This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

ON NARCISSISM AND LOVE

presented by
Philip I. Frank

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph - D - degree in WY

 

fl/W

Major professor

 

Dateflyr /’7:/ /f/[/

0-7639

 

 

 

 

‘— -—-'—_‘-'- Tkv—H a.—‘

 

 

© 1978

PHI LIP ISAAC FRANK

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

ON NARCISSISM AND LOVE

BY

Philip I. Frank

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

1978

757/

ABSTRACT

ON NARCISSISM AND LOVE

BY
Philip I. Frank

This study seeks to provide a thorough theoretical
exposition and empirical examination of the unresolved
debate between Otto Kernberg and Heinz Kohut appropos of the
relationship between narcissism and love. Sections of Kern-
berg's writings suggest the capacity to love to be adversely
affected by narcissism, whereas sections of Kohut's work
suggests love to be independent of narcissism. It is here
brought out that this controversy strikes at the heart of
the psychoanalytic view of the integrated man. It is con-
tended that if the capacity to love is independent of
narcissism, then the widespread view that narcissism is
simply an impediment to love must suffer and a "vindication"
of narcissism would thus be furnished.

In an effort to resolve this controversy, a far-
reaching consideration of major definitions of narcissism
and object-love, as well as the enunciation of developmental
formulations'relating to the two concepts were offered. This

presentation included a delineation of the present day

Philip I. Frank

psychoanalytic conception of mature love, and an excursion
into the plane of pathological narcissism. Finally, the
efficacy of a multidimensional theory of narcissism to the
resolution of the Kernberg-Kohut debate was argued. Speci-
fically, it was hypothesized that an aggressive strand of
narcissism correlates negatively with object-love (Hypo-
thesis I). It was also hypothesized that a non-aggressive,
exhibitionistic strand of narcissism has a negligible cor-
relation with object-love (Hypothesis II).

The current study operationalized love by way of two
measurement instruments, the Lov dimension of the Inter-
personal Checklist and the Dean Romanticism Scale. Both
these measures were utilized to tap underpinnings of psycho—
analytic views on mature love. The Verbal Aggression and
Exhibitionism Scales of the Dynamic Personality Inventory
Operationalized the aggressive and non-aggressive, exhibi-
tionistic strands of narcissism, respectively. In order to
broaden the range of phenomena tested, these instruments
were administered to two samples of males: one composed of
thirty-two university undergraduates, the other comprised
of twenty adult patients of a local community mental health
center.

Hypothesis I received substantive, albeit not com—
plete, support from the data with respect to both sub-
samples as well as the total sample. Five of the six par-

tial correlation coefficients computed to test Hypothesis I

Philip I. Frank

were in the predicted direction and three of them were
statistically significant. Hypothesis II was strongly
supported as five of the six partial correlation coeffi-
cients designed to test Hypothesis II provided statistical
support for it at significance levels far exceeding that
required.

It was argued that measurement error served to
delimit the extent of the support that could be garnered
for the Hypotheses. Differences between the clinic and
student samples were next considered with respect to poten-
tial avenues for future research. The dissertation con-
cluded with a questioning of the pertinence of the libido
theory and metapsycholOgy in general to future explorations

of the interface of narcissism and love.

With all my love to my father and mother, Seymour
and Selma Frank. I will always treasure their

love.

And to those values which are our family

tradition--dedication, knowledge, and compassion.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to express my gratitude to Dr. Albert
Rabin. His wisdom, integrity, and gentleness have touched
my life.

Let me also express my appreciation to Dr. Charles
Hanley whose statistical expertise and patience were
essential to the success of this effort. To Dr. Gaston
Blom I wish to say that his kindness has meant much to me.
Thanks are due Dr. Martha Karson for her helpful comments
on this project's design.

Lastly, I want to make special mention of the
Ingham Community Mental Health Center and Michigan State
University's Computer Laboratory. This dissertation could

not have been completed without their aid.

iii

ff)

(‘1

ST

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . .

Definitions of Narcissism . . . . . . . . .
Developmental Formulations of Narcissism . .
A Continuum Between Pathological and Normal

Narcissism? . . . . .
Pathological Narcissism
Freud on Love . . . . .
On Mature Love . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Freud and Mature Love . . . . . . . . . . .
DevelOpmental Aspects of Mature Love . . . .
The Kernberg-Kohut Controversy . . . . . . .
An Attempt at Resolution . . . . . . . . . .

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . .
HYPOTHESES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0
METHOD I O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O 0

Description of Instruments . . . . . . . . .
The Interpersonal Checklist . . . . . . .
The Dean Romanticism Scale . . . . . . . .
The Dynamic Personality Inventory . . . .
The Acquiescence Scale . . . . . .

The Level II Reading Subtest of the Wide Range

Achievement Test . . . . . . . . . . .

The Vocabulary Subtest of the Wechsler Adult

Intelligence Scale . . . . . . . . . . .
Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Predictions in Terms of Instruments Employed

STATISTICAL TREATMENT OF DATA . . . . . . . .

iv

Page
vi

vii

67

68
69
72
74

76

RESULTS .

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Impediments to Further Substantiation of the
Hypotheses

The Student and Clinic Samples Compared

Implications for Psychoanalytic Theory

SUMMARY .

APPENDICES

Appendix
A.
B.

C.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

FOOTNOTES

The Dean Romanticism Scale

The Interpersonal Checklist .

The Dynamic Personality Inventory

Page
79

87

87
96
101

103
106
110
118
124

10.

11.

LIST OF TABLES

Page

The Interpersonal Checklist Arranged by Inter-
personal Category and Intensity . . . . . . . 57

Formula for the Calculation of the Lov Summary
score 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O I O O 59

Subject Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Partial Correlation Coefficients for Ov Scores
Versus Object-Love With Acquiescence and Exhi-
bitionism Scores Held Constant . . . . . . . 81

Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix of Scores on the
Five Measurement Instruments for the Total
Sample With Kaiser Normalization . . . . . . 82

Partial Correlation Coefficients for Fe Scores
Versus Object-Love With Acquiescence and
Verbal Aggression Scores Held Constant . . . 84

Means and Standard Deviations of the Student
and Clinic Samples on the Five Measurement
Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Reliability Estimates of the Five Measurement
Instruments 0 O O O O O O O C O O O I O O O O 88

Partial Correlation Coefficients for the Total
Sample With the Correction for Attenuation
in Force 0 O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O 90

Results of One-Tailed Significance Tests of the
Difference Between Partial Correlation
Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

The Difference Between Partial Correlation Co-

efficients for the Total Sample With the
Correction for Attenuation Considered . . . . 92

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. The Sixteen Interpersonal Categories of the
Interpersonal Checklist Arranged Around
the Axes of Dominance-Submission and
Love-Hate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

vii

 

11E
ar

1:?

St
fr
it
Va]
to
(Kile

INTRODUCTION

Narcissism and love. From its infancy psychoanaly-
sis has paid homage to these powerful and elusive abstrac-
tions of human experience. Yet, these haunting percepts
are to this day shrouded in mystery and remain objects of
fascination. One need only consider the priority and ur-
gency affixed to these concepts by modern psychoanalytic
thinkers (e.g., Kernberg, 1970, 1974a, 1974b, 1974c, l974d;
Kohut, 1966, 1971, 1972) to sense their theoretical utility.
I would even go so far as to say that with the uncovering
of the syndromes of borderline personality organization and
narcissistic personality disorder, the topics of narcissism
and love have moved to the vanguard of psychoanalytic
thought.

I think there would be little disagreement with the
statement that the concept of narcissism has been a most
fruitful one for psychoanalytic psychology. Not only has
it been integrally related to the explanations of a great
variety of everyday events, but the concept has been central
to the formulation and explication of important theoretical
questions. Moore (1975) has recapitulated the range of

investigations in which Freud made use of the concept.

1

These include (1) The unbounded self-love of children,

(2) The choice of object in homosexuality, (3) The regres-
sive egoism of the physically ill and hypochondriasis, (4)
Exhibitionism, masochism, and the evolution of the ego, (5)
Superego formation, (6) The idealization of the love object.
This listing is only a partial one as one might also con-
sider the role of narcissism in sublimation (e.g., Freud,
1923), in the understanding of adolescence (e.g., Jacobson,
1964), in the genesis of identity formation (e.g., Lichten-
stein, 1964), and its essential place in the discovery and
treatment of narcissistic pathology. Eissler (1971) links
the ubiquity of aggression itself to the feeling of narcis-
sistic triumph its expression provides human beings.

The above are compelling testimonials to the utility
of narcissism as a tool of understanding. Yet, due to some
mistaken popularizations, narcissism, to many, seems appli-
cable only to a handful of people. This belief is artfully
shattered by Andreas-Salome (1962, p. 15): " . . . we never
attain conviction without the privy compliance of the nar—
cissistic demand within us; conversely, when the latter is
gratified, no power is strong enough to make us change our
minds again." From these words one begins to glimpse the sig-
nificance of the role narcissism plays in day to day life.

Freud (1910, 1912), even in his early writings,
was obviously quite intrigued by the psychology of love.
But the place of love, particularly in applied psychoanaly-

tic psychology, has greatly expanded since those early days

wherein Freud explored its relation to infantile sexuality
and choice of object. Today, an assessment of the
individual's capacity to love can often be crucial vis-a-vis
differential diagnosis (see Kernberg, l974d). T00, and for
better or worse, an increased capacity to love is for many
psychotherapists a sine qua non of successful treatment.

Yet, there have been turnings in psychoanalytic
understandings of love and narcissism, so much so that it
may not only be appropriate to speak of the "new narcissism"
(Hanly & Masson, 1976), but the "new love" as well.

Much of this state of affairs is rooted in the pio—
neering work of Otto Kernberg and Heinz Kohut. These two
men have at once, immeasurably facilitated out under-
standings of love and narcissism, and at the same time pre—
sented us with a puzzling quandary: Is it true that narcis-
sism and love can be independent of one another? Can object-

love, seemingly so antagonistic to narcissism, be unaffected

by it? Kernberg's (1974a) writings suggest object-love to

be influenced by narcissism, while Kohut's (1971) work sug-
gests that love is not necessarily swayed by narcissism. My
view is that this controversy, the object of not one empirical
investigation to date, is not only of theoretical interest
but has powerful applications in the applied realm as well.

As I shall bring out, the controversy strikes at the heart

of the psychoanalytic view of the integrated man, and hence
its resolution can have important ramifications for psycho-

analytic treatment. To wit, if Kohut's (1971) concept of a

separate developmental line for narcissism is correct, if
the capacity to love can be independent of narcissism,
then surely the widespread view that narcissism is merely
an impediment to love must suffer. Even allowing for our
western culture's idealization of love (Kohut, 1971), such
a development would also dictate revisions in our attitude
toward the "vindicated" narcissism we encounter in our
patients and in ourselves. Indeed, there are those who
have already acted as judge and jury and either exonerated
narcissism or found it reprehensible and proceeded accord—
ingly in their psychotherapeutic ventures.

I am here arguing that both of these verdicts are
premature, and envision this study as an attempt to resolve
the debate on more empirical grounds. Thus, I will proceed
as follows: A comprehensive exploration of the evolution
of modern psychoanalytic thinking on love and narcissism,
with the end of explicating the current critical and unre-
solved controversy between Heinz and Kohut and Otto Kern-
berg, will be presented. Of necessity, such an exploration
must entail a far-reaching consideration of major defini-
tions of narcissism and object-love, as well as the enun-
ciation of developmental formulations related to the two
concepts. Fortunately, such a scaffolding will also allow
and require me to add some reflections on the relationship
of Freud's work on love to present day psychoanalytic con-

ceptions of mature love. Too, an excursion into the plane

of pathological narcissism and the related question of a
continuity between pathological and normal narcissism will
be undertaken. In concluding sections, a theory aimed at
resolving the Kernberg-Kohut controversy will be promul-

gated and subjected to empirical analysis.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Definitions of Narcissism

 

Freud (1914) differentiated primary narcissism from
secondary narcissism. He defined primary narcissism as that
condition in which object-libido and ego-libido are indis-
tinguishable. He noted this state is not dissipated until
the formation of the ego-ideal which, in itself, is an
attempt to recover the primary narcissistic state. It
would follow that it was Freud's Opinion, at least at this
juncture in his thinking, that primary narcissism reigns
until the dissolution of the oedipal complex. Freud viewed
secondary narcissism as resting on the formation and, hence,
availability of object libidinal cathexes. Thus, he char-
acterized this latter state as one where the ego withdraws
object-libido and focuses it on itself, thus taking itself
for an object. In an attempt to elucidate these statements,
we might consider Freud's (1914) remarks about the state of
being in love. He saw this condition as related to the
primal state in which ego-libido and object-libido are
merged (i.e., primary narcissism). This is in contrast to

secondary narcissism where, as in schizophrenia, there is a

withdrawal of previously utilized object-libido by the
ego onto itself.

Hartmann (1956), in attempting to clarify the con-
cept, noted that Freud distinguished egoism from narcissism.
He explained that Freud saw egoism as aiming for advantage,
whereas he saw narcissism as implying, in addition, the
individual receiving libidinal gratifications from the ac-
quisition of such an advantage (e.g., "I've done it" vs.
"I'm great because I've done it").

Kohut (1971) approaches the definition of narcissism
from a somewhat different vantage point than did Freud.
Kohut sees primary narcissism as that state in which the
infant experiences an undisturbed equilibrium, a perfection
which antedates even the most basic differentiations into
later categories of perfection (e.g., perfection in the
realms of knowledge, power, beauty, etc.). Herein, the
infant experiences the mother and her ministrations not as
a "you," but rather as a part of its primitive self. At
this juncture, the mother is a narcissistic agent, a ser-
vant over whom the infant expects to exercise full control.
Kohut (1966) writes that the type of control the infant
expects to have over its mother is closer to that which a
grownup rightfully expects to have over himself and his
actions than to the grownup's experience of others and the
degree of control he has over them. Because of the mother's

inevitable empathic failures, Kohut reasons that the child

moves out of this stage and into a stage of pre-phallic
narcissism (i.e., secondary narcissism) by (a) establishing
a grandiose and exhibitionistic image of the self and (b)

by giving over the previous perfection to an exalted, omni-
potent self-object. Though they describe the subject matter
in divergent ways, I see a harmony between Freud's and
Kohut's definitions of narcissism. For both men, primary
narcissism would appear to be, phenomenologically, a bliss-
ful state, one dominated not by grandiosity nor omnipotence.
Primary narcissism would seem to know no such self or self-
object aggrandizing states.

Bing et a1. (1959) suggested dropping the distinc-
tion between primary and secondary narcissism, as they saw
primary narcissism as a state of energy distribution not
truly narcissistic since, at this time, no sufficient ego
structure exists for the cathexis of a self-representation.
In short, these authors saw primary narcissism as only

applicable in the fetal and neonatal states.
In this context, Hartmann's clarification (1950)

that Freud was equivocal regarding the definition of
narcissism is vital. He points out that on some occasions
Freud defined it as the libidinal cathexis of the ego, but
on others as the cathexis of one's own person, of the body,
or of the self. Hartmann then went about the task of

differentiating between the self and the ego. Beautifully,

Hartmann wrote that when one refers to a self-cathexis one
is not specifying whether the cathexis is located in the id,
ego, or superego. As Hartmann believed that narcissistic
cathexes can be found within all the psychic agencies, he
suggested that narcissism be defined not as the libidinal
cathexis of the ego, but of the self instead. Thus, for
Hartmann, the self is both broader than and inclusive of the
concept of the ego.

It would seem that a common thread running through-
out the various definitions of narcissism is its self-
directed, as opposed to object-directed, quality. Up until
not too many years ago this statement would probably have
received wide agreement. However, Kohut (1971), in what
many see as a revolutionary and radical action, wrote that
narcissism should be defined not by the target of the
instinctual charge (e.g., self or object), but by the
quality of the instinctual charge. In a similar vein,
Eisnitz (1974) recommends that narcissistic object-choice be
defined as that wherein the major cathexis is directed
toward the self-representation. As Kohut points out, the
small child invests other people with narcissistic cathexes
and thus experiences them as an extension of himself. So,
what appears to be object-directed may well be self-
directed (see Kohut, 1966; Eissler, 1971). I would here
accentuate the continuity between earlier work on object-

relations theory and the ground-breaking efforts of authors

10

such as Kohut. With the differentiation between internal
and external objects, the psychoanalytic conception of
reality was sufficiently altered so as to allow for the
realization that a seeming relation with an external object
may intrapsychically be a relationship with a self-repre-
sentation.

It is apparent from the preceding that an attempt
to garner from the literature a unitary definition of
narcissism is an arduous enterprise. The literature abounds
with divergencies of thinking on the matter. But, my view
is that it is these very divergencies, divergencies which
suggest that there are many sides to narcissism, which in

the end may resolve the puzzle to be outlined below.

Developmental Formulations of Narcissism

 

As was alluded to at the outset, narcissism is
integrally linked to superego and ego formation. For an
explication of these developments let us return to Kohut's
thinking. He hypothesizes that subsequent to the stage of
primary narcissism the two structures of secondary
narcissism emerge. One of these may be expressed as "I am
perfect" (the grandiose self), the other as "You are per-
fect, but I am part of you" (the idealized self-object).
Herein is seen, first, pre-phallic narcissism keynoted
by the child's need for complete acceptance of his body-
mind self. There is next an unfolding of phallic narcissism

marked by feelings of invulnerability, self-glorification,

11

and glorification of the parents. With the resolution of
the oedipal complex, the idealized oedipal self-object is
internalized in the form of the idealized superego (e.g.,
cherished values). Freud (1914) looked at this internali-
zation process in an intriguing way. Teleologically, he
viewed the ego-ideal as the substitute for the lost narcis-
sism of childhood. Freud theorized that the person strives
to recover this lost narcissism by attaining the perfection
of the ego-ideal.

Kohut (1966, 1971) also sees the two structures of
secondary narcissism as intimately related to the formation
of the ego. Specifically, he posits that the early pre-
oedipal aspects of the idealized self-object are eventually
given up and internalized in a neutralized form, becoming
that part of the ego which regulates and channels the
drives. Kohut, in addition, views the gradual decathexis
of the glorified self-object as critical to the development
of a realistic self. As regards the grandiose self, Kohut
(1971) maintains that it becomes neutralized into the
ambitions of the personality, and leads to a feeling of
the right to success. Finally, Kohut believes that the
neutralization of the narcissistic cathexes is responsible
for the development of such qualities as empathy, creati-
vity, humor, and even wisdom. In summarizing the above
developmental processes, one could say that in the course
of normal development, the ego accedes to dominance in

the realm of the narcissistic structures.

12

Even among professionals in the field, it is an all
too common misconception that "to be narcissistic" is un-
desirable. This belief is probably based on a delimitation
of the scope of narcissism so as to encompass only narcis-
sism as a pathological phenomenon. Yet, as has been
brought out, narcissism is also a develOpmental phase, the
successful resolution of which is indispensable to normal
development. Kohut (1971), as Freud, theorizes that as a
phase narcissism succeeds autoeroticism. The autoerotic
stage is comprised of libidinal cathexes of individual
body parts or of isolated physical or mental functions.
Thus, during the autoerotic stage there is only a fragmented
body-self. Now, it is true that in the narcissistic phase
the self is grandiose, exhibitionistic, and unrealistic.
Nonetheless, this does constitute the cathexis of a cohesive
self in contradistinction to the autoerotic phase where
there is no such cohesive self. Kohut's point is that nar-
cissism as a phase, and later in its transformed states, is
vital to psychological growth. One more illustration of
this is Federn's (1952) concept of ego feeling, a feeling
which entails the sensing of our bodily and psychic egos.
Federn asserted this ego feeling to be prerequisite to
normal functioning. As the ego feeling rests on narcis-
sistic cathexes, one is again led to the realization of
the existence of a normal or healthy narcissism. Subli-

mation, a function so intertwined with the perpetuation

13

of society itself, too, rests on a reservoir of narcissism.

In The Egg and the Id (1923) Freud hypothesized that all

 

sublimation may involve the ego's capacity to transform
object-libido into narcissistic libido and then to change
the aim (e.g. admiration for father--narcissistic identi-
fication with father--pursuit of a "father-like" higher
level activity).

To this point I have, for the most part, limited
myself to a metapsychological discussion of the develop-
mental aspects of marcissism neglecting a phenomenological
exposition on the concept. This can be remedied by turning
to a most interesting paper by Van Spruiell (1975). Van
Spruiell begins by enumerating manifestations of narcis-
sism in the first eighteen months of life before self-
object differentiation. During this time period, the
author sees self-esteem as mutually regulated in the
mother-infant dyad. In regard to the role of omnipotence,
she posits a flowering of omnipotence in the first half of
the second year as the toddler experiences the world to be
almost completely within his control. In the post-eighteen
month period, and more specifically within the practicing
subphase of separation-individuation, the child is faced
with the fact that the parents have interests completely
independent of him; he is thus confronted with limits to
his omnipotence. With this realization of separateness,

object-choice becomes a possibility. Still, in the

l4

pre-thirty sixth month period, the child retains much of his
original narcissism; the child idealizes himself. The oedi-
pal period, that is the mother's preference of the father as
a sexual object, deals a heavy blow to the child's narcis-
sism. However, in the wake of the oedipal period comes the
relinquishment of self-object idealization (due, for example,
to disappointments in and competitions with the parents) and
in its stead the idealization of the superego. Van Spruiell
is of the opinion that self-love, a third aspect of narcis-
sism and defined in terms of feelings of loveability, is
likewise a byproduct of increasing individuation. Van
Spruiell lays normal adult ambitions and interests, regula-
tion of mood, the ascension of values, and feelings of compe—
tence at the doorsteps of infantile self-love, self-esteem,
and omnipotence, respectively. To fill out.this develop-
mental picture, we should consider Jacobson's (1964) comments
about the role of narcissism in adolescence. Jacobson
asserts that to the extent that the adolescent can renounce
his infantile love objects will he attain a stage wherein

he is overinvolved with himself, pursuing narcissistic aims
to the detriment of object-directed goals. Yet, Jacobson
stresses this to be only a temporary forfeiture which in

the end aids in the reconstruction of the superego, in the
development of ego interests, and in the capacity for object-
1ove. Again, it is clear that narcissism is critical to

normal development.

15

A Continuum Between Pathological
and Normal Narcissism?

 

 

Kernberg (1974a) discerns Kohut as espousing a con-
tinuum between normal and pathological narcissism. He
views Kohut as maintaining that narcissistic personalities
remain fixated in the normal infantile stages of the
grandiose self and idealized self—object. Kernberg (1974b)
argues strongly against this continuum, reasoning that
pathological narcissism is not the equivalent of a fixation
at the archaic narcissistic phases, but rather is the
result of destructive object-relations. Kernberg does not
see the infant as being narcissistic in the devaluating,
cold, haughty manner of the person beset with pathological
narcissistic processes. Instead, the infant's demands for
recognition coincide with a libidinal attachment to the
object, even in the absence of need, by the age of 2 1/2 - 3.
Kernberg, in support of his position, outlines diverse
forms of idealization. He alludes to the idealization of
the borderline patient where split-off all good, powerful
objects and all bad, sadistic objects are encountered. He
notes the idealization found in the transference neuroses
where the analyst may be seen as a good, forgiving figure.
In even maturer forms of idealization, the analyst is seen
as the upholder of treasured values. Kernberg stresses
that all these forms of idealization vastly differ from
that form characteristic of pathological narcissistic pro-

cesses where there is the projection onto the other of the

16

grandiose self. Thus, Kernberg argues against the supposi—
tion that the narcissistic personality is simply fixated
in a normal developmental stage (Moore, 1975).

Returning to Kernberg's position, clearly it is
rooted in the view that narcissistic personalities use their
narcissism in the service of their defense. Annie Reich
(1960), in an important exposition, delineates such defen-
sive processes. She offers the example of the person who
uses his body as a phallus, thus stating "I do not fear
castration nor am I bad or inferior. Rather, I am invul-
nerable and majestic." Ephron (1967), in also stressing
such defensive aSpects of narcissism, mentions that self-
love can be a cover for self-hate. Yet, after perusing
Ornstein's (1974) discussion of a paper offered by Kernberg
(1974a), one wonders if Kernberg has not been attacking a

straw man. By citing passages from Kohut's (1971) Analysis

 

of the Self, Ornstein demonstrated that Kohut does not hold

 

the view attributed to him. That is, Kohut, as elucidated
by Ornstein, does not see the twinship, merger, or even
mirror transference, characteristic of narcissistic per-
sonalities, as simply reinstatements of a normal develop-
mental stage, but rather regressive alterations of them.
Nevertheless, I discern a real difference between Kohut
and Kernberg on this issue. I think most investigators
would concur that Kernberg sees the narcissism of the

narcissistic personality as resting on fundamentally

17

different processes than normal adult or even infantile
narcissism, whereas Kohut does not.

The resolution of this question has substantive
psychotherapeutic implications. Kohut reasons that because
of the traumatic loss of the idealized object, optimal
idealization of the self-object does not take place, and
hence the importance of allowing for correction of this
developmental arrest via a fostering of the grandiose self
and the idealized self-object in the treatment. On the
other hand, if Kernberg's arguments regarding the lack of
continuity between pathological and normal narcissism are
correct, this therapeutic procedure is contraindicated.
Ornstein (1974) has some interesting thoughts on this
issue. He emphasizes the mistake it would be to think
that Kohut does not recognize the defensive and exaggerated
aspects of narcissistic pathology as compared to infantile
narcissism. Rather, in full recognition of these defensive
facets, Kohut, as told by Ornstein, chooses to allow the
pathological regression to occur in the transference with
the end of internalizing those processes which ultimately
will build up the deficient ego ideal and superego. Fur-
ther, Ornstein observes that Kernberg's therapeutic approach
aims for the onset of an oedipal transference neurosis in
consequence of Kernberg's nonacceptance of the separate

developmental line of narcissism.

18

Surely, Ornstein is quite enamored of Kohut's
work and his reflections must be understood with this in
mind. Quite clearly both Kernberg and Kohut are successful
and unsuccessful with patients. I will rest content if I
have here attained the goal of illuminating the intimate
relation between the theoretical domain of narcissism and

our everyday clinical work.

Pathological Narcissism

 

Perhaps it would behoove us to now examine more
closely the syndrome labelled "pathological narcissism."
One should not be surprised to find that pathological nar-
cissism is different things for different peOple. As
Schwartz (1974) points out, Kernberg's brand of narcissi-
stic disturbance thoroughly differs from that described by
Kohut. For Kernberg (1970), narcissistic pathology is key-
noted by grandiosity, extreme self-centeredness, absence of
interest in and empathy for others, intense envy, and a
deficiency in genuine feelings of sadness and mournful
longing. Kernberg emphasizes that these people adapt them-
selves to the demands of the environment not out of a moral
sense but out of fear should they not comply. Secretly,
these individuals think of themselves as criminals who
would indulge in anti-social behavior were there to be no
consequences of their actions. It is thus consistent that
via projection other people are also experienced as unre-

liable and dishonest, and are alternatively feared and

19

deprecated. To neet another person is anathema for this
class of peOple, as to do so is to risk exploitation and
mistreatment.

On the other hand, for Kohut (see Goldberg, 1974;
Kohut, 1971; Lachmann & Stolorow, 1976; Schwartz, 1976)
pathological narcissism does not necessarily entail the huge
aggressive component that it does for Kernberg. Lonely and
empty lives, lives adrift, aimless, and directionless,
devoid of meaningfulness, are frequently encountered in
Kohut's writings. Beneath vague, seemingly neurotic, com-
plaints are often encountered serious disorders of the self,
or a lack of consolidation of the self. Tortured experi-
ences of a lack of self, that one is play-acting, or of a
lack of continuity in one's life, are often heard complaints.

At this point let me pause to make a few qualifying
remarks. What has been described is not a borderline syn-
drome, but rather the clinical signs of a narcissistic
personality disorder. While it is true that the two syn-
dromes often present nearly identical dynamic pictures, a
differentiation between the two can be made (see Kernberg,
1967). I should also like to stress that to think of nar-
cissistic disturbance as an all or none affair would be to
seriously err. Kernberg, for one, has distinguished
between narcissistic defenses and a narcissistic personality
disorder. In fact, it would probably be rare today to
find even in the psychoanalysis of a neurotic patient no

‘work on narcissistic problems.

20

Somewhat surprisingly, Kohut's (1971) and Kernberg's
(1970) metapsychological analyses of narcissistic pathology
are similar. Kernberg has delineated the fusion of ideal
self, ideal object, and actual self-images, regularly en-
countered in this disturbance. Herein, patients identify
with their own ideal self-images in order to deny normal
dependency. This condition bespeaks an absence of superego
integration and the dangerous absence of a sharp demarcation
between ego and superego. Because of the arrest in superego
consolidation, primitive aggressive superego forerunners
live on undaunted and constitute fertile ground for paranoid
projections. Thus, the inner world is one of good and bad
only, one often entirely composed of idealized self-objects
and vengeful, dreaded enemies. Kohut's emphases on horizon-
tal and vertical splits in the ego as being causative of
disturbances in self—esteem, of the revival of archaic
grandiose aspects of the self-representation, of the magical
identification with objects that embody longed for attri-
butes of the self, are all quite consonant with Kernberg's
metapsychological analyses.

Aside from these structural considerations, Kohut
(1966) has added some thoughts on dynamic and genetic
aspects of pathological narcissism. He forcefully stresses
the devastating impact of the loss of the idealized parent
image on the child. Kohut hastens to add, however, that he

not only has in mind the death or absence of a parent, but

21

also the withdrawal of affection from the child and the
child's inevitable disappointments in the parent. All of
these conditions may lead to the destruction of the
idealized parent representation and to a precocious inter-
nalization of functions previously performed by the object.
Such a development, too, interferes with superego inte-
gration, as ego and superego separation is herein retarded,
and may result in endless future searches for external
omnipotent objects with which to merge so as to defensively
bolster the grandiose self. These structural, dynamic, and
genetic facets of pathological narcissism stand in marked
contrast to the processes of healthy narcissism where
feelings of loveability, competence, of a right to success

(Van Spruiell, 1975), to name but a few, are ever present.

Freud on Love

 

As a preface to the Kernberg-Kohut controversy to
be developed below, considerations of various psychoanaly-
tic views on love as well as of sundry developmental con-
structions are in order. I begin with Freud's thoughts on
the matter. Bergmann (1971) sees Freud as having made two
fundamental contributions to the psychology of love. The
first coincided with Freud's (1910, 1912, 1915b) pronounce-
ment of a link between love and infantile sexuality, that
love between adults rests on a reawakening and refinding
of early relationships. Freud (1915b) flatly stated that

the state of being in love consisted of new editions of

22

infantile reactions. Comparing love in everday life to
transference love, Freud announced that the two are actually
quite similar phenomena. He argued that while transference
love is more dependent on early infantile precedents and

is less protean than is normal love, the two do not differ
in any appreciable way.

In tracing the genesis of Freud's second contribu-
tion to the understanding of love, Bergmann (1971) refers
to Freud's distinction between narcissistic love and object
love. This distinction was underscored in a 1917 paper
which Freud began by equating the masculine type of loVe
with object-love, and the feminine type of love with
narcissistic self-love. Herein, Freud took pains to
clarify that this was not to say that women are not capable
of object-love. Rather, Freud stressed that the term
"masculine" referred to an active giving of love, whereas
"feminine" connoted the passive wish to be loved, and the
granting of permission to the beloved to do so. As
Hitschmann (1952) reiterated, the narcissistic type chooses
the object on the basis of his own image, whereas in the
anaclitic type of object-choice, in the case of the male,
the object resembles the mother. Freud (1917b) saw a
prototype of object-love in the child's decision to
obediently part with its feces, and a precursor of the
narcissistic attitude in the child's stubborn retention

of feces for autoerotic purposes.

5

23

We are now brought to the realm of Freud's perspec-
tives on normal love. In contradistinction to neurotic
love, Freud saw normal love as hinging upon the unification
of the tender, affectionate feelings with the sensual
feelings. In other words, for Freud, normal love was a
blend of erotic-love and aim-inhibited love. To clarify,
erotic love might be defined as an object cathexis on the
part of the sexual instincts which terminates with the
conclusion of the sexual act. Aim-inhibited love, char-
acterized by affection and friendship, is rooted in a
deflection of the erotic instincts from their sexual aim.
To go on, even in the case of normal love Freud discerned
an inevitable sexual overvaluation and idealization. This
state is characterized by the absence of criticism for the
beloved, and a greater appreciation of the beloved's
qualities than existed before the object was loved. Freud
(1931) did not insist on a state of postambivalence as a
prerequisite for the capacity to love, noting, however,
that such an attitude might be attained in a state of
advanced development.

In further defining love, Freud (1915a) reminded
that it was not a component instinct of sexuality such as
sadism-masochism is, for example. Rather, he thought of
love as an expression of the whole instinct of sexuality
(that is, inclusive of sadism-masochism, scoptophilia,

exhibitionism, etc.). He added that love has three

24

opposites: loving vs. hating, loving vs. being loved, and
loving and hating vs. lack of concern or indifference.
Freud contended that "being loved" was near to narcissism,
as in this state the individual is concerned with himself
and his pleasures are autoerotic. He remarked that if
loving is defined as the relation of the ego to its sources
of pleasure, then during the autoerotic period the indi-
vidual is indifferent to the external world, the second
antithesis to loving defined above. The third antithesis
to loving, hating, is born with the infant's introjection
of objects and projection of its bad self onto the environ-
ment. In concluding this developmental foray, Freud noted
that with the infant's interest in objects, with its
attempts to introject pleasurable objects, we can speak of
the attraction of objects, and hence of "love."

Let us now turn to what I discern as Freud's most
fascinating work on love, his structural analysis. Freud
(1921) wrote that as the sexual overvaluation of the
object mounts, the impulse toward direct sexual gratifi-
cation may recede far into the background. The object
may become so precious so as to make the ego's devotion
toward the object resemble dedication to an abstract
ideal. The object thus elevated to such lofty heights
usurps the place of the ego-ideal. In the stead of the
ego—ideal reigns a glorified object. Regrettably, it was

only in passing that Freud posed two tantalizing queries.

25

First, he wondered whether it could not be the case that
the object was put in the place of the ego rather than of
the ego-ideal. Second, the roles of identification, and
introjection of the object into the ego in extreme cases,
were alluded to by Freud. It is our loss that Freud did
not extend his structural analysis of love. However,
Jekels and Bergler (1949) did add some of their thoughts

on this matter. Building on Freud's analysis, these authors
conceptualized a tension between the ego-ideal and the ego
as a prerequisite for loving. They envisioned love as a
denial, a narcissistic proof given to the ego-ideal that
the ego is loved. Intriguingly, they theorized that sub-
sequent to the projection of the ego-ideal onto the object,
there is a reintrojection of the projected ego-ideal which
constitutes the essential element of love (e.g., "She is
wonderful and I am wonderful because I am loved by her").
The authors then continued with structural analyses of
feminine and masculine love. In the former, the ego-ideal
is projected onto the object while the subject retains the
ego. Descriptively, the picture is one of demands to be
taken care of by, and admiration of, the superlative object.
In the instance of masculine love, the object represents
the ego and the subject plays the bolstered ego-ideal, with
the result that the subject is primarily concerned with
active caring with the receipt of affection distinctly

secondary. Jekels and Bergler concluded their most

26

informative work with the statement that love cannot exist
if the object does not fulfill the subject's wishes as
expressed through the projected ego-ideal. In fact, "love
at first sight" is so powerful and immediate only because
the object so closely conforms to the wishful ego-ideal.
The more reality "colludes" with the wishful ego-ideal, the
greater the illusion upon which love stands.

Reference has been made in the preceding to a
distinction between neurotic and normal love in Freud's
thinking. Let us now examine this issue closely. Very
early on Freud wrote quite extensively of the erotic life
of male neurotics for whom conditions of love existed. For
example, in discussing the inability of some men to be
sexually potent except with a woman who was debased in their
eyes, Freud (1910) delineated what he termed the condition
of "love for a harlot." He outlined two other neurotic
conditions of love, "the need to rescue the beloved" and
"the need for an injured third party." From here, however,
Freud (1910, 1914) went on to contend that there is a high
degree of compulsion even in normal love, and that the
conditions of love he uncovered are quite widespread. If
I may now turn to Levine's (1977) work on romantic love, my
point will become clearer. Levine refers to Freud's roman-
tic vision of love, noting Freud's emphasis on (1) the
beloved's absence or inaccessibility due to unconscious

forces within the lover, (2) the lover's doubts as to the

27

beloved's fidelity and reliability, (3) self-abnegation,
unrequitedness, and bondage as regularly occurring compo-
nents. Clearly, each of these three attributes can be seen
as indicative of neurotic trends. But, with this realiza-
tion one must ask in utter amazement: "Is this, concretely,
Freud's view of love, of that achievement which for many is
humanity's most esteemed accomplishment?" Can it be that
for Freud love is more or less only a psychopathological

phenomenon?

On Mature Love

 

Certainly, that I raise the above stated questions
is by no means to be taken as an indication that in so
doing I have presently answered them in the affirmative.

It may well be that these queries defy replies in a "yes"
or "no" fashion. Rather, I pose these questions with the
dual purpose of explicating the modern psychoanalytic view
of love. upon which this study revolves. as well as Freud's
position on love. I do not believe the one can be accom-
plished without the other. Let me begin with a recounting
of new psychoanalytic excursions into the dominion of love.

Bergmann (1971), in a review of psychoanalytic
perspectives on love, set forth the opinion that psycho-
analytic theory in its classical era, that is up to the
end of World War II, had not provided a systematic theory
of love. What had been accomplished Bergmann laid almost

entirely at Freud's doorstep, enumerating these three

28

cornerstones of the theory of love during the classical
period: (1) love is possible because there is a rediscovery
in the loved object of qualities of a previous love object,
(2) love is defined as the transformation of narcissistic
libido into object-libido with an accompanying projection
of the ego-ideal onto the object, (3) attainment of the
genital stage is prerequisite to the experience of love.
This last tenet, however, has received harsh treat-
ment at the hands of modern psychoanalytic thinkers. Lich-
tenstein (1970) refers to the myth of the genital stage, of
a stage encompassing the capacity for orgasm and secure
mental health. Lichtenstein observes that from birth to
death man continually struggles with himself with no
lasting immunity. Reflecting on the discoveries of psycho-
analytic ego psychology, Lichtenstein argues that sexuality
and the related capacity for orgasm, though an important
aspect of object-relations, can no longer lay exclusive
claim to preeminence. Kernberg (1974c) reiterates the point
baring the fact that the capacity for sexual intercourse
and orgasm is not invariantly related to sexual maturity,
nor does it necessarily reflect a high level of object-
relations. With his usual incisiveness, Kernberg explicates
that the capacity for sexual orgasm may remain intact
despite a severe arrest in object—relations, as in such
conditions libidinal trends may exist in split-off states

due to a lack of integration with total object-relations.

29

Balint's (1947) thoughts were at once, a harbinger
of this widespread discontent with the notion of genital
primacy, and a bold foray into previously unexplored spheres
of love. The breadth of his thoughts warrant a full examina—
tion. Balint began by defining an ideal case of object-love,
a love devoid of pregenital features. He enumerated that
this love should (1) entail no greediness, no wish to deny
the object independent existence, (2) include no wish to
humiliate or dominate the object, (3) not encompass the
wish to defile the partner, or a feeling of being dis-,
gusted by the partner, (4) be free of feelings of being
incomplete or of having a faulty sexual organ, or of the
partner having one. Aware as he was that such ideal cases
are a fiction, Balint tOOk up another vantage point. Thus,
in defining object-love positively he stated that (1) geni-
tal satiSfaction is only a necessary but not a sufficient
condition for genital love, (2) tenderness, not in an ex-
cessive sense, but in the sense of quiet, non-passionate
gratification is a component of love, (3) a prolonged per-
petual emotional tie, a tie which persists in the absence
of the genital wish, is present, (4) a special form of iden-
tification is found in love; here, interests, wishes,
feelings, and shortcomings of the partner attain about the
same significance as our own, (5) there is a mutual adap-
tation to the other's needs. Needless to say, these are
all continuing processes, and not once and for all time

achievements .

30

Indubitably, we now find ourselves squarely in the
realm of mature love. Though lacking in systematization
and, in my view, unfairly and prematurely dismissed by the
classical psychoanalytic community, Fromm's (1956) work
was a precursor of present day psychoanalytic thinking
on love. Fromm steadfastly maintained that love is a
"standing in" and not a "falling for." He delineated four
basic elements as characteristic of all forms of love: care,
responsibility, respect, and knowledge of the loved one.
Fromm, as Freud (1930), made reference to various permuta-
tions of love such as motherly, erotic, and self-love. How-
ever, he saw brotherly love, a nonexclusive love for all
human beings based on a feeling of communality with all
peOple, as underlying all other forms of love.

I now turn to Kernberg's (1974c, l974d) prolific
contributions in the domain of love. Kernberg, too, empha-
sizes the relevance of the experience of communality with
others, the awareness that we are all on common ground, as
prerequisite to mature love. He underscores the capacity
to mourn for the lost object, which of course presupposes a
bonding with the object, as integral to the experience of
love. In fact, he views concern, guilt, and reparation,
requisites for mature love, as intimately intertwined with
the capacity to mourn and feel depression. Kernberg, too,
lays heavy stress on tenderness, empathy, and committment

‘to shared values and ideals. Kernberg's developmental

31

constructions in the sphere of mature love are indeed grand
accomplishments, and will be outlined in a subsequent
section. For now, I hope to have highlighted some general
trends in modern day psychoanalytic thinking on mature love,
and the divergency in emphasis from the classical, Freudian

outlook.

Freud and Mature Love

 

As has been alluded to, there is a serious question
as to the relevancy of Freud's work on love to modern psy-
choanalytic conceptualizations of love. First, one need
must consider the inextricable tie Freud weaved between
love and not only the sexual instincts but the reproductive
function, in light of the relatively recent dethroning of
the concept of genital primacy. One is indeed hardpressed
not to find some reference to the word "sexual" in Freud's
thoughts on love. Although it is frequently remonstrated
that Freud used the word in a very broad sense, the reader's
Opinion must be swayed by statements such as, "Thus the
word 'to love' . . . becomes fixed to sexual objects in
the narrower sense . . ." (Freud, 1915a, p. 137) in spite
of Freud's protestations (1925). One cannot but wonder
whether Freud's observations of emotionally disturbed indi-
viduals, the basis of so many of his theories, did not
blind him to the existence of mature love, and instead
bind him to a vision of love itself steeped in neurotic

trends.

32

Still, one wades in murky waters in endeavoring to
unravel Freud's position, a task made so much more pro-
blematic by Freud's own contradictory and highly abstract
statements. Freud's 1928 paper in which he differentiates
between love and an ordinary erotic-cathexis, accentuating
the relative dearth of cathexes attached to the object
in the case of the latter as compared to the former, is
to my eye quite abstruse. In perusing Freud's adumbration
of his definition of "sexual" in 1925, one meets with a
similar bedevilment. Herein, Freud explicitly stated that
by "sexual" he referred, too, to affectionate and friendly
impulses, only secondarily serving reproductive functions.
This is in direct contradiction to his 1915 statements.
Bergmann (1971) can provide us with the beginnings of a
welcome resolution. His remarks are the more noteworthy
as he is a staunch defender of Freud's understanding of
mature love. However, Bergmann makes the crucial pro-
nouncement that Freud derived aim-inhibited love from sen-
sual love. whereas he. for one. derives it from friendship.

The importance of this distinction cannot be over-
emphasized, as I believe it accurately reflects Freud's
final thoughts on the matter as delivered in his 1930 work

Civilization and its Discontents. Here Freud spoke of those

 

few people for whom loving displaces being loved, who do
not exclusively love a single object but rather mankind

as a whole, who, in Freud's terminology, substitute an

33

impulse with an inhibited aim for one with a sexual aim.
Though for some such an achievement is laudatory and worthy
of the highest of praises, Freud left no doubt whatsoever
that he disagreed, adding that such nondiscriminating love
loses a part of its value as all people are not worthy of
love. Freud (1930), too, as Bergmann (1971) states,
derived even this nonexclusive love from sexual origins.
Hitschmann (1952), an interpreter of Freud's conceptions of
love, recollected a lecture Freud gave in 1914 to a few
cohorts in which he touched on the area of love. He re-
lated Freud's statements to the effect that love is pas-
sionate and directed toward a single object because therein
the incestuous love for the mother can be repeated. Hitsch-
mann concluded his paper by scoffing at the idea that there
exists a love not rooted unitarily in physical attraction.
He bids us resolutely abide by Freud's definition of love.
Today, the concept of mature love is thriving in psycho-
analytic circles and Hitschmann would find few supporters
of the view he promulgated. However, Hitschmann is owed
a word of thanks as his final plea demonstrates how the
Freudian view of love differs in major ways from the con-
cept of mature love.

This is not to say, however, that Freud's work is
not applicable to mature love. As will be brought out, for
example, Freud's structural analysis of love is clearly

important to an appreciation of mature love. But, I think

34

the distinction must be drawn between what Freud described
and to what purposes his work may be put. Getting down to
cases, we should consider the Freudian stress on falling in
love and the emphasis of modern authors on remaining in
love. Now Kernberg (1974c) does believe that a continuity
exists between the normal state of falling in love and re-
maining in love. Yet, he is quick to add that falling in
love has very little to do with remaining in love. Fromm
(1956), too, distinguishes falling in love, an often atte-
nuated illusion of sudden intimacy born of sexual desire
and dissipating with knowledge of the other, from mature
love. Sexuality, the anlage of Freud's conceptualizations
of love, though also important to mature love, occupies a
subtly different position in this latter domain. In Kern-
berg's (l974c) system of thought, sexuality is not the
wellspring of the capacity to love, but can further the
experience of love. He maintains that the integration of
genitality into the love relationship facilitates a trans-
mutation of falling in love into the state of being in
love, as will be delineated in a later section.

I would be remiss if I did not also highlight the
distinction in the role allotted to idealization. Surely,
in Freud's schema, idealization of the object is at the
core of the phenomenological experience of love. In Kern-
berg's delineations, on the other hand, idealization of the

object is at once relegated to a lesser role, and at the

35

same time the recipient of a most thorough analysis. Kern—
berg (1974c, 1974d) outlines no less than three levels of
idealization, using a develOpmental approach. The lowest
level is characterized by a primitive idealization, resting
on the infantile defense of splitting objects into either
all good or all bad ones. Clinging infantile dependency
is also a manifestation of this crude psychic functioning,
as is some capacity for genital satisfaction. Interestingly,
such idealization is in high incidence in borderline per-
sonalities. This level of idealization is to be distin-
guished from a more advanced form founded on concern, guilt,
and reparation. This form is encountered in individuals
with less severe forms of character pathology and neurotic
difficulties, who are capable of stable and deep object—
relations albeit in the absence of full sexual gratifica-
tion. Kernberg addresses a still higher form of idealiza-
tion reminiscent of a process described by Balint (1947).
Here one finds an identification with the idealized values
of the beloved, not a sexual overvaluation but rather a
mature committment to the ideals for which the other stands
and to what the couple, as one, can become. One may legiti-
mately speak of transcendence, at this highest level of
idealization, from a relationship solely with the beloved
to a dedication to the couple's jointly held culture and
background.

In contemplating this highest form of idealization,

Kernberg (l974c) wonders aloud whether the term

36

"idealization" is really appropriately descriptive of the
phenomenon. After all, one is hard pressed to discern
overvaluation and overestimation in this mature love, which
instead is apparently comprised of a realistic assessment of
the other's wants, goals, and aspirations. In pondering
Kernberg's musings, some questions raised by Sullivan (1965)
are brought to mind. To wit, is it not possible that the
loved object is seen in a true light, that the essence of
love is the fortune and honor of attesting to a beautiful
reality to which one was previously blinded? In short, is it
possible that Freud ignored the virtues and very real quali-
ties of the loved one in his zeal to construct a metapsycho-
logical theory of love? My own thought is that Freud's
structural theory of love is a helpful one, but must be
tempered with the knowledge that the world is not a blank
screen, that object-choice is dictated, too, by reality
considerations. I do believe that while tenderness and
affection have some small voice in Freud's vision of love,
it has been left to authors like Balint, Kernberg, and Fromm
to articulate a conception which highlights a love spear-
headed by care and concern, and to dignify such a love as

a developmental feat to be aspired to.

Developmental Aspects of Mature Love

 

There can be no doubt but that pre-oedipal object-
relations weigh heavily in current psychoanalytic thinking

on mature love. Bergmann (1971), for example, basing his

37

speculations on M. Mahler's formulations, asserts the
essence of love to be a revival of memories, feelings, and
archaic ego states indigenous to the symbiotic phase of
separation-individuation. He interprets the dread of
separation, so often encountered in the great love stories

such as Romeo and Juliet, as rooted in the infant's equation

 

of separation with death, which is revivified in the adult's
love relations. Bergmann, too, eloquently argues that ob-
ject constancy, the availability of the mental image of the
object even in the object's absence, is requisite to the
capacity to love. When object constancy has not been
attained by the infant, when the ability to form an enduring
attachment to another person has been arrested, objects
become interchangeable and love, albeit not lust, becomes an
impossibility. This construction bears relevance to Kern-
berg's (1974d) remarks on severe narcissistic pathology
where sexual promiscuity is often uncovered. Bergmann has
also alluded to individuals with a predilection for sexual
escapades. I was most captivated by Bergmann's analysis in
which was delineated the almost continual need for social
stimulation, and the related inability to be alone with the
love object, manifested by such people. Bergmann linked
these deficiencies to a developmental failure whereby the
capacity to function separately in the mother's presence, to
function without her constant stimulation, is sadly retarded.

Bergmann (1971) concluded his comments with the statement

38

that there can be no idealization of the beloved, no spe-
cialness attached to another person, in the absence of a
special relationship with the mother. Where such a rela-
tionship has existed in the symbiotic phase and been ade-
quately resolved, the infant is left with an unyielding
longing for its resuscitation in Bergmann's schematization.
For Bergmann, mature love in adult life rests on the accom-
plishment of this crucial but painful developmental mile-
stone.

Feldman (1964) has also heralded the preeminence of
attachment and loss in the development of mature love. In
differentiating love from lust, Feldman wrote that in the
latter one sees a desire to possess whereas in the former
the commixture of bliss and anguish following possession or
imaginary possession is characteristic. Categorically,
Feldman maintains that without an acquaintance with the
feeling of fear of loss, love must remain beyond one's reach.
Kernberg (1974c, l974d) embraces these emphases as well, and
in fact goes further in theorizing developmental stages re-
quisite to the capacity to love. The first of these stages
is successfully completed when there has been a full
blossoming of oral and body-surface eroticism and its
integration into total object-relations. Tenderness and
empathy are the enduring testimonials to a fortunate reso—
lution of this phase, and rest on an overcoming of the need

to split off objects into part objects. When the good and

39

bad objects are united into one there is a deepening in
awareness of the self and of others and a dawning capacity
to mourn for the lost object, feel guilt, and make amends
to the object.

The accentuation of concern, care, and reparation
as vital components of mature love is not unique to Kern-
berg. Josselyn's (1971) paper similarly reveals a concep-
tion of mature love rooted in active caring and concern.
However, as may have been discerned, there is a certain
inexactness about Kernberg's explanations of the development
of these qualities, qualities which I believe are well sub-
sumed under the heading of "nurturance." Fortunately,
Winnicott (1963) comes to our rescue. Winnicott, utilizing
his talent of empathy for the infant to its fullest, begins
by stressing the necessity of a good enough environment for
the development of care and concern in the infant. In elu-
cidating his thesis, Winnicott transports us to that stage
when ambivalence and the integration of good and bad objects
have been attained. At this point, the infant experiences
the mother as a whole object and in a coherent way, and
recognizes that both the erotic and aggressive drives it
directs at mother are directed toward the same object. Thus,
at this phase, the mother is no longer split into a good
and bad object, but is experienced as one unified object in
the infant's mind. Yet, in referring to this "humpty

dumpty" stage, Winnicott highlights the precariousness of

40

the infant's position due to the discharge of aggressive
impulses toward the mother. The mother must remain emo-
tionally available to the infant in the face of such dis-
charges. For, unless the mother remains empathic and avail—
able after having been used by the infant in the expression
of id behaviors, the infant feels as if it cannot make a
contribution to its mother. Should this feeling hold sway,
guilt and reparative tendencies, the paramount under—
pinnings of mature love, will not be initiated. Let me

here underscore Winnicott's clarification that concern,
care, and responsibility are resultants of high-level super-
ego reorganization, and may be seen as derivatives of

guilt. Winnicott appends to these thoughts the caveat

that this is not to be viewed as a once and for all pro-
cess. Rather, it need be repeated again and again through-
out the life cycle: we all need to repeatedly feel that we
can make a contribution, and be provided with the opportu-
nity for so doing in order to foster care and concern.

As was mentioned, Kernberg (l974c, l974d) deli-
neated stages in the development of the capacity to love.
Subsequent to the accomplishment of care, concern, and
reparation, Kernberg envisions a stage wherein genitality
is integrated into the love relationship, a feat attendant
upon the resolution of oedipal problems. At this juncture
I reiterate that whereas sexuality is a cornerstone of

Freud's theory of love, for modern authors it is no more

41

climactic than is the place of nurturance in mature love.
In fact, in perusing Kernberg's explication of his second
stage of mature love, one is presented with myriad instances
of genitality being in the service of nurturance. As Kern-
berg stresses, genital satisfaction in mature love is
accrued from the knowledge that in orgasm one fulfills the
oral needs of the partner. Kernberg goes so far as to
state that the tolerance of ambivalence, the capacity to
sexually use and be used by the loved one with the aid of
mutual empathy and collusion, is also a sine qua non of
this phase of mature love. Thus, Kernberg here implicitly
acknowledges that his conceptualization of love is not to
be misconstrued as one where peace and serenity are forever

supreme.

The Kernberg-Kohut Controversy

 

Having expounded on the modern psychoanalytic con-
ception of love, we can now proceed to the question of the
relationship between narcissism and object-love. I will
begin by venturing to clarify Freud's position on the

matter. Turning to Freud's pivotal paper On Narcissism: An

 

Introduction (1914), the expectation of the delineation of

 

a straightforward position immediately comes to grief. In
the early going of this work Freud clearly posited an in-

verse relationship between the two concepts: "We see also,
broadly speaking, an antithesis between ego-libido and

object-libido. The more of the one is employed, the more

42

the other becomes depleted" (p. 76). Such a statement

is hardly surprising. After all, Freud's libido theory,
steeped in a hydraulic model as it is, would seem to be
incompatible with any but an inverse relationship between
narcissism and Object-love. Yet, in the very same 1914
paper Freud made the befuddling remark that the anaclitic
or attachment type Object-choice exists side by side with
the narcissistic type Object-choice. He seemed to be
implying that both kinds Of Object-choice are Open to each
individual, and that the one does not interfere with the
development Of the other. With the passage of time Freud
appears to have become more committed to this latter view-

point. For example, in The Libido Theory and Narcissism

 

(1917), Freud Observed:

. . . it is probable that this narcissism is the uni-
versal and original state of things, from which Object-
1ove is only later developed without the narcissism
necessarily disappearing on that account (p. 416).

Another 1917 paper, A Difficulty in the Path Of Psycho-

 

Analysis, corroborates this opinion. Therein, Freud con-

 

tended that there is never a complete cessation of the nar-
cissistic attitude, that libido is in constant flux, flowing
out from the ego onto Objects and then back again onto the
ego.

I find van der Waals' (1965) review most helpful in
elucidating Freud's contradictory comments. Van der Waals,
in bringing out the development Of Freud's ideas on nar-

cissism, remarks that in Freud's early thinking a complete

43

diminuition of narcissism was deemed vital to the evolution
Of Object—love. In van der Waals' schema, Freud had not
yet conceptualized a healthy narcissism and only began to

do so in his 1914 paper On Narcissism: An Introduction.

 

Van der Waals' understanding is that as Freud began to
envision a healthy narcissism, he began to theorize that
narcissism is compatible with Object—love. Gediman (1975)
goes so far as to state that Kohut's theories are founded
in Freud's 1914 paper. I will only remark at this point
that even if van der Waals' conclusions are true, it would
be an error to lose sight Of the dissimilarities in Freud's
and Kohut's thinking, as will be developed below. Further-
more, I would remind that efforts such as van der Waals'
to explicate Freud's recondite apprehension are only recent
endeavors, and in large measure spurred on by the work Of
modern authors such as Kohut. Mistakenly or not, it is
unquestionable that many if not most psychoanalytic practi-
tioners have long held narcissism and Object-love to stand
in inverse relation to one another. This tenet has pro-
foundly affected psychoanalytic practice, influencing as it
need must the psychoanalytic view Of the integrated person,
and hence therapeutic goals.

Having laid this groundwork, we are now equipped to
consider Kohut's revolutionary work. Kohut (1971) has
theorized the side by side development Of narcissism and

Object-love, each moving from primitive tO higher levels.

44

For Kohut, narcissism is the precursor of Object-love, but
also has a life Of its own. He has written that the two,
for the most part, proceed independently albeit at times
their paths do meet. This latter circumstance occurs in

the state Of love where a narcissistic component exists but
remains subordinated tO the Object-cathexis. That is, there
may be an unrealistic overestimation Of the love-Object,

but the connection with reality is maintained. The latter
circumstance is contraindicative Of the sovereignty Of the
narcissistic component. It should be stressed that even
among those who fervently take issue with Kohut, there is no
argument that narcissism may act in the ultimate service Of
Object-directed goals [see Jacobson on narcissism in adole-
scence (1964) and Freud on sublimation (1923)]. Rather, the
pivotal question is whether the quantity Of narcissistic
libido in use can have no effect on the available fund of
Object libido and visa versa; the question is an economic
one.

Now, Kernberg (l974b) disagrees with Kohut, and
implies that it is Kohut's therapeutic approach which
blinds him. He argues that Kohut does not resolve narcis-
sistic pathology in his treatment. Kernberg's writings
suggest that it may be for this reason that Kohut finds no
relationship between Object-love and narcissism.

There is little doubt Of the furor triggered by

Kohut's theory. His critics are as scathing as his

45

supporters are laudatory. In what eventuates in a personal
attack, Hanly and Masson (1976) begin their paper by arguing
that narcissism retains its infantile character despite
post-oedipal reorganization; they maintain that higher forms
Of narcissism do not exist. They go on to state, quite
accurately, that Kohut, in positing a dual libido theory,
breaks with Freud. All is coherent until, out Of the blue
and senselessly, these authors attack Kohut's handling Of
the dream in his treatment. One begins to sense that what
is so disturbing tO many is Kohut's disavowal Of the singu-
lar importance Of Our western culture's cherished value Of
romantic love (Kohut, 1971). Hanly and Masson bring out
that the higher transformations Of narcissism Kohut refers
to have an eastern quality about them encompassing as they
do "quiet pride . . . mild disdain . . . creative superi-
ority which judges and admonishes with quiet assurance"
(Kohut, 1966, p. 265). Kohut's words on society's hypocrit-
ical judgment Of narcissism, and on the need to concede its
legitimacy are at once, bold and unsettling:
We should not deny our ambitions, our wish to dominate,
our wish to shine, and our yearning to merge into omni-
potent figures, but should instead learn to acknowledge
the legitimacy of these narcissistic forces as we have
learned to acknowledge the legitimacy Of our object-
instinctual strivings. We shall then be able . . . to
transform our archaic grandiosity and exhibitionism
into realistic self-esteem and into pleasure with our-
selves, and our yearning to be at one with the omni-
potent self-Object into the socially useful, adaptive,
and joyful capacity to be enthusiastic and to admire

the great after whose lives, deeds, and personalities
we can permit ourselves to model our own (1972, p. 365).

46

Hanly and Masson seem almost offended that Kohut could see
as much worth in such higher transformations Of narcissism
as he does in Object-love. They are, doubtless, not alone.

Slowly, one sees how the problem Of values cannot be
divorced from the generation and acceptance of psychoanaly-
tic theory. If Kohut had placed as little value in these
transformations Of narcissism as dO Hanly and Masson, he
would certainly have labelled them infantile narcissism and,
under the influence Of Freud's libido theory, not have pro-
ceeded to the postulation Of a separate developmental line
for narcissism. In defense Of Kohut, Goldberg (1976), the
discussant Of Hanly and Masson's paper, asserts there to be
no question of the existence Of mature forms of narcissism
as seen in healthy self-esteem, creative work, and the matu-
ration Of ideals. Further, Goldberg emphasizes that, in
part, Kohut was led to his theory from the realization that
the individual is more than his psychopathology; Schreber
loved his wife and was a wise and clever man though he was
plagued with profuse narcissistic disturbance.

I should also like to cite a growing sentiment
within psychoanalysis to acknowledge a tie between narcis-
sistic-cathexes and Object-cathexes. Eisnitz (1974), for
one, adheres to the position that either cathexis may pre—
dominate at any given moment in an Object-relationship, and
that attempts to separate them out are doomed to failure.

.Another illustration Of this principle is Gediman's (1975)

47

reference to the narcissistic underpinnings Of friendship.
In a more clinical vein, Jekels and Bergler (1949) simi-
larly highlighted the difficulty in segregating narcissism
from love. These authors, in support Of their view,

brought forth the case Of a patient who narcissistically
identified (e.g., reciting verbatim the analyst's views)
with her analyst so as to be loved by him. We are here con-
fronted with the seeming contradiction Of narcissism in the
immediate service Of love. Yet, such a state of affairs is

entirely consistent with Kohut's theory.

An Attempt at Resolution

 

What can be said as regards the Kernberg-Kohut
debate Of the relationship between Object-love and narcis-
sism? In what direction is a resolution to be found? Is
the course to be followed that Of simply submitting the
controversy to experimental analysis with the end Of pro-
claiming one man correct and the other mistaken in his sup-
position? I do not waver in contending this course to be
folly. Clearly, each Of these authors have substantial
followings and for good reason: the principles each theo—
rist has posited have paved the way for psychotherapeutic
successes. I then initiate this discussion with the
premise that there is no "yes" or "no" answer, that these
authors' seemingly conflicting positions are both appli-

cable, but perhaps to divergent phenomena.

48

Let me begin with a semantic point. Technically,
Kernberg's writings suggest not an inverse relationship
between narcissism and Object-love, but rather between
narcissism and Object-relations (l974b). Under this latter
rubric Kernberg places meaningful relationships with people
including, but not limited to, the state Of being in love.
He also includes under this heading the capacity to feel
empathy, gratification in identifying with loved people and
values, and a sense of transcendence with nature. Recol-
lecting Kohut's (1966, 1971) delineation Of the sundry
transformations Of narcissism such as wisdom and empathy,
one cannot help but Observe that much Of what Kernberg
categorizes as Object-relations Kohut espouses to be trans-
formations Of narcissism. This clarification Of terms
does not, however, constitute a resolution Of the contro-
versy. Kernberg does see the term "Object-relations" as
encompassing the capacity to love, and this is in direct
Opposition to Kohut's position.

Van Spruiell's (1975) work can perhaps point us in
the right direction. As will be remembered, this author
delineates and traces developmentally three strands Of
narcissism: self-love, the regulation Of self-esteem, and
omnipotence. In addition, Van Spruiell makes the somewhat
cryptic statement that this means Of conceptualizing
narcissism is compatible with both Kernberg's and Kohut's

writings. I understand this statement as follows:

49

narcissism has generally been treated as a unitary concept.
We assume, for example, that the two theorists have the same
phenomenon in mind when they use the term "narcissism" to
describe it. Yet, from the foregoing divergency in des-
criptions Offered by Kohut and Kernberg (see Chapter 5),
one's belief in narcissism as a unitary concept begins to

be shaken.

It is becoming more and more apparent that the con-
cept Of narcissism can be viewed in an alternative manner.
Evidence mounts that narcissism is multidimensional in
nature, that it is a concept containing sub-concepts
within it. Van Spruiell has outlined three strands Of nar-
cissism; there are no doubt others. Such a notion has the
seeds for the resolution Of the Kernberg-Kohut controversy.
That is, We are by no means bound tO assume that Kohut and
Kernberg have the same phenomenon in mind in Offering their
respective theoretical statements.

As has been repeatedly emphasized in this presenta-
tion, Kernberg lays tremendous stress on the aggressive
components Of narcissism, in contrast to Kohut's delinea-
tions Of its libidinal elements. For Kernberg, arrogance,
boastfulness, devaluation and haughtiness, are critical
aspects of narcissism. One finds immense difficulty in
examining Kernberg's (see 1970, l974a, l974b) thoughts on
the subject without encountering repeated reference to

these attributes. Consistent with Kernberg's writings, I

50

theorize that for these facets Of narcissism the formula-
tion of an inverse relationship between narcissism and love
holds true. Kohut (1971, 1972), on the other hand, makes
little mention of these qualities and, instead, speaks
chiefly Of the "softer" side of narcissism. Surely, the
libidinal idealization Of the self is repeatedly keynoted
by Kohut. Concretely, the wish to be admired and famous,
if not great, the urge to be on stage and exhibit one's
self to others for their applause, earmark Kohut's prose.
In heeding Kohut's position, I theorize that for this non-
aggressive, libidinal, exhibitionistic, strand Of narcis-
sism, narcissism is independent Of Object-love.

Let me reiterate that the theoretical propositions
I have adumbrated are aimed at resolving the Kernberg-
Kohut controversy by establishing the validity Of the
positions suggested by each author's writings, albeit for
different components Of narcissism. Should the relation-
ships hypothesized hold true, it would be demonstrated that
the writings Of both authors are important to the explana-
tions Of divergent phenomena. More importantly, the vali-
dation Of this theory would "acquit" narcissism Of being
necessarily antagonistic to love and, in so doing, support
the critical formulation of a separate developmental line
for narcissism. As such suppositions are at the heart Of
contemporary psychoanalytic treatment approaches and theo-
retical thinking, the outcome Of this research has important

ramifications for this realm as well.1

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Narcissism and love, two unremittingly esoteric
abstractions of human experience, now stand at the pro-
scenium Of psychoanalytic thought. In no small measure is
this due to the contributions Of Otto Kernberg and Heinz
Kohut. Still, even while immeasurably fostering our under-
standings Of these elusive concepts, these theorists have
remanded to us a tortuous conundrum. What is the relation-
ship between 1ove and narcissism? Can love, seemingly so
antagonistic to narcissism, be unaffected by it as sections
Of Kohut's writings suggest, or does an inverse relation
exist between the two concepts as it suggested by sections
Of Kernberg's writings?

This controversy, the Object Of not one empirical
investigation to date, is not only Of theoretical interest
but has applications in the applied realm as well. Theore-
tically, the concept Of a separate developmental line for
narcissism and, more generally, the ”exoneration" Of nar-
cissism are at stake. Practically, the controversy has
important ramifications for contemporary psychoanalytic

treatment approaches.

51

52

TO the end of resolving the controversy, an assid-
uous examination of psychoanalytic thinking on love and
narcissism was essayed. A careful scrutiny Of developmental
formulations, reflections on the relationship Of Freud's
views on love tO mature love, and an excursion into the
plane of pathological narcissism, have been central to the
exposition.

Finally, a theory was developed resting resolutely
on the premise that both, Kohut and Kernberg have eluci-
dated aspects Of the mind heretofore veiled. The study
concludes with the subjection Of this theory tO empirical

analysis.

HYPOTHESES

Is it true that narcissism and love can be independent
of one another? Can love, seemingly so antagonistic to
narcissism, be unaffected by it? Kernberg's writings
(l974b) suggest a reply in the negative, whereas Kohut's
(1971) work suggests a reply in the positive. A resolution
tO this controversy may be sought in the conception Of
narcissism as a multidimensional entity, as a concept
containing sub-concepts within it. Proceeding from this
proposition, Kernberg's demarcation Of the aggressive
components Of narcissism was culled from his writings (1970,
l974a, l974b). For Kernberg, arrogance, boastfulness, and

devaluation are critical aspects Of narcissism.

Hypothesis I: The aggressive strand Of narcissism correlates

negatively with Object-love.

 

In contrast to Kernberg's delineations of the
aggressive components of narcissism, Kohut (1971, 1972)
makes little mention Of these qualities and, instead, speaks
chiefly Of the "softer" side Of narcissism. That is, Kohut
highlights the non-aggressive, exhibitionistic strand Of
narcissism. Concretely, the wish to be admired and famous,

the urge to be on stage and exhibit one's self, exemplify

53

54

Kohut's emphases. Kohut's prose suggests such character-

istics tO be independent of Object-love.

Hypothesis II: The non-aggressive, exhibitionistic strand

Of narcissism has a negligible correlation

 

with Object-love.

 

METHOD

Description Of Instruments

 

The Interpersonal Checklist

 

The Interpersonal Checklist (ICL) is a 134—item list
Of words and phrases (six items are fillers) which may be
used to secure self-descriptions. The ICL was designed by
Suczek and Laforge (Leary, 1957), and was a part Of a
larger effort to conceptualize varieties of interpersonal
behavior at the Kaiser Foundation. The ICL operationalizes
a model Of personality proffered by Leary (1957), and con-
noted by a set of sixteen interpersonal categories arranged
in a circumplex around the two axes Of dominance-submission
and love-hate (see Figure 1). Referring to Figure 1, it can
be seen that the sixteen categories may be combined into
distinctly labelled pairs, thereby reducing the number Of
categories tO eight. Leary (1957) denotes these eight cate-
gories "octants." The ICL itself is designed tO measure
each Of the sixteen interpersonal categories. In form IV
Of the ICL each Of the sixteen categories are represented
by eight words or phrases (see Table 1).

An intensity dimension is built into the checklist

such that each Of the sixteen categories is represented

55

Dcmuvzwucc’
1

MANAGEML

 

 

 

HfifiE Luué'

\(p
EFEflc/

BSOCHISA

 

 

eusmlssmN

Figure 1. The Sixteen Interpersonal Categories of the
Interpersonal Checklist Arranged Around the
Axes of Dominance-Submission and Love-Hate.

l " ‘0‘?

 

57

Table l.--The Interpersonal Checklist

Category and Intensity.

Arranged By Interpersonal

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Managerial E Aggressive
l Able to give orders 1 Can be frank and honest
2 Forceful 2 Critical Of others*
Good leader Irritable
Likes responsibility Straightforward and direct
3 Bossy* 3 Outspoken*
Dominating* Often unfriendly
Manages Others* Frequently angry
4 Dictatorial * 4 Hard-hearted
B Narcissistic F Rebellious
1 Self-respecting 1 Can complain if necessary
2 Independent 2 Often gloomy
Self-confident Resents being bossed*
Self-reliant and assertive Skeptical
3 Boastfu1* 3 Bitter
Proud and self-satisfied* Complaining
Somewhat snobbish* Resentful
4 Egotistical and conceited* 4 Rebels against everything*
C Competitive Distrustful
1 Able to take care Of self 1 Able to doubt others
2 Can be indifferent to others* 2 Frequently disappointed
Businesslike Hard to impress
Likes tO compete with others* Touchy and easily hurt
3 Thinks only of himself* 3 Jealous
Shrewd and calculating* Slow to forgive a wrong*
Selfish* Stubborn
4 Cold and unfeeling* 4 Distrusts everybody
D Sadistic H Self-effacing
1 Can be strict if necessary 1 Able to criticize self
2 Firm but just 2 Apologetic
Hard-boiled when necessary Easily embarrassed*
Stern but fair Lacks self-confidence*
3 Impatient with others' mistakes* 3 Self-punishing
Self-seeking* Shy
Sarcastic* Timid
4 Cruel and unkind 4 Always ashamed Of self*

 

58

Table l.--Continued.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I Masochistic M Over-conventional

1 Can be obedient l Friendly

2 Usually gives in 2 Affectionate and understanding
Easily led Sociable and neighborly
Modest Warm

3 Passive and unaggressive 3 Fond of everyone
Meek Likes everybody
Obeys too willingly Friendly all the time

4 Spineless 4 Loves everyone

J Docile N Hypernormal

l Grateful Considerate

NH

2 Admires and imitates others*
Often helped by others
Very respectful to authority
3 Dependent 3
Wants to be led
Hardly ever talks back
4 Clinging vine 4

Encouraging others

Kind and reassuring
Tender and soft-hearted
Forgives anything
Oversympathetic

TOO lenient with others
Tries to comfort everyone

 

 

 

K Dependent O Responsible
l Appreciative 1 Helpful
2 Very anxious to be approved of* 2 Big-hearted and unselfish

Accepts advice readily
Trusting and eager to please
3 Lets others make decisions 3
Easily fooled
Likes to be taken care of
4 Will believe anyone 4

Enjoys taking care Of others
Gives freely of self

Generous to a fault
Overprotective of others

TOO willing to give to others
Spoils people with kindness

 

 

Autocratic

 

L Cooperative P
l Cooperative 1
2 Eager to get along with others 2

Always pleasant and agreeable
Wants everyone to like him

3 TOO easily influenced by friends 3
Will confide in anyone
Wants everyone's love

4 Agrees with everyone 4

Well thought of

Makes a good impression

Often admired*

Respected by others*

Always giving advice*

Acts important*

Tries to be too successful*
Expects everyone to admire him*

 

Note. Starred items are deleted from the shortened form of the
Interpersonal Checklist used in this study.

59

on a four-point scale (see Table 1). That is, for each
variable there is an intensity 1 (defined as a mild amount
of the trait) item, intensity 2 (moderate amount of trait)
items, intensity 3 (marked amount of trait) items, and an
intensity 4 (extreme amount of trait) item (see Table 1).
As is pointed out by Laforge (1973) and Leary (1957), the
intensity dimension, and its negative correlation with
social desirability, serves as a control for social desir-
ability.

As was mentioned, the sixteen interpersonal cate-
gories are arranged in a circumplex around the two axes of
dominance-submission and love-hate. With the aid of a
weighted sum of the subject's responses to the 134 items,
numerical scores for each of these dimensions (Dom and Lov,
respectively) can be derived. These summary scores are
based on the notion that each subject can be assigned a set
of sixteen vectors or points in two-dimensional space.
Having accomplished this, a weighted sum of vectors can
provide a summary score for each individual along the love-
hate axis. Laforge's (1973) formula for the calculation of

the Lov summary score is found in Table 2.

'Table 2.--Formula for the Calculation of the Lov Summary Score

 

LOV = M-E + .924(N+L-D-F) + .707(O+K-C-G) + .383 (P+J-B-H)

 

Note. The alphabetical letters symbolize the sixteen inter-
personal categories (see Table 1).

60

With a modification to be discussed below, the Lov
dimension operationalized object-love in the present study.
As I trust I have brought out, the modern psychoanalytic
conception of mature love is a complex one, made more so
by the fact that work on the concept is only in its infancy.
In acknowledging this state of affairs, this investigation
sought only to measure the underpinnings of the concept,
leaving finer delineations to future efforts. But, what to
measure? As I have stated in previous chapters, the psycho-
analytic view of mature love is grounded in the qualities
of care, concern, and reparation.

The Lov dimension of the ICL would appear to assess
affection and a loving attitude (see Laforge et al., 1954;
Leary, 1957). Further, Laforge (1973) reports pathology as
measured by the MMPI to be positively correlated with lower-
1eft ICL scores, and negatively correlated with upper right
ICL scores (see Figure 1). This is to be expected of an
instrument that taps care and concern. Most cogently, how-
ever, inspection of the item content of the ICL unmistakenly
demonstrates the ICL's emphasis on care, concern, and
reparation. Reliability Of the Lov dimension was also

encouraging as Laforge (1973) reports the communality of

Lov scores to be above .90.
However, there was one problem that remained. In
examining the circumplex (see Figure 1), it became evident

that the ICL, as every other measure of love I have

 

.ll. .1 (1].:

61

scrutinized, assumes narcissism to be antagonistic to love.
Such an assumption is built into the formula for the Lov
score, and would have obviously biased the testing of the
theories here under investigation. For example, referring
to Table 1, under the rubric of interpersonal category B
one immediately discerns a number of items (e.g., egotisti-
cal and conceited) exemplifying the strands of narcissism
here under scrutiny. Now, glancing at Table 2, it will be
seen that the higher one's score on category B, the lower
one's Lov score. This is a general principle of the ICL:
the more narcissistic processes hold sway within the perso-
nality, the lower the Lov score. It can readily be seen
that such an assumption is deleterious to a study which
seeks to establish an independence between love and nar-
cissism. For this reason, items on the ICL which were
thought to be even remotely suggestive of narcissistic
processes or disturbance were deleted from the ICL for use
in this study (see starred items in Table 1).

However, the decision to delete 33 of the 128 ICL
items raised a serious question. Having so altered the
test, was I entitled to derive Lov scores on the shortened
form from the same formula from which they are derived on
the original form? It was thus necessary to provide
support for the supposition that Lov scores on the
shortened form yield essentially the same ordering of

people as do Lov scores on the unaltered version. With

62

this end, the ICL was administered to a sample of thirty-
three male undergraduates at Michigan State University

(the decision to utilize males will be made clear shortly).
Lov scores on both, the shortened and full length forms

were derived for each subject. The Pearson product-moment
correlation coefficient between the two sets Of scores

was .96(t(31) = 19.86, p < .001). Support was thus provided
for the utilization of the shortened form of the ICL in the

present study.

The Dean Romanticism Scale

 

The Dean Romanticism Scale (DRS) is a 32-item
instrument designed to measure romantic love (Dean, 1961).
Twenty-seven items were rated as romantic by agreement of
ten of twelve judges; five items were rated as indicative
of companionship love by these judges. There are eighteen
other items included as fillers on the test. Subjects are
required to indicate degree of agreement with each item on
a five-point scale. Each of the romantic items receives
the maximum score of "5" when the subject strongly agrees
with the item. Each Of the companionship items receives
the maximum score of "5" when the subject strongly disagrees
with the statement. In this manner, a total DRS score may
be assigned to each subject.

In this investigation the DRS was utilized to assess
aSpects of object-love not measured bythe ICL. While the

ICL provides an assessment Of care, concern, and reparation,

63

it is surely deficient in the measurement of the indi-
vidual's capacity to fall in love and engage in an exclusive
relationship. The DRS does remedy this shortcoming, not
only assessing these two latter capacities, but providing a
gauge of the intensity of the affective experience of exclu-
sive love. This is so as in Dean's vision of romantic love,
affective aspects of the relationship are viewed as primary.
All of the above-mentioned domains are critical components
of the modern psychoanalytic view of love (see Bergmann,
1971; Kernberg, 1974c, 1974d).

In a study on romantic love conducted by Levine
(1977), the DRS was found to have only a correlation of .25
with another measure of romantic love more closely derived
from those principles Of romantic love laid down by Freud.
The DRS rests, in essence, upon the conception of romantic
love portrayed in the mass media in the United States. In
view of the problematic relevance of Freud's thinking on
romantic love to present day psychoanalytic conceptualiza-
tions, such a weak relationship between the two measures
was encouraging. Too, that Dean (1961) found the DRS not
to be significantly correlated with emotional immaturity,
but rather to be significantly correlated with the Emotional
Adjustment subscale of the Bell Adjustment Inventory, sug-
gested the relevance of the DRS to a study of mature love.

Since five of the thirty-two items on the DRS are

indicative of companionship love, the maximum score is

64

earned when the subject strongly disagrees with the five
companionship items. The modern psychoanalytic vision of
love, particularly as articulated by Kernberg (l974c, 1974d),
does not abide by the conception that the capacities to fall
in love and engage in an exclusive relationship are anti-
thetical to nonexclusive caring, concern, and reparation.

On Dean's measure, the reverse holds. For this reason, it
was necessary to delete the five companionship items from
the DRS for the current investigation. In order to estimate
the effect of such an alteration on the test's reliability,
the Spearman-Brown PrOphecy Formula was applied. The reli-
ability of the modified twenty-seven item DRS should be .88
as compared to the .90 split-half reliability of the 32-item
form on a sample of 194 reported by Dean. Lastly, the DRS
is not controlled for acquiescence. As such DRS items were
reworded for use in this study so as to control for this

reSponse set.

The Dynamic Personality Inventory

 

The Dynamic Personality Inventory (DPI), a creation
of Tadeusz Grygier (1968), is comprised of 325 words and
phrases which are responded to in a "like," "dislike"
manner. The test is rooted in psychoanalytic theory,
heavily influenced as the DPI is by the contributions of
Abraham, Fenichel, Ferenczi, Glover, Rank, and Alexander
and French. The DPI has the distinct advantage of imbedding

a projective approach within an objective measurement

“ '3'3.

__.9-

 

65

framework. As Grygier expounds, the DPI aims at stirring
the subject's imagination and enhancing projection in much
the same way as a free association test does. Yet, items
are grouped into scales, representing various facets of
development from a psychoanalytic perspective, which can be
objectively scored. Grygier reiterates that while the DPI
is a projective instrument, it does not appear to be so,
and this is of great advantage.

Considerable work has been accomplished on the vali-
dation of the DPI. Grygier (1968) reports on the massive
efforts at the Institute of Personality Assessment and
Research at the University of California that resulted in
15,000 correlations of DPI scales with external criteria
such as personality tests and psychiatric assessments. The
total number of significant correlations exceeded by thirty-
two times the number expected on the basis of pure chance.
The DPI has been cross-validated in England, and is now
utilized in Australia, Canada, India, France, and Poland.
Average split-half reliability of the DPI scales is .75,
and average repeat reliability is .80 (Grygier, 1968).

In this study, two of the scales from the DPI, the
Verbal Aggression (CV) and Exhibitionism (Pe) scales, were
utilized. The CV scale (see Appendix C) operationalized
the aggressive strand of narcissism Kernberg has so accen-
tuated, and the Pe scale (see Appendix C) operationalized
the exhibitionistic strand of narcissism Kohut has

delineated.

66

Grygier (1968) reports on a criminological study Of
109 chronic petty Offenders in which low Ov scores were
corroborated by social work data. As Dr. Grygier concluded
in a personal communication, the Ov scale is related to
boastfulness and arrogance, the keynotes of the aggressive
strand of narcissism here being investigated. An inspection
of the CV scale's item content also reveals the tapping of
the quality of devaluation. Grygier (1968) defines the Pe
scale as a measure of the conscious enjoyment of attention
and admiration. Clearly, these qualities are cornerstones
of the exhibitionistic self Kohut has delineated. Grygier
(1968) recounts a study in which a group of eighty-eight
females active in athletics scores higher on the Pe scale
than did a control group. Inspection of the item content of
the Pe scale reveals that the exhibitionism which is measured
is, in addition, devoid of aggressive connotations. Thus,
the Pe scale meshes well with Kohut's depiction of non-

aggressive, exhibitionistic facets of narcissism.

The Acquiescence Scale
As data collection proceeded, the question of
whether the results of the present study could be confounded
by the presence of an acquiescent response set presented
itself. It was decided that indeed this could happen as
the DPI, for example, is not controlled for acquiescence.
Since data collection had already commenced, it was

necessary to assess the effects of acquiescence with the

c-
p

67

aid of measurement instruments at hand. As the DPI, en
toto, had been administered to all subjects, and as the CV
and Fe scales of the DPI constitute only 25 of the test's
325 items, it was resolved to use all those remaining items
as an acquiescence scale (ACQ). The number of these re-
maining items to which the subject responded in a "like"
manner constituted his ACQ score (two DPI items, not in-
cluded on either the Pe or Ov scales, were deleted from the
ACQ. See Appendix C). In this investigation, split-half
reliability estimates of the ACQ were .91, .79, and .95 for
the total sample, clinic sample, and student sample,
respectively.

In retrospect, it was well that acquiescence was
considered, as the acquiescent response set, left uncon-
trolled, would have seriously affected this study's results.
As a glance ahead at the factor matrix reproduced in Table
5 shows, for each of three factors obtained, the ACQ had
positive loadings; for one factor the ACQ loading exceeded
.67.

The Level II Reading Subtest of the
Wide Range Achievement Test

 

The Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT) assesses the
areas of reading (word recognition and pronunciation),
written spelling, and arithmetic computation. The WRAT,
then, contains three subtests (Reading, Spelling, Arith-

metic), with each subtest divided into two levels. Level I

68

is intended for use with children, Level II is designed for
use with persons 12 years old and over.

The Level 11 Reading Subtest of the WRAT (RSWRAT)
consists of 74 words which the subject is asked to read
aloud. Grade ratings corresponding to raw scores have been
established and enable the determination of the grade level
at which the subject is reading. Reliability estimates of
the RSWRAT are most favorable. Odd-even reliabilities for
three samples of 200 each (ages 16-17, 18-19, 20-up,
respectively) all exceeded .98 (see Jastak & Jastak, 1965).
These authors also report findings favorable to the sub-
test's validity. A correlation of .78 (p < .01) was found
between the RSWRAT and teachers' ratings of achievement
(Jastak & Jastak, 1965).

Jastak & Jastak (1965) make reference to the appli-
cability of the WRAT to the establishment of degrees of
literacy. In the present investigation the RSWRAT was
implemented for this purpose, to gauge literacy. As will be
delineated below, the RSWRAT was administered to all poten-
tial subjects from the clinic sample.

The Vocabulary Subtest of the Wechsler
Adult Intelligence Scale

 

 

The Vocabulary Subtest of the Wechsler Adult Intel-
ligence Scale (VSWAIS) is comprised of forty words which the
subject is asked to define. Wechsler (1958) reports the

VSWAIS to be an excellent measure of general intelligence.

69

He writes that the correlation of the VSWAIS with the WAIS
full scale score is consistently between .7 and .9 (Wechs-
ler, 1958). Wechsler (1955) has also presented data which
demonstrates the VSWAIS to have correlations above .8 with
the WAIS verbal IQ score. Odd-even reliabilities presented
by Wechsler (1955) for the VSWAIS are consistently above .9.
In this research the VSWAIS was used as a means
through which to Obtain a WAIS prorated verbal IQ score
which then served as an estimate of intelligence. For
reasons to be developed in a later chapter, the VSWAIS was
administered to all potential subjects from the clinic

sample.

Subjects

Two samples of males were utilized in this re-
search. One sample consisted of thirty-two undergraduates
enrolled in introductory psychology courses at Michigan
State University. These subjects were recruited by means
of posters, and received extra credit applied toward their
course grades for volunteering to participate in the study.

The second sample was composed of twenty young male
patients of the Ingham Community Mental Health Center
(ICMHC), located in Lansing, Michigan. These subjects were
gathered in the following manner: A listing of all the then
currently active outpatient cases of the ICMHC was perused
in order to identify those male patients falling within

the age range of interest (17-29). Further, ICMHC

70

outpatient therapists were approached and asked to identify
any additional active cases meeting the above criteria.
Patients were then contacted (provided they were not judged
to be of sub-normal intelligence by their therapists. See
Procedure section below) and requested to participate in
the study. In one instance, a patient meeting the above
specifications heard that the study would be taking place
and volunteered his participation. All ICMHC subjects
(heretofore referred to as the clinic sample) received $5
for participating in the research. See Table 3 for a

listing of subject variables.

Table 3.--Subject Variables.

 

Variable Median Range

 

Student Sample

 

Age of Subjects 19.4 18.4-24.5

Yearly Income of a
Subjects' Parents 26,500 12,000-80,000

Clinic Sample

 

Age of Subjects 24.35 17.2-28.8

Yearly Income of
Subjects' Parents 13,625 0-75,000

 

aFour subjects from the student sample did not
report their parents' income.

bEight subjects from the clinic sample did not
report their parents' income; in one other case the sub-
ject's parents were deceased.

71

The decision to focus on young males was rooted in
the thought that narcissistic processes would be more
readily discernible in such a population than in others
(see Jacobson, 1964). A similar concern underlied the
resolution to utilize two samples, one composed of under—
graduates, the other of outpatients from a local community
mental health clinic. It was thought that such a method
would better assure a heterogeneity of individuals in terms
of psychological functioning. Such a heterogeneity was
judged to be important to ascertaining the operation of
divergent strains of narcissism, and thus to providing a
fair test of the Hypotheses. The other consideration upon
which the use of the clinic sample was based was the wish
to forestall certain arguments which might be made in the
case of negative results. Specifically, empirical studies
negating aspects of psychoanalytic theory are Open to
challenge on the basis that the theory rests upon observa-
tions of the mentally ill, whereas the empirical investi-
gation utilizes "normal" populations. The use of the
clinic sample precluded the possibility that this
objection could be raised in the face of negative findings.

As to the determination to focus on males only, let
me refer to Kohut's writings. In The Analysis of the Self,
Kohut's (1971) major work, his understanding of the rela-
tionship between love and narcissism is outlined. In for-

mulating his thesis, Kohut made extensive reference to case

72

material and, not surprisingly, his theories are rooted

in this storehouse. Yet, of the seventeen cases cited by
Kohut, only two of these are of females. On this basis
alone, there are grave questions as to the applicability

of Kohut's demarcations to females. Second, even a cur-
sory examination of Kohut's developmental constructions
(see Chapter 3) leaves the reader with serious reservations
as to the relevancy of the narcissistic phases outlined to
females. For these reasons, only the testing of males was

accomplished in this study.

Procedure

 

The thirty-two subjects (Ss) constituting the
student sample were tested in group fashion. Testing was
accomplished by the experimenter (E) in a lecture hall at
Michigan State University. The twenty Ss comprising the
clinic sample were tested at the ICMHC in Lansing, Michigan.
The testing of this sample was accomplished by the E in a
group manner and individually, depending upon the S's
schedule.

All Ss were informed at the outset that in order to
guarantee anonymity and with the hope that they would
answer the items as truthfully as possible, they were
requested not to identify themselves by name on the test
materials. Having emphasized this safeguarding of anony-
mity, testing was begun. Measurement instruments were

assigned to each S in random sequence in order to prevent

73

order effects. The measurement instruments required an
average of forty-five minutes to complete.

Grygier (1962), in delineating the Dynamic Perso-
nality Inventory, stated that a minimum intelligence quo-
tient of 80 is requisite to completion of the questionnaire.
It was felt that the possibility existed that some 85 from
the clinic sample might not meet this criterion. It was
also felt that some Ss from this sample might fail to meet
even minimum literacy standards. In order to obviate these
potential sources of error, each S from the clinic sample
was administered the VSWAIS ahd the RSWRAT. Ss from the
clinic sample who could not perform to a sixth grade reading
level and a prorated WAIS verbal IQ score of 80 were ex-
cluded from the study. One additional precaution vis-a-vis
the intelligence of the clinic 83 was as follows: Each
potential clinic S's therapist was approached and asked to
assess whether the S's intelligence fell within the normal
range or higher. Potential Ss who were not adjudged to fall
within this range were not requested to participate in the
study.

Thus, in the case of the clinic sample, 85 were
informed at the outset of testing that they would be
approached one by one by the E while they were completing
the inventories, and asked to accompany him to another
room to "read and explain some words" (Obviously, testing

could be completed in one room for those clinic Ss tested

74

individually). In this way the VSWAIS and the RSWRAT
(assigned in random sequences) were administered to each

S from the clinic sample. Three of the twenty-three clinic
53 tested were excluded from the project; one for failing
to meet the intelligence criterion, one for not meeting the
literacy standard, and one for failing to correctly follow

the instructions to the measurement instruments.

Predictions in Terms of Instruments Emplgyed

 

In the present study the aggressive strand of nar-
cissism and the nonaggressive, exhibitionistic strand of
narcissism are operationalized by the Verbal Aggression (CV)
and Exhibitionism (Pe) scales, respectively, of the Dynamic
Personality Inventory. The variable of Object-love has been
conceptualized as encompassing romantic love and another
form of love, one keynoted by care, concern, and reparation.
The Dean Romanticism Scale (DRS) operationalized the former
kind of love, the Lov dimension of the Interpersonal Check-
list operationalized the latter sort of love. Finally,
the Acquiescence Scale (ACQ), composed of items from the
Dynamic Personality Inventory, operationalized the acquies-
cent response set.

To test the Hypotheses, the following Specific
predictions were formulated in terms of the instruments
used in this study. Each of the predictions were hypo-
thesized to hold true for the clinic sample, for the

student sample, and for the total sample (the student and

75

clinic samples combined). Each prediction corresponds
with the previously stated hypothesis of the same numeral.

I. Lov scores correlate negatively with Ov scores
(ACQ and Pe held constant).

I. DRS scores correlate negatively with Ov scores
(ACQ and Pe held constant).

II. The correlation between Lov scores and Fe
scores does not significantly differ from zero (ACQ and
CV held constant).

II. The correlation between DRS scores and Pe

scores does not significantly differ from zero (ACQ and CV

held constant).

STATISTICAL TREATMENT OF DATA

Rather than simply utilizing product-moment corre-
lation coefficients for hypothesis testing, partial corre-
lations were computed. A partial correlation is the corre-
lation between two variables when one or more other vari-
ables are held constant. The partial correlation procedure
entails the correlation of error scores in predicting one
variable from another. Such error scores correlate zero
with the predictor variable. Thus, if the predictor vari-
able(s) is the same for two error scores, the resultant
correlation will be independent of this variable(s). This
represents the essence of the partial correlation procedure.

The partial correlation procedure was selected for
use in this study as it allowed for the control of the
effects of extraneous factors such as acquiescence on vari-
ables of interest to the study. In this research, it served
as a safeguard that positive results would not simply be an
artifact of the correlation of the Acquiescence Scale with
the variables under investigation, or of a substantive
correlation between the Verbal Aggression and Exhibitionism

Scales of the Dynamic Personality Inventory. All partial

76

..

a...“

77

correlation coefficients were calculated separately for
the clinic, student, and total samples.

T-tests were utilized throughout in order to assess
the significance of the partial correlation coefficients.
As Hypothesis I was stated in a one-directional manner,
t-tests designed to evaluate it were one-tailed with the
criterion of significance set at the .05 level.

Hypothesis II, on the other hand, was not stated in
a one-directional manner and so two-tailed t-tests were
implemented in testing it. Additionally, as in the case of
Hypothesis II the inability to reject the null hypothesis
provided support for the hypothesized negligible relation
between variables, it was resolved to raise the criterion
of significance to the .20 level.

An attempt to garner support for Hypothesis II,
that is to establish a negligible relation between vari-
ables, was also attempted by means of comparisons between
partial correlations computed to test Hypothesis I and
partial correlations computed to test Hypothesis II. Sig-
nificant differences, assessed by means of one-tailed
t-tests, were another means employed to establish negli-
gibility.

Reliability coefficients for all measurement
instruments utilized in this research were computed and
were then applied in correcting for attenuation. Finally,

the results of a factor analysis using the varimax method

.flq‘“

 

78

of rotation were important to the examination of tho

Hypotheses.

a-

3‘ I"

 

RESULTS

Hypothesis I: The aggressive strand of narcissism correlates

 

negatively with Object-love.

 

Hypothesis I was tested by computing partial corre-
lation coefficients between the aggressive strand of narcis-
sism (Ov scores) and Object-love (Lov and DRS scores,
examined separately) with ACQ and Pe scores held constant.
These partial correlation coefficients were calculated
individually for the clinic, student, and total samples.

In the case of the total sample, the partial corre-
lation coefficient of -.26 between Ov scores and Lov scores
with ACQ and Fe held constant was significant. The partial
correlation of -.15 between Ov scores and DRS scores with
ACQ and Fe held constant was not significant, though it was
in the predicted direction.

For the clinic sample, the partial correlation co-
efficient Of -.29 between Ov scores and Lov scores with ACQ
and Fe held constant was not significant, though it was in
the predicted direction. The partial correlation coeffi-
cient of -.46 between Ov scores and DRS scores with ACQ

and Pa held constant was significant.

79

80

Turning to the student sample, the partial corre-
lation coefficient of -.33 between Ov scores and Lov
scores with ACQ and Pe held constant was significant. The
partial correlation coefficient of .05 between Ov scores and
DRS scores with ACQ and Pe held constant was not significant
or in the predicted direction (see Table 4 for a summary Of
these partial correlation coefficients between Ov scores
and object-love with ACQ and Pe held constant).

A factor analysis of scores on the five measurement
instruments used in this study provides another way of
examining Hypothesis I. Looking at Factor 2 of the factor
matrix (see Table 5), it may be seen that whereas the Lov
dimension has a loading of .711, the Ov scale has a nega-
tive factor loading of -.217. Similarly, in inspecting
Factor 3 it may be observed that whereas the DRS has a
loading of .551, the Ov scale has a negative loading of
-.l97. This pattern of positive factor loadings for object
love and negative factor loadings for the aggressive strand
of narcissism is consistent with Hypothesis I.

In brief summary, Hypothesis I received substantive,
albeit not complete, support from the data with respect to
the student, clinic, and total samples. Five of the six
partial correlation coefficients computed to test Hypothesis
I were in the predicted direction. In addition, three of
these partial correlation coefficients were significant at

less than the .05 significance level. Finally, the results

81

Table 4.--Partial Correlation Coefficients for Ov Scores
Versus Object-Love With Acquiescence and
Exhibitionism Scores Held Constant.

 

 

 

 

 

- . Significance
Hypothe51s Variables r N Levelarb
Total Sample
I Ov Scores Versus -.26 52 p < .04
Lov Scores
I Ov Scores Versus -.15 52 p < .15
DRS Scores
Clinic Sample
I Ov Scores Versus -.29 20 p < .13
Lov Scores
I Ov Scores Versus -.46 20 p < .03
DRS Scores
Student Sample
I Ov Scores Versus -.33 32 p < .05
Lov Scores
I Ov Scores Versus .05 32 p < .40

DRS Scores

 

aAll t-tests were one-tailed.

bThere were N-4 degrees of freedom for each
significance test.

82

Table 5.--Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix of Scores on the
Five Measurement Instruments for the Total Sample
With Kaiser Normalization.

 

 

Measurement Instrument Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
Exhibitionism Scale (Pe) .669 .048 .064
Verbal Aggression Scale (Ov) .736 -.217 -.l97
Lov Dimension -.026 .711 -.072
Dean Romanticism Scale (DRS) .002 -.038 .551
Acquiescence Scale (ACQ) .679 .466 .256

 

of a factor analysis provided ancillary support for

Hypothesis I.

Hypothesis II: The non-aggressive, exhibitionistic strand
of narcissism has a negligible correlation

with Object-love.

 

Hypothesis II was tested by calculating partial
correlation coefficients between the exhibitionistic strand
of narcissism (Pe scores) and object-love (Lov and DRS
scores, treated separately) with ACQ and CV scores held
constant. These partial correlation coefficients were
computed individually for the clinic, student, and total
samples. Since it was resolved that the retention of the
.null hypothesis would provide support for Hypothesis II,
it was decided that the null hypothesis would be retained
only if the criterion of significance equalled or exceeded

the .20 level.

7m.

83

For the total sample, the partial correlation coef-
ficient of -.06 between Pe scores and Lov scores with ACQ
and CV held constant satisfied the criterion for statistical
support of Hypothesis II. The partial correlation of .03
between Pe scores and DRS scores with ACQ and CV held con-
stant also satisfied the criterion for statistical support.

Turning to the clinic sample, the partial correla-
tion coefficient of -.03 between Pe scores and Lov scores
with ACQ and Ov held constant yielded statistical support
of Hypothesis II. However, the partial correlation of .322
between Pe scores and DRS scores with ACQ and CV held con-
stant did not satisfy the criterion for statistical support
of the Hypothesis.

In the case of the student sample, the partial
correlation coefficient of —.08 between Pe scores and Lov
scores with ACQ and CV held constant provided statistical
support of Hypothesis II. Likewise, the partial correlation
coefficient of -.06 between Pe scores and Lov scores with
ACQ and CV held constant satisfied the criterion for stati-
stical support of the Hypothesis (see Table 6 for a listing
of these partial correlation coefficients between Ov scores
and object-love with ACQ and Pe held constant).

The factor analysis alluded to above allows for fur-
ther scrutiny of Hypothesis II. Glancing at Table 5, it may
be seen that on both those factors on which the measures

of object-love (Lov and DRS) load heavily (Factors 2 and 3,

84

Table 6.--Partia1 Correlation Coefficients for Pe Scores
Versus Object-Love With Acquiescence and Verbal
Aggression Scores Held Constant.

 

 

 

 

 

. . Significance
HypotheSIS Variables r N Levelarb
Total Sample
II Pe Scores Versus
Lov Scores -.06 52 p < .69
II Pe Scores Versus
DRS scores .03 52 p < .86
Clinic Sample
II Pe Scores Versus
Lov Scores -.03 20 p < .92
II Pe Scores Versus
DRS Scores .32 20 p < .19
Student Sample
II Pe Scores Versus
Lov Scores -.08 32 p < .68
II Pe Scores Versus
DRS Scores -.06 32 p < .74

 

aAll t-tests were two-tailed.

bThere were N-4 degrees of freedom for each
significance test.

85

Table 7.--Means and Standard Deviations of the Student and
Clinic Samples on the Five Measurement
Instruments.

 

Instrument Mean Standard Deviation

 

Clinic Sample

 

Exhibitionism Scale (Pe) 7.20 3.49
Verbal Aggression Scale (Ov) 8.65 3.03
Lov Dimension 19.76 15.76
Dean Romanticism Scale (DRS) 75.80 7.40
Acquiescence Scale (ACQ) 197.60 21.59

Student Sample

 

Exhibitionism Scale (Pe) 6.84 3.57
Verbal Aggression Scale (Ov) 7.91 3.02
Lov Dimension 10.80 15.12
Dean Romanticism Scale (DRS) 73.72 7.70

Acquiescence Scale 188.94 32.13

 

86

respectively), the Pe scale has negligible loadings (.048
and .064) with respect to zero and with respect to the
loadings of the Ov scale. This pattern of loadings provides
support for Hypothesis II.

To summarize, the data bearing on Hypothesis II
offers strong support for it in both sub-samples as well
as the total sample. Five of the six partial correlation
coefficients calculated to test Hypothesis II provided
statistical support for it at significance levels far

3

exceeding the criterion of .20 . Lastly, the results of a

factor analysis upheld Hypothesis II.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

The results of this study provided support for both
hypotheses. Hypothesis II, however, was more strongly
upheld than was Hypothesis 1. In what follows I will first
endeavor to bare impediments to even more forceful results
than were obtained. I shall then remark upon different
patterns of results in the clinic and student samples and
conclude with some thoughts on the implications of this
research for psychoanalytic psychology.

Impediments to Further Substantiation
of the Hypotheses

 

A look at Table 8 immediately clarifies the exis-
tence in this research of a key Obstacle to even more
powerful results, this being measurement error. First, the
reliability of the DRS was poor throughout this study. For
the total sample its reliability was .50, for the clinic
sample .45, and for the student sample .53. Again, all
three of these reliability coefficients are disappointing.
Second, the reliability of the Lov dimension was also poor
throughout the study. For the total sample its reliability
was .51, for the clinic sample .27, and for the student

sample .30. But, what were the specific effects of these

87

88

Table 8.--Reliability Estimates of the Five Measurement

 

 

 

 

 

Instruments.
Instrument Items N Method Reliability
Coeff1c1ent
Total Sample
Lov Dimension 83 52 Communalities .51
Dean Romanticism Coefficient
Scale 27 52 Alpha .50
Exhibitionism Scale 13 52 Coefficient
Alpha .85
Verbal Aggression Coefficient
Scale 12 52 Alpha .78
Acquiescence Scale 298 52 Split-Half .91
Clinic Sample
Lov Dimension 83 20 Communalities .27
Dean Romanticism Coefficient
Scale 27 20 Alpha .45
Exhibitionism Scale 13 20 Coefficient
Alpha .85
Verbal Aggression Coefficient
Scale 12 20 Alpha .79
Acquiescence Scale 298 20 Split-Half .79
Student Sample
Lov Dimension 83 32 Communalities .30
Dean Romanticism Coefficient
Scale 27 32 Alpha .53
Exhibitionism Scale 13 32 Coefficient
Alpha .85
Verbal Aggression Coefficient
Scale 12 32 Alpha .78
Acquiescence Scale 298 32 Split-Half .95

 

89

reliabilities on the partial correlations on which signifi-
cance tests were performed? It is known that the lower the
reliability and thus the greater the measurement error, the
more the obtained correlations are lessened, or attenuated,
by such measurement error. Fortunately, these exists a
formula for correcting for such attenuation, for estimating
what the correlation between variables would be were mea-
surement instruments made perfectly reliable. It was
decided to implement this procedure appropos the total
sample (reliability estimates for the two sub-samples were
so poor so as to make estimates of correlations actually
obtaining between variables in these sub-samples highly
tenuous).

Table 9 reproduces those partial correlations com-
puted to test the Hypotheses on the total sample reported
in Tables 4 and 6 above, with the exception that the partial
correlations (in Table 9) are corrected for attenuation.
The results are striking. When corrected for attenuation,
the two partial correlations designed to test Hypothesis I
in the total sample were both significant. Similarly, when
the correction for attenuation formula was applied to those
partial correlations calculated to test Hypothesis II, the
substantive support for Hypothesis II reported in the pre-
ceding section remained unaltered. Both partial correlations
implemented to test Hypothesis II in the total sample, even
when corrected for attenuation, provided statistical support

for the Hypothesis.

90

Table 9.--Partial Correlation Coefficients for the Total
Sample With the Correction for Attenuation in

 

 

Force.
Hypothesis Variables r Significance Level

I Ov Scores Versus

Lov Scores (ACQ,

Pe) -.46 p < .002
I Ov Scores Versus

DRS Scores (ACQ,

Pe) -.27 p < .04
II Pe Scores Versus

Lov Scores (ACQ,
II Pe Scores Versus

DRS Scores (ACQ,

CV) .07 p < .64

 

N933. Variables in parentheses have been partialled

out of the correlation preceding them.

Some other findings which also highlight the manner
in which measurement error served to delimit the results Of
the present inquiry are summarized in Tables 10 and 11.
Table 10 contains the compilation of results of a supple—
mental tack through which it was sought to muster support
for Hypothesis II. Referring to the wording of Hypothesis
II, it will be remembered that a "negligible" correlation
between object-love and the exhibitionistic strand of nar-
cissism was predicted. Now, negligibility may be defined
as it has been to this juncture, that is in terms of the
difference between the correlation and zero. However,

negligibility may also be defined in terms of the difference

91

Table 10.--Resu1ts of One-Tailed Significance Tests of the Difference Between Partial
Correlation Coefficients.

 

 

Hypothesis Variables N z Valuea Significance Level
Total Sample
II Lov Scores Versus

Ov Scores (ACQ, Pe)-
Lov Scores Versus
Pe Scores (ACQ, Ov) 52 -l.22 p_< .12

II DRS Scores Versus
Ov Scores (ACQ, Pe)-
DRS Scores Versus
Pe Scores (ACQ, CV) 52 -1.13 p_< .13

Clinic Sampleb

II Lov Scores Versus
Ov Scores (ACQ, Pe)-
Lov Scores Versus
Pe Scores (ACQ, 0v) 20 -.901 2’< .19

Student Sample

 

II Lov Scores Versus
0v Scores (ACQ, Pe)-
Lov Scores Versus
Pe Scores (ACQ, CV) 32 -1.17 p.< .13

II DRS Scores Versus
Ov Scores (ACQ, Pe)-
DRS Scores Versus
Pe Scores (ACQ, 0v) 32 .537 p_< .30

 

Note. Variables in parentheses have been partialled out of the correlation
preceding them.

8There were N—4 degrees of freedom for each significance test.

bIn the case of the clinic sample, the correlation coefficient for DRS scores
versus Pe scores with ACQ and CV held constant was .32 (see Table 6). This correlation
coefficient was neither negative nor significant at greater than or equal to the .20
level. As such, the results of a significance test of the difference between DRS scores
versus 0v scores (ACQ, Pe) and DRS scores versus Pe scores (ACQ, 0v) would not only have
been meaningless, but misleading. .Hence, this significance test was not conducted.

92

Table 11.--The Difference Between Partial Correlation
Coefficients for the Total Sample with the
Correction for Attenuation Considered.

 

 

Hypothesis Variables Original r Corrected r
II Lov Scores Versus
Ov Scores (ACQ, Pe) -.26 -.46
Lov Scores Versus
Pe Scores (ACQ, CV) -.06 -.08
II DRS Scores Versus
Ov Scores (ACQ, Pe) -.15 —.27

DRS Scores Versus
Pe Scores (ACQ, CV) .03 .07

 

N923. Variables in parentheses have been partialled
out of the correlation preceding them.
between one correlation and another correlation. In terms
of this study, the negligibility of the relationship between
Pe scores and Lov scores may be ascertained by finding the
difference between this partial correlation (ACQ and Ov held
constant) and the partial correlation between Ov scores and
Lov scores (ACQ and Fe held constant). Likewise, the negli-
gibility of the partial correlation between Pe scores and
DRS scores (ACQ and CV held constant) may be determined by
finding the difference between this partial correlation and
the partial correlation between Ov scores and DRS scores
(ACQ and Pe held constant). Should the difference between
partial correlations be significant, negligibility may be
inferred. This strategy was implemented with respect to the

total sample as well as for this clinic and student samples.

93

As Table 10 evinces, however, the results of this tack were
disconcerting. In no case was a significant difference
found.

The attempt to fathom this disappointing outcome
once more leads to a consideration of measurement error.
Turning to Table 11, the column labelled "Original r" repro-
duces those partial correlations for the total sample to
which the significance tests conducted to assess negligi-
bility were applied. Thus, the first significance test
listed in Table 11 compared the partial correlation of -.26
with that of -.06; the second significance test compared
the partial correlation of -.15 with that of .03. The column
labelled "Corrected r" lists these same partial correlations,
garnered to assess negligibility, when corrected for atten-
uation. Thus, the partial correlations of -.26 and -.06
became -.46 and -.08, respectively, when corrected for atten-
uation, and the partial correlations of -.15 and .03 became
-.27 and .07, respectively, when corrected for attenuation.
What is here illustrated is that when the partial correla—
tions on which significance tests geared to assess negligi-
bility were corrected for attenuation, the difference between
partial correlations grew larger. As will be recalled, the
determination of negligibility as delineated in the previous
paragraph, rested on significant differences between partial
correlations. Thus, the corrected partial correlations

reproduced in Table 11 suggest that measurement error served

94

to delimit the extent of the negligible relationships
actually obtaining between the variables under consideration.
The query naturally arises as to the overall
meaning and utility of the findings garnered with the cor-
rection for attenuation in force. After all, the argument
can be made that the correction for attenuation is only a
means of artificially influencing the correlation actually
yielded by the data. Nunnally's (1967) remarks are to the
point. He observes that while the correction for attenu-
ation is admittedly not applicable to all research under-
takings, it is particularly relevant to the realm of basic
research where what is of importance is not the relationship
between measurement instruments, but the relationship between
the underlying variables these measurement devices seek to
tap. It can then be contended that not only is the correc-
tion for attenuation justifiably utilized in this research,
but that not to have corrected for attenuation would have
been to seriously underestimate the extent of the documen-

tation this study suggests there to be for the Hypotheses.

The Student and Clinic Samples Compared

 

I want now to reflect on another aspect of the
data, this being the way in which the two sub-samples
differed from one another. With respect to Hypothesis I,
the most noteworthy deviation occurred in the case of the
partial correlation coefficient for Ov scores versus DRS

scores (ACQ and Pe held constant). Whereas for the clinic

95

sample this correlation was -.46 and thus both negative and
significant as predicted, for the student sample the corre-
lation was .05. In other words, while for the clinic sample
a substantively negative relationship obtained between
variables, for the student sample a negligible relationship
was evidenced (see Table 4). These findings suggest that,
overall, a greater independence between love and narcissism
existed for the student sample than for the clinic sample.

In considering Hypothesis II, the most striking
difference between samples occurred with respect to the par-
tial correlation between Pe scores and DRS scores (ACQ and
CV held constant). For the student sample this correlation
was -.06 and, thus, negligible as predicted. However, for
the clinic sample a positive correlation of .32 was the case
(see Table 6). This piece of data does also lend itself to
the interpretation that there was a greater overall depen-
dence between love and narcissism in the clinic sample than
in the student sample.4

Though one must be cautious in interpreting this
pattern of findings, it would seem that theoretical specu-
lations could be developed based upon demographic data on
the two sub-samples. First, the student sample (median age
of 19.4), to a greater extent than the clinic sample (median
age of 24.35), was composed of adolescents. Second, there
is evidence that the student sample was of a higher socio-

economic class than was the clinic sample (see Table 3).

96

While not wanting to elaborate any specific theoretical
statements for reasons to be developed below, the data at
hand suggests that perhaps age and socioeconomic class can
be important to future understandings of the relationship
between love and narcissism.

At this juncture, however, I must strongly admonish
that any theoretical propositions which might be developed
based upon differences between the two sub-samples would be
quite tenuous without empirical exploration and verification.
This must be so as the sizes of the sub-samples were quite
small and the reliabilities of the DRS and the Lov dimension
were quite poor in this research (In no case did the reli-

ability Of either instrument exceed .53 in this study).

Implications for Psychoanalytic Theory

 

This research has provided palpable evidence for
the theoretical positions implied by the work of Otto Kern-
berg and Heinz Kohut, psychoanalytic theoreticians whose
writings suggested seemingly contradictory formulations on
the relationship between love and narcissism. What are the
ramifications of this unifying discovery, in both the theo-
retical and applied spheres, for psychoanalytic psychology?

As will be recalled, the view that narcissism is
multidimensional in nature was the premise from which the
specific theory conceived to resolve the Kohut-Kernberg
controversy was derived. Had not the position that narcis-

sism is unitary in nature been discarded, the positive

97

results of this investigation would not have come to pass.
I conclude that future inquiry into narcissistic processes,
whether it be strictly theoretical or empirical, must begin
with the recoqnition that the term "narcissism" is only a
rubric for what are likely quite divergent strains.

In the introductory section of this dissertation
I argued that if the concept of a separate developmental
line for narcissism is correct, if the capacity to love
can be independent of narcissism, then certainly the wide-
spread view that narcissism is merely an obstacle to love
must come to grief. This study bespeaks a separate develop-
mental line for one constellation of narcissistic processes--
the exhibitionistic, non-aggressive strand. Though it goes
without saying that replication with diverse populations is
in order and that generalizability is limited as only young
adult males were studied, I would be remiss if I did not
proclaim this effort to have provided a "vindication" of
narcissism. Whatever functions narcissism serves, the
antedated view that it is simply an impediment to love is
contradicted by the present research. And as has been
repeatedly emphasized, such an exoneration of narcissism
has important connotations for psychoanalytic treatment
especially as regards males. Certainly, to simplistically
treat narcissism as solely and invariably a defense against
object-love if not object-relations, though it may glgg
function in the behest of self-protection, may now be seen

as doctrinaire and problematic at best.

98

But, how many times has a conclusion such as this
last met with that jaded rejoinder which has long been a
source of vexation to psychoanalysis: "In making such a
statement you implicitly and unjustifiably assume a con-
tinuum between normal and abnormal phenomena of psychic
life." I can not forbear from seizing the Opportunity to
answer this tired refrain. For, in the case of this
research an independence between love and narcissism was
upheld in the clinic sample as well as in a "normal" sample.
This finding bolsters the doctrine that what we discover
in the realm of psychOpathology does indeed provide impor-
tant clues as to psychic processes in the adjusted indi-
vidual. While not wishing to belabor the point, this sort
of finding must be welcome news to anyone interested in
constructing general theories of motivation, emotion, etc.
without giving up the hard won insights of psychoanalysis.

We come now to the concluding portion of this
dissertation, one in which I should like to offer some
comments upon the libido theory in particular and meta-
psychology in general. Today, we are witness to the sub—
jection of metapsychological concepts to the sharpest and
keenest of attacks; metapsychology is under siege. Whether
it be Gill's (1976) declaration that metapsychology is not
psychology and that the former is steeped in erroneous
biological and neurological assumptions, or Schafer's

(1976) action language which he envisions as an alternative

99

to Freud's nineteenth-century, biological and neurological
language, the principle is the same: metapsychological
propositions are not explanatory of clinical data, but
rather reductionistic restatements of such data presented
in the discourse of the natural sciences (see Gill, 1976).

What, if any, relevance does the present investi-
gation have to this debate on metapsychology? My reply
will, I hope, not be too cryptic. While the findings of
this dissertation do clearly uphold the heuristic value of
their guiding metapsychological tenets (i.e., the libido
theory), the very extent of this support may indicate that
metapsychology has outlived its usefulness, at least in this
area of inquiry.

For, while the results have yielded an attestation
for the classical libido theory (see Table 4), a similar
vote of confidence has been furnished the dual libido
theory (see Table 6). And if I may attribute at least some

meaning to the differences found between samples, the argu-

ment may even be advanced that under certain conditions a
positive correlation exists between certain strands of
narcissism and love.5 We would then have a second permuta-
tion of the libido theory (the first being the dual
libido theory).

My point is that as in science we come to recog—
nize the heuristic worth of a guiding principle so much so
that we are required to postulate permutations of this

guiding principle, we feel the.necessity of developing new

100

and even more SOphisticated principles. This is done not
because of the failure of the guiding principle, but
because of its success: this is a continuing aspect of the
scientific process. The libido theory has served us well
but I suggest we acknowledge our debt to it and move on.
This research has evinced support for the propo-
sitions that an exhibitionistic strand of narcissism is
independent of the capacity to love, whereas an aggressive
strand of narcissism stands in inverse relation to love.

Initially, I intuited these propositions and then found jus-

 

tification for them in various theoretical texts. But, it
will be observed that to have intuited a proposition and
even to have validated it empirically is not to have fully
understood it. The precise fantasies, memories, ideas, etc.
involved in the workings of these propositions remain ob-
scure. I suggest a dissection of such terms as "exhibi-
tionism." "aggressive strand of narcissism," "care, concern,
and reparation," so as to arrive at their host of personal
meanings to be a potentially beneficial modus operandi for
future research efforts. Even adjectives such as "famous,"
"great," etc., used freely in this dissertation, encompass
a plethora of conscious and unconscious fantasies, memories,
and wishes which beg exploration and classification. My
predilection is to think that the libido theory in any or
all of its permutations, and for that matter metapsychology
at least as we've known it, cannot further the search for

such personal meanings of narcissism and love.

SUMMARY

This project was designed to provide a thorough
theoretical exposition and empirical probe of the unresolved
debate between Otto Kernberg and Heinz Kohut appropos of
the relationship between narcissism and love. Sections of
Kernberg's writings suggest the capacity to love to be ad-
versely affected by narcissism, whereas sections of Kohut's
work suggest love to be independent of narcissism.

In an effort to unriddle this controversy, a multi-
dimensional theory of narcissism was offered. Specifically,
it was hypothesized that the aggressive strand of narcis-
sism correlates negatively with object-love. It was also
hypothesized that the non-aggressive, exhibitionistic
strand of narcissism has a negligible correlation with
object—love.

The current study operationalized love by way of
two measurement instruments, the Lov dimension Of the
Interpersonal Checklist and the Dean Romanticism Scale. Both
these measures were utilized to tap underpinnings of psycho-
analytic views On mature love. The Verbal Aggression and
Exhibitionism Scales of the Dynamic Personality Inventory

operationalized the aggressive and non-aggressive,

101

102

exhibitionistic strands of narcissism, respectively. These
instruments were administered to two samples of males, one
composed of thirty-two university undergraduates, the other
comprised of twenty adult patients of a local community
mental health center. These latter subjects were screened
for literacy and for the intellectual capability to complete
the measurement devices by way of sections of the Wide Range
Achievement Test and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale.
Hypothesis I received substantive, albeit not com-
plete, support from the data with respect to both sub-
samples as well as the total sample. Five of the six par-
tial correlation coefficients computed to test Hypothesis I
were in the predicted direction and three of them were sig-
nificant. Hypothesis II was strongly supported by the data
also with respect to both sub-samples as well as the total
sample. Five of the six partial correlation coefficients
designed to test Hypothesis II provided statistical support
for it at significance levels far exceeding that required.
The discussion of results began with an inquiry
into impediments to even further corroboration of the
Hypotheses. It was argued that measurement error served to
delimit the results of the present study. Differences
between the clinic and student samples were next considered
with respect to potential avenues for future research. The
dissertation concluded with some thoughts on the pertinence
of the libido theory and metapsychology in general to future

explorations of the interface of narcissism and love.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

THE INTERPERSONAL CHECKLIST

APPENDIX A

THE INTERPERSONAL CHECKLIST

On the following pages you will find a list of 134
words and phrases which describe ways peOple may behave
in relation to one another. Go through the list and when
an item describes 222 mark "X" in the space next to the
number of that item. If an item does not describe you,
leave the space blank. For example, the first phrase is
"Able to give orders," number 1 on the list of items. If
you believe you are able to give orders, fill in an "X"
next to the number "1." If you believe you are not able
to give orders, leave the space blank. Your first impres-
sion is best; so go through the list as quickly as you can,
making an "X" when the word or phrase describes you, leaving
the space blank when it does not describe you.

103

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
_11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
_18.
____19.
20.
_21.
22.
_23.
24.
25.
___26.
27.
_28.
_29.
30.
__31.
_32.
_33.
34.
_35.
36.

Able to give orders
Appreciative

Apologetic

Able to take care of self
Accepts advice readily
Able to doubt others
Affectionate and understanding
Acts important

Able to criticize self
Admires and imitates others
Agrees with everyone

Always ashamed of self
Very anxious to be approved of
Always giving advice

Bitter

Bighearted and unselfish
Boastful

Businesslike

Bossy

Can be frank and honest
Clinging vine

Can be strict if necessary
Considerate

Cold and unfeeling

Can complain if necessary
Cooperative

Complaining

Can be indifferent to others
Critical of others

Can be obedient

Cruel and unkind

Dependent

Dictatorial

Distrusts everybody
Dominating

Easily embarrassed

1134

37.
38.
_39.
__4o.
_41.
42.

43.

44.

_45.
_46.
__47.
_____48.
_49.
_so.
_51.
_52.
___53.

54.

SS.

56.

__57.
___58.
59.
60.
61.
___62.

63.

__64.
65.
66.
67.
___68.
_69.
7o.

71.

Eager to get along with others
Easily fooled

Egotistical and conceited
Easily led

Encouraging others

Enjoys taking care of others
Expects everyone to admire him
Faithful follower

Frequently disappointed
Firm but just

Fond of everyone

Forceful

Friendly

Forgives anything
Frequently angry

Friendly all the time
Generous to a fault

Gives freely of self

Good leader

Grateful

Hard-boiled when necessary
Helpful

Hard-hearted

Hard to convince
Hot-tempered

Hard to impress

Impatient with others'
mistakes

Independent

Irritable

Jealous

Kind and reassuring
Likes responsibility
Lacks self-confidence

Likes to compete with
Others

Lets others make
decisions

72'.
__73.
_74.
_75.
___76.

77.
_78.

79.
____80.
_81.

82.
___83.
___84.
_85.

86.

87.

88.

89.
_90.
___91.

92.

93.

94.
_95.
__96.

97.
_98.
___99.

100.
101.
_102.
_103.

Likes everybody

Likes to be taken care of
Loves everyone
Makes a good impression
Manages others

Meek

Modest

Hardly ever talks back
Often admired

Obeys too willingly
Often gloomy

Outspoken

Overprotective of others
Often unfriendly
Oversympathetic

Often helped by others

Passive and unaggressive

Proud and self-satisfied

105

 

 

 

 

 

 

12.

L

114.
115.
_116.
_117.

_____118.
119.

 

120.
121.

 

Always pleasant and agreeable 122.

 

Resentful _____123.
Respected by others _____}24.
Rebels against everything _____125.
Resents being bossed ____}26.
Self-reliant and assertive _____127.
Sarcastic _____128.
Self-punishing 129.
Self-confident 130.
Self-seeking 131.
Shrewd and calculating _____}32.
Self-respecting _____l33.
Shy __134.
Sincere and devoted to friends

Selfish

Skeptical

Sociable and neighborly

Slow to forgive a wrong
Somewhat snobbish

Spineless

Stern but fair

Spoils people with kindness
Straightforward and direct
Stubborn

Suspicious

TOO easily influenced by friends
Thinks only of self

Tender and soft hearted
Timid

Too lenient with others
Touchy and easily hurt

Too willing to give to Others
Tries to be too successful
Trusting and eager to please
Tries to comfort everyone
Usually gives in

Very respectful to authority
Wants everyone's love

Well thought of

Wants to be led

Will confide in anyone

Warm

Wants everyone to like him
Will believe anyone
Well-behaved

APPENDIX B

THE DEAN ROMANTICISM SCALE

APPENDIX B

THE DEAN ROMANTICISM SCALE

Most people marry for love; but love enought to
marry on is difficult to describe. On the following pages
are statements we have obtained from young people in love,
from magazines, from newspapers, etc. Would you please

give us your Opinion?

Please read each of the 45 statements carefully.
Then mark each statement with the response from those
listed below which most nearly fits your beliefs.

SA -- indicates
A -- indicates
U -- indicates
D -- indicates

SD -- indicates

Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree

Strongly Disagree

106

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

107

SA -- indicates Strongly Agree
-- indicates Agree
indicates Uncertain
-- indicates Disagree
-- indicates Strongly Disagree

DUCK,
l
I

Love is a mutual responsiveness.

Love is the strange bewilderment which overtakes
one person on account of another person.

People truly in love do not try to play down their
differences.

Deep love grows through many shared experiences.

One can't help falling in love if he (she) meets
the right person.

Parents should attempt to influence their child-
ren's selection of a mate.

Love does not include willing self-restraint for
the sake of the other person.

True love would be affected by poverty.

"Every time we are near each other we get a funny
feeling inside" is a good sign of being in love.

The wish to be with someone constantly is not a
good test of love.

Perfect love means one is always satisfied with
his (her) partner.

One can truly love more than once.

True love is not based at all on physical
attraction.

All love is tainted, at times, with some anger
and hostility.

Problems don't always work out even when two people
are really in love.

People in love are often oblivious to their
surroundings.

Real love can only be founded on a close acquaint-
ance with the whole personality.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.
24.

25.

26.

27.
28.

29.

30.
31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

108

SA -- indicates Strongly Agree

A -— indicates Agree

U -- indicates Uncertain

D —- indicates Disagree

SD -- indicates Strongly Disagree

Love usually makes the heart beat faster.

The strength of your feelings towards each other
demonstrates the fact that you were made for
each other.

PeOple need to have a long engagement even if they
are made for each other.

True love lasts forever.

It's possible to think one is in love when he (she)
is only "in love with love."

Love never gives one a sickly feeling.
When in love, it is hard to see the other's faults.

Expecting to find all things in one woman or man
is realistic.

A loss of appetite does not usually accompany
true love.

Love knows no bounds.

The marriage ceremony marks the beginning of true
love, not the culmination of it.

Love is not an "all-or-nothing” feeling; there is
an in-between.

One in love should just love and not reason why.

True love grows out of a deep respect for each
other.

One in love is sometimes bored.

One should strive to maintain love; it does not
maintain itself.

Love will find a way.

Even if it's true love, one needs to actively
seek the other.

109

SA —- indicates Strongly Agree

A -- indicates Agree

U -— indicates Uncertain

D -- indicates Disagree

SD -- indicates Strongly Disagree

36. The way people fall in love is not largely deter-
mined by the society they live in.

37. If one's marriage turns out to be a failure, it
wasn't because he (she) chose the wrong mate.

38. Even in true love, happiness is not inevitable.

39. PeOple in love are not always considerate of each
other.

40. Life without being in love is barren.

41. "Love at first sight" is real affection, not only
physical attraction.

42. It's love if it makes you feel good.
43. Opposites do not attract each other.

44. One can be in love and still want his (her) own
way.

45. You can fall in love more than once in a lifetime.

 

Note. Item #23, in retrospect, was not perfectly counter-
balanced (the original item reads "Love sometimes gives

one a sickly feeling"). In order to assure that the
obtained results were not an artifact of this circumstance,
the statistical analyses were also completed with this item
deleted from the DRS. In no instance did this tack dele-
teriously affect the support garnered for the Hypotheses.

APPENDIX C

THE DYNAMIC PERSONALITY INVENTORY

 

 

 

APPENDIX C
THE DYNAMIC PERSONALITY INVENTORY

On the following pages is a list of objects and
activities. Go through the list and if you like an item
mark an "L" in the space next to the item. If ypu dislike
an item mark a "D" in the space next to the item. If you
don't care either way, or are not sure how you feel, leave
a blank, but don't leave too many blank spaces.

 

 

If an item describes something you have never done,
ima ine how you would feel if you had the opportunity and
ability to do it. Take the first item on the list,
"Driving." If you have no car but would like to drive, mark
an "L" in the space next to number 1. When in doubt, judge
by your first reaction.

If an item describes something within your exper-
ience, go by what you really tend to do, not what you think
ought to be done. If you smoke, you should say you like it,
even if you wish you could give up the habit. If you never
discuss politics, you should say you dislike this item.

 

If your likes and dislikes have changed, indicate
them as they are now, but don't be influenced by a temporary
mood or special circumstances.

There is no time limit, but work as quickly as you
can.

110

 

Pe

 

7.
8.
9.
10.

ll.

12.

13.
14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.
20.
21.
22.

23.

24.
25.
26.

111

L -- indicates Like

D -- indicates Dislike

Driving
Smoking

Letting fine sand run through
your fingers

Spicy foods

Railway lines stretching
into the distance

Waiting hopefully until
things come your way

Changing your mind quickly
Social gatherings
Wind howling in the trees

Putting Off pleasures until
later

Enforcing the law strictly
whatever the consequences

Having no roots, no permanent
attachments

Prolonged kissing

Being an M.C.
ceremonies)

(master of

Watching the stars

Being an executive (in control
of a business or government
organization)

Building or making things as
your hobby

Using perfume or perfumed
toilet water

Taking risks
Children's parties
Having a difficult job to do

Staying in bed late on
Sunday mornings

Leaping over hedges and
streams on horseback

Getting away from the crowd
Rich cakes

Undoing all knots (rather
than cutting the string)

 

Pe

 

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.
39.
40.

41.
42.

43.
44.
45.
46.

47.

48.

49.
SO.

Holding different political
views from your parents

Glancing at attractive
people (of the Opposite sex)
in a train or bus

Facing people you dislike
rather than crossing the
street to avoid them

Flogging as a punishment for
serious offenses

Postponing all action until
you are quite sure what to do

Keeping to yourself
Archery

Giving a public performance
Of any kind (by yourself or
with Others)

The feeling of floating in
the air

Being rather on your guard
with strangers

Drawing up plans introducing
new ideas

Picking flowers
Strenuous physical exercise

Taking part in a South Pole
expedition

Visiting relatives

WOrking in a small room all
by yourself

Discussion groups
Watching fireworks
Changing your job

Steering a ship in unknown
waters

Departing from accepted
routine

Keeping to your own class
Of people

Well-made or artistic knives

Flying

 

 

 

51.

52.
53.

54.

55.
56.
57.
58.
59.

60.
61.
62.

63.
64.

65.
66.

67.
68.
69.
70.

71.
72.
73.
74.

75.

76.
77.

112

L -- indicates Like
D -— indicates Dislike

Suggesting a plan of action
in a group or organization

Sucking sweets

Working steadily rather
than fast

Moulding pottery as a
pastime

Having breakfast in bed
Biting pencils

Buying a new hat

Asking others for guidance
Absolute respect for one's
parents, without any
reservations

Posing for a picture

Vast plains

Looking at tools and
gadgets in shop windows

Planning a menu at home

The feeling of riding high
on a swing

Being a dress designer

Having a job with plenty of
variety but little security

Having sexual dreams
Hard, crisp apples
Exploring unknown lands

A high wall around your
garden or home

Hot milk
Mixing paints
To entertain people

Watching ships on the
horizon

Speaking up at a meeting
when you don't agree with
the majority

Looking after babies

Making others toe the line

78.

79.
80.
81.

82.
83.

84.
85.
86.

87.
88.

89.
90.
91.

92.

93.

94.

95.
96.
97.

98.
99.

100.
101.

102.

103.

Taking photographs of wild
animals in the jungle

Torrential rain
Drawing

Taking a fast ride downhill
on skis or sleigh

Insisting on perfection

Visiting schools for small
children

Having stiff competition
Lying in a warm bath

Elegant umbrellas or
walking sticks

Strong drinks

Taking part in group
activities

Collecting stamps
Wearing new clothes

A tough and active way
Of life

Admitting black people
to higher professions

Great spectacles or
parades

Watching high waves breaking
against a rocky shore

Leaving decisions to others
Planning your work timetable
Passion, abandonment and
rich emotional experience
among your main goals in
life

Preparing meals

Reacting quickly to other
people's remarks

Taking children for a walk

Giving up plans when they
become very difficult

Tales and myths of ancient
gods and heroes

Small cosy rooms

 

Ov

 

104.
105.
106.

107.

108.

109.
110.
111.
112.
113.

114.

115.

116.
117.

118.
119.

120.
121.
122.

123.

124.

125.

126.

127.

128.

129.

113

L -- indicates Like
D -- indicates Dislike

Sailing in rough weather
Working on committees

Hanging on to old clothes
you never wear

Having unusual ways and
habits

Crunching sweets rather
than sucking them

Perfect order and symmetry
The sight of torches aflame
To dance in the ballet
Being a leader

Making new gadgets and
mechanical devices

Living in a cottage in
the woods

The flash and roar of the
Night Express thundering by

Appearing on television

The company of younger
people

Talking about sex

Being in a foreign country
by yourself

Camping out
Bread crusts

Working with people from
all walks of life

Exposing errors of fact
and logic

Spending money on passing
pleasures to have fun

Painting pictures
Keeping your receipts
long after having paid
the bills

Being very strict about
right and wrong

Varnishing or painting
things

Flag poles

Pe

 

130.
131.
132.
133.
134.

135.

136.
137.
138.

139.
140.
141.
142.

143.
144.

145.

146.
147.

148.
149.

150.
151.

152.

153.
154.
155.
156.
157.

Dressing up for a party
Watching the clouds
Writing short stories
Being in charge of a unit

Devising plans to increase
work efficiency

Keeping all foreigners out
of the Civil Service

Being a florist
Teaching young children

Taking part in competitive
games or sport

Soft pillows
Exploring in Central Africa
Sucking oranges

Working with many people
around you

Demanding justice

Acting on the spur of
the moment

A slender column rising
into the sky

Taking under-water photographs

People with very upright
moral standards

Strict immigration laws

Checking your appearance
in a mirror

Being a surgeon

Breaking with your family's
way of life

A walk with a wild wind
raging around you

Talking to children

Wide open spaces

Being an architect

Reading fashion reports
Avoiding experiences which

remind you Of unpleasant
past events

158.
159.

160.
161.
162.
163.

164.

'16s.

 

Pe

 

166.
167.

168.

169.
170.
171.
172.

173.

174.
175.

176.
177.
178.
179.

180.
181.
182.

183.

Jfil4

L -- indicates Like

D -- indicates Dislike

Sleeping long hours

Eating very quickly even if
there is plenty of time

The place where you were born
To shock conventional people
Clay or plastic modelling
Storing many old things

in case you need them

one day

Being rather particular
about small details

The honor Of your country
above everything

Javelin throwing

Sitting in the front row
at a meeting

The feel Of stroking
soft fur

Mixing with many people
A place that's always warm
Rabbit shooting

Helping children in their
games

Your work (or your last job
if you have none now)

Diving
Staying in familiar

surroundings: the same people,
places, shops, food, work and

play

Eating nuts

A lighthouse at dusk
Being a social worker

Attacking accepted points
of view

Planning work for others
Riding on a roller coaster

Having soft-lined silky
slippers

Checking your letters for
errors before you mail them

 

184.

185.
186.
187.
188.
189.

190.

191.

192.

193.

194.
195.

196.

197.

198.

199.

200.

201.
202.

203.
204.
205.

206.

207.

Obedience and respect for
authority

Wearing expensive clothes
Climbing mountains
Watching explosions
Writing articles
Discussing matters of
management with your
superiors

Listening to the rain
beating on the windows

at night

Walking barefoot on a
deep carpet

Waiting for others to
take the lead

Many cushions in your
living room

Rich creamy foods

Inviting people home to
a party

Giving up an argument before
you are beaten

Taking a nap on Sunday
afternoon

A black family settling in
a house opposite yours

Pole-vaulting (jumping very
high with the help of a
pole)

Taking responsibility for
other people

Being an engineer

Lights twinkling in the
distance

Wood-carving
Being a private secretary

Doubling your efforts
after criticism

Sitting curled up in an
arm-chair

Cutting your moorings
(breaking all your
emotional ties)

Ov

 

 

Pe

 

 

Ov

 

 

208.

209.

210.

211.

212.

213.

214.
215.
216.

217.
218.
219.
220.
221.
222.
223.
224.

225.

226.

227.
228.
229.

230.

231.

232.

115

L -- indicates Like
D -- indicates Dislike

Day-dreaming about a happy
future

Saving boxes or medicine
bottles

Paying debts before they
are due

Opposing a speaker you
disagree with

Collecting books, journals
or magazines

Taking most things very
seriously

Conscientious objectors
Wearing a uniform

Watching an Olympic
torch-bearer

Wide Open windows

Being sexually excited
Being a chairman

Living on a small island
Creamy soups

Dosing by the fire
Reading to sick people

Expressing unpopular
opinions

Patriotism as the highest
ideal

Brushing or combing your
hair

Leaping into the air
Arranging flowers

Starting a new program
or project

Discussing international
problems

Spending your energy on
new ideas which may prove
to have no practical value

Tracking a stream or river
to its source

233.

Ov

234.

235.
236.
237.
238.

239.
240.
241.
242.
243.
244.
245.

246.

247.
248.

249.
250.
251.
252.

253.
254.
255.
256.

257.
258.

259.

260.

Cooked cereals (porridge,
rice, barley, etc.)

Playing football, hockey
or other team games

Spending money lavishly
Moulding wet sand
Enforcing discipline

Glancing at your reflection
in the window

Organizing group activities
Using firearms

Collecting coins

Sleeping curled up

Rare (underdone) meat
Moving to new places

Extravagant, generous
people

Looking after your friends'
children for a week-end

Engraving (as an activity)

Sticking at a job when no
results are forthcoming

Mixed marriages
Many social engagements
Watching a big fire

Being attracted by members
of the opposite sex

A home off the beaten track
Doing embroidery
Chewing gum

Starting out on new
ventures

Unconventional people

Attending personally to
details

Criticizing old-established
customs

Studying efficient management

 

 

 

 

I?!

 

Pe

 

Pe

 

261.

262.
263.
264.
265.
266.

267.

268.
269.

270.
271.

272.
273.
274.
275.
276.

277.

278.

279.
280.
281.

282.
283.

284.
285.
286.

287.

116

L -- indicates

D -- indicates

Working alongside people of

lower social class

Using strong language

Work which demands precision

Making a speech in public
Juicy steaks

Concentrating on one task
for a long time

Holding others at a
distance

Ski jumping

Exploring an underground
cave or secret passage

Sleeping in a small room

Taking advice from older
women

A roving outdoor life
Thunderstorms
Teaching art or music
Discussing politics

Keeping the same Old
friends, however dull

Speaking for a charity
or welfare society

Having Offenders prose-
cuted

Watching processions
Motherly women

Making snappy remarks
(wisecracks)

Parachute jumping

Applying very high stan-
dards to people's conduct

Living in a deep valley
Family gatherings

Keeping out of trouble
as much as you can

Drafting new rules for a
society

Ov

 

Pe

 

 

Pe

 

Ov

 

Like

Dislike

288.

289.

290.

291.
292.
293.
294.

295.

296.

297.

298.
299.

300.

301.

302.

303.
304.

305.
306.
307.
308.

309.

310.

311.

312.

Collecting postcards from
your vacation

Getting away from your
family and friends

Being slightly sarcastic
at times

Appearing on the stage
Small children in your family
Strict discipline

Being the life and soul
of the party

Family photographs
Keeping a large stock of
canned goods in your
cupboard

Using scented talcum powder
after a bath

A settled, orderly way of life

Making things to decorate
your home

Conscientious performance
Of petty duties

Influencing the behavior
of other people

Renewing your efforts
after failure

Taking advice from Older men

Working with black people
in your job

The open sea
Listening to children
Crunchy foods

Severe penalties for
improper conduct

Having short term jobs,
without binding contracts

Trusting people too little
rather than too much

Carrying out technical tests
on a new machine

Composing music

\"fl

 

117

L -- indicates Like
D -- indicates Dislike

Fe 313. Being watched when you do
things well

 

314. Thinking a long time before
speaking

315. Joining a club of any sort

316. Confiding in your friends
when you are in trouble

317. Private correspondence
(writing and receiving
private letters)

318. Watching airplanes in
the sky

319. Spending a vacation on
your own

320. Using perfumed bath salts

321. Altering cooking recipes to
try out new ways

322. Withdrawing when you are
embarrassed

323. Having no boss to guide you
324. Sleeping outdoors in the open

325. Peace, order and content as the
main goals in life

 

Note. The number of items marked “like” constitute the subject's score

on the Exhibitionism Scale: the same holds true for the Verbal Aggression
Scale with the exception of item #196 which is scored only if the subject
"dislikes" the item.

Note. All items not starred or marked 'Pe” or 'Ov” constitute the Acquiescence
ScaIe. Starred items (#207 8 4231) were not included on the Acquiescence
Scale due to typographical errors.

Note. Items marked 'Pe' comprise the Exhibitionism Scale; items marked 'Ov”
constitute the Verbal Aggression Scale.

Note. Words such as ”Negro" and “colored" were replaced with the term ”black"
in this study.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andreas-Salome, L. The dual orientation of narcissism.
Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 1962, 31, 1-30.

 

Balint, M. (1947) On genital love. Primary Love and Psycho-
Analytic Technique, pp. 109-120. London: Tavistock,
1952.

 

 

Bergmann, M.S. (1971) Psychoanalytic observations on the
capacity to love. In Separation-Individuation, eds.
J. B. Mcdevitt and C. F. Settlage, pp. 15-40. New
York: International Universities Press, 1971.

 

Bing, J. E., Mclaughlin, F. & Marburg, R. The metapsychology
of narcissism. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child,
1959, 11, 9-28.

Dean, D. G. Romanticism and emotional maturity. A prelimi-
nary study. Marriage and Family Living, 1961, 23,
44—45.

 

Eisnitz, A. J. On the metapsychology of narcissistic patho-
loqy. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Asso-
ciation, 1974, _2} 279-291.

Eissler, K. R. Death drive, ambivalence, and narcissism.
Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 1971, 26, 25-78.

 

Ephron, L. R. Narcissism and the sense of self. Psycho-
analytic Review, 1967, 52, 499-509.

 

Federn, P. Ego Psychology and the Psychoses, ed. E. Weiss,
pp. 283-322. New York: Basic Books, 1952.

 

Feldman, B. Stages in the development of love. American
Imago, 1964, 21, 64-79.

Freud, S. (1910) Contributions to the psychology of love.
A special type of choice of object made by men.
Collected Papers, Vol. IV, pp. 192-202. New York:
Basic Books, 1959.

 

118

119

. (1912) Contributions to the psychology of love.
The most prevalent form of degradation in erotic
life. Collected Papers, Vol. IV, pp. 203-216. New
York: Basic Books, 1959.

 

. (1914) On narcissism: An introduction. Standard
Edition, Vol. XIV, pp. 67-102. London: Hogarth
Press, 1957.

. (1915a) Instincts and their vicissitudes. Stan-
dard Edition, Vol. XIV, pp. 117-140. London:
Hogarth Press, 1957.

 

. (1915b) Observations on transference-love. Stan-
dard Edition, Vol. XIV, pp. 157-171. London:
Hogarth Press, 1958.

 

 

. (1917a) The libido theory and narcissism. Stan-
dard Edition, Vol. XVI, pp. 412-430. London:
Hogarth Press, 1963.

 

. (1917b) On transformations of instinct as exem-
plified in anal eroticism. Standard Edition, Vol.
XVII, pp. 126-133. London: Hogarth Press, 1955.

 

. (1917c) A difficulty in the path of psychoanaly-
sis. Standard Edition, Vol. XVII, pp. 135-144.
London: Hogarth Press, 1955.

 

 

. (1921) Group psychology and the analysis of the
ego. Standard Edition, Vol. XVIII, pp. 67-143.
London: Hogarth Press, 1955.

 

. (1923) The Ego and the Id. London: Hogarth Press,
1927.

 

. (1925) An autobiographical study. Standard Edi-
tion, Vol. XX, pp. 7-70. London: Hogarth Press,
1959.

 

. (1928) Humour. Collected Papers, Vol. V, pp. 215-
222. New York: Basic Books, 1959.

 

. (1930) Civilization and its Discontents. New
York: Norton, 1961.

 

 

. (1931) Female sexuality. Collected Papers, Vol.
V, pp. 252-273. New York: Basic Books, 1959.

 

Fromm, E. The Art of Loving. New York: Harper and Row,
1956.

 

“y

120

Gediman, H. K. Reflections on romanticism, narcissism,
and creativity. Journal of the American Psycho-
analytic Association, 1975, 22} 407-423.

 

Gill, M. M. Metapsychology is not psychology. Psychologi-
cal Issues, 1976, Monograph gg, 71-105.

 

Goldberg, A. I. On the prognosis and treatment of narcis-
sism. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic
Association, 1974, 22, 243-254.

. A discussion of the paper by C. Hanly and J.
Masson on "A critical examination of the new
narcissism." International Journal of Psycho-
analysis, 1976, 52, 67-70.

 

Grygier, T. G. The dynamic personality inventory. London:
National Foundation for Educational Research, 1962.

. Recent studies with the dynamic personality
inventory. Paper read at the 7th International
Congress of Rorschach and other Projective Techni-
ques, London, August 7th, 1968.

 

Hanly, C. & Masson, J. A critical examination of the new
narcissism. International Journal of Psychoanaly-
sis, 1976, 51, 49470.

Hartmann, H. Comments on the psychoanalytic theory of the
ego. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 1950, 5,
74-96.

. Notes on the theory of sublimation. Psychoanalye
tic Study of the Child, 1955, lg, 9-29.

 

. (1956) The development of the ego concept in
Freud's work. Essays on Ego Psychology, pp. 268-
296. New York: InternatiOnal Universities Press,
1964.

 

Hitschmann, E. Freud's conception of love. International
Journal of Psychoanalysis, 1952, 32, 421-428.

Jacobson, E. The Self and the ObjegtWorld. New York:
International UniVersities Press, 1964.

Jastak, J. F. & Jastak, S. R. The wide range achievement
test. Manual of instructions. Wilmington, Dela-
ware: Guidance Associates, 1965.

 

 

Jekels, L. & Bergler, E. Transference and love. Psycho-
analytic Quarterly, 1949, lg, 325-350.

121

Josselyn, I. M. The capacity to love: A possible refor-
mulation. Journal of the American Academy of Child
Psychiatry. 1971, l0, 6-22.

 

Kernberg, O. F. Borderline personality organization.
Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association,
1967, l5, 641-685.

 

. Factors in the psychoanalytic treatment of nar-
cissistic personalities. Journal of the American
Psychoanalytic Association, 1970, lg, 51-85.

 

. (1974a) Further contributions to the treatment
of narcissistic personalities. International
Journal of Psychoanalysis, 1974, 55, 215-240.

 

 

. (1974b) Contrasting viewpoints regarding the nature
and psychoanalytic treatment of narcissistic per-
sonalities: A preliminary communication. Journal

of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 1974,

22, 255-267.

 

. (1974c) Mature love: Prerequisites and characteri-
stics. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic
AssociatiOn, 1974: 22, 743-767.

 

 

. (1974d) Barriers to falling and remaining in love.
Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association,
1974, 22, 486—511.

Kohut, H. Forms and transformations of narcissism. Journal
of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 1 66,
IE, 243—272.

. The Analysis of the Self. New York: International
Universities Press, 1971.

 

. Thoughts on narcissism and narcissistic rage.
Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 1972, 21, 360-400.

 

Lachmann, F. M. & Stolorow, R. D. Idealization and grandi-
osity: Developmental considerations and treatment
implications. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 1976, 45,
565-587.

Laforge, R., Leary, T. F., Nabossek, H., Coffey, H. S. &
Freedman, M. B. The interpersonal dimension of
personality: II. An objective study of repression.
Journal of Personality, 1954, ll, 129-153.

Laforge, R. Using the ICL. California: 1973.

 

122

Leary, T. Interpersonal Diagnosis of Personality. New
York: Ronald Press, 1957.

Levine, R. An inquiry into psychodynamic correlates of high
romanticism in males. Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation, Michigan State University, 1977.

Lichtenstein, H. The role of narcissism in the emergence
and maintenance of a primary identity. Inter-
national Journal of Psychoanalysis, 1964, 45, 49-56.

 

. Changing implications of the concept of psycho-
sexual development: An inquiry concerning the vali-
dity of classical psychoanalytic assumptions con-
cerning sexuality. Journal of the American Psycho-
analytic Association, 1970, l8, 300-318.

 

Moore, B. E. Toward a clarification of the concept of
narcissism. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child,
1975, 20, 243-276.

Nunnally, J. C. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1967.

 

Ornstein, P. H. A discussion of the paper by Otto Kernberg
on "Further contributions to the treatment of nar-
cissistic personalities." International Journal of
Psychoanalysis, 1974, 55, 241-247.

Reich, A. Pathologic forms of self-esteem regulation.
Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 1960, l5, 215-
232.

Schafer, R. Emotion in the language of action. Psycholo-
gical Issues, 1976, Monograph 26, 106-133.

 

Schwartz, L. Narcissistic personality disorders--a clinical
discussion. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic
Association, 1974, 32, 292-309.

 

Spruiell, V. Theories of the treatment of narcissistic
personalities. Journal of the American Psycho-
analytic AssociaEiOn, 1974, ll, 268-278.

 

. Three strands of narcissism. Psychoanalytic
Quarterly, 1975, 32! 577-595.

 

Sullivan, C. T. On being loved: A contribution to the psy-
chology of object-relation. Psychoanalytic Review,
1965, 53, 5-18.

123

Waals, H. G. van der. Problems of narcissism. Bulletin
of the Menningsr Clinic, 1965, £2, 293-311.

 

 

Wechsler, D. Manual for the Wechsler adult intelligence
scale. New York: The Psychological Corporation,

1955.

 

. The measurement and sppraisal of adult intelli-
gence. Baltimore: The Williams & Wilkins Company,
1 58.

 

 

Winnicott, D. W. The develOpment of the capacity for
concern. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 1963,
ll, 167-176.

 

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTES

1At this time let me add a brief summary critique of
the literature. Major reservations may be voiced about the
validity of reconstructing developmental phases based solely
on work with very disturbed adults. For example, one may
wonder whether what is described as a normal phase in the
development of narcissism is not in reality merely the
attempt by some children to blot out feelings of weakness
and impotence. There is then reason for concern appropos
the lack of studies of children as well as the male bias
sometimes encountered in the literature. I wish to thank
Dr. Gaston Blom of Michigan State University for sharing
with me this critique of the literature.

2With item #23 of the DRS deleted (see Appendix B),
this correlation coefficient becomes .30 (p,< .23), thus
providing further support for Hypothesis II.

3Curvilinear relationships were not apparent upon
inspection of the scatterplots.

4With item #23 of the DRS deleted (see Appendix B),
the correlation between Pe scores and DRS scores (ACQ, Ov)
becomes .30 (p’< .23). In this case, too, the interpreta-
tion of a greater dependence between love and narcissism
in the clinic sample as compared to the student sample
can be made. ‘

5As was mentioned, with item #23 of the DRS deleted
(see Appendix B), the partial correlation between Pe scores
and DRS scores (ACQ, 0v) becomes .30 ( < .23) for the
clinic sample and, by the criteria delineated, is negli-
gible. Still, this correlation, too, is consonant with the
supposition of a positive correlation between aspects of
love and narcissism.

124

"‘WWW