1977) in an analysis of "the body language of power." Horai, Naccari, and Fatoullah (1974), using a factorial design to examine the effects on opinion agreement, found that expertise was a major determinant of social influence. At this point, we can say with a measure of confidence that the available research findings substantially support the inclusion of the various items that comprise the Personal Power Functions Profile. 12 Personal Power Functions and Interpersonal Security Operations As we've noted, personal power functions are not primarily behaviors put into operation by individuals interacting with others, but exist rather as personal attributes or characteristics which function across a full range of interpersonal relations. These functions are seen to have power for forming positive concep- tions of one's self in others. However, the personal power func- tions do not constitute all there is as regards the dynamics of interpersonal interaction process. Another important aspect to consider, and which combines with personal power functions to produce a total impact, is the aspect of interpersonal security operations. The concept of interpersonal security operations was introduced by Sullivan (1953) in his interpersonal theory of psychiatry. Security operations, as conceived by Sullivan, are behavioral defense mechanisms, i.e. behaviors employed by an individual to protect self-esteem or maintain a feeling of safety in the esteem reflected to one by another person in interaction. The security operations operate to reduce anxiety in the inter- personal situation. Sullivan cites selective inattention as a mechanism of the self system that monitors only behavior associated with self-esteem. Examples of the security operations are: assum- ing false role behaviors, changing the subject, and employing incongruous behaviors. Leary (1957) incorporates and expands the concept and dynamics of security operations in his interpersonal 13 behavior. Thus security operations are seen as behaviors which are employed by a person to avoid derogation, gain approval, protect inner feelings of self-esteem, and thereby reduce interpersonal anxiety. Behaviors entailing self-effacement and self-derogation are highlighted by Leary. The fact that human beings employ various behaviors stemming from interpersonal anxiety and a concern for self—esteem in inter- personal relations is fundamental in human experience. Behaviors such as head-nodding, prefacing, apologizing for self, flashing smiles, finishing sentences for others, interrupting, and a host of others can be commonly observed whenever two or more people are in interaction. However, virtually no research exists which systematically examines, identifies, or investigates the dynamics and impact of these security operation behaviors. Since the work of Sullivan and Leary in the 19505 no studies or analyses have emerged which discuss security operations. The notion of security operations is tightly bound up with the dynamics of self-concept and self-esteem (for an extensive selective review of self-concept theory and related concepts, see Appendix II). Thus, some recent studies involving self-awareness and self-presentation have touched upon the basic concept of security operations, without exactly identifying the dynamics in those terms. Diener and Srull (1979), in looking at self-awareness and behavior, note that self-aware persons employ behaviors which produce their experience of negative affect (e.g. anxiety) and tend to "normalize" aggression in interpersonal interaction. In research 14 dealing with self-presentation, Baumeister and Jones (1978) analyzed the interaction of subjects with a target person who did or did not have prior knowledge about their personalities. They found, in effect, that persons who perceive their self-esteem to be lowered in the eyes of another will utilize behaviors which will enhance and maintain their self-esteem. This is a primary function of various security operations, such as name-dropping, bragging, or self-justifying. Baumeister and Jones state, "Thus, if persons suspect that they are considered immature or dull-witted, they might well bring up in conversation their athletic achievements or record of community service . . ." (p. 618). While not focusing on specific interpersonal behaviors, Schlenker's (1975) investigation of self-presentational tactics in social interaction strongly supported the thesis that concern for self—esteem and social approval is a powerful determinant for interpersonal behaviors. Fenigstein (1979) likewise supports this assumption in his examination of self-consciousness. Self- conscious persons were found to be greatly concerned about their impact in an interpersonal situation, experiencing social anxiety and fear of rejection. Bouchard (1969) conducted experiments designed in part to explore the relationship of personality to small group problem-solving performance. The most effective problem-solvers were those who employed behaviors characterized as high in “sociability" and "interpersonal effectiveness" in their interaction with others. Their higher self-esteem and self- assurance was manifested in their interaction. 15 We can see that the underlying dynamics involved in the concept of security operations have emerged in some studies. The existence of interpersonal anxiety, the concern for self-esteem and its maintenance, and the resultant effect on interpersonal behaviors is established. That these factors related directly and inextricably with the personal power functions examined previously is of no surprise, nor is the basic premise particularly new. The work of Erving Goffman is perhaps the most comprehensive and foundational in providing a conceptual and analytical base for understanding personal power functions, security operations (referred to by Goffman as "interaction rituals"), and their con- nections in interpersonal relations. Goffman's (1967) contribution is thoroughly outlined in his book Interaction Ritual. Referring to this work, Schlenker (1975) states, "Selfepresentational tactics form an integral part of the social interaction process. Through self-descriptions, attitude statements, dress, body posture, £39., an individual stakes claim to particular personal and social attributes and thereby delineates a particular public image, or 'face'" (p. 1030). The emphases in this quotation are added here, because they clearly reflect the combination of what we've been describing as personal power functions and security operations. Goffman (1976) has dealt quite pointedly with the considera- tions we've been discussing in much of the foregoing. He highlights the importance of verbal and non-verbal acts in social encounters which serve to project and protect self-image. He directly ties the behaviors of interpersonal interaction to the personal power 16 functions possessed by an individual. Goffman emphasizes the importance of savoir faire and social skill in terms of the effectiveness of interpersonal behaviors. He speaks of various "maneuvers" (security operations) pe0ple employ to protect "face" and positively or negatively affect the face of others. Many of the "interaction rituals" detailed by Goffman are basic inter- personal security operations, viewed from a more sociological than psychological perspective. In short, Goffman's work underlines the basic point being emphasized here, namely, that personal attributes or chajcteristics which result in impact in interactions combine with personal behaviors employed by individuals to deal with issues of self-esteem and interpersonal anxiety. Personal attributes which form positive impressions (concep- tions) in others can be conceived of as personal power functions. Personal power, in this sense, refers to the ease in which an individual can obtain gratification of his needs in his interaction with others. The Security Operations Inventory Joseph Reyher (1978) pp§_dealt specifically with inter- personal security operations. Reyher provides us with the only operative elaboration and discussion of security operations avail- able. Some of the main points derived from Reyher's presentation are listed below: 17 1. Security operations are "anxiety-driven compromise behaviors" or "face-saving devices" employed by individuals in the interpersonal situation. 2. These behaviors can be objectively identified and observed. 3. The intent of security operations is to protect against rejection or disapproval and/or produce acceptance and approval. 4. Some security operations, like social amenities and standard cliches, can serve an adaptive function in social interaction and are in effect necessary in our society. 5. The lower the self-esteem and the greater the feelings of inadequacy, the more resistance there is to abandon or change a security operation utilized by an individual. 6. There are a number of security operations which can be labeled and explained, and are not so unique as to preclude being observed in operation for a good number of people. Making use of his understandings and observations of security operations, Reyher has developed the Security Operations Inventory (see Appendix III). The inventory lists and identifies 38 separate security operations, facilitating research and observa- tion into this important element of the interpersonal interaction process. 18 Personal Power Functions and Personal Happiness So far we have considered personal power functions only in the context of the interpersonal situation and their potential impact on pppgpg, as well as their combination with interpersonal security operations. A question arises as to the relationship, if any, of personal power functions with the personal happiness experienced by an individual. Intuitively, we might suspect that persons high in personal power, more effective in social relations, might report greater personal happiness or satisfaction than those of lesser personal power. There is some evidence to support this prediction. Minton (1968) analyzed power as a personality construct. He presents evidence that high power persons consistently experience more positive outcomes in their life experience and are thus characterized by general expectations of success, greater optimism, and greater feelings of satisfaction. Mulder (1960) examined the power variable in the context of communication. He hypothesized that personal power is a primary determinant of personal satisfac- tion, not only in communication contexts but in general. Mulder's experiments found that personal power, i.e. effective influential impact on others, directly leads to satisfaction. Moreover, he demonstrated that it was the personal operative experience of one's power per se which determined the degree of personal satisfaction, not simply the "results" of one's impact (e.g. getting something to happen). 19 Now personal happiness or satisfaction in life is a remark- ably difficult thing to measure objectively; much reliance on subject self—reports is usually necessary. The data and studies relating to reported happiness was reviewed and summarized exten- sively by Wilson (1967). In addition to analyzing various happiness measures, Wilson investigated the various correlates of avowed happiness. The abstract for Wilson's article reports, "The happy person emerges as a young, healthy, well-educated, well-paid, extroverted, optimistic, worry-free, religious, married person with high self-esteem, high job morale, modest aspirations, of either sex and a wide range of intelligence" (p. 294). A look at some of these descriptions lends credence to the notion that the personal power functions delineated earlier are likely to be highly relevant to personal happiness. And since personal power functions are particularly relevant to the interpersonal situation, a further conclusion of the Wilson study is worth quoting: "Perhaps the most impressive single finding lies in the relation between happiness and successful involvement with people" (p. 304, emphasis mine). In addition, in light of this author's current research effort, it is significant to note that the Wilson review pointed specially to a happiness measure developed by Watson (1930) as having been shown to be particularly reliable and valid. The Watson Happiness Questionnaire (see Appendix IV) signifies happiness in terms of one's self-comparison with peers, positiveness of prevailing moods, perseverence of personal satisfactions, prevalent attitudes such as enthusiasm and peacefulness, good health, 20 satisfying employment, well-adjusted marriage, etc. The negative counterparts or opposites of these variables describe unhappiness. Personal Power Functions and Manifested Interpersonal’Anxiety Our discussion herein of personal power functions has referenced a number of studies which reported, among the conclusions cited, that persons high in personal power consistently demonstrate less anxiety in interpersonal interactions. Additionally, a study by Dubno (1965) reported that a distinct lack of anxiety tendencies was a significant factor in the success of leaders. "Leaders" were, among other things, individuals who demonstrated higher personal power functions. They were reported to also exhibit fewer compul- sive reactions than others. Jacobson (1972), in his section review- ing personal attributes of power for individuals, speaks of a lower incidence of obsessive anxiety tendencies, also citing Dubno's study. There is reason to believe that one of the "differences" personal power functions make in interpersonal situations relates to the degree of anxiety manifested in the interpersonal situation. The focus here is limited to the manifestations of anxiety rather than the felt personal experience of anxiety. These mani- festations are referred to as "symptomatic behaviors," e.g. fidget- ing, tics and tremors, nervous gestures, tense muscles, etc. These manifestations of anxiety are observable in behavior and/or voice in interpersonal interactions. Speaking of the evidence of symptomatic behaviors in an interpersonal context, Reyher (1978) states: 21 Common indicators of anxiety are autonomic nervous system effects, such as blushing, blanching, swallowing; somatic nervous system effects, such as tics, tremors, stammering; or behavioral effects, such as erratic gestures, shift in body position, and breaking eye contact. The most reac- tive indicators of this enre are the feet: they wiggle, rotate, and bend upward (p. 54). The Symptomatic Reaction Scale, as revised by Reyher in 1975 includes a segment listing nineteen anxiety indicators, i.e. symptomatic behaviors, which was utilized in the present investiga- tion, as an Anxiety Indicators Scale (see Appendix V). Personal Risk-Taking Interpersonal interaction involves personal risk. That is to say, it is in the context of relating and interacting with others than an individual risks damage to his self-esteem. In interpersonal relations, individuals are in a position to be evaluated; speech and behavior are perceived and reacted to by others, personal attributes and interpersonal skills are observed, and the capacity for interpersonal effectiveness is constantly tested. In the interpersonal situation, an individual risks nega- tive feedback, overt or covert disapproval or rejection. Thus, we can say that the interpersonal "presentation of self" contains a measure of personal vulnerability, a personal risk to self. Though human society, by definition, involves its members in numerous interpersonal interactions, and thus everyone is involved to one degree or another in personal risk-taking, individuals do have some choices. Two particularly salient choices are occupation and leisure time activities. To some degree, individuals are able 22 to choose occupations and leisure activities which involve more or less interpersonal interaction, hence more or less personal risk- taking. It is reasonable to assume that personal power functions have great relevance here, that persons who choose higher personal risk-taking occupations and leisure activities differ in degree of personal power functions. Additionally, in light of the foregoing discussion, we might also suspect differences between high and low risk-takers in the degree of interpersonal anxiety, choice of security operations, and general happiness. These hypothesized differences are investigated in this study. HYPOTHESES Given the research and conceptual formulations on personal power functions presented in the foregoing review, the following hypotheses were posited: There is a positive relationship between an individual's general happiness and the personal power functions possessed by that individual. There is a relationship between the personal power functions possessed by an individual and the amount of manifested anxiety (number of symptomatic behaviors) exhibited in inter- personal situations by that individual. There is a relationship between an individual's personal power functions and behavior. Specifically, persons whose occupations and leisure time activities are categorizable in terms of "high personal risk," i.e. requiring interpersonal interactions as a major vehicle for their performance and/or which have evaluative vis-a-vis interpersonal or public consequences, will differ signif- icantly from those persons whose occupations and leisure time activities are categorizable in terms of "low personal risk" in the A. degree of personal power functions possessed, 8. amount of manifested anxiety (number of symptomatic behaviors) exhibited in interpersonal situations, 23 24 C. level of general happiness, and D. the utilization or choice of various interpersonal security operations. METHOD Subjects The subject sample was comprised of 40 adult men and women in the general population of the Lansing-East Lansing area of Michigan. Access to the sample was gained through a large, non- denominational, non-ecclesiastical Christian organization in the area. Subjects were obtained on a volunteer basis, being asked to participate in a research data-collection procedure involving a personal interview of a biographical nature and completion of a questionnaire concerning certain perceptions they have on their own life. Subjects were told the session would last about one hour and that both their identities and all personal information would be treated anonymously and with care. Materials The instruments utilized in the research are those described in the previous section, Introduction and Concept Review. These instruments are included in Appendices I through VI. A summary is presented below: 1. The Personal Power Functions Profile (PPFP). This is a new instrument developed by Reyher, copyright 1979, for determining the degree or level and presence of 16 separate personal power functions possessed by an individual. The biographical items in 25 26 the PPFP were determined by use of a Self-Disclosure Questionnaire (see Appendix VI). 2. The Watson Happiness Questionnaire. A self-report instrument which assesses the level of general happiness for an individual. 3. The SecuritypOperations Inventory. A new instrument developed by Reyher, copyright 1979, which inventories 38 separate interpersonal security operations exhibited in interpersonal situations. 4.’ The Anxiety Indicators Scale. A scale extracted from the Symptomatic Reactions Scale as revised by Reyher, 1975. The scale itemizes 23 symptomatic behaviors (manifestations of anxiety) observable in behavior and/or voice and speech in an interpersonal situation. 5. Self-Disclosure Questionnaire. A new instrument, developed by Reyher and Gavrilides (1979; see Appendix VI), for generating positive and negative self-conceptions in an inter- personal situation. The subject is required to provide information about himself for which he can either be proud (positive self- conceptions) or ashamed (negative self-conceptions). Experimental Settipg The interactions took place in a moderate sized, simply furnished office. Furnishings included a large, comfortable reclining chair in which subjects were asked to be seated. A table 27 was in position next to the chair on which was placed a cassette tape recorder and microphone. Procedures Administration of Self-Disclosure destionnaire S's were met with individually by appointment. Upon arrival at the office, subjects were greeted by a trained, mature and well-dressed female experimenter (E1). Following introductions and social amenities, S was asked to be seated in the reclining chair, which had been placed in upright position. E1 began by turning on the tape recorder, explaining that the session would be taped in order to enable a check for accuracy of the information she would be noting down in the interview. E1 then elicited and recorded the answers to the biographical questions contained in the Self-Disclosure Questionnaire. The nature of the questions is both informational and affective, as they elicit responses from S on directly personal matters involving achievement, performance, status, etc. (see Appendix VI). When this was completed, E1 administered the Happiness Questionnaire, instructing S on the mechanics of the instrument (written instructions are also included at the beginning of the questionnaire) and to take whatever time necessary to complete the questionnaire. The Interpersonal Induction of Positive and Negative Conceptions To intensify whatever self-evaluative processes (positive or negative) were cued by the subject's responses to the 28 questionnaire, upon its completion E1 then summoned the other researcher, a mature well-dressed trained male experimenter (E2), from an ajoining office, using a local buzzer on the telephone. After a minute, E2, dressed in fashionable suit and tie, entered the room. E1 introduced him to S, then handed him the Self- Disclosure Questionnaire previously completed. E2 conspicuously looked over the Self-Disclosure Questionnaire, then seated himself across from S and began asking various questions concerning the answers given by S to the interview questions (particularly asking more about 8'5 job and leisure time activities). E1 remained on the scene, seated off to the side. Intensifyinngegative Self-Conceptions After about 20 minutes, E2 told S that, before ending the session, there was one more thing he would like S to do. (This provided a further and more intensified opportunity for symptomatic behaviors and security operations to manifest.) He then asked S to push the reclining chair back, lie back, close his eyes, and just describe whatever came to mind, reporting images and any feelings or sensations. After about 10 minutes, E2 ended the session, thanking S for his/her cooperation. Eyes closed free association poses a problem for the participant because there are no explicit criteria for assessing the adequacy of his performance (Stern, 1975; Reyher, 1978). Consequently, the individual will generate negative self-other 29 conceptions in proportion to which he already harbors negative self-conceptions. During the time E2 was conducting the session, E1 recorded her observations on the PPFP, the Security Operations Inventory, and the Anxiety Indicators Scale. Immediately following the session with 5, both experimenters independently recorded their observations from the tape of the session and finished recording their observations on the same instruments. Biographical items in the PPFP (e.g. height, education, occupation) were transferred from the Self-Disclosure Questionnaire to the PPFP. Important Dynamics of the Experimental Procedure The experimental setting and procedures were structured so as to provide an interpersonal situation with maximum opportunity for the observation of personal power functions, as well as mani- festations of anxiety and security operations. When the male experimenter appeared on the scene, the combination of his authori- tative entry, his fashionable dress, and the conspicuous looking over of the interView sheet was intended to convert negative self- conceptions to negative self-other conceptions (threat). Security operations and anxiety indicators were likely to be elicited in proportion to the generation of negative self-conceptions. The threat to the subject was increased by having the female experi- menter remain on the scene, since there was then ppp_persons present in an implicit evaluative role. In short, the entire procedural framework, from the immediate "task" of reporting and disclosing 30 personal information to the dynamic of the evaluative interaction with two knowledgeable experimenters, serves to create conditions and to exhibit a wide range of security operations and symptomatic behavior. RESULTS Scoring and Inter-Rater Reliability The 16 personal power functions on the PPFP were each scored from one to five by each rater (the female and male experi- menters). Thus, the highest possible score is 5 x 16 = 80 on the PPFP. The lowest score for the total n of 40 was 36, the highest was 60.5. On PPFP items where the raters differed, the average of the two scores was taken (e.g. rater A scores a 3 for item 10 and rater 8 scores a 4, the score is recorded as 3 + 4 = 7 % 2 = 3.5). The highest number of differences in item scores for any S, between the two raters, was 6 out of the 16 items, which occurred 7 times in the sample of 40. The remaining 33 profiles had between 1 and 5 item differences between raters. These very low differences between raters resulted in a very high inter-rater reliability, r = .90. Overall, there was a 90 percent agreement between raters on the independently scored PPFPs. Scores for each S on the Security Operation Inventory and the Anxiety Indicators Scale were simply the total number of observations recorded. This total, or score, was determined by including pply_those items or observations independently observed by pptp_raters. Thus, inter-rater reliability is not a factor, since the agreement is 100 percent. This procedure provided an 31 32 even more stringent test of the hypotheses utilizing data gathered from these two instruments. Experimental Hypotheses All six hypotheses, H-1, H-2, H-3 A-D, were supported at high levels of statistical significance. 5:1, The hypothesized relationship between an individual's general happiness and personal power functions was supported by a Pearsonian Correlation of r = .57, p < .001. 5:2, The hypothesized relationship between personal power functions and manifested anxiety in the interpersonal situation was supported by a Pearsonian Correlation of r = -.46, p < .003. H;§, Using the data from the Self-Disclosure Questionnaire and the tapes of the sessions, the sample(n = 40) was divided into two categories: (a) high personal risk, and (b) low personal risk. "High personal risk" categorized S's whose occupations and leisure time activities require interpersonal interactions as a major vehicle for their performance and/or which have evaluative vis-a-vis interpersonal or public consequences. "Low personal risk" categorized S's whose occupations and leisure time activities do not require such interpersonal interactions as a major variable. The placement of S's into the two categories was done independently by the two experimenters. Of the 40 5'5, the raters independently agreed on 34 as being in either the high or low category, 18 high and 16 low. The raters disagreed on six S's. These six were categorized by a third rater, the author, two placed 33 as high and four as low. The result was two groups of equal n's, 20 high risk and 20 low risk. T-test analyses were used to compare the high and low risk categories for significant differences in their scores for personal power functions, manifested anxiety, level of general happiness, and utilization of various security operations (H-3A, B, C, D). In each case, highly Significant differences were found. Personal power functions scores were higher for the high risk group, t-ratio = 4.22, df = 38, p < .000. Anxiety scores were lower for the high risk group, t-ratio = 3.34, p < .002. The high risk category had a higher level of general happiness than the low risk category, t-ratio = 2.30, p < .027. The contribution of specific personal power functions to the overall difference between the two groups is presented in Table 1. Concerning security operations, t-ratios revealed a signif- icant difference between high and low risk S's for seven of the 38 items. One security operation was utilized significantly more by the high risk group, and six security operations were utilized significantly more by the low risk group, as presented in Table 2. Summary 1. A highly significant positive relationship was found to exist between personal power and general happiness. The higher personal power, the greater general happiness. 34 TABLE l.--T-Ratios and Significance for the Comparison of Mean Scores on Personal Power Functions, Between High Risk- Taking (n = 20) and Low Risk—Taking Groups (n = 20), on the Personal Power Functions Profile. Personal Power Functions T-Ratios (df = 38) Significance 1. Physical attractiveness .91 p < .367 2 Height .70 p < .486 3. Stature -.19 p < .847 4 523llfi§giéailléfiéillfim 4'22 p < ~°°0* 5. Savoir faire 2.81 p < .008* 6. Socio-economic status 1.04 p < .307 7. Authority (occupation) 5.63 p < .000* 8. Education 3.02 p < .005* 9. Attire 2.13 4p < .040* 10. Personal fame (reputation) 2.95 p < .005* ”' ES'Ql-lloiimieéfiiililn) -67 p < -507 12. Speech 2.10 p < .043* 13. Eye contact .95 p < .350 14. Voice 2.62 p < .021* 15. Carriage 1.60 p < .117 16. Expression of ideas 3.22 p < .003* *These nine functions showed statistical significance and combined to produce the overall significant difference between the two groups (t = 4.22, p < .000). 35 TABLE 2.--T-Ratios and Significance for the Comparison of Mean Scores on Individual Security Operations, Between High Risk (n = 20) and Low Risk (n = 20) Groups, on the Security Operations Inventory. Security Operations T-Ratios (df = 38) Significance 1. Humor 1.52 p < .137 2. Repartee 1.41 p < .167 3. Teasing - .21 p < .831 4. Turning the tables - .08 p < .938 5. Disparagement - .85 p < .398 J6. Taciturn-reticence -2.71 p < .010b 7. "I'm alright" (dissembling) -l.Ol p < .321 8. Incessant talking .15 p < .882 1 9. Interrupting 2.20 p < .034C '10. Connecting (yea-saying) - .79 p < .432 (ll. (émeggign1 housew1fe _2.42 p < .021b ‘2' 51iitrfiiifiiaill‘ntfiléillga ~59 P < -557 .13. Self-justifying -2.15 p < .038b 14. Qualifying -l.6O p < .118 15' Ugggh:::§:;§“tl°" -2.72 p < .o1ob 16. "I'm from Missouri" (scepticism)a 17. Having no opinions or values (facelessness)a 18. Changing topic .71 p < .481 19. Security blanket .16 p < .874 36 TABLE 2.--Continued. Security Operations T-Ratios (df = 38) Significance 20. Indifference -l.ll p < .274 21. Dramatization 1.66 p < .106 22. Side-stepping - .87 p < .392 23. Pasted on smile .36 p < .722 24. Flashlight smile .23 p < .819 25. Annoyance (impatience) .14 p < .887 26. Questioning (confronting) — .12 p < .907 27. Placating (flattery) 1.20 p < .239 28. Self-effacementa ~J29. Automatic laughter -2.53 p < .016b 30. Character building I .10 p < .923 31. Character building II - .55 p < .588 32. Character building III -2.01 p < .052b 33. Diffidence_ -l.58 p < .123 34. Obsequiousness - .20 p < .845 35. Headnodding I .13 p < .901 36. Headnodding II - .79 p < .436 37. Sentence finishing .89 p < .378 38. Reassurance - .46 p < .645 aNot utilized by any subjects in the sample. bUtilized significantly more by the low risk group. cUtilized significantly more by the high risk group. 37 2. A highly significant inverse relationship was found to exist between personal power and manifested anxiety in interpersonal situations. The higher personal power, the less anxiety was observed. 3. Persons whose occupations and leisure time activities are characterized by a high density of interpersonal risk situa— tions differ significantly in personal power, general happiness, and manifested anxiety, from persons whose occupations and leisure time activities involve a lower personal risk. High personal risk-takers possess greater personal power functions, display less anxiety, and are happier than low risk- takers. 4. Concerning security operations, high personal risk- takers interrupt more, are less reticjent, edit their speech less, laugh less compulsively, and are less self-effacing than low risk-takers. DISCUSSION The results of this study receive enhanced support from the procedures and methodology employed. The design and nature of the investigation virtually precludes experimental artifacts, contamina- tions, or spurious factors. There were no manipulations of vari- ables, no expectations of performance for subjects. In other words, non-specific effects, such as persuasion, transference, staff biases, treatment effects, emotionality, etc. were not factors to be accounted for in the production of outcomes. In a straightforward manner, subjects simply showed up for a personal interview, on a volunteer basis, wherein they merely reported biographical and personal information regarding their life situation and life experience. The information given, along with visible attributes and visible interpersonal behavior, was observed and recorded. From the experimental point of view, such an uncluttered setting was entirely adequate, since the crux of the matter was the interpersonal interaction intrinsic to the situation. Subjects "brought with them" those things they inescapably always bring with them in encounters with others, i.e. their personal attributes or power functions, such as their speech pat- terns or carriage or occupational status, and their characteristic interpersonal behaviors. The interaction setting, being both directly personal in nature and of signficant duration, maximized 38 39 the opportunity for each person's attributes and interpersonal behaviors to operate and be observed. The findings revealed clearly that persons with higher personal power functions reported greater happiness and exhibited less anxiety in the experimental situation than persons with lower personal power functions. It is difficult to explain these dif- ferences and the correlations between them in any other terms than the hypothesized relationships. Although the experimenters also categorized the subjects into high and low risk groups, they were ignorant of this dichotomy and they were not asked to do this until after the completion of the research. It is possible, however, regarding security operations, that the experimenters, like anyone else, related differently to individuals of high or low personal power which is strongly related to risk-taking. Differential experimenter demeanor and/or security operations might have elicited some security operations in subjects rather than others. In future research the security operations of the experimenter (interviewer) also needs to be assessed. As regards the areas of general happi- ness, interpersonal anxiety, and the choice of occupations and leisure activities, there appears to be little room for explaining the outcomes of this research in any way other than the conclusion that personal power functions make a significant difference. It can be noted that, since the subjects were all members of a large interdenominational Christian organization in the local area, the possibility of respondent bias exists. However, it is important also to note that the subjects were not college students, 40 as is so often the case in behavioral science research, but they were working adults in the local community. They were employed in various jobs, were involved in a wide variety of activities, and represented a mixture of ages, backgrounds, education and experi- ence. In short, the subject pool represented much greater hetero- geneity than, say, a freshman psychology class or a group of graduate students, etc. Moreover, the two raters in this study also were adult members of the local community. Both were highly mature and responsible individuals with considerable experience in administration and in dealing with people in personal and inter- personal settings. The Personal Power Functions Profile (PPFP) and the Security Operations Inventory (501), both newly developed by Reyher, showed good predictive validity as well as excellent reliability. It is noteworthy that of the 38 items constituting the latter only three were not demonstrated by any subjects. The other 35 items were all utilized. This study represents the first full use of the PPFP and the 501; further validations of these instruments are needed, including any relationships of the instruments to particular situational variables. The highly significant effect of personal power functions on interpersonal relations is consistent with the existing literature on the relevance of personal attributes. However, it would appear that a much greater importance needs to be placed on the operation of these functions. 41 The explanatory salience of personal power functions for understanding interpersonal relations brings greater consistency into analyses. That is to say, the personal power functions do not vary from interaction to interaction as do situational and group process factors. The power functions, e.g. eye contact, speech patterns, education, stature, etc., are basically constants, which operate to some degree in every interpersonal interchange. As demonstrated, these constants are highly significant in relation to an individual's experience of interpersonal anxiety, his behavioral tactics with others, and his choice of work and play activities. This being the case, it can be argued strongly that these personal constants be examined and accounted for more emphatically and systematically in social relations theoryand research. Whigp power functions are more salient or critical in ppp§_interpersonal contexts? How are group process variables determined or influenced by the power functions of the group members? What is the meaning for interpersonal dynamics when there is a competitive clash of personal power functions between individuals? These and similar questions are pointed to by the findings of this study as important to be addressed by interpersonal relations theory. Personality theory, too, is implicated in these results, in terms of the relationship between personality and personal power functions. The fact that subjects possessing greater personal power functions reported significantly higher levels of personal happiness, for example, indicates that these attributes are important for understanding the personal experience of an individual. It is 42 likely that many of the personal power functions are related to personality factors and/or personality development. Personality theory should take note of the interrelationships of these power functions with character development, traits, and intra-psychic processes in order to more fully explain and predict personal experience and behavior. Are there certain personality structures which intrinsically incorporate certain power functions? Are any of the power attributes a function of particular aspects of personality development? 00 high and low personal power possessers differ significantly or particularly in specific personality dimensions? Again, these and similar questions deserve more atten- tion according to the results of this study. One place both interpersonal relations theory and personal- ity theory, and attendant research, might help provide more under- standing is in regards to the particular personal power functions and security operations showing significance in the study. Why those particular items? Concerning security operations, only "interrupting" Was utilized significantly more by high risk-takers (high personal power possessers). We can speculate that high power, high risk individuals are more aggressive and assertive than low power, low risk persons, and thus find interrupting, which involves some degree of aggression and assertion, to be more con- gruent with their personality. Perhaps personality variables are important determinants for the choice of security operations? If 50, further research might lead to the use of security operations analysis for assessing personality. 43 The six security operations utilized significantly more by the low risk, low power subjects in this study point to a difference in the self-system, i.e. self-esteem levels, between the two groups. Three of these security operations, self-justifying, self—abnegation, and exemption, appear by their very nature to be directly related to feelings of inadequacy and unworthiness. Two others, word substitu— tion and automatic laughter, seem related to the need for approval and to protect against disapproval; they reflect tentativeness and nervousness in the interpersonal exchange. The other operation, taciturn-reticence, may well reflect a certain degree of shyness or fearfulness, an unwillingness to risk rejection and disapproval by talking much. Given that the interview situation was, by design, focused on quite personal matters--the subject's life and experience was the center of attention--it is clear that self- esteem would be a highly relevant factor. It is quite likely that persons with lower self-esteem utilize security operations which strongly reflect their feelings of inadequacy, such as those reported. We note here that two other operations of the same nature, i.e. qualifying and diffidence, though not statistically significant, were in the same direction (qualifying, t-ratio -l.60, p < .118; diffidence, t-ratio -l.58, p < .123). Turning to the personal power functions, questions arise as to why a number were significant (nine) and several were not (seven), between the two groups (high power and risk vs. low power and risk). Certain things stand out in the results. All four of the personal power functions involving communication (i.e. ability to participate 44 in the interview, speech, voice, expression of ideas) showed significance. This outcome strongly indicates that communication functions are of critical importance for personal effectiveness in interpersonal interaction, a fact which is amply supported in the related research literature. Closely related is another function, social "savoir faire," which also showed significance. Inter- personal grace and charm have much to do with communication ability; it is likely that savoir faire can be grouped along with the communication functions. Three of the remaining four significant functions all directly relate to the achievement status of the individual. Authority/occupation, education, and personal fame (reputation) all reflect the personal achievement and success of the individual. We can note that the other significant function, attire, is likely also to be considered a reflection of the achievement status possessed by an individual. We also note that socio-economic status and family fame were not significant. This is probably due to the fact that those items are less likely to emerge in many interactional contexts; they are less readily discernible and therefore fail to operate as significant functions, except perhaps in certain settings where these variables would be known and salient. Somewhat surprisingly, the power functions related to the physical characteristics of the individual, i.e. physical attractiveness, height, and stature, showed no significance. Perhaps physical factors are of lesser importance than the litera- ture suggests? Clearly, communication factors and achievement 45 status factors are of greater relevance in terms of personal power in interaction, according to this study. However, further research may reveal that it is in particular contexts, that the physical functions have their main influence, such as certain social situations (e.g. a cocktail party) or athletic contexts. One variable not examined in this study, but which may prove relevant here, is the sexual identity of the individual. Further research and interpersonal relations theorizing especially in examining the importance of physical attributes, needs to analyze and assess the relationship of sexual identity to personal power functions and their differential operational impacts in social relations. One of the most immediate areas for applications of this research is in the area of personnel assessment. Occupations and jobs which require a high level of interpersonal interaction, and thus hold a high value on interpersonal effectiveness (e.g. sales), need to be occupied by high personal power, high risk-taking persons. Conversely, occupations and jobs entailing very little interaction or where interpersonal effectiveness is not critical, are not likely to prove satisfying for high power, high risk persons. Personal power functions of potential employees need to be assessed by personnel workers, in relation to the nature and demands of a particular job, when hiring people. The same is true for internal promotions and job changes within an organization. Often times, individuals may hold the proper academic and "paper" credentials, but their personal attributes may indicate that a 46 particular job is not suitable. Assessing personal power functions will help personnel workers optimize employment and job placement, and may prove to have a resultant positive effect on turnover and job satisfaction. The military and large-scale industry are two prime examples of where the assessment of personal power functions is critical. Such organizations are comprised of many various job niches, with variant demands and skills and interpersonal contexts. The degree of interpersonal risk varies markedly throughout the numerous positions extant within the organization. This study would suggest that such organizations would do well to analyze their jobs and positions in terms of the need for interpersonal effectiveness, particularly interpersonal comnunication factors, and consider the correlations of these analyses with the personal power functions of potential employees. Indeed, the whole area of vocational placement and counsel- ing might profit from assessing personal power functions and security operations of individuals and incorporating that assess- ment into their work with people. In consulting activities with industry, we commonly find persons in occupational roles wherein their personal power functions do not effectively match up with the interpersonal demands of their work. Personnel assessment and placement and management development can be substantially improved by the application of this research, as can the selection of psychotherapists, counselors, administrators, supervisors, and physicians. REFERENCES 47 REFERENCES Anderson, R. Physical attractiveness and locus of control. Journal of Social Psychology. 1978, 105, 213-216. Bass, 8., and Wurster, C. Effects of company rank on LGD performance of oil refinery supervisors. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1953, 37, No. 2, 100-104. Baumeister, R., and Jones, E. When self-presentation is con- strained by the target's knowledge: consistency and compensation. Journal of Personalityyand Social ngchology. 1978, 36, No. 6, 608-618. ~4—4iaBegley, P.; Cash, T.; McCown, D; and Wise, B. When counselors are heard but not seen: the initial impact of physical attractiveness. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1975, 22, No. 4, 273-279. J'Benson, P.; Karabenick, S.; and Lerner, R. Pretty pleases: the effects of physical attractiveness, race, and sex on receiving help. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 1976, 12, 409-415. v/Bord, R. Toward a social-psychological theory of charismatic social influence processes. Social Forces. 1975, 53, No. 3, 485-497. Bouchard, T. Personality, problem-solving procedure, and performance in small groups. Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph. 1969, 53, No. 1, 1-29. x'Cherulnik, P.; Neely, W.; Flanagan, M.; and Zachau, M. Social skill and visual interaction. Journal of Social Psychology. 1978, 104, 263-270. Dahl, R. The concept of power. Behavioral Science. 1957, 2, 201- 215. a.DeCharms, R. Personal Causation. New York: Academic Press, 1968. Diener, E., and Srull, T. Self-awareness, psychological perspec- tive, and self-reinforcement in relation to personal and social standards. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1979, 37, No. 3, 413-423. 48 49 Dion, K.; Berscheid, E.; and Walster, E. What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1972, 24, No. 3, 285-290. Dubno, P. Leadership and group effectiveness and speech of deci- sion. Journal of Social Psychology. 1965, 65, 351-360. VFErickson, B.; Lind, E.; Johnson, 8.; and O'Barr, W. Speech style and impression formation in a court setting: the effects of "powerful" and "powerless" speech. Journal of Experi- mental Social Psychology. 1978, 14, 266-279. , x/Fast, Julius. The Body Language of Sex, Power and Aggression. New York: M. Evans and Company, 1977, pp. 91-123. Fenigstein, A. Self-consciousness, self-attention, and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1979, 37, No. 1, 75-86. :_:3 Goffman, E. Interaction Ritual. Chicago, Illinois: Aldine Publishing Company, 1967. ~9GO1d, M. Power in the classroom. Sociometry. 1958, 21, 50-60. Goldberg, L. Differential attribution of trait-descriptive terms to oneself as compared to well-liked, neutral, and disliked others: a psychometric analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1978, 36, No. 9, 1012-1028. Goldman, W., and Lewis, P. Beautiful is good: evidence that the physically attractive are more socially skillful. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 1977, 13, 125-130. p/Heider, F. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley, 1958. Ho, 0. On the concept of face. American Journal of Sociology. 1976, 81, No. 4, 867-884. Horai, J.; Naccari, N.; and Fatoullah, E. The effects of expertise and physical attractiveness upon opinion agreement and liking. Sociometry. 1974, 37, 601-606. iJacobson, Wally 0. Power and Interpersonal Relations. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company Inc., 1972. 'j _:7Kaplowitz, S. Towards a systematic theory of power attribution. Social Psychology. 1978, 41, No. 2, 131-148. ‘fKendon, A. Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologic. 1967, 26, 22-63. 50 Landy, 0., and Signall, H. Beauty is talent: task evaluation as a function of the performer's physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1974, 29, No. 3, 299-304. xf Leary, Timothy. Inteypersonal Diagnosis of Personality. New York: 2 Ronald Press, 1957. I i \} Libby, W., and Yaklevich, 0. Personality determinants of eye contact and direction of gaze aversion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1973, 27, No. 2, 197- 206. McCroskey, J., and McCain, T. The measurement of interpersonal attraction. Speech Monographs. 1974, 41, 261-266. Mettlin, C., and Hsu, M. Alternative concepts for the study of the significance of influentials. Rural Sociology. 1975, 40, No. 2, 152-161. 1 Miller, A. Role of physical attractiveness in impression forma- tion. Ppychon. Sci. 1970, 19, No. 4, 241-243. Miller, N.; Maruyama, G.; Beaber, R.; and Valone, K. Speed of speech and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social P§ychology. 1976, 34, No. 4, 615-624. v Minton, H. L. Power as a personality construct. In B. A. Maher (ed.). Progress in Experimental Personality Research. Vol. 4. New York: Academic Press, 1968. Mulder, M. The power variable in communication experiments. Human Relations. 1960, 13, 241-257. .9 Nagel, J. Some questions about the concept of power. Behavioral Science. 1968, 13, 129-137. d/Reyher, J. Emergent uncovering psychotherapy: the use of imagoic and linguistic vehicles in objectifying psychodynamic processes. The Power of Human Imagination. New York: Plenum Press, 1978, pp. 51-93. vaiecken, H. The effect of talkativeness on ability to influence group solutions of problems. Sociometry. 1958, 21, 390- 321. -> Rosen, 5.; Levinger, G.; and Lippitt, R. Perceived sources of social power. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 62, No. 2, 439-441. 51 Schlenker, B. Self-presentation: managing the impression of consistency when reality interferes with self-enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1975, 32, No. 6, 1030-1037. ~§ Schneider, D. Effects of dress on self-presentation. Psychological Reports. 1974, 35, 167-170. Stern, Donald. Signs of anxiety during three verbal association conditions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Michigan State University, 1975. / \/ Sullivan, H. S. The Intgppersonal Theory of B§ychiatry. New York: W. W. Norton, 1953. ‘ J Tedeschi, James T., ed. The Social Influence Processes. Chicago, J Illinois: Aldine-Atherton, Inc., 1972. V{Tedeschi, J.; Schlenker, B.; and Bonoma, T. Conflict, Power and Games. Chicago, Illinois: Aldine Publishing Company, 1973. Watson, G. Happiness among adult students of education. Journal of Educational P§yphology. 1930, 21, No. 2, 79-109. Wilson, W. Correlates of avowed happiness. Psychological Bulletin. 1967, 67, No. 4, 294-306. -%7 Zander, A., and Cohen, A. Attributed social power and group acceptance: a classroom experimental demonstration. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1955, 51, 490- 492. APPENDICES 52 APPENDIX I PERSONAL POWER FUNCTIONS PROFILE 53 54 Personal Power Functions Profile Physical Attractiveness ___ 1. ugly ___ 2. ___ 3. plain ___ 4. 5. beautiful/very handsome Stature .___ l. frail 2. 3. medium build 4. 5. very well built Savior Faire 1. social dunce 2 3 rough at the edges 4. 5 charmingly adroit 511.322 _ 1. 5'0" _ 2. 5'5" __ 3. 5'10" _ 4. 6'3" 5. 6'8" Knowledge/Abilitijalent Germane TETInteraction 1. novice 2. 3. muddles through 4. ..... 5. expert Socio-Economic Status 1. lower class 2. 3. middle class 4. 5. upper class ll. Authority (occupation) 8. ___ 1. bus boy ___ 2. waitress, clerk ___ 3. teacher ___ 4. policeman 5. chairman of board, 55 president Attire 10. ___ 1. street person ___ 2. discount store ‘___ 3. department store ___ 4. specialty store ___ 5. high fashion shop; luxurious Family Fame (reputation, social 12. position) ___ 1. nobody school £11wa local community regional national Education 1. grade school high school technical certificate ordinary college UIJ-‘WN prestige college Personal Fameyjreputation) ___ 1. nobody 2 school 3 local community 4. regional 5 national may; -____1. stutter ___ 2. stammer ____3. halting, hesitant ___ 4. fluid 5. eloquent 56 13. Eye Contact 14. I ___ l. 0% ___ 2 25% ___ 3 50% ___ 4. 75% ___ S 100% 15. Carriage 16. ___ l. slumped, head bowed ___ 2. head bowed ___ 3. slouches somewhat, eyes downcast ___ 4. erect body but head not high 5. body erect and head high (poised) COpyright Joseph Reyher, 1979 high-diminutive moderate full, overtones, color Expression of Ideas 1. £11wa uninformed and illogical presentation moderate highly informed and logical presentation APPENDIX II THE SELF-CONCEPT: A SELECTIVE LITERATURE REVIEW OF CONCEPTS AND THEORISTS 57 58 PART I: CONCEPTS TABLE OF CONTENTS SELF, EGO, RELATED STRUCTURES . SELF-DYNAMISM, SELF-SYSTEM . SELF-ESTEEM . SELF-CONCEPT STRIVING FOR SUPERIORITY, SELF- MAXIMATION, SELF- ACTUALIZATION . . . . BASIC NEEDS . INTERPERSONAL THEORIES: OVERALL PERSPECTIVES INTERPERSONAL THEORY: RECIPROCAL NATURE OF SOCIAL INTERACTION . . . . . . DEFENSES, SECURITY OPERATIONS . ANXIETY TRANSACTIONS, PROCEDURES, RITUALS, GAMES Page 59 64 66 67 73 74 77 82 89 94 97 59 SELF, EGO, RELATED STRUCTURES Terms Used by Theorists Self - Rogers, Hinzie and Campbell, Symond, Sarbin, Helgard, Chein, Mead, Koffka, Sullivan, Jacobson, Wylie, James Ego - Erikson, Symond, Sherif and Cantril, Chein, Koffka, Hartmann, Jacobson Superego - Jacobson Executive - Koffka Creative Self - Adler Actual Self - Horney Real Self - Horney Idealized Self - Horney Material Self - James Social Self - James Spiritual Self - James Pure Ego - James Self-Feelings - James Self-Seeking - James Self-Preservation - James Ideal Self - Rogers Self-Object - Hall and Lindsey Self-as-Process - Hall and Lindsay Phenomenal Self - Snygg and Combs Subjective Self - Lundholm Somatic Self - Sarbin Receptor-Effector Self - Sarbin Inferred Self — Helgard Phenomenal Self - Buhler Core Self - Buhler Self-Idealization - Hartmann Self-Representation - Jacobson Ego States - Berne 60 Definitions of Self and Ego Self The portion of the phenomenol field which becomes differentiated. It is the "I" or “me" in relations to others and various aspects of life. "It is a gestalt which is available to awareness though not necessary in awareness." It is fluid, changing, a process. (Rogers) The psychophysical total of the person at any given moment, including both conscious and unconscious attributes. (Hinzie and Campbell) Self is both the person's attitudes, feelings, perceptions about himself (i.e. what a person thinks about himself) and a group of psychological processes such as thinkin , remembering, perceiving, which govern behavior and adjustment. IHall and Lindsey) The ways an individual reacts to himself, how he perceives, thinks about, values, enhances or defends himself. A person may not be aware of these perceptions, concepts, evaluations or defending and enhancing processes. (Symond) Self is composed of perceptions concerning the individual which has egfects upon the behavior of the individual. (Snygg and Combs Self consists of a subjective aspect (what I think of myself) and objective aspect (what others think of me). (Lundholm) Cognitive structure consisting of one's ideas about various aspects of his being (somatic, receptor-effector, social). (Sarbin) One's image of himself. (Hilgard) Content of awareness. (Chein) Self is an object of awareness, not a system of processes. Self is formed by the reactions of other people to a person as an object. Different "selves" develop which represent different responses of groups of people toward a person (e.g. a family self, school self, etc.). (Mead) Self consists of phenomenal self (self-perceptions, self- concepts) and a core self which is processes of need satisfac- tion, self-limiting adaptation, creative expansion, maintenance of internal order. (Buhler) 61 - Self is the content of consciousness within the framework of a person's socialization, acculturation, and his formative rela- tional patterning. That part of personality central in the experience of anxiety. (Sullivan) - The totality of the psychic and bodily person. (Jacobson) - Self is a term used to mean two basic things: (a) the self as subject or agent or (b) the self as the individual who is known to himself, or self-concept. (Wylie) £92 - A tool by which a person organizes outside information, tests perception, selects memories, governs action, integrates capa- cities of orientation and planning. Continues to acquire new characteristics as it meets new situations throughout life. (Erikson) - A group of processes such as perceiving, thinking, remembering, "for developing and executing a plan of action for attaining satisfaction in response to inner drives." (Symond) - A constellation of attitudes such as "what I think of myself, what I value, what is mine, what I identify with." Attitudes of the ego motivate behavior. (Sherif and Cantril) - The cognitive structure built around the self. The ego's potivei serve to defend, extend, enhance, preserve the self. Chein - The ego is both an object and a process. (Koffka) - The ego has the function of adaptation and equilibrium main- tenance. "A specific organ of equilibrium at the disposal of the person." (Hartmann) - In the development of the ego ideal both self-idealization and the idealization of the parents play a role. The degree to which the ego ideal is determined more by early self- idealization or more by idealization of the object later becomes more important for both normal and pathological development. (Hartmann and Lowenstein) Definitions of Related Terms Creative self. An important cause of behavior, a highly personalized, subjective system which interprets and makes meaning- ful the experience of the organism. (Adler 62 Actual self. The whole person, somatic, psychic, conscious, unconscious, as he exists at any point in time. (Horney) Real self. The person's potential for further development and growth. (Horney) Idealized self. The person a neurotic person believes himself to be, resulting from identification with an idealized image of what he feels he should be. This is a means of avoiding psychic conflict by rising above it. The idealized self-image is a substitute for self-confidence which is lacking. A feeling of inferiority is both cause and effect of idealized self-image. (Horney) Constituents of self. Material self, social self, spiritual self, pure ego.T(James) Material self. One's material possessions. (James) Social self. How one is regarded by his fellows. (James) Spiritual self. One's psychological faculties and disposi— tions. (James) Pure ego. The stream of thought which constitutes one's personal identity. (James) Ideal self. What a person would like to be. (Rogers) Phenomenal self. "Includes all parts of the phenomenal field which the individual experiences as part of or characteristic of himself." (Snygg and Combs) Somatic self. Body conceptions (emerges first). (Sarbin) Receptor-effector self. Conceptions of sense organs and musculature. (Sarbin) Social self. Conceptions of social behavior (emerges later). (Sarbin) Executive. A process which controls behavior (distinguished from ego and self). (Koffka) Superego. Serves to maintain identity and regulates self- esteem by maintaining harmony between moral codes and ego manifes- tations. Formation of the superego involves internalization; regulations of the outer world are substituted by internal 63 regulations. The superego governs moods and is an indicator and regulator of the entire ego state. Another function is to develop consistent defense organization. (Jacobson) Ego states. There are three basic ego states which persons experience emotionally and display behaviorally in interactions: child, adult, parent. (Berne) Child. Consists of "relics" from earlier years which become activated in relating. From this ego state comes intuition, creativity and spontaneous drive and enjoyment. (Berne) Adult. Directed to the objective appraisal of reality. It processes data, computes probabilities in order to deal with the outside world effectively. It also experiences its own kinds of setbacks and gratifications. Another purpose of the adult is to regulate the activities of the parent and child states. (Berne) Parent. Enables the individual to function effectively as a parent, as well as makes many responses automatic (responses which are instinctively reproduced from the parental figure) which saves time and energy and frees the adult from having to make many trivial decisions. (Berne) Each ego state has its respectful place in a productive life. 64 SELF-DYNAMISM, SELF-SYSTEM Sullivan (Both terms are his) In Sullivan's interpersonal theory the concept of self- dynamism is the fabric of the motivational forces and processes which lead to the development of the self-system. Self-dynamism. "A class of behavior that is recurrent and is identifiable by virtue of the 'insignificant particular differences' that characterize it from occasion to occasion." (definition of Sullivan, paraphrased by Carson) Self-dynamism. Develops as a means of controlling anxiety, and is provided by the interpersonal environment as experienced by the individual in the form of reflected appraisal. The content is the whole of what he can perceive as aspects of himself. It carries out its role of controlling anxiety_py controllipg_awareness. New "data'' are admitted only to the extent that they are consistent with the data already there. Self-system. Also an important element in interpersonal relating. Defined by Sullivan as ". . . an organization of educa- tive experience called into being by the necessity to avoid or to minimize incidents of anxiety. " To maintain security and avoid anxiety the child develops and strengthens those sides of his nature which are pleasing or acceptable to the significant adults. The resultinggconfiguration of traits from this development is the self-system. Self-sygtem. "A vigilant guardian against the experience of crippling anxiety, resembling in many respects the conceptuali- zation of the ego, and its defenses . . . . In other words, one's image is controlled by the self system since it manipulates the content of consciousness depending on the prevailing level of anxiety." (Witenberg, defining Sullivan's term) Origin of the self-system. It is "purely the product of interpersonal experience arising from anxiety encountered in the pursuit of the satisfaction of general and zonal needs . . . . The origin of the self-system can be said to rest on the irra- tional character of culture, or more specifically, society. Were it not for the fact that a great many prescribed ways of doing things have to be lived up to, in order that one shall maintain workable, profitable, satisfactory relations with his fellows; or, were the prescriptions for the types of behavior in carrying on relations with one's fellows perfectly rational - then . . . there would not be evolved . . . anything like the sort of self-system that we always encounter." 65 What the Self-System Has in Common with Freud's Theory It is formed as the result of the influence of the parent on the developing child. However, the self-system includes more than sublimation and differs from Freud in that Sullivan stresses what goes on between people, Freud, what happens with instincts. For Sullivan personality does not develop mechanically; he emphasizes the dynamic interaction between people. Finally, the self-system is very resistant to change. 66 SELF-ESTEEM Adler A person needs to have a sense of self-esteem and self- acceptance. Social feeling heightens one's self-esteem. Erikson A positive ego produces a sense of self in a state of well-being. Well-being means how one feels when one is and does what is close to what one wishes and feels he ought to do and be. "Wishing and oughtness" form polarities in a person's life. Hinzie and Campbell Self-esteem. A state in which narcissistic supplies emanating from the superego are maintained so that the person does not fear punishment or abandonment by the superego. In other words, self-esteem is a state of being on good terms with one's superego. Sullivan Self-esteem. Increasing power and confidence that a person feels with regard to his security. A minimal amount of self- esteem is needed to deal with the realistic feelings of powerless- ness and helplessness men experience. The effect of anxiety on self esteem. ". . . the precipita- ting circumstances of anxiety come to be associated with the disapproval of significant others, at first chiefly the parents. Beyond infancy the experience of anxiety . . . has the characteris- tic of a drop in self-esteem or an increase in felt insecurity, and it always has an interpersonal referent." Blanck Self-esteem. The favorable self-image which results from internalization of parental affection combined with success experiences in mastery. Simple reassurance about oneself or abilities (i.e. compliments, praise, etc.) cannot change a person's failure to have internalized an effective sense of self. 67 SELF-CONCEPT Terms Used or Aspects Discussed by Theorists Self-Concept - Adler, Horney, Rogers, Carson, Wylie, McGuire and Singer, Bugental and Zelen Self-Personification - Sullivan Self-Identity - Erickson Function of Self-Concept - Raimy (Rogers) Importance; Main Tenets of Self-Concept Theory - McGuire and Singer, Wylie, Bugental and Zelen Formation of; Parent-Child Relationship - Adler, Horney, Sullivan, Wylie Need for Congruence - Rogers, Carson Problems During Preadolescence - Sullivan Eliciting Expression of the Self-Concept - Bugental and Zelen Trait Salience in the Spontaneous Self-Concept - McGuire and Singer Definitions or Descriptions of the Self-Concept - "The self-concept or self-structure may be thought of as an organized configuration of perceptions of the self which are admissible to awareness. It is composed of such elements as the perceptions of one's characteristics and abilities; the percepts and concepts of the self in relation to others and to the environment, the value qualities which are perceived as associ- ated with experiences and objects; and goals and ideals which are perceived as having positive or negative valence." (Rogers, 1951a, p. 136) - The part of the self referring to "the individual as known to himself . . . a constellation of perceptions, cognitions, and values." (Wylie) 68 Self-Personification Sullivan's concept of self-personifications and their formation seems similar to Rogers' description of the self- concept. According to Sullivan, a personification is a mental image, not necessarily real, formed of a particular person. It is constructed from primarily parataxic experiences or interaction with other persons. Especially important are the infant's personifications relating to himself and the mother. The infant gradually develops a personification or sense of "self" based on his experience of the environment's reactions to his activities (reflected appraisals). Sullivan explains three self-personifications which occur: "good-me," "bad-me," and "not-me." Self-Identity Erikson's description of self-identity seems to be another set of statements about the self-concept: The ego, then, as a central organizing agency, is during the course of life faced with a changing self which, in turn, demands to be synthesized with abandoned and anticipated selves . . . . What could consequently be called the self-identity emerges from all those experi- ences in which a sense of temporary self-diffusion was successfully contained by a renewed and ever more realistic self-definition and social recognition. Function of Self-Concept The self-concept "serves to regulate behavior and may serve to account for uniformities in personality." (Raimy, quoted by Rogers) Importance: Main Tenets of Self-Concgpt Theory "What we think about ourselves is probably the central concept in our conscious lives." (McGuire and Singer) Wylie states that the main belief of the self-concept theorists is "that one cannot understand and predict human behavior without knowledge of the subject's conscious perceptions of his environment, and of his self as he sees it in relation to the environment. Because of this central role accorded to conscious perceptions, cognitions, and feelings, these theorists have often been labeled 'phenomenologica1.'" 69 Bugental and Zelen summarize the self-concept theory of personality organization as the following: This view holds that the behavior of the individual is primarily determined by and pertinent to his phenomenal field and, in particular, that aspect of the field which is the individual's concept of himself. Formation of: Parent-Child Interaction Self-concept is formed during early childhood. A child selects from his experiences, interactions within the family, and observations of their social relationships with others, events that fit into a coherent pattern. Those that do not fit are rejected as they contradict his self-concept. Self-concept can be pescriped as "a mosaic formed during the first 5 years of life." Adler Horney states that among other things, parents largely determine a child's self-concept. Concerning the development of self-concept and parent-child interaction, Wylie summarizes: All personality theorists who are concerned with con- structs involving the self accord great importance to parent-child interaction in the development of the self- concept. This notion follows from such general ideas as these: (a) The self-concept is a learned constellation of per- ceptions, cognitions, and values. (b) An important part of this learning comes from observ- ing the reactions one gets from other persons. (c) The parents are the persons who are present earliest and most consistently. For this reason, and because of the child's dependence on them and his affection for them, the parents have a unique opportunity to reinforce selectively the child's learning. Presumably, then, the parent can influence the development of such aspects of the self-concept as the following: . (a) the generalized level of self-regard (e.g. by being loved and accepted the child comes to love himself, and through acquisition of accepted behaviors he comes to respect his own functioning); (b) the subjective standards of conduct which are associated with his role and individual status (i.e. the development of ideal self); 70 (c) the realism of his view of his abilities and limita- tions, and the acceptance of them; (d) the degree of acceptance in the phenomenal self- concept of inevitable characteristics (e.g. hostility, jealousy, sex); (e) the adequacy of his means of appraising accurately his effects on others. After reviewing all the studies or research on parent-child interaction and the self-concept, Wylie finds the following conclusions: There is some evidence . . . to suggest that children's self-concepts are similar to the view of themselves which they attribute to their parents. There is some limited evidence that a child's level of self-regard is associated with the parents' reported level of regard for him. There is some evidence to suggest that children with self-reported maladjustment see their parents' views of them as differing from each other. Need for Congruence In discussing the problems in the development of the self- concept during childhood Rogers states that congruence needs to exist between how the person perceives himself and what his experience is. Through childhood the self-concept becomes more and more distorted due to evaluations by others, self-concept becomes out of line with organismic experience. What Rogers sees as primarily important is congruence between the self as perceived and the actual experience of the organism. Congruence between self and organism makes the person adjusted, mature, and fully functioning. To protect the self-concept threatening experiences are denied symbolization or given a distorted symbolization. People will often maintain and enhance a self-picture which is completely at variance with reality. This breach between self and organism results in defensive- ness and distortion and also affects a person's relations with other people. The self-concept can be reorganized through accept- ance and assimilation of experiences which have been denied symbolization. A result of this is that the person becomes more understanding and accepting of other people. 71 Carson also discusses the need persons have for congruence in regards to their self-concept and experiences in interpersonal s1tuations. He states: The general notion that persons have a need to maintain a "balance," or "consonance," or "congruency" among various currently salient aspects of themselves, such as their cognitions, their feelings, and their behaviors, has gained a wide and empirically justified acceptance among psychologists in recent years . . . three elements or "components" which persons are said to strive for consistency among: (1) some aspect of the person's self concept (that is, a cognition that the person has concerning some aspect or attribute of himself) (2) the person's interpretation of those of his actions which relate to that aspect of his self-concept; and (3) the person's perception of the related aspects of the behavior of the other person with whom he is interacting. The term "self," as used here, refers to the phenomenal self, and is roughly co-extensive with Sullivan's use of the same term. Problems During Preadolescence "Because of the competitive element, and also becuase of the juvenile's relative insensitivity to the importance of other people it is possible that one can maintain throughout the juvenile era remarkably fantastic ideas about oneself, that one can have a very significantly distorted personification of the self, and keep it under cover. To have a very fantastic personification of oneself is, actually to be very definitely handicapped . . . a misfortune in development." Eliciting Expression of the Self-Concept The main effort of Bugental and Zelen was to develop a means of eliciting a person's expression of his self-concept, "the counselee's manner of viewing himself." They developed one which they describe as "affording the most revealing information and yet requiring a minimum of complication in administration . . . and allows the client to structure his responses along lines most expressive of his own needs and most meaningfully related to his current situation." This is the "W-A-Y" question or "Who Are You?" 72 Trait Salience in the Spontaneous Self-Concept McGuire and Singer conducted research to show that "a given trait would be spontaneously salient in a person's self-concept to the extent that this trait was distinctive for the person within her or his social groups . . . and it was found that in a majority of cases the dimension was significantly more salient in the spontaneous self-concepts of those students whose character- istic on the dimension was more distinctive." They summarize their theory as: Our guiding theoretical notion is that the person in a complex stimulus field focuses on points of maximum information, so that one selectively notices the aspects of the object that are most peculiar . . . . Hence, when an internal need or external demand requires that we consider our identity (i.e., who we are, what kind of person we are), any of a vast variety of personal characteristics could occur to us. The distinctiveness theory of selective perception, when applied to this spontaneous self-concept, predicts that we notice any aspect (or dimension) of ourselves to the extent that our characteristic on that dimension is peculiar to our social milieu. McGuire and Singer predict that the distinctiveness prin- ciple would overshadow other determinants of trait salience. They cite six other determinants of what is spontaneously salient in a self-concept, which are: situational demand, stimulus intensity, availability (in the sense of recency, familiarity, and expecta- tion), individual momentary need, one's enduring values, and past reinforcement. 73 STRIVING FOR SUPERIORITY, SELF-MAXIMATION, SELF-ACTUALIZATION List of Terms Striving for Superiority - Adler Self-Actualization - Goldstein, Rogers Self-Maximation - Hinzie and Campbell Need for Power - Sullivan Adler Striving for superiority. The dynamic force behind all human activity, the goal which men strive for, striving for superi- ority, perfection and totality. This is what gives consistency and unity to personality. This superiority is not a social distinction, leadership or position in society but rather a "great upward drive, a striving for completion." (Similar to self-actualization concept of Goldstein.) Hinzie and Campbell Self-maximation. The drive (involving part of the ego) associated with the numerous competitive situations a person encounters in the course of living, such as competitions for affection, attention, status at home, school, in groups of peers, and elsewhere. This drive is to maintain feelings of personal adequacy. Rogers Self-actualization. This is the individual's basic need to grow, exercise one's capacities, develop maximally. ". . . The organism has one basic tendency: to actualize, maintain, and enhance the experiencing organism." Sullivan's basic need for power is similar to Rogers' concept of self-actualization. 74 BASIC NEEDS List of Terms Used py Theorists Basic Trust - Erikson Need for Love - Horney Need for Independence - Horney Need for Power - Horney Congruence - Rogers Positive Regard - Rogers Self-Regard - Rogers Need Satisfaction - Sullivan Need for Security - Sullivan Need for Power - Sullivan Conflict of Two Basic Forces - Berne Need for Stimulus/Recognition - Berne Need for Structure - Berne Erikson Erikson feels that the basic need of an individual is "basic trust" which needs to be established in childhood and depends largely on the unconditional love and acceptance of the mother along with basic needs being consistently met. Horney Horney presents a list of ten needs which are acquired as a consequence of trying to find solutions to the problem of disturbed human relationships. These are grouped in three orientations: (1) moving toward people (need for love) (2) moving away from people (need for indgpendence) (3) moving against people (need for power) Everyone has conflicts between these basic needs but some people, primarily because of early experiences of parental treat- ment posses them in a more aggravated form (e.g. of parental treatment--rejection, neglect, overprotection, etc.). 75 A normal person can resolve these conflicts (integrating these three orientations) but a neurotic person uses other solutions. He may recognize only one and repress or deny the other two, or he may create an idealized image of himself in which the contradictory trends disappear. Rogers Congruence is a basic need human beings experience. The end-point of personality development according to Rogers is "a basic congruence between the phenomenal field of experience and the conceptual structure of self." Positive-regard and self-regard are two other basic needs singled out by Rogers: The organism has one basic tendency: to actualize, main- tain, and enhance the experiencing organism. Behavior is basically the goal-directed attempt of the organism to satisfy its needs as experienced in the field as perceived. Sullivan According to Sullivan, human beings have two basic needs, goals, or end states: (1) need for satisfaction (need to relieve biologically derived tensions such as food, air, sex, etc.). (2) need for security (need to avoid anxiety) which can be satisfied only through meaningful interpersonal relationships. Two additional needs he elaborates on are: (3) need for tenderness or intimacy (4) need for power The fulfillment of a need is interrupted by anxiety. Tenderness Principle Sullivan considers people's need for meaningful contact with others an elementary biological need. There is a predisposition for tenderness in human beings which is met during infancy by the mother in anxiety-free situations. To attain this in relationships, including the mother—infant relationship, a certain degree of col- laboration between persons is required. 76 . . it implies an evolution of intimacy in a relation- ship of growing equality. Tenderness is conceptualized as an intricate interplay of attitudes and behavior." During infancy a person acquires a need for tenderness responses from the mother; later these become needs for love, intimacy, etc. Need for Power This is another innate need. This is similar to Rogers' self-actualization concept. It consists of a need to grow, exercise one's capacities, develop maximally. Collisions Between Basic Needs Sullivan discusses the collisions which occur between these basic needs (specifically lust, security and the intimacy need): . . lust is the most powerful dynamism in interpersonal relations. Since our culture provides us with singular handicaps for lustful activity rather than with facilita- tion, lust promptly collides with a whole variety of powerful dynamisms in personality. The most ubiquitous collision is naturally the collision between one's lust and one's security; and by security I mean one's feeling of self-esteem and personal worth. Berne In discussing the basic needs human beings experience, Berne explains that after the period of close intimacy with the mother is over, an individual is confronted with a dilemma involv- ing two forces in his life. One is the combination of social, psychological, and biological forces which stand in the way of continued physical intimacy in the infant-style; the other is his perpetual striving for its attainment. Berne defines two other basic needs or categories of needs persons experience: - a need for "stimulus" or recognition, - a need for "structure" especially in interpersonal situations. 77 INTERPERSONAL THEORIES: OVERALL PERSPECTIVES Aspects Discussed by Theorists Basic Interpersonal Orientation of Man Interpersonal Nature and Formation of Personality Differences Between Interpersonal and Psychoanalytic Theories Definition of Interpersonal Behavior Interpersonal Theory and Biological Survival Sullivan's Ecology Principle of Interpersonal Theory Basic Interpersonal Orientation of Man Man is motivated primarily by social urges and is inherently a social being. He "relates himself to other people, engages in cooperative social activities, places social welfare above selfish interest." (Adler) Adler places an emphasis on inborn Social interest and the pay in)which man's basic striving for superiority is socialized. Adler "The study of human nature appears, at this mid-century point, to be shifting from an emphasis on the individual to an emphasis on the individual-in-relation-to-others. Man is viewed as a uniquely social being, always involved in crucial inter- actions with his family members, his contemporaries, his predeces- sors, and his society." (Leary) The individual is seen by Horney holistically, influencing and influenced by his environment. (Horney) Interpersonal Nature and Formation of Personality "Sullivan defined psychiatry as the study of interpersonal relations that are manifest in observable behavior. Although he had great interest in what transpired inside an individual, he felt that the individual could be studied only in terms of his interaction with others." (Freedman, Kaplan and Sadock) 78 Sullivan's basic underlying tenent is that the human personality is founded on a biological substrate and is the product of the interpersonal and social forces acting on the person from the time of birth. (Sullivan) "Human personality and specific identity are conceptualized as predominantly action-bound manifestations with flexible boun- daries. People have to engage in interpersonal activities in order to bring their personal characteristics into focus." (Sullivan) Erikson emphasizes the relationships of the ego to society and shows how the ego's development is connected to the nature of social organization (Childhood and Society, 1963). (Erikson) Erikson's concepts of ego identity and group identity: Ego identity is an awareness of the fact that there is continuity in the ego's synthesizing methods and the feeling that these methods are effective in sageguarding the stability and continuity of one's meaning for other people. Group identity is the group's basic way of organizing experience for the members of the group. Carson emphasizes that behavior, in so far as it is determined by the environment, is a product of what we perceive the environment to be, not of what it is. This perceptual process is an extremely intricate mechanism which is subject to many sources (including the individual's values, needs, techniques for coping with stress). He refers to Erikson and Secord and Blackman in reference to this. (Carson) Sullivan regards personality as inconceivable other than in the context of interpersonal relationships. Personality_consists of the patterned regularities that may be observed in an individual% relationships with other persons who may be real and present or illusory/personified and absent. Differences Between Interpersonal and Psyghoanalytic Theories Blanck groups Sullivan's theory with theorists such as Horney and others, and calls theirs the "environmental or cultural school." Freedman, Kaplan, and Sadock term Sullivan a "culturalist psychoanalyist" along with Horney and Fromm. 79 Blanck Blanck summarizes the position of Sullivan and similar theorists and compares it to the psychoanalytic: Their theories regard the individual as reactive to his environment, both sociological and psychological; therefore attempt to treat is from that position. Behavior is altered, not by reinforcement or conditioning, but by dynamic interaction between the patient and a therapist who, in effect, constitutes a new and presumably more benign environment. From this position come such broad technical approaches as interpersonal relations, interaction, corrective emotional experience, emotional reeducation, and the like. Here is a fundamental difference from the psychoanalytic view, within the concept of internalization is basic. Arieti Arieti states that there are two basic approaches to studying man psychologically: the Leibnizin, which focuses pri- marily on the intrapsychic, giving interpersonal secondary con- sideration and the Lockean, which sees man's psyche as an entity which is molded gradually by the experiences of life passing through his senses. Arieti's basic position is that: (1) Man must be studied through both approaches, (2) Some of the richest forms of human development are in the realm of the interpersonal, and (3) The interpersonal presupposes an intrapsychic core. Arieti attempts to integrate the intrapsychic with the interpersonal and he states that "intrapsychic and interpersonal {actors)are intermingled in most psychological aspects of man." Arieti Arieti feels that psychoanalytic theorists have "over- emphasized early stages of development, bodily needs, instictual behavior, and elementary feelings that can exist without a cogni- tive counterpart or with a very limited one." He states that these do not "include all the emotional factors affecting man favorably or unfavorably . . . important psychodynamic forces exist in man which are brought about by his conceptual life." (Arieti) 80 Definition of Interpersonal Behavior ‘ Interpersonal behavior is "Behavior which is related overtly, consciously, ethically, or symbolically to another human being (real, collective, or imagined)." (Leary) Interpersonal Theory and Biological Survival Leary believes interpersonal theory to be "the area of psychology which is most crucial and functionally important to human survival." (Leary) He sumnarizes his main assertions as: First . . . interpersonal behavior is crucial to the survival of the human being . . . second . . . inter- personal behavior is the aspect of personality that is most functionally relevant to the clinician." In discussing interpersonal behavior and biological survival Leary states: From the standpoint of human survival, social role and social adjustment comprise the most important dimension of personality. This is because of the unique bio- logical and cultural aspects of human development and maturity . . . This long period of childhood and adolescence involves a dependence on other human beings for nourishment, shelter, and security . . . . From the moment of birth survival depends on the adeguacy of interpersonal rela- tionshi s . . . . Several experts in this field (Sullivan, Klein, Erikson, Ribble, Spitz) have claimed that the roots of personality are to be found in the earliest mother-child interactions . . . . Even at maturity survival rests upon Successful interpersonal patterns. Sullivan's Ecology Principle of Interpersonal Theory Witenberg discusses the "ecological principle" of Sullivan's theory: Sullivan transposes the ecology principle to the field of psychiatry by postulating the necessity of a more or less continuous contact on a person to person basis in a humanly compatible environment. He contends that the 81 specifically human qualities are highly liable and require an open-ended channel for their potential growth and enduring survival. Witenberg finds 3 shortcomings in Sullivan's ecological model: ‘1. Sullivan's focus on energy transformation: ". . . it is quite clear that the exchange of'information is an interchange without the expenditure of significant energy. Furthermore, Sullivan did not sufficiently appreciate the organism's necessity to draw negative entropy from the environment in order to survive." 2. "Another important limitation in the interpersonal ecological model is the overemphasis of one to one relationships in the formative patterning of neurotic and psychotic disturbances . Interpersonal theory stands to gain much by including family dynamics in its conceptual frame of reference. 3. Witenberg considers the third limitation to be Sullivan's relative neglect of cognitive processes in his psychiatric ecolpgy. 82 INTERPERSONAL THEORY: RECIPROCAL NATURE OF SOCIAL INTERACTION Terms Used or Aspects Discussed by Theorists Interpersonal Reflexes or Mechanisms - Leary Cued Behavior - Carson Feedback Principle - Sullivan Principle of Mutuality and Reciprocity - Carson Theorem of Reciprocal Emotion - Sullivan Interpersonal Roles - Leary Interpersonal Strategies/Plans - Carson Principle of Self-Determinism - Leary Interpersonal Reflexes or Mechanisms In his theories and observations concerning the reciprocal nature of social interaction, Leary particularly discusses the reflex way in which human beings tailor their responses to others, the automatic ways they prompt others to react to them. "In studying the interpersonal purposes which underlie human behavior, the following hypotheses has developed . . . in a large percentage of interactions the basic motives are expressed in a reflex manner. They are so automatic that they are often unwit- ting and often at variance with the subject's own percpetion of them." Interpersonal mechanisms or reflexes. Can be defined as observable, expressive units of face-to-face social behavior. They are automatic and usually involuntary responses to inter- personal situations, often independent of the content of the communication, and are the individual's spontaneous methods of reacting to others. The exact ways these are expressed are unclear. One thing is clear: they are expressed partly in the content or verbal mean- ing of the communication, but primarily throu h tone of voice, gesture, carriage, and external appearance. Leary) 83 Leary believes that "the reflex manner in which human beings react to others and train others to respond to them in sélective ways is . . . the most important single aspect of_personality. The systematic estimates of a patient's repertoire of interpersonal reflexes is a key factor in functional diagnosis. Awareness and, if possible, modification of crippled or maladaptive reflexes should be a basic step in psychotherapy." (Leary) However, "The automatic and involuntary nature of inter- personal reflexes makes them difficult to observe and measure by a participant in any interaction. They are, for the same reason, most resistant to therapeutic change." (Leary) The interpersonal reflex is not necessarily a conscious expression or a deliberate performance; it can be involuntary. Mead points out the difference between gestural behavior and consciousness: The mechanism of the social act can be traced out without introducing into it the conception of consciousness as a separable element within that act; hence, the social act, in its more elementary stages or forms, is possible with- out, or apart from, some form of consciousness." (Mead) In summarizing the often involuntary, automatic nature of interpersonal reflexes Leary states: It is possible to express interpersonal behavior of which one is not aware. This is not to say that social reflex behavior is to be equated with the classic "unconscious." We are speaking instead of an involun- tary, automatic behavior which the subject can or cannot be aware. Mead discusses the nonverbal, "conversation of gestures" which is involved in interpersonal reflexes: We are reading the meaning of the conduct of other people when, perhaps, they are not aware of it. There is something that reveals to us what the purpose is-- just the glance of an eye, the attitude of the body which leads to the response. The communication set up in this way between individuals may be very perfect. Conversation in gestures may be carried on which can- not be translated into articulate speech. 84 Leary states: During any one day the average adult runs into a wide range of interpersonal stimuli. We are challenged, pleased, bossed, obeyed, helped, and ignored on an average of several times a day. Thus the person whose entire range of interpersonal reflexes is functioning flexibly can be expected to demonstrate appropriately each of the sixteen interpersonal reflexes many times in any day. If we study an extended sample of a subject's inter- actions, an interesting fact develops. Each person shows a consistent preference for certain inter- personal reflexes. Other reflexes are very difficult to elicit or absent entirely. It is possible to pre- dict in probability terms the preferred reflexes for most individuals in a specific situation. A small percentage of individuals exist who get "others" to react to them in the widest range of possible behaviors and who can utilize a wide range of appropriate reac- tions. Most individuals tend to train "others" to react to them within a narrowed range of behaviors, and in turn show a restricted set of favored reflexes. Some persons show a very limited repertoire of two or three reflexes and reciprocally receive an increasingly narrow set of responses from others. Cued Behavior This aspect of Carson's interpersonal theory is very similar to Leary's concept of interpersonal reflexes. Carson sees that cued behavior plays an important role in interpersonal relations, ". . . where the cues supplied by one person may have substantial effects upon the emotional experience of the other. Moreover this cueing process can occur 'auto- matically' and outside of awareness." "Undoubtedly, in everyday life we all use many subtle signs and signals, often without awareness, which have the character of prompts to others, such that their behavior toward us is modified in personally pleasing directions . . . . The fact that persons can cue, reinforce, and prompt each other's behavior has enormous significance for interpersonal behavior modification and for an understanding of interpersonal relations." 85 Carson summarizes this concept: In short, behavior . . . has been discovered to require a very intricately structured and organized series of under- lying events, in which information-processing and feedback mechanisms play a critical role. Feedback Principle A main principle of Sullivan's theory is termed the "feed- back principle." People tend to give information in order to get information. Sullivan was concerned with the mode of transmitting information more than with inherent or intrapsychic conflicts. He postulates that "each individual has a variety of personal respon- ses to others which are directly related to his developmental encounters with significant people. (Witenberg) Principle of Mutualjty and Reciprocity In interactions people change somewhat as they interact, and the overall direction of change tends toward increased mutuality and reciprocity. (Carson) In relation to this Carson quotes Foa who states that "an interpersonal act is an attempt to establish the emotional rela- tionship of the actor toward himself and toward the other . . . each behavior serves the purpose of giving or denying love and status to the self and to the other." (Foa, by Carson) Carson discusses Leary's theory and summarizes the main principle to be that "the important idea that an interpersonal act represents, in part, a prompt or 'bid' to elicit response behaviors falling within a certain range of the interpersonal circle. Implicit in this idea is the notion that behavior complementary to the behavior proffered is in some way 'rewarding,‘ and that non- complementary behavior is nonrewarding or perhaps even unpleasant-- something to be actively avoided." (Leary, by Carson) In summary, a person tries to form his interactive behavior in such a way to elicit a certain kind of complementary behavior from others. If a noncomplementary response occurs it is experi- enced as unpleasant, non-rewarding, gives rise to anxiety and a sense of incongruency. (Carson) Persons enter interpersonal situations with their basic needs and they determine the nature and duration of social inter- personal situations accordingly. The goal of a person in an 86 interpersonal situation is the achievement or satisfaction of conditions in which security is maintained or enhanced. (Sullivan, by Carson) Berne's theory seems to echo this principle of mutuality and reciprocity. He says that the goal of each person in an inter- action is to obtain as many satisfactions as possible, such as the relief of tension, avoidance of noxious situations, procurement of stroking, and the maintenance of an established equilibrium. (Berne) ' Leary also deals with the reciprocal nature of interaction; we have discussed his concepts of interpersonal reflexes, the reflex way in which human beings tailor their responses to others, and the automatic way in which they force others to react to them. Leary states his Principle of Reciprocal Interpersonal Relations: Interpersonal reflexes tend (with a probability signif- icantly greater than chance) to imitate or invite recip- rocal interpersonal responses from the "other" person in the interaction that lead to repetition of the original reflex. He stresses that reciprocal relations are probable, not inevitable. Like any other principle of human emotions it operates in probabilistic terms. People experience inconsistency and changeability in their emotions and no interpersonal role is absolutely pure or rigid. Everyone acts inappropriately many times each day, and lines of interpersonal communication break down momentarily. (Leary) However, very rigidly formed relationships can be upset by shifts in the pattern of reciprocal relations. Some are very inflexible and demand perfect reciprocity. (Leary) Theorem of Interpersonal Reciprocal Emotion "Sullivan summarized his thoughts on interpersonal integra- tion in terms of a 'theorem' of reciprocal emotion: 'Integration in an interpersonal situation is a reciprocal process in which (1) complementary needs are resolved or aggravated; (2) reciprocal patterns of activity are developed or disintegrated; (3) foresight of satisfaction or rebuff of similar needs is facilitated.'" (Sullivan, by Carson) 87 Interpersonal Roles ‘Leary defines interpersonal roles: Most everyone manifests certain automatic role patterns which he automatically assumes in the presence of each significant "other" in his life . . . . When we obtain evidence that he consistently and routinely tends to favor certain mechanisms with one individual signif- icantly more than chance and tends to pull certain responses from the other to a similar degree, then a role relationship exists. In an already defined, existing role relationship (e.g. professor-student, doctor-patient, etc.) a set pattern of reflexes will also occur. Leary states: These subtle, ubiquitous, automatic role relationships have as their function the minimization of anxiety. They set up smooth-flowing reciprocal interactions of ask- teach, attack-defned, etc. On those occasions when the pattern of interpersonal reflexes breaks down or is ambiguous, considerable distress generally results-- manifested in the accustomed symptoms of anxiousness. Interpersonal Strategies/Plans "The most significant instrumental behaviors of persons do not seem to be learned 'responses' but rather learned strate ies for achieving certain hedonically relevant events." (Carson In summary, when encountering an interpersonal situation a person "brings to that situation . . . an enormously complex system of 'knowledge' and cognitive apparatus for processing new information, a variety of potential emotional reactions which might be cued off by particular events, a set of 'values' that represent his immediate and long-range objectives, and a rich store of behavioral plans that constitute his established strategies and tactics for maximizing_his hedonic outcomes.“ (Carson) In referring to these behavioral interpersonal strategies Carson borrows a term from Miller, Galanter, and Pribram and terms them " lens" which are strategical or tactical in nature, not neces- sarily eliberate or conscious, though do have elements of deliberateness. 88 Principle of Self-Determinism In explaining his principle of self-determinism Leary states: I have tried to stress the surprising ease and facility with which human beings can get others to respond in a uniform and repetitive way. Interpersonal reflexes operate with involuntary routine and amazing power and speed. Many subjects with maladaptive interpersonal patterns can provoke the expected response from a complete stranger in a matter of minutes . . . . In many cases the "sicker" the patient, the more likely he is to have aban- doned all interpersonal techniques except one--which he can handle with magnificent finesse. The principle involved here holds that interpersonal events just do not happen to human beings by accident or external design. The active and executive role is given to the subject. What human beings consciously wish is often quite at variance with the results that their reflex patterns automatically create for them. For these people the sad paradox remains that voluntary intentions, verbal resolutions, and even intellectual insight are operationally feeble . . . compared to the ongoing 24- hour—a-day activity of the involuntary interpersonal reactions. 89 DEFENSES, SECURITY OPERATIONS List of Terms Used by Theorists Three Primary Characterological Defenses - Horney - self-effacement - expansiveness - resignation Auxiliary Solutions - Horney - externalization - compartmentalization - alienation from self - automatic control - intellectualization Idealized Self - Horney Incongruence - Rogers Self-Identification - Hinzie and Campbell Security Operations - Sullivan - selective inattention - sublimation - obsessionalism - dissociation Security Operations - Leary Interpersonal Reflexes - Leary Horney Horney describes three primary Characterological defenses, or things which the child or adult does to Ellay anxiety and resolve conflict between neurotic trends. These are self- effacement, expansiveness, and’resignation. Self-effacement. Behavior of the type of neurotic character which idealizes compliance, dependence, and love as a result of identification with the despised self. A person also employs auxiliary solutions of externaliza- tion, compartmentalization, alienation from self, automatic control, and intellectualization. Idealized self. A means of avoiding psychic conflict by rising above it. This consists of neurotic claims and demands, pride system, central inner conflict, alienation from self. There are unfortunate consequences which come from the development of an unrealistic conception of the self and from attempts to live up to this idealized picture. 9O Rogers Incongruence. Experience of incongruence relates to defensive behavior. In congruence between self and organism makes a person feel threatened and anxious, behaves defensively, thinking becomes contricted and rigid. Also, if discrepancy between self and ideal self is large the person is dissatisfied and maladjusted. Hinzie and Campbell Self-identification. May be a mechanism of defense. This is a process in which the subject projects his own personality upon another and then proceeds to admire himself as he appears in the other person. Sullivan Security operations. Sullivan defined four primary defense mechanisms or interpersonal security operations: sublimation, obsessionalism, selective inattention, and dissociation. Security operations are employed to protect one's self- esteem, or "maintain a feeling of safety inthe esteem reflected to one from the other person concerned." Selective inattention. A means of dealing with experiences of reflected appraisal containing information about the self which is inconsistent with its current contents, which tend to arouse anxiety. Several operations persons use in order to maintain selec- tive inattention: - The first is assuming roles which he knows are false, assuming behaviors which he knows are behaving as if he were someone else. - The second Sullivan describes as using "parataxic me-you patterns which are incongruous with the actual inter- personal situationfflv - The third is to deliberately talk about something else, change the subject or conversation. - The last is an enduring transformation of one's personality. 91 In discussing selective inattention more Sullivan states: By selective inattention we fail to recognize the actual import of a good many things we see, hear, think, do, and say, not because there is anything the matter with our zones of interaction with others but because the process of inferential analysis is opposed by the self-system. Clear recognition of the implications of matters to which we are selectively inattentive would call for basic change in an established pattern of dealing with the sort of interpersonal situation concerned, would make us either more, or in some cases less, competent, but in any case DIFFERENT from the way we now conceive ourself to be. Dissociation. Way an individual deals with the rest of the aspects of his personality not represented in the self-system. " "'Systems in dissociation' are those aspects of the personality, chiefly needs, that are more or less forcibly denied access to awareness, although they continue to be operative, to grow, and to develop." They are often expressed in unwitting behavior or in sleep (disguised, parataxic form). Lem In discussing the motivation of anxiety in interpersonal behavior and the use of security operations Leary states: Primal anxiety is the fear of abandonment. As the child begins to develop, this becomes a fear of rejection and social disapproval. Mankind's social interdependence means that extreme derogation on the part of crucial others can lead to destruction. The behaviors by which the child avoids derogation are called security opera- tions. They assure him of the approval and social security which reduce his anxiety. A large percentage of any population . . . develops security operations which entail overt self-effacementL self-derogation, and the provocation pf actual contempt and disapproval from others . . . . They are inevit- ably related to private feelings of uniqueness or secret consolations. They serve to protect inner feelings of pride and self-enhancement. 92 Personality is the multilevel pattern of interpersonal responses (overt, conscious, or private) expressed by the individual. Interpersonal behavior is aimed at reducing anxiety. All the social, emotional, inter- personal activities of an individual can be understood as attempts to avoid anxiety or to establish and main- tain self-esteem. To understand a person is to have knowledge of the inter- personal techniques that he employs to avoid or minimize anxiety and of the consistent pattern of relationships that he integrates as a result of these techniques. In the selection and use of security operations there can be two maladjustive extremes of personality: rigidity - which brings a narrow adjustment to one aspect of the environment; and unstable oscillation - which is an intense attempt to adjust to all aspects of the environment. Between these two extremes, most individuals tend to select a limited set of preferred reflexes which operate spontaneously, but not with inflexible repetition. When a person narrows his interpersonal reflexes to one set of responses he can be categorized as a certain personality type according to the predominating security operations. Learly details eight types: distrustful (rebellion); masochistic (self-effacement); dependent (docility); overconventional (cooperation); hypernormal (responsibility); autocratic (power); narcissistic (competition); and sadistic (aggression). These are detailed further in the summary of these chapters in Part II. Leary discusses at length the preconscious or symbolic level of interpersonal behavior. Some aspects of his discussion seem to correspond to Sullivan's description of the security operation of selective inattention. The relation of symbolic activity and the handling of anxiety described by Leary is summarized under the concept of "Anxiety." Leary further discusses the relation of symbolic, indirect or "preconscious" activity to interpersonal or overt behavior: The interpersonal world he has created pushes him toward one set (and often an imbalanced set) of anxiety reducing behaviors. The pressures toward flexibility, both cul- tural and personal, may push him toward another source of self-esteem. The individual's overt behavior does not express the impulse or desire which he feels . . . . Postponement of impulse is thus an inevitable characteristic of human behavior. The individual is continually inhibiting some 93 actions in favor of others, generally moving in the direction of the lesser anxiety. This postponement phenomenon is called the time—binding aspect of human behavior . . . The basic discovery of Freud that unexpressed impulses do not disappear but remain as active, although indi- rect, elements of personality can be considered as a temporal rather than a structural phenomenon. The unexpressed motives relate to the past and the future. Whenever we obtain a symbolic, "preconscious" theme from a subject, it suggests that this theme is a poten- tial for future action. The time-binding theory of the "preconscious" places the symbol produced in the present on a temporal dimension pointing (we assume) to earlier frustration and, functionally more important, to a later expression of the theme. Symbols may represent opposite activities or emotions from overt behavior, or may emphasize and repeat things already occuring in overt behavior: Some persons do tend to employ symbols which are the opposite of their conscious and public imbalances, but others tend to report monotonously in their symbols the same themes which characterize their behavior at other levels . . . . This variability, the tendency to use symbols which are the same or different from conscious- ness, is a measurable, stable, psychological variable. 94 ANXIETY Aspects Discussed by Theorists Sources of Anxiety as Interpersonal Phenomenon Negative Effect of Anxiety Motivation for Interpersonal Behavior Means of Handling/Avoiding Anxiety - interpersonal behaviors or reflexes - use of symbols and preconscious - value systems, ideals - general reeducating to handle/lessen anxiety Sources of Anxiety as Interpersonal Phenomenon Anxiety is a focal issue of personality and interpersonal theory)according to Sullivan. (Sullivan - by Freedman, Kaplan, Sadock ". . . anxiety is seen as an interpersonal phenomenon and . . as the response to feelings of disapproval from a signif- icant adult . . ." (Sullivan - by Freedman, et a1.) Anxiety is related to interpersonal experiences that have irrationally lowered the person's self-esteem andfis acquired’from anxious people who have direct contact with the growing child. (Sullivan - Witenberg) "Anxiety is interpersonal because it is rooted in the dreaded expectation of derogation and rejection by others . . . (Sullivan - Leary) Negative Effect of Anxiety Witenberg summarizes Sullivan's position on anxiety as: Disruptive and destructive in every respect, anxiety interferes with meaningful communication, precludes intimacy, hinders creative thought processes, and leads to profound human malintegrations. Sullivan's postula- tion leaves no room for existential, humanistic, or potentially constructive aspects of anxiety. To him, anxiety in all its manifestations is harmful and anti- thetical to human progress . . ." (Sullivan - Witenberg) 95 "It is anxiety which is responsible for a great part of the inadequate, inefficient, unduly rigid, or otherwise unfortunate performances of people. " (Sullivan) Motivation for Interpersonal Behavior Sullivan believes that the role of anxiety in interpersonal relationships is profoundly important. "The motive force of personality, for Sullivan . . . is the avoidance of anxiety. . . . For Horney it (anxiety) involves the feelings of helplessness and danger, for Fromm, isolation and weak- ness; for Sullivan, loss of self-esteem . . ." (Leary) The human being is rarely or never free from some inter- personal tension; what he does or thinks is generally related to the estimation of others. For this reason the motivatinggprinciple of behavior is more accurately seen as anxiety reduction--the avoidance of the reater anxiety and the selection of the lesser anxiety." (Leary) Means of Handling/AvoidingrAnxiety Interpersonal Behaviors or Reflexes Sullivan views personality development as a process of learning to handle anxiety by the use of adaptive maneuvers and defense techniques designed to gain a proval from significant people. (Sullivan - Freedman, et a1. 1 When anxiety is widespread, the individual attempts to limit the opportunities for the further development of anxiety by restricting his functioning to familiar, well-established patterns of activity." (Sullivan - Freedman, et a1.) "Survival anxiety presses the individual to repeat and narrow down his adjustive responses. He thus comes to a stable but restricted reciprocal relationship with his interpersonal world . . . Rigid repetition of interpersonal responses minimizes con- flict and provides the security of continuity and sameness . . . But the environment at large is not the same--and adjustment to it demands a flexible generality of interpersonal responses . . . this is the critical survival dilema--the basic conflict, if you please, of human nature. " (Leary) 96 Use of Symbols and Preconscious (One function of symbolic preconscious expressions is to reduce anxiety. People develop indirect behaviors to avoid anxiety that direct, public expression would entail. (Leary) "By means of the language of symbolism it is possible to express interpersonal themes that are inhibited from direct expres- sion . . . it is also possible to repeat and thus strengthen the same themes that are manifested in direct expression and to avoid further the themes that are inhibited from direct expression. Ina purpose of symbolic behavior is to reduce anxiety. For some individuals this is accomplished by employing fantasy as a safety valve, an opportunity to 'blow off' the interpersonal steam that has built up through inhibitions and repressions. For others, even indirect, imaginative expression of the inhibited themes is anxiety-laden. Symbolic behavior in these cases becomes a way of strengthening the avoidance maneuvers." (Leary) Value Systems, Ideals The basic function of the individual's interpersonal behavior is to ward off survival anxiety. Any personality pattern can be viewed as an attempt to come to terms with the social environment. In this light the development and maintenance of value systems can be seen as providing several bulwarks against anxiety. By taking on standards and ideals the individual wins approval and attempts to ward off disapproval. Heightened self- esteem and avoidance of shame and inferiority can be achieved by the acceptance and expression of value systems. It appears that all human beings maintain this one unique area of their personality phich geflects their conception of what they should or could be." Leary General Reeducating to Handle/ Lessen Anxiety ". . . the goal is to educate the patient about the great variety of disguises and irrational attitudes that indicate the unnoticed presence of anxiety, and to loosen the rigidity of the self-system, which has the function of avoiding anxiety. People can learn to function in the presence of moderate anxiety without immediately taking refuge in self-defeating security operations." (Witenberg - Sullivan) 97 TRANSACTIONS, PROCEDURES, RITUALS, GAMES These concepts of Berne's start with the same principles mentioned by Carson above, but Berne develops them further, going into more detail. Berne analyzes interpersonal interactions in terms of transactions. A transaction basically consists of a stimulus (usually some acknowledgment of the presence of the other) which elicits a response, which in turn becomes a stimulus. Berne describes transactions in terms of the ego states involved of the persons interacting. The simplest transactions are those in which both the stimulus and response arise from the adults of the parties involved. Next in simplicity are child-parent transactions. These transactions are complementary, meaning that the response is appropriate, expected, and follows the natural order of healthy human relationships. Complementary transactions include adult-adult, parent-parent, child-child, parent-child. Crossed transactions are those in which a response occurs which is not complementary or appropriate to the stimulus, usually causing a break in communication (e.g. an adult stimulus elicits a child or parent response). Simple complementary transactions most commonly occur in superficial working and social relationships and in activities, rituals, and pastimes. Procedure. A series of simple complementary adult trans- actions directed toward the manipulation of reality. In social situations the child is usually shielded by the adult or parent ego states. Child programming is most apt to occur in situations 3f privacy and intimacy, where preliminary testing has already been one. Ritual. A stereotyped series of simple complementary transactions programmed by external social forces (e.g. social leave-taking, greeting rituals). Individuals who are not comfort- able or adept with rituals sometimes evade them by substituting procedures (e.g. people who seek to help the hostess instead of engaging in rituals at parties). Pastimes. Vary in nature and complexity. The beginning and end of pastimes are signaled with procedures or rituals. The trans- actions during pastimes are adaptively programmed so that each person obtains the maximum gains or advantages during the interval. 98 Besides serving to structure time and provide mutually acceptably stroking for both people, pastimes have the additional function of being social-selection processes. During the pastime the child in each person is watchfully assessing the potentialities of the others involved, leading to the selection of acquaintances which may lead to friendship. Another important advantage obtained from pastimes is the confirmation of role and stabilizing of position of the persons involved. A position is a "simple predictive statement which influences all of the individual's transactions." Game. An "ongoing series of complementary ulterior trans- actions progressing to a well-defined, predictable outcome. Games are distinguished from precedures, rituals and pastimes by two main characteristics: their ulterior quality and the pay-off which occurs." Operation. "A simple transaction or set of transactions undertaken for a specific, stated purpose. If someone frankly asks for reassurance and gets it, that is an operation." However, if someone asks for reassurance, and after it is given turns it in some way to the disadvantage for the giver, that is a game. Superficially, a game looks like a set of operations, but after the pay-off it becomes apparent that these "operations" were really maneuvers, not honest requests but moves in the game. According to Berne games serve several functions and purposes: Because there is so little opportunity for intimacy in daily life, and because some forms of intimacy (especially if intense) are psychologically impossible for most people, the bulk of the time in serious social life is taken up with playing games . . . . Beyond their social function in structuring time satisfactorily, some games are urgently necessary for the maintenance of health in certain individuals. Berne also discusses how games are passed on from parents to children, generation to generation. 99 PART II: THEORISTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page MAJOR THEORISTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lOO Adler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lOO Erikson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lOl Horney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Rogers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 HINZIE AND CAMPBELL - GENERAL DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . 106 HALL AND LINDSEY - SUMMARY OF OTHER THEORIES ON SELF AND EGO . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 ARTICLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Bugental and Zelen . . . . . . . . . . . . . llO McGuire and Singer . . . . . . . . . . . . . lll Alker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 CARSON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 SULLIVAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 BLANCK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 HARTMAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 JACOBSON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 ARIETI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 WYLIE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 BERNE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 ADDEO AND BURGER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 LEARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 100 MAJOR THEORISTS Adler Freedman, Kaplan and Sadock, pp. 123, 126 Man's psychological functioning, according to Adler, is the combined product of organic factors and goal-directed psychological drives. The individual and his behavior are the result of inter- woven dynamics, somatic, psychological and social processes. A person needs to have a sense of unity and continuity, self-esteem, self-acceptance. Adler states that the dynamic force behind all human activity is the striving toward superiority, perfection and totality. Self-concept. is formed during early childhood. A child selects from his experiences, interactions within the family, and observations of their social relationships with others, events that fit into a coherent pattern. Those that do not fit are rejected as they contradict his self-concept. Self-concept can be described as "a mosaic formed during the first 5 years of life.” Adler states that social feeling heightens man's self- esteem. A neurotic disposition stems from childhood experiences of overprotection, neglect, or a mixture of both, also from a percep- tion of a social environment which is hostile, punishing, depriving or demanding and frustrating. Hall and Lindzey, pp. 119-127 Adler theorizes that man is motivated primarily by social urges and is inherently a social being, "relates himself to other people, engages in cooperative social activities, places social welfare above selfish interest." Adler's concept of the creative self - this is an important cause of behavior, is "a highly personalized, subjective system which interprets and makes meaningful the experiences of the organism." Adler makes consciousness the center of personality, man is a "self-conscious individual who is capable of planning and guiding his own actions with full awareness of the meaning for his own self-realization." 101 Adler's theory of "striving for superiority" - this is the goal men strive for, what gives consistency and unity to personality. This is not social distinction, leadership or position in society but rather a "great upward drive, a striving for completion" (similar to self-actualization concept of Goldstein). Related to this is Adler's emphasis on feelings of inferiority or sense of incompleteness which he says is a great driving force for mankind. Finally, he places an emphasis on inborn social interest, a way in which man's striving for superiority becomes socialized. Erikson Freedman, Kaplan, Sadock, pp. 119-122. Erikson's concept of the ego - a tool by which a person organizes outside information, tests perception, selects memories, governs action, integrates capacities of orientation and planning. Erikson emphasizes that the ego continues to acquire new characteristics as it meets new situations throughout life. A positive ego produces a sense of self in a state of well- being. Well-being means how one feels when one is and does what is close to what one wishes and feels he ought to do and be. ”Wishing" and "oughtness" form polarities in a person's life. Hall and Lindsey, pp. 64-65, 522-523 Erikson emphasized the relationships of the ego to society, shows how the ego's development is connected to the nature of social organization (see Childhood and Society, 1963). Erikson's concepts of ego identity and group identity - "ego identity is an awareness of the fact that there is continuity in the ego's synthesizing methods, and the feeling that these methods are effective in safeguarding the stability and continuity of one's meaning for other people. Group identity is the group's basic way of organizing experience for the members of the group." Later he stated that identity has a self aspect as well as an ego aspect. He gave the designation "ago" for the subject and "self" to the object. "The ego, then, as a central organizing agency, is during the course of life faced with a changing self which, in turn, demands to be synthesized with abandoned and anticipated selves . . . . What could consequently be called the 102 self-identity emerges from all those experiences in which a sense of temporary self-diffusion was successfully contained by a renewed and ever more realistic self-definition and social recognition." Arieti. Pp. 77-78, 236 Erikson developed the concept of "basic trust" which needs to be established in childhood and depends largely on the uncondi- tional love and acceptance of the mother along with basic needs being consistently met. Horney Freedman, Kaplan and Sadock, pp. 126-129 The individual is seen by Horney holistically, influencing and influenced by their environment; personality is composed of several elements. Horney has a triple concept of self: actual self, real self, idealized self. Among other things parents largely determine a child's self-concapt. Horney describes three primary characterological defenses, or things which the child or adult does to allay anxiety and resolve conflict between neurotic trends. These are self- effacement, erpansiveness and resignation. A person also employs auxiliary solutions 0? externalization, compartmentalization, alienation from self, automatic control, and intellectualization. Horney describes an actualization of the idealized self which is a means of avoiding psychic conflict by rising above it. This consists of neurotic claims and demands, pride system, central inner conflict, alienation from self. Hinzie and Campbell, pp. 690-691 Actual self. Horney's term for the whole person, somatic, psychic, conscious, unconscious, as he exists at any point in time. Real self. The person's potential for further development and growth. 103 Idealized self. The person the neurotic person believes himself to be, resulting from identification with an idealized image of what he feels he should be. Self-effacement. Horney's term for behavior of the type of neurotic character which idealizes compliance, dependence, and love as a result of identification with the despised self. Self-extinction. Her term for the form of neurotic behavior in which the person lives vicariously through the actions of others and has no personality that he experiences or identifies as his own. Arieti. pp. 155-156, 231-233 Horney developed the concept of self-realization which is fulfillment of one's basic, particular human potentialities. Arieti is critical of this concept: "According to Horney, if we were not hindered by neuroses or other adversities, we would be able to live according to our 'potentialities,‘ just as an acorn would become an oak." Arieti's objection to Horney's theory of self-realization is that 1'the course of man's psychological development is unpre- dictable and not necessarily inherent in a 'potentiality.'" Even with knowledge of a person's inherent mechanisms and environmental circumstances no one can predict the outcome of the human psyche. Arieti agrees with Horney's observation that the idealized self-image is a substitute for self-confidence which is lacking. To Horney, a feeling of inferiority is both cause and effect of the idealized image, not a sort of feedback mechanism. Hall and Lindsey, pp. 134-137 Horney presents a list of 10 needs which are acquired as a consequence of trying to find solutions to the problem of disturbed human relationships. These are grouped in 3 orientations: 1. moving toward people (e. . need for love) 2. moving away from people Ie.g. need for independence) 3. moving against people (e.g. need for power) Everyone has these conflicts but some people, primarily because of early experiences of parental treatment possess them in a more aggravated form (e.g. of parental treatment--rejection, neglect, overprotection, etc.). A normal person can resolve these conflicts (integrating these 3 orientations), but a neurotic person uses other solutions. He may recognize only one and repress or deny the other 2 or he may create an idealized image of himself in which the contradictory 104 trends disappear. Horney says there are unfortunate consequences which come from the development of an unrealistic conception of the self and from attempts to live up to this idealized picture. James Hall and Lindsay, pp. 515-516 James discusses the self under three headings: 1. Its constituents - which are the material self, social self; spiritual self and the pure ego. Material self is his material possessions, social self is how he is regarded by his fellows, the spiritual self is his psychological faculties and dispositions and the ego is the stream of thought which constitutes one's personal identity. 2. Self-feelings. 3. The actions of self-seeking and self-preservation. Rogers Hall and Lindsey, pp. 523-547 The end-point of personality development is "a basic congruence between the phenomenal field of experience and the conceptural structure of self." The organism. Is the locus of all experience, the phenomenal field which becomes differentiated; it is the "I" or "me" in relation to others and various aspects of life. "It is gestalt which is available to awareness though not necessary in awareness." It is fluid, changing, a process. In addition to the self, Rogers conceptualizes an ideal self which is what the person would like to be. What Rogers sees as primarily important is congruence between the self as perceived and the actual experience of the organism. Congruence between self and organism makes the person adjusted, mature and fully functioning. Incongruence between self and organism makes the person feel threatened and anxious, behave defensively, and thinking becomes constricted and rigid. Also, if discrepancy between self and ideal self is large the person is dissatisfied and maladjusted. 105 According to Rogers, “the organism has one basic tendency: to actualize, maintain, and enhance the experiencing organism. Behavior is basically the goal-directed attempt of the organism to satisfy its needs as experienced in the field as perceived." Rogers singles out 2 needs: positive regard and self regard. Development of Self-Concept Through Childhood Through childhood the self-concept becomes more and more distorted due to evaluations by others; self-concept becomes out of line with organismic experience. To protect the self-concept threatening experiences are denied symbolization or given a dis- torted symbolization. People will often maintain and enhance a self-picture which is completely at variance with reality. This breach between self and organism results in defensive- ness and distortion and also affects a person's relations with other people. The self-concept can be reorganized through acceptance and assimilation of experiences which have been denied symbolization. A result of this is that the person becomes more understanding and accepting of other people. Wylie, p. 7 Rogers implies that ONLY when a feeling or item of informa- tion about the self or environment comes at least dimly into aware- ness will it influence behavior. The self-concept or self-structure may be thought of as an organized configuration of perceptions of the self which are admissible to awareness. It is composed of such elements as the perceptions of one's characteristics and abilities; the percepts and concepts of the self in relation to others and to the environment, the value qualities which are perceived as associated with experi- ences and objects; and goals and ideals which are per- ceived as having positive or negative valence (Rogers, 1951a, p. 136). Rogers quotes Raimy as saying that the self-concept, or this configuration of perceptions "serves to regulate behavior and may serve to account for uniformities in personality. 106 HINZIE AND CAMPBELL - GENERAL DEFINITIONS Self. The psychophysical total of the person at any given moment, including both conscious and unconscious attributes. Self-esteem. A state in which narcissistic supplies emana- ting from the superego are maintained so that the person does not fear punishment or abandonment by the superego. In other words, self-esteem is a state of being on good terms with one's superego. Self-identification. A process in which the subject projects his own personality upon another and then proceeds to admire himself as he appears in the other person. Self-maximation. The drive (involving a part of the ego) associated with the numerous competitive situations a person encounters in the course of living, such as competitions for affec- tion, attention, and status, at home, at school, in groups of peers, and elsewhere. This drive is to maintain feelings of personal adequacy. Other terms are included under the theorists who established them: Actual self, real self, idealized selfg_self-effacement, self-extinction under Horney. Self-dynamism, self-system under Sullivan. True self under Fromm. 107 HALL AND LINDSEY - SUMMARY OF OTHER THEORIES ON SELF AND EGO Definitions The term self in modern psychology has two meanings: 1. Self object. The person's attitudes, feelings, perceptions about himself (i.e. what a person thinks about himself). 2. Self-as-a-process. A group of psychological processes such as thinking, remembering, perceiving, which govern behavior and adjustment. Representative Views of the Self and the Ego Symond Symond wrote The Self and the Ego. Egg, Group of processes such as perceiving, thinking, remembering "for developing, and executing a plan of action for attaining satisfaction in response to inner drives." Self. The ways an individual reacts to himself, how he perceives, thinks about, values, enhances or defends himself. A person may not be aware of these perceptions, concepts, evaluations or defending or enhancing processes. Consciously a person may have one conception of himself and unconsciously another. There is interaction between the ego and the self; effec- tiveness of the ego is related to self-esteem or self-confidence. Snygg and Combs Concept of the phenomenal self: "includes all those parts of the phenomenal field which the individual experiences as part of or characteristic of himself." Their concept of the self is as object and process at the same time; the self is composed of perceptions concerning the individual which has effects upon the behavior of the individual. 108 Lundholm Makes distinction between the subjective self ("what I think of myself") and objective self ("what others think of me"). The subjective self-picture varies according to factors such as cooperation or conflicts with others, accomplishing tasks, etc. Sherif and Cantril Their term egp_refers to the "self-as-object," not the working ego of the psychoanalytical theory. The ego is a constel- lation of attitudes such as “what I think of myself, what I value, what is mine, what I identify with." The attitudes of the ego motivate behavior. Sarbin The self is a cognitive structure consisting of one's ideas about various aspects of his being. One has a somatic self (body conceptions), receptor-effector self (conceptions of sense organs and musculature) and social self (conceptions of his social behavior. The somatic self-concept emerges first, the social much later. Bertocci Labels ego-as-process the self and self-as-object the ego, a reversal of customary meanings of the terms. Hilgard The self is one's image of himself. He says the nature of self-image or self-concept cannot be determined by conscious introspective material (e.g. asking a person what he thinks of himself) but derived from projective techniques, clinical inter- views, etc. The picture derived this way is called the inferred self. "T‘T‘T" A person sees himself as the active executor of his own behavior. However, behavior is the product of a complex of psychological processes of which the person is largely unaware. lO9 Stephenson Developed "Q-methodology" - rationale and tools for studying quantitatively a person's self-reflections. Chein The self is the content of awareness; the egg_is the cognitive structure built around the self. The ego's motivies serve to defend, extend, enhance, preserve the self. There is also a non-ego part of personality which determines action. Head The self is an object of awareness, not a system of pro- cesses. The self is formed from the reactions of other people to a person as an object. Since he first does not regard himself as an object, as a consequence of these reactions he learns to think of himself as an object and have attitudes and feelings about himself. Many "selves" develop which represent different responses of groups of people toward a person (e.g. a family self, school self, etc.). Koffka Distinguishes an egg, which is both an object and a process, an executive, or a process which controls behavior, and the self, which is the core or nucleus of the ego. Buhler Buhler has a developmental theory of self and ego similar to Erikson's, except he places less emphasis on stages and crises and more emphasis on healthy, continuous growth. Distinguishes between phenomenal self (self-perceptions, self-concepts) and core self (similar to Freud's ego) which con- sists of processes of need satisfaction, self-limiting adaptation, creative expansion, and maintenance of internal order. 110 ARTICLES Bugental and Zelen These authors summarize the self-concept theory of person- ality organization as the following: This view holds that the behavior of the individual is primarily determined by and pertinent to his phenomenal field and, in particular, that aspect of the field which is the individual's concept of himself. The main effort of Bugental and Zelen was to develop a means of eliciting a person's expression of his self-concept, "the counselee's manner of viewing himself." They developed one which they describe as "affording the most revealing information and yet requiring a minimum of complication in administration . . . and allows the client to structure his responses along most expressive of his own needs and most meaningfully related to his current situation." It is the “W-A-Y" question or "Who Are You?" In administering this question to various groups of people they found the following: - "Name" is a central aspect of the self-concept with a "personal pronoun" response also showing high frequency (but varying according to age and sex). - "Nonindividualizing," "socio-scientific," and "meta- physical" responses were not made as frequently as some of the other categories. - "Sex" category was more frequently a response with younger subjects than older. - "Age" response appeared most frequently in the group "which was at the apparent peak of physical and social abilities and less frequently in older and younger groups." - "Occupation" appeared very frequently and "family status" increased with age, according to the authors, "another indication of how the self-concept may change with social maturity, i.e., greater value may be ascribed to familial relations, or marriage, etc., may change the life situation." 111 - Certain group trends emerged--older men tended to give occupation, nonindividualized reference, or favorably affectively toned self references, while more mature women tended to substitute family status for the occupa— tion response of men. McGuire and Singer Importance of self-concept: "What we think about ourselves is probably the central concept in our conscious lives." "Trait salience in the spontaneous self-concept" is a summary of research conducted to show that "a given trait would be spontaneously salient in a person's self-concept to the extent that this trait was distinctive for the person within her or his social groups . . . and it was found that in a majority of cases the dimen- sion was significantly more salient in the spontaneous self- concepts of those students whose characteristic on the dimension was more distinctive." McGuire and Singer state that past researchers have been preoccupied with self-concept as a measure of "self-esteem" or primarily a "self-evaluation." In contrast: The study we report here suggests that when people are allowed more freedom in describing themselves, fewer than 10% of their thoughts deal with self-evaluation. The authors state that: Our guiding theoretical notion is that the person in a complex stimulus field focuses on points of maximum information, so that one selectively notices the aspects of the object that are most peculiar. Hence, when an internal need or external demand requires that we consider our identity (i.e., who we are, what kind of person we are), any of a vast variety of personal characteristics could occur to us. The distinctiveness theory of selective perception, when applied’to this spontaneous self-concept, predicts that we notice any aspect (or dimension) of ourselves to the extent that our characteristic on that dimension is peculiar in our social milieu. McGuire and Singer predict that the distinctiveness prin- ciple would overshadow other determinants of trait salience. They cite 6 other determinants of what is spontaneously salient in a 112 self-concept, which are: situational demand, stimulus intensity, availability (in the sense of recency, familiarity, and expecta- tion), individual momentary need, one's eduring values, and past reinforcement. Alker Alker titles his article, "Is Personality Situationally Specific or Intrapsychically Consistent," and it is mainly an answer to Mischel's research and theory that people do not have trans-situational consistencies in their behavior (or personality variables that determine behavior) but rather behavior is deter- mined by and varies according to the situation. Alker argues against Mischel's assertion and holds up the view that personality is intrapsychically consistent, not Situationally specific. Alker disagrees with the way Mischel interprets some of the research saying: Interpersonal perspectives on personality can discover useful invariances across situations with the same data others might use only to document situational specificity. He states that the different responses which Mischel asserts are different personality traits occurring from situation to situation can manifest the same basic trait. He states: The personality psychologist concerned with the "intra- psychic consistency" of personality thinks differently. He develops concepts that involve aggregations of numerous person X situation interactions. When forced to argue only about specific responses, his point is that interactions are prevalent . . . . Personality characteristics may be revealed in a variety of situa- tions by different behaviors exemplifying the same trait. Alker summarizes his refutation of Mischel's theory in this way: The facts of situational specificity used to support Mischel's argument supported only the claim that the same person or the same kind of person makes different respon- ses in different situations. This generalization (a) ignores the interaction of persons and situations, (b) underestimates personality consistency across situations by ignoring alternative measurement procedures, (c) begs questions concerning what constitutes the same response 113 in studies of convergent validity, and (d) biases a comparison between social learning and dynamic purposive approaches to personality in favor of the former view. 114 CARSON Carson attempts to "analyze, describe and to some extent explain the transactions that occur between persons.“ His analysis focuses on the smallest possible unit of social interaction--the dyad or two-person group. His interpersonal and personality theory are based largely on Sullivan, but he states that his book is an attempt to reformu- late Sullivan's conceptions into a more systematic framework, more formally tied to observable events or empirically tested hypotheses. His discussion of Sullivan is recorded on the pages pertaining to Sullivan. He basically adapts Sullivan's theory, expands on it, and incorporates elements from other theories (mentioned below). Carson's goal is to provide understanding of the regulari- ties and redundancies in the pattern of individual relationships with other persons. Carson rejects rigid behaviorism or exclusive concern with overt, observable events, yet states a need for study of observable behavior of persons in order to make inferences about their subjec- tive or internal experiences. Carson states that the underlying principle for his own theory was best formUlated by Lewin: A person's behavior in any situation is jointly determined by the characteristics of that situation, as he perceives them, and by the particular behavioral dispositions of which he is possessed at that time (p. 9). Carson emphasizes that behavior, in so far as it is determined by the environment, is a product of what we perceive the environment to be, not of what it is. This perceptual process is an extremely intricate mechanism which is subject to many sources (including the individual's values, needs, techniques for coping with stress). He refers to Erikson and Secord and Blackman in reference to this. Carson deals with the problem of "circularity," i.e. because the person and their environment each react to the other, as in social interaction, it is difficult to determine "causes and effects." Carson states that even though we do not understand the effect of "will" or volition or cognition fully, it does affect and account for a variety of behavioral phenomena and needs to be considered. 115 Carson describes how communication or language occurs on different levels and that this is involved in interpersonal inter- action.' The basic level is object or conversational language or use of words. Another level is "protolanguage" (a term of Szasz) which includes "all sorts of gestural, postural, and vocal para- linguistic cues, which, although lacking a precise consensual mean- ing, can function as signs and convey information in message form. Watzlawick's terms for these two levels of language are "digital" for conversational and "analogic" for protolanguage. Carson devotes a chapter to the discussion of how inter- personal behavior is learned. He states the two forms of human learning are involved--action learning and cognitive 1earning--and then explains the different processes within each which are involved. In action learning cued, instrumental and prompted behavior occur. In describing the relation of each of these three _forms of learning to interpersonal behavior he states: Very generally, then, the kind of learning mechanism involved in cued behavior must be seen as playing a most important r016 in interpersonal relations, where the cues supplied by one person may have substantial effects upon the emotional experience of the other. Moreover, this cueing process can occur "automatically" and outside of awareness (p. 64). The importance of instrumental learning in the acquisition or modification of characteristic interpersonal behavior can be fairly summarized in the following way. We must acknowledge the power of the empirical law of effect in determining behavior. With few (and possibly no) excep- tions, behavior tends in the direction of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain or displeasure, although we should expect to find, of course, many individual varia- tions as to what constituted pleasure and pain. Sullivan emphasized the empirical law of effect in his learning by anxiety, learning by trial and success, and learning by rewards and punishments. The hedonic element, then, is critical in instrumental behavior . . . . The most significant instrumental behaviors of persons do not seem to be learned "responses," but rather learned strategies for achieving certain hedonically relevant events (p. 68). Prompted behavior: Undoubtedly, in everyday life we all use many subtle signs and signals, often without aware- ness, which have the character of prompts to others, such that their behavior toward us is modified in personally pleasing directions (p. 69). .116 Summary of the effect of action learning on interpersonal behavior: The three kinds of action learning . . jointly provide a useful means of accounting for much of what can be observed in the area of interpersonal behavior . . . . The fact that persons can cue, rein- force, and prompt each other's behavior has enormous significance for interpersonal behavior modification and for an understanding of interpersonal relations (p. 70). In discussing cognitive learning Carson emphasizes the role of information and cognitive process in determining behavior. He explains the need people experience to have consistency between their actions and their cognitions, and their need for information and reduction of uncertainty. An individual gains cognitive information about himself, his environment, in order to form his behavior. This occurs in a variety of ways: through descriptive instruction, advice and consultation, social comparison, observa- tional learning. He discusses the whole area of perceptual learn- ing and problems in perception and its relation to interpersonal behavior. Some of his perceptual category terms correspond to some of Sullivan's terms (see pages on Sullivan for more information). In conclusion of his discussion on cognitive learning and interpersonal behavior he states: Human beings are capable of imagining the state of affairs they desire to bring about, working back from there to determine the intermediate states of affairs that will be required for goal attainment, and formu- lating and discarding proposed actions on the basis of their meeting or failing to meet criterial specifica- tions of probable effectiveness (p. 81). In short, behavior . . . has been discovered to require a very intricately structured and organized series of underlying events, in which information-processing and feedback mechanisms play a critical role (p. 83). He adopts a theory of Miller, Galanter and Pribram that behavior is determined by image and plans. Image is everything previously learned, knowledge of the world, values, etc. and changes with new experiences. Plans are strategical or tactical in nature, not necessarily deliberate or conscious, though do have elements of deliberateness. In summary, when encountering an interpersonal situation a person "brings to that situation . . . an enormously complex system of 'knowledge' and cognitive apparatus for processing new informa- tion, a variety of potential emotional reactions which might be cued off by particular events, a set of 'values' that represent his 117 immediate and long-range objectives, and a rich store of behavioral plans that constitute his established strategies and tactics for maximizing his hedonic outcomes" (pp. 87-88). In interactions people change somewhat as they interact, and the overall direction of change tends toward increased mutuality and reciprocity. Carson attempts to order all the varieties of interpersonal behavior which occur. He summarizes the various empirical studies and categorizations of interpersonal behavior. According to Brown status and solidarity are the two major dimensions of human inter- action. Carter's study supports these dimensions. Borgatta, Cottrell, and Mann found that the two major factors were individual assertiveness and sociability. Other studies show that even rela- tionships between mother and child contain these "ubiquitous 'components (Schaefer, Becker, et al.). In a study of child behavior, Becker and Krug found that two central bipolar factors in behavior are assertive vs. submissive and loving vs. distrusting. Carson concludes that "major portions of the domain of interpersonal behavior can profitably and reasonably accurately be conceived as involving variations on two independent, bipolar dimensions: dominance-submission and hate-love. He cites further studies to elaborate and confirm this (pp. 102-106). Carson devotes much time to discussion of the Lear Framework of Interpersonal Behavior. Leary categorizes 1nterpersonal behavior into 8 groupings and in each a complementary behavior is elicited. These basic categories are diagrammed on the following page and described in more detail on pp. 107-111. Carson states that reasonably well-adjusted persons can be expected to display behaviors across the range of all 8 categories depending on the circumstance or situation, although a person's social behavior will favor some segments more than others (giving the person a distinctive coloration or personality). The fact that these behaviors are intended to elicit a com- plementary behavior is central to the Leary framework - "interpersonal behaviors are viewed as being, in part, securityroperations (a Sullivanian term) employed by persons to maintain relative comfort, pecurigy, and freedom from anxiety in their interactions with others" p. . 1 fpg_elaborates on this: "An interpersonal act is an attempt to establish the emotional relationship of the actor toward himself and toward the other . . . each behavior serves the purpose pf 911;"? or denying love and status to the self and to the other" p. +. 118 LOVE 510 :E wi- ‘L: '£< u. zi’ __ cm 00'"! can 7 movoxts ‘ rupees-w Figure 4.1. The Interpersonal Behavior Circle. Adapted from Timothy Leary. Interpersonal Diagnosis of Pcrsnnaiilv —A Functional Theory and Methodology for Personality Evaluamm. Copyright © 1957 The Ronald Press Company, New York. Finally, one important function of rewards and costs in interpersonal interaction is that they affect the fate of their interactions and their relationship. Carson makes use of a chart developed by Thibaut and Kelley which shows the outcome of an interaction in terms of sets of behavipr involved, rewards and costs (the Interaction-Outcomes Matrix . Although persons vary their interpersonal behavior according to the interaction conditions, they also develop a favored inter- personal style or styles of relating. These interpersonal styles generally produce higher rewards and/or lower costs than other inter- personal behavior would. ll9 . . a person's prevailing interpersonal style . . . is, as Leary suggests, an aspect of his security-maintaining equipment. The successful prompting of complementary behavior in the other person may be assumed to have a security-enhancing reward value (for example, by confirm- ing the self-concept) (p. 144). Carson explores the possibility that a person's general interpersonal styles are formed during childhood: If the child's parents consistently and monolithically present a given interactional style in their relations with him, it is conceivable that they may, in the manner indicated, establish in him a tendency to enact behavior that is prevailingly complementary to their own, and to avoid the enactment of behavior that is anticomplementary to their own . . . . Almost uniformly, studies in this area have come up with the same conclusion: hateful behavior in the parent begets hateful behavior in the child, and loving behavior in the parent begets loving behavior in the child (pp. 150- 151). Carson discusses at length the elements of power and dependence in dyadic relationships. He states: Power and its converse, dependence, will be a function of the degree to which one member of the dyad can, by his own actions, produce significant variations in the satisfaction and securit experienced by the other member in the course of the interaction between them . . . The maintenance of power (or dependence) in a relation- ship will therefore be partly determined by the extent to which the personal characteristics (needs, security operations, and so on) of the two members of the dyad happen to mesh (p. 154). Carson states that there are three basic types of power relationships: fate control and behavior control (Thibaut and Kelley) and contact control (Jones and Gerard). He explains the concepts of usable power and counterpower. Basically, "the usability of power is partly determined by the excess of power one person has over the counterpower of the other" (p. 161). Carson also states that "As the mutual power which each member of the dyad holds over the other increases, so also does their interdependence. In summary, then, the main principle beneath the Leary framework of interpersonal behavior is Trthe important idea that an interpersonal act represents, in part, a prompt or "bid" to elicit response behaviors falling within a certain range of the inter- personal circle. Implicit in this idea is the notion that behavior 120 complementary to the behavior proffered is in some way 'rewarding,‘ and that noncomplementary behavior is nonrewarding or perhaps even unpleasant--something to be actively avoided" (p. 115). Carson then goes on to discuss the need for "congruence" which is pursued in interpersonal relating: The general notion that persons have a need to maintain a "balance," or "consonance," or "congruency" among various currently salient aspects of themselves, such as their cognitions, their feelings, and their behaviors, has gained a wide and empirically justified acceptance among psychologists in recent years . . . three elements or "components" which persons are said to strive for consis- tency among: (1) some aspect of the person's self-concept (that is, a cognition that the person has concerning some aspect or attribute of himself); (2) the person's interpretation of those of his actions which relate to that aspect of his self-concept; and (3) the personTs perception of the related aspects of the behavior of the other person with whom he is interacting. The term “self," as used here, refers to the phenomenal self, and is roughly co-extensive with Sullivan's use of the same term (p. 117). When a person experiences incongruency in interpersonal relating he will strive to reduce that incongruency by one of three ways: change his self-concept, change his behavior, attempt to change the behavior of the other person. Attempting to change the behavior of the other person is done with more frequency than the other two approaches. In summary, a person tries to form his interactive behavior in such a way to elicit a certain kind of complementary behavior from others. If a noncomplementary response occurs it is experi- enced as unpleasant, non-rewarding, gives rise to anxiety and a sense of incongruency. If the person is unable to resolve the Encongruency he is confronted with two alternatives, according to arson: (1) He can attempt to terminate the interaction. (2) He can try to salvage it by having another try at getting the other person's behavior into a more rewarding, or less costly, category (p. 119). Carson then explores the theories of interpersonal relations of Thibaut and Kelley and of Homans, which are basically an exchange view of human interaction. In this view, the goal of all inter- personal interaction is come hedonic outcome which can be calculated in terms of the rewards a person receives in the interaction, and the cost incurred to do so (more explanation of these terms see 121 p. 123). Carson states that the "rewards and costs" concepts of this theory correspond to Sullivan's concepts of satisfaction and security. According to Thibaut and Kelley persons enter into an interpersonal interaction with a behavior sequence or sgt_which they use to obtain the desired goal from the interaction (similar to the plan concept of Miller, Galanter, and Pribram, earlier described). In discussing the relationship of power relations and the maintenance of security Carson states: . . personality can in large measure be conceived in terms of the interpersonal behaviors a person enacts in order to maintain or enhance his security, and that his security is dependent upon the extent to which he is successful in inducing the other person with whom he interacts to produce certain classes of behavior in response. Power . . . is essentially the ability to produce variability in another person's outcomes . . . . Clearly, then, one important power source in inter- personal relationships is the capacity of one person to affect the security of another by producing behavior that enhances or diminishes that security. An important limitation on the use of this power source by any person, however, is imposed by his own security requirements (pp. 167-168). A form of accomodation in interpersonal interactions is the developing of contractual agreements, either implicit or explicit, which regulate the distribution of "outcomes" (rewards or costs) to each person. Carson discusses different forms of con- tractual agreements--norms, roles, and ad hoc agreements between particular persons. He then discusses fraudulent interpersonal contracts or simple transactional reversals similar to the games described by Berne. In these*“simp1e reversals" one person offers another relationship or interaction of a certain type, then changes his stance in the course of the other person's response, destroying the complementarity that existed and making the other person's response seem inappropriate. Another type of fraudulent operation is developing a false role in order to gain power. ". . . These are also operations in which deceitful self-presentations are offered for the purpose of gaining ulterior or covert outcomes" they may or may not involve socially recognized roles (pp. 194-195). Carson then discusses disordered interpersonal contracts which fall in two major groups: coordinated avoidance and those involving behaviors that are self-injurious, deviant, or otherwise maladaptive, which he terms negotiated maladjustment. He uses examples from Berne's Games People Play to illustrate such contracts and behaviors. 122 Despite these disordered contracts that can exist in inter- personal relationships (either dyads or family relationships) contracts can serve a helpful purpose in interpersonal interaction. By and large, adherence by persons to the terms of their interpersonal contracts is associated with the development of wholesome and mature interpersonal relations. It permits a maximization of joint outcomes within a context of cooperation and trust, it reduced the amount of energy expenditure required for the maintenance of surveillance and vigilance, and it encourages continuing mutual explor- ation of additional, as yet unrealized outcome pos- sibilites in the relationship (pp. 195-196). . . there are many good strategies, games, and contracts that do not rob people of their spontaneity and self- determination, and that encourage the development of a level of genuineness and intimacy between persons that would otherwise be difficult of attainment (p. 214). Carson devotes the last two chapters of the book to discus- sion of personality disorder which he feels is essentially "extra- normative efforts at relationship" and psychotherapy or "disorder- reducing interpersonal relationships." 123 SULLIVAN Blanck Blanck groups Sullivan's theory with theorists such as Horney and others and calls theirs the "environmental or cultural school." Their position is summarized by Blanck as the following: Their theories regard the individual as reactive to his environment, both sociological and psychological; there- fore attempt to treat is from that position. Behavior is altered, not by reinforcement or conditioning, but by dynamic interaction between the patient and a therapist who, in effect, constitutes a new and presumably more benign environment. From this position come such broad technical approaches as interpersonal relations, inter- action, corrective emotional experience, emotional re- education, and the like. Here is a fundamental dif- ference from the psychoanalytic view, within which the concept of internalization is basic (p. 4). Freedman,yKaplan,,Sadock These authors term Sullivan a "culturalist psychoanalyst" along with Horney and Fromm. They summarize his position as: Sullivan defined psychiatry as the study of inter- personal relations that were manifest in observable behavior. Although he had great interest in what trans- pired inside an individual, he felt that the individual could be studied only in terms of his interactions with others (p. 130). According to Sullivan all human beings have two basicggoals or end states: need satisfaction (i.e. biological needs such as food, air, sex, etc?) and the need for security which can be satisfied only through meaningful interpersonal relationships. The fulfillment of a need is interrupted by anxiety. Self-esteem is defined by Sullivan as the increasing power and confidence that a person feels with regard to his security. A minimal amount of self-esteem is needed to deal with the realistic feelings of powerlessness and helplessness men experience. Anxiety is a focal issue of personality and interpersonal theory according to Sullivan: 124 . anxiety is seen as an interpersonal phenomenon and . as the response to the feelings of disapproval from a significant adult . . . . Sullivan views personality development as a process of learning to handle anxiety by the use of adaptive maneuvers and defense techniques designed to gain approval from significant people. When anxiety is widespread, the individual attempts to limit the opportunities for the further development of anxiety by restricting his functioning to familiar, well- established patterns of activity (p. 132). Hinzie and Campbell, pp. 690-692 In Sullivan's interpersonal theory the concept of self- dynamism is the fabric of the motivational forces and processes which lead to the development of the self-system. The human personality is founded on a biological substrate and is the product of the interpersonal and social forces acting on the person from the time of birth. The human being is concerned with two goals: the pursuit of satisfaction and'the pursuit of security. To maintain security and avoid anXiety the child develops and strengthens those sides of his nature which are pleasing or acceptable to the significant adults. The resulting configuration of traits from this development is the self-system. Actions or attributes that meet with disapproval arelblocked out of awareness or dissociated. After the self-system is established secondary anxiety occurs whenever there is a possibility that dissociated thoughts or feelings will become conscious. What the self-system of Sullivan has in common with Freud's theory: it is formed as a result of the influence of the parent on the developing child. However, the self-system includes more than sublimation and differs from Freud in that Sullivan stresses what goes on between people, Freud, what happens with instincts. For Sullivan personality doesrxn:develop mechanically; he emphasizes the dynamic interaction between people. Witenberg, pp. 132-145 Sullivan's interpersonal theory seems to include a "feedback principle." Sullivan observed that people tend to give information in order to get information. Sullivan was more concerned with the mode of transmitting information than with inherent or intrapsychic conflicts. 125 In Sullivan's theory "Human personality and specific identity are conceptualized as predominantly action-bound manifestations with flexible boundaries. People have to engage in interpersonal activities in order to bring their personal charac- teristics into focus" (p. 133). “The self is perceived as the content of consciousness within the framework of a person's socialization, acculturation, and his formative relational patterning. Another way of defining the self is that part of the personality central in the experience of anxiety" (p. 133). Sullivan's interpersonal theory "postulates that each individual has a variety of personal responses to others which are directly related to his developmental encounters with significant people" (p. 134). Sullivan considers people's need for meaningful contact with others an elementary biological need. Witenberg discusses the "ecological principle" of Sullivan's theory, saying: Sullivan transposes the ecology principle to the field of psychiatry by postulating the necessity of a more or less continuous contact on a person to person basis in a humanly compatible environment. He contends that the specifically human qualities are highly liable and require an open-ended channel for their potential growth and enduring survival (pp. 134-135). Witenberg finds 3 shortcomings in Sullivan's ecological model: 1. Sullivan's focus on energy transformation: " . . . it is quite clear that the exchange of information is an interchange without the expenditure of significant energy. Furthermore, Sullivan did not sufficiently appreciate the organism's necessity to. draw)negative entropy from the environment in order to survive p 36 2. "Another important limitation in the interpersonal ecological model is the overemphasis of one to one relationships in the formative patterning of neurotic and psychotic d1sturbances . . Interpersonal theory stands to gain much by including family dynamics in its conceptual frame of reference (p.136). 3. Witenberg considers the third limitation to be Sullivan's relative neglect of cognitive processes in his psychiatric ecology. 126 Witenberg discusses Sullivan's theory regarding anxiety. According to Sullivan's theory anxiety is related to interpersonal experiences that have irrationally lowered the person's self-esteem and is acquired from anxious people who have direct contact with the growing child. Witenberg summarizes Sullivan's position on anxiety as: Disruptive and destructive in every respect, anxiety interferes with meaningful communication, precludes intimacy, hinders creative thought processes, and leads to profound human malintegrations. Sullivan's postula- tion leaves no room for existential, humanistic, or potentially constructive aspects of anxiety. To him, anxiety in all its manifestations is harmful and anti- thetical to human progress . . . the goal is to educate the patient about the great variety of disguises and irrational attitudes that indicate the unnoticed presence of anxiety, and to loosen the rigidity of the self-system, which has the function of avoiding anxiety. People can learn to function in the presence of moderate anxiety without immediately taking refuge in self- defeating security operations (pp. 138-139). Witenberg summarizes Sullivan's similarity principle as: The similarity principle in the interpersonal frame of reference implies that the basic characteristics of the human species are dominant over the multitude of devia- tions in people's behavior, whether the people are mentally ill or well (p. 139). Another main tenet of Sullivan's theory is the tenderness principle. There is a predisposition for tenderness in human beings which is met during infancy by the mother in anxiety-free situations. To attain this in relationships, including the mother- infant relationship, a certain degree of collaboration between persons is required. ". . . it implies an evolution of intimacy in a relationship of growing equality. Tenderness is conceptualized as an intricate interplay of attitudes and behavior" (p. 141). In discussing Sullivan's concept of the self-system Witenberg states it is "a vigilant guardian against the experience of crippling anxiety, resembling in many respects the conceptualiza- tion of the ego, and its defenses . . . . In other words, one's image is controlled by the self-system, since it manipulates the content of consciousness depending on the prevailing level of anxiety" (p. 143). 127 Carson, pp. 23-55 Sullivan regards personality as inconceivable other than in the context of interpersonal relationships. Personality consists of the patterned regularities that may be observed in an indivi- dual's relationships with other persons who may be real and present or illusory/personified and absent. During infancy a person acquires a need for tenderness responses from the mother; later this becomes a need for love, intimacy, etc. Another innate need he terms as a need for power. This is similar to Rogers' self-actualization concept. It consists of a need to grow, exercise one's capacities, develop maximally. Sullivan defines different modes of experience, parataxic and prototaxic, which "influence and color cognitive functioning and remain operative as a possibility throughout adulthood." Current perceptions and cognitions consist, in part, of remnants from past experience. Carson discusses Sullivan's concept of personification as a mental image, not necessarily real, formed of a particular person. It is constructed from primarily parataxic experiences or inter- action with other persons. Especially important are the infant's personifications relating to himself and the mother. The infant gradually develops a personification or sense of "self" based on his experience of the environment's reactions to his activities or reflected apppaisals. Sullivan explains 3 self- personifications which occur--'good-me," "bad-me," and "not-me." Sullivan stresses the effect and presence of anxiety in the infant or human person's life. ". . . the precipitating circum- stances of anxiety come to be associated with the disapproval of significant others, at first chiefly the parents. Beyond infancy the experience of anxiety . . . has the characteristic of a drop in self-esteem or an increase in felt insecurity, and it always has an interpersonal referent" (p. 32). Carson paraphrases Sullivan's definition of self-dynamism to refer to "a class of behavior that is recurrent and is identifiable by virtue of the "insignificant particular differences that characterize it from occasion to occasion" (p. 37). Self-dynamism develops as a means of controlling anxiety, and is provided by the interpersonal environment as experienced by the individual in the form of reflected appraisal. The content is the whole of what he can perceive as aspects of himself. It carries out its role of controlling anxiety by controlling awareness. New "data" are admitted only to the extent that they are consistent with the data 128 already there. Experiences of reflected appraisal containing information about the self which is inconsistent with its current contents tends to arouse anxiety and be dealt with by selective inattention. Sullivan uses the dissociation principle to explain how the individual deals with the rest of the aspects of his personality not represented in the self—system: "Systems in dissociation" are those aspects of the personality, chiefly needs, that are more or less forcibly denied access to awareness, although they continue to be operative, to grow, and to develop. They are often expressed in unwitting behavior or in sleep (disguised, parataxic form). Satisfaction of needs in interpersonal situations. Sullivan describes three basic needs experienced by people: - need for tenderness or intimacy - need to avoid anxiety (i.e. need for security) - need to relieve biologically derived tensions (i.e. need for satisfaction). Persons come into interpersonal situations with these needs and they determine the nature and duration of social interpersonal situations. The goal of a person in an interpersonal situation is the achievement of satisfaction of conditions in which security is maintained or enhanced. Carson describes Sullivan's theorem of reciprocal emotion as: Sullivan summarized his thoughts on interpersonal inte- gration in terms of a "theorem" of reciprocal emotion: "Integration in an interpersonal situation is a recip- rocal process in which (1) complementary needs are resolved, or aggravated; (2) reciprocal patterns of activity are developed, or disintegrated; and (3) foresight of satisfaction, or rebuff, of similar needs is fagilitated" (pp. 40-41, Carson; p. 198, Sullivan, 953b . Sullivan defined four primary defense mechanisms or security pperations: sublimation, obsessionalism, selective inattention, and dissociation. 129 Sullivan Most of the main principles established by Sullivan in his Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry have been summarized in detail by the previous authors covered. Sullivan makes a few additional points not reviewed by the, or stresses some in his own way. Concerning anxiety Sullivan states "that it is anxiety which is responsible for a great part of the inadequate, inefficient, unduly rigid, or otherwise unfortunate performances of people" (p. 160). He also believes that the role of anxiety in interpersonal relationships is profoundly important. Sullivan's concept of the self-system is also an important element in interpersonal relating. He defines it as: . . . an organization of educative experience called into being by the necessity to avoid or to minimize incidents of anxiety (p. 165). The origin of the self-system is that it is: . purely the product of interpersonal experience arising from anxiety encountered in the pursuit of the satisfaction of general and zonal needs . . . . The origin of the self-system can be said to rest on the irrational character of culture, or more specifically, society. Were it not for the fact that a great many prescribed ways of doing things have to be lived up to, in order that one shall maintain workable, profitable, satisfactory relations with his fellows; or, were the prescriptions for the types of behavior in carrying on relations with one' s fellows perfectly rational--then . . there would not be evolved, . . . anything like the sort of self-system that we always encounter" (pp. 164,168). The self-system is very resistant to change. In discussing the development of the personality throughout childhood and adolescence Sullivan makes some statements regarding interpersonal principles: - The child becomes fairly skillful at deceiving authority figures, concealing what may elicit anxiety or punishment. - By adolescence, he is able to sort out what is capable of being agreed on by an authority figure. 130 - By the end of the "juvenile era" he has a basic orien- tation to living which Sullivan describes as the following: "One is oriented in living to the extent to which one has formulated . . . data of the following types: the integrating tendencies (needs) which cus- tomarily characterize one's interpersonal relations; the circumstances appropriate to their satisfaction and relatively anxiety-free discharge; and the more or less remote goals for the approximation of which one will forego intercurrent opportunities for satisfaction or the enhancement of one's prestige" (p. 243). Concerning the self-concept or personification of oneself during preadolescence Sullivan states: Because of the competitive element, and also because of the juvenile's relative insensitivity to the importance of other people, it is possible that one can maintain throughout the juvenile era remarkably fantastic ideas about oneself, that one can have a very significantly distorted personification of the self, and keep it under cover. To have a very fantastic personification of one- self is, actually, to be very definitely handicapped . a misfortune in development (pp. 247-248). Sullivan discusses collisions which occur between lust, security, and the intimacy need: . lust is the most powerful dynamism in interpersonal relations. Since our culture provides us with singular handicaps for lustful activity rather than with facili- tation, lust promptly collides with a whole variety of powerful dynamisms in personality. The most ubiquitous collision is naturally the collision between one's lust and one's security; and by security I mean one's feeling of self-esteem and personal worth (p. 266). Sullivan discusses several security operations persons use in order to maintain selective inattention. The first is assuming roles which he knows are behaving as if he were someone else. The second Sullivan describes as using 'parataxic mesyou pppterns which are incongrous with the actual interpersonal situation." The third is to deliberately talk about something else, change the subject or conversation. The last is a transient or enduring transformation of one'sppersonality (pp. 346-347). Security operations are employed to protect one's self- esteem, or“maintaining a feeling of safety in the esteem reflected to one from the other person concerned" (p. 373). 131 In discussing selective inattention more he states: By selective inattention we fail to recognize the actual import of a good many things we see, hear, think, do, and say, not because there is anything the matter with our zones of interaction with others but because the pppcess of inferential analysis is opposed by the self-system. Clear recognition of‘the implications of matters to which we are selectively inattentive would call for basic change in an established pattern of deal- ing with the sort of interpersonal situation concerned; would make us either more, or in some cases less com- petent, but in any case DIFFERENT from the way we now conceive ourself to be (P. 374). 132 BLANCK This information is based on Blanck's discussion in Ego-Psychology: Theorypand Practice. Regarding self-esteem Blanck implies that there are "precise life experiences in which self-esteem was impaired and objects were lost, whether in reality or because of aggressive cathexis, early disillusionment, and the like . . ." (p. 269). Self-esteem is defined as the favorable self-image which results from internalization of parental affection combined with success experiences in mastery. Simple reassurance about oneself or abilities (i.e. compliments, praise, etc.) cannot change a person's failure to have internalized an effective sense of self. They discuss several tools of psychotherapy used to treat ego defects: ego support, improving the defensive function of the ego, verbalization, building the ego, neutralization of drives and aggression, confrontation, internalization, restoration of basic regulatory processes and guardianship of autonomy (pp. 345-357). 133 HARTMANN Blanck, pp. 81-82, 86 Hartmann stressed the ego's function of adaptation and equilibrium maintenance. The ego is "a specific organ of equili- brium at the disposal of the person" (p. 86). Hartman and Lowenstein "In the development of the ego ideal both self-idealization and the idealization of the parents play a role . . . . The degree to which the ego ideal is determined more by early self-idealization or more by idealization of the object later becomes more important for both normal and pathological development" (p. 81). 134 JACOBSON Blanck, pp. 62-73 Jacobson distinguishes £99, a structure, and self, which is the totality of the psychic and bodily person, and self- representation, which is the "pre-conscious, unconscious, and conscious endopsychic representations of the bodily and mental self in the system ego" (p. 61). "Parental love, combined with degrees of frustration and prohibition promote the establishment of stable, enduring libidinal cathexes of the self and objects and make for normal ego and super- ego formation and for independence" (p. 65). In the early months of life self and object representations are fused. Self, as experienced at all, is felt to be part of the larger world. Superego formation involves internalization. Regulations of the outer world are substituted by internal regulations. Super- ego serves to maintain identity and regulates self-esteem by main- taining harmony between moral codes and ego manifestations. The superego governs moods and is an indicator and regulator of the entire ego state. Another function is to develop consistent defense organization. 135 ARIETI Arieti states that there are two basic approaches to study- ing man psychologically: the Leibnizian, which focuses primarily on the intrapsychis, giving interpersonal secondary consideration and the Lockean, which sees man's psyche as an entity which is molded gradually by the experiences of life passing through his senses. Arieti's basic position is that: (1) man must be studied through both approaches, (2) some of the richest forms of human development are in the realm of the interpersonal, and (3) the ipterpersonal presupposes an intrapsychic core p. 4 . His book is an effort to integrate the intrapsychic with the interpersonal and he states that "intrapsychic and interpersonal factors are intermingled in most psychological aspects of man" (p. 4). Arieti feels that psychoanalytic theorists have "overempha- sized early stages of development, bodily needs, instinctual behavior, and elementary feelings that can exist without a cognitive counterpart or with a very limited one." He states that these do not "include all the emotional factors affecting man favorably or unfavorably . . . important psychodynamic forces exist in man which are brought about by his conceptual life" (p. 7). 136 WYLIE Wylie states that the term "self" is used to mean two basic things: (a) the self as subject or agent or (b) the self as the individual who is known to himself; this second definition has come to be called the self-concept. Wylie states that the main belief of the self-concept theorists is "that one cannot understand andlpredict human behavior without knowledge of the subject's conscious perceptions of his environment, and of his self as he sees it in relation to the environment. Because of this central role accorded to conscious perceptions, cognitions, and feelings, these theorists have often been labeled 'phenomenological'" (p. 6). Wylie discusses one measure of self-concept mentioned in earlier research (Carson), the Interpersonal Check List. This was developed by LaFor e and Suczek (T955) and is used'to get (a) a self-description; lb) an ideal-self—description; and (c) a measure of "self-acceptance" in terms of discrepancies between self and ideal self descriptions. Concerning the development of self-concept and parent-child interaction Wylie summarizes: All personality theorists who are concerned with constructs involving the self accord great importance to parent-child interaction in the development of the self-concept. This notion follows from such general ideas such as these: (a) The self concept is a learned constellation of percep- tions, cognitions, and values. (b) An important part of this learning comes from observing the reactions one gets from other persons. (c) The parents are the persons who are present earliest and most consistently. For this reason, and because of the child's dependence on them and his affection for them, the parents have a unique oppor- tunity to reinforce selectively the child's learning. Presumably, then, the parent can influence the development of such aspects of the self concept as the following: (a) the generalized level of self-regard (e.g., by being loved and accepted the child comes to love himself, and through acquisition of acce ted behaviors he comes to respect his own functioning ; (b) the subjective standards of conduct which are associated with his role and individual status (i.e. the development of the ideal self); (c) the realism of his view of his abilities and limitation, and the acceptance of them; (d) the degree of 137 acceptance in the phenomenal self concept of inevitable characteristics (e.g., hostility, jealousy, seX); (e) the adequacy of his means of pppraising accurately his effects on others" (pp. 121-122). After reviewing all the studies or research on parent- child interaction and the self-concept, Wylie finds the following conclusions: There is some evidence . . . to suggest that children's self-concepts are similar to the view of themselves which they attribute to their parents. There is some limited evidence that a child's level of self-regard is associ- ated with the parents' reported level of regard for him. There is some evidence to suggest that children see the like—sex parents' self-concept . . . as being somewhat more like their own self-concept. There is some evidence that children with self-reported maladjustment see their parents' views of them as differing from each other (pp. 135-136). 138 BERNE The information which follows is based on Berne's book, Games People Play, The Psychology of Human Relationships. Summary of Main Points of Berne's Theory of Social Intercourse, i.e. Transactional Analysis After the period of close intimacy with the mother is over, an individual is confronted with a dilemma involving two forces in his life. One is the combination of social, psychological, and biological forces which stand in the way of continued physical intimacy in the infant-style; the other is his perpetual striving for its attainment. To deal with this a compromise occurs: the transformation of the infantile stimulus-hunger into something which he terms recognition-hunger. Persons experience a need to be "stroked" which is Berne's term for any act implying recognition of another‘s presence. A stroke is the fundamental unit of social interaction, and an exchange of strokes constitutes a transaction, which is the unit of social intercourse. Besides stimulus-hunger and recognition-hunger people experience structure—hunger. To meet this need they employ one of several options for structuring time within a social interaction. These are rituals, pastimes,pgames,pintimacy and activity. Of these, the most gratifying forms of social contact are games and intimacy. The goal of each person in an interaction is to obtain as many satisfactions (or "gains" or "advantages," to use game terms) as possible. These satisfactions are related to the following factors: The relief of tension (internal advantage) The avoidance of noxious situations (external advantages) The procurement of stroking (secondary advantages) The maintenance of an established equilibrium (existential advantages). th-fl In social interaction people display behavioral changes which are often accompanied with changes in feeling. Berne terms these ego states. There are three basic categories of ego states-- parent, adult, and child. The child consists of "relics" from earlier years which become activated in relating. From this ego state comes intuition, creativity and spontaneous drive and enjoy- ment. The adult is directed to the objective appraisal of reality-- 139 it processes data, computes probabilities in order to deal with the outside world effectively. It also experiences its own kinds of setbacks and gratifications. Another purpose of the adult is to regulate the activities of the parent and child states. The parent enables the individual to function effectively as a parent as well as makes many responses automatic (the responses which are instinc- tively reproduced from the parental figure) which saves time and energy and frees the adult from having to make many trivial deci- sions. Each ego state has its respectful place in a productive life. A transaction basically consists of a stimulus (usually some acknowledgment of the presence of the other) which elicits a response which in turn becomes a stimulus. The simplest transactions are those in which both the stimulus and response arise from the adults of the parties involved; next in simplicity are child-parent transactions. These transactions are complementary, meaning that the response is appropriate, expected, and follows the natural order of healthy human relationships. Complementary transactions include adult-adult, parent-parent, child-child, parent-child. Crossed transactions are those in which a response occurs which is not complementary or appropriate to the stimulus, usually causing a break in communication (e.g. adult stimulus elicits a child or parent response). Simple complementary transactions most commonly occur in superficial working and social relationships and in activities, rituals and pastimes. More complex transactions are ulterior transactions which involve more than two ego states simultaneously. This catetory is the basis for games. Angular transactions involve three ego states (e.g. frequently used by salesmenl and duplex ulterior transactions involve four ego states (e.g. flirtation games). Procedures, Rituals, Pastimes A procedure is a series of simple complementary adult transactions directed toward the manipulation of reality. In social situations the child is usually shielded by the adult or parent ego states, child programming is most apt to occur in situations of privacy and intimacy, where preliminary testing has already been done. 140 A ritual is a stereotyped series of simple complementary transactions programmed by external social forces (e.g. social leave-taking, greeting rituals). Individuals who are not comfort- able or adept with rituals sometimes evade them by substituting procedures (e.g. people who seek to help the hostess instead of engaging in the rituals at parties). Pastimes vary in nature and complexity, the beginning and end of pastimes are signaled with procedures or rituals. The transactions during pastimes are adaptively programmed so that each person obtains the maximum gains or advantages during the interval. Besides serving to structure time and provide mutually acceptable stroking for both people, pastimes have the additional function of being social-selection processes. During the pastime the child in each person is watchfully assessing the potentialities of the others involved, leading to the selection of acquaintances which may lead to friendship. Another important advantage obtained from pastimes is the confirmation of role and stabilizing of position of the persons involved. A position is a "simple predicative statement which influences all of the individual's transactions" (p. 45). Games A game is an "ongoing series of complementary ulterior transactions progressing to a well-defined, predictable outcome. Games are distinguished from procedures, rituals and pastimes by two main characteristics: their ulterior quality and the pay-off which occurs. One remaining form of social interaction not yet defined is an operation which is a "simple transaction or set of transactions undertaken for a specific, stated purpose. If someone frankly asks for reassurance and gets it, that is an operation. If someone asks for reassurance, and after it is given turns it in some way to the disadvantage of the giver, that is a game. Superficially, then, a game looks like a set of operations, but after the pay-off it becomes apparent that these 'operations' were really maneuvers, not honest requests but moves in the game" (pp. 48-49). This series of maneuvers becomes an unconscious game. Games form the most important aspect of social life all over the world, according to Berne. "'Beautiful friendships' are often based on the fact that the players complement each other with great economy and satisfaction, so that there is a maximum yield with a minimum effort from the games they play with each other" (p. 55). 141 Berne states that ". . . child rearing may be regarded as an educational process in which the child is taught what games to play and how to play them. He is also taught procedures, rituals and pastimes appropriate to his position in the logical social situation, but these are less significant" (p. 58). Berne theorizes that games form the basic structure for the emotional dynamics of families, and that theories of internal individual psychodynamics need to take into consideration the social dynamics involved in child raising and family life as these influence the individual's relating and personality. According to Berne games serve several functions and purposes: Because there is so little opportunity for intimacy in daily life, and because some forms of intimacy (especially if intense) are psychologically impossible for most people, the bulk of the time in serious social life is taken up with playing games . . . Beyond their social function in structuring time satisfactorily, some games are urgently necessary for the maintenance of health in certain individuals (p. 61). However, he states that the rewards of "game-free intimacy" are great that people will "joyfully relinquish their games if an appropriate partner can be found for the better relationship" (p. 62). Berne then gives an extended "thesaurus of games," describing the various games in detail. They fall into the follow- ing categories: life games, marital games, party games, sexual games, underworld games, consulting room games and good games. In summarizing the significance of games Berne makes the following statements: 1. Games are passed on from generation to generation. The favored game of any individual can be traced back to his parents and grandparents, and forward to his children; they in turn, unless there is successful intervention, will teach them to his grandchildren . . . 2. "Raising" children is primarily a matter of teach- ing them what games to play . . . 3. Games are sandwiched . . . between pastimes and intimacy . . . Intimacy requires stringent circum- spection, and is discriminated against by parent, adult, and child. Society frowns upon candidness, 142 except in privacy; good sense knows that it can ,always be abused; and the child fears it because of the unmasking which it involves . . . . Hence . most people compromise for games when they are available . . . 4. People pick as friends, associates and intimates other people who play the same games (pp. 171-172). Berne sees as the goal for personal development the attainment of autonomy, and for this to happen the "release of recovery of three capacities" must occur. These capacities are awa;eness, spontaneity, and intimacy (fuller discussion, pp. 178- 181 . 0n the following page is a list of all the categories and games which Berne describes in his book. 143 PART II A Thesaurus of Games / 67 Introduction / 69 6 / Life Games / 73 l Alcoholic / 73 2 Debtor / 81 3 Kick Me / 84 4 Now I’ve Got You, You Son of a Bitch / 85 5 See What You Made Me Do / 88 7 / Marital Games / 92 1Corner/92 ZCourtroom/96 3 Frigid “'oman / 98 4 Harried / 101 5 If It Weren't for You / 104 6 Look How Hard I've Tried / 105 7 Sweetheart / 108 8 / Party Games / 110 1 Ain't It Awful / 110 2 Blemish / 112 3 Schlemiel / 114 4 Why Don’t You—Yes But / 116 9 / Sexual Games / 123 10/ ll/ 12/ 1 Let’s You and Him Fight / 124 2 Pcrversion /124 3 Rapo / 126 4 The Stocking Came / 129 5 Uproar / 130 Underworld Games / 132 1 C0ps and Robbers / 132 2 How Do You Get Out of Here / 137 3 Let's Pull a Fast One on Joey / 139 Consulting Room Games / 141 1 Greenhouse / 141 2 I'm Only Trying to Help You / 143 3 Indigence / 147 4 Peasant / 151 5 Psychiatry / 154 6 Stupid / 157 7 Wooden Leg / 159 Good Cames / 163 l Busman's Holiday / 164 2 Cavalier / 164 3 Happy to Help / 1(16 4 Homely Sage / 167 5 They'll Be Glad They Knew Me / 168 144 ADDED AND BURGER This is based on Addeo and Burger's book titled EgoSpeak, Why No One Listens to You. The main topic of this book is the common occurrence in conversation of two people speaking and no one listening, that their egos interfere, and that while one is speaking the other is mentally formulating what they will say when the other finishes: Instead of digesting the other person's information, we are most often busy thinking of only how best we can impress him with our next statement. Addeo and Burger describe their book as a "systematic catalog of the major types of this uniquely human psychological disease." A main principle is that people are obsessed by "recogni- tion stimuli" and use speech as a main means of acquiring that recognition. They say: Listen to each person tip off his inner conflicts, his gnawing fears, his hidden frustrations, simply by the way he behaves conversationally. They briefly discuss the way people send signals non- verbally, through body language, and the intricate "games" which Berne has observed in people's interpersonal behavior, but say that their focus is on "a more realistic and universal aspect of behavior, one which explains to us a quirk of egocentricity latent in everyone, but which embraces all of the above 'games' in an activity which is practiced daily: SPEECH." In discussing the art of communication they say true communication would be to say something sincere to others, some— thing you mean, either because it is something you want to share, or something for them to know for their welfare or benefit. The reasons people talk and use speech in the ways described are due to several reasons: - Talk is ower . . . . There is the possibility, in "talk," of either bringing another into our camp as an enlisted ally, or weakening him as the enemy. - To be listened to is recognition . . . . Recognition is the strongest motive for doing anything in this world among human beings, and we use EgoSpeak to achieve it. 145 - Talk is relaxing . . . relaxes this tension, releases it safely and harmlessly . . . - Talk is punishing . . . . One can talk at another and really do him in, but no one can say there was any violence. - Talk establishes rank. - Talk is revealing. Everyone wants to be revealed . . . - The underlying reason for talking for all these reasons is that we are insecure. In discussing the reasons for the lack of listening people do they say: Listening is hard. It has to be learned. Listening takes discipline. Listening requires liking . . . liking means that you have to treat someone equally, treat him as you would be treated yourself. ‘ Addeo and Burger follow a basic position that: . . in any human relationship . . . one person is constantly maneuvering to imply that he is in a "superior position" to the other person in the relationship. (All of these principles are from the Introduction and Epilogue to the book.) The basic categories of maneuvers and devices which occur in conversation are listed on the following page. to 9 10 11 12 13 146 JobS peak 1 “So I sail! to the Bass, ‘Money is one thing, hut' . . .” BabySpeak 27 “It's a beguiling regurgitation . . ." 81 BusinessSpeak “As per your request, enclosed please find . . ." EasySpcak 79 “May I get you a magazine while you're waiting?” SexSpealc 101 “So we hired this temporary broad for the mailromn . . ." ShtickSpeak 125 “Incidentally, you should see that unmak- ahle small slam in Goren this morning . . .' NameSpeak 149 “There was this little lunch counter in Spanner, ll’iseonsin—had the best carp you ever tasted. The owner was Joe Garragiela, see, and he used to say to me . . ." SpeakSpenk 165 "A spokesman for the firm hinted that every eflort would he made to Comply, although he ruled out . . ." ReminiseeSpeak “You know, there were only two switch hitters in the '37 series, and now . . ." QuipSpeak “That’s what she. said . . ." NotSpeak “I’m glad you asked that question, and I' d like to answer it first by saying this . . ." DeepSpeak “The young are so busy teaching us they have no time to learn from us.’ Let’s Play EgoSpeak! “I‘ ll bet your Indians didn't have the bache- lor problems that I'm writing about . . ." if. 147 LEARY This is based on section I, "Some Basic Assumptions About Personality Theory," of Leary's book titled Interpersonal Diagnosis of Personality. Chapter 1: Interpersonal Dimension of Personality "The study of human nature appears, at this mid-century point, to be shifting from an emphasis on the individual to an emphasis on the individual-in-relation-to-others" (p. 3). "Man is viewed as a uniquely social being, always involved in crucial interactions with his family members, his contemporaries, his predecessors, and his society" (p. 3). Leary defines interpersonal behavior as "behavior which is related overtly, consciously, ethically, or symbolically to another human being (real, collective, or imagined) . . .“ (p. 4). This theory and research is restricted to the interpersonal dimension, or social behavior because "we believe this to be the area of psychology which is most crucial and functionally important to human happiness and human survival" (p. 6). This book is limited to one dimension or sector of the "wide circle of human behavior. We concentrate simply on the way in which the individual deals with others--his actions, thoughts, fantasies, and values as they relate to others" (p. 6). Many personality theorists are placing the cause of neuroses in social factors--Horney contends that neuroses are generated by disturbances in human relationships, Fromm "places the causative factor of neurosis in the family, which is seen as the basic 'agency of enculturation" (p. 7). Leary summarizes Sullivan's theories on anxiety as: The motive force of personality, for Sullivan . . . is the avoidance of anxiety . . . . For Horney it (anxiety) involves the feelings of helplessness and danger; for Fromm, isolation and weakness; for Sullivan, loss of self-esteem. Anxiety is interpersonal because it is rooted in the dreaded expectation of derogation and rejection by others . . . . The human being is rarely or never free from some interpersonal tension; what he does or thinks is generally related to the estimation of 148 others. For this reason the motivating principle of behavior is more accurately seen as "anxiety reduction"—- the avoidance of the greater anxiety and the selection of the lesser anxiety (p. 8). "To understand a person is to have knowledge of the inter- personal techniques that he employs to avoid or minimize anxiety and of the consistent pattern of relationships that he integrates as a result of these techniques" (p. 9). Leary cites a distinction between Freudian theory and Sullivan's in this area: According to the orthodox Freudian, that which is warded off from consciousness is the instinctual impulse or its disturbing derivatives. According to Sullivan, those things which are selectively kept from awareness are interpersonal processes, or potentialities, or inter- personal feelings which are anxiety-arousing" (p. 9). Leary summarizes the three modes of experience defined by Sullivan as: . the protaxic, undifferentiated, unverbalized experiences of early infancy; the parataxic, which includes private unwitting personifications of the self or eidetic others; and the syntaxic . . . When two people in an interaction situation are consensually agreed on the basic premises upon which the relation- ship rests, and when they concur in their pertinent perceptions of self and each other, then they are communicating in the syntaxic mode. This kind of honesty between persons is not a common phenomenon. Its experience can be unbearably painful due to the anxiety it evokes" (p. 9). Leary's theory and interpersonal system of personality is strongly based on Erikson's theories as well as Sullivan, Horney, Fromm. Leary terms Erikson's most valuable contribution a develop- mental timetable listing 16 interpersonal resolutions. This is a "list of ego qualities--criteria by which the individual demon- strates that his ego, at a given stage, is strong enough to integrate the timetable of the organism with the structure of social institutions." It is given below: 149 Stage of Life Cycle Nuclear Conflict Oral sensory Trust vs. mistrust Muscular-anal Autonomy vs. shame, doubt Locomotor-genital Initiative vs. guilt Latency Industry vs. inferiority Puberty and adolescence Identity vs. role diffusion Young adulthood Intimacy vs. isolation Adulthood Generativity vs. stagnation Maturity Integrity vs. disgust, despair .11) Leary summarizes his main assertions of interpersonal theory as "First, . . . interpersonal behavior is crucial to the survival of the human being . . . second . . . interpersonal behavior is the aspect of personality that is most functionally relevant to the clinician" (p. 12 In discussing interpersonal behavior and biological survival Leary states: From the standpoint of human survival, social role and social adjustment comprise the most important dimension of personality. This is because of the unique biological and cultural aspects of human development and maturity . . . . This long period of childhood and adolescence involves a dependence on other human beings for nourishment, shelter, and security . . . . From the moment of birth, survival depends on the adequacy of interpersonal relationships . . . . Several experts in this field (Sullivan, Klein, Erikson, Ribble, Spitz) have claimed that the roots of personality are to be found in the earliest mother- child interactions . . Even at maturity survival rests upon successful inter- personal patterns" (pp. 12- 14). In discussing the motivation of anxiety in interpersonal behavior and the use of security operations Leary states: Primal anxiety is the fear of abandonment. As the child begins to develop, this becomes a fear of rejection and social disapproval. Mankind's social interdependence means that extreme derogation on the part of crucial others can lead to destruction. The behaviors by which the child avoids derogation are called security opera- tions. They assure him of the approval and social security which reduce his anxiety. 150 A large percentage of any population . . . develops security operations which entail overt self-effacement, self-derogation, and the provocation of actual contempt and disapproval from others . . . . They are inevitably related to private feelings of uniqueness or secret consolations. They serve to protect inner feel- ings of pride and self-enhancement (pp. 14-15). Leary concludes this chapter with his first working principle of his interpersonal theory: Personality is the multilevel pattern of interpersonal responses (overt, conscious, or private) expressed by the individual. Interpersonal behavior is aimed at reducing anxiety. All the social, emotional, inter- personal activities of an individual can be understood as attempts to avoid anxiet or to establish and main- tain self-esteem (pp. 15-16 . Chapter 2: Adjustment-Maladjustment Factors in Personality Theopy According to Freudian theory of normality, "While man has a choice of reactions which bring relative amounts of temporary security, the balance . . . is still on the side of the native, instinctual endowment" (p. 19). Jung emphasizes "adaptive behavior . . . . Jungians do not see character distortions as pathological fixations or regressions to inevitable infantile stages. They describe neurosis as a partial solution to life's dilemmas--a constructive mobilizing of 'psychic' resources against real or imagined threats" (p. 21). According to Leary: Jungian theories have contributed, often indirectly, to four promising notions. First they bring us closer to the development of a normality-abnormality continuum, which makes neurosis not a qualitatively different phenomenon. They help us see the interaction between biological-cultural pressures and the adaptive- malagaptive responses of the individual. They emphasize the "circular or reticuate" equilibrium of different levels of personality rather than the one-sided organi- zation for warding off unconscious motivations. Finally, they are, perhaps, the first to introduce the far-reaching idea, that unconscious or repressed motives can beppositive, constructive potentials, and are not necessarily negative" (pp. 21-22). 151 Leary states that in facing the issue of normality- abnormality the diagnostician's causative questions should be: What were the set of biological, familial, social, and cultural pressures which this patient faced, and what was the particular network of responses by which he dealt with them (p. 22)? Normality-abnormality can be defined in terms of several indices, which should be considered at any level of behavior. These are moderation versus intensity, flexibility versus rigidity, stability or oscillation, accuracy and appropriateness versus inaccuracy and inappropriateness. Leary states that: In the process of developing a systematic list of inter- personal variables it is obvious that hostile and affectionate behaviors are among the commonly employed means of dealing with others. When we apply the prin- ciples of the normality-abnormality continuum, it follows logically that we must have linguistic terms for describing intermediate points along the continuum between these two interpersonal motives (p. 29). In attempting to do this it is easy to find words at both extremes of the continuum--but difficult to find words, for example for adjustice, socially approved expressions of hostility (i.e. there are extreme expressions such as hostility, hatred, opposition, rage, etc., but only a few for moderate, socially acceptable expressions--frank, blunt, critical, etc.). In discussing what is adjustment Leary summarizes dif- ferent theorists' views on this: In general, (Horney) she appears to see normality as flexibility, optimal productivity, as well as a relative emancipation from anxiety and the conflicts which accom- pany it. Fromm stresses productiveness, responsibility, mature affection, understanding, a rational handling of the authority relationship, and "freedom" from irra- tional dependence. Sullivan defines mental health as accurate, mutually rewarding interpersonal relation- ships. All of these authors are aware of the effect of the culture on our conception of normality (p. 30). In this chapter Leary states his second working principle, related to the continuum of normality-abnormality: 152 The variables of a personality system should be designed to measure--on the same continuum—-the normal adjustive aspects of behavior as well as abnormal or pathological extremes (p. 26). He also gives a description of normality or adjustment as being: Adjustment in terms of the overall personality organiza- tion consists in flexible, balanced, apprppriate, interpersonal behavior. In terms of the subdivisions of personality--the levels of public interaction, percep- tion, private symbolism-~it consists of appropriate, accurate, and balanced interpersonal behavior respec- tively . . . . In the broad scope, we call normality an equilibrium of all the levels of personality such that the necessary mild character distortions at some levels are moderately counterbalanced at other levels . . . . The verbal definition of adjustment presented above rests upon one basic (philosophic) assumption: survival anxiety as the motivating force of interpersonal behavior (pp. 31-32). Chapter 3: Systematizing the Complexity of Personality Interpersonal behavior covers a wide range and occurs at all levels of personality-~the subject interacts with others overtly, symbolically, and in private perceptions. To study the interpersonal behavior of a person we need to determine a basic datum on which to make judgments. Leary states: The solution we have employed to deal with this unsatis- factory situation is to define as the basic data of personality, not the expressive events, but the communications by the subyect or by others about his interpersonal activity. he basic units of personality come from the protocol language by which the subject's interpersonal behavior is described (p. 34). Leary states that a principal purpose of his research and study is to obtain probability knowledge of the patient's future pattern of interpersonal behavior, to predict directly the crucial aspects of the subject's future behavior, particularly with a future therapist. In the context of the main positions he has established-- interpersonal orientation, adjustment-maladjustment continuum, simplicity, specificity, systematic relatednesssu-Leary states his third working principle as: 153 Measurement of interpersonal behavior requires a broad collection of simple, specific variables which are systematically related to each other, and which are applicable to the study of adjustive or maladjustive responses (p. 39). Leary summarizes Freud's main contribution to his person- ality theory as the following: The signle-minded view of man as a rational being was supplanted by a binocular or multiocular vision of human character . . . human behavior is not a unified single process, it is not just what it appears on the surface, nor what it is consciously assumed by the actor to be. It is rather a shifting, conflicted, multi- faceted complex of motives, overt and covert (p. 40). Because of this multilevel approach to human personality and behavior another working principle is: Any statement about personality must indicate the level of personality to which it refers (p. 41). Because interpersonal behavior is interactive, it must include a person's "perceptions and symbolic views of others, as well as the responses which he pulls or obtains from others." Therefore another working principle is: The interpersonal theory of personality logically requires that, for each variable or variable system by which we measure the subject's behavior (at all levels of personality). we must include an equivalent set for measuring the behavior of each specified "other" with whom the subject interacts (p. 39). When a multilevel approach to personality is taken diagnos- tic language must be clear, when making a statement about a subject it must be clear to what level of personality it is referring. Thus, the 6th working principle is: The levels of personality employed in any theoretical system must be specifically listed and defined. Once the logical system of levels and relationships among levels is defined, it cannot be changed without revis- ing all previous references to levels (p. 42). Another difficulty in language is that different terms will be used for different levels of behavior or personality (e.g. "one classificatory language for covert, underlying themes and another language for describing overt behavior"). Leary states that a 7th working principle is: 154 The same variable system should be employed to measure interpersonal behavior at all levels of personality (p. 43). Chapter 4: Empirical Principles in Personality Research Leary begins this chapter with his 8th working principle: Measurements of interpersonal behavior must be public and verifiable operations; the variables must be capable of operational definition. Our conclusions about human nature cannot be presented as absolute facts but as probability statements (p. 45). Leary describes the reason this principle is needed: Many skillful clinicians overlook the fact that they carry around inside of themselves a complex set of unverbalized and often unconscious generalizations about human behavior . . . . These principles are often uncommunicable, unorganized, unteachable, untestable. Thus, operational definitions are needed, grounded in empirical knowledge, and are directly and openly expressed. These will free the language of "broad, impressive, but empty, terms which have no empirical meaning." Chapter 5: Functional Theory of Personality, Leary feels that the purpose of scientific explanation is "to predict functionally useful events of the future." Thus, the purpose of personality psychology is to "explain and predict inter- personal behavior . . . . For clinical psychiatry this means that the variable language should refer most directly to the inter- personal interactions that determine a successful or unsuccessful clinical relationship" (pp. 51-53). An ideal clinical diagnostic statement should meet the following criteria, according to Leary: It is interpersonal; it relates to the future, not just to one expected event, but to a sequence of interaction (which is related to a conflict between levels of personality). It relates the expected interpersonal 155 pattern to an estimate of treatability. The diagnostic concepts are expressed directly in terms of predictive behavior which has bearing on the future treatment relationship (p. 54). Thus Leary arrives at his ninth working principle for interpersonal theory: The system of personality should be designed to measure behavior in the functional context (which in this book is the psychiatric clinic). Its language, variables, and diagnostic categories should relate directly to the behavior expressed or to the practical decisions to be made in this functional situation. The system should yield predictions about interpersonal behavior to be expected in the psychiatric clinic (p. 58). Chapter 6: General Survey of Interpersonal and Variability Systems Leary begins this chapter by summarizing (listing) the nine working principles for his interpersonal theory of personality: 1. Personality is the multilevel pattern of interpersonal responses (overt, conscious or private) expressed by the individual. Interpersonal behavior is aimed at reducing anxiety. All the social, emotional, interpersonal activities of an individual can be understood as attempts to avoid anxiety or to establish and main- tain self-esteem. 2. The variables of a personality system should be designed to measure--on the same continuum--the normal or "adjustive" aspects of behavior as well as normal or pathological extremes. 3. Measurement of interpersonal behavior requires a broad collection of simple, specific variables which are systematically related to each other and which are applicable to the study of adjustive or maladjustive responses. 4. For each variable or variable system by which we measure the subject's behavior (at all levels of personality) we msut include an equivalent set for measuring the behavior of specified "others" with whom the subject interacts. 5. Any statement about personality must indicate the level of personality to which it refers. 156 6. The levels of personality employed in any theoretical system must be specifically listed and defined. The formal rela- tionships which exist among the levels must be outlined. Once the logical system of levels and relationships among levels is defined it cpnnot be changed without revising all previous references to eve s. 7. The same variable system should be employed to measure interpersonal behavior at all levels of personality. 8. Our measurements of interpersonal behavior must be public and verifiable operations; the variables must be capable of operational definition. Our conclusions about human nature cannot be presented as absolute facts but as probability statements. 9. The system of personality should be designed to measure behavior in a functional context (e.g. psychiatric clinic). Its language, variables, and diagnostic categories should relate directly to the behavior expressed or the practical decisions to be made in this functional situation. The system, when used as a clinical instrument, should yield predictions about interpersonal behavior to be expected in the psychiatric clinic (e.g. in future psychotherapy). After listing these basic principles, Leary goes on to explain the research and conclusions about interpersonal behavior. Hundreds of interpersonal interactions were recorded, studied and classified (in the clinical setting). From this inter- personal data they then classified interpersonal behavior into 16 mechanisms or reflexes: managerial - autocratic responsible - hypernormal cooperative - overconventional docile - dependent self-effacing - masochistic rebellious - distrustful aggressive - sadistic competitive - narcissistic Leary found that in all these interpersonal trends they all have some reference to "a power or affiliation factor. When dominance—submission was taken as the vertical axis and hostility- affection as the horizontal, all of the other . . . factors could be expressed as combinations of these four nodal points." 157 Leary goes on to explain: The four quadrants of the interpersonal system comprise blends of the nodal dichotomies: Love versus hate and power versus weakness . . . . The same fourfold clas- sification reappears in Freudian thought. Freud's treatment of the individual stresses two basic motives--love and hate. Leary arranged the 16 basic mechanisms or reflexes in a circular diagram. For each reflex he listed behavior which mani- fested the mechanism, also behavior in other people which this behavior provokes, and finally an extreme or rigid response of this kind of mechanism. These are listed below (the circular diagram can be found on page 18 where it is reproduced as part of Carson's research. One example is given below.) Mechanism/Reflex MANAGERIAL - AUTOCRATIC Reflected behavior Manage, Guide, direct, advise, lead teach Behavior provoked Obedience Respect ' Extreme/rigid Dominate, Seeks respect behavior boss, compulsively, order pedantic, dogmatic actions Employing this continuum of 16 variables, Leary states that is is possible to make three different types of systematic studies of the same person--structural (the structure of personality), temporal (changes in personality patterns over time), and situational (varyin patterns of behavior in different inter- personal situationsl. In order to take into account the multidimensional nature of motivation in human personality, data is collected from five different levels of personality. These are explained briefly in this chapter. Then a chapter is devoted to each individual level. Level I is public communication. This consists of the overt behavior of the individual as rated by others along the 16 point continuum, a series of ratings of the interpersonal effect 158 the subject has on others who share social situations with him. Level I data are objective or public rather than private or subjective. Level II is conscious descriptions. This includes the verbal content of all the statements the subject makes about the interpersonal behavior of himself or "others," the subject's reported perceptions of himself and his interpersonal world. Level III is private symbolization and consists of projec- tive, indirect, fantasy materials. These data come from a variety of sources--dreams, fantasy, artistic or autistic productions, projective tests--which elicit imaginative expressions. Level IV is the unexpressed unconscious which is "the interpersonal themes which are systematically and compulsively avoided by the subject at all the other levels of personality and which are conspicuous by their inflexible absence. Level V is values which consists of data which reflect the subject's system of moral, "superego judgments," his ego ideal . . . interpersonal traits and actions that the subject holds to be good, proper and right--his picture of how he should and would like to be. It is explained on pp. 77—82 how data are obtained for each of these levels in his research. In addition to recording the responses of the subject in each of these levels it is necessary to record those of the specific others with whom he interacts. This is because: The reciprocal nature of social interaction, the reflex way in which human beings tailor their responses to others, and the automatic way in which they force others to react to them . . . . (p. 83). Chapter 7: The Level of Public Communication: llhe Interpersonal Reflex This level is concerned with the social impact that one human being has on another, the overt interpersonal activities of the individual--these come from at least two factors: (1) his multilevel personality structure, and (2) the activities and effect of the other person with whom he is interacting. "In studying the interpersonal purposes which underlie human behavior, the following hypothesis has developed . . . in a large percentage of interactions the basic motives are expressed 159 in a reflex manner. They are so automatic that they are often unwitting and often at variance with the subject's own perception of them." Often a set pattern of reflexes occurs in a role relation- ship (e.g. professor-student, doctor-patient). These subtle, uniquitous, automatic role relationships have as their function the minimization of anxiety. They set up smooth-flowing reciprocal interactions of ask-teach, attack-defend, etc. Oh those occasions when the pattern of interpersonal reflexes breaks down or is ambiguous, considerable distress generally results--manifested in the accustomed symptoms of anxiousness. Interpersonal mechanisms or reflexes are defined as observ- able, expressive units of face-to-face social behavior. They are automatic and usually involuntary responses to interpersonal situa- tions, often independent of the content of the communication, and are the individual's spontaneous methods of reacting to others. The exact ways these are expressed are unclear. One thing is clear: they are expressed partly in the content or verbal mean- ing of the communication, but primarily through tone of voice, gesture, carriage, and external appearance. Leary believes that "the reflex manner in which human beings react to others and train others to respond to them in selective ways is . . . the most important single aspect of personality. The systematic estimates of a patient's repertoire of interpersonal reflexes is a key factor in functional diagnosis. Awareness and, if possible, modification of crippled or maladaptive reflexes should be a basic step in psychotherapy." However, "The automatic and involuntary nature of inter- personal reflexes makes them difficult to observe and measure by a participant in any interaction. They are, for the same reason, most resistant to therapeutic change." The interpersonal reflex is not necessarily a conscious expression or a deliberate performance, it can be involuntary. Mead points out the difference between gestural behavior and consciousness: The mechanism of the social act can be traced out without introducing into it the conception of consciousness as a separable element within that act; hence the social act, in its more elementary stages or forms, is possible without, or apart from, some form of consciousness. 160 Leary summarizes this concept: It is possible to express interpersonal behavior of which one is not aware. This is not to say that social reflex behavior is to be equated with the classic "unconscious." We are speaking instead of an involuntary, automatic behavior which the subject can or cannot be aware. Mead discusses the conversation of gestures which is close to the meaning of Level I behavior: We are reading the meaning of the conduct of other people when, perhaps, they are not aware of it. There is some- thing that reveals to us what the purpose is--just the glance of an eye, the attitude of the body which leads to the response. The communication set up in this way between individuals may be very perfect. Conversation in gestures may be carried on which cannot be translated into articulate speech. Mead distinguishes between the nonconscious language of gestures and the highly conscious significant symbol. Leary discusses another means of interpersonal communica- tion--psychological symptom. He states: Every psychological symptom seems to have an interpersonal meaning, i.e., implications as to what the patient is communicating through the symptom, and what the patient expects to be done about it, etc. Symptoms are usually the overt reason for the patient coming to the clinic; they express an interpersonal message. Leary discusses "routine reflex patterns": During any one day the average adult runs into a wide range of interpersonal stimuli. We are challenged, pleased, obeyed, helped, andignored on an average of several times a day. Thus the person whose entire range of interpersonal reflexes is functioning flexibly can be expected to demonstrate appropriately each of the sixteen interpersonal reflexes many times in any day. If we study an extended sample of a subject's inter- actions, an interesting fact develops. Each person shows a consistent preference for certain interpersonal reflexes. Other reflexes are very difficult to elicit or absent entirely. It is possible to predict in proba- bility terms the preferred reflexes for most individuals in a specific situation. A small percentage of 161 individuals exist who get "others" to react to them in the widest range of possible behaviors and who can utilize a wide range of appropriate reactions. Most individuals tend to train "others" to react to them within a narrowed range of behaviors, and in turn show a restricted set of favored reflexes. Some persons show a very limited repertoire of two or three reflexes and reciprocally receive an increasingly narrow set of responses from others. Leary defines interpersonal roles: Most everyone manifests certain automatic role patterns which he automatically assumes in the presence of each significant "other" in his life . . . . When we obtain evidence that he consistently and routinely tends to favor certain mechanisms with one individual signif- icantly more than change and tends to pull certain responses from the other to a similar degree, then a role relationship exists. In discussing the principle of self-determinism Leary states: I hve tried to stress the surprising ease and facility with which human beings can get others to respond in a uniform and repetitive way. Interpersonal reflexes operate with involuntary routine and amazing power and speed. Many subjects with maladaptive interpersonal patterns can provoke the expected response from a complete stranger in a matter of minutes . . . . In many cases the "sicker" the patient, the more likely he is to have abandoned all interpersonal techniques except one--which he can handle with mangificent finesse. The principle involved here holds that interpersonal events just do not happen to human beings by accident or external design. The active and executive role is given to the subject. What human beings consciously wish is often quite at variance with the results that their reflex patterns automatically create for them. For these people the sad paradox remains that voluntary intentions, verbal resolutions, and even intellectual insight are opera- tionally feeble . . . compared to the ongoing 24-hour- a-day activity of the involuntary interpersonal reactions. 162 Leary goes on to state that interpersonal activities are designed to avoid anxiety (Sullivan's theory). In doing this a hierarchy of preferred reflexes develops: Survival anxiety presses the individual to repeat and narrow down his adjustive responses. He thus comes to a stable but restricted reciprocal relationship with his interpersonal world . . . . Rigid repetition of inter- personal responses minimizes conflict and provides the security of continuity and sameness . . . . But the environment at large is not the same, and adjustment to it demands a flexible generality of interpersonal responses . . . . this is the critical survival dilemma-- the basic conflict, if you please, of human nature. In response to this conflict there can be two maladjustive extremes of personality: rigidity, which brings a narrow adjust- ment to one aspect of the environment, and unstable oscillation, which is an intense attempt to adjust to all aspects of the environment. Between these extremes, most individuals tend to select a limited set of preferred reflexes which operate spontan- eously, but not with inflexible repetition. Leary states his Principle of Reciprocal Interpersonal Relations: . Interpersonal reflexes tend (with a probability signif- icantly greater than chance) to imitate or invite reciprocal interpersonal responses from the "other" person in the interaction that lead to a repetition of the original reflex. He stresses that reciprocal relations are probable, not inevitable, like any other principle of human emotions it Operates in probabilistic terms. People experience inconsistency and changeability in their emotions and no interpersonal role is absolutely pure or rigid. Everyone acts inappropriately many times each day, and lines of interpersonal communication break down momentarily. However, very rigidly formed relationships can be upset by shifts in the pattern of reciprocal relations. Some are very inflexible and demand perfect reciprocity. Chapter 8: The Level of Conscious Communication: The Interpersonal Trait This level deals with the individual's perceptions of himself and his world as he reports them. ". . . all the statements 163 an individual makes about himself or his world." These are evaluated and employed in relation to other levels of personality. "The range of conscious reports is diverse. A person describes himself in a variety of ways, depending on his purposes and the environmental situation. He will emphasize certain trends when he attempts to impress, others when he attempts to excuse himself, others when motivated to confide." A working rule in studying or evaluating data from conscious reports is that three sources of variation must be considered--time, the interpersonal context, and variation among the levels of personality. There is a wide variety of methods for obtaining Level II material in the clinical situation—-interview, check list, auto- biography, etc. They range from the personal revelation at the most intensive moments of psychotherapy to mechanical selection of "yes" or "no" items on a questionnaire. Chapter 9: The Level of Private Perception This level of personality "comprises the expressions that an individual makes, not directly about his real self in his real world, but indirectly about an imagined self in his preconscious or symbolic world. The interpersonal motives and actions attributed to the figures who people his fantasies, his creative expressions, his wishes, his dreams define the subject matter for this level of personality." These preconscious symbolic expressions have a relationship, although indirect and often unwitting, to an individual's conscious and communicative behavior. Leary (quoting Kris) cites two quotations from Freud defining preconscious: Preconscious is what is "capable of becoming conscious," . "capable of becoming conscious easily and under conditions which frequently arise." To further clarify this level of personality or informa- tion Leary states: Since there is no single term in the English language for denoting "that which the subject chooses to express in reaction to projective stimuli" I have hesitantly employed the familiar terms "symbolic, imaginative, indirect, fantasy, projective and preconscious" as synonyms for Level III behavior. 164 The phenomenon of symbolization is puzzling, and appears to be universal. A paradoxical quality is its function ("Why do all men channel so much energy into symbolization?"). Leary states: The most persuasive solution to this paradox is that symbolic expression is not a response by which man deals with the challenging stimuli of the external environment; it is a response to internal ambiguity and tension. The reversal theory of symbols implies that they involve repression of the opposite. Symbols are held to express the exact opposite of overt or conscious behavior, the themes inhibited or denied from overt manifestation. Leary states that the reversal theory is not a general finding; it varies from person to person: Some persons do tend to employ symbols which are the opposite of their conscious and public imbalances, but others tend to report monotonously in their symbols the same themes which characterize their behavior at other levels . . . . This variability, the tendency to use symbols which are the same or different from conscious- ness, is a measurable, stable, psychological variable. Symbols only have full meaning in relation to the data from other levels of the personality, the total personality organization: Every level or area of personality is in dynamic equili- brium with all the other levels and the total intricate system of balance and counterbalance makes up the fabulous complexity we call personality. Symbols are also understood only in the context of their personal meaning to the subject. " . . . It is very well known that all individuals have a set of private perceptions, private opinions, and private reactions which often contrast with the statements of conscious report." Another function of symbols is to reduce anxiety. People develop indirect behaviors to avoid anxiety that direct, public expression would entail. Leary goes on to discuss the function of symbols reducing anxiety: By means of the language of symbolism it is possible to express interpersonal themes that are inhibited from direct expression . . . it is also possible to repeat and thus strengthen the same themes that are manifested in direct expression and to avoid furter the themes that 165 are manifested in direct expression and to avoid further the themes that are inhibited from direct expression. The purpose of symbolic behavior is to reduce anxiety. For some individuals this is accomplished by employing fantasy as a safety valve, an opportunity to "blow off" the interpersonal steam that has built up through inhibitions and repressions. For others, even indirect, imaginative expression of the inhibited themes is anxiety-laden. Symbolic behavior in these cases becomes a way of strengthening the avoidance maneuvers. Symbols are also used to preserve self-esteem, to express underlying feelings of uniqueness and self-consolation, again, expressing in fantasy themes inhibited in public communications. Leary states that "symbolic, indirect or 'preconscious' activities are necessary for the human being because he is a time- binding individual." He explains this further: The interpersonal world he has created pushes him toward one set (and often an imabalanced set) of anxiety reduc- ing behaviors. The pressures toward flexibility, both cultural and personal, may push him toward another source of self-esteem. The individual's overt behavior does not express the impulse or desire which he feels . . . Post- ponement of impulse is thus an inevitable characteristic of human behavior. The individual is continually inhi- biting some actions in favor of others, generally moving in the direction of the lesser anxiety. This postpone- ment phenomenon is called the time-binding aspect of human behavior . . . . The basic discovery of Freud that unexpressed impulses do not disappear but remain as active, although indirect, elements of personality can be considered as a temporal rather than a structural phenomenon. The unexpressed motives relate to the past and the future. Whenever we obtain a symbolic, "preconscious" theme from a subject, it suggests that this theme is a potential for future action. The time-binding theory of the "pre- conscious" places the symbol produced in the present on a temporal dimension pointing (we assume) to earlier frus- tration and functionally more important to a later expression of the theme. Thus, Leary concludes, symbols predict future behavior. Summary of the main theoretical points above: 166 The first . . . the language of symbols does not neces- sarily duplicate or reverse the other levels of personality structure. In his overt behavior the patient may repeat the symbolic motifs--or he may be counterbalanced away from them. Symbols often predict future change in overt behavior--but their meaning must always be assessed in terms of the total personality structure. Leary discusses the depth of measurement of Level III materials: The fact that we obtain Level III fantasy protocols does not mean that we are necessarily tapping the private world of the patient. Methods of measuring fantasy vary in depth. The "preconscious" self in some subjects is closer to consciousness than the images of symbolic others. Dreams seem to produce themes which are most distant from conscious report and thus deeper. The first way of determining the depth of the measuring instrument is to compare its themes with Level II. The more discrepancy, the further from consciousness. A second method for determining the depth of the measuring rod involves use of internal cues of defensiveness. The two best internal cues for estimatingdefensiveness from projective tests are misperceptions of stimuli and avoidance of specific themes. Another factor which exerts strong pressure on symbolic expressions concerns the motivation of the patient in the particular situation. Chapter 10: The Level of the Unexpressed: Significant Omissions The content of this level (IV) is themes which are not expressed in either the consciousness or in preconsciousness and are actively avoided (i.e. the subject refuses to respond to these themes when they are appropriate in the situation). This is a relatively unexplored area of personality, and very difficult to measure and test empirically. Leary explains various ways of obtaining and measuring data from this level, including the Iflund test of repression. One thing involved in obtaining data from this level is analysis of negative content: 167 . . the analysis of negative content is concerned with what the subject has failed to say and with what he might have been expected to say considering the usual responses made . . . Chapter 11: The Level of Values: The Ego Ideal This level consists of ideals held by an individual, “his conceptions of 'rightness,‘ 'goodness,' of what he should like to be. In explaining it, and measurement, Leary states: Level V . . . is not a very complicated or deep measure- ment. It simply gives us a picture of how the subject wants us to see his ideals. It tells us which values he consciously stresses. The subject may privately have different goals and stress different feelings. His private value system may be in contradiction to his openly reported principles . . . . Patients' descrip- tions of their ideals are very often quite different from their conscious self-descriptions and their fantasy expressions. This measure seems to vary independently of the other levels. This offers reason that it may serve a unique psychological function and possess a unique clinical application. Leary discusses the effect of value systems in warding off anxiety: The basic function of the individual's interpersonal behavior is to ward off survival anxiety. Any person- ality pattern can be viewed as an attempt to come to terms with the social environment. In this light the development and maintenance of value systems can be seen as providing several bulwarks against anxiety. By taking on standards and ideals the individual wins approval and attempts to ward off disapproval. Heightened self-esteem and avoidance of shame and inferiority can be achieved by the acceptance and expression of value systems. It appears that all human beings maintain this one unique area of their person- ality which reflects their conception of what they should or could be. Problems occur when people develop ideals which are too high or too strict. This can lead to severe conflict at other levels of personality. Sometimes a relaxing of standards needs to occur which is very difficult as ideals are not easily changed. 168 In measuring the data from Level V we find it provides information about the subject, especially when compared to data from other levels. For example, the discrepancy between a person's reported ideals and his conscious descriptions of himself (II) can give an index of self-acceptance. "Once we systematically locate the subject's ego ideal we can compare all the measures from other levels of personality to see how close they fall to the ego ideal. Different theoretical and clinical implications are attached to these idealization indices." Chapter 15: Adjustment Through Rebellion: The Distrustful Personality "This chapter deals with those individuals who select distrust and rebellion as their solutions to life's problems . . . . In their crucial relationships with others, these human beings consistently maintain attitudes of resentment and deprivation. They handle anxiety by establishing distance between themselves and others." "The ideals of our culture stress adjustment, closeness, and cooperation. It is generally taken for granted that trustful, loving relations with certain important others is one of the basic human goals. There exists, however, a very large group of individuals who consistently avoid this relationship." "These human beings often do not voluntarily seek distance and disappointment from others. In their conscious ideals, on the contrary, they may strive and long for tenderness. They are usually frustrated, depressed, and most dissatisfied with their situations." "They regularly manifest, however, the reflexes of distrust and resentment. They involuntarily provoke rejection and punish- ment from others. They cannot tolerate durable relationships of conformity or collaboration." Purpose of Distrustful Behavior "The essence of this security operation is a malevolent rejection of conventiality . . . . The purpose of the malevolent transformation, . . . is to avoid the intense anxiety created by tender feelings. These patients apparently have come to expect that loving feelings in themselves or in others are the prelude to anxiety and rejection. The reflexes of bitter distrust resolve this dilemma very nicely. Such reflexes ward off one's own trustful feelings and tend to push away the other person." 169 This security operation occurs in different degrees in different individuals. It may be a mild form-~skepticism, cynicism, criticalness, passive rejection of conventionality, etc. Or it may occur as an extreme, spiteful and bitter rejection of love and closeness, a hostile or rebellious nonconformity. In whatever degree it may occur, this operation of aliena- tion from convention and from acceptance of others serves several purposes for individuals who employ it: . protection for disappointment, realistic critical rejection of the conventional, the warding off of anxiety generated by trust and tenderness, the freedom associated with uniqueness and rebellious individuality, and, in the pathological extreme, malevolent retaliation for the feelings of rejection by society in general or specific "other ones." The Effect of Distrustful Behavior This behavior in general provokes negative responses from others: punitive rejection, superiority, isolation and alienation, disregard and hostility from others, and a retaliatory distrust. These are the probable reciprocal processes to this security operation. Exceptions may occur: There are some individuals who are so committed to friendly, nurturant responses that they do not immediately react with hostility when faced with distrustful reflexes in another. They may attempt to win the sullen person over into a close relationship. Where the rebellious facade is adaptable and not extreme, this may lead to a relaxation of the distrustful defenses . . . . Where the distrustful reflexes are intense and are the sole means of warding off anxiety, then positive feelings in the "other one“ tend to be rebuffed. This bitter reaction will eventually discourage the most persistently friendly "other" and will inevitably lead to irritation. Clinical Manifestation of DiStrust and‘Rebéllion These individuals usually exhibit "sour, pessimistic, or indifferent feelings" and usually approach therapeutic treatment with skeptical, passive resistance and "do not lend themselves to a well-motivated, eager acceptance of psychotherapy." 170 "In regard to symptoms . . . . They present charactero- logical or straightforward interpersonal disorders. They tend to complain of marital discord, social isolation, frustration, distance and disappointment in their relations with others. A most typical symptom is occupational or academic difficulty . . . a history of rebellion to authority, . . . are often stalemated in their vocation . . . disillusionment and irritation with others." "Moderate" personalities of this type may employ a sarcastic, self-immolating humor. Regardless of the degree, one thing is generally character- istic of all personalities of this type--they are very sensitive to dishonesty, phoniness, arrogance, any hostility or rejection in others. The standard psychiatric diagnosis of a schizoid personality corresponds in many ways to the distrustful personality we have been describing. Many symptoms of the schizoid are comparable-- bitter alienation from accepted standards, rigid inability to conform, eccentric behavior, alienation from others, bizarre behavior which is designed to pull rejection from others. Chapter 16: Adjustment Through Self-Effacement: The Masochistic Personality This personality type presents a facade of self-effacement, communicates weakness and inferiority to others, employs self- depreciation as a protective device. Their automatic tendency is to handle insecurity by means of weak, shy, depressive operations. They use masochism as a way of avoiding anxiety and insecurity. "The mild form of this security operation is manifested as a modest, unpretentious reserve. In its maladaptive extremes it becomes a masochistic self-abasement. In either case the person employing this general mechanism avoids anxiety by means of retiring, embarrassed diffidence. He is automatically mobilized to shun the appearance of outward strength and pride." The effect of this security operation is that these indivi— duals train others to look down upon them with varying intensities of derogation and superiority. “Self-effacement pulls depreciation and patronizing superiority from others . . . if a person acts in a glum, guilty, withdrawn, and weak manner, he will tend to train others to look down on him and to view him with varying amounts of contempt." 171 The reciprocal interaction may not always be immediate punitive, superior reactions from others. Sometimes self-derogation or abasement pulls initial sympathy, but eventually the "other" responds with irritation and disapproval. "Self-effacing, guilty individuals feel the least anxiety when they are manifesting their masochistic reflexes. They, there- fore, gravitate to and stay with those individuals who will provoke the least anxiety--the aggressive, exploitive characters . . . This exchange of guilt and superiority also exists with remarkable frequency in the relationships of normal, adaptive individuals. " This security operation can be moderate modesty and self- depreciation, or a rigid, maladaptive response. ". . . Extreme, rigid masochism invariably sets up new chains of conflict and increased anxiety which can be responded to by increased repetition of self-abasement, by related symptomatolOQY. and by other signs of psychic distress." Clinical Definitions of This Personality The clinical symptoms of individuals of this nature who seek clinical help are often depression, anxiety, doubt, rumination, obsessive uncertainty, immobilized passivity, lack of self- confidence, guilty and obsessive thinking, a strongly self-punitive superego. In social demeanor they tend to be silent, fearful, unsociable or, if the security operation is more moderate and adaptive, characterized by a modest reserve or withdrawal. Individuals of this type are often given the standard psychiatric diagnosis of obsessive neurotic. There is a strong relationship between the interpersonal security operation of masochism and the clinical diagnosis of obsessive neurosis. The linking factor seems to concern guilt and self-derogation. "It seems to make clinical and theoretical sense that self-effacement is the interpersonal expression, and obsessiveness the symptomatic expression of the same overt security operation." Leary makes the distinction between obsessions and compulsions: Obsessions have to do with persistent ideas, intel- lectual preoccupations, doubts, worries, guilty thoughts. These generally lead to inhibition of action-expressive, spontaneous action in particular . . . Compulsions are repetitive activities, e.g. promptness, orderliness, precise activity, disciplined behavior. Compulsions often have an interpersonal impact quite 172 different from obsessiveness . . . . They often com- municate not an interpersonal message of doubt or fear, but, on the contrary, one of righteous self-satisfaction, pedantry, and superiority. The interpersonal meaning of successful compulsivity is "I am right and superior." The interpersonal meaning of pure obsessiveness is, "I am wrong and unsure." Chapter 17: Adjustment Through Docility: The Dependent Personality Individuals of this personality type present a facade of dependent, docile conformity. The moderate form of this security operation is a poignant, respectful, or trustful conformity. The maladaptive extreme is helpless dependency. These persons avoid any expression of hostility, indepen- dence, and power, and are least anxious when they are outwardly relying on or looking up to others. They communicate a helpless, painful, uncertain, frightened, dependent passivity and pull sympathy, help, direction from others, strong helpful leadership. Sometimes the reciprocal reactions to this security opera- tion vary from the strong, helpful, directive response and some "punitive individuals react with stern disapproval to dependence. Severe masochists are unable to express nurturance even though the other is exerting intense dependent pressure." In general, the docile, conforming behavior trains the "other" to assume a strong, friendly, helpful role. Clinical symptoms of this personality are helplessness, overt anxiety, depression, fears and phobias, elaborate concern over physical or emotional discomfort, physical symptoms. Terms of clinical diagnosis relating to this personality are anxiety-neurosis, phobic, anxiety hysteria, neurasthenic, hypochondriasis. These personalities are frequently characterized by the security operations of the docile-dependent personality. These persons give the appearance of being highly motivated, cooperative patients in psychotherapy, but frequently manifest ambivalence or resistance later in the treatment. 173 Chapter 18: Adjustment Through Cooperation: The Overconventional Personality Persons of this personality type employ conventional, friendly affiliation with others as a security operation and mode of adjustment. The adaptive forms are extroverted friendliness, sociability, conventionality, agreeable and affiliative behavior. However, these responses can be rigid and take a maladaptive extreme. It may involve compulsive, repetitious expression of affiliative behavior, extroversion to an extreme degree, commitment to conventional responses so as to forfeit originality and individuality, bland, often naive, uninsightful behavior, and some- times a "sterile conventionality or a self-satisfied piousness." This security operation serves to avoid hostile, unhappy, or power-oriented feelings. "The overconventional person apparently has learned that he can reduce anxiety and gain heightened self-esteem by means of optimistic blandness. He has discovered that acceptance and approval from others can be won by means of friendly operations. He feels safe, comfortable, secure when he is employing these protections." In general this personality provokes a reciprocal response of friendliness. He trains others to like him and gains positive responses. However, sometimes his overoptimism can infuriate a skeptical individual and "power-oriented individuals may see cooperative agreeability as a form of docility and an invitation for them to increase their bossy reflexes." "Overconventional people tend to avoid persons . . . which threaten their facades. The . . . more restricted the person is, the less able he is to tolerate differences which raise anxiety." This person is not generally a visitor to the psychiatric clinic. When they are, it is usually for one of the following three reasons: (1) generalized "nervousness" or anxiety, vaguely defined and not tied to emotional causes; (2) physical symptoms, often with a direct symbolic meaning; (3) complaints about the behavior of others. Prognosis is not very positive for this type of patient: His rigid attempts to misperceive and deny negative feel- ings in himself and others seal off the emotional meaning and leave him only with intensive anxiety. The threat of his own negative feelings (usually provoked by the 174 traumatic external pressure) is the most intolerable experience for this personality type. He comes to the clinic, needless to say, not consciously desiring to have the cover removed from his misperceptions and negative emotions but to have the anxiety removed. When these patients sense that psychotherapy might threaten their bland denial they clearly express their disinterest in treatment . . . Caught between the pain of the illness and the pain of the cure, they usually handle this dilemma by inten- sification of their favored security operations; that is to say, they attempt to re-establish their bland, optimistic protections and move themselves out of the therapeutic situation." The standard psychiatric diagnosis which corresponds best to individuals of this personality type, in its extreme maladaptive form, is that of h sterics. The clinical characteristics of the conventional personality tend to fit the general conception of hysterical behavior--physical symptoms, bland denial of emotional problems, etc. Chapter 19: Adjustment Through Responsibility: The Hypernormal Personality These persons present themselves as strong, normal, suc- cesful, sympathetic, mature persons. They strive to be close to others, to counsel or sympathize with others, to provoke admiration from others. "They strive to fulfill an idealized role of success- ful conventionality" (p. 315). This security operation can become extreme or maladaptive, however, through an inflexible, repetitious use of responsible, hypernormal reflexes. They can never take a passive, aggressive, bitter role if that is called for. Their attempts to be helpful may be inappropriate, they may overextend themselves in promises to others. ". . . They may desperately attempt to maintain the facade of normality when the situation and their own private feelings involve other reactions. They are often driven by relentless ideals of service and contribution to others" (p. 316). These individuals cannot tolerate unconventional or weak feelings and completely deny or inhibit feelings of frustration and passivity. Responsible or hypernormal behavior serves to bolster their feelings of self-esteem, and they are most secure when they are involved in close, friendly, protective relationships with dependent others. 175 Responsible, protective behavior pulls dependence and respect from others. They train others to agree, conciliate, and depend. "While these behaviors generally tend to pull cooperative dependence, their uncalled-for intensity may eventually provoke resentment or frustration from the 'other one.'" Examples of cases where hypernormal behavior is extreme or inappropriate and pulls negative responses from others are the overmotherly woman, the compulsive popularity seeker, and the overprotective parent. Generally, the clinical symptoms of this personality type are psychosomatic or physical. They may come to the clinic com- plaining of organ neurosis, or to put pressure on other family members, or because of an isolated behavior disorder (e.g. alcoholism, gambling, sexual impotency or frigidity). There is no standard psychiatric diagnosis which covers this interpersonal behavior. Leary concludes that he views "strong, affiliative, sup- portive security operations not as ideal or normal ways of behaving but as machinery for warding off anxiety, avoiding disapproval, and raising self-esteem." Chapter 20: Adjustment Through Power: The Autocratic Personality Power, success, and ambition are a means of warding off anxiety and increasing self-esteem for this personality. Adjust- ment through power can be an adaptive and successful way of handl- ing interpersonal anxiety or insecurity. Adaptive forms include ambition, energy, planful organization, righteous authority, behavior designed to elicit admiration or submission from others. Often power is manifested through display of strength--physical, intellectual, social (e.g. social prestige). Interpersonal teaching is a common manifestation of the autocratic personality. In summary, this personality is characterized by "energetic, organized behavior, by the attitude of knowledge, competence, strength, authority." Extreme or maladaptive forms of this behavior are autocratic, domineering behavior, compulsive attempts to control, power-ridden, overambitious behavior, status-driving attempts to impress, over- organize one's life and the lives around them, a facade of competence and efficiency, exaggerated attempts to be planful, precise, and correct. 176 "The key factor in this maladaptive type is the complete avoidance of weakness and uncertainty, and the compulsive endeavor to appear competent, organized, and authoritative. The autocratic person exhibits his power-oriented machinery of adjustment rigidly whether it is appropriate to the situation or not. He cannot relax his compulsive, energetic operations. In social or recreational contexts he grimly clings to his mantle of efficiency and competence, however uncalled-for it may be. The extremes of this type of maladjustment often involve hyperactivity and manic behavior." This behavior or security operation provokes others to obedience, deference, respect, awe, admiration. The exception is when he interacts with one who uses the same interpersonal reflexes; then there may be a power struggle generated. The clinical characteristics of the power-oriented personality are symptoms of a psychomatic nature (common are dermatitis, overweight women, asthmatic men), special isolated behavioral difficulties such as alcoholism, gambling, impotency. Another symptom which may bring this person to a clinic is a severe, crippling anxiety attack. Finally, they may come because of dis- satisfaction with their interpersonal relationships with others. One diagnostic type strongly related to this personality type is the compulsive patient: The compulsive personality seems to involve definite power motives. The compulsive is one who is active, prompt, well-organized, industrious, pedantic, planful, and often righteously competent. The person who exhibits these traits is clearly trying to impress others with his effectiveness. Finally, these individuals are not highly motivated for psychotherapy and do not remain long if they do enter therapy. A final observation is that managerial or autocratic individuals "have a characteristic misperception of the interpersonal behavior of others. They attribute too much weakness to others with whom they interact. They seem to look down on others and fail to perceive strength in others." Chapter 21: Adjustment Through Competition: The Narcissistic Personality This personality or interpersonal lifestyle is based on a competitive, self-confident narcissism. This person has a clear 177 love and approval of himself, acting in a strong, arrogant manner he communicates superiority to others and appears independent and confident. In its maladaptive extreme this is a self-oriented rejection of others. "The individual is so rigidly tied to his own self- enhancement that he fails to sense the inappropriateness of his behavior. Exhibitionism and proud self-display are often diagnostic of this personality type." Narcissistic behavior to others may involve displaying intellectual superiority, their appearance or physical beauty, status or snobbishness. This personality wards off anxiety through ascendance and self-enhancement, and gains security by being independent of other people and "triumphing over them." "These individuals depend for their self-esteem on the demonstration of weakness in others and competitive strength in themselves . . . . They invest considerable energy in protecting and increasing their prestige . . . . In the maladaptive extreme, the narcissist seems driven to inflate himself compulsively at the expense of others. The severe narcissist cannot tolerate success or strength in others. He is driven to compete, to exhibit, to exploit. He is consistently rejecting and selfish. His compulsive and frantic attempts to boast lead to a most unrewarding circle of activities . . . . The maxim of this form of maladjustment is: 'How can I establish superiority over this person? How can I defeat him? How can I use him for my selfish enhancement?'" This behavior provokes envy, distrust, inferiority feelings, respectful admiration, flattery, obedience from others. Narcissistic patients rarely come to a clinic for help due to their emphasis on proud self-enhancement. If they do come it is generally for one of three reasons: (1) psychosomatic symptoms, (2) current injuries to their narcissism, or (3) the desire to display their personalities or talk about themselves. There is not a commonly-agreed standard Kraepelinian-type term to correspond to this personality. A counterphobic is often similar to this type of person, compulsively attempting to demonstrate his superiority to others. 178 Chapter 22: Adjustment Through Aggression: The Sadistic Personality These individuals manifest in their overt operations forms of hostile aggression--cold sternness, punitiveness, or sadism. This refers to not only actions of criminal aggression, destructive violence, or socially disapproved sadism but all behaviors which inspire fear in others, threatening others by physical, moral, or verbal means. ". . . persons who consistently maintain a punishing attitude, or a guilt-provoking attitude fall in this diagnostic category.“ Persons employing this security operation are most secure when provoking fear in others and when projecting a tough, "hard- boiled" front to others. "They are made most anxious in a situation which pulls for tender, agreeable, or docile feelings . . . when they act unaggressive, they feel unprotected and painfully uncomfortable." These people gain power by hurtful, mocking, destroying, critical, threatening, punitive actions. This behavior provokes resentment, distrust, fear, guilt, respect or submission from others. Extreme or consistent sadism has an electrifying effect on others, causing them to be uncomfort- able and ill at ease, to avoid these people. The exception to this reciprocal response is in the sado-masochistic relationship. "An intense symbiotic relationship exists between those who are least anxious when hurting or derogatin and those who are least anxious when receiving these negative actions." These individuals come to the clinic usually by referral by others who are affected by their hostile, aggressive behavior (family problems, employers, etc.). The diagnostic category most correlating to this person- ality is the psychopathic personality: Hostile, sadistic security operations are character- istic of the psychopathic personality. The essence of the psychopathic state is active aggression. These patients avoid anxiety and maintain security by avoid- ing dependent or tender feelings and by integrating critical, punitive relations with others. BIBLIOGRAPHY Addeo, E. G., and Burger, R. E. EgoSpeak, Why No One Listens to log. Bantam Books, l974. Alker, Henry A. "Is Personality Situationally Specific or Intra- psychically Consistent?" Arieti, Silvano. The Intrapsychic Self. New York: Basic Books, Inc., l967. Berne, Eric, M.D. Games People Play, the Psychology of Human Relationships. New York: Grove Press, Inc., 1964. Blanck, Gertrude and Rubin. Ego Psychology: Theory and Practice. New York: Columbia University Press, l974. Bugental,James F. T., and Zelen, Seymour L. "Investigations Into the 'Self-Concept.'" Carson, Robert C. Interaction Concepts of Personality. Chicago: Aldine PubliShing Company, l969. Freedman, Alfred M., M.D.; Kaplan, Harold I., M.D.; and Sadock, Benjamin, M.D. Modern Synopsis of Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry. Baltimore, Md.: The Williams & Wilkins Company, l972. Hall, Calvin S., and Lindzey, Gardner. Theories of Personality. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1970. Hinzie, Leland E., M.D., and Campbell, Robert J., M.D. Psychiatric Dictionary. New York: Oxford University Press, l970. Leary, Timothy. Inteppersonal Diagnosis of Personality. New York: Ronald Press, 1957. McGuire, William J., and Padawer-Singer, Alice. "Trait Salience in the Spontaneous Self-Concept." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 33, 1976. Witenberg, Earl G. Interpersonal Explorations in Psychoanalysis. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1973. 179 180 Wylie, Ruth C. The Self Concept. Lincoln, Nebraska: University .of Nebraska Press, 196]. Sullivan, Harry Stack. The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., l953. APPENDIX III SECURITY OPERATIONS INVENTORY l8] 182 SECURITY OPERATIONS INVENTORY Humor: Repartee: Teasing: Turning the tables: Disparagement: Taciturn-reticence: "I'm alright" (Dissembling): Incessant talking: Interrupting: speaker saying anything designed to elicit laughter; allusions, jokes, uns. goofs and afs(Speaker usually aughs or smilesg. saying anything to elaborate on what speaker says and prompts speaker to reply in kind, particularly wit and put down. Listener usually laughs or smiles. Speaker saying something designed to put person listening in bad light, ostensibly harmless form. Or speaker tempting a listener without providing gratification (speaker usually laughs or smiles). Listener reversing role of listener and questioner or persecutor-defendant or active—passive. knowing - listener or speaker provides answer or insight being right - speaker or listener is proven right or comment is considered to be right or correct. Speaker saying anything to reduce the esteem in which the listener may hold someone or something. Create bad impression. Neither initiating new tOpics nor elaborating on topics or questions introduced by speaker. Speaker or listener saying anything to resent oneself as being together' 'cool" "on top of things" when con- fronting or having confronted dystonia inducing or possible dystonia inducing event or circumstance. Not feeling dystonia when he ought to. See in- difference also. Speaker does not allow listener to say anything. Will not assume role of listener. Something said by listener before speaker finishes sentence or makes point. IO. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 183 Connecting (yea-saying): "I'm just a housewife" (exemption):' N‘est pas or arm twisting, with ratification expected: Self-justifying: Qualifying: Word substitution (rephrasing): "I'm from Missouri" (skepticism): Having no Opinions or values (facelessness): Changing topic: Security Blanket: Indifference: Dramatization: Side-stepping: Pasted on Smile: Listener saying something to place self on good side of speaker. "I agree" or "I approve," "me too." Listener saying something to formally impress speaker when comment is misdirected. "I know him." "I've been there." Speaker or listener saying anything to exclude self from evaluation. (E.g. "isn't that right?" "Isn't it?"; fo lowing an assertion). Speaker saying anything to prevent self from being criticized or creating bad impression in listener. E.g. rationalization, excuses. Speaker qualifies own statements. Listener qualifies statements of others. speaker replaces or rephrases own words speaker replaces or rephrases the , words of others Listener not accepting statement of speaker at face value. Speaker does not identify self with a position on topic, particularly when asked. Listener introduces new topic before completion of current tOpic. Bootstrapping comments by speaker (1) name dropping, (2) prestige association (clubs, cars, boats), (3) calls atten- tion to apparel and possessions, (A) bragging: calling attention to self in a favorable way. Speaker casts lack of involvement in favorable light. Speaker's use of colorful language builds up events by "puting you there." Listener does not answer question by talking about something else that is relevant but off the point. Inappropriate, continuous smiling when circumstances do not warrant it. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. Flashlight smile: Annoyance (impatience): Questioning (confronting): Placating (flattery): Self-effacement: Automatic laughter: Character Building I: Character Building II: Character Building III: Diffidence: Obsequiousness: Headnodding I: Headnodding II: 184 Inappropriate quick smile when cir- cumstances do not warrant it. Speaker acts displeased. Speaker asks questions which require listener to justify what he is saying. Listener asks question designed to make speaker look good i.e. being knowledgable, interesting. Unsolicited comments by either party designed to enhance other's self-esteem. Speaker devalues self in relation to listener. Speaker makes invidious comparisons in favor of listener. Inappropriate laughter; nothing funny happened. Speaker describes dystonia-inducing past events (mishaps, misfortunes), inspires admiration. SO insight: comments which specify behavior that either (1) denotes a conscious striving to make a good impression, (2) denotes a conscious striving to avoid making a bad im- pression. self-abnegation; speaker devalues self to listener. When listener responds to Speaker by placing speaker's needs, comfort, con- venience first, with or without justi- fication. When listener initiates comments or activity (e. . getting chair, ashtray) in absence 0% request or obvious cue (unsolicited) to provide physical com- fort or solace (reassurance). Includes wanting to do favors. Listener nods head (up and down) when he has not been asked or pressured to agree or his/her opinion asked. Listener nods head (side to side) when he has not been asked or pressured to agree or his/her opinion asked. 185 37. ___ Sentence Finishing: Listener finishes sentence when he has not been asked or pressured to finish sentence or his/her Opinion asked. 38. ___ Reassurance Speaker asks questions directly soliciting reassurance from listener, e.g. "Am I doing all right?" "Is this OK?", etc. Copyright Joseph Reyher, 1979 APPENDIX IV THE WATSON HAPPINESS QUESTIONNAIRE 186 187 HAPPINESS QUESTIONNAIRE There are different kinds of feelings of happiness and unhappiness. Below are listed a large number of words and phrases describing these, those describing happiness on one side and those describing unhappiness on the other. Using the following scale, please indi- cate for each word or phrase where you think you belong. U'luL‘LQNH If two never or rarely feel this way occasionally feel this way sometimes feel this way, neither uncommon nor especially often often feel this way almost always feel this way or more of the items listed mean sure and mark them the same way. gloomy the same thing to you, be restless troubled sorrowful irritated or annoyed impatient full of uncertainty embarrassed before others anxious or afraid CI'OSS repressed, held down lonely dull confused, all mixed up everyone is against you discouraged bored struggling full of longing carefree enthusiastic comfortable contented hilarious amused jolly full of life Optimistic satisfied life full of interesting things confident things getting better God is behind you life entirely worthwhile everyone is friendly to you things are bound to turn out right cheerful laughing 188 uneasy regretful no pleasure in anything ashamed in physical pain disappointed discontented feeling hurt unlucky think you are a failure conscience hurts you're getting worse and worse lighthearted full of deep joy peaceful excitedly happy thrilled successful everything goes just right lucky free your duty well done safe and secure life goes smoothly 11. Here is the one a series of statements about life as it is for you. Check that comes closest to how you feel. Every day is full of misery Life for you is unhappy and worthless Life is pretty unhappy for you-—the good doesn't amount to much There are many good things in your life, but there are usually more troubles than joys Good and bad-—happiness and unhappiness are about even for you There is usually more good than bad in your life You have troubles, but they don't last and aren't nearly as important as the good things are Your life on the whole is fine and happy Every day is jammed full of joy III. 189 Do you think that you are going through a period in your life that is (Check which) ___ especially happy? about average? especially unhappy? Consider now the various sides of your life mentioned below. Rate your happiness for each one, as compared with Others of your age and sex. Check the number which best describes your experience. Health 1. ill or in pain all the time - no energy about average 2. 3. ___ 4. 5. always feel fine - lots of energy Vocation (or School) 1. hate it - worst possible for you 2. 3. neither like nor dislike 4. 5. love it - best possible for you Love, Marriage or Sex Life 1. causes very deep unhappiness 2. 3. average satisfaction 4. 5. perfect happiness 190 Friends 1. none you trust or enjoy being with 2. 3. average satisfaction 4. 5. perfect happiness Hobby Interests (special thingspyou like to do) 1. nothing that I find pleasure in fair satisfaction 2. 4. 5. extremely enjoyable Relationships With Parents and Relatives 1. great unpleasantness and unhappiness 2. 3. average satisfaction 4. 5. give very great happiness How important is each of these six things you have just marked in connection with your happiness or unhappiness? Rate each item below, according to the following scale: of no importance of very little importance somewhat important of average importance significantly important of very great importance UlwaP-‘O health hobby, interests ___ friends ___ love, marriage or sex vocation relationships with parents and relatives IV. 191 Are you, on the whole: (check one) more up-and-down -— now happy, now depressed, or more even, on a level? If you compare yourself with others of the same sex and age, how would on rate your own eneral happiness? Check the item below which est indicates about w ere you belong. Think of your average feeling over several months. ___ 1. most unhappy of all 2 three-quarters of other people happier than you are 3 about average 4. happier than three-quarters of others 5 happiest of all Where do you think your friends would rate you? Using the same scale used above for your own self-rating, indicate below where you think your friends would put you. 1. most unhappy of all three-quarters of other peOple happier than you are about average 2. 3. 4. happier than three-quarters of others 5. happiest of all APPENDIX V ANXIETY INDICATORS SCALE 192 193 Anxiety Indicators Scale* (observed in behavior and/or voice) ___ l. Ties and twitches ___ 2. Tremors ___ 3. Tense muscles ___ 4. Uncomfortable ___ 5. Uptight ___ 6. Fidgety ___ 7. Restless ___ 8. Nervous _ 9 . Shaky ___ lO. Antsy ___ ll. Uneasy ___ 12. Scared/frightened ___ 13. Confusion ___ l4. Inability to think ___ 15. Hyper ___ 16. Pensive ___ l7. Ruminative ___ 18. Concerned 19. Troubled, worried Dystonia Indicators* 1. Feeling of failure 2 Feeling powerless, impotent 3. Feel alone, bad abandoned, etc. 4 Feel down on self, hasseling myself * Extracted from Symptomatic Reaction Scale as revised by Joseph Reyher, 1975 APPENDIX VI SELF-DISCLOSURE QUESTIONNAIRE 194 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. _Age 195 SELF-DISCLOSUREAQUESTIONNAIRE "Name Address Address of Parents (if relevant) Occupation Occupation of Parents (if relevant) Father: current while growing up Mother: current while growing up Clubs. Memberships Leisure-Time Activities Education Marital Status Height Weight Income Parental Income (if relevant) Honors, Achievements, Awards Special Talents Brief Description of Occupation (nature of work) .. .a:.. I -.I I» "rifllllllllllllllllll“